[This article is an annotated selection of the text from pages 193-203 of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's Principles of Catholic Theology.]
[I am posting in another article the entire text of pages 193-203, without annotation.]
CHAPTER I
GENERAL ORIENTATION WITH REGARD TO THE ECUMENICAL DISPUTE ABOUT THE FORMAL PRINCIPLES OF FAITH
A. The Ecumenical Situation--Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism
Anyone who wants to make a prognosis for the future of ecumenism must first clarify what he understands by ecumenism, that is, how he sees the division of Christianity and what model of unity he has in mind. It seems to me that, among the incalculable number of divisions by which Christianity is torn, there are two basic types to which two different models of unity correspond. We encounter the first type in the divisions in the ancient Church between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian churches; it is also typical of the split between East and West, although ecclesial differences of a hitherto unknown radicality played a role there. We encounter the second type in the divisions that have been formed in the wake of the reform movements of the sixteenth century.
[Allow me to repeat, for emphasis: "It seems to me that, among the incalculable number of divisions by which Christianity is torn, there are two basic types to which two different models of unity correspond.... We encounter the first type in the divisions in the ancient church.... We encounter the second type in the divisions that have been formed in the wake of the reform movements of the sixteenth century." In other words, Ratzinger is introducing his survey of the two types of division among Christians.]
The basic historical types of division in the Church
Let us attempt to analyze the two types in somewhat greater detail so that we may know what models of unity are appropriate to them and, thus, the hopes as well as the obstacles for ecumenism today.... But this unity in accepting Nicaea assumes the unity of ecclesial and doctrinal structure that underlay Nicaea. It means unity not only with regard to a particular point but unity in the way in which the Church was formed from the word of Jesus and of the apostles, in the way in which Christianity was historically fashioned. This means that, along with Scripture, the Church that came into existence from and in Scripture is also truly and irrevocably accepted, in the basic form in which she had developed before Nicaea, as a vessel of the word. It belongs to this basic form that the bishops, by virtue of their sacramental consecration and the ecclesial tradition they received with it, personify the Church's unity with her source. In other words, that basic factor that has been expressed since the second century in the concept of the successio apostolica, the apostolic succession, belongs intrinsically to this structure. This means, in turn, that the structural unity has not been destroyed....
[Allow me to repeat, for emphasis: "[T]he Church... is also truly and irrevocably accepted... as a vessel of the word.... [and] that basic factor... the apostolic succession, belongs intrinsically to this structure." In other words, Ratzinger is stating that the division between East and West (or Orthodox and Catholic) acknowledges that the Word of God comes through the Church (not just through the Bible), and it acknowledges the fundamental necessity of apostolic succession as intrinsic to Christianity; see reference to "A" below.]
Behind the threatening cloud, however, the elements of healing remained. Unlike the East, Rome, it is true, placed great weight on those passages of the New Testament that speak of Peter, thus actually remaining true to the original tradition, of which a more apt and concrete expression exists nowhere else. The applications of these passages have, it must be admitted, in many respects outgrown their initial heritage so that, at first glance, they may seem to overlook the basic sacramental structure. But, in the real life of the Church and at the solid core of her constitution, the relationship with the sacraments remained always vital and, precisely by reason of its union with the office of Peter, sustained the whole structure. A closer approach to and awareness of one another can hardly ignore this fundamental unity, which, in the whole course of the dispute, has never been impugned. The West may point to the absence of the office of Peter in the East--it must, nevertheless, admit that, in the Eastern Church, the form and content of the Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity. The East may criticize the existence and function of the office of Peter in the West, but it must also be aware that, because of it, no other Church exists in Rome than that of the first millennium--of the time when a common Eucharist was celebrated and when but one Church existed.
[Allow me to repeat, for emphasis: "Unlike the East, Rome, it is true, placed great weight on those passages of the New Testament that speak of Peter, thus actually remaining true to the original tradition, of which a more apt and concrete expression exists nowhere else.... But, in the real life of the Church and at the solid core of her constitution, the relationship with the sacraments remained always vital and, precisely by reason of its union with the office of Peter, sustained the whole structure...." In other words, Ratzinger is stating that the primacy of Peter belongs to the original tradition of Christianity, and is necessary to the life of the Church; see reference to "B" below.]
[The following is the entire paragraph from which Michael Horton Scott, and my opponent following him, have taken the quotation in question.]
With Luther another kind of division that had its roots in Augustine appeared in the Church. The split between Donatists and Catholics that rent the Church of his African homeland caused the great doctor of the Church to distinguish with a sharpness until then unknown between the theological greatness of the Church as a salvific reality and her empirical existence: many who seem to be in the Church are outside her; many who seem to be outside her are in her. The true Church is the number of the predestined who, on the one hand, transcend the visible Church while, on the other hand, the reprobate are present at her very center. For Augustine, it must be admitted, this concept had no adverse repercussions with regard to the value of the sacramental and apostolic structure of the Church and her tradition. But the great Western schism of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries had imbued it with a degree of realism that would have been inconceivable up to that time. [here begins the quotation in question] For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution. [here ends the quotation in question; emphasis added] It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. The concept of the Church was limited, on the one hand, to the local community; on the other hand, it embraced the community of the faithful throughout the ages who are known only to God. But the community of the whole Church as such is no longer the bearer of a positively meaningful theological content. Ecclesial organization is now borrowed from the political realm because it does not otherwise exist as a spiritually significant entity. Thus there does, it is true, exist an important community of belief with the ancient Church wherever the credal texts are taken seriously, but its ecclesial anchor and, therefore, the binding authority that sustains its agreements or disagreements remain unclear although, in the ecclesiological development of the Protestant community, much has been restored as a matter of actual necessity that has in principle lost its raison d'etre.
[Following the pattern he established in dealing with the division between East and West, Ratzinger summarized in the preceding paragraph the Protestant understanding of the ecclesiological implications of what happened in the Great Western Schism, based (rightly or wrongly) upon certain ecclesiological theories (correct or incorrect) of St. Augustine of Hippo. As additional evidence of this, I cite Scripture and quote from conciliar documents in another post, to show that the soteriology and ecclesiology expressed in the quotation in question is incompatible with the faith of the Catholic Church and that, therefore, the statements in the quotation in question cannot be regarded as Ratzinger's statement of his own opinion or beliefs.]
Against this background we can now weigh the possibilities that are open to Christian ecumenism. The maximum demands on which the search for unity must certainly founder are immediately clear.... As regards Protestantism, the maximum demand of the Catholic Church would be that the Protestant ecclesiological ministries be regarded as totally invalid and that Protestants be converted to Catholicism; the maximum demand of Protestants, on the other hand, would be that the Catholic Church accept, along with the unconditional acknowledgement of all Protestant ministries, the Protestant concept of ministry and their understanding of the Church and thus, in practice, renounce the apostolic and sacramental structure of the Church, which would mean, in practice, the conversion of Catholics to Protestantism and their acceptance of a multiplicity of distinct community structures as the historical form of the Church.... That no real union would result from this, but that its very impossibility would become a single common dogma, should convince anyone who examines the suggestion closely that such a way would not bring Church unity but only a final renunciation of it....
[Allow me to repeat, for emphasis: "The maximum demand of Protestants, on the other hand, would be that the Catholic Church accept, along with the unconditional acknowledgement of all Protestant ministries, the Protestant concept of ministry and their understanding of the Church and thus, in practice, renounce the apostolic and sacramental structure of the Church.... That no real union would result from this, but that its very impossibility would become a single common dogma, should convince anyone who examines the suggestion closely that such a way would not bring Church unity but only a final renunciation of it." In other words, Ratzinger is saying that accepting the Protestant notions of Church and ministry would deny what is affirmed by both Orthodox and Catholics: that both apostolic succession and the sacramental life of the Church are essential and vital to Christianity; moreover, the intended result of doing so would be impossible; see reference to "C" below.]
On the question of reunion between East and West
How, then, are the maximum demands to be decided in advance? Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically....
[Allow me to repeat, for emphasis: "Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void...." In other words, Ratzinger is saying that the primacy of Peter and his successors cannot be denied by Catholics. See reference to "D" below.]
[It can be seen from "A", "B", "C" and "D" (especially from "B" and "D") that Ratzinger himself cannot believe what he is purported to have meant in the quotation in question: in the quotation in question he was stating the Protestant understanding of the Great Western Schism.]