Torture our Enemies with the Truth

St. Cecilia

Today the Sacraments are greatly under attack: marriage, confession and Holy Communion.  The attack is simple: they wish to take our Lord and deliver him over into the hands of his enemies (adulterers), and in order to do that they need to lie and deceive (grant phony absolution to adulterers who will continue in adultery). The idea of admitting the unrepentant to approach communion basically trying to be more Catholic than the Apostles who have forbidden such a sacrilege in the most clear and direct language from the very beginning of the Church.

So what is the battle plan on the good side, what can we use to stop such a vicious attack?  Scripture? Tradition? The Teaching of the Fathers and Doctors? The teaching of the Magisterium? All of these things are against our opponents.  Any book on sacramental theology would condemn them, even a children's catechism for first Holy Communion.

Yet, as a Church we have gotten in the habit of ignoring these things.  Take the Death Penalty for example: the Holy Scriptures support it in both the New and Old testaments, the Fathers upheld the right of the State to use it, the Doctors such as St Thomas Aquinas explained how it was just, and the Popes even used the Death Penalty themselves when they had temporal authority.  Want another example? Female altar servers, which can in no way be justified from tradition or historical evidence.

So these things are being ignored, or not even considered in the light of the teaching of the Church, at least collectively.  What is driving the desire for changes in the Church?  Public opinion.  Should we care about public opinion? No.  

What can we do?  We must let the light shine before men, we must shout the gospel from the rooftops, we must point out how erroneous and evil such an idea is.  Are we going to be faithful rocks, or reeds shaken in the wind.  The more we have to lose for it, the greater the reward is in having lost it for the sake of the truth.

The book Remaining in the Truth of Christ was a good effort by the authors, now we must add our efforts. Rather than trying to convince ourselves that someone who is an adulterer is ignorant of their sin and therefore in some odd theologically nuanced way might be able to go to holy communion, we must rather advance  as much and firmly as possible that there is no inheritance in the kingdom of Heaven for adulterers, nor for those who approve or support them in their sin and that receiving Holy Communion in a state of sin will not only lead to greater punishment in the next life, but also in this one.  We must be ready to greet false teaching with the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.  

“You wish us to pronounce a lie; but in speaking the truth, we inflict much greater and more cruel torture upon you than that which you make us suffer” St. Cecilia, from the Audiobook the Life and Martyrdom of St Cecilia 

Let us kindly, but boldly declare that we do not belong to a religion made up on whims and public opinion, but to the religion passed onto us by the Apostles.  "Hold firmly that our faith is identical with that of the ancients. Deny this and you dissolve the unity of the Church." St Thomas Aquinas, Disputations Concerning Truth. 

Friends, are we cowardly Catholics, pious and observant until the possibility of harm and conflict show up? If we cannot stand up for the truth in all of our modern comforts and at most risk losing the graces of someone in the Church with power, a few friends, and the ridicule of Catholic bloggers, how will we ever be able to endure torture and death for Christ sake?  

Let us not be gymnasts seeking applause for the complexity of our leaps and bounds to please the world or even leaders in the Church by theological half truths, nuance and platitudes;  rather let us be rocks upon which God can build His Church, Heavy in faithfulness, immovable in fidelity, steady under pressure and stable in Tradition and strong enough to take the crashing of the wave of worldly pressure or the assault of heresy.  It is time for he who has not a sword to sell his cloak at get one.  

"Blessed be the Lord my God, who teacheth my hands to fight, and my fingers to war." -Ps. 144:1

Amen.

Cohabitation: Maintaining Sanity

With the announcement that Pope Francis intends to marry couples who are publicly living in sin by cohabiting, some Catholics have sunk to a depth of denial and contradiction that I did not think possible. The scandal took place today, according to sources (here and here).

This is not some kind of hype pushed by the secular media. The fact that cohabiting couples will be among those receiving the sacrament comes straight from the press release issued by the Vicariate of Rome, which stated that among those being married by Francis "there are those who are already cohabiting", as reported by CNS. The ceremony will also include couples with children born out of wedlock.

The marriage of people cohabiting is a destructive scandal and offensive to those brave parish priests who over the years have steadfastly refused to marry couples who are living together outside of marriage. These faithful priests - who are usually in the minority and receive very little support from their bishops - understand that a couple cohabiting prior to marriage have no real understanding of the Catholic Church's moral teachings and even less knowledge of the purpose of the sacrament. They also know that marriages where couples cohabit first are much more likely to fail, inasmuch cohabiting couples demonstrate a lack of willingness to sacrifice and engender a disposition towards selfish behavior. Many of us traditional Catholics, or even just conservative Catholics who uphold Christian morality, have applauded these heroic pastors who have the guts to buck the trend and refuse matrimony to cohabiting couples.

But now that Pope Francis is doing this very thing, many of these folks don't know what to do. As is usually the case when this pope scandalizes the faithful, they have generally responded with "I don't see a problem here", "what's the big deal?", "this is really nothing new", and the like. Typical Franciscan-pontificate spin.

"Boniface, the Church has always married people who have previously been living in sin. This is nothing new."

The Church has always married people who had previously been living in sin; she has no custom of marrying people who are currently living in sin. And some of these couples are currently living in unrepentant sin, as the press release says they are "already cohabiting"; i.e., they are living together right now. Obviously, nobody has a problem with the Church offering sacraments to single mothers living chastely or people who were once notorious sinners but have repented; to offer them the sacrament while they are persisting in unrepentant sin is another matter entirely.

"But Boniface, you are being judgmental. How do you know they are unrepentant? You don't know their hearts."

In the Catholic Faith, what we do is extremely important. When the people came to St. John the Baptist asking how they could be saved, he told them "Bear fruits that befit repentance" (Luke 3:8). We demonstrate our repentance by our actions. A true conversion, a metanoia, means actively turning away from a sinful lifestyle and embracing holiness. Hence St. John Vianney withheld absolution from a man who had refused to stop dancing in the local saloon and St. Cyprian withheld distribution of alms from certain people unless they gave up attending the Roman spectacles. Can you imagine the scandal today if a priest refused to absolve somebody unless they stopped going to the bar on Fridays or if he refused to feed the poor if they didn't stop going to see R-rated movies? How Pharisaic! Yet these saints knew that a sincere change of heart would invariably be coupled with a change of lifestyle, and if they did not see the "fruits that befit repentance", they presumed there was no repentance and withheld their ministrations. A person who persists in their sin is not repentant; rather, they are like a fool, according to Proverbs: "A dog that returns to its vomit is like a fool who reverts to his folly" (Prov. 26:11).

I know a thief is unrepentant if he keeps stealing; I know a cohabiting couple is unrepentant if they keep cohabiting. Simple as that.

"There you go judging again. How can you have any knowledge of whether or not the cohabiting couples are still sinning? You don't know what goes on in the bedroom. They could be cohabiting but living chastely. We ought to presume the best."

Let me say this as plainly as possible; in fact, let me be so blunt that I am actually going to resort to using all caps, which I seldom do: COHABITING ITSELF IS SINFUL, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SEXUAL ACTIVITY GOES ON.

The spin-doctors are essentially saying that while a couple may be living together outside of wedlock, they may be living chastely in that situation, and therefore we cannot and should not presume they are fornicating just because they are living under the same roof. We ought to "assume the best."

This position misses several things.

First, how many people do you know who cohabit but do not have sexual relations? In my twelve years as a Catholic, I can think of one. Now, how many people do you know in the world, in your family, in your workplace, in your parish - wherever - how many people do you know who cohabit and do have sexual relations? Yeah. So this mythical "chaste cohabiting couple" is in the same category as the "extraordinary minister", where the adjective is there to make us feel better but in practice has no meaning.

"Boniface, you are talking about non-believers cohabiting - worldly people. The pope is marrying Catholics."

Catholics who cohabit before marriage are being worldly and are, in some sense, non-believers, at least as regards the Church's moral teaching, which they evidently do not believe or they would not cohabit.

Furthermore, regarding "presuming the best about people", we must recall that when people are living together, we actually do not presume chastity; we presume they are sexually active, and the Church always has. This is because an adult man and woman living a common life together is a state proper only to marriage; hence, when we see a man and a woman living together and don't know differently, we default to assuming they are married - which obviously means we assume the relations proper to marriage. If a man and a woman share a house, it is presumed they share a bed; and if they share a bed, well, heh heh...you know.

In fact, it is natural for people to assume sexual relations whenever they see any male and female in any close relationship. When I was watching the winter Olympics figure-skating with my extended family this year, my 15 year old nephew remarked, "So, do you think they do it?" Given the great amounts of time the skaters spend rehearsing in each other's company, as well as the skin-tight suits, intimate poses, and emotional intensity of the profession, it was natural for him - as well as for many - to assume sexual relations between figure-skating pairs.

The Church has always presumed a cohabiting couple were having sexual relations. This is why living together outside of marriage has been referred to as "living in sin." It was never engaging in the act of fornication that was primarily known as "living in sin"; rather, it was extramarital cohabitation that constituted "living in sin". Fornication was merely - and quite rationally - assumed. We, also, are not wrong in assuming that cohabiting couples are fornicating.

Third, given that cohabitation is referred to as "living in sin", we need to recall that cohabitation itself is sinful, as I exclaimed in all caps above. There are several reasons for this; as mentioned above, because people presume you are fornicating, it becomes a scandal. This is true even in the unlikely event that no fornication happens. A blind man who walks into an adult bookstore still commits the sin of scandal by merely going in, even if his blindness means he doesn't look at pornography while he is in there. This is because anyone who sees him go in and doesn't know the particulars about his blindness will naturally assume he is looking at porn while in the store.

Besides being scandalous, cohabitation also puts couples in a near occasion of sin on a daily basis, almost perpetually, in fact. This is why we keep our teenage daughters and sons away from compromising situations with members of the opposite sex. Duh. When did this become so complicated? You take a male and a female, let them share a home, and chances are very good that they will share a bed - and if that happens, forget about it.

So, because cohabitation sends a message that sex is happening, and because there is a tremendous likelihood that sex will in fact happen, it is scandalous and sinful. Can you think of any other activity that is scandalous and a near occasion of sin but which apologists would be hesitant condemning?

"Fair enough, Boniface, but this is a pastoral call that the pope has the right to make. He has the jurisdiction to marry whom he chooses and it is not our place to call that judgment into question."

Very well. I will not judge Francis. I appeal to the words of St. John Paul II, who wrote about those who "presume that the true and proper marriage will take place only after a period of cohabitation" in Familiaris Consortio. After summarizing the variety of reasons people cohabit - ranging from economic distress to custom to mere pleasure seeking - the pope stated that each of these situations of cohabitation

"presents the Church with arduous pastoral problems, by reason of the serious consequences deriving from them, both religious and moral (the loss of the religious sense of marriage seen in the light of the Covenant of God with His people; deprivation of the grace of the sacrament; grave scandal), and also social consequences (the destruction of the concept of the family; the weakening of the sense of fidelity, also towards society; possible psychological damage to the children; the strengthening of selfishness) [Familiaris Consortio, 81]

By the way, for those who are no longer accustomed to traditional theological vocabulary, the use of the adjective "grave" generally means "mortally sinful."

Also, did you notice that St. John Paul II applies all these consequences to cohabitation as such? He does not seem to envision nor give much credence to the possibility of chaste cohabitation, nor do any of the reasons for extramarital common life negate the consequences he enumerates.

So, the question becomes: If this holy, wise and sainted-pontiff states that cohabitation has serious moral, social and religious consequences, including psychological damage to children, destruction of the family, establishment in selfishness - as well as the guilt of mortally sinful scandal for those engaged in it and the deprivation of the grace of the sacrament of marriage - are these people properly disposed to be married?

If according to St. John Paul II cohabitation before marriage results in the deprivation of the grace of the sacrament, how on earth can one say that cohabiting couples can possibly be properly disposed or in any sense fit for matrimony? Let St. John Paul II judge Francis.

"Well Boniface, you make a good case, but ultimately these marriages are all valid, so this is just your opinion."

Uh...I didn't suggest they weren't valid. Is this really relevant? Dr. Peters has an interesting article looking at the validity of marriages conferred on cohabiting couples. Of course, he states that they are perfectly valid but kind of punks out by sidestepping the question of the pastoral implications of such marriages, only stating that the pastoral problems "might be a bigger deal."

That's an understatement!

I really hope we don't have to go over the whole discussion about validity and propriety again. A Eucharist consecrated on a card table at a poker game is valid if correct matter, form, minister and intent are used. That does not make it proper. It can be valid and still seriously scandalous; in fact, in the case of the Eucharist, such a consecration would be sacrilegious and scandalous precisely because the consecration would be valid.

Similarly, hiding behind the mere validity of a marriage conferred upon a cohabiting couple is no way to get around the huge pastoral implications such a practice would have. Has the world turned upside down that I am now concerned with pastoral implications?!

I would also like to opine, however, that Dr. Peters errs in one point. He says in his article quoted above:
"Canonically, this is a non-issue. No divine, natural, or canon law impedes a wedding between cohabiting persons (cc. 1083-1094) and therefore the fundamental right of the faithful to the sacraments in general (cc. 213, 843) and to marriage particular (c. 1058) should prevail in such cases. Unquestionably, these couples can, and must be allowed to wed."

Dr. Peters suggests that, unless impeded by some canonical impediment, there is absolutely no reason any Catholic couple can ever be legitimately denied access to the sacrament of matrimony. I dispute this point. It is very true that, regarding matrimony, there are no natural, divine, or canonical impediments based on cohabitation. But there is grounds for denial of the sacrament in the canons regarding administration of sacraments in general.

First, canon 843§1 states that "Sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them." Dr. Peters cites this canon in support of his argument that cohabiting couples "can, and must be allowed to wed."

However, he does not delve into what it means for a couple to be "properly disposed." Since being "properly disposed" is a condition for reception of any sacrament, it is understood by implication and practice that any sacrament may be denied to any Catholic who is not properly disposed. This is why pastors do First Communion interviews, Confirmation interviews, etc.

Who decides whether a couple is properly disposed for marriage? Canon 843§2 says, "According to their respective offices in the Church, both pastors of souls and all other members of Christ's faithful have a duty to ensure that those who ask for the sacraments are prepared for their reception. This should be done through proper evangelization and catechetical instruction, in accordance with the norms laid down by the competent authority."

In the case of marriage, pastors are to ensure proper disposition through "personal preparation for entering marriage, so that the spouses are disposed to the holiness and the obligations of their new state" (1062§2), while traditionally the laity participate by making pastors aware of any impediments to marriage; hence the traditional publishing of the banns.

Thus, there does exist a canonical rationale for a pastor to deny the sacrament of matrimony to two Catholics; that is, he can always deny it on the grounds that they are not properly disposed. Does cohabitation before marriage prove a proper disposition is lacking? The purpose of any sacrament is to communicate the grace proper to it. Given that Pope St. John Paul II stated that cohabitation before marriage results in a deprivation of sacramental grace and is a grave scandal, a pastor who refuses to confer marriage on a cohabiting couple would be justified based on Canon 843§2 and Familiaris Consortio 81, which would suggest that such a couple would not be properly disposed.

As a side note, a priest may also refuse to officiate at the marriage of "a person who has notoriously rejected the catholic faith" (1073§4). Traditionally this has been interpreted to refer to outright apostasy, though a person who rejects a certain portion of the Church's teaching could be said to have rejected the faith, insofar as the faith must be kept "whole and undefiled" (Quicumque Vult) and that "whoever breaks one commandment is guilty of breaking them all" (cf. James 2:10).

Furthermore, canon 1092§2 lists among persons "incapable of contracting marriage...those who suffer from a grave lack of discretionary judgement concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted. I believe this canon is meant to apply to persons who suffer from developmental disabilities. However, since the canon does not explicitly say that, if a person of sound mind is so dense as to either not understand or reject the Church's teaching on the exclusivity of intercourse to within the marital bond itself, one could make a case that they "suffer from a grace lack of discretionary judgment": concerning the nature of matrimony and hence should not be married. These latter two arguments from canons 1073 and 1092 are only speculative; the argument from Canon 843§2 and Familiaris Consortio 81 is much stronger, in my opinion.

So, yes, I take issue with the opinion that cohabiting couples "can, and must be allowed to wed" if they ask for it. Many pastors have presumed such couples are not properly disposed and have denied them on those grounds, as they have every right and duty to based on canon law and tradition.

"Boniface, marriage offers a way for them to regularize their situation. Do you want them to remain in sin?"

Of course not. I want them to turn their union into a sacramental, grace-filled union. To do so, they must be properly disposed to receive the sacrament. Part of that disposition is abstaining from intercourse prior to marriage, which among other things, you do by not living together. If a cohabiting couple is serious about wanting to regularize their situation, let them cease cohabitation at once and make a sacramental confession. Then let them maintain purity for the remainder of the preparatory process, which is a sign that they are serious about "bearing fruit that befits repentance." It's as simple as that.

I want every Catholic to receive communion weekly. That doesn't mean I want to dispense with the regulations surrounding who and when communion can be received; it means I want all Catholics to observe those regulations. Two Catholics certainly have a right to marry - but not on any terms they choose. Everyone understands this principle when it comes to the other sacraments. Why some Catholics are now hemming and hawing when it comes to matrimony is beyond me.

One last thought: It rubs me the wrong way that this is being done for political purposes. Do you think the pope goes out to marry twenty couples and it is a coincidence that they are all either living in sin or come from irregular situations? Of course that is not a coincidence. These people were chosen to send a message, and the fact that this is occurring so close to the opening of the Synod on the Family is very meaningful. It saddens me that these people were chosen not based on their suitability for reception of the sacrament, but in order to send a message about the pope's agenda. It is as if Francis went out and said, "Go dig up some cohabiting people for me to marry so I can make a point", just like when he went to Korea he requested whatever "the smallest car possible" was in order to make sure he looked sufficiently humble. The administration of the sacrament is being co-opted to push the envelope for the progressive attempts to loosen all the disciplines surrounding marriage.

Yes, this is a scandal. Many in the Church hierarchy may have lost their minds on this matter, but at least let us maintain sanity on this issue. Cohabiting before marriage is sinful and those who present themselves for marriage while cohabiting are not properly disposed and should not receive the sacrament until the "bear fruit that befits repentance."

Follow this blog and conversation on Facebook

Is the Novus Ordo a New Rite of the Church?

The term Novus Ordo is often used by “traditionalist” Catholics as a sort of pejorative, but it is most interesting to note that Paul VI himself referred to his new Mass as the “Novus Ordo”. [1] In light of this fact, I think we can charitably make use of the term as a means of distinction. But is the Novus Ordo a new rite of the Church?

The Vetus and the Novus, as Pope Emeritus Benedict has said, are “two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi” [Law of praying]. Benedict sees that, while there is one law of prayer, it finds two expressions in the one Roman Rite. He says that their relationship is such that it “will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s Lex credendi [Law of believing]. They are, in fact two uses of the one Roman rite.” [2]

From this quote, it seems the question posed is all but answered. And yet, how can Paul VI be correct and Benedict XVI also be correct? Is it a new rite, as Paul VI has said, or is it merely another form of the same rite, as Benedict has said? The two seem to be in contradiction on the matter. Perhaps in order to resolve the conflict we should look more deeply at what a "rite" in fact is.

For Catholics in the West, to speak of the Roman Rite and the Latin Church is synonymous. However, it is important to note that in the East, a “church” refers to a particular people who are legally autonomous, and so they refer to a “church sui juris” (of one’s own right). There are multiple churches sui juris that share a common rite. It may be easier to see in terms of genus (rite) and species (church) - Under the genus, “Byzantine”, there are the species of Ukranian, Melkite, Ruthenian, Romanian, etc., all of whom, while sharing a common liturgical patrimony, are in fact legally autonomous from each other. In addition to the churches of the Byzantine Rite, there are also other rites, such as the Alexandrian, Antiochene, or Chaldean rites, and which are composed of various autonomous churches.

The Eastern Code of Canon Law defines a rite as thus: “A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary heritage, distinguished according to peoples' culture and historical circumstances, that finds expression in each autonomous church's way of living the faith.” [3]

In the West, we have used the word “ritus” to mean something different. Historically, we have referred to the one Latin church sui juris (whose Patriarch is the Bishop of Rome), with many “rites”, or liturgies, attached to it. So, we find that there was once not only the Roman Rite, but the Gallican Rite, or the Carmelite Rite, or the Sarum Rite - in effect, rite and church have the opposite hierarchical structure in the West from what is found in the East! We also use the word to speak of particular liturgical ceremonies, such as the "rite of baptism" or the "rite of communion", etc. The Old Catholic Encyclopedia treats of “rite” in this manner, defining it as “comprising the manner of performing all services for the worship of God and the sanctification of men” - in effect, a particular type of liturgy. [4]

If we take rite to be used in the Western sense, as defined by the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, we would have to say that Paul VI is entirely correct in calling the Novus Ordo a "new rite" of the Church. From this, can we conclude that Benedict in Summorum Pontificum was simply in error on this distinction - that the Novus and the Vetus should most properly be referred to as two rites, and not one? There are many canon lawyers and Bishops, who, following the Pauline definition of ritus, would say that Benedict was simply not a good canonist, that there are manifold problems surrounding the legislation Summorum Pontificum, and use this in order to prevent its implementation. However, to simply do this is not only incorrect, it is to miss the real genius behind the motu proprio given to us by Benedict. Let's take a closer look.

Returning to the definition for the word given in the Eastern Code of Canon Law, we find that in order to refer to something as a rite, we not only have to evaluate the liturgical patrimony, but also the “theological, spiritual and disciplinary heritage, distinguished according to peoples' culture and historical circumstances” in order to make a determination on the issue.

In light of the greater qualifications necessary for the constitution of a rite as laid down by the Code, we should perhaps endeavor not to speak equivocally of the word “rite”, and try to harmonize these two different definitions in order to see that, in fact, Paul VI and Benedict XVI are speaking of the same reality, albeit with different things being signified by the word "rite". In harmonizing the two, Benedict gives us a different word, “use”, as the more proper term pertaining to the various liturgies of the West, since he understands "rite" as having a more broad scope. As “particular liturgical usages” of the Roman Rite, the Vetus and the Novus should witness to the same “lex orandi” of the one Roman Rite. This distinction which Benedict is making between the two forms of the Mass has great implications, far beyond the liberation of the traditional missal, although they may not at first be apparent. These implications, I think, lie in the other qualifications of the constitution of a rite (as given in the Eastern Code), and bear greatly on our question, "is the Novus Ordo a new rite of the Church?"

Dear friends, I don’t think that I have the space in order to adequately explicate and argue one way or the other for the answer to this question - perhaps we are still too close in history to the Council to be able to judge such a thing. However, please allow me to make a few observations. After the Council, we were given a new liturgy, formed, not organically, but by a committee of “experts”. The substantial difference between the Tridentine Missal and the Missal of the post-Vatican II reform is sufficient enough for nearly all to agree that the Novus Ordo is in fact a formally new, albeit perhaps materially similar, usage of the Roman Rite.

But not only were we given a new liturgy, we were also given a new Code of Canon Law, adopting the legal language of modern political theory. Furthermore, the seminaries almost universally dropped St. Thomas from their formation programs in favor of modern philosophy and a “new theology” based upon the foundation of these modern philosophies.

In the implementation of all of these changes, an euphoric “spirit” of the Council was adopted as the new path to holiness in the modern world, throwing off the shackles of a “repressive” spirituality obsessed with peoples’ sins and medieval devotions while replacing it with an “all you need is love” sort of spirituality - one which could be summed up by the phrase “who am I to judge” as the modus vivendi for the Church in the modern world.

Fifty years after the Council, we are at a critical time in the history of the modern era of the Church. The answer to the question, “Is the Novus Ordo a new rite?”, I fear, is still very much an open one, and while the friction may rear its head most heatedly in the discussion of the Tridentine Mass versus the Mass of Paul VI, we should take care to have greater reference to the theological, spiritual, and disciplinary traditions in order to resolve the question. Benedict saw that, while a new rite could never be created de jure in the Church, [5] if things did not change dramatically, the West was well on its way to celebrating a new rite de facto.

This, I think, is the real mens behind the legislation Summorum Pontificum, and the particular genius of a Pope who, by his taking part in the reforms of the Council saw the dangers that accompany the adoption of a doctrine of progress. It is for this reason that we need Catholics who are not only devoted to the traditional liturgy, but also to the theological tradition accompanying the liturgy - to do anything less is to live a sort of duality within one’s own soul that will ultimately sow utter confusion and discord.

Benedict proposes that we must understand these new theologies, liturgies, and disciplines in the light of a hermeneutic of continuity. This, of course, is true - it is the only way to maintain the integrity of the one Roman Rite; and with regard to the Mass, it is the only way in which "These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in not any way lead to a division in the Church's 'Lex credendi'". But especially with regard to those things which do not bear the charism of infallibility, perhaps the surest and most direct path to continuity with the patrimony of the Roman Rite that is given to us in the tradition is to be begin to discern which of those branches of the vine have not born the fruit that had been hoped for, and begin the pruning process, so that the whole vine might begin to bear good fruit once again.

The particular legislative genius of Summorum Pontificum has not yet been fully realized or appreciated - the recent unprecedented moves on traditional religious orders and academic institutions witnesses to this fact. I think that, in light of the particular reality that the Latin Church has found itself in at the beginning of this new millennium, Pope Benedict has shown us that the only way to stave off the natural schism (a “hermeneutic of rupture”) that occurs from two fundamentally opposed philosophical foundations is to be found in forming an intentional relation, a hermeneutic of continuity, between the Vetus Ordo and the Novus Ordo (and their accompanying theologies) as two forms of one rite.

The "auctoritas" [6] that the usus antiquior possesses will become the anchor for authentic liturgical renewal and reform, and, in turn, since lex credendi follows on lex orandi, the renewal of Catholic theology and life will continue to be enriched - proportionally, I would say - by the regularization of the particular theological and spiritual patrimony of the Vetus Ordo into the life of the Church as a whole.

The answer to the original question, “Is the Novus Ordo a new rite?” should be a simple one: “no, of course not!” The means of making this answer true lies in the work ahead, moving forward in faith, hope, and charity, and using the blueprint given to us by Benedict in his theology, his pastoral praxis, and in what will be perhaps the legacy of his pontificate, Summorum Pontificum.

---

[1.] Address of Paul VI at the Consistory for the naming of Cardinals, 24 May 1976.
[2.] Summorum Pontificum, a. 1.
[3.] CCEO 27
[4.] Griffin, Patrick. "Rites." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 21 Jan. 2014 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm>.
[5.] The rites all have their origin in apostolic foundations, and thus, a truly new rite could never legitimately be erected.
[6.] Pope Benedict refers to the “auctoritas” possessed by the Vetus Ordo when he says “What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged harmful.” The question of what “auctoritas” the Novus Ordo might possess could be a fruitful subject for future reflection.

On Right Reading of the Old Testament (part 1)

In 2 Timothy 2:15, the Apostle Paul admonishes Timothy, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that need not to be ashamed,rightly dividing the word of truth." To "rightly divide the word of truth" means to approach Divine Revelation prudently and in keeping with the principles of the Gospel, or in modern parlance, "thinking with the mind of the Church" in how one interprets the data of Revelation. In St. Paul's day, this "word of truth" would have primarily been the oral preaching of the Apostles and the Old Testament, which were the only real "Scriptures" in existence in the immediate apostolic period. The man of God thus needs to be able to "rightly divide" the Old Testament as well as the New Testament revelation.

The sad truth is, most Catholics simply do not know what to do with the Old Testament. The Psalms may be consulted for spiritual solace, the historical books for edifying stories of God's intervention in history, the tales of the Exodus for interesting typological connections to the New Testament sacraments, but beyond this, many Catholics are baffled as to what to make of the rest of the Old Testament corpus. The problems are many. For example:

• To what degree are Old Testament principles applicable in the New Testament age?
• How to distinguish between the temporary, ceremonial law and the permanent moral law?
• How much authority to Old Testament verses retain in contemporary arguments?
• How to understand questions of historicity relating to the authority of any Old Testament book or passage?
• What do we derive from passages where the Old Testament morality seems to be at odds with current Church teaching?

The inability of most Catholics to satisfactorily answer these questions leads to a hazy vision of the Old Testament - an unfamiliarity with its texts and, even more unfortunate, the relegation of Old Testament passages to the status of mere footnotes in contemporary theological discussion.

I have been ruminating on this problem for awhile. As I have been participating in different online discussions about different points of theology, I have frequently cited Old Testament passages in my arguments, only to see them dismissed with comments like:

"Yeah, but that's from the Old Testament. As you know, there's many Old Testament laws no longer in force today."
"I hardly think Christians can base their behavior today on stories from the Old Testament."
"Yeah, but that was before the coming of Christ. Things are different in the New Covenant."
"A lot of Old Testament books are not meant to be taken literally."

Basically it comes down to, "You're argument is invalid because it cites the Old Testament as a source." Has anyone else experienced this? It is unfortunate, and it comes from a kind of uncertainty of how the Old Testament is to be approached today.

Let us then examine the problem, and come to a consensus, in light of Tradition, of how a Catholic is to "rightly divide" the Old Testament, utilizing it in a manner consistent with Church Tradition.

Before we answer the above questions, we need to establish three preliminary assumptions. Any discussion about how to handle the Old Testament will only make sense if we acknowledge these three principles. First principle:

The Old Testament is truly the Word of God.

This seems evident, but many do not admit the ramifications of this. If the Old Testament is the Word of God, then every single word of it is divinely inspired. This means every passage, even "difficult" ones, need to be dealt with in some manner and fit into the larger context of Divine Revelation. When we come across a passage we do not understand or which may not seem convenient to our particular argument, it is not sufficient to simply say, "Yeah, but that comes from the Old Testament." The passage in question is part of Divine Revelation and needs to be given equal consideration. Nobody would write off one of Christ's parables by saying, "That's only a parable of Jesus!" Neither should these passages of Scripture be so summarily dismissed.

There is no one interpretive scheme that can be applied to the entire Old Testament.

Many want the Old Testament to fit into a very simple interpretive category. This would make dealing with challenging texts easy. Unfortunately, there is no one method that can be applied uniformly, other than the Church's four-fold approach - start with the literal, then look for allegory, moral lessons, etc. But just what the literal meaning is can be greatly disputed. Historical books need to be read differently than wisdom literature, and these different from the prophets or the Mosaic Law. Each needs to be examined separately. The fact, for example, that most components of the Mosaic Law have passed away does not mean that the moral teachings of the Book of Proverbs have.

The Fathers make generous use of the Old Testament in establishing their arguments.

This is too broad a point to be established in a single paragraph, but anyone who has ever read the Fathers knows this to be the case. For example, if we look at the first five chapters of the early second century "Epistle of Barnabas", we see the following citations:

Jer. 7:22

Zech. 8:17
Isa. 58:4-10
Ex. 31:18
Ex. 34:28
Ex. 32:7
Deut. 9:12
Isa. 5:21
Isa. 53:5
Gen. 1:26
Zech. 13:7
Isa. 50:6-7

This trend continues throughout the book. The Old Testament is cited dozens and dozens of times, even obscure books like Haggai and Zephaniah. The New Testament is cited only eight times. See for yourself here. Pope St. Clement I, in his First Epistle, cites liberally from Deuteronomy, Wisdom, Isaiah and many others. These passages are cited for the purpose of establishing his arguments; in other words, they are assumed to have a binding and relevant meaning for the infant Church. Let us look at just one chapter of Clement's First Epistle, Chapter 8, to see how Old Testament passages are used; I have highlighted his citations so you can see how much of his writing is drawn directly from the Old Testament:

"The ministers of the grace of God have, by the Holy Spirit, spoken of repentance; and the Lord of all things has himself declared with an oath regarding it, "As I live, says the Lord, I desire not the death of the sinner, but rather his repentance" [Ezk. 33:11]; adding, moreover, this gracious declaration, "Repent, O house of Israel, of your iniquity" [Ezk. 18:30]. "Say to the children of my people, Though your sins reach from earth to heaven, and though they be redder than scarlet, and blacker than sack-cloth, yet if you turn to me with your whole heart, and say, Father! I will listen to you, as to a holy people." [Isa. 1:18]. And in another place He speaks thus: "Wash you and become clean; put away the wickedness of your souls from before my eyes; cease from your evil ways, and learn to do well; seek out judgment, deliver the oppressed, judge the fatherless, and see that justice is done to the widow; and come, and let us reason together. He declares, Though your sins be like crimson, I will make them white as snow; though they be like scarlet, I will whiten them like wool. And if you be willing and obey me, you shall eat the good of the land; but if you refuse, and will not hearken unto me, the sword shall devour you, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken these things." [Isa. 1:16-20]." Desiring, therefore, that all His beloved should be partakers of repentance, He has, by His almighty will, established [these declarations].

This is normative for most of Clement's epistle, as it is for many other of the Fathers. The point is that the Fathers quoted very generously from the Old Testament, presuming that it had a permanent validity and that Old Testament passages were immediately relevant to the lives of New Testament Christians. Furthermore, they presumed, by their abundant citations, that all Christians implicitly understood this. This means that we, too, should realize and appropriate this truth. Pope St. Clement would be puzzled if the Christians of Corinth were to respond by complaining that so many of his citations came from the Old Testament.

Having thus laid the groundwork, we will shortly take up the questions raised above, beginning with the question of the degree to which Old Testament "principles" are applicable today.

Summer Theology Program in Norcia, Italy

You may have noticed the new sidebar ad to the right. Our long-time friends at the Albertus Magnus Center for Scholastic Studies asked that we post some information about the summer program that they will be holding in Norcia, Italy from June 16th-29th.

For two weeks room and board in Italy, you can't beat the price! And Norcia, the birthplace of Sts. Benedict and Scholastica, is an absolutely beautiful town. For anyone who has an interest in studying the Faith of the Church, I would wholeheartedly recommend attending the program.

From their website:

Contemplating the Faith in Umbria

From June 16-29th, the St. Albert the Great Center for Scholastic Studies will hold a summer session in Norcia, Italy. In partnership with the Monasterro San Benedetto, this will be the third year they have held the Summer Institute.

The St. Albert the Great Center is dedicated to the revival of higher studies in theology undertaken according to the mind and method of the great scholastics, and in particular the work of St. Thomas Aquinas.

This summer's program is focussing on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. With the sacred text as our primary source, we will also follow along the interpretive tradition of the Church by reading commentaries of the Fathers and in particular St. Thomas's commentary on the epistle.

In many ways, the epistle is already an early synthesis of the Faith that the Evangelists witness to, and it offers us the opportunity to explore in depth many theological questions such as grace, justification, the relationship between the Old Covenant and the New, and the salvation of the Jews, to name a few.

Besides the daily seminars, there will be a guest lecture by Fr. Cassian Folsom, OSB, the founder and prior of the monastery. The two-week program reaches its climax in an authentic scholastic disputation, moderated by one of the monks.

In addition to the academic program, we will, of course, be participating in the daily life of worship (High Mass, Divine Office) of the Benedictine monks who live and pray at the birthplace of SS. Benedict & Scholastica. There will be excursions to Assisi and to Cascia, as well as attendance at the Papal Mass in Rome for the Feast of SS. Peter & Paul at the conclusion of the program.

For more information, visit their website: http://www.albertusmagnuscss.org

Profile of a Theological Liberal

One areas where traditional minded Catholics and other Catholics get caught up is in the question of what it means to be a "liberal." During the conclave of 2013, some Weigelian "evangelical" Catholics were rejoicing at the mention of conservative Cardinal Timothy Dolan as a papabile; traditionalists, on the other hand, were worried that such a liberal prelate as Dolan was being seriously considered. Cardinal Schönborn is extolled as an example of a solidly orthodox prelate by some, whilst others find frightful compromises with liberalism in the Cardinal's behavior. Hans urs Von Balthasar is praised by John Paul II and Benedict XVI as an exemplar of Catholic scholarship; others, such as myself, see him as one of the foremost liberals of the modern Church. Similar discussions have occurred regarding Fr. Barron.

Clearly, different people have different definitions of what it means to be a "liberal" Catholic.

This confusion, I think, is due to the fact that Catholics have appropriated secular-political definitions of what it means to be "liberal" or "conservative", essentially equating indicators of political liberalism with theological liberalism. In the political realm, for example, a liberal is likely to be in favor of same sex marriage, abortion, and at least an indifferentist on religious matters, if not an outright agnostic or atheist. These are what are adopted as the indicators of liberalism. Thus, when it comes to a Catholic prelate or theologian, it is the presence or lack of these indicators that determine whether that individual is "liberal" or not. Understood this way, Cardinal Timothy Dolan cannot be liberal because he is fiercely Pro-Life; Cardinal Schönborn is not liberal because he writes beautiful things about the need for society to turn to God; Cardinal Bergoglio could not be a liberal because he had defended traditional marriage in strong language during his time in Argentina. It is not my purpose to suggest that the aforementioned prelates are liberals, only point out that the indicators for who is and is not a 'liberal' are usually social-moral questions lifted from the political spectrum.

But is this what it means to be 'liberal' in the traditional, Catholic sense? When Bl. Pius IX or Leo XIII or St. Pius X wrote scathingly against "liberalism", what were they condemning? Were they condemning homosexual marriage, or abortion, or agnosticism?

Those moral issues certainly are part of liberalism, but anyone who has really studied the thought of the pre-Conciliar popes on this question knows that these moral issues are fundamentally not what the popes of the 19th century were worried about. Fr. Salvany, in his classic work Liberalism is a Sin, devotes an entire book to demolishing the errors of liberalism and never mentioned abortion or homosexuality. This is because for Salvany, as well as Bl. Pius IX and the other pre-Conciliar popes, liberalism is primarily a troubling theological trend within Catholicism, not a position on hot-button moral issues. It has to do with holding certain theological opinions, most of which are not relatable to any corresponding positions on the political spectrum, because they are problems internal to Catholic theological thought. This is why Fr. Salvany can write a whole book against liberalism and not mention these moral indicators; he simply does not see them as the essence of liberalism.

Once we understand this, we will begin to see why there is a divergence here; why where one sees a conservative prelate, another sees a liberal or modernist. If you are still thinking inside the liberal-conservative political paradigm, you may be surprised to see what the Church's definition of a liberal-progressive actually is. It is certainly not the same thing as a political liberal in the American sense. If not, then what is the profile of a theological liberal, according to the Church's tradition? It is hard to nail down every point, but here a few indicators of liberalism we have culled from some of the more famous documents of the pre-Conciliar Church:

A liberal believes that every man is free to embrace and publicly profess whatever religion he deems true, and that good hope may be entertained for the salvation of these people outside the Church. (Syllabus, 15-17)

A liberal believes that it is no longer expedient for Catholicism to be the formal religion of the State; liberals thus profess an American style separation of Church and State and deny that religious liberty will lead to indifferentism (ibid., 77-78).

A liberal dismisses the injunction of Pope Agatho, affirmed by Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, that neither the content of the faith nor its expression ought to be changed. (Mirari Vos, 7)

A liberal believes that so long as members of non-Christian religions follow certain moral standards, salvation can be obtained. (ibid., 13). A liberal asserts the "liberty of conscience" (ibid., 14).

A liberal believes in an absolute right to freedom of speech, especially the freedom to publish and spread falsehoods in print and online. Note, even if the content of this speech is disagreed with, the liberal still asserts that there is a right for it to be promulgated. This belief in unfettered freedom of publishing is a tenet of liberalism (ibid., 15).

Liberals assert that the Church cannot pass judgment on the content and methodology of human science. (Lamentabile Sane, 5).

A liberal believes that the Gospel of John was not composed by the beloved Apostle, but by a "Johannine community" (ibid., 18).

A liberal believes that Christianity must be adapted to fit the needs of different times and places (ibid., 59).

A liberal believes that the Church's traditional understanding of creation of the world be reevaluated in light of modern scientific knowledge (ibid., 64). 

A liberal believes the fundamentally center of all religion is the religious experience, the heeding of the religious sense of man (Pascendi, 6, 10).

A liberal cannot distinguish between the natural and the supernatural; he is ever naturalizing what is supernatural, whilst simultaneously affirming a supernatural or soteriological importance to things that are merely natural (ibid., 7; see also Humani generis, 26). Mere natural virtue is treated as meritorious as supernatural virtue, and the whole uniqueness of supernatural faith is implicitly denied since natural faith is considered equally salvific (i.e., the "faith" of the non-Christian being treated as meritorious).

Liberals believe that dogma should evolve with the changing sensibilities of man (ibid., 13).

Liberals believe that non-Christians, such as Muslims and pagans, can have authentic, and valuable religious experiences that must be affirmed (ibid., 14).

A liberal believes that the Sacred Scriptures are primarily understood as the record of the "experience" of God's pilgrim people on their journey of faith. Sacred history is a narrative of various experiential encounters with God - a chronicle of experiences (ibid., 21-22).

A liberal believes it is wrong for the Church to meddle in any political affairs; for the Church to trace out and prescribe for the citizen any line of action, on any pretext whatsoever, is to be guilty of an abuse of authority (ibid., 24).

The liberal believes that everything in the Church ought to be updated - to change and evolve with the times. Liturgy, discipline, Church structure all ought to be modified to fit the spiritual needs of an ever changing society (ibid., 26).

A liberal believes that the Bible may contain historical or scientific errors, but, since the subject of these books is not science or history, but only religion and morals, it is not a 'real' error, since the fundamental nature of the Bible is to teach about faith, not history (ibid., 36).

A liberal prefers modern philosophical systems to Scholastic philosophy (ibid., 38).

A liberal believes that the entire structure of the Church ought to be reformed in order to reflect the more democratic sensibilities of the modern world (ibid.) - how about replacing the papal coronation with an inaugural Mass?

A liberal believes that authority in the Church is much too concentrated should be decentralized (ibid.).

Liberals believe that, while the Church Fathers are worthy of veneration, their absence of critical textual erudition and knowledge of ancient history make their interpretations of Scripture suspect (ibid., 42).

A liberal believes that Catholics ought to ignore the differences that divide us from Protestants, Muslims, and other people of faith, and focusing on what unites us, join forces to combat secularism and atheism (Humani generis, 11).

A liberal believes that the needs of the times justify altering terminology long established in the Church and freeing our theology from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers (ibid., 14).

A liberal denies that the Church of Jesus Christ and the Holy Roman Catholic Church are one and the same, but prefers to waffle and equivocate on this point (ibid., 27).

Liberals believe that it is a foregone conclusion, already scientifically proven, that the human body was the result of evolution (ibid., 36).

A liberal denies that it falls to the teaching authority of the Church to decide whether evolution can be held as a viable position for a Catholic (ibid.).

Liberals deny the existence of a literal Adam and Eve (ibid., 37).

Liberals believe that instead of two first parents, we had multiple first parents (ibid.).

A liberal denies that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are historical in nature (ibid., 38).

A liberal priest, bishop or theologian falsely believes that he can still maintain a clear conscience without insisting that his pupils and those under his authority religiously accept the teaching authority of the Church, including the condemnation of all of the above propositions (ibid., 42).

As you can see, one need not profess same-sex marriage, abortion, favoring national health insurance or any of the current hot-button indicators of political liberalism have anything to do with theological liberalism. Forget whether a prelate is Pro-Life or not; does he believe separation of Church and State is ideal? If so, then he is a liberal.

Is he clamoring for decentralization of the Church, more power for the national bishops' conferences, or an internationalization of the Roman Curia? Liberal.

Does he speak about Genesis in terms of "the Bible doesn't teach scientific truth because it is not primarily a scientific book"? Liberal.

Does he believe in absolute freedom of speech and freedom of the press? Liberal.

Is he praising the religious experiences of non-Christian cultures, affirming that they have some sort of value in God's eyes and suggesting that all people are somehow communing with God through their own religious traditions? Liberal.

Does he state that the Church needs to figure out how to spread its message with new vocabulary to suit the temperament of modern man? Liberal.

Does he believe in a loose alliance of all moral, religious people against secularism? Liberal.

Does he confuse natural with supernatural virtue, praising the natural virtues of pagans of anyone else as if these are supernaturally pleasing to God? Liberal.

Does he deny, on national television, that there were a historic Adam and Eve and then look like a fool when asked to explain original sin (which Pius XII specifically said would be problematic when the historical Adam and Eve are denied)? If so, then he is a liberal.

Once you understand what the profile of a theological liberal looks like, you begin to realize there are many more around than you first thought.

Those Magical Sacraments

Going back to our initial Catholic theological formation, we recall the distinction between the grace attained through the sacraments ex opere operato and the grace available ex opere operantis. The former refers to the reality of the sacraments as means of grace objectively (i.e., not dependent upon the faith or consent of the person receiving them); the latter, ex opere operantis, refers to the grace received through the sacrament that is relative to the disposition of the receiver. This distinction explains why, for example, even though in each Holy Communion enough grace is objectively present to sanctify the entire universe, the actual amount of grace received by each individual will vary based on their disposition, preparedness, etc. For the saints, a single Holy Communion is immeasurably profitable; for the hardened sinner, a hundred Holy Communions per year may not profit him at all if his heart remains obstinate.

The ex opere operato aspect distinguishes the Catholic view from the teachings of the Protestants, while the ex opere operantis distinction means that the sacraments do not work in a "magical" or automatic fashion. There is thus a perfect balance, a meeting of grace and will. 

Unfortunately, in the modern Catholic Church, this harmonious balance of Tradition is thrown off. While Catholic apologists continue to (rightfully) teach that the sacraments are not "magical" means of grace as the Protestants often accuse, it is a fact that the modern Church has discarded the teaching of the ex opere operantis character of sacramental grace, that is, the grace that is relative to the disposition of the receiver. In the modern Church, the sacraments are magical.

How has the post-Conciliar Church abandoned ex opere operantis and promoted a "magical" approach to the sacraments? Let us examine what it means to be properly disposed to receive a sacrament.

Proper disposition means approaching the sacrament with pious sentiment. Our intention should be motivated by love of God, we should have a keen understanding of what we are about to receive, should have prepared for reception by prayer, and should proceed with an attitude of humility and thanksgiving. Of course, if Holy Communion, one needs to be in a state of grace and have observed the Eucharistic fast.

So how do we cultivate these dispositions? This is the pietistical reason behind sacred art, sacred music, and sacred architecture. By hearing Gregorian Chant, one's own prayer is lifted and mingles with the prayer of the angels, who always sing before the throne of God. In looking at sacred art, the mind is called to the mysteries of the faith, which the Church celebrates. Sacred architecture calls to mind the Incarnation, that God has entered time and space and that what is being celebrated in the liturgy is utterly unique. All of these things come together to cultivate a pious disposition in the hearts of the faithful that aid them in preparing their heart for the sacraments.

But...

If we strip out all our sacred art or replace it with ugly modern art... 

If we replace our sacred music with banal modern "pop" music... 

If we pitch sacred architecture for ugly, utilitarian models... 

If we do not allow moments of silence during the Mass for private prayer, filling every available moment with hymns, responses, and gestures... 

If we do not sufficiently preach on the need for confession and penance... 

Then are we not removing from the Catholic liturgical experience anything that would help create the dispositions necessary to obtain the ex opere operantis graces? We tell the faithful that the sacraments are not magical, but then we remove from them external aid to devotion that would assist them in cultivating the disposition necessary to reap the graces ex opere operantis. We expect that the simple reception of Holy Communion alone, without any other external aid to devotion, is sufficient to secure the necessary grace. 

My friends, I'm sorry, but this is treating the sacraments like magic charms, since the faithful are expected to approach them and merit from them in isolation of any other relative factors.

In the Novus Ordo as experienced in most parishes, a parishioner has to be a saint or a mystic to truly reap the graces available in the Eucharist because they must have the requisite spiritual strength to manifest all these dispositions out of their own spiritual life with out any external aids. Not that holiness is dependent upon external aids; St. Anthony of Egypt was eminently holy and had nothing external to aid him but the desert sands. But he was a saint, and that's the point. The Church's pedagogy for centuries has understood that common people who are not saints need external aids to devotion to help focus on the Sacred Mysteries. And even the saints have reaped tremendous benefits from sacred art. How would the Church's history have changed if there was no crucifix for St. Francis to gaze upon at San Damiano?

It is foolish and unjust to tell the Catholic that the sacraments are not magical while simultaneously disassociating their celebration from any aesthetical-pietistical context, thus viewing them as things that just kind of work of their own accord. Let us return to the harmony and balance of doctrine and practice that characterized Catholic Tradition and cultivated real holiness.

USC Videos: On Indulgences

Last week the chatter was all about canonizations given the announcement of the impending canonization of Bl. John XXIII and Bl. John Paul II. This week the (false) news report that Pope Francis is offering an indulgence for following him on Twitter has everybody talking about indulgences. What is an indulgence? Few Catholic dogmas are more misunderstood. In this 13:45 video, which I made at the request of a friend who inquired about the Church's mind on this matter, I present an off-the-cuff theological and historical overview of this important Catholic doctrine.

The Problem of Catholic Unity (part 2)

Last week, we introduced the "problem" of Catholic unity; namely, how can the Catholic Church claim a oneness and supernatural unity substantially superior and different from the vague unity claimed by Protestant sects when a large number of contemporary Catholics are either ignorant of the Church's teachings or else actively dissent from them? How can this be considered unity? After introducing the dilemma, we answered and I think put to rest the objection against the Church's unity based on the existence of ignorant and uncatechized Catholics. Now we have to address the objection against unity based on the existence of rampant dissent within the Church's ranks.

First it is necessary to divest ourselves of the defense that the external dissent does not harm to the unity of the Church because, after all, it is only the internal unity that matters. While tempting, this answer is too similar to the Protestant "unity in disunity" concept - thousands of denominations all in disagreement about every major doctrine but somehow possessing a vague "spiritual" unity based on the fact that they worship the same God. No, we cannot posit such an concept in the Catholic Church.

It is true that the essence of the Church's unity is an internal reality based on the union of the Father with the Son that Christ bestowed upon His Church. However, unity as a mark of the Church is not primarily this internal unity; it is the external, visible unity that flows from that inner unity. St. Cyprian of Carthage, in his famous work On the Unity of the Church, explains that the very unity of the Trinity is the bond which assures the Church of its unity:

"The Lord says, "I and the Father are one"; and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one." And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills?" (On the Unity of the Church, 6).

That is why unity is one of the Four Marks; the marks are supposed to be visible realities that identify the true Church and distinguish it from false sects. A unity that is ultimately invisible is of no use and cannot be the Oneness that Christ gave to the Church.

That being said, it is helpful to look at this question of Unity in the larger context of the Four Marks. Let's look at the mark of Holiness. We know that when we profess that the Church is Holy that we do not mean that every individual member of the Church is holy, or that her holiness comes from the sum total of everybody's individual holiness - as if we could quantify and add up holiness and proclaim the Church holy if 51% or more of its members qualified as holy.

The Church is not said to be holy because of the individual holiness of its members, but because it possesses the very principle of of holiness within it: the treasury of the grace merited by Christ made available through the sacraments, specifically the sacrament of the Eucharist. This holiness does in fact manifest itself in that a very many members of the Catholic Church end up displaying exemplary personal holiness, so much so that the world takes notice.

Similarly, the Church's oneness is not derived from the sum total of everybody's "unity" - by quantifying how many Catholics are in perfect standing with the Church and then trying to add that up. On the contrary, the Church is One because she has the principle of oneness within her - her Union with Christ. This union is manifested physically in the unity of the Bishops with the Pope, and secondarily with the faithful to the Bishops.

Note that the external manifestation of the Church's unity is not primarily measured by how many of the laity agree with the Magisterium. Although it is an ideal situation for the laity to be in docile obedience to the Holy See, that is not primarily what constitutes the Mark of Unity. The Mark of Unity is found primarily in the relation of the episcopate to the papacy. The Catechism of the Catholic Church lists three elements to the visible unity in paragraph 815:

What are these bonds of unity? Above all, charity "binds everything together in perfect harmony." But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion:

- profession of one faith received from the Apostles;
-common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;
- apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God's family.

 "Profession of the one faith" refers to the formal profession of the Catholic Faith by the Bishop being in union with Rome. "Common celebration" again refers to public, liturgical celebrations, under the jurisdiction of the Bishop; finally, "apostolic succession" again refers to the legitimacy of a Bishop's episcopal consecration. Ultimately, all the visible elements of the Church's oneness have to do with the Bishops being in union with the Successor of Peter.

Thus, the unity of the Church is not ultimately threatened when theology professors dissent or when whole parishes adopt liberal positions. For the unity to be broken, there would have to be a massive invalidation of Apostolic Succession universally, such as the Sedevecantists posit, combined with a massive disruption or schism across most dioceses in the world and a breaking up of the Church's common profession of Faith. There are some (Sedes, some radical SSPX) who claim that these things have all happened, but I think most thinking people will acknowledge that, however bad things are, this has not happened yet. Most Bishops have no positive intention of breaking from Rome, apostolic succession is not in danger, the sacraments are still celebrated all over the globe and the profession of the Faith (at least publicly) is still generally intact, although it is watered down in some places. Therefore, the dissent of some, even many, does not destroy the Church's oneness - and because Protestants lack apostolic succession, valid sacraments or one common profession, this argument cannot be used to support their claims to a vague spiritual unity. Thus we have a good reason why Catholic unity is not imperiled even while Protestant unity is not affirmed. For Protestants, any real unity really must depend upon the sum of each person's agreement with this or that doctrinal statement.

But, in case this line of argumentation is not strong enough, there are a few other points to take into consideration.

The position in favor of the endurance of the Church's unity becomes stronger when we draw in an important point from traditional Catholic ecclesiology. According to classical Catholic theology, the Mystical Body exists in three states: the Church Militant, comprised of Catholics now upon the earth; the Church Suffering, those Catholics who are undergoing the purifications of Purgatory, and the Church Triumphant, those of the faithful who have gone on to their heavenly reward. Thus, the Church encompasses all the Faithful who have ever lived, both those who have gone on before and those upon the earth at this moment. The Church always has one foot on earth and one in heaven. As such, it can never be bound to the fortunes of just one era upon earth because at any given time the majority of the Church is not on earth but in Purgatory and Heaven, where their union to God is much more perfected that it is for us. In light of the all of the Faithful who are alright perfectly united to God in the Beatific Vision, "a multitude which no man could number" (Rev. 7:9), the failings of even a mass of Catholics on earth pale in comparison; they union of the Blessed with God is so strong and profound as to outshine and overwhelm the sins of a few. Not only do they outshine the wicked, but they actually communicate their blessedness to us through their intercession. This is the essence of the doctrine of the Communion of the Saints.

This is especially the case when we realize that the Church also encompasses all the angels as well, which is a truly innumerable multitude (at the very minimum, one for every soul born on this earth, but obviously more than that). These angels who never fell are in constant union with God and mediate His grace to us through their angelic ministry. St. Augustine comments upon this:

"Therefore due order in the profession of faith required that the Church should be named after the Trinity, like a house after the one who lives in it, a temple after its god, and a city after its founder. Here the whole Church should be understood to be meant, not only the part that is in pilgrimage on earth, praising the name of the Lord from the rising of the sun to its setting and singing a new song after its old captivity, but also that part which has remained with God in heaven ever since its foundation and has never suffered any fall into evil. This part is found among the holy angels and continues in blessedness, giving generous help as it should to its comrades who are on pilgrimage, since they will together form one company in eternity, which is one already by the bond of charity, established to worship the one God" (Enchridion, 56).

Looking at the Church from the light of eternity, these problems about a vocal group dissenting, even a very large group, do not seem so formidable. Please notice that no Protestant sect can make this claim about the unity of their own church, denomination or loose association of churches. For them, who deny any communication in spiritual goods between those in heaven and those on earth, the church really is only that which on earth; the church is bound to the fate of this present generation, and as this generation goes, so goes the Protestant church. Thus they can make no argument for unity based on a church existing in multiple states outside of time.

But even if we discount the argument from the Church's three states and take a purely historical view of the Church, from its founding by Christ to the Second Coming, we can still see a powerful argument for the persistence of the Church's unity in the face of the dissent and defection of some of its members: Because the Church professes to also be Apostolic and a historical Church with roots firmly planted in Tradition, the Catholic Church's unity therefore does not stand or fall with any one generation. There may be much dissent at the moment, but given the hundreds of generations of Catholics who lived and died vehemently attached to the unity of the Faith, it becomes a drop in the bucket. The fact that the generation of St. Athanasius was largely Arian and that the mid-4th century was marked by schism and crisis did not undermine the overall historical unity of the Church; the 4th century dissenters did not destroy it, nor will those of the 21st century. The Church is founded on a certain deposit of Faith, it has guarded and preserved this deposit, and no matter what is going on now, we know from Divine Revelation how this story ends - we know that we totally and unambiguously win in the end.

Therefore, knowing that the Faith began in a unified integrity, by and large has been transmitted in integrity, and that this Faith will eventually win and triumph in the end - that from beginning to end we have the knowledge and promise of unity and integrity - how can we worry that the failings of a single generation will jeopardize that unity? If we look at this generation against the backdrop of hundreds of better generations, we realize, again, that this present crisis is not as big as it seems to us. The sun is setting on this earth, and a setting sun casts long shadows, shadows that seem colder and deeper than the realities they reflect. These sorts of things will vanish away in a moment when Christ descends from heaven with a shout.

We could close with some words from Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis in which that venerable pontiff reminds us that the Church exists as both a supernatural and a natural reality, and that to the extent that there are wounds to her holiness or unity by bad bishops or sinful men, it is not due to the nature of the Church itself, but to sinful tendencies of human nature. Just as a desire for sanctity and a pull towards sin exist in us, so do forces rending unity coexist with the forces compelling unity within the Church. Just as these trials becomes tests of our virtue, so the trials of the Church are tests for her. Furthermore, just as our own souls shall be purified of our own weaknesses when we are glorified, so also shall the Church herself be divested of these human failings on that day when she is presented as a spotless Bride to Christ:

"And if at times there appears in the Church something that indicates the weakness of our human nature, it should not be attributed to her juridical constitution, but rather to that regrettable inclination to evil found in each individual, which its Divine Founder permits even at times in the most exalted members of His Mystical Body, for the purpose of testing the virtue of the Shepherds no less than of the flocks, and that all may increase the merit of their Christian faith. For, as We said above, Christ did not wish to exclude sinners from His Church; hence if some of her members are suffering from spiritual maladies, that is no reason why we should lessen our love for the Church, but rather a reason why we should increase our devotion to her members. Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary grace through which with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors. But it cannot be laid to her charge if some members fall, weak or wounded. In their name she prays to God daily: "Forgive us our trespasses;" and with the brave heart of a mother she applies herself at once to the work of nursing them back to spiritual health. When, therefore, we call the Body of Jesus Christ "mystical," the very meaning of the word conveys a solemn warning. It is a warning that echoes in these words of St. Leo: "Recognize, O Christian, your dignity, and being made a sharer of the divine nature go not back to your former worthlessness along the way of unseemly conduct. Keep in mind of what Head and of what Body you are a member" (Mystici Corporis, 66).

Even when lay theologians and bishops dissent, even when whole dioceses fall into darkness, though it may wound unity, it can never destroy it so long as apostolic succession is maintained, the episcopate of the world remains in canonical union with Rome, and valid sacraments are being administered - furthermore, taking into account the how the disorders of the present age are outweighed by the faithful witness of hundreds of other generations, and how at the end of things, the vast majority of the Church already exists in perfect unity with Christ in the Beatific Vision, we can see that the presence of dissenters and scoffers within the Church is ultimately no threat to her unity. They were be burned up like stubble on the Day of Fire.

The Problem of Catholic Unity (part 1)

A few weeks ago, when I was dialoguing with some Protestants, one of them brought up a very good objection to the Catholic Church's oneness that I think merits special attention here. I had just finished explaining to them the concept of Unity as one of the marks of the Church and was explaining that this Unity was a metaphysical, literal unity that was based on the Trinitarian unity between the Father and the Son. As such, it is not based on any vague "consensus" on certain "essential" doctrines, and since it is vitally connected with the very life of the Trinity, it is a very real unity that cannot be represented by the 22,000 competing evangelical denominations. In essence, I had been arguing for a literal, real unity, versus the vague, spiritual unity of the Protestants.

We then went on to speak of the scandal of bad Catholics. I stated that modern American Catholics were not necessarily the best representation of the Church's perennial teaching. I explained that 75% of Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence and close to 90% do not obey the Church's teaching on contraception while countless others dissent on other issues and teach that the Church can or should change its doctrines on homosexuality, the male-only priesthood, etc. Then one of the Protestants jumped in and said, "See, the Catholic Church is in the same boat! We have 22,000 denominations that disagree. You have the same problem. Nobody in your Church agrees, only in your case, they don't physically leave the Church. Catholics don't have any more unity than Protestants."

While I of course do not admit that this difficulty calls into question the Church's real unity, it is a very good objection. Where is the Unity the Church professes in the Creed when 75-85% of her children disbelieve or dissent from her teachings? How is our unity any more real or vital than the ephemeral "unity of essentials" that the Protestants espouse? How is our professed unity any more real or enduring than the Protestants if the Catholic Church consists of a mixture of uncatechized with no connection to Tradition, dissenters who openly scoff at the Church's teachings, and "open minded" individuals who simply do not take the Church's dogmas seriously? What kind of unity is that, and where in the world do we get off boasting about unity if such is our current state?

Traditionally, the unity of the Catholic Church has been understood as a unity in belief, worship and government. In this it is much stricter than the unity demanded by Protestants. It must unite its members in unity of doctrine, expressed by external, public profession; in unity of worship, manifested chiefly in the reception of the same sacraments; and in unity of government, by which all its members are subject to and obey the same authority, which was instituted by Christ Himself.

Now, it might be objected that this unity is impossible to realize due to the varying levels of belief among different Catholics. For example, as we mentioned above, you could have a mass of non-catechized, ignorant but well-intentioned Catholics who don't know half of the Church's teachings, have no real idea why they are coming to Mass or what goes on in the liturgy and have only the vaguest interest in the spiritual life. Yet, because they are members of the Catholic Church, they participate in the Church's oneness; yet, a Protestant who studies the Bible diligently and strives for personal sanctity does not participate in the Church's oneness because he is outside the confines of the Catholic Church. Such a situation does not seem "fair", for the example of the unformed practice of the uncatechized Catholic can hardly be held up as an example of a external, public profession of the Faith. How can one profess belief in what one is ignorant of?

Here it is necessary to distinguish between the habit of faith and the object of faith. The habit of faith refers to the subjective act of faith on the part of each believer, which varies from person to person. One person's habit of faith may be very well developed and firmly rooted, while that of another may be more sketchy and without as solid foundation. It is a matter of degree, here, and theoretically there could be as many different habits of faith as there are believers. Thus, it is true that there is a great degree of variance here.

Yet, the habit of faith in the believer is distinct from the object of faith, which is the truths of the Catholic religion to which the believer gives his assent. Although it is most perfect to assent and understand to what one is assenting, perfect understanding is not necessary to make the act of faith. Faith is ultimately belief in the authority of another to say and teach things that can be trusted are true. Thus, when the simple, uneducated layman says, "I believe in the Trinity," he is not saying, "I believe and understand the Christian dogma of the Trinity," but rather, "I believe whatever the Church says is the true dogma about the Trinity." He need not understand the dogma itself; he need only assent to the Church's teaching, whatever that may be, and he has true Faith. True, this is not a perfect act of external professional in the explicit sense, but theologians speak of an implicit profession that occurs whenever a believer professes to believe whatever the Holy Catholic Church proposes for belief, whether or not he understands that teaching. Note, by the way, that no Protestant sect can ever claim or profess this sort of unity since it presupposes the existence of an authoritative teacher, which no Protestant sect can claim. Implicit profession in the objects of faith is possible only in the Catholic Church.

Thus, because the object of faith is the same for all believers, and because all believers of good will are united in assenting to the authority of the Church in proposing this teaching, there is true unity of faith, and this humble belief is truly acceptable in God's sight. St. Paul teaches, "if the willingness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what he does not have" (2 Cor. 8:12).

Ah, but this presupposes that the "willingness" is there. Thus far we have established how unity remains in the case of ignorant, uncatechized Catholics who nevertheless remain in canonical good standing with the Church and go through the motions but without true understanding. We have not addressed the real problem, which is how the Church can claim a real supernatural oneness in faith, worship and government when filled with those (according to some studies, a majority) who actively dissent from the Church's teaching and can in no way be said to be uneducated or sincerely misinformed. Do the presence of these barnacles on the Barque of Peter deprive the Church of her supernatural unity? And if not, how is this any different from the ephemeral spiritual unity claimed by Protestants?

This will have to wait until next time.