Two Notions of Unity

Here I want to follow up my discussion with Jonathan Bonomo regarding the notion that the unity of the Church is fundamentally invisible/spiritual, and that visible unity is only an outward expression (to various degrees) of that perfect and complete internal/spiritual unity.

The Catholic Encyclopedia article titled "Unity (As a Mark of the Church)" says the following in a paragraph with the heading "Some False Notions of Unity":

All admit that unity of some kind is indispensable to the existence of any well-ordered society, civil, political, or religious. Many Christians, however, hold that the unity necessary for the true Church of Christ need be nothing more than a certain spiritual internal bond, or, if external, it need be only in a general way, inasmuch as all acknowledge the same God and reverence the same Christ. Thus most Protestants think that the only union necessary for the Church is that which comes from faith, hope, and love toward Christ; in worshipping the same God, obeying the same Lord, and in believing the same fundamental truths which are necessary for salvation. This they regard as a unity of doctrine, organization, and cult. A like spiritual unity is all the Greek schismatics require. So long as they profess a common faith, are governed by the same general law of God under a hierarchy, and participate in the same sacraments, they look upon the various churches -- Constantinople, Russian, Antiochene, etc. -- as enjoying the union of the one true Church; there is the common head, Christ, and the one Spirit, and that suffices. The Anglicans likewise teach that the one Church of Christ is made up of three branches: the Greek, the Roman, and the Anglican, each having a different legitimate hierarchy but all united by a common spiritual bond.

Likewise, Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi writes:

Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely "pneumatological" as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are untied by an invisible bond. (Mystici Corporis Christi, 14)

The Catholic Encylopedia article referenced above continues by describing the "True Notion of Unity":

The Catholic conception of the mark of unity, which must characterize the one Church founded by Christ, is far more exacting. Not only must the true Church be one by an internal and spiritual union, but this union must also be external and visible, consisting in and growing out of a unity of faith, worship, and government. Hence the Church which has Christ for its founder is not to be characterized by any merely accidental or internal spiritual union, but, over and above this, it must unite its members in unity of doctrine, expressed by external, public profession; in unity of worship, manifested chiefly in the reception of the same sacraments; and in unity of government, by which all its members are subject to and obey the same authority, which was instituted by Christ Himself. In regard to faith or doctrine it may be here objected that in none of the Christian sects is there strict unity, since all of the members are not at all times aware of the same truths to be believed. Some give assent to certain truths which others know nothing of. Here it is important to note the distinction between the habit and the object of faith. The habit or the subjective disposition of the believer, though specifically the same in all, differs numerically according to individuals, but the objective truth to which assent is given is one and the same for all. There may be as many habits of faith numerically distinct as there are different individuals possessing the habit, but it is not possible that there be a diversity in the objective truths of faith. The unity of faith is manifested by all the faithful professing their adhesion to one and the same object of faith. All admit that God, the Supreme Truth, is the primary author of their faith, and from their explicit willingness to submit to the same external authority to whom God has given the power to make known whatever has been revealed, their faith, even in truths explicitly unknown, is implicitly external. All are prepared to believe whatever God has revealed and the Church teaches. Similarly, accidental differences in ceremonial forms do not in the least interfere with essential unity of worship, which is to be regarded primarily and principally in the celebration of the same sacrifice and in the reception of the same sacraments. All are expressive of the one doctrine and subject to the same authority.

True unity is triadic; it consists in unity of faith (doctrine), unity of worship (cult), and unity of authority (government). These correspond to Christ's threefold role as Prophet, Priest, and King. Any form of unity that excludes one or more of these three does not merely reduce the degree of unity that marks the true Church, it destroys the possibility of true unity. That is because all three bonds of unity are essential for unity; each depends on the other two. (I discussed this in more detail under the heading "Three Modes of Organic Unity" in my post titled "The Sacrilege of Schism".) Those who say "We're all under the same authority, i.e. Jesus", and use that to deny that unity of ecclesial government requires that someone have episcopal primacy do not seem to realize that they have thereby undermined all ecclesial authority, and in principle conceded everything to the person who says, "I don't need to be under the authority of any pastor; I have Jesus." This is why there is no [consistent] position between individualism (which is necessarily disposed to fragmentation) and Catholicism.

Lord Jesus, may we all be truly one, so that the world may know that the Father sent You. (John 17:23)

Questions for Protestants

In preparing for this Octave of Church Unity, I'm drawing attention here to what I believe to be the fundamental, meta-level source of all the divisions between Christians: the issue of authority. I'm not ignoring, of course, the role of the world, our concupiscence, and the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places that seek without rest to divide Christ's Mystical Body no less than they did when they unleashed their twisted fury on His physical body during His passion. I write these words during those three hours [noon - 3 pm] today (Friday), the day of the week perpetually consecrated by His crucifixion and death. Father, forgive us, for we did not know what we were doing, when we divided Your Son's Mystical Body.

Questions for Protestants

1. Whose determination of the canon of Scripture is authoritative? (If your answer is "the Scriptures testify to their own canonicity", then, since persons disagree about the content of this testimony, whose determination of the content of this testimony is authoritative?)

2. Whose interpretation of Scripture is authoritative? (Again, if your answer is "Scripture interprets Scripture", then, since persons disagree about the content of Scripture's interpretation of Scripture, whose determination of the Scripture's interpretation of Scripture is authoritative?)

3. Whose determination of the identity and extension of the Body of Christ is authoritative? (If you deny that Christ founded a visible Church, then skip this question.)

4. Whose determination of which councils are authoritative is authoritative? (If you deny that any Church councils are authoritative, then skip this question.)

5. Whose determination of the nature and existence of schism is authoritative?

6. Whose determination of the nature and extension of Holy Orders (i.e. valid ordination) is authoritative?

7. Whose determination of orthodoxy and heresy is authoritative? (If your answer is "Scripture", then go to question #2.)

8. If your answer to any of questions 1-7 is "the Holy Spirit", or "Jesus" or "the Apostles", then whose determination of what the Apostles, the Holy Spirit, or Jesus have determined is authoritative?

9. Given your answers to the above questions, how does your position avoid individualism and the perpetual fragmentation that necessarily accompanies it? (If your answer appeals to the "fundamentals of the faith" or the "essentials of the faith", then whose determination of what are "the essentials of the faith" is authoritative?)

10. Does not even nature teach you that a visible body needs a visible head? If so, then does grace therefore destroy nature, or does grace build upon nature?

11. Why do you think that your present [Protestant] pastor has more authority than the successor of St. Peter? In other words, why do you "obey" and "submit" (Hebrew 13:17) to your Protestant pastor rather than the successor of St. Peter?

12. Whose determination of the nature of "sola scriptura" is authoritative?

The Incarnation and Church Unity

In a statement about the unity of the Church, Jonathan Bonomo recently wrote:

All Christians are members of one another because of their union with Jesus Christ, their common Head. There is therefore but one Church: holy, catholic, and apostolic. Accordingly, striving to bring into a fuller outward expression this unity which we already share in Christ is the duty of every Christian, commensurate with the command of the Apostle (Ephesians 4:3).

Notice the phrase "fuller outward expression". According to Jonathan's position, the ground of the unity of the Church is inward and spiritual; it is each believer's internal/spiritual union with the invisible Christ. That internal/spiritual unity is already fully there, and so ecumenicism is merely an effort to further manifest outwardly what is already fully there inwardly.

I want to contrast Jonathan's position with the Catholic position. (Let me say in advance that I respect Jonathan, and agree with him on many points, and I have had some profitable and friendly discussions with him. So my criticism of his position on Church unity is no way meant to be a personal criticism of him.) The Catholic position on Church unity is not that the Church's unity is fundamentally internal and spiritual. For the Catholic, the ground of the Church's unity is Christ, who is both spirit and flesh. We are united to Christ by being united to His Body (i.e. the visible Church) through the sacrament of baptism ("water and the Spirit"). We are more deeply united to Christ and the Church through the sacraments of Confirmation and the Eucharist. From the Catholic point of view, those communities lacking valid orders lack these two sacraments, and therefore are less united to the Church (the Body of Christ), and hence less united to Christ. Moreover, in the Catholic view an act of schism separates a person (to some degree) from the Church, and hence from Christ. Jonathan's view, by contrast, treats all Christians as equally united to Christ and therefore equally united to the Church. For that reason, on Jonathan's view, schism does not do anything to the internal unity of all Christians, only to the outward manifestation of that internal unity. But the Catholic view looks at it the other way around, in the earth-to-heaven direction ("whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven"). From the Catholic point of view, to separate to some degree from the Church by way of schism is to separate to that degree from Christ. The visible and the invisible are bound together, because of the incarnation, wherein what is done to the flesh of Christ is done to the Person of Christ. That is precisely why excommunication has teeth; it means something. It really cuts us off from Christ. If it did not cut us off from Christ, then it would have no teeth.

Jonathan's view of the ground of the unity of the Church is de-materialized (i.e. spiritualized). It is in that way both gnostic, as I described here, and Docetic. In actuality, Christ is both spirit and flesh. Visible unity is not merely an "outward expression" of the real unity, just as sexual union is not merely a physical expression of inward/spiritual unity. Sexual union is part of the true union of husband and wife. Likewise, visible unity is part of the real unity of the Church, not merely an outward expression of the real unity which is spiritual and invisible. From the Catholic point of view, ecumenicism is not in effort to bring an outward expressions of a unity that is already complete in the invisible / spiritual realm. Rather, ecumenicism is the work of bringing those only in partial communion with the Church (and thus only in partial communion with Christ) into full communion with the Church (and thus into full communion with Christ). Jonathan's view essentially denies the actuality (and possibility) of real divisions in the Body of Christ; his position essentially denies that any believers are not fully united to the Church. According to his position all the various denominations are not *really* divided; we are divided only in outward expressions.

It is no wonder there is so little concern about Church unity in these communities, if our disunity is viewed in this gnostic manner as merely a matter of outward expressions. The root problem here is an implicit dualism that treats the spiritual as the really real, and the material as a mere context for the expression of the spiritual. Likewise, and for the same reason, Jonathan's position treats the Body of Christ as fundamentally invisible, but having some visible members, whose activities are often visible, and thus are "outward expressions" of the fundamentally invisible Church. Wherever being in schism is treated as not separating a person (to some degree) from Christ, there the Church is being treated as fundamentally invisible. (If the unity of the Church is fundamentally invisible, then the being of the Church is fundamentally invisible, because of the metaphysical relation of being and unity.) This dualism (or 'angelism' as Maritain calls it) in Jonathan's position can be traced back to Descartes. In actuality, we are neither angels nor heaps of atoms. We are rational animals, both spirit and flesh. To be fully united as one Church, it is not enough for us all to believe in Jesus, just as the gnostics were wrong that salvation is through knowledge (something intentional, immaterial and invisible). We must be one family, one community, one visible body, and that requires that we be under one visible head. Hence the incarnation was essential for Church unity. In order for the Church to remain truly unified when Christ ascended into heaven, Christ had to give primacy to one of the Apostles, and to his episcopal successors. And this is why Christ made Peter the steward of His Church until His return.

And the Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and sensible steward, whom his master will put in charge of his servants, to give them their rations at the proper time?" (Luke 12:42)

Thus says the Lord GOD of hosts, "Come, go to this steward .... I will entrust him with your authority, And he will become a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder, When he opens no one will shut, When he shuts no one will open. (Isaiah 22:15,21-22)

I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:18-19)

An Anglican Trilemma

I recently read a comment somewhere in which an Anglican claimed to be committed to the ideal of parity among the bishops.

If no man can serve two masters, i.e. two persons having equal authority over him (cf. Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13), then a fortiori no man can serve three masters (i.e. three persons having equal authority over him), or four, or five, or six, or however many (so long as the number is greater than one) bishops there are. But then it follows that a man can have only one highest ecclesial authority. Yet if there is nothing that gives one bishop more authority than all other bishops, then it follows logically that no man can serve any master, i.e. egalitarianism is true, and no bishop has any authority. Therefore, either Jesus was mistaken when He said that no man can serve two masters, or no bishops have any authority, or one bishop has more authority than all other bishops.

Anglicans are deceiving themselves if they claim to believe that all bishops have equal authority, for they obey and trust their Anglican bishop over the bishop of Rome. "No man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other."

Is schism ever justified?

For a Catholic, schism is always a sin. We may never separate ourselves from the Body of Christ. (Protestants who appeal to the dispute between St. Paul and St. Barnabas as a justification for schism are, from the Catholic point of view, falsely interpreting that account, mistaking a difference in mission as a difference in communion.) To separate ourselves from the Body of Christ is to separate ourselves from Christ. When the Church excommunicates a heretic, the Church is not committing schism, or placing herself in schism. The person being excommunicated, by his rebellion and obstinacy, is separating himself from the Church. Excommunication formally acknowledges this separation and implements the changes in sacramental practice viz-a-viz that person that must accompany his sinful actions.

In the opinion of some non-Catholics, however, being in schism is justified when the Church has fallen into heresy. Notice that this non-Catholic claim about the occasion when schism is justified assumes (contrary to the teaching of the fathers) that there is no See that is both (1) protected from heresy in its ex cathedra teachings and (2) is the rock upon which the Church is built, i.e. is that See with which we must be in communion in order not to be in schism. So, for example, according to this non-Catholic opinion, if I think the rest of the Church has fallen into heresy, then, ceteris paribus, I do no wrong by cutting myself off from the rest of the Church. But why then call it schism? Why not simply say in that case: "I and all who presently agree with me are the Church; those in heresy are not the Church; schism is always wrong, and I am not in schism since I and all who presently agree with me are the entirety of the Church."

This non-Catholic opinion therefore has a problem. It simultaneously treats heresy as insufficient to place its proponents outside of the Church (for we do not say that we are in schism with pagans, and yet this non-Catholic position claims that we are justified in making a schism from heretics), and yet sufficient to justify placing oneself out of communion with them. If heresy places those who hold it outside the Church, then it is impossible to be in schism from heretics unless we are also in schism from pagans. But if heresy does not place its holders outside the Church, then we are not justified in making a schism from them, for we are not justified in dividing the Body of Christ.

The Catholic position does not have this problem because we do not claim to be in schism from anyone, nor do we claim that schism can ever be justified. From the Catholic point of view, where there are schisms, they are schisms from (i.e. separations from, not separations by) the Holy See, or from those in communion with the Holy See. (see CCC #2089) This follows from St. Peter's role as the Church's principium unitatis.

I raise this issue because I believe that we cannot understand true unity without understanding what schism is. And we cannot attain true unity if we do not understand true unity. That is why I believe that we need to understand what schism is in order to attain true unity.

George Weigel on Cardinal Kasper on the State of Ecumenicism

The article is here. Weigel notes that the success in present-day Catholic-Protestant ecumenical dialogue is primarily among those who are holding/seeking orthodoxy. Ecumenicism is least successful when the two parties at the dialogue table are orthodoxy on the one hand, and theological liberalism on the other. That fits with what I wrote in May of last year concerning the eschatological unification of the City of Man, and the eschatological unification of the City of God (obviously drawing from St. Augustine's City of God). Those two unifications are simultaneously a deepening separation of the two cities from each other.

Church and Jesus Are Inseparable, Says Pope Benedict

The article is here (General Audience, March 15, 2006). Why does this matter? Recently I had a conversation with a Protestant about Catholicism and the unity of the Church. She said, "I am not a member of any church. I have Jesus, and that's all that matters." I asked her why she attended church weekly. She replied, "Because we are not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together", referring to Hebrews 10:25. Notice the voluntaristic (i.e. stipulative) conception of that verse in relation to the rest of Scripture and theology. For her, if that verse were not in the Bible, we would not need to "go to church" at all. When I pointed out that Christ said "I will build my Church", she replied that Christ's Church is simply all those who have Jesus. She told me that she knows (by an internal witness in her spirit) that she has Jesus, and therefore that she is in Christ's Church. In her view, any institution is a man-made thing; God looks at the heart, not at whether we are a member of some institution.

This person means well, and is believing according to the best that she knows. But hers is a gnostic conception of the Church. It conceptually de-materializes the Church per se and treats the unity of the Church as something entirely formal, spiritual and immaterial. Conceiving of the Church in this gnostic way is similar to conceiving of marriage as an entirely spiritual union, whereas in fact marriage involves both spiritual and material union, because we are beings consisting both of matter and spirit.

In dialoguing with a person who holds a gnostic conception of the Church, we have to show that Christ founded a visible Church. We can do this by showing that schism is impossible if the Church is not visible, and yet schism is clearly forbidden in Scripture -- cf. 1 Corinthians 1:10. Scripture also enjoins unity among Christians; that would be nonsensical if ecclesial unity were complete merely by all Christians being Christian. (Those holding a gnostic conception of the Church typically have no conception of schism, or any way of showing whether they are or are not in schism.) We can also point to Scripture passages that show the importance of church discipline (e.g. St. Matthew 18:15ff), and obedience to ecclesial authority (e.g. Hebrews 13:17). Those two things do not fit into the gnostic conception of the Church. We can also show that the Church is a living body, and that bodies are material, not invisible. In addition, I think it is helpful to contrast Christianity with gnosticism in general, as I have tried to do here.

Once we have shown that Christ founded a visible Church, then it follows that this visible Church exists today, for Christ has promised to be with her always, even to the end of time, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against her. There must therefore be material continuity between the visible Church today and the Apostles – this is one of the four marks of the Church: 'apostolic', as in "We believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church". The gnostic (de-materialized) conception of apostolicity reduces apostolicity to something entirely formal, i.e. agreement with [one's own best judgment of] the Apostles' doctrine, as I have argued here and here and here. But the same reasons we used to refute gnosticism's de-materializing of the Church also show that apostolicity is through a material succession, that is, through a passing on of authority through the laying on of hands (notice the *matter* involved in that act). Because we are material beings, we need the material component of sacramental succession in order to be one Body. Otherwise, we could be united only around doctrines and practices, and wherever there were disagreements concerning doctrine or practice, nothing would hold the Body together. People would separate and follow whomever they thought was teaching the doctrine and practice that they believed to be best. And such fragmentation is precisely what we see in the historical outworking of Protestantism, where since the sixteenth century apostolicity has been conceptualized in this gnostic (de-materialized) manner.

There is only one institution that was founded by the incarnate Christ through His Apostles. None of the Protestant institutions is even a candidate, because they were all founded at least 1500 years later. Lutheranism was founded by Martin Luther in 1520. Presbyterianism was founded by John Knox in 1560; the Presbyterian Church in America was founded in 1973. The Baptists were founded by John Smyth around 1600. The Assemblies of God was founded early in the 20th century. These institutions were all indeed founded by mere men, and it is not by joining such an institution that one is incorporated into the visible Church. Only one institution was founded by the God-man. It is that institution to which we must be joined in order to be incorporated into the Church which Christ founded. When someone asks you to join their Protestant denomination, ask them if it is the one the incarnate Christ founded through His Apostles. Either they must embrace gnosticism (i.e. Christ founded an invisible Church), or they must reject all those institutions founded by mere men at least 1500 years after Christ.

Those persons who agree that Christ founded a visible Church, but deny that any present institution is it, are by that denial saying that the Church which Christ founded ceased to exist, and that Christ's promise regarding the indefectibility of the Church was false. Those persons who agree that Christ founded a visible Church, but deny that apostolicity is through sacramental succession from the Apostles, have not fully removed the gnosticism of early Protestantism from their theology.

If Christ did not found a visible Church, then it is trivially true that Christ and the Church are inseparable, for in that case what it means to be in the Church is simply to have Christ. So of course Christ and the Church are inseparable. When we come to understand that Christ founded a visible Church, and that to be joined to that Church is to have Christ, and to be cast out of that Church is to be cast away from Christ (cf. Matt 16:19, 18:18, John 20:23), then we see that the gnostic conception of the Church is not only false, it is deadly. It is no trivial or insignificant matter to be outside the ark when the floods come, and the ark, as we know, is a type of the Church. It is not enough to "know Jesus in one's heart", to think of Him as one's "Lord", to prophesy in His name, to drive out demons and perform many miracles. (cf. Matthew 7:22)

Jesus condemns gnosticism's de-materialized conception of salvation when He says, "Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5), and "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved." (Mark 16:16) "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves." (John 6:53) St. Peter likewise crushes gnosticism when he says, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38), and again, "baptism now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21). St. Paul likewise crushes gnosticism when he tells us that Christ cleansed the Church "by the washing of water with the word" (Eph 5:25) And Ananias speaks the same when he says, "Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." (Acts 22:16)

In each case, salvation is tied directly to matter. Where do we get this saving matter? From the Church, in the sacraments. There we find the water of life (i.e. baptism) and the Bread of life (i.e. Eucharist). This is what the Church fathers meant when they taught that "He cannot have God for his Father who does not have the Church for his Mother". And a mere invisible Church was not what they had in mind in those words; the notion that Christ founded an invisible Church was for them an expression of the gnostic heresy. And gnosticism to this day remains the principal heresy.

The gnosticism that denies that Christ founded a visible Church is a heresy. So is the gnosticism that denies that any existing institution is the Church which Christ founded, and claims rather that the visible Church is merely the plurality of believers and their children. Avoiding heresy is not as easy as using the right terms. Conceiving of the Church as invisible and non-institutional, while referring to it as visible, is simply gnosticism conjoined with semantic and conceptual confusion. Those who explicitly deny that Christ founded a visible Church are in a much better position to discover their gnosticism than are those who wrap up their gnosticism in sacramental (non-gnostic) language. May Christ, in this Epiphanytide, lead us to understand the full implications of His incarnation, His taking into His very being flesh from the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. That is the antidote to gnosticism's rejection of matter's salvific role, and gnosticism's intrinsic incompatibility with full visible ecclesial unity.

Octave for the Unity of the Church

The Octave (i.e. eight days) for the Unity of the Church is coming soon. It begins on the [old day of the] feast of the Chair of St. Peter (January 18) and continues through the feast of the conversion of St. Paul (January 25). This year is the one hundredth anniversary of the Octave for the Unity of the Church. Prayers for each of the days of the Octave can be found here. This is a good time to prepare for the Octave. Consider fasting (in some respect) during the Octave and devoting more time each day of the Octave to pray for the unity of the Church. If you wish to pray a novena in preparation for the Octave, begin the novena on Wednesday, January 9. This is also a good time to speak with your priest/pastor to make sure that your parish/church offers prayers for the unity of the Church during the Octave. This year's theme is "Pray without ceasing". And prayer must be the foundation for our labors to unite all Christians in accordance with the sacred heart of Jesus, as revealed in His most self-disclosing prayer of St. John 17. We know that "Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain." (Psalm 127:1) And the Church is the household of God. (1 Timothy 3:15) Let us implore the Lord to help us bring unity to His people. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." (St. Matthew 5:9)

To bring peace to God's people, we must pursue and receive within ourselves Christ's peace, for we cannot give what we do not have. If our hearts are in turmoil and we are at war within ourselves, we should first seek the peace of Christ, which is a supernatural gift of grace. (Philippians 4:7) Only then can we truly be peacemakers (St. Matthew 7:3-5). We should seek to be reconciled to God, and to His Church. Those two reconciliations go together. Once reconciled, we are admonished with St. Peter (in ecclesial union with him) to return and strengthen our brothers (St. Luke 22:32), for only those who have strength can give strength, and only those who need strength should be strengthened. And so the peace-making responsibility rests most heavily on those who have obtained peace, for from those who have been given much, much is required (St. Luke 12:48). But may we all diligently pursue Christ's peace, being thereby reconciled to God, to each other and to ourselves. Christ desires to give us His peace, for He said to His Apostles: "Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you." (St. John 14:27) To share in His peace is to share in the Life of the Blessed Trinity, for He Himself is our peace (Ephesians 2:14). To pursue Christ is therefore (as an implication) to pursue peace with all men. (Hebrews 12:14). St. Peter enjoins us to seek peace and pursue it. (St. Peter 3:11), and St. Paul enjoins us to pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. (Romans 14:19) It is our obligation and privilege to participate in the reconciliation of God's people, in the making of peace in the body of Christ, for the glory of His name and for the sake of the effectiveness of the gospel in the world. (St. John 17:23)

One year blog birthday

Today is the one-year birthday of this blog. May the Lord continue to eliminate all schisms, and bring His bride into perfect unity.

Britain has become a 'Catholic country'

According to this article in the Telegraph, there are now more practicing Catholics in Britain than practicing Anglicans. That follows yesterday's news of Tony Blair's conversion to Catholicism. From a Catholic point of view, it is not entirely surprising that Anglicanism is in decline. In 1896 Pope Leo XIII ruled in Apostolicae Curae that "ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void". Any organization lacking valid orders must eventually collapse. Those who reject Apostolicae Curae to become or remain Anglican are implicitly determining that the [Anglican] Archbishop of Canterbury (or whichever Anglican bishop in Africa under whom they have placed themselves) has more authority than the episcopal successor of St. Peter. One of the factors leading me out of Anglicanism was that I could not justify the claim that some Anglican bishop has more authority than the bishop of Rome.