THEOLOGY 603:THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE CHURCH

              By Wm.G.Most. (c)Copyright, 1994, by Wm.G.Most


         Introduction: Doctrinal Authority of Vatican II

     Since we are going to study the Constitution on the Church
(LG) of Vatican II,we should first speak of the doctrinal weight
of this document.

     It is often claimed that Vatican II meant only to be
pastoral - and so we could ignore its teachings as we wish. Is
this true? To get a start, we need to see that there are four
levels of teaching in the Church.

1. Four levels of teaching:

     a)Solemn definition.LG 25: No special formula of words is
required in order to define. Wording should be something solemn,
and should make clear that the teaching is definitive. Councils
in the past often used the form:'Si quis dixerit...anathema sit."
That is:" "If someone shall say....let him be anathema." But
sometimes they used the formula for disciplinary matters, so that
form alone does not prove. Further, they also could define in the
capitula, the chapters. Thus Pius XII, in Divino afflante Spiritu
(EB 538) spoke of such a passage of Vatican I (DS  3006 -- saying
God is the author of Scripture) as a solemn definition. 

     The Pope can define even without the Bishops. Of his
definitions LG 25 said: "His definitions of themselves, and not
from consent of the Church, are rightly called unchangeable, for
they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an
assistance promised him in blessed Peter. So they need no
approval from others, nor is there room for an appeal to any
other judgment." So collegiality even in defining is not
mandatory. Yet most definitions of the Popes have been taken in
collegiality, that is, with consultation of the Bishops. Even the
definitions of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were
such, for the Popes did poll the Bishops by mail.

     b)Second level: LG 25:"Although the individual bishops do
not have the prerogative of infallibility, they can yet teach
Christ's doctrine infallibly. This is true even when they are
scattered around the world, provided that, while maintaining the
bond of unity among themselves, and with the successor of Peter,
they concur in one teaching as the one which must be definitively
held." This means: (1) The day to day teaching of the Church
throughout the world, when it gives things as definitively part
of the faith, (2)If this can be done when scattered,all the more
can it be done when assembled in Council. Thus Trent (DS 1520)
after "strictly prohibiting anyone from hereafter believing or
preaching or teaching differently than what is established and
explained in the present decree, " went on to give infallible
teaching even in the capitula, outside the canons. 

     To know whether the Church intends to teach infallibly on
this second level, we notice both the language -- no set form
required - and the intention, which may be seen at times from the
nature of the case, at times from the repetition of the doctrine
on this second level.

     c)Third Level: Pius XII,in Humani generis: "Nor must it be
thought that the things contained in Encyclical Letters do not of
themselves require assent on the plea that in them the Pontiffs
do not exercise the supreme power of their Magisterium. For these
things are taught with the ordinary Magisterium, about which it
is also true to say, 'He who hears you, hears me.' [Lk 10.16]...
If the Supreme Pontiffs, in their  acta expressly pass judgment
on a matter debated until then, it is obvious to all that the
matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs,
cannot be considered any longer a question open for discussion
among theologians."

     We notice: (1) These things are protected by the promise of
Christ in Lk 10.16, and so are infallible, for His promise cannot
fail. Though that promise was first given to the 72, it is
certain that the Apostles were in the group,and as the trajectory
advanced, it became clear that the  full teaching authority was
only for them - the mission given to the 72 was preliminary,and
the full meaning was made clear later when the Apostles were
given the authority to bind and to loose. This was part of the
broader picture: Jesus wanted only a gradual self-revelation. Had
He started by saying: "Before Abraham was,I am", He would have
been stoned on the spot.  (2)Not everything in Encyclicals, and
similar documents, is on this level - this is true only when the
Popes expressly pass judgment on a previously debated matter, (3)
since the  Church scattered  throughout the world can make a
teaching infallible without defining - as we saw on level 2 -
then of course the Pope alone, who can speak for and reflect the
faith of the whole Church, can do the same even in an Encyclical,
under the conditions enumerated by Pius XII. Really, on any
level, all that is required to make a thing infallible is that it
be given definitively. When a Pope takes a stand on something
debated in theology and publishes it in his Acta,that suffices.
The fact that as Pius XII said it is removed from debate alone
shows it is meant as definitive.

     In this connection, we note that LG 12 says: "The entire
body of the faithful, anointed as  they are by the Holy One,
cannot err in matters of belief."  This means: If the whole
Church, both people and authorities, have ever believed (accepted
as revealed) an item, then that cannot be in error, is
infallible. Of course this applies to the more basic items, not
to very technical matters of theological debate. But we note this
too: If this condition has once been fulfilled in the past, then
if people in a later age come to doubt or deny it -- that does
not make noninfallible what was once established as infallible.
Many things come under this ,e.g., the existence of angels. 

     This does not mean, however,that the Pope is to be only the
echo of the faithful.

      d)Level 4: LG 25:"Religious submission of mind and of will
must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of
the Roman Pontiff even when he is not defining, in such a way,
namely, that the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to
according to his manifested mind and will, which is clear either
from the nature of the documents, or from the repeated
presentation of the same doctrine, or from the manner of
speaking."

     We note all the qualifications in the underlined part The
key is the intention of the Pope. He may be repeating existing
definitive teaching from Ordinary Magisterium level - then it is
infallible, as on level 2. He may be giving a decision on a
previously debated point - as on level 3, then it falls under the
promise of Christ in Lk 10.16, and so is also infallible. Or it
may be a still lesser intention - then we have a case like that
envisioned in Canon  752 of the New Code of Canon Law: "Not
indeed an assent of faith, but yet a religious submission of mind
and will must be given to the teaching which either the Supreme
Pontiff, or the College of Bishops [of course, with the Pope]
pronounce on faith or on morals when they exercise the authentic
Magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim it by a
definitive act." If they do not mean to make it definitive, then
it does not come under the virtue of faith, or the promise of
Christ,"He who hears you hears me". Rather,it is a matter of what
the Canon and LG 25 call "religious submission of mind and of
will." What does this require? Definitely, it forbids  public
contradiction of the teaching. But it also requires something in
the mind, as the wording indicates. This cannot be the absolute
assent which faith calls for - for since this teaching is, by
definition, not definitive, we gather that it is not absolutely
finally certain.

     How can anyone give any mental assent when there is not
absolute certitude? In normal human affairs, we do it all the
time. Suppose we are at table,and someone asks if a dish of food
came from a can, and if so, was it sent to a lab to check for
Botulism. It is true, routine opening of a can would not detect
that deadly poison. Yet it is too much to check every can, and
the chances are very remote, so much so that normal people do not
bother about it - yet their belief takes into account a real but
tiny possibility of a mistake. Similarly with a doctrine on this
fourth level. And further,the chances of error on this level are
much smaller than they are with a can of food. Similarly,in a
criminal trial, the judge will tell the jury they must find the
evidence proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He does not demand
that every tiny doubt be ruled out, even though it may mean life
in prison or death.

     If one should make a mistake by following the fourth level
of Church teaching, when he comes before the Divine Judge, the
Judge will not blame him, rather He will praise him. But if a
person errs by breaking with the Church on the plea that he knew
better - that will not be easily accepted.

2.On what Level does Vatican II Teaching Come?

     a)We notice the distinctions of the kinds of documents -
constitutions, decrees, declarations.  Even the least of these
would qualify for level four.

     b)Early statements on its authority tend to minimize the
level.
      
     (1)John XXIII in his opening address to the Council said:
"Often errors vanish as quickly as they arise, like fog before
the sun. The Church has always opposed these errors. Often she
has condemned them with very great severity. But today, the
Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy
rather than that of severity. She considers that she meets the
needs of today by demonstrating the validity of her teaching
rather than by condemnations."(AAS 54.792)

     Hence the Council never used the classic formula: "If anyone
says... let him be anathema." However, as noted above, there can
be infallible teaching even without this formula - no special
wording is required, only that there be an intention to define,
made clear in any way. If it is not made clear, it is not to be
considered as a definition. 

        (2)Yet John XXIII did not mean to contradict any previous
teaching. In the same speech he said: "The greatest concern of
the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of
Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more
efficaciously." And he added: "But from the renewed, serene and
tranquil adherence to all the teachings of the Church in its
entirety, transmitted with the precision and concepts which are
especially the glory of the Councils of Trent and Vatican I, the
Christian, Catholic and Apostolic spirit of all hopes for a
further step in the doctrinal penetration, in faithful and
perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine." [emphasis added]
-- We notice two things: (1) He wants perfect fidelity to past
teaching, (2)He wants further doctrinal penetration.

         (3) He added:"The substance of the ancient doctrine of
the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is
presented is another." Hence the Decree on Ecumenism 6
says:"If...there have been deficiencies in the way that Church
teaching has been formulated -- to be carefully distinguished
from the deposit of faith itself - these can and should be set
right at the opportune moment." 

     So the language of presentation may need improvement - but
the substance is not to be changed. Hence Paul VI, in Mysterium
fidei, Sept 3,1965, 23-24: "The norm...of speaking which the
Church...under the protection of the Holy Spirit has established
and confirmed by the authority of the Councils...is to be
religiously preserved, and let no one at his own good pleasure or
under the pretext of new science presume to change it.... For by
these formulae...concepts are expressed which are not tied to one
specific form of human civilization, nor definite period of
scientific progress, nor one school of theological thought, but
they present what the human mind...grasps of realities and
expresses in suitable and accurate terminology.... For this
reason these formulae are adapted to men of all times and all
places" (AAS 57.758).

     Of course, the fact that the ancient language expressed
truth correctly, even if not always in the best possible way,
does not excuse us from studying what the terms meant at the time
they were written - for languages do change over time. We must
not impose a modern meaning on an ancient expression.

     We should notice too: At times we can see that some things
were in the minds of the writers, which they did not set down on
paper, e.g,the Aristotelian-Thomistic notions of substance and
accidents. But Divine Providence protects only what is set down
on paper - not also what is merely in the minds of the writers.
God has made two commitments - to protect the teaching, and to
allow human freedom. At times He must as it were walk a tight
line, protecting what is really written, but not what is merely
in the minds of the drafters of the text. (Cf.also the case of
Gregory XVI, Pius IX, and Leo XIII in their statements on
Church-state, as compared with Vatican II's Declaration on
Religious Liberty.)

        (4)Paul VI,in an address to the opening of the second
session on Sept 29,1963 said (AAS  55.848-49):"It seems to us
that the time has come to explore, penetrate and explain more and
more the doctrine about the Church of Christ; but not with those
solemn statements which are called dogmatic definitions, but
rather in the form of declarations in which the Church in more
explicit and considered teaching presents that which she holds."

        (5)The Secretary of the  Council on Nov.29,1963, when the
Council was to vote on the Constitution on Liturgy and the Decree
on the Media for Communication, said (Osservatore Romano
Nov.30,1963.p.3): "The schemas which are to be voted and
promulgated the next Dec.4 are of a solely disciplinary nature."
We note one of these was a Constitution - which really contains
little of dogmatic nature - it is mostly legislative.

          (6)Doctrinal Commission on Lumen Gentium: Nov
16.1964.The Commission was asked about the doctrinal note of LG.
It referred the questioner back to its own declaration of March
6,1964: "Considering the Conciliar custom and the pastoral goal
of this Council, this Holy Synod defines that only those things
about matters of faith and morals are to be held by the Church
which it will have declared clearly as such. As to other things
which the Holy Synod proposes as the doctrine of the Supreme
Magisterium of the Church, all and individual faithful persons
must accept and embrace them according to the mind of the Holy
Synod itself, which becomes known either from the subject matter
or from the manner of speaking,according to the norms of
theological interpretation."

        (7)Paul VI,opening speech to Third Session (AAS 56,808-
09), referring to coming work on the Constitution on the Church:
"In this way the doctrine which the Ecumenical Council Vatican I
had intended will be completed.... It is proper for this solemn
Synod to settle certain laborious theological controversies about
the shepherds of the Church, with the prerogatives which lawfully
flow from the episcopate, and to pronounce a statement on them
that is certain. We must declare what is the true notion of the
hierarchical orders and to decide with authority and with a
certainty which it will not be legitimate to call into doubt
[emphasis added]." From the underlined words, it seems there was
an intention to be definitive, and so, infallible, even without
the solemn form of a definition.

     c)Later statements:

        (1)Paul VI:General audience of Jan 12,1966:"In view of
the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary
statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but
it still provided us teaching with the authority of the ordinary
Magisterium, which must be accepted with docility...."

        (2)Paul VI,Allocution to Consistory of Cardinals,May
24,1976 (Osservatore Romano,English,June 3,l976), complained: "It
is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding."

     c)Conclusion on teaching level of Vatican II. Paul VI said
it falls on Ordinary Magisterium level, as in the quote above
from audience of Jan 12,1966. This means we have nothing on level
l, solemn definitions. But we can find things on levels 2, 3, or
4. An item that is quite new, never taught before, such as some
things in the Declaration on Religious Liberty, probably are on
level 4. But the Constitutions on the Church and on Divine
Revelation seem to have the intention to settle debated points --
cf.the text of Paul VI (b.6 above) in his speech to the opening
of Third Session, saying the Constitution on the Church intended
to complete the work of Vatican I on that topic,and to settle    
certain debated points. He mentioned some of them - as to others,
each one would need individual study.

                 Chapter I:The Church as Mystery

Preliminary notes: 1)We will use the same marginal numbers as
those in the Constitution itself. 2) The treatment is
Scriptural,and so it is not systematic. So we will find
repetitions of the same idea often enough, especially in the
first sections.

                   3)The word "Mystery". In Greek it was related
to mystes, one initiated into the mystery religions, who knew
secret things, must keep them secret. From Plato on, the word was
used for an obscure secret doctrine. In magic it meant a magic
rite or formula; in Gnosticism it meant a secret revelation.

                   But Hebrew had no word for all the meanings of
the Greek. The Hebrew word most similar is sod, "secret". Aramaic
and late Hebrew used raz (e.g, in Daniel 2:18ff. There raz seems
to be a Persian loanword).  So in the OT it is merely something
secret. In the Synoptics, the Apostles are given to know the
mysteries hidden from others in parables: Mk 4:11 and parallels.
For St.Paul, a mystery is a divine secret which becomes known
through revelation. The chief subject is God's plan as seen in
the death and resurrection of Christ. God makes known through
Paul that this plan includes for the gentiles, membership in the
People of God. This was a mystery hidden from the ages, that the
gentiles are called to be part of the People of God (Eph 3:5-6).
Marriage is also a mystery in that it symbolizes the union of
Christ and the Church (Eph 5:32).  There is also a mystery of
iniquity, the plan of satan, already at work: 2 Thes 2:7.         

1.The Council desires to bring the light of Christ to all
nations.The words "Light of the nations" are the opening words of
this document. They come from Is 60.1-3: "Arise, shine, for your
light has come and the glory of the Lord has arisen upon
you...and the gentiles shall come to your light." Also, Simeon
said of Jesus that He was " a light for revelation to the
gentiles." Cf.John 1.9. 

     LG here says that  it will present the nature and universal
mission of the Church "in the tradition laid down by earlier
Councils." -- note here that there will be many cases of level
2,of repetition of earlier teaching,which is infallible.
     
     It says that the Church "is as it were a sacrament - a sign
and instrument, that is, of close union with God and of unity
among all men." The word sacrament is here used very broadly. In
first centuries it was so used, and covered anything religious
and mysterious. Theologians gradually reached an agreement, by
12th century,to use the word only for external signs established
by Christ to give grace.

2.We note in advance, that sections 2,3,4 each are centered, one
after the other, on the Three Divine Persons: Father, Son, Holy
Spirit.

     God created the world by a most free and hidden  plan of His
wisdom and goodness. This reflects the teaching of Vatican I that
God created for His own glory. We must be careful not to
misunderstand this: Bishop Gasser, president of the Committee on
Faith at Vatican I, explained: "...the purpose of the created
thing,and not [the purpose] of the Creator,is meant when it is
said in the canon, 'that the world was created to the glory of
God....[de fine creati et non creantis sermo est]'" So God did
not create in order to gain glory - He cannot gain anything.
Rather, He willed that His glory should come through giving good
to His creatures. Hence the Report of the committee on Faith
said: "The second paragraph of this chapter is written...also
against those who calumniate the Catholic Church on account of
her teaching in which she says that the world was created to the
glory of God, as if, namely, [the Church] represented God as
eager for His own utility...as if, namely the Church denied that
the finis operantis [the purpose of the  One acting,i.e,of God]
was His own goodness, namely, that He might impart His goodness
to creatures." (Both citations taken from NAOQ 27 = Wm.Most,New
Answers to Old Questions).

    After the fall of our first parents, the Father laid His
plans at once for our salvation and so, "always provided them
with the means of salvation, in view of [intuitu] Christ the
Redeemer." So just as He gave to Bl.Mother the Immaculate
Conception, in anticipation of the merits of Christ, so too He
provided graces for salvation to all, in anticipation of
Christ.(More on this later).

     He predestined some to become "conformed to the image of His
Son, so He would be the first born among many brothers." LG here
cites Rom 8.30. In context, Paul speaks of predestination to full
membership in the Church,not of predestination to heaven, except
partially and indirectly - inasmuch as the Church is willed by
God as the great means of salvation. (We speak of full
membership, because there can be a lesser,but substantial
membership,as we shall see in commenting on 16) 1 Tim 2.4: "God
wills all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the
truth." The second clause indicates He wills that final salvation
come through the Church. Hence the teaching "No salvation outside
the Church." However,the Fathers of the first centuries have a
very broad concept of membership in the Church - we will explore
it later in section l6 of LG. Cf.also the appendix of W.Most, Our
Father's Plan (hereinafter = OFP). In line with this LG will say
in 5 - as we will see -  that the Church was already present in
figure even before Christ, was prepared for in the ancient People
of the Old Covenant, was established in this last age, and will
be gloriously consummated at the end. And in #2 it cited Pope
Gregory the Great, saying that at the end, all the just from Adam
and Abel on will be gathered together in the universal Church
with the Father. The thought is like that of St.Augustine, in his
Retractations 1.13.3: "The very thing which is now called the
Christian religion existed among the ancients, nor was it lacking
from the beginning of the human race, until Christ Himself came
in the flesh, when the true religion, which already existed,
began to be called Christian."

     On what basis does God predestine people to be full members
of His People of God or Church? In Romans 9, St.Paul makes clear
it is not given on the basis of merits. We seem to gather from
several other texts that it is given to those who are more in
need: 1 Cor 1: 26-31; Ezek 3:5-7; 5:6; Lk 10:30-37; Lk 17:11-19;
Mt 11:21. And the whole book of Jonah seems to show the Chosen
People were more resistant to God's grace than were the
Assyrians. Hence the Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael (4th century AD
Midrash on Exodus) puts words in the mouth of Jonah: "Since the
gentiles more readily repent, I might be causing the condemnation
of Israel [by going to Nineveh]." On predestination to heaven,
which is on a radically different basis, cf. OFP chapter 12.

3.Here LG speaks of the Church as "the kingdom of Christ already
present in mystery.This is the closest the Council comes to
identifying the kingdom and the Church. (More on this in comments
on LG 5).

     The restriction seem to indicate that the fullness of the
kingdom of Christ will come only in the world to come.   We will
explore later the question of the meaning of the term "kingdom of
God". There the text says Christ established a visible structure
of the Church on earth, and adds that He handed over this one
Church to Peter to be fed, and says:"this Church,in this world,
as a constituted and ordered society, subsists in the Catholic
Church." To anticipate, we will show that the phrase has a broad
spectrum of meaning, but that it very often, as even leftish
scholars admit, means the Church in this world and /or in the
next. The "subsists in" indicates that the Church is a "mystery,"
something hidden, i.e.,there is more to it than meets the eye.

     Here LG says that "by His obedience He brought about
redemption." This is in line with Romans 5:19: "Just as by the
disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so by
the obedience of the one man, the many will be made just." For
His death received its value from the fact that it was done in 
obedience - without that, it would have been a tragedy, not a
redemption. Paul VI (Osservatore Romano, Oct 14, 1966, p.12)
expressed it beautifully: "[obedience] is first of all a
penetration and acceptance of the mystery of Christ, who saved us
by means of obedience. It is a continuation and imitation of this
fundamental act of His, His acceptance of the will of the Father.
It is an understanding of the principle which dominates the
entire plan of Incarnation and Redemption. Thus obedience becomes
assimilation into Christ, who is the Divine Obedient One."

     There is discussion today on how the redemption produces its
effect. Many despair of finding the answer. They start with 1 Cor
6:20 where Paul speaks of the "price" of redemption (cf.ibid
7:23). The metaphor pictures our race in captivity of satan. They
point out we would not want to say the price, the blood of
Christ, was paid to satan who was the captor. Nor was it paid to
the Father, who was not the captor. But there is an answer. Paul
VI,in his Constitution Indulgentiarum doctrina, of Jan 9,1967
wrote: "Every sin brings with it a disturbance of the universal
order, which God arranged in His inexpressible wisdom and
infinite love.... So it is necessary for the full remission and
reparation of sins...not only that friendship with God be
restored by a sincere conversion of heart, and that the offense
against His wisdom and goodness be expiated, but that all the
goods,both individual and social, and those that belong to the
universal order, lessened or destroyed by sin, be fully
reestablished, either through voluntary reparation...or through
the [involuntary] suffering of penalties."

     Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar, around 170 A.D., who says he is
quoting Rabbi Meir from early in that century, gives a very
helpful comparison to illustrate the thought of Paul VI
(Tosefta,Kiddushin 1.14): "He [anyone] has committed a
transgression. Woe to him. He has tipped the scale to the side of
debt for himself and for the world." The sinner takes from one
pan of the scales what he has no right to have. The Holiness of
God loves that objective order of goodness,and wants it
rebalanced. If the sinner stole property, he can begin to
rebalance by giving it back; if he stole a pleasure, he can begin
to rebalance by giving up some other pleasure he might have
lawfully had. But his work only begins to rebalance, for the
imbalance from even one mortal sin is infinite. So if the Father
wanted it - He of course,did not have to do so - the only way it
could be done was to send a Divine Person, who could generate an
infinite value, who could put back by His suffering and
deprivations more than all sinners of all ages have taken, are
taking, will take from the scales.  

     The redemption is also a new covenant.  In the new as in the
old (cf.Ex 19:5) the critical condition is obedience. Christ by
His obedience, as we saw above, provided this critical condition.

     Every Pope from Leo XIII to John Paul II, including also
Vatican II, has taught that the generosity of the Father, to make
the title for forgiveness and grace even richer, willed to join
the obedience of the Mother of Jesus, as Vatican II said in LG
61: "In suffering with Him as He died on the cross, she
cooperated in the work of the Savior, in an altogether singular
way, by obedience ,faith, hope and burning love, to restore
supernatural life to souls."  LG 56 also stressed her obedience
within the work of redemption. We note that if something is
repeatedly taught on the ordinary Magisterium level,it is
infallible. This is true of the teaching on her cooperation,for
there are in all 17 texts.

     Why bring in her obedience when that of Jesus is infinite?
Our Father could have forgiven without any reparation, He could
have forgiven by accepting any religious act of any person He
might appoint,e.g., offering a mere animal sacrifice. He could
have provided infinite reparation by the Incarnation in a palace
with the Redemption done by a short prayers: "Father, forgive
them." But His policy is clearly: as long as there is anything
that will make it fuller, let it be added.

     St.Thomas,in Summa I.19.5.c, said that in His love of good
order, God loves to have one thing in place to serve as a title,
as a reason for granting a second thing, even though that title
does not move Him. So it pleased Him to enrich the titles by
adding her role even in the objective redemption (the work of
once-for-all earning a title to all forgiveness and grace).
Following the same principle, He wills to add the work of the
Saints in the subjective redemption (the work of giving out the
fruits of the objective redemption). Still further, He wills that
our obedience be joined to that of His Son in the Mass -- hence
He ordered: "Do this in memory of me". St.Paul expresses this
with his syn Christo theme: we are saved and made holy if and to
the extent that we are not only members of Christ,but are also
like Him. That likeness of course must include likeness in this
work of rebalancing the objective order. So Luther was very wrong
in saying in effect:Jesus did an infinite work; there is no need
or room for anything from us.

   LG 3 adds: "As often as the sacrifice of the cross...is
celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried
out." This relates to the obedience by which He brought about
Redemption. It is presented again as a title for the giving out
of graces (cf.again Summa I.19.5.c) In the Cenacle, the external
sign was His seeming separation of body and blood, used to
express His interior attitude of obedience, willingness to die in
obedience. On the cross, the external sign of His obedience was
physical death, but the interior, obedience, was the same,
continued from that Thursday night. On our altars,we have the
same external sign as that of the Cenacle, again to express His
obedience -- willingness to do whatever the Father wills, even
death, if He willed it - which of course the Father does not
will. But just as His obedience in death once formed the title
for the infinite treasury of grace and forgiveness for us,so in
the Mass, His obedience,presented again, is the title for the
giving out of that which was won once-for-all on Calvary. Our 
obedience is to be joined to His, so as to make up the obedience
of the Whole Christ, Head and Members.

          The Eucharistic bread,says LG 3, signifies the unity of
believers - yes, we then are to be the body of Christ our Head,
whose obedience is presented again. We need, of course,to unite
out obedience to His - just as Our Lady once did on Calvary,so
that the obedience of Head and members melts,as it were,into the
one great price of the giving out of the fruits won once-for-all. 
 
     To unite it we might spend some moments before a Mass,
looking to see what we have done since the last time in doing the
will of the Father. If we have done well, we have something to
join with His offering. If some things were not done well, we add
regrets. We could look ahead too, to the time soon to come, to
see: Is there something there in which I know His will, but am
not fond of doing it? If so: Do I intend to do it? If not, this
is no place for me. By examining in advance,we have something to
join with His obedience, precisely at the moment when through the
human priest, He again expresses His obedience, by the seeming
separation of body and blood in the double consecration.  

     LG 3 says this also brings about our union: By joining our
obedience to His, we should grow in obedience, which unites us to
Him, and to each other inasmuch as it makes us all  more fully
parts of His Mystical Body. St.Augustine writes (City of God
10.20): "He willed that the daily sacrament of this should be the
sacrifice of the Church, which,since it is the body of Him its
Head, learns through Him to offer itself."

4.After the work of the Father and the Son,the Holy Spirit is
sent 
     a)to sanctify the Church, make her holy. Holy means two
things- set aside for God (qadosh)-- growing in moral
perfection.Especially through the Gifts the Spirit does this-
cf.the three levels of guides: namely,a person may follow; 1) the
whim of the moment which Aristotle,(Ethics 1.5) calls "a life fit
for cattle"). 2)Reason - which as a matter of fact will be aided
by actual graces. Yet the process of decision making is basically
discursive, moving from one step to another. 3)The gifts of the
Holy  Spirit. Here the conclusion is given ready made, without
any discursive steps,though the Gifts.This process can lead the
soul to things not contrary to reason, but higher than reason
would be apt to see by itself.

     b)He brings souls to life - this is the same as sanctifying,
for grace is the life of the soul, and sanctifying grace brings
about holiness.Sanctifying graces gives the radical ability to
join in the life within the Holy Trinity in the next life.

     c)He dwells in the Church and in the faithful as in a
temple. Note the senses of dwelling or presence - a Spirit in
general is present wherever He produces effects. Inasmuch as He
produces effects in the Church, He is present in the Church, and
in individuals. He can be said to come several times, even though
He is already there - for as we said, a Spirit is present
wherever He produces effects He can come several times by
producing added effects. - Mortal sin ejects the  Spirit from His
temple. This presence is different from the Real Presence in  the
Eucharist. It is different from the presence of Christ where two
or three are gathered together -- a moral presence, not physical,
inasmuch as He produces effects there. The Real Presence is in a
class by itself above all other presences of Christ.

     d)He prays in the Church - the  liturgy is the action of
Christ and of the Spirit. He also prays  within each soul in the
state of grace -- two senses (1)charismatic prayer  (2)He
intercedes for us -- cf.ST I.19.5.c,and OFP cap.4 ff.

     e)He guides the Church into all truth. There are not new
revelations -- cf.DV 4 -- but there is a gradual clarification
and deepening. Hence new definitions can and do come over the
centuries. Cf.also the introduction on the 4 levels of 
teaching - guided by the Holy Spirit.

     f)He unifies the Church. A body would be dead and go into
many pieces without its soul or spirit -- the Spirit makes it
alive and therefore one. So too the Spirit makes the Church,the
body of Christ, one.

     g)He gives charismatic and sanctifying gifts. Sanctifying
gifts are aimed at making one holy, i.e.,set aside for God,and
the,growing in moral perfection. There are two types of
sanctifying graces: 1)Habitual (also called sanctifying) and
actual (a grace He gives me at this moment to lead me and to
enable me to do a particular good thing here and now. Charismatic
gifts are for some benefit to the community. There are again two
kinds:1)miraculous,such as tongues,healing the sick etc. and
nonmiraculous- the grace of being a good parent,a good teacher,a
good apostles etc.All receive some of this latter group. Chief
among charismatic gifts are the Pope and Magisterium, given as a
benefit to the Church, to lead it by the light of the Holy Spirit
into all truth, and to guide it in that truth. (Note: As to the
modern charismatic movement, if all dangers - which are not rare-
are avoided, it can be a valid form of spirituality, as long as
one understands that the Spirit gives varied graces:it must not
be pushed on all To say that all noncharismatics are "dead" is at
least close to spiritual pride,the worst of vices).

     h)He renews and keeps the Church youthful. For it is the
Spirit that gives life -- the life that comes from the Spirit is
inexhaustible - and hence eternal youth and freshness.

     In all these things, we must keep in mind that all the
operations of the three Persons are common to all (DS 800, 3814)
- and so we are appropriating when we assign these effects to the
Spirit - they are also the work of the Father and the Son.

5.Here LG speaks of the mystery of the Church, and then goes on
to speak of Jesus making a beginning of His Church by preaching
the coming of the kingdom. This seems to imply that the Church
and the kingdom are at least in part the same thing. We recall
the words of LG 3, "The Church, that is, the kingdom of Christ
already present in mystery...." We wish the Council had been
clearer on the relation of kingdom and Church. However,in a
moment we will try to help clarify. For certain,the word kingdom
cannot mean simply reign -- God always reigns. Yet He can be said
to reign specially in hearts that obey Him. There were such
hearts in the OT period,and more in the NT period.

     LG speaks of the fact that the kingdom was promised over the
ages in the Scriptures. Now Jewish literature does not in general
have the expression, kingdom of heaven. Yet Jesus used it
obviously with the attitude that people would understand. That
was right, they would, in spite of the lack of the formal
expression. For there had been many prophecies of the King
Messiah, as we see from the Targums. (The official Targums,
especially Onkelos on the Pentateuch and Jonathan on the
prophets, are more sparing in the use of the word king - yet they
consider the Messiah as descended from David. The probable reason
for the sparingness is that they may go back to Maccabean times
when such a title would not have been in favor.But the unofficial
targums, such as Pseudo-Jonathan, commonly do use the words King
Messiah. Thus Ps.J.on Gen 3.15 speaks of the days of the King
Messiah.So does the same Targum on Gen 49.10.The Targums on the
Hagiographa,not being official,commonly do use the words King
Messiah).

     However,with or without the word king,and even without the
word kingdom,to a Jew,the Messiah was the descendant of David,
and in that sense, a king. Further a Messiah without a Messianic
kingdom, a community, would be unthinkable to a Jew in the OT
times.Therefore the LG is quite right in asserting that the
kingdom was promised in the OT. But the kingdom of the Messiah
was only promised, not realized ( As we remarked, if kingdom
means subjection to the will,to the kingship of God,that was done
in the case of many individuals in OT times - and it not done by
all in NT times).   

     Hence, we gather that one sense of the words kingdom of God
is the kingdom of the Messiah, which actually is His Church.
However, most ancient words and phrases have more than one 
meaning. As we shall see more fully presently, the words often do
mean the Church, in this world, or in the next, or both. However
there are other senses too, which we will examine before the
sense of Church.

    Jesus Himself said at the outset (Mk 1.15): "The time is
fulfilled,the kingdom of God is at hand."

     LG adds that the kingdom showed itself in the words, works,
and especially in the very person of Christ the Messiah. It began
to appear with His miracles, for as He said (Lk 11.20): "If I by
the finger of God cast out devils, then the kingdom of God has
come upon you (ephthasen). It was present in His very person, for
the king Messiah of course would have a kingdom. Or, using a
different way of speaking, He is the Head of the Mystical Body,
and that Body is His Church, His kingdom.     

     After His resurrection, Romans 1.4 speaks of Him as being
"designated Son-of-God-in-power". (The old translation
predestined is incorrect. The Greek has horisthentos, without a
prefix pro-). He always had full power, even in His humanity. Yet
He had agreed, following the will of the Father, to empty Himself
(Phil 2.7), i.e., not to use that power except to heal the sick,
and to support His claims. But now, being risen, all power in
heaven and on earth is given Him even in His humanity: Mt 28.18.
Similarly Peter in Acts 2.36 said:"God has made Him both Lord and
Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified." He already was all of
this, but had emptied Himself.

     Yet the fullness of the kingdom is to be in the world to
come - ha olam ha ba, as the Jews called it. In this sense LG
says the Church now is the seed and beginning of the kingdom, and
longs for the completed kingdom, regnum consummatum.

     The Church can be called a mystery, since it is only partly
visible. It does have visible structure, and no one who knowingly 
rejects that can be saved. It has members visibly adhering. But
it also has members who belong to it even without knowing that,
and without external explicit adherence. Thus Paul in Rom 2.15
speaks of gentiles who do not know the revealed law, but yet they
"show the work of the law written on their hearts." This law is
written by the Spirit of God, or of Christ. Now from Rom 8.9  we
learn that if someone does not have and follow this Spirit,that
one does not "belong to Christ." So if one has and follows the
Spirit, he does belong. But in Paul's language,to belong to
Christ = to be a member of Christ, which =to be a member of His
mystical Body, the Church. Hence there is much mystery, to be
known fully and clearly only at the end. 

     In this vein, St.Justin Martyr, c.145 A.D.in Apology
1.46,said that in the past some who were thought to be atheists,
such as Socrates and Heraclitus, were really Christians, for they
followed the Divine Logos, the Divine Word. They followed it
without knowing that fact by accepting what His Spirit, the Holy
Spirit, wrote on their hearts, as indicated in Romans 2:15. So
Socrates in following that Spirit of Christ was accepting and
following the Spirit of Christ, and belonged to Christ,  was a
member of Christ, was a member of the Church substantially,
without visible adherence of course. This fits with what LG 16
will soon say, and with LG 49: "For all who belong to Christ,
having His Spirit, coalesce into one Church and cohere with each
other in Him (cf.Eph 4:16)".

     As a result in LG 8. the Council will say that the Church
"subsists" in the Catholic Church - more on this in section 8.

     So one reason we can call the Church a mystery is that there
is more to it than what meets the eye.

     In saying there can be members without visible adherence, we
are not contradicting official texts, but adding to them. 

     a)_Pius IX,in Quanto conficiamur moerore of August 10,1863
said "God...in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means
allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does
not have the guilt of voluntary fault." But some who do not
visibly adhere meet this description. Pius IX in the very next
sentence repeats the necessity of the Church for salvation. 

     b)On August 9,1949, the Holy Office, by order of Pius XII,
condemned the interpretation given by L.Feeney of "no salvation
outside the Church" and said, citing the same Pope's Mystical
Body Encyclical: "It is not always required that one be actually
incorporated, but this at least is required that one adhere to it
in wish and desire" which can be "a desire of which he is not
aware" contained in the good dispositions mentioned. 

     c)Vatican II in LG 16 will explicitly say the same as we
shall see. 

     d)John Paul II,in Redemptoris missio,10 affirms the same
thing: "The universality of salvation means that it is granted
not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have
entered the Church.... For such people [those who do not know of
the Church] salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a
grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the
Church, does not make them formally part of the Church...." We
are proposing to fill-in on that "mysterious relationship", and
agree that those we have described are not 'formally" part of the
Church, since they do not explicitly and externally adhere.

     Let us add a few words on the Scriptural expression, kingdom
of heaven. As we said, as actually used in the Gospels, the sense
is variable - this is true of ancient words and expressions in
general.      

     Some texts are unclear, e.g.,Rom 14.17: "The kingdom of God
is not food and drink." In context, it probably means that what
one eats or drinks does not determine membership or standing.
Similarly, 1 Cor 4.20:"The kingdom of God lies not in talk, but
in power." It probably means that their acceptance of the Church
did not depend on mere words, but on the showing of the power of
God in miracles.

     Other texts refer to final salvation:  1 Cor 6.9-10:"The
unrighteous...will not inherit the kingdom of God" i.e., reach
final salvation. Eph.5.6:"No fornicator...has an inheritance in
the kingdom of Christ and of God." Mt 5.10:"Blessed are they who
suffer persecution for the sake of justice,the kingdom of God is
theirs." The Church has always understood this of martyrs.

     Many texts refer to the Church in this world: Mt 21.43:"The
kingdom...will be taken away from you and given to a nation that
will yield a rich harvest." I.e., God's call to the Jews will not
be cancelled, but their infidelity actually puts most of them
outside the People of God until they repent - meanwhile, gentiles
enter. Cf.Romans 11, the comparison of the tame and wild olive
trees: tame tree is the original people of God, from which many
branches broke off, i.e., left the  people of God by rejecting
Christ. Gentiles were grafted in, from the wild olive tree, in
the open places.. Cf.also the parables of the net, of the wise
and foolish virgins, and of the weeds in the wheat. They speak of
both good and evil people in the present Church. They will be
separated at the end. The parable of the mustard seed speaks of
the growth of the Church in this world.

     Some prominent commentators do see that in many texts the 
kingdom means the Church even in this world: e.g.,Jerome Biblical
Commentary (1968) II,p.64 (John L.McKenzie); ibid II,pp.783-84
(David M.Stanley); W.F.Albright and C.S.Mann,in Anchor Bible
Matthew p.lxxxvi. Cf.pp.lxxxix and c. Cf.also R.E.Brown, The
Churches the Apostles Left Behind, (Paulist,1984,pp.1-52):
"...one must not overlook the fact that in some of the later
sections of the NT, basileia [kingdom] has been reified and
localized.... the kingdom and the church have begun to be
partially identified."  He appeals to the parable of the weeds in
the wheat (Mt 13:36-43) and Colossians 1:13-14 and Eph 2:6. In
Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible (Paulist,1990,p.12) he
says that in the original NAB version "Some bad choices were
made, e.g., to render 'the kingdom of God' by 'the reign of
God.'" 

     In LG 8 we find that "the Church on earth and the Church 
endowed with heavenly goods are not two things,but one complex
reality." However,in LG 5 the Church now "longs for the
consummated kingdom",the Church in heaven." So the Church on
earth is part of the kingdom.
   
6.Most of this section consists in giving various images of 
Christ and the Church. Chiefly these: 

     1)It is the sheepfold,and the Messiah is the shepherd, 

     2)it is the field planted by God (cf. 1 Cor 3:6-8), 

     3)it is the building built by God-- Christ is the
cornerstone,even though He as rejected by the builders.cf.Mt
21.42,referring to Ps 118.22. At times the building is called a
temple,in which the presence of God dwells. That presence dwells
in individual members of Christ as well, inasmuch as God there
produces the effect [a spirit does not need space: it is present
wherever it produces an effect] of making the soul basically
capable of the direct vision of God in the next life. 4)The
Church is also our Mother -- this will be developed further in
Chapter 8 of LG. 

     4)It is also the Jerusalem that is above, as in Gal 4.26.    
 
     5)The Church is the immaculate spouse of the Lamb.

     At the end of this section, there is mention of the fact
that the Church here is in exile,is a pilgrim. Cf.the opening of
1 Clement: "The Church of God in exile in Rome, to the Church of
God in exile in Corinth...." LG returns to this imagery several
times. Those who do not believe what LG says of the teaching
mission of the Church, try to take the pilgrim image to mean the
Church is still groping for the truth and does not know what is
right. It is true, there is a gradual clarification of revelation
over the centuries, with the result that we had a definition of
the Immaculate Conception in 1854, and of the Assumption l950, in
our times. And there is still room for doctrinal development -
but not in such a way as to contradict previous teaching - we
recall the teaching of Paul VI, in Mysterium fidei in our
introduction, and, of course, all the claims of LG itself, which
we saw in our introduction.

7.This section concentrates on the image of the Church as the
Mystical Body of Christ. The major source  of this doctrine is
found in St.Paul, as developed in the Mystical Body Encyclical of
Pius XII. The word mystical however is not found n St.Paul. It is
used to describe a type of union for which there is no exact
parallel. We could think of a natural body with its parts - but
the relation of Christ to His members is of course not of that
kind. We could think of a body which is a corporation for
business. But that union is inferior to the mystical body union.
Since there is no exact parallel, the word mystical was developed
to describe it.

     There are two groups of Epistles of St.Paul which give us
the basic data.    

     First the Major Epistles. The chief text is 1 Cor 12,12- 2l:
"For just as the body is one, and has many members, and all the
members of the body though many are one body; so also is Christ.
For by the one Spirit we all were baptized into one body -
whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free. And we all have
drunk of the one Spirit. - But the body is not one member, but
many. If the foot says: Because I am not a hand, I do not belong
to the body - not for that reason does it fail to be part of the
body.... But as it is, God has placed the members, each and every
one of them in the body, as He willed. If all were one member,
where would be the body? But actually, there are many members,
but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand: I have no need of
you. Or again, the head cannot say to the feet: I do not have
need of you. But the members of the body that seem weaker are
much more necessary.... so that there may be no dissension in the
body, but that the members may have the same concern for one
another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with
it. But you are the body of Christ,and members each in its own
part. And God has placed in the Church: First, apostles, second,
prophets, third, teachers... be eager for the better gifts."

     The context is the treatment of charismatic gifts. Paul
compares the diversity of them to the diversity of parts in the
body, and says some are nobler than others. First are apostles.
At the end of the list come tongues - Paul thinks Corinthians are
childish about tongues.

     We note that Paul does not say that they are all one in
Christ, but all are  the body of Christ.

     In this first group of texts belong also Rom 12: 4-8, which
is parallel to the above text, and 1 Cor 6:15: "Do you not know
that your bodies are members of Christ? So, so should I take the
members of Christ, and make them members of a harlot?"

     The interrelation of members, so that if one suffers all
suffer, has a rabbinic background. Cf.Simeon ben Eleazar, c. 170
A.D.[citing Rabbi Meir, from earlier in the same century]: "He
[anyone] has committed a transgression: woe on him, he has tipped
the scale to the side of debt for himself and for the world; He
has carried out a commandment. Blessings on him. He has tipped
the scale to the side of merit for himself and for the world."
(Tosefta,Kiddushin 1.14). Cf.also OFP chapter 4.

     The second group of texts comes from Colossians and
Ephesians. In 1 Cor & Romans, Paul does not explicitly speak of
Christ as the Head, though of course that is implied if
Christians are members of His Body. But he becomes quite explicit
in Col & Eph. There are several aspects brought out:

          a)Absolute primacy: Eph 5.23:"For the man is the head
of the woman, as also Christ is the head of the Church."
Col.1.18: "And He Himself is the head of the body, the Church."
Col 2.18-19: "And let no one rob you of your prize, in lowering
yourselves, and in worshipping angels - and not holding on to the
head [Christ] from whom the whole body, nourished and knit
together though its joints and ligaments, grows with divine
growth."

          b)Christ is the Fullness, the pleroma: (That word is
familiar to the Gnostics. It is likely - not certain - Paul is
working against them in these Epistles, and so uses their terms
to fight them). Col 2:9: "For in Him lives permanently all the
fulness (pleroma) of the divinity in a bodily way, and you have
been made full in Him, who is the head of every principality and
power." (And so, no need to worship them, as the Gnostics said).
Col 1.19:"For it pleased [The Father] that all fullness should
dwell permanently in Him."

          c)The Church receives from Him, becomes His fullness.
Eph 1.22-23: "And He subjected all things under His feet, and He
made Him Head over all things, for the Church, which is His Body,
the fullness of Him who is filled in all things." (Or: Who fills
all things). - [Paul prays that the Ephesians may] "know the love
of Christ, which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled to
all the fullness of God." (Eph 3.19).

          d)All this is aimed at the complete development of the
pleroma. Eph 4.13: [God has given charisms, including especially
that of apostles, to the Church] "until we all come together into
the unity of faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to be a
perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of
Christ." (Can refer to full development of the Church to the full
Christ in fullest sense, and/or the development of each
individual in it in conformity with Christ.) 

          e)Thus Christ becomes the center of all: Eph 1.10: "He
made known to us the mystery of His will, for His plan in the
fullness of the times, so as to recapitulate all things in
Christ"(anakephalaiosthai - could mean to restore all things in
Christ, to reunite all under one sole Head, or to reunite all
things in Christ as in their center).

8.This section dwells on two major aspects of the Church  - it is
a spiritual reality, i.e., the Mystical Body of Christ, and it is
also a visible society. Yet these two are one complex reality.
Further,the Church visible on earth and the Church in Heaven are
not two things,but one reality.Therefore,since the council calls
the Church in Heaven the kingdom (LG 3), the Church on earth is
also part of the kingdom. There is only one (unica) Church of
Christ, governed by the successor of Peter .However, since there
are many elements of sanctification and truth outside the visible
confines, the text can say that the Church "subsists in" the
Catholic Church. 

     Part of the explanation is provided by an analogy - these
two elements form one just as the divinity and humanity form one
in Christ. The divinity of course, in Him is greater, not
confined to, or limited by His humanity. Rather, we would say His
humanity subsists in it. Similarly the Church, considered as
Mystical Body,is greater than the visible structure which we see.


     The relatio on this passage as found in the Acta explains
the situation: "Now the intention is to show that the Church,
whose deep and hidden nature is described and which is
perpetually united with Christ and His work, is concretely found
here on earth in the Catholic Church. This visible Church reveals
a mystery - not without shadows until it is brought to full
light, just as the Lord Himself through His 'emptying' came to
glory.... The mystery of the Church is present in and manifested
in a concrete society." (Quoted from James T. O'Connor, "The
Church of Christ and the Catholic Church" in Homiletic &
Pastoral, Jan. 1984, p.l4). 

     This concept shows also in several statements of the Council
on membership in the Church. In  the decree on ecumenism 22: "By
the Sacrament of Baptism, whenever it is conferred rightly
according to the institution of the Lord, and is received with
the due disposition of soul, a person is really incorporated in
the crucified and glorified Christ..." This seems to say that by
Baptism a person becomes a member of the Mystical Body - which is
the Church, even if Baptism is received outside the visible
confines. Similarly in LG 9: "Those who believe in Christ and are
reborn not from corruptible seed but from incorruptible seed by
the word of the Living God, not of flesh but of water and the
Holy Spirit, are constituted finally a chosen people, a royal
priesthood, a holy people, an acquired people...who once were not
a people, but now are the people of God." These two statements do
seem at least to apply to all those who are baptized even in
Protestantism, so that they have an imperfect membership. That
imperfection is brought out in LG 14: "They are fully
incorporated into the society of the Church, who, having the
Spirit of Christ, accept all its organization and all the means
of salvation instituted in it, and are joined in the same visible
union with Christ, who rules it through the Supreme Pontiff and
the Bishops, that is [they are joined] by the bonds of profession
of faith, of the acceptance of ecclesiastical rule and
communion." This seems to mean there can be an imperfect, less
than full membership for those who are baptized, but do not
accept the visible Church and its rule. 

     Less clarity results if we read also LG 15: "The Church
knows that she is joined with those who are baptized, and adorned
with the name of Christian, but do not profess the whole faith,
or do not keep the unity of communion with the Successor of
Peter." A similar attitude seems to show in the Decree on
Ecumenism 3: "Those who believe in Christ and have properly
received Baptism, are established in "a certain communion with
the Catholic Church" even though it is not perfect."

     To sum up:The language of these four passages seems
hesitant. The first two passages seem to affirm that by Baptism
one becomes a member of Christ, and so a member of the Church,
even though the membership or communion will be imperfect if they
do not accept the visible Catholic Church. The second two seem to
say they only are joined with the Church, rather than being
actual members. LG 49 seems to fit with the stronger conclusion:
"For all those who belong to Christ, having His Spirit,coalesce
into one Church."

     We saw above in comments on LG  5 that we can by
theological reasoning show that even nonbaptized persons who,
like Socrates (Cf.St.Justin Martyr, Apology 1.46) follow the
Divine Logos are Christians,and so are members of the Church.
This fits with the teaching that the Church "subsists in" the
Catholic Church. This does not mean that Protestant bodies are 
as it were component parts of the Catholic Church; no,even though
their individualmembers may be members of the Church
individually.

           Important misunderstandings come from Alan Schreck. 

     He,in Catholic and Christian, (Servant,1984) wrote:

p.2:"I hope it will be apparent to all that this book was not
written to present Catholicism as the only legitimate form of
Christianity and certainly not to critize [sic] other
Christians,nor to 'prove them wrong'  in their beliefs."

     On pp.110-13 of his Basics of the Faith: A Catholic
Catechism (Servant Books,1987) says: "Catholics believe that one
place the church of Christ truly exits (or subsists) is in the
Catholic church.... The positive teaching stated here is a
genuine expression of the Church of Christ. Never does the Second
Vatican Council or any papal teaching say that the Church of
Jesus Christ and the grace of salvation is limited to the
Catholic Church.... These teachings are intended to break down
the simple and incorrect dichotomy  of one church being the 'true
church' and all others being 'false' churches."

     COMMENT: 1)It is true that the grace of salvation can be
found elsewhere. Lumen gentium 16 says: "For they who without
their own fault do not know of the Gospel of Christ and His
Church, but yet seek God with sincere heart,and try, under the
influence of grace,to carry out His will in practice, known to
them through the dictate of conscience,can attain eternal
salvation." John Paul II in his Encyclical on the Missions in 10
says the same [underline added]: "For such people [those who do
not formally enter the Church, as in LG 16] salvation in Christ
is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a
mysterious relationship to the Church,does not make them formally
part of the Church." We underline the word "formally" to indicate
that there may be something less than formal membership, which
yet suffices for salvation. A similar thought is found in LG 14
which says "they are fully incorporated who  accept all its
organization....." We will show presently that there can be a
lesser, or substantial membership,which suffices for salvation.

     Schreck has in mind a line in LG 8: "This Church, in this
world as a constituted and ordered society, subsists in the
Catholic  Church...even though outside its confines many elements
of sanctification and truth are found which, as gifts proper to
the Church of Christ, impel to Catholic unity."

              2)Schreck missed the words in LG 8 which speak of
"this one and only  [unica]  Church of Christ,which we profess in
the Creed...." Similarly the Decree on Religious Liberty in 1
says that" it [this decree] leaves untouched the traditional
Catholic doctrine about the duty of men and societies to the true
religion and the one and only [unica] Church of Christ." 

     So there really is only one true Church. But really,we
suspect Schreck thinks that protestant churches are as it were
component parts of the Church of Christ. And he thinks that
follows from the words about "subsisting in" and the statement
that elements of sanctification can be found outside the visible
confines of the Catholic Church.  This is probably why,in the
quote given above from his p. 2 he says that the Catholic Church
is not the only legitimate form of Christianity.

     But it does not really follow that there are other
legitimate forms of Christianity. Pope Gregory XVI (DS
2730.Cf.Pius IX, DS 2915 and Leo XIII,DS 3250) condemned "an evil
opinion that souls can attain eternal salvation by just any
profession of faith, if their morals follow the right norm." So
although people who do not formally join can be saved,as LG 16
says,and Redemptoris missio 10 also says,they are not saved by
such a faith.It is in spite of it.

              3)Yet we can account for the words about subsisting
in and about finding elements of salvation outside. For this we
need the help of the Fathers of the Church. 

     We begin with St.Justin the  Martyr who c.145 A.D.in Apology
1.46,said that in the past some who were thought to be atheists,
such as Socrates and Heraclitus, were really Christians, for they
followed the Divine Logos, the Divine Word. Further,in Apology
2.10 Justin adds that the Logos is in everyone. Now of course the
Logos,being Spirit,does not take up space.We say a spirit if
present wherever it prduces an effect. What effect? We find that
in St.Paul,in Romans 2:14-16 where he says that "the Gentiles who
do not have the law, do by nature the works of the law. They show
the work of the law written on their hearts." and according to
their response, conscience will defend or accuse them at the
judgment. 

     So it is the Logos, the Spirit of Christ,who writes the law
on their hearts, that,it makes known to them interiorly what they
need to do. Some then could follow it without knowing that fact.
So Socrates:  (1)read and believed what the Spirit wrote in his
heart; (2) he had confidence in it; (3) he obeyed it. We see this
obedience in the fact that Socrates went so far as to say, as
Plato quotes him many times,that the one who seeks the truth must
have as little as possible to do with the things of the body. 

     Let us notice the three things, just enumerated: St.Paul in
Romans 3:29 asked: "Is He the God of the Jews only? No, He is
also the God of the gentiles." It means that if God made
salvation depend on knowing and following the law of Moses,He
would act as if He cared for no one but Jews.But God does care
for all.Paul insists God makes salvation possible by faith for
them (cf.Romans chapter 4).Faith in Paul includes the three
things we have enumerated which Socrates did. 

     So in following that Spirit of Christ Socrates was accepting
and following the Spirit of Christ, But then, from Romans 8:9 we
gather that if one has and follows the Spirit of Christ, he
"belongs to Christ". That is, He is a member of Christ,which in
Paul's terms means a member of the Mystical Body ,which is the
Church.

     So Socrates then was a member of the Church,but not
formally,only substantially. He could not know the Church. So he
was saved,not by his false religious beliefs but in spite of
them. He was saved by faith, and similarly protestants and others
who do not formally join the Church today can be saved not as
members of e.g., the Baptist church, which Schreck seems to think
is an integral part of the one Church of Christ -- no, they are
saved as individuals,who make use of the means of sanctification
they are able to find even outside the visible confines of the
Catholic Church. 

     Many other Fathers speak much like St.Justin. A large
presentation of them can be found in Wm.Most,  Our Father's
Plan,in a 28 page appendix.

     Lumen gentium also likes to speak of  the Church as a
mystery. This is correct,for it is a mystery, since it is only
partly visible. It does have visible structure, and no one who
knowingly  rejects that can be saved. It has members visibly
adhering. But it also has members who belong to it even without
knowing that, and without external explicit adherence.  Hence
there is much mystery, to be known fully and clearly only at the
end. 
   
     So all other forms of Christianity are heretical and/or
schismatic. They are not legitimate. And we should criticize them
and prove them wrong in their heresies,contrary to what Schreck
said on page 2.

     For fuller data on this question,see OFP, appendix. There
extensive evidence is given from the early Fathers,who make two
kinds of statements: one kind seems very stringent,the other very
broad, and shows a broad concept of membership in the Church. We
can reconcile these two kinds of statements by recalling Romans
2.15:"They [gentiles who do not know revelation] show the work of
the law written on their hearts." This echoes Jeremiah 31.33,the
prophecy of the New Covenant.It means that the Spirit of God,or
of Christ,writes the law,i.e,makes known to the hearts of
pagans,what morality requires.If they accept that,they
are,without realizing it,accepting the Spirit of Christ.But
then,from Romans 8:9 we gather that one who has and follows the
Spirit of  Christ, belongs to Christ. That = in Paul's language,
member of Christ which = member of the Church, so even these can
have a membership sufficient for salvation. This seems implied
also in LG 16: "Those who without their own fault do not know of
the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with
sincere heart, and try under the influence of grace, to carry out
His will in practice, known to them through the dictate of
conscience, can attain eternal salvation."

     The Council adds that since her Founder was poor, the Church
use the same means He did, and should recognize Him especially in
the poor. 

     Also, the Church is simultaneously holy,and in need of
purification. She is holy in that she has all the means of
holiness and her structure is that willed by her Founder. She is
in need of purification in her members, as Church history shows
so sadly.

                   Chapter 2: The Church as People of God

9.It is the will of God to save people not as individuals,but as
members of His People- as we see already in the OT.

     If we made a synthesis of the thought of St.Paul it would be
this: We are saved and made holy, if and to the extent that we
are members of Christ, and like Him. This is what Luther
overlooked, saying if we just take Christ as our Savior, we need
do nothing, for His work is infinite. It is true, His work is
infinite, but it is the will of the Father that we be His
members,and like Him. Without that, we are not saved.We are not
saved as individuals.

     We can speak of a merit of heaven in a secondary sense.
There are two phases:1)We get justification,i.e., first
sanctifying grace, without any merit at all. It is a free gift,
given on condition of faith - which itself is a gift (Eph 2:8).
Of course,this does not mean that salvation is given blindly, by
a blind predestination. God offers the gift of faith to all, and
all receive it if they do not reject it. (We recall the process
explained earlier in the context of Rom 2:14-16).(Cf.DS
1525,1532)   2)The acceptance and possession of this grace gives
us a claim to heaven, which could be called a merit, for a merit
is a claim t a reward (Cf.DS 1582). We get that inasmuch as by
grace we are sons of God, brothers of Christ (Rom 8:17) and like
Him (Rom 8:18).

     This fact that we are saved not individually but as members
of Christ does not deny individual responsibility, nor does it
mean one need not work at his own spiritual growth. Such a view
has been fostered by a new spirituality, which could be called
GUN (cf.OFP 184- 92),i.e., Give-Up-Nothing. The crudest form
argues that all creatures are triply good ( and may appeal to
Vatican II,On Lay Apostolate 7), so there is no good in giving
up anything voluntarily. Cf.Ernest Larkin,O.Carm."Desacralization
and Ascetisism" in Pastoral Life,Dec.1967,p.673:"The old
spirituality was a 'Jesus and me' piety, the new is centered in
the community of God's People in the Body of Christ.... Growth of
the person and growth of the community are correlative
phenomena." Whether or not Larkin meant to go so far, many have
gone to the point of thinking: Just follow the community, make
the responses etc.and do not bother about individual spiritual
growth. An article in Saturday Evening Post (Nov 28,1965,p.42)
said:"The older generation of Catholics seem to prefer the purely
pietistic and devotional form of faith because they want to be
consoled,not challenged.They wish to recite the Rosary,not
Encyclicals. 'They are,' says a St.Louis priest, ' spiritual
gluttons, soaking up the sacraments, obsessed with saving their
own souls, not the souls of Negroes or Latin Americans or with
transforming society in Christ."-- One can hear the echo of the
Pharisee:O God I am not like the rest of men! (Compare gifts to
missions from the older generation and today).This is anti-
salesmanship!

     Larkin also said (p.671): "Today the question [where to find
God] would likely get an answer along these lines: I find God not
only in prayer - I have, indeed, real difficulty there...but also
and even especially in my neighbor and  my work. I do not mean
that I have explicit contact with God in my work, except on
occasion. But this is not necessary. As long as I am seeking to
serve, to be for others, even without conscious reference to God,
I am like the good Samaritan and am finding Christ in the least
of His brethren." Yes this charity is good, even imperative - but
the horizontal must not wipe out the vertical. A priest I know
once said: "If I were alone on a desert island I could have no
relation with God, for I can have it only through people."     

     Vatican II does not accept this GUN spirituality. Instead it
teaches the value of giving up things,e.g., LG 46: "...the
counsels contribute a great deal to the purification of heart and
spiritual liberty. They continually stir up the fervor of
charity."

     LG here speaks of the ancient People of God as holy. That is
Hebrew qadosh. Its first meaning is set aside for God,
consecrated to God, coming under the covenant with Him. From that
follows an obligation to be holy in the sense of being far
advanced on the scale of moral perfection. But that is a
secondary meaning of holy in Scripture.

     The Old Covenant was a prefiguration and preparation for the
New. Jeremiah 31.31 ff. foretold it. Jeremiah probably did not
foresee fully how it was to be carried out, that the basic
obedience was to be that of Jesus (for this sort of possibility
cf. LG 55. But The Holy Spirit can intend and express more than
the human writer sees. Hence here LG does say that de facto Jer
31 foretold what Jesus did in the Cenacle. It adds that Jesus
brought together Jew and gentile in the new covenant - again, did
Jeremiah foresee all this?

     St.Paul in Eph 2:13-17 says Jesus made both Jew and gentile
one in  Himself. This of course applies only to the Jews who
accepted Him, not to those who rejected Him then and now. In
Romans 11:16-19 St.Paul makes a comparison of two olive
trees,tame and wild.The tame tree stands for the original People
of God. Many branches fell off it,i.e.,rejected Christ the
Messiah the fulfillment to which the OT looked forward. In their
places were engrafted many branches from the wild tree, that of
the gentiles. So in one sense we can speak of a new covenant, as
Jeremiah did, for it is going beyond the old, is its fulfillment;
in another sense,the new is the continuation and perfection of
the old. 

     So, sadly, we see that Jews today who reject Christ are not
members of the people of God. Romans 11:1 says God has not
rejected His people. Right, but most of them have rejected Him.
Rom 11:29 says that the gifts of God are without repentance,that
is, He has not cancelled His call or invitation to them to be
part of His people. But It is one thing for Him to call, another
for them to accept. Most of them still do not accept. Some
Catholics are claiming today that a modern Jew need not accept
Christ, can continue to reject Him and still be saved. This is
true and false: It is false that they can be saved by
deliberately rejecting Christ; it is true that they, like pagans,
could be saved in the process we described starting with Romans
2:14-16. 

     We have the dignity and freedom of sons - in contrast to
being in slavery in the old law,as St.Paul expresses it, e.g., in
Gal 4. The word son expresses relationship in nature (we have a
share in divine nature as 2 Pet 1.4 tells us) and ability to
inherit - what we have not earned, and expresses freedom from
slavery. Yet slave is a suitable word,and Paul often uses it,
e.g., in Rom 1.1, to refer to himself. Slave expresses the fact
of our total dependence on God, the fact that we owe Him
everything, even if He did not reward at all. In Lk 17,10 Jesus
tells us: "When you have done all things that are commanded to
you, say: We are unprofitable servants, we have done what we
owed." That is, God cannot gain anything from our "service".

     God dwells in us as in a temple. We say He is present
wherever He produces an effect - in sustaining creation, in
making a soul radically capable of the vision of God.

     The People of God is destined for the kingdom of God,
Heaven, which was begun on earth, will be fully completed in the
next world. Even though here we are sons, yet St.Paul said in Rom
8.23 that now "even though we have the first fruits of the
Spirit, we groan within ourselves, waiting for adoption as sons."
It means we have the start, not the completion now. Further, Paul
in the same passage says all creation groans now along with us,
but that it will finally be freed from the slavery to corruption.

     So this People of God is on pilgrimage, for we have not here
a lasting city, as Hebrews 13:14 says. We need to meditate much
on the fact that this is not our city, that we are only in a
waiting room as it were.

     LG says that we are a people purchased by Christ by His
blood, the price of redemption. That price is paid not to satan,
who held our race captive, but to the objective order.We saw the
answer in comments on 3 above (cf.also OFP chapter 4).

     Christ has given us the Church as the means of a visible
union,so that it may serve as a channel of grace to all men,as
the universal sacrament. For every grace given to men before
Christ was given in anticipation of Christ ,and now it is given
through the Church, even to those who - as explained above - do
not recognize the Church. For if they follow the Spirit of
Christ, even though not knowing that it is that Spirit, they 
belong to Christ, and as His members,they receive grace. Grace is
given even in advance of that membership, so that they may become
His members by following the Spirit.

10.Christ the Priest has made a kingdom of priests. All share in
different ways in the one priesthood of Christ. Yet there are
differences - not only in degree, but also in kind. (Cf.OFP
chapter 11). For the ordained priest acts "in the person of
Christ" and "effects" that is, brings about the sacrifice. Pius
XII explained,to the Liturgical Conference at Assisi,Sept 22,1956
(AAS 48.717): "When the consecration of the bread and wine is
validly brought about, the whole action of Christ is actually
accomplished. Even if all that remains could not be completed,
still, nothing essential would be lacking to the Lord's
offering." So it is wrong to say, as some have said, that the
priest merely makes Christ present, then all, on the same level,
can offer Him.    

     LG 34 clarifies what is meant by spiritual sacrifices: "For
all their works, prayers,and apostolic endeavors, their married
and family life, their daily work, their relaxation of mind and
body, if they are carried out in the Spirit, even the hardships
of life, if they are patiently borne, become spiritual
sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ which are
offered devotedly to the Father in the celebration of the
Eucharist, along with the offering of the Lord's Body." (On
married life as a spiritual means,cf OFP chapter 16.)

     Pius XII, in Mediator Dei (AAS 39-555-56), explained in more
detail. There are two senses in which the faithful can be said to
offer the great sacrifice: First, "It is clear that the faithful
offer the sacrifice through the hands of the priest from the fact
that the priest at the altar in offering a sacrifice in the name
of all His members, does so in the person of Christ, the Head [of
the Mystical Body, of which they are members]." The second sense
is that of the spiritual sacrifices just mentioned: "The
statement that the people offer the sacrifice with the priest
does not mean that...they perform a visible liturgical
rite...instead, it is based on the fact that the people join
their hearts in praise, petition, expiation and thanksgiving with
the prayers or intention of the priest, in fact, of the High
Priest Himself, so that in the one and same offering of the
Victim...they may be presented to God the Father."

     To clarify further: A sacrifice consists of an external sign
and interior dispositions. The outward sign is there to express
and even promote the interior dispositions. In the Cenacle the
outward sign was the seeming separation of body and blood; on the
cross,it was the physical separation. But in both cases the real
value came from the interior, His obedience to the will of the
Father- cf.Rom 5.19 and LG 3 and Paul VI, cited in our comments
on LG 3. The most essential sharing is in the interior
dispositions, without which the death of Christ would have been a
tragedy, not a redemption. So it is very unfortunate to so stress
external things, such as making responses, that the impression is
given that there is nothing else. The exterior without the
interior is what God rebuked in the Jews,through Is 29.13: "This
people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from
me."

     LG adds that the people should exercise their priesthood too
"by the witness of a holy life, by self-denial and active
charity." This means the opposite of conforming to the world. And
they are also to be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks
them for the reason for their faith - that is, they should know
apologetics. (Cf.W.Most, Catholic Apologetics Today).

11.The sacred nature of the priestly community is especially seen
in the Sacraments. Baptism makes one a member, gives the
obligation of professing the faith in the world, especially  by
not conforming themselves to this world (cf.Rom 12:2), but by
living even publicly in accord with the principles of the Spirit
of Christ. Confirmation gives a title to special strength of the
Holy Spirit when that is needed to proclaim the faith. Gifts of
the Holy Spirit come when sanctifying grace is first received,
but are increased with increases in grace, especially with
Confirmation. There are three levels of guides a person may
follow (cf.OFP chapter 23). Lowest is the whim of the moment, not
worthy of a human being.Aristotle (Ethics 1.5) calls living
according to pleasure a life fit only for cattle. On the next
level, one follows reason, which de facto will be aided by actual
graces, yet reason remains the chief control. Above this, on the
third level, if a soul is well advanced, can come the special
guidance on the wave-length of the Holy Spirit - received not by
a discursive process of reason, but in one stroke. These works of
the Gifts often do not give certitude - when there is a chance to
consult a director or superior. If there is no such chance, they
may give certitude - but there is danger here of self-deception,
hence the importance of external guidance.And we should notice
too,that the clear instances of functions of the Gifts on this
third level, do not normally appear until one is quite advanced
spiritually. The Gifts bring other favors too, especially infused
light and even infused contemplation (cf.OFP chapter 22). As we
saw in 10 the members of the priestly people also have a role in
the offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The Sacrament of
Penance brings reconciliation with God and with the Church - we
recall St.Paul's words that when one member suffers, all suffer
(1 Cor 12.26). And even the rabbis knew this, as we saw in the
quote from Simeon ben Eleazar. The Anointing of the Sick commends
the soul to the suffering and dying and rising Jesus. Holy Orders
says LG are appointed to nourish the Church with the word and
grace of God in the name of Christ. We note word is mentioned
first, and recall St.Paul in 1 Cor 1.17: "Christ did not send me
to baptize, but to preach." The Semitic pattern means the one is
more important than the other. Marriage is sanctified by a
special Sacrament, for it is meant as a path to holiness Cf.OFP
chapter 16,esp.p.149) citing the words of Paul VI: "Marriage and
the Christian family demand a moral commitment. They are not an
easy way of Christian life, even though the most common,the one
on which most of God's children are called to travel. Rather it
is a long path toward sanctification." Parents, says LG, "by word
and example,are the first to proclaim the faith to their children
" in what LG calls "the domestic church". For all are called to
work for the perfection of the Father Himself(Mt 5.58):"Be you
perfect,as your Heavenly Father is perfect."(cf OFP chapter
15,with quote from Pius XI that all are called to perfection in
every walk of life).

12.Besides sharing in Christ's priesthood, the people have a
share in His prophetic role.In the NT prophet does not basically
mean one who foretells the future,though that may happen -
rather, he is one with the grace to make moving exhortations to
the people. So a sharing in Christ's prophetic role really means
the grace to bring the influence of Christ into the world by
example, a life of faith,and love,and by trying to "sell" the
principles of Christ in the world. We think of Romans 12:2, "Do
not be conformed to this world." This is of course the opposite
of conforming to the world,of trying not to be different. The
laity as such can penetrate into places where priests and
religious do not go.

     The whole body of the faithful have an anointing, that is, a
grace from the Holy Spirit that helps them recognize what is
true. Hence if the entire Church, people and authorities both,
have ever believed (strict sense, of accepting as revealed) a
thing, that cannot be in error. It is infallible. Of course, this
does not apply to subtle and debated points in theology. Further,
this does not mean that the authorities merely echo what the
people believe - rather, the people believe as an echo of the
authorities, even though historically, some movements, leading to
definitions, have had a start at grassroots.

     Also, at the time of Arianism, the people kept more faithful
than did the Bishops, though St.Jerome's outburst was a great
exaggeration. Really,the Emperor, at two regional councils, had
gotten the Bishops, by threats and deception, to accept an
ambiguous creed - not one that was strictly erroneous. (Jerome
wrote, in Dialogue against the Luciferians,19: "The  whole world
groaned and was surprised to see itself Arian."

     What if  people today stop believing something once
believed? What was once established as infallible cannot become
erroneous or doubtful by the falling away of a later time.

     LG next speaks of charismatic gifts. There are two kinds of
graces - sanctifying and charismatic. Sanctifying graces include
habitual (or sanctifying) grace, and actual grace. Habitual grace
automatically makes the recipient holy. Actual grace is aimed at
that, it is the grace sent at a given moment to lead and enable
one to do a particular good thing.

     Charismatic graces are not aimed at sanctification, though
indirectly they may help. They are for some particular benefit to
the community. There are two kinds - the miraculous and the non-
miraculous. The miraculous include tongues, healings etc. The
nonmiraculous include the grace of being an apostle, a teacher, a
speaker, a good parent etc. So in this latter sense, all have one
or another charism.

     God offers sanctifying graces abundantly to all - they were
earned by the infinite price of redemption, within the New
Covenant. But as to charismatic miraculous graces, the Spirit
gives as He wills, without regard to merit - hence priesthood is
given without regard to merit. In Mt 7.22-23 Jesus says at the
end some will say: "Have we  not prophesied in your name, cast
out devils in your name, worked wonders in your name?" And He
will say: "Depart from me, you workers of iniquity. I never knew
you". - So one may not even have the state of grace, and yet be
able to work miracles!

     As to the miraculous type - LG advises we should not rashly
desire them. That would leave an opening for self-deception, or
diabolic deception. And whether or not they are genuine is to be
judged by the Church authorities. Not all cases of these this are
from the Holy Spirit. Some are from an evil spirit, some merely
autosuggestion.

13.All are called to be members of the kingdom. In Jn 10:16 Jesus
says: "I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring
them, and they will be one fold,one shepherd." Originally this
referred to the union of gentiles and Jews in the Church - a
thing the first Christians were slow to understand. Does it
predict all will be Christian at the end of the  world?
Definitely not, for in Lk 18:.8 Jesus says of the end: "When the
Son of Man comes, do you think He will find faith on the earth?"
Cf.also 2 Thes.2:3. Could it be that at some time before the end
there will be a great age for the Church, when all, or nearly all
will enter? St.Paul predicts the conversion of the Jews in Rom
11.25-26: "A blindness in part has come upon Israel until the
fullness of the gentiles enter. And so all Israel will be saved."
(saved here means enter the Church. Paul knows,as he shows in Rom
2:14-16, that many can reach final salvation without formally
entering the Church by visible adherence.Cf.LG 16). There is a
fascinating resemblance here to Lk 21.24: "Jerusalem will be
trodden by the gentiles until the times of the gentiles are
fulfilled." We wonder, is that fulfilled in the reestablishment
of Israel in 1948 and the full capture of Jerusalem in l967?

     We do not know if the conversion of the Jews is to  come
just before the end, or sometime before it - seems more likely
just before the end. Elijah is to return. Perhaps he will be
agent of their conversion. So a great age might not include the
Jews. 

     The Church, the People of God is present in all nations, but
this does not take away anything from the temporal welfare of
those nations. Rather,it is a benefit, for the Church purifies
what is useful and good in these communities.

     The People of God is made up of various ranks, and persons
with varying gifts. Included are those who follow Christ most
closely, by religious life.

     The Chair of Peter presides over the whole community of
love. Within the community, riches are shared (Mystical Body and
Communion of Saints).

14.The Church, a pilgrim on earth, is necessary for salvation. So
anyone who, knowing that the Church was founded by Christ as
necessary would fail to enter, could not be saved.

     They are fully incorporated who receive Baptism, and accept 
the visible Church fully.They get this not from their own merits
but from grace. (Cf.Romans 9 on God's decision to give full
membership in the Church, and notice Acts 16:6-7,and compare 1
Cor 1:26-30; Ezek 3:5-7 (note Ezek 5.6--"[Jerusalem] has rebelled
against my laws more than the nations."; Jonah 3; parable of good
Samaritan, and the account of the 10 lepers healed. Note also Mt
11:21, where Jesus says that if the miracles done in Capernaum
had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have  penance in
sackcloth and ashes.

     In passing, we observe the mention of full membership, which
seems to imply the existence of a lesser degree of membership.
Please recall also our comments on  5 & 8.

     The Church considers catechumens, not yet baptized, as her
own (suos). Cf.St.Ambrose's sermon on Valentinian II in 392.

15.There are others who are baptized, but who do not profess the
full faith, or do not recognize the Holy See. Yet they are joined
with the Church. We recognize the lack of clarity in the word
joined with (coniunctam). We discussed this previously, when we
quoted this text. We saw however that these persons can really be
members of the Church, in an imperfect way, without adherence to
the visible Church. The Decree on  Ecumenism,in  3 says:"Those
who are justified by faith in baptism, are incorporated into
Christ, and so are rightly adorned with the Christian name, and
are rightly recognized by the sons of the Catholic Church as
brothers in the Lord."

16.Further, there are some who have not accepted the Gospel, but
are ordered to the People of God by various reasons. In the first
place, the Jews, who belong to the Old Covenant, from whom Christ
descended, though they do not accept Him. God's call to them is
still in force, without repentance. Romans 11 foretells their
final conversion. Meanwhile,the image of the tame and wild olive
tree indicates that they have cut themselves off,and so are not
members of the people of God. Yet even these, if in good
faith,can reach final salvation, as we saw,and can have an
imperfect membership, like those spoken of in Romans 2:14-16
Cf.again our comments on 5 above.

     Still farther out are the Muslims. (There was never any
authentication for the alleged revelations to Mohammed. Nor did
he himself ever claim to work a miracle, still less a miracle
worked in such a framework as to establish a tie between the
miracle and the claim).They do know the one merciful God who will
judge all on the last day.

     There are also those who "in shadows and images seek the
unknown God." These are the pagans, in idolatry. Yet in view of
what we said earlier, some of these can even be considered
members in an imperfect way if they meet the conditions of Romans
2:14-16, which we discussed above in 5. LG 16 does add something
of great importance: "They who without fault do not know the
Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with a sincere
heart, and try under the influence of grace to fulfill His will,
known by the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal
salvation." This is reaffirmed by the words of John Paul II in
his Encylical, Redemptoris missio 10. LG adds that whatever good
and true is found among them, is a preparation for the Gospel."
But LG adds,paraphrasing Romans 1, that very often men,deceived
by the Evil one, have become vain in their thoughts, and have
exchanged the truth of God for the lie, serving the creature
rather than the Creator, or, living and dying in this world
without hope they are exposed to extreme despair". Hence for them
the Church sends out missionaries.

     We can go beyond LG here without contradicting it, by saying
that one who may claim he does not believe in God, may be merely
rejecting a false notion of God, and yet, by following the Spirit
of Christ which makes known to him interiorly what God wills,
such a one may be objectively belong to Christ,and even be in a
very imperfect way a member of His Church,as we explained in 5
above. However,they live without subjective hope of eternal life,
inasmuch as they do not know of it - but objectively they are not
without hope, in the way we have described. However, even though
they have a chance for salvation, they are in greater danger,
have less security - hence the importance of missions - which
today have declined though a false notion of ecumenism and of the
anonymous Christian. They are saved not through but in spite of
their false worship, and we say God can accept their good will
shown in following the Spirit without knowing what it is.

     But we must insist that they have a real chance for
salvation, for we think of the reasoning of St.Paul in Romans
3.29-30: "Is He the God of the Jews alone? Is He not the God of
the gentiles(pagans) too?" Paul means if God did not make
provision for the salvation of pagans,He would act as though He
were not their God, neglecting them, leaving them to certain
eternal ruin. But He is their God too, and therefore we must hold
He does make provision. LG teaches that too. So did Pius  IX (DS
2866): "God...in His supreme goodness and clemency,does not allow
anyone to be punished with eternal punishment who does not have
the guilt of voluntary fault." It means that if someone keeps the
moral law as he knows it, he will be saved. Pius IX does not
explain how the requirement of faith is met in them - yet he
assures us that somehow it is met. We have made the suggestion
above: In following the lead of the Spirit of Christ, interiorly
making known to them what God requires, they are objectively
accepting God, accepting the Spirit of Christ,and so can even be
said to belong to Christ = members of Christ = members of His
Church, though in an imperfect way.

17.Christ sent the Apostles to preach to the whole world.Hence
the Church must continue to fulfill this.For even if a person can
be saved as described above,without hearing of the Church and the
Gospel,yet they are in a less secure position,and are not
fulfilling the command of Christ to accept the Church.

     Every follower of Christ has the obligation to spread the
faith, so that  the prophecy of Malachi 1:11 may be fulfilled:
"From the rising of the sun even to its going down, my name is
great among the gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice,
and there is offered to my name a clean oblation." The sense of
this text of Malachi is disputed by scholars. One of the
acceptable positions is that here used by LG. We do not know if 
the Council meant to determine the meaning of the text, or only
to use it for an illustration.               

         Chapter 3: The Hierarchical Church

18.To shepherd the Church, Christ set up various ministries,for
the good of the whole body. These ministers  with sacred power
help the  all the members of the people of God to their goal.
[The ministers are described as having sacred power -  therefore
ushers etc are not ministers in the proper sense of the word].
Following in the footsteps of Vatican I, this council teaches
that Jesus sent apostles just as He himself was sent by the
Father, and that the Bishops are their successors to the end of
the world.So that the Episcopate might have unity He put Blessed
Peter over the other Apostles.This Council repeats this teaching
of Vatican I about the perpetuity,the primacy of the Pope and his
infallible magisterium. Continuing in the same work it has
decided to profess the doctrine about the Bishops, the successors
of the Apostles. Vatican I had not completed this work.

19.Jesus set up a permanent (stabilis) college, consisting of
Peter and the Apostles, with Peter as the head of the college, to
sanctify and rule the Church and propagate it. They were
confirmed in their mission on Pentecost.

20.Since the mission of the Church is to last to the end of
time,the Apostles appointed successors,and provided that when
these died, others should be properly chosen to take their
places, in an unbroken succession.Among these ministries that of
the Bishops holds the chief place, by succession from the
beginning. So the Bishops took on the ministry of the community
with the priests and deacons as helpers.They,the Bishops are the
pastors,as teachers of doctrine,the priests of the sacred
worship,the ministers of governing. So this council teaches that
the bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the Apostles
as shepherds of the Church,in such a way that he who hears
them,hears Christ,he who spurns them spurns Christ and Him who
sent Christ. Tertullian therefore taught (De Praescriptione
haereticorum 21) that to prove a doctrine is true, one must show
that the church from which he received it goes back in unbroken
succession to the Apostles, and thus to Christ.

21.It is in the person of the Bishops, assisted by priests, that
Christ is present to His Church. Through their service, He
preaches to all nations, and administers the sacraments of faith
to all who believe, and by their paternal function He generates
new members of His Body, which is the Church, and, finally, by
their wisdom and prudence He directs the people of the new
testament to eternal happiness.

     To carry out so great a function, the Apostles received a
special outpouring of the Holy Spirit. They passed on the gift of
the Spirit by the imposition of hands. Episcopal consecration
gives the fullness of orders and the function [cf.Preliminary
note below - the word is munus,not potestas] of
teaching,sanctifying and ruling. The Bishops in a visible way
take the role of Christ the Teacher, Pastor and Priest, and act
in His person. It is for Bishops to take new chosen men into the
college of Bishops by the Sacrament of Orders.

22.Just as Peter and the Apostles constituted a college,so in a
similar,not an identical way there is a relation of Pope and the
Bishops,with the Pope as the head.(Qualification taken from the
preliminary explanatory note-- see below for it). Councils and
also in a way the use of several Bishops to consecrate a Bishop
show collegial practice.

     One is admitted to this college by episcopal consecration
and hierarchical communion with the head (which is not just some
vague attitude, but a juridical communion - as the  preliminary
note explains - see below).

     The college has no authority apart from the Pope. He is the
supreme Pastor, and has direct authority over all in the 
Church, faithful and Bishops. "The Lord made Simon the rock and
key-bearer of the Church, and set him up as the Pastor of His
whole flock. " [This is important in view of the fact that LG 24
also teaches each Bishop has power from Christ over His own
diocese, not from the Pope, except that a Bishop cannot have a
diocese unless it is assigned to him by the Pope.] When and
whether an action is to be taken in collegial form is for the
Pope to determine (cf.Preliminary  note again) The Pope having
full supreme power can, whenever he so chooses, act alone,without
the college. 

     The college of Bishops can exercise supreme authority in a
general council, but to be such it must be confirmed or at least
recognized by the Pope, whose place it is to call councils and
preside over them.

23.The Pope is the source of unity for the whole Church,the
Bishops for their own dioceses.Even though they lack jurisdiction
over other dioceses, yet each Bishop should have a concern for
the whole Church.As far as duty permits,they should collaborate
in the work of the missions by every means in their power,by
supplying workers and by spiritual and material aid.
     
     Special associations of churches have come about in the
course of time, guided by Divine Providence. Some of these groups
have their own rites, discipline, and theological patrimony.
Especially important examples are the Patriarchal churches.
Episcopal conferences, similarly, can give manifold and fertile
work so that the collegial spirit may be brought into concrete
application.

24.Bishops receive directly from Christ the mission of teaching
and preaching. This office is a service. But the canonical
mission of a particular Bishop to a particular diocese is a
different thing. That can be made by (1) legitimate customs not
yet revoked by the Pope, (2) by laws made or acknowledged by the
Pope, (3) directly by the Pope himself. If the Pope objects or
refuses, Bishops cannot be admitted to office.

25.This section was covered in detail in the introduction to this
text, in dealing with the four levels of teaching.

26.The bishop,marked with the fullness of the Sacrament of
Orders,is the dispenser of grace and the supreme
priesthood,especially in the eucharist,which he offers or has
offered. This Church of Christ is present in all lawful groups of
faithful united with their shepherds,and so these can be called
churches.They are,in their own place,the new People called by God
in the Holy Spirit.In every communion of the altar,under the
sacred ministry of the Bishop,there is a symbol of that charity
and unity of the Mystical Body.Christ is present in these
communities. Every legitimate celebration of the Eucharist is
regulated by the Bishop.

27.The power of a Bishop is solely for spiritual good. It is
ordinary and comes immediately from Christ, it is ordinary and
immediate, so that Bishops are not just vicars of the Pope, they
are vicars and legates of Christ, though they are regulated by
the Pope, since he has immediate power over each Bishop and each
one of the faithful.(And without canonical mission they may not
take over a diocese).

     Bishops have the power to legislate, to pass judgment, and
to regulate everything pertaining to divine worship.

     The Bishop should not refuse to listen to his subjects. He
must give an account for their souls to God. He should consider
those outside too as entrusted to him in the Lord.

28.The divinely instituted ministry is in three degrees: bishop,
priest, deacon. Priests depend on the bishop but are associated
with him in the honor of the priestly ministry. They make present
again,by acting in the person of Christ, the once-for-all
sacrifice. [It is once for all in that it created an infinite
title to grace and forgiveness, even for each individual
person(Gal.2.20). Yet for the giving out of that treasury,t he
Mass makes the sacrifice present again. In a sacrifice there are
two parts, exterior and interior. The exterior sign is there to
express and promote the interior dispositions,
basically,obedience to the Father. In the Cenacle the exterior
sign was the seeming separation of body and blood - on the cross,
it was physical separation. But in the Mass the exterior sign is
still the same as in the Cenacle - and the interior dispositions
of Christ on the altar are the same, really, not a repeat, but a
continuation of those with which He died for death makes
permanent the disposition of heart with which one leaves this
world. So the Mass does make Calvary present again in this way,
for the interior dispositions of Christ, from which the value
comes, are present again, not repeated, but continue from
Calvary, so that the people may join their interior dispositions
of obedience to the Father with those of Christ: this is their
greatest participation the Mass. This pertains to the "spiritual
oblation spoken of in LG  10 & 34].

     Priests along with the Bishop constitute a sacred priestly
college, the presbyterium. In each assembly of the faithful they
as it were make the Bishop present.

     Priests should be concerned not only with their own parish,
but with the whole diocese, even the whole Church. They should
look on the Bishop as Father, whom they obey, and he should look
on them as sons, not servants.

     Priests should be models of their flock, and serve it.

29.Deacons are at the lower part of the hierarchy, but are a part
of the hierarchy. They can baptize solemnly, administer the
Eucharist, bless marriages, bring Viaticum, read Scripture to the
people, preside at worship and at funerals, and administer
sacramentals.

     It may be possible to have a permanent diaconate, even
including married men.

            Preliminary Explanatory Note to Chapter 3

     This note was sent "by higher authority" - clearly,the Pope.
It contained some precisions on Pope and Bishops:

1.The college of Pope and Bishops is not to be understood in a
strictly juridical sense, i.e., as an assembly of equals who
would entrust power to a president. Rather it is a permanent or
stable body whose authority is to be deduced from revelation.

     The parallelism with the Apostles and Peter does not imply
transmission of the extraordinary powers the Apostles had, such
as working miracles. It merely means there is a proportionality
between Peter-Apostles and Pope-Bishops. Hence, speaking of this
parallel, 22 does not say the relation of the Pope and Bishops
is precisely the same, but it is similar (non eadem sed pari
ratione)
.

2.A man becomes a member of the college by episcopal consecration
and by hierarchical communion with the Head, the Pope.
Consecration gives an ontological sharing of the sacred
functions. [The word is munera,not potestates for powers would
mean an ability needing nothing more in order to be ready to be
used. This refers to words in 21]. For that there is still
necessary a canonical or juridical determination by the Pope,
which can consist in the grant of a particular office or in
assigning subjects. This is given according to the norms approved
by the supreme authority. It is clear that in early times this
was provided by communion in the life of the Church, and later
was codified in law.   

     It was said above that besides episcopal consecration, there
is required  also hierarchical communion. This communion does not
mean some vague attitude, but an organic reality which calls for
juridical form and is animated by love.

3. It is said in 22 that the college is the "subject of supreme
and full power". There is no college without the head, the Pope.
This is to be said to avoid challenge to the supreme power of the
Pope. [Cf.the Council of Constance,1414, and Basle, 1439, which
claimed authority over the Pope].

     So we do not speak of the Pope or the Bishops taken
collectively, but of the Pope alone, or the Pope along with the
Bishops. Since the Pope is the head, he by himself can do certain
things that in no way belong to the Bishops, e.g., He can convoke
the college and direct it, approve norms of action etc. It is for
the judgment of the Pope according to the needs of the Church, to
determine the manner in which things are to be done - by him
personally, or in a collegial manner. The Pope can whenever he so
wills, act without the college. The college always exists, but
does not always act. There can be no action of the Bishops as a
college without the Pope.

N.B.The sacramental ontological function cannot be exercised
without the hierarchical communion. The Commission however did
not wish to discuss questions of liceity and validity in case
this communion is lacking, as actually happens in the 
Eastern schismatic churches. There are various opinions on this.

                                 ********

     There was literally a plot in the theological commission in
regard to collegiality.

     There were on hand three views of collegiality: 

1)Extreme conservative: The college of bishops does not have
supreme power until, and unless the Pope calls a council. The
Pope alone has supreme power by divine right.

2.Extreme liberal:The college, with the Pope has head, has
supreme power. The Pope can exercise supreme power but only by
acting as head of the college. He must in conscience ask the
opinion of the college before making a pronouncement,because he
is obliged to express the thinking of the college.

3)Moderate view:  The Pope himself has Supreme power all by
himself,and the college has it in union with him,but needs his
consent to exercise it.

     Collegiality was discussed at length during the second
session,1963. The Theological Commission had a revised text ready
by March 6,1964. Pope Paul VI was not satisfied, and on May
19,1964 sent suggestions. By early June a text was ready,
incorporating most of the Pope's suggestions. He approved it on
July 3.

     But the International Group of Council Fathers, led by
Archbishop Staffa, claimed that the text was no different from a
view repeatedly deplored during the 19th century as erroneous.
The day after the opening of the third session, Archbishop Staffa
had a list of over 70 names which he gave to the Cardinal
Moderators, asking to address the general assembly before the
voting began on the chapter on collegiality. He appealed to the
rules of procedure which said even after the end of discussion, a
minority could designate three speakers, who could go more than
ten minutes, if the request was made in the name of at least 70
other Council Fathers. His petition was refused. Archbishop
Staffa and the leaders of the International Group wrote a long
letter to the Pope on Nov.7,1964. The Pope ordered an official
investigation. Meanwhile 35 other Cardinals and superiors general
of large religious orders had written to the Pope saying that the
text was ambiguous.The Pope found this hard to believe, and wrote
to the chief Cardinal on the list, attacking his arguments. The
Cardinal went to see the Pope. He asked that theologians of his
group be allowed to debate the matter before the Pope with his
theologians. The Pope refused. Then one of the plotters wrote out
some of the ambiguous passages and said how they would be
interpreted after the Council. By Divine Providence he lost the
paper, and it fell into the hands of the sounder members, who
took it to the Pope. Paul VI finally, seeing he had been
deceived, broke down and wept. Hence he ordered the Preliminary
Explanatory note. Cf.Ralph.M.Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows Into the
Tiber. The Unknown Council, Hawthorne Books, N.Y.1967.

                       Chapter 4: The Laity 

30.Everything said about the People of God pertain to all within
the Church.But some things should be said particularly about the
laity.

31.The word laity includes all not in Holy Orders,or in Religious
Life.The laity,in their own way,share in the
priestly,prophetic,and royal office of Christ.

     It is proper to the laity to engage in temporal affairs and
to direct them according to God's will.- We are far here from the
attitude of some politicians and judges who think they can leave
their religious principles behind in their work. -The laity
contribute to the sanctification of the  world from within,like a
leaven. Of course this implies that they are not merely conformed
to the ways of the world - as so many strive earnestly to be.
Especially should their life should be a witness to Christ.
Cf.Romans 12:2 "Do not be conformed to this world, rather be
transformed having your minds made new so as to see what is the
will of God what is good and well-pleasing and perfect."

32.There is a wonderful diversity in the Church, like that of
which St.Paul spoke in 1 Cor 12,and Rom 12:4-5, in describing the
various parts of the body, as a parallel to varied functions
within the Mystical Body of Christ. In a way there is a real
equality among all members, in that all are needed, and all
should contribute to the building up of the Mystical Body, and to
sanctifying the world. St.Paul says [Gal 3.28] that in Christ
there is no Jew or Greek, no slave or free, no male or female. In
context, Paul means this to refer to striving for salvation by
faith. We may not extend this so as to say there is equality in
all other respects - such as with or without Holy Orders, or to
prove  ordination of women. Paul is referring as we said just to
working for salvation by faith.

     All are called to holiness,even though not all follow the
same path. Our Lord said (Mt.5:48): "Be you perfect,as your
heavenly Father is perfect." Pius XII in his Encyclical for the
third centenary of St.Francis de Sales, wrote: "Let no one think
that this invitation is addressed to a small very select number,
and that all others are allowed to stay in a lower degree of
virtue...this law obliges everyone,without exception." It was
specially suitable for Pius XI to write this on the anniversary
of St.Francis de Sales, for he had splendidly explained in his
Introduction to the Devout Life (1.3) that even though the ways
of the spiritual life are varied in varied states, yet all are
called to be perfect, and so it is possible in all states of
life. Of course, the perfection of the Father is infinite -
therefore the command means in practice that we can never say we
have advanced far enough - there is still an unending road to
travel which we can never complete. Paul VI wrote (To 13th
National Congress of the Italian Feminine Center, Feb.12, 1966:
"Christian marriage and the Christian family demand a  moral
commitment. They are not an easy way of Christian life, even
though the most common,the one which the majority of the children
of God are called on to travel. Rather, it is a long path toward
sanctification." (This idea is developed in OFP, chapter 16).

     The laity are brothers of Christ, and of those in Holy
Orders. St.Augustine said (Sermon 340)"When it frightens me that
I am for you,then it consoles me to think I am with you.For I am
a bishop for you; with you I am a Christian. The one is the name
of an office, the other of grace. The one is a danger, the other,
salvation." Cf. Wisdom 6.5-6: "Judgment is stern for the exalted.
The lowly persons may be pardoned out of mercy, but the mighty
shall be mightily tested." Cf.Ezekiel 3.17-21, where God told the
prophet that he was a watchman. If he did not warn the wicked,
God would demand an accounting.

33.The lay apostolate used to be defined as a sharing in the
apostolate of the hierarchy. Vatican II broadens this,with a two
part teaching: (1)"The apostolate of the  laity is a sharing in
the saving mission of the Church. The laity are appointed to this
apostolate by the Lord Himself, through Baptism and
Confirmation." This means the laity are to make the Church
"present and fruitful in those places and circumstances where it
is only by means of them that the Church can become the salt of
the earth. This means, again, a life of witness, a life different
from that of people of the world. (2)In addition, there are
special works under the direction of the authorities - this is
what the term lay apostolate used to mean. Laymen can even be
appointed now to some ecclesiastical offices, those that do not
need ordination.

     The Encyclical of John Paul II,Redemptoris Missio
(Dec.7,1990,  37-38,Vatican  translation) spells out the need
for the laity to be a leaven in the world. It refers to these
areas as like the Areopagus on which St.Paul spoke in Athens:
"The first Areopagus of the modern age is the world of
communications.... the younger generation is growing up in a
world conditioned by the mass media. ...it is not enough to use
the media simply to spread the Christian message and the church's
authentic teaching. It is also necessary to integrate that
message into the 'new culture' created by modern communications.
...Pope Paul VI said that 'the split between the Gospel and
culture is undoubtedly the tragedy of our time' [compare the
culture of pagan Rome and even Greece, permeated with a religion,
even though a false one] and the field of communications fully
confirms this judgment. There are many other forms of the
'Areopagus' in the modern world...commitment to peace,
development and the liberation of peoples; the rights of
individuals and peoples, especially those of minorities; the
advancement of women and children; safeguarding the created
world.... We must also mention the immense 'Areopagus' of
culture, scientific research and international relations which
promote dialogue and open up new possibilities.... the so-called
'religious revival' - is not without ambiguity, but it also
represents an opportunity. The church has an immense spiritual
patrimony to offer mankind.... It is the Christian path to
meeting God, to prayer, to asceticism and to search for life's
meaning. Here too there is an 'Areopagus to be evangelized." LG
adds,"Thus every layman, from the gifts given him, is a witness
and at the same time a living instrument of the mission of the
church herself 'according to the  measure of the giving of
Christ'' (Eph 4:7). (The "measure of giving" refers to the
charismatic category of graces, as the context in Eph shows. It
does not refer to the sanctifying category, in which God has
bound Himself by the covenant to offer graces leading to
salvation without limit (for the title of the price paid by
Christ is infinite, and for each individual person as Gal 2:20
shows - cf.Church in Modern World 22 "Each one of us can say
with the Apostle, 'The Son of God loved me, and gave himself for
me." Hence there is an infinite objective title in favor of  each
individual. So God will always offer the graces of salvation,
without limit - though a person may make self hardened by
repeated mortal sins, so as to be unable to be open to receive
the graces offered).

     In contrast, the graces of the charismatic category are
aimed primarily not at the salvation of the recipient - though
indirectly they may help that - but at  some benefit for the
Church. Here the principle is that the Spirit blows where He
wills. And one may not even be in the state of grace and have
even a miraculous gift such as healing the sick, as we learn from
Mt.7,22-23: "Many will say to me on that day: Have we not cast
out devils in your name, prophesied in your name, done many
mighty works in your name, and then I will say to them: Depart
from me, you workers of iniquity. I never knew you."

34.LG gives further clarification (we saw it above in LG 10) of
the role of laity in offering "spiritual sacrifices". It says
that all the works, prayers, family life [here let us recall the
words we cited in LG 32 from Paul VI about marriage as a long
path to sanctification], daily work etc. can all be spiritual
sacrifices if they are taken as the will of God, and as a means
of bringing the spirit of Christ into everything. Really, in a
very basic sense, God needs no one - by His omnipotence He can
accomplish anything. However,there is a distinction - some things
He can accomplish directly only by an extraordinary intervention,
that is, by miraculous means. It would be inconsistent for Him to
act in an extraordinary way ordinarily. So in that area He, in a
sense, needs human work, for we can do these things without
miracles.

     I had a grandfather who was very indulgent. He used to tell
me to phone him on New Years's day, and if I could say Happy New
Year before he did, he would give me a dollar [this was in the
1920s, when a dollar was worth several times what it is worth
today] - it was a setup of course. He wanted to give me the
dollar,and liked to do it in a such a way that I seemed to have
earned it.  In a somewhat parallel way, our Father in Heaven
likes to provide titles for His gifts (cf. OFP chapter 4 and
St.thomas Summa I.19.5.c). So He has us do the things He could
not do without a miracle - and at the same time these provide a
title in good order for Him to give His gifts. Some of these
things are intrinsically of a higher order than others - yet the
most important thing is to do His will. A motto I used to see on
an office wall said: "When the one Great Scorer comes to write
against your name, He writes not that you won or lost, but how
you played the game."

     LG adds that these spiritual sacrifices are most suitably
offered at Mass,along with the offering of Christ's obedience -
for in these we are obeying the will of the Father. It is good to
take a few moments before each Mass to ask ourselves what we have
done in carrying out His will since the last Mass.If we have done
well, we can join it with the obedience of Christ, to form the
one great offering of the obedience of the Whole Christ. We could
also look ahead to the coming day. Sometimes we will see
something in which we will find it hard to do the will of the
Father. So we ask: Do I really mean to do it? If not, I had
better get out of here - this is no place for me.

35.This section speaks of the prophetic office of Christ. The
laity share in it by their witness to His principles as a leaven
in the world - of which LG 33 already spoke. As an aid in this
Christ gives all the sensus fidei- which was spoken of in LG 12,a
sort of passive infallibility.

     People show themselves children of the promise if they make
the most of the present time (St.Paul says that the days are
evil:Eph 5.16 - he means the world is run on principles often the
opposite of those of Christ - and the evil spirits do have great
influence) - trying to live with the outlook we shall all have
when we emerge for the tombs on the last day. Then we shall see
what really counted - and what did not. Hence in Col.3.1-5: "If
then you have been raised up with Christ, seek the things that
are above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God.
Think of the things that are above,not the things that are upon
the earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ
in God. When Christ, your life, will be manifested, then you too
will be manifested with Him in glory. So mortify your members
that are upon the earth - sexual looseness, uncleanness,
lust...." etc. This is the syn Christo theme - the center of
Paul's teaching: We should live with Christ, die with Christ, be
buried with Him, rise with Him, ascend with Him. In His life, two
phases - first, a hard life, suffering and death, second, glory.
The more we are like Him in phase one, the more we shall be like
Him in phase 2. As a result,2 Cor 4,17-18: "What is at present
light and momentary in our troubles, is working beyond all
measure, an eternal weight of glory for us, who do not look to
the things that are seen, but the things that are not seen."
Cf.also Romans 8:18.  To the extent that one really lives with
such an outlook, he will be a witness to Christ within the world
- but this,again, is  far different from trying to be just like
the world. The laity also bear witness to Christ towards their
children, in family life.

     LG 35 urges the laity to express their eternal hope (looking
forward to the future life) by "continual conversion." John Paul
II spoke of this in Redemptor Hominis 20: "Without this constant
ever renewed endeavor for conversion, partaking of the Eucharist
would lack its full redeeming effectiveness and there would be a
loss, or at least a weakening of the special readiness to offer
God the spiritual sacrifice in which our sharing in the
priesthood of Christ is expressed in an essential and universal
manner." (We saw details of this "spiritual sacrifice" above in
 34 and 10. We notice  too that daily Communion without this
constant effort will not only bring no gain, but instead a loss.
So many receive out of mere routine, with  no preparation, no
thanksgiving. It would be much better for them to receive only at
times, and then do it well. When St.Pius X urged frequent
Communion, he had in mind the special efforts people of his day
made before receiving. He would surely not be pleased with the
routine and sluggishness we see today.

     Marriage is  specially important in this matter. Cf.again
chapter 16 of OFP and Pius XI, Casti connubii DS 3707:"This
mutual interior conformation of the spouses to one another, this
constant concern to perfect one another, in a certain very true
way, as the Roman Catechism teaches [II.8.13] can even be called
the primary cause and reason for marriage, if however, marriage
is not taken strictly as an institution to rightly procreate and
educate children, but more broadly,as a sharing, familiarity and
society of all of life."

36.Christ reached His reign- "all power is given to me in heaven
and on earth"- by obedience. So all are to share in His kingly
role by self-abnegation, in imitation of Him, so as to reign in
mastery of self by overcoming sin. Cf.St.Augustine's
interpretation of Apocalypse 20 (City of God 20.9) where he takes
the 1000 reign of the just on earth with Christ to mean their
reign over sin during the 1000 years from the ascension to the
parousia, that is, in all the present period of time.

     LG also hopes that people may work so that the goods of this
earth may serve the real needs of people more properly and may be
justly distributed. Let them also work so that the things of the
world may not be an inducement to sin.

     Let them also, while distinguishing between their lives as
members of Christ, and as members of human society, realize that
"no human activity, not even in temporal things, can be withdrawn
from the rule of God." So again, politicians and others who think
they can leave Christ's principles behind in their public work
are very wrong. LG says there is an "unhappy teaching that tries
to build society without regard for religion, and seeks to
restrict the religious freedom of its citizens". This refers not
only to communistic nations, but also hints at what The
Declaration on Religious Liberty will teach in  1 - that men and
societies have an obligation to the true Church, and that there
is to be freedom of religion not in the sense of having a right
to be wrong  (as right is a claim ultimately given by God to
have, to do, or to call for something. God gives no one a claim
to be wrong), but in the sense of having a right not to be
punished or coerced for being wrong in religious beliefs, within
due limits. Just as individuals as individuals must serve God, so
also states as states must do so. How far is the U.S. from this
now when religion in any form is being kept