Van Noort on Membership in the Catholic Church
From Dogmatic Theology, volume 2 Christ's Church
CHAPTER II
The Members of the Church
After the discussion of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ, the question spontaneously arises: who are members of the Church? This chapter is divided into two articles: the first deals with the conditions requisite for membership in the Church; the second deals with the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation.
Article I
CONDITIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE CHURCH
I. Preliminary Remarks
Here we are speaking of the Church, or the Mystical Body, taken only in its strict and proper meaning: namely, that militant Church of the New Testament which, as has been repeatedly pointed out, is essentially a visible society.1 In the strict sense of the term, the Mystical Body is, as Pius XII informs us in plain words, the Roman Catholic Church:
If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ—which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church—we shall find no expression more noble, more sublime, or more Divine than the phrase which calls it "the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ." This title is derived from and is, as it were, the fair flower of the repeated teaching of Sacred Scripture and the Holy Fathers.—MCC 17; italics ours.
The same pontiff reiterated this teaching on the identity of the Mystical Body and the Roman Catholic Church in his encyclical, Humani generis (1950), when he explicitly rebuked theologians who had failed to heed the teachings of Mystici Corporis:
“Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. . . .
“These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science.”—NCWC transl., 27-28; italics ours.
PROPOSITION: Members of the Church are all and only those who have received the sacrament of baptism, and are not separated from the unity of the profession of the faith, or from hierarchial unity.
This proposition is certain.
Theological label for the proposition. The proposition viewed as a whole and as formulated in general terms is regarded as certain by all Catholics. When it comes to a more precise delineation of some of these terms, there are some divergent opinions?
We call members of the Church only those who unqualifiedly belong to the visible Church. Three facts are required for this: (a) that a person have received the sacrament of baptism; (b) that he be not separated from the profession of the faith of the Church; (c) that he be not separated from union with its hierarchy. These three factors, however, should not receive the same evaluation. Baptism alone is the cause which incorporates a man into the Church; the other two factors are conditions which must be fulfilled if baptism is not to be frustrated in its effect. Baptism, by Christ's own ordinance, always ingrafts a man into the body of the Church unless its efficacy be impeded; and union with the Church, once it has been caused by baptism, perseveres uninterruptedly so long as it be not severed by either of the separations mentioned above.
Proof:
1. The sacrament of baptism is the means by which men become members of the Church. This is of faith.
a. From Sacred Scripture: Those who accepted his word were baptized, and there were added that day (to the Church) about three thousand persons (Acts 2:41). By a single Spirit all of us, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free men, were introduced into the one body through baptism (I Cor. 12:13).
b. From the Church's magisterium: The Council of Florence in its Decree for the Armenians states:
“Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments because it is the door of the spiritual life. By it we are made members of Christ and of His body, the Church.”—DB 696; TCT 686.
The Council of Trent declares:
“The Church does not pass judgment on anyone who has not already entered her ranks through the gate of baptism. The Apostle says, "For what have I to do with judging those outside?" (I Cor. 5:12). The situation is different with regard to the members of the household of the faith whom Christ our Lord has made members of his body once and for all by the water of baptism.”—DB 895; TCT 789.
These words, while directly concerned with the extent of the Church's jurisdiction, at the same time show that according to the mind of the Church there is no other cause of insertion into the body of the Church but baptism.
c. Finally, Pius XII in his encyclical, Mystici Corporis, states explicitly:
Only those are really to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith and who have not unhappily withdrawn from Body-unity or for grave faults been excluded by legitimate authority.-29; italics ours.
2. The fact that membership in the Church (meant to be effected by baptism) can be impeded, or that even after its accomplishment can be severed either by a departure from unity of faith or unity of government, hardly needs ex professo proof. Still, lest there be any misunderstanding of this point, here are a few citations from the unanimous voice of tradition, and the recent explicit teaching of Pius XII:
a. Tradition:3 Tertullian: "If they are heretics, they cannot be Christians" (De praescriptione 37). St. Hilary: "I am a Christian, not an Arian" (Ad Constantium liber Its 1. 2). St. Augustine: "Neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church" (De fide et symbolo 21). St. Jerome: " . . . a schismatic faction, because of the rebellion of its bishop, is cut off from the Church" (Commentarium in Epistulam ad Titum 3. 10). Finally, the whole dispute over "rebaptizing" heretics presupposed as a fact that public heretics and public schismatics are not members of the Church. For the crux of the problem centered on this one point: how could a baptism administered to heretics suffice for entrance into the Church if the one baptizing was himself outside the Church?
b. The Church's magisterium:
“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. And so if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered—so the Lord commands—as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in one Body such as this, and cannot be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”—MCC 29.
Scholion 1. Who are not members of the Church?
From the principles laid down it is fairly easy to know which classes of men are excluded from membership in the Church. A few exceptional cases, however, pose some difficulties. These will be discussed briefly in the course of dealing with clear-cut cases of nonmembership.
The following classes of men are definitely not members of the Church: (a) The nonbaptized; (b) public heretics; (c) public schismatics; total excommunicates.
a. Those who have not received baptism of water are not members of the Church. Jews, pagans, etc., are not members of the Church. Since the cause of incorporation into the Church is strictly baptism insofar as it imprints an indelible character, dedicating us to the worship of God as that is practiced in the Catholic religion, it follows: (1) neither baptism of desire (act of perfect charity), nor baptism by blood (martyrdom) makes a man a member of the Church. Even though they confer sanctifying grace, they do not imprint a character. Consequently catechumens are not members of the Church. (2) For the same reason, according to the more probable opinion, a putatively valid baptism (i.e., really invalid) does not suffice for membership. Incorporation in the Church is something real.4 No one becomes a member of any society, or any visible organization, by an invalid act of admission. Those who advance the opinion that a putatively valid baptism should suffice argue: "otherwise one could not reach certitude about the Church's membership, since it is possible for the sacrament of baptism to be invalidated even by a hidden defect in the intention of the minister." The answer to that argument is, in our opinion, that most of the time the intention of the minister can be proven with moral certitude—the only type of certitude one should normally expect to have in human affairs. And since the cases of those only "putatively" baptized would certainly be very rare, there is no danger implied for the visibility of the entire Church.
Although some authors, notably Suarez, count catechumens as members of the Church, they are not members actually but only in desire and, as it were, by proximate potency. The fact that catechumens have penances imposed on them does not suffice to prove the contrary opinion. No one would maintain that a man was already a member of a given society merely because he freely accepted some of the conditions laid upon him as a preliminary to membership. Strictly speaking, then, we should say that the Church does not have power of "government" over catechumens, but only power of "teaching"—a power which extends to all mankind, even those still to be called to the Church. Finally, the fact that Pius XII seems to refer to both catechumens and the souls in purgatory as members of the Church (MCC 119) in requesting prayers to be offered "for all the members of the Mystical Body of Christ" proves nothing in favor of Suarez' opinion. All it proves, in our opinion, is that it is still possible to use the term Mystical Body in a broad as well as a strict sense.? But here we are discussing members only in the strict sense of the word.
b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of the three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church ( see above, p. 238). The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. "For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy" (MCC 30; italics ours).
By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary's Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or wilfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ's Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the "Catholic Church"? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.
When it comes to a question of occult heretics remaining members of the Church, theologians are in sharper disagreement and the intrinsic probability of their respective arguments seems better balanced than in the preceding case. An occult heretic is one who denies a truth of divine and catholic faith in his heart, while professing the same truth with his lips. So a man might recite the Nicene creed with the rest of the faithful, but deny the doctrine of the Trinity internally. Even if he were to deny such a truth externally, but his defection from the faith was secret, known only to one or two intimates, he would also be classified as an occult heretic. The more common opinion is that such heretics remain members of the Church. Occult heresy does not take away their former public profession of the Catholic faith. The authority of Pius IX is raised in objection to this view because he says in his bull, Ineffabilis Deus: “If anyone shall dare to believe otherwise in his heart (corde sentire) than has been defined by us—which God forbid—let them fully realize, that they are condemned by their own judgment, and have suffered shipwreck in the faith and that they have departed from union with the Church (ab unitate Ecclesiae defecisse).”—DB 1641.
The usual reply to that objection is: the meaning of the above passage seems to be that internal heresy, since it destroys that interior unity of the faith from which unity of profession is born, separates one from the body of the Church dispositively, but not yet formally. Zapalena objects to this interpretation as "an arbitrary and aprioristic exegesis which does injury to the obvious meaning of the words" (op. cit., II, 390). Regardless of whether it is an "arbitrary" exegesis or not, it seems equally arbitrary to attempt to make any argument at all from the passage cited: the pope was defining the Immaculate Conception, not making a definitive declaration in the matter of membership or nonmembership of occult heretics in the Church.
The question comes down to this: how satisfactorily can the theologians on either side of this disputed point square their opinion with the necessary visibility of the Church? If true supernatural faith is required for membership in the Church, how can one be sure of the Church's membership? The virtue of faith, like any other supernatural gift, is not discernible by empirical methods. In the hypothesis of the proponents of the other opinion, a pope who was secretly a heretic would cease to be a member of the Church and its head (Lercher, op. cit., no. 419 b, p. 238): and it cannot be demonstrated apodictically that God has promised never to allow a pope to become an occult heretic. One of the best arguments that occult heresy does not deprive one of membership is that heresy is not the gravest of sins. It is not the gravity of the sin of heresy which causes one to lose membership, but the antisocial nature of that sin which militates against the unity of the Mystical Body:
Finally there does not appear any reason why occult heretics more than other sinners should be excluded from the body of the Church. Heresy is not the gravest of all mortal sins: hatred of God is greater. Therefore if other very grave sins do not exclude from the body of the Church, neither does occult heresy. Public heretics are excluded not because of the gravity of their fault, seeing that even material heretics [i.e., innocent] are outside the Church. The reason for their exclusion is the nature of the Church as a society which demands a unity in the profession of the same faith.—Lercher, op. cit., p. 239, e.
c. Public schismatics are not members of the Church. They are not members because by their own action they sever themselves from the unity of Catholic communion. The term Catholic communion, as used here, signifies both cohesion with the entire body catholic (unity of worship, etc.), and union with the visible head of the Church (unity of government). Since Catholic communion signifies both the subordination of all members to one head, and the coordination of all the members with one another, a man may become a schismatic in either of two ways: (1) by directly withdrawing himself from obedience to the pope—not, of course, by a simple act of disobedience towards some law laid down by the pope, but by such a rebellion that he would really in practice refuse to recognize the pope as the head of the Catholic Church;
(2) by directly rupturing the bonds of cohesion with the body catholic: by setting up a separate, national Church, by following a usurping bishop, etc.
Once again, it makes no difference whether a person who breaks the bonds of Catholic communion does so in good faith or in bad; in either case he ceases to be a member of the Church. The innocence or guilt of the parties involved is purely an internal matter, purely a matter of conscience; it has no direct bearing on the question of one of the external and social bonds requisite for membership. Pius XII in listing the three requisites for membership in the Church makes no distinction between those in good and bad faith and seems to exclude both categories from membership: "Only those are really to be included as members . . . who have not unhappily withdrawn from Body-unity" (MCC 29). Still, in giving a theological label to this particular point—since the pope has not explicitly settled it, and since the same theologians who maintain that a public heretic in good faith remains a member of the Church maintain the same for a schismatic—we should say: (1) It is certain that a public, formal schismatic is not a member of the Church; (2) it is the more common and more probable opinion that a public, material schismatic is not a member of the Church.
d. Total excommunicates are not members of the Church. Excommunicated people, unlike schismatics, are separated from the unity of Catholic communion not directly by their own action, but by the judgment of ecclesiastical authority. For the rulers of the Church, like the rulers of any other genuine society, have the right to cut off obstinately rebellious members and to separate them from the social body until they come to their senses again."
This exclusion from the body-unity, brought about by the sentence of ecclesiastical authority, can be total or only partial. A member may be prevented from exercising a few or even many of the rights which belong to him as a member in that society, without being erased from membership. That is why there have been in the past, and still are, various degrees of excommunication." Excommunicated people are divided into two main classes: tolerated excommunicates and to-be-shunned excommunicates. The latter are those who have been singled out by name by the Apostolic See for exclusion from the rest of the faithful and who have, either by the law itself, or by a public decree and sentence, been denounced as to-be-shunned (see CIC, 2257 ff.; and 2343, 1, n. 1).
Concerning membership in the Church, the more probable opinion is that to-be-shunned excommunicates are excluded from membership in the Church; tolerated excommunicates—provided no condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been passed on them —seem to remain members of the Church. One point to be noted is that it must be clearly shown in the decree of the Apostolic See that the Church intends to cut off such persons from Church membership."
That the Church has the right and the power to deprive men of membership in the Church is clear from the fact of its constitution as a perfect society. The scriptural foundation for this right is solidly founded in Matthew 18:17: "If he pays no attention to them, then notify the Church; and if he pays no attention to the Church, then treat him as a heathen and tax-collector." That the Church intends to exercise this right is clear from the formula found in the Roman Pontifical: "We cut off from the body of the Church." That such excommunications deprive a man of membership in the Church is clearly taught by Pius XII:
“Only those are really to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith and who have not unhappily withdrawn from Body-unity or for grave faults been excluded by legitimate authority.”—MCC 29.
Scholion 2. Consequences of baptism in the matter of Church membership.
From the fact that baptism is properly the cause of engrafting into the Church, two facts follow: (a) All validly baptized babies, even if they were baptized by heretics and in the midst of dissident Christian sects, are members of the Roman Catholic Church. The baptismal character conjoins them, not to any sect but to the Church of Christ. Moreover, since such children are incapable of rational activity (human acts), they cannot cut themselves off from the Church by acts of heresy or schism; neither can they be separated by the sword of excommunication, for excommunication presumes guilt. Such children, consequently, remain members of the Church until, after reaching the age of reason, they separate themselves from the Church by entering into heresy or schism publicly. And if in so doing, they act in good faith, they are not deprived of all relationship with the Catholic Church. Still, they are not Catholics; they have severed, even though blamelessly, one of the bonds requisite for actual membership in the Church. Should they become converted in mature life it is often a comfort to them to know they are not betraying an ancestral spiritual heritage but simply returning to their Father's house." (b) All validly baptized persons always (objectively) remain subject to the Church (CIC, 87). Here it is important to disitnguish between being subject to the Church and being a member of the Church. The former term has a far wider connotation and extension. Consequently, though all its members are subject to the Church, not all its subjects are members. So, for example, a visitor in a foreign land is temporarily subject to the laws of that land; again, a soldier who is a deserter is legitimately tried and punished by the army authorities. Yet, neither the visitor nor the soldier is, strictly speaking, a member of the society to which he is subject.
Similarly, even though public heretics, public schismatics, and total excommunicates are not actually members of the Church, they are never completely deprived of all relationship to the Church. For the baptismal character, once received by these people is indelible. And although they prevent its unifying force by their own actions—which, considered purely abstractly and objectively, are evil—they do not thereby destroy that character. That is why, as long as they live, by law and obligation they belong to the Church and are subject to its jurisdiction, even though they may be in invincible ignorance on both counts. They are like sheep wandering outside the sheepfold: whether they fled from it of their own accord, or were put out of it for a time because of some disease, they are not exempted from the power of the shepherd. "The Church, however, can—and generally does--excuse them from the observance of ecclesiastical law" (Lercher, op. cit., I, no. 412, p. 234).
