By Andrew Hamilton

The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith recently clarified the relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and other churches. Its document provoked mixed responses. Vatican officials insisted it said nothing new; many others, including Roman Catholics, found it offensive. Both responses were understandable. But taken together they pointed to a lack of attention in preparing such documents.

The Congregation addressed the view that the Roman Catholic Church is simply one of a number of brands offering the same product and that adherence to any church is simply a matter of individual choice. This attitude is part of the cultural air we breathe.

Against this view the Congregation insisted that Christian bodies must be judged by the extent to which their faith and structures represent the shape of the Early Church.All churches agree with this claim. But they define in different ways what continuity with the Early Church means.

Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches emphasise continuity in faith and structure, while Bible-based churches generally emphasise continuity in a particular form of faith. By these standards they judge whether particular Christian bodies truly represent Christ’s Church.

In the Catholic theology that prevailed before the Second Vatican Council,the Roman Catholic Church alone could claim to be Christ’s Church. It drew sharp boundaries between the one true Church and other false churches.

The Second Vatican Council stressed the value of positive elements in other churches, insisting that God could work through these churches for the good of their members. Members of other churches shared Christian faith and their baptism was of decisive significance. The Council reconciled this insight with its conviction that the Roman Catholic Church had a unique place in salvation by using the concept of participation. The Roman Catholic Church shares fully in the reality of Christ’s Church. Other churches participate to greater and lesser degrees.

The Council caught the distinction in its statement that the Church of Christ subsists in the Roman Catholic Church, and by referring to other Christian bodies as ecclesial communities rather than as churches.

The image of participation has two corollaries. It makes less absolute the boundaries between the Roman Catholic Church and other churches. We cannot divide churches into true and false, but into greater and less.We must say that other churches and their ministries are not equivalent to the Roman Catholic Church, but we may not say that they are without value.

The image of participation also brings out the difference between the abstract shape of faith and church structure and the way in which faith is lived out. To say that the Roman Catholic Church uniquely embodies the faith and structured life of the Early Church does not imply that its structures function as Christ would have wanted, or work better than those of other churches.

From this perspective the goal of ecumenical endeavour is not, as Roman Catholics would

...a language that expresses the logic of participation

once have said, that other churches should return to Rome. The priority is that in all churches, their members’ lives, their relationships and their structures correspond to Christ’s values. If they are faithful their paths may lead to a form of unity that is today unimaginable.

That is the background to the document. But although it affirms the text of Vatican II, its context is different. Vatican II wanted to make space for conversation between churches and Christians by emphasising what they share. It shaped its decrees to ensure that they were open to those who were not Roman Catholic.

The Congregation’s document emphasises the boundaries between the Roman Catholic Church and other churches by denying their equivalence. It is not concerned to win or to encourage those outside the Roman Catholic Church in their living of faith. For that reason when it quotes the statements of Vatican II that speak of ecclesial communities and of ministries, the passages have a different resonance than they had in the context of the Council.They seem to be judgemental and naturally give offence.

The document points to the need for the Roman Catholic Church to find a language that expresses the logic of participation. This will emphasise what they share in common, and will speak of differences in this light. It requires attending to the living faith of other churches and not simply to their abstract deficiencies. It is a language that attends first to faces and only then to organisation.This document is lacking in this kind of attention.

In attentive conversation it is possible to say honestly that in Catholic understanding, only the Roman Catholic Church embodies structurally the fullness of church and ministry. But to imply that other churches are not really churches, and that their ministry is not really Christian ministry, would fail to attend to the way in which Christians, including Roman Catholics, commonly use words. The implication of the claim is gratuitously offensive.We should presume that the offence was not intended. But if it is to be avoided, a different kind of attention is needed.

Andrew Hamilton is the consulting editor for Eureka Street. He also teaches at the United Faculty of Theology in Melbourne.

This article appeared in the on-line journal Eureka Street under the title ‘Ecumenical roads no longer lead to Rome’ in July. www.eurekastreet.com