"Let unity, the greatest good of all goods, be your preoccupation." - St. Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to St. Polycarp)
In the liturgical calendar, today is the feast day of the Annunciation of the Lord (Luke 1:26-38), when the angel Gabriel delivered the message to the virgin Mary at Nazareth, and she replied "be it done to me according to your word", and she conceived by the Holy Spirit. Today we celebrate Christ taking on our human nature.
Since this feast has to do with the virgin Mary, it seems like an appropriate time to offer some aid in understanding the Church's Marian dogmas. In January I mentioned that the Marian dogmas are one of the stumbling blocks to unity. Br. Jim Brent O.P., Ph.D., a friend whose dissertation defense I attended recently, wrote a very accessible paper explaining the basis for the Marian dogmas. That paper can be found here.
Regarding the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, I addressed a related question last year regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary here. And Dr. Pitre recently offered some thoughts on this particular doctrine here in relation to chapter 30 of the book of Numbers. The encyclical Sacra Virginitas is also helpful in coming to understand the Church's general conception of consecrated virginity.
I highly recommend Dr. Rob Koons' interview with Marcus Grodi on "The Journey Home". I watched it tonight, and it was excellent. Encore showings are at 1 AM and 10 AM on Tuesday (April 1), at 1 PM on Wednesday (April 2), and 11 PM on Saturday (April 5). Those times are all Eastern Time.
In January of this year, I wrote this post about the notion that Christ founded an invisible Church. What I say here presupposes familiarity with that post.
Some Protestants affirm that Christ founded a visible Church. The problem for their position, however, is that it is entirely indistinguishable from (and therefore identical to) the position that "the Church is invisible but some of its members [i.e. the presently embodied ones] are visible". Even those Protestants who explicitly affirm that the Church is invisible recognize that some of its members are visible. In this way, therefore, those Protestants who affirm that Christ founded a visible Church are affirming a position that is identical to that of those who affirm that Christ founded an invisible Church. The Protestants claiming that Christ founded a visible Church have simply shifted the word "visible" to modify the word 'Church', but the position itself is exactly the same. That is why I wrote in January: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.
Sometimes the Protestants who claim that Christ founded a visible Church will respond to this objection by claiming that it is the assembly that is visible, not merely the embodied believers. But this answer merely pushes back the problem, in two ways. First, there are, they will admit, multiple assemblies. And yet, they claim, there is one visible Church. So one problem for their position is that it is indistinguishable from the position that "the Church is invisible but its assemblies are visible". Thus either they have no justification for claiming that Christ founded a visible Church, since there is in actuality only a plurality of assemblies, or the visible Church that Christ founded is only the original particular assembly, say, in Jerusalem.Second, this position faces the following trilemma. The first horn of the trilemma results if the assembly is not an actual entity. If the assembly is not an actual entity, then the assembly cannot be visible, for what is not actual cannot be visible. Therefore, if the assembly is not an actual entity, then the Church per se is not visible. Now consider the second and third horns of the trilemma. If the assembly is an actual entity, then either it ceases to exist as soon as the believers disperse to their homes after the service is over, or not. If the latter, then nothing distinguishes an assembly from a mere plurality, and I have already explained here why treating a mere plurality as an actual entity commits what A.N. Whitehead rightly called the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness". But if an assembly comes into existence when the believers come together, and ceases to exist as soon as the believers disperse, then each Sunday, in the same building, a new visible Church comes into existence, and thus the visible Church is not the Church that Christ founded.At this point the Protestant might wonder why the Catholic is not faced with these very same problems. The Catholic is not faced with these problems because for Catholics the visible Church is essentially unified (and thus preserved in being) not by its members being in close spatial proximity to one another, but by a hierarchy of persons: priests to a bishop, and bishops to a head bishop. St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107 AD) wrote: "Where the bishop is, there is the Church". For Catholics what makes the Church per se visible is not that it has visible members, but that it has a visible hierarchy. The Church is unified not like a heap of stones, which goes out of existence whenever the heap is dispersed, but as a living organic body, with a visible head. So long as the members are in communion with the visible head, they form one body, because the visible head is one. (If there were two visible heads, then there would be two bodies, for we cannot serve two [equal] masters – see here.) The major problem for the Protestant position here is that it is impossible to have the organic unity of a living body without a hierarchy and a unified visible head. Dwight Longenecker writes:
As a Protestant I was taught that the Church was invisible. That is, it consisted of all people everywhere who believed in Jesus, and that the true members of the Church were known to God alone. This is true, but there is more to it than that. Invisibility and visibility make up the fifth paired set of characteristics that mark the truly authoritative church.
The Church is made up of all people everywhere who trust in Christ. However, this characteristic alone is not satisfactory because human beings locked in the visible plane of reality also demand that the Church be visible. Even those who believe only in the invisible church belong to a particular church which they attend every Sunday. Those who believe only in the invisible church must conclude that the church they go to doesn’t really matter.
And that is often exactly what many Protestants do say (see here); such people are being consistent. What I am pointing out here in this post is that there is no middle position. There is no middle position between being Catholic, and believing that the Church per se is invisible.
Resurrection (1463-65)
Piero della Francesca
Last night at the Easter Vigil at the Saint Louis Cathedral Basilica I had the privilege of being a sponsor for a candidate who was received into full communion with the Church, received the sacrament of Confirmation, and received first Holy Communion. (Some photos here.) All the words I have typed on this blog feel like straw compared to the joy of that moment last night. Congratulations Edward!
I also want to congratulate and rejoice with my friend Eric, who was baptized last night and, together with his wife, received into the Church. I also want to congratulate Courtney Wegener, who was also received into full communion with the Church last night, in Hillsdale, Michigan.
There is no substitute for full communion. Let us continue to pray diligently that all those who believe in Christ would be joined in full communion with His Church.
The problem underlying presuppositionalism is primarily philosophical, that is, the root of presuppositionalism's error lies in the domain of philosophy. Presuppositionalism is a form of fideism that is based on philosophical skepticism, a skepticism that can be traced back through Kant to Descartes. Presuppositionalists generally believe that theological assumptions or presuppositions are loaded into the epistemological foundation of every 'worldview' [i.e. philosophy]. Since they also believe that every worldview built on false presuppositions is a false worldview, and that Christianity is the only true religion, therefore, they conclude that only the worldview (i.e. philosophy) built on Christian presuppositions is true or reliable.
The error is located in the very first premise, i.e. in the notion that theological assumptions or presuppositions lie behind every claim or position or theory or philosophy. Why do they think that? In order to understand why, we need to consider a distinction made by Aristotle. Aristotle pointed out that for humans, the order of being and the order of knowing are not the same, but are opposite. We are animals. As animals, we start (in the order of knowing) with sense knowledge, with what is closest to the senses. Gradually we penetrate more deeply into the being of things, with greater abstractive power. Eventually, if we think deeply and carefully enough, we may arrive at the idea of being qua being, and even Being per se. But the order of Being is exactly the opposite from the order of [human] knowing. Everything comes ultimately from God; He is thus first in the order of being. What is most proximate to the senses is not first in the order of being, just as accidents are not prior (in the order of being) to substances. God is first in the order of being, but last in the order of natural [human] knowing.
Now, fast-forward to Descartes. Descartes tosses out all sense knowledge, and tries to start with an epistemically certain foundation, the cogito. But what about that evil demon? Descartes has to deal with the evil demon possibility by immediately positing a good God. So God comes in right away (epistemologically). For Descartes, in order to know anything about the world, one has to make a theological assumption. That is early presuppositionalism. For Descartes, the order of knowing is made the same as the order of being. (This is no accident, because Descartes in his philosophical anthropology is guilty of what Maritain calls "angelism", disregarding our humanity, and 'raising' us to the status of angels, where in fact the order of being and the order of knowing is much more aligned.) Presuppositionalists (for the same reason as Descartes) mistake the order of being (or the order of authority) for the order of knowing. They think that the order of knowing must be the same as the order of being (or the order of authority), when in fact it is our materiality that requires the two orders to be the opposite.
For the Calvinists, reason is fallen; it is totally depraved. Therefore, reason must build on no other foundation than the Scriptures. Calvinist presuppositionalists replaced Descartes's positing of a good God with the presupposition of the truth and authority of God's Word (i.e. the Bible), or with Christianity. Their claim that Christianity (or the Bible) must be presupposed as the foundation for all other knowledge, is itself based (not on the Bible, ironically) on Cartesian skepticism regarding the reliability of our senses and reason and intellect.
I have had Calvinistic presuppositionalists tell me the following:
"You cannot even call the experience of your senses knowledge without making theological assumptions."
Notice the [Cartesian] skepticism presupposed in that claim. Here was my response to a fellow who made that claim to me:
"This is fideism built on [philosophical] skepticism. The problem with this position is that if one cannot trust one's senses without first making theological assumptions, then one has no non-arbitrary grounds to trust one's reason without making theological assumptions. Then since one cannot trust one's senses and reason, one has no way of knowing which theological assumptions to make, whether such assumptions are true, and therefore whether such assumptions actually shore up one's senses and reason. One cannot appeal to Scripture (or anything else in the world) to acquire these theological assumptions, because one cannot trust one's senses to perceive Scripture or one's reason to interpret Scripture. Therefore, once one digs a skeptical hole, there is no boot-strapping one's way out of it, apart from a purely fideistic leap, [or from reversing the process by which one dug the skeptical hole]. Fideistic leaps can go in any direction (e.g. Allah, Buddha, Krishna, Gaia, Elvis, atheism, polytheism, pantheism, etc.). Fideism is the great equalizer. Given fideism, no leap is any better or worse than any other leap. The evaluative faculty (i.e. reason) has been stripped away by skepticism."
Another presuppositionalist claimed that "all positions start with equally unprovable assumptions and suppositions." Such a claim is a form of skepticism. It entails (though it itself could not acknowledge this) that nothing can be known at all. It entails that positions cannot even be tested on the grounds of coherence, since even the principles of logic are just assumptions and suppositions.
Presuppositionalism is especially attractive to those who either deny that philosophical knowledge is possible, and/or are ignorant of the possibility of philosophical knowledge. I've heard presuppositionalists say something like this: "Since every position starts with mere assumptions and presuppositions, you might as well build on the foundation of the Word of God." Other times they say that starting with any other foundation is idolatry, for it puts something other than God at the foundation. Notice there the mistake of failing to distinguish between the order of being and the order of knowing, and thus assuming that what comes first in the order of knowing is first in the order of being/authority. By claiming that they start with Scripture, presuppositionalists make themselves highly susceptible to being unaware of the presuppositions that they bring to Scripture. If you are explicitly claiming to start with Scripture, you cannot allow yourself to believe or recognize that you are actually starting with something that you are bringing to Scripture.
Often presuppositionalists mistakenly assume that what is highest in authority must be epistemologically foundational, as if the two are the same. That is why they insist you start with the Bible, not with sense knowledge and reasoning. (Of course, they are glossing over the problem of how we know that the Bible is the Word of God, and how we interpret the Bible, without presupposing the reliability of our sense knowledge and reason.) In actuality, the supreme authority of the Bible does not mean that all knowledge and reasoning must be built on the Bible. For example, we don't have to build our mathematics on the Bible (as some presuppositionalists claim). The supreme authority of the Bible means rather that we must strive to make all our knowledge in agreement with (i.e. compatible with) the teachings of the Bible.
Once sense knowledge and reason are knocked out (by skepticism), then the only kind of religious expression possible is some form of fideism. And that's precisely what presuppositionalism is. It is fideism, built on [Cartesian] skepticism. One way to show the problems with presuppositionalism to a presuppositionalist is to show its philosophical presuppositions, especially its skepticism. Presuppositionalists typically do not realize they have any presuppositions other than explicitly Christian ones. Presuppositionalism suffers from two irremediable contradictions: it starts with a presupposed foundation (e.g. Scripture) to which its own epistemic condition (e.g. skepticism) allows no access. (That is the first contradiction.) It then attempts to evaluate other 'worldviews' according to a standard found in its own (e.g. coherence), as if it were not fideistic (and thus relativistic) at its core. (That is the second contradiction.)
Presuppositionalists are typically highly suspicious of philosophy. See, for example, here. But true philosophy does not undermine the gospel, because truth cannot contradict truth.
When I was in seminary (Covenant Theological Seminary), at one point I naively believed that all doctrinal disagreements between Bible-believing Christians could be resolved (in principle) by exegesis. That was one of the reasons I worked very hard at exegesis, and at graduation received the American Bible Society Award for excellence in the field of Biblical exegesis. But it was already very clear to me not only that exegesis and interpretation are two distinct arts, but also that interpretation depends in large part on philosophical assumptions that one brings to the interpretive process. That is one of the reasons that I decided to continue my graduate studies in philosophy. If we do not realize that we are even bringing philosophical presuppositions to the interpretive process, we will not be getting to the fundamental causes of our interpretive disagreements. The first step for the presuppositionalist is to begin to realize that he is bringing philosophical assumptions to the interpretive process. Only then will he realize that he needs some way of evaluating these assumptions. (Claiming to evaluate them by way of Scripture simply ignores the fact that he would be using these assumptions to interpret Scripture, so the evaluation would be question-begging, and thus worthless.)
Here's an example from the "Joint Federal Vision Statement" of the tacit presupposition that we initially bring no philosophical assumptions to the interpretive process:
"We deny that the Bible can be rightly understood by any hermeneutical grid not derived from the Scriptures themselves."
If that statement is true, then either there is a missing exception clause for the first hermeneutical grid one uses to interpret Scripture (in which case the statement is ad hoc), OR the Bible cannot be rightly understood. (This is not a pedantic criticism; it is precisely this kind of sloppiness that makes it hard for presuppositionalists to see the inconsistency in their own position.)
Philosophical ignorance or error is another stumbling block to unity. What is more, it typically leads to debates that do not address the fundamental points of disagreement that divide us. So I pray that this post might be helpful in showing what is wrong with presuppositionalism, in order that this stumbling block might be removed from the path toward unity.
There are many stumbling blocks to unity. Here I will mention two. One is a deep distrust of the early church fathers. I have discussed it before under the description "ecclesial deism". I encountered this distrust of the fathers again recently in this comment, and in the comments in this thread. This distrust is a kind of negative or skeptical stance or attitude toward the fathers. Instead of reading and interpreting Scripture through the eyes of the fathers (i.e. through the perspective that they provide us -- see Pontificator's third law), a person who takes this distrusting attitude toward the fathers does something quite different; he subjects the teachings of the fathers to his own twenty-first century interpretation of Scripture, believing his own interpretation of Scripture to be neutral and objective. This distrustful attitude leads one who holds it to treat teachings of the fathers that he does not find in Scripture to be either corruptions of the gospel or additions to the gospel. He does not view them as developments of the gospel. That they are corruptions, and not developments, is assumed, not argued for. That is the paradigm in which he operates.
Implicit in this distrustful attitude toward the fathers are theological assumptions such as that Christ did not promise to protect the Church from doctrinal error, or did not keep this promise, or that if Christ did keep this promise, it applied to some unknown group (scattered or hidden) of Christians of which history has kept no record. All this too, comes out of a distrustful, skeptical attitude. In that attitude is an implicit theological separation between Christ and the Church, treating distrust of the Church as entirely distinct from distrust of Christ Himself. (I recently discussed here the error of theologically separating Christ and His Church.) It is for this reason that this distrusting stance is not fundamentally a doctrinal disagreement, although it has that as an implication. It is fundamentally a deficiency of faith. The heretics faced by the Church fathers attacked the Church in the very same way, by calling into question the reliability of the Church in preserving the deposit of faith entrusted once and for all to the Apostles. These heretics drew followers to themselves by planting doubt in the minds of others regarding the trustworthiness of the rightful successors of the Apostles. In actuality, the Church grows organically, like a tree. As I wrote here:
"When we think about the way a plant or animal grows, every movement is an unfolding of what was implicit in the previous stage. The organism cannot reject or throw out the fundamental moves it made in its earlier stages; it builds on them. It takes as a given what was laid down in all the previous stages, and continues the process of unfolding the full telos of the organism. That is the nature of organic development."
Because the Church is the Body of Christ, it develops as an organism. The organic conception of development provides an entirely different paradigm for viewing the fathers. In this (the Catholic paradigm) we understand our earliest stages through our intermediate stages. We do not try to reflect on our earliest stages from an abstract view from nowhere, or as if the intermediate stages were not organic developments of the earliest stages. We do not try to wipe the slate clean and start from scratch. Implicit in that is the ecclesial deism resulting from a deficiency in faith. Each successive stage helps us better understand what was implicit in the previous stages. Development further unveils the organism and unfurls the blossom, and allows us retrospectively then to see it more clearly and accurately in its earlier stages when its fullness is still in potentia. This is an implication of the head of the household bringing out of his treasure "things new and old". (Matthew 13:52). They are new, in that they are now explicit; they are old, in that they have been there implicitly from the beginning.
A difficulty for the distrusting stance toward the fathers is that even the New Testament canon is then subject to skepticism, for if the Church was corrupted at such an early period, then there is no ground for trusting that the NT canon is reliable. Some persons taking this distrustful stance attempt to get around this problem either by stipulating the canon or by claiming that the canon is self-attesting or by claiming that the canon is attested by the inward work of the Holy Spirit. All three options, however, are intrinsically individualistic; they make the contemporary individual the authority, not the Church fathers. When a person rejects the notion that Christ promised to protect the Church, guide her into all truth, not to let the gates of hell prevail against her, and to be with her until the end of the age, i.e. when a person rejects the notion that the Church grows organically like a tree, then anything goes. Ironically, even absolute novelties then become acceptable, as with James Jordan's notion that apostolic succession is reduced to baptism. The fathers clearly taught that apostolic succession concerns ordination, as I have showed here. The fathers do not teach anywhere that baptism gives us the charism that is given in ordination. By approaching the fathers as our fathers in the faith, to whom we owe filial piety and respect (a moral principle so fundamental that it is explicit in the Ten Commandments), we are able to see the Church as an organic development through time. And the notion of the organic development of the Church allows us to distinguish development from novelty. (One criterion for heresy is novelty: "a heretic is one who either devises or follows false and new opinions" -- St. Augustine.)
A second stumbling block for unity is the Marian doctrines. I recently discussed Mary as the "Queen of Peace" with respect to Church unity. I'm coming to believe more and more that typically underlying the stumbling block of the Marian doctrines is Christological confusion if not Christological error. It is not an accident that Mary's title as Theotokos was authoritatively defined in a General Council (Ephesus 431) that focused on Christology, and particularly on the heresy of Nestorianism. Mary's uniqueness rests on an orthodox understanding of the incarnation, as I discussed recently here. The more we understand why Nestorianism is false, the greater will be our capacity to recognize the truth of the Marian doctrines. This requires that our dispositional stance toward the Councils is one of openness, humility, and receptivity. It is generally those who distrust the Councils and the fathers (or who are unaware of them) who stumble over the Marian doctrines, and that is no accident. The attitude of faith is rewarded: "For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened." (Matthew 7:8) "For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him." (Matthew 13:12; 25:29) Those who approach the fathers and the Councils with distrust and skepticism, even what they have shall be taken away, for "As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. (John 15:4) We need the stem and the roots of this vine which is the Body of Christ, and which extends through time to the incarnate Christ Himself. We have to come to Christ (and to the Church) like a child, with a childlike faith. If we come to the Church with a list of demands, or with a critical, skeptical, distrustful stance, we lack faith. "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3-4)
Lord Jesus, please remove those stumbling blocks that stand in the way of the reunion of all Christians in full visible unity. Please give to us a childlike faith that is humble and receptive to You and your Church. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Today is the feast day of St. Thomas Aquinas (1224/5-1274), the greatest Catholic philosopher and theologian in the history of the Church. He is also one of the Doctors of the Church, being called the Angelicus Doctor, i.e. the Angelic Doctor. (He is also my patron saint.) In the old calendar, his feast was on March 7, the day of his death. January 28 celebrates the day his relics were moved to the Dominican church at Toulouse in 1369. A moving account of his death can be read here.
In a previous post I quoted from Aquinas concerning the difference between faith and individualism. Here I wish to comment briefly on Aquinas's understanding of the nature of unity, and apply it to the Church. Aquinas was well-studied in the works of previous philosophers on the subject of unity. He drew deeply, for instance, from Aristotle's arguments in the Metaphysics (Bk 4.2 and Bk 10). There Aristotle shows the relation of unity and being, and the different kinds and degrees of unity. In his Summa Theologica, Aquinas explains the relation of unity and being:"One" does not add any reality to "being"; but is only a negation of division; for "one" means undivided "being." This is the very reason why "one" is the same as "being." Now every being is either simple or compound. But what is simple is undivided, both actually and potentially. Whereas what is compound, has not being whilst its parts are divided, but after they make up and compose it. Hence it is manifest that the being of anything consists in undivision; and hence it is that everything guards its unity as it guards its being.
If we understand the relation of being and unity, we recognize that insofar as a thing loses unity, it loses being, and insofar as a thing gains unity, a thing gains being. This is why, for example, a house divided against itself cannot stand (St. Matthew 12:25; St. Luke 11:17). Jesus says this in the context of defending His casting out of demons, as we hear in today's gospel reading. One way of building up the Church, and thus giving it greater being or presence in the world, is to strengthen or increase its unity.
In the revelation of Jesus, we learn that God is love (1 John 4:8). And in this way we understand that love and unity are interconnected, as I discussed recently here and here. Love, within the one God in three Persons of the Blessed Trinity, is the greatest form of unity. Aquinas thus treated the sins of discord, contention, and schism as sins against charity. In relation to schism, Aquinas discusses the role of the pope in authoritatively determining the articles of faith, i.e. doctrine. Aquinas writes:
Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, "to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred," as stated in the Decretals [Dist. xvii, Can. 5. Hence our Lord said to Peter whom he made Sovereign Pontiff (Luke 22:32): "I have prayed for thee," Peter, "that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." The reason of this is that there should be but one faith of the whole Church, according to 1 Corinthians 1:10: "That you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you": and this could not be secured unless any question of faith that may arise be decided by him who presides over the whole Church, so that the whole Church may hold firmly to his decision. Consequently it belongs to the sole authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to publish a new edition of the symbol, as do all other matters which concern the whole Church, such as to convoke a general council and so forth.
Here Aquinas shows from Scripture the significance of Christ's words to St. Peter, "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not." This verse signifies something not only about Peter, but about his office. Next Aquinas shows why Jesus prayed this prayer for Peter, so that there should be but one faith of the whole Church. In other words, since we know whose faith will not fail, we know who to look to in determining what and where is the true faith. In this way, we can avoid and overcome schisms.
St. Thomas Aquinas, please pray for us, for the reconstitution of the full and visible unity of all Christ's followers. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Today is the last day of the Church Unity Octave. Today is also the feast of the conversion of St. Paul the Apostle. The conversion of St. Paul shows us that God is capable of turning opposing hearts toward Him in truth. After his conversion, St. Paul worked harder than all of them, though it was the grace of God working in him. (1 Corinthians 15:10) May our Lord Jesus raise up such figures today, to bring unity to all His followers.
Pope Benedict gave an address on Wednesday titled: On Christian Unity.
He closed this week of prayer for Church unity by speaking of the history of the advance of ecumenicism (Benedict XVI: Ecumenical Cause Is Advancing), and pointing to the role that prayer has played in that advance (Pope Says Prayer Got Ecumenical Wheels Turning).
May the Lord unite all His people, in true unity. With God all things are possible.
Today is the feast day of St. Francis de Sales, bishop of Geneva and Doctor of the Church. He lived from 1567-1622. The bust at right is located on the west side of the St. Louis Cathedral Basilica. My wife took this photo late last year.
Two of his books have been very edifying to me. One is his Introduction to the Devout Life. The other is now published under the title: The Catholic Controversy: St. Francis de Sales' Defense of the Faith.
The latter book was written in the form of pamphlets to the Calvinists of the Chablais region of France, south of Geneva. He did not originally intend to write these pamphlets. As he went from house to house to talk with the Calvinists, they repeatedly refused to talk with him or even listen to him. So he started writing the pamphlets, and distributed them under doors in the villages and towns. 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.
One of the most 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, from the Father, through the Son, through the Apostles, and through the bishops. Only those sent by the Apostles should be received by Christians, and thus only those sent by the bishops sent by the Apostles should be received by the Christians. We should not follow those who are self-sent, or self-appointed, for they are not authorized by Christ to shepherd the Lord's sheep. Anyone can claim to be authorized, but only those who have been appointed by those whom the Apostles sent are actually authorized. In this way the unity of the Church flows directly from the unity of Christ Himself; just as an organism grows, 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)
Recently I wrote, "I think there are two fundamentally different ways of trying to find the Church. One compares form, the other traces matter. As far as I can tell, one of those two ways must take priority." Comparing form (i.e. comparing one's own interpretation of Scripture to the various denominations' statements of faith, and finding the closest fit) is a method that is intrinsically disposed to disunity. The divisions that arise by way of that method are interminable if sought to be removed by that method. That is because the method itself is a large part of the cause of the division. The method carries with it an implicit assumption that there is no authoritative interpretation, no magisterium. That is the significance of this statement by Tertullian and this statement by St. Vincent of Lerins. When the Apostles were alive, their interpretation of their own writings was the authoritative interpretation. And from the first generation after the Apostles, the Church has always believed that the authoritative interpretation belonged to those whom the Apostles appointed (i.e. the bishops). The "compare form" way of finding the Church leaves out the matter; it de-materializes the Church. In that way, it de-materializes the 'joints' that connect each member to Christ the Head.
So if comparing form is not the way to find the Church, then what does it mean to "trace matter"? The sacramental successions, from bishop to bishop all the way back to the Apostles and through the Apostles to Christ, are the material 'joints' that connect us to Christ. That is why the unity of the Church (i.e. the Body) depends on finding and following only those bishops who have this succession, i.e. are connected by these joints all the way back to the Apostles. This is why recognizing the nature and importance of Apostolic succession is essential for ecumenical unity. Recently, in this conversation, a Protestant named John asked me the following question: "How do you identify the true church?" In reply I wrote something that I would write to any Protestant:
We identify the true Church by going back to Jesus. We know that Jesus founded a Church. Now the key is to keep your finger on that thing that Jesus founded, and move forward through history, century by century, until you reach the present day. Don't go quickly. Read the writings of the fathers of the first century, then the second century, and then third century, and then the fourth century, and then the fifth century. Now, whenever there is a schism, you have to determine which is the split off (at least in some respect), and which is the continuation of the Church that Christ founded. How did the fathers determine which is the continuation of the Church Christ founded, and which is the schism from that Church? Notice the roles of the Ecumenical Councils. Notice also the role of the Pope in the authority of the Ecumenical Councils. (I'm not trying to be patronizing in this paragraph -- I'm simply laying out how I think the true Church is to be found. I'd be interested in how you agree/disagree with that general methodology, and where in history our 'fingers' part ways, so to speak, and at that very point where our fingers part ways, why your finger goes away from mine.)
The only way, in my opinion, for all Christians to be reunited in one Body is to retrace our steps conceptually to the various points in history at which we came apart. Then we need to dialogue about the principled way by which, in every case in which there is a schism of some sort, we can determine which is the "schism from" the true Church, and which is the continuation of the true Church.
I stood in front of the bust (in the photo above) this morning before mass, and asked St. Francis to pray for us, that we might be made one in the truth, and in the love of the truth. May we have a double portion of his passion to reconcile all souls with Christ, by reconciling them with Christ's Body, the Church. Lord Jesus, we need Your help. We need You to help us to be truly united as You desire us to be. Help us Lord to find and unite to the true shepherds that You have appointed. And help us Lord to love our brothers and sisters in Christ, with such love that we seek out and hold on to true unity, and ward off all attacks against our unity. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Posts
