More documents!

First, one of great importance, apparently following fast on the heels of the Motu Proprio, from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), as reported today by Kath.net (ht: The Cafeteria Is Closed):

According to well-informed circles in the Vatican, there will be a new document by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on a hot topic. It will deal with the self-conception of the Church and will supposedly be released July 10th.

This document will state the unique character of the Catholic Church and that Protestant churches are not churches in the narrow sense. The topic will be the sentence "Ecclesia subsistit in Ecclesia catholica" (The Church of Christ subsists in/is realized in the Catholic Church) from the Vatican II document Lumen gentium.

As Gerald Augustinus remarks:

According to "progressives" that sentence should be interpreted in a non-exclusive manner. It has been a point of contention for some 45 years. If I remember "my Ratzinger" correctly, he's always spoken against such an interpretation.... So, in the spirit of Dominus Iesus (which ruffled quite a few "progressive" and "rad trad" feathers), this makes perfect sense. What Dominus Iesus did for Christology, this should do for Ecclesiology. Very thorough, our Pope :)

While Dominus Iesus focused on Christology, it was also very much—just as much—about ecclesiology ("On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church"). Released in 2000 by Joseph Ratzinger, then prefect of the CDF, that document stated:

The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.  With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”, that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.

17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church. Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.

This issue is one that is especially important to Ratzinger/Benedict, both because his theological expertise is in ecclesiology (see, for example, his books Called To Communion, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, and the collection, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church As Communion), and his understanding that without a proper, clear understanding of what "Church" is, numerous theological and ideological errors crop up, or can more easily be perpetuated. This document sounds as though it will build upon Dominus Iesus and further articulate correctives to faulty ecclesiologies. (Read an excerpt from Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith.)

From the sublime to the ridiculous, what I call, "The Bull of Pope Daniel C. Maguire." Dr. Maguire, you might recall, is a professor of moral theology at Marquette who has had a running battle with various Church authorities over the years because of his insistence on denying just about every aspect of Catholic moral teaching, especially (gasp!) in the realm of sexuality (see, for example, this post from last October). Maguire was able to publish his short "Bull" as a letter in the New York Times; in it, he chastised—as a good, wanna-be Pope should!—Catholic bishops in the U.S. for being (don't laugh!) too harsh toward pro-abort Catholic politicians:

Similarly, today legislators who truly think abortion immoral could vote to keep it legal since greater evils, multiple deaths of women (especially poor women) from botched abortions as seen before Roe v. Wade, would follow.

Catholic bishops, even though they are pastors and administrators and not professional theologians, should know this and cease harassing Catholic candidates, thus making Catholic candidates less electable.

Harassing? What planet is Maguire living on? Ah, that's right, the one where abortion is called a "sacred choice" and where books such as Gay Marriage, Real Life: 10 Stories of Love and Family are highly recommended. And where any articulation of Church moral teaching, however mild, is immediately rebuffed with whining about being harassed. (Now all we need to make this post complete is a comment from Fr. Joseph O'Leary. Tick, tock, tick, tock...)

Finally, on a lighter note, I was both amused and mildly annoyed by a July 4th MSNBC.com column by Harriet Baskas, who writes the "Well-Mannered Traveler" column. She wrote:

In the 1970 song “Roadhouse Blues,” Jim Morrison and the Doors summed it up with one sentence: “Keep your eyes on the road, your hands upon the wheel.”

In 2007, it took the Pope Benedict XVI 58 pages to say pretty much the same thing.

It’s bad enough when a parent, in-law or friend starts bugging you about the way you drive. Now the pope is piping up as the all-knowing back-seat driver, full of advice on how we can all be well-mannered when out on the road.

Baskas is referring, of course, to the recent (June 19) document, "Guidelines for the Pastoral Care of the Road," written by Pope Bene—er, the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People. Of course, you wouldn't know by reading the column that Benedict didn't write the document; the column seems to veer (pun intended) between light humor and snarkiness, as though she thinks the document is the perfect vehicle (ditto) to use for mocking the Pope and the Vatican in general:

Whatever the reason, on June 16th the Vatican issued the pope’s “Guidelines for Pastoral Care of the Road” and posted it on the Vatican’s hip and holy Web site. Yes, the Vatican has a Web site.

The guidelines mention biblical road trips taken by the apostles and those Mary and Joseph took before the birth of Jesus, and offer tips on how modern-day travelers might try to get along out on the highway. So far, most news outlets have focused on the handy “Drivers’ Ten Commandments” section. The clip-and-save-style list of rules kicks off with the all-purpose “You shall not kill” and continues on with straightforward tips much like those your grandma or the folks at the local AAA office would offer, including instructions to “charitably convince the young and not-so-young not to drive when they are not in a fitting condition to do so,” which I think translates to “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk” and “Respect but don’t hesitate to verify thy father and mother’s driving ability.”

Baskas mentions "the pope" eleven times; too bad for her that he probably had little, if anything, to do with the document. And too bad that Baskas didn't make note of the fact that about half of the document was concerned with the plight of street children, prostitutes, and the homeless. Perhaps she can make light of that in her next "Ill-Mannered Columnist" column.

Comments

[Gail]

I don't understand, what is new here? In the lay pastoral ministry program I attend, which has garnered some comment here, I was taught that Protestant "churches" are not actually churches, but "ecclesial communities," while each Catholic church is part of the universal Church. Protestant "churches" come and go, and when they're gone they're gone. Catholic churches also come and go, but when they go the Church remains. This post seems to imply that this is not common teaching, is that really so?

[Tom]

This will be a boon to theologians studying ecclesiology. My interest is piqued: will this document do for Cdl. Leveada's reputation what Dominus Iesus did for Ratzinger's when he released it? I sort of doubt that levada will get ratzinger's Rottweiler reputation.

My guess is that this will be interpreted as a NXVI document and not Levada's, even though Levada's prefect of the congregation responsible for it. Also interesting: DI, I believe, was commonly thought of as a Ratzinger document, not a JP II document. Closer observers of the papacy and the curia than I am can say what this means about public perception and media coverage of the two papacies and the two CDF heads. Will Leveada's reputation as a "moderate" surivive this?

[Carl Olson]

This post seems to imply that this is not common teaching, is that really so?

It's common if you're getting authentic Catholic teaching. But one reason that Dominus Iesus was written was because some Catholic theologians, especially since the Council, have either taught that Protestant "churches" are as much "church" as Catholic churches, or that it is arrogant and triumphalistic to say that Jesus founded the Catholic Church.

[Rich Leonardi]

... Catholic theologians, especially since the Council, have either taught that Protestant "churches" are as much "church" as Catholic churches, or that it is arrogant and triumphalistic to say that Jesus founded the Catholic Church.

It's also common for those involved in parish-based 'lay ministry,' including one director of a local RCIA program who is a graduate of Cincinnati's LPMP, to suggest that "Protestants don't need evangelization."

[Mark Brumley]

It's also common for those involved in parish-based 'lay ministry,' including one director of a local RCIA program who is a graduate of Cincinnati's LPMP, to suggest that "Protestants don't need evangelization."

Unfortunately, this sort of thing gets said and it is reflective of the thinking of many semi-educated Catholics in church work. What could this director have been thinking? If Catholics need evangelization, both initial and ongoing, why wouldn't Protestants? Duh.

[Gail]

"It's also common for those involved in parish-based 'lay ministry,' including one director of a local RCIA program who is a graduate of Cincinnati's LPMP, to suggest that "Protestants don't need evangelization.""

"Unfortunately, this sort of thing gets said and it is reflective of the thinking of many semi-educated Catholics in church work. What could this director have been thinking? If Catholics need evangelization, both initial and ongoing, why wouldn't Protestants? Duh."

According to many of the popular conversion stories I have read, Protestants wishing to convert have often been told by PRIESTS that they don't need to, because they're already Christian so what's the difference? My point is that anyone, lay pastoral minister or priest or parishioner, can say anything. What people are taught to begin with may have nothing to do with what they later come up with on their own or pick up from a book or another person.

My question was about what is officially taught about ecclesiology... what I was taught at the LPMP program in Cincinnati was perfectly orthodox, Rich, and I wanted to know who wasn't being taught it. I know from your previous comments that you aren't too thrilled with the program, but again my experience is that a wide variety of people go into it and if you meet some unorthodox ones, they were probably unorthodox when they started. I have not taken every course by any means, but I have taken a lot of them and I never been taught anything that is not orthodox.

[Mark Brumley]

Good point, Gail.