Ich und Du

St. Josaphat and the Internal and External Unity of the Church

St. Josaphat of Polotsk

Today is the feast day of St. Josaphat of Polotsk, an Eastern Rite bishop who gave his life for the unity of the Church on this day in 1623. (Read an account of his martyrdom here.) The following is an excerpt from the Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Dei, promulgated on this day in 1923 by Pope Pius XI in commemoration of St. Josaphat. In this excerpt we see the nature of the unity Christ established in His Church.

The Church of God, by a wondrous act of Divine Providence, was so fashioned as to become in the fullness of time an immense family which embraces all men. The Church possesses-a fact known to all-as one of its visible marks, impressed on it by God, that of a world-wide unity. Christ, Our Lord, not only entrusted to His Apostles and, to them alone, the mission which He had received from His Father when he said: "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations;" (Matt. xxvii, 18, 19) He also wished the College of Apostles to possess perfect unity, a unity based on a twofold and well-knit bond, one bond internal, that of the selfsame faith and charity which is "poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost" (Romans v, 5); the other external, that of the rule of one of the Apostles over all the others, for He conferred upon Peter a primacy over the Apostles as a perpetual principle and visible foundation for the Church's unity. At the close of His mortal life, he impressed upon the Apostles in the strongest possible terms the supreme need of this unity. (John xvii, 11, 21, 22) In His last soul-stirring prayer he asked His Father for this unity and His prayer was heard: "He was heard for his reverence." (Hebrews v, 7)

The Church was born in unity and grew into "a single body," vigorous, animated by a single soul, of which "the head is Christ from whom the whole body is compacted and fitly joined together." (Ephesians iv, 15, 16) Of this body, following the reasoning of St. Paul, He is the visible head who takes the place of Christ here upon earth, the Roman Pontiff. In him, as the successor of St. Peter, the words of Christ are being forever fulfilled: "Upon this rock I will build my Church." (Matt. xvi, 18) And the Pope who, down the ages, exercises the office which was bestowed upon Peter never ceases to confirm in the Faith, whenever it is necessary, his brethren and to feed all the sheep and lambs of the Master's flock.

No prerogative of the Church has been assailed more bitterly by "the enemy" than this unity of government, by means of which the "unity of the Spirit" is joined "in the bond of peace." (Ephesians iv, 3) It is quite true that the enemy has never, and never will, prevail against the Church. He has, however, succeeded in wresting from her bosom many of her children, and in some cases, even whole nations. These great losses were brought about in many instances by the wars which divided nations, by the enactment of laws inimical to the interests of religion and of virtue, or by an unbridled love for the passing goods of this world. (continue reading Ecclesiam Dei)

St. Josaphat, pray for us, that all those who seek to follow Christ would be reconciled in full and visible unity. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Pentecost, Babel, and the Ecumenical Imperative

"But as the old Confusion of tongues was laudable, when men who were of one language in wickedness and impiety, even as some now venture to be, were building the Tower; (Genesis 11:7) for by the confusion of their language the unity of their intention was broken up, and their undertaking destroyed; so much more worthy of praise is the present miraculous one. For being poured from One Spirit upon many men, it brings them again into harmony." (St. Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 41)

(Continue reading)

Five years ago today

Five years ago today, I decided to seek full communion with the Catholic Church. This was three days after Pope Benedict's election as the 265th successor of St. Peter, and two days after Pope Benedict, in his first message as Pope, said the following:

Nourished and sustained by the Eucharist, Catholics cannot but feel encouraged to strive for the full unity for which Christ expressed so ardent a hope in the Upper Room. The Successor of Peter knows that he must make himself especially responsible for his Divine Master's supreme aspiration. Indeed, he is entrusted with the task of strengthening his brethren (cf. Lk 22: 32).

With full awareness, therefore, at the beginning of his ministry in the Church of Rome which Peter bathed in his blood, Peter's current Successor takes on as his primary task the duty to work tirelessly to rebuild the full and visible unity of all Christ's followers. This is his ambition, his impelling duty. He is aware that good intentions do not suffice for this. Concrete gestures that enter hearts and stir consciences are essential, inspiring in everyone that inner conversion that is the prerequisite for all ecumenical progress.

Theological dialogue is necessary; the investigation of the historical reasons for the decisions made in the past is also indispensable. But what is most urgently needed is that "purification of memory", so often recalled by John Paul II, which alone can dispose souls to accept the full truth of Christ. Each one of us must come before him, the supreme Judge of every living person, and render an account to him of all we have done or have failed to do to further the great good of the full and visible unity of all his disciples.

The current Successor of Peter is allowing himself to be called in the first person by this requirement and is prepared to do everything in his power to promote the fundamental cause of ecumenism. Following the example of his Predecessors, he is fully determined to encourage every initiative that seems appropriate for promoting contacts and understanding with the representatives of the different Churches and Ecclesial Communities. Indeed, on this occasion he sends them his most cordial greeting in Christ, the one Lord of us all.

Pray to God that many young men and women would rise to this call, and join with Pope Benedict in rebuilding the full and visible unity of all Christ's followers, through the charitable pursuit of truth and peace in Christ. May this be our ambition, and our impelling duty. May the heart of the Shepherd be the heart of Christ's sheep. As Pope Benedict said, each of us will come before Christ to give an account to Him of all that we have done or have failed to do to further the great good of the full and visible unity of all His disciples. May our labor of love now be such that on that Day we are not ashamed.

Video H/T: dans la tradition

St. Thomas Aquinas on the Unity of the Church

Today, on this eighth and last day of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, we will look at what St. Thomas Aquinas says about the unity of the Church, drawing from his commentary on the Apostles’ Creed in his catechism, his Summa Contra Gentiles and his Summa Theologica. (Continue reading)

St. Francis de Sales: Reconciling Calvinists to the Catholic Church

Today, the seventh day of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, is the feast day of St. Francis de Sales, (1567-1622), bishop of Geneva and Doctor of the Church.

In 1594 he volunteered to go to Le Chablais, south of Geneva, where the population had become Calvinist and separated from the Catholic Church. The encyclopedia article explains St. Francis' subsequent activity:

He journeyed through the entire district, preaching constantly; by dint of zeal, learning, kindness and holiness he at last obtained a hearing. He then settled in Thonon, the chief town. He confuted the preachers sent by Geneva to oppose him; he converted the syndic and several prominent Calvinists. At the request of the pope, Clement VIII, he went to Geneva to interview Theodore Beza, who was called the Patriarch of the Reformation. The latter received him kindly and seemed for a while shaken, but had not the courage to take the final steps.

Through his work in this region over the course of four years (from 1594 to 1598), 72,000 Calvinists were brought back into the Catholic Church. When he initially went from house to house to talk with the Calvinists, they refused to talk with him or even listen to him. So he started writing pamphlets, and slipping them under doors in the villages and towns. Those pamphlets have been collected into the book now published under the title: The Catholic Controversy: St. Francis de Sales' Defense of the Faith.

One of the more important points in these pamphlets is that the Church comes from the Apostles, as the Apostles come from Christ, and as Christ comes from the Father. The Father sent the Son. The Son authorized and commissioned the Apostles. The Apostles authorized and commissioned the bishops. And these bishops authorized and commissioned bishops. This is a top-down transmission of divine authority and mission, from the Father to Christ, from Christ to the Apostles, and from the Apostles to the bishops they ordained. Only those persons authorized and sent by the Apostles should be received by Christians as rightful shepherds, and thus only those authorized and sent by the bishops sent by the Apostles should be received by Christians as rightful shepherds. We should not follow those who are self-sent, or self-appointed, for such persons are not authorized by Christ to shepherd the Lord's sheep. Anyone can claim to be authorized, but only those who have been authorized by those whom the Apostles authorized are actually authorized. The Calvinists were following self-appointed men who were not authorized to speak for the Church. St. Francis taught that these men had not entered the sheepfold by the door, but were climbing in some other way.

St. Francis explained that the unity of the Church derives directly from the unity of Christ Himself, through a continuous organic relation to the incarnate Christ, by holding to the shepherds who have authorization from the Apostles. Just as an organism grows, so by apostolic succession the Church retains within itself the unity it received directly from the incarnate Christ, its Head. "We are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint supplies ...." (Ephesians 4:16)

The bust at right is located on the west side of the Saint Louis Cathedral Basilica.

Pope Benedict dedicates weekly general audience to Christian unity

An Ecumenical Moment for One

Russell E. Saltzman

Russell E. Saltzman is pastor of Ruskin Heights Lutheran Church, Kansas City, Missouri. Today, his article titled "An Ecumenical Moment for One" was published in the "On the Square" online forum of First Things. Here's an excerpt:

Frankly, the creation of one more Lutheran church body in America is a dauntingly depressive possibility. I'm not entirely certain I want anything to do with it . . . unless we're talking about a ministerium organized to open dialogue on becoming a Roman Catholic affiliate, congregations, pastors, the whole caboodle, eventually seeking full communion with the bishop of Rome. If Rome cooperates, this ought to be pretty easy. Just think of us as inactive members seeking reinstatement. In my congregation, an officially inactive member is welcomed back to full fellowship by making a contribution and receiving Holy Communion, and sometimes we've been known to even skip the contribution part. Couldn't the Church of Rome handle that? There might be a few subsidiary issues to settle, but get us inside first and everything else becomes manageable. What is needed here is a brave archbishop or two, together taking cognizance of what is about to happen to the ELCA, and stepping forward as potential shepherds. Can't really call it stealing sheep if the previous shepherd has run off, can you?


No, I'm not being facetious. Not altogether. The original intent of the sixteenth century Reformers wasn't to start a new church but to be a witness for evangelical reform within the one church. Our Lutheran confessional documents—notably the Augsburg Confession of 1530—forcefully argues that nothing Lutherans taught was contrary to the faith of the church catholic, nor even contrary to that faith held by the Church of Rome. As it has happened, much to our Lutheran chagrin, late twentieth century Rome itself become a better witness to an evangelical gospel than early twenty-first century Lutherans have proved capable of being. And for all the radical Lutheran polemic coming after Augsburg—you know, about the pope being the latest anti-Christ sitting on the throne of the whore of Babylon—truth is, these days, I get far less trouble from the bishop of Rome than I get from my own bishop.


Some time in the mid-1980s Richard John Neuhaus told me—with no little optimism, I might add—that fifty Lutheran pastors and their congregations seeking fellowship with Rome would become an ecumenical moment. After he himself became Roman Catholic following formation of the ELCA he lowered the number to a more modest twenty-five. Facing the August convention of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and its inevitable aftermath, I'm wondering, how about one?

Read the whole article.

Fr. Longenecker's trilemma

Fr. Longenecker, drawing from Cardinal Newman, lays out a trilemma between latitudinarianism, sectarianism, and Catholicism. Read more.

True Ecumenicism: A Photo

Eighty-year old Catholic priest Fr. Norman Weslin, flanked and supported by two Baptist pastors, shortly before he was arrested. (Notre Dame University, Friday, May 15, 2009)

Click on the photo for a larger image.

Settling for division as though it were unity

The Handing-over the Keys (1515)
Sanzio Raffaello

One of the most common conversations I have with Protestants has to do with unity. I am asked why Protestants are not permitted to receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, and why the Catholic Church does not allow Catholics to receive communion in Protestant services. I explain that the Eucharist is a sign of unity, and so because from the point of view of the Catholic Church, Protestants are in schism from the Church, therefore for Protestants to receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, or for Catholics to receive communion with Protestants, would be a lie. In response, the Protestant usually says that Protestants do not see themselves as being in schism or divided from Catholics, but that we are all united in Christ; we all love Jesus and share belief in the essentials of Christianity.

I respond by explaining that there are two different conceptions of unity in use here, because there are two different conceptions of what it is that Christ founded. Protestants generally believe that the church that Christ founded is a spiritual, invisible entity, though some of its members (i.e. those who are still living in this present life) are visible. In the general Protestant mindset, anyone who has faith in Christ is a member of the one church that Christ founded. Protestants generally do not believe that Christ founded a visible, hierarchically organized Body, or that if He did, such a Body is still around. This Protestant conception of the church as invisible arose in the 16th century. It does away with the very possibility of schism.

The Catholic Church for two thousand years has believed and taught that Christ founded a visible, hierarchically organized Body. This notion of the Church as a visible, hierarchically organized Body has implications for what it means to be in unity. In the Protestant conception of the church as a spiritual, invisible entity, what counts as 'the essentials' is ultimately up to each person to decide. But given the Catholic conception of the Church as a visible hierarchically organized Body, what counts as 'the essentials' is determined definitively by the Church authorities. And what these authorities have determined to be essential includes much more than the lowest common denominator of Evangelicalism. Therefore, from the Catholic point of view, Protestants are not in union with the Church regarding the essentials of Christianity, not only doctrinally, but also regarding the sacraments. From the point of view of the Catholic Church, for example, Protestants do not have a valid Eucharist, because Protestantism has not preserved apostolic succession. And likewise, for this same reason, from the point of view of the Catholic Church, Protestant ministers do not have valid ordinations.

These two conceptions of the Church, one visible, and the other invisible, also have different implications for what it means to be united in one Body. If what Christ founded is invisible, but has visible members, then the only thing necessary to be fully united to this invisible entity is faith in Christ. The notion of schism is then reduced to a deficiency in love, insofar as one person having faith in Christ fails to love sufficiently another person having faith in Christ. Unity and schism are then fundamentally spiritual. So given the Protestant conception of the church as spiritual, it follows that if we love Jesus and love one another, we are in full communion, no matter to which religious organization or congregation we belong. By contrast, given the Catholic notion of the Church as a visible hierarchically organized Body, it follows that in order to be in full communion with the Church, one must not only believe the faith taught by that hierarchy, one must be under the authority of that hierarchy.

Some Protestants do claim to believe in a visible Church. But by that they mean that there are many local congregations each with its own visible hierarchy (e.g. head pastor, assistant pastor, deacons, etc.), and that every Christian should be a member of one such local congregation. According to these Protestants, these local congregations need not be part of one catholic (i.e. universal) visible hierarchy. Rather, these local congregations that are each visible hierarchically organized bodies are invisibly united to each other by sharing the same basic faith in Christ and love for Christ. One problem with this position is that its claim that visible hierarchical unity is essential at the local level, but not at any higher level, is arbitrary. If the local church needs a hierarchical organization, then so does the universal Church. But if the universal Church does not need hierarchical organization, then neither does the local congregation. Another problem is that this claim reduces either to the position that Christ founded many Churches, and thus has many Bodies and many Brides, or that the Church Christ founded is itself a spiritual, invisible entity, though some of its members, both individual persons and visible local congregations, are visible.

This is why there is no middle position between the teaching of the Catholic Church that Christ founded one universal, visible, and hierarchically organized Body to which all Christians should belong in full communion, and the Protestant notion that the Church Christ founded is fundamentally an invisible spiritual entity to which all those having faith in Christ already belong, regardless of where and with whom they worship. This is also why a Protestant conception of the Church entails apathy about the present disunity of all Christians. Most Protestants see the fact that there is a different denomination represented on every street corner as normal, or even healthy. The very idea that there should be only one Christian institution in every city and all over the world, is completely outside their imaginative horizon, let alone the intended goal of any ecumenical endeavors they might undertake. In the general Protestant mindset, since by our faith in Christ we are already in full communion with each other, there is no reason to pursue any further unity. The pursuit of unity is, according to this notion, merely the attempt to help us all acknowledge what is already true, i.e. that we all are already in full communion. From this Protestant point of view, ecumenicism is at most an exercise in provoking a corporate self-awareness and enlightenment.

In the Catholic mindset, by contrast, ecumenicism is about healing actual divisions, reconciling those separated from the Church by actual (not merely mental) schisms. How? By reconciling them with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that Christ founded. That notion sounds arrogant to most Protestants, precisely because for Protestants the Church is invisible; no institution has any more claim to being the true Church than does any other. That would be true if all visibly organized bodies were founded by mere men. But it isn't true if one visible hierarchically organized Body was founded by the God-man, Jesus Christ. Catholics believe that Christ founded precisely that, and gave its keys to Peter. For the Protestant, to believe in Christ is already to be reconciled to His Church. But given the Catholic conception of the Church, to be fully united to Christ, one must be fully united with and incorporated into the visible and hierarchically organized Church that Christ founded.

To our Protestant brothers and sisters we say, "Your vision of the unity Christ intended the Church to have is too small; you've settled for division as though it were unity." The problem is worse than that. The notion that the Church is invisible performatively denies Christ's incarnation, by treating the Body of Christ as though it were something invisible, as I explained here. Moreover, our visible divisions testify falsely to the world that God is divided, and thus deprive the world of what Christ wants to give it: an embodied vision of the unity and love within the Trinity. Christ's prayer in John 17 requires visible unity among His followers, because through our unity with one another the world is supposed to see the unity of the Son with the Father. The Church as the Body of Christ is to continue Christ's mission of despoiling the principalities and powers (Col 2:15) of the prisoners they held captive, as He did when He descended into Hades (Eph 4:9) after saying "It is finished." Of this mission Christ tells us that the gates of Hades will not prevail; they will not withstand the Church in her mission (Matt 16:18). This is our mission, now, and we need to be standing together in full communion to complete it.

Lord Jesus, in your divine mercy, may this schism that now separates Catholics and Protestants be healed. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Ecumenism: the highest priority

Notice the following lines from Pope Benedict's letter released today:

The real problem at this moment of our history is that God is disappearing from the human horizon, and, with the dimming of the light which comes from God, humanity is losing its bearings, with increasingly evident destructive effects.

Leading men and women to God, to the God who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith – ecumenism – is part of the supreme priority.

Our discord with each other "calls into question the credibility of [our] talk of God." How true.

Brothers and sisters, how can we pursue unity and reconciliation? Where is the path toward full communion with each other? Our disunity is like an eclipse that darkens the light and love of Christ to the world. Come, let us now with all our effort and determination pursue full reconciliation in one body, with one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. The time is urgent.

"night is coming when no one can work" (John 9:4)

"the love of the many will grow cold" (Matthew 24:12)

UPDATE: I have updated this excerpt in accord with the official Vatican translation.

Two Ecumenicisms

My post titled "Two Ecumenicisms" can be found here.

"Us and Them Ecumenicism"

Fr. Dwight Longenecker, prompted by Giles Pinnock's "The Unrealism of Ecumenicism?", writes "Us and Them Ecumenicism". Both articles identify and clear away common ecumenical confusion.

Apostolicity and the Ecumenical Challenge

"The Sacrament of Ordination"
Nicolas Poussin (1636-40)
(click on the painting for a larger image)

Today is the seventh day of the week of prayer for Christian unity. It is also the feast day of St. Francis de Sales, who brought 72,000 Calvinists back into the Catholic Church. Recently I came across Michael Spencer's post titled "Spiritual Depression and the Search for the One True Church", and it prompted the following reflection.

The greatest challenge to the goal of reconciling Protestants and Catholics in full unity is not coming to an agreement regarding whether charity is merely coexistent with justifying faith (Turretin) or whether charity is that which makes faith to be living faith, and thus to be justifying faith (Trent). (See here.) I suspect that only a very small percentage of contemporary Christians has even thought about that question. Many Protestants, I suppose, if they didn't know the source, probably would be open if not sympathetic to Pope Benedict's recent talk on justification. In my opinion the greatest challenge for reuniting Protestants and Catholics has to do, rather, with reconciling two very different ecclesial paradigms that differ on the question of whether or not Christ founded His Church with a perpetual hierarchy in unbroken succession from the Apostles.

In the ecclesial paradigm of contemporary Evangelicalism, the Church Christ founded is something spiritual, and faith in Christ is a sufficient condition for full membership in Christ's Church. Of course Christians are called not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together (Hebrews 10:25), and so some local organized congregation or regional organization (i.e. denomination) is practically useful if not necessary. But these are all merely man-made organizations. That is why, in the Evangelical mind, it is fine to initiate and form entirely *autonomous* congregations of all different sorts and styles, even in the same town. The Church is the invisible spiritual entity to which true believers are invisibly joined by the Holy Spirit, regardless of any organizational or institutional affiliation. We can see this ecclesial paradigm in the consumeristic way evangelicals determine which congregation or denomination to join, and in the way they decide for themselves which doctrines are essential and which are non-essential.

We can see this paradigm implicit in the common notion that it is more important to join an imperfect denomination than to continue searching for a 'perfect church'. The notion of finding "the Church that Christ founded" is typically not even on the conceptual radar, precisely because the Evangelical ecclesial paradigm does not recognize that Christ established and endowed His Church with a perpetual hierarchy of leadership in succession from the Apostles. But, it was to this perpetual hierarchy that the Holy Spirit, speaking through the inspired author of Hebrews, commanded us to submit and obey (Heb 13:17) -- not to those whom we have accumulated to ourselves who teach according to our own interpretation of Scripture (2 Tim 4:3).

When the Apostle Matthew records Jesus saying to Peter in Matt 16:18, "upon this rock I will build My Church", and then saying, in Matt 18:17, "tell it to the Church", and "listen to the Church", the most natural way of understanding these passages is that the term 'ekklesia' ('Church') is being used in the same way in all three places. And it is clear in the Matthew 18 passages that 'ekklesia' there refers to the visible Church, not a merely spiritual entity. That implies that Matt 16:18 is also referring to the visible Church. This is the one, holy, catholic (i.e universal) and apostolic (i.e. hierarchically organized in succession from the Apostles) Church.

When we look at the transition in the early Church from Apostolic to post-Apostolic leadership in the first century, we find a very different ecclesial paradigm from that of contemporary Evangelicalism. We see apostolicity understood as an apostolic authorization to hold ecclesial authority, to speak and teach in Christ's name, and with His authorization. Ecclesial authority could not come from non-authority; it could come only from those having authority from the Apostles.

This conception of ecclesial authority carries with it a very different ecclesiology, because to be a member in full communion with the Church thus requires being in full communion with this perpetual hierarchy. To be in full communion with Christ's Church, it is not enough simply to believe in Christ and love Christ. I discussed apostolicity in more detail here and here. Only in rediscovering what apostolicity meant in the early Church as taught in the fathers can Evangelicals and Catholics come to share the same ecclesial paradigm by which we can be truly united.

The early Reformers had a more accurate understanding of the visibility of the Church than do contemporary Evangelicals. Consider the following quotation from Keith Mathison (a Protestant):

Unlike modern Evangelicalism, the classical Protestant Reformers held to a high view of the Church. When the Reformers confessed extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which means "there is no salvation outside the Church," they were not referring to the invisible Church of all the elect. Such a statement would be tantamount to saying that outside of salvation there is no salvation. It would be a truism. The Reformers were referring to the visible Church… The Church is the pillar and ground, the interpreter, teacher, and proclaimer of God’s Word… The Church has authority because Christ gave the Church authority. The Christian who rejects the authority of the Church rejects the authority of the One who sent her (Luke 10:16). (Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, pp. 268, 269.)(H/T: David Waltz)

Or consider what Scott Clark (a Protestant professor at Westminster Seminary in California) says about connectionalism in his ecclesiology article. There he writes, "It is often assumed in the American Church that the New Testament Churches were independent of one another and autonomous, that is, subject to no one's authority but their own. In fact this is less a New Covenant picture than an amalgam of the historic Anabaptist view of the Church with traditional American self reliance." Clark's article implies that the visible catholic Church that Christ founded consists of local congregations *networked* together and subordinate to the decisions of general assemblies such as in Acts 15.

It is to that visible catholic Church that the promises of Christ to the Church refer. The gates of hell shall not prevail against the visible catholic Church (Matt 16:18). Christ will be with the visible catholic Church to the end of the age (Matt 28:20). The Holy Spirit will guide the visible catholic Church into all truth (John 16:13). Whatever the visible catholic Church binds on earth will be bound in heaven (Matt 16:19, 18:19). The visible catholic Church is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim 3:15). These promises would be superfluous and unhelpful if intended only for the set of all the elect.

So when asked "Which is the visible catholic Church that Christ founded?", we should at least be able to refer to the network of congregations constituting the visible catholic Church. If we're left scratching our heads, then there are only three possibilities: either Christ's promises didn't apply to the visible catholic Church (and the visible catholic Church simply faded out of existence at some point in history), or Christ didn't found a visible catholic Church, or it is *we* who have lost sight of the visible catholic Church. In Evangelicalism, there is no such thing (conceptually) as a visible catholic Church. In confessional Protestantism there is at least a familiarity with the concept of the visible catholic Church, but the question "Which is the visible catholic Church that Christ founded?" nevertheless leads to the scratching of heads. Few are willing to say that it is their own denomination.

The offense that some Protestants took to Responsa ad quaestiones in July of 2007 is due precisely to their unfamiliarity with what it means that Christ founded one, visible catholic Church. The visibility of the Church is entailed by what the Church has believed and taught from the beginning about apostolicity as ecclesial authority derived in succession from the Apostles through the laying on of hands by those having that authority. (Reducing apostolicity to formal agreement with the Apostles' doctrine therefore vitiates the grounds for ecclesial visibility.) It should be no surprise that if we want to reunite all Christians, we have to be united together in Christ's Church. And further it should be no surprise that if we are going to find and be united in Christ's Church, we have to dig deeply into her four marks as repeated in the Creed: Credo in ... unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam.

St. Francis de Sales, focusing on apostolicity, wrote the following to the Protestants of Geneva:

"First, then, your ministers had not the conditions required for the position which they sought to maintain, and the enterprise which they undertook. ... The office they claimed was that of ambassadors of Jesus Christ our Lord; the affair they undertook was to declare a formal divorce between Our Lord and the ancient Church his Spouse; to arrange and conclude by words of present consent, as lawful procurators, a second and new marriage with this young madam, of better grace, said they, and more seemly than the other. ... To be legates and ambassadors they should have been sent, they should have had letters of credit from him whom they boasted of being sent by. ... Tell me, what business had you to hear them and believe them without having any assurance of their commission and of the approval of Our Lord, whose legates they called themselves? In a word, you have no justification for having quitted that ancient Church in which you were baptized, on the faith of preachers who had no legitimate mission from the Master.

St. Francis de Sales, pray for us, that we would all be one in the visible catholic Church that Christ founded.

"That They May Become One in Your Hand"

Chair of St. Peter

Today is the first day of the 101st Church Unity Octave, or "Week of prayer for Christian unity". January 18th was chosen as the first day of the Octave because it was one of the two feast days of the Chair of St. Peter, the other being February 22. (For an explanation of the three-fold relation of the chair, ecclesial unity and the name of this blog, see my post from this day last year.) This year's theme is "That They May Become One In Your Hand", drawn from Ezekiel 37:17, where the prophet shows God's power to reunite Israel and Judah. The first meditation for this week can be found here.

There we recall that while division, quarreling, strife and separation characterize the city of man (i.e. fallen man separated from Christ) on account of his self-worship and narcissism, it is not to be so among those within the city of God (i.e. those united to Christ). The divine life of the Most Holy Trinity is a life of perfect unity and peace. This divine life is the new life we receive at baptism, for we are baptized into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. A name, as Plato points out in his Cratylus, is a sign of the essence. And this is why unity is one of the four enduring marks of the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" we speak of in the Nicene Creed, for her members are baptized into this divine life of perfect unity. Disunity among Christians always therefore in some respect involves movement away from the Church, and thus away from Christ.

Before us now, if we look with the eyes of men, stands a bleak ecumenical landscape. Seemingly only a small percentage of Christians are consciously aware of our disunity as disunity. Many Christians now seem to think that the present state of denominational divisions is natural, or unavoidable until Christ returns, a kind of necessary evil that we must simply put up with until then. Some even think these divisions are "healthy". Someone recently said to me, "I'm very glad for all these divisions. It means that no one has a monopoly on truth. Competition is good for the Church." To this person, the alternative account, namely, that these various sects and divisions are schisms from the Church, and thus separated in some sense from the life and truth of Christ, was literally inconceivable.

When evil is redescribed so that it appears good, you can bet that the "angel of light" (2 Cor 11:14) is involved, because manipulating light is his specialty. He makes evil appear good by selectively redirecting and obscuring the light of truth upon it, hiding its ugliness and destructiveness in the shadows and highlighting only its desirable aspects. In this way he works to justify evil in our eyes. Those who have adopted some form of utilitarianism attempt to justify evil actions by pointing to the good effects of those actions. "See, look at the good that comes from all these divisions among Christians." But St. Paul condemns such reasoning in Romans 3:8. We may not do evil or perpetuate evil so that good may result. No matter what good God has brought or will bring out of the evil of our disunity, that does not justify making or perpetuating schisms between Christians.

Of those Christians who recognize our disunity as contrary to Christ's heart as revealed in His prayer in St. John 17, relatively few are actively engaged in ecumenical efforts. Some conceive of ecumenicism as a misguided idealism that intrinsically involves compromise of the truth. Others simply lower the bar of unity, seeking merely some sort of bare unity on 'essentials'.

But, we are not without firmly grounded hope, because our hope is in Christ, with whom all things are possible. I am continually reminded of 1 Kings 7:1-2, where the condition Elisha promises for the following day seems impossible from the human point of view. And the same is true of Ezekiel 37:17. The reunion of all Christians can happen, more suddenly than we imagine, by the power of God. This does not mean that we should bury our ecumenical 'talent', leaving this task to God. Rather, we should be assured that God delights to receive our gifts of loaves and fishes, and multiply them beyond anything we can imagine, as He multiplied Abraham's descendants beyond the number of the stars. We should take courage, therefore, and stand firm and determined in our pursuit of the reconciliation and reunion of all Christians, as Pope Benedict today urged that we do.

Consider how long William Wilberforce labored to abolish the slave trade in England before finally seeing the results of his efforts. Consider the endurance and determination manifested by Martin Luther King Jr. If he had concluded from the pessimism of those who said "Racism you will always have with you this side of heaven", that we should not strive to eliminate racial injustice, we might still be drinking out of separate drinking fountains, and we would not now have a black president. Likewise, we too should not allow the fact that sin and disorder will never be eliminated from this present age to lead us to turn a blind eye to the present schisms and disunity among Christians. We can make a difference as peace-makers, with God’s help, but not as long as we believe that fate or sin makes such efforts futile.

Where is the hue and cry for our denominational leaders to take seriously our present state of division? Are the leaders of all the various denominations vowing to remain in constant dialogue until unity is achieved? Do you see or hear anyone calling out repeatedly in print or other media, for every effort to be made by denominational leaders to reconcile divided Christians? Or has the implicit denial of the visibility of the Church become the widespread yet unreflective assumption?

When I was younger I tended to think that whatever important things needed to be done in the world would be done by people older and more competent than myself. Only in recent years have I come to realize that what I am now is just what those "older and more competent" persons were then. And that is true for all of us. If we all simply waited for someone older and more competent to come along, the challenging ecumenical task that lies before us would never get done. If we want to hear a hue and cry, we have to raise it.

I'm not one who thinks that the younger generation is better than the previous generations, but I do believe that the younger generation is much more open than previous generations. The loss of 'denominational loyalty' might reflect a loss of loyalty as a virtue. But perhaps it suggests that this generation is open and willing to dialogue, confronted with its fragmentation and longing for the unity and security of the Church as our new covenant family, and for the rest that comes from finding our true ecclesial home. In this generation, with God's help we can undo the schisms of the past, by suffering with Him for His sake, in the patient labor of love in the spiritual works of mercy. This was the vision of Fr. Neuhaus. May he rest in peace, and may hundreds rise up to take his place.

"On the two pieces of wood, which form the cross of Christ, the Lord of history takes upon himself the wounds and divisions of humanity. In the totality of Jesus' gift of himself on the cross, he holds together human sin and God's redemptive steadfast love. To be a Christian is to be baptized into this death, through which the Lord, in his boundless mercy, etches the names of wounded humanity onto the wood of the cross, holding us to himself and restoring our relationship with God and with each other."

"Let us also go, that we may die with Him." (St. John 11:16)

Heal, Lord, our many divisions. May we be your instruments to bring your perfect unity to all your people. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Without a Pope: Orthodoxy & Unity

"His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew addresses the heads of the Orthodox churches in the Patriarchal Cathedral of Saint George." (October 10, 2008, Photo by N. Manginas)

Patrick Archbold of Creative Minority Report published this post on Patriarch Bartholomew's Friday address to the heads of the Orthodox churches. I recommend reading the Patriarch's complete address, because it is almost all about unity, especially starting in section 5. The most interesting part comes at the end, however, when the Patriarch says this:

We need, then, greater unity in order to appear to those outside not as a federation of Churches but as one unified Church. Through the centuries, and especially after the Schism, when the Church of Rome ceased to be in communion with the Orthodox, this Throne [i.e. in Constantinople] was called -- according to canonical order -- to serve the unity of the Orthodox Church as its first Throne. And it fulfilled this responsibility through the ages by convoking an entire series of Panorthodox Councils on crucial ecclesiastical matters, always prepared, whenever duly approached, to render its assistance and support to troubled Orthodox Churches. (my emphases)

Patrick Archbold writes:

The Ecumenical Patriarch rightly sees the problem. The Church needs to be Visibly unified to the world, not just a federation of independent State churches. That visible unity must come by way of public and open Communion with One See and its Patriarch. The Ecumenical Patriarch even goes so far as to say that this responsibility falls to his see and his person only because of the break with Rome. I think, although I may be reading into this with Roman eyes, that the Ecumenical Patriarch might even agree that were communion with Rome re-established, the role of being the visible unifier of the Church would no longer fall to him and his See.

Now I know that the Patriarchs of many of these autocephalous Churches would vehemently disagree with such a notion, whether Rome or Constantinople. With that said, I think that the Ecumenical Patriarch's pitch to his fellow Orthodox is an important step in the road to full and visible Unity of the Church as Jesus prayed. If these national Churches come to realize the importance of that visible unity to the world, we will be that much closer to being one, as Jesus and the Father are one.

I agree with Patrick's comments. It is a basic principle of metaphysics that you can't get unity from non-unity, just as you can't get being from non-being. Patriarch Bartholomew wants visible unity, saying, "We need, then, greater unity in order to appear to those outside not as a federation of Churches but as one unified Church." If the Orthodox are not a mere federation of Churches, but are in fact a visible unity, then there should be no worry about their appearing as a mere federation of Churches. But if they are a mere federation of Churches, then they can't solve this disunity problem by redoubling their efforts to be more unified with each other, because the problem is in that case an ontological problem, not merely a deficiency of cooperation or collaborative effort.

Trying to achieve or establish visible unity by means of a principium unitatis, i.e. being united to an existing visible unity, likewise faces the following dilemma. If Christ did not found the Church with a principium unitatis, then clearly we should not seek to outdo Christ by establishing one. But if Christ did found the Church with a principium unitatis, then visible unity can be attained only by union with that divinely appointed principium unitatis.

Patriarch Bartholomew seems to be aware of the need for a principium unitatis for visible unity. This is revealed in his emphasis on the importance of his own Throne for the visible unity of the Church. He is thus in a difficult situation. On the one hand, without a principium unitatis there cannot be actual visible unity. On the other hand, insofar as he seeks to elevate his own Throne as a principium unitatis, he highlights the intrinsic need for Orthodox reunion with the Chair of St. Peter.

Speaking as a Catholic, it is our constant prayer and desire for the restoration of full communion with our Orthodox brothers and sisters. We long for that day of reconciliation and reunion. We pray for full visible unity among all Christians, for this is the desire of the sacred heart of our Lord Jesus, that we would be one, as He and the Father are one.

Holy Spirit, hasten the day when we are one with one another. Make our hearts to beat with the same deep desire and passion as that of Christ's heart. Heal the wounds that divide us. Help us overcome the obstacles that keep us separated. Clothe us in true humility and fill us with charity toward one another. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

"Pope to Patriarch: We Need Unity Faster"

This article resonates with my previous post.

Babel or Keys?

'La Construction de la Tour de Babel'
Hendrick III van Cleve (1525 - 1589)
(click on the painting to view it full-sized)

Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. But the very nature of the promise implies the presence of a war. The dragon "makes war" against the children of Christ's Mother, that is, those who "keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus." (Rev 12:17) So how does hell fight against Christ's Church? Of course there are external threats, such as persecution and the enticement of worldliness. But the more insidious attacks are internal; these are heresy and schism. Heresy and schism generally go together, because one without the other would be exposed for what it is. Only together can they hide each other. Satan hides himself in a certain respect, disguising himself as an angel of light. (2 Cor 11:14) That is his standard mode of operation. He once was Lucifer, the light bearer. So he portrays all his works as good and right and enlightened, as though they are the path of the truly wise, and especially suitable for making one wise. This is how he deceived Eve. This is how he deceived the people into choosing the murderer Barabbas [whose name means "son of the father"] over the innocent Son of God. And this is how he continues to deceive people into sinning against the Body of Christ, by leading them into heresy and schism.

But evil is always intrinsically self-destructive, because not only is evil a privation of good, but evil is also therefore a privation of unity and a privation of being. That is why evil is always parasitic on the good. Evil cannot exist on its own, but only in and in relation to what is good. For this very reason, the concepts of heresy and schism are not themselves sustainable within heresies and schisms. Within heresies and schisms these concepts collapse into the semantic equivalent of 'disagreement with my interpretation' and 'separation from me', respectively. All their objectivity and normativity is lost. Just as Satan succeeds when people no longer believe that he exists, so also he succeeds when the concepts of 'heresy' and 'schism' have been so evacuated that people no longer believe there really are such things.

The Church is supposed to be the voice of Christ to the world. Satan cannot defeat this voice, but through heresies and schisms he can drown it out in a sea of competing voices, each claiming to speak for Christ. In this way he creates confusion, not only in the world but even among Christians, for the effect is as if there is no authoritative voice of Christ, but merely a cacophony of opinions. Yet "God is not a God of confusion". (1 Cor 14:33) Christ did not leave His sheep without a shepherd. Nor did he intend that all who wish to determine who is the true shepherd first learn to read, let alone read and exegete Greek and Hebrew (as is testified to by the theological disunity among those who *do* read and exegete Greek and Hebrew).

The schisms that have weakened the unity and strength of our voice as Christians are in their effect like the curse of Babel that thwarted the builders of that tower. But the purpose of the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is to reverse that division by means of a divine ingathering. This was the significance of the gift of tongues on the day of Pentecost, as described in Acts 2. (See the column of paintings on Neal Judisch's blog to get a better sense of the idea.) Babel was the tower of man, initiated by men and built up by men. It is the paradigmatic referent of Psalm 127:1, "Unless the LORD builds the house, its builders labor in vain". Nimrod is said to have been the initiator of the tower of Babel; in this way he is a figure of the Antichrist. In contrast to Babel, the Church is the tower that God is building, joining all peoples together into one Body in which we all speak the same divine language. (To read an early second century description of the Church as the tower that God is building, see Book 1 of the Shepherd of Hermas.) This is the Body of Christ, of which He is the founder and Head.

One way to respond to the common insouciance among Christians regarding our disunity is to show the disunity for what it is, as Dickens showed child labor for what it was. That is the sort of thing I was attempting to do recently here and here, in showing that the position of those Protestants who claim to believe in a visible Church is only *semantically* distinct from the position of those Protestants who deny that there is a visible Church. This highlights the absence of a middle position between Catholicism on the one hand, and that of those who deny that Christ founded a visible Church. The denial of a visible Church leaves each man to do what is right in his own eyes, for in that case there is no divinely-established voice of authority in the visible Church, because there is no visible Church. This position has difficulty making sense of St. Matthew 16 and St. Matthew 18, as I showed in the comments here.

Moreover, the ecclesiological position of those who deny that Christ founded a visible Church is intrinsically disposed to perpetual fragmentation and disharmony and weakness, for according to that position Christ did not establish a lasting hierarchy by which to preserve and guard the first mark of the Church: unity. But while Christ assured us that the Church will endure, He also tells us that a house divided cannot stand (St. Matt 12:25; St. Mark 3:25; St. Luke 11:17). Therefore, unity is an essential mark of the Church. Christ did not tell us to make a man-made peace that He would then preserve. He gave to His Apostles His peace, a peace that is not of this world. He left His peace with them. (St. John 14:27; Philippians 4:7) This is the divine peace and unity into which we must be incorporated. It is this divine peace and unity given by Christ to the Church that makes unity the first mark of the Church.

There are many Christians who recognize the need for greater unity among Christians. The moral decline in the broader culture makes such a need more and more obvious. And the recognition of this need for greater unity should be commended and encouraged, as should the efforts to effect it. But there are two fundamentally different types of ecumenicism. St. Thomas Aquinas tells us the goal of a thing shows us what it is, and the difference in goal distinguishes these two different types of ecumenicism. I'm not speaking here of the proximate goal of fostering dialogue and improving mutual understanding and social cooperation between Christians of various denominations and traditions. I'm speaking of the final goal.

I have written here about the way in which one form of ecumenicism unwittingly continues the work of Babel, by trying to create a new tower that Christ Himself did not found. It does this by seeking to establish a new institution and trying to get all Christians to be united to it. We see this mentality in organizations like the World Council of Churches, the National Council of Churches and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches. (For an example, see here.)

True ecumenicism does not lay a new foundation other than that which God has already laid, the incarnate Christ being the cornerstone, followed by the "apostles and prophets" (Eph 2:20), and their successors in the Church, which is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15). True ecumenicism is therefore necessarily by its very nature and final goal a searching for and reuniting with the Church that Christ founded. So long as some Christians conceive of the Church that Christ founded as the mere set of all believers, or as the set of all believers and their activities, or as a mere phenomenon, they will not perceive what the Church actually is, and how the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Mere sets and mere phenomena have no authority, no actual unity, and thus no actual being. What has no being cannot be a foundation, let alone a foundation of the truth.

To defeat the divisive work of Satan, we first have to come to see schisms for what they are. This is part of what it means to expose the works of darkness. (Eph 5:11) We tear away the façade of light that keeps us from perceiving evil as evil. These schisms are "ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body" (CCC 817). If we love our own bodies, then how much more should we care for the wounds of Christ's Body? But we can go about seeking to heal these wounds in one of two ways. We can either take the keys to ourselves, which is the way of Babel (or more precisely, an endless series of Babels, each with its own self-appointed or de facto Nimrod), or we can seek out the Church that Christ founded, where He left His peace, seeking full communion with the one to whom He gave the keys.

'Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter'
Pietro Perugino (1481-1482)

"Denominational Renewal": Part 2

The title of Matt Brown's talk on ecclesiology was "On Being 'Truly 'Reformed': An Examination of the Reformed Catholic Tradition". He divided his talk into four sections: Apostolic, Catholic, Holy, and One, treating in reverse the four marks of the Church stated in that line in the Nicene Creed: "We believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church". I'm passing over Matt's section on holiness because I agreed with everything he said in that section. I'll put my summaries of various parts of Matt's talk in black, and my comments in blue.

In his section on apostolicity, Matt pointed out that none of the Reformed confessions describes the Church as 'Apostolic'. He explained that the reason for this was that at the time of the Reformation, the term was generally used in a way that had to do with a line of succession extending back to the Apostles, and the Reformers were trying to focus on being Apostolic in a doctrinal sense. But he claimed that to be 'Apostolic' not only means to teach the Apostles' doctrine; it also means to be sent.

Because the Reformed tradition excluded the conception of 'Apostolic' from the Reformed confessions, as a result, claimed Matt, there tends to be a loss of a sense of mission in the Reformed tradition. Those in the Reformed tradition thus tend to have two destructive habits: "ecclesial nostalgia" and "ecclesial nihilism". By way of "ecclesial nostalgia" Reformed Christians act as though there was some golden age of the Church, and are always trying to get back to it, or hold on to it. And this tends to lead to something like a denominational police state. By way of "ecclesial nihilism" Reformed Christians conceive of denominational divisions as a fact of life, and then embrace these divisions, which then leads to further nihilism. Matt pointed out that there are 21 Reformed denominations in Switzerland. There are 14 Reformed denominations in the UK. And there are 44 Reformed denominations in the US. Matt said:

"God promises to give His Church all the gifts that are necessary for communicating the Gospel to the world ... but He never made this promise to any particular denomination." .... "To leave one denomination for another is to sacrifice one set of gifts for another. "Jesus didn't promise that His Spirit would guide every denomination into all truth; He would guide the entire Church."

Catholics agree with these last three statements only because Catholics do not refer (and never have referred) to the Catholic Church as a "denomination". That is a relatively recent term. Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church by means of her legitimate leaders. Presumably Matt would agree that the Spirit is not guiding the Church through the leaders of schismatic and heretical sects. So we would need to distinguish "the entire Church" from schismatic and heretical sects, otherwise it wouldn't do us any good to know that the Spirit is guiding the entire Church if we cannot distinguish who are the rightful leaders of the Church from those who are not the rightful leaders of the Church.

Implicit in Matt's statements, as with Jeremy's, is a conception of the Church as something per se invisible and non-institutional; this conception implicitly assumes that Christ did not found a visible, institutional Church. For a discussion of the problem with that position, see Part 1.) The claim that "No institution is the one Christ founded" is not itself in Scripture, and therefore on Matt and Jeremy's own terms, shouldn't be raised to the level of dogma.

Matt's apparent proposed solution to denominationalism (or at least a first step within that proposed solution) is to work with others outside one's own denomination. He went on to say:

"Because we live in a divided Church, we cannot produce new creeds. We can't produce universal creeds." .... "We must refuse the urge to just jump ship [from our denomination].... We must not continue to divide ourselves into smaller and smaller groups that cut us off from what the Holy Spirit is doing even in other denominations."

This would imply that we should be seeking institutional unity. If it is wrong to divide further, then this implies that the present divisions are wrong. And if the present divisions are wrong, then we need to be institutionally one. But if Matt proposes that all Christians form one *new* 'institution', then see my post titled "Institutional Unity and Outdoing Christ". The only remaining option then, is to find and be incorporated into the original institution founded by Christ.


In his section on catholicity, Matt talked about contextualization. To be "catholic", in his view, is to recognize that the Gospel is universal; it must go to all places and peoples. And so it must be contextualized to those places and peoples. Because of catholicity and contextualization, "therefore our theological formulations must change over time", according to the changing context. In Matt's opinion, the Nicene Creed is a contextual document. So is the Westminster Confession of Faith. They differ from each other because they are responding to different needs, at different times. He said that the Westminster divines would probably find it "weird" that Reformed Christians are still using the WCF. He went on to say:

"Part and parcel of the Reformed tradition is that we are always reforming; we are semper reformanda."

Recently, in a different post I wrote:

Bound up with the [Protestant] notion of sola scriptura is a denial of the infallibility of any Church council or papal decree. Sola scriptura thus entails that any line of any creed or conciliar or papal decree could be false.

This creates a serious problem for semper reformanda, of the sort that accompanies the philosophy of Heraclitus. Heraclitus was the pre-Socratic philosopher who said that everything is changing. But, if everything is changing then we know nothing; knowledge requires that there be something staying the same. If everything were changing, we could not even know that we know nothing, so the everything-is-changing position is self-refuting in that respect. Similarly, if nothing creedal is infallibly true, then what distinguishes development of doctrine from change in doctrine? (See, for example my comment here, and the follow-up comments.) When every doctrine is possibly false, then there is no way to distinguish development from change. Whether he knows it or not, what Matt is looking for as the antidote to "ecclesial nostalgia" on the one hand and "ecclesial nihilism" on the other hand, is the Catholic notion of development of doctrine. (cf. Newman's An Essay on the Development of Catholic Doctrine)

Organic development is the tertium quid between absolute stasis and unqualified change. But development is possible only in an ecclesial context in which truths can be established infallibly, and Protestantism denies that there is such an ecclesial context; only the writing of Scripture meets that criterion, according to Protestantism. Therefore, Protestantism does not have the ecclesial context for development of doctrine. There can be within it only combinations of change and stasis. That is not to say that Protestant theologians cannot deepen our understanding of Scripture. But Protestant ecclesiology cannot provide a context for development, for because all theological claims are fallible, at any moment they may be called into question. And therefore they are not a sure foundation upon which further doctrine may develop.

In his section on unity, Matt said the following:

"After the divisions of the Reformation, a lot of Protestants were tempted to say [that] the oneness of the Church, the unity of the Church, was only something invisible. And the Westminster Confession of Faith was the first confession in the history of the Church to ever describe the Church as invisible."

"When the bishops in Constantinople and when Paul [in Ephesians 4] were talking about the oneness of the Church, they were not only describing a theological understanding, they were describing a physical reality that had existed since the day of Pentecost. Paul is talking about a physical and visible unity. And this is not just his hope. He doesn't say 'let there be one body' he says 'there is one body'."


"And Jesus also talks about the visible unity, John 17, He says, I pray ..... When Jesus talks about their unity He is talking about a visible unity."


"We've got to begin by cultivating sorrow in our hearts for the divided state of the Church."


"Every new denomination further divides the Church of Jesus Christ."


"Jesus says that we cannot possibly be missional as long as we are divided."


"The Church was united. It will again be united. And it should be a present reality even now toward which we are striving."

In this conception of the Church, the Church was [visibly] united, but is now [visibly] divided, though still [invisibly] united. But if unity is a mark of the Church, then does Matt think the Church lost this mark? Has Christ been divided? If his answer is "no", then that can be only because the Church (i.e. the Body of Christ) is (in his view) invisible. But that goes against precisely what Matt is (rightfully) pointing out, i.e. that the Church per se is visible. Unity as a mark of an invisible Church is worthless. So if the Church per se is visible, and if unity is a mark of the Church, then the Church must have retained visible unity, even in the event of schism. The question for Matt is this: where is that visible unity that remains as a mark of the Church?

In the Catholic paradigm, that visible unity remains, in the institutional unity of the Catholic Church. In the Catholic paradigm there can be schism from the Church, without that schism destroying the visible unity of the institution which is the Catholic Church, while it is truly the case that Christians are thereby (through that schism) divided from each other. Matt's paradigm either makes visible unity a merely contingent mark of a no-longer existing visible Church, or an essential (but worthless) mark of an invisible Church. If he replies, "No, I think the visible Church still exists, only in a divided state", the difficulty for his position is that it is indistinguishable from the notion that the Church per se is invisible, though having some embodied 'members' who are visible.

In sum, Catholics agree that Apostolicity has both formal and material aspects (i.e. doctrine and sacramental succession). Catholics agree that the Church is Catholic, but for Catholics, the term 'catholic' does not include what heretics and schismatics taught (insofar as it differed from orthodoxy). So we need a means of clearly distinguishing between orthodoxy and heresy in order to determine whose beliefs/practices count as belonging to the extension of the term 'catholic'. If we are going exclude the Council of Trent from the extension of 'catholic', for example, then why include Nicea? Otherwise the term 'catholic' just becomes a catch-all, containing everything, and thus containing nothing, or containing only what 'our' particular tradition thinks it should contain. And then we would have many different versions of 'catholic', making the term worthless. Catholics also agree that the Church is One. We believe that the visible Church is one, even while Christians of various traditions are separated from her in various respects. If the visible Church were not one, there would be no visible Church; there would only be visible [particular] Churches (see Pope Benedict's comment here about the Catholic Church not being a "federation of Churches"). But Christ founded only one Church (Matt. 16:18), because Christ has only one Bride. So the visible Church must be one. Matt's position thus faces the challenge of distinguishing itself from the notion that the Church per se is invisible, but having some embodied 'members' who are visible.

I hope my comments here may stimulate some discussion for the sake of bringing reconciliation and unity between Presbyterians and Catholics, after almost 500 years of being divided. May the Lord Jesus make us one. In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.