THE PASTORAL CHURCH IN THE
NEW TESTAMENT*

I

F true Christian life consists in the practice of the virtues
of faith, hope and charity (1 Thess. 1: 3; 4: 9; 1 Cor.
13: 13), it behooves us to make good use of God's grace
in the most varied circumstances of human existence (1 Pet.
4: 10): "Who is wise and instructed among you? Let him
by his good behaviour show his work in the meelmess of
wisdom" (Jas. 3: 13; cf. Eph. 4: 15) . This instruction is the
immanent work of God the Father, of Christ the Teacher
(Mt. 23: 8-10), of the guiding Holy Spirit (Jn. 16: 12-15; cf.
14:17, 26), as well as of the leaders of the Church, whose mission it is to see to the moral formation of the faithful.
Peter, like his master (Jn. 10: 1-15), is responsible for the
conduct, nourishment and health of the flock (Jn. 21: 16-17).
Paul, " God's collaborator" (1 Cor. 3: 9-12), the "wise architect" who lays the foundation of the local Church, supervises
the building process very closely. He admonishes and instructs
" ... in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect
in Christ Jesus" (Col. 1: 28). All the Apostles must teach the
converts to live by the morality of the Gospel (Mt. 28: 19).
The leaders, mentioned in Heb. 13:7, watch over the souls
entrusted to them and have the right to expect obedience and
submission to their practical advice (cf. 1 Thess. 5: 12-13).
Finally, after Timothy, every Church leader devoted himself
to the education of the faithful with a program furnished by
St. Paul's testament: "Preach the word, be urgent in season,
out of season; reprove, entreat, rebuke with all patience and
teaching (2 Tim. 4: 2; cf. Tit. 2: 13) . All these doctor-pastors
announced and handed on "the wisdom of God" (1 Cor.
2: 6-7). What was their method? 1
*Translated by Francis J. Turpin.
1 This theme is not treated in the "Morales
du Noveau Testament";

1

however,

CESLAUS SPICQ

Just as the Lord, while teaching and preaching in the cities
(Mt. 11: 1), gave special instructions to his Apostles, they in
turn elaborate plans (Acts
18) , settle questions of detail
(1 Cor. 16: 1), finalize certain usages or the application of principles which assure the peace of souls and the good order of
liturgical assemblies (1 Cor. 11: 34). Left at Crete to complete
the organization of the urban communities, Titus will only
have to conform to the arrangements made by St. Paul himself
(Tit. 1:5).
A similar task is entrusted to Timothy at the head of the
Church of Ephesus (1 Tim. 1: 3), a task summarized as the
exercise of authority and the teaching of doctrine (1 Tim.
4: 11). In some circumstances it will include opposition to the
propaganda of unorthodox doctrines (1: 3); laying down regulations to advance religious life (4: 11); reminding widows of
the obligations of their state (4: 7) and the rich to be generous with their worldly goods (6: 17); reiterating the injunction
to those who are lazy that they must work
Thess. 3: 10) ;
giving observations on good behaviour and reprimands for
the lack of decorum (1 Cor. 11:17); exhorting all to progress
in saintliness, to live in complete wisdom (1 Thess. 4: 11), to
be faithful to the solemn obligations of baptism (1 Tim. 6: 1814). In all cases, the pastor prescribes and delivers the watchwords, but more exactly he informs and announces; he is only
an intermediary. The reserve and discretion shown by the
Apostles in their prescriptions is quite remarkable. The Lord
alone has the authority to command, they merely convey his
instnctions (Mt.
and they ceaselessly remind us that
they impose nothing in their own right (1 Cor. 7: 10; cf.
Thess 3: 3-4) .
To be sure, they issue directives (Acts 18: 15; Col. 4: 10) ,
and even precepts, but they are instructions as well as commands, and they always recall their divine origin. 2 It is with
valuable indications may be found in W. Schrage, Die Konkreten Einzelgebote in
der Paulinischen Paranese, Gutersloh, 1961.
"I Cor. 14:87: "If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or spiritual, let him

PASTORAL

CHURCH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

3

extreme reluctance that St. Paul formulates orders in the
strictest sense of the term. It is easy to conceive, since the aim
of any instruction or paraggelia is to inculcate charity (1 Tim.
1: 5) , and a spiritual love can only be aroused by "the language of the Spirit," not by that of the law (1 Cor.
13).
This is precisely the goal of the pastoral ministry, the formation of a pure heart, a good conscience and a strong faith,
which are the indispensable conditions of the true agap·e
(1 Tim. 1: 3-4; cf. Heb. 10:
inspired by the Holy Spirit.
The role of teaching cannot be overemphasized in the origins
of Christianity. The whole life of Jesus was a preaching ministry (Mt. 4:
9: 35; Lk. 13:
. He entrusted his Apostles
with the task of instructing the disciples (Mt.
cf. Mk.
6: 30), and ever since that time the Church's role has been
that of a teacher (I Tim. 3: 15) , the pastors are the ones who
teach, and the faith and Christian education are the realities
which are taught. It is a formation which is both doctrinal and
practical (1 Cor. 4: 17; Tim.
3: 10) . When the convert
has accepted the apostolic message (Acts 4:
31), he receives a didache or elementary instruction regarding baptism,
the imposition of hands, the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment (Heb. 6: cf. 1 Cor. 15), all of which summarize
the essential elements of his solemn profession of faith. Later it
is explained that he must resist scandals (Rom. 16: 17), and
that he must not allow himself to be contaminated by the
Jewish practices (Acts
The emphasis is on the
reform of morality, the casting off of the " old man" (Eph.
4:
"everything that is expedient" for a genuine Christian living (Acts
Obviously, young people and slaves
recognize that the things I am writing to you are the Lord's commandments";
2 Peter 3:2: ". . . wherein I stir up your pure mind to remembrance that you may
be mindful of what I formerly preached of the words of the holy prophets and of
your Apostles which are the precepts of the Lord and Saviour"; 1 Jn. 2:7: " ...
no new commandment I am writing to you, but an old commandment which you
had from the beginning"; 1 Jn. 4:21: "This commandment we have from him";
2 .Tn. 4: "I rejoiced greatly that I found some of your children walking in truth,
according to the commandment that we have received from the Father."

4

CESLAUS SPICQ

are subjected to a more detailed instruction, didaskalia (Tit.
6-IO; cf. I Tim. 6: I) .
Little by little the neophyte becomes an adult in his faith
and is in a position to become an instructor to his brothers
(Heb. 5:
St. Paul encourages this zeal, 3 but St. James is
suspicious of the interference of these teachers, who are often
incompetent and spurred on by vainglory .4 In fact, there is an
extreme infatuation within the Church with everything that is
knowledge and speculation; no title is more highly valued than
that of teacher; and both men and women 5 may be seen going
from house to house (I Tim. 5: I3) or speaking at meetings,
proposing a didache (I Cor. I4:
"advancing"
Jn. 9),
and "teaching things that they ought not" (Tit. I: 11). The
results of doctrinal deviations are so gross 6 that St. Paul and
St. John are forced on the one hand to specify the criteria of
orthodoxy/ and on the other hand to accredit the truly inspired
"Col. 3:16: " ... in all wisdom teach and admonish one another .... " 1 Cor.
12:31; 14:1, 39; d. Reb. 10:24; 12:15. This catechist is not a doctor, but a
teacher, instructor-educator, in conformity with the phrase " teacher of children "
(Rom. 2: 20), with the later honorary Jewish title of Hakarn, head of the Bet haMidmsh (cf. H. Mantel, Studies in the Histor·y of the Sanhedrin, Cambridge, Mass.,
1961, pp. 132 fl'.), and with the usage of the papyri which designate by this term
the relationships of patron and apprentice in apprenticeship contracts (cf. J. H.
Moulton, G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greelc Testament, London, 1949, vn
this word).
4 Jas. 3: 1: "Let not many of you become teachers."
There are so few candidates
for the administrative tasks of the Church because so many are seeking the teaching
positions; thus the rehabilitation of the administrative positions in 1 Tim. 3: 1 (cf.
C. Spicq, "Si quis episcopatum desiderat," Revue des Seiences Philosophiques et
1'heologiques, 1940, pp. 316-326).
5 Acts 15: 1; 1 Cor. 14: 34; 1 Tim. 2: 12; Apoc. 2: 20.
0 The Lord had already asked his followers to be on g·uard against the teaching
(didache) of the Pharisees and Saducees, denouncing t i1:o spirit of their religious
formation as being similar to a leaven (Mt. 16: 12). SL. Paul was indignant with
the vagaries of those " tossed to and fro and carried by every wind of doctrine
devised in the wickedness of men" (Eph. 4: 14; cf. He b. 13: 9). There is already a
multitude of teachers (2 Tim. 4: 3) who " understand neither what they say nor
the things about which they make assertion " (1 Tim. 1: 7) , proposing " doctrines
[didaslcalia] of devils" (1 Tim. 4: 1), creating "destructive sects" (2 Pet. 2: 1)
which will exist at Pergamum and Thyatira (Apoc. Q: 14, 1.5, 24).
7 Every believer is a disciple, that is, one taught
(2 Thess. 2: 15; Gal. 1: 12; Eph.

PASTORAL

CHURCH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

5

and the members of the hierarchy as teachers. These two
categories are not opposed to each other, since " the spirits of
the prophets are under the control of the prophets," and also
the head of the community regulates its manifestations (l Cor.
14:32 ff.). In Antioch, the prophets and teachers are ministers
of the cult, and the Church ordains them to send them officially
on mission (Acts 13: 1-2). The Council of Jerusalem acts in
the same way with regard to " leading men among the brethren" who are also charismatic (Acts 15:22, 32). Timothy will
receive his charisma, granted " by reason of prophecy with the
laying on of hands of the presbyterate." 8 The bishops and
presbyters, who must be qualified to teach (1 Tim. 3: 2; 2 Tim.
2: 24), are simultaneously chosen by the Apostle's delegate
4: !21; Col. !2: 7). He is defined by his relationship to a Master and to the reception

of his doctrine, "the teaching of God our Saviour" (Tit. 2: 10), the only one
worthy of blind adherence (1: 9). Transmitted by the Apostles (cf. Heb. 4: 2), it is
in fact true, " as truth is in Jesus " (Eph. 4: 2) . Faith is essentially obedience to
" that form of doctrine into which you have been delivered " (Rom. 6: 17; cf. A.
Seeberg, De;r Katechismus der Urchristenheit, Leipzig, 1908, pp. 1 ff.; 198 ff.; S.
Lyonnet, Exegesis Epistulae ad Romanos V-VII, Roma, 1961, pp. 48 ff.), in harmony
with the common object of faith (Rom. 12: 6; Tit. 1: 4), "according to the gospel of
the glory of the blessed God" (1 Tim. 1: 10-11; cf. Tit. 2: 1). It is this exact
relationship with "the doctrine of Christ" (!2 Jn. 9) which defines "the good
doctrine (1 Tim. 4: 6) or the " sound doctrine " (1 Tim. 1: 10; 6: 8; Tit. 1: 9 ; 2 Tim.
4: 8). On the soundness of doctrine cf. C. Spicq "Pastorales" in DBS VII, 95).
Doubtless each Apostle has his personal " methods," his own way of presenting the
message and of accentuating certain rules of life (1 Cor. 4: 17; cf. 2 Tim. 1: 18);
thus there will be Paul-, James-, John- and Peter-type spiritualities, whose
legitimacy the Lord implicitly recognized (Lk. 7: 81-85). Preserving the trust
unchanged (1 Tim. 6: !20) does not mean the stagnation of the teaching. Again, we
must cite St. Vincent of Lerins: " Guard the trust, that is, what was entrusted to
you, not what you invented; what you received, not what you thought up. . . .
You are not an author but a guardian, not a founder but a disciple .... You
received gold, return gold .... 0 Timothy, because of your explanation we now
believe in a clearer way what we used to believe in a more obscure way ....
Teach the same things you were taught. Speak in a new way, but do not speak of
novelties: cum dicas nove, non dicas nova" (Commonitorium, 22; PL, L, 667).
The important thing is fidelity to the spirit of Jesus Christ.
8 1 Tim. 4: 14. The laying on of hands transmits
the Spirit (cf. C. Spicq, Les
Epitres Pastorales, Paris, 1947, pp. 820 ff.; E. Lohse, Die Ordination in Spatjudentum
und im Neuen Testament, Gottingen, 1951; M. Black, "The Doctrine of the
Ministry," Expository Times, LXIII, pp. 112-116.

6

CESLAUS SPICQ

(Tit, 1: 5; 1 Tim. 3: 2) and "established by the Holy Spirit"
(Acts 15: 28). Thus, as regards either missionaries or local
ministers, we may say that the doctrinal capacity and authority
come from God, who " established " the Apostles, prophets,
evangelists, teachers and pastors in the Church. 9 They all
have the duty of faithfully accomplishing this teaching task 10
if they desire their own salvation and that of others (1 Tim.
4: 16) . They are but the organs of an uninterrupted tradition,
exposing a Church doctrine " according to piety " (I Tim. 6: 3;
cf. 3: 15-16), and which they in turn will transmit to qualified
believers 11 without it being possible for them to modify the
purport (1 Pet. 1: 20; 1 Tim. 6: 20).
The activities of these teachers are extremely different in
both nature (genre) (1 Cor. 12:4-6, 10-11) and quality. 12 The
9!
Cor. I2: 28 (Eph. 4: II); I Tim. I: 12; 2 Tim. I: 11; Acts 20:28 (cf. C.
Claereboets, "In quo vos Spiritus Sanctus posuit episcopos," Biblica 1943, pp. 370387). It is to be observed that the names of the charisms usually place stress on
delegation: the apostle is sent (envoy e) (Rom. 10: 15), the prophet speaks in the
name of God, announces what God told him to say (Jas. 5:10; 1 Pet. 1: 21; cf. Fl.
Josephus, C. Ap., I, 7-8; J. B. Frey, "La Revelation d'apres les conceptions juives
au temps de Jesus Christ," RB, 19616, pp. 494 ff.; cf. Act. 21: 10-ll); the prophet
Agabus presents his message, "Thus says the Holy Spirit"; the evangelist exposes
and comments on the good news promulgated by Jesus (He b. 2: 3; 4: 2; 1 Pet. 1: 25;
2 Tim. 4: 5); the teaching instructor gets his doctrine from Scripture (2 Tim. 3: 16),
from apostolic tradition (1 Tim. 4: 6; 6: 3; Tit. I: 9; 2 Tim. 3: 10), and finally from
Jesus' message itself (1 Tim. 2: 7; 2 Tim. 1: 11), the pastor feeds Christ's sheep
(Jn. 2I: 15-17; cf. Acts 20: 28).
10 Rom. 12:7.
This explains the insistence of the pastorals in recommending to
Timothy, Titus, the bishops, the presbyters: "speak, teach, persevere in instruction," the eminent task of "the good minister of Jesus Christ" (1 Tim. 4:6, 16, 17;
6: 3; Tit. 1: 9; 2: 1; 2 Tim. 4: 2); the most explicit text is 1 Tim. 4: 13: "Until I
come, be diligent in reading, in exhortation and in teaching."
11 2 Tim. 2: 2: " Therefore . . . be strengthened in the grace which is in Christ
Jesus; and in the things you have heard from me through many witnesses, commend
to trustworthy men who shall be competent in turn to teach others "; cf. 1 Tim.
5:22.
12 One of St.
Paul's great preoccupations was to control and organize the
charismatic manifestations in church. He requires on the one hand that they have
a maximum of intelligibility (1 Cor. 14: 7-20), and on the other hand that they be
useful to the listeners (v. 6; 12: 7); that is, something completely different from a
marvel or a craze, but rather a solid construction: edification (I Cor. 14:4-5, 12, 26).
A speech is " edifying " only if it instructs, encourages and finally strengthens what
is good and pushes towards its realization (v. 3; 2 Cor. 12: 19; 13: 8-11; Eph. 4: 29).

PASTORAL

CHURCH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

7

best 13 and most widely accepted 14 is unquestionably prophecy,
directed " not to unbelievers but to believers " (1 Cor. 14: 22) ,
and whose modes are also very diverse. In fact, the prophet
is like a "lamp, burning and shining" (Jn. 5: 35; cf. 2 Pet.
1: 19), able to predict the future (Acts 11: 28; 21: 10) and to
discern the mirabilia Dei (Lk. 2:25, 36), and fervent to sing
them (Lk. 1: 67; Acts 19: 6); he is also keen in penetrating the
secrets of hearts (Jn. 6: 19; cf. Reb. 4: 12-13) and thus bring
about their conversion (1 Cor. 14: 24-25). But, after John the
Baptist, his principal duty is to prepare the arrival of the
Saviour into souls (Jn. 1:23, 26; Apoc. 19: 10; cf. 3: 20); he is
a herald who proclaims salvation and interprets God's revelation made by his Son. He corresponds to our conception of a
preacher, whose triple role is to instruct, exhort and encourage
or console the faithful (1 Cor. 14: 3, 6, 31) . He is a "paraclete" who teaches/ 5 convinces (1 Pet. 5: 2-3), enriches and
changes the spirit of his listeners. Thus his sermon on paraklems is at first a didaskalia or didache, but in an animated
style 16 which will distinguish clearly the voice of an apostle
from that of a professor (1 Cor. 14: 3) , because it will edify,
and it is God who exhorts through him. 17
This aspect of pressing invitation and stimulation is so preponderant that the apostolic sermon-whose best definition is
an exhortation- commands all the practical morality of the
New Testament: the evangelic doctrine is presented, and the
servants of the Word insist most emphatically on the adherence
13 Recall the charisms of knowledge
(1 Cor. 13: £), wisdom (12: 8), teaching
(v. £8), revelation (14: 6), interpretation (v. £6); cf. H. Karpp, "Prophet oder
Dolmetscher? ", Festschrift G. Dehn, Neukirchen, 1957, pp. 103-117. St. Paul
counsels: "Aim especially that you may prophesy" (1 Cor. 14:1, 5).
"Acts 2: 17; £1: 9; 1 Cor. 14: 31; £ Cor. 13: 11; 1 Jn. 4: 1-2; Apoe. 2£:9, etc.
15 Cf. Jn. 14: 26; 15: 26; 16: 13; Rom. 12:8.
16 Lk. 3: 18; 1 Thess. 2: 3; 1 Tim. 4: 13; 6: 3.
17 2 Cor. 5:20.
The sermon, an apostolic function, is necessarily an act of God
(2 Thess. 2: 16; He b. 12: 5), of the Holy Spirit (Acts 9: 31), of inspired Scripture
(Rom. 15: 4). C. Ryder Smith sees there the constant help of God stimulating
Christian life, hence a quasi-synonym of grace (The Bible Doctrine of Grace,
London, 1956, pp. 81 ff.).

8

CESLA US SPICQ

of the heart and its application in one's conduct; that is, not to
receive the grace of God in vain (2 Cor. 6: I; Heb. 3: 7; 4: 11),
remain attached to the Lord with all one's soul (Acts 11: 23),
be steadfast in the faith (Acts I4: 22; Jude 3), give all one's
life in sacrifice to God/ 8 observe the " commandment " of how
one must walk so as to please God/ 9 pray (I Tim. 2: I), be
obedient, charitable, and peaceful/ 0 guard against carnal covetousness (I Pet. 2: 11), not to become inured to sin (Heb. 3: I3).
Sometimes the sermon will revive, encourage, strengthen, 21 at
other times it reassures one of the authenticity of the Christian
life (I Pet. 5: I2) and consoles anxious hearts. 22
In the beginnings of the Church, temptations of lassitude
and inertia menaced the travellers to the celestial city. Certain
ones already have "hands that hang down and tottering
knees," 23 and deviate from the straight road. The teaching
of the didaskalia strives to bring a remedy 24 by bringing them
back and guaranteeing their stability. 25 They appeal to Scrip18 Rom.
Hl: 1, introducing the whole exhortatory part of the Epistle (cf. the
perfect commentary of H. Schlier, Le temps de l'Eglise, Tournai, 1961, pp. 85-99).
Written by a prophet or an inspired teacher, exposing a doctrine which is instructive as well as encouraging and consoling, t11e Epistle to the Hebrews presents itself
as a "word of exhortation" (13: 22). I Peter has the same character (5: 12).
19 I Thess. 2: 12; 4: 1-2, 10-11; 2 Thess. 3: 12; Eph. 4: 1.
20 I Thess. 5: 14; Rom. 16: 17; 1 Cor. 1: 10; 4: 16; 16: 15-16; 2 Cor. 10: 1; Phil. 4: 2;
Philemon. 9.
21 1 Thess. 4: 18; 5: 11; 2 Cor. 2: 7; 1 Tim. 5: 1; He b. 3: 13; 6: 18.
22 This acceptation
of the paraclesis-consolation during the trial of life, constant
in the Old Testament, is known from Paul who attributes this comfort to God (cf.
2 Cor. 1:3-7; 7:4-13), providing renewed hope (Rom. 1.5:4). Liberated from
prison, the Apostle and Silas do not want to leave Philippi without having reassured
and consoled the brethren with a visit (Acts 16: 40; cf. 1 Cor. 4: 13; Eph. 6: 22;
Col. 4: 8).
23 He b. 12: 12 (Is. 35: 3); cf. recalling these waverings in Spicq, C. " La parabole
de Ia Veuve obstinee," RB 1961, pp. 88 ff.; the Guerre des Fils de Lumiere ... X,
5: les fondus de coeur; XI, 10: les abattus d'esprit; XIV, 5: les chancelants; XIV,
6: les mains defaillantes, les ondoyants de genoux; XV, 7.
•• Heb. 12:12 fl3l: " ... that no one who is lame may go out of the way, but
rather be healed "; cf. 1 Kings 18: 21.
•• Heb. 12: 12; the verb anorthoo, "to straighten" what is bent, deviated (Lk.
13: 13) or collapsed, has the sense of consolidating and stabilizing a dynasty (Acts
15: 16; cf. 2 Sam. 7: 13, 16, 26). It is part of the technical vocabulary of the

PASTORAL

CHURCH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

9

ture, which is so effective in denouncing errors of orientation,
in obviating failures, in assuring the uplifting and correction of
morals (2 Tim. 3: 16) . Thus, the punishment of the unfaithful
Israelites constitutes one of the warnings (1 Cor. 10: 11) which
Providence wreaks on those who would follow " the same example of unbelief." 26 If every child is educated by the rude
discipline of the traditional paideia, the adult is especially in
need of instructions and admonitions which will develop his
insight and familiarize him with wisdom. Charity requires of
every good Christian to give his brothers this opportune advice
and even to repeat it; 27 but it is the duty of the community
leaders especially to reprimand, even to censure (Tit. 3: 10). ·
If they summon and command, it is to obtain irreproachable
conduct from the faithful, and that implies a recall to order,
repeated admonitions (Col. 1: 28) -1 Thess. 5:12 summarizes
their entire service.
In reality, a master is led not only to scold his disciples and
inflict blame on them (Lk. 19: 39) , but also to reprimand them
for their omissions and to punish them (Jude 9). Now, it is
remarkable that the pastors never apply punishments-only
God punishes. 28 They are only required to denounce evil in all
its forms and to correct the delinquents, an element which is
just as essential to the Church's teaching as the teaching of
what is good and the exhortation of the faithful. 29 First this
Sapiential Books: "You have given me your saving shield; your right hand has
upheld me " (Ps. 17 [18]: 36); " Though they bow down and fall, yet we stand erect
and firm" (Ps. 19: 9). This re-establishment is the function of religious insight: "By
wisdom is a house built, by understanding is it made firm" (Prov.
3; d. Jer.
10: 12; 33:
but first a gift of God: "The Lord raises up those that were bowed
down" (Ps.146:8; 145:17;
23 Heb. 4: 11; The Apocalypse of Baruch:
"Do not stray from the road of the
Law, but watch and admonish the rest of the people, lest they stray from the
precepts of the Almighty (44:
Patrologie Syr. II.
27 Rom. 15:4; 1 Thess. 5:14;
Thess. 3:15; Col. 3:8.
28
Pet.
9 (cf. Mt.
46). Neither punishment (cf. 1 Jn. 4: 18) nor pain
(Heb. 10:
cf.
Mac. 4: 38; Wis. 19: 4), required as the vengeance of evil (cf.
11), belong to the vocabulary of the New Testament teaching.
Acts
5;
1 Cor. 4:
is but a threat: " Shall I come to you with a rod? "; this as opposed
to the iron rod of Apoc. 2: 27; U: 5; 19:15.
29
Tim. 3: 16; 4: Tit. 2:15. The presbyter must be capable of exhortation by a

10

CESLAUS SPICQ

implies that they enlighten consciences, bring errors and wrongs
to light, not hesitating to label what is wrong as wrong, and to
specify in what it consists; 30 since they define guilt (Jas. 2: 9;
2 Pet. 2: 16) , they should have the courage and frankness to
accuse and confound the delinquents (Jude 15). Regardless
of what kind it is, the sin of the sinner must always be denounced and corrected (Mt. 18: 15; 1 Tim. 5: 20) : all who
do evil (Jn. 3: 20) and the works of darkness (Eph. 5: 11),
those who break the Law (Jas. 2: 19), adulterers (Lk. 3: 19),
the impious (Jude 15) and the unorthodox .... 31
Thanks to this vigilance and insistence of the pastors (1 Tim.
4: 15-16; 2 Tim. 4: 2), the faithful are assured of being linked
to the authentic Word of Christ and that there will be no deviation in the uprightness of their lives. They benefit from all the
help of a Church which carries the divine seal: " Let everyone
depart from iniquity who names the name of the Lord " (2
Tim. 2: 19).
CESLAUS SPICQ,

0. P.

Albertinum
FriboUJ·g, Switzerland
sound didaskalia and of refuting contradictors (Tit. 1: 9; cf. v. 13; Epictetus: "He
is skilled in reasoning and he knows how to refute and convince; he is capable of
showing each contradictor the cause of his fault and to point out clearly how he is
not doing that which he wills but doing that which he does not will," II, !26, 4) .
In the divine paideia, the sinner is reinstated by the word of God (Reb. 1!2: 5) .
30 Those who do evil are fleeing from the light, for fear that their deeds will be
denounced and condemned (Jn. 3: !20; cf. Epictetus, I, !26, 17: "In everyday life
we are not willingly receptive to censure and we detest the one who censures ";
II, 1, 3!2; XIV, !20). The prophets have a real gift for discerning the secrets of
conscience and for persuading the accused and to bring about his confession (1
Cor. 14: Q4; cf. Heb. 4: 1!2-13). In fraternal correction, according to Mt. 18:15,
every Christian must enlighten his brother as to the seriousness of his faults and
reprimand him. Thus Eph. 5: 11-13: "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works
of darkness, but rather expose them. For of the things done by them in secret it is
shameful even to speak." Compare Qumran, I QS V, Qh-VI, 1; IX 17; C. D. VII, !2;
IX, 6-8.
31 Tit. 1:9-13.
G. Bornkamm ("The History of the Origin of the So-Called
Second Letter to the Corinthians," New Testament Studies, 196!2 pp. !261 ff.)
reminds us that the warnings against false teachers are most often placed at the end
of the sermons, letters or New Testament writings (Mt. 7: 15 ff.; Acts !20: 29-30;
Rom. 16:17-QO; Gal. 6:11 fl.; 1 Cor. 16:!22; 1 Pet. 4:17; 5:Q; Jude 17 ff.; Didache
16:3 ff.).

EDITOR'S PREFACE

Caritas Ch1ist urget nos (2 Cor. 5: 14). The whole world has
been witness to the charity of Christ in the heart of the late
Pope John XXIII. In the few but full years of his pontificate,
the charity of Christ urged him, not only to bring to the people
of Rome his personal warmth, but to communicate to and share
with the modern world the universality of Christ's love for
mankind. He chose a most fruitful and universal way to renew
in this world the Christian spirit in his heart: The Second
Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. Through this initiative,
the vision, zeal, and charity within him were communicated to
and shared with the bishops of the world. Continued in the
same spirit by Pope Paul VI, the Council, in turn, promises to
bring, through the deliberations of the Conciliar Fathers, the
charity of Christ to all the faithful and to all men of good
will attentive to its counsels.
The prospect of editing a work on the theological dimension
of this momentous Council was awesome; yet the actual preparation of this volume has been a joy, since it has been a personal
experience of the renewal of Christian vision, zeal, and charity
inspired by Pope John XXIII and continuing under the
benevolence of Pope Paul VI.
The response of eminent theologians from all parts of the
world to our request for articles was immediate and enthusiastic.
As the manuscripts were read it became clear that their understanding of the issues of the Council and their theological skill
in presenting their views were as profound as their zeal was
spontaneous. Each study stands on the merit of the author's
own competence and of the quality of his presentation. Because
of this, and because of the technical nature of many of the
studies, the editor has viewed his task simply as one of reproducing faithfully the manuscripts offered by the authors. While
such a procedure permits a variety of opinion, it has the
advantage of presenting, without editorial intrusion, the exact
thought of many authors; and while it permits marked differIX

X

EDITOR'S PREFACE

ences in style, it has the advantage of preserving, without
editorial interference, the international flavor of the volume.
Even in this one appointed task, the editor must personally
acknowledge the immense assistance he has received from
generous and zealous colleagues and friends. The volume is
first and foremost the work of the editorial staff of THE
THOMIST upon whose collective knowledge, experience, and
skill I have constantly depended. Particularly, I am indebted
to the members of the staff who have contributed articles to
this volume.
Although translators are said to perform a thankless task,
my thanks are certainly due to Mr. Francis Turpin, to T. C.
O'Brien, 0. P., and especially to F. C. Lehner, 0. P. who carried
the burden of translations for this volume. The generous assistance of Edwin M. Rogers, 0. P., Business Manager of The
Thomist Press, in many office duties was most valuable. For
typing and manuscript preparation I extend my appreciation to
Miss Nancy Caldwell and to Helena Maxfield.
To Very Reverend E. F. Smith, 0. P., Regent of Studies of
the Province of St. Joseph, who encouraged the work at every
turn and provided the Introduction to the volume, I offer
sincere and lasting gratitude. For the solicitude and support
which has made possible, not only this volume, but the continued work of THE THOMIST and The Thomist Press, I
acknowledge my filial indebtedness to Very Reverend W. D.
Marrin, 0. P., Provincial of the Dominican Fathers, Province
of St. Joseph.
ANTHONY D. LEE, 0. P.

INTRODUCTION

E

VERY age seeks self-understanding, insight into its
sources of strength and its areas of weakness, clarification of the direction it is taking in reality as well as
in intent. Ages past have, in the perspective of time, been
called "golden" or "dark"; an era, a century, a reign, or a
decade has been characterized as renaissance, revolutionary,
glorious, or uproarious. How should the twentieth century
understand itself? How will the twentieth century appear in
the pages of history? Some would see it already characterized by the mushroom cloud of the atom bomb: a century of
fear, of anxiety. For others, despite the tremendous technical
advance in transportation and communication, or perhaps
because of this, the twentieth is the century of loneliness in
which man is estranged from his fellow man; or of emptiness
in which the control over the earth, maybe the stars, has
served to reveal a tragic impoverishment of the human spirit.
God gave to this twentieth century Pope John XXIII and
John gave to it a new meaning. He saw himself as an optimist and as an optimist he appeared and appealed to men
everywhere. His words were many and of them many were
powerful. Yet what he was, what he did, more than what he
said, entranced a world. He gave hope in being hopeful, confidently reaching for goods long since abandoned in despair.
He preached love most effectively in the daily, generous exercise of his own universal fatherhood. He lived through many
wars, two of which were rightly called "world"; they effected
in him a profound vision of "peace on earth." Paradoxically
he restored a warm hope of unity and peace while nations still
chose sides in a cold war; he restored man to personal dignity
by personifying the inestimable value of simplicity. In all, a
rich interior goodness overflowed as most vigorous, robust,
triumphant living. John was, in the phrase of St. Catherine
Xl

xu

INTRODUCTION

of Siena, " Christ on earth " and all men seeing Christ in him
were in some measure, small or great, renewed in themselves.
" Renewal " early became the watchword of the Council
called by Pope John. Thus on October
the Conciliar
Fathers declared: " Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit,
we intend in this assembly to seek the most effective ways of
renewing ourselves and of becoming increasingly more faithful
witnesses of the Gospel of Christ. We will strive to propose
to the men of our time the truth of God in its entirety and
purity so that they may understand it and accept it freely." 1
The hope and love, the quest for peace and simplicity, the
witness to Our Lord characteristic of Pope John have animated the Council. The reason for the Christian vitality of
both Pope and Council is the one Holy Spirit, font of light
and love for the Church of Christ, abiding in the Holy Father
and the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council. The Church
renews herself from within and deep within her is God's Spirit.
Through John He manifested, even dramatically, His power
to draw the hearts of men. Through the Council He would
change those hearts, fill them with His love.
From the first moment of planning, the perspective of the
Second Vatican Council has been pastoral, not polemic. Holy
Mother Church is engaged, not primarly in forging weapons
for combat, but in opening wide the arms of love to embrace
all men in Christ. She seeks to deepen and intensify the inner
life of her children, to bring all men to partake of that life.
"We humbly and ardently invite all," affirmed the assembled
Bishops, "not only those brothers whom we serve as pastors,
but all our brothers who believe in Christ and all men of good
will ... to collaborate with us in establishing a more ordered
way of living and greater brotherhood." 2
The way must be His way, the way of truth. Life is ordered,
love is nourished, men are drawn one to another in unity and
1 "

The Council Fathers Speak to the World" The Pope Speaks, Vol. 8, No. 8

(1968) , p. 802.
• Ibid., p. 808.

INTRODUCTION

Xlll

peace by truth. The pastoral concern of the Council presents
to the world the Church drawing upon the innermost wellsprings of her living wisdom, reaching ever more deeply into
her life with God, in God, into her possession of Christ, by
Christ. In previous Councils, those especially of modern times,
the Church was confronting error with truth, manifesting
therein a profundity beyond the ken of error, but nevertheless limited to a context occasioned by error. In the present
Council the Church " will strive to propose to the men of our
time the truth of God in its entirety and purity." The infinite
richness of that truth enforces a demand for precision and
accuracy, for clarity and felicity of expression, for a simplicity
possible only to a firm grasp of principle. Only so can life and
love and universal brotherhood be established solidly, with
ever expanding fruitfulness.
The Spirit of truth has provided the Church in Council
with the resources proportioned to the demand upon her. She
is a living organism, the body of Christ besouled by His Spirit,
assimilating what the world at any time may offer, giving to
all thus drawn to herself a new life, her own. The past to her
is not a succession of dead monuments but part of her living
mind giving understanding of the present and wisdom for the
future. The historian, Dr. Ernest Colwell, has said: "Historians believe in the unbroken continuity of human experience
in historic time, but a continuity which is constantly modified by change." 3 The two attributes, continuity and change,
have provided historical inquiry with antithetical poles of interpretation and evaluation and have contributed to daily life,
individual and societal, the tensions constitutive of vitality.
Dedicated to continuity without change civilizations have
atrophied and perished; breathless pursuit of novelty without
continuity has equally expired, only more quickly and with less
impact. The Church achieves a vital balance in transcending
time, in lifting the human and mundane to the divine, in
3

Colwell, Ernest C., Jesus and the Gospel, Oxford University Press, New York,

1963, p. 6.

XIV

INTRODUCTION

showing the role of man within the plan of God, in giving
purpose to continuity and meaning to change, in measuring
the existence of man by the eternity of God. Thus the moment in her life that is the Council is enriched by the holiness
of her saints, by the wisdom articulated by every doctor and
theologian, by the experience absorbed into practice from
Peter to Pope Paul VI.
History as caught up in the life of the Church prepares her
for the work of renewal. Proximately and also providentially
history as a field of human inquiry contributes to the deliberations of the Conciliar Fathers. In fact, the loving hand of
God may be perceived awesomely in the immediate preparation of the minds of men to the pastoral orientation of the
Council. Not only history but also Biblical studies, liturgy,
philosophy, social research, and non-Catholic thought have
been in recent decades the object of intensive scholarly research and popular interest within and without the Churchall in ways most apt to the needs of the Council. Philosophical
trends have sharpened attention upon the person, the existent situation, phenomenological concerns; Biblical studies
have offered insights promising an ever expanding grasp of
divine revelation; contact with non-Catholic thought has led
to a deeper penetration of the Church's wealth of wisdom as
well as the exploration of other minds and the understanding
of other vocabularies; the resurgence of ancient cultures and
the rise of new nations have given both impetus to apostolic
activity and release to the capacity of the Church to assimilate the most diverse ways of human life to a way of life
divine. All these factors, and more, seek expression in the liturgy; all seek meaning in theology; all find their true value
in the Council.
Within this context the present volume of essays on the
theological dimensions of the Council finds its own meaning.
The reason for the choice of topics is obvious; they are those
of concern to the Conciliar Fathers. Study reveals the treatment of these topics to be fully in the spirit of the Church in
Council.

INTRODUCTION

XV

These articles are not surveys of battle lines drawn up in
the clash of opinion nor are they polemic volleys hurled at
opponents. Each in its own way strives to make positive contribution to the design of the Conciliar Fathers " to propose
to the men of our times the truth of God in its entirety and
purity." The motivating quest for renewal, the animating
spirit of confident hope and fraternal charity are everywhere
evident. The authors from ten nations include theological
experts (periti), private consultors to the hierarchy of several
nations, advisors on special commissions, an observer-delegate
-all of whom were present at the first session of the Council
-and distinguished scholars whose contributions to theological thought have had international impact.
As theologians the writers of this volume draw upon all
divine revelation, all human knowledge, all experience. As
theologians of the Church they refer to her constantly for
guidance as well as inspiration. In common they search for
synthesis, not to close a question nor to elaborate a system,
but to afford variety of insight, to achieve balance through
analogy, to give deeper meaning and wider dimension to truth
possessed. Genuine and solid thought gives birth to ever more
profound thinking, generates new problems, elevates perspective. Wisdom has long since proved that only so will simplicity be earned, a simplicity of infinite richness.
The other traits of these articles are implicit in these basic
characteristics. Definition is a goal, not to remove reality to
the realm of abstract discourse or make it a matter of merely
verbal concern for scholarly discussion, but to grasp it in its
innermost actuality, to release its impact upon life, to unfold
new values to living. Then only is synthesis an insight into
existence reentering that existence to enrich it. Thus the
efforts, constant within the volume, to be theologically precise
and accurate neither hamper nor restrain felicity of expression
with unnecessarily technical or outmoded jargon, but liberate
thought for clarity of communication, readiness of grasp and
aptness of application. Precision and accuracy are themselves

XVl

INTRODUCTION

guaranteed by the omnipresent concern with principle and
the dependence of the most particularized and remote conclusion upon principle. So these are essays in theology, at once
a science and a wisdom.
In sum, wisdom is the focus of these considerations of the
theological dimensions of the Second Vatican Council. The
most recent deliveries of Biblical studies, history, philosophy,
social research and experience blending with the ancient treasures of Augustine and Aquinas equip the theological mind to
grapple with the challenge to renew the Church in the twentieth century. The old is not slavishly repeated, the new is
not thoughtlessly parrotted, but a genuine effort is made to
draw upon the truth from every source, to point the way to
a unity rich with pulsating life, that the men of our time "may
understand and accept: freely." For the twentieth century cannot understand itself save as it is seen in the entire and pure
truth of God. Then will the hope that animates the Church
and her Council animate the world.
FERRER

E. SMITH, 0. p.

TOWARDS AN ADEQUATE CONCEPT OF CHURCH

I

T is sometimes asserted that modern ecclesiology needs to
elaborate a more spiritual concept of Church to replace one
which has been too juridic and sterile. Such a perspective,
however, seems superficial. It does not touch the fundamental reality of the Church. The need of the present moment is
not for substitution but synthesis. It is possible now to recapture the Pauline synthesis which was lost when apologists and
polemicists concerned themselves exclusively with the visibility of the Church. The need is to take up this synthesis once
again and restate it in terms for our times.
An adequate concept of Church must explain the Church's
theandric character. Recognizing the Church as a reality
which is at once visible and invisible, it must accept the
Church as both a society and a life; a society which manifests
in a public way Christ's triumph over Satan; a life which
establishes a totally new relationship between redeemed humanity and God. The members of the Church possess a unique
relationship to Christ and the Holy Spirit. The communion
among those possessing these relations constitutes the precise
reality which imparts to the Church its specific esse, viz. a
mystico-visible sharing in the life of Christ.
The present article will not attempt to present an adequate
concept of Church. Rather its aim is to establish what seems
to be an antecedent necessity: that only through a synthesis
of the juridic and spiritual viewpoints can we arrive at a truly
adequate concept of Church. 1 It will do this by reviewing the
synthesis which is present in St. Paul. It will then explain
how this synthesis was lost and offer some suggestions relative to the restatement of this synthesis today.
1 Although this was recognized in the last
century by Scheeben, it has not
received the consideration it merits. Cf. B. Fraigneau-Julien, L'Eglise et le charactere sacramentel selon M.-J. Scheeben, (Paris, 1957).

11

12

JOHN J. KING

So rich and complex is the concept of Church that St. Paul
uses a multiplicity of biblical images to describe it: Body of
Christ, People of God, Bride of Christ, Kingdom of God,
Temple of God. 2 Each image expresses some element or some
consequence of the union of men with Christ. We do not have
to seek the origin of St. Paul's thought in the Stoic metaphor
which saw the whole cosmos as a body animated by a divine
Pneuma; or in the gnostic myth of Urmensch. 3 These certainly influenced the evolution of Paul's expression, but his
thought concerning the Church was already fully contained in
his awareness of our oneness "in Christ." The words which
he heard on the road to Damascus had given him this awareness which he never lost. The heavenly voice's identification
of the Christian community with Jesus was without doubt the
source of Paul's thought and it was this he sought to express
by a variety of images. Among these there are two which stand
out: People of God and Body of Christ.
From the time when God first made a special intervention
in human affairs and called to Himself a special group of men,
there was always a People of God on earth. The divine election effected on Mt. Sinai made the Jews God's own people.
The desert community was thus set aside from the rest of
humanity. They became, as a race with an existence and a
unity of their own, the heirs of Abraham and of the promises
made to his seed. They were also raised up as a sign to all
nations that God had determined upon a definite plan for the
world and its salvation. At the very beginning of this covenant between God and his people, there was foreshadowed
Israel's sin and unfaithfulness. 4 God's plan for Israel would
never be fulfilled. In time the prophets would announce a
2 Space limitations
make it impossible to treat this very important image of
temple. It is well treated by J. C. Fenton, "The New Testament Designation of
the True Church as God's Temple," in American Ecclesiastical Review, 140 (1959),
108-117.
3 This is the judgment of Pierre Benoit, 0. P. Cf. "Corps,
Tete et Plerome,"
in Exegese et Thiologie, (Paris, 1961), II, 109.
• Lev. 26, 14; Deut.
15.

TOWARDS AN ADEQUATE

CONCEPT OF CHURCH

13

renewed, spiritual kingdom not subject to any disintegration:
a remnant of the old people would be saved and a new people formed from it.
From the beginning, the Christians were for St. Paul the
"new people of God." He saw in them the fulfillment of Osee's
prophecy 5 and he thus transferred to them the Old Testament
concept of laos periousious. 6 In the Old Testament this people
was formed from a national community, through a religious
obedience. In the New Testament, the concept is stripped of
its nationalistic orientation. The people is exclusively religious.
There is no longer Jew or Greek. 7 In the second epistle to the
Corinthians, St. Paul applies to this people the words spoken
by Yahweh to the community in the desert: " I will be their
God and they shall be my people." 8 Nor is the image of" people " exclusively Pauline. It is found in the first epistle of St.
Peter, 9 and in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles both James and Peter refer to the new Christians as a
" people." 10
This image certainly has its foundation in the teaching of
Jesus. It is found in his words and deeds concerning the Kingdom of God, especially in his prediction that the kingdom shall
be given to another people. At the Last Supper he inaugurates a new sacrifice to commemorate his passage to the
Father and to seal the new covenant in his blood. Those with
whom he makes this covenant and to whom he gives this sacrifice are the apostles. They are to pass out of the old people
as the Jews passed out of Egypt and so become a people in
themselves. Perhaps the most significant passage is found in
St. John's explanation of the prophecy of Caiphas that one
man should die for the people: "This, however, he said not
of himself; but being high priest that year, he prophesied that
Rom. 9, 23-9W.
Ex. 19, 5; 23, 22. Deut. 7, 6; 14, 2.
7 Gal. 3, 26.
8 2 Cor. 6, 16.
9 I. Peter, 2, 9.
10 The event was the Council of Jerusalem; the context, the calling of the Gentiles.
6

0

14

JOHN J. KING

Jesus was to die for the nation; and not only for the nation,
but that he might gather into one the children of God who
were scattered abroad." 11 This passage is invaluable for the
insight it gives us into the mind of St. John. For him, the
concept of people lay at the very heart of the new order. He
expresses the efficient cause of the new people: the dynamic
divine intervention in human affairs. This forms a new dispensation inaugurated through the redemptive shedding of
Christ's blood. This new people is also a purchased people. The
term has a qualitative significance. It is the people assembled through a divine call. This idea of calling is essentially
bound to St. Paul's thought concerning the Church. 12 In his
farewell to the presbyters of Ephesus he calls it " the Church
of God, which he has purchased with his own blood." 13
It is clear that for St. Paul the Christian communities
formed the new people of God. They were both the rejection
and the fulfillment of the desert community whereby the people first came into being. As God's people the Christians already shared in a limited manner in the union with God
in Christ which would be perfectly realized only when Christ
returned again to gather all things to himself in a manner
which would be perfect. This forward dimension was imparted
to the concept of Church by Paul's theory of realized eschatology and the tension this posits between the indicative and
the imperative; this is, between present participation and future fulfillment. 14 They were the people of God and they had
to become the people of God. They were holy and they had
to become holy. The people was always to be built up until
the parousia when it would receive its final and perfect fulfillment in the heavenly kingdom of the fully realized return
of man to God in Christ.
This notion of the people of God is without doubt an instiJn. 11, 51-53.
Cf. L. Cerfaux, The Church in the Theology of St. Paul, (N.Y., 1959), 183fl'.
13 Acts, !20, !28.
"On this paradox of realized eschatology cf. Benoit, art. cit., 11!2-3.

11

12

TOWARDS AN ADEQUATE

CONCEPT OF CHURCH

15

tutional and a juridical one. The ancient and venerable assembly raised up by God in the desert under the leadership of
Moses and Aaron was compact and socially structured. It was
formed by a divine call which gave it a specific existence of
its own. This same community was raised up by God again
as a messianic community gathered around Jesus. The local
assembly in Jerusalem was the first to assume this character.
Later with the multiplication of communities, it was the universal Church which appeared as the new people of God, scattered throughout the world, but retaining its specific character through its unique essence and its own proper existence
within the totality of the human race.
For St. Paul the Church is also the body of Christ. This is
based upon a physical realism which views the resurrected
body of Christ as the source of all spiritual life. Individual
Christians partake of this life through faith and baptism. Consequently all are one because all possess the same life which
animates the body of Christ. It seems that St. Paul never had
any concept of a union between Christ and the Christian except under the form of a physical (i. e., sacramental) union of
the Christian with the individual resurrected body of Christ.
This theme is found in the epistle to the Romans and the
first epistle to the Corinthians. Here Christians are given a
mystical identity with the one physical body of Christ. The
en soma en Cristo of Romans 12, 5 and the soma Cristou of I
Corinthians 12, 27 express the same idea. This idea " brings
together in its imprecision the Hellenistic simile and a mystical identification of all Christians with the body of Christ." 15
In the epistles of the captivity this theme receives some new
qualifications, but is substantially the same and has essentially the same foundation: Paul's deep personal awareness of
the unity of all Christians " in Christ." 16 In the epistle to the
Cf. Cerfaux, op. cit.
Cerfaux believes that soma never meant a moral body in Romans or I O:>rinthians (cf.
However we have followed Benoit's interpretation which
sees the theme "body of Christ" essentially the same in the major epistles of the
captivity. Cf. Benoit, art. cit.,
15

18

16

JOHN J. KING

Ephesians, it is a living organism hierarchically structured,
which is continually growing. 17 In the epistle to the Colossians
the body is " supplied and built up by joints and ligaments "
and " attains a growth that is of God." 18 In these epistles, the
body of Christ is the Church and is personified and distinguished in a more explicit fashion from the individual Christ.
The Church as body of Christ is constituted by personal religious experience effecting a transfigured natural existence
through the communication of the life of Christ. The Church
is conceived as life rather than institution.
This theme of body is related by St. Paul to the images of
headship and pleroma. The image of Christ the head first
appears in relation to the heavenly Powers and not in relation
to the Church. Paul is led to a new level by the necessity of
refuting the errors of the Colossians. He has to show that
Christ is above all the Powers and Principalities. He does this
by stating that Christ is the " head of every Principality and
Power. 19 By his resurrection he has been set "above every
Principality and Power and Virtue and Domination." 20 This
original concept of headship expresses a principle of authority.
Christ is superior to all the Principalities and Powers because
he has supreme authority over them and thus is their head.
When this image is applied to the Church, Christ is its
head because he possesses supreme authority over it. Later,
Christ's headship in regard to the Church came also to signify
that he is the source of life, motion and nourishment. Here
St. Paul is drawing upon Hellenistic and not Semitic science.
When we find the combination of Christ-Head and ChurchBody, we cannot overlook the fact that the image of ChristHead is a development of the image of Christ as supreme over
the Powers. 21 It is not a development of the image of the
Church as the body of Christ. The consequences of this are
decisive for the concept of Church. The Powers are in no way
Eph. 4, 15-16.
Col. 2, 19.
19 Col. 2, 10.
17

18

20
21

Eph. 1, 21.
Benoit, art. cit., 130.

TOWARDS AN ADEQUATE CONCEPT OF CHURCH

17

integrated into the Church-Body. The body remains always
those men possessing life through a physical union with the
dead and resurrected body of Christ. Only men can exist in
this body-men united to Christ by faith, baptism and the
Eucharist. It is absolutely impossible for the Powers to form
any part of the body of Christ. Since they pertain to the
world they are under the headship of Christ and thus pertain
to the new creation effected by Christ, but nothing more.
Paul does not give a fully developed treatment of them; it is
not even clear who they are; but it is evident that they look
upon the Church from the outside. Paul is giving a cosmic
extension to the salvific activity of Christ, not to the Church.
All creation-animate and inanimate-will be made new. Thus
the Powers also. This effectively places them under the dominion of Christ and this is all Paul seeks to do.
Paul sedulously reserves soma for regenerated humanity.
The cosmos for him is merely the frame of this humanity. He
is not interested in it directly. Having been brought to a new
level of observation by his refutation of the errors at Colossae, he finds himself in need of a new word to designate this
cosmic frame. The word he uses is pleroma. The pleroma is
only indirectly attached to Christ, but it does participate in
some fashion in his work of salvation. The pleroma of Christ
is a plenitude of being, of divinity and of the cosmos. The
plenitude of divinity is his by nature. The plenitude of the
whole world is his by his redemption which subjects all things
unto himself. The plenitude of the Church is his because he
is its head (source of nourishment); the fullness of the Powers
is his because he is their head (source of authority). Paul
found a ready background for this concept of plermna in both
the Stoic philosophy and biblical thought. 22
The fundamental Pauline idea of pleroma is not transferred
to Church-Body without alteration. In the epistle to the
Ephesians 1, 28 and again in 4, 18 the pleroma tou Cristou
is clearly coextensive with the soma. This does not extend the
•• Ibid., 188-158.

18

JOHN J. KING

Pauline concept of soma. Rather it applies to Church-Body
the concept of growth-a concept which is at least fundamentally contained in pleroma. The pleroma of Christ, although
it is a fact, must find its achievement in the time between
Christ's resurrection and his second coming. This is accomplished through the growth of the Church. This plenitude is
an achievement which will be realized only gradually, but
there is no doubt it will be realized only in the Church for
only here do we find the sacramental, physical union of the
saved with the resurrected and glorified body of Christ. Again,
Paul's theme of realized eschatology is very strong. The richness of Paul's thought here emphasizes the dynamic nature o£
the Church-Body. Its life must be a growth. This rethinking
of things on the cosmic plane served Paul well in his search
for a solution to the union of Jews and Gentiles. It did nothing to alter his understanding of Church-Body as regenerated
humanity: the unity of those who are one because they possess the life of Christ through their sacramental union with
the resurrected body of the Saviour.
From this understanding of body, head and pleroma, it is
evident that we must avoid giving a cosmic extension to the
Church-Body. Such a thought would not be Pauline. Paul did
not know a Church which embraced the Powers as well as
regenerated humanity. He did not know a Church which embraced the whole universe. This becomes clear once we understand the original meaning of Christ-Head and pleroma and
the precise manner in which they are predicated of the Church.
They are used by Paul merely to clarify one or more qualities
of the Church-Body. They do not extend that body in the
least.
It is time now to compare the two fundamental Pauline
concepts: People of God and Body of Christ. At the heart of
St. Paul's ecclesiology lies the identification of these two concepts. One did not replace the other. There was no metamorphosis in Paul's thought from a visible, societal concept of
Church to a spiritual concept; nor are people and body re-

TOWARDS AN ADEQUATE

CONCEPT OF CHURCH

19

lated to one another as container to contained or as signification to thing signified. There is only one reality which is at
once visible and spiritual. Body thus qualifies and complements people.
Whether we begin our comparison with the community or
the life communicated, our conclusion is the same: there is
no dialectic in Paul's ecclesiology. He does not know two
churches. The one Church he acknowledges cannot be adequately present unless there is a union with Christ which is
a mystico-juridic one. This union forms a people who, according to the positive desire of Christ, comprises a visible, living
organism and not just a sociological unit.
If we consider first the community, we see that the people
of God is not just an amorphous mass. Nor is it "a riotous
horde of people who chanced to be travelling together in the
same direction." 23 It is no longer a racial unit but a society
called out from mankind, the new people, the tertia gens. Its
very existence is a public and continual sign of God's new
covenant with humanity. This new people continues the mission of Christ. It possesses a unity which is societal.
First, it continues the mission of Christ. Christ is the one
Redeemer, the one mediator between God and man. He is the
only Apostle, the only teacher, the only Priest. The Church
as the prolongation of Christ must become itself the only
apostle, teacher and priest. It does so through an extension
of Christ's mission: "As the Father has sent me, I also send
you." 24 The Church becomes the teacher who is to make
disciples of all nations. It becomes the priest who continually
offers the eternal sacrifice to God the Father. Some among
the faithful are set aside by the will of Christ (not the community) exclusively "for the work of the ministry." This does
not remove the functions from the whole community. This
group becomes the divinely established and visible authenti23

A. De Bovis, What is the Church? (N.Y., 1961), 75.

•• Jn. 20, 22.

20

JOHN J. KING

cation of the communal functions. 2 " These functions themselves have a necessary visible aspect and the concentration
of them in a divinely established group of ministers makes
the community all the more necessary. In fact the communal
activity has no legitimacy apart from this group. It is the
visible source of all the community's ministry.
This community posseses a unity which is caused first by
its organization. It is found upon the apostolic administration. Paul, as an apostle, possesses full authority over the
communities which he established. There is no evidence that
he was reluctant to exercise this authority. 26 The unity of the
Church is caused also by traditions, including customs and
rites as well as teaching; 27 this unity gives the Church an
order and a cohesion, 28 and is founded also upon "one Lord,
one faith, one baptism." 29 Profession of faith and reception
of baptism are the necessary requisites for admission. The
reception of the one bread is the badge of perseverance. It is
true that during the ministry of St. Paul the organization of
the Church did not achieve full maturity; yet the basic hierarchical structure and corporate form are both present in
primitive fashion. This organization was not something accidental either in fact or in Paul's thought. His exhortation to
the presbyters of Ephesus, his excommunication of the incestuous Corinthian, his instruction to Titus and Timothy, his
references to those " who are over you in the Lord "-all these
provide us with insights into the value he assigned to the
Church's organization.
The ministry which the community prolongs and the unity
which it possesses are not exclusively visible and societal. The
community continues also the life of Christ by communicating it through a sacramental dispensation. The ministry of apos-,
Jean Colson, Les fonctions ecclesiales, (Paris, 1954), 163fl'.
Cf. I Cor. 1, 1; 4,
11, 16; 14, 37; Cor. 1, 1; Gal. Iff; Rom. 1, 1-6.
21 Cf. The eleventh chapter of first Corinthians.
Also: I Thess. 4, 1-3; Col.
28 Eph. 4, 11-16; Col. :2, 19.
29 Eph. 4, 5-6.
25

26

6.

TOWARDS AN ADEQUATE CONCEPT OF CHURCH

21

tle, teacher and priest is an effect of the Holy Spirit poured
out upon all, but especially upon those set aside exclusively
for the work of the ministry. The spiritual gifts and the charisms which the Spirit imparts give to these functions the same
supernatural dimension possessed by the one Mediator himself and they bring about the same result: union of man to
God through and in Christ.
The unity which is caused by the apostolic foundation and
the ecclesiastical organization, by the profession of faith, and
the reception of baptism and the Eucharist is also founded
ultimately upon the life " in Christ " which these functions
confer. This life is sacramental in its inception and societal in
its existence. Thus the social reality which has an articulated
institution is also a spiritual reality which is the common possession of life " in Christ." St. Paul clearly indicates that the
mystery of the Church actually lies precisely in its theandric
nature. If we allow any separatism to be introduced here, we
destroy the Pauline synthesis.
The same conclusion is reached if we start out with a consideration of the life which is communicated. The unity of
Christians is rooted ultimately in the common possession of
the life of the resurrected Christ. But this does not mean that
St. Paul recognized any society of the justified, or the predestined, or the elect by themselves. He never applied the
term body of Christ to such a group. The life of Christ which
is shared by his followers is not simply a personal, individual
regeneration. This life has a corporate aspect; it is received
through faith and baptism. These two form a contract between the individual and the community. This life is to be
lived as a member of the new people of God, the individual
thus giving public testimony to God's plan of salvation as
well as rendering service to the community through the fulfillment of a ministry which is either general or particular.
This visibility is not simply an external manifestation of the
life which is present, rather, it pertains to the very substance
of the new life in Christ. For Christ has willed that his new

JOHN J. KING

people should not only possess life, but that this life should
be manifest to the world, that the world might believe. His
people are a sign raised up, as he himself was, to draw all
nations to itself.
The corporate aspects of the life "in Christ" are clearly
manifest in the manner in which an individual comes to participate in this life. For St. Paul this is not simply a spiritual
reality effected by baptism; such a view does violence to the
integrity of St. Paul's ecclesiology. The context is always a
communal one. The community preaches the gospel; the individual responds with a profession of faith and is accepted by
the community through the rite of baptism; the whole process being ratified by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. This
is how one comes to live " in Christ." 30
Thus visibility is not merely the external manifestation of
a union with a Church which remains essentially invisible and
spiritual; it pertains to the very union itself. The union with
Christ which gives rise to the Church is not a mystical union
which is given a visible manifestation, but a union which is
itself mystico-visible. It is this mystico-visible union which
constitutes the Church. This concept clearly expresses the
incarnational character of the Church and in so doing justifies the assertion that the Church is the prolongation of Christ.
It also directs our attention toward the upward dimension of
the Church. The Church exists not only to reconcile men to
God, but to provide before all mankind a public testimony
to God's triumph over the forces of darkness.
St. Paul did not give a complete, orderly exposition of his
awareness concerning the Church. From a consideration of
his principal images, however, it appears that he understood
the Church as a reality which is at once visible and invisible.
It is a reality which can not be considered apart from Paul's
theme of realized eschatology. There is a constant tension
between the ideal, the Church as it should be, and the real,
8 ° Cf. the second, third and fourth chapters in the Acts of the Apostles. For this
concept in St. Paul, cf. Cerfaux, op. cit., 161-175.

TOWARDS AN ADEQUATE

CONCEPT OF CHURCH

the Church as it actually exists in the world. One is the actual
but imperfect realization of the other.
The complexity and the incompleteness of Paul's ecclesiology do not obscure the synthesis he effected between the
visible and invisible elements. The people of God is not only
an identifiable corporeity but also an organism alive with the
life of Christ. The body of Christ is composed of those who
are one in Christ through the sharing of his life; but this is
not just an individual, invisible sharing but one which possesses a corporate aspect.
We cannot consider here the patristic evidence for this view
of the Church. Certainly it is found in St. Augustine. 31 It was
obscured by the juridicism of the Middle Ages and lost in the
agitation of the counter-reformation. Theologians became preoccupied with the externals of the Church because of the
necessity of identifying the Roman Catholic Church with the
true Church of Christ. St. Robert Bellarmine spoke of union
between the individual and the Church rather than between
the individual and Christ. 32 The union was not in Christ but
in the visible society. This Bellarminian view of the Church
is perfectly accurate if we understand the context within which
it was elaborated. 33 It remains, however, only a partial view
of the Church.
From the sixteenth century on, the treatise De Ecclesia became more and more narrow in scope.34 For a variety of reasons the external and institutional aspect of the Church comprised almost the entire treatise. So obscure did the Pauline
31 For the thought
of St. Augustine, cf. S. Grabowski, The Church: An Introduction to the Theology of St. Augustine. (St. Louis, 1957).
For a general view of the Fathers, cf. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, (N.Y.,

1959),

and

De eccl. mil. c. 1.
33 Cf. J. C. Fenton, "St. Robert's Definition of Church," AER, III (1945), 181-45.
For more on this subject by tbe same author, cf. AER, 1!M (1951)
and 127
32

•• Y. Cougar, 0. P .., "L'Ecclesiologie de Ia revolution fran<;;aise au Concile du
Vatican sous le signe de !'affirmation de l'autorite," in L'Ecclesiologie au XIX•
siecle, (Paris, 1960), 77-114.

JOHN J. KING

synthesis become that at the time of the First Vatican Council, the Fathers refused to call the Church the mystical body
because that term was too vague and might seem to favor the
notion of an invisible Church. A beginning had been made,
however, and in the period between the two great wars, there
developed a whole doctrine of the mystical body which
brought to the fore once again the spiritual reality of the
Church. 35 Unfortunately, this theology remained isolated from
the continuing theology of the Church as a visible institution.
These two perspectives were finally brought together by Pius
XII in Mystici Corporis when he identified the Roman Catholic Church and the mystical body. So strong had been the
theological reaction to the excessively juridic treatment of the
Church that this identification encountered some reluctance
and Pius XII had to insist upon it again in Humani Generis.
Even today ecumenial interests incline some to extend the
mystical body beyond the Roman Catholic Church in order
to include, at least, all baptized Christians.
It would seem that this renders it extremely difficult to
recapture the Pauline synthesis. It would help to recognize
that the post-reformation ecclesiology was not without its
advantages. It did clearly delineate the external, social, juridic nature of the Church. This was necessary because of the
Protestant doctrine of an invisible Church. When later generations confused this counter-reformation apologetic with an
integral theological treatise, the concept of Church became onesided and thus distorted. This distortion isolated one element
which can be properly viewed only when integrated into a
comprehensive consideration of the complex reality of the
Church. We must be careful today that we do not repeat this
error in the opposite direction by isolating the spiritual element of the Church. Our greatest need is not to replace the
juridic treatment with a spiritual one, but to restore the juridic element to its proper place within the Pauline under35

Cf. Jaki, Les Tendences nouvelles de l'ecclesiologie, (Rome, 1957),

TOWARDS AN ADEQUATE

CONCEPT OF CHURCH

!25

standing of the Church as the theandric reality which prolongs
the Incarnate Word through space and time.
This would emphasize the corporate nature of the new dispensation. Man is saved not through the private possession
of life in Christ, but through possession of this life as a member of God's new people. He has received a call to come out
of the world, not individually, but as one of the group which
itself has been called out of the world by Christ. This people
is to bear witness between God and redeemed humanity. It is
to give service to the whole of humanity by continuing the
general ministry of the word, common to all the members of
the society, and by the particular ministry exercised by those
who have been set aside by the sacrament of Orders, as Moses
and Aaron were set aside in the original desert community.
Within this framework we can set about restating the synthesis of St. Paul according to our modern theological and
ecclesiastical structures. For this, the concept of communion
seems to hold more promise than that of sacramentality. 36 The
Church is a communion because it is a solidarity based upon
faith, the sacraments and authority. It is a solidarity which,
in an even more fundamental sense, grows out of a common
possession: life in Christ. Because we are all individually
united to Christ through possession of his life, we are united
to one another. This solidarity gives rise to a common activity which is the life of the new people of God and which
prolongs the three-fold mission of Christ. All of this is contained in the notion of communion. The Church is a communion in being as well as in action. It is an unique existence
based upon the common life shared by all. This common life
includes a two-fold relation: one between the members and
God, the other among the members themselves. Because these
relations are unique they are characteristic of the Christian
collectivity.
The uniqueness of our relation to God is the more difficult
36 For the notion of communion,
cf. J. Hamer, L'Eglise est une communion,
(Paris,
.

26

JOHN J. KING

to grasp. A partial understanding is found in Cajetan's commentary on II-II, q. 39, a. 1. In this article, St. Thomas says
that schism is a special sin because it is opposed to that unity
of the Church which is effected by charity. This unity not
only gathers the members together by a bond of spiritual love
but it gives the whole Church a unity in spirit. Considering
this, Cajetan asks two questions which are of interest to us.
First, he asks what is the unity of the Church to which schism
is opposed. Further, in the light of the principle, unum sequitur esse, schism must be opposed to some esse ecclesiae. What
then is the esse ecclesiae which schism destroys? Secondly, he
asks how unity can be the effect of charity since it can exist
without charity.
In answering the first question, Cajetan rules out faith,
hope, charity, the sacraments, subjection to the one head.
Faith, hope and the sacraments can remain with schism; charity can be lost without schism. Subjection of all members to
one head cannot be the esse ecclesiae which schism destroys
since this subjection is not sufficient to constitute the Church
a numerical whole, but merely to constitute it under one
head. Cajetan considers the Church as a "unitas collectionis
universorum fidelium." Each member receives from this an
esse relativum, first to be part of the whole, then to be dependent upon that whole. He receives also a specific actio and
passio in as much as this relation to the whole brings him
under the special influence of the Holy Spirit. Cajetan states
that the Holy Spirit influences not only the substance of his
actions but also the mode. By this he means that the Spirit
moves him not s:mply to act but to act as part of a corporate
totality. Thus he believes as one possessing a corporate unity
with others who believe. He receives the sacraments as one
who is part of a group which receives the sacraments. The
Spirit moves the whole body. He must necessarily impart not
only the same motion to each member, but he must further
move each member precisely in as much as he is part of the
whole.

TOWARDS AN ADEQUATE

CONCEPT OF CHURCH

There is no reason for this beyond the desire of the Spirit
that there be but one Church. He wills that men be saved as
parts of a corporate whole. Since there is one Spirit imparting one influence, the Church must necessarily be numerically
one and Cajetan has found the esse ecclesiae to which schism
is opposed: " est ipsum esse Ecclesiae ut unius totius rationem
habet." A schismatic withdraws himself from this unity and
consequently from the specifically ecclesial subjection to the
Holy Spirit. It does not make any difference why he does this.
He makes of himself a quasi-whole and thus negates the salvation within the Church-whole which is willed by the Spirit.
To the second question, Cajetan answers that the effects of
charity may be formed or unformed; unity, as an effect of
charity, is always formed in the Church herself since the
Church is always spotless. But as possessed by an individual,
unity can be unformed, and thus there is no difficulty in saying that unity is an effect of charity.
It does not seem that Cajetan has really found a solution
to this first question. To say that the esse Ecclesiae to which
schism is opposed is the Church's characteristic of being an
undivided whole is not really to progress beyond the concept
of unity. Nevertheless, even with this reservation, the text is
rich in its ecclesiological insights and the parallel it possesses
with the teaching of St. Paul. Cajetan has stated the problem
of the Church's nature in terms which are exact. He has
arrived at the most fundamental consideration with his treatment of the members' relation to the Holy Spirit. This relation, together with subjection to the visible head, makes one
a member of the Church. The reality which schism destroys
is not just subjection to a visible head but the unique relation to the Spirit which accompanies it.
So the Church is a reality at once spiritual and societal.
The spiritual aspect is described as a modal influence exerted
by the Holy Spirit. Some will object that this can only be
something accidental and as such is not fittingly taken as the
constitutive element of the Church. To this it could be said

JOHN J. KING

that the will of God is decisive here. He has willed that his
people have a corporate form to which this unique relation
to the Holy Spirit is a correlative. That which God directly
wills cannot be viewed as accidental. In moral matters it is
the will of the individual which determines what is substantial and what is accidental. We must admit, however, that we
are not able adequately to describe this relation and, until we
can, an adequate concept of Church will elude us. But without hesitation we affirm that this outpouring of the Spirit
actualizes, formalizes the Church. It provides the spiritual
reality which renders intelligible the concept of Church as
body of Christ.
Let us, then, say what can be said about this relation, leaving to others the completion or correction of what we say.
This relation is not one of charity and so the Church is not
the society of those in sanctifying grace. This relation is an
effect of charity. The Holy Spirit always moves and informs
the Church and so she remains holy with a holiness no man
can sully. The individual, on the other hand, can react to the
justifying act of the Spirit in varying degrees. He can possess
charity but not the effect of charity which is external union
with the Church. Consequently he is not uniquely related to
the Holy Spirit and is not a member of the Church. 37 He can
be bereft of charity and external unity with the Church. For
even greater reasons he is not a member of the Church. He
can lose charity but still remain subject to the visible head
and thus retain a unique relation to the Spirit-Cajetan would
say he is still moved as part of a whole. We say then that
membership in the Church is an effect of charity-but an
effect which can be formed or unformed. This sheds much
light upon the understanding of the Church's nature since
the Church is the communion of those possessing this unique
relationship.
With this we are brought back to St. Paul's realized escha37 Such an individual
is not, of course, completely separated from the Church.
He preserves some union, which however, is not membership. Cf. J. King, The
Necessity of the Church for Salvation, (Washington, 1960), 5!89-339.

TOWARDS AN ADEQUATE CONCEPT OF CHURCH

29

tology and the attainment of the pleToma Christi in the growth
of the Church. There must be a constant, dynamic activity
moving the Church ever closer to the perfect realization of
her ideal existence; this ideal is already realized in the present time but only in a limited manner. The life of Christ
which is shared is not necessarily sanctification-although
it
is meant to be this in its fullness. But because it is not, the
Church is not the communion of those in sanctifying grace
but the communion of those who are subject to the visible
head and to the Holy Spirit in a unique way. Although this
subjection may be imperfect because it is unformed, it is a
relationship and thus a life 38-a life which is not attainable
by those who separate themselves from the whole. So the
Church must be constantly built up not merely by being extended but by bringing about among the members a more
perfect sharing of the life of Christ through a more perfect
submission to his Spirit. Thus, in order to restate the Pauline
synthesis in our day, we must first recognize the Church as
a complex reality which is at once visible and invisible. We
must recognize the Mystical Body and the Roman Catholic
Church as one and the same reality. Secondly, we must weigh
well the effect of Paul's notion of realized eschatology upon
the concept of Church. Thirdly, we must inquire into the nature of the unique relation which exists only between the Holy
Spirit and the members of the Church. These hold the only
promise of developing a truly adequate concept of Church.
JOHN J. KING,

0. M. I.

Oblate College,
Washington, D.C.
38 It may seem, at first, that such a relationship
should not be called " life."
But there is a strong basis for such a terminology. To mention only one, we quote
the following from Pius XII:
For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever
a man from the Body of the Church, as does heresy or apostasy. Men may lose
charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural
merit, and yet not be deprived of all life, if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior
promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins. Mystici Corporis, par. 23.

THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH

Introduction

D

IFFICULT as it is to present an adequate picture o£ the
present-day world, no one could deny that one contour
which characterizes this age is the general feeling o£
estrangement among men. Because o£ this general feeling, the
existential philosophers, so solicitous for personal integrity and
inter-personal communication, have gained a wide-spread and
sympathetic audience. It is also the reason the theology concerning the Church of Christ-a communion o£ love initiated
by God to be shared in by all men through his Son-is especially important and relevant today.
The great inner renewal which the Church hersel£ is presently
undergoing can also be cited as justifying a theological essay
on the nature of the Church. Some degree o£ insight into the
mysteries involved in this study is really the key to an understanding of the direction and potentials of this renewal. At
least a rudimentary introduction into ecclesiology is, therefore,
a quasi-necessity for every informed member of the Church. 1
It is also true that, especially since the Protestant Reformation, tracts entitled de Ecclesia have frequently been written.
These, however, have been mostly in the field o£ apologetics.
Authors who have modelled their works on that o£ St. Robert
Bellarmine have intended principally to defend the right o£ the
Roman Catholic Church to call hersel£ the " one, true Church,"
as distinguished not only from pagan religious bodies, but also
£rom the various Christian denominations.
1 Despite the quantity
of current literature in the field of ecclesiology, it is
generally admitted that the masterful guides to be had in other spheres of theological study are lacking in this area. In the past fifty years, for example, excellent works have appeared on the subject of the Church as the Mystical Body of
Christ-all of which have been surpassed in excellence and authority by the
encyclical, Mystici Corporis, of the late Pope Pius XII.

30

THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH

31

One serious difficulty in the writing of such an essay is the
amount of material involved in a complete treatment of ecclesiology. A full vision of the Church is a sort of synthesis of many
elements taken from the entire theological discipline and welded
together in a somewhat different form. If one reflects, for
example, that ecclesiology is a study of the Church of Christ, it
is evident that it must be based on a correct understanding of
the mystery of the Incarnation. Again, this Church is composed of men; so the study of it depends, in a certain measure,
on an understanding of the potentialities of human nature
created in God's image. The Church is, moreover, organized in
a hierarchial way; and its activity is sacramental. To this
extent ecclesiology is connected with the theology of the divine
government of the universe and that of the sacraments instituted by Christ. Since this is the case, the theology concerning
the Church should not be the first subject taken up by a student
of sacred doctrine.
No less a theologian than St. Thomas apparently omits to
treat explicitly of the mystery of the Church, at least in his
great theological synthesis, the Summa Theologiae. Still this
apparent lacuna in the works of St. Thomas does not mean
that the Angelic Doctor fails to furnish the principles for developing a balanced ecclesiology. The contrary is true; and
perhaps the text which is most relevant to the organization of
this subject matter is the following:
Even as in the order of natural things, perfection, which in God is
simple and uniform, is not to be found in the created universe
except in a multiform and manifold manner, so too, the fullness of
grace, which is centered in Christ as head, flows forth to His
members in various ways, for the perfecting of the body of the
Church. This is the meaning of the Apostle's words: "He gave
some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and
other some pastors and doctors for the perfecting of the saints "
(Eph. 4:
(Summa Theologiae, II, II, 183, c.)

It is clear that St. Thomas here compares the dependence of
the Church on Christ with the dependence of the created universe on God. It is clear also that certain distinctions must be

32

MAURICE

B. SCHEPERS

made in order that this comparison be admitted as valid. The
most important is based on the truth that there is, strictly
speaking, only one creation, of which God is the sole author.
As man, Christ himself is not able to create; because this
activity is defined as the production of being in its entirety,
from absolutely nothing (cf. Surnrna, I, 45, 1 and 5).
When, therefore, the Church is designated as a New Creation,
the meaning is simply that everything in the Church proceeds
from Christ and returns to him. This truth, however, is itself
pregnant with consequences; because it means that the study
of the Church can validly be organized on the model of theology
as a whole. It may be recalled that St. Thomas' synthesis of
sacred doctrine is based on the affirmation that God is the
subject of all theology. Therefore, a study of the divine mysteries in themselves has primacy. St. Thomas treats consequently all that proceeds from God, but especially the being
made in his image. Finally, he considers the movement of the
rational creature, God's image, toward the fulfillment of that
for which he was made, the face to face vision of God himself.
Since the Church is fashioned in the image of Christ, much
of the order of theology described so briefly here can be transferred to the study of the Church. Such an ecclesiology should
be a just presentation of the reality. In the first place, it appears that the entire study must be divided into two great units.
The first might be described as the exitus or going forth of the
Church, as she proceeds from Christ. Perhaps no more appropriate text from the Bible might be cited in this connection
than the opening phrases of the ninth chapter of the book of
Proverbs: " See, where wisdorn has built herself a house, carved
out for herself those seven pillars of hers " (cited according
to the translation of Msgr. Knox). Every element of the structure of this New Creation has as its cause Christ, who, as the
Son of God, is Sapientia genita. The second part of ecclesiology
will be concerned with the reditus or return of the Church to
Christ, her Author and Head. Whereas the former part of
this study may be called the dogmatic consideration of the
structure of the Church, the latter part may be designated as

THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH

83

the " moral theology concerning the Church." It will deal
with the life or activity proper to the Church, itself determined
by the structure articulated according to the wisdom of Christ.
Within both of these large divisions, which spell out the structure and the life of the Church respectively, other obvious
distinctions are to be made. Briefly, the structure may be described through the three categories of creation (or birth),
order, and government; while the life of the Church may be
understood according to the final consummation, the activity
through which this perfection is reached, and the principles
from which such activity proceeds.

I.

THE STRUCTURE

OF THE CHURCH,

BASED ON THE

wISDOM OF CHRIST

A. The birth of the Chu1·ch
From all eternity the Son of God was predestined to be the
Founder and Head, Savior and Support of a gathering which
would be called his Church. This is the mystery which St. Paul
announces in the very beginning of his epistle to the Ephesians:
" [God] has chosen us out, in Christ, before the foundation of
the world, to be saints, to be blameless in his sight, for love of
him; marking us out beforehand (so his will decreed) to be his
adopted children through Jesus Christ" (1: 4-6). This is the
justification for calling the Church, the Church of Christ; and
the first task in ecclesiology is to delineate the senses in which
this is true.
The first, most obvious sense of Christ's principality is verified in the order of his effective lordship. St. John represents
him as " full of grace and truth," and adds, almost immediately;
"Yes, of his fulness we have all received" (John 1: 14b, 16a).
The Incarnate Word of God is the agent cause to which every
existing element of the Church's structure can be traced. All
the gifts of God which are present effectively in the Church
are due directly to the work of Christ.
The same reality, moreover, which depends effectively on

34

MAURICE

B. SCHEPERS

Christ tends toward him as toward its final cause. Since the
Lord is full of grace and truth, i. e., since every perfection of
the Church does exist in him, simply and uniformly, the perfecting of the Church herself must consist in attaining perfect
union with her Author and Head. This is a process which is
verified in history, but in a mysterious and hidden way. Its
consummation is described by St. Paul as follows: " When all
things will have been subjected to [the Son], then the Son will
subject himself to him who has subjected all things to [the Son],
in order that God may be all in all" (I Cor. 15: 28).
From this it follows too that Christ is the exemplar in whose
image the Church is fashioned, and against which everything
in the Church is measured. The idea is, again, Pauline. " Those
whom [God] has discerned beforehand, he has also predestined
to reproduce the image of his Son, in order that he may be the
first-born of many brothers " (Rom. 1 : 20) .
As Author of the New Creation, therefore, Christ is the
effective, final, and exemplar cause of the Church in her
entirety.
When was the Church created? Some would answer this
question with reference to the Old Testament, showing that
even in pre-Christian times the Church existed, at least in
nascent form, in the gathering of God's chosen people, Israel.
This is true, of course, and understanding the mystery of the
Church does depend in some degree on seeing how the Church
of the New Testament is a fulfillment of the covenant that God
made with Abraham and his seed. Still, it is perhaps better to
consider how the Church actually came into being through the
historical mystery of the Incarnation of the Word of God.
There is a sense, then, in which the coming into being of the
Church coincides with the taking of a human nature by the
Word of God in the womb of Our Lady. From the moment the
Sacred Heart of Jesus begins to beat with love for all men the
Church exists. At that moment the design of the Church is
already revealed and its life of love has begun. This is the
Church in Christ, for in his Heart dwelt the fullness of the
godhead; and from it would flow one day the blood and water

THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH

35

which are, in the Church, the sources of the power of the
sacraments of rebirth and renewed life. 2
Christ himself planned, however, that the divine gifts which
constitute the structure of his Church should be revealed and,
in a sense, ratified during the entire time of his earthly life.
While he was exercising his ministry of preaching and doing
good, the Lord chose a group of men to whom he committed the
responsibility of being the foundation stones of his temple, to
whom he also communicated the powers by which they might
effectively acquit themselves of this superhuman task. Within
this group of Apostles, he singled out one, Simon Peter, to
whom he committed the responsibility of being the universal
Father and Shepherd of his flock, and to whom he communicated the powers which one day would be described as episcopal,
supreme, and altogether independent of any other authority,
within or without the Church. 3 He also indicated to this group
of twelve his will concerning the sacraments, through which
the life of God should henceforth be communicated in the
Church. In other words, he instituted these sacraments and
committed them to the Church in the person of his envoys and
ministers.
Two other moments are crucial in the foundation of the
Church. The first is the passion and death of the Lord on the
cross. No better description of what this event means to the
Church can be found than that of St. Ambrose (cited in M ystici
Corporis by Pius XII) : " It is now that it is built, it is now
that it is formed, it is now that it is ... molded, it is now that
it is created ... Now it is that arises a spiritual house for a
holy priesthood." The venerable doctor of the fifth century is
saying that all the gifts which Christ had revealed during his
public ministry were confirmed and given their efficacy by the
power of the cross. "It was on the tree of the cross," says
Pius XII in this same passage, " that he entered into possession
of his Church." The final moment of the Church's creation was
• See Durrwell, F. X., The Resurrection (N. Y.: Sheed and Ward, 1960), pp.
79-91.
3 Constitutio Dogmatica de fide catholica of the First Vatican Council (D. 1827).

36

MAURICE B. SCHEPERS

Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of tongues
of fire that rested above the heads of the chosen Apostles. In
this way Christ proclaimed from his throne in heaven the glory
of his Spouse, the Church; and he set the seal of his approval
upon her supernatural mission and task. 4

B. 01·der and distinction in the Church
This seems to be the proper place to point out that the
theology concerning the Church is derived largely from symbolic representations of this mystery contained in the Bible.
The theologian's first task is to collect these figures from the
pages of Sacred Scripture. They must then be seen in their
various stages of development throughout the history of salvation and be compared one with the other. Finally, they should
be converted into language which is more proper, insofar as
this is possible. For an ever more adequate penetration of the
mystery of the Church, the theologian must have constant recourse to these figures, in their biblical context. He interprets
them, of course, according to the " analogy of faith," i. e.,
against the background of the living teaching of the Church,
and in relation to all the revealed mysteries of the Catholic
faith.
The more important figures in question are very familiar,
because they are the basis of all ordinary preaching and teaching concerning the Church. St. Paul calls the Church the body
of Christ (see especially Rom. 12:4 ff. and I Cor. 12: 12 ff.;
also Eph. 1 : 22-23 and Coloss. 1 : 18, 24) ; and Pius XII affirms
that to describe the Church " we shall find no expression more
noble, more sublime or more divine." 5 Other symbolic expressions do complement and supplement, to a certain degree, what
is implicit in that foremost figure. For example, in the passage
which he devotes to the mutual relation of husband and wife
in the Christian family, St. Paul makes the model of this rela• For Pius XU's development of the foregoing points, see Mystim Corporis (Eng.
trans!., America Press), para. 32-41.
5 Cf. Hamer, J., L'Eglise est une communion
(Unam Sanctam, 40) (Paris: du
Cerf, 1962), pp. 50-66, 95-100.

THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH

87

tion the loving dominion of Christ over his Spouse, the Church
(Eph. 5 : 21 ff.) . Christ himself had made the theme of his
preaching still another symbol, that of the Kingdom; and this
too may be applied to the Church. St. John's gospel contains
two other descriptions based on the words of Christ: the Church
as the Flock over which the Good Shepherd keeps constant
watch (John 10: 11 ff.); and the Church as the union of vine
and branches, Christ being the vine without whom we can do
nothing (John 15: 5). Another Pauline figure of the Church
is contained in the epistle to the Ephesians, wherein the Apostle
speaks of the Church as a temple (2: 20-22). This theme is
alluded to in other places, and by other inspired writers (cf. I
Petr. 2: 5); but this is also true of the other figures. Finally,
there are places in the New Testament in. which the Church is
spoken of as a city (cf. Apoc. 21, where the reference is primarily to the consummation of the mystery of the Church in
heaven) ; or as a household (cf. Luke 12: 42) .
The aspect of the mystery of the Church to which meditation on the ensemble of these biblical figures draws our attention is the various kinds of ecclesial order or distinction. In
the present context this means merely that the biblical figures
are the starting point from which may be derived a more or
less perfect understanding of the catholic unity of the Church;
because the articulated distinction of the Church's constitution
makes her to be one and catholic. Her unity is both organic,
i.e., that of a living and growing organism, and ordered, i.e.,
related to a single principle and source of power or authority.
That distinction or order in the Church which furnishes the
best insights into the Church's catholicity may be called a
distinction or order of perfection. Under this heading it is
possible to touch briefly on the subject of the conditions of
membership in the Church, and to discuss the import of the
dogmatic axiom, " outside the Church, no salvation."
A good starting point would seem to be St. Paul's doctrine
concerning the distinction of the Church, as a whole, from
another gathering, which is her enemy. Speaking to the Colossians of God's largesse, he says: "He has, in fact, rescued us

38

MAURICE

B. SCHEPERS

from the empire of darkness and has transferred us into the
kingdom of his well-beloved Son, in whom we have redemption,
the remission of sins" (1: 13-14). The Apostle is saying
simply that the Church, a kingdom of goodness and holiness,
is distinguished by an action of God from another kingdom in
which Satan has hegemony. The citizens or members of the
former kingdom are, therefore, distinguished or marked as belonging to God in and through Christ. This is a rather elementary way of expressing the idea of membership in the
Church, for it is really a response to a divine vocation, in virtue
of which a man passes from darkness to light.
A two-fold question arises in consequence: what do the
members of the Church have in common one with another, and
how are they distinguished among themselves, precisely as
members of the Church? These questions must be discussed
in order.
The Catholic doctrine on the common conditions for membership in the Church are succinctly expressed by Pius XII in
Mystici Corporis:
Only those are really to be included as members of the Church
who have been baptized and profess the true faith and who have
not unhappily withdrawn from the body-unity or for grave faults
been excluded by legitimate authority .... those who are divided
in faith or government cannot be living in one body such as this,
and cannot be living the life of its one divine Spirit.
Real or actual membership, therefore, requires an initial introduction into the kingdom of light through the sacrament of
faith, which is baptism. This is, as it were, the door to the
Church. To this sacrament there is bound up intimately the
profession of the true faith. Furthermore, being washed in this
bath of redemption also implies the willingness to live in what
Pius XII calls the "body-unity," i.e., in loving submission to
the hierarchical order which Christ himself has established in
his Church.
Once a person has been introduced through baptism into
the kingdom of light, the possibility of a withdrawal or separation is real, though not according to God's will. This may

THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH

39

happen through heresy, for example, when the faith suffers
corruption. It may happen through schism, when a member or
group of members become unwilling to live in communion with
and under the authority of Christ communicated to the hierarchy, especially to the Roman Pontiff. Finally, it may happen
through excommunication, when the Church herself takes action
against a member whose life does not correspond to the vocation of the children of light.
It is according to these principles that the saying, " outside
the Church, no salvation," must be understood. Since incorporation into Christ is accomplished really through the conditions outlined above, and since Christ is the only way that
men have to return to God, necessarily these conditions must,
in some sense, be verified in order that a man be saved. This
is not to say, however, that they are always verified in exactly
the same way. As a matter of fact, it is the constant teaching
of Catholic tradition that men may be related to the Church,
though not members in a full sense, in a hidden or latent way.
As far back as the fifth century St. Augustine had this to say
about a situation which seems often to be verified in our
own day:
A person who defends his own opinion [in matters of faith], even
though it be erroneous and perverse, but who defends it without
obstinacy, especially when the [opinion] is not the fruit of his own
perverse presumption, but is rather inherited from parents who
have fallen into error; who, furthermore, is searching diligently for
the truth, ready to surrender to it when he comes to know it-such
a person is not to be counted among the heretics (Epist. 43, 1 [ML
33, 160]).

Today we would say that some men are related to the Church
by an unconscious wish or desire, which may even be implicit.
This means that when a man, through no fault of his own, does
not have the opportunity to make use of the ordinary channels
of salvation, and when he acts in accord with the conscience
that speaks within him as the voice of God, his Creator; then
God will give him grace, and he will be able to be saved. Such
a man is related to the Church.

40

MAURICE B. SCHEPERS

When such a situation is actually verified is difficult, if not
impossible, to determine; still, there seem to be certain " rules
of thumb " that are applications of the principles of the necessity of grace. If it be true that in his present condition man is
incapable, without grace, of accomplishing even the good which
is connatural to him (cf. Summa, I, II, 109, 2), and if the moral
good that man does is measured, in a certain way, according
the perfection of his communion with others, then it would seem
to follow that real inter-personal communication among men
is a sort of sign of the presence, to one degree or another, of
the mystery of the Church. This seems to be what Father
M. J. Cougar, 0. P. is referring to in the following passage:
A love before charity must be a true love if it is to lead to charity;
it must be a self-giving love, otherwise it cannot be charity's first
matrix, its preformation or anticipation. Contrarily, when a man
goes out of himself, when he gives himself to some good that surpasses himself, when there really is love, then there is the possibility of meeting, in the form of an absolute, the hidden God who
wants to draw us to himself and save us .... God can be "aimed
at" through very inadequate representations and even under other
names than his. That is the case with men-whole peoples!brought up in other religions, which may be monotheistic, like
Islam, or wholly heathen (The Wide World My Parish, London,
1961, pp.

Such a statement of the case leads naturally to a discussion
of the second question: how are members of the Church distinguished among themselves? Is it possible that love has
somethingto do with the distinction?
First of all, it is clear that love, of itself, is not an absolute
requirement for membership in the Church. If it were, sinners
would be excluded from membership; and this is an idea alien
to tradition. This tradition is based, moreover, on such solid
ground as the parable of the Lord concerning the field planted
with wheat in which the tares are allowed to grow until harvest
time. It would, however, be a gross misunderstanding to suppose that love or charity had nothing at all to do with membership in the Church. In reality, all the conditions-baptism,
profession of the true faith, and submission to lawful authority

THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH

41

in the Church-bespeak or point to love. Love is the normal
fruit or expression of all of them, so much so that St. Thomas
speaks of schism as a sin which is directly contrary to divine
love (cf. Summa, II, II, 89, I). Therefore, in the Church there
is an order or distinction of the members according to the degree
in which the gifts of God do bear fruit in true charity. This
order or distinction has no necessary connection with the exterior or visible order which will be discussed shortly; although
it is manifest in this, that a man really takes his place in the
Church to the degree that he is possessed by charity.
The catholicity of the Church, therefore, insofar as it is considered qualitatively, consists in this marvelous exchange of
divine gifts, whereby the entire membership of the Church
images the head, Christ. Each member holds an unique place,
which no other member can fill-and this regardless of the
office or function which he may be called to exercise. Filling
one's place in the Church means giving oneself to the healing and elevating grace of Christ, so that this human nature,
transformed by grace, may operate for the good of the entire
body. "Does one member suffer? All the other members
suffer with him. Is one member honored? Then all the members share in his joy" (Cor.
On the other hand, to
the extent that a member refuses to take part in the communion which proceeds from God through Christ in the
Church, to that extent does he withdraw his possible contribution to the catholicity of the Church. The Church is
always capable of embracing him in her universality; thus she
is always catholic, as is Christ, her Spouse. God wills, however,
that the members of the Church in a mysterious way fill up
those things which are lacking to the sufferings of Christ.
The second great category or type of order or distinction in
the Church may be called an order of office or function. In its
broadest terms it is expressed through the terms, hierarchy and
laity. Since, moreover, to every office or function there corresponds a certain specified power to act, the hierarchy and the
laity in the Church must be distinguished, in the concrete, by
the distinct powers they have.

42

MAURICE B. SCHEPERS

Here the link with the theology of the sacraments is intimate, for the Catholic doctrine concerning the " sacramental
characters," one of the effects of some of the sacraments, shows
that these characters are powers or certain participations in the
priesthood of Christ. Possibly, then, a layman in the Church
may be defined as a person whose activities proceed from those
powers which are the sacramental characters of baptism and
confirmation. A" hierarch," or member of the hierarchy, would
be defined as a person whose activities in the Church proceed
from the sacramental character of orders, or at least from
something which is analogous to it.
What does this mean, in the concrete? The answer to this
question is implicit in St. Thomas' explanation of these sacramental characters. To the first two he gives the name" passive
powers "; while the sacramental character of orders he calls an
"active power." This means simply that in the Church laymen
depend on the hierarchy somewhat as a wife depends on her
husband. St. Thomas affirms, in fact, that the bishop, who is a
member of the hierarchy par excellence, is called, in a special
way and in dependence on Christ, the Church's Spouse. 6
6 The precise manner
in which the activity of the hierarchy and that of the
laity are distinct, and how they mesh together for the constant building up of the
body of Christ, will be discussed later in the section on the principles by which
the Church is governed. One possible
is to be excluded, however,
in order that this summary explanation be as accurate as possible. To say that
the powers of the laity are " passive" does not mean that the place of the laity
in the Church is altogether passive, in the ordinary sense of the word. The term
here, which is technical, designates a power the activity of which is ordered specifically to the transformation or perfection of the subject itself; while an active power
is ordered to the transformation or changing of a subject which is outside the
agent, or distinct from it. Therefore, the primary function of the laity is, through
the activation of the passive powers which are theirs, and this in dependence
upon the hierarchy, to grow in perfection and to enter into more perfect communion with the Church. On the other hand, by its active powers the hierarchy
is fit to deal with the body of Christ, both the sacramental body and the mystical
body, and this in order that Christ's sacramental body be received worthily and
fruitfully in the mystical body. Thus it is that the distinction of office or function
in the Church reveals a primary aspect of the Church's unity; for everything in
this order is made for more perfect eucharistic communion, of which the final
term is the unity of the Church.

THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH

43

C. The means through which the Church is maintained and
governed.
The distinction of members in the Church according to office
or function, while being a concrete manifestation of the
Church's unity, is also the foundation of the theology of the
Church's government. St. Thomas observes:
[In the universe] inferior things are governed by that which is
superior, and this not because of any defect in God's power, but
rather on account of the abundance of his goodness. This is such
that he communicates even to creatures the dignity of causality
(Summa, 1,
3, c.).

When this dictum is applied to the New Creation, which is
the Church, it means that Christ has communicated his governing power to those in the Church who act as superiors.
This is not because of a lack of perfection in Christ; in fact,
just as God governs the entire universe in an altogether transcendent way, so too does Christ govern the Church as her
invisible head.
Our divine Saviour governs and guides his community also directly
and personally. For it is he who reigns within the minds and
hearts of men and bends and subjects to his purpose their wills
even when rebellious. " The heart of the king is in the hand of the
Lord; whithersoever he will, he shall turn it." By this interior
guidance the " Shepherd and Bishop of our souls h not only watches
over individuals, but exercises His providence over the universal
Church as well, whether by enlightening and giving courage to the
Church's rulers for the loyal and effective performance of their
respective duties, or by singling out from the body of the Churchespecially when times are grave-men and women of conspicuous
holiness, who may point the way for the rest of Christendom to the
perfecting of his Mystical Body (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis).

The superiority and inferiority involved here do not imply
that the governed are mere pawns who are lorded over by the
governing superiors. The words of Christ himself are very clear
on this point:

44

MAURICE B. SCHEPERS

The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who bear
rule over them win the name of benefactors. With you it is not to
be so; no difference is to be made, among you, between the greatest
and the youngest of all, between him who commands and him who
serves. Tell me, which is greater, the man who sits at table, or the
man who serves him? Surely the man who sits at table; yet I am
here among you as your servant (Luke 22 : 25-27) .
In other words, the principle of mediation in the working out of
Christ's plan for the Church is applied in such a way that the
dignity of all the members of the Church, the governing hierarchy and the governed laity, is enhanced.
This contact of Christ with his Church through mediation
has, in general, two effects. The first is that the Church is
maintained or supported in the good which is proper to her,
even while she is undergoing growth and perfection. This good
is, of course, the Church's holiness, a quality by which she is
distinct from any other society. The second effect of this
government is a sort of movement by which the Church is ever
directed toward a better fulfillment of her vocation to be the
spotless Bride of the Savior. This movement more clearly
manifests how the Church is apostolic. These two general
effects need to be the subject of a more detailed analysis.
When holiness is designated as the good proper to the Church,
the meaning is that the life of the Church is the grace of Christ,
in virtue of which all the members of the Church, the adopted
sons of God, are fashioned according to the image of Christ.
No other society has such an intimate principle of cohesion,
for all other groups of men are bound together only in virtue
of natural ties, e. g., the blood ties in a family or the common
good of the body politic. Now is there any factor in the Church
herself to which this conservation of the Church's holiness, i.e.,
the maintenance and nourishment of grace, is related as to its
cause?
A simple answer to this question is difficult to formulate; yet
one thing seems to be certain. The grace which is the Church's
life-the grace of Christ-is sacramental grace. This means
that it is communicated in the Church through the sacraments.

THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH

45

Therefore, the persons in the Church who are responsible for
the sacraments constitute, it seems, a collective instrument for
the conservation of the Church's holiness. Of course, these
persons are none other than the Church's priests, for they are
the ministers of the sacraments. The sacraments of the Church
are committed, as it were, to the Christian priesthood. Therefore, this priesthood is the means whereby Christ maintains
his Church as holy.
Even prior to any mention of the Church's ruling power,
properly so-called, it is altogether right that the principality
of the Roman Pontiff, and, around him, of the college of
bishops, should be emphasized. The very fact that the Pope
is called the Summus Pontifex-the Supreme Pontiff-is very
significant. Pontiff is a term which seems to refer directly to
priesthood; for the priest is, most of all, a bridge or mediator
(c£. Summa, III,
I). In the universal Church, therefore,
the bishop of Rome is the High Priest, under Christ and in
dependence on him; and, servatis servandis, the same is true
of the bishop in his own diocese. Although it is true that
all ordained priests in the Church are able autonomously to
offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist-the power to do so is
theirs-still any priestly activity which they exercise with
respect to the preparation of the mystical body for the reception of the eucharistic body of Christ is done in strict dependence on the bishop, who is, as has been said, especially the
Spouse of the Church.
Even while the Church lives by the grace of the sacraments,
always available in virtue of the priesthood; there are other
instrumental factors by which the Church is governed and
through which the interior good of the Church can be promoted
and the boundaries of the Church can be extended. These are
the hierarchical powers to teach infallibly the revelation of
God's love and to rule in accord with the New Law.
The infallibility of the Church in the transmission of those
supernatural truths which are called the "deposit of faith" is
not something which needs to be demonstrated; for it can be

46

MAURICE B. SCHEPERS

taken as itself part o£ that deposit. Some explanation o£ the
meaning and the extent o£ this infallibility is, however, called for.
The first point that needs to be made is, simply, that the
remote subject o£ this endowment is the Church herself. 7 When
infallibility is predicated o£ the Pope (and this according to
the definition o£ the First Vatican Council) , or when a similar
predication is made concerning an Ecumenical Council or the
college o£ bishops teaching Catholic truth in concert with the
Holy See, the meaning is that the Pope or the Council, and the
bishops teaching together are active organs of the Holy Spirit
in the Church by which the deposit of faith is preserved from
error in its propagation.
The conditions under which the
Roman Pontiff acts as an infallible teacher o£ Catholic truth
are carefully defined: ". . . when he speaks ex cathedra, i. e.,
when he is exercising the office of pastor and teacher of all
Christians and is defining by his supreme apostolic authority
a doctrine which pertains to faith or Christian living to be
held by the universal Church" (D. 1839). Nevertheless,
neither the Pope nor the bishops depend on any other authority,
or even on the subsequent approval o£ the Church as a whole,
in the exercise of this office. Such is the explicit teaching of
the Church as regards the Roman Pontiff; and it follows rigorously that the same may be said o£ the bishops' authority.
What, then, are the limits of this teaching authority in the
Church? I£ the Pope and the bishops are autonomous in their
transmission o£ Catholic truth, how are they guided? The
answer, o£ course, is that the gift of infallibility is itself exercised on that which is given to the Church by Christ and the
Apostles. The living magisterium of the Church, which is
exercised in every age o£ the Church's life to one degree or
another, is are-expression and development of a revelation that
was given, once and £or all, in apostolic times. According to
Catholic doctrine, public revelation ceased with the death o£
the last o£ the Apostles; and from that time on the Church
7 See the article of W. Bartz, "Le Magistere de l'Eglise d'apres Scheeben," in
L'Ecclesiologie au 19• siecle (Unam Sanctam, 34) (Paris: du Cerf. 1960), pp.
309-327.

THEOLOGY

OF THE CHURCH

47

has been guided by the Holy Spirit precisely in this: not to
make a mistake concerning this revelation.
It is generally said that the revelation is contained fully in
the Scriptures and Tradition, and that the function of the
teaching Church is merely to " guard and infallibly declare
[the meaning of] the divine deposit committed to the Spouse
of Christ" (D. 1800). The Fathers of the First Vatican Council went on to define, moreover, that " precisely that sense of
the holy dogmas is forever to be retained which is once declared
as such by Holy Mother Church; nor ought that sense to be
abandoned on the pretext or under the species of a higher understanding [reference to a sort of false gnosis ]. Therefore, the
understanding, the knowledge, and the wisdom of all-both of
single members and of the entire Church, and this under all
conditions and in all ages-ought to grow and see great progress: yet on the condition that the genus remain always the
same, i. e., that exactly the same understanding and penetration of the dogma always prevail" (ibid.).
One obvious difference between the Church's teaching power
and her ruling power, properly so-called, is that, whereas the
Church's teaching involves not only a didascalia (an instruction that takes place within the Church in order that the
Gospel be better understood), but also a kerygma (a proclamation of the Gospel ordained to draw into the communion of
the Church those who are still subjects of the empire of darkness); her rule is exercised almost exclusively over those who
have already made the transferral from one kingdom to another.
It becomes evident, therefore, that there is an intimate relation between these two powers; and that they are both designed
to move the Church toward greater perfection according to a
pre-established order. The outline of this order is drawn by
Christ as he is about to ascend to his Father: "All power is
given to me in heaven and upon the earth. Go, therefore,
make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and teaching them to observe all
the things that I have prescribed to you " (Matt. 28 : 18b-20) .
The New Law is primarily one written upon the hearts of

48

MAURICE B. SCHEPERS

those who take part in the New Covenant. It is, as St. Thomas
teaches, identical with the " grace of the Holy Spirit, given
through the faith of Christ" (Summa, I, II, 106, 1, c.). This
law is, of course, divine; and it may be expressed in the concrete as the universal impulse of all those who are incorporated
into the Church, or are related to her in some way, to enter into
the communion of love with God and other men.
Ecclesiastical law, however, which is the expression of the
ruling power of the Church, is made, executed and sanctioned
in an exterior way, simply because the Church herself is a visible
society, with a visible articulation of parts or members. This
is not to say that ecclesiastical law-the "laws of the Church"are not related to the inner law of love; to think thus would
be to misunderstand completely the governing function of the
Church. In reality, the Church exercises jurisdiction over her
members in order that the law of love may be more perfectly
observed. St. Thomas expresses this very well when he points
out that the proper function of the bishops in the Church, to
whom this jurisdiction is committed by divine right, is to
prepare the faithful for the worthy or fruitful reception of the
sacrament of the Eucharist (cf. Suppl., 40, 4, 1, in c.). Elsewhere, moreover, it is his contention that the effect or term of
the Eucharist is the actual unity of the Church, unity itself
being a primary effect of love (cf. Summa, III, 73, 1, arg. 2,
and ad 3; 73, 2, s. c.; 73, 3, c.; 73, 6, c.; 79, 4, c.) .
As to the manner of exercising this ecclesiastical or canonical jurisdiction, the primacy of the bishop of Rome must be set
forth, and in addition, a balanced judgment must be made concerning the pontiff's relation with the college of bishops throughout the world. In reality, of course, this primacy and the relations that follow from it reproduce the primacy of St. Peter,
conferred on him by Christ, and the relation of the Prince of
the Apostles to the apostolic college. It is certainly true that
the Church's consciousness of the implications of Peter's position in the Church has evolved throughout the centuries, and
that the manner in which this position is exteriorly expressed
has undergone great change. The evolution, however, has been

THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH

49

homogeneous; and the changes have not affected what is essential to the structure of the Catholic hierarchy.
Certain attributes relating to ruling power are common to all
the bishops, including the bishop of Rome. All the bishops hold
ordinary, episcopal, and immediate jurisdiction. These attributes may be understood better through a distinction of a threefold relation. The bishop's power is ordinary insofar as it is
attached to the very office of bishop itself; episcopal insofar as
it is a vicarious exercise of the power of Christ himself (this is
to say that it is, in a certain sense, divine); immediate in relation to the flock committed to the bishop insofar as he needs
to go through no intermediary in order to exercise his power
over each and every member of the Church committed to him.
The ways in which the ruling power of the Pope differs from
and excels that of the rest of the bishops in the Church is
expressed as follows: (1) his power is supreme, while theirs is
subordinate;
his is universal, while theirs is particularized
or localized; (3) his is altogether autonomous, independent, or
sui juris; while theirs is not. This means that even all the
bishops of the Church belong in a certain sense to the flock,
the pastor of which is the bishop of Rome. They are, therefore,
both his brothers, insofar as they share with him the episcopal
office, and his sons, insofar as they exercise this office in accord
with his direction. It means also that every member of the
Church is subject immediately to the Pope. Neither does he
have to pass through another bishop to exercise his power over
any member of the Church. Finally, it means that the very
power of the episcopate, held by all the bishops of the Church,
is dependent on the Roman Pontiff. In a certain sense, the
entire apostolate of the Church rests on his shoulders. This is
the sense in which the see of Rome is called the " Apostolic
See." 8
8 Very apropos of these relations are the words of Pope Leo XIII, contained in
an encyclical (Satis cognitum) which was devoted to the unique character of the
Roman Catholic Church:
That there be a twofold authority [over the faithful] does not make for confusion in administration. It is impossible, in the first place, even to suspect

50

MAURICE B. SCHEPERS

These two brie£ discussions o£ the order and distinction in
the Church and o£ the principles according to which the government o£ the New Creation is accomplished have resulted in
an elucidation o£ the £our qualities, properties or marks o£ the
Church herself, to which the Creed bears witness: unam, sanetam, oatholioam et apostolioam. The Church is one and catholic according to the twofold distinction to be discerned in the
mystery. Her catholicity is best expressed, it seems, in terms o£
the distinction according to perfection; insofar as all the members o£ the Church mirror in some way the catholic perfection
o£ Christ, the Head. Her unity is both signified and caused by
the distinction o£ office, according as the hierarchy receives
£rom Christ the power to prepare the laity £or eucharistic communion. The holiness and apostolicity o£ the Church, insofar
as they really belong to her, seem to be brought out quite clearly
through a consideration o£ the various principles o£ the Church's
government. Her holiness is intimately connected with the
priesthood, a power which is directly ordained to the communication and maintenance o£ the life o£ grace in the Church.
Her apostolicity is bound up with the teaching and ruling £unctions, which are possessed and exercised principally by the hierarchical members o£ the Church, all in subordination to the
Vicar o£ Christ, the Pope. Thus are verified the words o£ St.
Paul: " Apostles and prophets are the foundation on which you
were built, and the chief-cornerstone o£ it is Jesus Christ himself. In him the whole fabric is bound together, as it grows into
a temple, dedicated to the Lord; in him you too are being
built in with the rest, so that God may find in you a dwellingplace £or his Spirit" (Eph.
.
this; for it is by the wisdom of God himself that this regime is organized.
Furthermore, it is to be noted that the order of things and their mutual relations are only disturbed if two authorities ruling over a people are of the
same grade, and neither is subject to the other. The power of the Roman
Pontiff, however, is supreme, universal, and altogether sui juris; while [the
power of] the bishops is circumscribed by definite boundaries and is not altogether sui juris (D. 1961, in fine).

51

THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH

II.

THE LIFE oF THE CuuRcH, ExPRESSION

OF THE LovE

oF THE HoLY SPIRIT

The whole structure o£ the Church bespeaks activity and
growth; and this is brought out particularly well by St. Paul
in the text just cited. Up to now, however, we have been concerned almost exclusively with the static or constitutional aspects o£ the mystery, i.e., with the manner in which the Church
is dependent upon Christ and with the various ways (distinction, order, and mediating £actors o£ government) in which
she mirrors the perfection o£ him according to whose image she
is made. Turning, then, from this consideration o£ the wisdom
o£ the Church's exitus, we are now in a position to take a brief
look at the plan o£ her reditus, or return-a return which is
synonomous with ecclesial activity, the impulse o£ which is
divine love.
Just as the activity o£ man is understood best in terms o£ his
destiny, so the growth and activity o£ the Church may be
known more perfectly in the light o£ her final term. Therefore,
the order to be followed here is: (1) to discuss briefly the
meaning o£ the " beatitude " o£ the Church; (2) to outline the
nature o£ the activity which belongs properly to the Church
with a view to this beatitude, and to indicate the principles o£
this activity.
A. The New Jerusalem

At least two passages in the New Testament may serve as a
basis £or a study o£ the Church's beatitude. The first is a few
verses in St. Paul's discussion o£ the resurrection from the dead
(I Cor. 15). Here he speaks o£ the coming o£ Christ (parousia)
in this wise: "The end will take place when [Christ] renders
the kingship to God, the Father; after he himself has destroyed
every principality, dominion, and power. For it is necessary
that he reign right up until the time that he has put all his
enemies under foot. And the last enemy to be destroyed is
death itself. Thence everything will be in a state o£ submission-with the exception, o£ course, o£ him who has given all

52

MAURICE B. SCHEPERS

things to be under [Christ's] dominion. Finally, when all things
will have been made subject to him, then the Son will subject
himself to the one who has given all things to be subject to him,
in order that God may be all in all" (vv. 24-28). The other
passage is the last two chapters o£ St. John's apocalyptic
visions, which begins: "Then I saw a heaven and a new earthin £act the first heaven and earth disappeared; nor was there
anything left o£ the sea. And I saw the Holy City, the New
Jerusalem, which came down £rom heaven, i.e., £rom God. She
was beautiful, as a young bride adorned £or her husband "
(Apoc. 21 : 1-2) .
Now there seem to be considered in this mystery o£ the consummation o£ the Church's activity:
(1) the similarity or
homogeneity o£ the Triumphant Church and the Militant
Church; (2) the difference between the two.
It ought to be understood that at the present time the Church
Triumphant exists simultaneously with the Church Militant
(and the Church Suffering); the perfect state, moreover, will
not obtain until Christ returns £or the last judgment o£ all
things. The existence o£ the New Jerusalem began with the
triumph o£ Christ himself over death; and these latter times in
which the Church Militant herself lives are described by St.
Paul (vide supra) as the process o£ all things coming under the
actual dominion o£ the Word Incarnate, in order that he may
finally deliver his Church into the hands o£ his Father.
How, then, is the Church Militant like the Church Triumphant, and even one with her? The answer must be in terms o£
the adage: "grace is the seed o£ glory." The life o£ God, or,
more precisely, participation in the life o£ God is common to
both. On this earth it is according to faith; in heaven it is by
vision. In both cases, however, the participation is real and
specifically the same.
To have said this, moreover, is to have suggested the difference between the two. In the Church Militant, the life o£ God
is communicated in a sacramental way; and in order that this
be effected the Church Militant contains a distinction o£ office
or £unction, whereby certain members o£ the Church are actu-

THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH

53

ally empowered to share in the causality of Christ, the Author
and Head of the Church. In the final state, however, such
sacramental communication will not be exercised; and in this
sense the hierarchy will have ceased to exist. As St. Paul puts
it: " God will be all in all! " The principle of mediation will
have ceased to be operative in this way; although Christ himself will be supremely the Head of the Church, since the redemption and renewal of all things depend upon him, and this
for all eternity. God will show his face forever to all those who
belong to Christ.

B. The activity of the Church in view of her destiny
The principle, of course, for any consideration of activity is
that all those are good actions which are in accord with the
nature of the being from which they proceed. Activity, therefore, which is perfective of the Church, i. e., which actually
promotes her advance toward the New Jerusalem, is that which
is in accord with her nature. This means that it involves those
elements which have been delineated as natural to her: the
various kinds of order and distinction and the principles of
government.
Perhaps an even easier way to approach the question is to
ask: since Christ is the author of this New Creation, what
activity did he give to it? And the answer is, obviously, indicated by the words of the Lord to the Apostles on the eve of
his death: " This do in a memorial of me. "
The truth of the matter is that the sacrifice of the Eucharist
is the activity which is, most of all, according to the nature
of Church; and all other activity which takes place in the
Church is ordered to it. This is true not only of all the other
sacraments, each of which has a more or less intimate relation
of order to the Eucharist, but also of any other action taken by
members of the Church as such, whether they be of the hierarchy or of the laity. It has been pointed out that the function
proper to the bishops of the Church is to prepare the faithful
for the worthy or fruitful reception of the sacrament of the
body of Christ. This means that the teaching power and the

54

MAURICE B. SCHEPERS

ruling power o£ the bishops, as it is exercised and as it is shared
in a certain measure with priests, and even sometimes with
members o£ the laity, is ordered to the Eucharistic celebration.
It means
that the supreme £unction o£ the bishop is to
gather around himself his people to pontificate the Mass. The
words o£ St. Ignatius o£ Antioch (+c. 110) are pertinent here:
" Let no one do anything touching the Church apart £rom the
Bishop. Let that celebration o£ the Eucharist be considered
valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has
committed it " (ad Smyrn. 8, 1) .
It is not at all strange, therefore, that the form o£ celebration
o£ the Eucharistic sacrifice has evolved in the way it has. The
first part o£ the Mass, sometimes called the Mass o£ the Catechumens, consists o£ a service which is, £or the most part didactic. Ideally, it culminates in a sermon or homily, which, i£ it
be true that this is the bishop's service, offers the Shepherd o£
the flock the opportunity to exercise his power to teach his
people and to promulgate for them the law of love of the New
Government. Then the sacrifice itself accomplishes the perfecting of the unity of the entire Mystical Body. The whole
Church acts most perfectly in the Eucharist (although to a
certain extent, the whole Church acts in the entire liturgy, insofar as the priesthood of Christ himself is exercised in every
liturgical act), because it is Christ, Head o£ the Church, who
presents through his priest the gift of his body and blood to
the eternal Father.
The truth that all activity of the Church leads to Eucharistic
worship can be extended to include even that activity which is
called " missionary." When the Church extends herself, as it
were, and embraces new peoples, it is said that the primary aim
of the work of the missionaries is to establish the hierarchy
among these peoples. The hierarchy, however, has as its function in the Church either the celebration of the Eucharist or the
preparation of the Christian people for worthy participation in
this mystery of unity.
If this were the entire story, however, it would be difficult
to see how are verified the words of Christ: " Do you believe

THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH

55

that I came to establish peace on the earth? No, I say to you,
rather division" (Luke 12: 51). As a matter of fact, he did
establish the Church as a "perfect society," i.e., as having
within herself all the means necessary for the attainment of
that to which she is destined-the New Jerusalem. Because she
is of an entirely different order than any other society, however,
it is not surprising that conflicts arise between Church and
societies such as the various states. This is not because there
is any discrepancy between the principles of the supernatural
order and those by which political society, for example, is
guided. The reason for the conflict is the difficulty involved in
understanding the ways in which the principles are to be harmonized in a concrete situation. Thus, at different times and
circumstances in history, the Church has carried on that life and
activity which is proper to her either with the positive protection of the state, with its indifference, or in the face of positive
hostility. The field of Church-state relations is one of those
which, at the present time, is the object of most intense study;
and a brief essay such as this can hope to do no more than to
indicate the locus of the problem in the theology concerning the
Church.

C. The interior or spiritual principles of the Church's activity.
In the very beginning of this essay reference was made to the
possibility of a balanced ecclesiology on the basis of principles
furnished by St. Thomas. In the actual working out of these
principles, moreover, it becomes quite evident that this balance
consists in the harmony of the visible with the invisible in the
Church, the static with the dynamic, the structure with the
life. It is not without reason, therefore, that the essay be designed to end with a short discussion of that principle which
enlivens every element of the Church-giving life to her members, vivifying those to whom any office whatsoever is committed. This principle is the indwelling Holy Spirit, who is
rightly called the soul of the Church.
At the very foundation of this attribution is the truth that,
even as he who is the author of the Church is, in his divine

56

MAURICE B. SCHEPERS

personality, Sapientia genita; so he who is the soul of the
Church is, under the same formality, Amor procedens. In the
life of the blessed Trinity the Holy Spirit is Love, because his
procession is the fruit, as it were, of the love of the Father
and the Son. Therefore, he is sometimes also called the nexus
between the Father and the Son. Therefore, too, everything
that is an effect of God's love in the universe-and among the
effects of his love the Church is, after the hypostatic union, the
most astounding of all-is attributed to him.
How is this animation of the mystical body of Christ verified?
What does it actually mean? The Holy Spirit enlivens the
Church in two ways: (1) as the principle of every movement
in the life of the Church; (2) as present in the Church as a
single indwelling soul.
The first mode of the Holy Spirit's animation of the Church
can be explained concretely in reference to elements pertaining
to the structure of the Church. For example, all the grace which
is given with a view toward the perfection of the Church, is
a gift of the Holy Spirit. This is true both of the habitual
grace which is present in the souls of those who love God; and
of the so-called actual grace, by which men are drawn toward
God's love and toward a greater immersion in it. All the other
gifts in the Church, which contribute in any way toward her
movement in the direction of the New Jerusalem, are also gifts
of the Holy Spirit. That the Church is infallible, and that this
infallibility is exercised under certain conditions by the Pope, is
due to the Holy Spirit's protective guidance. That the ruling
power of the hierarchy has force in the Church is due to the fact
that the Holy Spirit ratifies the exercise of this power. To the
degree, then, that members of the Church, either hierarchical or
lay, submit to the sweet movement of the Holy Spirit, to that
degree are they cooperating in the progress of the Church in
the life that is proper to her. To the degree that they withdraw
from the Holy Spirit's influence, to that degree they are an
encumbrance to the movement and progress of the Church.
The second mode by which the Holy Spirit animates the
Church is called the indwelling presence, and it has no direct

THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH

57

reference to movement or activity. The explanation of it is
based on the theology of the indwelling presence of the Holy
Spirit in the souls of the just. It is the common teaching of
Catholic theologians that this mystery takes place in virtue
of the grace by which every just person is elevated to share in
the life of God. In other words, habitual grace disposes a person
to be a host, by knowledge and love, to the Spirit of God. God
dwells in such a person as one who is known intimately and
with whom real love can be exchanged.
Now it is according to God's plan that all souls of whom
this is verified be members of the Church-and, indeed, all such
souls are either actual members or are related to her by the
unconscious will and desire spoken of previously. Therefore,
this indwelling takes place in the Church; and, since the Spirit
who dwells in these souls is not divided, but one, it is said that
the Spirit of God dwells in the Church. As a matter of fact,
it is this selfsame Spirit through whom the members of the
Church are in living contact one with the other.

Conclu8ion
The encyclical of Pius XII on the Mystical Body closes,
significantly, with a paragraph or two on the role of Our Lady
in the Church. This seems to signify that no ecclesiology is
complete without some consideration of what Mary is to the
Church. It would be possible, of course, to make her role
explicit all along the line. The sum of it will, however, be the
same. The whole of Our Lady's relationship to the Church is
implicit in the truth of her divine maternity. She is the mother
of the Incarnate Word, who is the Author and Head of the
Church. She is, therefore, the New Eve, as he is the New
Adam.
This august dignity is such that, when it is said, with truth,
that Our Lady has absolutely no hierarchical status in the
Church, this does not derogate in any way from her sublimity.
As to the structure of the Church, it would seem that no special
place can be assigned to Our Lady, provided that it be maintained that she is the most perfect of the Church's members.

58

MAURICE

B. SCHEPERS

Her Immaculate Conception, which was the foundation of a life
which developed in perfect consonance with the interior inspiration of the Holy Spirit, soul of the Church, is the type, as it
were, of baptismal purity. Our Lady's correspondence with
grace made love bear such fruit that at the moment of the
Annunciation the angel could say: " Hail, full of grace." As
to the life of the Church, however, she is the queen through
whom all grace flows into the Church Militant. She is the
Mother of the Mystical Body of her Son; and her delight is to
be with the sons of men (Prov. 8: 31).
MAuRICE

Dominican House of Studies
Washington, D. C.

B. ScHEPERS, 0. P.

THE SIN OF SCHISM:

A CONTRIBUTION

TO THE DISCUSSION

OF MEMBERSHIP

IN THE CHURCH

A

CURRENT definition of the sin of schism goes like
this: the external rupture of the unity of the Church
by refusal to obey the lawful authority, but without
denial of any truth of faith. 1 How adequate is such a definition? The mind is caught by the expressions, "external rupture" and "refusal to obey," and wonders whether this is all
that Canon Law means by its definition of a schismatic
(allowing for the distinction of the definita, viz., "schism"
and "schismatic") : "if one, after the reception of baptism
... refuses submission to the Supreme Pontiff or rejects communion with the members of the Church subject to the latter,
he is a schismatic." 2 This canon is taken almost literally from
the Summa Theologiae: "Wherefore schismatics are those who
refuse submission to the Supreme Pontiff and reject communion with those members of the Church who are subject to
him." 3 There is only one difference: the canon joins the two
clauses with an "or," the Summa with an "and." Is this significant? Perhaps the canonical formula reflects the modern
way of conceiving the distinction between the visible and juridical aspect of the Church and the invisible and gracious
aspect of it, which may not be the same as St. Thomas'. However, since the two formulas are basically identical, it will be
profitable to study that of St. Thomas in the context of the
question he devotes to schism. This is the first aim of this
paper.
The more important aim is to apply the results of this
Bernard Haring, The Law of Christ II, (Westminster, Md.: Newman Press,
p.
no. 46.
II.
• CIC, c.
3 Summa Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 1.

1

59

60

JAMES M. EGAN

investigation of the sin of schism (with the help of Cajetan's
extraordinary commentary on it) to the much discussed contemporary question of who is a member of the Church.
It is obvious that there is a fruitful tension of opinion
among Catholic scholars on this latter question. Sincere students, inspired by a deep love both of the Church of Christ
and of all those Christians who are, in fact, not in communion with the bishops and faithful throughout the world who
are in union with the See of Peter, are pulled, as it were,
some to the side of the Church, others to the side of the noncommunicating brethren. The debate centers around the ratio 4
of member of the Church, member of the Mystical Body of
Christ. The first group are impelled to adopt a ratio of member which is quite precise in order to preserve the unique identity of the Mystical Body, the Church of Christ. The second
group prefer a less precise ratio of member in order to embrace
all (or most) of those who do accept Jesus as Lord and Savior
and are validly baptized.
Both sides seem to agree on one note in their ratios of
member as crucial-the note of visible, juridical subjection to
the See of Peter. The first group tend to see this note as essential to the ratio of member, so that without it a person, even
though validly baptized, is not a member of the Church, but
only related to it by desire. The second group seem to consider the visible juridical note, as essential, not to the ratio
of member, but of perfect membe1·.
This divergence of emphasis is sometimes presented in the
following terms: 5 the first group have a univocal ratio of member, the second an analogical ratio, meaning that the first
group admits of no degrees of membership, while the second
does. This is a tricky distinction and it may help to clarify
later discussion if we explore its implications a bit.
First of all, no one really questions the fact that the ratio
• This term is used throughout the paper to refer to the concept, idea, meaning
of a name, which will always be italicized.
• Cf. GB "Who belongs to the Church?" in The Ecumenist I (April-May 1968) 4.

THE SIN OF SCHISM

61

of member of the Church is inescapably analogical (whether
proper or improper is still discussed; here it is taken as proper). Other analogates are member of a physical body and
member of a social body. The common note is that of an intimate, integral part of a whole, like a hand of a human body,
a citizen of a state, a believer of a Church.
To speak, then, of a univocal and an analogical ratio of
member of the Church does not exactly clarify the discussion.
Perhaps it would be well to adopt the terminology of St.
Thomas in a similar case, the ratio of persO'n. This is certainly
an analogical ratio, of which the analogates are divine person,
angelic person and human person. St. Thomas, in discussing
the reference of the ratio of person to these three analogates,
distinguishes, quite deliberately, between the more common
ratio of person and the less common ratios of divine person,
angelic persO'n and human person. The more common ratio of
person is: something distinct, complete, subsisting in an intellectual nature. This ratio is verified in each being that may
be called a person. Yet, obviously, the common ratio is verified diversely in the three analogates, just as the common ratio
of member is realized diversely in the hand, the citizen and
the believer.
Now a further question presents itself: could the less common ratio of member of the Church be realized diversely in
still less common ratios, in other words, are there diverse ways
of realizing the ratio of m,ember of the Church? There could
be, if a certain condition were verified. To specify this condition, let us return to our ratio of person.
Is the less common ratio of human person realized analogously in its inferiors? Our cherished doctrine of the equality
of every human person is evidence that it is not. Is the less
common ratio of divine person realized analogously in the
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? It is a matter of faith
that it is not. If we follow St. Thomas' notion of the angels
as specifically distinct from each other, then the ratio of
angelic persO'n is in itself realized analogously in each angel.

62

JAMES M. EGAN

To apply all this to the less common ratio of member of
the Church, we must first admit that the ratio itself must
include the whole-the ratio of member is " part of a whole."
Hence, to determine whether the ratio of member of the
Church is realized diversely in the human beings of which it
is predicated, we would have to determine whether the ratio
of Church or of Mystical Body of Christ is realized diversly.
That is, we would have to admit the existence of a more common ratio of Church or Mystical Body, that would be verified
in, for example, 1) all the Churches united to the See of Peter;
2) all the Orthodox Churches in communion with each other;
3) all (or many) of the Protestant Churches, whether in communion with each other or not; 4) (perhaps) all non-Christians actually possessing the life of grace. If these (or, at least,
those who have valid baptism) can be truly called, in diverse
ways, that is, more or less perfectly, the Church of Christ, the
Mystical Body of Christ, then the ratio of member would have
an analogical meaning. This would mean that there must be
a Church or Churches outside that Church which is the communion of bishops and faithful in union with the See of Peter.
Is there? It is not convincing to point to the obvious fact that
there are outside the Catholic Church ecclesiastical groupings
that possess visible elements similar to those possessed by the
Church. It is precisely the presence of these elements that is
the scandal of Christian disunity. If our Orthodox and Protestant brethren did not possess common visible elements of
Catholicism, they would not be in agony over their own
divisions.
The reader will bear with me, if I engage him in one more
preliminary discussion. I think that the explicit intention of
the Enclyclical Mystici Corporis 6 was to answer the question
of the previous paragraph with a clear-cut, "No-there is no
Church outside the Church." This Enclycical was not a statement of the extraordinary magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.
8

References to this Encyclical are taken from Four Great Encyclicals of Pope

Pius XII (New York: Paulist Press, 1961).

THE SIN OF SCHISM

63

Yet, I am convinced that in the precisely determined context
of the Enclyclical/ the doctrine it proposes on the complete
identification of the Mystical Body of Christ in its earthly,
historical phase with the Church of the bishops and faithful
throughout the world in union with the See of Peter, is a
statement of the indefectible ordinary teaching of the Church.
It is understandable that in the discussions on the ratio of
member of the Church, passages of the Encyclical explicitly
referring to it should be cited. Two are of upmost importtance. The first is explicitly concerned to clarify the ratio of
member:
Actually only those are to be included as members of
the Church who have been baptized and profess the
true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as
to separate themselves from the unity of the Body or
been excluded from it by legitimate authority for serious faults committed. 8
From its position in the Encyclical, it is clear that the Holy
Father in this passage is listing the notes of the ratio of membet
of the Chutch in the fullest and most obvious sense. He is not
dealing with those who are obviously " outside " the Church.
They are in his mind, when he later refers to " those who do
not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church" in the
following words:
For even though by an unconscious desire and longing
they have a certain relationship with the Mystical
Body, they still remain deprived of those many
heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in
the Catholic Church. Therefore, may they enter into
Catholic unity and, joined with us in the one, organic
body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run
on to the one Head in the society of glorious love. 9
7 Ibid., p. 8. "For this reason, We deem it fitting to speak to you on this subject through this Encyclical Letter, developing and explaining, above all, those
points which concern the Church Militant."
9 Ibid., p. 46, n. 103.
8 Ibid., p. 14, n. 22.

64

JAMES M. EGAN

Of special significance are the two phrases: "enter into
Catholic unity " and " joined with us in one organic Body
of Jesus Christ." As mentioned above, the ratio of member of the Mystical Body depends on the ratio of Mystical
Body. What the Holy Father means by members and those
who do not belong to the visible Body of Jesus Christ, depends
on what he means by Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.
It is a fact that the Pontiff devoted considerable space to
developing the ratio of Mystical Body of Christ.u' Taking the
name Body first, he developed a strong case for the visible and
organic nature of the Church. Next, he explored the multiplex
relations of Christ to his Body. Finally, he comes to a profound exposition of precisely the analogical ratio of Mystical
Body, by analysing the ratio of Mystical.
The Pontiff carefully justifies the use of the name Mystical as a suitable means of distinguishing the Church from 1)
Christ's physical body, enthroned in glory at the right hand
of the Father and hidden under the Eucharistic veils (It is
well known that in antiquity the name mystical was used to
designate the Eucharistic Body of Christ); 2) from any physical body: in the physical body, the parts, the members, have
no individual subsistence and no perfection proper to them,
independently of the whole; 3) from any merely moral body:
in such a body, the principle of union is nothing else than the
common end and the common co-operation of all under the
authority of society for the attainment of that end.
Unlike the physical body, "the church exists both for the
good of the faithful and for the glory of God and Jesus Christ
whom He sent." Undoubtedly, according to the traditional
view in the Church, the glory of God and of Jesus is the principal end of the Church. It might be asked does the Church
manifest the glory of God more perfectly by what she is or
by what she does? A parallel question would be: Does Jesus
Christ manifest the glory of his Father more by what he is
10

Ibid., pp. 29-30, nn. 60-63.

THE SIN OF SCHISM

65

than by what he does? The answer to both, I think, is: by what
he is; by what she is. But what is she?
The Pontiff reaches for the ultimate answer to this question
by distinguishing the Church from a merely moral and juridical body. This Church is such a body, but it is mysteriously, incredibly more than this. In the Church there is moral
and juridical collaboration for a common end; yet " this collaboration is supplemented by another internal principle,
which exists effectively in the whole and in each of its parts,
and whose existence is such that of itself it is vastly superior
to whatever bonds of union may be found in a physical or
moral body. As we said above, this is something not of the
natural but of the supernatural order; rather it is something
in itself infinite: the Spirit of God, who, as the Angelic Doctor
says, "numerically one and the same, fills and unites the whole
Church."
At first glance, this sentence might be disappointing to anyone looking for a revelation of the profound reality of the
Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. We acknowledge the
intimate role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church; He
is the soul of the Church, and yet He is not the Church, not
the Mystical Body of Christ in its created reality. Is the Holy
Father suggesting that the whole reality that is called Mystical Body is simply dependent on the moment-to-moment unifying action of the Spirit? Yet what he says is clearly truewhatever reality the Church has, flows from the all-pervasive
presence of the Spirit. The Holy Father closed with a quotation taken from St. Thomas; 11 in fact, the whole point he is
making is taken from St. Thomas. While I do not wish to presume that the following developments are cloaked in the authority of the Holy Father, on the basis of this one quotation,
I do think that it may be profitable for our present discussion
if I expand on one word in that quotation, " unites," " he
unites the whole Church."
In his writings, St. Thomas approaches the unity of the
11

Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 89, a. 1.

66

JAMES M. EGAN

Church from three distinct, yet not completely separable elements in the reality of the Church. In his Exposition of the
Creed, 12 he places the cause of unity within the Church as one
Body, of which the Spirit is the soul, in the three theological
virtues: in the unity of faith, for all Christians who are of the
Body of the Church believe the same; in the unity of hope,
for all stand firm in the one hope of attaining eternal life; in
the unity of love, for all are linked in the love of God and in
love for one another, which when genuine manifests itself in
a solicitous and compassionate service of one another.
In this passage, St. Thomas is touching the inner being
of the Church, the intrinsic form that gives vitality to the
Church, the principal formal effect of the indwelling Spirit;
the life of faith, hope and love is God's life shared by men.
But is he touching the unique being of the Church as the
Mystical Body of Christ on earth. We willingly acknowledge
that true faith, hope and charity exist in men, who are not
baptized, likewise in men, who are baptized and yet are not
in the unity of the Church.
One further point: although St. Thomas is presenting the
most hidden aspect of the being of the Church, there is a
strong suggestion in the text that this must be made visible,
that it is visible in the open profession of one faith and one
hope, in the mutual service of all the members.
With regard to the last point, there is a possibly significant
statement by St. Thomas in this same work, in the article,
" the communion of saints," or rather, as he understands it,
the " communion or communication of holy things." 13 It
reads: "And because all the faithful are one body, the good
of one is communicative to another .... Among other members of the Church, Christ is the principal member, because
he is the Head, according to Ephesians 1.22: ' And him he
gave as head over all the Church, which indeed is his body.'"
To the mind of St. Thomas, the reality of the Church, as the
12
18

Opuscula Omnia, ed. Mandonnet. Vol. IV, pp. 378-9.
Op. cit., p. 381.

THE SIN OF SCHISM

67

Mystical Body of which Christ is Head and the faithful are the
members, is presupposed to the communication of spiritual
goods and is not constituted by such interchange; the Church
" is " before she " does." There is, then, a profound " communication," below the level of giving and receiving, of action
and passion.
The second approach to the unity of the Church is found
in the Contra Gentiles. It is an extraordinary presentation of
an aspect of the Church that is causing so much reflection
today-the juridical aspect. The context is the four chapters
on the sacrament of Orders, immediately, the nature of episcopal power and especia1ly the primacy of one bishop in relation to the unique oneness of the Church.
Clearly, then, the chief direction of the faithful belong to the
bishops. But this, too, is clear: Although people are set apart according to differing dioceses and states, yet, as the Church is one,
so must the Christian people be one. Therefore, as for the specific
congregation of one Church one bishop is called for who is the
head of that Church; so for the entire Christian people there must
be one who is the head of the entire Church.
Then, too, the unity of the Church requires that all the faithful
agree as to the faith. But about matters of faith it happens that
questions arise. A diversity of pronouncements, of course, would
divide the Church, if it were not preserved in unity by the pronouncement of one. Therefore, the unity of the Church demands
that there be one who is at the head of the entire Church ....
No one should doubt, furthermore, that the government of the
Church has been established in the best way, since He has disposed it by whom "kings reign, and lawmakers decree just things"
(Prov. 8: 15). But the best government of a multitude is rule by
one, and this is clear from the purpose of government, which is
peace; for peace and the unity of his subjects are the purpose of
the one who rules, and one is a better constituted cause of unity
than many. 14
We must beware of dismissing this notion of St. Thomas
too lightly. I do not think that anyone will seriously main14 The citations from the Contra Gentiles are from the series On the Truth of
the Catholic Faith, Bk. IV, c. 76, pp. 290-291.

68

JAMES M. EGAN

tain that anarchy is the rule in the Church of God. There is
some form of government and we can understand it only in
terms of our historical experience. There is no question but
that the concept of a monarchical episcopate has been accepted in the Church since before the time of Ignatius of
Antioch. Above all, we must not allow the historical modes
in which authority in the Church has been used and abused
to distort our consideration of it. A kingdom established by
Christ and ruled by his Spirit should be able to preserve order,
unity and peace through the exercise of authority, and excellence through the opportunities for all to rise to the challenge of Christian idealism-freedom through love.
The militant Church, moreover, derives from the triumphant
Church by exemplarity .... But in the triumphant Church one
presides, the one who presides over the entire universe-namely,
God-for we read in the Apocalypse 21:2: 'They shall be His people and God Himself with them shall be their God.' Therefore, in
the militant Church, also, there is one who presides over things
universally ,15

Today, we would prefer to speak of the Church as the
eschatological ikon of the heavenly Church.
While the papal power is the vital organ of the visible, historical unity of the Church, it is obviously only an organ
and not the one body of the Church. Have we exhausted St.
Thomas' thought? By no means. The final key is found in
his notion of the sin of schism. 16 We should be alerted to
something special by the fact that St. Thomas places schism
'"Cf. Stephen E. Donlon, S. J., "The Monarchical Episcopate: Its Development
and Significance," in Chicago Studies II (Spring, 1963) 1. Summarizing the conclusions of Jean Colson in his Les Functions ecclesiales rmx deux premiers siecles,
the author writes: " The union between bishops and community, says Colson, is
so strict that the bishop is, so to speak, the incarnation of his church. He sums
it up; he is the image of its living unity which he creates around him. . . . He
is the pole of unity about which all is solidly centered and ordered and unified:
one God, one Christ, one temple, one altar, one Eucharist, one Spirit and Body,
one faith, one hope, one love. To achieve this unity one bishop stands at the head
of the corona of priest and of the community." p. 73.
16 Loc. cit., aa. 1,

THE SIN OF SCHISM

69

among the sins against charity, as opposed precisely to peace.
"Peace" is traditionally almost a technical name for the oneness of the Church, which the faithful have always looked
upon as one of the most precious elements in the reality of
the Church. 17
St. Thomas immediately identifies "peace" with "unity";
schism is a special kind of sin by which one intends to separate oneself from unity which charity realizes. The phrasing
is important; St. Thomas never says simply that schism is
opposed to charity.
In the first article he says that it is opposed to the unity
of ecclesiatical unity. 18 In the body of the article, he explains
that it is not just a question of personal relationships, which
should unite the faithful with the bond of spiritual love, but
the charity which binds the whole Church in the unity of the
Spirit. In other words, it is a unity that is produced by the
Charity who is the Holy Spirit himself. This is "the principal
union," since all particular unions within the Church are ordered to the unity of the Church.
This unity of the Church, he continues, is realized: 1) in
the linking of the members of the Church to each other, iri
" communication"; !?2) and in the ordering of all the members
to one head; this Head is Jesus Christ, whose vicar in the
Church is the Supreme Pontiff. This article concludes with the
words we cited at the beginning of this paper, which are echoed
in Canon Law. From what we have seen of St. Thomas'
thought, we can appreciate why he joins the two elements with
an "and." Schismatics are rebellious against the Church in its
hidden and most profound reality as well as against its visible
manifestation and protective organ.
Having determined that schism is a special kind of sin, St.
Thomas, in the second article, brings up a question that recurs
17 " The reward for those ' in peace ' can never come to men who have broken
the peace of the Lord by the frenzy of dissent." The Unity of the Catholic Church.
Trans. by M. Benevot, S. J. Ancient Christian Writers, No. 25 (Westminster, Md.:
Newman Press, 19.57), p. 54. Cf. n. 96.
18 Op. cit., a. 1, ad Sum.

70

JAMES M. EGAN

whenever he discusses virtue and vice. His concern for the dignity of a virtue or the malice of a vice may seem academic to
some, but the fact is that such discussion throws considerable
light on the precise nature of the virtue or vice. This is especially true in regard to vices, for, since they are privations,
losses, they can be understood only in terms of the good which
is lost.
St. Thomas discusses the comparative malice of the sins of
infidelity and schism. His discussion is, incidentally, a good
example of his concern to include both essential and existential considerations. The principle he uses here and elsewhere
is that the gravity of a particular sin may be judged both
according to its specific malice, that is, according to the precise good it opposes and according to the existential circumstances in which it is committed. Now, since circumstances
are particular and can vary infinitely, when one asks in a general way about the comparative gravity of two sins, the question must be taken to refer to the specific character of the sins
in question. Under this distinction, one could include the case
of anyone, who, in virtue of the circumstances of complete
good faith, is entirely free of the malice of the sin of schism
and yet the victim of its formal effect-separation from communication with the members of the Church in union with the
See of Peter. Here it would not at all be a question of the sin
of schism, but of a state or condition of schism.
Getting back to a comparison of the specific malice of infidelity and schism, infidelity is clearly a graver sin, since it is
opposed to the greater good. There are two goods involved:
God himself, as First Truth, who is the object of faith; the
participated good which is ecclesiastical unity. There can be
no question but that the privation of a divine good is greater
than the privation of a created good. The created good involved is a common good, bonum multitudinis, yet it is infinitely inferior to the divine Common Good itself. On the other
hand, of all created goods, the good of ecclesiastical unity is
the greatest good of men, hence schism is the greatest sin

THE SIN OF SCHISM

71

against love of neighbor (and, may we add, the state of schism
is the greatest evil that can befall men who believe in and
love God and the Lord Jesus Christ).
In view of the importance of this question for our contemporary concerns, we feel justified in reproducing somewhat in
detail the reflections of Cardinal Cajetan on this teaching of
St. Thomas. 19
That he recognizes the importance of what St. Thomas is
saying is clear from his initial statement: here we are dealing
with the very being of the Church, for unum sequitur ens, one
follows upon being, that is, in reality one and being are identical; the ratio of one adds nothing to the ratio of being except
a negation of division. There is no being that is not one; each
kind of being has its own kind of oneness. So to ask about the
oneness of anything is to ask about its very being.
Cajetan approches the unity of the Church with three questions prompted by facts in the life of the Church admitted
by all.

The Questions:
1. What precisely is the unity that schism opposes? Is anything destroyed by schism except the relation of subjection to
one head? It would seem not. The being (esse) of faith, of
hope, of sacraments and worship can coexist with schism. On
the other hand, the being of charity is destroyed, indirectly
by any mortal sin, directly only by hatred or contempt, neither
of which is the sin of schism.
2) Nevertheless, schism is looked upon as a sin against
charity; but how can it be? Schism seems to destroy something that does not depend upon charity: anyone in the state
of mortal sin can also commit the sin of schism. Perhaps, after
all, schism is simply a sin of disobedience, a refusal of submission to the Holy See.
3) Besides, how can schism destroy the unity of the Church?
The unity of the Church cannot be destroyed, unless there
19

Commentarium in Summam Theol., II-II, q. 39.

72

JAMES M. EGAN

can be many Churches, or the Church of Christ can cease to
exist before the end of the world, for the unity is the being
of the Church.

The Answers:
In seeking to determine as carefully as possible the mysterious being of the Church, Cajetan passes swiftly through
the traditional categories of created being, easily dismissing
substance, quantity, quality and the other five that close the
list. That leaves: 1) action and passion; 2) relation. In other
words, he is left with the question: is the reality of the Church
in the category of action and passion or in the category of relation? Since we are contemplating (however analytically) a
reality that embraces the God-Man, Jesus Christ and the
human persons who are one body with him, perhaps we may
be permitted to translate Cajetan's terminology as follows:
does the reality of the Church consist solely in intersubjective
relations or in relations that are objective, binding the Head
and the members in one being, independently of the subjective relations existing at any one moment? 20
Cajetan points out that there is a kind of unity among
the faithful insofar as they all believe one truth, hope for one
good, love one Being, the Triune God, and possess the same
sacraments. But this is a unity of likeness, not of being. (We
pointed out earlier that this likeness is shared by those who
are not united to the Church.)
There is also the unity of headship, Christ in heaven, his
vicar on earth. By virtue of the relation to one Head and his
vicar, and the interaction between them and the members,
there is a unity; all are under one, like several kingdoms under
one sovereign; but they are not thereby one being. (In this
connection, we should note that simple disobedience to the Supreme Pontiff is not necessarily a sin of schism.)
As he approaches the final unity in which he discerns the
radical being of the Church, Cajetan, in an almost uncon•• Cf. supra pp. 194-195.

THE SIN OF SCHISM

73

scious witness to the mystery of the reality, shifts his attention to a single member of the faithful, in order to show that
the reality of the Church is the interrelation of all the faithful. Accordingly, each one of the faithful is the subject of a
relation (esse relativum-a predicamental relation), which is
real and objective. This relation constitutes him a part of a
numerically one people, city, house; through this relation he
is dependent for his existence as a member upon the whole.
The Holy Spirit, the all-pervading soul of this whole, moves
each of the faithful to works that are interior or exterior as
parts of one reality, for the sake of the one reality, according to the requirements of that one reality, which is the
Church of God. Each of the faithful believes that he is a member of the Church and as a member of the Church he believes,
hopes, loves, administers and receives the sacraments, teaches,
learns, etc.; he does all things for the Church, as a part of the
whole (cujus est quidquid est); and he does all things according to the faith and tradition of the Church.
This unity is a supreme good (summum bonum), not absolutely, but in the order of good for our neighbor and ourselves;
it is a good of the whole world, a spiritual good, essential,
principal; it is the very being of the Church as it is one thing.
And, he adds, the most perfect sign of this reality of the
Church is a General Council!
There were two other questions that Cajetan raised at the
beginning of his reflections, the answers to which may be of
help to those of our contemporaries who are pulled between
their love of the Church and their love for those outside the
Church.
Is schism a sin against charity? No, it is a sin against an
effect of charity. To understand this, we will have to be more
explicit than Cajetan is in this passage. The unity of the
Church is not the effect of charity in the hearts of its members; it is an effect of the Charity who is the Spirit of Love
himself; unity is the primary formal effect constituting the
Body of Christ as numerically one reality. But is not every

74

JAMES M. EGAN

effect of the Spirit in the Church an effect of Charity? Of
course, but this effect, the unity of the Body, the pax of the
Church, is brought into being for the sole purpose of being
the image of the oneness of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
of the love of the Father for Jesus Christ, of the love of Jesus
Christ for all men. If the one Body, the one Church is a common good, if it is the supreme good, that apart from God himself, God has prepared for men, then it is, in an unique way,
an effect of the Spirit of unitive Love and Loving Union.
This fact is behind the point that Cajetan is making when
he states that the preservation of union within the Church
can be an "unformed" effect of charity; that is, a man who
commits a mortal sin, say, of theft, does not thereby commit
a sin against the unity of the Church, just as a husband who
commits a mortal sin does not become unfaithful to his marriage union. The good of unity, either of the Church or the
marriage, though intrinsically supernatural, can be effectively
embraced and maintained by someone who is in the state of
serious sin. Again going beyond Cajetan, we may say that the
good of unity may be lacking in one who has charity but is
not in common with the bishops and faithful of the Catholic
Church.
In answer to the third question, C8.jetan replies that, although the formal schismatic intends to destroy the unity of
the Church, all he accomplishes is to separate himself and his
followers from that union.
What then is the ratio of member of the Churoh, of the
Mystical Body of Christ? It is a human being in whom there
inheres by power of the Holy Spirit a real relation whereby he
is objectively linked to Jesus Christ as Head and to all other
human persons who are of the Mystical Body of Christ. Note
that, insofar as Jesus Christ is a member of the Mystical
Body, namely, the Head, therefore, as man, He is really related
to all His members. The foundation of this real relation is the
action of Christ, as the human instrument of the divinity, in
Baptism, incorporating a man into himself by imprinting the

THE SIN OF SCHISM

75

character of his priesthood upon him and at the same time
causing the real relation that constitutes the reality of his
Mystical Body and infusing regenerative grace into the soul.
In the administration and reception of Baptism in the way
fully intended by Christ, there are three effects producedthe character, the real relation, the grace. From all that we
have said above, it is clear that these three effects are separable. An adult receiving Baptism in the Church with an
attachment to serious sin, would receive the character, the real
relation, but not the grace. A baptized Catholic who committed a formal sin of schism would lose grace and the real relation, but retain the character.
Would it be correct to maintain that a person baptized in
a schismatic sect would, if in bad faith, receive the character, but not the relation nor the grace? If in good faith, would
he receive the character and grace, but not the real relation?
This is the position of St. Augustine. 21 As there can be valid
baptism without the Spirit, that is, without grace, so there can
be valid baptism without the Church.
What, in the final analysis, is involved here is the sacramentality of the Church. We are well aware of the fact that we
have been using the word "sacrament" much too narrowly,
confining it to the sacremental rite. We are beginning to
appreciate the " sacramentality " of the presence on the altar
of the Victim Christ under the species of one bread and one
cup that may be shared by the many who are one body. The
sacramental grace of the Eucharist is precisely ordered, not
just to nourishing the individual Christian, but to preserving
and making more and more visible the one Mystical Christ.
The bond of matrimony is the " sacrament " of the union of
21 " Quemadmodum autem Spiritum Sanctum habent filii dilecti, non habent filii
maligni, et tamen Baptismum habent; sic et Ecclesiam sicut habent catholici, non
habent haeretici et tamen Baptismum habent . . . Itaque sie1,1t potest Baptisma
esse et unde se aufert Spiritus Sanctus; ita etiam potest esse Baptisma, ubi non
est Ecclesia." De Baptismo, I, 5, PL 48, 198; cited in Enciclopedia Cattolica, III,
c. 756.

76

JAMES M. EGAN

Christ and his Church; the sacramental grace of matrimony is
ordered to making this bond visible. 22
So everything in the Church is " sacramental," including
the juridical relations between the members. How else, by
what other kind of being, could men be visibly joined together
except by juridical bonds? This sacramentality of the major
juridical bond-submission of all the bishops and their faithful to the vicar of Christ on earth is magnificently stated by
St. Thomas:
But let one say that the one head and the one shepherd is Christ, who is one spouse of one Church; his
answer does not suffice. For, clearly, Christ Himself
perfects all the sacraments of the Church: it is He
who baptizes; it is He who forgives sins; it is He, the
true priest, who offered Himself on the altar of the
cross, and by whose power His body is daily consecrated on the altar-nevertheless, because He was not
going to be with the faithful in bodily presence, He
chose ministers to dispense the things just mentioned
to the faithful. . . . By the same reasoning, then, when
He was going to withdraw His bodily presence from
the Church, He had to commit it to one who would
in His place have the care of the universal Church.
Hence it is that He said to Peter before His ascension:
"Feed my sheep" (Jn. 21: 17); and before His passion: " Thou being once converted confirm thy
brethren " (Luke 2: 32) ; and to him alone (i. e., as an
individual) did He promise: " I will give to thee the
keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16: 19), in
order to show that the power of the keys was to flow
through him to others to preserve the unity of
the Church. 28
22 Vd. "The Sacramental Grace of Matrimony," James M. Egan, 0. P. in Proceedings CTSA, 1956.
23 The Truth of the Catholic Faith, Bk. IV, pp.

77

THE SIN OF SCHISM

This is in line with the strong words of St. Cyprian (who
did not always strongly adhere to their implications):
God is one, and Christ is one, and His Church is
one: one is the faith, and one the people cemented
together by harmony into the strong unity of a body.
That unity cannot be split; that one body cannot be
divided by any cleavage of its structure, nor cut up in
fragments with its vital elements torn apart.
JAMES

St. Mary's College
Notre Dame, Ind.

M. EGAN, 0. P.,

THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH*

T

HE word" church" does not always convey the same
meaning in Sacred Scripture. At times it is applied to
the people of Israel wandering through the desert/ at
other times to a Christian society of domestic
or, of greater extension, to that of a city 8 or a region. 4 The
term is also applied to the society of all the children of God
redeemed by Jesus Christ and established on the foundation
composed of the apostles. 5 Frequently in the Sacred Books
allusion is made to the reality signified by "church" through
the use of a considerable number of metaphors: flock,6 vineyard,• house of God,S heavenly Jerusalem, 9 spouse. 10 We cannot make an indifferent attribution of all these names to the
Church without falling into complete theological nominalism.
Yet this is a matter of metaphor, and metaphors necessarily
have a partial content: 11 each metaphor sets in relief a particular detail about the true Church.
Among such metaphors is that of body, possibly the most
frequently employed by St. Paul. Men united with Christ constitute a body of which He is the head and we, the members.
With this we are already interpreting the terms in the title
of this article. Speaking of the members of the Church is the
same as speaking about parts of the Church by reason of its
existence as a body. And since the Church is a mystical and
social body, to give an adequate answer to any question about
members of the Church, it will be necessary to speak about
*Translated by C. F. Lehner, 0. P.
Acta 7:88.
• John 10:9 sq.
7 John 15: 1-6.
2 Rom. 16:4-5.
8 I Peter 2: 5; I Tim. 8: 15.
3 Acta 8: I.
9 Gal. 4:26-81.
• Acta 9: 81; I Cor. 16:19.
10 Ephes. 5:25-27.
5 Acta 20: 28; I Cor. 12:28.
11 SU1nma Theol. Ia, q. 88, a. 8; Ilia, q. 8, a. 1, ad 2um.

1

78

THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH

79

those who belong to it inasmuch as it is a mystical body as
well a social body.
A further determination is also necessary. The expression
"mystical body," which nowadays entails the twofold characteristic of being mystical and social, that is, vital and intimate on the one hand, and external and visible on the other,
has had another meaning when applied to the Church of Peter
in the patristic and theological tradition. Again when speaking
about the members, one must determine the meaning which
"body " has with regard to both attribution and predication.
First of all, here on earth during the centuries preceding the
coming of Jesus Christ, the mystical body was a reality having only an intimate and recondite character. Even now it
continues to be this reality in a way which transcends the
earth. It is the body made up of all those who are in vital
union with Christ through the grace which comes from Him
and through Him without the mediation of an institutional
organism. This body had on the earth, and today has beyond
this earth, broader limits than those which we shall presently
indicate for the Church of Peter.
Secondly, the mystical body is circumscribed in both space
and time-the space being that of earth and the time extending from Jesus Christ until the end of the world. In addition
to being intimate and recondite, or supernaturally alive, it is
also social. Thus, to belong to it, one needs something besides
union with Christ through grace. To attain social incorporation in Christ, one needs the mediation of the ecclesiastical
society; therefore, no one can be a member in this second
sense of mystical body without being also a member of the
society in which this mystical body is, as it were, incarnate.
From what has been said it should be clear that the problem of membership in the Church, or in the mystical body of
Christ, has two distinct perspectives which permit of their own
proper solutions.
The Members of the Church in the First Sense. To make a
proper confrontation and resolution of the problem about

80

EMILIO SAURAS

these members, we must not lose sight of the following truths:
first, the redemption accomplished by Christ is universal and
reaches all men, from Adam to the last of his descendants; secondly, in the present order of providence, there is no grace
coming to men from heaven which is not Christian, which
does not come through Christ, and which is not related to
Him; thirdly, all grace is sanctifying or supernaturally vivifying in some way or other. Some graces have this characteristic in the plan of preparation: they do not sanctify, but they
prepare the way for other graces to sanctify. We refer to
charisms, the graces gratis datae, actual graces. Other graces,
however, have this characteristic in the scheme of accomplishment: they sanctify in fact. We refer to habitual grace and
the infused virtues.
If all of this is due to Christ, if all is sanctifying or vital
and, therefore, elevates the implied capacity, and incorporates
in a vital way, and if, on one or another level, it reached all
of the just persons of the Old Testament and reaches all of
those who today are not on earth, there is an easy explanation for the usual statements found in Scripture, in patristic
and theological tradition, and in the ordinary language of the
faithful. In fact, St. Paul speaking of a headship in Christ
referred, not only to the just who now live here on earth, but
to all men wherever they live and of whatever time they may
be. This is not only a headship of order and perfection, but
it is also one in the communication of redemptive grace. 12 The
Apostle also notes the comparison between the second Adam
and the first, while affirming the superabundance of good
granted by Christ. 18
Agreeing with these affirmations of the Apostle, the Fathers
speak about the universal Church or the Church which begins
in Abel. 14 The whole human race has belonged to this Church
from the very beginning. Such a teaching is also supported
Col. 1:18 sq.
Rom. 5 passim.
" S. Gregory, M., PL 76, 1154.

12
18

THE MEMBERS OE' THE CHURCH

81

by this statement of St. Thomas Aquinas: " Like us, the ancient Fathers belonged to the body of the Church." 15 The faithful do not merely recognize one Church, namely, that established here on earth by Christ, which they call " militant."
They also speak of the " Church suffering " and the " Church
triumphant." In purgatory there is grace, and it comes from
Christ. In heaven there is glory, and it comes from Christ. In
both places there is vital incorporation with Him. The souls
and the blessed are His members.
On the basis of this statement, we must conclude that all
the men living on earth before the establishment of the present Church were members of a universal Church, or mystical
body, the members of which are incorporated into Christ
without the mediation of the social institution which is the
Church of Peter. Even today all those in heaven and in purgatory are its members.
To understand this truth, we must resort to a teaching of
classical theology. In so doing, we would observe that there
is a tendency not to use the great teachers of the past in the
measure of their value. In the present case, St. Thomas has
left us in an article of the Summa a teaching which has not
become outmoded. Rather it has a profound content of perennial value. We refer to his distinction between actual and
potential members.
The expression " potential member " does not mean that
this is a matter of mere logical or objective potency, a nonrepugnance or non-impossibility. It means that one possesses
a real, authentic principle the fulfillment of which is nevertheless potential. A potential member is one who, although
not having supernatural life whereby he is vitally incorporated, yet has something which, when used well, will lead him
to achieve this incorporation. This something is the potency.
And, according to St. Thomas, it embraces several elements
of which we shall speak later.
The blessed are actual members of this universal Church or
15

Summa Theol. Ilia, q. 8, a. 3, ad 3um.

82

EMILIO SAURAS

mystical body. They are those most intimately incorporated
with Christ; from Him they receive the supernatural element
which makes them blessed. The souls in purgatory and just
persons living on earth before Christ's coming, as long as they
lived on earth, were also actual members of the Church. All
others are potential members. Each person possesses at least
a juridical title, a moral title, and an ontological title-three
realities ordering them to the possession of sanctifying grace,
whereby they would be changed into actual members provided
they used these well. We refer to the right to grace which all
possess by the very fact of being redeemed. ( Those living
before Christ were already redeemed in divine acceptation,
although Christ had not yet come.) We refer also to the ordination of all their ethically good acts to their supernatural
end, namely, salvation. 16 They were ignorant of this destiny,
but God was not ignorant of it. Since in actual providence
there is not a natural but only a supernatural end, and since
God never prescinds from the ultimate end, it follows that He
ordered such good acts of pagans to this end. Finally, we refer
to the divine impulse which moved them to perform ethically
good acts, an impulse which was an actual grace proportionate to the end to which God ordained their acts. Thus we have
three titles: juridical, which we have called "right"; moral,
which we have called " ordination "; and ontological, which
we have called "impulse." These were authentic realities
which, well utilized, could have brought the person to the
possession of habitual or sanctifying grace. Therefore such a
person can be regarded as a potential member of the Church.
The Members of the Mystical Body in tliJe Second Sense.
With the establishment of the Church of Peter, however, a
modification is introduced. From that time on, what has just
been indicated becomes insufficient for membership in the
mystical body here on earth. For incorporation with Christ
and membership in His mystical body, putting oneself in direct
communication with Christ is not enough. This must rather
18

St. Thomas; In I Sent., dist. 46, q. 1, a. 1.

THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH

83

be done through the social institution in which He sought to
incarnate supernatural life. To be an actual member, or to
have sanctifying grace, men must belong, in some way, to the
society of Peter. And this is true even if they are only potential members, since they must bear some relation to this
society.
All this follows because Christ willed that, once the Church
of Peter was established, it would be the depositary and administrator of two divine elements which give supernatural
life to men on earth. Divine truth and grace are in this
Church, and this Church administers them. From this it also
follows that, to be incorporated into Christ, one must belong
to this Church. The affirmation is serious, but certain. It is
based upon the teachings of the Gospel, repeated by a constant tradition, and insistently recognized by the magisterium.
Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built/ 7 and the
apostles are with him. 18 Moreover, concerning this Church of
Peter, the Lord says that it has His presence for guaranteeing
divine truth/ 9 and that it is the possessor and administrator
of grace. 20 Without Peter there is no guarantee of divine truth
nor is there divine, sanctifying grace. This is equivalent to
saying that, without him, there is no mystical body, inasmuch
as the reality of this body consists in union with Christ
through the direction (knowledge) and the motion (charity) which goes down into the members from the head.
Two pontifical documents have recently brought this revealed and traditional truth to mind.
For the definition and description of this true Church of Christ,
which is the holy, Catholic, apostolic, Roman Church, there is
nothing nobler, nothing more excellent, nothing more divine than
that phrase whereby it is called the mystical body of Christ-an
expression which springs and, as it were, germinates from what is
frequently taught in the Sacred Writings and the writings of the
Holy Fathers. 21
18 Ephes. 2:20.
Matt. 16:18.
Matt. 16: 19; Luke 10:16.
21 Mystici Corpori.s, AAS. XXXV (1943), 199.

17
20

19

Luke 22:32.

84

EMILIO SAURAS

Thus speaks the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis. And
Humani generis insists upon this, since, among the dangerous fruits of new currents in theology, Pius XII includes:
[Persons who] do not deem themselves obligated to embrace the
teaching which we expounded in an encyclical some years ago and
which is based on the sources of revelation, according to which the
mystical body of Christ and the Catholic Church are one and the
same thing. 22

Yet, what type of identification is involved here? It is very
clear that this is not a matter of formal but of material identification. It does not involve inseparable conjunction in one
identical subject. In other words, what is mystical or vital in
the Church, namely, the graces of Christ, and what is social,
that is, characteristic of the Church of Peter, are not two
elements which are really the same, since grace also existed
in the universal Church of which we have just spoken. This
matter is clear. Yet these two elements are, in an inseparable manner, in one identical collective subject, namely, the
Church of Peter, in such a way that this Church alone possesses the two characteristics. There is, then, an identity of
subject (material identity) with a distinction in value (formal distinction.) This interpretation is demanded by the very
theological data which are involved: graces, which constitute
the first characteristic; and social elements, which constitute
the second characteristic. Moreover, this interpretation is confirmed by the structure of the first two parts of the encyclical
Mystici Corporis, as well as by the very words of this encyclical, which condemn a distinction of opposition, but not a
distinction of coincidence. 23
This means that the problem about membership in this mystical body on earth can be approached from two points of view.
Since the body is mystical or recondite inasmuch as it possesses grace, and social or visible inasmuch as it possesses an
institutional character, it follows that incorporation can be
•• Humani genem, AAS. XLII (1959), 571.
28

AAS. XXXV (1943), !'l!'l4.

THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH

85

appreciated from the first point of view (namely, that of
grace) or the second (namely, that of the social aspect
Understand that we are not resolving the problem by saying
that some are members of the soul of the Church and others
of its body. We are speaking of the members of the mystical
body of Christ here on earth; and this body is the Church of
Peter, such as the Lord established it. He established it as
mystical and social, and whoever does not belong to it with
these two specific notes does not belong to the Church of
Peter. Consequently, whoever pertains to it in the mystical
aspect belongs also to the social part; otherwise they would
not be members of the mystical body of the Lord, which is
precisely social. And since this is the only mystical body possessing grace, it follows that they would not belong to any
mystical body. Moreover, whoever belongs to it through the
social part in any way belongs also to the mystical part. Summarily, one is simultaneously a member of the recondite and
visible, or one is not a member at all.
Here it is opportune to recall the theological doctrine on
the votum, the desire, tendency, or ordination. This is a teaching which has many applications in theology. At times, this
desire or ordination is personal, because it consists in an explicit act of the will or because it is implied in another act of
the same potency. For example, the catechumen who wants
to be baptized has an explicit personal desire. The pagan who
wants to fulfill God's will completely has an implicit and
unconscious personal desire for baptism, since it is God's will
that he be baptized. At other times the desire or ordination
is only real. This is not associated with the personal will of
the person to whom it is attributed, but with things within
him. Since things, too, can have an ordination or tendency to
something, they can have a votum. Thus, for example, in the
actual order of providence, healing grace has a votum for elevating grace, since the former is not separated from the latter; baptism has a votum for the Eucharist; the real presence
of the Lord's Body in virtue of the words of the consecration

86

EMILIO SAURAS

of the bread has a votum for the presence of His Blood, etc.
On the basis of the foregoing explanations, we can classify
the members of the mystical body of Christ here on earth,
and explain how each of the members about whom we shall
speak is a member.
Some are real and perfect members of the mystical body
according to the two aspects of which we have just spoken;
They are perfectly incorporated into Christ in a vital manner, since they live in grace; and this they have done through
a real and perfect incorporation with the social body which,
here on earth, possesses and administers grace, since they
make the profession of faith, receive the sacraments, and are
subject to the hierachy of Peter and the bishops.
Some are real members of the mystical body under the
first aspect, since they possess grace, but are intentional or
in voto members under the second aspect, since they have
the social aspect merely by way of desire. This desire is conscious in some, namely, catechumens, and unconscious in
others, namely, those pagans who, fulfilling the natural law
and being disposed to fulfill God's will in all matters, have
received sanctifying grace from Him. 24
Some are real members of the mystical body under the
social aspect, and only intentional or in voto members under
the vital aspect, namely, those who live within the Church,
but not in the state of grace. They possess the sacramental
character, for example, as a divine reality which, although not
sanctifying them, is ordered to grace actuating it in its proper
domain. Submission to the hierarchy and the profession of
faith likewise have an ordination to grace.
Some are real members of the mystical body in a perfect
manner under the vital aspect, since they live in grace, and
in an imperfect manner under the social aspect, since they
possess something of this, but not everything. Through what
they have, they belong really, too; as regards what they lack,
they belong only in voto. We refer to the separated brethren.
•• Denz. 1677; Mystici Corporis, AAS. XXXV (1948), !l4S.

THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH

87

Some of these have a partial external profession of faith, and
some of the sacraments. Others have the complete faith and
all the sacraments, as well as a hierarchy, although this is
truncated. In the measure wherein they possess these things,
they are real members; in the measure wherein they are lacking, they are intentional members, since what they possess
tends to and is ordered to completion regarding what is
lacking.
In short, there is no longer any church other than that of
Peter. There is no longer any mystical body on earth other
than the Church of Peter. It is the possessor and administrator of grace. Yet grace lives in many persons who are separated from this Church. It lives in them because, consciously
or unconsciously, they are related to the one Church.
EMILIO SAURAS,

Real Convento de Predicadores
Valencia, Spain

0. P.

ST. THOMAS ON THE MEMBERSHIP
OF THE CHURCH

I

N assessing the influence of the encyclical Mystici corporis it appears particularly worthy of note that, whereas
theologians have had no difficulty in recognizing the
major theme of the letter as common teaching, one detail has,
on the contrary, had the positive effect, not merely of controlling theological development, but of actually changing its
direction, as far as a large number of theologians are concerned. The encyclical's statement on membership of the
Church and on the conditions in which such membership is
realized has led to a wide-scale revision of theological views.
What is curious about this is not, of course, the fact that
theologians take their lead from what they judge to be papal
teaching. But the paradoxical situation has arisen in which
common theological principles concerning the nature of the
Church have been seen to be confirmed by the encyclical and,
at the same time, what was held by a sizeable number of theologians to be an application of these principles now appears
to stand in need of revision. To Thomists it cannot but seem
curious also that the teaching of St. Thomas appears, at least
to some, to fall within the area ear-marked for revision. The
assumption which has given rise to this situation is, as is well
known, that Pius XII defined membership in purely juridical
terms: external profession of the Catholic faith, reception of
the sacrament of baptism and submission to the Vicar of
Christ. 1 Taken in conjunction with the clear affirmation of
the identity which exists between the Roman Catholic Church
and the mystical body of Christ, this definition has been interpreted as restricting membership of the mystical body of
1

Denz-Schonmetzer

(=Denz

88

ST. THOMAS ON THE MEMBERSHIP

OF THE CHURCH

89

Christ to those recognized as Roman Catholics who have not
left the Church and have not been excommunicated.
While it may legitimately be urged that theologians ought
to abandon presuppositions arising from particular theological systems when they are confronted with plain statements
of the teaching authority, it is no less mandatory for them to
attempt to uncover the inner coherence of such statements.
In the present case the paradox is not one which affects only
the situation of individual theologians; it is one which, on the
supposition that the definition of membership is indeed exclusively juridical, is inherent in the text of the encyclical itself.
The principal thesis of the letter is that the Church or mystical body is not a purely juridical entity, that it is animated
by a spiritual life which derives from the Holy Spirit. It is
from this principle that the theologian must demonstrate that
the particular conclusion concerning membership derives. Because it appears particularly difficult to discover a logical connection between a definition of the Church which, to be adequate, must include both spiritual and external elements, and
a description of the conditions of membership which takes
account only of external factors, an obvious methodological
procedure is to raise the question whether Pius XII did in
fact define membership in purely juridical terms. It is common knowledge that St. Robert Bellarmine did propose such
a definition. If it could be established that Pius XII adopted
his teaching then our methodological doubt at least would be
solved; but, in spite of the assertions of St. Robert's school,
no hint is given in the encyclical itself that this is the case.
One account of Church membership which formerly enjoyed
favour among theologians was specifically ruled out by Mystici corporis. The distinction between soul and body of the
Church, understood in such fashion that the soul is of wider
extension than the body, may no longer be maintained.
Though the distinction was certainly not one used by St.
Thomas in these terms, it had been widely adopted by Thomists for, on its face value, it appeared to express his teaching

90

COLMAN E. o'NEILL

on membership. The fact that this terminology has had to
be abandoned as failing to do justice to the reality of the
Church does not necessarily mean that all of what Thomists
were trying to express with terms now seen to be defective
was itself untenable. It has been too quickly concluded by
some writers that to affirm that soul and body are co-terminous is equivalent to affirming that only those whose membership of the body is juridically verifiable belong to the organism. The first statement may equally well be interpreted in
the sense that those formerly thought of as belonging to the
soul of the Church and not to the body must now be regarded
as belonging in some fashion to the body.
Whether such an interpretation is justified is a matter for
theological discussion. If such discussion is to be feasible there
must be a preliminary understanding that necessary insistence on the juridical aspect of the Church and on the juridical qualifications for membership is very far from being the
same thing as adopting purely juridical criterions for deciding
who in fact is a member. It is quite open to anyone to argue
that membership of a juridically constituted society must be
juridically verifiable; but it should also be admitted that
others have a right to think that such an argument when
applied without modification to the unique society of the
Church of Christ falls into the sin of univocal reasoning. The
human societies which we know and understand and which
can be circumscribed by neat legal concepts are only the starting-point for our analogical knowledge of the mystery of the
Church.
The fact that several writers, particularly in the Englishspeaking world, are unwilling to admit even the permissibility
of discussing the question of membership would appear to be
an indication that study of the problem in the context of the
recent papal and curial statements is still in the initial stages.
I£ this is so, it hardly appears likely, as far as human judgment goes, that the Council will pronounce definitively on the
matter. The effort must be made to use Pius XU's formula-

ST. THOMAS ON THE MEMBERSHIP

OF THE CHURCH

91

tion of Church teaching, not as a ready-made resolution of a
complex problem, but as a guide for fruitful theological penetration. Here the Thomist tradition has a very positive contribution to make. In what follows the attempt is made to
suggest what the general orientation of this contribution might
be. I have preferred to rely exclusively on the text of St.
Thomas, leaving aside the commentators, ancient and modern.
I hope to show that St. Thomas' concept of membership of
the Church, " spiritual " though it is in its essentials, takes
full account of the juridical structure of the Roman Catholic
Church and thereby qualifies for admittance to contemporary
ecclesiology. In order to reach this conclusion the following
ideas, as they are treated by St. Thomas, will be examined
in turn: the Church; the Church as body of Christ; membership. This will be followed by a brief discussion of the notions
of visibility and unity of the Church in the light of the conclusions on membership. 2

I. ST. THoMAs' CoNCEPT oF THE CHuRcH
The first section of this part takes note of the principal ways
in which St. Thomas uses the term " church." The second section attempts to indicate, in so far as the present question
requires, St. Thomas' view of the Church of Christ.

A. Uses of the te1·m " church "
Although there are places where St. Thomas uses "church"
of local assemblies of the faithful, grouped under the bishop, 3
the term has for him three principal significations.
(i) The heavenly Church. There are two remarkable texts
in which heaven is spoken of as the "true" Church (as con• No attempt is made in this paper to give a detailed exegesis o£ papal and
curial documents. For this, cf. ''Members of the Church: Mystici coryoris and St.
167-184. In the
Thomas," American Ecclesiastical Review 148 (1968), pp.
present paper I have modified the conclusions of the AER article on the baptismal character.
• E.g., Summa theol., II-II, q. 68, a.
ad 4; Ad Galatas, cap. 1, lect. 8 (Marlect. 1 (M. n.
ietti ed., [=M.] n. 88; lect. 5 (M. n. 50); cap.

92

COLMAN E. o'NEILL

trasted with figure and image). The first occurs in the Commentary on Ephesians, 3: 10. The mystery of Christ will be
revealed to the Principalities and Powers through the Church:
"not through the earthly Church, but through the heavenly,
for it is there that the true Church exists, that which is our
mother, towards which we are advancing, and on which our
Church Militant is modelled." 4 The second text, in the Commentary on Galatians, 4:26, develops the idea of motherhood.
The Jerusalem which is above and which is our mother" may
be interpreted in two ways according as we understand this
mother either as that one through whom we are born, and this
is the Church Militant, or as the mother of whom we are
born sons, and this is the Church Triumphant." 5
(ii) The Roman Catholic Church. It is particularly important to notice that the sense in which St. Thomas most
frequently uses the term " church " is the sense commonly
attached to it by contemporary ecclesiologists. It is necessary
to insist on this fact, obvious enough in itself, because it is
of common occurrence to find St. Thomas' teaching dismissed
as irrelevant on the grounds that it envisages some kind of
assembly of grace, not identified with the Roman Catholic
Church. The likelihood of a medieval papal theologian conceiving of the Church on earth as other than a very clearly
identifiable, juridically constituted organization is remote in
the extreme. St. Thomas, in any event, has expressed himself
with unequivocal clarity.
He speaks of the Church as a distinct community, 6 taught
by Christ/ founded on the Apostles. 8 This theology of office
• Ad Ephesios, cap. 8, lect. S (M. n. 161).
6 Ad Galatas, cap. 4, lect. 8 (M. n. 264):
" ... per quam generamur [... ) in
cuius filios generamur ... " Cf. Summa theol., I-II, q. 117, a. 2, ad 1; Ad Ephesios,
cap. 1, lect. 8 (M. n. 69).
• Summa theol., II-II, q. 10, aa. 9, 10, 12; I-II, q. 102, a. 5, ad 2; Ad Ephesios,
cap. 4, lect. 2 (M. n. 197) .
7 Summa theol., II-II, q. 11, a. 4.
8 Ibid., I, q. 48, a. 7, ad 6; Ad Galatas, cap. 1, lect. 4 (M. n. 41). On the authority of the Apostles: their office of government and teaching: I ad Oor., cap. 12,
lect. 8 (M. n. 755) ; their authority in regard to faith: Summa theol., II-II, q.

ST. THOMAS ON THE MEMBERSHIP

OF THE CHURCH

98

refers again and again to the Roman hierarchy, 9 noting in
particular the authority of the pope in matters of faith 10 and
of general discipline, 11 and the function of bishops 12 and the
lower clergy .13 The authority of the Church as a whole in
teaching is likewise insisted upon, 14 as is also its general directive power. 15 It is admitted that the judgment of the Church
may differ from that of God in respect of an individual's culpability/6 In addition there is all that St. Thomas has to say
on the sacraments, on the charisms/ 7 on excommunication/ 8
and his stray references to Church history. 19 That the organization so described should contain sinners appears sufficiently
demonstrated from the very description; but St. Thomas
adverts in specific terms, though rarely, to the presence of
sinners in the Church. 20
(iii) Eadem Ecclesia. In his commentary on Col., 1:18, St.
Thomas notes that the Church has a two-fold state, that of
q. 107, a. 4; Ad EpheBios, cap. !l, lect. 5 (M. n.
174, a. 6; I-ll, q. 106, a. 4, ad
lect. 6 (M. n. 181).
• Esp. Summa theol., IT-II, q. I88, aa.
8; q. 184, Prol.
10 Ibid., II-IT, q. 1, a. 10, ad 8; q. 11, a.
ad 8.
11 Ibid., IT-II, q. 89, a. 1; q. 88, a. 12, ad 8; q. 89, a. 9, ad 8; ad 4; q. 100, a.
1, ad 7; III, q. 85, a. 7, ad 8; q.
a. 11 ad 1; etc.
12 Ibid., U-TI, q. 185, aa. 8, 4; q. 177, a.
III, q.
a. 1, ad 4: "princeps
totius ecclesiastici ordinis"; I ad Cor., cap. 12, lect. 8 (M. n. 788 f.); etc.
18 Ad Philip., cap. 1, lect. 1 (M. n. 6); I ad Cor., cap. 12, lect. 8 (M. n. 756).
"Summa theol., II-II, q. 1, a. 4, sed contra; a. 9, sed contra; q. 5, a. 8; q.
10, a. 12.
16 Ibid., II-II, q. 10, a. 10; q. 100, a.
q. 147, a. 3; a. 4, ad 1; a. 5.
16 Ibid., II-II, q. 11, a. 4, ad 1; q. 184, a. 4; cf. q. I89, a. 5: "Ecclesia
respicit
id quod in pluribus est."
17 E.g., ibid., II-II, q.
a. 4; q. 177, a. 1.
18 E.g., ibid., II-II, q. IO, a. 9; q. 11, a. 3; Ad Galatas, cap 1, lect.
(M. n. !'l4).
19 Summa theol., II-II, q. I, a. 9, ad 6; q.
a. I, ad 1; q. 184, a. 6 (ref. to
the Western Church); I-II, q. I06, a. 4, ad 4.
20 Ibid., II-II, q. 1, a. 9, ad 8; IV Sent., d. 4, q.
a. qla. 5; I ad Cor., cap.
11, lect. 7 (M. n. 69I) .These three texts employ-tacitly in the third case-the
important distinction: belonging to the Church numero and merito. Cf. also I
(M. n.
lect. 8 (M. n. 748); Ad Col., cap. 1, lect. 1
ad Cor., cap. 12, lect.
(M. n. 6); II ad Tim., cap.
lect. 3 (M. n. 73); Ad Titum, cap. 1, lect. !'l (M.
nn. I5, 19); lect. 4 (M. n. 45); cap. 3, lect. 1 (M. n. 81); Summa theol., II-IT, q.
4, a. 5, ad 4; III, q. 68, a. 5, ad 1.

94

COLMAN E. o'NEILL

grace existing at present, and that of glory which is in the
future; and " it is the same Church." 21 He goes on in the same
place to speak of the " whole Church " of grace, which includes, besides present-day Christians, those in the Old Testament justified through faith in Christ; this is a point he
returns to in his discussion of Christ's capital grace, in the
Summa theologiae:
The ancient Fathers, by observing the sacraments of the law, were
brought towards Christ through the same faith and love by which
we are still brought towards him. For this reason the ancient
Fathers belonged to the same body of the Church to which we
belong.22

It is such texts as these, taken in conjunction with those
which state that those who were justified before the coming
of Christ belong to the New Testament, 23 which have given
rise to the impression that St. Thomas sees the Church simply as an assembly of grace. That such an impression is false
·is clear from the preceding sub-section. The Church to which
" we " belong is without doubt the Roman Catholic Church;
but the texts remain a problem. It is by resolving this problem that an authentic understanding of St. Thomas' teaching is to be found.

B. St. Thomas' View of the Chunh
Our purpose is not so ambitious as to present an account
of St. Thomas' ecclesiology, even supposing such a thing were
possible. It is sufficient for the present problem to seek an
answer to the question: what can we learn concerning the
structure of the Roman Catholic Church from the fact that
St. Thomas could say that it is the same Church as that of
heaven and that of those who were justified before the Incarnation? St. Thomas' own answer is to be found principally in
his tract on the Old and the New Law; from this appears his
Ad Col., cap. 1, lect. 5 (M. n. 48).
Summa theol., III, q. 8, a. 8, ad 8.
•• E.g., ibid., I-II, q. 106, a. 1, ad 8; a. 8, ad 2; q. 107, a. 1, ad 2; a. 8, ad 1.
21

22

ST. THOMAS ON THE MEMBERSHIP

OF THE CHURCH

95

concern both to preserve an historical perspective and to construct a theological synthesis of the history of salvation.
(i) The history of salvation. St. Thomas distinguishes three
historical periods in the earthly revelation of God.
Before the Law individual persons or families were, in prophetical fashion, instructed in faith in the one God and in His
omnipotence. Under the Law the whole people, through the
prophets and primarily through Moses, received a fuller revelation with special emphasis on the divine simplicity. Finally, "in the time of grace the mystery of the Trinity was
revealed by the Son of God Himself." 24
Man's response to divine revelation falls into a corresponding historical pattern; and this is true of both his interior and
his exterior worship of God. This emerges from St. Thomas'
discussion of the ceremonial percepts of the Old Law. Here
he takes a broader view of divine revelation, extending it to
include the beatific vision. 25
Interior union with God is achieved in two consecutive stages
in each individual: in the present life, where divine truth
shines upon us only through the medium of sensible figures,
and in the beatific vision, where the human intellect will have
direct knowledge of divine truth. But historically a development is discernible in the form of union which has been or is
possible. This development falls into two historical periods or
states. In the Old Law " neither was the divine truth manifested directly nor was the way of attaining it laid open." "In
the state of the New Law," on the contrary, while direct
knowledge of divine truth is still in the future, "the way to
it is now revealed." 26 Being concerned here with correlating
ceremonial precepts with the historical development of interior union with God, St. Thomas leaves out of the consideration
24 Ibid., II-II, q. 174, a. 6, where revelation of the Incarnation is said to center
on the time of realization of the mystery and on Pentecost (Eph., S: 5).
•• Ibid., I-II, q. 101, a. 2, where the principle is formulated; cf. q. lOS, a. S,
where it is specified that interior worship consists in faith, hope and charity.
•• Ibid., I-II, q. 101, a. 2.

96

COLMAN E. o'NEILL

the pre-law period in which no liturgy was divinely prescribed.
In another place, however, he takes account of this period, so
completing his survey of mankind's historical response of faith
to the three stages of earthly revelation. 27
Corresponding to the heavenly and to the three states of
earthly union with God are four diverse liturgies. In heaven
external worship will have nothing figurative about it but will
consist simply in praise of God, directly expressing the inward
union. On earth, however, three liturgies have succeeded one
another, each of them incorporating ceremonies figurative of
the divine gifts not yet given at the period in which it was
legitimately used. Before the Law and under the Law the
ceremonies pre-figured not only heaven but Christ also and
the means he provides for entering heaven. In the "state of
the New Law" only heaven is symbolized as something which
exists solely in hope; the Way there is "commemorated as one
who was in the past and who is now present." 28
What is noteworthy for our present question is the clear
historical distinction that St. Thomas makes between the liturgy of the Old Law and that of the New. This is our first
indication of what he means by the" state of the New Law."
As will appear below, this phrase has not the same signification as the term "the New Law."
The point of transition from the Old Law to the "state of
the New Law" is the Incarnation. There could not be a visible mission of the Spirit to the justified before Christ because
the visible mission of the Son was not yet accomplished. 29 The
Spirit is given visibly, as at Pentecost, only after the Resurrection and Ascension; 30 and for this reason it is only after
Christ's coming that there can be a "law" capable itself of
introducing all men into salvation. 31 Christ the Priest, by ful•• Cf. ibid., I-II, q. 103, a. 1.
•• Ibid., I-II, q. 101, a. fl; cf. q. 103, aa. 1, 3.
•• Ibid., I, q. 43, a. 6, ad 7.
so Ibid., I-II, q. 106, a. 4, ad fl.
81 Ibid., 1-11, q. 91, a. 5, ad fl.

ST. THOMAS ON THE MEMBERSHIP

OF THE CHURCH

97

filling the Law 32 and displacing the priesthood of Aaron, thereby effects the transition from the Old Law to the New, so that
now the state of the Chosen People has changed and there is
no longer distinction between the nation of the Jews and the
Gentiles. 33
Once again what is to be noted is the historical character
of the introduction of the state of the New Law. The difference in the new state is clearly discerned in the sacraments.
It is the historical reality of the mystery of the Incarnation
and passion of Christ which gives the sacraments of the New
Law power of justification and sanctification, whereas those
of the Old Law did not contain grace or the power of the mysteries of Christ or Christ himself. 34 The Old-Law ceremonies
had their own validity as external worship during the period
in which they were prescribed, 35 but they were not" spiritual"
as are those of the New Law, which can cause grace,S6 and
consequently they were superseded when Christ's mysteries
were realized. 37
What is true of the sacraments is true, due proportion being
preserved, of the whole law in its two states. Old and New
Law are not wholly diverse, since it is the same God who gives
both of them and both are directed towards the same end.
namely, the submission of man to God. They are distinct in
the manner that two parts of the same motion are distinct,
according as one part is nearer to the term than the other,
which is to say that the relation of the New Law to the Old
is that of what is perfect to what is imperfect in the same
genus. It becomes clear, however, that the term "law" is
used analogically in the phrase "the New Law" when St.
Thomas goes on to describe the Old Law as" a pedagogue of
Ibid., I-II, q. 107, a. 2; q. 102, a. 4, ad 2.
Ibid., 1-11, q. 104, a. 3, ad 3; cf. q. 91, a. 5, sed contra.
••]bid., 1-11, q. 103, a. 2; q. 102, a. 2; q. 101, a. 4, ad 2; etc.
•• Ibid., 1-11, q. 102, a. 2. Throughout his discussion of the ceremonial law St.
32
33

Thomas distinguishes the "literal " and the " figurative " causes.
36 Ibid., Il-11, q. 100, a. 2; I-II, q. 102, a. 5, ad 8 et 9.
37 Ibid., 1-11, q. 104, a. 3.

98

COLMAN E. o'NEILL

children" (Gal., 3:24) and the New Law as" the law of perfection, as being the law of charity [... ] the bond of perfection." 38
A new concept has now come to the fore in the connotation
of "the New Law," that of grace; and it is this which enables
St. Thomas, while preserving his strictly historical view of the
development of divine revelation and of man's interior and
external response to it, to introduce a supra-historical consideration into his theology of salvation. A brief examination of
this new idea will prepare the way for an explanation of St.
Thomas' description of the justified, whether before or after
Christ, as "the same Church."
(ii) The s-upm-historical extension of the New Law. Though
for St. Thomas, following the teaching of St. Paul, the Old
Law as such was a purely external indication of the divine
will regarding the conduct of the Chosen People and contained
no proximate or spiritual help for fulfilling its prescriptions,
the way of salvation was not closed to pre-Christian Jews or
indeed to those excluded from Jewish citizenship. 39 This was
because there was " another help for men from God, accompanying the Law, by which they could be saved; this was faith
in the Mediator, through which the Fathers of old were justified in the same way that we are justified." 40 In so far as they
received sanctifying grace, given in virtue of the merits of
Christ, they belonged to the New Law 41 and looked for spiritual and eternal fulfillment of the promises. 42
It is, as has been remarked, this element of St. Thomas'
teaching which has caused confusion concerning his concept
of the Church. Because he affirms that the justified who lived
before Christ belonged to the New Law and even that they
belonged to "the same Church" as we, it has been concluded that he considers the Church purely as a supra-historIbid., I-II, q. 107, a. 1.
For non-Jews, cf. ibid., I-II, q. 105, a. 8, ad 1.
40 Ibid., I-II, q. 98, a. 2, ad 4.
41 Ibid., I-II, q. 106, a. 1, ad 8; a. 8, ad 2; q. 107, a. 1, ad 2; a. 8, ad 8; etc.
42 Ibid., I-II, q. 107, a. 1, ad 2. Cf. I-II, q. 91, a. 5: the direct or immediate
end of the Old Law consisted in earthly benefits.
38

39

ST. THOMAS ON THE MEMBERSHIP

OF THE CHURCH

99

ical assembly of grace. Those who have come to this conclusion have claimed support for their opinion in the well-known
article of III, q. 8, on the headship of Christ. Yet, as we have
seen, St. Thomas has as clear a notion at least of the fact of
the juridical structure of the Roman Catholic Church as any
modem theologian and is quite well aware that it came into
existence only after the Incarnation.
The truth of the matter is that for St. Thomas the New
Law is of wider extension than the Roman Catholic Church.
The latter is a clearly identifiable historical entity, whereas
the New Law exists as the mystery of salvation at work in
the world from the time of the restoration of man to grace.
Yet, though the New Law thus transcends historical periods,
the state of the New Law does not. For the state of the New
Law is precisely that third state of revelation and faith which
was initiated in the Incarnation and in the mysteries of Christ;
and it is the Roman Catholic Church which provides that
stable disposition pertaining to grace which is required for a
" state." 43
(iii) The State of the New Law. More is implied in the
state of the New Law than in the New Law as such. This is
made clear by St. Thomas in several places and provides the
key to understanding his teaching on the Church. The state
of the human race with respect to the divine law, he indicates in one place, varies according to historical succession.
Accordingly, although at all times there have been men who
belonged to the New Law by faith in Christ, the New Law
has not always been proposed to men. 44 It is precisely the
proposal of the New Law which characterizes the period after
Pentecost. This is the time when revelation is taught explicitly and stripped of the figures which cloaked it in the Old
Testament. 45 The sacraments of the New Law likewise form
part of the dispositions made by Christ when he inaugurated
"C£. ibid., II-II, q. 183, a. 1.
Ibid., I-II, q. 106, a. 3, ad 2.
•• Ibid., I-II, q. 107, a. 3, ad 1.
u

100

COLMAN E. o'NEILL

the new state of the Chosen People. It is characteristic of the
new state that its sacraments, besides containing Christ or the
power of his mysteries, also, in accordance with the nature of
external worship, are adapted to give expression to explicit
faith in the Christian revelation, whereas those of the Old Law
could give only figurative expression to the same faith. 46 The
judicial precepts of the Old Law, since their purpose was to
maintain good order in the Jewish nation, have lost their binding force because, with the coming of Christ, the state of the
people has been changed. 47 As to the moral precepts, the
teaching of Christ has provided a new understanding of their
meaning and has established an ideal of perfection in the
counsels. 48 Finally, the state of the New Law will give way
to the state of heaven when the Gospel of Christ has been
preached throughout the world with full effect, in such fashion that the Church is founded in every race. 49
If, then, we wish to discover St. Thomas' teaching on the
Church we cannot simply extract what he says about the New
Law and go on to assert that he has a vague idea of the
Church as an assembly of grace, indifferent to juridical structure. His teaching on the nature of the Roman Catholic
Church is to be found in his analysis of the state of the New
Law, for it is precisely the structure of this Church which he
envisages when he describes this state. It is here that St.
Thomas makes his decisive contribution to ecclesiology for he
is not content merely to enumerate the elements which constitute the Church; he gives a theological account which establishes a hierarchy of values within the constitutive elements
and provides thereby a comprehensive criterion for resolving
the problem of membership. The principal place to be consulted is I-II, q. 108.
The basis for q. 108 is laid in q. 106. In reply to the
question whether the New Law is a written one, St. Thomas
replies:
•• Ibid., I-II, q. lOS, a. !l; ad !l.
' 7 Ibid., I-II, q. 104, a. S.

48
49

Ibid., I-II, q. 107, a. 2.
Ibid., I-II, q. 106, a. 4, ad 1; ad 4.

ST. THOMAS ON THE MEMBERSHIP

OF THE CHURCH

101

The Philosopher points out in Ethics, IX, that "each thing is seen
to be what is primary in its constitution." Now the primary
element of the law of the New Testament, that in which its whole
worth lies, is the grace of the Holy Spirit which is given to those
who believe in Christ. This appears clearly in St. Paul, Rom. 3:
[... ] where it is the grace of faith which is termed "the law";
and even more clearly in Rom., 8: [... ].
The New Law has, however, certain elements the function of
which is to dispose for the grace of the Holy Spirit and [others]
which are related to the use of this grace. These are in the New
Law as secondary elements, and the Christian faithful must be
instructed about them both orally and in writing in so far as they
concern both belief and action. Our reply, accordingly, is that the
New Law is primarily interior but that secondarily it is a written
law.50
In q. 108, a. 1, the distinction between primary and secondary elements is developed in terms of the Incarnation,
insofar as this mystery affects the believer. After recalling that
the principal element (principalitas) of the New Law is the
grace of the Holy Spirit, revealed in faith active through charity, St. Thomas goes on:
Now men obtain this grace through the Son of God made man
whose humanity grace first filled and has thence been brought to
us. This is expressed in Jn., 1:14: "The Word was made flesh,"
and then is added: "full of grace and truth"; and later [v. 16]: "of
his fullness we have all received, and grace for grace." Consequently it is added [v. 17] that" grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."
It is for this reason that there is discoverable a theological harmony
in the fact that it is through external realities, perceptible to the
senses that the grace flowing from the Incarnate Word is brought
to us, and in the fact that certain external actions, perceptible to
the senses should be performed under the influence of this interior
grace through which the flesh is brought under the control of the
spirit.

It is because grace has this incarnational

aspect-deriving
from its source and its function-that St. Thomas is able to
account for the sacramental and juridical structure of the
50 Ibid., I-II,
q. 108, a. 1; ad !'l clarifies the notion of "interior"
" quasi naturae superadditum per gratiae donum."

(indita);

102

COLMAN E. o'NEILL

Roman Catholic Church. For, in fact, he goes on to explain
the necessity of the sacraments, "baptism, the Eucharist and
the like," 51 in terms of the derivation of grace from the Incarnate Word; and he accounts for the written law and the
exercise of jurisdiction, whether ecclesiastical or civil, as a
consequence of man's need to "incarnate" grace in external
actions, this being a logical necessity derived, not simply from
man's nature, but also from the mystery of the Incarnation
itself. Thus whatever external action is necessarily implied by,
or contrary to, grace falls under precept or prohibition. Whatever, on the contrary, has not such a necessary connection
with grace is left by the legislator, Christ, to whoever has the
responsibility for controlling such matters, whether it be the
individual exercising his freedom or the ruler governing his
subjects.
The following article, q. 108, a. 2, develops this outline in
order to solve the question whether the New Law has made
adequate provision for external acts. The sed contra refers to
the Church as a house:
"Everyone that heareth these my
Our Lord says, Matt., 7:
words and doth them shall be likened to a wise man that built his
house upon a rock." 52 But a wise builder neglects nothing that is
necessary for the building. Consequently, whatever is related to
salvation has been adequately provided for in the words of Christ.
The corpus details the provisions. First are the sacraments
" through which we are led into grace and which had to be
instituted by Christ himself since it is from him alone that we
can obtain grace"; the list of seven includes "the order of
ministers of the New Law, [instituted by Christ] when he
appointed the Apostles and the seventy-two disciples." Second is what concerns the correct use of grace through works of
charity: what is absolutely necessary for virtuous life has alThe list is completed in the following article.
Cf. Comment. in Matt., cap. 7, lect.
(M. n. 671): "Vel potest [haec similitudo] intelligi spiritualiter: et sic iste vir est Christus [... ] Domus Christi est
Ecclesia .... "
61
62

ST. THOMAS ON THE MEMBERSHIP

OF THE CHURCH

103

ready been provided for in the moral precepts of the Old Law
so that the New Law need make no additions in this respect.
But the more specific determination of these precepts, in matters of justice and worship, is not concerned with what is in
itself necessarily bound up with grace and, consequently, such
determination is left to human choice, either of individuals or,
when the common good is at stake, of " prelates, temporal or
spiritual." 53
A very clear statement of St. Thomas' view of the Church
of the New Testament emerges from these articles. The Church
is precisely the state of the New Law, primarily an assembly
of grace, but provided, as a secondary element in its constitution, with a sacramental system administered by a sacramental priesthood deriving from the Apostles, and with a hierarchy empowered to bind its subject to the fulfillment of laws
promulgated as determinations of the general moral principles
for the common good of the spiritual society. Here St. Thomas
simply sketches the outline of his ecclesiology, filling in the
details as occasion arises. From the texts already cited it is
evident that the function of the hierarchy includes, not only
administration of the sacraments and government of Christian morals, but also teaching the faith.
In all of this there is nothing very startling for the contemporary ecclesiologist; but this is just the point which has to
be made. When St. Thomas speaks of " the Church" without
any further qualification, either explicit or implied in the context, he is referring to exactly the same institution as Pius
XII in Mystici corporis. What may be called specifically
Thomistic is the distinction between primary and secondary
elements and the hierarchy of values thus established. It is
this distinction which leads to an understanding of the inclusion of the justified of the Old Testament and the blessed of
heaven in "the same Church" as ourselves.
(iv) The extension of the Church. There is no difficulty in
•• The climate of thought in which this question is placed appears also in the
objections, esp. a.
obj. 8, a. 4, obj. 8. The Roman Church is clearly envisaged.

104

COLMAN E. o•NEILL

determining the historical extension of the Church when this
is understood in its strict sense as the Church of the Apostles
and the sacraments. This Church depends wholly on the intervention of the divine Word made flesh in human history. Its
secondary elements-sacraments
and hierarchy-draw their
validity from the revelation, the mysteries and the dispositions of Christ; its primary element depends on the secondary
elements for its existence and its activity. It is the New Law
in its historical, material setting; it is, one might say, developing St. Thomas' hint, the New Law incarnate-grace, that is,
depending on material things for its existence in man and
manifesting itself in external action under the direction of individual prudence and juridically constituted authority. The
difficulty concerns those who received grace before the coming of Christ. Though, to the extent that they were in grace,
they belonged to the New Law, there is no question of their
having used its secondary elements which, nevertheless, form
an integral part of the New Law as it is realized in the
Roman Catholic Church. They did not belong, that is, to the
Roman Catholic Church. And yet they belonged to "the same
Church " as we do.
As has been seen, St. Thomas explains the historical continuity between the Old Law and the New in terms of motion
towards one end, the submission of man to God, so that the
two laws are related as imperfect and perfect in the same
species.54 The union that he affirms between the justified who
lived under the Old Law and the present Church is very much
closer than this. Its basis is the grace of the Holy Spirit
which, though given before Christ, is the special possession of
the present Church, constituting its primary element. It is
the same gift of the Holy Spirit, grace and glory, which unifies
the present Church and heaven. In respect of this gift St.
Thomas distinguishes, in fact, only two states of man. denominated, in conformity with his theology of beatitude, in terms
of knowledge of God. Man's fundamental supernatural link
•• Cf. Summa theol., I-II, q. 91, a. 5.

ST. THOMAS ON THE MEMBERSHIP

OF THE CHURCH

105

with God is either vision or faith. 55 Vision is the end of both
laws and it can be attained only through faith in Christ which
is active through charity. In accordance with this, the fundamental role of Christ's redemptive mission is to "make
manifest the way of truth." 56 Because the just who lived
under the Law had faith in Christ perfected by charity they
enjoyed the primary reality of the Catholic Church. The unity
of faith of the two testaments bears witness to their unity of
purpose. 56 "
If, however, the faith of the justified Jews is the same as
that of the Church in respect to its object, there is a difference in historical perspective " because they preceded Christ
whereas we follow him." Consequently, "the same faith is
expressed in different ways by them and by us " since they
spoke of future events and we of what is past. 57 Similarly,
faith in the divine promises calls for distinct ceremonial signs
before and after the fulfillment of the promises. "Consequently, while [fulfillment] was still future the faith of Abraham had to be proclaimed in circumcision. But after it has
been achieved the same reality must be declared by another
sign, namely, baptism which succeeds circumcision in this
respect." 58 It is apparent that as far as the external organization of the community of the faithful goes there is not discernible the same unity between the Jews and the Church as
exists in their common faith. There is, nevertheless, a certain
unity even at this external level, based on two factors.
First, considering the organization as such, as it includes
liturgical ceremonies and the teaching of revelation, the ceremonies of the Old Law were figures of the mysteries realized
in Christ and commemorated in the Church; and the same revelation is proposed in both states, implicitly and in figure in
the Old Law, explicitly and openly in the Church.
Cf. ibid., I-II, q. 101, a. 2.
Ibid., ill, Prol.
••a Ibid., I-II, q. 107, a. 1, ad 1.
51 Ibid., I-II, q. 103, a. 4.
68 Ibid., I-II, q. 103, a. 3, ad 4; cf. esp. III, q. 68, a. 1, ad 1.

55

56

106

COLMAN E. o'NEILL

This divinely conceived harmony between the externals of
the two states makes possible the second factor in visible
unity. When used with faith the ceremonies of the Old Law
made visible the People of God in the same way that the liturgy of the Catholic Church does today. The form of unity
spoken of here is confined strictly to the fact of proclamation
of faith in Ch1·ist through prescribed ceremonies. The sacraments of the New Law imply more than this; they contain the
power of Christ's mysteries, something which was impossible
for the Old-Law sacraments. Though for this reason unique
professions of faith, yet, the sacraments of the Church incorporate all the cult values of the Old-Law ceremonies and
to this extent the latter are anticipations of the former. 59 St.
Thomas concentrates his attention on the ceremonial aspect
of external union between the believers of the Old Testament
and the Church precisely because it manifests the union of
faith, implying the teaching of a common revelation. He does
not appear to be concerned to discover any form of unity of
jurisdiction, preferring to consider the judicial precepts as
social regulations adapted to the state of the Jewish people.
Our conclusion, then, is as follows. For St. Thomas the
present Church is the Roman Catholic Church which takes its
historical origin from the Incarnation and the mysteries of
Christ. When he says that the just of the Old Testament
belonged to the same Church as we do he does not mean that
the present Church is purely an assembly of believers or of
the justified. He means that the present Church existed in
another form before Christ. The diversity of form is not to
be attributed to a difference in faith, for, in spite of accidental
differences, this is the same before and after Christ. The difference is to be sought in the secondary elements which serve
faith and which constitute the two historical states of the
congregation of believers. 6 ° For, whereas the sacraments of
the Church commemorate the mysteries of Christ and con69
60

Cf. ibid., III, q. 70, which applies the principles established in qq. 60, 61.
The phrase appears in Summa theol., III, q. 8, a. 4, ad 2; q. 70, a. 1; etc.

ST. THOMAS ON THE MEMBERSHIP

OF THE CHURCH

107

tain their power, the sacraments of the Old Law were no
more than figures of the mysteries so that their religious value
depended wholly on the faith of those who used them. For
this same reason it was not the Jewish people as such or the
Old Law as such which constituted the pre-existence of the
Roman Catholic Church. The present Church existed in a preliminary, provisional form in the Remnant of Israel, those
who possessed the grace of the Holy Spirit, believing in Christ
as revealed by the prophets, and expressing their faith by
means of the Jewish liturgy and by obedience to the judicial
precepts of the law. The essential factors constituting them
the pre-Church-essential because implying the other factors
-were living faith and use of the Jewish sacraments. They
used these sacraments precisely as " images and shadows of
what was to come." And since "motion to an image, formally
as an image, is the same as motion to the thing imaged " the
religious Jews "were brought through their liturgy to Christ
by the same faith and love as that by which we are brought
to him." And for this reason they belonged "to the same body
of the Church as that to which we belong." 61 They belonged
to the body of the Church precisely because they used their
sacraments with faith. The body that they formed could only
be a shadow of the body of the Roman Catholic Church
because the personal body of Christ was not yet formed in the
womb of their supreme representative. With the Incarnation
the body of the divine Word appears in Israel as the source
of a wholly new sacramental system which will give rise to
the perfect body of the faithful.
Sacraments are the decisive factor. They give the congregation of believers its basic visibility, make it, that is, a body.
They distinguish the Roman Catholic Church from the Remnant of Israel and from those other members of Christ who
lived before the Incarnation and yet were saved by living
faith and by whatever natural sacraments they chose to ex81

Ibid., III, q. 8, a. 8, ad 8; cf. objection.

108

COLMAN E. o'NEILL

press their faith. 62 Sacraments too, insofar as through their historical development they express the same faith in more or
less perfect symbols of the same reality, unify all believers
in a body which is one, not juridically, but one in being
directed to one end under the influence of one person who possesses the end by right. Further, it is the need to use sacraments
as expressions of faith which distinguishes all the successive
earthly assemblies of believers from the heavenly consummation of the Church; and, at the same time, sacraments give to
our present knowledge of God that corporeal expression which
will be perfected in the beatific vision and in the consequent
glory of the risen body.
Thus the Church, accordingly, existed before the Incarnation in a preliminary state; it will exist after the parousia
in its consummation. But in the present intervening period
it is identified with the Roman Catholic Church. This is certainly the teaching of St. Thomas.

II. THE CHURCH As THE Bony oF CHRIST
St. Thomas, adopting the lead of the Scriptures, uses several metaphors of the Church. It is, for example, a house or
a city. 63 It is the unique spouse of Christ. 64 Most commonly,
with St. Paul, he uses the metaphor of a human body. We
shall consider the sense in which he uses " body " in this context, noting the realities to which he applies it. A second section will be concerned with the nature of the body of Christ
in St. Thomas' writings.
A. Sense of " body "; its extension

It is not necessary for our purpose to investigate exhaustively the manner in which St. Thomas exploits the metaphor
of the body. In general, he develops two ideas suggested by
•• Cf. ibid., III, q. 68, a. 1, ad 1.
•• E.g., Ad Ephesios, cap. 2, lect. 6 (M. n. 124).
64 Ad Romanos, cap. 7, lect. 1 (M. nn. 526, 522); cf. Summa theol., I-II, q. 102,
a. 5, ad 3; III, q. 61, a. 2, ad 3.

ST. THOMAS ON THE MEMBERSHIP

OF THE CHURCH

109

the analogy. He contrasts Christ, the Head, with the Church,
the body, and analyzes the relations between the two. 65 Or
else he illustrates the theme of diversity of gifts and offices
within the unity of the Church by appeal to the diversity of
members in one body .66 These two ideas are not rigorously
separated-Christ is seen, for example, to influence the members through the intervention of office-holders 67-but the first
is developed in terms of the gift of grace made by the Head
to his members, while the second is concerned with the external organization of the Church.
The text of Ephesians, 1:8, is sufficient for St. Thomas to
make the equation between the Church and the body of
Christ; but he is quite willing to take advantage of the evident ambiguity of the term "church " in this context. The
outstanding example is the central text, III, q. 8, a. 3, where
St. Thomas explicitly adopts the point of view which encompasses " the entire history of the world " (tatum tempus
mundi) and where he speaks of " the body of the Church
constituted of men from the beginning of the world to its
end "; and in fact the saints and even angels are included also,
so that in the following article (a. 4) the term "church" is
applied to all who benefit from Christ's influence, whether on
earth or in heaven, and all are said to form one body of which
Christ is the Head. For a comprehensive account of the unique
body of Christ such a broad view is necessary. That this body
of Christ takes on a particular sacramental and juridical form
in the period between the fulfillment of the mystery of the
Incarnation and the parousia remains a truth already estab65 Summa theol., ITI, q. 8; Ad Ephesios, cap. 1, lect. 8 (M. nn. 69, 70, 71): "Et
quia Ecclesia est instituta propter Christum, dicitur quod Ecclesia est plenitudo
eius, scilicet Christi, id est, ut omnia, quae virtute sunt in Christo, quasi quodam
modo in membris ipsius ecclesiae impleantur, dum scilicet omnes sensus spirituales, et dona, et quidquid potest esse in ecclesia, quae omnia superabundanter
sunt in Christo, ab ipso deriventur in membra Ecclesiae et perficiantur in eis."
66 E.g. Suppl., q. 37, a. 1, sed contra; Ad Romanos, cap. Hl, lect. 9l (M. nn., 972,
973); Ad Ephesios, cap. 4, lect. 5 (M. n. 9l25); Ad Col., cap. 1, lect. 5 (M. n. 46).
67 E.g., Summa theol., III, q. 8, a. 6; q. 82, a. 1, ad 4; and all that is said on
the minister of the sacraments.

110

COLMAN E. o'NEILL

lished in the P1·ima-Secundae: and St. Thomas does us the
compliment of expecting that we will remember this. In III,
q. 8, where he is meditating on the mystery of Christ, "the
universal principle in the genus of those who possess grace," 68
the idea foremost in his mind is that " men could at no time
be saved, even before the coming of Christ, unless they became members of Christ," being incorporated into him. 69 Historical details of external organization necessarily take, in this
theological synthesis, the secondary place which he has already
demonstrated is their due; they have been or will be given
full consideration in other sections of his Summa. Sufficient
notice is taken of the present state of the mystical body in
q. 8, a. 6, where the function of the pope and the bishops is
very precisely outlined: while Christ is " Head of all those
who belong to the Church according to all times, all places
and all states," the pope is "head of the whole Church according to a determined time, during the time, that is, of his pontificate; and according to a determined state, that namely of
wayfarers"; and bishops are heads of their local churches.
Our conclusion is parallel to that of the preceding section.
For St. Thomas "(mystical body) of Christ " is equivalent to
"(whole) Church," to which term it adds a clearer reference
to Christ as the cause of the existence and the unity of the
congregation of the fajthful. While the term may be employed
with the same freedom as " the Church," after Pentecost the
body of Christ on earth is the Roman Catholic Church. This
body the bishops or their delegates "dispose." 70
To this conclusion a further consideration may be added.
Commenting on Eph., 4:13, St. Thomas goes beyond the normal comparison of the Church to a human body. He interprets the text as referring to the state of heaven, and
comments:
Secondly he indicates the exemplar cause of this perfection when
he says " unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ."
•• Ibid., III, q. 7, a. 9; a. 11.
•• Ibid., III, q. 68, a. 1, ad 1.

70

Ibid., III, q.

a. 1, ad 4.

ST. THOMAS ON THE MEMBERSHIP

OF THE CHURCH

111

Notice here that the true body of Christ is the exemplar of the
mystical body; for both are formed of several members gathered
into one. 71

The conclusion drawn-that the age of the saints will be
thirty-three-is of less importance than the principle leading
to it and the implied application to the mystical body of the
text quoted in confirmation: "Who will reform the body of
our lowness, made like to the body of his glory " (Phil. 3:21).
Possibly St. Thomas, as reported here, is interested simply in
discovering a material resemblance between Christ's body and
those of his glorious members; but the suggestion of a wider
significance to the analogy cannot be ignored in the light of
St. Thomas' understanding of the instrumental use in salvation of Christ's humanity-of his body, as he puts it in III,
q. 8, a. 2. I£ the Church is to be thought of as the fullness
of Christ's true body, as some exegetes propose, then the
Church founded at the Incarnation and consummated at the
parousia has a special title to be called the mystical body.
This accords admirably with St. Thomas' theology. It is the
reality of the humanity of Christ which gives the present
Church its excellence, as manifested primarily in the sacraments. The continuity of efficient causality that now exists
between the glorified body of Christ and the sacraments of
the Church lends a new realism to the denomination of the
Church as the body of Christ. As dependent on the true body
for the efficacy of its sacraments and its grace, it constitutes
the fullness of the true body and for this reason it is to be
seen, together with its heavenly consummation, as the mystical body par excellence, more truly the mystical body than
the Remnant of Israel which was united to the future Christ
by faith and purely ceremonial sacraments. But if, in these
terms, we might distinguish between a mystical body before
the Incarnation and the true mystical body after, it is unthinkable that there should be a multiplicity of mystical
bodies at the present time. For, in addition to the fact that
11 Ad

Ephesios, cap. 4, lect. 4 (M. n. 216).

112

COLMAN E. o'NEILL

the metaphor was chosen by St. Paul precisely in order to
emphasize the union of many in one association, the uniqueness of Christ, the Head, and of his true body demand that
the mystical body be one; and of this the Roman Catholic is
the present earthly guarantee and realization.

B. Nature of the mystical body
Since " mystical body " and " Church " are synonyms, applicable to each or all of the various states of those who receive
the influence of Christ, it is clear that what has been said
about the nature of the Roman Catholic Church is valid also
for the present state of the mystical body. It is useful, however, to relate certain statements that St. Thomas makes
about the mystical body to the account given of the structure of the Church in the discussion of the New Law.
As with the Church, there are to be distinguished in the
mystical body primary and secondary elements. The primary
element, grace, is now conceived explicitly in terms of union
with Christ. It is according to this union that Christ is Head;
and here there are three degrees of perfection: union through
glory, through charity and through unformed faith. 72 Without faith there is no supernatural union with Christ on the
part of men; the sin of infidelity " radically separates a .man
from the unity of the Church." 73 On the other hand, the universality of Redemption gives Christ the right to the title of
Head even of unbelievers, as long as they retain the power of
freely submitting to him. 74 While effective exercise of headship is attributed to Christ in respect to the man who possesses only unformed faith, the primary element of the mystical is grace in the full sense of the word. Charity is indispensable for perfect union with Christ and such union, insofar as it can be achieved here, is the ideal state of the mystical body on earth. Accordingly St. Thomas can say, when
Summa theol., III, q. 8, a. S.
Ibid.; III, q. 80, a. 5, ad
74 lbid., III, q. 8, a. S, ad 1.

72

7"

ST. THOMAS ON THE MEMBERSHIP

OF THE CHURCH

113

speaking of the Eucharist: ". . . the mystical body of Christ
... is the society of those who are holy." 75 Unformed faith
is no more than initial union with Christ; but, as a participation in the primary element of the mystical body, it prevents total separation from the unity of the Church insofar
as this is achieved by charity.
The secondary elements of the mystical body, which at the
present time give it that organization which constitutes it the
Roman Catholic Church, are to be considered relevant to the
explanation of the metaphor to the degree that they serve
union with Christ and the unity of the faithful in charity.
This primacy of the spiritual over the material and the juridical is vigorously asserted in every place where St. Thomas
speaks of the Church or the mystical body. Among the secondary elements the chief place, in such a perspective, must
go to the teaching office of the Church and to the sacraments.
Moreover, while the proposition of revealed truth by the
Church is no more than a condition for the exercise of faith,
the sacraments are causes of grace in subordination to the
humanity of the Word. The sacraments are, accordingly, the
principal secondary element of the mystical body so that use
of them implies acceptance of all the other secondary elements. Union with Christ by faith and by sacraments-the
phrase which occurs so often in the Tertia Pars-is, therefore, an accurate description of the mystical body as it is identified with the Roman Catholic Church in the present period
of the history of salvation.
Two sacraments, baptism and the Eucharist, contribute
decisively and directly to the realization of the primary element of the mystical body so that both of them are necessary for the existence of the primary element. In St. Thomas'
theology of these two sacraments is to be found the application of his teaching in III, q. 8, to the present post-Incarnational state. He writes of them:
76

Ibid., m, q. 80, a. 4: IIOeWtM Banctorum.

114

COLMAN E. o'NEILL

Baptism is the origin (principiurn) of the spiritual life and the way
of entrance to the sacraments. The Eucharist, on the contrary, is
a form of [quasi-i.e., in the present life] perfection of the spiritual
life and the term of all the sacraments. [... ] Accordingly, reception
of baptism is necessary for beginning the spiritual life, whereas
reception of the Eucharist is necessary for perfecting it, not for the
simple fact of possessing it .. , ,76
The social and juridical implications of baptism are most
clearly noted in St. Thomas' discussion of circumcision, III, q.
70. The two sacraments have in common the fact that they
were instituted as professions of faith and means of entry into
the congregation of the faithful. 77 To this extent what is said
of circumcision is true of baptism:
The nation of believers had to be brought together by means of a
visible symbol; for this is necessary for the grouping together of
men in any religion, as Augustine remarks in his Contra Fausturn. 78
Baptism, in common with all the New-Law sacraments, is
more than a profession of faith; it " contains the perfection of
salvation"; 79 consequently it is clearly distinguished from circumcision:
For in baptism grace is given from the power of baptism itself,
which it possesses by reason of being an instrument of the passion
of Christ, now accomplished. Circumcision, on the contrary, gave
grace in so far as it was a sign of faith in the future passion of
Christ; that is to say, the person who submitted to circumcision
made profession that he accepted this faith, whether it was an adult
who did this personally or it was someone else who did it for infants
[... Rom., 4: 11]. What was signified was justification which comes
from faith, not from the symbol of circumcision itsel£.80
Baptism, accordingly is a symbolic profession of faith, aggregating the recipient to the society of believers; at the same
•• Ibid., III, q. 73, a. 3.
•• Ibid., ill, q. 70, a. I.
•• Ibid., q. !l, ad !l. References to the Contra Faustum are frequent wherever
St. Thomas discusses the sacraments of the Old and New Laws.
•• Ibid., ill, q. 70, a. !l, ad 3.

•• Ibid., III, q. 70, a. 4.

ST. THOMAS ON THE MEMBERSHIP

OF THE CHURCH

115

time, and by priority of nature, it is the cause of justification and therefore of faith. 81 By receiving this sacrament of
faith the believer submits to the entire regime of the Church:
Whoever presents himself for baptism, by this very fact proclaims
that he has the true faith of Christ, and that he venerates this
sacrament, and that he wishes to conform to the Church, and that
he wishes to renounce sin.82
This text is of special importance for the question of membership. Its significance will be developed below.
What is begun by baptism is brought to fulfillment by the
Eucharist. The mystical body on earth perfects its union with
Christ, and so its own unity, through acts of charity. The Eucharist is "the sacrament of Church unity, which consists in
83 It contains, under
many being' one in Christ' (Gal. 3:
the symbol of unity, Christ himself the source of unity through
charity so that its effect (res significata et non contenta) is
the mystical body 84 in, that is to say, its perfect earthly state.
The Eucharist is the supreme sacrament because it constitutes
the limit case of the distinctive characteristic of the New-Law
sacraments; it contains Christus passus himself. Thus a secondary element of the mystical body has become symbol and
cause of the fullness of the primary element; the Roman
Catholic Church is essentially eucharistic. The other sacraments are subordinate to this one and draw their significance
as elements of the mystical body from it. Their function is
to give visible structure to the body by conferring status or
office in the Church (baptism, confirmation, orders, matrimony) and to give the graces, sanctifying and actual, corresponding directly to their limited purpose; like the body itself,
their immediate purpose is perfected in charity, the special
effect of the Eucharist. 85
Cf. ibid., I-II, q. 114, a. 5, ad 1: "dum iustificatur, credit."
Ibid., III, q. 69, a. 9, ad 8.
83 Ibid., III, q. S!il, a. !il, ad 8; cf. St. Augustine, In Ioann., tr. 16, n. 18.
8 ' Summa theol., III, q. 80, a. 4, ad 1.
85 Cf. ibid., III, q. 65, a. 8.

81

82

116

COLMAN E. o'NEILL

Within the limits of the present enquiry the following conclusion may be drawn concerning St. Thomas' teaching on the
nature of the mystical body in its present state. The primary
element of the body is charity; the believer who is in sin participates only imperfectly in this inner reality of the body, but
sufficiently not to be radically separated from the unity of
the whole. The secondary elements may be arranged in relation either with baptism or with the Eucharist. Baptism is for
the individual the necessary means of receiving from Christ
a share in the primary element of the body and is the ritual
of admittance and of submission to the visible organization
of the Church. The Eucharist, because it brings the primary
element to perfection, is the end towards which all the other
sacraments and offices of the Church are directed. The Eucharist, in its turn, is directed towards the enjoyment of Christ
in heaven, serving meanwhile as the necessary complement to
faith. 86

III. MEMBERSHIP

OF THE MYsTICAL

oF THE RoMAN CATHOLic

BonY AND

CHURCH

A. Member ship and salvation
The correlative notions of Head and member are essential
to St. Thomas' theology of salvation. The satisfaction and
merit of Christ have significance for others only because these
others form one mystic person with him. "Head and members are as one mystic person. Consequently, Christ's satisfaction belongs to all the faithful as to his members." 87 If the
validity of this concept were to be denied, it does not appear
that the Thomistic-or, for that matter, the Pauline-Christology could survive.
St. Thomas' view of incorporation into, and membership of,
Christ derives from his theology of man's predestination in
Christ. Divine permission of Adam's sin, which entails de86
87

Ibid., III, q. 80, a. !il, ad 1; ad 2.
Ibid., III, q. 48, a. !il, ad 1.

ST. THOMAS ON 'fHE MEMBERSHIP

OF THE CHURCH

117

privation of grace for all mankind and consequent absorption
in material things, conditions the decree of salvation through
the Incarnate Word, the new Head of mankind, whose fleshly
mysteries will be valid as satisfaction and as merit for all men.
Christ, through his human mysteries, is established as the
universal efficient cause of salvation. The gift of grace to individual men remains a divine prerogative, something which
is determined solely by divine choice; but it is now given in
such fashion that, in the very reception of grace, the individual is associated with Christ in his mysteries, sharing thereby
in his satisfaction and his merits. This association with Christ
is achieved primarily by faith-a gift of God as well as disposition for grace-whereby the individual believes that "God
is [his] justifier through the mystery of Christ." 88 By this
faith the individual acknowledges the mystery of Christ's
Headship and, by acknowledging it, makes that Headship personally effective for himself so that, being in this way actually incorporated into Christ as a member, Christ's satisfaction and Christ's merit are his in the measure determined by
God and by his own free will. On St. Thomas' principles, to
say of a person that he is not a member of Christ is to say
that he is excluded from grace and salvation; for the communication of Christ's satisfaction and merits to men is possible only on the basis of a mystic identification with Christ.
The personal association with Christ achieved under the influence of sanctifying grace constitutes the proximate disposition
for justification, so that, while membership of Christ is a gift
of God, it is also achieved by the free act of the adult believer.
This is simply an application of the normal Thomistic teaching on the justification of the sinner.
It must, however, be further observed that in the incarnational economy willed by God the gift of grace is always given
at the present time through the efficient instrumental intervention of the humanity of Christ. And, in the logic of this
materialization of active salvation, it is regularly given through
ss Ibid., I-II, q. 118, a. 4, ad 8.

118

COLMAN E. o'NEILL

the subordinate efficient instrumental intervention of the sacraments. In this fashion, not only is fallen man's absorption
in material things orientated towards the spirit, but in addition the system of worship centered on the sacraments is raised
to a wholly higher level of sanctity by reason of the entry into
it of Christ himself, worshipping the Father and bringing
grace to the faithful. By using the sacraments of faith the
individual is associated in a new way with Christ the Head;
his association by faith finds external expression in a ceremonial which symbolizes, in one way or another, the saving mysteries of Christ's flesh and contains the saving power of those
mysteries. The purpose of this symbolic and causal association
is the same as that of the association by faith. It is integrated
with association by faith, rendering it human, as body does
soul, and thereby incorporates the believer corporeally as well
as spiritually into Christ. In other words, Christ's satisfaction
and merit are made effective for the believer because he forms
a single mystic person with Christ; and when sacraments are
used, the fact of being, through faith, one mystic person with
Christ is expressed in symbolic actions which procure a causal
contact between Christ and his member.
Incorporation into Christ has, accordingly, for its precise
purpose the actualization in respect to the individual of that
mystical identification of all men with Christ which is implied
in the divine decree of Christ's predestination as Head, and
which permits the attribution of Christ's satisfaction and merit
to others. In the present economy, grace cannot be given to
an individual unless he is a member of Christ, unless he is
incorporated into that mystical person to whom the merits of
Christ belong. Or, to put it in another and more theological
way, the fact that God gives His grace to an individual necessarily entails incorporation into Christ, at least by faith, and,
if sacraments are used, also corporeally. "Body," "Head,"
" member " are metaphorical terms, revealed in the Scripture
as analogical ways of expressing what is involved in the communication of the moral value of Christ's mysteries to other
persons.

ST. THOMAS ON THE MEMBERSHIP

OF THE CHURCH

119

B. Dynamic inc01'poration
In accordance with the basic formulation of the mystery
just outlined, St. Thomas frequently gives to the notion of
incorporation what might be called a dynamic perspective.
Incorporation is then conceived, not so much as a stable relationship to Christ, but rather as an action by which man is
inserted or, under divine grace, inserts himself into the savings acts of Christ's earthly life, thereby establishing the
mystic, active union which makes possible the communication
of the saving value of Christ's actions. Citing Rom., 6:8, St.
Thomas says:
By baptism a person is incorporated into the passion and death of
Christ. [... ] This makes it clear that the passion of Christ is communicated to everyone who is baptized, as a remedy, jmt as though
it were he who had suffered and died;

and he adds in a response:
The penalty of Christ's passion is communicated to the person
baptized-by reason of the fact that he becomes a member of Christ
-as though it were he ·who had borne that penalty. 89

It is in this "dynamic" sense that he can say, in III, q.
62, a. 1: "It is clear that through all the sacraments of the
New Law a man is incorporated into Christ ... " And it is in
this sense also that he continues in the same article: "A man
does not become a member of Christ except through grace."
In the dynamic perspective he adopts here St. Thomas understands incorporation as the necessary condition for the communication of Christ's merits to the individual. The sacraments are the corporeal means of achieving association with
Christ's passion so that the believer may benefit from the
merits of Christ as belonging to, and acting in, the same mystic person. Only grace can procure this active saving incorporation; indeed such incorporation-ad Christum or Christo
-may be said to consist in " acts of virtue." 90
89

9

Ibid., Ill, q. 69, a. 2, ad 1; cf. a. 7, ad 1; q. 68, a. 5, ad 1.

°Cf. ibid., ITI, q. 69, a. 5, Title.

120

COLMAN E. o'NEILL

There is, however, a stable form of incorporation into
Christ, related to dynamic incorporation as effect to cause or
as actus prim us to actus secundus.

C. Stable incorporation
Taking into account St. Thomas' identification of the mystical body with the Church-after the Incarnation and on
earth, with the Roman Catholic Church-and his admission
that unformed faith suffices to maintain membership, however
imperfect, of Christ, it may be stated that for him stable incorporation into Christ is achieved by possession of faith and
reception of baptism. These two correspond to the primary
and secondary elements respectively of the New Law in its
present state. Hence there are two grades of incorporation
which we shall consider separately. This methodological division is not to be taken as an assertion of the possibility of
real division.
(i) Mental incorporation. Faith, whether the act or the
habit, is the foundational bond with Christ because it implies
intellectual acceptance of the mystery of salvation being
achieved by the Blessed Trinity through Christ and through
the Church. Of itself this is not a personal union involving
full commitment of the will, but it provides sufficient incorporation into the mystic person of the Redeemer to serve as
a human basis for obtaining the life of grace. 91 Such mental
incorporation is perfect only when there is charity. "Mental
incorporation" is therefore an analogical term applicable primarily to the result of living faith, secondarily to that of unformed faith; or, if the heavenly Church is taken into consideration, the prime analogue is union with Christ in vision and
enjoyment of God. What is common to all analogues is knowledge of the mystery of God, revealed in Christ. In the present state such knowledge presupposes in adults the proposition by teachers of its object, normally by the teaching
authority of the Church.
01

Ibid., Ill, q. 8, a. S, ad 2.

ST. THOMAS ON THE MEMBERSHIP

OF THE CHURCH

121

(ii) Sacramental incorporation. The sacraments complement faith, providing a form of incorporation which St.
Thomas contrasts with that provided by faith in the following terms: sacramental, mental; 92 bodily, mental; 93 sacramental, "real"; 94 in body, in heart; 95 by number, by merit; 96
and by the signs of faith and by faith. 97
The original " dynamic " incorporation is procured by the
sacramentum tantum or the "visible sacrament" of baptism, 98
which serves as the efficacious symbol of Christ's passion and
death as communicated to the recipient. This is a transposition into symbolism, which is efficacious, of the mystical identification with Christ achieved by faith. St. Thomas also
speaks of it as "configuration" to Christ, the sense being that
the believer engages in external action which symbolizes the
external action of Christ in his passion. A similar configuration, this time " real " rather than symbolic, is achieved by
bearing actual suffering as satisfaction for sin.99 While the
Church guarantees faith for infants, it is clear that without
true faith in an adult who receives baptism the symbolism of
the visible sacrament is falsified, for the person is not personally associated with Christ in his passion; consequently, in
spite of external configuration, dynamic incorporation at least
is not achieved.
Granted, however, that the sacrament is valid, it produces
as its effect a permanent reality, the baptismal character, and
it is in virtue of this reality that stable sacramental incorporation is possible. Whether it is in fact achieved depends on
whether or not the person is mentally incorporated. This calls
for more detailed explanation.
The part played by the character in sacramental incorpor•• Ibid., III, q. 68, a. !l.
•• Ibid., III, q. 69, a. 5, ad 1.
94 Ibid., III, q. 80, a. 4, ad 4.
•• Ibid., III, q. 68, a. 2, ad 1.
•• IV Sent., d. 4, q. !l, a. 2, qla. 5; Summa theol., II-II, q. 1, a. 9, ad 3.
97 Summa theol., III, q. 61, a. 3; a. 4; q. 70, a. 1; a. 2, ad 2.
•• Ibid., III, q. 69, a. 5, ad 1.
•• Ibid., III, q. 49, a. 3, ad 2.

122

COLMAN E. o'NEILL

ation is best understood in terms of the comparison, suggested
by St. Thomas, with circumcision. 100 The Old-Law rite of initiation introduced the Jew into the congregation of the Chosen
People, dedicated to the worship of the true God. Because
the sacraments of the Jewish liturgy were nothing more than
symbolic ceremonial, the sign of aggregation to the People was
itself purely external. In the New Law, on the contrary, the
sacraments contain the power of Christ's passion which inwardly affects the worshipper. To participate sacramentally in
this liturgy-par-excellence of Christ's passion a special power
is needed and this is supplied by the character. While thus
enabling the worshipper to act in the sacraments, the character of baptism still fulfills the role, formerly assigned to circumcision, of distinguishing the worshipper in the Christian
liturgy from those unable to take part in it. The baptismal
character is consequently not only a liturgical power but also
a sign distinguishing the person who possesses the right and
the duty of taking part in that worship in which Christ is the
principal agent 101 and in which the individual is associated
with others who bear the character. 102
The baptismal character is, consequently, an element in
incorporation into Christ, first, insofar as it is a faculty
or power providing that participation in Christ's priesthood
which enables its bearer to take part in the sacraments and
thereby to be further incorporated into Christ sacramentally
and dynamically; and secondly, insofar as it is a permanent
mgn of the believer's sacramental association with Christ the
Priest and with his fellow worshippers. For these two reasons
St. Thomas can describe the baptismal character as " incorcorpating a man into Christ ". 103 It must, however, be observed that the character does this only for the person who
has faith, a situation envisaged in the place just quoted; for
10

° Cf. ibid., III q. 70, a. 4; q .63, a. 1, ad 3.

Ibid., III, q. 63, a. S. For the character as sign, cf. q. 63, a. !'.!, ad 4.
Ibid., III, q. 68, a. 1, ad S.
103 Ibid., III, q. 70, a. 4.

101
102

ST. THOMAS ON THE MEMBERSHIP

OF THE CHURCH

123

the character is no more than an executive power subordinated
to faith, enabling the believer to make those signs of faith
which constitute his part in the sacraments. 104 It is quite true
that the character may be used and sacraments thereby rendered valid simply through an intention, even without faith;
but the baptismal character is given for the service of the
individual's faith and only as long as faith is preserved can
there be any question of incorporation. The character makes
sacramental the stable mental incorporation of faith. Lacking
faith, one who has received baptism may be said to have
" put on Christ as being configured to him by the character,
but not conformed to him by grace." 105 The term " configured " is here to be uuderstood by analogy with the sense it
has when used of the person receiving the sacramentum tantum: the character is a permanent sign indicating that a person has been deputed to take part in sacramental actions symbolic of Christ's mysteries and containing the power of those
mysteries; it is a power which makes further dynamic sacramental incorporation possible. When combined with faith, the
character provides true stable sacramental incorporation into
Christ and makes possible dynamic sacramental incorporation. When faith is absent the fundamental union of Christ
and the individual in one mystic person is also absent,
with the result that the sacramental association procurable
through the character is meaningless. This point must be insisted on against several Thomists who ascribe incorporation
-often without any further qualification-to the baptismal
character. Not only is the unqualified statement explicitly
contrary to St. Thomas' teaching on the possibility of incorporation without the character; it logically implies as well that
even the damned, if they have the character, are incorporated
into Christ. Simply to assert that the character incorporates
the living, but does not incorporate those in hell, looks un10 ' Cf. ibid., III, q. 63, a. 4, ad 3-perhaps
Thomas' remarks on the character.
105 Ibid., III, q. 69, a. 9, ad 1.

the most illuminating of all St.

124

COLMAN E. o'NEILL

pleasantly like a covert use of the principles of a voluntaristic
theology. There is an ontological reason if the baptismal character does not incorporate, namely, the absence of faith, the
principle of all incorporation.
For the sake of clarity our conclusion-which
includes
elements from previous sections-is cast in tabular form:
Stable sacramental incorporation:
-presupposes mental incorporation by faith
-is obtained by sacramental baptism
-is maintained by the baptismal character
-implies (by reason of baptism accepted with faith) :
- acceptance of the magisterium
-acknowledgment of the binding force of the hierarchy's
directives
-zs exercised in acts "proper to the present Church" 106 (all
Christian action, whether directly sacramental or not)
-is perfected by charity obtained through the Eucharist.

It is evident that the external obligations of sacramental
membership are adequately proposed, and the opportunity of
fulfilling them integrally is presented, only to those commonly
known as Roman Catholics. For this reason we may denominate them "integral sacramento-juridical members." The term
is admittedly tautologous; it being sufficient to say " integral
sacramental members " since integrity in sacramental incorporation implies acknowledgement of juridical obligations.
Nevertheless the longer term is to be preferred so as to avoid
ambiguity. For such members as these, charity not only perfects mental membership but also ensures the fulfillment of
the external obligations, constituting integral and perfect sacramento-juridical membership. The inclusion of mental membership in sacramental membership means that the term
" member " is applied by analogy to Roman Catholics in the
state of grace and to those in sin. The use of a common term
is justified by the characteristic common to the two groups:
faith and integral sacramental incorporation, the latter de106

Cf. ibid., III, q. 6S, a. 1, ad 1.

ST. THOMAS ON THE MEMBERSHIP

OF THE CHURCH

125

noting the state in which all the external obligations of baptism may be fulfilled.

C. Other forms of membership
While integral sacramento-juridical membership is confined
to believers known as Roman Catholics, the possibility of
others than those being saved entails, according to St. Thomas'
concept of salvation, that membership of Christ and therefore of the Church may be achieved in a fashion which is not
integrally sacramento-juridical. As has been pointed out, the
gift of sanctifying grace presupposes and grants mental incorporation into Christ, unique Head of redeemed humanity.
Such incorporation cannot be maintained unless supernatural
faith is preserved. Here it will be assumed, without discussion
of the problems involved, that both faith and charity may
be given to those not known as Roman Catholics; since the
Church teaches as much our assumption is justified. 107 What
follows concerns the nature of the membership which results
from the possession of these gifts, first by baptized nonCatholics, secondly by those not baptized. The problem consists essentially in determining the relationship which exists
between the mental membership of such persons and the visible elements of the one Church. The principle of solution lies
in St. Thomas' distinction between the primary and secondary elements of the New Law in its present historical state.
(i) Baptized non-Catholics. Baptism, validly administered,
is the baptism of the one Church. 108 Validity requires, on the
part of the minister, an intention to do what the Church
does/ 09 and, on the part of the adult recipient, an intention
to receive what the Church gives.110 Fruitful reception of baptism requires either the personal faith of the adult recipient 111
107 A useful summary of contemporary
discussion of these problems is to be
found in M. Eminyan, S. J., The Theology of Salvation, Boston, 1960.
108 Summa theol., III, q. 68, a. 8, ad
109 Ibid., III, q. 67, a. 5, ad
110 Ibid., III, q. 68, a. 9, ad 8.
111 Ibid., III, q. 68, a. 8; cf. a. 39, a. 5.

126

COLMAN E. o'NEILL

or, for infants and others in similar condition, the faith of the
Church, always supplied with valid baptism. 112 In the latter
case, baptism, wherever administered, has equal effect; perfect and integral sacramento-juridical membership of the one
Church is obtained, though it evidently cannot be fully exercised. What is the position of adult believers who receive valid
baptism from a non-Catholic minister?
St. Thomas envisages such a case in the more general terms
of acceptance of a sacrament from an heretical or excommunicated minister. Granted that the minister has power to
administer the sacrament-and about this there is no difficulty in the case of baptism-the recipient receives it fruitfully in two circumstances; if the minister is not manifestly
cut off from the Church, and if the recipient is ignorant of
the minister's condition. 113 Assuming, then, good faith on the
part of the recipient, valid baptism in a non-Catholic religious group is fruitful, either procuring mental and sacramental incorporation for the first time or making mental incorporation sacramental. Such a person maintains a stable
sacramental incorporation by faith and possession of the baptismal character.
To determine the nature of this sacramental incorporation
its elements must be examined. By reason of the faith of the
person it involves implicit acceptance of the divinely-instituted magisterium (which itself constitutes a material object
of faith). This is so even if, as may be assumed to be the
case, the individual explicitly rejects the teaching authority of
the hierarchy; for, faith, granted that it is possessed, is infallible and embraces the whole of revelation, attaining every
truth at least implicitly; and faith is unaffected by false ideas
entertained on "human conjecture" or because of misguidance by teachers. 114
Faith also implies belief in the general authority of the
Ibid., III, q. 68, a. 9.
Ibid., III, q. 64, a. 9, ad 2; ad 3.
1 " Cf. ibid., II-II, q. 1, a. 3, ad 3; q. 2, a. 6, ad 3; q. 5, a. 4.

111
11 "

ST. THOMAS ON THE MEMBERSHIP

OF THE CHURCH

127

hierarchy; and acceptance of baptism carries with it juridical
acknowledgement, at least implicit, of this authority. A comparable submission to superiors who are not consciously acknowledged cannot be realized in a purely human society. It
is once again the universality of infused faith which adheres
without reserve to the truth revealed by God that makes it
possible in the Church. By reason of faith, ratified juridically
by the sacramentum-tantum of baptism, there is achieved sacramento-juridical union with the pope and the episcopate. It
is imperfect in its juridical aspect, not objectively, but subjectively, by reason, that is, of the lack of consciousness on
the part of the recipient of the full consequences of his engagement. His situation in this respect is not that of a responsible
adult, but is comparable rather to that of a child presented
to baptism by the faith of the Church.
The union with the Church acquired in baptism is maintained by faith and the baptismal character; but the nonCatholic cannot exercise fully his sacramental membership in
acts " proper to the present Church." External acts of virtue
are possible and serve, as do those of recognized Catholics, to
give testimony to the mystery of Christ in the world, though
in official fashion only when valid confirmation has been received. Strictly sacramental activity varies according to the
religious body in which the individual worships; but all baptized believers can share in the sacrifice of the Mass in virtue
of the baptismal character; all too are sacramentally directed
by baptism towards reception of Communion. 115 In no case,
however, is there implementation of the implicitly accepted
juridical consequences of baptism, so that submission to the
hierarchy remains in an habitual, implicit state. Nor is the
magisterium of the Church directly effective in proposing the
object of belief. Nevertheless, some part of the authentic
Christian revelation is proposed to the non-Catholic through
the Scriptures and through the teaching of his religious group.
Though such truth is mingled with error and is not taught
115

Ibid., ITI, q. 78, a. S.

128

COLMAN E. o'NEILL

with the divine authority of the Church, which alone can
objectively justify assent, it might be said to be a participation in the content of the magisterium.
By reason of these imperfections in exercise, the membership of baptized non-Catholics may be termed partial sacramento-juridical membership, it being understood that only
when membership is integral are juridical obligations fulfilled
by conscious submission to the hierachy in its teaching and
directive office. Partial sacramento-juridical membership is
not lost with charity but only with faith; for baptism actually
received entails a positive act of will binding the individual to
Christ and the Church sacramentally and juridically; and this
can be withdrawn only by a contrary act such as is involved
in formal heresy or schism. Accordingly, the baptized nonCatholic may be either a perfect partial sacramento-juridical
member-if he has charity, which means desire of the Eucharist-or an imperfect partial sacramento-juridical memberif he has unformed faith. " Perfect " and " imperfect," it
will be seen, refer directly, not to sacramental membership,
but to mental. To compare the status in the Church and in
the mystical body of a non-Catholic and a Catholic requires
comparison at the level of both forms of membership.
(ii) The non-baptized. It is evident that the non-baptized
are not incorporated into Christ sacramentally, either dynamically or in stable fashion. On St. Thomas' principles it is evident too that if the non-baptized are to be saved they must
be incorporated into Christ mentally; and St. Thomas says
as much explicitly. 116 When speaking of mental incorporation
in these circumstances St. Thomas normally envisages it as
being achieved by " faith working through charity " (Gal.,
5: 6); but in III, q. 8, a. 3, he admits in quite general terms
that unformed faith is adequate for (mental) incorporation,
though he qualifies such membership as secundum quid-not,
that is, affecting the individual in his complete person. Lacking the juridical and sacramental stability of personal engage118

Cf. ibid., III, q. 68, a. S!; Qdl. 4, q. 7, a. 1.

ST. THOMAS ON THE MEMBERSHIP

OF THE CHURCH

129

ment procured through baptism, such a person might be
thought to have lapsed from membership; but i£ St. Thomas'
cautious reservations are noted there is no reason to refuse his
opinion. 117
Seen against the background of St. Thomas' theology of
salvation his attribution of membership to the non-baptized
person who possesses infused faith must be recognized as inevitable; and it is for this reason that his position is urged with
such insistence. The difficulty is, o£ course, to reconcile this
position with the teaching of the magisterium that the mystical body is identified with the Roman Catholic Church. To
avoid this difficulty by the assertion that St. Thomas meant
that the non-baptized believer is incorporated in some other
mystical body than that which is the Roman Catholic Church
is to ignore his very clear teaching that the mystical body in
its present earthly state is precisely this Church-to say
nothing of the violence done to the formal point of the scriptural metaphor. In other words the difficulty is not one that
has arisen since the publication of Mystici corporis; it is one
that is already to be found in the text of St. Thomas; and it
is here that a solution must be sought.
The principle of the solution offered by St. Thomas, as has
already been suggested, is his distinction between the primary
and the secondary elements in the present state of the mystical body on earth, the Roman Catholic Church. The primary
element is grace; the secondary elements, whatever externals
are presupposed by grace or required for its full development.
Since the Incarnation grace is caused through the humanity
of Christ and through the sacraments of the Church; and the
use of grace presupposes the directive authority vested in the
hierarchy. At the present time, in other words, sanctifying
grace necessarily bears a relation to the visible organs of the
117 There is nothing contrary to this opinion in the letter of the Holy Office,
Suprema haec sacra, 8 August, 1949. This requires that the desire by which the
non-baptized are " ordered to Christ " be informed by charity: " ut homo salvetur" (Denz-Schonmetzer
which is evidently true, but abstracts from the
problem of present membership in the Church.

180

COLMAN E. o'NEILL

Church. The necessary function of the secondary elements of
the Church being thus affirmed as a consequence of the In·
carnation, the solution to the abnormal-though possibly frequent-case that we are now considering may be sought by
directing attention to the secondary character of these elements. This is what St. Thomas does; he is content to restrict
his explanations to the problem of the necessity of the sacraments. Contemporary Thomists must develop the implications of his solution in order to satisfy all current difficulties.
In the first place, St. Thomas relates all justification from
original sin to baptism. Those who neither receive actual baptism nor have at least an implicit desire for it cannot be saved,
" for neither mentally nor sacramentally are they incorporated
into Christ through whom alone is there salvation." 118 The
concept of " baptism voto " has become so much a commonplace of theology that its full significance for the problem of
membership may easily be overlooked. It is proposed by St.
Thomas precisely as a solution to this problem, so that it is
worth while to analyze its sense.
The votum baptismi is not, in the first place, a desire for
baptism as an instrumental efficient cause of justification, for
the hypothesis is that justification has already been granted.
St. Thomas specifically rules out the absolute necessity of sacraments as efficient causes of grace with the phrase: " the
power of God is not restricted to the sacraments." 119 Baptism
is not desired, accordingly, as a means of mental incorporation, for this is presupposed to the votum; it is desired as the
means of sacramental incorporation. That is to say, it is desired
first as a means of dynamic sacramental incorporation into
Christ's passion, which commmunicates a fuller share in his
satisfaction, and as the prescribed ceremonial of profession of
faith and of entry into the congregation of believers. 120 It is
desired secondly as the efficient instrumental cause of the char118
119

10

Summa theol., III, q. 68, a. 2; cf. q. 69, a. 4, ad 2.
Ibid., III, q. 68, a. 2.

°Cf. ibid., III, q. 69, a. 4, ad 2.

ST. THOMAS ON THE MEMBERSHIP

OF THE CHURCH

131

acter which gives stable sacramental incorporation. What is
desired is not yet possessed; consequently there is no sacramental incorporation. There is already, however, as a necessary condition of mental incorporation, implicit submission to
the Church and acknowledgement of the Roman hierarchy,
together with a readiness to undergo the ceremony of entry to
the Church. Such incorporation, which is equivalent to first
justification, can be achieved only by charity which includes
a readiness to fulfill all the obligations contained in divine
revelation. Once achieved, a vestigial mental membership may
remain through faith if charity is lost. 121 Restoration to grace
after personal sin can be achieved only through a desire of the
sacrament of penance; 122 this votum has a similar significance
to that of baptism.
St. Thomas further relates mental membership of the nonbaptized to the Eucharist; and it is in this context that he
explains the phrase: Nulli patet aditus salutis extra Ecclesiam. The unity of the mystical body is the effect (res) of the
Eucharist; accordingly there can be no salvation for anyone
who does not receive this effect, through reception of the
sacrament actually or in desire.123 Spiritual eating of the
Eucharist is equivalent to receiving the sacrament fruitfully,
to incorporation into Christ, and is achieved by actual worthy
reception or by desire.124 Once again, the term " votum " is
introduced in order to state clearly the sacramental reference
included in charity given after the Incarnation. The act of
charity is the sacramental grace of the Eucharist and is ordained towards finding expression in the convivium of the
Eucharistic sacrifice and Communion. In absence of the baptismal character such expression is impossible for the person
concerned. 125 Nevertheless his grace is an effect of the Mass
101 It is to be noted that here we are abstracting
from the question whether
such a situation could arise in fact. The possibility at least may be envisaged.
10 " E.g., Qdl., 4, q. 7, a. 1, ad 3.
103 Summa theol., III, q. 73, a. S.
'"'Ibid., III, q. 73, a. 8, ad
q. 80, a. 1, ad 3; a. 11.
'""If the phrase " to offer the Christian sacrifice through Christ" is understood

132

COLMAN E. o'NEILL

and is symbolized by the Eucharistic species and to this extent
is signified and caused by a sacrament.
It is necessary to insist on this sacramentalizing through
the Eucharist of the grace of the non-baptized. It is the sole
actual relation of such persons to an element in the sacramental structure of the Church. Baptism voto has reference
to a sacrament which does not yet exist, which may never
exist, for baptism is evidently real only when actually received
by an individual. The Eucharist, on the contrary, is actually
related to all those who are incorporated into Christ on earth,
whether sacramentally or simply mentally. It is precisely the
sacramentum ecclesiasticae unionis. This is not to suggest that
Eucharistic union by itself is adequate for the present state
of the mystical body, or even that if all those whose membership is partially sacramental were to be brought into the condition where they could actually receive the sacrament, the
unity and visibility o£ the Church would leave nothing to be
desired. Such a position might represent the objective of the
Eastern Orthodox Church. The Catholic theologian must insist that full Eucharistic communion presupposes baptism and
consequently all the juridical consequences of baptism, foremost among them submission to the Vicar of Christ.
Our conclusion, accordingly, is that there is no such thing
as exclusively mental membership of Christ. What is termed
mental membership is sacramental at least to the extent that
it is caused and symbolized by the Eucharist, sacrifice and
communion, the sacrament of that body of Christ which,
being united to the divine Word, is the created source of all
grace.
If terms are to be found which will ex"ress the difference
between Orthodox Christians, other baptized non-Catholics,
and the non-baptized, it might be suggested that the first be
denominated "partial sacramento-juridical members," (thus
to refer to Christ's status as the Head who offers in the name of all men, and if
" to offer with Christ " is understood of the sacramental offering of the Eucharist
possible for each of the baptized, then the non-baptized in grace may be said to
offer the Mass through Christ, but not with him.

ST. THOMAS ON THE MEMBERSHIP

OF THE CHURCH

133

reserving to them a term previously used of all baptized nonCatholic believers), the second, "partial baptismo-juridical
members," and the last, "partial Eucharistic-non-juridical
members"-what is lost in elegance of expression being compensated for by accuracy of description. I£ it is granted, that
unformed faith is sufficient for rudimentary membership, a
further distinction must be made between perfect and imprefect Eucharist-non-juridical
members. It is more important, however, that the reality signified by the terms be understood than that there be agreement on the terms themselves.

*

*

*

*

To use the single term "member," however qualified, of all
those who have been raised to the supernatural life clearly
involves analogy. The purpose of the employment of a common term is to express, by means of the revealed metaphor,
the fact that grace can be received only on condition that
the individual man is so associated with the person of Christ,
that Christ's merits and satisfaction are communicated to him
as his own. Such association may, however, be achieved in a
variety of ways. Of its essence it requires faith in the mystery of divine predestination in Christ, for without such faith
Christ's headship is not efficacious in regard to the individual.
Moreover, man's enslavement to material things because of
sin, and the consequent assumption of a material body and a
human soul by the divine Word, have made it necessary that
faith in Christ be expressed externally in bodily ceremonial
symbolic of man's interior association with the Redeemer. The
term "member of Christ," when applied to men on earth, thus
signifies union with Christ by faith and by the signs of faith.
Yet, if this is what is common to all those on earth denominated " members," quite distinct realities correspond to the
them in the various classes of individuals concerned. Faith
may be either formed or unformed. Union by the signs of
faith ranges from that which was available even before the
Old Law to that which is obtained through the sacramental
signs of the Church, which contain the power of Christ and

134

COLMAN E. o'NEILL

which imply conformity to the way of life in a highly organized religious society. At the present time union with Christ
by faith must be complemented by union through the necessary sacraments of the Church with all their juridical consequences. Since these conditions may be fulfilled either re or
voto (as regards sacraments), either explicitly or implicitly (as
regards juridical consequences), the use of the term "member " remains analogical by analogy of strict proportionality.
Each individual so denominated is united to Christ by faith
and sacraments in the manner consonant with his explicit
knowledge of revelation.
When the term "member" is extended to the saints in heaven the reality expressed is beatific vision and corporeal union
with Christ. This further modifies the proportional similarity
denoted by the analogical term; we are now given " supernatural knowledge of God, given by Christ, expressed externally
according to ones' condition in respect of the Incarnation."
If, with St. Thomas, we include the angels in the mystical
body in so far as they are influenced, though not sanctified,
by Christ, the similarity between the classes denominated as
members becomes less definite-perhaps: " supernatural knowledge of God and receptivity in respect of Christ."
A final problem must be noticed. If membership of the
mystical body on earth is to be extended not only to nonCatholic Christians but also to the non-baptized, what has
become of the visibility and the unity of the Church?
IV. VISIBILITY

AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH

A. Visibility
The problem of the visibility of the Church is treated
in apologetics with the purpose of proving that the society
founded by Christ is discoverable as such and thereby distinguishable from other societies claiming this title. Further development of the theology of the Church may presuppose the
conclusion of apologetics that the Roman Catholic Church is
the true Church founded by Christ and preserved indefectibly.

ST. THOMAS ON THE MEMBERSHIP

OF THE CHURCH

135

This we have seen to be St. Thomas' assumption when he
takes it for granted that the New Law in its present state is
the Church of Rome. Granted, then, that the sincere and intelligent enquirer can be led to a judgment affirming the credibility of the claim of the Church, and granted that, given
grace, such a judgment should lead to conscious submission
to the Church, the question may still be asked whether the
visibility which is a property of the Church can be realized
exclusively by full, open adherence to the society known to
all as the Roman Catholic Church. It may be replied at
once that only in this way may full visibility be realized and
that there is a very clearly defined portion of the human race
which does in fact realize such full visibility. It may also be
granted that membership of a visible society must be visible.
But, since there are in fact in the Church several factors
which contribute to such membership, is it possible that these
factors are separable in such wise that individuals may satisfy
certain requirements of visibility and not others? Should an
affirmative reply be given to this qusetion, it will be understood that there is no suggestion that this is an ideal state of
affairs which corresponds adequately to the demands of the
nature of the Church; it is simply a matter of recognizing a
de-facto situation.
The visibility of the Church rests primarily on the three
"structurizing" sacraments: baptism, confirmation and orders,
and on the exercise of the offices deriving from them. The hierarchy proposes revelation, supervises the life of the society
and administers the sacraments. The faithful, in virtue of baptism, publicly accept the direction and ministry of the hierarchy and bear witness to Christ in Christian action. Confirmation lends an official validity and efficacy to these activities. Clearly only the integral sacramento-juridical member
contributes to the visibility of the Church in an integral manner. There is a radical difference, as far as visibility is concerned, between such a person and all those who, whatever
degree of sacramental life may be theirs, do not openly

136

COLMAN E. o'NEILL

acknowledge the Vicar of Christ. It is this difference which
justifies the denomination of "separated" applied to all who
are not known as Roman Catholics. It still remains true that
for the eye of faith the mystical body of Christ, and therefore the Church, is revealed in all baptized believers. The vision of faith extends beyond the area of Christians to which
the apologete must necessarily confine his attention. An element of conjecture enters into all judgments affirming the
membership of individuals, for faith and charity are not subject to certain observation; but, just as we can say that
who professes integral Roman Catholicism contributes to the
integral visibility of the Church, so we can add that all the
baptized, because they have received the sacrament of initiation into the unique society of Christ on earth, thereby professing at least implicit submission to the Roman hierarchy,
and because their lives bear the mark of Christian teaching,
give at least partial visibility to the mystery of Christ and
consequently to the society which he founded. It must never
be forgotten that our concept of a human society, with its
clearly-defined circle of membership, is no more than an analogy for understanding the Church. We have to correct our
juridical categories by taking into account the mystery of
faith and charity.
If the non-baptized also are members of the Christian
society their membership too, by reason of the nature of the
Church, must be in some fashion visible. That their activity
may be judged by an observer to be directed by principles
which we recognize as Christian might be said to lend a
certain visibility to their membership; but a sacramental visibility is necessary for membership of the Church. For this
recourse must be had to the Eucharist, cause and symbol of
mental membership of Christ and of the Church. It may be
objected that this is to stretch the concept of visibility to
such an extent that it no longer corresponds to the plain
meaning of the term. Again we must appeal to analogy. In
terms of purely human association it is nonsense to suggest

ST. THOMAS ON THE MEMBERSHIP

OF THE CHURCH

137

that a person who has never applied for membership, or perhaps has never heard of the existence of the society in question, could be considered a visible member. But the primary
element of the Church is grace, not what is juridically veriable; and this fact must modify our concept of visible membership. The membership of the non-baptized believer is in
no way juridically verifiable; but the Eucharist makes it visible, not, certainly, in such fashion that we can point to an
individual and to his visible affiliation to the Church, but visible in a manner consonant with the mystery of the Church.
We might term it a sacramento-objective visibility, contrasting this with subjective visibility which requires at least personal reception of the sacrament of baptism.
The Roman Catholic Church, accordingly, is the visible
and unique Church of Christ. The apologete is interested in
its visibility insofar as it enables the enquirer to distinguish
the true Church from innumerable other societies making a
like claim. But the visibility which is a property of the Church
of the Incarnate Word is integrally achieved only in a restricted section of humanity; vestiges or incipient traces of it
may be discovered wherever men belong to Christ.

B. Unity
As with the problem of visibility our approach to that of
unity must be guided, not only by an abstract concept of the
Church, but also by a recognition of a factual situation. And
since we have argued that the Church, though always visible.
is not integrally visible by reason of defects in individuals'
membership, we are compelled by logic to admit that the
unity of the Church has not, at the present moment in the
history of salvation, been integrally realized. Once again, this
is not at all the same thing as denying the unity of the
Church as it is exposed in apologetics.
The note of unity, a manifestation of the true Church
through community in faith, worship and organization, is realized in the unifying action of the hierarchy and in the faithful who publicly accept their ministrations. The question may

138

COLMAN E. o'NEILL

be asked, however, whether the integral unity thus achieved
among those known as Roman Catholics may not be extended
in non-integral fashion to all those who are members of Christ.
The very fact that the existence of members not known as
Roman Catholics is admitted, necessitates an affirmative reply.
Whereas the apologete is compelled to consider unity as it
appears externally, St. Thomas, taking for granted the conclusion of apologetics, is concerned to analyze the property of
unity itself. He sees it to be a property of the primary element of the Church, that is, of faith and charity. That the
secondary elements-those externals which primarily occupy
the apologete-are
causes, conditions and consequences of
unity, he admits; but precisely by indicating that they are
secondary he supplies the principle for accounting theologically for the unity which can exist among all Christians.
The principal place to be consulted is the question on the
sin of schism, II-II, q. 39. After noting that in moral affairs
the formal aspect is to be discovered in the intention (id quod
est intentum est per se), he goes on to define the sin of schism
as ''the intention to separate oneself from that unity which is
made by charity (quam caritas facit.)" Charity unites, not
only individuals, but as well " the whole Church in the unity
of the spirit [or Spirit] "; and it is sin against the latter which
is primarily meant by schism. Then follows:
The unity of the Church is to be sought in two things: namely, in
the mutual connection of the members of the Church; and further
in the ordination of all the members of the Church to one head.
[Col., 2:18-19]. Now this head is Christ himself; and his place is
taken in the Church by the Supreme Pontiff. Accordingly schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Supreme Pontiff and
who are unwilling to live in communion with the members of the
Church who are subject to him.126
The two elements of unity thus described are the effect of
charity; but the nature of the Church requires that they be
expressed in external communion with others, not only by
126

Summa theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 1.

ST. THOMAS ON THE MEMBERSHIP

OF THE CHURCH

139

works of charity, but in all those actions which characterize
the Roman Catholic Church. But, given what is primary,
unity is not wholly prejudiced by imperfections in external
communion. Faith and charity ensure that the social obligations imposed through revelation are accepted in their entirety, even if, in greater or less degree, implicitly. Unity is
established; but, in respect of the secondary elements of the
Church, it is partial, not integral. The separated Christian
who possesses charity is moved by God in the same way,
essentially, as the Roman Catholic in grace; the spirit of unity
animates both. The difference lies only in the external situation in which each-through no fault or merit of his ownfinds himself. In one case the knowledge and opportunity
required for developing all the potentialities of charity are
given; in the other case knowledge is given, but only as implicit in faith, and opportunity is given in limited fashion only.
Since without explicit knowledge and full opportunity, integral unity, extending to all the secondary elements in the
Church, is not realized, the mystical body on earth suffers, not
disunion, but imperfect union. The Church is involved in history and in temporal development because of its secondary
elements; and this necessarily affects, though indirectly, the
primary element. Unity, like everything that stems from virtue in the Church, is at once possessed and in need of development and perfection. The perfection which through Christ
belongs to the Church must be developed in the life of each
member.
It is a necessary consequence of these principles that the
Roman Catholic sinner is not in perfect union with Christ or
with the Church; he is, says St. Thomas, "separated by merit
from the unity of the Church," though not, "by number." 127
Only a narrowly juridical view of the Church, which fails to
take account of the full mystery, will prompt a denial of this.
A very real participation remains, unless excommunication
should intervene to forbid the use or benefit of the secondary
101

1bid., IT-II, q. 89, a. 1, ad 2; I ad C01·., cap. 11, lect. 7 (M. n. 691).

140

COLMAN E. o'NEILL

elements of the Church to the sinner. But all sinners-Catholic, non-Catholic or non-baptized-who retain infused faith
preserve a participation, however remote, in the unity of the
Church in proportion to each one's interior and exterior bonds.

*

*

*

*

While, then, in the visible structure of the Roman Catholic Church alone is the mystical body integrally visible on
earth, and here alone are brought together all the secondary
elements of unity, there are to be found incipient elements of
visibility in those members of Christ and the Church who
have not yet realized actually their implicit submssion to the
pope; and there is, in addition, a fundamental unity among
all members which finds integral expression only among those
known as Roman Catholics and which is symbolized and
caused by the sacrament of the true body of Christ, the sacrifice and Communion of the Church. Visibility and unity which
are both perfect (charity) and integral (corporeal) will be
realized through all members of the Church only after the
general resurrection. It is unnecessary to add that the duty
of the Church on earth is to bring all members of Christ into
that integral union where alone the richness of redemption is
made fully available to men.
The attempt to demonstrate the unity of all men of good
will in membership of Christ and in acknowledgement of the
Vicar of Christ should not be dismissed as a theological tour
de force. There is a real union which must be explained, a
union, however masked by juridical separation and difference
of opinion, which became almost palpable during the life and
especially at the death of the Pope of Unity, John XXIII.
CoLMAN

Jesus Magistl!fl' Institute,
Lateran Pontifical University,
Rome, Italy

E. O'NEILl .. , 0. P.

SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION IN RECENT
CATHOLIC THOUGHT

T

HOSE who had occasion during the past decade to
examine current trends in Catholic theology, especially
in French and German literature, were aware of the
rapid emergence of an impressive body of new facts and
opinions concerning the classic problem of Scripture and
Tradition. Between 14 and 20 November last year, the importance, if not the nature, of these rather esoteric developments suddenly acquired wide publicity by reason of their
reverberations in the Second Vatican Council. For it seems
to have been the chapter on Scripture and Tradition, of the
schema presented by Cardinal Ottaviani's Theological Commission that occasioned the first deployment of opposition at
the Council along lines of properly doctrinal controversy. The
colorful debate that followed issued in a vote that discovered
the protesting group to be a large but technically insufficient
majority, only to be dramatically confirmed by the Pope's
personal intervention, requiring the schema to be withdrawn
and submitted for revision to a special committee tantamount
to a coalition. While our knowledge of these events and their
sequel must remain unofficial and incomplete, quite enough
has appeared to show that the question of Scripture and Tradition is not only an insistent but a volatile one for the fathers of the Second Vatican Council. So was it also, of course,
for the fathers of the Council of Trent. And yet, for the fathers of the intervening First Vatican Council it had become a
neutral issue, considered to have been settled at Trent, and
to require no more original treatment than verbatim citation
of the Tridentine formula. Only one bishop seems to have
proposed an ampler statement on Tradition, and that in the
vaguest of terms and without eliciting any sympathetic re141

142

JAMES GAFFNEY

sponse. 1 These strikingly different attitudes towards the question of Scripture and Tradition, in the two great modem
Councils separated by less than a century are, of course, the
result of many factors of several kinds brought to bear during the interval. The brief account that follows will be concerned only with theological factors-most of which happen
to be very recent factors-and with these only under their
broadest aspects. I hope to indicate the immediately appreciable questions that have been most definitively raised, the
literature in which they have been most satisfactorily treated,
and the mutual pertinence that they most obviously display;
to offer, in other words, an introductory essay, compr1smg a
logical outline and a basic bibliography.
THE SHAPE OF THE PROBLEM

Scripture and Tradition. A Church of Scotland biblical
scholar, J. K. S. Reid, expressed what has oftenest been meant
by " the problem of Scripture and Tradition " in a way that
is concise, and about as accurate as such concision permits:
There are at least two conceivable relations between tradition
and Scripture. The first is that tradition arises out of and is ultimately dependent upon Scripture; the other is that tradition exists
as an independent factor alongside of Scripture. Between these
two views, out of the Bible or alongside the Bible, the Roman
Church has never quite decided.2
One critical reflection that is prompted at once by Reid's
framing of his dilemma, and which he doubtless means to anticipate by his qualifying " at least," is that it is not strictly
complete from a standpoint of disinterested logic. That is to
say, whatever one may conclude about a subsequent tradition's arising out of Scripture, it remains a logical possibility,
and seems moreover to be an historical fact, that out of ante'See Mansi L, 268. Del Valle, Bishop of Huanuco, Peru, proposed that an
amplification of the doctrine on Tradition he included in the second chapter of
the Constitutio dogmatica de fide catholica.
2 Reid, J. K. S. The A1tthority of Scripture
(London, 1957), p. 184.

SCRIPTURE

AND TRADITION

IN CATHOLIC

THOUGHT

148

cedent tradition, and indeed what can fairly be called an ecclesiastical tradition, Scripture itself arose. 3 Although implications drawn from this fact by students of the Formgeschichte
school raise problems of a literary historical nature for everyone and of a theological nature more especially for the biblical fundamentalist, such consequences of the fact, unlike the
fact itself, lie outside our present subject. To establish a case
for institutionally controlled tradition as formative of the
rabbinic torah in late Judaism, and for its counterpart in the
Apostolic Church as generative of the written Gospel is, to
be sure, refutation of a formidable school of historical thought
that thrived within liberal Protestantism, and had unhappy
resonances in Catholicism. At the same time, it must be
conceded that for Catholics to invoke such considerations
against the substance of Reformation doctrine on the primacy
of Scripture would be to content themselves with scoring verbal points. Contemporary Protestant theologians accept and
develop these findings, predominantly of Protestant scholars,
no less readily than do Catholics, nor does there seem to be
any senous reason derivable from the Reformers why they
should not. 4
• This viewpoint seems to have been distinctly furthered in a recent important
contribution to biblical studies: Gerhardsson, B., Mem01'y and Manuscript: Oral
Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity
(Lund & Copenhagen, 1961). For a detailed summary and high evaluation of
this work, see: Fitzmyer, J., "Memory and Manuscript: The Origins and Transmission of the Gospel Tradition," Theological Studies 28 (1962) 442-457. Fitzmyers cites the following two passages, which clearly suggest the relevance of
Gerhardsson's work: "By the middle of the 2nd century, the four Gospels had
reached a position in which it began to be natural to quote them as Holy Scripture: a development which later spread ve1·y rapidly and which became accepted
in different parts of the Church. But up to this time the Gospels are holy traditi<m rather than Scripture, and function to all appearances mainly orally." p.
" The synoptic tradition was transmitted and written down in the context of a
Church which did not believe Jesus to be a mere earthly teacher . . ." p. S!Ui.
For earlier studies with a similar bearing, see Cerfaux, L., La voix vivante de
l'Evangile au debut de l'Eglise (Paris, 2nd ed., 1956); also Taylor, V., The FD1'ma.tion of the Gospel Tradition (London, 1957).
'For example: Aulen, G., Reformation and Catholicity (Wahlstrom, E. H., tr.;
Philadelphia, 1961): "In the same way it has often been said in modern times

144

JAMES GAFFNEY

Tradition and Church. Another consideration invited by
the way Reid constructs the problem is that, whereas on first
reading it might have appeared to contain only two operative
terms whose relationship comes under examination, namely
Scripture and Tradition, actually by intimation there are and
by rights there ought to be three such terms, Scripture, Tradition, and Church. I would give this point some emphasis,
from the conviction that any attempt to analyse the Catholic
understanding of Scripture and Tradition will ultimately depend for its effectiveness on the conceptual distinctness of
this third term, Church. This distinctness disconcertingly
waxes and wanes in many contemporary discussions, resulting
sometimes in outright inconsistency, often in unformulated
confusion. 5
The systematic importance of this position of the Church
in our problem also entails, and is clearly suggested by, its
practical ecumenical importance. This came clearly to view
in certain reactions to Pius XII's Humani Generis of 1950,
when a number of Orthodox and Protestant writers who had
been quite sympathetic to a distinction between Scripture
and Tradition showed dismay at the prominence and seeming autonomy given by the encyclical to the further distincthat the New Testament is a compendium of the original, apostolic tradition. No
real objection can be made against the statement. It is in evident agreement with
the facts. But if from one point of view the New Testament may be seen under
the aspect of tradition, this in no sense means a downgrading of the authority of
Scripture, or an elimination of the problem of the relationship between Scripture
and tradition ... Whether or not we call the New Testament writings primary
apostolic tradition is mostly a matter of terminology. That it can be so designated
does not jeopardize at all the primacy of Scripture in relation to all other tradition in the Church." p. 133.
5 An instance occurs in the otherwise remarkably
lucid writing of Robert McAfee Brown: Brown, R. M. & Weigel, G., An American Dialogue (Garden City,
1960). After appropriating words of Leeming, the sole point of which is to emphasize that the Assumption " cannot be known either by historical evidence or
by an explicit tradition " whereas "we know it because the Church teaches it,"
Brown " sees the dogma of the Assumption, then, as a clear-cut and grievous
example of what happens in the life of the Church when tradition gains the upper
hand over Scripture ... " pp. 90-91.

SCRIPTURE

AND TRADITION

IN CATHOLIC THOUGHT

145

tion of Church or, its equivalent in the context, " magisterium." 6 George Barrois fairly typified this concern.
It looks as if Rome had given up the definition of Trent for all
practical purposes. Humani Generis discreetly casts a mantle of
Noah on the ill-fated concept of unwritten tradition. Instead, it
lays the major emphasis upon what it calls " the living teaching
authority of the Church" vested in the hierarchy. 7

It will not be out of place to observe that here still another
distinction has rather subtly emerged, and one that may well
prove to be the crucial one for the correlative enterprises of
controversy and ecumenism. The further distinction is hierarchy. It is interesting in this connection to examine the recent ecumenical volume by Gustaf Aulen, a major portion of
which is devoted to expounding Lutheran tenets on Tradition
with an eye to the relevant Roman positions. 8 He claims full
meaningfulness and vitality within his own confession for
Scripture, for dependence on tradition in the use of Scripture,
and for the inherence of tradition within the Church. To this
extent he establishes strong analogy, if not precise agreement,
with Rome. But where he represents differences concerning
Tradition to be most evident and most abrupt is in the context which he designates as Ordo, where these differences very
closely approximate the pattern of contrast between Lutheran
doctrine concerning "ministry" and "priesthood " and Cath• See A.A.S., XXXXII, pp. 567 f. The passage to be singled out as chief irritant
for Protestants seems to be the following: "Una enim cum sacris eiusmodi fontibus (in Sacris Litteris et in divina 'traditione' [quotation marks in the original])
Deus Ecclesiae suae Magisterium vivum dedit, ad ea quoque illustranda et enucleanda, quae in fidei deposito nonnisi obscure ac velut implicite continentur. Quod
quidem depositum nee singulis christifidelibus nee ipsis theologis divinus Redemptor concredidit authentice interpretandum, sed soli Ecclesiae Magisterio." (D.
Catholic comment centered rather on the immediately preceding passage, on the
decisive doctrinal authority of the " ordinary Magisterium," particularly of papal
encyclicals.
7 Barrois, G. A., "An overlooked Encyclical," Christian Century 68 (1951) p.
79. For a survey of response to the encyclical, see: ·Weigel, G., "Gleanings from
the Commentaries on Humani Generis," Theological Studies 12 (1951)
8 Aulen, G., op. cit., pp.

146

JAMES GAFl!'NEY

olic doctrine concerning " hierarchy " and " laity."
ingly, it is entirely possible that for the specifically ecumenical
aspect of the problem of Scripture and Tradition, the agenda
of the Commission on Lay Apostolate will prove more
vant in the present Council than that of the Commission on
Faith and Morals.

Dogma of the Assumption. Tension of the kind precipitated by the objectionable emphasis in Humani Generis grew
still more acute when, less than three months later, Pius
seemed to be suiting action to the word in defining the dogma
of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Barrois'
ment on the encyclical, cited above, was echoed in Oscar Cullman's reaction to the new definition, likewise typifying a
Protestant opinion:
Moreover, is not the Catholic Church tending to throw over, if
not in theory, at all events in practice, the fiction of a tradition
equated with the interpretation of Scripture, when in justifying the
dogma proclaimed in 1950, she did not delay over assigning it any
Scriptural basis, but relied instead on the Church's consensus?9
In Munificentissimus Deus the brief account of Scripture as
being the " ultimate basis " of the doctrine found in the Fathers
and theologians is, in fact, largely unspecified and almost incidental, whereas in the summary of the tradition of the doctrine
the only direct witness cited from the whole patristic age is
the very last of the Greek Fathers, John Damascene. 1 ° Faced
• Cullman, 0., La tradition: probleme exegetique, historique, et theologique (Neuchittel, 1958), p. 88. For a survey of Protestant opinion on the whole question,
much of it influenced by the Assumption definition, see: Dubarle, A., "Ecriture
et tradition a propos de publications protestantes recentes," lstina 8 (1956) 899415, 4 (1957) 118-128. Cullman's criticisms have been dealt with extensively and
sympathetically by Jean Danielou in several journals and many articles. For a
summary statement by the latter see: Danielou, J., " Ecriture et tradition dans le
dialogue entre les chretiens separes," Documentation Catholique 54 (1957)
and his original reply to Cullman, Dieu Vivant 24 (1958) 107-116.
10 See A.A.S., XXXXII, pp. 761 ff. The document cites, in order, John Damascene, Gerrnanus of Constantinople, Modestus of Jerusalem(?), Amadeus of Lausanne, Anthony of Padua, Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Bernardine of Siena, Robert Bellarmine, Francis de Sales, Alphonsus, Peter Canisius,

SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION IN CATHOLIC THOUGHT

147

with this unusual sparseness of biblical and other early doctrinal evidence, knowledgeable readers of the encyclical could
not but recall that earlier in the same year the distinguished
Catholic patrologist Berthold Altaner had concluded an account of prolonged research on the history of the doctrine in
these emphatically negative terms:
The definability of the Assumption cannot be upheld from the
standpoint of scientific theology. In the first place, there is no
scriptural proof, hence no biblical foundation for dogma. An appeal to typology and allegorical exegesis is scientifically valueless.
In the second place, no traditional proof can be brought forward
to confirm that in some form there exists a tradition extending to
the apostolic age. The expressions and texts that are commonly
proposed as evidence of tradition do not rest upon historico-theological tradition. Rather are they simply efforts to provide a speculative foundation for Mary's Assumption. The speculative theology of convenientia comes into view from the seventh, perhaps
even from the fifth century. 11

Historical and Theological Traditions. The dogmatic definition, which transpired so shortly after this judgment of Altaner's need not, of course, be taken to discredit his scholarship, much less his faith, and in point of fact the excellence
of his work has not been seriously challenged. What the definand Suarez, concluding: " Haec omnia sanctorum Patrum ac theologorum argumenta considerationesque Sacris Litteris, tamquam ultimo fundamento nituntur;
quae quidem almam Dei Matrem nobis veluti ante oculos proponunt divino F'dio
suo conb,mctissimam, eiusque semper participantem sortem." (D 2881) The last
consideration is then briefly developed. For commentary attempting to develop it
more fully, see Bea, A., "La
Scrittura ultimo fondamento del domma dell'
Assunzione," La Civilta Catolica 4 (1950) 547-561; Peinador, M., "De Argumento
Scripturistico in Bulla Dogmatica," Ephemerides Mariologicae 1 (1951)
Rivera, A. " El argumento escrituristico en Ia Bula Munificentissimus," EstudwB
Biblicos 10 (1951) 145-168. For a discussion of the problem of tradition in the
light of the definition, see: Bacht, H., " Tradition und Lehramt in der Diskussion
um das Assumpta-Dogma," in Die milndliche Uberlieferung (Schmaus, M., ed.:
Munich, 1957). The latter applies to the problem certain ideas on the development of doctrine derived from Rondet, de Lubac, and Rahner.
11 Altaner, B., "Zur Frage der Definibilitat der Assumptio B.M.V.," TheologiseM
R611Ue 46 (1950) p. 19. The entire study occupies three installments in the same
journal: 44 (1948) UB-189; 45 (1949 180-142; 46 (1950) 6-20.

148

JAMES GAFFNEY

ition does seem to impose on Altaner, and on all of us, in view
of the premisses of Catholic faith, is a need to distinguish with
some care what is to be understood by "the standpoint of
scientific theology." In that regard, it may prove useful to
contrast with Altaner's summation that of another eminent
Catholic scholar, this time a systematic theologian, Bernard
J. F. Lonergan. It too appeared only a short time before the
definition:
From the seventh century to the present day the affirmation
of the Assumption has increased in clarity and unanimity in the
Church of God. In the Dark Ages there existed doubts about the
fact of the Assumption and consequent obscurity regarding the
object of the feast. In the mediaeval period obscurity was removed
mainly through the influence of St. Albert the Great, while the
scholarship of the Renaissance removed the grounds of doubt that
had lingered in the Liturgy from the Dark Ages. As prior to the
Renaissance the Assumption was not denied, so since it has not
been doubted. Finally, from 1869 to 1941 vast numbers of petitions for the definition of the Assumption have been addressed to
the Holy See. To select the most significant of these petitions,
namely, those from resident episcopal sees, an incomplete survey
reveals that from 820 sees, 1332 Patriarchs, Archbishops and Bishops have sent 1859 petitions asking that Our Lady's Assumption
be defined as a matter of faith. While this leaves 299 residential
episcopal sees unrepresented, that is, some 27% of the total, it provides very serious ground for expecting the agreement of all the
rest. Such practically universal agreement and consent both down
the centuries and throughout the Church provide the theologian
with sufficient ground for affirming that the Assumption can be
defined. 12
It is important to notice that while Lonergan disagrees
clearly enough with Altaner's conclusion, he does not seem to
dispute his data. Altaner simply says that he cannot vindicate historically the existence of a continuous doctrinal tradition from the apostolic Church. Lonergan for his part is
12 Lonergan, B. J. F., "The Assumption and Theology," in Vers le dogme de
l'Assomption (Montreal, 1948). The petitions here referred to have been published
collectively: Petitiones de Assumptione corporea B. Virginis Mariae in caelum
definienda ad S. Sedem delatae (Hentrich-Von Moos, ed.; Vatican, 1942).

SCRIPTURE

AND TRADITION

IN CATHOLIC THOUGHT

149

wholly silent on the first seven centuries, admits doubts until
the Middle Ages, and notes confusion until the Renaissance.
If anything, the case from history sounds weaker in Lonergan's brisk resume than in Altaner's deliberate conclusions.
But of course the point is that Lonergan's case is not a case
from history, but a case from contemporary consensus. His
argument is that history finds intimations of the dogma and
does not find rejection of it, whereas the Church of his own
day appears to bear unanimous witness to its claim on faith.
Thus he judges it to be revealed and definable, and therefore
to be apostolic and traditional.

Authentication A Posteriori. I have dwelt so long over this
one case of the Assumption, not for its own sake, but for the
sake of its singular power of illustration. It brings forth with
unusual clarity an aspect of the Roman Catholic approach to
revelation that Catholics in general find basic to their belief
and central to their religious experience, whereas Protestants
in general find it especially uncongenial. Catholics, not excluding learned ones, are far more disposed to seek modern
consensus as a sign of primitive authenticity, than they are to
seek in primitive authenticity a ground for modern consensus.
This will appear as either a vicious circle or a begging of the
question unless it be viewed in the full light of all that the
Church means to the Catholic, a light that is neither wholly
nor principally the light of natural reason. Thus Newman in
1837: "How hopeless then it is to contend with Romanists,
as if they practically agreed with us as to the foundation of
faith, however much they pretend to it! Ours is Antiquity,
theirs the existing Church." And thus Newman in 1874: "For
myself, I would simply confess that no doctrine of the Church
can be rigorously proved by historical evidence: but at the
same time that no doctrine can be simply disproved by it." 13
13 Newman, J. H., The Via Media of the Anglican Church (London, 1841) I, p.
70, and Certain Difficulties Felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching (London,
1888) II, p.
The middle term, so to speak, of Newman's transition of faith,
is, of course, the conviction he attached to the celebrated " Securus iudicat orbis
terrarum."

150

JAMES GAFFNEY

Between the younger and the elder man the light o£ reason
remains unaltered; it is a faith that has changed. It will suffice to recall the recurrent suggestion of Protestant critics--one
that I came upon most recently is C. S. Lewis-that what the
Bible is to the Protestant fundamentalist, the teaching Church
is to the Roman Catholic. 14 Like all instructive analogies, this
too is inexact. But, reserving the right to some qualifications,
one may grant that the judgment is largely, perhaps even
profoundly, true.
TowARDs

A SoLUTION- AND NEw PRoBLEMs

The Evidence of Dogma. In the light o£ what has been
said, it should be possible to return now to the original statement o£ our problem, from Reid, with a certain expectation
that whatever Catholics are saying about the relationship o£
content between Scripture and Tradition is going to derive, in
the first instance and as far as possible, £rom the teaching
Church. Now, what the Catholic Church has taught immemorially and undeviatingly, and what therefore no instructed
Catholic would venture to deny, is the twofold assertion that
Holy Scripture is a vehicle of Christ's revelation, and that
Tradition is likewise a vehicle of Christ's revelation. But that
much, clearly presupposed by Reid's question, is no answer
to it. What remains to be asked is whether, £rom the time
when the New Testament canon was complete, the second
vehicle has been entirely dependent on the first, and whether
or not the revelation as transmitted by each is coextensive
with the revelation as transmitted by the other.
The only conceivably decisive pronouncement on the question, and the one to which Catholic theology textbooks have
regularly appealed, is the decree of the Council of Trent in
its fourth session:
The holy ecumenical and general Council of Trent, duly assembled in the Holy Spirit, under the presidency of the aforementioned
u Lewis, C. S., Reflections on the Psal1ns (London, 1958), p.

SCRIPTURE

AND '.rRADI'riON

IN CATHOLIC

THOUGHT

151

three legates of the Apostolic See, hold this purpose ever in view,
that within the Church errors be extirpated and there be preserved
the very purity of the Gospel, that in former times was promised
through the Prophets in the Holy Scriptures, and first set forth by
the very lips of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son, who thereupon
commanded that through his Apostles it should be preached to
every creature (Mt. QS: 19f.; Mk. 16: 15) as source of every saving
truth and moral instruction. They recognized that this truth and
this instruction are contained in written books and unwritten traditions which, having been received by the Apostles from Christ's
own lips, or having been passed on from the Apostles themselves
as it were from hand to hand, by the Holy Spirit's inspiration,
have come even to us. Following the example of the orthodox
Fathers, they receive and venerate with equal filial devotion and
reverence all the books of the Old and New Testaments, since the
same God authors both, and also those traditions which relate not
only to faith but also to moral conduct, as communicated either
by Christ's own lips or by the Holy Spirit, and as preserved
through uninterrupted succession in the Catholic Church. 15

Reassessment of T1·ent. Until quite recently, this decree
was understood or assumed by the majority of Catholic theologians to settle the problem of Scripture and Tradition in favour of two distinct vehicles of revelation emanating from the
apostolic Church and not always identical, though largely so
and everywhere consistent, in doctrinal content. However, the
plausibility of a contrary interpretation has been increasingly
acknowledged in response to the efforts chiefly of three theologians: Edouard Ortigues, whose writing on the subject was the
briefest but the earliest to appear; 16 Josef Geiselmann, whose
15 :Mami XXXIII, 22, A. The crucial portion of the text runs: "perspiciensque,
hanc veritatem et disciplinam contineri in libris scriptis et sine scripto traditionibus, quae ab ipsius Christi ore ab Apostolis acceptae, aut ab ipsis Apostolis Spiritu
Sancto dictante quasi per manus traditae ad nos usque pervenerunt, orthodoxarum Patrum exempla secuta, omnes libros tam Veteris quam Novi Testamenti,
cum utriusque unus Deus sit auctor, nee non traditiones ipsas, tum ad fidem, tum
ad mores pertinentes, tamquam vel oretenus a Christo, vel a Spiritu Sancto dictatas et continuas successione in Ecclesia catholica conservatas, pari pietatis affectu
ac reverentia suscipit et veneratur." (D 783) The history of the decree is given
at length by Jedin, H., Geschichte des Konzils von Trient (Freiburg, 1957), II,
pp. 42-82.
18 Ortigues, E., "Ecritures
et traditions apostoliques au Concile de Trente,"

152

JAMES GAFFNEY

work has remarkable scope both as positive and as speculative theology; 17 and George Tavard, whose publications are
more popularly constructed and probably the most widely circulated.18 Since these three scholars employ respectively the
French, German, and English languages the diffusion of their
common conclusions, independently arrived at, has been extraordinarily rapid and extensive.
Limiting our consideration to the decree of Trent, the chief
point of agreement in virtue of which these three men can be
said to found a school of thought is that the Council did not
teach that Tradition comprises elements of revelation not
found in Scripture. Their basis for this conclusion is a body
of detailed research, most thoroughly executed by Geiselmann,
This study seems to have
Recherches de science religieuse 36 (1949)
attracted very little attention before the interpretation it advocates was developed
independently by Geiselmann; since then its priority and originality have come to
be appreciated.
17 Geiselmann, J. R., "Das Konzil von Trient iiber das Verhaltnis der Heiligen
Schrift und der nicht geschrieben Traditionen," in Die miindliche Uberlieferung
(Schmaus, M., ed.; Munich, 1959) pp.
This study, although it could hardly
be described as sketchy, must be read as simply the adumbration of a much larger work which its author has not yet completed. As projected, the whole will
comprise three notable volumes, the first treating ilie doctrine of Trent with which
we are here concerned, the second tracing the consequences of a pseudo-tradition
founded on the misinterpretation of that doctrine, and the third devoted to the
thought of Joh. Ev. Kuhn considered to recapture the authentic doctrine and to
elaborate it in a·satisfactory theological synthesis. Only the third of these volumes
has, to my knowledge, so far appeared, and is referred to below. These volumes
will be in turn part of a larger series, edited by Geiselmann but including work
of other scholars, entitled Die Uberlieferung in der neueren Theologie (Freiburg,
1959-) . The one volume collection just referred to, Die miindliche Uberlieferung,
can be read as a kind of prospectus to the whole series, and is a helpful introduction to its lines of thought.
18 Tavard,
G., Holy Writ or Holy Church: The Crisis of the Protestant Reformation (New York-London, 1959). In the substance of their historical content,
Tavard's work and Geiselmann's are largely complementary, but overlapping at
the sixteenth century. Their common ground thus coincides with Ortigues' work,
and the three are in general agreement about the doctrine of the Council. Tavard's
more distinctive contribution pertains to late scholastic and early Reformation
developments, whereas Geiselmann's focus is on post-Tridentine and nineteenth
century theology. Tavard expresses his positive view of the question, presupposing his historical results, in " The Authority of Scripture and Tradition," in Problems of Authority (Todd, J. M., ed.; Baltimore-London,
pp.

SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION

IN CATHOLIC THOUGHT

153

into. the deliberations of the Council and the theological climate in which it was held. It would be impossible to retrace
this work here, but one significant factor bearing on the text
itself of the fourth session has attracted much attention and
should be noted. The official wording, which states somewhat
obscurely that the Gospel is "contained in written books and
unwritten traditions," represents a substitution for an earlier
draft which stated unambiguously that it is contained "partly
in written books and partly in unwritten traditions," a change
which corresponds to objections raised in the Council by the
Servite General, Bonnucci, and Nacchianti, Bishop of Chioggia. Both of these men, without denying the utility or authority of Tradition, strongly contended that the whole truth of
the Gospel, not simply a part of it, is contained in Scripture. 19
Whether or not their influence can be thought decisive, the
substitution of the noncommittal "et" for the determinate
" partim . . . partim " appears inexplicable if the Council intended to teach that part of the revelation is given only outside of Scripture.
This point of view has already aroused vigorous opposition,
and may be expected to arouse more as it becomes more
widely known among theologians of a more conservative and
less ecumenical temper. The late Heinrich Lennerz, whose last
writings were three articles directed particularly against Geiselmann, has developed the most elaborate refutation, concluding as follows:
19 The significance, and also the isolation, of these men's position is brought out
by Jedin, op. cit., pp. 59 ff. Thus: " Die weitaus wesentlichsten Einwiinde brachte
der Servitengeneral vor. Die vor ihm Chioggia, verneinte er die Gleichstellung von
Schrift und Tradition; die ganze evangelische Wahrheit sei in der Schrift enthalten,
nicht nur ein Teil; dei Worte " mit gleich liebevoller Anhiinglichkeit (pari pietatis
affectu) " diirften sich nur auf die Gleichstellung der geschriebenen und ungeschriebenen Traditionen untereinander, nicht aber mit der Schrift beziehen ... Der
wichtigste Punkt der Kritik Bonnuccios an dem Dekretentwurf war die Ablehnung
der partim-partim." Nonetheless: "Es kann nicht zweifelhaft sein, dass die Mehrzahl der in Trient anwesenden Theologen wenn nicht den Ausdruck partim-partim,
so doch die Sache billigten, niimlich dass die dogmatische Tradition einen die
Schrift ergiinzenden Offenbarungsstrom beinhalte." pp. 60 f.

154

JAMES GAFFNEY

The teaching of the Council (of Trent) seems to be clear: the
Gospel which Christ commanded the Apostles to teach as the
source of all saving truth and moral instruction has come down to
us in two ways, the first way in writing, that is, Holy Scripture,
and the second way without writing, that is, the unwritten traditions ... Obviously the whole Gospel which the Apostles were to
preach is not contained in Holy Scripture nor in the unwritten
traditions. The whole Gospel is found in the Holy Scripture and
those traditions taken jointly. And in this sense the Council clearly
teaches the insufficiency of Holy Scripture. 20
Without venturing to choose sides in this debate, it may be
worth noting that on both sides an appropriate distinction
seems to enjoy too little prominence, the distinction, namely,
between what the assembled fathers in overwhelming majority may have supposed to be the truth of the matter, and
what the Council in its magisterial function deliberately defined as dogma of faith. A conciliar definition cannot simply
be identified with the presumptions, however general, of the
conciliar membership. What is taken for granted in a Council
does not determine what is taught by a Council, any more
than do the religious prejudices of the faithful at a given time,
however prevalent, determine their creed. 21
•• Lennerz, H., "Sine scripto traditiones," Gregorianum. 40 (1959) 6U-6S5, p.
635. See also: " Sola scriptura? " ibid., 38-53, " Scriptura et traditio in decreto 4,
sessionis Concilii Tridentini," Gregorianum 42 (1961) 517-522. Also sceptical of
the new trends, though more reticent than Lennerz: Moran, V ., " Scripture and
Tradition: A Current Debate," The Australasian Catholic Record 38 (1961) 14-22.
21 For a usefully cautionary essay on the criteriology of conciliar interpretation,
see: Fransen, P., "The Authority of the Councils," in Problem of Authority (Todd,
J. M., ed.; Baltimore-London, 1962) pp. 43-78. The following observations are
especially to the point here: " More recently it has been noted that for the most
part, Councils refuse to explain a revealed truth but content themselves with condemning obvious errors arising from all quarters. It is as though they are defining
the limits within which the outlook of our faith remains orthodox, by simply excluding views which have no future." p. 57. "If the bishops have often spent
whole months choosing one single word or the correct formula for a conciliar
canon, the least we can do . . . is to discover through patient historical research
the precise reasons which led them to choose this word rather than any other."
"The first rule then is the following. In dogmatic texts only the central assertion in a decree or a canon is defined. Similarly, in the case of reforming decrees,
we are only bound by the act of will expressed in the law. All reasoning, all

SCRIPTURE

AND TRADITION

IN CATHOLIC

THOUGHT

155

At all events, in view of this radical difference of considered
opinion in the light of the same historical evidence, one may
well doubt whether Trent can prove an effective arbiter of the
current debate over the relative contents of Scripture and
Tradition. The primary contribution of the recent studies appears rather to be their demonstration that Trent leaves the
point unsettled. Such, in fact, was the more reflective opinion of Geiselmann himself:
One thing can be taken for certain, this " et" is not to be understood in the same sense as the "Partim ... partim." The substitution of " et" for " partim ... partim " clearly indicates that
the magisterium did not absolutely define the Scripture-Tradition
relationship as being one in which each contains only a part of the
Gospel. Does the "et" indicate, though, that the Council decided
in favour of the sufficiency of the content of Scripture? Did it embody the opinion of Nacchianti and Bonnucci? The evidence seems
to point that way, and for some time I adhered to that opinion,
until it became apparent that the projected "partim ... partim"
reflected theological tendencies. In view of that circumstance, it
appears that the " et" was primarily a formula of compromise,
striking a balance between two trends. 22

Fathers and Theologians. Since the facts as now presented
are inconclusive, it is natural to seek an answer in the less
formal witness of patristic consensus and the common teaching of theologians. The testimony of the Fathers on the
point in question has not been scrutinized so closely by
Catholic scholars as has the documentation touching the
Council of Trent. Nevertheless, a consistently significant
pattern does emerge from recent studies, and is the more
impressive in that it cuts across lines of initial suppositions
glosses or subsequent observations which are used in order to explain, to illustrate
or to give the motives for this central assertion, do not have the same authority."
p. 61. Further valuable considerations of the criteriology of dogmatic tradition,
illustrated from a particular doctrinal history and with explicit application to the
Lennerz-Geiselmann controversy, are given in: Rahner, K., "Virginitas in partu,"
in Schriften zur Theologie (Einsiedeln-Ziirich-Koln, 1961) IV, 173-208.
22 Geiselmann, J. R., "Das Missverstiindnis iiber des Verhiiltnis von Schrift und
Tradition und seine t'rberwindung in der katholischen Theologie," Una Sancia 11
(1956) pp. 188 f.

156

JAMES GAFFNEY

and final conclusions. That is to say, writers who do, as well
as writers who do not, judge Scripture to contain all the doctrine of revelation make substantially the same accounting
of patristic opinion on the point. Thus, for instance, Albert
Michel's highly respected article on "'Tradition" in the Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique, which expressed a final preference for admitting non-scriptural elements within revelation, is in general agreement on patristic doctrine with the
later work of Yves Congar, who adopts the contrary view.
Non-Catholic work on the same subject is in similar harmony.23 The main point would seem to be that, whereas the
Fathers often allude to and instance traditions which, though
non-scriptural, are to be honoured by the faithful, such traditions generally concern matters of liturgical usage or applied
morality, rather than articles of faith in the proper sense, as
in dogmatic statements. Congar draws from patristic usage a
valuable distinction between "' la tradition " and " les traditions." The plural form corresponds to the strictly extra-biblical traditions of the sort just described, whereas the singular
refers to the process whereby the Bible's message is continually transmitted and progressively elucidated in the Church.
Here is his statement of general conclusions:
They (the Fathers) admit the sufficiency of Scripture. They
reiterate the explanation to the effect that the doctors and the
conciliar definitions simply give precise expression to what is said
with greater or less clarity in Scripture. They also suppose that
God has communicated certain important religious elements in
another way. Unwritten traditions do exist. In point of fact, however, these regard mainly, if not exclusively, matters of Christian
worship and conduct. They invariably assert when treating of this
matter that Scripture is not sufficient of itself to yield up its authentic meaning; it is rightly understood only in the Church and
its tradition. 24
23 For example:
Flesseman-Van Leer, E., Tradition and Scripture in the Early
Church (Assen, 1954), and Kelley, J. N. D., Early Christian Doctrines (New York,
1958) pp.
24 Cougar, Y. M.-J., "Traditions
apostoliques non ecrites et suffisance de l'Ecriture," lstina 6 (1959), p. 805. Cougar has made this notion the title and, in a

SCRIPTURE

AND TRADITION

IN CATHOLIC

THOUGHT

157

The mediaeval theologians give little reason for delay on the
problem of Scripture and Tradition as we have been considering it, inasmuch as their teaching on the point derives
from and commonly is even cited from the Fathers. They understood their own function as above all one of lending professional assistance to the Church in its permanent effort to
understand the inspired books and thereby to elaborate tradition in Congar's sense of the singular form, "la tradition."
That is what they meant to do, and their intention, insofar
as it implies their doctrinal premiss, is really all that concerns
our present conte:x;t. In their own view, indeed, the theological enterprise is so much a function of the sacred text that,
as P. de Vooght has pointed out, it is rather the distinctness
of the two than the connection between them that their habit
of thought tended to obscure:
In the view of the (mediaeval) theologians the countless authoritative texts (auctoritates) do not constitute a second source of
theology alongside the first source. These texts are still the Scripture, only in certain perspectives, within certain limits, subjected
to elaboration and explanation. They are the veritas catholica or
veritas ecclesiae which developed, especially during Christianity's
first centuries, upon, about, and in articulation with the Scripture.
In the eyes of the scholastics, Scripture and theology are one.25

Polemics and Doctrinal Bias. If the times of the Fathers
and those of the scholastic theologians heard few voices raised
certain sense, the theme, of a more recent work: La tradition et les traditions:
essai historique (Paris, 1960). The book is a compressed and comprehensive historical survey of the theological understanding of tradition, strongest perhaps on
the patristic and early mediaeval periods and, one may say inevitably, weakest
for the period just before the Reformation concerning which source material is
least accessible. His judgments on the points here considered are in substantial
agreement with other representatives of the recent trend. This historical volume
is to be followed by a specifically theological study of the subject.
25 de Vooght. P., Les Sources de la doctrine chretienne (Paris-Bruges,
1954), p.
For more specific considerations of the relationship between patristic and
scholastic teaching on tradition, see: Grillmeier, A., "Vom Symbolum zur Summa,"
in Kirche und Uberlieferung (Betz, J., and Fries, H., edd.; Freiburg-Basel-Wien,
1960) pp. 119-169, and Cougar, Y. M.-J., "Tradition und Sacra Doctrina bei
Thomas von Aquin," ibid., pp. 170-210.

158

JAMES GAFFNEY

even to question the comprehensive character of scriptural
elation, the times into which the scholastic middle ages slowly
merge are very different. Rising influence of the extreme
tramontane canonists, prodded to greater lengths by the
ciliar quarrels, gave rise to a tendency of ascribing undefined,
ill-described, at times quite unintelligible doctrinal and
dictional powers to the papacy. Tavard, in the book already
cited, gives a summary account with some tragi-comic illustrations of this phase of the Church's doctrinal history. It is
scarcely feasible to draw upon such a period for consensus
concerning the doctrinal content and interrelation of Scripture
and Tradition. Objective theological concern over the question
was infrequently entertained, and such as there was becomes
in historical retrospect all but hopelessly confused with a mass
of pro-papal and anti-papal hyperbole.
Much the same has to be said of the period of the Reformation that followed upon, and surely in some measure
resulted from this state of affairs. It ushered in an age of
controversy in which scriptura sola became fighting words,
laden with factious connotation. The extreme opposite
tion to that of the Protestants' scriptural exclusiveness was
not without partisans, constituting a school of thought that
admitted revelation to originate not only apart from Scripture
and in excess of its contents, but even by recurrent accretion
subsequent to the apostolic age.26 Between these radical antitheses were the opinions we saw to have predominated at
Trent, as well as vestiges of the earlier understanding of Scripture as a unique source, perpetuated in the Church's
tion. 27 Whereas the Tridentine decree directly excludes the
first extreme position, and strongly, if implicitly, avoids its
extreme opposite, it appears equivocal with respect to the
intermediate alternative. The history of this pre- Tridentine
•• See: Tavard, G., Holy Writ ... , pp. 151 fl'.
•• See: Murphy, J. L., The Notion of Tradition in John Driedo (Milwaukee,

1959). Driedo, whoml Geiselmann ranks with the supporters of the majority view
at Trent, seems to have vacillated at least in terminology, but more habitually to
have entertained the opposite view.

SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION IN CATHOLIC THOUGHT

159

period of our present question, as of Theology and Philosophy
generally, remains to be written, and poses an immense but
important labour. The distinctiveness of its handling in recent work on Scripture and Tradition, typically in that of
consists chiefly in the renewed perspective in which
its welter of opinions have to be viewed once one has accepted,
together with its implications, the current reappraisal of
Trent's doctrine.

Counter-Reformation and After. There can be little doubt
that after the Council and, barring isolated demurs and uncertain innuendos, almost until the present, it was the conception
of two unequal, discontinuous sources, both of the apostolic
provenance, that prevailed, and prevailed by the putative
sanction of Trent. Geiselmann assigns a decisive initiative in
the fixing of this, in his view erroneous, conception to Peter
Canisius, closely followed by Robert Bellarmine:
The first great post-Tridentine controversial theologian to champion the partim-partim was Peter Canisius . . . With Canisius the
partim-partim view of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition rested secure. According to him, it is divinely ordained,
irreformably by human authority, that by fixed laws, partly (partim) written and partly (partim) not, but enjoined on us by apostolic tradition, the Church is governed, dogma assured, religion
protected, and discipline preserved . . . Bellarmine followed him
in basing the Scripture-Tradition relationship on the partim-partim. In his De V erbo Dei, Bellarmine goes so far as to see in it
the distinctive characteristic of Catholics. Thus, he divides opinions regarding the nature of God's word into three classes "Some
accept only God's inner word (Schwenkfeld, Coppin, Quintin),
others only the external but written word of God (Lutherans,
Calvinists), still others the word of God partly written (partim
scriptum) and partly traditional (partim-traditum).
And these
last are the Catholics." 28
28 Geiselmann, J. R., " Das Konzil von Trient . . .," pp. 170 ff. Less clearcut
than the position of Canisius and Bellarmine is that of the highly influential Melchior Cano. Geiselmann regards him as having held and helped to establish the
partim-partim interpretation. The same opinion was previously held, but more
recently reexamined and reversed by Tavard; see "Tradition in Early Post-Tridentine Theology," Theological Studies !lS (196!l) 377-405.

160

JAMES GAFFNEY

Subsequently, their doctrine became a standard catechetical
premiss, and the common presentation, as it still remains, of
theology manuals designed for the seminaries. 29 The position
seems to have gone unmodified even by speculative theologians throughout two centuries.
A compensatory development is traced by Geiselmann from
somewhat paradoxical beginnings late in the eighteenth century with G. E. Lessing who, although he denied a simple sufficiency to Scripture and to that extent abetted the former
tendency of Catholics, at the same time summoned attention
to the neglected aspect of pre-Scriptural tradition as the sustaining principle of the life of the early Church. With Kniipfel early in the following century, this understanding was retained, while revelation was envisioned as the unique word of
God, partly recorded in Scripture but wholly and vitally conveyed as Tradition. Further development by Baader and
Mohler tended to unite a classicist emphasis on the preservation of dogma with a romanticist appreciation of its continual
vital rejuvenation, conceiving Tradition as living interpretation of the revelation embodied in Scripture. The final and
synthetic stage of this development, discovered in the work
of Joh. Ev. Kuhn, is the basis of Geiselmann's own position,
which identifies the material content of Scripture and Tradi29 For a review of theological accounts of Tradition
after Trent but before most
of the developments with which we are here concerned, see: Burghardt, W. J.,
"The Catholic Concept of Tradition in the Light of Modern Theological Thought,"
Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Convention, C.T.S.A. (1951) 42-76. The author
there observes: " In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries there are no remarkable insights in regard to the fundamental concept ... " and " the total Catholic
theology of tradition, as it existed at the time of the Vatican Council, is summed
up in Cardinal Franzelin," judgments inviting reconsideration in the light of Geiselmann's work. Burghardt's very liberal synthesis of the doctrines he had assembled relating Scripture to Tradition goes only so far as to say that: "In the deposit
of tradition, therefore, even written revelation is contained in some way; and if
even written revelation, then the whole of revelation." pp. 44, 67. This survey, up
to date hardly more than a decade ago, provides a useful index of the frequency
and importance of developments during the past few years, concerning both the
history and the theory of theological tradition.

SCRIPTURE

AND TRADITION

IN CATHOLIC

THOUGHT

161

tion, while seeing the latter as the former vitally unfolding in
the Church. 30

ContemporaTy Paradox. As must appear from the foregoing
survey, especially from a comparison of the first two sections
of this paper, the present situation of Roman Catholic thought
on our subject has almost as its most prominent aspect a paradoxical one. The paradox exists most conspicuously between
the apparent implications of what the recent papacy has been
doing in the realm of dogmatic definition, and what recent
theologians have been saying about the relationship between
Scripture and Tradition. On the one hand, as I have attempted
to illustrate from the case of the Assumption, we do have
dogma, infallible expression of the revelation, the affirmation
of which is not clearly discoverable in Holy Scripture, nor
even in an early consensus of the Church's authoritative
teachers. 31 On the other hand, as appears from the writings
of Cougar, Tavard, Geiselmann and others, we also have his30 The foregoing summary is based on Geiselmann, J. R., " Das Konzil von Trient
. ." Part of the more comprehensive project mentioned above, Geiselmann's
study of J. E. Kuhn has already appeared: Die lebendige Uberlieferung als Norm
des christlichen Glaubens (Freiburg, 1958) . The work exceeds mere critical reporting of Kuhn's contribution, being in fact the author's personal construction
of a theology of tradition " dargestellt im Geiste der Traditionslehre von Joh.
Ev. Kuhn," in the phrase of its subtitle. It is a work of a large synthetic compass, with important implications for many areas of theology. The gist of its
position with regard to our present question may be suggested by the following
passage: "Zwei Momente sind es, die den Durchbruch zum neuen Verstiindnis der
Uberlieferung herbeigefiihrt haben. Das eine ist die Unterscheidung von Quelle der
Wahrheit und Quelle der Erkenntnis der Wahrheit oder Glaubensquelle, das andere
die an der altkirchlichen Theologie, besonders an Irenaeus und Vinzenz von Lerin,
ausgerichtete Lehre von der relativ inhaltlichen Vollstiindigkeit der Heiligen Schrift,
von der sufficientia sacrae Scripturae." p. 120. Also noteworthy is: Mohler, J. A.,
Symbolik (Geiselmann, J. R., ed.-com.; Darmstadt, 1961) II, pp. 699-752, Geiselmann's very thorough critique of Mohler's account of tradition (the critical text
is given in the first volume, the second confined to commentary).
31 It is important
to bear in mind that this much-criticized dogma was very
far from being a definition wrested from the magisterium by any exigencies of
doctrinal crisis. Several times, but here especially, subsequent history has given
Newman's rhetorical question an answer contrary to his expectations: "'Vhen has
definition of doctrine de fide been a luxury of devotion, and not a stern, painful
necessity?" (letter to Ullathorne, 28 Jan. 1870).

JAMES GAFFNEY

torical evidence sufficient to persuade competent theologians
that Tradition itself testifies to the doctrinal completeness of
Scripture. If one accepts the dogma, as must all Catholics, and
at the same time allows the cogency or at least plausibility of
this historical conclusion, as do increasingly many Catholics,
it follows logically that one at least probably must be able
to know that a given doctrine is somehow in Scripture without at the same time being able clearly to locate it there. The
Church may be said, in such a view, to interpret Scripture, in
the sense that it makes known truths which Scripture contains
but does not readily yield to its readers, but it must be
confessed that this is to require the word " interpret " to sustain a very special and unfamiliar nuance. The Catholic biblical scholar, John L. McKenzie, has pointed this out candidly
in a lecture:
The interpretation of the Bible by the Church is not exactly
exegesis as the word is usually understood. A survey of the treatment of the Bible in dogmatic documents exhibits little or no exegesis. Here the Bible is touched upon only as a rule of faith, and
the interpretation takes rather broad lines. Pius XII observed in
the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu of 1943 that the number of
texts whose meaning has been defined by the Church is scarcely
half a dozen, nor did he specify what these texts might be. The
interpretation of the Church consists principally in what is called
the " analogy of faith; " this means that the articles of faith proposed by the living teaching authority are a framework within
which the meaning of individual books and passages is to be
sought. The living teaching authority, then, does not feel itself
bound to find biblical evidence for all the articles of the faith
which it proposes.32
RAMIFICATIONS

OF THE PROBLEM

Senses of Scripture. If, then, dogma expresses revelation that
is in Scripture, but which literal exegesis, as ordinarily understood, cannot discover there, it is not surprising that some
32 McKenzie, J. L., "The Use of the Bible in Catholic Theology,"
(an unpublished lecture, delivered at New Haven, 1960).

SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION

IN CATHOLIC THOUGHT

168

should feel bidden to admit and employ other modes of exegesis. Thus, Raymond Brown, in a study of the so-called sensus plenim·, observes:
There is the exegesis used by theologians and particularly by
the Magisterium in the definition of the dogmas of faith. This is
especially a problem in the application of texts to our Blessed
Lady in the definition of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption . . . In the employment of Marian texts by theologians (or
perhaps by the Magisterium) and in the case of some Messianic
prophecies, objectively there seems to be an exegesis which is
neither strictly literal nor typical. 33

It may be recalled that slightly more than a decade ago, this
problem of providing a scriptural basis for dogma, reenforced
by the influential studies of Jean Danielou and Henri de Lubac of typological and spiritual exegesis among the Fathers,
generated an incipient movement among interpreters in favour of reassessing the fuller, spiritual, typical, mystical, allegorical, and other senses of Scripture that exceeded the discoverable intention of its human writers, in order to determine
their theological relevance. Thus, Beryl Smalley concluded a
study of mediaeval exegesis published about that time by regretfully noting its recrudescence among contemporaries:
The spiritual exposition, predominant in patristic and mediaeval commentators, had few defenders ten years ago. There was a
certain rather tepid admiration for St. Thomas for having defined
its limits, but only blame for the extravagance and subjectivism
of its exponents. Now the revived interest in mysticism has led
certain students to reverse their judgment. Even though the ten38 Brown, R., The Sensus Plenior of Sacred SC1·ipture (Baltimore, 1955), pp. 74,
76. The ' fuller sense ' is a modern coinage, understood as referring to the presence in Scripture of doctrinal statements formulated expressly only later; these the
inspired writers recognized, according to one opinion, only vaguely, according to
another, not at all. The quest for this elusive sense is even identified with the
objective of biblical theology by some, as: Peinador, M., "La integracion de Ia
exegesis en la teologia," in Sacra Pagina (Coppens, J., Descamps, A., and Massaux, E., ed.; Paris-Gembloux, 1959), I, pp. 158-179. For a useful preliminary
discussion and factual background to the question, see: Dillenschneider, 0., Le 8ens
de la foi et le progres dogmatique du mystere mariale (Rome, 1954).

164

JAMES GAI!'FNEY

dency is confined to a small circle, it provides a fascinating though
alarming example of the way in which the history of exegesis prolongs itself in that of its historians. 34

Both inside and outside Catholicism, this movement, while still
distinctly perceptible, has not thrived among biblical scholars,
who have found no way to impose adequately scientific controls upon such elusive and potentially subjective senses of
Scripture. It has found warmer hospitality among liturgists,
seeking to establish a Christian understanding of biblical passages whose original literal meanings have been modified or
supplanted in the course of transfer from a literary to a liturgical context. Some of the latter have gone on to represent
the liturgical use of Scripture as normative for the Christian
interpretation of the Bible itself, thus threatening to restore
the original issue on a new basis, hotly controversial, but not
evidently a part of our present subject.

Church Origins and Biblical Inspiration. We have observed
that a principal result of recent Catholic speculation, investigation, and experience in the area of tradition has been more
closely to associate, even at times perforce to confuse the contemporary message of the Bible with the contemporary message of the Church. This apparently intimate, though at least
as yet scarcely analysed interpenetration of 'Holy Writ' and
'Holy Church' in their conveying of the revelation through the
course of time, is interestingly in harmony with a new orientation that has been given to the theology of biblical inspiration. This trend, inaugurated by Karl Rahner, postulates an
essential interpenetration of Bible and Church in their very
inception. Rahner has summarized his thesis in his original
article on the subject:
In that God wills and fashions the primordial Church, and
along with it its constituent elements by a volition that is absolute and predefining, and in accord with salvation-history and escha34 Smalley, B., The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford, l95il), pp.
359 f. For indications of Catholic scholarly opinion on the question around the
same time, see: Cerfaux, L., Coppens, J., Gribomont, J., Problemes et methodes
d'exegese theologique (Louvain, 1950).

SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION IN CATHOLIC THOUGHT

165

tology, he wills and fashions the Scripture in such a way as to be
its inspiring originator and author. In the preceding sentence, the
phrase " in that " needs to be precisely understood. It does not
mean simply that Scripture came about "on the occasion" or "in
the course " of the establishment of the primordial Church. It
means rather that God's active, inspiring authorship is an inner
moment of the process of formation of the primordial Church, and
properly characterized by the fact of being such. God wills Scripture and himself as its author, and brings about both, by means
of, because of, and to the extent of his willing himself to be the
Church's effective author. Scriptural inspiration is ... quite simply
God's authorship of the Church insofar as this is precisely related
to that constituent element of the primordial Church which is
Scripture. 35
Although this formulation of the theory is undeniably terse,
and even its fuller elucidation decidedly subtle, it appears
clearly enough to be a view of inspiration which, by identifying
the coming into being of the Scripture with the coming into
being of the Primitive Church, affords a theological analogy favorable to a view of Tradition that consolidates the continuing
message of Scripture with the continued teaching office of the
Church. Furthermore, if the theory can be sustained, it may
be seen as providing a kind of metaphysical insight to accompany a positive historical appreciation of the Church's role in
the formation of the Gospel, such as could scarcely be arrived
at so long as inspiration is understood simply as a special
charism imparted separately to individual human writers.
Proponents of the theory do not, however, claim that in its
present state of development it is essentially complete or systematically impregnable. What may be a rather substantial
deficiency is the theory's failure to circumscribe in any very
meaningful way that formative period of the primordial
Church to which biblical inspiration is restricted.
35 Rahner,
K., " Uber die Schriftinspiration," Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie 78 (1956), pp. 157 f. The article was subsequently expanded into a book,
recently translated: Rahner, K., Inspiration in the Bible (Henkey, C. H., tr.; New

York, 1961). Rahner's position is further developed, and some of its difficulties
more directly confronted, by: Brinkmann, B., "Inspiration und Kanonizitat der
Heiligen Schrift in ihrem Verhiiltnis zur Kirche," Scholastik 33 (1958) fl08-233.

166

JAMES GAFFNEY

Development of Doctrine. Although it must be recognized
that nearly all the major problems of Scripture and Tradition
that have lately come to the forefront of Catholic thinking
must seek a large measure of their solution under the distinctively modern heading of "doctrinal development," new positive and original contributions to that very difficult subject
are not in evidence. By far the greater number of recent writings on the subject have been restatements, applications, and
appreciations of earlier writers, especially Newman and, to a
great but lesser extent, Mohler. Among the relatively few recent independent essays on the subject may be found a useful
variety of formulations and perspectives, but not, so far as I
can determine, any notable advance in understanding beyond
these geniuses of the last century. 36 To summarize with the
most extreme generality, it may be said that the prevalent
concerns of recent writing on development are to admit development as an important and undisguisable fact, to dissuade
from explaining development in terms of a formally logical
process of derivation, and to relate development to a rejuvenated conception of Christian faith that stresses social, symbolic, and personalistic factors, and to a correspondingly rejuvenated conception of the Church as a living Body of Christ.
36 Perhaps the most original and enlightening of these recent contributions,
but
without justifying a reversal of the judgment just expressed, are those of de
Lubac and Rahner: de Lubac, H., " Le probleme du developpement du dogme,"
Recherches de science religieuse 35 (1948) 130-160; Rahner, K., "The Development of Dogma," in Theological Investigations (Ernst, C., tr.; Baltimore-London,
1961) I, pp. 39-78; idem, "t'rberlegungen zur Dogmentwicklung," in Schriften
Theologie (Einsiedeln-Ziirich-Koln, 1961) IV, pp. 11-50; idem, "Virginitas in
partu," ibid., pp. 173-!W5. The de Lubac article takes issue with a contemporary
representative of the declining school of 'logical ' development, conceived as demanded by the claims of 'scientific' methodology in systematic theology: Boyer,
C., " Qu-est-ce que Ia Theologie? Reflexions sur une controverse," Gregorianum
£1 (1940) £55-£66. These articles serve to emphasize the mutual involvement of
questions concerning the nature of development and those concerning the nature
of theology. A contemporary representative of the most conservative theoretical
approach to development, reducing it almost to a matter of sheer vocabulary, is:
Stephenson, A. A., "The Development and Immutability of Christian Doctrine,"
Theological Studies 19 (1958) 481-53£.

SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION

IN CATHOLIC THOUGHT

167

In many respects, what may be the most estimable recent
contribution to this area of theology is basically a negative
one. That is a critical review, historically enlightened and
logically acute, by the Anglican ecclesiastical historian Owen
Chadwick, of the chief forms of response given to the question of development in the past, examined in the work of some
of their purest exponents. Chadwick objectively weighs the
respective merits and inadequacies of these approaches, and
sees the one taken by Newman as affording the most nearly
satisfactory account of the matter. But the problem, however
much illuminated, remains, in his view, unsolved:
Just as the logicians have to be asked the question how their
notion of logical development can be regarded as a meaningful
use of the word logical, so there is a question still to ask about
Newman. Nearly all theologians appear to be agreed that, in accordance with the decree of the Holy Office Lamentabili in 1907,
it is necessary to maintain that revelation ended with the death
of the last apostle. This doctrine of revelation excludes Suarez
and Lugo. It probably excludes some parts of the Essay on Development. The question then for those who think Newman's
theology is Catholic, is this: these new doctrines, of which the
Church had a feeling or inkling but of which she was not conscious-in what meaningful sense may it be asserted that these new
doctrines are not 'new revelation'? 37

Whereas this question has been much entertained, and purged
of a number of false presuppositions tending to accrue to it,
it does not seem that in the last analysis it has yet been given
a complete, even though hypothetical, answer.
•• Chadwick, 0., From Bossuet to Newman: The Idea of Doctrinal Development
(Cambridge, 1957), p. 195. The proposition in "Lamentabili" actually states:
" Revelatio, obiectum fidei catholicae constituens, non fuit cum Apostolis completa," being one of sixty-five statements which, singly and collectively, Pius X
"ceu reprobatas ac proscriptas ab omnibus haberi mandavit." (D 2021, 2065a)
Probably the most interesting response to Chadwick's work came, rather uncannily, from Newman himself, in the form of a hitherto unpublished paper written
in 1868: Dessain, C. S., "An Unpublished Paper by Cardinal Newman on the
Development of Doctrine," Journal of Theological Studies 9 (1958) 324-355.

168

JAMES GAFFNEY
CoNCLUSION

It must appear from even this very superficial review that
the problem of Scripture and Tradition has been newly illuminated, newly agitated, and newly complicated by contributions and demands from an extrordinary number of quarters:
from ecumenism, biblical source-criticism, exegesis, mariological dogma, patrology, scholastic, Reformation, and nineteenthcentury history, theory of inspiration, and development of doctrine, as well as from original theological construction. Thus
one may take a certain comfort in the epigram of Karl Rahner, that, "if one theological problem can stir up the whole of
theology, we may be sure that it has been correctly asked." 38
The predominant new trends of thought are towards admitting, on the one hand, the objective doctrinal sufficiency of
Scripture, and towards emphasizing, on the other hand, an intrinsic and essential correlation of Bible, Tradition, and Church.
The present mood of Catholic thinking on the question, at
once more cautious and more inquisitive than in the past,
has generated a gratifying degree of progress in research, originality in hypothesis, and objectivity in controversy. The literature of merely the past dozen years is remarkably abundant, including a substantial amount of more or less original
scholarship, together with an immense quantity of derivative
writings, chronicles, summaries, criticisms, and popularizations.
I have attempted here for the most part to cite only the more
significant members of the first category. 39
Rahner, K., Inspiration in the Bible, p. 34.
Two very useful general works on the subject should be noted. An excellent
survey volume based on recent literature concerning our subject is: Lengsfeld, P.,
Uberlieferung: Tradition und Schrift in der evangelischen und katholischen Theologie der Gegenwart (Paderborn, 1960). A less elaborate scholarly production, more
synthetic and of more general scope than the preceding, but with a decidedly French
orientation, is: Holstein, H., La tradition dans l'Eglise (Paris, 1960). Readers
who wish to pursue further reaches of this literature, and especially to examine the
results of non-Catholic thought, will find, in addition to abundant references in
most of the works here cited, a nearly exhaustive bibliography of the subject for
recent years in the " Elenchus bibliographicus " published annually in Biblica, currently under the subheading "Hermeneutica biblica."
88

89

SCRIPTURE

AND TRADITION

IN CATHOLIC THOUGHT

169

The question naturally arises of what the Second Vatican
Council may be expected to contribute to this rather overwhelming area. Without questioning the objectively limitless
scope of its possibilities, it would seem most prudent to hope
rather for clearer indication of what lines of inquiry are definitely open to Catholic theologians, rather than for dramatic
magisterial solutions to an intricate complex of problems
whose very formulation is frankly groping, whose positive
data are in process of accumulation, and whose points of insertion into the vast structure of systematic dogma are so
numerous, so delicate, and so crucial.
JAMES GAFFNEY,

Woodstock College
Woodstock, Maryland

s. J.

THE ONTOLOGY OF THE GOSPEL

T

HE theological problem of Scripture and Tradition may
be represented as an attempt to solve the Tridentine
equation (Denz. 783) :

Gospel= Scripture+ Traditions
or in its formulation by the First Vatican Council:
Supernatural Revelation = Scripture+ Traditions

(I)
(2)

the equivalence between (1) and (2) resting on the quotation
in Vatican I (Denz. 1787) of Trent.
The attempted solutions ordinarily concern themselves with
the determination of" Tradition (s)" as the unknown variable,
assuming the constancy of the other terms. In what follows,
an attempt will be made to determine the sense of "Gospel,"
in the hope that the other terms of the equation, including the
plus-sign, will then be, if not determined, at least clarified by
the provision of a significant context in which their interpretation may be pursued. 1
We ask, then," What is the Gospel?" The sense of the question needs careful determination. 2 (a) The question may be
understood as asking what in detail is contained in the Gospel,
its various teachings; this sense is not directly relevant to the
present inquiry. (b) The question may be understood historically, as asking how in fact the word "Gospel" has been used
at different periods in the history of the Church, and in particular in the Church in its beginnings. (c) The question may be
understood ontologically, as asking what kind of reality is intended by the concept " Gospel," and how this reality is related
1 It may seem rash to raise this question while it is still under discussion in the
present Council; yet it is in fact still under discussion, and according to reports
at the time of writing no agreement has yet been reached on this topic by the
special Commission under Cardinals Ottaviani and Bea appointed to revise the
schema on the " Sources of Revelation."
2 I have tried to ask it before in Blackfriars, XLIII
(1962), pp. 301-13.

170

THE ONTOLOGY OF THE GOSPEL

171

to other realities o£ our experience. It is this third, ontological
sense o£ the question which is the primary one envisaged in this
essay, though it goes without saying that no answer could be
offered to it without some investigation o£ the question in its
second, historical sense. It does, on the other hand, patently
need saying that the question in its historical sense cannot be
adequately raised either without some preliminary examination
o£ its ontological presuppositions; for the accustomed techniques
o£ historical scholarship, being confined largely to lexical procedures, frequently fail to observe that different words may
refer to the same reality, in that the difference between the
terms rests not on a difference in the reality indicated but on
the ways in which it is indicated. I shall argue that the reality
referred to, say, in the New Testament by the term evayyeA.wv
is also referred to by other terms in those writings; and that a
question (our third, ontological question) then arises which
insistently demands an answer. Thus the third sense o£ the
question" What is the Gospel?" will have as its answer a statement about a reality which may £or reasons o£ tradition and
convenience be called the " Gospel," but where this term has
now become a technical theological term intended to refer to a
many-sided reality, one o£ whose aspects is brought to light in
the NT term evayyeA.wv (itself multiply significant) .3 The
term " revelation " has this technical theological sense, but on
the other hand, suffers from the disadvantage of being cut off
from its sources; the connection between " revelation " and
a7ToKaA.vlfw; is rarely made, and indeed is not particularly
significant.
It may be useful here to recall a classical instance of an
ontological account of the nature of the Gospel. In the opening
of his commentary on St. John, 4 Origen proceeds to what may
be called an " analogical " analysis of the notion of " Gospel."
He uses the idea of a7Tapx1J, first fruits, as a means of appraising the different realizations of the Gospel: thus the Gospel is
" Compare for instance the relationship between NT xapts and the theological
"grace."

• References by paragraph and page to volume I of the edition by A. E. Brooke,
Cambridge, 1896.

172

CORNELIUS

ERNST

the first fruits of all the Scriptures, as the Old Testament is
their first growth (2, p. 4); and all the new Scripture is Gospel, but the Gospels are the first fruits of all these, in virtue of
him with a view to whom the Gospel is Gospel (3, p. 5). Of the
four Gospels, the Gospel of John is the first fruits, again because of its especially close relation to Jesus (4, pp. 6-7).
Since Jesus himself is the Gospel (8, 9, pp. 12-15), "by his
sojourning among us and causing the Gospel to be realized in
bodily form (crwp,aTo7TOtTJ8iJvat),the Saviour has made all things
into Gospel" (6, p. 9) .
In a general way, everything that provides an account of
Christ's sojourn on earth, and prepares for his second coming,
and also makes this coming present in the souls of those who
desire to receive the Word of God-all this is Gospel (4, p. 8).
It is right that the Gospel should be defined in reference to
the hearer: for a Gospel tells of the actual presence of something good to the believer or promises that it will be present
to him who awaits it (5, p. 8). Jesus himself is all good things,
far more than can be contained in the Scriptures (9, pp. 13-14;
10, pp. 14-15). So the Gospel which preaches Jesus is preached
throughout the whole world, not only on earth but throughout
the universe of heaven and earth (15, p. 19) .
We need not endorse every detail of Origen's account of the
Gospel to find in it a valuable enlargement of perspective; and
we may note for future reference, on the one hand, the ontological concentration of the Gospel in Jesus, and, on the other,
the realization of this Gospel in a hearer as anticipated
parousia, by way of its active or dynamic declaration.
Before beginning a brief examination of the NT evidence,
to which we now turn, it may be well to recall certain methodological considerations suggested by Canon Kelly in an outstanding study of certain problems closely related to our own. 5
The essential point for our purposes is that we do not identify
a definite body of teaching with a fixed pattern of words, e. g.,
a " primitive creed," and that this refusal to identify the two
does not necessarily involve the rejection of the former, when,
• J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, !lnd ed., London, 1960, pp. 6-14.

THE ONTOLOGY OF THE GOSPEL

173

as is surely the case, we must reject the latter. For it is the
particular situations in the Church's early life which led to the
crystallization of fixed patterns and shaped their style, substance and structure. This emphasis on the particular situations of the Church's life, the Sitz im Leben or sociological
setting of the texts, as we have them, is of the utmost importance. We may suppose that this sociological setting is reflected,
not only in the structure of credal formulas, but also in the
vocabulary which is used to refer to the body of teaching in
each of a variety of situations in the Church's life. It should
be noted that the whole Sitz im Leben theory, from its origins
in Gunkel's work on the Old Testament, is an attempt to
correct the excessive literary emphasis due to the inevitable
preoccupation of scholars with texts. What perhaps still needs
to be recognized is that it is only one aspect of what might be
called sociology of knowledge, or simply sociology as such. For
whether we appeal to non-literary (e. g., archaeological) evidence or not, what is important is that we should be clear about
the object of our inquiry: the life of a community. This life
is articulated and shaped in its language, just as the language
reveals the life. Consequently the brief survey of NT evidence
which follows assumes that there is a life of the early Christian
community which took shape in various sociological settings;
and that the analogical unity of the life may be grasped in part
by reflection on the analogical unity of the numerous expressions used to refer to a " body of teaching " in which the unity
of that life found its linguistic projection. This body of teaching is a sociological reality achieving diverse degrees of linguistic articulation in the different situations of the early
Church's life.
It is worth considering what these situations might have
been. Kelly, with his own special purposes in mind, notes
several (p. 13): baptism, catechetical instruction, preaching,
day-to-day polemic, liturgy, exorcism, correspondence between
Church leaders. In such situations as these, need would often
be felt to refer to the " body of teaching " as a whole; and it is
not unreasonable to suppose that the particular situations

174

CORNELIUS

ERNST

might preselect, or again be shaped by, a special expression by
which that reference might be made, however difficult it may
be to establish unique correlations. The expressions indeed are
so various that it would be extravagant always to try to relate
each to a typical setting. Let us note some of these expressions,
starting with the most obvious one,
as verbal noun
or as referring to what is taught; this example alone shows how
difficult it is to find some neutral term to refer to the "body
of teaching" apart from its particular realizations. The term
most frequently occurs in the Pastoral Epistles, i. e., in the
setting of a fully-formed Christian community, and has a
characteristic retrospective reference (of the examples outside
the Pastoral Epistles, Mt. 15 : 9, Mk. 7: 7 and Col.
are
all quotations from LXX; Rom. 15 : 4 contains a reference to
the OT scriptures; Rom.
7 refers precisely to the office of
teaching-d. didaskalos-within the body of the community;
observe a little
cf. Eph. 4: 14), as Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich
primly (s.v.), "frequently of the teachings of ecclesiastical
Christianity."
Some other terms may be listed, some used much more frequently than others: Evayy€/...wv, 11'apa8or:nc;;, A.6yoc;;,
1ft(]"TL<;,
p,aprvpwv; the list is not meant to be
exhaustive. No one, I suggest, could wish to maintain that
these different terms (some of them not always used "pregnantly ") refer to separate partial unities or sources of " Christian teaching'': they are different ways of referring to the same
reality-in-communication, ways of reference which differ at
least partly because of the different sociological styles of the
communication.
This would seem to be true even of the particularly ticklish
term
In the three texts where it is concerned with
Christian teaching (1 Cor. 11:
Thess. 2: 15; 3: 6), it would
be a mistake to try to find differences of content, according as
to whether " doctrine " or " customs " are transmitted: the
essential emphasis is on the style of communication, by a continuous chain deriving from an authority; the continuity thus
made explicit is given as a ground for urging the community

THE ONTOLOGY OF THE GOSPEL

175

addressed to hold fast to this reality-in-communication. Thus
the community addressed is referred to something or someone
outside it by way of a chain of communication. The point is
even more obvious with the related verbal pair 1TapaStS6vcu
and 1rapa'Aap.f3avEw.
Considerable light has recently been thrown on this pair of
terms by a study of the process of communication which they
were used to describe in Rabbinic Judaism. 6 The general thesis
is this: the material we find in what, since the middle of the
second century, we refer to as the Four Gospels, existed from
the first in the form of fixed oral traditions transmitted from
teacher to pupil by a process of careful memorization as in
Rabbinic Judaism; and that these oral traditions of the words
and deeds of Jesus were solemnly recited at special reunions of
the Christian community, taking place after participation in
the synagogue services. 7 In this view the Sitz im Leben of the
material of the Gospels would no longer be the rather vaguely
determined activities of the community suggested by the early
form-critics for their atomized pericopes, but the precisely determined assemblies of the early Christian community, presupposing a definite ministerial office of transmission established
in the Apostles. Riesenfeld even suggests that the original
source of this chain of communication, the first Teacher, was
Jesus himself, at least for considerable portions of the material,
though not of course for the Passion narratives.
There can obviously be no question of discussing here the
well-foundedness of this account; certainly some of its details
seem a little far-fetched. Its chief interest for our purposes is
that once again our attention is directed to a style of life articulated in a process of communication of a "teaching," in this
case what we are accustomed to think of as " the Gospel behind
the Gospels." In fact, as we must now briefly try to see, this
6 See, above all, B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, Uppsala, 1961. Also
H. Riesenfeld, "The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings," Studia Evangelica,
(T. u. U. LXXIII), Berlin, 1959, pp. 45-65, and printed separately 1957.
7 This would provide interesting
support for attempts to relate the structure
of the Gospels to the Jewish lectionary system. Cf. e. g., A. Guilding, The Fourth
Gospel and Jewish Worship, Oxford, 1960.

176

CORNELIUS ERNST

last expression is somewhat unsatisfactory, because evayyeA.wv
in its NT usage does not primarily refer to a kind of abstract
of the material of the four Gospels. 8
It seems clear that the NT usage has as its point of departure
the LXX of dt-Isaias. Whether in its verbal or its nominal
form, then, we are dealing with an eschatological concept. 9 In
its most striking occurrence in the Synoptic Gospels (Mk. 1 : 1) ,
euaggelion is followed by a genitive which must be interpreted
both objectively and subjectively: Jesus is the content of the
euaggelion as well as its bearer. It may be that we have in this
text a reflection of a semantic development, such that the
word, especially in its verbal form, was first used to refer to
the announcement of the basileia, then after Easter and especially by St. Paul, to refer to the death and resurrection of Jesus
as the central content of the euaggelion, and finally to refer to
all the words and deeds of Jesus as culminating in the events of
Easter.
The richness of St. Paul's usage is such as to make brief
description impossible. We must note, however, the active
character of the euaggelion, as a "power unto salvation "
(Rom. 1: 16), as a manifestation of the glory of Christ (2
Cor. 4: 4). It retains throughout its eschatological character as
a constantly renewed intervention of God in the history of the
individual or the community, through which they are reinserted into the time of the new birth and the new creation.
The euaggelion is by definition always new because it is the representation of the definitive end-event; so that it has as its
characteristic sociological setting for St. Paul its announcement
to the Gentiles: this is the unheard-of novelty which is now
shaping the course of history. That is to say, the announcement
of the co-heirship of the Gentiles in the promise brings out the
8 For eva-y-ytiuov, see the commentaries
and lexica; recently P. Blaser, "Evangelium," Handbuch theologischer Grundbegrice, ed. Fries, Munich, 1969!, pp. 855-68.
9 Cf. G. von Rad,
Theologie des alten Testaments, vol. II, Munich, 1960, pp.
llfl-37. "Aber da, wo Israel von seinen Propheten aus dem Heilsbereich der
bisherigen Fakten herausgestossen wurde und wo sich sein Heilsgrund mit
einemal in ein kommendes Gottesgeschehen hinaus verlagerte, da erst wird die
prophetische Verkiindigung eschatologisch" (p. 182).

THE ONTOLOGY OF THE GOSPEL

177

intrinsic novelty of the euaggelion; the sociological setting of
mission-preaching is itself the revelation of what is being revealed. Thus even in the formed Christian community, the copresence of Jew and Greek is a continual manifestation of the
actual presence of the definitive end-event mediated by the
euaggelion, sustained by the life-in-faith of the community.
The " sociological setting " is the expression, the ontological
symbol, of the euaggelion and hence of the end-event it communicates. The euaggelion, the " word of truth" which has
come to the Colossians, is bringing forth fruit and growing
throughout the whole world, just as it is in them (Col. 1: 5-6;
cf. 2 Thess. 3: 1).
The EvayyeA.wv is the A.6yos Tfjs aA.YJBEta\; (cf. also Eph. 1 : 13) .
We should not fail to note the images of growth and life associated with the logos in Col. 1:6 (cf. especially Is. 55: 10-11; also
Ac. 6: 7; 12: 24; 19: 20) .1 ° For the word is a word of life (Phil.
2: 16; 1 Jn. 12; cf. Ac. 5 : 20; 7: 38; 1 Pet. 1 : 23 and Schelkle's
commentary (Freiburg 1961) in Zoe.). It is generally agreed
today that the original NT use of logos in a relevant sense is to
refer to the Christian message, and that this very common use
provides the background for the unique use of the term in the
Prologue of St. John. It seems essential to insist with van den
Bussche on the part played in this enrichment of meaning by
the element of personal experience (ervaringselement). If we
read the Prologue as a Logos-hymn, whether one based on an
earlier popular hymn (such as 1 Tim. 3: 16) or freely composed
by St. John himself, we cannot fail to recover that sense of
reverent rejoicing which informs it. The verbum vitae texts,
one of them from the First Epistle of St. John, which we have
noticed above, would provide a link between the earlier use
referring to the Christian message and the personalized use of
the Prologue. It may seem particularly rash to conjecture a
10 On
M')'os, see e. g., R. Schnackenburg, "Logos," LTK2 VI, col. llil-2.5;
H. van den Bussche, Het vierde Evangelie I, Het boek der tek'ems, Den Haag,
1959, pp. 100-17. All practitioners of "biblical theology" should have read James
Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, Oxford, 1961; see pp. 1il9-40 for an
acute criticism of the familiar attempts to magnify the Hebrew dabar, thought
to "lie behind" logos.

178

CORNELIUS

ERNST

sociological setting for this special way of referring to the Christian message as a whole, but we may cautiously suggest that
logos came more and more to refer to this message as making
the risen Christ and his grace and life present to the believer
in a unified experienec of Life, Light and Truth, and thus to
prepare it for a " cultic " use in a Logos-hymn. Van den
Bussche's suggestion that, instead of omitting the last Gospel in
some prospective liturgical reform, we should rather sing it as a
sort of Te Deum has much to recommend it.
Our purpose in examining a few of the words used to refer
to the Christian message, the " body of teaching," as a whole,
was to indicate a richer content for the Tridentine "Gospel"
or the Vatican " Revelation " than is usually assumed in theological discussion, and to suggest various sociological settings
in the early Christian community in which this richness of
meaning might have been embodied. It is not necessary to our
purpose to place much weight on these suggestions, some of
which are highly conjectural; the essential point is that the use
of the term " Gospel " must implicitly at least include the
richness of meaning of all the different terms used in the NT
to refer to this reality-in-communication of the message, and
imply too the concrete setting of the community in which these
terms had their use.
One last reference to NT usage may help to make this point
clear. In a profound and fascinating contribution to the Oxford
Congress on the Four Gospels, 11 Fr. J. P. Audet, by drawing attention to the formal structure of the Jewish berakhah
(" benediction ") and comparing it with the NT evA.oy£a-€top,oA6yTJcns-evxapun£a,was able to suggest a point of view which
I may sum up in my own words as follows: the eucharist is a
celebration of the Gospel. For in both bemkhah and eucharist,
the anamnesis of one of the mirabilia Dei is an intrinsic and
functional element. The conception is brought out most clearly
11 J. P. Audet, 0. P., "Literary Forms and Contents of a normal Evxapt<TTla in
the First Century," Studia Evangelica, Berlin, 1959, pp. 648-62. See also "Esquisse
historique du genre litteraire de la benediction juive et de l'eucharistie chretienne,"
RB 65 (1958), pp. 871-99. His methodological remarks at the beginning of the
first study are very much to the point.

THE ONTOLOGY OF THE GOSPEL

179

in the condensed text of St. Paul (1 Cor. 11: 26): "For as
often as you shall eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord, till he comes." The proclamation
(KUTa:yy€AA.ew) of the death of the Kyrios, the conqueror of
death, is enacted in the words and deeds of the rite, as a
making-present in reality of the mirabilia Dei of Jesus' life,
death and resurrection, and a pledge of his coming again. The
Gospel is reality as well as word, and both reality and word in
the enacted life of the Christian community.
We may sum up, then, by saying that the Gospel is revelation-reality as well as revelation-word; 12 and further that it is
revelation-community. It is revelation-reality in the Logos; it
is revelation-word most obviously, though not exclusively, in
the Scriptures; for it is both reality and word in the life of
faith of the revelation-community. The study of the ontology
of the Gospel involves us in seeing it as a reality-in-communication, a being-manifest (veritas) / 3 in Christ himself, in language,
and in the society in which Christ himself is present and which
bears witness to this presence in language and rite, and in the
lives of its saints. The Gospel is an intelligible (not necessarily
explicitly intelligible), active presence of eschatological realities
in human forms, a presence tied always to the definitive endevent of Christ's death and resurrection and the primary Apostolic community in which that event found its expression. 14
If the foregoing remarks are in any way acceptable, it is clear
12 I owe this pair of terms to E. H. Schillebeeckx, 0. P., De sacramentele Heilseconomie, Anvers-Bilthoven,
See also by the same author, "Parole et Sacrement dans l'Eglise," Lumilwe et Vie 46 (1960), pp.
and K. Rahner, "Wort
und Eucharistic," Schriften zur Theologie IV, Einsiedeln, 1960, pp. 818-55.
13 Cf. St. Thomas,
IIa-IIae. 5. 8: "Formale obiectum fidei est veritas prima
secundum quod manifestatur in Scripturis sacris et doctrina Ecclesiae," a text
which I regard as supplying the entire orientation of this essay.
14 I hope that this will not be read as an escape from theological analysis into a
vague mysticism. The appropriate tool for theology here is " sociology," not as a
pseudo-science or as pseudo-prophecy, but as a concern for a human community
as a bearer of meaning. A key notion would be Wittgenstein's famous dictum,
"A language is a form of life." Cf. P. Winch, The Idea of a Social Science,
London, 1958, and the writings of the Oxford Institute of Social Anthropology
(Evans-Pritchard, Lienhardt, Pocock) .

180

CORNELIUS

ERNST

that the equations set out at the beginning of this essay require
a rather different approach from that which has been usual.
I£ we bear in mind the arithmetical analogy, it seems that all
the terms must be of the same type; e. g. we cannot have an
equation " 7 apples = 3 oranges + 4 pears." On the other hand,
the plus-sign may be misleading, and really stand for a more
complicated operation. Some solutions of the equation favour
this latter interpretation: " Scripture " is taken for a collection
of writings in a vacuum, and " Tradition" (not "traditions ")
is held to raise Scripture to the power of the Gospel. This solution seems to me unreal, and obscures the real point of difficulty. For no writings, let alone Scripture, are intelligible apart
from the community in which they find their use, the " tradition" or convention of their interpretation. Nor again does it
seem to me fair to Trent, and to what Trent was trying to say,
to make " Tradition " purely interpretative, so that it would
derive its entire character as Gospel from the Scripture-asGospel, the " Holy " Scripture, which it served to interpret.
It would appear, then, that there are two quantities, Scripture-as-Gospel and Tradition-as-Gospel, such that this latter
quantity is what is left over when we subtract " Scripture "
from " Gospel." Can this quantity, "Tradition-as-Gospel," be
identified?
Let us at least be clear that it cannot be simply identified
with any of the quantities which have been historically called
"Tradition," " traditiones," 1rapa8oa-t.;;or anything of the kind,
any more than " Gospel " can be equated to evayy€A.wv or
" grace " to xapt<>. The quantity which we wish to identify is
that reality which is referred to by " Tradition " as a theological term, bearing a relationship to historical usages but more
inclusive than any one of them. And from what has been said
above, it seems to me luminously clear with what this quantity
of Tradition must be identified: it is the reality-in-communication, the being-manifest, of the risen Christ, through his death
and resurrection and through the original community which
expressed it, in the community life-in-faith of the Church. It
is quite unnecessary (apart from being in the highest degree

181

THE ONTOLOGY OF THE GOSPEL

implausible) to suppose that this living presence is capable of
being itemized in quasi-credal or catechetical forms. The life
of any community, not just the Church, is the bearer of an
indefinite complex of meanings in a far larger variety of styles
of communication than are ordinarily allowed for by scholars
or theologians. Nor need we be unduly alarmed by the theoJ"etical objection (based of course on the once-for-all completeness of Revelation) as to the danger of contamination of the
original purity of the Gospel if it is sustained by a community
life so various and so inextricably interwoven with the course
of secular history. The danger is not theoretical but practical,
and very real: sola Scriptura was and is a mistaken endeavour
to establish a kind of sublimated metaphysical purity of the
Gospel, but we can appreciate the motive behind the slogan
while regretting the attraction which it seems to exert on some
modern Catholic theologians. It is the duty of the Church as a
whole, and especially of the apostolic institution, to return continually to the purity of the Gospel (though not to Scripture
alone) . Such a return is not simply "biblical" but "evangelical": the life of the Gospel may find more adequate expression
in styles of communication (philosophical, social, poetic, plastic
and simply human) which are not those of past generations;
we need not, for instance, recommend a return to " Semitic
thought-forms," or indeed to scholastic ones, however much we
should respect both: secular history is not excluded from the
scope of divine providence. Each such new expression may
form a monument of Tradition, a witness of the Gospel, or
again it may be a contamination of its original purity, or more
frequently an almost indissoluble amalgam of the two; and it
will always have to be the duty of the theologians, of the
apostolic institution, and of the great protesting saints (like
St. Catherine of Siena) , to point the way back to the Gospel,
" The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us."
CoRNELIUs

llawkesyard Priory,
Rugeley, Staffs
England

ERNST,

0. P.

TRADITION*

E

VEN those who have followed the progress of the Council with a distracted mind, and have gotten their information from the newspapers, could hardly miss the
rather lively debate which arose concerning the schema for the
decree, " the Sources of Revelation," as well as about the
relation between "Scripture and Tradition." A dogmatic decree
on the deposit of the faith would necessarily touch on the
question of the sources of Christian faith; " that contained in
the written books and the unwritten traditions." This had
already occurred at the First Vatican Council (Sess. III, chap.
2, Denz. 1787) . Without speaking here of the doctrinal and
pastoral reasons which led the preliminary Commission to prepare a project on this question, without mentioning again the
discussions of which this project was the object throughout
six "general congregations" (Nov. 14-21), and without approaching, for its own sake, the problem about the " two
sources " and the connections between Scripture and tradition,
we could profitably present here a very quick sketch about the
origins of the notion of tradition as a status quaestionis which
could be helpful towards understanding the scope of these
debates. 1
*Translated by F. C. Lehner, 0. P.
Concerning this debate, one can profitably read, in addition to newspaper reports, Yves M. J. Congar, Le Concile au jour le jour. Paris, 1963, pp. 63-71; and
Rene Laurentin, L'enjeu du Concile. II. "Bilan de Ia premiere session." Paris,
1963, pp. 27-35. It is useful to note that, whatever certain persons thought about
the matter, the Fathers who sought to safeguard the vocabulary of the Council
of Trent concerning the Gospel as the " sole source of the truth of salvation,"
did not have the intention of rejecting tradition in order to go back to the
Protestant principle about " Scripture alone."
We cannot possibly present even an abridged bibliography on tradition here.
Let us only indicate the following recent works: H. Holstein, La Tradition dans
l'Eglise. Paris, 1960; Y. M. J. Cougar, La Tradition et les traditions. Essai historique. Paris, 1960 (The same author is planning to publish a theological study
1

TRADITION

183

First of all, it can be said that tradition (paradosis), the
living transmission of a truth, is an essential and constitutive
element in the religion of Jesus Christ. Of course, the word
" tradition " ( paradosis) is found in the gospels only in the
sense of Jewish " traditions," human traditions which the sovereign authority of Jesus' word opposes: "You have heard
that it was said to the ancients . . . But I say to you . . ."
(Matt. 5: 21 etc.) . And what He says to them is a new tradition, a divine tradition which Jesus wants to substitute for the
human traditions in which the Jews had enclosed themselves
at the expense of the Word of God. Everything is contained
in these few words of Jesus: "All things have been delivered
(transmitted, tradita, paredothen) to me by my Father"
(Matt. 11: 27) . " All things I have heard from my Father I
have made known to you" (John 15: 15). "As the Father has
sent me, so also I send you" (John 20: 21). "Go into the
whole world and preach the gospel [good news] to every creature" (Mark 16: 15) . Jesus is the one who reveals and transmits the secrets of the Father and He sends His apostles to
transmit (tmdere) to the peoples what He Himself has transmitted to them. The Church of Jesus Christ has received the
message of revelation to transmit it to men; the apostle in the
Church is sent to transmit this message which comes from
Christ, the word of God. Thus God's revelation, transmitted to
men by Jesus Christ and those He has sent, continues to be
transmitted by oral teaching, living in the life of the Church.
This transmission is bound up with the apostolic mission, as
well as with the living presence of Jesus Christ in His Church
and of the Spirit He has promised and sent (Cf., e. g. Matt.
28: 20; John 14: 26; 16:13 etc.). Revelation, tradition, apostolate, and Church are indissolubly united concepts and realities.
Even St. Paul has some well-crystallized expressions anent
these essential realities. He has seen the Kyrios, the Lord
on the same subject); and, most recently, J. Beumer, "Die miindliche Uberlieferung als Glaubensquelle," in Handbuch de:r Dogmengeschichte, by M. Schmaus
and A. Grillmeier. Freiburg, 1969l.

184

THOMAS CAMELOT

Jesus raised to His glory; he, too, then, can claim for himself
the title of apostle (I Cor. 9: 1). However, what he teaches he
has received by tradition coming from the Lord; he only trans15: 3) . These texts
mits what he has received (I Cor. 11:
are fundamental. Paul congratulates the Corinthians for keeping the traditions which he has transmitted to them (I Cor.
11:
These traditions comprise, also, the kerygma of salvation and its central point, namely, the Lord's Resurrection, as
well as instructions on sacramental practice (the Eucharist),
and some advice of a moral or disciplinary order on Christian
conduct (Cf. again, for example, II Thess. 3:6 etc.). The
apostle does not say everything in the letter he sends to the
Corinthians, and reserves more precise determinations for the
time of his visit with them (I Cor. 11: 34) . Thus he exhorts
the Thessalonians to keep a firm grasp on the traditions they
have received from him, either viva voce or by letter (II Thess.
15) . Tradition, then, can be transmitted orally or in writing. Assuredly, here St. Paul makes allusion to the particular
instructions he has given to the Thessalonians, either by his
preaching or by his first letter. In these words one finds a
very precious indication of the two ways for transmitting the
sole tradition, whether it be written or unwritten.
One cannot say absolutely that the apostolic tradition is
first and prior to all Scripture. There is the Old Testament,
which, for the first Christian generations, is quite simply the
Scripture. Now the remark that Jesus wrote nothing is trivial:
"Jesus Christ wrote only once, and that was on the sand"
(M. Blonde!). He did not tell His apostles to write, He sent
them to preach. His religion is the religion of the Word, not
that of the Book. Yet the very circumstances and needs of
their apostolate lead the apostles, and especially Paul, to write
to the churches they have established. Their catechesis is summarized and established in small books which would later be
called " Gospels " (even at the time of St. Justin, they still
bear the significative title" Memoirs of the Apostles" [I A pol.
67]). St. Luke narrates the history of the first years of the

TRADITION

185

nascent Church; St. John puts into writing his memories and
his meditation . . . thus the teaching of the apostles is established in writings which gradually get the rank of Scripture
alongside the Law and the Prophets. Yet it is important to
note that this " Scripture," which does not even contain the
whole message of Jesus Christ (Cf. John 20: 13; 21: 25), makes
its appearance in the current of a living tradition. The famous
words of Papias of Hierapolis, disciple of St. John and companion of St. Polycarp, here fall under the pen quite naturally:
within the Church, the Church preserves "the living and dwelling word" (in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. III, 39, 4). Although this
formula undoubtedly lacks an absolute value, it can express
for us the original stature of tradition in the Church.
The second century can be called the Century of Tradition.
The false gnostic teachers were the first to claim for themselves
"traditions" which, supposedly, came to them by word of
mouth, from secret instructions which Jesus reserved for some
privileged apostles, including Mary Magdalen. This is the
explanation of the abundance of apocryphal " gospels " which
appeared in gnostic milieu and which have recently been made
known to us by the manuscripts discovered at Nag-Hammadi:
Gospel of Truth, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, The
A pocryphon of John.
To this idea of secret revelations and traditions, very contrary to the spirit of Christianity, the Fathers set in opposition
the tradition of the apostles, the " Tradition of the Church."
In this regard, St. Irenaeus is the great teacher of tradition.
" There is no gnosis other than the teaching of the apostles "
(Adv. Haer. IV, 33, 8), which has come to us "by the tradition of the presbyters " (III, 2, 2) . After Clement of Rome,
"who had seen the apostles themselves, who had friendly relations with them, who still had their preaching in his ears, their
tradition before his eyes" (Adv. Haer, III, 3, 3), Irenaeus
himself is a privileged witness and even, in a certain way, the
last witness of this tradition transmitted by the apostles; he
had seen and heard Polycarp, who had seen and heard St.

186

THOMAS CAMELOT

John (in Eusebius, llist. Eccl. V,
But John is dead, Polycarp is dead, and Irenaeus will soon die. Where shall we go in
search of the authentic tradition of the apostles? To the
Churches which they have established and in which the episcopal succession guarantees the fidelity of the doctrinal tradition. "All those who want to see the truth can contemplate,
in every church, the tradition of the apostles manifested
throughout the world. Moreover, we can enumerate those
whom the apostles established as bishops and their successions
up to our time. . . . The tradition which has been in the
Church since the apostles and the preaching of the truth have
come to us in this order and this succession. Furthermore, this
is a very adequate proof that this vivifying faith, which has
been preserved in the Church since the time of the apostles up
to our own time and is transmitted in the truth, is always one
and the same" (Adv. llaer. III, 3, 1. 3).
By the use of lapidary formulas, Irenaeus can establish the
stages of this " tradition," which comes to us from Christ to
the apostles, and from the apostles to the Church. We shall
cite only one of these formulas: " Such is the preaching of the
truth: the prophets have announced it, Christ has established
it, the apostles have transmitted it, everywhere the Church
presents it to her children " (Demonstratio, 98; c£., in almost
identical terms, Adv. llaer. II, 31, 9; V, praef.) . Without
having the matter expressly formulated, here one sees the bond
existing between tradition and the apostolic succession, between tradition and the magisterium of the Church.
This tradition, which brings the living word of the apostles
to us, could, strictly speaking, do without the support of a
written text. " If the apostles had not left any Scripture, it
would be necessary to follow the order of the tradition which
they have transmitted to those to whom they entrusted the
churches" (Adv. llaer. III, 4, 1). Irenaeus knows barbarous
people who cannot read and yet believe in Christ; they carefully guard the ancient tradition; they possess salvation, written
by the Holy Spirit, without ink and paper, upon their hearts
(Ibid.
II Cor. 3: 3) .

TRADITION

187

We shall dwell on these last words, which open very enlightening aspects about what tradition is. It is not merely
the preservation and quasi-mechanical transmission of some
formulas which have been learned and are recited from memory.
The heart is what preserves and transmits the deposit of revelation. Thus, like Mary, the Church preserves and meditates in
her heart upon the words she has received from Jesus. Through
this loving meditation, under the motion of the Spirit present
in her heart, she thoroughly examines the deposit of tradition, gradually discovers its profound riches, and thereby draws
from the treasure of her heart old and new things. In this way,
one sees how dogmatic progress, too, is intimately bound with
tradition.
We have said that the gnostics claimed for themselves secret
traditions and circulated fantastic " gospels." For his part,
Marcion cast aside the whole of the Old Testament and
fashioned the New Testament to his liking. Finally, outside
heretical circles, there was the circulation, too, of texts which
were taken to be " Scripture." At least in certain milieu, this
was the case of the Pasto1· by Hermas and the Epistle said to
be written by Barnabas. Faced with all this literature, how can
one distinguish between what one must accept and what one
must reject as suspicious or heretical? In final analysis, the
criterion to which one refers is the apostolic origin of these
writings. But how can one distinguish between what is apostolic and what is not? This is possible because of the tradition of the Church, or, one could say here, the memory o£
the Church, which, not without some hesitations or gropings,
would establish the official list (canon) o£ Scriptures to be
accepted or rejected. In this question, which is decisive for
the life of the Church, the tradition of the Apostles, kept living in the Church, has played a determinative and normative
role.
There is another problem, too, which arose during the second
century. Scripture should not be taken according to the whim
o£ each person (II Peter 1: 20). Even at this time St. Peter's

188

THOMAS CAMELOT

Second Epistle puts its readers on guard against the persons
who distort the signification present in Paul's letters, as they
do, also, in regard to the other Scriptures (II Peter 3: 16) . The
gnostic teachers gave themselves over unrestrainedly to these
fantastic exegeses. How can one, then, determine the true
meaning of Scripture? Here again, the tradition of the apostles and the Church is the rule and the norm. One must read
Scripture " close to the presbyters of the Church, who possess
the teaching of the apostles" (Adv. Haer. IV, 32, 1). One must
be nourished by the Lord's Scriptures in the bosom of the
Church (Ibid. V, 20, 2) . Here one can again take up the text,
some words of which we have already cited: " The true gnosis
is the teaching of the apostles, the primitive constitution of the
Church throughout the whole world, the character of the Body
of Christ, [which consists] in the succession of the bishops
whereby, through tradition, they have established the Church
in each locality, the preservation of the Scriptures, the complete
explanation of them which has come down to us without any
addition or subtraction, the unfalsified reading of them, their
true interpretation ... " (Ibid. IV, 33, 8) . Thus, for Irenaeus,
the paradosis is the explanation of the Scriptures. For Origen,
too, whose exegesis can seem rather arbitrary to some persons,
it is an important point of " church doctrine," the unanimous
conviction of the whole Church that " the Law is spiritual "
(De princ. I, praef. 8). Scripture can be interpreted only in
the tradition of the Church.
We have made an allusion to Origen. Let us cite, also, the
following words from his writings: " Since the teaching of the
Church, transmitted from the apostles according to the order
of succession, has been preserved in the Churches up to the
present time, one should accept as truth only what does not
depart at all from the ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition "
(De princ. I, praef. 2). "We should not depart from the
ancient tradition of the Church, nor believe anything other
than what God's Churches have transmitted to us through [the]
succession [of the bishops]" (In Matt. comm., ser. 46).

TRADITION

189

For the teacher from Alexandria or Caesarea, as for the
bishop of Lyons, the source and norm of faith (regula fidei) is
the tradition of the Church, preserved in and guaranteed by
the succession of the Churches.
Other patristic texts enable us to know another aspect of
tradition. They are well known, but it is advantageous to
recall them here.
In
Tertullian wants to prohibit, for Christians, the practice of crowning themselves with flowers. He finds no justification for this severity in Scripture, but he makes reference to
the consuetudo which has undoubtedly come down in tradition.
Moreover, he gives examples of these " observances " which
can be used only in the name of tradition and custom: " Thus,
beginning with Baptism, before going down into the water,
even in church, we obligate ourselves by oath, in the presence
of the bishop, to renounce the devil, his pomps and his angels.
Then we immerse ourselves three times, answering something
which is more than the Lord has determined in the Gospel.
Getting out of the water, we taste a mixture of milk and honey,
and, from that day, we abstain from taking a daily bath for the
whole week. Yet, we receive the sacrament of the Eucharist,
which the Lord instituted during the meal and entrusted to us,
in assemblies which take place before daybreak, and only from
the hands of those who preside. We make offerings for the
anniversary of the deceased, as well as that of the birth [of
martyrs]. We deem it unlawful to fast and to pray on our
knees during the day of the Lord, and we enjoy the same
immunity from Easter Sunday until Pentecost. We exercise
great care lest any particle of our bread or any portion of
[what is in] our chalice should fall on the ground. Whether it is
a matter of starting a trip, walking, entering or leaving, dressing ourselves or putting on shoes and stockings, washing ourselves, sitting down for a meal, rising in the morning, going to
bed, sitting down, indeed, any activity at all, we mark our forehead with the sign of the cross ... " (De cor. 3).
Much later (375), St. Basil seeking to justify the practice,
established in the Church, of glorifying the Father and the

190

THOMAS CAMELOT

Son with the Holy Spirit, makes an appeal, also, to the unwritten tradition. Moreover, the examples he adduces conform
to those furnished by Tertullian: " Among the doctrines and
definitions preserved in the Church, we hold those of the written
teaching and we have collected the other doctrines, transmitted
secretly (in 1nysterio), from the apostolic tradition. All these
doctrines have the same vigor in relation to piety. No one will
disagree with them if one has even very little experience with
ecclesiastical institutions; for, if we were to try to put aside the
unwritten practices as not having any great vigor, we would
unknowingly strike a blow at the Gospel, even as regards
essential points .... For example, (to recall what first comes
to mind and the practice whereof is very common) , who has
taught us in writing to mark with the sign of the cross those
who hope in Our Lord Jesus Christ? What Scripture has instructed us to turn towards the East during prayer? What
holy person has left for us, in writing, the words of the epiclesis,
pertinent to the moment of the consecration of the bread and
the chalice of benediction? We are not content with the words
reported by the Apostle and the Gospel; before and after [these
words], we pronounce others, received from the unwritten
teaching which have a great importance in relation to the
mystery. Moreover, we bless baptismal water, the oil for
anointment, as well as the baptized person himself. Is this
not in virtue of the tradition which has been kept secret and
hidden? And what of this! What written word has taught
anointment with oil? Whence does the triple immersion come?
And everything surrounding Baptism, the renunciation of
Satan and his angels, from what Scripture does this come? Is
not this the privately and secretly held teaching that our fathers
guarded in silence, without anxiety or curiosity, knowing that,
by keeping silent, one safeguards the sacred character of the
mysteries? ... " (De Sp. Sancto, 27, 66).
These two passages, the convergence of which is the more
significant because they come from epochs and regions widely
separated from each other, are extremely important for the

TRADITION

191

history and the theology concerning tradition. One can underline two points therein, which really are not expressly formulated in the text, but which are easily disengaged from it in the
light of further developments of theological reflection.
In the first place, one will be led to distinguish the tradition
and traditions: the transmission in the Church of the revelation made by Jesus Christ to the apostles, and ecclesiastical
traditions and customs, which, too, can be traced to the practice of the apostles. Thus we have seen Origen justify the
baptism of infants and baptismal anointments. There are, then,
both doctrinal tradition and liturgical or disciplinary traditions.
Their content and their object are different. On the one hand,
it is a matter of the mystery of faith, preached by the apostles, received and transmitted in the Church; and, on the other,
of daily Christian practice and life. Both, however, have "the
same vigor in relation to piety." 2
Thus, and this is our second observation, these gestures and
rites especially concern the sacramental practice of the Church:
Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist (St. Basil particularly
sets this matter in a clear light) . An unreasonable historical
criticism will be able to establish that, in fact, one or other
among these rites does not go all the way back to the apostles.
Yet this has little importance in relation to what is essential in
the question. It is always a matter of the practice of the
apostles, transmitted and lived in the Church, of the lived and
living tradition of the Church.
Furthermore, in many cases, these sacramental " traditions ''
are inseparable from a doctrinal tradition which establishes and
justifies them. Such is the frequently discussed case of the
baptism of infants. For Origen, this Ecclesiae observantia
(In Levit. hom. 8, 3) is a tradition which the Church received
from the apostles (Rom. Comm. 5, 9). Later, St. Augustine
too would see in this practice the consuetudo M atris Ecclesiae,
the apostolic tradition (De Gen. ad litt. X,
39) . Now, in
2 This text of St. Basil in the Latin
canonical collections contains an error in
copying (" afl'ectu " instead of " efl'ectu ") . This is the source of the " pari pietatis
afl'ectu" of the Council of Trent. Cf. J. Beumer, op cit., pp. 50-51 and n. 30.

THOMAS CAMELOT

this venerable practice is involved belief in the mystery of
original sin. In 418, the Council of Carthage (can. 3) would
bring to light the bond between the practice concerning baptism and the dogma of original sin, as it is taught by St. Paul,
and "as the Catholic Church, wherever established, has always
understood it." These words express two essential characteristics of tradition, namely, that which the Church believes always
and everywhere. As the Council of Trent in its turn, would
deem this matter, this rule of faith can refer to the " tradition
of the apostles" (Sess. V, can. 4).
There is another disciplinary problem involving a dogmatic
question: Is it necessary to rebaptize heretics returning to the
Church? Cyprian says " Yes ": their baptism is invalid. Pope
Stephen says" No," basing his judgment on tradition: "Nihil
innovetur, nisi quod traditum est" (in Cyprian, Ep. 74, 1),
that is, tradition dating back to the apostles (Ep. 75, 5) .
Opposing reason to custom, Cyprian rejects this argument (Ep.
71, 3). He fails to see that here custom involves the authority
of the Church based upon the tradition of the apostles. Later
St. Augustine would put the various aspects of the problem in
order and would show that the validity of the sacraments
depends, not upon the faith or holiness of the minister, but
upon the power of Christ; it is He Who baptizes through Peter,
Paul, or Judas (In Joann. tr. 5, 18; 6, 7) . The theological explanation, however, comes only after the practice, in order to
give the reason for a dogmatic truth involved, from the very
beginning, in the traditional practice o£ the Church.
Another question, still quite obscure for the historian, which
should be mentioned is the matter o£ the sacrament of Confirmation. Whence comes the custom of anointing with chrism,
which is nowhere witnessed in Scripture? The historian can
hesitate, but the theologian, along with Origen, sees therein
" the rule transmitted to the Churches " (typum Eccle8iis
traditum) (Rom. Comm. 5, 8). Tradition is the rule, not only
for establishing a particular detail in ritual, but also for determining the very matter o£ the sacrament.

TRADITION

193

Can one bring this very rapid inquiry to a conclusion? It
seems that the principal headings of the outline pertinent to a
theology on tradition are already established as early as the
patristic period. Tradition is the revelation of Jesus Christ,
entrusted by Him to His apostles and left by them to the
Church, the column and foundation o£ the truth solidly established on the apostles and the prophets. This teaching of Jesus
and the apostles was soon determined in a Scripture which
takes its place beside the Scripture of the Old Testament.
Scripture is the source and rule of all the truth concerning
salvation: " The Holy Scriptures, divinely inspired," writes St.
Athanasius, " are sufficient for the explanation of the truth "
(C. Gentes I). In them, St. Augustine adds," is found everything concerning faith and the rule of life " (De doctr. christ.
II, 9, 14) . Vincent of Lerins would say that it is sufficient to
itself (" sibi ad omnia satis superque sufficiens" [Comm.
fl]) . But Scripture is inseparable from tradition, which carries
and transmits it, which interprets it authoritatively. We could
not correctly understand Scripture, glean its inexhaustible
riches, or even know exactly what authentic Scripture (the
canon) is, without the authority of tradition. After the text
we have just cited, St. Athanasius immediately adds: "Now
there are numerous treatises composed by our blessed teachers
for this purpose. He who reads them will understand the interpretation of the Scriptures. . . ." Therefore, Vincent o£ Lerins
concludes, to Scripture one must add the authority of the interpretation thereof which the Church gives (" ecclesiasticae intelligentiae auctoritas ") ; one must interpret Scripture " according
to the tradition of the universal Church and the rules of Catholic dogma " (Ibid. fl7) . In a few words, faith relies " upon
the authority of the divine Law and upon the tradition of the
Catholic Church " (Ibid. fl) . In short, Scripture, Tradition,
and the Church are inseparably united-the links of one and
the same chain connecting us with the Word of the Living
God.
From this one understands that the authority of these

194

THOMAS CAMELOT

" blessed teachers " comes, not from their personal knowledge,
but from their quality as witnesses of the faith and the tradition of the Church: " They have held what they have found
in the Church; they have taught what they have learned;
they have transmitted to their children what they have
received from their fathers" (Augustine, C. Julianum, I, 34;
cf. also Op. imp. c. Jul. I, 117: "Ecclesiae docuerunt, quod
in Ecclesia docuerunt ") . The Church is the whole believing
community, animated by the Holy Spirit; 3 and, in this community, living daily on tradition, the bishops are eminently
the guardians of the deposit which has been entrusted to
the Church. This is how, for example, St. Hippolytus spoke
at the beginning of the third century: " no one will refute
[these errors J if the Holy Spirit has not been transmitted in
the Church; having first received Him, they have communicated Him to those who had a correct faith. We who are
their successors, who share in the same grace of the priesthood and of teaching, and who are deemed to be the guardians
of the Church, do not close our eyes and do not reduce the
word to silence " (Philosophoumena I, pref. 6) .
Moreover, a particular importance is attached to the unanimity of tradition and the universal consensus of the Church.
Thus St. Augustine says, " What is held by the universal
Church, what has not been instituted by the Councils, but has
always been maintained, is very deservedly believed to be
communicable only by the authority of the apostles " (De bapt.
IV, 31; cf. Ep. 54, I). This is already the criterion of Vincent
of Lerins: "What is believed everywhere, always, and by all"
(Comm.
Again one will note that the ancient texts do not distinguish
between the apostolic tradition and the ecclesiastical traditions,
the dogmatic tradition and the liturgical or disciplinary tradi3 Here one can recall that St. Thomas speaks of the "familiar
instinct of the
Holy Spirit" (Summa theol. lila, q. fl5, a. 3, ad 4um) and the "familiar tradition of the Apostles" (Ibid. q. 64, a. 9!, ad lum). The revelation of the apostles
is communicated as a family good, as a tradition lived in the Church, under the
action of the Spirit Who dwells in and animates her.

TRADITION

195

tions. The Council of Trent still speaks only of the unwritten
traditions (and yet adds that these traditions concern faith
and morals); here there is a point which will become more precise through further theological reflection. This reflection will
make a further distinction between objective and subjective
tradition, the content of tradition and the one who bears it
(traditio tradita and tradita tradens). Against the unfortunate
disjunctions introduced by the Reformation, this reflection will
have to establish precise delineations on the relations between
"Tradition" and "Scripture"; here again, there must be "distinguishing for the sake of unifying." Again, theology will have
to show how tradition is the privileged organ of dogmatic
development and to present an exact account of the role of the
Church in her magisterium, " guardian and mistress of the
revealed Word." "Along with the apostolic duty of teaching,"
she " has received the command to safeguard the deposit "
(Cone. Vat. I, sess. III, ch. 3 and 4). However, one can be
sure, it seems, that the essential was secured from the period of
the first centuries.
At the Council of Chalcedon, the bishops very loudly proclaimed their will to uphold the faith of the Fathers, the faith
of the Apostles, the faith of Cyril and Leo; and they made a
solemn dogmatic decision only "by following the faith of the
holy Fathers .... " They themselves are the living tradition.
The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council, too, are only the
voice of Tradition.
THOMAS CAMELOT, 0. P.
Le Saulchoir,
Paris, France

MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH AND
SACRED THEOLOGY*

I. THE CHuRcH, MoTHER AND TEAcHER OF TRuTH
1. Maternal M agisterium

T

HE maternal character of the magisterium of the
Church was recognized and praised by Augustine of
Hippo, who, during the period of his youth, had been
the victim of the deadly lies of the Manichees. Meditating on
the Catholic Church, he expresses himself in this way: " If
your true and truthful Spouse, from Whose side you have been
formed, had not established in His real blood the remission
of sins, the whirlpool of the lie would have absorbed me and,
once I became earth, the seductive serpent would have irreparably devoured me." 1
Many men, less endowed than the great Augustine, have
not recognized in the magisterium of the Church a source of
light and true freedom for the spirit. However, the case is different for those who have inherited that illumination which
the First Vatican Council has proclaimed to be the maternal
and supremely salutary character of the magisterium of the
Church. In fact, in the profession of faith given in the name
of the whole Catholic episcopacy at the opening of the Council, the Supreme Pontiff Pius IX said: "I recognize the holy,
Catholic, and apostolic Church to be the mother and teacher
of all the churches." 2 Moreover, confirming the teaching of
the Council of Trent, all the conciliar Fathers declared:
In the questions of faith and morals, with which the edifice of the
Christian faith is constructed, that must be held to be the true
sense of Holy Scripture which Holy Mother Church has always held
*Translated by C. F. Lehner, 0. P.
Oont1·a Faustum, Book XV, chap. S.
• Cone. Oecum. Decreta, edited by the Centro di Documentazione lnstituto per le
scienze religiose, Bologna: Herder,
p. 779, SO.
1

1.96

MAGISTERIUM

OF CHURCH AND SACRED THEOLOGY

197

and still holds. She alone has the right to judge the true meaning
and the correct interpretation of Sacred Scripture.3
2. Authentic and Infallible Magisterium

According to the teachings of the First Vatican Council,
which will undoubtedly be the bond uniting the teaching of
the Second Vatican Council with traditional doctrine, the
magisterium of the Church can be defined as " the right and
office which the Church has to teach revealed truth with that
supreme authority which all men are obligated to respect
with their mind, their heart, their words, and their actions."
The magisterium of the Church is, above all, authentic,
since it is vested with the same divine authority as that of
Jesus Christ, Who instituted this magisterium when He said
to His Apostles: "As the Father has sent me, I also send you"
(John 20: 21). In virtue of this divine investiture, which transformed the fishermen of Galilee into ambassadors even of the
heavenly Father, the first and eternal truth, Jesus could add:
"He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects
me; and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me " (Luke

10:16).
Likewise, the magisterium of the Church is infallible. In
fact, entrusting to His Apostles and, through them, to their
lawful successors, the right and duty of teaching all peoples
the truths which are indispensable for eternal salvation, Jesus
Christ could not refuse to safeguard the members of the teaching Church by His spiritual presence as supreme Master, and
therefore, also, with the assistance or charism of the Spirit of
truth, who would protect the faithful from all error, regarding both the truths to be believed and those concerning
practice. This promise was explicit, as is evident in the
Gospel texts cited previously, and was repeated in the discourse of the Last Supper, when the Lord comforted His disciples and said to them: " I will ask the Father and he will
give you another Advocate to dwell with you forever, the
• Ibid., p. 782, 85-40.

198

LUIGI CIAPPI

Spirit of truth
[who] will dwell and will be in you; the
Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my
name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your mind
whatever I have said to you" (John 14: 16, Q6) .
On the basis of the promise made directly by Christ, not to
all the faithful, but only to the Apostolic College and personally to Peter, who had been previously named as the foundation of the universal Church, the First Vatican Council has
sanctioned the following truths, which have been an undisputed patrimony of the Catholic faith for fifteen centuries:
I am to believe, with an act of divine and Catholic faith, all those
things which are contained in the written or transmitted Word of
God, and which are proposed for our belief as divinely revealed by
the Church, either on the strength of a solemn judgment or through
the ordinary and universal magisterium.4
In this text there is a clear indication of the existence of a
twofold form of authentic and infallible magisterium in the
Church: 1) an extraordinary magisterium, when solemn or definitive declarations are made; 2) an ordinary and universal
magisterium, when the teaching to be believed or put into
practice is concordantly proposed by the Episcopacy to the
whole Catholic world. The first type of magisterium pertains
to the Ecumenical Council, that is, to the whole Episcopal
Body reunited in a general assembly under the presidency of
the Roman Pontiff, who alone, by divine right, can convoke
Councils, preside over them, approve their Acts, and command
their promulgation. The second type is exercised by the teaching Church extended throughout the world, as Pius IX had
declared, with the Letter "Tuas libenter" of December 21,
1863, to the Archbishop of Monaco. 5
3. Sacred M agisterium

Because its character is sacred, the magisterium of the
Church is presented to men as eminently maternal, that is,
' Ibid., p. 873, 25-30.
Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolo1'Um, n. 1683.

5

MAGISTERIUM

OF CHURCH AND SACRED THEOLOGY

199

able to transfuse salutary and vivifying teachings into their
minds; Truly, like Jesus Christ, Whose prerogatives of Prophet, Priest and King it shares, the sacred hierarchy proclaims that its kingdom is not of this world. 6 Therefore, it is
directly concerned with matters pertaining to an order of spiritual, supernatural, and eternal realities. Nevertheless, its magisterial power is indirectly extended also to terrestial realities,
when natural truths or activities have an intimate connection
with the spiritual nature of man and his eternal destiny.
In this regard, the teaching of the First Vatican Council is
clear. 7 Faithful to this teaching, the Supreme Pontiffs of our
time, namely, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI,
Pius XII, and John XXIII, have also made pronouncements
concerning arguments apparently having only a natural and
profane content, such as authority, freedom, matrimony, war,
peace, property, the natural sciences, medicine, and the arts.
Yet the scope pursued by the Roman Pontiffs has been only
that of having the light of the Gospel, of the moral and social
doctrine of the Church, radiate on human problems. Their
magisterium, then, has been kept sacred in its inspiration,
scope, and pronouncements; therefore, it merits recognition
and attentive consideration.
4. Living M agisterium

The liveliness with which the magisterium of the Church is
endowed is not the vitality of things subject to physical evolution and, therefore, to continual transformation. Being the
echo of the eternal word of God, Who has spoken to men
through the prophets, and especially through His Son (C£.
Heb. I), the word of the Church transcends the contingency
and changes to which the human spirit, too, is subject in this
world. As St. Augustine has already said with regard to
divine truth, this word is always old and always new, since it
is eternal.
• Cf. Encycl. Mystici Corporis, AAS XXXV (1943), 211-212.
7 Cone. Oecum. Decreta, p. 785, 25-30.

200

LUIGI CIAPPI

In fact, the sacred hierarchy does not limit itself to preserving and defending the deposit of divine revelation, as though
it were a matter of dealing with a material treasure. Rather,
fully convinced about the perennial vitality and fecundity of
God's word, the teaching Church tries to reach the sources or
channels of revelation, namely, Sacred Scripture and Tradition, the infinite divine truth, in the measure which can be
better adapted to the intellectual, moral, social, political, and
cultural demands of human generations, distinct and diverse
in time and space.
Therefore, one commits a serious offense against the sacred hierarchy and, in it, against Christ Himself and His divine
Spirit, by pretending to substitute oneself for the sacred
hierarchy in its function of faithfully interpreting the teaching of Sacred Scripture and the divine-apostolic Tradition, as
though the correct understanding of revealed truth depended
more upon the human endowments of mental capacity, culture, and study, than upon the special charism or supernatural light promised by the divine Savior only to His lawful
representatives.
In defense of the perennial and irreplaceable value of the
authentic magisterium proper to the hierarchy, Pius XII
raised his voice in the encyclical Humani generis, reminding
theologians and all other cultivators of the sacred sciences
that:
Along with these sacred sources [Sacred Scripture and Tradition],
God has given His Church the living magisterium, too, in order to
illustrate and develop those truths which are contained only obscurely and, as it were, implicitly, in the deposit of faith. Moreover,
the divine Redeemer has entrusted this deposit, for its authentic
interpretation, not to each of the faithful, nor even to theologians,
but only to the magisterium of the Church.8
More than every other Bishop, the Pope recognizes the
duty of making his own magisterium ever more vivid, in such
a way that He may be truly like "a householder who brings
8

Encyl. Humani gene:ris, AAS XLII (1950), 569.

MAGISTERIUM

OF CHURCH AND SACRED THEOLOGY

forth from his storeroom things new and old" (Mat. 13:52).
For this providential task, which is very important and obligatory, he is incessantly urged by the Lord's command to His
First Vicar: " Strengthen thy brethren " (Luke 22: 32) . Pius
XII has offered the following comment:
Immortal words, deeply engraved into the innermost recesses of
Our mind, they become even more penetrating whenever, in the
exercise of the apostolic ministry, We have to communicate to the
Episcopacy and the faithful throughout the world the teachings,
norms, and exhortations which are demanded by the fulfillment
of the saving mission of the Church and which, without prejudice
to their substantial immutability, should always be opportunely
adapted to the ever changing circumstances and the varieties of
time and place. 9
On his part, the late Supreme Pontiff John XXIII convoked
the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican by an act
which was truly providential and magnanimous. In his allocution for the solemn opening of the Council (October 11,
1962), he reaffirmed the terms "liveliness" or "vitality" in
reference to the magisterium of the Church:
From the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to the whole
teaching of the Church in its interest and precision, still luminous
in the conciliar acts from those of Trent to those of the First
Vatican Council, the Christian, catholic, and apostolic spirit of the
whole world awaits new strides towards a doctrinal penetration and
a formation of consciences in more perfect correspondence of fidelity
to the authentic doctrine, even as this is studied and expounded
through the forms of investigation and formulation which are characteristic of modern thought. There is a difference between the
substance of the ancient teaching of the deposit of faith and the
formulation of it as it is stated in new terminology; and this is
what must be largely taken into account, with patience if necessary,
by measuring everything in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is especially pastoral in character. 10
The perennial vitality and, as it were, eternal spring of the
9

Radiomessaggio Natalizio 1948. Cf. Pio XII, Discorsi e Radiomessaggi, X,

p. 818.
10

Allocutio Gaudet Mater, AAS LIV (1962).

LUIGI CIAPPI

authentic magisterium of the Church, therefore, is simultaneously a fruit of complete fidelity to divine truth, transmitted
from Sacred Scripture and Tradition, and of an interpretation
of the same immutable truths which is always more penetrating, actual, and efficacious-an interpretation to be translated
into a language enriched with the whole patrimony of the
sound philosophical, scientific, literary, and artistic culture of
modern times-so that the word of God might resound in a
way which is understandable, fruitful and pleasing to the ears
of the men of our time. This is the genuine thought of John
XXIII, who, in the same allocution, had said:
Now since such a doctrine reaches the manifold areas of human
activity pertinent to individuals, families, and social life, it is
especially necessary that the Church does not separate herself from
the sacred patrimony of the truth received from the Fathers; and,
at the same time, she must also look at the present, at the new
conditions and forms of life introduced into the modern world
which have opened new paths for the Catholic apostolate.U

II. SACRED THEOLOGY,
MAGISTERIUM

AUXILIARY

OF THE DIVINE

OF THE CHURCH

1. The Authentic 01·gans of the M agisterium of the Church
These are only the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops in union
with him. This is a fundamental truth of the true Church of
Jesus Christ. In defense of this truth Pius XII deemed it
opportune to make his voice resound in the presence of the
Sacred College of Cardinals and the Catholic Episcopacy
gathered in Rome for the canonization of St. Pius X:
Christ Our Lord entrusted the truth which He had brought from
heaven to the Apostles and, through them, to their successors. In
fact, He sent the Apostles, as He Himself had been sent by the
Father (John 20: 21), in order that they might teach all peoples
whatever they heard from the Lord (cf. Matt. 28: 19-20). The
Apostles, then, were constituted doctors and teachers in the Church
by divine right. Therefore, besides the lawful successors of the
Apostles, that is, besides the Roman Pontiff for the universal
11

Ibid.

MAGISTERIUM

OF CHURCH AND SACRED THEOLOGY

203

Church and besides the Bishops for the faithful entrusted to their
care (cf. CIC, can. 1326), there are no other teachers established
by divine right in the Church of Christ-12
2. The AuxiliaTy 0Tgans of the Magisterium of the Church
However, even simple priests, and, indeed, the laity can be
In fact, in
the previously cited allocution, Pius XII added the following
words:

auxiliary organs of the ecclesiastical magisterium.

But either the Bishops or, in the first place, the Supreme Teacher
of the Church and Vicar of Christ on earth can call other persons
to help them, as collaborators or advisers, in the capacity of teachers
to whom they delegate the faculty of teaching (cf. can. 1328).
Those who are called to teach, either by special mandate or by
reason of an office conferred upon them, fulfill the function of
teachers in the Church, not in their own name, nor on the basis of
their own theological knowledge, but by reason of the mandate
received from the lawful magisterium and, therefore, their capacity
always remains subject to the hierarchical magisterium and never
becomes their own right, not subject to any powerY
Therefore, what grants exegetes and theologians a certain
right and authority to teach in the Church officially or publicly consists, not in academic degrees which they have
attained or in personal charisms, but only in the mandate
received from the hierarchy. This mandate, however, does not
make the teaching of theologians hierarchical and authentic,
since this characteristic is indissolubly bound with the character of the episcopacy; and yet even the teaching of theologians can be infallible, when it is in accordance with the hierarchy and the whole teaching Church, in manifesting revealed
truths or the teachings which are intimately connected with
divine revelation.
8. Scholastic Theology and the Divine M agisterium of the

ChuTCh
There is no mystery in the fact that, in the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, accusations of scholasticism
12

Discorsi e Radiomessaggi, XVI, p. 42.

13

Ibid., p. 43.

204

LUIGI CIAPPI

were levelled against some doctrinal schemata, on the basis
that they adhere too much to the mentality and style of
scholastic theology. What answer can one give to such complaints? One should make a distinction:
a. Scholastic or scientific theology still enjoys the full rights
of citizenship in the Catholic Church, without any distinction
among nations and cultures. From history we know that the
accusation of uselessness, and even of danger and loss for the
Catholic faith, as levelled against scholastic theology, is not
a matter only of our time. In the fifteenth century, the Council of Constance and Martin V intervened for the defense of
the ecclesiastical universities against John Wycliffe who held
that they were as useful to the Church " as the devil." 14 In
the eighteenth century, Pius VI condemned those propositions
of the Synod of Pistoia which held that the systems of scholasticism were responsible for the doctrinal and moral decadence of the Church. 15 In the nineteenth century, Pius IX
defended the great masters of scholasticism, St. Thomas and
St. Bonaventure, against accusations (of rationalism and of
complicity with the naturalism and pantheism of modern philosophy) advanced by the followers of Traditionalism against
the scholastic method. 16 Moreover, it was Pius IX who reproved
some German theologians for holding that the method and
principles of the ancient doctors of scholasticism were not suitable for satisfying the intellectual and moral needs of modern
times, and were irreconcilable with progress in the sciences.17
In the encyclical "Aeterni Patris" (August 4, 1879) , whereby
the immortal Leo XIII intended to promote the new flowering
of ecclesiastical studies according to the spiritual needs of the
Church in the nineteenth century, the defense of scholastic
theology is in a positive form and, therefore, even more con"Denz., op. cit., 609.
op. cit., 1576, 1579.
16 Deeretum S. 0. lndicis, June 11, 185.5; Denz. op cit.,
17 Letter to the Archbishop of Monaco, "Tuas libenter"
(Dec.
op. cit., 1679); Syllabus, proposition 18 (Den. op. cit., 1718).
16 Denz.

1868); (Denz.

MAGISTERIUM

OF CHURCH AND SACRED THEOLOGY

205

vincing. Here, in fact, we read: "Once most solid foundations
have been laid in this way, there is still a need for the perpetual and manifold use of philosophy, so that sacred theology
might receive and take on the nature, habit, and character of
a true science." 18 From the whole context of the encyclical,
it is clear that the Pope recognizes the value o£ scientific theology, that is, a more precise and penetrating knowledge o£ the
deposit o£ the Catholic faith, only in reference to scholastic
theology, the only theology which has made a perpetual and
manifold use of rational or perennial philosophy.
Furthermore, even in the twentieth century, the Supreme
Pontiffs have defended and praised scholastic theology, especially that o£ St. Thomas, by repeatedly stating that its principles, its method, and its doctrinal patrimony are the most
valid instruments £or the defense, illustration, and penetration o£ the truths o£ faith. In this regard, the thought o£ Pius
XII in the encyclical "Humani generis" is well known. However, it is useful to recall some statements of two other Supreme Pontiffs.
Speaking to the faculties and students o£ Catholic universities (January 8, 1928), Pius XI said:
They had made excellent deliberation in their decision to be concerned about Thomism and the order of its relations with modern
culture. On the one hand, there is in Thomism, as it were, a certain
natural Gospel, an incomparably solid foundation for all scientific
constructions, since what is especially characteristic of Thomism
is its objectivity. It has, not constructions or elevations of the
spirit which are merely abstract, but constructions and elevations
of the mind which follow upon the real content in things. The
method of St. Thomas lies in seeing what is seen, what is verified,
what is understood in its individuality, and thence rising to what
is not seen and not understood. The value of Thomistic doctrine,
then, will never be diminished, since, for this to happen, the value
of things would have to be diminished. For this reason, one can
easily understand the solicitude of the Church, which has always
recognized very great importance in Thomistic doctrine, even by
establishing it at the very basis of studies of the sacred sciences.
18

Leo XIII, Acta l (1881), 262.

206

LUIGI CIAPPI

The young students in the Universities, then, will study Thomistic
teaching in relation with modern doctrines. If either of these two
parts is known in a rather meagre way, it can only too easily seem
to such a student that they are mutually contradictory, whereas,
the better they are known, the more splendidly their harmony
appears. 19
In the discourse held on the occasion of the Fifth International Thomistic Congress (September 16, 1960), John XXIII,
the Pope of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican,
having recommended the study of St. Thomas also to the
young members of Catholic Action, concluded:
We strongly desire that the treasure, as it were, of the precepts of
St. Thomas be daily uncovered ever more extensively for the very
great benefit of the Christian cause, and that, therefore, his writings
be ever the more widely diffused among the people, either for the
sake of instruction or for advanced teaching, since they are not at
all at variance with the mode of thinking pertinent to our times. 20

It is evident, then, that, even for the compassionate Supreme
Pontiff, the method, doctrine, and the very language of St.
Thomas have not lost their very great usefulness even for our
times.

b. If used with discretion, scholastic theology can be of very
g1•eat benefit to the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council. In
fact, although, according to the express intention of John
XXIII, the Second Vatican Council should be an eminently
pastoral Council, 21 yet it is good to remember that, among pastoral aims, "the increase of the faith" should have the first
place and its essential prerequisite. Now this increase necessarily calls for continuity without conservatism, progress without entanglement, the development of the majestic edifice of
Catholic dogma without any weakening, as well as a greater
consolidation of its rational bases (" praeambula fidei"). However, the only theology which can assure this increase is schoDiscorsi di Pio XI. Rome: S. E. I.,
Vol. I, pp. 668-69.
•• AAS LIT (1960),
21 Encycl. Ad Petri Cathedram, AAS LI (1959), 5ll.

19

MAGISTERIUM

OF CHURCH AND SACRED THEOLOGY

207

lastic theology, since it alone has at its service "ancient and
Christian" philosophy, that is, the perennial philosophy. 22
Therefore, when John XXIII said that, in the Second Vatican Council, there would be the study and explanation of the
authentic doctrine through the forms of investigation and
formulation pertinent to modern thought, in order that there
might be a Council endowed with a magisterium having an
eminently pastoral character, he surely did not intend to propose to, and much less impose upon, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council a renunciation of the principles, method,
and doctrine of St. Thomas. Keeping in mind important preceding documents of his magisterium, we must conclude that
John XXIII desired that, along with the use of scholastic
theology (after the example of the Council of Trent and the
First Vatican Council) in the measure required for clarity and
precision in the doctrinal formulations, there should be the
use, also, of the literary apparatus proper to modern philosophical, scientific, and artistic thought, especially in those
constitutions containing eminently practical arguments. It is
vain, then, to expect a formulation of the truths of faith and
morals which would be in ideological contrast to the formulas
already employed in preceding Councils or in the most important documents pertinent to the magisterium of the Roman
Pontiffs. This hope has been excluded by the express will of
John XXIII, who, desiring progress in the formulation of the
truths of faith, still demands that no prejudice be borne
against the immutable ideological content already expressed
with analogous, if not perfect, propriety in the preceding
Councils and in other a.cts of the magisterium of the Church.
" For one thing is the deposit of Faith, or the truths which
in our venerable teaching; another thing is the
are
manner wherein these truths are stated, yet with the same
meaning and the same judgment." 23
•• Pius XTI, Allocutio ad Professores et alumnos Pont. Univ. Gregorianae (Oct.
17, 1953); AAS XLV (1953), 685.
•• Allocutio Gaudet Mater, AAS LIV (1962).

208

LUIGI CIAPPI

c. The study of St. Thomas Aquinas will help assure greater
fruits for the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. This
has been the persuasion of John XXIII, who, in the Motu
proprio " Dominicanus Ordo," whereby he conferred the title
of Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Urbe upon
the International Pontifical College " Angelicum " in Rome
(March 7, 1963), indicated the following as the third reason
which inspired his benign concession:
We are persuaded that the counsels proposed by the Fathers of
the Second Vatican Council will be more happily brought into effect
if the study of the doctrine of Aquinas is urged with even greater
care and skill.24

Really, the following words of the First Vatican Council
have more relevance to the theology of St. Thomas than to
that of any other ancient or modern Catholic thinker:
And, indeed, reason illumined by faith, when it zealously, piously,
and soberly seeks, attains with the help of God some understanding
of the mysteries, and that a most profitable one, not only from the
analogy of those things which it knows naturally, but also from the
connection of the mysteries among themselves and with the last
end of man; nevertheless, it can never perceive those mysteries in
the manner whereby it perceives the truths which constitute its
own proper object. 25

Moreover, if the Constitutions of the Second Vatican Council will have an eminently pastoral character, they must necessarily deal with arguments which have an intimate connection with the principles and teaching of Catholic faith and
morals, which Aquinas has defended, illustrated, and investigated even in their necessary, universal, and
conclusions. Therefore, just as the Supreme Pontiffs from Leo
XIII to John XXIII, in their encyclicals and other important documents of their magisterium, made considerable use
of the thought of the Doctor Communis in confronting the
arguments which most concern modern society; so too, the
•• AAS LV (1963), 208-209.
•• Cone. Oecum. Decreta, p. 785, 30-85.

MAGISTERIUM

OF CHURCH AND SACRED THEOLOGY

pastors of souls, professors, and lecturers, in explaining the
teachings of the Second Vatican Council to the faithful under
their care or to their audiences, will be able to have recourse to St. Thomas. They can thus better accomplish the
defense, commentaries, and completion of Catholic doctrine
which, in the conciliar Constitutions, will necessarily have
to be restricted to some rather solemn and programmatic
statements.
The theologians who admire and imitate the Angelic Doctor will, in their learning and teaching, know how to unite
humility with science, docility to the infallible magisterium
of the Church with the attempts to adapt the light of
divine revelation to the spiritual needs of modern times and,
thereby, to the progress of human thought in every branch of
knowledge. They will never appeal to personal charisms of
the Holy Spirit as a means of proposing for speculative or
practical problems those solutions which have been dictated
by an existentialist or nominalist philosophy and which, therefore, are in contrast to the solutions already given by the sacred hierarchy. Against the spirit of modernism, which even
today tempts some exegetes and theologians, all good theologians and especially Thomists are faithful to the oath prescribed by St. Pius X, in which every theologian seeking to
remain a Catholic and a suitable teacher in the name of the
Catholic Church has the duty of professing the following
proposition:
Therefore I most firmly hold the faith of the Fathers and I shall
keep it to the end of my life, regarding the certain charism of truth
which is, has been, and will be in the wccession of the episcopacy
starting with the Apostles (Iren. 4, c.
[MG 7, 1058C]); not
that what is held be better and more aptly seen according to one's
culture of any era, but that the absolute and immutable truth
preached by the Apostles from the very beginning never be believed
or understood in any other way (Tertullianus, De praescript., c.
[ML 40]).

In other words, "The divinely instituted magisterium in the
Church has a most special and unique charism, namely, that

uo

LUIGI ClAPP I

of giving an authentic interpretation and explanation of the
word of God, which has been written and transmitted to us." 26
The mission of the theologian, then, is not to substitute himself for the magisterium of the Church; rather, it is to give his
humble services to the magisterium with the conviction that
only by serving the truth does the human spirit become free
and participate in God's spiritual sovereignty: "To serve God
is to rule."

Lurar CrAPPI, 0. P.
Sacro Palazzo Apostolico
Vatican City

Card. M. Browne, 0. P., "I principali insegnamenti dell'Enciclica 'Humani
generis,' " Sapienza, 1951.
26

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPACY:
A DOCTRINAL REFLECTION

T

HE first Vatican Council defined the primacy of the
Roman pontiff. We profess, therefore, that the bishop
of Rome is an infallible teacher of the gospel and that
he holds universal jurisdiction over the whole Church. The
first Vatican Council specified that this jurisdiction is immediate and ordinary, in other words truly episcopal, and hence
we are justified in calling the pope the universal bishop of
the Church.
At the same time the pope is not the only bishop. In fact,
bishops are as essential to the Catholic Church as he is.
Despite his primacy, he could never dispense with the episcopal structure of the Church universal and administrate the
Catholic people through a system of government more directly
under his control. The First Vatican itself made this clear. 1
This, however, was all that the First Vatican said about
bishops in the Church. The original document prepared for
the conciliar deliberations included fifteen chapters on the
Church and her constitution, but the briefness of the session
did not permit the bishops to discuss more than the chapter
dealing with papal primacy. Since the council did not deal
with the role of bishops in the Church nor define their relationship to the Roman pontiff, the impression was created in
many quarters outside the Church that the council had suppressed the episcopal structure of the Catholic Church and
introduced a papal government in its stead. The accusations
became vocal in terms such as " episcopal jurisdiction has
been absorbed into papal," " the pope no longer exercises cer1 " Tantum
abest, ut haec Summi Pontificis potestas officiat ordinariae ac immediatae illi episcopis iurisdictionis potestati, qua episcopi, qui positi a Spiritu Sancto
in Apostolorum locum successerunt, tamquam veri pastores assignatos sibi greges,
singuli singulos, pascunt et regunt" (Denz. 1828).

212

GREGORY BAUM

tain reserved rights, as he has in the past, but now holds the
whole of the bishops' rights in his hands," "the pope has, in
principle, taken the place of each bishop."
To reply to these accusations, the German bishops made a
collective declaration in 1875 in which they asserted that the
episcopal structure of the Catholic Church has remained intact and declared that, despite papal primacy, defined at the
council, Catholic bishops continue to teach and rule in their
diocese as they always have in the Church. 2 Pope Pius IX
expressed his whole-hearted approval of the declaration.
Twenty years later, in his encyclical Satis Cognitum (1896)
Pope Leo XIII re-asserted the episcopal structure of the
Church universal. I shall quote the rather lengthy passage
in English:
But if the authority of Peter and his successor is plenary and
supreme, it is not to be regarded as the sole authority. For He who
made Peter the foundation of the Church also chose twelve whom
he called apostles; and just as it is necessary that the authority
of Peter be perpetuated in the Roman pontiff, so the bishops who
succeed the apostles must inherit their ordinary power. Thus the
episcopal order necessarily belongs to the essential constitution of
the Church. Although bishops do not receive plenary, universal or
supreme authority, they are not to be looked upon as mere representatives of the Roman pontiffs. They exercise a power truly
their own and are ordinary pastors of the people whom they
govern. 3

In these citations dealing with episcopal authority, the principal concern is the role of the bishop in his own diocese, and
hence, whatever is said about the relationship of pope and
episcopacy really refers to the pope's relationship to the individual bishops. It is now common doctrine that the pope
has immediate and ordinary jurisdiction in every diocese of
the world, and that, at the same time, the local bishop also
has immediate and ordinary jurisdiction in the diocese of
• (The collective declaration is most easily available in English in the appendix
of H. Kiing's The Council, Reform and Reunion (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1961).
• (Satis Oognitum, § 5fl.)

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPACY

213

which he is the pastor. These two jurisdictions in the same
territory do not conflict with one another; they do not cancel
or inhibit one another, but, on the contrary, they are meant
to help and re-enforce one another, making hierarchical authority a more efficient service or ministry to the common good
of the faithful. The ultimate force which guarantees the harmonious co-ordination of the two immediate and ordinary
powers in the same diocese is charity. While papal power is
supreme and extends over the bishop as well as his flock, the
pope must use this power to build up God's kingdom, to foster the life of the diocese and therefore to safeguard the scope
of the bishop in the exercise of his pastoral authority.
Looking upon the relationship between papacy and episcopacy in this individual fashion, very little theological advance
was made. No theological formula would represent the relationship adequately. By considering only the relation of
pope and individual bishop some problems even seem to become more difficult, especially the question concerning the
origin of episcopal jurisdiction. Does a bishop receive his
ministerial power to teach and rule directly from Christ, or
does he receive it directly from the pope? There can be no
doubt that in the Church of our day the individual bishop
receives his jurisdiction from the Roman pontiff, receives it,
in fact, through papal appointment prior to the sacramental
consecration. Limiting the whole question to individual bishops and considering the present practice of the Church, it is
certainly true to say that the bishop receives his jurisdiction
directly from the pope. This was, in fact, the doctrine taught
by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis 4
This approach, however, does not give deep insight into the
relation of the pope and the world episcopate. Since, in former ages, jurisdiction was not always passed on to bishops
through the successor St. Peter, but also in many other ways
specified by law, we must analyse more profoundly the struc• (§ 41): "(Episcopi) ordinaria jurisdictionis potestate fruantur, (quae est) immediate sibi ab eodem Pontifice Summo impertita."

214

GREGORY BAUM

ture of the Church to determine the relation between primacy
and episcopacy. It is, in fact, only when we consider the bishops in their totality that we discover their real place in the
Church of the Lord.
We shall take our lead from canon 228, § I, of the Code. 5
Here we learn that the Roman pontiff is not the only one who
exercises supreme authority in the Church as teacher and
ruler, but that the bishops of the Church united to him in
a council also exercise this supreme power. Conciliar power,
moreover, is not derived from that of the pope. According to
the present legislation, it is true, a council must be convoked
and presided over by the pope, and its decrees must have
papal approval, but once they are promulgated, their authority is not papal but properly conciliar. I£ one were to deny
this, the ecumenical councils of the Church would not hold
supreme authority but simply be consulting boards for the
issuing of papal decrees. It is indeed possible to say that in
a material way the power of the council is derived from the
pope, since, according to present legislation he alone may call
it, dissolve it, and approve its decisions, but formally and
theologically, the power of the council is not derived from
that of the pope.
The recognition that the bishops as a whole, in union with
their head the pope, can act with supreme authority and bear
the charge of the universal Church leads us to the key doctrine determining the relationship between episcopacy and
primacy. This doctrine is referred to as " the collegiality of
the bishops " or " the unity of the episcopal college." According to this doctrine, the bishops of the Church form a body
or college which, as a group, is responsible for teaching and
governing the whole people. To understand the meaning of
this teaching, we must first consider its biblical foundation.
According to the account of the New Testament, Jesus
founded his Church as the new Israel on the twelve apostles
chosen by him. The Twelve were created by Christ as a body.
•" Concilium Oecumenicum suprema pollet in universam Ecclesiam potestate."

215

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPACY

Together they received their instructions, 6 together they received the call to undertake the mission of the world/ together they were called to be witnesses to the ends of the
earth 8 and together they received the Holy Ghost on the day
of Pentecost. 9 We are told that the apostles received the power
of the keys as a group 10 and that they are the foundation of
the Church. 11 So great was their sense of unity and their realization that as the Twelve they were the Church's rock, that
immediately after the defection of the one, they elected
another faithful witness to complete their number. 12 They
were conscious that as a body they had received the promise
of remaining indefectible: " I shall be with you always." 13
At the same time we also read that Peter, one of the Twelve,
was assigned a special place among the apostles. The promises
made to the apostles as a group were also made to Peter alone.
He is the rock; he holds the power of the keys; his mission is
indefectible. 14 He is the head of the apostolic college. But it
is within this apostolic body to which he inseparably belongs
that his office and prerogative must be understood. In other
words, the primacy of Peter does not break the unity of the
apostolic college as the foundation of the Church of Christ.
According to Catholic faith, the apostles had successors.
These successors were no longer the special instruments of
God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ, as were the apostles,
but, inasmuch as they preserve, explain and defend the teaching and discipline of the Twelve and, inasmuch as they continue to rule the Church universal, the men who followed the
apostles are called their successors.
These successors of the apostles are the bishops. This must
not be understood as if each bishop can trace his line of consecration back to a single apostle. What happens, rather, is
that the episcopal body as a whole is heir or successor of the
apostolic body. The promises which the Lord made to the
(Matt. 10)
(Matt. Q8: 19)
8 (Acts 1:8)
6

7

• (Acts Q:4)
10 (John QO: Q8)
11 (Eph Q: QO)

(Acts 1: Q6)
(Matt. Q8: QO)
"(Matt. 16: 18, 19)
12

18

216

GREGORY BAUM

Twelve and meant to be passed on in his Church are found
in the episcopal college as a unit, which is the basic seat of
apostolic authority in the Church. The episcopal college, we
note, is not the gathering of all Catholic bishops into a single
body which sums up the authority which each bishop contributes to it; the episcopal college is, rather, the primary organ
of authority in the Church and to be made a bishop means
precisely to be integrated into this episcopal college. There, as
a member of this college (which as such is the heir of the
Twelve), the individual bishop receives his share of apostolic
authority to teach and to be a pastor to his flock.
The unity of the episcopal college as heir of the Twelve is
the basic theological insight which will solve the questions
we have raised in this article. The doctrine is ancient but for
a number of reasons it has not been taught for several centuries and hence appears rather new to many of our contemporaries. Though not mentioned in the decrees of the First
Vatican Council, it is in perfect harmony with them since the
primacy of Peter announces his headship within the unity of
the episcopal college. The pope has jursidiction over his brothers, the other bishops, but this supreme jurisdiction does not
break the unity of the episcopal body.
This doctrine throws light on the origin of episcopal jurisdiction. We still say that the pope assigns jurisdiction to the
individual bishop, but in the total context of apostolic succession the meaning of this sentence can now be defined with
some precision. It is clear, first of all, that the jurisdiction
of the episcopal body is not mediated through the pope. It
comes directly from Christ. As the pope himself is the successor of St. Peter and receives his ministerial power from the
Lord, so is the episcopal college as a whole the successor o£
the Twelve and receives its ministerial power in the same way.
According to Catholic faith, this is unalterable. Neither pope
nor council could change this structure. To make the assertion that the jurisdiction of the episcopal college was derived
from the plenary power of the pope would be tantamount to

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPACY

217

saying that Christ has put the total ecclesiasical authority
into the hands of Peter and that the other eleven apostles
receive their share from him. Such a theory would go against
the teaching of the Scriptures.
How does the individual bishop receive his jurisdiction? He
receives his sacred authority by being made a member of the
episcopal college. He does not receive authority and is then
able to join this college but, on the contrary, by being made
a member of this college he then shares in the authority
which this college as a unity receives from Christ. According
to the present legislation, a new member is joined to the episcopal college through the appointment of the pope. In the
past this has not always been so. Often a specified number
of bishops was able to receive a member into the episcopal
college. This is a question of legislation which has usually
been solved in a way most advantageous for the total life of
the Church.
But the sacred authority which a bishop receives as a
member of the episcopal body is not yet jurisdiction in the
proper sense, since he must be assigned an area, a territory,
or a people in which he can exercise his ministerial authority.
The assignment of such an area, a diocese or Church, communicates jurisdiction. Again, according to the legislation of
our day, the pope assigns a bishop to a diocese and hence, in
this clearly circumscribed sense, we may say that the pope
directly imparts jurisdiction to the individual bishop. But he
is able to impart this jurisdiction only because the bishop, as
a member of the episcopal college, has received a share of
the sacred authority which the Twelve have handed on to
that body.
The doctrine of episcopal collegiality also throws light on
the function of the individual bishop and his relationship to
the pope. It is now no longer simply a question of harmonizing in the same diocese two similar jursidictions, one of which
is supreme. A bishop has a role, in the Church which includes more than being the head of his diocese; as a member

fll8

GREGORY BAUM

of the episcopal college he is, at the same time, co-responsible
for the teaching and shepherding of the universal Church.
According to the present legislation, this co-responsibility of
the bishops does not find much practical application, but as
soon as the council was convoked the ancient doctrine of episcopal collegiality became again a living reality. At the council the bishops exercise their office of teachers and legislators
for the Church universal in a unique and special manner. Yet
we cannot confine this co-responsibility of the bishops for the
whole Church to the relatively short periods of ecumenical
councils; collegiality is not a privilege bestowed upon the bishops through the pope when calling the council; it is rather a
call and duty essentially related to their office.
This understanding of the local bishop may appear new to
many. It is, of course, true that the bishop's jurisdiction is
confined to his own diocese. But, as a member of the episcopal college, he is concerned with a much vaster part of the
Catholic people than his own Church; he is, in fact, concerned
with the life of the total Church. His relationship to the pope
is not only that of an episcopal subject ruling his diocese in
conformity with papal legislation, but as a member of the
body of bishops he is an episcopal brother of the pope engaged in dialogue with him.
If the Second Vatican Council wishes to intensify the collegiality of the bishops, a new legislation could create organs
through which the co-responsibility we have described could
be exercised niore freely and more frequently. This could be
done, in the first place, through the elevation of episcopal
conferences to episcopal assemblies possessing the authority
to teach and legislate, subject to the approval of the Holy
See. Assigning such power to large groups of bishops would
not be an act of legislation inspired simply by pragmatic considerations, but it would correspond profoundly to the very
nature of the episcopal office and its collegial coherence. From
the most ancient times of the Church it was always believed
that the greater the area from which the bishops gathered in

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPACY

219

councils, the more certain the faithful could be of the Spirit's
assistance in their resolutions. To the increasing universality
of episcopal councils corresponded an increasing authority
attached to them in the teaching of the faith and the imposing of discipline. The general or ecumenical council was the
culmination of such episcopal gatherings, and since here the
whole episcopate was represented, it was always believed that
the Spirit protected his chosen teachers from all error and
guaranteed an infallible doctrine.
A second way of intensifying the collegiality of bishops
would be the creation of a small council meeting with the
pope once a year, a small council composed of bishop-delegates elected by the various regional episcopal conferences,
which would deliberate with the supreme head of the Church
on matters of teaching and policy. In this way, through their
delegates, the bishops of the world would be able to exercise
their co-responsibility for the whole Church. Again it should
be mentioned that such a small central council would not
be a pragmatic institution introduced under the pressure o£
modern democratic tendencies, but rather an organ of ecclesiastical government corresponding deeply to the divine structure of the Church and revealing the collegial character o£
episcopacy.
This leads us to the last question we shall consider in this
brief article. Can we define more precisely the relationship
of pope and episcopacy? We have said so far that the pope
holds supreme authority in the Church both as teacher and
law-giver; we have also said that the bishops in union with
their head the pope, especially as gathered in an ecumenical
council, hold the same supreme authority in the Church. Are
there then two relatively distinct subjects of supreme authority in the Church, of which the pope acting alone would be
one and the pope acting in union with his bishops would be
the other? This doctrine of the "subjectum duplex supremae
auctoritatis " was indeed taught by many theologians. It was
taught by several great 19th century theologians, such as

220

GREGORY BAUM

Kleutgen, Schrader and Scheeben, and from the minutes of
the working commission at the First Vatican we know that
the definition of papal primacy was not meant to prejudge
the doctrine of the " subjectum duplex." 15 In our own day
the doctrine of the " subjectum duplex supremae auctoritatis"
has found many supporters.
This doctrine has the advantage that it brings to light the
dialogue structure within the exercise of supreme authority
in the Church. According to this doctrine there is one single
and undivided supreme authority granted by Christ to the
Church, which is exercised either by the pope alone or, at
other times, by the totality of the bishops including their
head, the pope. The weakness of the doctrine is, however, that
the "either/or" in the exercise of this authority does not
bring out the organic character of the Church's unity nor does
it show that the supreme authority of the pope leaves intact
and serves the unity of the episcopal college. It creates the
impression that the pope acting as the supreme head of the
Church places himself outside of the episcopal college to
which, in fact, he inseparably belongs as the principal member.
Against the accusation, often raised against the teaching of
the First Vatican, that the pope's primacy severs him from
the rest of the Church and especially from the bishops, and
thus makes him an independent and therefore arbitrary ruler,
we must assert quite vigorously that the pope acts within the
Church and more especially within the body of bishops. Even
when defining doctrine "ex sese, non ex consensu Ecclesiae "
the pope remains the principal member of this body and exercises his power in the name of, and in favour of, the whole
body of bishops to whom Christ has assigned the universal
government of the Church.
We prefer not to speak, therefore, of a twofold subject of
supreme authority in the Church. Another doctrinal position is
at present taught by many theologians and has been adopted
15 (See J. P. Torrell, La Theologie de l'Episcopat au premier concile du Vatican,
Paris 1961, pp. 149-58.)

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPACY

by a great number of bishops, according to which there is one
single seat of supreme authority in the Church, and this is the
episcopal college. As heir of the Twelve (including Peter) it
is supreme in teaching and ruling. The exercise of this supreme
power may take place in various ways, but each time the
whole episcopal college is in some sense involved. Sometimes
the bishops exercise their supreme power in union with their
head, the pope, at an ecumenical council. At other times the
bishops teach or act in union with the pope while remaining
dispersed over the world. At other times again, the pope himself teaches or legislates with supreme authority for the universal Church, but when he does so he exercises the supreme
authority given to the episcopal body which he, as its head,
is able to use ex sese, of his own accord. This means that the
pope exercising supreme power, while not dependent on the
consent of the Church or of the bishops, always acts in the
name of the body of bishops and, as it were, for them, in their
favour. Without the slightest detriment to the pope's supreme
position as defined by the First Vatican, this understanding
of the unity and primacy of the episcopal college places papal
primacy into an ecclesiological context in which the pope
appears more clearly as a member of the Church, a bishop of
a diocese, and as head of the whole Church exercising his
supreme office as a ministry in the apostolic body of bishops
for the good of all the Christian faithful.
GREGORY BAUM,

University of St. Michael's College
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

O.S.A.

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPACY: DOCTRINAL
AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

T

HE collegiality of the bishops and its relation to the
papacy, which the Second Vatican Council is generally expected to set out in its constitution on the
Church/ presents a twofold aspect and raises a twofold problem. First, the bishops as pastors of their own dioceses " in
communion with the Apostolic See " are by divine right the
true pastors of their respective flocks, even though the institution of dioceses is part of the organization of the Church,
as this has grown in the course of the centuries, and the assignment of a particular diocese to a particular bishop stems from
an ecclesiastical decision. Bishops rule their dioceses by their
own authority derived from Christ (directly or indirectly);
they do so in communion with the Vicar of Christ and successor to Peter; yet the Pope's universal and immediate jurisdiction in the whole Church in no way impairs but rather
supposes the bishops' ordinary power over their flocks. The
problem here consists in determining and explaining, not
merely the co-existence, but the correlation of these two
powers.
The second aspect of the collegiality of the bishops is their
joint responsibility, in union with and under the authority of
the Pope, for the mission of the universal Church among all
nations. The Pope rules the Catholic Church, not only by
himself or with the assistance of his curia, but with the aid
of his divinely appointed helpers, the college of the bishops,
successor to the college of the Apostles. He does so ordinarily and in common circumstances, when the bishops are dispersed the world over in their dioceses, by their communion
with him and their unanimity with him and among them'Cf. "Collegium Episcoporurn," in The Cle1·gy Monthly

(1961) 188-85; ibid.

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPACY

selves in doctrinal teaching and pastoral ruling. He does so
in an extraordinary manner when the entire Catholic episcopate meets with him in Council. In both cases, there is no
Pope without the college of bishops: the Pope is the head of
the episcopal college as Peter was the chief of the apostolic
college. And there is no college of bishops without the Pope.
Here again the relation between the Pope's proper authority
and the authority of the body of the bishops under and with
him in the universal Church is not a question of mere coexistence but of mutual inclusion and correlation.
All this was accepted and 'lived' doctrine at the time of
the First Vatican CounciJ.2 It was considered not merely as
'theology' but as part of the Church's life and doctrine. That
Council was expected to set out the doctrine of the relationship between primacy and episcopacy. It is only the historical accident of a war that interrupted the work of the Council before it could propose its teaching on the episcopacy. It
could promulgate only its doctrine on the Pope.
The Second Vatican Council is now to complete the unfinished task of its predecessor. It is expected to propose to the
Catholic world the revealed doctrine of the collegiality of the
bishops in its relation to the primacy of the Pope. To the two
problems mentioned above the Council is to give the answer
of our faith, independently of the various theologies of the
episcopacy that may be held by Catholic teachers and authors. And it will do so, it may be anticipated, in keeping with
the pastoral purpose of the Council so often and definitely
stated by Pope John XXIIV This means to say that we
must expect not so much an abstract and theoretical statement about the correlation between papacy and episcopacy as
a practical expression in rulings: about the collaboration of the
two powers in the pastoral mission of the Church. Doctrine,
in fact, is not only proposed i'l conceptual formulations but
• Cf. G. Dejaifve, S.J., Pape et eveques au premier concile du Vatican, Paris
1961; and" Primaute et collegialite au premier concile au Vatican" in EEU quoted
below n.4.
8 Cf. especially his opening address to the Council, October 11,

224

P. DELETTER

also in a manner of living. It will then be the task of theologians, on the basis of the Council's teaching, to construct a
theology of the collegiality of the bishops and its relation to
the papal primacy.'
Meanwhile it may serve both a doctrinal and a pastoral
purpose to focus the problems placed before the Council. The
basis of our reflexion is twofold: the revealed doctrine that
Christ in fact entrusted the Church to the college of the Apostles under Peter, and to its successor the college of the bishops under the Pope; 5 and the fact of the twofold authority
in the Church, the papacy and the episcopacy, as it exists
today in a concrete historical context-this context developed
out of the one-sided teaching of the First Vatican Council
which was embodied in the centralization of the Church's government in the Holy See. We should then endeavour to state
the two problems as clearly and definitely as possible, and to
suggest the theological questions raised by them in the setting of the mystery of the Church. What follows here can be
nothing more than an attempt at stating questions rather
than solving them.
I. Pope and Bishops in their Dioceses

The first problem is this. The Pope's authority in the universal Church, as defined by the First Vatican Council, is the
full and supreme power of jurisdiction, both regarding faith
and morals, and regarding discipline and government. The
Pope has the complete fulness of this supreme power, which
• Among the recent writings on primacy and episcopacy, we mention here: Y.
Cougar, O.P. and B. D. Dupuy, O.P. (ed.), L'episcopat et l'Eglise universelle, Paris
1962 (referred to as EEU); J. Hamer, O.P., L'Eglise est une communion, Paris, 1962;
J.P. Torrell, O.P., La theologie de l'episcopat au premier concile du Vatican, Paris,
1961; K. Rahner and J. Ratzinger, Episkopat und Primat, Freiburg, 1961; trans.
The Episcopate and the Primacy, Edinburgh, 1962; cf. also Papal Teachings, The
Church, Boston, 1962 (analytical index under Primacy, 876 ff. and the episcopal
college, 883 ff.) .
5 For a brief exposition of the scriptural
revelation, cf. Archbishop E. Guerry's
pastoral on the Council: French text in Documentation catholique 60 (1963) 17679; trans. in The Clergy Monthly 27 (1963) 12li ff.

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPACY

is an ordinary and immediate authority over each and every
church, each and every pastor and believer. The bishops'
authority, on the other hand, is also ordinary and immediate
episcopal power of jurisdiction, by virtue of which the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, guide and govern their
respective flocks. There is therefore a twofold ordinary and
immediate episcopal power of jurisdiction regarding the faithful: that of the Pope, and that of the bishop. Will these ever
enter into conflict? Is there not at least such a danger? The
First Vatican Council teaches that the Pope's authority, far
from impairing the power of the bishops, rather asserts, confirms and vindicates that power. The two powers, therefore,
in the mind of the First Vatican Council, not only coexist but
support and strengthen each other. 6 This is a statement of
fact. The problem is how this must be conceived and explained doctrinally, and how it works out in practice.

The Doctrinal Problem.-There is, we may assume, a solution to the problem. The very fact that both authorities, that
of the Pope and that of the bishops, are of divine right, or in
other words, that Christ has entrusted His Church to the college of the Apostles under Peter, and after them to the college
of the bishops under His Vicar, is a guarantee that both authorities are required; not only must they exist together, they
must also sustain each other.
Yet, the doctrinal difficulty is real. How can there be two
ordinary and immediate episcopal authorities, vested in distinct persons, regarding the same subjects? The difficulty
would perhaps be without a solution, were the two authorities coordinated. Given human nature as it is, this would be
a source of inevitable conflict. But they are not. One is subordinate to the other: the bishop's authority is subordinated
to that of the Pope. How then must we understand their
6 Cf. Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, 1831, 18!ia8. Cf. also the statement
of
the German bishops in answer to Bismarck, and Pope Pius IX's approval, in 1875:
texts and presentation by 0. Rousseau, O.S.B., "La vraie valeur de l'episcopat
dans l'Eglise d'apres d'important documents de 1875," in EEU 709-36.

226

P. DELETTER

working together? There seems to be only one way of understanding, viz., that the Pope's authority, for all its being an
ordinary and immediate episcopal power over every flock
and every individual member of the flock, respects the ordinary and immediate authority of the bishops; it does not
replace nor diminish nor annul it in fact. This means that
the exercise of the Pope's authority over the flocks and the
faithful of other bishops will of necessity be limited by that
of the bishops. But when bishops fail to make the proper use
of their authority, then the Pope could and should step in to
supply for the deficiency. 7
Nor should it be hard to see how the authority of the bishops finds in its dependence on the Pope a basis of security
for its proper exercise. By their communion with the Pope,
the bishops have a divine guarantee that they rule their flocks
after the mind and heart of Christ. Thus the papal charism
of the primacy tends to strengthen the episcopal charism of
the shepherds of the flocks. The latter in a way calls for the
former. Without leaning on the rock of Peter, and the special
assistance promised by Christ to His Vicar on earth, the pastors of the faithful might well feel hesitant and diffident for
a task which is not purely human but supernatural.
Morever, it lies in the nature of the Church, which is both
a visible society and an invisible mystery, that the pastors
of the flocks should not have to depend for their task on the
inner guidance of the Spirit only; they should also find an external support in the visible supreme pastor of the Church.
And the Vicar of Christ, in turn, finds a both human and
supernatural support in the pastors of the dioceses who in
the name of Christ and with the assistance of His Spirit,
guide and rule the flocks entrusted to their care. Papal responsibility for those flocks may be discharged through the responsibility of their own pastors.

The Pmctical Problem. 'We can indicate here only briefly
7

On this point cf. G. Thils, "Potestas ordinaria"

in EEU 689ff.

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPACY

how this mutual strengthening of the papal primacy and the
episcopal authority works out in practice. The practical problem comes in fact to that of the extension of centralization in
the government of the Church. The bishops rule their dioceses
on their own authority but in dependence on the Pope. The
concrete expression of this dependence consists in the directives from the Holy See and recourse to the Pope's curia in
matters beyond their authority. Today the complaint has
been made not infrequently that the faculties which the bishops have to obtain from the Holy See entail an unnecessary
burden and limitation of their episcopal power. The grievance
deserves consideration in the light of the new stress on the
status of the bishops in the Church. However, we should also
remember the not so rare remark from the Roman curia that
bishops apply for sanctions and faculties which they need not
ask because these are included in their ordinary powers. The
bishops themselves, Rome feels, do not always fully know and
use their authority. Both these remarks are symptoms: they
reveal a state of mind born from the practice of a centralization which inclines unduly to extend the dependence of the
bishops on the papacy. At any rate, the decentralization expected from the Council 8 may put the emphasis on the other
aspect of the relation between Pope and bishops, viz., the true
pastoral authority of the bishops, and by doing so restore the
balance between the two.
Meanwhile, the suggestion of Canon G. Thils, 9 to transpose
the text of the First Vatican Council on the primacy in such
a manner as first to state the ordinary and immediate episcopal power of the bishops and then to consider the papal primacy in relation to it, may serve as a guiding principle in solving the practical problem synthesizing primacy and episcopacy.
8 On the decentralization
that is being prepared by the Council cf., v.g., Cardinal
(1962)
also the decree on the litAlfrink, quoted in The Clergy Monthly
urgy, cf. C. Vaggagini, in Doc. cnth. 60 (1963) 71-78, or Clergy Monthly
(1963)
unfl'.
9 G. Thils, nrt. cit. 706fl'.

QQ8

P. DELETTER

II. Pope and College of Bishops
More important and more difficult, less studied and far less
explicit in the teaching of the Church, is the problem of the
relation between the primacy of the Pope and the authority
of the college of bishops, not in their own particular dioceses,
but in the universal Church. It is here particularly that the
relatively new aspect of the collegiality of the bishops comes
to its clearest expression. 10 And its significance for a true and
renewed understanding of the primacy is important. The following reflections, therefore, are mainly tentative and open
to correction and completion.
We may take for a starting point of our reflections the definition of the collegiality of the bishops-as Catholic doctrine,
expressing the divine institution of the college of the Apostles
and of bishops, and not merely a theological position-which
Archbishop E. Guerry proposed recently in a pastoral letter:
"the joint responsibility of the entire body of the bishops
under the authority of the Pope for the evangelization of the
world and the establishment of the Church the world over." 11
The reason for this joint responsibility is that Christ entrusted
the Church not only to Peter but to the college of the Apostles under Peter and to its successor, the college of the bishops
under the Pope. This collegial and universal authority, Archbishop Guerry states, comes first, before the bishops' responsibility for their own dioceses. They are members of the episcopal college (because they are successors of the Apostles as
members of that college) before being in charge of particular
dioceses.12 But their collegial authority also is not independent from the head of the body of bishops, the Pope. Here
10 G. Dejaifve, op. cit. shows how this idea of collegiality was active and 'lived,'
though not formulated, at the First Vatican Council; cf. also Torrell, op. cit., 185 ff.
11 Cf. Clergy Monthly
27 (1963) 125.
12 This implies that titular bishops, by the very fact of their consecration (and
incorporation into the body of bishops) share in this collegial authority and responsibility; cf. J. Lecuyer, "Orientations presentes de !a theologie de l'episcopat" in
EEU 781-811, esp. 792.-We do not enter here further into the theology of titular
bishops.

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPACY

then lies the problem: first, the doctrinal synthesis of this collegial authority with the primacy or ' personal' authority of
the Pope; then the practical expression of this collegiality of
the bishops in institutions and rulings, dependent on but not
absorbed by the Pope's primacy.
The Doctrinal Problem. The doctrinal problem includes
mainly two questions: that of the nature of this collegial universal authority of the bishops (with the Pope); and that of
its implications for the very nature of the primacy.
First of all, the college of the bishops includes the Pope, as
the college of the Apostles included Peter. And the same universal and supreme authority over the universal Church which
pertains to the primacy of the Pope is also vested in the college of the bishops. There is therefore a twofold, inadequately
distinguished subject of the supreme power in the Church:
there is the Pope as head of the college of the bishops, and
there is the Pope with the body of the bishops who together
make up the college of the bishops. The case is a perfect parallel to that of the infallibility of the teaching Church: the
Pope is ' personally ' infallible, and the body of the teaching
Church (including the Pope) also possesses the same charism
of infallibility. 13
This means, therefore, that the bishops as a body in union
with and under the Pope have power of jurisdiction, ordinary
and immediate, in the universal Church. Just as by virtue of
their episcopal authority they personally guide and rule their
own dioceses, so also as a body and as members of that body
they share with the Pope in the universal jurisdiction over
the entire Church. Together with the Pope and with the whole
body of bishops each and every one of them has the power
to issue decrees binding on the entire Church. The difference
is that here this collegial power is supreme, while their diocesan power is subordinate and dependent on the Pope.
The exercise of this collegial power can be either ordinary
or extraordinary. The ordinary manner of its exercise practi13

Cf. Denzinger 1789.

230

P. DELETTER

cally coincides with the government of their particular dioceses, or rather is one aspect of that government, viz., the
substantial agreement of that government with the government of the entire Church-an agreement that does not exclude but rather postulates particular differences demanded
by the different circumstances of various places. The bishops'
communion with the Apostolic See guarantees to their government the required conformity with the government of the
entire Church and of the whole body of the bishops. This
points to the collegial aspect of every diocese, a diocese being
not merely an administrative unit in the organization of the
Church but the Church as locally present with its full life and
full essence.14
But it is especially the extraordinary exercise of the collegial authority of the bishops which manifests its complex
and exalted nature, namely, the Ecumenical Council. The
Ecumenical Council, canon law states, possesses the supreme
power over the universal Church (can. 228 § 1). The responsibility for its decrees that are binding on the universal Church
does not lie only with the Pope but also with each and every
member of the college of the bishops. The bishops in Council with and under the Pope rule the universal Church. They
as a body enjoy the special assistance of the Holy Spirit
which guarantees the indefectibility of the Church. It is not
possible that they would decree what of its nature goes against
the holiness and mission of the Church. Accordingly, without
in any way detracting from the Pope's supreme authority (the
Council's decrees derive their finality from his sanction, 15 because the Pope is head and formal principle of unity of the
college of the bishops) the bishops in Council exercise the
supreme authority in the universal Church.
The difference, therefore, between the ordinary and extra" On this theology of the local church as local presence of the universal Church,
and its meaning for the relation between primacy and episcopacy, cf. K. Rahner,
op. cit., !io fl'.
15 Cf. Can. 227; also the letter of Pope John XXIII, of January
6, 1968, to all
the Fathers of the Council, in Clergy Monthly 27 (1968) 107.

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPACY

231

ordinary exercise of the bishops' collegial authority is mainly
this: in the first case the universal agreement of the bishops
is less manifest and is, as it were, only the substantial agreement intended by each and every one of them in the exercise
of his episcopal power; in the second case, the concurrence of
episcopal authority in the solemn exercise of their collegiality is formally manifest and sanctioned by the Pope's
approval of the Council's decrees.H1 These decrees, then, are not
merely papal decrees, they are the acts of the collegial supreme authority in the Church.
This particular nature of the collegial authority of the
bishops in the Church entails an important consequence regarding the nature of the primacy of the Pope. The supreme
authority of the Pope over the universal Church, in essence
the same as the episcopal power of the bishops but different
in extension and independent of any higher human authority,17 is essentially the authority of the head of the college of
bishops. The authority of the Pope, successor to Peter, is as
supreme and universal, not because he is a bishop, but because
he is the chief and formal principle of unity of the college of
bishops. It is therefore both personal and collegial. Personal,
in the sense that it is vested in the person of the bishop who
is the head of the Church. Collegial, in the sense that the Pope
possesses it as head of the college of bishops. The Pope would
not be the primate of the Church, were he not the head of
the college of bishops. There could be no Catholic Church
without the college of bishops; a Church with only the Pope
and the faithful would not be the Church founded by Christ. 18
In other words, the supreme authority in the Church, vested
not only in the Pope, but also in the college of bishops under
the Pope, can be exercised either by the whole college includ16 Archbishop
Guerry, in the above quoted pastoral, shows the actual fact of
this collaboration between Pope and bishops in the first session of the Council.
17 Cf. the title used by the Pope in the convocation bull of the Council, "Ioannes
catholicae Ecclesiae episcopus "; cf. Clergy Monthly Q7 (1968) 99.
18 Christ has founded the Church on the college of the Apostles under Peter, cf.
above n. 5.

P. DELETTER

ing the Pope, or by the head of the college 'personally ' but as
head of the college.
This shows that the primacy is of its nature necessarily
related to the episcopacy. It includes in its essence and concept the other term of the relation, the college of bishops, just
as the college of the bishops endowed with the supreme authority in the Church of necessity includes the Pope or primate of the Church who formally causes its unity. Yet, this
necessary relation of the primacy to the collegial authority of
the bishops does not mean that papal decrees derive their
force from the consent of the bishops. 19 The formal principle
of unity does not draw its unity and being from the multiplicity which it unifies, though it cannot be principle of unity
without that multiplicity. But it does mean that papal decrees,
as distinct from conciliar decrees, are the 'primatial' exercise
of the supreme authority in the Church of which conciliar
decrees are the ' collegial ' exercise. They do, therefore, include
an implicit reference to the college of the bishops and intend
to state what would be the decision of the college of bishops
supposing they were called upon to express their collegial authority. In both cases of papal and of conciliar decrees with
universal binding force, the divine assistance is warrant of
their rightness.
We cannot detail further here what this essential reference
of the primacy to the episcopacy means regarding the government of the universal Church. Only one or other practical
implications may be indicated here.
The Practical Problem. The collegiality of the bishops with
and under the Pope implies that each and every one of them
shares in the responsibility for the Church's mission in the
world. This was stated already, in connection with the foreign missions, by Pius XI and Pius XII, in their mission encyclicals. 20 It also prevails for the entire pastoral ministry
Compare the definition of the Pope's infallibility, Denzinger 1889.
Pius XI, Rerum Ecclesiae, AAS 18 (1926) 68 fl'.; Pius XII, Fidei donum, AAS
49 (1957) !l85fl'.
19

80

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPACY

233

of the Church regarding Catholics and non-Catholics, Christians and non-Christians. Bishops are responsible for the pastoral mission of the Church, not only in their own dioceses,
but in the entire world.
Little wonder then that today the new awareness of the
collegiality of the Catholic episcopate takes flesh and bone in
new institutions. The most typical of these, no doubt, are the
national and regional bishops' conferences which are, we may
say, an 'incarnation' of this collegiality, of the communion
among bishops and of their awareness that their pastoral responsibility extends beyond their own dioceses.21 The Council
is expected to give an official status to these conferences in
the organization of the Church. These are expected to become
the actual organs for a decentralization in the Church's government or for a more effective participation of the episcopate in the universal government of the Church, which is the
practical sequel to the present-day rediscovery of the collegiality of the episcopate.
Another practical symptom of this rediscovery may be seen
in the national or regional secretariats for Christian unity
which are springing up in several countries, in answer to the
Pope's appeals and in imitation of his example, to share in
the work for unity among all Christians. In our contemporary ecumenical outlook, this is a natural expression of the
bishops' collegiality.
A further practical consequence, with possible far-reaching implications, is that bishops and dioceses may take their
share of responsibility for the apostolate in mission lands. A
new pattern of the ' sending Church' is in preparation, apparently, in which not only missionary societies and religious
institutes but the non-missionary dioceses as well take the
responsibility for sending out to mission lands the helpers to
nOn these bishop's conferences, cf. Archbishop Guerry, in Clergy Monthly 9,7
(1963) 1£7. For a theology of these conferences as expression of the collegiality,
cf. P. Fransen, S.J., "Episcopaat and Primaat," Streven 16 (196£-63) 846-52,
esp. 349ff.

234

P. DELETTER

the local hierarchy and clergy still needed for the Church to
face up to her task of evangelization. 22
These few examples may suffice to show the pastoral
renewal of the Church's life which the new realization of the
collegiality of the bishops is likely to bring about. Nor is it
to be feared that this will turn to the detriment of the primacy of the Pope. Rather, if it is true that the actual setting
of the primacy is the college of the bishops of which as primate he is the principle of unity, then a deeper realization and
' living' of the collegiality of the episcopate under the Pope
cannot but profit the primacy as well. One of the most significant results of this new balance between primacy and episcopacy would be that it levels the road towards Christian unity.

Conclusion: Theology of Primacy and Episcopacy
With all this, hardly anything was said as yet of the theological elaboration required for a deepening of the interrelation
between primacy and episcopacy in the renewed theology of
the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ. If the above reflections on the doctrine of the faith about primacy and episcopacy seem to be confined to the juridical and external side
of the ruling Church, let it be said at once that a transposition of the doctrine from the juridical to the mystical level of
the Church is one of the most essential tasks of that theology.
In the light of the mystery of the Church, what is expressed
as authority and power, whether of Pope or bishops, is grace
and service 23 -charismatic grace attached to the functions
which the college of the bishops under the Pope have in the
Body of Christ; functions which may go by the name of authority or power but are in their very essence services to the
Church, to the whole Christ and to Christ himself. Needless to
say, that on the exalted level of the supernatural and myster•• Cf. "The Council and the Missions" in The Clergy Monthly Supplement 6
(1962-68) 22Ifl'.
•• Cf. Y. Congar, O.P., "La hierarchie comme service" in EEU 67-99; and P.
Fransen, "L'autorite des conciles " in Problemes de l'autorite (Paris, 1962), 59-99.

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPACY

235

ious reality of the Church, there can be no clash between the
various gifts which the Spirit imparts to the Body of Christ:
they all are given for the common good. In their human expression and based upon the evangelical concept of authority
as service rather than power/ 4 the practical synthesis between
primacy and episcopacy can and will be worked out in the
charity and humility of which Christ Himself set the example.
The servant of the servants of God, servant to his brethren
in the episcopate, and these in turn servants to the flocks
entrusted to their care and to the whole Church-all of them
discharge their respective functions in unison and with the
strength of their special charisms, for the building up of the
Body of Christ.

P. DEi LETTER, S.J.
St. Mary's College,
Kurseong, N.E. Ry., India

2•

Cf. Luke 22, Q5ff; John 13, 13ff.

THE BISHOP IN HIS OWN DIOCESE *

T

I. Two AsPECTs OF A BisHoP

HE Second Vatican Council was opened October 11,
1969l. An imposing cortege of more than two thousand
five hundred bishops descended in silent and prayerful
procession from the halls of the Vatican Palace and entered
the council chamber. The figure of Pope John XXIII, seated
on the gestatorial chair, closed the procession. The spectacle,
presided over by the Vicar of Christ on earth, was a marvelous image of the living Church. It was the dawn of the Council.
The Church was felt, alive and present. The spectacle of
countless bishops, congregated around the Pope, the Supreme
Shepherd, embodied the words of the Apostle: "The Holy
Spirit has placed you as bishops, to rule the Church of God." 1
They are the successors of the Apostles, whom Christ made
continuators and ministers of His work. 2 This is what they
have always done. It is what they assembled to do, summoned by the Vicar of Christ to an Ecumenical Council.
Nevertheless, no one had previously taken part in an episcopal assembly of this kind, because, as it is well known, the
last Ecumenical Council was the First Vatican Council, interrupted in 1870.3 It was, therefore, the first time they took
part in a council. But almost all brought with them their
pastoral experience, an experience in knowing how to govern
* Translated by F. C. Lehner, 0. P.
Acts 20: 28.
• " Christus fuit in lumen et salutem gentium per discipulos suos, quos ad praedicandum gentibus misit" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, lila, q. 42, a. 1,
ad I) . And in the answer to the second objection, he appraises this fact in the
following way: " non est minoris potestatis, sed maioris, facere aliquid per alios,
quam per seipsum. Et ideo in hoc maxime potestas divina in Christo monstrata est,
quod discipulis suis tantam virtutem contulit in docendo, ut gentes quae nihil de
Christo audierant, converterent ad ipsum."
3 Cf. H. Jedin, Breve historia de los Concilios. Barcelona: Herder, 1960, pp. 150151.
1

THE BISHOP IN HIS OWN DIOCESE

their dioceses, since most of them have spent the best years
of their lives at the head of their respective dioceses.
In fact, this consideration makes us logically think about a
bishop in two dimensions, namely, the collective and the individual. Both episcopal dimensions can be explained and expressed in the following formulae: (1) Regere ecclesiam suam,
that is, "his diocese"; 4 and
Regere Ecclesiam Dei, that
is, the entire Church, as regards the members of the college or
corpus episcoporum, the head of which is the Pope. 5
This second, or ecumenical and universal, function affects
the whole Mystical Body in its earthly and temporal aspect;
and a council is the outstanding instance of this greater function. The first, or local and diocesan, function cannot be disassociated from the essence and global life of the Church, but
there is no doubt that it has its own unique and proper value
within the bounds of the diocese.
The spectator at the inaugural act of the Second Vatican
Council intuitively recognized that twofold dimension of the
episcopacy. The bisheps, congregating around the Pope, manifest the universal dimension of the episcopacy; and yet in their
ethnic differences one immediately recognizes the places of
their origin, their nationality, their dioceses. In his own diocese, through long years of solicitude and vigilance, the bishop
actually fulfills the mission which we have termed "local."
While the Christian world awaits the Acta of the Second
Vatican Council, we are going to focus our attention on that
silent and modest aspect, the role of the bishop. We are going
to view and study him in his " local mission," at the head of
his particular church or diocese.
The concrete theme about "the bishop in his diocese " implies four elemental questions according to both the methodological and factual meanings of the terms: What is a diocese?
What is the bishop's role? What role does a bishop play in his
diocese? Will the Second Vatican Council speak about the
• CIC.: can.
• CIC.: can.

§ 1.
and

238

ALVARO HUERGA

diocese and the role of its own pasto1·s? We shall try to offer
brief answers to these questions in the following pages.
II.

WHAT Is A DIOcEsE?

It is useless to consult the Code of Canon Law to learn what
a diocese is. The legislator gives laws, not definitions. The
Code speaks of the " exclusive competence of the supreme
ecclesiastical power to establish, change the limits of, divide,
unify, or abolish" a diocese; 6 but it does not say what it is.
Nevertheless, it is not hard to guess, under the letter of the
Code, what a diocese is; its definition is a latent concept, implicit in many canons, especially that canon which deals with
the bishops who " govern, with ordinary jurisdiction, their particular churches."
The analysis of the etymology of the term " diocese " and
the history of its ecclesiastical usage-so closely united to the
language and to the typical structures of the Roman Laware marginal to our study. Any monographic study has abundant data on this point. 7 Our express interest concerns, in the
first place, a simple juridical definition of "diocese"; and, in
the second place, by a penetration into the context, what we
might call a theological definition of "diocese."
The juridical definition is given to us by a specialist on the
subject: "In juridical ecclesiastical law, a diocese is that territory, well defined in its extension and limits, which is governed
by a bishop with ordinary authority according to the norms
of Canon Law." 8
But this definition, valid and exact in jurisprudence, tells
what a diocese is from the outside, that is, from the aspect of
the jurist. The theologian, however, seeks, not the extrinsic or
juridical, but especially the formal dimension and vital strucCIC.: can. 215, § 1.
• Cf. A. van Hove," Diocese," in The Catholic Encyclopedia, New York, 1909. V,
1-6; Cl. Bouuaert, "Diocese," in Diet. de Droit Canonique, IV, 1257-1267; P.
Fourneret, "Diocese," in Diet. de Theologie Catholique, IV, 1S62-1S6S.
8 P. Ciprotti, "Diocesi," in Enciclopedia Cattolica, Citta del Vaticano, 1950, IV,
col. 1651.
6

THE BISHOP IN HIS OWN DIOCESE

fl89

ture of the diocese. In this sense, he strives for the definition
from within, from the inmost nature of the diocese. Theologically considered, then, what is a diocese? In our times,
when theologians are focussing their attention on ecclesiology,
the question has been approached with unusual emphasis.
According to some contemporary outlines, the primordial
ideas pertinent to a theology about the diocese are the peculiar
condition of the diocese as a " particular or local church "
on the one hand, and, on the other, the immediate and ordinary authority which the bishop exercises over it. As a " particular church," the diocese is a true " becoming," that is, the
historical and local manifestation of the living Church, enlivened by the Holy Spirit, united by exterior and interior bonds.
This " becoming " takes place especially in the celebration of
the Eucharist. Consequently, "the local church" is a Church
"realization" in the sense that it is not static or a mere portion of the universal Church. It does not arise from the atomizing of the space which the Church as a whole occupies in the
world, but is, rather, a concentration of the Church in its own
"life essence "; 9 and, as regards the authority which the bishop
exercises over it, the diocese relies on his condition of being a
D K. Rahner,
" Primaute et Episcopat. Quelques reflexions sur les principes CO•lstitutionnels de !':E;glise," in L'Episcopat et l'Elise universelle. Paris: Editions du
Celf, 1962, p. 555. Speaking of the "mystery of the particular Church," he adds:
" When the Church as a whole truly becomes an event in the fullest sense of the
word, she is necessarily the local Church. The whole Church is appreciable in the
local Church" (Ibid., p. 551). The Church as an institution would be distinguished
from the Church as a becoming: "Thus we distinguish the Church as a simple
institution with her permanent social constitution from the Church as a becoming.
She especially becomes an actual event appreciable in time and space when she
becomes an event as the communion of Saints, as a society " (Ibid., p. 55Q) . The
Church, whose profound essence is to accomplish the historical presence of Christ
in the world and to produce a palpable manifestation of God's plan of salvation,
" attained in Christ," is transformed into an event through the local celebration of
the Eucharist: " in the deepest sense, the Church becomes an event fully only in the
local celebration of the Eucharist " (Ibid., p. 5.54) . A local church is equivalent to
an episcopal church (Cf. ibid., p. 5.55), since the local bishop is the proper minister
of that celebration. And since the universal Church should be manifested in a
determinate place and find its highest fulfillment in the Eucharistic celebration, the
existence of the episcopacy is continued by divine right (Cf. ibid., pp. 555-556).

ALVARO HUERGA

successor of the Apostles, Ministers of the Eucharist in its full
sense, etc.
In this theology of the diocese, there are some inconvenient
elements, as well as elements to be avoided. In the first place,
the language is not clear, the formulas employed are very
vague. In the second place, instead of showing the subordination of the power of the bishop in the diocese to that of the
Pope, it emphasizes an antinomy between these two powers. 10
In the third place, the collective values seem to annul the individual values, in a way similar to that which occurs in " panliturgicism," which, as a communal cult, drowns freedom and
drains the efficacy of private piety; that is, the integration of
the " particular church " into the universal Church remains
very blurred.
It is true that a diocese is not only a juridical prefecture,
nor are the bishops merely papal officials. Yet the juridical
character cannot be denied. One cannot change the limits of
a diocese or eliminate them. The "particular churches" or
what were early called, by the use of an expression from Roman
law, "dioceses," obey the spatial-temporal character of the
Church on earth. Christ founded the Church; Christ instituted
the hierarchy. The Apostles are the founders of the " Christian communities" or "particular churches." The Roman
Church itself, as a particular church, continues that historical
rhythm. Moreover, the ecclesiastical" concentration" must be
applied, through analogy with the diocese, to the parish. This,
too, is a "particular church," a "Christian community," with
its pastor and its " realization," basically connected with the
diocese.11
1

° Cf. ibid., pp. 545-548.

CIC.: can. Ql6: "Territorium cuiuslibet dioecesis dividatur in distinctas partes
tenitoriales: unicuiqne autem parti sua peculiaris ecclesia cum populo determinato
est assignanda, suusque peculiaris rector, tanquam proprius eiusdem pastor, est
praeficiendns pro necessaria animarum cnra." " vVhat is a parish in fact? It is the
smallest part of the unique and universal flock entrusted to Peter by Our Lord.
Under the authority of a re;ponsible priest who has received the custody of souls
from his Bishop, it is, in the Church of Jesus Christ, the first community of
Christian life, a community humanly adjusted in such a way that the pastor can
11

THE BISHOP IN HIS OWN DIOCESE

One should not forget that the juridical structure and the
hierarchical structure of the Church are instruments for accomplishing the mystery of Christ in the world, that is, the redemption; and consequently they are ordered to this supreme
aim of salvation. 12 The cellule is not separated from, nor does
it live outside of, the whole being. In our case, a parish or
a diocese is a cellule or a union of cellules. (Let us never
forget the individual Christians who give themselves to the
whole living and functioning unity of the Church.) Christ rules
and governs His Church, 13 all the others being subordinate
hierarchs, His envoys: the Pope, the bishops, the pastors of
the parishes. Instead of harsh and crude antinomies between
laws, unity must be sought. Instead of clashes among powers,
there must be subordination to the very aim and essence of
the Church. With a great theological sense, the Angelic Doctor could see this ecclesiastical integration when he stated that
the universal Church is a great " parish," the Pope being its
rector. On an ascending scale, the simple faithful person finds
know his flock and the flock its pastor. A determinate territory normally marks its
limits within the diocese, in such a way that the parish is situated in a concrete part
of the territory and fixed in local traditions and with definite horizons. In the very
center of this territory, the crowning tower makes it possible to see how the parish
church rises, with its baptismal font, its confessional, its altar, and its sacrarium, all
constituting a symbol of unity in the faith and, as it were, a center of its spiritual
life " (Letter from the Secretariate of State to the new " Semaine Socialll" in
Canada, July 18, 1958) . Cf. ColecciOn de enciclicas y documentos pontificioa.
Madrid, 196(t, II, pp. 1856-1857.
12 Cf. A. Huerga, La Iglesia de la caridad y la Iglesia del derecho. Barcelona:
Flors., 1960, pp. 4(t-46.
18 Pius XII, Encyclical Letter "Mystici
Corporis." AAS XXXV, 1948, p. (t09.
St. Thomas had said: " Interior autem influxus gratiae non est nisi a solo Christo,
cuius humanitas, ex hoc quod est divinitati coniuncta, habet virtutem iustificandi.
Sed influxus in membra Ecclesiae quantum ad exteriorem gubernationem potest
aliis convenire. Differenter tamen a Christo: primo quidem quantum ad hoc quod
Christus est caput omnium hominum qui ad Ecclesiam pertinent secundum omnem
locum et tempus et statum; alii homines dicuntur capita secundum quaedam
specialia loca, sicut episcopi suarum ecclesiarum; vel etiam secundum determinatum
tempus, sicut Papa est Caput totius Ecclesiae, scilicet, tempore sui Pontificatus; et
secundum determinatum statum, prout scilicet sunt in statu viatorum. Alio modo,
quia Christus est caput Ecclesiae propria virtute et auctoritate; alii vero dicuntur
capita in quantum vicem gerunt Christi " (Summa theol., illa, q. 8, a. 6).

ALVARO HUERGA

three rectors: the diocesan priests, the bishop, and the Pope. 14
And, in a descending scale, the pastoral responsibility is personified, from higher to lower in an analogous way, in the
Pope, the bishop, the pastor. 15
Summarily: a diocese cannot be defined only through its
historical or juridical elements; nor can it do without them.
The theological definition is based upon the aspect of the" particular church," of the " living Christian community " inasmuch
as the bishop exercises his very special functions. A. Briva says:
We have been reserving the name 'church' to the catholic and
universal society which forms the whole Mystical Body of Christ.
Nevertheless, the sources of revelation and patristic and medieval
terminology apply the word' church' to the particular communities
over which a bishop presides. These particular churches have been
designated by the juridical name of 'diocese.' . . . Even though
materially the terms ' diocese ' and ' particular church ' generally
coincide, the word 'diocese' has a juridical burden which logically
came after the concept of the particular church. Because of the
visible nature of man, the Church must necessarily order and
organize herself according to, as well as adhere to, the human
manner of being and living; but men rely upon some territory. To
determine the territorial limits of a particular church, it is necessary
to assure the complete spiritual needs of all its faithful, ... [and]
this gives place to the concept of the diocese.16
In this sense, the diocese as a juridical reality is subject to
space and time, that is, to historical variations; as we have
said, the legislator can change its limits or simply abolish
it. 17 But, as a living reality, as a Christian community or
" particular church," the diocese is an unalterable essence,
directly related to the My&tical Body or universal Church.
14 " Sed parochianus
quisque magis tenetur obedire Episcopo quam presbytero
parochiali" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Contm irnpugnantes Dei culturn et r·eligionern,n.
88 [Opuscula theologica, II Turin-Rome: Marietti, 1954, p. 26]). "Sacerdos proprius
non solum est parochus, sed etiam Episcopus vel Papa" (Ibid., n. 150 [p. 33]).
15 "Episcopi,
qui sunt in superiori potestate constituti, magis habent curam de
subditis quam etiam ipsi sacerdotes parochiales " (Ibid., n. 88 [p. 26]; cf. ibid., n. 79
[p. 251). The reason is even more evident in reference to the Pope.
16 A. Briva, Colegio episcopal e iglesia pm·ticular. Barcelona,
1959, p. 43.
17 Cf. CIC.: can. 215, § I.

THE BISHOP IN HIS OWN DIOCESE

III.

243

THE FoRM OF THE FLocK

Although a bit rapidly, we have so limited the concept of
the juridical and theological definition of " diocese " that we
can now make an inquiry about the " bishop in the diocese."
This problem has two aspects, that is, it is resolved into two
specific questions: "What is the bishop in the diocese? " and
" What is his role in it? " To be and to do-here is the twofold question.
We said before that the bishops are a divine institution and
that the dioceses are apostolic or ecclesiastical creations.
" Christ is the bishop of all souls," the " Eternal Shepherd." 18
The Apostles, bishops themselves, who continue the work of
Christ, offer us precious elements for focussing the figure of
the bishop at the head of a diocese.
St. Peter uses an exquisite expression:
roil
7Totp,viov, that is, "becoming ... a pattern to the flock"
(" forma facti gregis ") .19 The Petrine formula refers principally to the bishop. 20
The word
(fOTm) , directly signifies exemplarity or
model. But, according to its scholastic usage, it suggests a
deeper meaning: the form gives being to and specifies things.
Within the realm of sociology, the formal cause of society is
usually established in the authority.
At any rate, the bishop is a foundation stone of the diocese.
He is its supreme authority, since he is the " instrument "
for the fulfillment of the work of saving that portion which
has been entrusted to his care. He is that successor of the
Apostles who rules, with ordinary and immediate power, over
the diocese. 21 He has the obligation to give men the "deposit
of the faith " and the " deposit of grace." 22
Cf. I Peter, Q: Q5; Benziger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, § 18Ql.
I Peter 5:8.
20 "Haec
beati Petri verba praecipue ad Episcopum spectant, utpote qui
Pastoris munus habeat et gerat" (Pius XII, Allocution of Nov. Q, 1954; AAS.
XLVI, 1954, p. 670).
21 Cf. CIC.: can. 8Q9, § 1.
22 C£. Pius XII, "Allocution
to the Congress on Pastoral Liturgics in Assisi,"
Sept. QQ, 1956; AAS. XLVIII, 1956, p. 718.
18

19

ALVARO HUERGA

There are few scriptural passages as moving as that in the

Acts of the Apostles where St. Paul, preacher of the Gospel,
founder of innumerable " particular churches," gives his last
instructions to the bishops. Here is St. Luke's narrative:
From Miletus, however, he sent to Ephesus for the presbyters
of the church; and when they had come to him and were assembled
he said to them:
"You know in what manner I have lived with you all the time
since the first day that I came into the province of Asia, serving
the Lord with all humility and with tears and in trials that befell
me because of the plots of the Jews; how I have kept back nothing
that was for your good, but have declared it to you and taught
you in public and from house to house, urging Jews and Gentiles to
turn to God in repentance and to believe in our Lord Jesus Christ.
And now, behold, I am going to Jerusalem, compelled by the
Spirit, not knowing what will happen to me there; except that in
every city the Holy Spirit warns me, saying that imprisonment
and persecution are awaiting me. But I fear none of these, nor do
I count my life more precious than myself, if only I may accomplish
my course and the ministry that I have received from the Lord
Jesus, to bear witness to the gospel of the grace of God.
"And now, behold, I know that you all among whom I went
about preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no longer.
Therefore I call you to witness this day that I am innocent of the
blood of all; for I have not shrunk from declaring to you the whole
counsel of God. Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock
in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops, to rule the
Church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood. I
know that after my departure fierce wolves will get in among you,
and will not spare the flock. And from among your own selves men
will rise speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after
them. Watch, therefore, and remember that for three years night
and day I did not cease with tears to admonish every one of you.
" And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace,
who is able to build up and to give the inheritance among all the
sanctified. I have coveted no one's silver or gold or apparel. You
yourselves know that these hands of mine have provided for my
needs and those of my companions. In all things I have shown you
that by so toiling you ought to help the weak and remember the
word of the Lord Jesus, that he himself said, 'It is more blessed to
give than to receive.'"
Having said this, he knelt down and prayed with them all. And

THE BISHOP IN HIS OWN DIOCESE

245

there was much weeping among them all and they fell on Paul's
neck and kissed him, being grieved most of all at his saying that
they would no longer see his face. And they escorted him to the
ship. 23

We could compare this Pauline discourse with his pastoral
epistles. The essential doctrine would be the same, practical
advice would seem more extended, the" daily pressing anxiety,
the care of all the churches " 24 would keep on burning in the
breast of the intrepid herald of the Gospel. But there is no
doubt that the transcribed discourse has the solemn air of a
testament. Those worn, calloused hands of Paul are a testament of his poverty and toil; that voice, short of breath
because of the emotion involved in parting, testifies what the
episcopal program of the Apostle has been and what it is to
be for his successors. A bishop, then, is a successor of the
Apostles who must give his life for his sheep. 25
Numberless ecclesiastical documents give the exact scope
of the bishop's pastoral mission, his prerogative as a successor
of the Apostles, his powers and his duties. 26 We could say that
everything in him implies, in a most direct way, the "form of
the flock." In this regard, indicating the twofold episcopal
dimension of being and action, Pope Pius XII has said:
Although every bishop is responsible only for that portion of the
flock which has been entrusted to his care, the charity pertinent to
him as legitimate successor of the Apostles, by divine institution
and in virtue of the office he has received, makes him individually
and collectively responsible for the apostolic mission of the Church,
according to the words of Christ to His Apostles: 'As the Father
has sent me, I also send you' (John
This mission, which
must encompass all nations and all times, did not cease with the
Acts 20:17-88.
II Cor. 11:28.
25 cr. John 10:11.
23

24

26 Cf. Denzinger, op. cit., §§ 960, 966, 1821, 1826, 1886, 1962 (Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter "Satis cognitum," June 29, 1896; AAS. XXVIII, 1895-1896, p. 728: "nee
tamen vicarii Romanorum Pontificum putandi [episcopi], quia potestatem gerunt
sibi propriam "); CIC.: can. 108, § 3; 329, § 1; 884, § 1; Pius XII, Encyclical Letter
"Mystici Corporis," June 29, 1948; AAS. XXXV, 1943, pp. 211-215, etc.

246

ALVARO HUERGA

death of the Apostles; it continues in the person of all bishops in
communion with the Vicar of Jesus Christ. 27

The proper pastor of his diocese, with ordinary and immediate power: this is the synthesis of the bishop's prerogatives
as indicated by the Code.28 The bond between the bishop and
his concrete flock, his diocese, is so deep and so firm that it
basically explains his purpose and demands of him a vigilant
and multiple activity. The static figure of the bishop, invested
with a supreme hierarchical dignity, acquires a sacred functional dynamism in the service of the supernatural interests of
the faithful. This conclusion is reflected, with joyful evidence,
in the texts of Scripture, in the teachings and practice of the
Holy Fathers, in the liturgy, and in the common teaching of
the ordinary and solemn magisterium of the Church.
For example, without taking time to make a minute analysis,
we do well to recall the ritual of episcopal consecration. The
prayers and rites of this consecration gradually give us a complete and majestic silhouette of the figure of the bishop. Let
us take part in the creation of a " pontiff " chosen among men
and for men as he acquires a dignity of service. The precise
and meaningful expression in Sacred Scripture is, " For every
high priest taken from among men is appointed for men in
the things pertaining to God." 29 The consecration attains its
culmination in the imposition of the hands, whereby the transmission of episcopal powers is achieved. The consecrating
bishop gives to the consecrated bishop a sacramental ordina27 Pius XII, Encyclical Letter "Fidei Donum," April 21, 1957; AAS. XLIX, 1957,
p. 287: " Quodsi unusquisque Episcopus portionis tantum gregis sibi commissae sacer
pastor est, tamen qua legitimus Apostolorum successor ex Dei institutione et
praecepto apostolici muneris Ecclesiae una cum ceteris Episcopis sponsor fit,
secundum ilia verba quae Christus ad Apostolos fecit: sicut misit me Pater, et ego
mitto vas (Jo. 20: 21). Haec quae 011//Ties gentes ... usque ad consummationem
saeculi (Matt. 28: 19-20) amplectitur missio, cum Apostoli de mortali vita decesserunt, minime decidit, immo in Episcopis, communionem cum Iesu Christi Vicario
habentibus, adhuc perseverat."
28 CIC.: can. 884, § 1: "Episcopi residentiales sunt ordinarii et immediati pastores
in dioecesibus sibi commissis."
•• Hebr. 5:1.

THE BISHOP IN HIS OWN DIOCESE

247

tion which enables him " to rule " his " Church and the people
entrusted to" him. 30 The bishop, a high priest, full of grace
and virtues, a continuator of the hierarchy, receives the royal
investiture and the vestments symbolizing it. 31
The Angelic Doctor gives a detailed explanation of the symbolism pertinent to the episcopal robes, 32 and adds that, like
Christ, the bishop is called the spouse of the Church in a special
way. 33 For this reason, the nuptial ring, a sign of his hierarchical supremacy and his fullness of power, shines on his
hand. 34
In addition to the very meaningful rite of episcopal consecration, let us recall, too, how Thomistic theology sees the
bishop " ordained " for the diocesan pastoral mission. If the
'l'itual of the consecration puts the " new creature," the bishop,
in charge of the ministry or pastorate of a flock, Thomistic
theology points out the reasons for this. The pastoral mission
is the final cause of the episcopacy. "In each obligation the
aim of the obligation should be noted. Now the bishop obligates himself to carry out the pastoral function for the salvation of his subjects." 35 In speaking about that sacred and
unavoidable duty of the bishop, St. Thomas repeats the terms
"principally," "principal," anci. " final " with importunate insistence. That pastoral mission is what actually turns them
into continuators of the apostolic work. According to Aquinas'
thought, the exercise of the pastorate is, from another aspect,
what raises the "episcopal state" to a " state of perfection." 36
so Manuale

e Pontijicali Romano ... de consecmrio electi in episcopum. Rome,

19!?l3, p. 93.
31 Cf. "L'eveque
d'apres les prieres d'Qrdination," for the Canons Regular of
Mondaye, in L'Episcopat ... , o. c., pp. 739-780.
32 C£. St. Thomas Aquinas, in IV Sent., d. 14, q. 3, a. 3; d. !?l4, q. 3, a. 3, ad 6.
33 Cf. ibid., d. flO, q. 3, a. !?l, ad 3.
34 Cf. ibid., q. 1, a. 4, ad 1; a. !?l4, q. 3, a. 3, ql. 3.
35 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theol. II II, q. 185, a. 5.
36 Cf. ibid., q. 184, a. 6; in Matt. 19; De perfectione vitae spiritualis, cap. !?ll-!?l4;
Quodlibetales III, q. 6, a. 3.

ALVARO HUERGA

Finally, the advantage for the flock should be the supreme
criterion for the choice or removal of a bishop. 37
In these four theological reasons, taken in their Thomistic
context, the placing of the bishop into a diocese acquires a
clear meaning of service, usefulness, and supernatural functionalism. In keeping with the scholastic axiom, " the end,
first in intention, last in execution," the final cause makes the
whole being of the episcopacy dynamic. That aim presides
over and commands ecclesiastical legislation concerning bishops.
Here the Code seems to be completely transfixed with a powerful internal theological and teleological current. The salvation
of souls is the supreme law in the juridical order of the Church.
The group of canons relevant to the episcopacy constitutes
an authentic proof. Thus, from the very start, the title "concerning bishops " offers a canon which juridically sketches the
bishop. Yet the juridical sketch is none other than the theological and dogmatic sketch. The canon states: "Bishops are
the successors of the Apostles and by divine institution are
placed over particular churches which they govern with ordi87 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theol. Ila Ilae, q. 185, a. 1; a. !'l, ad 1 et
ad 2; a. 4; In I Tim., 8, lect. 1. In the first Quodlibetales (a. 14), St. Thomas
compares "bishops and doctors in theology," who are, "as it were, the principal
artisans of the spiritual edifice," with those who exercise a subordinate ministry
and are equivalent to "manual artisans."
An interesting question is presented in the Summa theol. (IIa Ilae, q. 185, a. 3)
concerning the candidates for the episcopacy. The solution has a view to the
common good and, therefore, " ille qui debet aliquem eligere in episcopum, vel de eo
providere, non tenetur assumere meliorem simpliciter . . . , sed meliorem quoad
regimen ecclesiae, qui scilicet possit ecclesiam et instruere et defendere et pacifice
gubernare." To this passage, in which the solution is full of seriousness and serenity,
Cajetan appends a question of a practical type, " Whether the bishop should be
learned and a doctor of theology, or of canon law? The answer, touching on the
actual historical situation, is in favor of " theologian bishops." Those who defend
" canonist bishops," the famous commentator says, "Ionge aberrant: tum quia
autem praedicationis non est
officium episcoporum . . . est praedicare-materia
ius, sed Evangelium-; tum quia magis tenetur episcopus ad docendum populum
servare ea quae ad bonos mores spectant ... quam docere homines sacros canones,
quos non ipse Dominus, sed homines ediderunt. Constat autem quod docere servare
mandata Dominica spectat ad theologicam scientiam . . . Et ideo episcopi tenentur
omni tempore esse theologi" (in llam llae, q. 185, a. 3, n. IV).

THE BISHOP IN HIS OWN DIOCESE

nary jurisdiction." 38 These are solemn and precise words which
are a close version of those other words, of more laborious
expression, included in the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus of the First Vatican Council: " That ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, whereby bishops, who,
established by the Holy' Spirit, have succeeded to the place of
the Apostles, nourish and govern each of the flocks entrusted
to each of them as true shepherds." 39
It could be said that this is the foundation stone upon which
the canonical figure of the bishop is raised. On that solid and
strong foundation rises the hierarchical structure of the Church
as a supernatural society in time and in the world. The "power
of feeding " 40 the flock of the Lord is rooted in the divine mission of the episcopacy and is concretized in the juridical charge
of a diocese.
Without losing sight of this basic structure, the Code dedicates a considerable legislative elasticity to the bishop pledged
to a diocesan pastoral care. The right to the pastorate is correlative with the duty, the dedication. 41 For this reason, the
Code requires that the person called to the episcopal dignity
be gifted with intellectual and virtuous qualities, especially
" the zeal for souls," 42 that is, an impatient love of and care
for souls. The legislator shares in that impatience in two
ways: first, by commanding that the bishop-elect, having received the apostolic letter, not put off his consecration for more
than three months and that he takes possession of his diocese
CIC.: can. 829, § 1.
Denzinger, op. cit., § 1828. Time and time again, St. Thomas states that
bishops are the successors of the Apostles (Cf. Suwma theol. Ila Ilae, q. 184, a. 6,
ad 1; q. 185, a. 5; Ilia, q. 67, a. 2, ad 1; q. 72, a. 11). This is a dogmatic
truth about which primitive Christianity was clearly conscious. Cf. the excellent
work of A. M. Javierre, "Le theme de la succession des Apotres dans Ia litterature
chretienne primitive," L'Episcopat . ... , op. cit., pp. 171-221.
••cr. J. P. Torrell, La theologie de l'episcopat au premier Concile du Vatican.
Paris, 1961, pp. 119-130; the explanation given by Zinelli (MANSI LII, 1104) is
interesting. Cf. also U. Betti, La Costituzione Dommatica "Pastor Aeternus" del
Concilio Vaticano I. Rome, 1961.
41 CIC.: can. 335, § 1.
•• CIC.: can. 831, § 1.
38

39

250

ALVARO HUERGA

within a period not exceeding four months; 43 secondly, by
peacefully and lovingly controlling the progress of the diocese,
for which purpose he establishes prudent norms, such as the
" ad !imina " visit and the quinquennial reports made by the
bishops. 44
But above all he urges upon them the complete discharge of
pastoral duties. The flowering of piety and the Christian life
among the faithful depends, in great measure, upon the loving
dedication of the bishop to his flock. " They must be vigilant,''
says one canon, " lest abuses creep into church discipline, especially concerning the administration of the Sacraments, the
cult of God and the Saints, the preaching of the word of God,
sacred indulgences, the fulfillment of pious wills; and they
should take care that the purity of faith and morals be preserved among the clergy and the people." 45 The custody of
the flock is like the protection of a living and divine treasure.
In order that pastoral care might be more efficacious, the legislator establishes two more concrete duties; the first is the duty
of residence, the other is the duty of pastoral visitation. Both
duties are inherent to or derived from the august episcopal
mission. In the juridical order, both unite the bishop to his
diocese with a strong legal bond.
The obligation to reside personally in the diocese is formulated clearly and vigorously: "Even if bishops have a coadjutor, they are bound by law to personal residence in the diocese." 46 The law establishing the obligation of the pastoral
CIC.: can. 333.
CIC.: can. 338, § 2; 340; 341. These juridical obligations, regulating the
relations of the bishops with the Pope, correspond to the nature of the Church as
an organic and perfect society. Nevertheless, the bishops preserve their prerogatives
and authority. There i8 a fundamental text from the encyclical letter "Mystici
Corporis " which should be kept in mind because of its clarity and its doctrinal
depth: "As regards their own dioceses, bishops feed and govern as true Pastors, in
Christ's name, the flock entrusted to each of them. Yet, in so doing, they are not
completely independent, but are put under the authority of the Roman Pontiff,
although they enjoy ordinary jurisdiction, which the same Supreme Pontiff has
directly communicated to them. For this reason, they are to be venerated by the
faithful as successm·s of the Apostles through divine institution" (AAS, XXXV,
46 CIC.:
45 CIC.:
1943, pp. 211-212).
can. 336, § 2.
can. 338, § 1.
43

44

THE BISHOP IN HIS OWN DIOCESE

251

visitation is accompanied by a massive program concerning
its aim and the manner in which it is to be carried out: " To
preserve sound and orthodox doctrine, safeguard good morals
and correct the evil, as well as to promote peace, innocence,
piety and discipline among the people and the clergy, and
otherwise to provide for the welfare of religion according to the
circumstances, bishops are obligated to make a complete or
partial visitation of the diocese every year." 47
These two laws are clearly Tridentine. On this occasion, the
famous Council prescinded from the theological debate as to
whether " residence " was of " divine right," 48 and amicably
settled the indifference of some pastors by a pair of positive
dispositions which even today retain vigor and force. For a
great part, the Catholic reform was based upon these laws
and dispositions.
The bishop is thr3 form of hi8 flock. In the foregoing pages,
we have tried to delineate the static and dynamic content of
the Petrine phrase. The text from the Epi8tle to the Hebrews
gave us, too, the human and hierarchical view of the bishop;
he is a pontiff chosen from and for men. The great bishop St.
Augustine offers us the description of the bishop trembling in
the presence of his faithful because of his episcopal dignity and
yet joyous in discovering that he is on their level in faith and
love: " For I am a bishop for your sake; with you I am a
Christian. The former is the title of the office I have received;
the latter, the title of salvation." 49 This is the complete image
of the bishop as the embodiment of his mission.
47 CIC.:
can. 343, § 1; cf. can. 344-346. Already the Venerable Bartolome de los
Martires spoke, with his characteristic pastoral and doctrinal zeal, about the " most
serious duty of visitation" incumbent upon bishops. Cf. Concilium Tridentinum,
ed. Goerresiana, VIII (Freiburg: B. Herder Co., 1909), p. 419.
48 Concerning
this theme, one can consult: B. Carranza, De residentia episcoporum ... Venice, 1572; L. Castano, "Pio IX e Ia Curia Romana di fronte al
dibattito tridentino sulla residenza," Miscellanea Historiae Pontificiae, VII. Rome;
1943; Fr. Garcia Guerrero, El decreta sabre la residencia de los obispos en la tercera
asamblea del Concilio Tridentino. Cadiz, 1943; P. Damino, ll contributo teologico di
Bartolomeo de' Martiri al Concilio di T1·ento. Rome, 1962, pp. 36-60.
49 St. Augustine, Serm. 340 (PL XXXVIII, § 1483).

ALVARO HUERGA

IV. THREEFOLD

SERVICE

What we should analyze now is the unfolding of the bishop's
power in the diocese. " Each bishop is the center and foundation of the unity in the particular church, this being, in turn,
a living part of the whole Church." 50 This center and foundation, however, immediately takes on a dynamic and active
character. In the rite of episcopal investiture, the consecrating bishop says: " The bishop must judge, interpret, consecrate, ordain, offer, baptize, and confirm." 51 As expressed in a
more schematic formula, the action of the bishop in his diocese
embraces a threefold service, namely, teaching, priesthood, and
government. The service implies power, which is equally converted into office, duty, and pastoral ministry.
I) The Right and Service of Teaching: The Apostles received the mandate: Teach, preach the gospel to every creature.52 In his lucid conscientiousness about the sacred duty
concerning the " ministry of the word," St. Paul consecrates the
phrase "faith from hearing." 53 His admonitions to the bishops
give evidence of his preoccupation that they faithfully carry
out the mission of teaching. I£ we stop for a moment on the
texts, we discover that the teaching centres around one theme:
the " mystery of Christ." For this, one must adopt two attitudes: that of defending the gospel message against venomous
attacks from the enemies of Christ (the "false prophets" and
the " false doctors " being harshly anathematized by St.
Paul); 54 and that of propagating this mystery. 55 We have,
50 J. Lecuyer, "Orientations
presentes de la theologie de l'Episcopat," L'Episcopat ... , op. cit., p. 808.
51 Manuale e Pontificali Romano ... de consecratio electi in. episcopum. Rome,

1928, p. 88.
52 Matt. 28: 19; Mark 16: 15.
53 Rom. 10:17.
54 Cf. Acts 20: 29-80; I Tim. 1: 19; 4: 1; II Tim. 2: 16; 8: 1-5; Tit. 8:9-11.
55 I Cor. 9:16; Rom .. 1:14; Gal. 1:11-12; II Tim. 4:6-7. The same St. Mark, very
simple in his narration, ends his Gospel in this way: "But they went forth and
preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the preaching
by the signs that followed" (Mark 16: 20).

THE BISHOP IN HIS OWN DIOCESE

253

then, the theme and the mode of episcopal preaching or teaching. The bishops are the successors of the Apostles; they are
most clearly exemplified in the Pauline epistles.
Some persons are amazed that the Church, in its papal
magisterium or in the magisterium of the residential bishops,
confronts and condemns false doctrines, the errors against faith
and morals. This is her obligation. Yet, if the Roman Pontiffs
or the bishops were to limit themselves to the " defense " of
revealed doctrine, they would fulfill only one part of their teaching office. They are not only " guardians " of orthodoxy; they
are also authentic "expounders," " teachers," and " interpreters." This they are exclusively, that is, by proper right; in
virtue of this right, they can delegate this mission.
Substantially, this is the primary function of the bishop, the
first duty. In his broad exercise of the supreme magisterium,
Pius XII frequently vindicated the teaching right and office
of the bishops of the Church. In one of his discourses we read:
Christ Our Lord confided to the Apostles, and, through them, to
their successors, the truth which He had brought from heaven ....
Thus the Apostles have been constituted teachers, that is, masters
of the Church, by divine right. Therefore, besides the legitimate
successors of the Apostles, that is, the Roman Pontiff for the universal Church and the bishops for the faithful entrusted to their
care, there are no other teachers by divine right in the Church of
Christ; although they, and particularly the Supreme Teacher of
the Church and Vicar of Christ on earth, can call others as cooperators or advisers in the exercise of the magisterium and delegate the
function of teaching to them, sometimes in concrete cases, sometimes by confiding such an office to them. 56

Thus this delegated ministry should always be faithful to
the bishop and, of course, subject at any moment to his
inspection.
From this arise the applications which embrace all religious
indoctrination. The same Pius XII put his finger on the sore
spot of two dangerous tendencies of our time by discovering
•• Pius XII, Allocution of May 31, 1954 (AAS. XLVI, 1954, p. 314).

254

ALVARO HUERGA

and condemning them. The first is the tendency of those who
"teach and have very little care about being united with the
living magisterium of the Church and mold neither their minds
nor their intentions according to the common teaching clearly
proposed by this magisterium in one way or other." The
second is the magisterium of the laity, since "here and there a
theology which they call lay has recently started to pullulate,"
and its heralds " distinguish its magisterium from the public
magisterium of the Church, and, in a certain way, set the
former in opposition to the latter."
Some are spurred by an eagerness for novelty, by self-confidence, by the infiltrations of non-perennial philosophies;
others, by the false illusion of prophetic charisms, by the spirit
of independence or by an unbridled zeal for the lay apostolate.
In view of these attitudes, the admonition of Pius XII is
definite:
Matters touching upon religion and morals, being truths which
absolutely surpass the order of sensible things, pertain exclusively
to the authority and competency of the Church. Already in Our
encyclical letter Humani Generis, we have described the mentality
and spirit of those to whom ·we have alluded, and at the same
time we have warned that some of the aberrations reprobated there
are due only to the fact that union with the living magisterium of
the Church has been scorned.

Moreover, referring to lay theology, he says:
In the Church there has never been, nor is there or ever will be
a legitimate magisterium of lay persons which God has removed
from the authority which has been the guide and vigilance of the
sacred magisterium. Furthermore, the simple fact that this submission is rejected is itself a convincing argument and a sure
criterion that it is not the Spirit of God and of Christ guiding the
laymen who speak and act in this way. 57

2) The Right and Function of Sanctifying: The priestly or
sanctifying function is associated with the teaching mission.
All the activity of the bishop in his diocese is ordered to the
57

Ibid., pp. 315-317.

THE BISHOP IN HIS OWN DIOCESE

Q55

sanctification of the faithful. Consequently, the bishop is the
"High Priest" of his flock, the "Pontiff," the minister and
giver of sacred things, the " sacrificer " by antonomasia. All
priesthood is essentially "that which offers sacrifice." In the
cited text of the Epistle to the Hebrews this sanctifying power
of sacrifice is underlined: " that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins," for the people and for himsel£. 58
In the Christian religion, the bishop has full priestly or sanctifying powers; by his own right he is the minister of the Sacraments, the bearers of grace, the minister especially of the
Eucharist, and it is he who confers sacerdotal ordination to the
diocesan priests, 59 his collaborators in the sanctifying ministry.
Addressing bishops, Pius XII explains the priestly right and
office in the following way:
For the priest of the New Law, the principal power and reason of
his office is offering the unique and very sublime sacrifice of the
Highest and Eternal Priest, Christ our Lord, the same as that
which the Divine Redeemer offered in a bloody manner on the cross
and which He anticipated in an unbloody way during the Last
Supper, desiring that it be repeated perpetually, and, therefore,
commanding His Apostles: "Do this in remembrance of me"
(Luke QQ : 19). It was the Apostles, then, and not all the faithful,
whom the selfsame Christ made and constituted priests and to
whom He gave the power of offering sacrifice.60
Obviously the Pope alludes to the so-called " priesthood of
the faithful," with which the laicologists are very much preoccupied and about which they speak very often. Although
the Pope touched upon this problem in the encyclical letter
M ediato1· Dei, 61 here he speaks of it with decisive precision:
Moreover, whatever may be the true and exact meaning of this
honorary title and its content, one must hold as very certain that
this priesthood, common to all Christians, although elevated and
hidden, is differentiated, not only in degree, but also essentially,
08 Heb. 5:1-3.
"" Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, IV Contra Gentes, 76.
oo Pius XII, Allocution of Nov. £, 1954 (AAS. XLVI, 1954, pp. 667-669).
01 Cf. AAS. XXXIX, 1947, pp. 538-.539.

256

ALVARO HUERGA

from priesthood truly and properly so-called, which consists in the
power of accomplishing the sacrifice of Christ Himself by representing the person of Christ, the Highest Priest. 62

3) The Right and Function of Rule: The teaching and
priestly £unctions are backed by the power o£ jurisdiction. This
is a theme about which it is possible, here, to make only slight
indications. The Church o£ wayfarers, that is, the Church
here on earth is necessarily hierarchical by reason o£ its being
an ordered multitude, o£ its being " a prolongation o£ Christ,"
and by reason of its sacramental character. 63 Thence is derived
the very existence of "sacred power." 64 The bishop's pastoral
rule is connected with the supernatural purpose of the Christian
community. St. Thomas communicates the idea of dynamism
in the Mystical Body by teaching that grace has influence on
the members through the conjoined action of Christ and the
hierarchy. The " twofold spiritual power " 65 is ordered to this
aim of sanctification.
From the very nature of " power " and its object is derived
its extension. In connection with some new theories which try
to diminish the field of action pertinent to episcopal jurisdiction, Pius XII offers a reminder of the scope and of the matters
pertinent to the governing authority of the bishops. As the
pastor of his own flock, the bishop has for a field of action of
his authority, care, and vigilance, not only strictly religious
matters (as, for example, stating the truths o£ faith, directing
pious practices, administering the Sacraments, performing
liturgical functions), but also everything concerning man's
supernatural end. The Pope refers concretely to the natural
law, derived ethical laws, and social problems, since "in social
matters, there is no one sole problem; rather there are many
•• AAS. XLVI, 1954, p. 669.
63 Cf. A. Huerga, op. cit., pp. fl5-fl9.
""Cf. C. Garcia Extremefio, "Iglesia, Jerarquia y Carisma," Ciencia Tomista,
LXXXVI, 1959, pp. fl6-64.
65 " Duplex est spiritualis potestas:
una quidem sacramentalis, alia iurisdictionalis.
Sacramentalis quidem potestas est quae per aliquam consecrationem confertur; . . .
Potestas autem iurisdictionalis est quae ex simplici iniunctione hominis confertur "
(St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theol. Ha IIae, q. 39, a. 3).

THE BISHOP IN HIS OWN DIOCESE

257

and very serious questions, whether they are only social or
politico-social, touching upon the moral order, consciences,
and the salvation of souls. Therefore, it cannot be said that
they are outside the authority and care of the Church." 66
Naturally, if pastoral activity is to be harmonious and fruitful,
it reckons with a church discipline which regulates and stimulates the religious life of the faithful. Discipline is the hinge
of good government for all society. Moreover, "both laymen
and priests should know that the Church is competent and
legitimate, and that her respective Ordinaries are competent
and legitimate-each one for the faithful entrusted to him
and within the common limits of the law-for establishing
church discipline and obligating subjects to it, that is, for
establishing the exterior manner of behavior and action in all
matters touching upon the exterior life. . . . Neither the clergy
nor the laity can withdraw from this discipline." 67
As is evident, it is easy to trace the very teaching office or
magisterium possessed by the bishop to this power of jurisdiction.68
From the whole foregoing analysis, we can already form an
idea about the being and action of the bishop in his diocese.
Because of the supernatural and human abundance which it
embraces, a biblical image can help us define him: he is the
"Good Shepherd." 69 There are few symbols as beautiful as
this; few symbols are as full of meaning, of sacred tradition.

V.

BISHOP, DIOcESE, CouNciL

A final question would suggest methodological reflection on
the theme of the "bishop in his diocese." Will the Second
Vatican Council speak or decide anything in relation to the
Pius XII, Allocution of Nov. 2, 1954 (AAS. XLVI, 1954, pp. 671-672).
Ibid., pp. 674-675.
68 Cf. A. Huerga, op. cit., pp. 31, 38-39.
69 Cf. John 10:1-16.
The image is familiar in the Orient and especially in Sacred
Scripture. Cf. Gen. 48:15; 49: 24; Je1·. 23: 1-8; Ezechiel 34: 23; Zacharias 11: 4-14;
1Vlatt. 18: 12-13; Luke 15:4-6. Yet, although it is a simile breathing goodness and
pleasant solicitude, it implies authority, too. Cf. L. M. Dewailly, Envoyes du Pere.
Paris, 1960, p. 64, n. 1.
66

67

258

ALVARO HUERGA

figure and pastoral care of the bishop? Interest in this question
can be unfolded in two ways: the act and the theme; that is,
the question is divided into two questions: Will the Council
have a treatise on bishops? This is inquiring only about a
future act. The other is: What points about the bishop will it
consider? This is asking about the thematic.
As regards the act, undoubtedly a " revision," in the actual
situation of the world wherein the Church lives, teaches and
sanctifies, cannot exclude from its: broad, generous, and optimistic program, as outlined on various occasions by Pope John
XXIII, 70 the "episcopacy," which has the divine mission of
giving spiritual instruction to souls and which, with the Pope,
forms the Council.
As regards the episcopal themes or problems which will constitute the object of the conciliar deliberations and decisions,
there are obviously two possible directions: one is the dogmatic,
that is, the solution of some theological questions which have
not been defined as yet; the other is the practical or pastoral,
that is, that which refers to the " adaptation " of diocesan
territory, as well as of the methods of evangelization, to the
needs of our time.
In the field of dogma there are some theological problems
which, as yet, have not received the definitive verdict of
" truths of faith," as, for example, those taken up by the First
Vatican Council which, having been suspended, did not resolve
them. There are those who say that, just as the First Vatican
Council was the Council of the " dogmatic " definitions exalting
the figure of the Roman Pontiff, so the present council will be
the Council of " dogmatic " definitions which will exalt the
figure and the ecclesiastical mission of bishops, 71 as, for example,
1° Cf. John XXIll, " Allocution to the Cardinals in the Basilica of St. Paul," Jan.
25, 1959, wherein he announced the Council (AAS. Ll, 1959, pp. 68-69). In the

encyclical letter " Ad Petri Cathedram," he explained the purpose of the Council:
" ut ad catholicae fidei incrementum et ad rectam christiani populi morum renovationem, utque ecclesiastica disciplina ad nostrorum temporum necessitates
rat.ionesque aptius accommodetur" (June
1959; AAS. Ll, 1959, p. 511).
11 Cf. G. Thils, "Parlera-t-on
des eveques au Concile? ", Nouve71e revue theologique, LXXXUI, 1961, pp. 785-804.

THE BISHOP IN HIS OWN DIOCESE

the " sacramentality of the episcopacy " or the relations between " primacy and episcopacy," between " pope and episcopal
college," etc/ 2 A symptom of this gyration of hopes and hypotheses is the publication of numerous books and articles concerning the " theology of the episcopacy." As is easily understood, this bibliography reflects a strong episcopological climate.
In the field of pastoral practice (which is our chief interest
here), too, it is easy to suppose great activity in the Council.
One of the commissions designated for the preparation of the
Council brought up this significant title: " On Bishops and
the Rule of Dioceses." In the plenary sessions of the Central
Commission, held in 1969l, Cardinal Marella stated the questions concerning the actual situation of dioceses in the Catholic
world; "episcopal conferences," relations between the episcopacy and the Holy See, and, finally, the pastoral ministry of the
bishops. The official communiques published in L'Osservatore
Romano report, with sufficient accuracy, the orientation of the
pre-conciliar work.
Concerning the theme " actual situation of the diocese," the
aforementioned Cardinal keeps within the bounds of the resume
given by L'Osservatore Romano, not by a purely statistical
report, but by delving into the history and finality of diocesan
territories. Historically the demarcation of the dioceses generally coincided with the confines of civil circumscriptions. As
the Church progressed and was extended throughout the world,
there was recourse to the Pope to establish new dioceses with
their determined territorial limits. The " actual situation " of
the dioceses can be submitted to a "revision" with a view to
" adapting " the territories to civil structures or to the number
of Catholics. It is well known that there are countries where
there are a great number of dioceses, others where they are
scarce, and some where the hierarchy has not been established.
Moreover, the Cardinal analyzed the finality which presides
72 The title of the following work indicates
certain doctrinal tendencies: T. I.
Jimenez Urresti, El binomio "Primado-Episc:opado ": tema central del proximo
Concilio Vaticano II. Bilbao: Desclee de Brouwer, 1962.

ALVARO HUERGA

over this whole canonical arrangement of dioceses: "it puts the
bishop, who is the true pastor of the flock, in a better situation
to know, love, and save his lambs," since the Church lives in
time and uses " earthly means to attain her supernatural
aims." 73 These are definitely the criteria which will preside over
the decisions of the Council concerning diocesan territories, the
possible creation of new dioceses, and the division of other
dioceses.
In greater relief is the theme about the " pastoral ministry
of bishops." In the respective communique of L'Osservatore
Romano, we read:
The Members and Advisers of the Central Commission today
examined, in particular, the new methods and means of the apostolate needed, either to cope with the situations in which there are
found special categories of the faithful, such as emigrants, those
on the sea, airline employees, nomads, and tourists, or to draw
anew to the faith and the practice of the Christian life all those
who are usually designated by the generic term "distant."
[And it added] Modern times, with their multiple technical innovations, impose on the Pastors of Dioceses a pastoral ministry
which is ever more flexible in its methods and ever broader in
its means. 74 In most recent times, when technical conquests constantly enlarge the orbit of human habitation, pastoral care cannot
be limited to an anchored geographic territory. Because of" floating
cities," the "apostolate of the sea" gives an unsuspected mobility
to the flock entrusted to a bishop. As much can be said about
travel on land and through space, in such a way that there is
already talk about an "apostolate of the heavens."
In any event, as underlined in a foregoing commentary, the
Church lives with and for the men of her time and is obliged to
give testimony of the truth and God's plan of salvation in
the most varied and contingent situations. Moreover, in their
capacity as Teachers, Pastors, and Pontiffs, her bishops proceed
L'Osservatm·e Romano, February 21, 1962, p. l.
L'Osservatom R01nano, May 5, 1962, p. l. For a fuller technical-juridical
account, one can consult the documented and delightful description by S. AlvarezMenendez, " En torno al futuro Concilio Ecumenico," Revista eRpaiiola de Derecho
Canonico, XVII, 1962, pp. 115-143, 393-425.
73

74

THE BISHOP IN HIS OWN DIOCESE

261

in complete communion with Peter's successor, continuators of
the work of Redemption in the territories which have been
entrusted to their pastoral solicitude.
Times change; existential conditions progress. The Council
may take up problems of a practical type and direct its decisions to a greater adaptation and efficacy of the pastoral ministry. Yet, substantially, the figure of the bishop will continue
to be what it has always been: Pastor of his diocese.
ALVARO HuERGA,

Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Urbe
Rome, Italy

O.P.

THE LAYMAN IN THE CHURCH 1

T

HE purpose of this article is modest, to sketch in broad
lines the place of the layman, seen theologically, in the
Church. A general view of the limits of what is possible and permissible, of what pertains to the laity and what
does not, will guard us against breaking through dividing lines
and will prevent our committing errors like the one frequently
made, in connection with proposals for the coming General
Council, that the diaconate should be re-established as an independent order and should be considered as the " summit of
the lay apostolate." That the diaconate should be something
more than a stepping-stone to the priesthood is quite justifiably desired by many people; but it is essentially a clerical
state and can, under no aspect, be called lay-apostolate.
THE CHRISTIAN

IDEA OF LAYMAN

The Christian Term "Layman"
By reason, not so much of the secularisation of society, as of
the laicist atmosphere in which this secularisation has been
concretely pursued, the term "lay person," as used by nonChristians, has usually for Catholic ears (in continental countries) an unfavourable connotation. In the period since the
middle of the nineteenth century the sense of the term has
swung from something like "free-thinker" by way of "anticlerical " to "non-cleric " and " non-religious " (in the sense
of one who is not a monk or a nun). In the nineteenth century the term " societe la'ique " and " enseignement lai:que "
made their appearance, having the sense of, not simply nonreligious, but rather positively extra-religious, with the impli1 Editor's
Note: This article in its present form was published in Doctrine and
Life, St. Saviour's, Dublin, July and August, 1961. The translation from the Dutch
(Tijdschrift voor Geestelijk Leven, 1959, pp. 669-694) was made by Colman
O'Neill, 0. P., and checked by the author. In Doctrine and Life it was published
with an Editor's Note and a Translator's Note, q. v.

THE LAYMAN IN THE CHURCH

263

cation of anti-religious. In our own day, at least as far as the
term itself is concerned, this unfavourable connotation has disappeared so that now even Christians can be quite ready to
accept its use. Consequently, when we find in the new French
Constitution intentions that the state as such, is concerned
only with secular, "l'Etat est la'ique," this means, if we disregard subjective ulterior intentions, that the state as such, is
concerned only with secular affairs and, moreover, is in this
sphere autonomous. The confusion attached to the notion is
such that, as late as 1945, the Italian Parliament witnessed
the following exchange between a socialist and a Catholic deputy. To the demand of a socialist that a "lay person" be
appointed minister of education, the Catholic, De Gasperi, replied heatedly that there had never been any intention of
appointing a cleric to this post. To which the socialist retorted
with equal heat that his meaning was being twisted, that he
was not concerned about clerics; by " lay person " he understood a non-Catholic.
The sense attached to the term lay person in theology derives very clearly from Scripture. When the Canon Law uses
the term "laicus," a lay person, in the sense of "christifidelis,"
i. e., one who believes, this has a remote basis in the Scriptures themselves. The word "laikos" comes from "laos," people. In profane Greek usage this signifies the people as distinct from the rulers and leaders of the people, thus as distinct
from the ruling and intellectual classes. In the Bible this word
has a more precise signification, being applied exclusively to
the people of God as distinct from the Gentiles. The " laos "
is tlie people, God's people, that is, in relation to the Christian era, the Church of Christ. At the same time, nevertheless, the Scripture uses this term also in contrast to the leaders of this people of God, namely, in contrast to the priests,
levites and prophets. The people or the " laos " is that part
of the Church that is subject to the leadership and control of
the Church's hierarchy.
Going on to the word "laikos," from which the words "lai-

E. H. SCHILLEBEECKX

cus," "lay person," are derived: this signifies in profane Greek
usage a member of the common class, belonging to the people but set apart from the leaders of the people. We do not
find the word in this sense either in the Scripture or in the Septuagint, the Greek translation used by the Jews; but it is
found in a few ancient Greek translations of the Old Testament. The sense in which it is used is important. Laikos, lay,
signifies here the profane or unsanctified, that is, what is not
consecrated to the worship of God. In contrast to the loaves
of proposition, ordinary bread, which is not reserved for worship, is called simply " lay bread." Likewise, the area of the
Temple is "sacred" while outside the Temple is "lay." This
distinction between " sacred " and " lay " again applies only
to things within the people of God. But in early Christian
writings this word is soon transferred to persons (see Clement
of Rome) , and so there appears the distinction between the
terms "klerikos " and "laikos " or lay person within the community of the Church.
If we bring all these points together again we gain the following result. A lay person is 1) a member of the people of
God assembled in the Church,
but in this community of
the Church he is set apart from the hierarchy, being attached
to a distinct group, 3) on the side of the laity this separation
implies a reference to the profane, to that, namely, which is
not directly connected with the mystery of Church worship.
With these data we are already in a position to say that
Christian semantics, leading us to the significance of the term,
" lay person," suggests that the laity is characterised both by
its membership in the Church and by its relation to secular
affairs.
Tum THEOLOGICAL

NoTION

oF LAY PERSON

AND LAY SPIRITUALITY

The Church as the " great Sign set up unto the nations invites to her all who have not yet believed" (First Council of
the Vatican; Denz. 1794). In another article (in Tijdschrift

THE LAYMAN IN THE CHURCH

265

voor geestelijk Leven) we have pointed out that not only the
hierarchy but all the faithful constitute an essential element
in this great sacramental sign. The Church here on earth
makes manifest on the plane of visible historical fact the grace
of redemption; and this grace is nothing other than the person of Christ, dead, indeed, but now raised up to heavenly life.
Of this mystery of grace the Church is the outward, human
form in the shape of a social sign or, more exactly, in the
shape of a community which is a sign (" societas-signum ")
( tekengemeenschap). Both in her hierarchy and in her community of lay believers the Church is the visible realisation
on earth of the redemptive grace of Christ. The hidden union
with God in Christ granted by grace is revealed in, and
brought about through, the external social sign of a community governed by the rulers of the Church. It follows that lay
people in the Church form an essential part of the efficacious
sign of grace (werkzaam genadeteken) and of Christ, ascended
into heaven. This means that the visible and active presence
of grace among us is brought about in two-fold fashion: in
and through the apostolic office of the Church's hierarchy (institutional, authoritative and charismatic fashion) and through
the faithful who bear the characters of baptism and confirmation (fashion determined by the institutional role of lay people and by charisms).
In this complexus the hierarchy of the Church exercises
a directive and authoritative function which exists, consequently, for the sake of the community of lay believers: this
apostolic office is ministerial, a service of Christ and of the
faithful. Nevertheless, the layman, placed though he is in a
relation of obedience, based on faith, to the hierarchy of the
Church, is, in his quality of Christian layman, truly and in
full a part of the Church. He plays his part in supporting the
visible and active historical form of redemptive grace in the
world. This distinction between clerics (those belonging by the
nature of their office to the hierarchy, namely, pope and bishops; or those participating in the hierarchy of orders, namely,

E. H. SCHILLEBEECKX

simple priests or presbyters and deacons) and lay people in
the Church is not to be explained merely as the result of historical or sociological development; it originates in the will of
Christ himself and is not subject to change. This distinction
is of the essence of the Church. It follows that one who actually, in one or other fashion, has an inner participation in the
true apostolic office of the Church's hierarchy is by definition
not a layman: he belongs to the clergy of the Church (concretely: pope, bishops, priests and deacons). It is true that
the derived participations in this apostolic office (namely,
priesthood and diaconate) were not directly instituted by
Christ. Christ instituted directly the fullness of the priestly
(i.e. episcopal) apostolic office. But the Church is conscious
of her power to divide this hierarchical office in response to
her needs into separate grades, as has been done, for example, for the priesthood and diaconate.
CHARACTERISTICS

OF LAY STATUS

In the first place the layman in the Church is a Christian,
a member of the Church, the people of God, the Kingdom
of God on earth, for he, too, bears a personal responsibility.
Christ's command: "Be ye perfect as also your heavenly
Father is perfect" (Matt. 5: 48) is directed to all men: pope,
bishops, priests, religious and laity. To seek after the Kingdom of God as after a hidden treasure or a pearl of great
price, for the sake of which we must, if necessary, despise all
things, is as much an obligation of the layman as it is of
the priest and the religious. A life lived in communion with
the death and resurrection of Christ is the very definition of
Christian life and of the Church. Charity, altruistically motivated and self-sacrificing, must necessarily therefore be the
heart of a lay life too. In addition, the Christian life or membership of the community of the Church does not consist only
in a personal relationship with God in Christ Jesus; it is at
the same time, by the very fact, and within this dialogue with
the living God, essentially apostolic. We are not meant just

THE LAYMAN IN THE CHURCH

267

to live in the Kingdom of God; we have imposed on us the
task of extending the Kingdom. This must not be misunderstood. As a lay member of the Church, as one, that is, who
does not belong to the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the believer
has a part in the apostolate or rnission of the Church, but not
in the mission or apostolate of the hierarchy. Looked at under
the aspect of apostolate, the Church is a community with an
apostolic mission, within which, however, is to be found a
priestly or " authoritative " form of apostolate side by side
with a lay form of mission. Each of these is a particular form
or manifestation of the single apostolate of the whole Church.
The distinction between these two forms is a consequence of
the distinction, established by Christ himself, between the
clergy and the laity. This distinction between two forms of
the apostolate is, therefore, itself of divine origin. Consequently, the line of demarcation between the two in the
Church cannot be permitted to become indistinct. Recognition of the role played by the laity in the Church can never,
therefore, acquire the sense that the layman is now to have
a part in what formerly pertained exclusively to the clergy.
My only concern here is to clarify the basic principle of lay
spirituality and of the lay apostolate in contrast to the apostolate of the hierarchy.
The ecclesiastical difference between the laity and the clergy
can be based only upon the internal structure of the supernatural community, the Church. It is precisely because there
is a cornrnunity of the faithful, of laymen, a people of God,
that leaders of this people are needed in the Church; a hierarchical authority. And since this community is a cornrnunion
in grace, internally united by the supernatural bond of faith,
hope and love, as also by the common bond of the same sacraments of the one faith, the authority in this community
cannot be of natural origin: it must have authorisation for its
task from Christ, together with the charism that is bound
up with such a Christ-given mission. As baptized persons, the
laity as well as the clergy have therefore an ecclesiastical,

268

E. H. SCHILLEBEECKX

sacred task. But the clergy fulfills this task as a principle of
authority and leadership in a teaching, governing and sanctifying priestly activity; whereas the laity must have the same
ecclesiastical sense of responsibility for the Kingdom of God,
but as God's people, without the function of authority and
thus without the official priesthood. Thus the lay community
too belongs to the historical, tangible stature in which the
grace of redemption appears on earth: the earthly Church. By
their incorporation into the Church, that is, by their baptism,
the laity consequently receive a share in this real function of
the Church: they receive, namely, the charge to give visible
stature to the faithful communion with Christ in grace, in and
through their whole life. Therefore every baptized person is
conjointly responsible for the Church and for its function as
a sign in the midst of this world.
Now, it is true indeed that this ecclesiastical responsibility
or mission, which the layman receives in virtue of his baptism, is given to a man, that is, to a person whose task in this
world is to give meaning to his own life; to a person, consequently, who is also charged with bringing human order into
the sphere of worldly life. On this account, through his baptism the faithful layman receives at the same time the charge
to integrate the earthly purpose of his life into his communion
in grace with God in Christ. Thus the layman's earthly
charge becomes part of his entirely God-centered attitude to
life. One who is baptized, therefore, must integrate his involvement in the affairs of this world into his existence as a
believer and member of the Church. In the very nature of
the case, this means that the typical mark of the Christian
lay status will be an apostolate carried on in and through
direct concern with secular affairs.
In what does such an apostolate consist?
In order to determine precisely what the lay status is, at
least insofar as it is a form of the visible embodiment of the
Church in this world, we must always go back to baptism as
the sacrament of our incorporation into the Church, and so,

THE LAYMAN IN THE CHURCH

in Christ. Now, the Church is the historical and tangible form
in which Christ's grace of victory visibly exists in this world.
In and through the Church, the grace of God in Christ is
present among us as an historical reality that we can grasp:
" a sign raised up among the nations." Because of the Incarnation and its continuation in the Church as the earthly
" Body of the Lord," this tangible and visible form of existence belongs to the very essence of Christian grace. Grace,
wherever it takes on an historical, visible stature, is " the
Church."
If incorporation into this visible communion in grace is
then the first and direct effect of baptism, the believer receives
in and with his baptism the charge to take his part in the
essential function of the Church: he receives the charge to
give, in and through his earthly life, a visible stature to his
communion in grace with God. The life, the entire life of the
baptized layman must consequently become the visibility of
grace; through every given situation and in every moment his
earthly life must be a "signum gratiae christianae" (a sign of
Christian grace). Only in this way can the responsibility be
fulfilled which all who are baptized bear together, for the
Church and for its function as a sign in this world.
As a citizen, the layman is situated directly in a context of
the worldly concerns (in de "diesseitige" dimensie) of this
earthly life, but at the same time, as one who has been baptized, namely, as Christian layman in the Church, he has the
charge to be " the Church " in his worldly situation. In other
words, however, the Christian layman is placed in this world,
the Church must find its visible manifestations in him: in his
occupation, in his relations with his fellow men and in his
dealings with things, in his family and its integration in the
society and the nation; in short, in the entirety of his secu]ar
life. This living, rooted in the world, as a concrete manifestation of his security in God's grace and of his solicitude for
the Kingdom of God, is typical of the Christian layman. We
will analyse this further.

*

*

*

*

270

E. H. SCHILLEBEECKX

The world in which we live, the world of nature and history, goes back ultimately, not simply to the divine Creator,
but more exactly to the divine Creator who desires to enter
into personal relations with us. Through such personal communication with the living God our life in the world takes on
deeper significance. Human freedom, to which God personally
addresses himself, has also a creative function in respect of
cultural values. Now, the fact is that God addresses us personally in order that we may find him now not merely indirectly, through natural realities and history, in other words,
through our existence in the world; but that we may also enjoy direct, as it were vertical and immediate, relations with
him in a personal intercourse with him, person speaking to
person, even though it must be through the veil of faith without vision. God's personal design for us implies, therefore,
that our meeting with God in his self-revelation as personal
imposes as a basic requirement the raising of our eyes from
the things of the world to God. It is precisely this elevation
which must be given to the direction of our lives that naturally opens up at once the possibility o£ life in the cloister, side
by side with Christian life in the world. (This point will
not be developed further here.) For the Christian layman in
the world this means that even his orientation towards secular affairs can sometimes involve making sacrifices and that,
moreover, the layman as a Christian must anticipate such an
occasion and hold himself in readiness to make the sacrifice.
His involvement in secular affairs can never have the last
word. (Neither is further development of this point undertaken here.) But it is precisely this personal communion with
God, who is at the same time the Creator, that requires that
the secular occupation of the layman be carried out entirely
within the context of this dialogue with the living God. Together with God, with whom the Christian layman has a personal relation in Christ and in the Church, the layman assumes
his personal responsibility in the history o£ this world. In this
way his dialogue with the world, his creative effort to make

THE LAYMAN IN THE CHURCH

271

of the world a truly human dwelling-place, participates in his
entirely God-centered attitude to life, participates in his dialogue with God. We Christians too easily show an inclination to leave to unbelievers the secular ordering of temporal
society. We forget that concern for so-called " profane " affairs, the recognition of mundane realities, is an authentic
component of the entirely God-centered attitude to life. Secularisation or laicising in itself is a process that belongs within
the Christian life, within the Church, a process within the life
of the people of God. There is a certain ambiguity in these
words. Their sense is this: that the believer, within his dialogue with God, is led to give loyal recognition to earthly
reality too, with its own characteristically secular institutions.
Christian "secularisation" is thus utterly different from atheistic laicisation, which accepts earthly reality as the definitive
and exclusive horizon of life. Exclusively profane or atheistic
laicisation is objectively a heresy (Gr.: "hairesis "); it is a
tearing away of profane affairs, that is, earthly reality, from
the whole to which they belong. For they find their true
place only within the relation of existence and of faith which
binds man to God. Only when it is placed outside this context
is earthly reality " profaned."
This orientation towards secular affairs, what I may briefly
call "secular involvement" (seculariteit; Eng.: "secularity"),
is the foundation on which rests the specific character of lay
spirituality and of the lay apostolate in the Church. It implies
that the layman also sanctifies himself precisely in this secular involvement, and that his apostolic activity is carried on
first and foremost through this secular involvement. A mother
is a Christian as the mother of a family, a father as a father,
a teacher as a teacher, and so on. By making his contribution to the work o£ the world, by co-operating, each in his
own place, in the political, social and economic organisation
of temporal society, as tradesman, scientist or intellectual, the
Christian layman places himself in a personal relationship with
God. In this sense the grace given a layman is " lay " grace,

E. H. SCHILLEBEECKX

just as it has female characteristics for women, and male for
men: for it is from within his personal situation that each
stands in personal relationship to God. A mother, for example, is placed in personal contact with God through her very
motherhood too. This motherhood itself has a special significance for her existence as a Christian, just as her existence
as a Christian has significance for her motherhood. With his
whole human entity the layman enters personally into an
encounter with God. Though the layman must raise his eyes
from the world to God if he is to gaze full in his face, this
does not mean that he must forget his earthly task as though
this were an occupation from which God is excluded; on the
contrary, it obliges him to realise consciously the religious
dimension of this earthly task itself. If he does this, his secular task too takes on a Christian and apostolic significance.
It is man, after all, who is redeemed by Christ. And the entity of the man is not a naked soul; the entity of the man is
that spiritual, personal being who, through his own corporality and in communion with other men, exists in this world in
order, in and through the humanisation of the world, to humanise himself also. It is in all his concrete reality that this
being is touched by grace and redeemed by Christ; not only
in the kernel of his soul, therefore, but, beginning from this
center of the person, also in his relations to his fellowmen and,
through them, in his relations to the whole world and to the
history of the world.
But redemption, at the same time, lays a charge on us.
In connection with the question which concerns us here, this
means that the mundane task of the Christian acquires a
more profound significance: it is co-redemptive. Through the
ordering of temporal society men are made more receptive to
grace and obstacles to salvation are removed. Further, the
tasks of earthly culture become the incarnation of the Christian commitment, in ordering life in this world to bring it into
harmony with the Kingdom of God. Natural and cultural
values must themselves be redeemed and by a redemption

THE LAYMAN IN THE CHURCH

278

that is not deferred to the end of time but that enters into
the context of their history. To achieve this is the particular
charge, within his total existence as a Christian, of the layman
in the world. The apostolate carried out through responsibility
for secular affairs, as the characteristic charge of the Christian
layman, I have called here "apostolic secular involvement."
Proceeding from a spirit that is redeemed, it is a conscious
commital of life to secular affairs within the dialogue with
God; and so, in and through this secular task, it opens the
world to receive the good tidings of the Word and, by speaking
this Word, incarnates it in the world as a foretaste of the
eschatological glorification of the body and of the" new heaven
and earth." It is saints of this pattern that our world needs
at the present moment. A new form of holiness must spread its
light in the Christian layman's responsibility for this worldsaints who grasp the dogma of creation in all its concrete significance. For Church Life (kerkelijkheid) means more than
what takes its origin from the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Church
life (kerkelijk leven) is just as much whatever has its origin
in the faithful, the people of God, as the fruit of their eucharistic community of grace with Christ. Secular occupations
must share in this life of the Church. Culture and all that
human existence in the world embraces is not merely culture, that is, a task for man as such. It is a task for man as
he is constituted by God; namely, as a being who, even in his
very dealings with this world, comes into contact with grace.
The risen Christ has significance for our whole life, including
its worldly implications. Just as the religious state of perfection within this world is a sign of the future of the Kingdom
of God, so the integral lay state in the world is a sign of how
salvation exists in this world.
It will be seen that in this Christian conception of the lay
state in the world the value of the work of human society is
fully acknowledged. This conception liberates us, too, from the
heresy of extrinsicism and individualism latent in the idea that
one's disposition, a "good intention," makes action good (de

E. H. SCHILLEBEECKX

krypto-ketterij van het extrinsecisime en individualisme van de
gezindheid of " goede mening "). The fact that an action proceeds from charity (het caritasmotief) is not, of itself, enough.
Or, more exactly, business efficiency, expertise and scientific
knowledge, a sense of responsibility for the organisation of life
in the world, all that the concrete task in temporal affairs
essentially demands of us, must be absorbed into this Godcentered "good intention." These are the earthly form and
incarnation of the motive of Christian charity in the layman.
Only in this fashion can the values of the material world be
respected within the act of faith in divine creation. Only in
this fashion, moreover, will the layman experience no break in
continuity between his secular occupation and his Christian
personality. It not infrequently happens that Christians think
of their daily work, even though it takes up the principal part
of their time, as something foreign to their being Christian;
and so their state of mind fluctuates between an impression
of the falseness of their lives as Christians, and then again of
an incompatibility between their professional lives and their
Christianity. The result often is that the layman either has
only moderate interest in his religious practice, or else he
swings to the other extreme and has less sense of responsibility and less professional zeal in work than the non-Christian,
in the false belief, only half-consciously expressed, that his poor
workmanship takes on Christian value by reason of his being
in a state of grace and his so-called "good intention"; not forgetting either that it accumulates merit for heaven. How utterly different genuine Christianity in fact is! One example
will suffice: that of nursing or health care. For the Christian
lay person who is professionally concerned with it, such health
care, which forms part of the general providence of society, is
not merely a particular function in the universal process of
humanising mankind in this world. Nevertheless, it is precisely in this context that this social service becomes a "sacrament of grace," an instrument of Christian fraternal charity.
It gives concrete expression to God's love for men in the tern-

THE LAYMAN IN THE CHURCH

poral and tangible form of skilled medical service to mankind.
It is an apostolate carried on through trained care of the sick.
The giving of skilled medical care and assistance is itself an
incarnate witness to Christ's personal love addressing itself
personally to men by way of this care of the sick. Here the
technical and scientific equipment of modern medicine with
its care and services is placed at the disposal of apostolic charity: it is this charity in a visible modern expression.
It goes, then, without saying that when we speak to God
personally in prayer our task in the world is not something
that must be passed over in silence. On the contrary, it should
be a subject of conversation; not with the purpose of discovering in prayer more about the technical aspects of our secular work, as prayer obviously cannot teach us anything about
that; but primarily in order, in our personal encounter with
God, to realise in detail how this secular occupation fits into
the economy of salvation, in order to purify our intention and
to arouse our desire of saving others. Whenever, in the course
of the day, we are working together with God, we may also
speak to God about our work. The layman's life of prayer,
which still must be truly prayer, acquires in this way a colouring different from that of, for example, the religious. His
lay occupation is a form-giving principle of his lay spirituality. Even in his personal encounter with God the layman is
not simply a Christian, with all the characterstic interests of
a Christian as a member of the Kingdom of God; he is also a
layman. He stands before God in prayer with all his concern
for this world. His desire is certainly to deepen his belief in
the Kingdom of God and to draw from prayer the strength
to devote himself entirely to the service of this Kingdom; still
he must realise that his secular occupation is something which
cannot be indifferent to the divine overlordship. It is precisely because the layman personally shares, through grace, in
God's own creative love for the world, that he becomes conscious-and first of all in his prayer-that his secular occupation has a positive, divine, redemptive sense, a significance
in the economy of salvation.

276

E. H. SCHILLEBEECKX

From this lay point of view, taking account, that is, of the
laity's orientation towards secular affairs, the general Christian apostolic activities of the layman as Christian may also
be clarified. Thus the function to be fulfilled in the Church by
the Christian as one who is baptized, confirmed and strengthened by the eucharistic sacrifice, will also always be determined by the layman's characteristic position in the world. A
suggestive example of this is the duty laid on the layman by
the sacrament of marriage. In the family the preaching of
the word of God, for example, is primarily the duty of the
parents by reason of the function given them in the Church
by their marriage, insofar as it is the marriage of people
who are baptized. The layman must also be witness in his
characteristically lay fashion, in word and action, to the Word
of God. He may even be entrusted with the exposition of the
Word of God, as a lecturer in theology, although the true
"kerygma" or "ministry of the Word" (Acts 6, 4) does not
pertain to him, since it is part of the hierarchy's apostolate.
Further, since the layman shares in responsibility for the salvation of the Church and of mankind, he too has a right to
speak. There is place in the Church, as Pius XII indicated,
for "public opinion " and open discussion in which the layman may put forward his own point of view. In whatever
concerns the salvation of mankind the layman too has a right
to intervene by word and by action. This right is based on
the mission received from the Church by one who bears the
characters of baptism and confirmation; it is based too on the
charism of the Holy Spirit given him in connection with this
mission from the Church. There can therefore be categories of
people who become lay apostles and who devote themselves
exclusively by vocation to all kinds of Church apostolate; but
this will always be as lay people. Others, meanwhile, will employ only their free time to making themselves useful to the
Church in some particular fashion, over and above their general lay apostolate. The hierarchy, as guardian of all that pertains to the life of the Church, has consequently the obliga-

THE LAYMAN IN THE CHURCH

Q77

tion to respect and encourage the characteristically lay form
of Church life. A layman, especially if he is an intellectual or
has received some form of higher education, has his own view
about several aspects of the Church. Exerting moral influence,
he can from time to time assert himself vigorously. The very
fact that he is a layman opens his eyes to aspects which perhaps escape the notice of the hierarchy. Whenever he complains about the cultural inertia of Catholics, the Church ought
to listen and weigh his comments on their merits. But in all
this specifically lay Christian activity in the Church the laity
never act in an authoritative capacity; that is the prerogative
of the hierarchy. This implies that the entire lay activity of
a Christian in the Church falls under the control of ecclesiastical authority. This means likewise that the entire activity of
the layman in the Church and the world can in no respect
really participate in the hierarchical functions of teaching,
government or pastoral care.
Is not this last statement explicitly contradicted by the
various forms of Catholic Action which has been defined as
"participation by the laity in the apostolate of the hierarchy"?
This requires close attention. After a first and still tentative period in which, during the pontificate of Pius XI, the
phrase " lay participation in the hierarchical apostolate " was
in fact employed, this terminology later disappeared completely from papal documents on Catholic Action and the lay
apostolate. In these there is now mention only of " cooperatio," co-operation, of the laity with the hierarchy. This is not
simply a question of words. For lay co-operation or collaboration with the hierarchy alters in no way the lay status of
the layman and consequently (the term) points at the same
time to the characteristically lay sphere in which such co-operation is to be exercised. It indicates too the limits of this cooperation, making it clear that the layman can co-operate only
as a layman, and therefore by reason of his specifically lay
apostolate; and that, consequently, he can never "play" the
lay-pastor or the lay-deacon. Apostolic secular involvement,

278

E. H. SCHILLEBEECKX

considered precisely as organised co-operation with the clerical apostolate, remains therefore the specifically lay contribution in this collaboration of the laity and the ecclesiastical
hierarchy. The priesthood and the diaconate alone are genuine participations in the apostolic office of the ecclesiastical
hierarchy; but precisely by reason of this participation priests
and deacons are no longer laymen; they are clerics, even if
they wear secular clothes and even in the event of their being
married. (This point of view does not date only from the pontificate of Pius XII; we can find it already explicitly proposed
by, for example, Clement of Alexandria and Origen who make
a clear distinction between the laity on the one hand and the
episcopate, priesthood and diaconate on the other.)
Immediate co-operation of laymen, on the contrary, with the
ecclesiastical hierarchy, even when it takes the form of fulltime occupation and consequently requires that a person give
up his secular place in the world, remains in the category
of the occupation of the layman in the Church. (This is contrary to Karl Rahner's opinion on the matter, but is in conformity with Pius XII's address to the last Lay Congress in
Rome.) This category corresponds ultimately to what in the
early Church was the sphere of the minor orders and the subdiaconate (at that time a minor order). These orders are of
their nature lay, but their functions constitute direct co-operation with the apostolate of the hierarchy (although at the
present time these orders, at least in the Code of Canon Law
which is always subject to change, are considered simply as
steps to the diaconate and priesthood and consequently, on
this account, are also called clerical). Such lay functions, carrying with them an obligation to co-operate with the hierarchy, therefore, by their very nature do not require ordination, but simply an ecclesiastical nomination, or mandate,
from the hierarchy. (Up to the early Middle Ages the minor
orders and even the sub-diaconate were never conferred by an
ordination; an ecclesiastical nomination sufficed. In later
times, by analogy with the diaconate and the priesthood, this

THE LAYMAN IN Tl'IE CHURCH

nomination or mandate was accompanied by an ordination
which, consequently, is not a true sacrament but simply a
sacramental.)
The desire, expressed by lay people and priests, that laymen who devote their whole lives to such an organised form
of apostolate in Catholic Action should also receive an ordination is theologically unjustified. It is obvious that laymen
who, for example, on the missions in fact fulfill the functions
which pertain to the apostolate of the diaconate should be
made eligible for the order itself and so by ordination should
become clerics. But ordination is never just a formality! What
we now call Catholic Action is, therefore, nothing other than
a modern form of the old idea of the" minor orders"; namely,
the function in which a lay believer gains competency and
mandate to collaborate directly with the activity of the hierarchy. This co-operation can, in accordance with the needs of
the Church, take on many shapes; in the course of the
Church's history its forms have undergone various changes.
The following are some examples: assistance in public worship, acting as sacristan or altar-server, the administration of
Church property, keeping Church accounts (this was not infrequently entrusted to subdeacons even in the Middle Ages),
acting as secretary to a bishop or priest, as a member of the
choir, as a reader at church services when there is no deacon.
Besides these, all sorts of new and modern forms can be suggested: lay representation among the officials of the diocesan
court, lay agencies which would be commissioned by the ecclesiastical authorities to undertake religio-sociographical studies
directed towards achieving better results from the hierarchical
apostolate; assistance in governing the Church insofar as this
government requires various specialisations: canonical, theological, philosophical, sociological and so forth; (so, for example, a great deal of the work now done exclusively by priests
in the Roman Congregations and in all sorts of Church activities and organisations could be handled by laymen); further,
organisations of laymen for the formation and instruction of

E. H. SCHILLEBEECKX

Christians in view of their own lay apostolate in the world,
namely, in the family, in the professions and trades, in the
public life of the state, and so on; or again, lay organisations
to uphold the rights of the Church in public life, or laymen
who act as fulltime leaders even of organisations with a specifically religious purpose, etc., etc. I might be able to formulate it as follows: it is a question, not of lay participation,
but of lay assistance in the exercise of the apostolic function
of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. In other words, it is rendering
lay assistance, whether to the teaching authority of the Church,
or to the governmental functions of the Church, or to the
sanctifying and pastoral duties of the priesthood. Lay assistance: this signifies consequently co-operation with the apostolate of the hierarchy insofar as the latter necessarily includes
secular involvement. And this secular involvement penetrates
deeply into the apostolate of the hierarchy which must of
course direct itself towards contemporary mankind with all its
human problems, which become problems too for the apostolate of the hierarch3r of the Church.
This whole set of problems can no longer be surveyed without the co-operation of the laity who, with their competence
in secular affairs, can throw a great deal of light on these matters. It was to just such lay people, devoting themselves fulltime to this kind of apostolic activity that the minor orders
were given in the early Church; that is, such persons were
appointed by the Church in this way to their official function. Since it is a question of co-operation with the specifically
hierarchical apostolate, clearly the hierarchy, although making
an appeal for professional work pertaining properly to the layman's competence, always maintains immediate directive control over this form of the lay apostolate (in contrast to the
general lay apostolate). For in such co-operation with the hierarchy lay apostles place themselves in complete dependence
on the ecclesiastical hierarchy to the immediate service of
which they dedicate their secular skills. We may put it this
way: the common general lay apostolate moves in the sphere

281

THE LAYMAN IN THE CHURCH

of the world, but as proceeding from the apostolic spirit of a
Christian and a member of the Church; it also moves in the
sphere of the Church, but there as proceeding from the lay
position of one who is baptized and confirmed. Lay co-operation with the apostolate of the hierarchy, on the contrary,
moves in the sphere of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, at least
insofaT as this sphere includes secular involvement, that secular involvement which is the proper sphere of the layman.
So we see that the Christian layman bears responsibility
both towards the Church and towards the world, and that his
apostolic secular involvement is at the service of both Church
and world.
PossiBLE

DANGERS

oF THE PRESENT-DAY

OF THE CHRISTIAN

AwARENEss

LAITY

We must accept fully the consequences of this lay spirituality. This growth of awareness demands a certain realignment of mentality also on the part of clerics. Insight into the
specific role of the layman is not sufficient. It is said easily
enough that the layman must assume more responsibility, but
from the moment that laymen actually do this and put forward an opinion quite different from one held by the clergy
the alarm bell is sounded in parish and religious houses. In
the light of lay experience certain new emphases will sometimes be laid, perhaps even certain aspects in the faith will
be brought to light which formerly were not wholly apparent
to the clergy with their specifically clerical experience. Besides
all this, from the moment that two Christian adults come into
contact with one another in the performance of any task, even
if one has a position of authority while the other truly possesses a spirit of obedience based on faith and submission to
the Church, then it is in the course of nature that friction
can no longer be avoided, just as friction between pastors and
their bishops cannot be wholly eliminated. It is naturally true
that, by reason of the still brief history of Christian self-awareness of the layman in the Church, the laity do not yet know
exactly where the limits of their active function in the Church

282

E. H. SCHILLEBEECKX

lie. I should say: they do not know this because the theologians themselves do not yet properly know it and because this
whole new experience has not yet been fully thought out on
the theological level. In these circumstances it need not surprise us if the layman, conscious that he holds his own place
and significance in the Church, will sometimes here and there
act as though he were the vicar and successor, perhaps not of
Peter, but at least of Paul, the unruly one.
We must give the laity time and room so that they may
feel their way, guided by the Church and enlightened by theologians (not necessarily priests), towards their own function
in the Church, moved as they are by the charism of the Holy
Spirit. Now and again mistakes will be made in one direction
or another. The clerics themselves in their attempts to define their precise clerical task, have at times been guilty of
thoroughgoing "clericalisation" and so have moved outside
their own territory. They must not, then, be waiting to pounce
if, in his turn, the layman now and again " laicises," or even
tries to " clericalise " himself and act as though he were parish priest. Nevertheless, these are the two principal dangers
the layman must be on his guard against: on the one hand,
that in his loyal recognition of secular reality, in whatever
sphere it may be, he will allow himself to become so absorbed
in secular involvement that he will forget the dialogue with
God, and through his sympathy for the institutions of the secular order, he will lose his feeling for the breath of the Spirit
who sometimes breathes out over all institutions; and on the
other hand, the danger (which threatens primarily the second
form of lay apostolate) that the layman's collaboration with
the hierarchy will lead him to arrogate to himself clerical
airs, that he will take up an attitude as though the day of the
priest in the Church were now ended and as though he, the
layman, were now the one to assume care for the salvation of
men and of the Church; the danger, in a word, that the layman will consider himself emancipated from the hierarchy.
All the same that does not mean that the layman is simply
an executive of official Church decisions. The layman has his

THE LAYMAN IN THE CHURCH

fl8S

own choice which is itself of the Church; he has his own task
to fulfill which is of the Church. This is a consequence of the
mandate of a baptized, confirmed and married Christian. This
mandate, through the eucharistic celebration of the whole
Church and hence of the layman himself, is continually stimulated and nourished in charismatic fashion until it is activated in word and action which are the expression of his hidden union in grace with Christ and with the whole Church.
It is precisely for this reason that in Canon Law too the special activity of the layman in the Church should be given
canonical pmtection just as, for example, the special pastoral
activity of a parish priest is protected in the Code against
possible abuse of episcopal authority. Until the dogmatic notions of the Christitm laity are also given canonical structure
the layman remains powerless, and may, after enduring as many
conflicts as he can support, throw over the whole enterprise.
Such canonical protection does not involve any partial withdrawal of the laity from ecclesiastical authority. On the contrary, it is a canonical, authoritative recognition of the particularly lay form of membership of the Church which belongs
to the Christian layman.
Much more should properly be said about the full dimensions of the Christian-being of the layman, and about the full
range of the lay-being of the Christian. Further, we should
like to contrast the position of the layman in the world with
that of lay people who are in religious orders (not priests) and
with that of laymen in secular institutes. But this article was
intended simply as a general survey. I should like to conclude
by stressing once again the fact that the lay believer also belongs to the "great Sign that has been raised up among the
nations," a Sign which reveals to all men something vital in
this society which cal1s itself the Church of Christ, something
so intriguing that this society becomes for them a truly irresistible invitation to enter into it themselves or to live in it
more fervently and more consistently.

E. H. ScHILLEB:EiECKX, 0. P.
Nijmegen, Holland

THE THEOLOGICAL FOUNDATION
LAY APOSTOLATE

OF THE

THE THEOLOGY oF THE LAY APosTOLATE: DocTRINAL
AND ExPERIMENTAL

T

HE theology of the lay apostolate cannot be based exclusively on abstract principles, or more correctly on
the objective and normative events of Salvation's
history narrated in the Holy Scripture, but it must also take
into account the facts of the Christian experiences of today.
These facts are nothing else than the continuation of the sacred
history in the time of the Church under the guidance of the
Holy Spirit. An example might make this clearer: the theology
o£ mystical experience is not simply a deduction of what it
should be, given the nature of grace, faith and charity, but
also an induction of the phenomena of mystical experiences,
as they appear, under varied forms in history. We cannot tell
exactly what mystical experience should be without considering what it was in history. In the same fashion we cannot
say what the lay apostolate should be without paying attention to its diverse manifestations in our times. Theological
investigation here must be at the same time doctrinal and
experimental. It must try to obtain an understanding o£ the
mission of the Church and of the participation of the laity in
that mission. On the other hand the theological inquiry must
consider, recognize and respect the variety and the diversity o£
the callings, orientations and inspirations present in the community life of the Church. Practically this means that the lay
apostolate cannot be reduced to any one formula: Catholic
action, the Legion of Mary, or the new secular institutes. There
has sometimes been an unilateralism, e. g., social action versus
apostolic action, Catholic organizations versus free uninstitutionalized apostolate, Catholic action versus everything else,
284

THEOLOGICAL

FOUNDATION

OF THE LAY APOSTOLATE

which does not respect the unity and diversity of the gifts of
God.

The central theme
The central theme on which depends the full understanding
of the vocation and the mission of laymen is probably the
relation between the Church and the World. This theme can be
evoked under many names. Fr. Cougar in his great book 1
calls it: "The position of the laity, Kingdom, Church and
World." Pope Paul VI, when Archbishop Milan, formulated
the problem in the II World Congress for the Lay Apostolate in very precise terms. In relation to the distinction between the sacred and the profane:
The mission of the Church is to bring the sacred into a determined
relationship with the profane in such a manner that the former
will not be contaminated but communicated, and the latter will
not be altered but sanctified." 2

Whatever be the definition of the layman (and it is still rather
vague in theology) , he is doubtless a Christian who remains
engaged in the profane tasks and responsibilities of the world.
Therefore the value of his vocation and his action as a service
to the world is of decisive interest for him. But at the same
time his participation in the priestly, prophetical and kingly
offices of the Church cannot be forgotten. So that in order to
understand the apostolate of the laity, we have to start from
the two great aspects of the design of God in mankind: the act
of creation and the act of the mission of the Holy Trinity. By
the first God communicates being to His creatures and especially to man made in His image. By the second God communicates the very eternal life of the Holy Trinity through the
mission of the Son and the mission of the Holy Spirit. It is the
1 Yves M. J. Cougar, Lay People in the Church, A Study for a Theology of the
Laity, Tr. by Donald Attwater, (Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, Srd
imp. 1962) Ch. III.
2 The Mission of the Church, in Major Documents on Catholic Action from the
Second World Congress of the Lay Apostolate (Rome, Oct. 6-18, 1957), (Notre
Dame: National Catholic Action Study Bureau, 1958), p. 51.

AUGUSTIN P. LEONARD

two-fold response of the Christian to these divine manifestations which explains the totality of the lay apostolate.

The design of God
In order to organize the various elements which come into
play here, Fr. Congar in his book Lay People in the Church
goes back to a fundamental vision which is the design of God
for the world and the successive realization of this divine will.
God's purpose is to constitute his kingdom. "And this his good
pleasure he purposed in him, to be dispensed in the fullness of
the times: to re-establish all things in Christ, both those in
the heavens and those on the earth " (Eph. 1 : 9-10) . When
Christ is sent in " the fullness of the times," in the center of
history, everything is already given in his person and his mystery. The last times have come. The spiritual gifts are already
really present and we apprehend them by faith, " the substance of things to be hoped for" (Heb. 11: 1); and by hope,
but in the mystery: "And in him you too, when you had heard
the word of truth, the good news of your salvation, and believed in it, were sealed with the Holy Spirit of the promise,
who is the pledge of our inheritance, for a redemption of possession, for the praise of his glory" (Eph. 1: 13-14). The kingdom is here, " The kingdom of God is in the midst of you "
(Lk. 17: 21), but it does not yet irradiate all its glory. Redemption does not yet produce all its final and eschatological
effects in the transfiguration of the cosmos. We are still oriented towards a future which is that of the new heaven and the
new earth and we groan in expectation with the whole creation
which " awaits the revelation of the sons of God'' (Rom. 8: 1922). Between the first coming of Christ and the end of the
world or the second coming, time does not stand still; there is
still a history. These two stages, present and future, of the
kingdom, these two aspects of the kingship of Christ lead us to
recognize the duality of the Church and the world. In this
actual period of redemption realized, but not yet glorious, time
will appear to us as the time of the in-between: the time of the
Church, the time of the mission and of the expansion of the

THEOLOGICAL

FOUNDATION

OF THE LAY APOSTOLATE

kingdom of God to "all nations." The time which is also, as
regards our options, the time of freedom, of choice and decision.
In the actual economy sacred or " ecclesial " time does not
absorb cosmic time which still goes on as an ambiguous time
subjected to, but also offered for, redemption. 3 Therefore
the salvation in Christ does not eliminate a permanency of
the world as the order of nature, whence illness and suffering;
and a permanency of the world as the place of evil, partially
submitted to the prince of the world, whence sin. " For the
mystery of iniquity is already at work"
Thes. 7).

The act of Creation
At the same time the world as the creation of God, basically
good in itself, has its own relative ends: the achievement of
more human civilizations. The creation is also already Christological, because it was made by the Word of God who is the
Son (Jn. 1: 3; Heb. 1:
and because it is pre-ordained to and
actually assumed by redemption and ultimately oriented to the
achievement of the Kingdom of God. This is strongly recognized, but somewhat simplified in the " Christified cosmogenesis" of Teilhard de Chardin. The time of the in-between
remains very complex and obliges us to maintain a distinction
between the Church and the world and to discern how the one
and the other have a proper and specific relationship to the ultimate goal which is the one and unique kingdom of God. Thus
the layman, in his specific task which is the " conservatio
mundi," the bringing of all human works and activities into the
sphere of the redeeming power of Christ, refers human history
to its ultimate accomplishment in the Parousia, if he respects
the relative ends of these activities.

The Mission of the Holy Trinity
Let us consider now the mission of the Holy Trinity which
is the origin of every mission, office and service in the Church.
3 Jean Mouroux, Le Mystere du temps. App1·oche Theologique
(Paris: Aubier,
1962), Ch. VIII.

288

AUGUSTIN

P. LEONARD

The Church is formed not only by the creative act of the
omnipotence of God but by a second act which communicates
to human persons the very life of God. For the operations
ad extm, the activity of God in the world, must be attributed
in common to the Divine Persons. The Church is therefore,
before anything else, a Corpus Trinitatis/ a body in which the
human persons are united in the participation of the life which
flows from the Holy Trinity. The structure and the mission
of the Church depends therefore on the economy of the divine
missions. The eternal act of the Father is the primary origin
of the Church. In his first discourse St. Peter relates all the
events of Christ to "the settled purpose and foreknowledge of
God " (Act 2: 23) , and St. Paul blesses the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ who "chose us in him before the foundation
of the world " and " predestined us to be adopted through
Jesus Christ as his sons" (Eph. 1: 3-6). The Father sends the
Son: "For God so loved the world that he gave his onlybegotten Son, that those who believe in him may not perish,
but may have life everlasting. For God did not send his Son
into the world in order to judge the world, but that the world
might be saved through him" (Jn. 3: 16-17; Mat. 10: 40; 15: 24;
21 : 27; Lk. 4: 43; 9: 48) . The whole industry of Christ depends
on that original mission. 5 The risen Lord sends the Holy
Spirit, who is his spirit, to be the animating soul of the young
and incipient Church. Jesus himself has been baptized into
his mission by the unction of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit descends upon him (Lk. 3 : 22) , he is "full of the Holy Spirit "
(Lk. 4: 1), he goes to Galilee "in the power of the Spirit"
(Lk. 4: 14), and finally he applies to himself the famous text
of Isaia (61 : 1-3) in which His Servant is anointed by the Lord
to his messianic mission: " The Spirit of the Lord is upon me
because he has anointed me; to bring good news to the poor he
4 " quoniam ubi tres, id est pater et filius et spiritus sanctus, ibi ecclesia quae
trium corpus est " Tertullian, De Baptismo, VI,
5 Thus the Son is said to be sent by the Father into the world, inasmuch as
he began to exist visibly in the world by taking our nature; whereas He was
previously in the world (Jn. 1: 1)," (S. Th. I, q. 48, a. 1).

THEOLOGICAL

FOUNDATION

OF THE LAY APOSTOLATE

has sent me, to proclaim to the captives release, and sight to
the blind; to set at liberty the oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord" (Lk. 5: 18-19). Similarly in virtue
of the absolute authority and power which have been given to
Christ, he commissioned his apostles to continue his mission
(Mat.
Lk. 9:
Lk. 10: 1). The mission of the
apostles comes from the Father and the Son, as St. Paul proclaims at the beginning of many epistles: " Paul, an Apostle,
sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God
the Father" (Gal. 1: 1; 1 Cor. 1 : 1; Cor. 1 : l; Eph. 1: 1; 1
Tim. 1: 1; Tim. 1 : 1).
The unity of the mission coming from God became a traditional doctrine. Tertullian expresses it in a classic manner:
"Ecclesiae ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus a Deo." 6
But this mission must be sustained, nourished, enlightened,
strengthened by the presence of the Holy SpiriU The Spirit
will bring back to the mind whatever Christ has said (Jn.
14:
he is the spirit of truth (Jn. 14: 16), he will bear witness to Christ and as a consequence the apostles also will bear
witness (Jn. 15:
Actually the first preaching of the
Church, and the performance of the prophetical gift that the
prophet Joel (3:
had foreseen for the sons and daughters
of Israel starts with the pentecostal gift of the Holy Spirit
(Acts 2: 4;
16-18;
33) . The unity of the divine mission
and the diversity of its aspects depend ultimately on the
" agape " of God who has loved the world. The purpose and
the structure of this mission are thereby manifested and we can
draw the obvious consequences for the nature of the Church
and of her apostolate.
The reason there is a Church, and one Church, is because
the love and the eternal life of God have been communicated to
mankind in the death, resurrection and exaltation of Christ,
the Head of the Church (Col. 1:
the High Priest of
De Prescriptione, 21, 4 and 87, 1.
Yves M. Y. Congar, The Mystery of the Church, tr. by A. V. Littledale
(Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1960), Ch. VI, "The Holy Spirit and the Apostolic
Body: continuators of the work of Christ."
6

7

AUGUSTIN P. LEONARD

the new covenant (Heb. 5: 1-10) , the new Adam of a new
humanity: " the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit" (1 Cor.
15 : 45; Rom. 5 :
. The Church is the gathering of divided
mankind into the unity of the love and the life that came from
God. She is the instrument and the sign of the reconciliation
of man to God in Christ, of man with men, of man with himself, and of man with the cosmos. She is already this reconciliation partially and mysteriously achieved, but still growing to
"the mature measure of the fullness of Christ" (Eph. 4: 13).
Jews and Gentiles, i.e., all nations, have access through Christ
"in one spirit to the Father." Therefore we are no longer
strangers and foreigners, but we are "citizens with the saints
and members of God's household" (Eph.
19;
Christ has become the peace of the world, he has broken down
" the intervening wall of the enclosure," and therefore he has
made possible for mankind to become in peace and unity the
temple of the Lord and the " dwelling place for God in the
Spirit " (Eph.
. We do not know the dimensions of
the temple and many are building it and are part of it invisibly.
"Many," says St. Augustine, " seem to be within who are in
reality without and others seem to be without who are in
reality within." 8
The Church is also a communion in faith, hope and charity,
which is expressed, signified and realized in the unity of faith
preached and kept by the Church and in the unity of the
sacraments. The creator of this unity is especially the personal
love, which is the Holy Spirit, the soul of the Church. 9 The
communication of the eternal life and the presence of the Holy
8 Sermo 354,
(P. L. 39, 1564) quoted with other references of St. Augustine
on the same subject in Yves M. Y. Cougar, The Mystery of the Temple or
The Manner of God's Presence to His Creatures from Genesis to Apocalypse
(Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press,
p. 197 ff.
• "For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body" (1 Cor.
13; 1 Cor.
1: 4-11). Cf. Leo XITI, Encyclical Divinum illud munus; Pius XII, Encyclical
Mystici Corporis. St. Augustine writes: "quod autem est anima corpori hominis,
IV, 4; P. L.
hoc est Spiritus Sanctus corpori Christi, quod est Ecclesia" (Sermo
t. 38, c. U31) . St. Thomas compares the role of the Spirit to that of the heart:
"Et ideo cordi comparatur Spiritus sanctus qui invisibiliter Ecclesiam vivificat et
unit" (S. T. ill, q. 8, a. 1, ad 3) .

THEOLOGICAL

FOUNDATION

OF THE LAY APOSTOLATE

291

Spirit are explicitly creators of unity. This unity is also effected
and made visible in the Eucharist. The mission of the Church
leads to the Eucharist, because she is realized as the mystical
body of Christ in her communion to the real body of Christ. 10
This is the reason why, especially before the eleventh century,
the expression " mystical body " was primarily attached to the
Eucharist and subsequently passed from the Eucharist to the
Church, as from the significant to the signified.11
From these deep and inner sources pertaining to the very
essence of the Church springs the apostolate and, obviously, its
high sacred quality should be respected. The apostolate is not
at all like the effort of a human, even a moral, society to
increase the number of its members, but is, in fact, the communication of the eternal life and the manifestation of the love
of God to mankind. By their very nature the divine realities
which constitute the Church are universal. They are valid,
significant and necessary for all men, and tend towards actual
universality. The design of God, the death and the resurrection
of Christ, the communion of the Holy Spirit embrace all men.
Nobody is a priori excluded from the meaningful tragedy and
triumph in which he has been created to be an actor and a
communicant. The energies of the divine life, communicated
through Christ in the faith and the sacraments of the Church,
originate a movement which is less to bring people from without to within the bond of the Church, than to extend from
within the " communion " of the Spirit and the Eucharist to
the people who are without/ 2 in order to realize with them the
reconciled mankind of the new creation as it is willed by God.
The mission of the Church is not accidental to her being, it is
not a matter of choice; it is her being as the total body of Christ
10 "Res hujus sacramenti
est unitas corporis mystici" (S. T. liT, q. 73, a. 3).
Cf. other references in J. Hamer, L'Eglise est une communion (Paris: Cerf, 1962),
p. 83 ff.
11 H. de Lubac, Corpus Mysticum. L'Eucharistie et l'Eglise au Moyen Age (Paris:
Au bier, 2d ed. 1949), p. 47 ff.
12 Cf. a good explanation
of "the communion " in the introduction of Anne
Fremantle to The Papal Encyclicals in their Historical Context (New York: New
American Library Mentor Books, 4th pr. 1960), p. 22 fl'.

AUGUSTIN P. LEONARD

in its way towards realization. From this theological point of
view the distinction between the mission of the Church and
the specific missionary activity of preaching the Gospel where
it is unheard of, or of planting the Church where she is unknown, is secondary. All the texts of the New Testament in
which the Church is explicitly commissioned to continue the
ministry of Christ are apostolic and "missionary " (Mt.
Lk.
47-49; Jn.
Acts 1: 7-8). There is no
sharp distinction between a pastoral and an apostolic activity.13 The missionary responsibility is given to the whole
Church, to each particular Church and to each Christian who,
in the Church, is sent to the world: " as thou hast sent me
18 Such a sharp distinction
made by the exponents of " missiology " does not
seem convincing, v. g.: "The ordinary ecclesiastical ministry is twofold: pastoral
(for the care of the faithful in the Church), and apostolic (for the conversion to
the Church) ," Andrew V. Seumois, 0. M. I., " The Evolution of Mission Theology
Among Roman Catholics," in The Theology of the Christian Mission, ed. by
Gerald H. Anderson, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961), p. 130. It is of course
true that we may distinguish different kinds of apostolate and amongst them a
typical missionary activity, as we can distinguish in theology a set of problems
covered by "missiology." Thus we had in recent years: "pastoral," "kerygmatic,"
" catechetic," " lay," etc., theologies. This development has been extremely useful,
because it is also true that: " there was a degree of proud contempt from some
theologians, perhaps very competent in traditional scholastic disputations, who
were not inclined to leave the sphere of speculation in order to devote doctrinal
study to the complex ecclesiological realm of missionary realities " (Ibid., p. 129).
But it should not be forgotten that there is basically one " mission " of the
Church, as there is one theology. The theological and practical fragmentation may
lead to opposite results than those which are pursued. For instance: does an
established and institutionalized local Church cease to be " apostolic" in order
to be "pastoral "? Is the missionary activity the work of a small number of
specialists or a responsibility for every Christian? Does the primary task of the
Church of announcing the Gospel and converting people cease ever to be the
primary task of any Church? The relative failure of the Christian missions and
the relative weakness of the Christian witness before racial segregation, the misery
of underdeveloped countries, the international tensions come from the fact that
these things are left to specialists. They are not felt as a common responsibility
of the whole Christian community in the so-called Christian countries where the
Churches are supposed to be " established " and for that very reason, cease precisely in many instances to be " apostolic," i. e., to feel responsible and concerned
for the unevangelized world. The basic error is that in the fragmentation in so
many " theologies," the true nature of the Church and of her " mission " which are
the same everywhere and for every Christian are not seen any more. It is one
more case of the trees hiding the forest.

THEOLOGICAL

FOUNDATION

OF THE LAY APOSTOLATE

fl93

into the world, so I also have sent them into the world" (Jn.
17: 18) . The whole Church is in a perpetual state of mission
and of movement. Her mission is identical to her being. A
Church which would stop being " sent " would not be a Church
anymore. Because she is holy, the Church must communicate
holiness; she must sanctify in being the instrumental communication of the dynamic divine realities which are present in her.
Because she is one, she is bringing the unity of the love of God
to mankind, preserving " the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
peace: one body and one Spirit, even as you were called in one
hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God
and Father of all who is above all, and throughout all, and
in us all " (Eph. 4 : 3-6) . Because the Church is apostolic, her
mission is the continuation of the mission of the apostles and
through them of the mission of Christ. Because she is catholic,
i.e., universal, the Church needs the world and the different
races and cultures to express more fully the mystery of redemption, and the world needs the Church to have its science, its
art, its work fully realized and consecrated. It is obvious that
the apostolate which springs thus from the essential properties
of the Church must retain their quality. The apostolate is not
a conquest or a crusade. It is not a kind of spiritual colonialism
which destroys the freedom and the human quality of the
colonized. It is not animated by a spirit of domination, by an
unconscious pharisaical pride, by a pretentious will of power
and of influence. The apostolate is not a propaganda or a
publicity which can use psychological or sociological pressures.
When it ceases to be authentic, i. e., to use means which are on
the same level as its end-the communication of the mystery of
Christ-the apostolate destroys itself even if it seems to be
humanly successful. That kind of success will be paid for later
on by a more tragic spiritual failure. It would not be difficult
to find examples of this in the past and present history of the
Church. The servant is not greater than the master. The
apostolate is a kind of invitation, addressed to persons as such.
It is the highest interpersonal communication which necessarily
awakens the maturity and the responsibility of spiritual decision. The unique motive of the apostolate is an authentic love.

294

AUGUSTIN P. LEONARD

The participation of the layman in the mission of the Church
If the mission of the Church is inseparable from her being,
to participate in that mission is the same as being a Christian.
The layman is committed to the mission of the Church by faith
and the sacraments of faith. Faith normally cannot be divorced from the sacraments, and especially from baptism which
is a sort of protestation of faith and is called " the sacrament
of faith." 14 There is always in baptism a profession of faith.
I£ it is not made by the adult individual, it is performed by
the sponsors or by the Church. St. John Chrysostom even calls
baptism a treaty passed with God by faith and the confession
of faith. 15 As regards the lay apostolate it is important to
notice that the sacrament of Christian initiation not only
requires a confession of faith but obviously leads to a further
working out of this confession. The new liturgical custom in
the Easter liturgy to have the assembly renew their baptismal
promises is full of signification. All the effects of baptism, as
they are mentioned by tradition: the rebirth of a new creature
(Jn. 3: 5), the participation in the death and resurrection of
Christ (Rom. 6: 3-5), the illumination which transforms every
Christian into a light put upon the candlestick that it may
shine to all that are in the house, all these effects imply an
apostolic dimension. In the last instance of the light, the connection is made by the Evangelist himself: " So let your light
shine before men, that they may see your good works, and
glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Jn. 1: 9-12) .16 Furthermore by his baptism, the Christian is incorporated into the
body of Christ (1 Cor. 12: 13; Gal. 3: 27-29) 17 in order to take
part in the building up of that body in love (Eph. 4: 7-16).
This spiritual activity is fostered by the sacramental character
which is the indelible effect of the Christian initiation. The
14 S. T., Ill, q. 66, a. 1, ad 1; Ill, q. 70, a. 1; III, q. 71, a. 1: "Baptism is the
sacrament of faith: since it is a profession of the Christian faith."
15 Jean Chrysosthome, Huit Catecheses baptismales inedites, ed. Antoine Wenger,
a. a. (Paris: Cerf, 1957), Cat. IV, 31.
16 A. d'Ales, S. J., Baptism and Confirmation (St. Louis:
Herder, 1929), p. 75.
17 Without excluding the reference to the personal Christ especially in verse 12,

THEOLOGICAL

FOUNDATION

OF THE LAY APOSTOLATE

295

sacramental character is a participation in Christ's priesthood 18
which gives the faithful a spiritual power to receive the other
sacraments and " to be deputed to a spiritual service pertaining
to the worship of God." 19 Though St. Thomas calls the baptismal character a " passive " 20 power to receive the sacraments, it is obvious by his comments that this power is a source
of action. The character is passive as far as it is a seal: the
sign of the consecration and the possession by the Spirit (2 Cor.
1 : 21-22) , the sign of the assimilation to Christ, as the Epistle
to the Hebrews calls Christ the :figure, the "character," the
express image of the substance of the Father (Heb. 1: 3). But
this seal of permanent consecration is also a deputation, a
commission to take part, not only in the liturgy of the Church,
in the divine worship which is by itself " a certain profession
of faith by external signs," 21 but also in the accomplishment
of the whole Christian life in love.
In the very :first baptism rituals it was stressed that the
it is clear that St. Paul speaks also of the Church (I Cor. 12: 27-28), in spite of
many different interpretations. Cf. Markus Barth, Die Taufe ein Sakrament?
Ein exegetischer Beitrag zum gesprach uber die kirchliche Taufe (Ziirich: Zollikon,
1951), p. 318 ff.; S. T., III, q. 68, a. 1.
18 "In a sacramental character Christ's faithful have a share in his priesthood;
in the sense that as Christ has the full power of a spiritual priesthood, so his
faithful are likened to him by sharing a certain spiritual power with regard to the
sacraments and to things pertaining to the divine worship" (S. T., III, q. 63, a. 5).
19 S. T., III, q. 63, a. 1.
20 S. T., III, q. 63, a. 2.
21 S. T., III, q. 63, a. 4, ad 3; "A character is a kind of seal by which the soul
is marked, so that it may receive, or bestow on others, things pertaining to
Divine worship. Now the divine worship consists in certain actions ... " (S. T.,
III, q. 63, a. 4); grace is given to those who have received the character: "so
that they may accomplish worthily the service to which they are deputed "
(Ibid., ad 1).
The activity of the character is well stressed in Colman O'Neill, 0. P., "The
Role of the Recipient and Sacramental Signification," The Thomist, 1958 (Vol.
XXI), n. 3, p. 284 ff.; ibid., n. 4, p. 508-540; also James E. Rea, The Common
Priesthood of the Members of the Mystical Body (Westminster Md.: Newman
Bookshop, 1947), p. 193: the passive potency " cannot be interpreted to mean that
the faithful are ' inactive' in the sacraments and in divine worship." These
references were kindly communicated to me by my confrere Fr. P. Hanley, 0. P.,
professor at the University of Notre Dame.

296

AUGUSTIN P. LEONARD

catechumens had been anointed with the same chrism with
which " the priests and the prophets " had been anointed, sealing them for the service of God and the community: " for the
implantation of faith in the robust and beautiful olive tree of
Thy Church." 22 Baptism already deputes the layman to the
profession of faith and Christian service, but this deputation is
increased and perfected and more oriented towards the sharing
in the apostolic work of the Church by confirmation. Confirmation is considered as giving a certain fullness in the Spirit, a
Christian maturity, in which the faithful "receives the power
of publicly confessing his faith by words, as it were ex officio." 23
It is for this " office " that the Christian is made perfect by the
gifts of the Spirit. To be a witness of Christ depends on the
power received from the Holy Spirit. 24 This was the promise
of Christ and the apostles carried it on by the laying on of
hands on the first converted (Reb. 8: 14-20; 19: 1-7) ,25 This
22 Trois antiques rituels du bapteme, ed. by A. Salles (Coll. Sources Chretiennes,
n. 59; Paris: Cerf, 1958), p. 49-50.
a. 5, ad
•• S. T. III, q.
24 " You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you shall
be witnesses for me in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and even to the
very ends of the earth" (Acts. I :8).
25 We cannot enter here in the controversy
between Catholics and Protestants,
between Anglicans and Anglicans, Anglicans and Protestants, Protestants and
Protestants, concerning the differences between Baptism and Confirmation. The
situation on this point is confused indeed and very sad, especially since Karl
Barth has attacked infant baptism (The Teaching of the Church regarding
Baptism, London: S.C. M. Press, 1948), without decisive biblical justification
(0. Cullmann, Baptism in the New Testament, Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1950).
Lukas Vischer (La confirmation au cours des siecles, Neuchatel: Delachaux, 1959)
thinks that the age of baptism should be free and accepts confirmation as an
introduction to the holy scene or as a repeated profession of faith. Andre Benoit
(Le bapteme chretien au second sieclB. La theologie des Peres, Paris: Presses
Universitaires, 1953) , p.
does not find any sign of a confirmation in the Fathers
of the II Century. Professor G. W. H. Lampe (The Seal of the Spirit, London,
1951) professes that the seal of the Spirit is given exclusively in baptism. L. S.
Thornton, C. R., (Confirmation, Its Place in the Baptismal Mystery, London:
Naere Press, 1954) maintains the validity of confirmation. This Anglican theologian makes a valuable remark against "the strange modern notion that a
'completion' of baptism in confirmation is derogatory to baptism. We might
just as well say that the Spirit-history in the Acts is derogatory to the Christhistory in the Gospels! This is the unwholesome idea of completeness which we

THEOLOGICAL

FOUNDATION

OF THE LAY APOSTOLATE

297

does not mean that the Holy Spirit is not already given in
baptism, but that there is a completion of the Christian initiation " with a commission to confess Christ officially and publicly, and thus to share Christ's mediatorial office of bringing
the truth and the charity of God to others." 26 The fact that
confirmation is usually given by the bishop, who is the responsible leader of the apostolic mission, is perhaps a sign that he
associates the layman, not to his own power, but to his
responsibility. 27
Baptism and confirmation lead to the Eucharist which is
"the end and the consummation of all the sacraments." 28
The Eucharist does not imprint in the Christian a character, a
deputation, and at first sight it might seem that it has no
apostolic signification. But this would be very odd in the sacrament which is the perfection of Christian life. I£ the Eucharist
does not give a character, it is because" it contains within itself
Christ, in whom there is not the character, but the very plenitude of the priesthood." 29 The implicit assumption (in this
text of St. Thomas) is that the Eucharist bestows something
more than the participation in Christ's priesthood which is
given in baptism and confirmation. The real union with Christ
himself, the unique and supreme Mediator of all men, necessarily involves the communicant in the work of redemption.
Considered as the sacrifice of the Church which repeats sacramentally the unique event of the crucifixion for all men and
for all times, the Eucharist commits the participant to the
found to be flatly contradictory to the perfection of the triune life in God. As
the Persons of the Godhead are complementary to one another, so the dispensation of the Spirit is complementary to the work of the Redeemer. So also our
identification with the Christ in his life-history through baptism is crowned by
his bestowal of the Spirit in confirmation " (p. 183) . For a complete account of
the controversy and a Catholic solution see Bernard Leeming, S. J., Principles of
Sacramental Theology (Westminster Md.: Newman Press,
ed. 1960), Ch.
V and VI.
•• Bernard Leeming, S. J., op. cit., p.
27 S. T., III, q.
a. 8: "The final completion is reserved to the supreme act
or power."
•• S. T., III, q. 63, a. 6.
•• Ibidem.

Q98

AUGUSTIN P. LEONARD

offering and the sacrifice for the salvation of the world. 30 In
its celebration the Christian community is proclaiming the
death of Christ as the unique salvific event for the past, the
present and the future. In the actual presence of Christ the
memory of the passion is made effective here and now and the
glory of the future is announced. 31 The Eucharist is the proclamation of the meaning of history in the mystery of Christ:
" For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the cup,
you proclaim the death of the Lord, until he comes" (1 Cor.
11 : Q6) . This perfect sacrament is also the realization of the
Church and of her unity. "Because the bread is one, we though
many, are one body, all of us who partake of the one bread"
(1 Cor. 10: 17) .32 The Eucharist is certainly the end and the
final accomplishment of the apostolate and as such it generates
a desire of this sacrament explicit or implicit, without which
none can receive grace and be incorporated in Christ. 33 But
in the end is the beginning; the Eucharist is also the main
source of the apostolate. As the sacrament of charity and of
unity, it gives to its participants not only the spiritual nourishment for their own journey (3 Kings 19: 8), but the impulse
to work in charity for unity.
As Gregory observes in a Homily for Pentecost, God's love is never
idle; for, wherever it is, it does great works. And consequently
through this sacrament, as far as its power is concerned, not only
is the habit of grace and of virtue bestowed, but it is furthermore
Cor. 5:14: "the love of Christ
aroused to act, according to
impels us. 34

Starting from these theological principles, what are the different forms of the lay apostolate? It would be of course im30 " The Eucharist is the perfect sacrament of our Lord's passion, as containing
Christ crucified" (S. T., III, q. 78, a. 5, ad
81 " 0 sacrum convivium in quo Christus sumitur, recolitur memoria passionis
ejus, mens impletur gratia et futurae gloriae nobis pignus datur" (C£. also S. T.,
III, q. 78, a. 4).
82 " The reality of the sacrament is the unity of the mystical body"
(8. T., III,
q. 78, a. 8); Ibid., a.
a. 4.
33 S. T., III, q. 78, a. 8; III, q. 7, a. I, ad I.
•• S. T., III, q. 79, a. I, ad

THEOLOGICAL

FOUNDATION

OF THE LAY APOSTOLATE

299

possible to mention all of them, but we can try to enumerate
the great categories which have become almost classic in the
Church.

The forms of the lay apostolate
The layman, by the sacraments he has received, is committed
to an apostolate which is co-extensive or co-terminous with his
vocation and his life as a Christian. This is the witness or the
confession of faith. In the New Testament the idea of witnessing concerns primarily the Twelve Apostles as eye-witnesses of
the historical events of the life of Jesus. But this quality is
also applied to St. Paul (Acts 22 : 15) and to the first martyr
Stephen (Acts 22: 20). Neither of them is properly speaking an
eye-witness in the historical sense but they have a profound
knowledge of the mystery of Christ. Stephen is a witness because he is "full of the Spirit " (Acts 7: 55) . The quality of
being a witness, though it belongs in a very special sense to
the apostles who have accompanied the Lord Jesus during his
life time and have become witnesses of his resurrection (Acts
1 : 21-22) , is extended to other Christians. The original image
of the Christian witness is the Crucified himself, who is crucified
because of his witness. He is the "faithful witness' (Ap. 1: 5;
3: 14; 1 Tim. 6: 13). He came into the world "to bear witness
to the truth" (Jn. 18: 31) .
Christ's witness is confirmed by many other witnesses: those
of the Father, the Spirit, the Scripture, John the Baptist, the
prophets, the works and the sacraments of Christ (Jn. 5: 31-39;
8: 12-19; 1: 6-9; 1: 19; 1: 32-34; 1 Jn. 1:1-3, 1 Jn. 5: 7-12).85 Those
who believe will come into contact with the Son of God full of
grace and truth, and will be made capable of giving their own
testimony, not as eye-witnesses of the historical fact, but as
believers rooted in the experience of their faith, because they
have received in them the testimony of God (1 Jn. 5: 7-12).
The witness is not a teacher, or even less a propagandist.
He has identified himself internally with the truth and there35

Art. Martus, in Kittel, Theologisches Worterbuch zum N. T., ed. G. Kittel.

soo

AUGUSTIN P. LEONARD

fore will manifest it as if he were translucent. He has " the
light of life" in himself (Jn. 8: 11; Jn. S:
. The idea of
witnessing is very close to that of the confession of faith. 36 It
is the expression of one's faith as enveloping the whole individual, family and social life and is manifested in many ways
according to the circumstances. It is correlative to the Christian vocation and the basis of every other form of a more
active participation. The Christian witness has no specialized
applications or limited grounds. It is given as well in the
active participation in the liturgy, in the reception of the sacraments which are a " protestation of faith," in the practice of
one's family and professional life, as well as in the commitment
to social and economic questions. No Christian is excused from
this apostolate which is the Christian life itself lived consciously
'and seriously with all its consequences in every field.
The second group of apostolic lay activities is hard to define.
It seems to include a delegation from the hierarchy, a canonical
mission. 37 These are the people who consecrate a great part
or most of their time to the service of the Church, especially
in the teaching of sacred doctrine from scientific theology to
catechism. Often now they are gathered in secular institutes.
Pius XII has recognized the " missio canonica " of these helpers
of the hierarchy by which they participate in the power to
teach. But this participation does not change the nature of the
lay apostolate and does not transform it into a " hierarchical
apostolate." 38 Even when a layman receives the same mission
as a priest, v. g., the teaching of theology, the apostolate of the
first is lay and that of the second sacerdotal. Some years ago,
Karl Rahner, 39 proposed the hypothesis that the lay people
employed full time in the service of the Church, lost their lay
86 Fr. Hamer, op. cit., p. 137 ff. insists much on the "homologia"
(Rom. 10:910), the confession of faith as the basic concept of the lay apostolate.
87 Hans Heimerl, Laien im Deuxt der Verkilndigung.
Laien mit mirkung an der
Lehraufgabe der Kirche (Wien: Verlag Herder, 1958).
38 Pius XII, Discourse to the Second World Congress for the Lay Apostolate
(Notre-Dame: NFCCS, 1958), p. 8.
39 Karl
Rahner, Schriften zur Theologie (Einsideln:
Benzinger, 1955), II,
p. 339-373.

THEOLOGICAL

FOUNDATION

OF THE LAY APOSTOLATE

301

status, to become part of the hierarchical apostolate. But this
opinion has been generally rejected by Pius XII and theologians/0 because a real jurisdiction remains linked to the reception of orders. In other words the layman who is teaching
theology or explaining the catechism has the authority of his
science and his training, but not the authority of the Church.
He has nevertheless a responsibility towards the mission which
has been entrusted to him. The clerical theologian is in the
same situation which is beneficial for the life and the creativity
of Christian thinking. Can the layman receive the power to
preach? The proclamation of the word of God in so far as it is
an official and public mission in the Church, which is the continuation of the mission specifically given to the Apostles, seems
to be the duty of bishops and priests. Preaching then is the
privileged and
communication of revelation
(Rom. 10: 14-15); it is authoritative and normative for the
Christian life and is addressed to the obedience of faith. The
word of God cannot be dissociated from the giving of the sacraments and appears to require the same kind of special mission.
"How are men to preach unless they be sent"? (Rom. 10: 15).
All the spiritual strength of authentic (and rare) preaching
comes from the fidelity of the preacher to the word of God and
to the mission he has received from God. The examples of the
prophets and the Apostles abound. The personality of the
preacher is much less important than the authenticity of his
mission and his own faith in it. He must be " under constraint"; in a position to ask with St. Paul: "Do I speak these
things on human authority"? (1 Cor. 9: 8), and to answer:
"It is a stewardship that has been entrusted to me" (1 Cor.
9 : 17) . On the other hand the layman has a right and a duty
to give private exhortations. The question is not the size of the
audience, the solemnity of the occasion, or the eloquence of the
speaker (how desirable though!) , but the involvement of the
human word in the economy of revelation. Nevertheless this
question must be solved in the same line as the teaching
•• Msgr. G. Philips, Etudes sur'apostolat des laics (Brussels: Etudes Religieuses,
1960), p. 11, n. 11.

302

AUGUSTIN P. LEONARD

of theology. Therefore if a layman was given by his bishop
the " mission to preach, he would do so in virtue of his mission, his knowledge and eventually of his charismatic gift, but
not as "having authority." Furthermore the layman is not
excluded from the task of presenting the gospel to the world,41
but he will normally do so according to his own typical
functions.
The third group of lay activities is devoted to Catholic
Action. Not a few controversies have been aroused in recent
years on the precise meaning and role of Catholic Action. Karl
Rahner distinguishes between the action of Catholics and
Catholic Action. He reacts vigorously against the tendency of
identifying every form of apostolate with specialized Catholic
Action. Other theologians 42 do not accept the distinction between an apostolate " proper," Catholic Action, and an apostolate of Christian existence, the testimony and the life of the
Christian.
Those in favor of the distinction insist mostly on the necessity not to isolate the layman from his natural and human
milieu. The layman is mediator, because of his participation in
the priesthood of Christ, between the world of grace and the
world of concrete existence. This world, in all its aspects: love,
marriage, family, profession and work, politics and economics
cannot be assumed in ecclesiastical organizations and it is not
desirable that the world should be so assumed. The Church
must remain the Sacrament of the kingdom of God and not a
political establishment. 43 The layman has an apostolic voca"Pius Xll (loc. cit., p. fll) wrote: The collaboration of the laity with the
Hierarchy " embraces cooperation in the very activities of the Hierarchy itself
which can be communicated to the (simply) faithful."
•• Msgr. Tiberghien, Une controverse sur l'action catholique. Masses ouvriere,
t. IS, Mars 1957, p. 41-5fl.
•• The monumental error of the book of Joseph Comblin, Echec de l'Action
Catholique? (Paris: Ed. Universitaires, 1961) is to submit the State and all the
activities of a civilization to the Church. The author sees the failure of Catholic
Action in the spiritual and individual character of its apostolate. It has never
reached the
of the unbelievers; which is true. But the remedy is certainly
not to have Catholics as heads of State, so that the temporal power could be
used to bring back the people in the Church. The author's nostalgic memories

THEOLOGICAL

FOUNDATION

OF THE LAY APOSTOLATE

308

tion antecedent to the official mandate that he receives in
Catholic Action. This is the Christian witness. Karl Rahner
calls it: "the apostolate of charity in the 'mundane' situation
which belongs to the essence of the layman." Pius XII seems
to mention this kind of apostolate when he wrote:
The relations between the Church and the world require the
intervention of lay apostles. The consecratio mundi is, essentially,
the work of the laymen themselves, of men who are intimately a
part of economic and social life, who participate in the government
and in legislative assemblies. 44

Those who refuse the distinction between witness and Catholic Action fear that the primary care of the evangelization will
be forgotten. They do not like to see evangelization and
witness opposed, as if these two aspects of the Christian life
were separable.
It obviously would be an error to oppose irreducibly these
two modes of action: the action of the Catholic and Catholic
Action. It seems nevertheless that they are not identical, but
correspond to different realities. "Catholic Action," wrote
Pius XII, " must not either claim the monopoly of the lay
apostolate, for, along with it, there remains the free lay apostolate." 45 In the view of the Pope, Catholic Action is a" particular form of the lay apostolate." It has " always the character
of an official apostolate." It receives a mandate from the hierarchy and expresses itself in movements organized and recognized as such, on the national or international level under the
responsibility of the bishops and the Holy See. In order to
put an end to the monopoly of Catholic Action and to allow
other forms of apostolate to flourish, the Pope has proposed a
reform of terminology and of structure. Catholic Action then
becomes a generic name which may cover many other forms of
apostolate which have their specific names: The Legion of
Mary or Pax Christi, for instance. Therefore Catholic Action
of the times when the conversion of the king implied the conversion of the whole
nation are very typical, and utterly untheological .
.. Pius XII, loc. cit., p. 11.
'"Pius XII, loc. cit., p. l!'l.

304

AUGUSTIN P. LEONARD

becomes a kind of federation of all the Catholic works. 46 This
change is not necessarily clarifying the still obscure goal of
Catholic Action. The problems also are very different from one
country to another, and it is probable that the Council will
leave to the bishops and to the national assemblies of Cardinals
and bishops the care of solving them. The classic definition of
Catholic Action by Pope Pius XI as "the participation of the
laity in the apostolic mission of the hierarchy " is applied more
and more today to a broader notion of " lay apostolate." 47
If Catholic Action is to have a distinctive goal and specific
methods, like the principle of the evangelization of the similar
by the similar, it should be distinguished from devotional guilds
like the sodality of Mary and from temporal commitments like
those of the trade-unionists. This distinction is clearer in
Europe than in America and it would be useful in Africa or
South America. There always has been an ambiguity in Catholic Action. It has been accused of " institutionalization "
because it leaves no room for new inspirations and new adaptations. Clericalism is another criticism, because the direction of
the bishops and their appointed chaplains has left no room for
the autonomy and the spontaneity of the laity. It was said to
be " the organized interference of the clergy in the apostolic
mission of the laity." 48 A third reproach is the inefficacy of
Catholic Action because it does not correspond to the divided
and pluralistic structure of society which is prevalent to-day.
It certainly would be useful if the Council could indicate what
•• Card.

Suenens has expressed similar views in L'unite multiforme de l'Action

Catholique, Nouv. Rev. Theol., t. 80, 1958, p.
47 It is remarkable
that in his pastoral letter of
The Call of the Council,
Card. Cushing does not even mention Catholic Action, but speaks of the holiness
of the laity, its commitment to the temporal order, and its share in the missionary
and pastoral work of the Church (p.
30-33). Fr. Robert A. Graham, The
Laity and the Council, in The Second Vatican Council (New York: America
Press,
, p. 50, writes: "The term 'lay apostolate' is now current; it is the
term most likely to get the sanction of official use in the decrees of the general
council. The transitions in vocabulary (Catholic Movement, Christian Democracy,
Catholic Action, Lay Apostolate) mark the four phases in the apostolic evolution
about to culminate at the Council."
48 Robert A. Graham, S. J., loo. cit., p. 50.

THEOLOGICAL

FOUNDATION

OF THE LAY APOSTOLATE

305

the precise role of Catholic Action is. Traditionally Catholic
Action takes two forms: it pursues a mission of evangelization
which may go as far as the presentation o£ the Christian message in catechetics and instruction. But it also tries to influence
the social and economic structures (salaries, housing, conditions
of life, segregation, leisure, etc.) in order to create an environment more conducive to a human, moral and spiritual life. But
these two aims are the source of a new ambiguity. In places
where that social action was most needed like South America
and Africa, Catholic Action never succeeded o£ course to cope
with the huge problems o£ these countries, or even to awaken
Catholics to their responsibilities. Nor for that matter did
the hierarchy succeed. In more affluent countries, small groups
o£ Catholics working in the slums discovered that they were
powerless to change the conditions o£ life and looked towards
a more direct social and political action. But this more direct
action involves necessarily the collaboration with non-Catholics
and cannot be confined inside Catholic organizations.
In this regard the Encyclicals Mater et Magistra and Pacem
in terris are striking a new note; the second even more explicit
than the first. Less emphasis is put on Catholic organizations
as such than on the " duty to take an active part in public
life, and to contribute toward the attainment o£ the common
good of the entire human family as well as to that o£ their
own political community " (Pacem in terris) . The great error
of the Catholics is " an inconsistency in their minds between
religious belie£ and their action in the temporal sphere" (Pacem
in terris). The emphasis on temporal commitment involves the
collaboration with " all men o£ good will " that the Pope
strongly recommends as was never done before. The commitment to the temporal tasks, which is the fourth kind of lay
apostolic activities, is given by Pope John XXIII as a direct
consequence o£ the lay Christian vocation. Inspired by the
Gospel, the layman works then in the profane dimension o£
civilization and human history. This does not exclude, as some
theologians have feared, the reference o£ all human realities to
their sacred origin in the creation o£ God, or the divine mean-

306

AUGUSTIN P. LEONARD

ing of history given in Christ. But the layman, engaged in
temporal tasks, is not primarily concerned to bring them in
Catholic organizations. He is the anonymous mediator who by
his presence, his work and his witness establishes an indirect
communication between the sacred world and the profane
world.
There is still much thought to be given and much work to
be done in the realm of the lay apostolate. But having been
inspired by Pope John XXIII, the Ecumenical Council has
aroused much hope. Please God that it will not be disappointed.
AuGUSTIN

Vuiting Professor
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, Ind.

P. LEONARD, 0. P.

THE LAITY AND ECUMENISM

T

HE movement for Christian unity known as ecumenical,
which has provided the somewhat ugly word" ecumenism " to describe its activities, began within Protestantism over fifty years ago. Today it has caught the attention of
the whole Christian world and promises to become a major
preoccupation for all of us, Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern
Orthodox alike. In thinking about our part in it, it is well to
remind ourselves of what the Holy See has done by way of
directives in regard to it. In 1949 Rome issued the first official
document in which the existence of the ecumenical movement
was recognized and its techniques of approach between separated Christians recommended to Catholics. The official name
of the document is The Instruction of the Sac1·ed Congregation
of the Holy Office to Local Ordinaries on the Ecumenical Movement (Ecclesia Catholica).
In this Instruction directives are given to Catholics concerning the part they can and should take in promoting ecumenical
action. The Instruction opens by saying that the deep desire
for Christian unity that has arisen in the world is the work of
the Holy Spirit in answer to the prayers of the faithful. It goes
on to commend "reunion" work as a very important part of
the Church's apostolate. Clergy and laity alike are to be encouraged to take part in it. General instruction is to be given
on this work by bishops in pastoral letters, and centers are to
be set up in each diocese, where possible, with a priest expert
in ecumenical matters in charge to supervise and guide the
progress of the work.
The bishops are exhorted to promote ecumenical activity
positively and with prudent encouragement, as well as to guide
it in the problems it will encounter. Regulations are laid down
for discussion meetings on questions of doctrine between theologians on either side and for collaboration in social problems by

307

308

HENRY ST. JOHN

lay people. When matters of doctrine come up for debate
between Catholics and non-Catholics, as inevitably they do,
provision will be made for studying the best method of approach between them in this kind of dialogue, as it is called.
In preparation for it, lectures and study groups will have to be
organized. Finally, all Catholics are asked, and indeed urged,
to pray for this work that it may spread its influence widely.
The Instruction was issued thirteen years ago, and at the time
little notice was taken of it, at least in English speaking
countries.
But, since the election of John XXIII to the Papacy, a rapid
change of atmosphere has taken place owing to his vigorous
initiatives, both by word and by example. He has emphasized
on many occasions that we must make the Church attractive to
the outsider not by altering its faith, but by a change of attitude involving a spiritual renewal in charity. We must commend our beliefs in terms non-Catholics can understand-by
relating our truths to theirs in non-technical language, by
taking away usages and customs which are unessential and
which have outgrown their former usefulness and become hindrances to mutual understanding. But we must go further than
that. By love and sympathy we must seek to penetrate their
minds, to see from their point of view what they think and the
way they think, however foreign it may seem at first sight to
our ways. We encourage them to do the same. By doing this,
we shall prepare the ground for a convergent move towards
unity in faith under the impulse of the Holy Spirit. At the same
time, we shall find ourselves faced by the problem of ecumenical
encounter.
An individual friendship grows with knowledge of each other,
love of each other gained by living together and coming to share
in understanding of each other's ways of thought. Such a
friendship is brought to perfection by unity in faith. So, differing groups of Christians can prepare the ground for a common unity in faith by sharing a spirit of friendship founded
on the desire to understand what the differences are that divide
them and why they do so. We must grasp as a reality and not

THE LAITY AND ECUMENISM

809

just as a notion what we all learn, that God gives, and only
God can give, unity in faith. We can prepare the ground for it
by our love, and we must not shrink from this preparation even
when we realize it is going to be a long and arduous process
lasting maybe for generations. That is the very essence of the
ecumenical spirit.
How is it to be implemented, and especially how by lay
people who will be vitally concerned in bringing it about? At
the present moment we are in an interim period waiting for
authority to provide new lines of action. The principal authority is, of course, the Pope in Council, the Vatican Council
still in progress, with only a small part of its work as yet undertaken and none of it publicly promulgated. But the prospect
for new developments and, perhaps, particularly in matters
which affect the laity and their apostolate (not only in work
which is specifically on behalf of unity) is hopeful and
encouragmg.
Here in England we have an Episcopal Committee for the
promotion of unity work, chosen by our hierarchy to represent
them. Its president is Archbishop Heenan of Liverpool. His
first action taken two years ago was to organize a conference
at Heythrop College in Oxfordshire for the instruction of priests
in ecumenical ideas. Each diocese sent representatives to this
conference, and all the main religious Orders and Congregations
were represented. Cardinal Bea, six of the English bishops, and
some seventy priests were present. Many aspects of ecumenism
and its applications were thoroughly threshed out in lectures
and in discussion commissions. We were told to speak our
minds freely, and we did. All suggestions noted, and there were
many, were embodied in a report drawn up by Archbishop
Heenan, and this has been presented to the hierarchy for their
consideration. It is probable that our bishops will be much
influenced in their decisions for action by what happens in the
Vatican Council when it resumes its sessions.
There was a general agreement at the Heythrop Conference
that the most fundamental part of unity work is dialogue between theologians and scholars in other disciplines, Catholic

310

HENRY ST. JOHN

and non-Catholic, at a deep theological level. Our differences
are rooted in theology and history. The meetings must be
small, hardly more than a dozen or so, in round table conferences. They must be frequent, continuous, regular, and widespread. What goes on at these discussion conferences will be
passed gradually to levels lower down. The second important
level is encountered within academic and professional standards,
including the university student. Here, people who are able
to do so will prepare themselves by lectures and group discussions for the organizing and directing of mixed meetings of
Catholics and non-Catholics for dialogue in theology, history,
Bible study, and sociology. Thirdly comes the parochial level,
perhaps the most important of all for educating the laity, not
so much in the intellectual approach, as in the underlying spirit
of unity, in the encounter of charity, in respect for conscientious churches, and above all in the need for prayer. This last
embraces all Catholics: it is universal.
Prayer must be the motive power of all ecumenism. Unless
our work is surrounded by it and penetrated through and
through with it, we may be certain that it will come to nothing.
Ways and means must be found of encouraging people to pray,
not just during the official eight days, but continuously, daily
or weekly, not only as individuals but corporately. Unity
Masses can be arranged with a group attendance or similar arrangements for united prayer before the Blessed Sacrament.
In the near future we may hope for the possibility of corporate
prayer with non-Catholics. We must wait in patience for the
directives of the Council.
Meanwhile it may perhaps be useful to sketch a kind of basic
program of preparation or self-training for an apostolate of
unity, a program suited to all, from theologians to what we
may call the ordinary parishoner. We are apt to say to ourselves, "What can I do? I could pray more fervently and
regularly, with more consistency and love, if my prayer could
be joined with action. What can an ordinary person do who is
occupied all day with earning a living or running a household

THE LAITY AND ECUMENISM

811

or both, who hasn't much time for anything but the daily duties
of life? "
There is in fact a great deal we can all do. We come into
contact in daily life with non-Catholic Christians. We often
deeply respect them as good people, mix with them on easy
social terms, work with them, or have professional relations
with them. But how often do we speak to them on matters of
religion, get to know what their religion means to them, or in
any way share in their experience at this deep level? This is
nearly always a closed book to us, a territory into which we
never intrude. And yet they are our brethren in Jesus Christ,
separated from us it is true because they are outside the visible
boundaries of the divine society, Christ's Mystical Body, the
Church, while we are privileged to share in its full fellowship.
Yet they are united with us in their belief in the great central
truth of the Christian faith, that Christ died for our sins and
rose again for our justification, and this unity is something
which is more fundamental, more vitally important than anything that divides us. But this is often lost sight of because of
our divisions. We forget that we are brethren in Jesus Christ,
though separated brethren. We act and speak very often as if,
in respect of that which is most important in our lives, we
are enemies who can have no dealings with each other. How
has this come about? It has come about because the movement
of Protestantism in the sixteenth century was a rebellion against
the teaching authority of the Church Christ founded. Rebellion is a form of warfare which induces war psychology on both
sides.
We all know what that is. The enemy in warfare is always
wrong; he is the evil aggressor and we, the innocent who are
sinned against. The case is all black on their side, all white on
ours. He is unjust, his motives and his actions are malicious.
We do not try to understand him and see his point of view. We
are hostile to him and want to vanquish him and force him to
accept our conditions. But the Reformation happened over
four hundred years ago, and Protestants and other non-Catholics are no longer consciously and of set purpose rebels against

312

HENRY ST. JOHN

the authority of the Church. They may even be instinctively
seeking what we believe to be their true home and the fullness
of truth to be found in it.
But although the spirit of war psychology has largely vanished from our social relationships with non-Catholics, it still
holds sway in that inner citadel of the soul where faith resides.
And because it does so, we keep studiously away from the inner
citadel of non-Catholics and seldom intrude into it. When by
chance we do, it is often to argue about religion. When we
begin to argue about religion, war psychology inevitably comes
to the surface. We are out to marshal our arguments like
soldiers going in to attack, ruthless and determined.
We are out to win a victory of mind over mind. We do not
stop to consider the arguments of our opponents, really to weigh
their value and understand their bearing on the matter in hand.
We just argue for victory. The result is that we defeat our own
end. We fail to convince and only succeed in confirming our
opponent in his beliefs, even if he has been unable to cope
with our arguments. We have treated him not as a brother
but as an enemy. Yet he is in fact our brother in Jesus Christ.
In all probability he has received the sacrament of baptism,
with its gift of God's friendship we call grace. Only grave sin
can destroy that gift and true sorrow for sin can restore it.
The baptised non-Catholic belongs, of course, to a religious
body which is not a part of the true Church. However, he does
so, not as an act of conscious rebellion against our Lord, but
in good faith, believing that his church is part of the true
Church. When he attends the Holy Communion or the Lord's
Supper or the Breaking of Bread in his own church, it is not a
true sacrament according to the standards which Christ has
laid down for us through the mind of his Church. But the nonCatholic using this ordinance according to standards recognized
in the religious body to which he belongs, though he is in error,
humbly believes he is being obedient to Christ. He humbly
desires to receive grace. He is in good faith, and we are fully
at liberty as Catholics to believe that in answer to his good
faith God gives him the grace he seeks.

THE LAITY AND ECUMENISM

818

By receiving this grace he is united, though invisibly and
unconsciously, with Christ in his Mystical Body, which is the
Catholic and Roman Church. That is why he is our brother
in Christ, though not in a full sense a member of the Church,
because he is separated from visible fellowship with us.
The realization of these truths should make us humble and
should remove any element of war psychology that may be in
us. It should lead us to seek the friendship and understanding
of our non-Catholic neighbors. We must not argue with him in
any win-a-victory spirit. We must above all look for the truth
in what he believes. We must make sure by listening to him
carefully whether what he says is really erroneous or only a
partially realized truth or a truth expressed in language unfamiliar to us. This is the psychology of peace, and it sets
up a spirit of friendship built upon love and the desire to
understand.
Let us take a particular situation to illustrate this way of
approach. If a Catholic finds himself involved in a discussion
with a Protestant about the Blessed Sacrament, his first instinct
(we have inherited it from our war psychology) is to concentrate on the supposed fact-that his Protestant friend denies
the real presence of Christ our Lord in the sacrament he
received. So he begins by explaining what Catholics mean by it.
He feels instinctively that transubstantiation is a bogey word;
nevertheless he makes the attempt and uses it as his starting
point. If he does use the formidable word and its accompanying technical terms, he will soon find himself lost in a wilderness
of misconceptions. Far better to seek out first what we hold in
common, if it is a great deal. Anglo-Catholics, of course, believe
almost exactly as we do. Let us take here the case of an evangelical or low church friend, a Baptist or Methodist perhaps,
with whom you are carrying on such a discussion.
If you say, "I believe that in the act of Holy Communion
Christ our Lord comes to us to be the food of our souls," you
are beginning on something you both hold in common. You
will find, in all probability, that a good Protestant will answer,
"Yes, I believe that, too. Paul talks of Christ living in us and

814

HENRY ST. JOHN

we in him. Jesus gives us his life that way." "Yes," you will
answer, "The bread and wine are signs, visible signs, of his
presence, ordained by him to be used by us." Your Protestant
friend will reply, "Yes, I believe that. As we receive the signs,
he enters into our life, our souls, and unites himself with us
through the Holy Spirit and we become by his power Christlike. That is what grace means: it is the power, the personal
power, of his love in us."
So far, you see, you are in complete agreement on something
tremendous. This has deep meaning for both of you. That
agreement sets up unity between you, it draws you together
and encourages you to listen to each other. It prepares the
ground for the differences that are there, too. Sooner or later
they will come to the surface. Perhaps your friend will say one
day, " Don't you Roman Catholics worship the bread, the Host
as you call it?," and if he is very frank he will add " We think
that's idolatry, you know." It is a warfare word, of course.
You must not get angry though you may be tempted. Now
must you embark here on a complete explanation of the bogey
word transubstantiation? He's not yet ready for it. Say," Yes,
we do worship the Host, or rather we worship what the Host
represents." It sounds very Protestant to use that word, but
in fact it is perfectly good theology, because sacraments are
outward signs representing the invisible that they signify.
Then go on to say, "We believe that, in a way that is deeply
mysterious and belongs not to earth but heavenly things, Christ
our Lord in his glorious and risen life identifies himself with
the sign, with the bread. It is our offering in the sense that it
signifies our life-food and drink that supports life. He makes
himself, in the heavenly places, one with it, and so, through
it one with us by the power of the Holy Spirit; and in doing
so he changes it inwardly. The whole transaction is something
that does not belong to this world. Its only connection with
this world is the bread and wine and ourselves, they wholly of
this world and we partly. What you can see and touch and
handle of the bread remains what it was before, but its inner
reality has been taken up into the eternal world and trans-

THE LAITY AND ECUMENISM

315

formed, made one with Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.
In Holy Communion Christ gives himself to us in and through
the signs. The earthly and the heavenly are joined together,
made one. What is visible, tangible of bread and the invisible
Christ are united. Our earthly food is inwardly transformed; it
becomes heavenly. Though as a sign it remains of the earth,
heaven and earth meet in it. In a sense we are taken up with it,
too, into the heavenly places, the eternal world, to Christ-to
be in Christ, to be filled with Christ, to be made Christ-like."
You have not taught your Protestant friend everything, but
you have linked your truth with his truth and that will have
given your truth a chance to take root in the soil of what you
each hold in common. This illustrates the ecumenical approach
by applying it in a single particular instance. It is grounded
upon love and understanding brought about by sharing what
you both hold dear. As you can see, given time and patience,
your discussion will carry you much further. You have shown
your friend by implication three mysteries of the faith that in
reality are one. (1) The once-for-all sacrifice on Calvary which
has redeemed us by Christ's blood-shedding. He deeply believes
in that already. (2) The perpetual pleading of this sacrifice
by the Risen Christ in the presence of his Father. (3) The Masstransaction, under the sacramental signs, by which Christ our
Lord applies by the Holy Spirit in his own person, sacramentally, the divine-human power which derives from the victory of
Calvary, the victory of obedience. This is the mystery by which
within his Mystical Body, the Church, he makes available
to his members his saving power. There is only one sacrifice
and it is all sufficient, but its power is given to us by Christ
himself from day to day in the Mass, under the signs which
represent in the deeply mysterious reality the body broken and
the blood shed. Maybe, too, your Protestant friend will have
shown you something of that deep, personal, evangelical love
for Jesus Christ, which is the common possession of both
Catholics and Protestants and is sometimes more conspicuous
in the lives of our separated brethren than it is in our own.
By first seeking and honoring the truth in what our neighbor

316

HENRY ST. JOHN

believes, we create the best possible foundation on which to
build up the truth we have to give him, truth which as yet he
does not possess. We must not be in a hurry. We must not
expect to convert him in a matter of hours or days, in weeks
or months, or even in years, and perhaps not at all. Very
likely, he loves the tradition in which he was born and brought
up and values highly customs and usages of religious observance which are not ours and which often seem alien to our way
of thinking. We must not seek to tear him roughly and ruthlessly away from his non-Catholic surroundings before God
calls on him to sacrifice them. So long as non-Catholic Christians are deeply and conscientiously convinced of the truth of
their own way, they are bound in conscience to follow that
way and no other. They cannot become Catholics until God
gives them the power to do so. There is, therefore, a true place
in the scheme of things under God's Providence for the dissident churches until such time as unity of faith in the one
Church is attained by them. We are only God's instruments in
digging and cultivating the ground. God himself, and only
God, is able if he wills to plant the seed of faith in this ground,
where it will take root and grow and so extend the faith which
the non-Catholic already has into the fullness of the Catholic
faith.
I£ then, we set ourselves to the best of our ability to engage in
the apostolate of positive charity and understanding, we shall
be working for unity in the most valuable way possible, among
the rank and file of non-Catholic Christians. On this foundation
of unity in love and understanding and not otherwise, the
scholars and theologians will be able to build successfully. In
working in this way we shall find that our prayers for unity
will become increasingly living, real and fervent, because they
will be closely united in our lives with action.
HENRY

H awkesyard Priory
Rugeley, Staffs, England

ST. JoHN, 0. P.

THE PLACE OF RELIGIOUS IN THE
APOSTOLATE OF THE CHURCH*

X

TUAL though the problem of the religious state of life
as compared to that of the secular priest may be/ this
question is not envisioned here; nor do the states of
perfection need concern us. We refrain as well from the recent
discussions concerning the spirituality of the diocesan clergy.
The points at issue are rather the apostolate of religious and,
in particular, the conditions in which this apostolate is exercised. In their activites the members of a religious institute,
in one way or another, are not subject to the full authority
of the local ordinary: he cannot demand of them just any
sort of activity; nor are they unqualifiedly subject to his disposition. The problem before us concerns the exemption of
religious and of their collaborators in the apostolate. In some
way this problem touches upon all forms of religious life
engaged in apostolic activity. It extends from the monastic
orders exercising a genuine apostolate to congregations of
teaching or nursing brothers. The problem is not limited to
the religious life; societies of the common life (secular institutes) enjoy the same kind of exemption. While many of the
arguments, examples, and points of application in this essay
refer to the sacerdotal life, the total extension of the principles and the universal character of the conclusions should be
kept in mind.
In what does the exemption of religious consist; what are
its traits? We recall first that all institutes of pontifical right
enjoy autonomy as to internal regimen according to the terms
*Translated by Thomas C. O'Brien, 0. P. from Nouvelle Revue Theologique
(March, 1959) 271-281.
1 Conference
to a gathering of religious of different communities, Brussels,
January 13, 1959.

31.7

318

JEROME HAMER

of their own form of exemption, plenary or partial. 2 By reason of this legal institution the management of religious subjects belongs solely to their superior. It is he who places them
at the service of diocesan authority, transfers them, or changes
their assignments. This autonomy, of course, does not extend
without qualification to apostolic activity. To exercise the
ministry of preaching to the faithful, the canonical mission of
the residential bishop is required. 3 In the interim between
the foundation of the mendicant orders and the Council of
Trent, the canonical mission of Regulars came from the Pope
through their religious superiors. 4 In the case of the Order of
Friars Preachers, for example, the mission was conferred
through incorporation into the Order. 5 Since the sixteenth
century, this exceptional privilege has been progressively curtailed. Currently, since the Code, apart from the case of the
ministry purely within fully exempt institutes, it belongs to
the head of the local church to confer canonical mission. But
it still remains true that the local ordinary can exercise his
rights solely over religious placed at his disposition by superiors. The exercise of apostolic activity in a diocese is thus
indirectly affected by the internal autonomy of religious.
What is the purpose of exemption? The maintenance and
development of the religious life along its characteristic lines
presupposes the self-sufficiency of the superior and consequently a real independence in regard to internal government.
"Cf. E. Fogliasso, "Exemption des religieux," dans Diet. de dr. can., t. 5, col.
646-665 (abondante bibliographie); T. Schaeffer, De religiosis ad normam Codicis
iuris canonici, 3e ed., Rome, 1940, pp. 789-801.
3 Can. 131!8, 1337, 1338. In his discourse on Dec. 8, 1950, Pius XII stated:
"The
exemption of religious orders is not in opposition with the principle of the constitution bestowed by God upon the Church: and it is in no way opposed to the
law in virtue of which the priest owes obedience to the bishop. As a matter of fact,
according to canon law, exempt religious depend upon the bishop of the place
insofar as they take part in the fulfillment of the bishop's task and the proper
organization of the spiritual care of souls." (A. A. S., 1951, t. 43, p. 28; Doc. Oath.,
1950, col. 1671 ; cf. N. R. Th., 1951, p. 180).
• Cf. E. Feyaerts, " De evolutie van het predikatierecht der religieuzen," Studia
catholica, 1950, t. 25, pp. 177-190 et 225-240.
5 Cf. M.-H. Vicaire, Histoire de saint Dominique, Paris, 1957, t. II, p. 72.

PLACE OF RELIGIOUS IN APOSTOLATE OF THE CHURCH

319

In the course of time this liberty, having become exemption,
emerged as an instrument of reform. The monastery of Cluny
made its associated monasteries profit from the broad immunities which it had obtained. 6 As a safeguard of religious fidelity, exemption became by this very fact the guarantee of
unity. The appearance of the mendicant Orders brought more
precise characteristics to this autonomy. 7 The concession of
more liberties put at the disposal of the Holy See, and thus
of the whole Church, apostolic forces which Christianity so
urgently needed. Ever since, we see centralized orders under
superiors who are in close contact with the Pope. After many
historical vicissitudes, such an order of things today still
determines the availability of religious institutes for apostolic
undertakings.
Study of the elements of pastoral integration is the order
of the day; among other things in this study is the planning
of better parochial apportionment and improved organization
of evangelical activities. This context demands theoretical and
practical reflections on the autonomy of religious which would
allow religious to be assigned their place with full effectiveness in the complexus of the Church's tasks.

I. EXEMPTION AND SPECIALIZATION
What is the significance of the approval of a religious institute? In the goal proposed by and for a religious society, the
Holy See recognizes the response to a need in the Church. The
ecclesiastical approval permits the pursuit of this end to be
organized socially within the Church and offers to those who
• Cf. J.-F. Lemarignier, "L'exemption monastique et les origines de Ia reforme
gregorienne," dans A. Cluny, Congres scientifique (9-11 juillet 1949). Travaux du
Congres, Dijon, 1950, pp. !288-840.
• The form of life of the mendicants was to affect all exemption from then on.
Exemption was to be no longer local but personal. Historically the change in
purpose should be noted. Every one had been progressively set forth in order to
prevent interference in the government of monasteries, in the internal life of communities. The privilege of exemption in the case of the mendicants pertains to the
organization of their apostolate.

320

JEROME HAMER

wish to dedicate themselves to this end guarantees of effectiveness and stability. In a word the Holy See recognizes, not
merely a service, but an action of the Church.
The services are multiple and varied. Institutes vowed
exclusively to the contemplative life need not be considered.
Those which are directly engaged in apostolic undertakings
are difficult to classify. While recognizing the difficulty of
drawing a sharp line of demarcation, a way of discerning two
general types may still be possible. Every religious institute
is characterized at once by its own spirituality and its works. 8
In view of the emphasis placed upon one or other of these
contemporary elements, we are confronted by two apostolic
groups. The respective character of each is distinguished
principally either by a determined type of activity or by a
particular spirituality.
These apostolic activities are numerous: preaching, teaching, publication, formation of clergy in seminaries, the Christion education of youth, corporal and spiritual assistance to
the sick or destitute, foreign missions, parochial missions, evangelization of the rural or working classes. Such activities are
explicitly indicated in the statement of the purpose of some
institutes. In other cases, they have been inspired in the
course of time by reason of special aptitude and appropriate
formation. In the first category a special place must be given
to orders and congregations whose objective is the parochial
apostolate, the ordinary ministry within the diocesan framework, with an insistence at times upon the communal spirit
of the clerical group or upon a concentration of members in
populous parishes.
Other institutes, those of the second category, set out in
general to live in a certain spirit a religious life that is apostolic, including varied forms determined by the great needs of
8 As a first approach to the problem, the following work will provide valuable
assistance: Dictionnaire des instituts religieux en France, Centre de documentation
sacerdotale, Paris (17, rue de Varenne), 1957. In this volume of 160 pp. there
is a brief notice with bibliography on each institute.

PLACE OF RELIGIOUS

IN APOSTOLATE

OF THE CHURCH

321

the Church. Here the field of apostolate is not limited. Rather
it is the form of spirituality that predominates and delineates
the spirit of the members and the message to be propagated.
The messages are often the great devotions of the Church:
The Sacred Heart, the Blessed Sacrament, the Virgin Mary,
St. Therese of the Infant Jesus, the patrimony of the French
school, and many others. Religious of this group have a great
flexibility for adapting to the needs of the moment and for
responding to the calls of the apostolate. In addition, their
autonomy guarantees their mobility. Thanks to this they can
be gathered together at any point where a concentration of
apostolic workers is especially required. In today's Church
this exceptional availability is a spiritual fund the full value
of which must be appreciated and its full resources put to
work.
The religious of the first group have a narrower range; they
are less easily directed to varied channels. Their higher degree
of specialization, however, compensates for a certain lack of
adaptability. Of course, opportunities for specialization are
open to religious members of all institutes without exception;
but we are pointing to apostolic orientations built into the
nature of the religious communities as such. Once an order
or congregation is vowed exclusively or by special title to the
Christian education of youth, to the evangelization of workers, to preaching, to the care and apostolate of the sick, or to
foreign missions, then its whole being is pointed in such a
direction. Specialization is not merely personal but collective;
it marks the entire formation and shapes the life of the
community. The existence of a large body of specialized capabilities is another good for the Church. They are the instruments the Church fashions for itself in order to deal with the
needs of the moment and to make provision for the future.
Such specialized capabilities are not a monopoly of the religious life. The secular clergy is well endowed with them; witness the national chaplaincies of Catholic Action, great interdiocesan works, and general services of the episcopacy. It is

JEROME HAMER

important to observe that these specializations, whether under
an individual or corporate title, tend toward a kind of prescriptive autonomy which has not yet received juridic consecration, but is at present simply a fact. 9 By a kind of implicit delegation of all the bishops of France, for example, the
assembly of Cardinals and archbishops nominate for offices on
a national level the chaplains of organizations whose activity
embraces an entire territory. 10 This collective appointment
ipso facto confers a certain autonomy (real, yet difficult to
define precisely) in regard to the individual members of the
hierarchy. A kind of law of natural necessity emerges. To be
exercised these special offices require, in regard to particular
authorities, a status of autonomy with direct subjection to
higher authorities to whom the care and responsibility of more
general projects belong.

II. SPECIALIZED

GROUPS AND THE SERVICE

OF CATHOLICITY

Whether these groups be secular, religious, or mixed in their
composition, they are a vehicle for the exercise of catholicity.
Through them the local Church is brought into the broader
stream of collective Catholic life. A diocese cannot remain
closed within itself. While in the person of its head it has the
fullness of the priesthood, still it does not contain all the
resources it needs for the full development of the Christian
life. Even as it can communicate its own experience to others,
so by the same token, it can profit from those who have lived
elsewhere. The local diocese, for example, will be the first to
profit from sociological studies carried out by the large organizations equipped for such work. Theological and pastoral
studies published by individuals or reviews can provide fruit9 The Mission de France already has its own canonical status of autonomy.
See
on this point the constitution Omnium Ecclesiarum, Aug. 15, 1954, A. A. S., 1954,
t. 46, pp. 567-574 et Doc. Cath., 1954, t. 51, col. 1158-1160. There is a commentary in the article by Msgr. J. Denis, "La prelature 'nullius' de la Mission de
France," L'Anne canonique, 1954-1955, t. 8, pp. 27-86.
1 ° Cf. V.-L. Chaigneau,
L'organization de l'Eglise catholique en France, Paris,
1956, p. 49.

PLACE OF RELIGIOUS

IN APOSTOLATE

OF THE CHURCH

828

ful suggestions. Vitality in contacts, in intercommunication, in
common enterprises, presupposes the existence of specialized
groups. Often it is through them that the broad movements,
Roman in inspiration, become operative in the dioceses. Thus,
the creative and vital impulse to the biblical and liturgical
movements have frequently been given by their effort. As a
capacity for the universal and as a permanent force, catholicity is not simply a static fact, but rather it is an activity
practiced by all those who exercise a ministry.
Through and in the works of catholicity the Church unceasingly gathers men into her unity, assimilates the infinite
variety of human nature into the unity of heart and soul
proper to the Christian community (Art. IV, 82). This catholicity is realized on the diocesan level within the framework of
the ordinary jurisdiction of the residential bishop. It belongs
to him to take care that the community be open to all social
classes, all ages, all languages, all cultures, and eventually to
all races. Thus he must see that the Christian community be
prepared effectively to assimilate this multiplicity and richness. But for the functioning of catholicity on a territorial
level, the bishop needs the contribution of instrumentalities
not bound to such and such a geographical place.
There is a further dimension to the episcopal responsibility. Specialized supra-diocesan and universal groups must be
viewed as a response to the desires and concerns of the bishops who exercise the pastoral office within the limits of a particular Church; even more so, they must be viewed in terms
of the concerns of episcopal responsibility seen in its fullness.
Beyond the ordinary jurisdiction, bishops have a participated
jurisdiction in common with the Vicar of Christ. 11 Possessed
collegially, this jurisdiction is not by way of supplement or
addition to the supreme and universal jurisdiction of the
Pope. It merges with it. The bishop, as he is head of the local
11 On the collegial nature of the episcopacy, see Msgr. A.-M. Charue, eveque de
Namur, Problems du cle:rge diocesain, II, extrait des Mandements, t. II, no. 28, pp.
221-223; Ch. Journet, L'Eglise du Verbe incarne, t. I, Paris, 1941, pp. 500-511; Y.
Cougar, Jalons pour une theologie du la'icat, Paris, 1953, pp. 386-400.

324

JEROME HAMER

Church, has by that fact a Catholic concern which passes beyond all territorial boundaries. It is hardly necessary to recall
here the words of Pius XI spoken a propos of the missions:
It is not only Peter, whose See We occupy, but at the same time, all

the apostles, whose successors you are, that the Master has commanded to go throughout the whole world preaching the Gospel to
every creature. From this it evidently follows that if the duty of
propagating the faith rests upon Us, you must without any possible
doubt come to share in Our works and to assist Us in this task to
the degree permitted by the fulfillment of your local and personal
task. 12
By reason of the participation of the collective episcopate
in the universal pastoral mission of Peter's successor, members of specialized bodies are assured that they represent
ecclesial interests which are not disparate from those of residential bishops.
This is true even when the diocesan Church is not directly
the beneficiary, as is the case in foreign missions. Thus it is
by way of response to a demand internal to the nature of
the episcopacy that these specialized bodies bring the broad
interests of the universal Church into contact with the local
concerns.

III. THE RELIGIOUS

STATE AND SPECIALIZED

GROUPS

In the discussion of these points we have intentionally set
12 Rerum Ecclesiae, 28 fevrier 1926, A.A.S., 1926 t. 18, p. 69.-0n
April 21,
1957, addressing himself directly to the bishops by the encyclical Fidei donum, Pius
XII wrote:
" United by the closest bonds to Christ as well as to His Vicar you will desire,
Venerable Brothers, to take your part in a spirit of vital charity in this care of all
the Churches which weigh on our shoulders .... Wiih•ut doubt it was to the
apostle Peter alone and to his successors, the Roman Pontiffs, that Jesus entl·usted
the whole of his flock. . . . But while each bishop is properly the pastor only of the
portion of the flock entrusted to his care, his quality as legitimate succesor of the
apostles by divine institution makes him solidly responsible for the apostolic
mission of the Chmch. . . . This mission which must embrace all nations and all
time has not ceased with the death of the apostles; it continues in the person of
all the bishops in communion with the Vicar of Jesus Christ."

A. A. S., 1957, t. 49, pp. 236-237; Doc. Cath., 157, t. 54, col. 587-588.

PLACE OF RELIGIOUS

IN APOSTOLATE

OF THE CHURCH

aside the question of the religious life as a state of perfection.13 This in no way implies that the question has no bearing upon the existence and activities of specialized groups.
Both seculars and regulars have already demonstrated their
aptitude for these special functions. Yet the elements which
in the religious life facilitate adaptation to these tasks should
be understood. By giving to the pursuit of perfection the character of total and definitive self-donation, the religious state
gives to the apostle a connaturality with the message he bears.
This is true in general regarding the assignment of the religious to apostolic tasks. But it is of special importance to single out how this state, as it assures a greater stability in one
particular concentration and more frequent possibilities for
creative initiative, is a preparation for formally specialized
functions. There are, it is true, factors built into the religious
life, even as into the ordinary sacerdotal life, that create the
occasion for numerous changes. It is impossible to keep someone always in the same place. The exigencies of life are opposed to such stability, and stability is not even desirable at
all times. The possibility of change is itself a human value
which can be profitable. From one day to the next, the professor of theology can become a provincial, or the chaplain of
a Catholic Action group can become a master of novices.
But the peculiar renunciation imposed by the vows permits
restricting such factors of change to a minimum. The superior has the power to employ a religious subject according to
his real capacities and the actual condition of his vitality.
There is no need to deal with acquired rights, nor to be concerned about honoring seniority or about rewarding meritorious service. For such reasons, and many more which are difficult to spell out, several apostolic ventures of broad scope have
been the work of religious. In Belgium, as in France, social
action, the apostolate of the cinema, radio, publication, reviews
18 On the place of the religious state in the mystery of the Church, see the pages
devoted to this problem in Rev. des Sciences phil. et theol., 1957, t. 41, pp. 557559; 1959, t. 43, pp. 336-338.

JEROME HAMER

on the spiritual life, the ecumenical apostolate, youth movements-all these are areas in which the creative action of religious has predominated. This fact is quite universal, with the
exception of specialized Catholic Action in Belgium. Obvious,
as well, is the contribution of religious throughout the world
to ecclesiastical sciences; and this is an influence which has
important bearing on the apostolate.

IV. DIOCESAN AuTHORITIEs
RELIGIOUS

AND SPECIALIZED

GROUPS

Currently diocesan authorities more and more assign secular priests to specialized tasks. This is a bright sign; it is a
response to a necessity of pastoral life. The progress of evangelization in the modern world imposes such a tendency. At
the beginning of the last century, on the heels of the Concordat of 1801, when pastoral work was exercised exclusively on
a territorial level "priests were almost always assigned to
parishes under diverse titles: cures, officiating ministers, priest
administrators ... ; in the parishes of large cities there were
priest catechists, priest organists, even deacons and subdeacons with special offices." 14 The number of priests remaining
under the bishop for administration, for the seminary, and for
certain chaplaincies was small. Contemporary dimensions of
the life of our society demand more and more priests. On a
diocesan level, regional or national, there is need for missionaries for domestic missions; retreat masters; chaplains for
Catholic Action, for the university world, for technical schools;
directors of works, of education; ecclesiastical advisers on theatre, radio, and television; chaplains for factories (as in Italy);
and specialists for the apostolate of the worker and for professional unions.
The deployment of all apostolic forces must be made according to the needs of special missions. This supposes an overall
plan which utilizes to the maximum the already existant speH

Y. Daniel et G. Le Moue!, PaToisses d'hie1· ... Pa1·oisses de demain, Paris,

1957, p.

PLACE OF RELIGIOUS

IN APOSTOLATE

OF THE CHURCH

327

cializations and particularly those religious institutes whose
vocation it is to provide workers already equipped for specific
tasks. When such a plan is lacking, it usually presents a
paradoxical situation. At the same time as the secular clergy
assumes the determined tasks for which an order has been
approved by the Church, the same order may be asked to
assume within the diocese tasks for which it has not been
designed. Such a poor utilization of its resources is an anomaly
the Church can ill afford.
Honesty requires the recognition that it is not merely the
want of an over-all plan that determines this situation. There
are more profound reasons. Diocesan authorities often have
the impression that a religious is never totally engaged by the
undertaking they have conferred upon him; that, rather, he is
totally dedicated only to the institute whose habit he wears.
There is the risk that the religious who renders immense services brings with him his own individuality, a personality a bit
complex for the kind of work to which he is called. He comes
on the scene not only with the spirituality of his order, always
a great form of spirituality of the Church, but with some practices of devotion having a more private character, with an
esprit de corps expressed sometimes in a policy of privilegeseeking, with the memory of controversy between schools the
excesses of which the Holy See has more than once had to
censure, and with the concern also for the financial needs of
his own institute. In a word, he brings a mentality which has
not always been susceptible to openness or service. Another
ground for fear on the part of the diocesan authorities is that
the religious institute may establish a kind of diocese within
a diocese by reason of the complex of personal relations which
can create its public churches, its colleges, its third orders, its
congregations, its confraternities, its works of all sorts. In
addition, the religious appears to them sometimes as a kind
of meteor or a free lancer who does not enter into the makeup
of the diocese, nor does he concern himself with being informed about the directives given by the bishop of the place,

JEROME HAMER

nor has he any inclination to use the powers received in the
spirit with which they are conceded to him.
We are not pleading a case. There is, then, no necessity of
establishing or of refuting the grounds for such fears. There
is merely a question of recognizing that there are risks involved in the very nature of the situation, and that the psychological reactions described are often verified. No one should
seek to balance off the given value against the specific drawbacks characteristic of the contribution of the individual religious. But at the same time, neither should anyone deny that
the full force of this value may be blunted by certain questionable attitudes. The impressions we have described, then,
should make us turn to what is essential.
In the Christian community specialized capabilities constitute a service to the Church, a work of catholicity. For a religious order there can be no suggestion of setting out to gain
influential offices or positions of control in order, as it were,
to acquire trophies. There is such a thing as a collective
humility just as there is an individual humility. Both are necessary in the kingdom of God. Our personal contributions
must be those alone which serve to fashion out of human
variety a true totality in Christ. Then He makes us more fit
to enter into the apostolic program of the Church, of which
the Holy Spirit is the effective agent in conjunction with the
apostolic college, as this is continued in today's world by
the college of bishops under the direction of the successors of
Peter.
V. THE NEED OF A CoNSTANT
PROPER CHARACTER

CoNCERN FOR THE

OF RELIGIOUS

INSTITUTES

The harmony of catholicity is upset by a failure to respect
proper goals. To ask an institute of teaching brothers to
accept important nursing duties is a procedure ill suited to
the equilibrium of the Church. The formation and pattern of
life which prepares the institute for the one task does not at
all dispose to the other. Rather, the latter increases the risk

PLACE OF RELIGIOUS

IN APOSTOLATE

OF THE CHURCH

of destroying the basic elements constituting the institute's
strength. To insist that an exclusively missionary order accept
metropolitan parishes is as harmful as putting an institute
whose objective is the parochial apostolate into college or university chaplaincies. When the primitive constitutions of the
Friars Preachers declare, " We cannot accept churches to
which the care of souls is annexed," 15 they are merely expressing negatively the will of St. Dominic to consecrate himself
exclusively to the ministry of the Word of God, a choice the
more remarkable because St. Dominic is by origin a canon
regular. An institute ordered to a precise apostolic task must
be treated like a delicate mechanism of a watch the movements of which are closely intermeshed and synchronized.
For institutes whose constitutions do not designate a specialized apostolic field, the situation is not the same. They
may more readily and more rapidly enter into the diocesan
apostolate. Nevertheless, even here a concern for the proper
character of each one is necessary. Their employment in the
apostolate should respect a form of religious life which is, with
the Church's approval, the collective expression of a devotion,
a spirituality, an ascetical practice derived from the Christian heritage. Pastoral planning cannot do violence to such
particularized vocations; it must respect their distinctive
antecedents.
Obviously it is difficult to attain precise delineations within the variety of religious institutes. The distinctions I have
proposed in these pages may provide some slight clarification.
But in the face of the complexities which remain, it might
seem simpler to deal with all religious as an amorphous group
only numerically distinguishable. All the same, it is legitimate to inquire whether the evaluation of apostolic resources
in these days does not demand something more. Today many
Catholic ecumenists are capable of discerning the most delicate nuances separating two protestant denominations. Should
15

Dist. II, chap. XXVII, 2.

330

JEROME HAMER

we do less with regard to the internal organization of the
Church in which the problem is in no way so complex.
This respect for their own purposes is incumbent above all
on the institutes themselves. In many orders and congregations,
under the pressure of events, disparate activities have become
annexed to their original works. In the beginning these activities were a temporary measure of expediency; too quickly
they have become a condition of life. This results sometimes
in a melange of activities in which the outsider has difficulty
discerning the fundamental orientation of the institute. To
accord full value to its authentic purpose, or to rediscover it
after events have obscured it, seems to be the just duty of
every religious institute. There is a general conviction on this
point. The contacts among major superiors established in Belgium and France cannot but advance this conviction. As long
as an institute is isolated, or thinks of itself as isolated, it can
easily consider itself obliged to respond to all appeals. Confronted by the presence of other religious orders even of the
same nation, however, an institute should become aware that
the better service to the Church is to remain faithful to its
proper vocation.
A reflection on essential purposes can only result in salutary conclusions. Sometimes it will be necessary to adapt the
end to new needs. Some institutes were founded in particular
circumstances which no longer prevail. Founded in the thirteenth century for the ransom of captives, the Order of Mercy
today still does useful work in the Church because it has courageously rethought its purpose with a view to new needs. Such
an eventuality is not to be excluded. But these reflections will
result especially in the wise adaptation of means to the end,
in the order of the liturgy, in the studies, in the observances,
in the rule of life, as well as in the delicate matter of recruitment of vocations. Therefore it is to the interest of religious
institutes, in strict accord with their general character, to
accept only unquestionable vocations.
Fidelity to purpose remains the principal expression of fidel-

PLACE OF RELIGIOUS

IN APOSTOLATE

OF THE CHURCH

331

ity to the Holy See. We enter totally into the pastoral design
of the Church by meticulously respecting the end for which
the Church has given us her approval. The Pope is the proper
prelate and supreme superior whom all religious, in virtue of
their very vow of obedience, are held to obey. 16 Conformity
to our end is one very pure expression of the obedience we
owe him.
In the terms of Canon Law the exemption of religious is a
"privilege," a negative expression which should signify a positive reality to everyone. It is not a personal advantage to be
exploited or to be enjoyed indiscriminately. In the context of
the apostolate it is the juridical side of an action of catholicity. It is not a means whereby the religious renders himself
untouchable; on the contrary, it is the implement for guaranteeing a more real and effective service.
I am not unaware of the concrete problems. These cannot
be resolved other than in a continuing dialogue. But currently, more than ever, conditions have concurred for a serene,
lucid, and constructive dialogue. This is first of all true because His Holiness Pope Pius XII, in his Discourse to Religious, Dec. 8, 1850, resolved the controversies attendant upon
the mere juxtaposition of seculars and religious. Discussions
have fulfilled an important role by bringing up and spotlighting the multiple aspects of the problem of spirituality. But
they cannot be prolonged indefinitely without damage to the
unity of the apostolic effort. Secondly, because all are convinced that no longer is a territorial dimension the sole consideration regulating pastoral endeavor, total remedies must
meet the problems in their total new extension. The influence
of the large milieu of life-school, factory, army, leisure-imposes, in conjunction with the local structures and subject to
controlled effort, apostolic action on a wider and wider scale.
Finally, the correct evaluation of delicate problems by religious and seculars together is advanced by a missionary mentality. In times of diminished apostolic fervor, in a static clim16

Can. 499, § 1.

JEROME HAMER

ate, relations between religious and seculars readily assume
the aspects of rivalry. In a community of charity, in an atmosphere of mission, these relations have but one form: a disinterested coordination. And more lasting solutions will be found
as good will, enlightened by theology, leads the way, not to
some neutral compromise, but to a regard for the authentic
nature of the case.17
JEROME HAMER,

O.P.

Le Saulchoir
Paris, France

17 The problem of the apostolate of religious in its various aspects has been dealt
with by R. Kuiters in a recent study: "Over de Verhouding tussen de seculiere en
reguliere geestelijkheid," Tijdschrift voor geestelijk [even, 1958, t. 14, pp. fl45-!U5,
341-353, 365-376, 456-469.

UNCREATED GRACE-A CRITIQUE
OF KARL RAHNER

M

AN speaks God's word in human terms. This is the
burden of theology, on one hand an imprint of the
divine science itself, on the other a habit and act
resident within and elicited by the human intelligence so that
it cannot but take upon itself the conditions of the subject
wherein alone it exists. Its task is the formulation in human
terms of Unalterable Truth with all the inexactitude and mere
approximation imposed by the very ineffability of what must
always remain mystery. This is what necessitates that the
theologian be open to history (without succumbing to the
relativism of historicity), that his act be in the nature of a
dialogue with other theologians, that theological system not
become sectarianism.
This is said somewhat by way of an apology, in these days
of welcome emphasis on unity and the exploration of positive
meaning, for what might otherwise appear as an overly negative theological venture. These reflections upon one view of the
influential Jesuit, Karl Rahner, are presented neither as a mere
polemic nor in the spirit of an astringent negativism. Rather,
they contain an implicit acknowledgement that perhaps his
efforts have opened up a whole new direction to theological
speculation on grace, justification, glory, the Incarnation,
and the supernatural. And if this be so the contemporary
theologian can hardly fail to pursue his richly suggestive
line of investigation. However, at the very outset assurance
is needed that we do indeed have here an authentic and enriching originality giving new dimensions to our knowledge.
Mere innovation, after all, departing from that point of
achievement at which theological speculation has already
arrived, holds no such promise and indeed may end in impov333

334

WILLIAM J. HILL

erishment of the truth. What these pages ask then is whether
such assurance, increasingly taken for granted, be warranted.

I. ExPosiTION:

RAHNER's

THEORY oN UNcREATED

GRACE

1. The Thesis
In his one major work thus far translated into English/
Karl Rahner presents in the Tenth Chapter his teaching on
uncreated grace-a doctrine that already has found many and
ardent supporters. Put most simply it is an opinion which
sees man's justification as formally constituted by the very
presence of divinity to the soul. Sanctity is realized in a seizure and possession of the soul by the personal Spirit of God.
Created habitual grace and the other infused gifts of God
which energize the soul, though indispensable, are consequences of this prior uncreated grace. The Council of Trent
in strong reaction against the extrinsic imputation theories
deriving from Protestantism insisted upon the reality of
created grace as an effect of God's causal love. It nowise intended to obscure this primary and profounder element in the
total grace state.
What is meant here is not the presence of the divine Substance to the soul merely as supernatural agent in the causing of grace. To avoid this misunderstanding Rahner notes
with approval the notion of Martinez-Gomez to the effect that,
"a logical (not temporal) priority (over) created grace should
be ascribed to uncreated grace (as given, not just as to be
given or as cau8ing grace):" 2 Neither is this a reiteration of
the position which conceives of God as giving Himself to the
soul as immanent term of its supernatural knowledge and love;
a presence " sicut cognitum in cognoscente, sicut amatum in
amante " in the classical expression of St. Thomas. 3 It is not
1 Karl Rahner,
S. J., Theological Investigations, Vol. I, God, Christ, Mary and
Grace. A translation by Cornelius Ernst, 0. P., Helicon Press (Baltimore) and Parton, Longman, and Todd (London), 1961, of Schriften Zur Theologie, I.
2 P.
footnote no. 5; italics m·e those of Fr. Rahner.
• Summa Theol., I. q. 48, a. 8.

UNCREATED

GRACE-A

CRITIQUE

OF KARL HAHNER

335

created grace which in its deepest reachings is formally causative of this union with divinity. Rather it is uncreated grace
which calls the latter into being much as a form introduces an
ultimate disposition towards itself in the matter to which it
is united.
How then are we to conceive of this conjunction of God to
the soul? The sole remaining order of causality is formal, and
this is precisely what Rahner's theory envisions:
God communicates Himself to the man whom grace has been
shown in the mode of formal causality, so that this communication is not then merely the consequence of an efficient causation
of created grace. Thus ... the communication of uncreated grace
can be conceived of under a certain respect as logically and really
prior to created grace: in that mode namely in which a formal
cause is prior to the ultimate material disposition. This union in
so far as it takes place by way of formal causality, is not simply
a consequence of created grace-indeed it precedes the created
grace to the extent that this grace, as the ultimate disposition to
the union, can only exist when God's formal causality is actually
being exercised. 4

Divine Substance then " informs " or " actuates " the soul.
Overtones of De la Taille's theory on the Hypostatic Union as
"created actuation by Uncreated Act" are discernible here;
the created actuation being, in this context, the created grace
itself at least as viewed in one of its formalities. The two
teachings have much in common though Rahner acknowledges
no direct dependence upon the French Jesuit, and his own
theological argumentation (which is our concern here) is developed along somewhat independent lines.
Obviously, no created form (natural or supernatural) will
offer a close parallel to what is involved here. The divine
"form" must remain immutable, just as this is true of the
divine Agent. How exactly the genuine ratio of formal causality is preserved without the inverse affecting of the form
by a receiving potency is left somewhat vague. Nevertheless,
4

Pp. 334 and 335.

336

WILLIAM J. HILL

because this must be so, the causality in question is given the
prefix "quasi":
One may explicitly draw attention to this metacategorical character of God's abidingly transcendent formal causality by a prefixed ' quasi,' and in our case then be entitled to say that in the
vision of God his Being exercises a quasi-formal causality. All this
quasi implies is that this ' forma,' in spite of its formal causality,
which must be taken really seriously, abides in its absolute transcendence (inviolateness, 'freedom '). 5
Lastly, such a relationship as this of God to creature should
not be far removed from theological conceptualization. " For
. . . it is indubitably given for every Catholic theologian at
least in the special case of the hypostatic union." 6

Sources of the Teaching
The origins of Father Rahner's understanding of uncreated
grace is in the primary sources of revelation. Scripture and
patristic tradition are agreed that the justification of man involves two elements: the communication of the Spirit, and an
inner quality inhering in the soul and effecting a transformation of the justified. But the vigorous expressions of God revealing present the latter as a consequence of the former, and
as fulfilling a subordinate role in the sanctification of man.
For St. Paul man's inner sanctification is first and foremost a communication of the Personal Spirit of God ... and he sees every
as a consequence and
created grace, every way of being
a manifestation of the possession of this uncreated grace. Thus
. . . we should say with St. Paul that we possess our pneumatic
being (our 'created sanctifying grace') because we have the personal Pneuma of God.7
The same indication is to be found in St. John, although less
"explicitly and exclusively." As for the Fathers, especially
• P. SSO. The citation here refers expressly to the beatific vision, but Rahner
understands the fonnal causality as " quasi " in a similar sense where habitual
grace is concerned.
8 Ibid.
•p. S!i!!i!.

UNCREATED

GRACE-A

CRITIQUE

OF KARL HAHNER

337

the Greek Fathers, ". . . They see the created gifts of grace
as a consequence of God's substantial communication to justified men." 8
3. The Theological Argumentation

Presuming from revelation the fact of uncreated grace, it is
Rahner's avowed intention to "define the essence of uncreated
grace more sharply than has hitherto been the case," and this
by " using elements already found within the conceptual
equipment of scholastic theology." 9 Reduced to its simplest
form the methodology involved is that of using the analogy
which prevails between grace and glory, wherein a theological
insight traditionally discerned in the latter case is employed
"mutatis mutandis " to illumine the nature of grace. To justify the analogy one has only to consider how grace is ontologically the commencement of glory. Their relationship is not
merely moral and juridic, but the life of glory is rather seen
as the definitive flowering of the life of divine sonship already
possessed. Grace is thus an inner entitative principle of the
vision of God. Thus there can be, "no objection in principle
to applying to an ontology of grace a set of concepts which
have proved themselves objectively valid in an ontology of
the immediate vision of God ... " 10
In the beatific vision God unites Himself to the intellect of
the blessed " in ratione speciei." The expression is that of St.
Thomas himsel£, 11 and means that the divine Essence assumes
in beatifying knowledge the role of the "species intelligibilis"
in knowledge connatural to man. Such species, in intellection
as such, is a presentation of the object and so determines the
knowledge in a formal way. Prior, however, to the actual
"Ibid.
• P. 819.
P. 826.

10

11 III Contra Gentiles, c. 51: " ... essentia divina potest comparari ad intellectum creatum ut species intelligibilis qua intelligit ... " Cf. De Vertitatis, 2, 10, a.
11. What is meant here is the impressed species though it is equally true that God
also assumes the role of expressed species in the beatific vision.

888

WILLIAM J. HILL

knowledge which it makes possible and to which it gives specification, the species ontologically determines the knower. This
causality (prior in a non-temporal sense only) can be conceived of only as formal, resulting as it does from the mere
presence of the species, and achieves in the knower an ontological presupposition to cognition.
This ontological determination precedes contact with the
extra-mental reality by way of the species which is conscious
knowledge. At this point Rahner uses language seemingly
originating from sources other than scholastic, yet so revelatory of his concept of knowledge that a somewhat lengthy
citation will not be out of place:
Knowledge is primarily the being-present-to-itself of an entity:
the inner illuminatedness of an entity for itself on the basis of its
determinate grade of being (immateriality). The species must not
unhesitatingly be conceived of as the ' intentional image ' of an
object, made present in the mind in a non-real 'mental' way as
a copy of the object due to the object's impression upon it. Rather
it is primarily . . . an ontological determination of the knower as
entity in his own reality, this determination consequently being
logically prior to knowledge as consciousness . . . If and in so far
as the species understood in this way is also the effect of an object
distinct from the knower and so entitatively assimilates the knower
to the known, the being-present-to-its-own-self
(" Beischselbersein ") of the knower as an entity determined by the species
becomes also the knowledge of the object itself ... 12

In the case of the beatific vision God unites Himself to
the blessed in such fs.shion as to effect, by quasi-formal causality, an ontological determination within the intellect of the
" beatus " which precedes and makes possible the eliciting of
the "ipsa visio." What of the created light of glory? It is
here as an ultimate disposition of the soul to such causality,
preceding it as matter does form and introduced into the soul
by the very presence of the form. Now if sanctifying grace
be the homogeneous commencement of glory, an analogously
similar quasi-formal causality should be discernible in the jus12

Pp. 328-329.

UNCREATED GRACE-A

CRITIQUE

OF KARL HAHNER

339

tification of the wayfarer. 13 This is uncreated grace; it is a
" ... communication of the divine Being taking place by way
of formal causality to the created spirit whch is the ontological presupposition of the visio." 14 What is achieved here is
an immediate entitative union with divinity, prior to and rendering possible the knowledge and love of God through the
created gifts of grace in this life, and the "lumen gloriae " in
the next. This, in a primary sense, is the justification and
sanctification of the soul, both "in statu viae" and "in statu
termini."
This in substance is the one basic theological argument
upon which Rahner builds his theory of uncreated grace. The
metaphysics of intellection illumine for us the nature of God's
presence in the intuitive vision of Himself, which in turn
reveals to us the essence of the grace state integrally taken.
Obviously, it is more an exposition than a demonstration, and
so can be evaluated only by an analysis of each of the elements
which enter into this construct of analogy. Once the theory
be granted certain corollaries follow: 1) it would seem not to
be impossible that each Divine Person exercises a distinct and
proper influx of the real order in this quasi-formal causality
of grace;
the words of the Council of Trent on created
grace as " causa unica formalis " of justification will admit of
interpretation not inimical to this position; 3) hints of this
teaching should be discoverable in other theological sourcesRahner expressly mentions Pius XII, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and Alexander of Hales, as well as a host of modern
writers.
II. CRITIQUE

OF RAHNER's

THEORY

1. Sources of Revelation
"Have you received the Holy Spirit," St. Paul asks the new
Christians at Ephesus. In this and other vivid expressions
18 Rahner explains that the distinction
between the formal casuality in grace
and in the " visio " may be either a difference of degree in this causality itself or
a difference derived from the material disposition to such communication (p. 836).
"P. 835.

340

WILLIAM .J. HILL

Sacred Scripture leaves no doubt that to the just man, over and
above that "seed" and "unction" which is a created quality,
there is given in mysterious fashion the very uncreated substance of God. The Fathers too can very readily be enlisted
in support of this truth. 15 Rahner's contention that uncreated
grace is part of the " given" of revelation, then, is hardly
open to doubt. Further, a certain primacy in the case of uncreated grace seems explicitly to be indicated. And it does
seem true that something more is meant here than God's presence to the Soul as causing grace, for such presence hardly
answers to the notions of " having," of " dwelling in," of
" grace," i.e., gratuitously given. All this is readily admissable
in the revelation itself. But to see this as explicable by some
sort of formal causality is a pure assumption. It can hardly
be said to be revealed even implicitly. The semitic mind and
language were not apt to distinguish clearly the distinct categories of causality. Too many alternate understandings of the
texts suggest themselves-such as a mere primacy of excellence,
one which sees the term of grace (the Inhabitation) as more
significant than its beginning. The suggestiveness that Father
Rahner finds here of uncreated grace being formally constituted by an active quasi-formal causality on God's part can
be no more than a hypothesis. Its verification (as a theory
and not as a meaning of Scripture) must proceed from within
theological science.

The Theological Argumentation
Granting the ontological continuity between grace and
glory, in which really but one gift of God exists "inchoative"
in the wayfarer and "consummative" in the blessed; granting
therefore that glory is primarily a change in state allowing for
the manifestation, the full flowering of what must remain hidden in grace, it then follows that a consideration of the con15 St. Augustine, for example, writes of the Pentecostal descent upon the Apostles, " ... it was not only his sacred fragrance-the sacred ointment of His grace
-but His very substance which was poured into their hearts." Sermo CLXXXV,

De Temp.

UNCREATED

GRACE-A

CRITIQUE OF KARL HAHNER

341

ditions of that act wherein consists the very essence of consummated supernatural felicity is most apt to yield the inner
secrets of grace itself. Of major significance here is the understanding of the beatific vision as perfectly intuitive, so much
so that no created species can intervene and achieve the conjunction of intellect and God. This is the express teaching of
and Rahner acknowledges that it is within the
St.
system of St. Thomas that he seeks to develop his intuitions.
Knowledge without species, however, is not possible; 17 thus
the beatific vision is explicable only if the divine Essence so
unite Itself to the intellect as to assume the role of an impressed species. 18 But this is obviously only an analogy and
we need to ask what precisely is the intelligibility it brings;
where, in short, does the similitude end and the much larger
area of dissimilation begin. Analogy, after all, is a comparison
of diverse things which are only proportionately alike.

(a) The Intelligible Species in Created Knowledge as Such.
Here some ontological predetermination of the knower, prior
to conscious knowledge does indeed occur. The species has its
own " esse reale " as a quality with the passive intellect, and
as an accidental form it informs the intelligence-an information previous to the actual " intelligere." The reason for this,
however, is that the impressed species is an effect of the knowing subject, something caused by the efficiency of the agent
intellect along with the instrumentality of the sense phantasm.19 It comes to be as an accidental form of the passive
intellect in which it inheres; as such it is an ontological determination of the intellect. The same is true of the species m
Summa Theol., I, q. 12, a. 2.
Even in God, since knowledge is assimilated, there must be a "species "--one
only virtually distinct, of course, from Knower and Known.
18 Cf. note no. 11.
19 The instrumentality
of the phantasm is objective rather than properly effective since being corporeal it cannot operate towards the production of the immaterial intelligible species except in virtue of a transient spiritual motion deriving
from the agent intellect. Cf. Joannis a S. Thoma. Cursus Phil. Thom., Editio
Reiser, Ill, p. 312.
16

17

WILLIAM J. HILL

the angelic intelligence; though infused rather than abstracted,
they enjoy a real existence in the angelic mind antecedent to
actual cognition. In all of this the intellect is looked upon as
any other finite entity, as a subject receptive to accidental
qualification. When considered formally as intellect the received species now bestows upon it not a new accidental "esse
reale " but rather " esse intentionale "; that is, it effects and
formally so, another state of " being," one of identification of
the intellect with the known object. The identity is not, of
course, ontological but of the psychological or representational order. And the species is seen not materially as an
entity or accident but formally as a similitude, that is to say
it is the very essence of the extra-mental object enjoying an
intentional existence within the knower. " Domus in mente
est domus in re "-in terms of essence there is identity, it is
the two acts of existence that are distinct. In all composed
realities existence derives from the form (" forma dat esse ").
What then is the existence which the intelligible form gives?
It is "intelligere "-the "to be" of knowing. 20 Herein lies the
formal causality of the species-the actuation of the intellect,
its reduction from potency to act. 21 This is understood in the
sense of a formal actuation since as the vital operation of the
faculty itself intellection is efficiently elicited by the intellect.
Now if I read Father Rahner correctly he would have the
species determining ontologically the knower prior to knowledge in a way at least essentially similar to this. 22 But the
2 ° Cf. Cajetan, Comm. in Summa Theol., I, q.
a.
no. XVI: "Quemadmodum enim forma est principium essendi materiae, ita quod idem est esse materiae
et formae diversimodi . . . ita species intelligibilis, si actu est in genere intelligibili, est intelligendi principium ita quod intelligere est ut ipsius esse."
21 There is a parallel in the order of appetition or volition. The causality of the
good or end is akin in its own order to that of the true. Final causality is the
presence of the end in the appetite (by way of knowledge) effecting love ("prima
immutatis appetitus ab appetibile "; I-II, q.
a.
somewhat as the species
is the presence of the object in the cognoscitive faculty effecting, but formally
rather than finally, knowledge. In either case the eliciting agency of will or intellect is demanded.
22 This is not to suggest that Rahner's theory of knowledge is in every sense rec-

UNCREATED GRACE-A

CRITIQUE OF KARL HAHNER

343

very reasons which underlie and imperate such affirmations
make impossible any similar conclusions in the case of the
beatific vision. Rahner, on the contrary, posits an almost
total parallelism.
(b) God as "Species" in the Beatific Vision.
In consummate created knowledge wherein the infinite
object is grasped in intuitive vision, the essence of God is
present "in ratione speciei." However, as present under this
precise formality God does not, indeed cannot, ontologically
determine the intellect as a presupposition to its act of vision.
Some such determination and elevation is required, but one
effected by the divine efficiency in the infusion of the created
light of glory. At this point the analogy with lesser knowledge
breaks down. The reason quite simply is that here there is no
finite form produced by the agent intellect and having existence as a real accident of the passive intellect. The divine
object is in the cognoscitive power immediately and in virtue
of its own natural (in this case divine) being, and not that
accidental being proper to a species. Ordinarily the species has
a twofold function: one entitative, the other intentional. In
the first way, it is an accident, a quality modifying the soul,
a form which in informing is absorbed in the actuation of a
ognizable as that of St. Thomas. There seems implicit in the former's theory a
lack of precision in distinguishing between the ontological and intentional orders.
He implies that the subject knows his subjective ontological determination by the
species first, and then because it is also the effect of an object distinct from the
knower "the being present-to-its-own-self ... of the knower as entity determined
by the species becomes also the knowledge of the object." Or again, " The knower
and the known do not become one through knowledge (as consciousness); but
because they are entitatively one ... the knower knows the object." (p. 328).
If the knowing subject is entitatively one with the object before knowledge this
seems to say it takes upon itself the real " esse " of the extra-mental thing. The
object however cannot exist in the mind except intentionally. The species has its
own " esse reale," it is true, but this is not the species formally considered as similitude, or as it is the object itself with a new (intentional) mode of being. Rahner
also cites approvingly the De Veritate, q. 1, a. 1: "assimilatio ... est causa cognitionis " ; but it seems clear that here St. Thomas is not speaking of an assimilation prior to knowledge but rather means that assimilation formally constitutes
knowledge.

344

WILLIAM J. HILL

subject and constitutes with it a new accidental thing. In the
second way, it transcends this function of entitative information (and this due to its spirituality which in turn derives
from the spirituality of the intellect) and without any fusing
with its subject merely actuates or terminates the soul precisely in the line of knowledge. It makes the knower to be
known, to be come identified therewith-but only "intentionaliter." As quasi "species" in the beatific vision God fulfills
the second of these roles but in nowise the first. St. Thomas'
very language is cautionary when he writes that it is not so
much that the divine essence becomes the form of the intellect as that it holds itself thereto after the fashion of a form. 23
To perfect only in a terminative way means that the form is
not affected or altered in any way by the subject it perfects; 24
and this is not mere extrinsicism for God is not only what
("quod") is seen, but that whereby ("quo") He is seen. 25
One of the more illuminating commentators on St. Thomas
-Sylvester Ferrariensis-has indicated the ultimate
on which rests this impossibility of God's determining the intellect ontologically and prior to knowledge, i.e., in the formal
order. 26 It is the identity of essence and existence proper to
Divinity. The divine quiddity cannot be "separated" from its
"esse natural" and given a distinct esse within the created
intellect. It is this very separability in the case of things not
28 Q. D., Veritate, q. 8, a. 1: " ... non oportet quod ipsa divina essentia fit
forma intellectus ipsius, sed quod se habeat ad ipsum ut forma . . ."
24 Rahner
is obliged to maintain that this is so in his own theory, that the
receptivity which is the modification of the creature does not imply any reaction
or determination of the form received. But such mutual determination is involved
unless God actuate merely intentionally or the creature be drawn up into the
uncreated esse proper to a Divine Person. The parallel with efficient causality
that he attempts to draw simply does not hold. It is only accidental to efficiency
as such that the agent undergoes mutation in causing. A purely actual agent whose
causality is his own substance will suffer no alteration whatsoever. But contrawise
the very concept of formal causality, except in the instances above mentioned
where the causality is only reductively formal, involves modification of the form.
25 St. Thomas, III Contra Ge:ntiles, c. 51: " ... ut sit in tale visione divina
essentia et quod videtur, et quo videtur."
•• Comm. in III Contra Gentiles, c. 51, no. 7.

UNCREATED

GRACE-A

CRITIQUE OF KARL HAHNER

345

their own being that makes possible their becoming objects
of finite knowledge, at least, in an intuitive and connatural
way. Not having any intentional being other than His uncreated natural being, God cannot be known (except by analogical inference) unless his very substance be immediately
present to the created intelligence. This is the basis for the
rejection by St. Thomas of all created species in the vision of
glory. In so joining Himself to the creature God formally
causes its very "intelligere" and its intentional identity with
Himself. St. Thomas refers expressly to this formal actuation,
". . . so the divine essence, which is being itself, is united to
the intellect making it to be in act through Himself." 27
There is a second difficulty attendant upon this concept of
a divine quasi-formal causality, apart from its having God
enter into composition with the creature. Put simply, it
amounts to an obscuring of the distinction between the natural and supernatural orders. 28 Rahner acknowledges that
this causality involves a corresponding receptivity on the part
of the soul. God is there formally communicating something
of His own perfection, which is in turn received by the soul.
Presumably this is created and of the accidental order; 29 but
certainly it is supernatural (it is described as an ontological
presupposition to vision, in the case of glory; and in the case
of sanctifying grace would be some sort of analogous prerequisite to salvific knowledge and love). But any subject receiv27 Summa Theol., I, q. 12, a. 2, ad sum: " ..• sicut aliae formae intelligibiles,
quae non sunt suum esse uniuntur intellectui secundum aliquod esse quo informant ipsum intellectum et faciunt ipsum in actu; ita divina essentia, quae est
ipsum esse, unitur intellectui faciens ipsum in actu per seipsum."
28 Elsewhere Rahner
gives indication of some general misunderstanding of the
autonomy of the supernatural order. Cf. his footnote no. 3, p. 333 where he sees,
" .. , no difficulty in a created substance from which created grace proceeds connaturally."!!
20 How the formal effect of an Uncreated Form can be created and merely accidental is another problem implicit in this theory. It points to a confusion of the
formal with the efficient order. It might also be noted here that for St. Thomas
grace is created in the soul and as a supernatural accident thereof (or is educed
from the obediential potency of the soul) but it is not created from the soul as a
subject out of which it becomes.

346

WILLIAM J. HILL

ing a form must bear some proportion thereto and be in
potency towards such act. Are we then to conceive of the
created soul as having a positive ordination to the supernatural? Does this perfection formally proceeding from God, at
the same time proceed from a positive potency of the soul in
the exercise of genuine material causality? However unintended, this is an implicit denial to glory and grace of any
entitative supernaturality.
This is the very reason for the necessity of the " lumen
gloriae "-the elevation of the intellect to the point where it
is capable of receiving Divinity itself as " species." 30 Precisely because God cannot formally communicate His own uncreated being, He must efficiently bestow a created participation therein, in order to render the vision of Himself possible.
Rahner would explain the created light of glory as analogous
to the ultimate disposition on the part of matter. But the requisite potency of matter to such a disposition is exactly what
cannot be affirmed here of the finite intellect. And once the
infused light achieves its elevation, then the intelligence is
already in proximate disposition to the terminative actuation
by the divine " forma intelligibilis." So conceived this actuation is not so much one the intellect receives as one to which
it is elevated.
In the beatific vision the very substance of God cannot be
present as a form ontologically determining the creature prior
to vision. This being so one cannot argue from the union supposed in such blessed intuition to an analogously similar union
as constituting uncreated grace in the wayfarer. The causality in the former case, though indeed formal, only reduces the
30 St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 12, a. 5: "Respondeo
dicendum quod omne
quod elevatur ad aliquid quod excedit suam naturam, oportet quod disponatur
aliqua dispositione quae sit supra suam naturam ... " This is reductively material
causality. Consequent to the reception of God as "species," the light of glory will
make possible the reception of the Divine motion moving the disposed intellect to
the "ipsa visio." Thirdly, in the order of efficient causality the "lumen" will
operate instrumentally in the intellect's vital eliciting· of the vision as its own second actuality.

UNCREATED

GRACE-A

CRITIQUE

OF KARL HAHNER

347

intellect to act " in genere intelligibilium " and terminates its
intuition-none of which is applicable to grace in the wayfarer. Any other causality of a formal nature beyond this
would be inimical to the perfection of God.
(c) Quasi-Formal Causality in General and the Analogy

with the Hypostatic Union.
Father Rahner attempts to safeguard his position by insisting that the causality here envisioned is only quasi-formal
that, at least in the case of grace, some such relationship is
conceivable if the concept of formal cause be subjected to
certain undefined alterations. At least, " ... the possibility of
this must not be put in doubt in virtue of purely rational considerations." 31 Three points are offered in defense of this
manner of thinking: 1) this quasi-formal causality is metacategorical in character, 2) what the prefixed "quasi" signifies
is that in such union God remains unalterable, just as He remains immutable in the exercise of efficiency, and 3) such
quasi-formal causality, " ... is indubitably given for every
Catholic theologian at least in the special case of the hypostatic union." 32
The mind's reach into the mysteries of God must avoid too
rigorous an application of mundane concepts. The word of
God will not suffer any " a priori " impositions of purely rational categories; of necessity familiar concepts will have to
undergo some amplification. In the case of formal causality
in the strict sense, the proper concept involved is one of intrinsic act received in some matter which it determines and
specifies-either substantial form determinative of prime matter or accidental form determining second matter-and being
in turn determined, limited by that potency. Two elements
are involved-perfectivity
and receptivity. There are, however, instances of intrinsic act received into potency which are
neither substantial nor accidental form, the most obvious case
in point being that of existence. Here is not " forma infor31

P. 829.

32

P. 880.

348

WILLIAM J. HILL

mans, inhaerens" but "forma actuans." As causality, this
actuation is formal but only reductively so. Now is there conceivable a third mode of such causality, one wherein the
actuality is extended to something other than itself without
any corresponding receptivity? Immediately we are outside
of the natural order, and are brought in reverence before the
mystery of the Incarnation. For this is precisely what occurs
in the Hypostatic Union. The Word in virtue of its immediate union to the humanity communicates to it that pure
actuality which is the divine Personality and the existence of
God as this is proper to the Second Person. This uncreated
actuation is true formal causality in an extended sense; it is
an analogous mode of formal causality .33 There seems no objection in referring to it as quasi-formal.
But the question here posed is whether such a causality can
be envisioned in the justification of man by way of grace. And
the reply is-hardly. The reason lies in understanding exactly
what is invloved in such divine formal actuation. Because
there is no receiving potency, the communicating act (which
can only be Pure Act) will bestow its perfection without limitation, i.e., infinitely. The actuation then will be uncreated. 34
The perfected will be transformed into the perfecting by way
of a true identity, i.e., within the area of the perfection communicated since in other respects the perfected will retain its
own identity. 35 Since Pure Act does not enter into composi33 Cf. Kevin F. O'Shea, C. SS. R., "The Human
Activity of the Word," The
Thomist, April 1959, who refers to such causality as "pure actuation," "simpliciter
perfective formal causality," and "purely terminative formal cause." He also cites
Cajetan in his Commentary on III• Pars, q. 17, a. 2, no. XVIII. "Nam si de
actuare et actuari infra totam latitudinem suorum modm'Um sermo sit non est
remotum a philosophia divina Deum posse actuare rem creatam."
•• Thomists unanimously take exception to De la Taille's created actuation by
Uncreated Act, for as created the effect must needs be the result of efficiency not
formal causality; Cf. T. U. Mullaney, 0. P., "The Incarnation: De Ia Taille vs.
Thomistic Tradition," The Thomist, January 1954. As remarked earlier, Rahner's
conception of quasi-formal causality runs along the line of the French Jesuit's
thinking.
35 The union in the Hypostatic
Union is to God as term, thus without composition; yet to a perfective term implying a real, active, physical communication. Cf.

UNCREATED

GRACE-A

CRITIQUE OF KARL HAHNER

349

tion with the creature, It suffers no detriment, and by the
same token, leaves the creature integral in its own essence and
distinct from Itself. The perfected, in short, will become God
either ontologically or intentionally. Christ is God in the first
way, the blessed "become" God in the second. And in both
cases the humanity is left integral.
It is impossible that any of this be realized in justification
by way of grace. There is no essential transformation of the
justified man into the Divine, either ontologically or intentionally. The concept of grace as formal participation in Divinity does imply a transformation, but purely of the accidental
order. The divine presence here is not immediate but mediate,
i.e., through the mediumship of created effects such as faith
and charity. Participation in the divine life is " sub forma
gratiae." It is because God Himself is not the pure actuating form of the creature that its elevation to the divine order
demands God's supernatural agency in infusing the created
O'Shea, op. cit. This however, is not in virtue of anything other than the very
union itself. Thus while the Hypostatic Union may be conceived of as a real
created 1·elation on the part of the humanity to the Word as term, such a relation demands a fundament which is the "ipsa unio," the uncreated identity, the
very communication whereby the Word invests and perfects the humanity with
His own Personality. Cajetan puts this in a wonderfully lucid phrase: "Est igitur,
ut unico verbo dicatur, unio naturarum in Christo relatio creata quaedam, hoc est,
consequens earundem unitatem personalem increatam." Comm. in III-a, q. fl, a. 7,
no. III. What Thomists are unanimous in rejecting here is any created perfection
other than the very humanity itself as through a " mutatio passiva " it is immediately joined to the Word. There simply is no other way to avoid assigning to
the humanity a material causality exercised over the Word.
Not all Thomists conceive of this "ipsa conjunctio" in the same way. Some are
disinclined to see any active and exclusive influence of the Word reducible to the
order of formal causality. Cf. J. H. Nicolas, 0. P. (Revue Thomiste, t. LIII, no.
fl, 1953, pp. 421-4fl8; t. LV, no. 1, 1955, pp. 179-183) who prefers to see the Union
as merely terminative and perfective only in the sense that the Word "integrates"
the humanity. However, the language of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas seems
suggestive of something more, and there is a difficulty in seeing how the above
position does not reduce the Hypostatic Union to a mere relation. J. M. Ramirez,
0. P., without explicitly employing the phrase, seems open to admitting such quasiformal causality when he writes: " ... ex parte modi terminandi extremum creatum
assumptum . . . Deus perficit creaturam ut forma pure actuans seu terminans,
absque ulla informatione." (De Horninis Beatitudine, III, Matriti, 1947, p. 497).

350

WILLIAM J. HILL

form of the wayfarer's sanctity. The "having of the Holy
Ghost" attested to in revelation suffers this same mediateness, else how is it to be distinguished from the comprehension of beatitude? And here once again (since grace is the
commencement of beatitude) the presence of the Trinity is
terminal. The soul now supernaturally energized (primarily in
its very essence and derivatively in its powers) reaches to the
divine Substance (and Its Three Subsistences) by way of
knowledge and love in the exercise of the theological virtues
and the gifts. 36 Grace is not yet transfigured into that vision
which is to be its consummation.
(d) A Corollary-Proper

Influx on the Part of Each
Pe1·son of the Trinity?
Rahner seeks to shed additional light upon the relationship
established in grace when he states as a corollary to his theory
that, " It is . . . . at least conceivable then that the quasiformal causality which we have attributed ... to God and his
essence, should also be proper, with regard to the recipient of
grace, to the Three Divine Persons in their personal distinction." 37 Seemingly this would follow logically from his teaching. However, it is quite impossible and so throws additional
doubt upon his original viewpoint. If the impact of this critique on uncreated grace in general be that it endangers the
transcendence of God, the particular objection here is that it
is inimical to the unity of God.
In no matter how extended a sense the concept of formal
causality be taken, the only communication possible in the
case of a divine Person will be that which the Person is in Its
36 Formally
considered, the Inhabitation is of the cognitional and affective
order. Its ontological character rests upon the fact that God is known and loved
not abstractly but in His real and immediate presentiality to the soul (an immediacy which is at once " immediatione virtu tis et immediatione suppositi ") in the
infusion of supernatural life. The knowledge then is quasi-experiential, elicited by
charity and the gift of wisdom, and terminates at the divine Personalities as They
are already present. It thus takes upon itself the characteristics of a genuine
" contuition."
37 P. 343.

UNCREATED

GRACE-A

CRITIQUE

OF KARL HAHNER

351

distinct hypostatic character. It can only involve then that
whereby a Person stands in relative opposition to the other
Two. Should it be something which pertains rather to His identity with the nature, then, by that very fact, it ceases to be
proper and becomes common to all three divine Subsistences.
This is why it is completely alien to Catholic understanding
to attribute any distinct efficiency to a divine Person; efficient
causality is of the order of operation and it is not activity that
is constitutive of divine Hypostasis. In the supposition of
quasi-formal causality then, the formal effect communicated
could not be a perfection of the order of either essence or existence, for these are necessarily common. There could only be
given what is distinct in God; a Relation as it subsists; or a
relatively distinct divine Subsistence, for this is what constitutes a divine Personality. All that the soul could receive is
the divine Person Itself, and the existence that any concept
of personality connotes secondarily-not the " esse " as common to all Persons (this would be a kind of monophysitism)
but as proper and exclusive to the distinct Person. This is to
say that the only communication possible is one resulting in
a union of the hypostatic order. The consequence would be a
personification of the humanity, whereby it would be rendered subsistent in each divine Personality. Apart from this,
the only other possibility is the purely terminative formation
of the glorious intellect by all three divine Persons in vision.
This objection is anticipated by Rahner and he replys by
saying that a divine Hypostasis can be communicated in two
ways: either in hypostatic union, or ". . . . to the end and
only to the end that it can become in virtue of this quasi-formal causality the object of immediate knowledge and love." 38
38 P. 345.
As is consistent with his teaching, Rahner maintains that this causality is of the entitative order, effecting certain ontological presuppositions to
knowledge and love. P. de Letter in a very recent article in The Irish Theological
Qunrtm-ly, January 1968, defends, on the other hand, the position that this quasiformal causality is entirely realised in the intentional order. But this means only
to actuate in the sense of causing (formally) the very intellection, and to specify
such operation. Were a Divine Person to actuate in this way He would become

WILLIAM J. HILL

Obviously, he doesn't mean the beatific VIsiOn, yet for the
wayfarer such activity can be rendered possible only by its
having essential perfections, i.e., perfections which grant a participation in the divine intellect and will.
For all this Rahner prefers to explain these gifts in the soul
as consequences of the pure presence (and resulting personal
communications) of a divine Person. The very presence of the
first Person, for instance is such as to formally render us His
adoptive sons, and so this filiation regards not the Trinity,
but the Father alone. The created graces which found such
proper relations are not merely to be appropriated to the
particular Person. This tendency to dismiss the profound Trinitarian implications of appropriation is somewhat misplaced. 39
If the infused gift of grace be taken formally as appropriated
it cannot in the exact same way be appropriated to another
Person. It relates the soul to a distinct Person and assimilates
it to that Person in His distinct hypostatic character. But this
is in virtue of the fact that appropriation must have a real
fundament, a basis in reality for the discerned similitude. 40
What is proper is the appropriation ("ipsa appropriatio ") and
not the grace so appropriated (" appropriatum ") ; and thus
the entire process remains within the cognitional and affective
order. It is the very abyss separating created and uncreated
which allows for no other possibilities for proper relations save
those in appropriation. Created charity, for example, can only
be appropriated to the Holy Spirit precisely because charity
is distinct in nature from the other gifts of grace while the
an object of immediate vision. Any formal effect prior to knowledge would necessarily be outside of the intentional order.
39 Rahner writes of a kind of pre-Christian
monotheism, adding: " ... and that
is what the doctrine of base appropriations in the theology of grace really amounts
to ... " (p. 346).
•• The adoptive sonship realised in grace regards the entire Trinity, yet at the
same time bears an undoubted resemblance to the natural sonship of the Second
Person. As so likened to the eternal Son there is accomplished in us an analogical
imitation of His relationship to the Father and also the Holy Spirit. It is one
thing to see the inner dynamism of the grace state as imitative of the Eternal
Origins within the Godhead, and quite another to ascribe this to an intrinsic
formal causality proper to each Divine Person.

UNCREATED GRACE-A CRITIQUE OF KARL RAHNER

353

Holy Spirit is nowise different or diverse from Father and Son.
The sole distinctness within God is in the line of subsistence.
In its own order, a created thing can imitate this. It cannot
have the distinct Subsistence itself as its own form or act
except in what would be another Incarnation.

3. Theological Methodology
Father Rahner has warned us against approaching an understanding of the mysteries of God in too narrow a spirit.
And true enough, the analogical leap from finite to infinite
will demand purging concepts of all traces of imperfection,
rendering them open to the divine. Accordingly, the concept
of strict formal causality has been amplified to where it embraces the transformative pure actuation of the creature (in
vision and in the Incarnation). But there is a principle of limitation involved here, too. However meta-categorical Rahner's
quasi-formal causality be it cannot cease to bear any analogous similitude to formal causality as an ultimate species of
cause and still be designated as formal. His theory posits the
uncreated " form " as intrinsically received and determinative
of the creature in the entitative way, at the same time remaining free of all determination by this reception. This suggests
a confusion of formal with efficient cause. And if such imprecision of language is allowable here why may it not be
extended to theological usage of such notions as "efficiency,"
"causality," "actuality," "essence," "existence" etc. The
danger here lies in the language of theology becoming equivocal; in the rejection of analogy and the taking of refuge in
that practical agnosticism that replaces analogy with mere
symboJ.41
" How much of a major departure from Catholic Theology this entails can be
seen in the theologizing of some contemporary Protestant thinkers. One example
would be Paul Tillich who denies that God can be properly called First Cause or
Uncreated Substance because these are human terms answering to finite reality. Use
of the first results in rationalistic theism; use of the second in a naturalistic pantheism. Thus " it is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as it is to deny
it." For him such terms can be merely religious symbols. Cf. Four Existentialist
Theologians, edited by Will Herberg, Doubleday, New York, 1958.

354

WILLIAM J. HILL

In somewhat this same spirit Rahner approaches what he
himself recognizes as a difficulty which urges itself against his
thinking. This is the teaching of the Council of Trent to the
effect that the unique formal cause of justification is grace as
an inhering created quality of the soul. 42 This phrase must be
interpreted, he maintains, in accord with the intentions of the
Conciliar Fathers in giving approval to it. They intended only
to do away with any understanding of justification in terms
of a mere extrinsic imputation (as, for example, in the teaching of Seripando and certain of the Reformers). They wished
to insure the reality of created grace without entering into its
relationship with uncreated grace. The" unica causa formalis"
does not, in short, mean unique. Even granting that Seripando's position was historically what occasioned this teaching,
still this is the dogmatic formula proposed by the Council.
What Father Rahner offers is an intepretation, but one that
goes against the literal meaning of these words of the magisterium, and there is about it a certain gratuitousness at the
very least. And the burden of justifying this reading falls very
heavily upon Father Rahner. The procedure suggests that the
author has reasoned to a personal opinion highly complex and
quite original, and then has been forced to distinguish away
an authoritative pronouncement in its defense.
A similar enthusiasm for his theory has led him to seek
support from other authoritative sources. To this end he cites
the "Mystici Corporis" of Pius XII and finds there in his
own favor the two truths: 1) "that between God and man
there evidently exists a categorical order which is not that of
efficient causality," and 9l) "that the doctrine of the 'visio
beatifica' should be drawn upon in order to determine the
essence of grace. Pius XII is merely echoing long standing
tradition and truths fully acknowledged within traditional
theology. To see in this any favoring of his own novel teaching is far fetched indeed.
In a section headed "hints of this view in other theologies"

••nenz. 799.

UNCREATED

GRACE--A

CRITIQUE

OF KARL HAHNER

355

he lays claim to inspiration from St. Thomas. This calls for
considerable reading into the texts proposed. A passage in the
Third Sentences, 43 for instance, leads him to remark, " ...
Even St. Thomas once calls the Holy Spirit the causa formalis
inhaerens of our adoptive sonship." Seen in its full context
what St. Thomas does say there is that created charity appropriated to the Holy Spirit is the formal cause of this filiation.
And when St. Thomas writes of the divine Persons leaving
gifts in the soul by a certain impress or " sigillatio " of Themselves,44 he is not ascribing to each Person a proper active
influx but is referring to a common agent causality resulting
in a distinct assimilation to each of the divine Personalities.
For he characterizes this " sigillation" as antecedent (not consequent) to "having" a divine Person. The same can be said
of the text from the Tertia Pars 45 to the effect that grace is
caused by the presence of Divinity. All that is intended there
is to show that the grace of union in Christ precedes his
created sanctifying grace. True enough, St. Thomas states that
created grace stands to uncreated grace " ex parte recipientis
vel materiae." 46 but the meaning is made clear when he
adds that, on the other side, the Holy Ghost is related to the
created grace as Agent and End (" ex parte agentis et finis ").
And when in his mature presentation in the Summa, 47 St.
Thomas writes of sanctifying grace disposing the soul to be
the recipient of a divine Mission, he is surely not referring to
an ultimate disposition introduced by form since the whole
point of the article is to conclude that such "having" is only
" sicut cognitum in cognoscente, sicut amatum in amante."
These are only isolated texts, yet their interpretation is revelatory of how enthusiasm seems here to be impatient of the
demands of scholarship.
However wondrous, beyond the telling thereof, be the mys48 III Sent., d. 10, q.
a. 1, sol. 8.
•• I Sent., d. 14, q.
a.
ad
45 Summa Theol., III, q. 7, a. 18.
•• I Sent., d. 14, q.
a. 1, sol.
47 Summa Tkeol., I, q. 48, a. 8, ad

356

WILLIAM J. HILL

tery of man's deification, it cannot be made more than it is
without being thereby despoiled. Raised to a formal sharing
in that inner-Trinitarian life proper to Diety alone, man is
not thus transformed entitatively into God. This is the prerogative of Christ alone; the blessed, too, " become " God but
only in the order of knowing and loving. Anything savoring
of theological pantheism or a kind of monophysitism ultimately demeans the splendor which is grace. The doctrine of
Father Rahner must involve either an unthinkable fusion of
God with creature, or a transformation of the creature into
the divine by way of hypostatic union or glorious vision. Grace
is none of these. The most disquieting feature of this theory
(and its variants) is that it is impossible to see that it does
not slight the transcendence of God.
Faith is at once a need to understand. The deep things of
God suggest a constant dynamism (if not always objective
progression) in the striving for such understanding. We should
not rest satisfied with mere re-statement of the formulae which
arose out of the vitality of the faith in the past. The metaphysics of grace surely can be furthered, rendered more profoundly illumined for us. But the directions which Father
Rahner here suggests do seem to break continuity with the
rich traditions of the past, even to come close to overstepping the norms of orthodoxy.
WILLIAM

Dominican House of Studies,
Washington, D.C.

J. HILL, 0. P.

THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS AS AN ACT
OF THE VIRTUE OF RELIGION

A STUDY IN MoRAL THEOLOGY

I

N recent years many theologians have shown grave dissatisfaction with the method of presenting and expounding the truth of revelation as it is found in the vast majority (if not indeed in all) of theological manuals. These
theologians demand a more vital theology, a more vivid way
of presenting divinely revealed truth, a manner more adapted
to the mentality and training of the modern man. Such reactions are found among theological writers everywhere and
it must be sincerely admitted that they are not altogether
without foundation. His Holiness, Pope John XXIII, in his
inaugural address to the assembled conciliar fathers, insists
that there is urgent need for re-thinking our theology and for
expressing it in a new and more modern way. In the same
breath, however, he insists that there can be no question
whatever of changing in any way the ancient truths, or of
"accommodating" them to the whims and fancies of modern
man. It is much more a question of presenting the ancient
truths in a new garb, as it were, of freeing them from the
dust of the past. 1 It is not, I think, out of place to quote the
1 1t is not the first time in the history of the Church or in the history of theological discussion that the need of a new formulation of the ancient truths of our
faith has been felt, a formulation more suited to the mentality of our adversaries;
it is not the first time that such a new expression of divine truth has been urgently
called for. We find examples of that in almost every age. Thus we find in the
16th century a renowned theologian, Melchior Cano, who took an active part in
the discussions of the Council of Trent on the Blessed Eucharist, the Sacrifice of
the Mass and on the Sacrament of Penance, expressing his ideas most candidly on
the question. He writes in his famous work, De Lvcis Theologicis, Bk XII, chapter 11, the following: Dixit in Concilio Tridentino vir eloquens sane ac facundus,
sed parum theologus tamen, qui id suadere vellet audientibus, adversum haereticos, praesertim Lutheranos, non esse magnum usum scholasticae concertationis,
oratorio potius more cum illis disserendum: nostrum enim spinosum esse ac per-

357

358

CORNELIUS

WILLIAMS

Supreme Pontiff's own words in their full context, for there is
an inclination at times to cite his words out of context, and
therein lies a grave danger. Here are his solemn words which
set down succinctly and clearly the principles governing every
theological investigation:
What is needed at the present time is a new enthusiasm, a new
joy and serenity of mind in the unreserved acceptance by all of
the entire Christian faith, without forfeiting that accuracy and
precision in its presentation which characterized the proceedings
of the Council of Trent and the first Vatican Council. What is
needed, and what everyone imbued with a truly Christian, Catholic and apostolic spirit craves today, is that the doctrine shall be
more widely known, more deeply understood, and more penetrating in its effects on men's moral lives. What is needed is that certain and immutable doctrine, to which the faithful owe obedience,
be studied afresh and reformulated in contemporary terms. For
molestum. Quae si vera essent, exempla in Theologia disputandi non ab his, quos
ante dixi, meliora peterentur. Equidem etsi non sum nescius, quam sit, non scholae
dico in disputando mos, sed tota omnino scholae Theologia haereticis invisa, sed eo
magis existimo, scholasticam disserendi formam ad haereses refellendas efficaciorem,
quo magis haereticis invisa est. Quod si Lutherani academiae subtilitate minime
capiuntur, ne oratione quidem ad rhetorum leges artificiose composita capi poterunt, quoniam grandiores sunt et callidiores efl'ecti, quam ut orationis artificio apprehendantur. Verum si eo loco res sit, ut adversum Lutherana dogmata certare cogar,
eligant alii (nihil enim impedio) suave orationis genus, quo mollius et familiarius
homines istiusmodi ad ecclesiae benevolentiam alliciant, dummodo mihi relinquant
scholae ossa servosque ac pressam disserendi soliditatem. . . . . Quum oratorum
more quasi torrens fertur oratio, quamvis multa cuiusque modi rapiat, nihil tamen
fere teneas, nihil apprehendas. Cum autem ad scholae normam certa via et ratione
premitur, contineri amplectique facilius potest. ltaque praeclarum a Divo Thoma
accepimus morem disputandi, si eum teneremus. Nemo vero a viro gravissimo
orationis delicias quaerat, pigmenta muliebria, fucum puerilem, sed veras gravesque
sententias, argumenta salida et propria, sermonem rei, de qua disseritur, accommodatum. . . . Equidem non Divum Thomam modo, sed scholae auctores quosdam
alios existimo, si humaniores litteras coluissent, et quae in schola didicerant, eloqui
voluissent, omatissime splendidissimeque potuisse facere; et viros eloquentiae studiosos, si ab scholae instituto non abhorruissent, sed theologiam hanc didicissent et
tractare voluissent, gravissime et copiosissime dicere potuisse. . . . V emm ai alt6f'Um Bit optandwm, malim quidem indisertam acientiam, quam inacitiam loquacem.
Nam exempla ilia disputationis theologicae suis omnibus numeris absoluta is solum
suppeditare potest, qui eloquentiam sapientiae coniunxerit. Age tamen, qualiacumque nostra sunt, et ea ipsi afl'eramus, quae etsi non meliora erunt quam vetera,
erunt tempori fortassis aptiora.

THE MASS AS AN ACT OF VIRTUE OF RELIGION

359

this deposit of faith, or truths which are contained in our timehonored teaching, is one thing; the manner in which these truths
are set forth, with their meaning preserved intact, is something
else. This then, is what will require our careful, and perhaps too
our patient, consideration. We must work out ways and means of
expounding these truths in a manner more consistent with a predominantly pastoral view of the Church's teaching office.2
When reading much of modern theological writing one gets
now and again, unfortunately, the impression that there is an
urge to change not only the manner of expressing ancient
truths but even of modifying the ' depositum ' itself. It is
not surprising that the effect of such writing should be felt
amongst the young theologians pursuing their theological
studies. These frequently show a great lack of sympathy for
traditional methods and demand from their professors a more
vital, a more existential approach to revealed truth. This is
true both in the field of dogmatic theology and in that of
moral theology. In the domain of moral theology there is a
certain amount of confusion of thought in the writings of the
moralists themselves and then, of necessity, in the minds of
the students. The net result is that the students fail to distinguish between what we may call moral catechesis, that is,
simple instruction in the rules governing Christian living as
found in the sources of revelation, and formal theological
science, which deals with the reality of the supernatural Christian life and strives to expound and analyze scientifically its
principles, its structure and its functioning. What the young
theologians most often ask for and welcome in this field is a
kind of biblical moral theology, which is more immediately
applicable in the work of the sacred ministry-preaching and
confessional. The reaction here is seen to be double: on the
one side, against the casuistical moral teaching of the moral
manuals (which most unfortunately reduce all moral theology
as such to a science of sin) and on the other side against the
speculative moral teaching of St. Thomas and the scholastics.
• AAS 1962, p. 791-792.

360

CORNELIUS

WILLIAMS

A very clear example of reaction against the method of the
manuals is to be found in the matter of sacramental theology
and in this case we are forced to admit that the reaction is
most justified indeed. Prof. K. Rahner, for instance, laments
the fact that, with the sole exception of the Sacrament of
Penance (in which there is an insistence on the acts of the penitent receiving it) "all the sacraments are monotonously discussed according to one and the same pattern" (necessity, institution, structure, that is, matter and form) while "the existential side of the sacrament is given no place by right." 3 In
this we agree with him whole-heartedly. Some time ago I had
occasion to insist precisely on this point in the context of a
series of articles on the role of the sacraments in the Christian
life.4 There I pointed out that the sacraments as used or received by the Christian people pertain to the virtue of religion: they are external religious acts. The two fundamental
religious movements of the soul are the movement of giving
to God an oblation of self or our possessions (corresponding
to the internal attitude of devotion or devotedness to God,
our Creator), and the movement of receiving from God as
suppliants in humble dependence (corresponding to the internal attitude of prayer or supplication). In our sacramental life
we find these very same acts of worship flowing from the Christian and supernatural or infused virtue of religion: the giving
to God through Christ, our High Priest and Mediator between
us and God the Father, and the receiving of divine life through
Christ's sacraments in a spirit of religious submission and deep
humility.
In this present article I should like to set down some reflections on the existential character of the greatest of all the external acts of Christian worship, the sacrifice of the Mass.
These thoughts have been suggested not so much by a dogmatic study of the sacrament of the Blessed Eucharist as by
• Karl Raimer, S. J., Theological Investigations, I, p. 18, note 1.
• Doctrine arul Life (Dominican Publications, Dublin, Ireland) U (1962) 71-78,
128-137.

THE MASS AS AN ACT OF VIRTUE OF RELIGION

361

a close study of the notion of sacrifice in so far as it is an
external act of the virtue of religion, to be placed by all those
who either offer or take part in the sacrifice of Christ. And
in this I think I am correct in maintaining that I am emphasizing the so-called existential character of the Mass and the
vital role it should play in the life of every Christian. 5
The
Session of the Council of Trent was devoted to
the Church's teaching on the sacrifice of the Mass. As it is
the most solemn and completely authentic statement we possess on the matter I think it well to quote it in full-in spite
of its length- before proposing my theological reflections on
its true meaning in the Christian life.
The holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit with the same legates of the Apostolic
See presiding, has decreed that the faith and doctrine concerning
the great mystery of the Eucharist in the holy Catholic Church,
complete and perfect in every way, should be retained and, after
the errors and heresies have been repudiated, should be preserved
as of old in its purity; concerning this doctrine, since it is the true
and the only sacrifice, the holy Council, instructed by the light of
the Holy Spirit, teaches these matters which follow, and declares
that they be preached to the faithful.
Since under the former Testament (as the apostle Paul bears
witness) there was no consummation because of the weakness of
the Levitical priesthood, it was necessary (God the Father of mer• The literature on the Sacrament of the Blessed Eucharist in general and on
the Sacrifice of the Mass in particular is immense. However, I should like to quote
the following works that have been of special help in the working out of the
present essay. Bernhard Durst, O.S.B., "Das Wesen der Eucharistiefeier und des
christilichen Priestertums," Herder: Rome, 1953 (Studia Anselmiana 32); Charles
Journet, La Messe, Presence du sacrifice de la Croix, Desclee de Brouwer, 1957;
Antonio Piolanti, ll mistero Eucharistico, Libreria editrice Fiorentina: Florence,
1958; Anton Vorbichler, S. V. D., Das Opfer auf den uns heute noch erreichbaren
iiltesten Stufen der Menschheitsgeschichte. Eine Begriffsstudie, St. Gabriel-Verlag,
Modling b. Wien, 1956; Ansgar Vonier, 0. S. B., A Key to the Doctrine of the
Eucharist, London, 1925) (still one of the best studies on the matter); and the special number of the French review Lumiere et Vie 7 (1952).
It is of interest to note that Melchior Cano in chapter 12 of Book 12 of the
above-mentioned and quoted work, De Locis Theologicis, gives a most penetrating theological analysis of the Catholic doctrine on the Blessed Eucharist both as
Sacrament and as Sacrifice.

862

CORNELIUS

WILLIAMS

cies ordaining it thus) that another priest according to the order
of Melchisedech [Gen.14:18, Ps.109:4; Heb.7:11] arise, our Lord
Jesus Christ, who could perfect [Heb. 10: 14] all who were to be
sanctified, and lead them to perfection. He, therefore, our God
and Lord, though He was about to offer Himself once to God the
Father upon the altar of the Cross by the mediation of death, so
that He might accomplish an eternal redemption for them [edd.:
illic, there], nevertheless, that His sacerdotal office might not come
to an end with His death [Heb. 7.9l4,
at the Last Supper, on the
night He was betrayed, so that He might leave to His beloved
spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands), whereby that bloody sacrifice once to be completed on
the Cross might be represented, and the memory of it remain even
to the end of the world [I
ff] and its saving grace be
applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit, declaring Himself constituted " a priest forever according to the
order of Melchisedech" [Ps. 109:4], offered to God the Father His
own body and the blood under the species of bread and wine, and
under the symbols of those same things gave to the apostles
(whom He then constituted priests of the New Testament), so
that they might partake, and He commanded them and their successors in the priesthood in these words to make offering: "Do this
in commemoration of me, etc."
19; I. Cor. 11:
as the
Catholic Church has always understood and taught. For, after He
had celebrated the ancient feast of the Passover, which the multitude of the children of Israel sacrificed [Exod.
1 ff.] in memory
of their exodus from Egypt, He instituted a new Passover, Himself to be immolated under visible signs by the Church through
the priests, in memory of His own passage from this world to the
Father, when by the shedding of His blood He redeemed us and
" delivered us from the power of darkness and translated us into
His kingdom" [Col. 1: 13].
And this, indeed, is that " clean oblation " which cannot be
defiled by any unworthiness or malice on the part of those who
offer it; which the Lord foretold through Malachias must be offered
in every place as a clean oblation [Mal. 1: 11] to His name, which
would be great among the gentiles, and which the apostle Paul
writing to the Corinthians has clearly indicated, when he says that
they who are defiled by participation of the " table of the devils "
cannot become partakers of the table of the Lord [I Cor. 10:
understanding by table in each case, the altar. It is finally that
[sacrifice] which was prefigured by various types of sacrifices, in
the period of nature and the Law [Gen. 4:4;
pas-

THE MASS AS AN ACT OF VIRTUE OF RELIGION

363

sim], inasmuch as it comprises all good things signified by them,
as being the consummation and perfection of them all.
And since in this divine sacrifice, which is celebrated in the
Mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody
manner, who on the altar of the Cross " once offered Himself " in
a bloody manner [Heb. 9:
the holy Synod teaches that this is
truly propitiatory, and has this effect, that if contrite and penitent we approach God with a sincere heart and right faith, with
fear and reverence, " we obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable
aid" [Heb. 4: 16]. For, appeased by this oblation, the Lord, granting grace and gift of penitence, pardons crimes and even great sins.
For, it is one and the same Victim, the same one now offering by
the ministry of the priests as He who then offered Himself on the
Cross, the manner of offering alone being different. The fruits of
that oblation (bloody, that is) are received most abundantly
through this unbloody one; so far is the latter from being derogatory in any way to Him. Therefore, it is offered rightly according to the tradition of the apostles, not only for the sins of the
faithful living, for their punishments and other necessities, but
also for the dead in Christ not yet fully purged. (Denz. 937a-940,
trans. R. J. Deferrari) .6

Such is the Church's official and authentic teaching on the
Mass. Every explanation of the Mass, either as a sacrament
or as a sacrifice, must take these decisions of the Council of
Trent into account and never depart from them. According
to this teaching the Mass is: I) first of all, a real and proper
sacrifice; 2) secondly, the same sacrifice as that of Calvary
and the Supper Room; 3) differing from Calvary only in the
manner of offering the same victim; 4) and fourthly, the only
sacrifice of the New Law.
The Mass, then, is a real sacrifice, the only real one of the
New Law. That being so, it follows that what is true of sacrifice as such must be true also of the Mass, and what is true
of priesthood as such must be true too of our Christian priesthood; and before we can determine how the Christian people
should best take part in the sacrifice of the Mass and through
it in that of Christ on Calvary, we must first of all under6 In the latest, fully revised edition of Denzinger's Enchiridion this text is to
be found n:o 1738-1743 (Herder: Barcelona 1963).

364

CORNELIUS

WILLIAMS

stand how sacrifice is offered and how one offers or takes
part in it. That is the only sound manner of procedure in a
theological analysis of the Mass as a sacrifice (and this aspect
takes precedence over it as a sacrament) and of the part the
faithful should play in the offering of it. Sacrifice is essentially an external act of the virtue of religion, and as such it
is the sign of an internal sacrifice, of some internal act or attitude of mind of the person who offers it, and in the persons
for whom it is offered or in whose name it is offered. This
internal sacrifice is nothing else than what theologians call
" devotio " or devotedness. This is defined by St. Thomas as
" a ready will to do what pertains to the service of God." 7
It is the principal internal act of the virtue of religion and is
an act of submission to God and to God's will in everything.
It is a readiness to do God's will no matter what it may be
and no matter how it may be made known to us. This complete submission of the creature to God is called by St.
Thomas the "interior spiritual sacrifice"; it is the interior
spiritual giving or oblation of self. A sacrifice which is offered
exteriorly signifies an interior spiritual sacrifice by which the
soul offers itself to God. 8 When man submits himself wholly
to God he is drawn to manifest this submission in a sensible,
tangible way. His nature tells him to offer something to God
as a sign of his interior readiness to submit to God in all
things. 9 In other words, nature, or better natural reason, tells
him to offer some kind of external sacrifice. Now this external
sacrifice, which consists essentially in the giving of something
to God in a sensible and visible way, in relinquishing ownership of something, presupposes an internal act of giving, an
internal " oblatio," quite distinct from " devotio," while flowing
from it and being informed by it. This internal oblation bears
directly on the object to be sacrificed, that is, on the object
which is to be given over to God. If the external thing to be
offered should be oneself (as in the case of self-sacrifice) then
this internal oblation could rightly be called an act of self• II-II, 8!, 1.

8

II-II, 85, !.

• II-II, 85, 1.

THE MASS AS AN ACT OF VIRTUE OF RELIGION

365

oblation, and it would be altogether distinct from the act of
devotion " quo anima seipsam offert Deo."
Now Christ's sacrifice on Calvary was, in fact, a sacrifice of
self, demanded of Him by His Eternal Father for the redemption of sinning mankind. In offering this sacrifice Christ elicited an internal act of self-oblation and carried it into effect
by allowing himself to be killed by the Jews. In the Old Law
God demanded the killing of an animal, for instance, as a sac-·
rifice ·(this being the most expressive manner of relinquishing
ownership of a living thing and of giving it over to God), that
is, an external sign of the people's subjection to and dependence upon Him. In offering this sacrifice the priest of the
Old Law, already conscious of his and the people's dependence
upon God, had to elicit a special act of giving this thing to
God. This internal act, moving to the external action, is essential to sacrifice. Both together make up one complete external
human act, the act of sacrifice. In speaking of sacrifice, then,
we must be careful to distinguish three elements or acts. 1)
First, the act or attitude of "devotio," which, as we saw, is a
readiness to submit to God in all things, the fundamental act
of the religious man, and is signified here by some external
action of giving. It is the "interius spirituale sacrificium," or
the " principale " 1 Q or " verum 11 sacrificium " of which St.
Thomas so often speaks. 2) Secondly, there is the internal act
of the mind by which the priest relinquishes ownership of
some external object and thus gives it over to God, consecrates it or makes it sacred. This is the internal oblation and
is an act of the practical intellect. 12 3) Thirdly, there is the
external effective giving of the object to be sacrificed. This is,
in the most formal sense of the term, sacrifice: the external
carrying into effect of the internal oblation. It is clear that
without " devotio " sacrifice can have no meaning, since it
would then be an empty sign, a sign without anything being
II-II, 85, 8 ad
Summa contra Gentiles, III, UO.
10 Cf. I-II,
8 for the meaning of the different types of sacrifice in the Old
10

11

Law.

366

CORNELIUS

WILLIAMS

signified. It is clear, too, that the external effective giving or
sacrifice necessarily presupposes the internal oblation just as
every other external human act presupposes an internal act
of the human will, without which the external action would
not even be a human act.
Since the Blessed Eucharist is both a sacrament and a sacrifice we may note here the two main differences between a
sacrament and a sacrifice. 1) Since sacrifice is essentially the
giving of something to God as a sign of our submission it follows that men could institute their own sacrifices, external
signs of their recognition of God's supreme dominion. But a
sacrament is a sign and the cause of some gift given by God
to man. Therefore, only God, from whom the gift comes, can
institute a sacrament. 13
A sacrament of the New Law, instituted by Christ, will, of itself (ex opere operata), produce
or increase grace, provided no obstacle be placed in its way
(non ponentibus obicem), that is, provided the recipient in
receiving it really places an act of the virtue of religion. Sacrifice, however, of itself, produces no effect, either in the priest
or the assistant unless it be ratified interiorly by them. That
is, it produces its effects according to the devotion and faith
of the offerer, of which devotion and faith it is a sign. Sacrifice is ordained immediately to honouring and placating God
as St. Thomas has shown. 14 Indeed, it is the interior or moral
ratification of the external sacrifice that makes the sacrifice
acceptable to God. It is what reconciles me to God. What
good is it for a person to intercede for me with another person, whom I have offended, unless I sincerely desire to be reconciled to that person, unless I really desire to make amends
for the injury done? We may, of course, deceive our fellowmen, but God we cannot deceive: Deus intuetur cor. 15
In the state of pure nature (that is, had man never been
'"Cr. II-ll, 85, I ad 8; III, 64, 2.
"Est enim hoc proprie sacrificii efl'ectus ut per ipsum placetur Deus: sicut etiam
homo ofl'ensam in se commissam remittit propter aliquod obsequium acceptum, quod
ei exhibetur. III, 49, 4.

'"cr. III, 88, 4 ad 8.

THE MASS AS AN ACT OF VIRTUE OF RELIGION

367

raised to the supernatural order and had he never sinned) each
individual would have been drawn to offer some kind of sacrifice on his own behalf. That is, he would have certainly testified in some tangible and sensible way to the fact that he
owed his being and all he had to God, the Creator and sovereign Lord of all. Or, perhaps, he would have deputed others
to do it for him, guaranteeing that he would ratify what they
did. In this way there would have been instituted a kind of
natural priesthood, the deputy (that is, the priest) acting as
representative of all the rest in testifying openly and externally to the submission of all. St. Thomas thinks that the
honour and dignity of offering sacrifice would have been committed to the first-born of each family.H; One thing is certain,
as experts in the history of religions show, the sacerdotal function has, in fact, always been a social function, the priest acting in the name of many, of the family, of the tribe, of the
people. In this state of pure nature, then, man would have
decided upon his own sacrifices-their kind, the manner of
offering them, etc. But, obviously, the Creator could intervene, should He think fit to do so, and ordain that only such
and such sacrifices would be acceptable to Him. He, as Lord
and Master of all creation, has the perfect right to do that.
And, in fact, in revealed religion, in the Old Law, God (Jahweh) ordained explicitly that certain men (Aaron and his
sons) should offer sacrifice to Him on their own behalf and on
behalf of the whole Jewish people. They were the priests constituted by Him, His priests. They were thus constituted the
mediators between God and the people. God laid down in all
detail what precise kind of sacrifices were to be offered. In
consequence no others would be acceptable to Him, no others
would be regarded as signifying the submission of the people,
no others would, in fact, placate Him. The exact ritual of all
these sacrifices was also laid down by God, and these ceremonies had to be observed in every detail.
The purpose of all sacrifice as such (which we can deter16

Cf. I-II, I03, I ad I et 3; II-II, 85, I ad I.

368

CORNELIUS

WILLIAMS

mine from a simple analysis of the nature of sacrifice) is fourfold. I) First, to give honour and glory and praise to the
Creator as the Lord of all being. By sacrifice we wish to show
that we are conscious of our complete dependence upon God.
This is called by theologians the " finis latreuticus" of sacrifice.
Secondly, to thank the Creator for His goodness to us
in creating us 17 (that is, in giving us a sharing in His Being and
perfections) and in conserving us in being. This is known to
theologians as the "finis eucharisticus" of sacrifice. 3) Thirdly,
to implore the Creator never to forsake us, never to withdraw
His aid from us, to beseech Him to continue to look with favour and benevolence upon us. This is called the " finis impetratorius" of sacrifice. 4) Fourthly and lastly, in the event
of our having in any way offended the Creator, to make
amends for the injury done and to regain the good-will of God.
In other words to placate His anger. This is termed the " finis
satisfactorius or propitiatorius " of sacrifice. The first three
ends are essential to all and every sacrifice, even to those that
would be offered to God in the state of pure nature or in the
state of original justice. The fourth is present only when sacrifice is offered by or on behalf of sinning creatures. 18
In the Old Law the people really took part in the sacrifices
in so far as they were present at the actual offering in the
temple. They thus ratified what the priest did in their stead,
while calling forth in their own souls a spirit of submission
(the actualization of the religious attitude of which we spoke
above) to the will of God. This ratification by the people in
the Old Law was obviously a moral ratification. They took
no physical part in the actual sacrificial offering, but did share
in the sacrificial meal as symbolic of sharing in the divine
blessing brought on the people by the sacrifice offered.19 Of
17 St. Thomas often refers to the divine gift of creation for which we must be
ever thankful to the Creator. Cf. II-II, 85; Suwma contm Gentiles, II, 1!'!0.
18 The whole question of the fourfold purpose or value
(Wert) of sacrifice is
brought out extremely well by Bernhard Durst is his work mentioned above in
note 5.
19 Cf. A. Grail, 0. P. in his article, "Le Messe, Sacrament de la Croix, Lumiere

THE MASS AS AN ACT OF VIRTUE OF RELIGION

369

this submission of the people the external action (external sacrifice) of the priest was a sign, just as much as it was a sign
of the priest's own internal submission. Indeed this internal
submission (either actualized, or as a state or attitude of mind
and soul vis-a-vis of the Creator) is the very soul of sacrifice.
Without it, as we saw above, the external action of offering
some sensible object to God becomes an empty formula, devoid of meaning because signifying nothing. In that sense, and
in !that sense only, is the internal sacrifice the "principale sacrificium" or the "verum sacrificium" and not in the sense that
it is the formal constitutive element. It gives meaning to the
external rite of sacrifice.
The faithful Jew, assisting in the temple, so associated himself with the sacrifice of the High Priest as to make it his
own and apply its fruits to himself personally. He could really
and truly say that he personally offered sacrifice, because he
offered together with the priest, but subordinated to him.
They both offered the same sacrifice, one and the same, numerically identical. There was only one external rite (and that
is formally what sacrifice is as an external act of religion), but
there were many internal acts of submission to God signified
by that one external action. The multiplicity of the internal
acts signified does not multiply the sacrifice numerically. This
point is of some importance when we come to consider the
sacrifice of the Mass in the New Law. 20
et Vie 7 (1952) p. 25. The same notion is expressed most clearly in the Canon
of the Mass in the prayer " Supplices Te Rogamus " after the consecration. It
should, however, be remarked that the faithful in the Old Law did not always
partake of the sacrificial offerings. Such a participation was excluded altogether
from the greatest of the Old Testament sacrifices, from the " holocausts." St.
Thomas indicates these differences explicitly in his tract on the ceremonial rites
of the Old Law (cf. I-II, 10!'!, 3 ad 8) and his teaching is corroborated by modem
Old Testament scholars. St. Thomas' theological expose (I-II, qq. 101-103) of the
Old Testament ceremonial law would well repay a careful study.
20 We shall see that,
at Mass, the priest and the faithful unite themselves to
Christ, the one High Priest of the New Law, offering Himself in Sacrifice to His
Father, in much the same way as the faithful Jew united himself to the priest
offering sacrifice in the temple. I say that even with respect to the priests of the
New Law: they stand in much the same relation to Christ as the faithful Jew did

370

CORNELIUS

WILLIAMS

In the Old Law the priest offered sacrifice as a principal
agent. He was priest in his own right. He was a priest sui
iuris, that is, not sharing in the priesthood of another (Christ),
but just prefiguring Christ's priesthood. He was a priest chosen
from among the people by God. In his own right he offered
the wine or animal or whatever other object was to be offered.
He observed all the prescribed rites in doing so. The people
simply ratified what he did. All these sacrifices were obviously
of a very finite and limited character. They could in no way
give to God all the honour and glory that is His due; alone
he could never hope to satisfy for the sins of all men, sins
which took on an infinite malice because they offended an
infinite being.
When human nature turned away from God by the sin of
Adam God demanded full and complete satisfaction. This we
know from revelation. There infinite satisfaction was asked
for by God. Though this may seem harsh treatment of a poor
finite creature by an All-powerful and infinite Creator, it was
in fact much more a sign of how much God thought of us. Instead of despising us and our sins (or even of annihilating us)
He thought it worthwhile (if I may say so without any irreverence) to make us pay the last cent of our debt to Him. He
considered our self-respect. 21
But how was this full satisfaction to be paid? Only a God
could have found a means; a means, which in carrying out
the designs of His inexorable justice, was to show forth in a
resplendent way His boundless love for His creature, man.
Deus, qui humanae substantiae dignitatem mirabiliter condidisti et mirabilius reformasti ... 22 God decreed that His
Only-begotten Son, His Word, in Whom and by Whom and
through Whom all things (and all men) were made, should
take to Himself a human nature, and in that human nature
to the priest. This in no way derogates from the special dignity of the Christian
priesthood or from its pre-eminence over the priesthood of the Old Law. I hope
to show that later.
21 Cf. III, 46, I ad 3; 47, 3 ad I.
22 Prayer at the Offertory of the Mass in the Roman Rite.

THE MASS AS AN ACT OF VillTUE OF RELIGION

371

(as man) offer the sacrifice of His life in satisfaction for the
sins of men to His Eternal Father. The fittingness, or as St.
Thomas and other theologians say, the convenientia, of this
divine plan has often been pointed out. Let it be said, however, that the Word of God, the Logos, is not only the substantial image that God forms of Himself, but is also the
image or plan in the mind of the divine Architect of all things
made by Him. The Word of God is the living idea of every
man, of human nature and all its members, in the mind of
God. Man by sin destroyed that plan. It was fitting (conveniens, in keeping with the wisdom and goodness of God), then,
that all should be put right again by the incarnation of that
divine image or idea of us all. Also, since the Word of God
is, in that sense, the image of every creature, the Word made
flesh could become the real (but mystical) head of a regenerated human nature, just as Adam, by the mere fact of being
the first man was the physical head of all men.
Having become man the Word of God offered on Mount
Calvary the sacrifice of His life to His Eternal Father for our
salvation. He offered sacrifice in the name of us all, for us
all. As a sacrifice, demanded and arranged in every detail by
God in His eternal and inscrutable decrees, it gave infinite
homage to God; it made infinite amends to His offended
majesty; it is infinitely impetratory for us; and it is an infi..
nite act of thanksgiving for the benefits given to all mankind.
It was the act of God-Man and, since all actions are the
actions of persons, it was the act of a divine Person, and consequently of infinite value. It gave more glory to God and
was more acceptable and pleasing to Him than ever was sin,
even the greatest, detestable. About 200 years before the
Council of Trent the English mystic, Julian of Norwich,
penned the following beautiful page:
I stood beholding things general, troublously and mourning, saying to our Lord in my meaning with full great dread: Ah! good
Lord, how might all be well, for the great hurt that is come, by
sin, to the creature? And here I desired as far as I durst, to have
some more open declaring wherewith I might be eased in this mat-

372

CORNELIUS

WILLIAMS

ter. And to this our blessed Lord answered full meekly and with
full lovely cheer, and shewed that Adam's sin was the most harm
that ever was done, or ever shall be, to the world's end; and also
He shewed that this (sin) is openly known in all Holy Church on
earth. Furthermore He taught that I should behold the glorious
Satisfaction: for this Amends making is more pleasing to God and
more worshipful, without comparison, than ever was the sin of
Adam harmful. Then signifieth our blessed Lord thus in this teaching, that we should take heed to this: for since I have made well
the most harm, then it is my will that thou know thereby that I
shall make well all that is less.23
What good can we draw from Christ's infinite merits? We
were not present at Calvary to ratify what He did for us.
How can I make His merits mine? How can I make His sacrifice-of honour, praise, thanksgiving, impetration and satisfaction-mine? Seeing that the merits of Calvary are infinite,
there is obviously no need for another and different sacrifice.
The sacrifices of the Old Law were of finite value. They were
many and repeated. In the New Law any sacrifice besides the
sacrifice of Calvary would lack a raison d'etre. There must be
some way in which that which Christ did on Calvary may
benefit me, may be my satisfaction, my prayer, my thanks,
and my submission. Well, we make that work of redemption
ours through the Mass. Let us see how.
In the Old Law the people derived fruits from the sacrifices
offered by ratifying them interiorly, by uniting themselves in
interior acts of submission (which include honour, praise,
thanks, expiation) to the offerer or priest. How can we unite
ourselves interiorly to an act of sacrifice which took place some
years ago? Let it be said right away that we could have
ratified (and indeed still can do so) the sacrifice of Calvary
in faith, through faith. We could thus ratify and take part in
Christ's sacrifice on Calvary morally and reap its fruits interiorly. But God did not wish it to be so intangible. He wished
to leave us a means of doing that much more in conformity
28 Julian of Norwich, Revelations of Divine Love, chap. !l9, edit. Grace Warrack, p. 60.

THE MASS AS AN ACT OF VIRTUE OF RELIGION

373

with human nature. He wished to leave us a visible sacrifice
which should be a sacrament of Calvary and through which we
can make present again the sacrifice of Christ and really take
part in it, offer it with Christ and apply its merits to ourselves.
And this is how: Christ, by His very constitution as God-Man,
sent by God the Father to redeem mankind, is essentially Priest
and Mediator. As head of His Mystical Body He never ceases
to offer Himself for us. "He continueth forever, hath an everlasting priesthood, whereby he is able to save forever them
that come to God by him: always living to make intercession
for us." 24 His act of oblation (self-oblation) is a permanent
one in His mind and will. The following should be noted with
reference to Christ's sacrifice. a) From the first moment of His
existence as man there was " devotio " in the mind of Christ.
He was always completely subject to the will of His Father.
b) There was always in His mind, too, the will to offer sacrifice, the sacrifice demanded by His Father. But this sacrifice
was to be offered in certain determined circumstances, in a
certain place and at 8. certain time: on the cross at Calvary.
c) The sacrifice demanded from Him by His Father was the
sacrifice of His life, the sacrifice of Himself, for the salvation
of mankind. That was His Father's will and Our Lord always
gladly accepted it. At the Last Supper Our Lord elicited the
internal act of self-oblation as bearing on the external giving
of Himself to death on the morrow as a sacrificial act. His
hour had come and He decided to permit the Jews to take
and kill Him. He went to death freely; He accepted the death
on the cross as the sacrifice demanded by His Father. This
internal act of self-oblation was never withdrawn and did not
have to be repeated. Once elicited by Christ it ever remains
in His mind and was present actually (virtually!) 25 on Calvary, where it was carried into effect modo cruento et absoluto. d) At the Last Supper Our Lord externalized the inter"Hebr. 7: 24-!M.
•• Cf. Cajetan in I-II, 8, 8; II-II, !'!4, 10, edit. Leon. no IV; and Ferrariensis in
III C no.

374

CORNELIUS

WILLIAMS

nal act of self-oblation in another way, in a sacramental or
symbolic way. That is, he expressed sacramentally (i.e., in a
visible, sensible sign) the effective offering of His life, of Himself, in death. He instituted the sacrament of His passion
and death. He really offered Himself externally, but sacramentally, to His Father. He said the first Mass. And in the
words of St. Peter Canisius:
The sacrifice of the Mass rightly understood is a holy and living
representation of the Lord's passion and of that bloody sacrifice
which was offered for us on the Cross, and at the same time an
unbloody and efficacious oblation (sacrifice) .26
Our Lord's internal act of self-oblation is thus externalized
sacrificially in two ways: 1) In an absolute and bloody manner on the cross. And this sacrifice on the cross may be called
the absolute sacrifice of Christ. It was the sacrifice demanded
by the eternal decree of His Father in heaven. 2) In a manner (external and accessory) which signifies and represents the
absolute manner of offering Himself on the cross; that is, in
a sacramental way. But this is no mere commemoration or
mere figure or representation of the death on the cross. It is
itself also a sacrifice in so far as it really contains Christ the
victim offered for us. This is the manner of offering in the
Last Supper, and consequently in the Mass.
At the Last Supper He changed bread and wine into His
Body and Blood-a fore-presentation of Calvary. In so doing
He rendered Himself really present under the species of bread
and wine, He who was to offer Himself the next day for
many unto the remission of sins. The act of self-oblation (His
Father demanded and decreed that He offer Himself in sacrifice) in his mind (that is, the complete interior submission,
the "principale sacrificium" of which we spoke above) never
•• Peter Canisius, Summa Doctrinae Christianae, de sacramento Eucharistiae, §
VII (edi. Landischuti 1848, p. 95): Missae sacrificium, si rem omnem aeque perpendimus, est revera dominicae passionis, et illius cruenti sacrificii, quod in cruce
pro nobis est oblatum, sahcta quaedam et viva representatio, atque simul incruenta et efficax oblatio.

THE MASS AS AN ACT OF VIRTUE OF RELIGION

375

changes. 27 He came to do the will o£ His Father. He was
always about His Father's business. The external sacrificial
expression o£ the spirit o£ submission (and o£ our submission
in and through Him) was made on Calvary in a bloody manner-modo cruento. In the Supper Room, the same spirit o£
submission was represented, or better, £ore-presented, in a sacramental, mystical, unbloody, but £or all that sensible and
visible way-modo incruento. He offered Himself just as truly
in the Supper Room as He did on Calvary, but in a different
manner. The Last Supper was indeed a true sacrifice, offered
in a sensible, visible and sacramental way by Christ Himself
directly and immediately. It was the very same sacrifice as
that o£ Calvary, it was the offering o£ Christ Himself by Himself in a visible external way. This act o£ offering His Body
and Blood was an act o£ His practical human intellect. It was
what is called His oblative act. He put this act o£ giving o£
self into effect by placing the external signs o£ death, o£ His
own death, which was to take place the following day. By
death a living being is given sacrificially to God in the most
expressive way possible. These external signs were placed b11
His divine power, by transubstantiation.
Transubstantiation
itself is not sacrifice. 28 It is external to it. It pertains here
27 On the permanence
of Christ's act of self-oblation and of the possibility of
our sharing in it St. Thomas has the following to say: Omnia ilia verba quae important comparationem Judaeorum ad Christum et poenam Christi, non dicuntur
fieri quotidie. Non enim dicimus quod Christus quotidie crucifigatur et occidatur,
quia actus Judaeorum et poena Christi transit. Dla autem quae important comparationem Christi ad Deum Patrem, dicuntur quotidie fieri, sicut ofl'erre, sacrificare et huiusmodi, eo quod hostia ilia perpetua est. Et hoc modo est semel oblata
per Christum, quod quotidic etiam per membra ipsius ofl'erri possit. (II Sent.,
dist.
exposit. textus, ed. Moos n<J
.
28 In this connection it must be remembered
that the external signs (which pertain to the very essence of sacrifice as an external act of religion) of internal sacrifice were not placed by Christ Himself. But Christ willed that they be placed,
that is, he voluntarily allowed Himself to be crucified by the Jews. What the Jews
did was not sacrifice and in no way enters into the intrinsic constitution of Christ's
sacrifice. And for all that it must be said that Christ's sacrifice consists of the following essential constitutive elements: a) His voluntary dying on the cross, a
death willed by Him and ordained by His eternal Father;
His internal act of
self-oblation in obedience to the will of His Father. -At Mass (and at the Last

376

CORNELIUS

WILLIAMS

only to the mode of sacrifice. But the person Christ transubstantiated in order to offer mystically, really and physically,
His human sacrifice. Christ, as Man, offered Himself internally by an internal act of self-oblation. The same person,
Christ, as God, implemented this internal offering externally,
by His divine power in transubstantiation. This divine power
of Christ was brought into play by Christ uniquely in order
to externalize His internal oblation of self. It is absolutely
inseparable from His act of oblation. Where transubstantiation takes place there also must be Christ's will to sacrifice
and Christ's internal oblative act.
Christ offered Himself in the Supper Room, not in order
to complete the sacrifice of Calvary, but, as the Council of
Trent says, in order to leave His beloved spouse, the Church,
a visible sacrifice, as the nature of man demands. 29 In the
Last Supper, then, Our Lord really offers Himself to God the
Father in an external visible manner, as laid down by God.
It is a sacramental way, and it draws all its meaning from
the fact that He was to lay down His life in external, physical, natural death on Good Friday. The external sacramental
giving or offering of Himself in the Supper Room is essentially a sign of His offering of Himself in natural death on the
cross. But since the elements of the eucharistic sacrifice of the
Last Supper really and truly contain (by transubstantiation)
the Victim to be offered in a bloody manner on the cross
the separation of body and blood being signified (as separated from one another) by the double consecration, it follows that the Last Supper is no mere sign or symbolic forepresentation of Calvary: it is Calvary (that is, the real and
external oblation of His own Body and Blood to the Eternal
Supper), Christ's internal will to sacrifice and his oblative act were also externalized in external oblation in so far as, as man, He willed freely the signs symbolic
of death as placed by God, by God's divine power either directly and immediately
(as at the Last Supper) or indirectly and mediately through the ministry of priests
(as at Mass). Here right along the line there is subordination of Christ's human
will to the will and power of His Father, who determines in detail the sacrifice
He desires from His creatures and the mode of offering it.
29 Denz. 938.

THE MASS AS AN ACT OF VIRTUE OF RELIGION

377

Father by our Lord Jesus Christ). In other words, the Last
Supper is an efficacious sign of the cross, just as all the other
sacraments of the New Law not only signify grace, but also
cause it effectively.
To say that the Mass is a sign of and contains Calvary is
another way of saying that the Mass is a sacramental sacrifice. The sacraments o£ the New Law not only signify but
also cause and contain what they signify. In this connection
St. Thomas writes:
The sacrifice of the New Law, i.e., of the Eucharist contains Christ
Himself, who is the author of sanctification ... And so this sacrifice is also a sacrament. 30

If we compare the two, the Mass and Calvary, we see that
what was essential in the sacrifice of Christ is to be found
identically in both. In the sacrifice of Calvary we find the following: 1) Our Lord offers Himself, Body and Blood, to His
Father. He did that sacrificially, that is, externally, as a sign
of His internal sacrifice, o£ His devotio and of His internal
act of self-oblation in accordance with the will of His Father.
Therein is to be found the very essence of His sacrifice, the
supreme act of the virtue of religion in the soul of Christ.
Secondly, He offered Himself in the manner (mode of sacrifice) laid down by His Eternal Father, to whom He offered
the sacrifice of His life. That is, He offered Himself on Calvary by dying a violent death, by allowing Himself to be
killed by the Jews. In the sacrifice of the Mass, on the other
hand, we find the following: 1) Christ actually offers Himself,
Body and Blood, to His Father. This He does externally and
sacrificially. This is again the essence of Christ's sacrifice, and
it is seen to be identical with the sacrifice of Calvary and also
with that of the Last Supper.
Secondly, He offers Himself
in the manner laid down by God. That is, He offers Himself
in sensible signs, under the species o£ bread and wine. This
pertains to the accidental mode of offering sacrifice. And this
mode of offering is essentially representative of the mode of
•• I-II, 101, 4 ad

878

CORNELIUS

WILLIAMS

offering on Calvary and only as such is it sacrificial.31 Hence
there is a double consecration in order to symbolize the separation of the Blood from the Body which really took place
on Calvary. These are the external signs symbolic of death,
of which Pope Pius XII speaks in the encyclical Mediator
Dei. As Christ offered Himself on Calvary so is He still offering Himself daily on our altars at Mass, but in a different
manner, in an external manner, in a sacramental manner.
In the encyclical Mediator Dei we read:
Christ our Lord, " priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech," "loved his own that were in the world"; and accordingly, at the Last Supper, on the night on which He was betrayed,
He willed to leave to His beloved Bride the Church a visible sacrifice such as the nature of man requires; one by which the bloody
sacrifice which was to be enacted once on the Cross should be represented and its memory remain until the end of the world, and
its salutary power be applied for the remission of the sins that are
daily committed by us. He therefore offered His Body and Blood
to God the Father under the appearances of bread and wine, and
under the symbols of the same delivered them to be taken by the
Apostles; and to them and to their successors in the priesthood He
gave command to offer. The august Sacrifice of the altar is therefore no mere simple commemoration of the Passion and Death of
Jesus Christ: it is truly and properly the offering of a sacrifice,
wherein by an unbloody immolation the High Priest does what
He had already done on the Cross, offering Himself to the eternal
Father as a most acceptable victim. " One . . and the same is the
victim, one and the same is He who now offers by the ministry
of His priests and who then offered Himself on the Cross; the difference is only in the manner of offering.32
It is sometimes said that the Mass is a relative sacrifice
merely. If that be the case I cannot see how it ca:q. be any
81 In this connection two penetrating and profound texts of Cardinal Cajetan
could with profit be read. They are: 1) Chapter 9 of his opusculum De erroribua
ccmtingentibua in Eucharistiae Sacramento, the title of the chapter being: Quomodo Eucharistiae sacramentum sit sacrificium et in Missa offerri sit institutum
The second is chapter 6 of his opusculum De Misa Christo vel ab Apostolis.
sae sacrificio et ritu adversum Lutheranos.
•• Encyl. Mediator Dei, Engl. trans. CTSE, p. 85-86.

THE MASS AS AN ACT OF VIRTUE OF RELIGION

379

more than a "mere simple commemoration of the Passion and
Death of Jesus Christ." There is a world of difference between
saying that the Mass is a relative sacrifice and saying that it
is real, true, proper sacrifice which, however, in the mode
or manner of external offering and in that only, is, in the designs of divine Providence, essentially representative of, or
relative to, another absolute mode.
We can consider Christ's internal act of offering on Calvary
as a theandric action embracing both the preceding Supper
and the countless succeeding Masses of ours. We as priests
of the New Law do precisely what Christ Himself did at the
Last Supper, at His command: "Do this in commemoration
of Me." 33 Then were ordained the first priests. 34 Then was
first given to men the power to consecrate, that is, to transsubstantiate bread and wine into the Body and Blood of
Christ. We consecrate by the power of Christ (by His divine
power), who at each Mass must actually move the priest so
that he may be able to perform the stupendous miracle of
transubstantiation. 35 Making Christ really and truly present
Luke
9; I. Cor. 11:
Cf. canon of the Council of Trent, Denz. 949.
35 With regard to the distinction between the essence and mode of sacrifice the
following should be noted. Sacrifice is essentially (that is, by definition) an external
sign of an internal act or state of mind and soul. It is the external offering of
something to God. To offer externally and in deed to God is to give over to God
absolutely all rights over the object or thing offered. If the thing offered (the
objective sacrifice) be a living thing the most expressive manner of offering it to
God, humanly speaking, is to kill it. But the actual killing of it is not essential
to sacrifice. There are other ways in which it might be made sacred and in that
sense given to God .sacrificially. In other words, externalization is essential to every
sacrifice. But whether in this or that manner (by killing or in any other way that
God may decide upon) pertains only to the mode or manner of offering. In all this
matter it is essential to take into account what God decides, because it is His
prerogative to determine the kind of offering and the manner of offering. Consequently no a priori rules can be given for judging whether any particular external
oblation be sacrificial or not. Everything depends upon what God ordains. Now,
Christ offered to God not something that belongs to Him, but Himself, His Body
and Blood. Christ willed to offer Himself (interiorly) out of obedience to the decree
of His Father. He wished to externalize that will to offer Himself in the manner in
which His Father should decide. God, the Father, decreed that Our Lord should
offer Himself externally first of all by dying a violent death on the Cross. This
33
34

380

CORNELIUS

WILLIAMS

on the altar we (priests) thereby ratify in our own human
way, by our own personal spirit of devotion or submission,
which should flow from our faith and charity, the redemptive
sacrifice of Christ. We are swept, as it were, from time into
eternity in order to be present again mystically, but really,
at Calvary. We make our Lord's sacrifice ours by offering it
with Him at Mass, as we would have done had we been present on the first Good Friday on Calvary and had we known
what was taking place, namely the sacrifice of our redemption,
or as the faithful Jew made the sacrifice of the High Priest his
by being present in the temple and by ratifying the action of the
priest. Christ is present on our altars actually offering Himself
to His Father, and this actual offering is being actually ratified
by the priest who consecrates and by all the faithful who
unite themselves to him. By consecration the priest places the
external signs of Christ's internal oblation of self. These signs
represent directly and immediately the will to sacrifice in our
Lord's mind. It is defined in the Council of Trent, as we saw
above, that the Mass is a real and proper sacrifice, and that
it is the sacrifice of Christ by Himself. God willed it so and
arranged it so. Pope Pius XII in the Encyclical Mediator
Dei writes, "The Divine Wisdom has devised a way in which
Our Redeemer's sacrifice is marvellously shown forth by external signs symbolic of death." 86 They are external signsand we saw that some kind of externalization is essential to
the notion of sacrifice-not by any death, but of Our Lord's
physical natural death of Christ as such is not of the very essence of sacrifice,
but in this case it is the absolute mode of His sacrifice. God decreed it so. In the
Supper Room Our Lord offered Himself (Body and Blood) externally by transubstantiation. Here we have to do with a real, proper and absolute sacrifice. The
mode of offering was different to that of the Cross. And this sacramental mode
is seen to be essentially relative to and significative of the absolute mode of Calvary. Hence the double consecration. -At Mass Our Lord actually offers Himself externally (in external sacramental signs) through the ministry of the priests.
His priests are instruments in His offering of Himself. There the Mass is an absolute sacrifice, but the mode of offering is essentially symbolic of the absolute
mode of Calvary.
86 Ency. Mediator Dei, Engl. trans. CTSE, p. 36.

THE MASS AS AN ACT OF VIRTUE OF RELIGION

381

death on Calvary. And these external signs are placed at Mass
by Our Lord himself as principal cause and by the priest as
instrumental cause, that is, as the minister of Christ. The
priests of the New Law are not the successors of Christ but
His ministers-sacerdotum ministerio.
It should be said that the sacrifice of Calvary is being ratified officially, that is, as by one officially constituted to do
so in his own name and in the name of the whole Christian
people, by the priest at Mass, for he alone has the power to
consecrate. In consecrating, the power, the divine power, of
Christ flows through the priest. This power was used by Our
Lord in the first instance (in the Supper Room) for the one
and only purpose of placing the external signs of His internal
sacrifice, of His internal act of self-oblation. It follows, consequently, that transubstantiation is in fact inseparable from
the actual will to sacrifice in the mind of Christ. That is an
added reason for maintaining, as many theologians do, that
Christ, who must actually consecrate in every Mass as principal cause, must also actually offer the sacrifice. We might
even say that at Mass not only is Christ actually offering
sacrifice, He is in a very true sense the o n 1y offerer. At Mass
Our Lord does exactly what he did at the Last Supper, with
this one difference: at the Last Supper He did everything
Himself, whereas at Mass He does it through His priests, His
ministers. At the Last Supper He gave to His priests the
power to consecrate, to transubstantiate.
As often as they
consecrate they are in physical contact with Christ, who moves
them and elevates them to perform the miracle of transubstantiation. Desiring to consecrate, a priest must also wish to
offer Christ's sacrifice. He must offer Christ's sacrifice with
Him. In this sense, then, we must say that the priest at Mass
really offers sacrifice, not as principal cause or offerer, but as
an instrumental cause, as a minister. By virtue of his sacerdotal power he can do this as often as he desires to consecrate
whether what he does be a sign of his own personal devotion
and charity or not, that is, whether he ratifies Calvary morally

CORNELIUS

WILLIAMS

or not he ratifies it always physically. This is the "opus operatum" in every J\1ass. And since the priest offers sacrifice not
as a private individual but as the representative o£ the whole
Christian people, it follows that the faithful always derive
benefit from every Mass. The faithful have, obviously, their
part to play. They are not mere spectators, but are called to
take active part in what is taking place at the altar. They
must unite themselves to the priest by their own personal acts
o£ submission to the will o£ God. They must in that way ratify what the priest does at Mass, and consequently through
the priest they can, in a very human and straightforward way,
ratify what Christ did on Calvary and what He is still doing.
They, too, through the priest, make Christ's sacrifice theirs,
so that their adoration, their thanksgiving, their supplication
and their expiation are, as it were, absorbed into the adoration, thanksgiving, supplication and expiation o£ Christ and
are offered to God by Our Saviour Himself.
It follows £rom what has been said that the priest o£ the
New Law stands in much the same relation to our one High
Priest, who is Christ, as did the faithful Jew to the priest o£
the Old Law. The priests o£ the Old Law offered sacrifices as
principal causes or agents. The priests o£ the New Law do
not precisely offer sacrifice: they rat i £ y a sacrifice officially,
by virtue o£ their sacerdotal office. It must be understood that
at Mass a real sacrifice is offered to God in a visible, external but sacramental way. It is offered by Christ. He is the
one and only offerer (sacrificant). In the fullest sense o£ the
word, He is the one and only priest. The human priest by
his own devotion and in the name o£ the people (that is, acting for them, and £rom that point o£ view, much as the
priests o£ the Old Law, a caste apart) ratifies it and thus applies its fruits to himself and to the Christian people. There
is no greater difficulty with regard to the relation between the
act o£ oblation in Christ's mind and the priest's act o£ oblation than there was with regard to the relation between the

THE MASS AS AN ACT OF VIRTUEl OF RELIGION

383

internal sacrifice of the people in the Old Law and the external sacrifice o£ the priests. 37
A person, who assists at the sacrifice of a priest and in the
manner explained strives to take part in it by seeing to it
that it really be the external manifestation of his own internal oblation, can be truly said to offer sacrifice. He offers the
sacrifice o£ the priest, with the priest and subordinated to
the priest. In that sense it can be said: he offers sacrifice. In
that sense, too, the priest o£ the New Law can and must be
said to offer sacrifice. He offers Christ's sacrifice, with Christ
and subordinated to Christ. He is never a principal agent in
the actual sacrifice. He offers the Body and Blood o£ Christ
to God the Father (which is quite a different thing from saying
that he offers sacrifice to God) by uniting himself to the sacrificial offering of Christ, the one High Priest of the New Law.
And in that way Christian priests share in a most marvellous
manner in the Priesthood of Christ. And in that precisely consists their dignity and pre-eminence over all the priests of the
Old Law. In the encyclical Ad Catholici Sacerdotii of Pope
Pius XI we read:
And thus the ineffable greatness of the human priest stands forth
in all its splendour; for he has power over the very body of Jesus
Christ and makes it present upon our altars. In the name of
87 Two things should be noted carefully here. I) First, that the sacerdotal power
of the New Law consists not precisely in the power to offer sacrifice as such, but
in being able to consecrate or transubstantiate with a view to uniting oneself to
and making one's own the redemptive act of Calvary. £) Secondly, that the Sacrifice of the Mass is the Sacrifice of Christ whole and entire, that is, of the Mystical
Body of Christ. When the priest consecrates he is never acting as a private individual (whatever his private dispositions may be), but as the representative of
the Mystical Body of Christ. Consequently, should the priest not ratify in his own
person the sacrifice of Calvary (for instance, by leading a sinful life) the sacrifice
of Christ would still be offered because consecration or transubstantiation would
still take place. That is, the will to sacrifice in Christ's mind would be really
externalized sacramentally. That is, of course, if the priest, however evil personally, wishes to do at least what the Church intends (habet intentionem faciendi
quod facit Ecclesia). Should the priest, then, not ratify the sacrifice of Calvary,
the people are enabled to do so through his power of consecration.

384

CORNELIUS WILLIAMS

Christ Himself he offers It a victim infinitely pleasing to the Divine Majesty. 88
And Pope Pius XII in the encyclical on the Mystical Body
of Christ teaches:
Though the Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ Our Lord wished to give
special evidence to the faith of the union among ourselves and
with our Divine Head, marvellous as it is and beyond all praise.
For here the sacred ministers act in the person not only of Our
Saviour, but of the whole Mystical Body and of everyone of the
faithful. In this act of sacrifice through the hands of the priest,
whose word alone has brought the Immaculate Lamb to be present on the altar, the faithful themselves with one desire and one
prayer offer It to the Eternal Father, the most acceptable victim
of praise and propitiation for the Church's universal needs. And
just as the Divine Redeemer, dying on the Cross, offered Himself
as Head of the whole human race to the Eternal Father, so in
" this pure oblation " He offers not only Himself as Head of the
Church to the heavenly Father, but in Himself His mystical members as well. He embraces them all, even the weak and ailing ones,
in the tenderest love of His Heart. 89
In this essay I have consciously avoided entering into the
dogmatic discussions concerning the essence of the Blessed
Eucharist as making present again the sacrifice of Christ and
have touched on them only in so far as they were necessary
for my own analysis. Both approaches are obviously intimately connected-the moral and the dogmatic, the approach
of the dogmatic and of the moral theologian. I venture to
hope that this moral or, as the moderns would have it, existential approach may throw some light on the dogmatic problem of the essence and structure of our Christian sacrifice and
in that way also help towards a deeper and more enlightened
Eucharistic piety.
CoRNELIUS

WILLIAMS,

0. P.

Unive<rai'by of Fribourg
Fribourg, Switzerland
88 Encyl. Ad Catholici Sace<rdotii, Engl. trans. CTSE, p. 9.
•• Encyl. Mystici Corporis Christi, Engl. trans. America Press, p. 85-86.

THE SACRAMENTAL CHARACTER
AND LITURGY

I

N the first chapter of the schema on the liturgy, the Second Vatican Council has provided for an intensification
of liturgical thought in the life of the Church in the decades and centuries to come.1 Part II of the first chapter
approved by the Council (though not yet solemnly and definitively) concerns the liturgical formation of the clergy and the
people. The liturgy is to be counted among the major disciplines in the seminary curriculum and is to be studied theologically and historically, as well as from spiritual, pastoral, and
juridical points of view. Part IV gives directions for promotion of liturgical life in the dioceses and parishes of the world.
The Second Vatican Council has thus set before theologians
a challenge for the future. Sacramental theologians in particular must step back from their work, view the sacraments in
the context of the whole liturgy, and try to develop a theology which embraces not only the sacraments in their essential
matter and form but the whole of the liturgy-the Mass, sacraments, sacramentals, and divine Office. This means finding
new principles of greater universality, or new insights into the
breadth of familiar principles, in order to have a truly unified
theology of the liturgy. Without new principles or new insights into old principles, theology of the liturgy will remain
an accidental unity composed of a theology of the sacraments,
a theology of sacramentals, and a theology of the divine Office.
Needed today and for the future is a theology of the Christian mysteries as the Fathers of the Church understood the
term-the whole of the liturgy joining God and man in worship through Christ.
'-A summary of the first chapter on the liturgy appeared in L'Osservatore Romano, December 8,
" I prineipi generali della riforma liturgica approvati dal
Concilio." A complete translation of this article is available in Worship, XXXVIl
(1963), 153-64 under the title " The Approved Chapter One." The points mentioned in text above can be found in this issue of Worship, pp. 155, 157, 163.

885

386

CHRISTOPHER

KIESLING

The purpose of this article is to look at the sacramental
characters in the broader context of the liturgy as a whole.
Manuals of theology, lectures on theology, and even the commentators on St. Thomas' Summa Theologiae often give the
impression that the sacramental characters are ordered solely
to the essential rites (the matter and form) of the sacraments
as causes of grace. 2 This impression is created chiefly by the
examples to illustrate the function of the various characters:
the character of baptism enables the Christian to receive the
other sacraments, the other two characters, and sacramental
grace; the sacerdotal character gives the power to consecrate,
to absolve from sin, and to administer the sacraments.
The handling of the character of confirmation by some theologians heightens this impression that the characters are
ordered to the sacraments in a strict sense as causes of grace. 3
Despite what seems (to me at least) strong evidence that St.
Thomas regarded the character of confirmation as ordered
actively to public witness and defense of the faith, some theologians, who regard themselves as disciples of Thomas, are
loath to admit that ordination of the character. Instead, they
attribute the witness and defense of the faith directly to grace,
special grace, which is received through the special power or
character of confirmation. The reason for this approach seems
• As an example of this, see Emmanuel Doronzo, 0. M. I., De sacramentis in
genere (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1946), pp. !'l96-300, 313-315, where the author treats
of the character as a potency and as seated in the practical intellect; significantly
the author frequently cites Salamanticenses and Gonet. See also Bernard Durst,
0. S. B., "De Characteribus sacramentalibus," Xenia Thomistica, II (19!'l5), 541-81.
A basis for this judgment is found in St. Thomas. He raises the objection that
the sacraments of the Old Law did not confer a character on the soul; therefore,
there is no need for the sacraments of the New Law to do so. He answers: "Sacramenta veteris legis non habebant in se spiritualem virtutem ad aliquem spiritualem efl'ectum operantem. Et ideo in illis sacramentis non requirebatur aliquis
spiritualis character, sed sufficiebat ibi corporalis circumcisio " (Summa theol., III,
q. 63, a. 1, ad 3). But it must be remembered that this is an answer to an objection; it quickly and directly resolves the problem; it does not necessarily follow
that this is also a declaration of the total orientation of the character.
• For examples, see Emmanuel Doronzo, De baptismo et confirmatione (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1947), pp. 350-51; Durst, op. cit., pp. 57!'l-74.

THE SACRAMENTAL

CHARACTER AND LITURGY

387

to lie in the prior judgment that the characters are ordered
to the sacraments as causes of grace, either to receive the sacraments and their graces or to confer the sacraments and their
graces; bearing witness or defending the faith publicly is not
the reception or conferral of grace in sacramental action;
therefore the character of confirmation cannot be directly ordered to this witness and defense.
I have said that manuals, lecturers, and commentators
" give the impression " that the sacramental characters are
ordered only to the reception and administration of the sacraments in the strict sense of the word and as causes of grace.
Actually, close examination of the texts reveals that they do
not close the door altogether to other liturgical actions and
even non-liturgical actions with regard to the characters. Nevtheless, the impression is not merely subjective, the result of
inattentive reading. There is a preoccupation with the sacraments as causes of grace in reaction to the theology of the
reformers; and there is a preoccupation in the conflicts of the
schools with the character as being or not being an instance
of instrumental causality ordered to the conferral and reception of grace. There is also a neglect of the sacraments as worship. The sacraments are considered as worship in the treatise
on the characters; but when the crucial questions of the function and need of the characters come up, the answers are invariably in terms of valid sacraments and the reception or
conferral of grace.
In this article we will review briefly the teaching of the
Fathers of the Church, St. Thomas, the Council of Trent,
and the encyclical Mediator Dei of Pope Pius XII in order
to see what scope they assign to the sacramental characterswhether they limit their function to the reception and administration of the sacraments in the strictest sense of the word
and as conferring grace, whether they extend the function of
the characters to other parts of the liturgy, or whether they
extend that function even beyond the liturgy.
Both from theoretical and pastoral points of view, it is nee-

388

CHRISTOPHER

KIESLING

essary to determine the scope of the sacramental characters
with regard to the liturgy. Theoretically, if the sacramental
character is not operative in the entire liturgy, or if it is operative in more than the liturgy, then the liturgy cannot be
defined precisely in terms of an activity of the sacramental
characters, for the definition would not be convertible with
the defined. Pastorally, if the sacramental character is not a
principle of the entire liturgy or exclusively of the liturgy,
then in preaching and instruction concerning liturgical piety,
some other principle more essential and central to liturgical
worship should be emphasized.
We shall proceed in the following manner. It will be assumed as generally accepted that the sacramental characters
are participations in the priesthood of Christ and empower
the Christian to participate in one way or another in Christ's
sacrifice and worship. 4 We shall examine the four sources mentioned above to determine more precisely this participation
in Christ's priesthood and in the sacrifice and worship which
issue from it. First, we shall briefly recall that there is a twofold Christian priesthood, sacrifice and worship-the one spiritual, the other external, visible, ritual. Then we shall examine the sources to see with which priesthood and worship they
associate the sacramental characters and to which acts of
worship they conceive the characters to be ordered. From this
examination a few concise conclusions will be drawn.
THE TwoFOLD

CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD

AND WoRSHIP

A full exposition of the twofold Christian priesthood and
worship-one spiritual, the other ritual-is impossible within
the limits of this article; we must be content with recalling the
4 Bernard Leeming, S. J. assesses the theological value of this position: "In
view of the different manners of speech among the older theologians, it is not more
than the theologically probable that the character is strictly a power ... The view,
however, of St. Thomas, that the character gives a share in Christ's priestly power,
has become very widely accepted ... " (Principles of Sacramental Theology, [Westminster: Newman, 1956], p.
.

THE SACRAMENTAL

CHARACTER AND LITURGY

389

salient facts to provide a background for the considerations
which will follow.5
From the moment of his entrance into the world, Christ
was moved by the Spirit of God to offer himself interiorly to
the Father: " Behold, I come to do thy will, 0 God" (Heb.
10: 2). In virtue of this interior act of charity and devotion,
all of Christ's actions assumed a religious, worshipful value.
But most especially on Calvary did he give visible manifestation of this spiritual sacrifice, for on Calvary he offered himself as victim according to the will of the Father in a true
ritual sacrifice, thus fulfilling and terminating the ritual sacrifices of the Old Law: " Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldst
not, but a body thou hast fitted to me" (Heb. 10: 5; cf. Eph.
5:2).
St. Peter refers to the Christians of Asia Minor as " a royal
priesthood" (I Pet. 2: 9), "a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (ibid.,
5; cf. Rom. 12: I). St. John in the Apocalypse, greeting the
seven churches of Asia Minor, speaks of Christ who "has
washed us from our sins in his own blood and made us to
be a kingdom and priests to God his Father" (Apoc. 1: 6; cf.
5: 9-10). The Christian writers to the end of the second century follow this example of the New Testament writers: the
truly priestly names hiereus and hierateuma (" priest " and
" priesthood ") are used in Christian contexts only for Christ
himself or the Christian people, not for the ministers of the
altar, those whom we today designate as priests. 6
By grace, Christians are members of Christ and share in his
grace and the qualities of his grace. But Christ is Priest and
his grace is priestly. Therefore, the Christian people by grace
are a priestly people. The whole Christian people with their
5 For a thorough study of this subject, see Yves Congar, 0. P., Jalons pour une
theologie du lazcat (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1958), pp. 170-246; English translation by Donald Attwater, Lay People in the Church (London: Bloomsbury, 1957),
pp. 120-80.
8 Congar, op. cit., pp. 178-74, Eng. trans., pp. 128-24; Emmanuel Doronzo, O.M.I.,
De ordine (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), I, 88-90, 277-78.

390

CHRISTOPHER

KIESLING

Head Christ are the fulfillment of the figurative Levitical
priesthood of the Old Law. Under the influence of the same
Spirit who inspired Christ's offering of himself, Christians too
are moved to offer themselves in union with Christ and
through him to the Father in heaven. Christians therefore
have a spiritual priesthood, sacrifice, worship which are the
very core of Christian existence, an existence which is for the
glory of the Father.
At the same time, both New Testament and early Christian
writers acknowledge a visible, ritual worship with its corresponding visible, external priesthood. The worship here is chiefly
"the breaking of bread." 7 the Eucharist, 8 which proclaims the
death of the Lord (I Cor. 11:
This worship is conducted
by those who are designated, not by the most proper priestly
names mentioned above, but by their functions: episkopoi
(bishops, overseers), presbyteroi (presbyters, elders, advisers)
diakonoi (deacons, ministers), who receive their office by the
imposition of hands. 9 Only those who have been baptized may
share in the Eucharistic worship. 10 This ritual sacrifice and
the powers and rights to celebrate and partake in it are essentially for the present time: "As often as you shall eat the
bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord,
until he comes" (I Cor. 11:
in the heavenly Jerusalem,
John saw no temple, symbol of figurative ritual worship, for
God and the Lamb are the temple, the fulfillment of ritual
worship (Apoc.
Though these two priesthoods and their respective sacrifice
and worship are distinguishable, they are not isolated, independent realities. The spiritual animates, gives meaning to, the
7 Acts 2:42, 46; 20, 7; I Cor. 10: 16; Didache, ch. 14; St. Ignatius of Antioch,
To the Ephesians, 20.
8 Didache, ch. 14; St. Ignatius
of Antioch, To the Philadelphians, 4; To the
Smyrneans, 8; St. Justin Martyr, Apology, I, 65-67.
9 Congar, op .. cit., pp. 188-90, Eng. trans., pp. 186-88; for texts, see Doronzo,
De ordine, I, 221-27 (Scripture), 227-79 (second century tradition, summarized pp.
278-79).
10 Didache, ch. 9 (although it is disputed whether or not this chapter refers to
the Eucharist or to an agape meal); St. Justin Martyr, Apology, I, 66.

THE SACRAMENTAL

CHARACTER AND LITURGY

391

ritual priesthood and its activity; the ritual priesthood functions in order to foster the interior; the external sacrifice is the
expression of interior sacrifice. However, the fact remains that
the Christian may sin, lose the grace of Christ with its priestly
quality and cease to offer that spiritual sacrifice of grace spoken
of by St. Peter. Yet such a Christian retains his privileges and
powers with regard to the valid celebration of visible Christian
worship: the sinful ordained minister of the altar can validly
offer the Eucharist. The fact of this separation indicates that
these two priesthoods and their respective worships are distinguishable realities.
Christian tradition has preserved the notion of the twofold
Christian priesthood and sacrifice. Christian writers over the
centuries have faithfully reserved the texts of I Peter, Apocalypse, Romans 12:1 and Psalm 50:19 for the Christian faithful. With a constancy that is remarkable these texts have not
been applied to the ordained ritual priesthood and its visible
worship and sacrifice.11 Even Trent, which had to combat the
Protestant claim that all Christians were equally priests, in
its decrees on the priesthood explicitly identifies the subject
of its consideration as " the visible and external priesthood "
which is associated with the " visible sacrifice " of the New
Law, and does not use the texts of Peter, etc. as the Scriptural basis for this priesthood and sacrifice.12 The Catechism
11 A sign of this traditional
notion is found in the following fact. Paul Dabin,
S. J. has collected the texts of the Fathers, the theologians, spiritual writers, and
the liturgy, western and eastern, for the whole spau of Christian history, in regard
to the priesthood of the faithful, in Le sacerdoce royal des fideles dans la tradition ancienne et moderne (Paris: Desclee, 1950); the Scriptural texts of Peter,
etc. continually recur page after page, paragraph after paragraph. Doronzo in De
ordinfl, I, 227-489, collects numerous texts on the ritual priesthood and its function as seen by the Fathers, ecclesiastical writers, liturgy, and councils or synods
from Apostolic times to the first part of the fifth century. Except for Tertullian in
a semi-Montanist stage (pp. 283, 285), the traditional texts in question are notably absent. This phenomenon is not offered as an argument, but it is not lacking
significance.
12 " Sacrificium et sacerdotium ita Dei ordinatione coniuncta sunt, ut utrumque
in omni lege exstiterit. Cum igitur in Novo Testamento sanctum Eucharistiae sacrificium visibile ex Domini institutione catholica Ecclesia acceperit; fateri etiam

CHRISTOPHER

KIESLING

of the Council of Trent explicitly distinguishes the exterior
priesthood from the interior priesthood of the faithful, and for
this latter turns to the scriptural texts mentioned. 13 In our
own day we find the tradition faithfully carried on in the encyclical Mediator Dei of Pope Pius XII. 14
With this background of the twofold Christian priesthood
in our minds, we can now enter into the heart of this study.
To which of these two priesthoods do the sacramental charoportet, in ea novum esse visibile et externum sacerdotium, in quod vetus translatum est" (Sess. XXIII, Doctrina de sacramento ordinis, cap. 1, Denz. 957, emphasis added). Cf. ibid., cap. 4, Denz. 960; and can. 1, Denz. 961.
13 " Sed quoniam duplex sacerdotium in sacris Litteris
describitur, alterum internum, alterum externum; utrumque distinguendum est, ut, de quo hoc loco intelligatur, a Pastoribus explicari possit. Quod igitur ad interius Sacerdotium pertinet, omnes fideles, postquam salutari aqua abluti sunt, Sacerdotes dicuntur, praecipue vero justi, qui spiritum Dei habent, et divinae gratiae beneficio lesu Christi
summi Sacerdotis viva membra effecti sunt. Hi enim fide, quae charitate inflammatur, in altari mentis suae .spirituales Deo hostias inlmolant: quo in genere bonae
omnes et honestae actiones, quas ad Dei gloriam referunt, numerandae sunt. [Apocalypse, I Peter, Romans 12: 1 and Psalm 50: 19 are then quoted.] Quae omnia ad
interius Sacerdotium spectare facile intelligitur.
"Externum vero sacerdotium non omnium fidelium multitudini, sed certis hominibus convenit, qui legitima manuum impositione, solemnibusque sanctae Ecclesiae caeremonii.s instituti et a Deo consecrati, ad aliquod proprium sacrumque ministerium adscribuntur" (Pars II, cap. 7, quaes. 23 emphasis added).
14 The encyclical treats extensively of the hierarchical priesthood and its supremacy in the domain of the liturgy, AAS, XXXIX (1947), 538-541. In these
pages reference is to " adspectabile et externum lesu Christi sacerdotium " (ibid.
538); the traditional texts of I Peter, etc. are not found in this section. Further
on in the encyclical, it is explained in what sense the faithful offer the Mass; for
this offering to be complete, it ought to be with an interior offering of self as a
victim; of this offering the encyclical says: " Quae quidem inlmolatio ad liturgicum solummodo Sacrificium non reducitur. Vult enim Apostolorum Princeps ut
eo ipso quod Christo tamquam Iapides vivi superaedificamur, possimus tamquam
' sacerdotium sanctum, offerre spiritales hostias acceptabiles Deo per lesum Christum' [I Pet. 2: 5]; Paulus autem Apostolus absque ullo temporis discrimine hisce
verbis christianos adhortatur: ' Obserco itaque vos . . . ut exhibeatis corpora vestra
hostiam viventem, sanctam, Deo placentem, rationabile obsequium vestrum ' [Rom.
12: 1]" (ibid., 557-58). We see the traditional texts employed for a Christian priesthood, sacrifice, and worship other than those of the ritual priesthood and its functions. The encyclical continues to show the relationship of these two priesthoods
and worships, the ritual serving the spiritual and mediating between the priestly
life of Christ and that of his members.

THE SACRAMENTAL

CHARACTER AND LITURGY

393

acters belong immediately and to which sacrifice and worship
are they directly ordered, the spiritual or the ritual? If they
are ordered to the ritual priesthood and worship, are they
ordered exclusively to the administration and reception of the
sacraments in their essential rites or do they extend beyond
this? If beyond this, how far beyond? Beyond the bounds of
the liturgy? An answer will be sought for these questions by
examining the doctrine of the Fathers, some medieval theologians, chiefly St. Thomas, the Council of Trent and the Catechism of Trent, and M ediato1· Dei. The authority of these
sources and their appearance at separated intervals over the
course of the whole of Christian history ought to help form
a balanced judgment about the orientation of the sacramental characters in the liturgy.
FATHERS OF THE CHURCH

Scripture itself does not say anything explicitly about the
orientation of the sacramental characters to the spiritual
priesthood and worship or the ritual priesthood and worship.
Indeed, Scripture only implicitly reveals the existence of the
character as a reality distinct from grace. St. Paul wrote of
a sealing of the Christian. 15 From these texts the Fathers
developed one of their favorite themes, that of the sphragis,
the signaculum, the seal or brand, the character, impressed on
the souls of the baptized and perfected in confirmation.
Prior to St. Augustine, the Fathers did not explicitly distinguish between grace and the seal, although no Father said that
the seal could be lost, while all admitted grace could be lost;
indeed, they affirmed that the character was indelible; it remained in sinners.16 They considered, moreover, that the seal
of baptism was perfected in the second of the rites of initiation, that is, in confirmation. Along with this thinking of the
1 " "Now it is God who is warrant for us and for you in Christ, who has anointed
us, who has also sealed us and has given us the Spirit as a pledge in our hearts "
(II Cor.
cf. Eph. 1:18; 4:80.
16 For the facts of this and the following paragraph I have followed Leeming,
op. cit., pp. 129-250.

394

CHRISTOPHER

KIESLING

Fathers went the practice of the Church of never repeating
the rites of baptism and confirmation if validly performed.
The Fathers said little about the seal of holy orders, except
Gregory of Nyssa, 17 but the practice of the Church with regard to valid ordination was the same as for baptism and
confirmation.
St. Augustine, in his controversy with the Donatists, brought
out clearly the distinction between grace and the character in
baptism and holy orders, a doctrine which naturally applied
to the character in confirmation, although Augustine did not
explicitly make this application. Augustine also pointed out
that the impressing of a permanent character on the soul was
the reason why the Church did not repeat these three sacraments once validly conferred.
What purpose or function did the Fathers perceive in the
seals fixed on the soul of the baptized and confirmed and in
irrevocable consecration of the ordained? What orientation
toward priesthood and worship?
What the Fathers saw in the baptismal character (and its
confirmational perfection) in the way of function and orientation is not easily pinned down to one thing. 18 By the seal the
Christian is made to belong to Christ, shepherd and king. By
it the Lord recognizes his own sheep. It is a sign of being
made a member of the Christian community, the one flock.
It is a protection, a pledge of salvation. It imprints an image
of God on the soul. It marks incorporation into the service of
the king. Its presence frightens the demons and enables the
angels to recognize the Christian. It designates a slave of
Christ, a faithful servant. It renders the Christian inviolable
P. Pourrat, Theology of the Sacraments, (St. Louis: Herder, 1914), pp. QQ4-M.
This paragraph is based on Jean Danielou, S. J., The Bible and the Liturgy
(Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1956), pp. 54-69; see also
Pourrat, op. cit. pp. QQO-QQ; Leeming, op. cit., 179-83. What is said of the function of the seal here applies to the confirmational character as well as to the baptismal character (Pourrat, op. cit., p. QQQ); for a variety of reasons the Fathers
did not clearly distinguish between the two characters (Leeming, op. cit., pp. 189200), but they did recognize a distinction of the two and spoke of the confirmational character as a perfection of the baptismal character (ibid., pp. 201-207).
17
18

THE SACRAMENTAL

CHARACTER AND LITURGY

395

from hostile forces. It signifies the New Covenant of grace,
as circumcision signifies the Old Covenant of the Law. The
seal is a sign of God's contract with its possessor to bless him
in accord with divine fidelity.
With reason, later theologians spoke of the character as primarily a sign, for the above notions of the function of the
character can be reduced to that of signification. If any orientation of the seal is indicated in the above notions, it seems
at first to be toward the spiritual priesthood and grace of worship; the anointings in baptism and in confirmation were associated with the indelible consecration of the two sacraments 19
and with the royal priesthood of I Peter and Apocalypse. 20
But the Fathers recognized the indelibility of the seal: it
could not be lost, while grace could. All the privileges and
rights implied in the above notions remained in the sinner and
also in the schismatics and heretics, though they were unworthy of these privileges and rights, and they possessed them
to their damnation as long as they remained unworthy. Besides, if one had the seal of baptism, and only if he had it,
he was eligible for the next sacrament, confirmation, essentially a perfection of baptism in the eyes of the Fathers. Initiated into the Christian community by baptism and confirmation, the bearer of the seal could share in the Eucharistic
sacrifice, receive other sacraments, such as orders, Christian
marriage, ecclesiastical penance, final anointing; he was also a
soldier of Christ the King, to bear witness to the faith.
The seal admitted Christians to more than the reception of
the sacraments in their essential rites. The Christians of these
times did not think of the sacraments in the narrow sense in
which we tend to do today. They thought of the Christian
mysteries-sacraments in a broad sense of the word-embracing the whole of the liturgy surrounding the sacraments in
the narrow sense.21 If the Christian fell into sin, lost the grace
DanicHou, op. cit., pp. 54, 119.
•• Ibid., pp. 114-17; Leeming, op. cit., p.
01 For the general sense of " mysterion " and " sacramentum " of the Patristic

19

896

CHRISTOPHER

KIESLING

of spiritual priesthood and sacrifice, he was still a Christian,
still equipped to participate in mysteries validly, though unfruitfully and sacrilegiously; when he returned to grace and
truth and unity, he did not need to be sealed again to share
in the Christian mysteries.
Thus the seal of baptism and its perfection in confirmation
is ordered to visible ritual priesthood and sacrifice in the mysteries. Perhaps it can be said that the Fathers regarded the
seals as ordered first to this visible priesthood and worship
and through it to the spiritual priesthood and grace of worship; at least that is how they can be interpreted in the light
of subsequent theological developments.
As for the character of holy orders, it distinguished the
ministers of the Church; it constituted one a representative
of the Church and commissioned one to act in the name of
Christ. 22 To holy orders belonged the office of teaching and
preaching, offering the Eucharistic sacrifice, absolving from
sin, administering the other sacraments, blessing, praying in
the name of the Church. 23 This priestly power existed fully in
the bishop and to a lesser degree in the priest and deacon,
and in an even lesser degree in other ministers.
The seal of orders was orientated in part to the visible
Christian priesthood with its ritual worship. Indeed, so
directly and immediately orientated to this worship was the
character seen to be, that sinful, schismatic, or heretical bishera see Dom Romanus Rios, 0. S. B., "Eucharistic Terms in the Liturgy," The
Clergy Review, XXVlii (1947), 253-60; C. C. Martindale, S. J., The Words of
the Missal (New York: Macmillan, 1932), pp. 101-18.
•• Pourrat, op. cit., p. 230.
•• The actions mentioned here as well as actions in areas other than worship
were attributed by the Fathers to holy orders and, insofar as holy orders involved
the character, to the character also. However, we must not read into the association between these acts and the character a significance developed by later theology. That the Fathers did associate a very wide range of actions with holy orders
can be seen in the numerous texts of the Fathers and other documents of their
time collected by Doronzo, De ordine, I, 227-489, 794-918; summaries of the Fathers' ideas on the functions proper to holy orders can be found in this work on
pp. 275-77; 372, 487-88, 831, 850-.52, 910-13, 916-17.

THE SACRAMENTAL

CHARACTER AND LITURGY

397

ops and priests were regarded as capable of performing valid
rites, even though they and those to whom they ministered
lacked grace, and hence lacked also the spiritual priesthood
of grace with its true spiritual sacrifice and worship. This
was the very point St. Augustine argued against the Donatists.
From what the Fathers say of the consecrations of baptism,
confirmation, and orders, it can be concluded that the characters are ordered immediately to the Christians' status in the
visible community of the Church, to their rights, duties, powers in the Church in regard to ritual worship and its mission
to teach and bear witness to Christ. Grace is required for personally worthy and fruitful visible worship and testimony to
truth; but on the other hand, it is not impossible that grace
should be wanting, and yet the visible structure of the Church
with its offices, classes, rights, duties, ritual worship, and witness endure. The characters are the basis for this permanence.
There appears to be no basis in the Fathers for saying that
the sacramental characters are ordered solely to the administration and reception of the sacraments, in the narrowest sense
of the word, and as conferring grace. They are ordered to
this, but to much more as well. The priestly consecration is
ordered to the whole of the priestly ministry. The confirmational character to the bearing of public witness. The baptismal character to the whole Christian life. But that there is in
all of this a special relationship to worship and to the sacraments in a broad sense, Fr. Danielou suggests when he writes:
The life of ancient Christianity was centered around worship. And
worship was not considered to be a collection of rites meant to
sanctify secular life. The sacraments were thought of as the essential events of Christian existence, and of existence itself, as being
the prolongation of the great works of God in the Old Testament
and the New. 24
ST. THOMAS

After St. Augustine distinguished the character from grace,
not until the thirteenth century was the nature of the char•• Danielou, op. cit., p. 17.

398

CHRISTOPHER

KIESLING

acter examined more intimately by the theologians. The Fathers had considered the character chiefly as a sign, as sacramentum, marking, in conjunction with the external rite, the
Christian from the non-Christian, the perfect Christian from
the simply baptized, the successor of the Apostles and his associates in the hierarchy from the body of the faithful. St.
Augustine had shown that the character is also a thing in its
own right, a res, which endures after the external rite has
ceased and which remains even if grace is lost. The theologians of the thirteenth century, equipped with Greek philosophy and the categories of Aristotle, asked themselves what
this thing was in itself. In which category of being was it to
be assigned?
Most of the theologians did not succeed in explaining adequately the nature of the character as a thing apart from its
nature as a sign. But significantly, some theologians associated the character with various states of faith: the baptismal
character marked those who had the faith and lived by it, or
should live by it; the confirmational character marked those
who had strengthened faith and fought for the faith; the character of orders marked those who were set aside for service of
the temple and for the communication of faith to others. 25
What is significant about this association of the characters
with the states of faith is that it at least implicitly relates the
characters in some way with the activities of the Christian life
-living the Christian life as a baptized person, fighting for
the faith as confirmed, dispensing the faith to others as ordained. External, visible activity is involved in all of these
states, explicitly and principally in the last two, but also very
much in the first.
In view of this orientation to activity given to the character
by contemporaries, St. Thomas, even though he took quite a
different stand on the nature of the sacramental character,
was not deviating from the current of theological thought
•• E. g., Albert the Great, De Sacramentis, tract. 8, q. 4, a. 3; Bonaventure,

IV Sent., dist. 6, a. 1, q. 4.

ln

THE SACRAMENTAL

CHARACTER AND LITURGY

399

about the character. When he defined the characters as mstrumental potencies, he was continuing and making more
precise the trend of theological thought. 26 This is perhaps the
reason why theologians have tended since St. Thomas to follow his lead in this matter (even though brilliant minds have
had difficulty with the theory) and have today given his
theory wide acceptance.
It is important for us to look closely at St. Thomas' doctrine about the sacramental characters, not so much because
of his general theological authority, but because his doctrine
represents a kind of quantum-jump in theological thought
about the character compared to the doctrine of the Fathers
and Thomas' contemporaries, and because his doctrine has
become the generally accepted position about the nature of
the characters. We ought, therefore, to attend with special
care to what his mind was in this matter.
According to Jean Dabin in his classical study Le sacerdoce
royal des fideles, cited earlier, St. Thomas identifies the royal
priesthood of the faithful with the sacramental character,
making the character convertible with participation in Christ's
priesthood. 27 Dabin affirms that, ever since St. Thomas, theologians generally have accepted the identification. But there
are reasons for saying that Dabin has judged too hastily here,
and that if theologians since St. Thomas have accepted this
identification, they too have judged too quickly.
A more precise interpretation of St. Thomas is that the sacramental characters are identified immediately with participation (in different ways according to the character in question)
in Christ's visible, external, ritual priesthood and worship,
which is the means whereby Christians participate by grace in
the spiritual royal priesthood and worship of Christ the Priest.
26 Doronzo, De sacramentis in genere, pp.
suggests how St. Thomas'
theory draws the other theories together and gives precision and order to all the
qualities of the characters.
27 Quant a son essence, Je sacerdoce royal s'identifie avec le caractbre sacramental, defini depuis saint Thomas, par convertibilite avec la participation au sacerdoce du Christ specialement " (p. 46). Cf. p. 295.

400

CHRISTOPHER

KIESLING

The following facts are the reasons for saymg this
Thomas' idea:

IS

St.

1) St. Thomas does say that the sacramental character is
a participation in the priesthood of Christ, but he never uses
the traditional texts of I Peter fl: 5, 9, Apocalypse 1: 6; 5:9-10,
Romans 12:1, and Psalm 50:19 on the royal priesthood and
spiritual sacrifice as the Scriptural foundation for this theory. 28
He frequently uses these texts, but always in reference to the
spiritual priesthood and grace of sacrifice, never in reference
to that participation in Christ's priesthood which he identifies
with the sacramental characters. 29 The sacramental characters
pertain immediately to the Christian priesthood and worship
which is external, visible, ritual.
fl) In the Summa theologiae, in the treatise on the sacra-

ments, St. Thomas uses two distinct modes of expression when
referring to how the sacraments perfect the soul. With regard
to the sacraments as causes of grace and with regard to sacramental grace itself, St. Thomas says these perfect the soul
for " the worship of God according to the religion of the Christian life." 30 The Christian life of grace is in itself religious.
•• Cougar, op. cit., p. 184, Eng. trans., p. 182. This is evident from the passages
culled by Dabin from St. Thomas' works, op. cit., pp. 294-802: those texts which
mention explicitly the sacramental character do not mention the traditional Scriptural texts.
•• In one instance, Summa theol., III, q. 82, a. 1, ad 2, St. Thomas even places
in contrast the sacramental power of the priest to offer the Eucharist (though he
does not use the term " character ") and the spiritual priesthood of the faithful
to offer spiritual sacrifices, the texts of Scripture being applied to the latter: " Laicus iustus unitus est Christo unione spirituali per fidem et caritatem, non autem
per sacramentalem potestatem. Et ideo habet spirituale sacerdotium ad offerendum spirituales hostias, de quibus dicitur in Psalmo 50: 19 . . . et Rom. 12: 1 ...
Unde et I Petr. 2:5 dicitur: 'Sacerdotium sanctum offerre spirituales hostias."
30 " Gratia sacramentalis ad duo praecipue ordinari videtur, videlicet, ad tollendos defectus praeteritorum peccatorum . . . et iterum ad perficiendam animam in
his quae pertinent ad cultum Dei secundum religionem vitae christianae" (III, q.
a. 5, emphasis added); " Sacramenta Ecclesiae ordinantur ad duo, scilicet ad
perficiendum hominem in his quae pertinent ad cultum Dei secundum religionem
christianae vitae, et etiam in remedium contra defectum peccati " (ibid., q. 65, a.
1, emphasis added) .

THE SACRAMENTAL

CHARACTER AND LITURGY

401

By faith, hope, and charity the Christian worships God; 21 the
principal sacrifice in a proper sense of the word is interior
devotion, whereby man offers himself to the service of God; 22
sanctity is the permeation of the moral life by religion. 22 This
is the language of spiritual priesthood and worship.
In contradistinction to this, St. Thomas says that the sacramental characters perfect the soul for " the worship of God
according to the rite of the Christian religion (or Christian
life)." 24 Now "rite" implies ceremony, regulated external
action, the exterior side of worship. When speaking of the
effects of the sacraments, St. Thomas uses this mode of expression involving the word "rite" in the question on the
sacramental character; in questions concerning grace itself, St.
Thomas uses the other expression without the word " rite." St.
Thomas was never careless with words. His terminology here
implies that the character is directly associated with the visible Christian priesthood and sacrifice rather than with the
spiritual royal priesthood.
One may be unwilling to admit that St. Thomas intended
to distinguish two realities or two formalities-" the religion
of the Christian life " from " the rite of the Christian religion
or life "-and maintain instead that St. Thomas was simply
using different phrases for the same thing, namely, Christian
worship. Still, his use of the word " ritus " is significant. This
is so because of the connotations of the word mentioned above
-exterior, organized, visible ceremonial action-and because
the word is used with apparent deliberation as the context for
the sacramental character and not for sacramental grace. The
sacramental character pertains to organized ritual worship.
Summa theol., II-II, q. 81, a. 5, ad 1.
Ibid., q. 85, a. 4.
33 Ibid., q. 8!l, a. 8.
31

82

3 • " Sacramenta
novae legis ad duo ordinantur, videlicet ad remedium contra
peccata, et ad perficiendum animam in his quae pertinent ad cultum Dei secundum ritum chriBtianae vitae" (ibid., III, q. 63, a. 1, emphasis added); "Sacramenta novae legis characterem imprimunt inquantum per ea deputantur homines
ad cultum Dei secundum ritum christianae religionis" (ibid., a. 2, emphasis added).

402

CHRISTOPHER

KIESLING

Now such worship pertains chiefly to the external side of
Christian worship; for the interior grace of worship itself is
essentially free, the New Law of grace being the perfect law
of liberty; whatever " organization " of Christian worship
there is, concerns primarily the exterior activity which leads
to or issues from the interior life of grace. 35
Hence a second reason for saying that, according to St.
Thomas, the sacramental character is identified immediately
with the visible, ritual priesthood and worship, and not with
the spiritual royal priesthood and worship, is St. Thomas' association of the character with " the rite of the Christian religion," with emphasis on " rite." 36
3) St. Thomas affirms that the character is a participation
in the priesthood of Christ. The kind of participation to which
he refers is very important. The character is not a participation in the order of formal causality, but in the order of efficient causality; not a participation of a form in an exemplar,
but of a subordinate mover in the motion of a principal agent. 37
St. Thomas regards the sacramental character as a ministerial
potency, as an instrumental force. Through men qualified by
the sacramental characters, Christ visibly prolongs his sacerdotal (and kingly) activity in the world, ritually rendering
present his sacrifice of the cross and communicating its fruits.
The sacramental character makes men like Christ the Priest
in the order of action, not in the order of being.
A distinction is made by St. Thomas between being baptized in Christ by conformity to him, which is by grace, and
being baptized in Christ by configuration to him, which is
achieved by the sacramental character. 38 The royal priesthood
Ibid. I-II, q. 108, aa. 1 and 2.
Cf. Congar, op. cit., pp. 184-87, Eng. trans. pp. 188-35.
37 Stephen McCormack, 0. P., "The Configuration of the Sacramental Character," The Thomist, VII (19M), 469-70.
08 "Baptizari
in Christo potest intelligi dupliciter: uno modo in Christo, id est,
in Christi conformitate ... alio modo dicuntur aliqui baptizare in Christo, in quantum accipiunt sacramentum Christi; et sic omnes induunt Christum per configurationem characteris, non autem per conformitatem gratiae " (Summa theol., ill,
q. 69, a. 9, ad 1).
35

36

THE SACRAMENTAL

CHARACTER AND LITURGY

403

of the faithful consists principally in this conformity to Christ
the Priest by grace, a participation of a form, grace, in a
superior form, the fullness of Christ's grace. Christ's grace is
priestly and kingly by its very nature and the grace we receive
from him bears the same modalities. Like the grace which is
its foundation, the royal priesthood will endure forever and
function eternally in praise and thanksgiving.
The participation in the priesthood of Christ by the character consists in configuration to Christ, a participation in
the sacramental activity of Christ. This participation, like the
sacramental activity itself, is for the time between Christ's
pasch and parousia. 39 The character is indeed indelible, not
because it is ordered to an everlasting activity, but only
for the glory or the shame of those who use it well or badly
in this life.40
The third reason, therefore, for saying that St. Thomas identified the sacramental character immediately with the visible,
ritual priesthood and worship of the Christian life, rather than
with the spiritual royal priesthood and its worship, is the kind
of participation in the priesthood of Christ which the character is: a participation in the visible priestly activity of Christ.
4) St. Thomas brings up an objection to the indelibility of
the character: the exterior cult to which the sacramental character is ordained will not remain in heaven; therefore the sacramental character will not remain perpetually in the soul.41
In response St. Thomas does not deny the ordination of the
•• "Fideles Christi ad praemium quidem futurae gloriae deputantur signaculo
praedestinationis divinae. Sed ad actus convenientes praesenti Ecclesiae deputantur quodam spirituali signaculo eis insignito, quod character nuncupatur" (ibid.,
q. 68, a. 1, ad 1).
•• " Quamvis post hanc vitam non remaneat exterior cultus, remanet tamen
finis illius cultus. Et ideo post hanc vitam remanet character et in bonis ad eorum
gloriam, et in malis ad eorum ignominiam " (ibid., a. 5, ad 8) .
n" Cessante fine, cessare debet et id quod est ad finem, alioquin frustra remaneret. . . . Cultus autem exterior, ad quem character ordinatur, non remanebit
in patria, in qua nihil agetur in fignra, sed totum in nuda veritate. Ergo character
sacramentalis non remanet in perpetuum in anima. Et ita non inest indelebiliter " (ibid., a. 5, obj. 8).

404

CHRISTOPHER

KIESLING

character to exterior worship; he simply admits that the exterior worship will cease and explains the continued existence
of the character as a source of glory or shame for its bearer. 42
What is significant here is the admitted relationship between
the sacramental character and exterior worship, the function
of visible, ritual priesthood. Significant too is St. Thomas' not
assigning any activity of the character for after this life, when
the spirit will dominate the body and no need will be had for
sensible, sacramental activity.
5) St. Thomas clearly states that the character is a sign
of deputation for " actions befitting the Church of the present"; 43 they distinguish the faithful of Christ from the servants of the devil "in relation to the cult of the present
Church." 44 St. Thomas refers to holy orders as " the orders
of the Church militant." 45 If the sacramental character is ordered to the activity of the present Church militant, then it is
ordered immediately to ritual priesthood and worship, for such
is the priesthood and worship proper to the Church on earth
in time.
It may be objected that this would not rule out the character's being ordered to spiritual priesthood and worship with
equal immediacy, because it is this latter which gives meaning and value to external worship. This objection would be
valid if the only argument for the character's ordination to
visible priesthood and worship were the association of the character with the Church militant. But when we add the admitted relationship of the character to exterior worship, its association with the "rite" of the Christian religion, and its being
a participation in Christ's sacramental activity among men in
•• Quoted in note 40 above.
See note 89 .
.. Et similiter character fidelium est quo distinguuntur fideles Christi a servis
diaboli vel in ordine ad vitam aetemam, vel in ordine ad cultum praesentis Ecclesiae. Quorum primum fit per caritatem et gratiam . . . secundum autem fit per
characterem sacramentalem" (Summa theol. ill. q. 68, a. 8, ad 8).
•• " Sed ordines Ecclesiae militantis respiciunt participationem sacramentorum et
communicationem, quae sunt causa gratiae" (ibid., Suppl. q. 84, a. I, ad 8).
43

THE SACRAMENTAL

CHARACTER AND LITURGY

405

time, the picture emerges of the character and its activity
forming a part o£ the peculiar structure of the Church in this
world, an essentially " sacramental " structure in the broad
sense of the word, a visible sign of God's efficacious love for
man.
The conclusion to be drawn from the preceding paragraphs
is clear; St. Thomas did not simply identify the spiritual royal
priesthood of the faithful with the sacramental character, as
Dabin affirms. Rather, continuing the traditional view of a
twofold participation in the priesthood and worship of Christ,
St. Thomas saw the sacramental character as ordered directly
and primarily to the visible, ritual priesthood and worship
which forms part of the structure of the sacramental Church
on earth.
Now we must ask a crucial question for our study: To which
activities in this visible worship of the Church militant did St.
Thomas consider the sacramental characters to be ordered?
Only to the essential rites of the sacraments as conferring grace
or to other actions also?
Without question St. Thomas regards the sacramental characters as ordered to making, dispensing, and receiving the
sacraments; he explicitly mentions this order several timeS.46
Since St. Thomas carefully distinguishes between sacraments
in their essential rites which are of necessity and the solemnities of the sacraments added to the essentials/ 7 we can reasonably presume that when he speaks about the order of the
characters to the sacraments, he means the sacraments in the
strictest sense of the word.
In his Commentary on the Sentences, however, St. Thomas
says that the characters are ordered to sacramental actions
directly, 48 which implies that indirectly they may be ordered
to other actions.
•• In IV Sent., d. 1, a. 1, sol.; a. 2, sol. 1 and ad 8; a. 4, sol. 1 and 8; Summa
tkeol., III, q. 68, a. 5; q. 5, a. 5, ad 2; Supp., q. 84, a. 1, ad 8; a. 2, ad 2;
q. 85, a. 2.
•• Summa tkeol., III, q. 66, a. 10; q. 84, a. 4, ad 8.
•• " Cum character sit virtus seu potentia spiritualis ad actiones sacramentales

406

CHRISTOPHER

KIESLING

Far more frequently, St. Thomas' language is very general
about that to which the characters are ordered. In his Commentary on the Sentences, the characters are said to be ordered to "spiritual things," 49 "spiritual actions," 50 "sacred
actions," 51 "hierarchical actions, which are the administration
and reception of the sacraments and of other things which
pertain to the faithful." 52 In the Summa theologiae, St. Thomas' language is different from that in the Commentary, but still
general; the character is ordered to "those things which belong to divine worship," 53 to receiving and giving "those things
which pertain to the worship of God," 54 to " the protestation
ordinata, si ex aliquo quod per nos fiat, imprimi character debeat, oportet quod
per sacramenta novae legis imprimatur, et per ea tantum, quia ad illas actiones
tantum directe illa potentia ordinatur" (In IV Sent., d. 4, q. 1, a. 4, sol. 1, emphasis added here and in the subsequent citations) .
•• " Character est distinctivum signum quo quis ab aliis distinguitur ad aliquid
spirituale deputatus. Sed ad spirituale potest aliquis tripliciter deputari. Uno modo,
ut aliquis in se spiritualia participet; et ad hoc quis deputatur in baptismo . . .
unde character baptismalis . . . est quasi quaedam spiritualis potentis passiva.
Alio modo, ut spiritualia quis in notitiam ducat per eorum fortem confessionem;
et ad hoc deputatur in confirmatione. . . . Tertio modo, ut etiam spiritualia
credentibus tradit; et ad hoc deputatur aliquis per sacramentum ordinis. Et ideo
sicut in baptismo confertur character et in ordine, ita et in confirmatione." (In
IV Sent., d. 7, q.
a. 1, sol. 1). Cf. ibid., ad 3; sol. 3, ad 3.
50 " Character datur ad exercendas actiones spirituales aliquas simpliciter"
(ibid.,
d. 4, q. 1, a. 3, sol. 3, ad 1). Cf. ibid., a. 1, ad 5; a.
sol.
ad
and ad 5;
a. 4, sol. 1, ad 1; sol. 3.
51 " Signum datur ad duo; ut recipiens configuretur
quasi adscriptus ad communicandum divinis sacramentis et actionibus sacris ... " (ibid., d. 4, q. 1, a.
speaks of "doing some sacred spiritual thing": "Quisol. 1). Ibid., a. 4, sol.
cumque autem mancipatur ad aliquid sacrum spirituale exercendum, oportet quod
habeat spiritualem potestatem, et solum talis."
•• "Hoc signum nihil aliud est quam quaedam potentia qua potest in actiones
hierarchicas, quae sunt ministrationes et receptiones sacramentorum, et aliorum
quae ad fideles pertinent" (ibid., d. 4, q. 1, a. 1, sol.). "' Communio fidei'"
oportet quod recipiatur pro communione in sacramentis fidei et aliis actionibus
quae fidelibus competunt, ad quas nullus admittatur antequam characterem suscipiat spiritualis potestatis respectu illorum " (Ibid., a.
sol. 1, ad 3) . Cf. ibid.,
a. 4, sol. 8.
•• " Character importat quaedam potentiam spiritualem ordiuatam ad ea quae
sunt divini cultus" (Summa theol., III, q. 63, a.
corp.). Cf. ibid., a. 4, corp. ad
1 and ad 8.
•• " Deputatur quisque fidelis ad recipiendum vel tradendum aliis ea quae per-

THE SACRAMENTAL

CHARACTER AND LITURGY

407

of faith through exterior signs," 55 and to " divine worship." 56
If St. Thomas had understood the characters as ordered
exclusively to the essential rites of the sacraments, he could
very easily have used the word "sacrament" in the places
mentioned above; but he did not; in a few cases he refers the
characters to the sacraments and to these other objects. The
logical conclusion is that he did not restrict the sacramental
characters to the making, administration, and reception of the
sacraments in their essential rites.
That the ratio of character as understood by St. Thomas is
not by nature restricted to the essential rites of the sacraments is manifested in St. Thomas' consideration of the characters of confirmation and orders.
The sacramental character of confirmation is ordered to the
reception of the sacraments, 5 7 but it is also ordered to "public
confession," 58 " courageous confession," 59 " certain sacred actions besides those within the capacity of the baptized," 60
" doing those things which pertain to the spiritual battle
against the enemies of faith," 61 " professing publicly the faith
tinent ad cultum Dei. Et ad hoc proprie deputatur character " (ibid., a. 8, corp.) .
Cf. ibid., a. 1, corp. a. 4, ad I; a. 5, corp.; in this last St. Thomas says the spiritual power regards " sacramentorum et earum quae pertinent ad divinum cultum."
55 " Character ordinatur ad ea quae sunt divini cultus. Quo quidem est quaedam
fidei protestatio per exteriora signa " (ibid., a. 4, ad 8) .
56 " Sacramenta
novae legis . . . ordinantur . . . ad cultum divinum " (ibid.,
a. 6, corp.) . Cf. ibid., ad !'l; a. !'l, corp.
57 " Sed ad recipientes
pertinet sacramentum baptismi . . . Ad idem etiam
ordinatur quodammodo confirmatio . . . Et ideo per haec tria sacramenta character imprimitur, scilicet per baptismum, confirmationem, et ordinem" (ibid.,
a. 6).
58 " Potestas
characteris huius [confirmationis] est potestas activa, non ad conferendum spiritualia, quod est ordinis, sed magis ad confitendum publice" (In
IV Sent., d. 7, q. !'l, a. 1, sol. 1, ad 8).
59 " Ad spirituale potest aliquis tripliciter deputari
. . . alio modo, ut spiritualis
quis in notitiam ducat per eorum fortem confessionem; et ad hoc quis deputatur
in confirmatione " (ibid., sol. 1) .
60 " Et ideo per sacramentum
confirmationis datur homini potestas spiritualis ad

quasdam actiones alias sacras, praeter illas ad quas datur ei potestas in baptismo"
(Summa theol., III, q. 7!'l, a. 5, corp.).
61 " In confirmatione accipit homo potestatem
ad agendum ea quae pertinent ad
pugnam spiritualem contra hostes fidei" (ibid.). Cf. ibid., ad I.

408

CHRISTOPHER

KIESLING

of Christ in words." 62 By confirmation the Christian is deputed, like the recipient of orders, to a special office, a deputation which is given by the one who has the office of ruler. 63
Moreover, in the Commentary on the Sentences, St. Thomas
explicitly calls the confirmational character an active power,
not for conferring spiritual things on others subject to the confirmed, but for public confession and witness, making known
the faith. 64 In the Summa theologiae he does not use the phrase
" active power " of the confirmation character, but the words
he uses and the function he assigns to the character indicate
that he still thought of it as an active power for spiritual battle and for the confession and defense of the faith publicly,
officially, even by word. 65
From St. Thomas' treatment of the confirmational character a picture emerges of the character and its activity as a
part of the structure of the sacramental Church visibly carrying on Christ's activity through the ages. While Christ
continues his priestly action among men through all three
characters (though in a different way in each character), he
continues his kingly activity through the confirmational character. Christ came into this world as king to bear witness to
the truth (John 18: 37); he continues this activity in his
Church through men equipped with the character of confirmation. If St. Thomas had lived to write his own treatise on
the sacrament of orders, he may very well have explicitly
affirmed that the character of orders contains the fullness of
this deputation to proclaim and defend the truth in Christ's
name. 66
•• " Ita confirmatus accipit potestatem publice fidem Christi verbis profitendi,
quasi ex officio " (ibid., ad 2) .
63 " Dicendum quod per ordinem et confirmationem deputantur
fideles Christi
ad aliqua spemalia offima: quod pertinet ad officium principis" (ibid., q. 65, a. 4,
ad 2).
6 ' See note 58.
65 See notes 61-63.
66 A hint of this is contained in the Commentary
on the Sentences, where St.
Thomas affirms that one can be deputed to the spiritual in three ways: "uno
modo, ut aliquis in se spiritualia participet; et ad hoc quis deputatur in baptismo:

THE SACRAMENTAL

CHARACTER AND LITURGY

409

St. Thomas' view of the character of orders also shows that
in his mind the notion of character is not exclusively in terms
of the essential rites of the sacraments. The sacerdotal character is necessary, of course, for consecration and immolative
offering of the Eucharist, for the remission of sins, and for the
conferring of the other sacraments, except for matrimony and,
in necessity, for baptism. But the sacerdotal character is a
potential whole which is ordered to all those actions which are
performed by the priest as well as by the deacon and by those
in the other orders, 67 which, in St. Thomas' view, the Church
explicated from the divinely established deaconate. 68
Hence, St. Thomas sees the sacerdotal character ordered
not only to consecrating the Eucharist, absolving sins, and
conferring other sacraments, but also to praying in the name
of the Church, to receiving the offerings of the people, placing them on the altar for the priestly offering, instructing the
faithful in preparation for the Eucharist, proclaiming the word
of God in the Old Testament and the New. 69 A reading of
articles two and four of question thirty-seven of the Supplement (or 4 Sent., d.
q.
a. 1, qla.
and a.
leads to
one conclusion: when St. Thomas wrote these words he conceived of the sacerdotal character as ordered to all those actions which are necessary in some way for the integral and
worthy celebration of the Eucharist; some of these actions are
sacraments in the strict sense-baptism, confirmation, penance, and final anointing. Other actions are not sacraments in
the strict sense-they are prayers, ceremonies, reading the
word of God, preaching, blessings, etc.
To sum up this survey of St. Thomas' thought: St. Thomas
. . . alio modo, ut spiritualia quis in notitiam ducat per eorum fortem confessionem;
et ad hoc quis deputatur in confirmatione; . . . tertio modo, ut etiam spiritualia
credentibus tradat; et ad hoc deputatur aliquis per sacramentum ordinis" (In
IV Sent., d. 7, q. 2, a. 1, sol. 1). The "etiam" for orders suggests that the character of orders includes the power of confirmation and adds to it.
67 Summa theol., Suppl., q. 37, a. 1, ad 2.
68 Ibid., a. 2, ad 2.
69 Ibid., a. 4; note in particular
the responses to the objections.

410

CHRISTOPHER

KIESLING

considered the sacramental characters as pertaining to the visible, ritual priesthood and ordered to the exterior worship of
the Church of the present time. He considered the characters
ordered to many more actions in this ritual worship of the
Church than the administration and reception of the sacraments in their essential rites. The baptismal character is for
the reception of hierarchical actions, be they sacramental or
simply " those which pertain to the faithful." Since the confirmational character extends even to public, verbal confession
and defense of the faith, no reason exists for restricting it to
the essential rites of the sacraments when it functions in those
things which pertain to the worship of God. The extent of
the sacerdotal character to much more than the essential rites
of the sacraments is conveniently demonstrated by the attribution to this character of those varied activities performed
by those in major and minor orders.
TRENT AND

Mediator Dei

The decrees of councils and the encyclicals of popes do not
ordinarily enter into the niceties of theology but are content
with statements of the fundamental truths of Christianity.
This holds true for the Council of Trent and the encyclical
Mediator Dei with regard to the orientation of the sacramental characters in the liturgy. Close examination of the pertinent texts of the Council 70 and Mediator Dei 71 reveals that
they do not go beyond the notion of the characters as signs.
They both associate the character of holy orders with the visible, external priesthood of Christ; and Mediator Dei assigns
the baptismal character as part of the reason why the faithful can be said truly to offer, in some sense, the Sacrifice of
the Mass. Thus two of the characters are associated with the
ritual priesthood and sacrifice, though the association of the
baptismal character is not made to appear so closely or exclusively bound to it as the sacerdotal character. As to which
70

Sess. XXIII, Doctrina de sacramento ordinis, cap. 4, Denz. 960.

71

AAS, XXXIX (1947), 538-39, 555.

THE SACRAMENTAL

CHARACTER AND LITURGY

411

acts of visible worship the Council and Mediator Dei regard
the characters to be ordered, the most that can be said is that
they do not exclude the characters' being ordered to more
than the essential rites of the sacraments.
CoNCLUSION

The purpose of the study presented in these pages was
to determine whether the sacramental characters as powers,
whereby men share in the priesthood of Christ, are ordered
only to the essential rites of the sacraments or also to other
rites of the liturgy as well. The investigation which followed
in pursuit of the answer to this question led to the twofold
Christian priesthood and worship, the spiritual and the visible. The sacramental characters were found to be associated
most closely with the visible, ritual priesthood and the exterior worship of the Church on earth. The characters of confirmation and holy orders were found to be associated also with
the Church's function of proclaiming, witnessing, and defending the truths of faith and thus to be related to Christ's kingly
office. The characters were found to be ordered not exclusively
to the administration and reception of the sacraments in their
essential rites, but to a wide range of activities embracing
those acts of worship and witness which pertain to Christians
precisely as members of the visible Church and which are
the continuation among men in time of Christ's priestly and
kingly activity.
Specifically with regard to the liturgy, therefore, it can be
concluded that the sacramental characters as participations in
Christ's priesthood are ordered to the entire liturgy as the
visible worship of the Church militant prolonging Christ's
priestly mediation, even though the characters are ordered
directly and principally to the sacraments in their essential
rites. What each character is in itself, why and how each is
operative in the various rites that constitute the entire liturgy,
are questions which must be left for another study.
Not restricted to the essential rites of the sacraments, the

CHRISTOPHER

KIESLING

sacramental characters ought not to be restricted to the liturgy. This is obvious for the characters of confirmation and
holy orders, because these characters are participations not
only in the priesthood of Christ but also in his kingship, which
function is not restricted to the liturgy. But this is true also
for the baptismal character. The baptismal character is ordered to those ecclesiastical actions which pertain to the members of the Church as such and by which the influx of Christ's
priestly sanctifying power is received and terminated in its
effect. The actions of the baptized in active participation in
the liturgy fulfill these conditions. But the conditions can be
fulfilled outside the celebration of the liturgy, for example, in
the use of a sacramental.
The use of a sacramental is not always a liturgical act, for
example, the use of a blessed rosary, even though the blessing
constituting the sacramental be a liturgical act. The use of a
sacramental by a member of the Church, however, is a sensible action proper to members of the Church. Insofar as the
prayer of the Church is annexed to the use of the sacramental, the action has an ecclesiastical quality to it. And through
the use of the sacramental the Christian receives grace from
Christ, though the nature of the causality and the effect differ
from the causality and effect of the sacraments.
Hence, although the sacramental characters as participations in the priesthood of Christ are necessary for liturgical
worship, they are not restricted to this activity. The liturgy
can not be defined solely in terms of a function of the sacramental characters, even insofar as they are participations in
Christ's priesthood.
CHRISTOPHER KIESLING, 0. P.
Aquiruu Institute, School of Theology
Dubuque, Iowa

PLACE OF THE LITURGY IN CHRISTIAN
SPIRITUALITY

T

o oppose liturgical prayer and private prayer is a mis-

take. For the most part, such oppositions have only
a rhetorical value in the heads of those who maintain
them. Their aim is nearly always to emphasize the need of
one form of prayer, wherever this type is forgotten through
negligence or exclusion. Now whatever goes without saying,
goes even better when it is said; and, after all, it is useful to
show that the profound and real content of " devotions " is
nothing other than what pertains to actual liturgical rediscoveries. For example, the true cult of the Sacred Heart has
only the aim to interiorize the Paschal mystery. It is always
necessary to rectify and complete one type of prayer by
another. To combat an uncontrolled taste characteristic of
individualism, then, it is legitimate to recall the eminent
value of the Christian cult, or to point out to the directors of
extremely cumbersome chant that true prayer cannot exist
without solitude and silence.1 However, it is no less true that
deviations are present in both positions. 2 It is useless to keep
1 Cf. L. Boyer, "Liturgic
et contemplation, apropos d'un livre recent de
Jacques et Raissa Maritain," in La Vie SpiritueUe, April, 1950, pp. 406-9; and
P. R. Rkgamey, "L'orientation contemplative de Ia priere liturgique," in La Vie
Spirituelle, May, 1960, especially pp. 478-84.
2 " Since the end of the fifteenth century, the generalized practice
of mental
prayer has tended to give an increasing importance to private prayer, and yet
there was a notable regression in the use of liturgical forms [of prayer]. In the
seventeenth century, Saint-Cyran and Thomassin thought that religious women who
did not know Latin were better off in the recitation of the Office, since, in praying, they were not embarrassed by the text. In our own time, a reaction in the
inverse sense is starting to occur, inasmuch as, by exalting liturgical prayer, one
has minimized the importance of mental prayer in a way which seems to be excessive. Now, if one remembers that every prayer is, in itself, the prayer of the
Church, one can ask what is the precise meaning of the term 'private prayer.'
One could not be using this term to indicate prayer wherein the member of the
faithful is really alone in God's presence, since such a prayer does not exist and,

413

414

BERNARD BRO

on reiterating such complaints as "You have become accustomed to talking so much during Mass that you cannot pray
any more," etc. There is justice in the remark that praying
does not mean showing interior movies with head in hands.

A False Problem
There is something more serious. One may hold, for example, by way of defence of the liturgy, " there is no explicit
foundation for mental prayer in the Gospel." The ridiculousness of such a claim, even in the mouth of a professor, is
of little importance. Yet such aphorisms open the way for
"throwing the baby out with the bath water." All of us are
too clever in rationalizing our infidelities. Moreover, one does
not need long practice to know that the life of prayer is
obtained only with great courage. 3 Thus such statements not
only seem stupid; they are also culpable. Besides, we thereby
bless the brutality of our age which has the advantage of
speaking to us sharply and of obliging us to be true exteriorly, even if faithfulness is lacking. The quality of the dramatic inventions of our time and its genius of renewal in
expression have quickly made us recognize the insufficiencies
in our liturgical language, as well as made the audacities of
the mystagogues seem tame. 4 Furthermore, the taste for psychological verifications and the haste of sociological investigations place us under the obligation of fighting against all spiritual " experiences " which would lead to self reliance rather
at all times, the whole Church is praying in us. We are never alone in prayer,
and the dogma of the communion of saints lets us claim that the humblest of our
mental prayers unites us with the supplication pertinent to the eternal Church, as
also is the case of even the most solemn liturgical office. Any way it is taken, the
distinction between public prayer and private prayer concerns only the human
actualizations of prayer, without touching upon its very essence" (L. Cognet,
"Le priere chretienne," in La Priere, Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1959, pp. 100-101).
• Cf. P. R. Rkgamey, "La Priere, conditions de sa verite," in La Vie Spirituelle,
February, 1959, pp. 117-136.
• One can not be excessive in recommending a rereading of the entreating words of
Father Couturier in Art Sacre, especially "Devant l'art profane," January-February, 1950; "Le douloureux probleme des arts missionnaires," March-April, 1951;
"Theatres," September-October, 1951!.

PLACE OF THE LITURGY IN CHRISTIAN SPIRITUALITY

415

than to reconciling the soul to the darkness of the faith. Moreover, we have the right to investigate with a view to a better
grasp of why the opposition between private prayer and liturgical prayer is a false problem, as well as of the motives
whereby we are held to establish our adherence to the prayer
of the Church.

I. THE BASIS OF ALL PRAYER:

THE PRAYER OF CHRIST

It can never be repeated enough that the first problem is,
not whether private prayer or public prayer should be preferred, but, quite simply, whether there is the courage to pray
or infidelity; then, whether the prayer is a Christian prayer
or mere self-seeking.
Really, there is only one prayer since the Incarnation;
that which should meet the soul of God's Son. Like public
prayer, private prayer is, first of all, Christ's prayer. Prayers
are Christian only to the extent that they are prayers of
Christ, that is, prayers made in the Spirit/ or in the name of
Jesus.6 St. Augustine goes so far as to say that every other
prayer is an anti-prayer and that it turns into sin!
The prayer which is not made in Christ's name, not only cannot take away sin, but itself turns into sin, since it is not made in
the name of the mediator of God and men, Jesus-Christ, man and
priest for all eternity according to the order of Melchisedech (Commentary on Psalm 108:9 and 18) .
Whether our prayer is private or public, then, there is the
same spirit praying in us, namely, that of Christ. All common liturgy depends upon the personal relation of each of the
members of the community to Christ, his head (just as, in a
choir, the quality of the group depends upon the intensity of
the relation of each singer to the choirmaster).
By prayer, there is gradually effected, as it were, a transformation of our sentiments, our desires, and our sufferings
• Cf. John 14: 18; 16:
11:
Phil.
Heb. 9:14;
I John
"Luke 11:18; Ephes. 6:18; Rom.

Rom. 8: 88-84; Col. 8: 16-17; Ephes. 8: 11Apoc. 5:4-10; ll Cor.
II Cor. 18:18; Gal. 4:6.

416

BERNARD BRO

into the sentiments, desires, and sufferings of Christ. This transformation is comparable to that which is accomplished in the
Mass, namely, the transformation of bread and wine into the
Body and Blood of Christ. While we truly remain ourselves,
a sort of transubstantiation is wrought in us through prayer.
In a certain way, we acquire a personality which is infinitely
superior to our own; we are no longer alone in chanting the
psalms or reading the Bible; Christ, our eternal Highpriest,
chants and reads God's plan of love in heaven:
Thus, from these two (Christ and the Church), everything took
place as though there were only one person ... if they are two
in one flesh, why not also two in one voice? Let Christ speak,
then, since in Christ, the Church speaks; and in the Church,
Christ speaks. The Head speaks in the Body, and the Body in
the Head (St. Augustine, Commentary on Psalm 30:4).

"Come, Lord Jesus, Come"
This has led us to discover the first concrete movement
governing all Christian prayer, the first appeal with which
each of our prayers should open: " Come, Spirit of God,"
"Come, Lord Jesus, Come," "Lord, teach us to pray." God
alone can form prayer in us, since, in short, only the Love of
a God can countenance God's Love. And one could say that
a person is a Christian from the time when he can no longer
speak to God except with and through Christ, with a recognition of the fact that the only face which God does not resist
is that of His Son. "For all of you who have been baptized
into Christ, have put on Christ" (Gal. 8: 27; cf. also I Cor.
1: 9; Eph. 1: 5; Gal. 4: 6) . This is the principal movement of
prayers in the Mass, namely, the memorial or commemoration
of the saving mystery, whereby we speak to God with the very
words used by His Son: Recalling the Passion, Resurrection,
and Ascension of Thy Son, we offer Thee the perfect victim
... and through Him, with Him, and in Him we give glory
to Thee.
Christ, then, is truly our " Highpriest," as He is called in
the Epistle to the Hebrews, which says that He lives always

PLACE OF THE LITURGY IN CHRISTIAN

SPIRITUALITY

417

to make intercession for men. St. John says that He is our
advocate. What does this mean, other than that Our Lord is
the one in heaven who presents to His Father our praise, our
adoration, and our petitions? Thus we can say that, in God's
presence, He repeats our own words, that He takes up our
poor human words by transforming them and making them
His own. Our prayer is thereby strengthened and made absolutely efficacious inasmuch as it becomes Christ's prayer.
God could not bestow upon men a more excellent gift than by
granting them His Word as their Head, through Whom He has
created all things, and by uniting them to Him as His members,
so that He would be, at the same time, Son of God and Son of
man, one God with the Father, one man with men; so that, offering up our prayers to God, we would not separate the Son from
them, and the Body of the Son, offering its prayers, would not be
separated from its Head. Thus Our Lord Jesus Christ, the only
Savior of His Body, prays for and in us, and receives our prayers.
He prays for us as our Priest, He prays in us as our Head, He
receives our prayers as our God. Let us recognize, then, that we
speak in Him and He speaks in us ... It is in Him that we recite,
and it is in us that He Himself makes this prayer of the Psalm
which bears the title "Prayer of David." In hearing these words,
then, let none say: "Christ does not speak here at all." Nor let
anyone say: "It is not I who speaks." But, if he believes that he
is in Christ's Body, let him say: It is Christ Who speaks, it is
I who speak." Never speak without Him, and He will say nothing
without you (St. Augustine, Commentary on Psalm 85:1).

On Earth As In Heaven
In this mediation of Christ, let us not see an optional intermediary. It constitutes Christian prayer. This is not for us
a recourse which we could omit and which would have only an
ephemeral usefulness resulting from the imperfections of our
state. 7
7 It should be emphasized how many of even the best writings on mystical theology fail to consider this mediation of Christ as what differentiates Christian mysticism. Frequently there is the belief that the mere phenomenological approach of
listing mystical "states " alone would enable one to establish the criteria for comparison; but one would thereby run the risk of being led to singular conclusions

418

BERNARD

BRO

Before St. Augustine, St. Paul is decisive on this point, and,
with him, the unison of statements in the New Testament: 8
" Whatever you do in word or in work, do all in the name
of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through
Him" (Col. 3: 16-17). "All the promises of God find their
' Yes ' in him; and therefore through him also rises the ' Amen '
to God unto our glory" (II Cor. 1: 20). "According to the
eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our
Lord. In him we have assurance and confident access through
faith in him" (Eph. 3: 11-12).
This intermediary is necessary under a twofold title. We
cannot be reunited with God without going through Christ.
Christ is both the beginning and the end of our prayer.
In fact, in turning towards God, man never forgets that
first of all he is a sinner. Man becomes reunited with God
only by departing from sin. Every advance here on earth is
always an advance from sin; even in heaven, beatitude and
grace are the fruits of Christ's priesthood, and the elect are
conscious of having come from sin. Moreover, for us, praying
is asking for something to which we would have no right, had
Christ not merited it. He has merited that God be merciful
to us. He alone could reinstate us in grace. Such is the principle or foundation for our prayer. Christ satisfies and prays
for us; he prays as man. He does not demand grace as a right
which we have, but He asks for it in virtue of the right which
He has acquired to ask for it. Furthermore, if all prayer presupposes that one has a certain title to be heard, we can no
and of making a definitive removal of every possibility to establish a comparative
study on mysticism. Moreover, it is hard to see how one can fail to take account
of the object as the decisive criterion involved in the structure of the mystical
state, with the understanding that this object can be something no longer perceived.
If, in ecstasy, Christ is no longer apparently present, this has never meant that
His mediation is no longer real. To make the matter explicit in a few words, let
us say that, from the reality perceived as given exteriorly, He has become light,
dwelling in the gaze itself (or as the Scholastics say, from the object "which,"
He has become the object "whereby ") . His mediation is only more decisive, and,
after all, that is the ultimate purpose of the Christian life.
8 Cf. footnotes Nos. 5 and 6.

PLACE OF THE LITURGY IN CHRISTIAN

SPIRITUALITY

419

longer pray without going through Christ. Prayer presupposes that God is accessible. Yet, outside Christs' mediation,
God is not accessible for us. Too, through Christ, we truly
approach God in such a way that our advances in this
approach to God are measured exactly by our advances in our
approach to Christ. He is, in the full sense of the words, the
way and the teTm (Note the relation between the Greek
and
Jn. 14: 6 and Heb. 10: 19-22) . "Therefore he
is able at all times to save those who come to God through
him, since he lives always to make intercession for them "
(Heb. 7:25).
One could as well explain this need for Christ's mediation
by examining the purpose of our prayer, namely, sharing the
divine nature. How can one pretend to live like God other
than as the Son has lived? l\1oreover, there is no term for our
prayer other than the resumption, for our sake, of the dialogue
of the Son to the Father: Thy will be done on earth as it is
in heaven. If Christ has made satisfaction for us and has
thereby established the possibility of our prayer, to derive the
benefits of this satisfaction, personal application is necessary 9
and this work of satisfaction must be assumed by each person.
Now such an application to each person has not been achieved
at one single time. Furthermore, our prayer is regulated exactly by the mystery of redemption. ·we are not only in God's
presence, but we must relive the steps involved in the mystery of redemption which Christ, in His glorious state, no
longer lives.
• " Christ after redeeming the world at the lavish cost of His own Blood, still
must come into complete possession of the souls of men. Wherefore, that the
redemption and salvation of each pe1·son and of future generations unto the end
of time may be effectively accomplished, and be acceptable to God, it is necessary
that men should individually come into vital contact with the Sacrifice of the
Cross, so that the merits, which flow from it, should be imparted to them. In a
certain sense it can be said that on Calvary Christ built a font of purification and
salvation which He filled with the Blood He shed; but if men do not bathe in it
and there wash away the stains of their iniquities, they can never be purified nnd
saved" (Pope Pius XU, Mediator Dei, Nov. !W, 1947, Vatican Library Translation, Washington: National Catholic Welfare Conference, § 77).

4QO

BERNARD

BRO

" I Cannat Read "
To understand the prayer of the Church, then, one must
never envisage it outside this prayer of Christ; otherwise it
is no longer a question of Christian prayer. This is a matter
of faith and does not allow for any exceptions. One can illustrate this truth by a scriptural parallel, which very well expresses this absolute need of Christ's presence in our learning
to pray.
And the vision of all shall be unto you as the words of a book
that is sealed, which when they shall deliver to one that is learned,
they shall say: Read this: and he shall answer: I cannot, for it is
sealed. And the book shall be given to one that knoweth no letters, and it shall be said to him: Read: and he shall answer: I
know no letters (Isaia 29-11-12).
"A man who does not know how to read"-such is our
situation as long as, in liturgical prayer, we refuse the very
intervention of Jesus in our prayer.
And I wept much, because no one was found worthy to open
the scroll or to look thereon. And one of the elders said to me,
"Do not weep; behold, the lion of the tribe of Juda, the root of
David, has overcome to open the scroll and its seven seals." And
I saw, and beheld, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, a Lamb standing, as
if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven
spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. And he came and took
the scroll out of the right hand of him who sat upon the throne.
And when he had opened the scroll, the four living creatures and
the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, having each a
harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the
saints. And they sing a new canticle, saying, "Worthy art thou
to take the scroll and to open its seals: For thou wast slain, and
has redeemed us for God with thy blood, out of every tribe and
tongue and people and nation" (Apoc. 5:4-9).
Thus, contrary to what we think, prayer comes from on
high. 10 That is why it is always accompanied by a conversion.
1 ° Cf. the provocative
study of E. Peterson, Le Livre des Anges (Paris: 1954),
and even more so that of J. Tyciak, Maranatha (Bonn: 1949), which is well worthy
of translation into other languages.

PLACE OF THE LITURGY IN CHRISTIAN

SPIRITUALITY

It is primarily a matter, not of speaking or unfolding one's
desires, but of listening and receiving. God has preceded us;
God has anticipated us; and we come first to accept the
prayer of the Lamb and make it our own. He alone could
open the book; He alone can do it now. And the most basic
reason establishing the liturgy and assuring its need is, finally,
that God has wanted to give us Christ, His Son, as mediator
and priest, the only intermediary worthy enough to pray.
Holy Father, eternal God, we praise Thee through Thy Son
Jesus . .. Through Him, with Him, and in Him we give Thee
thanks and dare to say: Our Father. Such are the beginning
and the end of the Canon of the Mass, as well as of every
prayer worthy of the name " Christian."

"And I Wept Much"
This is not reserved to the author of the Apocalypse. Rather,
it would be our condition when we want to go to God by our
own capacities alone, and whenever we fail to give liturgical
prayer its true place in our life. Let us see the exact attention with which Joan of Arc followed the liturgical season
and its demands even when war or captivity dispensed her
from this care; or the submission of St. Bernard in his sermons to his monks to teach them to pray according to the
moment of the mystery of redemption; or again the care of
Theresa of Avila in nourishing her interior prayer. None of
these persons pretended to have any setting for prayer other
than the liturgy. 11 Each one teaches us, in a concrete manner, what the liturgy is: a setting for life, the atmosphere,
the living milieu established on earth by Christ's life, in order
that this life may be born and developed in man.
11 See the very explicit texts (as, for example, Relation XX) of St. Theresa of
Avila and St. John of the Cross, which it would be good to cite for all those who
reduce the role of the masters of spirituality to that of mere theorists of a socalled spiritual experience ... Cf. the numerous texts cited by R. Hoonaert, " Liturgie on contemplation," in Etudes carmelitaines, April, 1982, pp. 177-215, and
especially the excellent and very accurate study of Fr. Lucien-Marie de SaintJoseph, 0. C. D., "Oraison et priere liturgique chez sainte Therese d'Avila," in
Carmel, 2nd trimester, 1960, pp. 92-114.

BERNARD

BRO

II. WHY Is THE LITURGY NEcEssARY?
Every living thing needs room for expansion. And this is
not optional. Something which might seem negligible, such
as an atmospheric disturbance or a change in temperature,
can destroy life. Come a spring frost, extremely low temperature during a night in May, and the crop is lost. This is true
also as regards what is most precious and fragile in man,
namely, his divine life. He does not, with impunity, breathe
any air whatsoever. And there are sunless regions, unheated
places which leave only a desert in the soul.
A Region for Life

Every man needs a milieu where his prayer can be born
and be developed, a milieu where he can learn to live according to Christ's ways. This milieu is the liturgy, the common
prayer of the Church.
Just as man does not invent his life, so he does not invent
his faith; he receives it. Likewise, he has not invented his
prayer, but receives the prayer of Christ, the prayer born of
the Spirit of God and now living in the community of His
children. Since I have to learn my prayer, I need an education, a pedagogy. Now this pedagogy has been proposed to
rne in the most marvelous manner ever: through a living history, a history which does not pass away, which has become
eternal because it has been that of the Son of God. 12 In this
prayer, I do not at all devise for myself what should be; rather
I enter into cooperation in a work which another initiates, I
cede to another's desires, I accept participation in a plan, a
project which surpasses me and is anterior to me. That is
why we all have to be initiated in this project, to receive it
from those among God's people who have come before us.
Each generation educates the following generation and has it
12 For a Christian,
one of the great interests in the history of religions is to
see how religions wherein faith is not addressed to a personal God, have difficulty
in avoiding the two great devaluations of the mystery about God: an abstract
god-idea or a god-idol. Cf. the penetrating analyses of 0. Lacombe, L'Absolu
selon le Vedanta (Paul-Geuthner, Paris, 1937).

PLACE OF THE LITURGY IN CHRISTIAN

SPIRITUALITY

423

enter into this movement of prayer arising from Christ and
sustained by expectation of Him.
A region is needed for every expansion of life. And here,
contrary to what too many presentations (for example, alas,
certain movies on religious ceremonies, etc.) would have one
readily believe, it is not enough to compare the liturgy with
the folklore of a village, the customs of a community, or the
traditions of a family or a profession. No, much more is involved, namely, a living milieu, ever the indispensable conditions enabling the person desirous o£ living to breathe, grow,
and be nourished. Moreover, i£ the milieu disappears, life, too,
passes away. 13
However, living things everywhere are responsible for their
milieu. The strong take care of it for the weak. The same is
true in the life of prayer.
The meaning of the liturgy, the purpose of a common
prayer is, therefore, first summarized in this: the Church proposes the prayer of Christ to me and welcomes me into the
living milieu wherein this prayer can flourish. It is no more
optional for a "member" to live attached to its organism or
to be separated from it, than for a Christian to leave his community. He is a Christian only if he is a member of Christ,
and he is a member of Christ only if he lets life come into
him by participation in the faith and the prayer of his
brethren.
The children of God are the body of God's only Son; and, since
He is the head and we are the members, there is only one Son of
God. Therefore, he who loves the children of God, loves the Father.
And no one can love the Father without loving the Son; and whoever loves the Son should love, also, the children of God . . . and,
in loving, he himself becomes a member in union with the Body
of Christ, and there will be one sole Christ loving Himself (St.
Augustine, Commentary on the Epistle of John to the Parthinians,
V, 5, 3).
13 Few more explicit testimonies can be found than those of the seminarians in
Algeria in their response to the inquiry of La Vie SpirituelleJ. This response Was
published in the aforementioned magazine in August-September, 1960, 464.

424

BERNARD

BRO

This is what should be brought to the attention of the person who would doubt the importance of the liturgy .14 It is
the irreplaceable teacher of our prayer in the exact title wherein Christ's prayer is the ultimate law of all prayer for each
one of us.

Fallowing Christ's Example
No one can dispense himself from this education in prayer,
or from a permanent pedagogy which accompanies us during
our whole lifetime, as the intermediary which God has selected
as a means whereby we might draw close to Him. 15
Christ Himself has given us the example; He has recognized the cult given to God in the temple (Lk. 2: 46; Mt.
23: 21; Mk. 11: 17; Jn. 2: 15-17). He takes part in the cult of
the Synagogue (Lk. 4: 14-17; 13: 10; Jn. 18: 20). He agrees to
14 Perhaps one can rightly regret that this argumentation
is too little present in
the recent work of Jacques and Raissa Maritain. And if, in spite of the generosity
of the authors, their resolution raises a problem, we do not at all think, as Father
Bouyer says (Le Vie Spirituelle, April 1960, p. 409), that it is a matter of knowing whether the opposition between the demands of mental prayer and the demands
of the liturgy is scholastic or not, and whether the remedy is scholastic or not. One
cannot ask "liturgy or mental prayer?" in the name of scholasticism, since there
is no opposition between them; rather there enters a poor way of understanding
them which isolates them, as well as a good way which distinguishes them in order
to unite them.
Without our thinking, thereby, that scholasticism is no longer useful (a point
remaining to be proved poEitively) , there still remain the problems of discerning
what is the role of the virtue of religion and technological virtues in the liturgy
and mental prayer, of having a precise knowledge about the difference of the
moments of Christological mediation, which is necessary in every prayer, and of
showing, thereby, the decisive criterion for distinguishing Christian mysticism from
mystical experience in general (by taking the object as the point of departure,
rather than what is only a moment and an effect of the mystical state, namely,
ecstasy).
15 "Holy Scripture
and the liturgy are precious gifts from God to His spouse,
the Church: both are sources of divine life, both are sensible expressions of the
incarnate Word. But the less dispensable of the two is the liturgy, a vital artery
of the Mystical Body of Christ. The Church can subsist without Holy Scripture,
just as she existed during the first centuries, before the Gospels and the Epistles
of the Apostles were redacted; but she cannot exist without the liturgy, which
bears her sacramental and sacral life in her" (I. Herwegen, 0. S. B., "L'Ecriture
Sainte dans la liturgie," Le Maison-Dieu, no. 5, p. 7).

PLACE OF THE LITURGY IN CHRISTIAN

SPIRITUALITY

425

belong to a true community; He recognizes the customs and
traditions of the Jewish cult, as well as the ritual meals of
each community, the priesthood, and the liturgical authority.
Moreover, it is not a matter of a merely external recognition;
Our Lord accepts this cult in its interior significance. The
spontaneous reactions in His prayer constantly give evidence
of this. The psalms, learned and accepted from the community, are what He cites on each great occasion in His life: at
the time of His short-lived triumph (Mt. 21: 26), during the
last solemn announcement about His death (Jn. 12: 27), at
the Last Supper, while He spoke of His betrayal (Jn. 13: 18),
during the last discourse (Jn. 15: 25) and His final prayer
(Mt. 26: 38; 27:46, etc.).
In the same way the primitive Christian community would
remain associated with the temple (Lk. 24: 53; Acts 2: 46; 3: 3;
5: 25; 5:42, etc.) and would preserve the ensemble of Jewish
practices which had finally taken on a definitive meaning since
Christ fulfilled them. He condemns himself to misunderstanding Christian prayer, who does not see that it is bound up
with a community, with a liturgy, i.e., in its proper sense, " a
work-of-a-people," yet such as Jesus accomplished and lived
it in His mystery. Moreover, it is no longer optional; Christ
has made the choice for us. Furthermore, our reticence at
common prayer almost always conceals, in addition to laziness
or our small and individual well-being, more serious refusals:
false angelicism and the illusion of believing that one can do
without learning, without receiving the nourishment of prayer, the manna, from others.

III. FoR A CHRISTIAN

UsE oF SYMBOLS

And yet, in view of the manner in which the liturgical life
has been proposed to us, is this reticence always unjustified?
One would like to think so. However, the actual evidence of
a disaffection towards the liturgy, being more general and
growing at a greater rate than one would think, poses a problem. Moreover, it would take considerable clerical illusion to

426

BERNARD BRO

imagine that the battle has been won. One will never say
enough as to how beneficial has been the golden age of the
liturgy, such as we have known it for the past twenty years. 16
It has decisively helped the spiritual life to rise above secondary
psychological complications and subjective illusions, as well as
to reestablish the mystery of Christ and His objective proposition as its core. But how many obstacles still remain!
Let us not be astonished. All pedagogy encounters such
difficulties. Moreover, if the need for the liturgy is the same
as that of intermediaries in the faith, the difficulties, too, are
the same. We must see how these difficulties pertain to all
pedagogy, as well as how they differ.

The Enlargement of Outlook
Like every other type of pedagogy, the liturgy puts to work
a universe of signs or symbols. It utilizes things and actions
which are commissioned to transmit a message and a presence.
Now very often these things no longer say anything. Moreover,
we must make our first start by offering an artificial explanation of what should serve to explain! Here there is truly a
struggle for the light. Every professor knows very well how
difficult it is to maintain what is essential and avoid what
threatens to overburden or confuse the basic meaning of
things. Now we must avoid illusion concerning the conditions
of the actual existence of the liturgy.
One need only see the miter and crosier appear on the televised news program of a blessing of an ocean liner or Catholic
Charity truck to have new evidence about the difference, very
often brought to mind by the official teaching of the Church,
between the mental universe where the liturgy takes its roots
and the real character of our imagination. 17 Furthermore, at
18 As well as some time previous.
Cf. Dom. 0. Rousseau, Histoire du mouvement liturgique, Paris, 1945; as well as, for example, the statements of St. Theresa
of Lisieux concerning the influence exercised on her by the family reading of the
Annee liturgique of Dom Gueranger.
17 Cf. the serious warnings from specialists in religious sociology, as, for example,
those of J. Monnerot concerning the laicization of the religious feast in Europe,

PLACE OF THE LITURGY IN CHRISTIAN

SPIRITUALITY

427

times it can be understood why some people relegate this liturgy
to the level of dusty folklore.
In fact, those who are responsible for this liturgical universe
cannot fail to recognize that, especially in these times, the discovery of other civilizations and other cultural ensembles, as
remarkable as our own, constantly make our sensibility more
demanding. This has been brought into evidence to explain
the revolution of painting during the nineteenth century/ 8
namely, that, because of photography, there was the intervention, into the imagination as related to painting, of works to
which, previously, there was no access, and each of our contemporaries more or less consciously undergoes the effect of
this. The Mediterranean basin, latinity, and the Constantinian age can no longer be our sole cultural landmarks. The
movies do have an effect on us in having us gain a penetrating knowledge about volcanoes, the dances of Bali, or the
Southern Cross. And from now on we all know that the clothing of the Roman prefects in the lower part of the empire, now
worn by bishops/ 9 is less impressive than the kimonos worn
in the Japanese court (as we shall see later, this example is
excellent for showing that we must restrict ourselves to what
is essential) .

. . . And the Violence of Actual Experiences
Now even more demanding of attention than the introduction to other civilizations, which has become an irreversible
fact, are the experiences in which our contemporaries take
delight. These experiences, however, have such a violence and
richness as can threaten to supplant the religious quest.
The modern world can propose veritable ersazt celebrations
in "Les Masses," La Nef, no. 25; as well as the analyses of P. Duploye, "Preface
pour un Congres," La Maison-Dieu, no. 10, pp. 7-38: "A symphonic overture
announcing astonishingly rich themes, the quasi-totalitarian perspectives manifested
by the discovery of a mysticism concerning the ' day of the Lord.' "
18 Cf. the masterly
analysis of A. Malraux at the beginning of Les voix du
silence. Paris: N. R. F., 1951, pp. 15 sqq.
19 Cf. Th. Klauser, Petite histoire de la Liturgie occidentale. Paris:
Editions du
Cerf, 1956, pp. 40 sqq.

4!28

BERNARD BRO

for internal desires, and here we are not thinking primarily
of the movies or the theatre. Let us take another example.
For years we have been attending ski competitions held in
certain mountainous villages otherwise very Christian. We
take these as an illustration since, as yet, they are not contaminated by money and they manifest a certain nobility
by the courage and the serious risks which the participants
accept. Let us not see a mere distraction here. That five thousand persons are willing to spend three hours silently standing
in the snow and a very low temperature in order to watch a
ski-jumping contest, easily proves this point to anyone present.
The competition itself has relatively little importance, and
often one forgets who the winner was. One comes primarily
to seek the living proof of an excellence. Fifty men go to risk
even the danger of a serious accident (and these are frequent),
to dominate their fear (always present), in order to conquer
gravity, to show that, by his power alone, man can escape certain limitations. None of those present is insensible to this
fact. And the quality of the silence, broken merely by a muffied
murmur of admiration, proves for hours that the myth of
Icarus still lives in human reveries. And how can one fail to
think that, even though many of these men are true Christians, all of them would feel terribly strange towards the liturgy when, not knowing a word of Latin, they assisted at
Mass and, the Saturday before, asked for absolution?

Is the Liturgy a Substitute Theatre?
There is, then, the temptation to conclude: what a shame
it is we cannot make an equally forceful proposal by way of
the liturgy! Yet this is not the level at which we should make
our first endeavors, since, undoubtedly in most cases, this procedure would be waste of effort before it started, and more,
a betrayal of what is essential in the liturgy.
Just as Our Lord came, not to replace the bakers and the
physicians by His miracles, but by the use of His signs, to
provoke the attention of His contemporaries for something

PLACE OF THE LITURGY IN CHRISTIAN

SPIRITUALITY

429

which surpassed them, namely, God's intervention, so, too, the
role of the liturgy is not to take the place of human theatres.
The story about the author of fables is well known. A painter
produced the picture of a lion and made it so realistic that
everyone become fearful before the picture. Well, it must be
concluded that that was a very poor painting, since the purpose of a work of art exists at the very moment when it
represents to me something which refers me to something surpassing the sensible.
A picture shows me a reality, but, at the same time, it
should tell me that it is not this reality. Its role is, not to
take the place of the object, but to make it present and thereby, while it is representing, the picture should efface itself
behind what it proposes.
Music which engenders nothing other than a sort of dizziness and the desire for something else at the time when the
phonograph record stops is a very mediocre type of music.
Certainly one can replay the record in the hope of finding this
"something else." Really the only aim at such a time is to
evade the uneasiness and flee from the silence, where, however, there remain the interior chant of the music and the lack
of satisfaction always accompanying it. 20 Thus should it be
in the case of the preacher from whom one expects, not gossip, no matter how intelligent it may be, 21 but the recall of
a kingdom which one has forgotten. So should it be in the liturgy, from which we expect, not that it gratify our senses, but
that it lead us to the silence of a presence, namely, that of
the Savior come from on high.
In other words, in every reality laden with a message, there
20 Undoubtedly
one would have great difficulty in expressing this matter better
than Selma Lagerliif has done in the astonishing scene of despair involving Giista
Berling and the Cavaliers, in Gosta Berling, chap. !U (Paris: Editions Je sers, 1940,
pp. 281-288).
21 " Make me be among men like a faceless person and my Word over them
soundless like a sower of silence, like a sower of darkness, like a sower of churches.
"Like a sower of God's measure ...
"Make me be like a sower of solitude, and him who hears my word retum home
uneasy and heavy-hearted" (Claude!, Cinq g1·andes odes. La maison fermee).

430

BERNARD BRO

are two things: the reality itself and its role as ambassador,
that is, its relation of subordination to the thing of which it
takes the place. Moreover, one must never forget that this
reality interests us because of its role as ambassador. The
taste of bread is of little importance when I ask it to give
me Christ ... 22

A New Mythology
The greatness of every sign is going in quest, not of itself,
but of that which it has been chosen to serve beyond itself.
The purpose of music is not to make me live in noise, even
if it is harmonized, but to make me recognize my soul.
We understand, then, that the true problem of the liturgy
is, not to multiply the signs, but to read those which God has
selected, to learn how to go to the mystery, to the reality of
which the collection of symbols, stories, and realities engaged
are the servants.
The horizontal concern which leads one to become interested primarily in the admiration of the signs is a betrayal.
Alas, do we dare to pretend that our efforts have not, only
too often, stopped at that stage? Then let us not be surprised
about the boredom and refusals which have been attendant
upon the liturgy, since one will have merely forgotten to give
the light . . . What purpose would be served in enlarging the
flag if I do not know what it represents . . . (Let us think of
the occasional desire to have permission for certain community, conventual, or concelebated Masses).
Let us take an example. The prophecies of the Easter Vigil
can lend themselves to wonderful poetic flights or liturgical
applications ... But a person does not say anything of value
if he does not take the trouble to show that their whole purpose and their unique value lies in distributing to us the action
of grace from the soul of Christ. He is the new Adam giving
a new name to each being and understanding the truth (much
22 There is the well-known anecdote about St. Augustine reprimanding a woman
for having smiled during Communion and the answer which excused her. She had
recognized the bread roll she herself had made and brought with her.

PLACE OF THE LITURGY IN CHRISTIAN

SPIRITUALITY

431

stronger in the new creation, and found in the refrain of the
first creature) "It was good." He is the new Moses making
His people accept the exodus and the stripping of the old man,
the drowning of everything which must be left in Egypt, in
order that the liberation through Baptism might be inaugurated. He is the new Isaia calling upon those for whom He
is obliged to provide the purification of the Spirit, and singing the canticle about God's presence with us. He is, again,
Moses judging the infidelity of those whom He has saved,
leaving them His cross and His law as a testimony and memorial of their salvation. Moreover, we all know that, on the
Vigil of Easter, all these prophecies are fulfilled in a last
thanksgiving: the Canon of the Mass.
Let us be careful. Our contemporaries do not come to ask
that the liturgy be a substitute mythology. Let us not underestimate their aptitude for the poetic or their thirst for the
transcendent. They have sufficiently recognized the taste for
the non-figurative, just as they have also had sufficient experience of the exasperation engendered by experiences which are
only sensible, although these may be esthetic; so that they have
become allergic to the adolescent nourishment provided only
too often by our liturgical restorations. That someone speak
to them about the Exodus or about David and his adulteries
is of little importance to them, if the aim is not to read them
as living parables about men whom God has delivered from
evil, if the aim is not to make an explicit discovery about the
salvation accomplished by Christ in God's name. What commands the understanding of signs is something beyond them.
By forgetting, only too often, the primacy of this " something
beyond," one prepares disillusionments and one makes of the
liturgy a very exact system good for those who know nothing
else, until they are no longer content with the universe of
their childhood. 23
Whoever wants to concern himself about the liturgy will
•• There are still good days for liturgical efforts, since there is vast barrenness
in too many booklets and commentaries.

432

BERNARD BRO

never cease demanding of himself a conversion: that which
makes the signified have greater importance than the sign,
that which refuses to speak of a reality without asking what
it has to do with the faith. Christ alone, God's witness, can
open the "book" sealed for every man. Quite simply, then,
the liturgy asks that the normal structure of every phenomenon of signification be respected. What is of special worth,
what should command everything here, is the reality. This
means that one first gives the light, that one assures the presence of the light which alone permits the reading of the reality. Then one will see that the liturgy and all common prayer
presuppose an interior prayer, 24 that, without this interior
attention, one has already lost the message which they bear,
and that, without it, the sacraments themselves would be
spoiled. Note this minimum requisite enabling a child to
approach Holy Communion. He must be able to read something beyond the bread; he must be able to recognize that this
bread has only one interest, namely, Christ. The aim o£ the
liturgy is not to celebrate a Mass in dialogue or to have accomplished a "beautiful" Easter Vigil, but to have been
reunited with the soul of Christ in prayer. If, too often,
there is too little silence, if so many celebrations remain on
the exterior wrapper, on what is unusual and accessory in
their unfolding, the basic reason is possibly because one is no
longer seeking Christ. 25
24 Father Regamey has been very correct in reminding us that a collectivity
itself had an interior life, a personality which was not reduced to the smallest
common denominator ... including that of the leader! Cf. La Vie SpiritueUe,
May, 1960, pp. 471, 486-88.
25 This does not mean that every effort to promote clerical culture is useless.
One recalls Claudel's prophetic complaints in his letter to Cingria (in 1919) which
would find, alas, points of application other than architecture:
" The causes of decadence in Sacred Art can all be summarized in one: this is
the divorce, the painful consummation of which was viewed during the past century, between the propositions of the Faith and those powers of imagination and
sensibility which are eminently found in the artist.
" When, after the [French] Revolution, the Church, having temporarily lost its
position as teacher, had to appeal to artists to help her restore her losses, she found
herself, as it were, on the same footing of competition as the other clients sharing

PLACE OF THE LITURGY IN CHRISTIAN

SPIRITUALITY

433

God Is Before His Ambassadors
However, we must go further, since the liturgy and the common prayer of the Church cannot be restored merely to the
case of a habitual pedagogy. Here we must invert the relation between the mystery (the principal reality) and the sign,
which serves it as a messenger.
In fact, as in every work of art, not only is the most important, the most real, that which gives meaning to everything,
beyond the work itself, but here in liturgical prayer, the reality
beyond the sign is a Person, a living Person, Christ, Who is
God. Moreover, this Person is an all-powerful master, Who,
in creating the second, visible reality, decided that it would
be His ambassador. In taking a painting or a symphony as a
in the market. The religious crisis in the nineteenth century was, possibly, not
especially a crisis of intelligence, but the crisis of a poorly nourished imagination.
" As regards the Church, in losing the cover of Art, she became, during the
last century, like a man stripped of his clothing, that is, this sacred body made
by men who were at the same time believers and sinners, was exhibited for the
first time to the eyes of all in its nudity and in a kind of permanent exposition
and betrayal of its infirmities and wounds. For anyone who dares to look at them,
the modern churches have the interest and the pathos of a burdened confession.
Their ugliness is the exterior manifestation of all our sins and all our defects,
weakness, neediness, timidity in faith and sentiment, dryness in the heart, loathing
of the supernatural, the domination exercised by conventionalities and formulas,
exaggeration in individual and disordered practices, worldly luxury, greed, boasting, sulkiness, pharaisaism, bombast" (Positions et Propositions. Paris: Gallimard,
1934. Vol. II, pp. !'l!i!5-!'l!'l7).
And, in Contacts et circumstances: " .. One goes into the cathedral; and when
one has finished honoring the black Virgin, one turns and receives a sharp pain
in thE1 heart. On each side of the incomparable vase, at the foot of these sublime
walls, there are two marble statues, a memorial, it seems, of a recent pilgrimage:
St. Joan of Arc and St. Louis.
" Is it really marble? Is it not rather the crumb of bread? Camphor? The pulp
from parsnip? Hardly solidified paraffin? One would say that it has not been
accomplished on decent matter with the chisel and the hammer, but with strokes
of the tongue. Moreover, one is ashamed of the truly imbecile expression on these
two sacred faces, thus presented for the veneration of the faithful.
"What, then, is the cause of this almost total eclipse, not only of talent and
taste, but also of dignity and true piety, which has been occurring in Christian art
for a century? One would say that the body of the most profound and most sublime truths in the world, illustrated by incomparable poets and by an illustrious

434

BERNARD BRO

point of departure, one can take part in beauty or music, yet
neither is a person. They have no existence independent from
the work of art. They are never anterior to it, they can only
coexist with the work which bears them. And never does beauty
or music decide to be interpreted in such or such a way.
On the contrary, in the prayer of the Church and in every
Christian mystery, God is anterior to His ambassadors. And
this changes everything. It is the Spirit of God Who has
selected such events and not others to bear His message, to
represent Christ's prayer, and therefore our own prayer.
Moreover, it is He and He alone Who can give us the key
to the meaning. Here there is an inversion in comparison with
all human pedagogies. Only God can give us an eye capable
of discerning what there is to learn, since it is He Who decided
this order. This is what explains anew that this prayer, even
if it be common, should be interior or not exist at all. If, animated by God at each instant, this new glance does not exist,
there is nothing further to understand. There is no longer anything to "hold together," in the exact meaning of the word
" sym-bol." 26 Our Lord Himself would solemnly affirm this:
lineage of superhuman heroes, is explained to abnormal children by a half-idiotic
nurse who makes them stupid . . .
" It would be unjust to blame only the faithful. One must take account also
of the clergy, who, for too long a time, kept themselves confined from the world
in a frightened and defensive attitude and who thought that art could be separated from sin only by being separated from life. The gesture became ugly because
it was empty. And yet the priests spend their life in reading and meditating upon
the strongest, most energetic, and boldest poetry in the world, namely, that of the
psalms and the prophets. In France they exercise their ministry in generally excellent buildings. Prayer and the contact with the highest spiritual realities and with
the most moving human miseries open their heart and their mind to all that is
great, good and beautiful.
" Whence, then, comes this aversion for strong expression, for holy and strong
reality, such as God has made it, if sin has deformed it? How can one otherwise
explain that, during a century which has accounted for so many great artists,
such as Rude, Carpeaux, Rodin, Bourdelle, Maillol, and Despiau, the ecclesiastical
authority has never had recourse to them, but to tombstone and lavabo cutters,
to suppliers of images from which the bones have been removed?" (Contacts et
circonstances. Paris: Gallimard, 1940, pp. 46-50).
26 One can only rejoice in seeing theological analysis be attentive
on this point
again. Among the best studies, let us insistently call attention to those of A. Pie,

PLACE OF THE LITURGY IN CHRISTIAN

SPIRITUALITY

435

" The disciples came up and said to him, ' Why dost thou
speak to them in parables? ' And he answered and said, ' To
you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given . . . seeing they do not see,
and hearing they do not hear" (Matt. 13:11, and Luke 8: 10).
St. John Chrysostom makes the following commentary on this:
I hear that Christ has been crucified and at once I admire His
love for men; the infidel hears it, too, and deems that it is mere
folly ... Knowing baptism, the infidel thinks that it is only water;
not considering only what I see, I contemplate the purification of
the soul achieved by the Holy Spirit. The infidel deems baptism
to be a mere ablution of the body; I believe that it also makes
the soul pure and holy, and I think of the burial, the resurrection,
sanctification, justice, redemption, the adoption of the children
the heavenly inheritance, the kingdom of heaven, the gift of the
Holy Spirit. 27
Thanks to the actual and interior distribution from the
Spirit of God, then, it is a matter of holding together the
mystery which is given to me and yet disguised by the sensible
reality which I see. If the Church has dared to add two words
(" mystery of faith ") to the formula of consecration, this is
only to remind us that faith alone gives us a hold on the true
reality present here. And is it necessary to deem that Christ's
words (" Seeing they do not see ") and the corresponding
words from Chrysostom apply only to unbelievers? Are not
our celebrations of Mass frequently tainted with a practical
atheism, a certain absence of God?
"Pour une mystique des mysteres," in Supplement de La Vie Spirituelle, November,
no.
pp. 377-396; "Les mysteres de Dieu," in La Vie Spirituelle, April
1945, pp.
"Un mystere de Dieu: le prochain," in La Vie Spirituelle, October, 1945, pp.
And, among many others, especially: A. M. Roguet, Le Sar:rements, Somme theologique of St. Thomas, French translation, 1945, "Notes doctrinales," pp.
377; and I. Dalmais, Initiation a la liturgie. Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1958, pp.
sqq. Among the non-ecclesiastical works, in preference to the well-known works
of Mircea Eliade, E. Cassirer, Cl. Levi-Strauss, etc., we suggest the grating, but
very provocative work by R. Barthes, Mythologies. Paris: Seuil, 1957 (as long as
the reader modifies more than one conclusion contained therein).
27 St. John Chrysostom, In I Cor., Homil. I, no. 7 (Cf. Migne, Pat1·ologiaGraeca,
Vol. 61, col. 65).

436

BERNARD BRO

A Twofold Conclusion
Far from judging the quality of the liturgy on the basis of
the exterior, we discover that it has value only on the basis
of the interiority presiding therein. Here there is no longer the
question of a facile euphoria found in a common excitement,
or of the ardor due to the novelty of a popular fad ....
The whole matter consists in uniting every prayer in
the heart of Jesus and, when you. cannot do more, in
being content with opening your void to the Lord so
that He might fill it with His own prayer. But we
submit to being empty only with great difficulty!
Everyone always wants to have something to give.
Even in prayer, perfection consists in knowing how to
receive everything in one's destitution. 28
The first phase of common prayer is rigorously identical with
the conversion which inaugurates all private prayer: learning
to receive, to listen, and to leave problems in another's hands,
to His attention, in all matters. Divine Office exists, not just
for some sensible or spiritual satisfaction (although there can
surely be some wonderful satisfactions therein) , but because
it concerns God and the encounter with God.
Reciprocally, the same interiority commands every act of
private prayer and gives it its necessary collective value, if it
is Christian. The Spirit cannot have me pray except in the
communion of Saints. He Who led Christ into the desert and
directed His ineffable dialogue with the Father, has taught us
about the presence of His brethren as involved in this dialogue. It is enough to reread the sacerdotal prayer. 29 In contemplating His Father, Christ was brought back to those
R. Voillaume, Au coeuT de masses, Paris, 1950, p. 90.
In a striking way, this manifests to us a truth which it is always good to
remember, namely, how false and useless it is to have the primacy of the common
good over the particular good intervene to prove the superiority of a collective
act over an interior act. For the truly interior act is never confine(/J within the
limits of the individual, but, at the summit of personal activity, it is open to the
whole community of spirits.
28

29

PLACE OF THE LITURGY IN CHRISTIAN

SPIRITUALITY

437

whom the Father had given Him, "What my Father has
given me is greater than all" (Jn. 10: 29).
We can thereby understand the basic originality o£ liturgical prayer. Human pedagogies, especially o£ the intellectual
order, alas, do not necessarily accomplish what they teach.
To be intelligent, it is not enough to pursue courses. A professor can be very precise in producing an excellent disposition o£ the media, so that each student might approach the
light by his own efforts. But the originality o£ the Christian
mysteries comes from the £act that the realities bearing the
message can produce what they say.
Christ's physical presence in a living manner testified to, and
accomplished for those whom He encountered, the message
o£ His Father's mercy. One could touch His garment and be
healed, look at Him and be freed from spiritual blindness, ask
Him and be saved £rom sin.
The Sacraments pursue this energetic presence. I£ man does
not place any obstacle, they will accomplish the salvation o£
the person who receives them. (There are nuances concerning
requisite attention, which is very slight and passive in certain
cases, and yet God's power will have worked.)
Thus is it also in the case o£ the liturgical and common
prayer o£ the Church. It has the true power to accomplish
something which surpasses its exterior and visible appearance.
As the Sacraments it has, in its own way, the mission to
give salvation genuinely. This is the ultimate reason which,
contrary to what we are most habituated to do in our liturgical efforts, should urge us not to pass judgment on the exterior result, as well as not to have an exclusive and primary
concern about what is visible, since what is truly effected cannot be seen. Here we have an added motive £or not reducing the liturgy to a theatrical production, as well as to clearly
differentiate it from all non-Christian cult. Surely many other
liturgies can be more striking in dramatic expression, as, for
example, the Mexican initiations, Bantu circumcisions, or the
crowning of a queen! But, no matter how poor it seems on

438

BERNARD BRO

certain days, only the Christian liturgy can say: " Christ is
there; God, Who saves us and takes care of our lives, is there."
And this is true. In fact, it should not be forgotten that the
liturgy has its value more by what it accomplishes than by
what it manifests in a sensible way. The whole value of our
cult primarily comes, not from its capacity to signify, magnificent as this is, but from its efficaciousness. In the Christian order, the sign is related to cult more because it is efficacious, because it causes Christ's presence, than by what it
signifies immediately. In the concentration camps, the cult
was present especially by the Mass; and yet recall the conditions in which it was celebrated. If negligence is not involved,
the offering of Christ's Body can take place in the dust, and
what is essential in the cult will have been attained.
What is no less true is that, if Christ had not been present
as a sign, as the visible sign of God, Mary Magdalen, the paralytic, and the man born blind would not have been healed
and pardoned. Likewise, our liturgy can cause or accomplish
something pertinent to the mystery only if there is a visible
s1gn.
Now this sign can no longer be the humanity of Christ. At
the time when Our Lord lived among men, this humanity
was the sign summing up all divine presence. Since the Ascension, the physical Christ is no longer the sign of God for us,
since He is no longer there, since we no longer see Him. But
there is His "mystical" body. Henceforth all the saving signs
would be proposed to us by His mystical body. The signs of
salvation are now entrusted to the assembly of men who pray
in the name of His Son and are responsible for the Eucharist.
Moreover, the saving signs can have real power only if there is
this assembly. No matter how reduced it may be, this assembly
has become indispensable, so that I cannot confer baptism or
absolution upon myself, or celebrate the Eucharist all alone.
In this " community " condition of the Christian cult, let
us not see a mere, more or less agreeable, complement surviving after an attempt at private prayer. We have previously

PLACE OF THE LITURGY IN CHRISTIAN

SPIRITUALITY

439

said that it is the living milieu needed for the very existence
of all prayer. The significative value of the community is filled
with the mystery of God. The assembly of my brethren is the
sacrament which henceforth takes the place of Christ's physical presence. This assembly is what transmits belief in the
celebrated mystery, by safeguarding and regulating the tradition of this faith. This assembly is what assures the conversion, by obligating the individual to a true attention towards
" the other," whoever it may be. This assembly is what
assures us of our reconciliation with God, by offering us
the strength of this pardon which is capable of uniting
men. This assembly is what raises the human act of giving
thanks, by declaring that love has been stronger than every
division. This assembly is what will accomplish the final
human justice, by consecrating to God even that which arises
from the external activity of men, as a decisive sign of their
interior prayer.

*

*

*

*

Let no one, then, try any more to establish an opposition
between private and common offering in prayer. The existence
of each demands such an interiority that the unaided powers
of man cannot assure it. And yet, when this interior presence
is lacking, all prayer is only self-seeking, dramatics, or egoism.
Christ alone takes upon Himself all prayer, and by one sole
mean, namely, our fidelity to His Spirit living in the community of Saints. Henceforth, this is His own mystical body.
BERNARD BRo,

Editions du Cerf
Paris, France

0. P.

AN OBSERVER LOOKS AT THE SCHEMA
ON THE LITURGY

T

HE invitation issued by Pope John XXIII to that
part of Christendom not in communion with Rome
to send observers to the Second Vatican Council was
received by the world with great joy as an indication of the
Holy Father's concern for Christian Unity. The Ecumenical
Movement has, for many years, absorbed much of the time
and interest of large numbers of Christians; and plans for
bringing together some of the divided parts of Christendom
have been discussed and even (as in South India) brought
into being. But hitherto the Roman Catholic Church has felt
obliged to stand aside from these discussions and negotiations.
Her particular doctrine of the Church makes it impossible
for her to enter the arena of ecumenical debate, with the result that the rest of the Christian world has had to go its
own way, realising that the unity for which it was working
could be only incomplete and partial since more than half of
those baptised into the Name of the Lord Jesus would remain
outside it. In the Upper Room Christ prayed for unity, not
for duality; and no true unity can be achieved until all are
one.
The fact that the Church of Rome has now ventured a little
into the field of ecumenical discussion is, therefore, of the
greatest significance, and has aroused much hope in the minds
of men, both believers and non-believers. The setting up of a
Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, the sending o£
observers to the General Assembly of the World Council of
Churches in New Delhi, and now the invitation to other
Churches to send delegate-observers to the Vatican Council
have taken the ecumenical movement into a new sphere, a
new dimension.
440

THE SCHEMA ON THE LITURGY

441

Although the Pope has made it clear that the ultimate objective o£ the Council is unity, he realises as well as anyone
else that this goal is a long way off. He has therefore set
before the Council an immediate objective which will set the
Church on the path which, it is hoped, will lead in the right
direction. This immediate objective is renewal o£ the Church's
life, out o£ which will come better understanding, and so a
greater desire £or co-operation and unity. In the Schemata on
which the debates in the Council are based, and in many o£
the speeches made there, these two objectives have been constantly referred to. Although the meetings o£ the Council are
private and confidential, the observers are allowed to be present, and every one o£ the fathers who gets up to speak knows
that his words will be noted by us and perhaps even quoted
in the reports which we send in £rom time to time to the heads
o£ our respective Churches. There is no doubt that the presence o£ thirty to forty observers has had a considerable influence on the way in which the Council has progressed, and will
continue to do so in the months which lie ahead.
The divisions o£ Christendom are nowhere more apparent
than in the sphere o£ worship. In the English country town
where I live, with a population o£ 10,000 souls, there are six
places o£ worship. There is the cathedral (the old church
founded by St. Wilfrid in the seventh century and containing part o£ the original structure) and a nineteenth century
church, both o£ which belong to the Church o£ England. There
are also a Roman Catholic church, two Methodist churches,
and a building where the Assembly o£ God worships. This
means that the Christians in Ripon are divided into at least
£our different groups and are unable to worship together. The
same pattern would apply to any other English town. In the
United States there would probably be even more independent places o£ worship. To the outsider this seems ridiculous
-a fantastic waste o£ opportunity and o£ resources. Why,
then, cannot we all sink our differences and worship God
together in one building?

442

JOHN MOORMAN

We all know that there are many answers to these questions. Each " church " has its own form of worship, its own
customs, its own history. But these are largely the results of
division. The divisions themselves rest upon much deeper
issues than that, though they are reflected in the forms of
worship. The lex 01·andi is closely connected with the lex credendi: a man worships according to what he believes. That
is why John Selden could write in his Table Talk: "To know
what was generally believed in all ages, the way is to consult
the liturgies, not any private man's writing. So, if you would
know how the Church of England serves God, go to the Common Prayer Book, consult not this or that man."
As worship is nowadays a divisive influence among Christians, so it is one of the first things that must be considered
when we look forward towards the goal of unity. It was perhaps for this reason that the first subject to be discussed by
the Vatican Council was that of the Liturgy. It was a long
debate which lasted a whole month, and many suggestions
were made to the Liturgical Commission for its consideration. The Schema on the Liturgy is a remarkable document.
As a student of history, and, to some extent, a traveller in
Europe, I know something about Roman Catholic worship,
and I was delighted to see how far the Schema was prepared
to go in reforms which, to an Anglican like myself, seem so
much to be desired. Not all the proposals in the Sch'ema will
receive the approval of the Council; but if only some of them
are accepted, it will bring the worship of the Roman Catholic
Church far more into line with that of other parts of Christendom. Renewal, in the field of worship, is clearly desirable.
Most Christian communions now have some sort of "liturgical movement " which is affecting their life and paving the
way towards Christian unity. So far as the Anglican Communion is concerned, our worship is in many ways much
closer to that of the Roman Church than is that of any other
body. Thomas Cranmer did not " compose by himself " the
Book of Common Prayer (as stated by Archbishop Jaeger of

THE SCHEMA ON THE LITURGY

443

Paderborn in The Ecumenical Council, the Church and Christendom, p. 153). A very large percentage of the Prayer Book
is the language of the Missal, the Breviary and the Pontifical,
translated into English. But Cranmer worked on certain principles, adapting his material to make it consistent with what
he believed about God, the Church and Christian worship.
When I read the Schema on the Liturgy, I realised that
many of the proposals which were to be put before the Council were in fact points which we ourselves had accepted four
hundred years ago. These would include greater simplicity, the
use of the vernacular, more reading of Scripture, more preaching
and catechising, the part assigned to the laity in the Mass,
the possibility of administering the Sacrament under both
kinds. As I read this Schema I was reminded of a notable figure
in English life some years ago-Arnold Dolmetsch. Dolmetsch
was a musician with a great knowledge of, and love for, the
music of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. He hated
the pianoforte, as a coarse modern invention, and devoted
much of his time to making virginals, clavichords and harpsichords, on which his beloved music could be played. But
he was always trying to improve on his instruments, with the
result that people used to say that if he went on improving
the harpsichord long enough he would one day triumphantly
invent the pianoforte. In reading the Schema on the Liturgy,
I could not help thinking that if the Church of Rome were
to carry out all the reforms proposed they would one day
find that they had triumphantly invented the Book of Common Prayer!
The fact that on line 4 of the Proemium to the Schema
on the Liturgy there is already mention of the " separated
brethren" shows that those who drew up this schema were
bearing in mind the wishes of the Holy Father that the Council should keep in mind the goal of Christian unity. The proposals which are made are consequently of the utmost interest to us who can look at them, as it were, from outside. There
are five propositions on which I would like to comment.

444

JOHN MOORMAN

(I) The plea for more and varied use of Scripture in the
Liturgy. This was one of the principles underlying the compilation of the Book of Common Prayer in 1549 and subsequent years. The result is that the Anglican liturgy is heavily
impregnated with material from the Bible. This is particularly noticeable in our daily offices of Matins and Evensong,
where something like ninety percent of the material is taken
straight from the Bible. In the course of a year an Anglican
priest in saying his daily offices reads through the Old Testament once and the New Testament twice. This is a heavy
assignment; but it means that his teaching and preaching, and
his whole attitude to life, are bound to be deeply and fundamentally influenced by the Scriptures. This is fully in accordance with his ordination vows when the Bishop asks him:
Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain sufficiently all
doctrine required of necessity for eternal salvation through faith
in Jesus Christ? And are you determined, out of the said Scriptures, to instruct the people committed to your charge, and to
teach nothing, as required of necessity to eternal salvation, but
that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved
by the Scripture?
To which he replies: "I am so persuaded, and have so determined, by God's grace."
But the daily offices were meant for the laity as well as
the clergy, and in fact are said by a number of devout lay
men and women each day, either in church or at home. In
the preface to the Prayer Book (1549) we find it stated that
the purpose of such planned and comprehensive Bible-reading was the edification of the people and the encouragement
to right-living. Thus it states that the intention is not only
that the clergy should be "stirred up to godliness themselves,
and be more able to exhort others by wholesome doctrine and
to confute them that were adversaries to the truth"; but also
" that the people (by daily hearing of Holy Scripture read in
the Church) might continually profit more and more in the
knowledge of God, and be the more inflamed with the love
of his true religion."

THE SCHEMA ON THE LITURGY

445

I cannot, of course, quote from the Schema on the Liturgy
now before the Vatican Council, but there is much in it to
show that the fathers wish to increase the amount of Biblereading in the worship of the Church, as well as to test what
is said in church by the standards of Scripture. All this is of
intense interest to the observers, most of whom come from
communions where Bible-reading and biblical theology are at
the very centre of their religious life.
(2) The place of the Laity in the Wo1·ship of the Church.
The title of our Anglican manual-the Book of Common
Prayer-is a constant reminder that when the priest and congregation meet together for worship they are engaged in a
corporate action in which all have a part to play. But Roman
Catholic worship, with its emphasis upon the Sacrifice of the
Mass, is bound to separate the priest, to some extent, from
the people. To the outsider, the Mass often appears to be an
act of worship performed by the priest on behalf of the congregation. The congregation can " assist " in various waysthey can pray with the priest, they can be " spiritually co-operative" at every point of the service, they can add their
prayers to those of the celebrant and so swell the volume of
praise which ascends to the throne of grace. But there is inevitably a "great divide" between priest and people, so that,
at times, the priest must go ahead (silently) with his prayers,
while the congregation occupy their minds as well as they can,
by saying the Rosary or using some other form of devotion.
In most Christian communions there is a desire to make
the liturgy more of a corporate act, as it clearly was in the
primitive Church. We have all heard o£ the "dialogue Mass,"
of the efforts to bring the congregation more and more into the
action o£ the liturgy, to give them certain rights and responsibilities. All this is now becoming much more feasible since,
at any rate in the West, the vast majority of the worshipping
community are not illiterate peasants, but educated people
fully capable of playing an active and intelligent part in the
worship of the Church.

446

JOHN MOORMAN

It is clear from the Schema that the Liturgical Commission
is very anxious to pursue this idea. Phrases such as "worshipping with the mind as well as with the voice," " simplicity
and clarity," " corporate worship rather than private Masses "
all point in the same direction, and are of great interest to
the observers most of whom come from Churches where such
phraseology has long been familiar.
We Anglicans have always been committed to the idea of
a " dialogue Mass." Our Prayer Book was composed at a
time when education was spreading in England, and it envisaged an increasingly literate congregation. Our Eucharist is
essentially a dialogue, in that there are sixteen points at
which the congregation is directed to break in. These include
saying with the priest the Nicene Creed, the Gloria, the Lord's
Prayer and the Sanctus, and joining in a general Confession
and in certain versicles and responses. Besides this, there has
been in recent years an attempt, in many parishes, to bring
the laity more and more into the liturgy by saying together
with the priest the Collect for Purity (with which our Eucharist begins), the Prayer of Humble Access immediately before
the Consecration Prayer, and parts of the Prayer of Oblation
or of Thanksgiving which come after the distribution of the
Elements. Further efforts to make the Eucharist more of a
corporate offering have been the adoption of the westward
position by the priest at the altar, the "offertory procession"
in which members of the congregation bring up the bread and
wine and hand them to the priest to offer them on the altar,
and inviting a layman to read the Epistle.
All this, of course, goes a good deal further than anything
suggested in the Schema. But the principle behind the liturgical movement in the Anglican Church and in the Roman
Catholic Church is the same: to enhance and deepen the corporate action of the liturgy. How far the bishops will be prepared to go along these lines is hard to say; but of the
speeches which were made when this Schema was under discussion, many were clearly pointing in this direction. There

THE SCHEMA ON THE LITURGY

447

was constant emphasis on the pastoral needs of the people.
Reference was made to the drift from religion and from worship, to the sense of remoteness, of not being wanted, which
so many feel. Even in the Mass there was the danger that
people would think that, so long as the sacrifice was offered,
it did not matter very much whether they were present or
not. Frequently the cry for greater simplicity was uttered.
Of course not all the fathers spoke with the same voice; but,
as an observer, I sensed all through this long debate that the
need for much greater simplicity and co-operation was deeply
felt.
The demand for simplicity and co-operation naturally led
to one suggested reform, which many would like to see. This
was (S) the Use of the Vernacula1·. To the observers, most of
whom were accustomed to a Vernacular form of worship, this
was naturally of great interest. Just because we lay so much
emphasis upon corporate worship, so we would never contemplate the use of a language which the congregation as a whole
would not understand. (Provision is made in the Church of
England for services to be said in Latin, but only in the universities and colleges where it would, presumably, be understood).
The use of the vernacular was one of the major reforms
which came about in the sixteenth century. The reformers
were all convinced that, if the people were to be taught to
worship, they must be able to follow the service. As the Preface to the Book of Common Prayer says:
Whereas St. Paul would have such language spoken to the people
in the Church, as they might understand, and have profit by hearing the same; the Service in this Church of England these many
years hath been read in Latin to the people, which they understand not; so that they have heard with their ears only, and their
heart, spirit, and mind, have not been edified thereby.

In any attempt towards liturgical reform the use of the vernacular would seem, at first sight, to be an obvious advantage. But the problem is not quite so simple as it looks. One

448

JOHN MOORMAN

bishop from Central Africa pointed out that, of course, it was
absurd that the Mass should be said in Latin in his part of
the world. Latin meant nothing to them and had no connection with their history or the origins of their language. But,
he said, in his diocese there were many different languages.
The only language they could all hope to understand was
Latin! This would apply perhaps only to certain parts of the
mission field; but even in the West, Latin can sound strangely
different when spoken by an Italian, a German and a New
Yorker-as many people listening to the debates in St. Peter's discovered. There is also the difficulty that a vernacular
language tends to get out-of-date. The language of our Book
of Common Prayer is the language of educated English people in the sixteenth century. We are now constantly being
told that it is unintelligible to people of the twentieth century,
who find phrases such as " sore let and hindered" or "regen
erate and grafted into the body of Christ's Church" quite
meaningless.
Although the Council fathers were by no means agreed
about the use of the vernacular, there was a general feeling
that it might well be employed in all the didactic parts of
the Mass, while keeping Latin for the Canon. This would
appear to be a satisfactory interim proposal, and would show
that the pastoral and corporate nature of worship was being
recognised. But I think the observers as a whole felt that,
eventually, the worship of the Church ought to be conducted
entirely in the language of the people if they were really to
be brought in as fellow-worshippers. As an American cardinal
said to me one day in Rome: " A man prays best in the language he learned at his mother's knee."
(4) The need of more p1•eaching. If the laity are to play a
bigger part in the worship of the Church, then they must be
instructed, and this means more preaching. The dual ministry
of Word and Sacrament is something which we are always
trying to preserve, though in fact there is always a tendency
to separate them. The great preachers of the fifteenth cen-

THE SCHEMA ON THE LITURGY

449

tury normally made their sermon an appendage to the Mass;
but since then, in both Catholic and Protestant traditions,
the Eucharist has not been considered the best time at which
to preach long sermons-though it is significant that in our
Prayer Book the only place where a sermon is ordered is at
the Eucharist or at an Ordination; there is no rubric requiring a sermon at Morning or Evening Prayer. In the past, the
tendency in the Roman Church has been for the main instruction of the people to be given outside the liturgical worship.
But there seems now to be a movement to bring the two together again. The Church is saying to people: "We want you
to understand and follow what is taking place in the liturgy.
This is your worship as well as that of the priest. He wants
to carry you with him: he wants to teach you about GodHis nature and His will-he wants your worship to strengthen
you to bear witness to your faith in a world which has so
largely forgotten God." This pastoral concern is wholly in
keeping with the Pope's wishes for the Council. It is also in
line with what we are trying to teach our people about the
meaning of worship and about the mission of the Church.
(5) Communion under both kinds. In New Testament times
and for many centuries after that it was customary to communicate the laity in both kinds. Cardinal Bona, writing in
1671, said: "The faithful always and everywhere, from the
very beginning of the Church even to the twelfth century,
communicated under the form of bread and wine." We now
know that this statement is not strictly accurate, and that
there were occasions when Communion was given to people
under the form of the bread only. But the general practice was
to administer the chalice to the laity until the promulgation
of the doctrine of Transubstantiation in the thirteenth century. From then onwards the chalice was generally withheld
from the laity in the Western Church. But this met with some
opposition, first from the Utraquists in Bohemia and then from
the sixteenth-century reformers who had no doubt that the
commands of Christ clearly meant that all communicants

450

JOliN MOORMAN

should receive both the bread and the wine, nor were they
impressed by the theory of concomitance put forward by the
Council of Trent. It is now the custom in all parts of Christendom, including the Eastern Churches of the Roman Communion to communicate the laity under both kinds, as we
saw for ourselves in St. Peter's when one of the Eastern rites
was being celebrated.
The administration of the Sacrament under both species
presents many problems, as those of us who practise it fully
realise. There is the danger of mishap or of irreverence; there
is the fact that it takes time; there is the fear of spreading
contagious diseases. But against all these we have to weigh
the words of our Lord: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son
of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you " (Jn.,
vi, 53: R.S.V.). Because of this clearly expressed intention
of Christ, we of the reformed churches feel that there is no
room here for argument. In spite of all the difficulties and
dangers we cannot ignore what our Lord has said. The Church
of Rome has for long felt able to interpret these words in a
different sense. But the fact that suggestions are now being
put forward for the restoration of the chalice to the laity,
under certain conditions and on certain specified occasions, is
naturally a matter of great interest to the rest of Christendom.
I have dealt with five of the proposals upon which the Vatican Council will have eventually to make up its mind, because these seem to me to be of particular interest to the
non-Roman Catholic world and to have special significance
in the cause of Christian unity. It is not for me to speculate
on how the fathers of the Council will vote on these things.
All I can say is that if the Council turns its back on all these
suggestions and fights for the preservation of the status quo,
it will inevitably drive the Roman Catholic Church back into
isolation from the rest of Christendom and so frustrate the
wishes of the Holy Father that the Council shall make a real
contribution towards that unity of all His disciples for which
our Blessed Lord prayed.
JoliN MooRMAN,

Bishop of Ripon
Ripon, Yorkshire, England

D.D.

THOMISM AND THE COUNCIL

P

OPE JOHN XXIII in convoking the Second Vatican
Council encouraged a spirit of renewal in the Church
today. The late Holy Father had in that same spirit and
context encouraged the study of Thomism:
The other matter that We want to propose for your consideration
seems more urgent and more important to Us because We are
looking forward to the celebration of the Second Vatican Council,
and We have been devoting a great deal of attention to making
proper preparations for it: the fact that the treatment and solution of moral questions according to the imperishable principles
of Aquinas is of great help in bringing about agreement and unity
among those interested in truth and charity. This fact is bound
to produce a great deal of the very richest fruit in the form of peace
for the Catholic Church and for the whole world.1
Obviously, a consideration of the Council should include a
discussion of Thomism in the Church; in fact, if the hopes of
John XXIII are to be realized, the study of Thomism is" first,"
"necessary," and to be done "carefully":
But if all these things that We desire so ardently are to come
about, the first thing necessary is to study the works of St. Thomas
carefully. And so we are very interested in seeing a steady growth
in the number of people who find enlightenment and learning in
the works of the Angelic Doctor. 2
A moment's reflection will urge other important reasons for
a consideration of Thomism in the Church. If the spirit of
the Church is to be renewed and revitalized in our day, then
the study of Thomism, which for centuries has been so much a
part of the spirit of the Church, must be approached anew.
Certainly, this has been the desire of all the Popes of the
1 Pope John XXIII,
Allocution to the Fifth International
Sept. 18, 1960. Tr. from The Pope Spealcs, 6 (1960) 826.
2 Ibid., 827.

451

Thomistic Congress,

ANTHONY D. LEE

modern era. The veritable mountains of documents suggesting, urging, directing the study and use of St. Thomas to meet
modern problems, and the number of admonitions to and corrections of those scholars who have neglected or wandered from
the principles and method of St. Thomas are sufficient evidence
that the Church does not consider Thomism a relic of the past. 3
The " bringing up to date " of the life of the Church in no way
implies a neglect of the wisdom of the Common Doctor; on the
contrary, such a spirit demands a deeper study of Thomism
and a revitalization of its doctrine.
We would be very happy to see what We might term the "treasure " of the precepts of St. Thomas " unearthed " in greater
measure each day, to the great benefit of Christianity, and also
see his writing reach a much wider public in a language and form
perfectly suited to the spirit and temper of our times.4
Another, and perhaps the most important, aspect of Thornism in the Church today is the consideration of Thomism in
the Church tomorrow. The revitalization of the life of the
Church which is enkindled today must be kept burning through
the sound theological learning of priests and seminarians.
Pope John has also pointed out his interest in seeing especially that the young find " enlightenment and learning in the
works of the Angelic Doctor," and " not only priests or scholars
but also people interested in the liberal arts. Above all we
would like to see this path followed by more of the young
people chosen for the work of Catholic Action and holding
higher degrees." 5
I£ the work of the council is to bear lasting fruit it must be
especially concerned with the education of clerical and lay
leaders of tomorrow. It is, without doubt, the glory of Thomism
that as a system it can sustain the quality of revitalization
• See S. Ramirez, 0. P ., "The Authority of St. Thomas," The Thomist, XV
(195i'l), 1-109. This is a complete study of the authority of St. Thomas supported

by numerous quotations from Papal documents.
4 Pope John XXIII, Zoe. cit.
5

Ibid.

THOMISM AND THE COUNCIL

453

with lasting strength, but it is also a challenge to Thomistic
philosophers and theologians-not a challenge to fight, but to
grow. This challenge presents itself to those devoted to the
study of St. Thomas, for revitalization must come from within
Thomism.
The fact is that the challenge is perhaps even greater today
than in the time of Pope Leo XIII because new obstacles have
arisen to impede the spirit of Thomism. Father Fabro, recalling Pope Leo XIII's restoration of the philosophy of St.
Thomas and founding of the Pontifical Roman Academy of
St. Thomas, says significantly:
The Academy, which the generous Founder wishes dedicated
above all to the defense and diffusion of the philosophical principles of the Aquinate, today has broadened into three sections
. . . nevertheless it has no less maintained its original program
which today presents itself, by a sort of historical paradox, as
somehow even more urgent than at its inception.6
At the time of Pope Leo XIII's restoration, Thomism was
merely being neglected; now, however, there is a definite and
vocal anti- Thomism stirring among Catholic intellectuals which
weakens appreciation for the very principles and method which
are its foundation. 7
Another impediment to a genuine Thomism arises from the
historical development within the school itself. The restoration initiated by Pope Leo XIII eventually took a direction
which did not always adequately represent the authentic
Thomistic tradition. The methodology of the manualists, especially, has created for some moderns a distorted notion of
Thomism.
Certainly the recent anti- Thomism is related to the false
but popular notion of " scholasticism " derived from some of
the manualists. But the complaints against Thomism cannot
be sustained by harking back to the manualists, for today the
effort among Thomists is not simply to re-echo the manualists,
• C. Fabro, "L '80° della Aeterni Patris," Osservatore Romano, Aug. 6, 1959.
7 This will be discussed in the second part of the paper, pp. 459 ff.

454

ANTHONY D. LEE

but rather to recover the " total Thomas." The problem of
anti- Thomism actually goes much deeper. It has its roots in
a new philosophy rather than in a simple complaint against
the " late Thomism."
The modern question of the status of Thomism is fundamentally a question of the adequacy of Thomism to meet
present needs. Must Catholic philosophers, and consequently
theologians, accept the inevitability of pluralistic philosophy
and concede that to update the formulations of doctrine new
philosophies must be employed to create a new theology? This
question is being raised by sincere Catholic intellectuals. While
a Thomist might be tempted to dismiss it as patently absurd
because of his respect for the unique authority granted to St.
Thomas by the Church or because of his understanding of
the intrinsic value of Thomism, still it is a question which
must be answered before a genuine Thomistic renewal can be
widely effected.
An adequate answer is not being attempted here; however,
we do wish to investigate these problems and in the course
of the discussion suggest some approaches to their solution
which might lead to a revitalization of Thomism both in philosophy and theology. We will review briefly I) the attitude
of the Church toward Thomism; 2) the anti- Thomistic attitude in recent Catholic thought; and 3) the role of Thomism
in the renewal of the spirit and life of the Church.
I.

THE ATTITUDE

oF THE MoDERN CHuRCH TOWARD THE

DocTRINE

OF ST. THOMAS

The unique place of Thomism in the modern Church cannot be appreciated without considering the major statements
of all the modern popes from the time of the encyclical of
Leo XIII, Aetemi Pat1-is, to the recent Motu Proprio of Pope
John XXIII," Dominicanus Ordo." 8
8 See footnote
3. The following is but a sampling of Papal documents referring
to the place of St. Thomas in the Church:

THOlVIISM

AND THE COUNCIL

455

However, we do not wish this discussion of the place of St.
Thomas in the Church to focus on the extrinsic canonical and
magisterial authority of the Church, but rather on the reasons
intrinsic to Thomism which have motivated the juridical support and magisterial endorsement by the Church. Except for
Canon 1366 # 2, seldom has there been an encyclical, exhortation, directive or decree on Thomism which has not at the
same time given the intrinsic reasons for such pronouncements.
And the Church has incomparable credentials to judge of the
intrinsic value of philosophy and, of course, theology. The
Church not only makes a judgment of various philosophies as
any historian of philosophy might, but more, she is a living
witness of all the philosophies that have been devised and proposed in the Christian era. The Church has witnessed the
Pope Leo XIII
Encyclical Aeterni Pab·is (1879), Acta Leonis XIII, ed. Bonne Presse s. d.,
I, 50.
Brief Cum hoc sit (1880), Acta, I,
Encyclical Officio Sanctissimo (1887), Acta, I,
Brief Gmvissime Nos
cf. Berthier, LVII,
Pope St. Pius X
Motu proprio Sacrorum Antistitum, A.A.S.
(1910),
Motu proprio Doctoris Angelici, A.A.S. 6 (1914), 336-341.
Motu proprio In praecipuis (Jan.
1904), Acta Pii X, ed. Bonne Presse,
I,
Pope Benedict XV
Motu proprio Sacrae Theologiae, A.A.S. 6 (1914), 690-691.
Letter to Cardinal Bisleti, A.A.S. 8 (1916),
Pope Pius XI
Apostolic Letter Officium Omnium, A.A.S. 14
454-456.
Encyclical Studiorum Ducem, A.A.S. 15
309-324.
144-145.
Apostolic Letter Unigenitus Dei Filius, A.A.S. 16
Apostolic Constitution Deus Scientiarum Dominus, A.A.S.
(1931), 253.
Pope Pius XII
Letter Quandoquidem, A.A.S. 34
96-97.
Encyclical Humani Generis, A.A.S. 42 (1950), 561-578.
Allocution Third International Thomistic Congress, A.A.S. 42 (1950), 734-735.
Exhortation Menti Nostrae, A.A.S. 42 (1950), 657-704.
Pope John XXIII
Allocution Fifth International Thomistic Congress, Sept. 18, 1960, tr. Pope
Speaks 6 (1960),
Motu proprio Dominicanus Ordo, Osservatore Romano, March 7, 1963.

456

ANTHONY D. LEE

birth and suffered £rom the errors of false philosophies; in turn,
she has seen the last agony of dying philosophies while preserving all that is true. From this continual flow of philosophies over the centuries she has singled out Thomism with
special approval. The Church does not make Thomism a
sound, safe and true philosophy by approving and prescribing
it, but she approves and prescribes it because Thomism possesses certain qualities which make it a total and adequate
philosophy capable of aiding and supporting sound theology.
The qualities which a philosophy must possess in order to
serve theology are reducible to five. First, it must be based
on principles which are universal in scope and absolute in
character, otherwise that philosophy cannot encompass reality
nor distinguish truth from error. Secondly, it must utilize a
philosophical methodology, i.e., an objective scientific procedure which is capable of sustaining a causal investigation o£
all aspects of reality on various levels of being, of determining
the natures of things from proper principles, and through such
principles of attaining a knowledge o£ the ultimate cause o£
being, of truth, of goodness, of order. Thirdly, from its first
principles and scientific investigation, philosophy must establish an ordered body of knowledge about the universe and its
causes. Fourthly, it must incorporate a reflective process
enabling it to be self-critical of its conformity with the reality
from which its philosophical process began. Fifthly, an adequate philosophy must be open to new data and discoveries
as these are encountered in human experience.
The universal validity of its principles, the soundness of the
method of investigation and proof, the conformity o£ its doctrine to the real order-these are the criteria of a sound and
safe and true philosophy. These are intrinsic to the philosophical system itself, and a system stands or falls upon its intrinsic
character.
The Church has provided abundant witness that Thomism
contains these five qualities: (1) By reason of its principles
Thomism has a solid foundation and universal extension, not

THOlVIISM AND THE COUNCIL

457

limited to one age but adaptable to the needs of all times. 9
Moreover, these principles have been drawn from the most
eminent philosophers and doctors of the Church and tested
through long reflection and application. 10 "Sound reason cannot neglect such wisdom, nor can religion suffer it to be diminished in the slightest." 11 (Q) By reason of its method Thomism
has the power to penetrate objectively the meaning, causes,
and nature of the universe. There is in the philosophy of
St. Thomas
so to speak a certain natural Gospel, an incomparably solid foundation for all scientific construction since the chief characteristic of
Thomism is its objectivity. Its constructions or elevations are not
those of a mind cut off from reality, but are constructions of a
spirit which follows the real nature of things. 12

(3) St. Thomas presents an ordered body of knowledge about
the universe.
• " This is the outstanding point about his doctrine, that, being based upon and
arranged according to principles which have the widest extension, it is not limited
to one period only but is adaptable to the needs of all times" (Leo XIII, Cum
hoc sit, lac. cit., 112).
10 " Moreover, if we speak of these principles of Thomas in general and as a
whole, we must declare that his doctrine contains only those principles which the
most eminent philosophers and Doctors of the Church discovered through prolonged reflection and discussion regarding the particular reasons determining
human knowledge, the nature of God and creation, the moral order, and the pursuit of the goal of human life. Such brilliant patrimony of wisdom which he
inherited from those before him he perfected and augmented by the almost angelic
quality of his mind. Then he applied it to prepare, illustrate and protect sacred
doctrine in the minds of men. Sound reason cannot neglect such wisdom, nor
can religion suffer it to be diminished in the slightest" (Pius X, Doctaris Angelici,
loc. cit., 337). Also see In praecipuis, Acta Pii X, ed. Bonne Presse, I, !'14.
11 Pius X, Doctoris Angelici, lac. cit., 338.
19 Pius XI, Allocution to University Students, Feb. 1927, in M. Cordovani, " San
Tommaso nella parola di Pio XI," Angelicum, 6 (1929), 10.
Also on the question of method in St. Thomas, " The question of method is of
capital importance. In order for science to be strict and luminous, method is all
important. When the method is erroneous and the path is lost, progress is impossible; and therefore a guide is necessary. Thomas is the guide, the Dux in via"
(Pius XI, Allocution to professors and students, Angelicum, Nov. 12, 1924, cf.
Xenia Thomistica, III, 600-601, Rome, 1925).

458

ANTHONY D. LEE

There is no part of philosophy which he [St. Thomas] does not
handle with acuteness and solidity. He wrote about the laws of
reasoning; about God and incorporeal substances; about man and
other things of the sense; and about human acts and their principles. What is more, he wrote on these subjects in such a way
that in him not one of the following perfections is wanting: a full
selection of subjects; a beautiful arrangement of their divisions;
the best method of treating them; certainty of principles; strength
of argument; perspicuity and propriety in language; and the power
of explaining deep mysteries. 18
(4) Thomism can be self-critical through mature reflection
without discarding its heritage. It can be enhanced with a
richer language, strengthened with more precise distinction,
divested of less useful scholastic aids, enriched with the advances of modern scholarship, 14 " but never may it be overthrown or poisoned with false principles or be regarded as a
great, but obsolete relic." 15 (5) Thomism can be open to
new data and experience which will advance theological learning without diminishing its contents. The Church praises theologians who develop Thomism through learned commentaries
and investigations of new points developed within Thomism
or discovered in the light of modern scholarship. 16 But she
cautions against imprudent haste in accepting new ideas.
13 Leo XIII,
Aeterni Patris, Zoe. cit., 60. Also consider the following: "His
doctrine is so inclusive that he has embraced within himself as in a sea all the
wisdom flowing from the ancients. Whatever truth was spoken or discussed by
pagan philosophers, by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, by great men who
lived before him, he not only thoroughly investigated, but augmented, perfected
and disposed with such a clear penetration of ideas, such an accurate system of
argumentation ... that he appears only to have left the power to imitate but
not to excel " (Leo XIII, Cum hoc sit, loc cit., 112) .
" ... those especially who study him in philosophy and theology, and specifically students divinely called to the priesthood ... ought to follow Thomas
as leader and master, recalling that there is an innate excellence in Thomistic doctrine and a singular force and power to cure the evils which afflict our age " (Pius
XII, Letter to Fr. Gillet, March 7, 1942, A.A.S. 34 [1942] 97).
14 Pius XII, Humani generis, lac. cit., 572.
15 Ibid.; See also Pius X, Motu proprio In praecipuis, Jan. 23, 1904, lac. cit.
16 " 'Ve entirely approve and commend the measuring, where necessary, of new
discoveries in studies, with ancient wisdom. It is perfectly legitimate to investi-

459

THOMISM AND THE COUNCIL

In regard to new questions which modern culture and progress
have brought to the forefront, [Catholic scholars] should submit
them to careful research, but with the necessary prudence and
caution. They should not think, indulging in false irenism, that
the dissident and erring can happily be brought back to the bosom
of the Church if the full truth found in the Church is not sincerely
taught to all without any corruption and diminutionY
All this may be summed up in the words of Pope Pius XII:
As the experience of many centuries proves, the method and doctrine of Aquinas is singularly preeminent for teaching students
and for investigating obscure truths. His doctrine is in wonderful
harmony with divine revelation and is most effective for safeguarding the foundations of the faith as well as reaping usefully and
safely the fruits of sound progress. 18
II.

ANTI- THOMISM IN RECENT CATHOLIC

THOUGHT

A. A New Philosophy

If one views only the unqualified support which the Church
has given Thomism in recent decades, it might seem strange
that an almost violent anti- Thomism should arise among
Catholic intellectuals. Yet, it might well be said that the history of anti- Thomism began at the first public lectures of
St. Thomas at the University of Paris in 1252. Every age since
has seen both the approval of St. Thomas by the Church and
in some degree or another a stirring of anti- Thomism. The
seeds of this present attitude were germinating in the nineteenth century. But here we are not so much concerned with a
detailed study o£ the historical development leading up to the
gate freely those matters upon which well known interpreters of the Angelic
Doctor usually dispute; new findings from history should be applied for fuller
understanding of the texts of Aquinas." Pius XII, Discourses to Seminarians at
Rome, May 24, 1989. Also, "We did not disapprove, indeed, of those learned and
able men who bring their learning and industry and the riches of new discovery
to the aid of philosophy: for we clearly see that such a course tends to the
increase of learning" (Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris, loc. cit., 62).
11 Pius XII, Humani generis, loc. cit., 578.
18 Ibid., 578.

460

ANTHONY D. LEE

recent attitude, as with an understanding of the content of
the present attitude and the philosophy embodying it and
making it attractive to the modern mind.

Existentialism
A key to understanding the radical rejection of Thomism is
found in the philosophy of existentialism. As most philosophical movements, existentialism was born of a need. The need
as Soren Kierkegaard saw it in his own nineteenth-century
Denmark was for a return to a full Christian life. Kierkegaard's polemic was meant to restore a living faith in the hearts
of Christian people in place of the exaggerated formalism and
secularism supported by a rationalistic Hegelian philosophy.
Kierkegaard emphasized subjectivity, the living of doctrine,
over objectivity, the knowing of doctrine.
While some scholars believe that Kierkegaard himself respected the objectivity of doctrine, this is not true of many
who were to follow him. After the First World War, nineteenth-century rationalism was rapidly declining in favor
among many Europeans. And just as there was a foment in
social and political relationships which was to lead to World
War II, so too, there was a foment of ideologies which was to
lead to a battle against philosophical systems including those
of Kant, Hegel, Engels and Marx. By the end of World War II
Western Europe was ready to espouse a new philosophy. The
opportunity had already been presented with the rediscovery
of Kierkegaard, especially in France. The direction existentialism was to take, however, was hardly that contemplated by
Kierkegaard. Breaking with the philosophical systems which
were discredited, existentialism was free to delve into the subjective, and it was soon divided into almost as many branches
as there were philosophers. Breaking also with any vestige of
Christian faith, it became a new atheism. What had begun as
a Christian movement with Christian hope in Kierkegaard
degenerated into an atheistic cry of despair in Sartre and of rebellion in Camus.
To define existentialism as a philosophy is almost impossible

THOMISM AND THE COUNCIL

461

because of divergencies and inconsistencies among those claiming the title, as well as among those who apparently fall within
its ambit but disclaim its title/ 9 The thought of Kierkegaard
and Marcel, for example, for whom Christianity is the focal
point of any true existentialism, is radically different from that
of Sartre and Heidegger, for whom atheism is integral to existentialist thought. This does not mean that existentialism can
be adequately divided simply by distinguishing Christian and
atheistic forms. Great gulfs separate individual existentialists
and various admixtures of phenomenology, personalism, and
vitalism further complicate the picture.
" Existentialism " is used here in its widest signification.
Charlesworth has offered a broad definition which touches the
core of the matter:
The essence of existentialism, we may say, lies in its insistence
upon the primacy of subjectivity. First, in the speculative order,
. . . this primacy of subjectivity means the rejection of all systematic thought-of the abstract and the necessary and the universal-for the sake of the individual and singular, and unique
and ineffable experience of the subject. . . . . Secondly, in the
practical or moral order, the order of moral action and choice,
this primacy of subjectivity means the rejection of any a priori
morality and the affirmation of the complete freedom, the complete gratuitousness of the liberty of the subject. 20

In its almost complete dedication to the subjective, the psychological awareness of experience, in its emphasis on the unique
and particular ethical situation, in its practical concern for the
good rather than the true, existentialism has made some acute
observations about man and his existence.
Its intense subjectivity has yielded reliable insights into the
conditions of human existence. 21
19 J. Marias,
"Ortega and the Idea of Vital Reason," Dublin Review, Winter
(1949)' 51.
2 ° Charlesworth,
"The Meaning of Existentialism," The Thomist, XVI (19.53)
473.
21 Vincent
Martin, 0. P., Existentialism, Compact Study, 1962, Washington:
Thomist Press,

462

ANTHONY D. LEE

Existentialism has spotlighted the human condition, and especially the evils which individual men suffer in the present
human situation, and the need for a personal commitment to
the practical, ethical life to do something about it. A child with
indigestion will cry of pain and knows something should be
done to relieve it, but he can tell neither why it hurts nor what
should be done. Existentialism in much the same way has
served to point out some of the ills in man and society, but it
has neither carefully analyzed the causes nor offered an adequate remedy.
However valuable the existential insights into the human
condition may be, they do not constitute a philosophy of man,
of the world, of divinity; nor do they eliminate what has been
solidly established in the past concerning God, man and the
universe; nor do they substitute for a total synthesis of philosophy in the present. Existentialism's rejection of systematic
philosophy, its disgust with the metaphysical, its scorn for the
speculative processes of the human mind, its skepticism even
in the physical sciences, its neglect of objective truth, its denial
of lasting values-all these divest it of the tools with which to
cope with the whole of reality and thus plunge it into absurdity
and despair. As Fr. Vincent Martin has observed:
It has not provided a balanced and totally human orientation of

man to the universe in which he lives, to his fellowman with whom
he dwells, or to God to whom he is ultimately ordained-in short,
to objective reality. 22
The vision of existentialism is too limited, its approach too
subjective, its cure too radical to be of lasting value. The intellectual crime of existentialism is not that it concentrates on the
subjective elements of the human condition-this is simply
a matter of a thinker's choice-but that it insists that this
inwardness is an adequate philosophical enterprise which can
neglect the wisdom of the past and render systematic philosophy both meaningless and useless. When Gabriel Marcel
•• Ibid.

THOMISM AND THE COUNCIL

463

said: "We do not study problems of philosophy, we are those
problems," he touched a truth more than he realized. Existentialism, rather than offering a solution, has in reality posed
a problem and a challenge to philosophers and theologiansa challenge to re-evaluate and further investigate the subjective, psychological, ethical experiences of man, but to do this
according to the very principles which existentialism rejects,
the principles of systematic philosophy and theology. The rise
of the " new theology " was due to the fact that the challenge
was not met, and precisely because the principles o£ the perennial philosophy were neglected.

B. A New Theology
The atmosphere in which the New Theology was created
The "new theology," as it has come to be known/ 3 was not
simply the adoption o£ existentialism with a Catholic label,
nor a slavish imitation of existentialist thought. Yet it was
born in the same ideological atmosphere and was deeply influenced by the same attitudes. The motives of the new theologians were quite Catholic, but their methods were existentialist. The motives in fact were apologetic; the leaders in the
movement were seriously and sincerely engaged in trying to
save the Catholic faith amidst the political, social, intellectual
and religious confusion of pre-War and post-War Europe.
The war stopped theorizing, but it influenced the French theologians, many of whom through the resistance movement were
thrown into contact with non-Catholics. This encounter convinced them that the only way non-Catholics could be attracted
to the Church was by presenting her in terms of the vital and
existential. 24

This of course was the time of ascendancy of French existentialism, with its subjectivism and rejection of systematic
23 Pope Pius XII termed the movement we are discussing here a "new theology "
in an allocution to the Jesuit General Congregation, A.A.S. 38 (1946) , 384-388.
24 G. Weigel, S. J., "The Background of llwmani Generis," Theological Studies,
XII (June, 1951),

464

ANTHONY D. LEE

theology and philosophy. The " new theologians," anxious to
contact existentialist philosophy on its own terms and sympathetic with its opposition to the " rationalistic formulations of
decadent scholasticism," compromised orthodoxy. Louis Charlier denied the scientific validity of human reason working on
matters of faith. 25 D. A. Greenstock summarized the position of
Charlier thus:
The strict theological deduction as the result of a scientific use of
human reason is therefore impossible. Theology, as such, is therefore reduced to a simple explanation of revealed truth in terms
which need not necessarily have a permanent value, but which
can, and indeed should, change with time and according to the
demands of circumstances. This doctrine was far too dangerous
to pass unchecked, and in 1942 the Holy Office banned the writings
in which it appeared. 26
After the work of Charlier was banned, 27 the approach was
modified. No longer was the validity of human reason denied.
In fact the value of human reason, and even of scholastic
method, was accepted. Turning to an historical argument,
however, the new theologians again rejected scholasticism, not
because of its being contrary to the faith, but because of its
being antiquated and of no use to the faith in modern times.
It is quite evident, indeed, that scholastic theology is out of contact with these categories [historicity and subjectivism]. The world
of scholastic theology is the immobile world of Greek thought,
wherein its mission was to make incarnate the Christian message.
This conception does retain a permanent truth which is always
valid, at least in so far as it consists in affirming that the free
decision of man or man's transformation of his own conditions of
life are not a sort of absolute beginning, through which man
creates himself, but are rather his response to a vocation of God
of which the world of essences are the expression. Yet scholastic
theology makes no place for history. Furthermore, since it affirms
reality to be in essences more than in subjects, it has nothing to
•• L. Charlier, Essai sur le probleme theologique, 1988.
26 D. Greenstock,
"Thomism and the New Theology,"
(1950)' 570-571.
A.A.S. 84 (1942), 87.

The Thomist, XIII,

THOMISM AND THE COUNCIL

465

do with the dramatic world of persons, of the concrete universals
which transcend all essences and are not distinguished save through
existence, which is to say, not according to the intelligible and
understanding, but rather according to value, love and hate. 28
By 1946 the destruction of scholastic philosophy and theology had taken on the proportion of a victorious crusade.
M. de Gaudillac confirms the definitive passing of " neoThomism." 29 Hans von Balthasar wrote an epitaph for St.
Thomas and the Fathers of the Church:
"A great teacher, esteemed, celebrated, held sacred, canonized
and buried." (Peguy)
One ought not to imagine that others are, in our eyes, capable
of resisting better such treatment. We turn toward a past further
removed, without believing, however, that we give back life to a
dying past, that it suffices to exhume the "Greek fathers" and
adapt them-for what it is worth-to the needs of the modem
soul. We do not have the candor to prefer to a "neo-scholastic
theology" one that is "neo-patristic." No historical situation is
ever absolutely like any of the others which have gone before.
Therefore no situation can furnish its own solutions as a sort of
pass-key which would be apt for solving our actual problems.30
Ortega y Gasset was moved to say to an audience packed into
the Barcelo cinema, Madrid, practically on the eve of the
encyclical Humani generis:
I am able to announce to you that the Roman, Catholic, Apostolic
Church is about to relinquish both Aristotelianism and Thomism,
and that a new theology is being forged which has close relationship with that of the Greek Fathers. 31
Although the recognized leaders of the "new theology"
movement did not intend to introduce novelty into Catholic
doctrine, it was inevitable that this would happen because of
some of the approaches adopted. Our purpose here is not to
•• P. Danielou, "Les orientations presentes de Ia pensee religieuse," Etudea
(April, 1946), 14.
•• M. de Gaudillac, Dieu vivant, III, US fl'.
80 H. von Balthasar, Presence et pensee,
viii.
81 Ortega y Gasset, reported in YA (Madrid), Nov. M, 1949.

466

ANTHONY D. LEE

investigate doctrinal aberrations which did occur. An adequate
literature exists. 32 Rather, the aim here is to identify the fundamental causes of the errors, for while the " new theologians " did
disavow the particular unorthodox doctrines, 33 they did not
remove the underlying causes. These causes are reducible to
an implicit acceptance of the basic tenets of existentialism,
i.e., the primacy of subjectivity and the rejection of systematic
philosophy and theology. From the existentialist viewpoint,
the world is in constant flux and so also the philosophy which
studies the changing world. The Catholic, therefore, must
"baptize" whatever is current and discard the perennial philosophy as useless for meeting the changing human condition.
Since there is no stable and enduring philosophy, the subjective experience of human life and religious phenomena is the
32 " Among the doctrines proposed as novel mention must be made of the denial
or at least the doubt of the possibility that human reason without the help of
revelation and grace can prove the existence of a personal God by arguments
drawn from the created universe ; the denial that the world had a beginning; the
affirmation that creation of the world is necessary in that it proceeds from the
necessary liberality of divine love; the denial of God's eternal and infallible foreknowledge of the free actions of man; the denial of the transmission of original
sin from the one Adam to all men ... ; the asserted theory of polygenism;
perversion of the Catholic doctrine of sin . . . ; the doctrine of free elevation of
human nature to the supernatural order; denial of transubstantiation and of the
Real Presence . . . being reduced to pure and simple symbolism; grave doubt
whether matter and spirit differ; the acceptance without any discretion of the
philosophical doctrine of existentialism and evolutionism. All these points Pius XII
condemned in his encyclical Humani GeneTis, and other recent documents and
decreed that they are forbidden in Catholic Schools" (S. Ramirez, 0. P., op. cit.,

103-104).

An account of tendencies associated with the new theology can be found in
T. Deman, 0. P., "Tentatives francaises pour un renouvellement de Ia theologie,"
Revue de l'Unive1'Site de l'Ottawa, 20 (1950), 129-167; also, cf. Donnelly, S. J.,
Theological Studies, Sept., 1947 to Sept. 1950; M. Labourdette, 0. P., "La theologie
et ·ses sources," Revue Thmniste, xlvi (1946), 353-371; P. Hamel!, "Humani Generis: Its Significance and Teaching," Irish Ecclesiastical Record, lxxv (1951), 289-302.
33 " De Lubac, who is certainly one of the best-known names connected with the
phenomenon, hated the word 'new theology,' and he insisted that he and his
friends were not rejecting an 'old theology,' to substitute for it a 'new' one."
G. Weigel, S. J., "The Background of Humani Generis," Theological Studies, XII
(1951)' 220.

THOMISM AND THE COUNCIL

467

ultimate criterion of truth in any given personal situation or
historical circumstance.

Eclecticism which resulted
Existentialism did not offer the Catholic a system of philosophy, but it did create an attitude and approach to sacred
doctrine which opened the door to the influence of other new
philosophies. Doctrinal deviations of the last thirty years are
not all traceable to existentialism and the new theology, but
they are the result of the eclecticism created by the primacy of
subjectivity and the rejection of perennial philosophy. By
1950 the theological picture was not simply a portrait of a
"baptized" existentialism but an impressionist portrait of
eclecticism.
In this portrait a multitude of philosophical approaches can
be discerned; they include phenomenology, evolutionism, vitalism, personalism, and historicism. Pluralistic philosophy
was taken for granted. Any attempt to form a new philosophy
and create a new theology, however subjective, unscientific, or
limited, was applauded prematurely and without critical analysis. The wisdom of the past was discarded in an effort to
meet the unique " existential " problems of contemporary
man. 34
••" Today those problems have assumed such dimensions and caused such a
multiplicity of tragic conflicts (some already existing, other imminently threatening), that the whole of human thought, and not merely Catholic thought, is profoundly affected by them. The effect is shown in our contemporary confusion and
unbalance. . . . All that is essential in man's life and being is under challenge:
his liberty, his personality. Every slightest development, political, social, or economic, has ideological implications; and the ideologies influence enormous masses
to action and mutual opposition ....
" In the situation I have outlined above the attitude of thinkers is revolutionary;
they make haste, as though to catch up with the course of events, if possible,
to influence it. Such precipitation, whose generosity is not always equalled by
ponderation of thought, too frequently ends in a confusion or even a distortion
of values and a misunderstanding of their essential hierarchy. In this tendency one
notes, first of all, a savage and deliberate break with the past. There is an increasing recession from the living sources of our traditional culture . . . and above all,
an almost panic fear of not appearing to be up to date, of appearing to be reac-

468

ANTHONY D. LEE

New Pastoral Movements
In the midst of this intellectual turmoil, however, other
movements were taking shape which were later to prove bene:6.cial to the life of the Church. Social, economic, political
upheavals, especially influenced by atheistic communism and
existentialism, were turning man's mind from religion. The
Church had suffered great losses both in her intellectual influence on the minds of men and in her pastoral care of souls.
Theologians were desperately trying to reawaken the life and
spirit of the Church in a world torn by two wars, ideologically
divided, and struggling toward reconstruction in an atmosphere
of secularism, atheistic marxism and existentialism. The practical problem of recapturing the minds and hearts of men in
this atmosphere can hardly be appreciated in the United States,
which has not been physically, socially, politically, ideologically
mutilated by two major wars. But this was the atmosphere in
which the Church struggled throughout Europe, with courageous efforts being made in apologetics and pastoral care to bring
the Christian life to troubled souls.
Interest in the Bible had increased with the advances of
modern scripture scholarship. Catholic thought turned toward
its source and a vital reawakening to the works of God among
men. In teaching and preaching, the truths of faith were not
presented in terms of scientific theology; this, as a highly developed form of sacred doctrine, would not reach the widest
audience. Rather these truths were presented in terms of the
" good news " of the gospel, introducing the minds of the
unskilled to the faith and drawing the hearts of the indifferent
to a Christian life. Here were the seeds of renewal, of the
modern kerygma, salvation history, and the new catechesis.
The needed emphasis on the pastoral care of souls was served
by a developing liturgical movement which would draw the
tionaries; and hence an anxiety to jettison a priori any modes of thought which
are considered traditional, and which are examined less to see whether or not they
are valid than whether they are contemporary." Gaetan Bernoville, "Contemporary Trends in Catholic Thought in France," Dublin Review, 224, Fourth Quarter (1950), IS-14.

THOMISM AND THE COUNCIL

469

laity into more vital participation in the solemn mysteries o£
the Church o£ Christ; by a renewed concern £or sacramental
theology with special stress on the role o£ the recipient; by a
renewed emphasis on homilectics; by a fuller realization o£ the
organic unity o£ the faithful through the doctrine o£ the Mystical Body; by the opening o£ a dialogue with other Christians
to strengthen the religious spirit and promote unity as a more
powerful force in a secularist world. All these movements,
today bearing fruit, developed under the influence o£ conflicting ideologies and with the uncertainty o£ " first steps " taken,
unfortunately, without the aid o£ systematic theology.

Humani g'eneris
This was the scene at the time Humani generis was issued.
Many good movements within the Church had been undertaken by zealous theologians anxious to serve the faith in
trying circumstances, but these movements, and the theorizing behind them, were weakened by doctrinal deviations
resulting from the rejection of systematic philosophy and
theology. The underlying commitment to inwardness, the exclusion of objective norms, and the resulting eclecticism all
deprived the theoretical efforts of solid, safe, doctrinal foundations and the pastoral movements of prudent, balanced action.
The warning o£ Pope Leo XIII had not been heeded:
But since man is drawn by imitation, we have seen these novelties
lay hold of the minds of some Catholic philosophers, who, undervaluing the inheritance of ancient wisdom, have chosen rather to
invent new things than to extend and perfect the old by new
truths, and that certainly with unwise counsel, and not without
loss to science; for such a manifold kind of doctrine has only a
shifting foundation, resting as it does on the authority and will
of individual teachers. For this reason it does not make philosophy
firm and strong and solid, like the old philosophy, but, on the contrary, makes it weak and shallow.35
The very heart of the difficulty, the reason for the confusion
and loss of proportion and balance in the " new theology " was
•• Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris, loc. cit., 62.

470

ANTHONY D. LEE

the rejection of the wisdom o£ the past, especially Thomism.
This was pointed out by M. Labourdette in 1946.36 Pope
Pius XII focused on the essence o£ the problem in two allocutions that same year. 37
36 " We do not belong to the company of those who think that the theological
wisdom of St. Thomas will be shattered by this contact [with communism, existentialism] or that, met by types of reflexion which are altogether different ... it
will become somewhat dispossessed of the place it has come to own in the
Church ...
" What we regret, however, among many of them [new theologians] is that the
bringing to light of the riches of the patristic tradition or the endeavor to find a
formulation with life are joined to an evident depreciation of scholastic theology.
Far from being opposed to this latter, either in the amplitude of its traditional
data or in the essays of a renewed presentation . . . we think for our part that
very pJ"ecisely in the form given it by St. Thomas, scholastic theology represents
the truly scientific state of Christian thought. This does not imply any disdain
for that which went before. This can never be emphasized too much; and the
Thomistic synthesis was the first to benefit from it. Neither does this imply that
the teaching of St. Thomas ought simply to be repeated word for word: it is
obvious that in such circumstances it would be inaccessible to many; and it is
quite certain that one would be depriving himself of beautiful and authentic
progress due to the further work of Christian (and non-Christian) thinkers. It
remains true, however, that this progress must be built on previously laid foundations-at the risk of destroying its own basis. It [the progress] continues the work
but does not destroy it; neither does it replace it. It is the prolongation of a
synthesis, not a complete overhaul, recomposing according to the categories of
modern thought a new "representation" of the world, since all those which have
gone before have become irremediably old. Yes, a lot of things are old; ... but
what we do not admit is that theological wisdom is borne away by the wave of
impermanence and that what has been determined cannot be held as definitiveand this is not the same as saying closed and not susceptible of being perfected.
It implies on the contrary their capacity to assimilate progressively new results of
reflexion." M. Labourdette, 0. P., "La Theologie et ses sources," Revue Thomiste,
56 (1946), 360.
37 Pius XII, Allocution to the Jesuit General
Congregation, A.A.S. 38 (1946) ,
384 f.; Allocution to the Dominican General Chapter, ibid., 387.
In the latter Pius XII said, . . . " The very foundations of our perennial
philosophy and theology are being called into question. . . . Men argue about
science and faith, their nature and mutual relations. . . . They talk about truths
revealed by God, and question whether the mind with all its acumen can penetrate into them and can deduce further truths from them. Briefly, this is at stake:
whether the structure which St. Thomas Aquinas erected beyond and above all
time, by putting into an orderly synthesis elements supplied by those who in all
ages have cultivated Christian wisdom, stands upon solid rock; whether it is still
flourishing and valid; whether it can still defend and protect the deposit of Catholic

THOMISM AND THE COUNCIL

471

Hurnani generis, issued by Pope Pius XII in August 1950,
was a confirmation and elaboration for the whole Church of
what he had said in these two allocutions, one to the electors
of the Society of Jesus and the other to the delegates to the
General Chapter of the Dominican Order. The purpose of
Humani geneTis was to clear up the confusion which surrounded
the first efforts of the new theologians. 38 In the Encyclical,
Pius XII not only pointed out specific errors which had arisen,
but indicated the causes of the errors and directed the remedy
to be applied. The causes may be summarized briefly as flowing from evolutionism and existentialism, from contempt for
scholastic theology and philosophy, and from an uncritical
eclecticism. 39 By way of remedy the late Holy Father required
that no new opinions be accepted without weighing them with
painstaking care, and that the principles, method, and doctrine of St. Thomas be the guide for bringing truth to light and
reaping "safely and usefully the fruits of sound progress." 40
faith and can, even in our day, serve to orientate the further progress of theology
and philosophy. The Church certainly answers in the affirmative." (Emphasis
added.)
38 J. Levie, S. J., "L'Encyclique
'Humani generis,'" Nouvelle revue theologique,
LXII (1950), 788.
39 " The fictitious tenets
of this evolution which repudiate all that is absolute,
firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which,
opposing itself to idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name
of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with the existence of individual
things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences....
"They allege ... that our perennial philosophy is only a philosophy of immutable essences, while the contemporary mind must look to the existence of things
and to life, which is ever in flux. While scorning our philosophy they extol other
philosophies of all kinds, ancient and modern, oriental and occidental, by which
they seem to imply that any kind of philosophy or theory, with a few additions
and corrections if need be, can be reconciled with Catholic dogma. No Catholic
can doubt how false this is, especially where there is question of those fictitious
theories they call immanentism, or idealism, or materialism, whether historic or
dialectic, or even existentialism, whether atheistic or simply the type that denies
the validity of reason in the field of metaphysics. . . . They reproach this philosophy taught in our schools for regarding only the intellect in the process of
cognition, while neglecting the function of the will and the emotions. This is
simply not true" (Pius XII, llumani generis, loc. cit., 578-577). (Emphasis added.)
40 Ibid., 578.

472

ANTHONY D. LEE

It should be noted that the movements which were taking
shape were not condemned. In fact, efforts to " prudently
enrich " philosophy and theology by " building truth upon
truth " were warmly encouraged. This important Encyclical
looked forward to the renewal being fostered today.
The Pope is not eager to condemn persons; he desires but to halt
the spread of errors. His eyes are not turned to the past but to
the future. He is concerned, not with fixing the responsibilities of
yesterday, but with definitely marking out the positions that have
to be held so as to guarantee the healthy condition of Catholic
thought. 41

Effectiveness of Humani generis
Humani gen'eris was an effective instrument of correction
and guidance at a critical time, especially with regard to the
errors which were explicitly mentioned. No theologian of renown who had been identified with the " new theology " persisted in teaching any specific doctrine declared to be erroneous
and false. A tacit, yet genuine, tribute to these theologians is
that immediately after the encyclical no individual resisted,
nor were any writings banned. Zealous servants of truth and
devoted sons of the Church, " they so modified their language
as to free their assertions of unorthodox meaning." 42
Far from stultifying enthusiasm and zeal for the new movements within the Church Humani generis, we believe, has
served the present renewal most effectively, insofar as it did
check unorthodox doctrines associated with the early development of these movements. Released from the grip of doctrinal
aberrations, the apologetic and pastoral movements, begun
in confusion, were able to take more definitive shape within a
framework of orthodoxy. Competent theologians, some earlier
involved in questionable opinions, now turned to more careful
and scholarly efforts to provide the liturgical, kerygmatic,
sacramental, ecumenical movements with more solid doctrinal
foundations and with wiser direction. The further clarification
of issues and more prudent approach has stimulated a wider
"J. Levie, lac. cit.

•• Weigel, op. cit., p. 220.

THOMISM AND THE COUNCIL

473

interest in the pastoral and ecumenical movements and paved
the way for renewal in the life of the Church so ardently desired and energetically promoted by Pope John XXIII.
Pope Pius XII had forestalled the development of the " new
theology." It had never really formulated a body of doctrine,
and it is doubtful that an organized theology could have resulted from such a subjective, relativistic, eclectic approach.
In its incipient stages only scattered and disparate doctrines
were treated from the new approach. The dissolution of such a
weak theological body devoid of internal structure and organization was quickly effected by Humani generis.
Though the body of the " new theology " readily succumbed
to the wise judgments in Humani generis, the subjectivism and
anti-scholastic spirit underlying the new doctrines still lingered
on " in younger addicts to the movements who rlid not possess
the learning and intelligence of the leaders." 43 The spirit of
revolution dies slowly, especially when it can subtly associate
itself with genuine renewal.

Influence of new theology in the last decade
Certainly some of the excessive existentialist positions and
related eclectic novelties had been checked by Humani generis.
Yet Pope Pius XII realized that the spirit dies hard and he
warned," But we know also that such new opinions can entice
the incautious." Since he wrote these words the influence of
the new theology has been more disguised, subtle, and difficult
to discern. Yet a careful study of recent literature reveals that
a harmful subjectivism, with its contempt for scholasticism in
the speculative order and its voluntarism in the practical order,
still enjoys currency. The spirit which was clearly discernible,
but limited to a few thinkers, has now filtered down to a more
general audience, including many of the laity, and in countries
previously unaffected. Its influence is more extensive, if
perhaps less radical, than it was in
For example, sub•• Ibid. Fr. Weigel was pointing out here that this was a danger.
averred that his warning has not been heeded.

We have

474

ANTHONY D. LEE

jects explicitly treated by Humani geneTis such as evolutionism,
historicism, existentialism have become issues o£ general interest and intensive theological discussion only in the last ten
years in the United States. Often these subjects are discussed
as i£ Humani generis were already archaic and simply not up
with recent developments, even when the " recent " developments are merely translations o£ some previous works or wider
distribution of the thought contained in them.
To evaluate accurately the influence of the " new theology "
on recent Catholic thought is a difficult undertaking. Certain
subjectivist and voluntarist attitudes traceable to the " new
theology" have a voice in almost every theological discussion,
and certainly in every Catholic movement of our day. This is
not to say that the majority o£ theologians have been so influenced, but sufficient numbers have been affected so as to cloud
basic issues. The harmful intrusion often takes place within
the context o£ scholasticism and, as it were, under the very
title o£ Thomism. Without a complete system of his own, the
existentialist theologian works within an established system,
being satisfied merely to engage in a subtle attrition against
basic principles of traditional philosophy and theology. Further, the difficulty o£ making an evaluation is compounded by
the £act that individual authors are affected in different degrees
and various ways; thus no general statement is verified uniformly of such authors. Their works do not possess a clear,
determined, theological position and, consequently, the influence defies definition.
However, focusing on the point o£ interest in this article,
the attitude toward Thomism, we find a reflection of the contempt that characterized the "new theology." The approach
is indeed modified, with the suggestion of a " new theology "
being £or the most part conscientiously avoided, but subtler
devices are now being directed against Thomism. Sometimes
the call is £or a "new philosophy " 44 to replace Thomism; this,
44

E. Foye, "Is Thomism the Only Answer?", The Catholic World (Sept. 1960),

355-361. Mr. Foye maintains that the prescription of the Church to teach Thomism

THOMISM AND THE COUNCIL

475

of course, presupposes pluralistic philosophy .45 Historical and
critical methods, supposedly lacking in St. Thomas, are now
said to justify a synthesis different from scholasticism. 46 Sometimes an " excessive Aristotelianism " in the system of St.
Thomas falls under the scorn of the moderns. 47 The complaint that Thomism is too essentialist and lacks interest in
the existing subject is still common/ 8 although this complaint
was dismissed as false by Humani generis. 49 Basic principles of
Thomism are declared to be useless or harmful, or to be rejected in the light of modern science or existential insights.
Hylomorphism, which could hardly be called incidental to
Thomistic philosophy, has been thus disposed of/ 0 and this
in her schools should not be taken to mean a rigid Thomism or to discourage
attempts to develop a. new philosophy as a complete a.nd adequate substitute for
Thomism.
45 " Does not the interpretation
we have presented imply an acceptance of 'philosophical pluralism,' i.e., that more than one philosophy can validly present itself
as ' true,' and actually be ' true? ' Philosophical pluralism is here accepted as
theoretically plausible." Ibid., 360.
46 " What
I find lacking in the Thomistic synthesis ... and in speculative
theology as a whole-are historical and critical methods and approach. In modern
education and in modern intellectual world these have a place in the training of
the educated man which they did not have in the thirteenth century. . . . The
historical and critical attitude exhibited by St. Thomas . . . does not meet the
standards of modern historians and critics. . . . For this a theology of the layman,
as it is now called, different from the scholastic synthesis as it is currently taught
in seminaries, seems necessary." J. L. McKenzie, S. J., "Theology in Jesuit Education," Thought (Autumn, 1959), 353-354.
47 See note 53.
48 " ••• the Thomistic line of thought
shows a certain lack of interest in the
existing subject, in the concrete existent. The object holds the field. The trouble
is (and this is the basic quarrel of modern existentialism with Thomism) that as
soon as we make existence an object it vanishes as the existence of a subject. It
is no longer existence, but thing, chose; no longer dynamic, but static." G. Tavard,
A. A., "Christianity and the Philosophies of Existence," Theological Studies, 18
(March, 1957), 6.
49 See note 39; also cf. note 37.
50 "The demands of knowledge that is certain may force a rejection of a particular Thomistic doctrine, as in our day hylomorphism has come under fire as a
result of discoveries in the physical realm." E. Foye, op. cit., 359. Also, "Schillebeeckx's distinction of a double moment in sacramental structure has released
the theology of the sacraments from the state of petrification in which scholastic

476

ANTHONY D. LEE

in spite of the fact that pope, philosopher, and scientist find it
useful and enlightening in scientific research. 51 The "classical
notion of ' sign ' " is found to be quite useless in a renewed
sacramental theology, 5 2 while "instrumental causality" can
be dispensed with unless we choose to think in Aristotelian
categories. 53 Another way of rejecting Thomism is to engage
in a theological investigation of a problem which is allegedly
so new that all the wisdom of the past had missed its point,
or of a problem which traditional principles and methodology
supposedly can no longer approach; this procedure is simply to
ignore the fruits of the past. 54 It is hardly theological scholarship, or, as Pius XII has urged, "building truth upon truth."
hylomorphism had sealed it." G. C. Smit, "The Moment of Transubstantiation,"
Theology Digest, VIII, 1 (Winter, 1960), 41.
51 " The theory of matter and form ... is capable of illuminating
the requirements of modern science with a light which closely agrees with the results of
experimentation."
Pius XII, Address to International Thomistic Congress, Sept.
14, 1955, tr. The Pope Speaks, II (1955),
" The discoveries and theories of the passing centuries have not overturned
that doctrine, but rather look to it to introduce intelligibility and order into the
confused maze of modem facts and theories." M. Glutz, C. P., "Order in the
Philosophy of Nature," The Thomist, XXIV (1961),
" The great quantum physicist [Heisenberg] ... urges a return to the Aristotelian concept of primary matter, such as espoused by Thomas Aquinas, to
clarify present obscurities in interpretations of quantum theory." W. A. Wallace,
0. P., Einstein Galileo, and Aquinas, Compact Studies, 1963, Washington: The
Thomist Press,
••" The classical notion of ' sign,' as used in our manuals of sacramental theology was derived by the medieval scholastics from a small philosophical work
of St. Augustine: a sign is something which, once it is known, leads us to the
knowledge of another reality. This is in fact a very poor philosophy of 'sign' or,
as we from now on prefer to call it, symbol. It is quite useless." P. Fransen, S. J.
"Sacraments:
Signs of Faith," Worship, XXXVII (Dec.
39.
68 " If our line of reasoning
is correct, we could henceforth dispense with the
notion of 'instrumental causality,' which, as it seems to us, has done so much
harm, and is doing so still. We concede, however, that the notion of 'instrumental
causality,' so long as it is correctly explained, would seem to be the key-concept in
this chapter of sacramental theology if we choose to think in scholastic and Aristotelian categories." Ibid.,
64 C. Williams,
0. P., alleges that Karl Rahner has proceeded in this fashion
in his Theological Investigations, Vol. I. Cf. review of this book in The Thomist,
XXV (July,
450.

THOMISM AND THE COUNCIL

477

A more common approach, though just as subtle, involves the
selective use of the words of St. Thomas to support a position
quite alien to Thomism,S5 or to intimate an extreme position in
a polemic. 56
This is only a sampling of the manner in which the " new
theology," especially with regard to its anti-Thomistic bias,
influences modern theological and philosophical writing.
Granted that care is taken to avoid the errors explicitly outlined in Humani generis, still the same spirit prevails. The
same harmful effects flow from anti- Thomism, whether it is
the extreme position which totally rejects the validity of reason in matters of faith, or the mitigated position which simply
suggests that Thomism is useless in the modern world.
Harmful effects of the influence of the "new theology"

Several harmful effects flow from the influence of the " new
theology."
First, if the existential suggestions of modern theologians
are followed, Catholic theology will be deprived of fundamental
principles, the scientific character of its methodology will be
destroyed, and the total synthesis-its sapiential vision of the
whole of sacred doctrine, the understanding of its elements
according to their own proper principles, and the intrinsic relation of its parts-will be lost. In short, the principles, method,
and doctrine which the Church to this day has adopted for her
own will be discarded and we will be left with that toward
which existential influence, whether knowingly or unknowingly,
is moving, namely, subjective voluntarism.
The second harmful effect, which follows immediately from
the first, is an eclecticism which chooses from ancient and
modern alike without concern for the development of doctrine
through its entire history. The great theological works are
employed only when a selected quotation supports the new
55 " St. Thomas,
almost as if he were presenting the Lutheran heresy, stated
the fundamental principle on this matter very clearly." Fransen, op. eit., 48.
56 " In connection with this St. Thomas developed a parallel of his own which
Ibid., 35.
might be called 'existential.'"

478

ANTHONY D. LEE

subjective polemic. Scholasticism is openly scorned and, under
the guise of historical criticism, the formulations of the councils and the monumental contributions of the medieval Church
can be explained away. The result is the rejection of traditional
formulae which the Church has always employed in defining
doctrine. 57
The third harmful effect is the weakening of the Church's
authority. Pius XII pointed out this danger in these words:
Now contempt for the terms and the concepts used by scholastic
theologians leads naturally to the weakening of speculative theology, which they consider to be devoid of all true certainty since
it rests on theological reasons. Unfortunately these advocates of
novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect
of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church
itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic
theology. 58
Father Gustave Weigel, S. J., elaborated the same point twelve
years ago, 59 and went on to show two other ways in which the
authority of the Church can be weakened:
They [the authorities] can still be accepted by the simple device
of interpreting their edicts in the light of an existential theology.
Second they [the existentialist theologians] will reflect that all
authority in human society is necessarily conservative, reluctant
to change. This inevitable shortcoming of authority will have to
be patiently born by the Catholic but it will not perturb him.
. . . Such a theory, obviously never expressed in so many words,
makes the position of those in authority somewhat uncomfortable;
for their authority is revered and never denied, but their instructions will not be obeyed. 60
57 Pius XII warned of this harmful effect as early as 1946. "Much has been
said, not always with sufficient realization of the implications involved, about a
new theology which goes on evolving with the constantly evolving universe, 5o
that it is always progressing without ever arriving anywhere. If such a view is
to be admitted, what is to become of Catholic dogmas that can never change,
what is to become of the unity and stability of the faith? " Pius XII, Allocution
to the Jesuit General Congregation, A.A.S. 38 (1946), 384 ff.
58 Pius XII, Humani generis, loc. cit .. .')67.
59 Weigel, op. cit., QQ8.
•• Ibid.

THOMISM AND THE COUNCIL

479

The fourth harmful effect flowing from a selective eclecticism
is the impression that any theological insight, no matter how
limited in scope or applicability, can be the basis for constructing a totally new and complete synthesis of Catholic theology.
The theologian who becomes enraptured with one aspect of theology, who lacks a total and integrated vision of sacred doctrine, is quite likely to attempt to construct a theology based
on his limited vision. The result will be a distorted and poorly
proportioned sum of theology.
The fifth harmful effect is what might be called the "cult of
ambiguity." For many enthusiasts, the condition of theology
in the Church today is to be praised because so many new ideas,
new approaches, are being discussed and pursued. Theological
activity is taken for theological development, intellectual excitement is taken for progress, and mere curiosity is taken for
studiosity. Serious thinkers, however, are disturbed by the
condition of theology in the Church today, insofar as much
effort is being wasted and great minds are pursuing avenues
dangerous to the health of the Church. Certainly those theologians who reject scholasticism to pursue eclecticism, who
engage in reconstructing a theology divorced from the heritage
of scholasticism or Thomism, are contributing more confusion
than light. Without the solid foundation and integrated structure of a theological synthesis, their insights cannot find due
place or proper proportion in the total theological vision. Their
introduction of new terminology prevents evaluation or critical
analysis. Thus, one truth seems to contradict another. Old
ideas are clothed with new terms to update theological expression, while new ideas are clothed in old terms to disguise innovation. The greatest theological need today becomes one of
clarification.

III.

THE RoLE OF THOMISJVI

IN THE RENEWAL oF THE

SPmrr AND LIFE OF THE CnuRcH
Such clarification can only be effected by a careful selfexamination undertaken both by Thomists and their modern

480

ANTHONY D. LEE

critics. The Thomist cannot a priori reject all criticism of
Thomism as it has been presented in modern times; nor can
he deny the value of recent advances in historical criticism,
empirical sciences, and positive theology; nor can he neglect
the pastoral need of our times. To do any of these would be
to betray the spirit of St. Thomas which he should be revitalizing. The modern critic cannot a priori reject a genuine Thomistic philosophy and theology because he may have some legitimate complaints about manuals; nor can he deny the value of
a scientific synthesis of sacred doctrine according to the principles and method of St. Thomas; nor can he neglect the theological foundations of the pastoral renewal. To do any of
these would be to destroy the renewal he wishes to foster.
A. Moderate A. pproach to Revitalization

Unfortunately, present labels serve only to promote a divisive
spirit. We hear of "conservatives" and "liberals" doing
theological battle. No room is left for the moderate. To the
" liberal," the moderate is an enemy in the opposition camp;
to the " conservative," the moderate is a " liberal " to be condemned. In a negative way the Council has served to focus
attention on the division, the dichotomy, between " liberals "
and " conservatives "; but in a positive way it has provided the
opportunity for an objective theological reassessment that
would seek truth, and consequently theological balance, unity
and advancement. Pope John XXIII clearly indicated a moderate approach in his opening address to the Council. The late
Holy Father's statement balances his appeal for " updating "
with a clear demand for preserving the traditional doctrine
" undiluted." 61
01 We give but one example here. Speaking of the Council the Holy Father
says, " Its intention is to give to the world the whole of that doctrine which,
notwithstanding every difficulty and contradiction has become the common heritage
of mankind-to transmit it in all its purity, undiluted, undistorted. . . . And
our duty is not just to guard this treasure, as though it were some museum piece
and we the curators, but earnestly and fearlessly to dedicate ourselves to the work
that needs to be done in this modern age of ours, pursuing the path which the

THOMISM AND THE COUNCIL

481

Theologians should adopt this spirit of moderation so manifest in the statement of Pope John to the Conciliar Fathers.
A lasting contribution will be made only by those who undertake theological investigations in a spirit of moderation, who
are " conservative " enough to understand and appreciate a
total scientific synthesis and can, therefore, judge wisely the
proper place and due proportion of new proposals, and who
are " liberal " enough to support and promote them within
the limits of sound principles. A theologian must be " conservative " enough to weigh new proposals with " painstaking care
and a balanced judgment lest he lose or corrupt the truth he
already has," 62 and " liberal " enough to build truth upon
truth no matter what its source. For the Thomist this means
that, while not abandoning the principles, method, and doctrine
of St. Thomas, he must consider those features of Thomism
which have been more or less neglected in the recent past,
namely, self-criticism through mature reflection and openness
to new data of experience. His should be a moderate approach
to the revitalization of authentic Thomism.

The Scope of Revitalization
In its broadest terms revitalization of theology implies not
only the restoration to health and vigor of the body of theological knowledge, but also the application and use of this
knowledge in the Church's apostolate. Obviously, restoration
and advancement is a work for skilled theologians at institutions of higher learning, especially universities and faculties
granting higher degrees in the sacred sciences. But the fruit
of this work, the benefits derived from it, should not remain
within the walls of these institutions. The life of the Church
in the modem world demands that the wealth of theological
knowledge be spread abroad, according to the needs of all
peoples of the world. The full implication of this can only be
Church has followed for almost twenty centuries." Pope John XXIII, Gaudet
Mater Ecclesia, Oct. 11, 1962, tr. The Pope Speaks, VIII, 212.
•• Pius XII, Humani generis, loc. cit., 572

ANTHONY D. LEE

understood in the light of a distinction we will here make between " theological research " and the " communication of
sacred doctrine." For example, the theological process of constructing an apologetics, a process which one unskilled in theology could not be expected to comprehend, is quite different
from the resultant apologetics which would be designed precisely for the uninitiated to understand. This distinction between " theological research " and " communication of doctrine" is so important for an understanding of the theologian's
role in the renewal of the Church that a few words should be
said about each.
"Theological research" involves intercommunication between scholars on a scientific level demanded by the discipline
itself. Such an interchange requires the use of precise methodology and technical language. In a certain sense such theological investigations take place within a closed circuit, and
must inevitably do so, because most people are neither inclined
nor prepared to follow their intricacies and complexities. The
scientific fraternity is exclusive with regard both to interpersonal associations and communication in scientific journals.
And the same should be true of theologians engaged in theological research. To preserve the scientific character of theology and develop it as a sacred science, the proper method
and mode of theology must be employed. In the progress
and advancement of theology, moreover, modernization and
continued development of method and terminology is necessary.63 But such modernization and development should take
place within the processes of the science itself and, far from
being a popularization, should proceed in a way that preserves the scientific character of theology.
On the level of " theological research," as just described,
investigations often involve hypotheses and tentative proposals
which are not " teachable " as the dogmatic or moral doctrine
of the Church, or even as sound theological opinion. Scholarship itself demands such investigative procedures, but those
•• See pp. 490 fl'.

THOMISM AND THE COUNCIL

483

engaged in it can and should expect, and even welcome, the
criticism of colleagues, together with their challenges to meet
the demands of related disciplines. Even here a delineation of
legitimate boundaries of research could be useful, but by no
means should tentative matters under research be introduced
as reliable opinion to undergraduates or popularized for general distribution. Before such " tentative proposals " are incorporated into pastoral communication they should have passed
the test of competent critical analysis and enjoy a degree of
acceptance among scholars. 64
The second problem which confronts the theologian today
is more far reaching than the revitalization of theology from
within. It is the problem of communication in the pastoral
context of the Church's teaching office. The precise problem
is to discover methods for teaching most effectively the truths
of the faith, not only in institutions of higher learning, but with
a view to the needs of the whole Church at all levels of
instruction.
Schools of higher education are not confronted with so vast
a problem because a certain scientific level is required and
academic conditions are controlled. Candidates should be
firmly grounded in the faith and through formal training in
philosophy should be oriented to the science of theology. Such
requirements are to be expected in schools granting higher degrees in theology, i. e., universities, seminaries, and also colleges.65 At these levels, since science itself makes the curricular
•• "Caution must be used when there is ... question of hypotheses having
some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrines contained in Sacred
Scripture or in Tradition are involved." Pius XII, Humani generis, Coc. cit., 575.
•• "And so, in order that the genuine and entire doctrine of St. Thomas may
flourish in our schools . . . and in order that the system of teaching be abolished
which depends on the authority and judgment of the individual teacher, and therefore has a changeable foundation whence many diverse and mutually conflicting
opinions arise not without great injury to Christian learning (Leo XIII, Letter
Qui te, June 19, 1866). We will, order and command that teachers of Sacred
Theology in Universities, Academies, Colleges, Seminaries and Institutes having
the power by Apostolic indult to grant academic degrees and doctorates in that
field take the Summa Theologica as the text for their lectures. . . . In this way

484

ANTHONY D. LEE

demands, only those who have the prerequisites need be admitted to such studies. A tightening of academic requirements
is necessary to restore and maintain high standards in theological studies and research.
But the Church has the mission to teach the truths she possesses to all men in a manner conformable to their condition.
From this pastoral view of the Church's teaching office, theologians, as servants of the Church, should make the fruits of
revelation available to all men. Simply handing down conclusions or a dry summary of theology is not enough, whether
in dogma, moral, or apologetics. 66 The growing consciousness
of the need for theologians to apply their efforts to communication of doctrine in the modern world, urged by all modern
popes, has reached its most explicit formulation in the words
of Pope John XXIII:
What is needed is that this certain and immutable doctrine, to
which the faithful owe obedience, be studied afresh and reformulated in contemporary terms. For this deposit of faith, or truths
which are contained in our time-honored teaching, is one thing;
the manner in which these truths are set forth (with their meaning preserved intact) is something else.
This then is what will require our careful, and perhaps too our
patient consideration. We must work out ways and means of
expounding these truths in a manner more consistent with a predominantly pastoral view of the Church's teaching office.67
Theologians must not only preserve and advance theology
as a science, but also, in view of the needs of the apostolate,
design practical ways and means to communicate sacred truths
to all men. The emphasis on the pastoral view of the teaching
apostolate of the Church reminds the theologian that sacred
doctrine is not only a science, but a wisdom; that it is not only
and in no othe1· way will Theology be restored to its pristine dignity, and the
proper order and value will be restored to all sacred studies . ... " (Pius X, Motu
proprio Doctoris Angelici, lac. cit., 340). (Emphasis added.)
66 This has been the basis of much complaint
not only against text books in
use in secondary and undergraduate levels but especially in apologetics and
missiology.
67 Pope John XXIII, Gaudet Mater Ecclesia, lac. cit.

THOMISM AND THE COUNCIL

485

speculative, but practical; that it does not merely discover
truth for its own sake, but provides the insights into divine
revelation which can motivate and guide and energize a vital
Christian life.
Serious study is necessary to determine appropriate modes
for communicating the truths of sacred doctrine at such diverse
levels as, for example, primary parochial schools and Catholic
colleges, mission schools in pagan lands and classes of Catholic
students on secular campuses. Apart from directing such
formal instruction, theologians should provide principles and
sapiential guidance for movements within the Church, e. g.,
the homiletic, liturgical, lay apostolic, sacramental and ecumenical movements, all of which are so essential for giving
the truths of sacred doctrine vitality in the Church. The scope
of revitalization broadens even more when we realize that not
only should theologians provide the principles and guidance to
these movements, but should prepare popularizations which
embody sound doctrine in a manner which is clear and attractive to the Catholic community-and this not only through
books but other modern media of communication. The view
of theologians must also go beyond the Catholic community
to Christians and non-Christians alike. The truly universal
apostolate of the Church requires an attempt to understand
contemporary philosophies and religions, and to enter into
communication with them.
Even such a summary of the two-fold task of theology today
gives some idea of the challenge presented by Pope John XXIII
when he called theologians to work out ways and means for
communicating the truths of sacred doctrine " in a manner
more consistent with a predominantly pastoral view of the
Church's teaching office." 68 This challenge should give theologians a broader vision of the horizons of theological investigation and application opening up to them in the modern
world. 69 No less should it emphasize the need for a theology
Ibid.
•• Cf. C. Davis, " A Modern Reformation:
Clergy Review, 46 (Oct. 1961), 581-583.
68

Changing the Face of the Church,"

486

ANTHONY D. LEE

with universal extension of principles, an objective methodology, a total synthesis of doctrine, self-critical reflection, and
openness to new data and experience.

Concluding Observations
While making no pretense of outlining the practical steps
which should now be taken, we would offer some observations
about preliminary work which we believe is essential for revitalizing theology. Sound, safe and true progress require first
of all a restoration of authentic Thomism. This is entirely in
keeping with the attitude of the Church considered in the
first part of this article. For a revitalization of Thomism to
be effected, however, Thomists must meet current objections
and counter the anti-Thomist attitude reflected in recent
Catholic literature. They must do this, not by debate, but
by proving the inherent ability of Thomism to be self-critical,
to assimilate and sponsor modern advances, and to support
and promote with sound theology the pastoral movements
beneficial to the life of the Church. We do not imply that this
work has not already been undertaken by Thomists. It has,
and with considerable success. To survey the literature would
take us beyond the limits of this article, but the result of such
a survey suggests some areas remaining open for further development.
1. A fuller appreciation of the dimensions of Thomistic
thought is needed today. If moderns lack an appreciation of
St. Thomas, it is perhaps because they know him only through
secondary sources which present too limited a view of his works.
Sacred doctrine reached a new high when Scripture, tradition,
the magisterium of the Church, the Fathers, liturgy, philosophy, history and science were shaped by St. Thomas into the
scientific structure of theology. A return to St. Thomas would
be a return to an appreciation of the importance and use of
the sources he employed. " The Scriptural Dimension of St.
Thomas" by J. R. Sheets, S. J. 70 and" Patristic Schools in the
70

The American Ecclesiastical Review, CXLIV

(March, 1961), 154-174.

THOMISM AND THE COUNCIL

487

Summa" by Nicholas Halligan, 0. P., 71 are examples of particular studies in the dimensions of St. Thomas' thought which
can broaden appreciation of his wisdom and his relevance in
the modern world. Further, studies in the structure and coherence of his synthesis, such as that by M. D. Chenu, 0. P. 72
provide insights of value to Thomists today, while penetrating
studies in depth of particular tracts reveal the vitality and
applicability of Thomistic doctrine for meeting modern needs. 73
A word should also be said regarding modes of communication. Although St. Thomas' greatest work was in the scientific
mode, he taught and wrote in many styles, employing commentary, homily and even poetry. Modes of knowing other
than the strictly scientific do have a place in the Church's apostolate, and the place and utility of each should be studied.
The suggestion has already been made/ 4 but the realization
demands yet more effort.
If theology today is to advance scientifically, modernize its
mode of communication, and still retain its meaning, the richness of St. Thomas' thought in extension, depth, and mode
must be recaptured. To the foundations he has laid must be
added the most reliable findings of recent scholarship. The
pressing need is a fundamental synthesis which incorporates
The Thomist, VII (1944), 271-822, 505-548.
Introduction a l'Etude deS. Thomas d'Aquin, Paris: Vrin, 1950. Chapter XI,
"La Somme Theologique " has been translated and published under the title The
Scope of the Summa, tr. R. E. Brennan & A.M. Landry, Compact Studies, Washington: The Thomist Press, 1962. A translation by D. Hughes, 0. P. and A. Landry,
0. P. of the entire work is now being prepared and will be published by Henry
Regnery Co., Chicago, lll.
73 S. Ramirez, 0. P., De Hominis Beatitudine
Tractatus Theologicus (Ad I-II,
QQ. 1-5) 8 Vol., Salamanticae, 1942: Matriti, 1942-1947, provides not only a
restoration of St. Thomas' view of moral theology but an orientation to the advancement of moral studies. We might also mention here that recent works by
Thomists in sacramental theology are of tremendous significance to the liturgical
renewal.
70 " Since these two types of knowledge [scientific and connatural] are quite distinct, the methodological problem is to define the precise nature of each, the
advantages and limitations of each, and above all the principles and rules that
govern transpositions from one to the other." B. Lonergan, S. J., " Theology and
Understanding," Gregorianum, 85 (1954), 642-644.
71

79

488

ANTHONY D. LEE

the best o£ modern research. This calls for cooperation among
scholars in all specialized branches o£ sacred study (Scripture,
tradition, etc.), scholars sharing with St. Thomas his broad
vision o£ the horizons o£ sacred doctrine.
Q. A re-evaluation and critical analysis o£ the brand o£
Thomism come to be known as " traditional " is needed to
rectify historical prejudices and apologetic emphases, as well as
to eliminate the influence o£ philosophies alien to an authentic
Thomism. In many cases the modern mind has been offered a
Thomism which not only does not represent the full dimensions
o£ the Common Doctor's work, but distorts both his methodology and doctrine. The mirror o£ the manualist fails in many
ways to reflect a true image o£ St. Thomas. An illustration of
how Thomists can and should be critical of manualistic Thornism has been given by Fr. T. C. O'Brien, 0. P. His study
of the treatment of the existence of God in this manual tradition shows that the influence o£ non-Thomistic philosophies,
especially the division o£ philosophy of Christian Wolff, has
weakened the methodology, inverted the order, and impeded
an authentic presentation of Thomistic metaphysics in our
own day. 75
Other critical areas have been pointed out, and recent studies
and movements within Thomism reveal how valuable such
criticisms can be. 76 Yet much o£ this work has been only intro75 T. C. O'Brien,
0. P., Metaphysics and the Existence of God, Washington:
The Thomist Press, 1960.
76 A. Fernandez-Alonzo,
0. P. in his study "Scientiae et Philosophia Secundum
S. Albertum Magnum," Angelicum, XIII (1963), 24-59 (tr. by Albertus Magnus
Lyceum [mimeo] River Forest, Ill., cited here), pointed out the inadequacies of
commentators and manualists in treating Thomistic natural philosophy because of
their faulty division of the sciences. "Among them must be numbered: Caprolus,
Cajetan and Sonciuas; for they divided natural philosophy iuto as many sciences
as there are diverse tracts written by Aristotle ... (p. 10). Perhaps the gravest
error of modern scholastics is that they think that natural philosophy understood
in the present day sense as restricted to the ultimate causes of natural things,
does not absolutely need scientific experience aided by instruments. . . . Nevertheless, according to the truth, the spirit and the letter, this opinion is wholly
opposed to the true Aristotelian-Scholastic philosophy (p. 21) .... On the basis
of these suppositions, it will be easy to see how many assertions which are com-

THOMISM AND THE COUNCIL

489

ductory, i.e., constituting a status questionis that opens the
way for further studies. This being so, a more systematic
historico-theological analysis of nineteenth-century Thomism
might do much to correct the " image " of St. Thomas in
modern thought.
3. Thomists must enter into dialogue with contemporary
philosophers and scientists. Such dialogue is necessary for a
three-fold reason: a) to discover the truth contained in modern
thought and incorporate it into the Thomistic synthesis; b) to
correct what is false, misleading or dangerous to the faith;
c) to understand the needs of modern man and improve communication with him. Thus, for example, the modern emphasis
on the existential, the subjective aspects of the individual,
awaits examination for all three reasons; a) the emphasis has
provided insights which open up areas for theological investigation; 77 b) it has also resulted in errors which are dangerous
to the faith; 78 c) and it has created needs which can only be
met through adequate inter-personal communication.
While openness to and assimilation of new data from the
positive sciences has been apparent in recent Thomistic thinking, especially in scientific methodology and psychology, 79 the
monly held in modern scholastic philosophy and taught as true doctrine and as
altogether tenable and conformable to genuine traditional philosophy, but which
rather are wholly foreign to this philosophy and often contrary to it, must be
corrected or totally rejected " (p. 15) .
This important study inspired the foundation and guides the work of the
Albertus Magnus Lyceum. See note 79.
77 See note 69.
78 See note 32.
79 In the field of modern science and its methodology, particularly
noteworthy
is the work of the Albertus Magnus Lyceum, River Forest, Til. The recent publication of The Dignity of Science (ed. J. A. Weisheipl, 0. P., Washington, D. C.:
The Thomist Press, 1961) showed the extent of the scholarship stimulated by this
group in the history and philosophy of science over the ten years of its existence.
In addition, the writing and lecturing of some of its members, including W. H.
Kane, O.P., B. M. Ashley, O.P., R. J. Nogar, O.P., J. A. Weisheipl, O.P., and
W. A. Wallace, 0. P., has stimulated strong interest in the philosophy of science
in American philosophical circles. No less influential has been the work of Dr.
V. E. Smith as Director of the Philosophy of Science Institute at St. John's University, Jamaica, N. Y. There Dr. Smith has sponsored a continuing lecture series

490

ANTHONY D. LEE

great moral problems arising in the modern world and affecting
every level of human activity and social relationship continue
to challenge Thomism. Serious efforts have been made to solve
particular problems as they arise, but fundamental problems,
reaching to the very basis of natural law 80 and moral methodology,81 are largely untouched. Until such basic studies are
undertaken the continuing task to which Pope John XXIII
pointed in his allocution to the Fifth International Thomistic
Congress will be ineffective. 82
4. While we might suggest that a simple return to St.
Thomas' own work would result in some " modernization " of
method and vocabulary, a more apparent modernization will
take place as Thomism develops through self-criticism and
direct contact with contemporary trends and needs. The very
and annually published Studies in the Philosophy of Science which extend the
influence of the Lyceum over a wider area, including the field of education. In
modem psychology the influence of Thomism towards effecting a new synthesis is
particularly noteworthy in the work of Noel Mailloux, 0. P., at the University of
Montreal, Dr. Magda Arnold at Loyola University in Chicago, and Manuel Barbado, 0. P., at the University of Madrid. Likewise the relationship of depth
psychology to Thomistic philosophy and theology has been given extensive and
favorable treatment by Victor White, 0. P., and Gerald Vann, 0. P., in England,
and by E. M. Stock, 0. P., and C. J. D. Corcoran, 0. P., in the United States.
More recently, a team of philosopher-scientists under the sponsorship of the
Albertus Magnus Lyceum, and including Albert Moraczewski, 0. P., Celestine
Walsh, 0. P., and Bernard Zusy, 0. P., has begun work on the human brain to
make a concerted attack on the mind-body problem and the way in which
Thomism can contribute to its solution. All of these efforts reveal the continuing
interest of Thomists in modern science and an attempt to assimilate recent findings to the synthesis of the Angelic Doctor.
80 Only recently Chief Justice Earl Warren of the Supreme Court of the United
States, appealed for basic studies in "the law behind the law." His suggestion of
a school dedicated to the study of moral standards is significant here. "I can
conceive of a school dedicated to the purpose of training such professionals [ethical
counselors] becoming the center of research in the field of moral standards, trying
to resuscitate the glories of Aristotle, of Maimonides, of St. Thomas Aquinas and
page 1.
of Spinoza." Reported in New York Times, Nov. U,
81 Cf. W. A. Wallace, 0. P., The Role of Demonstration in Moral Theology,
Washington: The Thomist Press,
82 ". • • the treatment
and solution of moral questions according to the principles of Aquinas is of great help in bringing about agreement and unity among
those interested in truth and charity." The Pope Speaks, VI (1960),

THOMISM AND TilE COUNCIL

491

nature of theology demands that it use the most precise
methods and clearest terms available. Consequently, as better
definitions, divisions, distinctions, and terms are developed,
they should be adopted and incorporated, discarding in the
process more subtle, vague, ambiguous and less useful apparatus. Perhaps it is too soon to expect headway with this specific problem, but at least it deserves attention. Some recent
works seem even to be heading in the opposite direction, violating even the common rules of literary style, arbitrarily coining
words and phrases and preferring obscure to clear terminology.
Such obscurantism should not be confused with modernization.
5. Popularization of sacred doctrine has become a necessity in our day. Catholic literature has long been presenting
popularizations of spiritual and devotional themes, but only
recently has lay interest in theology become so common as to
require popularizing the whole o£ sacred doctrine. Educated
laymen themselves, to benefit their personal lives and their
apostolate, have demanded such popularizations. The Companion to the Summa by Walter Farrell, 0. P., 83 grew out of a
lecture series on " Theology for the Layman " that was initiated at the request o£ the laity. Other popularizations of St.
Thomas' synthesis have appeared, 84 yet much more remains
to be done. The laity must be kept continually informed as
Thomism provides intellectual support to pastoral movements
within the Church and grapples with modern philosophical,
theological, scientific, and moral problems. In other words,
when such problems have been studied at the properly theological level, popularizations should communicate the fruits of
these studies to all in a manner they can understand and
appreciate.
83 4 Vol., New York:
Sheed & Ward, 1942.
•• F. Sheed. Theology and Sanity, New York: Sheed and Ward, 1946; P. Glenn,
Tour of the Surwma, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1962. We should mention here the
need for adequate textbooks of philosophy and theology, especially for the college
level. "College Texts in Theology" (ed. F. L. B. Cunningham, 0. P., 4 vol.
Dubuque: Priory Press, 1959) is an example of a four-year program of theology
for college level closely following the Thomistic synthesis. What is said here about
" popularization " applies servatis servandis to textbooks.

ANTHONY D. LEE

Obviously, the task of theologians today is monumental.
Great and demanding though that task be, however, theologians have reason for optimism to the extent that they call
upon the wisdom of St. Thomas. When theologians in schools
of higher learning restore a total and authentic synthesis of
sacred doctrine, devoted to Thomistic principles, method and
doctrine, purified of historical deviations, enhanced by the
fruits of modern scholarship, and applied to contemporary
needs; such a revitalized theology cannot but provide solid
foundation and boundless dynamism to the pastoral and ecumenical renewal in the Church.
This confidence was symbolized in an action of Pope John
XXIII when, shortly before his final illness on the feast of St.
Thomas, March 7, 1963, he visited the Pontifical Anthenaeum
" Angelicum " and honored it with a new title " The Pontifical
University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome." What was symbolized in his action was eloquently confirmed by the words
he spoke:
As we have said, we would be very happy to see what we might
term the " treasure " of the precepts of St. Thomas " unearthed "
in greater measure each day, to the great benefit of Christianity,
and also to see his writing reach a much wider public in a language and form perfectly suited to the spirit and temper of our
times (A.A.S. 52, 1960, p. 823) ; because in the final analysis we
are convinced that, if the study of the doctrine of Aquinas is promoted with greater care and skill, the result will be that the resolutions proposed by the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council
of the Vatican will be carried into effect more fruitfully. 85
ANTHONY

D. LEE, 0. P.

Dominican House of Studies
Washington, D.C.

86 Pope John XXITI, Motu Proprio, Dominicanus Ordo, Osservatore Romano,
March 7, 1963.

EXISTENTIAL ETHICS:

A THOMISTIC APPRAISAL

GENERAL problem that calls £or discussion, and hopefully will be treated in the deliberations of the Second
Vatican Council, is that of the relationship of moral
theology to recent innovations in philosophy. Several papal
directives and encyclicals have already discussed moral problems and attempted to rectify errors of the " new theology "
associated with these innovations, pointing out in the process
more fruitful ways toward a renewal of moral theology. 1 Such
problems, while not merely of academic interest-affecting
as they do the moral life o£ all Christians-are nonetheless of
major concern to those who teach moral theology in universities and seminaries.
A representative teaching in this category which merits
examination is that known in German-speaking countries as
Existentialethik and coming to be known here as " existential
ethics." 2 Its importance derives not only from its subject
matter but also from the fact that it is cited as a fruitful
application o£ modern knowledge to the development of theological science. In this article we propose to explain this development and evaluate it from the viewpoint o£ the teacher
of moral doctrine.
The seminary professor, and to a lesser extent the professor
in a Catholic university, is torn between two extremes. On
the one hand, he is committed to transmitting the theological
tradition of the Church to those he teaches, a task difficult in
1 For a brief survey, see the preceding article in this volume, "Thomism
and the
Council," by A. D. Lee, 0. P., particularly p. 490.
"The title is suggested in a paper by Karl Raimer, S. J., "Ueber die Frage einer
formalen Existentialethik," Schriften zur Theologie, Vol. 2 (3. Auf!.), (Einsiedeln/
Koln: 1958), pp. 227-246. It is also known as "individual ethics," and in some
earlier writings as "situational ethics." See J. Fuchs, Situation und Entscheidung,
Grundfragen christlicher Situationsethik (Frankfurt: 1952) , pp. 69-92.

498

494

WILLIAM A. WALLACE

itself because of the large amount of material to be covered
and the relatively short time available. On the other hand,
he must be alert to recent developments in his science, and
attempt to assimilate these to the tradition he passes on to
his students. Such assimilation of new knowledge, however
desirable it may be, is not so simple and straightforward as
might appear. Innovations in theology frequently call into
question theories on which the existing tradition is based.
While such questioning is an acceptable procedure in the profane sciences, it is not always so favorably regarded in sacred
science. New doctrines, by their very novelty, are open to the
charge of unorthodoxy with all the dissatisfaction this implies
and the recrimination it often entails.
If theological advance is usually attended by controversy,
recent proposals relating to existential ethics are no exception.
By some they are welcomed as brilliant and beneficial insights
that vitalize a moral theology which has long been dated,
living in isolation from contemporary problems. 3 By others
they are regarded as an obfuscation of traditional doctrine
that could destroy the foundations of moral theology, and lead
to a subjective type of morality which the Catholic Church
has been combating for centuries. 4 Such evaluations are
undoubtedly extreme, but they underscore the controversial
aspect of the new development, and the difficulty this poses
for analyzing its teachable content.
To facilitate the latter task, we shall first outline the main
elements of existential ethics, and then single out for criticism
several points that seem to us at variance with the Thomistic
theology which constitutes the mainstay of the Church's traditional doctrine. With this we shall be in a position to make
some observations about its value and importance as a moral
doctrine to be taught in seminaries and universities.
8 See, for example,
Franz Biickle, " Bestrebungen in der lVIoraltheologie," in
Fragen
Theologie heute (Einsiedeln: 1957), pp. 443-444.
• For an early critique, see M. Labourdette, 0. P., Foi catholique et 'PfObleme&
modernes, (Tournai: 1953).

EXISTENTIAL

ETHICS:

FuNDAMENTALs

A THOMIST

OF ExisTENTIAL

APPRAISAL

495

ETHics

The briefest statement of the new doctrine is contained in
an essay by Father Karl Rahner entitled Gefahren im heutigen Katholizismus. 5 There the author is arguing against an
ethical teaching known as situational ethics that has fallen
under ecclesiastical condemnation. Although condemned, in
Father Rahner's view this teaching contains some elements of
truth. 6 He is interested in preserving such elements and attempts to do so by focusing attention, not on the particular
situation in which a person finds himself, but rather on the
individuality that is proper to the human person. This individuality is so unique that it cannot be comprehended under
the type of generalization found in traditional ethical treatises.
Thus the first point is that man's personal nature is so individual as not to be contained under the general prescriptions
of moral law. In Father Rahner's words:
Since the ontological structure of a being is the objective norm of
its operation, man is morally obliged to be and become by free
choice the individual that he is. As a spiritual and personal nature
intended for an immediate union of love with the Triune God, he
is so individual as to enjoy an absolutely unique, incommunicable
and unclassifiable individuality. While this spiritual and personal
individuality is not comprehensible under general norms, laws and
rules, it does stand, like all else, under the obliging will of God,
Who does not merely give general precepts, or even individual ones
that are only instances of the general, but imperatives that proceed
immediately from the " I " of God to the particular " thou " of man.
Thus there is a realm of individual morality and religion, a region
of moral and religious obligation and duty which, without opposing
Einsiedeln: Benziger and Co., 1950.
The Austrian Jesuit states this in the essay, "Ueber die Frage einer formalen
Existentialethik,"
as follows: " Wir haben auf die Situationsethik zu Beginn
unserer Ueberlegungen nur darum hingewiesen, wei! einerseits das, was wir formale
Existentialethik nennen wollen, nicht verwechselt werden darf mit der (skizzierten)
Situationsethik und wei! anderseits diese Existentialethik nach unserer Meinung
der Kern der Wahrheit ist, der auch in der falschen Situationsethik steckt."Schriften, p. 230.
6

6

496

WILLIAM A. WALLACE

the general laws of morality, lies decidedly outside their pale and
cannot be prescribed within their general formulations. 7

Paralleling this ontological condition of man, it appears that
there must be an individual ethics concerned with the moral
obligations of the individual as such, prescinding from those
obligations each person has in common with other men. This
thought leads Father Rahner to maintain that there must be
an individual ethics obliging the individual in his very uniqueness, and not insofar as he is merely a case subsumable under
a general rule.
Though there cannot be, nor ought there be, an individual ethics
in which the individual and his rights contravene the general norms
of morality, there is an individual ethics and an individual morality
which obliges the individual in a way that is uniquely his, and
nevertheless cannot be reckoned as a mere " case," a mere instance
of the universal, under these general norms of morality. Thus a
" private " sphere of the moral-religious life exists which is not only
de facto not the concern of general laws and their associated
executive and legislative apparatus, but basically cannot be reached
by them. 8
7 Wenn die Seinsstrnktur
eines Seienden die objektiv vorgegebene Nonn seines
Handelns ist, dann gehort es auch zum sittlichen Sollen des Menschen, jener
Einzelne in freier Entscheidung zu sein und zu werden, der er ist. Wenn somit
der Mensch als geistig-personales und mit Gott dem Dreipersonlichen in unmittelbarer Liebesgemeinschaft stehendes Wesen wirklich auch in dem Sinn Einzelner ist,
class ihm auch eine absolut einmalige, unvertauschbare, nie fall- und regelhafte
Eigentiimlichkeit eignet, und wenn diese geistige personale Einmaligkeit, obzwar
nicht durch allgemeine Normen, Gesetze und Regeln einfangbar, doch wie alles
Seiende unter dem verpflichtenden Willen Gottes steht, der freilich hier nicht auf
das Allgemeine und auf den Einzelnen als Fall des Allgemeinen, sondern unmittelbar
vom lch Gottes auf das je einmalige Du des Menschen geht, dann gibt es einen
und Religiosen, einen Bereich sittlicher und
Bereich des lndividuell-Sittlichen
religioser Pflicht und Aufgabe, die, ohne in Widerspruch mit den allgemeinen
Gesetzen des Sittlichen stehen zu konnen, doch entscheidend tiber diesen Bereich
hinausliegt und von allgemein formulierbaren Normen nicht mehr erfasst werden
kann.-Gefahren, p. 16.
8 Wohl kann und dar£ es !wine Individualethik
geben, in der der Einzelne und sein
Recht sich gegen die allgemeinen Normen des Sittlichen erhebt; aber es gibt eine
lndividualethik und eine Individuulmoral, die verpflichtend, als die einmalig seine,
den Einzelnen trifft und dennoch nicht als blosser Fall, als b!osses Individuum
eines Allgemeinen unter die allgemeinen Normen der Sittlichkeit gerechnet werden

EXISTENTIAL

ETHICS:

A THOMIST APPRAISAL

497

Although he justifies such an individual ethics, Father
Rahner does not interpret this to mean that the individual
may do as he pleases. The individual man, just as humanity
in general, is governed by the will of God. Thus he continues:
This private sphere is not in any way one of private choice and
freedom, but stands univocally under the morally obliging and holy
will of God, and freely so, directly willing the incommunicable and
singular unity of the individual person. This uniqueness is not only
something real, but it is also something that is free to cope with
man's developing problems. It therefore cannot be merely an object
of God's will as creator, but is also an object of His morally obliging
will, and even must be truly so as an ontological reality. 9

Having argued to the existence of an individual ethics binding man in all his uniqueness, Father Rahner is faced with
the problem of how the individual can know God's will in his
regard, or, more precisely, how one is to ascertain the norms
that bind the individual. The solution he arrives at identifies
conscience as the organ which recognizes such individual prescriptions. This, however, is not conscience as employed in
the usual sense. Rather it is conscience understood as having
the special function of perceiving the imperatives of a strict
individual ethics, similar to the role ascribed to it by some
theologians in the charismatic art of discerning spirits. In
Father Rahner's words:
Therefore there must also be in man an organ which recognizes this
individually obliging norm. When we call this conscience, we must
kann. Es gibt darum eine " private " Sphare des sittlich-religiosen Lebens urn die
sich eine allgemeine Gesetzlichkeit und die darin gesetzgeberischen und iiberwachenden Organe nicht bloss faktisch nicht kiimmern, sondem die einer solchen
Gesetzlichkeit und deren Organen grundsatzlich nicht zuganglich sein kann.Ibid., pp. 16-17.
9 Diese private Sphare ist darum nicht im geringsten Sphare privater
Willkiir und
Ungebundenheit, sondern steht eindeutig unter dem sittlich fordemden heiligen
Willen Gottes, jenes Willens freilich, der gerade das unvertauschbare und einmalige
Eine des einzelnen Menschen will, eine Einmaligkeit, die nicht nur Tatsache, sondem
auch frei zu verwirklichende Aufgabe des Menschen ist und darum nicht bloss
Gegenstand des Willens Gottes als des Schopfers, sondern auch Gegenstand seines
sittlich fordernden Willens sein kann und als wahre Seinswirklichkeit auch sein
muss.-lbid., p. 17.

498

WILLIAM A. WALLACE

distinguish between two functions of conscience: one which compares the general norms of ethics and moral theology with man's
subjective knowledge and applies it to his " case," and another
whereby the individual hears the unique call of God which is valid
only for him and is never completely deducible from general norms.
There must therefore be a "technique," or better a rlxVfJ, an "art"
in the sense of the ancients, for perceiving these imperatives of
strict individual ethics, which is to be clearly distinguished from the
" theory," the
of moral philosophy and theology with their
generally valid norms. If we seek a traditional name for this, we
would call it the charismatic art of "discernment of spirits," a
concept which in later centuries has been generally misunderstood,
because this distinction, either explicitly or by tacit agreement, has
been restricted to the casuistic technique for applying theoretical
norms to the individual " case." In its proper nature, however, it is
something quite different, namely, the ability to discern the unique
call of God for the individual as such .... 10
This will serve as a general characterization of individual or
existential ethics as propounded by Father Rahner. Despite
the brevity of the statement, it should be clear that the Austrian theologian does not wish his new proposal to overturn
the foundations of traditional moral theology. Rather he regards it as a refinement of traditional teaching enabling the
individual to become more aware of the obligations God im10 Es gibt darum auch ein Organ im Menschen, das diese Individualsittlichkeit
als fordernde Norm erkennt. "\Venn wir es Gewissen nennen, dann miissen wir
zwischen zwei Funktionen des Gewissens unterscheiden: derjenigen, die dem subjektiven Wissen des Menschen die allgemeinen Normen der Ethik und der Moraltheologie vermittelt und auf seinen "Fall " anwendet, und derjenigen, durch die der
Einzelne den je einmaligen, nur ihm geltenden und aus allgemeinen Normen nie
restlos ableitbaren Ruf Gottes hort. Es muss daher eine " Technik" oder besser
eine rexv'YJ, eine "Kunst" im Sinn der Alten geben, diese Imperative der strengen
Individualethik zu vernehmen, und sie ist !dar zu unterscheiden von der "Theorie,"
der E'lrLUTi/1-''YJ, der normenhaften, allgemeingiiltigen Moralphilosophie und theologie.
Wenn wir fiir sie einen traditionellen Namen suchen, so wiirde er heissen: die
charismatische Kunst der " Unterscheidung der Geister " ein Begriff, der in den
letzten Jahrhunderten eigentlich meist missverstanden wird, wei! diese Unterscheidung ausdriicklich oder mit stillschweigender Selbstverstandlichkeit eingeschrankt
wird als die Fertigkeit der kasuistischen Anwendung der theoretischen Normen auf
den Einzel-" Fall." Sie ist aber in ihrem eigentlichen Kern etwas ganz anderes,
namlich das Heraushorenkonnen des einmaligen Rufes Gottes an den einmal
Einzelnen als solchen ... .-Ibid., p. 17.

EXISTENTIAL

ETHICS:

A THOMIST APPRAISAL

499

poses upon him as an individual, i.e., as distinct from the
rest of mankind. The innovation, at least on the surface, cannot be charged with unorthodoxy. It is a development by way
of refinement, not one by way of rejection of traditional
doctrine.

A THOMISTIC CRITIQUE
Yet, implicit in Father Rahner's treatment is a dissatisfaction with moral philosophy and moral theology as these have
been taught through the centuries. This dissatisfaction stems
from the modern thought with which Father Rahner is in contact, and particularly from recent philosophical notions arising
within phenomenology and existentialism. Both of these movements react against systematic philosophies because of the
latters' apparent concern with general natures or essences, and
their supposed failure to come to grips with concrete, existing,
individual problems. The very term Father Rahner adopts
for his system, " existential ethics," opposes individualist ethics
to one which might be described as merely " essentialist ethics.''
Father Rahner would employ the terms " essence " and " existence " in their scholastic understanding-an understanding
quite different from their existentialist meanings-and urge
the complementarity that should exist between essentialist
ethics and existential ethics. 11 But the very fact that he must
11 He makes this clear in a passage in "Ueber die Fragen einer formalen Existentialethik," which reads as follows: " Der Begrifl' einer " Existentialethik" schliesst
dieses Missverstiindnis aus, er erweist sich eindeutig als Gegen- und Komplementarbegriff zu abstrakt-allgemeiner "Essenzethik." Dennoch bezeichnet diese "Existentialethik " nicht eine wesenlose " Existenzethik " (im Sinne der gelaufigen Distiuktion
von Existenz und Essenz), sondern bezeiht sich-gemiiss dem urspriinglichen Sinngehalt des modernen Wortes " Existential "-auf das materiale W esoo des Menschen,
insofern sich dieses, wenigstens als <f>{J<ns, als Prinzip des Auf- und Eingehens in die
Aktualitat des (geschichtlich-) personalen Handelns, in der Positivitat der je
vereinzelten, einmalig-einigen Kon-kretion der individuellen Entscheidung konstitutiv
vollenden muss, so dass er gerade nicht in einer rein deduktiv erlangten, abstraktessentialen Norm- und Ordnungsethik die allein hinreichende Bedingung seiner freien
sittlichen Selbstverwirklichung haben kann, sondern ebenso unabdingbar (d. h. in
der Linie der Konstitution des materialen, sittlich-personalen Wesens) eingewiesen
bleibt in die unableitbare qualitative Eigenart des einmaligen, nicht adiiquat
fallhaften, individuellen Aktes.-Eine Analyse dieser "existentialen" Struktur des

500

WILLIAM A. WALLACE

introduce this new development to make up for shortcomings
in essentialist ethics seems a tacit admission that a philosophy
or theology which deals with natures or essences is by that very
fact incapable of supplying adequate moral direction to the
individual.
.Ll1etaphysics and .Ll1oral Science
By way of critique, the principal shortcoming in Father
Rahner's proposal is that it is based on a misconception of the
nature of moral philosophy and theology as a science in the
Thomistic sense, and thus attempts to introduce a correction,
or refinement, on an understanding of traditional moral doctrine that is itself erroneous. As might be expected of a thinker
in the German tradition, where a strong proclivity for rationalism and idealism has been manifest during the past century
and where phenomenology is now eagerly embraced as an
overdue corrective, Father Rahner identifies traditional doctrine with a neo-scholasticism that is very different from the
teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas. Moral philosophy, for Father
Rahner, is an essentialist doctrine that is deduced a prioTi from
general principles. This he conceives as originating from an
ontology that is itself essentialist or rationalist in inspiration.
His line of thought in this matter is clear from the following
text:
If the individual is merely the limiting " case " of the universal, if,
for example, this person is only " a man," whose positive reality is
nothing more than the realization of a universal essence (which is
the foundation of an obligation), and therefore is itself inferior to
the universal, insofar as the latter not only includes more under
it than this individual, but also has greater richness of meaning, in
which case the individual appears merely as the space-time limitation of the universal, then an obligation that binds the individual
can only be grounded in a general essence, in a general obligatory
menschlichen Wesens konnte eine genauere philosophische Begrilndung dessen liefern,
was wir hier unter einem mehr theologischen Gesichtspunkt entwickelt haben."Sohriften, p. 289, fn. 1.

EXISTENTIAL

ETHICS:

A THOMIST

APPRAISAL

501

principle or some combination of such, which can be applied to any
(no matter how complicated) " case" of the universal. But if the
historical concrete individual (at least wherever this individuality
is of a spiritual personal kind) is more than a mere case of the
universal, where it has a meaningful positiveness, an individuality
that is not merely a limitatio of the universal, then this individual
can be the object and end of an obligation which is not merely a
general principle, but is actually an existential individual obligation.12

According to this line of reasoning, if one were to hold an
essentialist doctrine in ontology, he would be committed to an
essentialist ethics, whereas as soon as he became aware of the
ontological uniqueness of the individual, he would thereby be
led to investigate an existentialist or individual ethics.
Such alternatives, it need hardly be remarked, are foreign
to the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, who did not develop his
moral philosophy in direct dependence on his metaphysics or
theology, and who was too aware of the primacy of existence to
have unwittingly evolved a philosophy that was" essentialist"
in character.
It is entirely possible, on the first point, for one nurtured on
the manualist tradition to conceive Thomism as a rationalist
12 Ist niimlich das Einzelne nur der (beschriinkte)
"Fall" des Allgemeinen, ist z.
B. dieser Mensch nur " ein Mensch," dessen positive Wirklichkeit sich erschopft in
der Realisation jenes allgemeinen Wesens (das die Grundlage der Sollensprinzipien
ist) und somit hochstens weniger als die allgemeine Idee, insofern diese nicht nur
zahlenmiissig mehr als nur gerade diesen unter sich befasst, sondern auch mehr an
moglicher Inhaltsfiille mindestens offenliisst, so dass das Individuum nur als raumzeitpunktliche Eingrenzung des Allgemeinen erscheint, dann kann ein Seinsollen, das
sich auf das Einzelne bezieht, nur im allgemeinen Wesen griinden, ein allgemeines
Sollensprinzip oder die Kombination von solchen sein, die auf einen (wenn auch
noch so komplizierten) " Fall " des Allgemeinen angewandt werden. Ist aber das
einzelne geschichtlich Konkrete (wenigstens, dort, wo dieses Einzelne geistigpersonaler Art ist) mehr als nur Fall des Allgemeinen, hat es eine inhaltliche
Positivitiit, eine Individualitiit, die nicht nur " limitatio " des Allgemeinen ist, dann
kann dieses, von den allgemeinen Wesensnormen als solches nicht mehr erreichte,
wenn ihnen auch nicht widersprechende (da es ja nicht realverschieden sein kann
von der individuellen Realisation des Allgemeinen im Einzelnen), Gegenstand und
Ziel eines Sollens sein, das nicht die Geltung allgemeiner Prinzipien, sondern ein
existentielles, individuelles Sollen ist.-Das Dynamische in der Kirche, (Freiburg:
Herder, 1958), pp. 16-17.

502

WILLIAM A. WALLACE

system which first studies metaphysical essences, and then applies such " essentialist " knowledge in succession to the existent
universe, to man, to God, and finally to human activity. This
is the basic scheme elaborated by Christian Wolff, a plan
which influenced so many manuals of the nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, and whose order of teaching proceeded
from ontology to cosmology, psychology, theodicy, and ultimately to ethics. Such an order of teaching, as is now known,
was never that of the Angelic Doctor. Emphatically rejecting
the Platonic doctrine of his day, which started from an intuitive knowledge of essences and descended to the world of experience, he adopted instead the a posteriori procedure of Aristotle, who began philosophy with a study of the world of nature,
including man and his moral activity, then proceeded to metaphysics, and finally terminated in a theology which contemplates the First Cause of all.13
Similarly, current researches on the primacy of existence in
the philosophy of St. Thomas leave little doubt that St.
Thomas, far from having an exclusive concern for essences,
actually elaborated a philosophy of existence adequate to cope
with the problem of the individual. 14 Although allowing that
essence, or the nature attained in the universal, is the means
by which the individual is known, thereby playing a key role
in man's knowledge of singulars, he never regarded the individual itself as the mere ontological realization of a pre-existent
essence without its own perfection precisely as singular. 15
13 For a clear statement
of the manner in which St. Thomas elaborated his
philosophy, and how this is opposed to the treatment of Christian Wolff, see J. M.
Ramirez, 0. P., "De propria indole philosophiae sancti Thomae Aquinatis," in
Xenia thomistica, Vol. 1 (Romae: 1925), pp. 58-64.
14 We have in mind the work of COl"nelius Fabro in Italy, of Jacques Maritain
and Regis Jolivet in France, of Etienne Gilson and his school in Canada, and a
host of writers in the United States who take their inspiration from Gilson, among
whom may be enumerated Charles Hart, J. F. Anderson, Joseph Owens, Henri
Renard, W. N. Clarke, and others.
15 St. Thomas' explanation of man's knowledge of singulars is sketched briefly
in the Summa Theologiae, I, q. 86, a. 1. See also Cont. Gent., I, 65; De Verit.,
q. 2, aa. 5-6; q. 10, a. 5, etc.

EXISTENTIAL

ETHICS:

A THOMIST APPRAISAL

503

Angels and Individuation

Father Rahner, however, regards his line o£ reasoning as at
least compatible with the theological thought o£ St. Thomas,
and selects the latter's analysis o£ the angels as a fitting comparison with the doctrine he himself would elaborate. Thus
he writes:
For Thomism ... what Gabriel adds to the Angel Gabriel is so
absolutely unique, so unrepeatable, so free from chance duplication,
that even God Himself (even though He can fashion many angels)
cannot fashion a second "Gabriel," that is, one merely locally and
numerically different from the first, but not distinctive in his inner
self. One can also think of obligations which Gabriel must fulfill
which are only applicable to him, and that have as little meaning
for another angel as the possibility itself that there be a second
Gabriel. Thomistically speaking no one in good will may deny that
individual norms can be given for strict singulars.
This does not mean, from what has been said, that the norm for
any situation is actually given only once, depending on an accidental and uniquely occurring collection of circumstances, even
though these could themselves be repeated. It rather means that
this norm fundamentally can only be applied to one case, which
therefore ceases even to be a " case." Again this does not mean
that for this absolutely individual Gabriel everything is not applicable which applies to " creature," " spiritual person," " angel," and
which flows necessarily from these abstract " essences." Even for
Gabriel precisely as a creature, etc., such principles exist for every
individual norm which we refer to as an imperative. But these
principles cannot adequately tell him his obligations, no matter
how exact and no matter how we can conceive of combining them,
because " this angel " according to St. Thomas is fundamentally
much more than " an angel." 16
16 Fiir
den Thomismus z. B. ist dasjenige, was den Engel Gabriel zu Gabriel
macht, so absolut einmalig, unwiederholbar, von Fallhaftigkeit frei, class selbst Gott
(obwohl er viele "Engel" schaffen kann) einen zweiten "Gabriel," der vom ersten
nur stellen- und zahlhaft, aber nicht in sich selbst verschieden ware, unmoglich
schaffen kann. Es konnen also Forderungen gedacht werden dariiber, was Gabriel
zu sein und zu tun hat, die nur fiir ihn gelten, die so wenig fiir andere gelten, wie
es einen zweiten Gabriel geben kann. Thomistisch kann man also beim besten
Willen nicht grundsiitzlich leugnen, class es lndividualnormen von strengster Einmaligkeit geben konne. Das bedeutet nach dem Gesagten nicht, class faktisch wegen
einer zufiillig nur einmal verwirklichten Konstellation von Umstiinden (die es aber
an sich ofters geben konnte) die Norm fiir diese Situation nur einmal aktuell wird.

504

WILLIAM A. WALLACE

Having said this, Father Rahner continues: "Now, for various reasons which we cannot go into here, we are led to maintain that the same thing holds for men." 17 He then repeats
the line of argument already given to show how the individual human being can be " guided by an imperative that is
essentially distinct from the obligations imposed on general
essences." 18
When one searches for the reason which permits Father
Rahner to apply his reasoning about angels to men, one finds
that this is intimately connected with his notion of individuation, and how prime matter functions as an individuating principle. Thus, when explaining the metaphysical basis of existential ethics, he makes the statement:
Man with his spiritual and moral acts cannot be simply a phenomenon of the universal and only in such universality eternal and
enduring in the negative extension of space and time. Rather there
must be a positiveness in him as an individual. Put in another
way, his spiritual individuality, at least in his acts, cannot be a
mere limitation of a universal essence through the negativeness of
prime matter as the substantial and purely potential principle of
spatio-temporality, merely repeating the same essence in different
space-time positions. 19
Es bedeutet vielmehr, class diese Norm grundsatzlich nur einen Anwendungs-" fall"
hat, der dadurch eben aufhiirt, "Fall " zu sein. Das alles bedeutet natlirlich nicht,
class flir dieses absolute Individuum Gabriel nicht all das galte, was flit1 ein
"Geschiipf," flir eine "Geistperson," flir einen "Engel" an notwendigen Prinzipien
aus diesen abstrakten "Wesenheiten" erfliesst. Da ja Gabriel auch als gerade "er"
Geschiipf usw. ist, sind natlirlich diese Prinzipien innere Momente an jener Individualnorm, die wir einen " Imperativ " nennen. Aber diese Prinzipien kiinnen ihn
nicht adaquat aussagen, so subtil genau und so raffiniert kombiniert sie auch
gedacht werden miigen, wenn anders " dieser " Engel nach dem hi. Thomas
grundsatzlich mehr ist als "ein Engel."-Das Dynamische, pp. 17-18.
17 Nun-aus
den verschiedensten Grunden, die hier nicht darzulegen sind, sind
wir berechtigt, dasselbe flir den Menschen zu behaupten.-Ibid., p. 18.
18 Ist er aber mehr, ist ein geistpersiinliches Seiendes mehr als bloss der Schnittpunkt allgemeiner Wahrheiten und Satze, mehr als Einzel-Fall einer Essenz, die
wiederholt werden kann, dann kann dieses einmalig Besondere, diese Existenz
angerufen werden in einem Irnperativ, der wesentlich verschieden ist von den
Sollensprinzipien, die sich aus den allgemeinen Wesenheiten ergeben.-Ibid., p. 18.
19 Der Mensch mit seinen geistigen und sittlichen Akten kann daher nicht bloss
die Erscheinung des Allgemeinen und allein in dieser Allgemeinheit " Ewigen " und

EXISTENTIAL

ETHICS:

A THOMIST APPRAISAL

505

Here the implication is clearly made that the scholastic principles of prime matter and substantial form, traditionally used
to explain man's nature, give at best a negative notion of his
individuality, and are inadequate as explanations of his existent
individuality. Yet, for Father Rahner, they are components of
some type of " universal essence," which has its corresponding
moral obligations, and therefore can be the basis of an essentialist moral philosophy or theology.
Such an explanation is extremely difficult to reconcile with
the Thomistic teaching on individuation, particularly as this
applies to the human person. St. Thomas was sufficiently aware
of the role of matter and quantity in explaining man's corporeal
individuality, as well as that of the human soul under its
aspect of substantial form in explaining his spiritual individuality, not to entertain the view of individuation refuted by
Father Rahner. 20 But the latter's preoccupation with the individuation of spiritual substances reflects a Suarezian mentality
with respect to this whole problem which perhaps does labor
under serious difficulties. Here is not the place to enter into a
comparison of Suarezian and Thomistic doctrine on individuality.21 Suffice it to mention that according to our analysis the
lacunae Father Rahner finds in scholastic doctrine are not to
be found in authentic Thomism, even though they do exist
in the teaching of many eclectic Thomists of the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries.
Immergiiltigen in der negativen Dehnung von Raum und Zeit sein. In ihm als dem
Einzelnen muss vielmehr eine Positivitat gegeben sein, anders ausgedriickt: seine
geistige Individualitat kann (wenigstens in seinen Akten) nicht bloss die Eingrenzung eines an sich allgemeinen Wesens durch die Negativitat der materia prima
sein als des substautielleu und rein potentiellen Prinzips der Raumzeitlichkeit, der
blossen Wiederholung desselben an verschiedenen Raum-Zeit-Stellen.-Schriften,
p.
286.
20 The fact that there is a considerable Thomistic doctrine on the uniqueness of
the individual man can be seen from a work now some twenty-five years old, R. J.
Slavin, 0. P., Philosophical Basis for lndividnal Differences, Washington, D. C.:
Catholic University Press, 1986.
21 For a sketch
of Suarezian doctrine on individuation, and the way in which
this differs from St. Thomas' teaching, see Gallus Manser, 0. P., Das W esen des
Thomismtts, 8. Auft. (Freiburg/Schweiz: 1949), p. 670.

506

WILLIAM A. WALLACE

Prudence and Conscience

This brief critique of the metaphysical foundations on which
existential ethics is built leads naturally to a consideration of
the key problem it raises, namely, how there can be an individual ethics which supplies directives proportioned to the
human person in all his individuality. St. Thomas, impressed
by the highly individual character of personal ethics, carefully
elaborated his tract on prudence to explain how this virtue
must complement moral theology. 22 Aware of this in a general
way, Father Rahner feels obliged to show the inadequacy of
this traditional teaching, and in so doing to justify the need for
his individual ethics. In his own words:
It is evident that in concrete circumstances one needs prudence,
which is the virtue which determines the right thing to do here
and now from and in these concrete circumstances. The role that
this virtue, almost completely forgotten in later moral theology,
plays according to St. Thomas is well known. But the question is:
What is the nature of this virtue and to what object does it have
reference? If a person is really to answer this question, he must
obviously say: It looks first of all to its collection of general
principles and then to the concrete circumstances and asks itself
which principles or combination of principles should be applied
under such circumstances. So far correct. But then the further
question presents itself: Are these circumstances only the cases of
universal essences? ... Or are the circumstances surrounding this
type of case themselves something absolutely individual, that cannot be arrived at through the application of these un,versal essences
on a concrete, but not thereby absolutely unique, case? And how
then does prudence know this? ... The appeal to prudence therefore offers no solution to the problem facing us, but merely points
it out. 23
22 The principal
locus for St. Thomas' treatment of prudence is the Summa
Theologiae, II-II, qq. 47-51; see also I-II, q. 57, aa. 4-6.
2 " Selbstverstiindlich
bedarf es in den "konkreten Umstiinden" der Klugheit, die
die Tugend ist, aus diesen "konkreten Umstiinden" und in ihnen das gerade "Lier
und jetzt " Richtige zu finden. Bekannt ist ja die Rolle, die diese von der spliteren
Moraltheologie manchmal fast vergessene Tugend bei Thomas spielt. Aber die Frage
ist: Welches ist die Natur dieser Tugend und auf welchen Gegenstand bezieht sie
sich? Wenn man diese Frage wirklich beantworten will, dann muss man offenbar
sagen: sie blickt zunachst einmal auf die Fiille der allgemeinen Prinzipien und dann

EXISTENTIAL

ETHICS;

A THOMIST APPRAISAL

507

As Father Rahner understands prudence, then, it cannot make
the transition from universal essences to actual existence.
Therefore he rejects it in favor of the conscience of the individual, which we have already shown to furnish his solution
to the problem when it functions in a role similar to that
attributed to it in the art of discerning spirits.
Regarding this point in Father Rahner's teaching it should
be observed that we are here again at a controversial issue
which divides the theological tradition. Although paying lip
service to St. Thomas' teaching on prudence, Father Rahner
first represents this inadequately, then states the problem in
a way that demands a solution in terms of a post- Tridentine
doctrine which substitutes the voice of conscience for the
prudential decision, and finally proceeds to show how the latter
doctrine is itself inadequate. Since we have dealt elsewhere
with the Thomistic teaching on prudence and its relation to
moral theology, casuistry, and existential ethics, we need not
elaborate further on this aspect of Father Rahner's exposition. 24
au£ die konkreten Umstande und fragt sich, welches Prinzip (welche Kombination
von Prinzipien) unter gerade diesen Umstanden aktualisiert werden miisse. Das
ist richtig. Aber sofort entsteht die Frage wieder: Sind diese Umstande nur die
Faile von allgemeinen Wesenheiten? ... auch noch etwas absolut lndividuelles, das
durch die eben angedeutete Komplizierung allgemeiner Wesenheiten auf ein
Konkretes (aber darum noch nicht eigent!ich Einma!iges) hin noch nicht erreicht
ist? Und wie erkennt dann die Klugheit dieses? . . . Mit der Berufung auf die
Klugheit wird also die hier gemeinte Problematik nicht gelost, sonder nur angezeigt.
-Das Dynamische, pp.
2 • For the relation of prudence
to moral science as conceived by St. Thomas
Aquinas, see The Role of Demonstration in :Moral Theology (Washington; The
Thomist Press,
pp.
A specific treatment of casuistry is given in
the same study, pp.
and of existential ethics on pp.
for references
to St. Thomas' teaching on conscience, see p. 199, fn. 109. Father Rahner differs
fmm St. Thomas in maintaining that conscience is an "organ" (see text cited in
fn. 10 of the present article), while for St. Thomas it is not an organ but an act
of the habit of synderesis. As such it gives the least refined judgment of practical
reason, whereas the prudential judgment touches the existential act not simply by
abstract judgment in actu signata, but by moving to exercise in actu exercito. For
a lucid exposition of this, see Cajetan's commentary on the Prima Secundae, q. 58,
particua. 5, n. 8; also The Role of Demonstration in Moral Theology, pp.
larly p. 131.

508

WILLIAM A. WALLACE

Rather we would here comment on his claim to have elaborated
in the process a " science " of individual action, and on the
way in which he conceives this " science " to be related to the
"art" of discerning spirits.
Throughout his writing Father Rahner purposes to give a
scientific consideration of individual morality under the designation of individual or existential ethics. Yet how such an
ethics is to be scientifically elaborated is never immediately
apparent. He does state that it should be concerned with
ascertaining the formal structure and fundamental types o£
knowledge of individual morality, and then goes on:
Just as on the one hand there can be no science of the individual
as a really unique singular as such, and nevertheless there can be
a general formal ontology of individuals, so in the same sense can
there be a formal discipline of existential concretion, a formal
existential ethics. Indeed there must be such a discipline. 25

By way of elaboration, he enumerates a whole series of questions that underscore the difficulty of any knowledge of the
singular as such, and the practical impossibility of stating this
in terms employing the general concepts of ordinary discourse,
only to conclude somewhat disappointingly, "It is clear that
we cannot really answer these questions here." 26
25 So wie es einerseits keine Wissenschaft
vom Individuellen als wirklich individuellen Einzelnen als solchem geben kann und es doch eine allgemeine formale
Ontologie des Individuellen gibt, so und in diesem Sinn kann es eine formale Lehre
der existentialen Konkretion, eine formale Existentialethik geben und muss es sie
geben.-Schriften, p. 240.
26 Das praktisch dringlichste und schwierigste Problem hinsichtlich einer solchen
formalen Existentialethik ware natiirlich die Frage nach der Erkennbarkeit des
individuellen Sittlichen und dessen Verpflichtung (wann und wo eine solche
Verpflichung vorliegt). Wenn wir sagen: es muss eine Funktion des Gewissens geben, die nicht nur die allgemeinen Normen auf je meine Situation anwendet, sondern
die dariiber hinaus auch das durch die Situation und die allgemeinen Normen noch
nicht eindeutig Erschlossene, gerade je von mir individuell zu Tuende als solches
erfasst, dann haben wir zwar eine wesentliche Grundfunktion des Gewissens genannt,
die meistens von der iiblichen scholastischen Ethik iibersehen wird, wir haben aber
noch nicht erklart, wie diese Individual- bzw. Existentialfunktion des Gewissens
zustande kommt. Es ware da zu fragen: Wie weiss der Einzelne iiberhaupt von
sich als dem einmalig Einzelnen? Wie ist eine solche Erkenntnis denkbar, obwohl

EXISTENTIAL

ETHICS;

A THOMIST APPRAISAL

509

In another context, he comes to grips with the problem
again and gives an indication of the approach he has in mind.
His ontological reasoning, as we have seen, has led him to
affirm that a highly individual obligation is uniquely determined for each human being by Almighty God. How can such
an individual obligation be scientifically described? Father
Rahner states the problem, and then proposes his solution as
follows:
One can naturally say, and this objection is to be expected, that
when we have this individuurn ineffabile who is not a mere case of
the universal and falls under a particular determined obligation,
then this individual, as well as the obligation itself, is conceptually
just as ineffabile, and therefore cannot be expressed in any kind of
imperative, because even imperatives employ universal concepts.
But here we must make a distinction. It is true, as the objection
states, that an imperative statement cannot direct an individual in
his individuality in the way in which concepts and their corresponding regulatory obligations can represent the universal both in itself
and as applied to a determined individual. But an imperative, like
a gesture pointing to "this here," has a unique relation to the
individual as such .... Since the imperative actually contains a
pointing gesture . . . it can indicate for us an obligation that is
in itself unique. 27
sie grundsatzlich nicht adaquat die Erkenntnis eiuer gegenstiindlichen, satzhaften
Reflexion sein kann? Wie ist die Frage zu stellen und zu beantworten, wenn und
insofern dieses Individuelle nicht die Individualitiit meines Seins und meines schon
frei gewirkten Zustandes ist, sondern die individuelle Einmaligkeit eines von mir erst
noch zu Tuenden? Wie kann dieses individuelle Kiinftige auch als Gesolltes erkannt
werden? Wie sieht diese (sittliche) Notwendigkeit aus, die in der Zukommenden
Geschichte und an ihr selbst hervortritt? Es ist klar, dass wir hier all diese Fragen
nicht wirldich beanworten konnen.-Ibid., pp. £40-£41.
27 Man konnte natiirlich sagen (dieser Einwand ist zu erwarten):
Es mag dieses
" individuum ineffabile " geben, das nicht blosser Fall eines Allgemeinen ist, es mag
sein, dass diesem so verstandenen Einzelnen auch ein gewisser Sollenscharakter
zukommt, aber (das ist der Einwand) dieser ist dann begriffiich notwendig ebenso
" ineffabile " wie das, dessen Sollenscharakter er ist, und dieser kann dann auch nicht
in einem Imperativ ausgesprochen werden, wei! auch ein solcher mit allgemeinen
Begriffen arbeitet. Hier ist jedoch zu unterscheiden. Richtig an dem Einwand ist,
dass auch ein Imperativ das Einzelne und seine Einmaligkeit nicht so direkt ausspricht und anzielen kann, wie Begriffe (und die mit ihnen gebildeten Aussagesiitze
und So!lensnormen) das Allgemeine in sich und das Allgemeine in einem bestimmten

510

WILLIAM A. WALLACE

Such a "pointing gesture," in Father Rahner's opm10n, is
effected by the internal workings of the Holy Spirit on man,
and can be discerned by his conscience if this functions according to the rule for discerning spirits.
The " science " of individual ethics, in this understanding,
does not permit a scientific judgment of the morality of an
action placed by any individual. All it does is make general,
or universal, or " essentialist " statements that are purportedly
true of individual cases, and therefore is in precisely the same
category as the traditional ethics it proposes to supplant. Scientific knowledge, in Father Rahner's system, does not tell the
individual whether his action is morally right or wrong; rather
conscience does this, and it does so with assurance only when
properly reinforced by an " art." Instead of the emphasis being
on prudence, however, as in the Thomist solution to the problem of ethical individuality, this art is now identified as the
art of discerning spirits, following the teaching of the Spiritual
Exercises of St. Ignatius Loyola. 28 Thus Father Rahner's moral
theology becomes a mixture of casuistry, with conscience looking to universal and essentialist norms and applying them to
individual cases, and a type of mysticism, with conscience
harkening to the movements of the Holy Spirit and discernEinzelnen aussagen konnen. Aber ein Imperativ hat doch (iihnlich wie eine Geste,
ein Hinweis auf ein " Dieses da ") eine eigentiimliche Beziehung zu dem Einzelnen
als solchem .... Anders gesagt, weil der Imperativ doch jenen Hinweisegestus an
sich hat ... darum kann der Imperativ uns hier fiir den Willen und das Sollen des
Einmaligen stehen.-Das Dynamische, pp. 20-21.
28 See Father Rahner's essay in Ignatius, ed. Friedrich Wulf, (Wiirzburg:
1956)
entitled "Die Ignatianische Logik der existentiellen Erkenntnis," pp. 845-405. The
mention of the Spiritual Exercises in this context is not to be construed as any kind
of disapproval of this masterpiece of spirituality on the part of the present writer.
We say this in anticipation of the criticism of some who would note the comparisons
here made between St. Thomas, Suarez, and St. Ignatius, and conclude that this
study is merely the prolongation of a long-standing feud between Dominicans and
Jesuits. To counteract such an attitude we would observe that Father Rahner's
thought has been made accessible to English readers largely through the efforts
of a Dominican, Father Cornelius Ernst (see pp. 170-181), while the most articulate spokesmen for an authentic Thomism in recent times have been American
Jesuits.

EXISTENTIAL

ETHICS:

A THOMIST APPRAISAL

511

ing God's "pointing gestures" as these successively establish
its moral imperatives. 29
As opposed to this understanding, if the discernment of
spirits is conceived as something discontinuous with the general norms of moral theology and the virtue of prudence, then
the danger of subjectivism becomes serious. How delicate this
balance may be is illustrated by a recent study which attempts
to apply Father Rahner's theory to discerning vocations to the
religious and lay states. 30 Here the author elaborates in detail
what appear to him to be the practical consequences of Rahner's
position, explaining how awareness of God's "pointing gestures" can be detected by feelings of peace, joy and consolation in the soul, by s. " thematic experience of transcendence,"
and by other internal symptoms. 31 He is at pains to emphasize,
moreover, that the individual imperatives which are the major
concern of existential ethics cannot be scientifically established, nor even reached by a reasoning process. 32 They must
29 It might be helpful here to contrast Father Rahner's analysis with that of St.
Thomas. For Father Rahner, the rule of practical reason for the individual is his
own conscience, whereas God's plan for him is known through the direct action of
the Holy Spirit on him which is discerned by conscience as endowed with some type
of charismatic art. For St. Thomas, the rule of practical reason for the individual
is known by conscience in a preliminary way as the natural power of judgment
furnishing the least refined norm of practical reason, while it is known more
accurately with the assistance of prudence, both the acquired and the infused virtue.
The divine plan for the individual, manifested to him through the Holy Spirit, is
known by various charisms or gratiae gratis datae, more proximately by the Gift of
Counsel, which in this context may be regarded as a supernatural refinement of
infused prudence, and also by other Gifts and virtues, principal among which must
be enumerated the Gift of Wisdom. St. Thomas, moreover, connects the virtues and
the Gifts with the Beatitudes and the Fruits of the Holy Spirit to give a full
account of the way in which graces perfect the individual soul in both its moral
and its mystical life. This explanation, it seems to us, is not only fuller but also
more in accord with the theological tradition of the Fathers than that of Father
Rahner. One noteworthy shortcoming under which Father Rahner's theory labors
is that in his view of God's " imperatives " the distinction is lost between counsel
and precept, and the obligation of law is accorded some type of ontological status
that is extremely difficult to account for.
80 John D. Gerken, S. J., Toward a Theology of the Layman, New York:
Herder
and Herder, 196S.
82 Ibid., p. lSI.
81 Ibid., p. ISS.

WILLIAM A. WALLACE

be subjectively experienced, can only be known to the one
experiencing them, and nonetheless constitute ultimate norms
for the actions of the individual.
We can indeed grant with this author that in such personal
decisions as those of a vocation in life, the element of personal
experience and inclination, and even of the supernatural work
of God in the soul, must play a large part in a man's prudential
decision. Yet this decision remains one of Christian prudence,
assisted by gifts of grace. The theology of St. Thomas as
traditionally developed was designed to establish a careful balance between objective and subjective elements in the formation of this prudential decision. It is not clear how the author
maintains this balance, nor how Father Rahner's analysis provides a sufficient criterion on which such a balance could be
based.
DocTRINAL

IMPORTANCE

This then is the innovation that Father Rahner would introduce into traditional moral theology to preserve the good
present in situation ethics, and to apply the fruits of phenomenology and existentialism to the development of theological
science. The mere statement of the doctrine, not hitherto
available for American readers, may provide those engaged in
teaching moral theology the opportunity to form their own
judgment of its value and importance. To whatever that judgment may be, we should like to add the following reflections
by way of personal comment.
Existential ethics, as a serious attempt to investigate the
morality of individual action, is not without its value. This
value, however, is somewhat qualified, insofar as its importance
lies more in the assistance it gives the expert attempting to
work out a theology of individual action than it gives the student seeking a general orientation, usually within a particular
theological system. With respect to students of theology, moreover, the value of existential ethics in their intellectual formation is relative to their background and various schools with

EXISTENTIAL

ETHICS:

A THOMIST

APPRAISAL

513

which they are conversant. In German-speaking countries, for
example, where a rationalist neo-scholasticism is still dominant
and where Thomism is not actively taught in universities and
seminaries, the correctives offered by existential ethics to the
doctrine currently taught are probably intelligible and even
intellectually satisfying to students. In American seminaries
and universities, on the other hand, where a resurgence of
authentic Thomism has eliminated many of the errors against
which existentialism inveighs, the doctrine is correspondingly
of limited educational importance.
Furthermore, the general attempt being made on the Continent to cross-breed existentialism and phenomenology with
nco-scholasticism offers only a temporary solution to the basic
problem. The resulting doctrine, as is clear to those acquainted
with the two sources from which it draws inspiration, is acceptable neither to the modern thinker nor to those expert in
traditional doctrine. Ultimately it leads to an anti-systematic
eclecticism which could in turn reject the fundamentals of
moral science taught by the Church.
In this matter, it would seem, the experience of recent history should warn against any such eclectic and arbitrary development of traditional doctrine. In Germany and Austria
particularly, attempts have been made continually during the
past two centuries to overthrow scholastic syntheses and replace them by something " modern " that would be more
acceptable to non-Catholic thinkers. Such an inspiration was
behind the efforts of Georg Hermes to apply the rationalism
of Kant towards demonstrating the truths of Catholicism, just
as it urged Anton Gunther to elaborate a Christian Hegelianism
by which he hoped to prove the truths of supernatural religion.
Both men, motivated by scholarly and priestly zeal though
they were, fell into errors which were corrected by the First
Council of the Vatican. German higher criticism, as is well
known, led to the heresy of modernism as soon as it was applied to traditional doctrines. The " new theology " against
which Humani Generis was directed is likewise traceable in its

514

WILLIAM A. WALLACE

intellectual foundations to the existentialism of Kierkegaard
and Heidegger. 33
Against all of these efforts, recent Popes have repeatedly
urged a return to Thomism as the safest way to avoid error and
to incorporate worthwhile advances in modern thought. 34 But
this must be an authentic Thomism which respects source
materials and intelligently applies them in a modern context.
Where such Thomism has not been zealously pursued, there
has been continual ferment and, not infrequently, unorthodoxy
resulting in ecclesiastical condemnation. A recent writer, commenting on the program of Thomistic revival farsightedly
inaugurated by Leo XIII, remarks on the vicissitudes that
this revival has thus far undergone:
Historically speaking, the program of Pope Leo XIII has never
been universally implemented in Catholic colleges, universities and
seminaries. Not even the ardent efforts of St. Pius X were able to
effect this. Until this program is really attempted in a thorough
manner, there will always be zealous priests who react against what
they only half understand. Reactions against Thomism in the past
half century have always been to a pseudo-Thomism, a half understood St. Thomas. 35
Although such reactions have been common in Europe, on
the whole Thomism has been quite successful here in America.
In fact, the Church's "coming to age" in the United States
has produced a situation where intellectual leadership in
Thomistic thought is gradually being assumed in this country.
The time seems to have passed, for example, when American
students had to learn all of the errors of Kant to pursue a
33 See the foregoing essay in this volume by A. D. Lee, 0. P., "Thomism
and
the Council," pp. 459-479.
•• Ibid., pp. 469 ff.
35 James A. Weisheipl, 0. P., "The Revival of Thomism:
An Historical Survey,"
Program'fiU1ta Scholarum et Status Personalis, Af!_uinas Institute of Philosophy and
Theology (River Forest, Illinois), 196fl-1963, p. 48. Four centuries ago, Cajetan
had much the same comment to make: "We must proceed very carefully in this
consideration, lest, departing from the excellence of Aristotle and St. Thomas, we
should fall victim to our own imaginings, and coin the new because we do not
understand the old."-In Secundam Secundae, q. lfl9, a. 1, n. 2.

EXISTENTIAL

ETHICS:

A THOMIST

APPRAISAL

515

course in neo-scholastic philosophy. It would be a step backward, in such a situation, to embark on a program of teaching
which would reflect the confusing development of rationalism,
idealism, phenomenology and existentialism, in order to uncover the small " kernel of truth " present in these doctrines.
The substantial progress already made in the United States
towards reinstating authentic Thomism would be poorly sacrificed for such dubious intellectual gain.
Some of course will say that to date American theologians
have been very sterile, and that most of the new movements
in theology are of European origin. Granted that this is true,
it does not follow that Americans will become creative simply
by adopting new ideas in uncritical fashion. Rather such ideas
ought to stimulate them more vigorously to pursue the road
pointed out by the Holy See, the renewal of Thomism through
concern with contemporary problems and modern science.
The Second Vatican Council will certainly stimulate such
efforts. Its work will furnish a sound guide, but the interpretation of its work provided by a press which naturally stresses
the elements of innovation, while neglecting the elements of
continuity, must be carefully evaluated. This journalism, however, will not be without its influence on university and seminary students. In view of the resulting interest in such innovations, it would be unwise to slight new theories and thereby
impose a type of censorship on young, inquiring minds. But it
would be an even more serious error to convey to them the
impression, for example, that existential ethics represents a
great forward advance in moral theology that will eventually
supercede traditional doctrine. This innovation, apart from the
corrective it offers to a rationalist neo-scholasticism, adds little
to a Thomistic understanding of the human act in its existent
singularity.
WILLIAM

The New Catholic Encyclopedia
Catholic University of America
TVashington, D. C.

A. WALLACE, O.P.

FAITH, FREEDOM IN THOUGHT
AND PUBLICATION

" THE act of the believer does not terminate in the
article of faith as such but in the reality it expresses." 1 Academically aloof as this statement may
sound, its implications bear directly upon the living experience of faith itself and the current lively state of theological
thought, discussion, and publication. The statement touches
upon the essential nature of faith itself, as well as upon the
bearing of human thought on the exercise of faith. One
instance of the exercise of human understanding with and
under faith is, of course, theology. Taken either as formal,
scientific theology or simply as thought about the truths of
faith, theology is a consequence of faith. " Actually there can
be no question of whether or not theology is necessary. For
all men theologize. The only question worth asking is whether
the theology that exists is good or bad, true or false, complete or incomplete." 2
Men, being men, communicate their theology. Publication
is a particular form of communication which, because it is both
public and permanent, has far-reaching significance in the
Church of God. Theological publication may be classified
briefly as either technical or general. The first implies the circulation of specialized research of theologians in academic and
professional journals. The second refers to works for newspapers, consumer magazines or trade books. This latter form
may be quite serious or popularized; it may be done by a professional theologian or by anyone inclined to express himself
about the faith.
1 " Actus autem
credentis non terminatur ad enuntiabile sed ad rem." S. T.,
II-II, q. 1,
ad
2 Journet, Charles, The Wisdom of Faith. (Newman, Westminster,
45.

516

FAITH, FREEDOM IN THOUGHT AND PUBLICATION

517

From an admirable concern for the spirit of renewal in the
Church today, two attitudes regarding communication of
Catholic truth have gained wide acclaim and acceptance. One
is that the Gospel message cannot be confined nor conveyed
within any one conceptual system. The other is that pre-publication censorship of theological writings should be abandoned. Both touch upon the question of faith, its human expression, and its communication; both are a call for a new freedom. These attitudes provide good reason for an examination
of the real issues involved in faith's search for understanding
and expression.
I. THE EssENCE

oF FAITH

The distinctive character of theological faith is outlined by
the First Vatican Council as:
. . . a supernatural virtue by which we believe those things revealed by God to be true, not because of the intrinsic truth of
these realities as perceived by the natural light of reason, ·but
because of the authority of God revealing, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived.8
In this formulation the twofold orientation of faith is made
clear: it terminates in the realities revealed by God; it is
motivated by the authority of God revealing. The relationship between the terminative and the motive object of faith
is also made clear: faith assents to what God reveals as true,
because it is motivated by the authority of God revealing.
Thus it is not the intrinsic evidence of that to which faith
assents that brings about this termination; it is exclusively
the authority of God revealing.
Because the formal motivation of faith's assent and the
basis of its certitude is not intrinsic evidence, but solely the
• "(Hanc vero fidem ... Ecclesia catholica profitetur), virtutem esse supematuralem, qua, Dei aspirante et adiuvante gratia, ab eo revelata vera esse credimus,
non propter intrinsecam rerum veritatem naturali rationis lumine perspectam, sed
propter auctoritatem ipsius Dei revelantis, qui nee falli nee fallere potest." Cone.
Vat. I, sess. III, c. 3, Denz. 1789.

518

THOMAS

C. o'BRIEN

divine authority, the terminative object of faith is neither
clearly seen, nor rationally known. Faith as such implies not
vision, not science, not understanding, but simple assent. Thus
the relationship of faith to its motive object is decisive. As
totally supernatural and gratuitous faith confers the basic
capacity (posse) to adhere to its motive object; it bestows the
otherwise unattainable power to elicit a judgment of assent
based upon the authority of God revealing. Truly it is the
initium, radix, fundamentum of the supernatural life. 4 As a
supernatural perfection of intelligence, faith has its specific
character in the power to adhere to the word of God revealing; it does not make its own motivation evidential: Credimus Deum et credimus Deo. Primarily by reason of its motive
object, faith is a theological virtue, a virtue uniting man to
God directly as its end and object. The motivating object of
faith first puts man in contact with God as He is in Himself.
Thus this motivating object is itself also terminative. We do
believe God and thus believe in the things of God. God revealing is the primary termination of faith; assent to the word of
God revealing mediates the acceptance of the truths God
reveals. So significant, then, is this motivation and primary
termination of faith, that one might say, by way of hyperbole, that the content of the purely terminative object is relatively unimportant. An intrinsic order of intelligibilty is, of
course, present within and among the truths revealed by God;
but this is not faith's first concern, nor its motive. Thus faith
does not assent to the mystery of the Blessed Trinity because
of the intelligibility of the processions of intelligence and of
love, but exclusively because God has revealed a Trinity of
Persons. Faith does not treasure the sacramental system
because of its consistency with the theme of the Incarnate
Redemption, but simply because it is revealed by God.
The primacy of faith's motive object must be emphasized.
This, however, does not mean that faith's termination in definite truths is not essential. Faith is the elevation of man's
• Cf. Cone. Trid, sess. VI, c. 8, Denz. 801.

FAITH, FREEDOM IN THOUGHT AND PUBLICATION

519

intellect; it does involve the exercise of intelligence upon the
specific truths revealed. By way of clarification, a twofold
exercise of intelligence in connection with faith should be distinguished. One pertains to faith itself; the other proceeds
with faith or under faith.

II. FAITH AND UNDERSTANDING
The existence and manner in which God has proposed the
truths of faith make plain that the exercise of faith involves
the human mode of the mind's operation; for God has revealed Himself by employing human concepts to communicate and to signify the divine realities. It is true that the
divine mysteries themselves are not confined within these
human terms, nor is their proper intelligibility and intrinsic
evidence manifested through such terms. It is true as well
that faith assents to the revealed realities as they are in themselves, by reason of its motive object. But the conceptual or
verbal expressions of these realities, whether in sacred Scripture or in articulated formulae of the Church, are not excluded
from faith. There is mediation here, as there is in other intellectual experiences. Through these concepts and expressions the
realities which faith accepts are truly signified. It is because
the realities transcend these media that faith is faith, not
vision. But faith is concerned with something definite; it must
be directed to certain explicit truths. 5 The expression of the
realities to which it assents is not totally unrelated to the
realities themselves. While faith is supra-rational, it is not
irrational; it remains a kind of knowledge and involves some
basic thought. The very restlessness and obscurity in the act
of faith suggested by St. Augustine's "Cum assensione cogitare," indicates that there is a pondering in the exercise of
faith. It is a pondering upon the realities as expressed by the
concepts and expressions through which they are present to
faith's assent. While faith's firmness rests upon its adherence
to its unique motive, the experience of faith's obscurity and
5

Cf. S. T. II-11, q.

5.

520

THOMAS

C. o'BRIEN

restlessness indicates the exercise of thought upon its term
through the inadequate concepts signifying the term. The
pondering of faith is characterized by the inadequacies of the
concepts involved, not only with respect to the divine realities, but also with respect to their acceptation by the human
mind. By the nature of the case the concepts are analagous:
open to a variety of levels of understanding, subject to linguistic or historical nuances. There is, then, an exercise of
intelligence involved in faith itself; it is not vision or clear
understanding, but a kind of groping, a disquieting experience
which the intellect seeks to overcome.

III. UNDERSTANDING

WITH OR UNDER FAITH

In addition to the exercise of thought within the dynamics
of faith itself, other intellectual experiences are immediately
consequent upon faith. These experiences take their particular
forms, on the supernatural level, from the divinely constituted magisterium of the Church with its charismatic assistance, and the Gifts of the Holy Spirit perfective of the intellect of the just man; and on the natural level, from theology,
whether as a formal habit or simply as reflective acts of the
believer.
All of these phenomena look to faith itself as their reason
for being. While faith itself consists essentially in its divinely
motivated simple assent, it does involve some thought about
the truths which are its terminative object. It is through this
thought that faith has its experience of obscurity and inadequacy with regard to divine mysteries. Because the connatural orientation of intellect to understanding cannot rest in
such obscurity, the mind seeks to go further, to attain some
sort of understanding of the truths to which faith assents.
The inherent obscurity of faith initiates the quest for understanding; all of the intellectual experiences mentioned above
thus arise from the very nature of faith. The existence of these
experiences evoke again the question of the delicate balance
involved within the core of faith itself.

FAITH, FREEDOM IN THOUGHT AND PUBLICATION

As any intellectual act, the act of faith terminates, not in
its concepts, in its propositions or articles, but in the reality
these signify. But faith is a unique kind of knowledge, an infallible assent to truth because of its motive object. It is in
no way based upon intrinsic evidence, yet it is absolutely certain. The basic understanding-in the sense of the assent to
definite truths-the pondering, the obscurity, the restlessness
involved in faith are directed towards its terminative object.
Something of the latter is signified in the propositions, yet the
evidence of the truths is not made manifest. Within the intrinsic structure of faith, it is the motive object that keeps
faith's assent firm; that guarantees its termination in the
truth; that bestows the certitude proper to adherence to truth.
This motivation prevents the obscurity, the connatural discomfort of intellect in the absence of intrinsic evidence, from
shaking faith's assent. But as long as the truths of faith stand
before the intelligence of man through the propositions signifying them, the quest of intelligence, over and above the simple assent of faith, goes on. Herein lies the problem. If the
exercise of intelligence should result in misunderstanding, in
misrepresentation, in distortion of the meaning of the divine
truths, then the very existence of faith would be threatened.
For example, an erroneous explanation of a divine mystery
which would present a contradiction to a truth held firmly by
reason would jeopardize the foundation of faith. The famous
double truth theory of the thirteenth century was itself a false
attempt to escape such dilemmas. On the other hand, a misrepresentation of one divine mystery might introduce a contradiction to other divine mysteries, as, for example, the Calvinist
explanation of the mystery of predestination. The history of
heresy is witness to the possibilities of human intelligence
distorting the divine truths of faith, and thus threatening
faith's existence. If the terminative object of faith is so understood as to involve contradiction in any way, the faith's
adherence to its motive object is in danger. The mind can tolerate the obscurity of mystery but it cannot bear contradic-

THOMAS

C. o'BRIEN

tion. While the intrinsic intelligibility of mysteries ever remains obscure, nevertheless these mysteries must be accepted
as truths. And they are truths guaranteed by the divine veracity; nothing unworthy of God can be introduced into their
explanation, without thereby threatening faith. For faith rests
upon this: that God can neither deceive nor be deceived.

A. Supernatural Assistance
Because faith does engage the energies of intelligence, because of the delicate balance within the structure of faith, certain supernatural guarantees and aids are conferred by God
as faith's supports. On a communal level God bestows charismatic graces upon His Church. In regard to the proposition
of revelation itself, both prophecy and inspiration are such
graces. Both include the divine assistance that guarantees the
accurate and truthful communication of the divine mysteries.
For the preservation and evolution of the understanding of
the truths of faith, charismatic aids are bestowed upon the
divinely constituted magisterium. One principal role of the
magisterium, connected with the formal motive of faith, is to
point out that certain truths are indeed revealed by God. 6
Another is to interpret the meaning of divine revelation as
proposed in Sacred Scripture. 7 It pertains also to the magisterium to propose divine mysteries in formulae which arc
always accurate and adequate expressions of these truths. 8
Such formulae are, not merely the negative rejection of what
is contradictory to divine truth and unworthy of God's revelation, but also the positive expression of something of the
intelligibility of divine mysteries. 9 The magisterium exists
with its divine assistance to overcome, to the degree possible,
the inadequacy of human concepts both with regard to the
Cf. Dem>.
Cf. Denz. 786, 1788.
8 Cf. Denz. 1800.
9 The formulation
and proposal are not always exhaustive nor even, absolutely
speaking, most apt; place is left for clarification, development, and expression more
appropriate to particular needs of the faithful.
6
7

FAITH, FREEDOM IN THOUGHT AND PUBLICATION

523

intrinsic divine realities in themselves, and with regard to the
variable significance of these concepts to the human mind.
Thus by proposing what is truly revealed, by formulating the
expression of divine truths, by authentically interpreting the
sense of revelation, the magisterium teaches and directs the
posture of intelligence towards the terminative object of faith.
In all of these functions the charismatic aids remain with the
Church in order to guide the exercise of intelligence in such a
way as to preserve the truths of faith and the delicate balance between the motive and terminative objects.
On a personal level, the Gifts of the Holy Spirit-wisdom,
understanding, knowledge, counsel-provide the just man with
the pledge of another kind of assistance to faith. One reason
for the existence of such gifts is to overcome the imperfection
of faith. This does not mean, of course, that the essential
obscurity in faith can ever be removed; nor does it mean that
the gifts confer upon man a contact with God, the motive
object of faith, that is more perfect than that conferred by
faith itself. The imperfection of faith that is overcome is
rather that attendant upon the mediation of human concepts
in the exercise of faith. Through the gifts the just man is
assured of the special assistance of the Holy Spirit in all that
is necessary for salvation. 10 The Holy Spirit, according to the
gifts of knowledge, moves the just man to value judgments
of the transcendence of God over all that can be signified by
the human terms in which revelation is proposed or with
which faith's assent is involved. The Holy Spirit quells the
restlessness and guides the pondering of intelligence with the
assurance that the divine mysteries are true, no matter what
specious appearances are alleged against them. 11 Thus a
guarantee, a direction, a protection is given to the energies of
intelligence through the gifts, in order to safeguard and make
more effective faith's adherence to God's truth. Unlike the
assistance to the Church, however, the experience of the gift's
1

°Cf. S. T., II-II, q. 8, a. 4 ad 1, ad 8; q. 45, a. 5.

11

Cf. ibid., q. 8, a. 2; a. 4, ad 2.

524

THOMAS

C. o'BRIEN

operations as such is incommunicable; as supernatural, it is
not even certifiable by the recipient. But the general purpose
of these gifts is an assurance of the special divine assistance
for the strengthening of the faith, and points to the necessity
of such a safeguard.

B. Theology
Theology is the exercise of human intelligence upon the
truths of faith. While rooted in faith and proceeding under
faith, theology remains entitatively natural. Does this exercise of intelligence have or, indeed, need to have any such
guarantees as those bestowed upon the magisterium and upon
the just man?
Neither the magisterium itself nor the gifts of the Holy
Spirit are irrelevant to this question. The theologian is a
member of the Church; he may also be in the state of grace.
However, the charismatic assistance promised to the magisterium is not given to the theologian as such, but to the
Church teaching, to the supreme pontiff and the college of
bishops. Since the principles of theology are the truths of
faith, the theologian is guided by the magisterium and thus
profits by the assistance given to it. But this assistance is not
given formally to his discursive efforts. Moreover, part of the
labor of the theologian is to explicate and to weigh the significance of declarations by the magisterium; in this sense the
functioning of the magisterium is presupposed to his tasks. In
another sense, his task is presupposed to that of the magisterium, in that the elaborations of the theologian dispose the
matter, as it were, from which the Church teaching may formally and authoritatively elucidate or explicate the truths
of faith.
The theologian may be and, in terms of the nature of the
theological enterprise, should be in the state of grace. He thus
personally profits from the assistance of the gifts of the Holy
Spirit. This may even serve to deepen his personal insight
into the principles and application of theology and even to

I!'AITH, FREEDOM IN THOUGHT AND PUBLICATION

5ifl5

extend his vision to broader and more fruitful insights. But
such experiences are purely personal; they are formally incommunicable and they cannot of their nature enter into theological discourse. In themselves they are non-discursive judgments, affective in their base. Before entering into theology
their import must be translated into formally discursive terms,
into the terms of theological science.
Is there then any guarantee or guide for the theological
project as such? That some guide or control upon the exercise of intelligence in theology is necessary, is beyond question, precisely because theology is the pursuit of understanding of the truths of faith. Here too, then, the delicate balance
between terminative and motive objects of faith must be
respected. Thus the First Vatican Council marks out the conditions of theological endeavor: that it be conducted sedulo,
pie et sobrie. The earnestness of the theologian's quest rests
upon the realization of the gravity of faith's role as the beginning, the root, and the foundation of salvation. Its reverence
is imposed by the subject of inquiry, truths as guaranteed by
the divine truthfulness. Its disciplined attitude rests upon the
awareness of its own nature as a service to faith, thus to the
faithful and to the Church. This soberness is more than the
discipline inherent in other intellectual pursuits. Theology
must be constantly aware of its roots in the principles of faith
and of its specifying character as a natural discursive inquiry.
From its radication in faith it must realize that the truths of
revelation are not only incomprehensible, but that they are of
the highest level of intelligibility. Intelligence thus needs purification from the limitations placed upon it by its connatural
object, the being of sensible reality. It needs to search also
for clarification and penetration of the accurate signification
of the terms in which the truths are proposed. From faith itself, as well, theology possesses the consciousness of the effects
of sin upon intelligence as well as upon the appetites of man.
Thus a further need for purification arises. The pursuit of the
12

Cf. Denz. 1796.

526

THOMAS C. o'BRIEN

theologian must then be sober, guarding against the ever present possibility of anthropomorphizing, of error, of blindness,
of dullness, and of a tendency to make self-vindication replace
dedication to truth. Theology needs safeguards.
Does this mean that it has no freedom; that the theologian's
efforts must be conducted in an atmosphere of suspicion, under
the eyes of a grand inquisitor? The safeguard that is proper
and proportionate to theology as an intellectual discipline is the
certitude of truth itself. Since certitude is the firm adherence
of the mind to one part of a contradiction without fear that the
opposite might be true, the possession of certitude is the source
of freedom proper to the intellectual level. Theology has its
principles from faith; its distinctive procedures are the work
of human intelligence. Both from its principles and from the
validity of human intelligence, theology has its own inherent
safeguards, the sources both of its certitude and therefore of
its freedom.
IV. FREEDOM OF INQUIRY

A. Faith and Freedom
The primary discipline regulative of theological inquiry is
that of faith itself, for the principles of theology are the
truths revealed by God as true. The basic subjective certitude of the theologian, therefore, corresponds to the objective
truths of his principles, as guaranteed by God Himself. This
has its ramifications upon the investigatory processes of the
theologian. He is absolutely sure that no proposition devised
by human intelligence, no demonstration formulated, no experimental fact discovered, can be true and at the same time
in contradiction to any truth of faith/ 3 From this assurance
he has a norm: he knows that he can pursue any line of
inquiry, confront any position with the assurance that its
relation to divine truth can be discovered or its alleged con18 Cf. S. T., I, q. 1, a. 8: " ... Cum enim fides infallibili veritati innitatur, impossible autem sit de vero demonstrari contrarium, manifestum est probationes quae
contra fidem inducuntur, non esse demonstrationes, sed solubilia argumenta."

FAITH, FREEDOM IN THOUGHT AND PUBLICATION

527

tradiction resolved by the same power of human intelligence
that formulated it. Every objection to the truths of faith is
devised by human reason; it is answerable by the same reason.
More positively, from faith's adherence to divine truth, the
theologian knows that his inquiry into the objective intelligibility of these truths can be fruitful. His inquiries can do
more than remove any contradictory sense from the understanding of the divine mysteries. Because these are truths,
they do admit of some true understanding. In the realm of
the positive function of theology-exegetical, patristic, historical and the like-the theologian is dealing with the very expression of divine revelation. By faith itself he is assured that
such expressions are communicative and expressive of truth.
Thus the use of valid critical instruments of inquiry will provide a deeper penetration into the true meaning of the expressions of divine revelation. The effective use of critical instruments of research will bring him closer to the intention and
determined sense of the terms in which revelation is proposed
in Scripture, transmitted by the magisterium, or witnessed by
the Fathers. As to the speculative and properly discursive
phases of theology, the theologian knows that because the
divine truths are truths they have an ontological consistency
and an intelligible content. Even while acknowledging the
essential obscurity and incomprehensibility of mystery, he
knows that he can seek and hope to attain some valid insight
into the intrinsic intelligibility of the mysteries, both in themselves and in their cohesive relationships, as well as valid
inferences expressing their ramifications. This confidence, this
liberty of inquiry, is rooted in the faith's adherence to the
principles of theology as truths. To the degree, then, that his
researches yield an understanding of these mysteries in terms
of valid metaphysical concepts, to that degree the theologian
is assured that he attains a valid, even if common and analogical, understanding of the truths of faith. Thus the certitude of faith itself guides the theologian and moves him with
confident freedom, not only to reject all understanding of

5Q8

THOMAS C. o'BRIEN

mysteries contradictory to intelligence, but to accept all verifiable understanding as valid expressions of the divine realities he considers. There is yet another facet of the freedom
of inquiry derived from theology's dependence upon faith's
adherence to the reality of revealed truths. This adherence
implies an awareness in the theologian of inadequacy in all
human expressions of incomprehensible mystery. But such an
awareness should not beget a paralyzing fear leading to inertia, or to a stultifying repetition of formulae. Rather it is a
spur to seek freely within the resources of intellect further
ways of manifesting the inexhaustible riches of mystery. Thus,
for example, while the theologian can adopt no position contradictory to the dogmatic pronouncements of the magisterium, he can do much more than repeat them verbatim. He
can seek, whether through the positive or the speculative resources of theology, to achieve further insights. The current
emphasis on the social implications of the Holy Eucharist is
an instance of the fruitful exercise of such freedom. The exhortation of Pius XII to theologians that they intensify their
investigations into the doctrine of the divine indwelling is
another. 14 Faith's assurance of the wealth of being and intelligibility in the divine mysteries, bestows a liberty of inquiry
and expression. The human articulation of the truths of faith,
even by dogmatic definitions, does not exhaust the reality
enunciated; there is always perfectibility, possibility of new emphasis, and insights; thus unending theological inquiry.

B. Reason and Freedom
While faith itself indirectly indicates the validity of the intellect's quest for understanding, the theologian also has a norm
of direction in the power of human reason itself. It is stupid,
and totally incompatible with the very nature of theology, for
any theologian to delude himself into a rationalistic attitude.
But given the faith and thus the assurance of the truth of
mysteries, he can with all security conduct his rational inquir14

Cf. Mystici corporis, A. A. S., XXXV (1943), 231.

FAITH, FREEDOM IN THOUGHT AND PUBLICATION

529

ies. Part of that confidence can come from the proved effectiveness of the instruments of inquiry he employs, and from
the transcendental validity of the first principles of human
reason. To the degree in which these resources of intelligence
are valid, so are the expressions of divine truth which their
use yields. This is not to scale down the Gospel message to
the confines of a conceptual system. But neither is the theologian condemned by the transcendence of divine revelation to
agnosticism or to subjective relativism. The evidence, the verification, the validity with which he knows the resources of
human reason to be endowed, enable him to see their positive
value for the positive expressions of absolute truths. It is one
thing to speak patronizingly about "schools of theology," or
the "manualist approach "; it is quite another to speak of the
absolute truths of human reason. The validity of any expression of divine truths by the theologian depends in some measure upon the validity of the resources of human reason he
employs. If these means are sound, if they are true, then he
has certitude and assurance-no matter what his "school"
or his method-that his assertions are valid and true (not
merely popular or attractive). Thus in his use of reason, the
theologian has this safeguard to observe: the need and the
power of human intelligence to attain certitude in its own
level, and to be aware of its own vindication. He also has this
freedom: the freedom to make any assertion about the divine
that is defensible by reason. This is so whether there be quesof the sapiential procedures of the scholastic function of theology or of the critical research of its positive phases. A valid
use of reason under faith in theology yields truth; it is defensible, " self-conscious" of its own verification and justification. Thus the use of reason in theology has at hand a safeguard and at once a source of freedom proper to intellectual
enterprise: the freedom to seek truth reasonably and to certify its attainment reasonably.
This is not to say that the theologian has freedom to formulate or express only those positions which are demonstrably
certain. Such positions are attainable and are verifiable; but

530

THOMAS C. o'BRIEN

by the nature of the case, much of theology's endeavor deals
with opinion, tentative suggestions, probabilities. The security theology enjoys rests in part upon the power of reason to
certify its own procedures, to recognize and distinguish between areas of certainty and those of probability or opinion.
This self-justifying power enables the theologian to be sure
with a reflective certitude of the value of his direct investigations. The use of intelligence under faith has as one of its purposes to show how what is revealed is true. 15 The obligation
thus imposed is to use intelligence to the full extent of its
validity. This includes a consciousness of its own value and
of a gradation in its approach to truth. The theologian is
freed from the intellectual despair that ig nominalism or relativism. He can avoid the mistake of confusing what is probable with what is firmly established. He thus has confidence
in his evaluation of the precise force of reason's discoveries.
To the degree in which they approach certitude, to that degree the theologian is sure of the value of his service to the
manifestation of the truth of faith.
Although not rigidly interpreted nor notably observed by
Catholic theologians, ecclesiastical approval of the method,
doctrine and principles of St. Thomas Aquinas remains operative/6 There is current discomfort with this approval and
with this one, so called, " conceptual system." Prescinding from
the ecclesiastical approval, the theologian need only employ
this caution: that whatever "conceptual system" he uses be
true in itself. Then it can serve to express the truth of divine
mysteries. To observe this caution is concomitantly to enjoy
the freedom conferred upon intellect by self-assurance, by its
intrinsic verification of the resources it uses. It is not unthinkable that, independent of juridic approval, the thought of St.
Thomas Aquinas possesses such an intrinsic criterion. It is
not impossible that other speculative resources of intelligence
be verifiable by resolution to basic metaphysical principles.
But to be worthy of theology's appropriation to its service,
15

16

Cf. Quaestiones Quodlibetales, Quod!. IX, q. 4, a. 8 (ed. Marietti, p. 87).
Cf. 0.1. 0., can. 1866, 2.

FAITH, FREEDOM IN THOUGHT AND PUBLICATION

531

such a demand on reason's processes is indispensable. Acceptability, attractiveness, popularity are not themselves the criterion of truth. Unless the theologian has a properly intellectual justification for his discursive endeavors, then he has
neither a safeguard proper to theology nor the freedom of
self-assurance that such a criterion alone can provide.

V. Pre-publication Censorship
The theologian has his own proper safeguards within the
very constitutives of his science; they are also a source of freedom. Yet in the current state of affairs he must submit, prior
to publication, to another check: examination of his writings
by ecclesiastical censors. What seems objectionable to those
who would discard the institution of censorship is the restriction of freedom they see in the submission of the product of
the theologian's intelligence to an authority endowed with the
right to accept or reject it. An emphasis upon the authoritarian and juridic status of censorship, either by its opponents or by those who exercise it, leads to a misapprehension
of its intrinsic nature. In itself censorship should not be seen
as alien to theology's own "self-control" nor, consequently,
to its freedom.
That any responsible person should reject the need for discipline in theological procedures is inconceivable. The recognition of the true relationship between terminative and motive
objects of faith, the existence of supernatural aids to the exercise of intelligence upon the terminative object, indicate the
demand for control. The true reason for censorship is simply
the need for such control. If censorship be properly exercised
it will be merely a continuation of the discipline inherent to
theology itself.
Both censors and censored share the sources of theology's
discipline and its freedom: the certitude of faith and the validity of human reason. By reason of the former, both are absolutely convinced of the truths of faith as truths. Both also
share in the conviction that any exercise of intelligence has
the manifestation of truth as its objective, and the effective

THOMAS C. o'BRIEN

use of the resources of reason as its means. Thus from this
point of view no restriction extrinsic to the theological enterprise itself need be involved in censorship. The theologian
whose whole endeavor is rooted and grounded in faith is
united by this faith with every other theologian, including the
censor. The problem arises rather on the level of the effective
use of intellect. Neither the theologian nor the censor as such
has the guarantees provided by charismatic or personal graces.
Again, both recognize the need for some sort of check upon
the use of intelligence with and upon the truths of faith. There
are two indications in the functioning of censorship: the nihil
obstat of the censors themselves; the imprimatur of the local
ordinary. Both have a view to the intrinsic content of the
work, and to the opportuneness of its publication.
With regard to content, both the nihil obstat and the imprimatur are negative indications; neither constitutes an endorsement. What they say is that the product of the intellectual energies of the theologian contains nothing opposed or
dangerous to the true understanding of the faith. The proper
grounds for this negative judgment are not extrinsic to the safeguards inherent in theology itself. The censors examine a product of human intelligence, supposedly competent. From their
own intellectual competence, they must evaluate the adequacy
and the accuracy of the work of another mind. In this task they
are not allowed to base their judgment upon personal opinions or tastes; they are directed to judge in terms of accepted
Catholic doctrine and sound theological truths. What pertains
per se to the censorship situation, then, is the submission of
the work of the theologian to critical evaluation by other competent theologians. Of course, the threat of personal prejudice
or of human defectibility influencing the censors is ever present. Such possibilities are neither proper nor intrinsic to the
question of censorship, but common factors in human affairs.
This is recognized in the restrictions placed upon the censor,
and the right conceded to the author to be informed of the
reasons for rejection. 17 In itself the evaluation of content by
"Cf. 0.1.0., can. 1394, !!.

F.UTH, FREEDOM IN THOUGHT AND PUBLICATION

533

the censors is the same evaluation to which the theologian
must submit himself: a critical evaluation o£ the devices o£
intellect and thus o£ their relationship to and expression o£
the truths o£ faith.
But i£ this criterion is available to the theologian himself,
why should its use be duplicated by censors? The answer is
obvious. While intelligence has its own source o£ self-assurance, it is also subject to the fallibility consequent upon both
the connatural orientation o£ the intellect, and upon the condition o£ intelligence in the state o£ £allen nature. It is true
that submission to censorship involves the submission to other
fallible intelligences. But the whole o£ human experience both
in the theoretical and the prudential orders favors the advantages for objectivity, accuracy, verification and control through
consultation and concerted application to a problem.
The question o£ the opportuneness o£ publication also pertains to censorship. In this regard, as well, censorship should
be recognized and exercised in a way consistent with theological freedom. The censorship judgment upon technical works
intended for specialized audiences should be quite different
from the judgment relative to works for general consumption.
In the first case, all that the censor need decide, one might
say, is upon the evidence o£ the competence o£ the author.
Such works are by their nature intended for an audience at
least o£ equals. They are meant for professionals. Often they
are tentative and guarded, simply because they are research
works or approaches to new problems. They are published
with the very purpose o£ submission to the clarifying process
o£ free exchange among professional theologians. In this very
process the possibility o£ error by the individual theologian is
acknowledged; he submits his own thoughts with the desire to
secure a more effective evaluation o£ the validity o£ his investigations. The common effect o£ other trained minds upon the
same area is an assistance towards clarification, towards correction, towards achieving a better expression or more cohesive elaboration, o£ the truths o£ faith. Thus by the nature o£
the case, the theologian, granted the fundamental allegiance

534

THOMAS

C. o'BRIEN

to faith and to theology that unites him to his colleagues,
should be allowed the widest latitude. The very existence of
the professional journal is itself an acknowledgment of the
employment of safeguards proper to theology, the search for
certitude, and the freedom that such certitude alone provides.
Historically, even in recent times, there have been excesses
in censorship in this area. The value of the cry against prepublication censorship is its recognition of a need for vitality
in the theological quest. That quest is necessary, an exigency
of faith itself, and a corollary to the divine mandate to teach
all men of all times. Unless the theologian has the opportunity of employing the progressively perfected resources of
intelligence, his thought and its presentation will be isolated
from the mentality of contemporaries. Especially in professional publications the theologian has the media in which to
advance new ideas. The milieu of such expression contains
theology's own correctives through the critical evaluation of
the author's peers. The censors of such works must be continually aware that their task is but an extension of theology's
own proper discipline. They must thus recognize the inadequacy of all human expressions of divine truth and the consequent, ever-present possibility of enriching the understanding of mystery. They must be aware of the freedom which the
living magisterium allows to theologians who employ any valid
resource of reason to manifest the truth of revelation. They
must take into account the reluctance of the Church to settle
definitively points of purely academic moment. They must also
take into account the theologian's own consciousness and expression of the validity of the positions he advances, whether
as certainties, as opinions, or as probabilities. All of this
amounts to a restriction of the censor's judgment in this type
of publication to a minimal acceptance of the nihil obstat. The
mutual trust of the censor and the theologian in the sources
of theology's own discipline and freedom will assure the progress and vitality of theological inquiry. Distrust or the restrictive abuse of censorship in this area can only be damaging to

F AI'l'H, FREEDOM IN THOUGHT AND PUBLICATION

585

the progress of theology and the communication of divine
truth.
When the issue is a trade book or articles for some general
consumer media, the censor's judgment must be stricter. Here
he takes into account, not only the intrinsic content of the
work, but also the fallibility of the uncritical minds of general
readers. Another facet of the pre-publication censorship question arises here. In professional works the focus of attention
of the censor is upon the theologian's efforts to overcome something of the inadequacy of human terms relative to divine
reality. In works for general consumption, the censor's focus is
rather upon the inadequacy of human expressions of the faith
relative especially to untrained minds. Perhaps what the
opponents of censorship imply is that the faithful need no
protection and in the name of freedom should be given none.
Perhaps the desideratum would be the education of the faithful to such a degree that they could themselves make a critical
evaluation of any statement by any mind about any truth of
the faith. This is a dubious ideal; its realization seems impossible. The existence of the magisterium with its charismatic
assistance and the existence of the gifts of the Holy Spirit
point to the divine realism about the condition of the faithful. Graces are not given superflously. The very existence of
the professional theologian in the Church is also a witness to
the care needed in intellect's exercise regarding the truths of
the faith.
If the judgment of opportuneness rests upon grounds less
calculable than that concerning content, it is still not a curtailment extrinsic to the theologian's own point of view. When
a work of general circulation is involved, the theologian's
objective is to communicate some truth of the faith for the
benefit of the faithful. No responsible theologian would seek
to circulate his own tentative positions, his hypothetical inquiries, his sometimes advanced terminology, to an uncritical
audience. The exercise of discretion by a theologian other than
the author himself is simply the attempt to achieve the same
objective as that of the author. It takes into account the pos-

536

THOMAS C. o'BRIEN

sibility of the author's point of view and interest being limited,
as well as the actual condition and needs of the faithful. The
true role of censorship is not the imposition of an arbitrary
obligation; it is an effective supplement to the theologian's
own commitment to communicate the truth, resulting from
his primary conviction, the certitude of faith itself.
No higher designation can be bestowed upon the theologian than that o£ "catholicae veritatis doctor." 18 Especially
through publication for the generality of the faithful the theologian exercises this office. Aware as he must be of the nature
of the adherence to Catholic truth by divine faith, he must
accordingly be aware of the responsibility he has. His own
employment of theology's intrinsic safeguards in his effort to
discern and to communicate the truth should dispose him to
see pre-publication censorship neither as an affront nor as an
alien influence. It serves no purpose to trace its historical
source to the renaissance pope, Leo X, or to allege abuses of
the office of censor. There is a true intrinsic relationship of
the work of theology with the work of the censor. Like the
intrinsic discipline of theology itself, censorship can and is
designed to preserve the balance between the terminative and
the motive object of faith, to strengthen faith's adherence to
the truth. Such a guarantee is necessary; it can assist theology
and the communication of its ideas towards a true freedom:
the freedom of self-assurance and certitude.
. . . Holy Scripture itself, even though it advises us to believe
these great realities before we understand them, will be of no use
if you misunderstand it. Every heretic has acknowledged the
authority of Scripture; each of them has persuaded himself that
he was following Scripture, though in reality he was following his
own errors. Such men are heretics, not because they reject Scripture, but because they have not understood it: ... (St. Augustine, The Trinity, Bk. XV, n. 51, PL. XLII, 1098).
THOMAS

Dominican House of Studies
Washington, D. C.
18

S. T., I, Prol.

c. O'BRIEN, O.P.

THE COUNCIL AND THE MISSIONS

S

INCE the announcement of the convening of Vatican
Council II, many books and articles have appeared dealing with aggiornamento of the Church and with the
ecumenical movement for reunion with our separated fellow
Christians. In these writings the focus of attention has been
centered principally upon the life and activity of the Church
in the western world. Very little has been written, except in
passing, about the mission apostolate in Africa and Asia. Yet
Pope John XXIII has declared that one of the most pressing
topics will be the spread of the Catholic faith. 1 Elsewhere
he had written," We have never ceased to give Our most lively
concern to the missionary problem in all its vastness, beauty
and importance." 2
How are we to explain this apparent neglect? I say 'apparent neglect' because I am sure that the relative inattention
to the missions in current literature concerned with the Council
is not due to lack of interest or to a deliberate intent to ignore
them. Rather, I believe, it should be attributed to the difficulty
involved in locating the missions properly and accurately within the Church's apostolate in this transitional period in her
history. Despite this difficulty, and even because of it, I shall
attempt to offer some general guidelines for the orientation of
our thought upon the subject of missions today.
There is need for a considerable readjustment of our thinking with regard to foreign missions to bring it up to date. The
political, social, economic, and cultural changes in recent years
have been more rapid and more radical in Africa and Asia than
in the western world. It has become commonplace to hear that
"the age of the missions " is over and that WC\ have embarked
upon a new and as yet unnamed and uncharted era in world1

2

Pope John XXIII, Ad Petri Cathedram. AAS, LI (1959), 511.
Pope John XXIII, Princeps Pastorum, AAS, LI (1959), 834.

537

538

RONAN HOFFMAN

wide Christianity.
cant passage:

Pope Pius XII pointed this out in a signifi-

In other days the life of the Church, in its visible aspect, extended
its force-especially in those countries of old Europe from which
she spread-toward what could then be called the limits of the
world; today, on the contrary, she presents herself as an exchange
of life and energy between all the members of the Mystical Body
of Christ upon earth. 3

The significance of this statement for the missions, and indeed
for the life of the entire Church, is far-reaching in its implications.
Not the least of the problems concerning a proper conception
of the foreign mission apostolate is a semantic one, for " missions " and " missionary " are highly equivocal terms. Since,
however, there is no ready terminology to substitute for them,
we are compelled to use them, ambiguous as they are, in referring both to the international apostolate of the colonial period,
which is now all but a thing of the past, and to its radically
changed modern counterpart. This is one of the reasons for
a growing tendency to avoid the use of the term "missions," a
tendency which is not to be regretted, for the term has little
theological significance. In its plural form it entered into use in
the early seventeenth century without any direct or immediate
reference to the theological notion of " mission."
For the past four centuries the foreign mission apostolate has
been generally regarded as a pastoral activity of a small segment of the Church. Only rarely, and only by relatively few
even in our day, has the possibility been considered of developing its underlying theory as a section of sacred theology.
Moreover, the missions have commonly been presented in terms
of activity, and greater emphasis has been given in missionary
writings to the external, visible activity designed to establish a
visible Christian community.
Less frequently have writers
given attention to the internal, invisible, spiritual and supernatural activity leading toward the aedificatio Corporis Mystici
Christi. Granted there is no real opposition between these two
3

Pope Pius XII, Christmas Radio Address, AAS, XXXVIII (1946), 20.

THE COUNCIL AND THE MISSIONS

539

types of activity, still there is a considerable difference in the
mental image evoked and in one's consequent understanding
of and outlook upon missions.
The reader will appreciate the significance of this difference
if he will see it as comparable to, say, a presentation of the
sacraments which sets forth only the visible, tangible elements,
as opposed to one which treats of the underlying spiritual
reality as well. So much writing about the missions has highlighted the feeding of hungry children, the care of lepers, the
nursing of the sick, the building of chapels, hospitals and
schools, etc., that the public is left with the impression that
the missions deal principally with these matters. Is this a
truly balanced and theologically accurate presentation of the
mission apostolate?
In this country particularly, missionary propaganda has laid
such emphasis on these external activities in the natural order
that there is danger of glossing over the deeper truth, that
the mission apostolate is the activity whereby the Mystical
Body of Christ extends itself throughout the world, incorporating men into its bosom and regenerating them with the divine
life of grace. Expressed in these terms, it is readily apparent
that it is an activity which is principally spiritual and religious,
and in the supernatural order. It is important to keep this well
in mind if we would avoid the danger of conceiving the missions
as something on a level with mere human and natural undertakings. The fact is that the mission apostolate is and must
ever be a divine undertaking, something entirely supernatural
in its source as well as in its end. Its problems, therefore,
should not be treated as merely human problems capable of
a human solution by specialists in the secular sciences.
An accurate and balanced conception and presentation of the
missions ought to give both aspects mentioned above, and in
the proper order. Here the question of right order is fundamental in thought and in action, and naturally right thinking
must precede right action.
Pope John XXIII began his new encyclical Pacem in terris
by insisting on the necessity of observing the order laid down

540

RONAN HOFFMAN

by God if we would have peace. 4 The need of right order is a
basic need in the organization and formation of the new age
upon which we have entered. Similarly, we must observe right
order in our entire approach, both conceptual and methodological, to " missions " in this new ecumenical era.
It was in connection with the mission apostolate that Pope
Pius XI noted that it is always from the world of ideas that the
grand directives of action flow. He went on to say that we are
living at a time when, more than ever before, it is obvious
that all the heroism and sacrifices which accompany missionary
work are not enough. In order to reap the fruits of these sacrifices and efforts, there is need of a science to indicate and illuminate the most direct ways, to suggest the most profitable
methods and means. The missions, he concluded, cannot and
ought not to ignore this characteristic of our times. 5
The science which should explain, guide and direct the mission apostolate is the sacred science o£ theology. But there is
need for presenting this apostolate in a more explicitly theological manner than is the case at present. Nothing will offer
greater hope for mission success than the development of the
theology of the missions.
This statement may appear an exaggeration to some active
missionaries whose interest is centered upon practical mission
methods. To some, theology may appear essentially theoretical
and speculative, remote, therefore, from the field of practical
missionary endeavor. Yet many of the practical mission problems are fundamentally theological. Their solution demands
decision and action dictated by sound theological principles and
judgment. However theoretical and speculative it may be in
itself, theology thus becomes by its extension and application
a matter not simply of intellectual delight and enjoyment, but
also a most practical science.
• Pope John XXIII, Pacem in terris; from text published in the Catholic Standard, Washington, D. C., April 19, 1963.
5 Pope Pius XI, Statement on the opening of the Vatican Missionary Exposition,
as quoted in Andre Seumois, 0. M. I., Introduction a la Missiologie, SchoneckBeckenried, Switzerland, 1952, p. 7.

THE COUNCIL AND THE MISSIONS

541

The relationship between sacred theology and the other sciences, since this is of great practical importance for the mission
apostolate, must also be examined. The proper relation of
sacred doctrine to other fields of interest is thus explained by
St. Thomas:
This science can, in a sense, depend upon the philosophical sciences,
not as though it stood in need of them, but only in order to make
its teaching clearer. For it accepts its principles, not from other
sciences, but immediately from God, by revelation. Therefore, it
does not depend upon other sciences as upon the higher, but makes
use of them as the lesser, and as handmaidens. 6
The mission apostolate depends not on the will of man, but
on the will of God. Therefore, it pertains to theology to determine its principles and to measure the legitimacy of methodology that is to be followed in missionary practice. It is necessary to stress the priority of theology if error is to be avoided,
for the activities of the mission apostolate touch also on other
fields of interest. If one neglects the normative character of
theology, there is danger of being submerged in these other
fields. Obviously, the missions touch on Protestant missiology, various forms of religion, sociology, anthropology, social
psychology, etc. If major consideration is given to what is
proper to these other interests in such a way as to dominate
the approach to the subject, then the character of the subject
will be changed.
Let us take sociology and anthropology as examples, since
the representatives of these sciences have, quite properly, interested themselves in applying the findings of their science to the
problems of the mission world or-and this comes almost to
the same thing-to the problems of the developing countries.
Since one of the fundamental mission problems today is the
confrontation of the Church with non-western, even non-Christian cultures, anthropology can gather certain data and facts
which will be of much value in the missionary enterprise of the
Church. Likewise, because the Church exists in this world, the
6

Summa Theologiae, I, q. 1, a. 5, ad

542

RONAN HOFFMAN

fulfillment of its pastoral mission requires that the social realities of the world in which it finds itself be taken into account.
The Catholic Church, since it is composed of human beings who
are members of human societies and live within specific cultures, must have certain relationships with these societies and
cultures.
Nevertheless, the Church herself cannot be contained completely within the framework of sociology or anthropology, because it is a supernatural society. The Church is far superior
to all other societies, since it is not only human but also divine.
It surpasses all other societies as grace surpasses nature. " The
Church in its entirety is not found within this natural order,
any more than the whole of man is encompassed within the
organism of our mortal body." 7
It is to theology that we must turn to ascertain the mission
of the Church in the world. It is theology that must direct and
guide the social sciences in the implementation of practical mission methodology. No one will question the need for applying
social science to the solution of the problems facing human
beings in the mission regions. What requires at least equal or
even greater stress is the absolute need of theological guidance
and direction both for a proper conception of the Church's
mission apostolate and for the proper determination of mission
methods.
For example, anthropology cannot fully comprehend the
complicated question of the adaptation of the Church to nonChristian cultures. Culture by its very nature belongs to the
temporal sphere; social anthropology is thus also limited to
the temporal sphere, whereas the Church exists in both the
temporal and eternal realms. Both theology and anthropology
are needed in working out the complicated task of adapting
the Church to various cultures, but with the proper subordination of the natural to the supernatural science. The problem
of adaptation is principally a theological one. and therefore
theology should guide the adaptation with the assistance of
anthropology.
• Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corp01is, AAS, XXXV (194ll), 223.

THE COUNCIL AND THE MISSIONS

543

Perhaps there are those who will think the need for theology
to guide and direct the Church's mission apostolate is quite
obvious. The fact is, however, that theological investigation of
missionary problems is still sadly inadequate. Perhaps nothing
more clearly illustrates this than the experience of Father
Joseph Schmidlin, who was unable to find a single author who
had ever attempted a systematic discussion or investigation of
the finis missionis. He himself had to blaze a new trail in this
matter " of such fundamental importance for all missionary
practice." 8 It is a matter for surprise, to say the least, that
only in our present century has there been any attention
directed ex professo to such an obviously important point,
especially since all are aware that finis specificat media.
In any case, the representatives of the sacred sciences (dogmatic, moral, historical, scriptural, canonical) ought to enlarge
their study of the Church to include the Church throughout the
world.
The immense enterprise which has traditionally been known
as " the foreign missions '' began in a period when the word
" Christendom " represented a limited and fairly well defined
part of the inhabited world, and when for centuries the Church
had been almost completely isolated from the other great religions and cultures of the world. Christian theology and the
institutions of the Church were shaped by the experiences of
this self-enclosed existence in the western world. Christendom
was a largely isolated and self-contained enclave of humanity;
the foreign missions were a breaking-out of that enclave into a
strange new world.
While there was an enormous expenditure of energy, zeal
and material resources for the missions, there was little serious
attention given to them by theologians. They were mainly concerned with the Reformation and its consequences in Christendom. Even if they had done so, it would still be necessary for
theologians today to painfully rethink many things which their
predecessors took for granted. This is being realized and acted
8 Joseph Schmidlin, Catholic Mission Theory, trans. Matthias
Braun, S. V. D.:
Techny, Illinois, 1931, p. 2.54.

544

RONAN HOFFMAN

on in the larger field of human ecumenism which the mission
apostolate implies.
Nothing will suffice save a radical rethinking of the nature of
the Church's missions. Such a rethinking must include both a
realistic understanding of the new facts with which missions
have to deal, and a humble return to the source of the missions
in revelation. This would be necessary even if, in the past, theologians had attended sufficiently to the mission apostolate; for
it is necessary for the Church " to look to the present, to the
new conditions, and new forms of life introduced into the
modern world." 9
What is the mission of the Church? Our Saviour, as He
hung upon the cross, not only satisfied the justice of the Eternal Father, but He also won for us an unending flow of graces.
It was possible for him personally, immediately, to impart those
graces to men; but He wished to do so through a visible Church
that would be formed by the union of men. The Church was
established precisely for this task, to spread the kingdom of
Christ throughout the world and to afford all men a share in
His salutary redemption. 10
The Church's mission is primarily spiritual and religious, a
thing of the supernatural order. But the Church's solicitude
for the eternal welfare of man implies no indifference to his
temporal condition. As Pope John XXIII wrote in Mater et
111agistra;
Hence, although Holy Church has the special task of sanctifying
souls and making them partake of supernatural goods, she is also
solicitous for the needs of men's daily life, not merely those having
to do with bodily nourishment and the material side of life, but
those also that concern prosperity and culture in all its many
aspects and historical stages.U
Thus, although the Church is, from her divine mission, primarily concerned with the spiritual and not with the temporal,
9 Pope John XXIII,
Allocution on opening of Second Vatican Council, AAS,
LIV (1962), 794.
10 Pope Pius XI, Rerum Ecclesiae, AAS, XVIII (1926), 65.
11 Pope John XXIII, Mater et Magistra, AAS, LIII (1961), 402.

THE COUNCIL

AND THE MISSIONS

545

it nevertheless fosters the temporal prosperity of individuals
and society almost as effectively as if it had been instituted
for that purpose alone.
Misunderstandings or even erroneous opinions can exist concerning the precise nature of the Church's mission and the role
of missionaries. Couturier refers to the temptation by which
the missionary may be inclined to explain all the difficulties in
his way by attributing them to cultural factors that make the
people impervious to Christian teaching. For example, he may
deem it impossible to Christianize the people as a whole, or a
section of them, as long as they are burdened with this or that
institution, whether it is polygamy, or an unsatisfactory wage
system, or slum-dwellings. He may imagine therefore that all
his efforts should be directed to that one point, and that only
after he has overcome this obstacle will he be able to preach
the Gospel. It cannot be doubted that " inhuman " conditions
of life can hinder access to the Christian life; but that does not
justify the conclusion that "humanization" must precede
evangelization. 12
As lVIaritain points out, we must resist the temptation arising
from the lure of temporal advantage to abandon what is
eternal; to abandon it, that is to say, if not in theory, at least in
practice by allowing ourselves to lose sight of it more or less
completely. We should not allow ourselves to be carried away
by the flux of becoming when in fact we should be mastering
it by the spirit. 13
The restatement of the relationship between the sacred science of theology and the other sciences in reference to the
mission apostolate seems useful and indeed even necessary, for
we are facing new situations and so have need of clear insight
and proper orientation with regard to them. There is need of
clarifying basic principles and the whole matter of a proper
approach to the study of the missions and to missionary
practice.
12 Charles Couturier, S. J., The Mission of The Church (Helicon Press:
Baltimore,
1960)' p. 105.
13 Jacques
Maritain, Religion et Culture (Desclee de Brouwer: Paris, 1946),
p. 51.

546

RONAN HOFFMAN

Aristotle notes that the beginning is thought to be more than
hal£ the whole, and by this he meant that the principles of a
given science or art are of great importance for its subsequent
development. 14 I£ the principles are erroneous, it follows that
the whole subsequent science or art will be erroneous; if the
principles are true, then there is solid foundation for what
follows. It is essential, therefore, that we adhere firmly to right
principles and accept the guidance of the proper science, since
this will be of such great importance for the future global
apostolate. One cannot be too careful in this, since the least
initial deviation is multiplied later a thousandfold, as the
Philosopher says. 15
Theology-and in using the term I am speaking of the sacred
science in its modern development as it takes into account the
findings of the social sciences as well as new developments in
the catechetical and liturgical fields-must have priority in
directing the mission apostolate in the future. In the past it
has played far too small a role.
What part of theology should undertake the study o£ the
global apostolate? The answer to this has been suggested in
what already has been said about the Church and her mission.
But because of the manner in which missions were conceived
in the past, it might have been difficult for theologians o£ the
past to answer this question. For some centuries the outlook
has been a narrow one. On the one hand, there has been the
tendency to regard the foreign missions as a fairly isolated
part of the Church's mission, existing somewhere out on the
periphery of things and undertaken by a minority group of
separate, professional missionaries, who were male, clerical, religious foreigners. Until fairly recent times little thought was
given to participation in this apostolate by religious women or
even by laymen, whether foreigners or indigenous (apart from
lay catechists). The purpose of missions, too, was expressed in
too narrow a manner: the propagation of the faith and the salvation of souls. It must be conceded that there was little need
for further development of theology in the light of this view of
14

Ethics (1, 1098b).

'"On the Heavens, I, 27lb, 10.

THE COUNCIL AND THE MISSIONS

547

the m1sswns. Perhaps that is why only one theologian ever
treated the missions in a major theological work, and he placed
them under De Fide. 16
Today, there is an increasingly clear realization that the
rnission (and therefore the "missions") was entrusted to the
.entire Church, not to religious orders and mission societies, as
was largely assumed without challenge in the past. 17 Moreover, it is realized that the mission apostolate must be comprehensive and not merely an apostolate of spiritual conquest.
The qualitative aspect of catholicity, so neglected in the past
four centuries of mission history, is also beginning to receive
the attention it deserves. Some have begun scholarly study of
non-Christian cultures, in order that the good and truth contained in them be incorporated into the Mystical Body of
Him who holds the kingship and primacy over all creation.
In a word, it has come to be realized that, as the establishment of the Church is the principal factor in missionary practice, so too the Church is central in mission theology. Therefore, ecclesiology is that part of theology which has the closest
bearing on the mission apostolate. This is not to be taken in
an exclusive sense, however, for the theological foundation of
the rnission, as an essential aspect of the life of the Church, is
also to be seen in the revelation of the one true God, in our
knowledge of the universal salvific will of God, in the universal
redemptive mission of Christ, and so on.
The mission theology, which is emerging, is largely ecclesiological. The present ecclesiology requires considerable development in order to interpret satisfactorily the Church's
global apostolate in the light of new and complex circumstances.
The post- Tridentine ecclesiology, being too apologetic, too
polemical, and hardly at all concerned with the foreign missions,
is not sufficient for this purpose.
16 Brancati, Laurentius Cardinal, Commentaria in Tertium Librum Sententiarum.
Tomus Tertius, pars
Romae 1673. Disputationes XVII, XVIII, XIX.
17 That the Church, and not religious orders or societies, has received the divine
mandate was strongly emphasized in an Instruction of the Sacred Congregation
of the Propagation of the Faith in
Cf. AAS, XXII
111.

548

RONAN HOFFMAN

In order to place the mission apostolate in its proper locus,
we must revert to first principles and recall that the Church is
Catholic, that catholicity is an essential note of the Church.
Basically, this connotes the inner dynamism of the Church, the
internal striving to expand throughout the world and among
all peoples and cultures. It strives to become truly catholic by
means o£ its " missions." Without this striving the Church
would not be true to its nature.
It is then easily seen that the "missions" are nothing more
and nothing less than the mission of the Church extended on a
truly global scale. It is an essential activity o£ the Church
itself, and it embraces all the activities o£ the Church. The
mission apostolate is simply the apostolate o£ the Church in
those countries o£ Africa and Asia traditionally referred to as
"mission lands." In conceiving o£ "missions," the accent must
always be on the Church, £or the mission was given to the
Church, the entire Church.
From this it follows that, far £rom being a work o£ supererogation, or the special interest o£ a few, missions are the collective responsibility o£ all members o£ the Church. It follows
also that the great issue today is not that o£ Christian ecumenism, but o£ human ecumenism. Much attention is being
given to the former in our western world; it is equally pressing
to give attention to that absolute form o£ ecumenism implied
in the mission apostolate.
It might be objected that the Vatican Council has a separate
Commission £or the Missions, and that therefore the missions
are something separate and distinct £rom the Church's mission.
It is quite accidental, and not at all traditional, that there
should be a separate mission Commission. 18 So recent are the
profound changes in the mission regions (especially the important one o£ the creation o£ indigenous hierarchies) that
there has not been time to relate matters o£ Church life in those
18 The First Vatican Council was the first ecumenical council in history to have a
separate Commission and agenda for the missions. The Council terminated before
this agenda could be taken up. Consequently, the present Council's action on
missions will be completely novel, not at all traditional.

THE COUNCIL AND THE MISSIONS

549

regions to those in older Christian regions. Also, separate consideration is necessary owing to the different political, social,
economic, cultural, and historical factors associated with the
Church's apostolate in the mission regions of Africa and Asia.
De facto, the status of the Church is different in these regions.
We can refer to it as the " developing Church " in these regions,
as compared with the " developed Church " in Europe and
America. The important point to note is that in both areas it
is the Church which will be considered.
If one goes through the list of the other commissions, one
will find that the Council has commissions for bishops and the
governments of dioceses, for discipline of clergy and laity, for
religious orders, for the lay apostolate, for sacramental discipline, for sacred liturgy, for studies and seminaries. All the
matters to be considered by these various commissions will
apply, mutatis mutandis, to the mission regions as well. Obviously, the principal changes or modifications in these matters
will be dictated by the cultural and historical differences obtaining between the various continents of the world where the
Church today is truly established for the first time in history.
The matters to be considered by these commissions will apply
substantially to the mission regions as well as to the regions of
traditional Christendom. Nonetheless, the very existence of a
separate Commission for the Missions illustrates the difficulty
referred to at the beginning of this paper. Where are the" missions" properly to be located within the Church's apostolate
during this transitional period in the history of the Church?
Ideally, they should be considered as an integral part of the
Church's general mission. This is the only theologically sound
manner of regarding them. The circumstances of history prevented the Council from attaining their ideal formulation.
A short paper can at most offer but a few general guidelines
pointing out the need for rethinking missions today. I have
suggested that it is most important for all who are concerned
with missions to approach them primarily from a theological
point of view. This is not to minimize the valuable assistance
the social sciences can render to the mission apostolate, but

550

RONAN HOFFMAN

rather to lay particular emphasis on that which is more basic
and which has been too much overlooked in the past.
I do not wish to imply that nothing has been done along these
lines. As a matter of fact, in the past half-century, in Europe,
missiology has made considerable progress and has built up a
respectable corpus of knowledge regarding the mission apostolate. Unfortunately, this young science is little known in the
United States. 19 But as this country commits itself more and
more to the global apostolate, there will be more need for
missiology.
Missiologists will quite willingly admit that their corpus
scientificum is still incomplete and imperfect. Nevertheless, the
time has arrived when the knowledge they have assembled
ought to be integrated into the various ecclesiastical disciplines.
For example, it is readily apparent that an integral Church
History must include mission history as well; and the same can
be said about the other branches of ecclesiastical studies. They
have been separate and divided in the past; it would be intolerable to continue this situation in the future. Just as it would be
harmful to the unity and catholicity of the Church to perpetuate any harmful division in the Church, so too it would be
harmful to perpetuate any arbitrary and artificial division
within the theological branches of knowledge. It is necessary,
therefore, to strive for the integration of the missiological
branches of knowledge into the traditional branches of sacred
doctrine. Then-and only then-will the missions be located
properly and accurately within the Church's general mission.
RoNAN HoFFMAN,

0. F. M. Conv.

Catholic University of Ame1·ica
Washington, D. C.

19 Missiology is the scientific specialization which studies the work of the establishment of the Church in its doctrinal principles, in its practical norms, and in its
historical development both past and present. As such, it pertains to theology and
has the following branches: scriptural, dogmatic, patristic, pastoral, mission law,
mission history, and missiograpby.

THE CAUSES OF THE WORLD ECUMENICAL
MOVEMENT

X

Ecumenical Truth

understanding of the causes of the ecumenical movement depends on an understanding of ecumenical
truth. Since this truth is one aspect only of the search
for universal truth applied to a particular sector, this search
is essentially objective. The truth is to be sought for its own
sake, irrespective of its utilitarian application or of any preconceived hypotheses of the searcher. Ecumenical truth differs
from the truths open to philosophical research in that it owes
its origin to a divine revelation, and finds its most perfect
expression in a Kingdom which is not of this world; yet, by the
divine-human necessity of the Incarnation, this truth is embodied in a social institution governed by its own officers, involved in the historical process, suffering inevitably as Christ
suffered, and being rent as was His garment. The fact that
ecumenical truth has a finite as well as an infinite horizon means
that Catholics cannot simply present the ecumenical task as a
spiritual problem to be overcome by prayer and self-sacrifice,
though this is indispensable and, it may be, quite enough for
this or that individual member of the Body of Christ. To each
his own particular vocation in the work for reunion, whether
it be spiritual dynamism and inspiration, such as that which
inspires a religious contemplative to offer her life; or the patient
work of prayerful reflection, comparison, research; or simply
attentiveness to the view-point of those with whom we engage
in discussion. As with philosophical truth, we have to create a
climate of informed opinion before we can move forward to new
acts of understanding and co-operation in the ecumenical field.
Even more than in the domain of philosophical truth, ecumenical understanding depends intimately on the quality o£ life
and personal witness of the searcher. For if every schism, no
551

552

THOMAS COWLEY

less than every heresy, is the consequence of human sin impinging at some point on the life of the Mystical Body, it is
clear that every advance towards unity will depend on the
quality and consistency of the Christian life and witness of
those working for reunion.

The Word "Ecumenical"
Dr. Visser't Hooft distinguishes seven meanings of the word
" ecumenical." Pertaining to or representing the whole (inhabited) earth or the whole of the (Roman) Empire are meanings encountered in the Greco-Roman world and the New
Testament. The life of the Church in the early centuries gave
rise to the meaning of referring to or representing the whole
o£ the Church or of that which possesses universal ecclesiastical
validity. The remaining three meanings are modern developments: the world-wide missionary outreach o£ the Church; the
relations between and unity of two or more Churches (or Christians of different confessions); and that quality or attitude
which expresses the consciousness of and desire for Christian
unity. 1 It does seem, however, that many modern writers,
Catholic no less than non-Catholic Christians, use the word in
several of these ways or even in combinations in the same
context. Since the word is so rich in content such a practice is
by no means illegitimate provided the context makes the meaning clear or supports the composite usage. The ignoring of this
diversity of meaning lay at the basis o£ some misunderstanding
when it was first announced that there would be an Ecumenical
Council, designed not merely to edify the Christian people, but
to invite separated Christian communities to find within the
Catholic Church that unity sought by so many souls from all
quarters of the earth. For Catholics, an ecumenical council
has a clearly defined canonical meaning. For the great mass of
1 In Appendix I of A HistOT'IJ of the Ecume:nical Movement
1517-1948, ed. R.
Rouse, S. C. Neill, S. P. C. K., London, 1954, pp. 785-740, based on a fuller presentation in his book The Meaning of Ecume:nical (The Burge Memorial Lecture,
1958) London, 1958. The reader is referred to the Rouse/Neill symposium for a
fuller examination of the subject of the present article.

CAUSES OF WORLD ECUMENICAL

MOVEMENT

553

Catholics in the world the reality underlying what has come to
be known as the ecumenical movement could be attained only
through submission to the See of Peter. But for non-Catholic
Christians ecumenism already implied an aspiration to Christian unity going beyond denominational loyalties, based upon
an even wider aspiration of humanity in the world of today, and
stimulated by the increasing consciousness of human solidarity,
in spite of the political disputes of national leaders, and their
failure to give serious support to movements such as the League
of Nations and the United Nations.

The Catholic Perspective Today
The Ecumenical Council was destined to provide such a
renewal of life within the Catholic Church that her essentially
ecumenical nature would become clearer to the outside world.
This would necessarily involve a twofold movement of renewal
and re-appraisal. The Church would have to understand more
clearly in the design of her founder her privileged role of spreading the Kingdom of God. And she would have to be more lucid
in her attitude to the world in which that Kingdom has to be
spread. She would have to have a clearer vision of the world's
profoundly divided nature owing to man's selfishness; of its
effect on the Church herself; and of its partial but real insights
into the truths, which, taught by Christ nearly two thousand
years ago, are now part of a universal heritage. Unlike Byzantine Christianity, western Christianity whether Catholic or
Protestant has always been a missionary Christianity. But, in
the last century, the whole meaning and context of the missionary task has radically changed with the technological and
communications revolutions, and the evolution of the world's
population into two blocs whose standards of living become
ever more radically differentiated. The Church's outward
movement must now begin with a far deeper and profounder
understanding of those whom, under God's Providence, she is
destined to save than the too formal and often stereotyped
functions comprehended as her mission in the past. The new
ecumenical outlook in Catholicism, as well as in Protestanism,

554

THOMAS COWLEY

finds its primordial cause in the far-reaching missionary change
and the consequent pastoral revolution of the modern world.
The confrontation with the new missionary and pastoral task
obliges the Church to examine afresh the content and quality
of her teaching. A clearer comprehension of what constitutes
the essentials and what may safely be adapted and changed will
follow; in other words, a new ecumenical outlook will emerge.
The ecumenical, missionary and pastoral tasks all need reassessing in light of one another. Further, each has important insights to communicate to the other through specialists at work
in these fields. The bishops present at the Second Vatican Council have undoubtedly been oriented in the direction of a new
ecumenical outlook by what they have learned from each other
in very different missionary and pastoral situations. There is
something of a parallel here to the rise of Anglican-Protestant
ecumenism half a century ago, when the World Missionary
Conference at Edinburgh ushered in a new era of ecumenical
co-operation under the stimulus of the urgent need for an end
to competition in the mission field.

Ecumenism and Mission
At the time of the later Roman Empire, before the barbarian
invasions shattered once and for all the trial marriage between
an aging imperial order and a youthful Church becoming conscious of its own strength, ecumenism in Church and State
coincided. The known world was seen to be included within the
Church's missionary purpose: an ecumenical council fulfilled
a secular as well as an ecclesiastical function. The rise of the
new barbarian nations contributed to the establishment of the
papacy as a secular power in the west, and marked it off from
the Byzantine Empire, where Church-State relations were in
continuity with the late Roman imperial pattern. The conflict
over investiture legitimately defended by the papacy against
secular monarchs led to an exaggeration of the temporal authority of the popes. Of its very nature this was bound to militate against recognition of her spiritual and universal authority,
and proved indeed to be a major factor in the Reformation.

CAUSES OF WORLD ECUMENICAL

MOVEMENT

555

Yet the fact that Christianity and nationality could form a
new syncretism, hindering at once the Church's ecumenical
outlook and her missionary vocation, did not really become
fully evident until after the second world war in 1945. For in
both world wars, national episcopates invoked the Church's
support in their mutually incompatible demands for patriotic
support, nay, for the right to kill and maim enemy nationals,
Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, in the name of Christ. The
association of Christian missions with political and economic
imperialism has proved a grave obstacle in recent years to the
establishment of native Churches in countries with newly
acquired independence; while the almost exclusive association
of all forms of Christianity with the western world has alienated
the far-eastern and middle-eastern countries against what has
appeared to them to be a hostile cultural and even political
force. It is noteworthy that almost the only successful attempts
at converting the faithful belonging to Islam have been achieved
by the Russian Orthodox in certain of the Asiatic Soviet
Republics.

The Catholic Ecumenical Vocation Today
With the encyclical of the late Pope John XXIII, Pacem in
Tenis, the ecumenical vocation of the Catholic Church is seen
to be what it should always have been understood to be, an
international and supranational vocation to all mankind-to
all mankind-but first to those who profess and call themselves
Christians, that they may realise to the full their vocation, now
recognized as God-given though outside the social Body of the
Church. The rest of mankind are potentially members of the
Mystical Body, exhibiting already their divine vocation, although in a fragmentary and incomplete manner. They, like
the members of separated Christian communions, need to be
comprehended by those within the Catholic Church. This is
not simply a question of seeing the world as it really is and of
approaching it with Christian comprehension. Nor is it even
the recognition of the need for the right use of the modern
social sciences and the realization of their relevance for the

556

THOMAS COWLEY

pastoral situation. Beyond Christian realism and the acceptation of the role of modern techniques lies our acknowledgment
of the part we have played in making the world as it is, racked
with war, starvation, ignorance, sickness, waste. The declarations and leadership of the German Catholic episcopate over
the past few years have been at once profoundly missionary
and profoundly ecumenical. In their messages they point to the
responsibility of Catholics for the very conditions which militate against acceptance of the Christian message by people
outside the Church. In their acts they have given recognition
to the solidarity of Catholics with the world's sin and suffering by linking Christian repentance, asceticism, and self-denial,
as it was in the Apostolic Church, with the relief of the
needy, the salvation of the sinful.
The Origins of Ecumenism
The origins of ecumenism, then, must be sought in the perennial vitality of the Gospel and of the community founded by
Christ. The present outburst of ecumenical activity within the
Catholic Church is simply the realization of an ecumenical
vocation she has always possessed but not always realized in
fact. There can be little doubt that the vigour displayed by
the Catholic Church at certain periods in her history-notably
during the counter-Reformation, the nineteenth century, and
since the accession of John XXIII-has astonished Protestants
who have tended to regard her as too concerned with her historical evolution as an institution to be capable of such dynamism. Would it not be equally true to say, however, that
Catholics have, since the Reformation, likewise tended to
underestimate the power of the Christian message preached by
those separated from the historic community centered round
the see of St. Peter, and now find themselves obliged to attempt
an explanation of the phenomenon of the predominantly
Anglican-Protestant world ecumenical movement and to recognize its authentic witness to the Gospel? 2 Yet biblical scholar2 This is not to fail to recognize the early association and co-operation of the
Orthodox, but simply to emphasize that the main inspiration of the world ecu-

CAUSES OF WORLD ECUMENICAL

MOVEMENT

557

ship on both sides would accept as a common source of inspiration the intimate link of the oneness of the Church founded by
Christ with the very unity of the Blessed Trinity as expressed
by St. John, the most intimate of our Lord's Apostles. It
would equally accept the unity in diverseness of the Body of
Christ proclaimed in the Pauline teaching, linking the doctrine
of the Spirit's mission with that of the essential unity of the
different members of that Body. And it would see God's ultimate purpose to be the recapitulation of all creation in Christ,
Whose Body is called in some mysterious way to consummate
the work of the unification of all mankind begun in Him.

Catholic-Pmtestant Ecumenical Inspiration
This return to a fuller realization of the ecumenical nature
of the Church as a necessary corollary to the facing of the
implications of the world's missionary and pastoral situation
is probably the most important cause of the ecumenical movement today, and one which, though most evident in the Anglican-Protestant communions, is now almost as true of the
Roman Catholic communion. There can be little doubt that
the ecumenical cause has been most keenly pressed by Catholics
precisely in those countries feeling to the full the impact of
the second world war, the Nazi occupation, and the persecution
of the Jews. The first world war had already profoundly shaken
the inherited assumptions of the Catholic Church in its relations with society. A study of the characteristic movements
of thought and action within Catholicism during the period
between the wars would appear to show it had not reflected
upon the implications of the first world war and the revolutions accompanying it to the same extent as the AnglicanProtestant world. Striking proof of this assertion may be seen
in the prophetic " Church, Community and State " Conference
at Oxford in 1937, organized by the" Life and Work" Council
later fused with theW. C. C.3 It seems that an even profounder
menical movement now incarnated in the World Council of Churches was Anglican
and Protestant.
3 See below pp. 560 ff.

558

THOMAS COWLEY

shock to Catholicism arose out of the events leading up to and
during the second world war and from the leading roles Catholic
statesmen and politicians had played either positively or negatively in their genesis. The two important encyclicals of John
XXIII, Mate1· et Magistra and Pacem in Terris, decisively
relate Catholicism to the problems of the modern world in the
same fundamental way as the "Life and Work" stream of
the Protestant ecumenical movement. Besides their intrinsic
value as a declaration of the mind of the Catholic Church, they
have therefore an ecumenical dimension in confronting the
non-Christian world with an essentially similar Christian witness, and in holding out the possibility of a common Christian
action by Catholic and non-Catholic Christians. In other
words, the field is now open for Christian co-operation in the
domain of the application of Christianity to the problems of the
day. Such co-operation, besides demonstrating to a selfish
world the essential altruistic nature of Christian faith and life,
will furnish an occasion for Christians of different persuasions
to get to know each other better. In a climate of fraternal
charity the theological problems that will have to be tackled
ultimately will be far more patient of a dispassionate and objective discussion. Catholic participation could also help Protestants to examine the doctrinal assumptions of " Life and
Work." Past criticisms ill became Catholic theologians who
were in any event precluded from actively helping forward
what has proved to be a most valuable contribution of the
Protestant ecumenical movement to the human community.

Movements with Ecumenical Implications
The past century has seen Biblical and patristic movements
accomplished by a catechetical revival common to Catholic
and Protestant circles with perceptible ecumenical overtones.
But the liturgical movement seems to be more specifically linked
with the ecumenical movement; particularly when the fact is
recalled that an ecumenical pioneer such as Dom Lambert
Beauduin stimulated liturgical renewal on the eve of the first
world war. Considerable interplay between the Catholic and

CAUSES OF WORLD ECUMENICAL

MOVEMENT

559

Protestant liturgical movements was apparent especially in the
domain of research at the turn of the century. Its orginal inspiration dates from the French Benedictine revival, part of the
French Catholic renaissance of the nineteenth century; and also
from the Oxford Movement, a source of renewal and worship
for the Anglican-Protestant world no less than for the Catholic
Church in English-speaking countries. 4 The growing influence
of Cardinal Manning and the ultramontanist party gave the
Roman Catholic Church in England an increasingly intransigent attitude towards the Anglican Church and tended to obscure the ecumenical ideals of the Oxford Movement. A continuity existed between it and the old High Church Party in the
Church of England, which had always emphasized similarities
between Anglicanism and Catholicism and considered reunion
as at least within the bounds of possibility. Had there been,
in the nineteenth century, any approach by the Catholic Church
to the communions issued from the Reformation, it could conceivably only have been made through the Anglo-Catholic
tendency within Anglicanism and similar tendencies within
Lutheranism, since only in this liaison was there allegiance to
the Reformed communions joined with sufficient sympathy and
historical understanding of Catholicism. The new respect for
history in general and the past history of the Catholic Church
in particular which accompanied the Oxford Movement, and
the growth in mutual acceptation of their historical authorities,
paved the way for the present-day recognition by Catholic
scholars that responsibility for the schisms dividing the Church
is shared. The nineteenth century as a whole was a period of
great stirring of ideas within Anglicanism, Catholicism, and
Russian Orthodoxy, some of which have not yet sped their
course. One has only to read the prophetic voice of Lamennais
to realize how the whole tragic dissociation of the Catholic
Church from the new proletariat of the Industrial Revolution
could have been avoided, or the writings of Soloviev to under• The period of the thirties was also marked by conscious borrowing from the
Catholic liturgical renewal, first in Anglican and later on in Protestant circles.
This is fairly obvious to ecumenical observers today.

560

THOMAS COWLEY

stand how the two great traditions of the east and the west are
complementary and not contradictory. The reaction of the
Catholic Church to the dangers facing her at the First Vatican
Council, however justifiable they might then have appeared to
be, postponed for nearly ninety years the possibility of a positive approach to the Reformation communions. Some progress
with the historic churches of the Orthodox federation was discernible from the time of Leo XIII, particularly under the
pontificate of Pius XI, who was markedly cool towards the
Reformed Churches and the World Council of Churches.

The Rise of Protestant Ecumenism
The result of this combination of circumstances was that the
Orthodox-Anglican-Protestant World Ecumenical Movement
attained full maturity at the third W. C. C. at New Delhi in
1961 apart from direct Catholic influence. 5 Any Catholic tendencies discernible in that movement were certainly due to
Anglican influence working from within, and Orthodox statements and positions often adopted despite the prevailing discussions in the World Conference on Faith and Order (subsequently merged with the Universal Christian Council for Life
and Work to form the World Council of Churches at Amsterdam in 1948). The influence of Orthodoxy, though real, must
be considered to be on the margin of the movement as a whole.
The inspiration of that movement must therefore be sought in
the Reformed tradition and its various developments since the
sixteenth century. Luther lost his early ecumenical concept of
the church under political pressure. While Calvin never ceased
to view the church in its totality, he always hoped to achieve
a European federation of churches on a doctrinal basis that
would be explicit without being exclusive. One remark should
be made about the Reformed tradition in general. The Protestant Reformation in Europe was a conscious attempt to reform
the pre-Reformation Church and there was no consciousness,
6 Certain Catholic theologians and ecumenists have from time to time helped in
drawing up programs for W. C. C. meetings, but these contacts were unofficial,
othe1·wise of course they could not have taken place.

CAUSES OF WORLD ECUMENICAL

MOVEMENT

561

at all events in the beginning, of founding a new church or
churches.
In America, on the contrary, right from the outset the Protestant emigres were conscious they were founding new churches,
or at least, American counterparts of what were seen as new
confessions already founded in Europe from the Reformation
onwards. A second point may be made about geographical distribution. The Protestant and Catholic communities coincided,
roughly speaking, with political boundaries at the conclusion
of the Wars of Religion (Peace of Westphalia, 1648) and this
division tended to give permanence to the religious divisions.
In North America, Catholics were often political emigres as the
Protestants mostly were. But whatever the cause, American
Protestants seem to have realized the divided nature of their
religious communities more clearly than their European counterparts until the present century when the world upheavals were
more immediately experienced by the European people and
their religious bodies.

The Ecumenical Significance of the Sects 6
One exception to this lack of consciousness of the need for
unity concerns the left-wing Protestant movements, particularly, in the early stages, those on the continent of Europe.
Some of those were far more alive to the problem than the
numerically larger Protestant denominations. One of the consequences of the present new look at Christian history from an
ecumenical viewpoint is an increased understanding of the sects,
and in particular the pietist current, dismissed too easily and
too univocally until quite recently by Protestant as well as
Catholic writers as " enthusiast." Such an attitude was quite
6 The word " denomination " is used here of those bodies belonging to the
classical Protestant traditions, Anglican, Methodist, Congregationalist, Lutheran,
Calvinist, Presbyterian, and Baptist, while the word " sect " is used for those
religious bodies away from the mainstream of classical Protestantism. This avoids
an equivocal usage based on sociological norms. It is nevertheless true that certain
" sects," particularly those in the anabaptist tradition, developed subsequently into
" denominations," but it seems preferable to keep to norms based on theological
considerations in an ecumenical discussion.

56fl

THOMAS COWLEY

different from the attempt of other Catholics to isolate and
point to Catholic affinities in early Methodism, but this attempt was no less doomed to failure/ The strength of the
appeal of the sects, as of the denominations before they became
too institutionalized or where they have since experienced revivals, lies in the call to return to the Gospel teaching and
example; for did not our Lord Himself say: "Heaven and earth
shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away"? 8 No
adequate study has yet been made of the political and ecclesiastical influence of these movements. When such a study has
been done, it will perhaps reveal surprising results, both for
ecumenical Christianity and for the sources of contemporary
political movements and ideals; it will perhaps reveal these
movements inspiring both political trends as well as international movements in favor of world peace and brotherhood.
Return to the One Church of New Te8tament Time8
The sects in modern times have been described as responding
to the unpaid bills of the Church, while another familiar comparison has put the sects on a par with the religious orders
within Catholicism. 9 There can be little doubt that the failure
of the various Christian bodies to live out Christianity on a
personal and community level will always have repercussions
on denominational loyalties, and awaken the desire to found a
community in which a smaller number will better correspond
to the exigencies of the Gospel. The wheel has now turned full
circle, and unity itself is now more and more seen as a primary
exigency of the Gospel itself; the process of fission becoming no
longer compatible with fidelity to the word of God. A return
to the Gospel today would involve for many Protestants a
return to the one Church of New Testament times, a Church
that Protestant studies more and more see in continuity with
• If the early Methodists do exhibit such tendencies, they owe them in the
main to the High Church tendency in the Church of England and not to any
direct or conscious borrowing from Catholic sources.
8 St. Mark xiii, 31; St. Luke xxi, 33.
• These also lose their original fire and become institutionalized, new orders
with fresh Gospel inspiration taking their place.

CAUSES OF WORLD ECUMENICAL

MOVEMENT

563

the Church of the early Fathers. Whereas half a century ago
only Anglicans among the Reformed communions would have
accepted the first four Ecumenical Councils as de fide/0 an
increasing number of non-Anglican Protestant denominations
look back to the period of the councils of the undivided Church
as authoritative for doctrine, no less than to the New Testament, finding there the model for the "coming great Church." 11
It is in developments of this kind, fruit of a scholarly research
which itself depends upon healthy respect for the authorities
of every denomination, that the modern tendency towards
coalescence which is so marked a feature of contemporary
Protestantism must be sought, and not in what has been considered an increasing disregard for the importance of doctrine.
Yet on the margin of these denominations, and among the older
sects themselves, new sects spring up, usually among the poorer
and less favored members of the community, to testify to the
failure of traditional Christian bodies to live out the Christian
faith in the sphere of community relationships. Here is an
ecumenical dimension, characteristic of the primitive Church,
in which the traditional Christian bodies, Catholic and Protestant alike, are still to be found wanting.

North American Interdenominational Movements
The missionary expansion of nineteenth-century
Protestantism, itself the occasion of the realization of the need for
ecumenical co-operation and eventually for re-union between
Reformed bodies, was the expression of the need to spread the
Kingdom of God derived from the Protestant revivals in Europe
and North America in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
The revivals in North America were linked with similar movements in the United Kingdom during these periods, and pro10 Some Anglican authorities would say the first six Councils, while the Anglican
agreement with the Old Catholics specifies the first seven Councils. The Bonn
Agreement, as it is known, was accepted by the Old Catholic Episcopal Synod at
Vienna in 1981 and by the Convocations of Canterbury and York of the Church
of England in 1982 and forms the basis for intercommunion between the Episcopal
Church of the U. S. A. and the Polish National Church.
11 Phrase which is the title of a book by Wedel.

564

THOMAS COWLEY

duced a crop of specifically evangelical voluntary societies on
both sides of the Atlantic concerned with horne and foreign
missions, the distribution of Bibles and tracts, Sunday schools,
temperance, peace, and the slave trade. In their predominantly
evangelical inspiration and their concern for specific reforms
and causes, denominational differences tended to be obscured.
This provided something of a counter-balance to the prevailing reproduction on American soil of the European denominations and sects with all their ethnic distinctions, in a climate
made favorable for their proliferation by the separation of
Church and State and the complete liberty of worship for every
individual or group of persons. The American Revolution had
forcibly weaned them from direct European influence, though
the improvement of Atlantic communications, the exchange of
literature in English, and the constant flow of emigrants, tended
to renew those links in the course of the nineteenth century.
Two other divisive elements at work were the influence of the
frontier, with its perpetual challenge to the settled denominations and sects, and the issue of slavery which profoundly
divided all Christian bodies. The decline in importance of these
divisive factors and of revivalism in the major denominations
led to the rise of new movements lacking in the former significantly evangelical and often Calvinist drive. The end of the
Civil War and the changeover of the American economy from
a predominantly agricultural to rapidly developing industrial
economy, depending for its expansion upon hordes of emigrant
laborers, produced new conditions and new needs, evoking interdenominational responses such as that of the Y. M. C. A.,
the Y. W. C. A., and the Student Volunteer Movement. The
U. S. branch of the Evangelical Alliance, founded in 1867, was
an organization grouping like-minded individuals, which lost
its drive with the death of Philip Schaff in 1893. But his appeal
for a " federal or confederate union " which would be a " voluntary association of different Churches in their official capacity,
each retaining its freedom and independence in the management of its internal affairs ... but co-operating in general enterprises " presaged directly the formation of the Federal Council

CAUSES OF WORLD ECUMENICAL

MOVEMENT

565

in 1908 and its present-day successor, the National Council
of the Churches of Christ in the U.S. A. in 1950.

Unity as Creed
The pietistic strain in American ecumenism in the nineteenth
century, echoing that of Zinzendorf a century earlier, finds its
most characteristic expression in the appeal of Thomas Campbell and his son, Alexander, who developed his father's ideas
in his plea for the union and co-operation of all Christians in
order to convert the world. Although the movement later split
and is only now being re-united, the Disciples of Christ have
the merit of being the only denomination to put unity at the
forefront of their credo. A Lutheran of pietist tendencies, S. S.
Schmucker, attempted to find a consensus of Protestant creeds
as the basis for federal union; while W. R. Huntingdon, an
Episcopalian, was responsible for a union proposal adopted by
the house of Bishops at the general convention of the Episcopal Church in 1886. Somewhat modified, this was accepted by
the 1888 Lambeth Conference Committee as a basis for Home
Reunion; again modified, its became the center of the wellknown Lambeth Conference " Appeal to all Christian People "
of 1920. The four points concerned the Scriptures as the rule
of faith, the historic creeds, the sacraments of Baptism and
the Eucharist, and the historic episcopate, " locally adapted."
Though doubtless intended as a point of departure for ecumenical discussion, they have tended to be regarded as the
minimum terms on which the Anglican communion would
.
.
envisage reumon.
It would certainly be wrong not to associate with these ecumenical activities the movement of thought and action known
as " The Social Gospel " which owes so much to the essentially
ecumenical outlook and inspiration of John Frederick Denison
Maurice. The title " Social Gospel " does less than justice to
the catholicity of its original impulse. One of the sources of
inspiration common to Catholic and Protestant in the present
ecumenical movements is the realization that the Gospel must
be proclaimed to the world in terms the world understands,

566

THOMAS COWLEY

and this, without dilution of the original Gospel message or of
the radical changes this message implies in the heart of man
and in his social and political institutions. Finally, the United
States was the seed-bed for concern about the unity of mankind as a whole, which undoubtedly owes something to the
Christian influence of this stream of thought and which gave
birth to the plans for a League of Nations and a United
Nations. So profound was this desire for international order
and justice that, even while hostilities were still in progress,
the Covenant and Charter were put forward as alternatives to
the sterile demands for vengeance and total surrender.

The Witness of Anti-Ecumenism
The later pietistic movement associated with the names of
Sankey and Moody portrays a flight from, and the fundamentalist movement of the turn of the century to the present
represents a reaction to, this ecumenical concern at the most
universal level. Both object to the principle of the Church's
engagement in the world and to the theological liberalism said
to be implicit in attempts at denominational federalism. The
shock of the first world war, the slump, the second world war
and the continuing rise of communism has exacerbated this
antagonism; though the departments of the National Council
of Churches and of the different denominational bodies dealing
with international and social problems have continued to develop and concentrate on the point where the Gospel shoe
pinches most keenly in our own day. Like the World Council
of Churches, the National Council has been opposed by paraecumenical organizations especially created to carry on the
struggle against them and to destroy these twin principles of
a continuing movement towards Christian unity and Christian
engagement. Despite this opposition, the number of mergers
between the older denominations with similar confessions or
beliefs continues to grow steadily; though the overall number
of denominations and sects remains in all probability about
the same through the rise and growth of new sects and the
continuing development of " holiness bodies " such as the Pente-

CAUSES OF WORLD ECUMENICAL

MOVEMENT

567

costals, recruiting their members from among the dissatisfied
and dispossessed.

Ecumenism and Christian Witness
It is noteworthy that the chief opposition to the Catholic
Church which remains in religious circles today in the United
States comes from these same right-wing fundamentalists. An
investigation would almost certainly show they were, in general,
opposed to American involvement in the United Nations and
to the principle of foreign aid. While concern for ecumenical
rapprochement is probably stronger among Catholics in some
parts of Europe than in others/ 2 American public opinion as a
whole strongly supports the drawing together of separated
Christian communities and realizes instinctively that a Christianity which does not act as a leaven in the lump of the world
is a religion doomed to become a historic relic like Buddhism,
Islam, even Judaism. It seems, however, that God in His Providence will not allow this to happen but will galvanize His
Chosen People into stirring up life in their midst even by
permitting scorn, opposition, persecution. In Europe, the level
of Church attendance in communist dominated countries is
higher than it is in the west, with the possible exception of
Holland, because of the anti-God campaigns and the penalization of those faithful to the Church. The opposition of the
fundamentalist wing to ecumenism and to anything that savours
of a universal view of humanity, which finds a strange echo in
some Catholic circles, is itself the product of a syncretism.
Religious and secular history here in North America were inextricably involved and American Christianity was subject to
the constant pressures of secularism and materialism. In a
country of boundless opportunities depending largely upon a
man's own efforts to better himself, people are tempted to think
that the struggle for material self-advancement is automatically
accompanied by spiritual progress. The ecumenical movement
here as elsewhere can lead to a purification of the Christian
12

Stronger in Holland, parts of Germany, France and Belgium.

568

THOMAS COWLEY

religion if people, encountering fellow-Christians whose everyday witness constitutes a challenge to them, are led to examine
the bases of their belief and its expression in the light of the
exigencies of the Gospel. The causes of the ecumenical movement in their purest form cannot be divorced from the movement of prayer and penitence in the Holy Spirit which leads
men to seek to renew their lives in Christ. Nor can they be
separated from an ever-increasing concern both with the nature
of the Mystical Body and the privileged sources of grace within
it, a life whose beginning depends upon water and the Spirit;
whose perpetuation, upon nourishment by the Body and the
Blood; whose healing, upon the saving words committed to the
Apostles upon the day of the Resurrection.

The Ecumenical Responsibility of Catholics
Catholics will help their fellow Christians to see more clearly
the relation between these two movements of the soul if they
assume the responsibilities corresponding to their privilege of
having received the totality of the Catholic faith, and assume
leadership in the forefront of all movements for the betterment
of their fellows in the name of Christ, whether in the domain
of social justice or charity at national and international levels.
It is a Gospel principle that from him who has much, whether
in spiritual or in material goods, much will be expected. With
this principle of Catholic responsibility must always go that
of Catholic consistency, proclaimed by John XXIII in Mate1·
et agistm and repeated in Pacem in Terris. In their relations
with non-Catholics, " let the faithful be careful to be always
consistent in their actions, so that they may never come to any
compromise in matters of religion and morals. At the same
time, however, let them be, and show themselves to be, animated by a spirit of understanding and detachment, and disposed to work loyally in the pursuit of objectives which are of
their nature good, or conducive to good." 13 There are indeed
signs that a new conception of Catholic ecumenism is emerging,
13

Pacem in Ten·is, Paulist Press Edition, 157.

CAUSES OF WORLD ECUMENICAL

MOVEMENT

569

in which a realization of the indispensable nature of the Chair
of St. Peter as the locus of reunion remains, but with a dawning
understanding that it is insufficient to look without, as upon
an unenlightened world whose ignorance is largely vincible. The
Vatican Council will doubtless give a clear and unequivocal
lead in the matter of ecumenical initiative. Meanwhile, the
presence of observers from the principal Protestant bodies and
the Russian Orthodox Church has been the occasion of a leap
forward in mutual understanding as well as for actual theological discussion. The primary cause of ecumenism is ever
more clearly emerging as a divinely inspired movement within
Christianity as a whole of which the Catholic Church, through
its Pope and the Ecumenical Council gathered around him, is
at once the touchstone and catalyst.
RoNALD

Georgetown University
Washington, D. C.

CowLEY,

0. P.

ECUMENICAL

THEOLOGY AND CONVERSIONS

GENESIS OF A PROBLEM:
ECUMENICAL

PROSELYTISM

vs.

FELLOWSHIP

T

ODAY the making of converts has become a kind of
hindrance for ecumenical work to quite a number of
ecumenically minded men, at least when one Christian church tries to make converts among the members of
other Christian churches. These men use the word "proselytism" only in a pejorative sense; they question the right of
churches to make converts among members of churches with
which they are and know themselves to be in ecumenical relations; they sometimes seem even to want conversions stopped
entirely or at least suspended till all the consequences of the
ecumenical problems are better thought out. We find such
thought among those outside the Catholic Church, chiefly
in the World Council of Churches, where the integration of
the International Missionary Council into the World Council of Churches (considered by many one of the most important achievements of the recent New Delhi Assembly and by
others hailed as the beginning of a new era of ecumenical
work) has provoked heated discussions of this problem. Up
to now, it has proved impossible to find an unambiguous solution. In Europe more than a few ecumenically oriented
Catholics think that ecumenical work ought to have more influence on convert making and that ecumenical theology, at
least when better worked out than it is at present/ will point
out for Catholics also some consequences for the treatment of
converts, both before and after their conversion. They insist
that even now we should carefully distinguish between the
" conversion " of a Christian and the " conversion " o£ a
heathen.
1 G. Thils, La "Theologie
oecumenique," Notion, Formes, Demarches, Louvain:
Warny, 1960.

570

ECUMENICAL

THEOLOGY AND CONVERSIONS

571

The theology of conversion is still a neglected study among
Catholics; in the many books on converts we rarely find a
theological analysis of this mysterious process. Individually,
converts pose a practical and pastoral problem; in general,
converts are able to furnish a kind of argument to apologetics.
These two considerations seem to exhaust Catholic thinking
on conversion and the problems of converts are therefore relegated to apologetics and pastoral theology. This fact may very
well spring from a lack of development of our Catholic theology, but, in the present situation, could prove to be a blessing in disguise. It is easier to move in a vacuum than to have
to assail established positions. Some thought on this problem
seems necessary; whether Catholic ecumenical thinking must
exert its influence on the work of making converts to the
Catholic Church, and whether those who give all their time
and work to the winning of converts, must at least follow the
evolution of the ecumenical movement and of ecumenical
thinking.
Up to now the most vehement opposition to proselytizing
activities among their members by missionary societies has
come from the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and above all from
the Church of Greece. These churches have practical, historical and theological reasons for this aversion. On account of
a lack of good preachers and good catechists, at least in sufficient number for their needs, and also because of the concentration of religious life entirely on participation in the divine
Liturgy, the faithful of the Orthodox Churches are known to
be insufficiently instructed in the faith and, therefore, rather
helpless against proselytizing activities. The Greek Church
has even tried to make the government interdict them. Being
national churches in the full sense of that word, bearers of
many old national traditions, and conscious of a long history
of defending the national cultural heritage against the oppression of the Turks, they think that whoever tries to make converts among their members at the same time tries to alienate
a man from the spiritual life of his people and his country.

572

C. F. PAUWELS

Also, though they are members of the World Council of
Churches, they have often testified for their" Catholic ecclesiology" against the Protestant majority. They hold themselves
to be the already existing true Church of Christ, and therefore
consider whoever leaves their church an apostate from Christ.
Perhaps we can mention another factor: having been barred
for centuries by oppression and other historical circumstances
from doing any missionary work themselves, they can appreciate only with difficulty the authentic Christian inspiration
of the work of proselytizing missionary societies.
In this situation they could be expected to mount a determined opposition to the proposed integration of the International Missionary Council into the World Council of Churches.
They argued that this integration would give a kind of official
sanction to the proselytizing activities of missionary societies
affiliated to this Council. But the backbone of their resistance
lies in their contention that all members of the World Council
ought to consider their fellow members as " Sister Churches "
and therefore, if for no other reason, readily refrain from proselytizing among their members. A few national Missionary
Councils have opposed the integration from exactly the opposite point of view, recruiting their members and supporters
chiefly from groups with a "Low Church-mentality." With a
fundamentalist kind of theology, with only a very weak appreciation for the mystery of the church, and, therefore, with little
zeal for the ecumenical ideals, they do not want what they
fear would be the unavoidable consequence of this integration: the hampering of their missionary work for ecumenical
policy-reasons.
There are at least two easy answers to these arguments.
The first is merely factual: The proselytizing activities in
the territories of the Eastern churches stem, for the greater
part, from the sectarian missionary bodies-from Adventist,
Pentecostal and other groups-which belong neither to any
national Missionary Council nor to the International Missionary Council so that this integration means neither a sanction

ECUMENICAL

THEOLOGY AND CONVERSIONS

573

nor a restraint for their activities. The second answer however
touches a question of principle. The famous "Toronto Declaration" of 1950 on the scope and purpose of the World Council of Churches and the meaning, the consequences and the
obligations of membership in it 2 states explicitly: "membership does not imply that each Church must regard the other
Churches as Churches in the true and full sense of the word."
It is of course required that they "recognize their solidarity with
each other, render assistance to each other in case of need, and
refrain from such actions as are incompatible with brotherly
relationships." This cause, however, is already counterbalanced
by the declaration that no church needs to consider the other
churches as true churches. Each may, therefore, feel obliged
to missionary and even to proselytizing work among other
members. But these answers are obviously too easy, too superficial, too " ad hominem." When the integration was proposed
and the Orthodox opposition began to make itself felt, it was
deemed necessary to make a further study of this issue.
The Third World Conference on Faith and Order, held at
Lund in Sweden at a time when proselytism was not yet a
pressing problem (August 15th to August
1950), devoted
only a short paragraph of its " Report to the Churches " to
the topic:
There is a difference of opinion among us as to whether a Church has
the right to evangelize the members of other Christian Churches.
While some of us deny that such a right exists, others claim that
it is an essential part of their mission. There are forms of proselytizing however which are sub-Christian and should therefore find
no place among the followers of our Lord. 3

The Conference was evidently aware of the existence of the
problem but it had its mind on other problems. The qualification, however, of some forms of proselytizing as " sub-Christian" is very interesting and suggestive in the light of the
result of further study and of later reports.
The Ecumenical Review, III (1950-1951), pp. 47/51.
The Third World Conference on Faith and Order, Ed. 0. Tompkins, London:
SCM Press, p. 81.
2

3

574

C. F. PAUWELS

The Second Assembly of the World Council of Churches,
held at Evanston, Illi11ois, from August 14th to August 28th,
1954, treated the problem of "Evangelism" in its Second
Section. 4 In its meeting in Evanston, immediately after the
Second Assembly, the Central Committee of the World Council decided that, " in view of the difficulties which had
arisen affecting relationships between member Churches of the
W. C. C., a Commission should be appointed for the further
study of "Proselytism and Religious Liberty." (This title
was later revised to read: " Christian Witness, Proselytism,
and Religious Liberty in the setting of the World Council of
Churches ") . After due preparation this Commission met at
the theological Academy of Arnoldshain, Germany, on July
17th and 18th, 1956. Its Report was then revised by another
Commission of the Central Committee at its meeting at Galyateto, Hungary, July 28th to August 4th, 1956, and the result was finally approved for submission to the Churches. 5
The Introduction states: "This report is primarily concerned with relations between member Churches of the World
Council of Churches"; it adds, however," We are not unmindful of its implications for our relations with other churches
and religious bodies." It then points out that it is not treating a new problem:
The issues with which this study is concerned have existed within
the ecumenical movement from its very beginning. In 19!!0 the
well-known Encyclical of the Oecumenical Patriarchate with its
strong plea for cooperation among the churches has asked for a
definite cessation of proselytizing activities.
It then mentions the Toronto declaration on the consequences
of membership in the World Council of Churches, but it confesses that this declaration failed to "define what is implied
in a constructive relationship between the Churches." It says
that the problem of proselytism and of its relation to evangelism has not been squarely faced, and adds:
• The Evanston Report, London: SCM Press, pp. 98/lU.
• The text in The Ecumenical Review, IX (1956/1957), pp. 48/56.

ECUMENICAL

THEOLOGY AND CONVERSIONS

575

It is owing to this uncertainty that the World Council is sometimes accused of representing proselytizing tendencies and sometimes accused of exactly the opposite, namely of being an obstacle
to the full exercise of religious liberty.

It finally enumerates eight historical causes behind the issues
of proselytism and religious liberty, among which we note but
two:
There has been a great increase in the number and activities of
Christian groups appealing for individual conversions, but sometimes with very little church consciousness and with little or no
interest in cooperation with others [and] due to greatly increased
means of communication and mobility, religious communities no
longer find it possible to remain closed to outside influences . . .
these technological forces are such that they could only be
thwarted by forcible repression.
However, after this thoughtful and realistic introduction,
the Report tackles the intricate question of terminology, and
here the difficulties appear immediately. It notes:
Proselytism has today an almost completely derogative sense;
probably no church and no missionary society involved in the ecumenical movement would wish to call itself a "proselytizing body."
It does not seem possible, in practice, to restore the good connotation which the word " proselyte " once carried. The true obedience to the Great Commission: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" is today called evangelism, apostolate, soul
winning (sic!) and chiefly: witness.
About " bearing witness " the Report has three things to say:
It is the essential mission and responsibility of every Christian and
of every Christian church. [Its purpose is] to persuade people to
accept the supreme authority of Christ, to commit themselves to
Him and to render Him loving service in the Fellowship of his
Church [and] it seeks a response which contributes to the upbuilding of the fellowship of those who acknowledge the Lordship
of Christ.
[The conclusion from these three points is] both witness and
response must therefore in the present necessity take place within the existing situation of division of the Church, [because] an in-

576

C. F. PAUWELS

dividual enters that fellowship by becoming a member of one of
the several existing ecclesiastical communities.
[Proselytism furthermore] is not something entirely different
from witness; it is the corruption of witness. When cajolery, bribery, undue pressure or intimidation is used to bring about seeming conversions; when we put the success of the Church before
the honor of Christ; when we commit the dishonesty of comparing the ideal of our own Church with the actual achievement of
another church; when personal or corporate self-seeking replaces
love for every individual with whom we are concerned; when we
seek to advance our own cause by bearing false witness against
another church . . . then witness has been difformed into proselytism.
This section of the Report ends with a strong plea for religious liberty and freedom:
This right [to freedom of thought, conscience and religion] includes
the freedom to change his religion and belief, and freedom, either
alone or in community with others, and in public or in private, to
manifest his religion or belief, in teaching, practice, worship and
observance ... , for such witness churches and individuals should
have equality before the law.
In this question, of course, the whole problem of the relation
between the church and the state is involved; the problem of
a national church looms threateningly in the background, but
the Report insists only on liberty and freedom.
In the next section of the Report we find eight " basic considerations," which form the most important part and try to
give the solution to the problem.
1) Every Christian Church is not only permitted but required
freely and openly to bear its witness in the world, seeking to win
adherents to divinely revealed truth.
2) The commandment to bear witness . . . is valid not only in
relation to non-Christians, but also in relation to all who are only
nominally attached to any Christian Church.
8) Should errors or abuses within a church result in distorting or
obscuring the central truths of the Gospel ... , other churches may
be bound to come to the rescue with a faithful witness to the
truth thus lost to view.

ECUMENICAL

THEOLOGY AND CONVERSIONS

577

4) It is not in the interest of the World Council to have mutilated
churches as members; on the contrary, it aims to be a Council of
whole, real and genuine Churches [meaning that every member
church must be able to bear its witness without any hampering].
5) A church which in the light of its own confession must regard
certain teachings of another church as errors and heresies and certain of its practices as abuses cannot be compelled to hold back
or to withdraw its views because of the churches' common membership in the World Council.
6) It is precisely within the ecumenical fellowship that this exchange should proceed to the fullest extent and without minimizing the difficulty and seriousness of the issues.
7) It should be inconsistent with its membership to deny another
member the state of a church, or to regard it as entirely heretical
and hopelessly given over to abuses, so that its members could
only be helped by being rescued from it.
The last of these fundamental considerations enumerates three
ways for "a witness in the ecumenical fellowship": unofficial
discussion and personal encounter between individuals; official
discussion between one church and another; and the work of
" Inter-Church Aid," when one church helps another church
to recover a healthier life of its own, etc.
The Report terminates with a list of "recommendations for
continuous consideration by the member churches." Among
these we only indicate a suggestion which might be considered
by Catholics in the work of making converts to the Catholic
Church: " whenever a member of one church desires to be
received into the membership of another church, we should
seek consultation between the churches involved."
Because we do not intend to write the complete doctrinal
history of the integration of the International Missionary
Council into the World Council of Churches, but only want
to study the genesis of an ecumenical problem which has arisen
outside the Catholic Church, we only note from the Report of
the Central Committee of the W. C. C. to the Third Assem• Evanston to New Delhi, Report of the Central Committee to the Third Assembly of the World Council of Churches, Geneva: 1961, pp. 239/245.

578

C. F. PAUWELS

bly 6 that at the meeting of this Central Committee at Rhodos
in 1959" it was felt that the churches had not given sufficient
response to guide the Central Committee." The reactions to
the Provisional Report had evidently been disappointing. A
slightly altered version of the Provisional Report was therefore given again to the member churches, both in the Report
of the Central Committee and in the Third Assembly's Workbook.7 The altered version contained this important statement:
Behind the tension between the right and duty of free Christian
witness on the one hand, and the obligations of an ecumenical fellowship to manifest the visible unity of the Church as the Body
of Christ on the other hand, lies the whole ecclesiological problem,
which is a major concern in our continuous ecumenical association. 8

At the Assembly itself the integration of the I. M. C. was
formally proposed, voted on and approved with an overwhelming majority; the study of the Provisional Report may not
have elicited sufficient answers from the member churches, but
it had apparently, in conjunction with the influence of other
perhaps non-theological factors, softened their resistance. The
Report of the Assembly's Section on "Witness" did not touch
the problem. Only the future can show whether the tension
between the duties of free witness and of ecumenical fellowship (with the special meaning of manifesting visible unity the
Central Committee attached to it) has really lessened. We will
have to wait till the newly formed Department of World Mission and Evangelism has started its work and revealed its
methods and intentions.
To sum up: an ecumenical problem regarding conversions
has arisen from the ecumenical work, has been seen and
studied, but has not been resolved. As a problem connected
with the life of the World Council of Churches and in the special form it has taken outside the Catholic Church, it must be
resolved in the light of a theology of the World Council, a
7 Work Book for the Assembly Committees, prepared for the Third Assembly of
the World Council of Churches, Geneva: 1961, pp. 56/62.
8 Evanston to New Delhi, p. 289.

ECUMENICAL

THEOLOGY AND CONVERSIONS

579

theology which has still to be fully elaborated; 9 it may take a
long time before the task is finished, and the problem may
await a definitive solution for many years. Meanwhile the
growing influence of the Orthodox in the World Council might
render the problem still more difficult. But a study of the
problem as it poses itself to the Catholic Church could be a
help for the theologians of the W. C. C.
CoNVERSION

AND EcuMENISM

IN THE NETHERLANDS

When investigating the problem whether our apostolate of
making converts to the Catholic Church, at least when we try
to win converts from the Christian churches, could degenerate
into a proselytism in the pejorative sense of that word, 10 we
can take as a starting point a certain truth, and we may be
tempted to take an apparent truth as the second point. The
truth is that the Catholic Church can only accept a verdict
of her own ecclesiology, based on the Catholic faith in the
One True Church of Christ which she is herself; she cannot
be bound by the ecclesiology of the W. C. C. The apparent
truth is that the Catholic Church does not have to acknowledge any sister churches as co-members of the same Council
of Churches and that she therefore does not have to acknowledge any obligations implied in a fellowship of churches. She
may in the future change her attitude towards the Ecumenical Movement, she may join the W.C.C., she may have some
day to face the obligations implied in that membership, but
now she can move with an absolute liberty. Apparently! Possibly, however, our own ecclesiology may prove the Catholic
Church to be in ecumenical relations to all, or at least to some,
• M. J. le Guillou 0. P., Mission et Unite, (Unam Sanctam XXXIII), Paris: Ed.
du Cerf. 1960. Livre Premier. Premiere Partie. Chapitre VI: "Vers une Theologie
de l'Eglise, Communion Missionaire," Vol. I. pp. 81/103. J. Hamer O.P., "Qu'est,
theologiquement, a ses propres yeux le Conseil Oecumenique des Eglises?" lstina,
1954, pp. 389/407.
10 It might be argued that the same problem arises when we make converts
among orthodox Jews, but we will neglect this complication.

580

C. F. PAUWELS

Christian churches, and these relations may imply obligations
concerning the Catholic apostolate of making converts from
these churches.
It might be said that the problem is already present, though
not yet perceived, when in books about conversions we find
autobiographical notices by the former Anglo-Catholic author
Sheila Kaye-Smith and the former atheist Gretta Palmer, or
by the former Orthodox Bishop Paul Melitijew and the former Hindu Chuni Mukerji, without an explicit warning in the
introductions to these volumes that theologically these conversions mean something entirely different. 11 Because this could
be called an exaggeration we will put this problem in the form
of a short report on the development of both the work of
making converts and the ecumenical dialogue in the Netherlands since the end of the Second World War. In itself this
development is important only for the Catholics in the Netherlands, but it is an example of how this problem has posed
itself to European Catholics; for other countries the same
could be said. The history of the relations between Catholics and Protestants in the Netherlands is in broad outlines as
follows.
The Calvinists were the dominating party in the Republic
of the Seven Provinces; till 1795 the Catholics barely managed to struggle on. During the nineteenth century Catholics
and Protestants lived together in the same country with hardly
any religious contact. Only in the last decades of this century
did they learn to collaborate in politics to fight for the rights
of their schools. The first religious contacts were established
in the beginning of the twentieth century, but only in the form
of an apologetic dialogue. In these years the Apologetical Society Petrus Canisius was founded. Between the two World
11 The Road to Damascus, London:
Allen, 1949, pp. 228/235 and pp. 27/56;
and Sie horten seine Stimme, Luzem: Raber and Cie, 1951, pp. 9/28 and pp.
113/129. It would be easy to find instances in all other volumes of this kind. The
same can be said of non-Catholic volumes in Modern Canterbury Pilgrims, New
York: Morehouse-Gorham, 1956, and These Found the Way, Philadelphia: Westminister Press.

ECUMENICAL

THEOLOGY AND CONVERSIONS

581

Wars there was an initial improvement: a dozen priests were
regularly occupied in giving conferences on the Catholic faith
to non-Catholic audiences. They won over a few converts as
a result of their work, but their intention was primarily to
remove misunderstandings. Up to 1940 it was therefore possible to take care of the instruction of converts in the existing
parishes and convents, but after the Second World War the
situation became entirely different. During the war Catholics
and Protestants had met in the resistance to Nazism and had
discussed the religious motivation of this resistance, which in
the Netherlands was very important. After the war old barriers between the confessions were down. Furthermore, the
number of people without any religious affiliation had been
growing in ominous proportions; while in the nineteenth century everybody was either a Catholic, a Protestant or a Jew,
the 1947 census showed 17% of the population declaring affiliation to no church or religious group. Suddenly there was both
an opportunity and a necessity for a much more intensified
work of instructing and making converts.
Nowadays practically every town in the Netherlands has
its own special institute for the instruction of converts. Some
priests, helped by several hundred formed lay-catechists,
find their daily work in these institutes and have little time
for other work. They belong to almost all the religious Orders
and Congregations: Franciscans, Capuchins, Jesuits, Dominicans, Carmelites, Augustinian Eremites, Missionaries of the
Sacred Heart and of the Holy Family. No diocesan priests are
engaged in this apostolate, but in the parishes they instruct
other groups of converts, since these institutes have no monopoly. They retain their independence and have found their
own methods. Only the Saint Willibrord Society (the more
ecumenically oriented successor of the Apologetical Society
Petrus Canisius) can act as a meeting point for discussions
and clearing house for experience, chiefly because its President
is the Bishops' Delegate for all ecumenical affairs and because
the Society can furnish funds for the maintenance of these

582

C. F. PAUWELS

institutes. The number of converts is growing every year. But
with all due respect to the apostolic work performed in these
institutes we have to face two facts. The majority of the
priests engaged in convert work have no personal experience
of ecumenical work, do not participate in the ecumenical dialogue, and therefore meet only those Protestants who have
asked for instruction and are considering the possibility of
becoming Catholics. So they see no reason to ask whether it
might be necessary to follow a special method when guiding
Protestants. Furthermore about 60% of the non-Catholics who
seek instruction in the Catholic faith want to marry a Catholic. Here a pastoral problem arises: if the instruction fails to
bring about a conversion, there is the danger of a mixed or
even a merely civil marriage. The consciousness of this danger is certainly not enough to turn the instruction into proselytism, but it can result in the application of gentle pressure, in an over-optimistic appreciation of the response to the
instruction, in an abbreviation of the instruction, or in other
things which might savour of proselytism. As to purely ecumenical contacts between Catholics and Protestants in the
Netherlands, there is not, as in Germany, a semi-official dialogue going on between the churches themselves, but there are
at least some twenty groups of priests and pastors (not only
of professors and theologians!) which meet regularly and have
been doing so for more than ten years. Younger people also
meet frequently though irregularly (and pose the well-known
problems of intercommunion!); and there are some common
activities of Catholics and Protestants, chiefly in the field of
dissemination of biblical information. When the Catholic Saint
Willibrord Society in 1960 was publishing a new translation
of the New Testament, the Protestant Netherlands Bible Society helped in every way. But of the some 200 priests who
belong to the discussion groups only a few at the same time
instruct converts. Others will do it only in exceptional cases,
and some purposely refrain from it. These priests have voiced
some criticism of the work of making converts; sometimes

ECUMENICAL

THEOLOGY AND CONVERSIONS

583

from a purely practical point of view, suggesting only that a
priest engaged in this kind of work might be less acceptable
to Protestants in the ecumenical dialogue; sometimes from a
rather extreme point of view, demanding that all the work of
making converts be suspended until the atmosphere will have
been cleared through the ecumenical dialogue. But in most
cases they ask simply that the conclusions and consequences
of ecumenical thinking and ecumenical work be applied to
the apostolate of making converts; that the methods and manners of this apostolate be critically analysed and reviewed in
the light of the ecumenical situation; that the meaning of a
conversion be studied again from the point of view of ecumenical theology; and that therefore regular meetings be arranged between the participants in the ecumenical dialogue
and the workers in these institutes for converts. They expect
the first result of these meetings to be that converts from one
of the Christian churches will be instructed and received into
the Catholic Church in a way different from the instruction
of persons without religious affiliation.
It was to be expected that some criticism would come from
the Protestant side. It came mostly in the form of friendly
questions; the Protestants know. quite well that there are no
special Catholic activities to win converts from the Protestant
churches, while there are certain Catholic activities directed
to persons without religious affiliation, and they know that
among the persons instructed in these institutes converts from
Protestantism form a minority. But the problem of the relation between evangelism and proselytism has been treated in a
few theological studies, among which we will cite a recent one.
Only this year the Reformed (" Vervormde ") pastor J. A.
Helby published a book entitled Proselytism, an Exploration
of an Ecumenical Problem. 12 It is a dissertation to obtain
the degree of a Doctor of Divinity at the University of Utrecht, and the influence of Prof. J. C. Hoekendyk, well known
12

J. A. Helby, Het Proselitisme: Verkenning van een Oemtmenisch Probleem,

Boekencehtrum,

's Gravenhage:

1962.

584

C. F. PAUWELS

in ecumenical circles, is clearly visible in it. The general conclusion is, " Proselytism is the opposite of Ecumenism." 13
Once again, these developments and the discussions in the
Nether lands are not very important in themselves. But they
certainly suggest that we Catholics must squarely face the
problem of proselytism and that we cannot simply go on making converts in the present ecumenical situation: this might
seem, and might be, proselytism and a hindrance to ecumenical work.
THE THEOLOGICAL

PROBLEM

TO THE CATHOLIC

OF CONVERSION
CHURCH

The Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner recently began an article "Some Remarks on the Problem of Conversions" 14 with
the following general statement:
The Catholic Church claims to be the True Church of Christ, and
exclusively so. Since conversions to Christianity as a religion of
personal faith are only possible with adults by a free personal decision, the Catholic Church can never give up the claim to be the
true Church of Christ, which every individual man should join by
his own free decision. . . . Ecumenically it is important to recognize that this claim of the Catholic Church looks to all the other
Christians, who are not excepted because they are already Christians .... If this Catholic desire for converts is judged to be something unecumenical, non-Catholics have to understand that this
" will to proselytize " is founded in the claim of absoluteness of
the Catholic Church.

Further comment on this general statement does not seem
necessary; it is simply the expression of traditional and wellknown Catholic doctrine. If the right and even duty of free
witness are acknowledged in a formal ecumenical fellowship,
non-Catholics have to accept the fact that the Catholic Church
proclaims her faith in her own place in God's design for the
salvation of the world; that she proclaims herself to be the
13

Op. cit., p. 133.

Karl Rahner, "Einige Bemerkungen iiber die Frage der Konversionen," Catholica, Vierteljahresschrift fur Kontrovers-Theologie, XVI (1962), I, pp. 1/19.
14

ECUMENICAL

THEOLOGY AND CONVERSIONS

585

only True Church of Christ, the Catholica who is able to unite
all men with Christ and to give all Christians a spiritual home,
the real Oecumene who possesses in her depositum fidei all
God's gifts to mankind and will never lose them because she
is protected by the Holy Spirit; and that she, simply by bearing this witness about herself, calls every man to conversion.
This faith of the Catholic Church in her own vocation is in
the last analysis the true explanation of the fact we can never
afford to forget in discussions on the Catholic work of making converts: that the Catholic Church, from the first centuries of her history 15 has endeavored to make converts of all
nations, religions and churches, and that this claim of absoluteness has always been considered an offense and a scandal.
Some remarks must be made however to further classify this
general statement.
Father Rahner himself makes two of them. The first is that
merely in virtue of this general principle the Church is not
obliged to pursue the making of converts in all circumstances
with the same intensity. "The Church could let this work of
making converts fall back behind more general ecumenical
activities." 16 This remark of course might provoke discussions
on the apostolic nature of the Church and Professor Hoekendyk, if he were a Catholic, would certainly object to Father
Rahner's remark. But we had better let this pass. Secondly,
Father Rahner points out that the Catholic Church not only
proclaims herself to be the true Church and the Catholica, but
also proclaims to be with absolute certainty recognizable as
such: for her place in God's design she has " signa certissima
and omnium intelligentiae accomodata." 17 as the First Vatican
has solemnly stated. We have therefore the problem of the good
faith of all these millions of Christians, who know the Cath15 A. D. Nock, Conversion. The Old and the New in Religion, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933. (Paperback-edition 1961.)
G. Bardy, La Conversion au Christianisme durant les premiers siecles, (Collection "Theologie," Paris: Aubert, 1949).
16 Loc. cit., p. !tl.
17 Loc. cit., p. 4.

586

C. F. PAUWELS

olic Church fairly well, who hear her claim and the call to
conversion implied in this claim, but who nevertheless reject
this pressing invitation. We can doubt the cogency of the traditional apologetical arguments, but we cannot deny that the
Church has solemnly proclaimed herself to be recognizable as
the Catholica. What are we to think right now of the good
this by the working
faith of all those who are
of the Holy Spirit, said the Holy Office itself!-by the ideal
of the unity of all Christians, who participate with Catholics
in the ecumenical dialogue and make many friends among
them, who hear this Catholic witness again and again, and
who nevertheless feel sure that they will never seek this unity
of all Christians in the Catholica? Either their good faith or
the Catholic claim is at stake!
Here a third remark on the general statement seems to be
necessary.
Modern Catholic ecclesiology, alerted by the problems of
the ecumenical situation and prompted by the difficulties of
the ecumenical dialogue, does not treat catholicity and ecumenicity only as God's gifts to the Bride of Christ or as the
visible and wonderful qualities which the Church will always
possess and will always show to the world as the certain sign
of her place in God's design. This ecclesiology insists that they
also constitute a superhuman task for the Church because she
has to realise these inalienable gifts in her consciousness; she
has to become always more catholic and ecumenical in her
faith and her apostolate, therefore in the way she manifests
herself to the world. The traditional ecclesiology-we give only
one instance to clarify our meaning-thought the catholicitas
facti most important, chiefly because it contained a beautiful
apologetical argument for the Church; but the present ecclesiology will rather insist on the catholicitas juris, because it is
so important for the ecumenical task of the Church. Again
under the influence of the ecumenical situation and the dialogue, modern Catholic ecclesiology has returned to the problem of weakness and sin in the community of the Catholica,

ECUMENICAL

THEOLOGY

AND CONVERSIONS

587

an aspect of her life neglected by or underestimated by the
traditional ecclesiology which for apologetic reasons preferred
to insist on the visible holiness of the Church. Finally, the
problem of the historicity of the Church began to influence
ecclesiology. Historical forces, chiefly the historical forms of
the reactions to heresy and schism, could have brought about
a narrowing of consciousness in the Catholic community, by
which this community became less catholic and less ecumenical than the Catholiaa could and ought to be. In defending
divine truth against heresy she could have lost some of the
openness the Catholiaa must have and show to the world. By
insisting especially on the dogmata contested by the heretics
she may have lost something of the well-balanced universality
which ought to characterize the Oeaumene.18 Modern study
of Tradition/ 9 in which the " traditio aativa " receives more
attention than in an ecclesiology which thought the relation
between Holy Scripture and Tradition the paramount problem, has elucidated the way in which such a narrowing of
consciousness could steal into the faith of the Church. The
eschatological perspective in which the Church is seen in this
modern ecclesiology made the existence of some narrowness
somewhat more acceptable in the Catholiaa, since she is not
yet the "holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God." 20 But when all these things are thought out
and expressed we must still confess that this narrowing is a
weakness and a sin, and that it constitutes a scandal to the
world. Therefore when in her present condition the Catholica
claims to be the Catholica and the Oecumene, and in this
claim implicitly or explicitly calls for conversion, the nonCatholic Christians look at her present historical condition and
reject both claim and call.
18 Ferdinand
Holbock, and Thomas Sartory, 0. S. B., Mysterium Kirche, Salzburg: Otto Muller Verlag, 1962.
19 See Joseph Wodka, Church History, I. pp. 438/465. Feiner, [Triitsch] Bockle,
Fragen der Theologie heute, Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1957. I/III. Joseph Geiselmann,
Tradition.
20 Apoc. 21:2.

588

C. F. PAUWELS

Now a certain number of Catholic participants in the ecumenical dialogue might be tempted to praise this refusal. They
might be inclined not only to contend that this rejection of
the Catholica's claim is psychologically understandable, but
also to contend that the Catholica in her present condition has
no right to expect that her claim will be accepted. They would
probably add that the ecumenical dialogue is the proper way
to overcome this narrowness which prevents the Church from
manifesting herself in her full catholicity and ecumenicity, and
therefore the Church must not even try to make converts till
the dialogue has produced its results; otherwise the Church
would be really proselytizing. In opposition to this extreme
point of view three things must be said: First, it is not at all
certain that the dialogue itself is the proper remedy for the
Church's weakness and narrowness. It could be argued that
the ecumenical dialogue only leads to a renewed meditation
on the contents of her depositum fulei, to a proper ressourcement, and that this meditation, which could have been brought
about by factors other than the ecumenical dialogue and even
by purely internal factors, is the proper remedy. An Ecumenical Council is such a meditation, even when the non-Catholics
are only present as delegate-observers, not as participants in
a dialogue. Furthermore, the question could be asked whether
the overcoming of this narrowness and of other weaknesses
produced by historical forces could not be followed by the
emerging of other weaknesses caused by contemporaneous historical forces. The ecumenical dialogue, itself a historical fact,
may dispel this narrowness induced by the historical reactions
to heresy and schism, and may bring more open-mindedness,
but the Catholic Church will never in her history be without
weaknesses, and if we were to put off making converts till she
is only glorious and radiant, we have to wait till the Parousia.
But the main point is this: the Catholic Church is always the
Catholica, and, even when showing not only wonderful signs
of divine origin and nature, but also painful signs of her
human weakness, is always recognizable as the Catholica. She

ECUMENICAL

THEOLOGY AND CONVERSIONS

589

is, therefore, always rightly claiming to be acknowledged as
the Catholica and always rightly calling for conversion to her.
The work of the Holy Spirit in the souls of non-Catholic
Christians can always bring about real conversions and justified conversions, even when all the members of the World
Council of Churches would call them the " results of a bad
proselytism."

Vestigia Ecclesiae
Modern Catholic ecclesiology leads to a more finely shaded
concept of the Catholic Church, which calls all non-Catholics,
the members of the Christian churches not excepted, to conversion by claiming to be the One True Church of Christ. It
has also thrown some new light on the position of these members of Christian churches in regard to the Catholic Church
by elaborating the doctrine of the vestigia Ecclesiae in a new
and better way. 21 The Church is able therefore from both
these points of view to judge whether and in what sense the
Catholic apostolate of making converts can rightly be called
proselytism. We have already remarked that we Catholics can
in this matter only accept the verdict of our own ecclesiology.
This doctrine of the vestigia Ecclesiae is not yet fully elaborated and we cannot yet speak of any communis opinio, not
even with regard to the definition of the vestigia Ecclesiae.
A few things however seem to be certain. Outside the Cat4olic Church we find not simply non-Catholics in either good
or bad faith. There are validly baptized Christians. We recognize that there are Christians who have a real and a theologically acceptable faith in Jesus Christ as their Saviour, and
who have been formed spiritually by reading the Bible as
God's message to men. There are validly ordained bishops
and priests, and therefore a valid celebration of the Eucharist.
These things are living spiritual forces for non-Catholic Chris21 Gustave
Thils, Histoire Doctrinale du Mouvement Oecumenique, Louvain:
Warny, 1955, pp. 183/197. Thomas Sartory 0. S. B., Die Oekumenische Beuwegung und die Einheit der Kirche, Meritingen bei Augsburg: Kyrios Verlag, 1955,
pp. 147/193.

590

C. F. PAUWELS

tians, who have often fought to retain them. The ancestors of
these Christians were not simply apostates and did not simply leave the Catholic Church, but they took with them some
of her spiritual wealth. Sometimes they contended that they
could only safeguard these treasures by leaving the Church.
Nowadays we do not contend that this claim was valid and
that they were right in leaving the Church under that pretext, though the question of their guilt is less clear for us than
it was for the Catholics of a more apologetically minded period.
We contend that we are not finished with the matter when
we have called them either heretics or schismatics and that
these Christians-but here they will themselves protest most
energetically!-simply
by retaining these Catholic treasures
remain in a certain relation to the Catholic Church. Because
these vestigia Ecclesiae are living forces in the non-Catholic
churches there is, even if it is somewhat tainted and deformed
by being intertwined with heresy and schism and if it lacks
proper balance on account of its being wrested from the total
Catholic synthesis, a Catholic life outside the Catholic Church;
in a sense, we can speak of an " Ecclesia extra Ecclesiam.''
What is then exactly the spiritual position of the member
of a non-Catholic Christian church, who perceives the claims
of the Catholic Church, who is called more or less explicitly
to conversion to that Church, and who may be the object
of some Catholic activity for winning converts? There are
of course many differences between the various Christian
churches; there are more differences between the individual
members of these churches; and there would be still more
differences if we had to consider the problems of the sects,
too. The following is proposed as a general summary of the
situation.
This member of a church is a man of good faith, who in
good faith has been staying away from the Catholic Church
and even in good faith could consider her the Scarlet Woman.
Karl Rahner has pointed out 22 that it can be very difficult
•• Loc. cit., pp. S/5.

ECUMENICAL

THEOLOGY AND CONVERSIONS

591

for us to see how he can be of good faith if he knows the
Catholic Church with her divine gifts and her wonderful signs
fairly well, but we must suppose this till the contrary is proven.
By his faith he is open to the work of the Holy Ghost. Second,
this Christian is a member of a religious community, of a
Christian church in which he feels spiritually at home; in most
cases this will be the church of his family and of his youth,
his faith in which may never have been shaken. Furthermore
by his membership in this church he undergoes the influence
of two contrary and always intertwined forces; of the vestigia
Ecclesiae and of heresy or schism. Moreover he undergoes the
influence of the history and the traditions of the church which
was more or less opposed to, and perhaps even a very critical
adversary of, the Church of Rome. By the influence of the
vestigia (for example, baptism) he is-but unconsciously!directed to and in relation with the Catholica. Finally he lives
with his church and with the whole Christian world in the
present ecumenical situation. He may or may not be vitally
taken up by ecumenical ideals, but he will certainly be interested in the problems of Christian unity. He will have heard
something of the World Council of Churches and of its relations with Rome and he may have formed a conscious judgment concerning the Church of Rome chiefly with regard to
the ecumenical situation.
Two remarks must be added to this sketch of a certainly
difficult and complex position. Our Catholic ecclesiology cannot yet tell us with certainty whether we Catholics (we have
already mentioned the Toronto Declaration of the World
Council of Churches) can call the Christian churches real
churches in the Catholic meaning of this word. Most Catholic
theologians would agree that the Orthodox Churches are real
churches, but they would hesitate to do the same with regard
to the Protestant churches. This question was broached in the
answers to Hans Asmussen's Five Questions to Catholics on
the Lutheran Church. 23 It proved much easier to say what we
23

H. Fries, Antwort an Asmmsen, Stuttgart, 1960.

592

C. F. PAUWELS

Catholics think of the sacraments and the ministry of a Protestant church than what we think of that church itself. It is
therefore very difficult to give a theological appreciation of
the influence of a church with its history and traditions on its
members. With regard to the vestigia Ecclesiae we must remark that they belong to the synthesis of the Catholica, and
therefore, in their isolated state outside the Catholica, they
exert a less balanced influence. Notwithstanding that, however, a Protestant who in his spiritual life has concentrated
on the Bible as a guide, but by reason of his background only
the Bible, might nevertheless be in a position of strength at
least with regard to Biblical formation even from the Catholic
point of view.
EcuMENICAL

CoNVERSION

We must conclude that the relation between the Catholic
Church and the non-Catholic Christians is not simply the
relation between the One True and Holy Church and those
who objectively at least live in heresy and schism. We repeat
once more that the Catholic Church which is the Catholica
and the Oecumene has always (even when she, through human
weakness and by her own fault, cannot manifest the fullness
of her catholicity and ecumenicity to the world) both the
right and the obligation to call the non-Catholic Christians to
conversion. And we must add that whoever has by the grace
of the Holy Ghost seen that this Church of Rome is the Catholica and the Oecumene is obliged by his own conscience to
join this Church and to become a Catholic. Consequently the
Catholic work of making converts, even when directed to
members of the Christian churches, can never by Catholic
standards be called in itself proselytism. It now remains to be
seen whether and how it could degenerate into proselytism.
One preliminary remark: the ecumenical dialogue itself
could degenerate into a kind of proselytism if it were intended
or used as a means to make converts. Undeniably quite a few
Protestants after having participated in the ecumenical dialogue, and manifestly under the influence of this participation,

ECUMENICAL

THEOLOGY AND CONVERSIONS

593

did become Catholics. 24 Undeniably too, many Catholics, who
do not personally participate in the dialogue and do not understand its intention and its methods, still think it is a new
and modern method of making converts. And it is also undeniable that the Catholic partners in the ecumenical dialogue
bring their witness of Catholic faith and of Catholic claims.
In the scope of the dialogue itself they do not bring their witness in order to make converts; they may for tactical reasons
hope that no converts will be made, because that would make
it difficult to continue the dialogue; but they have no power
to prevent the working of the Holy Ghost through their witness. We cannot investigate here the relation between the
apostolate of making converts and the ecumenical dialogue;
we only state that they are different activities.
Whenever and however the Catholic Church works to make
converts she must always be conscious of her factual position
and situation. Her claims are not something apart from herself in her historical condition. She has a right and a duty to
call for conversions, but she must always remember that in
order to make conversions she must manifest herself as the
Catholica and the Oecumene. Does she manifest to the world
the openness and the concern implied in being the Catholica,
and can she honestly declare trustworthiness? As the Oecumene
she must make it clear to the world that all Christians will
find their spiritual home and will feel at home in her community, but is there in her behaviour no foundation for a suspicion that all converts will be streamlined into accepting a
spirituality prevailing through a merely historical evolution
and will be obliged to partake in devotions which reflect the
faith of only a few peoples? The very English gentleman
John Henry Newman, who had found a wealth of spiritual
treasures in his Anglican community/ 5 was obliged to make
•• Giebner/Goethe/Klunder/Schlier, Bekenntnis zur Katkoliscken Kirch,e, Wurzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1955.
25 Sermon, "The Parting of Friends," Sermons on Subjects of the Day, XXVI.
Ed. Longmans, Green & Co. p. 895.

594

C. F. PAUWELS

his spiritual home in a community where Irish sentiments and
Italian devotions were dominant; he was brought from Canterbury to Rome by his belief in the Catholica, but did she
manifest herself to him and could she really make him feel at
home?
When the Catholic Church proclaims herself the One True
and Holy Church of Christ, and calls for conversions, the only
answer she expects and she can accept is, "Credo." This Credo
has something absolute: it affirms the absoluteness of the
Church and of her membership; it acknowledges the absoluteness of her authority and her teachings; it confesses the divine
element in the origin and nature of the Church. And it is an
unconditional surrender. By its absoluteness this credo is a
judgment on everything pertaining to the former life of the
convert; on his allegiance to another religious society or
church; on his heresy or schism and his personal opinions; on
his doubts, scepticism or his fanaticism. Nevertheless this
credo, a gift of grace, is a human act and it is therefore at
the same time a personal credo, with personal motivation from
personal experiences and personal needs, with a personal
accent and stress on some content of the Church's teaching
and a personal engagement in some aspects of her life and
apostolate. And in this personal aspect the credo is an approbation of the former life of the convert in which this personality was formed. Only in this way the Catholic unity in faith
can really become a Catholic unity, not a dead and formal
uniformity. The members of the churches are not an impersonal mass, but personalities. Therefore the message of the
Church and the message of her claim of absoluteness must be
offered in such a way that a personal response is possible;
only then in the Catholic community, after the unanimous
and absolute credo, can the internal dialogue or "multilogue ''
grow, and the faith of every individual Catholic be enriched
by the faith of his fellow Catholics. 26
•• C. F. Pauwels, 0. P., " Preaching the Mystery of the Church," Holbock/Sartory, Mysterium Kirche, Salzburg: Otto Muller Verlag,
IT. pp. 645/7U.

ECUMENICAL

THEOLOGY AND CONVERSIONS

595

The Holy Ghost has been working in the soul of the Christian convert, both because of his good faith and because of
his ecumenical ideal, to show him the way to the Catholica.
Because he in his former community possessed something of
the Catholic Church, it must be supposed, though it can never
be proved, that the Holy Ghost has worked in him through
these Catholic elements: because he was baptized, because the
Bible was his guide in life, because he had given himself by
his faith entirely to Jesus Christ, because the liturgy was such
an important part of his life. Maybe it gradually dawned on
him that to enjoy these gifts in their fullness he would have
to enjoy them in the harmonious synthesis of the Catholica.
Of course, his credo was also a judgment on his past: he had
to renounce the heresies and schisms intertwined with these
Catholic elements, the anti-Roman position of his former community, some of his history and traditions, even something of
the ecumenical movement. But he certainly must not be asked
simply to forget this past and to start living as if he had always been a Catholic. His conversion is the approbation and
coronation of the most important things in it and he has a
right, even a duty, to retain a predilection for them. It is
important that he believe himself always to have been a
baptized Christian, and though it may be inevitable to investigate the validity of this Baptism outside the Catholica, it
should never be treated as something of little importance. He
must never be asked to be less Biblical in his praying and
thinking, and though he must be introduced to the splendours
of liturgical prayers he must never lose his Biblical spirituality. If he had a great, a maybe somewhat exaggerated reverence for the Lord's Day, it must never be suggested that the
sloppy carelessness of many Catholics in their Sunday-observance, though certainly less sinful than he has thought, should
be a pattern of conduct for him as a Catholic. And if he complains that he cannot sing any more the dignified and reverent hymns of the Protestant churches, we will have to concede that he has lost something beautiful by his conversion.

596

C. F. PAUWELS

A convert to the Catholic Church should integrate all the
results of the influence of the Catholic elements during his
former life in the fullness of a Catholic life. Only then can he
give an important contribution to the internal dialogue in the
Catholic community, because then his personal accent in confessing the mysteries of the credo will be different from the
accent of those who always have been Catholics.
One last thing ought to be noted. Today's converts will
generally become Catholics while being animated by the ecumenical ideals; they will often come into the Catholic Church
expressly because they believe her to be the Catholica and the
Oecumene for which they have prayed and longed and struggled. It could be said that they are coming too early: the
Catholic Church is not yet fully conscious of her catholicity
and her ecumenicity and of all the implications and consequences. Some, therefore, might think it prudent not to insist so
much on the ecumenical problems when instructing converts.
But the converts cannot wait for better times. They know by
the light of faith that this certainly not yet perfect Church is
really the Catholica. And the ecumenical questions cannot be
left out of the instructions of converts, because they point to the
most important task of the Catholic Church. Having by their
conversion already corrected the biggest and most tragic error
of the Ecumenical Movement outside the Catholic Church, i.e.,
that she is not the Catholica, converts can make a valuable
contribution from their ecumenical experiences to the internal
dialogue of the Catholic community on her ecumenical task
and possibilities.
CONCLUSION

These remarks say nothing strikingly new. These things
have always been known in the work of teaching converts.
But in modern Catholic ecclesiology they have been differently evaluated; they have not only practical but theological
value.
In this question the Eastern Churches furnish the best indication of the Catholic Church's intentions. There have been

ECUMENICAL

THEOLOGY AND CONVERSIONS

597

times when a conversion of an oriental Christian could only
mean his latinization; those were times when Catholics, thinking of the Eastern Churches, thought only of heresy and
schism. Since Pope Leo XIII, however, the respect for the
traditions of the Christian East has been growing continuously; now it is generally acknowledged that these are the traditions of the great Eastern Doctors whose feasts are celebrated in the Catholic Church and that the reappearance of
these traditions in the already too much latinized Catholic
community could only be called an enrichment. A slight
expurgation of the Eastern liturgies has been necessary, but
latinization has stopped. I£ an Eastern Christian is by his
own conscience brought to conversion, he remains an Eastern
Christian. The Orthodox may cry " proselytism" when speaking of the Uniate Churches, but they are an expression of
the Catholic reverence for old traditions of the Catholic
Church.
With regard to converts from Protestantism, the Catholic community has often required a most complete adjustment and adaptation of these converts to the factual spiritual
condition of that community, and even then has complained
that these converts were still a nuisance, being critical and
overzealous and strangers. The "old Catholics" were the member of the One True Church, who were the children of those
who had remained faithful to the Church at the time of the
Reformation and often had suffered for her, who had never
been anything else but Catholic, who therefore should set the
pattern for everybody who wanted to join their community;
and the convert had better forget or certainly never show that
he formerly had been a member of a heretical or schismatical
church. This was the inevitable result of a merely apologetical
attitude towards other Christian churches; Catholics wanted
to see the situation drawn in black and white; they wanted
to believe the Holy Church perfect in every respect, only individual sinners excepted, and they could only see the shortcomings of the others.
The presence of the vestigia Ecdesiae in the non-Catholic

598

C. F. PAUWELS

churches is the true foundation of the ecumenical dialogue
between Catholics and non-Catholics, which must go on till
the unity of all Christians in one visible Church will ultimately be realized. A dialogue is possible and necessary with
all men, but an ecumenical dialogue is only possible when on
both sides we find Christian faith. Whenever those, having
lived spiritually from Catholic elements and having partaken
in the ecumenical dialogue between the churches, come to the
fullness of the Catholica, and especially when they join the
community of the Catholica in which the fullness is not completely realized, they must certainly first reject whatever the
Catholica rejects and readjust their Christian life, but then
their coming means an enrichment of the interior dialogue of
the community. There are aspects of Catholic life and doctrine in which they feel more at home than those who have
always been Catholics; so the doctrine of the universal priesthood of all baptized Christians is a point most converts from
Protestantism will understand better than many Catholics.
But this enrichment is only possible on condition that converts are accepted with their past and that in the Catholic
community there is room for their spirituality.

*

*

*

When the danger of proselytism is mentioned we are almost
automatically reminded of the possibility that less than honest
intentions and methods might insinuate themselves in the
work of making converts, and we are especially reminded of
the fact that many conversions are connected with the purpose of marrying a Catholic. When, however, making converts
itself is called " proselytism " from an ecumenical point of
view, we can only retort that this can never be the point of
view of the ecclesiology of the Catholica.
Yet if we conduct the apostolate of making converts without thinking of the implications of our own ecumenical theolperhaps that should be called
ogy and ecclesiology,
" proselytism."
c. F. PAUWELS, 0. P.
Albertinum, Nijmegen,
The N etherlanda

UNITY: SPECIAL PROBLEMS, DOGMATIC
AND MORAL

T

HE Bishop of Darwin, Australia, is reported to have
said, on his way back from the Council, that some
modern theologians are turning somersaults backwards
in their anxiety to please non-catholics. He pleaded with the
orthodox theologians to take up their pens in order to off-set
such writings. 1 This statement merely puts into words what
so many of us have been thinking-and experiencing-over a
number of years, namely, that too many of our modern theologians are trying to bring into being a new ' situation ' theology, to fit modern needs. We are frequently told, either in
so many words or by means of the broadest hints, that orthodox theology, especially if it takes the shape of scholasticism,
is one of the main obstacles to reunion. The impression is
given that, if only we would adapt our theology, both in concept and in language, to ecumenical needs, we would soon discover that the fundamentals of our Catholic position do not
differ so very much from those of our separated brethren.
Instead of attacking such statements directly, the present
article is an attempt to examine some of the more fundamental dogmatic and moral problems which face both sides in
the ecumenical movement and which must be dealt with if
we are to hope, one day, to bring back to the unity of the
true Church those who are at present outside it. However,
before we can deal with these specific problems certain preparatory remarks must be made, even at the risk of giving
offence in certain quarters. Not one of us has any doubt
about the value of a true ecumenical dialogue. For us, as
Catholics, it implies the continuation of the mission entrusted
to the Apostles, a mission which will continue to the end of
1

Universe and Catholic Times, Jan.

1968.

599

600

DAVID L. GREENSTOCK

time and which has for its sole object the one fold under the
one shepherd.
There should be no need to point out the demand for absolute sincerity in all our dealings with non-catholics and the
reunion question. This sincerity implies many things, but two
of them are fundamental. We should not raise false hopes by
giving the impression that, with a little good will on both
sides, reunion is just around the corner. Nor should we give
the false impression that such reunion can be attained without complete unity in the faith. It is distressing, to say the
least, to notice that some Catholic theologians do not seem
to realise the importance of this. I am not accusing anyone
of deliberate insincerity, but in certain modern writings there
is a lack of appreciation of the fact that sincerity means absolute truth and that it is the truth alone which brings true
freedom. 2
It is interesting to notice that non-catholic writers are becoming daily more aware of the need for this sincerity as
identified with truth. There is a growing consciousness among
them of the differences in fundamentals which separate the
various sects from each other and from the Church of Rome,
together with a realisation of the importance of the role of
theology in the ecumenical dialogue. Some examples of this
will not be out of place, since some Catholic writers have not
yet caught up with non-catholics in this matter, and seem
to have the impression that many of the doctrinal differences
of the past have lost much of their actuality nowadays. In
fact, the opposite is the truth. The ecumenical movement has
brought about a re-affirmation of certain doctrinal positions
in non-catholic circles.
We may surely take the word of the President of the Lund
Conference for this. Bishop Brilioth of Upsala (Sweden) said
in his presidential address:
It is remarkable that the ecumenical movement has had as a parallel, perhaps partly as a result, a great revival of confessional con" C£: Cardinal Bea's article in Nouvelle Revue Theologique, (Feb.

)84.

UNITY:

SPECIAL PROBLEMS,

DOGMATIC AND MORAL

601

sciousness ... a re-affirmation of doctrinal positions which seemed
to have lost their actuality. 3

And Dr. Visser't Hooft used a phrase which might well
become a classic description of the present situation, " The
only unity we are concerned with is unity in obedience to
truth." 4 The old ecumenical saying " service unites but doctrine divides" which once met with almost universal approval,
has now been discarded in favour of a frank recognition
of doctrinal differences and of their supreme importance in
any attempt at reunion. Commenting on this change Fr.
Leeming says:
The development seems to take the following directions: a clearer
and stronger, though not universal, admission that doctrinal matters are of the first importance and that to attempt to gloss over
differences by ambiguous formulas is wrong both in theory and in
practice. 5

As long ago as 1938, Mackenzie quotes V. Demant as saying, " Where dogmas don't matter there are merely collisions
in a fog." 6 It is surely not without significance that noncatholics, in the course of their discussions, have lamented
the dearth of theologians competent to handle doctrinal questions/ This has led to a growing appreciation of the fact that
inter-communion implies a certain rejection of one's own doctrinal fundamentals; which is an approximation of the Catholic position so clearly and simply presented by Bishop Brunner of Middlesborough (England) , " The way one worships
is bound up with what one believes. We believe differently,
therefore, we cannot worship together." 8 That is an example
"Report of Lund Conference,
101.
• Ecumenical Review, 1955/6, 18-86.
6 The Chronicles and the Church, (Longmans: London, 1960) 61. No one should
attempt to handle ecumenical problems without a serious study of this work,
which is a mine of information and a model of erudition.
6 Union of Christend01n,
Vol. II (London), 1988.
7 Report of Gen. Sec., Ecumenical Review, XI (Oct., 1956) 48.
8 Universe and Oath. Times, Jan.
1968.

602

DAVID L, GREENSTOCK

of absolute sincerity and simple truth which might well be
copied by theologians everywhere. Similar statements have
been made by others, including Professor Zander and Fr. Congar, O.P. 9 But there is another and an opposing tendency in
both non-catholic and also in some Catholic circles, which is
not so healthy, namely, the idea that we have something to
learn in matters of worship from non-catholics. In view of what
will be said later about inter-communion, the present writer
regards this tendency with grave suspicion as to its practical
value/ 0
In view of all this it may well be asked what this absolute
sincerity implies from the positive dogmatic angle as far as
the Catholic theologian is concerned. The question is not an
easy one because it has so many facets, but the main outlines of the reply may well include such basic principles as
these:
1. Fidelity to the dictates of Humani Generis, to begin with;
together with a rejection of the temptation to use the ecumenical excuse as a weapon for the destruction of scholasticism and the creation of a new 'situational' theology.
2. A realisation that there is no basic division between theology and faith. The observation made by one non-catholic
theologian to the effect that we agree in faith but differ
only in theology, is an absurdity.
3. There is now an even greater need to return to the basic
principle of St. Thomas that reason is an instrument by which
we can express and deduce the virtual content of revelation. 11
It would be an error of the first magnitude to neglect the
development of Neo-Thomism in favor of some vague, new
theology, especially now when the study of Thomism has influenced so many Anglican and Presbyterian theologians. We
9

1

Quoted in the Inter-communion Report,

350-354.

°Cf. the article by Ruth Slade, "The Laity and Christian Unity," Clergy Re-

view, (London) , Jan., 1963.
11 Cf. the article entitled "Humani Generis, Guia del Teologo," Ciencia Tomista,
1951, 546 fl'.

UNITY:

SPECIAL PROBLEMS,

DOGMATIC AND MORAL

603

need only quote Professor H. Taylor and Dr. E. Mascall as
typical examples of this influence. It is high time that we all
realised the fact that this is a glorious part of our Catholic
inheritance. We should make the most of it, because it is our
finest instrument for precise thought and for careful definition-both of which are essential if we are to bring the faith
to our separated brethren.
The fact that it is possible to write theology along scholastic and Nco-Thomistic lines, while at the same time writing
good English is amply demonstrated by Fr. B. Leeming's
work, Principles of Sacramental Theology, (Longmans: London, 1956). 'Modern' theologians, in the Bishop of Darwin's
sense of the word, have nothing to offer which can compare
with this and it should serve as a model of theological writing at the present day.
4. In this connection every theologian would do well to
read and digest G. K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy. Speaking of
the great theological ' wars ' of the past and of the reasons
for them, he says:
It is enough to notice that, if some small mistake were made in
doctrine, high blunders might be made in human happiness. A sentence wrongly phrased about the nature of symbolism would have
broken all the best statues in Europe. A slip on the definitions
might stop all the dances, might wither all the Christmas trees or
break all the Easter eggs. Doctrine had to be carefully defined
within strict limits, even in order that man might enjoy general
human liberties. The Church had to be careful, if only that the
world might be carelessP
We are in much the same position today; one slip now may
cost us years of effort.
Chesterton's basic thesis should be applied to all true ecumenical dialogue unless we wish to stultify all efforts at true
reunion. The idea that we must first unite in the hope that
doctrinal agreement may follow later is only to put the cart
before the horse! It is first of all necessary to explain to our
12

(London, 1908) 166 ff.

604

DAVID L. GREENSTOCK

separated brethren in simple language the doctrines of the
Church, together with the fact that she dare not depart from
them by one iota! This may appear hard-and there are not
a few theologians who fight shy of doing it for that reasonbut we ought to be aware of the fact that only the truth, with
all its consequences, will make them free. The whole point of
ecumenical dialogue is not to draw to us first of all, but to
explain. The reason is a very simple one, but fundamental;
the Orthodox and above all the Protestant theologians, are
only now beginning to read our writings! To think that they
study everything we write as much as we watch their writings would be a grave error in judgment, and one for which
we would pay dearly.
5. This point gives rise to yet another. We must not give
non-catholics the impression that the great Conciliar decrees
of the past can be modified or made easier for their acceptance by a new expression of those truths in more modern
language. This would imply that such decrees are capable of
radical reform-which is untrue. Have we, by any chance
learned bad habits from our ecumenical brethren? 'Ve know
that, among non-catholics, it is no longer the fashion to disagree
openly. The modern phrase for it is "to place a different emphasis." Miss Helle Georgiadis says:
The main obstacle to discussion between different Christian groups
is that the same terms are used, but these terms, so far as they
apply to the Church, have altered their content as a result of historical pressure, in particular that of the Reformation. Moreover,
the oecumenical movement has invested many terms which previously had a specific meaning (the word Oecumencial itself for
example) with new significance.

Dr. Visser't Hooft, speaking of Fr. Tavard's book, The
Catholic Appeal to Protestanism (New York, 1955), points
out that we are up against a fundamental difficulty. He does
so in a trenchant phrase:
Has Fr. Tavard then not learned the simple A.B.C. of ecumen-

UNITY:

SPECIAL PROBLEMS, DOGMATIC AND MORAL

605

ism, that there is no ecumenical language which is completely unambiguous for all concerned? 18

How one wishes that all Catholic theologians would learn
this phrase by heart, and not be taken in by apparent agreement in words! There is, of course, only one real answer to
it-clear definition of terms! We are forced back to NeoThomism in the end!
Reunion, to a Catholic, must mean unity in faith and worship. To imply the opposite is to destroy the truth and to
betray Christ. Most Protestant writers are aware of this, but
Catholic authors are not so clear on the point as one would
like. On the one hand, many of them give the impression of
wishing to cast aside the more sober tunic of orthodox theology for the flimsy dress of modern thought; others give the
impression that many of our great doctrines of the past are
now extremely doubtful in the bright light of ecumenism.
Later in this article we hope to show how dangerous this
tendency is and how harmful to true ecumenical dialogue.
6. To sum up: the need is for a clear, definite exposition
of the true Catholic position, without fear or favor, yet with
all due charity, together with a clear recognition of the facts
of the position with regard to our separated brethren. We
have no right to hide from them or from ourselves the difficulties in the way to reunion, nor must we give them the
impression that the Catholic Church is ready to betray her
dogmatic mission. In other matters we can be as liberal as
possible, but there can be no half-way house from the strictly
doctrinal point of view. While on the one hand we must avoid
any semblance of witch-hunting, or the mistakes Augustine
made in his dealings with the early Christians in Britain, we
must also avoid the even graver mistake made by the Anglican Church in its South Indian Reunion scheme.
This is especially important in view of the fact that the
present Anglican Church in Britain considers itself to be a
13

The Ecumenical Review, VIII, Jan., 1956.

606

DAVID L. GREENSTOCK

" bridge church," capable of uniting the two extremes, Rome
and other denominations. This has always been her ideal and
it is very clear in modern ecumenical writings on the subject. 14
So much for the general principles. Now, how can we apply
them to the major dogmatic problems which face us in our
ecumenical efforts?
The first and truly fundamental problem is that of the
nature of the Church founded by Christ. But since this is the
subject of another article in this series, we need to do no more
than mention it here. One point which stands out is the need
for a drastic reform of the treatise, De Ecclesia, in our textbooks of theology-a reform which takes into consideration
the modern developments in the history of this dogma and
also the new grounds for discussion. Perhaps the best approach
to this problem is the one adopted by Monsignor Charles
Journet in his monumental work on the subject. 15 In it we
see the Church as she really is, as the Bride of Christ.
Although at times they tend to avoid this issue in their
writings, it is clear that non-catholics are aware of the importance of it. There can be no successful attempts at reunion until it is dealt with fully. 16 It covers a vast field, every
inch of which must be ploughed and cultivated by the Catholic theologian. There must be special emphasis on the apostolic succession in the episcopate, one of the corner stones in
the Catholic concept of the Church as a visible entity and a
living magisterium. It would be wrong, both in theory and
in practice, for us to state anything other than the Tridentine and Vatican I doctrines on this point, even though we
may have to re-word them into more modern language. Even
a glance at the ecclesiology of a man like Karl Barth will
14 Cf. Dr. James Good, The Church of England and the Ecumenical Movement
(Burns Oates: London, 1961), an excellent summary of the present position of the
Anglican Church with regard to reunion; and also the Bishop of London's book,
What the Church of England Stands For (Mowbrays: London) 1952.
15 The Church of the WMd Incarnate (Sheed and Ward, 1955).
16 Cf. Nouvelle Revue
Theologique, Sept.-Oct. 1961, 832 ff. This article also
contains an abundant bibliography.

UNITY:

SPECIAL PROBLEMS, DOGMATIC AND MORAL

607

serve to show us what we are up against and how little the
Protestants as a whole really understand the nature of the
Church of Christ on earth. 17
The mission of Christ's Church depends on this doctrine
of the nature of the Church as a visible entity in the world,
and to accommodate the doctrine to make it fit any ecumenical theory would be to wreck the bark of Peter. Underlying
every single Council since the beginning of the Church there
has been this idea of a living magisterium as a visible witness to the revelation and redemption of Christ. An historical
development of this interesting point would not be time
wasted at the present moment. 18
In this matter of reunion and unity I would venture to
suggest that the best contribution we can make-and one for
which non-catholics would be very grateful-is a clear statement of the Catholic position with regard to these fundamental problems. Above all, there should be no attempt to create
a new theology to fit the ecumenical situation or to water
down the great dogmas of the Church so that they may become easier to assimilate or more attractive to those outside
the fold. This implies no little effort and no mean theological
ability. It will not be accomplished by merely negative criticism of certain elements in the Church which are purely accidental to the issue. Instead, the starting point must be a
clear realisation of two things, one related to the present and
one to the past.
The Catholic theologian must be fully aware of the present-day approach of non-catholics to the problems he is trying to explain. He must have studied their writings at :first
hand to see where they fit in with true Catholic doctrine and
where they do not. Also he must be able to detect the varied
meanings they give to expressions which, to him, are house17 Cf. Maurice Schepers, O.P., " The Works of the Holy Spirit: Karl Barth on
the Nature of the Church," Theological Studies, Dec. 1962.
18 Cf. "Concile Oecumenique et Catholicite de l'eglise," Nouvelle Revue Theologique, Nov., 1959, 916 fl'.

608

DAVID L. GREENSTOCK

hold words. It is all too easy to attribute a fully Catholic
meaning to non-catholic writings when they are, in fact, poles
apart from Catholicity. Many Catholic theologians have been
misled on this point and have hurriedly 'baptised' a noncatholic writer too soon, much to his indignation!
A case in point is surely Karl Barth, whose writings may
reveal the soul of a man who is earnestly trying to discover
Christ, but which certainly do not indicate a close proximity
to Catholicity. To say, as one Catholic theologian has said,
that there is little or no difference between Barth's doctrine of
justification and that of the Catholic Church, or that the differences which do exist could scarcely serve today to bring
about any division from the true Church is, in reality, a naive
confession of ignorance of the Protestant mind and only serves
to obscure the evil of such division.
Protestants themselves are well aware of this vague use of
terms, together with the synthesis of errors to which it may
easily lead. One of their leading theologians, Dr. E. L. Mascall, puts it like this:
When the unity of truth is broken, it often happens that the result
is not a number of fragments of the truth, but a number of conceptions which are misleading, erroneous and heretical. We do not
arrive at truth by fitting errors together. It is widely assumed that
a synthesis can be reached by taking the agreed elements in our
" common christianity ' and by omitting matters on which there
is deep disagreement. But to do this is to accept our common distorted versions of christianity as a basis, without attempting to
cure us all of our distortions. From the highest Common Factor
of several erroneous quotients we get, not a true solution, but a
result more erroneous still.19
Statements such as this reveal a deep knowledge of the importance of dogmatic theology and could have come from the
pen of a Catholic theologian. The very basis of reunion is
truth, as we have said before, not a leaning-over-backwards
to please our separated brethren. They will not easily forgive
19

Catholicity, 44.

UNITY:

SPECIAL PROBLEMS, DOGMATIC AND MORAL

609

us if we make that mistake, because it is just what they
themselves are trying to avoid. They are fully aware of the
fact that for all to unite under the Pope in the hope of reaching doctrinal agreement later is out of the question. However, there are some who are not as yet aware of the fallacy
behind the idea that, since we do not know exactly what
Christ wanted for his Church, we must get together to find
out. In this they require clear guidance and we need have
no fear of offending them if we give it with all charity. They
need to be shown that one error in doctrine is enough to vitiate the whole edifice and that it is not enough to bring moral
qualities to the " united church " which is our ideal.
There are signs that non-catholic theologians are becoming
increasingly aware of the fact that the distinctive "witness"
of each sect will have to yield to the "common witness" and
that the historic tradition of each body will have to give
place to the universal tradition. Here it is important for the
Catholic theologian not to be taken in by mere appearances.
He should not be prepared to diminish the power of the fact
that the Catholic Church is not merely the only guardian of
that universal tradition in faith and morals, but also the only
Church which has preserved it intact and free from all tarnish of error. The danger here, I think, is the temptation to
be a " federationist "-to think in terms of a multitude of
more or less independent national churches in federation with
one another, rather than in terms of organic unity. Fr. Leeming expresses perfectly the obligation of the Catholic theologian when he says:
The Roman Church has a duty to her own members, to dissident
fellow-christians and to the world to assert her claim of uniqueness, unity and visibility, and not to allow it to be obscured. 20

Obviously, this question stands at the very highest dogmatic level and there has been no fundamental change in the
attitude of non-catholics to it since the famous remark of
•• Op. cit.,

610

DAVID L. GREENSTOCK

Archbishop Davidson during the course of the Malines Conversations, when he said:
But prior to all these (other questions) and far outweighing them
in importance, stands the fundamental question-Is there, or is
there not, a Vicar of Christ upon earth, who possesses iure divino
a distinctive authoritative position in relation to the whole of
Christendom? 21

The slant of non-catholic arguments against the papal authority and succession may have changed slightly over the years,
but the basic difficulty remains the same for all that, a refusal
to admit a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church.
This is clear from the remarks made by Rev. David L. Edwards, in an article first produced in Esprit and later in the
Church Times (Jan. 10,
It would be foolish of us to
ignore this or pretend that it did not exist or was of little
importance.
Here the Catholic theologian has an obligation which stems
from his faith to explain clearly the Catholic position without
being led astray from it by historical red-herrings. He must
be prepared to prove that unity without difformity needs a
central authority, while at the same time he makes it clear
that unity does not necessarily mean uniformity. 22
Closely connected with the Papal claims is the famous question of the authority of the Bishops in union with the Pope
and the laity, in one single unity which corresponds to the
organic unity of the body. Here, above all, it is necessary for
the Catholic theologian to have a firm grasp of what is meant
by the term " historic episcopate " when used by non-catholics and of the real issues at stake in the Gallican controversy
of Vatican I (with its origins in the Gallic an articles of
The fundamental dogmatic issues are the same as those which
divide ecumenists today, namely, federation as opposed to
G. K. Bell, Randall Davidson, Archbishop of Cante;rbury, London, 1952.
Cf. D. Attwater, The Christian Churches of the East. Vol. 1. Churches in Communion with Rome, (Milwaukee, 1948) which shows clearly how much diversity
the Church allows and encourages.
21

22

UNI'l'Y:

SPECIAL PROBLEMS,

DOGMATIC AND MORAL

611

organic unity. Here it is all too easy to be led away by side
issues, such as Vatican totalitarianism, over- centralization,
submission of the intellect to Roman decisions, etc. 23 These
things, if they exist at all, are not an obstacle to true ecumenism as such within the Catholic Church, and to spend all
our time on a refutation of them and of their implications is
to beat the air in vain. They are not the main issues at stake,
and to make reunion depend on them and on their reform is
to deny the efficacy of the Spirit of God and to make reunion
a type of federation ideal, which is absurd.
Even a summary examination of the various reunion documents produced by non-catholics leads us to one essential
conclusion-that the aim is compromise. Wherever possible,
a formula is agreed upon which will be capable of including
all opinions and when this is impossible, then each side is ready
to sacrifice a little of what it believes, always with the excuse
that this is done in Christian charity. As Fr. Hebert truly says,
"There is a tendency to a light-hearted acceptance of schemes
for reunion, while we murmur that Christian love counts for
more than orthodoxy." 24
We must not be deceived by words. The Lambeth Appeal
of 1920 means now what it always meant in Anglican theology-the doctrine of Fundamentalism married to that of the
autonomy of national Churches and as such we cannot admit it. This is the present doctrine of Anglicanism with regard
to the future " unified " Church, and in it there is an element
of modernism which the Catholic theologian would do well to
recognize. What is true of Anglicanism is even more true of
non-conformity. Dr. Leslie Weatherhead has expressed it thus:
Clearly no unity will ever be possible if it has to depend on everyone believing the same truths in the same sense. Human minds
work differently, and two equally sincere religious men can believe ideas which are completely irreconcilable .... No, the way
•• Cf. Hans Kling, The Council and Reunion, (Sheed and Ward: London, 1961)
196 ff.
•• The Forrn of the Church, 104, quoted in Good, op. cit., 67.

612

DAVID L. GREENSTOCK

to unity is not by endless discussions aimed at making men believe the same thing or worship in the same way.25
The doctrine of the Mass as a Sacrifice demands the attention of the orthodox theologian for many reasons. A glance
at the Report of the Commis8ion on Doctrine appointed by
the Archbishops of Canterbury and York in 1922 is enough
to demonstrate clearly that, so far as the Eucharist is concerned, Anglicans are prepared to admit every opinion from
the strict Lutheran to the extreme Anglo-Catholic. 26
The Lambeth Conference of 1958 confirms this opinion,
while at the same time it includes elements which are not
conducive to ecumenism. The Catholic theologian must always
be aware of the Protestant slant on this question, and the
fact that, even from the purely historical point of view, they
are in error about the Eucharist, must not be ignored. Their
historical grounds for controversy have changed, it is true,
and this alone should make us suspect that Anglican theology
is ever more aware of its departure from the "universal tradition " and of the need for a " via media " which will secure
its continued existence as a world force. 27 The "bridge
church" idea is predominant here once again. 28 It is interesting to notice, in this connection that the Ways of W 01·ship
Repo1·t, (London, 1953) is perfectly clear as to the fact that
both Luther and Calvin rejected the sacrificial aspect of the
Mass.
So far as Catholics are concerned, the Decrees of Trent set
the seal of infallibility on the orthodox Catholic doctrine of
the time and nothing can change that. It is one of the points
which we must be prepared to discuss with our separated
brethren in the ecumenical movement, and we must be pre•• Cf. Article in the Sunday Express, London, Jan. 27, 1968.
•• Published by S. P. C. K., London, 1988.
27 Cf. Article in Theological Studies, Vol. 28, No. 2 (June, 1962) under the title
" Late Medieval Eucharistic Theology: Orthodoxy or Corruption? "
28 Cf. What the Church of England Stands For, by J. Wand, Bishop of London,
(Mowbrays, London) 1952.

UNITY:

SPECIAL PROBLEMS, DOGMATIC AND MORAL

613

pared to do so without selling the past. The doctrines of
the Mass must be preserved intact, together with the essential decrees of Trent from both the historical and theological
points of view. Only harm can come from a tacit admission
that the reforming Protestants were really Catholics at heart
and were only attacking the aberrations of medieval theologians-which is nonsense! The Mass is now, as it was then,
an essential part of the universal tradition, to which all must
submit. Any other position is unorthodox, if not heretical.
Now a word or two about the position of the Catholic
Church with regard to the separated Oriental Churches. Here
there is much confusion of thought and so many things need
be said, each of which would demand a separate article. However, with due apologies, we may attempt a synthesis.
Leaving aside the obvious bone of contention, the jurisdictional primacy of the See of Peter, we can say that the main
issue which has to be decided between Rome and the East
is that of the "economy" theory, of which an admirable
summary is given in Dr. Good's book, already quoted. The
important factor in this theory is that Orthodoxy does notand cannot- recognise as valid any sacraments which she
has not administered herself. However, she is prepared to
re-validate those administered by other religious bodies, provided they come over to Orthodoxy. The interpretations of
Protestant theologians make this quite clear. Thus Mackensie says that the implication is that Anglicanism has all the
necessary conditions for the validity of its orders, except that
of belonging to the true Church, 29 while Goudge admits that
the principle as applied to Anglican Church means that, if it
became an ' Orthodox Church,' its ministers would not have
to be re-ordained. 30
It is not generally realised that the attitude of Orthodoxy
to Anglican Orders gives us a general picture of some of the
doctrinal difficulties which the Catholic Church has to face
•• The Confusion of the Churches, 288.
The Church of England and Reunion, 65.

80

614

DAVID L. GREENSTOCK

before there can be any hope of reunion between East and
West. Here it is a struggle between two Churches, each of
which claims to have the whole truth, and therefore each
demanding submission on the part of the other. 31
In such a situation there are bound to be several points
on which East and West agree, for example, the doctrine of
the Mass, the seven sacraments and Mariology, for which the
East has fought no less bravely than the West. This must not
lead the Catholic theologian to assume that agreement on so
many points will make his task easier. It is true that such
writings as that of Francis Dvornik have lightened the historical horizon to some extent, but that is alP 2 There is still
an inner antagonism to Catholicism and all it represents which
can only be broken down by much patient effort. This situation is not improved by the identification of religion and
politics which has been a decisive element in Orthodoxy for
so many centuries. 33 Perhaps this explains why the comments
of the Orthodox delegates to the first session of the present
Council were less enthusiastic and effusive than those of some
of the other representatives. 34
In his approach to Orthodoxy, the Catholic theologian needs
to concentrate his attention on the history of dogma rather
than on dogmatic reasonings as such. This is especially true
of questions such a papal infallibility and jurisdiction, which
are already upheld in theory, if not in practice, by some of
the writers of the autocephalous churches. 35 There is room
for a deeper investigation of the Papal claims, especially as
the history of the first seven General Councils present them
to us. On those Councils the faith of Orthodoxy is based, and
31 Cf. "Orthodoxy,
Rome and Oecumenism," by Helle Georgiadis, Eastern
Churches Quarterly, xvi No. 8 (1956) 7: also Nouvelle Revue Theologique, Jan.,
196 ff.
•• The Photian Schism, Cambridge University Press, 1948.
88 Cf. K. Algermissen, Christian Denominations,
(Herder, 1948) pp. 560 ff.
•• Cf. the article on this subject in Ecclesia, Feb. 16, 1963.
•• Cf. the writings of some of the Russian theologians, such as A. Chomjakoff
and S. Bulgakow.

UNITY:

SPECIAL PROBLEMS,

DOGMATIC AND MORAL

615

it should lead logically to a recognition of the Papacy. The
fact that it has not done so, especially in recent years, seems
to be due to many factors, which include the doctrinal sterility of Orthodoxy (admitted even by their own theologians),
an unfounded fear of Romanization and, above all, to the influence of political factors. This latter influence is especially
strong in the Russian Church, where the policy of communist
infiltration into the ranks of the clergy has been in operation
for some years now.
Reunion also presents many moral problems from the Catholic point of view. Two of these are of outstanding importance. One is concerned with the obligation to follow an erroneous conscience and whether such an obligation gives rise to
a strict right to religious freedom. The other is concerned with
certain aspects of marriage. Some brief observations on these
problems may be of use to Catholic theologians.
The general moral principles which govern conscience-even
an erroneous one-are clearly laid down in all the text books.
On that point there is no real difficulty. The question at issue
is whether this obligation to follow an erroneous conscience
can give rise to a right in the strict sense of that word. To
put this in the form of an example may help us all to understand the real difficulty at issue here. A person brought up
in a false religion can have the obligation to follow the dictates of his conscience in religious matters, even though, from
the point of view of truth, that conscience may be a false
one. Has he, therefore a right, juridically speaking, to act in
accordance with that conscience? The question is no mere
academic one, as will be appreciated immediately once we
remember that a right, as opposed to a mere obligation, implies objective juridical demands which command respect and
non-interference from all who come up against it.
It is well known that there are two opposing opinions with
regard to this question, and it is a fertile and most useful field
for the theologian from the historical, juridical and dogmatic

616

DAVID L. GREENSTOCK

aspects. Since it is on the agenda for the next session of the
Council, the matter is an urgent one.36
Marriage in all its aspects presents many obstacles to reunion as things stand at present. This is especially true of the
question of mixed marriages from the non-catholic point of
view and, most of all, the great problem of its indissolubility.
It is not without significance that Canon Bernard Pawley,
who was appointed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and
York to act as their personal representative at the Council
has listed three matters which, as he puts it, " Undoubtedly
deface the image of the Roman Church in the eyes of Christian bodies outside her communion." These three matters are
the belief that the Catholic Church is a danger to the natural liberties of man, both religious and political; the rules
about mixed marriages (!) and the degree of veneration of
the Blessed Virgin.37 In view of the anomalous position of
Anglicanism, it need not surprise us to see that there is no
mention of the nature of marriage as a sacrament, much less
of its indissolubility. Instead there is the obvious desire,
expressed by many another non-catholic writer, that the
Roman Church will make some concessions in the matter of
mixed marriages, although we are not told clearly how far
she is expected to go in this matter.
In spite of all this, one gets the impression that the present
position of the Anglican Church is stronger on such things as
the indissolubility of marriage than one would think. It is
unfortunate to say the least that, for so many years, Anglicanism has been forced to submit to a civil legislation on
marriage which she has never entirely accepted from the doctrinal point of view, but which has forced her into an equivocal position from which her leaders long to escape. Whether
she will be able to free herself from these claims at any price
as The speech made by Cardinal Bea at the Unity Octave meeting in Rome and
reported in Ecclesia, Feb.
1968, represents one of the contrary opinions we have
mentioned.
87 Cf. Looking at the Vatican Council, S.CM. Press,

UNITY:

SPECIAL PROBLEMS,

DOGMATIC AND MORAL

617

less than that of dis-establishment is another matter. A priori, she would like to hold fast to the theory that marriage
is indissoluble, although she has been forced to admit divorce,
while at the same time tending to refuse to admit divorced
people to a new marriage in Church, at least in theory. 38
The position of non-conformity in this matter of divorce is
far worse than that of Anglicanism.
The task of the Catholic theologian is clear. The sacramental nature of marriage has to be explained and developed in
the light of biblical theology, for on that depends the quality
of indissolubility. Here we must make a clear distinction between the strictly theological arguments and those from the
natural law, since the latter form a special type of logical
argument, leading to an inductive rather than a deductive
conclusion. Unless this is clearly understood, the Catholic
theologian can easily ask too much of his reasoning, with the
fatal result that his arguments do not really prove. The juridical, historical and patristic arguments must all be developed with this point in mind, because at times there is a natural law basis for them, at others a strictly theological one.
There is room here for a new examination of the classical
text-book reasonings, which can only have full force if these
principles are kept in mind.
It may be useful to insist once again that the great dogmatic decisions of the Church with regard to the sacrament
of matrimony have an eternal force and must not be neglected or diminished. It is not controversy we are seeking, but
a simple yet clear explanation of the truth of Christ's teaching with regard to this sacrament. Nothing less than this will
do, if we are to be of any help to our separated brethren in
their present moment of trial. They are fighting to preserve
dogma against sentimentalism and expediency and we can
38 Cf. Dom Peter Flood, O.S.B., The Dissolution of Marriage (Burns Oates: London, 1962) for an excellent summary of English Civil and ecclesiastical law as compared with Canon Law. It is especially useful as a proof of the political aspects
of Anglicanism since 1857.

618

DAVID L. GREENSTOCK

only help them in this fight by preserving intact the law of
Christ and giving good reasons for so doing. For this reason
alone it is the opinion of the present writer that there should
be no concessions made in the matter of mixed marriages
until we see how far Protestanism is prepared to go in order
to preserve the basic essentials of the doctrine on Christian
marriage.
Because the Church itself realises only too well that compromise in doctrinal matters leads inevitably, sooner or later
to another compromise between expediency and sentimentalism, we have as our directive in ecumenical matters the clear
and binding Instruction of the Holy Office to local Ordinaries
on the Ecumenical Movement (1950). One passage of that
instruction says:
Catholic teaching is therefore to be set forth and explained whole
and entire and none of its truths must be passed over in silence
or cloaked in ambiguity; for example, the truths concerning the
nature and means of salvation, the constitution of the Church, the
Roman Pontiff's primacy of jurisdiction and the certainty that
true reunion can only come about by return of dissidents to the
one, true Church of Christ ..... All this must be stated clearly
and openly since they are seeking the truth and real union will
never be found outside that truth. 39

To this instruction we must all adhere, and only through a
faithful observance of its principles will we be able to build
up a truly effective ecumenical dialogue. Any other road will
lead to confusion, if not to costly error.
DAVID

L. GREENSTOCK, D.D.

Oolegio de lngleses,
V alladolid, Spain

From the translation of the Instruction published in The Tablet, March 4,
1950.
39

NOTES ON OUR CONTRIBUTORS
FERRER SMITH, 0. P., S. T. D., recent President of the Catholic Theological Society
of America, co-author of P1·ejace to Happiness, and contributor to the theological journals, holds the office of Regent of Studies, Province of St. Joseph,
and is Professor of Moral Theology at the Dominican House of Studies,
Washington, D. C.
CESLAUS SPICQ, 0. P., S. T. D., Professor of Exegesis of the New Testament at the
University of Fribourg, author of several books on Biblical studies, frequent
contributor to scholarly journals including Revue Biblique, is a Consultor
of the Biblical Commission.
JoHN KING, 0. M. I., S. T. D., who teaches Dogmatic Theology at the Oblate
College, Washington, D. C. and has contributed studies in the field of
Ecclesiology to several theological journals, accompanied Msgr. Vagnozzi,
the Apostolic Delegate to the United States, to the first session of the Second
Vatican Council and was appointed a peritus.
MAURICE ScHEPERS, 0. P., S. T. D., Professor of History of Dogma at the Dominican
House of Studies, Washington, D. C., Visiting Instructor in the Department
of Religious Education at the Catholic University of America, has recently
published a volume in the Foundations of Catholic Theology Series entitled
The Church of Christ.
JAMES EGAN, 0. P., S. T. D., whose theological studies have appeared in THE
THOMIST, Cross and Crown, Angelicum, and other journals, is Chairman of
the College Division of the Dominican Educational Association and Professor
in the Graduate School of Theology, St. Mary's College, Notre Dame,
Indiana.
EMILIO SAURAS, 0. P., S. T. D., Professor at the University of Valencia, Valencia,
Spain, contributor to the principal Spanish theological journals, and author
of two major works on the Mystical Body, was chosen by the Holy See to
assist officials at the Council as a peritus.
CoLMAN O'NEILL, 0. P., S. T. D., whose theological studies have appeared in The
Irish Theological Quarterly, THE THoMIST, The American Ecclesiastical Review, is Professor of Dogmatic Theology at the Institute Jesus Magister in
Rome.
JAMES GAFFNEY, S. J., S. T. L., having attended Holy Cross College, Boston,
Massachusetts, continued his philosophical studies at Spring Hill College,
Mobile, Alabama, and his theological studies at Woodstock College, Woodstock, Maryland.
CoRNELIUS ERNST, 0. P., M.A., S. T. L., Professor of Fundamental Theology at the
Dominican House of Studies, Hawkesyard Priory, Rugeley, Staffs, England,
whose articles have appeared in Dominican Studies, Clergy Review, and
Blackfriars, has recently had published his English translation of Karl
Rahner's Theological Investigations.

619

620

NOTES ON OUR CONTRIBUTORS

CAMELOT, 0. P., S. T. D., Vice-Rector of the Dominican Faculty of
Theology at Le Saulchoir, Etiolles, France, author of numerous articles and
several books, including Les Conciles d'Ephese et de Chalcedoine, was a
peritus at the first session of the Second Vatican Council.
LuiGI CIAPPI, 0. P., S. T. D., Master of the Sacred Palace, Vatican City, author of
De Sacramentis in Communi, among other books, and of scholarly studies
appearing in Angelicum, Sapienza, lvlarianum, and THE THOMIST, was a
peritus assisting at the first session of the Second Vatican Council.
GREGORY BAUM, 0. S. A., S. T. D., Director of the Centre of Ecumenical Studies at
St. Michael's College, University of Toronto, Canada, editor of The
Ecumenist, author of several books, the latest of which is Progress and
Perspectives, and numerous articles in Ecumenism, is a Consultor of the
Secretariat for Christian Unity at Rome.
PnuDENTIUS DE LETTER, S. J., Ph. D., S. T. D., author of The Call to All Nations
and other books, frequent contributor to scholarly journals, such as Theological Studies, Irish Theological Quarterly, Bijdragen, and THE THOMIST,
is professor at St. Mary's Theological College, Kurseong, N. F. Ry., India.
ALVARO HuERGA, 0. P., S. T. D., affiliated with Centro de Estudios de Espiritualidad
(University of Salamanca, Spain) , Professor at the Pontifical University of
St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome, and noted author, was consultor of the Spanish
hierarchy at the first session of the Second Vatican Council.
EDWARD ScHILLEBEECKX, 0. P., S. T. D., whose book, De Sacramentele Heilsecono·
mie, has brought him international recognition among theologians, was advisor
for the Dutch hierarchy at the first session of the Second Vatican Council.
AuGUSTIN LEONARD, 0. P., S. T. D., author of Phenomenology of the Christian
Mystics, and other books, as well as frequent contributor to French and
English theological journals, Professor at the Dominican House of Studies,
La Sarte, Huy, Belgium, and Visiting Professor at the University of Montreal,
College of New Rochelle, and Notre Dame University, will soon publish
another book on Catholicism and religious freedom.
HENRY ST. JoHN, 0. P., M.A., Provincial of the English Province of the Dominican
Order (1958-1962), author of Christian Unity and Education, who has written
for Blackfriars, Life of the Spirit, Clergy Review, Worship and other journals,
is presently continuing his research in Christian unity at St. Dominic's Priory,
Isle of Wight, England.
JEROME HAMER, 0. P., S. T. D., a recognized authority on Protestant theology,
author of Karl Barth and L'Eglise est une Communion, now at Convento
Santa Sabina, Rome, was selected as peritus for the first session of the Second
Vatican Council.
WILLIAM HILL, 0. P., S. T. D., staff editor of THE THOMIST and author of Proper
Relations to the Indwelling Divine Persons, is Professor of Dogmatic Theology
at the Dominican House of Studies, Washington, D. C.
CoRNELIUS WILLIAMS, 0. P., S. T. D., well known for his many theological contributions in the Irish Theological Quarterly, Bulletin Thomiste, Fniburger
Zeitschrift, and other journals, is Professor< of Theology at the University of
Fribourg, Switzerland.
CHRISTOPHER KIESLING, 0. P., S. T. L., who has written essays on the liturgy for the
book Seeking the Kingdom, and contributed articles to Cross and Crown and

NOTES ON OUR CONTRIBUTORS

621

Fonti Vive, is affiliated with Aquinas Institute School of Theology and Mt.
St. Bernard Seminary, Dubuque, Iowa.
BERNARD BRo, 0. P., S. T. D., Professor of Dogmatic Theology at Le Saulchoir,
Etiolles, France, and literary director of Editions du Cerf, contributes frequently to Bulletin Thomiste and La Vie Spirituelle.
JoHN MooRMAN, Anglican Bishop of Ripon, England, was an Observer Delegate at
the first session of the Second Vatican Council.
ANTHONY LEE, 0. P., S. T. L., Managing Editor of THE THOMIST and The Thomist
Press, co-editor of a series of brief works in theology, philosophy, science, and
the arts entitled Compact Studies, is assigned to the Dominican House of
Studies, Washington, D. C.
WILLIAM WALLACE, 0. P., Ph. D., S. T. D., author of The Role of Demonstration in
Moral Theology and The Scientifie Methodology of Theodoric of Freiberg,
noted lecturer on the relationship of science, philosophy and theology, is Staff
Editor of the Philosophy section of The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic
University of America, Washington, D. C.
THOMAS O'BRIEN, 0. P., Ph. D., S. T. D., author of Metaphysics and the Existence
of God, staff editor of THE THOMIST, and regional editor of the new English
translation of the Summa, is a contributor to many scholarly journals and is
Professor of Moral Theology at the Dominican House of Studies, Washington,
D.C.
RoNAN HoFFMAN, 0. F. M. Conv., S. T. L., D. Miss., whose studies in Missiology
have appeared in many scholarly journals, Assistant Professor of Missiology
and Coordinator of College and Mission Studies (C.S.M.C.) at the Catholic
University of America, Washington, D. C., is a member of the editorial board
of W orldmission.
RoNALD CoWLEY, 0. P., Ph. L., S. T. D., who has contributed to the symposium Le
Christ et Les Eglises and written many articles for .scholarly journals, including lstina and Sacra Doctrina, is a member of the Centre of Studies, lstina,
Paris, France.
CARL PAUWELS, 0. P., S. T. D., Professor of Theology at the Albertinum, Nijmegen,
Netherlands, author of many studies on the problem of conversions, represented the Catholic newspaper De Volkskrant at the first session of the
Second Vatican Council.
DAVID GREENSTOCK, S. T. D., Fellow of the International Institute of Arts and
Letters (Kreuzlingen), and member of the Committee of Higher Studies of
the Centro Studi e Scambi Internazionali (Rome), is Vice-Rector and
Professor of Theology at the Colegio de Ingleses, Valladolid, Spain.