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
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..................................... 95b) Unity of Profession..................................... 98
§ 4. Unity of Worship................................................ 99
Art. II. Holiness of the Church ............................. 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 . III. Catholicy of the Church. . . .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
Art. IV. Apostolicity of the Church . . . .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 possessesa) 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
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario