Getting Catholic Ecclesiology and Ecumenism Right

Peregrinus has been having a long conversation with me in the comments section to my blog about the Universally Inclusive Club.

I had penned a long reply to his last comment, and then thought it was too long for a comment and should be a blog all on its own. We are continuing the question of whether the “house” metaphor is faithful to Catholic ecclesiology and ecumenism.

Here are some of Peregrinus’ comments:

Lumen Gentium tell us that Christ establshed, and continually sustains, his Church. But pointedly (and I think to the dismay of some) it does not equate the “Church of Christ”, professed in the Creed, and the “Catholic Church”, governed by the Bishop of Rome and the bishops in communion with him. It says that the Church of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic church, but it does not say that it subsists only in the Catholic church. In fact it points to “elements of sanctification and truth” which are found outside the Catholic church, which it describes as “gifts belonging to the Church of Christ”.

People with better qualifications than me have written reams on exacly what “subsists in” means, but in my simplistic way I understand it this way:

- The Church of Christ and the Catholic Chruch are both realiites – or, better, they are both expressions of the same complex (and mystical) reality.

- The Church of Christ is called to unity in the Catholic Church, but that unity has not yet been achieved.

- The call to unity is addressed to the entire Church of Christ, not just to those parts of it which are outside the Catholic Church.

- Such barriers to unity as may exist are not made and maintained exclusively by non-Catholic Christians (or, of course, exclusively by Catholic Christians).

- The call to unity requires us to identify barriers to unity, and to work for their removal.

Yes, the house metaphor has it’s limits, yes. No metaphor can really do full justice to the mystery which is the Church. But the bulk of biblical metaphors for the Church – household, vine, body etc. – are metaphors with a clear delineation of who belongs and who doesn’t.

The confusing thing about our current state is that:

1) there are many who, because of baptism and faith in Christ are in a real but imperfect communion with the Catholic Church
2) there are local Churches which are Churches in the true sense because they have retained the sacraments and the apostolic succession, and yet are not in communion with the Catholic Church

Both these situations indicate that such individuals and Churches cannot be covered by a clear “in or out” category. In both these situations, true elements of the One Church exist in outside the boundaries of that visible society which is the Catholic Church. But in both cases there is a “fullness” lacking—that fullness of communion in the One Christ which comes through full communion with one another and with the Petrine See. This lack of “fullness” is a serious wound to their existence as individual Christians and as local Churches.

There has been a basic error of interpretation common since Unitatis Redintegratio was promulgated in 1965. The authentic interpretation of the Council by the magisterium since (in particular, a study of JPII’s Ut Unum Sint, the Directory on Ecumenism and the Declaration Dominus Iesus) should have cleared this misinterpretation up, but people have not been paying attention. In addition this false interpretation has been muddied by a certain irenic approach in ecumenical dialogue.

It was Garuti’s book that alerted me to the fact that although the Council used the term “subsists in” rather than “is”, it never affirms that the one Church of Christ “subsists in” any where else, ie. in any other ecclesial communion or communion of local Churches. Thus, although at first I reacted negatively to this, he is right when he insists that

1) the one Church of Christ does not “subsist in” the communion of Orthodox Churches
2) there are not “two” Churches, one East/Orthodox and one West/Catholic
3) there is not one Church “split in half”, into East/Orthodox and West/Catholic
4) There is no such thing as the “Orthodox Church”, only the Orthodox Churches
5) The Catholic Church is not a “Sister Church” to the Orthodox Churches, because the Catholic Church is the Universal Church whereas the Orthodox Churches are local Churches
6) The Catholic Church is not to be thought of as a “part” of the One Church of Christ
7) The Catholic Church is not to be identified with the Western Church (as it includes many Eastern Churches) and the office of the Pope as supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church does not equal his office as the Patriarch of the West (a title still in use when Garuti was writing)

But above all, we must always keep in mind that the goal of Catholic ecumenism is not “the full visible unity of the Church“—something which already exists–but the full visible unity of all Christians. There is no other way to make sense of the opening line of Unitatis Redintegratio:

“The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only.”

Thus the unity of the Church, the Church of the Creed, is not something to be sought as if it does not currently exist. Moreover, if the Church is indeed One (and the Creed tells us that it is, not that it will be), then we have only two choices:

1) It is already One, made up of all those who have been baptised and truly believe in their hearts—who they are is known only to God and therefore the Church is an invisible reality (the Protestant option)
2) It is already One, made up of the baptised faithful who are in communion with the bishops who are in communion with the See of Peter—thus a visible society (the Catholic option)

(Note, as far as I can gather, the Orthodox option is a variation of the Catholic option: It is already One, made up of all those in communion with the bishops who hold the true Orthodox faith and are not in communion with the See of Peter).

As for the fact that Lumen Gentium tell us that the church “coalesces from a divine and a human element”, it is important to read this in the context of the whole paragraph (LG 8). When you do this, you find that it cannot mean, as you make it to mean, that there “the human element” is “therefore fallible.” On the contrary, the paragraph makes clear that the human and divine realities are not two, but one reality, as closely connected as the divine and human realities in the Incarnate Word. It specifically says that:

“the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element.”
Therefore we cannot say of any part of the visible institution that “this is of human origin” and therefore does not belong to the spiritual reality.

Of course, I say all this without pride. I was once “on the outside”—a true member of the Church of Christ by baptism and faith, but lacking the fullness of that communion to be a fully initiated member of the Church let alone a valid minister of its sacraments. I myself have had to eat the humble pie to say “I was wrong”, that God’s will for me and for all others was and always will be to accept the invitation and to enter through the door, to sit at the table and by the fire, and enjoy the hospitality which the Father gives through our Lord Christ and the Spirit. It is because I have tasted of this hospitality that it pains me to see so many who are attempting to live full Christian lives without it, and that it gives me great joy every time one of my separated brothers or sisters in Christ gives up wandering in the desert or the forest and comes in to share the good things that God has prepared for them since the foundation of the world.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for encouraging genuine Charisms

Having begun a little salvo on the use of the phrase “Baptism in the Spirit”, I don’t want any of you out there to get me wrong. I am all in favour of people discerning and using their Holy Spirit given charisms, and also in favour of new (and old) movements in the Church that promote specific charisms. But I believe that all Christians receive charisms for ministry through the Sacrament of Baptism. The reception of the Sacrament of Confirmation strengthens and confirms these charisms, as can a later subsequent experience of the Holy Spirit, but even those who have not received valid Confirmation (eg. Protestant Christians) or this subsequent experience (eg. non-Charismatic Christians) have received charisms for ministry. Whether they have discerned their charism or have put it to use is another matter, of course. That’s why we have programs such as “Called and Gifted”.

The Pope has just recently made comments in his latest “question and answer” session with the Roman clergy. Here he gave two rules for ecclesial movements to flourish in the Church:

1) As St Paul says, “Do not extinguish charisms.” If the Lord gives us new gifts, we must receive them with thanksgiving. The Holy Spirit gives us new initiatives with new aspects of Christian life.

2) But if the movements are really gifts from the Holy Spirit, then they will seek to unify, edify and serve the Church.

He used, as an example of the past, the Fransciscans, and as an example of the present, The Neo-Catechumenal Way. I believe that CCR has demonstrated in an exemplary way both these qualities, however, I believe there is also need for what the Pope calls “patient dialogue” which can overcome the “many complications” which occur with the rise of new movements and the recognition of new charisms. However, CCR ought not to assume that their undergirding theology has been given the imprimatur of official Church teaching, just because the Church has received their movement and charism as a gift from God.

What the Pope had to say on this matter is very wise, and I often wonder what today’s Church might have been like if a) on the Roman side, the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the early 16th Century had had the ears to hear what Martin Luther was saying to the Church, and b) on Luther’s side, if he had been a little more concerned about serving the unity and edification of the Church.

"Is it true? Or is that just something you saw in the Times?"

John L. Allen Jnr has struck a blow at what he calls “the original sin” in journalism: “willful indifference to the facts.” The guilty party in this case? The British press, and in particular, The Times, which, by his account, has shown itself to be worse than either The New York Times or The Age when it comes to reporting on religious matters.

(Actually, he didn’t mention The Age–and to be honest, the fact that Barney Zwartz is theologically educated and literate makes a huge difference in that sphere. It’s their editorial stance that gets me.)

What gave rise to his unusual outburst against his British colleagues is this piece by Ruth Gledhill, but in fact he catalogues a whole series of journalistic furphies published by the British press with regard to the Vatican. His strong opinion is that this sort of stuff, in today’s climate, “is not merely irrating, but dangerous”.

Gledhill’s piece, is, he opines, not only a deliberate sensationalising, but also a deliberate misreading of the leaked IARCCUM text to make it say the complete opposite of what it says.

Here’s the first line of paragraph seven, which appears on page five of the report: “This present context, which adds to existing differences between our two communions, is not the appropriate time to enter the new formal stage of relationship envisaged by the bishops at Mississauga.” That’s a reference to a meeting in Canada in 2000 when representatives of the two groups had discussed the possibility of greater structural unity. In other words, “Growing Together in Unity and Mission” unambiguously says that now is not the time for reunion under the pope. There is simply no other way to read the document — unless, that is, you’re inclined to distort it.

Interestingly, Gledhill herself leaves a comment on Allen’s column, defending her piece:

Thank you John for your thoughtful article. I can only urge people to read the entire document for themselves. It can now be purchased from SPCK. One of the most pertinent paragraphs on which I based my story was this:
114. We urge Anglicans and Roman Catholics to explore together how the ministry of the Bishop of Rome might be offered and received in order to assist our Communions to grow towards full, ecclesial communion.
Given the theology of reception, ie women priests, Catholic reception, I find that par pretty unambiguous and nothing like that was in any of the Arcic documents, although Gift of Authority came close.