To Give a Defense
It did not take long. Nor did I suspect it might. Yesterday I predicted that it would not only be dissenters within the Church, but also dissenters outside the Church, who would be stirred to verbal hand-wringing over this homily by Pope Francis. The key sentence in the homily—the source of said hand-wringing—is this one: “[I]t is not possible to find Jesus outside the Church.” And lo! but a few hours after I made my prediction came this post from the familiar and prolific TurretinFan—the amazing, the undaunted Mr. X of Calvinism.
Herein, I want to look at four main points that Mr. X stresses in his response to Pope Francis, and hopefully give a counter-response that clarifies what I believe the pope to have had in mind; with this caveat lector, that I am not necessarily giving an infallible interpretation here—just my own personal understanding of what the pope was driving at.
i.
but that’s exclusivism!
Mr. X’s first point is to describe the statement as “exclusivistic,” and to contrast it with the “modern” [1], “inclusivistic” statements of—to cite the examples Mr. X gives—Cardinal Francis George and Cardinal George Pell. Cardinal George, as Mr. X quotes him, once had made a remark along the lines of Mormonism having a “common ground” in Jesus [2]. Cardinal Pell, similarly, spoke words suggesting a belief in what Mr. X would likely consider a kind of near-universalism, namely, “that hell may be empty or nearly empty” [3]. These statements, Mr. X believes, are at odds with what the pope has said about it being impossible to find Jesus anywhere except the Catholic Church.
The simplest response to the charge of exclusivism is to say, well, yes. For that is, indeed, the point: Christ founded one Church. I doubt that Mr. X is against exclusivism in its own right; Reformed believers are themselves quite “exclusivistic” when they get into discussions of who does or does not “have the Gospel.” Where the problem begins for the Reformed apologist is when Catholicism claims exclusivity. At that point, they cry foul. But they have no difficulty claiming it for themselves.
This point about exclusivity is, however, a bit more complicated and nuanced than Mr. X would want to have it. He speculates as much when he says—though the construction of the thought is crude—“I can’t predict whether this statement will be qualified to death, or not.” I find this to be a surprising speculation coming from a proponent of Calvinism, whose nuances are subtle enough to perplex a tax attorney. For Calvinists could, just as equally, be accused of “qualifying TULIP to death.” The Calvinist would—and, possibly, quite rightly—say that theology by nature is only properly understood through its nuances, and that a nuance is different than an ad mortem qualification.
Now, in terms of the context of the pope’s words, a homily seldom lends itself to the same subtleties and nuances that you might find in an encyclical letter, or the Institutes of Elenctic Theology. The situation might be somewhat different in a Reformed church, where expository preaching is the center of worship; but such is less frequently the case in the Catholic Church, where the sacrifice of the altar is the center of worship. In an attempt to lend some nuance to the pope’s words, here is what I wrote in my original blog post on the subject:
True ecumenism is not possible apart from the truth. … [Y]ou cannot forgo Christ’s purposes in favor of your own individual preferences or pet theologies.
What the pope is saying is something along these lines: You may talk a great deal about Jesus; you may admire Jesus; you may love and adore Jesus. But outside the Church, you haven’t found Jesus. This might sound like a subtle distinction, but it is important and it matters. Christ is present in His Church; Christ is present in the sacraments; He is present in the Eucharist. That is where all the action of grace is, and there alone is the soul at rest. …
You may talk about Christ until you’re blue in the face, but you do not know Him; you have not encountered Him; and your life is less than what He meant for it to be.
To unpack this a little further. An important distinction must be made between knowing about Jesus—even thinking highly of Him; even claiming Him as God; even understanding that the source of hope and salvation is in Him; even, indeed, rejoicing in Him—and having found Him. To find Jesus implies a more thorough union with him than mere knowledge or regard or even joy will supply you with. Thus what I take the pope to be saying is that union with Christ is to be found only in the Catholic Church.
That is a very different sort of statement altogether from what Cardinal George said, in the context of a discussion of religious liberty. Cardinal George merely acknowledged Mormons’ “common reference point” in Christ (not common “ground,” as Mr. X misquoted him). Cardinal George gave a mere bland, innocuous concession that Christ is in some sense the object of Mormon worship. And the pope’s words are a very different sort of statement from what Cardinal Pell said, in the context of a debate with Richard Dawkins. Cardinal Pell did nothing more than voice a personal wish that no one is in Hell; and I should hope any Christian would admit, that it is a grievous sin to wish that any certain person is in Hell. Who is in Hell, who is not, and how many, is a point on which there is no divine revelation; Cardinal Pell’s opinion on that question, whatever it may be—and he did not give his opinion, only his hope—is mere personal speculation, not Church dogma.
ii.
unpacking “separated brethren” for mr. x
Mr. X’s second point is to suggest that the conciliar, Vatican II concept of “separated brethren” does not quite square with the pope’s words. Saith Mr. X:
Are they “brethren” who are separated from Jesus? If so, in what sense are they brethren? Likewise, if people are potentially saved “outside the church,” then are they not saved through Jesus?
The answer to that question has to do with which word, “separated” or “brethren,” you think carries the sting. For Mr. X, the sting seems to be in the word “brethren.” As I explained in my earlier post, however, the sting is actually in “separated.”
Granted there is some theological nuance here, because the Church doesn’t say that non-Catholics necessarily won’t be saved. And that is absolutely true—though the key word here is “necessarily.” Complacency about this matter is very dangerous. If the Church talks about “invincible ignorance,” “invincible” is a pretty strict standard. [There is a careful line to be drawn beween “invincible” and “obstinate.”] And if the Church talks about “separated brethren,” “separated” is a pretty stark condition to be in.
To unpack again: What the “brethren” are separated from is the sacraments, which alone are where union with Christ (in this life) is to be had. Admittedly, that is a lesser form of union than will be experienced in the Beatific Vision; now we see through a glass, darkly (1 Cor. 13:12). But it is a greater form of union than can be encountered anywhere except the Catholic Church.
What the “separated brethren,” however, are not separated from (not necessarily) is eventual salvation in Christ. There are greater stumbling blocks and obstacles outside the Church than inside, but neither does this mean that there will be more Catholics than non-Catholics in Heaven. It means only that the Church is very careful to differentiate between what has been revealed by God and what is mere speculation. The personal identity of those who will be in Heaven, and those who will be in Hell (and how many), has not been revealed to us; that is the question that Cardinal Pell was speaking to. And we are forbidden (Matt. 7:1) to engage in any such speculation. So to say, “Jesus is found only within the Catholic Church, but those outside the Church are separated brethren and might still be saved by some means known only to God,” is just to make a very nuanced distinction between what is divine revelation and what is speculation.
To say that separated brethren—even though separated from having found Christ in the sense I’ve described—are nevertheless still “brethren,” is simply an acknowledgment that they believe, as Catholics do, that salvation is through Christ and no one else.
iii.
to love is not the same as to find
Mr. X’s third point is neither an observation nor a question, but a claim: “Our love of Christ should lead us to unity with the brethren in the”—note the plural—“churches.” On this, I would say that he—perhaps unwittingly—illustrates the very point I have been stressing throughout the present blog post. He speaks merely of the love of Christ; when he stresses unity, the object of the verb is not Christ but the brethren. But Pope Francis did not say, “It is not possible to love Jesus outside the Church”; he said, “It is not possible to find Jesus outside the Church.” There is a difference. I may love all kinds of things and never find them; I may, for example, love a woman but never experience marital union with her. That is an imperfect analogy, but it contains something of the meaning I have in mind.
I must also call attention to Mr. X’s use of the word “churches”—in the plural. That is not how Christ spoke. Christ spoke of building His Church, singular (Matt. 16:18). He never spoke of churches. Now, if you want to talk about exclusivity: That’s it.
iv.
Christ is not bound to a book
Finally, Mr. X’s concluding point is the standard sola scriptura meme: “Jesus is found in Scripture.” Herein lies one of the crucial distinctions between Protestantism and Catholicism: Protestants confine Jesus to a book. That is an exaggeration, but even in exaggeration there is truth. In the pages of Sacred Scripture there may indeed be found a great deal of knowledge about Jesus; by reading them, one may develop a great love for Jesus, and a firm understanding that He and no other is the source of our salvation. For as St. Jerome said, “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.” But the word “ignorance” is the opposite of knowledge, not the opposite of union. One does not find union with Christ in Sacred Scripture; union, necessarily, must be found in the Church, in the sacraments, through the life of faith. Only therein is the union with Christ that I believe Francis is talking about when he speaks of “finding Jesus.” One must occasionally close the book and go out to meet the man it is talking about.
It is important to point out, too, that neither may Jesus be found in encyclicals or catechisms or dogmatic definitions. No. He is to be found through the sacraments. Christ must be alive in our hearts, in the life of our faith, and not confined to the pages of a book. That, and that alone, is what is to be understood as “finding Christ”; that, and that alone, is the purpose for which Christ said—not that He would write His book, but that he would build His Church.
The word is singular.
endnotes
[1] I think that by “modern” Mr. X means only “contemporary” or “recent.” The word “modern” has a particular context in Roman Catholic theology, having to do with Pope St. Pius X’s condemnation of the heresy of modernism in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis. This is a big issue of contention between more traditionally-minded Catholics and the more liberal, “Spirit of Vatican II” Catholics. I doubt that this is the sense of the word that Mr. X has in mind.
[2] It’s important here to follow Mr. X’s reference back two steps to Cardinal George’s original statement, which was this: “Our churches [i.e., the Mormon and the Catholic] have different histories and systems of belief and practice, although we acknowledge a common reference point in the person and gospel of Jesus Christ.” To say that Christ is a “reference point” for Mormons is about as innocuous a statement as one can make; and one must remember that Cardinal George was speaking primarily to the subject of cooperation between Mormons and Catholics in defending religious liberty. Funny how a little context can cast a different light on a mere two quoted words–only one of which (“common”) was accurate in the first place. I am not exactly certain how Pope Francis’s words are at odds with the bland acknowledgment that Jesus is a “reference point” for Mormons.
[3] The quotation here is Mr. X’s paraphrase of Cardinal Pell; and, once more, if you take the time to trace the statement back a few steps to its original source, you’ll discover that it’s not what he said. Cardinal Pell did not say that he believes Hell will be “nearly empty.” What he actually said, during the QA period of a debate with Richard Dawkins, was: “I hope nobody’s in Hell” (~49:33). Such a statement of personal charity and love for all, on the part of Cardinal Pell, hardly amounts to a certain, theological declaration of Hell’s population, though that seems to be the conclusion Mr. X wants us to draw from his (sloppily inaccurate) paraphrase.
***
If you like the content on this blog, your generous gift to the author helps to keep it active. I remember all my supporters in my Mass intentions each week.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In