Post by Portiaami on Mar 7, 2022 5:48:58 GMT
www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3420
by James T. O'Connor
With the support of numerous statements of the Magisterium, it was customary for Catholics prior to the Second Vatican Council to defend the thesis that they belonged to the "one, true Church" founded by Jesus Christ himself. For them, the Nicene confession of faith, "We believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" referred unambiguously to that Christian community which was united in faith and obedience with the Bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter.
Since the celebration of the last Council, this sense of Catholic self-identity has been challenged and even denied. It is asserted that the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church are not the same reality. The Council, which used both expressions, namely, "Church of Christ" and "Catholic Church," is claimed to have drawn a distinction between the two, thereby indicating that they are not one and the same. In speaking of the society founded by Jesus himself, the Council referred to the "Church of Christ" and confessed that this "is the only Church of Christ which we profess in the Creed to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic."1 It is, however, nowhere stated that this unique Church of Christ is the Roman Catholic Church, nor is it affirmed that Jesus founded the historical reality which we know as the Catholic Church — at least so it is claimed. While teaching, indeed, that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, the Council explicitly recognized the right of other Christian bodies to be called "Churches," thus giving authoritative confirmation to a use of language which was long-standing and consistent, at least in respect to the separated Churches of the East, i.e., Eastern Orthodoxy.
The bishops at Vatican II, furthermore, formally admitted that the Christian Churches and Communities separated from the Catholic Church have been and are being used by the Holy Spirit as "means of salvation"2 for those who belong to them.
Now it must be admitted that we are faced with three facts concerning the teaching of Vatican II about the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church: first, the assertion that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church; second, the admission that at least some Communities not in union with the Catholic Church are truly Churches; third, the recognition that such Churches and even other ecclesial Communities serve as "means of salvation" in the effectuation of God's redemptive plan in Christ. Since Vatican II did not give us an elaborated ecclesiology, theological reflection is left to give an integrated picture of its teaching, keeping in mind the three facts just mentioned.
That theological picture has developed in some authors in the following way. The one Church of Christ, founded by him, now perdures or subsists in various forms or manifestations, each of which retain—to a greater or lesser degree—the essential ecclesial characteristics willed by the Lord. No one of the various forms can claim exclusive identity with the Church of Christ — which now exists like some kind of Platonic form, which variously informs different communities. De facto, the unique Church founded by Christ now exists in different and separated bodies, although not necessarily in equal degrees.
The consequences of such a view are manifold. Among the more important may be cited the diminishment in appreciation of the Church's unique role as means and sacrament of salvation, and the necessity of the Sacraments and of sacramental grace. Questions have been raised about the true ecumenicity of those Councils held since the division among Christians became a fact, particularly about the Councils of Trent and Vatican I. The missionary activity of the Church has likewise suffered, being reduced at times in theory and in practice to no more than efforts to better the temporal social, political and economic situation of peoples. Efforts for conversion among non-Christians and for the bringing of non-Catholic Christians as individuals into full communion with the Catholic Church have been adversely affected.
I Wish To Address This Claim
In response to such a state of affairs, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued in 1973 the Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, which said in part:
… Catholics are bound to profess that through the gift of God's mercy they belong to that Church which Christ founded and which is governed by the successors of Peter and the other Apostles, who are the depositories of the original apostolic tradition, living and intact, which is the permanent heritage of doctrine and holiness of that same Church.
The followers of Christ are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection--divided, but still possessing a certain unity — of Churches and ecclesial Communities. Nor are they free to hold that Christ's Church does not really exist anywhere today and that it is to be considered only as an end which all Churches and ecclesial Communities must strive to reach.3
These conclusions of Mysterium Ecclesiae were not new. In an article published after the Council and before the Declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Karl Rahner had anticipated much of the thought and even the verbal expression of the Congregation's statement. He wrote:
The Catholic Church cannot think of herself as one among many historical manifestations in which the same God-man Jesus Christ is made present, which are offered by God to man for him to choose whichever he likes. On the contrary she must necessarily think of herself as the one and total presence in history of the one God-man in his truth and grace, and as such as having a fundamental relationship to all men… For this reason the Catholic Church cannot simply think of herself as one among many Christian Churches and communities on an equal footing with her… And the Church cannot accept that this unity is something which must be achieved only in the future and through a process of unification between Christian Churches, so that until this point is reached it simply would not exist.4
Unfortunately, Mysterium Ecclesiae did not have the desired effect. Appeal was made from it to the teaching of the Council itself, with the claim that Mysterium Ecclesiae was a restrictive reading of the conciliar texts, which, supposedly, differentiated between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church.
It is this claimed lack of harmony between the Conciliar documents and the Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, which I wish to address directly in this paper. With the publication of the final volumes, including the Index, of the Acta Synodalia of Vatican II, the tools for such a study are now at hand. My purpose, therefore, is not to give an overall ecclesiology, nor to show the coherence between the doctrine of the last Council with previous teaching. Nor is my purpose to engage in theological polemic. (For that reason, I have not attributed the "alternate" ecclesiology sketched above to any individual theologian or theologians, although such could readily be done). Rather, I should hope to determine the clear meaning of the sections of Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio pertinent to the question at hand, using the Acta to establish, when possible, the precise intention of the wording found in the final conciliar Constitution and Decree.
The Relationes Contain The Key
Perhaps a preliminary word on the Acta Synodalia is pertinent. They comprise twenty-five volumes, containing all the Council's documents in their various stages of development, as well as the written and oral expressions of all the participants of the Council in respect to all of the Council's work. Each of the final documents of the Council went through various drafts. These drafts or schemata were written by special commissions appointed for the purpose. When a commission had completed its work, the draft or schema was then presented to the Council fathers by one of the bishops responsible for its preparation. This presentation is technically called the Relatio and its purpose was to introduce the document, and to explain to the bishops its purpose and meaning as a whole, as well as the purpose and meaning of its parts. Therefore, the various presentations or relationes are the key to the correct interpretation of a given document. Without the relatio one could be "left-in-the-dark" as to the precise intention of some of the Council's statements.
Nevertheless, the relatio alone is not sufficient. The document, once presented, had to be accepted by the bishops as the working document for discussion. This done, each section of the document in question was then discussed by the bishops with a view to final approval. Frequently, suggestions would be made to emend wording or even various parts of the working document. These suggestions, called modi, were then taken by the commission responsible for drafting the document, and either incorporated or rejected. The document was then resubmitted to the bishops as a whole, together with an official explanation concerning the incorporation or rejection of the various modi. It is these explanations, together with the original or subsequent relationes, which must be used in determining the final intention of the text. Fortunately, the final documents are normally clear enough as to their meaning and intent. Recourse to the various relationes, and responses to the modi or suggested emendations is not necessary for an adequate understanding of the text. In our case, however, since the wording of the final documents is subject to various interpretations, one must recur to the relationes and the official explanations concerning the emendations or corrections.
Disputed Phrase Is "Subsists In"
Continued at link above
by James T. O'Connor
With the support of numerous statements of the Magisterium, it was customary for Catholics prior to the Second Vatican Council to defend the thesis that they belonged to the "one, true Church" founded by Jesus Christ himself. For them, the Nicene confession of faith, "We believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" referred unambiguously to that Christian community which was united in faith and obedience with the Bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter.
Since the celebration of the last Council, this sense of Catholic self-identity has been challenged and even denied. It is asserted that the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church are not the same reality. The Council, which used both expressions, namely, "Church of Christ" and "Catholic Church," is claimed to have drawn a distinction between the two, thereby indicating that they are not one and the same. In speaking of the society founded by Jesus himself, the Council referred to the "Church of Christ" and confessed that this "is the only Church of Christ which we profess in the Creed to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic."1 It is, however, nowhere stated that this unique Church of Christ is the Roman Catholic Church, nor is it affirmed that Jesus founded the historical reality which we know as the Catholic Church — at least so it is claimed. While teaching, indeed, that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, the Council explicitly recognized the right of other Christian bodies to be called "Churches," thus giving authoritative confirmation to a use of language which was long-standing and consistent, at least in respect to the separated Churches of the East, i.e., Eastern Orthodoxy.
The bishops at Vatican II, furthermore, formally admitted that the Christian Churches and Communities separated from the Catholic Church have been and are being used by the Holy Spirit as "means of salvation"2 for those who belong to them.
Now it must be admitted that we are faced with three facts concerning the teaching of Vatican II about the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church: first, the assertion that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church; second, the admission that at least some Communities not in union with the Catholic Church are truly Churches; third, the recognition that such Churches and even other ecclesial Communities serve as "means of salvation" in the effectuation of God's redemptive plan in Christ. Since Vatican II did not give us an elaborated ecclesiology, theological reflection is left to give an integrated picture of its teaching, keeping in mind the three facts just mentioned.
That theological picture has developed in some authors in the following way. The one Church of Christ, founded by him, now perdures or subsists in various forms or manifestations, each of which retain—to a greater or lesser degree—the essential ecclesial characteristics willed by the Lord. No one of the various forms can claim exclusive identity with the Church of Christ — which now exists like some kind of Platonic form, which variously informs different communities. De facto, the unique Church founded by Christ now exists in different and separated bodies, although not necessarily in equal degrees.
The consequences of such a view are manifold. Among the more important may be cited the diminishment in appreciation of the Church's unique role as means and sacrament of salvation, and the necessity of the Sacraments and of sacramental grace. Questions have been raised about the true ecumenicity of those Councils held since the division among Christians became a fact, particularly about the Councils of Trent and Vatican I. The missionary activity of the Church has likewise suffered, being reduced at times in theory and in practice to no more than efforts to better the temporal social, political and economic situation of peoples. Efforts for conversion among non-Christians and for the bringing of non-Catholic Christians as individuals into full communion with the Catholic Church have been adversely affected.
I Wish To Address This Claim
In response to such a state of affairs, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued in 1973 the Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, which said in part:
… Catholics are bound to profess that through the gift of God's mercy they belong to that Church which Christ founded and which is governed by the successors of Peter and the other Apostles, who are the depositories of the original apostolic tradition, living and intact, which is the permanent heritage of doctrine and holiness of that same Church.
The followers of Christ are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection--divided, but still possessing a certain unity — of Churches and ecclesial Communities. Nor are they free to hold that Christ's Church does not really exist anywhere today and that it is to be considered only as an end which all Churches and ecclesial Communities must strive to reach.3
These conclusions of Mysterium Ecclesiae were not new. In an article published after the Council and before the Declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Karl Rahner had anticipated much of the thought and even the verbal expression of the Congregation's statement. He wrote:
The Catholic Church cannot think of herself as one among many historical manifestations in which the same God-man Jesus Christ is made present, which are offered by God to man for him to choose whichever he likes. On the contrary she must necessarily think of herself as the one and total presence in history of the one God-man in his truth and grace, and as such as having a fundamental relationship to all men… For this reason the Catholic Church cannot simply think of herself as one among many Christian Churches and communities on an equal footing with her… And the Church cannot accept that this unity is something which must be achieved only in the future and through a process of unification between Christian Churches, so that until this point is reached it simply would not exist.4
Unfortunately, Mysterium Ecclesiae did not have the desired effect. Appeal was made from it to the teaching of the Council itself, with the claim that Mysterium Ecclesiae was a restrictive reading of the conciliar texts, which, supposedly, differentiated between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church.
It is this claimed lack of harmony between the Conciliar documents and the Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, which I wish to address directly in this paper. With the publication of the final volumes, including the Index, of the Acta Synodalia of Vatican II, the tools for such a study are now at hand. My purpose, therefore, is not to give an overall ecclesiology, nor to show the coherence between the doctrine of the last Council with previous teaching. Nor is my purpose to engage in theological polemic. (For that reason, I have not attributed the "alternate" ecclesiology sketched above to any individual theologian or theologians, although such could readily be done). Rather, I should hope to determine the clear meaning of the sections of Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio pertinent to the question at hand, using the Acta to establish, when possible, the precise intention of the wording found in the final conciliar Constitution and Decree.
The Relationes Contain The Key
Perhaps a preliminary word on the Acta Synodalia is pertinent. They comprise twenty-five volumes, containing all the Council's documents in their various stages of development, as well as the written and oral expressions of all the participants of the Council in respect to all of the Council's work. Each of the final documents of the Council went through various drafts. These drafts or schemata were written by special commissions appointed for the purpose. When a commission had completed its work, the draft or schema was then presented to the Council fathers by one of the bishops responsible for its preparation. This presentation is technically called the Relatio and its purpose was to introduce the document, and to explain to the bishops its purpose and meaning as a whole, as well as the purpose and meaning of its parts. Therefore, the various presentations or relationes are the key to the correct interpretation of a given document. Without the relatio one could be "left-in-the-dark" as to the precise intention of some of the Council's statements.
Nevertheless, the relatio alone is not sufficient. The document, once presented, had to be accepted by the bishops as the working document for discussion. This done, each section of the document in question was then discussed by the bishops with a view to final approval. Frequently, suggestions would be made to emend wording or even various parts of the working document. These suggestions, called modi, were then taken by the commission responsible for drafting the document, and either incorporated or rejected. The document was then resubmitted to the bishops as a whole, together with an official explanation concerning the incorporation or rejection of the various modi. It is these explanations, together with the original or subsequent relationes, which must be used in determining the final intention of the text. Fortunately, the final documents are normally clear enough as to their meaning and intent. Recourse to the various relationes, and responses to the modi or suggested emendations is not necessary for an adequate understanding of the text. In our case, however, since the wording of the final documents is subject to various interpretations, one must recur to the relationes and the official explanations concerning the emendations or corrections.
Disputed Phrase Is "Subsists In"
Continued at link above
