An Examination of the Rev. Dr. Setri Nyomi's Letter of July 10, 2007

Dear Cardinal Kasper,

We have seen the statement made by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and ratified and confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI concerning certain aspects of the Doctrine of the Church on 10 July 2007.

We are puzzled by the release of a statement of this kind at this time in the history of the church. At a time of societal fragmentation all over the world, the one church of Jesus Christ in which we all participate ought to strengthen its common witness and affirm our oneness in Christ.

First notice that Rev. Nyomi is speaking from a non-Catholic perspective. He refers to the "one church of Jesus Christ in which we all participate", but he is talking about something that from his perspective has no institutional unity. From his point of view, it is visible only in the sense that embodied believers are visible. From the Catholic perspective, the "one church of Jesus Christ in which [all Christians] participate" is the Catholic Church, a visible institution. Of course it is not surprising that Rev. Nyomi is speaking from a non-Catholic perspective; what is somewhat surprising is that he does not seem to understand the Catholic Church's position about herself.

Second, Rev. Nyomi tells Cardinal Kaspar what the "one church of Jesus Christ in which we all participate" ought to do: it "ought to strengthen its common witness and affirm our oneness in Christ". What authority does Rev. Nyomi have to tell the Catholic Church what she must do? The Rev. Nyomi is speaking from the point of view of a non-sacramental conception of ecclesial authority, and thus from a non-Catholic conception of ecclesial authority.

Third, the Catholic Church does affirm that all baptized believers are one in Christ. But that does not mean that we are all as united as we can and should be. The Rev. Nyomi either has a minimalistic conception of ecclesial unity, or he wishes the Catholic Church to sweep Protestant-Catholic differences under the rug.

The statement released on 10 July unfortunately gives an interpretation of the statement in Lumen Gentium 8 which takes us back to the kind of thinking and atmosphere that was prevalent prior to the Second Vatican Council.

The Rev. Nyomi apparently does not realize that Vatican II did not change anything about the Catholic Church's doctrines concerning her identity as the one true Church that Christ founded. The Catholic Church has always believed and taught that she is the one true Church which Christ founded, and Vatican II did not change that.

This is not good for the mutual trust that is being developed through our bilateral dialogues.

How is the Catholic Church's being explicit and clear in what she has always believed about herself not good for mutual trust?

We especially find problematic the statement that, "These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called 'Churches' in the proper sense."

Since Vatican II, our dialogues have sought to understand and overcome differences we have had for centuries, and to build common agreements over things we hold dear in our common Christian faith. The outcomes especially of Reformed-Catholic dialogues on "Towards a Common Understanding of the Church" and "The Church as Communion of Common Witness to the Kingdom of God" have given hope to our journey of overcoming differences and affirming our oneness in the Church of Jesus Christ.

True, though "affirming our oneness" cannot occur in a truthful and unqualified way until we overcome our differences.

An exclusive claim that identifies the Roman Catholic Church as the one church of Jesus Christ, as we read in the statement released today, goes against the spirit of our Christian calling towards oneness in Christ.

Implicit in this statement is the notion that Christ did not found an institutional Church, or if He did, the gates of hell prevailed against it. Thus the Rev. Nyomi essentially criticizes the Catholic Church for being Catholic. The Catholic Church's understanding of true unity involves *institutional* unity, not merely clay-mixed-with-iron unity. The Catholic Church's claim about herself might seem like going against the "spirit of our Christian calling towards oneness in Christ", but that is only to those who hold a minimalistic conception of ecclesial unity. If institutional unity is what true ecclesial unity is, and if the Catholic Church is the institution that Christ founded, then the CDF's statement is actually precisely the truth we must understand in order to advance toward oneness in Christ.

It makes us question the seriousness with which the Roman Catholic Church takes its dialogues with the Reformed family and other families of the church. It makes us question whether we are indeed praying together for Christian unity. This is unfortunate timing since we are about to release the results of the third series of our bilateral dialogues.

Apparently the Rev. Nyomi thinks that if any Church believes it is the one true Church that Christ founded, then that Church cannot desire Christian unity and cannot be serious when it says it desires such unity. Apparently, for the Rev. Nyomi, in order to desire Christian unity and be serious about Christian unity, one must believe that no present Church is the Church which Christ founded. Again, the Rev. Nyomi's reasoning implies that in order to be serious about Christian unity one must believe either that Christ founded an invisible Church (visible only in the sense that some of its members are visible) or that if Christ did found a visible institution, the gates of hell prevailed against it. The point is that the Rev. Nyomi and the Catholic Church have two very difference conceptions of what Christ founded.

For now, we are thankful to God that our calling to be part of the church of Jesus Christ is not dependent on the interpretation of the Vatican. It is a gift of God.

As if being dependent on the interpretation of the Vatican and being a gift of God are mutually exclusive. That is a very non-Catholic point of view.

Receiving this gift, we appreciate the Roman Catholic Church as a part of this family (as affirmed in the final report of "Towards a Common Understanding of the Church" published in 1991). We pray for the day that the Roman Catholic Church moves beyond exclusivist claims so that we can further the cause of Christian unity for which our Lord Jesus Christ prayed - so that the world may believe (John 17: 21). We cherish the relationship we have with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and look forward to your explaining to us what the issuing of this statement means.

Praying for the Catholic Church to move "beyond exclusive claims" presupposes that the Catholic Church is not what she says she is. What we have here is a debate between the Catholic conception of the Church, and the gnostic conception of the Church (as something essentially invisible, but visible only in the sense that embodied believers are visible). Is the 'visible Church' the mere aggregate of embodied believers, or is the Church a visible and hierarchically organized Body?