THE CHURCH
The term church (Anglo-Saxon, cirice, circe;
Modern German, Kirche; Sw., Kyrka) is the name employed in the Teutonic
languages to render t ek 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 t ek 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
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
(Psalm 25:5; Judith
It has been frequently disputed
whether there is any difference in the signification of the two words.
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 (Revelation
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
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
(Psalm
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
(Isaiah 66:18), 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" (Malachi 1:11). The sacrifices offered by the
priesthood of the Messianic kingdom are to endure as long as day and night
shall last (Jeremiah 33:20).
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 t atest" (Jeremiah 31:31, 34), while Zacharias assures us that in
those days Jerusalem shall be known as the city of truth. (Zechariah 8:3).
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. Psalms 2 and 71; Isaiah 9:6 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 (Ezekiel 34:23; 37:24-28). 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 (Jeremiah 18:6;
Psalm 44:17; cf. St. Augustine Enarr. in Psalm. 44: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
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
III. CONSTITUTION BY CHRIST
The Baptist proclaimed the near
approach of the
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 (Matthew
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 (Matthew 18:15-17). 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 (Matthew 16:15 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
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 (Matthew
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
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
Christ had declared that His
kingdom should be spread among all nations, and had committed the execution of
the work to the twelve (Matthew 28:19). Yet the universal mission of the Church
revealed itself but gradually. St. Peter indeed makes mention of it from the
first (Acts
In the Apostolic teaching the term
Church, from the very first, takes the place of the expression
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
While the whole
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 t ater 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.
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 13:2; 15:23; 21:11; 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
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 (Philippians, 1
and 2 Timothy, 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
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
The term presbyter was of common
use in the Jewish Church, as denoting the "rulers" of the synagogue
(cf. Luke
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
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.
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
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
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 (1 Corinthians 14). 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", (Harnac, 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" (
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
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
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 relation 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" (Ephesians 4:16), 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 (Ephesians
The description of the Church as
God's temple, in which the disciples are "living stones" (1 Peter
2:5), is scarcely less frequent in the Apostolic writings than is the metaphor
of the body. "You are the temple of the living God" (2 Corinthians
6:16), 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" (Ephesians
2:20 sq.). With a slight change in the metaphor, the same Apostle in another
passage (1 Corinthians
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 (Ephesians
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
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:
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
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
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
VII. VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH
In asserting that the
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
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.
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
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 14:16; 16:13). 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 (1 Corinthians
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
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 (Ephesians
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
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 offences. Thus
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 BeIlarrrne (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
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
XI. UNIVERSALITY OF THE CHURCH
The
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 t at 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
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
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
t ek Churches. Neither of these admit the existence of
the so-called branches of the Church. T ek 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,
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
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
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
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
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. T
ek 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
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
XIII. THE CHURCH, A PERFECT SOCIETY
The Church has been considered as
a society which aims at a spiritual end, but which yet is a visible polity,
like the secular polities among which it exists. It is, further, a
"perfect society". The meaning of this expression, "a perfect
society", should be clearly understood, for this characteristic justifies,
even on grounds of pure reason, that independence of secular control which the
Church has always claimed. A society may be defined as a number of men who
unite in a manner more or less permanent in order, by their combined efforts,
to attain a common good. Association of this kind is a necessary condition of
civilization. An isolated individual can achieve but little. He can scarcely
provide himself with necessary sustenance; much less can he find the means of
developing his higher mental and moral gifts. As civilization progresses, men
enter into various societies for the attainment of various ends. These
organizations are perfect or imperfect societies. For a society to be perfect,
two conditions are necessary:
The end which it proposes to
itself must not be purely subordinate to the end of some other society. For
example, the cavalry of an army is an organized association of men; but the end
for which this association exists is entirely subordinate to the good of the
whole army. Apart from the success of the whole army, there can properly
speaking be no such thing as the success of the lesser association. Similarly,
the good of the whole army is subordinate to the welfare of the State.
The society in question must be
independent of other societies in regard to the attainment of its end.
Mercantile societies, no matter how great their wealth and power,
are imperfect; for they depend on the authority of the State for permission to
exist. So, too, a single family is an imperfect society. It cannot attain its
end -- the well-being of its members -- in isolation from other families.
Civilized life requires that many families should cooperate to form a State.
There are two societies which are
perfect -- the Church and the State. The end of the State is the temporal
welfare of the community. It seeks to realize the conditions which are
requisite in order that its members may be able to attain temporal felicity. It
protects the rights, and furthers the interests of the individuals and the
groups of individuals which belong to it. All other societies which aim in any
manner at temporal good are necessarily imperfect. Either they exist ultimately
for the good of the State itself; or, if their aim is the private advantage of
some of its members, the State must grant them authorization, and protect them
in the exercise of their various functions. Should they prove dangerous to it,
it justly dissolves them. The Church also possesses the conditions requisite
for a perfect society. That its end is not subordinate to that of any other
society is manifest: for it aims at the spiritual welfare, the eternal
felicity, of man. This is the highest end a society can have; it is certainly
not an end subordinate to the temporal felicity aimed at by the State.
Moreover, the Church is not dependent on the permission of the State in the
attaining of its end. Its right to exist is derived not from the permission of
the State, but from the command of God. Its right to preach the Gospel, to
administer the sacraments, to exercise jurisdiction over its subjects, is not
conditional on the authorization of the civil Government. It has received from
Christ Himself t at commission to teach all nations. To the command of the
civil Government that they should desist from preaching, the Apostles replied
simply that they ought to obey God rather than men
(Acts
Pope Leo XIII summed up this
doctrine in his Encyclical "Immortale Dei" (1 November, 1885) on the
Christian constitution of States: "The Church", he says, "is
distinguished and differs from civil society; and, what is of highest moment,
it is a society chartered as of right divine, perfect in its nature and its
title to possess in itself and by itself through the will and loving kindness
of its Founder, all needful provision for its maintenance and action. And just
as the end at which the Church aims is by far the noblest of ends, so is its
authority the most excellent of all authority, nor can it be looked on as
inferior to the civil power, or in any manner dependent upon it." It is to
be observed that though the end at which the Church aims is higher than that of
the State, the latter is not, as a society, subordinate to the Church. The two
societies belong to different orders. The temporal felicity at which the State
aims is not essentially dependent on the spiritual good which the Church seeks.
Material prosperity and a high degree of civilization may be found where the
Church does not exist. Each society is Supreme in its own order. At the same
time each contributes greatly to the advantage of the other. The church cannot
appeal to men who have not some rudiments of civilization, and whose savage
mode of life renders moral development impossible. Hence, though her function
is not to civilize but to save souls, yet when she is called on to deal with
savage races, she commences by seeking to communicate the elements of
civilization to them. On the other hand, the State needs the Supernatural
sanctions and spiritual motives which the Church impresses on its members. A
civil order without these is insecurely based.
It has often been objected that
the doctrine of the Church's independence in regard to the State would render
civil government impossible. Such a theory, it is urged, creates a State within
a State; and from this, there must inevitably result a conflict of authorities
each Claiming supreme dominion over the same subjects. Such was the argument of
the Gallican Regalists. The writers of this school, consequently, would not
admit the claim of the Church to be a perfect society. They maintained that any
jurisdiction which it might exercise was entirely dependent on the permission
of the civil power. The difficulty, however, is rather apparent than real. The
scope of the two authorities is different, the one belonging to what is
temporal, the other to what is spiritual. Even when
the jurisdiction of the Church involves the use of temporal means and affects
temporal interests, it does not detract from the due authority of the State. If
difficulties arise, they arise, not by the necessity of the case, but from some
extrinsic reason. In the course of history, occasions have doubtless arisen,
when ecclesiastical authorities have grasped at power which by right belonged
to the State, and, more often still, when the State has endeavoured to arrogate
to itself spiritual jurisdiction. This, however, does not show the system to be
at fault, but merely that human perversity can abuse it. So far, indeed, is it
from being true that the Church's claims render government impossible, that the
contrary is the case. By determining the just limits of liberty of conscience,
they are a defence to the State. Where the authority of the Church is not
recognized, any enthusiast may elevate the vagaries of his own caprice into a
Divine command, and may claim to reject the authority of the civil ruler on the
plea that he must obey God and not man. The history of John of Leyden and of
many another self-styled prophet will afford examples
in point. The Church bids her members see in the civil power
"the minister of God", and never justifies disobedience,
except in those rare cases when the State openly violates the natural or the
revealed law. (See CIVIL ALLEGIANCE.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the writings of the Fathers, the following are the principal
works which bear on the doctrine of the Church: ST. IRENÆUS, Adv. Hereses in
P.G., VII; TERTULLIAN, De Prescriptionibus in P. L., II; ST. CYPRIAN, De
Unitate Ecclesie in P.L., IV; ST. OPTATUS, De Schismate Donatistarum in P.L.,
XI; ST. AUGUSTINE, Contra Donatistas, Contra Epistolas Parmeniani, Contra
Litteras Petiliani in P.L., XLIII; ST. VINCENT OF LÉRINS, Commonitorium in
P.L., L. -- Of the theologians who in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
defended the Catholic Church against the Reformers may be mentioned: STAPLETON,
Principiorum Fidei Doctrinalium Demonstratio (1574; Paris, 1620); BELLARMINE,
Disputationes de Controversiis Fidei (1576; Prague, 1721); SUAREZ, Defensio
Fidea Catholicoe adversus Anglicanoe Sectoe Errores (1613; Paris, 1859). --
Among more recent writers: MURRAY, De Ecclesiâ (
G.H. JOYCE
Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of the
Blessed Virgin Mary
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III
Copyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton
Company
Nihil Obstat,
Imprimatur. +John
Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York\