There is quite a history behind the famous saying: “In necessariis unitas, In dubiis libertas, In omnibus autem caritas” (In essentials unity, In doubtful things liberty, But in all things love). This saying is commonly referred to as the “Friedensspruch” or “Peace Saying.”
The quote is sometimes attributed to St. Augustine. In reality it is properly attributed to Peter MeiderlinOn the, spurious claim that Augustine was the author, see especially Friedrich Lí¼cke, íœber das Alter, den Verfasser, die ursprí¼ngliche Form und den wahren Sinn des kirchlichen Friedensspruches “In necessariis unitas, in non necessariis libertas, in utrisque caritas!: Eine litterarhistorische theologische Studie (Gí¶ttingen: Verlag der Dieterischschen Buchhandlung, 1850), 4-6; Eekhof, Zinspreuk, 10-15., a Lutheran theologian and pastor who lived in Augsburg during the early seventeenth century. Meiderlin lived in a very troubled times, a time exposed to the ravages of the Thirty Years War and its aftermath. There was ongoing strife between Lutherans and Calvinists as well as within Lutheranism itself. The Lutheran movement had become a battleground for competing political forces and numerous doctrinal disputes based on theological differences among the leaders of the nascent Reformation.
Why go off into Lutheran and Reformation history? Really, to understand the basis for my reasons in joining the PNCC. Every confession has, to some extent, turned the “Peace Saying” on its head. This is perfected in the great departure from what was commonly believed among all Christians in the Church of the first 1,000 years to a development of unknown doctrines and laws.
Peter Meiderlin’s argument for peace is illustrated in the story of a dream he hadThe account of the dream is found in Meiderlin’s original Latin book, entitled Paraenesis votiva pro pace ecclesiae ad Theologos Augustanae Confessionis, based on the edition of Pfeiffer, was reprinted by Lí¼cke in íœber das Alter, 87-90.:
In the dream he encounters a devout Christian theologian in a white robe sitting at a table and reading the Scriptures. All of a sudden Christ appears to him as the victor over death and the devil and warns him of an impending danger and admonishes him to be very vigilant. Then Christ vanishes and the Devil appears in the form of a blinding light, moonlight to be exact, and claims to have been sent on a mission from God. He states that in this final age the Church needs to be protected from all heresy and apostasy of any kind and God’s elect have the duty to safeguard and keep pure the doctrinal truths they inherited. The Devil then alleges that God has authorized him to found a new order of these doctrinally pure elect, some sort of a doctrinal heritage coven. Those who join will bind themselves to an oath of strictest observance to these doctrines. The Devil then extends to our devout theologian the invitation to join this militant fellowship for his own eternal welfare. Our theologian thinks about what he has just heard and decides to bring it in prayer before God, upon which the devil immediately vanishes and Christ reappears. Christ tenderly raises the trembling Christian up, comforts him most kindly, and before he departs admonishes him to remain loyal only to the Word of God in simplicity and humility of heartFound at “In Essentials Unity”: The Pre-History And History Of A Restoration Movement Slogan by Hans Rollmann..
Meiderlin’s dream captures my state of mind in coming to the PNCC. Where was the essential Catholic faith I grew up in? Where could I find the Church which called me to hold the commonly believed truths, the foundations of the Church in Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition, and which would stand strongly enough on those foundations so as not to attempt to control everything (Matthew 23:4).
I was trying to avoid being part of “[the] new order of [the] doctrinally pure elect, …a doctrinal heritage coven.” I understood the Catholic faith to stand on foundation of Scripture and Tradition, the infallible nature of the Church as a whole, which also acts as a guide along the path to eternal life, meeting people where they are and bringing them to Christ. I wasn’t looking for the Church that gave me free-reign to decide for myself. If I wanted that I could be Protestant, Universalist, or nothing at all, because in each, even the essentials of Scripture and Tradition are subject to debate and individual interpretation. I didn’t need doctrinal or liturgical, or sacramental innovation, nor priests and bishops who wing theology and kill Holy Tradition to suit the whims of the day. I know I needed the truth of Catholicism, but not thousands of pages of proscriptive rules and regulations no one can bear.
So, I needed truth, as well as the latitude to get to heaven in an environment that gave me peace and comfort in my struggles. I needed the essentials of the Catholic faith to be sure, and I needed that they be strictly adhered to, but I did not need regulations that acted to do no more than act as points of separation, points that made me feel unworthy and outside.
Those laws of separation are too painful. Certainly they work for the benefit of those who hold themselves as doctrinally pure, elect, and on the inside. That high standard becomes so high that it often becomes insurmountable for many. As can be seen, some just ignore what they perceive as insurmountable (they ignore their Church’s teachings and doctrines, are essentially bad Catholics, but continue to go and commune without any change of heart — they are right, the Church is wrong). Some try to change it, fighting against the mountain that will not move (they battle from the inside until they are exhausted and lose heart, because it is quite impossible to win against an administrative culture based on absolutes). Some leave, whether in anger, hurt, disappointment, or out of an unwillingness to change, and in leaving abandon all faith. — I’ve done each.
The laws and doctrines of the non-essentials, the lack of charity (not financial, but that of the heart) works then to obscure the teaching of what is essential, and loses souls. How can people understand the teaching of Scripture and Holy Tradition if they are caught up in arguments over the disciplines imposed by men? How will people walk toward God if we formulate laws that push them away? We are not speaking with children when we say “My children,” but adults. I wanted to be treated like an adult on an adult path to God.
Yes, I hold the essentials and I desire no change in them at all. The creeds, humanity as saved and redeemed by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the ministry and Apostolic succession as established by the Catholic Church, the necessity of regeneration, the benefit of the sacraments, the call to live as Christ demands — not as man dictates, repentance for the forgiveness of sins, and living in the community of faith at every level — Church, Diocese, Parish, and home. Yes, I desire the Catholic way of life. Yet I have no love or respect for the elevation of man made, dubious, doctrine and law which obscure (and work to block) the path to heaven. The philosopher Seneca warned of cramming the mind with unimportant things. “We are ignorant,” Seneca writes, “of essentials because we deal in non-essentials.”
Bishop Hodur clearly stated that every person is called by God and that this call is to engage in a joyous journey toward heaven. Yes, it is not without struggle, against ourselves and the allures of the world, but in community that struggling together leads to victory. I needed that community. We must “remain loyal only to the Word of God in simplicity and humility of heart.” Humility calls for the elevation of God’s way (and yes, the Church teaches His way because the Holy Spirit abides in the Church) over our ways, our thoughts, our innovations. Simplicity means we must take great care not to obscure Scripture and Tradition by that which is man-made.
Meiderlin tried to avoid both extremes during the period in which he was writing. He sought to avoid disintegrating sectarianism and of a levelling orthodoxy by taking a middle position that affirms salvific essentials while maintaining responsible freedom. His principals were just as applicable in his day, in 1897, and today. I found that principle well respected in the PNCC, which maintains both and keeps the peace in love. This life then reflects what St. Paul calls “the most excellent way” (1 Corinthians 13:1-3). This is Meiderlin’s dictum: “We would be in the best shape if we kept in essentials, Unity; in non-essentials, Liberty; and in both Charity.” That is what I sought and found. It made me free, and I found a much clearer path to the Jesus who loves me out of my sinfulness. Jesus called the sinners who came to Him to the path of repentance, a change of heart, not to the following of man made regulations which are of little consequence to the desired result – a relationship with God who saves.
The “Friedensspruch,” or “Peace Saying,” is key. I wish to live in unity with what Christ demands of me. He calls me to live in the Church He established, in which He exists through the working and inbiding of the Holy Spirit, in which we follow His way by the teaching of Scripture and Holy Tradition. I also need the latitude to be included, despite my faults and failings, because inside I will continue to walk the way, climb the ladder to eternal life.