E. SYLVESTER BERRY, D.D. THE CHURCH OF CHRIST (Part II)

 PART II. DOGMATIC. ORGANIZATION AND POWERS OF THE CHURCH

Chapter V. The Mystical Body of Christ.....192

Chapter VI. Members of the Church ......212

Chapter VII. Authority of the Church .....246

Chapter VIII. Rulers  of the Church .....264

Chapter IX. The Primacy of Peter Promised .....296

Chapter X. The Primacy of Peter Conferred....328

Chapter XI. Successors of St. Peter ....346

Chapter XII. Primacy and the Episcopate.....394

Chapter XIII. Infallible Teaching Authority.....426

Chapter XIV. Infallibility of the Bishops .... 456

Chapter XV. Infalibility of the Roman Pontiff....472 

Chapter XVI. Extent of Infallibility.....503 

Chapter XVII. Church and State....512

Ar t . I. Va r io u s Th e o r ie s o n Ch u r c h a n d St a t e . 512 

Ar t . II. Ca t h o l ic Do c t r in e o n Ch u r c h a n d St a t e 518 § 1. Church and State Distinct and Perfect Societies ...........................................................519 § 2. State Indirectly Subordinate to Church . .521 § 3. State and Church in Mutual Support . . .527 

Ar t . III. Mu t u a l Rig h t s a n d Du t ie s . . . .529 

Ar t . IV. Va r io u s Co n d it io n s Co n s id e r e d . . .537 

Ar t . V. Ro ma n Po n t if f a n d Se c u l a r Ru l e r s . . 540 § 1. Secular Rulers indirectly Subject to Roman Pontiff........................................ 541 § 2. Roman Pontiff exempt from Civil Authority . 544 § 3. Temporal Power Necessary ..... 545 

CHAPTER V. THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST 

In describing the Church as the body of Christ, St. Paul sets forth its real nature in a manner that could never be known from a mere study of its external organization and powers. When understood in this light, the Church stands out in all the glory of her divine majesty, and the ineffable union of her members with Christ is clearly perceived. This conception of the Church also sheds much light upon other doctrines, particularly upon the nature and operation of the Sacraments. “The Apostle surely was well aware how wonderful was the truth which he was communicating when he affirmed Christians to be members of Christ’s body* from His Flesh and from His Bones; for he himself declared it to be a great mystery.1 . . . The mystical Body of Christ has an organic life like His Body natural; for Christ was personally Incarnate in that Body which was slain, but by power and presence will He be Incarnate in His Church till the end of the world. As the Gospels are the record of His Presence in the one, so is Church History that of His Presence in the other.” 2 

1 Ephes, v, 30-32. 2 B. I. Wilberforce, “Principles of Church Authority,” p. 29

The Church as the body of Christ must be a living body; therefore, it is necessary to inquire, (1) in what sense it is the body of Christ, and (2) what is its lifegiving principle; its soul. 

ART. I. THE CHURCH AS THE BODY OF CHRIST 

We often speak of a body of men and we refer to societies as bodies; in fact, certain organizations are known officially as corporations, from the Latin corpus —a body. In the days of St. Paul such usage was unknown. The Greek σώμα {body} was never used in reference to a society, nor κ^αλη {head} for its chief ruler. In Latin corpus {body} was sometimes used to designate a band of soldiers, but the modern use of the word to designate a society seems to be in imitation of St. Paul. It is evident, then, that the Apostle wished to convey some special doctrine when he called the Church a σώμα; it is no mere figure of speech. There is, of course, a striking similarity between the Church as a society and a human body; both are composed of members, each having its own peculiar duties or functions, yet all working together for the good of the whole. “.4s in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same office. So we being many, qre_one body in Christ and every one members one oj another:"1 But St. Paul goes beyond this mere external similarity by which any society may be called a body; he not only compares the Church to a human body, but also calls it the body oj Christ: “He gave some apostles and some prophets . . . for the edifying oj the body of christ .” 2 Elsewhere he says: “Now you are the body of christ and members oj membery 3 Again he says: “For as the body is one and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ” [i.e., the Church].4 Writing to the Colossians, he says: “And he is head of the body, the Churchy 5 

The mere fact that Christ is Head of the Church is not sufficient to make it His body. A king or ruler is often called the head of his people, but they are never referred to as his body, neither are they called his members. This proves that the bonds of union in the Church are far different from those found in mere human societies. The members of a human society are united to their head by moral bonds only, i. e., by mutual rights and duties; there is no physical connection of member with member, or of members with the head. In the Church, the members are united one with another, and all with Christ, their Head, by_ the real physicalG bond of supernatural grace flowing from the Head into each and every member, thus making them partakers of His divine nature: “He hath given us most great and precious promises, that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature.” ' So real is this union between Christ and His faithful that St. Paul could say: “I live, now not I, but Christ livcth in me.” 7 8 *10For the same reason he says that by Baptism we are ~concorporated with Christ, being engrafted, as it were into His bodyAJ 

7 2 Pet i, 4. 6 Gal. ii, 20. s Rom. vi, 5 (Greek text). 10 Ephes, i, 21-23. 

According to this doctrine of St. Paul, the union between Christ and the Church must be in every respect analogous to that between head and members in the human body, where the head holds the position of eminence and direction, exercises a vivifying influence, and together with the members forms one complete whole, the body: 

a) Preeminence. In the human body the head occupies the most prominent position, being placed above all other members to guard and direct them. In like manner, Christ occupies the position of preeminence; He sits at the right hand of God the Father, whence He looks out, as it were, upon His Church, to guard and direct it: “Above all principality, and power, and virtue, and domination, and every name that is named not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. And He hath subjected all things under his feet, and hath made hint head over all the Church which is his body, and the fulness of him who is filled all in all.” 10

The head also excels all other members of the body, particularly because it contains the brain, the seat of all the senses and the intellectual faculties which direct every bodily power and all their activities. So also does Christ, in His divine perfection, excel by far every other member of His mystical Body, whose every power and activity He directs. “Our Head intercedes for us at the right hand of the Father; some He receives as members; some He punishes, others He cleanses; some He consoles, others He creates; some He calls, others He recalls; some He corrects, others He reinstates.” 11 St. Paul compares Christ’s fostering care for His Church to that of a bridegroom for his bride: “Christ also loved the Church and delivered himself up for it, that he might sanctify it .. . that he might present it to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish . . . for no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it; so also Christ doth his Church, because we arc members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones.” 12 

/;) Vivifying Influence. The vitalizing forces of the human body reside principally in the head, whence impulses go out along the tiny nerve filaments to every cell, directing its activities and thus enabling it to discharge its proper functions. In like manner, impressions received in any portion of the body are carried back along the nerve fibres to the brain. Any member cut off from this union with the head by a severance of its nerves, soon decays and ceases to be a member of the body. So also in the Church, the vivifying power of grace resides in Jesus Christ, its Head, whence it flows into every member, thus uniting him with Christ and enabling him to perform supernatural acts. “I am the vine” says Christ, “and you the branches; he that abideth in vie, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit; for without me you can do nothing. Jf any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither.” 13 As the branches of a vine draw from it the life-giving sap, so do the members of Christ’s mystical body draw from Him the lifegiving principle of grace. This is done principally in the Sacraments, especially in the Holy Eucharist, where we are corporally united with Christ, as St. Paul explains: “The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?” 14 

c) Intimate Union. In the material body, head and members are physiologically united to form one complete whole; neither the head nor the trunk is complete without the other. In like manner the Church is so united with Christ as Head that St. Paul does not hesitate to call the resulting whole by the very name of Christ himself: “As the body is one and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ.” 15 Here the Apostle plainly applies the name Christ to the Church. In another place he says that we grow together in Christ as the members of a natural body with their head : “Doing the truth in charity we may in all things grow up in him who is the head, even Christ from whom the whole body being compacted and fitly jointed together, by what every joint supplieth according to the operation in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in charity.” 1,5 These words represent Christ as dwelling within the Church, where He operates through every joint and member, that we all may grow together with Him {concrescamus cum illoj, and be ever more closely united with Him through charity. The Church, then, is not merely a society of men instituted by Christ and subject to His authority; it is also a society of men so intimately and physically united with Him that it may be called the Body of Christ or Christ Himself. 

The Fullnesss of Christ. St. Paul also calls the Church the fulness of Christ {plenitudo Christi), for he says: “And he hath subjected all things under his feet, and hath made him head over all the Church which is his body and. the fulness of him who is filled all in all.”17 St. Thomas explains this as follows: “If any one should ask, why the natural body has such varied members,—hands, feet, mouth, and the like, —we reply: That they may serve the different operations proceeding from the soul as their principle and cause . . . The body was made for the soul, not the soul for the body; therefore, the natural body is the julness (or complement) of the soul. Unless the body be complete in all its members, the soul could not completely perform its varied operations. So also with Christ and the Church, which was instituted on His account and is, therefore, rightly called His julness.” 18 The Church is the instrument in which and through which Christ ordinarily exercises His divine power in the world. 

Mystical Body. The Church is called the mystical body of Christ, to distinguish it from a natural physical body on the one hand, and from a mere moral body on the other. The word mystical shows that the Church is not a body hypostatically united to the Word after the manner of Christ’s human nature. It also shows that the Church is not a merely natural society, in which the members are united to their head by the simple bonds of rights and duties. The Church far surpasses such societies, because her members are actually and physically united to Christ by means of supernatural grace. The Church is called a mystical body also because many mysteries of faith underlie this union with Christ,—a union which “the sensual man perceiveth not” ; 19 it can be known by faith alone.20 

Corollaries.—I. Channels oj Grace. The natural body is ecpiipped with various systems of organs for carrying on the processes of life. The most important of these are the circulatory system and the nervous system. The former consists of a wonderful net-work of arteries, veins, and capillaries, through which the life-bearing stream of blood flows to every cell of the body. This system is regulated in its every part by a net-work of nerves, which have their common centre in the brain. In the mystical body of Christ the Sacraments are the arteries through which the life-giving streams of grace flow into each and every soul. For this reason they are often called the channels oj grace. The nervous system of the natural body is here replaced by the ministerial power of the Church; her priests participate in the priesthood of Christ to direct the flow of grace through the Sacraments which they administer.

 II. The Second Adam. St. Paul's conception of the Church as the mystical body of Christ is intimately connected with the doctrine of original sin, upon which he insists so strongly. Adam was endowed with supernatural gifts, not only as an individual, but also as head of the whole human family. Eve was formed from his side that this “bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh” might become the mother of all living, who would thus form one body with Adam as its head. Every member of that body was to participate in the blessings bestowed upon its head, but by Adam’s disobedience those blessings were lost, and we as members of his body share in his guilt as well as in his loss: “By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passes upon all men, in whom all have sinned.”21 We are members of a diseased body, and the history of mankind is the history of that body reaching out through time and space, with its deepening malady of sin in the individual and in society. This is the mystery oj original sin: without any act or will on our part we share in the guilt of our common head. But “where the obscurity of the fall was deepest, the light of the restoration is brightest; and where the sentence was most severe, the grace was most wonderful.” 22 The divine Word assumed human nature in order to become a second Adam,—a second head of the human family: “The first man Adam was made into a living sold; the last Adam into a quickening spirit.” 23 

The Church formed from the side of Christ, “bone of His bone, and flesh of His flesh,” becomes the mother of a new race, who also form a body with Christ as Head, and “as there is a unity of the fallen Adam ... so much the more is there a unity of the second Adam which is not a collection of individuals, but a body with its Head.” 24 As in the mystical body of Adam we inherit his guilt without any fault of our own, so likewise in the mystical body of Christ we inherit His graces without any merits on our part. “Where sin abozinded, grace did more abound.” 25 In the history of the Church we see the body of the second Adam reaching out into time and space with its ever increasing blessings for the individual and for society. Eve still bears children of men to the first Adam, but the Church bears children of Christ to the second Adam. “These are not two mysteries, but one, unfathomable in both its parts of justice and mercy; but the whole history of the human race bears witness to the first, and the whole history of the Christian people, to the second . . . Our Lord stands in the midst of His Church visibly forming from day to day and from age to age that Body of His which reaches through the ages. He takes from Himself and gives to us. He incorporates Himself in His children. He grow’s up in us, and by visible streams from His heart maintains the life first given.” 20

ART. II. THE SOUL OF THE CHURCH 

“The Church,” says Leo XIII, “is not something dead; it is the body of Christ endowed with supernatural life.” 1 Therefore, the Church must possess the two elements essential to every living body,—it must have an external organism and an internal principle of life,—a body and a soul. In the Mystical Body of Christ, the external organism is the Church, considered merely as a society of faithful with Christ as their Head. It possesses all the organs necessary for the vital functions of such a body; it has Sacraments, a Sacrifice, an organized hierarchy, authority, and various institutions to promote supernatural life. But all these are as nothing unless they be animated by a lifegiving principle. There must be a soul to vivify them with supernatural life and constitute them the Mystical Body of Christ, just as the human soul vivifies the natural body of man and constitutes it a human body. 

The vital activities of the Church consist in the distribution of supernatural grace to her members and the supernatural acts performed by them through its aid. The principle or source of these activities can be none other than the Holy Ghost, by whom “the charity oj God is poured jorth in our hearts,” 2 for to Him is appropriated the work of sanctification. Therefore the Holy Ghost is the Soul of the Church; the principle of supernatural life, who unites with the external organism of the Church to make it a living body, a divine body, the Body of Christ. For this reason St. Augustine says: “What the soul is to the body, that the Holy Ghost is to the body of Christ, which is the Church. What the Holy Ghost does in the whole Church, that the soul does in all the members of each body.” 3 The Holy Ghost is the informing element in the Mystical Body of Christ, and its vital principle. 

3 “Sermon.,” 267, 4; P. L., 38, 1213. 4 1 Cor. iii, 16. 0 Gal. iv, 6. 

a) Informing Principle. In the language of Scholastic philosophy, the informing principle, or formal cause of a thing is that constitutive part which unites with the material element to form a complete entity of a particular kind. A human soul, for example, is the informing principle that unites with a material body to form the one complete entity, a man. The soul does not act upon the body from without, but dwells within and unites with every part to vivify it and to coordinate it with every other part. The Holy Ghost informs the Church in a similar manner; He dwells within it by a real substantial presence and is, in a sense, substantially united with its every member. The Church, taken as a society, is the material element, the organism whose every member is vivified by the indwelling presence of the Holy Ghost and through Him united with every other member and with Christ the Head, thus constituting the Mystical Body of Christ. This is the teaching of St. Paul who says: “Know you not that you arc the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God· dwelleth in you?” 4 Again he says: “And because you are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts crying; Abba, Father.” $ Christ himself also promised that the Holy Ghost should dwell with His Church for all time: “And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever. ... He shall abide with you and shall be in you.” 6 

6 John xiv, 16-17. T “Oratio in Pentecosten”; P G., 36, 443. ’‘‘Thesaurus de Trinitate”; P. G., 75, 593. 9 “Expositio in Ps. Poenit.” (author unknown); P. L., 79, 602. 

The early Fathers are explicit in their teaching on this subject. St. Gregory Nazianzen says: “Now the Holy Ghost is given more perfectly, for He is no longer given by His [mere] operation, as of old, but is present with us, so to speak, and converses with us in a substantial manner.”7 St. Cyril of Alexandria says: ‘‘The Holy Ghost works in us by Himself, truly sanctifying us and uniting us to Himself . . . makes us partakers of the divine nature.”8 Another ancient author says: “The holy universal Church is one body constituted under Christ the Head . . . and as the soul is one which quickens the various members of the body, so the Holy Spirit quickens and illuminates the w’hole Church. For as Christ, who is the Head of the Church, was conceived by the Holy Ghost, so the holy Church which is His Body, is filled with the same Spirit, that it may have life, and is confirmed by His power that it may subsist in the bond of one faith and charity.”9 Therefore, as Cardinal Manning says: “We are under the personal direction of the Third Person as truly as the Apostles were under the guidance of the Second. The presence of the Eternal Son by incarnation, was the centre of their unity; the presence of the Eternal Spirit, by the incorporation of the mystical body, is the centre of unity for us.” 10 

ό) Vital Principle. All our vital activities,—acts of intellect and will, sensation, and even the bodily functions of nourishment and growth,—proceed in some way from the soul as their ultimate source. In like manner all activities in the Mystical Body of Christ proceed from the Holy Ghost: “There are diversities oj graces but the same Spirit ... to one indeed, by the Spirit is given the word oj wisdom; and to another, the word oj knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another, faith in the same Spirit; to another, the grace oj healing in one Spirit; to another, the working oj miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, the discerning oj spirits; to another, interpretation oj speeches. But all these things one and the same Spirit worketh, dividing to every one according as he will; for the body is one, and hath many members; and all the members of the body whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is ChristT 11 In this passage St. Paul represents the Church as the body of Christ, whose members have varied functions to perform, but the Holy Ghost is the source of all power to perform them; from Him flows the diversities of graces. All our supernatural virtues find their source in the graces of the Holy Ghost: “The fruit oj the Spirit is charity, joy, peace patience, . . . mildness, faith, modesty, continency.” 12 13 Even the simplest prayer comes only from a soul united in some manner with the Holy Ghost, for “no man can say the Lord Jesus but by the Holy Ghost,12 who also helpeth our infirmity. For we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit himself asketh for us with unspeakable groanings.” 14 

12 Gal. v, 22, 23. 131 Cor. xii, 3. 14 Rom. viii, 26. “Sermon.,” 267, 4; P. L., 38, 1231. 

St. Augustine aptly describes the office of the Holy Ghost in His capacity as Soul of the Church. He says: “The spirit by which man lives is called the soul. Now see what the soul does in the body; it gives life to all the members; it sees through the eyes, hears through the ears, smells through the nostrils; with the tongue it speaks, with the hands it works, with the feet it walks. It is present in every member to give it life; it apportions to every part its proper function. . . . What the soul is to the body, that the Holy Ghost is to the Church. . . . Through some He works miracles, in others He speaks truth, in others He preserves virginity. In some He does one thing, in others another thing, but each has his proper task, yet all alike live by Him.” 15 

A similarity between the soul of our natural body and the Soul of the Church is seen even in the bodily functions of assimiliation and growth. Under the direction of the soul, food is prepared and received into the body, where it is digested and assimilated by activities which proceed likewise from the soul; the food then becomes an integral part of the body, united to the soul and vivified by it. In like manner the Holy Ghost prepares men by His graces for union with the Church; through Baptism He unites them to Himself and makes them members of Christ’s Mystical body: “For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body.” 16 

Corollaries.—I. Creation oj the Mystical Body. The formation of the Mystical Body of Christ bears a striking similarity to the creation of the first man. Adam’s body was formed from the slime of the earth and did not become man until God breathed into it the living soul. The Church was instituted by Christ, when He sent forth the Apostles with authority to teach, govern and sanctify, but it remained a lifeless body, as it were, until Christ ascended to the Father and breathed upon it the Spirit of Life; the Holy Ghost descended upon the Church and it became a living body,—the Mystical Body of Christ. Hence the coming of the Holy Ghost on that first Pentecost was in reality the creation of the Church. 

There is another noteworthy parallel between the formation of Christ’s natural body and that of His Mystical Body. When the Word was about to assume human form, the angel announced to the chosen Virgin: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power oj the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”17 Before ascending into Heaven, Our Lord makes a similar announcement to His Apostles and disciples: “You shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you ... I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay you in the city till you be endued with power from on high.” 18 The natural body was formed by the action of the Holy Ghost within the body of the Virgin Mary; the Mystical Body, by the same Spirit acting within the little band or body of Apostles and disciples. 

II. Indissoluble Union. Before the coming of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost, He had been united with individual souls by His work of enlightening and sanctifying, but this union was conditioned upon the cooperation and fidelity of individuals. His union with the Church is an indissoluble union of personal and substantial indwelling. The union with individual souls is still conditional; it still depends upon fidelity to grace; but the union with the Church is unconditional and indissoluble; “The Father shall give you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for ever.” 19 Individuals may fail; the Church cannot fail. “Individuals may fall from it, as multitudes have fallen; provinces and nations, particular churches may fall from it; but the body still remains, its unity undivided, its life indefectible. . . . The line of faith, hope and charity is never dissolved. The threefold cord cannot be broken, and the ever-blessed Trinity always inhabits His tabernacle upon earth,—the souls of the elect who “are builded together into an habitation oj God the Spirit.” 20 From this indissoluble union of Body, Head and indwelling Spirit flow all the attributes and properties of the Church,—unity, sanctity, authority, infallibility and the like. 

III. Membership. There is a widely accepted theory that the soul of the Church is wider in extent than the body; that many persons belong to the soul of the Church who are in no wise connected with her external organization. This theory seems to have been invented to explain the axiom ‘Out of the Church no salvation,” 21 but it is not tenable if we carry out the doctrine of the Mystical Body. In the natural body nothing pertains in any way to the soul unless it be physiologically connected with the body. Once a member is severed from the body, it ceases to be animated by the soul; it loses all life and immediately decays. In like manner, any part of the body that ceases to receive any life-giving influence from the soul, also decays and sloughs off; it ceases to be a part of the body. Now, since the Church is an organic body, vivified by the Holy Ghost as its life-giving principle, no person can belong to the one unless he belongs also in some degree to the other. He who belongs to the soul of the Church, must therefore also belong to her body, and he who belongs to her body, must also belong to her soul. A member may be diseased, because the lifegiving influence of the soul is impeded or lessened; but once all influence ceases, the member is dead,—he is no longer a portion of Christ’s Mystical Body. 

The Fathers of the Church strongly insist upon this doctrine. For example, St. Augustine says: “But see what ye have to beware of, to watch over, and to fear. In the body of man it may happen that a member, the hand, the finger or foot may be cut off. Does the soul follow the severed member? While it was in the body, it was alive; cut off, its life is lost. So a man is a Christian and a Catholic while he is alive in the body; cut off, he becomes a heretic. The Holy Ghost does not follow the amputated limb.” 22

pag 229

CHAPTER VI. MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH 

In studying man, we may turn our attention to the nature and powers of the soul, or we may examine the organic structure of his body and investigate the functions of its various parts. Finally, we may investigate the manner in which body and soul are united, the action of one upon the other and the nature of the composite being resulting from their union. The striking analogy between the Mystical Body of Christ and the natural body of man suggests a similar method of treatment for both. The nature of the mystical body resulting from the union of the Church with Christ as its Head, and with the Holy Ghost as its Soul, was considered in the preceding chapter. This and the following chapters are devoted to the anatomy and physiology of the Church: the one considers its organic structure, i. e.f the members who compose it and the manner in which they are united to constitute the Church of Christ; the other investigates the acts by which all conspire to a common end and the power or authority by which these acts are performed. 

The members of the Church constitute its material cause; the authority by which their union into a society is preserved and directed, may be considered the formal cause. The material cause of a society is either proximate or remote: the former consists of those who actually compose the society; the latter, those who are eligible for membership. The whole human race constitutes the remote matter for the Church, since it was established for the salvation of all men, regardless of race, color, or condition. The proximate matter of the Church consists of those who fulfill the necessary conditions of membership and thereby become constituent parts of her organization. 

In order to arrive at a proper conception of these matters, it is necessary (1) to consider some errors regarding the conditions of membership in the Church, (2) to establish the true conditions, (3) to point out those who certainly do not belong to the Church, (4) to consider certain classes whose membership is doubtful, and (5) to prove the necessity of membership in the Church. 

ART. I. FALSE CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP 

Wyclif, Huss, and Calvin taught that none but the predestined 1 are members of the Church. According to Wyclif and Huss all the predestined without exception belong to the Church; according to Calvin, only such as are predestined to accept the true faith of Christ. Luther taught that all the just, and they alone, belong to the Church; he thus made the state of grace the one necessary condition for membership in the Church. This seems to be the prevailing doctrine among Protestants of the present day, at least among those who maintain that the true Church of Christ is invisible. The visible churches may contain sinners, but not the Church invisible. 

§ 1. Predestination as a Condition 

Thesis.—Predestination is not a condition for membership in the Church; much less is it the only condition

 This thesis is an article of faith, as appears from the condemnation of the following propositions at the Council of Constance: “There is but one holy and universal Church, i. e.} the Church which consists of all the predestined,” and “The grace of predestination is the bond by which the Church and all its members are indissolubly joined to Christ the Head.” 1 

Proof,  a) It has been proved that the Church is essentially an external, visible society; therefore, all members of this visible society are members of the Church. But predestination is not a condition for membership in this visible society, as Christ himself teaches by the parable of the wheat and the cockle.

The field is the Church, the wheat and the cockle are the members, who will not be separated until the day of judgment. The cockle to be gathered up and burned at the harvest cannot be those who are predestined to eternal life, yet they too are represented as members of the Church, since the cockle continues to grow in the field together with the wheat. Likewise, in the parable of the net cast into the sea, the bad fish are as truly a part of the draught taken as the good, yet they cannot be those destined to eternal life, since they are to be separated from the good at the shore, i. e.f on the day of judgment. In the parable of the banquet, the man cast forth into the darkness because he had not on a wedding garment could not have been predestined, yet he was actually a guest and partook of the banquet as really as those who were properly arrayed for the occasion.2

 b) If predestination were the only condition for membership in the Church, it would follow that all who are predestined to eternal life, are actually members of the Church, although they may be Mahometans, pagans, or even atheists at present. It would also be useless to send missionaries to pagan lands, since all those who are predestined to be saved are already members of the Church. 

c) The predestined are known to God alone; therefore, the Church must be invisible if none but the predestined belong to it. Pastors could not recognize their flock, nor the flock its pastors. St. Paul’s admonition to the pastors of Ephesus would have been useless: “Take heed to yoiirselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops to rule the Church of God.” 3 All authority would be impossible and the duty of obedience would cease. Hence Calvin and Luther were strictly logical when they taught, contrary to the express words of Christ, that the Church is invisible. 

§ 2. The State of Grace as a Condition 

Thesis.—The state of grace is not a condition for membership in the Church 

This also seems to be a defined doctrine of the Church, as appears from the condemnation of several propositions that at least imply the necessity of sanctifying grace for membership in the Church. Among these may be mentioned the following condemned by Clement XI: “A mark of the Christian Church is that it is Catholic, comprising, as it does, ah the angels of heaven and all the elect and just on earth during all the centuries”; and “The Church, which is Christ entire, has the Word Incarnate as Head and all the just as members.” 1 

Proofs, a) This theory also destroys the Church by making it invisible, since the just as well as the predestined can be known only to God. It seems probable that Luther and his followers adopted this doctrine when they were forced to accept the theory of an invisible Church, as mentioned above.2 At any rate, the two doctrines are so intimately related that either one logically leads to the other. 

2 Sec above, pp. 73. 3 Matt, xiii, 41. 4 2 Tim. ii, 20-23. 

b) Holy Scripture plainly teaches that sinners will always be found among the members of Christ’s Church on earth. The parables of the wheat and the cockle, of the good and bad fish, and of the man without a wedding garment, show that just and unjust, saints and sinners will be found mingled together in the Church until the end of the world, for then only will “the Son of man send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all scandals, and them that work iniquity.”3 Those who work iniquity cannot be gathered out of the kingdom, unless they be in the kingdom. 

St. Paul admonishes Timothy how to conduct himself toward the faithful. He says: “In a great- house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some indeed unto honor, but some unto dishonor.”4 The vessels unto honor are the just; those unto dishonor, the unjust, as is evident from the words which immediately follow those just quoted: “If any man, therefore, shall cleanse himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified and profitable to the Lord, prepared unto every good work.” According to St. Paul, therefore, the great house of the Church contains vessels unto honor and vessels unto dishonor, i. e.> both saints and sinners. 

c) The very purpose for which the Church was instituted would be in a large measure frustrated if all sinners were excluded from membership; the Sacraments, the greatest means of sanctification, would have to be denied them, and the Church’s influence over them would be indirect and of slight effect. We cannot conceive that Christ founded a Church to save all men, and at the same time excluded those who stand most in need of its ministrations. 

§3. Objections Considered 

Objection I.—The Church could not be holy if sinners were numbered amongst her members. 

Answer .—This objection has been answered in connection with the holiness of the Church.1 It may be noted, however, that the personal sanctity of the Church need not be perfect, and may vary from time to time, but can never be entirely lost. There will always be a large number of holy persons in the Church, even though the sinners may at times outnumber them. 

Objection II.—No one can be a member of Christ and a member of Satan at the same time, yet St. John says: “He that commiteth sin is oj the devil.” 2 

Answer .—A person cannot belong to two societies that are opposed to each other, but he may belong to a society and yet act in a manner derogatory to it. A sinner belongs to the Church, because he retains at least the supernatural gifts of faith and hope, and preserves the other bonds of union; he belongs to the devil in so far as he imitates him in his actions. A sinner does not become a member of the devil in the same sense that he is a member of Christ, because the devil has no mystical body; his imitators form no real society. 

Objetion III.—When speaking of certain sinners, St. John says: “They went ont from us, but they were not oj us. For if they had been of us, they woidd no doubt have remained with us.” 3 These words leave no doubt that these sinners were not members of the Church; they were not of us. 

An s w e r .—In this passage St. John is not speaking of sinners in general, but of certain men, whom he calls Antichrists, because they had “denied the Father and· the Son.” Consequently they were heretics and as such did not belong to the Church, as will be proved elsewhere.4 

Ob je c t io n IV.—If sinners are members of the Church here, they must also be members hereafter, since death is a mere separation of body and soul that in no way affects man’s spiritual condition. But such a conclusion is manifestly absurd. 

An s w e r .—The conclusion is not only absurd, but also unfounded. God, who ordained that sinners may be members of the Church in this life, also ordained that they shall not be members in the life to come. This is evident from the many passages in which Christ foretells eternal death for all sinners who die impenitent. Moreover, death severs all the bonds by which sinners arc united to the body of the faithful in this life. After death there remains to them neither faith, hope, nor charity, and there is no external bond of union with the just.

 Ob je c t io n V.—In many passages of his work on Baptism, St. Augustine teaches that sinners do not belong to the Church. 

An s w e r .—These passages must be interpreted in the light of others, where St. Augustine proves at length against the Donatists that sinners may be true members of the Church. Moreover, we have the Saint’s own interpretation of these passages. He says: “Wherever in those books [on Baptism] I have referred to the Church as not having spot or wrinkle, I do not mean the Church as it is, but as it shall appear when glorified.”

ART. II. TRUE CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP 

Conditions for membership in the Church, as in every other society, include those things which are absolutely necessary to make one a member in the true sense of the word. There is no question about the conditions necessary to make a perfect member, or even a good member. St. Paul compares the Church to a house, in which there are vessels unto honor and vessels unto dishonor, yet all are vessels in the true sense of the term, and all belong to the house. In this connection we do not ask why they are honorable or dishonorable, but simply why they are vessels at all. 

Initiation. The first condition for membership is deduced from the social nature of the Church. No one becomes a member of any society unless he is received into it by proper authority, and made a participant in its benefits according to his capacity. The official act of receiving a person into a society must be manifested externally in some manner. This is usually done by a symbolic act, known as the rite of initiation. The initiatory rite of the Church was instituted by Christ himself, when He sent forth the Apostles to make disciples of all nations: “Going therefore, teach (μαθητεύσατε) all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” 1 Baptism, therefore, is the rite of initiation into the Church; hence St. Paul says: “In one Spirit were we all baptized into one body.” 1 2 For this reason also the Council of Trent calls Baptism the door by which we enter the Church,3 and Eugenius IV in his decree pro Armenis says: “By Baptism we are made members of Christ and of His Body, the Church.”

Profession of Faith . Every member of a society must accept its end and aims according to his ability, and he must strive, at least in some degree, to realize those aims. He that rejects the purposes of a society thereby rejects the society itself; he can neither become a member, nor remain one if already received into the society. The practice of the Christian religion, which consists in the external profession of Christian faith, is the proximate end to be obtained in the Church. Therefore, external profession of faith is an essential condition for membership. Moreover, the Church must be one in the external profession of faith, consequently he that severs this bond of unity is separated from the body of the Church, i. e., he ceases to be a member. 

Subjection to Authority . The very existence of a society depends upon the subjection of its members to authority; therefore he that rejects the authority of a society, rejects the society itself and ceases to be a member. Neither can the end of a society be realized unless the members be directed by its authority in their common endeavors to that end. Therefore, rejecting the authority of a society is tantamount to rejecting its end and aims, which is to reject the society itself. Consequently no one can be a member of any society unless he submits to its authority according to his ability. Furthermore, in regard to the Church, there must be unity in the external profession of the true faith, which Christ committed to the teaching authority of the Church.5 Therefore, the profession of faith necessary for membership in the Church practically resolves itself into submission to her teaching authority. 

Summary of Conditions, I. For adults. The above considerations show tliat three conditions are absolutely necessary and of themselves sufficient for membership in the Church; viz.: 

a) Initiation by Baptism, which gives the right to participate in all the benefits of the Church; 

b) External profession of the true faith, which is had by submission to the teaching authority of the Church; 

c) Submission to the ruling authority of the Church. 

These conditions may be briefly summarized in one phrase: the reception of Baptism and the preservation of the unities,—unity of faith, unity of worship, and unity of government; or, in other words, the reception of Baptism and submission to the teaching and ruling authority of the Church. It should be noted, however, that perfect observance of the unities is not required for mere membership in the Church; a person need not make explicit profession of faith at all times, nor conform all his actions to it. He need not make diligent use of the Sacraments at all times, neither must he be free from all infractions of Church laws and precepts. His transgressions will not exclude from membership unless they amount to total rejection of authority.

 From the principles just established it follows that the adult membership of the Church comprises all those who have been baptized and have not rejected her teaching or ruling authority. 

II. For infants. In the explanations given above it was stated that a member of the Church must submit to her teaching and ruling authority according to his ability, because infants,0 not having the use of reason, are incapable of such submission. They become members of the Church by the valid reception of Baptism, and remain members so long as they do not violate the bonds of unity by their own free act, which, of course, cannot take place before the age of discretion. From this it follows that the validly baptized children of heretics and schismatics are true members of the Catholic Church until they attain the age of discretion and reject the authority of the Church by their own free act. Benedict XIV, writing on this matter, says: “We hold it for certain that those baptized by heretics are separated from the Church and deprived of all the blessings enjoyed by her members, ij they have arrived at the age oj discretion and have adhered to the errors oj their sect.”7 

ART. III. PERSONS EXCLUDED FROM MEMBERSHIP 

Only those who fulfill the three conditions mentioned above, enjoy the privilege of membership in the Church; therefore all unbaptized persons, whether infants or adults, all manifest heretics and schismatics, and those excommunicated as vitandi are excluded. There is one class of unbaptized persons that might seem to have some claims to membership in the Church. These are the catechumens, i. e., persons preparing to receive Baptism. They have fulfilled all the conditions necessary on their part by submitting to the authority of the Church in preparation for Baptism, but the Church has not yet accepted them; consequently they cannot be accounted members. The mind of the Church on this point is expressed in her prayer on Good Friday: “Increase the faith and understanding oj our catechumens, that, being reborn in the font of Baptism, they may be associated with the children of thine adoption.” 1 They are not yet associated with the children of adoption.—they are not yet members of the Church. In the early centuries catechumens were never numbered with the faithful, but formed a class apart and were not even permitted to be present at Mass. 

§ 1. Manifest Heretics and Schismatics 

A heretic is usually defined as a Christian, i. e., a baptized person, who holds a doctrine contrary to revealed truth; but this definition is inaccurate, since it would make heretics of a large portion of the faithful. A doctrine contrary to revealed truth is usually stigmatized as heretical, but a person who professes an heretical doctrine is not necessarily a heretic. Heresy, from the Greek αψεσις , signifies a choosing; therefore a heretic is one who chooses for himself in matters of faith, thereby rejecting the authority of the Church established by Christ to teach all men the truths of revelation. He rejects the authority of the Church by following his own judgment or by submitting to an authority other than that established by Christ. A person who submits to the authority of the Church and wishes to accept all her teachings, is not a heretic, even though he profess heretical doctrines through ignorance of what the Church really teaches; he implicity accepts the true doctrine in his general intention to accept all that the Church teaches. 

A person may reject the teaching authority of the Church knowingly and willingly, or he may do it through ignorance. In the first case he is a formal heretic, guilty of grievous sin; in the second case, he is a material heretic, free from guilt. Both formal and material heresy may be manifest or occult. Heresy is manifest when publicly known to such an extent that its existence could be proved in a court of law; it is occult if not externally manifested by word or act, or if not sufficiently public to allow proof of its existence in court. 

The word schism is derived from the Greek σχίσ/χα, which means a division or separation; hence a schismatic is a Christian who separates from the Church by rejecting her authority. He may do this by refusing submission to his bishop, no less than by rejecting the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff. It is evident, however, that a person does not become a schismatic by a mere act of disobedience; there must be some word or act that involves rejection of authority. Schism, like heresy, may be formal or material, manifest or occult. 

Excluded from Membership. Manifest heretics and schismatics are excluded from membership in the Church. Heretics separate themselves from the unity of faith and worship; schismatics from the unity of government, and both reject the authority of the Church. So far as exclusion from the Church is con1 cerned, it matters not whether the heresy or schism be formal or material. Those born and reared in heresy or schism may be sincere in their belief and practice, yet they publicly and willingly reject the Church and attach themselves to sects opposed to her; they are not guilty of sin in the matter, but they are not members of the Church. For this reason, the Church makes no distinction between formal and material heresy when receiving converts into her fold. 

There is no need to adduce arguments from Scripture or tradition for a truth that is practically selfevident. It may be noted, however, that St. Paul expressly refers to it in his letter to Titus: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid, knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.” 1 In commenting on these words, St. Jerome, says: “An adulterer, a homicide, and other sinners are driven from the Church by the priests [/. e., by excommunication] ; but heretics pass sentence upon themselves, leaving the Church by their own free-will.” 2 St. Augustine gives expression to the same doctrine: “If you do not wish to belong to the Church, . . . separate yourselves from her members, cut yourselves off from her body. But why should I now urge them to leave the Church, since they have already done this? They are heretics, and therefore already out.” 3 

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED 

Ob je c t io n I.—Heretics and schismatics retain the baptismal character, a perpetual sign of their initiation into the Church. Therefore, they also remain members of the Church, whose rite of initiation they have received. 

An s w e r .—The spiritual character imprinted upon the soul in Baptism does not make one a member of the Church; it is rather a sign or badge showing that he has received the rites of initiation, but it does not prove that he retains membership. This may be illustrated by the case of a person receiving a tattoo mark as a sign of initiation into a society that uses such marking. If the person afterward leave the society, he would cease to be a member, though he still bore the indelible sign of his initiation. 

Ob je c t io n II.—The Church claims jurisdiction over heretics and schismatics, as is evident from the fact that she formerly interpreted many of her marriage laws as binding upon them. But the Church could not thus exercise jurisdiction over persons who do not belong to her fold, for as St. Paul says: “What have I to judge them that are without? . . . For them that are without, God will judge.”4 

An s w e r .—This objection overlooks the necessary distinction between members and subjects. A person may be subject to a society even though he is not a member. This is a well-known fact in our own civil life; persons coming to our shores from foreign countries are not members (citizens) of our government until they have been naturalized by legal process, yet they are subject to our State and Federal laws. Likewise, citizens by naturalization or birth, who lose their rights of citizenship for any reason, cease to be members of the State, but remain subject to its laws so long as they remain within its borders. Heretics and schismatics lose their rights of citizenship in the Church; they cease to be members, but they remain subject to her laws so long as they remain within her territory, which comprises the whole world. 

§ 2. Excommunicates 

Just as a person cannot enter a society against its wishes, so neither can he retain membership therein against its expressed will. It is acknowledged by all that a society, not subject to a higher jurisdiction, has full power and authority to expel a member with or without cause. In the latter case it would act unjustly, but none the less effectively. 

The Church, being a society subject to no authority save that of Christ, must also have the right to deprive members of communion with her, unless Christ has ordained otherwise, which we know He has not done. On the contrary, He gave the Church full authority in the matter when He said: “Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven,” 1 and again when He said: “If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican,” i. e., let him be excluded from membership. St. Paul seems to have been the first to exercise this power by excommunicating the incestuous Corinthian.2 

A person expelled from the Church loses the benefits and privileges of membership and is deprived of communion with the faithful; for this reason he is said to be ex-communicat cd. The Church exercises this power, for the most part, by decreeing that any person guilty of certain specified sins is excommunicated by that very fact. In some cases, however, excommunication does not take place until judicial sentence has been pronounced against a person proved guilty of a crime for which such punishment has been established by law. The first is known as excommunication latae sententiae; the second as excommunication jerendae setentiae.

Excommunication, like heresy and schism, may be either manifest or occult. Manifest excommunication is incurred by judicial sentence of excommunication, or by commission of a public sin known to involve the punishment of excommunication. Occult excommunication is incurred by the secret commission of a sin to which excommunication is attached by law. Those who incur manifest excommunication are either vitandi or tolerati. The former are deprived of communication with the faithful so far as possible even in civil and social life; they are to be entirely avoided {vitandi}. The second class are deprived of communion with the faithful in things spiritual, but may be tolerated {tolerati} in civil and social matters. No one incurs excommunication unless he knows before commission of the crime that it involves such punishment; consequently there can be no question of formal and material excommunication. 

Since the Church may deprive a person of all the privileges and benefits of membership in punishment for sin, it follows, as a matter of course, that she may also deprive him of any part of them short of actual exclusion from membership. Consequently it depends upon the intention of the Church whether excommunication shall involve actual loss of membership or not. The new Code of Canon Law defines excommunication as “a censure by which a person is excluded from the communion oj the faithful.” 3 This can scarcely mean anything less than complete loss of membership in the Church; at least when there is question of excommunication in all its severity. For this reason all theologians are agreed that the vitandi lose all membership in the Church. In regard to the tolerati, the answer is not so certain. Since the canon just cited makes no distinctions, it would seem that all excommunicates without exception are excluded from the Church. Another canon, however, does make a distinction between these two classes; it provides that an excommunicated person be deprived of the benefits and emoluments arising from any office or dignity that he may hold in the Church, and in case of a vitandus, the office or dignity itself is lost.4 It is evident, then, that a toleratiis does ' not lose his office or dignity in the Church, but it is not at all probable that the Church would exclude a person from membership and still allow him to hold an office or dignity of any kind. 

Corollary I. A person unjustly excommunicated loses membership in the Church; he is deprived of the Sacraments and all other benefits arising from union with the Church. In this case he can only rely upon the mercy and goodness of God to compensate him in some other way for the loss unjustly sustained until such time as the excommunication is lifted.5 It should be noted, however, that the caution exercised by the Church in such matters makes an injustice of this kind practically impossible. 

Corollary II. Excommunication is an official juridical act; therefore, an excommunicated person, although reconciled to God by an act of perfect contrition, is not reinstated in the Church until the censure of excommunication has been lifted by another official act on the part of the Church. 

An excommunicated person remains a subject of the Church, bound by all her laws, just as a person deprived of citizenship still remains a subject of the country in which he lives.

ART. TV. PERSONS OF DOUBTFUL MEMBERSHIP 

§ 1. Persons Invalidly Baptized 

There is room for doubt concerning the membership of persons who have been invalidly baptized.1 or not baptized at all, yet are publicly known as Catholics and live as such in the firm conviction that they have been baptized. Many eminent theologians, e. g., Bellarmine, Palmieri, and Straub,2 maintain that such persons are true members of the Church because the necessary conditions are fulfilled; the persons in question submit to the teaching and ruling authority of the Church, and she, on her part, publicly recognizes them as members by admitting them to the Sacraments and other privileges of membership. Innocent II is also cited in support of this opinion because of the reply he made to inquiries concerning such a person: “I do not hesitate to assert that the person who died, as you say, without Baptism, was freed from original sin and has obtained the joys of Heaven because he persevered in the faith of holy mother, the Church, and in the confession of Christ’s name.” 3 

Dorsch and Wilmers 4 are of the opinion that such persons cannot be considered members of the Church because they are incapable of receiving the other Sacraments validly, and, therefore, do not participate in the most essential benefits of the Church. They are publicly regarded as members, but wrongly so; being regarded a member and being a member are two different things. These authors rightly claim that the words of Innocent II prove nothing in the matter, since he does not say that the person in question was a member of the Church; he simply says that he attained salvation, which, as all theologians admit, can be obtained by perfect contrition and a desire for membership in the Church, if actual membership is impossible. The question is of little practical importance, since the number of such persons will always be small, and their salvation cannot be affected in the least by our opinions, one way or the other, in the matter. 

§ 2. Occult Heretics and Schismatics 

The condition of occult heretics and schismatics in regard to membership in the Church has long been a matter of dispute among theologians. Many, such as Bellarmine, Cornelius à Lapide, Perrone, Palmieri, Straub, and Billot, maintain that they are true, even though very imperfect, members of the Church. Suarez, Franzelin, Billuart, Dorsch,1 and others hold that they are not members, and, therefore, belong to the Church in appearance only. Practically speaking, the question has little importance, because, as we shall see, such persons are always in bad faith; consequently membership or lack of membership makes little or no difference in their spiritual condition. The matter is considered here simply because it helps to a better understanding of the real nature of membership in the Church. 

The question concerns only such as are publicly regarded as Catholics, because the moment one becomes publicly known as a heretic or a schismatic, his heresy or schism ceases to be occult, and there is no longer any doubt that he has lost membership in the Church. Here, then, we have to consider only such as outwardly conduct themselves as Catholics, but inwardly reject the authority of the Church; in a word, those who are hypocrites in their adherence to the Church. Since it is practically impossible for a person to act thus in good faith, m aterial heresy and schism may be disregarded in this connection. The question then narrows itself down to this: Does a person who conducts himself outwardly as a Catholic while inwardly rejecting the Church, still belong to it? This is but another phase of the question referred to in connection with the unity of the Church: Is interior faith necessary for the unity of the Church, or is the mere external profession of a faith that does not inwardly exist, sufficient? The question under either form is still debated, but most of the arguments adduced by both sides are merely disguised statements asserting or denying that interior faith is necessary. Those wishing to pursue the subject further may consult the authors mentioned above. 

ART. V. NECESSITY OF MEMBERSHIP

Kinds of Necessity. In regard to attaining salvation, theologians distinguish between those things which are necessary by a necessity oj means and those which are necessary by a necessity oj precept. The former are the means to salvation, constituted such by their nature or by divine institution; the latter are necessary simply because prescribed by law. Matters of mere precept are necessary because by omitting them we commit grievous sin, which excludes salvation; consequently whatever excuses from sin in these matters also excuses from their necessity, e. g., fasting before Communion is necessary for salvation because violating the fast constitutes a grievous sin, but any circumstance that renders this violation licit also takes away the necessity for the fast. The case is quite different with those things necessary as the means to salvation; thev cannot be omitted without loss of salvation, even though the omission be without fault on our part. In some cases the thing is absolutely necessary, because it is of such nature that nothing can supply for its absence; e. g., sanctifying grace is an absolute necessity, whose absence cannot be supplied by anything else. Other things are necessary, not by their very nature, but by divine institution. In regard to these things God is pleased to accept substitutes when the things themselves cannot be had. Such means of salvation may be called relatively necessary, to distinguish them from those of absolute necessity. Baptism is an example of a relative necessity for salvation; it is a necessary means of salvation, because Christ has so ordained, but if for any reason it is impossible to receive Baptism, its absence can be supplied by perfect contrition and a sincere desire to receive it. The reason for this is obvious: God, being all-wise and merciful, cannot demand the impossible from His creatures. 

With this brief explanation, we proceed to show that membership in the Church is necessary by the twofold necessity of precept and means, but that the necessity of means is only relative. 

§ 1. Twofold Necessity of Membership 

Thesis,—Membership in the Church is necessary both by necessity of means and necessity of precept 

The doctrine set forth in the thesis is a dogma of faith, since the Church has often declared membership in her fold necessary for salvation. The Fourth Latcran Council decreed: “There is one universal Church, out of which no one can be saved.” 1 Even stronger are the words of Boniface VIII: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that subjection to the Roman Pontiff is strictly necessary to all men for salvation.” 2 Pius IX declared that “it must be held as • · an article of faith that out of the Apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved.” 3 These declarations.are sufficient to prove that the thesis is a dogma of faith, at least in regard to necessity of precept.

Proofs, I. From reason. Christ said that no one can come to the Father except through the Son, who is the way, the truth and the life.” 4 But the Church bears the person of Christ to carry out His mission on earth; therefore, no one can come to the Father except through the Church. The Church is also the Mystical Body of Christ; consequently no one can receive the vivifying influence of Christ the Head, nor be animated by the Soul, which is the Holy Ghost, unless he be united as a member with the Body. Hence St. Augustine says: “A Christian man is a Catholic while he remains in the body; cut off, he becomes a heretic. The Spirit does not follow the amputated member.” 5 

II. From Scripture. In Holy Scripture, Baptism, faith, and subjection to the authority of the Church are set forth as necessary means of salvation: “Unless a man be born again oj water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom oj God.” 0 “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” 7 “Ij he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.” 8 The conditions laid down in these passages as necessary for salvation are precisely the conditions necessary for membership in the Church. Therefore, it is only by becoming a member of the Church that one can fulfill the conditions for salvation: in other words, membership in the Church is a necessary means of salvation. 

God has destined all men to salvation ; “He will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge oj the truth.”9 Therefore the means necessary for salvation must be a matter of precept. Again, Christ sent forth His Apostles with the injunction to bring all nations into the Church and to teach them all truth: “Going therefore, teach all nations (f. e., makes disciples oj all nations), teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” 10 Such an injunction on the part of Christ necessarily presupposes a corresponding command that all nations hearken to the teachings of the Apostles and become disciples by entering the Church. There are also the express words of Christ demanding this: “He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me.” 11 Hence union with the Church is a matter of divine command; it is a necessity of precept. 

11 St. Luke x, 16. 12 “Epist. ad Philad.,” 3; Funk, I, 267. 13 “Hom. in Josuc,” IV, 5; P. G., 12, 841. 14 “Epist.,” 141; P. L., 33, 579. 15“De Unitate Ecclesiae”; P. L., 4, 503. 

III. From Tradition. The Fathers have from the very earliest ages, insisted upon the necessity of union with the Church. For example: 

a) St. Ignatius Martyr: “Do not be deceived, brethren, if any one follows a person making a schism, he cannot obtain the inheritance of the divine kingdom.” 112 

b) Origen: “Let no one deceive himself; outside this house, i. e., outside the Church, no one can be saved.” 13 

c) Council of Cirta (412 a . d .): “If a person be separated from the Catholic Church, it matters not how praiseworthy his life may be otherwise, he shall not have life, but the anger of God rests upon him for this one crime of separation.” 14 

d) St. Cyprian: “Fie cannot have God for his Father who does not have the Church for his mother. If anyone escaped death outside the ark of Noah, then also may a person escape outside the Church.” 15

§ 2. Membership a Relative Necessity 

Membership in the Church is necessary for salvation not only by necessity of precept, but also by necessity of means; Christ commands all men to belong to the Church because it is the means which He established for salvation. Hence the well-known axiom of theologians, “Out of the Church there is no salvation.” Pius IX declared this an article of faith, as already noted, but he immediately added: “It is likewise certain that those who are in ignorance of the true religion, are not accountable for any guilt in the matter before God if the ignorance be invincible.” 1 On another occasion he wrote to the bishops of Italy: “It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance concerning our most holy religion . . . can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.”1 2 St. Augustine says: “The effects of Baptism are invisibly wrought when the ministry of Baptism is excluded, not through contempt of religion, but by force of necessity.” 3 We also know that the Church numbers among her saints persons who died without the Sacrament of Baptism; v.g., St. Emerentiana, a catechumen who suffered martydom in the third century, is commemorated as a saint. 

1 Allocutio die 9 Dec , 1854; Denzinger, n. 1647. 2 Pius IX, “Quanto conficiamus mœrore” 10 Aug., 1863. Denz. n. 1677. 3 “De Baptismo,” iv, 22; P. L., 43, 173. 

These facts prove that membership in the Church is a relative necessity, i. e., if actual membership is impossible for any reason, other means are available to supply the deficiency. This is usually explained by distinguishing between membership in the soul of the Church and membership in the external society, or body of the Church. According to this explanation, a person in ignorance of the true Church or otherwise hindered from entering it, belongs to the soul of the Church if he be in the state of sanctifying grace through perfect contrition or an act of perfect love of God. Hence, it is said that membership in the soul of the Church is an absolute necessity of means for salvation, whereas membership in the body of the Church is merely a necessity of precept. But the Church herself never makes this distinction between body and soul, when there is question of membership in her fold, and it has already been noted that a person cannot belong to the soul of the Church unless he also belongs to her body.4 Moreover, all Scriptural texts cited to prove the necessity of membership in the Church refer directly to the Church as an external organization. Therefore, union with the body of the Church is a necessity of means, no less than union with the soul of the Church. 

‘Out of the Church there is no salvation” is a dogma of faith, and membership in the Church means union with the body as well as with the soul of the Church; yet it is certain that persons who do not externally belong to the Church may be saved. How are these facts to be reconciled? Cardinal Bellarmine gives the true explanation: “When we say, Out oj the Church there is no salvation, it must be understood of those who belong to the Church neither in fact nor in desire, as theologians commonly teach concerning Baptism.”5 The necessity of belonging to the Church,—both body and soul,—is a relative necessity of means; if actual membership is impossible, it can be supplied by perfect contrition, or perfect love of God, with the desire to belong to the true Church of Christ. This is evident from the fact that Baptism is the rite of initiation into the Church,—the door to the Church, as the Council of Trent calls it. The necessity of membership in the Church must be the same as the necessity for the rite by which one becomes a member. But all admit that Baptism is a relative necessity of means; when its actual reception is impossible, perfect contrition or perfect love of God, with the desire to receive it, will effect the same results as far as the mere attainment of salvation is concerned, but the person has not received the Sacrament of Baptism nor has the baptismal character been imprinted upon his soul.

Ob je c t io n . It may be objected that a person in the state of sanctifying grace is necessarily united with the Holy Ghost dwelling within him and that, therefore, he belongs to the soul of the Church, the Holy Ghost, although he docs not belong to the external society or body of the Church. The conclusion does not follow. The Holy Ghost is not restricted is His operations to the limits of the Church: “The Spirit breatheth where He will.” '* He operates outside the Church, just as He operates outside the Sacraments, distributing graces as He will. But the person receiving the grace no more belongs to the Church in the one case, than he actually receives a Sacrament in the other. In neither case is the Holy Ghost acting in His capacity as soul of the Church. 

Corollary I. A person who knowingly and willingly remains outside of the Church and dies in that condition, cannot hope for salvation; he has rejected Christ by rejecting His Church: “He that despiseth you, despiseth me.” 7 But a person who is out of the Church through no fault of his own, can obtain salvation by an act of perfect contrition, or perfect love of God and, at least, an implicit desire to belong to the Church. He is then a member of the Church, both body and soul, not in fact but in desire,—non in re sed in voto. The desire to belong to the Church is implicitly contained in the general desire to do all that Christ commands, even though the person never heard of the Church or actually rejects it through ignorance of its real character. 

Corollary II. All men are bound to belong to the true Church of Christ, because He has so commanded, and also because it is the means established by Him for our salvation. Therefore, it is absolutely wrong to maintain that it matters not to what Church a man belongs, provided he accept Christ as his personal Saviour and lead a virtuous life. Even those in .good faith, sincerely believing that they really belong to the true Church, are far less secure of their salvation than they would be in the Church with the use of the Sacraments and other means of salvation found there. 

Corollary III. As all men are bound to belong to the true Church of Christ, so also are they bound to use all possible efforts to find and embrace it, despite any temporal losses that may ensue. The amount of effort necessary will depend upon each one’s ability and the opportunity presented for study and investigation. Investigation is impossible for the person who sincerely and firmly believes that he already possesses the true Church, but the moment a doubt or suspicion arises in his mind, he is bound to use all means at his command to discover the truth. If a sincere and serious effort fails to bring him to the truth, he is still in invincible ignorance and, therefore, guiltless of his errors before God.

CHAPTER VII. AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH 

Having considered the membership of the Church and the bonds by which the individual members are united into a visible society, we now turn our attention to the power of authority that preserves these bonds of union and enables the Church to attain the purpose of her existence by bringing the fruits of Redemption to all men. The existence and origin of authority in the Church are self-evident. Being a true society, the Church necessarily possesses authority of some sort, and since Christ is the Author and supreme Head of the Church, whatever authority she possesses must come from Him. It has also been proved that Christ conferred upon His Church the power and authority to teach, govern, and sanctify,1 as the very nature and purpose of the Church demanded. 

Every society is directed to the attainment of its purposes by the power of ruling which is more properly called authority; there must also be suitable means for attaining the end sought and power to use them effectively. The end to be obtained by the Church requires acceptance of certain truths as well as the observance of precepts, for “without faith it is impossible to please God,” 2 and “faith withotit works is dead.” 3 Therefore, authority in the Church requires submission of intellect and will; in other words, the Church has authority to teach as well as authority to rule in the stricter sense of that term. And since the salvation of souls is the immediate end of the Church, she must also have the priestly power of sanctification. This power is concerned with the offering of sacrifice and the administration of Sacraments; its treatment belongs more properly to Sacramental Theology. The authority to teach is intimately connected with the infallibility of the Church and will be considered in connection with it. The present chapter, therefore, will be limited to the power of government, or authority in the strict sense of the word. 

ART. I. AUTHORITY TO GOVERN

§ 1. Threefold Power of Government 

Government implies a threefold powrer,—legislative, judicial, and coercitive. Government without laws is impossible, but laws without interpretation and application are worthless; there must be an authority to interpret the laws officially and to judge whether they have been violated in individual cases. Both the law-making power and the judicial power presuppose coercitive power; a law without sanction, i. e., without power to enforce its observance by adequate punishment, is not a law but a mere counsel: and a judicial sentence that cannot be executed by force, if necessary, is a pure travesty.1 It is evident, then, that Christ conferred this threefold power upon His Church by the very fact that He instituted it under the form of a society. Moreover, we have the express words of Our Lord referring to each of these powers separately, and we find the Apostles exercising them from the very first days of their ministry. 

I. Legislative Power. Christ conferred the lawmaking power upon His Apostles when He said to them: “Whatsoever you. shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” ~ The words bind, and loose refer to bonds which, by the very nature of the case, can be none other than moral bonds, or laws, by which the faithful are obliged to do something or leave something undone. The Apostles themselves understood the words in this sense, for we find them exercising the power to make laws from the very beginning. At the Council of Jerusalem they decreed: “It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things; that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication” 3 This decree had the force of law in all the churches, for it is said that St. Paul “went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the chiirches, commanding them to keep the precepts of the Apostles and ancients.”4 St. Luke also says that St. Paul and Timothy “passed through the cities, and delivered unto them the decrees for to keep, that were decreed by the Apostles and ancients who were at Jerusalem.” 5 St. Paul himself decreed that women should pray with head covered, and that no one should be bishop if married a second time.6 He also warned the faithful to “obey your prelates, and be subject to them, for they watch as being to render an account of your souls.”1 

II. Judicial Power. The words of Christ presuppose judicial powers in the Church, for He said: “If any brother offend against thee, . . . tell the Church. And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.” 8 It is evident that our Lord does not command such a case to be brought before the Church for mere counsel or advice; it is to be a judicial proceeding, and should the guilty party refuse to comply with the sentence, he is to be excommunicated: “Let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.” 

The Apostles certainly knew what powers they had received from the Divine Master, and we find them exercising judicial as well as legislative power. St. Peter passed judgment upon Ananias and Saphira,9 and St. Paul gave judgment in the case of the incestuous ·; Corinthian: “I indeed absent in body, but present in spirit, have already judged as though I were present him that doth such things.” 10 He even laid down rules j for the guidance of Timothy in hearing cases against | priests accused of misconduct.11 This presupposes i that Timothy had power and authority to hear and judge such cases according to their merits. 

III. Coercitive Power. Christ plainly acknowledged coercitive, or punitive, power in the Church, when He said: “If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.” Excommunication is the severest form of punishment known in the Church. St. Paul exercised this power when he excommunicated the Corinthian and delivered him “to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jeszis Christ.” 12 He also excommunicated Hymeneus and Alexander, whom he “delivered up to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.” 13 Now, if the Church has authority to inflict the supreme penalty of excommunication, she also has power to inflict lesser punishments. 

Appeal to tradition in regard to these powers of the Church is needless, since it is well known to all that she has ever claimed and exercised legislative, judicial, and punitive powers. This is evident from the canons of councils, the decrees of popes, and the acts of individual bishops. In every age the Church has established laws, judged the erring and the guilty, and punished those who refused to submit to her authority. 

§ 2. Right of Temporal Punishment 

Punishment consists in depriving a person of some good in reparation for an offense.1 Hence there are three kinds of punishment, corresponding to the three orders of goods,—spiritztal, temporal, and corporal. Spiritual punishment deprives one of some spiritual good, the use of the Sacraments, participation in the prayers of the Church, communion with the faithful, and the like. Temporal punishment deprives one of the goods of this world by fines, confiscation, inability to hold office, and the like. Corporal punishment affects the very person of the offender by depriving him of bodily comforts, freedom, and even life itself.2

Thesis.—The Church has authority to impose both temporal and corporal punishments 

This is a defined dogma of Catholic faith, as appears from the condemnation of the following propositions; one by Pius VI, the other by Pius IX, who stigmatized them as heretical: “It does not belong to the Church to exact obedience to her decrees by external force,” and “The Church has no right to coerce the violators of her laws by temporal punishments.” 3 To these proofs may be added the decrees of several ecumenical councils; the second Council of Lyons, the fourth Lateran Council, the Council of Vienna, and the Council of Constance decreed fines and imprisonment for various crimes. The new Code of Canon Law declares that the Church has an innate right, independent of any human authority, to coerce her delinquent subjects by temporal as well as spiritual punishment.4 

Proofs. The Church, being a society, even more perfect and independent than the State, must have coercive powers at least equal to those of the State. Therefore, she has authority to inflict any just punishment which she finds necessary or useful, unless Christ has ordained otherwise. But Christ has not forbidden the use of temporal or corporal punishment, and such punishment is often useful or even necessary. 

I. Not for bidden. Christ never denied the Church the use of temporal or corporal punishment; on the contrary, He implicitly granted authority to use it when He said: “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in heaven.” 5 These words, universal in themselves, are not limited by the context nor by any other ordinance of Christ. They refer directly and primarily to moral obligations, but these include the obligation to undergo punishment inflicted by the Church just as our moral obligations to the State include that of submitting to just punishment. 

II. Useful.—The Church is a spiritual society, because the end to be attained is spiritual; consequently the means to that end will be in large measure spiritual. On the other hand, the Church is composed of human beings, who do not always yield to purely spiritual motives. Therefore, temporal, and even corporal, punishments must be resorted to at times by the Church as well as by the State. St. Augustine recognized this fact, although he was opposed to temporal and corporal punishments except as a last resort. He says: “It is better indeed for men to be brought to the worship of God by doctrine, than to be compelled by fear and pain; but these means are not to be neglected because the other is better. Experience has proved and still proves that it is profitable to many to be forced by fear and pain that they may afterward be taught.” 6

§3. Right to Inflict Corporal Punishment 

Many theologians maintain that although the Church has the authority to decree corporal punishment, she has no authority to actually inflict it, but must call upon the State,—the secular arm as they call it,—to execute the sentence. In confirmation of this opinion they cite the words of Boniface VIII: “The Gospels teach us that there are two swords in the power of the Church,—one spiritual, the other temporal. . . . One is to be exercised for the Church, the other by the Church. One is wielded by the hand of the priest; the other by the hands of kings and soldiers, but according to the will and permission of the priest.” 1 These words, however, are not to the point, because Boniface was not treating of the coercive power of the Church, but of the relations between Church and State. 

It seems that the Church has never inflicted corporal punishment directly, but it is certain that she has often turned persons over to the State for corporal punishment and demanded under pain of excommunication that such punishment be administered. The difference between this and direct administration of the punishment is slight indeed. Moreover, it would be strange for the Church to have authority with no inherent right to use it, yet such would be the case if she could not directly inflict corporal punishments. Prudence, of course, may often prevent the exercise of a power that is otherwise licit, for, as St. Paul says, power is “given unto edification and not unto destruction” 2 There seems to be nothing but the law of prudence to prevent the Church from inflicting corporal punishment directly and in her own name whenever she deems it necessary or useful. 

§4. Persons Subject to Punitive Powers 

It is evident that only members of the Church are subject to her spiritual punishments, since they alone enjoy spiritual benefits of which she can deprive them in punishment for crime. In regard to temporal and corporal punishments, three classes of persons must be considered,—members of the Church, baptized persons who are not members, and unbaptized persons. There is no doubt that the Church has full authority to punish her own members by spiritual, temporal, or corporal punishments, as she deems best. It is likewise certain that the Church has no authority to punish or coerce the unbaptized, since they are neither members nor subjects. The Fathers and theologians of the Church are unanimous on this point. St. Paul says: “What have I to do to judge them that are without? . . . For them that are withozit, God will judge.” 1 From this it follows that the Church can never use force of any kind to bring persons into her fold, nor to make them accept her doctrines; but she may use force against those who unjustly invade her rights or the spiritual rights of her members. This is merely the natural right of self-protection granted to every individual and to every lawful group of individuals. 

Since all baptized persons are subjects of the Church, even though they may not be members, it follows that heretics and schismatics are subject to the coercive or punitive authority of the Church, but the exercise of this authority would be unjust and illicit in the case of those who are out of the Church through no fault of their own. Punishment, by its very nature, presupposes guilt, but in the supposition there is no guilt, and the use of force in such cases would only result in evil for the Church and spiritual harm to those coerced. Hence the Church can exercise punitive or coercive power against none but her own members and against formal heretics or schismatics, i. e., those who are out of the Church through their own fault. The fear of the Church, entertained by many non-Catholics because of her supposed claims in this matter, is groundless. The doctrine of the Church forbids the use of force to bring any one into her fold, and history proves that she has never resorted to force for this purpose. The much dreaded Inquisition was instituted to search out and punish heretics, but only such as had fallen away from the Church through their own fault. Its purpose was to bring back such persons to a sense of the duties they had freely accepted and acknowledged. Whether this was psychologically the best means to employ for the purpose, is another question, but there can be no doubt that the Church was acting within her rights. The State resorts to the same means when it searches out and punishes traitors, and in a lesser way, when it forces persons to fulfill obligations which they have undertaken. If force was ever used to bring persons into the Church, it was without her sanction and against her will.2 

ART. II. NATURE OF CHURCH POWERS 

Power of Christ. Our Divine Saviour possesses a twofold power, corresponding to His dual nature as God and man. As God, He possesses a power that is infinite and divine; as man, He received a finite power that is human since it proceeds from His human nature, but divine in as much as it belongs to His divine Personality. It is evident that the Apostles did not participate in the power that proceeds from the divine nature of Christ, because man, being finite, cannot become the subject of an infinite power. Hence the power conferred upon the Church in the person of the Apostles is that which flows from the human nature of Christ,—the power which He himself had received: “All power is is g iv e n t o me in heaven and on earth. Going therefore, teach all nations. ... As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.” 1 

But the power proper to the human nature of Christ is also twofold, because He came in the double capacity of priest and king. A priest, says St. Phul, “is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins.” 2 Our Lord offered Himself on the cross as a propitiation for our sins, “to reconcile all things . . . making peace through the blood of his cross.” 3 Thus was He constituted a priest forever. He also came as king, to collect all men into His spiritual kingdom and direct them to their eternal destiny: “He shall reign in the house of Jacob forever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end.” 4 But His kingdom is a kingdom of truth: “Thou sayest that I am a king. For this was I born, and for this came I into the world that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth me.” 5 Therefore, the kingdom of Christ requires submission of intellect as well as submission of will: “He was teaching them as one having power, and not as the scribes and. Pharisees.”  

When Christ said to His Apostles: “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you,” He made them partakers of all the powers proper to His human nature,— all the powers given to Him as priest and king. They were to go forth to offer zip gifts and sacrifices for sin and to apply the fruits of His redemption through the administration of the Sacraments. They were also to teach and govern the disciples gathered from all nations into His Church. 

Powers Limited. The powers conferred upon the Church through the Apostles, seem all-comprehensive: “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you” and “Whatsoever you shall bind . . . whatsoever you shall loose.” Yet these powers are necessarily limited to some extent, since all derived or delegated power is limited by the nature of the purpose for which it is given and by the nature of the society in which it is to be exercised. In regard to the powers of the priesthood, the Apostles received no authority to institute new Sacraments or to change essentially those already instituted. They were commanded to baptize according to a prescribed rite, and to offer a sacrifice instituted by Christ himself. They were simply agents to administer the Sacraments and to offer Sacrifice in the name of Christ and by His power. 

In regard to governing power, the Apostles were constituted superiors to rule the Church already established by Christ; they received no authority to change or abolish it, much less to establish another. Hence St. Paul speaks of the “power which the Lord hath given me unto edification and not unto destruction ” 7 This is clearly implied in the words addressed to St. Peter: “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” 8 He that receives the keys of the house from the master, receives power and authority to care for the house and to preserve it, not to destroy or change it. Hence the Apostles and their successors are the custodians who preside over the house of the Lord, to guard and preserve both the house and the treasures which it contains. For this reason the rulers of the Church are called bishops, from the Greek word ίπισκοττάν^ which means to superintend or oversee. 

In regard to doctrine, the Apostles were commissioned to teach only those things which Christ commanded: “Teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded.” 9 They could neither add to nor subtract from the truths taught them by their Divine Master; they were but the dispensers of His mysteries: “Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ and the dispensers of the mysteries of God.” 10 

Ministerial Power. When a person acts in the name and by the authority of another, he is a mere instrument in the hands of the one whom he represents; he is an agent or minister, and the power or authority by which he acts is ministerial. The power of conferring grace and forgiving sins in the Church is purely ministerial, because the human agent is merely an in strument in the hands of Christ. For this reason the one who confers a Sacrament is rightly called the minister of that Sacrament. It is Christ himself who confers the grace through the instrumentality of the Sacrament and its minister. Hence the Apostles always refer to themselves as ministers of Christ when there is question of conferring grace or forgiving sins. St. Paul says: 11Christ hath placed in us the word oj reconciliation. For Christ therefore we are ambassadors, God as it were exhorting by us.” 11 Again he says: “Was Paul then crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” 112 St. Augustine explains this matter in regard to Baptism in particular. He says: “Lest as many baptisms should be spoken of as there are servants who received power from the Lord to baptize. the Lord kept to Himself the power of baptizing, and gave to His servants the ministry. The servant says that he baptizes; he says so rightly, as the Apostle says. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas, but as a servant.” 13 The Council of Florence has confirmed the teaching of St. Augustine by defining that “The Holy Trinity is the principal cause whence Baptism derives its efficacy, but the minister who confers the Sacrament externally is the instrumental cause.” 14 

11 2 Cor. v, 19-20. 12 1 Cor. i, 13. 13 Augustine, “On the Gospel of St. John,” v, 7 ; P. L., 35, 1417. 14 Denzinger, n. 696. 

Since the minister of the Sacraments is only an instrument in the hands of God, the efficacy of the Sacraments does not depend upon the worthiness of the one who administers it, for, as St. Augustine says, “the special virtue of the Sacrament is like the light; it is received pure by those to be enlightened, and if it pass through the impure, it is not stained.” 15 

In regard to priestly power, Christ is the supreme and only Head of the Church. No bishop or pope can confer this power, except in so far as he is an instrument in the hands of Christ to administer the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and in this matter the pope has no more power than any other bishop. When Orders are once validly conferred, no power on earth can revoke or annul them; therefore, even an excommunicated bishop can ordain a priest, consecrate a bishop, celebrate Mass, or confer any other Sacrament that does not require jurisdiction, just as validly as the Pope. 

Principal Power. A person who acts in his own name and by his own power is a principal cause, and the power by which he acts is a principal power. If the power be that of commanding others, it is properly called authority, and the person possessing it is thereby constituted a superior. Authority may be obtained by virtue of an office, or it may be delegated by another; in either case it is a principal power if it is exercised in the name of the person who possesses it. 

In regard to jurisdiction or power of ruling, the Apostles were constituted true superiors with authority to enact laws in their own name: 11 It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay no further burden upon you”16 The enactments of this first council are known as the decrees, not of Christ but of the Apostles and ancients: “Paul went through Syria . . . commanding them to keep the precepts oj the apostles and ancients.” 17 When writing to the Corinthians, St. Paul lays down certain precepts in his own name and carefully distinguishes them from the precepts of Christ: “To them that are married, not I, but the Lord commandeth ... for the rest I speak, not the Lord.” 18 It is evident therefore that jurisdiction, or the power to rule, is a principal power conferred by Christ, but exercised by the Church in her own name. He who holds supreme jurisdiction in the Church is as truly head of the Church as a king is of his kingdom; no jurisdiction in the Church can be obtained or held against his will. Since the Church exercises a principal power in ruling, it also follows that she has full authority to abrogate or dispense from her laws at anv time.

Protestant Teaching. Protestants in general seem to hold that all power in the Church is purely ministerial and consists in authority to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments. Stahl, a German Protestant, says: “With Protestants the Church is an electric conductor that conveys the divine spark to men. With Catholics it is a glowing iron having in itself the power of burning.” 10 The simile is good, but wrongly applied. According to Protestant theology, the faith of the individual is the sole cause of justification; neither the Church nor the Sacraments have any intrinsic efficacy. Consequently faith, not the Church, should be compared to an electric conductor. According to Catholic teaching, the Church is both an electric conductor and a glowing iron;—an electric conductor in the power of Orders, where it acts merely as the agent of Christ; a glowing iron in the power of jurisdiction, which the Church exercises in her own name. 

Church Power Perpetual. Perpetuity of the powers of the Church is a necessary consequence of her perpetual indefectibility. It follows also from the very purpose for which the Church was instituted, namely, the glory of God and the salvation of souls. The power of Orders is directly concerned with both; therefore, it must exist so long as there are men on earth to attain salvation through the proper worship of God. The power of jurisdiction is ordained for the government of the Church, a visible society that must endure until the end of time; therefore, this power itself must be perpetual. Finally Christ has promised perpetual powers to His Church: “Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.” 20

CHAPTER VIII. RULERS OF THE CHURCH 

The nature of the powers conferred upon the Church being determined, the further question arises: To whom were these powers committed? To the whole body of the faithful, or to superiors divinely commissioned to teach, govern, and sanctify? The answer to this question demands (1) a notice of the principal errors in the matter; (2) proof that Christ himself instituted a ruling body in the Church by conferring all power and authority upon the Apostles and their successors, to the exclusion of all others; (3) an inquiry to establish the identity of these successors to the Apostles; (4) consideration of the prerogatives proper to the Apostles and therefore not transmitted to their successors. 

ART. I. ERRONEOUS DOCTRINES 

Marsilius of Padua (1270-1342 a . d .). During the troubles between Louis of Bavaria and Pope John XXII, Marsilius of Padua and Jean de Jandun sided with the Emperor and defended his position in a work entitled Dejcnsor Pacis (Defender oj Peace}. In this work they maintained that all power of government in the Church rests with the faithful, who exercise it through their chosen representatives, the secular rulers. Consequently the Church is subject to the State, and neither bishops nor Pope can make any laws or regulations for Church government without the consent of the State, for whom they are mere agents. These authors admitted that the power of Orders is conferred independently of the faithful, but they denied any distinction between priests and bishops. 

Protestants. With the exception of a party in the Anglican Church, Protestants follow the teaching of Luther and Calvin, that whatever powers the Church possesses, resides in the body of the faithful, but since it is impossible for all to exercise authority, certain ones are chosen to act as delegates in the matter. They maintain that “every believer is a priest of God. Every believer has as much right as anybody else to pray, to preach, to baptize, to administer communion. . . . But it does not follow that therefore the clergy are superfluous. Experience has shown that certain persons are by natural endowment better fitted for spiritual functions than others, and also that in the Christian communities there will be leaders to whom will gravitate the major part of the work. The clerical order took its rise therefore in the very necessity of the case. ... If everybody discharged the spiritual functions of which they are capable, then confusion and anarchy would result. . . . The office is only necessary to the orderly progress of the Church. But the means of grace gain not a whit of efficiency from their administration. Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, preaching and praying, like singing and taking up a collection; reading the Scriptures, like reading of notices,—may be performed by laymen with precisely the same spiritual effect as if the highest or the most godly minister in the land had been the administrator.” 1 

According to this doctrine, Protestant clergymen are mere agents or representatives of their people, and are therefore rightly called ministers,—ministers, not of God, but of the people, from whom they receive their call, and by whom they are hired and discharged, much the same as an ordinary servant. Ordination is not a Sacrament, but a mere external ceremony by which a person is constituted a minister of the people to preach the Gospel and administer what few sacred rites they have. This is a logical deduction from the Protestant viewpoint that the real Church of Christ is invisible. The various external organizations known as churches are merely human societies, differing from hundreds of other private societies only in this, that they are religious. They were organized without any special authority from Christ, and there is no reason why one person should have any special power not possessed by every other. A person becomes a leader or minister because he is selected by the society for that purpose. 

Febronius. Nicholas von Hontheim, auxiliary bishop of Treves, conceived the idea of effecting a union between Catholics and Protestants by paring down the teachings of the Church to such an extent that Protestants might be induced to accept them. With this purpose in view, he wrote a work under the fictitious name of Justin Febronius. The work, edited in 1763, was entitled De Statu Ecclcsiœ {On the State of the Church'). The doctrine which it sets forth differs little from that of Protestants. All power in the Church belongs to the faithful; the bishops, including even the Roman Pontiff, are merely representatives delegated by the people to act in their name in the government of the Church, especially in ecumenical councils.2 

2Cir. Catholic Encyclopedia, art. “Febronianism.” Denzinger, n. 853. 2 Denzinger, n. 1502. 

ART. II. A RULING BODY OF DIVINE INSTITUTION 

It is a defined doctrine of Catholic faith that the pastors of the Church are constituted a ruling body by divine appointment, and receive their power and authority, not from the faithful, but from Christ, through succession from the Apostles, upon whom He conferred all power in the Church. The Council of Trent decreed: “If anyone should say that all Christians have equal powers to preach and to administer the Sacraments let him be anathema.” 1 Pius VI condemned as heretical the “proposition which states that all power was given by God to the Church to be communicated to the pastors, who are her ministers for the salvation of souls; if the proposition be understood to mean that the power of ministry and government is communicated to the pastors by the faithful.” 2 The Vatican Council declared that, as Christ “sent the Apostles ... as He himself had been sent by the Father, so He willed that there should ever be pastors and teachers in His Church to the end of the world.’’3 This doctrine of the Church presupposes (1) that Christ conferred all authority in the Church upon the Apostles exclusively, and (2) that this authority descends to their legitimate successors for all time. 

§ 1. Apostles Alone Receive All Authority 

Thesis.—All power in the Church, whether of Orders or jurisdiction, was immediately conferred upon the Apostles alone. 

Proof, a) From the Words oj Christ. Whenever there is question of conferring power or authority, Christ addresses none but the twelve chosen disciples, whom He calls Apostles: “He called unto him his discipics; and he chose twelve of them whom he also called apostles 1 ... And having called his twelve disciples together he gave them power over unclean spirits.” 2 It was to the twelve alone that Christ said: “Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” 3 It is certain that the twelve alone are meant for, as a non Catholic author says, “The word disciple is applied most especially to the twelve in all four Gospels, sometimes with δώδεκα 4 and sometimes without; they are the disciples. Matthew seems indeed to confine the plural to them, unless v, 1 and viii, 21 be exceptions.” 5 * 

4 The Greek word for twelve. 5 Hasting’s Bible Dictionary, art. “Disciples.” cMatt, xxviii, 16-20. 7 John xx, 14-19. 

After the Resurrection Jesus appeared to the eleven in Galilee and “spoke to them saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations.” 0 In these words He gave full power to the Apostles, and to them alone. On the very day of the Resurrection, “when it was late that same day . . . and the doors were shut where the disciples were gathered, together, . . . Jesus came and stood in the midst of them. . . . He breathed on them and said: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins yoil shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. Now Thomas one of the twelve who is called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.”7 Here again Power is conferred, and the Apostles alone are mentioned; they are even called the twelve, although at that time there were only eleven. This indicates that the Apostles formed an official body known as The Twelve. 

b) From the Practice of the Apostles. The Apostles always proclaimed by word and act that all their powers came immediately from Christ. In His name they spoke, in His name they taught, in His name they ruled. St. Paul distinctly says that he is “an Apostle, not oj men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father.”3 To the Romans he writes: “By Christ we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith in all nations.” 9 In the Epistle to the Galatians he proves at length that he is the equal of the other Apostles, for the simple reason that he received authority, not from man, but from Christ himself. St. Peter likewise claims authority from God and a divine command to teach: “Him God raised up the third day, and gave him to be made manifest, not to all the people, but to witnesses preordained by God, even to us who did eat and drink with him after he arose again from the dead. And he commanded us to preach to the people.” 10 

The Apostles placed bishops and other ministers over the various churches without the advice or consent of the faithful. St. Paul leaves Titus as bishop of Crete, with orders to constitute other pastors in every city, but there is no mention that the faithful have any voice in the matter.11 It is God, not the people, who “hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors.” 12 

These few references are sufficient to show that the Apostles never recognized any power or authority in the people; in fact, St. Paul tells the Corinthians plainly that the Apostles, as ministers of Christ, are independent of the faithful, and therefore have no fear of any criticisms: “Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God. Here now it is required among dispensers that a man be found faithful. But to me it is a very small thing to be judged by you, or by man’s day.” 13 

13 1 Cor. iv, 1-3. 14 1 Pet. ii, 9. 15 Ex. xix, 6. ie Numb, xvii, 1 sq. 

Corollary. An Objetion. St. Peter calls the faithful “a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation a purchased people.” 14 Therefore, the faithful are both rulers and priests,—a kingly priesthood; all have equal powers and rights to rule and to perform spiritual functions as Protestants maintain. 

Answer. In this passage St. Peter applies to the faithful of the New Law words addressed to the chosen people of the Old: “You shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation.” 15 These words did not constitute all the people rulers in Israel, neither did they give to all the power of the priesthood, as Core, Dathan, and Abiron learned to their sorrow.10 In both passages the words are used in a spiritual sense. The faithful of the Old Law as well as those of the New, are in a sense priests; they are consecrated to God and offer to Him the spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving according to the admonition of St. Paul: “Let us offer the sacrifice of praise always to God, that is to say, the fndt of lips confessing his name,” 17 In this sense St. Jerome calls Baptism the priesthood of the laity, which he contrasts with the true priesthood of Orders.18 In the same spiritual sense the faithful may be called kings, because by Baptism they become co-heirs with Christ, the King of kings, destined to reign with Him: “They who receive abundance of grace, and of the gift and of justice, shall reign in life throiigh one, Jesus Christ.” 19

§ 2. Apostolic Power Descends by Succession 

Thesis.—The power of Orders and jurisdiction, conferred upon the Apostles, is perpetuated in their successors according to the institution of Christ 

Proof. All power in the Church was originally conferred upon the Apostles, to the exclusion of all others, and there is not the slightest intimation in Scripture or tradition that Christ promised to confer a similar power upon others at any time in the future. It follows, then, that all power, whether of Orders or jurisdiction, must be perpetuated by an unbroken line of succession, reaching back to the Apostles, who received it directly from Christ Himself. This is clearly intimated in the words of Christ to the Apostles: “Behold I am with yoii all days even to the consummation oj the world.” 1 Christ was with His Apostles during their life on earth; He remains with them in their successors through all the centuries. Therefore, succession is a matter of divine institution, and those who occupy the place of the Apostles in the Church, obtain also their power and authority; they obtain it independently of any action on the part of the faithful, and exercise it by divine right. 

1 Matt, xxviii, 20. 2 Acts i, 20 sq. 3 Acts xiv, 22. 4 Titus i, S sq. 

The practice of the Apostles shows how their power was to be transmitted to others. Matthias, elected to succeed Judas, was immediately “numbered with the eleven apostles” and exercised equal authority with them.1 2 A little later, Paul and Barnabas were also numbered with the Apostles and, in turn, appointed others to teach and govern the faithful: “And when they had. ordained to them priests in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord.” 3 St. Paul left Titus in Crete with authority over the church there, and commanded him to ordain others for the various cities: “I left thee in Crete that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldst ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee.” 4 

The teaching of the Fathers on this question will be given in the following article on the successors of the Apostles. It will be sufficient here to record the words of St. Clement of Rome, a friend and disciple of St. Peter, and the third to occupy his throne as Supreme Pontiff. In his Letter to the Corinthians, St. Clement says: ‘Our Apostles also through our Lord Jesus Christ . . . appointed the first rulers in the church at Corinth, and ordained that after their death other approved men should succeed to the ministry.” 6 Here we find a complete description of the manner in which power and authority are transmitted in the Church. By the authority of Christ, SS. Peter and Paul appoint the first ministers at Corinth and ordain that the line of succession be continued by other approved men at the death of those whom they had appointed. 

ART. III. THE SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES 

In the strict sense of the term, the successors of the Apostles are those in the Church who obtain by right of succession the full powers of Orders and jurisdiction enjoyed by the Apostles. Other ministers of the Church, who participate more or less in the power of Orders and exercise a delegated jurisdiction, may also be called successors in a less proper sense of the term. 

§ 1. True Successors of the Apostles 

Thesis.—The bishops of the Church are the true successors of the Apostles 

It is a doctrine of faith, defined by the Council of Trent, that the bishops of the Church are the true and legitimate successors of the Apostles: “Wherefore the holy Synod declares that besides the other ecclesiastical grades, bishops in particular belong to the hierarchical order, since they succeed to the place of the Apostles and were placed, as the Apostle says, by the Holy Ghost to rule the Church of God.” 1 

Proofs. It has just been proved that the Apostles must have successors to perpetuate their powers of teaching, governing, and sanctifying until the end of time; but it is a well-known fact that the bishops, and the bishops alone, have ever claimed and exercised these powers in their fullness, and they alone have ever been recognized as the legitimate successors to these powers. Before the so-called Reformation of the sixteenth century, the right of the bishops to rule as successors of the Apostles was never questioned, except by a few individuals swayed by political or private interests. Even today, all parties admit that the bishops were the recognized successors of the Apostles, at least from the second century until the time of the pseudoReformation. Testimony from the Apostles and early Fathers prove that they were recognized as such from the earliest years of the Church. Now, it is manifestly - impossible for any body of men to obtain recognition as successors of the Apostles from the very beginning of the Church, and maintain that position undisputed for sixteen centuries, unless they were in fact what they claimed to be,—true successors. Any other hypothesis would mean that the Church, as Christ founded it, ceased to exist with the death of the Apostles, and that the world has since been without the means of salvation; it would mean that Christ failed in His promise to be with the Church all days, even to the consummation of the world. If the bishops of the Church are not the successors of the Apostles, then there are no successors, for no one else has even claimed this distinction; in that case the power and authority committed to the Apostles have lapsed, and cannot be renewed, except by a direct intervention of Christ in conferring them anew and reestablishing His Church. Such an act on the part of Christ would have to be confirmed by the performance of miracles as the only means by which we could be assured of its reality. The following testimonies are sufficient to prove that bishops were recognized as the successors of the Apostles from the very beginning of the Church: 

a) st. Paul plainly intimates that Timothy was to carry forward the work which he himself had begun: “Be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work oj an evangelist, fulfil thy ministry . . . for I am even now ready to be sacrificed ; and the time o f my dissolution is at handy - When addressing the leaders of the church of Ephesus, he says: “Take heed to yourselves and the whole flock in which the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops to ride the Church of God.” These words of the Apostle show that St. Timothy and the other ministers of Ephesus, known as bishops, ruled the Church there, and were expected to continue in that work after the death of St. Paul. In a word, they were his successors in the Church. 

b) St. John Apostle. In the Apocalypse St. John narrates that he was ordered to write to the angels of the seven churches in Asia. In each church there is a single minister Rangel) held responsible for doctrine and morals. This presupposes that he was also charged with the government of that particular church.4 From other sources we know that ministers thus charged with the care and government of a church were called bishops, and held precisely the same position as bishops in every age of the Church.5 This is evident from the following testimonies of the Fathers. 

c) St. Ignatius martyr. In his letter to the Christians of Smyrna, St. Ignatius says: “Let all be subject to the bishop, as Jesus Christ was to the Father; . . . apart from the bishop let no one do any of those things which pertain to the Church. ... It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or celebrate a lovefeast; but whatsoever he shall approve, that is also pleasing to God.” 6 

4Apoc. ii, 1 sq. β Cf. Testimony of St. Clement, above, pp. 274. ® “Epist. ad Smyrncos,” viii, 9; Funk, Vol. I, p. 2S3

d) St Irenæus. The testimony of St. Irenæus is especially valuable, because he was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who in turn had been a disciple of St. John the Apostle. He says that he had heard Polycarp tell of his relations with John the Apostle and with others who had seen the Lord, and that he had learned much from them concerning the Lord, His miracles and teaching.7 With such opportunities for knowing the teachings of Christ and the /Xpostles, St. Irenæus wrote: “We are in position to reckon up those who were by the Apostles instituted bishops in the churches, and to demonstrate the succession of these men to our own times. . . . The Apostles were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to them.” 8 7 “Epist. ad Florin.,” in Eusebius, “Church History,” P. G., v, 20. 8 “Adversus Hæreses,” III, 3; P. G., 7, 848. 

e) TERTULLiAN. A few years after St. Irenæus wrote the above words, Tertullian challenged the heretics of his day to prove the soundness of their position by tracing their succession back to an Apostle: “Let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running back in due succession from the beginning in such manner that their first bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of Apostolic men; ... as the Church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit those whom they regard as transmitters of the Apostolic seed having been appointed to their episcopal places by the Apostles.” 9 

§ 2. Other Ministers of the Church 

Several orders of ministers are mentioned in Holy Scripture, especially by St. Paul, who enumerates apostles, prophets, doctors, evangelists, deacons, presbyters, bishops, and several others, whose duties are little understood. Most of these orders served a temporary need in the Church and then disappeared. The most important of these seem to have been the evangelists, doctors, and prophets. The evangelists most probably assisted in spreading the Gospel among unbelievers, much the same as cathechists do today in missionary countries. The doctors and prophets seem to have been charged with further instruction for those who had been received into the Church; the doctors being permanently attached to particular churches, whereas the prophets travelled from place to place. St. Paul intimates that the members of these various orders were endowed with special miraculous gifts {charismata) ,1 I . . but they exercised no jurisdiction in the Church and, therefore, did not belong to the hierarchy. They were subject to the Apostles even in the exercise of their miraculous powers.2 1 

Deacons, presbyters, and bishops constituted the ruling body or hierarchy. They are the permanent orders of the Church, constituted to teach and govern, and to perform the offices of the priesthood. The powers and duties of bishops will be considered elsewhere,3 but some consideration of deacons and priests is necessary, since they participate more or less in the powers of the priesthood and exercise a delegated jurisdiction in the Church; to this extent they also are successors of the Apostles. 

3 Cf. below, pp. 406 sq. 4 Acts vi, 1 sq. 5 Acts viii, 5, 12. e “Epist. ad Smyrneos,” viii; Funk, Vol. I, 283. 

Deaconss. Shortly after the ascension of Our Lord, the Apostles associated with themselves a number of assistants, known as deacons, a Greek word signifying ministers. A temporal need in the Church at Jerusalem gave occasion for the introduction of deacons,4 but they also exercised certain spiritual functions, such as preaching the Gospel, baptizing and assisting other ministers in their sacred functions; e.g., Philip preached the Gospel in Samaria and baptized many: “Philip going down to the city of Samaria, preached Christ unto them . . . bid when they had believed Philip preaching the kingdom of God, in the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” 5 St. Ignatius distinctly mentions deacons as of divine institution: ‘‘Reverence the deacons as being the institution of God.” 6 

In the first centuries, the deacons administered the temporalities of the Church, cared for the cemeteries, and directed the various works of charity. These duties were gradually taken over by other agencies in the Church, and the deacons then gave themselves entirely to the spiritual work of baptizing and assisting at divine services. Even these duties were finally performed by other ministers, and the order of deacons ceased to have any utility. Today the order scarcely exists in the Church except as a preparatory step to the priesthood. 

Priests. From the very earliest times priests have formed an important part of the ministry of the Church, and since they share in large measure the power of Orders conferred upon the Apostles, they constitute an order of divine institution, as the Council of Trent solemnly declared: “If anyone says that there is no hierarchy in the Catholic Church of divine institution, consisting of bishops, priests, and ministers, let him be anathema.” 7 Yet it is a matter of dispute whether simple priests, i. e.> priests as distinguished from bishops, existed in the days of the Apostles, or whether they were introduced later, as the needs of the Church demanded. Sacred Scripture mentions both bishops (episcopi) and priests (presbyteri), but it seems that these terms were not used in the same distinctive sense in which we use them today. 

The word presbyter is simply the Greek πρεσβύτερος (an elderly man) used in a special sense. It is rendered an ancient in the Douay version and an elder in the King James. Episcopus is also a Greek word meaning overseer and is so translated in the King James version. It is practically certain that in the first years of the Church, all ministers above the order of deacon were known indiscriminately as presbyteri or episcopi. St. Paul commands Titus to “ordain presbyters in every city.” He then enumerates the qualities necessary in the candidates for, as he says, “a bishop (^episcopus} must be without crime.” 8 When at Miletus, the same Apostle, sending to Ephesus, “called the presbyters of the Church,” but in his address to them he calls them episcopi: “Take heed to the whole flock in which the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops {episcopos).” » In his letter to the Philippians, St. Paul enumerates bishops and deacons, but makes no mention of presbyters.™ On the other hand, St. Peter mentions presbyters without any reference to bishops.11 The Didache, a work written toward the end of the first century, says: “Elect to yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of God.” 12 St. Clement of Rome likewise says: “The Apostles constituted bishops and deacons for those who were to believe.” 13 If the words episcopus and presbyter were used as they are today, to denote two separate orders, no reason can be assigned why St. Peter should omit the bishops, or why St. Paul and the other writers mentioned should omit the presbyters. 

The above considerations leave no room for doubt that presbyter and episcopus were used as synonymous terms and the reason for this is not far to seek. Among the Jews every synogogue was ruled by a committee composed originally of the older men of the congregation. For this reason they soon came to be known officially as elders (presbyteri).—a name applied even to those who were not advanced in years. Christian converts from Judaism would naturally employ the same terms of respect to designate the rulers in the Church. On the other hand, converts coming from paganism would use the term episcopus, which they had been accustomed to apply to anyone holding authority. In a short time both terms were used indiscriminately by all, whether of Jewish or pagan origin. 

Matter in Dispute. It seems that in the earliest years particular churches were ruled by a council of ministers variously known as bishops or presbyters, but the exact status of these ministers is a matter of dispute. Some maintain that all were priests in the present meaning of the term, but those acting as chairmen or presidents of these committees, soon acquired greater power and influence and thus became what we know as bishops. This opinion is rejected by practically all Catholic scholars, and rightly so, since it can scarcely be reconciled with the divine origin of the episcopate. Others hold that each church was ruled by a bishop, assisted by a number of priests, who, with the bishop, constituted the presbyterium in much the same way as a bishop and his canons now form a cathedral chapter for the government of the diocese. This opinion fits in well with the fact that a monarchical form of government for each church is known to have prevailed from very early times. Nevertheless, several eminent Catholic scholars believe that all ministers above the grade of deacons were originally bishops, strictly socalled, and that simple priests wTere not introduced until some years later. In favor of this opinion they cite the fact that in the Church of Alexandria, and perhaps in other churches also, those known as presbyters, not only elected the bishops, but also consecrated them. This, of course, presupposes that the presbyters were really bishops.14 

Monarchical Government. Whatever may be said of the Government of the various churches in the first years of Christianity, it is certain that the monarchical form of government, i. e., the rule of one bishop in each church, is of Apostolic origin. It is evident from the first chapters of the Apocalypse that in the days of St. John the Apostle the churches of Asia were each ruled by a single bishop. St. Ignatius also speaks of a single bishop in each church. He says: ‘‘There is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and there is one chalice in the unity of His blood; there is one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and the deacons my fellow-servants.” 15 * In almost every epistle he warns the faithful to obey the bishop and the deacons. St. Paul likewise intimates that there should be but one bishop in charge of each church; he always speaks of the bishop in the singular and of the deacons in the plural, e. g., “It behooveth a bishop to be blameless . . . deacons in like manner chaste.”10 The Council of Nicaea (325) mentions it as a well recognized axiom that there should be but one bishop in each city; “In one church there shall not be two bishops.” 17 There is also the testimony of several early writers, such as Hegesippus, St. Irenæus, and Eusebius, who drew up lists of bishops for various churches. In each case these lists show a line of single bishops reaching back in unbroken succession to one who had received the ministry directly from the Apostles. 

15 “Epist. ad Philadelp.,” 4; Funk, Vol. I, 267. 10 1 Tim. iii, 2, 8. 17 Council of Nicaea, canon viii. 

ART. IV. APOSTOLIC PREROGATIVES 

§ 1. The Apostolic Office

 The name Apostle, from the Greek άποστελλάν, to send, signifies one sent, a messenger who is also commissioned to act as legate for the one sending. An Apostle, therefore, differs from an άγγελος (angel) because the latter acts merely as a messenger. The word Apostle occurs but once in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament,1 but its use in the New Testament is frequent, especially in the writings of St. Paul. In a few instances St. Paul uses the word in its original meaning of a messenger; for example, he calls Epaphroditus an apostle of the Philippians because he had acted as their messenger in carrying a letter.2 He also mentions apostles oj the churches, i. e., messengers sent to him from the various churches which he had founded.3 But he always speaks of himself as an apostle in a peculiar, or technical, sense: “Paul an apostle oj Jesus Christ by the will oj God.” 4 He carefully distinguishes himself as an Apostle from his colaborers, who did not enjoy that dignity: “Paul an apostle . . . Timothy our brother.” 5 

Conditions Required. According to St. Paul, a mission from Christ is the first and most important condition for the Apostolic office. An Apostle must be sent, “not oj men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father.” G Throughout the whole Epistle to the Galatians, St. Paul insists that he is truly an Apostle, equal to the others, because he had received his mission directly from Christ: “The Gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For neither did I receive it oj man; but by the revelation oj Jesus Christ.” 7 He then proves that he had received neither his mission nor his knowledge of the Gospel from the other Apostles: “When it pleased him who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me that I might preach him among the gentiles, immediately I condescended not to flesh and blood. Neither went I to Jerusalem to the apostles who were before me, but I went into Arabia.” 8 These arguments put forth by St. Paul in defense of his Apostleship presuppose that a personal mission from Christ is a necessary condition. 

7 Gal. i, 11-12. 8 Gal. i, 15-16. 0 Acts i, 21-22. 10 1 Cor. XV, 14. 

St. Peter set forth the second condition necessary in an Apostle when he proposed the election of a successor to Judas: “Wherefore, oj these men who have accompanied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went otit among us, beginning from the baptism oj John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one oj these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection.” 9 It is necessary for an Apostle to have been a witness of the entire public Life of Our Lord, i. e., from His Baptism in the Jordan to His ascension into Heaven; it is especially necessary that he be able to bear witness to the Resurrection, because, as St. Paul says, “Ij Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain and your faith is also vain.” 10

Our Lord first selected twelve from among His disciples, “whom he also named apostles.” 11 After the Ascension, Matthias succeeded to the place left vacant by the defection and death of Judas. Matthias had been a constant companion of the Lord and His little band of Apostles; he also received a commission directly from Christ because his election was left to His decision by means of lots. Paul and Barnabas were afterward numbered with the twelve,112 and St. Paul seems to account Andronicus and Junias as Apostles, but his meaning is not certain.13 St. Paul had not been an eye witness of Our Lord’s life on earth; in fact it seems that he had never seen Christ during His earthly life, but he was made a witness by means of direct revelation. Hence he appeals to these visions and revelations in proof of his apostleship: “Am I not an apostle? Have not I seen Christ Jesus Our Lord?” 14 We have no record of the calling of St. Barnabas as an Apostle, unless it be that mentioned in the Acts: “The Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Sazd and Barnabas for the work whereunto I have taken them.”15 This seems to be a call to a particular work of the Apostolate, rather than to the Apostolate itself, since St. Paul considered himself a true Apostle before this time. It is certain, however, that Barnabas did receive a divine call and became a witness of the life, death, and Resurrection of Our Lord in some manner, because St. Luke calls him an Apostle along with St. Paul: “When the apostles Barnaba-s and Paul had heard, . . . they leaped out among the people.” 16 

§ 2. Special Prerogatives 

The first ministers of the Church were not only bishops endowed with full power and authority to teach, govern, and sanctify; they were also Apostles, i. e., witnesses of Our Lord’s life, death, and Resurrection, whom He personally commissioned to carry out the organization of the Church which He had established. For this purpose they were endowed with special prerogatives; they were personally infallible, exercised universal jurisdiction, were confirmed in grace, and possessed the power of working miracles. As bishops, they were to have true successors, with equal powers to teach, govern, and sanctify; as Apostles they could have no successors, as is evident from the nature of the Apostolic office. Hence the prerogatives peculiar to the Apostles as such, are not perpetuated in their successors. 

a) infallibility. The mission entrusted to the Apostles, and the conditions under which they labored, made the gift of personal infallibility a practical necessity. They were sent forth to become the foundation stones for the churches which they were to establish among the nations; the faithful, as St. Paul says, being 11built upon the foundation oj the Apostles and prophets” 1 /. e., upon the doctrines preached by them concerning Christ, the chief cornerstone. Hence the Apostles, being the foundation stones of doctrine for the churches, must have been enabled to announce the true doctrines of Christ without any admixture of error; they must have been infallible. But the infallibility granted to them as a body was of little use. Circumstances made it impossible for them to meet, except on rare occasions; in consequence each one was left almost entirely to his own resources in the matter of doctrine and discipline. Yet each must preach the true doctrines of Christ if he would be a foundation stone instead of shifting sand. Moreover, all men were obliged under pain of eternal damnation to hear and accept their teaching: “He that believeth not shall be condemned” 1 2 and “He that despiseth you despiseth me.”3 Such a demand on the part of Christ presupposes that He had provided against the possibility of error by endowing His Apostles with personal infallibility. 

1 Eph. ii. 19-20. 2 Mark xvi, 16. 3 Luke x, 16. < Gal. i, 8. 

Another argument is found in the words of St. Paul: “Though we or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you let him be anathema.” 4 These words prove that the great Apostle was confident of his own infallibility in regard to the truths of the Gospel; not even an angel from heaven could convict him of error. On several occasions he appeals to his Apostolic office as sufficient proof for his teachings, fully confident that no further proof would be demanded.5 This proves that St. Paul considered infallibility a prerogative attached to the office itself and therefore common to all his brethren in the apostolic college. 

The Fathers of the Church show their belief in the personal infallibility of the Apostles when they appeal to the Apostolicity of a doctrine as a certain and undeniable proof that it is a doctrine of Christ Himself. It is a well-known fact that they constantly make this appeal.

b) Universal jurisdiction. Because of the monarchical form of government that prevails in all dioceses throughout the Church, each bishop is limited to a particular territory or diocese. He is known as the bishop of that particular diocese and is forbidden to exercise jurisdiction outside its limits. The Apostles, on the contrary, exercised universal jurisdiction. Each and all were sent to teach all nations. Like St. Paul, they were “separated unto the Gospel of God . . . and received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith in all nations.”0 They are not known as Apostles of this or that place, of this or that particular nation or people; they are simply the Apostles of Jesus Christ, commissioned to carry the Gospel to every creature.7 

7 See below, pp. 21 sq. « “Comment in Sent,” III, dist. 12, qu. 2, ad 1. 9 Mark xvi, 20. 10 Acts v, 12; xix, 11 sq; Rom. xv, 18 sq. 

c) Confirmed in grace. Catholic theologians hold that the Apostles were confirmed in grace and therefore preserved from all sin, or at least from grievous sin. St. Thomas does not hesitate to say that “the Apostles, even in their mortal life, could not sin grievously, although they could be guilty of venial sin.” This opinion prevailed widely in the sixteenth century and is still the common opinion, yet it would be difficult to offer any positive proof other than that of fitness. It was eminently fitting that the Apostles should be preserved at least from all grievous sin. 8 

d) Gif to miracles. As legates of Christ to all nations, the Apostles needed some means to prove their mission no less than Christ himself. For this reason they received the power to perform miracles as is evident from many passages of Holy Scripture; e. g., “But they (the Apostles) going forth preached everywhere ; the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed.” Again: “By the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wroiight among the people.” 9 10 

The power of miracles, however, was not a prerogative peculiar to the Apostles alone; many of the faithful were endowed with like powers, as is evident from the words of St. Paul to the Corinthians.11 This power always remains in the Church, as was proved elsewhere,12 but it does not descend by right of succession, and as it was not limited to the Apostles in the beginning, so neither is it limited now to their successors. It is a power residing in the Church, to be exercised at such times and by such persons as God in His wisdom determines, because, unlike the power of Orders or jurisdiction, it is needed only for extraordinary occasions. 

Glossolalia. Among the miraculous powers shared by the Apostles and many of the faithful was the gift of tongues, technically known as glossolalia, a Greek word, which means speaking with tongues. In narrating the events of Pentecost St. Luke says: “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak.” 13 St. Paul mentions speaking in tongues as one of the gifts enjoyed by many at Corinth, and also states that he himself possessed it: “I thank my God that I speak] with all your tongues.” 14 No doubt the Apostles were able to preach the Gospel in any language, if need be, just as St. Francis Xavier is said to have done, but there is no proof for this in Scripture. The gift of tongues mentioned there Avas not for the purpose of preaching, but for prayer and praising God. This may be gathered from the words of St. Paul: “He that speaketh in a tongue, speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man heareth. I et by the Spirit he speaketh mysteries. But he that prophesieth speaketh to men unto edification. . . But in the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding that I may instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.” 15

Chapter VIII. Rulers  of the Church .....264

Chapter IX. The Primacy of Peter Promised .....296

Chapter X. The Primacy of Peter Conferred....328

Chapter XI. Successors of St. Peter ....346

Chapter XII. Primacy and the Episcopate.....394

Chapter XIII. Infallible Teaching Authority.....426

Chapter XIV. Infallibility of the Bishops .... 456

Chapter XV. Infalibility of the Roman Pontiff....472 

Chapter XVI. Extent of Infallibility.....503 

Chapter XVII. Church and State....512