The Vatican text, which restates the controversial document Dominus Iesus issued by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 2000, says the Church wants to stress the point because some Catholic theologians continue to misunderstand it. ~ABC News (via Rod)
Leave it to the press to take something very simple and almost routine and turn it into a scandal. I suppose the potential for conflict and controversy makes for a better headline than “Vatican Says Catholic Christianity Is True…Yet Again,” but there is no real potential for that, as there is nothing new being contested.
Was Dominus Iesus really all that “controversial”? I have read it, and I found in it the same position towards other Christian confessions that the Catholic Church has stated quite explicitly since Vatican II, which is normally interpreted by otherwise unfriendly Vatican-watchers as a positive, “liberalising” interpretation. This new document mostly reiterates some of the basic points and makes plain why confessions that lack apostolic succession are not, well, properly apostolic and therefore do not possess all of the proper marks that would make a church a church. There is nothing in any of this that a non-Catholic should find at all shocking or disturbing. If he didn’t already know that the Vatican does not believe him to be fully a part of the Church, he hasn’t been paying enough attention to care about it now. If I did not have an interest in theology, I would say that it is almost a non-story.
As an Orthodox Christian, I continue to be puzzled by an ecclesiology that says that the Orthodox Church at once has valid sacraments and apostolic succession, but lacks in the fullness of the truth. This puzzlement is a case of sharply different understandings of catholicity and ecclesiology generally. As noted here in the past, as I understand the Orthodox teaching, catholicity requires oneness of mind in doctrine, and unity requires unity of faith, bishop and Eucharist. Catholics and Orthodox share none of these things. How the Vatican understands the Orthodox to be in communion (but not full communion) with the Catholic Church at the present time will probably never make sense to me.
10 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 10th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
tedschan
A quick attempt at an explanation: It has to do with the culpability of the separation and lack of “full” belief. So if there is involuntary ignorance then someone can be in the state of grace and in communion with Christ, despite appearing to be a material heretic or schismatic (from the Catholic pov)–If people are united to Christ in baptism and do not separate from him through their own fault, then they are still united to him, and hence the judgment/statements about “being in imperfect communion” and such.
July 10th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
gabriel
Perhaps I simply don’t understand the Orthodox understanding of ecclesiology, but I’m not sure what is so very confusing. Are we all members of the one Body of Christ? From the Catholic perspective, indubitably. Yet clearly that true communion is impaired and imperfect due to a lack of unity in doctrine and sacramental communion.
Perhaps the more difficult thing is how it is possible for Catholics to speak of the Orthodox as being true Churches?
July 10th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Daniel Larison
Well, the latter part is strange as well, but I suppose I just don’t understand how there can be “imperfect communion.” We are in a state of actual non-communion that is still being called communion. That strikes me as odd, and I don’t know of any pre-20th century precedents for it. Perhaps I am missing something, but schism is the opposite of communion–it is not as if there is a sliding scale of more or less schism. “We” are all members of the Body of Christ to the extent that we are in communion with the Body of Christ, the Church, and the crucial point for me is that most non-Catholics do not regard themselves as being in any kind of communion with Catholics. I suppose it would not necessarily matter whether non-Catholics acknowledge this unity, but it seems as if it ought to matter.
Likewise, it is not really a compliment to say that such-and-such a religion has some of the truth, since the fullness of the truth is the only thing efficacious for salvation. I suppose the point would be that if non-Catholics can have valid orders and sacraments, and thus have hope of salvation in the confessions in which they currently are, there is no real reason to ever leave those confessions. While this is a very diplomatic thing to say, I don’t quite understand how you finally square it with the claim that the fullness of truth is in the Catholic Church alone.
July 10th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
tedschan
A second attempt:
In Catholic teaching, 3 conditions need to be met for a mortal sin (such as schism) to be committed. (Here is an explanation of the 3 conditions, the first link I found when I googled, but it looks adequate.) If any of those conditions are absent, then a sin is not committed, i.e. there is no true schism, although what we do and say may seem like schism. If I am in the state of grace, united with God, and do what I believe to be in accordance with His will (and I am not culpably ignorant of what He wants), then I remain united with Him, even though I do not do all that is in accordance with His will (like be in communion with the Bishop of Rome, as Pope), because of my ignorance.
July 10th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Dino
St. Augustine provides an explanation in his treatise against the Donatists (”On Baptism”). It is possible to have valid orders and the sacraments outside the Church, yet they do not benefit unto salvation. The Donatists (like the Orthodox today) were objectively outside the Mystical Body of Christ for lack of submission to the Pope. (St. Augustine excludes those–the invincibly ignorant–who are not moral culpable for their schismatic state).
July 10th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Anthony King
I also find the “imperfect communion” puzzling. From the Catholic side, the sticking point is recognition of the pope of Rome as head of the Communion of Catholic Churches. I’m Eastern Catholic, and as far as I can tell, we’re a-ok with Rome because we pay lip service to the pope of Rome twice during Divine Liturgy. We have our own canon laws, theology, etc. just as the Eastern Orthodox do, yet we’re one of the 23 churches in full communion with Rome, while the Eastern Orthodox are not.
On the Orthodox side there are more serious beefs, and rightly so. I sense more willingness on the Catholic side to smooth over differences, as evidenced by Eastern Catholic churches’ full communion with Rome. But they’re not going to give up their insistence that the pope of Rome by recognized as head of the Communion of Catholic Churches by any church wishing to gain full communion. The Orthodox have no such desire, of course.
The “imperfect communion” is the Catholic way of saying, “close enough.” From the Orthodox perspective we’re is a state of non-communion, but on the Catholic side the “close enough” allows him to come to my church and receive the Eucharist. My priest would have no impediment serving him the Eucharist (his priest would not take the same view, if I understand correctly). And since the celebration of this sacrament is, in the Catholic understanding, what constitutes a church, and the fact that we can share this sacrament means we’re in communion, though imperfectly.
I know that leaves much to be explained. The “imperfect communion” seems to me to weaken the Catholic insistence on the primacy of the pope of Rome over the Communion of Churches. And if anyone can explain to me that this is not the sticking point (for Rome), please do so.
July 10th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Grumpy Old Man
Interestingly, Dominus Iesus quotes the Nicene creed, and does not include the filioque.
Is this just historical accuracy or is there some kind of diplomatic overture going on here?
July 11th, 2007 at 6:33 am
M.Z. Forrest
IIRC the filioque isn’t a part of the Eastern Rites, so I wouldn’t be shocked that it wasn’t included.
ROCOR has had a very closed communion has gone so far as to deny the efficacy of Sacraments of other Orthodox Churches IIRC, and I think part of the understanding may stem from there. There are other and deeper seeming contradictions out there. For example, the Jewish race is the chosen people, but then we are told the Lord was with the Gentiles the entire time and there are gentiles in fact with the Lord.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
gabriel
Daniel, I suspect you are using “communion” in the sense of direct or indirect eucharistic communion. You are right that this is not how the Vatican is employing the term.
“We” are all members of the Body of Christ to the extent that we are in communion with the Body of Christ, the Church
And does not baptism bring about that communion, at least to some degree? As a Catholic I am connected through the sacraments with Christ, and through Christ with my fellow Christians, regardless of ecclesial status. Is this not a reasonable manner in which to speak of communion? Grace flows to all from the same source.
July 13th, 2007 at 7:32 am
James Kabala
I don’t know as much about Orthodox theology as I should; do the Orthodox not believe that the Catholic Church has “valid sacraments and apostolic succession?” If you were to walk by a Catholic tabernacle, do you believe that the Real Presence is there, or that it is all a fake? And the idea that heretics (provided they believe in truly basic doctrines like the Trinity and use the prescribed forms) nonetheless have valid baptisms (although not other sacraments, at least among groups like Protestants that lack a properly ordained clergy) goes back at least as far as St. Cyprian’s time (although he himself was on the contrary side) and was defended by St. Augustine. Did different views prevail in the East?