Answers to Questions
A QUESTION ABOUT THE MYSTICAL BODY

i

Question: In a recent work entitled the Mystical Body of Christ,
by Dr. Friedrich Jurgensmeier, this statement appears: “Neither
can one say that the mystical body is limited, in an actual sense, to
those who belong visibly to the Church. As Christ is ‘the Lamb
which was slain from the beginning of the world’ and our fathers
before Him ‘drank the same spiritual drink . . . Christ,’ His members may be called those who live in inner, vital union with Him.
This body of Christ extends beyond the boundaries of the visible
Church, which is universal and includes an incalculable multitude
from all nations and ages and religions, ‘baptized and unbaptized,
circumcised and undrcumdsed, all those whose intentions are good
and who maintain an inner communion with God and Christ”’
(p. 49). What is to be said of the correctness of the doctrine expounded in this paragraph?

!;
i
i
j
|
?
t
j
Î
j
t
j
ί
i:

Answer: It is indeed regrettable that a statement like this ap- j
pears in a work which is so excellent in many respects and which ?
has received wide circulation among Catholics. For this state- ?
ment, as it stands, cannot be reconciled with the doctrine pro- >
pounded by Pope Pius XII, in the Encydical Mystici Corporis: ?
“Only those are really to be induded as members of the Church >
who have been baptized and profess the true faith and who have ç
not unhappily withdrawn from Body-unity or for grave faults been :
excluded by legitimate authority.. .. It follows that those who are s
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. . · · t
It is clear, we think, how grievously they err who arbitrarily pie- k
tare the Church as something hidden and invisible.... No, the Mys- ξ;
tical Body of Christ is like Christ the Head and Exemplar of the
Church,‘who is not complete if only His visible human nature is
considered, or it only His divine invisible nature... . but He is one |
through the union of both and one in both’ ” (Mystici Corporis, ·.
AAS, XXXV U9+3], 202,223).
V
It might be urged in defence of the unfortunate presentation of j.
a view that is no longer tenable, considering the Pope’s dear ’
statement, that the translation and approval of the book {in Ger- ?

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

63

many) date from 1939, four years previous to the issuing of the
Mystici Corporis. It is difficult to see, however, how this fact can
justify the continued distribution of a work presenting incorrect
doctrine on a vital point of ecclesiology.

BLESSING OF SCAPULARS
Question: When a priest has received the faculty to bless and to
impose the five scapulars with a single formula, may he consider
as included in this the faculty to bless and to impose any one of these
separately, with its own proper formula—for example, the scapu­
lar of Mount Cannel?
Answer: On the principle that the greater includes the less, a
priest who has the faculty benedicendi et imponendi quinque scap­
ularia sub unica formula may safely regard himself as empowered
to bless and to impose any one of the five separately, using its
proper individual formula. However, it is useful to note that the
faculty to bless and to impose scapulars does not include a dispen­
sation from the obligation of having the names of the recipients in­
scribed in the records of the particular religious orders with which
some of the scapulars bring affiliation, such as the brown scapular
of Our Lady of Mount Cannel. However, such a dispensation is
sometimes given as a separate concession. Thus, by virtue of the
quinquennial faculties, the bishops of our country can subdelegate
priests to bless and to impose the five scapulars with a single
formula “without the obligation of inscribing the names in cases
of a great concourse of people during the time of spiritual exer­
cises and missions” (Faculties from the Sacred Congregation of
Rites, n. 7 ; cf. Bouscaren, Canon Law Digest, II [Milwaukee,
1943], p. 37). An even greater privilege is granted to priests who
are members of the Missionary Union of the Clergy. They may
not only bless and impose the five scapulars with a single formula,
but they also have the faculty, without any qualification, of im­
posing these scapulars without the obligation of enrollment in the
registers of the Confraternity.

THE “Rh FACTOR” IN MARRIAGE
Question: What is the “Rh factor” which medical men are dis­
cussing today in connection with marriage and pregnancy? Some