I would not say improbable if you’re not a Catholic. I think that perfect contrition is very difficult for most people, including Catholics.
Proving a negative is a logical impossibility. In any case, a defense of Catholicism would be done in the Apologetics Forum.
When MCC was released, it was doctrine. Its easy for you to say just accept what came now. But what about someone who defended that prior doctrine with zeal? Do you realize how much of a shock it is to then be told that the only thing worthy in that whole encyclical was that Christ was the head?I think the problem is easier than we think. The Church does not change dogma. She can restate, develop it further, add to existing explanations and even correct other explanations that she finds fall short, but the dogma itself remains the same.
In this case, the dogma of the Mystical Body remains the same, meaning that there is a Mystical Body of Christ Christ is the head.
Mystici Corpus Christi is not a dogmatic statement. It is a theological statement. The pope is trying to explain and answer some questions of his time.
Pope Benedict is trying to explain and answer similar questions with the understanding that we have today. If you would read Ut Unum Sint, you’ll find no contradictions with dogma. What you will find is a different understanding of Protestantism. In light of the current state of Protestantism, Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II wrote Ut Unum Sint.
Pope Benedict has continued the work of Ut Unum Sint taking it one step further, which is what he did when he visited Martin Luther’s home a few months ago when he went to Germany. It was there that he made the famous statement that Protestantism today is a different phenomenon from what it was in the past. He also said that the Protestant who is born a Protestant is practicing faith, because this is the faith as he knows it and as it has been handed down to him. He’s not rebelling against anything.
While he was Prefect for the Congregation of the Faith he wrote that these communities are not devoid of truth and therefore are not completely separated from the Mystical Body, even though they exist outside of the physical boundaries of the Church. The reason being that their circumstances have changed. Pope John Paul approved this statement and it was added to the CCC and included in Ut Unum Sint. They also revised the canon dealing with heretics so that it only speaks about Catholics who deviate, not about Protestants. Protestants are not considered heretics, unless he’s a former Catholic. It’s one thing to be born a Protestant and another to leave the Catholic Church to become a Baptist.
How I deal with it is very simple. Mystici Corpus Christi was not a dogmatic decree. It was a theological statement about a dogma. The document did not change the dogma. There is still a Mystical Body. The document tried to answer questions that were pertinent to its day. Ut Unum Sin, is not a dogmatic statement either. It too is a theological statement about a dogma and it tries to answer questions that are being raised today.
Since the question that we’re dealing with today is, “What is the relationship of the Protestant communities to the Church?” I go with the answer this is being given for today.
Part of that answer also makes one big change that was not included in Mystici Corpus Christi. At the time that MCC was written, the thinking was that these were Protestant Churches. When Ut Unum Sint is written, the position of the Catholic Church has changed and it no longer accepts that the Protestants are churches. They are Reformation communities. Once you realize that they cannot be Churches, then you have to restate the same question that you did in 1947. Plus, you have to look at what has changed over those 60 years. There has been a great deal of change. We go with today’s statement, because it speaks about the situation as it is today, not yesterday or next century.
The example of same-sex marriage does not work here. That teaching comes from a moral doctrine that has been revealed. The content of MCC is not revealed truth. It is ABOUT a revealed truth. So are several other documents that followed it. That’s why St.Bonaventure called it the Theology of History and Bl John Henry Newman called it the Development of Christian Doctrine. As history moves forward, Truth remains the same, but situations change. As situations change, they help us understand more about the Truth that was always under our noses, like the seed and the tree. When holding the seed, the tree is right under your nose, but you can’t see it. That will happen with time.
This question about the relationship between the Protestants and the Mystical Body also becomes clearer with time, while the dogma of the Mystical Body remains the same – One body with Christ as its head.
I urge you to read Ut Unum Sin. It answers these questions better than I can. It’s well written and user friendly.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I am interested in your thoughts on what is presented here in this paper
Proving a negative is not logically impossible. Its difficult… but not impossible. I can prove that there is no dragon in my room by simply looking around my room.
Unless there is a limited number of options that can be eliminated, it is. In this, context it is. There are no dragons.
Est means the same in Latin as is means in English. Subsistit in means the same in Latin as subsists in means in English. One is a single entity, the other implies 2 entities. Another problem with the ambiguity isw that it is very easy for many not to see the distinction between those outside the Church having a certain relationship with the Church and being a part of the Church.
“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.”
I just pointed out since you said ‘proving a negative is a logical impossibility’ which did not mention a context but merely seems to lay out a general rule of logic.
So what is left to believe? I was a fool for even defending the church all these years on its initial statement in MCC? The liberals at that time were spot on?“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.”
This is the quote, which Jam has provided. There are key words here, which were not in MCC, because they did not think about it this way.
Key words are:
“are not Churches”
“incorporate in Christ” - Christ has only one body
“certain communion” - there is not a total rupture
“albeit imperfect” - there are defects that need to be fixed to be total communion with the Mystical Body.
When I read this, I immediately thought of an organ of the body that is part of the body, but does not function properly. I took that from Paul’s statement about one body and many parts.
I thought to myself that if there is some kind of incorporation, then how can it be imperfect? That’s when the idea hit me of a defective organ.
When Pope Benedict recently said, “Today’s Protestantism is a different phenomenon.” This became even clearer. It’s really a deficient part of the Christian Church, rather than an absent part. That is certainly a different way of looking at it without giving anything up.
This is what St.Bonaventure and Bl. John Newman were trying to teach us. Our understanding improves with history, while truth remains constant.
Ut Unum Sin deliberately stays away from the term Mystical Body so as not to enter into a conflict with previous documents, but it suggests it by using the term “incorporates”. Which in Latin means to make part of the body.
That’s why I said before, MCC is not a dogma and neither is Ut Unum Sint. They are theological statements about a dogma. They’re coming at it from different points in history and different understanding of Protestantism. What has changed is the understanding of Protestantism, not the understanding of the Mystical Body. The latter is the Truth that remains constant, while the former is not a truth but a phenomenon that evolves.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
“”[t]he phrase subsistit in is intended not only to reconfirm the meaning of the term est, that is, the identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church. Above all, it reaffirms that the Church of Christ, imbued with the fullness of all the means instituted by Christ, perdures (continues, remains) forever in the Catholic Church".3
Agreed that Perfect Contrition is hard for anyone, even Catholics.I would not say improbable if you’re not a Catholic. I think that perfect contrition is very difficult for most people, including Catholics.
The Holy Spirit could see this coming and so we have the conditions that must be met for grave sin:
Many people don’t meet criteria 2 or 3, in which case culpability is diminished and you’re not subjectively guilty of grave sin.
- Serious matter
- Full knowledge
- Full consent of the will
In some cases that I’ve met, these have been Catholics, who should have had full knowledge, but did not. Now that’s scary.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
We have 800 years of the mendicants practicing ecumenism to draw upon. This isn’t counting the Benedictines, who if I’m not mistaken have a similar methodology.
Please believe me that I am not trying to be a smart aleck when I ask this question, because it is the first thought that popped into my head when I read the above. Would this include the sedevacantists as well? I know this is a verboten topic, and I am not trying to start one up, just a simple answer would suffice. If it is “no”, an explanation of why not would be wonderful too.
Jam. you are not alone!
