Douglas,
you should possibly read the document by the Congregatione
Fidei which the Pope, as it says, by "auctoritate Sua apostolica ratam
habuit, confirmavit et publici iuris fieri iussit." - i.e. did not
'pronounce' - the two are radically different! And why is it disturbing?
Reading about it in a press which wears its ignorance of nigh on everything
on its sleeve is not going to be conducive to even remote knowledge ( and I
don't know many journalists au fait with ecclesiology etc.) The document,
actually, comes out as a rejoinder to the statement expressed in Nostra
Aetate during Vat.2 regarding other religions: "Ecclesia catholica nihil
eorum, quae in his religionibus vera et sancta sunt, reicit. Sincera cum
observantia considerat illos modos agendi et vivendi, illa praecepta et
doctrinas, quae, quamvis ab iis quae ipsa tenet et proponit in multis
discrepent, haud raro referunt tamen radium illius Veritatis, quae illuminat
omnes homines", simply reasserting 'quod ubique etc.', i.e.: "plenitudine
et indole definitiva revelationis Iesu Christi" - which is simply keeping it
real. As to what I imagine to be y'r principle: that the church claims to be
the only true Xian Church, this is gone over in Section IV: "De Ecclesiae
unicitate et unitate" as follows: " Unica ergo est Christi Ecclesia,
subsistens in Ecclesia Catholica, cuius moderatio spectat ad Petri
Successorem et ad Episcopos in communione cum eo. Ecclesiae illae quae,
licet in perfecta communione cum Ecclesia Catholica non sint, eidem tamen
iunguntur vinculis strictissimis, cuiusmodi sunt successio apostolica et
valida Eucharistiae celebratio, verae sunt Ecclesiae particulares.
Quapropter in his quoque Ecclesiis praesens est et operatur Christi
Ecclesia, quantumvis plena desit communio cum Ecclesia Catholica, eo quod
ipsae doctrinam catholicam non acceptant de Primatu, quem, ex Dei consilio,
Episcopus Romanus obiective possidet et in Ecclesiam universam exercet.
Illae vero Communitates ecclesiales, quae validum Episcopatum et genuinam ac
integram substantiam eucharistici mysterii non servant, sensu proprio
Ecclesiae non sunt; attamen qui baptizati sunt iis in Communitatibus
Baptismate Christo incorporantur, et ideo in quadam cum Ecclesia communione,
licet imperfecta, exstant. Per se enim Baptismus tendit ad perfectionem
vitae in Christo per integram fidei professionem, Eucharistiam et plenam
communionem in Ecclesia." i.e. a much more complex position than it prima
facie appears, in, ultimately, deriving itself from Nicea (324) " unam,
sanctam, catholicam ecclesiam' and the symbol of Lumen Gentium (Vat.2): that
the Church is "sacramentum seu signum et instrumentum intimae cum Deo
unionis totiusque generis humani unitatis."
Given the former, the Church is only arguing that if 'Church' has
any meaning above gathering or congregation it ought to mean and signify
that Church which developed over time and reflected upon itself. For myself,
its statements as far as they concern the various Protestantisms are to the
point and valid; my only query is how it may, or may not, apply to
Orthodoxy - but there are other statements regarding this that the
Congregatione Fidei have came out with over the last few years. For myself,
if one gives any meaning to Nicea's 'unam, sanctam', the statement of
'Domini Iesus' is almost hackneyed in its validity. If, however, one
questions Nicea ( as Calvinists, say, ought to) then the supposed criticism
of Domini Iesus is neither here nor there, as, when the document talks of
'Church', it implicity refers to the 'visible' Church of history, which
Calvinists, believing only in the invisible Church of the elect, don't
believe in anyhow - so it hardly constitutes a stinging criticism...
Anyhow, you may not agree with it - I may not agree with every article of it
( and no-one thinks I ought to) - but read the thing!
Colin G. Hughes
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|