The latest statement from the Vatican has caused quite a bit of fluttering in the ecumenical dovecotes. It makes clear that Rome still believes that the fullness of truth resides only within her communion, and that all other churches are "defective" in some way or another.
Apparently everything depends on whether you have "the apostolic succession" and whether you maintain communion with the Papal See. Where this leaves the Eastern Orthodox Churches is unclear but it is quite plain where it leaves Canterbury; exactly where Pope Leo XIII left it in 1896.
This really should have surprised no one, for Pope Leo made it very clear that his judgment on Anglican orders was final, "perpetuo firmam, ratam, irrevocabilem".
For those who had deluded themselves into believing that the authorities in Rome had succumbed to the charms of theological liberalism the new pronouncement is devastating, and for Anglo-Catholic sections of the Church of England it must have been particularly painful.
Yet, had they been listening they would have been prepared, for - to give honour where honour is due - Rome has never varied on this particular topic. Her consistency should be acknowledged.
For Presbyterians and Freechurchmen generally, the pronouncements of either pope or prelate disallowing the orders of other churches, on the supposed ground of their not being within the "apostolic succession", cause little disturbance.
They recognise, as indeed did Anglicans like Archbishop Whately, that strictly speaking, as Whately put it, as to "successors in the apostolic office, the Apostles had none". They also think the good Archbishop was talking sense when he declared "there is not a minister in all Christendom who is able to trace up with any approach to certainty his own spiritual pedigree".
He reasoned thus on the basis of the absolute need for every link in the chain of succession being totally guaranteed, for "this sacramental virtue, if a single link of the chain be faulty, must, on the above principles (of the necessity of factual succession), be utterly nullified ever after, in respect of all the links that hang on that one."
But there is another reason why the latest missive from Rome does not disturb us. In its downright honesty it chimes with what we believe should always be to the fore when inter-church discussions are going on. Theological haze and fog serve no good purpose and though we may disagree with sections of this latest authoritative statement of the position of the Church of Rome, we are grateful for the clarity with which it is expressed.
Nor should too many hands be held up in horror at any church saying that other churches are "defective". Theologically consistent Baptists don't believe that the rest of us are even baptised, which, if true, is a pretty serious defect.
Each denomination surely must believe that it possesses some distinctive gift which justifies its separate existence, and the plain inference from that must be that the non-possession of that gift is a loss, a defect.
On top of all that, and still rejecting the Roman additions, let us recognise that they are additions, not subtractions.
We of the Reformed faith still assert the principles "Christ Alone", "Grace Alone", "Faith Alone", "Scripture Alone". Yet surely we can rejoice that the teaching of the Apostles and Nicene creeds is still intact, as Dominus Iesus attests, and the inspiration of sacred scripture is still adhered to.
Furthermore, whatever else is in the document, the continuing affirmation of the full and proper Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ still lies at the core of Roman Catholic theology. That certainly should gladden our hearts.
The Rev Warren Porter is a retired Presbyterian minister.