Have we really moved from a tripartite division of the Church to a bipartite one?

I always wanted to offer the world the “Novitiate Room”—the teaching and formation that occur in this sacred space. I wanted to make this entire journey available to the whole Church, not keeping this practical knowledge as a privilege for a select few, since the call to holiness was meant for all. My goal was to provide the Church with a solid and common teaching on spiritual life. This is how I have worked since the early 2000s, particularly through the foundation of the School of Mary. I developed, to the best of my ability, a full formation program, at least for the first three years.

However, due to recent circumstances, I have come to realise that the universality of the “Universal Call to Holiness” as presented by Vatican II is, in practice, an illusion—perhaps even an error. In theory, the concept is correct. In reality, however, I find it to be a perfect example of a theological and ecclesiological syllogism that was inserted rather abruptly into Lumen Gentium, without any practical or historical context. I anticipate the objection: But it is in the Gospel! The Lord says: ‘Be holy as I am holy.’ (cf. Lev 19:2, 1 Pet 1:16). Yet the source of the “Universal Call to Holiness” in Vatican II is primarily ecclesiological (since Lumen Gentium is a document on the Church). It follows a simple logical structure:

  1. Jesus is holy.
  2. The Church, His Bride, must be holy (“I believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”).
  3. All the baptised are part of the Church.
  4. Therefore, all the baptised are called to holiness.

But this is a tavolino conclusion—something reasoned out at a desk, without real awareness of the lived experience. It lacks any understanding of the practical, psychological, and spiritual realities involved: the spiritual warfare, the courage, the audacity, the perseverance, the flexibility, the openness, and the length and roughness of the journey required for true holiness. Even St. John of the Cross explicitly states that not all are called to the highest degrees of union (cf. Dark Night).

Note: To offer a fairer and more nuanced perspective, it is worth recalling that, at the beginning of the twentieth century, the Church witnessed a renewal in spiritual theology, then commonly referred to as ascetico-mystical theology. Fr Arintero OP made a considerable contribution to this renewal, particularly by revisiting our understanding of Baptism and the universal call to Christian perfection.

What, then, is the object of our hope?

Before the “second conversion,” the goal remains “eternal life,” the beatific vision, as it has always been and remains (cf.St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II). In a parish setting, one cannot immediately preach about mystical union; people must first digest and assimilate their Catechism, commit to parish life, and only then gradually draw closer to the second conversion—that deeper encounter with the Risen Lord. There are various paths to this second conversion: joining a prayer group, the Charismatic Renewal, or other movements where God intervenes with His boundless mercy in a person’s life. He also intervenes in many other ways. He is free to exercise his Mercy the way He wants.

But don’t many experience a second conversion?

Yes, many do. But among them, the majority lack the courage, openness, and audacity to continue the journey. Most will stop at the Union of Will (See St. Teresa of Avila, Interior Castle, Fifth Mansions). They will speak about holiness, and for them, holiness will mean precisely this Union of Will—a life of faithfulness, regularity, prayer, service, waiting for death and the beatific vision. However, this interpretation of holiness is ersatz—a mere substitute. To reduce holiness to Union of Will is a tour de force—it entirely misses the point! This is a human holiness, one in which the deeper purification of the roots has not yet taken place.

In Dark Night, St. John of the Cross seems to suggest that not all are called to the same heights of union/holiness—the same intensity or length of purification.

To illustrate this with the Gospel: we all have before us the Passion of the Lord, but in reality, we do not undergo His Passion with the same fullness and intensity. Not all of us possess the same natural strength or resilience. Our journeys differ; many become absorbed in the distractions of the world and forget God until the last moment—even if they are baptised.

Consider the Parable of the Talents: one receives five, another two, and the last one only one. And the Gospel says: “to each according to his ability” (Matthew 25:15, ESV). Is this merely about talents and charisms, gratiae gratis datae? Or could it also refer to the general capacities required to endure the difficulties of spiritual growth? Even if we have gratiae gratis datae, charisms, and talents, we still need the solidity to carry them and use them properly.

“Many are called” (read: all the baptised are called), but only a few are chosen (read: only a few are elect) (cf. Matthew 22:14).

Is there a “minimalist” holiness?

I believe that some reach a high degree of realisation, while others merely pass—like students just scraping by in an exam. St. Thérèse of Lisieux expressed her desire to attain the maximum of what God was offering her. This means she could have chosen to receive less! She said: “I want everything”, acknowledging that not all ask for or seek everything.

Furthermore, I believe that some can compensate for others in the eyes of God. This is a great mystery and it pleases God to see the love many of his saints had for him and for their brothers, a love that pushed them to participate into his Passion for the salvation of their brothers and sisters.

A Shift in Ecclesiology?

Before Vatican II, the Church traditionally recognized three categories:

  1. The baptised
  2. The clergy
  3. Those called to perfection (e.g., religious life)

Lumen Gentium challenged this tripartite structure by declaring that all are called to holiness—not just some. It put together 1 and 3 under one category. Yet, paradoxically, the Council still upheld religious life as a deepening of baptism, a privileged call, while denying that it formed a separate third category.

Is the Church canonising those who stop at Union of Will?

Are there safeguards? At the very least, a miracle is required—an intervention of God to confirm sanctity. Do some slip through the cracks? It is well known that the canonisation process is costly, and only wealthy communities can afford it. I have heard this, though I do not know the details. Still, there are various levels of holiness! Different missions, different categories: Martyrs, Doctors, Virgins, Saints, etc.

Does the Church risk lowering the standard of holiness?

The Church, after all, is “selling” holiness to its people. The key questions remain: What is holiness? Who is holy? How did they become holy? We need to work on having the proper answers to these question, otherwise, yes, we could be “lowering the standard” and “selling” holiness cheaply.

Returning to my earlier point: I believe instead of throwing holiness to the public place to adopt a system of closed circles—not secrecy, but discernment. Do not throw pearls before swine (cf. Matthew 7:6). Many of the writings of the great Spiritual Masters, I fear, could be misunderstood or misused. The Lord Himself taught in different ways: to His disciples, He explained everything, but to the crowds, He spoke in parables, according to their capacity (cf. Mark 4:33-34). The Gospel itself withholds deeper teaching from a certain point onward. There is a bivio—a fork in the road of the Lord’s teaching. By the way, this is how is occurred during these last 20 centuries: we had monasteries and in the middle ages we had Convents and Beguinages for lay persons.

Are we offering a lower form of holiness?

Are those who are not called to religious life still receiving a lesser version of holiness? All are called, yet religious life remains a privileged state?

Have we shifted from the old threefold structure (baptised, clergy, and those called to perfection) to a new model:

  1. Called to Holiness Level 1
  2. Called to Holiness Level 2 (including the consecrated)
  3. The clergy (who are also called to holiness)

In essence, have we replaced the third category (those not called to perfection) with a new category: those called to perfection—but at a lower level? This will not change the reality that the vast majority will always be those who merely “pass.” They may spend eternity in gratitude for God’s mercy, but as Thérèse said, their capacity will not grow, though it will be full.