« Training: for a triathlon and for God | Home | A Nun Quiz (via Sister Susan Rose) »
The “Subsists In” Debate
By Sister Julie | July 19, 2007
A few people have asked me about the Pope’s recent comment regarding the Catholic Church. Dawn, for example, asked, “I was wondering what you thought about the Pope’s recent talk about how the Catholic Church is the only Church, anything else doesn’t count. I’m finding myself to be greatly disturbed by this.”
In a June 29 document (realeased July 10 via Zenit), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith offered clarifications regarding Vatican II’s teaching that the Church founded by Christ “subsists in the Catholic Church.” The full document can be found here:
RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH
Zenit.org also published this article about the document:
HOLY SEE CLARIFIES MEANING OF “SUBSIST”
Following the publication of this document, there were many questions about what this document was actually saying, especially in terms of other Christian traditions. One of the concerns that people have raised is the impact of this teaching on ecumenism — is the Church somehow drawing a new line in the sand of who is “in” and who is “outside” of the Church? Yet what the Church is saying is nothing new. It is simply a restatement of Church teaching. It is important to note the centrality of the Eucharist in these documents.
So I don’t think this is something to get too worried about. It is good however to be attentive to these debates and, more importantly, to how we articulate our faith for ourselves and in relation to others. As 1 Peter 3:15 reminds us, we are called to be able to give an “account of our hope” which means to be able to articulate the Gospel and our faith, why it is we believe in the centrality of the Eucharist, who we are as Catholic Christians, etc.
Topics: catholic life, theology |
July 19th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
I know I wasn’t the one who asked, but thanks for the clarification anyway. Do you know why the Pope made these statements when he did (i.e., this summer)? Was it in response to someone questioning it, etc.?
deerose
July 19th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
This changes nothing. It’s just a reiteration that the Catholic Church holds the Fullness of Salvation, that other religions and Christian denominations have access to some truths, but it’s only in Catholicism where you find the completeness. While I agree that intolerance (doing wrong by others for their different beliefs) is wrong, and that yes, millions have been killed over denominational squabbles, the whole idea of ecumenism is to find common ground where it may lie and work with that, not that all faiths are the same so it doesn’t matter what one is.
But of course the press, who pays no attention to the Pope unless its for something it can beat him over the head about, agitates other people and gets them upset from the second hand information. I’m sure Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, Protestants, etc. are sure their way is the best, too (otherwise, they wouldn’t be Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, Protestants, etc.), but they don’t get the heavy hand when they are proud of their faiths.
No wonder the Christian churches, who seem to have to apologize whenever they make a statement of faith and whose mantra appears to be “excuse me for existing”, are losing attendance and membership while Islam, which makes no apologies for its tenets and is not asked to do so by the press or the people, is on a mosque building boom as its ranks grow.
I’m sorry if I sound a bit miffed. I still remember the outraged and offended fuss over the Pope quoting a Byzantine emperor no one heard of about his feelings toward Muslims, while no one cried out when Muslims had their cartoon intifada that actually hurt and killed people. Compromise seems to mean we always backpedal and apologize for Catholicism while the other guy is under no expectation to do the same.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:00 am
By “Catholic Church”, what is meant? Does it mean only the Roman Catholic church, or does it include all churches who would call themselves Catholic, such as the Orthodox church and the Anglican/Episcopalian church?
At my parish, we consider ourselves to be part of the catholic church, not just being high-church Anglicans/Anglo-Catholics, but with the liturgy used and the creeds and statements of belief we use.
St Thomas’, the church with the longest URL in history, has information here, if anyone’s interested in finding out a little more: http://www.saintoswaldandsaintthomaschester.org.uk/
July 20th, 2007 at 9:30 am
One of my colleagues directed me to this article which includes the comments of Cardinal Leveda whose office distributed the statement on the Church.
VATICAN DOCUMENT DOES NOT DIMINISH OTHER FAITHS, STATES DOCTRINE CONGREGATION CHIEF
Of note, the Cardinals is quoted as saying, “It is primarily a document addressed to Catholics as believers and teachers and is intended to clarify the teachings of the Second Vatican Council,” he said, “especially the teaching on the nature of the Church.” I think this is a good point — the document was not meant to be an ecumenical text or used for dialogue with other Christian traditions (thought it certainly can be). It’s more like it was “in house” talk, part of an inner discussion for us Catholics on how to understand ourselves and our Church. Though we can always do more in terms of genuine ecumenical and interfaith dialogue, the Church has continually committed itself to both of these endeavors which to me speaks volumes.
July 20th, 2007 at 10:41 am
mts and others:
The Pope does seem to be a target of the world media. I don’t feel our B16 is the most diplomatic of souls (and this is unfortunate) on the planet. But sometimes it seems that there is a hourde a little media vermin hiding in the back alleys of the Vatican just waiting to pounce on the Pope’s every word and action. On the other hand, people DO clearly care very much what the Pope says - whether they like it or not. Perhaps this itself attests to the fact that the Pope and our Church are indeed very significant players on the world screen. Ironic really. Everybody complains about what the Church says (me included at times), but they all DO listen. The Church has a heck of a lot of authority, whether the naysayers want to admit it or not.
I do believe that Catholics, and Christians in general, are discriminated against in the media and popular culture. Christianity is not considered cool or politically correct. And to be a nun, I remember one younger sister (40s) said that when she told everyone she was going into the convent the response was like she was joining a freak show in the circus! All that aside, I do think we need to speak up when our faith is berated. It has to stop. We should be given the same rights as anyone else. Every faith in this country is like the sacred cow, untouchable, beyond criticism. But we Catholic Christians/Christians get blasted/mocked all the time.
The irony is, as I believe mtc alluded too, the Muslims can blow up a building and all is fine and dandy. Our Pope makes a nonviolent comment to his own people (as Sr. Julie said) about his own Church and he is practically crucified. This is ridiculous. Why don’t they follow around the imams preaching hatred against Americans in our local Muslim schools?
I personally have tons of respect for the mainline Protestant churches. I’m not a doctrinal expert, but I look at the “fruits” they bare. I’m not extremely knowledgable on comparative religions either. But some do seem to possess more truth than others. I have a problem with a religion whose Scriptures/teachings promote violence. As I’ve said before, we Christians have not always behaved well. But that is NOT because we were following what Jesus taught us. It is because we went AGAINST his teaching. We must love everyone as children of God indeed - everyone from every corner of the planet. But that doesn’t mean we need to approve of all of their beliefs and/or promote them.
deerose
July 20th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Too bad that, in these days of sound bites and subsequent flurry of input/criticism on all sides, there is no one at the Vatican who is capable or sensitive enough to be able to speak to Catholic Christians with clarity without offending others with whom we hope to find common ground. So much of what they pronounce is worded in theological jargon easily misunderstood by all but those skilled in that churchspeak.
Blessed John XXIII, pray for us!
July 20th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Good discussion…I agree that whenever something like this hits the media, it tends to be sensationalized, and that this latest communication is nothing really new from the Vatican.
Having said that, I do have a problem with the language used to describe other Christian traditions - calling them “defective” doesn’t seem to me a good strategy for moving forward with ecumenism.
Ditto for the official language concerning homosexuality (disordered) and homosexual activity (intrinsically evil).
July 20th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Hi Sister~
Thank you for the reponse. I just starting reading your blog, and am finding it both enjoyable and enlightning, to say the least.
July 23rd, 2007 at 6:48 am
Deerose … According to the Laveda’s article (see above for link), the document was in process for awhile and was not intended to be in response to any particular issue. It is meant as a general clarification of the teaching of the Church.
Louisa … The statement specifically means the Roman Catholic Church. As the statement says, the Catholic Church recognizes that the Orthodox Churches have apostolic succession, a validly ordained clergy who celebrate the Eucharist that Catholics recognize as carrying our the intentions of Jesus when he said, “Do this in memory of me.” The only thing that keeps us from being fully united with the Orthodox churches is that they do not accept the authority of the Pope in Rome.
In regard to the Anglican Church, the Roman Catholic Church would regard Anglican clergy as protestant clergy who in the eyes of the Catholic church are not validly ordained. According to my theologian friend, since the Anglican Church first began in schism in the 1530’s there was at the turn of the 20th century a serious examination whether the Catholic Church would accept Anglican orders as being valid. The committee in Rome set up to study the issue concluded that while in the first generations, the priests and bishops had apostolic succession, later on this lapsed. Under the influence of Calvinistic tendencies in later English church history, the formula for ordination changed and did not include the words and form that Rome recognized as being valid. So according to Rome, the Anglican communion connection with the apostolic church lapsed in terms of having a validly ordained clergy.
July 23rd, 2007 at 6:59 am
I’m not that familiar with Islam though I have studied it a bit. My understanding is that it is not a religion that promotes violence. Both the Quran and the Bible have passages in them that can be rather scandalous in terms of violence. But in both sacred scriptures, there is a call for peace, and love. With sacred texts, there is always the danger of isolating one or two verses and interpreting them out of context. Sadly, those who promote violence (within any religion) truly believe that they are interpreting it correctly, that somehow the violence is santioned by God. Here’s an interesting article on Islam and understanding some of the Quran’s verses on war.
July 23rd, 2007 at 6:59 am
And by the way, excellent point about the media, deerose!
July 25th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Another blog reader mentioned that one of her parish priests gave a recent homily on the “subsists in” debate. Check it out by clicking here for the audio file. (Warning: download file is large … 18MB)
July 25th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Barbara:
I agree with you. The Vatican should find a more diplomatic spokesperson - or at least have someone edit the Pope’s messages to make them less offensive.
Sr. Julie:
I remember about 8-9 years ago, before people in this country even thought much about Islam, I was asked to participate in an interfaith service on peace. I was given the task of doing a short talk on Islam. Not knowing all that much about it at the time, I phoned my friend whose husband is a Lebanese Muslim. I asked him where in the Koran I could find some good quotes on peace and love that I could use in my presentation. He, a practicing Muslim going to mosque regularly and praying 5 times a day, said he really didn’t know of any because Islam didn’t really deal with those concepts much. I was surprised to hear that.
Years later, after some study and reading through the Koran myself (and familiarizing myself with the varieties of Shariah law), I realize what my friend’s husband expressed was true. To best see this, I think it would be good for people interested in comparative religion and politics to read the Koran for themselves. Second hand knowledge can be limiting. It’s also important to remember that Muslims are taught to believe the words of the Koran are directly dictated from God. So if the Koran says beat your wife (if disobedient) or kill the infidel (if he/she won’t convert to Islam), as it does, it’s a divine mandate. Our Scripture is inspired by God. We are taught to interpret it on many levels. If the OT is called the Book of Iron and the NT the book of love, I’d say the Koran is the book of fear. I do not base that on reading a few quotes out of context as some may. I base my assertion on reading the whole volume. I’m sure others disagree with me. So be it.
Ok, I’m off my soapbox.
deerose