In this installment, Don Pietro addresses the Council’s attack on the Four Notes of the Church. Here he looks at the Church’s Oneness or Unity and explains how the Council attacked this Dogma in four ways. F.R.
THE COUNCIL AND THE ECLIPSE OF GOD
By
DON PIETRO LEONE
PART VII
A. The Four Notes of the Church
The Four Notes, or defining characteristics, of the Church are Her
Oneness, Holiness, Catholicity and Apostolicity, infallibly professed in the
Creed as follows: ‘I believe in one Holy,
Catholic and Apostolic Church.’ We shall show how the Council casts doubt
on each of these Notes in turn.
1. THE CHURCH IS ONE
Now the Catholic Church is One in two senses: in Her internal unity (Her
unity ad intra), which is Her
indivisibility; and in Her external unity (Her unity ad extra), that is to say in Her uniqueness, which consists in the
fact that there is no church other than Her. Catholic teaching on the Church’s
internal unity [1] may
be expressed in simple terms as follows: it comprises a hierarchical,
doctrinal, and sacramental unity, in other words the Church is the community of
all those people subject to the Pope and to his Bishops, who share the same
Faith and the same seven sacraments.
The Council opposes the doctrine of the Unity of the Church:
a)
by opposing the hierarchical, doctrinal, and
sacramental unity of the Church;
b)
by suggesting that the true church is broader in
extent than the Catholic Church;
c)
by suggesting that there are groups of persons in
‘Imperfect Communion’ with the Church;
d)
by suggesting that there is more than one church.
a) The Hierarchical,
Doctrinal, and Sacramental Unity of the Church
In Section B of this chapter we have just seen how the Council erodes
the doctrine of the Hierarchy of the Church. Now the erosion of this doctrine
effectively erodes the doctrine of the Unity of the Church, since, as we have
said above, the former doctrine comprises, or is a constitutive element, the
skeleton as it were, of the latter. In simple terms, the Church is structured
as a hierarchy: if the structure dissolves, then the Church Herself dissolves.
The Council opposes the doctrinal and sacramental unity of the Church by
claiming that there are elements of ‘truth’ and ‘sanctification’ outside the
Church. It hereby suggests that it is sufficient to possess such elements to be
saved, so that in effect the real Church, according to them, would be broader
in extent than the Catholic Church, and membership of it would not necessitate
the possession of the totality of Truth and sacraments. We shall examine this
theory in the immediately following subsection (b).
b) That the True Church is Broader in extent than the Catholic Church
Historical Note [2]
In accordance with the Catholic doctrine outlined above, Pope Pius XII
identifies the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church in the encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi; in Humani Generis he complains: ‘Some say they are
not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years
ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical
Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing’; similarly the
original draft of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church stated that the
Church, existing on earth as a structured society, is the Catholic Church.
‘The outlook for ecumenical understanding was black indeed’ commented
the Anglican observer, archdeacon Pawley of the situation existing in the
1950’s, but after the Council (particularly the doctrine expressed in text (i)
following), delightedly remarks that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman
Catholic Church ‘are no longer being considered as exactly identical.’ The peritus Gregory Baum interprets the text
as follows: ‘Instead of simply identifying the Church of Christ with the
Catholic Church, the Constitution rather says more carefully that the Church of
Christ ‘subsists in’ the Catholic Church. The body of Christ is present in the
Catholic Church, but at the same time, without losing its historical and
incarnate character, transcends it…’ The Anglican observer, Dr. John Moorman,
quoting this interpretation with approval, writes: ‘the Council has, therefore
admitted that the Church of Christ is something bigger than the Roman Catholic
Church’.
Analysis of Texts
i) ‘…the unique Church of Christ,
which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic… subsists
(subsistit) in the Catholic Church,
which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many
elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines.’
(LG 8);
ii) ‘The elements… can exist outside the visible boundaries of
the Catholic Church… [but] all of
these… belong by right to the one Church of Christ’ (UR 3);
iii) ‘To it [the ‘People of
God’] belong, or are related in
different ways: the catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and
finally all of humankind, called by God’s grace to salvation’ (LG 13).
To say that the Church of Christ ‘subsists’ in the Catholic Church -
text (i), rather than that it is identical to it as has always been taught,
suggests that it is not in fact identical to the Catholic Church, as indeed the
commentators, just cited, have understood the phrase. To go on to say that many
elements of sanctification and truth exist outside Her ‘visible confines’(in
text i), or outside Her ‘visible boundaries’ (in text ii), suggests that there
is a Church broader in extent than the Catholic Church. This is presumably that
which is described in text (ii) as the ‘Church of Christ’ and which is
conceived as containing within itself both the Catholic Church and non-Catholic
Christians. The term ‘People of God’ mentioned in text (iii) equally
insinuates, by its very ambiguity, that there is a Church broader in extent
than the Catholic Church [3].
Now the claim that there is a true Church broader in extent than the
Catholic Church [4] is
false, since it opposes the dogma of the Unity of the Church. This dogma, as we
have seen, defines the Church’s Unity in terms of Her members’ subjection to
the Pope, their possession of the Faith, and of the seven sacraments. The members
of the alleged broader church which is in question here would clearly not have
any part in this threefold unity [5].
c) That there are Groups of persons in
‘Imperfect Communion’ with the Church
i) [The non-Catholics are]‘brothers
and sisters’… in… ‘imperfect
communion with the Catholic Church’…
‘separated brothers and sisters’ (UR
3);
ii) ‘many elements of
sanctification and of truth are found outside its [the Catholic Church’s] visible confines.’ (LG 8, quoted
above);
iii) ‘In ecumenical dialogue
catholic theologians… should remember that in catholic doctrine there exists an
order or “hierarchy” of truths, since they vary in their relation to the
foundation of the Christian faith.’ (UR 11);
The Council’s claim that some groups stand in a relation of ‘imperfect
union’ to the Church (text i) [6]
seems to be made on the basis of the elements of ‘truth’ and ‘sanctification
and of truth’ that they are purported to share with Her (text ii). We shall now
therefore proceed to look in turn at the theory of degrees of participation in
the Church, and then the theory of degrees of participation in Her means of
‘sanctification and truth’.
Degrees of Participation in
the Church
The theory of imperfect communion with the Church is a theory that
certain groups enjoy a degree of ontological, substantial union with the
Church. And yet the Catholic Church is One: She constitutes an integral whole,
an absolute. For this reason a person is either a member of the Church in a
full, perfect sense, or not at all. This we can demonstrate from Catholic
doctrine regarding entrance into, and departure from, the Church. If baptism is
valid, then the baptized person becomes thereby a full member of the Church,
and will depart from the Church only by formal schism, formal heresy, apostasy,
or by death in mortal sin. At that point the person will completely cease to be
a member of the Church: by baptism (s)he became member of the Church in a full
sense; by any of the four occurrences listed above (s)he is no longer member of
Her in any sense at all.
There is no such thing as imperfect, or partial, (ontological) communion
with the Catholic Church. If the baptism is valid, then the person baptized
becomes a full member of the (one and only Catholic) Church, whether indeed the
one who baptizes is a Catholic priest, Catholic layman, Orthodox, Protestant,
Buddhist, or atheist. If the baptism is valid, he will remain a full member of
the Church, even in mortal sin. When he dies, if he is in mortal sin, he will
depart from the Church; if he is not in mortal sin he will remain a full member
of the Church: as part of the Church suffering in Purgatory or as part of the
Church triumphant in Heaven.
If the person validly baptized belongs to an Orthodox or Protestant community
he remains a full member of the (Catholic) Church as long as he does not
formally embrace their schism or heresy, or fall into apostasy; if he does so,
he will cease to be a member of the Church altogether. He will not be in
‘imperfect’ or partial communion with the Church, even if he might continue to
frequent the sacraments and profess the true Catholic Faith or part of it,
because his schism, heresy, or apostasy will have deprived him of membership of
the Church. He will remain in a state of potentiality as to membership of the
Church, and that is all.
The dogma of the unity of the Church entails Her integral wholeness, Her
integrity, Her absoluteness. Her absoluteness is manifest in Her being the
Mystical Body of Christ. Membership of a body is an absolute – one is either
the member of a body or one is not: the foot of a body is a member of the body;
a severed foot is not; no given thing can be the member of a body in an
‘imperfect’, or partial, sense [7].
In summary, then, it is impossible to be in ‘imperfect’ or partial
communion with the Church. In regard to the status of schismatics and heretics,
the Church teaches, rather, that those who are formally schismatic or heretical
are not members of the Church at all, but that those who are materially so, are
indeed members, even if only invisibly so.
Degrees of Participation in
the means of Sanctification and in the Truth possessed by the Church
If there is no degree of participation in the Church (text i), then
there is no degree of participation in Her means of sanctification and Truth
either (text ii).
The first means of sanctification, in the sense of the initial sacrament
and the ‘gate’, janua, for all the
others, is baptism. If it is valid, as we have seen, it incorporates the
subject baptized into full communion with the Church; a subject who is
invalidly baptized, or not baptized, is not a member of the Church at all.
Any-one validly baptized can enjoy further elements of sanctification in the
form of the other sacraments unless he leaves the Church by formal heresy,
schism, or apostasy.
As for the ‘elements of Truth’ (i.e. of the Faith), the subject must
profess the whole Faith in order to enjoy communion with the Church. The Faith
constitutes, namely, an indivisible unity of all its articles. If a subject
formally denies even one dogma, he loses the Faith in its entirety. The beliefs
which he may retain cannot be described as ‘elements of truth’ in any proper
sense, inasmuch as by his heresy, they lose their supernatural character and become
simply a collection of miscellaneous, natural beliefs deprived of salvific
value. The profession of such beliefs can at most serve as a basis for
reacquiring the Faith in the future: they constitute a mere potential for the Faith.
*
In short, just as the Church is a unity in the sense of an Absolute, so
is Baptism and Faith: one either
possesses membership of the Church, Baptism, and Faith, or one does not. There is
no degree of participation in the Church, nor in Baptism, nor in the Faith.
There is: ‘one body and one spirit [in other words one Holy Spirit, soul of the
one Church] … one faith, one baptism’ [8].
St. Cyprian writes similarly [9]:
‘God is one, and Christ is one, and His Church is one, and the Faith is one…’
*
In text (iii) an appeal is made to the concept of a ‘hierarchy of
truths’, implying that:
-
it is sufficient to profess certain articles of the
Faith in order to be saved;
-
the other articles are not necessary for salvation.
In reply, we have already shown how it is necessary to believe all
‘elements of Truth’, or articles of the Faith, in order to be saved. It follows
that no distinction can be made between articles of Faith necessary to hold,
and others not necessary to hold. The distinction in question corresponds to
the Protestant heresy of ‘fundamental truths’. This heresy contradicts three
Catholic dogmas, that:
1.
the Faith is one, as we have shown above;
2.
the Church is one, which unity encompasses the unity
of Faith (see above);
3.
he who denies even one article denies the authority of
God in revealing the Faith altogether.
In regard to (3), Pope Pius XI states in Mortalium Animos (9): ‘…it is nowise licit to introduce that
distinction… between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those
which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by
all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful; for the
supernatural virtue of Faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God
revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction.’
*
The Council’s theories about degrees of membership in the Church and of
Her means of sanctification and truth, seem to constitute a theory built upon
the ecumenical principle of ‘what we have in common’. We shall return to this
theory in our treatment of Ecumenism in the next chapter, noting in passing
that it reveals itself on examination as a naturalizing, merely human way of
thinking, treating the Church like a sort of club of which one can be a member
in a sense that is full or less full, according to one’s credentials for membership.
d) That There is More than One Church
i) [The non-Catholic communities are]‘churches or ecclesiastical communities’ (LG 15);
ii) [The non-Catholic communities are]‘separated churches and ecclesial communities’ (the title and
substance of UR chapter 3);
iii) ‘The Spirit of Christ has
not refrained from using them [the churches or communities] as means of salvation…’ (UR 3).
If the first three claims that we have evaluated in subsections (a),
(b), & (c) above oppose the internal unity
of the Church, this fourth claim opposes Her external unity, that is to say Her uniqueness. As we expressed it
above, her uniqueness signifies that there is no church other than Her. To
describe communities of non-Catholic Christians as ‘churches’ - in texts (i)
& (ii), albeit sometimes prefixed with the term ‘separated’ - is therefore
to use the term ‘church’ in an improper manner. In the historical sketch at the
beginning of the next chapter we shall see how this misnomer was already in use
in the first half of the 20th century.
The Council is not however satisfied simply to call such communities
‘churches’ but, in text (iii), attributes to them a salvific role qua communities. Such communities qua communities are however, of course,
formally schismatic and heretical and thus not salvific as such, but only in so
far as they may validly administer the sacraments of the Catholic Church. We
shall see in the historical sketch to come how this heterodox claim had already
been proposed by Fr. Yves Congar OP as early as 1937.
*
In synthesis, the novel ecclesiology turns out to be inadequate in its
opposition to the dogma that the Catholic Church is One. Apart from the false
principle of naturalism that we have observed in subsections (a), (b), &
(c), we suggest that it is the introduction of the false principle of degree,
namely in the notion of partial
communion, of elements of
sanctification and truth, and of a hierarchy
of truths, that is the aspect of this novel ecclesiology most hostile to the
dogma of the Oneness of the Church.
We observe that the Note of Oneness is the most compendious of all the
Notes, and at the same time that most opposed by the Council. We conclude the
section with the following quotation from St. John Chrysostom: ‘For this is, if
anything, the subversion of the Church, the being in divisions. This is the
devil’s weapon, this turns all things upside down. For so long as the body is
joined into one, he has no power to get an entrance, but it is from division
that the offenses come’ [10].
1.The First
Vatican Council and Satis cognitum of
Pope Leo XIII teach that the Church’s internal unity comprises a unity both of
Faith and of Communion, the latter unity being a unity both hierarchical and
liturgical; they also teach that the Pope is the ultimate guarantor, or
principle, of this unity.
2. MD pjc pp.60-1,
p.122
3 In the historical sketch with which we shall begin the
next chapter, we shall see the background to such thinking: the search for
union between Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox in Malines, Paris, and
Germany; in the community of Chevetogne with its concept of a ‘Convergence
towards Christ’, and with its desire to extend the concept of the Mystical Body
to all Christian ‘churches’; the Protestant ‘World Council of Churches’ with
its dream of a Panchristian ‘Ecumenical Church’ and a Panchristian ‘People of
God’.
4 or the claim of
certain Protestants that the true Catholic Church is broader in extent than
that which the Catholics themselves believe Her to be
5 We observe that the modification made to text (i) by the subsequent Declaration Dominus Jesus (16) namely that ‘the Church of Christ… exists fully only in the Catholic Church’ does not resolve the difficulty in question, since the Declaration, by its use of the adverb fully, suggests, just as the Council had suggested, that the Church of Christ is broader than the Catholic Church: that is to say in embracing not only Catholics who enjoy a full union with Her, but also members that do not enjoy a full, but only an incomplete, or imperfect, union with Her. We consider the question of ‘imperfect union’ as such in the immediately following subsection (c).
6 which would serve to justify the theory outlined in
subsection (a) that the true Church is broader in extent than the Catholic
Church
7 One could argue that there is an exception to this
doctrine in the case of a material Schismatic or Protestant, an exception, in
other words, in the case of some-one who is validly baptized, but by a
Schismatic or Protestant, and within a Schismatic or Protestant community. Such
a person is said to belong to the ‘soul’ of the Church rather than Her body: to
the ‘invisible’ rather than to the ‘visible’ Church. Such a person, according
to this argument, would consequently enjoy only imperfect communion with the
Church. We may reply that such a person, being validly baptized, in fact enjoys
perfect communion with the Church in an ontological
sense; he is in imperfect communion only in an epistemological sense, inasmuch as he is an invisible member of the
Church. In other words he is indeed a full member of the Church, but is simply
not known to be such.
8 Eph. 4. 4-5
9 de Unitate Ecclesiae, s.23
10 commentary on Romans, Homily 32
