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
