https://isidore.co/misc/Res%20pro%20Deo/ITOPL_OCR-layer-only/5c.%20Ecclesiology%20&%20Mariology/Ecclesiology/d-The%20Church%20of%20Christ-%20Berry_OCR.pdf
CONTENTS PAGE
Preface ....................................................................................... vii
In t r o d u c t io n . Pu r po s e o f Th is Wo r k .... 1
Wo r k s Co n s u l t e d ..................................................................... 2
PART I. APOLOGETIC
Chapter I. Origin of the Church
Art. I. Origin and Meaning of the Name . . 9
Ar t . II. Christ Founded a Church as a Society..... 14
§ 1. Nature of a Society...............................................14
§ 2. Errors concerning Nature and Origin of Church................................................................... 16
§ 3. Christ personally founded the Church as a Society ............................................................. 19
§ 4. The Church a Society distinct from the Synagogue .............................................................25
§ 5. Objections Considered...............................................29
Art . III. Christ Founded but One Church... . 35
Art . IV. Purpose and General Nature of Church... 40
§ 1. Purpose of the Church.............................................. 40
§ 2. General Nature of the Church.................................43
§ 3. The Church and the Kingdom .... 48
Chapter II. Attributes of the Church
Art. I. Perpetual Indefectibility of the Church 56
§ 1. Nature of Indefectibility........................................56
§ 2. Erroneous Doctrines concerning Indefectibility 57
§3. Church of Christ perpetually Indefectible . 59
§ 4. Objections Answered............................................ 65
Art . II. Visibility of the Church................................68
§ 1. Nature of Visibility............................................68
§ 2. Errors concerning Visibility of Church . . 70
§ 3. Church of Christ formally Visible .... 74
§ 4. Objections Answered............................................ 77
Chapter III. Properties of the Church
Art . I. Unity of the Church ......................................83
§ 1. Nature of Unity................................................ 83
§ 2. Unity of Government...........................................86
§ 3. Unity of Faith.......................................................92
a) Unity of Doctrine..................................... 95
b) Unity of Profession..................................... 98
Art. II. Holiness of the Church ............................. 103§ 4. Unity of Worship................................................ 99
Art . III. Catholicy of the Church. . . .122§ 1. Nature of Holiness............................................... 103
§ 2. Physical Holiness of the Church .... 105
a) Passive or Ontological Holiness . . . 105
b) Active or Causative Holiness . . .107
§3. Moral Holiness of the Church .... 107
§ 4. Manifestative Holiness of the Church . . .111
§5. Objections Answered.........................................117
Art. IV. Apostolicity of the Church . . . .138§ 1. Use and Meaning of Term............................ 122
§ 2. The Church of Christ Catholic by actual Diffusion ...........................................................127
§ 3. Catholicity of the Church further Defined . 130
§ 4. Perfect Catholicity to be Attained . . . 133
§ 1. Nature of Apostolicity........................................ 138
§ 2. The Church of Christ Apostolic .... 142
Chapter IV. Marks of the Church
Art. I. Requisites for a Mark of the Church . 146
§ 1. Nature of a Mark................................................... 146
§ 2. Marks claimed by Non-Catholics .... 148
Art. II. Th e Fo u r Ma r k s o f t h e Ch u r c h . . .151
§ 1. Unity as a Mark of the Church . . . .151
§ 2. Sanctity as a Mark of the Church . . . .152
§ 3. Catholicity as a Mark of the Church . . .154
§ 4. Apostolicity as a Mark of the Church . . .156
§ 5. Persecution as a çwasi-Mark of the Church . 157
Conclusion ........................................................................158
Art . III. Marks of the Church Applied . . .159
§ 1. The Catholic Church possesses
a) Unity of Faith, Worship and Government 159
b) Manifestative and Causative Sanctity . 161
c) Catholicity of Diffusion............................... 166
d) Apostolicity of Succession . . . .167
Objections Answered.............................................168
§ 1. The Catholic Church possesses
§ 2. Protestant Churches in general Examined . 172
§3. Anglican Church in particular Considered . 176
§ 4. Schismatic Churches of the East .... 183
pag 14 part II.
Chapter I. Origin of the Church
Art. I. Origin and Meaning of the Name . . 9
Ecclesia, the Greek and Latin word for Church, is derived from ίκκαλάν, which means to call together; to summon. Έκκλησή is the act of calling together, ίκκλησία is the result of that act,—the assembly of persons called together. Hence ecclesia originally signified an assembly for any purpose whatsoever. It was used in this sense by all ancient writers both sacred and profane; e. g., “All the tribes of Israel met together in the assembly (ecclesia) oj the people of God.” 1 have hated the assembly (ecclesia) of the malignant; and with the wicked I will not sit.”2 “Now some cried one thing, some another; for the assembly (ecclesia) was confused.” 3 “The Athenians coming together ^οιησαντ^ ίκκλησίαν') signified their intentions by ballot.”* In the course of time the word ecclesia was restricted to a religious assembly and then to a religious society, particularly to a Christian society. Even in this sense the word is variously used:
1. Ecclesia designates all rational creatures subject to Christ as their head. In this sense the Church consists of three parts,—the militant Church, composed of all the faithful on earth; the suffering Church, which consists of the souls detained in Purgatory; the triumphant Church, including both the saints and angels in Heaven. “It is manifest,” says St. Thomas, “that both men and angels are ordained for the same end; viz., the glory of the Beatific Vision. Hence angels as well as men belong to the mystic body of the Church.”5
2. In a somewhat more restricted sense ecclesia refers to all those who have been faithful to God in every age, from the beginning of mankind. Thus St. Gregory the Great says: “The holy ones who have lived before the Law [of Moses], those who lived under the Law, and those living under the dispensation of grace,—all these being members of the Church, constitute the body of the Lord.”G In like manner St. Augustine says: “Christ is our head and we the body. What say I? we alone and not those also who were before us? Assuredly all the just from the beginning of the world have Christ for their head. They indeed believed in Him to come, whom we believe to have come.” 7
3. <?£, the Hebrew equivalent of ecclesia, is frequently used to designate the people of Israel,—the Church of the Old Law. This is especially true of those passages in which the people of Israel are set forth as a type or figure of Christ’s Church in the New Law; e. g., “I will declare thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the church will 1 praise thee.” “I will give thanks to thee in a great church; I will praise thee in a strong people.” “This was he that was in the Church (ecclesia) in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him on mount Sina.” 8 9 10
4. In the language of the Fathers ecclesia usually means the society of all the faithful who adhere to Christ Incarnate as their Head and thus constitute the Church of the New Law. In the writings of the Apostles the faithful are the “called” of Jesus Christ; called according to His purpose; called to be saints.”
Taken collectively, they constitute a community,—the community of the called, i. e., the Ecclesia or Church of Christ, who used the word in this sense when He said: “Upon this rock I will build my Church (ecclesiam)12
5. The word church (ecclesia) is also frequently used to designate the faithful of a particular district or country. Thus we speak of the French Church, the Roman Church, the American Church, etc. This use of the word is common with St. Paul in his salutations; e. g., “Paul, called to be an apostle ... to the church oj God that is at Corinth.” In like manner St. John speaks of the seven churches of Asia. Even the faithful who worship together in the same place were called a church. St. Paul says: “Aquila and Priscilla and the church which is in their house, salute you.” In like manner parishes and dioceses are today often called churches. 13 14 15 6. By an easy transition the word ecclesia was applied to the edifice in which the faithful met for divine worship. Hence we have the Spanish iglesia, the French église, and the Italian chiesa, to designate both the society and the edifice. In the early ages of the Church the edifice for worship was appropriately called the house of the Lord,—domus dominica, or simply dominicum. The Greek equivalent, οίκία κνραικη, was similarly contracted into κυριακόν.™ This shortened form was corrupted into kyreiko by the Goths and then passed into German as kirche, into English as church. In the Slavonic languages it became cirkcv or cerkov.
It is interesting to note that in the Romance languages the word for church properly refers to the society. It is only by metonymy that it can be applied to the edifice. In the Germanic languages we find the very opposite. Slovak seems to be unique in having distinct terms for these two ideas; cirkev is the society, kostol tlie building. The latter is equivalent to our word castle, both being derived from the Latin castellum—a fortified place.
Synagogue
Under the Law of Moses the Chosen People were sometimes called a church ( ) but more often the synagogue ( ) of Israel.11 This is especially true after the time of Christ, when the Church was often contrasted with the Synagogue. The word is derived from the Greek συνάγει—to drive together. Hence it signifies an assembly of persons brought together by physical or moral force. Commenting on the difference between ecclesia and synagoga, St. Augustine says: “By the synagogue we understand the people of Israel, because synagogue is the word properly used of them, although they were also called the Church. Our congregation, on the contrary, the Apostles never called synagogue, but always ecclesia; whether for the sake of the distinction, or because there is some difference between a congregation whence the Synagogue has its name, and a convocation whence tlie Church is called ecclesia: for the word congregation (or flocking together) is used of cattle, . . . whereas convocation (or calling together) is more of reasonable creatures such as men are. . . . Hence the worthier name is ours on account of our being called.” 18 The name synagogue was also used to designate the Jewish faithful who frequented the same house of prayer; hence we read of the “synagogue of the Libertines, and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of them that were of Cilicia and Asia.” 19 At first the edifice in which a particular congregation of Jews met for prayer and instruction was called house oj the synagogue, but in the course of time it came to be known simply as the synagogue.
Ar t . II. Christ Founded a Church as a Society..... 14
§ 1. Nature of a Society...............................................14
It is an article of faith that Christ personally established a church under the form of a true society visibly existing among men. This was decreed by the Vatican Council in the following words: “In order to perpetuate the saving work of Redemption, the eternal Pastor and Bishop of souls decreed to establish a holy Church, in which all the faithful might be gathered together by the unity of faith and love as in the house of God.” 1 The same doctrine is also taught by the condemnation of the following proposition of Modernism: “It was not the intention of Christ to establish a Church as a society destined to continue upon earth through a number of centuries; in fact, according to the teachings of Christ, the Kingdom of Heaven was to come only with the end of the world.” 2
Many rationalists deny that Christ had any intention of founding a society distinct from the Synagogue.1 They maintain that the influence of St. Paul finally led the disciples to withdraw from the Synagogue and form separate societies, which gradually coalesced into the one society known as the Church of Christ. This theory is sufficiently refuted by establishing the following thesis concerning the origin of the Church:
Thesis—The Church was established by Christ as a society distinct from the Synagogue
Proofs. I. From Reason. Societies having different authors, different members, different superiors, and striving by different means to attain separate ends, must be recognized as entirely distinct societies. But this is precisely the case with the Church and the Synagogue. Moses was the immediate author of the Synagogue, whereas Christ was the immediate and personal author of the Church. For this reason St. Paul contrasts Moses with Our Lord: “Moses indeed was faithful in all his house [the Synagogue] as a servant .... But Christ as Son in his own house [the Church].”2 The Synagogue was limited in its membership to one nation; the Church was established for all men: (CGoing therefore, teach all nations.”
The Synagogue was intended primarily as a preparation for the coming, of Christ; it was “our pedagogiie in Christ that we might be justified by faith.”3 The Synagogue wrought sanctification for one people only, and that a mere legal sanctity, produced by sacrifices and sacraments that were but types and figures,—“weak and needy elements.” 4 The Church, on the other hand, works a real supernatural sanctification for all men by means of a sacrifice and sacraments efficacious in themselves. Finally, the rulers of the Synagogue belonged to the priesthood of Aaron, with which the ministers of the Church,—the Apostles and their successors,—have no connection.
II. From Scripture. The Acts of the Apostles always portrays the Church as a society having a separate and independent existence. On Pentecost the disciples already constituted a society, to which a large number was added by the rite of Baptism: “They therefore that received his [Peter’s] ivords, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. And they lucre persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers.” 5 Again we read: “And in those days, the number of the disciples increasing, there arose a murmuring of the Greeks against the Hebrews for that their widows were neglected in the daily ministrations. Then the twelve calling together the multitude of the disciples said: Look ye out among you seven men of good repute, . . . whom we may appoint over this business. . . . These they set before the Apostles; and they praying imposed hands upon them. And the word of the Lord increased, and the number of the disciples was multiplied in Jerusalem exceedingly ; a great midtitude also of the priests obeyed the faith.” G These passages obviously refer to a society distinct from the Synagogue,—a society having its own officials, its own peculiar doctrines, and a distinctive worship.
After the martyrdom of St. Stephen “there was raised a great persecution against the Church which was at Jerusalem, and they were all dispersed through the countries oj Judea and Samaria except the Apostles.”7 These words depict the Church as a society subject to persecution at the hands of the Jews which could not be the case were the Church not recognized as something different from the Synagogue and opposed to it. St. Paul leaves no room for doubt in the matter: in his Epistle to the Hebrews he makes a lengthy comparison between the Synagogue and the Church, thereby proving that they were absolutely different institutions.8 * When writing to the Corinthians, he also distinguishes between the Church and the Synagogue: “Be without offence to the Jews and to the gentiles and to the Church of God 0
III. From Roman Law. The laws of Rome allowed the Jews freedom of religious worship and conferred upon them many privileges, yet the Church was cruelly persecuted from its very beginning. Scarcely thirty-five years after our Lord’s death, Nero decreed that it was not lawful to be a Christian,—“Christianos esse non licet.” 10 Hence the Roman government must have looked upon the Church as a society entirely distinct from the Synagogue.
§ 5. Objections Considered...............................................29
Ob je c t io n I.—Christ expected to return soon after His death to judge the world. This is evident from His words to the Jews: “There are some oj them that stand here that shall not taste death until they see the Son oj man coming in His kingdom.” 1 On another occasion He described the signs preceding the second coming, and then added: “Amen I say to you that this generation shall not pass till all these things be done?” 2 His words to the Apostles convey the same meaning: “Amen I say to you, you shall not finish all the cities oj Israel till the Son oj man come.”3 It is evident, then, that Christ had no intention of founding a Church, or kingdom on earth. The kingdom announced by Him was purely eschatological,—a kingdom to be inaugurated at His second coming.
An s w e r .—Taken by themselves, the passages quoted might suggest that the end of the world and the second coming of Christ were near at hand, but other and clearer texts leave no doubt that our Lord neither expected nor proclaimed His second coming as an event of the near future. He said to the Apostles: “Behold I am with yoii all days even to the consummation ojthe world.”4 The tenor of these words implies at least several centuries intervening before the end of the world. At another time He said: “This Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come.”5 This presupposes a considerable lapse of time; the preaching of the Gospel to the whole world and to all nations was not a work to be accomplished in a few months or years. Again, in foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem, Christ said: “They shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations; and Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the gentiles till the times of the nations be fulfilled.” c This indicates a considerable period of time between the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world.
It is a recognized principle of interpretation that the obscure passages of a work must be explained in the light of clearer texts bearing upon the same subject. Hence the rather obscure texts quoted in the objection must be interpreted according to other passages whose meaning is clear. To consider each one in particular: (a) “Some that stand here shall not taste death till they see the Son oj man coming in Mis kingdom,” i. e., according to some interpreters, until they see the Son of man reigning in His kingdom, the Church which was spread far and wide even during the lifetime of some who heard these words of our Lord. Other scholars take the words “coming in His kingdom” as a reference to our Lord’s coming in judgment at the destruction of Jerusalem. Still others take them as a reference to the Transfiguration, which occurred six days later.7 On this occasion our Lord was speaking, not to the people, but to His Apostles, three of whom were privileged to see Him in that fleeting moment of glory on the mount, (ό) “This generation shall not pass till all these things be done,” i. e., the Jewish people shall not perish from the earth until the things foretold shall come to pass. If this be the correct interpretation, the prophecy is wonderfully fulfilled. No other people known to history ever preserved its identity during long centuries of exile like the Jews, (c) “You shall not finish all the cities oj Israel till the Son oj man come” i.e., before you have preached the Gospel in all the cities of Israel, I shall come in judgment against the city of Jerusalem for its sins of infidelity. In the Old Testament God is often said to come in judgment when there is question of some special manifestation of His justice against iniquity.8 Whatever be the interpretation of the texts just considered, it has been proved beyond doubt that Christ not only planned a Church, but actually established it. This fact cannot be overcome by objections taken from one or another text of uncertain meaning.
Ob je c t io n II.—Christ frequented the Temple and the synagogues, and observed the rites of the Mosaic Law; in fact. He openly declared that He had come, not to destroy, but to fulfill the Law.9 The disciples also frequented the Temple as we read in the Acts: “And continuing daily with one accord in the temple.” 10 These facts prove that neither Christ nor His disciples had any idea of a society distinct from the Synagogue.
An s w e r .—The conclusion does not follow from the facts adduced. It is possible for a person to belong to two or more societies at the same time, if those societies are not opposed to one another. The Acts of the Apostles relates that the disciples attended the Temple daily, but it also states that they “were persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread and in prayer.” 11 They formed a society under the leadership of the Apostles with their own doctrines and their own distinct worship. They went to the Temple to pray, as they were accustomed to do, but they afterward met in their own homes to celebrate the Eucharist,—“breaking bread from house to house.” 12 Up to the time of Christ’s passion and death the Mosaic Law was in full force; the disciples and Apostles were strictly bound by its precepts and ceremonies, and although Our Lord was not bound by the Law, He observed its ordinances, that He might show Himself an example to those who were.
Therefore it was necessary for the disciples of Christ to attend the services of the Temple before His death. After that they would only gradually give up practices to which they had been accustomed all their lives. It is also true that Christ came to fulfill the Law: He came to fulfill the prophecies contained therein, and to establish the Church long prefigured by the institutions of the Law. He came to establish the kingdom promised to the seed of David.
Ob je c t io n III.—The ceremonies of the Old Law were a profession of faith in a Messias to come. The disciples of Christ believed Him to be the Messias already come, hence their observance of the Law was a virtual denial of this new faith, for as St. Paul observes: “Ij you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing . . . you are made void oj Christ, . . . you arc jalien from grace.” 13 It is evident, therefore, that those first disciples did not consider themselves as forming a society distinct from the Synagogue until they had come under the influence of St. Paul, the author of the separatist movement.
An s w e r .—The objection has no bearing on the question at issue. The disciples believed Our Lord to be the long expected Messias, whether He established a Church independent of the Synagogue or not. Their observance of the Mosaic Law would be no greater denial of faith in one case than in the other. It has been proved that Christ did establish a Church as a society distinct from the Synagogue. It is also certain that the first disciples continued to frequent the Temple and observed the Mosaic Law to some extent. Whether they were right in so doing is another question. On this matter Tanquerey says: “The Synagogue was a figure of the Church and a preparation for it; hence the change from one to the other was not a change from a false to a true religion, but from one form of true religion to another. For this reason the change was made gradually in order to win the Jews more securely to the new faith. . . . The Apostles themselves observed certain ceremonies of the Law lest they give offense to their brethren, but when converts from among the Pharisees wished to impose the Mosaic Law upon gentile converts, St. Peter openly declared that it was no longer obligatory.11 But since both Jew and Christian worshipped the same God and observed the same moral code, and since the new religion, preached first to the Jews, differed but little in doctrine from the old, we should not be surprised to find that at first the separation of the Church from the Synagogue was not complete.” 15
St. Augustine clearly explains the relation of the Synagogue to the Church by distinguishing three stages in the history of the Mosaic Law. These stages he designates as the living, the dead, and the deadly. Before the passion and death of Our Lord the Mosaic Law was obligatory (living) upon every member of the Jcw ish nation. After the death of Christ the Law ceased to bind; it was dead, yet the Jews were free to observe it until the Gospel of the New Law was duly promulgated. After due promulgation of the Gospel the Old Law was both dead and death-dealing ; those who still observed its ceremonial precepts thereby denied that the Law of Christ is sufficient for salvation. For this reason St. Paul says: “You are made void of Christ, you who are justified in the law; you are fallen from grace.” 16
On this same subject Father Semeria says: “Christianity was a new fruit coming to maturity on an old vine: it was a new life developing from one that had passed maturity and was now growing decrepit. A number of causes, both human and divine, bound this new life to the Jewish religion. According to a happy expression of the Fathers, ‘the Synagogue was being buried with honors.’ God did not wish a sudden and violent transition, but the infant Church contained within itself an element which soon developed and brought about a complete separation. It was a case of historical biology.” 17
Art . III. Christ Founded but One Church... . 35
Protestants in general believe that one Christian church is as good as another, since all owe their existence equally to Christ; but they deny that He established any one to the exclusion of all others. Protestant theologians of the sixteenth century introduced the doctrine of a twofold Church,—the one visible, the other invisible. They were forced to this doctrine when asked to explain where the Church of Christ existed before the Reformation, since they taught that the Catholic Church had long since fallen into error and corruption and had ceased to be the Church of Christ. They solved the difficulty by claiming that the true Church of Christ is invisible and comprises all the just, or all those predestined to eternal life. The visible Church is composed of the various religious organizations, or churches, which are but so many external manifestations of the Church invisible. The just and the just alone belong to the invisible Church, regardless of what visible church organization they may belong to. In fact, they may belong to the invisible Church even though they have no connection with any organized church society.
There are some who maintain that Our Lord simply proclaimed the ideal of a Church and left it to His followers to organize actual churches, which realize more or less perfectly the ideal proposed by Him. This doctrine likewise leaves a multitude of churches, in all of which salvation may be obtained with equal security. Hence the belief that one church is as good as another.
These theories are refuted in part by the fact, already proved, that Christ actually instituted a real Church under the form of a visible society.1 The question now arises whether Christ established one Church or several. The answer to this question is of supreme importance. If there is but one true Church of Christ, all others must be false claimants, with no right to existence. If there is but one true Church, our eternal salvation depends upon finding and embracing it, and the doctrine that one church is as good as another must be rejected.
Thesis.—Christ founded but one Church
The doctrine stated in the above thesis is not only historically certain, but also a defined dogma of the Church, as is evident from the Nicene Creed: “Z believe in o n e holy, catholic and apostolic Church.”
Proofs. I. From Reason. Had Our Lord established two or more churches, all would have to teach the same, or different doctrines; employ the same, or different means of salvation. If they taught the same doctrines and employed the same means of salvation, it would be difficult to assign a sufficient reason for their separate existence. If they taught different doctrines or used different means of salvation, one only would be teaching all the doctrines of Christ or using all the means established by Him for salvation; yet the Church of Christ must “observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” 2 Again, if several churches teach opposing doctrines, all save one must necessarily teach falsehood, whereas the Church of Christ must ever be “the pillar and ground oj truth.”3
II. From Scripture. Sacred Scripture always speaks of the Church as one,—the one kingdom of God on earth; the single mustard seed that grows into a tree filling the whole earth; the one net cast into the sea; the one field in which the wheat and cockle grow together until the harvest.4 Again, the Church is the spouse of Christ, and the union between Christ and His Church is held up as the model for the union between husband and wife,5—a union between one man and one woman; not a polygamous union with several wives. The Church is also the body of Christ,6 but Christ is no monster having several bodies.
Our Lord Himself explicitly states that His Church shall be one: “Upon this rock I will build my Church.”1 He does not say churches. He also says: “There shall be one fold and one shepherd.” 8 St. Paul gives the reason why the Church should be one: “One body and one Spirit; as you arc called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.”9 The Church, which is the body of Christ, should be one, since there is but one God and Father of all, one faith, one baptism, one and the same eternal life to be attained.
HI. From Tradition. To quote the words of early writers on this question seems a needless task. Neither the Fathers of the Church nor the early heretics ever dreamed of denying that the Church of Christ must be one and only one. A few examples from the early Fathers will suffice for a doctrine so clearly and forcibly stated in Holy Scripture.
a) The Didache. “Remember thy Church, 0 Lord! Deliver it from all evil and establish it in thy love. Gather it from the four winds into thy kingdom which thou hast prepared for it.” 10 11 The author of this ancient work evidently recognized but one Church of Christ,—the Church spread over the four quarters of the earth, whence it shall be gathered into the heavenly kingdom of the Church triumphant.
10 Didaché Apostolorum, x, 5; Cfr. Funk, “Patres Apostolici,” I, 25.—This work known as “Teaching of the Apostles,” was written in the first century, probably between 80 and 90 a . d . 11 “Epistola ad Plebem”; P. L., 40, 336.*
ό) St. Cyprian: “There is one God, and Christ is one, and there is one Church and one chair founded upon the rock by the word of the Lord. Another altar cannot be constituted nor a new priesthood be made except the one altar and the one priesthood. Whosoever gathereth elsewhere, scattereth.” 11
c) Clement oj Alexandria: “From the very reason that God is one and the Lord one, that which is in the highest degree honorable is lauded in consequence of its singleness. In the nature of the One, then, is associated in a joint heritage the one Church which they [heretics] strive to cut asunder. . . . Therefore in substance and idea, in origin, in prééminence, we say that the ancient and Catholic Church is alone . . . passing all things else and having nothing like or equal to itself.” 12
12 “Stromata.” vii, 17; P. G, 9, SSI* 13 “Hexaemeron”; Ρ. L , 14, 146.
d) St. Ambrose: “Let us follow this one congregation of the Lord; let us recognize the one Church. . . . From every valley a catholic people is brought together; there are no longer many congregations but one; there is only one Church
Art . IV. Purpose and General Nature of Church... 40
§ 1. Purpose of the Church.............................................. 40Final Purpose . The Church, in common with all the works of God. must have for its final purpose the manifestation of God’s glory. For this reason St. Paul says: “In whom [Christ] we also are called by lot, being predestined . . . that we may be unto the praise oj his glory. ... He is the pledge oj our inheritance unto the redemption oj acquisition, unto the praise oj his name.” 1 Elsewhere he says: “Christ loved thè Church and delivered himself up for it .. . that he might present it to himselj a glorious Church.” 2
Th e Ch u r c h a Re l ig io u s So c ie t y . The end for which a society exists determines to a great extent the nature of that society. The Church, therefore, is a religious society, as all admit, and since it owes its existence to Christ, is known as a Christian society. In fact, it is the only means established by Christ to teach His doctrines, to inculcate His moral precepts, to ad- % minister the Sacraments, and to regulate and direct divine worship. No one can practice the Christian religion otherwise than as Christ Himself has ordained: whoever would be His disciple and embrace His religion must submit to the authority of His Church, be taught and ruled by it, and receive through it all the means of salvation. This is evident from the commission which Christ gave to His Apostles when He sent them forth to teach all nations. The Church, then, is not an institution of Christianity; it is Christianity existing in the concrete. Th e Ch u r c h a Su pe r n a t u r a l So c ie t y . The end to be attained by the Church, and most of the means to that end, are purely spiritual and supernatural. The Church has Christ for its author and exercises a supernatural power conferred by Him. Her members are raised to a supernatural state and consecrated in a special manner to God by the grace and spiritual character of Baptism. Therefore, the Church is a supernatural society in its origin and purpose, in its authority and means of sanctification, and likewise in its members. For this reason Christ could say: “My kingdom is not of this world.” 1 Th e Ch u r c h a Div in e -Hu ma n So c ie t y . The Church, being the work of Christ and holding authority from Him, must be divine in its origin, in its constitution, and in its authority. On the other hand, it is a society of men and for men, and therefore human. In the words of Leo XIII, “the Church is a society divine in its origin, supernatural in its end and means, yet i because it consists of human members, it is a human society.’’ 2 This twofold element in the Church explains the seemingly contradictory characteristics ascribed to it by our Lord Himself. It is a kingdom not of this world, perpetual, ever opposed yet never overcome ever displaying the vigor of youth because, unlike other societies, it is not subject to the law of decay; it is a divine institution. On the other hand, Christ clearly foretells evils in His Church: it is the field in which cockle grows with the wheat; it is the net taking fish both good and bad. It is necessary that scandals come because the Church is a human society subject to human evils.
Th e Ch u r c h a Pe r f e c t So c ie t y . A perfect society, in this connection, is not one free from defects and imperfections, but one having everything necessary to make it a com plete society. In this sense a sovereign state is a perfect society, although there may be many and serious imperfections in its government. Certain conditions are necessary to constitute a perfect, or complete society:
(1) It must be independent of all other societies, both in its existence and in its actions. A corporation is not a perfect society, since it depends upon the State for its existence and is regulated by the State in its actions.
(2) It must not be part of another society, for a part is necessarily incomplete.
(3) Its end must not be subordinate to that of any other society in the same order, otherwise it will also be subordinate to that other society, and therefore not independent in its actions.
(4) It must have at its command the means necessary for its own conservation and for the attainment of its own proper end, otherwise it will be dependent upon some other society for these means and therefore not perfect in itself. A society may possess necessary means either in re or in virtute, i. e., it may have them in actual possession or it may have the right to demand them of some other society, which is bound to supply them.
These four conditions being fully verified in the Church, constitute it a perfect society. It does not depend upon any other society for its existence; its end is supreme in its own order and cannot be subordinated to any higher order since it seeks man’s highest good,— his eternal salvation. The Church is also independent in all its actions, as the works of Christ clearly prove: “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.”3 Since the actions of the Church are ratified in Heaven, no power on earth can modify or nullify them. Christ has also promised that His Church shall endure until the end of time despite the opposition of worldly powers: “Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation oj the world.” 4 David’s prophecy concerning Christ is equally true of His Church: “The kings oj the earth stood up, and the princes met together against the Lord and against his Christ. ... He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh at them, and the Lord shall deride them.” 5 Hated, opposed, and persecuted, the Church shall remain victorious to the end, because she has within her self all means necessary to attain the purpose of her existence.
Ob je c t io n s Co n s id e r e d
Ob je c t io n I.—The Church cannot be a perfect and independent society, as it has no dominion, no territory of its own, in which to exercise authority.
An s w e r .—It is not necessary that a society have a dominion, or territory, by right of ownership; a territory in which to exercise authority is dominion sufficient for any society, and this the Church has. Her dominion is the world: “Go yc therefore into the zohole world and preach the Gospel to every creatzire.” 0 The Church has received her dominion from Him to whom belongs “the earth and the fulness thereof ; the world and all they that dwell therein.” 7 One and the same territory belongs to the Church and to the civil powers, —to the Church for the exercise of spiritual jurisdiction; to the civil powers for the exercise of temporal jurisdiction.
Ob je c t io n II.—In this case two independent societies would be exercising supreme jurisdiction in one and the same territory, which is contrary to the axiom that a State within a State is a contradiction. Hence the Church cannot be a perfect society.
An s w e r .—Two societies exercising supreme authority in the same territory is a contradiction if both are concerned about the same things; if they have different ends in view, there is no contradiction, unless those ends are incompatible. The ends sought by the Church and the State are different, but not incompatible; in fact, they are mutually helpful.
Ob je c t io n III.—Without religion there can be neither peace nor happiness in the State. Therefore, religion, or at least religious worship, must be subject to State regulation.
An s w e r .—It is a truth too often neglected today, that there can be no peace or happiness without religion; but it does not follow that religion must therefore be subject to the State. Many things are needed by an individual for his peace and happiness, but he is not thereby justified in becoming a highwayman to obtain them; he must have recourse to the lawful methods of barter. In like manner, if the Church has in her possession anything deemed needful or necessary for the public good of the State, let those in authority seek it from the Church, as they would from a neighboring State, i. e., by mutual agreement.8
§ 3. The Church and the Kingdom .... 48
Throughout the writings of the New Testament we find frequent mention of the Kingdom oj God, or, as St. Matthew usually terms it, the Kingdom oj Heaven. These terms are evidently synonymous, for, as Lightfoot has pointed out, the Jews frequently put Heaven for God, just as we do today in such phrases as “Heaven forbid,” “heaven be pleased,” etc.1 St. Matthew, writing for Jewish Christians of Palestine, used expressions to which they were accustomed. For this reason he has “Kingdom oj Heaven.” The other Apostles and Evangelists wrote principally for Christians of gentile origin and consequently gave the Greek equivalent for the Aramaic expression found in St. Matthew and most likely used by Our Lord Himself.
(1 J. Lightfoot, “Horæ Hcbraicæ”; On St. Matthew, iii, 2. 2 Dan. ii, 44. 3 Dan. ii, 34, 35. 4 2 Kings vii, 16).
The Kingdom so often referred to by Our Lord and His Apostles is evidently the Messianic kingdom, foretold by the prophets, prefigured by the people of Israel, and promised to David and his seed forever. “In the days of those kingdoms, the God oj heaven will set zip a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, and his kingdom shall not be delivered up to another people and it shall break in pieces and. shall consume all these kingdoms and. itself shall stand for ever.” 1 2 This Kingdom is the stone cut from the mountain without hands which in turn became a mountain filling the whole earth.3 It is the eternal kingdom promised to the house of David: “Thy house shall be faithful, and thy kingdom for ever before my face, and thy throne shall be firm for ever.” 4 “Once have I sworn by my holiness: I will not lie unto David: his seed shall endlire for ever. And his throne as the sun before me; and as the moon perfect for ever!15
(5 Ps. Ixxxviii, 36-38. 0 Matt, ii, 2. 7 Mark ix, 33. 8 Matt, xx, 20, 21.)
At the time of Our Lord’s public ministry the Jews were still looking forward with confidence to the establishment of this Kingdom under the leadership of the Messias, but their conception of the Messias and of His Kingdom had sadly degenerated since the days of the prophets. They now looked upon the Messias as a great national leader to restore the kingdom of Israel and to make of it a world power to dominate the gentile nations. For this reason Herod was greatly disturbed when the Magi inquired, “saying, Where is he that is born king of the Jews?116 The disciples were imbued with this idea when they “disputed among themselves which of them should be the greatest,” 5 *7 and again when the mother of James and John asked Our Lord that “these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand and the other on thy left in thy kingdom,” 8 she was seeking high official positions for her sons in the worldly kingdom which they believed Our Lord would soon establish. Even after the Resurrection of Our Lord, the Apostles could not entirely rid themselves of this belief. When Christ was telling them to wait in Jerusalem for the coming of th.e Holy Ghost, they asked Him:
“Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom oj Israel?” 9 During His public life, Our Lord strove to correct this false conception of His kingdom. He clearly and emphatically proclaimed that it was not to be an earthly one, such as they expected. When the Pharisees asked Him, “when the kingdom oj God should come, He an~ swered them and said: The kingdom oj God cometh not with observation” 10 i. e., it shall not be inaugurated by the marching of armies, the shouts of victory, or the trappings of royalty. “My kingdom is not o] the world.” 11
What then, is the real character of this Kingdom? Harnack says that it signifies a purely spiritual and interior reign of God in the soul: “The kingdom of God comes by coming to the individual; by entering into his soul and laying hold of it.” 12 Protestants in general hold a similar view; some, however, seem to identify the Kingdom with the invisible Church which they postulate: “The kingdom of God includes all those who yield themselves in glad obedience to the will of God.” 13 In either case, it excludes any external or visible society, such as the Church in the Catholic sense. Modernists admit that the Kingdom is a real external society, but belongs to the future: “according to the teachings of Christ, the kingdom of heaven was to come only with the end of the world.” 14 In opposition to these views we sometimes find Catholic interpreters and theologians identifying the Kingdom with the Church. A study of the parables in which Our Lord explains the nature of His Kingdom will show how far the above views may be accepted, and to what extent they fall short of the truth. It is evident that the words are not always taken in the same sense; at least three distinct, though related, meanings are attached to it.
14 Dcnzinger, n 2052. 16 Matt, xiii, 24 sq. lfi Matt xvi, 18, 19. 17 Matt, xiii, 24 sq.
a) The Kingdom is the mustard seed that becomes a tree and fills the whole world; it is the field with wheat and cockle growing together until the harvest; it is the net cast into the sea which takes fish both good and bad. There can be no doubt that these parables depict the Kingdom as an external society existing on earth,—a society composed of members both good and bad. In this sense the Kingdom is identical with the Church, in which St. Peter exercises the power of the keys: “Upon this rock J will build my Church . . . and I will give to thee the keys oj the kingdom of 15* I heaven.” 10
b) The Kingdom of Heaven is also a hidden treasure, a pearl of great price, a leaven permeating and transforming the meal. In these and similar passages we see the Kingdom in its interior and spiritual aspect: it is the power of grace transforming and elevating the soul,—the reign of God in the heart. In this sense the Kingdom is something different from the Church, considered as an external society.
c) Finally, the Kingdom is the eternal banquet of heavenly bliss, the place prepared for the just from the foundation of the world, the land that belongs to the poor in spirit, and which the rich man shall hardly enter. These passages present the Kingdom in its eschatological aspect, as the glorious reign of Christ with His saints, which shall be inaugurated at His Second Coming. In this sense the Kingdom is identical with the triumphant Church. 18 19 20 21
When Christ said to Nicodemus: “Unless a man be born again, he cannot enter into the kingdom oj heaven” 22 He was probably using the term in its threefold sense. Baptism is the door by which we enter the Church on earth; it is the beginning of God’s reign in the heart by regeneration, without which eternal happiness is impossible. The above considerations bring out clearly the relations between the Church and the Kingdom of Heaven. The Church, as an external society carrying on the ministry of Christ, constitutes the Kingdom in its exterior social aspect. In the work of sanctifying souls the Church produces the Kingdom in its interior and spiritual aspect. By accomplishing the work of salvation on earth the Church prepares for the kingdom in its eschatological aspect; it is preparing to become the Church triumphant in heaven.23
Chapter II. Attributes of the Church
The Church as a society instituted to perpetuate the mission of Christ on earth, must be endowed with certain qualities necessary for the proper performance of that work. Necessary qualities are those so essentially bound up with the Church that the loss of any one of them would make the Church other than that established by Christ and render it incapable of accomplishing the purpose of its existence. From the teachings of Christ and His Apostles, and from a study of the Church as set forth in the prophecies of old and in the writings of the Fathers, it will be seen that the principal qualities or characteristics essentially necessary to the Church are unity, sanctity, catholicity, apostolicity, perpetuity, indejectibility, visibility, and infallibility. The first four of these, known to theologians as properties, manifest themselves externally and thus serve as a means to identify the true Church of Christ. The others, not externally evident, are called attributes,—in Latin, dotes. As a matter of convenience the attributes of the Church are treated separately in the present chapter; perpetuity and indejectibility, being intimately related, are considered together in the first article. Visibility is treated separately in the second article. Infallibility will be treated at length in another part of the work.1
Art. I. Perpetual Indefectibility of the Church 56
§ 1. Nature of Indefectibility........................................56Protestants. The defectibility of the Church is one doctrine upon which all Protestants agree. They hold that the Church not only can fail, but that she did fail sometime before the pseudo-Reformation of the sixteenth century. They were driven to this in self defense, for if the Church as founded by Christ did not and could not fail, there was neither reason nor excuse • _ for the institution of other churches. Those who maintain the existence of a visible and an invisible Church make the one defectible, the other, indefectible. Mo d e r n is t s. Modernism holds that the Church cannot be indefectible, since it is the result of evolution and therefore continually subject to evolutionary processes that affect its very constitution. “The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable; the Christian society, as well as human society, is subject to perpetual evolution.” 1 Ra t io n a l is t s. Critics of the rationalistic school practically hold that the Church failed in the days of the Apostles. They deny, of course, that Christ founded a Church, since that was the work of the disciples themselves after Our Lord had left them. But these critics maintain that the disciples almost immediately separated into two antagonistic schools under the leadership of St. Peter and St. Paul, respectively. Towards the end of the second century, some one in Asia Minor or Alexandria wrote the Fourth Gospel in an effort to reconcile and reunite the Judaising party of St. Peter with the universalist followers of St. Paul.2 Schelling, Fichte and others proclaimed a threefold Church which they called the Petrine (Catholic), the Pauline (Protestant) and the Johannine (Church of the future).
Thesis.—The Church of Christ is perpetually indefectible in all its attributes and properties.
The proposed thesis does not determine the attributes and properties of the Church; it simply states that, whatever they may be, the Church can never lose a single one of them, nor fail in her existence. In other words, it means that the Church founded by Christ must exist until the end of time without any essential change. In this general sense the thesis is proxima fidei, i. e., all but an article of faith, being clearly implied in the words of the Vatican Council: “The eternal Pastor and Bishop of souls decreed to establish a holy Church to perpetuate (perenne reddere) the saving work of salvation.” 1 The doctrine is also implied in the condemnation of the following proposition of Modernism: “The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable.”2 Leo XIII wrote to the same effect when he said: “The Church must carry far and wide to all men and for all time the salvation wrought by Jesus Christ and the blessings flowing therefrom. . . . Hence the Church must be one and perpetual.” 3
Proof. I. From Reason. Christ instituted the Church for the salvation of all men, and endowed it with certain powers and characteristics necessary for this work. If the Church should lose any one of these necessary qualifications, it would be incapable of doing what Christ intended it to do; in fact, it would cease to be the Church instituted by Him. Moreover, if the Church could fail in any of its essentials, even for a time, it would lose all authority to teach and to govern, because the faithful could never be certain at any time that it had not failed,—that it had not ceased to be the Church of Christ, thereby losing all authority. But an authority that may be justly doubted at all times is no authority; it commands neither obedience nor respect as is evident in churches that reject the claim to indefectibility.
II. From Scripture, a) Prophecies. Daniel represents the Church of Christ as a kingdom standing forever unconquered and unconquerable. “But in the days of those kingdoms, the God oj heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, and his kingdom shall not be delivered up to another people, . . . and itself shall stand for ever.” 4 Isaias says: “A child is born to us and a son is given to us and the government is upon his shoulders . . . He shall sit upon the throne oj David, and zipon his kingdom; to establish it and strengthen it . . . from henceforth and for ever.” 6 According to these prophecies it was announced: “The Lord God shall give unto him [Christ] the throne oj David his father . . . and oj his kingdom there shall be no end.” G In these passages the Kingdom can be no other than the Church to be established by our Lord.
b) Testimony of Christ. Our Lord himself distinctly proclaimed the perpetual indefectibility of His Church: “Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates oj hell shall not prevail against it.” 7 The Church is an impregnable fortress built upon a firm foundation of living rock,—a fortress against which the powers or darkness shall ever beat in vain. There is no force, either internal or external, that can cause it to crumble or fall. Christ is the wise man of the parable who built his house upon the rock, “and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and they beat upon that house and it fell not for it was founded irpon a rocky8
(7 Matt, xvi, 18.—Ancient cities were surrounded by high walls to protect them against their enemies. Entrance to the city was by way of gates in its walls. Before the invention of battering-rams the strength of a city lay in the strength of its gates. For this reason gates soon came to mean strength or power. Hence gates oj hell refer to the forces of evil, which Christ well knew would be loosed against His Church. Many non-Catholic scholars take gates of hell as equivalent to sheol i.e., the place of the dead, and then death itself. Taken in this sense, the words of Christ are even more striking, for if death can never prevail against the Church, neither can it perish or fail. Death to a society can be only its destruction by dissolution or essential change. 8 Matt, vi, 24, 25. • Matt, xxviii, 20.)
When Our Lord instituted the Church by sending forth the Apostles with authority to teach, govern, and sanctify men, He said: “Behold, I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.” 9 In these words Christ promised to be with His Church, protecting it at all times, even to the end of the world. But if Christ is for the Church, who can prevail against it? Our Lord also compares His Church to a field in which the wheat and cockle grow together until the harvest, which, He tells us, is the end of the world. Therefore, the Church must continue unchanged until the end, for, although it contains much cockle, it ever remains a wheat-field.10
11 10 Matt, xiii, 24 sq. 11 Aggeus ii, 7. 12 Hcb. xii, 26-28.
c) Testimony oj St. Paul. In his Epistle to the Hebrews St. Paul makes a lengthy comparison between the Church and the Synagogue. He represents the one as permanent, the other as transitory. He quotes the words of the prophet Aggeus: “Yet once more, and I will move not only earth, but heaven also,” and applies them to the Old Law saying: “In that he saith yet once more, he signifieth the translation oj the movable things as made, that those things may remain which are immovable. Therefore receiving an immovable kingdom, we have grace.” In this passage St. Paul distinctly says that the temporary institutions of the Old Law have been succeeded by the immovable Kingdom of the New. Therefore the Church, the immovable Kingdom of the New Law, must be perpetual and indefectible. 11 12
III. From Tradition, a) Pseudo-Ambrose, the author of an ancient work formerly attributed to St. Ambrose, refers expressly to the indefectibility of the Church: “We behold in the Church a ship sailing the seas of this world . . . though tossed by the storms and buffeted by the waves, it can never suffer shipwreck because Christ hangs upon its mast which is the cross, the Father sits enthroned upon its stern, and the Holy Ghost the Paraclete, as helmsman guides the prow. Through the straits of the world twelve oarsmen [the Apostles] guide it safely into port ... it can never crash upon the rocks nor founder in the deep.” 13
13Pseudo-Ambrose, “Sermo de Salomone”; P. L., 17, 697. 14 St. John Chrysostom, “Quod Christus sit Deus”; P. G., 52, 402. 16 St. Augustine, “Enarratio in Ps.,” Ixii; P. L., 36, 726. ie St. Jerome, “In Isaiam,” iv, 6; P. L., 24, 74.
b) St. Chrysostom is not less positive in his statements: “Do not hold aloof from the Church, for there is nothing stronger than the Church. The Church is your hope; the Church is your salvation; the Church is your refuge. It is higher than heaven and broader than earth. It never grows old, but ever keeps the vigor of youth. Wherefore Scripture, wishing to show forth its firmness and stability, calls it a mountain.” 14;
c) St. Augustine says: “The Church cannot be overcome nor rooted up; it cannot yield to any trials whatsoever until the end of this world come.” 15
d) St. Jerome expresses a similar faith: “We know that the Church will be harassed by persecution until the end of the world, but it cannot be destroyed; it shall be tried, but not overcome for such is the promise of an omnipotent God whose word is as a law of nature.” 16
§ 4. Objections Answered............................................ 65
Ob je c t io n I.—The Synagogue, the Church of the Old Law, failed at different times in its history, e. g.} when the people forsook their God to worship the golden calf erected by Aaron. Again, during the time of the Judges and still later, under the Kings, the people often fell into idolatry by worshipping the gods of surrounding nations. Now, if the Church of the Old Law could fail, then also the Church of the New.
An s w e r .—There is no parity in this matter between the Church and the Synagogue, for it was never said of the Synagogue that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Neither was it said to the priests of old: “Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.” Moreover, it may well be denied that the Synagogue ever really failed even for a day. It is true that many forsook the ways of the Lord and worshipped strange gods; but even in the worst days of Israel, there was a goodly number of faithful souls to perpetuate the church of their fathers. Even when Aaron set up the golden calf at Sinai, twenty-two thousand sons of Levi remained faithful under their divinely appointed leaders.1 1 Cfr. Exodus xxxii, 26; Numb, iii, 39.
Ob je c t io n II.—It must be admitted by all that the Synagogue with all its observances came to an end at the death of Our Lord, despite many prophecies regarding its perpetual existence.2 Therefore, there is no reason why the Church may not fail in like manner, despite the promises of Christ.
2 Cfr. the promises made to David that his kingdom and his throne should stand firm forever: 2 Kings vii, 16; Ps. Ixxxviii, 36- 38; Is. lx, 1 sq. 3 Gal. iii, 24. 4 Dan. ix, 27. 5 Jer. xxxi, 31.
An s w e r .—The Synagogue was succeeded by the Church of Christ because the Mosaic Law was only a preparation for the more perfect Law of Christ; it was a mere paidagogos, leading man to his Divine Teacher.3 This preparatory character of the Law and its future abrogation was clearly foretold by the prophets. Thus, e. g., Daniel prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem and the worship of the Old Law: “And in the half oj the week the victim and the sacrifice shall fail; and there shall be in the temple the abomination oj desolation, and the desolation shall continue even to the consummation and to the end.” 4 And Jeremias foretold the establishment of a new covenant to succeed the Law of Moses: “Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord, and 1 will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Juda. Not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers.”5
Regarding the promises of perpetuity seemingly made to the Synagogue of old, St. Augustine says: “The priesthood of Aaron was but a shadow of the eternal priesthood to come; when promises of perpetuity were made, they were not made to the shadow and figure itself, but to that which was foreshadowed and prefigured. And lest the shadow itself should be thought permanent, its abrogation was foretold.” G St. Paul also brings out in bold relief the temporary character of the Synagogue in opposition to the perpetuity of the Church by comparing the one to Agar, the repudiated wife of Abraham, the other to Sarah, who was never put away.7
Ob je c t io n III.—Christ Himself foretold the abrogation of His Church and the institution of a Church of the Holy Ghost: “And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete that he may abide with you forever.” s
An s w e r .—These words of Christ refer to the internal mission of the Holy Ghost in the souls of men, and especially to His continual presence in the Church to preserve it from all error. This is explained by Christ Himself in the same passage. “He [the Paraclete} shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind whatsoever I shall have said to you.”9 Christ promised the Holy Ghost as a Paraclete, i. e., a Helper or Protector for the Church already established, not as the Author of a Church to be established in the future
0 St. Augustine, “De Civitate Dei,” vii, 6; P. L., 41, 536. 7 Gal. iv, 22 sq. 8 John xiv, 16. 9 John xiv, 26.
Art . II. Visibility of the Church................................68
§ 1. Nature of Visibility............................................68Visibility primarily signifies the capability of being perceived by the sense of sight; then, by extension, it refers to the capability of being perceived by any of the five sense' Finally, it means the capability of an object being perceived or known by the intellect because of the sensible qualities adhering in that object. Hence the division into material and formal visibility. A thing is materially visible in its external, sensible qualities; it is formally visible when it can be recognized by these qualities as having a certain nature. For example, a man, considered according to the external qualities of his body, is materially visible,—he can be perceived by the senses; when the soul manifests itself by speech or other external sign, he becomes formally visible,—he is known to be a rational being, called man.
Non-Catholic teaching on the visibility of the Church seems hopelessly involved. Scarcely any two Protestant theologians hold the same views, and even one and the same author frequently expresses contradictory views on the matter. Luther, for example, says that “the Church is hidden in the spirit and known only by faith.” 1 “But you may say, if the Church be entirely in the spirit and of a nature thoroughly spiritual, how can we discern where on earth any part of it may be? The necessary mark whereby we recognize it, and which we possess, is Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and above all the Gospel.” 2 Here, then, we have a Church wholly invisible that may be recognized by visible marks! In another work Luther teaches that there is both a visible and an invisible Church: “Because communion with the visible Church constitutes no communion in the invisible, and because many nonChristians are found in the visible Church, so no visible Church is at all necessary.” 3 Melanchthon in his later writings emphasizes the conception of the Church as a visible organization in which the pure Word of God is taught.4 Buddeus, a later Protestant theologian, says: “When there is question of the congregation of true believers who constitute the Church properly so-called, it is evident that it is invisible.” 5
Thesis.—The Church of Christ is formally visible, not only as a Church, but also as the true Church of Christ
This is an article of faith, having been defined by the Vatican Council in the following words: “God established a Church through His only begotten Son, and endowed it with manifest marks of its institution, that it might be known by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word.” 1 This is a clear and comprehensive definition of formal visibility. The Church has certain evident marks by which it can be recognized as the true Church of Christ, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word. The thesis contains two propositions: (a) The Church is an external society that can be recognized as such by all,—it is formally visible as a religious society or Church; (b) This society has certain marks by which it may be distinguished from all other churches and recognized as the true Church,—it is formally visible as the true Church. It will be sufficient to prove the second proposition, since no society can be recognized as the true Church unless it is first recognized as a church. Moreover, it has been amply proved that Christ established His Church under the form of an external visible society.2
Proofs. I. From Reason. When Christ instituted the Church, He demanded submission to its authority under pain of eternal damnation : “Going therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name oj the Father and oj the Son and oj the Holy Ghost. . . . He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” 3 Again Christ says: “Ij he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican.” 1 How could any one be obliged, under pain of eternal damnation, to hearken to the teachings of the Church and obey her precepts unless there be some means of recognizing it as the true Church endowed with authority* to teach and govern? Assuredly, Our Lord in His divine wisdom has not obliged all men to do something impossible.
II. From Scripture, c) The prophet Isaias represents the Church as a house built upon the topmost peak of the highest mountain, where it may be seen by all nations far and near: “And in the last days the mountain oj the house oj the Lord shall be prepared on the top oj mountains, and it shall be exalted above all hills and all nations shall flow unto it.” It shall be recognized as the house of the Lord, for the people will say: “Come and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob.” 5
b) When praying for His Apostles, Our Lord said: “And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; that they all may be one, as thou Father in me and I in thee; that they also may be one in us that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” 0 Christ prays that His disciples be so closely united to one another that this very union will be a proof of His divine mission. In a word, He prays that His Church, the society of His disciples in all ages, shall be recognized because of its perfect unity.
c) In Holy Scripture, the Church is always represented as an external society that may be known by all; it is a kingdom, a city, a house, a sheep-fold, a field. It is also a mustard seed that grows into a tree filling the whole earth, and is easily recognized as such, for all the birds of heaven (z. e., all nations) fill its branches and feed upon it. In fact, almost every page of the New Testament and the prophecies of the Old depict the Church as an external society so eminently visible that even “jools shall not err therein.” 7
6 Is. ii, 3. cJohn xvii, 19 sq. " Is. xxxv. S
III. From Tradition. The Fathers were wont to compare the Church to the sun and the moon, because, like them she sheds her light upon the whole world and is known to all peoples, s t . a t h a n a s iu s, e.g., says: “The Church of Christ in her splendor illuminates the world and remains forever as the sun and moon.”8 St. John Chrysostom says: “Neither is the sun so resplendent nor the moon so bright as those things which pertain to the Church, for the house of God is upon the pinnacle of the mountains.” 9 Even more striking are the words of s t . a u g u s t in e : “When anyone would see the moon, people say to him: Behold the moon; there it is! And if there are any who do not know where to look, it is pointed out with the finger. Now, my brethren, do we thus point out the Church? Is it not plain? Is it not evident? Do not all peoples know it?” 10
§ 4. Objections Answered............................................ 77
Ob je c t io n I.—Our Lord Himself indicates the invisible character of His Church when He compares it to a hidden treasure: “The Kingdom oj heaven is like unto a treasure hidden in a field.” 1 What is hidden is undoubtedly invisible.
An s w e r .—It has been noted already 2 that in this and similar passages the kingdom is presented in its inner spiritual aspect, and therefore is not to be identified with the Church, which is the kingdom in its external or social aspect. The parable teaches us the inestimable value of the blessings to be obtained in and through the Church; they are such that every other good must be accounted as nothing in comparison. Even if the parable be referred directly to the Church, it proves nothing against its visibility; the treasure was not invisible, since it was found and recognized as a veritable treasure, for which the finder sacrificed all his possessions. If the parable be applied to the Church, it clearly teaches that the man who has found the true Church of Christ must be ready to sacrifice everything to embrace it. /
Ob je c t io n II.—On another occasion Our Lord distinctly announced that His kingdom would be purely spiritual,—a kingdom in the hearts of His faithful: “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation . . . For lo, the kingdom of God is within youF3
An s w e r .—The words quoted in the objection were spoken by Our Lord in answer to a question put by the Pharisees, who had long expected the Messias to come as an earthly king with all the trappings of royalty. They expected Him to restore the lost glory of Israel and subjugate the surrounding gentile nations. They now ask when these things shall come to pass: “Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said: The kingdom of God cometh not with observation . . . the kingdom of God is within you F The question asked by the Pharisees was probably intended as an insinuation that Christ was not the Messias, since He did not come as they had expected. Whatever the purpose of the question, it implied a twofold error; (1) that the Messianic kingdom had not yet begun, and (2) that it would be a great earthly power to rule the world. Our Lord corrected the latter mistake by telling them that the kingdom of God cometh not with observation, i. e., it will not be clothed with the outward signs of earthly power and glory. He also corrected the first error by announcing that the kingdom of God was already in their midst, since He, its founder, had already begun His mission on earth: “The kingdom of God is within you.” The best Scripture scholars, both Catholic and nonCatholic,4 agree that the Greek phrase tVros υμ,ων should be rendered among you, instead of within you, as the Latin and English texts have it. Hence the whole objection rests upon a faulty translation that makes Our Lord’s words ridiculous. He was speaking to the Pharisees, who rejected Him and sought in every way to turn the people against Him. Then if the kingdom of God is the reign of Christ in the soul, we hear Him telling these Pharisees that they already possess this kingdom in their hearts: “The kingdom of God is within you.”
Ob je c t io n III.—The Church must be invisible, since the worship due to God is purely internal and invisible; a worship in spirit only, for Christ has said: “God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and truth.” 5 Where then is the need of an external visible society of worshippers?
An s w e r .—The objection illustrates the old saying that “who proves too much, proves nothing.” If the worship of God is purely internal and spiritual, as the objection asserts, why should any Christians have churches, ministers, sermons or public worship? Scripture scholars do not agree in their interpretation of the words “in spirit and truth.” The circumstances under which they were spoken will give some insight into their meaning. They were addressed to the Samaritan woman, who had asked Our Lord about the legality of sacrifice offered on Mount Garizim. He tells her that the worship of the Old Law, both in Jerusalem and on Mount Garizim, must soon give way to a worship in spirit and truth. Worship in spirit is probably a sincere worship, welling up from the heart, as opposed to any mere formal worship. A similar contrast is found in Isaias, where God complains of His people because “with their lips they glorijy me, but their heart is jar from me.” 0 In like manner, worship in truth is opposed either to the worship of false gods, or to the ceremonies of the Old Law, which were but types and figures of the realities of the New. There is not a word in the whole passage that can be construed into an argument against the visibility of the Church.
Ob je c t io n IV.—St. Paul teaches the invisibility of the Church by contrasting it with the Synagogue, the visible Church of the Old Law. He says that, in coming to the Church, the Hebrews have not “come to a mountain that might be totiched, and to a burning fire, a whirlwind and darkness . . . but you are come to mount Sion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.” 7
An s w e r .—In this passage St. Paul shows the superiority of the Church over the Synagogue by contrasting the circumstances under which the two laws were promulgated: one, being a law of fear, was promulgated on Mount Sinai amid lightnings, whirlwinds, and darkness; the other, being a law of love, was promulgated from Mount Sion, the symbol of heavenly peace and joy. “The latter dispensation is not, as was the Mosaic, severe, onerous, and minatory; but promises salvation, and instills joy, peace, patience and confidence.” 8 There is no contrast between a visible Synagogue and an invisible Church; both are symbolized by a mountain and therefore equally visible.
Ob je c t io n V.—St. Peter admonishes the faithful to be “as living stones built up, a spiritual house.”9 Therefore he conceives the Church to be an invisible spiritual society.
An s w e r .—A society spiritual in every respect would necessarily be invisible but the Church is not such a society. It is spiritual because it is striving for a spiritual good and the means to that end are in large measure spiritual. It is also a visible society composed of men,—living stones,—externally organized and using visible signs and ceremonies in its worship.
Ob je c t io n VI.—In the Apostles’ Creed we say: “I believe in the holy Catholic Church!” Therefore the Church is an object of faith and must be invisible, for otherwise it would be an object of knowledge. What we see and know cannot be an object of faith.
An s w e r .—It is by no means certain that an object of knowledge cannot also be an object of faith; but even granting that it cannot be, it does not follow that the Church must be invisible. The Church has a human element that is visible and capable of being known. It also has a divine element which is invisible and therefore capable of being an object of faith. This fact may be illustrated by the example of St. Thomas the Apostle, who saw and knew Our Lord’s human nature and believed in His divinity.
Ob je c t io n VII.—A body must participate in the nature of its head, but Christ, the Head of the Church, is invisible. Therefore, the Church, which is His mystical body, must also be invisible.
An s w e r .—Christ in his human nature is visible; therefore, the Church, His mystical body, must also be visible in its human element. Christ is said to be invisible because He is no longer on earth by bodily presence, but that does not change the nature of His body
Chapter III. Properties of the Church
Since the Church is a society that may be recognized by all, it must have certain visible characteristics, so distinctive that they cannot be found together in any other society. In the present chapter we shall consider the nature of these characteristics, or properties, and prove that the Church of Christ possesses them. In the following chapter we shall determine in how far they serve as marks to identify the true Church. Cardinal Bellarmine enumerates fifteen characteristics of the Church that may be used as distinguishing marks; Bozius, an Oratorian, mentions ninety-nine, but all of these, as well as those mentioned by Cardinal Bellarmine, are simply different aspects of the four properties set forth in the Nicene Creed; viz., Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity and Apostolicity,—“I believe in one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Churchy
Art . I. Unity of the Church ......................................83
§ 1. Nature of Unity................................................ 83Unity may be taken in opposition to plurality or to division. When applied to the Church in the former sense, it means that there is but one true Church of Christ. This is often called unicity, to distinguish it from unity in the second sense, which means that the one true Church is not subject to division of any kind in regard to things essential. The unicity of the Church was established by proving that Christ founded but one society, which He called His Church.1 We shall now consider the unity of the Church, by which its members throughout the world are so bound together as to form a society that is justly said to be one. Bo n d s o f Un it y . No material bonds,—no fetters of steel,—can bind men together in a society. This must be accomplished by moral bonds that unite the souls of men through the faculties of intellect and will. Intellects are united by the acceptance of a common doctrine; wills are joined by submission to a common authority. Therefore the very existence of a society depends upon this twofold unity,—a unity of government to which all members must submit, and a unity of doctrines proposed to and accepted by all. From these two bonds of unity a third necessarily follows. The internal acts of man naturally tend to manifest themselves externally; his internal acts as the member of a society,—his submission to authority and his acceptance of the doctrine proposed,—will be expressed by external acts, for the most part symbolic. These symbolic actions constitute the ritual or ceremonial of the society, which must be essentially the same for all members, since it expresses acceptance of one and the same doctrine and submission to one and the same authority. Moreover, every member must strive in some measure to attain the end for which the society exists, for he who rejects the purpose of a society, thereby rejects the society itself and ceases to be a member. But to attain an end, certain means must be employed which are adapted to that end and, therefore, essentially the same for all members. Applying these principles to the Church, we readily see that it must have (c) unity of government or social unity; (6) unity of doctrine taught and accepted or unity of faith, and (c) unity of external acts symbolizing its doctrines and government, and also unity in the use of means necessary to attain the end for which it exists. As the Church is a religious society, all these external acts pertain to the worship of God and their unity constitutes a unity of worship.
Pr e l imin a r y Re ma r k s. Unity of government, known also as social unity, requires that the members of the Church and all its parts be so united under one supreme authority as to form but one single society. This excludes any division by which parts of the Church would have their own independent government; it also excludes any mere federation of independent churches. Unity of government is by far the most important of the unities, because without it no other form of real unity could be maintained for any length of time. Protestants in general seem to hold that some form of unity is necessary for the Church of Christ, but the unending multiplicity of sects forces them to adopt the theory of Jurieu, who taught that “the universal church consists of all societies agreeing in fundamental doctrines, even though mutally excommunicated and anathematized; that the only true unity of communion consists in spiritual union with Christ, and therefore, that the formation of new sects is in no degree blamable.” 1
Many Anglicans of the High Church party follow the lead of Palmer and Pusey in admittting that unity of government in the Catholic sense is at least desirable, and perhaps even a matter of divine ordination; but they deny that it is so essentially necessary that it may not be dispensed with for grave reasons.2 Such reasons, of course, were found at the time of the Greek schism and again at the time of the so-called Reformation in England; but efforts should be made to restore the lost unity. These High Churchmen look upon the Anglican Church as “providentially called to be the healer of the breach for a divided Christianity.”3 Many societies have been formed within their ranks for the laudable purpose of bringing about such a “healing of the breach.”
Thesis.—The Church of Christ is necessarily one by unity of government
The doctrine set forth in the above thesis is a dogma of the Church defined by the Vatican Council: “In order to preserve the multitude of the faithful in the unity of faith and communion, Christ placed the blessed Peter at the head of the other Apostles, thus making him a perpetual source and visible foundation of this twofold unity” 4 Pius IX gave expression to the same doctrine in these words: “There is no other Catholic Church save that built upon the one Peter and united into one compact body by the unity of faith and charity.” 5 4 Denzingcr, n. 1821. 5 Denzinger, n. 1686.
Proofs. I. From Reason. Unity of government means simply that the Church must have one supreme authority, to which all its members and its every part are subject. This is really a self-evident truth that needs no demonstration, because the very moment the Church becomes divided between two or more supreme authorities, it ceases to be one society; there is no longer one, but several churches, contrary to the truth already established that the Church of Christ is and must ever remain one.
II. From Scripture. Sacred Scripture constantly represents the Church as a kingdom, a city, a house. Therefore, it was instituted, and must continue to exist, after the fashion of a kingdom, a city, or a house; but Christ Himself has said: “Every kingdom divided against itself shall be brought to desolation, and house upon house shall fall.” G And again: Every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.” 7 Therefore, if the Church is to continue until the end of time, as Christ has promised, it must ever remain a united kingdom.
Our Lord also beautifully illustrated the unity of His Church when He compared it to a sheep-fold by saying: “Other sheep I have that are not of this fold; them also 1 must bring and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be o n e f o l d and o n e s h e ph e r d .” 8 What more impressive comparison could have been addressed to a pastoral people? “All the sheep of a flock cling together. If they are momentarily separated, they are impatient till reunited. They follow in the same path. They feed on the same pasture. They obey the voice of the same shepherd, and fly from the voice of strangers.” 9
Our Lord not only foretold that His Church should be one; He also prayed that it might possess the most perfect unity. He prayed that it be one even as He and the Father are one: “I pray for them also . . . who shall believe in me, that they all may be one, as thou, Father in me, and I in thee . . . I in them and thou in me THAT THEY MAY BE MADE PERFECT IN ONE.” 10 Does a chimerical Church composed of innumerable warring sects fulfill this prayer of Christ for perfect unity? St. Paul always presents the Church as the mystical body of Christ, and likens it to the natural body in man: “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. For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body.” 11 Therefore, according to St. Paul, the unity of the Church must be similar to that of a human body wherein all the members are so united that if one be separated it loses the life of the body, and if the body itself be divided it perishes. So likewise the Church, if it be divided, must perish, and any one separated from the body of the Church ceases to be a member.
III. From Tradition. The Fathers always insisted upon the unity of the Church in the strongest terms, and stoutly defended it against the authors of schism, whom they accounted the most wicked of men because they sought to rend the seamless garment of Christ. In this they followed the example of St. Paul, who classes schism along with adultery, murder, and idolatry: “The works oj the flesh are manifest, which are fornication . . . idolatry . . . s e c t s (schisms') . . . envies,murders.” 12 A few quotations from the early Fathers will suffice:
12 Gal. v, 19-20. 13“Epist. ad Philatel.,” Ill; Funk, I, 267. 14 “Adversus Hæreses,” IV, 33 ; P. G., 7, 1076. 15 “De Unitate Ecclesiae,” 23; P. L. 4, 517. 10 “De Unitate Ecclesiæ,” 7, 8; P. L., 4, 504, 506.
a) St. Ignatius Martyr: “Be not deceived; if anyone follow the author of a schism, he shall not possess the inheritance of the heavenly kingdom.” 13
b) St. Irenaeus: “Those who cause schism . . . rend and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as they can, destroy it. . . . No reparation they can make will ever equal the evil of their schism.” 14
c) St. Cyprian: “God is one, and Christ is one, and His Church is one; the faith is one and the people is one, joined into a substantial unity of body by the cement of concord. Unity cannot be severed; nor can the one body be separated by division, nor torn asunder.” “This sacrament of unity, this bond of concord inseparably cohering, is set forth where in the Gospel the coat of the Lord Jesus Christ is not at all divided nor cut, but is received as an entire garment. . . . Who then is so wicked and so faithless; who is so insane with the madness of discord, that he should believe the unity of God can be divided, or should dare to rend the garment of the Lord,—the Church of Christ?” 15 16
d) St. Gregory Nazianzen: “We are all one body in Christ, each one a member of Christ, and all members one of another. Some being placed in command, govern; others obey and are governed. All do not have the same duty, for to rule and to be ruled are not the same, yet all are conjoined and built up by the same Spirit into one body in the one Christ.” 17
§ 3. Unity of Faith.......................................................92
b) Unity of Profession..................................... 98
Unity in the profession of faith is a natural consequence of the unity of doctrine; a mere corollary to be explained rather than proved. Members of a society must accept its principles, or teachings, at least in word and action, for he who rejects the very principles of a society by word or act, thereby rejects the society itself and ceases to be a member. Therefore, every member of the Church must accept its teachings, i.e., he must make at least an outward profession of faith7 “for with the heart we believe unto justice; but with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation.” 14 Since this outward profession concerns the one faith taught by the Church, it will be essentially the same for all its members; in other words, there will be unity in the outward profession of faith.
Unity in the profession of faith also follows from the fact that every member of a society must cooperate to some extent in attaining the end which it seeks to realize; therefore, he must use, according to his position in the society, the means necessary to attain that end. But in the Church the very use of those means,—the Sacraments, sacrifice, prayer, and other acts of worship.—not only demand, but in fact arc, outward professions of faith, and that the one faith taught throughout the world. It were useless to quote individual Fathers on this question for it is a well-known fact that the Church has always demanded the strictest unity in the profession of faith; those who refused to profess even a single doctrine, were condemned as heretics who had already ceased to be members, because, as St. Paul says, they are “condemned by their own judgment.” 15 For this reason Tertullian said: “Those who are heretics cannot be Christians.”
§ 4. Unity of Worship................................................ 99
Pr e l imin a r y Re ma r k s. Unity of worship, known also as liturgical unity, refers especially to acts of public worship, in which the faithful participate in their capacity as members of a society, the Church. It applies only to those things that are of divine institution, which may be summed up in the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments. Unity is not necessary in those things which Christ left to the discretion of the Church, to be changed according to the needs of time and place. The various rites used in the Church in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, or in the administration of the Sacraments, do not affect the unity of worship provided the essential nature of the Sacrifice and the Sacraments, as instituted by Christ, be left intact. Neither is unity of worship disturbed by the use or the neglect of devotions which are not essential, such as the invocation of saints, prayers for the dead, pilgrimages and the like. Denial of their efficacy or lawfulness would constitute heresy, which is opposed to the unity of faith, but lack of uniformity in their use does not break the unity of worship. Practically, then, unity of worship means that all members of the Church be initiated by the same sacramental rite of Baptism, participate in the fruits of the same sacraments, and worship God by the same Eucharistic sacrifice. According to Protestant teaching, all men are free to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience. This doctrine is widely proclaimed today as “freedom of conscience” or “freedom of worship.” It simply means that every man is free, not only to believe according to his own interpretation of the Scriptures, but also to worship God in his own way. This either denies that Our Lord established any definite form of worship in the New Law, or maintains that we cannot know with certainty what it is, for surely no Christian could believe that he is free to worship as he pleases, if he admits that Christ has established a definite form of worship to be used by His followers.
Thesis.—The Church of Christ is necessarily one by unity of worship
Proofs. I. From Reason. Unity in the outward profession of faith and in the use of the means necessary to attain the purposes for which the Church was instituted, constitutes unity of worship, because in the Church, which is a religious society, all these things pertain to worship. Furthermore, no one can deny that God has the right to demand one and the same form of worship from all His faithful children in the New Law as He did in the Old. The fact that unity of worship was demanded in the Old Law makes it very probable that a like unity is demanded in the more perfect Law of Christ, which was prefigured by the rites and institutions of the Old Law.
II. From Scripture. A comparison of the Church with the Synagogue makes it very probable that one form of worship is demanded of all the faithful in the New Law; the words of Christ made it certain. All men must be initiated into the Church by one and the same sacramental rite: “Teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost .” 1 For this reason St. Paul says: “In one Spirit were we all baptized into one bodyF 1 2 All must likewise partake of the same Eucharistic Bread: “Amen I say unto you; except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” 3 St. Paul also teaches that the reception of the one Eucharistic Bread is not only a sign, but also a wonderful source of that unity whereby the faithful are united with one another and with Christ their Head: “And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? For we being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of the one bread.”4
4 1 Cor. x, 16 sq. 0 Luke xxii, 19. 8 1 Cor. xi, 26. 7 Mai. i, 11.
At the institution of the Holy Eucharist, Christ said to the Apostles: “Do this for a commemoration of me.”5 And again: “As often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord until he come.” 6 This is the institution of that clean oblation which shall be offered in every place from the rising of the sun even to the going down,7—one and the same sacrificial worship to be offered at all times and in all places, until He come.
Unity of worship in the Sacrifice of the Mass and in the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist are expressly demanded by Christ Himself; the necessity for unity in the use of the other Sacraments is equally evident from the very nature of a Sacrament. Christ alone has authority to say how grace shall be given; He alone can institute Sacraments to confer it, and no one can change them, abolish them, or add to their number. They must remain the same for all men at all times. But since the Sacrifice of the Mass and the use of the same Sacraments constitute the essential elements of worship, that worship must be the same for the whole Church, i. e., there must be essential unity of worship.
Art. II. Holiness of the Church ............................. 103
The English word holiness originally meant wholeness, soundness, or health. It is now used almost exclusively as an equivalent of the Latin sanctitas, from the verb sancire,—to set apart, to dedicate. Therefore a thing is holy (sanctum) when set apart or devoted in some manner to God, and holiness or sanctity is the state or condition of the thing thus set apart and devoted to God. Holiness also includes the idea of being pleasing to God because of some union or conformity with Him. Finally, that which serves to manifest holiness is also said to be holy. Hence we have a threefold holiness,—physical, moral, and manifestative.
Thesis.—The Church of Christ possesses physical holiness, both passive and active
b) Active or Causative Holiness . . .107
Pr e l imin a r y Re ma r k s. Moral or personal sanctity may be either perject or imperfect, and both admit of varying degrees. Perfect sanctity is the effect of sanctifying grace and the infused virtues of faith, hope, and charity; imperfect sanctity requires the infused virtues of faith and hope, and the exercise of, at least, some acts made supernatural by the aid of actual grace. Moral sanctity, being a quality of the soul, can be predicated in the strict sense of persons only; the Church is said to possess it only in so far as her members are personally holy. Consequently the moral sanctity of the Church may vary from time to time, according to the number of holy persons within her fold, and also according to the degree of their sanctity. But this moral sanctity of the Church can never be entirely lost; there must ever be found a goodly number of holy persons in the Church,—persons who are holy because of her sanctifying powers. Moreover, the Church will always be noted for persons of eminent sanctity.
Preliminary Remarks. Sanctity itself is something internal and invisible, but it may be manifested by external signs. This outward manifestation is called manifestative sanctity. There are various means of judging with more or less probability that a particular person or thing is pleasing and acceptable to God; but there is only one means of certain knowledge,—the testimony of God Himself, given through miracles, wrought under circumstances that leave no doubt that the person or institution through which they are performed, is pleasing to Almighty God. Miracles, therefore, constitute manifestative sanctity, but as miracles are facts, they cannot be a property or quality of the Church. Hence, manifestative sanctity, as a property of the Church, is rather the permanent power oj the Church to perform miracles, or at least a permanent right to have them performed, when necessary to prove her sanctity and her divine mission. “The Church is said to be holy on account of her miraculous powers, because such powers prove that she is pleasing to God who dwells within her and continues to operate through her; they prove her divine mission in the most convincing manner. For this reason the power of miracles will be most prominent when evidence for the truth and sanctity of the Church is most needed.” 1
Protestants, with few exceptions, deny the power of miracles in the Church today, although many admit the occurrence of miracles in the first ages. Middleton, a non-Catholic, says: “The most prevailing opinion is that they subsisted through the three first centuries and then ceased in the beginning of the fourth.” But he himself rejects this opinion, because, “by granting but a single age of miracles after the times of the Apostles, we shall be entangled in a series of difficulties whence we can never fairly extricate ourselves till we allow the same powers to the present age.” 2 Although universally condemned by Protestants of his day, the opinion of Middleton is quite logical. If miracles ever existed in the Church, there is no reason why they should cease at the end of the third century rather than in the tenth, or the nineteenth, or any succeeding century. The circumstances that made them necessary or useful in the second or third century, may be present in any other century, until the end of time. Hence, we must either sweep aside the testimony of all antiquity and deny the existence of miracles in every age, or admit that the Church is endowed with miraculous powers for all time, unless it can be proved that Christ has ordained otherwise.
Thesis.—The Church of Christ possesses manifestative sanctity, i. e., she has a permanent power of performing· miracles when circumstances make them necessary or useful
Proofs. I. From Reason. The Church as vicegerent of Jesus Christ, carries forward His mission on earth. Therefore, she should have the same means for proving her mission and establishing her authority that Christ Himself used to establish His own. For this purpose Christ performed miracles; therefore, the Church also should have power to perform miracles when circumstances demand the exercise of such power.
II. From Scripture. St. Paul represents the Church as the body of Christ animated by the Holy Ghost, who manifests His indwelling presence through the working of miracles: “To one indeed, by the Spirit is given the word oj wisdom ... to another the grace of healing in the same spirit; to another, the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another, the discerning of spirits; to another, diverse kinds of tongues; to another, interpretation of speeches. But all these things, one and the same Spirit worketh, dividing to every one according as he will . . . For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body.33 3 Therefore, so long as the Holy Ghost dwells within the Church to animate it and guide it, we shall expect these external manifestations of His presence and power by the working of miracles.
When Christ sent forth His Apostles to preach the Gospel and organize His Kingdom, He said to them: “And these signs shall follow them that believe: in my name they shall cast out devils: they shall speak with tongues . . . They shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover F 4 In these words Christ promised the power of miracles to His disciples,—a power connected with the profession of the true faith, and unlimited as to time and place. This promise, as we know, is not fulfilled in Our Lord’s disciples as individuals, for no one will maintain that all members of Christ’s Church have the power of working miracles. Therefore, the promise must be fulfilled in the disciples taken collectively as a society, which is the Church, and Holy Scripture testifies that such was the case in the days of the Apostles. They wrought miracles to prove their mission and confirm their teachings; in this manner many were brought to the knowledge of truth and won for Christ. St. Peter healed the lame man at the gate of the Temple, and “many oj them who heard the word believed, and the number of the men was made five thousand.” 5 At Lydda, he also healed Eneas of the palsy and “all that dzvelt at Lydda and Saron saw him, who were converted to the Lord.” G In Joppe, he raised Tabitha to life and “it was made known throughout all Joppe; and many believed in the Lord.” 7 At Paphos, St. Paul wrought a miracle upon the magician of Elymas and “the proconsul, when he had seen what was done, believed, admiring at the doctrine of the Lord.”8 When writing to the Galatians, the same Apostle appeals to the miracles wrought in their midst as a confirmation of his teaching: “He therefore who giveth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you; doth he do it by the works oj the Law or by the hearing oj the faith?” 9 If miracles were necessary, or at least useful, for the Apostles when carrying the Gospel to those who had never heard of it, or who denied the Apostolic mission to preach a new faith, are they not likewise necessary under similar conditions in every age? Christ did not promise to be with His Church for a few years, or a few centuries only, but for all time, “even to the consummation oj the world.” 10
III. From Tradition. Practically all the early Fathers appeal to the miracles wrought in the Church as proof of her divine mission. Middleton, a nonCatholic scholar, candidly admits this: “It must be confessed, in the first place, that this claim of a miraculous power, which is now peculiar to the Church of Rome, was universally asserted and believed in all Christian countries and in all ages of the Church till the time of the Reformation.” 11 In view of this fact, it will suffice to quote but one early Father on the matter. In his work against heresies, St. Irenæus says: “Those who are in truth His disciples, receiving grace from Him, do in His name perform miracles, so as to promote the welfare of other men according to the gift which each one has received from Him. For some do certainly and truly drive out devils, so that those who have been thus cleansed from evil spirits, frequently both believe and join themselves to the Church . . . Others heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and they are made whole. Yea, moreover, as I have said, the dead even have been raised up and remained amongst us for many years. And what shall I say more? It is not possible to name the numUer of the gifts which the Church scattered throughout the whole world has received from God in the name of Jesus Christ . . . and which she exerts day by day for the beneiit σί the gentiles.”
§5. Objections Answered.........................................117
Ob je c t io n I.—All members of Christ’s Church are free moral agents, capable of falling from grace at any time. Therefore, all may fall at the same time, leaving the Church deprived of moral sanctity.
An s w e r .—Sanctity in the individual depends upon his own free-will at all times; sanctity in the whole body of the faithful depends upon the will of Christ and the providence of God. By the distribution of efficacious graces God can provide unfailing sanctity for His Church without destroying man’s free-will. In the Old Law God’s purposes in regard to the Chosen People were not, and could not be, defeated, yet each and every member of the Hebrew nation was left to the full exercise of his free-will. In like manner God will carry out His purposes in the New Law by preserving personal sanctity in His Church and free-will in the individual.
Ob je c t io n II.—The Church, as the mystical body of Christ, must follow the analogy of a physical body, which is said to be sick, or unsound, when any single member is diseased. Hence the Church loses her moral sanctity by the presence of a single sinner within her fold.
An s w e r .—A natural body is not rendered unsound throughout by the unsound condition of one or more members, unless they be vital members. In the Church the vital members are Christ and the Holy Ghost, who are sanctity itself. A body with an unsound member is not perfectly sound; it is diseased, because the unsound member reacts upon the whole body thereby causing pain, discomfort or dis-ease. In like manner the presence of sinners in the Church deprives her of perfect moral holiness, because, as stated above, the Church has moral holiness in so far only as her members are personally holy. The presence of sinners causes her pain and sorrow {dis-ease') ; she sorrows over sinners as she rejoices over the good: “If one member suffer anything, all the members stiffer with it; or if one member glory, all the members rejoice with it.” 1 The infection of one member cannot spread to the whole body of the Church, as often happens in a physical body; her powers of resistance are always sufficient to prevent such general infection.
Ob je c t io n III.—Our Lord did not intend His Church to have the power of miracles; in fact, He warns against the workers uof great signs and wonders,” who will act as agents of Satan to deceive the faithful: “There shall arise jalse Christs and jalse prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.” 2
An s w e r .—Christ is here warning the faithful against the prodigies that the agents of Satan will produce in the days of Antichrist, to deceive them if possible. Such prodigies are not miracles, but as St. Paul says, “signs and lying wonders.” This very warning on the part of Our Lord presupposes the power of miracles in the Church, for otherwise there would be no reason for Satan to attempt such counterfeits. There can be no counterfeit coins where there are no genuine coins to counterfeit. The prophecies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition to the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the rôle of Messias; his prophet will act the part of Pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church.3
Ob je c t io n IV.—Miracles are no proof of sanctity, for Christ has said that on the day of judgment many will say to Him: “Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knerw you: depart from me, you that •work iniquity.” 4
An s w e r .—Not every miracle is a proof of sanctity' in the person through whom it is wrought, nor in the society in which it is wrought. The circumstances and purposes of miracles must be taken into account. For example, the prophecy of Balaam was no proof of sanctity on his part, but the circumstances and purpose of the prophecy gave undeniable proof that the people of Israel were under the special protection of God. In like manner, a miracle wrought through the use of relics, or the intercession of a saint, shows beyond doubt that the veneration of relics and the intercession of saints are practices pleasing to God, since He has sanctioned them by direct intervention of His own power to perform a miracle. When God wrought miracles through the Apostles and thereby brought many souls into the Church, did He not thereby show that the Church is holy and pleasing to Him? What was true in the days of the Apostles, is true at all times in the Church.
Ob je c t io n V.—“The performance of miracles is not essential to real sanctity. It will surely not be pretended, even by Romanists, that all those who are honored by the Church as saints must have wrought miracles.” 5
An s w e r .—There is no claim that the power to perform miracles constitutes sanctity or is in any way: necessary for its existence. Miracles are simply the means, and the only certain means, to make known the presence of sanctity in a person or an institution. But as there is no necessity for sanctity to be made known in all cases, so neither was there any necessity for all the saints to perform miracles.
Ob je c t io n VI.—If miracles were a property of the Church, they would have to be wrought continuously, because a property, being essential, can never be lacking. But miracles rarely occur in the Church today.
An s w e r .—Miracles themselves are not a property of the Church; the power to perform miracles when necessary constitutes the property which is ever present in the Church. It is not necessary that this power be constantly exercised. Christ did not perform miracles at all times, yet He possessed the power at all times. Miracles are performed in the Church only when necessary according to circumstances of time and place; consequently they will be more frequent in one age than in another. In the first ages they were more necessary than at present, for, as St. Gregory the Great says, “Miracles were necessary in the beginning of the Church that the faith might grow by their nourishment. In the same way we water newly planted trees until we see they have taken root in the soil; then we cease to water them any longer.” 0 In like manner Lacordairc: “When Jesus laid the foundations of His Church, it was needful for Him to obtain faith in a work then beginning; now it is formed, although not yet completed. You behold it, you touch it, you compare it, you measure it, you judge whether it is a human work. Why should God be prodigal of miracles to those who do not see the miracle?”7 As the Church becomes better established and more widely known, the need for miracles decreases, and they become less frequent, but they have never entirely ceased.8 Changed circumstances of future years may make them as necessary as they were in the first ages of the Church.
Art . III. Catholicy of the Church. . . .122
A Distinctive Title . The Church has been called Catholic from the earliest years of her existence. St. Ignatius Martyr, in his letter to the Christians of Smyrna, written about the year 107, says: “Wherever Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” 1 A few years later (140 a . d .) an account of the sufferings and death of St. Polycarp was addressed “to all the parishes of the holy Catholic Church throughout the world.” 2 The same title is applied to the Church in an ancient document known as the Fragment oj Muratori, which was written about 200 A. d . All Christians still profess their faith in the holy Catholic Church as often as they recite the Apostles’ Creed, which dates back to the days of the Apostles, or at least to the years immediately following.
§ 3. Catholicity of the Church further Defined . 130
The Church of Christ must be universal, or Catholic, by diffusion throughout the world, but this diffusion may be either physical or moral, simultaneous or successive, absolute or relative. Therefore, it may be asked, what is the precise nature of the universality necessary for the Church, and also whether this universality must be perpetual.
Morally Catholic. Physical universality would be realized if the Church were so completely spread over the earth that she actually exercised her authority over every portion of the inhabited world. It is evident that the Church has never been so diffused, and therefore such universality cannot be necessary. The early Fathers evidently held this view; even in the third and fourth centuries they proclaimed the Church already universal because of her diffusion, yet as St. Augustine said: “It still had much room to increase before the prophecy concerning Christ, prefigured by Solomon, would be fulfilled: ‘He shall rule jrom sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth? ” 1 It is sufficient, then, that the Church be morally universal, i. e., that she be so wide-spread throughout the world that she may easily be known even in those regions in which she does not actually exist; or, as Suarez puts it: “If she has such universal renown that she ' may be known and distinguished from all heretical sects.” 2
Simultaneously Catholic. The Church might have a successive existence in various parts of the world, dying out in one place as it springs up in another, until finally the Gospel would have been announced in all parts of the world. This would constitute successive catholicity, but it is evident that such universality is not sufficient, because at no time would the Church be really Catholic in any true sense of the word. Therefore, the Church must be simultaneously Catholic, i. e., it must be present throughout the whole world at one and the same time. It is true, of course, that the Church may cease to exist in this or that part of the world but it must ever remain at least morally universal, as explained above.
Absolutely Catholic. Absolute Catholicity is the universality of the Church, considered in itself, regardless of any other religious society. Relative catholicity refers to the universality of the Church as compared with that of some other society. In this latter sense, the Church will be Catholic if it is more wide-spread than any other single church. As already noted, mere numbers do not constitute universality; one church is not more Catholic, or universal, than another because of the mere fact that it numbers more adherents. Absolute Catholicity is necessary in the true Church as shown above, but relative Catholicity does not seem necessary; at least, its necessity can be proved neither from Scripture nor tradition, and there seems to be no reason why a false sect might not become universally distributed over the world, unless perhaps God in His providence prevents it, of which we have no assurance.
Perpetually Catholic. The reason for the Church’s universality demands that it be also perpetual; in so far as the Church might fail in her universality at any time, in just that far must she also fail in her mission of carrying the Gospel to all nations. Moreover, all the prophecies of old and all the promises of Christ concerning the universality of the Church were made without restrictions or limitations as to time. They never contemplate any failure; they never so much as intimate that the Church will ever be reduced to narrow or insignificant limits. Cardinal Bellarmine seems to have held that the Church might be so reduced in extent as to be confined for a time to one single country or province, provided it is still recognized as the Church that had been universally spread over the world. This is practically the same as saying, ‘‘provided it remain morally universal,” which does not in reality deny perpetual universality. However, his opinion does not seem probable and has not been generally accepted.
§ 4. Perfect Catholicity to be Attained . . . 133
Thesis.—The Church of Christ shall at length attain perfect catholicity, i. e., it shall finally embrace all nations and all peoples without exception
Although moral universality is sufficient to make the Church truly Catholic, the prophecies of old certainly demand something more for their adequate fulfillment; one and all announce a kingdom that shall be universal to the last degree. Λ few examples will make this clear: (a ) “He shall ride from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth . . . and all kings of earth shall adore him; all nations shall serve him ... And in him shall all tribes of the earth be blessed'; all nations shall magnify him.” 1 (ύ) “And all the nations thou hast made shall come and adore before thee, O Lord; and they shall glorify thy name.” 2 (c) “His empire shall be multiplied and there shall be no end of peace.” 3 (d) “And judgment shall sit . . . that the kingdom, and power, and the greatness oj the kingdom under the whole heaven may be given to the saints oj the most High; whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all kings shall serve him and obey him.” 4 (β) “He shall speak peace to the gentiles, and his power shall be from sea to sea, and from the rivers even to the ends oj the earth.”
5 3 Is. Lx, 7. 4 Dan. vii, 26, 27. 5 Zach, ix, 10. c “Epist. ad Hesychium,” P. L., 33, 922.
Prophecies such as these find no adequate fulfillment in the conversion of a few thousand, or even a few million souls among the vast pagan populations of earth. Neither can a world largely steeped in paganism, torn by schism and distracted by heresy, be the only fruit of Christ’s death upon the Cross. We are forced to say with St. Augustine: “Even in the islands of the sea shall be fulfilled the word of prophecy, ‘He shall rule from sea to sea,’ and if a prophet cannot deceive, it is necessary that all nations whatsoever He has made, shall adore Him.” 6
Even the scattered nation of the Jews shall follow the gentiles into the Church, as St. Paul plainly states: “I would not have you ignorant, brethren, oj this mystery . . . that blindness in part has happened in Israel until the fulness of the gentiles should come in. And so all Israel should be saved as it is written: There shall come out oj Sion, he that shall deliver and shall turn away ungodliness jrom Jacob.” 7 Again he says of the Jewish people: '7/ the loss oj them be the reconciliation of the world, what shall the receiving oj them be but lije from the dead?” 8
After the gentile nations have entered the Church, the Jews also shall submit to the faith of Christ and the Church shall be universal indeed. Then shall begin the reign of Christ in all its fullness, “from sea to sea,” and all the prophecies shall be justified. This does not mean that each and every individual of every nation and tribe shall submit to the Church; nations and peoples, not individuals, have been promised to the Church for her inheritance. It does mean, however, that all nations, as nations, and at least the vast majority of their subjects, shall recognize the true Church of Christ and submit to her authority.
These prophecies will not be fulfilled before the time of Antichrist, since the Apocalypse makes it certain that he will come into a world harassed by paganism, apostacy, schism, and heresy.9 The Jews, still unconf verted, will accept him as Messias and assist in his warfare against the Church. Only after the defeat of Antichrist and the conversion of the gentile nations, will the Jews accept Christ as Messias. According to the generally accepted opinion, this will take place shortly before the end of the world, since the coming of Antichrist is looked upon as a prelude to the consummation of all things earthly. If this be true, the universal reign of Christ would seem a failure in point of time. It certainly does not seem probable that thousands of years spent in preparation shall lead up to a universal reign of Christ lasting but a few short months, or at most, a few short years. It would be considered a mark of folly in a human society to labor for years building itself up to the point where it could most effectively carry out its programme, and then disband. Are we not accusing Christ of like folly if we suppose He will in like manner bring the earthly career of His Church to an end almost immediately upon attaining the state in which it can perfectly carry out its mission?
It seems far more probable that the period of fruition will at least equal, and perhaps even exceed, the period of preparation, and therefore that many centuries will intervene between the destruction of Antichrist and the end of the world. The progressive character of the Church in her extension has already been noted. Beginning at Jerusalem, she spread with miraculous rapidity, extending her limits ever farther and farther with the passing centuries, yet all the while the gates of hell were struggling to prevent it. The Church has been forced to wage unceasing war upon her enemies. Judaism assailed her in infancy; then followed. in succession, Arianism, Islamism, the Greek schism, the pseudo-Reformation of the sixteenth century, and Rationalism in the eighteenth. Today she is warring against indifferentism and the denial of all religion. The “mystery of iniquity,” mentioned by St. Paul,10 grows apace with the spread of the Church, and will culminate in the coming of Antichrist, when Satan will make a last supreme effort to prevent the universal reign of Christ in His Church.
After a short but desperate struggle, the Church will emerge victorious, Antichrist will perish, and the powers of Satan will be curbed, so “that he should no more seduce the nations.” 11 After the defeat and destruction of Antichrist, all nations will flow into the Church, the Jews will enter her fold, and the universal reign of Christ will be established over all peoples, tribes, and tongues. Then shall the words of Christ be literally and completely fulfilled: “I have overcome the world.” 12 After a long period of time, symbolically designated as a thousand years,13 “Satan shall be loosed out oj his prison} and shall go forth to seduce the nations which are over the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, and shall gather them together to battle” 14 for a final persecution of the Church. By special intervention of God, these hostile nations shall be quickly defeated and the Church shall stand forth once more victorious. Then will the day of judgment be near at hand.15
Art. IV. Apostolicity of the Church . . . .138
Apostolicity denotes connection in some manner with the Apostles, or a likeness to them. Hence we speak of Apostolic men, i. e., men who lived in the days of the Apostles, or who are inspired with a like zeal in their ministry. In like manner the Church is said to be Apostolic because of some relation it bears to the Apostles. Historians use the term to designate the Church as it existed in the days of the Apostles; with theologians, it means that the Church is, in some manner, derived from the Apostles. In this sense the Church is Apostolic in origin, doctrine, and ministry. The Church is Apostolic in origin, because it is and must ever remain, the identical society founded by Christ and organized through the ministry of the Apostles; it is Apostolic in doctrine, because it teaches the selfsame truths that Christ committed to its custody in the persons of the Apostles. Finally, the Church is Apostolic in ministry (or siicccssion), because the authority which Christ conferred upon the Apostles has come down through an unbroken line of legitimate successors in the ministry of the Church.
Succession. Apostolicity of origin and of doctrine are easily understood without further explanation, but some knowledge of snccessio'n is necessary for a proper conception of apostolicity of ministry. Succession, as used in this connection, is the following of one person after another in an official position, and may be either legitimate or illegitimate. Theologians call the one jormal succession; the other, material. A material successor is one who assumes the official position of another contrary to the laws or constitution of the society in question. He may be called a successor in as much as he actually holds the position, but he has no authority, and his acts have no official value, even though he be ignorant of the illegal tenure of his office.
A formal, or legitimate, successor not only succeeds to the place of his predecessor, but also receives due authority to exercise the functions of his office with binding force in the society. It is evident that authority can be transmitted only by legitimate succession; therefore, the Church must have a legitimate, or formal, succession of pastors to transmit apostolic authority from age to age. One who intrudes himself into the ministry against the la\\s of the Church receives no authority, and consequently can transmit none to his successors.
Twofold Power. Succession in the Church differs from that in other societies from the fact that there is a twofold power to transmit,—the power of O rders and the power of jurisdiction or government. The power of O rders is purely spiritual and concerned directly with the conferring of grace; it is obtained through the Sacrament of Orders validly received and cannot be revoked by any power of the Church. For this reason, the power of Orders may be obtained by fraud or conferred against the will of the Church by anyone having valid Orders himself, and therefore does not depend upon legitimate succession.
Jurisdiction is authority to govern and must be transmitted in the Church as in any other society; it can be conferred only by a lawful superior, according to the constitution and laws of the society, and may be revoked at any time. Consequently jurisdiction in the Church can neither be obtained nor held against the will of her supreme authority; its transmission depends entirely upon legitimate succession. It is not sufficient, therefore, that a church have valid Orders; it must also have a legitimate succession of ministers, reaching back in an unbroken line to the Apostles, upon whom our Lord conferred all authority to rule His Church.
Union with Rome . No one can be a legitimate successor in any society unless he receive due authority therein; it follows, therefore, that there can be no legitimate successor in the Church of Christ who has not received jurisdiction either directly or indirectly from her supreme authority. But, as will be proved elsewhere, supreme authority in the Church of Christ was committed to St. Peter and his lawful successors, the bishops of Rome: consequently all legitimate succession, or Apostolicity of ministry in the Church, depends upon communion with the chair of Peter and is lost the moment that communion is severed. Hence no particular part of the Church is indefectibly Apostolic, save the see of Peter, which is universally known by way of eminence as the Apostolic See.
Errors. Those who deny that Christ founded any visible Church must also deny the possibility of Apostolicity in the sense just explained. Practically all Protestants admit the necessity of Apostolicity of some sort in the Church, but they differ in regard to its nature according to their different conceptions of the Church itself. Anglicans maintain that the Church must be Apostolic in its ministry, but they seem to place this Apostolicity in the valid transmission of Orders alone: “The authoritative ministry fof the Apostles] was propagated by being imparted in succession to others in different degrees by the laying-on of hands.” 1
§ 2. The Church of Christ Apostolic .... 142
Thesis.—The Church of Christ is necessarily Apostolic in origin, doctrine, and ministry
That the Church is in some sense Apostolic, is a dogma of faith as appears from the Nicene Creed: “I believe in one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.” Apostolicity of ministry and of doctrine have been defined, at least implicitly, by the Vatican Council: “If any one should say that it is not by the institution of Christ, and therefore not by divine right, that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in his primacy over the whole Church, ... let him be anathema.” 1 “The Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that He might reveal to them a new doctrine, but that He should assist them to preserve religiously and jaithjully expound the revelation, or deposit oj jaith, handed down by the Apostles.” 1 2
Proofs. I. From Reason and Scripture. The thesis is a self-evident truth, rather than a proposition to be demonstrated.
a) Origin. Christ instituted but one Church through the ministry of the Apostles, and to none other did He give any authority to organize a church in His name. Consequently a church existing at any time since then, is either the identical Church established by Him, and therefore Apostolic, or it is not that identical Church, and therefore in no wise the Church of Christ, but merely a false claimant having no right to exist.
b) Doctrine. Our Lord committed the teaching of all His doctrines to the Apostles and promised to be with them until the consummation of the world: “Teach all nations . . . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you . . . And behold, I am with you all days even to the consummation oj the world.” 3 He also promised to them the Spirit of Truth, to remain with them forever guiding them in all truth: “I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete that he may abide with you jor ever ... he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.” 4 Christ has either failed in His promises, or the Church must ever preserve and teach all truths committed to her through the ministry of the Apostles. In other words, the Church must be Apostolic in her doctrine even to the consummation of the world.
c) Ministry. It is evident that there can be no authority in the Church save that which comes directly or indirectly from her Divine Founder, Jesus Christ. But there is not the slightest intimation in Scripture or tradition that Christ ever promised to confer authority directly upon the ministers of the Church; consequently it can only be obtained by lawful succession from those upon whom Christ personally and directly conferred it, i. e., from the Apostles. In other words, the Church must be Apostolic in her ministry by means of a legitimate succession reaching back in an unbroken line to the Apostles.
I. From Tradition. In controversies with the heretics of their age, the early Fathers always appealed to Apostolic succession as a proof for the true Church of Christ, and argued that heretical sects could not be the true Church for the simple reason that they lacked this succession. In order to show that the Catholic ê Church actually possessed Apostolic succession, many early writers drew up lists of bishops in various churches running back to Apostolic days. Among the compilers of such catalogues of bishops may be mentioned Hegesippus, St. Irenaeus, Eusebius, and St. Optatus of Mileve. A few quotations will show the mind of the Fathers on this question.
a) St. Irenæus: “It is necessary to obey the presbyters in the Church, those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the Apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father.” 5. 5 “Adversus Hæreses,” IV, 26; P. G., 7, 1053.
b) Tertullian: “But if there be any [heresies] bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the Apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they existed in the time of the Apostles, we can say: Let them unfold the roll of their bishops running down 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,—a man moreover who continued steadfast with the Apostles.” 6
c) St. Cyprian: “Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop who succeeding no one and despising the Evangelical and Apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way.” 7
0 Tcrtullian, “De Præscriptionibus,” xxxii, P. L., 2, 44. 7
St. Cyprian, “Epist. ad Magnum,” n. 3. P. L., 3, 1140
Chapter IV. Marks of the Church
Thus far we have considered the Church of Christ as portrayed for us on the pages of Holy Scripture and in the writings of the early Fathers. We have learned that Christ established a Church as an external visible society endowed with perpetual and indefectible unity, sanctity, Catholicity, and Apostolicity. Since the Church is perpetually indefectible, it must exist today with all its essential properties; it must still be perpetually and indefectibly one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic. The Church which possesses these characteristics must be the one true Church of Christ; all others, mere human inventions.
Since Christ intended His Church to be known and accepted by all, He must have endowed it with certain exterior marks, by which it may be known with certainty and clearly distinguished from all false claimants. Therefore it is necessary to consider (1) what is required for a mark of the Church, (2) which properties of the Church fulfill these conditions, and (3) in what church these properties are found today.
Art. I. Requisites for a Mark of the Church . 146
§ 1. Nature of a Mark................................................... 146A mark (Latin, nota} may be defined as a quality or characteristic by which the subject in which it inheres may be recognized and distinguished from every other thing. Hence it must be a manifest and essential quality, (fl) It must be manifest, i. e., it must be something that can be perceived, otherwise it cannot lead to the knowledge of the subject in which it inheres, (ό) It must be an essential quality, something that must be present at all times. A mere accidental quality may be present or absent without affecting the nature of the subject; it may even be found in subjects of entirely different nature, and, therefore, can never serve as a distinguishing mark.
Orthodox Churches. The schismatic churches of the East agree with Catholics in teaching that the Church of Christ must be one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic, but they maintain that identity with the Church oj the first centuries is the only distinctive mark by which it may be known today. This identity is to be recognized by strict conformity with the doctrine and discipline laid down by the first seven ecumenical councils.
§ 1. Unity as a Mark of the Church . . . .151
§ 2. Sanctity as a Mark of the Church . . . .152
There can be no doubt that catholicity is at least a negative mark, since a church that is not universally spread throughout the world cannot be the Church foretold by the prophets and set forth in the promises of Christ. But is catholicity also a positive mark, so that the true Church may be recognized by the mere fact of its universal diffusion throughout the world? Some theologians maintain that it is. Straub says that “catholicity, which is both absolute and relative, can belong to the true Church alone; therefore such catholicity is a positive mark.” 1 This argument presupposes that the true Church must be relatively catholic, i. e.> it must be more wide-spread than any other Christian church. But the necessity for such catholicity cannot be proved from Scripture or tradition, and there seems to be no reason why a false Church might not become universal, even more universal than the true one, at least for a time.
Apostolicity of doctrine is equivalent to “preaching the pure word of God,” and, therefore, cannot be a mark of the Church; in fact, it is only through the testimony of the Church, already known and accepted, that all the doctrines taught by the Apostles may be known with certainty. Apostolicity of doctrine may serve as a mark of the true Church in individual cases. A person may know from a study of Scripture or tradition that a certain doctrine is undoubtedly Apostolic; he can then easily judge that any Church rejecting this doctrine is not the true Church of Christ, and if there be but one Church teaching and professing it, that Church must be the true one.1
Conclusion ........................................................................158
The power of miracles (manifestative sanctity) is the only positive mark whose presence alone is sufficient to identify the true Church of Christ. The other marks, taken separately, are only negative; the presence of one or another is not sufficient proof that the true Church has been found. Taken collectively, however, they furnish infallible proof for the Church in which they are found.
Today there are hundreds of religious organizations claiming to be the Church of Christ, yet we know there can be but one true Church. Knowing the marks which this one true Church must possess, we begin our search for it by examining the different churches one by one. If we chance upon a church with the power of miracles,—the signature of God’s own writing,—we look no further; God’s approval is sufficient proof. But if examination shows a church to lack any one of the four marks, it must be rejected and the search continued, until a church is found possessing all four. When once this Church is found, further investigation is unnecessary; the true Church has been identified, and the others must be false. This is the investigation to be carried out in the following pages by examining (1) the Catholic Church, (2) the Protestant churches, (3) the Anglican Church, and (4) the schismatic Churches of the East. The Anglican Church will be considered separately, not because it differs essentially from other Protestant churches, but because the High Church party makes special claims to Apostolicity
Art . III. Marks of the Church Applied . . .159
§ 1. The Catholic Church possessesa ) Unity oj Faith. Absolute unity of faith is found in the Catholic Church. This fact is patent to any one who will examine her creeds, the decrees of her councils, her catechisms and other books of instruction
i. MANIFESTATIVE SANCTITATY, a) Miracles. The sanctity of the Catholic Church is proved by a series of innumerable miracles reaching back to the day when St. Peter cured the lame man at the gate of the Temple.2 Even today miracles are frequent in the Church and performed under conditions that make them a confirmation of her doctrines and practices. The many miracles performed every year at Lourdes in France are a divine approval of the veneration which the Church gives to the Mother of God,3 and the miracle of St. Januarius’s blood that takes place at Naples several times each year is a positive approval for the veneration of relics.4 These are only a few of the better known miracles taking place in the Church today, and they are mentioned in particular because they are well authenticated by the testimony of eminent men, both Catholic and non-Catholic.
Ob je c t io n I. At the time of the Western Schism the Catholic Church lost her unity for many years by being divided into two, and even three, parties each following a pope of its own choosing.
All that has been said concerning Protestant churches in general, applies also to the Anglican Church in particular; but we have reserved it for separate treatment because an influential party in that Church lays special claims to Catholicity and Apostolicity by what are known as the Branch Theory and the Theory of Continuity. For convenience sake we include under the term Anglican both the Established Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church in America, because the latter is a lineal descendant of the former and holds the same views on the matter in question.
Before beginning an examination of the Anglican claims, it should be noted that such an examination is really unnecessary, because the Anglican Church is notoriously deficient in another essential mark of the Church; it lacks unity of doctrine, and therefore could not be the true Church of Christ even though it possessed Catholicity and Apostolicity, as claimed.
Unity. Lack of unity of faith in the Anglican communion is proved by the mere fact that it contains three distinct parties, teaching doctrines directly opposed one to another. The High Church party is strikingly Catholic in its teaching; it accepts almost every doctrine of the Catholic Church except the infallibility of the Pope. The Low Church is thoroughly Protestant in its teachings and practices and rejects nearly all Catholic doctrine as “Romish superstition.” The Broad Church is rationalistic and makes no definite statement of doctrine. Yet all these parties are recognized as members of the Anglican Church, teaching and professing her approved doctrines! This constitutes her “glorious comprehensiveness,” by which every shade of doctrinal difference is embraced within her fold. Justly, therefore, did Macaulay say that “the religion of the Church of England ... is in fact a jumble of religious systems without number.” 1
There can be no unity because there is no authority to enforce it. “The Church,” says an Anglican vicar, “possesses no control over the conscience, mind or spiritual life of its members, save by consent; and even then can only exercise that control indirectly,—by appeal, suggestion, or influence.” 2 “Bishops of the Anglican Communion,” says Father Finlay, “can meet together in Lambeth or in Canterbury; and the Anglican Archbishop who holds the cathedral of Anselm and Thomas à Becket will probably be invited to preside over them. But no one has a right to convoke them; they meet because they themselves choose to meet, as the members of a Section on Religion in the British Association; and the outcome of the conference and discussions is entirely without authority. They cannot decide a doctrinal controversy. They cannot determine a point of liturgy. They cannot enact or abrogate a single detail of Church discipline. They know, they have been warned, and they profess, that even a Pan-Anglican Synod can only discuss and offer counsel; it can neither teach nor command authoritatively. There is no living principle of unity in the Anglican, as there is none in the Greek Communion.” 3
Th e Branch Theory . As already noted, the Branch Theory maintains that the Church of Christ consist of three parts or branches,—the Roman, the Greek, and the Anglican, and that consequently the Anglican Church is truly Catholic, since it is a part of the Church universal and a corporate continuation of the Church in England before the Reformation. The following quotation from Father Finlay will show the utter absurdity of this theory: “Though it has been prominently before the world for three-quarters of a century, it finds no one to accept and advocate it outside of the Anglican Communion. A section,—a small minority probably of the Church of England,—maintains the theory. The large majority of Protestant Episcopalians know nothing of it; while Greeks and Roman Catholics repudiate it utterly. Is it likely that the Church of Christ is constituted on a pattern which not one in a hundred of her members will acknowledge? Are we to believe that the true constitution of the Church was hidden from mankind,—from the Church herself,—through nineteen centuries, and was only then to be made known to a little group of Anglican theologians who have failed to persuade any but a handful of their own Communion that their conception of the Church is that of Christ?” 4
4 “Church of Christ,” p. 168.
The Continuity Theory . According to this theory the Anglican Church is a continuation of the Catholic Church which existed in England before the Reformation; thus she is an integral part of the Church universal and truly Apostolic in her succession, which reaches back in an unbroken line beyond Augustine to the first missionaries who brought the Gospel to the British Isles, perhaps even in the days of the Apostles. She differs only in a few accidental matters from the other branches of the Church. “The facts of history,” says an Anglican writer, “compel us to assume the absolute identity of the Church of England after the Reformation with the Church of England before the Reformation. ... No act was done by which legal and historical continuity was broken.” 5
This theory has as little to commend it as the Branch Theory. The facts of history compel us to assume the absolute lack of identity between the Church of England before the Reformation and the Church of England after the Reformation because acts were done that did break the legal and historical continuity. The year in which continuity was finally broken can be given, as well as the acts and the actors by which it was accomplished.
The Catholic religion had been reëstablished in England by Mary, but in 1559, shortly after the accession of Elizabeth. Parliament again rejected the authority of the Pope, declared Elizabeth supreme head of the Church, and reinstated the reformed ritual of Edward VI. An oath recognizing royal supremacy in matters ecclesiastical was demanded of all the bishops. Those who refused to take it were to be deprived of their sees.
As a result of this action but one bishop was left by the end of that year. The places of the others were filled by men conspicuous for their attachment to the new order of things. Matthew Parker was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, but no Catholic bishop would consecrate him; even Kitchen of Landaff, the only one who took the oath of supremacy, pleaded ill-health to escape the responsibility of consecrating the new pseudo-archbishop. Elizabeth then took matters in hand and commissioned Barlow, Scorey, Coverdale, and Hodgkins to consecrate Parker according to the Edwardine ritual. This act was undoubtedly invalid,6 yet every bishop in the Anglican Church derives his orders and succession from Parker.
In 1560 a . d . the ritual was revised and the forty-two Articles reduced to thirty-nine, as at present accepted by the Anglican Church. These articles renounced the authority of the Pope, made Elizabeth head of the Church in England, rejected five Sacraments, the doctrine of Purgatory, the invocation of saints and the veneration of relics, and declared the Mass a blasphemous fable and a vain deceit. It is evident, then, that the faith of the Church was changed in its essential doctrines,—the supremacy of the Pope, the Mass, and the Sacraments. Elizabeth also removed every lawful bishop and filled the sees with pliant tools of her own choice, contrary to all the canons and traditions of the Church, and had them consecrated by an invalid ceremony. If the Church resulting from these acts be identical with the Church before the change, there is no possibility of destroying continuity. On the same principle the United States of America are still a part of the British Empire, because the change wrought by the American Revolution was no greater in the realm of political life than the revolution caused by Elizabeth in the Church. The American colonies rejected the authority of the English king, ousted his officials, drew up new articles of political faith, and established a supreme authority instead of the rejected authority of the king.—and the result is recognized by all as a distinct and independent government, a new nation, having no legal continuity with the British government and forming no part of it. Elizabeth and her Parliament did the same for the English Church, and the result was a new and independent Church, established, not by Christ but by Parliament,—a Church having no continuity with the ancient Church in England and forming no part of it.
Succession. The Church of England, having no valid Orders, can have no Apostolic succession in regard to the power of Orders, since this power is transmitted by valid consecration. But even granting her valid Orders, she can have nothing more than material succession, because her whole line is derived from an intruder, who obtained his position contrary to the canons of the Church and, therefore, did not receive the jurisdiction or authority belonging to the office. Λ usurper may found a new dynasty; he cannot continue the old.
But for the sake of argument, let it be supposed that all bishops of the Anglican Communion have valid Orders, and that all the bishops of Elizabeth’s creation were selected according to the canons of the Church and actually confirmed by the Roman Pontiff; even then they could lay no claim to legitimate succession of jurisdiction, for the simple reason that it would have been lost by their rejection of papal supremacy. Communion with Rome, as we have seen,7 is an essential condition for receiving or retaining jurisdiction in the Church. The situation is aptly expressed in the words of St. Optatus of Mileve to the Donatists of Africa: “You should realize, even at this late date, that you are limbs broken from the tree; branches torn from the vine; a stream separated from its source. ... By the chair of Peter, which is ours, the other marks are proved to be in the holy Catholic Church.” 8
§ 4. Schismatic Churches of the East .... 183
I. Unity. The schismatic churches of the East all lack unity of government. What is known as the Orthodox Church of the East is a mere fiction; in reality it is but a number of independent, national churches, united only in their opposition to Rome. Neither have they unity of faith, since there is no supreme authority to teach or govern. Under such conditions, differences and changes in doctrine are inevitable. The rejection of the deuterocanonical books of Scripture may be cited as an example of changed teaching. The Eastern churches always numbered these among the inspired books of Scripture until Prokopovitch rejected them at the beginning of the eighteenth century. There was no authority to correct this error, and in the course of a few years it became the official doctrine of the schismatic churches. Even the official creeds, e. g., the creed of Moghila and that of Dositheus, teach contradictory doctrines on many important points,1 and in many cases their official teaching is contradicted by their liturgies.
II.Catholicity . The schismatic churches of the East, even when considered as one church, are in no sense Catholic or universal in their diffusion. They are limited almost entirely to Asia Minor, Egypt, Abyssinia, and eastern Europe.
III.Apostolicity . Most of the Orthodox churches of the East have valid Orders, and to that extent may be called Apostolic; they have Apostolic succession of the powers of Orders. In some cases they may also have a material succession of bishops from Apostolic times, but this avails them nothing, since they lack both unity and Catholicity,—two essential marks of the true Church. In no case do they have legitimate succession; there is no transmission of jurisdiction because they have withdrawn from communion with Rome, the centre and source of all jurisdiction.
