The Bishop's Weekly Column from the Parish Bulletin

OUR LADY OF FATIMA

CATHOLIC CHURCH

The Thin End of the Wedge ?

October 4, 2006

Two pieces of media hype taken in conjunction could signal major theological difficulties for the life of the Catholic Church. The first concerns the rumor (which was forwarded to me but I had already seen the item) sparked by the London Times in an article that Pope Benedict XVI is scheduled to accept and / or endorse the findings of a theological commission set up under Pope John Paul II to re-examine the dogmatic existence of Limbo of the Children. The teaching concerning Limbo is a theological conclusion, the denial of which does not signify heresy per se. Celebrated "caputvacantists" (yes I am officially coining a term to describe sedes, from the Latin 'Caput' ('head') and 'Vacante' ('empty') hence 'empty-head-ists') will no doubt be feverishly awaiting the magisterial decision as yet another proof of Pope Benedict's defection (not my term) from the Faith.

Despite the anticipated caputvacantist backlash, other dogmas of Faith are not necessarily unaffected if the Pope decides to "abolish" (a ludicrous term in itself) more appropriately to "clarify" Catholic teaching in this area. Read the Times' article to follow the logic used in the argumentation that the theologians have employed in their debates. Other fundamental dogmas such as "Outside the Church there is no Salvation" and the necessity of Baptism with Water for salvation are clearly undermined, and the heresy of Universal Salvation (all are saved no questions asked) would be bolstered by such a move. The Catholic theologian Fr Brian Harrison's excellent article raised serious questions about the wisdom of such a move last year.

The issues involved are quite complex and the history of dogma shows that debates on theological questions have raged for centuries and have been solved in sometimes quite the most surprising ways. This is one such debate. The celebrated Cajetan advanced the theory that unbaptized infants of Christian parents could make it to heaven without Sacramental Baptism by the desire their parents had that their children ought to have received the Sacrament if they had lived. The theory was opposed and defended by equally eminent theologians at the Council of Trent with no final decision on the matter ever being given according to the Jesuit theologian Fr Francisco Sola writing in the fourth volume of the BAC Sacrae Theologiae Summa in 1953, p 159. The debate over the existence or not of Limbo is not ad rem as far as the purpose of this column is concerned. I am more interested in the precedent that will be set in the event the Pope moves to quell the belief in Limbo.

In order to catch my drift let me give you a parallel case. In 1962 Pope John XXIII inserted the name of St Joseph in the canon of the Mass. I am not interested in debating that issue - I mention St. Joseph in the canon every day. However, a clear message was sent - something that had remained untouchable for centuries - the prayer of consecration - had been modified. The liturgy could be changed. I would argue the same thing is taking place here, but on a doctrinal scale. The existence of Limbo could be seriously questioned as I pointed out to the Apologetics' professor in my seminary days without a person ceasing to be Catholic. The professor readily agreed but neither of us was questioning the dogma, merely the degree of assent that is given to a teaching based upon the level of authority with which a given tenet of Faith is proposed. The thin end of the wedge: if a minor point of faith can be altered, abrogated (and admittedly this one could) then the ordinary Lay-Catholic is left with the impression that what they learnt in their Baltimore Catechism is now also up for debate. Why this (false) impression ? Catechisms of their nature are doctrinal (pun intended). By this I mean they teach "doctrine" as though all teachings were equal and hence they appear to require the same degree of the assent of Faith to each article. Those who have bothered to study theology know that this is very far from the truth. The insertion of St. Joseph caused the Lay-Catholic in the 1960s to think the liturgy was modifiable (as indeed in some ways it is) and now the same may (inadvertently (?)) may be said of doctrine.

This brings me to my second piece of media hype: Catholic World News reported earlier today that a member of the Russian Orthodox Church questioned the authority of Bartholomew the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople. Oh yes a centuries old in-house squabble between Moscow and Constantinople: is the Patriarch of Constantinople the ecclesiastical superior of the Moscow Patriatrchate ? Moscow says "no" (predictably). This isn't the issue that concerns me. Rather of far greater significance is the proposal that sparked off Moscow's testy response in the first place.

In a recent Catholic-Orthodox dialog session with Walter Cardinal Kasper heading up the Catholic delegation, Kasper (presumably with Pope Benedict XVI's approval) proposed the following:

That statement said that after the schism of the 11th century it became impossible to hold an ecumenical council including all Christian leaders, but the separated churches "continued to hold ‘general’ councils, gathering together the bishops of local churches in communion with the See of Rome and the See of Constantinople."

According to the article cited this position was readily endorsed by the Greeks. The article concludes:

Cardinal Kasper has said that he was surprised by the Russian Orthodox objection to the proposed statement-- to which the Patriarchate of Constantinople had given its full support.

Allegedly, Cardinal Kasper proposed a totally new solution to an age-old problem namely how to end the schism that separated the Greeks from Rome back in the eleventh century. (The proposal is new in the sense that this is the first time it has been officially proposed by Rome, but not new in that it has been toyed with by theologians for years.) His answer - since the separation occurred, no true Ecumenical council has been held by either the eastern or the western churches since the Church Universal had not convened in session, there being an unfortunate separation of churches. This is music to Orthodox ears. The Orthodox accept the first seven ecumenical councils and reject the 14 others (all the way up to Vatican II) which happened after the split. Now, supposedly, Kasper is accepting the Orthodox line which puts in doubt ALL of the teachings of the 14 other western councils. Consider this: Vatican I taught that the universal body of bishops could not err in matters of faith and morals in an ecumenical council. However, if Vatican I is not now a true ecumenical council then this teaching is no longer infallible.

Here we have a quandary which would be music to the ears of Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais of the Society of St. Pius X who earlier this year called for Vatican II to be "Tabula rasa" (a clean slate) i.e. swept under the carpet as though it never happened. If Vatican II was not a genuine ecumenical council as Kasper has supposedly proposed then indeed it could be swept under the carpet. Before I hear rejoicing in the traddie ranks at this proposal consider the further ramifications: all the other 13 councils rejected by the east are also capable of being swept under the carpet as well ! Thus out the window Papal Infallibility, and further casualties such as the double Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. All of this is "great for ecumenism" (we simply sweep up all the major theological difficulties in one fell swoop since they happened after the separation of the churches) but as I wrote above this could signal major theological difficulties for the life of the Catholic Church. Take these thoughts in conjunction with the ditching of Limbo and we may just have stumbled across the thin end of the wedge !

+TF