Among the many urgent questions raised by the Synods on the Family in 2014 and 2015 and the current Synod on Synodality – questions that will inevitably bear on the next papal conclave – is that of unity: in what, precisely, does the unity of the Church consist?
What is the content of the “one” in the Creed’s affirmation of “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church?”
The Synods on the Family grappled with this in their debates on worthiness to receive Holy Communion: Could those in canonically irregular marriages, who were not living in unity with the settled teaching and pastoral practice of the Church, participate fully in the sacrament of unity, the Eucharist? Or ought they refrain from receiving Holy Communion while still joining the community in offering true worship to the Father?
The ambiguities in Amoris Laetitia, the post-synodal apostolic exhortation that followed those Synods, did not resolve that question. Rather, it deepened the concern that fault lines were opening in the Church, with some local Church interpreting Amoris Laetitia according to the line they had taken at the Synods (i.e., those in irregular marriages could receive Holy Communion) and other local churches interpreting the apostolic exhortation differently (those in irregular marriages should refrain from receiving Holy Communion). Those fault lines were deep indeed. For how could it be that a source of sanctifying grace in Germany was a grave sin ten miles away, on the Polish side of the German-Polish border?
This, by the way, was a concern the Group of Thirteen Cardinals (now infamous in some circles) considered raising in their letter to the Pope at the outset of Synod-2015. In that letter, the cardinals politely requested a revision of the Synod procedures so that there would be a more robust synodal debate, and a voting process in which the Synod fathers rendered their judgments on specific propositions.
An early draft of that letter warned against the possibility of the Catholic Church coming to resemble the local-option Anglican Communion, in which some constituent national churches believed and practiced in one way, and other constituent churches believed and practiced the opposite: that, it was suggested, was the path to true schism. At the end, the cardinals decided to focus on synodal procedures only and this yellow caution flag was not included in the letter’s final text.
Yet the concern remained. And it has been intensified since, not least because of diverse reactions to the December 2023 declaration of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on the possibility of blessing those in same-sex unions and relationships. The churches of Belgium and Germany applauded (and continued to do what they had already been doing) and the churches of Africa registered a firm “No, thank you.”
These fault lines, and others, will help define the debate – and let us pray that it will be a real debate, not some ersatz and manipulated “Conversation in the Spirit” – at the Synod in October 2024.
The question of the content of the Church’s unity was clarified by Pope John Paul II during his first pastoral pilgrimage to the United States in October 1979. Prior to the Pope’s visit, U.S.-based ecumenical dialogues had focused on core doctrinal issues, “bracketing” moral questions on which there was deep disagreement between Catholics and their Protestant dialogue partners. John Paul had a different view.
After greeting the ecumenical congregation gathered in the chapel of Washington’s Trinity College as “beloved Christian brethren and fellow disciples of the Lord Jesus,” the Pope celebrated their common proclamation that “there is one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus [1 Tim. 2.5]” and noted with satisfaction their common love for “Sacred Scripture, which we recognize as the inspired word of God.” The Pope also cited with regret “the deep division” between Christian communities “which still exists over moral and ethical matters.”
And then, in one sentence, he shut down the ecumenical cafeteria: “The moral life and the life of faith are so deeply united that it is impossible to divide them.” Message: There can be no bracketing of moral issues in a genuine dialogue about recomposing Christian unity.
If that is true for ecumenism, it is certainly true for the unity of the Catholic Church. The content of the “one” in the Nicene affirmation of “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” is a unity in faith: a unity in the truths we know from revelation and reason. Local-option Catholicism is not Catholicism. National Catholicism is not Catholicism. The truths of faith – which include the moral truths that facilitate human flourishing and beatitude – are universal.
Which is to say, catholic and Catholic.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Divisions are meant to convince us about our (original) sin and the true unity is only possible amidst saints and that is why in Paradise alone the one true (triumphant) catholic Church exist.
The worldly/militant church can never be fully unified as God gently hints us by the 6000 years of history, yet our longing to make a paradise here without freeing from sin not only idolises doctrines and laws originated from purported saints which is used to guide us to the fullness of the Truth in God’s grand scheme but often foolishly proselyte as if mere obedience to it may somehow save us, that too often ignoring the fact that without God (individualy) given Faith (upon His pleasing) none are saved from their eternal death nor God offered everlasting joy (Hope) the prerequisite to fetch it.
Bergoglioism’s efforts to transform the Catholic Church into a liberal Protestant Ecclesial Community provides no hope of Catholic Unity but ever greater disunity, as the Bergoglio German Synodal Disaster has proven already.
Cancel Culture needs reverse driving, pulling the plug on the Novos Ordo McCarrick Legacy Band
Mr Cracked Nut, heart full for love of Christ Jesus, “Liberal Protestant Ecclesial Community”. Bergoglio is much more; he wants to replace the Truth and holy Commandments with his evil desires. The council did ardently strive for Christian unity. The Papal Palace is vacant while Bergoglio stays at the guest house. My problem with Trads is that you throw the Holy Mass Novus Ordo together with McCarrick, the political cancel culture and liberal derailment. They are different things. No Rite in the Holy Apostolic Church should claim all truth for themselves while loathing another. “THIS IS MY COMMANDMENT LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS I LOVE YOU” John 16. Love one another is His Commandment! “God is love, and whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him” (1 John 4:11); without love we will not remain in Him. Not sentimental but straight from the Heart of God. I do enjoy your comments. Jesus loves you and I do too!
My problem with some non-Trads is that they throw all trads together with an idea of a trad that they got from either superficial readings of typical trad internet posts, or on deeper readings of extreme trad internet posts.
You can’t get everyone in a *single* trad parish that well aligned on anything that’s not a matter of faith and morals, much millions of people across the globe. You can’t even get everyone in the choir that aligned.
Can you see how this is uncharitable? You might as well say that the problem with the Novus Ordo attendees is that they think that TLM attendees should be excommunicated as schismatics. This is called “guilt by association”. You can find some NO attendees who say that, but the overwhelming majority range from curious/supportive to uninterested, and in no way deserve to be ranked with the extremists who attend the same liturgical Rite.
Who denies validity of the NO? Lawler’s commentary reasons that the majority of those who attend the NO form of the Mass overwhelmingly deny the validity of the NO Mass! How so? Over 70% of NO attendees deny the Sacramental and Real Presence of Jesus in the Body and Blood in the Mass. Therefore, which group finds any Mass more valid? NO Mass attendees or TLM attendees?
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/who-denies-novus-ordo-is-valid-prepare-for-surprise/
Why does illogic persist in positing that those who love the TLM consider the NO Mass to be invalid? I am wondering and waiting for a logical answer….
The current papacy seems to care only about unity in raw numbers translating to the collection plate. Do whatever you want, but be enrolled, and most importantly, GIVE.
Anything else is just a distraction from that mission. Meanwhile, it cannot even generate enough priests to man the parishes it has.
Typical corporate behavior, whatever they are doing is not working, so that means just do even more of the same, and then it surely will work.
“Union with God? What’s that? We HAVE communion, and that’s all the union they need!”
But the emptying parishes say differently.
As one form of engagement in the world, ST. PAUL at the Areopagus noticed that among the pagan idols an altar to “the Unknown God.” He accompanied—but most of the gathering synodally “walked together” and away….So, next in Corinth St. Paul then centered his very non-polyhedral message, preaching only “Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Cor 2:1-2). The Scandal of the Cross…
The PARALLEL today is external and valuaable-but-amorphous “fraternity” coupled with (!) internal divisiveness—the separation between supposedly “abstract” dogmatic affirmations and “concrete” and contradictory exemptions. Witness now the bizarre “unity” of blessed Fiducia Supplicans, incoherently positioned in front of Dignitas Infinita…
Dignitas Infinita, which appeals more to modern history’s Areopagus—the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights than to the Natural Law as elevated by the very Word of God. How to BOTH walk with AND robustly evangelize a distracted, incendiary, and fallen world? How to not replace the apostolic Second Vatican Council with a semi-synodal plebiscite?
The contrived “unity” of Esperanto and footloose Forwardism isn’t enough.
The Holy Ghost Is The Source Of Unity In Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church , and thus The Holy Ghost must proceed from both The Father and The Son, (Filioque).
“This picture of the Spirit as the mutual love between the Father and Son goes back to Augustine who wrote: “And the Holy Spirit, according to the Holy Scriptures, is neither of the Father alone, nor of the Son alone, but of both; and so intimates to us a mutual love, wherewith the Father and the Son reciprocally love …”
And thus we can know through both Faith and Reason, that “It is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesiastical Communion “, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, for to deny The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, Is To Deny The Divinity Of The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, which is apostasy.
“This picture of the Spirit as the mutual love between the Father and Son goes back to Augustine who wrote: “And the Holy Spirit, according to the Holy Scriptures, is neither of the Father alone, nor of the Son alone, but of both; and so intimates to us a mutual love, wherewith the Father and the Son reciprocally love …”
Our unity of faith and doctrine is essential for several reasons. It ensures that we all worship the same God and follow the path laid out by Christ. It fosters a sense of community and belonging, where we can learn and grow from each other. Additionally, a unified voice of the Church carries greater weight when addressing the world on matters of faith and morality. This is vital to fulfill the Great Commission.
However, we must acknowledge that the journey of faith is a personal one. Not everyone grasps complex doctrines immediately. Doubts and questions often arise, and achieving a full understanding of the faith can take time. The Church, as a loving mother, recognizes this. We are all at different stages on our spiritual path.
Therefore, though it is paramount that the Church demonstrates unity in core teachings, the Church must also encourage open and respectful dialogue about personal faith. Through study, prayer, and discussion, our understanding deepens. The Holy Spirit guides us on this journey, illuminating our minds and hearts to the truths of the Gospel. Let us pray for one another: let us pray that God grants us all a deeper understanding of his will and the strength to live according to his teachings. let us engage in respectful dialogue. Let us show patience and understanding and be supportive and encouraging towards those who are struggling. This is a synodal way that can be appreciated. Ultimately, unity does not mean individual uniformity, but it does mean the Church must speak about Tradition, Doctrine, and Dogma with a single voice.
First, I am a fan of George Weigel. Our unity of faith and doctrine is essential for several reasons. It ensures that we all worship the same God and follow the path laid out by Christ. It fosters a sense of community and belonging, where we can learn and grow from each other. Additionally, a unified voice of the Church carries greater weight when addressing the world on matters of faith and morality. This is vital to fulfill the Great Commission.
However, we must acknowledge that the journey of faith is a personal one. Not everyone grasps complex doctrines immediately. Doubts and questions often arise, and achieving a full understanding of the faith can take time. The Church, as a loving mother, recognizes this. We are all at different stages on our spiritual path.
Therefore, though it is paramount that the Church demonstrates unity in core teachings, the Church must also encourage open and respectful dialogue about personal faith. Through study, prayer, and discussion, our understanding deepens. The Holy Spirit guides us on this journey, illuminating our minds and hearts to the truths of the Gospel. Let us pray for one another: let us pray that God grants us all a deeper understanding of his will and the strength to live according to his teachings. let us engage in respectful dialogue. Let us show patience and understanding and be supportive and encouraging towards those who are struggling. This is a synodal way that can be appreciated. Ultimately, unity does not mean individual uniformity, but it does mean the Church must speak about Tradition, Doctrine, and Dogma with a single voice.
The last paragraph in the article sums up the issue very well.
I do question the phrase “The ambiguity of Amoris Laetitia” and different Churches interpreting it differently, as though it is not clear. There were bishops who questioned Pope Francis whether it meant that communion could be given to those in “irregular” marriages, and Pope Francis answered that there was no other way to interpret it. At least that is what I read.
There is a somewhat frequent effort to interpret Pope Francis statements as being in line with previous Church teachings. A sometimes difficult task I would say.
That should read:
The Holy Ghost Is The Source Of Unity In Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church , and thus The Holy Ghost must proceed from both The Father and The Son, (Filioque).
“This picture of the Spirit as the mutual love between the Father and Son goes back to Augustine who wrote: “And the Holy Spirit, according to the Holy Scriptures, is neither of the Father alone, nor of the Son alone, but of both; and so intimates to us a mutual love, wherewith the Father and the Son reciprocally love …”
And thus we can know through both Faith and Reason, that “It is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesiastical Communion “, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, it Is “Through, With, And In Christ, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque), that Holy Mother Church, outside of which, there is no Salvation , due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque) exists.
That the cardinals did not raise the ‘yellow flag’ on the disparity rather than unanimity on moral doctrine, well discussed by Weigel, indicates the absence of leadership backbone throughout the Church. We hear instead an occasional murmur. Murmurs are not faith inspired conviction.
Lacking committed leadership the Church has become divided, Weigel cites the German Polish sin here virtue there result, two churches within the Church. We [that is some] may sing the praises of Pope Francis although however lusty his ecclesial philosophy is largely the reason. We lack the fire and knowledge of the two great Alexandrian patriarchs Athanasius and Cyril.
The Church has gone into survival mode. Hogs are feasting on the abundant acorns from our ancient tree. But they cannot eat all of them!
The future Pope BXVI (Ratzinger) said in 1969:
“From the crisis of today the Church of tomorrow will emerge — a Church that has lost much. She will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning … As the number of her adherents diminishes, so it will lose many of her social privileges. In contrast to an earlier age, it will be seen much more as a voluntary society, entered only by free decision. As a small society, it will make much bigger demands on the initiative of her individual members. But in all of the changes at which one might guess, the Church will find her essence afresh and with full conviction in that which was always at her center: faith in the triune God, in Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man, in the presence of the Spirit until the end of the world. … The Church will be a more spiritual Church, not presuming upon a political mandate, flirting as little with the Left as with the Right. It will be hard going for the Church, for the process of crystallization and clarification will cost her much valuable energy. It will make her poor and cause her to become the Church of the meek. The process will be all the more arduous, for sectarian narrow-mindedness as well as pompous self-will will have to be shed.”
No one will fool God.