It
is not possible to separate
the people of God from the
Body of Christ, as though
one could belong to the people
of God [through baptism] while
not (fully) belonging to the
Body of Christ. But this seems
to be the sense of UR §4,
when it speaks of “separated
brethren” [“joined to the
Church by baptism, yet separated
from full communion with her...”].
This would mean that non-Catholics
belong in some way to the
people of God and yet are
still awaiting full incorporation
in the Church of Christ. But
the people of God and the
Church of Christ have the
same extension. Who belongs
to the people of God is also
part of the Body of Christ
[the separation of non-Catholics
from “full communion” thus
appears to contradict the
conception of the Church as
the “people of God”]. One
should recall that UR§3
does not maintain that
baptism makes non-Catholics
part of the Body of Christ,
as the German translation
has it, but that they are
rather “incorporated into
Christ.” It is difficult to
understand how all these declarations
can be reconciled with one
another (p. 11).
UR§3
Affirms a Falsehood
The
statements contained in LG §15 and
UR §19 that non-Catholic religious
communities are to be considered as "Churches
and ecclesial communities" is "inappropriate
and deceptive" (p. 11). Father writes:
A
religious community that lives from Christian
elements [cf. LG §8] does not thus
become “Church,” although the Council ascribes
this name to it. There is but one Catholic
Church.... Expressions such as “Churches
and ecclesial communities” must be corrected.
Unfortunately this manner of speaking has
become established... (pp. 11-12).
The
Council sowed confusion everywhere. On some
points, however, it speaks with clarity. In
UR §3 it is affirmed that “the means
of salvation” in non-Catholic religious communities
receive their efficacy “from the very fullness
of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic
Church” (p. 12). This is a traditional formulation
that was well-expressed already by St. Augustine.
Baptism validly administered by a heretic
is efficacious because it is that of the Church,
administered “according to the intentions
of the Church,” not because it has been performed
by a heretic. It thus is valid notwithstanding
the fact that it has been performed by
a heretic. It is valid because of the Grace
of Truth that the Holy Ghost accords the Catholic
Church and to her alone. But this incendiary
particle of orthodox doctrine is isolated,
in UR §3, in a passage that maintains
that the separated “Churches,” notwithstanding
their “defects,” are used as such by
the Holy Ghost as “means of salvation.” The
text is unambiguous.4
Fr. May does not mince his words:
But
the Council then says of these “Churches and
communities” that the “Spirit of Christ has
not refrained from using them as means of
salvation” (UR §3). This statement
is certainly false. Determined to revalorize
non-Catholic religious communities, the Council
fell into a grave [doctrinal] error. Non-Catholic
communities, as confessions and institutions,
cannot in and of themselves be means of salvation
in any way. The individual Christian may indeed
be saved in a separated community, but not
through it [i.e., thanks to
belonging to it and thus by its merit]. The
Holy Ghost works in individual persons, not
in separated Christian communities as such,
which do not procure salvation for their members.
(Emphasis added, pp. 12-13)
The
New Definition of the Church
An
analysis of the connection between the Council
and ecumenism must consider the importance
for the latter of the new definition of the
Church that appeared with Vatican II. The
Church is defined as the “people of God,”
in which the Church of Christ “subsists.”
Fr. May addresses this question. He recalls
how previous popes always maintained the traditional
teaching: the Catholic Church is the
Body of Christ: only the Catholic Church is
the Mystical Body of Christ. Pope John Paul
II himself, in his encyclical Novo Millennia
Ineunte, recalled that the Catholic Church
is the one and only Church of Christ (p. 129).
Nonetheless, May shows how confusion was introduced
at Vatican II, a confusion that subsequent
declarations of the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith have failed to eliminate (p.
130). From recent declarations, the following
premises can be established, says Fr. May,
but together they render one confused:
1)
The invisible Church is realized in the
visible Church, which is the Catholic Church.
2)
The Church of Christ is unique: “Vatican II
does not admit a plurality of ‘Churches.’”
3)
The Church is the universal communion of particular
churches, in which are also included "non-Catholic
Christian communities which have maintained
apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist."
But this inclusion on one side of "separated
brethren" in "particular Churches,"
the author argues,
is
unfortunate and a source of confusion, since
Catholic particular churches and non-Catholic
particular churches are different from one
another by nature. It is hazardous to think
of including these latter under the rubric
of particular churches, since they refuse
to obey the successor of Peter, not to mention
many other differences in belief. The idea
that the Church of Christ is an ensemble
of churches and ecclesial communities is
false. (Emphasis added, pp.130-131)
4)
The notion of “sister churches”
applies only to individual churches that are
within the Catholic Church, their mother (p.
131).
5)
The Catholic Church was endowed
with all the truth revealed by God and by
all the means of grace (UR §4); there
is no ecclesial reality outside of her the
absence of which she perceives as a deficiency.
6)
We now come to the question
of “subsistit in.” The identification
of the Body of Christ with the Catholic Church
found in Humani Generis was not reaffirmed
by the Council. In place of “est” the
Council placed the “subsistit” of LG
§8 which states that the Church of Christ
"subsists in the Catholic Church, governed
by the successor of Peter and the bishops
in communion with him." The choice of
the word “subsistit,” Fr. May says,
has
been a manifest disaster. In the last decades
this term has been used indiscriminately
and has provoked a noteworthy chaos: it
would be better not to use it.5Whatever
the sense that has been imputed to it, one
thing is certain: it doubtless weakens the
unity of the Catholic Church with the mystical
Body of Christ. If it did not have this
function, its use would be altogether superfluous.
For Protestants it represents a “spontaneous
relativization” of the Catholic Church.
A Protestant writer understands it as “a
break in the theological ranks of the Catholic
pretense to being the unique Church of Christ.”
The Anglicans also have seen in this language
a point of rupture, (pp. 131-132)
How
do things stand now? Fr. May cites Cardinal
Ratzinger who “has attempted several times
to interpret the fatal language in such a
way as to render it innocuous” (p. 132). In
1985, the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith specified that
the
Council chose the word “subsistit”
precisely in order to clarify that there
is but one “subsistence” of the true Church,
while outside its visible structure only
“ecclesial elements” exist that, being elements
of the Church herself, tend to lead to the
Catholic Church (LG §8)” (AAS, 71
[1985], pp.785-789).
Fr.
May comments: “This interpretation is surely
correct. If the one Church of Christ (merely)
subsists in the Catholic Church, it is also
excluded that she also subsists in other ‘Churches’”
(p. 132). Is then the phrase “a single subsistence
of the true Church” equivalent to the
“is” always professed by the Magisterium
in the past? Apparently. We say apparently
because the text does not expressly say that
this "subsistence" is that, and
only that, of the Catholic Church. It would
seem to imply that conclusion in a manner
that [is] tortuous, not to say obscure.6
The Father observes that,
all
the same, Ratzinger has not maintained a
univocal interpretation. In the declaration
Dominus lesus he interprets the “subsist”
as though it meant that the Church of
Christ “subsists fully only in the Church
of Christ” (DI§16). This type of
expression is at the least unfortunate.
If the Church of Christ maintains itself
"fully" only in the Catholic Church,
that authorizes us to conclude that it may
also exist in another manner, albeit not
“fully.” (pp. 132-133)
The
notion of the full existence of the
Church of Christ in the Catholic Church is
a notion which, though seeming to confirm
Catholic doctrine, denies it because it implicitly
admits the "not full" or "less
full" existence of the Church of Christ
outside the Catholic Church. This false notion
can already be found in the texts of the Council
in its notorious articles on ecumenism. In
UR §3 we read that “means of salvation
which derive their efficacy from the very
fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the
Catholic Church,” it is clearly stated that
“separated” Churches and communities are also
“means of salvation” although without possessing
the “fullness” of the Catholic Church. Furthermore,
“it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone,
which is the universal help towards salvation,
that the fullness of the means of salvation
be obtained,” meaning only the “fullness”
and not the unique means of salvation, which
are understood to be found also elsewhere
(albeit less fully) amongst those who are
in a less full communion with the Catholic
Church. In UR §4,
the
divisions among Christians prevent the Church
from realizing the fullness
of catholicity proper to her in those
of her sons who, though joined to her by
baptism, are yet separated from full
communion with her. Furthermore the
Church herself finds it more difficult to
express in actual life her full
catholicity in all its aspects.
(Emphasis added)
These
two texts of the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith are mutually contradictory. If
by force of will we make the declaration of
1985 to mean that the "subsistence"
of the true Church is only that of the Catholic
Church, Dominus lesus, a more recent
document, maintains that such subsistence
is “full” only in the Catholic Church [i.e.,
“full” but not “unique"-Ed.].
While the concept of uniqueness presupposes
the absolute lack of the named "subsistence"
among non-Catholics, that of the “fullness”
of such subsistence implies the existence
of a less full or imperfect subsistence
among non-Catholics, given that they suffer
from "defects." Today's political
correctness describes these heretical and
schismatic sects as being in a visible, imperfect
communion with the Church. The Council did
not teach this directly, but indirectly. Doubt
remains. May concludes:
Outside
of the Catholic Church there are many elements
of sanctification and of truth, that are
the true gift of the Church of Christ. But
also in this manner of speaking one observes
a revaluation of the fragments of the Church
found in non-Catholic confessions. Before
the Council it was possible to speak of
the vestigia Ecclesiae, the vestiges
of the Church. The word “vestiges” expresses
a very tenuous relation with the reality
in question. Such vestiges may intimate
or even evoke the Church, but they are not
constitutive elements of the Church. In
speaking of elementa ecclesiae Christi,
however, the Council suggested a stronger
connection. The expression "elements"
of the Church suggests as it were constitutive
parts of the Church to which they belong,
which however find themselves torn from
their context." (p. 133)
The
Church According to Non-Catholics
Picture
Fr.
May sketches the conception of the Church
held by Orthodox and Protestants. This outline
helps the reader understand the absurdity
of the current ecumenical dialogue.
The
Orthodox
The
Orthodox see the Church above all in its mystical
and charismatic aspects. >From the point of
view of the Church as an institution, they
are divided into separate “national churches”
under their own direction [called “autocephaly”-Ed.].
The strict connection with the national, popular,
and state-directed elements impedes the growth
of the Church, promotes the subjection of
the Church to the State, and favors "instrumentalizing"
of the Church. Orthodoxy is the totality of
the independent, autocephalous "churches."
The patriarchate of Constantinople does not
possess any jurisdiction over the many Orthodox
communities. What unites the Orthodox is their
hostility towards “Rome.” The Orthodox do
not have a hierarchy like the Catholic one,
even apart from the pope. They deny that Christ
could have a universal vicar for the whole
Church. From them there is no primacy by divine
right.
Protestants
For
Protestants, the Catholic doctrine of the
Church is “altogether irrelevant” (p. 133).
Beyond their own internal divisions, they
all share the following doctrine: “One must
distinguish the visible from the invisible
Church.” The Church is, in its hidden essence,
invisible. It consists only of true believers
and is known only to God. Through the preaching
of the Word of God and the administration
of the sacraments, it becomes the visible
and empirical Church. The Church of Christ
exists in the historical “Churches.” The Church
is where the Word of God is properly preached
and the sacraments are correctly ministered.
That is enough for the Church to exist. The
priesthood (in the Catholic sense) is not
essential for the Church. The only authority
in the Church is the Word of God (contained
in Scripture). There is no episcopal succession
as a constitutive element of the Church. Protestants
consider their religious communities to be
Churches in the fullest sense. They define
themselves as “evangelical Churches.” The
individual Churches that now exist are only
individual Churches that make up a part of
the Church of Christ. The latter does not
identify herself with any particular Church.
All participating “Churches” have a share
in the one Church of Christ. They claim to
recognize the equal value of the Christian
“sister Churches.”
For
the Protestants, the Catholic Church is an
ecclesiastical organization like any other.
Since for them it is enough to have the Word
and the sacraments for the Church to exist,
the structure and constitution of the Catholic
Church seem irrelevant to them and even contrary
to the faith. The Protestant communities consider
that they are in competition with the Catholic
Church.
The
Catholic ecumenists try to give top billing
to Protestant religious communities as “Church
entities.” Cardinal Kasper describes them
as “a new type of Church.” He rejects the
view that they are not, strictly speaking,
“Churches.” For him the Protestant communities
are not Churches in the Catholic sense, but
they are in another sense. (pp.134-136)
For
Protestants, the hierarchical structure of
the priestly ministry is only a contingent
historical construction. For them, no hierarchy
of divine right can exist in the Church. Their
ministers are only preachers of the Word and
dispensers of the sacraments. They are elected
by their communities. From the Protestant
perspective, the service of preaching the
Word and of administering the sacraments are
of divine right (as ordained by Our Lord in
Scripture), but are not sacramental ministries.
Protestants recognize neither the sacrament
nor authority of orders by which only clergy
can perform certain actions, nor a power of
jurisdiction, capable of imposing obedience
and discipline. The power exercised by the
Protestant ministry is conferred and revoked
by the community. Protestantism does not recognize
any ecclesiastical authority which can pronounce
on the faith in an infallible manner (p. 137).
The
conception of the Church here is open and
democratic, built from the bottom up. The
Church is reduced to a community of laymen,
lacking priests, authority, altars, sacrifice,
or any transcendental foundation. By abolishing
the priestly ministry, rejecting the centuries-old
Tradition of the Church, declaring that every
baptized person is a priest and capable of
understanding Scripture by the private revelation
of the Holy Spirit, Luther opened the path
to religious anarchy.
Today
religious anarchy has also infected Catholics,
thanks to the religious “pluralism” championed
by ecumenism. Pluralism entails the loss of
the teaching of a single revealed Truth and
leads to the adoption of a conception of the
Church rather similar to that of the Protestants.
It is the ruin of Catholicism:
Today
a false conception of Christianity and of
the Church of Christ is being diffused among
Catholics. It consists in this: there is
one invisible Church, in which all Christian
communities participate. Christianity is
divided in many "Churches." Each
one of them has a portion of the truth.
All together they form the Church of Christ.
The unity of the Church thus need not be
re-established, because it already exists.
Since there is no visible unity of doctrine,
cult, or teaching in the Church, the only
real unity must be invisible. Many ecumenist
Catholics advance these false ideas and
even distinguish between the “Church of
the pope” and the Church of Christ. In the
former are found only Catholics, in the
latter all the baptized. The Catholic Church
has been debased to the point of being one
Church among many. While the Curia may explain
the authentic sense of subsistit in as
they like, the ecumenists control the discourse.
Unperturbed, they continue to maintain the
coexistence of many “Churches” as legitimate,
these Churches together constituting all
together the “Church of Christ.” Cardinal
Walter Kasper himself sees a difference
between the Catholic Church and the Church
of Jesus Christ. Such a concept is unacceptable
for a Catholic who has the faith. The Catholic
Church cannot be placed on the same level
as other religious communities. It is impossible
to unite the Catholic Church and the other
Christian confessions as parts of a sort
of Superchurch. (pp. 137-138)
Primary
blame for the deviations among the faithful
belongs to the hierarchy who in their conception
of the "Church communion" include
individual “Churches” of even non-Catholic
Christian communities who have material apostolic
succession and a valid Eucharist. This is
the illegitimate extension Cardinal Kasper
is attempting to enlarge so to include the
Protestants. That is why he is questioning
if Anglican orders may be indeed valid. This
is trying to form a “Superchurch” that unites
not only the other Christian confessions but
also, prospectively, all religions and, in
fact, all humanity.
False
Ideas of “Unity”
Vatican
II spread the notion that all Christians are
nostalgic for unity. This is incorrect, partly
because the different confessions understand
unity in completely different ways in accord
with their idea of “Church.”
Fr.
May outlines the different conceptions beginning
with the Catholic idea of “unity” expressed
by several pontifical documents including
some of Pope John Paul II. Unity, for the
Catholic Church, is the full and visible unity
of believers under Peter. For the Catholic,
unity cannot be separated from the truth of
the Faith-it is the visible unity of the truth
of the teaching of the Church as maintained
over centuries in its entirety, not limited
to ecumenical councils. No dogma is less important
than another, in the sense that it could be
questioned in discussion with heretics.
Protestants
do not speak of the “unity” of the Church
but rather of “communion of Churches.” This
is significant. Protestant religious communities
do not look for visible and institutional
unity of the “Churches,” because for them
the communion of Churches does not signify
the fusion of Churches, but rather their reciprocal
recognition as a true expression of the one
Church of Christ. This is so because the unity
of the Church is for them invisible.
It already exists through the work of
God whence the one Church of Christ is constituted
by all the Churches that profess themselves
to be Christian. For them, “we are already
united in Christ.” What is lacking is merely
“agreement in the ecclesial image of this
unity.” This means that, for them, unity
exists only if “Churches of different
confessions” reciprocally guarantee their
“communion in the Word and in the sacraments,”
that is to say, their peaceful reciprocal
coexistence. Unity in the Protestant sense
is nothing more than “a friendly commerce
of confessions that remain separate.” So-called
“unity in diversity” -the fixation of contemporary
ecumenism-is a Protestant concept.
From
this perspective it is not possible to reach
a univocal understanding of the Gospel. It
is enough to find consensus on certain fundamental
questions. The “ecclesial communion,” understood
in this way, implies “communion of the pulpit
and the Last Supper, reciprocal recognition
of ordinations, and the possibility of interconfessional
celebrations.” This means that, for the Protestants,
it is possible to stand together without confronting
the problems posed by the truth of the faith,
holding separately to contradictions and errors.
Protestantism
does not aspire to unity with the Catholic
Church, but to this universal “communion of
Churches.” It desires that, within the “communion
of Churches,” the Protestant Churches should
be recognized by the Catholic Church as they
are. The Catholic Church should recognize
the validity of their “ordinations” as guaranteeing
the “communion of the Word and of the sacraments”
as realized for them through various interconfessional
rites. The Protestants want to be recognized
as a plurality of “Churches” perfectly equal
in dignity to the Catholic Church.
Professor
May's presentation shows how the “ecclesiology
of communion” pursued in the “dialogue”
of the contemporary Catholic hierarchy itself
manifests the ecclesiology of the heretics.
For
the Orthodox, the “communion of Churches”
and the unity of Christians is of little interest
since they consider themselves to represent
the one true Church of Christ. For them the
Church of Rome is heretical. To have
dealings with Catholics is therefore a sin
(Canon 45 of the Canons of the Holy Apostles).
Their only concern is to maintain themselves
and to expand, all the better if at the expense
of Catholics.
The
national-popular principle of Orthodoxy does
not constitute a unity but a collection of
national "Churches" that identify
themselves with the
people and identify the people as
the Church and conferring on
them the duty of defending Orthodoxy against
foreigners. Catholics and Protestants are
enemies of the homeland and of national unity.
The Orthodox "Church" relies on
the State to be maintained, beginning with
the "canonical territory" it considers
subject to its competence and jurisdiction.
For the patriarchate of Moscow this "territory"
coincides with the entire extension of the
former Soviet Union. In this territory other
"religious communities" have no
right to exist. For this reason the Orthodox
tenaciously oppose every effort of the Catholic
Church to re-establish work in Russia (Chap.
3, “Orthodox and Uniates,” pp.117-119).
Pope
John Paul II has abandoned the Uniates to
themselves and officially renounced "proselytism."
He has sacrificed missionary action to ecumenism.
The result has been the spread of Protestantism
in Russia, not Catholicism (p. 118). The Orthodox
do everything possible to close opportunities
to Catholicism and undertake proselytism against
Catholics (p. 119).
In
this connection let us recall that Pope John
Paul II has given a church in Rome to the
Greeks and another to the Bulgarians for the
celebration of their schismatic liturgy, infected
by heretical teachings on the Filioque
and consecration by epidesis. He
also offered a church to the Russians, who
refused it to begin construction of the "greatest
Orthodox cathedral in the West" in the
shadow of St. Peter's. Russia is not converting
to Catholicism, but Rome is being invaded
by the forces of schism and heresy. This is
another demonstration that the Pope has not
performed the consecration of Russia to the
Immaculate Heart of Mary. (To
be continued and concluded in a second part.)
Speculator
Translated
exclusively for Angelus Press from SiSiNoNo
(Italian ed., Nov. 15, 2004); abridged
and edited by Miss Anne Stinnett and Fr.
Kenneth Novak. Part 2 of this book review
will be published in the April 2005 installment
of the Angelus Press edition of SiSiNoNo.
An essay authored by Fr. George (Georg)
May, "The Disposition of Law in Case
of Necessity Within the Church" was
published in Is Tradition Excommunicated?
(available from Angelus Press. Price:
$9.95).
1.
George May, Die Krise der Kirche ist eine
Krise der Bischofe (Kardinal Seper) (Cologne:
Una Voce-Korrespondenz, 1987).
2.
George May, Die Okumenismusfalle (Stuttgart:
Sarto Verlag, 2004).
3.
May, Die Krise, p.13. See also p.10
of the same work: “The Council promulgated
the marching orders, which set the post-conciliar
movement in motion. The post-conciliar catastrophe
was made possible by the Council itself."
4.
For the sake of clarity we quote the entire
phrase: “It follows that the separated
Churches and communities as such, though
we believe they suffer from the defects already
mentioned, have by no means been deprived
of significance and importance in the mystery
of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has
not refrained from using them as means of
salvation which derive their efficacy
from the very fullness of grace and
truth entrusted to the Catholic Church"
(UR §3, emphasis added).
5.
It seems that the subsistit in was
inserted in the text of Lumen Gentium on
the suggestion of the Protestants, as shown
in the article "The Protestant Origin
of the ‘Subsistit in’ of Article 8
of Lumen Gentium" SlSlNoNo, May
15, 2001, No.9, p.5.
6.
On the obscurity of this “clarification” promulgated
by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith, cf. Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., "”Sussiste’
la Chiesa di Cristo nella Chiesa cattolica
romana?” in Vaticano II. Bilancio e prospettive,
venticinque anni dopo, ed. R. Latourelle
(Assisi: Cittadella, 1987), 2, pp.812-824.
“I must confess that I am not sure how one
should understand the phrase ‘only one subsistence
of the true Church exists.’ In fact, the notion
of the 'existence of a subsistence' is not
only a
cumbersome formulation, but apparently a tautological
one, because the existence of that which subsists
is nothing different from mere subsistence,
whatever the manner by which the subsistence
is actuated" (p.820).
