tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post2712318758849878593..comments2023-08-19T23:23:19.849+10:00Comments on Sentire cum Ecclesia: #3 Concrete Act for the Unity of the Church: The CDF Clarification of the Doctrine on the ChurchSchützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-38560338603398006552007-07-20T12:43:00.000+10:002007-07-20T12:43:00.000+10:00Thank you, John. You will have noticed that in rec...Thank you, John. You will have noticed that in recent days I have blogged on related problems--like the need to define what we mean when we say "Catholic". I refer you to Cardinal Ratzinger's 2001 essay (<A HREF="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFECCL.HTM" REL="nofollow">THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF THE CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH, VATICAN II, ‘LUMEN GENTIUM’</A> for more detail.<BR/><BR/>There he speaks of the difficulty that can happen when false definitions of the word "Church" enter common parlance, such as the assumption that "universal Church" = "Church of Rome". The result is "a growing inability to portray anything concrete under the name of the universal Church". <BR/><BR/>Your equation is not quite right. First, it is too simplistic simply to say "Church = People of God". This is a little like saying "Church = Kingdom of God". True, but only to a certain extent and it needs many different qualifications. But more seriously, even if we granted the first proposition, the second proposition is quite wrong. The Catholic Church does not teach "Protestants are not the Church", but "Protestant ecclesial communities are not true, particular Churches". The difference is between the local and the universal Church. Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church nevertheless belong to the universal Church of Christ by virtue of their baptism. That is, Protestant Christians are members of the People of God. That does not mean that the communities they form are necessarily true particular Churches, given that the defintion of a true particular Church in Sacred Tradition is the People of God gathered in a particular location in eucharistic assembly together with their rightful apostolic bishop.<BR/><BR/>Yes, the clarification does need Clarification, which is why a commentary was released to go with it (see: <A HREF="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_commento-responsa_en.html" REL="nofollow">Commentary on the Document</A>)Schützhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-77636521895207155392007-07-18T01:16:00.000+10:002007-07-18T01:16:00.000+10:00From my Lutheran perspective, there are two proble...From my Lutheran perspective, there are two problems with the statement -- one practical, the other theological. As a practical matter, dialog requires agreement on the definition of terms. Virtually all Christian communities view themselves as part of Christ's Church. For the Catholic Church to argue that other communities lack important gifts which God intends for the Church is fair and honest. To unilaterally define an emotionally-charged word used by all Christians seems likely to give unnecessary offense. (Yes, I am aware that truth claims unavoidably offend. But exactly the same theological points could have been made without presuming a monopoly on the ability to define a term as basic as "Church".)<BR/><BR/>The theological problem is that while hierarchical communion is obviously a critical element of the Catholic concept of Church, Catholic teaching also uses other imagery and phrases. The Church is described as the "People of God." So, it is not such a great leap to complete the syllogism:<BR/><BR/>Church = People of God<BR/>Protestants are not Church<BR/><BR/>=> Protestants not People of God.<BR/><BR/>I suspect you will argue that the Church teaches no such thing, but you will have to rely on resources other than the CDF "Clarification". Which suggests that the "Clarification" requires clarification.<BR/><BR/>Jon EdwardsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-73119084556908737312007-07-17T15:38:00.000+10:002007-07-17T15:38:00.000+10:00Again another thing that Protestants don't underst...Again another thing that Protestants don't understand. It isn't a case of "allowing" or "not allowing" as if it was simply a matter of some rule or discipline that could be altered at whim. As my catechist (+ Anthony Fisher) used to tell me "We'll have to cure you of this Lutheran postitivism" (I don't know if he have quite succeeded in that). You can't be "in communion" with someone and not "in communion" with them at the same time. We do not share communion with one another because we are not in communion. When that blessed day comes that we are, we will. <BR/><BR/>Also many protestants do not realise that in fact it is allowable--under certain strict conditions--for Catholic priests to give the sacraments to protestants. But these are individual ad hoc situations, not permanent situations for whole communities.Schützhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-66753381231921176882007-07-16T13:35:00.000+10:002007-07-16T13:35:00.000+10:00I did't mean anything against the Pope, I am glad ...I did't mean anything against the Pope, I am glad that he cleared the air and spoke like a Pope. Too many Lutherans such as the ELCA think that issues that divide Catholics and Lutherans can be glossed over. I really wish that Rome would allow intercommunion with Lutherans especially the Missouri Synod.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-11926317761270548732007-07-16T04:24:00.000+10:002007-07-16T04:24:00.000+10:00"Does anyone except the Catholics actually care ab..."Does anyone except the Catholics actually care about what the Pope thinks what a church is? Lutherans certainly certainly don't."<BR/><BR/>Anonymous, you just can't realistically speak for all Lutherans, who are divided among themselves on many issues.<BR/><BR/>Many thoughtful Lutherans (of which I used to be one) even if they disagree on doctrinal issues realize that what affects the largest Christian communion on earth will ultimately affect all Christian churches.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-14921517996360188092007-07-15T21:22:00.000+10:002007-07-15T21:22:00.000+10:00No, probably not, Anon, but Catholics are often am...No, probably not, Anon, but Catholics are often amused that Protestants such as yourself fail to be able to distinguish between "what the Pope thinks" and what the Catholic Church teaches. <BR/><BR/>This clarification is not "what the Pope thinks"--it is the official theological ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. <BR/><BR/>And yes, plenty of non-Catholic folk--Lutherans included--do care about that, because which ever way you look at it, if you seriously long and pray for the full visible unity of Christians, it is impossible to by-pass the single largest communion of Christians on the face of the earth: ie. the Catholic Church.Schützhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-39669653640089107302007-07-15T15:48:00.000+10:002007-07-15T15:48:00.000+10:00Does anyone except the Catholics actually care abo...Does anyone except the Catholics actually care about what the Pope thinks what a church is? Lutherans certainly certainly don't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-67350394640666087582007-07-15T08:46:00.000+10:002007-07-15T08:46:00.000+10:00Thanks for your reflection on this, Tony. Cardinal...Thanks for your reflection on this, Tony. Cardinal Kasper, in his comments after the statement was released, certainly emphasised the aspect you piont out--and that remains our position also. <BR/><BR/>The recognition of the salvific instrumentality of other Christian communities could not have been possible without the alteration of the word "is" to "subsists in".<BR/><BR/>But at the same time, the adoption of the terminology of subsistence--in conjunction with the recognition that one could be saved outside the visible boundaries of the Church--led many Catholics (and non-Catholics) to think that the Catholic Church no longer regarded visible membership in the Catholic Church (ie. communion with the Bishop of Rome) as a thing necessary for salvation. <BR/><BR/>Getting the ecclesiology of Vatican II right is necessary for a proper understanding of WHY communities outside the Catholic Church are still able to be salvific, even though the fullness of the Church subsists only in the Catholic Church and why all Christians are being called by reason of their baptism into full communion with the Catholic Church.Schützhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-65118003903832600272007-07-15T00:51:00.000+10:002007-07-15T00:51:00.000+10:00My personal response would be very similar to what...My personal response would be very similar to what Metropolitan Kyrill said, "Thank you for being honest. It is only through being honest that we can truly dialogue with each other."<BR/><BR/>At the same time, I am concerned about how this plays into the anti-Roman bias of many outside the Roman Catholic Church. <BR/><BR/>One of the things I said this week in my parish bulletin was:<BR/><BR/>---------<BR/><BR/>"What the Roman Catholic Church does not teach is that other Christians will miss out on salvation or are totally devoid of God’s mercy and grace, In fact, the current statement goes out of its way to re affirm the teaching of the Second Vatican Council :<BR/><BR/>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."<BR/><BR/>------<BR/><BR/>One parishioner at the Saturday evening Eucharist said: "I am confused. I thought that Catholics did teach that." In other words, he believed that the Roman Catholic Church does teach that other Christians will not be saved and are devoid of God's grace and mercy. <BR/><BR/>It is only in this sense that I regret the statement - that people will not read the whole statement and remember that other "ecclesial communities" have significance and importance and that the Spirit of Christ has used other churches as instruments of salvations. <BR/><BR/>Even forty years after the Council that is still a remarkable statement. I am sorry that it is being lost in so much of the current discussion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com