Catholic Views of Protestantism


On June 29th the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the former office run by the current Pope, issued a statement of clarification on the doctrine of the church. It is seen as a clarification of possible erroneous interpretations of Vatican II. It of course falls on the heels of the statement on the Latin Mass. The first got liberal Catholics and Jews riled up, but this one has gotten Protestants especially riled up. This bit of clarification has of course made the rounds across the blogosphere and multiple news sources -- here's one from the Guardian.

From the reports that I read, it was seen as a retrenchment and a rather negative statement towards Orthodoxy, which according to reports is either defective or wounded, but is church nonetheless. Protestant commuities, on the other hand, are worse off because they're not truly church. The question arises, is this a change or not?

Because I'm a Protestant pastor and my wife is a Protestant who teaches at a Catholic School, I'm interested in how the Church perceives Protestants. The official statement found at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states why Protestant communities are not called church is as follows:

Response: According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called "Churches" in the proper sense[20].


Our "ecclesial communities" are not truly church essentially because we neither have an ordered clergy in apostolic succession not do we have valid sacraments. In many ways this is nothing new. The Roman Church has always understood the Pope as having universal authority. Therefore, the Orthodox churches are true churches because they have bishops in apostolic succession, but they are defective/wounded because they are not in submission to the Pope. Protestants (though the Anglican communion and the Church of Sweden will beg to differ) lack the proper succession and therefore are not only outside the realm of papal submission they lack the necessary elements for being a true church. This isn't a change from Vatican II.

The Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican II from 1964 does recognize that there are "significant elements and endowments, which together go to build up and give life to the church itself" that "exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic church." I take this statement to mean that non-Catholic Churches are Christian, because they have elements of the church present such as the Word of God, liturgy and worship, etc., but as the statement goes on to say:

"It is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained . . ." (Henry Bettenson and Chris Maunder, Documents of the Christian Church, New Edition, Oxford, 1999, p. 364).


So the question has more to do with intent and timing than anything. I already knew that in Catholic Eyes my faith tradition is less than perfect, but how might this effect my relationships with Catholics? What are the implications? That question remains to be answered. It could for instance mean that Roger Mahoney could tell the schools in the archdiocese that non-Catholics should not teach in Catholic schools. I doubt he'll do that, but he could.
It is probably true that Ratzinger is no more conservative and perhaps more moderate than John Paul II, and this statement was approved by Benedict but it comes from his successor, William Cardinal Levada, formerly of San Francisco! So we wait and see what the consequences are to be of this new interest in clarifying Vatican II.



Comments

Mystical Seeker said…
It's true that there is nothing new in this. The Catholic Church has always been appalling arrogant in its opinion of other faiths, and this is just a continuation of this view. It has never believed that it is just one denomination among many, and it has always lacked the mutual respect necessary to make ecumenism really work.

That being said, as I pointed out in my own blog posting on this subject, the church has reversed itself on its stance on the availability of salvation to non-Catholics. Hans Kung pointed this out in one of his books (I think it was "On Being a Christian".) Of course, the church never admits that it ever reverses itself on anything, but this is a disingenuous and self-serving claim. The fact is that the Catholic Church used to teach that all non-Catholics--including Jews and "schismatics"--went to hell. Vatican II said that this simply wasn't true, and it offered respect for non-Catholics and non-Christians, including Muslims. So there is a precedent for the church to open itself up to greater respect for others outside their hallowed boundaries. Obviously, Benny isn't the one to do it, but that's another story.
Anonymous said…
This is basically just a clarification of Dominus Iesus from seven years ago -- there's no change from what the Roman church's doctrine has been. It's just a clarification. And it's fully in line with the Vatican II documents.

I think the reason for the timing is internal. There have some Roman theologians going out into broader ecumenical territory and Rome wants to reign them in. (Tobias Haller described Rome's position as "sedentary ecumenism," which I think is apt.)

It's useful, in a way. It clarifies precisely where they are. They're not in a good place, but it's positive for the ecumenical effort to know the truth.

Incidentally, contrary to what MS is saying, this does not overturn Vatican II and suggest that Jews or Protestants go to hell. In fact, Dominus Iesus itself allows that even non-Abrahamic religions may have salvific content. The formula used to be "no salvation outside the church," but it is now "no salvation without the church" -- that is, the Roman Catholic Church is believed to be involved in their salvation, even if they are outside it and are saved. (Ratzinger is closely associated as a theologian with Hans Urs von Balthasar, whose theology teaches a reserved kind of universalism. I suspect Ratzinger believes something similar personally, but he does not teach it as Pope. In any case, it's a mainstream position among Roman Catholic theologians.)

As a side note, Independent Catholics are far more ecumenical than this. We do, however, believe the apostolic succession is important and should not be left by the wayside.
Robert Cornwall said…
Chris,

Thanks for the thoughts here. When I posted I figured you would add some clarification.

On Apostolic Succession, I understand the principle -- I did my doctoral work on high church Anglicanism after all -- but I think in the long run for the sake of Christian unity it will have to be refigured in a way that doesn't depend on episcopacy but has more to do with faithful receipt of the gospel -- or something similar.
Mystical Seeker said…
Fr Chris, I never claimed that the current document claimed that protestants were going to hell. What I said was that prior to Vatican II, the church used to believe that Protestants went to hell, while Vatican II said basically just the opposite, which is to say that the church has a history of having reversed itself (contrary to the claims that it makes of never changing its doctrines). I may not have phrased it very well, but that was the point I was trying to make. Given the precedent of the church changing its mind on how it should relate to other churches, there is no reason why the church cannot go further and treat the churches with a modicum of mutual respect, something that it does not do now.
Anonymous said…
Bob --

I'm afraid defining the AS in terms of faithfully receiving the Gospel would be donatism. The sacraments can be validly celebrated even by ministers who have not faithfully received the Gospel, or else the Church historically would be in bad shape. Ecclesia supplet has to play some role in what's going on.

Also, given that episcopal governance is biblical, and more widespread than any other kind of governance in the Christian world, it seems likely that if there are any moves, it will be toward episcopal governance. (Even if this is implemented in a democratic context, as it is in the Episcopal Church, the ELCA, and some Independent Catholic jurisdictions.)

MS --

I misunderstood your comment. I apologize for that.

However, I don't think it makes sense that if the Roman church were respectful, it would automatically change its teachings. Given where they are, the most respectful thing to do is to tell the truth about what they believe, which they're doing. Based on their theology, even the theology of the Council, I don't believe it would be easy for them to abandon the belief that a) they and the Orthodox alone have safeguarded the Apostolic Succession (denying the claims of Independent Catholics, Anglicans, some Lutherans, and others) and b) the Pope has universal primacy and universal jurisdiction. The latter has been a sticking point with the Orthodox for about a thousand years. It's really not going away soon.

To my mind, the most powerful breakthrough that could come would be giving up closed communion. There is no good theological argument for keeping the vast majority of non-Roman Catholics away from the Eucharist. It is indeed a sign of unity -- substantial unity does exist among most mainstream Christians. But it is also a means for effecting unity. If the Roman church started admitting all baptized Christians to its Table, or even all creedal Christians, we would see tremendous changes. Until then, I doubt they're going to get much more ecumenical than they are now.

(I would point out, though, that while I don't agree with the Roman church's claims that the whole Church of Christ subsists in it alone, it is more than "just one denomination among many". It is the largest of the Christian churches, one of the churches most grounded in our tradition, and has safeguarded many things of worth that have been eliminated by some Protestant churches. Some of their doctrines infuriate me, and I don't believe I or anyone else needs to make submission to the Pope as a universal patriarch, but they are not merely "a denomination", IMHO.)
Anonymous said…
The Blessed Sacrament is the Church's greatest treasure and is guarded as such. No Catholic Christian can receive Holy Communion unless they are free from serious sin. The sacrament of Confession restores the soul to a state of grace. Non-catholic Christians may not be aware of this.
In addition there must be full unity in the one, apostolic Church built on the rock of Peter.
In the Church, Holy Communion is infinitely more than a mere representation of the body and blood of Christ. It is the actual presence of the body, blood, soul and divinity of the infinite God himself, the second person of the Trinity. Protestant teaching rejects this fact.
Another reason why the Church refuses Holy Communion to non-Catholic Christians is because of the teaching of St. Paul. 'Anyone who receives the Eucharist without discerning the body and blood of Jesus therein brings condemnation upon himself'.
If anyone would like to know more about why the Church teaches what she does, visit 'catholic defenders of the faith geocites'.
Anonymous said…
I seem to remember reading somewhere that Jesus Christ was not a Catholic. In fact, am I correct to say he was a Jew?
Anonymous said…
Jesus was certainly a Jew, but he established the ONE apostolic Church, also known as the Universal or Catholic Church. Catholic means universal ie ALL people in ALL places, having ALL that is necessary, and for ALL time. As to the authority of this one Church founded by Christ, we need only to read the writings of the Fathers who are far closer in time to the beginnings of the one Church than we are. St. Irenaeus, for example, was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who was himself a disciple of St. John, and he had this to say:'...we point to the tradition of that very great and very ancient and universally known Church which was founded and established at Rome by the two glorious Apostles Peter and Paul: we point, I say to the tradtion which this Church has from the Apostles, and to her faith proclaimed to men which comes down to our time through the succession of her bishops, and so we put to shame all who assemble in unauthorized meetings. For with this Church, because of it's superior authority, all must agree-that is the faithful everywhere-in communion with which Church the tradition of the Apostles has been always preserved by those who are everywhere'.

Popular Posts