Dominus Iesus: part V

From the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith

Declaration DOMINUS IESUS on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church

Part five: Unicity and unity of the Church

[We have just established that, whether it is acknowledged or not, all goodness comes from Christ and his 'salvific mystery'; bear this in mind as it starts to talk about the Church] The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5). Therefore, the fullness of Christ's salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27), which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18). And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single “whole Christ”. This same inseparability is also expressed in the New Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).

Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single Body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”. Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church's integrity — will never be lacking. [From even a basic reading of this section, one can see already that the Magisterium - the Church's teaching authority - is Scriptural, which itself if the result of Tradition]

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”.

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. [e.g. the Orthodox faithful are true Churches among others] 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. [whether they accept it or not, the Pope is the spiritual leader of all Christians]

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, [e.g. many protestants, though interestingly, not all - see my note at the bottom*] 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.

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”. In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.

“Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”. [this is a good point to remember; the Lord uses very strange means indeed for salvation, as he did in scripture!]

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”. [i.e. the current state of affairs is not what is intended, and by reading this, one can learn what the intention probably is, according to our perspective at least]

[*Simon's note on a valid Episcopate: This is something I take a keen interest in, though I'm certainly no expert! From what I understand, there are two broad views, which are related to what one views the episcopate as. First: is it another level of Order? In which case, ordinations to the episcopate can be done by any bishop who has been validly ordained in this way; this has happened in the cases of various different 'wandering bishops', who have been ordained such without approval, and thus the priests which they ordain are also valid priests. Many Anglicans who should be Catholics have told me they agree with this view, as do some wayward Catholic groups. Second (which is the view I agree with at the moment): that the episcopate is the fullness of priesthood. When ordained, all priests are imbued with the apostolic succession by virtue of their consecration etc, but it takes a further consecration to unleash this episcopal power which is already part of the ontological change experienced at ordination. Therefore, several things are required for a valid episcopate: that the candidate has been ordained to the presbyteral order by a valid authority, that the ordaining bishops are validly ordained themselves, and that they have an authority from a valid Church (which was explained earlier in this section) to consecrate the candidate]