"Christus est me."

One of the joys, some might say curses, of historical research is that I am constantly discovering figures whose thought is deep and often revolutionary - particularly for their time - but for whatever reason, have been largely overlooked in the grand narratives of our history books. Irenaeus of Lyons, the second century figure who will command the majority of my attention in my dissertation, was one such figure. Most of the major history books rarely mention anyone earlier than Augustine (4th century). (Of course, this was prior to the Da Vinci Code dabocal, where Irenaeus actually comes to play. Even here, however, his thought is much misunderstood and characterized. But I digress.)

A recent figure that has captured me is the 16th century figure Johann von Staupitz. Generally, he is known to scholarship, if he is known at all, as Martin Luther's teacher and confessor. Thus, he is generally referred to as the "frontrunner of the Reformation", a title which completely overlooks the fact that he remained a member of the Roman Catholic Church to his dying day (though he also refused to condemn Luther). Rather, he worked for reform from within the walls of the Church and his theology is, therefore, much more nuanced and subtle than some of the more polemical works from the hands of the Reformers.

One of the primary ways in which his thought was subversive to the Catholic establishment was in his understanding of the union that is effected between Christ and the Christian. Generally speaking, the Catholic Scholasticism dominant in his day viewed the relationship primarily as a marriage between Christ and the Church. This marriage was, consequently, mediated (or appropriated) by the believers through the grace of the sacraments.

Staupitz picks up this marriage analogy (likely originating with Paul) and subtly changes it, emphasizing the union between Christ and each individual Christian. For Staupitz, the union revealed in Paul's marriage analogy was much more intimate and personal than had come to be interpreted by Scholasticism. It was not mediated by the Church or by the sacraments, the grace of God simply came to the human creature because God elected him or her to marry and therefore, pledged himself to him or her.

The vows which Staupitz believes effect this union express this intimate union in a most profound manner. Christ says to the believer:

"Ego accipio te meam,
accipio te mihi,
accipio in me."

("I accept the Christian to me,
I accept the Christian with me,
I accept the Christian into me.")

Staupitz interprets these progressing vows as Christ and the Christian becoming one in flesh, heart and spirit, such that the Christian can now say "I am Christ." As a result of this intimate union, all of the merits of Christ become ours. We now have a right and a title to heaven because we are Christ, not because we have merited it on our own account. Moreover, the sin that was ours is transferred to Christ, who also says in his vow: "I am the Christian." It is these sins that are put to death on the cross.

Finally, Staupitz envisions this marriage as happening at the point of justification. This is again quite different from Scholastic theology, and even from some of the more mystical theologians of the high medieval age, who believed the union with Christ was the result of much spiritual growth and something that one arrived at at the end of his or her journey. Staupitz sees it as a beginning. Christians are joined to Christ when they are justified and this union adheres throughout their life. What confidence should this inspire in us, if we truly believe that "I am Christ."

Most readers will see in this theology a radically Protestant understanding of the relationship between Christ and the Christian. Historically speaking, it was a Catholic understanding. Johann von Staupitz, for this reason, I think could be a starting point for ecumenical discussions. He is a witness to the fact that there is in the Catholic tradition a place for the concerns that the Reformers were raising. Unfortunately, at this point, he is too little known to history to work effectively in this role. We need more historians!

Responsa quaestiones

This past summer, much was made of Pope Benedict XVI's supposedly derogatory statements regarding Protestant churches, namely that they are not properly to be called "the Church," but rather "ecclesial communities." This upset a lot of Protestants, and subsequently caused a general lament for the current leadership of the pontificate. Pope Benedict became the subject of much derision, and I heard it claimed that he is "rolling back all of the positive progress made by Vatican II and John Paul II." Of course I, curiously, never was able to find the actual document where these comments were made. I must admit that I was suspicious of the whole affair because, first, I tend to give Roman Catholicism the benefit of the doubt in many areas where most of my Protestant brethren are ready to throw it to the lions; and, second, because I know Pope Benedict XVI to have been one of the leading theologians at Vatican II. It simply did not make sense to me that he would now "roll back" any progress.

Recently, I finally located the comments. It turns out that they were not made at random by the Pope to stir up divisions or to change the teaching of Vatican II. Rather, they came in the form of a document, Responsa quaestiones, written by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF) and endorsed by the Pope. You can read it here. This document was written as an official response to the lingering questions by the Catholic faithful resulting from Vatican II's teaching on the nature of the Church. As such, it did not change the teaching of Vatican II, but merely clarified it.

The teaching of Vatican II is as follows:

1. The Church is the visible communion of the people of God, signified in the Holy Eucharust, who are called by the Father and redeemed by the Son, who are pilgrims on this earth, having a foretaste of the kingdom of Heaven in the presence of the Spirit yet moving toward the full realization of the kingdom in eternity.

2. The Church subsists in the Catholic Church.

The second statement is where most perceive a change in Catholic teaching. Namely, Vatican II no longer equated the Church with the Roman Catholic Church, an equation that was being made as late as the middle of the twentieth century. It did not equate the two because it recognized, what it called "ecclesial elements" outside of the Catholic Church. Ecclesial elements are those things such as the Scriptures, the sacraments, etc. Therefore, though the fullness of the ecclesial elements exists only in the Catholic Church, they do not deny the presence of some or many of them elsewhere, and consequently, though these latter communities are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, they are not denied communion with God or salvation.

The recent document in question did not change any of this progress. Rather, it affirmed that, in the belief of the Catholic Church, Protestant churches are not called the Church, because they lack apostolic succession (our ministers do not go back to the apostles through the sacrament of ordination) and the teaching of the real presence in the Eucharist, a dogma held firm through history. As such, we have imperfect communion with the Catholic Church.

Yet, as Protestants, we must not see this as a slap in the face; rather, it is the Catholic Church faithfully professing what it believes. We are not denied salvation, we just do not have the fullness on earth - as such, we are wounded. "But even in spite of (these doctrinal differences) it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in baptism are incorporated into Christ; (separated brethren) therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as sisters and brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3).

But the Catholic Church also teaches that she herself is wounded because the full visible communion of God's people is not yet realized. Thus, our mission to the world is jeopardized. This belief is one of the reasons why the Catholics, since Vatican II, have been the most diligent workers in the ecumenical movement, that is the movement toward greater unity of all Christian denominations. This was "one of the principle concerns of the Second Vatican Council" (Unitatis Redintegratio 1).

Before we Protestants point out the speck in the eye of the Catholic Church, we would do well to pull the plank out of our own eye. I have heard much worse said about Catholics in Protestant and evangelical circles. Its time we put these petty characterizations aside and work for the greater unity of all of our denominations. For we all believe in the same Triune God, we all believe that God has revealed himself foremost in His Scriptures, and we all believe that apart from Christ, there is no life.

"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they may also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me." -Jesus

Ut Unum Sint

A word to us from Pope John Paul the Great on the possibility of Christian unity:



"The courageous witness of so many martyrs of our century, including members of Churches and Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church, gives new vigour to the Council's call and reminds us of our duty to listen to and put into practice its exhortation. These brothers and sisters of ours, united in the selfless offering of their lives for the Kingdom of God, are the most powerful proof that every factor of division can be transcended and overcome in the total gift of self for the sake of the Gospel."