Last month, at the behest of Pope Benedict XIV, the Vatican Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith issued a document that made headlines in the
secular press. It was a short document entitled Responses to Some Questions
Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church and was addressed
specifically to Catholic theologians, especially those engaged in ecumenical
discussions. Its purpose was to clarify “the authentic meaning of some
ecclesiological expressions used by the Magisterium which are open to
misunderstanding in the theological debate.” This week we’ll look at what
the document has to say. Next week we’ll try to put the document and its
teaching into their proper context.
By way of background, the term Magisterium refers to the teaching authority
entrusted by Christ to the apostles and to their successors, the bishops, in
communion with the successor of St. Peter, the Bishop of Rome. The role of
the Magisterium is to give an authentic—although by no means exhaustive—
interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form in the
Scriptures or in the form of Sacred Tradition. This role has both positive and
negative aspects. Its positive aspect is to identify and affirm the authentic
meaning of the Word of God that Christ entrusted to the entire Church
through the apostles. Its negative aspect is to identify and reject
interpretations of Scripture and Tradition that are not consistent with divine
revelation. That Christ gave this authority to the apostles and their
successors in union with the successor of St. Peter is itself a matter of
Catholic faith.
The document under consideration gives the Magisterium’s response to five
questions currently disputed among theologians. Let’s look at each one in
turn to get the essential content.
FIRST QUESTION: Did the Second Vatican Council (that took place from 196265) change the Catholic doctrine on the Church that existed in the Church
prior to the Council?
Answer: No. It neither changed the teaching nor intended to change it.
Rather, it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.
SECOND AND THIRD QUESTIONS: The Second Vatican Council did not say that
the one Church of Christ is the Catholic Church, as was often said before the
Council, but subsists in the Catholic Church. Why this change in vocabulary?
What does the expression subsists in mean? Does it mean that the one
Church of Christ can also be identified with other churches (like the
Orthodox Church) or ecclesial communities (like the Lutheran, Presbyterian
or Baptist churches)?
Answer: The expression subsists in means finds its historical expression in.
By affirming that the one Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church,
the Church is able to say two things: one, that the Catholic Church is the
historical expression of the one Church founded by Christ; and two, that
elements of the one Church of Christ (e.g., some of the Scriptures, some of the
sacraments, some of the teachings) through which the Holy Spirit acts as a
means of salvation exist historically in other non-Catholic churches and
ecclesial bodies that have separated themselves from full communion with
the Catholic Church. Vatican II wanted to say both things and so used the
expression subsists in rather than simply is in identifying the one Church of
Christ with the Catholic Church.
Scripture and Tradition make it clear that Christ established only one
Church and that this Church is meant to exist concretely and identifiably in
history as a visible and spiritual community which will endure until the end
of time. This one Church of Christ is indeed the historic Catholic Church, for
she contains all the elements that Christ himself instituted (e.g., the
apostolic succession, the ordained priesthood, the Eucharistic sacrifice, the
Petrine Ministry).
To say that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church means that
the following two statements are true: 1) the Catholic Church is the one
Church founded by Jesus Christ; and 2) other churches and ecclesial bodies
outside the Catholic Church possess elements of the one Church of Christ. It
also means that the following two statements are false: 1) the one Church of
Christ subsists in other churches or ecclesial bodies besides the Catholic
Church; and 2) the Church of Christ subsists as the sum total of the Catholic
and all the non-Catholic churches and ecclesial bodies combined.
FOURTH QUESTION: Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term
Church in reference to the Eastern Churches separated from full communion
with the Catholic Church?
Answer: Because these churches, although separated from the Catholic
Church, have true sacraments and above all—because of the apostolic
succession—the sacramental priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of
which they remain linked to the Catholic Church by very close bonds. The
one essential element they lack as particular churches is recognition of the
pastoral oversight given by Christ to the Successor of Peter, the Bishop of
Rome, for all the churches.
FIFTH QUESTION: 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?
Answer: These Protestant bodies do not enjoy the apostolic succession in the
sacrament of Holy Orders and, therefore, are deprived of a constitutive
element of the Church. Because these ecclesial communities lack the
sacramental priesthood, they have the not preserved the genuine and
integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery, which lies at the heart of the
Church and constitutes the Church as such.
Next week I will comment on the teaching contained in Some Questions
Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church to help put it in its
proper context. To anticipate a little bit, however, I would like to quote from
an interview given by Fr. Augustine Di Noia, an American Domincan priest
who works in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who spoke about
the purpose of this document:
“The main point is to address the question of whether the Second Vatican
Council changed the Church’s teaching on the nature of the Church herself,
and this document tries to clarify this point to say no—it was a development,
a deepening, but definitely not a kind of change in the sense of altering the
way in which we think of the Church. And the point is—the fundamental
point—and this is the second thing, is how to interpret the expression of the
Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, paragraph 8:’The Church of Christ
subsists in the Catholic Church.’ Its this subsist that has caused a
tremendous amount of questioning, and we’re trying to address this.”
Have a great week!
Father Tappe