Further Implications on the Falsity of Manicheanism

In my previous comments I discussed the implications of the falsity of Manicheanism. I want to pursue that a bit more.

In his early life Augustine fell into the Manichean heresy. The Manicheans believed that there were ultimately two Gods: one a good God, and one an evil God. Both Gods were equally powerfully. One was the source of all the good in the world, and the other was the source of all the evil in the world. After a number of years Augustine began to see the problems with Manicheanism, and eventually when he became a Christian, he refuted Manicheanism by showing that evil was not a separate principle, but a privation of good. He showed that evil is always parasitic on good, that evil cannot exist on its own, but only in something good, as a privation of good. Blindness, for example, cannot exist on its own, but only in something that should be able to see.

Evil does not have its own being. That is why pure evil is an impossibility. Plato showed that a band of evil men self-destruct, because they need justice in order to be a unity. But since they lack justice, they inevitably war against each other. In that way, injustice is parasitic on justice. The band of evil men must have some justice (toward each other) in order to be a unified group. Their injustice toward others, however, cannot be walled-off from their behavior toward themselves. And this is why they will self-destruct.

This is also the same sort of relationship we find between truth and falsehood. Falsehood cannot exist on its own, but only parasitically in truth. Every falsehood depends upon (i.e. presumes) truths. That is why pure falsehood is an impossibility. Goodness and truth and being are coreferential, and so all three refer to the same thing, though in different respects, and therefore evil and falsehood and non-being are coreferentially equivalent. Just as evil is parasitic on goodness, so falsehood is parasitic on truth. And just as evil is intrinsically self-destructive, so likewise falsehood is intrinsically self-destructive.

Heresy is a certain kind of falsehood; it is a privation of orthodoxy (i.e. lit. "straight belief", the truths of the Church). For that reason, heresy too is parasitic on orthodoxy. And heresy too is, for the same reason, self-destructive. Sin begets sin. And heresy begets more heresy, until the heresy consumes itself. The waywardness of the heresy becomes obvious, and it eventually fades into the dustbin of history. This has happened to countless heresies over the course of the history of the Church.

Above, I mentioned the coreferentiality of goodness, truth, and being. There is another term that belongs in that list: unity. Division is the privation of unity. For that reason division is parasitic on unity. Likewise, division too is self-destructive. Schism is a particular kind of division, a privation of ecclesial unity. Schism is not merely separation from the body, for then it would be sinful for the Church to excommunicate anyone. Schism is separation from the visible head. That is because ecclesial unity is not just generic unity; it is hierarchically ordered, much as a human body is hierarchically ordered. For that reason privations of ecclesial unity always involve a privation of what could be called ortho-hypakoe (i.e. rightly directed obedience). Either the obedience itself is lacking or it is wrongly directed, e.g. one is obeying a false teacher instead of one's true overseer.

We know that truth cannot contradict truth; therefore there cannot be two or more contradictory orthodoxies. Therefore, orthodoxy is one, even though there can be many heresies. Likewise, unity cannot be divided from itself; therefore there is an ecclesial unity that remains undivided in spite of all schisms; it remains with the principle of unity, the visible head of the Church. While there can be many heresies, there can be only one orthodoxy, and all the heresies are parasitic on that one orthodoxy.[1] Heresies depend on orthodoxy either in the texts they use, the liturgical forms or other traditions they use or preserve, the background assumptions they hold, and the truths they confess. While there can be many schisms, there can be only one principle of unity, that is, one true Church, and all the schisms are parasitic on that one true Church. Fr. Kimel discusses this to some extent in his article "Parasitic Catholicism".

Now recall that the jinn could not give real food and real soap, but only a mere imitation. Do we find something similar when we examine the sects separated from the Catholic Church? Yes. Consider the example of the Eucharist. In the Catholic Church we actually receive the body and blood of Christ as our daily bread. We get the real thing. In Protestant communities, we are told that either that the Lord's supper is a memorial, or that we merely feed on Him spiritually in our hearts. If you want to find out in a hurry whether you are getting the real thing, try bowing down to the consecrated elements. If this causes a scene, then the people around you don't believe that Christ is anymore there than He is anywhere else. The jinn knew it couldn't give the real thing; likewise, Protestantism does not even pretend that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ.

Or consider justification. In the Catholic Church, at your baptism you are actually made righteous. The righteousness of Christ is infused into your soul. We get the real thing. In the Protestant communities, by contrast, in justification you are merely "declared" righteous (as though you were actually righteous), even though you are (in Protestant theology) internally just as filthy and wicked as you ever were.

Consider the issue of Magisterial authority. The visible head of the Catholic Church has the authority to bind the conscience of all believers, to provide the authoritative interpretation of Scripture for all believers, and to determine authoritatively for all believers what is orthodoxy and what is heresy. The Ecumenical Councils are infallible and binding. We get the real thing. By contrast, no leader of a Protestant community has the authority to bind the conscience of any believers, let alone all believers. No collection of Protestants has the authority to call or conduct an ecumenical council. And for Protestants none of the ecumenical councils are authoritative and binding; one is free to pick and choose from them as one wishes, or ignore them altogether.

Consider the issue of ordination. The Catholic Church has valid episcopal orders extending back to Peter and the Apostles, and thus Catholic priests have valid orders as well. We have the real thing. Protestants, by contrast, have no episcopal orders, and therefore have no valid ordinations. That is why Protestant pastors cannot turn bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. This is also why Protestant pastors cannot ordain anyone to the priesthood, for that requires episcopal orders. This is also why Protestant pastors cannot administer the sacrament of the anointing of the sick, which requires ordained presbyters (James 5:14-15)

Consider the canon. The Catholic Church gives us the whole canon, including the deuterocanonical books and chapters. We get the real thing. The Protestants communities, by contrast give us a Bible that lacks the deuterocanonical books and chapters. The Protestant communities depend parasitically on the authority of the Catholic Church for the authorized determination of the books that Protestants do include in the canon.

Consider the sacrament of confirmation. The Catholic Church, through this sacrament, gives us the fullness of the power and infilling of the Holy Spirit. We get the real thing. Non-Pentecostal Protestants entirely lack this sacrament. Pentecostals recognize the need for it, but have no bishops to administer it.

Consider the sacrament of penance and reconciliation. The Catholic Church has priests with valid orders and thus with the authority to forgive sins, deriving from the power of the keys given to Peter. We get the real thing. The Protestant communities, by contrast, lacking valid orders, do not have priests with the authority to forgive sins.

Consider the sacrament of marriage. The Catholic Church recognizes that marriage cannot be dissolved by anything but death. In the Catholic Church marriage is a sacrament like baptism or confirmation; it can only be done once, so long as both of the two persons remain alive. We get the real thing. Protestant communities, by contrast, all allow remarriage after divorce.

Consider the saints. The Catholic Church has saints from all the centuries. We have the real thing. We even have their bones, including the bones of the Apostles Peter and Paul. But Protestants have no saints (in part because of egalitarianism, and also because the voluntaristic/extrinsic notion of justification makes living a holy life unimportant, since gratitude neither is nor requires perfection. Nor do Protestants have relics of the saints.

Consider the Church. The Catholic Church has the Magisterium, Scripture and Tradition as the three authorities in the Church. Each is infallible in certain respects. We have the real thing. Protestantism has no infallible magisterium, no infallible tradition, and no infallible interpretation of Scripture. "A revelation is not given, if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given." (cf. Newman)

Consider Mary. The Catholic Church recognizes Mary as the "Mother of God" (Council of Ephesus, 431), the second Eve, and the mother of all the Church, since the Church is Christ's mystical body. In the Catholic Church we have a real mother. Protestants, by contrast, typically treat Mary is a mere incubator whose womb was used by God as a surrogate, who was then given over to Joseph to have more children, and who was a sinner no different from everyone else. For Protestants, there is no second Eve, and thus no mother of the Church.

Consider the communion of saints. The Catholic Church recognizes that we are in communion with all the saints, even those who have died, for death does not separate us from Christ, and thus from each other, for we are all united in Christ. We have all goods in common with all the saints, including those who have gone on before us. We have the prayers and intercessions of the saints, as well as true communion with them. We have the real thing. Protestant communities, do not recognize our communion with the departed saints; in Protestantism we are left with two separated bodies, and only a pale reflection of the richness of the doctrine of the communion of the saints.

In sum, given the falsity of Manicheanism, we should expect to see that schism and heresy are dependent on that from which they separated, that both are self-destructive, and that in each, what is possessed and offered is something less real than what is possessed and offered in that from which they came. And when we look at Protestant theology (insofar as there can rightly be said to be a Protestant theology), we see that Protestantism offers only a pale imitation of the treasures present in the Church from which it separated.

---

[1] Paul tells us in 1 Cor 12:25 that God has composed the body that there would be no schisms in it. That is God's will. In 1 Cor 1:10-13 Paul exhorts the Corinthians that they all agree and that there be no divisions among them, but that they be made complete in the same mind and the same judgment, because Christ has not been divided. Christ Himself says that a house divided against itself cannot stand (Matt 12:25; Mk 3:25; Lk 11:17), and that our unity is a witness to the world of the truth of the Gospel. (John 17:21, 23) And Paul tells us that "there is one body ... one faith, one baptism".