 Back |
 Next |
Changes in the Message of Grace |
In the early Church the doctrine about grace – in so far as this was not contained in the doctrine on Christ, as indicated above – was taught, by preference, under the rubric of "the Holy Spirit." In Baptism the Holy Spirit was bestowed on the faithful as the uncreated gift and He remained in them as the motive power of their new life. Understood in this way, the doctrine on the Holy Spirit formed the third section of the Creed, organically united to the first and second, namely (1) on God the Father, the Creator of all, and (2) on the Son, who became man for us.
The denial of the divinity of Christ on the part of the Arians led logically to a denial of the divinity of the Holy Spirit – a conclusion soon drawn by the Macedonians. Just as the former error brought on a marked emphasis on the divinity of Christ, so the latter led to a more vigorous stress on the divinity of the Holy Spirit. This is clearly seen in the sermons of St. Augustine on the Creed (for example, Sermo 212-215; PL 38, 1058-1076). Although in other respects he faithfully reflects the traditional thought-pattern, he immediately sets about a defense of the divinity of the Holy Spirit at the mention of His name. And though elsewhere he likes to describe the life of grace – both in the Church and the individual – in terms of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, he gives the impression that a treatment of this idea in the Creed would weaken the defense of the divinity of the Holy spirit. The same phenomenon is to be seen in Rufinus’ commentary on the Creed (Expositio in Symbolum; PL 21, 335), and in the six sermons of St. Peter Chrysologus on the Creed (Sermones 57-62; PL 52, 357). A striking instance of the same attitude, and familiar to all, is the Nicene Creed which solemnly sets forth the divinity of the Holy Spirit in the words: et in Spiritum Sanctum dominum ...qui ex Patre Filioque procedit, qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur, qui locutus est per prophetas, whereas only the word vivificantem refers to the Holy Spirit as the source of grace-life.
The exposition of the doctrine of grace in terms of its relationship to the Holy Spirit was not the only way in which grace was spoken of in early Christianity. Actually it was only the principle of grace-life, the new principle of life which came into the world through Christ, that was designated by the Holy Spirit. This principle is destined to produce effects: in the holy Church, in the sacraments, and finally in the glorious Resurrection. The lofty concept men then had of the holy Church must have been particularly effective in long preserving a vital Christian consciousness of the elements of grace. The Church is, in a certain sense, the social outward form of grace. She becomes especially visible during divine worship when those who fully belong to her celebrate together the Sacrifice and, as a community, partake of the Sacrificial Banquet. The sacra communio thus became an expression and a confirmation of membership in the communio sanctorum. Hence, too, the idea, which lasted well on into the Middle Ages, that every mortal sin excluded one from the Church (the distinction between the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ and the Church as a visible, juridical society was not so clearly drawn at the time), with the result that the reconciliation of the sinner was understood and liturgically expressed as a reincorporation into her organism.1
This way of presenting grace, namely, looking on the church as its concrete manifestation, experienced, a progressive weakening from the time of the high Middle Ages, and this not so much from the fact that the juridical side of the Church was more clearly distinguished from the Church as a community of grace, in itself a step forward that need not have entailed any disadvantage, as from the more basic fact that the concept of the Church was seen less and less in the light which fell on her from the glorified Christ. When scarce mention was made any longer of the glorified God-Man in an effort to avoid misunderstandings, quite naturally the presentation of Christ as the Head of the Church was likewise repressed. Then the Church begins to take on the appearance of an earthly society, of divine origin to be sure, whose form will be supernaturally illumined according to the light that is seen to radiate from the saving gifts and powers it contains.
Now a decline sets in with regard to that experience of the Church and her riches which from olden days had been associated with divine worship. This is more and more thought of as an affair of the clergy in which the people have no active role. They hear Mass, they attend it, but less and less frequently, and only after confession do they dare to receive the Lord’s Body. This leads on to the notion that only the clergy are in reality the ones who carry on the life of the Church, and to the still further idea that, though one belongs to the Church and must acknowledge her, he does so only that he may be led by her and be brought to fulfill within her those determined tasks and moral practices to which salvation is linked. So far as the thinking of the faithful is concerned, the Church and Christianity have become an institution whose foremost task is that of acting as the guardian of the moral order among men. Hence the grace element in the concept of the Church is especially open to question.
This is particularly true with regard to the notion of habitual grace. What can be readily grasped with regard to grace – and was grasped – in the full theological concept of the Church is the state of grace: being a member of the Body of Christ. The notion of the Holy Spirit likewise served to bring out this idea of a state of grace, inasmuch as He dwells within us. But membership in the Body of Christ, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, immediately suggests to dogmatic inquiry a corresponding vital activity, thus assuring a sufficient knowledge of actual grace as well. It stands to reason, then, that when such an understandable idea of habitual grace is shattered, the concept of actual grace is also going to suffer harm.
At the beginning of the fifth century Pelagius appears and the controversy on assisting grace arises. One might imagine that as a result of the controversy this particular point of doctrine would have stood out clearly for a long time in Christian consciousness. In a way this may have been the case with regard to the necessity of grace, but it was not so with regard to its deeper meaning. For it became necessary, precisely because of the controversy, to detach concepts from their context and to distinguish one idea from another by means of sharply defined terminology. Now it is, that such abstract terms as gratia, adiutorium, vocatio, together with their further qualifications, become current. And one thing more should be added: when the various synods introduced new formulations during the course of the Christological struggles, they almost always did so in such a way that they could be placed in the framework of the entire faith-embracing Creed, either by enlarging upon the passages then in question or by adding more precise explanations. It is noteworthy, however, that the synods which drew up the Catholic doctrine on grace against Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism did so without reference to a Creed, setting forth this doctrine more along the lines of separate Canons. The reason for this is to be found in the fact that the old connecting links, especially the one that mentions the Holy Spirit, no longer seemed suited for the purpose. Thus the doctrinal statements on assisting grace were deprived of contact with a light-giving context.
In the future, grace is spoken of in the abstract terms of the theological controversy. It is connected with the sacraments somewhat after the manner of Hugh of St. Victor, namely, the sacraments are looked upon as the vessels in which grace is communicated. Moreover since the time when the enumeration of the seven sacraments became a part of popular catechesis (twelfth century), the explanation of the sacraments also became the way, at least inclusively, in which the facts of grace-life were handled. But little effort is made any more to unite this teaching with the central core of the economy of salvation. The enumeration of the seven sacraments became an independent formula which stood on an equal footing alongside the Creed.
Since the sixteenth century the catechism has become the instrument for popular religious instruction. As might be expected, we find here the same type of procedure. From the very beginning Catholic catechisms have a special main-division, entitled "On the Sacraments," later re-written as "On Grace and the Sacraments." This stands on an equal footing with the section on the Apostles’ Creed, sometimes following immediately after it, but more regularly separated from it by the section on the commandments – and often enough, (for example, in Canisius’ catechism) by a section dealing with "Hope and Prayer." This is not a haphazard, purely external arrangement of material; there is a plan behind it which has far-reaching consequences. This plan was clearly indicated in the German Einheitskatechismus of 1925, where, in the very second question, the structure is proposed as follows: "What does God want of us? God wants that we (1) believe His doctrine, (2) keep His commandments, (3) use the means of grace He has provided" (namely, grace itself, the sacraments and prayer). As explained by the chief-editor, P. Theodor Monnichs, "Through faith we should come to know our goal and the way that leads to it; by observing the commandments we should proceed along that way; and through the holy sacraments and prayer we should acquire from God the strength we need to do so" (Hilfsbuch zum Einheitskatechismus, Miinchen, 1927, p. 11). This is the very same reasoning that Fr. Josef Deharbe had used at an earlier date (1862) to justify the divisions he introduced into his catechism. (See Grundliche und leicht fassliche Erklarung des Katholishchen Katechismus IV, Paderborn, 1962, p. 1.) It is evident, however, that only actual grace stands to the fore in such an arrangement of the doctrine on grace. And it is with this precisely that he begins his presentation, and this again only as gratia medicinalis, in so far, namely, as it comes to the assistance of nature that is not equal to its moral obligations.
This manner of presenting grace is maintained throughout the third section of the Einheitskatechismus. The introductory statement immediately points in this direction.' "Of our own power we cannot believe or keep the commandments as we ought for salvation." When treating of the effects of the sacraments, the right to actual grace is often given special stress. It might have been sufficient here, omitting the finer distinctions, to have called attention once and for all, after the manner of the Council of Trent, to the point that everything necessary for the accomplishment of the divine law is at the disposal of the justified, since "Christ Jesus himself imparts strength as the Head to the members and as the Vine to the branches" (Session VI, Chapter 16). Unquestionably every word of these statements of the catechism can be justified. One might imagine, too, that a desire for receiving the various sacraments would be enkindled by pointing up the special helps that can be expected. And yet there is a hidden danger in such an orientation of religious thought – the danger, namely, that grace will only be seen as a help in our moral struggle, and hence reduced to the plane of nature. There is also the further danger that the most essential point of all, that which Christ has won for us by His redemption – our elevation to the supernatural – will produce the least impression on the consciousness.
It is quite true that this supernaturality is brought out in all clarity in the section on sanctifying grace. But this thought has already been pushed into the background by the fact that sanctifying grace has been relegated to second place. The presentation of the doctrine of grace begins with actual grace. This is done in accordance with the procedure of most dogmatic manuals, where the arrangement has been determined by theological controversies both old and new, hence, by questions about the process of justification. One might well ask, however, whether an important theological problem such as that of the interplay between grace and freedom in the justification of the adult sinner is of pressing concern for the catechesis of baptized children. And even the case of the laity, the most important question of vital consequence in this area concerns the way in which one regains the state of grace, not the theoretical question of significance for speculative theology, as to how one preserves his freedom under the action of grace. In other words, earnest attention should be given to this point that, though precedence may possibly be given to actual grace in the treatises of speculative theology, such is not the case with regard to the instruction of our Christian people.is This is all the more true when one reflects that in the catechizing of children the actual grace which necessarily comes to the fore in connection with this topic is the actual grace which will be given to the just by reason of their state of grace. Whoever is aware of this must wonder why the branches are spoken of before there is even mention of the tree. And should the tree never come into view, the result is that naturalizing of the concept of grace which sees nothing more in the grace-life of the just than victory over sin.
We are led, therefore, to the conclusion that the doctrine on grace is exposed to the serious danger of being misunderstood when it is separated from the whole body of Christian doctrine and put under the motto of moral guidance. The impoverished religious consciousness of so many today likewise becomes intelligible, in so far at least as this situation reflects a lack of understanding of the supernatural riches of the Church. Moreover, there can be no doubt, as experience amply shows, that among those for whom logic is a passion the constant talk about the necessity of grace actually becomes a stumbling block. If we look beyond mere words to what is actually grasped, it would seem that all too many see in such a presentation of grace only a natural goal – the ideal of a high natural morality. Again they are led to wonder why grace should be necessary for every moral advance. Is human nature that corrupt? Moreover does not experience show that those who make such energetic use of the proposed means of grace are hardly any better than others?
We encounter similar attitudes with regard to habitual grace. Confession and penance can be understood and appreciated as means for obtaining the remission of sins, be why should not the condition of the purified conscience simply be called righteousness? Why must the soul "be clothed with sanctifying grace?" Given this background, it only logical too that "the holy Church" sinks down in estimate to a natural level, now that its holiness is no longer understood. It is an association just like any other association.
Everything fits together, then, to give us the image of a strictly logical, soulless, secularized Christendom. Instead of a Savior of the world we find the idea of an appearance of God among men, come to teach and win their love; the Church is the organization for preaching this doctrine; and as for the sacraments, there is the possibility of the remission of sins – and the puzzling assistance of grace for the performance of moral obligations.
1 Translator’s Note See J. A. Jungmann, S.J., Die lateinischen Buss-riten (Innsbruck, 1932), p. 240ff. In this classic work, written four years before The Good News, the author enlarges upon this dynamic conception of the Church as the unique bearer of salvation and traces the history of the liturgical expression of the sacramental reconciliation of the Penitent who, by his grave sin, had cut himself off from the life-dispensing organism which is the Mystical Body of Christ. As he notes, there was also an awareness at this time of a juridical bond between the sinner and the Church.