Forgivenss of Sins for Non-Catholics

A Dialogue on the Forgiveness of Sins of non-Catholics


Dear Michael,

This regards the salvation of non-Catholics. I have copied here, verbatim, question #121 of the Catholic Baltimore Catechism No. 4, along with the brief answer and the detailed eight paragraph explanation of the answer: 121. Question. Are all bound to belong to the Catholic Church? Answer. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved. Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a Catholic doubts whether the church to which he belongs is the true Church, he must settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he continues to live in doubt, he becomes like the one who knows the true Church and is deterred by worldly considerations from entering it.
In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved. Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never-even in the past-had the slightest doubt of that fact-what will become of him?

If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if he ever committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister-not being a true priest-has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition-that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven.

If a Catholic-with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts-might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God's friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.

If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.

I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.

I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter. I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello, again. The above is the entire explanation of the answer to Question #121. The Baltimore Catechism No. 4 was written in 1891, had two sets of approvals, in 1891 and again in 1921, and the endorsement of twenty-seven cardinals and bishops. Would you please comment? Thank you. Jim

Dear Jim,

You wrote: >>Hello. This regards the salvation of non-Catholics. I have copied here, verbatim, question #121 of the Catholic Baltimore Catechism No. 4, along with the brief answer and the detailed eight paragraph explanation of the answer: .... Hello, again. The above is the entire explanation of the answer to Question #121. The Baltimore Catechism No. 4 was written in 1891, had two sets of approvals, in 1891 and again in 1921, and the endorsement of twenty-seven cardinals and bishops. Would you please comment? Thank you. Jim>>

I'm going to need you to be more specific than that, Jim. One could potentially write an entire book on this topic. What, exactly, do you want to know? I'll be glad to help when you nail it down a bit more for me.
God bless,
Michael Forrest

Michael,
Thanks for your response. I find the Baltimore Catechisms, all four of them, to be very good and clear. The #4 is extremely helpful, as it was intended to be, because it includes the explanations. Being now in my late 50's, as a boy I was taught from the Baltimore Catechism when I attended Catechism classes on Friday afternoons after public school classes ended. Regarding Question #121 and its answer and explanation. I see very clearly the beliefs and logic to the explanation, and it makes a lot of sense to me. It is basically saying that the Catholic 'model' is the way for Christians to be saved. If a person is not Catholic, then, nonetheless, he needs to be free of mortal sin after baptism, and at death to attain Heaven. Also, there is reference to the 'thoughts' that might come to a person that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, that the person must follow these thoughts and check-out Catholicism. Otherwise, as I see it, he's rejected an actual grace sent by God to him, to question his own religion, and to investigate Catholicism.

So, it's not merely a 'thought' that he's rejected, but an actual grace- probably quite a few of them. I guess that I'm saying that the entire explanation seems clear and makes sense to me. That there is actually very little room for a nonCatholic to attain salvation. I would like your comments and opinion on the validity of what is said. This question #121 is the sort of pre Vatican II belief, clear and unambiguous, that, I believe, most orthodox Catholics would agree with. I continue to have disagreements with my liberal Catholic friends who seem to believe that many belief systems lead to God, and to salvation. Priests, nuns, relatives, etc. Our Catholicism is being watered down to a common denominator with other, Christian beliefs.

At this rate, it'll continue to be watered down to another common denominator, to be common with ALL belief systems, such as, I believe, the Pope has done in praying with pagans. So, what am I asking? I'm asking for your comments upon the validity of the explanation to #121. I'm looking for someone who agrees with it, actually, because to not believe it as true Catholic beliefs is to lower Catholicism to something else.
Thank you.
Jim

Dear Jim,

So, what would I say? I don't think I can do any better than Pope Pius IX:

"For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. "Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, religions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains 'we shall see God as He is' (1 Jn. 3:2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is 'one God, one faith, one baptism' (Eph. 4:5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry." (Singulari Quadem)

I tend to heed his warning at the end, Jim. And I say that to those on "both sides" of the equation: to those who believe anyone can be saved equally well regardless of their faith (a la "hell may be empty") and those who react to this error by trying to spell out the strict limitations of God's mercy. It is my belief that both are on dangerous ground (albeit to different extents).

I believe the answer is simple. Christ gave us a command to go out and preach the Gospel.....period. We are to baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit....period. It is blatantly wrong to suggest that we don't need to help people to convert to Catholicism anymore.

But the Scriptures are also clear that judgment is for God alone, and we have no business deciding and spending too much time thinking about who is going to hell. We step on the Almighty's toes when we do that. So, while I agree with the basic reasoning of the Baltimore Catechism (#121), I'm not completely convinced that Fr. Kinkead's in-depth analysis is completely appropriate and helpful.

If anyone asked me if Protestants can be saved, I would need to determine the context of the discussion, first of all. But then I would say that it is possible, but that this matter is God's business, and my business is to do all I can to make their path as sure as possible, and that can only be accomplished within the visible confines of the Catholic Church. I hope I answered what you were after, Jim.
God bless,
Michael Forrest

Michael,
Thank you again for your answer. Your answer focused upon invincible ignorance, and quoted a warning concerning proceeding any further. Please read the following. In the EWTN Frequently Asked Questions, regarding the topic of Outside The Church There Is No Salvation, an encyclical is quoted.

In the encyclical, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore of 10 August 1863 addressed to the Italian bishops, Pope Pius I said: "It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin."

Michael, I read from the above, four specific requirements stated by Pope Pius I, for a non-Catholic to attain eternal life: 1) invincible ignorance of the Catholic religion, 2) observe carefully the natural law and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, 3) be disposed to obey God (and) lead an honest and upright life, 4) not of his own free will fallen into sin.

As I read the Catechism (#1955-1957), the principle precepts of the Natural Law are expressed in the Ten Commandments, and the Natural Law is in the heart of each man. So, 1-4 is saying that a person must have followed the Ten Commandments, never freely committed a mortal sin, and been invincibly ignorant of the Catholic religion. I'm taking the words literally.

Thank you.
Jim

Dear Jim,

You wrote:

>>Your answer focused upon invincible ignorance, and quoted a warning concerning proceeding any further.>>

Actually, my answer focused both on invincible ignorance and on the criteria for actual sin aside from invincible ignorance (and the forgiveness of sin). However, apparently, I didn't express it sufficiently.

I have always agreed with QCM. As is so often the case on these types of issues, the issue is the actual application of QCM. Fr. Kinkead's explication of the hard and fast facts of QCM and Singulari Quadem (which I quoted previously) and the extent to which they apply is his opinion, not a fact.

For instance, in regard to the number of people who may or may not manage to live outside the visible bounds of the Church without sinning mortally (which only God is capable of judging), Fr. Kinkead says, "I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects.....I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter."

God alone knows whether such a case is "rarely found", not Fr. Kinkead. And I believe he overstates his certainty here. Regarding his statement that "salvation is an extremely difficult matter"; I consider that to be of marginal use as well. ALL salvation is "an extremely difficult matter". I believe it would have been more helpful, and accurate, to state this in the positive, rather than the negative....something along the lines of:

"Only within the visible bounds of the Catholic Church may an individual find the fully sure path to salvation. To the extent that an individual is not in full communion with the Catholic Church, he faces greater burdens and obstacles to his salvation. However, ultimately, God alone can judge such matters. Our commission is to help God bring as many as possible into full and practicing communion with His Church."

I don't believe it is necessary or generally helpful to go beyond that, because one enters further into personal conjecture if one does go further.

Another example is Fr. Kinkead's reference to the forgiveness of sins committed by those who are not visibly Catholic. He speaks of perfect contrition as the only means by which mortal sin can be sufficiently forgiven in order to enter heaven (without the Sacrament of Penance). I agree, and this is plain fact. However, he goes beyond this and speaks factually of the unlikelihood that such Protestants will ever truly express perfect contrition. This is pastoral/applicational speculation on his part (and of questionable value, IMO), and while it is also only my opinion, I think he underestimates the capacity of baptized Christians to express true remorse for love of God. Regardless, it is his opinion (and mine)....only God knows for sure. (Note: I would add that "Jim's" and Fr. Kinkead's comments about one's culpability in relation to not becoming Catholic and rejecting actual graces are subjective as well. This is another area in which we should tread carefully, IMO).

I tend to believe this tendency to be subjectively constrictive with the application of God's mercy is one reason why many individuals have overreacted and gone in the opposite direction...."hell may be empty"..."rules don't matter" etc. We must be very careful to make clear distinctions between our opinions/possibilities and that which is hard and fast Catholic FACT.

So, in conclusion, I don't disagree with the "four requirements" (with the addition that if a Protestant DOES sin, He must seek and receive forgiveness through perfect contrition....of which, only God can judge). I just believe we need to make distinctions between the "four requirements" which are not negotiable and black and white, and their application, which IS negotiable and is not so black and white. I don't see enough recognition of that fact in Fr. Kinkead's explanation or in yours, personally.

God bless,
Michael Forrest

Michael,
Thanks again, for your response.
Jim

Dear Jim,
You're welcome. Just to be clear......I understand your concerns and echo them to a very large degree. But I have also often witnessed a very common phenomenon......action-reaction or error and over-reaction to error. I want to be careful that I don't allow the excesses of liberals who would like nothing better than to gut the faith to push me in an opposite direction. I may be wrong, of course, but I don't think so. God bless, Michael

Dear Michael.
I hope that it's ok for me to ask you questions. As a way of explanation, I am trying to be a devout Catholic. To me this means to have no unconfessed mortal sin on my soul, and to learn and do that which God wants me to do. I left the Catholic Church and did not go to confession for exactly forty years. I now go when needed, which is pretty frequent. I want to stand-by our Faith. In your recent response concerning salvation of Non-Catholics, you rightly mentioned perfect contrition. You note that it's plain fact that, without the Sacrament of Penance, perfect contrition is the only means by which mortal sin can be sufficiently forgiven in order to enter heaven.

I've read a bit on perfect contrition, and asked questions of the EWTN website. The Catechism (#1452) says about perfect contrition: 1452 When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called "perfect" (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible. (51) Ref. 51 is Cf. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1677.

It occurs to me, in examining myself, that there is a foundation, a level of piety that is needed for a person to attain such love of God. That there would necessarily be a level of Catholic (Christian) maturity where one has this level of love for God. Simply put, I do not have this level of love for God that would allow me to make a Perfect Act of Contrition. At best, I have imperfect contrition. So, my question is this: Can a person simply muster-up at will, this love for God and produce an Act of Perfect Contrition? Or, is the ability to make a Perfect Act of Contrition the result of a well developed piety, a maturity in one's Faith?
Thank you.
Jim

Dear Jim,

You wrote:

>>Michael. I hope that it's ok for me to ask you questions. >> I'm glad to help in any way I can. >

First of all, let me congratulate you for your deep desire to be the best Catholic you can be. That is unusual in this day and age. But, please bear with me a little here, Jim. I don't intend to read too much into your words, but I believe I may be picking up a bit of a pattern in your expression over these past emails that conveys something deeper. In your previous emails and even this last sentence, it seems to me that you are more focused on the letter of the law, more in the Old Testament spirit of "thou shalt not", rather than the New Testament spirit of "thou shalt". The first thing you expressed above in relation to being "devout" was having "no unconfessed mortal sin" on your soul and second to "learn and do that which God wants" you to do.

Our primary call is to love and serve God, and also one another. This is a higher demand, actually, than the negative of "being free of unconfessed mortal sin". When we cultivate that love and respond to the grace we have been given in order to love, we begin to transcend the Old Testament dynamic wherein we are more akin to slaves or hired servants and move toward becoming genuine friends.....children of God. (Gal 3:26, John 15:12-15)

In this, I am absolutely not saying that standards have been thrown out the window. Sin is still sin. But the nature of our relationship with God is different, and ought to be perceived differently, than that of a Jew before the days of Christ. We need to be careful not to simply create a New Testament version of the Old Law prescriptions in our minds.

(Jim) I left the Catholic Church and did not go to confession for exactly forty years. I now go when needed, which is pretty frequent. I want to stand-by our Faith. >>

Your own 40 years in the desert, Jim? Welcome back, praise God!

(Jim)>> In your recent response concerning salvation of Non-Catholics, you rightly mentioned perfect contrition. You note that it's plain fact that, without the Sacrament of Penance, perfect contrition is the only means by which mortal sin can be sufficiently forgiven in order to enter heaven. I've read a bit on perfect contrition, and asked questions of the EWTN website. The Catechism (#1452) says about perfect contrition: 1452 When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called "perfect" (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible. (51) Ref. 51 is Cf. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1677.

It occurs to me, in examining myself, that there is a foundation, a level of piety that is needed for a person to attain such love of God. That there would necessarily be a level of Catholic (Christian) maturity where one has this level of love for God. Simply put, I do not have this level of love for God that would allow me to make a Perfect Act of Contrition. At best, I have imperfect contrition. >>

First, Jim, I don't believe you have a fully balanced and fair grasp of what constitutes Perfect Contrition. Perhaps the word "perfect" may be giving you the impression that this contrition must be so pure as to be untainted by anything short of godly perfection. This is not accurate. In regard to man, "perfect" is not that absolute. For instance, when Christ commands us to "be perfect", he knows full well that on this earth, true, complete perfection (i.e. always doing that which is the best, not even just what is very good, and also avoiding venial sin) is impossible for us. ["If we say we do not sin, we are deceived and the truth is not in us" (I John 1:8) ]

Fr. John Hardon offers this in relation to perfect contrition:

"In perfect contrition, the sinner detests sin more than any other evil, because it offends God.....Its motive is founded on God's own personal goodness and not merely His goodness to the sinner or to humanity. This motive, not the intensity of the act and still less the feelings experienced, is what essentially constitutes perfect sorrow. A perfect love of God, which motivates perfect contrition, does not necessarily exclude attachment to venial sin. Venial sin conflicts with a high degree of perfect love of God, but not with the substance of that love. Moreover, in the act of perfect contrition, other motives can coexist with the perfect love required. There can be fear or gratitude, or even lesser motives such as self-respect, self-interest, along with the dominant reason for sorrow, which is love for God."

Now, as to whether you have previously or ever will express perfect contrition, I cannot say for certain. This is a question only God can answer for sure (and a good spiritual director.....well-balanced in the faith.....can certainly be very helpful). However, I can call your conception of what constitutes such perfect contrition into question, because I believe it is overly strict.

First, one must always keep in mind that every good thing we do is only enabled by God's grace. Even faith is a gift of God. I am sure that you know this in your mind, but sometimes keeping that straight in our practical life is a different matter. Therefore, it is never possible for anyone to "simply muster-up at will" anything that is pleasing to God. We may only respond to those graces which we are given. And these graces may be of different essences and different magnitudes. They may be a simple as receiving a helpful word from a friend (who was prompted by the Spirit) or as direct and powerful as that which St. Paul experienced on the road to Damascus. That said, we do know that God does supply sufficient grace for all to come to repentance. And we will be responsible before God in relation to our response to those graces. However, ultimately, it is God alone Who knows the extent to which we responded and whether he is pleased or not by it. Even St. Paul confided that he didn't judge himself (and warned others to avoided judging such things as well), but left that to God (1 Cor 4:3-5).

Now, the Scriptures are clear, "to whom much is given, much is required". So, generally speaking, those of us who have received and practiced the fullness of the faith may well be judged with a stricter standard than, say, a non-Catholic who was raised his entire life believing that the Catholic Church is from the pit of hell.

Yet, we must always keep in mind the dynamic of father and child in this equation. Christ told us to call the Father "Abba"....most literally "Papa" or "Daddy" and for good reason. He is not best viewed as our judge, just waiting for us to fail and condemn us, but as a loving father making every effort to aid his stumbling child in walking upright. And a father may certainly rebuke and chastise, and may even be forced to eventually disinherit those who first turn their backs on him. But He is best understood as a good father....THE Good Father is the Hound from Heaven, pursuing us in His great love.

Anything we can do to foster piety based on this understanding is good. And the more fully we genuinely understand and are conformed to this truth, the easier it should be to move away from fear-based contrition toward a more perfect contrition based on love.
God bless,
Michael Forrest

Bible Studies and Traditionalism do mix!

Yet all too often, I think they are neglected. We are very well versed in knowledge of the medivals, ecumenical councils, papal statements, but not as much Scripture study it seems. Despite the fact that Scripture has received lavish praise and encouragement of it's reading by Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII, where are your treatments of Scripture in many traditionalist publications or apostolates? (Jacob Michael and his work notwithstanding.)

With that in mind, I wanted to bring that element to Friends of La Nef. At my website recently I've been doing a bible study on proverbs, and I'd like to include that here as well. As the Traditional Catholic Faith is about far more than just the Mass or Vatican II, numerous members of this blog have proved that. Here's my contribution to that effort.

Party of Christ of Church of Jesus Christ? : Part Three- The Body of Christ

“For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…

(I Corinthians 12:12-13a)

The description of the Church as being “the body of Christ” is an aspect of ecclesiology that has been forgotten in the minds of many modern Catholics. I think that we all hear this term so often that we’ve forgotten – or have never truly understood – what it means to be part of the body of Christ. Often, we limit this understanding to that of a “community” in which we are all “members.” Though the idea of community is certainly inherent in the concept of the Church being a body, the New Testament passages that cover the institution of the Eucharist shed more light on what is meant by the term, “body of Christ.”

The Holy Father, in Called to Communion, gives his exegesis of New Testament passages that describe the foundation of the Church, the link between this foundation and the institution of the Eucharist, and the implications of this institution on our understanding of what it means to be the body of Christ. To quote the Holy Father at length:

“The Our Father was the first stage on the way toward a special communion of prayer with and from Jesus. On the night before his Passion, Jesus took another decisive step beyond this: he transformed Passover of Israel into an entirely new worship, which logically meant a break with the temple community and thereby definitively established a people of the “New Covenant.” …both the Synoptics and John’s Gospel, though each in a different way, make the connection with the events of Passover…With Passover and the Sinaiatic covenant ritual, the two founding acts by whereby Israel became and ever anew becomes a people are taken up and integrated into the Eucharist. …
(emphasis mine)

(Called to Communion, pgs. 26-27)

The implications for how we must understand the institution of the Eucharist is as follows:

“The sense of all this is clear: “Just as the old Israel once revered the temple as its center and the guarantee of its unity, and by its common celebration of the Passover in its own life, in like manner this new meal is now the bond uniting a new people of God.”

(Called to Communion, pg. 27)

The Holy Father drives home the fact that the institution of the Eucharist is more than just an event which we are to re-enact in order to “remember Jesus” and to celebrate the fact that we are His “community.” The deeper aspect of this event is revealed in its Old Testament parallels with the institution of the Passover Meal: Jesus, in His role as the new sacrificial Lamb, is establishing an event in which the new body of believers will establish their unity; Jesus, as the sacrifice, has moved the center of unity from Temple worship to Himself. Just as the Passover Meal was so central to the founding of the nation of Israel, likewise, the Eucharist is central to the foundation of the people of the New Covenant – The Church.

But there is also an even deeper aspect we can glean from this by use of the Old Testament texts. The Holy Father goes onto to explain what is meant by the Church’s description of herself as the “ecclesia”:

“The Greek term that lives on in the Latin loanword ‘ecclesia’ derives from the Old Testament root ‘qahal,’ which is ordinarily translated by “assembly of the people.” Such “popular assemblies,” in which the people was constituted as a cultic and, on that basis, as a juridical and political entity, existed both in the Greek and the Semitic world…

This typically biblical conception of the popular assembly is traceable to the fact that the convocation on Sinai was regarded as the normative image of all later such assemblies; it was solemnly reenacted after the Exile by Ezra as the refoundation of the people. But because the dispersion of Israel continued on and slavery was reimposed, a ‘qahal’ coming from God himself, a new gathering and foundation of the people, increasingly became the center of Jewish hope. The supplication for this gathering – for the appearance of the ‘ecclesia’ – is a fixed component of late Jewish prayer.”

It is thus clear what it means for the nascent Church to call herself ‘ecclesia’. By doing so, she says in effect: This petition is granted in us.”

(Called to Communion, 30-31)

In short, the Church becomes, in effect, the New Israel.

The glue that holds all this together is St. Paul’s treatment of the topic of the Body of Christ. There are some certain conceptions that this apostle, being a true Israelite, would have had in mind in his understanding of what he meant by the term “body.” The Holy Father spells these out as follows:

“In the first place, the Semitic conception of the “corporate personality” stands in the background; this conception is expressed, for example, in the idea that we are all Adam, a single man writ large…the Pauline formula has in addition two more concrete roots. The first lies in the Eucharist…the Lord becomes our bread, our food. He gives us his body, which, by the way, must be understood in light of the Resurrection and of the Semitic linguistic background of Saint Paul. The body is a man’s self, which does not coincide with the corporeal dimension but comprises it as one element among others. Christ gives us himself – Christ, who in his Resurrection has continued to exist in a new kind of bodiliness. …Hence, Communion means the fusion of existences; just as in the taking of nourishment the body assimilates foreign matter into itself, and is thereby enabled to live, in the same way my “I” is “assimilated” to that of Jesus, it is made similar to him in an exchange that increasingly creaks through the lines of division. This same event takes place in the case of all who communicate; they are all assimilated to this “bread” and thus are made one among themselves – ‘one’ body.

The second of the two “concrete roots” the Holy Father speaks of is the idea of “nuptiality.” After quoting Genesis 2:24 the Holy Father comments:

“One flesh – hence, a single new existence. Paul also takes up this idea that man and woman become one flesh in a bond at once spiritual and physical in the First Letter to the Corinthians, where he states that this word is fulfilled in communion: “He who cleaves to the Lord becomes one spirit with him” (I Cor 6:17)

(Called to Communion, pg. 38)

In describing the conception of the Body of Christ in these terms, the Holy Father makes it clear that our communion with Christ and each other through the Eucharist is no less significant than the intimacy expressed by a married couple. This is why the divisions within the Church are so scandalous. Rather than looking at the intimate connection we have through the Eucharist, we instead focus on our agendas that, in the long-run, completely ignore the foundational and nuptial aspects of the Eucharist cited above. Along with a renewed focus on what Jesus meant by the phrase, “The Kingdom of God” we also must recapture a true sense of what we are as a Church in the Eucharist. We are, quite literally, the Body of Christ. We are assimilated into Him, and He into us. Any “reform” that would seek to undermine these foundational and nuptial aspects of the Eucharist and replace it with a mere “communal gathering” understanding in which all parties of all stripes mold the Church according to their whims rather then receive the Church does a great disservice to the message of the New Testament text and, not least of all, to the Lord in Whom we are incorporated. Just as we did no create but, instead, received Christ, we also cannot create but can only receive, and be incorporated into, His Body, the Church – and it is He, not we, who He defines what the Church is.

I’ll wrap with some of the Holy Father’s words expressing the intimacy of our union with Christ through the Eucharist:

“…Christ and the Church are one body in the sense in which man and woman are one flesh, that is, in such a way that in their indissoluble spiritual-bodily union, they nonetheless remain unconfused and unmingled. The Church does not simply become Christ, she ever the handmaid whom he lovingly raises to be his Bride who seeks his face throughout these latter days.”

(Called to Communion, pg. 39)