`Subsistit' in Ecumenical Ecclesiology.pdf

http://itq.sagepub.com

Irish Theological Quarterly

DOI: 10.1177/0021140007079136 2007; 72; 61 Irish Theological Quarterly

Paolo Gamberini `Subsistit' in Ecumenical Ecclesiology: J. Ratzinger and E. Jüngel

http://itq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/72/1/61 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Pontifical University, St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland

can be found at:Irish Theological Quarterly Additional services and information for

http://itq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://itq.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

© 2007 Irish Theological Quarterly. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. by Ilie Chiscari on November 30, 2007 http://itq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.maynoothcollege.ie/

http://itq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://itq.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav


Irish Theological Quarterly72 (2007) 61–73

© 2007 Irish Theological QuarterlySage Publications, Los Angeles, London,

New Delhi and SingaporeDOI: 10.1177/0021140007079136

61

‘Subsistit’ in Ecumenical Ecclesiology: J. Ratzinger and E. JüngelPaolo GamberiniPontificia Facoltà Teologica dell’Italia Meridionale, Naples

This article addresses the issue of an ecumenical understanding of subsistit, comparing theformer Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s with Eberhard Jüngel’s Ecclesiology. According toRatzinger, the ecclesiological subsistit has a Christological foundation, whereas, accordingto Jüngel, the term must be understood within the framework of a Trinitarian theology. Theauthor argues that these alternative interpretations of subsistit can be united on the basis ofthe self-communication of the Trinitarian God. Thus the context in which to understandthe subsistit should be the oikonomia rather than the theologia.

KEYWORDS: Dominus Iesus, Ecclesiology, Ecumenism, Jüngel, Ratzinger, Subsistit

The term subsistit is one of the most discussed and variously interpretedwords of the Second Vatican Council.1 We find it in the dogmatic con-

stitution Lumen Gentium (� LG) n. 8 and in the Decree on EcumenismUnitatis Redintegratio (� UR) nn. 4 and 13, where it is said that the Churchof Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.2 There is a last mention of subsistitin the Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis humanae n. 1, where itis said that ‘this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and apostolicChurch.’ Without a full and specific analysis of the history and of the reasonsthat lie behind the introduction of this word in the conciliar texts, we wouldlike to recall the recent discussion on the interpretation of subsistit, especiallyin ecumenical ecclesiology. First, we shall examine two positions: one, thatof the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, and theother, that of the Lutheran theologian, Eberhard Jüngel. Second, we will

1. The word subsistit is a modus, a form of being, of est. When we declare that the Churchof Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, it means that the Church of Christ is properlypresent in her and finds in her the right subject (subsistentia).2. For a detailed history and study of the introduction of subsistit in Vatican II, see Francis A.Sullivan, ‘Sussiste la Chiesa di Cristo nella Chiesa cattolica romana?’ in Reneé Latourelle,Vaticano II: Bilancio e prospettive. Venticinque anni dopo (1962–1987) (Roma: CittadellaEditrice, 1987), 81–824; Francis A. Sullivan, ‘Quaestio disputata. A Response to Karl Becker,S.J., on the Meaning of “subsistit in,”’ Theological Studies 67 (2006): 395–409; D. Hercsik, ‘Il“subsistit in”: ‘La Chiesa di Cristo e la Chiesa cattolica,’ La Civiltà Cattolica 3 (2006): 111–122.

061-073 ITQ-079136.qxd 24/7/07 10:04 AM Page 61



examine the declaration Dominus Jesus of the Congregation for the Doctrineof the Faith in order to see what interpretation this document offers for thesubsistit and consider what obstacles this interpretation might pose for ecu-menical dialogue. Third, we shall restate the christological and trinitarianinterpretations of subsistit, in order to present an alternative that is more inkeeping with the economic than the immanent Trinity.

The Subsistit in the Ecclesiology of Ratzinger and Jüngel

A recent presentation of Ratzinger’s thought on this issue may be found inan interview published originally in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung andlater translated in Osservatore Romano.3 Pius XII declared in his encyclicalMystici Corporis that the Catholic Church is the only Church of Jesus Christ,expressing an exclusive identification in such a way that nothing of theChurch could be found outside the Catholic Church. According to Ratzingerthis formulation does not express the unbroken Catholic tradition, not men-tioned in the encyclical, but shared by Pius XII, by which the Eastern ortho-dox churches, separated from Rome, are true local churches. It is only inrelation to the Ecclesial Communities born with the Reformation of the16th century, affirms Ratzinger, that we may say that something different hasbeen constituted ‘but Church “happens” there, so to speak.’4

The Church of Christ is not the sum of many Churches. Both theCatholic and the Orthodox Churches share a similar ecclesiological under-standing of the nature of the Church of Christ, corresponding to the guar-antee of Christ. There is only one true Church of Christ and there cannot bepieces of it. By the word subsistit Vatican II wished to state clearly two things:first, that this Church of Christ truly exists as the actual Catholic Church andthat the Lord Jesus assures its existence notwithstanding, and in spite of, oursin; and second, that an ecclesial reality does exist outside the CatholicChurch. The tension between these two statements provides the incentivefor striving towards unity. This does not exclude the possibility that theChurch of Christ finds elsewhere a certain kind of incomplete and imperfectpresence.

During a Symposium on Vatican II, held in 1999, Ratzinger explainedthe christological understanding of subsistit. The Councils of the Church usedthe word subsistit in relation to the hypostatic union. As Jesus subsists in theWord as such, and there is only one subsistence of the Logos, so analogically

62 IRISH THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

3. See Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 22 September 2000, 51. This is also published in JosephRatzinger, ‘“Es scheint mir absurd, was unsere lutherischen Freunde jetzt wollen” – DiePluralität der Bekenntnisse relativiert nicht den Anspruch des Wahren: Joseph KardinalRatzinger antwortet seinen Kritikern,’ in ‘Dominus Iesus’. Anstößige Wahrheit oder anstößigeKirche? ed. M.J. Rainer (Münster: Lit Verlag, 2001), 29–45; Joseph Ratzinger, ‘Sulle principaliobiezioni sollevate contro la Dichiarazione Dominus Iesus,’ Osservatore Romano, 8 October2000, 4.4. ‘aber “dort ereignet sich Kirche”, um es einmal so auszudrücken’ (Ratzinger, ‘Es scheintmir absurd,’ 33).

061-073 ITQ-079136.qxd 24/7/07 10:04 AM Page 62



there is only one ecclesiological subsistence of the Church of Christ. Theword subsistit comes from the Greek word hypostasis and has an essentialmeaning in Christology. It describes the union of the divine and humannature in the person of Christ. Subsistere is a special form of esse. It is the beingof a subject existing by itself. The Council wishes to inform us that the Church of Jesus Christ as a concrete subject may be found in theCatholic Church. This may happen only once and to think that subsistit canbe multiplied betrays the true understanding of the Council. By the wordsubsistit the Council wished to express the unicity of the Catholic Churchthat cannot be multiplied.5

Ratzinger declines to read the subsistit in a trinitarian way, as EberhardJüngel does, since the Latin translation of the Greek word hypostasis is per-sona and not subsistentia. The word subsistere cannot express the unity andthe trinitarian distinctions. Furthermore we cannot transfer the trinitarianlanguage into ecclesiology, because we risk falling into tritheism and deny-ing trinitarian unity. The unity we find among Christian churches cannotbe compared with the unity of the triune God. Finally, we cannot compare,even analogously, the self-evident contradictions among Churches andEcclesial Communities with the hypostatic differences.

To these serious objections Jüngel replies that the word subsistit in VaticanII did not have an exclusive meaning. The Church of Christ does not subsistonly and exclusively in the Catholic Church. By the word subsistit the Councildeclared that, notwithstanding divisions within Christianity, the Church ofChrist continues to exist in the Catholic Church and that outside her vis-ible boundaries we may find elements of the Church. Furthermore the philo-sophical Latin word subsistere stands for to realize, to be truly and concretelythere. Thus humanity subsists in every human being; divinity subsists in theTrinitarian persons.

Vatican II did not narrow the use of subsistere, as the document of theCongregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Dominus Iesus does in n. 16 atfootnote 56, but it leaves it open so that it is possible that the subsistenceof the Church of Christ may also be realized in other ecclesial realities.6

The semantic limitation of the scope of the term subsist in Dominus Iesusdoes not correspond to the Dogmatic use of the word subsistere in Trinitariantheology. God’s one essence subsists not only in one person but in three per-sons, in the persons of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. These

‘SUBSISTIT’ IN ECUMENICAL ECCLESIOLOGY 63

5. Joseph Ratzinger, ‘L’ecclesiologia della costituzione Lumen Gentium,’ Nuova Umanità 22(2000): 383–407, at 402–403.6. ‘The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis thatthe one Church of Christ could subsist also in non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial commu-nities is therefore contrary to the authentic meaning of Lumen gentium. The Council insteadchose the word subsistit precisely to clarify that there exists only one subsistence of the trueChurch, while outside her visible structure there only exist elementa Ecclesiae, which – beingelements of that same Church – tend and lead toward the Catholic Church’ (Congregationfor the Doctrine of the Faith, ‘Notification on the Book “Church: Charism and Power” byFather Leonardo Boff,’ Acta Apostolica Sedis 77 [1985]: 756–762).

061-073 ITQ-079136.qxd 24/7/07 10:04 AM Page 63



three persons may be identified as three modes of subsistence or individualexistences of the one divine essence. Although God subsists in three distinctpersons, it does not mean that God is in himself divided, since he is a com-munion of reciprocal being-other. According to Jüngel we may understandthe mystery of the unity within the Church of Christ in the light of the unitywithin the Trinity, since in the world the Church is the image of the mys-terium trinitatis.

To the objections raised by Ratzinger regarding the correspondencebetween the Doctrine of the Trinity and Ecclesiology, the Lutheran theo-logian from Tübingen replies that the Roman Synod, held on the 27 March680, speaking of the Trinity, clearly uses the word persons and subsistences.‘Trinitatem in unitate, et unitatem in Trinitate, unitatem quidem essentiae,Trinitatem vero personarum sive subsistentiarum.’7 To the objection of tri-theism, Jüngel replies that the unity of the trinitarian God must be understoodin a relational way as a communion of reciprocal relations (alius-alius-alius).Finally, to the objection of transferring ecclesial contradictions into the lifeand unity of the Trinity, Jüngel replies that in God there is not only corres-pondence among the Trinitarian persons, but there is also the greatest ten-sion between life and death, between God and sin, so that the unity in Godshould be comprehended not only as the utmost unity but as that greatopposition in an even greater unity.

This way of understanding the trinitarian unity may be taken as an ana-logy for the unity of the Church. The Church is one as God is one and thereare no other gods, although in God himself there are different subsistences.The Church is only one as identity in difference and this is made evident atthree levels: among the different members of the one Body of Christ; in thedifference between the visible and the invisible Church; in the difference be-tween ecclesia militans and ecclesia triumphans, among the different and sep-arated communities, between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Within thesedifferences and tensions subsists the one Church of Christ.

The Christological Dimension of Subsistit in the DeclarationDominus Iesus

In order to further clarify the subsistit we cannot but refer to the declar-ation of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Dominus Iesus. Thebest way to interpret this document is to analyze the structure of the wholedeclaration. The document is divided in two sections. The first section,from Chapter 1 to 3, is concerned with the Christological question, deal-ing especially with the definitive revelation and uniqueness of Jesus Christagainst any form of theological pluralism and relativism. The second sectionof the declaration, from Chapter 4 to 6, deals with the Ecclesiological


7. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum. Definitionum et declarationum de rebusfidei et morum, ed. Peter Hünermann (Bologna: EDB, 1995), 546.

061-073 ITQ-079136.qxd 24/7/07 10:04 AM Page 64



dimension: the question of the unity and unicity of the Church of Christ.Some authors wished to keep these two sections quite distinct, saying thatthey are set accidentally and externally side by side.8 Whereas Churcheshave positively received the first part of the document, the second parthas been strongly criticized and seen as a rejection of all the Ecumenicaldialogue of these past 30 years. But I think that such critics ought not toover-influence our understanding of the inner logic and interpretation ofthe declaration.

The whole document revolves around the word subsistit. The first part ofDominus Iesus was addressed to those who advocate a theology of religiouspluralism. The basic Christological argument of the first section of the dec-laration underlines the real identity between the pre-existent Word of God,or Logos asarkòs, and the Word incarnate, or Logos ensarkòs (cf. n. 10). Againstthose who distinguish between a saving activity of the Logos as such in hisdivinity and a saving activity of the Logos incarnate, maintaining that theformer exceeds the latter, the document replies that there is an absolute cor-respondence between the saving activity of the Logos as such in his divinityand the activity of the Word made flesh. The divinity of the Logos as suchcannot be understood as something beyond Jesus of Nazareth. The divineWord who is infinite and absolute reveals himself to humanity in many ways,but this Word subsists only and exclusively in Jesus Christ. Indeed there is justone subsistence of the Word of God.

The uniqueness of Jesus Christ does not exclude, however, participatedmediations which have their source and origin in the unique mediation ofJesus Christ. Quoting Lumen Gentium n. 62 and Redemptoris Missio n. 5, thedocument of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith does not excludethat religions may be understood as different forms of mediation, with dif-ferent types and degrees (cf. n. 14).

The second section of the document (chapters four through six) deals withthe Ecclesiological question and in particular nn. 16–17 handle the questionof the subsistit. There is a real connection between the meaning of subsistit inthe Christological section and the meaning of subsistit in the Ecclesi-ological section. The strength and the weakness of Dominus Iesus lie in thisconnection. Its strength is the Christological foundation that gives unicity to the Church of Christ: one Saviour, one Church. There is no universal andinvisible Church that grants salvation, but since God made himself visible inthe life of Jesus, so salvation becomes flesh through human, concrete and his-torical relations, that is, through a social institution, which is this Church. Asthe kénosis of the Logos accepted the limits of a human history – Jesus ofNazareth who died under Pontius Pilate – so the kénosis of this Word incar-nate continues to accept the visible limits of a human community. ‘ThisChurch, constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists in theCatholic church, governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in


8. See Rainer, ‘Dominus Iesus’. Anstößige Wahrheit.

061-073 ITQ-079136.qxd 24/7/07 10:04 AM Page 65



communion with him’ (LG 8). Its weakness consists in its overlooking theanalogy which underlies the declaration as a whole. The Ecclesiologicalsubsistit is not the extension of the Christological one: there are elements ofcontinuity and similarity, but, at the same time, there are also elements ofdiscontinuity and dissimilarity.

In the Christological section the document declares that any kind of sep-aration between the Word and Jesus Christ, and between the Christ andJesus of Nazareth, is contrary to Christian faith. ‘Therefore, the theory whichwould attribute, after the incarnation as well, a salvific activity to the Logosas such in his divinity, exercised “in addition to” or “beyond” the humanityof Christ, is not compatible with the Catholic faith’ (n. 10). The Inter-national Theological Commission stated in a document, Christianity andWorld Religions (1997), that the theology of religious pluralism does notregard Jesus as unique or as an exclusive Saviour. According to the theologyof religious pluralism it is only for Christians that Jesus is the human formof God, who adequately makes possible the encounter of man with God,although not in an exclusive way.

Jesus is totus Deus, since he is the active love of God on earth, but he isnot totum Dei, because Jesus does not exhaust God’s love. We mightsay: totum Verbum, sed non totum Verbi. The Logos, who is greater thanJesus, can become human also in the founders of other religions. Thisproblematic statement is made also when we say that Jesus is theChrist, but the Christ is more than Jesus. This argument makes it easierto universalize the action of the Logos in the world religions; but thetexts of the New Testament never speak of the Logos of God withoutmentioning Jesus. (nn. 21–22)

For the advocates of religious pluralism there is a univocal relationbetween this Jesus of Nazareth and the Word or the Christ. Whatever refersto Jesus, belongs to the Christ, since between Jesus and the Christ (or theLogos) there is a direct relation, but we cannot say that what Christ (orthe Logos) is, can be predicated of Jesus. We do not have reciprocitybetween Christ and Jesus. The Christ always exceeds Jesus, so that JesusChrist mediates salvation not just because he is this Jesus but because he isthe Christ. It is for this reason that other mediators, alongside Jesus, arenot excluded.

This pluralistic understanding of religions was rejected by both theInternational Commission in 1997 and the Congregation for the Doctrine ofFaith in 2000. Both denied any kind of distinction between totum Verbum ortotus Christus and totum Verbi or totum Christi. Between this Jesus and theChrist (or Logos) there is not only a formal identity but there is a materialidentity. We must say not only that Jesus is the Word, and Jesus is the Christ,but also that whatever the Word and the Christ are, they are this Jesus. AsYves Congar clearly states in his essay Jésus-Christ: Notre médiateur – notre


061-073 ITQ-079136.qxd 24/7/07 10:04 AM Page 66



Seigneur: what is surprising is not that Jesus Christ is God, but that God isJesus Christ.9 This Jesus is the only mediator, in him all God’s salvation isconcentrated; other forms of mediation are possible, but only as rooted andoriginated in the Word incarnate. Jesus is not only totus Christus and totumVerbum but he is first of all totum Christi and totum Verbi. Quoting RedemptorisMissio n. 5, the declaration Dominus Iesus says that ‘although participatedforms of mediation of different kinds and degrees are not excluded, theyacquire meaning and value only from Christ’s own mediation, and they can-not be understood as parallel or complementary to his’ (n. 14).

If the unicity of Jesus Christ’s mediation does not exclude other media-tors, as long as they participate in the unique mediation of Jesus Christ,the unicity of the Catholic Church does not exclude different kinds anddegrees of participation in the Church of Christ. In the ecclesiologicalsection of Dominus Iesus this important continuity with the christologicalsection was not developed. Dominus Iesus could have taken the pattern ofLumen Gentium nn. 14–16 which states that there is a gradual belongingto the Catholic Church. There are churches and Ecclesial Communitiesthat are acknowledged as means of salvation, although they do not belongwithin the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church. The source and theorigin of their mediation of salvation is not the Catholic Church, as such,but it is Christ, from whom is derived all the means of salvation. ‘For theSpirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvationwhich derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truthentrusted to the Church’ (UR 3). To the Catholic Church is entrusted thefullness of the means of salvation, but the origin and the source of thesemeans remains the Church of Christ. We must remember that the Dogmaticconstitution Lumen Gentium speaks of the Church as ‘sign and means of theintimate union with God’ (n. 1).

We may now point out the discontinuity between the christological andthe ecclesiological section of the declaration Dominus Iesus. Whereas inthe christological dimension there is no saving mediation beyond and out-side the Word incarnate, in the ecclesiological one there is a saving medi-ation beyond and outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church.This is the fundamental difference between christology and ecclesiologywith respect to the subsistit, which makes it very clear why there is not aperfect correspondence between the mystery of the church and the mysteryof Christ. Outside and beyond the visible boundaries of the CatholicChurch ‘there are very many of the significant elements and endowmentswhich together go to build up and give life to the Church itself. … the writ-ten word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the otherinterior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these,which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the oneChurch of Christ’ (UR 3).


9. See Yves Congar, Jésus-Christ: Notre médiateur – notre seigneur (Paris: Cerf, 1965), 28.

061-073 ITQ-079136.qxd 24/7/07 10:04 AM Page 67



Whereas in the christological dimension we are to avoid any kind of dis-tinction between totum Verbum or totum Christum and totum Verbi or totumChristi, in the ecclesiological one we are to assert that the Catholic Churchis fully the Church of Christ: ecclesia catholica est tota ecclesia. The CatholicChurch understands herself as formally identical and coincident with theChurch of Christ (subsistit), since in her there is the fullness of the meansof salvation. Because of this formal identity between the Catholic Churchand the Church of Christ there can be only one subsistence of the Churchof Christ, as the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith stated in theNotification of 11 March 1985 on the book Church: Charism and Power. AnEssay of Militant Ecclesiology by Fr Leonard Boff. At the same time theChurch of Christ is not exhausted in the visible and institutional bound-aries of the Catholic Church. ‘The Church of Christ is a real communion,realized by different degrees of density and fullness, in bodies that all havea true ecclesial character, although some more fully than others.’10 TheRelatio of the Council explained the words used in n. 22 of the Decree onEcumenism, saying that ‘in these communities the one Church of Christ ispresent, though imperfect, in such a way as in the local Churches and inthem the Church of Christ is in some way active through the means oftheir ecclesial elements.’11

If there are elementa ecclesiae beyond and outside the Catholic Church,we must acknowledge that the ecclesia catholica non est totum ecclesiae. Inthis acknowledgment we can understand why it is that the Council Fathersintroduced the subsistit and avoided using est. They realized that beyondthe fullness of the Catholic Church (tota ecclesia) there is a much morefundamental reality, namely, the Church of Christ (totum ecclesiae).

The ‘subsistit’ must be understood as a lessening of the exclusive form‘est,’ used by the Catholic Church in order to identify herself with theChurch of Christ. In this way it is clear that there are ecclesial elementsoutside the Catholic Church. Therefore we may ascribe the word‘church’ – in its basic form – to other churches. This means that out-side the organized form of the Catholic Church there is truly ‘church’and not only elements of the Church. Otherwise Vatican II could nothave spoken of ‘Church and ecclesial communities.’ (UR 14ss; 19ss)12

However, Vatican II did not make it clear how to relate the full subsistenceof the Church of Christ in the Catholic Church with the presence (adest)of the Church of Christ in the other Churches and Ecclesial Communities.


10. Sullivan, ‘Sussiste la Chiesa,’ 823.11. Acta Synodalia Sacrosancto Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II (Vatican City: TypisPolyglottis Vaticanis, 1970–1978), Vol. II, 335.12. Peter Lüning, ‘Das ekklesiologische Problem der subsistit in (LG 8) im heutigenökumenischen Gespräch,’ Catholica 52 (1998): 1–23, at 6.

061-073 ITQ-079136.qxd 24/7/07 10:04 AM Page 68



The full ‘material’ presence of the Church of Christ (totum ecclesiae) goesfar beyond the visible boundaries and the formal fullness of the CatholicChurch (tota ecclesia). The mystical Body of Christ and the Catholic Churchare not totally and materially identical. Recognizing the presence of elementaecclesiae outside the Catholic Church means that there is no longer a recip-rocal and exclusive identification between the Church of Christ and theCatholic Church. The Catholic Church no longer understands herself asmaterially identical (est) with the Church of Christ.

We need to keep apart the two expressions used in the Decree on Ecu-menism: the Catholic Church and the Church of Christ. We may understandthe Catholic Church in two ways: one transcendental and the other institutional.When by Catholic Church we have in mind the ecclesia of the Credo – una,sancta, catholica et apostolica – then we affirm the ecclesial identity, that is theontological dimension of the Catholic Church. Here Catholic Church is equalto the Church of Christ. ‘For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church,which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fullyfrom the means of salvation’ (UR n. 3). This ontological and transcendentaldimension of the Catholic Church must be distinguished from the institu-tional, confessional or external dimension.13

When we say that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church,we are referring to the confessional, visible, and institutional dimension ofthe Catholic Church. One essential element of this visible and institutionaldimension is episcopal ministry, linked with episcopal collegiality, presidedover by the successor of the Apostles. ‘This Church, in this world constitutedand organized as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by thesuccessor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him’ (LG 8). Thisordained ministry is absent from Ecclesial Communities (defectus ordinis) andexplains theologically why they are in an imperfect communion with theCatholic Church. We may ask, however, if this defect – in the visible insti-tutional dimension of communion with the Catholic Church – nullifies theecclesial identity of these communities.

Even if the fullness of the sacramental means of salvation is entrusted to theCatholic Church, it does not follow that she lives in the fullness of thesemeans. The fullness of the Catholic Church (ecclesia catholica est tota ecclesia)is sacramental. This formal and sacramental fullness is not equivalent to theactual fullness of grace (res sacramenti). The Council says that ‘the Churchherself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full catholicity in allher bearings’ (UR 4). The grace of the sacrament is not bound to the visibleboundaries of the Catholic Church; it reaches out to other Churches andEcclesial Communities, since they are also means of salvation. This is so, notbecause they belong institutionally to the Catholic Church, from which theyare separated, but because they participate to different degrees in the oneChurch of Christ.


13. See Groupe de Dombes, For the Conversion of the Church (Geneva: WCC, 1993), §§ 19–25.

061-073 ITQ-079136.qxd 24/7/07 10:04 AM Page 69



An Ecumenical Interpretation of the Subsistit in a Trinitarian-Economic Pattern

Having reflected on Ratzinger’s and Jüngel’s understanding of the subsistitand having examined the analogy between the christological and ecclesio-logical sections of Dominus Iesus, it is now possible to articulate a christolog-ical and trinitarian model for understanding the subsistit in an ecumenicalecclesiology. In the encyclical on Ecumenism, Ut Unum Sint (� UUS),n. 11, John Paul II declares that ‘the elements of sanctification and truthpresent in the other Christian Communities, in a degree which varies fromone to the other, constitute the objective basis of the communion, albeitimperfect, which exists between them and the Catholic Church. To theextent that these elements are found in other Christian Communities, theone Church of Christ is effectively present in them. For this reason the Sec-ond Vatican Council speaks of a certain, though imperfect communion.’ ThePresident of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, Walter CardinalKasper, speaking of the Ecclesial Communities born with the Reformation ofthe 16th century, says that there operates in them ‘not only single elementsof the Church of Jesus Christ, but by different degrees also the unity of theChurch of Christ.’14 Because in them the Church of Christ is effectively pres-ent, we cannot say that the Ecclesial Communities born with the Refor-mation are not properly Churches. It is better to say that they are not fullyChurches.15 Unitatis Redintegratio n. 22 affirms that by the absence of theSacrament of Orders these Ecclesial Communities have not retained theproper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness. The absence of the his-torical episcopacy and of the proper reality of the Eucharist does not deformnor deny, however, their ecclesial character.

In a comment on Dominus Iesus, Walter Kasper said that the EcclesialCommunities of the Reformation are Churches in an analogous way. Theyare Churches, even if they have ‘a different comprehension of the Church;they do not want to be Churches in a Catholic way.’16 They are Churchesof a different kind, and from a Catholic point of view do not have thoseelements which are essential for a Catholic understanding of the Church.Neither Luther nor Melanchthon wished to establish a new Church or an-other kind of Church. They wished merely to reform the Church ofChrist. To affirm that the Ecclesial Communities born with the Refor-mation are Churches, but not in the same way as the Catholic Church, orthat they are Churches of a different kind, in which elements are lackingthat are essential for a Catholic understanding of the Church, means tocomprehend the Catholic Church from an external point of view. The


14. Walter Kasper, ‘Il lungo cammino da compiere,’ L’Osservatore Romano, 2 June 2001, 1.15. Johann W. Möldhammer, ‘Die “einzige Kirche Christi.” Bemerkungen zum katholischenKirchenverständnis mit Bezug auf “Dominus Iesus”,’ Catholica 55 (2001): 132–139.16. Walter Kasper, ‘Situazione e visione del movimento ecumenico,’ Il Regno-attualità 47(2002): 132–141, at 139.

061-073 ITQ-079136.qxd 24/7/07 10:04 AM Page 70



defectus has to do with the confessional and the institutional dimension ofthe Catholic Church.

In comparison with the fullness entrusted to the Catholic Church, theseEcclesial Communities are identified as imperfect, since the Catholic Churchis convinced that ‘her institutional “elements,” that is the episcopate andthe petrine ministry, are a gift of the Spirit for all Christians.’17 If by theword subsistere we mean the confessional presence of the Church of Christ asfully realized in the Catholic Church, it is self-evident that Dominus Iesuswould affirm that the Church of Christ subsists only in the Catholic Church.If the Church of Christ is fully realized in the Catholic Church, there cannotbe other full realizations of the one Church of Christ.

If the sacramental fullness of the Church of Christ is assured by the in-stitutional and confessional structure of the Church of Christ (tota eccle-sia) – by means of the episcopal ministry and the apostolic succession – wemust rule out the possibility that the Church of Christ can subsist in theother ecclesial communities. In this way the subsistit is essentially limitedand depends on the external dimension of the Catholic Church. But theCatholic Church (tota ecclesia) does not coincide with the totum ecclesiae,so that beyond her institutional and sacramental boundaries, the CatholicChurch recognizes that the one Church of Christ is effectively present(cf. UUS 11). According to Kasper, these Ecclesial Communities cannotbe described as non-Churches.18 They bear essential elements of theChurch; in particular the Word of God and Baptism. Although the Churchof Christ is fully realized in the perfect and unique institution which is theCatholic Church, ‘it is at the same time present in the other ChristianChurches by different degrees, according to the degree of imperfection oftheir institutional form.’19 We must remember that the ecclesial commu-nities of the Reformation do not understand themselves as the full presenceof the Church of Christ, but rather as part of the one, holy, catholic andapostolic Church.20

Calling to mind what Ratzinger said about the ‘church happening’ in the Ecclesial Communities, we may affirm that this happening becomespossible because the ecclesial beyond, is neither materially identified with theCatholic Church (tota ecclesia) nor is an ecclesiological vacuum (cf. UUSn. 13), but is rather the presence of the Church of Christ (totum ecclesiae) ‘ina degree which varies from one to the other’ (UUS n. 11).


17. Kasper, ‘Situazione e visione,’ 139.18. See Walter Kasper, ‘L’unica Chiesa di Cristo. Situazione e futuro dell’Ecumenismo,’ IlRegno-attualità 46 (2001): 128–135, at 132.19. Gregory Baum, ‘La realtà ecclesiale delle altre Chiese,’ Concilium 2 (1965): 38–63, at 49.20. See Chiesa d’Inghilterra, ‘Che tutti siano una cosa sola,’ Il Regno-documenti 43 (1998):121–130, at 130; Chiesa Luterana di Svezia, ‘Risposta all Ut unum sint,’ Il Regno-documenti48 (2003): 59–64, at 61; Commissione Consultiva per le Relazioni Ecumeniche della TavolaValdese (CCRE), ‘L’ecumenisimo e il dialogo interreligioso.’ http://www.chiesavaldese.org/Pages/Documenti/Doc-Ecumensismo.htm

061-073 ITQ-079136.qxd 24/7/07 10:04 AM Page 71


http://www.chiesavaldese.org/


We have already seen that the ecclesiological subsistit may be interpretedaccording to the subsistit of the trinitarian communio (that is of the imman-ent Trinity) and the christological unio hypostatica. Both interpretationscarry their own risks. On the one hand we could transfer into the imman-ent Trinity the contradictions which are present among Churches andEcclesial Communities and thus end up conceiving the inner trinitarianunity as a community of individuals. On the other hand, given that weunderstand the ecclesiological subsistit according to the unicity of theChristological subsistit, it follows that we cannot ascribe the word Church tothe Ecclesial Communities. An alternative solution may be to articulatethe trinitarian and christological subsistit according to the economic modelof the self-communication of the trinitarian God.

In order to consider the ‘subsistit’ according to the economic – and not theimmanent – trinity, and in particular, according to the event of the commu-nication of faith, we will draw on the Ecclesiogenesis of the Catholic theolo-gian, Severino Dianich, and to the Ecclesiology of the Reform theologian,Christoph Schwöbel. Both authors agree in saying that Church begins withthe event of the communicatio evangelii.21 ‘The communication of faithregarding Jesus Christ is the nexus between the hidden gift of the commu-nion and its historical experiential realization.’22 If the event of the Churchdepends on the communication of faith, there may be different forms bywhich this event is realized.

The reformed theologian Christoph Schwöbel shares a similar conceptionof the Church. ‘By the communication of the Gospel, God’s trinitariancommunicative being is made manifest. Therefore the communication of theGospel, from which the Church derives her beginning, has its foundation inGod’s self-communication.’23 If the Church is there – even in an implicit andembryonic form – whenever the Gospel is preached, we may say that theChurch of Christ is always present wherever the Gospel is proclaimed: ‘thecommunicative act of faith is theological first, since it is the event by whichthe Church is built up and by which the relation of the Church with othersis realized. Whatever the Church performs in history is just an effect and notthe premise of this foundational event.’24

If the communication of faith constitutes the Church and the originalsign of the event of the Word is the Sacrament of Baptism, we may say thatthe objective ground of the institutional dimension, in which the Churchof Christ is effectively present, is Baptism. ‘Baptism makes possible a com-munion (although imperfect), that unites Churches among themselves in


21. See Confessio Augustana, 7: ‘The Church is the assembly of saints where the Gospel ispreached in purity and the sacraments are administered in the right way.’22. Severino Dianich and Serena Noceti, Trattato sulla Chiesa (Brescia: Queriniana, 2002), 189.23. Christoph Schwöbel, Gott in Beziehung (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 435.24. Severino Dianich, ‘Questioni di metodo in ecclesiologia,’ in Sui Problemi in Ecclesiologia.In Dialogo con Severino Dianich, ed. Antonio Barruffo (Cinisello Balsamo: San Paolo, 2003),21–54, at 50.

061-073 ITQ-079136.qxd 24/7/07 10:04 AM Page 72



a fundamental reality (the baptized members as Body of Christ). There isalready a communion grounded in baptism, which does not represent afull ecclesial communion, but signifies a real participation in the Body ofChrist.’25 The Decree on Ecumenism n. 3 declares that the Ecclesial Com-munities are means of salvation, that is a ‘sign and instrument of the intimateunion with God for all mankind’ (LG 1). By Baptism a human beingbecomes a member of the Body of Christ, and is introduced into the unity,which exists among the newborn children of God (cf. UR 3).

At the level of the external dimension we may acknowledge a partialrealization of the Church of Christ – because of the defectus ordinis – onwhich depends full institutional communion with the Catholic Church.At the level of the transcendental dimension, however, we must acknow-ledge that Baptism provides an objective ground, a visible sign of that con-stitutive event of the Church, which is the communicatio evangelii. Thereforewe can say that the catholic Church of Christ (totum ecclesiae) subsists exparte in the other Churches and Ecclesial Communities, because of the com-municatio evangelii, without denying that the Church of Christ fully subsistsin the Catholic Church (tota ecclesia).

PAOLO GAMBERINI SJ is Professor of Dogmatics, EcumenicalTheology, and Inter-religious Dialogue at the Pontificia Facoltà Teologicadell’Italia Meridionale, Naples, Italy. He holds a doctorate in Philosophyfrom the Catholic University, Milan, Italy, and a doctorate in Theologyfrom the Philosophisch-theologische Hochschule Sankt Georgen,Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Address: Pontificia Teologica dell’ItaliaMeridionale, Naples, Italy. [email protected]


25. Silvia Hell, ‘Auf der Suche nach sichtbarer Einheit,’ Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie125(2003): 18–46, at 28.

061-073 ITQ-079136.qxd 24/7/07 10:04 AM Page 73



Documents

`Subsistit' in Ecumenical Ecclesiology.pdf