Who Is Subject to the King?
Recent issues of This Rock have noted that some Traditionalist Catholics are confused about Vatican II’s teachings with respect to the possibility of salvation for those who are not in visible communion with the Catholic Church. I thought that perhaps a convert’s perspective might be helpful.
When I was first contemplating entering the Church I was encouraged by a former seminary professor to read the book Revolution in Rome by Protestant theologian David Wells. Wells begins his book by noting that the Catholic Church has traditionally been considered the “Church that never changes,” at least in doctrine.
But, according to him, the Church did indeed change her doctrine at Vatican II. One of the prime examples he cites is the Council’s teaching on the possibility of salvation for those who are not in visible communion with the Church. Wells claimed that the bishops at Vatican II had introduced a brand new doctrine into the Church.
As I pondered this charge it seemed to me that the easiest way to test Wells’s claim was to go back and read thoroughly orthodox Catholic theologians who wrote prior to the Council to see what they said about this matter. I accessed Ludwig Ott, Cardinal James Gibbons, Cardinal John Henry Newman, and then went back further to Francis de Sales and Thomas Aquinas.
All of them affirmed quite matter-of-factly exactly what the Second Vatican Council affirmed, namely, that those who through invincible ignorance do not know the Catholic Church to be the one true Church can still be saved if they live fully in light of the truth they possess.
Then, as I pondered it a bit more, I realized that there were numerous ancient witnesses to this truth as well: Augustine in his controversy with the Donatists, Pope Stephen in his squabble with Cyprian over the rebaptism of heretics, Justin Martyr’s view that the ancient Greek philosophers were enlightened by grace. (An excellent source for ancient Christian testimony on this point is Fr. William Most’s book Catholic Apologetics Today.)
Couple this with the fact that the Bible says the same thing (Acts10:34-35, Rom. 2:26-29), and it became clear to me that, far from being innovative, the Vatican II had affirmed something that had always been part of authentic Catholic teaching.
But what about Pope Boniface VIII’s decree Unam Sanctum, in which he declared that “it is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff”? Is it possible to be implicitly subject to the pope? I thought of an analogy that helped me understand how these teachings mesh.
Suppose a king comes to possess a new territory. Those in the capital city all know that they are under a new sovereign, and because of their explicit knowledge they must make a definite choice to submit or rebel. But there might very well be those who live in isolated or remote parts of the realm who do not know that they fall under this jurisdiction.
Objectively they are certainly “subject” to the king, and yet subjectively they live as if they were not. Evaluation of their submission would have to be based on what they would do if they knew that they were under a new ruler. So it is with people who are outside visible communion with the Catholic Church.
It is a bit like “baptism of desire.” The Church has taught that those can be saved without water baptism who would be baptized if they knew of its necessity and had opportunity. So too with submitting to our Lord’s Vicar, the pope.
Objectively everyone falls under the care of the Vicar of Christ, but subjectively many do not know or acknowledge this, and the reasons for this are numerous: lack of information, misinformation, emotional and psychological blocks to hearing Catholic truth. Many non-Catholic Christians may be far out in the hinterlands as far as their genuine understanding of the Catholic Church is concerned.
It helped me to remember too that the Second Vatican C ouncil never said it was easy to be saved outside of the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church. Catholics are not universalists, although many Catholics ignorant of the actual Council documents tend to believe that this is the Church’s new position.
Our duty as Catholics is still to reach all men and women with the fullness of Catholic truth; in the meantime their ultimate destiny is in God’s hands, based on how fully they live up to the light they do have. On this point the bishops at Vatican II did nothing but make explicit and official what had always been taught in the Catholic Church.
David Palm
Waukegan, Illinois
“If/When” Consolation
Although the graces of the Catholic faith are vast, I sometimes lose sight of them when I feel the lack of support now offered by friends and family who question the intelligence or sanity of those who would willingly choose Catholicism over Protestantism.
We didn’t realize how important that support was until it was no longer there. Even worse, there is the constant drain of dealing with the legions of so-called “dissenting Catholics” — if there is such a thing — who do not understand why anyone would risk job, family, and friends to reach for it. Thank God for those apparent few who hold tenaciously to orthodox Christianity.
This Rock has been a wonderful help to us in that way. In it (if/when it arrives regularly) we read of others whose conversion stories are very similar to our own, and we remember that we aren’t alone; we aren’t the only ones going through this; we aren’t crazy after all — well, maybe not.
As with the lives of the saints, we are reminded that, although we may feel very alone, we are surrounded by millions who do, in fact, feel very much the same way as we do and have lived or died because of it. While it is always comforting to experience God’s presence in our daily lives, it is also comforting to be reminded that we have human companions on our journey of faith.
Seth and Tyra Murray
Beaverton, Oregon
Anachronism?
In the republication of “From the Kirk to the Catholic Church” (July/ August, September 1994), I truly believe that it was written fifty years ago, when I was in high school.
It reads: “Assuredly, such confusion, chaos, and contradiction in matters of religious belief must, to every Catholic, appear a perfect travesty of that Christianity founded by our divine Lord. He thinks of the tens of thousands of priests and the hundreds of millions of lay-folks in the bosom of the Catholic Church absolutely united in their religious tenets and submitting as one man to her authority in questions of faith and morals. . . .
“Such a thing as a priest presuming to pick and choose among the Church’s doctrines and yet being suffered to act and speak as a priest is a thing simply unthinkable.”
How different from the Church of today! Laity and priests disagreeing on birth control, abortion, celibacy for priests, women priests, Latin Mass, and the new one I just read about, sedevacantists. I think all Catholics will agree that the Pope is a lovable man worthy of respect, but they then proceed to pick and choose which side of the various issues they will be on.
Charles Gillespie
Phoenix, Arizona
Ingenious Interpreting
Greg Barnes, in his response (July/ August 1995) to David Palm’s article “Oral Tradition in the New Testament” (May 1995) seems to have missed the point entirely.
In failing to find explicit proof in the Bible, the adherents of sola scriptura fall back on the argument that it is at least implicitly taught by Christ and the apostles by their quoting Scripture as authoritative. This argument fails when Tradition can be shown to have been cited in a similar fashion.
Mr. Barnes says, “We ought not to assume that they got their information from tradition.” But Mr. Palm made no such assumption. He gave several references to sources of ancient traditions (Josephus, Book of Jubilees, 1Enoch, and patristic writings).
I think the main problem is that Mr. Barnes, like most Protestants, misunderstands what Tradition is, believing it to mean a separate body of doctrine apart form the Bible. This is false.
Tradition is a term applied to indicate the teachings of God that were handed down. These sacred teachings existed orally before they were written, as Mr. Barnes acknowledges. The Bible was formalized to support these pre-existing teachings, not to supersede them. The Bible is therefore duplicative of and harmonious with Tradition. It is the embodiment of Tradition, not the negation of it.
One thing the Bible alone does not have is an authoritative interpreter. That one is needed can be seen by showing that without it, as in Protestantism, a multitude of conflicting accounts of what is the true message develops. This is because it is not possible to put together any selection of words in which some ingenious person may not find a meaning not meant by the writer.
David Romero
Escondido, California
Claim Jumping
Mr. Barnes’s error is summarized in one paragraph of his letter: “Since any group can claim anything, a reliable witness other than the Church is needed here. The only possible witness is the Bible.”
“Any group can claim anything.” No doubt this is true, but any book can claim anything too. One may say that the Bible is not simply a book. Well, the Church is not simply a group.
Augustine said, “I would not have believed the gospel had not the Catholic Church told me.” If there is no living authority from Jesus Christ, how do we know that the Bible is the inspired Word of God? Anyone can write a book and therein claim it to be inspired. Furthermore, how do we know who is inspired?
Thomas Wells
Houston, Texas
Invertebrate Bishops?
Keating’s excellent article on the sedevacantist controversy (“‘Habemus Papam’?” July/August 1995) illustrates again that those who would separate themselves from the pope are doomed eventually to splinter off one from another exactly as the Protestants have done and continue to do.
Sadly, the ultra-traditionalists are motivated simply by pride. According to their mind-set, if a pope disagrees with their particular views, then it must be that he is not a real pope. What these people fail to realize is that their opinions are not guaranteed to be infallible. Instead of assenting to Church authority, which is Christ’s own teaching, they go far out on a limb and claim that there has been no pope since Pius XII. They deny Christ’s claim to be with his Church until the end of time.
As for the schismatics’ condemnation of the abuses since Vatican II, I heartily agree. Problems like the watering down of the liturgy and the dearth of basic catechetical knowledge among the baptized were not caused by the Council, but by the hands-off, make-no-waves, smile-for-the-camera attitude of many of our bishops. While people perish for lack of knowledge, some bishops occupy their time forming committees. It seems to me that the crisis in our Church has less to do with the absence of a pope than the the absence of many episcopal backbones.
Neil Donnelly
Lakewood, Ohio
It’s Not in Webster
I just received the September issue, and it couldn’t have come at a better time. I had just finished reading a chapter in John Armstrong’s Roman Catholicism the chapter by William Webster, who attacks the historicity of the papacy by making a statement that none of the early Church Fathers interpreted Matthew 16:18 as referring to Peter in regards to the title of “rock.”
I turned to the Faith of the Early Fathers by William Jurgens, but found little material to answer Webster. Your most recent “Fathers Know Best” column gave me more information than I had hoped for. Thank you for doing such good research.
Could you tell me where you found these citations? Is there a source other than Jurgens which is easy to use? Our university library has the Ante-Nicene Fathers and the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series, but they are not well indexed and the English is not as readable as Jurgens.
Edmund C. Scott
Boulder, Colorado
Editor’s reply: The credit for compiling our monthly “Fathers Know Best” column goes to staffer James Akin (not, as some might suspect, to Robert Young, Jane Wyatt, Eleanor Donahue, Billy Gray, or Lauren Chapin). James uses not just Jurgens, but the 38 volumes you refer to. True, their indexes are hardly serviceable. We have their text on CD-ROM (available from the Electronic Bible Society, 214- 407-WORD). The CD-ROM contains only the raw text, no index. James has produced an index for in-house use; it is not available for distribution. We hope eventually to offer the Fathers’ writings in a professionally-produced CD-ROM package.
Been There, Believed That
The difficulty most Protestants have with the crucifix (“Quick Questions,” September 1995) is not, of course, in the Crucifixion itself, but in Catholic teaching about how its fruits are applied. I speak as a one-time Protestant myself.
Most importantly, a crucifix at the altar is a reminder that the bloody Sacrifice of the cross is not merely a historical event. Rather, it is made present and re-presented to the Father in each unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass.
Likewise, a crucifix in the home or around the neck reminds us that our own salvation is not a one-time, completed event at the recitation of the “sinner’s prayer.” Rather, it must be worked out daily in acts of self-sacrifice and love, after the example of Christ crucified.
Joseph P. Simon
Walker Michigan
What the Heck!
I just finished reading “How My Parish Fought Off an Invasion,” by Fr. Edward C. Petty [published February 1995]. I downloaded the article from the Catholic Answers Web site [http://catholic.com/~answers].
Wow! That is one heck of a great story! Thank you very much.
Chuck (no last name given)
Via the Internet