Sanctity and elitism?

[Contrabass101]

Greetings on this lovely second Sunday of Advent,

I am currently reading Interior Castle by st. Therese of Avila, and encountered a somewhat puzzling statement in the editors foreword.

She accepted… the two-tiered understanding of holiness prevalent throughout the Catholic world of her day and which held great sway right up to the dawn of the Second Vatican Council. According to this outlook, “the way of the commandments” comprises the basic call pf all baptized Christians (especially laity) and “the way of the counsels” that of a chosen elite (especialle religious and clergy). Only recently has this deeply entrenched outlook begun to change. The documnents of the Second Vatican Council recognize a unique way to God in each vocational state and steer clear of any undue hierarchical comparisons.

First, I’m not totally sure what it means…

Does it mean, that there was thought to be two “levels” of sanctity? And is that true Christianity? A teacher of mine told us, that the much of the teaching in the Sermon on the Mount was interpreted by Catholics for a long time to apply only to monks and other “elite Christians”. Is this true?

One thing that draws me to the East is that the Orthodox seem to be less elitistic. The universal call to holiness seems to be more prevalent in the East than the West (historically speaking).

Second, it is my understanding that VA2 changed nothing but merely restated old truths. So either it was not so before VA2 or it is still so after VA2. Which is it?

I hope I have made myself clear…

• CB

 

[Verbum]

Hi Contra_,

What your quote is talking about is the distinction between those who follow the evangelical counsels and those who do not. To cut it short, between the laity and the members of religious congregations, who make vows of poverty, chastitiy and obedience.

As concerns chastity (celibacy for the love of God) for example, St. Paul does say that it is a “superior” state, but does not oblige everyone to it. “See all your goods and follow me” is what Jesus told the rich young man. He did not take up the challenge, but he still went away a good young man.

The Church has always taught that you can become a saint in whatever state of life you may be. And indeed may laypeople were canonized before the Vatican Council. However Vatican II did powerfully emphasized the role of the laity as it had never been emphasized before. You might want to read* Lumen Gentium* on the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church in which, among other things, you find this statement :

If therefore in the Church everyone does not proceed by the same path, nevertheless all are called to sanctity and have received an equal privilege of faith through the justice of God.(194) And if by the will of Christ some are made teachers, pastors and dispensers of mysteries on behalf of others, yet all share a true equality with regard to the dignity and to the activity common to all the faithful for the building up of the Body of Christ. For the distinction which the Lord made between sacred ministers and the rest of the People of God bears within it a certain union, since pastors and the other faithful are bound to each other by a mutual need. Pastors of the Church, following the example of the Lord, should minister to one another and to the other faithful. These in their turn should enthusiastically lend their joint assistance to their pastors and teachers. Thus in their diversity all bear witness to the wonderful unity in the Body of Christ. This very diversity of graces, ministries and works gathers the children of God into one, because “all these things are the work of one and the same Spirit”.

Complete text at :

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2church.htm

Does my post answer your concerns?

Verbum

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Does it mean, that there was thought to be two “levels” of sanctity? And is that true Christianity? A teacher of mine told us, that the much of the teaching in the Sermon on the Mount was interpreted by Catholics for a long time to apply only to monks and other “elite Christians”. Is this true?

The Church has got ordinary members whose obligation is to show up once a week and show some pretty basic morals.

It also has special members who have to live their entire lives in obedience to ecclesiastical superiors. Generally the special members are much more committed, loyal, hardworking and so forth than the ordinaries. We can expect that God has a special regard for them.
However every so often an ordinary Catholic like St Thomas More finds himself in a situation where he is called upon to demonstrate faith in a special way. One of the times when that is happening more frequently is now. Political and social changes mean that the job of defending the faith can no longer be left to professionals. Now the average Catholic is quite likely to find himself on the streets outside an abortion clinic.

 

[Contrabass101]

I think my problem is the idea, that some are called to be more holy than others… It seems wrong. Of course those in leadership roles are “judged more harshly” since what they do affect others too, but isn’t the essential goal the same? To be like Christ… why should anyone settle for less? Why should God ask for less?

• CB

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I think my problem is the idea, that some are called to be more holy than others… It seems wrong. Of course those in leadership roles are “judged more harshly” since what they do affect others too, but isn’t the essential goal the same? To be like Christ… why should anyone settle for less? Why should God ask for less?

Think what the alternative is. All must be martyrs to be acceptable at all to God.

Unless you can see your own martyrdom coming, you’ll probably not be too happy with that idea. God is probably asking less of you than that you should give up your life for His sake.

 

[davidv]

I think my problem is the idea, that some are called to be more holy than others… It seems wrong. Of course those in leadership roles are “judged more harshly” since what they do affect others too, but isn’t the essential goal the same? To be like Christ… why should anyone settle for less? Why should God ask for less?

• CB

I think that to infer that “two tiers of holiness” referred to in the quote means different degrees of holiness takes the quote too far. As other poster have indicated I believe it speaks to two tiers of means to the end. I have read, and am re-reading the Philokalia. This in an anthology of writings from the monastics of the early centuries. It very easy to conclude from these, if you forget the audience, that the only way to holiness was that of monasticism. This only one tier however. The other is that of the lay person.

 

[arvinsim]

Think what the alternative is. All must be martyrs to be acceptable at all to God.

IMHO, there is also “daily” martyrdom, dying to one’s selfish desires everyday. Not all of us are called to die for Christ but all of us are called to live for Him.