Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas

Today is the Feast of the Angelic Doctor, the "Dumb Ox", in the Ordinary Form. In the usus antiquior, we do not celebrate the feast until March 7th, which is more proper since that is the day of his death and entrance into Heaven.

However, today is still an important day because it commemorates the translation of his remains to Toulouse, which is the home of the Order of Preachers, and so we should not allow the day to go unobserved.

St. Thomas should hold a special place in our hearts as Catholics, not only for his immense intellect, but  also for his profound holiness and witness to the Faith. Lest we forget, the great Eucharistic hymns, the Tantum Ergo, the Adoro Te Devote, the Pange Lingua , and the Sacris Solemniis, were composed by St. Thomas, and perhaps in their own way rival the depth of truth contained within his Summa Theologiae.

Of all things, however, Pope Leo XIII said,

this is the greatest glory of Thomas, altogether his own and shared with no other Catholic Doctor, that the Fathers of Trent, in order to proceed in an orderly fashion during the conclave, desired to have opened upon the altar together with the Scriptures and the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas whence they could draw counsel, reasons and answers.

Finally, St. Thomas is unique in that of all of the Saints, he is the only one of whom in the liturgy we ask that we might "understand what he taught and imitate what he accomplished".

And so, today, perhaps let us ask for his intercession in our lives that our devotion to Our Lord, especially in his Eucharistic presence, might increase, and also that our knowledge of the Faith might be enlightened so as to gain the true path to holiness.

Collect:

O God, who made Saint Thomas Aquinas

outstanding in his zeal for holiness

and his study of sacred doctrine,

grant us, we pray,

that we may understand what he taught

and imitate what he accomplished.

Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,

who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,

one God, for ever and ever.

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.

Welcoming Two New Contributors

As we begin this new year, I want to formally welcome two new contributors to this blog and website.

Our first new contributor is Maximus. Maximus has been guest blogging around at many different sites - you may have read a guest post of his now and then on Rorate Caeli (where, like Aslan on earth, he is known by another name) or Corpus Christi Watershed, and many of his posts have been syndicated on New Advent or bigpulpit.com. He is happy to have found a more permanent home here at Unam Sanctam Catholicam. He will contributing to this blog as well as the website.

Maximus' interests include St. Thomas and  the work of Fr. Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange. From a liturgical perspective, Maximus brings an experience as an MC for the usus antiquior, and so is very knowledgeable about liturgical studies and liturgical theology.

Maximus resides in Austria with his wife and two kids. He is finishing up his pontifical masters degree in theology, before continuing with the licentiate. He enjoys hunting and brewing beer in his free time.

Our second contributor may be new to you but is very familiar to me. Noah Moerbeek is the founder and webmaster of the great site Alleluia Audio Books and an administrator of the Facebook page "1,000,000 Strong for the Traditional Latin Mass" (like the page here). Noah's work is part of his apostolate with the Christi Pauperum Militum Ordo (Poor Knights of Christ), of which he is a member and an admirable representative. Noah has already been part of the USC team for two years, working on the back end. It was Noah who did the leg work getting the USC site up and running and got a lot of the glitches ironed out. A lot of the articles I publish here have their origins in phone conversations I have with Noah. His wife has also contributed articles on the site (here and here). Noah will be posting on the blog occasionally as part of a closer collaboration between USC and Alleluia Audio Books. Noah and his wife currently reside in California where they recently welcomed their fourth child.

We are happy to have Noah and Maximus on board as we move into the seventh year of this weblog.

The Bethlehem Prophecy of Micah

The Feast of the Epiphany is meant to commemorate two things, one particular, one general. In particular, this Feast is about the coming of the Magi to adore the Christ child in Bethlehem. But in general, the Feast reminds us of the manifestation of the Messiah to the Gentiles - that God had come for all people, not just the children of Israel. This universal mission of the Messiah had been prophesied centuries earlier (see here), and in the adoration of the Magi, we see the first fulfillment of this prophesy as Gentiles from afar acknowledge our Lord Jesus as the King of Kings.

Of course, the Magi, being pagans and presumably not having access to the sacred writings, were guided to Bethlehem by the miraculous appearance of a star. But as today's readings remind us, King Herod also sought out the Christ child in Bethlehem, but he was guided to the City of David by the Sacred Scriptures themselves.

The famous Bethlehem prophecy comes to us from the fifth chapter of the prophet Micah (c. 737-696 BC), one of the Minor Prophets of the Old Testament. The prophecy begins in chapter 5:1 with an address to Jerusalem, which at the time was threatened by the Assyrians. He tells the Israelites to take heart, because though they are hemmed in by their adversaries, God is preparing a ruler who will trample down all the kings of the earth. The famous Bethlehem prophecy follows immediately in verses 2-4:

1. Now you are walled about with a wall; siege is laid against us; with a rod they strike upon the cheek the ruler of Israel.
2. But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.
3 Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in travail has brought forth; then the rest of his brethren shall return to the people of Israel.
4 And he shall stand and feed his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they shall dwell secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth.

The Lord says here that a ruler will come forth from Bethlehem, but that between that time and the time of the prophet, God will "give them up"; i.e., Israel and Jerusalem will be scattered and oppressed until she who is in travail has "brought forth"; i.e., till the ruler spoken of above is born. This prophecy is one reason why the Jews associated the coming of the Christ with the restoration of the Kingdom; even the Apostles interpreted this in light of a physical restoration, as evidenced by their urgent questioning of the Resurrected Christ in Acts 1:6 ("Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?").

But this is not the sort of restoration God had in mind. After telling Israel that they will be delivered from the Assyrian threat, the Lord goes on to say that at the time the ruler comes forth, rather than a restoration of the physical kingdom, the Israelites and their message will spread to the ends of the earth:

7 Then the remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many peoples like dew from the LORD, like showers upon the grass, which tarry not for men nor wait for the sons of men.
8 And the remnant of Jacob shall be among the nations, in the midst of many peoples, like a lion among the beasts of the forest, like a young lion among the flocks of sheep, which, when it goes through, treads down and tears in pieces, and there is none to deliver.

These two verse are extraordinarily important. As part of the Bethlehem prophecy, they reveal that part of the coming of the Messiah is the saturating of the nations with the people of the Lord. The remnant of Jacob "shall be in the midst of many peoples", and "among the nations, in the midst of many peoples." The peoples of the earth will receive the word of the Lord through the remnant of Jacob.

This is very closely united with the meaning of Epiphany, God's manifestation to the nations. In fact, this "leavening" of the nations with the remnant of Jacob is precisely how God is manifest to the nations. First, we must understand that this "remnant" refers to the Church, who is faithful Israel, "children of the promise." This is very clear from the New Testament (see Rom. 11:5, Gal. 4:26, 28). Therefore, when Micah speaks of a "remnant" that abides among the nations and in the midst of the peoples, this refers to the Church going out into the world to bring all nations into the one sheepfold, as commanded by Christ in Matt. 28:19.

But this "going out" into the midst only occurs after the coming of the Messiah, which is why so many Messianic prophecies relating to Epiphany concern the Gentiles coming to the knowledge of the true God. Note the references to the Gentiles coming to the knowledge of God in the following passages:

"In the latter days, the mountain of the Lord's house shall be exalted high above all other mountains and shall be raised above the hills; and all nations shall flow into it, and many peoples shall come and say, "Let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that He may teach us His ways and that we may walk in His paths, for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem" (Isa. 2:2-3)

"I will have pity on Not Pitied, and I will say to Not My People, "You are my people', and he shall say, "Thou art my God" (Hos. 2:23).

"Land of Zebulun, land of Naphtali, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles...the people who walked in darkness have seen a great light" (Isa. 9:1-2).

"Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion; for lo, I come and I will dwell in the midst of you, says the Lord. And many nations shall join themselves to the Lord in that day and shall be My people" (Zech. 2:10-11).

"The earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the seas" (Hab. 2:14).

"For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts" (Mal. 1:11).

This is all inaugurated with Bethlehem, and is indeed part and parcel of the same prophecy. The mentioning of the Gentiles coming to God in the same passage with the birth of the Messiah reminds us that the inclusion of the Gentiles is not just something superfluous to the mission of Christ, but is a fundamental part of the Gospel that was inaugurated with the establishment of the Church, which St. Paul echoes in Ephesians 3, the reading for today's Feast: "It has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit: that the Gentiles are coheirs, members of the same body, and co-partners in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (Eph. 3:5-6).

Very profound. But the Bethlehem prophecy does not stop there; it speaks of the Lord's birth, of the knowledge of God spreading to the Gentiles via the remnant of Jacob dwelling "in their midst" - and then, in conclusion, it prophesies the simultaneous triumph of God and His Ruler as well as the judgment on Jerusalem :

9 Your hand shall be lifted up over your adversaries, and all your enemies shall be cut off.
10 And in that day, says the LORD, I will cut off your horses from among you and will destroy your chariots;
11 and I will cut off the cities of your land and throw down all your strongholds;
12 and I will cut off sorceries from your hand, and you shall have no more soothsayers;
13 and I will cut off your images and your pillars from among you, and you shall bow down no more to the work of your hands;
14 and I will root out your Ashe'rim from among you and destroy your cities.
15 And in anger and wrath I will execute vengeance upon the nations that did not obey.

These verses, with the exception of v. 15, are referring to Jerusalem and Judea. Thus, the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem is a portent of joy, but also of judgment. His coming means the final judgment of Jerusalem is at hand. This is why Simeon, when blessing Joseph and Mary in his famous Nunc dimittis prayer in Luke 2, mentions the birth of the Christ as an "appointment" for the "fall and rising" of many in Israel. Notice how Simeon's prayer connects all three themes: the birth of the Saviour, the revelation tot he Gentiles, and the judgment of Israel:

“Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace, according to your word; for my eyes have seen your salvation that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel.” And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him.  And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is opposed (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), so that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.” (2:29-35).

So the coming of the Messiah is at once a sign of rejoicing and of doom. For the remnant of Jacob chosen by grace, the Church, "the Israel of God" (Gal 6:16), rejoicing, for this is the sign that the nations will come to the knowledge of God, just as prophesied in the writings of the holy prophets; but for those nations who would not obey, whether Jew or Gentile, a message of doom, for the coming of the Messiah means that "all the proud, and all that do wickedly shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall set them on fire, saith the Lord of hosts, it shall not leave them root, nor branch" (Mal. 4:1), and as warned by John the Baptist: "For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that doth not yield good fruit, shall be cut down, and cast into the fire" (Matt. 3:10).

Like many other prophecies about our Lord, the Bethlehem prophecy is one of hope for the righteous and doom for the wicked. And it's all right there in Micah 5.

Best Posts of 2013

Another year has gone by on Unam Sanctam Catholicam! I can't believe that it has already been six and a half years...we have come a long way. This year saw the addition of our editor, John from Edinburgh, to the team. John performs the thankless task of going through my site articles and cleaning up the slurry of typos and grammar mistakes my off the cuff composition style leaves behind. We also had some major articles that got picked up on some very important sites: the article on Kasper, the Devil's Advocate, "Stop Shooting the Messenger" and Biblical Contributions were all viewed tens of thousands of times. Te Deum! I am happy to say that after the New Year, we will have another exciting announcement about this blog and site.

As always, here is my year-end run down of my favorite posts of 2013. Most of these are from the blog, but I have included a few of my favorites from the website as well.

Athanasius Schneider: Clarification of Vatican II Needed: Archbishop Athanasius Schneider goes on record about some problematic texts of the Second Vatican Council that stand in need of clarification.

St. Malachy: Case for Authenticity: Arguments in favor of the Malachy prophecies being composed in the 12th century.

In Praise of Virginity. Anybody? Instead of making excuses and justifications for consecrated virginity, why not actually laud it and celebrate it without excuse or apology?

Pastoral Applications in Concrete Circumstances: How the modern "pastoral" approach can consistently undermine Catholic dogma without the Church's teaching ever changing.

Roman Frescoes and English Martyrs: Excellent article on how the causes of some of the Englisg martyrs were saved by the discovery of some frescoes in Rome.

Kasper Admits Intentional Ambiguity: Cardinal Kasper's bombshell comments admitting that many of the Conciliar texts were not only compromises, but left intentionally ambiguous to grant elbow room to progressive interpretations of Vatican II.

The Benedict Narrative Emerges: How conservatives spun the historic resignation of Benedict XVI to make it "no big deal" even though it contradicted the narrative they contrived about John Paul II.

Stop Shooting the Messenger, Please. The highest viewed article of 2013, this piece entreats our conservative brethren to stop accusing Trads of being "negative" for simply telling the truth. The problem is not Trads complaining about the chaos in the Church; the problem is the chaos in the Church.

Contradictions in the Bible: Exposing dozens of the alleged 'contradictions' in the New Testament. Part of a series.

The Spirit of Lent: Keeping the ancient fast of the Church in spirit as well as letter.

The Belshazzar Problem: Solving the difficult problem of the existence of "King Belshazzar" in the Book of Daniel.

Spe Salvi and Universal Salvation: Dissecting some ambiguous statements in Spe Salvi which some have asserted teach universal salvation; part of a four part series on Balthasar, Fr. Barron and Hell.

What is the Hermeneutic of Continuity? The hermeneutic of continuity can mean two radically different things depending on how one views the historical event of Vatican II.

Gluttony and Lust: The relationship between the sins of gluttony and lust and how they mutually reinforce each other.

Divine Origin of Political Authority: Introduction to the classical Catholic view of the origins of the State and its powers.

Saints Aren't Perfect. Of course not...but we expect them to be pretty close to it. We certainly don't expect major derelictions of office from them. 

The Greatest Schism: The biggest problem in the modern Church is not progressivism, but the divorce of theology from asceticism.

Communal Orientation of Priestly Life: We are told that so few choose the priesthood because the life is so hard; but would it be so "hard" if priests still lived in community?

History of the Devil's Advocate: A very thorough treatment of the development of the canonization procedure with a focus on the institution of the devil's advocate.

Please share these links with others if you have enjoyed them. And, if moved in your heart, consider making a small contribution to this site to help keep these very high quality articles coming.

Pax Tibi.

More on Mortification & Penance

In my last post, "The Greatest Schism", (see here), I posited the theory that one reason we have so much bad theology today is because theological studies in the West are divorced from any sort of regimented ascetic discipline. This means the faith is something that is solely academic, robbed of its living power. St. Paul said that his preaching was so efficacious because it was "not in the persuasiveness of the words of philosophy, but in the demonstration of the Spirit and power (1. Cor. 2:4), meaning that his preaching did not flow simply from learning, but from a life lived. Mortification is necessary for the Christian life.

To be sure, proper intellectual formation is important, but unless theology is coupled with a life lived as a pleasing sacrifice to God, it is always missing something, lacking in a certain dimension. The theory of my last post was that this lack is particularly profound in the modern world, and that this lack means our teaching is more likely to go astray, because it is this ascetic spirituality that develops the spiritual "intuition" which recognizes the voice of Christ and helps keep one away from false teachings. This is what St. John the Apostle meant when he said:

"And as for you, let the anointing, which you have received from him, abide in you. And you have no need that any man teach you; but as his anointing teaches you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie. And as it hath taught you, abide in him." (1 John 2:27).

It seems, unfortunately, that several people misunderstood my argument here. The biggest misunderstanding was from the folks who made comments such as, "But you don't need to do severe penance to be holy", offering St. Therese's "little way" as an alternative; others questioned the whole need to do penance ("Can someone tell me why we need to flay ourselves alive every day to procure grace?"), suggesting that the simple sufferings of a broken home or a struggling marriage are sufficient mortifications.

A few clarifications:

First, we need to make a distinction between "mortification" and "severe penance", or "flaying ourselves alive." Mortification simply consists in self-denial. This can take a variety of forms and need not be severe; in fact, as many of you pointed out in the combox, most mortifications ought not be severe. To mortify simply means to "put to death." What we put to death is our flesh, and we do this through self-denial. Every single Christian, without exception, is called to practice mortification. This is why St. Paul says of himself, "I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway" (1 Cor. 9:27); and he encourages this on every believer when he says, "For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live" (Rom. 8:13) and "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, lust, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is the service of idols" (Col. 3:5). Mortification is obligatory on every Christian.

How this mortification looks will vary depending on our station in life and degree of spiritual maturity, and there are as many ways to practice self-denial as there are circumstances in life. So please understand that mortification ≠ severe penance in most cases. You are right if you say we need not all do severe penance, but you err if you infer thereby that mortification is not necessary.

Second, let us recall that in the context of my original article, I was speaking of the particular obligation for theologians to live lives of mortification, since there is a profound connection between what is understood in the intellect and what is experienced in the spiritual life. The two reinforce each other, and without a sound grounding in each, the other tends to lose its moorings and can drift; spirituality devoid of intellectual formation becomes sentimentalism, emotionalism and ultimately pantheism, while a merely intellectual faith without any spiritual growth becomes sterile and eventually open to novelty. Humility of thought and mortification in life keep everything in proper balance and result in a theology that is sound, balanced, and vivified by grace, such as the works of Aquinas, Augustine, Bernard and the other great saints. To the degree our theology has gone wrong, I am convinced this is a very real reason.

As for the question of whether simply enduring suffering is itself a mortification, the answer is yes and no. All the saints agree that patiently enduring tribulation and offering it to God is the most pleasing form of mortification and results in an abundant growth in spiritual strength. However, it is not mere suffering, but suffering endured patiently and offered to God. There is no merit is suffering for the sake of suffering; it is a tool, and it depends upon what one does with it. Furthermore, we might add with St. Paul that Christian Tradition presumes this suffering is only meritorious if it is unmerited. Our first Pope phrases it this way:

"For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God...But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or a railer, or a coveter of other men's things." (1 Pet. 2:19-20, 4:15)

Simply growing up in a broken home, or living in poverty, or enduring a tragedy or some kind of abuse does not mean the suffering has been meritorious. It can be if it is handled rightly, but the mere fact of suffering is not meritorious. And even if these things have been suffered, the call to mortification is constant; we can never say, "I have denied myself enough in the past, I need not do it anymore." It would be just as silly to say "I have exercised enough last year; I do not need to do it this year." Ascesis, after all, means "training" in Greek.

Let all Christians practice mortification in whatever manner is appropriate to their state in life and level of spiritual maturity, subject to the approval of their confessor. Let Catholic theologians bind their academic life to a spiritual discipline of prayer, fasting and penance that their doctrine may be pure and their teaching pleasing to our God and Lord Jesus Christ.

Let us conclude with the words of the great Dutch mystic and spiritual master, Thomas a Kempis:

"What is the reason, why some of the Saints were so perfect and contemplative? Because they labored to mortify themselves wholly to all earthly desires; and therefore they could with their whole heart fix themselves upon God, and be free for holy retirement. We are too much led by our passions, and too solicitous for transitory things. We also seldom overcome any one vice perfectly, and are not inflamed with a fervent desire to grow better every day; and therefore we remain cold and lukewarm." (Thomas a Kempis, The Imitation of Christ, Chapter 11)

The Greatest Schism

This post's title does not refer to the Greek schism, nor to the Great Western Schism of the 15th century, nor even to the tremendous modernist crisis within the Church today. The schism I am referring to is the unfortunate fracture between theology and ascesis, between spirituality and mortification. The more I reflect upon it, the more I am convinced that this division is at the heart of all our other problems, even the modernist crisis.

In Christianity, our beliefs influence our manner of life, and our manner of life reflects our beliefs; both come together in our communal worship. This is the much commented on connection between the lex orandi and the lex credendi, and if I can coin a third term, our lex vivendi. All three must be united. In other words, it is not possible to have a proper intellectual understanding of Catholic theology without participation in Catholic liturgy; likewise, attempts to enter into Catholic spirituality apart from adhering to the Church's doctrinal teaching wind up going astray, and neither our liturgical experience, our intellectual formation, nor our spiritual life can be rightly ordered if our personal, moral lives are imbalanced. I am thus referring to the inalienable nature of any one element of the Catholic Faith. 

The Church was traditionally compared to the seamless robe of Christ; this comparison is true on many levels. While it certainly applies to the Church understood in terms of her unity, it also demonstrates the interconnectedness of the different parts of the Faith and teaches that no one aspect of it can be compartmentalized or abstracted from the others without doing grave harm. G.K. Chesterton once noted that all major heresies arise from someone taking one aspect of Catholicism too far and breaking it off from the rest of the Faith.

The great schism I spoke of earlier refers to the fact that those who study and write on Catholic theology and spirituality today are, by and large, divorced from any sort of regular ascetical life. Let us reflect on the lives of some of our greatest saints and doctors. We know Benedict, Aquinas, Augustine, Bernard mainly from their writings, and that being the case, we often neglect to meditate upon the physical conditions in which they lived and how ascetical their lifestyles truly were. Benedict lived in an inaccessible cave for two years; Aquinas was a friar, in the early days when the lives of the friars were still lives of true poverty and want; St. Bernard lived under the most severe rule then known in Europe. The lifestyle of St. Teresa of Avila or John of the Cross would discourage even the most ardent soul today. This is to say nothing of the life of St. Anthony or the other early desert fathers.

Yes, their lives were harsh, their penances strict, their loneliness must have been overwhelming at times. But it was in that cave on Subiaco that Benedict first conceived his great Benedictine Rule, the masterpiece that created western civilization. It was through her fastings, vigils and mortifications that St. Teresa received the spiritual insights that made her a doctor of the Church; the same with John of the Cross. It was under the blazing Egyptian sun that Anthony worked out principles that are still foundational in Christian spirituality. Aquinas was austere in his personal life, went about barefoot, lived his life in drab, clammy cells that most of us could not tolerate a weekend in, and died prematurely, wasted away by a life of penitence and asceticism. But it was in the midst of this ascetical regimen that the intellect of Aquinas was flooded with the divine light that gave the Church the Summa.

To put it bluntly, the saints can talk the talk because they walk the walk.

Ah, but what can we say of our modern spiritual writers? In what crucible of mortification were our current spiritual writers formed? Not a drizzly cave or a scorching desert or atop a pillar, but in a cozy little diocesan institute of higher learning. Their authority comes not from sleepless nights of anguished prayer, bodies wracked from fastings or feet calloused from walking this earth unshod, but because they have obtained a certificate from a diocesan-approved two-year program that says they are "qualified" to be a spiritual director! At night they go home, not to a drab monastic cell to catch a few hours of sleep on a stiff board, but to a suburban home somewhere to enjoy all the comforts of modernity. Or, if they are more fortunate, to a larger home purchased with the income derived from their latest books on how to "unlock" the secrets of the spiritual life.

And what of our theologians? Do they walk the earth barefoot? Do they abstain from meat for six months out of the year, as did the early Franciscans of which St. Bonaventure, one of the Church's greatest theologians, was part of? Do they die prematurely because of the rigors of their penance? Alas, no.

Our modern spiritual thinkers have talked the talk, but they have not walked the walk, at least not in the manner that it was walked by the saints.

Thus there is a tremendous divorce between theology and asceticism which is choking up the channels of grace. This means that our theology and spirituality is more man-centered, more the product of human reason and human feeling than on divine truths and spiritual light. I realize I am being absurdly vague here, and that it is difficult to generalize - and that people will post comments saying, "How do you know what so-and-so does in his private life?" My friends, I do not know what so-and-so does privately or how much he fasts, but I know that most of our theologians and spiritual writers today are not living anything close to what even the simplest monk or priest would have endured a millennium ago. I understand there will be exceptions, but on the whole, I think this thesis is correct. In the past, we had theology and spirituality that proceeded from a life of faith actually lived out in all its rigor; today, it is largely the domain of "experts" whose approach is extremely anthropocentric because it is book-learned, based on the "latest theories" and the product of unaided human reason.

We need holy monks, holy hermits, holy nuns - men and women whose capability to speak on these matters comes from a life which is crucified and hidden with Christ, which is something that cannot be earned with any certificate program or degree. Who will reconnect our spiritual life with our intellectual life? Who can refasten the chain that once held the sun to the earth? Who can repair this schism?

I am speaking clumsily and with great imprecision here. Perhaps, by God's grace, some of you will see through the mist what I am trying to get at and be able to reword it more concisely. You see, I really have no place talking about theology or spirituality either.

Fall Articles on Unam Sanctam Catholicam

It has been awhile since I posted any website updates, but there have actually been quite a few great articles that have gone up in the past two months. If you missed any of this, please take a moment to review. Some of these, like the articles on Kulturkampf and Mariology, I worked on for weeks. Bless you for your continued patronage of this site.

The Lie of Integralism: The distinction between liberal progressivism and reactionary integralism is a false dichotomy created by neo-Modernists.

Building a Catholic Youth Group: Are you a new Youth Director looking to put together a Catholic Youth Group that is truly Catholic? This article will help.

The Belshazzar Problem: A cuneiform cylinder proves the existence of one of the Old Testament's most elusive characters - King Belshazzar.

Introduction to the Nephilim: Who were the mysterious Nephilim, mentioned throughout the Old Testament in connection with the fallen angels and sometimes referred to as giants?

Fundamentals of Mariology: Very thorough but basic introduction to the fundamentals of Catholic Mariology.

Propriety of Eucharistic Devotions: Early Protestant objections to Eucharistic devotions were based on the novel doctrine that the Eucharist had one and only one acceptable "use."

Understanding the Kulturkampf: History of the struggle between the Catholic Church and the Prussian government during the 1880s and 90s.

Is Halloween Pagan? Definitive proof that Halloween was not based on the pagan feast of Samhain.

Comparing the New and Traditional Lectionaries: The arguments that the New Lectionary is superior to the old are actually based on faulty assumptions.

Deus ex Machina or Fons Entis?|Examining the atheist critique that religion fulfills the role of a deus ex machina, and that once all physical phenomenon are explained by science, there will no longer be a need for religion.

Can people sit on baptismal fonts? Liturgical quod libet examining why we can't just sit anywhere we please in the sanctuary.

Movie Reviews

Pius XII: Under the Roman Sky: So-so movie about Pius XII and the Jews that is really not about Pius XII.
The World's End: Latest apocalyptic comedy from Simon Pegg and Nick Frost.

Athwulf of Thorney (Sancti Obscuri)

Dear Pope Francis...

Dear Holy Father,

Greetings in Christ! Blessings and prayers for the continued health and well-being of Your Holiness during this Advent season.

I am writing to you as a Catholic who loves our holy traditions for the purpose of sharing some thoughts I have on a few very important questions. As a lover of tradition, I rejoice that you have recently reaffirmed the doctrinal value of the Council of Trent and the so-called "hermeneutic of continuity" espoused by our former Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, of happy memory. I also want to commend you for your forceful preaching on the reality of the devil and your frequent comments on the necessity of unity with and submission to the Chair of Peter for all Catholics. These gestures fill my heart with gladness and give me hope for the future of your pontificate.

Since, however, you have stated that traditional Catholics have an important role to play in "being lucid and watchful regarding the contents of the Catholic doctrine" and have expressed how valuable it is to be criticized in charity (source), I want to offer some humble concerns that I have regarding the content of your apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium.

I first want to thank you for writing on the important subject of evangelization. Catholicism is not understandable without evangelization; the first command our Lord gave to the Church after His Resurrection was "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matt, 28:19-20). This commission has always had a particular urgency about it in our Faith, as it is bound up with the salvation of each and every person on this planet. In the parallel to this passage in the Gospel of Mark, our Lord reminds us that the penalty for unbelief is severe: "And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believes and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that does not believe shall be damned." (Mark 16:15-16).

Evangelization thus takes on a salvific importance - it has a supernatural end, and this has always been understood by Catholics throughout the ages. The purpose of evangelization is primarily to save souls.

However, in Evangelii Gaudium, the impetus for Christian evangelization of other cultures for the purpose of eternal salvation is explained in terms of a "dialogue", and the supernatural end (eternal life in heaven with God) seems replaced by a natural one. You write, "Interreligious dialogue is a necessary condition for peace in the world, and so it is a duty for Christian" (EG, 250). The obligation for Christians to evangelize is "peace in the world", not the salvation of souls. This seems to substitute a worldly, naturalistic cause for evangelization for the more traditional supernatural one. Indeed, the two greatest issues Catholic evangelization has to respond to are said to be inclusion of the poor and world peace. (cf. 186, 217) It seems Your Holiness is suggesting that it is purely worldly concerns that the Gospel is here to address, not the salvation of men's souls or the false religions that keep them from that salvation.

Your Holiness, I share your desire that the Gospel should be spread as far and as wide as possible, that Jesus Christ be proclaimed boldly and without fear. However, some of the content of Evangelii Gaudium seems to be counter-productive to that end. Take the issue of our Separated Brethren. The Second Vatican Council took special pains to reach out to our Protestant friends, hoping thereby to end the spirit of mutual suspicion that had been dominant since Trent; in many cases, amiable relations with Protestantism were pursued even at the expense of relations with the Orthodox. In fact, to an impartial observer, the post-Conciliar Church looks closer to Protestantism than Greek Orthodoxy, despite the fact that the historical and sacramental bonds between the Catholics and the Orthodox are much greater.

Your Holiness knows all this; I mention it only to point out that ecumenism with Protestants in particular seemed to be particularly dear to the Council Fathers, whose vision you are so admirably fulfilling in your pontificate. You yourself restated this commitment in the exhortation, encouraging Catholics to recall that we all are pilgrims on this earth, "putting aside all suspicion or mistrust, and turn our gaze to what we are all seeking: the radiant peace of God’s face" (243).

Yet a few paragraphs later we find this statement: "Non-Christians, by God’s gracious initiative, when they are faithful to their own consciences, can live “justified by the grace of God”, and thus be “associated to the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ” (254).

It is not my place to lecture the Successor of Peter on sacred theology, especially when I myself am no expert. But leaving aside questions of theology, of what it means for a non-believer to follow his conscience, of the formation of conscience, of how we are justified, etc., I feel compelled to point out, Holy Father, that from a strictly ecumenical viewpoint, no statement could be more offensive to our Protestant brethren than this. Though Protestants obviously disagree with us on many fundamental points, they ought to be commended in that many of them solidly affirm that one becomes a son or daughter of God solely through the mediation of Jesus Christ; in other words, despite our disagreements, most Protestant sects, at least in my country, still understand the fundamental connection between evangelization and salvation in the traditional supernatural sense.

Were I to take this passage to my Protestant friends, it would be not an aid to evangelization but an insurmountable obstacle. Not that we should be afraid to preach truths that Protestants may take umbrage with; otherwise, how could we discuss the Petrine authority, the Assumption of Mary, or other like doctrine? But this is different; in the teaching you have elucidated in Evangelii Gaudium 254, the traditional connection between evangelization, salvation, and the necessity of entering the Catholic Church is sundered. You would be asking me not to defend the traditional Catholic Faith, but a novelty - a novelty which the Protestant would be understandably justified in rejecting.

If we are speaking of following our consciences, Holy Father, I must tell you frankly then that I cannot in good conscience take this teaching to a Protestant and expect it to be convincing. I would be laughed out of the dialogue, and rightfully so.

How different is this teaching from the words of St. Irenaeus, who wrote:

"Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace. But the Spirit is truth. Therefore whoever does not partake of this Spirit is not fed at the breast of Mother Church, and cannot drink from the crystal clear spring which flows from the body of Christ." (Adversus Haereses, III.24:1)

Or St. Cyprian, the great martyr-bishop of Carthage, who wrote:

"Can he who is not inside the Church draw water from the fountains of the Church?" (Epistle 73, 10-11).

Of course, Holy Father, Catholic theology has always posited the possibility that men could be saved outside of formal membership in the Church; this was understood in the patristic era and taught at Trent. But I fear that what was once understood to be a possible exception is becoming understood as a normative teaching, and that this teaching is having deleterious effects on our efforts of evangelizing. Why would non-Christians convert to our faith if they can attain eternal life just by "following their conscience", which almost any human being can do with a little effort? Why would Protestants or any other Christian sect seek to reconcile with Rome when we seem to be saying that Christianity and the Church are not even really necessary for salvation? And, as apologists, how we are supposed to reconcile these newer teachings with statements like those of St. Irenaeus and Cyprian above, or with the famous dictum Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus or with many other authoritative statements on the normative necessity of the Church for salvation?

Dearest Holy Father, successor of St. Peter, Bishop of Bishops, Servus Servorum Dei, keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven (for so you are all these things), I pray thee, understand my distress and realize how damaging these statements are to the efforts of faithful Catholics to witness to the faith and bring souls to God through Christ. This is still the final end of evangelization, we must presume? We still do wish for members of other religious and Christian sects to convert and return to Holy Mother Church, don't we?

Oh Holy Father, please be strong.

Spe Salvi and Universal Salvation

In honor of the of November's liturgical readings on the Last Things, we are devoting this entire month to looking at one important aspect of eschatology: the question of the population of Hell relative to the assertions by Fr. Barron, drawing on the theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar, that we can "hope" that Hell is empty. We have already examined this teaching in light of the Bible, Vatican I, the Catholic sensus fidelium and from the point of view of the universal Ordinary Magisterium; in each case, Balthasar has nothing to stand on. In this article, we put the coup de grace to the arguments of Fr. Barron by examining his appeal to Benedict XVI's encyclical Spe Salvi.

In his encyclical on hope, the late Pontiff briefly takes up the question of our eternal destiny. Benedict leads into the conversation by discussing the theological development of the doctrine of Purgatory, but notes that even for those who go into this intermediate state, our "life-choice" becomes definitive at the moment of death. We will quote the next sections, paragraphs 45 and 46, at length:

46. With death, our life-choice becomes definitive—our life stands before the judge. Our choice, which in the course of an entire life takes on a certain shape, can have a variety of forms. There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves. This is a terrifying thought, but alarming profiles of this type can be seen in certain figures of our own history. In such people all would be beyond remedy and the destruction of good would be irrevocable: this is what we mean by the word Hell. On the other hand there can be people who are utterly pure, completely permeated by God, and thus fully open to their neighbours—people for whom communion with God even now gives direction to their entire being and whose journey towards God only brings to fulfilment what they already are.

46. Yet we know from experience that neither case is normal in human life. For the great majority of people—we may suppose—there remains in the depths of their being an ultimate interior openness to truth, to love, to God. In the concrete choices of life, however, it is covered over by ever new compromises with evil—much filth covers purity, but the thirst for purity remains and it still constantly re-emerges from all that is base and remains present in the soul. What happens to such individuals when they appear before the Judge? Will all the impurity they have amassed through life suddenly cease to matter? What else might occur? Saint Paul, in his First Letter to the Corinthians, gives us an idea of the differing impact of God's judgement according to each person's particular circumstances. He does this using images which in some way try to express the invisible, without it being possible for us to conceptualize these images—simply because we can neither see into the world beyond death nor do we have any experience of it. Paul begins by saying that Christian life is built upon a common foundation: Jesus Christ. This foundation endures. If we have stood firm on this foundation and built our life upon it, we know that it cannot be taken away from us even in death. Then Paul continues: “Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor 3:12-15). In this text, it is in any case evident that our salvation can take different forms, that some of what is built may be burned down, that in order to be saved we personally have to pass through “fire” so as to become fully open to receiving God and able to take our place at the table of the eternal marriage-feast.

The section in question is Benedict's comments about "the great majority of people" who remain fundamentally open to God and, after the Judgement and the fires of Purgatory, may take their place "at the table of the eternal marriage feast." Fr. Barron apparently equates Benedict's hope for "the great majority of people" with Balthasar's hope of universal salvation.

There are several things that can be said.

For one thing, Benedict does not agree that we can hope that all will be saved because this hope he expresses is not about all humanity universally but about "the great majority of people"; this may seem like a minor distinction, but it is enough to distinguish Fr. Barron from Benedict, since, returning to introductory logic, even one less than "All" is "Some." Benedict does not express hope that "all" will be saved because he specifically states that he is referring to a "majority" not a totality.

But this is a mere logical sophism. Let's get to the real problem. The real issue is that Benedict is not talking about our ultimate, eternal destiny for much of this passage, but rather the characteristics of human life that go on to shape our eternal destiny. The pope is talking about the disposition of people while they are still alive and on this earth. This is easily missed because the section begins with a comment on the definitive state of our soul at death; but Benedict in fact establishes this point by working backward to look at the variety of forms our response to God can take during this life. This is clear from several points:

• He speaks of the state of our soul being the product of "the course of an entire life"
• In speaking of the saints, he says they are "fully open to their neighbours" and that they experience union with God "even now", comments that would not make sense if he was speaking of the afterlife.
• These saints are on a "journey towards God", something that would terminate in the next life when we are no longer viators but comprehensors.
• He speaks of realities we know "from experience" "in human life".
• He talks about our deeds of good and evil "In the concrete choices of life."

All this makes it clear that the pope's foregoing comments about those who are on the way to Hell, those on the way to Heaven, and those whose end is indeterminate (as far as we are concerned) are all referring to the state of our souls in this life. What he appears to be saying is this: In this life, there are people whose rejection of God is so complete that, from a human point of view, reconciliation with God and the truth seems impossible. These people are on the path to Hell, and history has given us ample examples of such people. Similarly, there are saintly individuals on this earth whose love of God is so intense that "even now" they experience a foretaste of the beatific vision. Such people, from our point of view, are on the path to heaven. Nevertheless, the remains a great majority of people whose final destiny, from our point of view, is indeterminate. They remain fundamentally open to good, but through a series of compromises with evil, their disposition to goodness has been severely weakened. The pope then asks what will become of such people on judgment day, which leads into a conversation about the afterlife.

Ultimately, the message is that there are few humans who are irredeemably evil or blamelessly good. Most fall somewhere in the middle. This is all we can draw from the pope's statements.

But let us go further, because Ralph Martin notes in his book that this passage is in need of further clarification, and I agree with him here. Let us look at the fundamental difficulty of the passage.

The biggest problem, in my opinion, is whether the pope is speaking of all human beings or all Christians. The passage can be read either way. For example, at the beginning, he says "For the great majority of people—we may suppose—there remains in the depths of their being an ultimate interior openness to truth, to love, to God", which seems to be a reference to all humanity. But then, in the very same paragraph, he uses this language:

"Saint Paul, in his First Letter to the Corinthians, gives us an idea of the differing impact of God's judgement according to each person's particular circumstances. He does this using images which in some way try to express the invisible, without it being possible for us to conceptualize these images—simply because we can neither see into the world beyond death nor do we have any experience of it. Paul begins by saying that Christian life is built upon a common foundation: Jesus Christ. This foundation endures. If we have stood firm on this foundation and built our life upon it, we know that it cannot be taken away from us even in death."

He is speaking of "each person's particular circumstances", but says also that the "each person" and "us" he is referring to are those who live the "Christian life" and whose identity is "built upon a common foundation: Jesus Christ." He then says that death does not deprive us of hope only to the extent that "we have stood firm on this foundation." So, in these passages, Benedict seems to be speaking only of Christians in particular. The language in paragraph 46 moves from "the great majority of people" to those living the "Christian life" without any interruption, leaving us to speculate on the identity of "the great majority of people."

If the pope meant to indicate that he was speaking about all humanity, specifying those whose lives are built on "a common foundation: Jesus Christ" is a bizarre way to do so. Martin is correct in stating this passage needs further clarification.

If the pope did mean to refer only to Christians, then he is doing nothing than engaging in the age-old speculation of whether or not most Christians would be saved, which is a legitimate topic of discussion. If he was talking about all humanity in general, then the explanation we offered above would be the most appropriate understanding of the pope's words.

Fr. Barron's accusation that the clarification of Spe Salvi sought by Ralph Martin is equivalent to the dissent of modernist theologians against Humanae Vitae is unfair. As we have seen above, there is an ambiguity in Spe Salvi 45-46 regarding whether Benedict is referring to the entirety of humanity or simply of the Christian people. Martin seeks a legitimate clarification of what is an admittedly confusing passage, which is completely different from those who challenge the authority of Humanae Vitae. In the case of Martin, he seeks a clearer explanation of the content of Spe Salvi; in the case of Humanae Vitae, the dissenting theologians understand the content plainly but deny its authority, which is entirely different. Fr. Barron ought to know the distinction.

To sum up the basics of the last four articles in this series: It is not consonant with Christian tradition to "hope" that Hell is empty. Of course we do not want people to go to Hell, but it is not a matter of what we will. As Benedict says in Spe Salvi, history presents us with too many examples of nefarious evil to realistically cherish this hope. Remember, people have free will, and many choose to reject God; to suggest that we can hope nobody goes to Hell is a denial of the reality of free will - as if men who had definitively rejected God will simply have their wills countermanded by God in opposition to their freedom. This is why Christian Tradition and Magisterial teaching (Syllabus of Errors) have presumed that some people at least are in Hell and hence there is no justification for hoping it is empty.

Furthermore, the Christian sensus fidelium attests to this, as Catholic piety throughout the ages not only presumed that real people were actually in Hell, but that fear of Hell was an effective motivation to right living. This is how Christians have always understood revelation, and attempts to introduce other interpretations of the data of revelation fundamentally undermine the universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, appealing to the tendentious argument that the whole edifice of Christian tradition can be discarded because something has not been formally defined. Attempts to enlist Benedict XVI's encyclical Spe Salvi to prove the Balthasarian theory further run aground due to ambiguities in the text of the document as well as the fact that Spe Salvi 45-46 is not saying what Fr. Barron suggests it says.

I hope you have enjoyed the last month of posts on this important topic. Hopefully people will continue to question this problematic theory and reveal Balthasar for the unorthodox theologian he was.

Previous Articles in this Series

Fr. Barron, Mark Shea and Balthasar are Wrong
Hell and the Sensus Fidelium
Balthasar and Denial of the Ordinary Magisterium

Related:

Balthasar's Denial of the Beatific Vision in Christ