74 comments
Leave a comment »

1. Paul Rodden November 26th, 2012 8:37 pm :

   Thank you, Bryan.
   This is so useful!

2. Eva Marie November 27th, 2012 1:37 pm :

   This is so helpful. I’ve been dealing with Protestant friends recently who have been highlighting this exact concern. CRI (via Kenneth Samples and Kenneth Kantzer) refers to this as the “Catholic Montage”, meaning the theological diversity between ultratraditionalist Catholics (ex. sedevacantists), traditionalist Catholics, liberal Catholics (ex. Hans Kung, Matthew Fox), charismatic Catholics (ex. Ralph Martin), evangelical Catholics (ex. Francis Beckwith), cultural Catholics (ex. JFK), folk Catholics (ex. Latin American animistic syncretism), and American Catholics (i.e. primacy of individualism; ex. Charles Curran).

   I think it’s safe to say that those who identify themselves as Catholic are not monolithic. But your article helps communicate that this is not what is claimed by the Church in the first place.

   At the same time it’s important to recognize the damage done to the Church by this fact. Even if we ignored the Protestant and Orthodox schisms, the remaining discord within the confines of those who self-identify as Catholics is a barrier to non-Catholics entering the Church.

   I have extended family in both Latin America and the Philippines (all fundamentalists and/or charismatics), and my Catholic faith is utterly foreign to the animism and syncretism they see in Catholic Church with which they are familiar. For them, syncretism and animism are obvious results of the “cultic” behavior they see in the Catholic Church. And so we continue pray Christ’s prayer for unity in Jn 17. That this scandal will end and that the world will know Christ and His Bride.

   This article is helpful in better understanding the nature of unity the Catholic Church claims for itself. I just need to become better equipped to communicate this to my family.

   In the past I’ve simply asked that they not compare the Catholicism they see lived out poorly with the Catholicism of the Church. Just as one would not judge medicinal value based on effects seen in those who disobey the dosage instructions.

3. Christopher Lake November 28th, 2012 5:30 am :

   Eva (re:#2),

   Welcome to CTC, and thank you for your comment. You wrote:

   I have extended family in both Latin America and the Philippines (all fundamentalists and/or charismatics), and my Catholic faith is utterly foreign to the animism and syncretism they see in Catholic Church with which they are familiar. For them, syncretism and animism are obvious results of the “cultic” behavior they see in the Catholic Church.

   I am somewhat familiar with Catholic practices in various countries, but obviously, as an American living in the U.S., I don’t know exactly what your extended family is seeing in the Church, in their respective countries, which seems to smack of animism and syncretism. Such problems do exist among some Catholics, including in the U.S.

   However, as a former, rather “fundamentalistic” (in retrospect) Reformed Baptist, myself, who has “reverted” to the Catholic Church, I can tell you that, from the outside, even simple, daily, practiced, orthodox Catholicism can seem very alien and troubling to certain Protestant mindsets. Asking Saints for prayers? Necromancy! Veneration of Mary? Goddess worship! And the misconceptions about Catholic doctrine and practice go on and on…

   Among the many and varied Protestant denominations and groups, fundamentalist Protestants are often *the most* disconnected from the history of the Church, from circa 95 to 1517 A.D (the common dating of the first year of the Protestant Reformation). This makes a huge difference, in terms of fundamentalists’ perceptions and understandings of the beliefs and practices of Catholics– even very faithful, orthodox Catholics.

   Fundamentalists often either have very little knowledge of the Church Fathers, or wrongly consider many of them to be early “proto-Protestants,” or simply believe that most of them became “corrupted by heresy” early in the second century, which then spread throughout the whole Church, until Martin Luther supposedly “rediscovered the Gospel” in the sixteenth century and began setting things aright.

   One of my sincere, Bible-loving friends actually believes that the Trinity itself is a pagan doctrine which the early Fathers wrongly “brought into” Christianity– which further confirms his belief that the Catholic Church, and Protestantism too, for that matter, are shot through with paganism! This is where certain kinds of fundamentalism can take a person.

   Again, I don’t know what your family members in the Latin America and the Philippines have seen among Catholics there. It’s quite possible that there objectively is error in some of the practices. Of the many Catholics in the Philippines with whom *I* am in regular contact though, I know them almost all of them to be very Christ-centered. Do a few of them have an unhealthy fascination with heterodox concepts, such as astrology? Yes, a few of them do. I also know some American evangelical Protestants who have similar unhealthy fascinations. More to the point though, to a Protestant fundamentalist mindset, even orthodox Catholic veneration of Mary will seem “syncretistic,” because fundamentalists often just do not have the theological and historical context for Mary in their understanding, which the Catholic Church has had and taught from the early centuries of the Church.

4. Bryan Cross November 28th, 2012 2:52 pm :

   Someone wrote a note in response to this post, wondering why I didn’t mention the SSPX and their complaints. The soundness of my argument does not depend on mentioning the SSPX position. In the history of the Church, it has always been possible to complain about certain Catholic leaders, certain decisions by these leaders, etc., and use these complaints to rationalize schism from the Church. That’s been the temptation for rigorists from the beginning, including the Montanists, the Novatians and the Donatists. These complaints, even when they are legitimate complaints, have never justified schism from the Church, that is, breaking communion with the Pope. Moreover, for reasons explained in the post, neither the unity of the Catholic Church nor the unity of the Catholic faith is diminished by imprudent decisions on the part of bishops, whether in support of unworthy persons, or not to discipline particular dissenters, or not to speak as clearly and firmly about some issue as we might wish. The three bonds of unity, including the unity of the faith, remain intact even when bishops make imprudent decisions or fail to make prudent decisions. The person who separates himself by schism from the Church’s unity loses the credibility to complain about Catholics who by dissent have separated themselves from the Church’s one faith. Both give scandal by their separation from the Church.

5. RefProt November 28th, 2012 6:10 pm :

   Bryan,

   This is going to be an abstract question and one that may get pegged as interpretting the Catholic position through the Protestant one, but what happens if Rome wrongly excommunicates or cuts off someone from the Church who was actually in the right (whether morally or theologically)? What if they did not desire to be cut off from the church (we may say “schism”) but Rome separated with them?

   Is this an impossible hypothetical for the Catholic position?

   In your discussions of schism you continually cite historical movmenets like Donatism, Montanism, etc where those movements did break from the Church on their own initiative. The Reformation is a little more complex because the Reformers were excommunicated while they attempted to reform the Church. The desire truly was reformation and they were removed.

   My question is not really directed at the historical questions (as important as they may be), but whether Rome can be culpable for schism.

   Thanks, Bryan.

6. Faramir November 29th, 2012 1:44 am :

   RefProt (#5),

   I’m by no means an expert, but I think the answer to your question would be that excommunication in itself is not an act of the Magisterium. It is an exercise of the Church’s governing authority, not Her teaching authority, and (as history plainly shows) the Church is not infallible in her governing authority. So yes, it is absolutely possible for a bishop to excommunicate someone for an offense they did not in fact commit – St. Joan of Arc would be the obvious example of this. As her title indicates, the Church soon realized that Joan had been treated unjustly by the ecclesiastical authorities.

   Of course, the church can declare teaching X to be heretical and then excommunicate person Y for refusing to recant said teaching, which I think may be closer to the situation you are imagining. In this case, the declaration that a teaching is heretical is an act of the Magisterium (and is infallible under the usual conditions: ecumenical council or ex cathedra pronouncement). Whether to sentence someone to ecclesiastical penalties (such as excommunication) for holding such a teaching, though, is a separate question that is decided based on prudential and pastoral considerations.

   So to sum up: Can the Church excommunicate someone for teaching X when in fact they did not teach X? Sadly, yes. Can the Church infallibly declare X heretical when it is not in fact heretical? No, because the Christ has promised that His Church will preserve the deposit of faith.

7. JC November 29th, 2012 4:59 am :

   Hi RefProt,
   If you don’t mind, I’d like to offer my thoughts on this.
   The church is generally very slow to officially excommunicate anyone. Usually those who knowingly and willfully reject tenets of the faith excommunicate themselves. Common examples are the “Catholic” politicians who openly support abortion, birth control, so-called homosexual “marriage” and other issues that are gravely sinful and bring scandal upon the church. They have in fact incurred a latae sententiae excommunication, meaning something like the sentence has already been decided.

   Frankly, I wish they would use formal excommunication pronouncements more often, especially on these public figures. They are allowing these people to commit sacrilege whenever they participate in communion.
   There are some bishops who have openly said that they would turn away such people from communion, but not nearly enough.
   We recently had a nun working at a Catholic hospital (now a former Catholic hospital) who recommended and participated (in some form) in an abortion. She incurred an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication. From what I have heard, she repented of her actions and has been restored to communion.

   Anyway, I see no scenario where anyone could be excommunicated over a misunderstanding or mistake, especially in the modern era.

   When it came to Luther, it wasn’t his complaints about abuses in the church that were troublesome as there had beeen calls for the church to reform for many years. He wrote his 95 theses in November, 1517 and did not even receive the threat of excommunication until the Papal Bull Exsurge Domini was issued nearly 3 years later. The Bull gave him 60 days to recant of the theological errors that he had been espousing. Of course, Luther burned the Bull upon receipt and thus sealed his fate.
   As I recall, there were over 50 items that Luther was espousing that were contrary to the orthodox faith.
   While Luther’s desire may have been to reform the church, what he eventually did was to revolt against the church by introducing new doctrines. The church had no choice except to either allow what was considered heresy, accept one man’s opinions as dogma, or excommunicate him.

   I wonder how it would be taken if a singular Reformed theologian proclaimed even one new “truth” for all in a particular confession to follow as dogma. I think its pretty clear that he would be put on trial, convicted and cast out.

8. Bryan Cross November 29th, 2012 9:08 am :

   RefProt (re: #5)

   I agree with what Faramir and JC said above, but would add just a couple things:

   but what happens if Rome wrongly excommunicates or cuts off someone from the Church who was actually in the right (whether morally or theologically)?

   Acts of excommunication are not infallible.

   What if they did not desire to be cut off from the church (we may say “schism”) but Rome separated with them?

   Schism is defined in relation to the bishop of Rome on account of the keys Christ gave to St. Peter. (CCC 2089) The Catholic Church in communion with the pope cannot become a schism from the Church, because she cannot separate from herself. So in your merely hypothetical example, the excommunicated person would be truly excommunicated, even if prudentially or theologically the person ought not to have been excommunicated.

   In your discussions of schism you continually cite historical movmenets like Donatism, Montanism, etc where those movements did break from the Church on their own initiative. The Reformation is a little more complex because the Reformers were excommunicated while they attempted to reform the Church. The desire truly was reformation and they were removed.

   Many times when present day Protestant leaders refer to the Protestant-Catholic separation that resulted from the Reformation, they say that Luther and Calvin never intended to separate from the Church, or to cause a schism. I’ve heard that or read that hundreds of times. The problem with that claim is that it does not entail that they by their actions neither caused the Protestant-Catholic separation or were inculpable for it. Good intentions do not right actions make. An action can be objectively disordered and harmful, and one can be culpable for doing it, even if one does it with good intentions. In the case of Luther and Calvin, they did want to reform the Church. But they also chose not to submit to the Magisterium of the Church on matters of faith, and even took to themselves ecclesial authority they did not have (e.g. think of Calvin’s assuming to himself a divine calling, without having been called by the Church). If we do not draw a principled distinction between “reforming” the Church and “remaking the Church according to our own interpretation of Scripture,” then we can attempt to rationalize the latter under the pretext of the former. Luther (and Calvin) were separated from the Catholic Church not fundamentally because of their attempt to reform it (since there were Catholic reformers of the sixteenth century who devoted their whole lives to reforming the Church, and were never excommunicated). Rather, the early Protestants rejected the divinely established Magisterium of the Church. That action went beyond ‘reforming’ the Church; in this way they separated themselves from the Church.

   My question is not really directed at the historical questions (as important as they may be), but whether Rome can be culpable for schism.

   There is no doubt that by poor pastoral judgment or insensitivity, the pope and bishops can contribute culpably to a person’s decision to form or enter a schism from the Church, or to make choices that lead to his excommunication. But the Catholic who chooses to form or enter a schism, rather than submit to the Magisterium of the Church, is never justified in doing so:

   Wherefore as no heresy can ever be justifiable, so in like manner there can be no justification for schism. “There is nothing more grievous than the sacrilege of schism….there can be no just necessity for destroying the unity of the Church” (S. Augustinus, Contra Epistolam Parmeniani, lib. ii., cap. ii., n. 25). From the encyclical, “Satis Cognitum“)

   Meaning, there can be no just necessity for breaking with the unity of the Church. I know you’re focused on the hypothetical example of the Catholic who is wrongly excommunicated, not a person who willfully forms or enters a schism. But an innocent Catholic who has been wrongly excommunicated does not form a schism and set up his own ‘church’ and collect a following. Instead he seeks reconciliation with the Church, in prayer and humility, knowing that the Church is the ark of salvation, and not wishing to imperil anyone’s soul by causing them to fall into schism. See the Catholic Encyclopedia article on ‘Schism’ for more detail.

   In the peace of Christ,

   – Bryan

9. SS November 29th, 2012 3:50 pm :

   Bryan,
   You mentioned this above:

   “…since there were Catholic reformers of the sixteenth century who devoted their whole lives to reforming the Church, and were never excommunicated”

   Are there any Catholic reformers today who are dedicated in like fashion? Or is the general consensus that there is no such parallel need for reformation today?

   Thanks
   S.

10. Benjamin Keil November 29th, 2012 5:28 pm :

    @SS (#9),

    Are there any Catholic reformers today who are dedicated in like fashion? Or is the general consensus that there is no such parallel need for reformation today?

    I’ll speak for myself here, and I’m not a theologian (I’m also just a layman…) I wouldn’t know if I can dedicate my whole life to reforming the church (I’ve got a family to take care of), but one of the things I want to do as a layman is help, er, “reform” Catholic laity. Joe Catholic has a lot of Biblical ignorance, knows next to nothing about Catholic theology, etc. Let me explain.

    I’m a grad student in philosophy and I very frequently have Catholic college freshman in the “Intro to Philosophy” classes that I teach. Sometimes I’ll ask them basic questions about theology or Catholic philosophy when they stop by my office hours and >90% of the time they know pretty much nothing about their faith – and these are kids that went to 13 years of Catholic elementary, middle, and high schools. Yet they don’t know that the Eucharist is the substance of Christ, they’ve never heard of Aquinas’ 5 Ways (his 5 proofs for God’s existence), they think gay marriage is okay, etc. From where I sit, most of these freshmen don’t know enough Aristotle to even begin to comprehend Catholic ethics (natural law) or Catholic theology (transubstantiation). So at least for my part, I’d like to do something about that. I really think an educated Catholic laity in America could do great good.

    Anyways, not sure if that’s what you had in mind or not by way of “reform”, but I see great need not for “reform” of doctrines so much as “reform” of practice. Specifically, “practice” of the Catholic faith (and knowledge of the Catholic faith) among the laity. That’s where I’m helping out – you hop on the boat too and there’ll be some work for you to do too. But things don’t get fixed unless someone does the fixing. Such is life. :)

    Sincerely,
    ~Benjamin

11. Vincent November 29th, 2012 7:52 pm :

    Hello everyone my name is Vincent and I am new here to ctc. I have been visiting this website for the past year or so and found it very informative. I hope to dialogue with the experts here about issues relating to catholic doctrine in order to gain new insight and I am always willing to learn more. I found this article very interesting and a good rebuttal to Protestant objections.

12. Joey Henry November 29th, 2012 10:52 pm :

    Unity In Catholic Theology

    While Dr. Cross’ essay promotes his theory of unity, it is not the only theological viewpoint within Catholic Theology. It seems that the essay promotes the idea that the Church of Christ is united only when one joins the Roman Catholic Church. All other ecclesial communities and churches can not be included in the Church of Christ. The theory therefore necessarily does not see all other communities as being part of the Church of Christ and therefore does not recognize that the Church exists in multiplicity of communities but rather in the heirarchical allegiance to the Roman Catholic institution alone. This has been the traditional perspective due to several writings from the past such as Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis stating that the “Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.” Thus, for Dr. Cross, the protestant communities with valid sacramental baptism and other non catholic churches being not part of the Roman Catholic Church heirarchically are divided among themselves.

    This viewpoint however is not shared by all catholic theologians. With Vatican II and Lumen Gentium in particular, the view of unity developed. LG now states that “the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Curch”. Catholic theologians now sees the church of christ as broader than Roman Catholic Church. For example, Cardinal Dulles wrote, “The Church of Chirst is of Chirst is not exclusively identical to the Roman Catholic Church. It does indeed subsists in Roman Catholicism but is it also present in varying degrees in other Christian communities to the extent that they too are what God initiatiated in Jesus and are obedient to the inspiration of Christ’s spirit” (Vatican II, The Works that Need to be Done). Cardinal Ratzinger, now pope, explains the word “subsists” instead of the word “is” as deliberately chosen by the council fathers to mean that “the being iof the Church as such is broader than the Roman Catholic Church”. (L’Osservaotore Romano, October 8, 2000). A further clarification was made by Cardinal Ratzinger in his book Theological Highlights of Vatican II, p 73:

    The recognition of churches within the church implies two lines of change:

    (a) The Catholic Church ihas to recognize that his own church is not yet prepared to accept the phenomenom of multiplicity in unity; he must orient himself toward this reality. He must also recognize the need for a thorough Catholic revolution something not to be accomplished within a day. This requires a process of opening up, which takes time. Meantime, the Catholic Church has no right to absorb the other churches. The church has not yet prepared for them a place of their own, but this they are legitimately entitled to.
    (b) A basic unity – of churches that remain churches, yet become one church – must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivated to seek it.

    —————————-

    With this perspective held by authorities of the Catholic Church challenges the secatrianism view espoused by some with the antidote that the church is broader and the theological definition of unity has developed within the church writings.

13. Bryan Cross November 30th, 2012 9:33 am :

    Joey, (re: #12)

    You are proposing a basic “hermeneutic of rupture” with regard to Vatican II. But the Magisterium of the Church, especially under Pope Benedict XVI has repeatedly and explicitly condemned the hermeneutic of rupture, and taught instead the “hermeneutic of continuity.” Pope Benedict XVI did this his first year as pope (see here, for example). In 2000 under Pope John Paul II, the Church clarified how the ecclesiology of Vatican II was to be understood, in sections 16-17 of Dominus Iesus. In 2007 the Church made this still clearer in its Responses To Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church, and the commentary accompanying that document. With that in view, it is clear that what I have said in my article is fully compatible with the statements you cite from Cardinal Dulles and then Cardinal Ratzinger. The problem arises only when reading those statements while wearing “hermeneutic of rupture” glasses.

    UPDATE: The prefect of the CDF just recently [Nov. 2012] stated that those who see the Second Vatican Council as a “rupture” espouse a “heretical interpretation” of the Council and its aims. He added that “the hermeneutic of reform, of renewal in continuity” is the “only possible interpretation according to the principles of Catholic theology.” Thomas Joseph White also addresses this in his article “The Tridentine Genius of Vatican II.”

    And Pope Francis has also recently affirmed the hermeneutic of continuity. (See also here and here.)

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

14. Burton November 30th, 2012 1:24 pm :

    Bryan,

    You stated:

    Nor within Protestantism can there be any authoritative or definitive delineation of what belongs to the essentials and what belongs to the non-essentials. No one person’s determination of what belongs to the essentials and what does not, is authoritative over all other Protestants. Without a magisterium what belongs to the essentials and what does not, therefore is ultimately a matter of private judgment for each Protestant.

    I recently read a two part article by Norman Geisler (originally written for Christian Research Journal) on this very topic. He contends that the essentials (what I’ve heard others refer to as the “conceptual core”) can be identified by both historical and logical means. I was not entirely convinced by his principled means for distinguishing essential from nonessential, but I’m not sure the Protestant position is quite as bleak as your above statement suggests. Most Protestants stand on an historical foundation that includes what Geisler refers to as “one Bible, two testaments, three confessions, four councils, five centuries”. In other words, within a few centuries basic Christological and anthropological doctrines crucial to salvation theology were laid down and agreed upon, and they are still agreed upon. As I survey the doctrinal landscape that is my own family, I see a variety of denominational commitments (Anglican, Baptist, Reformed) but a core agreement that we all share the same faith and are saved by the same Lord Jesus Christ. I know that this lacks the rigorous logical principled means that has drawn many at this site to embrace Roman Catholicism (hope I am not being too presumptuous there), but I’m not sure that at the practical level it can be discounted as merely each individual deciding for themselves what is essential and what isn’t. Is it not possible that the Holy Spirit has, in fact, held the Church together over the centuries by an adherence to a basic set of core beliefs, even if the Spirit’s means of doing so cannot be defined by logically and philosophically airtight rational principles? The “facts-on-the-ground” agreement about core doctrines shared by so many Protestants of various stripes seems to corroborate this idea. As my other comments on other threads have suggested, I have long been entertaining the claims of the RCC because of my own sense that Sola Scriptura does not allow for doctrinal unity, and that doctrinal unity is an essential mark of the true Church. I am simply wondering out loud if perhaps there is a type of doctrinal unity present in Protestantism that falls outside of the definitions and means I have been seeking and that you are proposing.

    Burton

15. Vincent November 30th, 2012 2:10 pm :

    Hey Bryan I just want to let you know to keep up the good work. I am just wondering can you somewhere down the line make a post about the formal cause of justification according to Trent and Aquinas. I think it would make an interesting topic.
    Blessings

16. Refprot November 30th, 2012 3:22 pm :

    Thanks for the response, everyone.

    Bryan, RE #13,

    I’m still trying to figure this all out…. what authority does Dominus Iesus have? It is a really interesting read but I’m not sure what status it holds in the Church. I notice that John Paul II undersigned it and the current pope authored it, but what is the status of the document? Is this merely an interpretation of the churches teaching or official dogma?

17. John Thayer Jensen November 30th, 2012 6:21 pm :

    Burton (#14)

    Most Protestants stand on an historical foundation that includes what Geisler refers to as “one Bible, two testaments, three confessions, four councils, five centuries”.

    Woooh! My Reformed pastor and elders would certainly not want that ‘five centuries’ bit! The Church certainly was completely off the rails, pace them, by Constantine (which does, indeed, make the fact that they would – with major limitations – accept Ephesus – minus the terrible ‘Mother of God’ business, of course! – and Chalcedon – a little odd).

    The problem with talking about ‘most Protestants’ or ‘most Christians’ is, it seems to me, circularity. Indeed, I think the vast majority of my Baptist friends would not accept any of these accept the first two: “one Bible, two testaments.” Many, perhaps most, are anti-confessional, uninterested in councils except as historical facts (but not as something to be ‘accepted’), and certainly do not think the Church was what it ought to be for the first five centuries. Indeed, few of them have much interest in any church history until the Reformation.

    The problem is the same as the problem with the Vincentian canon: to suggest that:

    …the Holy Spirit has, in fact, held the Church together over the centuries by an adherence to a basic set of core beliefs…

    must, I think, assume that you already know what ‘the Church’ is. Have the Mormons been ‘held together’ by these core beliefs? If not, then they must not be part of ‘the Church’ – and so forth.

    In other words, it seems to me that this approach amounts to defining ‘the Church’ as ‘those who adhere to these beliefs.’

    But I don’t see how one decides in advance that just these are the right core beliefs.

    FWIW, it seems to me that one needs to go the other way around. The Church is those who held to the authority of the Apostles – and their successors. That, at least, seems to me what those first five centuries held. They defined ‘the Church’ not by core beliefs but by adherence to the Body – and that Body was visible.

    If, as I think Augustine somewhere says about the various groups in his day, a man came along looking for the Catholic Church – he would know where to go. If Augustine came along today looking for the Catholic Church, I doubt, once he had been informed of the sociological and organisational situation, that he would have any trouble identifying it.

    jj

18. Joey Henry November 30th, 2012 9:07 pm :

    Dr. Cross,

    Thanks for your response. I expected that you will bring up the recent document “Response To Some Questions” and Dominus Iesus. Note that I’ve used the term “developed” rather than “change” in viewing the perspectives laid down in Lumen Gentium and the spirit of Vatican II. This is to avoid the hermenuetics of discontinuity and rupture in interpreting these documents. I believe that since cardinal newman the concept of development has been the standard of most thelogians in interpreting church documents.

    The two documents you’ve mentioned does not clarify who belongs to the Church of Chirst (i.e. who are members or joined to the church). It indeed clarifies the fulness of the roman church possessing all the attributes of of what it means to be a church, but nevertheless phrase the documents in such a way that other communities are part of the church of christ though defective. Again Cardinal Ratzinge, now Pope, explains:

    “When the council fathers replaced the word “is” wth the word “subsistis” (subsists), they do so for a very precise reason. The oncept exprressed by “is” (to be) is far broader than that expressed by “to subsists”. “To subsist” is a very precise way of being, that is, to be as a subje t, which exists in itself. Thus the council fathers meant to say that the being of the church as such is a broader entity than the roman catjolic church, but within the latter acquires, in an incomparable way, the charcter of a true and proper subject.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Italian Edition, October 8, 2000, p.4)

    “The first schema of 1962 still clung to the traditional scholastic formula which saw membership in the Church as dependent on the joint presence of three prerequisites: baptism, profession of the same faith and acceptance of the hierarchy headed by the Pope, (That’s Saint Robert Bellarmine’s precise definition, Ed.). Only those who met these requirements could be called members of the Church. Obviously, this was a very narrow formulation… the result was that the notion of ‘member of the Church’ could be applied only to Catholics. With such an answer to the question of Church membership, it became very difficult to describe the Christian dignity of the non-Catholic Christian… Accordingly, modifications were made in the text submitted in 1963 to the Council Fathers.” (Theological Highlights of Vatican II, p. 65-66)

    Yves Congar’s, an expert lf Vatican II documents, interpretation is telling:

    “The problem remains if Lumen Gentium strictly and exclusively identifies the Mystical Body of Christ with the Catholic Church, as did Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. Can we not call it into doubt when we observe that not only is the attribute “Roman” missing, but also that one avoids saying that only Catholics are members of the Mystical Body. Thus they are telling us (in Gaudium et Spes) that the Church of Christ and of the Apostles subsistit in, is found in the Catholic Church.There is consequently no strict identification, that is exclusive, between the Church of Christ and the “Roman” Church. Vatican II admits, fundamentally, that non-Catholic christians are members of the Mystical Body and not merely ordered to it.” (‘ Le Concile de Vatican II, p. 160)

    Of course the idea laid out in Mystici Corporis not giving legitamcy to Orthodoxy and heretics as having any pary of the church catholic must be interpreted in light of the new developments laid out in newer church documents. Thus, in conclusion, the ecclesiology developed in the last decade showed that. the church., as roman catholic defines it, even if it exists partially ior defectively in some churches and communities is not to be interpreted as an assault against the unity of the church. Lumen Gentium said, “The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but ‘in that it hinders the complete fulfillment of her universality in history.”

    I’m reminded again of Cardinal Ratzinger’s, now Pope, interpretation of these documents which to espouse a different concept of unity:

    “… the recognition of a plurality of Churches within the Church implies two lines of change:
    (a) The Catholic has to recognize that his own Church is not yet prepared to accept the phenomenon of multiplicity in unity; he must orient himself toward this reality. He must also recognize the need for a thorough Catholic renewal (translation: revolution, Ed.), something not to be accomplished in a day. This requires a process of opening up, which takes time. Meantime, the Catholic Church has no right to absorbthe other Churches. The Church has not yet prepared for them a place of their own, but this they are legitimately entitled to.
    (b) A basic unity – of churches that remain Churches, yet become one Church – must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivated to seek it.”

    Regards,
    Joey

19. Brent December 1st, 2012 7:45 am :

    Burton,

    The “facts-on-the-ground” agreement about core doctrines shared by so many Protestants of various stripes seems to corroborate this idea.

    I think you should do some more focus grouping or census work (I’m being in jest of course). The truth of the claim might appear to be the case, at first blush, in some of the creeds or over coffee. “Jesus saves” is a large banner, one that even a new age follower might be able to groove with (and us Catholics would count as unified with Protestants too on this theme). However, what Jesus demands of us is quite different. “Getting wet” might not be on the list of essentials — it wasn’t in my Pentecostal camp, and I would argue rather forcefully, against Geisler et. al, that baptismal and Eucharistic theology loom large in Scriptural theology, and any claim that says most Christians agree as to the fundamentals of those doctrines — such a claim can be dismissed summarily. If “get wet” and “eat” count as unity on doctrine, then we might as well all just put a WJJD bracelet on our wrists and stop there.

    I’m not sympathetic to this claim because I’ve lived in many different theological communities and could experience and see the obvious theological differences that portended, directly, a disturbing theological relativism — one in which I was uncomfortable raising my children given the current tide in society at large. .

20. David Anders December 1st, 2012 9:05 am :

    Hi Burton,

    A few questions regarding your “conceptual core,” the two testaments, three confessions, four councils, and five centuries.

    1) Do you exclude from your “confessional core” those uniquely Protestant doctrines that are not reflected in these sources? In particular, sola fide and sola Scriptura? Clearlrly, these doctrines are not reflected in the first five centuries, or those creeds and councils. On the Contrary, the Christology of Athanasius, Nicaea, and Chalcedon presupposes a very different soteriology, and view of the relationship of Scripture to tradition. Would you then affirm that sola fide is a mere theological opinion, and not part of the deposit of faith?

    (On this topic, please see the article https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/03/tradition-i-and-sola-fide-2/)

    2) How do you know that this criterion (2 testaments, four councils, five centuries, etc.) possesses divine authority? Did Christ give us this as our Rule of Faith? Or, does it possess only human authority? Authority only insofar as it agrees with my interpretation of the faith?

    3) On a related note, why not two councils instead of four (so as to let the Nestorians and monophysites back in)? or 7 Councils, so as to include Nicaea II? or 20 Councils? You settle on 4 either because you think these possess some intrinsic authority, or because they merely agree with your interpretation of Scripture. If you think it is some intrinsic authority, what is that authority? From where it is derived, and how is it recognized? If they don’t have some intrinsic authority, then they have only as much authority as they agree with your interpretation of the faith – in which case, we are back to private judgment as the ultimate rule.

    Thanks for posting,

    David

21. Michael Liccione December 1st, 2012 2:03 pm :

    Joey Henry (#18):

    In your first paragraph, you wrote:

    Note that I’ve used the term “developed” rather than “change” in viewing the perspectives laid down in Lumen Gentium and the spirit of Vatican II. This is to avoid the hermenuetics of discontinuity and rupture in interpreting these documents.

    I was pleased by that. But then, in your last paragraph, you quoted then-Cardinal Ratzinger (without attribution) thus:

    “… the recognition of a plurality of Churches within the Church implies two lines of change:

    (a) The Catholic has to recognize that his own Church is not yet prepared to accept the phenomenon of multiplicity in unity; he must orient himself toward this reality. He must also recognize the need for a thorough Catholic renewal (translation: revolution, Ed.), something not to be accomplished in a day. This requires a process of opening up, which takes time. Meantime, the Catholic Church has no right to absorb the other Churches. The Church has not yet prepared for them a place of their own, but this they are legitimately entitled to.

    (b) A basic unity – of churches that remain Churches, yet become one Church – must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivated to seek it.”

    With your interpolation of that little word ‘revolution’, you’re implying that Ratzinger was embracing, precisely, an ecclesiological hermeneutic of rupture. In conjunction with your first paragraph, then, you’re implying that you’re more of a hermeneut of continuity than Ratzinger himself! But that gets it all wrong.

    The Catholic attitude Ratzinger was criticizing in (a) was the once-common presumption that churches not in full communion with Rome belong in no sense to “the Church” and are thus “outside” that church outside of which there is no salvation. That attitude needed to change, and has been changing. As Rome now affirms, the Orthodox churches are “true, particular churches” which are in imperfect communion with “the Church.” Thus, Orthodox believers need not as a rule “convert” to Catholicism; they have the deposit of faith, apostolic succession, and valid sacraments; what’s desirable, rather, is that full communion between the Roman and Orthodox communions as a whole be restored. Moreover, just by virtue of baptism, any Christian is in some degree of communion with “the Church,” however imperfect such communion may be, even though Protestant churches as such are not true churches. But it does not thereby follow that the unity of the “one,” holy, catholic, and apostolic Church is or would be manifest in a multiplicity of churches not in full communion with Rome. In fact, the opposite is the case.

    When Lumen Gentium said that the Church of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic Church (the Roman communion), it did not imply that said church also subsists elsewhere. In scholastic terminology, with which many of the Fathers of Vatican II were familiar, to say that some X “subsists” means that X exists as an inherently unitary whole, not just as a part of something else, and certainly not as a mere agglomeration of parts. According to Vatican II, then, it is in the Catholic Church that the Church of Christ exists as an inherently unitary whole. That’s what Dominus Iesus, and this 2007 CDF document, affirm. It does not thereby follow, however, that all other churches, in conjunction with the Catholic Church, manifest the unity of the one subsistent Church. It is the Catholic Church, and she alone, which manifests such unity; to the extent that others remain only in imperfect communion with her, they do not manifest such unity, even though “elements of truth and holiness” exist in them to varying degrees, and derive those qualities from her.

    What, then, of (b)? Since the two Orthodox communions–the “Eastern” Orthodox and the “Oriental” Orthodox–contain true, particular churches, they belong properly to the one, subsistent Church–i.e., the Catholic Church–which is thus wounded by their lack of full communion with her. But that does not mean that the one Church of Christ “subsists” in them; nor does it mean that the subsistence of the one Church is destroyed by the aforesaid lack. On the Catholic understanding, the Church of Christ continues to subsist in the Roman communion alone, even though not all the parts belonging properly to her are fully integrated, because they are not in full communion.

    What Ratzinger called for in (a) and (b), then, is not a “revolution” in or rupture with the Church’s previous self-understanding, but rather a development of our understanding of how the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church is related to Christians not in full communion with her, and vice-versa. It is precisely that development which radical traditionalists and progressives in the Catholic Church don’t get or accept. Both groups believe that Vatican II contradicted the dogma of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But the Council did no such thing. Nor does Ratzinger believe it did.

    Best,
    Mike

22. Bryan Cross December 1st, 2012 3:45 pm :

    Burton, (re: #14)

    Thanks for your comment. I wrote a reply last night, but the internet gremlins deleted it, and I was too tired to retype it. So here’s the second attempt, which agrees with and adds to what John, Brent, and David have said above.

    You wrote:

    I recently read a two part article by Norman Geisler (originally written for Christian Research Journal) on this very topic. He contends that the essentials (what I’ve heard others refer to as the “conceptual core”) can be identified by both historical and logical means.

    Would you provide a link to the article, if it is available online? Or at least the title of the article and where and when it was published? That might be helpful.

    I was not entirely convinced by his principled means for distinguishing essential from nonessential, but I’m not sure the Protestant position is quite as bleak as your above statement suggests.

    I agree that those Christians traditions that have separated from the Catholic Church have tended to preserve much of the Catholic tradition, and of course I’m thankful for that. It provides some common ground from which to work mutually toward reconciliation and reunion. There is a ‘Catholic inertia’ in these traditions, by which the Catholic tradition can continue long after the separation. Yet because of their separation from the Church, that inertia wears down over time, at different rates depending on the historical and cultural circumstances and on what has already been lost. (The more that is lost, the more quickly what remains is lost, all other things being equal.) That can be seen in the history of Protestantism, in the evolution of Evangelicalism in the twentieth century, and in its current collapse. See the article Michael Spencer (aka “IMonk”) published the year before he died, titled “The Coming Evangelical Collapse.” See also my “A Reflection on PCA Pastor Terry Johnson’s “Our Collapsing Ecclesiology”.” Or read Viola and Barna’s Pagan Christianity, which embraces ecclesial deism in all its implications.

    You wrote:

    Most Protestants stand on an historical foundation that includes what Geisler refers to as “one Bible, two testaments, three confessions, four councils, five centuries”. In other words, within a few centuries basic Christological and anthropological doctrines crucial to salvation theology were laid down and agreed upon, and they are still agreed upon. As I survey the doctrinal landscape that is my own family, I see a variety of denominational commitments (Anglican, Baptist, Reformed) but a core agreement that we all share the same faith and are saved by the same Lord Jesus Christ.

    Again, I agree with you that there is much common ground. But I think you are implicitly doing three things here. First, you are overlooking the points of disagreement; second, you are arbitrarily excluding those who disagree with you; and third you are arbitrarily picking what is and isn’t to belong to the ‘rule of faith.’ Mark Galli did this too. See especially the section titled “Confidence and the Consensus Criterion” in my reply to Galli, and in the combox discussion following that post. Even limiting ourselves to the confessions, you are excluding all the liberal Protestant groups that deny the virgin birth taught by the Nicene and Apostles’ creeds, and that deny the punishment of “everlasting fire” for the damned as taught by the Athanasian Creed. What about the Protestants (conservative in other respects) who deny that Mary is the “Mother of God,” as taught by the fourth council? What about those Protestants (conservative in other respects) who deny that Christ is “eternally begotten of the Father” [natum ante ómnia sæcula], persons such as Mark Driscoll and Robert Reymond? Which of the bishops who crafted the Creed would have endorsed the social trinitarianism espoused by Cornelius Plantinga, the president of Calvin College, and other Protestants who now prefer social trinitarianism to that ‘philosophical stuff’ “imported” from the Greeks into the creeds? Neither social trinitarianism nor the denial of “eternally begotten” are compatible with the Trinitarian theology laid out in the Athanasian Creed. What is driving a lot of this Protestant confusion about the Trinity is the notion that three Persons requires three wills, and that notion was denied by the sixth council (see comment #2 in the social trinitarianism thread).

    You also overlook the difference between the Calvinist notion of the Apostles’ Creed’s “he descended into hell” and the Catholic understanding of that article. For the Calvinist position, see Taylor’s post “Calvin’s Worst Heresy: That Christ Suffered in Hell; for the Catholic understanding of that line of the Apostles’ Creed, see “The Harrowing of Hell,” and the corresponding section of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. In addition, for Catholics, the line “the communion of saints” in the Apostles’ Creed includes the notion of an exchange of spiritual goods (see CCC 955 and the corresponding section in the Catechism of the Council of Trent.) But for Protestants generally, this article does not include that meaning.

    You say “one Bible,” but you are aware that Catholics and Protestants do not agree regarding what books belong to the canon of Scripture. You say “three confessions,” but does Geisler believe in “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” as that article of faith was believed by the Church Fathers? I would be very surprised if he did. The PCA doesn’t. Geisler might confess the words “one, holy, catholic and apostolic,” but which Church Father believed that “one” here meant only an invisible, spiritual unity, and thus treated schisms as branches, and reduced schism to heresy? And which Church Father believed that “apostolic” meant only ‘having the Apostles’ doctrine’ and not also having ordination in a line of unbroken succession from the Apostles? You say “five centuries” but where in the first five centuries do we find in the Church anything but a Catholic (and Orthodox) conception of apostolic succession?

    Perhaps in your mind these are only minor points of disagreement, but that’s just the point I was making in the line you refer to in my article above, that a Protestant can claim “this is the list of essentials” only by glossing these differences, arbitrarily picking what is essential according to his own interpretation of Scripture, and arbitrarily picking the persons among whom there is this alleged consensus (as explained in the reply to Galli).

    In addition, it implicitly presupposes that agreement needs to be only for the most part, and that disagreement about a few things thought to be essential isn’t really a problem. But, from a Catholic point of view, the whole of the deposit hangs together. To reject one article of faith is, in that way, to reject the whole faith, even if by inertia profession of other articles continues. I’m not speaking here of culpability, invincible ignorance, or the possibility of salvation – I’m referring to the theological unity and interdependence of the deposit of faith. For example, here’s a paragraph from section 9 of Pope Leo XIII’s Satis Cognitum:

    The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a tertian portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

    The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodoret, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

    Here’s my point. There is no principled difference [again not regarding culpability, but regarding the denial of an article of faith] between the heresies Pope Leo XIII refers to here, and the examples I cited above of denying in some way or other one or more articles of the faith.

    You wrote:

    I know that this lacks the rigorous logical principled means that has drawn many at this site to embrace Roman Catholicism (hope I am not being too presumptuous there), but I’m not sure that at the practical level it can be discounted as merely each individual deciding for themselves what is essential and what isn’t.

    That statement does not make sense to me. If there is no principled means, then how can the individual but decide arbitrarily? Even if the Holy Spirit had preserved all the essentials in a set of persons including but larger than the Catholic Church, how would an individual go about determining in a non-arbitrary way what are all those essentials and distinguish them from what is not essential?

    Is it not possible that the Holy Spirit has, in fact, held the Church together over the centuries by an adherence to a basic set of core beliefs, even if the Spirit’s means of doing so cannot be defined by logically and philosophically airtight rational principles?

    Ok, I think I might understand what you were saying in your previous sentence. You are suggesting that even though from our human point of view there is no principled way of distinguishing between the essentials and the non-essentials, nevertheless the Holy Spirit could have (and did) preserve within the Church the confession of the essentials. Of course you know that I believe that the Holy Spirit has preserved within the Church the confession of the essentials. But at this point we are talking past each other, because even though we are using the same term (i.e. ‘Church’), we don’t have the same referent in mind. When I say ‘Church,’ I’m referring to the Catholic Church, but you are (I think) using the term ‘Church’ to refer to a set of persons that is broader than the Catholic Church. So, in order to determine whether your claim is true, we need to know what exactly is the referent of the term ‘Church’ as you are using it. And if you reply, “All those who hold the essentials,” then what you are claiming when you say that the Church adheres to the essentials is “All those who hold the essentials hold the essentials.” And that would be an unhelpful tautology. And if by “essentials” you mean the three creeds (Nicene, Apostles’, and Athanasian), then by claiming that the Church adheres to the essentials what you are really saying is “all those who affirm those three confessions affirm those three confessions.” And you can see that that’s an unhelpful tautology. It initially seems like it is claiming something substantive, but when you tease out the meaning of the concepts, you see that it is saying something like x=x. This was the problem I was trying to point out with Mark Galli’s position.

    If this doesn’t answer your question, or if I have misunderstood you, please follow up. I always appreciate your objections and challenges, because they are sincere and offered in the genuine pursuit of truth and agreement.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Feast of St. Campion

23. Bryan Cross December 1st, 2012 5:03 pm :

    Vincent (re: #15)

    Such a post is in the queue, in the “Aquinas and Trent” series (see the Index tab above). But it will be some time before I get to it.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

24. Bryan Cross December 1st, 2012 5:15 pm :

    RefProt (re: #16)

    Dominus Iesus belongs to the authentic Magisterium of the Church, to which Catholics are obliged to give religious submission of will and intellect. In my post above, it falls under (c) in the paragraph preceded by the words “Disagreements of faith” in bold font. The document contains dogmas, but its purpose is not to define any particular dogma.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

25. Burton December 2nd, 2012 6:06 pm :

    Bryan, David, Brent, JTJ:

    Thanks for your comments. I’ll respond more fully when I have time. The links to each of the two parts of the Geisler essay are here:

    https://www.equip.org/articles/the-essential-doctrines-of-the-christian-faith-part-one/

    https://www.equip.org/articles/the-essential-doctrines-of-the-christian-faith-part-two/

    Burton

26. Brent December 2nd, 2012 7:59 pm :

    Burton,

    For time’s sake, feel free to just respond to the others. I think my review of Christian Smith’s book, The Bible Made Impossible, covers my criticism pretty well. If you want to critique that article, feel free, otherwise just ignore me.

    Peace brother!

27. Joey Henry December 9th, 2012 11:43 am :

    Mike,

    I have already explained that I am not using the hehermeneutic of discontinuity or rupture. If you want to use other words than “revolution” as translation then that is ok. What I want to point out idoes not depend on that word. I have gone through this topic to raise a question on Dr. Cross’ definition of unity as a unity of doctrine, cult and authority.

    Do the newer Church documents discuss who are the members of the Church of Christ? I would say they do. It recognizes that the orthodox churches are legitimate churches and that there is a popular view among catholic theologians that their conversion is unnecessary. If so, what is the force of Dr. Cross’ definition if the developments espoused by these church documents failed to meet Dr. Cross’ standards? The orthodox church recognized by Roman Catholicism as true Churches of Christ therefore members are not one with them in doctrine, cults and authority. If there are legitimate churches outside the roman catholic confines which differs in heirarchical authority, differs in some theological doctrines and rituals and yet considered true churches, then by Dr. Cross’ definition of unity, his church paradigm failed the test.

    Regards,
    Joey

28. Michael Liccione December 10th, 2012 12:45 am :

    Joey:

    One minor and one major point of correction.

    1. Bryan does not yet have his PhD, though I expect he will in a matter of months if not sooner. I’ve had mine for 25 years. Since I don’t sign myself ‘Dr’ or advertise that status, I don’t expect people to call me that unless they want to. But if you want to call Bryan or anybody else “Dr,” you need to know who has the doctorate and who doesn’t!

    2. Bryan is well aware that the Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox churches as “true, particular churches.” Indeed he is well aware of the ecclesiology I presented in my previous comment, and subscribes to it. I’m sure he does not see his “standards” of unity as incompatible with it. I sure don’t. Why not?

    The standards he invokes are those to be met by “the” Church of Christ. That church subsists in the Catholic Church; what that means, I explained in my previous comment. The Catholic Church certainly does have unity of doctrine and authority; as to “cult,” the basic structure of the liturgy is the same in all of the 20-odd sui juris churches that make up the Catholic Church. Such liturgical unity does of course admit of local variations and development within that same invariant structure. So the unity is a unity-in-diversity, which does not violate the standard of unity of “cult.” Orthodox liturgies are legitimate and valid by the same standards; indeed, the Eastern Catholic churches follow liturgical traditions virtually identical with those of the Orthodox. The schism between the Roman and the Orthodox communions is about primarily about authority, and secondarily about a few doctrines; it is not about liturgy at all.

    Best,
    Mike

29. Joey Henry December 10th, 2012 2:14 am :

    Dr. Liccione,

    Thank you for your correction regarding who are “Drs” in this blog.

    I think your response does not address the question I was raising. Mr. Cross’ theory of unity revolves on these three factors: authority, doctrine and cults. The problem is that, the Magisterium (which you and Bryan subscribed) recognizes other “legitimate churches” outside it’s confines and therefore view them as “true, particular churches” (using your phraseology). Yet, these “legitimate churches” are not one with Roman Catholicism in doctrine (I don’t believe that there is a minor difference between your dogmas versus Orthodoxy), rituals and cults, and heirarchical authority. Therefore, if the ecclesiology espoused by these modern documents be tested against Mr. Cross’ theory of unity, then the presence of these “legitimate true churches” (outside Roman Catholicism; not needing conversion yet distinct in all three factors of unity from Roman Catholicism) disqualifies the ecclessiological paradigm espoused by these newer documents.

    Regards,
    Joey

30. Michael Liccione December 10th, 2012 9:11 am :

    Joey:

    It isn’t just Bryan and I, but also the Catholic hierarchy as a whole, who fail to see the incompatibility you do. That should give you pause. I submit that you have misunderstood Catholic ecclesiology on the points in question.

    In #21, I explained how, despite the existence of churches not in full communion with her, the Church of Christ exists in the Catholic Church as “an inherently unitary whole.” The old way of saying that was: “The Catholic Church is the Church.” That at least is something people thought they understood. But in Lumen Gentium, Vatican II put the truth more precisely, if not as simply:

    This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”. This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

    So, while the Church of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic Church, those “elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure” are “gifts belonging to the Church of Christ” and, as such, are “forces impelling toward catholic unity.” The Church of Christ thus exists as an inherently unitary whole in the Catholic Church, satisfying the criteria of unity Bryan set forth; the Orthodox churches “belong to” that one, subsistent Church of Christ, and ought to believe and act in a manner consistent with that reality; but they do not so believe and act, and are thus not in full communion with her. They are, as it were, partially detached parts of the Church, and that reality does wound the Church; but it does not destroy the subsistence of the Church of Christ in the Catholic Church, which remains as an inherently unitary whole. The Church is thus like a human being who’s missing a kidney and a limb: wounded, but still subsisting as an inherently unitary person.

    Many people miss that point because they believe that, in order for there to be “one” universal Church, all the baptized have to agree on what that church is and act accordingly. But given human freedom and human sin, that has never been the case and never will be. The inherently unitary whole that is the Church has nevertheless always existed and always will exist, and is one in the sense Bryan intended.

    Best,
    Mike

31. Joey Henry December 10th, 2012 11:20 am :

    Dr. Liccione,

    I will leave to the readers whether you have successfully defended the view of Mr. Cross on his theory of unity. I believe you don’t speak for the catholic hierarchy therefore any claim that the catholic hierarchy teaches only Mr. Cross’ theory of unity is highly suspect. There are many post Vatican II theologians who see things differently than the demand Mr. Cross upholds in order to define unity. The argument fallssimply because the church paradigm that the newer church documents embrace can not maintain anymore, by virtue of it’s recognition that there are legitimate true churches outside her confines, that the church of christ as a whole is united in doctrine, authority and cults. Note that, several prominent theologians denies the necessity of conversion among the adherents of these other true churches therefore it places all the more the theory of Mr. Cross in a difficult position.

    Regards,
    Joey

32. Michael Liccione December 10th, 2012 11:18 pm :

    Joey (#31):

    You write:

    I believe you don’t speak for the catholic hierarchy therefore any claim that the catholic hierarchy teaches only Mr. Cross’ theory of unity is highly suspect.

    Although I did not claim that “the Catholic hierarchy teaches only Mr. Cross’ theory of unity,” Bryan’s “theory” is in fact no different in substance from what the Magisterium of the Catholic Church does teach. The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes that teaching as follows, in §815:

    But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion: profession of one faith received from the Apostles; common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments; apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God’s family.

    As you can see, Bryan did not just make his theory up out of whole cloth. It expresses the authoritative teaching of the Church, as is appropriate for a Catholic theologian in this case.

    You wrote:

    There are many post Vatican II theologians who see things differently than the demand Mr. Cross upholds in order to define unity.

    In his post, Bryan already explained why the phenomenon of “dissent”–whether on the part of theologians or others–does not invalidate the teaching of the Magisterium about the unity of the Church. Your remark does not show what’s wrong with his argument.

    You wrote:

    The argument falls simply because the church paradigm that the newer church documents embrace can not maintain anymore, by virtue of it’s recognition that there are legitimate true churches outside her confines, that the church of christ as a whole is united in doctrine, authority and cults.

    With that remark, you’re just rejecting the argument I’ve given to the contrary, without doing a thing to show what’s wrong with my argument.

    …several prominent theologians denies [sic] the necessity of conversion among the adherents of these other true churches therefore it places all the more the theory of Mr. Cross in a difficult position.

    The Pope himself does not think it necessary for Orthodox believers as individuals to become Catholics. Neither do I. But it simply does not follow that the Church is not one. All that follows is that the best way to heal the wound of the Catholic-Orthodox schism is for full communion to be restored between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches, precisely as churches. That’s what the Pope is working for, and everybody who writes articles for this site approves of that.

    Best,
    Mike

33. Constantino December 12th, 2012 4:21 am :

    Dear all,

    There is no truth to the claim that the Catholic Church is divided. To put it simply, there is no such faction as:
    – Fundamental Catholic Church with its own pope
    – Evangelical Catholic Church with its own pope
    – Pentecostal Catholic Church with its own pope
    – Full Gospel Catholic Church with its own pope
    – Reformed Catholic Church with its own pope

    Dissenters among the Catholics do not found their own Church. They remain under the Roof of St. Peter’s Basilica (so to speak) and receive the sacraments of the Church like children who dissent their father and disobey him but continue to reside, sleep, sit and eat at the same table, and mingle with his brothers and sisters in the same house of their father. Of course there are children who leave their father’s house because of their dissent or disobedience. There are Catholics who leave the Church because of dissent. These are those who become Protestants.

    Constantino

34. Joey Henry December 17th, 2012 5:11 am :

    Dr. Liccione,

    I thought I implicitly answered your argument already. Your argument mainly (correct me if I am wrong) states that although there are dissenters and true churches that differs in doctrine, heirarcy and cults with the Roman Catholic Church (but are still part of the church of christ), it still makes sense to talk about unity as Mr. Cross defines it because the Roman Catholic Church (having unique substitence of the nature of the church) teaches one doctrine, has one heirarchy, and one cult.

    But the claim to “unique/sole subsistence” begs the question as the “dissenters” (in the RC perspective) and other true churches, which are still part of the “church of Christ” in Roman Catholic ecclesiology, can claim the same “unique/sole subsistence”, or can say that “substitence” of the nature of the church resides in all true churches taken as a whole, or they believe in a completely different meaning of what it means to be a part of the church of christ. In addition, what authority does the Pope have to resolve doctrinal differences over these true churches outside the confines of Rome in which his infallible authority is denied? The answer to this is obviously, nothing.

    Thus, “unique/sole subsistence” claim is not workable. It can not unite the churches in one doctrinal stance nor resolve conflicts in doctrinal disagreement among true churches; it can not unite the churches in one heirarcy nor compel each other to submit to each other’s authority among true churches; and it can not unite the churches in one cult nor resolve conflicts or differences in cult among true churches. In point of fact, this claim to “unique/sole subsistence” seems to be the ultimate reason of disunity rather than unity among true churches.

    Regards,
    Joey

35. Michael Liccione December 19th, 2012 4:03 pm :

    Joey (#34):

    The objection you’re raising now seems to me rather different from the one I’ve been answering. The one I’ve been answering is that the the Catholic Church does not fulfill her own criteria of unity for the one Church of Christ. Of course, the Catholic Church claims to be, and to have always been, the one church Christ founded. You had objected that the Church of Christ is not one in the sense Bryan had explicated, because there are true churches not in full communion with the Catholic Church. I believe I’ve demonstrated that the Catholic Church fulfills in herself the criteria of unity that she herself acknowledges for the existence of the one church Christ founded. Schism from that one, universal church is possible even for true, particular churches such as the Orthodox churches, and is a fact compatible with the Catholic Church’s claim for herself. For the fact of schism leaves the Church of Christ subsisting as an inherently unitary whole in the Catholic Church. Such was my answer.

    Now you’re objecting that my answer begs the question, because other churches do not acknowledge the Catholic Church’s claim to be the one, subsisting Church of Christ, and the Catholic Church cannot make them do so, thus reconciling them to her. But that is not an objection to what I wrote, for I was not endeavoring to demonstrate that the Catholic doctrine is true and that the several doctrines of other churches about the unity of something called “the Church” are false. All I showed is that Catholic ecclesiological doctrine is self-consistent, and that the criteria of unity set forth by said doctrine are fulfilled by the Catholic Church herself. The mere fact that other churches disagree with the Catholic doctrine is not a rebuttal of that doctrine, any more than my argument so far is a proof of that doctrine.

    Furthermore, it seems to me that you’re relying on a question-begging assumption yourself. You seem to assume that, unless all true churches are in full communion with each other, we cannot say that the Church of Christ is one. But that is simply to substitute your own criterion of unity for those set forth by the Catholic Church. Behind that substitution, I suspect, lies a confusion of the concepts of authority and power.

    If the Catholic Church is what she says she is, then she teaches and subsists with the authority of Christ, as well as being one by the criteria set forth with the authority given her. But that is fully compatible with the refusal of some particular churches and ecclesial communities to acknowledge that authority and that unity. The fact that the Catholic Church lacks the power to compel them to acknowledge her authority and unity does not derogate from that authority and unity. If her authority is legitimate to begin with, rebellion against it does not deprive it of its legitimacy, or destroy the unity of those who acknowledge it.

    Best,
    Mike

36. Jeff December 19th, 2012 4:21 pm :

    I look forward to studying this article and posts carefully. I am in a protestant church but have come to a catholic understanding of my faith, and I have recently been asking myself some of the same questions about the Catholic church and unity.

    Searching,
    Jeff

37. Joey Henry December 20th, 2012 3:07 am :

    Dr. Liccione,

    You said:

    All I showed is that Catholic ecclesiological doctrine is self-consistent, and that the criteria of unity set forth by said doctrine are fulfilled by the Catholic Church herself. The mere fact that other churches disagree with the Catholic doctrine is not a rebuttal of that doctrine, any more than my argument so far is a proof of that doctrine.

    It is also my aim to point out that the self-consistency of the theory of unity that Dr. Cross proposes is quesitonable given that newer church documents acknowledge that there are true churches outside the Roman Catholic Church with different sets of doctrine, cult and hierarchy which members are not subject to conversion and upon which papal authority has no power to effect or impose unity of doctrine, cult and authority among these churches. The claim for “sole/unique subsistence” does not cure this defect but rather relay the inconsistency. Note that one of the dogmatic proclamations made by Boniface in Unam Sanctam is this:

    And so, the one and only Church is one body, one head, (not two heads like a monster), Christ certainly, and the vicar of Christ, [who is ] Peter and the successor of Peter. For the Lord said to Peter himself, “Feed my sheep.” [John 21:17] He said “my” generally, not solely of these or of those. By this, it is understood that all [universas] were committed to him. Therefore, if either the Greeks or others declare themselves not to be committed to Peter and his successors, they necessarily admit themselves not to be among the sheep of Christ, just as the Lord says in John, “there is one sheepfold, and only one shepherd.” [John 10:16]

    The argument of unity proposed in this document for oneness is the church members to be in submission to the Roman Pontiff to effect one doctrine and cult in the body of Christ. Those who do not do so are not part of the sheep of Christ. Apparently, the existence of true churches which are indeed part of the church of Christ who are not in submission to Papal Authority as revealed in newer church documents puts the claim for “sole/unique subsistence” to define “unity” in the church of Christ as inconsistent.

    Regards,
    Joey

38. Aaron Goodrich December 20th, 2012 9:14 am :

    Jeff, not sure if you have posted here before but if not Welcome! Thank you for your honesty in admitting where you are in your “searching.” I’m sure you know if you’ve spent any time around here at all that there are a ton of people who would love to discuss any questions or concerns you may have (myself included). My wife and I (and our 2 little ones) came into full communion with the Church just this past Easter from a Reformed church and I spent my childhood and teen years mostly in pentecostal and charismatic congregations. Please feel free to reach out to me privately if you’d like…

    aaron.m.goodrich@gmail.com

    Shalom,
    Aaron Goodrich

39. Bryan Cross December 20th, 2012 10:18 am :

    Joey, (re: #37)

    You wrote:

    It is also my aim to point out that the self-consistency of the theory of unity that Dr. Cross proposes is questionable given that newer church documents acknowledge that there are true churches outside the Roman Catholic Church with different sets of doctrine, cult and hierarchy which members are not subject to conversion and upon which papal authority has no power to effect or impose unity of doctrine, cult and authority among these churches. The claim for “sole/unique subsistence” does not cure this defect but rather relay the inconsistency.

    As for the term ‘questionable,’ I address that in comment #79 of Taylor’s “John Calvin’s Worst Heresy” post. The fact that there are particular Churches not in full communion with the universal Church is fully compatible with everything I wrote in the post above.

    Regarding the statement from Unam Sanctum, I have addressed that objection in comment #15 and comment #20 of Jeremy’s “Graduating Catholic From a Reformed Seminary” post.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

40. Michael Liccione December 20th, 2012 10:59 am :

    Joey (#37):

    In addition to what Bryan just said, I note that your objection to the Catholic ecclesiology of Vatican II and subsequent magisterial documents is essentially the same as that of traditionalist-Catholic groups. The attendant ironies abound, but since noting those wouldn’t contribute much to the substance of the dispute, I shall leave it to you to discern them. Substantively, the replies Bryan and I give you are essentially the same as those of the Vatican itself to said groups, especially the SSPX. Appreciating those replies requires making and understanding another distinction that the critics, including you, fail to make and understand.

    Before I get to that, however, I shall take your latest on its own terms. Thus you write:

    It is also my aim to point out that the self-consistency of the theory of unity that Dr. Cross proposes is quesitonable [sic] given that newer church documents acknowledge that there are true churches outside the Roman Catholic Church with different sets of doctrine, cult and hierarchy which members are not subject to conversion and upon which papal authority has no power to effect or impose unity of doctrine, cult and authority among these churches. The claim for “sole/unique subsistence” does not cure this defect but rather relay the inconsistency.

    The “true churches” you refer to are the Orthodox churches. About them, CCC §838 says:

    Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

    Other magisterial documents, some of which were authored by Joseph Ratzinger himself, make clear that the “little” which is lacking is acceptance of the Catholic doctrine of papal primacy. Aside from that, there is unity of doctrine, cult, and hierarchy. Why? Well, the Orthodox hierarchy enjoys apostolic succession, just like the Catholic, and the forms of liturgy or “cult” celebrated by the Orthodox churches are also celebrated by the Eastern-Catholic churches. That has always been the case, and the Catholic Church has always acknowledged that it’s the case. What’s more, almost all the doctrinal issues between the Roman and Orthodox communions are about whether certain Catholic distinctives are binding developments of doctrine, as distinct from acceptable theological opinions–issues that would be instantly resolved if the Orthodox accepted the Catholic doctrine of papal primacy. In the meantime, the Orthodox have the true Gospel and the sacraments, which are salvific for those Orthodox, i.e. the majority, who are not culpable for failing to be in full communion with Rome. That is why they need not convert, but instead should join the Catholic Church in working for reconciliation. Thus the Orthodox churches are indeed “subject to the Roman Pontiff,” as Unam Sanctam says; the challenge is simply to get them to see that. That they don’t believe it to be so does not mean that it isn’t so.

    Doubtless you’ll want to reply that the differences are greater than the Catholic Magisterium says, but that is beside the point. You have returned to pressing the objection that Catholic ecclesiology is internally inconsistent by virtue of recognizing the Orthodox churches as true, particular churches, which in fact the Church has always done. But that objection fails to note the distinction between the indefectible unity of the Church Christ founded and what’s done to that unity by the refusal of some churches to observe all its conditions. The former is not destroyed by the latter, but merely wounded by it. Thus the ongoing fact of the unity of the Church is not fully manifest historically, and rarely has been, because there have always been schisms–and for the last millennium, the East-West schism has largely persisted. But the fact that some parts of the Body of Christ, the Church, are semi-detached does not destroy that body as an organic, inherently unitary body.

    Again, that does not show that Catholic ecclesiology is true, only that it is self-consistent. Hence it does not beg the question. What does beg the question is your insistence that the failure of the unity of the Church to be fully manifest entails that the Catholic doctrine of the Church’s unity is inconsistent. Your position entails that the mere fact of schism between true churches destroys the subsistent reality and unity of the Church Christ founded. But that begs the question simply by substituting your theological criterion of unity for that of the Catholic Church.

    Best,
    Mike

41. Joey Henry December 21st, 2012 7:55 am :

    Dr. Liccione,

    In addition to what Bryan just said, I note that your objection to the Catholic ecclesiology of Vatican II and subsequent magisterial documents is essentially the same as that of traditionalist-Catholic groups.

    I believe the argument stands even without associating my argument with any particular group.

    Substantively, the replies Bryan and I give you are essentially the same as those of the Vatican itself to said groups, especially the SSPX.

    I’ve read the church documents you referred to. The responses you made are interpretations of those documents, not necessarily the substance of those documents. As you well know, there are many readers both layman and educated who read the same documents and see things differently than you do especially on the theory of unity you propose.

    Appreciating those replies requires making and understanding another distinction that the critics, including you, fail to make and understand.

    I leave it to the readers if this is true. Have you made an argument for concluding this? I don’t believe so.

    The “true churches” you refer to are the Orthodox churches. About them, CCC §838 says:

    I’ve read CCC 383 and this does not refer to the Orthodox churches alone. The full text thus reads:

    “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

    The question on the theory of unity that you propose is further put into question with this statement from the Catechism. If the validly baptized (which most Protestant and Orthodox Churches have in the perspective of RC theology) is joined to the Church and have certain (note the word “certain”) communion with the Church, how then can Dr. Cross and you argue against the disunity of Protestant communities when point of fact you recognize them as part of the Church? You are shooting at your own Church using this very definition. In other words, if you can criticize those you consider as members for disunity then in point of fact you are accusing your own “Church” of the same charge because these communities, by virtue of valid baptism, are legitimately part of the “Church”.

    Other magisterial documents, some of which were authored by Joseph Ratzinger himself, make clear that the “little” which is lacking is acceptance of the Catholic doctrine of papal primacy. Aside from that, there is unity of doctrine, cult, and hierarchy. Why? Well, the Orthodox hierarchy enjoys apostolic succession, just like the Catholic, and the forms of liturgy or “cult” celebrated by the Orthodox churches are also celebrated by the Eastern-Catholic churches.

    I hope I could believe you on this. But the actual data show otherwise. I will not cite all the evidences in this post but from original sin to the most treasured dogmas of Rome regarding the Eucharist, the Mariology of Rome, the cultus of Icons to the mode of salvation and authority issues… there are major differences. It is a blind leap of faith to believe your claim here. Perhaps, you share with them in the belief of “apostolic succession” and acceptance of “tradition” but has this provided for the ground of unity? No. Even the very concepts of “succession” and “tradition” differs between RC and Orthodox perspective. If Sola Scriptura is criticized for the accusation of seeming disunity, then by the same standard, those who look to “apostolic succession” and “tradition” failed also.

    What’s more, almost all the doctrinal issues between the Roman and Orthodox communions are about whether certain Catholic distinctives are binding developments of doctrine, as distinct from acceptable theological opinions–issues that would be instantly resolved if the Orthodox accepted the Catholic doctrine of papal primacy.

    But the RC Church dogmatize and anathemize those who do not accept the dogmas. The argument does not carry any weight here to those who are familiar with the church documents which explicitly condemns those who hold contrary opinions to the dogmas of Rome is anathema! This is not an issue of mere theological opinions as opinions is not acceptable when dogma has been defined. As you implicitly note, papal primacy can not resolve this issue as the Orthodox Church does not accept that claim and in her view of “tradition” and “succession” successfully views such claim as heresy.

    In the meantime, the Orthodox have the true Gospel and the sacraments, which are salvific for those Orthodox, i.e. the majority, who are not culpable for failing to be in full communion with Rome. That is why they need not convert, but instead should join the Catholic Church in working for reconciliation.

    The audience of this thread can read Unam Sanctum. Then they can read the post vatican II documents. I’ll let them read the data at hand and let them decide how is it that prior to the vatican II, there is no question that those not in submission to the Pope have no recourse to salvation. The Orthodox denial is not a matter of ignorance because they know about the claim and yet they reject the claim. They reject the Vicar of Christ on earth and his claim. And yet, now, they are members of the Church not needing conversation and rightly called “true particular churches”. Therefore, I’ll let the readers decide whether this has been answered adequately.

    Thus the Orthodox churches are indeed “subject to the Roman Pontiff,” as Unam Sanctam says; the challenge is simply to get them to see that. That they don’t believe it to be so does not mean that it isn’t so.

    I am not sure how this argument works. Do you mean to say there are churches that are unaware that they are “subject to the Roman Pontiff” even while consciously they deny to be “subject to the Roman Pontiff”? I am sorry but this claim will not convince anyone.

    Your position entails that the mere fact of schism between true churches destroys the subsistent reality and unity of the Church Christ founded. But that begs the question simply by substituting your theological criterion of unity for that of the Catholic Church.

    The readers can decide.

    Regards,
    Joey

42. Bryan Cross December 21st, 2012 4:39 pm :

    Joey (re: #41)

    You wrote:

    If the validly baptized (which most Protestant and Orthodox Churches have in the perspective of RC theology) is joined to the Church and have certain (note the word “certain”) communion with the Church, how then can Dr. Cross and you argue against the disunity of Protestant communities when point of fact you recognize them as part of the Church?

    (Please just call me ‘Bryan.’) You seem to be assuming that if a Protestant or Orthodox believer is in a certain imperfect communion with the Catholic Church, that is somehow incompatible with something I said in the article above. But it is not incompatible with anything I said in the article above. (If you disagree, please point to exactly what in my article is incompatible with that truth, and show why it is incompatible.) Just as dissenters within the Church do not detract from her unity (for the reasons I explained in the article), so likewise [and a fortiori] Orthodox and Protestants visibly outside the Church (yet possessing this imperfect communion with her) do not detract from her unity. I have addressed the question of this imperfect communion retained by Protestants and Orthodox with the Catholic Church in more detail in “Baptism, Schism, Full Communion, Salvation.”

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

43. Eric December 22nd, 2012 7:48 am :

    Bryan,

    Which group of disagreements includes 1 Corinthians 1:10-12 ? Of faith, not of faith, or both ?

    Thanks,
    Eric

44. Bryan Cross December 24th, 2012 3:13 pm :

    Eric, (re: #43)

    The disagreement between the Corinthian believers was about their relation to particular apostles, on account of those apostles’ authority and/or their having baptized the believer or having preached the gospel first to the believer. The Corinthians had begun to boast about these relations, and on this basis favor some Corinthian Christians over others, and this was causing dissensions among them. So your question, more precisely worded, is “Which kind of disagreement (of faith, or not of faith) was the disagreement described in 1 Corinthians 1:10-12?” In order to answer that question, we would have to know what the Corinthian believers had already been taught, prior to receiving St. Paul’s letter of 1 Corinthians. If they had already been taught that Christ is the baptizer, and that there is no more grace or virtue received in baptism by one apostle over another, and that the identity of the one by whom one receives the gospel and is baptized is no justification for showing favoritism or forming schisms, then this was a disagreement of faith, and those causing the schisms were dissenters by rejecting in practice this prior apostolic teaching. If however, they had not already been taught these things, then at that point, until receiving St. Paul’s instruction in his first letter to the Corinthians, it was for them still an open theological question, and thus a disagreement not of faith.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

45. Eric December 27th, 2012 1:56 am :

    Bryan (re: #44),

    Thanks for the response. I wanted to know your thoughts on this because VII focuses on the Corinthians as an example of small rifts within the early church. It seems to me that Christ the baptizer was a teaching prior to the letter, but the other issues were not.

    I want to address the possible Protestant objection.

    You wrote:
    There are a number of problems with this response. First, it overlooks the relevant difference between persons
    and texts, as I have explained elsewhere. Because of that difference, the unity of faith possessed by the Catholic Church is an actual unity maintained in the present by a living Magisterium, whereas the unity of faith referred to by this Protestant response is only a potential unity, because Scripture has to be interpreted, and within Protestantism there is no living magisterium to resolve the plethora of interpretive disagreements. The unity of Scripture as uninterpreted does not constitute a unity of the Apostolic deposit interpreted. The former is a potential unity that could in actuality lead to many contrary faiths, and in fact has done so. In the Catholic case, by contrast, the unity of faith is located in the interpretation through the authoritative organ of interpretation, not just in the text of Scripture. For that reason, the unity of faith at the level of interpretation is not compatible with many contrary faiths, and is thus not comparable with the potential unity of faith contained in Scripture alone as uninterpreted.

    Response:
    The Protestant cannot exist in a state of pure potential unity. It must be admitted that he shares in the unity Christ founded, otherwise, Scripture’s presence outside the visible confines could not impel towards Catholic unity. Protestants are actually united to Christ through the highest truths in the hierarchy of truths, and potentially united to the Catholic Church governed by the Pope. John 17 is a text containing a reference to those who will believe through the Apostles. I have believed through the Apostles, therefore, the text refers to me (among others). What is problematic is how I know this in a state of fragmentation outside the visible bonds you listed. If Scripture outside the Catholic Church has produce many contrary faiths, and scripture is an element impelling towards unity, then what is the difference ? I would say the Holy Spirit. The Scripture and the Holy Spirit together is the source of Protestant unity and VII supports it.

    Thanks,
    Eric

46. Bryan Cross December 27th, 2012 10:39 am :

    Eric, (re: #45)

    You wrote:

    The Protestant cannot exist in a state of pure potential unity. It must be admitted that he shares in the unity Christ founded, otherwise, Scripture’s presence outside the visible confines could not impel towards Catholic unity. Protestants are actually united to Christ through the highest truths in the hierarchy of truths, and potentially united to the Catholic Church governed by the Pope.

    I agree with you, but I think you may have misunderstood me. By “potential unity” I am referring here to the potential unity of faith among Protestants, i.e. the potential unity among all Protestants concerning the interpretation of Scripture. I’m not referring to the imperfect communion Protestants have to the Catholic Church through their baptism.

    John 17 is a text containing a reference to those who will believe through the Apostles. I have believed through the Apostles, therefore, the text refers to me (among others). What is problematic is how I know this in a state of fragmentation outside the visible bonds you listed.

    You assert that your knowing that John 17 refers also to you is problematic, but you do not explain why or how it is problematic, and presently I do not see how it is problematic.

    If Scripture outside the Catholic Church has produce many contrary faiths, and scripture is an element impelling towards unity, then what is the difference?

    Here are the relevant statements:

    This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity. (Lumen Gentium 8)

    Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ. (Unitatis Redintegratio, 3)

    Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.” (CCC, 819)

    It would be a mistake to claim that Vatican II’s teaching that Scripture, as one of the elements of sanctification and truth than can be found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church, is a force impelling toward Catholic unity, is an embrace of the conception of perspicuity underlying sola scriptura. In teaching that Scripture is a force “impelling toward catholic unity” the Second Vatican Council was not teaching a Protestant conception of the perspicuity of Scripture, as though the Magisterium is unnecessary, and that Scripture alone is sufficient to govern the Church and determine all questions of orthodoxy, heresy, schism, etc. That would be both heretical and self-contradictory. Rather, in these passages from the Second Vatican Council the Magisterium was teaching that what can be known of Christ through Scripture alone impels us to find the Church Christ founded, and to seek out the means He established by which His prayer in John 17 is answered, by which we are to be in full communion with all those who in sincerity seek union with Christ. This is often why Protestants become Catholic, not because Catholic teaching matches up with their own interpretation of Scripture, but because Scripture impels us to seek out this Church Christ founded almost two thousand years ago, to search for precisely that divinely instituted means by which all these interpretive disagreements and divisions-based-on-intepretive-disagreements can be overcome. The fact that Scripture impels us toward catholic unity does not imply or entail that Scripture is perspicuous in the sense presupposed by sola scriptura.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

47. Eric December 29th, 2012 9:31 am :

    Bryan (re:#46),

    Sorry for any confusion. I understand that “potential unity” was in the context of showing a disparity between unity claims. The other ecumenical themes from VII were presented as a backdrop for discussing interpretive unity.

    Your response to the Interlocutor successfully prevented the parity:
    The unity of Scripture as uninterpreted does not constitute a unity of the Apostolic deposit interpreted.

    Whenever the Magisterium interprets and transmits Revelation or the word of God, it always does it through Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition, as a living transmission, continues and preserves the gospel in Apostolic succession. So, the act of interpreting is participation in the same power and authority the Apostles had for interpreting. Apostolic interpretation constituted the full deposit entrusted to the Church.

    However, the parity can be revived when the deposit is considered as interpretation prior to church-magisterial interpretation. The deposit functions as revelation interpreted for a principle of unity. How ? The principle serves as an exemplar for any derivative interpretation. At this point, the Magisterium plays a passive-receptive role that is parallel to the Protestant. It places Magisterial and Protestant interpretations on a level field. This applies to text and person, unless you can show me how it does not.

    In my opinion, your view makes Protestant interpretation lead to a state of pure potential doctrinal unity. Truths from catholic doctrine may be found in this state, but never in a way that avoids contradiction. This reduces those truths to opinions on the part of the Protestant. Faith did not find them. Scriptures cannot impel (a teleological drive) towards Catholic unity for the Protestant because he would need the ability to segregate those truths from falsehoods and contradictions. A successful segregation reduces the power of your argument. I think this forces an admission that Protestants share in the interpretive unity founded by Christ. If the Protestant possess the highest truths of the hierarchy, and knows it through Scriptural interpretation, then you may need to rethink what ability Protestants have, i.e., gifts and powers of the Holy Spirit.

    You wrote:
    You assert that your knowing that John 17 refers also to you is problematic, but you do not explain why or how it is problematic, and presently I do not see how it is problematic.

    Response:
    Your argument for fragmentation together with Scripture impelling causes a problem. Bi-directional is my best description. John 17 directs me toward Catholic unity, but the same non-perspicuous John 17 directs toward fragmentation.

    You wrote:
    It would be a mistake….

    Response:
    VII did not endorse the Protestant position. It painstakingly searched out commonalities to build on. If Protestant interpretations, which are subject to fragmentation, can know anything of Christ from Scripture alone, then you need to explain why fragmentation can co-exist with that knowledge. It seems that the lowest degree of supernatural faith is the highest degree of strong natural opinion. Did Catholic teaching unwittingly blur the faith-opinion distinction ?

    Eric

48. Bryan Cross December 29th, 2012 11:10 am :

    Eric, (re: #47)

    You wrote:

    However, the parity can be revived when the deposit is considered as interpretation prior to church-magisterial interpretation. The deposit functions as revelation interpreted for a principle of unity. How ? The principle serves as an exemplar for any derivative interpretation. At this point, the Magisterium plays a passive-receptive role that is parallel to the Protestant. It places Magisterial and Protestant interpretations on a level field. This applies to text and person, unless you can show me how it does not.

    If one conceives of the Bible as though prior to its being interpreted by any human person it is already interpreted by some human person, one could achieve in one’s mind the appearance of parity, as one could do if one conceived of the Magisterium as though it is a text. The problem with such conceptions is that they do not correspond to reality. Prior to its being interpreted by any human person, the Bible is not already interpreted by any human person. Moreover, the Magisterium does not start in a merely passive receptive role. The Magisterium received the deposit directly from the incarnate Christ, and then, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote the texts of the New Testament. (See “The Tradition and the Lexicon.”) In addition, the Magisterium is not only divinely authorized to explicate the deposit, but has also been given a divine charism in doing so (cf. St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.26.2)

    You wrote:

    In my opinion, your view makes Protestant interpretation lead to a state of pure potential doctrinal unity. Truths from catholic doctrine may be found in this state, but never in a way that avoids contradiction. This reduces those truths to opinions on the part of the Protestant. Faith did not find them. Scriptures cannot impel (a teleological drive) towards Catholic unity for the Protestant because he would need the ability to segregate those truths from falsehoods and contradictions. A successful segregation reduces the power of your argument. I think this forces an admission that Protestants share in the interpretive unity founded by Christ. If the Protestant possess the highest truths of the hierarchy, and knows it through Scriptural interpretation, then you may need to rethink what ability Protestants have, i.e., gifts and powers of the Holy Spirit.

    This is the not-so-uncommon strawman of the Catholic conception of perspicuity. It is not the case, from the Catholic point of view, that when any plain person picks up the Bible, it must remain entirely for him a black box. A denial of the Protestant notion of perspicuity does not entail a black box conception of the perspicuity of Scripture. If Scripture were a black box outside the Catholic Church, Scripture could not impel toward Catholic unity. Nor is it the case that the Protestant must be able accurately (and independently of the Magisterium) to distinguish between all his true interpretations and his false interpretations, in order for what he finds in Scripture to compel toward Catholic unity. One does not, for example, need to be able to determine with certainty that one’s interpretation of Romans 2 is false (or true), in order to know that Christ founded a Church or that Jesus prayed that all His followers would be one. From the fact that Protestants can rightly determine some things in Scripture, it does not follow either that the Protestant conception of perspicuity is true, or that Scripture does not compel toward Catholic unity in the way I described in comment #46.

    VII did not endorse the Protestant position. It painstakingly searched out commonalities to build on. If Protestant interpretations, which are subject to fragmentation, can know anything of Christ from Scripture alone, then you need to explain why fragmentation can co-exist with that knowledge. It seems that the lowest degree of supernatural faith is the highest degree of strong natural opinion. Did Catholic teaching unwittingly blur the faith-opinion distinction ?

    Again, you construct a strawman of the Catholic conception of perspicuity. Fragmentation can “co-exist” with what Protestants do know rightly from Scripture because (1) not all Protestants agree concerning what some Protestants rightly know from Scripture and (2) the fact of interpretive disagreements on matters that divide Protestants is fully compatible with their agreeing about other things that are not the source of those fragmentations. For example, the disagreement between Baptists and Pentecostals concerning spiritual gifts is fully compatible with agreement concerning the deity of Christ and the resurrection of the body. And so on.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

49. Eric December 31st, 2012 3:32 pm :

    Bryan (re:#48)

    You wrote:
    If one conceives of the Bible….

    Response:
    A Papal document proposing revelation is the written interpretation of the Pope interpreting. The principle author is the Holy Spirit interpreting. That document, along with both interpreters, serves as a principle of doctrinal unity for Catholics. Do you think that this document, with the Holy Spirit alone, would not unify during a papal interregnum ? The visibly absent Christ, Apostle, or Vicar of Christ is the same thing.

    (1) Christ the Son, appointed by the Father, is a material revealed truth interpreted by the Holy Spirit in Apostolic written tradition. This amounts to the Son’s appointment being interpreted, the Bible as interpretation, and the Holy Spirit as interpreter.

    (2) Timothy, appointed by Paul, is a material revealed truth interpreted by the Holy Spirit in the Apostolic written tradition. This amounts to Timothy’s appointment being interpreted, the Bible as interpretation, and the Holy Spirit as interpreter.

    The parity remains because (1) and (2) are prior to church-magisterial interpretation. Both of these are principles of doctrinal unity to be believed and obeyed by the Protestant and Catholic. The argument limiting “person” to human person shows prejudice against the role of the invisible Holy Spirit.

    You wrote:
    This is the not-so-uncommon strawman of the Catholic conception of perspicuity….

    Response:
    The order of faith proposes for belief certain truths known by reason and experience. If it did not, then catholic faith would be defenseless against the charge of irrationality. You contrast a didactic (Romans 2) example with a factual one (Christ founded a Church). So, determining the truth or falsehood of each example would be accomplished by slightly different methods. Only faith, directed by authority, can know which Christ or which Church. Scripture impels Protestants toward Catholic unity because Catholic teaching includes truths known through reason and experience. If it is faith in the Protestant beyond reason and experience, then a problem with previous Church teaching is exposed:

    ….Besides this, in connection with things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction. For this reason it is that all who are truly Christ’s believe, for example, the Conception of the Mother of God without stain of original sin with the same faith as they believe the mystery of the August Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Lord just as they do the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, according to the sense in which it was defined by the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. Are these truths not equally certain, or not equally to be believed, because the Church has solemnly sanctioned and defined them, some in one age and some in another, even in those times immediately before our own? Has not God revealed them all? For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented matter is brought in, nor is anything new added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained in the deposit of Revelation, divinely handed down to the Church: only those which are made clear which perhaps may still seem obscure to some, or that which some have previously called into question is declared to be of faith. – Pope Pius XI, On Religious Unity

    …. all who are truly Christ’s believe…. John 17 cannot refer to me if Pius is right.

    Thanks,
    Eric

50. Bryan Cross January 1st, 2013 10:17 pm :

    Eric, (re: #49)

    You wrote:

    A Papal document proposing revelation is the written interpretation of the Pope interpreting. The principle author is the Holy Spirit interpreting.

    No papal document “proposes revelation.” Revelation ended with Christ (cf. CCC 65-65). Nor is any papal document inspired by the Holy Spirit. Only Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

    Regarding the quotation from Pope Pius XI, he is referring there to those not in a condition of invincible ignorance. So it does not follow from what Pope Pius XI says there that John 17 cannot refer also to Protestants. He is not teaching that only those persons who assent to all Catholic dogmas have the virtue of faith. Otherwise there would be no difference between formal heresy and material heresy. See the discussion following “St. Thomas Aquinas on the Relation of Faith to the Church.”

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

51. Eric January 3rd, 2013 5:31 am :

    Bryan (re:#50),

    I am providing some magisterial statements below to justify “proposed revelation” and “the Holy Spirit” interpreting”. As a Protestant trying to understand the “other”, I have learned to distinguish between revelation / proposing divinely revealed truths and inspiration / divine assistance. Please reconsider my interregnum example knowing I intended catholic teaching with my words.

    At the very least, any written directives of a living Pope pertaining to the election of a new Pope would unify Catholics during the interregnum. A satisfactory response to my example will answer the Protestant and the Sedevacantist.

    Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.
    – Vatican I, On Faith

    But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.
    – Dei Verbum, Handing on Divine Revelation

    For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
    – Vatican I, On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff

    You wrote:
    Regarding the quotation from Pope Pius XI, he is referring there to those not in a condition of invincible ignorance…..

    There is a kind of tender mercy in invincible ignorance and formal / material distinctions. Anyone who concentrates solely on species, habits, objects and ends will eventually exclude many catholics and protestants from communion. The will, being so much closer to the passions and irrational nature, struggles in a way different from the intellect. I do agree that Pope Pius XI was not referring to those in a condition of invisible ignorance.

    Invincible ignorance renders Papal authority arbitrary. Man does not have a clear authoritative revelation of God in the penetralia of conscience, or through surrounding facts, or even inspired prophets. All revelation is committed to the Church for interpretation and transmission. This too is arbitrary. The conditions preventing a certain knowledge of revelation outside the Church are the same for those in your visibile Church. The soul is blunted and imprisoned by the body. Invincible ignorance and heresy distinctions are designed to sweeten and dilute the painful truth that God’s authoritative Word is silenced the moment it enters our condition. Can we expect anything else when the principle of individuation is irrational ?

    Thanks,
    Eric

52. Michael Liccione January 3rd, 2013 9:39 am :

    Eric:

    I was struck by a sentence you wrote just above:

    Invincible ignorance and heresy distinctions are designed to sweeten and dilute the painful truth that God’s authoritative Word is silenced the moment it enters our condition.

    Now in the most basic sense, “God’s authoritative Word” is the Person of Jesus Christ. That Person is God the Son incarnate, “the Word made flesh.” He decisively entered “our condition” as a baby and shared it even to the extent of of suffering and dying for us. All that and more is central to divine revelation. Although your prose often leaves me mystified, the above-quoted sentence suggests that you don’t believe divine revelation, as orthodox Christianity understands it, can be successfully communicated to us who did not directly experience the Christ-event.

    That is not a difficulty for us. It is a difficulty for you. Pray from the heart.

    Best,
    Mike

53. Bryan Cross January 3rd, 2013 10:38 am :

    Eric, (re: #51)

    The statements you cite from the first and second Vatican Councils concern the authority of the magisterium to determine the content of divine revelation, and the obligation of the faithful to receive this. If when you said “proposing revelation” you had these statements in mind, then I misunderstood you.

    You wrote:

    Invincible ignorance renders Papal authority arbitrary.

    How so?

    Man does not have a clear authoritative revelation of God in the penetralia of conscience, or through surrounding facts, or even inspired prophets. All revelation is committed to the Church for interpretation and transmission. This too is arbitrary.

    How so? Merely asserting that something is arbitrary does not show how it is arbitrary, or demonstrate that it is arbitrary.

    The conditions preventing a certain knowledge of revelation outside the Church are the same for those in your visibile Church.

    Again, this is a mere assertion. You offer no evidence to substantiate this claim.

    The soul is blunted and imprisoned by the body.

    If you are describing your own position, ok. But the Catholic position is not one in which the soul is “blunted” or “imprisoned.” If you disagree, then you’ll need to make an argument showing this. Merely offering assertions is not helpful, nor does it relate to the topic of the article above.

    Invincible ignorance and heresy distinctions are designed to sweeten and dilute the painful truth that God’s authoritative Word is silenced the moment it enters our condition.

    Again, this is a mere assertion. What evidence do you have that these distinctions were “designed” to do this?

    Can we expect anything else when the principle of individuation is irrational ?

    What exactly do you mean by “the principle of individuation” and how do you think that the Catholic position entails that this principle is irrational?

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

54. Eric January 5th, 2013 7:19 pm :

    Bryan (re:# 53),

    I wish to take some blame for the misunderstanding because many Protestants do not take the time to absorb the finer points of catholic dogma and theology. This is not to say I excel. I was hoping to discuss any responses to my interregnum example.

    The last part of my comments were reactions to invincible ignorance as it is taught by the catholic church. My words were unguarded and assertions alone are weak.

    (1) Papal authority is arbitrary when it is exerted on someone who is able to ultimately resist grace in the face of God’s absolute authority. An interior cooperation with grace is a precondition of obedience to papal authority. Invincible ignorance and resistance to grace produce the same effect, i.e., a privation of grace that participates by hope in a supernatural end. Someone in this condition of “non-being” does not hide from God’s gaze; so, if the One who knows all truth and reveals certain truths witnesses the ignorance, then any other authority purporting to deliver revealed truth is rendered arbitrary. There is nothing necessary about Papal authority at this point. As an aside, I believe God’s operation of interior saving grace can precede the exterior offer of material revealed truths. This is on account of God’s authority and truth (as formal) being identical with the primary revealed truth (as material) in reality.

    (2) Church interpretation and transmission are rendered arbitrary for the same reasons as papal authority. To the invincibly ignorant, under God’s gaze, no revelation within or without can impress the will of God’s absolute authority.

    (3) The conditions preventing a certain knowledge of revelation outside the Church are the same for those in your visible Church. Who can mark the limits of invincible ignorance ? I know we are unable.

    (4) You wrote:
    If you are describing your own position, ok. But the Catholic position is not one in which the soul is “blunted” or “imprisoned.” If you disagree, then you’ll need to make an argument showing this. Merely offering assertions is not helpful, nor does it relate to the topic of the article above.

    Response:
    We have a different view of what is catholic teaching.

    Evidence: Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma #1647

    ….Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things ? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains “we shall see God as He is” [ 1John 3:2 ]….but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul….

    (5) I wish to withdraw the comment that includes “designed”. It is too laborious to defend here and it suggested something to Mike (#52) that I reject. Fruitful exchange is not served if I press it.

    (6) The conditions that make invincible ignorance possible are dependent on the principle of individuation. Matter is the principle. In itself, it has no existence or intelligibility. Things are difficult at the epistemic and metaphysical level. My use of “irrational” was ambiguous because I meant that matter is non-intelligible of itself.

    Thanks,
    Eric

55. Eric January 5th, 2013 7:24 pm :

    Hi Mike,

    You never asked me to demystify my words. I would do my best if asked. I do believe in clear natural and supernatural revelation.

    Thanks,
    Eric

56. Bryan Cross January 6th, 2013 12:29 am :

    Eric, (re: #54)

    You wrote:

    (1) Papal authority is arbitrary when it is exerted on someone who is able to ultimately resist grace in the face of God’s absolute authority.

    The ability of someone to resist papal authority and grace in the face of God’s absolute authority does not render papal authority arbitrary. Your conclusion (i.e. that papal authority is arbitrary) does not follow from your premise (i.e. that people can resist papal authority in the face of God’s absolute authority).

    if the One who knows all truth and reveals certain truths witnesses the ignorance, then any other authority purporting to deliver revealed truth is rendered arbitrary.

    Again, that is a non sequitur.

    There is nothing necessary about Papal authority at this point.

    Again, that is a non sequitur. The ability of criminals to break the law does not show that the law is not necessary. Likewise, the ability of persons to resist divinely established papal authority does not render such authority unnecessary.

    Your other claims about Church interpretation, transmission, etc. being “rendered arbitrary” make use of the same mistaken line of reasoning.

    In comment #51 you had written:

    The conditions preventing a certain knowledge of revelation outside the Church are the same for those in your visibile Church. The soul is blunted and imprisoned by the body.

    In comment #53 I replied, “If you are describing your own position, ok. But the Catholic position is not one in which the soul is “blunted” or “imprisoned.” If you disagree, then you’ll need to make an argument showing this. Merely offering assertions is not helpful, nor does it relate to the topic of the article above.”

    In comment #54 you replied by saying:

    We have a different view of what is catholic teaching. Evidence: Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma #1647: ….Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things ? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains “we shall see God as He is” [ 1John 3:2 ]….but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul….

    The statement of Pope Pius IX does not mean “blunts the soul” in an unqualified sense as you used it in comment #51 but rather with respect to the beatific vision and thus the hidden workings of God in the union of justice and mercy. Because of the present “bluntness of soul” by which we do not have the beatific vision, no man can “mark the limits” of invincible ignorance (i.e. determine who is, and who is not, in a condition of invincible ignorance).

    At this point, I think we’ve wandered quite far away from the topic of the article above, and so I’m going to table this particular discussion. A blessed feast of the Epiphany to you.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

57. Bryan Cross October 5th, 2013 3:05 pm :

    In the following video Doug Wilson answers the question “Is the Protestant Church Fragmented?”

    Ask Doug: Is the Protestant Church Fragmented? from Canon Wired on Vimeo.

    There are three things to note regarding what Doug says in this video. First, notice the title, “Is the Protestant Church fragmented?” In actuality there is no such thing as “the Protestant Church.” There are Protestants, of course, but there is not some one thing made up of all Protestants and only of Protestants, just as there is not some one thing made up of all the oranges grown in Florida. The notion that there is such a thing as “the Protestant Church” makes the mistake of reifying a mere idea (i.e. the set of all Protestants). That can be shown by observing that if in fact there were no such thing as “the Protestant Church,” but only the plurality of Protestant persons, nothing would be any different, just as nothing would be any different if there were no entity composed of (1) “the Protestant Church” and (2) all Protestants. (See “Why Protestantism has no “visible catholic Church.”“)

    Second, regarding the unity question, Doug attempts to depict an “apples to apples” parity between sixteen Catholic traditions denoted by David Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia, and Barrett’s list of twenty-one fundamental Protestant traditions. (See the breakdown here.) Doug’s answer side-steps the point in question (i.e. the unity question), however, because traditions are not necessarily divisions of communities into schisms. Diversity is not necessarily division. There can be multiple liturgical and local traditions maintained within communities while these communities all hold the very same faith, the same sacraments, and the same ecclesial government. For each of the sixteen Catholic traditions Barrett lists, either all the persons within that tradition are in full communion with the Catholic Church, or some of them are not. Doug specifically refers to Old Catholics, who separated from the Catholic Church after the First Vatican Council, and Sedevacantists, who separated from the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council. Groups of persons who share the Catholic faith and possess the same sacraments as the Catholic Church, but are not in communion with the bishop of Rome are not in full communion with the Catholic Church and are in [material] schism from the Catholic Church, as explained in CCC 2089. As explained in the post at the top of this page, persons and communities who do not hold the Catholic faith or are in schism from the Catholic Church are separated from the Catholic Church and thus are not cases of divisions within the Catholic Church (and thus a loss of her first mark), even if these separated persons practice a liturgical or local tradition that is also practiced by persons who are in full communion with the Catholic Church. The existence within the Catholic paradigm of a principled basis for distinguishing between heresy and orthodoxy, and between branches within and schisms from the Church allows unity as a mark of the Church to be both real and compatible with the existence of heretical and schismatic groups.

    By contrast, Protestantism cannot claim the same, because there is neither a Protestant Church to which all Protestants belong, nor a principled basis within Protestantism for distinguishing between orthodoxy and heresy, or between a schism from the Church and a branch within the Church. (See “Branches or Schisms?” and “We don’t need no magisterium: A reply to Christianity Today’s Mark Galli.”) So the existence of the sixteen traditions Doug mentions is not a successful tu quoque to the “Protestants are divided” objection, because within Catholicism there is a principled means of determining whether for each tradition the persons within that tradition are or are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, whereas there is no such principled means of determining the same regarding each Protestant community’s relation to “the Protestant Church.”

    Third, toward the end of minute 3 of the video, Doug says that it is fair to say that Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants are all “inhabiting the same basic world. There is not a radical distinction between them.” Then he says,

    Unless you pull out the trump card that all sectarians always pull out: “Well, our body is unified and its all you guys who are fragmented. I’m doing ok; the rest of the army is out of step.” If you do that, then, of course, a lonely sectarian Church of Christ can say “We’re it. We’re unified, and all you guys are fragmented.” But that’s to win the argument by definition. That’s the argument of the sectarian.

    What Doug has done here is attempt to “win the argument by definition,” by defining as ‘sectarian’ any claim to belong to the Church Christ founded, from which others are in schism. That’s not a neutral definition of ‘sectarian.’ That’s a question-begging, theologically loaded definition of ‘sectarian,’ because it presupposes either that Christ never founded a visible Church, or that if He did, she has lost her unity and divided into many fragments. To stipulate this definition of ‘sectarian’ is to presuppose that the one Church Christ founded no longer exists or no longer exists as one. If, however, the Church Christ founded still exists, and is still one, Doug’s definition would not allow him to discover this to be the case, because by his definition of ‘sectarian’ the truth would automatically be dismissed as ‘sectarian.’ So not only is his definition question-begging, it eliminates the opportunity of discovering a possible truth about the Church Christ founded, namely, that she is still one. I addressed this use of the term ‘sectarian’ in more detail in the last three paragraphs of “Ecclesial Unity and Outdoing Christ: A Dilemma for the Ecumenism of Non-Return.”

    Regarding Doug’s claim that Evangelicalism has more unity than Catholicism, because Evangelicals of all different streams show up at the same conferences, buy the same books, and listen to the same radio stations, my reply to that claim is the same I gave to Mark Galli, mentioned a few paragraphs above.

58. Bryan Cross October 29th, 2013 9:32 am :

    Scott Clark of Westminster Seminary, and Darryl Hart, of Hillsdale College, recently claimed that the Catholic Church is “a communion riven by the same kind of divisions that characterized the modernist-fundamentalist controversy.” This is another example of a Protestant tu quoque claim that the Catholic Church is just as divided as Protestantism, and that returning to the Catholic Church is therefore no solution to the framentation/disunity problem. However, disagreements of the sort referred to in the NCR article fall under the “not of faith” category explained in the post above, and are therefore fully compatible with possession and preservation of the three bonds of unity maintained in the Catholic Church: the unity of faith, the unity of the sacraments, and the unity of visible hierarchy. By contrast, as explained in the post above, and in my reply to Christianity Today‘s Mark Galli, Protestantism has no non-arbitrary unity of faith, unity of sacraments, and unity of visible hierarchy.

59. MikefromED April 1st, 2014 6:57 pm :

    I don’t know if this thread is now dead but if not, here’s a late comment as I only came across this today. As soon as I read the title I was reminded of a debate between Fr Mitch Pacwa and Kenneth Samples on Sola Scriptura. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsZhUgdqAxM) And then, lo and behold, the second comment refers to the same Kenneth Samples and his arguments that Catholics are just as divided as Protestants. Anyway, if you want to hear Mr Sample arguing that the Catholic Church is as divided as Protestantism you can hear him at 31.30 in the above You Tube video. Incidentally, in defence of Protestant divisions Mr Samples says that there were schisms in the Apostolic times. He appears not to understand the difference between schism and heresy.

60. JohnD November 25th, 2014 5:44 am :

    Bryan,

    I think you may have left out one sort of disagreement that I think would be considered “not of faith” but am not entirely sure. I learned that Catholics are bound to obey canon law regarding all disciplines, but that they are free to disagree with such disciplines or argue that they should be different. Is that the case? If so, where would that type of disagreement fall?

    For example, is a Catholic in line with Church teaching if he argues for a change in specific fasting guidelines or other aspects of discipline?

    Peace,
    John D.

61. Bryan Cross November 25th, 2014 9:37 am :

    JohnD ( re: #60)

    Yes, disagreements with canon laws as such are matters “not of faith.” We may rightly argue for a change in canon law, even as we abide by these laws. Canon law as such is neither de fide nor infallible.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

62. JohnD December 3rd, 2014 8:14 am :

    Bryan,

    I know it was not the purpose of your article, but in footnotes #15 and #17 you mention that you are setting aside the question of culpability. Do you address this issue elsewhere? If not, where could a person go to wrestle with issue of culpability for dissent/denial of Church teaching? Catechism? Other documents? I’m all ears.

    Peace,
    John D.

63. JohnD December 29th, 2014 6:30 pm :

    Bryan (re: Original article),

    This piggybacks off the question I asked in the previous comment. You said in footnote #11:

    The different degrees of certainty calling for different grades of assent should not be confused with the “hierarchy of truths,” as explained by Douglas Bushman in “Understanding the Hierarchy of Truths.”

    And then in footnote #17:

    Setting aside the question of culpability, the objective gravity of a Catholic’s deviation from the Catholic faith depends both on the relative importance of the rejected teaching in the “hierarchy of truths” and the three grades of assent, and on the proportion of the Catholic faith rejected.

    I read the article linked in footnote #11 and found it somewhat helpful in explaining the “hierarchy of truths”. However, it did not touch upon the subject of culpability of dissent and how this relates to the hierarchy of truths. I also could not find an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on this (or the Catechism), but perhaps I need to look more carefully? Where can I go to find more information on this?

    Peace,
    John D.

64. Bryan Cross January 2nd, 2015 2:32 pm :

    JohnD (re: #63)

    The culpability of dissent committed by culpable ignorance is not tied to the place in the hierarchy of truths of the truth from which the dissenter dissents. The higher the truth in the hierarchy of truths, the greater the objective error in rejecting that truth. Material heresy is objectively a greater error than denying authentic teaching of the Magisterium not taught by a definitive act but nevertheless requiring religious submission of will and intellect. But the degree of culpability for rejecting any truth by culpable ignorance is directly related to the sinfulness of the neglect of finding the truth and putting away ignorance. As Fr. Slater writes in A Manual of Moral Theology, “the degree of malice which attaches to a sin committed in more or less culpable ignorance is measured rather by the sinfulness of the neglect to put away the ignorance, than by the sinfulness of the act in itself.” Likewise, the degree of culpability for dissent by culpable ignorance from Church teaching is not dependent on the place of that teaching in the hierarchy of truths, but on the sinfulness of the neglect in putting away ignorance of what the Church teaches. The various types of culpable ignorance are reflected in canon law (cf. Can. 1325).

    As for the person who dissents with full knowledge and deliberate consent, and thus not by ignorance, the higher the doctrinal truth in the hierarchy of truths, and the higher the grade of assent called for by the Church to that doctrine, the more sinful the dissent from that doctrine, all other things being equal.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

65. Bryan Cross September 16th, 2015 7:54 am :

    Below is a video compiled from interviews at a recent conference at the University of Notre Dame on the topic of polarization in the Catholic Church, and very relevant to the post at the top of this page:

66. A Reply to R.C. Sproul Jr. on Catholicism | drbthomist July 18th, 2016 8:39 pm :

    […] Moreover, the Protestant objection that Catholics are disunified too commits the tu quoque fallacy. The defender of the Catholic Church makes the claim that Protestantism is theologically divided over essential theological issues. The Protestant cannot claim, on pains of committing the tu quoque fallacy, that Catholics are also theologically divided. In order to properly rebut the Catholic claim, the Protestant must demonstrate that the Catholic claim is either false or is not a good reason to consider Catholicism. The Protestant cannot point out a putative theological diversity within Catholicism to show that the Catholic claim that Protestants are theologically divided over essential doctrines is false. For a more robust response to this particular Protestant objection, see Bryan Cross’ article here […]

67. JCD November 26th, 2016 7:10 pm :

    Protestant here, hoping to clarify a bit.
    This article does not address the argument in question. (Or, it addresses a very weak and non-representative version of it.) It is, at best, a “weak-manning” of the Protestant position.
    (See here https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapons/ for clarification on the idea of a “Weak Man”)

    “…the unity of the Catholic faith does not consist in the level of doctrinal agreement among all those who call themselves Catholic. The bond of faith as one of three bonds constituting the visible unity that is the first mark of the Church specified in the Creed is the bond of unity manifested visibly in all those Catholics who profess the one faith taught by the Magisterium.”

    The real point- the fundamental point- of the Protestant attack is that there does not exist any “visible unity” that includes all who actually accept the teaching of the RCC magisterium, and not any other.
    This visible unity is a fiction.
    Either:
    1) it excludes those who disagree – in which case it is not a *visible* unity.
    OR:
    2) it includes all those who are visibly unified, in which case the unity in question does not even include agreement.

    (It might seem for a moment that the key word is “profess,” so that unspoken dissenters are unified with the church. This does not resolve the problem, however: it makes complete (unspoken) atheism entirely compatible with “unity.”)

    This is not a tu quoque, because invisible unity is not a problem for Protestants. Classical Protestants believe that visible unity is possible, but is separate from and founded on the presence of true (invisible) unity. When spiritual unity is worked out by people, it becomes visible in that case and only in that case.

    Let me try to clarify some of what would need to be addressed to formulate a genuine response:

    Countering the strawmen (or, as stated above, perhaps “weakmen”):
    1) Unity in the classical Protestant sense is not mere belief about an interpretation. It is shared belief that the thing (they agree the Bible is saying) happens to be *true.*
    2) “The unity of the Church is not any mere accidental unity in the sense that persons. . . come together to form some federation or denominational organization” is actually the Protestant argument.
    The externalities -the history- don’t make a/the church. The externalities are a necessary consequent of the unity. Internal unity precedes all organization. This, at least, is the Classical Protestant position, expressed notably by Luther as the priesthood of all believers, and by Baptists in (their meaning of) regenerate church membership.

    Clarifying (the Protestant view of) the RCC’s place in the debate:
    1) Either a “federation or denominational organization”,” (that is, some organized institution of a church) can be called true unity, or it cannot. (Unity established by Christ is -technically- a separate discussion).
    2) The RCC is a “federation or denominational organization.”

    Clarifying the Protestant argument:
    1) Either shared fundamental-beliefs are a constituent element of (the relevant sense of) unity or they are not.
    2) The group of individuals the RCC claims to hold in unity (including throughout history) do not all have shared fundamental-beliefs.
    Therefore:
    3) Either shared fundamental-beliefs are not a constituent element of (the relevant sense of) unity, or the RCC is not unified.
    4) Shared fundamental-beliefs are a constituent element of (the relevant sense of) unity.
    Therefore:
    5) The RCC is not unified, in the relevant sense.

    The pivotal assumption is that “fundamental beliefs” is a valid objective category that applies to belief in Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism, Baptists, Pentacostals, Stoics, Marxists, and any other category of thought. Either you have fundamentally unified beliefs or you don’t- nothing Christian about this. (Protestantism allows that there may be other kinds of unity- the question is whether *this* kind of unity is valid.)

    The fundamental Protestant assertion:
    An institutional unity is not a spiritual unity; it is a logical contradiction to say that a spiritual unity is created or destroyed by a change in an institutional unity, or that a change in an institutional unity creates or destroys a spiritual unity.
    Put another way:
    Institutions are always contexts of souls. They are always only ever positional-settings of souls. Spiritual unity is always only ever *essential* unity of souls.

    Wrapping up, with a tl;dr:
    Either the RCC is no more unified than Protestants, or the unity (like Protestants) is not (always) a visible unity. This article tries to make unity both internal and inherently-visible, without showing how that is coherent.

68. Bryan Cross November 26th, 2016 9:36 pm :

    JCD, (re: #67)

    Thanks for your thoughtful comment. Your argument is a criticism of the Catholic claim of having visible unity. Your argument takes the form of a dilemma:

    This visible unity is a fiction.
    Either:
    1) it excludes those who disagree – in which case it is not a *visible* unity.
    OR:
    2) it includes all those who are visibly unified, in which case the unity in question does not even include agreement.

    The problem with your argument is that your conclusion does not follow from the first horn of your dilemma. Yes, persons who do not affirm the Catholic faith (or deny some dogma of the Catholic faith) have thereby excluded themselves from the unity of the faith. But from that truth it does not follow that the unity of the Catholic Church (consisting of all three bonds of unity) is not a “visible unity, enjoyed and participated in by all who belief and profess all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes, and proclaims to be revealed by God.” The Catholic claim on unity is not that persons who deny the Catholic faith enjoy the full unity of the Church. Claiming otherwise would be setting up a straw man of the Catholic position.

    So, your presentation of the Catholic position as being one that affirms:

    2) The group of individuals the RCC claims to hold in unity (including throughout history) do not all have shared fundamental-beliefs.

    is not an accurate description of the Catholic position, because according to Catholic teaching unity is not merely hierarchical unity, but also unity of faith, as well as unity of sacraments. In other words, the “one” in “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic” is a unity that includes all three bonds of unity, not just hierarchical unity.

    Likewise, your claim:

    3) Either shared fundamental-beliefs are not a constituent element of (the relevant sense of) unity, or the RCC is not unified.

    is a false dilemma, because there is a third position: namely, that believing the dogmas of the Church is one of the constituents of the unity of the Church, and that the Catholic Church is unified, i.e. has all three bonds.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

69. Dmitry January 26th, 2020 1:51 pm :

    I know this thread has been inactive for a while but I was wondering if someone can comment on this part.
    “And the same is true of disagreements between Catholics concerning open theological questions about which the Magisterium has offered no authoritative teaching. In such cases it is possible to be wrong, even foolishly or culpably wrong, while maintaining the unity of the bond of faith.”
    If Magisterium hasn’t offered an authoritative teaching in a theological opinion how can one be culpubly wrong for holding a particular theological opinion? On what basis should one be considered culpable since there doesn’t seem to be an authoritative decision to rely on? Can we say the person is not culpable if their theological opinion seems reasonable to them and they haven’t encountered convincing objections that would change their point of view and they made efforts to consider several (but not all possible) arguments for and against their position? Or can one be still culpable even after they tried to reason about things and came to a particular conclusion? How long and through how many resources does one need to investigate and question his or her theological opinion to attempt to make sure that they are not culpuble for their potentially wrong theological opinion? For example, would St. Thomas Aquinas be culpuble for not believing in Immaculate Conception? Why yes or why not? How can culpubility for a theological opinion which is not resolved by the Magisterium be determined and where is the line drawn between culpuble and not culpuble (even if just theoretically)?
    Thank you.

70. Bryan Cross January 26th, 2020 10:55 pm :

    Hello Dmitry (re: #69)

    The standards in the discipline of theology are not only the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium, but also standards accessible to human reason such as in a philosophy, standards internal to the discipline of sacred theology, and standards given by the Holy Spirit in the conscience of the agent. Of course this does not mean that in a dispute on an open theological question, one party must be foolishly wrong or culpably wrong. But because it is possible to ignore or violate these aforementioned standards in a foolish or culpable manner, it is possible to be foolishly or culpably wrong on an open question not defined by the Magisterium.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

71. Tim A. Troutman January 26th, 2020 11:01 pm :

    Dmitry, St. Thomas talks about this in part 1 question 32 article 4 of the Summa Theologiae. There are two ways that a doctrine can be de fide:directly (as in something definitively taught by Scripture, Tradition or the Magisterium) and 2. Indirectly as in something that is not taught or is open to various interpretations but may well be contradictory to de fide truths indirectly. (In my opinion, Molinism is an error that would fall into this category).

    St. Thomas affirms that it can be lawful to hold various opinions on certain issues that are not settled. The important thing here, is that one is guilty of heresy when he obstinately maintains his error, not necessarily when he slips into it. For example, an Arian Christian could have changed their belief after the Council of Nicea and would not be a heretic. Likewise, I am absolutely sure that St. Thomas would recant on his opinion concerning the immaculate conception if he were with us today. (The reason would have as much to do with science as theology). Likewise, if the Church decides to affirm Molinism in the future, I will need to recant my earlier statement about it.

    So in summary, the key point is obstinacy in any error, not necessarily the error itself. So that should help answer the question about how deeply one needs to investigate issues. The Church understands that not everyone is going to be a bible scholar or theologian. As long as one does not obstinately maintain a belief after being corrected by the de fide doctrines, he is not in grave danger of being a heretic. (And of course we should be guided by the teaching authority of the Church as we attempt to research, study and develop our opinions in the first place.)

72. Dmitry January 27th, 2020 12:09 am :

    Bryan and Tim, thank you for your responses.

    Tim, it seems to me that in the piece that I quoted it’s implied that someone is actually culpuble for holding a wrong theological opinion even before the correction by the appropriate authority. It would be helpful if there was an example of such a situation, whether historical or hypothetical.

    Bryan, I can understand foolish ignorance, it’s harder for me to imagine culpuble ignorance when the Magisterium hasn’t settled the matter. Maybe a specific example would help (if you have one in mind). What comes to my mind is different possible variations of reconciling evolution of man’s body from the common ancestor with apes and different theological opinions that arise in how a reconciliation between faith and that area of science can be achieved. What would be examples of culpuble and inculpuble ignorance in that area and how would one know if they are in the “safe boundaries” or are likely culpubly wrong even before the Magisterium settles the matter. I’m aware of the comments on evolution by Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI but they aren’t specifically mentioning details on how exactly it would be possible to reconcile Catholic faith with the theory of evolution, so I’m wondering if one can go too far so to speak with theological opinions regarding that topic and be culpuble for going too far even before the Magisterium provides more details on what is acceptable and what is not (in addition to what has already be said by the Popes in the past). What would be the criteria for human reason (or maybe other criteria) that would put a person into a culpuble or an inculpuble “category” in that case?

    Thank you again.

73. Tim A. Troutman January 28th, 2020 10:11 pm :

    Dmitry, sorry for the delay. I didn’t want to speak for Dr. Cross. Even though your question is directed at me, I think it refers back to something he said originally. Nevertheless, I think the answer is that he (or whoever) conveyed that it is possible to be culpable not that it was necessarily the case or even likely. I think you already acknowledge that though because you’re asking for an example to clarify..

    To hazard a guess at a possible scenario, suppose someone (Joe) dogmatically adopts a particular view point in the Molinist controversy without prayerful, humble, and studious consideration and that he goes on to live his life with reckless abandon as if he has ascertained the truth: e.g. teaching others his belief, perhaps doing things that he otherwise wouldn’t, etc. I think it would be easy to imagine how he could be culpable of his error even though the Church has not definitively settled the issue. Joe might even be culpable of.his deficient methodology and lack of humility even were he to turn out to be correct! Contrast this with (Jack), someone who makes the same error in judgement, but who does so earnestly, after due prayer and study, and maintains humility throughout. Given his humility, he does not cling obstinately to his opinion. It is hard to see how Jack would be culpable of error, especially given the likely scenario that Jack will abandon his belief when and if the Church officially settles the matter. I hope this is helpful.

74. Dmitry January 28th, 2020 11:20 pm :

    Tim, thank you for the clarification, your example actually helps.

Leave Comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Δ

Called to Communion

Called to Communion on Facebook

Stay Informed

Subscribe to all posts
Subscribe by email
Subscribe to comments

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

The Obscurity of Scripture

A Thai Lesson in Ecumenism

A Response to Steven Nemes’s “Why Remain Protestant?”

Open Forum

Casey Chalk Discusses TULIP on the Creedal Catholic Podcast

That There Be No Schisms Among You

Alister McGrath’s Conversion on Justification

Does the Devil Make You a Catholic?

John Calvin on Dead Faith

St. John Chrysostom on Sola Fide

St. Ambrose on Sola Fide

How Are We Saved?

Authors

Barrett Turner

Beth Turner

Bryan Cross

Casey Chalk

David Anders

Deacon Jason Stewart

Fred Noltie

Guest Author

J. Andrew Deane

Jason Kettinger

Jeremy Tate

John Kincaid

Joshua Lim

Marc Ayers

Matt Yonke

Neal Judisch

Sean Patrick

Tim Troutman

Tom Brown

Tom Riello

Video