My friend, Darryl Hart, has raised an important concern about Ratzinger’s statement regarding the holiness of the Church in a comment on the previous post. I’m hoping to develop this line of inquiry further over the next several weeks, but I thought that I’d take this opportunity to give further support to my reply. (Forgive the length; I wanted to address all of these issues here. Some of the block quotations go beyond what is necessary to make the point, but I just couldn’t help myself.)

1) Scholars obviously debate the appropriateness of associating the late-medieval reformers, John Wyclif and Jan Hus and their followers, with Donatism. Nonetheless, Jaroslav Pelikan, in Vol. 4 of his work on The Christian Tradition,talks about the “neo-Donatism” which worried the theologians during and after the Council of Constance. He argues that the response of anti-Donatist reformers like Jean Gerson (d. 1429) and Nicholas Cusanus (d. 1464) was “a call for reform” which would “bring the empirical reality of the church more closely into line with the creedal confession of its holiness.” But, like Ratzinger, they did not see the apparent contradiction of our profession of the Church’s holiness with the sinful lives of its members as a reason to question that basic claim about the nature of the Church. As Pelikan says, they reaffirmed

the essential correctness of the Augustinian doctrine that “holy baptism, the Mass, and the other sacraments do not lose their power because of the wicked life of the ministers.” Augustine had quoted against Donatism the words of Jesus: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.” These words went on serving that purpose in the fifteenth century (as well as in the sixteenth, when the critics of the Reformation used them to argue that separation from the church was wrong even if the church was corrupt and when the Protestant Reformers cited them to exonerate themselves of the charge of neo-Donatism). Further biblical proof came from the case of Judas Iscariot. Gerson warned the clergy against standing in the “apostolic succession” of Judas, but he also used that warning as an occasion to point out that Judas had not been deposed from his office as soon as his crime of theft came to light; in fact, Christ had even shared his food with him on the night he was betrayed. The sacraments of a wicked priest continued to be valid because of his “character”–which meant not his moral qualities … but the indelible and unrepeatable stamp that baptism, confirmation, and ordination conferred regardless of moral qualities.

Therefore [for Gerson] “the foundation of ecclesiastical authority is not the holiness” of the minister, and “neither schism nor heresy nor any other vice prevents the administration of the sacraments from having its efficacy.” The sacraments were holy on account of the institution and the promise of Christ, the church was holy on account of the institution and the promise of Christ: “On account of her many secret faults, and especially on account of her public and scandalous sins, the church of Christ can be called spotted and wrinkled, and yet out of reverence for Christ, whose spouse she is, she may, indeed must, be called catholic, holy, and immaculate as regards her form.” And the church would deserve to be called holy even if there were only one person left in the world who was holy. (96-97)

Perhaps we might see this theological outlook of Gerson and Cusanus and others as taking away the sharp edge from ecclesiastical reform, but it’s still worth pondering why they rejected the so-called neo-Donatist path. And it would be fruitful to think about alternatives to Gerson, Cusanus, and Ratzinger (if I am right to associate them) that avoid Donatism.

2) Before moving on briefly to a consideration of one such alternative in the work of Calvin–if it is really an alternative, theologically speaking–I want to say more about what Ratzinger writes in Introduction to Christianity. First of all, he certainly does not say that reform isn’t necessary; he’s just saying that our failure to reform doesn’t change the truth of our Creedal affirmation of the Church’s holiness. And he is certainly not saying that we should continue in sin that grace may abound (Rom. 6:1). Even if God does not abandon humanity in general and Christianity in particular as it continues–as we continue!–to sin against His law over and over again, our celebration of such divine mercy is not an excuse to sin. While Ratzinger acknowledges that seeing the true Church with the eyes of faith may affect our view of the urgency of ecclesiastical reform, he makes clear that “this does not mean that everything must be left undisturbed and endured as it is” (344). He goes on:

Endurance can also be a highly active process, a struggle to make the Church herself more and more that which supports and endures. After all, the Church does not live otherwise than in us; she lives from the struggle of the unholy to attain holiness, just as of course this struggle lives from the gift of God, without which it could not exist. But this effort only becomes fruitful and constructive if it is inspired by the spirit of forbearance, by real love. And here we have arrived at the criterion by which that critical struggle for better holiness must always be judged, a criterion that is not only not in contradiction with forbearance but is demanded by it. This criterion is constructiveness. A bitterness that only destroys stands self-condemned. A slammed door can, it is true, become a sign that shakes up those inside. But the idea that one can do more constructive work in isolation than in fellowship with others is just as much of an illusion as the notion of a Church of “holy people” instead of a “holy Church” that is holy because the Lord bestows holiness on her as a quite unmerited gift.

3) What is interesting is that John Calvin rejects Donatism and what he would have called Romanism. How does this work? Of course, it goes without saying that I can’t address Calvin’s ecclesiology in all its complexity, but it’s worth seeing how he talks about the holiness of the Church in this context. It also should go without saying that a different ecclesiological vision might allow someone to respond to the Roman Catholic Church’s recent scandals differently. As Steven Wedgeworth said on The Calvinist International back in September, “In short, if Rome isn’t who she says she is, then individual members are free to measure the Roman Catholic Church by standards of fairness and biblical fidelity. They do not need to submit their consciences to its governance and can attend other Christians churches which they deem to be faithful.”

Calvin’s Anti-Donatism

All of these passages are from bk. 4 of the Institutes.

Chapter 1:

From this it is evident that to each member of the Church, according to his measure of grace, the study of public edification has been assigned, provided it be done decently and in order. In other words, we must neither renounce the communion of the Church, nor, continuing in it, disturb peace and discipline when duly arranged. Our indulgence ought to extend much farther in tolerating imperfection of conduct. Here there is great danger of falling, and Satan employs all his machinations to ensnare us. For there always have been persons who, imbued with a false persuasion of absolute holiness, as if they had already become a kind of aërial spirits, spurn the society of all in whom they see that something human still remains. Such of old were the Cathari and the Donatists, who were similarly infatuated. Such in the present day are some of the Anabaptists, who would be thought to have made superior progress. Others, again, sin in this respect, not so much from that insane pride as from inconsiderate zeal. Seeing that among those to whom the gospel is preached, the fruit produced is not in accordance with the doctrine, they forthwith conclude that there no church exists. The offence is indeed well founded, and it is one to which in this most unhappy age we give far too much occasion. It is impossible to excuse our accursed sluggishness, which the Lord will not leave unpunished, as he is already beginning sharply to chastise us. Woe then to us who, by our dissolute licence of wickedness, cause weak consciences to be wounded! Still those of whom we have spoken sin in their turn, by not knowing how to set bounds to their offence. For where the Lord requires mercy they omit it, and give themselves up to immoderate severity. Thinking there is no church where there is not complete purity and integrity of conduct, they, through hatred of wickedness, withdraw from a genuine church, while they think they are shunning the company of the ungodly. They allege that the Church of God is holy. But that they may at the same time understand that it contains a mixture of good and bad, let them hear from the lips of our Saviour that parable in which he compares the Church to a net in which all kinds of fishes are taken, but not separated until they are brought ashore. Let them hear it compared to a field which, planted with good seed, is by the fraud of an enemy mingled with tares, and is not freed of them until the harvest is brought into the barn.

Chapter 12

Another special requisite to moderation of discipline is, as Augustine discourses against the Donatists, that private individuals must not, when they see vices less carefully corrected by the Council of Elders, immediately separate themselves from the Church; nor must pastors themselves, when unable to reform all things which need correction to the extent which they could wish, cast up their ministry, or by unwonted severity throw the whole Church into confusion. What Augustine says is perfectly true: “Whoever corrects what he can, by rebuking it, or without violating the bond of peace, excludes what he cannot correct, or unjustly condemns while he patiently tolerates what he is unable to exclude without violating the bond of peace, is free and exempted from the curse” (August. contra Parmen. Lib. 2 c. 4). …

This he says on account of the moroseness of the Donatists, who, when they saw faults in the Church which the bishops indeed rebuked verbally, but did not punish with excommunication (because they did not think that anything would be gained in this way), bitterly inveighed against the bishops as traitors to discipline, and by an impious schism separated themselves from the flock of Christ. Similar, in the present day, is the conduct of the Anabaptists, who, acknowledging no assembly of Christ unless conspicuous in all respects for angelic perfection, under pretence of zeal overthrow everything which tends to edification. … One thing Augustine specially commends—viz. that if the contagion of sin has seized the multitude, mercy must accompany living discipline. … He does not mean, however, that the bishops were to wink or be silent because they are unable to punish public offences severely, as he himself afterwards explains. But he wishes to temper the mode of correction, so as to give soundness to the body rather than cause destruction. And, accordingly, he thus concludes: “Wherefore, we must on no account neglect the injunction of the apostle, to separate from the wicked, when it can be done without the risk of violating peace, because he did not wish it to be done otherwise (1 Cor. 5:13); we must also endeavour, by bearing with each other, to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:2).

Chapter 15

For [those who baptise] are only ministers of the external sign, whereas Christ is the Author of internal grace, as those same ancient writers uniformly teach, and, in particular, Augustine, who, in his refutation of the Donatists, founds chiefly on this axiom, Whoever it is that baptises, Christ alone presides. …

Moreover, if we have rightly determined that a sacrament is not to be estimated by the hand of him by whom it is administered, but is to be received as from the hand of God himself, from whom it undoubtedly proceeded, we may hence infer that its dignity neither gains nor loses by the administrator. And, just as among men, when a letter has been sent, if the hand and seal is recognised, it is not of the least consequence who or what the messenger was; so it ought to be sufficient for us to recognise the hand and seal of our Lord in his sacraments, let the administrator be who he may. This confutes the error of the Donatists, who measured the efficacy and worth of the sacrament by the dignity of the minister. Such in the present day are our Catabaptists, who deny that we are duly baptised, because we were baptised in the Papacy by wicked men and idolaters; hence they furiously insist on anabaptism. Against these absurdities we shall be sufficiently fortified if we reflect that by baptism we were initiated not into the name of any man, but into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and, therefore, that baptism is not of man, but of God, by whomsoever it may have been administered. Be it that those who baptised us were most ignorant of God and all piety, or were despisers, still they did not baptise us into a fellowship with their ignorance or sacrilege, but into the faith of Jesus Christ, because the name which they invoked was not their own but God’s, nor did they baptise into any other name. But if baptism was of God, it certainly included in it the promise of forgiveness of sin, mortification of the flesh, quickening of the Spirit, and communion with Christ.

Chapter 19

Lastly, they conclude that this sacred unction is to be held in greater veneration than baptism, because the former is specially administered by the higher order of priests, whereas the latter is dispensed in common by all priests whatever (Distinct. 5, De his vero). … But do they not, by their first reason, prove themselves to be Donatists, who estimate the value of the sacrament by the dignity of the minister?

Calvin’s rejection of Donatism is clear. He associates the ancient heresy with the Anabaptists of his own day (and occasionally his Roman Catholic opponents). The Anabaptists, Calvin says, see no Church at all where they find immorality, where they see ministers failing to exercise the most rigorous discipline. Calvin rejects the Donatist view which links the “dignity” of the sacrament with the one who administers that sacrament (whether his moral probity or his ecclesiastical rank); instead, he sees the sacraments as received “as from the hand of God Himself.”

We’ve spoken here about how Reformed theologians rejected the claims of the Roman Church. Though many could see true believers in its midst, they still taught that popery was a “damnable faith.” Others have treated Calvin’s view with brevity and at greater length. But his reply at the beginning of Chapter 2 (which immediately follows his account of the holiness of the Church and his rejection of Donatism, Anabaptism, etc., as noted above) makes the compatibility of his rejection of Rome and the Donatists clear enough:

How much the ministry of the word and sacraments should weigh with us, and how far reverence for it should extend, so as to be a perpetual badge for distinguishing the Church, has been explained; for we have shown, first, that wherever it exists entire and unimpaired, no errors of conduct, no defects should prevent us from giving the name of Church; and, secondly, that trivial errors in this ministry ought not to make us regard it as illegitimate. Moreover, we have shown that the errors to which such pardon is due, are those by which the fundamental doctrine of religion is not injured, and by which those articles of religion, in which all believers should agree, are not suppressed, while, in regard to the sacraments, the defects are such as neither destroy nor impair the legitimate institution of their Author. But as soon as falsehood has forced its way into the citadel of religion, as soon as the sum of necessary doctrine is inverted, and the use of the sacraments is destroyed, the death of the Church undoubtedly ensues, just as the life of man is destroyed when his throat is pierced, or his vitals mortally wounded. This is clearly evinced by the words of Paul when he says, that the Church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone” (Eph. 2:20). If the Church is founded on the doctrine of the apostles and prophets, by which believers are enjoined to place their salvation in Christ alone, then if that doctrine is destroyed, how can the Church continue to stand? The Church must necessarily fall whenever that sum of religion which alone can sustain it has given way. Again, if the true Church is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15), it is certain that there is no Church where lying and falsehood have usurped the ascendancy.

Since this is the state of matters under the Papacy, we can understand how much of the Church there survives. There, instead of the ministry of the word, prevails a perverted government, compounded of lies, a government which partly extinguishes, partly suppresses, the pure light. In place of the Lord’s Supper, the foulest sacrilege has entered, the worship of God is deformed by a varied mass of intolerable superstitions; doctrine (without which Christianity exists not) is wholly buried and exploded, the public assemblies are schools of idolatry and impiety. Wherefore, in declining fatal participation in such wickedness, we run no risk of being dissevered from the Church of Christ. The communion of the Church was not instituted to be a chain to bind us in idolatry, impiety, ignorance of God, and other kinds of evil, but rather to retain us in the fear of God and obedience of the truth. They, indeed, vaunt loudly of their Church, as if there was not another in the world; and then, as if the matter were ended, they make out that all are schismatics who withdraw from obedience to that Church which they thus depict, that all are heretics who presume to whisper against its doctrine (see sec 5). But by what arguments do they prove their possession of the true Church? They appeal to ancient records which formerly existed in Italy, France, and Spain, pretending to derive their origin from those holy men who, by sound doctrine, founded and raised up churches, confirmed the doctrine, and reared the edifice of the Church with their blood; they pretend that the Church thus consecrated by spiritual gifts and the blood of martyrs was preserved from destruction by a perpetual succession of bishops. They dwell on the importance which Irenæus, Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, and others, attached to this succession (see sec. 3). How frivolous and plainly ludicrous these allegations are, I will enable any, who will for a little consider the matter with me, to understand without any difficulty. … They therefore fall back on the assertion, that they have the true Church, because ever since it began to exist it was never destitute of bishops, because they succeeded each other in an unbroken series. But what if I bring Greece before them? Therefore, I again ask them, Why they say that the Church perished among the Greeks, among whom there never was any interruption in the succession of bishops—a succession, in their opinion, the only guardian and preserver of the Church? They make the Greeks schismatics. Why? because, by revolting from the Apostolic See, they lost their privilege. What? Do not those who revolt from Christ much more deserve to lose it? It follows, therefore, that the pretence of succession is vain, if posterity do not retain the truth of Christ, which was handed down to them by their fathers, safe and uncorrupted, and continue in it.

This passage is worthy of more careful examination. But the key point for our purposes is, unless I’m mistaken, that Calvin does not here reject the longstanding view that the Church is holy even though many of its members are sinful. He rejects Rome’s claim to be the holy church described in the Creed not because of its immorality but because of its betrayal of the word of God which must be rightly preached, especially as far as the “fundamental” or the “necessary” doctrines, and because of its failure to administer the sacraments rightly. He does mention church government but condemns it for failing to be a “ministry of the word” and for suppressing the “pure light.” Calvin sees the Roman Catholic claim about its bishops being successors of the apostles as insufficient for securing it the character of a true Church. So, it seems to me that Calvin’s rejection of Rome is not its failure to bring about ecclesiastical or moral reform, even though these are obviously serious issues for him, but rather its failure to teach true doctrines and worship God as that truth demands. Of course, I’m entirely open to correction here.

I’ll conclude with a couple of passages from the Institutes 4.1 about the Creed, the Church, and its holiness:

I will begin with the Church, into whose bosom God is pleased to collect his children, not only that by her aid and ministry they may be nourished so long as they are babes and children, but may also be guided by her maternal care until they grow up to manhood, and, finally, attain to the perfection of faith. What God has thus joined, let not man put asunder (Mark 10:9): to those to whom he is a Father, the Church must also be a mother. This was true not merely under the Law, but even now after the advent of Christ; since Paul declares that we are the children of a new, even a heavenly Jerusalem (Gal. 4:26). When in the Creed we profess to believe the Church, reference is made not only to the visible Church of which we are now treating, but also to all the elect of God, including in the number even those who have departed this life. And, accordingly, the word used is “believe,” because oftentimes no difference can be observed between the children of God and the profane, between his proper flock and the untamed herd. […] The object of the expression is to teach us, that though the devil leaves no stone unturned in order to destroy the grace of Christ, and the enemies of God rush with insane violence in the same direction, it cannot be extinguished,—the blood of Christ cannot be rendered barren, and prevented from producing fruit. Hence, regard must be had both to the secret election and to the internal calling of God, because he alone “knoweth them that are his” (2 Tim. 2:19); and as Paul expresses it, holds them as it were enclosed under his seal, although, at the same time, they wear his insignia, and are thus distinguished from the reprobate. But as they are a small and despised number, concealed in an immense crowd, like a few grains of wheat buried among a heap of chaff, to God alone must be left the knowledge of his Church, of which his secret election forms the foundation. Nor is it enough to embrace the number of the elect in thought and intention merely. By the unity of the Church we must understand a unity into which we feel persuaded that we are truly ingrafted. For unless we are united with all the other members under Christ our head, no hope of the future inheritance awaits us. Hence the Church is called Catholic or Universal (August. Ep. 48), for two or three cannot be invented without dividing Christ; and this is impossible. […] Moreover, this article of the Creed relates in some measure to the external Church, that every one of us must maintain brotherly concord with all the children of God, give due authority to the Church, and, in short, conduct ourselves as sheep of the flock. And hence the additional expression, the “communion of saints;” for this clause, though usually omitted by ancient writers, must not be overlooked, as it admirably expresses the quality of the Church; just as if it had been said, that saints are united in the fellowship of Christ on this condition, that all the blessings which God bestows upon them are mutually communicated to each other.

[…]

Since they also argue that there is good reason for the Church being called holy, it is necessary to consider what the holiness is in which it excels, lest by refusing to acknowledge any church, save one that is completely perfect, we leave no church at all. It is true, indeed, as Paul says, that Christ “loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:25-27). Nevertheless, it is true, that the Lord is daily smoothing its wrinkles, and wiping away its spots. Hence it follows, that its holiness is not yet perfect. Such, then, is the holiness of the Church: it makes daily progress, but is not yet perfect; it daily advances, but as yet has not reached the goal, as will elsewhere be more fully explained. Therefore, when the Prophets foretel, “Then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through her any more;”—“It shall be called, The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it” (Joel 3:17; Isa. 35:8), let us not understand it as if no blemish remained in the members of the Church: but only that with their whole heart they aspire after holiness and perfect purity: and hence, that purity which they have not yet fully attained is, by the kindness of God, attributed to them. And though the indications of such a kind of holiness existing among men are too rare, we must understand, that at no period since the world began has the Lord been without his Church, nor ever shall be till the final consummation of all things. For although, at the very outset, the whole human race was vitiated and corrupted by the sin of Adam, yet of this kind of polluted mass he always sanctifies some vessels to honour, that no age may be left without experience of his mercy. …

I admit that we are not to labour feebly or coldly in urging perfection, far less to desist from urging it; but I hold that it is a device of the devil to fill our minds with a confident belief of it while we are still in our course. Accordingly, in the Creed forgiveness of sins is appropriately subjoined to belief as to the Church, because none obtain forgiveness but those who are citizens, and of the household of the Church, as we read in the Prophet (Is. 33:24). The first place, therefore, should be given to the building of the heavenly Jerusalem, in which God afterwards is pleased to wipe away the iniquity of all who betake themselves to it.