By Randall Smith
How many of these can you identify? Marcionites, Montanists, Sabellians, Donatists, Quartodecimans, Pneumatomachi, Apollinarians, Monophysites, Nestorians, Waldensians. All of these are groups that separated from the Church, insisting that they were the true Church while the others were, in some way, less pure or less faithful. Even if you could identify some or all of them, where are they now? In their time, they attracted thousands. Today, they are just names that almost no one knows.
Many of them had interesting arguments and grievances. The Donatists, for example, had a strict moral code and understandably opposed bishops who had been traditores, «traitors,» who had handed over sacred things to the Roman authorities during the persecutions. The Monophysites rejected the notion that in Christ there were two natures, divine and human, believing they were defending the teaching of the Council of Ephesus that Christ was not two persons, but «one physis of the incarnate Word.» Likewise, Martin Luther was right to complain about corruption in the Church, the misuse of indulgences (many of them to build St. Peter’s in Rome), and was right to defend the priority of grace.
The great irony of history is not only that the number of Lutherans is declining, but that even those who continue to attend Lutheran services hardly take Luther’s writings into account. Many Protestant groups that left the Catholic fold proclaiming sola Scriptura, «Scripture alone,» today have no more regard for the moral authority of Scripture than secularists do. Does Christ insist that there be no divorce? No problem. St. Paul condemns sexual acts between persons of the same sex. Well, that was then; this is now. For some groups, the only thing left is their hatred of Catholics. These things do not always follow an obvious logic.
So too, for example, here is a strange group. They proclaim fidelity to the Pope, and then gravely disobey him. They place great emphasis on a narrow interpretation of «There is no salvation outside the Church,» and then disregard excommunication.
This group says it is uncomfortable with certain teachings of the Second Vatican Council. The history of the Church is full of groups that accepted all the councils of the Church up to the one they did not like, after which they decided to go their own way. Some accept the first four ecumenical councils (even Lutherans and Calvinists do), some the first seven, others the first thirteen. Leaving the ship after a council has been a fairly common recourse.
But for those who think that the Second Vatican Council was unfaithful to the teaching of «no salvation outside the Church,» there is this:
«This Sacred Council directs its attention in the first place to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that this pilgrim Church is necessary for salvation. Christ is the one Mediator and the way of salvation, present to us in his Body, which is the Church. He himself, by explicitly inculcating the necessity of faith and baptism, confirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism as by a door.» (Lumen Gentium 14)
Yes, the Council also taught (as I think most people have long believed) that there are various ways of being «incorporated» into the «Body of Christ.» Catechumens, for example, «who, moved by the Holy Spirit, explicitly request to be incorporated into the Church, are joined to her by that very desire.» Likewise, «the Church recognizes herself to be joined in many ways to those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian.» And even «those who have not yet received the Gospel are ordered to the People of God in various ways.»
But the Council was also very clear about this: «Therefore, those cannot be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was instituted by God through Jesus Christ as necessary, refuse to enter or remain in her.» So, knowing and affirming that the Catholic Church is necessary, but refusing to enter or remain in her endangers the salvation of souls?
One would think that a group that accepts the principle of «no salvation outside the Church» and justifies its actions because it is concerned about the salvation of souls would, according to its own principles, be very uncomfortable encouraging those souls to remain outside the Church. At some point, we may have to conclude that this has less to do with reasoned theological arguments and more with «I want what I want» and «my tribe is better than your tribe!»
The bishops of the SSPX have appealed their excommunication. But appealed to whom? To Pope Leo, who has already decided the case? This would be like appealing a Supreme Court decision to the Supreme Court itself and then saying: I do not have to pay the fine because my case is on appeal.
This is not a legalistic game. The salvation of souls is at stake. And I would not entrust mine to clerics who brush off excommunication as if swatting a fly. No one justifies the problems in the Church. Is this an emergency situation? At least we do not have three claimants to the papacy as occurred between 1409 and 1414. At least the papacy is not under the political control of France as during the Avignon papacy.
I could go on. There are always problems in the Church, many worse than those now. Throughout history, groups that remained faithful when silenced or disciplined by their ecclesiastical superiors were ultimately validated by their witness and fidelity. Groups that choose disobedience and schism rarely survive more than one or two generations.
Renaissance scholars like Erasmus and More saw the problems of the Church as clearly as Luther and Calvin. But they remained faithful. They did not presume in their arrogance to start their own church. St. Thomas More was martyred for that fidelity. They knew better than anyone that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions and self-righteous causes.
About the author:
Randall Smith holds the J. Michael Miller Endowed Chair in Theology at the University of St. Thomas in Houston. His books include Bonaventure’s Journey of the Soul into God: Context and Commentary, From Here to Eternity: Reflections on Death, Immortality, and the Resurrection of the Body, Aquinas, Bonaventure, and the Scholastic Culture of Medieval Paris: Preaching, Prologues, and Biblical Commentary, Reading the Sermons of Thomas Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide. His forthcoming book, Mapping Bonaventure’s Itinerarium: Context and Commentary, will be released by Emmaus Press this summer. His articles can be found here: http://t4.stthom.edu/users/smith/portfolio/