Ecumenism
No debate can be fruitful unless the terms in question are defined. This is the idea that the authors of The Great Facade started with. There is some truth to it. What is false is the notion that the central terms in this debate between traditionalists and the rest of the Church are "traditionalist" and "neo-Catholic." Further, the fact that Ferrara and Woods do not at any point attempt to give some definitions for what actually are the central terms in this debate demonstrates the manipulative nature of their argument. Examples have been given in the second section of this essay of instances where the authors are only too willing to read contradiction into the words of our present Pope and of Cardinal Ratzinger. The sinister nature of the Ferrawood argument ought to be apparent by now.
However, there can be no fruitful outcome from this debate if all that is offered is criticism. Criticism is easy, and it is too much criticism that the authors have partaken in. There is an obligation on those who participate in this debate to attempt to explain the current ecclesiastical situation. It does not satisfy propriety to simply point out the holes in an argument. One must attempt to fill those holes with honest and truthful analysis. That is the purpose of this and the next section.
The two novelties that the authors point to as being the main culprits for our current crisis will be discussed. These novelties are ecumenism and the liturgical reform of Pope Paul VI. The goal here is to demonstrate that the authors have again twisted the words of previous Popes in order to justify their visceral disapproval of these two aspects of the Church. In fact, they abandon logic in the attempt to show just how wrong the rest of the Church is. It will be shown in the last section of this essay that this is a symptom of a kind of madness and not of keen intellectual rigor.
Furthermore, it must be clear to the readers of this essay that the stakes of this debate are high. On page 57 the authors address sedevacantism. This movement operates on the theological opinion that 1) if the Pope were to ever formally declare his belief in a heresy he would lose his office as the Vicar of Christ, thus the Seat of Peter would be vacant1 and 2) this has in fact already taken place in our time. The reason most often given by sedevacantists for the current vacant status of the Seat of Peter involves Vatican II, which they claim directly contradicted previous Church doctrine.
What method do the authors use to demonstrate that John Paul II is a valid and reigning Pope, to defend the current Vicar of Christ from the sedevacantist arguments? They state that since none of these novelties "involves . . . an attempt to impose upon the Church, as a matter of doctrine to be held by the faithful, any explicit theological error" the Pope is still the Pope. Essentially the argument the authors use to defend the current Holy Father involves demonstrating that he does not impose these conciliar novelties on the faithful as doctrines. The implication is, of course, that if he did the sedevacantists would be right, which further implies that these novelties are heresies. The authors write that it cannot "be denied any longer that the swarm of novelties the Council engendered, the program and order of 'newness' remarked by Paul VI, have tended materially to oppose the preconciliar teaching of the Church." The authors cannot adhere to the sedevacantist position because the Holy Father does not formally oppose the preconciliar teaching by naming these novelties as doctrine. If he did, if these materially heretical novelties were imposed on the faithful as being constitutive of Catholic fidelity, the current Pope would lose his office. This is the clear implication the authors make in their argument against the sedevacantists.
Thus, the importance of determining the nature of ecumenism and the reform of the Mass is clear. If it can be demonstrated that ecumenism has been presented to the Church as a binding doctrine by the postconciliar Popes and ecumenism is a heresy — the latter being precisely what the authors are claiming — then our Pope is no longer Pope. If, however, it can be demonstrated that the ecumenism of the council is not heretical and that its value and importance is a doctrine of the Church, then the authors are dissenting from a doctrine of an ecumenical council. The stakes are indeed high.
ecumenism's definition
On page 65 of The Great Facade the authors begin in a rather convincing manner to make a point but ultimately fail to actually formulate any solid argument. I am speaking specifically of the authors' attempt or non-attempt to define ecumenism, which is one of the more crucial terms for this debate. In the attempt to define, or rather prove that it is not defined, the authors write:
That is why when neo-Catholics say that traditionalists "dissent" from "ecumenism," for example, they are unable to articulate precisely what it is about this notion that requires assent. That is because this notion does not involve any intelligible Catholic doctrine.This is easily demonstrated. Any Catholic doctrine will fit nicely into the template phrase "X means that . . . ," where X is the Catholic doctrine in question. Thus, the Immaculate Conception means that from the first moment of her conception the Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved free from all stain of original sin. Likewise, transubstantiation means that at the moment of the Consecration the substance of the bread and wine are miraculously changed entirely into the substance of Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity — so that nothing of the bread and wine remains, but only the appearances of these.
Applying our template phrase to "ecumenism," however, we immediately encounter an intellectual dead end. The phrase "ecumenism means that" cannot be completed, just as the phrase "an elephant means that" cannot be completed. Ecumenism, like an elephant, cannot be defined as an abstract concept, but only described or indicated, as in: that is an elephant. Ecumenism, like an elephant, is a thing, or rather a collection of things known as "ecumenical activities." Ecumenism certainly is something, just as an elephant is something. Ecumenism is, so they say, "a movement for Christian unity." But movements are by their nature contingent and ever-changing things, and no Catholic can be obliged to believe in a "movement" as if it were a definable Catholic doctrine.
The authors begin by saying that since Catholic doctrines fit in well with their template and ecumenism does not, therefore ecumenism is not a doctrine. This is important to the authors because neo-Catholics accuse traditionalists of dissent from doctrine. The authors maintain that as ecumenism is not a doctrine, then the neo-Catholic accusation is groundless. "How can one dissent from something that is not a doctrine?" they ask. The authors make this point, demonstrate that ecumenism is meaningless, and then for the following 26 pages enforce and reinforce the claim that ecumenism and its partner term "dialogue" are meaningless. This argument of theirs is simply bad theology.
The distinction between dogmas and doctrines was discussed in the previous section of this essay. All dogmas are doctrines, but not all doctrines are dogmas. Doctrines become dogmas when they are specially defined and said to be such by the Magisterium. The two examples the authors use for doctrines that fit their template are the Immaculate Conception and transubstantiation. It is true that these are doctrines. However, they are also dogmas. By virtue of the fact that they are definitive and solemnly proclaimed doctrines of the Magisterium on faith or morals, they are dogmas. Now the authors claim that since 1) all Catholic doctrines fit into the template "X" means that . . . " and 2) ecumenism does not fit into this template, 3) ecumenism is not a Catholic doctrine. This template is simply flawed, because it applies to dogmas but not to all doctrines. To put it another way, the template applies to definitions — which is what all dogmas are — but not all teachings.
The dogma of the Incarnation fits in the template because it is a defined doctrine. However, I could not say "NFP means that . . . " and realize a comprehensible statement. But the Catholic Church does teach the validity and value of NFP. That NFP is a valid form of family planning is a teaching, a doctrine of the Catholic Church, but not a dogma. I, and the vast majority of Catholics, am willing to admit that ecumenism is not a dogma of the Catholic faith. But the value and legitimacy of ecumenism is in fact a doctrine of the Church. This will be demonstrated later. The point here is that not all meaning is lost in a word that fails to pass the authors' template test. It may not fit the requisite level of meaningful clarity which they have raised, but this level is the level of dogma. No one claims that ecumenism or dialogue are dogmas. The template test is useless and just more rhetorical trickery.
On page 72 the authors discuss the conciliar document on ecumenism Unitatis redintegratio (UR). They begin by asking a fair question: "Given that before Vatican II the Church constantly taught that the only way to Christian unity was the return of the dissidents to the one true Church, what precisely does the 'ecumenical movement' add to the picture?" The authors tell us that UR gives no answer to this question but only asks that we embrace this movement which "had been condemned by Pius XI only thirty-four years earlier as a threat to 'the foundations of the Catholic faith'." On page 73 and the following the authors continue their rhetorical smokescreen over the meaning of "ecumenism." They write, "In the absence of any definition of ecumenism, it is impossible to determine precisely what is meant by spiritual ecumenism"; and "Having failed to define ecumenism, UR nevertheless . . ."; and again "And what is 'the work of ecumenism,' given that ecumenism itself is not defined?"; and lastly "Though ecumenism received absolutely no satisfactory theological definition in the conciliar decree on ecumenism, . . ." The authors strain to drill this point into their readers' heads.
Still, the authors certainly understand something of the word's meaning. They do admit on page 72 that UR describes ecumenism as a "movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among all Christians."2 They admit on page 76 that the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism speaks over and over again "of 'the search for Christian unity'." Ecumenism would seem then to have something to do with the unity of Christians. But in the end, the authors are left with more questions than answers: "And what is 'the way of ecumenism' in the first place? In what sense is ecumenism a way? In what does this way consist, and where does it lead? What exactly will we find at the end of this way? How is the 'way of ecumenism' different from the return of the dissidents to the one true Church?" These may be fair questions, but the authors assure us that there can be no answer to them because, or so they believe, "the word ecumenism has no real meaning."3 This tends to be the crux of their argument regarding ecumenism. There is nothing to learn about it or from it, because it is meaningless.
The Popes the authors quote do have an understanding of the term, however. The authors are certainly aware of this, because they point out that these Popes had condemned ecumenism and the ecumenical movement prior to Vatican II. The Supreme Pontiff would certainly take the time to understand what it was he was condemning before taking such an action. The authors point to Pope Pius Xi and his encyclical Mortalium animos no less than seven times, yet still claim that ecumenism has no meaning. One might justly ask the authors, "If it has no meaning then what was it Pius condemned?" On page 67 the authors tell us that "in 1928 Pius XI promulgated Mortalium Animos in order to declare the Church's opposition to any involvement in this new movement of Protestant origin." This new movement was the ecumenical movement. On page 89 they write, "The divine commission to make disciples of all nations necessarily exists in tension with these novel notions, which cannot but inhibit the Church's traditionally forthright proclamation that she alone is the ark of salvation — a dogma reaffirmed in Pius XI's rejection of the 'ecumenical movement' a mere thirty-seven years before Vatican II."
This point is of great importance. The authors argue that if our contemporary Vatican Curia has put ecumenism forward as a binging Catholic doctrine, then the current Pope would be in direct doctrinal contradiction to the previous Church teaching expressed by Pius XI and others. So let us turn to the Popes who have put forth the Church's teaching on ecumenism. In order to do this properly, however, we must first note well an age-old rule regarding the interpretation of papal statements. This rule, well expressed by John Henry Cardinal Newman, must be followed. Reading from his open letter against Gladstone we find:
It is a rule in formal ecclesiastical proceedings, as I shall have occasion to notice lower down, when books or authors are condemned, to use the very words of the book or authors, and to condemn the words in that particular sense which they have in their context and their drift, not in the literal, not in the religious sense, such as the Pope might recognize, were they in another book or author. To take a familiar parallel, among many which occur daily, Protestants speak of the "Blessed Reformation"; Catholics too talk of "the Reformation" though they do not call it blessed. Yet every "reformation" ought, from the very meaning of the word, to be good, not bad; so that Catholics seem to be implying a eulogy on an event which, at the same time, they consider a surpassing evil. Here they are taking the word and using it in the popular sense of it, not in the Catholic. They would say, if they expressed their full meaning, "the so-called reformation." In like manner, if the Pope condemned "the Reformation," it would be utterly sophistical to say in consequence that he had declared himself against all reforms; yet this is how Mr. Gladstone treats him, because he speaks of (so-called) liberty of conscience.4
Newman is always helpful in clearing up matters of theological debate. The rule one is to use in interpreting "formal ecclesiastical proceedings" is to keep in mind that what is being condemned is what is held by the offending party. In other words one is to understand the thing condemned as the offending party understands it, for it is precisely this party and its understanding that are being condemned. Therefore, here we must understand what was meant by those involved in the "ecumenical movement" in Pius XI's time to understand what he was condemning. Let us then turn to the encyclical in question.
pius xi
Pius begins Mortalium animos by noting the peculiar and chronologically unique desire of his contemporaries to bring about some semblance of international unity. This desire has spread to the area of religion where some have thought that a core set of doctrines could be drawn up and adhered to so as to make manifest a unity in religion. Pius tells us, however, that these projects cannot be given much attention "founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule."5 Pius condemns the notion that all religions will lead men to God and His law. There is a particular movement, though, that Pius is more concerned with. This movement of "pan-Christian" asks:
Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be "one" [John 17:21]. And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: "by this shall all men know that your are my disciples, if you have love one for another"? [John 13:35].
These questions are asked even though those asking are themselves "imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith." This unity which these "pan-Christians" seek is apparently not a unity in doctrine. It is for this reason that Pius says that "beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed."6 Once doctrines become dispensable the Traditions are lost and indeed our very religion. Pius understood this, and states from the start, that any unity that is sought which compromises the doctrines of the faith is no unity at all. He points this out again when, in presenting the thought of those in the "ecumenical movement," he writes:
A good number of them, for example, deny that the Church of Christ must be visible and apparent, at least to such a degree that it appears as one body of faithful, agreeing in one and the same doctrine under one teaching authority and government; but, on the contrary, they understand a visible Church as nothing else than a Federation, composed of various communities of Christians, even though they adhere to different doctrines, which may even be incompatible one with another.7
This Christian unity sought after is illegitimate because of the willingness to do away with doctrines. These Christians would exist in a pseudo-union where incompatible doctrines are somehow overlooked. Christ, however, desired one authority and one set of doctrines by which all His followers were to be known. Pius further lays out the condemned position in the following text:
And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches, depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: "That they all may be one . . . And there shall be one fold and one shepherd," with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not today exist. They consider that this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal.8
This is truly the crux of the matter. This is the false opinion upon which the entire movement is based and thus condemned. Those are in error who would claim that, in the light of what Christ desired, there is no unity of faith and government at the present time and thus no one true Church of Christ. They are also in error who would argue that Christian unity is attainable by means of putting aside the controversial doctrines in order that "from the remaining doctrines a common form of faith" may be "drawn up and proposed for belief."
Pius XI states quite clearly that this is a matter of truth, and a battle over the very revelation of God. It is decidedly not the desire of the Lord that "a truth divinely revealed" "be made a subject for compromise." This revelation is that the Church, the one true Church, shall not have the gates of Hell prevail against her. Yet those in the "ecumenical movement" of Pius XI's time are arguing that since the first ecumenical council there have been a series of rifts within the Church resultant from various controversial doctrines. The result has been that since the first ecumenical council there has not been one true Church of Christ. But such a belief would suggest that the gates of Hell had in fact prevailed against the Church. Such a belief would mean that "we should have to confess that the coming of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, and the perpetual indwelling of the same Spirit in the Church, and the very preaching of Jesus Christ, have several centuries ago, lost all their efficacy and use." This is "blasphemy."9 "This, Venerable Brethren, is what is commonly said."10 This is the position of those in the "ecumenical movement" as it was known by Pius XI.
To summarize, those who teach that since there is not a unity of faith and government in the wider Christian world, there is no true Church of Christ are in error. Those who teach that in order to achieve this unity, the controversial doctrines of the faith can be laid aside and a core set of doctrines drafted are in error. Those who view this "mere Christianity" as the means through which all Christians would discover their one true and unified Church are in error. This is what Pius XI condemned. I hope this is clear, because it would be "sophistical" — as Newman would say — to claim that Pius XI condemned anything and everything ecumenical, any attempt at Christian unity of persons, any movement with the name "ecumenical."
pius xii
Pius XII also spent some time during his pontificate to wrestle with the issue of ecumenism. In December of 1949 he directed the Holy Office to release an instruction titled Ecclesia Catholica. One portion of the instruction reads:
The Catholic Church takes no part in "Ecumenical" conferences or meetings. But, as may be seen from many papal documents, she has never ceased, nor ever will, from following with deepest interest and furthering with fervent prayer every attempt to attain that end which Christ our Lord had so much at heart, namely, that all who believe in him "may become perfectly one" [John 17:23] . . . The present time has witnessed in different parts of the world a growing desire amongst many persons outside the Church for the reunion of all who believe in Christ. This may be attributed, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to external factors and the changing attitude of peoples' minds, but above all to the united prayers of the faithful. To all children of the True Church this is a cause for holy joy in the Lord; it urges them to extend a helping hand to all those sincerely seeking after the truth by praying fervently that God may enlighten them and give them strength . . .11
These are remarkable words, for they would seem to fly in the face of everything the authors criticize in the words of our present Holy Father. On page 196 one discovers another instance where the authors obtusely insist on a contradiction between the John Paul II and previous Popes:
And how does one reconcile John Paul II's statement to the "working group" that Anglican-Catholic dialogue "may lead to that unity in truth for which Christ prayed" with Pius XI's condemnation in Mortalium Animos of the very notion that "Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment."
Here is a clear example, in the minds of the authors, of a statement from our present Pope, in the area of ecumenism, which contradicts the teaching of a previous Pope. But what does our present Holy Father mean by the statement that there is no unity of truth among Christians, and that this unity in truth is something that has not yet occurred? The authors seem to want to assume, in their maniacal crusade to prove just how wrong the Pope can be, that the phrase "unity in truth" means "oneness of truth." Thus they claim that the Pope denies that there is a oneness of truth. On pages 198 to 199 the authors write:
Again, how are we to reconcile the condemnation by Pius XI with an affirmation of the condemned proposition in the Catholic-Lutheran accord? True, Vatican II's decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, declares that "[w]e believe that this unity subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time" (n. 4). But this rather timid restatement of the dogma of the Church's divinely bestowed note of unbreakable unity has been buried in an avalanche of seemingly contradictory Vatican pronouncements since the Council, including the aforementioned statement of John Paul II to the new Catholic-Anglican "working group" that its efforts "may lead to that unity in truth for which Christ prayed." May lead to it? The unity in truth for which Christ prayed has always existed in the Catholic Church, which is why the preconciliar Popes unanimously taught that the Protestants and the Orthodox must return to that unity.
The unity of truth does indeed exist in the Catholic Church and has always existed in her. The real question, however, should be whether or not the phrase "unity in truth" as John Paul II uses it means what the authors are only too eager for it to mean. Could it mean that there is no unity of Christian persons regarding what is the fullness of Christian truth? This is just what Pius XII's Holy Office states.
Pius XII tells us that despite the fact that Catholics are forbidden from taking part in these "'Ecumenical' conferences or meetings" the Church "has never ceased, nor ever will," from "every attempt to attain that end which Christ our Lord had so much at heart, namely, that all who believe in him 'may become perfectly one' (John 17:23)." Is this not precisely what our Holy Father Pope John Paul II has been saying is his desire? If the authors would accuse Pope John Paul, then they must reject these words from Pius XII's Holy Office, which state that there is no perfect unity amongst Christian persons. Is Pius XII contradicting Pius XI? Of course not. Pius XII and John Paul II are expressing their desire, a desire "seen from many papal documents," that the words of Christ be fulfilled in a visible manner through the union of all persons. It is remarkable that the authors should have missed this expression in the Holy Office's document, since the authors themselves point to this document on a number of occasions.12 But, of course, this is just another example where the authors are willing to throw reason and honesty out the window to pit one Pope against another. One would hope that if they were going to do so, they would at least read more carefully.
Next, this desire, which Pius XII shares, for the "reunion of all who believe in Christ" is a desire "under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." Not only is this desire for unity among Christians held by Pope John Paul II shared by Pius XII, but the latter goes so far as to say that it is a desire fostered by the Holy Spirit. Pius XII's Holy Office states that this desire that exists on the part of Catholics and non-Catholics is a "cause for holy joy in the Lord." In fact, Catholics are to "lend a helping hand" through "fervent prayer" to those in the search for Christian unity "sincerely seeking after the truth." This desire for unity among Christians is found in "many papal documents," inspired by the Holy Spirit and a source of "holy joy" for Catholics.
But the authors tell us that there is a unity, that there is one true Church and that the Holy Father's expression of his desire for "unity in truth" is "seemingly incompatible" with the teaching of Pius XI, Pius XII, and the rest of the preconciliar Church. Pius XII's words above, words from a document the authors themselves use demonstrate precisely how far the authors are willing to deceive in order to criticize our present Holy Father. The desire for the "unity in truth" that John Paul II expresses is completely within the bounds of sound Catholic expression. Pius XII's mind on this issue can further be seen in the following quote from his 1950 encyclical Humani generis:
12. Now if these only aimed at adapting ecclesiastical teaching and methods to modern conditions and requirements, through the introduction of some new explanations, there would be scarcely any reason for alarm. But some through enthusiasm for an imprudent "eirenism" seem to consider as an obstacle to the restoration of fraternal union, things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ and likewise on institutions founded by Him, or which are the defense and support of the integrity of the faith, and the removal of which would bring about the union of all, but only to their destruction.
There is a crucial distinction in Pius XII's mind between the work toward unity, a good and laudable undertaking, and the work of the movement condemned by Pius XI. We see here that Pius XII echoes the teaching of Pius XI in condemning those who would attempt to bring about a "restoration of fraternal union" by removing "things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ and likewise on institutions founded by Him," i.e., doctrines. However, the work toward unity, as we have just seen is something laudable and desired by the Holy Spirit Himself. So why have the authors condemned ecumenism? What is ecumenism as Vatican II understands it? How does it differ, if at all, from the ecumenism condemned by Pius XI? What is the obligation on the part of the faithful Catholic toward ecumenism? These questions will now have to be addressed.
unitatis redintegratio
UR begins with statements that echo those of Pius XII's Ecclesia Catholica:
In recent times more than ever before, [the Lord of Ages] has been rousing divided Christians to remorse over their divisions and to a longing for unity. Everywhere large numbers have felt the impulse of this grace, and among our separated brethren also there increases from day to day the movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among all Christians.13
This could not be clearer. In the very next sentence the document reads, "This movement toward unity is called 'ecumenical'." And later the fathers write, "The term 'ecumenical movement' indicates the initiatives and activities planned and undertaken, according to the various needs of the Church and as opportunities offer, to promote Christian unity." There it is. The authors need have only understood that "ecumenical" refers to the movement for the unity of Christians. It does have a meaning, and the fathers of the Second Vatican Council, i.e., the bishops of the world and the Pope, have determined that this "movement toward unity" is one fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit. The fathers of Vatican II tell us that God desires that this movement for restoration of unity be encouraged and practiced by the faithful. It is clear from the very start that the bishops in council and the Holy Father teach, through their ordinary authority, that ecumenism is a movement inspired by the Holy Spirit.
This ecumenical movement expressed by Vatican II does not resemble that which Pius XI condemned, as the authors would have us believe. The fathers state from the start, from the second sentence in the document, that "Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided" (emphasis mine). It is stated from the very start of UR that there is one true Church despite the fact that some have gone "their different ways" and "present themselves" as though they were fully members of this Church. The words of Pius XI in Mortalium animos do not condemn the teaching of UR, for the Vatican II document affirms the existence of the one true Church, and in describing this one true Church the Vatican fathers are very clear. They state:
In order to establish this His holy Church everywhere in the world till the end of time, Christ entrusted to the College of the Twelve the task of teaching, ruling, and sanctifying (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, collato John 20:21-23). Among their number He selected Peter, and after his confession of faith determined that on him He would build His Church. Also to Peter He promised the keys of the kingdom of heaven (cf. Matt. 16:18, collato Matt. 18:18) and after His profession of love, entrusted all His sheep to him to be confirmed in faith (cf. Luke 22:32) and shepherded in perfect unity (cf. John 21:15-18). Christ Jesus Himself was forever to remain the chief cornerstone (cf. Eph. 2:20) and shepherd of our souls (cf. 1 Peter 2).Jesus Christ, then, willed that the apostles and their successors — the bishops with Peter's successor at their head — should preach the Gospel faithfully, administer the sacraments, and rule the Church in love. It is thus, under the action of the Holy Spirit, that Christ wills His people to increase, and He perfects His people's fellowship in unity; in their confessing the one faith, celebrating divine worship in common, and keeping the fraternal harmony of the family of God.14
Then later they write, "We believe that this unity subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."15 the meaning of "subsists" will be discussed later, but it is clear that UR points to the Catholic Church as the one Church which Christ founded. None of this can be denied by anyone who has read the document honestly.
Pius XI condemned any movement that attempted to reach reunification by a means that would jettison any doctrine of the faith. The Vatican fathers write, "All in the Church must preserve unity in essentials." What are these essentials? The fathers begin by telling us what are nonessentials. They write that the "various forms of spiritual life and discipline," "different liturgical rites," and "theological elaborations of revealed truth"16 are not essential to a union among Christians. But what is essential, they answer quite clearly:
The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded17 [emphasis mine].
These words are faithful to the will of Pius XI and Pius XII who expressed their desire that doctrines not be sacrificed for the sake of unity among Christians. Once again UR escapes the condemnation which the authors are so anxious to attach to it.
The confusion the authors express over and over again about ecumenism is itself perplexing. Is it so difficult to understand that the "ecumenical movement" is that movement meant to bring about Christian unity? When the authors write that "it is impossible to determine precisely what is meant by spiritual ecumenism," one wonders if they read, "This change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and merits the name, 'spiritual ecumenism'."18 Spiritual ecumenism is public and private prayer for the unity of Christians. Is this so difficult to understand?
When the authors ask what the "way" of ecumenism is, one may simply answer that it is the process of attempting to bring about the unity of Christendom. When they ask how ecumenism is a "way," one may simply answer that living the Christian life having the unity of Christians versus the end of abortion, world peace, social justice, or universal devotion to our Lady as the focal point of one's religious action would constitute a singular attention, a discernible "way," in a particular Christian's practical life. When they ask what is the goal of this "way," one may clearly answer the participation of all souls in the Catholic Church. When they ask how this "way" is different from the traditional position of having dissidents return to the one true Church, one's answer is just as simple, but requires that one understand something of what it means to be part of the Catholic Church, something I suspect the authors are again woefully confused about and something which will be discussed below.
dialogue
But now we must ask how this postconciliar ecumenism differs from what the Church had been saying for centuries. How are the words of the Vatican fathers adding to the Church's position toward non-Catholic Christians? These are fair questions. The use of the term "dialogue" is one such difference between the preconciliar and postconciliar Church's approach. Even if "dialogue" did not have a clear meaning in UR, there is a dictionary definition of the word that is easily understandable and applicable to the effort to bring about a unity of Christians. "Dialogue" means simply "a conversation between two or more persons, an exchange of ideas and opinions."19 When Christians are involved in the effort to bring about a constructive movement toward unity, which is again something desired by the Holy Spirit, it often helps to sit down with leaders of the group in question in order to clarify the Church's position on certain issues. When attempting to convert someone dialogue is necessary. This is the basic understanding of the term and is expressed in the following words from UR:
[The initiatives and activities planned and undertaken to promote Christian unity] are: first, every effort to avoid expressions, judgments, and actions which do not represent the condition of our separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations with them more difficult; then, "dialogue" between competent experts from different Churches and Communities. At these meetings, which are organized in a religious spirit, each explains the teaching of his Communion in greater depth and brings out clearly its distinctive features. In such dialogue, everyone gains a truer knowledge and more just appreciation of the teaching and religious life of both Communions.20
Dialogue exists and is necessary for the sake of clarity and truthfulness. Making clear with another church what the Catholic Church determined at the Council of Chalcedon would aid reconciliation between the church in question and Rome. Furthermore, when Pius XII tells us that new adaptations of "ecclesiastical teaching and methods to modern conditions and requirements, through the introduction of some new explanations," is "scarcely any reason for alarm," we must understand that not all doctrines are bound to specific explanations or language. In other words, so long as the truth is being proclaimed a variation of language and explanation can justly and rightly occur. Given this, then, dialogue with non-Catholics regarding their formulations makes it possible that their language and explanations can be corrected or adapted to reflect the true doctrines that have been entrusted to the Catholic Church. However, to do this the Catholic in dialogue must understand what the non-Catholic means by the language and interpretation that is a part of his traditional expression. Dialogue allows for two sides to agree on the definition of terms, the meaning of ideas, the understanding of principles. Dialogue, i.e., conversation, is a necessary part of reconciliation between two opposing sides.
Dialogue also refers to that joint effort between the Church, other churches, and the world to bring about a just social order. When Pius XI described the goals of the "ecumenical movement" of his time he wrote, "All Christians, they add, should be as 'one': for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength."21 Pius did not condemn the effort to work with non-Catholics for the betterment of society. Certain evils exist which are seen to be evil by both Catholics and non-Catholics. Dialogue between the Church and other churches that is meant to coordinate efforts to root out evil in the world is valuable. UR reads:
In these days when cooperation in social matters is so widespread, all men without exception are called to work together, with much greater reason all those who believe in God, but most of all, all Christians in that they bear the name of Christ. Cooperation among Christians vividly expresses the relationship which in fact already unites them, and it sets in clearer relief the features of Christ the Servant. This cooperation, which has already begun in many countries, should be developed more and more, particularly in regions where a social and technical evolution is taking place be it in a just evaluation of the dignity of the human person, the establishment of the blessings of peace, the application of Gospel principles to social life, the advancement of the arts and sciences in a truly Christian spirit, or also in the use of various remedies to relieve the afflictions of our times such as famine and natural disasters, illiteracy and poverty, housing shortage and the unequal distribution of wealth.22
Certainly the efforts by both Catholics and non-Catholics to end abortion are laudable. Cardinal Ratzinger actually mentions this aspect of dialogue in his Principles of Catholic Theology when he comments on the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World. The authors must have surely read the following, since they quote from this same chapter23:
Linked to this striking concept of a contrast between two realms, in which "world" refers to all those forces that are responsible for the present, is a second fundamental characteristic of the text: the concept of dialogue as its basic formal classification. The Council, it states, "can find no more eloquent expression of its solidarity and respectful affection for the whole human family . . . than to enter into dialogue with it . . . " The relationship between Church and world is regarded, then, as a "colloquium," as a speaking-with-one-another and as a mutual search for solutions in which the Church brings to bear her own particular contributions and hopes that with the contributions of others progress will be made.It is surely permissible to see as the motivation behind this formal conception the Council's strong sentiment with regard to the dangers and needs that confront mankind today. This concentration on current pragmatic, economic, political, and social tasks is made abundantly clear by the designation of the "building up of human society" as the goal of the dialogue.24
If the Catholic Church were to have absolutely no dialogue with the world, then there is little reason to believe that she would be allowed to speak at the United Nations. Regardless of what one might think of the UN and its atrocities, the fact that the Catholic Church has a voice in this forum is a result of the very dialogue which Cardinal Ratzinger is speaking of.25 "Dialogue" is simply the act of laying out conceptual frameworks within which two parties may function for the sake of clarification and unification.
sui iuris churches
In continuing to answer the authors' question about how ecumenism is different from the traditional position of having dissidents return to the one true Church, it must be said that there is a striking difference, a marked change in policy but not doctrine. Previous to Vatican II the goal of Christian unity in the West was one where all the separated brethren would simply abandon their Protestant churches, for instance, and return to the Roman Catholic Church. The wayward sheep would abandon every aspect of their Protestant communion — which was overtly anti-Catholic — and adopt every aspect of Roman Catholic life, meaning that they would adopt not just the tradition-doctrines but also the tradition-customs of the Church. This image of Christian unity changed, and a distinction has been made. It is the distinction between the work of ecumenism — reconciliation in doctrine — and the work of assimilation — reconciliation in customs and traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.
The fact is that there exist some 23 different juridically autonomous Churches within the Catholic Church, the largest of which is the Roman Catholic Church, or the Latin Church. The other 22 Churches maintain their own rites, ecclesiastical discipline (i.e., canon law and hierarchy), and spiritual heritage while at the same time being in communion with the Bishop of Rome by recognizing his primacy. They are referred to as sui iuris Churches. The Coptic Catholics returned to unity in 1741. The Ethiopian Catholics have been in union with Rome since 1846. The Maronite Catholics have always been in union Rome, while the Malankarese and Syrian Catholics were reconciled with the Church in 1930 and 1781 respectively. There are Armenian, Albanian, Bulgarian, Byelorussian, Georgian, Greek, Hungarian, Italo-Albanian, Melkite, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, Ukrainian, Croatian, Chaldean, and Syro-Malabarese Catholic Churches. They are all in union with Rome, yet practice some version of the seven major rites of the Catholic Church, have their own canon law and claim their own spiritual heritage, which usually includes their own patriarch, their own calendar of saints, and their own spiritual, extra-biblical texts. They all maintain the same doctrines which the Roman Catholic Church holds and pledge their submission to the Roman Pontiff.
The sea change that occurred at Vatican II was the possibility that Protestant churches could, once they had accepted the doctrines of the Catholic faith and pledged submission to the Successor of Peter, exist as their own semi-autonomous Church drawing upon their own customs and spiritual heritage. This is what is meant by a "unity in diversity" approach. The diversity that is expressed is not that of faith.26 UR and the present Holy Father have been clear that the doctrines of the faith, the truths of Revelation cannot be sacrificed. But there can be diversity in practice, in the explanation of a truth and in prudential determinations of ecclesiastical policy. This is nothing new either, for the Catholic Church has existed for centuries with these semi-autonomous Churches, Churches that believe what we believe, but practice differently. In point of fact the authors themselves suggest this same structure as being a preferred method of reintegrating schismatic traditionalists into the Roman Catholic Church. They write on page 397:
Addressing and resolving all the difficulties we have discussed in this book will not be easy. But an apostolic administration, or perhaps even a patriarchate of the kind to which the Uniate Eastern churches belong, is an arrangement that could serve to preserve the cause of Tradition within the Church and, we hope, one day to bring about its restoration throughout the Roman Rite at large.
The authors then are completely aware of this ecclesiastical status. So it cannot be too difficult for them to understand that the difference in Vatican II is that the Catholic Church is willing to accept the notion that Protestant churches convert to Catholicism but maintain something of their own traditions, so long as those traditions do not betray erroneous theology. Something of this has already been done with Anglican converts where the Eucharistic Liturgy they practice as Catholics is formulated in a way that reflects the tradition-customs and traditions-accounts found in the Anglican Church. Vestments, calendars, sacerdotal orientation are not part of the Deposit of Faith; they are not part of the sacred Traditions of the Apostles.
"subsists"
Perhaps by understanding this fact, the authors may come to understand why it was that the fathers at Vatican II stated that the one true Church of Christ subsists in the Roman Catholic Church. On page 356 the authors write the following:
For the past thirty-five years, traditionalists have been claiming that the term "subsists" was inserted by the conciliar liberals to imply that the Church of Christ is "larger" than, and thus not identical to, the Roman Catholic Church, whereas our neo-Catholic brethren insisted that "subsists" was merely a more powerful way of expressing that the Church of Christ is the Roman Catholic Church. Well, it appears that at least as far as the principal author of [Dominus Iesus] is concerned, we were right and they were wrong.
On this same page the authors go on to quote Cardinal Ratzinger, the poor prelate whom the authors are so fond of picking on. They quote the prefect as saying:
When the Council Fathers replaced the word "is" with the word "subsistit," they did so for a very precise reason. The concept expressed by "is" (to be) is far broader than that expressed by "to subsist." "To subsist" is a very precise way of being, that is, to be as a subject, which exists in itself. Thus the Council Fathers mean to say that the being of the Church as such is a broader entity than the Roman Catholic Church, but within the latter it acquires, in an incomparable way, the character of a true and proper subject.
The meaning of the good cardinal is clearly lost on the authors who again fail to grasp the distinction that Ratzinger and the fathers at Vatican II were trying to make. The authors would have us believe that the liberal members of the Vatican Council were trying to obfuscate the notion that "the Church of Christ is the Roman Catholic Church." The reason for this trickery, the authors would argue, is so that liberal Catholics could expand membership in the Church of Christ to the whole world, Catholic and non-Catholic. This would advance a position of practical universal salvation, for if the whole world can be part of the Church of Christ regardless of their actual religious affiliation, then everyone is saved. The authors are in reality simply missing the point.
Cardinal Ratzinger states that the word "is" broadens the meaning of "the Roman Catholic Church" too far and is therefore not the most accurate formulation. This is so for several reasons. One reason is that these sui iuris churches which have already been mentioned are also considered Catholic. They are members of the Church of Christ though they are not the Roman Catholic Church, where the latter refers to the earthly Church that is associated with Rome and Western Christianity, the Latin ecclesiastical structure, to put it another way. Another reason why "is" does not engender complete accuracy is that those in Heaven and in Purgatory are equally members of the Church of Christ though they are not exactly members of the Roman Catholic Church any longer. The Church Triumphant is no longer subject to the Sunday obligation, but the saints in Heaven are certainly members of the Church of Christ. Another reason for Ratzinger's statement is the truth that one may be saved outside of the visible membership in the Roman Catholic Church.
Now a very specific reality is expressed by the use of the word "subsists." Cardinal Ratzinger explains that "subsists" demonstrates that while "the Church of Christ as such is a broader entity than the Roman Catholic Church," the latter bears a character of the Church of Christ which no other church, sui iuris or otherwise, can claim. This character is the character of "subject." What does the prefect mean by this? A "subject" is, in philosophical language, the acting entity, the center of willing and perception.27 For instance, the person who throws a ball is the "subject" while the ball is the "object." The "subject" is the actor throwing the "object" — the ball — and the ball's weight, color, and / or size — determines the boundaries of the "subject's" action. In language, the "subject" of a sentence is the actor while the "direct object" is the thing acted upon. The "subject" is the center of willful action.
Now the sui iuris Churches are all a part of the Church of Christ. However, the true and proper "subject," or actor, for the Church of Christ is the Roman Catholic Church. The Church of Rome is distinct in that it represents the center of action for the Church of Christ. To say that the Church of Christ is the Roman Catholic Church is to suggest that the Church of Christ starts and ends within the borders of the Roman Church, and it does not address the specific role of the Roman Church in its relation to the other Catholic Churches and the world.
The reason for this distinctive nature of the Roman Church over and above the other sui iuris Catholic Churches is that the Keys of the Kingdom were given to Peter and Peter alone. He is the center of action, the Rock on which the rest of the Church rests. Since the Pope — and no other — is the Vicar of Christ on earth, he is the visible head for the Church of Christ, and the Church over which he is patriarch — the Church of Rome — likewise becomes the acting "subject" of the Church of Christ. The sui iuris Churches are all legitimately considered Catholic Churches when they agree to adhere to the doctrines of the Church and when they accept an allegiance to Peter's Successors. In other words, as Peter is the guarantor of Christ's authority on earth and since it is the Roman Catholic Church which claims the Successor of Peter as its patriarch, this Church can rightly claim "the character of a true and proper subject." It is then rightly fitting that the Church which is directly entrusted to the Vicar of Christ should also bear the "character of a true and proper subject."
This is the impact and the true importance of the use of the word "subsist" instead of "is." The authors might point out the words of Pius XII in Humani generis paragraph 27 where he states, "Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teach that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing."28 The authors find this phrase from Pius XII to be a firm argument against the use of the word "subsist," for the Pope essentially states that the Mystical Body of Christ is the Roman Catholic Church. But this is precisely the difficulty with the word "is."
Pius XII did not utter an error, of course, but there is more that can be said. One can state, "Two plus two is four," but this truth does not make "One plus three is four" any less true. The Roman Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, but this does not make the Coptic Catholic Church any less part of this same Mystical Body.
When, in 1949, the Holy Office of Pius XII addressed the errors of Fr. Leonard Feeney it stated the following on the attributes of a member of the Mystical Body:
Speaking of the members who form here below the mystical Body, the same august Pontiff said: Only those are members of the Church who have received the Baptism of regeneration and profess the true faith and who are not, to their misfortune, separated from the Body as a whole or cut off from her through very grave faults by the legitimate authority.
The sui iuris Churches meet all the criteria for being members of the Mystical Body according to the Holy Office of the very same Pontiff the authors quote. If Pius XII means that only those visible members of the Roman Catholic Church and absolutely no others can be said to be members of the Mystical Body then his Holy Office contradicted him, for clearly there are persons who have been baptized, profess the true faith, are not separated from the Body, and are yet not members of the Roman Catholic Church. By "Roman Catholic Church" one is to understand that specific ecclesiastical structure which uses the Latin Rite, the Latin Code of Canon Law, and has the Bishop of Rome as its patriarch. This particular Church has the "character of a true and proper subject" unlike any other of the legitimate Catholic Churches. And the word "is" was changed to "subsist" in order to make clearer this unique character of the Roman Church within the Mystical Body of Christ. The word "subsist" restates the "is" and distinguishes the particular kind of being that the Roman Catholic Church embodies.
ecumenical prayer
Getting back to ecumenism, common prayer with non-Catholic Christians is also an important topic. UR reads:
In certain special circumstances, such as the prescribed prayers "for unity," and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. Such prayers in common are certainly an effective means of obtaining the grace of unity, and they are a true expression of the ties which still bind Catholics to their separated brethren. "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
The fathers state the rationale behind allowing this practice. Quite simply there are ties which still bind Catholic and non-Catholic Christians. We cannot deny the fact that these Christians have been baptized into Christ and that they believe, as we do, certain central, explicitly revealed dogmas.29 Now since the unity of Christian persons is something desired by the Holy Spirit, as Pius XII tells us, then the appeal to the Holy Spirit by a Christian validly baptized into the death and Resurrection of our Lord for the fulfillment of this desire is an objective good. Something inherently good like "the prescribed prayers 'for unity'" can be partaken in safely since both sides can agree on the premise, which is again that the Spirit desires the visible unity of Christians.
The authors might object by stating that there can be no provision for common prayer with heretics. I would object by stating that while it is certainly true that Protestants are material heretics, it would be difficult to refer to them as formal heretics as they are woefully uninformed and misinformed as to the teachings of the Catholic Church.30 It was St. Augustine who wrote, "Those are by no means to be accounted heretics who do not defend their false and perverse opinions with pertinacious zeal (animositas)31, especially when their error is not the fruit of audacious presumption but has been communicated to them by seduced and lapsed parents, and when they are seeking the truth with cautious solicitude and ready to be corrected."32
For how many Protestants today can it be said that they stubbornly defend their false opinions in the face of vigorous Catholic proselytization when it is a sad truth that there is little vigorous Catholic proselytization? That there is so little Catholic proselytization is the result of the erroneous "ecumenical" actions condemned by Pius XI, Pius XII, and Vatican II. Further, the authors themselves admit — and it is also sadly true — that Catholics know very little of what the Church teaches. This being the case, it is nearly impossible for a Protestant to actually reject the teaching of the Church when it is not even presented to him accurately or at all. The prudential concerns regarding common prayer are well taken. One does not wish to suggest that there is no difference between the Catholic and non-Catholic. However, UR does state that such prayer is for special occasions, i.e., not common. That abuses occur and occur regularly is quite obvious. One is not a "bad Catholic" for expressing serious reservations over the meetings in Assisi for instance. However, traditionalists would have the Church throw the baby, the council's true and authoritative teaching, out with the bath water, the abuse. This is simply not a legitimate option.
tradition and doctrine
The authors have asked how postconciliar ecumenism is different from the Church's policy before the council took place. I have spelled out how it is different. The language and the means to achieve the ultimate goal of unity are now different, and it should be noted well — since the authors are so concerned with pinning down the correct level of authoritativeness — that language and means are not part of the Deposit of Faith. These aspects can and have changed in the Church's history. The words from Pius XII that adaptations in "ecclesiastical teaching and methods to modern conditions and requirements, through the introduction of some new explanations" are "scarcely any reason for alarm" have been noted already several times. There is nothing alarming, sinful, or doctrinally unsound about adapting "ecclesiastical teaching and methods to modern conditions and requirements." This is all Vatican II did.
In fact none of the changes or adaptations which the fathers at Vatican II took up undermine the basic teaching of the preconciliar Church regarding non-Catholics. This underpinning, this basic approach, this Tradition is expressed well by our present Holy Father when he stated in a general audience on May 31, 1995:
4. Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom extra Ecclesiam nulla salus — "outside the Church there is no salvation" — stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73 21, PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition and was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and in the Council of Florence (Decretum pro Jacobitis, DS 1351). The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. Lumen gentium, n. 14) [emphasis mine].
This is the age-old teaching of the Church, a teaching that the present Holy Father accepts and preaches himself. It is noteworthy to point out what it is that Lumen gentium states as well. We read there:
14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved [emphasis mine].
These basic notions about the necessity of being Catholic in order to be saved still exist within the doctrinal pronouncements of the postconciliar Church. That they might be more nuanced is not to detract from the truth anymore than the nuances of trinitarian theology detract from the true fact that God is one. No doctrine is lost in the conciliar teaching on ecumenism. Rather there is a development of the distinctions made in the above doctrine, distinctions also made during the Feeneyite schism.
We look again at the statement from Pius XII's 1949 Vatican Curia — assessed by Ottaviani — to the superior of Fr. Leonard Feeney: "That is why no one will be saved if, knowing that the Church is of divine institution by Christ, he nevertheless refuses to submit to her or separates himself from the obedience of the Roman Pontiff, Christ's Vicar on earth." This is precisely what Vatican II and John Paul II have stated. At the same time the Holy Office admits the following, "The same must be said of the Church, as a general means of salvation. That is why for a person to obtain his salvation, it is not always required that he be de facto incorporated into the Church as a member but he must at least be united to the Church through desire or hope." Furthermore, "it is not always necessary that this hope be explicit as in the case of catechumens. When one is in a state of invincible ignorance, God accepts an implicit desire, thus called because it is implicit in the soul's good disposition, whereby it desires to conform its will to the will of God" (emphases mine). The Holy Office then quotes Pius' Mystici corporis Christi paragraph 103 where the Pope writes, "For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church." Here the Pontiff admits that there is a "certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer" that exists for those righteous persons "in a state of invincible ignorance."
The purpose of this section has not been an attempt to justify the wild and obscene efforts on the part of churchmen and lay people in the name of ecumenism. This is a separate issue. Though some claim it is an issue inherently related to UR, condemning the document because of the abuses is in no way an attempt to confront and deal with the veracity of the document itself. All too often the authors take the role of the lawyer, requiring that ecclesiastical documents resemble legal drafts which must take into account the ways the perverse will twist and distort words.33 The authors claim that "ambiguity" is a symptom of a specific disease in Vatican II. However, they would do well to remember that Fr. Leonard Feeney also took advantage of ambiguities in ecclesiastical documents and many heretics have taken advantage of ambiguities in Scripture to justify what they desired. By the authors' logic we would have to jettison Scripture, because it offers too many loopholes. Questions in interpretation can always be solved by the same Magisterium which drafted the document in the first place.
Quite simply, crises are overcome through the enforcement of truth. Put another way, abuses occur despite and sometimes because of the truthfulness existent in a policy. Argument should revolve around orthodoxy and not around what level of abuse justifies abandoning true but difficult sayings. Argument should revolve around orthodoxy and not orthopraxis. An ancient Latin verse reads: abusus non tolit usus. The abuse does not forbid its use. Objective error justifies rejection. The authors, however, take little to no time in attempting to understand the teachings of Vatican II in the context of truth or error. They only understand precedent, tradition-custom, practice, and interpreting veracity by means of consequent action. They judge according to praxis and not truth.
Is ecumenism, as Vatican II defined it, a novelty? The answer to the question is no, it is not a novelty. Understanding that a novelty is something that jeopardizes the doctrinal integrity of the Church and having seen that UR clearly states that the doctrines of the Church must all be kept and faithfully communicated, we have to conclude that ecumenism as expressed by the Vatican Council is no novelty. The terminology may be new, the policy of "unity in diversity" may be new, the permission granted to common prayer might be new, but it is not new and doctrinally false. No Catholic doctrine is denied or even jeopardized when Vatican II states that the movement for Christian unity is a movement fostered by the Holy Spirit. No Catholic doctrine is denied or jeopardized when it is stated that every Catholic Christian is called to take part — through prayer or action — in the effort to bring about the unity of Christian persons. In fact a very clear doctrine is laid out by Vatican II. This is the duty owed to Christ by every Christian to actualize the desire of our Lord that all might be one. Pius XII himself alludes to this duty, and claims it as a source of "holy joy." To dissent from this doctrine, this teaching, is a grave danger.
Now, the authors are right in understanding that ecumenism is not a dogma of the Church. However, there is a very real and doctrinally weighty reality which the term points to, and points to definitively. This the authors have completely ignored. The desire for the unity of persons, a unity that even Pius XII admitted did not exist at his time, is one planted and cultivated by the Holy Spirit. This is the teaching of Pius XII, Vatican II, and Pope John Paul II and this is a doctrinally binding teaching of the Church regarding faith and morals. This is no dogma, true, but we certainly are required to offer an obsequium, a submission, to the following doctrine: the ecumenical movement — understood as the desire and work to bring about Christian unity under the headship of the Vicar of Christ and without sacrificing doctrine — is initiated and fostered by the Holy Spirit. As such, it is our duty as Catholic Christians, to help bring about this unity of Christian persons, this unity of Christendom. This duty and dedication to bringing about unity is part of the Christian life and can manifest itself through prayer and/or action. This is the teaching of the Church. This is binding doctrine. Rejecting this would be dissenting from a doctrine of Vatican II.
In the next section the Missal of Paul VI will be discussed.
Footnotes
1. "Sedevacant," from the Latin, means literally "vacant seat." We find in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Heresy": "The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church."
2. Unitatis Redintegratio n. 1.
3. Page 79.
4. Newman and Gladstone: The Vatican Decrees (Notre Dame, IN 1962), pages 130-131.
5. n. 2.
6. n. 4.
7. n. 6.
8. n. 7.
9. n. 8.
10. n. 7.
11. Dz 908 as it appears in The Christian Faith compiled and edited by Neuner-Depuis, p. 343.
12. Pages 68-69, 122n., 220.
13. n. 1.
14. n. 2.
15. n. 4.
16. Ibid.
17. n. 11.
18. n. 8.
19. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.
20. n. 4.
21. n. 4.
22. n. 12.
23. See page 285 in Facade footnote number 336.
24. Page 380-381.
25. Pacem in terris "157. The doctrinal principles outlined in this document derive from both nature itself and the natural law. In putting these principles into practice it frequently happens that Catholics in many ways cooperate either with Christians separated from this Apostolic See, or with men of no Christian faith whatever, but who are endowed with reason and adorned with a natural uprightness of conduct. In such relations let the faithful be careful to be always consistent in their actions, so that they may never come to any compromise in matters of religion and morals. At the same time, however, let them be, and show themselves to be, animated by a spirit of understanding and detachment, and disposed to work loyally in the pursuit of objectives which are of their nature good, or conducive to good."
26. Page 198: "And what is meant by 'unity in diversity'? Are we to understand that the restoration of 'full church communion' between the churches would be characterized by a diversity of belief?" The answer is no.
27. It is clear that Cardinal Ratzinger is using common and ancient philosophical language. See also St. Thomas' Summa where in Ia Iiae Q. 9 a. 1 he states, "Now a power of the soul is seen to be in potentiality to different things in two ways: first, with regard to acting and not acting; secondly, with regard to this or that action . . . It needs therefore a mover in two respects, viz. as to the exercise or use of the act, as to the determination of the act. The first of these is on the part of the subject, which is sometimes acting, sometimes not acting: while the other is on the part of the object, by reason of which the act is specified."
28. See page 355.
29. It is fully accepted by the Church that the Baptisms of Protestants are valid. As valid they leave a permanent mark on the soul of the baptized, thus making them ontologically different in their relationship with God. This places them apart from the rest of humanity, and this fact must be recognized with honesty and charity.
30. See the Catholic Encyclopedia article titled "Heresy": "The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension of dogmas: In none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness — free choice — is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material."
31. I.e. with a "wrathful spirit" or "perversely persistent" or "stubbornly unyielding or tenacious."
32. Patrologia Latina XXXIII, ep. Xliii, 160.
33. Page 312: "A lawyer knows that the dangers in a contract from his client's perspective lie not so much in what the terms of the contract provide as in what they permit the other party to do. The danger is in the loopholes."
* * *
A Correction and Clarification on Last Week's Installment Titled Ecumenism
Fr. Brian Harrison contacted The Wanderer recently about a small section in part IV of my series regarding "subsist." I should start off by saying that Fr. Harrison was motivated to write because he found an error in this section.
This section in part IV was an attempt to respond to that part in The Great Facade (pp. 355ff) where the authors claim that the use of the word "subsist" in Dominus Iesus n. 17 and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's words in a German newspaper interview cannot seemingly be reconciled with Pius XII's Humani Generis n. 27, where it is written that "the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing."
In the attempt to explain just how Cardinal Ratzinger's words could be explained, and thus defend the orthodoxy of Dominus Iesus, I erroneously stated that the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church is where the Church of Christ subsisted, thereby suggesting that the Eastern Catholic Rites were somehow lower in stature or rank.
No doubt I am more than a little embarrassed that in my speculation I have unintentionally stated things doctrinally false and further suggested that Pius XII and Vatican II were referring only to the Roman Rite when they refer to the Roman Catholic Church. Likewise, I wish to apologize to any members of the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches who may have been offended by my error.
At the same time, I hope that this does not suggest to the readers that Messrs. Ferrara and Woods are right to attack Dominus Iesus or Cardinal Ratzinger.
The authors ask how can the Church of Christ "subsist" in the Roman Catholic Church and yet also be "present and operative" in the Orthodox Churches which are not in union with Rome. This suggests to them that the Church of Christ, the Mystical Body, is a broader entity than the Roman Catholic Church which would seem to contradict Pius XII. Ferrara and Woods state on page 358: "But if the Church of Christ [A] is identical to the Mystical Body [B], and if Pius XII taught that the Roman Catholic Church [C] is identical to the Mystical Body [B], then the Church of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church must likewise be identical, since if A = B and C = B, the A = C." This would preclude Dominus Iesus from saying that the Church of Christ is "present and operative" in the Orthodox Churches since these Churches are not in communion with the Catholic Church.
In Dominus Iesus we read, "Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him [cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, 1: AAS 65 (1973), 396-398]. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches [cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, nn. 14 and 15; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter Communionis notio, 17: AAS 85 (1993), 848]. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church [cf. First Vatican Council, Constitution Pastor aeternus: DS 3053-3064; Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 22]."
The Orthodox Churches remain true and particular Churches because they "maintain apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist." Assuming the authors of The Great Facade do not deny this, then it should be clear how it is that the Church of Christ is "present and operative" in these Orthodox Churches. Wherever Christ is, there is His Church and His Body. With a valid Eucharist it can quite literally be said that the Mystical Body of Christ resides in Orthodox Churches. Thus Christ's Church, His Body, is "present and operative" in these Churches. Of course this Mystical Body is marred. Dominus Iesus is clear that the Orthodox Churches lack full communion with the Catholic Church.
Pius XII states in Mystici Corporis n. 41 that: "They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible Head of the Church, broken the visible bonds of unity, and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it." One should note that the Holy Father states that Churches like the Orthodox Churches have "broken the visible bonds of unity." Clearly, if the Orthodox Churches have valid orders and a valid Eucharist, then some of the spiritual bonds are present. This being the case, it is certainly orthodox to state that the Church of Christ subsists in the Roman Catholic Church "whereas," as Cardinal Ratzinger states in his condemnation of Leonardo Boff, "outsider her visible structure only 'elemetae ecclesia' — elements of the Church exists: these being elements of the same Church tend and conduct toward the Catholic Church (Lumen Gentium, n. 8). The Decree on Ecumenism expressed the same doctrine (Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 3, 4) and it was restated in Mysterium Ecclesiae." I hope that Messrs. Ferrara and Woods would not dissent from this doctrine.
— Omar F.A. Gutierrez
© Wanderer Printing Co.
This item 6331 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
