THE CHURCH
Catholic Encyclopedia
G.H. JOYCE
The term church (Anglo-Saxon, cirice, circe; Modern German, Kirche;
Sw., Kyrka) is the name employed in the Teutonic languages to render
the Greek ekklesia (ecclesia), the term by which the New Testament
writers denote the society founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. The
derivation of the word has been much debated. It is now agreed that it
is derived from the Greek kyriakon (cyriacon), i. e. the Lord's house,
a term which from the third century was used, as well as ekklesia, to
signify a Christian place of worship. This, though the less usual
expression, had apparently obtained currency among the Teutonic races.
The Northern tribes had been accustomed to pillage the Christian
churches of the empire, long before their own conversion. Hence, even
prior to the arrival of the Saxons in Britain, their language had
acquired words to designate some of the externals of the Christian
religion.
The present article is arranged as follows:
I. The term Ecclesia
II. The Church in Prophecy
III. Its Constitution by Christ; the Church after the Ascension
IV. Its Organization by the Apostles
V. The Church, a Divine Society
VI. The Church, the Necessary Means of Salvation
VII. Visibility of the Church
VIII. The Principle of Authority; Infallibility; Jurisdiction
IX. Members of the Church
X. Indefectibility of the Church; Continuity
XI. Universality of the Church; the "Branch" Theory
XII. Notes of the Church
XIII. The Church, a Perfect Society
I. THE TERM ECCLESIA
In order to understand the precise force of this word, something must
first be said as to its employment by the Septuagint translators of the
Old Testament. Although in one or two places (Ps. xxv, 5; Judith, vi,
21; etc.) the word is used without religious signification, merely in
the sense of "an assembly", this is not usually the case. Ordinarily it
is employed as the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew qahal, i.e., the
entire community of the children of Israel viewed in their religious
aspect. Two Hebrew words are employed in the Old Testament to signify
the congregation of Israel, viz. qahal, and 'êdah. In the Septuagint
these are rendered, respectively, ekklesia and synagoge. Thus in
Proverbs v, 14, where the words occur together, "in the midst of the
church and the congregation", the Greek rendering is en meso ekklesias
kai synagoges. The distinction is indeed not rigidly observed -- thus
in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, both words are regularly represented
by synagoge -- but it is adhered to in the great majority of cases, and
may be regarded as an established rule. In the writings of the New
Testament the words are sharply distinguished. With them ecclesia
denotes the Church of Christ; synagoga, the Jews still adhering to the
worship of the Old Covenant. Occasionally, it is true, ecclesia is
employed in its general significance of "assembly" (Acts, xix, 32; I
Cor., xiv, 19); and synagoga occurs once in reference to a gathering of
Christians, though apparently of a non-religious character (James, ii,
2.) But ecclesia is never used by the Apostles to denote the Jewish
Church. The word as a technical expression had been transferred to the
community of Christian believers.
It has been frequently disputed whether there is any difference in the
signification of the two words. St. Augustine (in Psalm. lxxvii, in P.
L., XXXVI, 984) distinguishes them on the ground that ecclesia is
indicative of the calling together of men, synagoga of the forcible
herding together of irrational creatures: "congregatio magis pecorum
convocatio magis hominum intelligi solet". But it may be doubted
whether there is any foundation for this view. It would appear,
however, that the term qahal, was used with the special meaning of
"those called by God to eternal life", while 'êdah, denoted merely "the
actually existing Jewish community" (Schürer, Hist. Jewish People, II,
59). Though the evidence for this distinction is drawn from the Mishna,
and thus belongs to a somewhat later date, yet the difference in
meaning probably existed at the time of Christ's ministry. But however
this may have been, His intention in employing the term, hitherto used
of the Hebrew people viewed as a church, to denote the society He
Himself was establishing cannot be mistaken. It implied the claim that
this society now constituted the true people of God, that the Old
Covenant was passing away, and that He, the promised Messias, was
inaugurating a New Covenant with a New Israel.
As signifying the Church, the word Ecclesia is used by Christian
writers, sometimes in a wider, sometimes in a more restricted sense.
It is employed to denote all who, from the beginning of the world, have
believed in the one true God, and have been made His children by grace.
In this sense, it is sometimes distinguished, signifying the Church
before the Old Covenant, the Church of the Old Covenant, or the Church
of the New Covenant. Thus St. Gregory (Epp. V, ep. xviii ad. Joan. Ep.
Const., in P. L., LXXVII, 740) writes: "Sancti ante legem, sancti sub
lege, sancti sub gratiâ, omnes hi . . . in membris Ecclesiæ sunt
constituti" (The saints before the Law, the saints under the Law, and
the saints under grace -- all these are constituted members of the
Church).
It may signify the whole body of the faithful, including not merely the
members of the Church who are alive on earth but those, too, whether in
heaven or in purgatory, who form part of the one communion of saints.
Considered thus, the Church is divided into the Church Militant, the
Church Suffering, and the Church Triumphant.
It is further employed to signify the Church Militant of the New
Testament. Even in this restricted acceptation, there is some variety
in the use of the term. The disciples of a single locality are often
referred to in the New Testament as a Church (Apoc., ii, 18; Rom., xvi,
4; Acts, ix, 31), and St. Paul even applies the term to disciples
belonging to a single household (Rom., xvi, 5; I Cor., xvi, 19, Col.,
iv, 15; Philem., i, 2). Moreover, it may designate specially those who
exercise the office of teaching and ruling the faithful, the Ecclesia
Docens (Matt., xviii, 17), or again the governed as distinguished from
their pastors, the Ecclesia Discens (Acts xx, 28). In all these cases
the name belonging to the whole is applied to a part. The term, in its
full meaning, denotes the whole body of the faithful, both rulers and
ruled, throughout the world (Eph., i, 22; Col., i, 18). It is in this
meaning that the Church is treated of in the present article. As thus
understood, the definition of the Church given by Bellarmine is that
usually adopted by Catholic theologians: "A body of men united together
by the profession of the same Christian Faith, and by participation in
the same sacraments, under the governance of lawful pastors, more
especially of the Roman Pontiff, the sole vicar of Christ on earth"
(Cœtus hominum ejusdem christianæ fidei professione, et eorumdem
sacramentorum communione colligatus, sub regimine legitimorum pastorum
et præcipue unius Christi in Terris vicarii Romani Pontificis. –
Bellarmine, De Eccl., III, ii, 9). The accuracy of this definition will
appear in the course of the article.
II. THE CHURCH IN PROPHECY
Hebrew prophecy relates in almost equal proportions to the person and
to the work of the Messias. This work was conceived as consisting of
the establishment of a kingdom, in which he was to reign over a
regenerated Israel. The prophetic writings describe for us with
precision many of the characteristics which were to distinguish that
kingdom. Christ during His ministry affirmed not only that the
prophecies relating to the Messias were fulfilled in His own person,
but also that the expected Messianic kingdom was none other than His
Church. A consideration of the features of the kingdom as depicted by
the Prophets, must therefore greatly assist us in understanding
Christ's intentions in the institution of the Church. Indeed many of
the expressions employed by Him in relation to the society He was
establishing are only intelligible in the Light of these prophecies and
of the consequent expectations of the Jewish people. It will moreover
appear that we have a weighty argument for the supernatural character
of the Christian revelation in the precise fulfillment of the sacred
oracles.
A characteristic feature of the Messianic kingdom, as predicted, is its
universal extent. Not merely the twelve tribes, but the Gentiles are to
yield allegiance to the Son of David. All kings are to serve and obey
him; his dominion is to extend to the ends of the earth (Pss. xxi, 28
sq.; ii, 7-12; cxvi, 1; Zach., ix, 10). Another series of remarkable
passages declares that the subject nations will possess the unity
conferred by a common faith and a common worship -- a feature
represented under the striking image of the concourse of all peoples
and nations to worship at Jerusalem. "It shall come to pass in the last
days (i.e. in the Messianic Era] . . . that many nations shall say:
Come and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of
the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways and we will walk in
his paths; for the law shall go forth out of Sion, and the word of the
Lord out of Jerusalem" (Mich., iv, 1-2; cf. Is., ii, 2; Zach., viii,
3). This unity of worship is to be the fruit of a Divine revelation
common to all the inhabitants of the earth (Zack., xiv, 8).
Corresponding to the triple office of the Messias as priest, prophet,
and king, it will be noted that in relation to the kingdom the Sacred
Writings lay stress on three points: (a) it is to be endowed with a new
and peculiar sacrificial system; (b) it is to be the kingdom of truth
possessed of a Divine revelation; (c) it is to be governed by an
authority emanating from the Messias.
In regard to the first of these points, the priesthood of the Messias
Himself is explicitly stated (Ps. cix, 4); while it is further taught
that the worship which He is to inaugurate shall supersede the
sacrifices of the Old Dispensation. This is implied, as the Apostle
tells us, in the very title, "a priest after the order of
Melchisedech"; and the same truth is contained in the prediction that a
new priesthood is to be formed, drawn from other peoples besides the
Israelites (Is., lxvi, 18), and in the words of the Prophet Malachias
which foretell the institution of a new sacrifice to be offered "from
the rising of the sun even to the going down" (Mal., i, 11). The
sacrifices offered by the priesthood of the Messianic kingdom are to
endure as long as day and night shall last (Jer., xxxiii, 20).
The revelation of the Divine truth under the New Dispensation attested
by Jeremias: "Behold the days shall come saith the Lord, and I will
make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Juda
. . . and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, saying:
Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least of them even to the
greatest" (Jer., xxxi, 31, 34), while Zacharias assures us that in
those days Jerusalem shall be known as the city of truth. (Zach., viii,
3).
The passages which foretell that the Kingdom will possess a peculiar
principle of authority in the personal rule of the Messias are numerous
(e. g. Pss. ii; lxxi; Is., ix, 6 sq.); but in relation to Christ's own
words, it is of interest to observe that in some of these passages the
prediction is expressed under the metaphor of a shepherd guiding and
governing his flock (Ezech., xxxiv, 23; xxxvii, 24-28). It is
noteworthy, moreover, that just as the prophecies in regard to the
priestly office foretell the appointment of a priesthood subordinate to
the Messias, so those which relate to the office of government indicate
that the Messias will associate with Himself other "shepherds", and
will exercise His authority over the nations through rulers delegated
to govern in His name (Jer., xviii, 6; Ps. xliv, 17; cf. St. Augustine
Enarr. in Psalm. xliv, no. 32). Another feature of the kingdom is to be
the sanctity of its members. The way to it is to be called "the holy
way: the unclean shall not pass over it". The uncircumcised and unclean
are not to enter into the renewed Jerusalem (Is., xxxv, 8; lii, 1).
The later uninspired apocalyptic literature of the Jews shows us how
profoundly these predictions had influenced their national hopes, and
explains for us the intense expectation among the populace described in
the Gospel narratives. In these works as in the inspired prophecies the
traits of the Messianic kingdom present two very different aspects. On
the one hand, the Messias is a Davidic king who gathers together the
dispersed of Israel, and establishes on this earth a kingdom of purity
and sinlessness (Psalms of Solomon, xvii). The foreign foe is to be
subdued (Assumpt. Moses, c. x) and the wicked are to be judged in the
valley of the son of Hinnon (Enoch, xxv, xxvii, xc). On the other hand,
the kingdom is described in eschatological characters. The Messias is
pre-existent and Divine (Enoch, Simil., xlviii, 3); the kingdom He
establishes is to be a heavenly kingdom inaugurated by a great world-
catastrophe, which separates this world (aion outos), from the world to
come (mellon). This catastrophe is to be accompanied by a judgment both
of angels and of men (Jubilees, x, 8; v, 10; Assumpt. Moses, x, 1). The
dead will rise (Ps. Solom., iii, 11) and all the members of the
Messianic kingdom will become like to the Messias (Enoch, Simil., xc,
37). This twofold aspect of the Jewish hopes in regard to the coming
Messias must be borne in mind, if Christ's use of the expression
"Kingdom of God" is to be understood. Not infrequently, it is true, He
employs it in an eschatological sense. But far more commonly He uses it
of the kingdom set up on this earth -- of His Church. These are indeed,
not two kingdoms, but one. The Kingdom of God to be established at the
last day is the Church in her final triumph.
III. CONSTITUTION BY CHRIST
The Baptist proclaimed the near approach of the Kingdom of God, and of
the Messianic Era. He bade all who would share its blessings prepare
themselves by penance. His own mission, he said, was to prepare the way
of the Messias. To his disciples he indicated Jesus of Nazareth as the
Messias whose advent he had declared (John, i, 29-31). From the very
commencement of His ministry Christ laid claim in an explicit way to
the Messianic dignity. In the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke, iv, 21) He
asserts that the prophecies are fulfilled in His person; He declares
that He is greater than Solomon (Luke, xi, 31), more venerable than the
Temple (Matt., xii, 6), Lord of the Sabbath (Luke, vi, 5). John, He
says, is Elias, the promised forerunner (Matt., xvii, 12); and to
John's messengers He vouchsafes the proofs of His Messianic dignity
which they request (Luke, vii, 22). He demands implicit faith on the
ground of His Divine legation (John, vi, 29). His public entry into
Jerusalem was the acceptance by the whole people of a claim again and
again reiterated before them. The theme of His preaching throughout is
the Kingdom of God which He has come to establish. St. Mark, describing
the beginning of His ministry, says that He came into Galilee saying,
"The time is accomplished, and the Kingdom of God is at hand". For the
kingdom which He was even then establishing in their midst, the Law and
the Prophets had been, He said, but a preparation (Luke, xvi, 16; cf.
Matt., iv, 23; ix, 35; xiii, 17; xxi, 43; xxiv, 14; Mark, i, 14; Luke,
iv, 43; viii, 1; ix, 2, 60; xviii, 17).
When it is asked what is this kingdom of which Christ spoke, there can
be but one answer. It is His Church, the society of those who accept
His Divine legation, and admit His right to the obedience of faith
which He claimed. His whole activity is directed to the establishment
of such a society: He organizes it and appoints rulers over it,
establishes rites and ceremonies in it, transfers to it the name which
had hitherto designated the Jewish Church, and solemnly warns the Jews
that the kingdom was no longer theirs, but had been taken from them and
given to another people. The several steps taken by Christ in
organizing the Church are traced by the Evangelists. He is represented
as gathering numerous disciples, but as selecting twelve from their
number to be His companions in an especial manner. These share His
life. To them He reveals the more hidden parts of His doctrine (Matt.,
xiii, 11). He sends them as His deputies to preach the kingdom, and
bestows on them the power to work miracles. All are bound to accept
their message; and those who refuse to listen to them shall meet a fate
more terrible than that of Sodom and Gomorra (Matt., x, 1-15). The
Sacred Writers speak of these twelve chosen disciples in a manner
indicating that they are regarded as forming a corporate body. In
several passages they are still termed "the twelve" even when the
number, understood literally, would be inexact. The name is applied to
them when they have been reduced to eleven by the defection of Judas,
on an occasion when only ten of them were present, and again after the
appointment of St. Paul has increased their number to thirteen (Luke,
xxiv, 33; John, xx, 24; I Cor., xv, 5; Apoc., xxi, 14).
In this constitution of the Apostolate Christ lays the foundation of
His Church. But it is not till the action of official Judaism had
rendered it manifestly impossible to hope the Jewish Church would admit
His claim, that He prescribes for the Church as a body independent of
the synagogue and possessed of an administration of her own. After the
breach had become definite, He calls the Apostles together and speaks
to them of the judicial action of the Church, distinguishing, in an
unmistakable manner, between the private individual who undertakes the
work of fraternal correction, and the ecclesiastical authority
empowered to pronounce a judicial sentence (Matt., xviii, 15-17). To
the jurisdiction thus conferred He attached a Divine sanction. A
sentence thus pronounced, He assured the Apostles, should be ratified
in heaven. A further step was the appointment of St. Peter to be the
chief of the Twelve. For this position he had already been designated
(Matt., xvi, 15 sqq.) on an occasion previous to that just mentioned:
at Cæsarea Philippi, Christ had declared him to be the rock on which He
would build His Church, thus affirming that the continuance and
increase of the Church would rest on the office created in the person
of Peter. To him, moreover, were to be given the keys of the Kingdom of
Heaven -- an expression signifying the gift of plenary authority (Is.,
xxii, 22). The promise thus made was fulfilled after the Resurrection,
on the occasion narrated in John, xxi. Here Christ employs a simile
used on more than one occasion by Himself to denote His own relation to
the members of His Church -- that of the shepherd and his flock. His
solemn charge, "Feed my sheep", constituted Peter the common shepherd
of the whole collective flock. (For a further consideration of the
Petrine texts see article PRIMACY.) To the twelve Christ committed the
charge of spreading the kingdom among all nations, appointing the rite
of baptism as the one means of admission to a participation in its
privileges (Matt., xxviii, 19).
In the course of this article detailed consideration will be given to
the principal characteristics of the Church. Christ's teaching on this
point may be briefly summarized here. It is to be a kingdom ruled in
His absence by men (Matt., xviii, 18; John, xxi, 17). It is therefore a
visible theocracy; and it will be substituted for the Jewish theocracy
that has rejected Him (Matt., xxi, 43). In it, until the day of
judgment, the bad will be mingled with the good (Matt., xiii, 41). Its
extent will be universal (Matt., xxviii, 19), and its duration to the
end of time (Matt., xiii, 49); all powers that oppose it shall be
crushed (Matt., xxi, 44). Moreover, it will be a supernatural kingdom
of truth, in the world, though not of it (John, xviii, 36). It will be
one and undivided, and this unity shall be a witness to all men that
its founder came from God (John, xvii, 21).
It is to be noticed that certain recent critics contest the positions
maintained in the preceding paragraphs. They deny alike that Christ
claimed to be the Messias, and that the kingdom of which He spoke was
His Church. Thus, as regards Christ's claim to Messianic dignity, they
say that Christ does not declare Himself to be the Messias in His
preaching: that He bids the possessed who proclaimed Him the Son of God
be silent: that the people did not suspect His Messiahship, but formed
various extravagant hypotheses as to his personality. It is manifestly
impossible within the limits of this article to enter on a detailed
discussion of these points. But, in the light of the testimony of the
passages above cited, it will be seen that the position is entirely
untenable. In reference to the Kingdom of God, many of the critics hold
that the current Jewish conception was wholly eschatological, and that
Christ's references to it must one and all be thus interpreted. This
view renders inexplicable the numerous passages in which Christ speaks
of the kingdom as present, and further involves a misconception as to
the nature of Jewish expectations, which, as has been seen, together
with eschatological traits, contained others of a different character.
Harnack (What is Christianity? p. 62) holds that in its inner meaning
the kingdom as conceived by Christ is "a purely religious blessing, the
inner link of the soul with the living God". Such an interpretation can
in no possible way be reconciled with Christ's utterances on the
subject. The whole tenor of his expressions is to lay stress on the
concept of a theocratic society.
The Church after the Ascension
The doctrine of the Church as set forth by the Apostles after the
Ascension is in all respects identical with the teaching of Christ just
described. St. Peter, in his first sermon, delivered on the day of
Pentecost, declares that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messianic king (Acts,
ii, 36). The means of salvation which he indicates is baptism; and by
baptism his converts are aggregated to the society of disciples (ii,
41). Though in these days the Christians still availed themselves of
the Temple services, yet from the first the brotherhood of Christ
formed a society essentially distinct from the synagogue. The reason
why St. Peter bids his hearers accept baptism is none other than that
they may "save themselves from this unbelieving generation". Within the
society of believers not only were the members united by common rites,
but the tie of unity was so close as to bring about in the Church of
Jerusalem that condition of things in which the disciples had all
things common (ii, 44).
Christ had declared that His kingdom should be spread among all
nations, and had committed the execution of the work to the twelve
(Matt., xxviii, 19). Yet the universal mission of the Church revealed
itself but gradually. St. Peter indeed makes mention of it from the
first (Acts, ii, 39). But in the earliest years the Apostolic activity
is confined to Jerusalem alone. Indeed an old tradition (Apollonius,
cited by Eusebius "Hist. Eccl.", V, xvii, and Clem. Alex., "Strom.",
VI, v, in P. G. IX, 264) asserts that Christ had bidden the Apostles
wait twelve years in Jerusalem before dispersing to carry their message
elsewhere. The first notable advance occurs consequent on the
persecution which arose after the death of Stephen, A. D. 37. This was
the occasion of the preaching of the Gospel to the Samaritans, a people
excluded from the privileges of Israel, though acknowledging the Mosaic
Law (Acts, viii, 5). A still further expansion resulted from the
revelation directing St. Peter to admit to baptism Cornelius, a devout
Gentile, i. e. one associated to the Jewish religion but not
circumcised. From this tune forward circumcision and the observance of
the Law were not a condition requisite for incorporation into the
Church. But the final step of admitting those Gentiles who had known no
previous connection with the religion of Israel, and whose life had
been spent in paganism, was not taken till more than fifteen years
after Christ's Ascension; it did not occur, it would seem, before the
day described in Acts xiii, 46, when, at Antioch in Pisidia, Paul and
Barnabas announced that since the Jews accounted themselves unworthy of
eternal life they would "turn to the Gentiles".
In the Apostolic teaching the term Church, from the very first, takes
the place of the expression Kingdom of God (Acts, V, 11). Where others
than the Jews were concerned, the greater suitability of the former
name is evident; for Kingdom of God had special reference to Jewish
beliefs. But the change of title only emphasizes the social unity of
the members. They are the new congregation of Israel -- the theocratic
polity: they are the people (laos) of God (Acts, xv, 14; Rom., ix, 25;
II Cor., vi, 16; I Peter, ii, 9 sq.; Heb., viii, 10; Apoc., xviii, 4;
xxi, 3). By their admission to the Church, the Gentiles have been
grafted in and form part of God's fruitful olive-tree, while apostate
Israel has been broken off (Rom., xi, 24). St. Paul, writing to his
Gentile converts at Corinth, terms the ancient Hebrew Church "our
fathers" (I Cor., x, 1). Indeed from time to time the previous
phraseology is employed, and the Gospel message is termed the preaching
of the Kingdom of God (Acts, xx, 25; xxviii, 31).
Within the Church the Apostles exercised that regulative power with
which Christ had endowed them. It was no chaotic mob, but a true
society possessed of a corporate life, and organized in various orders.
The evidence shows the twelve to have possessed (a) a power of
jurisdiction, in virtue of which they wielded a legislative and
judicial authority, and (b) a magisterial office to teach the Divine
revelation entrusted to them. Thus (a) we find St. Paul authoritatively
prescribing for the order and discipline of the churches. He does not
advise; he directs (I Cor., xi, 34; xxvi, 1; Titus, i, 5). He
pronounces judicial sentence (I Cor., V, 5; II Cor., ii, 10), and his
sentences, like those of other Apostles, receive at times the solemn
sanction of miraculous punishment (I Tim., i, 20; Acts, v, 1-10). In
like manner he bids his delegate Timothy hear the causes even of
priests, and rebuke, in the sight of all, those who sin (I Tim., v, 19
sq.). (b) With no less definiteness does he assert that the Apostolate
carries with it a doctrinal authority, which all are bound to
recognize. God has sent them, he affirms, to claim "the obedience of
faith" (Rom., i, 5; xv, 18). Further, his solemnly expressed desire,
that even if an angel from heaven were to preach another doctrine to
the Galatians than that which he had delivered to them, he should be
anathema (Gal., i, 8), involves a claim to infallibility in the
teaching of revealed truth.
While the whole Apostolic College enjoyed this power in the Church, St.
Peter always appears in that position of primacy which Christ assigned
to him. It is Peter who receives into the Church the first converts,
alike from Judaism and from heathenism (Acts, ii, 41; x, 5 Sq.), who
works the first miracle (Acts, iii, 1 sqq.), who inflicts the first
ecclesiastical penalty (Acts, v, 1 sqq.). It is Peter who casts out of
the Church the first heretic, Simon Magus (Acts, viii, 21), who makes
the first Apostolic visitation of the churches (Acts, ix, 32), and who
pronounces the first dogmatic decision (Acts, xv, 7). (See Schanz, III,
p. 460.) So indisputable was his position that when St. Paul was about
to undertake the work of preaching to the heathen the Gospel which
Christ had revealed to him, he regarded it as necessary to obtain
recognition from Peter (Gal., i, 18). More than this was not needful:
for the approbation of Peter was definitive.
IV. ORGANIZATION BY THE APOSTLES
Few subjects have been so much debated during the past half-century as
the organization of the primitive Church. The present article cannot
deal with the whole of this wide subject. Its scope is limited to a
single point. An endeavour will be made to estimate the existing
information regarding the Apostolic Age itself. Further light is thrown
on the matter by a consideration of the organization that is found to
have existed in the period immediately subsequent to the death of the
last Apostle. (See BISHOP.) The independent evidence derived from the
consideration of each of these periods will, in the opinion of the
present writer, be found, when fairly weighed, to yield similar
results. Thus the conclusions here advanced, over and above their
intrinsic value, derive support from the independent witness of another
series of authorities tending in all essentials to confirm their
accuracy. The question at issue is, whether the Apostles did, or did
not, establish in the Christian communities a hierarchical
organization. All Catholic scholars, together with some few
Protestants, hold that they did so. The opposite view is maintained by
the rationalist critics, together with the greater number of
Protestants.
In considering the evidence of the New Testament on the subject, it
appears at once that there is a marked difference between the state of
things revealed in the later New Testament writings, and that which
appears in those of an earlier date. In the earlier writings we find
but little mention of an official organization. Such official positions
as may have existed would seem to have been of minor importance in the
presence of the miraculous charismata (q. v.) of the Holy Spirit
conferred upon individuals, and fitting them to act as organs of the
community in various grades. St. Paul in his earlier Epistles has no
messages for the bishops or deacons, although the circumstances dealt
with in the Epistles to the Corinthians and in that to the Galatians
would seem to suggest a reference to the local rulers of the Church.
When he enumerates the various functions to which God has called
various members of the Church, he does not give us a list of Church
offices. "God", he says, "hath set some in the church, first apostles,
secondly prophets, thirdly doctors [didaskaloi]; after that miracles;
then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues" (I
Cor, xii, 28). This is not a list of official designations. It is a
list of "charismata" bestowed by the Holy Spirit, enabling the
recipient to fulfill some special function. The only term which forms
an exception to this is that of apostle. Here the word is doubtless
used in the sense in which it signifies the twelve and St. Paul only.
As thus applied the Apostolate was a distinct office, involving a
personal mission received from the Risen Lord Himself (I Cor., i, 1;
Gal., i, 1). Such a position was of altogether too special a character
for its recipients to be placed in any other category. The term could
indeed be used in a wider reference. It is used of Barnabas (Acts, xiv,
13) and of Andronicus and Junias, St. Paul's kinsmen (Rom., xvi, 7). In
this extended signification it is apparently equivalent to evangelist
(Eph., iv, 11; II Tim., iv, 5) and denotes those "apostolic men", who,
like the Apostles, went from place to place labouring in new fields,
but who had received their commission from them, and not from Christ in
person. (See APOSTLES.)
The "prophets", the second class mentioned, were men to whom it was
given to speak from time to time under the direct influence of the Holy
Spirit as the recipients of supernatural inspiration (Acts, xiii, 2;
xv, 23; xxi, 11; etc.). By the nature of the case the exercise of such
a function could be occasional only. The "charisma" of the "doctors"
(or teachers) differed from that of the prophets, in that it could be
used continuously. They had received the gift of intelligent insight
into revealed truth, and the power to impart it to others. It is
manifest that those who possessed such a power must have exercised a
function of vital moment to the Church in those first days, when the
Christian communities consisted to so large an extent of new converts.
The other "charismata" mentioned do not call for special notice. But
the prophets and teachers would appear to have possessed an importance
as organs of the community, eclipsing that of the local ministry. Thus
in Acts, xiii, 1, it is simply related that there were in the Church
which was at Antioch prophets and doctors. There is no mention of
bishops or deacons. And in the Didache -- a work as it would seem of
the first century, written before the last Apostle had passed away –
the author enjoins respect for the bishops and deacons, on the ground
that they have a claim similar to that of the prophets and doctors.
"Appoint for yourselves", he writes, "bishops and deacons, worthy of
the Lord, men who are meek, and not lovers of money, and true and
approved; for unto you they also perform the service [leitourgousi ten
leitourgian] of the prophets and doctors. Therefore despise them not:
for they are your honourable men along with the prophets and teachers"
(c. xv).
It would appear, then, indisputable that in the earliest years of the
Christian Church ecclesiastical functions were in a large measure
fulfilled by men who had been specially endowed for this purpose with
"charismata" of the Holy Spirit, and that as long as these gifts
endured, the local ministry occupied a position of less importance and
influence. Yet, though this be the case, there would seem to be ample
ground for holding that the local ministry was of Apostolic
institution: and, further, that towards the later part of the Apostolic
Age the abundant "charismata" were ceasing, and that the Apostles
themselves took measures to determine the position of the official
hierarchy as the directive authority of the Church. The evidence for
the existence of such a local ministry is plentiful in the later
Epistles of St. Paul (Phil., I and II Tim., and Titus). The Epistle to
the Philippians opens with a special greeting to the bishops and
deacons. Those who hold these official positions are recognized as the
representatives in some sort of the Church. Throughout the letter there
is no mention of the "charismata", which figure so largely in the
earlier Epistles. It is indeed urged by Hort (Christian Ecelesia, p.
211) that even here these terms are not official titles. But in view of
their employment as titles in documents so nearly contemporary, as I
Clem., c. 4, and the Didache, such a contention seems devoid of all
probability.
In the Pastoral Epistles the new situation appears even more clearly.
The purpose of these writings was to instruct Timothy and Titus
regarding the manner in which they were to organize the local Churches.
The total absence of all reference to the spiritual gifts can scarcely
be otherwise explained than by supposing that they no longer existed in
the communities, or that they were at most exceptional phenomena.
Instead, we find the Churches governed by a hierarchical organization
of bishops, sometimes also termed presbyters, and deacons. That the
terms bishop and presbyter are synonymous is evident from Titus, i, 5-
7: "I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest . . . ordain priests in
every city . . . For a bishop must be without crime." These presbyters
form a corporate body (I Tim., iv, 14), and they are entrusted with the
twofold charge of governing the Church (I Tim., iii, 5) and of teaching
(I Tim., iii, 2; Titus, i, 9). The selection of those who are to fill
this post does not depend on the possession of supernatural gifts. It
is required that they should not be unproved neophytes, that they
should be under no charge, should have displayed moral fitness for the
work, and should be capable of teaching. (I Tim., iii, 2-7; Titus, i,
5-9.) The appointment to this office was by a solemn laying on of hands
(I Tim., v, 22). Some words addressed by St. Paul to Timothy, in
reference to the ceremony as it had taken place in Timothy's case,
throw light upon its nature. "I admonish thee", he writes, "that thou
stir up the grace (charisma) of God, which is in thee by the laying on
of my hands" (II Tim., i, 6). The rite is here declared to be the means
by which a charismatic gift is conferred; and, further, the gift in
question, like the baptismal character, is permanent in its effects.
The recipient needs but to "waken into life" [anazopyrein] the grace he
thus possesses in order to avail himself of it. It is an abiding
endowment. There can be no reason for asserting that the imposition of
hands, by which Timothy was instructed to appoint the presbyters to
their office, was a rite of a different character, a mere formality
without practical import.
With the evidence before us, certain other notices in the New Testament
writings, pointing to the existence of this local ministry, may be
considered. There is mention of presbyters at Jerusalem at a date
apparently immediately subsequent to the dispersion of the Apostles
(Acts, xi, 30; cf. xv, 2; xvi, 4; xxi, 18). Again, we are told that
Paul and Barnabas, as they retraced their steps on their first
missionary journey, appointed presbyters in every Church (Acts, xiv,
22). So too the injunction to the Thessalonians (I Thess., v, 12) to
have regard to those who are over them in the Lord (proistamenoi; cf.
Rom., xii, 6) would seem to imply that there also St. Paul had invested
certain members of the community with a pastoral charge. Still more
explicit is the evidence contained in the account of St. Paul's
interview with the Ephesian elders (Acts, xx, 17-23). It is told that,
sending from Miletus to Ephesus, he summoned "the presbyters of the
Church", and in the course of his charge addressed them as follows:
"Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost
has placed you bishops to tend [poimainein] the Church of God" (xx,
28). St. Peter employs similar language: "The presbyters that are among
you, I beseech, who am myself also a presbyter . . . tend [poimainein]
the flock of God which is among you." These expressions leave no doubt
as to the office designated by St. Paul, when in Eph., iv, 11, he
enumerates the gifts of the Ascended Lord as follows: "He gave some
apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some
pastors and doctors [tous de poimenas kai didaskalous]. The Epistle of
St. James provides us with yet another reference to this office, where
the sick man is bidden send for the presbyters of the Church, that he
may receive at their hands the rite of unction (James, v, 14).
The term presbyter was of common use in the Jewish Church, as denoting
the "rulers" of the synagogue (cf. Luke, xiii, 14). Hence it has been
argued by some non-Catholic writers that in the bishops and deacons of
the New Testament there is simply the synagogal organization familiar
to the first converts, and introduced by them into the Christian
communities. St. Paul's concept of the Church, it is urged, is
essentially opposed to any rigid governmental system; yet this familiar
form of organization was gradually established even in the Churches he
had founded. In regard to this view it appears enough to say that the
resemblance between the Jewish "rulers of the synagogue" and the
Christian presbyter-episcopus goes no farther than the name. The Jewish
official was purely civil and held office for a time only. The
Christian presbyterate was for life, and its functions were spiritual.
There is perhaps more ground for the view advocated by some (cf. de
Smedt, Revue des quest. hist., vols. XLIV, L), that presbyter and
episcopus may not in all cases be perfectly Synonymous. The term
presbyter is undoubtedly an honorific title, while that of episcopus
primarily indicates the function performed. It is possible that the
former title may have had a wider significance than the latter. The
designation presbyter, it is suggested, may have been given to all
those who were recognized as having a claim to some voice in directing
the affairs of the community, whether this were based on official
status, or social rank, or benefactions to the local Church, or on some
other ground; while those presbyters who had received the laying on of
hands would be known, not simply as "presbyters", but as "presiding
[proistamenoi -- I Thess., v. 12) presbyters", "presbyter-bishops",
"presbyter-rulers" (hegoumenoi -- Heb., xiii, 17).
It remains to consider whether the so-called "monarchical" episcopate
was instituted by the Apostles. Besides establishing a college of
presbyter-bishops, did they further place one man in a position of
supremacy, entrusting the government of the Church to him, and endowing
him with Apostolic authority over the Christian community? Even if we
take into account the Scriptural evidence alone, there are sufficient
grounds for answering this question in the affirmative. From the time
of the dispersion of the Apostles, St. James appears in an episcopal
relation to the Church of Jerusalem (Acts, xii, 17; xv, 13; Gal., ii,
12). In the other Christian communities the institution of
"monarchical" bishops was a somewhat later development. At first the
Apostles themselves fulfilled, it would seem, all the duties of Supreme
oversight. They established the office when the growing needs of the
Church demanded it. The Pastoral Epistles leave no room to doubt that
Timothy and Titus were sent as bishops to Ephesus and to Crete
respectively. To Timothy full Apostolic powers are conceded.
Notwithstanding his youth he holds authority over both clergy and
laity. To him is confided the duty of guarding the purity of the
Church's faith, of ordaining priests, of exercising jurisdiction.
Moreover, St. Pauls exhortation to him, "to keep the commandment
without spot, blameless, unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ"
shows that this was no transitory mission. A charge so worded includes
in its sweep, not Timothy alone, but his successors in an office which
is to last until the Second Advent. Local tradition unhesitatingly
reckoned him among the occupants of the episcopal see. At the Council
of Chalcedon, the Church of Ephesus counted a succession of twenty-
seven bishops commencing with Timothy (Mansi, VII, 293; cf. Eusebius,
Hist. Eccl., III, iv, v).
These are not the sole evidences which the New Testament affords of the
monarchical episcopate. In the Apocalypse the "angels" to whom the
letters to the seven Churches are addressed are almost certainly the
bishops of the respective communities. Some commentators, indeed, have
held them to be personifications of the communities themselves. But
this explanation can hardly stand. St. John, throughout, addresses the
angel as being responsible for the community precisely as he would
address its ruler. Moreover, in the symbolism of ch. i, the two are
represented under different figures: the angels are the stars in the
right hand of the Son of Man; the seven candlesticks are the image
which figures the communities. The very term angel, it should be
noticed, is practically synonymous with apostle, and thus is aptly
chosen to designate the episcopal office. Again the messages to
Archippus (Col., iv, 17; Philem., 2) imply that he held a position of
special dignity, superior to that of the other presbyters. The mention
of him in a letter entirely concerned with a private matter, as is that
to Philemon, is hardly explicable unless he were the official head of
the Colossian Church. We have therefore four important indications of
the existence of an office in the local Churches, held by a Single
person, and carrying with it Apostolical authority. Nor can any
difficulty be occasioned by the fact that as yet no special title
distinguishes these successors of the Apostles from the ordinary
presbyters. It is in the nature of things that the office should exist
before a title is assigned to it. The name of apostle, we have seen,
was not confined to the Twelve. St. Peter (I Peter, V, 1) and St. John
(II and III John, i, 1) both speak of themselves as presbyters". St.
Paul speaks of the Apostolate as a diakonia. A parallel case in later
ecclesiastical history is afforded by the word pope. This title was not
appropriated to the exclusive use of the Holy See till the eleventh
century. Yet no one maintains that the supreme pontificate of the Roman
bishop was not recognized till then. It should cause no surprise that a
precise terminology, distinguishing bishops, in the full sense, from
the presbyter-bishops, is not found in the New Testament.
The conclusion reached is put beyond all reasonable doubt by the
testimony of the sub-Apostolic Age. This is so important in regard to
the question of the episcopate that it is impossible entirely to pass
it over. It will be enough, however, to refer to the evidence contained
in the epistles of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, himself a disciple
of the Apostles. In these epistles (about A. D. 107) he again and again
asserts that the supremacy of the bishop is of Divine institution and
belongs to the Apostolic constitution of the Church. He goes so far as
to affirm that the bishop stands in the place of Christ Himself. "When
ye are obedient to the bishop as to Jesus Christ," he writes to the
Trallians, "it is evident to me that ye are living not after men, but
after Jesus Christ. . . be ye obedient also to the presbytery as to the
Apostles of Jesus Christ" (ad Trall., n. 2). He also incidentally tells
us that bishops are found in the Church, even in "the farthest parts of
the earth" (ad Ephes., n. 3) It is out of the question that one who
lived at a period so little removed from the actual Apostolic Age could
have proclaimed this doctrine in terms such as he employs, had not the
episcopate been universally recognized as of Divine appointment. It has
been seen that Christ not only established the episcopate in the
persons of the Twelve but, further, created in St. Peter the office of
supreme pastor of the Church. Early Christian history tells us that
before his death, he fixed his residence at Rome, and ruled the Church
there as its bishop. It is from Rome that he dates his first Epistle,
speaking of the city under the name of Babylon, a designation which St.
John also gives it in the Apocalypse (c. xviii). At Rome, too, he
suffered martyrdom in company with St. Paul, AD 67. The list of his
successors in the see is known, from Linus, Anacletus, and Clement, who
were the first to follow him, down to the reigning pontiff. The Church
has ever seen in the occupant of the See of Rome the successor of Peter
in the supreme pastorate. (See POPE.)
The evidence thus far considered seems to demonstrate beyond all
question that the hierarchical organization of the Church was, in its
essential elements, the work of the Apostles themselves; and that to
this hierarchy they handed on the charge entrusted to them by Christ of
governing the Kingdom of God, and of teaching the revealed doctrine.
These conclusions are far from being admitted by Protestant and other
critics. They are unanimous in holding that the idea of a Church -- an
organized society -- is entirely foreign to the teaching of Christ. It
is therefore, in their eyes, impossible that Catholicism, if by that
term we signify a worldwide institution, bound together by unity of
constitution, of doctrine, and of worship, can have been established by
the direct action of the Apostles. In the course of the nineteenth
century many theories were propounded to account for the transformation
of the so-called "Apostolic Christianity" into the Christianity of the
commencement of the third century, when beyond all dispute the Catholic
system was firmly established from one end of the Roman Empire to the
other. At the present day (1908) the theories advocated by the critics
are of a less extravagant nature than those of F.C. Baur (1853) and the
Tübingen School, which had so great a vogue in the middle of the
nineteenth century. Greater regard is shown for the claims of
historical possibility and for the value of early Christian evidences.
At the same time it is to be observed that the reconstruction's
suggested involve the rejection of the Pastoral Epistles as being
documents of the second century. It will be sufficient here to notice
one or two salient points in the views which now find favour with the
best known among non-Catholic writers.
It is held that such official organization as existed in the Christian
communities was not regarded as involving special spiritual gifts, and
had but little religious significance. Some writers, as has been seen,
believe with Holtzmann that in the episcopi and presbyteri, there is
simply the synagogal system of archontes and hyperetai. Others, with
Hatch, derive the origin of the episcopate from the fact that certain
civic functionaries in the Syrian cities appear to have borne the title
of "episcopi". Professor Harnack, while agreeing with Hatch as to the
origin of the office, differs from him in so far as he admits that from
the first the superintendence of worship belonged to the functions of
the bishop. The offices of prophet and teacher, it is urged, were those
in which the primitive Church acknowledged a spiritual significance.
These depended entirely on special charismatic gifts of the Holy Ghost.
The government of the Church in matters of religion was thus regarded
as a direct Divine rule by the Holy Spirit, acting through His inspired
agents. And only gradually, it is supposed, did the local ministry take
the place of the prophets and teachers, and inherit from them the
authority once attributed to the possessors of spiritual gifts alone
(cf. Sabatier, Religions of Authority, p. 24). Even if we prescind
altogether from the evidence considered above, this theory appears
devoid of intrinsic probability. A direct Divine rule by "charismata"
could only result in confusion, if uncontrolled by any directive power
possessed of superior authority. Such a directive and regulative
authority, to which the exercise of spiritual gifts was itself subject,
existed in the Apostolate, as the New Testament amply shows (I Cor.,
xiv). In the succeeding age a precisely similar authority is found in
the episcopate. Every principle of historical criticism demands that
the source of episcopal power should be sought, not in the
"charismata", but, where tradition places it, in the Apostolate itself.
It is to the crisis occasioned by Gnosticism and Montanism in the
second century that these writers attribute the rise of the Catholic
system. They say that, in order to combat these heresies, the Church
found it necessary to federate itself, and that for this end it
established a statutory, so-called "apostolic" faith, and further
secured the episcopal supremacy by the fiction of "apostolic
succession", (Harnack, Hist. of Dogma, II, ii; Sabatier, op. cit., pp.
35-59). This view appears to be irreconcilable with the facts of the
case. The evidence of the Ignatian epistles alone shows that, long
before the Gnostic crisis arose, the particular local Churches were
conscious of an essential principle of solidarity binding all together
into a single system. Moreover, the very fact that these heresies
gained no foothold within the Church in any part of the world, but were
everywhere recognized as heretical and promptly excluded, suffices to
prove that the Apostolic faith was already clearly known and firmly
held, and that the Churches were already organized under an active
episcopate. Again, to say that the doctrine of Apostolic succession was
invented to cope with these heresies is to overlook the fact that it is
asserted in plain terms in the Epistle of Clement, c. xlii.
M. Loisy's theory as to the organization of the Church has attracted so
much attention in recent years as to call for a brief notice. In his
work, "L'Evangile et l'Eglise", he accepts many of the views held by
critics hostile to Catholicism, and endeavours by a doctrine of
development to reconcile them with some form of adhesion to the Church.
He urges that the Church is of the nature of an organism, whose
animating principle is the message of Jesus Christ. This organism may
experience many changes of external form, as it develops itself in
accordance with its inner needs, and with the requirements of its
environment. Yet so long as these changes are such as are demanded in
order that the vital principle may be preserved, they are unessential
in character. So far indeed are they from being organic alterations,
that we ought to reckon them as implicitly involved in the very being
of the Church. The formation of the hierarchy he regards as a change of
this kind. In fact, since he holds that Jesus Christ mistakenly
anticipated the end of the world to be close at hand, and that His
first disciples lived in expectation of His immediate return in glory,
it follows that the hierarchy must have had some such origin as this.
It is out of the question to attribute it to the Apostles. Men who
believed the end of the world to be impending would not have seen the
necessity of endowing a society with a form of government intended to
endure.
These revolutionary views constitute part of the theory known as
Modernism, whose philosophical presuppositions involve the complete
denial of the miraculous. The Church, according to this theory, is not
a society established by eternal Divine interposition. It is a society
expressing the religious experience of the collectivity of consciences,
and owing its origin to two natural tendencies in men, viz. the
tendency of the individual believer to communicate his beliefs to
others, and the tendency of those who hold the same beliefs to unite in
a society. The Modernist theories were analyzed and condemned as "the
synthesis of all the heresies" in the Encyclical "Pascendi Dominici
gregis" (18 September, 1907). The principal features of M. Loisy's
theory of the Church had been already included among the condemned
propositions contained in the Decree "Lamentabili" (3 July, 1907). The
fifty-third of the propositions there singled out for reprobation is
the following: "The original constitution of the Church is not
immutable; but the Christian society like human society is subject to
perpetual change."
V. THE CHURCH, A DIVINE SOCIETY
The church, as has been seen, is a society formed of living men, not a
mere mystical union of souls. As such it resembles other societies.
Like them, it has its code of rules, its executive officers, its
ceremonial observances. Yet it differs from them more than it resembles
them: for it is a supernatural society. The Kingdom of God is
supernatural alike in its origin, in the purpose at which it aims, and
in the means at its disposal. Other kingdoms are natural in their
origin; and their scope is limited to the temporal welfare of their
citizens. The supernatural character of the Church is seen, when its
relation to the redemptive work of Christ is considered. It is the
society of those whom He has redeemed from the world. The world, by
which term are signified men in so far as they have fallen from God, is
ever set forth in Scripture as the kingdom of the Evil One. It is the
"world of darkness" (Eph., vi, 12), it is "seated in the wicked one" (I
John, vi, 19), it hates Christ (John, xv, 18). To save the world, God
the Son became man. He offered Himself as a propitiation for the sins
of the whole world (I John, ii, 2). God, Who desires that all men
should be saved, has offered salvation to all; but the greater part of
mankind rejects the proffered gift. The Church is the society of those
who accept redemption, of those whom Christ "has chosen out of the
world" (John, xv, 19). Thus it is the Church alone which He "hath
purchased with his own blood" (Acts, xx, 28). Of the members of the
Church, the Apostle can say that "God hath delivered us from the power
of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his
love" (Col., i, 13). St. Augustine terms the Church "mundus salvatus "
-- the redeemed world -- and speaking of the enmity borne towards the
Church by those who reject her, says: "The world of perdition hates the
world of salvation" ("in Joan.", Tract. lxxx, vii, n. 2 in P. L., XXXV,
1885). To the Church Christ has given the means of grace He merited by
His life and death. She communicates them to her members; and those who
are outside her fold she bids to enter that they too may participate in
them. By these means of grace -- the light of revealed truth, the
sacraments, the perpetual renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary -- the
Church carries on the work of sanctifying the elect. Through their
instrumentality each individual soul is perfected, and conformed to the
likeness of the Son of God.
It is thus manifest that, when we regard the Church simply as the
society of disciples, we are considering its external form only. Its
inward life is found in the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, the gifts of
faith, hope, and charity, the grace communicated by the sacraments, and
the other prerogatives by which the children of God differ from the
children of the world. This aspect of the Church is described by the
Apostles in figurative language. They represent it as the Body of
Christ, the Spouse of Christ, the Temple of God. In order to understand
its true nature some consideration of these comparisons is requisite.
In the conception of the Church as a body governed and directed by
Christ as the head, far more is contained than the familiar analogy
between a ruler and his subjects on the one hand, and the head guiding
and coordinating the activities of the several members on the other.
That analogy expresses indeed the variety of function, the unity of
directive principle, and the Cooperation of the parts to a common end,
which are found in a society; but it is insufficient to explain the
terms in which St. Paul speaks of the union between Christ and His
disciples. Each of them is a member of Christ (I Cor., vi, 15);
together they form the body of Christ (Eph., iv, 16); as a corporate
unity they are simply termed Christ (I Cor., xii, 12).
The intimacy of union here suggested is, however, justified, if we
recall that the gifts and graces bestowed upon each disciple are graces
merited by the Passion of Christ, and are destined to produce in him
the likeness of Christ. The connection between Christ and himself is
thus very different from the purely juridical relation binding the
ruler of a natural society to the individuals belonging to it. The
Apostle develops the relatio between Christ and His members from
various points of view. As a human body is organized, each joint and
muscle having its own function, yet each contributing to the union of
the complex whole, so too the Christian society is a body "compacted
and firmly joined together by that which every part supplieth" (Eph.,
iv, 16), while all the parts depend on Christ their head. It is He Who
has organized the body, assigning to each member his place in the
Church, endowing each with the special graces necessary, and, above
all, conferring on some of the members the graces in virtue of which
they rule and guide the Church in His name (ibid., iv, 11).
Strengthened by these graces, the mystical body, like a physical body,
grows and increases. This growth is twofold. It takes place in the
individual, inasmuch as each Christian gradually grows into the
"perfect man", into the image of Christ (Eph., iv, 13, 15; Rom., viii,
29). But there is also a growth in the whole body. As time goes on, the
Church is to increase and multiply till it fills the earth. So intimate
is the union between Christ and His members, that the Apostle speaks of
the Church as the "fullness" (pleroma) of Christ (Eph., i, 23; iv, 13),
as though apart from His members something were lacking to the head. He
even speaks of it as Christ: "As all the members of the body whereas
they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ" (I Cor., xii, 12).
And to establish the reality of this union he refers it to the
efficacious instrumentality of the Holy Eucharist: "We being many, are
one bread, one body: for we all partake of that one bread" (I Cor., x,
17 -- Greek text).
The description of the Church as God's temple, in which the disciples
are "living stones" (I Peter, ii, 5), is scarcely less frequent in the
Apostolic writings than is the metaphor of the body. "You are the
temple of the living God" (II Cor., vi, 16), writes St. Paul to the
Corinthians, and he reminds the Ephesians that they are "built upon the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the
chief corner stone; in whom all the building being framed together,
groweth up into a holy temple in the Lord" (Eph., ii, 20 sq.). With a
slight change in the metaphor, the same Apostle in another passage (I
Cor., iii, 11) compares Christ to the foundation, and himself and other
Apostolic labourers to the builders who raise the temple upon it. It is
noticeable that the word translated "temple" is naos, a term which
signifies properly the inner sanctuary. The Apostle, when he employs
this word, is clearly comparing the Christian Church to that Holy of
Holies where God manifested His visible presence in the Shekinah. The
metaphor of the temple is well adapted to enforce two lessons. On
several occasions the Apostle employs it to impress on his readers the
sanctity of the Church in which they have been incorporated. "If any
shall violate the temple of God", he says, speaking of those who
corrupt the Church by false doctrine, "him shall God destroy" (I Cor.,
iii, 17). And he employs the same motive to dissuade disciples from
forming matrimonial alliance with Unbelievers: "What agreement hath the
temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God" (II
Cor., vi, 16). It further illustrates in the clearest way the truth
that to each member of the Church God has assigned his own place,
enabling him by his work there to cooperate towards the great common
end, the glory of God.
The third parallel represents the Church as the bride of Christ. Here
there is much more than a metaphor. The Apostle says that the union
between Christ and His Church is the archetype of which human marriage
is an earthly representation. Thus he bids wives be subject to their
husbands, as the Church is subject to Christ (Eph., v, 22 sq.). Yet he
points out on the other hand that the relation of husband to wife is
not that of a master to his servant, but one involving the tenderest
and most self-sacrificing love. He bids husbands love their wives, "as
Christ also loved the Church, and delivered himself up for it" (ibid.,
v, 25). Man and wife are one flesh; and in this the husband has a
powerful motive for love towards the wife, since "no man ever hated his
own flesh". This physical union is but the antitype of that mysterious
bond in virtue of which the Church is so truly one with Christ, that
"we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 'For this
cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his
wife, and they shall be two in one flesh"' (Eph., v, 30 sq.; Gen., ii,
24). In these words the Apostle indicates the mysterious parallelism
between the union of the first Adam with the spouse formed from his
body, and the union of the second Adam with the Church. She is "bone of
his bones, and flesh of his flesh", even as Eve was in regard to our
first father. And those only belong to the family of the second Adam,
who are her children, "born again of water and of the Holy Ghost".
Occasionally the metaphor assumes a slightly different form. In Apoc.,
xix, 7, the marriage of the Lamb to his spouse the Church does not take
place till the last day in the hour of the Church's final triumph. Thus
too St. Paul, writing to the Corinthians (II Cor., xi, 2), compares
himself to "the friend of the bridegroom", who played so important a
part in the Hebrew marriage ceremony (cf. John, iii, 29). He has, he
says, espoused the Corinthian community to Christ, and he holds himself
responsible to present it spotless to the bridegroom.
Through the medium of these metaphors the Apostles set forth the inward
nature of the Church. Their expressions leave no doubt that in them
they always refer to the actually existing Church founded by Christ on
earth -- the society of Christ's disciples. Hence it is instructive to
observe that Protestant divines find it necessary to distinguish
between an actual and an ideal Church, and to assert that the teaching
of the Apostles regarding the Spouse, the Temple, and the Body refers
to the ideal Church alone (cf. Gayford in Hastings, "Dict. of the
Bible", s. v. Church).
VI. THE NECESSARY MEANS OF SALVATION
In the preceding examination of the Scriptural doctrine regarding the
Church, it has been seen how clearly it is laid down that only by
entering the Church can we participate in the redemption wrought for us
by Christ. Incorporation with the Church can alone unite us to the
family of the second Adam, and alone can engraft us into the true Vine.
Moreover, it is to the Church that Christ has committed those means of
grace through which the gifts He earned for men are communicated to
them. The Church alone dispenses the sacraments. It alone makes known
the light of revealed truth. Outside the Church these gifts cannot be
obtained. From all this there is but one conclusion: Union with the
Church is not merely one out of various means by which salvation may be
obtained: it is the only means.
This doctrine of the absolute necessity of union with the Church was
taught in explicit terms by Christ. Baptism, the act of incorporation
among her members, He affirmed to be essential to salvation. "He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall
be condemned" (Mark, xvi, 16). Any disciple who shall throw off
obedience to the Church is to be reckoned as one of the heathen: he has
no part in the kingdom of God (Matt., xviii, 17). St. Paul is equally
explicit. "A man that is a heretic", he writes to Titus, "after the
first and second admonition avoid, knowing that he that is such a one
is . . . condemned by his own judgment" (Tit., iii, 10 sq.). The
doctrine is summed up in the phrase, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. This
saying has been the occasion of so many objections that some
consideration of its meaning seems desirable. It certainly does not
mean that none can be saved except those who are in visible communion
with the Church. The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else
is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of
contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these
acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is
numbered among the children of God. Should he die in these
dispositions, he will assuredly attain heaven. It is true such acts
could not possibly be elicited by one who was aware that God has
commanded all to join the Church, and who nevertheless should willfully
remain outside her fold. For love of God carries with it the practical
desire to fulfill His commandments. But of those who die without
visible communion with the Church, not all are guilty of willful
disobedience to God's commands. Many are kept from the Church by
Ignorance. Such may be the case of numbers among those who have been
brought up in heresy. To others the external means of grace may be
unattainable. Thus an excommunicated person may have no opportunity of
seeking reconciliation at the last, and yet may repair his faults by
inward acts of contrition and charity.
It should be observed that those who are thus saved are not entirely
outside the pale of the Church. The will to fulfill all God's
commandments is, and must be, present in all of them. Such a wish
implicitly includes the desire for incorporation with the visible
Church: for this, though they know it not, has been commanded by God.
They thus belong to the Church by desire (voto). Moreover, there is a
true sense in which they may be said to be saved through the Church. In
the order of Divine Providence, salvation is given to man in the
Church: membership in the Church Triumphant is given through membership
in the Church Militant. Sanctifying grace, the title to salvation, is
peculiarly the grace of those who are united to Christ in the Church:
it is the birthright of the children of God. The primary purpose of
those actual graces which God bestows upon those outside the Church is
to draw them within the fold. Thus, even in the case in which God Saves
men apart from the Church, He does so through the Church's graces. They
are joined to the Church in spiritual communion, though not in visible
and external communion. In the expression of theologians, they belong
to the soul of the Church, though not to its body. Yet the possibility
of salvation apart from visible communion with the Church must not
blind us to the loss suffered by those who are thus situated. They are
cut off from the sacraments God has given as the support of the soul.
In the ordinary channels of grace, which are ever open to the faithful
Catholic, they cannot participate. Countless means of sanctification
which the Church offers are denied to them. It is often urged that this
is a stern and narrow doctrine. The reply to this objection is that the
doctrine is stern, but only in the sense in which sternness is
inseparable from love. It is the same sternness which we find in
Christ's words, when he said: "If you believe not that I am he, you
shall die in your sin" (John, viii, 24). The Church is animated with
the spirit of Christ; she is filled with the same love for souls, the
same desire for their salvation. Since, then, she knows that the way of
salvation is through union with her, that in her and in her alone are
stored the benefits of the Passion, she must needs be uncompromising
and even stern in the assertion of her claims. To fail here would be to
fail in the duty entrusted to her by her Lord. Even where the message
is unwelcome, she must deliver it.
It is instructive to observe that this doctrine has been proclaimed at
every period of the Church's history. It is no accretion of a later
age. The earliest successors of the Apostles speak as plainly as the
medieval theologians, and the medieval theologians are not more
emphatic than those of today. From the first century to the twentieth
there is absolute unanimity. St. Ignatius of Antioch writes: "Be not
deceived, my brethren. If any man followeth one that maketh schism, he
doth not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walketh in strange
doctrine, he hath no fellowship with the Passion" (ad to the same
effect: "He cannot have God for his father, who has not the Church for
his mother" (De Unit., c. vi). The words of the Fourth Ecumenical
Council of Lateran (1215) define the doctrine thus in its decree
against the Albigenses: "Una est fidelium universalis Ecclesia, extra
quam nullus omnino salvatur" (Denzinger, n. 357); and Pius IX employed
almost identical language in his Encyclical to the bishops of Italy (10
August, 1863): "Notissimum est catholicum dogma neminem scilicet extra
catholicam ecclesiam posse salvari" (Denzinger, n. 1529).
VII. VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH
In asserting that the Church of Christ is visible, we signify, first,
that as a society it will at all times be conspicuous and public, and
second, that it will ever be recognizable among other bodies as the
Church of Christ. These two aspects of visibility are termed
respectively "material" and "formal" visibility by Catholic
theologians. The material visibility of the Church involves no more
than that it must ever be a public, not a private profession; a society
manifest to the world, not a body whose members are bound by some
secret tie. Formal visibility is more than this. It implies that in all
ages the true Church of Christ will be easily recognizable for that
which it is, viz. as the Divine society of the Son of God, the means of
salvation offered by God to men; that it possesses certain attributes
which so evidently postulate a Divine origin that all who see it must
know it comes from God. This must, of course, be understood with some
necessary qualifications. The power to recognize the Church for what it
is presupposes certain moral dispositions. Where there is a rooted
unwillingness to follow God's will, there may be spiritual blindness to
the claims of the Church. Invincible prejudice or inherited assumptions
may produce the same result. But in such cases the incapacity to see is
due, not to the want of visibility in the Church, but to the blindness
of the individual. The case bears an almost exact analogy to the
evidence possessed by the proofs for the existence of God. The proofs
in themselves are evident: but they may fail to penetrate a mind
obscured by prejudice or ill will. From the time of the Reformation,
Protestant writers either denied the visibility of the Church, or so
explained it as to rob it of most of its meaning. After briefly
indicating the grounds of the Catholic doctrine, some views prevalent
on this subject among Protestant authorities will be noticed.
It is unnecessary to say more in regard to the material visibility of
the Church than has been said in sections III and IV of this article.
It has been shown there that Christ established His church as an
organized society under accredited leaders, and that He commanded its
rulers and those who should succeed them to summon all men to secure
their eternal salvation by entry into it. It is manifest that there is
no question here of a secret union of believers: the Church is a
worldwide corporation, whose existence is to be forced upon the notice
of all, willing or unwilling. Formal visibility is secured by those
attributes which are usually termed the "notes" of the Church -- her
Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, and Apostolicity (see below). The proof
may be illustrated in the case of the first of these. The unity of the
Church stands out as a fact altogether unparalleled in human history.
Her members all over the world are united by the profession of a common
faith, by participation in a common worship, and by obedience to a
common authority. Differences of class, of nationality, and of race,
which seem as though they must be fatal to any form of union, cannot
sever this bond. It links in one the civilized and the uncivilized, the
philosopher and the peasant, the rich and the poor. One and all hold
the same belief, join in the same religious ceremonies, and acknowledge
in the successor of Peter the same supreme ruler. Nothing but a
supernatural power can explain this. It is a proof manifest to all
minds, even to the simple and the unlettered, that the Church is a
Divine society. Without this formal visibility, the purpose for which
the Church was founded would be frustrated. Christ established it to be
the means of salvation for all mankind. For this end it is essential
that its claims should be authenticated in a manner evident to all; in
other words, it must be visible, not merely as other public societies
are visible, but as being the society of the Son of God.
The views taken by Protestants as to the visibility of the Church are
various. The rationalist critics naturally reject the whole conception.
To them the religion preached by Jesus Christ was something purely
internal. When the Church as an institution came to be regarded as an
indispensable factor in religion, it was a corruption of the primitive
message. (See Harnack, What is Christianity, p.213.) Passages which
deal with the Church in her corporate unity are referred by writers of
this school to an ideal invisible Church, a mystical communion of
souls. Such an interpretation does violence to the sense of the
passages. Moreover, no explanation possessing any semblance of
probability has yet been given to account for the genesis among the
disciples of this remarkable and altogether novel conception of an
invisible Church. It may reasonably be demanded of a professedly
critical school that this phenomenon should be explained. Harnack holds
that it took the place of Jewish racial unity. But it does not appear
why Gentile converts should have felt the need of replacing a feature
so entirely proper to the Hebrew religion.
The doctrine of the older Protestant writers is that there are two
Churches, a visible and an invisible. This is the view of such standard
Anglican divines as Barrow, Field, and Jeremy Taylor (see e. g. Barrow,
Unity of Church, Works, 1830, VII, 628). Those who thus explain
visibility urge that the essential and vital element of membership in
Christ lies in an inner union with Him; that this is necessarily
invisible, and those who possess it constitute an invisible Church.
Those who are united to Him externally alone have, they maintain, no
part in His grace. Thus, when He promised to His Church the gift of
indefectibility, declaring that the gates of hell should never prevail
against it, the promise must be understood of the invisible, not of the
visible Church. In regard to this theory, which is still tolerably
prevalent, it is to be said that Christ's promises were made to the
Church as a corporate body, as constituting a society. As thus
understood, they were made to the visible Church, not to an invisible
and unknown body. Indeed for this distinction between a visible and an
invisible Church there is no Scriptural warrant. Even though many of
her children prove unfaithful, yet all that Christ said in regard to
the Church is realized in her as a corporate body. Nor does the
unfaithfulness of these professing Catholics cut them off altogether
from membership in Christ. They are His in virtue of their baptism. The
character then received still stamps them as His. Though dry and
withered branches they are not altogether broken off from the true Vine
(Bellarmine, Dc Ecciesiâ, III, ix, 13). The Anglican High Church
writers explicitly teach the visibility of the Church. They restrict
themselves, however, to the consideration of material visibility (cf.
Palmer, Treatise on the Church, Part I, C. iii).
The doctrine of the visibility in no way excludes from the Church those
who have already attained to bliss. These are united with the members
of the Church Militant in one communion of saints. They watch her
struggles; their prayers are offered on her behalf. Similarly, those
who are still in the cleansing fires of purgatory belong to the Church.
There are not, as has been said, two Churches; there is but one Church,
and of it all the souls of the just, whether in heaven, on earth, or in
purgatory, are members (Catech. Rom., I, x, 6). But it is to the Church
only in so far as militant here below -- to the Church among men –
that the property of visibility belongs.
VIII. THE PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY
Whatever authority is exercised in the Church, is exercised in virtue
of the commission of Christ. He is the one Prophet, Who has given to
the world the revelation of truth, and by His spirit preserves in the
Church the faith once delivered to the saints. He is the one Priest,
ever pleading on behalf of the Church the sacrifice of Calvary. And He
is the one King -- the chief Shepherd (I Peter, v, 4) -- Who rules and
guides, through His Providence, His Church's course. Yet He wills to
exercise His power through earthly representatives. He chose the
Twelve, and charged them in His name to teach the nations (Matt.,
xxviii, 19), to offer sacrifice (Luke, xxii, 19), to govern His flock
(Matt., xviii, 18; John, xxi, 17). They, as seen above, used the
authority committed to them while they lived; and before their death,
they took measures for the perpetuation of this principle of government
in the Church. From that day to this, the hierarchy thus established
has claimed and has exercised this threefold office. Thus the
prophecies of the Old Testament have been fulfilled which foretold that
to those who should be appointed to rule the Messianic kingdom it
should be granted to participate in the Messias' office of prophet,
priest, and king. (See II above.)
The authority established in the Church holds its commission from
above, not from below. The pope and the bishops exercise their power as
the successors of the men who were chosen by Christ in person. They are
not, as the Presbyterian theory of Church government teaches, the
delegates of the flock; their warrant is received from the Shepherd,
not from the sheep. The view that ecclesiastical authority is
ministerial only, and derived by delegation from the faithful, was
expressly condemned by Pius VI (1794) in his Constitution "Auctorem
Fidei" (q. v.); and on the renovation of the error by certain recent
Modernist writers, Pius X reiterated the condemnation in the Encyclical
on the errors of the Modernists. In this sense the government of the
Church is not democratic. This indeed is involved in the very nature of
the Church as a supernatural society, leading men to a supernatural
end. No man is capable of wielding authority for such a purpose, unless
power is communicated to him from a Divine source. The case is
altogether different where civil society is concerned. There the end is
not supernatural: it is the temporal well-being of the citizens. It
cannot then be said that a special endowment is required to render any
class of men capable of filling the place of rulers and of guides.
Hence the Church approves equally all forms of civil government which
are consonant with the principle of justice. The power exercised by the
Church through sacrifice and sacrament (potestas ordinis) lies outside
the present subject. It is proposed briefly to consider here the nature
of the Church's authority in her office (1) of teaching (potestas
magisterii) and (2) of government (potestas jurisdictionis).
(1) Infallibility
As the Divinely appointed teacher of revealed truth, the Church is
infallible. This gift of inerrancy is guaranteed to it by the words of
Christ, in which He promised that His Spirit would abide with it
forever to guide it unto all truth (John, xiv, 16; xvi, 13). It is
implied also in other passages of Scripture, and asserted by the
unanimous testimony of the Fathers. The scope of this infallibility is
to preserve the deposit of faith revealed to man by Christ and His
Apostles (see INFALLIBILITY.) The Church teaches expressly that it is
the guardian only of the revelation, that it can teach nothing which it
has not received. The Vatican Council declares: "The Holy Ghost was not
promised to the successors of Peter, in order that through His
revelation they might manifest new doctrine: but that through His
assistance they might religiously guard, and faithfully expound the
revelation handed down by the Apostles, or the deposit of the faith"
(Conc. Vat., Sess. IV, cap. liv). The obligation of the natural moral
law constitutes part of this revelation. The authority of that law is
again and again insisted on by Christ and His Apostles. The Church
therefore is infallible in matters both of faith and morals. Moreover,
theologians are agreed that the gift of infallibility in regard to the
deposit must, by necessary consequence, carry with it infallibility as
to certain matters intimately related to the Faith. There are questions
bearing so nearly on the preservation of the Faith that, could the
Church err in these, her infallibility would not suffice to guard the
flock from false doctrine. Such, for instance, is the decision whether
a given book does or does not contain teaching condemned as heretical.
(See DOGMATIC FACTS.)
It is needless to point out that if the Christian Faith is indeed a
revealed doctrine, which men must believe under pain of eternal loss,
the gift of infallibility was necessary to the Church. Could she err at
all, she might err in any point. The flock would have no guarantee of
the truth of any doctrine. The condition of those bodies which at the
time of the Reformation forsook the Church affords us an object-lesson
in point. Divided into various sections and parties, they are the scene
of never-ending disputes; and by the nature of the case they are cut
off from all hope of attaining to certainty. In regard also to the
moral law, the need of an infallible guide is hardly less imperative.
Though on a few broad principles there may be some consensus of opinion
as to what is right and what is wrong, yet, in the application of these
principles to concrete facts, it is impossible to obtain agreement. On
matters of such practical moment as are, for instance, the questions of
private property, marriage, and liberty, the most divergent views are
defended by thinkers of great ability. Amid all this questioning the
unerring voice of the Church gives confidence to her children that they
are following the right course, and have not been led astray by some
specious fallacy. The various modes in which the Church exercises this
gift, and the prerogatives of the Holy See in regard to infallibility,
will be found discussed in the article dealing with that subject.
(2) Jurisdiction
The Church's pastors govern and direct the flock committed to them in
virtue of jurisdiction conferred upon them by Christ. The authority of
jurisdiction differs essentially from the authority to teach. The two
powers are concerned with different objects. The right to teach is
concerned solely with the manifestation of the revealed doctrine; the
object of the power of jurisdiction is to establish and enforce such
laws and regulations as are necessary to the well-being of the Church.
Further, the right of the Church to teach extends to the whole world:
The jurisdiction of her rulers extends to her members alone (I Cor., v,
12). Christ's words to St. Peter, "I will give thee the keys of the
kingdom of heaven", distinctly express the gift of jurisdiction.
Supreme authority over a body carries with it the right to govern and
direct. The three elements which go to constitute jurisdiction –
legislative power, judicial power, and coercive power -- are, moreover,
all implied in Christ's directions to the Apostles (Matt., xviii). Not
merely are they instructed to impose obligations and to settle
disputes; but they may even inflict the extremest ecclesiastical
penalty -- that of exclusion from membership in Christ.
The jurisdiction exercised within the Church is partly of Divine right,
and partly determined by ecclesiastical law. A supreme jurisdiction
over the whole Church -- clergy and laity alike -- belongs by Divine
appointment to the pope (Conc. Vat, Sess. IV, cap. iii). The government
of the faithful by bishops possessed of ordinary jurisdiction (i. e. a
jurisdiction that is not held by mere delegation, but is exercised in
their own name) is likewise of Divine ordinance. But the system by
which the Church is territorially divided into dioceses, within each of
which a single bishop rules the faithful within that district, is an
ecclesiastical arrangement capable of modification. The limits of
dioceses may be changed by the Holy See. In England the old pre-
Reformation diocesan divisions held good until 1850, though the
Catholic hierarchy had become extinct in the reign of Queen Elizabeth.
In that year the old divisions were annulled and a new diocesan system
established. Similarly in France, a complete change was introduced
after the Revolution. A bishop may exercise his power on other than a
territorial basis. Thus in the East there are different bishops for the
faithful belonging to the different rites in communion with the Holy
See. Besides bishops, in countries where the ecclesiastical system is
fully developed, those of the lower clergy who are parish priests, in
the proper sense of the term, have ordinary jurisdiction within their
own parishes.
Internal jurisdiction is that which is exercised in the tribunal of
penance. It differs from the external jurisdiction of which we have
been speaking in that its object is the welfare of the individual
penitent, while the object of external jurisdiction is the welfare of
the Church as a corporate body. To exercise this internal jurisdiction,
the power of orders is an essential condition: none but a priest can
absolve. But the power of orders itself is insufficient. The minister
of the sacrament must receive jurisdiction from one competent to bestow
it. Hence a priest cannot hear confessions in any locality unless he
has received faculties from the ordinary of the place. On the other
hand, for the exercise of external jurisdiction the power of orders is
not necessary. A bishop, duly appointed to a see, but not yet
consecrated, is invested with external jurisdiction over his diocese as
soon as he has exhibited his letters of appointment to the chapter.
IX. MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH
The foregoing account of the Church and of the principle of authority
by which it is governed enables us to determine who are members of the
Church and who are not. The membership of which we speak, is
incorporation in the visible body of Christ. It has already been noted
(VI) that a member of the Church may have forfeited the grace of God.
In this case he is a withered branch of the true Vine; but he has not
been finally broken off from it. He still belongs to Christ. Three
conditions are requisite for a man to be a member of the Church.
In the first place, he must profess the true Faith, and have received
the Sacrament of Baptism. The essential necessity of this condition is
apparent from the fact that the Church is the kingdom of truth, the
society of those who accept the revelation of the Son of God. Every
member of the Church must accept the whole revelation, either
explicitly or implicitly, by profession of all that the Church teaches.
He who refuses to receive it, or who, having received it, falls away,
thereby excludes himself from the kingdom (Titus, iii, 10 sq.). The
Sacrament of Baptism is rightly regarded as part of this condition. By
it those who profess the Faith are formally adopted as children of God
(Eph., i, 13), and an habitual faith is among the gifts bestowed in it.
Christ expressly connects the two, declaring that "he who believeth and
is baptized shall be saved" (Mark, xvi, 16; cf. Matt., xxviii, 19).
It is further necessary to acknowledge the authority of the Church and
of her appointed rulers. Those who reject the jurisdiction established
by Christ are no longer members of His kingdom. Thus St. Ignatius lays
it down in his letter to the Church of Smyrna: Wheresoever the bishop
shall appear, there let the people be; even as where Jesus may be there
is the universal Church" (ad Smyrn., n. 8). In regard to this
condition, the ultimate touchstone is to be found in communion with the
Holy See. On Peter Christ founded his Church. Those who are not joined
to that foundation cannot form part of the house of God.
The third condition lies in the canonical right to communion with the
Church. In virtue of its coercive power the Church has authority to
excommunicate notorious Sinners. It may inflict this punishment not
merely on the ground of heresy or schism, but for other grave offenses.
Thus St. Paul pronounces sentence of excommunication on the incestuous
Corinthian (I Cor., v, 3). This penalty is no mere external severance
from the rights of common worship. It is a severance from the body of
Christ, undoing to this extent the work of baptism, and placing the
excommunicated man in the condition of the" heathen and the publican".
It casts him out of God's kingdom; and the Apostle speaks of it as
"delivering him over to Satan" (I Cor., v, 5; I Tim., i, 20).
Regarding each of these conditions, however, certain distinctions must
be drawn.
Many baptized heretics have been educated in their erroneous beliefs.
Their case is altogether different from that of those who have
voluntarily renounced the Faith. They accept what they believe to be
the Divine revelation. Such as these belong to the Church in desire,
for they are at heart anxious to fulfill God's will in their regard. In
virtue of their baptism and good will, they may be in a state of grace.
They belong to the soul of the Church, though they are not united to
the visible body. As such they are members of the Church internally,
though not externally. Even in regard to those who have themselves
fallen away from the Faith, a difference must be made between open and
notorious heretics on the one hand, and secret heretics on the other.
Open and notorious heresy severs from the visible Church. The majority
of theologians agree with Bellarmine (de Ecclesiâ, III, c. x), as
against Suarez, that secret heresy has not this effect.
In regard to schism the same distinction must be drawn. A secret
repudiation of the Church's authority does not sever the sinner from
the Church. The Church recognizes the schismatic as a member, entitled
to her communion, until by open and notorious rebellion he rejects her
authority.
Excommunicated persons are either excommunicati tolerati (i.e. those
who are still tolerated) or excommunicati vitandi (i.e. those to be
shunned). Many theologians hold that those whom the Church still
tolerates are not wholly cut off from her membership, and that it is
only those whom she has branded as "to be shunned" who are cut off from
God's kingdom (see Murray, De Eccles., Disp. i, sect. viii, n. 118).
(See EXCOMMUNICATION.)
X. INDEFECTIBILITY OF THE CHURCH
Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of
indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church
will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve
unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo
any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism,
something different from what it was originally. It can never become
corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic
hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to
men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by
Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall
not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the
Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics
and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell,
i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that
could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an
instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in
to being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of
holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and
corrupt moral standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation to
the world, and charged it to warn all men that unless they accepted
that message they must perish everlastingly. Could the Church, in
defining the truths of revelation err in the smallest point, such a
charge would be impossible. No body could enforce under such a penalty
the acceptance of what might be erroneous. By the hierarchy and the
sacraments, Christ, further, made the Church the depositary of the
graces of the Passion. Were it to lose either of these, it could no
longer dispense to men the treasures of grace.
The gift of indefectibility plainly does not guarantee each several
part of the Church against heresy or apostasy. The promise is made to
the corporate body. Individual Churches may become corrupt in morals,
may fall into heresy, may even apostatize. Thus at the time of the
Mohammedan conquests, whole populations renounced their faith; and the
Church suffered similar losses in the sixteenth century. But the
defection of isolated branches does not alter the character of the main
stem. The society of Jesus Christ remains endowed with all the
prerogatives bestowed on it by its Founder. Only to One particular
Church is indefectibility assured, viz. to the See of Rome. To Peter,
and in him to all his successors in the chief pastorate, Christ
committed the task of confirming his brethren in the Faith (Luke, XXii,
32); and thus, to the Roman Church, as Cyprian says, "faithlessness
cannot gain access" [Ep. lv (lix), ad Cornelium). The various bodies
that have left the Church naturally deny its indefectibility. Their
plea for separation rests in each case on the supposed fact that the
main body of Christians has fallen so far from primitive truth, or from
the purity of Christian morals, that the formation of a separate
organization is not only desirable but necessary. Those who are called
on to defend this plea endeavour in various ways to reconcile it with
Christ's promise. Some, as seen above (VII), have recourse to the
hypothesis of an indefectible invisible Church. The Right Rev. Charles
Gore of Worcester, who may be regarded as the representative of high-
class Anglicanism, prefers a different solution. In his controversy
with Canon Richardson, he adopted the position that while the Church
will never fail to teach the whole truth as revealed, yet "errors of
addition" may exist universally in its current teaching (see
Richardson, Catholic Claims, Appendix). Such an explanation deprives
Christ's words of all their meaning. A Church which at any period might
conceivably teach, as of faith, doctrines which form no part of the
deposit could never deliver her message to the world as the message of
God. Men could reasonably urge in regard to any doctrine that it might
be an "error of addition".
It was said above that one part of the Church's gift of indefectibility
lies in her preservation from any substantial corruption in the sphere
of morals. This supposes, not merely that she will always proclaim the
perfect standard of morality bequeathed to her by her Founder, but also
that in every age the lives of many of her children will be based on
that sublime model. Only a supernatural principle of spiritual life
could bring this about. Man's natural tendency is downwards. The force
of every religious movement gradually spends itself; and the followers
of great religious reformers tend in time to the level of their
environment. According to the laws of unassisted human nature, it
should have been thus with the society established by Christ. Yet
history shows us that the Catholic Church possesses a power of reform
from within, which has no parallel in any other religious organization.
Again and again she produces saints, men imitating the virtues of
Christ in an extraordinary degree, whose influence, spreading far and
wide, gives fresh ardour even to those who reach a less heroic
standard. Thus, to cite one or two well-known instances out of many
that might be given: St. Dominic and St. Francis of Assisi rekindled
the love of virtue in the men of the thirteenth century; St. Philip
Neri and St. Ignatius Loyola accomplished a like work in the sixteenth
century; St. Paul of the Cross and St. Alphonsus Liguori, in the
eighteenth. No explanation suffices to account for this phenomenon save
the Catholic doctrine that the Church is not a natural but a
supernatural society, that the preservation of her moral life depends,
not on any laws of human nature, but on the life-giving presence of the
Holy Ghost. The Catholic and the Protestant principles of reform stand
in sharp contrast the one to the other. Catholic reformers have one and
all fallen back on the model set before them in the person of Christ
and on the power of the Holy Ghost to breathe fresh life into the souls
which He has regenerated. Protestant reformers have commenced their
work by separation, and by this act have severed themselves from the
very principle of life. No one of course would wish to deny that within
the Protestant bodies there have been many men of great virtues. Yet it
is not too much to assert that in every case their virtue has been
nourished on what yet remained to them of Catholic belief and practice,
and not on anything which they have received from Protestantism as
such.
The Continuity Theory
The doctrine of the Church's indefectibility just considered will place
us in a position to estimate, at its true value, the claim of the
Anglican Church and of the Episcopalian bodies in other English-
speaking countries to be continuous with the ancient pre-Reformation
Church of England, in the sense of being part of one and the same
society. The point to be determined here is what constitutes a breach
of continuity as regards a society. It may safely be said that the
continuity of a society is broken when a radical change in the
principles it embodies is introduced. In the case of a Church, such a
change in its hierarchical constitution and in its professed faith
suffices to make it a different Church from what it was before. For the
societies we term Churches exist as the embodiment of certain
supernatural dogmas and of a Divinely-authorized principle of
government. when, therefore, the truths previously field to be of faith
are rejected, and the Principle of government regarded as sacred is
repudiated, there is a breach of continuity, and a new Church is
formed. In this the continuity of a Church differs from the continuity
of a nation. National continuity is independent of forms of government
and of beliefs. A nation is an aggregate of families, and so long as
these families constitute a self-sufficing social organism, it remains
the same nation, whatever the form of government may be. The continuity
of a Church depends essentially on its government and its beliefs.
The changes introduced into the English Church at the time of the
Reformation were precisely of the character just described. At that
period fundamental alterations were made in its hierarchical
constitution and in its dogmatic standards. It is not to be determined
here which was in the right, the Church of Catholic days or the
Reformed Church. It is sufficient if we show that changes were made
vitally affecting the nature of the society. It is notorious that from
the days of Augustine to those of Warham, every archbishop of
Canterbury recognized the pope as the supreme source of ecclesiastical
jurisdiction. The archbishops themselves could not exercise
jurisdiction within their province until they had received papal
confirmation. Further, the popes were accustomed to send to England
legates a latere, who, in virtue of their legatine authority, whatever
their personal status in the hierarchy, possessed a jurisdiction
superior to that of the local bishops. Appeals ran from every
ecclesiastical court in England to the pope, and his decision was
recognized by all as final. The pope, too, exercised the right of
excommunication in regard to the members of the English Church. This
supreme authority was, moreover, regarded by all as belonging to the
pope by Divine right, and not in virtue of merely human institution.
When, therefore, this power of jurisdiction was transferred to the
king, the alteration touched the constitutive principles of the body
and was fundamental in its character. Similarly, in regard to matters
of faith, the changes were revolutionary. It will be sufficient to note
that a new rule of faith was introduced, Scripture alone being
substituted for Scripture and Tradition; that several books were
expunged from the Canon of Scripture; that five out of the seven
sacraments were repudiated; and that the sacrifices of Masses were
declared to be "blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits". It is indeed
sometimes said that the official formularies of Anglicanism are capable
of a Catholic sense, if given a "non-natural" interpretation. This
argument can, however, carry no weight. In estimating the character of
a society, we must judge, not by the strained sense which some
individuals may attach to its formularies, but by the sense they were
intended to bear. Judged by this criterion, none can dispute that these
innovations were such as to constitute a fundamental change in the
dogmatic standpoint of the Church of England.
XI. UNIVERSALITY OF THE CHURCH
The Church of Christ has from the first claimed to transcend all those
national differences which divide men. In it, the Apostle asserts,
"there is neither Gentile nor Jew . . . Barbarian nor Scythian" (Col.,
iii, 11). Men of every race are one in it; they form a single
brotherhood in the Kingdom of God. In the pagan world, religion and
nationality had been coterminous. The boundaries of the State were the
boundaries of the faith which the State professed. Even the Jewish
Dispensation was limited to a special race. Previous to the Christian
revelation the idea of a religion adapted to all peoples was foreign to
the conceptions of men. It is one of the essential features of the
Church that she should be a single, worldwide society embracing all
races. In it, and in it alone, is the brotherhood of man realized. All
national barriers, no less than all differences of class, disappear in
the City of God. It is not to be understood that the Church disregards
the ties which bind men to their country, or undervalues the virtue of
patriotism. The division of men into different nations enters into the
scheme of Providence. To each nation has been assigned a special task
to accomplish in the working out of God's purposes. A man owes a duty
to his nation no less than to his family. One who omits this duty has
failed in a primary moral obligation. Moreover, each nation has its own
character, and its own special gifts. It will usually be found that a
man attains to high virtue, not by neglecting these gifts, but by
embodying the best and noblest ideals of his own people.
For these reasons the Church consecrates the spirit of nationality. Yet
it transcends it, for it binds together the various nationalities in a
single brotherhood. More than this, it purifies, develops, and perfects
national character, just as it purifies and perfects the character of
each individual. Often indeed it has been accused of exercising an anti
patriotic influence. But it will invariably be found that it has
incurred this reproach by opposing and rebuking what was base in the
national aspirations, not by thwarting what was heroic or just. As the
Church perfects the nation, so reciprocally does each nation add
something of its own to the glory of the Church. It brings its own type
of sanctity, its national virtues, and thus contributes to "the
fullness of Christ" something which no other race could give. Such are
the relations of the Church to what is termed nationality. The external
unity of the one society is the visible embodiment of the doctrine of
the brotherhood of man. The sin of schism, the Fathers tell us, lies in
this, that by it the law of love to our neighbour is implicitly
rejected. "Nec hæretici pertinent ad Ecclesiam Catholicam, qæ diligit
Deum; nec schismatici quoniam diligit proximum" (Neither do heretics
belong to the Catholic church, for she loves God; nor do schismatics,
for she loves her neighbour -- Augustine, De Fide et Symbolo, ch. x, in
P. L., XL, 193). It is of importance to insist on this point. For it is
sometimes urged that the organized unity of Catholicism may be adapted
to the Latin races but is ill-suited to the Teutonic spirit. To say
this is to say that an essential characteristic of this Christian
revelation is ill-suited to one of the great races of the world.
The union of different nations in one society is contrary to the
natural inclinations of fallen humanity. It must ever struggle against
the impulses of national pride, the desire for complete independence,
the dislike of external control. Hence history provides various cases
in which these passions have obtained the upper hand, the bond of unity
has been broken, and "National Churches" have been formed. In every
such case the so-called National Church has found to its cost that, in
severing its connection with the Holy See, it has lost its one
protector against the encroachments of the secular Government. The
Greek Church under the Byzantine Empire, the autocephalous Russian
Church today, have been mere pawns in the hands of the civil authority.
The history of the Anglican Church presents the same features. There is
but one institution which is able to resist the pressure of secular
powers -- the See of Peter, which was set in the Church for this
purpose by Christ, that it might afford a principle of stability and
security to every part. The papacy is above all nationalities. It is
the servant of no particular State; and hence it has strength to resist
the forces that would make the religion of Christ subservient to
secular ends. Those Churches alone have retained their vitality which
have kept their union with the See of Peter. The branches which have
been broken from that stem have withered.
The Branch Theory
In the course of the nineteenth century, the principle of National
Churches was strenuously defended by the High Church Anglican divines
under the name of the "Branch theory". According to this view, each
National Church when fully constituted under its own episcopate is
independent of external control. It possesses plenary authority as to
its internal discipline, and may not merely reform itself as regards
ritual and ceremonial usages, but may correct obvious abuses in matters
of doctrine. It is justified in doing this even if the step involve a
breach of communion with the rest of Christendom; for, in this case,
the blame attaches not to the Church which undertakes the work of
reformation, but to those which, on this score, reject it from
communion. It still remains a "branch" of the Catholic Church as it was
before. At the present day the Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Greek
Churches are each of them a branch of the Universal Church. None of
them has an exclusive right to term itself the Catholic Church. The
defenders of the theory recognize, indeed, that this divided state of
the church is abnormal. They admit that the Fathers never contemplated
the possibility of a church thus severed into parts. But they assert
that circumstances such as those which led to this abnormal state of
things never presented themselves during the early centuries of
ecclesiastical history.
The position is open to fatal objections.
It is an entirely novel theory as to the constitution of the Church,
which is rejected alike by the Catholic and the Greek Churches. Neither
of these admit the existence of the so-called branches of the Church.
The Greek schismatics, no less than the Catholics, affirm that they,
and they only, constitute the Church. Further, the theory is rejected
by the majority of the Anglican body. It is the tenet of but one
school, though that a distinguished one. It Is almost a reductio ad
absurdum when we are asked to believe that a single school in a
particular sect is the sole depositary of the true theory of the
Church.
The claim made by many Anglicans that there is nothing in their
position contrary to ecclesiastical and patristic tradition in quite
indefensible. Arguments precisely applicable to their case were used by
the Fathers against the Donatists. It is known from the "Apologia" that
Cardinal Wiseman's masterly demonstration of this point was one of the
chief factors in bringing about the conversion of Newman. In the
controversy with the Donatists, St. Augustine holds it sufficient for
his purpose to argue that those who are separated from the Universal
Church cannot be in the right. He makes the question one of simple
fact. Are the Donatists separated from the main body of Christians, or
are they not? If they are, no vindication of their cause can absolve
them from the charge of schism. "Securus judicat orbis terrarum bonos
non esse qui se dividunt ab orbe terrarum in quâcunque parte orbis
terrarum" (The entire world judges with security that they are not
good, who separate themselves from the entire world in whatever part of
the entire world -- Augustine, contra epist. Parm., III, c. iv in P.
L., XLIII, 101). St. Augustine's position rests through out on the
doctrine he assumes as absolutely indubitable, that Christ's Church
must be one, must be visibly one; and that any body that is separated
from it is ipso facto shown to be in schism.
The contention of the Anglican controversialists that the English
Church is not separatist since it did not reject the communion of Rome,
but Rome rejected it, has of course only the value of a piece of
special pleading, and need not be taken as a serious argument. Yet it
is interesting to observe that in this too they were anticipated by the
Donatists (Contra epist. Petil., II, xxxviii in P.L., XLIII, 292).
The consequences of the doctrine constitute a manifest proof of its
falsity. The unity of the Catholic Church in every part of the world
is, as already seen, the sign of the brotherhood which binds together
the children of God. More than this, Christ Himself declared that it
would be a proof to all men of His Divine mission. The unity of His
flock, an earthly representation of the unity of the Father and the
Son, would be sufficient to show that He had come from God (John, xvii,
21). Contrariwise, this theory, first advanced to justify a state of
things having Henry VIII as its author, would make the Christian
Church, not a witness to the brotherhood of God's children, but a
standing proof that even the Son of God had failed to withstand the
spirit of discord amongst men. Were the theory true, so far from the
unity of the Church testifying to the Divine mission of Jesus Christ,
its severed and broken condition would be a potent argument in the
hands of unbelief.
XII. NOTES OF THE CHURCH
By the notes of the Church are meant certain conspicuous
characteristics which distinguish it from all other bodies and prove it
to be the one society of Jesus Christ. Some such distinguishing marks
it needs must have, if it is, indeed, the sole depositary of the
blessings of redemption, the way of salvation offered by God to man. A
Babel of religious organizations all proclaim themselves to be the
Church of Christ. Their doctrines are contradictory; and precisely in
so far as any one of them regards the doctrines which it teaches as of
vital moment, it declares those of the rival bodies to be misleading
and pernicious. Unless the true Church were endowed with such
characteristics as would prove to all men that it, and it alone, had a
right to the name, how could the vast majority of mankind distinguish
the revelation of God from the inventions of man? If it could not
authenticate its claim, it would be impossible for it to warn all men
that to reject it was to reject Christ. In discussing the visibility of
the Church (VII) it was seen that the Catholic Church points to four
such notes -- those namely which were inserted in the Nicene Creed at
the Council of Constantinople (AD 381): Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity,
and Apostolicity. These, it declares, distinguish it from every other
body, and prove that in it alone is to be found the true religion. Each
of these characteristics forms the subject of a special article in this
work. Here, however, will be indicated the sense in which the terms are
to he understood. A brief explanation of their meaning will show how
decisive a proof they furnish that the society of Jesus Christ is none
other than the Church in communion with the Holy See.
The Protestant reformers endeavoured to assign notes of the Church,
such as might lend support to their newly-founded sects. Calvin
declares that the Church is to be found "where the word of God is
preached in its purity, and the sacraments administered according to
Christ's ordinance" (Instit., Bk. IV, c. i; cf. Confessio August., art.
4). It is manifest that such notes are altogether nugatory. The very
reason why notes are required at all is that men may be able to discern
the word of God from the words of false prophets, and may know which
religious body has a right to term its ceremonies the sacraments of
Christ. To say that the Church is to be sought where these two
qualities are found cannot help us. The Anglican Church adopted
Calvin's account in its official formulary (Thirty-Nine Articles, art.
17); on the other hand, it retains the use of the Nicene Creed; though
a profession of faith in a Church which is One, Holy, Catholic, and
Apostolic, can have little meaning to those who are not in communion
with the successor of Peter.
Unity
The Church is One because its members;
Are all united under one government
All profess the same faith
All join in a common worship
As already noted (XI) Christ Himself declared that the unity of his
followers should bear witness to Him. Discord and separation are the
Devil's work on the earth. The unity and brotherhood promised by Christ
are to be the visible manifestation on the earth of the Divine union
(John, xvii, 21). St. Paul's teaching on this point is to the same
effect. He sees in the visible unity of the body of Christ an external
sign of the oneness of the Spirit who dwells within it. There is, he
says, "one body and one Spirit" (Eph., iv, 4). As in any living
organism the union of the members in one body is the sign of the one
animating principle within, so it is with the Church. If the Church
were divided into two or more mutually exclusive bodies, how could she
witness to the presence of that Spirit Whose name is Love. Further,
when it is said that the members of the Church are united by the
profession of the same faith, we speak of external profession as well
as inward acceptance. In recent years, much has been said by those
outside the Church, about unity of spirit being compatible with
differences of creed. Such words are meaningless in reference to a
Divine revelation. Christ came from heaven to reveal the truth to man.
If a diversity of creeds could be found in His Church, this could only
be because the truth He revealed had been lost in the quagmire of human
error. It would signify that His work was frustrated, that His Church
was no longer the pillar and ground of the truth. There is, it is
plain, but one Church, in which is found the unity we have described –
in the Catholic Church, united under the government of the supreme
pontiff, and acknowledging all that he teaches in his capacity as the
infallible guide of the Church.
Sanctity
When the Church points to sanctity as one of her notes, it is manifest
that what is meant is a sanctity of such a kind as excludes the
supposition of any natural origin. The holiness which marks the Church
should correspond to the holiness of its Founder, of the Spirit Who
dwells within it, of the graces bestowed upon it. A quality such as
this may well serve to distinguish the true Church from counterfeits.
It is not without reason that the Church of Rome claims to be holy in
this sense. Her holiness appears in the doctrine which she teaches, in
the worship she offers to God, in the fruits which she brings forth.
The doctrine of the Church is summed up in the imitation of Jesus
Christ. This imitation expresses itself in good works, in self-
sacrifice, in love of suffering, and especially in the practice of the
three evangelical counsels of perfection -- voluntary poverty,
chastity, and obedience. The ideal which the Church proposes to us is a
Divine ideal. The sects which have severed themselves from the Church
have either neglected or repudiated some part of the Church's teaching
in this regard. The Reformers of the sixteenth century went so far as
to deny the value of good works altogether. Though their followers have
for the most part let fall this anti-Christian doctrine, yet to this
day the self-surrender of the religious state is regarded by
Protestants as folly.
The holiness of the Church's worship is recognized even by the world
outside the Church. In the solemn renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary
there lies a mysterious power, which all are forced to own. Even
enemies of the Church realize the sanctity of the Mass.
Fruits of holiness are not, indeed, found in the lives of all the
Church's children. Man's will is free, and though God gives grace, many
who have been united to the Church by baptism make little use of the
gift. But at all times of the Church's history there have been many who
have risen to sublime heights of self-sacrifice, of love to man, and of
love to God. It is only in the Catholic Church that is found that type
of character which we recognize in the saints -- in men such as St.
Francis Xavier, St. Vincent de Paul, and many others. Outside the
Church men do not look for such holiness. Moreover, the saints, and
indeed every other member of the Church who has attained to any degree
of piety, have been ever ready to acknowledge that they owe whatever is
good in them to the grace the Church bestows.
Catholicity
Christ founded the Church for the salvation of the human race. He
established it that it might preserve His revelation, and dispense His
grace to all nations. Hence it was necessary that it should be found in
every land, proclaiming His message to all men, and communicating to
them the means of grace. To this end He laid on the Apostles the
Injunction to "go, and teach all nations". There is, notoriously, but
one religious body which fulfills this command, and which can therefore
lay any claim to the note of Catholicity. The Church which owns the
Roman pontiff as its supreme head extends its ministrations over the
whole world. It owns its obligation to preach the Gospel to all
peoples. No other Church attempts this task, or can use the title of
Catholic with any appearance of justification. The Greek Church is at
the present day a mere local schism. None of the Protestant bodies has
ever pretended to a universal mission. They claim no right to convert
to their beliefs the Christianized nations of Europe. Even in regard to
the heathen, for nearly two hundred years missionary enterprise was
unknown among Protestant bodies. In the nineteenth century, it is true,
many of them displayed no little zeal for the conversion of the
heathen, and contributed large sums of money for this purpose. But the
results achieved were so inadequate as to justify the conclusion that
the blessing of God did not rest upon the enterprise. (See MISSIONS,
CATHOLIC; MISSIONS;
PROTESTANT.)
Apostolicity
The Apostolicity of the Church consists in its identity with the body
which Christ established on the foundation of the Apostles, and which
He commissioned to carry on His work. No other body save this is the
Church of Christ. The true Church must be Apostolic in doctrine and
Apostolic in mission. Since, however, it has already been shown that
the gift of infallibility was promised to the Church, it follows that
where there is Apostolicity of mission, there will also be Apostolicity
of doctrine. Apostolicity of mission consists in the power of Holy
orders and the power of jurisdiction derived by legitimate transmission
from the Apostles. Any religious organization whose ministers do not
possess these two powers is not accredited to preach the Gospel of
Christ. For "how shall they preach", asks the Apostle, "unless they be
sent? " (Rom., x, 15). It is Apostolicity of mission which is reckoned
as a note of the Church. No historical fact can be more clear than that
Apostolicity, if it is found anywhere, is found in the Catholic Church.
In it there is the power of Holy orders received by Apostolic
succession. In it, too, the |