Magnitudes of Infinity

IC XC
✙
NI KA

STRUGGLING WITH QUESTIONS OF Ecclesiology as I write my final paper, it seems that all things within the Theological Science are interwoven: can you discuss the Church without discussing the Holy Mysteries or the Mysteries without the Trinity, or the Trinity without the Saints, or the Saints without the Church or the Church without Prayer or… it all goes on and on. But it’s all one piece.

It seems that we are all on a journey to God.

Listening today to the most recent Episode of Gaudium et spes 22, I was struck by the comment that, according to St Thomas, religion is man’s response to God and – therefore – all religion is a species of Catholicism. All religion, seeking to know and serve God, is somewhere on the spectrum of Catholicism. I struggle to understand how to be a “religious” person (of whatever flavor) when not “doing it all”. When I see “religious” Jews who are not all wearing a tallis, a kippah, and payot… yet… they are clearly all “on a spectrum” I get a hint of what this means. This one wears a kippah, that one has a kippah and tallis, this other one only a tallis, this final one, no tallis, but kippah and payot. Who is “religious”? All of them. Which one is “more religious”? Ehhhhh.

As I noted: if Catholicism is the fullness of religion (man’s response to God) then all other religious response of Man to God is a species of Catholicism.

This Catholic versus that Catholic, this Catholic versus that Protestant, that Protestant versus this other Protestant and that Orthodox dude. Which one is more Christian? This Christian versus that Jew (or Hindu or Pagan). Which one is closer to God? Ehhhhhh. God knows. Why would you want to judge? By the same standard you judge, you will be judged.

This is not a case of all religions are the same. This is not a case of “one mountain many paths”. Again: if all religion is – as Aquinas says – man’s response to God, then it is a species of Catholicism. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. There is no salvation without the Church: if anyone is saved it is within the Church. It’s all in how we draw the lines, though.

If there is baptism of desire, would there not be other sacraments “of desire”? Aquinas would seem to say yes: Summa 3rd Part, Q73, Article 3, Answer. “Consequently, the reception of Baptism is necessary for starting the spiritual life, while the receiving of the Eucharist is requisite for its consummation; by partaking not indeed actually, but in desire, as an end is possessed in desire and intention. Another difference is because by Baptism a man is ordained to the Eucharist, and therefore from the fact of children being baptized, they are destined by the Church to the Eucharist; and just as they believe through the Church’s faith, so they desire the Eucharist through the Church’s intention, and, as a result, receive its reality.” Since the Church holds that even Baptism outside of the bounds of the institutional Church is valid (according to form and intent), then, as a result they (protestants, etc) receive what they desire. How would God’s grace be limited? How could God’s grace be limited?

Reverse logic does not apply here: having learned the fullness of truth, to go backward would be to step away from God. To settle for half-light is to return to darkness. Any species of rejecting God’s revealed fullness is a species of sin.

So the paths converge, but the way forward may be uncomfortable. What is uncomfortable is not, however, bad. The path forward calls us to change: give up former ways that were ok, even just a day ago. Once we accept that easy yoke upon us, we cannot throw it off. Once we put our hands to the plow, there is no going back.

If all religion is a species of Catholicism, then the only way is further up and further in.