It is true that in the CIP, the Catholic Church is the one true Church. Orthodox and other communities with valid holy orders and bishops are in schism from that Church, and are in imperfect communion with her. Protestant communities are “ecclesial communities,” that have “many elements of the Church of Christ, which allow us, amid joy and hope, to acknowledge the existence of a certain communion, albeit imperfect.” This is explained here:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html
from an article here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/08/loyalties-to-our-people-a-reply-to-d-stephen-long
Stephen notes that the Catechism of the Catholic Church “does not consider Protestants to be heretics, apostates, or non-Christians.” This is true, but there is more to the picture. If from the Catholic perspective, the Protestant condition were not in any way deficient, then from the Catholic perspective there would be no reason to be Catholic rather than Protestant. So the question cannot be determined only by noting the positive truths and goods in Protestantism recognized and affirmed by the Catholic Church. Answering the question must include considering what, from the Catholic Church’s perspective, the Protestant as such is missing. Catholic theology distinguishes between formal and material heresy. The Protestant is not necessarily in a state of formal heresy, that is, morally culpable for his or her denials of certain Catholic dogmas. But nevertheless a person, whether Catholic or Protestant, who denies a Catholic dogma is in that respect at least in a condition of material heresy. Likewise, a Protestant is not necessarily in a state of formal schism, culpable for being in schism from the Church. But a Protestant as such is at least in a state of material schism, not being in full communion with the Church, and therefore is in him or herself not showing forth to the world the unity Christ calls us through love to show to the world. Being in schism, even if only materially, is not a victimless error, because it obscures the love of God to the world and calls into question our testimony as Christians, as Pope Benedict XVI explained:
Furthermore, according to the Catholic Church through the sacraments, and especially through the sacrament of the Eucharist, we grow in the supernatural love poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, and thus in our union with God. Though as Unitatis Redintegratio teaches, significant elements that build up and give life to the Church can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church, nevertheless because Protestant communions did not retain the sacrament of Holy Orders, therefore from the Catholic point of view they do not have the Eucharist, for reasons I’ve explained here. And therefore from the Catholic perspective they do not have the fullness of the divinely established means of growing in grace and love for Christ. The importance of the Eucharist is such that the Protestant-Catholic question cannot be determined apart from it, and from underlying questions such as whether valid ordination is necessary for a valid Eucharist, what constitutes a valid ordination, and who has the authority to decide such questions.
.........................If the elements of sanctification I enjoyed as a Protestant came from the Catholic Church, and had their rightful place in full communion with the Catholic Church, then love for the Church impelled me to seek by all means not to remain in a state of schism from her, even if I had been in a state of grace in that condition of imperfect communion.
.......................... Christ only founded one Church. And I am called to suffer in and with that Church, even in the shame of the sins of her members, just as I must suffer in the shame of the public sins of my family. I do not in such cases get to choose a new family.
.....................
In a discussion found in the comment section of this post: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2016/05/the-law-of-love/#comment-205112http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2016/05/the-law-of-love/#comment-205112
First, the Church is Christ’s provision to mankind for the reconciliation of all peoples: That they all become part of this supernatural society and partake from the one loaf which is Christ. Families always break bread together, and the sundered family of the First Adam is rightly reconciled around the table of the Second.
But does this mean that, if people who through no fault of their own (invincible ignorance) are unaware of the Church, still attempt to be reconciled to their neighbor, God should intervene to stop it?
Not at all! It is fitting that God should permit and even supernaturally assist the reconciliation between, say, a Chinese man and a Japanese who were descendants respectively of a victim and a perpetrator of the Rape of Nanking. “But I thought the Church was God’s tool for the reconciliation of all?” Yes, it is; and all things being equal, the Sino-Nipponese reconciliation would go better were they both Catholics! But if they lack that, if they are invincibly ignorant of any reason to inquire about RCIA, God still wishes their reconciliation. So, if His intended tool — the Church — is not available for the task, He doesn’t give up on the task. He just accomplishes it in alternative and unpredictable ways.
And because God doesn’t provide things like the Church unnecessarily, we can reason that those alternative and unpredictable ways are not quite so effective as the Church (all things being equal). His “perfect” will is where we find His best provision; but, His “permissible” will still has graces.
Allow me to paraphase the apostle Paul here: For God showers down His graces on all peoples, giving the Torah to the Hebrews, but showing “His invisible power” to the Gentiles “through that which He created,” such that “the righteous requirement of the Torah was written on their hearts” and they “became a Torah unto themselves.” And thus throughout the whole Mosaic covenant He judged the hearts of all men, either Israelite or Gentile, according to the each one’s cooperation with the light he had received, and thus God “showed no partiality.”
But what God revealed to Moses is still clearer, isn’t it, than what He wrote on the hearts of the Gentiles? So if a Gentile — say, a Roman centurion in 25 A.D. — were to become aware of the Torah and the Temple, he ought to become a “Godfearing” Gentile and gain greater benefit from God’s revelation, that his own conscience become better formed. But if he were invincibly ignorant of Judaism, he could still make use of natural virtue and “the righteous requirement of the Torah” written in his heart, and be content with his pay and not extort those around him. (He didn’t need to wait for Jesus to show up, to command him that!)
Analogy: If you’re driving a bold through a beam and into a nut on the other side, and you’ve lost your socket set, you may have to make do with pliers. And that’s fine…right up until one finds the socket set! After that, it’s just foolish to use the less-effective tool instead of the one that’s designed for the job. When the socket set is lost, you’re “invincibly ignorant”; after you’ve found it, your failure to make use of it is culpable.
Another analogy: The Church’s Magisterium, and her hierarchy, are Christ’s provision for the knowledge of God’s will in matters of faith and morals and for the authoritative leading and organizing of the faithful in well-ordered liturgical practice.
But does that mean that a born-and-raised Baptist like I once was, who’d never met any Catholics and was vaguely aware of Catholicism as “some weird thing they do in movies, and over in Europe” was helplessly unable to know moral truth, or doomed to worship Him in a disordered way? Not at all! And just because I was separated from the tool God provided, would God actively prevent me from knowing moral truth and worshiping Him in a fitting way? Certainly not; it is in His character to help, not hinder.
So God saw to it that His actual grace was communicated through a somewhat-abridged Catholic book called “The (Protestant) Bible” and through the good intentions and faithful service of my Sunday School teachers.
But once I was confronted with the evidence of Christian history and the logic of the Catholic position, my situation changed. Prior to that, I was (I can reasonably believe) invincibly ignorant of the need of belonging to the Catholic Church. But after that, if I neglected to make use of God’s more-magnificent and more “official” provision for moral truth and fitting worship, then that would be my fault. And looking back, I can see that I had access to moral truth during those years; but I have access to more moral truth now. And in worship, I have substituted a sandwich of sermon-on-hymns-with-announcements (read: like pastrami on rye with mustard; where the sermon is the meat, the hymns are the surrounding bread, and the announcements…well, no, they can’t be analogous to brown deli mustard because they were generally pretty flavorless, but anyway, you get the picture); anyway, I’ve gone from “hymn sandwich” to The Mass, the “Divine Liturgy,” where God Himself becomes sacramentally present under the forms of bread and wine, and I receive in my body and soul “the medicine of immortality.”
The ad-hoc make-do substitute, and the Real Thing, are not equivalent substitutes.
To summarize:
Regarding Reconciliation of Peoples:
1. Q: What provision has God made for reconciliation of the sundered family of Adam? A: The Church.
2. Q: What does God do, if people (who are outside the Church through no fault of their own) try to reconcile? A: He helps them.
3. Q: Is the help they receive outside the Church as beneficial as that they could receive inside it? A: Probably not, even for those who are invincibly ignorant of the Church; and certainly not, if they know about the Church but reject membership in her.
4. Q: So what should they do? A: If they are outside the Church, reconcile the best they can and cooperate with whatever grace God provides in that non-normative situation. If they are inside the Church, reconcile the best they can and cooperate with the greater graces God provides through His normative means.
Regarding Moral Truth And Fitting Worship:
1. Q: What provision has God made for providing knowable moral truth and authoritatively organized worship for humanity? A: The Church.
2. Q: What does God do, if people (who are outside the Church through no fault of their own) try to obtain moral truth and worship God? A: He helps them.
3. Q: Is the help they receive outside the Church as beneficial as that they could receive inside it? A: Probably not, even for those who are invincibly ignorant of the Church; and certainly not, if they know about the Church but reject membership in her.
4. Q: So what should they do? A: If they are outside the Church, they should be as moral, and as morally-informed, as they can; and worship God the best they can, cooperating with whatever graces God provides in that non-normative situation. If they are inside the Church, they cooperate with the greater graces God provides through His normative means: The Magisterium, and the bishops and priests in communion with the pope.
In those two examples we see clear parallels. There is a pattern we can follow.
Applying that pattern to your specific question, Nes, here is what I conclude….
Regarding Actual Grace And Sanctifying Grace, Especially Divine Charity:
1. Q: What provision has God made for gracing the souls of the faithful? A: The Church.
2. Q: What does God do, if people (who are outside the Church through no fault of their own) seek Him and pray for Him to fill their hearts with His love? A: He helps them.
3. Q: Is the help they receive outside the Church as beneficial as that they could receive inside it? A: Probably not, even for those who are invincibly ignorant of the Church; and certainly not, if they know about the Church but reject membership in her.
4. Q: So what should they do? A: If they are outside the Church, continue seeking Him in prayer and Scriptures and a life of humility and moral purity and love-of-neighbor, cooperating with whatever grace God provides in that non-normative situation. If they are inside the Church, they should do all the same things, AND receive additional graces through the Sacraments, which are His normative means.
The pattern seems to fit perfectly, doesn’t it?
I suspect, then, it would be wrong to suggest that those of the baptized who are outside the church (through no fault of their own) have no divine charity in their hearts. That would be to say that God uncharacteristically refused to help them achieve exactly what He desires for them — because of a deficiency which isn’t even their fault! That’s unlikely.
But, it seems entirely reasonable to suggest that, all things being equal, their divine charity and holiness might be twice what it is, if they only had the benefit of God’s normative means. For when God establishes such a thing as “normative means,” for any purpose, He doesn’t do it needlessly. He thinks we need, or at least can tremendously benefit from, the Sacraments.
Does that help?
[the comment that follows this one gave some corrections or clarification in comment 31]:
One other thing:
I notice — how I wish we could make revisions of our posts after posting! — that in my last, I used the expression, “those of the baptized who are outside the church….” (2nd-to-last paragraph.)
That was a poor choice of words, and anyway, the whole paragraph structure was less clear than it should have been,
So here is my corrected version:
“I suspect, then, that it would be wrong to assert that your Protestant friends have no divine charity in their hearts. Those of the baptized who, by virtue of their baptism, have a certain imperfect communion with the Catholic Church, but who (through no fault of their own) remain outside the boundaries of full communion, are still adopted sons and daughters of God. He still desires their sanctification. If we were to insist that He refused to give them any such graces on account of their lack of (some) sacraments, we would be saying that God uncharacteristically refused to help them achieve exactly what He desires for them — because of a deficiency which isn’t (we presume) even their fault! That’s unlikely.”
I think that’s better.
from an article here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/08/loyalties-to-our-people-a-reply-to-d-stephen-long
Stephen notes that the Catechism of the Catholic Church “does not consider Protestants to be heretics, apostates, or non-Christians.” This is true, but there is more to the picture. If from the Catholic perspective, the Protestant condition were not in any way deficient, then from the Catholic perspective there would be no reason to be Catholic rather than Protestant. So the question cannot be determined only by noting the positive truths and goods in Protestantism recognized and affirmed by the Catholic Church. Answering the question must include considering what, from the Catholic Church’s perspective, the Protestant as such is missing. Catholic theology distinguishes between formal and material heresy. The Protestant is not necessarily in a state of formal heresy, that is, morally culpable for his or her denials of certain Catholic dogmas. But nevertheless a person, whether Catholic or Protestant, who denies a Catholic dogma is in that respect at least in a condition of material heresy. Likewise, a Protestant is not necessarily in a state of formal schism, culpable for being in schism from the Church. But a Protestant as such is at least in a state of material schism, not being in full communion with the Church, and therefore is in him or herself not showing forth to the world the unity Christ calls us through love to show to the world. Being in schism, even if only materially, is not a victimless error, because it obscures the love of God to the world and calls into question our testimony as Christians, as Pope Benedict XVI explained:
Leading men and women to God, to the God who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith – ecumenism – is part of the supreme priority. (Letter Concerning the Remission of Excommunication, 2009)
Furthermore, according to the Catholic Church through the sacraments, and especially through the sacrament of the Eucharist, we grow in the supernatural love poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, and thus in our union with God. Though as Unitatis Redintegratio teaches, significant elements that build up and give life to the Church can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church, nevertheless because Protestant communions did not retain the sacrament of Holy Orders, therefore from the Catholic point of view they do not have the Eucharist, for reasons I’ve explained here. And therefore from the Catholic perspective they do not have the fullness of the divinely established means of growing in grace and love for Christ. The importance of the Eucharist is such that the Protestant-Catholic question cannot be determined apart from it, and from underlying questions such as whether valid ordination is necessary for a valid Eucharist, what constitutes a valid ordination, and who has the authority to decide such questions.
.........................If the elements of sanctification I enjoyed as a Protestant came from the Catholic Church, and had their rightful place in full communion with the Catholic Church, then love for the Church impelled me to seek by all means not to remain in a state of schism from her, even if I had been in a state of grace in that condition of imperfect communion.
.......................... Christ only founded one Church. And I am called to suffer in and with that Church, even in the shame of the sins of her members, just as I must suffer in the shame of the public sins of my family. I do not in such cases get to choose a new family.
.....................
In a discussion found in the comment section of this post: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2016/05/the-law-of-love/#comment-205112http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2016/05/the-law-of-love/#comment-205112
First, the Church is Christ’s provision to mankind for the reconciliation of all peoples: That they all become part of this supernatural society and partake from the one loaf which is Christ. Families always break bread together, and the sundered family of the First Adam is rightly reconciled around the table of the Second.
But does this mean that, if people who through no fault of their own (invincible ignorance) are unaware of the Church, still attempt to be reconciled to their neighbor, God should intervene to stop it?
Not at all! It is fitting that God should permit and even supernaturally assist the reconciliation between, say, a Chinese man and a Japanese who were descendants respectively of a victim and a perpetrator of the Rape of Nanking. “But I thought the Church was God’s tool for the reconciliation of all?” Yes, it is; and all things being equal, the Sino-Nipponese reconciliation would go better were they both Catholics! But if they lack that, if they are invincibly ignorant of any reason to inquire about RCIA, God still wishes their reconciliation. So, if His intended tool — the Church — is not available for the task, He doesn’t give up on the task. He just accomplishes it in alternative and unpredictable ways.
And because God doesn’t provide things like the Church unnecessarily, we can reason that those alternative and unpredictable ways are not quite so effective as the Church (all things being equal). His “perfect” will is where we find His best provision; but, His “permissible” will still has graces.
Allow me to paraphase the apostle Paul here: For God showers down His graces on all peoples, giving the Torah to the Hebrews, but showing “His invisible power” to the Gentiles “through that which He created,” such that “the righteous requirement of the Torah was written on their hearts” and they “became a Torah unto themselves.” And thus throughout the whole Mosaic covenant He judged the hearts of all men, either Israelite or Gentile, according to the each one’s cooperation with the light he had received, and thus God “showed no partiality.”
But what God revealed to Moses is still clearer, isn’t it, than what He wrote on the hearts of the Gentiles? So if a Gentile — say, a Roman centurion in 25 A.D. — were to become aware of the Torah and the Temple, he ought to become a “Godfearing” Gentile and gain greater benefit from God’s revelation, that his own conscience become better formed. But if he were invincibly ignorant of Judaism, he could still make use of natural virtue and “the righteous requirement of the Torah” written in his heart, and be content with his pay and not extort those around him. (He didn’t need to wait for Jesus to show up, to command him that!)
Analogy: If you’re driving a bold through a beam and into a nut on the other side, and you’ve lost your socket set, you may have to make do with pliers. And that’s fine…right up until one finds the socket set! After that, it’s just foolish to use the less-effective tool instead of the one that’s designed for the job. When the socket set is lost, you’re “invincibly ignorant”; after you’ve found it, your failure to make use of it is culpable.
Another analogy: The Church’s Magisterium, and her hierarchy, are Christ’s provision for the knowledge of God’s will in matters of faith and morals and for the authoritative leading and organizing of the faithful in well-ordered liturgical practice.
But does that mean that a born-and-raised Baptist like I once was, who’d never met any Catholics and was vaguely aware of Catholicism as “some weird thing they do in movies, and over in Europe” was helplessly unable to know moral truth, or doomed to worship Him in a disordered way? Not at all! And just because I was separated from the tool God provided, would God actively prevent me from knowing moral truth and worshiping Him in a fitting way? Certainly not; it is in His character to help, not hinder.
So God saw to it that His actual grace was communicated through a somewhat-abridged Catholic book called “The (Protestant) Bible” and through the good intentions and faithful service of my Sunday School teachers.
But once I was confronted with the evidence of Christian history and the logic of the Catholic position, my situation changed. Prior to that, I was (I can reasonably believe) invincibly ignorant of the need of belonging to the Catholic Church. But after that, if I neglected to make use of God’s more-magnificent and more “official” provision for moral truth and fitting worship, then that would be my fault. And looking back, I can see that I had access to moral truth during those years; but I have access to more moral truth now. And in worship, I have substituted a sandwich of sermon-on-hymns-with-announcements (read: like pastrami on rye with mustard; where the sermon is the meat, the hymns are the surrounding bread, and the announcements…well, no, they can’t be analogous to brown deli mustard because they were generally pretty flavorless, but anyway, you get the picture); anyway, I’ve gone from “hymn sandwich” to The Mass, the “Divine Liturgy,” where God Himself becomes sacramentally present under the forms of bread and wine, and I receive in my body and soul “the medicine of immortality.”
The ad-hoc make-do substitute, and the Real Thing, are not equivalent substitutes.
To summarize:
Regarding Reconciliation of Peoples:
1. Q: What provision has God made for reconciliation of the sundered family of Adam? A: The Church.
2. Q: What does God do, if people (who are outside the Church through no fault of their own) try to reconcile? A: He helps them.
3. Q: Is the help they receive outside the Church as beneficial as that they could receive inside it? A: Probably not, even for those who are invincibly ignorant of the Church; and certainly not, if they know about the Church but reject membership in her.
4. Q: So what should they do? A: If they are outside the Church, reconcile the best they can and cooperate with whatever grace God provides in that non-normative situation. If they are inside the Church, reconcile the best they can and cooperate with the greater graces God provides through His normative means.
Regarding Moral Truth And Fitting Worship:
1. Q: What provision has God made for providing knowable moral truth and authoritatively organized worship for humanity? A: The Church.
2. Q: What does God do, if people (who are outside the Church through no fault of their own) try to obtain moral truth and worship God? A: He helps them.
3. Q: Is the help they receive outside the Church as beneficial as that they could receive inside it? A: Probably not, even for those who are invincibly ignorant of the Church; and certainly not, if they know about the Church but reject membership in her.
4. Q: So what should they do? A: If they are outside the Church, they should be as moral, and as morally-informed, as they can; and worship God the best they can, cooperating with whatever graces God provides in that non-normative situation. If they are inside the Church, they cooperate with the greater graces God provides through His normative means: The Magisterium, and the bishops and priests in communion with the pope.
In those two examples we see clear parallels. There is a pattern we can follow.
Applying that pattern to your specific question, Nes, here is what I conclude….
Regarding Actual Grace And Sanctifying Grace, Especially Divine Charity:
1. Q: What provision has God made for gracing the souls of the faithful? A: The Church.
2. Q: What does God do, if people (who are outside the Church through no fault of their own) seek Him and pray for Him to fill their hearts with His love? A: He helps them.
3. Q: Is the help they receive outside the Church as beneficial as that they could receive inside it? A: Probably not, even for those who are invincibly ignorant of the Church; and certainly not, if they know about the Church but reject membership in her.
4. Q: So what should they do? A: If they are outside the Church, continue seeking Him in prayer and Scriptures and a life of humility and moral purity and love-of-neighbor, cooperating with whatever grace God provides in that non-normative situation. If they are inside the Church, they should do all the same things, AND receive additional graces through the Sacraments, which are His normative means.
The pattern seems to fit perfectly, doesn’t it?
I suspect, then, it would be wrong to suggest that those of the baptized who are outside the church (through no fault of their own) have no divine charity in their hearts. That would be to say that God uncharacteristically refused to help them achieve exactly what He desires for them — because of a deficiency which isn’t even their fault! That’s unlikely.
But, it seems entirely reasonable to suggest that, all things being equal, their divine charity and holiness might be twice what it is, if they only had the benefit of God’s normative means. For when God establishes such a thing as “normative means,” for any purpose, He doesn’t do it needlessly. He thinks we need, or at least can tremendously benefit from, the Sacraments.
Does that help?
[the comment that follows this one gave some corrections or clarification in comment 31]:
One other thing:
I notice — how I wish we could make revisions of our posts after posting! — that in my last, I used the expression, “those of the baptized who are outside the church….” (2nd-to-last paragraph.)
That was a poor choice of words, and anyway, the whole paragraph structure was less clear than it should have been,
So here is my corrected version:
“I suspect, then, that it would be wrong to assert that your Protestant friends have no divine charity in their hearts. Those of the baptized who, by virtue of their baptism, have a certain imperfect communion with the Catholic Church, but who (through no fault of their own) remain outside the boundaries of full communion, are still adopted sons and daughters of God. He still desires their sanctification. If we were to insist that He refused to give them any such graces on account of their lack of (some) sacraments, we would be saying that God uncharacteristically refused to help them achieve exactly what He desires for them — because of a deficiency which isn’t (we presume) even their fault! That’s unlikely.”
I think that’s better.
No comments:
Post a Comment