304 THE ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW. Foundations of a Modebin Guild System. By the Rev, Harold F. Trehey. Toe Catholic University of America Press, Washington. 1940. Pp. xi -j- 204. An Analysis of the Long Prayers in Old French Literature with Special Reference to the “ Biblical-Creed-Narrative ” Prayers. By Sister M. Pierre Koch, R.S.M. The Catholic University of America Press, Washington. 1540. Pp. viH -f- 204. Thb Separated Soul in the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. By Victor M. Sleva, PhJJ. The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D. C. 1943. Pp. x—204. The Style of the Letters of St. Jerome. By John N. Hritzu, Ph.D. Cath­ olic University Patristic Studies Vol. LX. Washington, The Catholic University ot America Press, 1919. Pp. xii -f- 117. Science of Language. Volume Π: Word Study. By the Very Reverend J. J. Callahan, C5.Sp., President of Duquesne University. Duquesne University Presi, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1939. Pp. xii -f- 272. -jW·"" Wilhelmina. By dementia. 1940. Pp. 261. Price, $1.10. Frederick Pustet Company, Inc., New York City. The 1940 National Catholic Almanac. Compiled by the Franciscan Clerks of Holy Name College, Washington, D. C., and published with Ecclesiastical Ap­ probation. Saint Anthony’s Guild, Paterson, N. J., 1940. Pp- 719. Price, 30.75. Our Lady in the .Modern World. By the Reverend Daniel A. Lord, SJ. Tm Queen’s Work, St. Louis, Mo. 1940. Pp. 381. Price, $2.10. In A Beginismg. By the Reverend Arthur J. Sawkins. Pp- S'*· Wiai Kind of a World Do You Want? By the Reverend Wilfrid Parsons, S-J· Fp- 11- Lauthe Reverend Doctor Howard W. Smith. Pp. 34. Our Sunday Visitor, Huntingtoe, Indiana. 1940. Price, lie. each. Forgivre. Bv the Reverend Eugene P. Murphv, S.J. Pp- H- 1 Wifness sS4 iism. By the Reverend Father Dooley, S.V.D. Pp. 29. The Spiritual Symbol» of Telei bion. By the Right Reverend Monsignor Fulton J. Sneen- Pp- 13. the World and the Catholic Workingman. By the Reverend William J. Smith, S-jPp. 38. Our Sunday Visitor Press, Huntington, Indiana. 1940. Price, 10c. each. God and This War. By the Reverend J. J. Bevan. Pp- 20. Darkness oser ·« Earth. Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Pope Pius ΧΠ. Pp- *6. Mary Assunto. By Fflorens Roch. Pp. 32. The Early British Church One the Church in Rome. By the Reverend R. Lester Guilly, S.J., ALA. rp1939. The Catholic Truth Society, London, England. Price, twopence eacii. Ecclesiastical Review Volume 103.—October. 19«.—No. 4. axrn “ CATHOLIC CHUHCH ” ■■ MYSTICAL BODY or CHKIsTy AND exactly coextensive. A survey of the revealed concept of theuts"which Body, as distinct from the analogous concepts wm are the extended senses ' of the term. INTEREST in the doctrine of the Mftica^.°dj *· a distinctive feature in the theologica r which Through the widening stream of of v3gueAe doctrine evokes there runs a noticeable cur.c ras and uncertainty. Who, precisely, me ”con_ Mystical Bodv? What are the essential e.eme of ώ„ W Mu* of the S. ά expanding literature on the subject is .o , crystallized remove the uncertainty which, in so many nun^, Questions •nto these two questions. The interesting which recently appeared in The Ecclesiastic^ Mysticerning those in mortal sin and their naembeisnip i £ .. cilfedy, reflected one l!pe«oftheyn=ett’tay. »» u is aho true that the answers which were & general uncertainty, in their turn. , _ theIs this vagueness unavoidable? Are the souses qtsye> ώτ-cal knowledge such, that this uncertainty- l V'cue the opposite is true. The Mystica · ' , - essential •\--ys--ery; but its exact identity and the cata.og ° Many events which enter into its concept are not |ec_ L'.-> 306 St ιιιιι ΪΛ 9 THE ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW. this eminent Professor’s insistence that the uncertainty in this matter is as unfortunate as it is unwarranted,1 Because I am persuaded of the truth of this distinguished scholar’s words, because I feel that the current vagueness about the precise meanings of the doctrine of the Mystical Body lays a grievous and wholly needless handicap upon the zeal of many priests, who would, after the example of St. Paul and the Fathers, in­ spire the faithful from the pulpit with the tremendous mean­ ings of this revealed doctrine," I submit these pages to the Review. Their purpose is to show how exactly St. Paul and the authoritative teaching of the Holy See define the nature and extent of the Mystical Body of Christ and how unneces­ sary, therefore, is the hesitation—and even the confusion— which too often accompany its explanation today. The clarity of thought which, in this matter of the doctrine of the Mystical Body, is so easily possible and so much to be desired, requires of us three things. First, we must realize that there exists not one, but many concepts of the Mystical Body. Each of these concepts is clear and distinct in itself. Contusion comes only when the attempt is made, consciously or uncon­ sciously, to fuse several of them into one which will combine the essential features of all, or to predicate of one of them something which can be truly predicated only of a ven' dif­ ferent concept of the Mystical Body. Thus we can predicate of the Pauline concept of the Mystical Body identity with the Church of Christ; but to predicate the same of certain other concepts of Christ’s Body not only must lead to confusion but actually has, in the past, led to heresy. It could not be otherwise, in view of the self-evident fact that the elements ot many of these concepts are mutually incompatible. In the second place, clear and correct thinking about the Mystical Body demands that we recognize, among these many different concepts, one which is unique in its dignity and posxCf. Fr. Tromp’s own words, in Corpus Christi Quod Est Ecclesia (Rome, IJJth p. 1S4, w Non agitur, dico, de re difficili, vel saltern non de maiore difficultate in qua venantur ii, quibus explicandus est conceptus Ecclesiae.” 2 Cf. the words of the Vatican Schema which was left among the unfinished bust- satis numqusm commendari potest, praecellens Ecclesiae species ■I 111· ■ ■■ MYSTICAL BODY AND CHURCH COEXTENSIVE. 307 sensed of an authority transcending that of ail the rest. Among these many concepts of the Mystical Body, one is divinely re­ vealed truth, while the others are of human origin. That which is revealed truth is the concept of the Mystical Body which St. Paul teaches. All the others, the concepts by which saintly men have sought to explain the relations between our Saviour and different classes of men, must be given a lower position and authority. These are the extended senses of the doctrine ci the Mystical Body. They are analogous to the revealed con­ cept. The revealed concept, however, the Pauline concept, is done the proper concept of the Body of Christ. The third indispensable requirement, if the uncertainty which so often attaches to this doctrine is to be dispelled, is an accurate understanding of St. Paul’s concept of the Mystical Body. Given such an understanding of the precise meaning of the Apostle, given a steadfast realization that this alone is the proper meaning of the term and that, as such, it must never be confounded with other concepts of the Mystical Body which prescind from, or exclude, various of its essential elements, the uncertainty of which we speak will be found to have been •destroyed at its source. Tne genuine meaning of the Pauline concept of the Mystical Body can be summed up in three assertions. First, and the nost general: The Mystical Body' is the Church, in which the tir.MuI are joined as members to Christ, the Head. Second, and more precise: all Catholics, and only Catholics, are the members who constitute the Mystical Body. Third, and the rea.-on why the Mystical Body is a " theandric ” being; the 'j.:.mate internal principle of life in this Body, that which is called its Soul, is the Holy’ Ghost. Let us consider first the words with which our Saviour Himselt. pr.or to St. Paul, spoke of the union between Himself and :.:e laithfui. From His lips, as well as from those of the BapVst, we have the fact of this union allegorically described as tlie ur-.on between a Bridegroom and Bride,5 and Christ Him'c.f indicates the intimacy of such a union w'ith these words: ‘Matti. 5:1$; John J: 29. 308 THE ECCLESIASTICAL review. " now they are not two, but one flesh.” 4 In the discourse on the Last Judgment, He teaches that the union between Him­ self and His " least brethren ” is such that, at least morally, they are identified with Him. " Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.” 5 It is, further, a vital union, one which includes an inflow of life and power from Christ to those who are united with Him, without which vital influx these latter are incap­ able of any supernatural life or action. " I am the vine: you the branches . . . without me you can do nothing.” 3 Finally, Christ teaches us that this union is also a visible thing, since it is intended by Him as a sign " that the world may believe that thou hast sent me,” T Thus from the lips of our Saviour Him­ self we learn that the union between men and their Redeemer is intended to be a visible, living union, as intimate as the uniar, between those who are " now . . . not two, but one flesh.” The reality and the intimacy of the union between Christ and the faithful were vividly impressed upon St. Paul in the first words which he ever heard from the lips of Christ. Go­ ing to Damascus to continue his persecution of the Church, he heard, through his sudden blindness, the words: " Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? ... I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.” * Thus, in the very birth of his apostolate, the truth was borne in upon St. Paul that Christ and the Church ot Christ were united, in some mystery of unity, into one and the same thing. For the remainder of his life, with ever in­ creasing clarity and detail, the Apostle proclaimed the mystery of this unity as the great Mystery. To all mankind he an­ nounced it as " the mystery of Christ . . . the mystery which from ages has been hidden in God.” 8 The burden of his mis­ sion became “ the glory of this mystery . . , which is Christ within you.” 11 It is this mystery of the Whole Christ, as it is explained in detail by St. Paul, which we must now examine. 4 Matth. 19: i. * MatSiSSW. -S iff ffS’ ffiffiffffff •John 1ί.·ί. ’Job.-. 17:20-23. eAc®#g|giÿ| y S yg ÿÿ gÿ *Eph. 3; 4-9, W«tm. vers. SffffS ffffff ffff: Illis slj MYSTICAL BODY AND CHURCH COEXTENSIVE. 309 The grand fruit of the universal Redemption which was accomplished by Christ is represented by the Apostle as " one rev Man.” The Redeemer died for Jews and Gentiles " that ce might make the two in himself into one new man ... in one body ... in himself.” “ Because of this, St. Paul tells die faithful: “ Ye are all one person in Christ Jesus.” 1' This one r.ew Man, this " one Person ”, is a new creation upon the tate of the earth. It is the " nova creatura ” 13 which is the explanation cf the passing of the Old Testament and the rea''on for the spec-tic character cf the New. In virtue cf this nev.- creation, this one new Man, " the old things are passed away, behold all things are made new.”14 Of this one new Man, Christ is the Head and the Church is the Body. "The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory . . . hath made him head over all the church, which is his body.” 13 Nor is this union of Christ and the Church merely a static combination of accidentally united elements. It is a living, dynamic union in which Head and members mutually perfect one another, unto the fullness of the " one Rew Man.” The source and, therefore, the quality of the life which animates this mystical " one Person ” will be considered bter, when we come to speak of the Soul of the Church. It ;; to indicate that it is a conivion life, transt.’rm-.ng all the diverse elements which constitute the Mystical Body into mutually perfective parts of the one living whole. T;;e Head perfects the Body, as St. Paul writes in the Letter ta the Ephesians: “ The head, Christ . . . from him the body cerlveth its increase, unto the building up of itself in charity.” -e h turn, the Head, Christ, is perfected and made complete by Body which is His " fullness.” 17 Finally, within the Body -txlt, the several members have mutual need of one another, II 11 Eph. 2: lî-Ιίζ italics mine. “Gal. 3: 28,Vestm. vers.—thus avoiding the inaccuracy of the Vulgate “unum”. Italic» mine. ι'-ϊΐ. 6. H. Note that, in the precedirg citadcn from Ephesians, the verb is vetted form («τίσ^) o£ the same word (*.r«rtç) which is here rendered “creatura **. «II Cor. 1:17. “Eph. I: 17-22; rf. Col. 1:24. 21 Eph. 4: 1(5, Westm. vers. V Pnli 1 · -ÎX r 310 THE ecclesiastical review. and glory in each other’s well-being as such suffers in the dis­ tress of any other.1* It is proper, and in accordance with the Divine plan, St. Paul explains, that the Mystical Body, as a living thing, should grow and increase; and this in two ways, quantitatively and, if we may so speak, qualitatively. Quantitatively, it is to grow by ever adding to itself new members from among man­ kind,18 and the divinely-instituted instrument of this growth is the Sacrament of Baptism by which men are incorporated into the one Alystical Body and made members of Christ?* Qualitatively, the Mystical Body is to grow into an ever greater conformity of its individual members to the Head, Christ. " till we all attain ... to the full measure of the stature or Christ . . . and grow in all things into him who is the heal Christ.’’ -l To this mystical " one Person ”, to the new creature who is this " perfect man ”,'2 St. Paul applies the name which is our Saviour’s own, the name Christ. Writing to the Corin­ thians, the Apostle illustrates the composition of the Church by comparing it with a human body, in which the many mem­ bers, despite their multiplicity and their differences, are united into one harmonious whole. After describing this union of many into one as it exists in a human body, St. Paul dues net conclude: " so also it is with the Church.” Nor does he con­ clude, as one might expect: " so also it is with the Bodv or Christ.” He says, simply: " so also it is with Christ ” and immediately proceeds to show how a like union of many dif­ ferent members into one is found to exist in the Church. To this instance of such usage by St. Paul, there might be added many of those texts in which the oft-repeated phrase " in Christ ” occurs: for it is highly probable, if not certain, that these words also, in many cases, refer not merely to the Physical ’’I Cor. 12: 20-31. 18Eph. 4: 11-13—"unto the building up of the body of Christ. till we jttiia to the unity of the faith... to the perfect man, to the fuil measure of the stature ot Christ." Westm. vers. 2 Ί Cor. 12: 13—” For in one Spirit were we all baptized into body..." C£ also Gal. 3: 27; Eph. 4: 6. “Eph. 4:14-13, Westm. ven. 83 Eph. 4:13. »1 Cor. 12:12. MYSTICAL BODY AND CHURCH COEXTENSIVE. 311 Christ but directly signify the Mystical Christ, in whom the Incarnate Word " is the savior of his body.” '4 To sum up, before proceeding to the next point of our in­ quiry. what we have so far seen of the meaning of the re■viiid concept of the Mystical Body: there now exists in the world, a result of the universal Redemption, " a new crea­ ture a mystical Person, a new and perfect Man, the Mystical Christ. This is a living, growing being whose different parts 'hare a common life and are mutually perfective of each other, ir. the unity of this new Man, Christ is the Head and those who are united to Him are the members of His Mystical Body. And this Mystical Body is the Church. ί II. But what did St. Paul mean by " the Church ” when he described it as the Body of Christ? He meant the lisible, or%a>iizeJ Church, the visible unity of many different members in one visible whole. In other words, he described as the Bodv of Christ exactly what the Vatican Schema declared the reical Body of Christ to be,—" hanc visibilem conspicuamque >■ c.tcatem . . . totam in se collectam penitusque cohaerentem, :ί 'ka conspicua wiitate indivisum ac indivisibile corpus prae­ ferre, quod en ipsum corpus mysticum Christi.” Although 'o.rae few of the Fathers who participated in the Vatican Counc.‘. objected to this exact identification of the Mystical Body w.th the visible Church, we shall see, both from the words of St. Paul and from the explanation of his words by the Holy Sse. that the theologians who prepared the Schema for the Council reflected the mind of the Apostle unerringly. There are several passages in which St. Paul explains in de­ tail why the Church is the Body of Christ. In every instance it is clear that he is dealing with the Church as a union of num different visible elements into one visible, organized whole. The Apostle enumerates in these passages the various charismatic gifts by which the many members are made dif­ ferent, but mutually complementary, organs of the one Body. ~*Eph. ’,■-!· Ve may here remirk the words of St. Gregory of Nvssi, who siyr -w. St. Paul applied the Mine '· Christ ” to ths Church ηΛ once bur " saepius -U Moy Migne, PG. XLIV, C£>1. i So. *G>11. Uc., VH, cd. Î69; iulic. mine. la· ■Hill ■ mmMI THE ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW. 312 ■u n I t 4 III Upon analysis, one fact is found to be everywhere characteris­ tic of these enumerations. The elements which he mentions are always visible elements; the organs of which the Mystical Body is represented as fashioned are visible elements of the visible, organized Church. Let us glance at the two most important of these passages. In the first,28 all of the seven elements which the Apostle de­ scribes as entering into the diversified organization which makes of the Church one Body are visible elements. They are: members to whom is given a prophetic office, others who are teachers, others who are set up as rulers, others whose func­ tion is ministerial, and others to whom are given various charis­ matic offices, all visible, whose operations might today be de­ scribed as Catholic Action. Analysis of the second passage reveals the same fact. In this passage, which comprises the entire twelfth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, there are two such enumera­ tions and again we find that all of the elements which are listed. —nine in each enumeration—are visible components of a visible organization. St. Paul makes it plain in both of these passages that he calls the Church the Body of Christ because of its or­ ganization; and, describing that organization in detail, he makes it also clear that it is the visible organization of the Church to which he refers. In other words, when he spoke of " the Body ” he used the word according to its obvious meaning.— the visible, organized part of a visible living thing. Here, for the first time, we turn from the words of St. Pad to the authoritative teaching of the Holy See. From the time of St. Leo the Great (440-461) to the present, there is net one century, save possibly the eighth, which does not yield to the searcrier one or more papal documents in which light :s thrown upon the true meaning of the revealed concept of the Mystical Body ot Christ. Of this wealth of documents we select one which is particularly relevant to the present point of our discussion. We find, in this document, a brief but con:prehensive explanation of the Pauline concept. We find, furthermore, explicit confirmation of the point we have just been making. Not only is it the visible Church which is called 12: 5-S. < 1 · ’ i . I MYSTICAL BODY AND CHURCH COEXTENSIVE. 313 by Holy Scripture the Body of Christ: St. Paul describes the Churcn as a Body, the Holy See explains, precisely because the Church is visible.' The document which we cite is the Encyclical rf Satis coghimm”, of Pope Leo XIII.*7 The Holy Father explains, in the first pages of the Encyclical, the essentially dual character of the Church of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church. It is macie up, he teaches, of a visible, external element and an in­ visible, spiritual element.*s Elaborating upon this fundamental tact, the Pontiff then proceeds to explain the essential nature oi the Church and the meaning of the revealed concept of the Mystical Body. The dual nature of the Church, composed as it is of a visible and an invisible element, is given as the reason why it is called in Revelation the Body of Christ. It is the Body of Christ precisely because it is a visible thing. It is the Body of Christ because it lives with Christ’s life. In the Pope’s own words: '■ Quibus de causis Ecclesiam cum corpus, tum etiam corpus Cbristi tam crebro sacrae litterae nominant: Vos autem estis corpus ChristC'1 Propter eam rem quod corpus est, oculis cernitur Ecclesia: propter quod est Christi, vivum corpus est . . . quia eam tuetur ac sustentat, immissa virtute sua, lesus vunsnis» The Pontiff then describes again the dual essence of the Church, this time in the light of the revealed concept of the Church as the Mystical Body, as the one new Man. As, in a human being, neither body nor soul is, by itself, the man, so neither the visible part of the Church nor the invisible part is, by itself, the Church of Jesus Christ. " Nimirum alterutram esse posse lesu Christi Ecclesiam tam repugnat, quam solo corpore, vel anima sola constare hominem. Complexio copula­ tioque earum duarum velut partium prorsus est ad veram Ec­ clesiam necessaria, sicut fere ad naturam humanam intima animae corporisque coniunctio.” 31 77 29 Juns, 189«, AcU Sanet. Sed.. XXVIH, 708-739. :ίΛίΖ, 709. “I Cor. 12: 27. 710. 11 Ibid. 314 THE ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW. As this duality, this union of visible and invisible parts into one whole, is of the essence of the Church, so it is of the es­ sence of the proper concept of the Mystical Body. The Pope makes this clear by paralleling the ancient heresies about the Physical Christ with the more recent errors concerning the true nature of the Mystical Christ. As our Saviour was possessed not merely of a visible human nature, not merely of an in­ visible divine nature, but constituted by the hypostatic union of the two, so the Mystical Body is not merely a visible thing, nor merely an invisible supernatural thing, but constituted in its essence by the union of the two. Leo writes: “ Sicut Christus, caput et exemplar, non omnis est, si in eo vel humana dum­ taxat spectetur natura visibilis, quod Photiani ac Nestoriani faciunt: vel divina tantummodo natura invisibilis, quod solent Monophysitae: sed unus est ex utraque et in utraque natura cum visibili tum invisibili: sic corpus eius mysticum non vera Ecclesia est nisi propter eam rem, quod eius partes conspicuae vim vitamque ducunt ex donis supernaturalibus rebusque ceteris, unde propria ipsarum ratio ac natura efflorescit.” 22 Before returning to the pages of St. Paul and the next point of our inquiry, let us sum up clearly the point which we have just demonstrated, since it is the foundation of what will im­ mediately follow. The Mystical Body of which St. Paul speaks and which, as a constituent part of Revelation, is explained by the magisterium of the Church, is a lisible Body. When God reveals to us that the Church is the Body of His Son, it is the risible, organized Roman Catholic Church which is thus de­ scribed as united to Christ, as its Head, in the ineffable unity of *' one new Man Without its visible organization the Church might still be " Mystical ”. But without its visible organization the Church could not be the Mystical Body! III. The question now arises: who are the members of the Mystical Body? Who, exactly, are they to whom has been given the Priceless privilege of being made one with Christ, as with their Head? The answer to this question is implicit, but plain, in £he explanation which St. Pau! has already given of the essential 32 Ibid. MYSTICAL BODY AND CHURCH COEXTENSIVE. 31S visibility of the Mystical Body. If the Mystical Body is essen­ tially a visible, organized thing, as the Apostle has described it and as the Holy See has so unequivocally declared it to be, no one can be a part of that Body who is not a part of the visible organization which that Body essentially is. But who are the parts, the members, of the visible organization of the Church, that visible organism which alone is described by St. Paul as " the Body of Christ ”? All Catholics, and only Cath­ olics! Non-Catholics who are in the state of grace or non­ Catholics who are validly baptized have become the subjects, each according to his own spiritual state, of one or another relation to the Mystical Body: but they are not members of it until they become members of the visible organism which it is. the visible Roman Catholic Church. There remains another, and more concentrated, proof from the words of the Apostle, to demonstrate the exact coextension of the Mystical Body and the Roman Catholic Church. Here analysis serves to reveal the completeness of this coextension indicated by St. Paul in a few words. The proof takes us back to a basic truth of logic, from which science we learn that the ’’ extension ” of the predicate of any assertion can never be less than the ” extension ” of the subject of which such a predicate is aiurnied. Thus " all citizens of Pennsylvania are American citizent” is a true assertion: but it would be false to say that " ail American citizens are citizens of Pennsylvania ”, because the extension of the predicate in this case is less wide than the extension of the subject. From this comes the rule in logic that no proposition can be “ simply' converted ”—that is, have its subject and predicate interchanged without change in either and without destroying the truth of the assertion—unless the t»c, terms of the proposition are of exactly’ the same extension. Far < either of the terms were of lesser extension than the other, that lesser one could not stand in the position of predicate to the ether. But—a plain, unmistakeable fact!—St. Paul him­ self " simply converts ” the proposition that the Roman Catholic Church :s the Body of Christ. At one time he says that the Church is the Mvstical Bodv; '3 at another, that the Mystical Body is the Church/’ One of these statements would have to IfiBl ΆI HHlil »·€<». 1:24. 316 THE ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW. be false if one of these terms—the Church or the Mystical Body —were less extensive than the other. To this plain meaning of St. Paul we must add a piece of plain speaking by the magisterium, in the person of the late great Pope, Pius XI. This authoritative document makes it definitely clear that non-Catholics, whatever their internal spiritual state, are not actual members of the Mystical Body of Christ. The reason why it is impossible that they should be actual members lies in the fact of their visible separation from the Church which is that Body; such visible division, the Pope says, is impossible among the members of the Mystical Body. In fact, the impossibility of such division in the Mystical Body is given by' the Supreme Pontiff as the reason why such division is impossible among the actual members of the Church itself. The document of which we speak is the Encyclical 'f Af~ MYSTICAL BODY AND CHURCH COEXTENSIVE. 319 through the Mystical Body derives from Christ the Head,45 from whom alone all imbibe the life-giving Spirit.46 Thus it is the doctrine of St. Paul that the Holy Ghost, oper­ ating always as “ the Spirit of Christ ”, is the Soul of the Mysti­ cal Body. Nevertheless, the Apostle himself never employs the actual term " soul ”, being content, perhaps, to let the word " Spiritus ” speak for itself. The authentic magisterium, however, has identified the Holy Ghost as the Soul of the Church and of the Mystical Body, in so many words. Pope Leo XIII, in the Encyclical Divinum illud,4' describes the operations of the Holy Spirit in the universal Church and concludes with these words: " Atque hoc affirmare sufficiat, quod cum Christus sit caput Ecclesiae, Spiritus Sanctus sit eius anima: ' Quod est in corpore nostro anima, id est Spiritus Sanctus in Corpore Christi quod est Ecclesia.’ ’’45 By this authoritative expression of Catholic doctrine we have it indis­ putably established that the Soul of the Church and the Soul of the Mystical Body is one and the same, rhe Holy Ghost. In striking contrast to the weight of authority, from the plain meaning of St. Paul’s words and from the explicit teach­ ing ot the Holy See, which guarantees the doctrine that the HoT Ghost is the Soul of the Mystical Body and the Church, is the inadequacy of the arguments which are offered in de­ tense of the alternate doctrine. This latter position, still to be found in the writings of many theologians, maintains that ancnfying grace, either by itself, or in conjunction with the theological virtues or in conjunction also with other invisible cements, such as authority, is the Soul of the Church which is the Mystical Body of Christ. The opposition between the doctrines is, of course, more apparent than real. But, even apart from the external and conclusive fact of its non-coniormity with the language of St. Paul, of the Fathers,43 and of the magisterium, there are three inescapable difficulties in­ herent in the latter doctrine, none of which can be urged against Ιΐρβοβΐ ST iTTî QtTL'T tf441 Cor. 10:1-6, together with 12: 13. 1937-, A.S.S., XXIX, 644-65«. 650, The citation is from St. Augustine, Ser». 1(7, de terap. 43 For detailed examples of Patristic usage, cf. De Spirit» Ssmcio Arm»» tcclesiee·. se[iCte e p.tr:f,s, Greeds, Text, et Docu»., set. thect, I {Univ. Greg., Xo-,,, l9}2) 4nd De . . . e Patribus Lifixis. ibid., STI. BiSIKSiKXEiBBStSSEBBtt^^ 320 THE ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW. the former. First, sanctifying grace is not one thing, nu­ merically the same in the different members. While it is spe­ cifically the same in all, it is a numerically different thing in each and so can no more properly be called the Soul of the Mystical Body than " human life ” can be said to make of all human beings one man. Secondly, grace cannot be correctly called the ultimate internal principle of life, for grace itself springs from a further internal principle, the Holy Ghost, indwelling in the Body. Thirdly, grace is not adequate to explain all the essential properties of the Mystical Body; it fails to explain, for instance, the infallibility of the magisterium, an essential function in the Mystical Body’s life. But, aside from these intrinsic considerations, we are dealing here with a matter of theological truth. The argument which should settle the question is, therefore, the ultimately decisive theological argument, the dogmatic one, the argument from authority. xAmd in this case legitimate authority, in the person of Pope Leo XIII, has definitely settled the question for us. The Soul of the Church, the Soul of the Mystical Body, is the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Ghost. This would seem a proper place to mention the unfortunate manner of speaking, sometimes encountered in unscientific dis­ cussion of this question, which identifies the Soul of the Church as a group of all the just. We do not refer, of course, to tlw universally accepted phrase by which theologians describe all rhe just as ” pertaming to the Soul of the Church ”, The view which we condemn is that which makes the group itself the Soul, and speaks of all the just, whether Catholics or not, as " members of the Soul ” of the Church. Although this manner of speaking uses the word " Soul ”, it is really an invisible body which is described; and the Church is thus represented as an impossible monstrosity in which a visible Body is vivified by another, and invisible, body! This invisible body which is so described as the Soul of the Church is nothing else, when we examine it closely, than a Protestant concept of the true Church of Christ; it is precisely the concept which was con­ demned by the Church in the writings of Quesnei and of die Synod of Pistoia.5® No soul, and least of all the Divine Soul 10 The condemnations are recorded in Denz., nn. 1424, I fl f. ] MYSTICAL BODY AND CHURCH COEXTENSIVE. 321 of the Church, can be constituted of " members Members are parts of a body, and among the theologians who have merited recognition in the field of ecclesiology there is no one who makes his own or approves such a manner of speaking/1 No discussion of the doctrine of the Mystical Body can be complete without some recourse to the Fathers of the Church. Bearing in mind the four points which we have now estab­ lished as essential to the revealed concept of the Mystical Body, let us turn for a moment to the pages of the first great cham­ pions of Catholic Truth and see if the same four characteristics are reflected there. And that we may bear them in mind, let us repeat the four now. The Mystical Body is the Church: it is, more explicitly, the visible, organized Church; its mem­ bers are all Catholics and only Catholics; and the Holy Ghost is its Soul. To rhe Fathers of the Church the Mystical Body of Christ was a reality ever present to their minds and on their lips. Ex­ plaining that this Body is the Church, they describe the familiar episode on the road to Damascus as the remonstrance which it is proper that the Head should make when the Body is unjustly struck.'· They excoriate heresy and schism as the tearing apart of the Body of Christ,53 thus identifying the visible Church as that Body. The heretics and schismatics themselves are de­ scribed as no longer part of the Mystical Body,54 and so it is maicated that only Catholics are members of that Body. On the other hand. Catholics in mortal sin are called the " feet ’’ of the Mystical Body, soiled with the dust of earth,1)3 or, less poetically, are described as diseased and gangrenous members, a source of shame and contagion to the whole Body;56 and, by so spcaKing, the Fathers show that they consider all Catholics to be members of the Body of Christ. Finally, we may recall •'For «âir.ple, er. the disapproval voiced by Dr Guiberc, S.J., (Rome, W28), p. 151. D-- Czris/i Eiclew St- Aabtwe, Efat. 41: 26; Pt, XVI, côl. 1120. ...IJ 6 ü si 322 ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW. the passage in which we heard Pope Leo ΧΠΙ make his own the words of St. Augustine, when he named the Holy Ghost as the Soul of the Mystical Body. While the outstanding fea­ ture of the Fathers’ treatment of the doctrine of the Mystical Body is the lavish genius "with which they applied the doctrine to all phases of the economy of Redemption, illustrating each with some one of the extended senses which the revealed con­ cept itself suggests, such examples as the above will suflice to show that, in the midst of so many extended meanings, neither the Fathers nor their auditors ever lost sight of the proper and Pauline meaning of the doctrine. We find, in the writings of the Fathers, discussion of a rather startling question which reminds us of a tremendous truth in­ volved in the last point we considered, the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Church as its Soul. Because of this rela­ tionship, the Church, the Mystical Christ, is a theandric Being, fashioned after the image of its " caput et exemplar ”SÎ even in this supreme dignity! The Mystical Body is rhe union of a visible, human element and a divine, invisible element into the unity of one new Alan, the Whole Christ, who is neither merely human nor divine alone, but both human and divine. When we find the Fathers seriously discussing the question, whether it is proper to ndore the Church,5” it is striking evi­ dence of how clearly they appreciated and bore witness to this theandric quality of the Mystical Body. St. Paul, also, indicates the theandric character of the Body of Christ. At times this appears in his description ot the in­ timate union between its human element and the Blessed Trinity as a whole. Thus, to submit one example, he instructs the Ephesians: " through him (the Son) we . . . have access in one Spirit to the Father.” 69 At other times, it is die individus! presence and activity- of each of the Three Divine Person within the Mystical Body- which is described. To the Holy Ghost the Apostle attributes all the manifold, most intimate operations w-fiich we have recently examined, a union so in­ timate that it can be truly called the relationship of a Soul to ST The phrise o£ Pope Leo XIII, from the Encyc’icel Sails covufa*. c.tei «hew. ·'■* For i brief discussion of the Patristic doctrine concerning the question sows, cf. Tromp, op. at., pp. 89-SO. -sEpL 2: IS. ; ί MYSTICAL BODY AND CHURCH COEXTENSIVE. 323 its Body. From the Word Incarnate, made one with the Mystical Body as its Head, comes all the " nourishment ”so and the " increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in charity.” Si Finally, the intimacy of our union with the First Person is brought out when St. Paul describes Him as " the Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.” e2 It is in this fact, the truth of its theandric nature, that the lull supernatural splendor of the Roman Catholic Church ap­ pears. Having come, as it were, to this summit, where earth merges into heaven, we are in a position to look back over all the road we have traveled in this search after the true meaning cf the revealed concept of the Mystical Body of Christ. What is that Body? Why is it called Christ’s Body and who are its members? Whence comes the life with which it lives and breathes and has its being? Making our way through the words of Sr. Paul, through whom God made the revelation, and of the authoritative magisterium which God has given to us to explain it. we have considered all these questions and seen that they may be answered in no uncertain terms. The Mystical Body of Christ is the visible, organized Church which He pur­ chased at the price of His Precious Blood and into whose veins He now makes that Blood to flow from our altars. Essentially visible and for that very reason called a Body, its visibility is the visibility of the Church, so that all Catholics and only Catholics are its members. It is Christ’s Body because from Him, its Head, it draws its life, its nourishment, its growth, and the very Spirit which animates it, the Holy Ghost, its Soul. It is a Body whose human members are vivified by a Divine foul so that the Church is made mystically " one Person ”,M a theandric " perfect Man ”.** the Whole Christ. It is the answer to cur Saviour's sacerdotal prayer: ” For them (the Apostles) . . . do I pray . . . for them also who through their word shall believe in me; that they all may be one . . . And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one: I in them, and thou in me; ttut they may be made perfect in one.” Otll · y H oillfS 111 .ϊΙΙβΒΒΙβ®βΙΙΙΙ»Ι “Eph. 4: e. ffOllif ®s Gjl. 3; 28, Westm. vert 324 THE ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW. With the exact sense of the Pauline concept of the Mystical Body established, some practical reflexions and conclusions are in order. For instance, who are they who, in the concrete, come within the ambit of " all Catholics, and only Catholics ”? This question takes us back to the treatise de Ecclesia, where we find it given the following answer. Among iniants, Cath­ olics are all those children, and only those, who have received the Sacrament of Baptism. Among adults, Catholics are all those, and only those, -who are baptized and who. in additionare actually united by the triple visible bond of external pro­ fession of the one Catholic Faith, obedience to the one authority of the Church, and communion in the one Catholic cult. Cer­ tainty in this matter falls short of completeness with regard to two problems. Does excommunication break the triple visible bond which is essential? Probably it does in the case of those who are completely excommunicated (" excommunicari vit­ andi ”) ; certainly it does not in the case of those who have in­ curred a lesser excommunication. Probably, therefore—but only probably—those who have incurred the complete excom­ munication are no longer Catholics. Secondly, in the case 0t adults, it is not certain whether sincere internal faith must ac­ company the external profession of belief; more probably the occult heretic, as long as the triple external bond remains, coatinues to be actually a Catholic, though of course an unworthy one. Such is theology’s description of the essential requirements for actual membership in the Church which, as we have demon­ strated, is synonomous with actual membership in the Mystic# Body. Another reflexion, and one which is of immense importance. this: the fact of membership in the Mystical Body, priceless « that privilege is, does not necessarily mean that one is in th« state of sanctifying grace. In the Body of Christ, to echo the words of the Fathers, there are living and healthy member5 who are Catholics in the state of grace, and there are at tne same time diseased, putrescent, dead members—Catholics & mortal sin. Mortal sin, as such, does not break the tie which binds a man as a constituent member to the visible Body which is Christ’s. Only such a sia as public heresy, schism, or apostat} fl - · III MYSTICAL BODY AND CHURCH COEXTENSIVE. 32 J does that, and then only because such a sin breaks the tie of visible unity with the Body. Just as in a natural body, when some one of the extremities grows atrophied and turns black, until at last the soul seems to have withdrawn from that part and decay already set in, nevertheless that extremity still re­ mains a part of the body and the object of the whole body’s sûbcitude and care until amputation makes it cease at last to be a member, so the Catholic in mortal sin remains a member of the Mystical Body—though a dead member, and continues to be the object of innumerable medicinal activities on the part ot the Soul and the other, living members as long as public heresy, apostacy, or the like does not definitively put an end to his membership. ' Thus far in these pages we have dealt with the proper and revealed concept of the Mystical Body. It is necessary now to say a word about the other concepts of Christ’s Body, the " extended senses ” of the term which go back to the earliest days of the Fathers. The Fathers, and after them the the­ ologians, have evolved and extended the meaning of the Pauline concept in many ways, to illustrate the various relations which can exist between the Redeemer and various classes of men, precisely as the same authors have variously evolved and ex­ tended the correlative concept of " the Church ”. They speak of the absolutely spotless Church, purified of every stain, such as will actually exist only in the ultimate, celestial state. Similarly, they often describe the celestial Body of Christ whose members are those only who have attained to eternal glory in heaven. Again, they speak of the Church as embracing not only· the visible society upon earth (its proper concept) but also " the Church suffering ” in purgatory and " the Church triumphant “ in heaven: and often describe the Mystical Body -n the ume extended sense. Nor is this all. Often one sole aspect of the Pauline concept is considered, to the neglect or even exclusion of its remaining, and equally essential elements. The element of subordination to Christ is sometimes considered by itself: and then His mem­ bers are said to be not only men but also, at one end of creation, •Thai, for example, Catharines. ISit), p. 492. Cf. Mersch-Kell?, The Whole Cheat (Brace, 326 MYSTICAL BODY AND CHURCH COEXTENSIVE. THE ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW. At another time the participation of Christ’s supernatural life wili be the only element considered; and then His members sre designated as all the just and only the just. It is important, however, to note that when the heretical Synod of Pistoia predicated of this concept of the Mystical Body what Holy Scripture predicates of the Pauline concept, namely, identity with the Church, the proposition was condemned by Pius VI/7 Again, the conformity in human nature which obtains between Christ and His Body has sometimes been singled out for con­ sideration in the discussion of this doctrine, and the whoie human race, therefore, described as the Mystical Body of Christ. About this last concept we must remark that it makes the Mystical Body a " corpus tivificandum " rather than the "cor­ pus vivificatum· ” which we should expect in every extension of the meaning of the Mystical Christ. Many other extended senses of the doctrine of the Mystic?.! Body might be added to those which we have described.85 But these will suffice to show their variety. In spite of the multiplicity of these concepts, it should not be too difficult to appraise the meaning and the validity of the term in any given context, and to keep the proper meaning always clear and dis­ tinct. Distinct concepts in this matter are not only possible: they are also highly important and to be guarded with the greatest of caution. The history of heresy should be enough to point the need of clear, correct thinking about the doctrine of the Mystical Body. Many heresies, and among them the most grievous, concerning the true nature of the Church of Christ have sprung from a misunderstanding of this very doc­ trine. Some one of the many extended meanings of the term ■was defended as the proper meaning of the Mystical Body, St. Paul was quoted as identifying the Mystical Body with the Church (as the Apostle undeniably does), and the result was heresy. Thus the Synod of Pistoia, in the condemned proposi­ tion referred to above.*’*' Thus Paschasius Quesncl, who taught that ” the Chu rch, or Whole Christ, has the Incarnate 'Word as its Head and all die saints as members ”, and was condemned.'' ‘srDenz., n. 'Air. Ci nn. i42J-14’6. ” Others are .‘isted by Sr. Thonus, HI,