Debate over the two hermeneutics
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of Pius XI and Mystici Corporis and Humani Generis of Pius XII (beyond the modalities of expression considered today outdated) ?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.