Fr. Hunwicke:
CDF condemns Kasper's ecclesiology
In which Fr. Hunwicke quotes
Communionis Notio:
" ... the particular Churches, insofar as they are 'part of the one Church of Christ,' have a special relationship of 'mutual interiority' with the whole, that is, with the universal Church, because in every particular Church 'the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and active'. For this reason, 'the universal Church cannot be conceived as the sum of the particular Churches, or as a federation of particular Churches'. It is not the result of the communion of the Churches, but, in its essential mystery, it is a reality ontologically and temporally prior to every individual particular Church. Indeed, according to the Fathers, ontologically, the Church-mystery, the Church that is one and unique, precedes creation, and gives birth to the particular Churches as her daughters. She expresses herself in them; she is the mother and not the offspring of the particular Churches. Furthermore, the Church is manifested, temporally, on the day of Pentecost in the community of the one hundred and twenty gathered around Mary and the twelve apostles, the representatives of the one unique Church and founders-to-be of the local churches, who have a mission directed to the world. From the beginning the Church speaks all languages.
"From the Church, which in its origins and its first manifestation is universal, have arisen the different local Churches, as particular expressions of the one unique Church of Jesus Christ. Arising within and out of the universal Church, they have their ecclesiality in her and from her. Hence the formula of the Second Vatican Council: The Church in and formed out of the Churches (Ecclesia in et ex Ecclesiis), is inseparable from this other formula: The Churches in and formed out of the Church (Ecclesiae in et ex Ecclesia*)."
I've been using the model of a federation of particular Churches as an alternate way of understanding Vatican I's claims about the papal office -- in opposition to a ultramontanist, monarchical model with the bishop of Rome at the top of the pyramid, having the authority to micromanage. It would seem that the note from the CDF makes the former model untenable. But is it unintenable in so far as we are talking only about the authority of the bishops, especially of the bishop of Rome, rather than the essential nature of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ? I affirm that as well, and that Christ is the head of the Church while the bishops are His representatives here on earth. So how are they coordinated? After all, are there any prominent Orthodox bishops or theologians who deny the unity of Christ's Church?
