Quote of the Week: Karl Adam
“The assertion that the Catholic Church of later centuries has developed the ideas of St. Cyprian and St. Augustine, that she has ‘continually sharpened the principle of exclusiveness and so continually narrowed Catholicism’ is in contradiction with the plain facts of history. For the truth is that the later Church corrected the original rigorism of the ancient African theologian and maintained that God’s grace worked even outside the Catholic body. Non-Catholic sacraments have the power to sanctify and save, not only objectively, but also subjectively. It is therefore conceivable also, from the Church’s standpoint, that there is a true, devout and Christian life in those non-Catholic communions which believe in Jesus and baptize in His Name. We Catholics regard this Christian life, wherever it appears, with unfeigned respect and with thankful love. We regard with deep esteem our Protestant deaconesses, and such noble figures at Wichern and Bodelschwingh. We admire the loving manifestations of the ‘Home Mission.’
“The songs of a Paul Gerhard, the St. Matthew Passion of a Sebastian Bach and the oratorios of a Handel affect us almost as ‘sweet melodies from our old family home.’ And not merely a Christian life, but a complete and lofty Christian life, a life according to the ‘full age of Christ,’ a saintly life, is possible—so Catholics believe—even in definitely non-Catholic communions. It is true that it cannot develop with that luxuriance which is possible in the Church, where is the fullness of Jesus and His Body; and it will never be anti-Catholic in its quality. Yet it will be a genuine saintly life; since, wherever grace is, the noble fruits of grace can ripen. Such saintly figures have appeared and do still appear, especially in the Russian Church, which has preserved the fullest measure of the ancient inheritance. Consider the saintly characters of a Dmitri, an Innocens, a Tykhon, a Theodosius. Nor are saints and martyrs impossible, on Catholic principles, even in the Protestant churches. Nay, it is Catholic teaching that the grace of Christ operates, not only in the Christian communions, but also in the non-Christian world, in Jews and in Turks and in Japanese.”
Karl Adam, The Spirit of Catholicism. trans. Justin McCann (New York: Doubleday, 1960), 176-178.
Comments are closed.
We Catholics regard this Christian life, wherever it appears, with unfeigned respect and with thankful love.
LOL! What is this guy smoking?
Henry, I see a lot of spiritual narcissism and especially within the apologetic specialists who seem to be made up of converted extroverted evangelicals.
Ronald
I agree — I find a considerable amount of problems in the modern-day version of “apologetics.” Classical apologists like St Justin Martyr, Origen, Athenagoras, and others are more universal in their approach. The modern-day apologist, which often comes from a Protestant tradition (not always), and often were an apologist for Protestantism before conversion (not always) does seem to give to a Protestant, extremely-exclusive view to the faith. The truth presented by them is a highly-simplified construction which ignores differentiation and the plurality of Catholic thought. Then, if you do not go with that construct, the reaction is very telling — it becomes pure offense. There then becomes the desire to have a simple Catholicism which unites a political viewpoint with orthodoxy, because of this simplification, with the end that prudential views are confused with principles, and if people disagree with the prudence promoted by a certain group, they are seen as rejecting the principles as well. Thus, we end up with a fundamentalist, over-simplified, univocal, and often voluntarist, viewpoint being expressed as Catholicism. Sad.
I could never have stated that as well as you.
We need to get you and the other VN contributors your own alternative program on EWTN.
We can call it Catholic Underground–The Unseen Foundation of the Faith.
Ron
Sadly, I don’t think EWTN has taken an interest in what we have to say here.
“For the truth is that the later Church corrected the original rigorism of the ancient African theologian and maintained that God’s grace worked even outside the Catholic body. Non-Catholic sacraments have the power to sanctify and save, not only objectively, but also subjectively.”
Hmm. Is that really true? From my reading of older Church teachings on this matter, that claim is far from obvious. If I may, I will present some of the passages from important documents that lead me to hesitate from agreeing with Mr. Karl Adam. If I anywhere err in these quotations or have missed relevant magisterial statements clarifying said quotations, I am eager to be corrected and brought to the truth.
From the Council of Florence, Session 11, February 4th, 1442, Bull of Union with the Copts, originally the papal bull Cantate Domino promulgated by Eugene IV and approved by the council:
“It [meaning the Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”
http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm
And also, the Fifth Lateran Council, session 11, December 16, 1516:
“Moreover, since subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ’s faithful, as we are taught by the testimony of both sacred scripture and the holy fathers, and as is declared by the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, also our predecessor, which begins Unam sanctam, we therefore, with the approval of the present sacred council, for the salvation of the souls of the same faithful, for the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff and of this holy see, and for the unity and power of the church, his spouse, renew and give our approval to that constitution, but without prejudice to the declaration of pope Clement V of holy memory, which begins Meruit .”
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum18.htm
From the text of Unam Sanctam, affirmed and renewed, as shown above, by the Fifth Lateran Council:
“Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John ‘there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.’”
And also:
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Then Pope Leo XIII, Officio Sanctissimo, December 22, 1887, paragraph 7, with reference to St. Thomas Aquinas:
“He indeed is the true Doctor who walks within the confines of truth, who not only never differs from God, the Head and Fount of all truth, but is always strictly in accordance with Him and always follows Him when disclosing His secrets in any manner; who no less piously listens to the Roman Pontiff when speaking, reverses in him the divine authority and fully holds that “submission to the Roman Pontiff is necessary to salvation.” (Opusc. contra errores Groecoram.)”
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13bav.htm
And, Pope Pius XII, in Mystici Corporis Christi, June 29, 1943, paragraph 22:
“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 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.”
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MYSTI.HTM
Now, the reason I have quoted the passage from Mystici Corporis Christi is that I have often been pointed to key parts of Lumen Gentium and the Decree on Ecumenism for the development of the doctrine of “communion by degree,” which, as far as I can tell, means that non-Catholic Christians share in the Church’s life of grace insofar as they have things in common with the Church (i.e. baptism, the sacraments, faith in certain doctrines, etc). I bring up Mystici Corporis Christi to anticipate that response and in hopes of gaining some clarification on how the Second Vatican Council’s teaching harmonizes with tradition.
I have only recently begun researching this question of how far and in what circumstances the economy of grace extends beyond the visible structure of the Church. My initial findings have not encouraged me in my early hope that there would be a clear connection between more modern teachings and earlier teachings. I studied history in college, not philosophy, and not theology, so it is very possible and indeed likely that I am misreading the documents quoted above.
Any assistance will be greatly appreciated.
Aegis
Right now I don’t have the time to go through the quotes (which are repeated quite often) to show how they are being abused and misinterpreted, when taken out of their context. Each one has different contexts to deal with them properly. However, I would recommend this:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/feeney.txt
Karl Adam, of course, predates Vatican II and points to the fact that things, such as the Catechism, which discuss this matter is not just a “Vatican II” phenomena. You can read the early fathers to see things such as Justin Martyr talking about Socrates as a Christian. One big issue is equivocation of the notion of Church in many instances. The Church certainly is necessary for salvation in that the Church is the sacrament which brings grace to the world, and the visible church is necessary as much the bread is for communion. However, the grace which is released into the world through the Church brings people to the Church, in its eschatological end, who might not appear to be a member in its historical, visible sense. This is where the equivocation comes into play. Remember Christ in his discussion of the eschaton where people will be surprised of their salvation — this is exactly the point which we must remember.
Well now. It is often “conservative” Catholics who are accused of wanting a smaller, more “correct” Church, but here we have two more progressive Catholics lamenting the fact that people are converting to Catholicism from evangelical Protestantism. The new “apologists” – Shea, Hahn, Madrid, Keating, Kreeft, Howard, etc. – have helped to bring thousands of Christians into full communion with the Church because they speak in a language that is comprehensible to evanglicals. Why is that something to lament rather than celebrate? Full disclosure: Thirteen years ago I was one of those evangelicals “coming home” to the Church, and I have always felt more welcomed and accepted by “conservatives” than by “progressives.” Fact is, most “progressives” are confounded by the notion that anyone would choose Catholicism.
Mark
Several problems with your response.
1) Use of the word progressive in reference to myself.
2) Confusing the criticism given to many of the apologists as suggesting they have no place within the Church. The thing is, as I have said, the Church is wide enough to hold several viewpoints. The problem is that this is often neglected in apologetic circles. There is a presentation as if all theological questions are simple, and only one answer comes out, as if tradition itself suggests only one answer and there are no disagreements. I have far less problems if people who called themselves “traditional” and “conservative” didn’t suggest their modern views were more traditional than others who hold different views, which could also be found and contained within tradition. Just look at some of the debates over Biblical theology on VN lately. It’s not an issue of tradition vs progressives.
3) And again, this goes back to not a rejection of the people, but some of the ways they hold their views as the only right way to be Catholic. Again, I can understand if people don’t agree with my views. We are all struggling here, and the Church has room for a multitude of them. That is something which I want recognized. But it is not, because it hurts the apologetical approach we see today, which is a smug “I have the answers” approach. I don’t claim I have the answers. I don’t. I of course can lose sight of humility, and don’t claim perfection there. But one of the things I get with all the major apologists is a kind of grating smugness which leads to self-glorification and a demand for money because only they can do God’s work to convert people!
4) And with that, as for the claim that they are “bringing in thousands,” be careful with that approach. I hear people who defend various apparitions, including those of questionable value, with this kind of argument. Yes, I welcome people in. But I also hope when they come in, they come to accept the Catholic and, instead of continuing with a narrow view of truth. The fact is, many former Protestants (heck I am one) still think within the Protestant exclusiveness which cannot appreciate the pluralism of the Church. The fact is, the truth transcends us; that should put humility into our discussion. I sadly see little of that within the apologetical circles.
5) And many of the apologists are bringing in a sensibility which is not too traditional, but people without the proper background and survey of theology will accept that sensibility and use it unquestionably. Again, if there was a better sense of humility and appreciation of the possible pluralism of theological views, this would not be a problem. But this is not what I get out of the apologists.
6) And so I also know many who get sold on “goods” which are not actually the case, who convert and then leave because what they were promised is not the case. Some people, of course, are able to overcome this. But again, I would hope the apologists would change tactics to help prevent this, and a big part of it, again, would take humility on their part and to stop all the crass self-promotion I see coming from them.
I think that most Protestants who choose to dialogue with Catholics are quite used to being treated like about 3/5 of a Christian by the majority of “conservative” or “orthodox” Catholics. The very word “Protestant” is often given the kind of inflection given to words such as “abortionist” or “liberal” or “socialist” by the most devout. I’ve often felt that there’s a bit of spiritual insecurity behind some of this. But, for the most part, I think that it is primarily a kind of clannish pride.
Mr. Karlson,
Thank you for the link. With regards to the Second Vatican Council, the doctrines it developed were, of course, not developed on the spot, but arose from decades of theological work. I referenced the Council only because it represents the official acceptance of those points of view.
With regards to the EWTN page dedicated to refuting the position of Fr. Feeney, I’m afraid I find it too narrow a base for establishing the exact status of non-Catholic, Christian communities and churches in the economy of salvation, principally because the page is trying to refute the idea that formal membership in the Church is required for salvation. Certainly, I did not mean to suggest I held the position of Fr. Feeney by the material I presented above. Also, as I have said above, I am neither a philosopher nor a theologian, so I am rather lacking in the necessary expertise to harmonize two different sets of expansive versus restrictive quotations as is offered by the page you linked to. In short, while it is certainly helpful, it is not the sort of exhaustive explanation I am in need of.
For the sake of brevity, my primary reservation revolves around how we are to understand “subjection” to the Roman Pontiff. Perhaps we should tackle that issue first.
Aegis
Although I could take hours to deal with the material myself, because of many factors (such as constant my constant fatigue, and other projects which I have to work on and get done), I will only suggest a few things here — resources you can look at, if you are interested in this topic and not trying to engage some sort of debate. There are other ways one could (and I would) deal with these quotes, but these should suffice.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/debate9.htm
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/papal_primacy.htm
And, to go back to the time of Pope Eugene IV, you should probably read De Pace Fidei by Nicholas of Cusa, who was the “Heracles of the Eugenists,” who is now buried in St Peter in Chains:
http://jasper-hopkins.info/DePace12-2000.pdf
This will give you a real world example of a major 15th century theologian giving a theology of religion which will show it is not just “the decades before Vatican II” these issues were addressed. That his theological contribution was considered acceptable should show the fluidity of interpretation, and helps affirm what is shown above.
Mr. Karlson,
Thank you for the links. I will read the articles carefully. I have an older brother who is a seminarian, so I will ask him any more questions I have. Thanks again for fielding my questions.
The rapidity with which the contra-exclusionary message of the chosen quote was refuted by this discussion having become self-referential, in a characteristically Catholic mode, is exactly what gave me a good laugh when I read it. Catholics typically take no interest in anything non-Catholic, unless it is to attack it.
Mark G. I do not know if you were referring to me above as progressive. If you were I will simply answer I am Ron who returned because of God’s Love. That is the only reason I am here and now I am here I am able to receive the Sacraments which I passionately need to guide me on the unknown path of God’s Love.
I now see that God is “through all and in all” and I think more than anything that may label me an extreme Orthodox, so extreme, that I may be labeled progressive. That would be wrong.
Henry,
Sorry I couldn’t get back here until now. Thanks for the clarification. My apologies for implying you are “progressive.” It wasn’t intended as a pejorative.
Ronald King, in your first comment on this thread you lament the “spiritual narcissism” of the new apologists. And yet in your response above, you used the words “I” or “me” thirteen times in five short sentences. If narcisism is defined as “an inordinate fascination with oneself,” perhaps you shouldn’t be accusing others of narcissism.
Yes Mark you are correct. If you want to define my statement like that then I have nothing to say to you.