Revue de réflexion politique et religieuse.

Debate over the two her­me­neu­tics

Article publié le 9 Juin 2009 | imprimer imprimer  | Version PDF | Partager :  Partager sur Facebook Partager sur Linkedin Partager sur Google+

2)  What are the points of doc­trine which we most need to retrieve and conserve today from such sources as Mor­ta­lium Ani­mos of Pius XI and Mys­ti­ci Cor­po­ris and Huma­ni Gene­ris of Pius XII (beyond the moda­li­ties of expres­sion consi­de­red today out­da­ted) ?

If a her­me­neu­tic of conti­nui­ty would lead us to unders­tand Vati­can II in the context of pre­vious coun­cils, then the out­come of pre­vious coun­cils and expres­sions of the papal magis­te­rium have like­wise to be read today in the context of Vati­can II and of the cur­rent papal magis­te­rium. There are many things in the tea­ching of pre­vious coun­cils that we no lon­ger invoke direct­ly ; some of them have been put in new contexts or had new light shed upon them by later magis­te­rial tea­ching. This sur­ely is part of the deve­lop­ment of doc­trine by which the Church not only pre­serves the depo­sit of reve­la­tion but also inter­prets it, set­ting forth its content.  It is impor­tant to rea­lise that the constant effort which the Church must make to convey its mes­sage in intel­li­gible terms leads to a gro­wing unders­tan­ding of that mes­sage.

At the same time, defi­ni­tive tea­ching of the past retains its force and calls for our atten­tion : « these givens have the force of prin­ciples. » (Congre­ga­tion for the Doc­trine of the Faith, The Eccle­sial Voca­tion of the Theo­lo­gian, 12) Key sta­te­ments made in defi­ni­tive docu­ments of the past can in various ways present a chal­lenge to us today. For ins­tance, the defence of abso­lute truth in Huma­ni Gene­ris speaks to our situa­tion mar­ked with wides­pread rela­ti­vism ; indeed the focus on truth, both natu­ral and super­na­tu­ral, needs kee­ping to the fore more than ever.

Like­wise, the refe­rence to a false « ire­ni­cism » in Huma­ni Gene­ris in rela­tions with other Chris­tians speaks to a num­ber of today’s ecu­me­nists, who want the Chris­tian com­mu­ni­ties to set­tle for prag­ma­tic solu­tions, igno­ring the theo­lo­gi­cal dimen­sions, in order to be able to pro­vide more effec­tive care of human needs. In rela­ti­ve­ly recent times, the World Coun­cil of Churches, with which the Catho­lic Church has some coope­ra­tion, has advo­ca­ted such a tac­tic. This kind of dog­ma­tic rela­ti­vism is not an option and that needs to be said as loud­ly now as it was in Huma­ni Gene­ris in 1950. And it conti­nues to be neces­sa­ry to say that the theo­lo­gian, as a mem­ber of the belie­ving com­mu­ni­ty, can­not  pur­sue his scien­ti­fic theo­lo­gi­cal inves­ti­ga­tions inde­pen­dent­ly of the magis­te­rium to whose tea­ching, even when not defi­ni­tive, due sub­mis­sion must be given. Much of this is said in the CDF Ins­truc­tion on the Eccle­sial Voca­tion of the Theo­lo­gian and pro­ba­bly in a more  friend­ly man­ner ; it could howe­ver be argued that some theo­lo­gians seem to need a more per­emp­to­ry recall to authen­tic ser­vice of the revea­led truth such as Huma­ni Gene­ris offers.

When it comes to eccle­sio­lo­gy, the ency­cli­cal, Mys­ti­ci Cor­po­ris mar­ked an awa­ke­ning that had taken place among Catho­lics to the mys­te­ry of the Church. As well as being visible and ins­ti­tu­tio­nal, the Church is so uni­ted to Christ the Head, in the power of the Holy Spi­rit, that she makes him present in a unique man­ner to the world. The theo­lo­gian Roma­no Guar­di­ni in the 1930s, spea­king of the move­ment of theo­lo­gi­cal unders­tan­ding, to which the ency­cli­cal was a res­ponse, had said : « The Church is coming to life in the souls of men. » This unders­tan­ding of the Church roo­ted in Scrip­ture and in the Tra­di­tion gave also a strong impulse to the litur­gi­cal rene­wal, as the litur­gy came to be unders­tood as the wor­ship of the whole Christ, Head and mem­bers. It was an unders­tan­ding that led to a resur­gence in Catho­lic eccle­sio­lo­gy, with reflec­tion on other dimen­sions of the mys­te­ry of the Church. Not only the doc­trine of the Church as Mys­ti­cal Body of Christ but all of the new eccle­sio­lo­gi­cal reflec­tion fed into the Consti­tu­tion on the Church, Lumen Gen­tium at Vati­can II. Per­haps inevi­ta­bly at a time of such ferment, the Coun­cil focus­sed more stron­gly on more new­ly revi­ved ideas. There is a sec­tion on the Mys­ti­cal Body (LG 7) but a whole chap­ter on the Church as the People of God, which great­ly cap­tu­red the ima­gi­na­tion of Catho­lics and was wor­ked to death after the Coun­cil. Car­di­nal Congar ack­now­led­ged that the image of the People of God is authen­tic. Yet, he said, it is incom­plete to define ade­qua­te­ly the mys­te­ry of the Church, which must be seen also as Body of Christ and Temple of the Holy Spi­rit. We find that is done in the Cate­chism of the Catho­lic Church.

[Page sui­vante…] At once, we come to the ques­tion of the iden­ti­ty of the Church of Christ with the Catho­lic Church. Pope Pius XII wrote : « If we would defend and des­cribe the true Church of Jesus Christ — which is the holy, Catho­lic, apos­to­lic, Roman Church — we shall find no expres­sion more noble, more sublime or more divine than the phrase which calls her ‘the Mys­ti­cal Body of Jesus Christ’. »  (Neuner/Dupuis : The Chris­tian Faith 847) This is a fair sta­te­ment of the posi­tion of the Tra­di­tion through many cen­tu­ries – the one Church of Jesus Christ is the Catho­lic Church. How then, in light of this, to read the tea­ching of Vati­can II that « this Church (the unique Church of Christ), consti­tu­ted and orga­ni­sed in the world as a socie­ty sub­sists in the Catho­lic Church. » (LG 8) In light of the intense expe­rience of the years after Vati­can II, in 1993, the Direc­to­ry on Ecu­me­nism of the Pon­ti­fi­cal Coun­cil for Pro­mo­ting Chris­tian Uni­ty said : « Catho­lics hold the firm convic­tion that the one Church of Christ sub­sists in the Catho­lic Church which is gover­ned by the suc­ces­sor of Peter and the bishops in com­mu­nion with him.

They confess that the enti­re­ty of revea­led truth, of sacra­ments and of minis­try that Christ gave for the buil­ding up of his Church and the car­rying out of its mis­sion, is found within the Catho­lic com­mu­nion of the Church…Therefore when Catho­lics use the words ‘churches’, ‘other churches’, ‘other churches and eccle­sial com­mu­nions’, etc., to refer to those who are not in full com­mu­nion with the Catho­lic Church, this firm convic­tion and confes­sion of faith must always be kept in mind. » (17) In other words, the recog­ni­tion of some eccle­sial ele­ments in these other com­mu­ni­ties and the accep­tance that they can have some real but limi­ted com­mu­nion with the Catho­lic Church does not neces­sa­ri­ly make them churches, in the same sense that the Catho­lic Church uses the term ‘Church’; hence, what Vati­can II said about the sta­tus of other Chris­tian com­mu­ni­ties does not contra­dict what Pope Pius XII said about the Catho­lic Church in Mys­ti­ci Cor­po­ris.

Vati­can II used the term « sub­sists » ins­tead of the words of Mys­ti­ci Cor­po­ris — that the true Church of Jesus Christ IS the holy, Catho­lic, apos­to­lic, Roman Church — in order to allow that there can be some­thing of the Church, a cer­tain « eccle­sia­li­ty » in the other Chris­tian bodies because some of “the most signi­fi­cant ele­ments and endow­ments which toge­ther go to build up and give life to the Church her­self can exist out­side the visible boun­da­ries of the Catho­lic Church, giving those other Chris­tian churches and eccle­sial com­mu­ni­ties a cer­tain « signi­fi­cance in the mys­te­ry of sal­va­tion. » (UR 3) Yet, as indi­ca­ted above, this does not make them the Church ; all of those eccle­sial ele­ments belong by right to the one Church of Christ. (UR 3) A pre­vai­ling dif­fi­cul­ty is that among ecu­me­nists, as the work of a dia­logue seems pro­mi­sing and the human rela­tions deve­lop posi­ti­ve­ly, there is often a temp­ta­tion to enlarge this « eccle­sial rea­li­ty » and to give the other Chris­tian com­mu­ni­ty the sta­tus of a church.

Hence the remin­der of the Congre­ga­tion for the Doc­trine of the Faith (CDF) in its 2007 docu­ment, Ques­tions Regar­ding Cer­tain Aspects of the Doc­trine of the Church : “The word ‘sub­sists’ can only be attri­bu­ted to the Catho­lic Church alone pre­ci­se­ly because it refers to the mark of uni­ty that we pro­fess in the sym­bols of the faith (I believe … in the ‘one’ Church); and this ‘one’ Church sub­sists in the Catho­lic Church.” (Second Ques­tion)  It says quite clear­ly that  the use of “sub­sists’ ins­tead of the word “is” used by Pope Pius XII still “indi­cates the full iden­ti­ty of the Church of Christ with the Catho­lic Church ; (it) does not change the doc­trine on the Church.” (Third Ques­tion)

It is made clear in the Congregation’s com­men­ta­ry on the docu­ment that the Coun­cil chose the word“subsist” (in place of “is”) spe­ci­fi­cal­ly to cla­ri­fy that there are only ele­ments of the Church in the other com­mu­ni­ties which, being ele­ments of the same Church, tend or lead to the Catho­lic Church. All of this points up the fact that the tea­ching of Mys­ti­ci Cor­po­ris is upheld by Vati­can II.  That this is what the Church claims was unders­tood by Samuel McCrea Cavert of the Natio­nal Coun­cil of Churches, USA, a Pro­tes­tant obser­ver at Vati­can II.  In a review of the Decree on Ecu­me­nism he wrote : « I sug­gest that the Decree does not real­ly recon­cile its ecu­me­ni­cal out­look with its assump­tion that the Roman Catho­lic Church is the only true Church. This assump­tion is expli­cit in the sta­te­ment that “it is through Christ’s Catho­lic Church alone which is the all embra­cing means of sal­va­tion that the full­ness of the means of sal­va­tion can be obtai­ned. » He says this assump­tion « seems to indi­cate that the Catho­lic unders­tan­ding of ecu­me­nism is unchan­gea­bly Rome-cen­tred » ; he ques­tions the­re­fore how far the Catho­lic Church can go in ecu­me­ni­cal rela­tions.

Here Mor­ta­lium Ani­mos, the 1928 ency­cli­cal of Pope Pius XI can come into play. Today this ency­cli­cal is known almost exclu­si­ve­ly as embo­dying a nega­tive atti­tude towards the modern ecu­me­ni­cal move­ment. Howe­ver it car­ries a clear sta­te­ment of the truth that the reve­la­tion which rea­ched its per­fec­tion in Jesus Christ has been entrus­ted by him to the one and only Church which he foun­ded on Peter.  The ency­cli­cal does seem nar­row because, being of its time, it does not know the dia­logue, which Vati­can II and the Church’s more recent magis­te­rium have shown can be a valid ins­tru­ment of ecu­me­ni­cal rela­tions. It states cate­go­ri­cal­ly that « the union of Chris­tians can­not be fos­te­red other­wise than by pro­mo­ting the return of dis­si­dents to the one true Church of Christ » (Neuner/Dupuis, 907). It is true that nei­ther the tea­ching of Vati­can II nor the Church’s sub­sequent magis­te­rial sta­te­ments on ecu­me­nism have men­tio­ned an « ecu­me­nism of return ». Indeed, regu­lar­ly, noted Catho­lic ecu­me­nists give assu­rance that the idea of « return » is now exclu­ded from the Catho­lic ecu­me­ni­cal approach.  It is assu­med that uni­ty will be achie­ved by a pro­cess of conver­gence. Dr McCrea Cavert cer­tain­ly ques­tio­ned that claim, based on what the Coun­cil Decree had expli­cit­ly said. It seems to me he had a point. Given the claim the Church makes for her­self, it is hard to see that in the uni­ty desi­red by the Catho­lic Church for other Chris­tians, there can be exclu­ded some­thing of a return to the one Church which alrea­dy exists.  More and more the una­ck­now­led­ged stran­ger in the mid­st of the dia­logue mee­ting is the claim made by the Catho­lic Church.  « We take it for gran­ted », a fel­low Catho­lic par­ti­ci­pant in an inter­na­tio­nal dia­logue said to me recent­ly. That is the pro­blem. It has to be faced and what it might mean of « return » has to be honest­ly ack­now­led­ged.

-->