9 December 2015

Ordinariate Use (13)

In the Decree authorising the Pope Francis (i.e.our) Missal, Cardinal Sarah writes about Pope Benedict's "desire to heal the wounds of division in the Body of Christ" (Christi Corporis exoptans divisionis vulnera benigne sanare). 

I cannot help wondering if the plain words of this imply that our former sad lack of full canonical unity with the Churches in Full Communion with the See of S Peter was a division within rather than from the Body of Christ. 


Anonymous said...

The Anglican Denominations are clearly separated FROM the Body of Christ, but the individuals out of these denominations who later formed the Ordinariate were already before forming the Ordinariate part of the Body of Christ - which is not limited to the indivuals forming the Roman Catholic Church -, due to the fact that they had been validly baptized and shared the Catholic Faith. A separation WITHIN the Body of Christ is against logic, I would say. You cannot be a part of A and not be a part of A at the same time, and if you are a part of A, you are not separated.

Claudio Salvucci said...

Both prepositions capture some of the reality of the thing.

"Within" in this sense. The brute fact of non-rebaptism from the early centuries down to today speaks more loudly than any theological musings on the boundaries of the Ecclesia. What can a valid Baptism possibly mean, other than one has been brought into the One Holy Catholic Church?

But perhaps "from" in this sense. Any heretical position, willfully held, is as much a mortal sin as anything else--sanctifying grace has fled, the poor heretic is cast out of communion, and the life of the Holy Ghost is not to be found in him. In so far as you have a body of such people, they are definitively outside the Church unless and until the heresy is repented of.

Is it too cute by half to say heretics are made, not born?

Lepanto said...

Oh, dear. More 'fuzzy talk' undermining the Church's constant claim for itself as expressed in the Creeds. We are now used to this from many prelates but this is from Cardinal Sarah!

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Dear ansgerus It is Catholic Doctrine (See Singulari nos, Feb 7, 1749, Pope Benedict XIV) that a man Baptised by a non-Catholic in a non-catholic communion indeed does become a member of the Catholic Church but only for a relatively short time and only under certain conditionss; ....We hold it for certain that those baptized by heretics are separated from the Church and deprived of all the blessings enjoyed by her members, if they have arrived at the age of discretion and have adhered to the errors of there sect.

Thus, it seems that all protestants baptised as infants were once members of the Catholic Church, a reality unlikely to sit well with The Southern Baptist Convention in America.

Banshee said...

Yes, but you also have to know that the Catholic Church is correct and that your sect is in error. Otherwise you're in a state of invincible ignorance.

But I guess you would be in a state of schism by belonging to a heretical sect, even if you weren't formally committing the sin of heresy yourself. Obviously being in ignorance makes it hard to grow in wisdom and knowledge, although God can obviously give His gifts wherever He feels like it. And being cut off from the graces from valid and/or licit versions of most of the Sacraments, or having a less than full knowledge of what's going on, would certainly be bad for you. So it's not a desirable state to be in; it just means people aren't automatically heretics in every case.

Anonymous said...

@Amateur Brain Surgeon; there is some problem with your quotation. Singulari Nos was written by Gregory XVI (June 25, 1834) and I cannot find your text in it. Benedict XIV did write a number of encyclicals in 1749, but none were issued on February 7 (according to http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/index.htm). Also, papal encyclicals are not per se infallible, so the way a given issue is expressed in an encyclical does not ipso facto become a defined formula of doctrine. In any case, the text you quote (wherever it is from) clearly culminates in an important conditional qualification which leaves considerable room for discussion about what may be the state of conscience of individuals who are not objectively in full communion with the Church.

Claudio Salvucci said...

Or are simply material heretics and not formal heretics.

To Father's point, let's imagine an Anglo-Catholic who was always eager to take the Catholic position against the 39 Articles. I cannot see how such a person can even be guilty of material heresy. Now if he did not then abjure Anglicanism and put himself under "the Roman obedience", you could rightly charge him with schism. But what if he firmly believed that Canterbury was on track within his lifetime to be reunited with Rome? What if he genuinely trusted that the ecclesial situation would be resolved on a corporate level and he would follow with a Te Deum on his lips?

If there be no question of willful heresy or schism, is he not then materially reconciled to the Church of his Baptism?

As far as the Sacraments are concerned, I've often wondered whether an invalid Lord's Supper can act as a sacramental in some cases. And of course, perfect contrition is sufficient to remit sin outside the Confessional. Perhaps graces are not entirely absent in such cases.

Patrick A O’Flynn said...

By Baptism we are made members of the Body of Christ, ergo, "within" and not "from" would be correct.

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Dear Thomas. Thanks for the response for it gives me the opportunity to right a wrong for when ABS quoted the great Benedict XIV, he forgot to source it.

It came from p. 127 of "The Church of Christ an apologetic and dogmatic treatise," by E. Sylvester Berry, STD. and, indeed, it was the author of that succinct and excellent text that cited Benedict XIV, as having issued "Singulari nos" on Feb. 7, 1749.

Now, ABS does remember trying to chase down the citation and he, like you, ran into the Gregory XVI, but after more pursuit, ABS did discover the source but it is now lost somewhere in one of many folders filled with arcana.

ABS wil try and chase it down but it does exist - in Latin - and can be found on the internet -and not just in books by others that cite it in similar but not exact language quoted here.

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.