Monday, July 30, 2007
Much Ado About Nothing - The Roman Catholic Church’s Newest Statement on “The Church”
I know that this statement from the Roman Catholic Church came out almost a month ago, so I am a little slow in posting on it. As I new it to be nothing new and nothing harmful - in fact, it was a great statment on truth in the midst of vapid pluarlism, I didn’t think it needed commentating on. I was wrong. I get asked still about what it says - and almost always the person asking me has been told it means something absolutely different than it actually means.
So here goes:
The recent statement by Pope Benedict XVI is less about theology than it is about ecclesial theology and more about the ensuring clarity in pre-existing doctrine. As the Anglican in contact with Rome at the Anglican Centre in Rome said there is nothing new in this document. This is mostly a media story because what Pope Benedict is doing is seeking to force the liberals in his church to fall into line, he is once again attacking pluralism as a primary position of the Church, and finally he is continuing the work that John Paul II began in trying to bring about re-unity of the Church – but on their terms.
One of the key questions that this newest statement of the doctrinal council was addressing was “Did our doctrine of the Church change with Vatican II?”
Many in the theologically liberal camp have been saying that yes, it did. Many in this camp made contact with liberals in the Reformed and Lutheran camps, and together they were seeking to make the point of, to use our term, a theology of least common denominator. When Cardinal Ratzinger in 2000 issued the great doctrinal letter, Dominus Iesus, it was greeted by profound anger in the European press and in liberal/ecumenical circles because it restated the actual text of Lumen Gentium, which was the core letter of Vatican II that dealt with both Protestant bodies and non-Christian entities.
Those on the liberal wing decided to use this as an opening to strip the church of its place of prominence. When Ratzinger (aka Benedict) wrote his letter in 2000 as John Paul II’s chief theological “enforcer” he finally made it clear that, despite John Paul II’s openness to his friends in the Protestant and Orthodox worlds, the primacy of Rome was going to stay as an essential to the self-understanding of the Roman Catholic Church.
So the first question that the document answers is the above one. The answer is simple:
“The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.”
While Vatican II did a lot of bridge the gap between the Roman Catholic Church and the culture of the modern world and the non-Roman Catholic world, it did NOT in any way remove the primacy of the RC Church from the equation. That is what the theological liberals in both the RC and the mainline denominations had attempted to do by taking advantage of the language of Vatican II.
The next two questions of the document attempt to deal with what is meant by the statement the Church of Christ “subsists in” Roman Catholic Church. Subsists in is the key to this whole discussion. There is not a 1-1 identification of the RC Church with the reality of Christ’s Church, but there is a belief that Christ, as seen from their reading of John 17 and the passages of Peter’s confession in the Synoptics, that Christ only has one Church. Therefore their understanding, rooted in the apostolic succession from Peter means that the one Church of Christ “subsists in” the RC Church.
This is the key word – “Subsist” means that the Church of Christ is not equal to the Roman Catholic Church – which I would say is a huge move for their theology since the 3rd Lateran Council said that no salvation is found outside of the Church. In earlier centuries that meant that Protestants – who are not in communion with Rome were outside of the Church, period!
But by emphasizing, first in 1963, then in 2000, and then in 2007, that the Church of Christ subsists in rather than is the Roman Catholic Church has created a great opening for not just the niceties of ecumenical relations, but for understanding that all Christians who believe in the truth of Christ are indeed saved (all Christians are “in the Church”), which means while they still seek to bring us back under the grand arch of the Roman Church where the truth subsist fully, they do not have to “convert” Protestants to Christ.
However, subsists is where the point of Roman primacy comes in. But subsists is related to the last major issue which, alas, the news media and many evangelicals simply didn’t pick up in the letter. When they say Church and Protestants say church (change in caps intentional), both sides mean very different things. It is semantics, but its semantics that matter. For the RC, the Church is the institution and history, the reality of the apostolic succession by which all priestly actions are endowed with the power and authority of Christ, and it is the place where the sacraments, most especially the Eucharist, are properly and authoritatively practiced. While that is all nice and good, for most evangelicals and Protestants in general, they think of the church simply as the gathering and work of fellow believers in Christ – this is vastly different than the RC definition. So when the RC say there is only one Church, by their definition they are correct, and Protestants would agree, since for them the ideas of apostolic succession and right administering of the sacraments is irrelevant (well, mostly irrelevant) to what Protestants call church.
Thus, although Protestants are not the Church, and the Church of Christ subsists in the RC Church alone, they do say, “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. It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though Protestants 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.”
Thus, the term Church does not apply to non-Catholic denominations but rather the idea of “tools of salvation,” or as the RC has referred to Protestants since Vatican II, “ecclesiastical communities.” Protestants will never be Church as they are Church, and that is because of both definition and because of the role of apostolic succession in creating the authority of act of ministry. Thus, even Lutheran and Anglican bodies that do have a Mass-orientation and have adopted much of their sacramental theology are never going to be Church, but they are the tools of salvation, because the truth of the Church of Christ, while subsisting only in the RC Church, goes beyond its borders to wherever Christ is preached and worshipped.
In other words – there is no change over what the Roman Catholic Church has been saying since 1963, and I doubt there ever will be. Only those who are hoping to make truth more squishy, who like a pluralism without absolutes, and who are continuing to breakdown the role of authority in the Roman Catholic Church culture are unhappy with this letter. For the rest, including myself, any “unhappiness” on the issue should have experienced 44 years ago, and in fact, this newest letter is an amazing statement of how to interact and have real disagreement in a pluralistic environment – respect and love given to those considered in error, an offer of repentance, but no movement off of what they see as truth. That is why this letter created so much hubbub.
Please let me know if you have any questions –
