Skip to main content

Communion of Saints and Pope Francis' Audience of Feb 2, 2022

 +
JMJ

Introduction

 Pope Francis has, as usual, make some statements that are controversial. Before delving into them, I think it is critical to understand the Teaching of the Catholic Church on this matter before attempting any assessment of what Pope Francis said this time.

Context - Church Teaching

In explaining the Communion of Saints Ott wrote in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

For the purpose of creating the right context to assess Pope Francis' statement, we shift from what is the "Communion of Saints" to who shares in this Communion:

Catechism of Trent - Those Who Share In This Communion:The advantages of so many and such exalted blessings bestowed by Almighty God are enjoyed by those who lead a Christian life in charity, and are just and beloved of God. As to the dead members; that is, those who are bound in the thraldom of sin and estranged from the grace of God, they are not so deprived of these advantages as to cease to be members of this body; but since they are dead members, they do not share in the spiritual fruit which is communicated to the just and pious. However, as they are in the Church, they are assisted in recovering lost grace and life by those who live by the Spirit; and they also enjoy those benefits which are without doubt denied to those who are entirely cut off from the Church.

So the members of Christ's Body (living and dead) have different degree's of participation in the Communion of Saints. Who are these members?  Again I turn to Ott:

...

 In summary, the members of the Church of Christ participate in a communion, participating in the graces provided via the Sacraments helping each other through their good works.  The members of the Church of Christ include the baptized who have not separated themselves from the Church by schism, heresy or been excommunicated.

Assessment of Pope Francis' Statement

Now on Feb 2, 2022 Pope Francis held an audience and amongst other things, said the following words:

What, then, is the “communion of saints”? The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms: “The communion of saints is the Church” (no. 946). What a beautiful definition this is! “The communion of saints is the Church”. What does this mean? That the Church is reserved for the perfect? No. It means that it is the community of saved sinners . The Church is the community of saved sinners. This is a beautiful definition. No one can exclude themselves from the Church (Point 1). We are all saved sinners (Point 2). Our holiness is the fruit of God’s love manifested in Christ, who sanctifies us by loving us in our misery and saving us from it. Thanks always to him we form one single body, says Saint Paul, in which Jesus is the head and we are the members (cf. 1 Cor 12:12). This image of the Body of Christ and the image of the body immediately makes us understand what it means to be bound to one another in communion: “If one member suffers”, writes Saint Paul, “all suffer together; and if one member is honoured, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and, individually members of it” (1 Cor 12:26-27). This is what Paul says: we are all one body, all united through faith, through baptism, all in communion: united in communion with Jesus Christ. And this is the communion of saints. ... They too [the dead] are in communion with us. Let us consider, dear brothers and sisters, that in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature; only the manner of being together with  each of them changes, but nothing and no one can break this bond. “Father, let us think about those who have denied the faith, who are apostates, who are the persecutors of the Church, who have denied their baptism: Are these also at home?”. Yes, these too, even the blasphemers, everyone.(Point 3) We are brothers. This is the communion of saints. The communion of saints holds together the community of believers on earth and in heaven. (Source: Vatican.va)

 The first point is whether or not someone can exclude themselves from the communion of saints.  This would mean something beyond just being a dead member of the Catholic Church. So, how does one break communion?  Is it even possible?  Is the difference between formal and material heresy taken into account?   As noted below material heretics aren't automatically excluded from the Church. 

Looking at the present code of Canon Law we find:

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him. (Source: Vatican)
My understanding is that to have an obstinate denial or doubt, one has to have been admonished by the Catholic Church to make it pertinacious. I have also heard that someone just has to 'know' that their position contradicts that of the Church and hold to it obstinate in the face of such knowledge.

Both matter and form of heresy admit of degrees which find expression in the following technical formula of theology and canon law. Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith clearly defined by the Church is heresy pure and simple, heresy in the first degree. But if the doctrine in question has not been expressly "defined" or is not clearly proposed as an article of faith in the ordinary, authorized teaching of the Church, an opinion opposed to it is styled sententia haeresi proxima, that is, an opinion approaching heresy. Next, a doctrinal proposition, without directly contradicting a received dogma, may yet involve logical consequences at variance with revealed truth. Such a proposition is not heretical, it is a propositio theologice erronea, that is, erroneous in theology. Further, the opposition to an article of faith may not be strictly demonstrable, but only reach a certain degree of probability. In that case the doctrine is termed sententia de haeresi suspecta, haeresim sapiens; that is, an opinion suspected, or savouring, of heresy (see THEOLOGICAL CENSURES). (Source: New Advent)
So, I'm pretty certain that someone can withdraw from the Membership of the Body of Christ subjectively by committing the sin of heresy or schism and objectively by a visible act.  The line between material and formal is still a little blurry for me.

Looking at Pope Francis' second point that we are all 'Saved Sinners'. I don't know if this translation is correct and it seems to be an oxymoron. Yes we are sinners and we participate in the redemption, however are we 'saved' - meaning not going to Hell?  Well that isn't definite at this point in time. A portion of the Church is 'saved' meaning not going to Hell - that's the Saints in Heaven and the Souls in Purgatory. The jury is still out on the rest of us and the damned as not part of the Communion of Saints.

Last point, I can see that Pope Francis is probably coming from an excessively optimistic perspective that the heretics (denied a Truth of the Faith), apostates et al don't have full knowledge of what they are doing.  That doesn't change the fact that these acts, even in the current Code of Canon Law and Catechism of the Catholic Church, at least objectively exclude them from the Communion of the Saints.  These people are in a worse state that those who are in a state of mortal sin (ie dead members).

Conclusion

So I conclude that Pope Francis is off the rails in this regard and has simply taken the words uttered by Pope St. John Paul II (Link Universal Salvation Pope JP2)  to their ultimate conclusion - Universal Salvation.

Does that make him a heretic?  Well here's the interesting thing, Ott listed the definition of the members of the Church (see above) as Sent Certa, not De Fide.  So messing this up isn't heresy in the true sense of the word. It's theological error, he's contradicting sooooo many previous Popes and Teaching ... again, but doesn't seem to have crossed that big H line.

 Maybe I missed something ... looking forward to the comments on this one.

P^3

Reference

Catechism of the Catholic Church: 946 After confessing "the holy catholic Church," the Apostles' Creed adds "the communion of saints." In a certain sense this article is a further explanation of the preceding: "What is the Church if not the assembly of all the saints?"477 The communion of saints is the Church.Source: CCC_946


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Thoughts on the Thoughts of a former SSPX priest

 + JMJ Well Gary Campbell, former SSPX Priest and now laicised has posted a new article on WherePeterIs. https://wherepeteris.com/thoughts-of-a-former-sspx-priest-on-the-july-1-consecrations/ These words stuck out: Heck, they have built a five-star hotel, wine bar, and Walmart on the opposite bank of the Rubicon! They are not in danger of entering a state of schism, for they are  already  in a state of schism. I believe he doth protest too much. All the actual facts indicate that the SSPX was not in a state of schism before July 1st and an examination of the decree of excommunication highlights the either ineptitude of those in charge or a desire to leave the barn door open. The chasm between an act of disobedience and act of schism remains just what is has always been - an inconvenient barrier that person(s) in Rome seek to bridge but appear incapable of succeeding. The SSPX re-stated that they recognize the Pope as the Vicar of Christ and feel obliged by conscience...

The News is an Addiction ...

 + JMJ People seem to be mesmerised by train wrecks.   They just can't turn away as the disaster creeps forward along train tracks towards the crossing where a car, truck, bus, trailer awaits its destruction. Trads have been watching the train wreck that is this crisis of the Catholic Church for decades. The trade war between the Canada and the US has reminded me that the news is addictive.   The first time I was addicted what from 2009 to  2014 when I was closely following the Rome / SSPX discussions.  I was at work watching a live-stream as Bishop Fellay disappeared into the Vatican. The lead-up to this moment had been intense as the 'resistance' got freaked out and the cultural cracks between doctrine and conspiracy theory widened. In the decade since then other things have emerged, wars, rumours of wars, conspiracies, celebrity Catholics etc. Now we have a new addiction and its name is Trump. Lately, no matter how much I try, I find myself wonderin...

What is Tradition?

 + JMJ What Is Tradition? The basic premise, from my perspective, is that what was taught before cannot be contradicted by the 'present' magisterium, only deepened and expanded upon. I recall the Roman theologians called the SSPX protestants while the SSPX called them modernists.  I believe this was all surrounding the concept of Traditon. SSPX's Understanding of Tradition One accusation made against the SSPX is that they don't have a correct understanding of 'Tradition'.  This is how the SSPX understands Tradition: I finally profess that Tradition is not a dead memory, but the living transmission of the doctrine received from the Apostles. It remains living, in distinction to Revelation, which is closed. It is so both in the activity of the Magisterium of the Teaching Church and in the profession of Faith of the Church Taught, of which the sentire cum Ecclesia is the result of the teaching of the Magisterium. Tradition may be called ‘living’, not in the sense t...

Stories: Early Days of Tradition Part 10 - The Struggle Within

 + JMJ Immediately after the council (i.e. Second Vatican Council) things changed in Catholic Church around the world. Some of the Veteran Trads gave a good fight in those early years. In this story, three friends in Quebec agreed that what they were hearing from the pulpit reeked of heresy. After a while, they decided that it was time to take some action.  The following Sunday all three of them took up their position in the front pew, directly in front of the pulpit.  It wasn't difficult as the front pew was rarely occupied even in this era. They had a plan! As the sermon began the men sat there staring at the priest, waiting.   Then it happened. A statement that deviated from pre-conciliar teaching leapt from the priests lips. The reaction wasn't explosive ... it was passive-aggressive ... in a way. As if on cue, the three men shook their heads, left to right. The priest paused, studdered a little and continued. All was good for a few minutes before some other...

Thoughts on: Finding Common Ground Between Rome and the SSPX

 + JMJ In the ramp up to the consecrations the noise floor in the intergnat grew to a constant din.  This was one of the few the peeped its signal over the noise. https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/finding-common-ground-between-rome-and-the-sspx The key issue is contained in this paragraph: In the lead-up to the planned July 1, 2026, episcopal consecrations,  the SSPX rejected Rome’s offer  of doctrinal dialogue on the grounds that “we both know in advance that we cannot agree doctrinally, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council.” Fr. Pagliarani also said that his previous attempt at dialogue in 2019 was shut down by Rome because of an assumed irreconcilability. It seems that, from the Society’s perspective, and perhaps from Rome’s too, their positions are incompatible. If memory serves, Rome killed any opportunity for an open discussion by stating that Vatican II was not up for debate. So it was a still-birth and ...