For those of you who might not be familiar with Brant Pitre, he is a Catholic theologian with a gift for putting complex topics into plain English and without the high-brow, pipe-puffing scholar stereotype to go with it. On YouTube, through CatholicProductions.com, Pitre has a wide array of digestible, down-to-earth videos, usually between five and fifteen minutes long.
Funny enough, he even has a video on, well, unity. His view of unity is not a like-for-like for answering question #1 in this discussion post. However, when considering the statement, “unity need not equal uniformity…”, Pitre’s starting point for all of this does ultimately tie into ecclesiology and how, yes, it is indeed possible to have unity among pluralistic expression. Pitre breaks this down into seven types of unity that form a more complete picture of Catholic Christian belief:
Visible unity: Catholics have physical bodies that make up the body of believers, all part of a physical, outwardly visible Church.
Invisible unity: The spiritual unity among the body of believers, all under God’s revelation and grace.
Eschatological unity: Unanimous belief in the resurrection of the body and the life of the world to come.
Christological unity: That Jesus is *one* Lord, the only begotten son of God / how He is described in the Nicene Creed. In other words, he is not many types of Jesuses, or as described in belief systems that contradict the Creed.
Doctrinal unity: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are a triune-God and consubstantial.
Sacramental unity: Unanimous belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist; honor and uphold all other sacraments as well.
Theological unity: That all Catholics follow the same Gospel, using both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.
While all of the above is whole lotta unity about unity, Pitre’s main point is that when the Church starts with the Trinity as the first unity, then all sub-forms of unity must be fully embraced to be One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. Here is the link to his video (which gives a much better breakdown, including using Paul’s letter to the Ephesians and the Nicene Creed to show how all the different forms of unity fit together): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpGzfBNtKHw
Now, if you think about it, all of these forms of unity are their own kind of pluralistic expressions of a single reality. Moreover, well-catechized Catholics are generally not going to lean on just one type of unity, nor cherry pick what or what not to believe. Instead, they accept that all of these different forms as manifestations or expressions of a single truth.
The same thought process can apply to ecclesiological unity: Whether it is the 24 churches that comprise the Catholic Church, yet have some varied liturgical formats; or whether a Catholic connects more with Novus Ordo than extraordinary form or Latin rite Masses (or vice versa); or whether some Catholics are more charismatic in their worship, while others may be more contemplative and quiet, the spiritual and physical forms of unity (as Pitre describes above) are the first foundation for any form of expression from that.
Now, where the idea of pluralism squaring with unity may get sketchy or controversial is how the Church relates its ecclesiology to other pluralistic forms of expression: is it implying that it now accepts contradictory belief systems, or will it revamp itself into a Unitarian or other pluralistic type belief system, or is it going to give in to the secular world while flushing out 2000 years of core beliefs. Further, when Tkacik and McGonigle point out that “the Church is in constant need of reform,” and “that she must adapt and modify herself accordingly as effective in her mission” (2), it can be easy to leap to the conclusion that the Church has turned into a circus with too many monkeys.
What doesn’t help matters is the blatant rivalry between Classical Essentialism and Historic Existentialism. Vatican II apparently put a wedge between the two – but does that mean the goals of Vatican II are the real issue? Or has some of its execution been the main problem and therefore not well misunderstood?
At the minimum, the Historical Existential view reveals that humans do not live in a vacuum. Times change, people change, attitudes change…beliefs change. No matter how all factors in human social evolution are sliced, the Church has recognized that in order to achieve a greater unity among Christians and its overall trajectory, the Church is not monolith that only exists for itself. Rather, it exists for all people to embrace the fullness of its truth, while acknowledging that a variety of other cultures and belief systems exist. This does not mean creating a unity that appeases everyone, but that the Church must well understand that humans are complex, have a wide range of personalities and beliefs (not just religious), and that it takes relating to these differences to help guide the world towards a unified belief (Tkacik and McGonigle 10).
At the root of this are Scripture and Tradition: Because the Church’s ecclesiology is based on both Scripture and Tradition, this means that the Church’s nature is a combination of its invisible and visible presence in the world. As McBrien points out while walking through each of the Chapters in Lumen Gentium, the Church is a mix of mystery, sacrament, and community (165); and ecclesial features such as the word of God, grace, faith, charity, and gifts from the Holy Spirit all transcend the visible church (176).
McBrien also points out the Church’s ecclesiology is built upon descriptive and prescriptive functions. Namely, how the New Testament describes the formation of early churches and their relationship to the universal Church gives a holistic view of its early history. Then, from the prescriptive standpoint, the New Testament is a rudimentary primer to how the Church should operate (25). This same primer is what the Church Fathers used to fortify Tradition. Or better yet, both Scripture and Tradition have worked hand-in-hand. For instance, it took Tradition to compile canonized Scripture, while it took Scripture to help further build the Tradition.
All that said, the Church’s nature has always been one of evolution and not revolution. And by evolution, that doesn’t mean the theology has evolved greatly, but that its entire history has involved continually assessing and realigning its relationship with the rest of the world. Vatican II, for example, was another major milestone in its evolution, despite the rifts created from it. And how we best choose to work through any differences must always be in keeping with both Scripture and Tradition.
Works Cited
McBrien, Richard P. The Church. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2008.
Tkacik, Michael J., and Thomas M. McGonigle, O.P. Pneumatic Correctives: What is the Spirit Saying to the Church of the 21st Century? Lanham: University Press