My second reflection paper will focus on the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio) and the importance of restoring full visible communion between the Catholic Church and those Churches and ecclesial communities that have sadly been separated from Catholic unity over the course of the centuries.  The Fathers of the Council, observing the movement of the Spirit in our own times, determined that it was necessary to set forth the doctrinal principles that must form the basis of a truly Catholic vision for the restoration of unity among all the baptized, and so in this paper I intend to touch upon:  (1) unity of the Church, which is of course a gift of divine grace, and which the Council Fathers emphasized already exists in the Catholic Church through the use of the technical term “subsistit in,” (2) the practical principles that should guide the Catholic faithful in their dialogue with non-Catholic Christians, and (3) the different approaches in connection with theological dialogue that are necessitated because of the nature of the divisions that have arisen during the life of the Church.  This third consideration is based upon the theological distinctions that must be made between dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the ecclesial communities that formed during the doctrinal cleavage of the 16th century Reformation. 

          Now before speaking about the practical aspects of ecumenical dialogue and cooperation it is first necessary to clarify the nature of ecclesial unity and how it is already manifested in the life of the Catholic Church.  The gift of unity is not a human construction, but is rather a grace of God given to the Church, and as such it is not something that she can lose.  In other words, in spite of the historical divisions that have arisen over the course of the centuries, the Catholic Church possesses a unity that is founded upon her union with God in Jesus Christ, and this unity cannot be lost.  The fact that the Church already possesses unity is why the Council Fathers, both in Lumen Gentium and again in Unitatis Redintegratio declared that the unity of the one Church of Christ “. . . subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we [i.e., the Council Fathers] hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.” [1]

          Nevertheless, there has been some confusion among Catholics about exactly what it means to say that the one Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, and so I will try and explain the true meaning of this important term by recourse to an official clarification issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).  In 1985 the CDF had to respond to an erroneous interpretation of the term “subsistit in” which had been promoted by Fr. Leonardo Boff, and which endangered for the doctrine of the faith in connection with the understanding of the Church as a living subsistent reality.  The following quotation is taken from the Congregation’s official notification and as such it is an authoritative interpretation of the conciliar teaching:

          In order to justify it [i.e., a relativistic understanding of the nature of the

          the Church], Leonardo Boff appeals to the constitution Lumen Gentium

          (No. 8) of the Second Vatican Council.  From the council's famous

          statement, “Haec ecclesia (sc. unica Christi ecclesia)... subsistit in ecclesia

          Catholica” (“this Church (that is, the sole Church of Christ)... subsists in the

          Catholic Church”), he derives a thesis which is exactly the contrary to the

          authentic meaning of the council text, for he affirms:  “In fact it (se. the sole

          Church of Christ) may also be present in other Christian churches” (p. 75).

          But the Council had chosen the word subsistit “subsists” exactly in order to

          make clear that one sole “subsistence” of the true Church exists, whereas

          outside her visible structure only elementa ecclesiae “elements of Church”

          exist; these “being elements of the same Church” end and conduct toward the

          Catholic Church (Lumen Gentium, 8). The decree on ecumenism expresses

          the same doctrine (Unitatis Redintegratio, 3-4), and it was restated precisely

          in the declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae (No. 1, AAS LXV (1973), pp. 396-

          398). [2]

Thus, the Church is, as it were, one subsistence or person stretching throughout time, and this one subsistent being is identified with the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of St. Peter. 

          Now, this idea corresponds to the Eastern Christian distinction between energy and hypostasis in God, because one could say that there is only one hypostasis of the Church, but that the energies (i.e., the enhypostatic activities) of that one subject, which are constantly flowing out from the Church into the world, can be participated in by those who are not visibly united to the one hypostasis of the Church.  Nevertheless the energies (i.e., the enhypostatic activities), which are also called graces, are proper to that one subsistent being from which they flow, and as a consequence they draw all those who participate in them back to that one acting subject, because the Catholic Church, as the sole subsistence of the true Church, is the proper subject of all of those graces (i.e., energies).  Thus, when Christians, who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, participate in the grace of God (i.e., the uncreated divine energy), which necessarily flows to them through the Catholic Church, they are called to come back into full communion with that one personal subject, i.e., the Catholic Church.

          Now that the theological background to the term “subsistit in” has been properly defined, and the nature of the Church’s already existing unity clarified, it is possible to move on to the other more practical elements of the teaching of the Council Fathers as it is found in the Decree Unitatis Redintegratio.  Clearly the Council Fathers were not satisfied with merely establishing the theoretical basis for ecumenical endeavors by Catholics; instead, they wanted to foster actual ecumenical activity by the Catholic faithful in cooperation with their separated brethren, both in the Eastern Orthodox Churches and in the Protestant ecclesial communities.

          The Fathers of the Council, recognizing in the desire for the restoration of communion among all Christians the active grace of the Holy Spirit, [3] first proposed that dialogue between the Catholic Church and the various separated communities and Churches be carried out in order that the participants involved in the dialogue become better acquainted with each other, and in the process clarify the true nature of the differences and similarities that exist between them.  This necessary dialogue needs to be carried out in a spirit of openness, and must “. . . avoid expressions, judgments and actions which do not represent the condition of our separated brethren with truth and fairness,” [4] because to fall back into old polemical positions will only work to make the restoration of visible communion all the more difficult.  In other words, past polemical attitudes must be changed, so that all the participants involved in the process gain  “. . . a truer knowledge and more just appreciation of the teaching and religious life” of their dialogue partners. [5]  This educational process is a necessary first step in the ecumenical movement.

          While the necessary theological dialogue mentioned above is carried on, it is possible – even without the resolution of theological differences – to carry on common efforts in the social order, that is, in the work of maintaining the common good within civil society.  Christians, both Catholic and non-Catholic, can work together in order to defend the right to life of the unborn and of those who are infirm due to age or illness, and they can also work together to protect those who may be marginalized in society, or who suffer from poverty or other social evils, and thus “. . . promote justice and truth, concord and collaboration, as well as the spirit of brotherly love and unity.” [6]  This work of social justice and solidarity, although it does not involve a theological dialogue per se, actually concretizes the unity that already exists between the Catholic Church and the various Churches and ecclesial communities, and so this type of ecumenical activity must not be seen as secondary or optional.  In a sense the work of collaboration on social issues helps to solidify and promote the necessary theological dialogue mentioned earlier.

          In addition to theological dialogue and cooperation in working for a just social order and the dignity of man, it is also necessary that a process of conversion (metanoia) take place, on the part of all concerned, so that in overcoming the polemics of the past the Catholic Church and those in dialogue with her may grow closer to that unity which Christ prayed for during His earthly ministry. [7]  In other words, prayer itself must be a focus of the ecumenical efforts of Catholics and of all those who are presently separated from the unity of the Church.  Thus, the Fathers of the Council promoted common prayer as a means for bringing an end to the divisions among Christians, because dialogue and common work alone, without prayer, cannot be efficacious, and so Catholics must pray for, and with, their separated brethren. [8]   In fact, constant recourse to the source of grace in prayer is a necessary element to any truly Christian activity.

          Now, although the Fathers of the Council encourage common prayer with those Christians who have been separated from the Church, they do warn all the faithful that “. . . worship in common (communicatio in sacris) is not to be considered as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of unity among Christians.”   In other words, a distinction is made between prayer in common, which is permitted, and worship in common, which is not generally acceptable.  The reason for this distinction is founded upon the very nature of the unity of the Church itself, for as the Council Fathers put it, “The expression of unity very generally forbids common worship,” while “grace to be obtained sometimes commends it,” but ultimately it is left to the legitimate ecclesiastical authorities to establish guidelines governing the practice of the Church in this area, that is, it is left to the Episcopal Conferences and to the Holy See. [9]

          Now with these practical guidelines established I will briefly touch upon the theological distinction I mentioned at the beginning of this paper, that is, the distinction between the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Protestant ecclesial communities.  First it must be noted that the Orthodox Churches of the East have maintained such a high degree of doctrinal integrity (e.g., apostolic succession, valid sacraments, devotion to the Holy Theotokos, etc.) that it is proper to call them true particular Churches. [10]   In other words, because Eastern Orthodox Churches have preserved a valid priestly ministry, their liturgical celebrations are a true participation in the heavenly worship itself, and consequence, through the liturgy they “. . . have access to God the Father through the Son, the Word made flesh who suffered and was glorified, in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.  And so, made ‘sharers of the divine nature’ (2 Pet. 1:4), they enter into communion with the most Holy Trinity.” [11]  All of this gives a unique status to the Eastern Orthodox Churches, because the level of communion existing between them and the Catholic Church is of a very high degree, and so in any dialogue with them it must be remembered the degree to which they are already in communion with the Catholic Church.

          Sadly, the ecclesial communities arising out of the Reformation did not preserve the apostolic ministry, and so they have not maintained, to the degree that the Eastern Orthodox have, the full meaning of the Eucharistic mystery.  Thus, as far as the communities that descend from the Reformation are concerned, they have not preserved intact the full reality of the Eucharistic mystery, because they have not maintained the apostolic ministry; and as a consequence, these communities are wounded more deeply than the Churches of the East.  That being said, it would be improper to conclude that the Protestant ecclesial communities are devoid of grace, because they do possess some things in common with the Catholic Church (e.g., the sacred scriptures, the sacrament of baptism, an acceptance of the Trinitarian and Christological dogmas, etc.), and so they too have a real, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. [12] 

          In the case of both the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Protestant ecclesial communities the focus of ecumenical dialogue must be on the various things that we share in common; so that, building upon this foundation, a greater degree of communion can be established, hopefully leading to the restoration of full visible communion at some point in the future.  In the case of the Orthodox Churches very little presently separates us, while in the case of the Protestant ecclesial communities dialogue should be focused upon a lively and truthful discussion of differences that will hopefully help them to regain elements of the faith that they have lost, while simultaneously enriching the Catholic Church with the spiritual insights present within those separated communities. [13]

          Finally, in spite of the difficulties that have been encountered since the close of the Council, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council have set the Catholic Church upon and irreversible course that will hopefully bring all baptized Christians back into the grace of Catholic unity.  The journey will be long and arduous, but it must be done because the Lord Himself has willed it.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Works Cited:

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  Communionis Notio.  (Boston:  Pauline Books and Media, 1990).

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  Notification on the Book “Church: Charism and Power, Essay on militant Ecclesiology,” by Father Leonardo Boff, O.F.M.  (Issued 11 March 1985). 

Fr. Austin Flannery.  Vatican Council II:  The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents.  (New York:  Costello Publishing Company, 1987).  Pages 452-470.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.  “The Ecclesiology of the Constitution on the Church.”  L’Osservatore Romano (19 September 2001).

Reflection Paper:  Unitatis Redintegratio and the Desire to Restore Full Communion among all the Baptized

by Steven Todd Kaster

Franciscan University of Steubenville

Theology 604:  The Teachings of Vatican II

Dr. Schreck

15 September 2005

_____________________________________

End Notes:

[1] Fr. Austin Flannery, Vatican Council II:  The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, (New York:  Costello Publishing Company, 1987), Unitatis Redintegratio (UR), no. 4.

[2] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on the Book “Church: Charism and Power. Essay on militant Ecclesiology” by Father Leonardo Boff, O.F.M., (Issued 11 March 1985).  See also, Cardinal Ratzinger, “The Ecclesiology of the Constitution on the Church,” L’Osservatore Romano (19 September 2001):  Page 5; wherein Cardinal Ratzinger in a more detailed manner explains the meaning of the term “subsistit in” and says that:  “With this expression, the Council differs from the formula of Pius XII, who said in his Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi: ‘The Catholic Church ‘is’ (est) the one mystical body of Christ.’ The difference between subsistit and est conceals within itself the whole ecumenical problem. The word subsistit derives from the ancient philosophy as later developed in Scholastic philosophy. The Greek word hypostasis that has a central role in Christology to describe the union of the divine and the human nature in the Person of Christ comes from that vision. Subsistere is a special case of esse. It is being in the form of a subject who has an autonomous existence. Here it is a question precisely of this. The Council wants to tell us that the Church of Jesus Christ as a concrete subject in this world can be found in the Catholic Church. This can take place only once, and the idea that the subsistit could be multiplied fails to grasp precisely the notion that is being intended. With the word subsistit, the Council wished to explain the unicity of the Catholic Church and the fact of her inability to be multiplied: the Church exists as a subject in historical reality.  The difference between subsistit and est however contains the tragedy of ecclesial division. Although the Church is only one and ‘subsists’ in a unique subject, there are also ecclesial realities beyond this subject—true local Churches and different ecclesial communities. Because sin is a contradiction, this difference between subsistit and est cannot be fully resolved from the logical viewpoint. The paradox of the difference between the unique and concrete character of the Church, on the one hand, and, on the other, the existence of an ecclesial reality beyond the one subject, reflects the contradictory nature of human sin and division. This division is something totally different from the relativistic dialectic described above in which the division of Christians loses its painful aspect and in fact is not a rupture, but only the manifestation of multiple variations on a single theme, in which all the variations are in a certain way right and wrong. An intrinsic need to seek unity does not then exist, because in any event the one Church really is everywhere and nowhere. Thus Christianity would actually exist only in the dialectic correlation of various antitheses. Ecumenism consists in the fact that in some way all recognize one another, because all are supposed to be only fragments of Christian reality. Ecumenism would therefore be the resignation to a relativistic dialectic, because the Jesus of history belongs to the past and the truth in any case remains hidden.”

[3] UR 1 and 4.

[4] UR 4.

[5] UR 4; see also, UR 9; for as the Council Fathers indicated, it is important that, “We . . . become familiar with the outlook of our separated brethren.  Study is absolutely required for this, and it should be pursued in fidelity to the truth and with a spirit of good will.  Catholics who already have a proper grounding need to acquire a more adequate understanding of the respective doctrines of our separated brethren, their history, their spiritual and liturgical life, their religious psychology and cultural background.  Most valuable for this purpose are meetings of the two sides – especially for discussion of theological problems – where each can treat with the other on an equal footing, provided that those who take part in them under the guidance of the authorities are truly competent.”

[6] UR 4.

[7] See John 17:20-26.

[8] UR 4.

[9] UR 8.

[10] UR 14 and 15; see also, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Communionis Notio, no. 17.  “This communion exists especially with the Eastern orthodox Churches, which, though separated from the See of Peter, remain united to the Catholic Church by means of very close bonds, such as the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, and therefore merit the title of particular Churches.”

[11] UR 15; moreover, as the Council Fathers go on to say, “. . . through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature, and through concelebration, their communion with one another is made manifest.”  This shows the high degree of unity that already exists between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, since their liturgical celebrations, in spite of the schism, still effectively manifest and renew the saving work of the Lord.

[12] UR 21.

[13] UR 4; as the Council Fathers said, “. . . Catholics must gladly acknowledge and esteem the truly Christian endowments from our common heritage which are to be found among our separated brethren. It is right and salutary to recognize the riches of Christ and virtuous works in the lives of others who are bearing witness to Christ, sometimes even to the shedding of their blood. For God is always wonderful in His works and worthy of all praise.  Nor should we forget that anything wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brethren can contribute to our own edification. Whatever is truly Christian is never contrary to what genuinely belongs to the faith; indeed, it can always bring a more perfect realization of the very mystery of Christ and the Church.”

Copyright © 2005-2025 Steven Todd Kaster