The subsisting Church
In Lumen gentium #8, the Second Vatican Council says that the Church of Christ “subsists in” the Roman Catholic Church. All previous drafts of this statement had said flatly that Christ’s Church is the Roman Catholic Church. The significance of the change of verbs has been controversial ever since it was made. It has this last week been the subject of a statement of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Here are some notes that I compiled some time ago for the use of my students.
When the Council’s Doctrinal Commission brought the final version of the Constitution on the Church to the Council Fathers in 1964, it explained that among the purposes of paragraph 8 was “to show that the Church, whose intimate and mysterious nature which forever unites it with Christ and his work has been described [in ch. 1], here on earth is concretely found [concrete invenitur] in the Catholic Church. While this empirical Church reveals the mystery, it does not do so without shadows until it is brought to full light, just as Christ the Lord came to his glory by emptying himself. Thus is avoided the impression that the description of the Church which the Council presents is merely idealistic and unreal.” The chapter would show, the Commission went on, that “the mystery of the Church is present [adest] and is manifested in a concrete society” and that “the Church is one, and here on earth is present [adest] in the Catholic Church, although ecclesial elements are found outside it.”
When the Doctrinal Commission came to the text in which the word “is” [est] is replaced by the words “subsists in” [subsistit in], it explained the change in this way: “Some words are changed: in place of “is” the text says “subsists in” so that the expression may better accord with the affirmation about ecclesial elements which are present [adsunt] elsewhere.” This alteration did not please all the bishops and experts (for example, Maximos IV and Yves Congar were opposed to it), some of whom proposed amendments. Some wanted to strengthen the statement, others to weaken it, and so the Doctrinal Commission decided to stay with the change of verb.
The first rule of conciliar hermeneutics should be to follow the indications of the official explanation provided by the Doctrinal Commission. To interpret the meaning of “subsists in,” then, we should look to the Council’s statements about the “ecclesial elements” that are found outside the Catholic Church. There are several texts in which the Council describes these.
The first is in LG 8 itself: “several elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible structure.” This general statement is clarified and explained in three other passages.
LG 14 speaks about what constitutes “full incorporation” into the society of the Church, a phrase which the Council prefers to the language of “membership.”
Those persons are fully incorporated into the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church along with its entire organization and who, by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion, are joined in the visible structure of the Church to Christ, who rules it through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops.
Now, if full incorporation gives some clue as to what the constitutive elements of the Church are, we can list the following:
the Spirit of Christ – the means of salvation
organization – profession of faith
sacraments – ecclesiastical government
communion – the visible structure
Lesser degrees of communion are described in LG 15, where the Council is speaking about the links between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic Christian individuals. Here can be found another list of elements:
Sacred Scripture – religious zeal
loving faith in God & Christ – baptism
union with Christ – other sacraments
the episcopate – the Eucharist
devotion to Mary – prayer & spiritual blessings
true union in the H. Spirit – the Spirit’s gifts & graces
the Spirit’s sanctifying power
Perhaps the strongest statement is found, however, in UR 3, where the Council discusses the relationship between the Catholic Church and other Christian communities:
>>Some, even very many, of the most significant elements and endowments that together go to build up and to give life to the Church itself can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God, the life of grace, faith, hope, and charity, with other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.
>>Not a few of the sacred actions of the Christian religion are also carried out among the brethren separated from us, actions which in various ways according to the different conditions of each Church or Community, without a doubt can really generate the life of Christ and must be said to be able to open the way to the communion of salvation.
For that reason these separated Churches and Communities, even if we believe that they suffer from defects, are by no means deprived of meaning and weight in the mystery of salvation. For Christ does not refuse to use them as means of salvation whose power derives from that fullness of grace and truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.
<<
Having described in such strong terms what is present in these other communities, the Council then makes its statement about what it believes to be unique about the Roman Catholic Church:
>> But the brethren separated from us, whether as individuals or as Communities and Churches, do not enjoy that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those whom he has regenerated and vivified together into one body and into a new life, that unity which the Sacred Scriptures and the Church’s ancient Tradition profess. For it is through the Catholic Christ of Christ alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be attained. It was to the apostolic College alone, with Peter as its head, that we believe that the Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant in order to establish on earth one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who in any way belong to the People of God. This people, during its earthly pilgrimage, although in its members still liable to sin, grows in Christ and is being gently guided in accord with God’s mysterious counsels until it comes joyfully to the entire fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.<<
I think this passage provides the best explanation of what is the unique claim that the Roman Catholic Church makes about itself and, thereby, I believe, sets out what “subsists in” means in LG 8: the Catholic Church alone possesses “the fullness of the means of salvation.” It is not a claim that it alone possesses the truth and grace of Christ; it is not a claim that it is holier than other Churches or communities. It is a claim about the “means of salvation,’ that is, institutions, ordinances, etc. with which God has blessed the Church for the sake of the salvation of its members. If these can be set out in terms of the ancient pillars of the Catholic form of the Church, they would include: the rule of apostolic faith (the Creed); the canon of apostolic Scriptures; the form of apostolic worship (sacraments); and the structure of apostolic ministry. To take some examples: Catholic believe that the canon of the Scriptures includes texts that Protestants do not receive, that there are seven sacraments willed by Christ, that the normative ministry includes that of the Bishop of Rome as minister of catholic unity. The Catholic Church regards these as divinely willed elements of the Church, and since no other Christian Church or community has them all, it says that the fullness of these means of salvation is found in the Catholic Church alone.
Perhaps one way of putting this is to say that the Council, in saying that the Church as an instrument of salvation is found in its fullness only in the Catholic Church, is not denying, in fact, it clearly says, that the spiritual reality that is the Church as the effect of God’s saving grace can be found not only in non-Catholic Christians but also in non-Catholic Christian Churches and communities. I think the CDF could have explained this much more effectively than it did.
Thanks, Fr. Komonchak. With your expertise on Vatican II, I was hoping you’d weigh in on this issue.
But I have a question, if you don’t mind. Do the “brethren separated from us” in your analysis include non-Christians–Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and the like? Or, put another way, is there still room for a “Church Invisible” in Lumen gentium and in the eyes of the CDF?
Any comments or recommended reading you have will be greatly appreciated. (The issue recently came up in my parish, in the context of a lay CCD teacher informing her class that children with non-Christian parents should try to convince those parents to convert “before it is too late.”)
Wonderfully done, Fr. Joe.
You wrote that the first principle of conciliar hermeneutics should be to “indications of the official explanation provided by the Doctrinal Commission.” I’m curious how much of the explanatory material from the Doctrinal Commission exists in English translation. As you might have guessed, I would have a keen interest in laying my hands on the DC material related to Sacrosanctum Concilium. Any ideas?
Thanks,
Peter
Mr. Collier:
In context, the “brethren separated from us” refers to other Christians, not to non-Christians or their religions. You’d have to look elsewhere in the texts of Vatican II to address that issue.
Peter: I don’t know of any English translations of the notes and commentaries of the Doctrinal Commission. Detailed commentaries on SC might quote some of them.
I appreciate your response, Fr. Komonchak.
In the discussions that followed the parish incident I described above, which as one might imagine has caused something of a furor and which is not yet over, I cited the following two passages from Vatican II documents, but, unfortunately, the mere mention of Vatican II doesn’t sit well with some.
Lumen gentium, paragraph 16 (excerpt)
“Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.”
Nostra aetate, paragraph 2 (excerpt)
“[O]ther religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing ‘ways,’ comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.”
Those are appropriate texts to cite. You could also add Gaudium et spes, #22 which says that “since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation for man is one and divine, we must believe that the Holy Spirit, in a manner known only to God, offers to every human being the possibility of being associated with the paschal mystery.”
Fr. Komonchak,
Excellent exposition.
I was with you entirely until you said that having the fullness of the means of salvation does not mean that the Catholic Church is holier than other Churches and communities.
That depends partly on what one means by holiness, I suppose (certainly it cannot only mean “free from moral failure”). In any case, to say that one among the Churches has the fullness of the means of salvation is more than a numerical statement. There is something about having this mysterious “fullness” that somehow locates all the means–including those enjoyed by non-Catholic Christians–in the Catholic Church, which acts as a well or conduit or at least a universal steward of these means.
It seems to me that being the privileged location of the means of salvation is a mark of the holiness of the Catholic Church.
I’ll stick with the Vatican II texts cited above.
Thanks for sharing!
Kathy:
You’re right: to possess the fullness of the means of salvation is a unique gift from the Holy One. I was thinking more of the holiness of the Church’s members in response to this holy gift, which the Council did not claim is greater within the RC Church.
Thank you for that wonderful post Joe., and for the wonderful comments by Bill Collier. I think also timing is everything. In 1964 when Vatican II published Lumen Gentium etc. , because of what had existed previously, this was seen as an opening for dialogue and was not in any sense seen as denegrating to other faiths. Today, some 44 odd years later and with the clamping down on eccumenism, ths is seen as a faith with a superiority complex and very denegrating to other faith with which diologue had taken place. I think the Pope is very fearful of losing uniqueness of “Catholicity” and between ex cordis ecclessiae, move toward the latin Mass, and this he is trying to reinstitute the superiority of Catholicity and is very fearful of too much contact with other faiths. I guess he thinks this is the way to refill the pews.
Thank you, Fr. Komonchak. I agree.
Amen to all the kudos. This is Joe K at his teaching best. His voice is so necessary in the church where lack of reason and charity foster exclusiveness at the cost of unity and love.
Collier’s remarks tell us how some narrow voices are trying to set back the church.
Why does nobody mention the most positive statement in the document (and in John Paul II’s Ut Unum Sint), that the Church of Christ is PRESENT AND OPERATIVE in all the Christian churches and ecclesial communities? See my comments at http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/07/new-vatican-doc.html
I note that neocath bloggers systematically elide ALL positive references to the other Churches. I agree that the CDF has done a bad job of communication, probably because they think the arcane Dubia et Responsa format beloved of the old Holy Office is the very best way of communicating objective truth to the modern world!
There is a commentary on the recent document on the Vatican’s website, I am told. If the commentary is needed, why was it not issued as part of the document itself?
I am also disappointed at the Protestant responses — they seem to rely on media presentations of the document instead of reading it attentively to its positive emphases.
Andrew wrote,
“(The Pope) is trying to reinstitute the superiority of Catholicity and is very fearful of too much contact with other faiths”
The Holy Father who visited Constantinople and toured a mosque is afraid of contact with other faiths? Are you aware of his many ecumenical activities?
If “superiority” is understood to relate to Christ and through Him to His Church then all of us who follow Vatican II must agree with UR # 3 that that Catholicism is superior to other religions in that she alone has the fullness of the means of salvation and the benefit of the Roman primacy. If superior means “better” because people there can “benefit fully” from the “means of salvation” and if we really believe what the council said and what the Church still proclaims that she alone has the fullness of the means of salvation, then her status of “superiority (meaning “betterness”) seems self-evident and does much to explain why we get converts and why so many of us remain in her communion.
That is not to be confused with any presumed superiority in individual Catholics of course. The Catholic Church is holy because she alone has the fullness of the means of salvation (UR 3), due to her sacraments, the works of her saints, and do to her unique status in being the Church founded by Christ Himself – His Mystical Body.
Other communities have elements of salvation and graces that have their origin in and that point to the one Catholic Church. According to UR, because non-Catholic communities “derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church” it seems they can be a “means of salvation” despite of not because their break from Catholic unity.
Many thanks for the clear exposition that Joe Komonchak supplies us; he is spot on. After the CDF statement I had a flurry of calls from various journalists. One point I did make that may be worth some small notice is that the word “church” can be understood theologically (the subject of the CDF clarification) or, more sociologically, as naming, for example, a denomination as in “The Methodist Church.” It is obviously the former and not the latter about which the CDF concerned itself while many understood the word in the latter sense. At least one journalist found the distinction helpful.
Now for some plain talk. While I joined in the applause for the clarification by Joe K, we may want to reflect how the hierarchy has historically gotten us into a doctrinal box while neglecting the behavior of its monarchs.
To speak clearly the church is clearly the church when it imitates Christ or acts like a disciple most manifestly shown in the Lord’s washing the feet of his disciples.
The believing church is in unity with Christ when its members offer themselves in charity with Christ at the Lord’s Supper.
The word’s of Jesus could not be clearer I was hungry and you fed me etc. So when we join in these strange decisions we might reflect how we are caught up in the church of dogma rather than the Church joined in service to Christ and others.
When we focus on service rather than dogma such utterances as the CDF just issued will not only be unnecessary but they will be quite irrelevant.
In effect the Vatican is abe to engage us into asinine reflections which is a terrible shame.
Bill, the Lord gave us the two great commandments together. It’s not as though we have to abandon love of God–part of which is “having the mind of Christ”–in order to love our neighbors. The whole point is an integrated response to the love of God in Christ.
There’s no competition between truth and charity. Our response is meant to be unified.
If I wrote that truth and charity are not compatible then I did not express myself well. Truth is in the life death and resurrection of Jesus. Yet it is awfully pretentious to limit God and say that s/he cannot be approached most fully but in the RCC.
All of Jesus’ instructions to his disciples are to help them imitate his way of life. Most importantly he said that “who is not against you is for you” when the disciples noted that others were preaching the way of Jesus but were not aligned with the disciples.
Truth and charity do go hand and hand. Dogma and charity do not. Following that direction resulted in a lot of good people being burned at he stake like Ian Hus. John Paul II apologized for the killing of Hus. The killing was about dogma.
Please help me to understand you by explaining what you mean by truth and what you mean by dogma. In my view, there is a good deal of overlap, which can be seen in Scripture, for example in I Tim 2:
God our Savior…desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
I take it that Paul is saying that God wants everyone to know the truth, because God is the one God and Jesus is the one mediator, and that Paul himself is taking a truth-telling role of proclaiming that same single truth, in imitation of it. In other words, the dogma about God and Jesus is the source of truth-telling and the best examplar of it.
He also makes the same kind of claim in 2 Corinthians 1, this time based not on God’s uniqueness and singularity, but on God’s fidelity:
But as God is faithful, our word to you is not yes and no. For the Son of God, Christ Jesus, who was preached among you by us–by me and Silvanus and Timothy–was not yes and no, but is yes in Him. For as many as are the promises of God, in Him they are yes; therefore also through Him is our Amen to the glory of God through us.
Clearly, Paul wants us to acknowledge the great redemptive work of Christ as what we hve faith in.
He also wants us to know I can have all kinds of knowledge but if I have not love, I’m just a lot of noise.
We can be quite glib abou tall we think we know about our faith -that;s why ther ewas a neat article a while back by Hohn garvey, I think, about how intellectually modest we should be.
Bob, I don’t think glibness is that big a problem right now. My impression is that the opposite is true: widespread near-illiteracy and unconcern about the theological content of our faith is at very high levels. We are way too modest about what we know–what has in fact been revealed–to the point of effectively being agnostic about the reality and activity of God. (Experiment: how many people in your parish believe in the resurrection of the body?)
Reading the signs of the times, I think that content-rich catechesis should be at the forefront of the Church’s agenda.
I guess I and others profoundly disagree and that we think we know a lot more than we really do – there is much yet we need to work out, not only about formulary words but about what they mean.
The Word, I submit, is essentailly relational. We need the Spirit to continue to blow His Wisdom to us instead of thinking we’ve got it figured out so well and denigrating our ignorant neighbors who keep struggling to hear Him and live His word.
Bob, we know a lot, not because we’re so smart, but because there is a Revelation.
Of course there is more to work out. Theology is an open field. But a whole lot is given. There is no need for this constant dichotomization between relationship and doctrine, service and truth, words and deeds.
Your Church is too small.
I’m afraid we’re all being far too nice about this document. As a teaching gesture it has done nothing but annoy our separated brethren. It is fixated on old quarrels with Leonardo Boff etc. and indicates that the CDF are not doing their theological homework. I return to the charge in a piece on “Jesus and the CDF” http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/07/jesus-and-the-c.html
This past weekend, I had supper with a cleric who had talked sometime in the past with a former Vatican II peritus who had helped draft the conciliar decree on ecumenism.
According to this theological expert, the reference to “ecclesial communities” was used in the decree as a sign of respect for those Christian bodies/groups that did not want to be labeled as “churches.” Hence, the language we have today.
My friend noted that “traditionalists” quickly latched onto this phrase to distinguish the One True Church from all the other churches and “ecclesial communities” that are “inferior” to the Catholic Church.
FWIMBW.
In other words, but for this sensitivity to the wishes of some of our fellow non-Catholic Christians, the decree, I gather, would have referred strictly to “churches” alone. There would have been no reference to “ecclesial communities.”
Dear Maid of Kent
The Pope himself is not afraid of contact with other faiths. I never meant to say that, but I think he is afraid of laity having too much contact with other faiths because he fears that some may begin to think one means of salvation is as good as another. I also apologize because I am not aware of him emcouraging many ecumental activities among laity. Please enlighten me, because in Pa. where I live I donot see the church encouraging any.
When you say the Catholic Church is the only one with “the fullness of the means of salvation.” Please expond. The only real difference that I know of is the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and I in no way minimize that. Remember that Isaiah tells us (and I para pharase) that the /Word of God is like the gentle dew and that whenever it goes out it never returns empty. It always bears fruit. I think scripturely we can make as case for God’s presence in the word as any other sacrament. God is also present whenever two or three are gathered together. I’m not sure we have any great advantage.
Andrew asked:
“When you say the Catholic Church is the only one with “the fullness of the means of salvation.” Please expond. The only real difference that I know of is the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and I in no way minimize that.”
Sacramental confession comes to mind as a very helpful sacrament toward salvation. Right teaching re. faith and morals are beneficial in avoiding serious sin and practicing the corporal works of mercy.
To understand the advantage in the Catholic sacramental system and in her sacramentals one has to first grasp the notion of grace.
In Maid of Kent’s comment, I again see this institutional preoccupation with excellence in corporate religious practice: My church is better than your church/ecclesial community/group/sect/etc.
“Fullness of the means of salvation.”
I recall Christ asking us individually to be perfect as his heavenly Father is perfect. I recall Jesus telling his whining disciples that the “others” casting out demons, etc. were doing his Father’s work. I recall the Lord castigating the religous leaders of his day for their hypocrisy, arrogance, self-righteousness, etc. I recall the Son of God being a Jew, not a Christian — much less a Catholic. I recall Christ delivering the message of our salvation and asking a dozen or so men and women to share the Good News near, far, and wide.
I do not recall the Lord establishing an institutional pecking order — or any other kind of pecking order, for that matter (there’s much discussion about the meaning of Peter and the Rock).
And the hymn “Amazing Grace” was composed by a Protestant Christian, if I recall.
Joe,
Read Lumen gentium. Chapter III gives us the Vatican II perspective on the hierarchy.
Maid
Thank you for the reference.
I do not believe that Jesus established the Church — Catholic, Christian, or otherwise. I am referring here to the institutional church.
I do believe that all Christian communities in the East and West can trace their basic faith convictions back to Christ. I believe that what we know as the Catholic and Orthodox communions are the oldest of the Christian churches.
I believe that Jesus sent forth his disciples to preach the Good News. I do not necessarily believe that Peter was the first pope as we understand both his role and the papacy today. I once held this view, but I have read other views (largely Protestant) that have convinced me to at least question the traditional Catholic understanding. Hence, my use earlier of the word ‘necessarily.’
I do not question the need over time for establishment of church administrative structures. I do see a role for the bishop of Rome as “first among equals” in matters of fundamental faith and doctrine. I am not convinced that bishops are successors of the apostles. I do believe, however, that they have been entrusted — in principle — by their local bodies of Catholic believers to safeguard Christian faith and practice. I do not believe, therefore, that a pope has the right to appoint bishops. I do accept his right to concur in selection/appointment of bishops as a way of promoting genuine communion of worldwide local churches.
I do accept the bishops’ (including Rome’s) duty to preach, teach, and sanctify. I accept clerical and episcopal ordination. I accept the “real presence” of Christ in the eucharist as well as when two or more persons are gathered in his name.
I accept the teaching that the One True Church of Christ “subsists” in the Catholic Church — as well as in the Orthodox churches. I believe that other Christian bodies — whether called “churches” or “ecclesial communities” (depending on usage preference) — are part of this worldwide fractured Church or Body of Christ.
Perhaps a year or so ago, I began considering myself a “primitive Catholic” based on my reading of church history and my perception of the sorry direction that JPII — and, I regret, Benedict XVI — led and continue to lead the institutional Catholic Church.