Sunday, December 06, 2009

Who are the Members of the Church? (Pt. 2 of 3)


Share/Bookmark
A paper submitted by Fr. 'Romanus'
(Copyright of Ite ad Thomam © 2009)


Part Two of Three
(See Part One)


Now the parallel theological tradition in the Church’s theologians will be examined.
St. Augustine,[1] who labored so much against the Donatist heresy which made grace necessary for Church membership, many times states that sinners are indeed included in the body of Christ, the Church. However the sins of heresy and schism, clearly separate one from this body. That the faith is needed, “Corpus autem eius est Ecclesia; non ista, aut illa, sed toto orbe diffusa…Tota enim Ecclesia constans ex omnibus fidelibus, quia fideles omnes membra sunt Christi…(En. In Ps. 56,1: ML 36,662), and that heresy and schism excludes, “Sed haeretici de Deo falsa sentiendo ipsam fidem violant; schismatici autem discissionibus iniquis a fraterna charitate dissiliunt, quamvis ea credant quae credimus. Quapropter nec haeretici pertinent ad Ecclesiam catholicam, quae diligit Deum; nec schismatici, quoniam diligit proximum” (De fide et symb.  10,21: ML 40,193).
That baptism incorporates one into the Church, (taking the proof from the most remote case of infants, who cannot make acts of faith hope or charity), “Et quoniam ad hanc pertinet Baptismus, quo Christo consepeliuntur, ut incorporentur illi membra ejus, hoc est fideles ejus: profecto nec Baptismus est necessarius eis qui illo remissionis et reconciliationis beneficio, quae fit per mediatorem, non opus habent. Porro quia parvulos baptizandos esse concedunt, qui contra auctoritatem universae Ecclesiae, procul dubio per Dominum et Apostolos traditam, venire non possunt: concedant oportet eos egere illis beneficiis mediatoris, ut abluti per Sacramentum charitatemque fidelium, ac sic incorporati Christi corpori, quod est Ecclesia, reconcilientur Deo, ut in illo vivi, ut salvi, ut liberati, ut redempti, ut illuminati fiant: unde, nisi a morte, vitiis, reatu, subjectione, tenebris peccatorum? quae quoniam nulla in ea aetate per suam vitam propriam commiserunt, restat originale peccatum” (De pecc. mer. et rem. I 26,39: ML 44,131), and from the same work, “Unde fit consequens ut quoniam nihil agitur aliud, cum parvuli baptizantur, nisi ut incorporentur Ecclesiae, id est, Christi corpori membrisque socientur; manifestum sit eos ad damnationem, nisi hoc eis collatum fuerit” (III 4,7: ML 44,189).[2]
That baptism orders one towards divine worship, “Ipsa denique Ecclesia sic traditum tenet, ut hominem sine Baptismo ad altare prorsus non possit admittere” (De bapt. II 14,19: ML 43, 138).
With regards the question of the membership of sinners in the Church, the language is nuanced and varying, though the point he drives home in many places, is that sinners are still part of the visible juridical aspect of the Church, and thus truly still united to the Mystical Body of Christ, through their baptism and visible right to divine worhsip, though cut off from the holiness of the Church, living members vs. dead members, wheat vs. chaff, etc. Again what is at stake is the unity of the Church, and the avoidance of the conclusion of two churches which St. Augustine accuses the Donatists of making.[3] A few quotes will be taken from the larger list from the Enchiridion Theologicum S. Augustini (#1363-1392) (which also includes in footnote references to specific works on the subject).[4]
Sinners are included in the Mystical Body, heretics excluded, “Et deinde dicit quid interea per totum hoc tempus, dum jam resurrexit et adhuc cum Patre est, patiatur hic per commixtionem peccatorum in corpore suo, quod est Ecclesia, et per separationem haereticorum” (En. In Ps. 138,26: ML 37,1800).
Sinners truly remain incorporated in the Body of Christ and not just in the visible juridical aspect, “Nunc autem dicit corpus Christi, quod est Ecclesia: Quid est quod mihi calumniantur superbi, quasi me maculent aliena peccata, et propterea separando se, accipiunt in vanitate civitates suas? Nonne eos qui oderant te, Domine, odio habui? Utquid a me pejores exigunt etiam corporalem a malis separationem, ut ante tempus messis simul cum zizaniis eradicetur et triticum (Mt. XIII, 30); ut ante tempus ventilationis perdam sustinentiam tolerandi paleam (Id. III, 12); ut antequam omnia genera piscium ad finem saeculi tanquam ad littus separanda perveniant, retia pacis unitatisque disrumpam (Id. XIII, 47)? Numquid malorum sunt Sacramenta quae accipio? numquid eorum vitae factisque consentiendo communico? Nonne eos qui oderant te, Domine, odio habui; et super inimicis tuis tabescebam? nonne cum zelus domus tuae comederet me (Psal. LXVIII, 10), videbam insensatos, et tabescebam? nonne et taedium detinebat me a peccatoribus derelinquentibus legem tuam (Psal. CXVIII, 139, 158, 53)? Qui enim sunt inimici tui, nisi qui vita sua indicant quam oderint legem tuam? Hos ergo cum odissem, cur mihi calumniantur qui accipiunt in vanitate civitates suas, quod mihi imputari possint eorum peccata, quos oderam, et super quibus zelo domus Dei tabescebam?” (Idem 118,27: ML 37,1801).
Sinners remain nevertheless as members sick, distorted, dead, non vivified by the Spirit of Christ, though still in his body, “Norunt fideles corpus Christi, si corpus Christi esse non negligant. Fiant corpus Christi, si volunt vivere de Spiritu Christi. De spiritu Christi non vivit, nisi corpus Christi. Intelligite, fratres mei, quid dixerim. Homo es, et spiritum habes, et corpus habes. Spiritum dico quae anima vocatur, qua constat quod homo es: constas enim ex anima et corpore. Habes itaque spiritum invisibilem, corpus visibile. Dic mihi quid ex quo vivat: spiritus tuus vivit ex corpore tuo, an corpus tuum ex spiritu tuo? Respondet omnis qui vivit: qui autem hoc non potest respondere, nescio si vivit: quid respondet omnis qui vivit? Corpus utique meum vivit de spiritu meo. Vis ergo et tu vivere de Spiritu Christi? In corpore esto Christi. Numquid enim corpus meum vivit de spiritu tuo? Meum vivit de spiritu meo, et tuum de tuo. Non potest vivere corpus Christi, nisi de Spiritu Christi. Inde est quod exponens nobis apostolus Paulus hunc panem, Unus panis, inquit, unum corpus multi sumus (I Cor. X, 17). O Sacramentum pietatis! o signum unitatis! o vinculum charitatis! Qui vult vivere, habet ubi vivat, habet unde vivat. Accedat, credat, incorporetur, ut vivificetur. Non abhoreat a compage membrorum, non sit putre membrum quod resecari mereatur, non sit distortum de quo erubescatur: sit pulchrum, sit aptum, sit sanum; haereat corpori, vivat Deo de Deo: nunc laboret in terra, ut postea regnet in coelo” (In Io. Ev. Tr. 26,13: ML 35,1612); etc.

            St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), as is well known, did not give an ex professo treatment of the Church, as this part of theology took more definite shape with the counter-reformation theologians, like Torquemada, Cano, Bellarmine, etc., in response to the Protestant attack on the very nature of the Church. Nevertheless, many principles and statements can be drawn from his writings on the subject.[5]
Like St. Augustine he speaks of the Church in a two-fold sense, broadly and more strictly speaking, as one needs to account for the union of Christ through grace, and the union of sinners in his Church.
In his treatment on the capital grace of Christ, and specifically whether Christ can be said to be the head of all men (3.8.3),[6] he states in sum, that the Body of the Church / Mystical Body / Members of Christ, is made up of men who did not exist all at the same time; who did not have grace at all times, and with regards thee there is a five fold division- 1. those united actually in heaven, with vision and charity. 2. those united actually through faith and charity. 3. Those united actually through faith. 4. of those who are in potentia to faith and charity, but will at some point be reduced to act in these respects according to their predestination. 5. Those in potentia who will never be reduced to act due to their reprobation. In the ad secundum, he states that those who do not have charity are not united actually to Christ as members, save imperfectly through faith.
In the treatment on Baptism[7] however a stricter sense of the Church is brought out, in that one only becomes incorporated corporally into Christ as a member, configured to him and the other members through the reception of the character, and thus made able to participate in catholic worship, by baptism. This configuration is still needed even in one who may have already been sanctified, as one must be born of water and the spirit to enter the kingdom of God, (the Church). He uses the distinction as well of mentally being united to Christ as a Catechumen but corporally incorporated through the visible sacrament of baptism.[8] However, it seems that St. Thomas more often refers to members of Christ under the ratio of union by sanctifying grace in the Summa Theol., as befits his treatment of grace and the sacraments, the juridical side of his ecclesiology being lacking as an express treatment. Perhaps this would’ve been more developed had he finished the Summa’s treatise on Penance, which includes the consideration of the Keys of the Church, and excommunication (c.f. Supplementum qq17-24, drawn from Dist. 18 of the IV book of the Sentences),[9] in which are seen the following considerations.
            “(1) Respondeo dicendum ad primam quaestionem, quod ille qui per baptismum in ecclesia ponitur, ad duo ascribitur; scilicet ad coetum fidelium, et ad sacramentorum participationem; et hoc secundum praesupponit primum, quia in sacramentis participandis etiam fideles communicant; et ideo aliquis potest extra ecclesiam fieri per excommunicationem, dupliciter. Uno modo ita quod separetur tantum a participatione sacramentorum; et haec erit excommunicatio minor. Alio modo ita quod excludatur ab utroque; et sic erit excommunicatio major; quae hic definitur. Non autem potest esse tertium; scilicet quod excludatur a communione fidelium, et non a participatione sacramentorum, ratione jam dicta, quia scilicet fideles in sacramentis communicant. Sed communicatio fidelium est duplex. Quaedam in spiritualibus; sicut sunt mutuae orationes, et conventus ad sacra percipienda; quaedam in corporalibus actibus legitimis; qui quidem legitimi actus et licita communio his versibus continentur: si pro delictis, anathema quis efficiatur; os, orare, vale, communio, mensa negatur. Os, scilicet ne detur osculum; orare, ne cum excommunicatis oremus; vale, ne salutentur; communio, ne scilicet in sacramentis cum ipsis aliquis communicet; mensa negatur, ne aliquis cum eis comedat. Praemissa ergo definitio importat separationem a sacramentis in hoc quod dicit, quantum ad fructum; et a communione fidelium, quantum ad spiritualia, in hoc quod dicit: et suffragia ecclesiae communia. Alia autem definitio invenitur quae datur secundum separationem ab utrisque actibus, quae talis est: excommunicatio est a qualibet licita communione ac legitimo actu separatio.
(1) Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod pro infidelibus oratur; sed ipsi fructum orationis non percipiunt, nisi ad fidem convertantur. Similiter et pro excommunicatis orari potest, quamvis non inter orationes quae pro membris ecclesiae fiunt; et tamen fructum non participant, quamdiu in excommunicatione manent: sed oratur ut detur eis spiritus poenitentiae, ut ab excommunicatione solvantur.
(1) Ad secundum dicendum, quod suffragia alicujus valent alicui secundum quod ei continuantur. Potest autem actio unius alteri continuari dupliciter. Uno modo ex VI caritatis, quae omnes fideles connectit, ut sint unum in Deo, sicut dicitur Ps 118,63: particeps ego sum omnium timentium te; et hanc continuationem excommunicatio non intercipit: quia juste excommunicari quis non potest nisi pro culpa mortali, per quam jam a caritate divisus est, etiamsi non excommunicetur. Injusta autem excommunicatio caritatem alicui auferre non potest, cum sit de maximis bonis, quae non possunt alicui invito auferri. Alio modo per intentionem suffragia facientis, quae in aliquem fertur pro quo fiunt; et hanc continuationem excommunicatio intercipit: quia ecclesia per excommunicationis sententiam separat excommunicatos ab universitate fidelium, pro quibus suffragia facit. Unde suffragia ecclesiae ei non prosunt quae pro tota ecclesia fiunt; nec ex persona ecclesiae oratio pro eis inter membra ecclesiae fieri potest; quamvis aliqua persona privata possit ad ejus conversionem aliquod suffragium per intentionem dirigere.
(1) Ad tertium dicendum, quod fructus spiritualis ecclesiae non solum est ex suffragiis, sed etiam ex perceptione sacramentorum et ex convictu fidelium.
(1) Ad quartum dicendum, quod minor excommunicatio non habet perfectam rationem excommunicationis, sed aliquid ipsius participat; et ideo non oportet quod ei totaliter excommunicationis definitio conveniat, sed solum quo ad aliquid” (IV Sent. D. 18 Qu. 2 a.1 q.1).
                From which passage is learned, that through baptism one is placed in the Church, and through major excommunication outside of the Church, as a non member, who may not participate in the sacraments of suffrages of the Church (unlike those who fall into mortal sin, who may still approach the sacrament of penance, without prior public reconciliation to the Church). 
As to whether one can be excommunicated more than once he says, “(3) Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod Apostolus loquitur de paganis et aliis infidelibus, qui non habent characterem, per quem annumerati sint in populo Dei. Sed quia character baptismalis, quo quis populo Dei annumeratur, est indelebilis, ideo semper remanet aliquo modo de ecclesia baptizatus; et sic semper ecclesia de ipso judicare potest.” (IV Sent. D. 18 Qu. 2 a.3 q.3 ad 1), from which it is evident that someone can remain in someway de Ecclesia, due to the indelible character of baptism, despite the loss of grace and even the faith.[10]
On unjust excommunication he says, “(4) Ad quartam quaestionem dicendum…si sit talis error ex parte sententiae qui sententiam nullam faciat esse, non habet effectum, quia non est excommunicatio; si autem sententiam non annullet, habet effectum suum, et debet excommunicatus humiliter obedire, et erit ad meritum, vel absolutionem petere ab excommunicante, vel ad superiorem judicem recurrere. Si autem contemneret, eo ipso mortaliter peccaret. Contingit autem quandoque quod est debita causa ex parte excommunicationis, quae non est debita ex parte excommunicati; sicut cum aliquis pro falso crimine in judicio probato excommunicatur; et tunc si humiliter sustinet, humilitatis merito recompensat excommunicationis damnum” (IV Sent. D. 18 Qu. 2 a.1 q.3 ad 4), from which very important passage we learn that one may be truly excommunicated, habet effectum suum, even though unjustly, which he ought to obey in charity, the principle of merit.[11] Thus for St. Thomas sanctifying grace is not the only criteria for membership in the Church, but rather there is formally required baptismal character, and communion with legitimate ecclesiastical authority. Moreover in other places he speaks of the Church in the more  integral formal sense including and distinguishing the various spiritual and juridical elements,
Domus Domini spiritualis est duplex: et tertia est materialis, scilicet ecclesia, in qua morari salutiferum est:Gn 28: non est hic aliud nisi domus Dei et porta caeli: nam in ea excitatur animus hominis ad devotionem. Domus spiritualis Dei est ecclesia militans1 Tm 3: ut scias quomodo oporteat te conversari in domo Dei, quae est ecclesia Dei vivi, columna et firmamentum veritatis. Alia est ecclesia triumphans2 Co 5: si terrestris domus nostra hujus habitationis dissolvatur, quod aedificationem ex Deo habemus domum non manufactam, sed aeternam in caelis. De utraque ergo potest hoc intelligi, quia haec domus via est ad illam et porta ejus. Ps. 117: haec porta Domini, justi intrabunt per eam.
Et ideo desiderandum est habitare in hac domo, scilicet ecclesia.
Et hoc omnibus diebus vitae meae, idest usque in finem: ps. 131: haec requies mea in saeculum saeculi: hic habitabo, quoniam elegi eam. Habitat autem quis in domo Dei per fidem et charitatem et conformitatem bonorum operum: ps. 67: qui habitare facit unius moris in domo.
Et laudabile est quod semper in ea habitet, et non separetur ab eaSeparatur autem homo ab ecclesia per peccatum, per excommunicationem,[12] et per schisma,[13] vel haeresim[14] (Comm in Psalm. 26 n.3). [15]


                In sum, there is seen in Sts. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, the consideration of the following realities, namely those who have been incorporated into the Church by baptism and remain in grace; those who have fallen from the state of grace; those who have fallen from grace by heresy, schism, and excommunication; and lastly those who have been excommunicated justly and returned to grace before their reentrance into the Church, or unjustly excommunicated have persevered in grace. Baptism and grace are thus the two rationes to unite in a concept of Church membership, which is in turn linked with the very unity of the Church. The texts affirming the excommunication of one in a state of grace, and those not in the state of grace but still united insome way confirm this. In general, member is used more for one who is enlivened by charity, though at the same time effort is made to avoid a Church of only the just, being faithful to the many parables of Holy Writ, which speak of the mix of good and evil in the kingdom. 

                Cardinal Cajetan[16], treats of Church membership in his De comparatione auctoritatis Papae et Concilii (an. 1511; pgph 313-342), within the context of whether an heretical pope would ipso facto be deposed by divine law.
            The difficulty over an heretical Pope retaining his office arises first from the principle that, “fides saltem informis exigitur ad membrum Jesu Christi” (#315),[17] he continues though “ideo  sciendum est quod baptismum, quo primum regeneramur et pertinemus ad Jesu Christi corpus mysticum quod est Ecclesia, tres, quantum ad propositum spectat, facit in anima nostra effectus. Primo, imprimit characterem indelebilem: secundo, fidem: tertio caritatem.” The third effect makes one a living member of Christ, but is not needed to have jurisdiction nor power of orders. Baptism only always confers character, and thus this is most essential to it, and that one “habens solum fidei charactarem est simul fidelis et infidelis, membrum Christi et Ecclesiae, et extra membra Christi et Ecclesiae diversis respectibus, et propterea a doctoribus diversa et contrartia de eo dicuntur” (#317). The one having character alone, unlike the one with unformed faith, receives no influx of any vital interior act from Christ the head, like unto an arid limb (#319). He then puts forth his central thesis, “Quia ergo character fidei est primum in compositione membri Christi, quod patet ex hoc quod ipse a solo baptismo cum sit solus est inseparabilis ab eo ac per hoc proprius effectus baptismi quo efficitur primo membra Christi et Ecclesiae, oportet quod sit ultimum in resolutione membri Christi et Ecclesiae, et consequenter, quamdiu character manet, non desinit esse totaliter membrum Christi” (#320). Even in hell therefore he says there is some ratio of member remaining, which is a greater torment to the damned.[18] Therefore the reasons adduced to conclude that loss of faith brings about loss of membership and therefore office, are not conclusive, as a basis for membership still remains for a time. However such a one is to be deposed, due to this heresy.

Melchior Cano, in De Locis Theologicis. Lib. IV cc.1-6, de Ecclesiae Catholicae Auctoritate (an. 1563), helps develop ecclesiological thought by distinguishing the following, with regards the Church militant / here on earth, “intelligendum est, dupliciter Ecclesiam posse dici. Primum eam, quam fidelium omnium ab initio mundi usque in finem congregatio conficit, quomodo divus Thomas de Ecclesia loquitur (3.8.3), illique omnes, qui esse nunc eamdem Ecclesiam dicunt, quae fuit et in populo Judaeorum sub lege Moysi, et in hominibus piis sub lege olim naturali. In quem sensum Catechumeni sunt membra Ecclesiae verissima. Non enim haec Baptismi sacramento secernitur, sed fide, quae omni tempore populum Dei ad infidelium coetibus discriminavit. Deinde et ea Ecclesia dicitur, quae in Christi nomine per Baptismum cogitur, qui et fidei sacramentum est, et proprie Ecclesiae membra partesque facit, et Christi Ecclesiam a Synagoga distinguit. Hujus Ecclesiae nec Catechumeni partes sunt, et illi omnes sunt partes, qui a Baptismo Christi charactarem habent, nisi post haeresim exteriorem publico Ecclesiae judicio fuerint excisi” (c.2), from which is drawn the distinction of the Church more broadly speaking as St. Thomas in 3.8.3. speaks of it, and more properly speaking of which the defining note is baptismal character and union of faith, against which stand heresy, which separates the baptized from the Church. He then goes on to show that the Church is not only composed of the predestined or saints, contra the protestant heresiarchs (c.1), whose arguments he first elegantly presents, by citing Scripture passages in which the people of God are bade to acknowledge and pray for the forgiveness of sins (Mt. 6:12, 1 Jn 1:8, Hebr. 5:1, Eccl 7:21, etc), as well as the many parables which speak of the kingdom of God as a society mixed with chaff, those without wedding garments, etc. (Mt. 22:2, 25:1, 13:25). Furthermore the Church is something visible, set on a mountain for all to see (Mt. 5:14), which must be recognizable that the faithful may have recourse to it (13:25). (c.3). Further on in c.6 he makes the distinction that, “aliud porro est partes Eccleiae esse, aliud esse Ecclesiae membra. Nomen siquidem partis latius diffunditur, nomen membri contractius est. Pars ad totum refertur, membrum ad animantis corpus. Ita pars sine vita invenitur, ut in lapide, ligno, ac caeteris ejusmodi; membrum autem vere et proprie sine vita ne intelligi quidem potest. Quamobrem improbi partes quidem Ecclesiae sunt, membra Ecclesiae aut Christi non sunt: sunt autem diaboli membra; at in Ecclesia esse censentur, civesque civitati huic et annumerati et adscripti; cives mali et flagitiosi tamen.” In which again is made the distinction between true and proper living members and non-living ones which he calls parts, who are nevertheless reckoned to be in the Church, though as bad citizens in the state, as they are truly members of the devil at the same time through sin. Later on in the same chapter he refers to the Greeks as schismatics, which schism alone would separates them from the Church (“quare necesse est, ut qui ab unitate se separat, quoniam non est in una Ecclesia catholica, ne in Ecclesia quidem ille sit.”), and that in addition they are separated by heresy- denying that there is one head of the Church.

            St. Robert Bellarmine, wrote perhaps the most notable work on the subject which becomes the sententia communissima for so many other theologians after him unto the very definition given in Mystici Corporis. In Lib. 3, De Ecclesia Militante: toto orbe terrarum diffusa, (an. 1586), he first discusses the etymology of the term ecclesia- which he says properly imports evocatio, and not merely a congregatio (synagogue) which is common to gathering of beasts as well (c.1). In c.2 he gives the opinions of the heretics that the church is the congregatio of the just, perfect or predestined, and them counters with his own definition “nostra autem sententia est, Ecclesiam unam tantum esse, non duas, et illam unam et veram esse coetum hominum ejusdem christianae fidei professione, et eorundem sacramentorum communione colligatum, sub regimine legitimorum pastorum, ac praecipue unius Christi in terris vicarii romani pontificis. Ex qua definitione facile colligi potest, qui homines ad Ecclesiam pertineant, qui vero ad eam non pertineant. Tres enim sunt partes hujus definitionis. Professio verae fidei, sacramentorum communio, et subjectio ad legitimum pastorem romanum pontificem. Ratione primae partis excluduntur omnes infidelis…Judaei… haereticae…Ratione secundae, excluduntur catechumeni et excommunicati, quoniam non sunt admissi ad sacramentorum communionem, isti sunt dimissi. Ratione tertiae, excluduntur schismatici, qui…non subduntur legitimo pastori…Includuntur autem omnes alii, eitamsi reprobi, scelesti et impii sint.” He then goes on to note that the difference between his definition and all the others is that, the others require some interior virtue, to be a pars Ecclesiae, whereas his “ut aliquis aliquo modo dici possit pars verae Ecclesiae, de qua Scripturae loquuntur…putamus requiri…tantum externam professionem fidei, et sacraementorum communionem…Ecclesia enim est coetus hominum ita visibilis et palpabilis…” He then continues to say that the Church is a living body, as St. Augustine noted, in which there is a soul and a body, the soul being the interior gifts of the Holy Ghost, the body being made up of the external profession of faith and sacramental communion, from which it follows that “quidam sunt de anima et de corpore Ecclesiae, et proinde uniti Christo capiti interius et exterius; et tales sunt perfectissime de Ecclesia; sunt enim quasi membra viva in corpore,” with greater degrees of participation in the interior life of the soul, some only having beginning of life, akin to sense without movement, as in those with faith but no charity. There are those only of the soul, and not of the body as in catechumens and excommunicates in the state of grace. And lastly those only of the body and not of the soul, having no grace and professing the faith and preserving ecclesiastical unity only by fear. He concludes “Definitio igitur nostra solum comprehendit hunc ultimum modum existendi in Ecclesia, quia hic requiritur ut minimum; ut quis possit dici esse pars visibilis Ecclesiae.”
There is no need of a summary of such a succinct presentation, but to be noted is that those with faith and no charity are not only of the body of the Church, but of the soul as well, as it animates their supernatural faith. Moreover the language of St. Robert Bellarmine is specifically that of visible part, the term member being only used in analogy. The aim of the saintly Doctor is to secure a definition that would secure the minimum clearly fit for being a visibile part of the body of the Church, and would preserve therefore conceptual unity of the unity of the Church, which usage of “part” he truly thinks is based on Scripture (and not a mere defensive posturing towards protestants).
            He then goes on to discuss specifically those who are not visibile parts- non-baptized, heretics, apostates, excommunicates and schismatics; and capable of pertaining to the Church are the non-predestined, non-perfect, manifest sinners, secret infidels, if they would hold the sacraments, profession of faith, subjection, etc.
To note some of the most important principles in each section: concerning catechumens, he disagrees with Cano, who places them in the Church in the broad sense, because after Christ there is only the one true Church. Therefore Catechumens are able to be saved by union with the Church in voto, which can suffice for salvation (c.3).
Heretics and apostates are truly outside the Church, as the Church speaks of receiving them back, and as the anathemas accompanying condemnations of heresies attest, St. Augustine, etc.. Though they retain their baptismal character, this does not suffice alone to constitute someone in the Church, otherwise the Church would also be in hell. Following St. Thomas, he says that character is only a sign that one was a member of Christ, as it does not unify one exteriorly to the Church as it is invisible, not interiorly as it is not an act nor an operative habit (c.4).
With regards schismatics, he says that not only do the Scriptures and Fathers and Popes, speak of them as separated, but it is of the very reason of the essential unity of the Church- the union of the members with each other and the head. He says there is are different ratio’s of unity in the Church- first, from the principium / efficient cause, the call of God; second from the final cause; third, from the means, i.e. the faith, sacraments, laws; fourth, the Holy Ghost, giver of gifts; fifth, union with the head, and it’s vicar; sixth, union of members with each other. Only the last two make the Church properly one, he says, for the fist is more to say ex una, the second ad unum, the third per unum, the fourth sub unum, the fifth and sixth however are more in the order of formal causality, making it one as such, to which schismatics properly speaking are opposed. Lastly he refutes those who say they are in union with the Church in heaven, and not with the visible head on earth, and those who say they are in union with the Church on earth but not their local Bishops, by citing the impossibility of the former, as he who hears you hears me, and that as from Christ flows the influx of faith and charity, so by analogous subordination, the exterior doctrine of faith and the sacraments flow from the visible head. To the latter error he cites St. Cyprian who condemns those who notes the essential unity of the members inter se that is violated (c.5).
He proves the non-membership of the excommunicated again from Scripture, “si Ecclesiam non audierit, sit tibi sicut ethnicus et publicanus” (Mt. 18), the Fathers, especially St. Augustine, and the canons of the Church. In se, excommunication is analogous to interfectio, and truly signifies the worst penalty, of being cast out of the Church. Against the objection that the penitent excommunicate has all the marks of faith, charity, and submission to the Church and is therefore in it, he responds that they are in union with the Church in desire, which suffices for salvation, but they are not of the body of the visible Church. (c.f. the citation of St. Augustine in footnote 3) (c.6).
Against the falsissima opinion contrary to the express teaching of Holy Writ that predestination is the ratio that makes one a member of the Church, he says that this would perish all visibility of the Church. He then provides qualifications to understand the language of the Fathers which seems to suggest such. “Respondeo: Notandas esse pro explicatione horum locorum [citationium S. Augustini] duas distinctiones. Prima est, hominem posse dici Christi ovem, filium, membrum, duobus modis; uno modo secundum praedestinationem; altero modo secundum praesentem justitiam. Haec distinctio habetur apud Paulum; nam Rom. 8 dicit: qui spiritum Christi non habet, hic non est eius. Et tamen 2 Tim 2, dicit de praedestinatis: novit Dominus qui sunt eius. Itaque unus, et idem potest esse Christi membrum, et non esse. Erit enim ejus, si sit praedestinatus, et non erit ejus, si interim spiritum ejus non habeat. Idem docet Augustinus…” Futher down he says, “Altera distinctio est, posse aliquem dici vere filium Dei, aut membrum corporis Christi duobus modis; uno modo veritate essentiae, sive formae, altero modo veritate finis, vel ut alii; dicunt; veritate permanentiae. Veritate essentiae, est filius Dei qui habet charitatem…est membrum Christi, qui de eodem spiritu vivit…At veritate finis dicitur filius Dei, qui assequetur haereditatem…Itaque qui est in gratia, et tamen non praedestinatus est vere filius, et membrum veritate essentiae; et non est vere filius, nec membrum veritate finis. Et contra [converse]…” (c.7). If only the good were members of the Church, in vain would the sacrament of penance have been instituted, which is only administered to those who are of the Church. Again, the Church would be invisible, prelates would not be recognizable or obeyed, etc. Against various objections, he writes that the “malos non esse membra viva corporis Christi, et hoc signifcari illis Scripturis. Ad id quod addebatur, igitur sunt aequivoce membra etc. a multis solet concedi, malos non esse membra vera, nec simpliciter, corporis Ecclesiae, sed tantum secundum quid, et aequivoce. Ita Joannes de Turrecremata… ubi id probat ex Alexandro de Ales, Hugone, et B. Thoma. Idem eitam docent Petrus a Soto, Melchior Canus, et alii, qui tamen etsi dicant malos non esse membra vera, dicunt nihilominus vere esse in Ecclesia, sive in corpore Ecclesiae, et esse simpliciter fidelis, seu Christianos. Neque enim sola membra sunt in corpore, sed etiam humores, dentes, pili, et alia quae non sunt membra. Neque fideles aut Christiani dicuntur tales a charitate, sed a fide sive a fidei professione. At si ita est, sequitur, pontificem malum non esse caput Ecclesiae: et alios episcopos, si mali sint, non esse capita suarum Ecclesiarum. Caput enum non est humor, aut pilus, sed membrum, et quidem praecipuum…
“Respondeo igitur: Membra posse consdierari duobus modis: Uno modo, ut sunt res quaedam secundum se, sive secundum essentiam, ac substantiam suam: alio modo, ut sunt instrumenta operativa…ejusdem speciei, quia idem habent objectum.
Dico igitur, episcopum malum, presbyterum…esse membra mortua, et proinde non vera, corporis Christi, quantum attinet ad rationem membri, ut est pars quaedam vivi corporis: tamen esse verissima membra in ratione instrumenti, idest, papam et episcopos esse vera capita…membra constituuntur viva per charitatem…At instrumenta operativea constituuntur per potestatem sive ordinis, sive jurisdictionis, quae etiam sine gratia esse potest.” He concludes by saying this dual state of dead and operative instrument is only possible in the mystical body, and not in the natural body (c. 9). 
Concerning infidelibus occultis, (c.10), that is, those who have no internal faith or christian virtue, though outwardly profess the faith, and maintain communion with the sacraments, for some human motive, he maintains, following the mode of speaking of many, that they “esse veras partes exteriores, atque adeo etiam membra, licet arida, et mortua, corporis Ecclesiae.” He cites 1 Jn. 2, concerning the Antichrist, who went out from amongst us, and St. Augustine’s commentary on the passage (tr. 3 in Joan), as fitting this classification. He also cites the common consensus of the Fathers, that those outside the Church have no authority or jurisdiction in the Church, and that it is certain a secret heretical Pope or Bishop does not lose such jurisdiction (until he publicly separtes or is separated from the Church), and therefore must be numbered amongst the members of the Church, as who could imagine that the head of the Church with jurisdiction is not at the same time a member. If the opposite were true, all juridical acts could be called into question. The proof from reason, is taken again from the analogy with the body, in which he referred to members which are live and sense (faith and charity), those that only sense (faith), and those that neither live nor sense (secret heretics). These latter still remain conjoined exteriorly. Conversely if they were not members, the visibility of the Church would be placed in jeopardy, as with the Protestants who hold that the Church consists of the just or predestined, which cannot visibly be verified. So too if interior faith is a necessary criterion which is invisible. It could happen then that a whole ecumenical council could be called into doubt, if perhaps 1/3 of their members were secret heretics. Rather it must be said that the form of the true Church and it’s members is the external profession of faith. Following this same reasoning he argues for the true visible membership of those falsely baptized, as he sees confirmed in the judgment of Innocent III concerning the non-baptized priest who died, ignorant of the fact, for whom he ordered sacrifices to be offered as for the faithful.

In sum then we see a shift in the Counter-Reformation authors, to a more visible / juridical emphasis on the term member, in response to the “invisible Church” of the Protestants. At the same time effort is made to preserve and incorporate the previous tradition, often emphasizing membership in terms of grace. Even the term member, is still at this stage becoming stable, as it is at root an analogous term taken from comparison to the human body. The authors strive to harmonize formal use of the term in the mystical body with what would be analogously true in the human body, a difficult task indeed as this is only an analogy, and the mystical body of the Church is sui generis, composed as it is of divine and human elements.[19]
‘Member’, by Cano, is distinguished from ‘part’, the former being more restricted, referring to animated members by grace, the latter more broad including those without grace. Bellarmine distinguishes within members those which have sense from those which have life, finding thus room in the term for those without charity, but with a true internal influx of faith from Christ the head. Both of whom are again working from analogy with the human body. Cajetan focuses most closely on Baptism, and it’s absolute most universal effect- character, and the incorporation into the Church by it, to provide membership even for those without the faith.[20]
There is an emphasis on the need for Baptism as well and the character it confers, to be numbered amongst the members of the Church, and to be saved, it being held (as Trent defines[21]), that the non-baptized could be saved by adherence to the Church in desire.
Amidst the visible norm of membership there arises debate over the status of occult heretics, and the fictitiously baptized, again the previous emphasis of internal membership needing to be retained and harmonized, with conclusions in this regards.
In short, it must be said that these authors begin clearly distinguishing the different realities of relation to Christ and the Church- those with faith and charity and baptism, those with faith and chairy without baptism, those with faith and no charity or baptism, those with baptism but no faith or charity, those with baptism, faith, but no charity, those fictisously baptized, professing the faith, etc. The debate lies over where to place the rule of membership, and what it’s consistent ratio is, the term itself already being analogously received in itself, and from its use in tradition.

(See Part Three.)




Notes: 


[1] This section most of all can claim the least amount of thorough representation of the author, as his terminology is less exact, varying, and spread far and wide throughout his large corpus of writings. C.f. the references and footnotes in the Enchiridion Augustinianum for many loci and individual treatises on the subject. The texts provided here are only meant to prove the basic points of membership, while authors debate more subtle points implied in his texts on occult heretics, etc.

[2] That infants baptized in heretical sects are members, is confirmed by Benedict XIV in Singulari (9 feb. 1749; found in Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes #394), who holds that one is made a member of the Church by baptism, but if above the age of reason, in the same moment separated from Her, if they adhere to the errors of that sect, though in this latter case they still remain under the Church’s authority as subjects. “Deinde id etiam compertum est, eum, qui baptisma ab Haeretico rite suscepit, illius vi Ecclesiae Catholicae membrum effici; privatus siquidem baptizantis error hac eum felicitate privare nequit, si Sacramentum conferat in Fide verae Ecclesiae, atque eius instituta servet in his, quae pertinent ad validitatem Baptismi…Postremo exploratum habemus, ab Haereticis baptizatos, si ad eam aetatem venerint, in qua bona a malis dispicere per se possint, atque erroribus baptizantis adhaereant, illos quidem ab Ecclesiae unitate repelli, iisque bonis orbari omnibus, quibus fruuntur in Ecclesia versantes, non tamen ab eius auctoritate, et legibus liberari.”
[3] “Deinde calumniantes, quod duas Ecclesias Catholici dixerint; unam quae nunc habet permixtos malos, aliam quae post resurrectionem eos non esset habitura: veluti non iidem futuri essent sancti cum Christo regnaturi, qui nunc pro ejus nomine cum juste vivunt tolerant malos…De duabus etiam Ecclesiis calumniam eorum Catholici refutarunt, identidem expressius ostendentes quid dixerint, id est, non eam Ecclesiam quae nunc habet permixtos malos alienam se dixisse a regno Dei, ubi non erunt mali commixti; sed eamdem ipsam unam et sanctam Ecclesiam nunc esse aliter, tunc autem aliter futuram; nunc habere malos mixtos; tunc non habituram: sicut nunc mortalem, quod ex mortalibus constaret hominibus; tunc autem immortalem, quod in ea nullus esset vel corpore moriturus: sicut non ideo duo Christi, quia prior mortuus postea non moriturus. Dictum est etiam de homine exteriore et interiore, quae cum sint diversa, non tamen dici duos homines: quanto minus dici duas Ecclesias, cum iidem ipsi qui nunc boni tolerant permixtos malos et resurrecturi moriuntur, tunc nec mixtos malos habituri sint, nec omnino morituri?” (Brevic. Coll. Cum Don. III 10,19-20: ML 43,634-5).  
[4] Fanciscus Moriones, O.RS.A, S.T.L. BAC Madrid, 1961. The comments on the passages are his as well. Due to the variety of passages of St. Augustine his exact sententiae are debated.

[5] Especially where he treats of the capital grace of Christ (3.8.3) Baptism (3.68-9), Faith (2-2.1,4), and seemingly overlooked Suppl. 18-24, taken from IV Sent. D. 18., in which the juridical side of the question is treated in Excommunication. c.f. Salaverri SJ in Sacrae Theologiae Summa: De Ecclesia Christi #1060. BAC Madrid 1952.  

[6] Sed contra est quod dicitur I Tim. IV, salvator omnium est, et maxime fidelium. Et I Ioan. II, ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris, non autem pro nostris tantum, sed etiam pro totius mundi. Salvare autem homines, aut propitiatorem esse pro peccatis eorum, competit Christo secundum quod est caput. Ergo Christus est caput omnium hominum.

 Respondeo dicendum quod haec est differentia inter corpus hominis naturale et corpus ecclesiae mysticum, quod membra corporis naturalis sunt omnia simul, membra autem corporis mystici non sunt omnia simul, neque quantum ad esse naturae, quia corpus ecclesiae constituitur ex hominibus qui fuerunt a principio mundi usque ad finem ipsius; neque etiam quantum ad esse gratiae, quia eorum etiam qui sunt in uno tempore, quidam gratia carent postmodum habituri, aliis eam iam habentibus. Sic igitur membra corporis mystici non solum accipiuntur secundum quod sunt in actu, sed etiam secundum quod sunt in potentia. Quaedam tamen sunt in potentia quae nunquam reducuntur ad actum, quaedam vero quae quandoque reducuntur ad actum, secundum hunc triplicem gradum, quorum unus est per fidem, secundus per caritatem viae, tertius per fruitionem patriae. Sic ergo dicendum est quod, accipiendo generaliter secundum totum tempus mundi, Christus est caput omnium hominum, sed secundum diversos gradus. Primo enim et principaliter est caput eorum qui actu uniuntur sibi per gloriam. Secundo, eorum qui actu uniuntur sibi per caritatem. Tertio, eorum qui actu uniuntur sibi per fidem. Quarto vero, eorum qui sibi uniuntur solum potentia nondum ad actum reducta, quae tamen est ad actum reducenda, secundum divinam praedestinationem. Quinto vero, eorum qui in potentia sibi sunt uniti quae nunquam reducetur ad actum, sicut homines in hoc mundo viventes qui non sunt praedestinati. Qui tamen, ex hoc mundo recedentes, totaliter desinunt esse membra Christi, quia iam nec sunt in potentia ut Christo uniantur.

 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illi qui sunt infideles, etsi actu non sint de ecclesia, sunt tamen in potentia. Quae quidem potentia in duobus fundatur, primo quidem et principaliter, in virtute Christi, quae sufficiens est ad salutem totius humani generis; secundario, in arbitrii libertate.


 Ad secundum dicendum quod esse ecclesiam gloriosam, non habentem maculam neque rugam, est ultimus finis, ad quem perducimur per passionem Christi. Unde hoc erit in statu patriae, non autem in statu viae, in quo, si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus, nosmetipsos seducimus, ut dicitur I Ioan. I. Sunt tamen quaedam, scilicet mortalia, quibus carent illi qui sunt membra Christi per actualem unionem caritatis. Qui vero his peccatis subduntur, non sunt membra Christi actualiter, sed potentialiter, nisi forte imperfecte, per fidem informem, quae unit Christo secundum quid et non simpliciter ut scilicet per Christum homo assequatur vitam gratiae; fides enim sine operibus mortua est, ut dicitur Iac. II. Percipiunt tamen tales a Christo quendam actum vitae, qui est credere, sicut si membrum mortificatum moveatur aliqualiter ab homine.


 Ad tertium dicendum quod sancti patres non insistebant sacramentis legalibus tanquam quibusdam rebus, sed sicut imaginibus et umbris futurorum. Idem autem est motus in imaginem, inquantum est imago, et in rem, ut patet per Philosophum, in libro de memoria et reminiscentia. Et ideo antiqui patres, servando legalia sacramenta, ferebantur in Christum per fidem et dilectionem eandem qua et nos in ipsum ferimur. Et ita patres antiqui pertinebant ad idem corpus ecclesiae ad quod nos pertinemus.

[7] Sed contra est quod dicitur Ioan. III, nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei. Et in libro de ecclesiasticis dogmatibus dicitur, baptizatis tantum iter salutis esse credimus.

 Respondeo dicendum quod ad illud homines tenentur sine quo salutem consequi non possunt. Manifestum est autem quod nullus salutem potest consequi nisi per Christum, unde et Apostolus dicit, Rom. V, sicut per unius delictum in omnes homines in condemnationem, sic et per unius iustitiam in omnes homines in iustificationem vitae. Ad hoc autem datur baptismus ut aliquis, per ipsum regeneratus, incorporetur Christo, factus membrum ipsius, unde dicitur Gal. III, quicumque in Christo baptizati estis, Christum induistis. Unde manifestum est quod omnes ad baptismum tenentur; et sine eo non potest esse salus hominibus.

 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod nunquam homines potuerunt salvari, etiam ante Christi adventum, nisi fierent membra Christi, quia, ut dicitur Act. IV, non est aliud nomen datum hominibus in quo oporteat nos salvos fieri. Sed ante adventum Christi, homines Christo incorporabantur per fidem futuri adventus, cuius fidei signaculum erat circumcisio, ut Apostolus dicit, Rom. IV. Ante vero quam circumcisio institueretur, sola fide, ut Gregorius dicit, cum sacrificiorum oblatione, quibus suam fidem antiqui patres profitebantur, homines Christo incorporabantur. Post adventum etiam Christi, homines per fidem Christo incorporantur, secundum illud Ephes. III habitare Christum per fidem in cordibus vestris. Sed alio signo manifestatur fides rei iam praesentis quam demonstrabatur quando erat futura, sicut aliis verbis significatur praesens, praeteritum et futurum. Et ideo, licet ipsum sacramentum baptismi non semper fuerit necessarium ad salutem, fides tamen, cuius baptismus sacramentum est, semper necessaria fuit.


 Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut in secunda parte dictum est, illi qui baptizantur, renovantur per baptismum secundum spiritum, corpus tamen remanet subiectum vetustati peccati, secundum illud Rom. VIII, corpus quidem mortuum est propter peccatum, spiritus vero vivit propter iustificationem. Unde Augustinus probat, in libro contra iulianum, quod non baptizatur in homine quidquid in eo est. Manifestum est autem quod homo non generat generatione carnali secundum spiritum, sed secundum carnem. Et ideo filii baptizatorum cum peccato originali nascuntur. Unde indigent baptizari.


Ad tertium dicendum quod illi qui sunt sanctificati in utero, consequuntur quidem gratiam emundantem a peccato originali, non tamen ex hoc ipso consequuntur characterem, quo Christo configurentur. Et propter hoc, si aliqui nunc sanctificarentur in utero, necesse esset eos baptizari, ut per susceptionem characteris aliis membris Christi conformarentur.

[8]Ad primum ergo dicendum quod adulti prius credentes in Christum sunt ei incorporati mentaliter. Sed postmodum, cum baptizantur, incorporantur ei quodammodo corporaliter, scilicet per visibile sacramentum, sine cuius proposito nec mentaliter incorporari potuissent” (3.69.5 ad1).
Baptism also, spiritually, grants greater remission in removing the penalty for sin, and a more complete infusion of grace and virtue. “Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, remissionem peccatorum aliquis consequitur ante baptismum secundum quod habet baptismum in voto, vel explicite vel implicite et tamen, cum realiter suscipit baptismum, fit plenior remissio, quantum ad liberationem a tota poena. Ita etiam ante baptismum cornelius et alii similes consequuntur gratiam et virtutes per fidem Christi et desiderium baptismi, implicite vel explicite, postmodum tamen in baptismo maiorem copiam gratiae et virtutum consequuntur. Unde super illud Psalmi, super aquam refectionis educavit me, dicit Glossa, per augmentum virtutis et bonae operationis educavit in baptismo” (3.69.4 ad2).

[9] Which section would seem the place to include the truths learned from the Donatist debate, as they essentially substituted rebaptism for penance, misunderstanding how the unjust remains a part of the church, ordinarily provided for by the sacrament of penance.

[10] Which state of remaining de Ecclesia is commonly referred to as subject (subditus).

[11] This important passage as well as the one above was found in De Groot OP’s Summa Apologetica q.3 a.3, p.76.

[12] St. Thomas does not set a limit on what one can be excommunicated for, but lists the following principle, which is proportioned to union with Christ in charity,
“(3) Ad tertiam quaestionem dicendum, quod per excommunicationem judex ecclesiasticus excommunicatos excludit a regno quodammodo. Unde cum non debeat excludere nisi indignos, ut ex definitione clavis patuit; nec aliquis reddatur indignus nisi per peccatum mortale amiserit caritatem, quae est via ducens ad regnum; ideo nullus excommunicari debet nisi pro peccato mortali. Et quia in damnificando aliquem corporaliter, vel in rebus temporalibus, aliquis mortaliter peccat, et contra caritatem facit; ideo pro damno temporali illato ecclesia aliquem excommunicare potest. Sed quia excommunicatio est gravissima poenarum; poenae autem medicinae sunt, secundum Philosophum in 2 ethic.; sapientis autem medici est a levioribus medicinis incipere, et minus periculosis; ideo excommunicatio infligi non debet etiam pro peccato mortali, nisi contumax fuerit; vel non veniendo ad judicium, vel ante terminationem judicii sine licentia recedendo, vel determinationi non parendo: tunc enim postquam monitus fuerit, si obedire contempserit; contumax reputatur, et excommunicari debet a judice jam non habente quid contra ipsum faciat amplius” (IV Sent D. 18 Qu. 2 a.1 q.3 ad 3).

That heresy is a cause for excommunication is seen in the following. “Respondeo dicendum quod circa haereticos duo sunt consideranda, unum quidem ex parte ipsorum; aliud ex parte ecclesiae. Ex parte quidem ipsorum est peccatum per quod meruerunt non solum ab ecclesia per excommunicationem separari, sed etiam per mortem a mundo excludi. Multo enim gravius est corrumpere fidem, per quam est animae vita, quam falsare pecuniam, per quam temporali vitae subvenitur. Unde si falsarii pecuniae, vel alii malefactores, statim per saeculares principes iuste morti traduntur; multo magis haeretici, statim cum de haeresi convincuntur, possent non solum excommunicari, sed et iuste occidi. Ex parte autem ecclesiae est misericordia, ad errantium conversionem. Et ideo non statim condemnat, sed post primam et secundam correctionem, ut Apostolus docet. Postmodum vero, si adhuc pertinax inveniatur, ecclesia, de eius conversione non sperans, aliorum saluti providet, eum ab ecclesia separando per excommunicationis sententiam; et ulterius relinquit eum iudicio saeculari a mundo exterminandum per mortem” (ST 2-2.11.3).

[13] Concerning schisma he says, “Et ideo peccatum schismatis proprie est speciale peccatum ex eo quod intendit se ab unitate separare quam caritas facit. Quae non solum alteram personam alteri unit spirituali dilectionis vinculo, sed etiam totam ecclesiam in unitate spiritus. Et ideo proprie schismatici dicuntur qui propria sponte et intentione se ab unitate ecclesiae separant, quae est unitas principalis, nam unitas particularis aliquorum ad invicem ordinatur ad unitatem ecclesiae, sicut compositio singulorum membrorum in corpore naturali ordinatur ad totius corporis unitatem. Ecclesiae autem unitas in duobus attenditur, scilicet in connexione membrorum ecclesiae ad invicem, seu communicatione; et iterum in ordine omnium membrorum ecclesiae ad unum caput; secundum illud ad Coloss. II, inflatus sensu carnis suae, et non tenens caput, ex quo totum corpus, per nexus et coniunctiones subministratum et constructum, crescit in augmentum Dei. Hoc autem caput est ipse Christus, cuius vicem in ecclesia gerit summus pontifex. Et ideo schismatici dicuntur qui subesse renuunt summo pontifici, et qui membris ecclesiae ei subiectis communicare recusant.”

“Ad secundum dicendum, quod schisma importat divisionem oppositam caritatis unioni: dicuntur enim schismatici qui concordiam non servant in ecclesiae observantiis, ut ecclesiae praelatis obediant, volentes per se ecclesiam constituere singularem: et isti in principio perversum dogma non habent, sed ab ecclesiae fundamento recedentes in vaniloquium vertuntur, et perversum aliquod confingunt, et sic in fine in haeresim labuntur; unde Hieronymus dicit, quod haeresis et schisma differunt sicut genus et species (IV Sent. D. 13 Qu 2. a.1 ad 2).

[14] “(2) Ad secundum dicendum, quod quamvis haereticus per fidem rectam non sit membrum ecclesiae, tamen inquantum servat morem ecclesiae in baptizando, baptismum ecclesiae tradit; unde regenerat filios Christo et ecclesiae, non sibi vel haeresi suae. Sicut enim jacob genuit filios per liberas et ancillas, ita Christus per catholicos et haereticos, bonos et malos, ut Augustinus dicit contra donatum ubi supra” (IV Sent D 6 Qu.1 a.3 q.2 ad 2).

Respondeo dicendum, quod haeresis est infectivum vitium; unde 2Tm 2,16, dicitur, quod multum proficiunt ad impietatem, et sermo eorum ut cancer serpit; et ideo ecclesia eos a consortio fidelium excludit, et praecipue illos qui alios corrumpunt; ut simplices, qui de facili corrumpi possunt, ab eis sint segregati non solum mente, sed etiam corporaliter; unde per ecclesiam carcerantur et expelluntur. Si autem alios non corrumperent, possent etiam celari. Sed illi qui sunt firmi in fide, possunt cum eis corpore conversari, ut eos convertant; non tamen in divinis, quia excommunicati sunt (IV Sent. D. 13 Qu 2. a.3 Resp).

[15] Also here he mentions in passing, “Respondeo dicendum quod quidam dixerunt quod haeretici, schismatici et excommunicati, quia sunt extra ecclesiam, non possunt conficere hoc sacramentum. Sed in hoc decipiuntur. Quia, sicut Augustinus dicit, in II contra parmen., aliud est aliquid omnino non habere, aliud autem non recte habere, et similiter est etiam aliud non dare, et aliud non recte dare. Illi igitur qui, intra ecclesiam constituti, receperunt potestatem consecrandi in ordinatione sacerdotii, recte quidem habent potestatem, sed non recte ea utuntur, si postmodum per haeresim aut schisma vel excommunicationem ab ecclesia separentur” (ST 3.82.7).

[16] The first famous treatise de Ecclesia was given by Cardinal Juan de Torquemada in the 15th cent., to whom Cajetan, Cano, and Bellarmine will refer. Unfortunately his work was unable to be attained for this paper.

[17] referring back to “fides constituit viatorem in hoc quod est esse membrum Ecclesiae Christi…negario prioris inducit negationem posterioris in essentialiter ordinatis ordine causae formalis…sed esse membrum et esse caput sint sic essentialiter ordinata quod eese membrum est prius quam esse caput, ut patet…” (#244)

[18] Cardinal Journet (v.3 p.1723, ft. #385, ed. c.f. ft. #30), with reagards to the teaching of Cajetan on membership, seeks to qualify this inconveniens conclusion that the damned are still members of Christ, by noting that in the commentary on 3.8.3 in the ST, (1522, 11 yrs. later), he states that the damned totaliter desinunt esse membra Christi. However, salva reverentia, et ni fallor, it seems that the texts are not rightly juxtaposed, as in this section in the Summa, St. Thomas is not speaking of character, but only of membership through grace and the virtues, and so follows Cajetan’s commentary in which he says that there is a logical potentia of the damned to receive grace, and therefore membership, but no physical potentia as their will is fixed with no more chance of repentance. Cajetan does not speak of character in this part, and thus the consideration of membership given in De auctoritate should not be seen read as changed by this passage, as they are treated under different ratios.

[19] c.f. Dorsch SJ, De Ecclesia Christi, 437-458, for a quite through treatment of the ratio’s analogy. Also Bellarmine in c.9 notes this difference with regard to non-living operative instruments “etsi in corpore naturali non possit membrum mortuum esse verum instrumentum operationis, tamen in corpore mystico potest..Anima enim hujus corporis, i.e. Spiritus sanctus aeque bene operatur per instrumenta bona et mala, viva et mortua, etc.”

[20] It is to be noted that Cajetan still holds that the unfaithful prelate should be deposed, in which he differs from Bellarmine who holds more generally that by their heresy they are already deposed. Again, he develops this theory so as to preserve a basis for jurisdiction for an heretical prelate. However the need of this basis is also debated, as Billuart says, “Papa…constituitur membrum Ecclesiae per fidem particularem, quam potest perdere, et caput Ecclesiae per iurisdictionem et potestatem cum haeresi compossibilem” (de Incarn., dis. IX, a.2; apud Fraghi, De Membris Ecclesiae, p.99)

[21] 796 Cap. 4. Quibus verbis iustificationis impii descriptio insinuatur, ut sit translatio ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae, in statum gratiae et 'adoptionis filiorum' (Rm 8,15) Dei, per secundum Adam Iesum Christum Salvatorem nostrum; quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis (can. 5 de bapt.) aut eius voto fieri non potest, sicut scriptum est: 'Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei' (Jn 3,5).

Post a Comment