As is typical, most forms of miscommunication that denigrate into triangulation result from a narrative of the other that is not altogether rooted in the truth. In the mode of conflict where matters are triangulated, psychologists note that there is typically (in the mind of the persons involved) a savior, a villain, and a victim. Typically what I encounter is that you have a savior who wants to mediate the conflict by taking over, gossiping, or going to the other person and confronting them. These are typically dysfunctional ways to address conflict. What happens, in actual fact, is that most victims perceive the other as a villain, while that villain perceives themselves as the victim. Thus all defensive responses are perceived as a personal attack on the other, while in both of their minds, they are simply defending themselves. And without directly speaking to each other (as the Gospel of Matthew relates), that narrative continues to be solidified as the “savior” wants to be the hero because they are typically people-pleasing and can play both sides of the fence.
Whatever the case is with conflict, it would seem our Savior wants us to resolve our conflicts, where possible and prudent, directly with those whom we perceive as a villain or an arbiter of error. These principles apply within the scope of apologetics, whereby when examining a different denomination and the polemics of social media and street preachers of every variety, we address the subjective limits of our our own narrative. For instance, when examining Calvinism do we uphold a strawman about it? Or when protestants examine Marian Doctrine, do they really believe Catholics Worship Mary? We have to learn to be honest about the other’s position, otherwise we triangulate even in theological and apologetic discourse.
One of the critical problems Catholics face in ecumenical dialogue, that Pope Benedict also addressed, was the matter of Hellenistic language. Often the language of philosophical categories, if understood properly, would bring us ever closer to a deeper respect and dialogue on the matters of faith. However, by asking protestants to study in great depth the philosophical language of the Catholic faith, as well as its meaning in conjunction with scripture is to ask them to be devoted to a studious approach to a dogmatic system they are not actually devoted toward. Putting aside the fact that philosophy is generally considered as human wisdom by many non-Catholics, and thereby disregarded, it is difficult to encourage non-believers to aspire to properly understand the system itself. Likewise, it is also difficult for the Catholic to unlearn the philosophical language by which doctrine has developed and enabled us to interpret Scripture and Apostolic Tradition in an intelligible, non-contradictory manner. Thus, the language games between both faiths at times seems to arrive at a type of stalemate which may be a good term to describe our current efforts to become One Church, which experiences unity not by sentiment but a genuine communion of minds and hearts in Christ.
The ultimate point is that of equivocation. In the matter of equivocation, we find ourselves often discussing the subject of merit. If I say that I will meet a person by the bank, he or she might think of the financial institution, while I’m at the bank of the river with my fishing rod. The problem arises, here on the subject of merit, where the terms have similar meanings, but are equivocally understood. Some might object, and suggest that they are working within the definition found in scripture. Yet even within scripture terms are often used in a different meaning. When St. Paul speaks of letting the knife slip most will admit he is utilizing rhetoric and hyperbole. Being able to nuance therefore requires some contextualization of scripture which appeals to a reasoned approach.
The philosophical frame work to help non-Catholic Christians understand our position, in my view, is from the doctrine on participation, when speaking about merit. Often the fear, at least as I’ve perceived it, that rejects the Church’s teaching on merit, pertains to the belief that Catholics are mixing our own efforts with God’s for salvation. The perception seems to interpret cooperation as addressing what is objectively “lacking in the sufferings of Christ.” To be clear, there is nothing objectively missing in the merits of Christ’s suffering, yet that passage can speak of something missing in another sense. I.e. the merit of our salvation comes down to God performing 99.99 % of the work, and we supply the rest. This is not the case for our doctrine. First, quantifying merit is problematic of itself. Second, Christ supplies in fullness what is required for our salvation. If we are to use the analogy of quantity, we would say that Christ is 100 % of our salvation and merit. Here is something Aquinas writes on the matter:
At first glance these words can be misunderstood to mean that the passion of Christ was not sufficient for our redemption, and that the sufferings of the saints were added to complete it. But this is heretical, because the blood of Christ is sufficient to redeem many worlds: he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).
Rather, we should understand that Christ and the Church are one mystical person, whose head is Christ, and whose body is all the just, for every just person is a member of this head: individually members (1 Cor 12:27). Now God in his predestination has arranged how much merit will exist throughout the entire Church, both in the head and in the members, just as he has predestined the number of the elect. Among these merits, the sufferings of the holy martyrs occupy a prominent place. For while the merits of Christ, the head, are infinite, each saint displays some merit in a limited degree.
This is why he says, fill up those things that are wanting in the sufferings of CHrist, that is, what is lacking in the afflictions of the whole Church, of which Christ is the head. I fill up, that is, I add my own amount; and I do this in my flesh, that is, it is I myself who am suffering. Or, we could say that Paul was completing the sufferings that were lacking in his own flesh. For what was lacking was that, just as Christ had suffered in his own body, so he should also suffer in Paul, his member, and in similar ways in others.
And Paul does this for his body, which is the Church that was to be redeemed by Christ: that he might present the Church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle (Eph 5:27). In the same way all the saints suffer for the Church, which receives strength from their example. The gloss says: afflictions are still lacking, because the treasure house of the Church’s merits is not full, and it will not be full until the end of the world.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Colossians. c. 1, l. 6, pp 61-62
How do we reconcile, therefore the language of merit Understanding that God alone is good, per se, and we are only good by participation is a biblical truth, though not worded as such biblically. Participation in this regard, when applied to merit asserts the notion that the “body of Christ” participates in the dignity of Christ since we are His body. This participation is not “per se” (in essence), but by way of moral imitation (justice), and supernatural union (mystical) in the Spirit. The merits of the saints themselves, including Mary, are participations in the merits of Christ embodied by their own lives. This participation helps one understand the non-competitive nature of merit between the Body of Christ (the Church) and Christ. Think of heat that is present in a rod of iron. The furnace in which that iron is placed takes on the heat of the flame, but the iron is not its source, nor is its heat independently caused apart from the fire. This metaphysical notion of non-competitive concomitance is an assumed premise in scholastic philosophy, and can best be demonstrated biblically by the burning bush and the incarnation of the Son of God. If we really believe that Christ “lives in us” then we cannot be accused of an unbiblical interpretation here.
This notion of participation may not be accepted by Protestantism, but it nonetheless demonstrates that there are no merits outside of Christ, per se. However, due to the philosophical assumptions that existed after and during the protestant reformation, this concomitant notion of being and participation in God was lost. And to demonstrate it both biblically and with scholastic language tends to be where the barrier in ecumenical dialogue.
For figures like St. Thomas Aquinas, ecclesiology and Christology were not separate theologies, since the Church is the Body of Christ. But he would have still explained that we are that Body by participation, and that gift of participation is itself a grace. This means that when we participate in the merits of Christ they become our own, insofar as Christ reaches full stature within ourselves. Yet, this occurs, always in a way that is contingent upon God. And this is why we use the term cooperate so often.
Catholics can say that we believe in the Treasury of Merit in both Christ and the saints, but we cannot say that such merits in the saints are actually distinct from Christ in any meaningful way. This isn’t a “mixture” (i.e. 99.99 % God and 0.01 % us) of merits from human beings and God, but rather a participation in Christ’s merits alone (100 % of Christ’s merits infused into us as His Body).
In order to address this conflict, therefore, protestants would have to at least be willing to entertain this interpretation of the Catholic Teaching which is rooted in scholastic philosophy and theology. By entertain, I simply mean they would have to entertain its biblical basis. Yet Catholics would likewise have to admire the protestant desire to preserve the notion that Christ alone has the merits for our salvation. The Catholic position accepts that, yet also is able to integrate it into a deeper context which actually is quite biblical and reconciles all the passages on salvation that would otherwise seem to be contradictory.