D. G. Hart and Ross Douthat: Should the tail of Papal biography wag the dog of Church policy?

D. G. Hart, "Should Biography Be So Important?" (Old Life, April 22, 2015):

Ross Douthat’s article on Pope Francis reflects the smarts, insights, and courage that characterizes almost everything the columnist writes. His conclusion about a potential disruption of the church by the current pope is again refreshing, especially coming from a conservative, since most converts and apologists hum merrily the tune of “nothing changes, we have the magisterium.” Douthat recognizes that this ecclesiology makes it almost impossible for conservatives to stop a progressive-led disruption:

In the age of Francis, this progressive faith seems to rest on two assumptions. The first is that the changes conservatives are resisting are, in fact, necessary for missionary work in the post-sexual-revolution age, and that once they’re accomplished, the subsequent renewal will justify the means. The second is that because conservative Catholics are so invested in papal authority, a revolution from above can carry all before it: the conservatives’ very theology makes it impossible for them to effectively resist a liberalizing pope, and anyway they have no other place to go.

But the first assumption now has a certain amount of evidence against it, given how many of the Protestant churches that have already liberalized on sexual issues—again, often dividing in the process—are presently aging toward a comfortable extinction. (As is, of course, the Catholic Church in Germany, ground zero for Walter Kasper’s vision of reform.)

Contemporary progressive Catholicism has been stamped by the experience of the Second Vatican Council, when what was then a vital American Catholicism could be invoked as evidence that the Church should make its peace with liberalism as it was understood in 1960. But liberalism in 2015 means something rather different, and attempts to accommodate Christianity to its tenets have rarely produced the expected flourishing and growth. Instead, liberal Christianity’s recent victories have very often been associated with the decline or dissolution of its institutional expressions.

Which leaves the second assumption for liberals to fall back on—a kind of progressive ultramontanism, which assumes that papal power can remake the Church without dividing it, and that when Rome speaks, even disappointed conservatives will ultimately concede that the case is closed.

Read more >>

[Hat tip to JM]

The totalitarian repressiveness of Vatican II's "true reform" as advanced by Massimo Faggioli

A very good review I missed from last November: Dom Alcuin Reid's review of Massimo Faggioli's True Reform: Liturgy and Ecclesiology in Sacrosanctum Concilium(Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2012), posted by Shawn Tribe at New Liturgical Movement (November 13, 2012):

In December 1963, following the promulgation the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy at the close of the second session of the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI consulted the Council’s Liturgical Commission on how to commence the Constitution’s implementation. He also consulted the Archbishop of Bologna, Giacomo Cardinal Lercaro. Lercaro asked Father Annibale Bugnini, CM, to draft a plan. The following January 3rd Bugnini was nominated Secretary of the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia ― a body intentionally distinct from the Sacred Congregation for Rites ― and set to work on its implementation.

What ensued is not the direct concern of this book, however what is of importance here is that Paul VI wasted no time in commencing the liturgical reform. Neither he nor those to whom he gave responsibility for the work perceived the need to wait until the conclusion of the Council (December 1965) before implementing Sacrosanctum Concilium. Indeed, by then the Consilium had, as Archbishop Piero Marini relates (A Challenging Reform, Liturgical Press 2007, chapters 4 & 5), wrestled control of the reform from the Congregation for Rites and was well underway with it.

These realities are of importance when considering True Reform: Liturgy and Ecclesiology in ‘Sacrosanctum Concilium’ because of Massimo Faggioli’s fundamental question: “How much of Sacrosanctum Concilium is present in Vatican II, and how much of Vatican II is present in the first constitution, Sacrosanctum Concilium?” (3)

This question bears re-reading, for historically, the second part of it at least, makes little sense. Neither Paul VI, Lercaro, Bugnini nor their collaborators could have articulated this question as they set about the work of liturgical reform. What Faggioli means by “Vatican II” was not a distinguishable entity at that time as perhaps it became afterwards. And whilst contemporary theological trends and other orientations certainly influenced the persons involved, as well as the reform itself, one will search in vain amongst the papers of the Consilium to find an agenda paper calling its members to sit down to consider “How much of Vatican II is present in the proposed new liturgical rites?” Their constant reference point was the Constitution itself―or at least it should have been―as the name "Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia" makes perfectly clear, not any overarching reality called “Vatican II” or associated “spirit.”

It is evident that True Reform is not a book dealing with liturgical history. Rather it is an argument for a particular hermeneutic for interpreting Vatican II. Faggioli’s other recent work Vatican II: The Battle for Meaning (Paulist Press 2012), demonstrates that his stance owes much to the ‘Bologna school’ as well as to Georgetown’s John W. O’Malley, SJ’s, What Happened at Vatican II (Harvard University Press, 2008). This hermeneutic insists that something happened at Vatican II and that this “something” is greater than the texts approved by the Council. Indeed, they argue, it is nothing less than constituent for the post-conciliar Church, “the Church of Vatican II.” Vatican II is, therefore, more an event (specifically a “language event” for O’Malley), than a series of documents calling for pastoral reforms. It is the epoch-making ressourcement of the Church and the Church’s rapprochement in respect of herself and towards the world. Furthermore, this “something,” this event―this spirit―is held to be the only legitimate starting point for interpreting the Council’s constitutions and decrees, and thus furnishes a hyper-hermeneutic for assessing the probity or otherwise of developments in the life of the Church then and now.

For this school of interpretation there is a very definite ‘before’ and ‘after’ the Council. Radical change, discontinuity and rupture with the ‘pre-conciliar Church’ is not a problem―indeed it is celebrated. Concern for continuity in reform is not present. These scholars oppose the view of Pope Benedict XVI (articulated in his address of 22 December 2005), that the correct way to interpret Vatican II is through “the ‘hermeneutic of reform,’ of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us.” Through “a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture” the Council is “basically misunderstood,” the Holy Father argues, and “in a word, it would be necessary not to follow the texts of the Council but its spirit.”

It should be clear from the Pope’s words that this is no trifling academic disagreement, as the subtitle of Faggioli’s earlier book, “the Battle for Meaning,” underlines.

This has clear implications in respect of the Sacred Liturgy, particularly when recent years have heard talk of a reform of the post-conciliar reform and more lately of a “mutual enrichment” between the older and newer forms of the Roman rite, as well as witnessing the unfettering of the pre-conciliar liturgy.

Faggioli is not a liturgist and is not directly concerned with the “technical outcomes” (the ritual changes) of the liturgical reform. He is a theologian of the “event” of Vatican II, and as the subtitle of this book indicates, he is directly concerned with the ecclesiology of the Council and with the ecclesiology grounding any form of liturgy. He argues that “rejecting the theological core of the liturgical reform is nothing less than rejecting the theology of Vatican II and the chance to communicate the Gospel in an understandable way in our time and age.” (156-7) Furthermore, he asserts, “the liturgy of Vatican II is constitutionally necessary for the theological survival of Vatican II. Undoing the liturgical reform of Vatican II leads to dismantling the Church of Vatican II. This is why it is necessary to understand the deep connections between the liturgical reform and theology of Vatican II in its entirety.” (158) [If you can imagine charismatic Catholics like Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa and Evangelical Catholics like George Weigel being totally on board with this language, what does that tell you? - PP]

Bellarmine: Who belongs to the Church, and why

"Our declaration is that there is only one Church, not two; and that the only one true Church is the community of men united by the profession of the true Christian faith and the communion of the same sacraments, under the government of legitimate shepherds and, above all, of the sole Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff. From this definition one can easily see who belongs to the Church and who does not belong to her. Indeed, this definition is made up of three parts: profession of the true Faith, communion of the sacraments and submission to the legitimate shepherd, the Roman Pontiff. The first part excludes all infidels, those who were never in the Church such as the Jews, Turks and pagans, or those who once were in it and later fell away, like the heretics and apostates. The second part excludes the catechumens and excommunicated, since the former are not admitted to the sacraments and the latter are excluded from them. The third part excludes the schismatics, who have the Faith and the sacraments but do not submit to the legitimate shepherd .... All others are included, even if they are reprobates, delinquent and impious.

"Between our declaration and the others there is this one difference: all the others require interior virtue to declare that someone is a member of the Church, and thereby make the true Church invisible. We, on the contrary, believe with certainty that in the Church are found all the virtues, Faith, Hope, and Charity and the others; however, we do not believe that any interior virtue is required to be able to say that someone is somehow part of the true Church, of which the Scriptures speak, but only the external profession of Faith and the communion of the Sacraments, which can be perceived by the senses. Indeed, the Church is as visible and palpable a community of men as the community of the Roman people, the Kingdom of France or the Republic of Venice." [my emphasis] (Disputationes de Controversiis Christianae Fidei adversus huius Temporis Haereticus (1586-1593) (Venice, 1721), 53, quoted in La Civilta Cattolica, Editorial: "Dalla 'societa perfetta' ala Chiesa 'mistero'" 1/9/1985, p. 107).

[Hat tip to R.R.-D.]

Related (updated 10/13/09):

New Catholic, "In the Church, the bad are many and the good few" (Rorate Caeli, October 9, 2009).

Catholic and Calvinist?

This story has been making its rounds and I first ran into it in Sandro Magister's post on it. But most recently found it summarized in a post entitled "Both Catholic and Calvinist?" (Rorate Caeli, August 25, 2008):

Sandro Magister's newest column features the L'Osservatore Romano's interview with Cardinal Kasper regarding the standing of the late Brother Roger of Taize (+2005) in relation to the Catholic Church. It provocatively begins with the words:

Was the Founder of Taizé Protestant, or Catholic? A Cardinal Solves the Riddle.

Fr. Roger Schutz was both. He adhered to the Church of Rome while remaining a Calvinist pastor. Wojtyla and Ratzinger gave him communion. Cardinal Kasper explains how, and why.

Read the article in its entirety; but here's how Kasper, according to Magister, summarizes the situation:

But how does Kasper solve the riddle? He denies that Fr. Schutz "formally" adhered to the Catholic Church. And much less did he abandon the Protestantism into which he was born. He affirms, instead, that he gradually "enriched" his faith with the pillars of the Catholic faith, particularly the role of Mary in salvation history, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the "the ministry of unity exercised by the bishop of Rome." In response to this, the Catholic Church allowed him to receive Eucharistic communion.

According to Kasper, it is as if there had been an unwritten agreement between Schutz and the Church of Rome, "crossing certain confessional" and canonical limits.

As Rorate Caeli concludes: "The pastoral and theological effects of this admission are only about to unravel. One thinks of how some Anglo-Catholics and High Church Lutherans will view this and ask: 'if Brother Roger could, why not us?'"

Revisiting Pope Benedict on Ecumenism & Ecclesiology

The following is a highly illuminating passage from an out-of-print book by Joseph Ratzinger, Theological Highlights of Vatican II (New York: Paulist Press Deus Books, 1966), taken from Sec. 3 of a chapter on The Question of Ecumenism:

To get to the heart of the ecumenical problem, I will begin with the comments of Professor Edmund Schlink of Heidelberg to the press on October 23, 1963. Speaking in Rome, he presented his views on the status of the ecumenical problem as reflected in the texts of the Council. . . .

Professor Schlink started with the premise that the “Roman Church” (he preferred not to say “Roman Catholic”) identified itself in an exclusive manner with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Whenever Rome recognized a bond between individual non-Catholic Christians and the Church, this implied that these Christians considered themselves united with the Roman Church. Schlink, however, insisted that these Christians saw themselves as receiving grace and salvation as members of their own Churches and not as members of the Roman Church. Not only did the Catholic position misinterpret the self-awareness of the non-Catholic Christians; it was also out of line with the New Testament. Finally it followed with unavoidable logic from this position that non-Roman Christians were required to “leave their Churches and be incorporated into the Roman Church.” These observations led Professor Schlink to ask: “What is the meaning then of Roman Catholic ecumenism? What is the meaning of the new way of addressing non-Roman Christians as ‘separated brethren’ instead of as ‘heretics’ and ‘schismatics’ as in the past? What is the meaning of the praise given to the ‘spiritual fruits’ to be found in non-Roman Churches, and what is meant by ‘accepting the witness of their devotion . . . and their theological insights’? Is not all this an effort aimed at absorption? Is not this kind of ecumenism, as some Protestant Christians suspect, merely a continuation of the Counter-Reformation with other, more accommodating methods?”

To this Professor Schlink opposed a completely different concept of the ecumenical movement. Such a movement, in his view, should lead to community among the separated Churches ant not to their absorption by one of the Churches. It is important to note that Professor Schlink deliberately formulated the latter part of his discussion in the form of questions and not of assertions. Therefore, these questions obviously constitute an invitation addressed to Catholic theologians to engage in discussion. In the same spirit of positive effort toward mutual understanding, I will try here to respond to this invitation.

It is difficult to answer both briefly and suitably. In any case the answer cannot pretend to be more than an attempt. A starting point is provided by Professor Schlink’s view that the ecumenical movement is not supposed to be an effort of absorption of the separated Churches (as in the view of the Catholic Church). This view evidently reflects the conviction that none of the “existing Churches” is the Church of Jesus Christ but rather that they are various concretizations of the one Church which does not exist as such. None therefore can claim to be the Church. It is certain, however, that a Catholic cannot share Schlink’s conviction. Ever since the days of primitive Catholicism which reaches back to the time of the New Testament, it has been considered essential to believe that the Church really exists, although with shortcomings, and that this has been reflected concretely in the visible Church which celebrates the liturgy. The Catholic is convinced that the visible existence of the Church is not merely an organizational cover for the real Church hidden behind it, but on the contrary that, for all its humanity and insufficiency, the visible Church is the actual dwelling place of God among men, that it is the Church itself. To that extent Professor Schlink’s contention that there exists an identification of the Catholic Church with the Church of Jesus Christ is valid.

Catholic theology, too, recognizes a plurality of Churches. It has, however, a different meaning from the plurality of Professor Schlink. What Catholics mean is that a multiplicity of Churches exists within the framework of the one and visible Church of God, each of which represents the totality of the Church. In close communion with one another they help build up, within the framework of a unity born of vigorous multiplicity, the one Church of God. There exists a Church of God in Athens, in Corinth, in Rome. It exists likewise in Trier, Mainz and Cologne. Each local community assembled with its bishop around the table of the Lord listening to the Word of the Lord, partakes of the essence of the Church and may therefore be called a “Church.” To be a Church, however, it must not exist in isolation but must be in communion with the other Churches which, together with it, make up the one Church.

This consideration permits the following additional comments:

(a) The New Testament recognizes a plurality of Churches only in the above-mentioned sense. By this plurality the New Testament (whose historical setting is admittedly quite different from ours) does not mean separated denominational communities, but rather the many worshiping communities which all are nonetheless one. This unity does not arise from some common aspiration, but rather from the concreteness of the joint sharing in the Word and body of Jesus Christ.

(b) Catholic theology has always accepted the possibility of the plurality of Churches. It should however immediately be added:

(c) This plurality of Churches has in fact increasingly receded in favor of a centralized system; in this process the local Church of Rome has, so to speak, absorbed all the other local Churches. In this way unity was curtailed in favor of uniformity. This state of affairs which the Council has attempted to correct, was a cause for the separation among the Churches. Yet it also provided a positive ecumenical point of departure for the Catholic Church. The ecumenical movement grew out of a situation unknown to the New Testament and for which the New Testament can therefore offer no guidelines. The plurality of Churches, which should have had a legitimate existence within the Church, had receded increasingly into the background. This explains why this plurality, for which there was not room within the Church, was developed outside of it in the form of autonomous separate Churches. The Council’s recognition of this is tantamount to its seeing that uniformity and unity are not identical. Above all, it means that a real multiplicity of Churches must be made alive again within the framework of Catholic unity.

These considerations may open the way to answer the question raised by Professor Schlink. Does Catholic ecumenism not ultimately amount to the absorption of the other Churches? Is it not therefore the Counter-Reformation in a different form? As long as unity was identified with uniformity, the Catholic goal could not help but appear to non-Catholic Christians as complete absorption into the present form of the Church. However, the recognition of a plurality of Churches within the Church implies two lines of change.

(a) The Catholic has to recognize that his own Church is not yet prepared to accept the phenomenon of multiplicity in unity; he must orient himself toward this reality. He must also recognize the need for a thorough Catholic renewal, something not to be accomplished in a day. This requires a process of opening up, which takes time. Meantime the Catholic Church has no right to absorb the other Churches. The Church has not yet prepared for them a place of their own, but his they are legitimately entitled to.

(b) A basic unity – of Churches that remain Churches, yet become one Church – must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivated to seek it.

To remove all misunderstanding, I must add that the above idea still differs from the ecumenical movement as seen by Professor Schlink, despite all the areas of agreement. His notion of the ecumenical movement stems from a different view of the Churches’ visibility and unity. As he sees it, all separated Churches are equally legitimate manifestations of the Church. None of them constitutes the Church. For Catholics, however, there is the Church, which they identify with the historic continuity of the Catholic Church. Therefore, the Catholic cannot demand that all the other Churches are disbanded and their members be individually incorporated into Catholicism. However, he can hope that the hour will come when “the Churches” that exist outside “the Church” will enter into its unity. But they must remain in existence as Churches, with only those modifications which such a unity necessarily requires.

Accordingly, two observations can be made:

(a) It is true that the Catholic Church cannot simply adopt Professor Schlink’s view, based on the idea that all existing Churches have practically equal rights. This is tantamount to asking that the Catholic Church convert to Protestantism, since this view corresponds to the Protestant concept of the Church. This makes as little sense as the opposite.

(b) Although the Catholic Church considers itself as the Church of Christ, it nonetheless recognizes its historic deficiency. It recognizes the fact that the plurality of “Churches,” which should exist within it, exists today outside it, and perhaps could only exist outside.

[Hat tip to Prof. E.E.]

The hazards of nuance

1. Pope Pius XII, "Mystici Corporis" (1943):

The "true Church of Jesus Christ ... is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church." [Litt. Enc. Mystici Corporis Christi, A.A.S., vol. XXXV, p. 193 sq.; citing Vat. Council, Const. de Eccl., Const. de fide cath., c. 1.; emphasis added.]

2. Pope Pius XII, "Instruction on the Ecumenical Movement" (1949):

"[The Bishops] must restrain that dangerous manner of speaking which generates false opinions and fallacious hopes incapable of realization; for example, to the effect that the teachings of the Encyclicals of the Roman Pontiffs on the return of dissidents to the Church, on the constitution of the Church, on the Mystical Body of Christ, should not be given too much importance seeing that they are not all matters of faith, or, what is worse, that in matters of dogma even the Catholic Church has not yet attained the fullness of Christ, but can still be perfected from outside. . . .

Therefore the whole and entire Catholic doctrine is to be presented and explained: by no means is it permitted to pass over in silence or to veil in ambiguous terms the Catholic truth regarding ... the constitution of the Church, the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and the only true union by the return of the dissidents to the one true Church of Christ." [emphasis added]

3. Pope Pius XII, "Humani Generis" (1950):

". . . the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing." [para. 27; emphasis added.]

4. Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution on the "Lumen Gentium," promulgated by Pope Paul VI (1964):

"[The] Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him . . ." [para. 8, citing: Pius XII, Const. Apost. Munificentissimus, 1 no. 1950: AAS 42 (1950) ú Denz. 2333 (3903). Cfr. S. Io. Damascenus, Enc. in dorm. Dei gcnitricis, Hom. 2 et 3: PG 96, 721-761, speciatim col. 728 B. - S. Germanus Constantinop., in S. Dei gen. dorm. Serm. 1: PG 98 (6), 340-348; Serm. 3: col. 361. - S. Modestus Hier., In dorm. SS. Deiparae: PG 86 (2), 3277-3312; emphasis added.]

5. Avery Cardinal Dulles, Vatican III: The Work That Needs to Be Done, ed. by David Tracy with Hans Kueng and Johann Metz (New York: Concilium, Seabury Press, 1978):

"The Church of Jesus Christ is not exclusively identical to the Roman Catholic Church. It does indeed subsist in Roman Catholicism, but it is also present in varying modes and degrees in other Christian dommunities to the extent that they too are what God initiated in Jesus and are obedient to the inspirations of Christ's Spirit. As a result of their common sharing in the reality of the one Church, the several Christian communities already have with one another a real but imperfect communion." [p. 91; emphasis added.]

6. Congretation for the Doctrine of the Fatih, "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church" (June 29, 2007):

Second Question: What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?

Response: "Christ 'established here on earth' only one Church and instituted it as a 'visible and spiritual community' . . ."

". . . ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church . . ."

"It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. . . ."

Third Question: Why was the expression “subsists in” adopted instead of the simple word “is”?

Response: "The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are 'numerous elements of sanctification and of truth' which are found outside her structure, but which 'as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity.'" [Lumen Gentium, 8.2]

"'It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church'" [Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3.4.].

It's one thing to be accurate in every minute detail. It's another thing to be clear and avoid confusing the faithful. The two are not always comfortable bedfellows.

An Evangelical responds

Stan Guthrie, writing for a flagship Evangelical publication, has just published a response to the CDF's recent reiteration of traditional Catholic ecclesiology in an op-ed piece entitled "The Reformation Isn't Over" (Christianity Today, Liveblog, July 11, 2007).

This is the kind of piece that tells you that your closest allies may be those with whom you have your most articulate disagreements. Reading the CDF's statement that "ecclesial communities originating from the Reformation [i.e. Protestant congregations] are ... not churches in the proper sense of the word," Guthrie responds:

Some Protestants have taken offense. Not me.

I would have been far more worked up if Benedict had said (to borrow a phrase from Khan in Star Trek II) that we are all just "one big, happy fleet." You were expecting him to endorse Willow Creek? He is the pope, after all.

In this age of mushy moral equivalence, I think drawing some bright lines is helpful (even if I disagree with where the pope drew them).

Guthrie goes on to spell out areas of agreement and disagreement between the classical theological positions of Rome and Protestantism, then concludes:

By all means, let's keep talking, remembering that there can be no real dialogue without difference. And let's keep working together to better society and build (as John Paul II said) a culture of life. We Protestants and Catholics may differ on religious doctrine, but in our best moments we are united in our desire to glorify God by serving our fellow human beings.

So to the pope who isn't afraid to ruffle some feathers, I respectfully say, "Thank you, sir. May we have another?"

Now there's a worthy opponent: he may be dead opposed to Catholic teachings on papal infallibility, ecclesiastical authority, transubstantiation, and the like; but, like Metropolitan Kirill (cf. "Moscow reacts," Musings, July 11, 2007) he's very clearly an ally in the war against what Benedict has called the "dictatorship of relativism." Thank you, Mr. Guthrie!

[Hat tip to J.M.]

Moscow Reacts

Metropolitan Kirill comments on the Vatican's controversial document on ecclesiology, offering a rather favorable Russian Orthodox reaction to the Holy See's document on the Church, published July 10. Kirill basically states that the Vatican's "honest" position furthers dialogue ("Moscow Reacts," Inside the Vatican Newsflash, July 11, 2007):

"For an honest theological dialogue to happen, one should have a clear view of the position of the other side," because "it helps understand how different we are," he said. Basically, the Vatican's current document has nothing new and is in "full conformity with the doctrine of the Catholic Church," Metropolitan Kirill said.

Now there's a clear-headed response that bodes well for genuine ecumenical dialogue and better mutual understanding!

[Hat tip to S.F.]

CDF puts lid on ecclesiological revisionism

Sandro Magister, "Summer Assignment: Restudy the Doctrine of the Church" (www.chiesa, Rome, July 10, 2007) summarizes:

This is what is prescribed by a new document from the congregation for the doctrine of the faith. The Orthodox and Protestants are cautioned: the Catholic Church is the only one in which subsist the "essential constitutive elements" of the Church intended by Christ. Turbulence in view, in ecumenical dialogue.

In its document, entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," the CDF answers five questions, briefly thus (summarized):

1. Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?

Response: No. It only "developed, deepened and more fully explained it."

2. What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?

Response: "Christ 'established here on earth' only one Church and instituted it as a 'visible and spiritual community' that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. ... ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church. ... the word 'subsists' can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone ..."

3. Why was the expression "subsists in" adopted instead of the simple word "is"?

Response: This "does not change the doctrine on the Church," but only elucidates "the fact that there are 'numerous elements of sanctification and of truth.'"

4. Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term "Church" in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?

Response: "Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds," yet because these Churches are not "in communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, venerable Christian communities lack something" proper to the fullness of ecclesial unity.

5. Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of "Church" with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

Response: Because "these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church."

A substantial commentary on the document follows.