 |
Taking Every Thought Captive |
 Got Life? Our Ministry Our Beliefs Our Staff Articles What's New? Contact Us Resources Bookstore Search Links
|
Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism By Massimo Lorenzini The following article is based on my reading of the
“Decree on Ecumenism” from The Documents
of Vatican II. Until 1959, Roman
Catholics have prayed for Church unity with the idea of Protestants returning
to the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and the end of the Orthodox schism. On
January 25, 1959, Pope John XXIII announced his intention to call an Ecumenical
Council. He established a Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity to engage
the invited observers from Protestant and Orthodox communities. According to the decree, the discord among professing
Christians “openly contradicts the will of Christ, provides a stumbling block
to the world, and inflicts damage on the most holy cause of proclaiming the
good news to every creature” (p.341). The decree begins with the description of
professing Christians outside the RCC as “separated brethren” and places blame
for division on “both sides.” The decree contains typically confusing Catholic statements on salvation such as, “all those justified by faith through baptism are incorporated into Christ” (p. 345). Disregarding the unbiblical description of salvation, it appears that the Catholics are conceding that true Christians exist outside the RCC and they regard them as legitimate, though “separated,” brethren. However, on the very next page, we read: “Nevertheless, our separated brethren . . . are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those whom He has regenerated and vivified into one body and newness of life . . . . For 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” (p. 346). Here is found the typical double-speak of the RCC. On one hand, apparently for deceptive means, the “separated brethren” are considered fellow believers, yet on the other hand they are not blessed with the unity that only the RCC has and do not even possess the “fullness of the means of salvation.” So the “separated brethren” are here described as both saved and not saved, depending upon which statement benefits the RCC at the precise moment it is used. There is no evidence of the RCC truly admitting any fault. In fact, there is evidence that they regard themselves as the only pure expression of Christ’s church and that they are without sin. For example, a footnote mentions that the phrase “in its members” was added by Pope Paul to the words “liable to sin” to avoid saying that the RCC is liable to sin (p. 346). So the change now reads, “During its pilgrimage on earth, this People [RCC], though still in its members liable to sin, is growing in Christ . . .” (p. 346). Also, the RCC believes they alone possess the unity which “dwells in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose” (p. 348). Other statements which demonstrate the RCC’s view of themselves as the only true church are: “. . . those individuals who wish for full Catholic communion . . .” and “. . . keeping them informed about the Church . . . .” Though these types of statements are made in passing, they are a sure proof the RCC views ecumenism as a one-way street to the RCC rather than all parties moving towards Christ, as they claim. There are other statements like this such as, “. . . the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from effecting the fullness of catholicity proper to her in those sons who . . . are yet separated from full communion with her” (p. 349). In other words, though there is division among Christians, the “true” church possesses unity and only those outside the RCC are missing this unity. Also, a footnote explains the use of the term “ecclesial communities” (which refers to those Christians outside the RCC) as an implicitly conveying the idea that “the more a Church has of the essential structures of the Catholic Church, the more it approaches the ideal of the Church” (p. 355). Yet another revealing statement is, “. . . dialogue should be undertaken concerning the true meaning of the Lord’s Supper, the other sacraments, and the Church’s worship and ministry” (p. 364). So Protestants obviously do not possess the “true meaning” of Christian expression. Finally, some acknowledgment of this one-sided ecumenism is offered in the response that follows the decree: “. . . the Decree does not really reconcile its ecumenical outlook with its assumption that the Roman Catholic 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.’ Associated with this is the further assumption of the primacy of Peter and of his jurisdiction over the whole Church. These assumptions seem to indicate that the Roman Catholic understanding of ecumenism is unchangeably Rome-centered. If so, how far can the Roman Catholic Church go in ecumenical relations with those whose ecumenism has no center but Christ?” (p. 369). This view of ecumenism is consistent with the way the RCC has always approached it. The only change is a kinder stance toward those outside the RCC with open arms, yet ultimately the outsiders must make the move to enter that embrace. |
