Pope Benedict XVI recently issued the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus in response to a large number of Anglicans having expressed the desire to be received into the Church. Shortly thereafter, a reporter actually asked a Catholic bishop if the Pope’s response will have a negative effect on Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue
The reporter might as well have asked if upcoming ordinations to the priesthood will have a negative effect on the seminary process, or if future canonizations will have a negative effect on the salvation process. The whole point of ecumenical dialogue is Christian unity, yet there are some who think that dialogue itself is the accomplishment.
Where does this talk-as-accomplishment idea come from? Most who believe in it would claim it comes directly from the Second Vatican Council, yet the Council Fathers flatly disagree. In their decree on ecumenism, entitled Unitatis Redintegratio, it is clearly stated that
We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God (No. 3).
Pretending that the Catholic Church is not uniquely necessary is a characteristic, not of ecumenism, but of ecumania: a sometimes well-intentioned but deeply misguided attempt to place all religious beliefs on the same plane, as if they are equally credible. A primary characteristic of ecumania is talking in circles, never achieving any progress, despite the fact that many ecumaniacs would describe themselves as “progressive”.
Ecumania is based on the misconception that Jesus Christ did not establish a visible, authoritative Church. There is a widespread notion that as long as you have a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” then it doesn’t matter which church you are (or are not) affiliated with. Simply believe in the Lord, read your Bible, and everything is fine, the idea goes.
However, if one were to read his Bible carefully (especially passages such as Matthew 16:17-19, Matthew 18:15-18, 1 Timothy 3:16, and Acts 9:1-10), he would find it beyond dispute that Our Lord founded one Church, and that this one Church is both visible and authoritative. It could be no other way, because without a visible, authoritative Church, there would be chaos. New denominations would spring up right and left, each disagreeing with the others about one aspect or another of Our Lord’s teaching. This is in fact what we see in Protestantism.
The essence of Protestantism is to do one’s own thing, which was made abundantly clear when a caller asked a guest on a Catholic radio show what the difference between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church was. The reply was crystal clear: Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church, and Martin Luther founded the Lutheran Church. Before considering anything else, this should be brought to mind and thoroughly pondered, as all other differences are dependent upon it.
The same concept is true for every other Protestant denomination, including Anglicans, whose founder was the divorce-seeking King Henry VIII. Personal whim and egotism were the motives surrounding the creation of the Anglican Church in the 1500s. The glory of God and the salvation of souls were the motives of Our Lord for the creation of the Roman Catholic Church. Where, then, does the sincere Christian belong?
If that question still needs help being answered, the Council Fathers come to the rescue again, stating that
[T]he Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism [Cf. John 3:5] and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved (Lumen Gentium No. 14).
Those who know the Church is necessary for salvation must become members of the Church to attain salvation. How could it be otherwise? Do we really think that God would save someone who knowingly rejects His plan for salvation? More to the point, can someone who knowingly rejects God‘s plan for salvation actually be said himself to desire salvation?
The goal behind ecumenism is not mere talk, but Christian unity, and this unity is only possible within the framework of divinely constituted authority. Speaking in reference to those Christians not fully united to the Church, the Council Fathers say that:
In all of Christ’s disciples, the [Holy] Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about (Lumen Gentium No. 15).
Can’t we say that the prayer, hope, and work of the Church is paying off when someone not fully united to the Church desires to be so? As long as the Anglicans are not simply searching for a respectable hideout from the liberalism within their denomination, but are in fact converting to the fullness of Divine Revelation in the one Church Our Lord founded, then we can rejoice. Seeking full membership in the Church is the truly progressive thing to do. Refraining from, or keeping others out of, such fullness is anti-progressive.
