The

CHURCH OF CHRIST
AN APOLOGETIC AND DOGMATIC TREATISE

BY

E. SYLVESTER BERRY, D.D.
PROFESSOR OF APOLOGETICS IN MT. ST. MARY’S

SEMINARY, EMMITSBURG, MD.

15 & 17 SOUTH BROADWAY, ST. LOUIS, MO.,
AND
33 QUEEN SQUARE, LONDON, W. C.
1927

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Printed in U. S. A.

NIHIL OBSTAT

Sti. Ludovici, die 19. Jan. 1927,

Joannes Rothen-Steiner,
Censor Librorum

IMPRIMATUR

Sti. Ludovici, die 20. Jan. 1927,

ψ Joannes

J. Glennon,
Archiepiscopus

Copyright, 1927

by B. HERDER BOOK CO.

Vnil Ballou Press, Inc., Binghamton and New York

FOREWORD
The present volume, being the outgrowth of lectures
delivered in the class-room, was originally written in
Latin with the intention of supplying a text-book suited
to the needs of those beginning the study of theology
in our seminaries. But upon the advice of friends,—
professors of theology as well as priests engaged in
parochial duties,—the matter has been completely re­
cast into English. It is believed that in this form the
work will be of wider utility than in Latin. It is de­
signed to serve as a work of reference for students and
also, for busy pastors who have not the time, and per­
haps not even the inclination, to delve into more pon­
derous Latin tomes. It is also hoped that the detailed
explanations and the simplicity of language will render
the work intelligible and useful to a large portion of the
laity. With the exception of the Sacraments, there is,
perhaps, no subject of more practical interest to clergy
and laity alike than that of the Church, yet there are
few, if any, works in English treating the subject in
full. The author trusts that he has made some little
beginning in this matter by giving a connected and
rather detailed account of the origin, constitution, and
powers of the Church, from the dogmatic as well as
from the apologetical point of view. Many questions
not found in ordinary Latin treatises on the Church
•··
111

iv

FOREWORD

have been introduced, not only because of the interest
that attaches to these questions themselves, but also be­
cause they help to make the true nature of the Church
better understood.
There is no claim to originality, except, perhaps, in
the order and method of treatment. Much time and
labor have been expended to put the subject into logical
order and to state clearly and distinctly the precise
doctrine to be proved in every instance. Proofs are
useless unless there is some definite clear-cut proposi­
tion to be proved. To prove, for instance, that the
Church is holy, without knowing exactly what is meant
by holiness, and in what manner the Church is said to
be holy, is simply to confuse the issue. For this rea­
son much space is given to explanations; every question
is resolved into its component parts and each proved
separately from reason, Scripture, and Tradition.
Moreover, a doctrine can scarcely be accepted as de­
finitively established unless the arguments brought
against it can be satisfactorily answered. On this ac­
count considerable attention has been given to objec­
tions, many of which have been taken directly from
non-Catholic authors.
The scholastic method has been employed to a cer­
tain extent by setting forth the doctrine in the form of
theses, followed by explanations, proofs, corollaries,
and objections. This may seem a little formal to those
not accustomed to it, but there is no method better
adapted to beget order, clearness, and precision. It
will also make the work more convenient for the use of

FOREWORD

v

theological students trained to the scholastic method.
Practically all quotations have been taken directly
from the authors quoted, and a special effort has been
made to preserve the sense as well as the words of the
original. The quotations from the Fathers of the
Church and from other ecclesiastical writers are from
Migne’s Latin and Greek Patrologies, designated P. L.
and P. G. respectively in the references, where the first
number indicates the volume, the others the columns
in which the words quoted may be found. All passages
marked by an asterisk in the footnotes are quoted ac­
cording to the English translations of the Fathers pre­
pared by non-Catholic scholars and published by
Scribner.1 Decrees and acts of councils are quoted
from Denzinger-Bannwart’s Enchiridion Symbolorum
et Definitionum,2—a work easily accessible to all stu­
dents. Decrees not found there are taken directly
from the collections of councils by Mansi or LabbeCossart.
The humble efforts of the author will be amply re­
warded if they but serve to arouse greater appreciation
and deeper love for the Church, to whose infallible
authority he unreservedly submits every statement of
doctrine contained in the following pages.

The Author.
Mt. St. Mary’s Seminary
Emmitsburg, Md.
1 Roberts-Donaldson, “Ante-Nicene Fathers”; Schaff-Wace, “Nicene
and Post-Nicene Fathers”; Schaff, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.”
2 Latest edition prepared by Fr. Umberg, S. J., Herder, 1922.

PREFACE
Divine Revelation was given to the world by Jesus
Christ the Son of God made man for all men of all
time. The sublime teaching spoken by the Savior by
lake shore and on mountain side was meant to be a
guide for all mankind. It was to be known and ac­
cepted by all men. It was stamped with the hall mark
of eternal Truth. It was true twenty centuries ago: it
is true today. He who gave it to the world was none
other than the God of Truth.
In order that divine Truth might be brought home
to all men Jesus Christ established a Church, a teach­
ing organization, to speak to the world in His name and
with His own authority. To that Church He gave a
very clear and unequivocal mission. It was to teach
men whatsoever He had taught—nothing more, nothing
less. On all men Christ placed the obligation of hearing
His Church as they would hear Himself. He promised
to remain with His teaching Church. He sent down the
Holy Ghost on its first teacher selected by Himself in
order that they and their successors might be illumined
and assisted in the work of continuing the teaching and
sanctifying mission of God’s own Divine Son.
The Church established by Jesus Christ is the
Church known to the world as the Catholic Church.
•·
Vll

VIH

PREFACE

Its centre of authority to the world is designated by
the word Roman, but that word in no way changes the
connotation of the “Ecclesia Catholica.” The Church
founded by the God of all must necessarily be
Catholic or Universal in time, place and doctrine.
The Catholic Church is the true Church. No other
Church received its mission from Christ. No other
Church is Catholic. No other Church can trace its au­
thority to Him who said, “Going therefore teach all
nations.” Every other so-called Church must, and in
fact does, trace its origin to some mere man or woman.
All of the protesting bodies are in rebellion against
Christ’s authority as exercised by the Church He Him­
self founded. Daily they are becoming more and more
confused, a babel of contradictory voices, unable to
agree on any point of faith, unable to lead men to
Christ by any sure path. Thinking men outside the
Catholic Church are growing tired of the hydra-headed
Protestantism all around them.
Protestantism after its four centuries of revolt is
absolutely bankrupt as a moral force. In America, as
everywhere else, it is distinctly Erastian. It flies to
the State for protection. It seeks strength in the secu­
lar arm to enforce morality. It depends on man-made
laws to keep the people’s feet on the pathway of virtue.
Jesus Christ was not a God of confusion. He did
not breathe hot and cold in the same breath. The
sixteenth century revolt was begotten in blasphemy. It
accused the Church of Christ of error, of teaching what
was false and immoral, of having been conquered by the

PREFACE

ix

“gates of hell.” The fomentors of revolt might very
properly have accused individuals in God’s Church of
wrong-doing. That would be quite different from giv­
ing the lie to the God of Truth. Today we see the har­
vest of the sixteenth century sowing,—growing in­
fidelity, indifferentism, religious chaos, consequent
moral decadence, blind leaders united in only one thing,
—opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ. They
rejoice in its sufferings in Mexico or Russia. They ap­
prove any programme against it regardless of the char­
acter of those responsible for such a plan.
The Catholic Church is the most interesting and the
most remarkable fact in the world. Kingdoms and
empires have grown in their greatness, have sickened
and died. The man-made churches of today shall be
no more in comparatively few years. The names may
be in use but they shall be only names. Twenty cen­
turies have seen a great many changes, a great many ups
and downs. But twenty centuries have seen no change
in the Catholic Church,—no change in teaching, no
change in principles, no change in her attitude towards
sin, no change in her mission to teach Christ crucified
and His doctrines to all mankind, no change in her con­
sciousness of her own authority and right to speak to
the world. Twenty centuries have seen her grow and
expand despite all the forces of earth and hell arrayed
against her. In a world of doubt and religious con­
fusion the Catholic Church stands “like Teneriffe above
the restless ocean’s foam.” Men may hate her as men
hated and still hate Christ; one thing men cannot do,—

X

PREFACE

they cannot neglect her. They must be either with her
or against her. She arrests the attention of men more
every day.
It is about the Catholic Church founded by Jesus
Christ that Dr. Berry writes. It is her claims he states
and for them he gives proof. It is her position in the
world as a divinely authorised teacher he emphasises.
Succinctly yet clearly he marshals his arguments to
bring conviction to the mind of the reader that the
Catholic Church is what she has ever claimed to be,—
the Bride of Christ, the mouthpiece of Christ.
He has done his work well. He places all of us un­
der an obligation to him for his lucid explanation of
the Church’s position and teaching. Let us have an
end of indefinite, vague terminology. Let us speak out
the truth plainly without apologies, without fear. The
world is looking for it. We repeat that the Catholic
Church and she alone is the true Church of Christ.
The teachings of Jesus Christ are found in their fullness
and completeness in the Catholic Church alone. The
Catholic Church is the Christian Church. Christian­
ity is Catholicism. There is no Catholicism where
there is no recognition of the Vicar of Christ.
“Where Peter is, there is the Church.”
Michael J. Curley,
Archbishop of Baltimore.

CONTENTS
PAGE

Preface....................................................................................... vi i
Introduction.

Purpose

of

1

This Work ....

Works Consulted..................................................................... 2
PART I.

Chapter I.
Art. I.

APOLOGETIC

Origin

of the

Church

of the

Name

Origin and Meaning

.

9

.

Art. II. Christ Founded a Church as a Society . 14
§ 1. Nature of a Society............................................... 14
§ 2. Errors concerning Nature and Origin of
Church................................................................... 16
§ 3. Christ personally founded the Church as a So­
ciety ............................................................. 19
§ 4. The Church a Society distinct from the Syna­
gogue ............................................................. 25
§ 5. Objections Considered............................................... 29

Art. III.

Christ Founded

but

One Church

.

.

35

Art. IV. Purpose and General Nature of Church 40
§ 1. Purpose of the Church.............................................. 40
§ 2. General Nature of the Church................................. 43
§ 3. The Church and the Kingdom
.... 48

Chapter II.

Attributes

of the

Church

Art. I. Perpetual Indefectibility of the Church 56
§ 1. Nature of Indefectibility........................................ 56
§ 2. Erroneous Doctrines concerning Indefectibility 57
xi

CONTENTS
PAGE

§3. Church of Christ perpetually Indefectible
. 59
§ 4. Objections Answered............................................ 65
Art. II.
§ 1.
§ 2.
§ 3.
§ 4.

Visibility of the Church................................ 68
Nature of Visibility............................................ 68
Errors concerning Visibility of Church
. . 70
Church of Christ formally Visible .... 74
Objections Answered............................................ 77

Chapter III.

Properties

of the

Church

Art. I.
§ 1.
§ 2.
§ 3.

Unity of the Church......................................83
Nature of Unity................................................ 83
Unity of Government...........................................86
Unity of Faith.......................................................92
«) Unity of Doctrine..................................... 95
b) Unity of Profession..................................... 98
§ 4. Unity of Worship................................................ 99

Art. II. Holiness of the Church............................. 103
§ 1. Nature of Holiness............................................... 103
§ 2. Physical Holiness of the Church .... 105
a) Passive or Ontological Holiness . .
. 105
b) Active or Causative Holiness
. . .107
§3. Moral Holiness of the Church
.... 107
§ 4. Manifestative Holiness of the Church . . .111
§5. Objections Answered......................................... 117

Art. III. Catholicity of the Church . . . .122
§ 1. Use and Meaning of Term............................ 122
§ 2. The Church of Christ Catholic by actual Dif­
fusion
........................................................... 127
§ 3. Catholicity of the Church further Defined
. 130
§ 4. Perfect Catholicity to be Attained . . . 133
Art. IV. Apostolicity of the Church . . . .138
§ 1. Nature of Apostolicity........................................ 138
§ 2. The Church of Christ Apostolic .... 142

Μ*
Kill

CONTENTS

PAG B

Chapter IV.

Marks

Church

of the

Art. I. Requisites for a Mark of the Church . 146
§ 1. Nature of a Mark................................................... 146
§ 2. Marks claimed by Non-Catholics .... 148
Art. II. The Four Marks of the Church .
.
.151
§ 1. Unity as a Mark of the Church
.
. . .151
§ 2. Sanctity as a Mark of the Church .
. . .152
§ 3. Catholicity as a Mark of the Church . . .154
§ 4. Apostolicity as a Mark of the Church . . .156
§ 5. Persecution as a çwasi-Mark of the Church . 157
Conclusion........................................................................ 158

Art. III. Marks of the Church Applied .
.
.159
§ 1. The Catholic Church possesses
a) Unity of Faith, Worship and Government 159
b) Manifestative and Causative Sanctity . 161
c) Catholicity of Diffusion............................... 166
d) Apostolicity of Succession . . .
.167
Objections Answered............................................. 168
§ 1. The Catholic Church possesses
§ 2. Protestant Churches in general Examined
. 172
§3. Anglican Church in particular Considered . 176
§ 4. Schismatic Churches of the East .... 183
PART II.

DOGMATIC

Organization and Powers of the Church

189

F OREWORD

Chapter V.

Art. I.

The Mystical Body

The Church

Art. II.

The Soul

Chapter VI.

as the

of the

Body

of

of

Christ

Christ .

.192

Church............................... 201

Members

of the

Church

Art. I. False Conditions of Membership . .
.212
§ 1. Predestination as a Condition............................... 213

CONTENTS

xiv

PAGI

§ 2. The State of Grace as a Condition . . . .215
§3. Objections Considered.......................................... 217

Art. II.

True Conditions

of

Membership .

.

.219

Art. III. Persons Excluded from Membership . 223
§ 1. Manifest Heretics and Schismatics . . . 224
§ 2. Excommunicates.........................................228

Art. IV. Persons of Doubtful Membership . .232
§ 1. Persons Invalidly Baptized.......................232
§ 2. Occult Heretics and Schismatics.... 233
Art. V. Necessity of Membership....................... 235
§ 1. Twofold Necessity of Membership
. . .236
§ 2. Membership a Relative Necessity .... 240
Chapter VII.
Art. I.
§ 1.
§ 2.
§ 3.
§ 4.
Art. II.

Authority

Church

Authority to Govern................................... 246
Threefold Power of Government .... 246
Right of Temporal Punishment .... 250
Right to Inflict Corporal Punishment . . . 253
Persons Subject to Punitive Powers . . . 254

Nature

of

Church Powers

Chapter VIII.

Art. I.

of the

Rulers

of the

.... 256
Church

Erroneous Doctrines................................... 264

Art. II. A Ruling Body of Divine Institution . 267
§ 1. Apostles alone Receive all Authority . . . 268
§2. Apostolic Powers Descend by Succession . .272
Art. III. The Successors of the Apostles
. . 274
§ 1. True Successors of the Apostles .... 274
§ 2. Other Ministers of the Church . . . .279

Art. IV. Apostolic Prerogatives............................ 285
§ 1. The Apostolic Office................................. 285
§ 2. Special Prerogatives.................................289

CONTENTS

xv
PAGE

Chapter IX.

The Primacy

of

Peter Promised

Art. I.

The Preeminence of Peter

Art. I.
§ 1.
§ 2.
§ 3.

Institution of the Primary . .
.
.328
St. Peter the Rock................................................... 303
Primacy of Jurisdiction Symbolized . .
. 306
Objections Answered............................................ 309

.... 296

Art. III.

Peter the Key-Bearer...............................313

Art. IV.

Peter the Law-Giver..................................... 318

Art. V.

Peter Confirmer of the Brethren .

Chapter X.

The Primacy

of

.324

Peter Conferred

Art· I. Institution of the Primacy . . . .328
§ 1. Peter Constituted Chief Pastor
.
.
. .328
§ 2. Objections Considered............................................ 331
Art. II.

The Testimony

of

Tradition .... 334

Art. III.

St. Peter and the Other Apostles .

Art. IV.

The Primacy
Chapter XI.

Art. I.

a

. 338

Permanent Institution 341

Successors

The Doctrine and

its

of

St. Peter

Proofs .... 346

Art. II. The Testimony of History
.
.
. .351
§ 1. Witnesses from the Fifth Century
. . .351
§ 2. Witnesses from the Fourth Century . . .356
§ 3. Witnesses from the Third Century
. . . 362
§ 4. Witnesses from the Second Century
. . . 366
§ 5. Witnesses from the First Century . . . .371
Conclusion....................................................................... 374
Art. III.

Objections Considered...............................376

Chapter XII.

Primacy and the Episcopate

Art. I. Nature of Poavers and Tenure of Office 394
§ 1. Nature of Powers Exercised by Roman Pontiff 394
§ 2. Tenure of Supreme Pastoral Office . . . 398

CONTENTS

xvi

PAGE

Art. II.

The Pope

and the

Bishops Severally . 406

Art. III. The Pope and the Bishops in Council 412
§ 1. Nature of Councils and the Various Kinds
. 413
§ 2. Rights of Roman Pontiff in regard to Ecu­
menical Councils............................... 416
§ 3. Objections Considered.......................................... 422
Chapter XIII.

Infallible Teaching Authority

Art. I.

Teaching Authority

Art. II.
§ 1.
§ 2.
§ 3.
§ 4.

Infallibility of the Church
. . .433
Nature of Infallibility.......................................... 433
Active Infallibility of the Church .... 436
Passive Infallibility of the Church . . . 446
Objections Answered.......................................... 449

Chapter XIV.
Art. I.
§ 1.
§ 2.
§ 3.

of the

Infallibility

Church .

of the

. 426

Bishops

Infallibility of Ecumenical Councils . 456
Preliminary Explanations....................................456
Infallibility of Councils Demonstrated . . 460
Objections Answered.......................................... 463

Art. II.

Infallibility of Bishops in Ordinary
Teaching Capacity................ 466
§ 1. Explanation and Proof......................................... 466
§ 2. Practical Conclusions......................................... 469

Chapter XV.

Infallibility

of the

Roman Pontiff

Art. I. The Doctrine of Papal Infallibility . 472
§ 1. The Doctrine Explained...................................472
§2. The Doctrine proved from Scripture . . . 478
§ 3. The Doctrine proved from Testimony of
Councils........................................................... 481
§ 4. The Doctrine proved from Testimony of
Fathers............................................... 487

Art. II. Objections Answered................................

494

CONTENTS

χνπ
PAGE

Chapter XVI.
Art. I.

Art. II.

Extent of Infallibility

Primary Extent of Infallible Authority 503

Secondary Extent
thority

Chapter XVII.

Art. I.

Various Theories

Infallible Au­
.......................................... 505

of

Church
on

and

Church

State
and

State . 512

Art. II. Catholic Doctrine on Church and State 518
§ 1. Church and State Distinct and Perfect So­
cieties ...........................................................519
§ 2. State Indirectly Subordinate to Church . .521
§ 3. State and Church in Mutual Support .
.
.527
Art. III.

Mutual Rights and Duties

.

.

.529

Art. IV.

Various Conditions Considered .

.

.537

.

Art. V. Roman Pontiff and Secular Rulers . .
§ 1. Secular Rulers indirectly Subject to Roman
Pontiff........................................
§ 2. Roman Pontiff exempt from Civil Authority .
§ 3. Temporal Power Necessary
.....

540

541
544
545

INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE OF THIS WORK
Since Christianity embodies the final revelation of
God to man,1 there must be some means instituted by
God to preserve it from age to age and propagate it
among men. The various societies known as Chris­
tian Churches claim to be that means. Hence the first
purpose of this work is to inquire whether Christ really
established a Church, and if so whether He established
one or many.
If Christ established but one Church, it becomes
necessary to discover which of the many now existing
is, in very truth, the Church of Christ. This can be
done by comparing the various Christian churches of
today with the Church of Christ as set forth in the
Gospels, where its nature and characteristics are por­
trayed in unmistakable terms. The Church that pos­
sesses these characteristics in their fulness today must
necessarily be the one true Church oj Christ.
Having discovered the true Church of Christ, the
work of the apologist is finished and it becomes the duty
of the dogmatic theologian to investigate its inner na­
ture. Hence the present work is divided into two parts,
—Apologetic and Dogmatic. The one points out the
true Church of Christ; the other investigates its organ­
ization and powers.
1 Proof of this may be found in treatises on Revealed Religion.
1

WORKS CONSULTED

The following are a few of the more important works
consulted in connection with the various questions,—
apologetic, dogmatic, and historical,—concerning the
Church. Other works occasionally referred to are
quoted in the references.
♦ ANDROUTSOS, CHREST0S

Δογ/χαηκτ/
1907.

Ορθοδόξου Άνατολικ?}? Εκκλχσία^ Athens,

BALLERINI, PETER

De Vi ac Ratione Primatus Romanorum Pontificum,
Rome, 1849.
BATIFFOL, PIERRE

Primitive Catholicism (Tr. by Brianceau).
1911.

London,

BELLARMINE, ROBERT, S. J.

Disputationes De Controversiis Fidei, Naples, 1856.
BENNI, CYRIL BEHNAN

Tradition of the Syriac Church of Antioch, London,
1871.
BILLOT, LUDOVICUS, S. J.

Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, Rome, 1921.
De Habitudine Ecclesiae ad Civilem Societatem,
Rome, 1922.
* BRIGHT, WILLIAM

Canons of the First Four General Councils, Oxford,
1892.
2

WORKS CONSULTED

3

CERCIA, RAPHAEL, S. J.

De Ecclesia Vera et de Romano Pontifice, 2 vols.,
Naples, 1858.
CHAPMAN, JOHN, O. S. B.

Bishop Gore and Catholic Claims, London, 1905.
d’alès, a.
Dictionnaire Apologétique de la Foi Catholique,
Paris, 1911- .
d’HERBIGNY, MICHAEL, S. J.
Theologica de Ecclesia, 2 vols., Paris, 1921.
DIECKMANN, HERMAN, S. J.

De Ecclesia Tractatus Historico-Dogmaticus, 2 vols.,
Freiburg, 1925.
DORSCH, AEMIL

De Ecclesia Christi, Innsbruck, 1914.
DUCHESNE, LOUIS

The Churches Separated from Rome
Mathew), New York, 1907.

(Tr. by

FINLAY, PETER, S. J.

The Church oj Christ, London, 1916.
FORTESCUE, ADRIAN

The Orthodox Eastern Church, London, 1907.
FRANZELIN, JOHN BAPTIST

De Ecclesia Christi, Rome, 1887.
FUNK, FRANCIS X.

Patres Apostolici, 2 vols., Tübingen, 1901 (latest
edition by Bihlmeyer).
HEFELE-LECLERCQ

Histoire des Conciles, Paris, 1904-1923.

WORKS CONSULTED

4

HURTER, H., S. J.

Theologice Dogmaticae Compendium,
1900.

Innsbruck,

JUNGMANN, BERNARD

Dissertationes Selectee in Hist. Eccles., 7 vols., 1881.
LIGHTFOOT, JOHN

Horce Hebraicae, Canterbury, 1658.
MACGUINNESS, JOHN, C. M.

Commentarii Theologici, Paris, 1911.
MAZZELLA, CAMILLUS, S. J.

De Religione et Ecclesia, Rome, 1880.
* MIDDLETON, EDMUND S.

Unity and Rome, London and New York, 1922.
MURRAY, PATRICK

Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, 6 vols., Dublin, 1860.
NILLES, NICOLAUS, S. J.

Kalcndarium Manuale, 2 vols., Innsbruck, 1896.
* PALMER, WILLIAM

Treatise on the Church, 2 vols., London, 1838.
PALMIERI, DOMINIC,/ S. VJ.

Tractatus de Romano Pontifice, Prato, 1891.
* PULLER, f. w.
The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, London,
1900.
RIVINGTON, LUKE

The Primitive Church and the See of Peter, London,
1894.
RYAN-MILLAR

The State and the Church, New York, 1924.

WORKS CONSULTED
SALEM B 1ER, L.

The Great Schism oj the West (Tr. from French),
London, 1907.
* SALMON, GEORGE

Infallibility oj the Church, London, 1890.
* SCHAFF, PHILIP

The Creeds oj Christendom, 3 vols., New York, 1877.
* SCHAFF-HERZOG

Encyclopedia oj Religious Knowledge, 12 vols.,
New York, 1908.
SEGNA, FRANCIS

De Ecclesia Christi, Rome, 1900.
STRAUB, ANTON, S. J.

De Ecclesia Christi, 2 vols., Innsbruck, 1912.
SUAREZ, FRANCIS, S. J.

De Fide, Paris, 1878.
TANQUEREY, ADAM, S. S.

Synopsis Theologice Dogmatirœ, Paris, 1923.
VACANDARD, E.

Études de Critique et d’Histoire Religieuse, 3 vols.,
Paris, 1909-1911.
VAN NOORT, G.

Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, Amsterdam, 1909.
* WILBERFORCE, R. I.

Principles oj Church Authority, Baltimore, 1855.
WILMERS, WILLIAM, S. J.

De Ecclesia Christi, Ratisbon, 1897.
* Non-Catholic authors. Wilberforce became a Catholic shortly
after writing the work mentioned.

PART I
APOLOGETIC
THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST
n YOU 'SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH SHALL
MAKE YOU FREE.”

—St. John vn, 32

CHAPTER I
ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH
Synopsis.—1. Origin and meaning of the name.—
2. Christ founded a Church under the forai of a so­
ciety.—3. Christ founded but one Church.—4. Pur­
pose AND NATURE OF THE CHURCH.

ART. I. ORIGIN AND MEANING OF THE NAME CHURCH

Ecclesia, the Greek and Latin word for Church, is
derived from ίκκαλάν, which means to call together; to
summon. Έκκλησή is the act of calling together, ίκκλησία is the result of that act,—the assembly of
persons called together. Hence ecclesia originally
signified an assembly for any purpose whatsoever.
It was used in this sense by all ancient writers both
sacred and profane; e. g., “All the tribes of Israel met
together in the assembly (ecclesia) oj the people of
God.” 1
have hated the assembly (ecclesia) of the
malignant; and with the wicked I will not sit.”2
“Now some cried one thing, some another; for the as­
sembly (ecclesia) was confused.” 3 “The Athenians
1 Judges xx, 2.
2 Psalm xxv, 5.
s Acts xix, 32.

10

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

coming together ^οιησαντ^ ίκκλησίαν') signified their in­
tentions by ballot.”*
In the course of time the word ecclesia was restricted
to a religious assembly and then to a religious society,
particularly to a Christian society. Even in this sense
the word is variously used:
1. Ecclesia designates all rational creatures subject
to Christ as their head. In this sense the Church
consists of three parts,—the militant Church, com­
posed of all the faithful on earth; the suffering Church,
which consists of the souls detained in Purgatory; the
triumphant Church, including both the saints and
angels in Heaven. “It is manifest,” says St. Thomas,
“that both men and angels are ordained for the same
end; viz., the glory of the Beatific Vision. Hence
angels as well as men belong to the mystic body of
the Church.”5
2. In a somewhat more restricted sense ecclesia
refers to all those who have been faithful to God in
every age, from the beginning of mankind. Thus St.
Gregory the Great says: “The holy ones who have
lived before the Law [of Moses], those who lived under
the Law, and those living under the dispensation of
grace,—all these being members of the Church, con­
stitute the body of the Lord.”G In like manner St.
Augustine says: “Christ is our head and we the
body. What say I? we alone and not those also who
4 Thucydides, “Historia,” i, 139.
6 “Summa Theologica,” 3a qu. 8, ad 4.
6 “Letter to John the Bishop”; P. L., 77, 740.

ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH

11

were before us? Assuredly all the just from the be­
ginning of the world have Christ for their head. They
indeed believed in Him to come, whom we believe to
have come.” 7
3. <?£, the Hebrew equivalent of ecclesia, is fre­
quently used to designate the people of Israel,—the
Church of the Old Law. This is especially true of
those passages in which the people of Israel are set
forth as a type or figure of Christ’s Church in the
New Law; e. g., “I will declare thy name to my
brethren; in the midst of the church will 1 praise
thee.”8 “I will give thanks to thee in a great church;
I will praise thee in a strong people.” 9 “This was
he that was in the Church (ecclesia) in the wilderness
with the angel who spoke to him on mount Sina.” 10
4. In the language of the Fathers ecclesia usually
means the society of all the faithful who adhere to
Christ Incarnate as their Head and thus constitute the
Church of the New Law. In the writings of the
Apostles the faithful are the “called” of Jesus Christ;
called according to His purpose; called to be saints.” 11
Taken collectively, they constitute a community,—the
community of the called, i. e., the Ecclesia or Church of
Christ, who used the word in this sense when He said:
“Upon this rock I will build my Church (ecclesiam)12
7 “Expositio in Psalm.,” xxxvi; P. L., 36, 385.
8 Ps. xxi, 23.
0 Ps. xxxiv, 18; cfr. Num. xix, 29; xx, 4; Deut. xxiii, 3.
10 Acts vii, 38.
11 Rom. i, 6; 1 Cor. i, 2.
12 Matt, xvi, 18.

12

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

5. The word church (ecclesia) is also frequently
used to designate the faithful of a particular district or
country. Thus we speak of the French Church, the
Roman Church, the American Church, etc. This use
of the word is common with St. Paul in his salutations;
e. g., “Paul, called to be an apostle ... to the church
oj God that is at Corinth.” 13 In like manner St. John
speaks of the seven churches of Asia.14 Even the
faithful who worship together in the same place were
called a church. St. Paul says: “Aquila and Priscilla
and the church which is in their house, salute you.” 15
In like manner parishes and dioceses are today often
called churches.
6. By an easy transition the word ecclesia was ap­
plied to the edifice in which the faithful met for divine
worship. Hence we have the Spanish iglesia, the
French église, and the Italian chiesa, to designate both
the society and the edifice. In the early ages of the
Church the edifice for worship was appropriately called
the house of the Lord,—domus dominica, or simply
dominicum. The Greek equivalent, οίκία κνραικη, was
similarly contracted into κυριακόν.™ This shortened
form was corrupted into kyreiko by the Goths and then
passed into German as kirche, into English as church.
In the Slavonic languages it became cirkcv or cerkov.
It is interesting to note that in the Romance lan131 Cor i, 1; vii, 17; Rom. xxi, 4.
14 Apoc i, 4; ii, 1 ; iii, 11.
151 Cor. xvi, 19; Rom. xvi, S.
14 St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses xviii, 26. P. G. 33, 1043.

ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH

13

guages the word for church properly refers to the so­
ciety. It is only by metonymy that it can be applied
to the edifice. In the Germanic languages we find the
very opposite. Slovak seems to be unique in having
distinct terms for these two ideas; cirkev is the society,
kostol tlie building. The latter is equivalent to our
word castle, both being derived from the Latin castellum—a fortified place.

Synagogue
Under the Law of Moses the Chosen People were
sometimes called a church (
) but more often the
synagogue (
) of Israel.11 This is especially true
after the time of Christ, when the Church was often
contrasted with the Synagogue. The word is derived
from the Greek συνάγει—to drive together. Hence it
signifies an assembly of persons brought together by
physical or moral force. Commenting on the difference
between ecclesia and synagoga, St. Augustine says:
“By the synagogue we understand the people of Israel,
because synagogue is the word properly used of them,
although they were also called the Church. Our con­
gregation, on the contrary, the Apostles never called
synagogue, but always ecclesia; whether for the sake
of the distinction, or because there is some difference
between a congregation whence the Synagogue has its
name, and a convocation whence tlie Church is called
17 Cf. Exodus xii, 3, 6, 47; xvi, 1, 2, 9; Numbers xxvii, 17; xxxi,
16; Leviticus iv, 13, 45.

14

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

ecclesia: for the word congregation (or flocking to­
gether) is used of cattle, . . . whereas convocation (or
calling together) is more of reasonable creatures such as
men are. . . . Hence the worthier name is ours on ac­
count of our being called.” 18
The name synagogue was also used to designate the
Jewish faithful who frequented the same house of
prayer; hence we read of the “synagogue of the Liber­
tines, and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians,
and of them that were of Cilicia and Asia.” 19 At first
the edifice in which a particular congregation of Jews
met for prayer and instruction was called house oj the
synagogue, but in the course of time it came to be
known simply as the synagogue.

ART. II.

CHRIST FOUNDED A CHURCH UNDER THE FORM

OF A SOCIETY

Synopsis—1. Nature

of a society.—2.

Errors

re­

garding THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH.—3.

Christ personally founded a Church as a society.—
4. The Church a society distinct from the Syna­
gogue.—5. Objections answered.

§ 1. Nature oj a Society

A society may be defined as a union of intelligent
beings, entered into for the purpose of attaining a com18 “Expositio in Psalm.” Ixxxi; P. L., 37, 1047.
19 Acts vi, 9.

ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH

15

mon good by united efforts. A number of individuals
is the material element necessary for the formation of
a society, but they do not form a society unless banded
together for the attainment of a common end by united
efforts. Hence the union of wills toward a common end
is the formal element of every society. The specific
nature of a society may be literary, political, or re­
ligious, according to the end to be attained, and the
organization of the society will vary accordingly.
Hence the end to be attained may be called the external
formal element.
The end to be obtained by a society must be more
or less permanent. A number of men uniting their ef­
forts to extinguish a fire in a neighbor’s house would not
constitute a society. The fact that the purpose of a
society is to be attained by the united efforts of all its
members, does not mean that each and every member
must contribute the same kind of effort or perform the
same duties. In this respect a society resembles a
physical body in which there are many members, each
with its own peculiar function, yet all contribute to the
well-being of the whole body, which in turn redounds
to the good of each member.
Finally, no purpose can be accomplished unless suit­
able means are used and properly directed. To this
end authority is necessary to coordinate and direct the
members in the use of these means. Without authority
there can be nothing but confusion and discord, and the
society itself would soon perish. Those who exercise
authority in a society are its superiors or officials; those

16

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

subject to this directing or ruling authority are inferiors
or subjects.
Practically speaking, authority is the formal element
of every society since it is authority that preserves and
strengthens all the bonds by which the members are
held together.
From the above considerations we deduce the follow­
ing conditions necessary for a society:
a) a number of individuals ;
b) a moral union, i. e., a union of wills;
c) a common end to be attained;
d) suitable means to attain that end; and
ej adequate authority.
These five conditions are essential and sufficient to
constitute a society. If they are found realized in the
Church founded by our Lord, then that Church is a true
society.

§ 2. Errors Regarding the Origin and Nature of the
Church
The various errors concerning the origin and nature
of the Church may be classed as Protestant, Rational­
ist, and Modernist.
I. Protestants for the most part believe that all
Christian churches owe their existence in some way to
Christ; but few would admit that Christ personally
founded any particular society that can claim to be His
Church, to the exclusion of all others. In a general
way they seem to hold that Christ proclaimed a doc­
trine. or rather an ideal of life, which He wishes all His

ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH

17

followers to realize. For this purpose they are free to
form societies or churches in which to practice the
Christian religion as they see fit. “Those believers who
dwell together in one place become a church by their
recognition of each other and their mutual agreement
to observe Christ’s ordinances in one society. Thus
the visible church is one of the forms through which
the kingdom of God is manifested among men.” '
Those who are not satisfied with one church may betake
themselves to another or establish a new one to their
own liking.2
Protestants were forced to adopt this loose concep­
tion of the Church in order to justify the introduction
of new churches by the so-called Reformers in the six­
teenth and following centuries. If Christ personally
founded one definitely organized society to continue as
His Church through the ages, then all others must be
counterfeits.
II. Rationalists also deny that Christ founded
a Church. According to David Friedrich Strauss,
Christ was merely the founder of a new school of
philosophy. Only in the second century did His dis­
ciples conceive and carry out the idea of forming socie­
ties similar to the Jewish synagogues.3 Adolph Har1 Clarence A. Beckwith, “Outline of Christian Theology,” p. 208.
2 In citing Protestant theories on this and other questions, we
can only give the opinions of individual Protestant writers. Their
churches as such cannot be said to teach anything. Many of them
have official creeds, but no two members of any church hold the
same views even on matters contained in the creed.
3 Strauss, “Das Leben Jesu.”

18

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

nack and Weizsâcker maintain that Christ taught no
particular doctrine, but simply strove by word and ex­
ample to win all to the practice of a spiritual life. The
Kingdom which Christ proclaimed, they contend, is
within the soul,—it is purely spiritual. “It is in the
nature of a spiritual force, a power which sinks into a
man within and can be understood only from within.
... It is not here or there, it is within you.” 4
This interior communion with God is proclaimed as
the essence of Christianity; its collective and social
character is only a secondary feature. It was owing
entirely to external circumstances that the disciples of
Christ finally separated from the Synagogue and formed
local societies, which gradually coalesced into one larger
society, known as the Church. The doctrines of the
Church were elaborated with the assistance of Greek
philosophy, and its organization was borrowed from
Rome.5
III. The Modernists agree with the rationalists
in denying that Christ intended to establish a Church.
According to their teaching, religion consists entirely
in certain experiences arising from the action of God
upon a religious sentiment, which they call the need jor
the Divine. In the first century the faithful began to
form local societies to further their common interests.
In course of time (in the second or third century ac4 A. Harnack, “Das Wesen des Christentums,” p. 39.
5 A. Harnack, “Lehrbuch dcr Dogmengeschichte,” I, 140 sqq. ;
Weizsàcker, “Das Apostolische Zeitalter”; cfr. D’Alès, “Dictionnaire
Apologétique,” art. “Église.”

ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH

19

cording to Sabatier) these local societies began to unite,
and the Church in the Catholic sense of that term
sprang into being. Therefore the origin and present
state of the Church are due to evolutionary forces.
The Kingdom of God announced by Christ is essentially
collective and social, i. e., it is a real society, but purely
eschatological; it is the kingdom of justice to be inau­
gurated at the end of the world, which Christ believed
near at hand.0
A detailed criticism of these theories is unnecessary;
they are sufficiently refuted by proving that Christ ac­
tually did establish a Church under the form of an
external and visible society. It may be noted, however,
that Harnack and Loisy are right in making spiritual
regeneration an essential element of the Kingdom of
God, but they are wrong in making it the only one.
Our Lord often contrasted the spiritual character of
His kingdom with the external formalism of the Old
Law; in the new kingdom God is worshipped in spirit
and in truth1 At the same time the social element is
no less essential; the kingdom of God on earth is to be
a real kingdom,—a real society, in which interior perfec­
tion is demanded.8
§ 3. Christ Personally Founded His Church as a
Society

It is an article of faith that Christ personally estab° Cf. A. Loisy, “L’Évangile et l’Église”; G. Tyrrell, “Scylla and
Charybdis”; A. Sabatier, “De I’Esscnce du Christianisme.”
7 Cfr. Matthew v, Isqq; John iv, 24.
* Cf. below, pp. 52.

20

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

lished a church under the form of a true society visibly
existing among men. This was decreed by the Vatican
Council in the following words: “In order to perpet­
uate the saving work of Redemption, the eternal Pastor
and Bishop of souls decreed to establish a holy Church,
in which all the faithful might be gathered together by
the unity of faith and love as in the house of God.” 1
The same doctrine is also taught by the condemnation
of the following proposition of Modernism: “It was
not the intention of Christ to establish a Church as a
society destined to continue upon earth through a
number of centuries; in fact, according to the teach­
ings of Christ, the Kingdom of Heaven was to come
only with the end of the world.” 2
Demonstration. The fact that Christ personally
instituted a Church is proved: (1) from His own
promise to do so; (2) from the institution of the
Apostolic ministry; (3) from prescription. The social
nature of the Church is also proved from the same
sources and clearly indicated by the various figures or
symbols under which the Church is depicted in the
Gospels and in the writings of the Apostles.
1. The Promise. “Thou art Peter and ztpon this
rock I will build my Church.” 3 In these words our
Lord promises to establish a Church, and the promise
1 Denzinger, n. 1821.
-Decree “Lamentabili,” 3 July, 1907; Denzigcr, n. 2052.—Note.—
In this part of our work, definitions of councils and decrees of popes
are not cited as proof of a thesis, but simply to prove what is the
defined doctrine of the Church.
3 Matt, xvi, 18.

ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH

21

is absolute; its fulfillment is subject to no condition
whatsoever. The very name church (ecclesia) indi­
cates a society.4 Moreover, Christ uses the word build,
thus comparing His Church to an edifice in which parts
are joined to parts and so ordered that a completed
structure rises from the foundations. Thus also shall
it be with the Church: the faithful as living stones shall
be built up into a spiritual house.5 In a word, the
Church which Christ promises to establish, shall be a
true society of men amongst men.
2. The Apostolic Ministry. The founder of a
society need only formulate the necessary plans and
authorize suitable persons to put them into execution.
Christ did this in regard to the Church, when He in­
stituted the Apostolic ministry, sending forth the
Apostles with authority to teach, govern, and sanctify,
and obliged all men to submit to their threefold author­
ity. A few texts will be sufficient to show this triple
power granted to the Apostles:
a) Authority to Teach. “Going therefore, teach all
nations . . . teaching them to observe all things what­
soever I have commanded you.” 6 And again: “Go
ye into the whole ivorld and preach the Gospel to every
creature.” 7
b) Authority to Govern. “Whatsoever yozi shall
bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven; and
4 See above, pp. 9.
5 1 Peter ii, 5.
β Matt, xxviii, 19.
7 Mark xvi, 15.

22

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed
also in heaven.”8 Again: “All power is given to me
in heaven and on earth ... as the Father hath sent
me I also send vou.”0 With these words our Lord conferred upon His Apostles the same power and authority
that He himself had received as divine legate from His
Heavenly Father.
c) Power to Sanctify. “Going therefore, teach all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and
of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”10 Again:
“Whose sins ye shall forgive, they are forgiven them;
and whose sins ye shall retain, they arc retained.” 11
“This is my body which shall be given for you: this do
in commemoration of me.” 12
The authority to teach, govern, and sanctify, undeni­
ably conferred upon the Apostles, implies the corre­
sponding duty to accept their teaching, to observe their
precepts, and to receive at their hands the means of
sanctification. These duties are also clearly enunciated
by our Lord:
a) The Duty of Accepting the teachings of the
Apostles is proclaimed in these words: “Preach the
Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall
be condemned.” 13
8 Matt, xviii, IS.
®Matt. xviii, 16-18; John xx, 21.
10 Matt, xxviii, 19-20.
11 John xx, 22, 23.
12 Luke xxii, 19.
13 Mark xvi, 16.

ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH

23

b) The Duty of Obedience is no less stringent: l(He
that hearet h you, hearet h me; and he that despiseth you,
despiseth me. And he that despiseth me, despiseth
Him that sent me.” 14 Speaking of the man in need of
correction Christ said: “Tell it to the Church; and if
he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the
heathen and publican.” 1516
c) The Duty of Receiving the Means of Sanctifica­
tion is also inculcated: “Amen, amen I say to thee,
unless a man be born again of water and of the Holy
Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”1*
Elsewhere we read: “Unless you eat the flesh of the
Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life
in you.” 17
Christ, having conferred upon His Apostles authority
to teach, govern, and sanctify, sent them forth into the
world to make disciples: “Going therefore, teach
(μαθητεύσατε) all nations,” i.c., make disciples of all.
nations. A rite of initiation was also prescribed : “Bap­
tizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Ghost.” All the requisites for a true
society were fully realized,—superiors endowed with
adequate authority, subjects constituted by a special
rite of initiation and brought together in a unity of gov­
ernment, faith, and worship. Hence, Christ personally
founded His Church under the form of a true society
14 Luke x, 16.
15 Matt, xviii, 17.
16 John iii, 5.
17 John vi, 54.

24

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

by the very act of instituting the apostolic ministry.
3. Prescription. Down through the centuries
from the days of the Apostles there has existed a true
and visible society claiming Christ as its author,—a
claim that was recognized as just by all antiquity. St.
Cyprian may be quoted in this connection: “Our
Lord first gave this power to Peter, upon whom He built
His Church, and from whom He ordained that unity
should have its origin.” 18 Likewise the Apostles, who
certainly must have known the mind of their Divine
Master, always looked upon themselves and their
associates as the rulers of a society founded by Christ
from whom they derived all authority. Thus, for in­
stance, St. Paul writes: “God indeed hath set some in
the Church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly
doctors ... for the work oj the ministry, for the edify­
ing of the body of Christ.” 19
4. Symbols of the Church. The social nature of
the Church is also clearly indicated by the many sym­
bols or figures under which it is depicted in Holy Scrip­
ture. It is often called a flock, a sheep-fold, a house,
or a body. Christ says: “Other sheep I have which
arc not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they
shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one
shepherd.” - ’ St. Paul thus addresses the clergy of
Ephesus: “Attend to yourselves and to the whole
1S “Epistola ad Jubaianum”; P. L., 3, 1114. Further testimony
will be found in the article on the apostolicity of the Church; infra.
19 1 Cor. xii, 28; Ephes, iv, 11. Other texts will be found in the
following section on the Church and the Synagogue.
20 John x, 14-16.

ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH

25

flock, in which the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops,
to rule the Church of God.” 21 Writing to Timothy he
says: “That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to
behave thysclj in the hozise of God which is the Church
of the living God.” 22 To the Ephesians he writes:
“And [God] hath made him head over all the Church
which is his body.” 23
No symbol could be found more suggestive of a soci­
ety than that of a fold or flock, in which the sheep are
united under the care of a shepherd, whose voice they
hear and obey. In fact, so appropriate is the com­
parison that the rulers of the Church in all ages have
been known as pastores,—the Latin word for shepherds.
Scarcely less significant is the comparison with a house
or a body, for in both there is union and order of parts
to constitute a complete whole. When men are thus
united they form a society.

§ 4. The Church Distinct From the Synagogue
Many rationalists deny that Christ had any inten­
tion of founding a society distinct from the Synagogue.1
They maintain that the influence of St. Paul finally led
the disciples to withdraw from the Synagogue and form
separate societies, which gradually coalesced into the
one society known as the Church of Christ. This the21 Acts xx, 28.
22 1 Timothy iii, 5.
23 Ephes, i, 22, 23.
1 Synagogue is here used to designate the Mosaic religion,—the
Church of the Old Law.

26

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

ory is sufficiently refuted by establishing the following
thesis concerning the origin of the Church:

Thesis—The Church was established by Christ as
a society distinct from the Synagogue
Proofs. I. From Reason. Societies having dif­
ferent authors, different members, different superiors,
and striving by different means to attain separate ends,
must be recognized as entirely distinct societies. But
this is precisely the case with the Church and the Syna­
gogue. Moses was the immediate author of the Syna­
gogue, whereas Christ was the immediate and personal
author of the Church. For this reason St. Paul con­
trasts Moses with Our Lord: “Moses indeed was
faithful in all his house [the Synagogue] as a serv­
ant .... But Christ as Son in his own house [the
Church].”2
The Synagogue was limited in its membership to one
nation; the Church was established for all men: (CGo­
ing therefore, teach all nations.” The Synagogue was
intended primarily as a preparation for the coming, of
Christ; it was “our pedagogiie in Christ that we might
be justified by faith.”3 The Synagogue wrought sanc­
tification for one people only, and that a mere legal
sanctity, produced by sacrifices and sacraments that
were but types and figures,—“weak and needy ele­
ments.” 4 The Church, on the other hand, works a real
2Heb. iii, 5, 6.
3 Gal. iii, 24.
4 Gal. iv, 9.

ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH

27

supernatural sanctification for all men by means of a
sacrifice and sacraments efficacious in themselves.
Finally, the rulers of the Synagogue belonged to the
priesthood of Aaron, with which the ministers of the
Church,—the Apostles and their successors,—have no
connection.
II. From Scripture. The Acts of the Apostles al­
ways portrays the Church as a society having a separate
and independent existence. On Pentecost the disciples
already constituted a society, to which a large number
was added by the rite of Baptism: “They therefore
that received his [Peter’s] ivords, were baptized; and
there were added in that day about three thousand souls.
And they lucre persevering in the doctrine of the Apos­
tles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread,
and in prayers.” 5 Again we read: “And in those
days, the number of the disciples increasing, there arose
a murmuring of the Greeks against the Hebrews for that
their widows were neglected in the daily ministrations.
Then the twelve calling together the multitude of the
disciples said: Look ye out among you seven men of
good repute, . . . whom we may appoint over this
business. . . . These they set before the Apostles ; and
they praying imposed hands upon them. And the word
of the Lord increased, and the number of the disciples
was multiplied in Jerusalem exceedingly ; a great midtitude also of the priests obeyed the faith.” G These
passages obviously refer to a society distinct from the
3 Acts ii, 41, 42.
0 Acts vi, 1 sqq.

28

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

Synagogue,—a society having its own officials, its own
peculiar doctrines, and a distinctive worship.
After the martyrdom of St. Stephen “there was raised
a great persecution against the Church which was at
Jerusalem, and they were all dispersed through the
countries oj Judea and Samaria except the Apostles.”7
These words depict the Church as a society subject to
persecution at the hands of the Jews which could not be
the case were the Church not recognized as something
different from the Synagogue and opposed to it. St.
Paul leaves no room for doubt in the matter: in his
Epistle to the Hebrews he makes a lengthy comparison
between the Synagogue and the Church, thereby proving
that they were absolutely different institutions.8* When
writing to the Corinthians, he also distinguishes between
the Church and the Synagogue: “Be without offence
to the Jews and to the gentiles and to the Church of
God 0
III. From Roman Law. The laws of Rome al­
lowed the Jews freedom of religious worship and con­
ferred upon them many privileges, yet the Church was
cruelly persecuted from its very beginning. Scarcely
thirty-five years after our Lord’s death, Nero decreed
that it was not lawful to be a Christian,—“Christianos
esse non licet.” 10 Hence the Roman government must
7 Acts viii, Isqq.
8 Heb. iii, 1 sq.
• 1 Cor. x, 32.
10Tertullian, “Apology,” iv; P. L., 1, 285.

ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH

29

have looked upon the Church as a society entirely dis­
tinct from the Synagogue.

§ 5. Objections Considered
Objection I.—Christ expected to return soon after
His death to judge the world. This is evident from
His words to the Jews: “There are some oj them that
stand here that shall not taste death until they see the
Son oj man coming in His kingdom.” 1 On another
occasion He described the signs preceding the second
coming, and then added: “Amen I say to you that this
generation shall not pass till all these things be done?” 2
His words to the Apostles convey the same meaning:
“Amen I say to you, you shall not finish all the cities oj
Israel till the Son oj man come.”3 It is evident, then,
that Christ had no intention of founding a Church, or
kingdom on earth. The kingdom announced by Him
was purely eschatological,—a kingdom to be inaugu­
rated at His second coming.
Answer.—Taken by themselves, the passages
quoted might suggest that the end of the world and the
second coming of Christ were near at hand, but other
and clearer texts leave no doubt that our Lord neither
expected nor proclaimed His second coming as an event
of the near future. He said to the Apostles: “Behold
I am with yoii all days even to the consummation oj
1 Matt, xvi, 28.
2 Matt, xxiv, 34.
3 Matt, x, 23.

30

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

the world.”4 The tenor of these words implies at
least several centuries intervening before the end of the
world. At another time He said: “This Gospel of
the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a
testimony to all nations, and then shall the consumma­
tion come.”5 This presupposes a considerable lapse of
time; the preaching of the Gospel to the whole world
and to all nations was not a work to be accomplished in
a few months or years. Again, in foretelling the de­
struction of Jerusalem, Christ said: “They shall fall
by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive
into all nations; and Jerusalem shall be trodden down
by the gentiles till the times of the nations be ful­
filled.” c This indicates a considerable period of time
between the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the
world.
It is a recognized principle of interpretation that the
obscure passages of a work must be explained in the
light of clearer texts bearing upon the same subject.
Hence the rather obscure texts quoted in the objection
must be interpreted according to other passages whose
meaning is clear. To consider each one in particular:
(a) “Some that stand here shall not taste death till
they see the Son oj man coming in Mis kingdom,” i. e.,
according to some interpreters, until they see the Son
of man reigning in His kingdom, the Church which was
spread far and wide even during the lifetime of some
4 Matt, xxviii, 20.
c Matt, xxiv, 14.
® Luke xxi, 24.

ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH

31

who heard these words of our Lord. Other scholars
take the words “coming in His kingdom” as a reference
to our Lord’s coming in judgment at the destruction of
Jerusalem. Still others take them as a reference to the
Transfiguration, which occurred six days later.7 On
this occasion our Lord was speaking, not to the people,
but to His Apostles, three of whom were privileged to
see Him in that fleeting moment of glory on the mount,
(ό) “This generation shall not pass till all these things
be done,” i. e., the Jewish people shall not perish from
the earth until the things foretold shall come to pass.
If this be the correct interpretation, the prophecy is
wonderfully fulfilled. No other people known to his­
tory ever preserved its identity during long centuries of
exile like the Jews, (c) “You shall not finish all the
cities oj Israel till the Son oj man come” i.e., before
you have preached the Gospel in all the cities of Israel,
I shall come in judgment against the city of Jerusalem
for its sins of infidelity. In the Old Testament God is
often said to come in judgment when there is question
of some special manifestation of His justice against
iniquity.8
Whatever be the interpretation of the texts just con­
sidered, it has been proved beyond doubt that Christ
not only planned a Church, but actually established it.
This fact cannot be overcome by objections taken from
one or another text of uncertain meaning.
Objection II.—Christ frequented the Temple and
7 Matt, xvii, 1.
8Cf. Is. iii, 14; xxx, 27.

32

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

the synagogues, and observed the rites of the Mosaic
Law; in fact. He openly declared that He had come, not
to destroy, but to fulfill the Law.9 The disciples also
frequented the Temple as we read in the Acts: “And
continuing daily with one accord in the temple.” 10
These facts prove that neither Christ nor His disciples
had any idea of a society distinct from the Synagogue.
Answer.—The conclusion does not follow from the
facts adduced. It is possible for a person to belong to
two or more societies at the same time, if those societies
are not opposed to one another. The Acts of the Apos­
tles relates that the disciples attended the Temple
daily, but it also states that they “were persevering in
the doctrine of the Apostles, and in the communication
of the breaking of bread and in prayer.” 11 They
formed a society under the leadership of the Apostles
with their own doctrines and their own distinct wor­
ship. They went to the Temple to pray, as they were
accustomed to do, but they afterward met in their own
homes to celebrate the Eucharist,—“breaking bread
from house to house.” 12
Up to the time of Christ’s passion and death the
Mosaic Law was in full force; the disciples and Apos­
tles were strictly bound by its precepts and ceremonies,
and although Our Lord was not bound by the Law,
He observed its ordinances, that He might show Him°Matt.
10 Acts
11 Acts
12 Acts

v, 18.
iii, 46.
iii, 42.
ii, 46.

ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH

33

self an example to those who were. Therefore it was
necessary for the disciples of Christ to attend the ser­
vices of the Temple before His death. After that they
would only gradually give up practices to which they
had been accustomed all their lives.
It is also true that Christ came to fulfill the Law:
He came to fulfill the prophecies contained therein, and
to establish the Church long prefigured by the institu­
tions of the Law. He came to establish the kingdom
promised to the seed of David.
Objection III.—The ceremonies of the Old Law
were a profession of faith in a Messias to come. The
disciples of Christ believed Him to be the Messias al­
ready come, hence their observance of the Law was a
virtual denial of this new faith, for as St. Paul observes:
“Ij you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing
. . . you are made void oj Christ, . . . you arc jalien
from grace.” 13 It is evident, therefore, that those first
disciples did not consider themselves as forming a so­
ciety distinct from the Synagogue until they had come
under the influence of St. Paul, the author of the
separatist movement.
Answer.—The objection has no bearing on the ques­
tion at issue. The disciples believed Our Lord to be
the long expected Messias, whether He established a
Church independent of the Synagogue or not. Their
observance of the Mosaic Law would be no greater
denial of faith in one case than in the other. It has
been proved that Christ did establish a Church as a
13 Gal. v, 2sq.

34

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

society distinct from the Synagogue. It is also certain
that the first disciples continued to frequent the Tem­
ple and observed the Mosaic Law to some extent.
Whether they were right in so doing is another question.
On this matter Tanquerey says: “The Synagogue was
a figure of the Church and a preparation for it; hence
the change from one to the other was not a change from
a false to a true religion, but from one form of true
religion to another. For this reason the change was
made gradually in order to win the Jews more securely
to the new faith. . . . The Apostles themselves ob­
served certain ceremonies of the Law lest they give of­
fense to their brethren, but when converts from among
the Pharisees wished to impose the Mosaic Law upon
gentile converts, St. Peter openly declared that it was
no longer obligatory.11 But since both Jew and Chris­
tian worshipped the same God and observed the same
moral code, and since the new religion, preached first
to the Jews, differed but little in doctrine from the old,
we should not be surprised to find that at first the sepa­
ration of the Church from the Synagogue was not com­
plete.” 15
St. Augustine clearly explains the relation of the
Synagogue to the Church by distinguishing three stages
in the history of the Mosaic Law. These stages he
designates as the living, the dead, and the deadly. Be­
fore the passion and death of Our Lord the Mosaic Law
was obligatory (living) upon every member of the Jcw11 Acts xv, 10, 11.
15 Tanquerey, “Synopsis Theol. Dogm.,” vol. I, p. 317 (6th ed.).

ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH

35

ish nation. After the death of Christ the Law ceased
to bind; it was dead, yet the Jews were free to observe
it until the Gospel of the New Law was duly promul­
gated. After due promulgation of the Gospel the Old
Law was both dead and death-dealing ; those who still
observed its ceremonial precepts thereby denied that the
Law of Christ is sufficient for salvation. For this rea­
son St. Paul says: “You are made void of Christ, you
who are justified in the law; you are fallen from
grace.” 16
On this same subject Father Semeria says: “Chris­
tianity was a new fruit coming to maturity on an old
vine: it was a new life developing from one that had
passed maturity and was now growing decrepit. A
number of causes, both human and divine, bound this
new life to the Jewish religion. According to a happy
expression of the Fathers, ‘the Synagogue was being
buried with honors.’ God did not wish a sudden and
violent transition, but the infant Church contained
within itself an element which soon developed and
brought about a complete separation. It was a case of
historical biology.” 17
ART. ΠΙ.

CHRIST FOUNDED BUT ONE CHURCH

Protestants in general believe that one Christian
church is as good as another, since all owe their exist­
ence equally to Christ; but they deny that He estab10 St. Augustine, “Letter to St. Jerome,” P. L., 33, 156.
17 Semeria, “Venticinquc Anni di Storia,” p. 92.

36

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

lished any one to the exclusion of all others. Protes­
tant theologians of the sixteenth century introduced the
doctrine of a twofold Church,—the one visible, the other
invisible. They were forced to this doctrine when
asked to explain where the Church of Christ existed
before the Reformation, since they taught that the
Catholic Church had long since fallen into error and
corruption and had ceased to be the Church of Christ.
They solved the difficulty by claiming that the true
Church of Christ is invisible and comprises all the just,
or all those predestined to eternal life. The visible
Church is composed of the various religious organiza­
tions, or churches, which are but so many external mani­
festations of the Church invisible. The just and the
just alone belong to the invisible Church, regardless of
what visible church organization they may belong to.
In fact, they may belong to the invisible Church even
though they have no connection with any organized
church society.
There are some who maintain that Our Lord simply
proclaimed the ideal of a Church and left it to His fol­
lowers to organize actual churches, which realize more
or less perfectly the ideal proposed by Him. This doc­
trine likewise leaves a multitude of churches, in all of
which salvation may be obtained with equal security.
Hence the belief that one church is as good as an­
other.
These theories are refuted in part by the fact, already
proved, that Christ actually instituted a real Church

ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH

37

under the form of a visible society.1 The question now
arises whether Christ established one Church or several.
The answer to this question is of supreme importance.
If there is but one true Church of Christ, all others must
be false claimants, with no right to existence. If there
is but one true Church, our eternal salvation depends
upon finding and embracing it, and the doctrine that one
church is as good as another must be rejected.

Thesis.—Christ founded but one Church
The doctrine stated in the above thesis is not only
historically certain, but
also
a
defined
dogma
of
the
J~.l
_ __ *
Church, as is evident from the Nicene Creed: “Z be­
lieve in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church.”
Proofs. I. From Reason. Had Our Lord estab­
lished two or more churches, all would have to teach the
same, or different doctrines; employ the same, or differ­
ent means of salvation. If they taught the same doc­
trines and employed the same means of salvation, it
would be difficult to assign a sufficient reason for their
separate existence. If they taught different doctrines
or used different means of salvation, one only would be
teaching all the doctrines of Christ or using all the
means established by Him for salvation; yet the Church
of Christ must “observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you.” 2 Again, if several churches teach
1 The visible nature of the Church will be discussed more at
length in the following chapter.
2 Matt, xxviii, 19.

38

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

opposing doctrines, all save one must necessarily teach
falsehood, whereas the Church of Christ must ever be
“the pillar and ground oj truth.”3
II. From Scripture. Sacred Scripture always
speaks of the Church as one,—the one kingdom of God
on earth; the single mustard seed that grows into a tree
filling the whole earth; the one net cast into the sea;
the one field in which the wheat and cockle grow to­
gether until the harvest.4 Again, the Church is the
spouse of Christ, and the union between Christ and His
Church is held up as the model for the union between
husband and wife,5—a union between one man and one
woman; not a polygamous union with several wives.
The Church is also the body of Christ,6 but Christ is no
monster having several bodies.
Our Lord Himself explicitly states that His Church
shall be one: “Upon this rock I will build my
Church.”1 He does not say churches. He also says:
“There shall be one fold and one shepherd.” 8 St.
Paul gives the reason why the Church should be one:
“One body and one Spirit; as you arc called in one
hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one bap­
tism, one God and Father of all.”9 The Church,
which is the body of Christ, should be one, since there
3 1 Timothy iii, 15.
■* Matt, xiii, 24 sq.
6 Ephes, v, 25.
0 Ephes, i, 22, 23.
7 Matt, xvi, 18.
*John x, 16.
9 Ephes, iv, 3-6.

ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH

39

is but one God and Father of all, one faith, one bap­
tism, one and the same eternal life to be attained.
HI. From Tradition. To quote the words of early
writers on this question seems a needless task. Neither
the Fathers of the Church nor the early heretics ever
dreamed of denying that the Church of Christ must
be one and only one. A few examples from the early
Fathers will suffice for a doctrine so clearly and forcibly
stated in Holy Scripture.
a) The Didache. “Remember thy Church, 0 Lord!
Deliver it from all evil and establish it in thy love.
Gather it from the four winds into thy kingdom which
thou hast prepared for it.” 1011 The author of this an­
cient work evidently recognized but one Church of
Christ,—the Church spread over the four quarters of
the earth, whence it shall be gathered into the heavenly
kingdom of the Church triumphant.
ό) St. Cyprian: “There is one God, and Christ is
one, and there is one Church and one chair founded
upon the rock by the word of the Lord. Another altar
cannot be constituted nor a new priesthood be made
except the one altar and the one priesthood. Whoso­
ever gathereth elsewhere, scattereth.” 11
c) Clement oj Alexandria: “From the very reason
that God is one and the Lord one, that which is in the
highest degree honorable is lauded in consequence of its
10 Didaché Apostolorum, x, 5; Cfr. Funk, “Patres Apostolici,” I,
25.—This work known as “Teaching of the Apostles,” was written
in the first century, probably between 80 and 90 a. d.
11 “Epistola ad Plebem”; P. L., 40, 336.*

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

40

singleness. In the nature of the One, then, is asso­
ciated in a joint heritage the one Church which they
[heretics] strive to cut asunder. . . . Therefore in sub­
stance and idea, in origin, in prééminence, we say that
the ancient and Catholic Church is alone . . . passing
all things else and having nothing like or equal to it­
self.” 12
d) St. Ambrose: “Let us follow this one congre­
gation of the Lord; let us recognize the one Church.
. . . From every valley a catholic people is brought
together; there are no longer many congregations but
one; there is only one Church.” 13

ART. TV.

PURPOSE AND NATURE OF THE CHURCH

Synopsis.—1. Purpose

of the

Church.—2. General

NATURE OF THE CHURCH.—3. THE CHURCH AND

Kingdom

of

THE

God.

§ 1. Purpose oj the Church

Final Purpose. The Church, in common with all
the works of God. must have for its final purpose the
manifestation of God’s glory. For this reason St. Paul
says: “In whom [Christ] we also are called by lot,
being predestined . . . that we may be unto the praise
oj his glory. ... He is the pledge oj our inheritance
unto the redemption oj acquisition, unto the praise oj
12 “Stromata.” vii, 17; P. G, 9, SSI*
13 “Hexaemeron”; Ρ. L , 14, 146.

ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH

41

his name.” 1 Elsewhere he says: “Christ loved thè
Church and delivered himself up for it .. . that he
might present it to himselj a glorious Church.” 2
The Church is eminently fitted to give glory to God
by its wonderful manifestation of His power, wisdom,
and goodness in providing such efficacious means of sal­
vation for all men at all times, whatever be their condi­
tion or state in life.
Immediate Purpose. The immediate end of the
Church is twofold,—one to be attained by the Church
herself acting as a society; the other, by individuals act­
ing in subjection to her authority. To point out the
end to be attained by the Church herself is simply to
state what position she holds in the economy of Re­
demption; to determine the end to be attained by the
individual in the Church is to say why Christ commands
all men to enter her fold.
a) The Church. Christ’s greatest work was ac­
complished when He offered Himself on the Cross for
our redemption and thereby merited for us every grace.
This work, known to theologians as Redemption in
actu primo, was personally wrought by Our Lord for
all time, “for by one oblation He hath perfected for
ever them that arc sanctified. . . . He was offered once
to exhaust the sins of many.”2 But the price of our
redemption being offered, there was still a further work
to perform; the merits of Christ’s suffering and death
1 Ephes, i, 11-14.
2 Ephes, v, 25-27.
3 Hcb. x, 14; ix, 28.

42

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

must be applied to individual souls through all the
centuries. This is known as Redemption in actu se­
cundo. Since Our Lord was not to remain upon earth
in His bodily presence, there was need of some agency
to carry on this work; therefore, in the words of the
Vatican Council, Cithe eternal Pastor and Bishop of
souls decreed to establish a holy Church in order to
perpetuate the saving work of Redemption.’’4
Christ proclaimed His doctrines, gave His precepts,
and instituted the Sacraments to enable all men to par­
ticipate in the fruits of the Redemption. He then in­
stituted the Apostolic ministry to perpetuate this work
in the world. He sent forth the Apostles with authority
to teach and govern all men and to administer to them
the means of salvation. But, as already shown, Christ
instituted His Church by instituting the Apostolic min­
istry. It follows, then, that the Church was established
to perpetuate the work of the Redemption by applying
it to the souls of men. In a word, the Church was insti­
tuted to save all men, or, as St. Paul expresses it:
“For the perfecting oj the saints, for the work of the
ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ until we
all meet into the unity oj faith and of the knowledge
of the Son of God, unto a perfect many 5
ό) The Individual. Since the Church was instituted
■* Dcnzinger, n. 1821.
c Ephes, v, 13.—The Church is directly concerned only with man’s
spiritual welfare, but since the temporal reacts upon the spiritual,
she must also give some attention to his temporal well-being. The
Church greatly promotes temporal happiness by her care for spir­
itual things.

ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH

43

to save mankind by bringing souls to eternal life, the
ultimate end to be sought by the individual in and
through the Church can be no other than eternal salva­
tion, as Christ Himself admonishes: “Seek ye first
the kingdom of God and his justice.” 0 The immediate
end to be attained must be that which Christ enjoined
upon all men and which the Apostles demanded of those
who entered the Church, i. e., to submit to the authority
of the Church, to be instructed by her in all revealed
truths, to receive the Sacraments, and to offer true wor­
ship to God,—in a word to practice the Christian re­
ligion and thus prepare for eternal life.
§ 2. General Natzzre of the Church

The Church a Religious Society. The end for
which a society exists determines to a great extent the
nature of that society. The Church, therefore, is a
religious society, as all admit, and since it owes its ex­
istence to Christ, is known as a Christian society. In
fact, it is the only means established by Christ to teach
His doctrines, to inculcate
His moral precepts, to ad%
minister the Sacraments, and to regulate and direct
divine worship. No one can practice the Christian re­
ligion otherwise than as Christ Himself has ordained:
whoever would be His disciple and embrace His religion
must submit to the authority of His Church, be taught
and ruled by it, and receive through it all the means of
salvation. This is evident from the commission which
0 Matt, vi, 33.

44

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

Christ gave to His Apostles when He sent them forth to
teach all nations. The Church, then, is not an institu­
tion of Christianity; it is Christianity existing in the
concrete.
The Church a Supernatural Society. The end
to be attained by the Church, and most of the means to
that end, are purely spiritual and supernatural. The
Church has Christ for its author and exercises a super­
natural power conferred by Him. Her members are
raised to a supernatural state and consecrated in a spe­
cial manner to God by the grace and spiritual character
of Baptism. Therefore, the Church is a supernatural
society in its origin and purpose, in its authority and
means of sanctification, and likewise in its members.
For this reason Christ could say: “My kingdom is not
of this world.” 1
The Church a Divine-Human Society. The
Church, being the work of Christ and holding authority
from Him, must be divine in its origin, in its constitu­
tion, and in its authority. On the other hand, it is a
society of men and for men, and therefore human.
In the words of Leo XIII, “the Church is a society divine in its origin, supernatural in its end and means, yet
because it consists of human members, it is a human so­
ciety.’’ 2 This twofold element in the Church explains
the seemingly contradictory characteristics ascribed to
it by our Lord Himself. It is a kingdom not of this
world, perpetual, ever opposed yet never overcome,
1 John xviii, 36.
2 Leo XIII. “Satis cognitum,” 29 July, 1S96; Dcnzingcr, n. 1959.

i

|

ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH

45

ever displaying the vigor of youth because, unlike other
societies, it is not subject to the law of decay; it is a
divine institution. On the other hand, Christ clearly
foretells evils in His Church: it is the field in which
cockle grows with the wheat; it is the net taking fish
both good and bad. It is necessary that scandals come
because the Church is a human society subject to human
evils.
The Church a Perfect Society. A perfect so­
ciety, in this connection, is not one free from defects
and imperfections, but one having everything necessary
to make it a complete society. In this sense a sovereign
state is a perfect society, although there may be many
and serious imperfections in its government. Certain
conditions are necessary to constitute a perfect, or com­
plete society:
(1) It must be independent of all other societies, both in
its existence and in its actions. A corporation is not a per­
fect society, since it depends upon the State for its existence
and is regulated by the State in its actions.
(2) It must not be part of another society, for a part is
necessarily incomplete.
(3) Its end must not be subordinate to that of any other
society in the same order, otherwise it will also be subordi­
nate to that other society, and therefore not independent in
its actions.
(4) It must have at its command the means necessary for
its own conservation and for the attainment of its own proper
end, otherwise it will be dependent upon some other society
for these means and therefore not perfect in itself. A society

46

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

may possess necessary means either in re or in virtute, i. e.,
it may have them in actual possession or it may have the
right to demand them of some other society, which is bound
to supply them.

These four conditions being fully verified in the
Church, constitute it a perfect society. It does not
depend upon any other society for its existence; its end
is supreme in its own order and cannot be subordinated
to any higher order since it seeks man’s highest good,—
his eternal salvation. The Church is also independent
in all its actions, as the works of Christ clearly prove:
“Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound
also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon
earth shall be loosed also in heaven.”3 Since the ac­
tions of the Church are ratified in Heaven, no power
on earth can modify or nullify them. Christ has also
promised that His Church shall endure until the end of
time despite the opposition of worldly powers: “Be­
hold I am with you all days even to the consummation
oj the world.” 4 David’s prophecy concerning Christ
is equally true of His Church: “The kings oj the earth
stood up, and the princes met together against the Lord
and against his Christ. ... He that dwelleth in heaven
shall laugh at them, and the Lord shall deride them.” 5
Hated, opposed, and persecuted, the Church shall re­
main victorious to the end, because she has within her3 Matt, xviii, 18.
4 Matt, xxviii, 20.
8 Ps. ii, 2-4.

ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH

47

self all means necessary to attain the purpose of her
existence.

Objections Considered
Objection I.—The Church cannot be a perfect and
independent society, as it has no dominion, no territory
of its own, in which to exercise authority.
Answer.—It is not necessary that a society have a
dominion, or territory, by right of ownership; a terri­
tory in which to exercise authority is dominion sufficient
for any society, and this the Church has. Her domin­
ion is the world: “Go yc therefore into the zohole
world and preach the Gospel to every creatzire.” 0 The
Church has received her dominion from Him to whom
belongs “the earth and the fulness thereof ; the world
and all they that dwell therein.” 7 One and the same
territory belongs to the Church and to the civil powers,
—to the Church for the exercise of spiritual jurisdic­
tion; to the civil powers for the exercise of temporal
jurisdiction.
Objection II.—In this case two independent socie­
ties would be exercising supreme jurisdiction in one and
the same territory, which is contrary to the axiom that
a State within a State is a contradiction. Hence the
Church cannot be a perfect society.
Answer.—Two societies exercising supreme author­
ity in the same territory is a contradiction if both are
0 Mark xvi, IS.
7 Ps. xxiii, 1.

48

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

concerned about the same things; if they have different
ends in view, there is no contradiction, unless those ends
are incompatible. The ends sought by the Church
and the State are different, but not incompatible; in
fact, they are mutually helpful.
Objection III.—Without religion there can be
neither peace nor happiness in the State. Therefore,
religion, or at least religious worship, must be subject
to State regulation.
Answer.—It is a truth too often neglected today,
that there can be no peace or happiness without reli­
gion; but it does not follow that religion must there­
fore be subject to the State. Many things are needed
by an individual for his peace and happiness, but he is
not thereby justified in becoming a highwayman to ob­
tain them; he must have recourse to the lawful methods
of barter. In like manner, if the Church has in her
possession anything deemed needful or necessary for the
public good of the State, let those in authority seek it
from the Church, as they would from a neighboring
State, i. e., by mutual agreement.8
§3. The Church and the Kingdom
Throughout the writings of the New Testament we
find frequent mention of the Kingdom oj God, or, as
St. Matthew usually terms it, the Kingdom oj Heaven.
These terms are evidently synonymous, for, as Lights See injra. 512 sq.

ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH

49

foot has pointed out, the Jews frequently put Heaven
for God, just as we do today in such phrases as “Heaven
forbid,” “heaven be pleased,” etc.1 St. Matthew, writ­
ing for Jewish Christians of Palestine, used expressions
to which they were accustomed. For this reason he
has “Kingdom oj Heaven.” The other Apostles and
Evangelists wrote principally for Christians of gentile
origin and consequently gave the Greek equivalent for
the Aramaic expression found in St. Matthew and most
likely used by Our Lord Himself.
The Kingdom so often referred to by Our Lord and
His Apostles is evidently the Messianic kingdom, fore­
told by the prophets, prefigured by the people of Israel,
and promised to David and his seed forever. “In the
days of those kingdoms, the God oj heaven will set zip
a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, and his king­
dom shall not be delivered up to another people and it
shall break in pieces and. shall consume all these king­
doms and. itself shall stand for ever.” 12 This Kingdom
is the stone cut from the mountain without hands which
in turn became a mountain filling the whole earth.3 It
is the eternal kingdom promised to the house of David:
“Thy house shall be faithful, and thy kingdom for ever
before my face, and thy throne shall be firm for ever.” 4
“Once have I sworn by my holiness: I will not lie
1
2
3
4

J. Lightfoot, “Horæ Hcbraicæ”; On St. Matthew, iii, 2.
Dan. ii, 44.
Dan. ii, 34, 35.
2 Kings vii, 16.

50

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

unto David: his seed shall endlire for ever. And his
throne as the sun before me; and as the moon perfect
for ever!15
At the time of Our Lord’s public ministry the Jews
were still looking forward with confidence to the estab­
lishment of this Kingdom under the leadership of the
Messias, but their conception of the Messias and of His
Kingdom had sadly degenerated since the days of the
prophets. They now looked upon the Messias as a
great national leader to restore the kingdom of Israel
and to make of it a world power to dominate the gentile
nations. For this reason Herod was greatly disturbed
when the Magi inquired, “saying, Where is he that is
born king of the Jews?116 The disciples were imbued
with this idea when they “disputed among themselves
which of them should be the greatest,” 5*7 and again when
the mother of James and John asked Our Lord that
“these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand
and the other on thy left in thy kingdom,” 8 she was
seeking high official positions for her sons in the worldly
kingdom which they believed Our Lord would soon es­
tablish. Even after the Resurrection of Our Lord, the
Apostles could not entirely rid themselves of this belief.
When Christ was telling them to wait in Jerusalem for
the coming of th.e Holy Ghost, they asked Him:
5 Ps. Ixxxviii, 36-38.
0 Matt, ii, 2.
7 Mark ix, 33.
8 Matt, xx, 20, 21.

ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH

51

“Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom
oj Israel?” 9
During His public life, Our Lord strove to correct this
false conception of His kingdom. He clearly and em­
phatically proclaimed that it was not to be an earthly
one, such as they expected. When the Pharisees asked
Him, “when the kingdom oj God should come, He an~
swered them and said: The kingdom oj God cometh
not with observation” 10 i. e., it shall not be inaugur­
ated by the marching of armies, the shouts of victory,
or the trappings of royalty. “My kingdom is not o]
the world.” 11
What then, is the real character of this Kingdom?
Harnack says that it signifies a purely spiritual and in­
terior reign of God in the soul: “The kingdom of God
comes by coming to the individual; by entering into his
soul and laying hold of it.” 12 Protestants in general
hold a similar view; some, however, seem to identify
the Kingdom with the invisible Church which they
postulate: “The kingdom of God includes all those
who yield themselves in glad obedience to the will of
God.” 13 In either case, it excludes any external or
visible society, such as the Church in the Catholic sense.
Modernists admit that the Kingdom is a real external
society, but belongs to the future: “according to the
0 Acts i, 6.
10 Luke xvii, 20.
11 John xviii, 33-37.
12 A. Harnack, “Das Wesen des Christentums,” p. 36.
13 Clarence A. Beckwith, “Outline of Christian Theology,” p. 208.

52

I

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

teachings of Christ, the kingdom of heaven was to come
only with the end of the world.” 14 In opposition to
these views we sometimes find Catholic interpreters and
theologians identifying the Kingdom with the Church.
A study of the parables in which Our Lord explains the
nature of His Kingdom will show how far the above
views may be accepted, and to what extent they fall
short of the truth. It is evident that the words are not
always taken in the same sense; at least three distinct,
though related, meanings are attached to it.
a) The Kingdom is the mustard seed that becomes a
tree and fills the whole world; it is the field with wheat
and cockle growing together until the harvest; it is
the net cast into the sea which takes fish both good and
bad.15* There can be no doubt that these parables
depict the Kingdom as an external society existing on
earth,—a society composed of members both good and
bad. In this sense the Kingdom is identical with the
Church, in which St. Peter exercises the power of the
keys: “Upon this rock J will build my Church . . .
and I will give to thee the keys oj the kingdom of
heaven.” 10
b) The Kingdom of Heaven is also a hidden treasure,
a pearl of great price, a leaven permeating and trans­
forming the meal.17 In these and similar passages we
see the Kingdom in its interior and spiritual aspect: it
14 Dcnzinger,
16 Matt, xiii,
lfi Matt xvi,
17 Matt, xiii,

n 2052.
24 sq.
18, 19.
24 sq.

ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH

53

is the power of grace transforming and elevating the
soul,—the reign of God in the heart. In this sense the
Kingdom is something different from the Church, considered as an external society.
c) Finally, the Kingdom is the eternal banquet of
heavenly bliss,18 the place prepared for the just from
the foundation of the world,19 the land that belongs to
the poor in spirit,20 and which the rich man shall hardly
enter.21 These passages present the Kingdom in its
eschatological aspect, as the glorious reign of Christ
with His saints, which shall be inaugurated at His
Second Coming. In this sense the Kingdom is identical
with the triumphant Church.
When Christ said to Nicodemus: “Unless a man
be born again, he cannot enter into the kingdom oj
heaven” 22 He was probably using the term in its three­
fold sense. Baptism is the door by which we enter the
Church on earth; it is the beginning of God’s reign in
the heart by regeneration, without which eternal hap­
piness is impossible.
The above considerations bring out clearly the rela­
tions between the Church and the Kingdom of Heaven.
The Church, as an external society carrying on the min­
istry of Christ, constitutes the Kingdom in its exterior
social aspect. In the work of sanctifying souls the
Church produces the Kingdom in its interior and spirit18 Luke xxii, 29, 30.
19 Matt, xxv, 34.
2° Matt, v, 3.
21 Luke xviii, 24.
22 John iii, 5.

54

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

ual aspect. By accomplishing the work of salvation on
earth the Church prepares for the kingdom in its
eschatological aspect; it is preparing to become the
Church triumphant in heaven.23
23 Ci. D’Alès, “Dictionnaire de Apologétique,” art. Église ; Hastings,
“Dictionary of the Bible,” art. Kingdom of God; B. Bartmann,
“Das Himmelreich und sein Kônig,” Paderborn, 1904.

/ "

CHAPTER II
ATTRIBUTES OF THE CHURCH

The Church as a society instituted to perpetuate the
mission of Christ on earth, must be endowed with cer­
tain qualities necessary for the proper performance of
that work. Necessary qualities are those so essentially
bound up with the Church that the loss of any one of
them would make the Church other than that estab­
lished by Christ and render it incapable of accomplish­
ing the purpose of its existence. From the teachings
of Christ and His Apostles, and from a study of the
Church as set forth in the prophecies of old and in the
writings of the Fathers, it will be seen that the principal
qualities or characteristics essentially necessary to the
Church are unity, sanctity, catholicity, apostolicity,
perpetuity, indejectibility, visibility, and infallibility.
The first four of these, known to theologians as prop­
erties, manifest themselves externally and thus serve as
a means to identify the true Church of Christ. The
others, not externally evident, are called attributes,—in
Latin, dotes.
As a matter of convenience the attributes of the
Church are treated separately in the present chapter;
perpetuity and indejectibility, being intimately related,
are considered together in the first article. Visibility
55

’ :

56

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

is treated separately in the second article. Infallibility
will be treated at length in another part of the work.1
ART. I.

PERPETUAL INDEFECTIBILITY OF

THE CHURCH

Synopsis.—1. Nature of indefectibility.—2. Erro­
neous doctrines.—3. The Church perpetually inde­
fectible.—4. Objections answered.

§ 1. The Nature of Indefectibility
The general notion of indefectibility is indicated by
the word itself, which is derived from the Latin in
(not) and deficere (to fail). Hence indefectibility is
inability to fail, to fall short, to perish. Applied to the
Church, it means that she cannot be deprived of any
essential power or quality so long as she continues to
exist. Perpetuity is indefectibility of existence.
Strictly speaking, indeiectibility pertains to the es­
sential qualities of the Church; perpetuity, to her existcncê. Tlîese two attributes, though really distinct,
are so closely related that it is difficult to treat them
separately. If the Church is indefectible in her es­
sential qualities and perpetual in her existence, she must
be perpetually indefectible in all essential qualities,
'therefore, the two attributes may be combined as
perpetual indefectibility.
It should be noted that indefectibility does not ex­
clude such accidental changes as are incidental to
1 Cf. pp. 426 sq.

ATTRIBUTES OF THE CHURCH

57

growth and development, nor those necessary to adapt
the Church to her surroundings. As the Church in­
creases in numbers and extent, new agencies are needed
to cope with her increased activities. For this purpose
archdioceses and patriarchates were introduced, re­
ligious orders established, schools and other institutions
founded. Rites and ceremonies, the celebration of
feasts, the laws of fasting and abstinence, and other
disciplinary regulations may be changed to suit the
needs of time and place. These are all accidental
changes, which prove that the Church is a living or­
ganism that “can keep its identity without losing its
life, and keep its life without losing its identity; that
can enlarge its teachings without changing them; that
can always be the same, and yet always developing.” 1
Indefectibility has been promised to the Church as a
whole, not to its various parts. The Church as it ex­
ists in particular places may fail; even the Church of a
whole nation may fall away as history abundantly
proves. The Apostolic See of Rome is the only par­
ticular Church to which the promise of perpetual in­
defectibility has been made.

§ 2. Erroneous Doctrines
Protest/XNTS. The defectibility of the Church is
one doctrine upon which all Protestants agree. They
hold that the Church not only can fail, but that she did
fail sometime before the pseudo-Reformation of the
sixteenth century. They were driven to this in self1 W. H. Mallock, “Is Life Worth Living?” p. 13.

58

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

defense, for if the Church as founded by Christ did not
and could
not
fail,
there
was
neither
reason
nor
excuse
•
_
for the institution of other churches. Those who
maintain the existence of a visible and an invisible
Church make the one defectible, the other, indefectible.
Modernists. Modernism holds that the Church
cannot be indefectible, since it is the result of evolution
and therefore continually subject to evolutionary proc­
esses that affect its very constitution. “The organic
constitution of the Church is not immutable; the Chris­
tian society, as well as human society, is subject to
perpetual evolution.” 1
Rationalists. Critics of the rationalistic school
practically hold that the Church failed in the days of
the Apostles. They deny, of course, that Christ
founded a Church, since that was the work of the disci­
ples themselves after Our Lord had left them. But
these critics maintain that the disciples almost imme­
diately separated into two antagonistic schools under
the leadership of St. Peter and St. Paul, respectively.
Towards the end of the second century, some one in
Asia Minor or Alexandria wrote the Fourth Gospel in
an effort to reconcile and reunite the Judaising party of
St. Peter with the universalist followers of St. Paul.2
Schelling, Fichte and others proclaimed a threefold
Church which they called the Petrine (Catholic), the
Pauline (Protestant) and the Johannine (Church of the
future).
1 Denzinger, n. 2053.
2 Cf. F. Christian Baur in “Theol. Jahrbiicher,” 1844.

ATTRIBUTES OF THE CHURCH

59

Fundamentalists. A considerable number of
Protestants in the various denominations today are
known as Fundamentalists, because they defend what
they term fundamental doctrines against the attacks of
the growing modernistic element in their respective
churches. Many of these Fundamentalists look for­
ward to a more perfect kingdom to be established on
earth in the near future and ruled by Christ in person.
Their distinctive doctrine is, “I believe in the literal,
personal, bodily, visible, imminent return of the Lord
to this earth as king?’3 This is similar to the doctrine
known in the early ages of the Church as Chiliasm,
from the Greek word for thousand. The early
Chiliasts taught that Christ would return to reign on
earth with His saints for a thousand years after the
last judgment. Their error was due to a false inter­
pretation of a passage in the Apocalypse.4 The Funda­
mentalists, however, seem to place this personal reign
of Christ before the last judgment and thereby make it
supersede the Church as it now exists.
7

§ 3. The Church of Christ Perpetually Indefectible

Thesis.—The Church of Christ is perpetually in- "
defectible in all its attributes and properties
The proposed thesis does not determine the attributes
and properties of the Church; it simply states that,
3 Rollin Lynde Hart in The World’s Work, Sept., 1923, p. 469 sq.
4 Apoc. xx, 1-6.

60

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

whatever they may be, the Church can never lose a
single one of them, nor fail in her existence. In other
words, it means that the Church founded by Christ
must exist until the end of time without any essential
change. In this general sense the thesis is proxima
fidei, i. e., all but an article of faith, being clearly im­
plied in the words of the Vatican Council: “The
eternal Pastor and Bishop of souls decreed to establish
a holy Church to perpetuate (perenne reddere) the sav­
ing work of salvation.” 1 The doctrine is also implied
in the condemnation of the following proposition of
Modernism: “The organic constitution of the Church
is not immutable.”2 Leo XIII wrote to the same
effect when he said: “The Church must carry far and
wide to all men and for all time the salvation wrought
by Jesus Christ and the blessings flowing therefrom.
. . . Hence the Church must be one and perpetual.” 3
Proof. I. From Reason. Christ instituted the
Church for the salvation of all men, and endowed it
with certain powers and characteristics necessary for
this work. If the Church should lose any one of these
necessary qualifications, it would be incapable of doing
what Christ intended it to do; in fact, it would cease to
be the Church instituted by Him. Moreover, if the
Church could fail in any of its essentials, even for a
time, it would lose all authority to teach and to govern,
1 Denzinger n. 1821.
2 Decree “Lamentabili,” 3 July, 1907; Denzinger, n. 2053.
3 Leo XIII, “Satis cognitum,” 29 June, 1S96; Denzinger, n. 1955.

ATTRIBUTES OF THE CHURCH

61

because the faithful could never be certain at any time
that it had not failed,—that it had not ceased to be the
Church of Christ, thereby losing all authority. But
an authority that may be justly doubted at all times is
no authority; it commands neither obedience nor re­
spect as is evident in churches that reject the claim to
indefectibility.
II. From Scripture, a) Prophecies. Daniel rep­
resents the Church of Christ as a kingdom standing
forever unconquered and unconquerable. “But in the
days of those kingdoms, the God oj heaven will set up a
kingdom that shall never be destroyed, and his kingdom
shall not be delivered up to another people, . . . and
itself shall stand for ever.” 4 Isaias says: “A child is
born to us and a son is given to us and the government
is upon his shoulders . . . He shall sit upon the throne
oj David, and zipon his kingdom; to establish it and
strengthen it . . . from henceforth and for ever.” 6
According to these prophecies it was announced: “The
Lord God shall give unto him [Christ] the throne oj
David his father . . . and oj his kingdom there shall be
no end.” G In these passages the Kingdom can be no
other than the Church to be established by our Lord.
b) Testimony of Christ. Our Lord himself dis­
tinctly proclaimed the perpetual indefectibility of His
Church: “Upon this rock I will build my Church, and
4 Dan. ii, 44.
5 Is. ix> 6, 7.
6 Luke i, 32.

62

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

the gates oj hell shall not prevail against it.” 7 The
Church is an impregnable fortress built upon a firm
foundation of living rock,—a fortress against which the
powers or darkness shall ever beat in vain. There is
no force, either internal or external, that can cause it to
crumble or fall. Christ is the wise man of the parable
who built his house upon the rock, “and the rain fell,
and the floods came, and the winds blew and they beat
upon that house and it fell not for it was founded irpon
a rocky8
When Our Lord instituted the Church by sending
forth the Apostles with authority to teach, govern, and
sanctify men, He said: “Behold, I am with you all
days even to the consummation of the world.” 9 In
these words Christ promised to be with His Church,
protecting it at all times, even to the end of the world.
But if Christ is for the Church, who can prevail against
7 Matt, xvi, 18.—Ancient cities were surrounded by high walls to
protect them against their enemies. Entrance to the city was by
way of gates in its walls. Before the invention of battering-rams
the strength of a city lay in the strength of its gates. For this rea­
son gates soon came to mean strength or power. Hence gates oj
hell refer to the forces of evil, which Christ well knew would be
loosed against His Church. Many non-Catholic scholars take gates
of hell as equivalent to sheol i.e., the place of the dead, and then
death itself. Taken in this sense, the words of Christ are even more
striking, for if death can never prevail against the Church, neither
can it perish or fail. Death to a society can be only its destruction
by dissolution or essential change.
8 Matt, vi, 24, 25.
• Matt, xxviii, 20.

1

ATTRIBUTES OF THE CHURCH

63

it? Our Lord also compares His Church to a field in
which the wheat and cockle grow together until the
harvest, which, He tells us, is the end of the world.
Therefore, the Church must continue unchanged until
the end, for, although it contains much cockle, it ever
remains a wheat-field.1011
c) Testimony oj St. Paul. In his Epistle to the
Hebrews St. Paul makes a lengthy comparison between
the Church and the Synagogue. He represents the one
as permanent, the other as transitory. He quotes the
words of the prophet Aggeus: “Yet once more, and I
will move not only earth, but heaven also,” 11 and ap­
plies them to the Old Law saying: “In that he saith
yet once more, he signifieth the translation oj the
movable things as made, that those things may remain
which are immovable. Therefore receiving an immov­
able kingdom, we have grace.” 12 In this passage St.
Paul distinctly says that the temporary institutions of
the Old Law have been succeeded by the immovable
Kingdom of the New. Therefore the Church, the im­
movable Kingdom of the New Law, must be perpetual
and indefectible.
III. From Tradition, a) Pseudo-Ambrose, the au­
thor of an ancient work formerly attributed to St.
Ambrose, refers expressly to the indefectibility of the
Church: “We behold in the Church a ship sailing the
10 Matt, xiii, 24 sq.
11 Aggeus ii, 7.
12 Hcb. xii, 26-28.

64

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

seas of this world . . . though tossed by the storms and
buffeted by the waves, it can never suffer shipwreck be­
cause Christ hangs upon its mast which is the cross,
the Father sits enthroned upon its stern, and the Holy
Ghost the Paraclete, as helmsman guides the prow.
Through the straits of the world twelve oarsmen [the
Apostles] guide it safely into port ... it can never
crash upon the rocks nor founder in the deep.” 13
b) St. Chrysostom is not less positive in his state­
ments: “Do not hold aloof from the Church, for
there is nothing stronger than the Church. The Church
is your hope; the Church is your salvation; the Church
is your refuge. It is higher than heaven and broader
than earth. It never grows old, but ever keeps the
vigor of youth. Wherefore Scripture, wishing to show
forth its firmness and stability, calls it a mountain.” 14
c) St. Augustine says: “The Church cannot be
overcome nor rooted up; it cannot yield to any trials
whatsoever until the end of this world come.” 15
d) St. Jerome expresses a similar faith: “We know
that the Church will be harassed by persecution until
the end of the world, but it cannot be destroyed; it
shall be tried, but not overcome for such is the promise
of an omnipotent God whose word is as a law of
nature.” 16
13Pseudo-Ambrose, “Sermo de Salomone”; P. L., 17, 697.
14 St. John Chrysostom, “Quod Christus sit Deus”; P. G., 52, 402.
16 St. Augustine, “Enarratio in Ps.,” Ixii; P. L., 36, 726.
ie St. Jerome, “In Isaiam,” iv, 6; P. L., 24, 74.

;

ATTRIBUTES OF THE CHURCH

65

§4. Objections Answered
Objection I.—The Synagogue, the Church of the
Old Law, failed at different times in its history, e. g.}
when the people forsook their God to worship the golden
calf erected by Aaron. Again, during the time of the
Judges and still later, under the Kings, the people often
fell into idolatry by worshipping the gods of surround­
ing nations. Now, if the Church of the Old Law could
fail, then also the Church of the New.
Answer.—There is no parity in this matter between
the Church and the Synagogue, for it was never said of
the Synagogue that “the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it.” Neither was it said to the priests of old:
“Behold I am with you all days even to the consumma­
tion of the world.” Moreover, it may well be denied
that the Synagogue ever really failed even for a day.
It is true that many forsook the ways of the Lord and
worshipped strange gods; but even in the worst days of
Israel, there was a goodly number of faithful souls to
perpetuate the church of their fathers. Even when
Aaron set up the golden calf at Sinai, twenty-two thou­
sand sons of Levi remained faithful under their divinely
appointed leaders.1
Objection II.—It must be admitted by all that the
Synagogue with all its observances came to an end at
the death of Our Lord, despite many prophecies re­
1 Cfr. Exodus xxxii, 26; Numb, iii, 39.

66

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

garding its perpetual existence.2 Therefore, there is
no reason why the Church may not fail in like manner,
despite the promises of Christ.
Answer.—The Synagogue was succeeded by the
Church of Christ because the Mosaic Law was only a
preparation for the more perfect Law of Christ; it was
a mere paidagogos, leading man to his Divine Teacher.3
This preparatory character of the Law and its future
abrogation was clearly foretold by the prophets. Thus,
e. g., Daniel prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem
and the worship of the Old Law: “And in the half oj
the week the victim and the sacrifice shall fail; and
there shall be in the temple the abomination oj desola­
tion, and the desolation shall continue even to the con­
summation and to the end.” 4 And Jeremias foretold
the establishment of a new covenant to succeed the Law
of Moses: “Behold the days shall come, saith
the Lord, and 1 will make a new covenant with the
house of Israel and with the house of Juda. Not ac­
cording to the covenant which I made with their
fathers.”5
Regarding the promises of perpetuity seemingly made
to the Synagogue of old, St. Augustine says: “The
priesthood of Aaron was but a shadow of the eternal
2 Cfr. the promises made to David that his kingdom and his
throne should stand firm forever: 2 Kings vii, 16; Ps. Ixxxviii, 3638; Is. lx, 1 sq.
3 Gal. iii, 24.
4 Dan. ix, 27.
5 Jer. xxxi, 31.

ATTRIBUTES OF THE CHURCH

67

priesthood to come; when promises of perpetuity were
made, they were not made to the shadow and figure it­
self, but to that which was foreshadowed and prefig­
ured. And lest the shadow itself should be thought
permanent, its abrogation was foretold.” G
St. Paul also brings out in bold relief the temporary
character of the Synagogue in opposition to the per­
petuity of the Church by comparing the one to Agar,
the repudiated wife of Abraham, the other to Sarah, who
was never put away.7
Objection III.—Christ Himself foretold the abro­
gation of His Church and the institution of a Church of
the Holy Ghost: “And I will ask the Father, and he
shall give you another Paraclete that he may abide
with you forever.” s
Answer.—These words of Christ refer to the in­
ternal mission of the Holy Ghost in the souls of men,
and especially to His continual presence in the Church
to preserve it from all error. This is explained by
Christ Himself in the same passage. “He [the
Paraclete} shall teach you all things, and bring all
things to your mind whatsoever I shall have said to
you.”9 Christ promised the Holy Ghost as a
Paraclete, i. e., a Helper or Protector for the Church
already established, not as the Author of a Church to
be established in the future.
0 St. Augustine, “De Civitate Dei,” vii, 6; P. L., 41, 536.
7 Gal. iv, 22 sq.
8 John xiv, 16.
9 John xiv, 26.

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

68

ART. H.

VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH

Synopsis.—1. Nature
cerning

THE

of visibility'.—2.

VISIBILITY

Church formally

OF

visible.—4.

THE

Errors con­

ClIURCH.----3. THE

Objections

considered.

§ 1. The Nature oj Visibility

Visibility primarily signifies the capability of being
perceived by the sense of sight; then, by extension, it
refers to the capability of being perceived by any of
the five sense' Finally, it means the capability of an
object being perceived or known by the intellect be­
cause of the sensible qualities adhering in that object.
Hence the division into material and formal visibility.
A thing is materially visible in its external, sensible
qualities; it is formally visible when it can be recognized
by these qualities as having a certain nature. For ex­
ample, a man, considered according to the external
qualities of his body, is materially visible,—he can be
perceived by the senses; when the soul manifests itself
by speech or other external sign, he becomes formally
visible,—he is known to be a rational being, called
man.
A society is materially visible because its members,
its rites and ceremonies, and its places of meeting can
be seen or perceived by the senses; when, through these
external signs, it may be known that certain individuals
are thus banded together, the society is formally visible
as a society. If there are no external signs by which
it can be known that these individuals are banded to-

ATTRIBUTES OF THE CHURCH

69

gether, the society is invisible as a society, although the
members are perfectly visible as individuals. Further­
more, a society may, and usually does, have certain ex­
ternal characteristics by which it may be recognized as
a particular kind of society, e. g., a religious society.
In that case it is formally visible as a religious society.
If there are certain marks to distinguish it as a Chris­
tian religious society, it is formally visible as a
Christian church, which may be further distinguished
from other Christian churches. It then becomes for­
mally visible as a Catholic, Protestant, or Greek
Church, as the case may be. Again, if there be marks
to identify it as the Church actually founded by Christ,
it is formally visible as the one true Church of Christ.
When we say that the Church of Christ is visible, we
mean, primarily, that it is a society of men with ex­
ternal rites and ceremonies and all the external machin­
ery of government by which it can easily be recognized
as a true society. But we further maintain that the
Church of Christ also has certain marks by which it may
be recognized as the one true Church founded by Christ
when He commissioned the Apostles to convert all na­
tions. In other words, we maintain that the Church
of Christ is formally visible, not only as a society
known as a Christian Church, but also as the one true
Church of Christ. Furthermore, we maintain that the
Church of Christ is so clearly visible that it may easily
be recognized by all as the true Church. It has
marks so evident that all who see it may say with
certainty: “This is the true Church of Christ.”

70

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

This, of course, does not mean that all
recognize it as such; those blinded by
prejudice can no more recognize the true
the Pharisees of old could recognize
Founder. The man who closes his eyes
see the sun in its noonday splendor.

will actually
passion and
Church than
its Divine
cannot even

§2. Errors Concerning the Visibility oj the Church
Non-Catholic teaching on the visibility of the Church
seems hopelessly involved. Scarcely any two Protes­
tant theologians hold the same views, and even one
and the same author frequently expresses contradictory
views on the matter. Luther, for example, says that
“the Church is hidden in the spirit and known only
by faith.” 1 “But you may say, if the Church be en­
tirely in the spirit and of a nature thoroughly spiritual,
how can we discern where on earth any part of it may
be? The necessary mark whereby we recognize it, and
which we possess, is Baptism and the Lord’s Supper,
and above all the Gospel.” 2 Here, then, we have a
Church wholly invisible that may be recognized by
visible marks! In another work Luther teaches that
there is both a visible and an invisible Church: “Be­
cause communion with the visible Church constitutes
no communion in the invisible, and because many non­
Christians are found in the visible Church, so no visible
Church is at all necessary.” 3 Melanchthon in his later
1 “De Abrogatione Missæ,” p. 1.
2“Resp. ad Lib. Ambros. Cathar.” tom. ii, 376, 377.
8 “On the Papacy.”

ATTRIBUTES OF THE CHURCH

71

writings emphasizes the conception of the Church as a
visible organization in which the pure Word of God is
taught.4 Buddeus, a later Protestant theologian, says:
“When there is question of the congregation of true be­
lievers who constitute the Church properly so-called,
it is evident that it is invisible.” 5
According to Luther, the just alone constitute the
Church of Christ; Calvin taught that it embraces only
the predestined. But as the just and the predestined
are known to God alone, so in this hypothesis the
Church must remain ever invisible to all save God
alone. Hence Calvin said: “It is necessary to believe
that the Church, invisible to us, is known to God
alone.”6 Yet both Luther and Calvin defined the
Church as the congregation in which the pure word of
God is preached and the sacraments rightly admin­
istered.7 The Augsburg Confession contains the same
contradictory teachings: “The Church is the congre­
gation of saints in which the Gospel is rightly taught
and the sacraments rightly administered.” 8
These various teachings seem to have settled down
to a general belief that there is both a visible and an
invisible Church. This was the doctrine of Zwingli:
“We believe that the Church is both visible and in­
visible. In the invisible Church are found all those
4 Cfr. Schaff-Hcrzog, “Encycl. of Relig. Knowledge,” art. “Church.”
5 Johan F. Buddeus, “Institutiones,” V, III, sec. xiv.
0 “Institutiones,” IV, 1, n. 7.
7 Ibid., IV, 1.
s Augsburg Confession, Art. IV.

72

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

throughout the world who believe. It is called invis­
ible, not because those who believe are invisible, but be­
cause it is not patent to human eyes who the believers
are. The visible Church is composed of all those
throughout the world who have given their name to
Christ.” 9 In like manner Reinhard wrote: “The vis­
ible or external Church is the universal society of those
who profess the Christian religion publicly; the in­
visible Church is the society of those who, through the
doctrine of Christ, are truly regenerated. The visible
Church is broken up into many societies, to any one of
which a man may join himself, as he sees fit.” 10
The Westminster Confession proclaims the same
doctrine: “The Catholic or universal church, which
is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect
that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under
Christ the head thereof. . . . The visible church, wThich
is also catholic or universal under the Gospel, con­
sists of all those throughout the world that profess the
true religion, and of their children; and is the kingdom
of the Lord Jesus Christ . . . out of which there is no
ordinary possibility of salvation.” 11
The advocates of the Branch Theory in the Anglican
Church’- maintain that the Church of Christ is es­
sentially visible, but consists of three parts or branches,
9 Zwingli, “Expositio Fidei.”
10 Franz V. Reinhard, “Vorlesungen iibcr Dogmatik.”
11 Westminster Confession, XXV, 1, 2; cfr. Schaff,
Christendom,” Vol. Ill, p. 657.
12 Under the name Anglican Church we include the
Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church

§ 169 sq.
“Creeds of
Established
of America.

ATTRIBUTES OF THE CHURCH

73

—the Roman, the Greek, and the English. This is
simply the ordinary Protestant doctrine limited in its
application; instead of all Christian churches, it in­
cludes only three in the visible Church of Christ. In
either case the visibility of the Church is destroyed,
since the various Christian churches are not united into
any external visible society that can be called a church
in any true sense of the word. There can be no living
branches unless they be united in a living trunk but in
the Branch Theory there is no living trunk visible.
If there be one, it must be invisible.
The various Protestant doctrines just reviewed, all
agree in denying that there is any one visible society
which can claim to be the Church of Christ to the exclu­
sion of all others. The reason for this was candidly
stated by a writer in the British and Foreign Evan­
gelical Review some years ago: “Everything depends
upon the answer to the question, ‘What is the Church?’
If it be an external society of professors of the true
religion, then it is visible as an earthly kingdom; if that
society is destroyed, the Church is destroyed, and
everything that is true of the Church is true of that
society. Then, in short, Romanism must be admitted
as a logical consequence.” 13 As a matter of fact the
pseudo-Reformers of the sixteenth century at first held
the Church to be visible, but wrere soon forced to change
their doctrine, as Palmer explains in his work on the
Church: “The Reformed seem generally to have
taught the doctrine of the visibility of the Church, until
13 British and Foreign Evangelical Review, June 1855, p. 295.

74

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

some of them deemed it necessary, in consequence of
their controversy with the Romanists who asked them
where their church existed before Luther, to maintain
that the church might sometimes be invisible.” 14
§3. The Church of Christ Formally Visible

Thesis.—The Church of Christ is formally visible,
not only as a Church, but also as the true
Church of Christ
f

This is an article of faith, having been defined by the
Vatican Council in the following words: “God es­
tablished a Church through His only begotten Son, and
endowed it with manifest marks of its institution, that
it might be known by all as the guardian and teacher
of the revealed word.” 1 This is a clear and compre­
hensive definition of formal visibility. The Church
has certain evident marks by which it can be recognized
as the true Church of Christ, the guardian and teacher
of the revealed word.
The thesis contains two propositions: (a) The
Church is an external society that can be recognized as
such by all,—it is formally visible as a religious so­
ciety or Church; (b) This society has certain marks
by which it may be distinguished from all other
churches and recognized as the true Church,—it is
formally visible as the true Church. It will be suffi­
cient to prove the second proposition, since no society
14 William Palmer, “Treatise on the Church,” Vol. I, p. 35.
1 Denzinger, n. 1793.

ATTRIBUTES OF THE CHURCH

75

can be recognized as the true Church unless it is first
recognized as a church. Moreover, it has been amply
proved that Christ established His Church under the
form of an external visible society.2
Proofs. I. From Reason. When Christ insti­
tuted the Church, He demanded submission to its au­
thority under pain of eternal damnation : “Going there­
fore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name oj
the Father and oj the Son and oj the Holy Ghost. . . .
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he
that believeth not shall be condemned.” 3 Again Christ
says: “Ij he will not hear the Church, let him be to
thee as a heathen and a publican.” 1 How could any
one be obliged, under pain of eternal damnation, to
hearken to the teachings of the Church and obey her
precepts unless there be some means of recognizing it
as the true Church endowed with authority
* to teach and
govern? Assuredly, Our Lord in His divine wisdom
has not obliged all men to do something impossible.
II. From Scripture, c) The prophet Isaias repre­
sents the Church as a house built upon the topmost
peak of the highest mountain, where it may be seen
by all nations far and near: “And in the last days
the mountain oj the house oj the Lord shall be prepared
on the top oj mountains, and it shall be exalted above all
hills and all nations shall flow unto it.” It shall be
recognized as the house of the Lord, for the people will
2 Cfr. above, pp. 19 sq.
3 Matt, xxviii, 19; Mark xvi, 16.
4 Matt, xviii, 17.

76

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

say: “Come and let us go up to the mountain of the
Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob.” 5
b) When praying for His Apostles, Our Lord said:
“And not for them only do I pray, but for them also
who through their word shall believe in me; that they
all may be one, as thou Father in me and I in thee;
that they also may be one in us that the world may
believe that thou hast sent me.” 0 Christ prays that
His disciples be so closely united to one another that
this very union will be a proof of His divine mission.
In a word, He prays that His Church, the society of
His disciples in all ages, shall be recognized because of
its perfect unity.
c) In Holy Scripture, the Church is always repre­
sented as an external society that may be known by all;
it is a kingdom, a city, a house, a sheep-fold, a field.
It is also a mustard seed that grows into a tree filling
the whole earth, and is easily recognized as such, for
all the birds of heaven (z. e., all nations) fill its
branches and feed upon it. In fact, almost every page
of the New Testament and the prophecies of the Old
depict the Church as an external society so eminently
visible that even “jools shall not err therein.” 7
III. From Tradition. The Fathers were wont to
compare the Church to the sun and the moon, because,
like them she sheds her light upon the whole world and
is known to all peoples, st. athanasius, e.g., says:
6 Is. ii, 3.
cJohn xvii, 19 sq.
" Is. xxxv. S.

ATTRIBUTES OF THE CHURCH

77

“The Church of Christ in her splendor illuminates the
world and remains forever as the sun and moon.”8
st. John Chrysostom says:
“Neither is the sun so
resplendent nor the moon so bright as those things which
pertain to the Church, for the house of God is upon
the pinnacle of the mountains.” 9 Even more strik­
ing are the words of st. augustine: “When anyone
would see the moon, people say to him: Behold the
moon; there it is! And if there are any who do not
know where to look, it is pointed out with the finger.
Now, my brethren, do we thus point out the Church?
Is it not plain? Is it not evident? Do not all peoples
know it?” 10
§ 4. Objections Answered
Objection I.—Our Lord Himself indicates the in­
visible character of His Church when He compares it to
a hidden treasure: “The Kingdom oj heaven is like
unto a treasure hidden in a field.” 1 What is hidden is
undoubtedly invisible.
Answer.—It has been noted already 2 that in this
and similar passages the kingdom is presented in its
inner spiritual aspect, and therefore is not to be identi­
fied with the Church, which is the kingdom in its ex­
ternal or social aspect. The parable teaches us the
8 “In Psalm,” Ixviii, 38; P. G., 27, 391.
0 “In Isaiam,” ii, 2 ; P. G., 56, 29.
10 “In Epist. loannis ad Parthos,” P. L., 35, 1988.
1 Matt, xiii, 44.
2 Cf. above pp. 52.

78

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

inestimable value of the blessings to be obtained in and
through the Church; they are such that every other
good must be accounted as nothing in comparison.
Even if the parable be referred directly to the Church,
it proves nothing against its visibility; the treasure was
not invisible, since it was found and recognized as a
veritable treasure, for which the finder sacrificed all his
possessions. If the parable be applied to the Church,
it clearly teaches that the man who has found the true
Church of Christ must be ready to sacrifice everything
to embrace it.
/
Objection II.—On another occasion Our Lord dis­
tinctly announced that His kingdom would be purely
spiritual,—a kingdom in the hearts of His faith­
ful: “The kingdom of God cometh not with obser­
vation . . . For lo, the kingdom of God is within
you F3
Answer.—The words quoted in the objection were
spoken by Our Lord in answer to a question put by
the Pharisees, who had long expected the Messias to
come as an earthly king with all the trappings of roy­
alty. They expected Him to restore the lost glory of
Israel and subjugate the surrounding gentile nations.
They now ask when these things shall come to pass:
“Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of
God should come, he answered them and said: The
kingdom of God cometh not with observation . . . the
kingdom of God is within you F The question asked
by the Pharisees was probably intended as an insinua\

3 Luke xvii, 20.

ATTRIBUTES OF THE CHURCH

79

tion that Christ was not the Messias, since He did not
come as they had expected. Whatever the purpose of
the question, it implied a twofold error; (1) that the
Messianic kingdom had not yet begun, and (2) that it
would be a great earthly power to rule the world. Our
Lord corrected the latter mistake by telling them that
the kingdom of God cometh not with observation, i. e.,
it will not be clothed with the outward signs of earthly
power and glory. He also corrected the first error by
announcing that the kingdom of God was already in
their midst, since He, its founder, had already begun
His mission on earth: “The kingdom of God is within
you.”
The best Scripture scholars, both Catholic and non­
Catholic,4 agree that the Greek phrase tVros υμ,ων should
be rendered among you, instead of within you, as the
Latin and English texts have it. Hence the whole ob­
jection rests upon a faulty translation that makes Our
Lord’s words ridiculous. He was speaking to the
Pharisees, who rejected Him and sought in every way
to turn the people against Him. Then if the kingdom
of God is the reign of Christ in the soul, we hear Him
telling these Pharisees that they already possess this
kingdom in their hearts: “The kingdom of God is
within you.”
Objection III.—The Church must be invisible,
since the worship due to God is purely internal and
invisible; a worship in spirit only, for Christ has said:
“God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore
4 Among others we may mention Rosenmillcr and Moffat.

80

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

him in spirit and truth.” 5 Where then is the need of
an external visible society of worshippers?
Answer.—The objection illustrates the old saying
that “who proves too much, proves nothing.” If the
worship of God is purely internal and spiritual, as the
objection asserts, why should any Christians have
churches, ministers, sermons or public worship?
Scripture scholars do not agree in their interpreta­
tion of the words “in spirit and truth.” The circum­
stances under which they were spoken will give some in­
sight into their meaning. They were addressed to the
Samaritan woman, who had asked Our Lord about the
legality of sacrifice offered on Mount Garizim. He
tells her that the worship of the Old Law, both in Jeru­
salem and on Mount Garizim, must soon give way to a
worship in spirit and truth. Worship in spirit is prob­
ably a sincere worship, welling up from the heart, as
opposed to any mere formal worship. A similar con­
trast is found in Isaias, where God complains of His
people because “with their lips they glorijy me, but
their heart is jar from me.” 0 In like manner, worship
in truth is opposed either to the worship of false gods,
or to the ceremonies of the Old Law, which were but
types and figures of the realities of the New. There
is not a word in the whole passage that can be con­
strued into an argument against the visibility of the
Church.
Objection IV.—St. Paul teaches the invisibility of
6 John iv, 24.
« Is. xxix, 13.

ATTRIBUTES OF THE CHURCH

81

the Church by contrasting it with the Synagogue, the
visible Church of the Old Law. He says that, in com­
ing to the Church, the Hebrews have not “come to a
mountain that might be totiched, and to a burning fire,
a whirlwind and darkness . . . but you are come to
mount Sion and to the city of the living God, the
heavenly Jerusalem.” 7
Answer.—In this passage St. Paul shows the superi­
ority of the Church over the Synagogue by contrasting
the circumstances under which the two laws were
promulgated: one, being a law of fear, was promulgated
on Mount Sinai amid lightnings, whirlwinds, and dark­
ness; the other, being a law of love, was promulgated
from Mount Sion, the symbol of heavenly peace and
joy. “The latter dispensation is not, as was the
Mosaic, severe, onerous, and minatory; but promises
salvation, and instills joy, peace, patience and confi­
dence.” 8 There is no contrast between a visible
Synagogue and an invisible Church; both are symbol­
ized by a mountain and therefore equally visible.
Objection V.—St. Peter admonishes the faithful to
be “as living stones built up, a spiritual house.”9
Therefore he conceives the Church to be an invisible
spiritual society.
Answer.—A society spiritual in every respect would
necessarily be invisible but the Church is not such
a society. It is spiritual because it is striving for
7 Hob. xii, 18 sq.
8 Bloomfield, “Greek Testament with Notes,” Vol. II, p. 472.
0 1 Peter ii, 5.

82

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

a spiritual good and the means to that end are
in large measure spiritual. It is also a visible society
composed of men,—living stones,—externally organized
and using visible signs and ceremonies in its worship.
Objection VI.—In the Apostles’ Creed we say:
“I believe in the holy Catholic Church!” Therefore
the Church is an object of faith and must be invisible,
for otherwise it would be an object of knowledge.
What we see and know cannot be an object of faith.
Answer.—It is by no means certain that an object of
knowledge cannot also be an object of faith; but even
granting that it cannot be, it does not follow that the
Church must be invisible. The Church has a human
element that is visible and capable of being known. It
also has a divine element which is invisible and there­
fore capable of being an object of faith. This fact may
be illustrated by the example of St. Thomas the Apostle,
who saw and knew Our Lord’s human nature and be­
lieved in His divinity.
Objection VII.—A body must participate in the
nature of its head, but Christ, the Head of the Church,
is invisible. Therefore, the Church, which is His mys­
tical body, must also be invisible.
Answer.—Christ in his human nature is visible;
therefore, the Church, His mystical body, must also be
visible in its human element. Christ is said to be in­
visible because He is no longer on earth by bodily pres­
ence, but that does not change the nature of His body.

CHAPTER III
PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

Since the Church is a society that may be recognized
by all, it must have certain visible characteristics, so
distinctive that they cannot be found together in any
other society. In the present chapter we shall consider
the nature of these characteristics, or properties, and
prove that the Church of Christ possesses them. In
the following chapter we shall determine in how far they
serve as marks to identify the true Church.
Cardinal Bellarmine enumerates fifteen characteris­
tics of the Church that may be used as distinguishing
marks; Bozius, an Oratorian, mentions ninety-nine,
but all of these, as well as those mentioned by Cardinal
Bellarmine, are simply different aspects of the four
properties set forth in the Nicene Creed; viz., Unity,
Sanctity, Catholicity and Apostolicity,—“I believe in
one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Churchy 1
ART. I. UNITY OF THE CHURCH

Synopsis.—1. Nature of unity.—2. Unity of gov­
ernment.—3. Unity of faith.—4. Unity of worship.

§ 1. The Natzire oj Unity

Unity may be taken in opposition to plurality or to
1 Denzinger, n. 86.
83

84

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

division. When applied to the Church in the former
sense, it means that there is but one true Church of
Christ. This is often called unicity, to distinguish it
from unity in the second sense, which means that the
one true Church is not subject to division of any kind
in regard to things essential. The unicity of the Church
was established by proving that Christ founded but one
society, which He called His Church.1 We shall now
consider the unity of the Church, by which its members
throughout the world are so bound together as to form
a society that is justly said to be one.
Bonds of Unity. No material bonds,—no fetters
of steel,—can bind men together in a society. This
must be accomplished by moral bonds that unite the
souls of men through the faculties of intellect and will.
Intellects are united by the acceptance of a common
doctrine; wills are joined by submission to a common
authority. Therefore the very existence of a society
depends upon this twofold unity,—a unity of govern­
ment to which all members must submit, and a unity of
doctrines proposed to and accepted by all. From these
two bonds of unity a third necessarily follows. The
internal acts of man naturally tend to manifest them­
selves externally; his internal acts as the member of a
society,—his submission to authority and his accept­
ance of the doctrine proposed,—will be expressed by
external acts, for the most part symbolic. These sym­
bolic actions constitute the ritual or ceremonial of the
society, which must be essentially the same for all mem1 Cf above pp 37.

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

85

bers, since it expresses acceptance of one and the same
doctrine and submission to one and the same authority.
Moreover, every member must strive in some measure
to attain the end for which the society exists, for he
who rejects the purpose of a society, thereby rejects
the society itself and ceases to be a member. But to
attain an end, certain means must be employed which
are adapted to that end and, therefore, essentially the
same for all members.
Applying these principles to the Church, we readily
see that it must have (c) unity of government or social
unity; (6) unity of doctrine taught and accepted or
unity of faith, and (c) unity of external acts symbol­
izing its doctrines and government, and also unity in
the use of means necessary to attain the end for which
it exists. As the Church is a religious society, all these
external acts pertain to the worship of God and their
unity constitutes a unity of worship.
Errors. No one denies that the Church of Christ
must possess unity of some sort. The Scriptures pro­
claim this fact so clearly and persistently that not even
the pseudo-Reformers of the sixteenth century or their
followers have ever dared to question it; but opinions
differ widely when it comes to defining the nature of this
unity. Protestants, for the most part, maintain that
this necessary unity consists in the union of all Chris­
tians with Christ by faith, hope, and charity, in obedi­
ence to Christ as the one supreme Pastor, and in the
worship of the one true God. This, they say, consti­
tutes the unity of doctrine, organization, and worship.

86

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

The Orthodox Churches of the East teach that suffi­
cient unity is had when Christians are united by faith
and by the law of God in the use of the same Sacraments
under the authority of the hierarchy. But they main­
tain that this unity is not broken by the division of
the Church into a number of totally independent na­
tional churches. “The separateness of their visible or­
ganization does not hinder them from being all spirit­
ually great members of the one body of the Universal
Church, from having one Head, Christ, and one spirit
of faith and grace.” 2 Practically the same doctrine is
maintained by advocates of the Branch Theory in the
Anglican Communion. According to them the uni­
versal Church is composed of the Greek, the Roman,
and the Anglican Communions, entirely independent,
yet forming one society. These various errors are
sufficiently refuted by proving that the Church of
Christ must ever be essentially one (a) in government,
(6) in faith, and (c) in worship.
§ 2. Unity of Government
Preliminary Remarks. Unity of government,
known also as social unity, requires that the members
of the Church and all its parts be so united under one
supreme authority as to form but one single society.
This excludes any division by which parts of the Church
would have their own independent government; it also
2 Philaret’s Longer Catechism of the Eastern Church, n. 261; cfr.
Schaff, “Creeds of Christendom,” Vol. II, p. 485.

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

87

excludes any mere federation of independent churches.
Unity of government is by far the most important of
the unities, because without it no other form of real
unity could be maintained for any length of time.
Protestants in general seem to hold that some form of
unity is necessary for the Church of Christ, but the un­
ending multiplicity of sects forces them to adopt the
theory of Jurieu, who taught that “the universal church
consists of all societies agreeing in fundamental doc­
trines, even though mutally excommunicated and an­
athematized; that the only true unity of communion
consists in spiritual union with Christ, and therefore,
that the formation of new sects is in no degree blam­
able.” 1
Many Anglicans of the High Church party follow the
lead of Palmer and Pusey in admittting that unity of
government in the Catholic sense is at least desirable,
and perhaps even a matter of divine ordination; but
they deny that it is so essentially necessary that it may
not be dispensed with for grave reasons.2 Such rea­
sons, of course, were found at the time of the Greek
schism and again at the time of the so-called Reforma­
tion in England; but efforts should be made to restore
the lost unity. These High Churchmen look upon the
Anglican Church as “providentially called to be the
healer of the breach for a divided Christianity.”3
Many societies have been formed within their ranks for
1 P. Jurîcu, “Vrai Système de l’Église.”
2 Cf. William Palmer, “Treatise on the Church,” Vol. I, p. 71 sq.
8 Cf. “The World’s Parliament of Religions,” Vol. II, p. 1387.

88

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

the laudable purpose of bringing about such a “healing
of the breach.”

Thesis.—The Church of Christ is necessarily one
by unity of government
The doctrine set forth in the above thesis is a dogma
of the Church defined by the Vatican Council: “In
order to preserve the multitude of the faithful in the
unity of faith and communion, Christ placed the blessed
Peter at the head of the other Apostles, thus making
him a perpetual source and visible foundation of this
twofold unity” 4 Pius IX gave expression to the same
doctrine in these words: “There is no other Catholic
Church save that built upon the one Peter and united
into one compact body by the unity of faith and char­
ity.” 5
Proofs. I. From Reason. Unity of government
means simply that the Church must have one supreme
authority, to which all its members and its every part
are subject. This is really a self-evident truth that
needs no demonstration, because the very moment the
Church becomes divided between two or more supreme
authorities, it ceases to be one society; there is no longer
one, but several churches, contrary to the truth already
established that the Church of Christ is and must ever
remain one.
II. From Scripture. Sacred Scripture constantly
4 Denzingcr, n. 1821.
5 Denzinger, n. 1686.

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

89

represents the Church as a kingdom, a city, a house.
Therefore, it was instituted, and must continue to exist,
after the fashion of a kingdom, a city, or a house; but
Christ Himself has said: “Every kingdom divided
against itself shall be brought to desolation, and house
upon house shall fall.” G And again: Every city or
house divided against itself shall not stand.” 7 There­
fore, if the Church is to continue until the end of time,
as Christ has promised, it must ever remain a united
kingdom.
Our Lord also beautifully illustrated the unity of
His Church when He compared it to a sheep-fold by
saying: “Other sheep I have that are not of this fold;
them also 1 must bring and they shall hear my voice,
and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.” 8
What more impressive comparison could have been ad­
dressed to a pastoral people? “All the sheep of a flock
cling together. If they are momentarily separated,
they are impatient till reunited. They follow in the
same path. They feed on the same pasture. They
obey the voice of the same shepherd, and fly from the
voice of strangers.” 9
Our Lord not only foretold that His Church should be
one; He also prayed that it might possess the most per­
fect unity. He prayed that it be one even as He and
the Father are one: “I pray for them also . . . who
c
7
8
9

Luke xi, 17.
St. Matt, xii, 25.
John x, 16.
Cardinal Gibbons, “Faith of our Fathers,” p. 7.

90

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

shall believe in me, that they all may be one, as thou,
Father in me, and I in thee . . . I in them and thou in
me THAT THEY MAY BE MADE PERFECT IN ONE.” 10
Does a chimerical Church composed of innumerable
warring sects fulfill this prayer of Christ for perfect
unity?
St. Paul always presents the Church as the mystical
body of Christ, and likens it to the natural body in
man: “As the body is one and hath many members,
and all the members of the body, whereas they are
many, yet are one body, so also is Christ. For in one
Spirit were we all baptized into one body.” 11 There­
fore, according to St. Paul, the unity of the Church
must be similar to that of a human body wherein all the
members are so united that if one be separated it loses
the life of the body, and if the body itself be divided it
perishes. So likewise the Church, if it be divided, must
perish, and any one separated from the body of the
Church ceases to be a member.
III. From Tradition. The Fathers always insisted
upon the unity of the Church in the strongest terms,
and stoutly defended it against the authors of schism,
whom they accounted the most wicked of men because
they sought to rend the seamless garment of Christ. In
this they followed the example of St. Paul, who classes
schism along with adultery, murder, and idolatry:
“The works oj the flesh are manifest, which are fornica­
tion . . . idolatry . . . sects (schisms') . . . envies,
10 John xvii, 20 sq.
111 Cor. xii, 12 sq.

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

91

murders.” 12 A few quotations from the early Fathers
will suffice:
a) St. Ignatius Martyr: “Be not deceived; if any­
one follow the author of a schism, he shall not possess
the inheritance of the heavenly kingdom.” 13
b) St. Irenaeus: “Those who cause schism . . .
rend and divide the great and glorious body of Christ,
and so far as they can, destroy it. . . . No reparation
they can make will ever equal the evil of their
schism.” 14
c) St. Cyprian: “God is one, and Christ is one, and
His Church is one; the faith is one and the people is
one, joined into a substantial unity of body by the
cement of concord. Unity cannot be severed; nor can
the one body be separated by division, nor torn asun­
der.” 15 “This sacrament of unity, this bond of con­
cord inseparably cohering, is set forth where in the
Gospel the coat of the Lord Jesus Christ is not at all
divided nor cut, but is received as an entire garment.
. . . Who then is so wicked and so faithless; who is so
insane with the madness of discord, that he should be­
lieve the unity of God can be divided, or should dare
to rend the garment of the Lord,—the Church of
Christ?” 16
d) St. Gregory Nazianzen: “We are all one body
12 Gal. v, 19-20.
13“Epist. ad Philatel.,” Ill; Funk, I, 267.
14 “Adversus Hæreses,” IV, 33 ; P. G., 7, 1076.
15 “De Unitate Ecclesiae,” 23; P. L. 4, 517.
10 “De Unitate Ecclesiæ,” 7, 8; P. L., 4, 504, 506.

92

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

in Christ, each one a member of Christ, and all mem­
bers one of another. Some being placed in command,
govern; others obey and are governed. All do not
have the same duty, for to rule and to be ruled are not
the same, yet all are conjoined and built up by the
same Spirit into one body in the one Christ.” 17
§ 3. Unity oj Faith
Preliminary Remarks. Faith necessarily implies
a doctrine taught (objective jaith), its acceptance by
those to whom it is taught (subjective or internal jaithj,
and an outward manifestation, or profession of that in­
ternal faith. Accordingly, unity of faith will be three­
fold,—unity of doctrines proposed, unity in their ac­
ceptance on the part of the faithful, and unity in their
outward profession. Unity of doctrine and unity in the
profession of faith are essential to the unity of the
Church, but it is a disputed question whether unity of
internal faith is also necessary. It must be well under­
stood that there is no question about the necessity of
internal faith for salvation. Christ plainly stated:
“He that believeth not shall be condemned.” 1 The
question here raised concerns the necessity of internal
faith for the unity of the Church, and as the same ques­
tion arises under a slightly different form in connection
with membership in the Church, it will there find suffi­
cient consideration.2
17 “Orationes,” 32; P. G., 36, 186.
1 Mark xvi, 16.
2 Cf. below, pp. 233.

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

93

Protestants, following their fundamental principle of
private interpretation, deny that unity of faith in the
Catholic sense is necessary in the Church. At first
they taught that unity of faith is had by the acceptance
of all doctrines contained in Holy Scripture; but pri­
vate interpretation of the Scriptures led to such con­
fusion of opposing and contradictory doctrines that
some other theory had to be invented. This was found
in the distinction between fundamental and nonjundamental doctrines. According to this theory, fun­
damental doctrines are those which must be accepted
by all who would retain the name of Christian; non­
fundamental doctrines are such as need not be accepted
even though clearly revealed in Holy Scripture. It is
evident that such a distinction cannot be maintained.
Christ sent forth His Apostles with the command to
teach “all things whatsoever I have commanded ” and
all men were obliged to accept this teaching in its
entirety without distinction of fundamental and non­
fundamental: “He that believeth not shall be con­
demned.” Moreover, the very essence of faith is the
acceptance of truth on the authority of God; therefore
every doctrine must be accepted in its entirety, once
it is known to be the revealed word of God. He who
rejects a single truth known to be revealed by God is
guilty of blasphemy because such rejection is a denial of
God’s veracity.
Even in practice the theory of fundamental doctrines
failed to produce that unity for which it was invoked;
there could be no agreement in deciding what are fun­

94

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

damental, and what are non-fundamental doctrines.
Waterland, a Protestant theologian, says: “There are
almost as many rules for determining fundamentals as
there are different sects or parties.” 3 As a conse­
quence, Protestants for the most part now maintain
that it matters little what one believes, provided he
lead a good moral life, and a dogmatic religion is con­
sidered a relic of unenlightened ages. Faith is still de­
manded, but it is not faith in the Catholic sense; it is
simply an acceptance of Christ as Saviour, with con­
fidence in His merits and in His will to save. In the
Protestant sense, faith differs little, if at all, from hope.
Catholic theologians also distinguish between fundamental
and non-fundamental doctrines, but with them fundamental
doctrines are either those from which other truths may be
deduced by reason, or which must be known and believed
explicitly by all. Non-fundamental doctrines are those
which need not be known by all; it is sufficient if they be
implicitly believed in the general will to believe all that God
has revealed. But once known to be revealed truths, they
must be accepted without hesitation or doubt. Such a dis­
tinction is immediately seen to be reasonable and necessary,
because many persons have neither the opportunity nor the
abilityy to know all revealed truths,

Thesis.—The Church of Christ is necessarily one
by unity of doctrine and by unity in the
profession of that doctrine
The proposed thesis is a doctrine defined by the
3 Daniel Waterland, “Works,” Vol. VIII, p. 90 (old ed.).
Murray “De Ecclesia,” Disp. XT, n. 401 sq.

Cf.

TV '

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

95

Vatican Council: “The eternal Pastor and Bishop of
souls decreed to establish a holy Church, in which all
the faithful should be held together by the bonds of
one faith and a common charity . . . and preserved
in the unity of faith and communion by the min­
istry OF A UNITED PRIESTHOOD.” 4

A. Unity of Doctrine.
Proofs. I. From Scripture. Christ commissioned
His Apostles to “teach all natioris ... all things what­
soever I have commanded you.” 5 He also promised
to be with them “all days even to the consummation oj
the world,” 0 and to send upon them the Spirit of Truth
to abide with them forever, and to bring to their mind
all things whatsoever He had taught them.7 Conse­
quently the Church must teach all the doctrines com­
mitted to her; she must teach them to all nations and
at all times, even to the consummation of the world,—
a mission made possible by the abiding presence of the
Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth. But in thus pro­
claiming all the doctrines of Christ, to all people, at
all times, the Church enjoys the most perfect unity;
her doctrines are the same at all times and in all places.
She cannot teach contradictory doctrines in different
places or at different times; she cannot even teach
a part of her doctrines in one place or in one age, and
4 Dcnzinger, n. 1821.
5 Matt, xxviii, 19-20.
® Matt, xxviii, 20.
7 John xiv, 16 sq.

96

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

another part in another place or another age. She
must teach all truths at all times and in all places.
St. Paul admonishes the Galatians in most emphatic
terms that there is but one doctrine to be received by
all: “Though we, or an angel jrom heaven, preach a
gospel to you besides that which we have preached to
you, let him be anathema ... I say to you again: Ij
any one preach to you a gospel besides that which you
have received, let him be anathema.” 8 These words
of St. Paul prove that the doctrines of the Church can
suffer no change because they are not from man but
“by the revelation oj Jesus Christ.” St. Jude like­
wise admonishes the faithful “to contend earnestly jor
the faith once delivered to the saints.” 9 It is a faith
delivered once for all, incapable of improvement, ad­
dition or change of any sort; it is the faith in which,
as St. Paul says, they must “stand fast and hold the tra­
ditions which you have learned whether by word or
by our epistle. . . . One Lord, one faith and one Bap­
tism.” 10
II. From Tradition, a) St. Irenaeus treats at
length on the unity of faith in the Church; after men­
tioning the doctrines handed down from the Apostles,
he says that the Church “proclaims them, and teaches
them, and hands them down with perfect harmony as
though she possessed but one mouth. For although the
8 Gal. i, 8-12.
9 Jude 3.
10 1 Thess. ii, 14; Ephes, iv, 5.

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

97

languages of the world differ, yet the import of the
tradition is one and the same. For the churches which
have been established in Germany do not believe or
hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain,
nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in
Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been
established in the central regions of the world. But as
the sun is one and the same throughout the whole world,
so also the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere
and enlightens all men that are willing to come to the
knowledge of truth. . . . The Catholic Church pos­
sesses one and the same faith throughout the whole
world.” 11
b) St. Cyprian says: “God is one, Christ is one;
His Church is one and the faith is one.” In the same
work he also says: “The Church flooded with the
light of the Lord, sheds forth her rays over the whole
world, yet it is one light that is everywhere diffused,
nor is the unity of the body separated.” 12
c) Tcrtullian: “The Apostles proclaimed the same
doctrine of the same faith to the nations. Then they
in like manner founded churches in every city, from
which all other churches, one after another, derived
their traditions of the faith and the seeds of doctrine,
and are every day deriving them that they may be­
come churches. Indeed it is only on this account that
they will be able to deem themselves Apostolic.” 13
11 “Adversus Hæreses,” I, 10; P. G., 7, 550.
12 “De Unitate Ecclesiæ,” XXXIII, v; P. L., 4, 517, 502.
13 “De Præscriptionibus,” XX; P. L., 2, 32.

98

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

B. Unity of Profession.
Unity in the profession of faith is a natural con­
sequence of the unity of doctrine; a mere corollary to
be explained rather than proved. Members of a so­
ciety must accept its principles, or teachings, at least
in word and action, for he who rejects the very prin­
ciples of a society by word or act, thereby rejects the
society itself and ceases to be a member. Therefore,
every member of the Church must accept its teachings,
i.e., he must make at least an outward profession of
faith7 “for with the heart we believe unto justice; but
with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation.” 14
Since this outward profession concerns the one faith
taught by the Church, it will be essentially the same for
all its members; in other words, there will be unity in
the outward profession of faith.
Unity in the profession of faith also follows from
the fact that every member of a society must co­
operate to some extent in attaining the end which it
seeks to realize; therefore, he must use, according to
his position in the society, the means necessary to
attain that end. But in the Church the very use of
those means,—the Sacraments, sacrifice, prayer, and
other acts of worship.—not only demand, but in fact
arc, outward professions of faith, and that the one
faith taught throughout the world.
It were useless to quote individual Fathers on this
14 Rom. Σ, 10.

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

99

question for it is a well-known fact that the Church
has always demanded the strictest unity in the pro­
fession of faith; those who refused to profess even a
single doctrine, were condemned as heretics who had
already ceased to be members, because, as St. Paul
says, they are “condemned by their own judgment.” 15
For this reason Tertullian said: “Those who are here­
tics cannot be Christians.” 1G

§ 4. Unity of Worship
Preliminary Remarks. Unity of worship, known
also as liturgical unity, refers especially to acts of pub­
lic worship, in which the faithful participate in their
capacity as members of a society, the Church. It ap­
plies only to those things that are of divine institution,
which may be summed up in the Sacrifice of the Mass
and the Sacraments. Unity is not necessary in those
things which Christ left to the discretion of the Church,
to be changed according to the needs of time and place.
The various rites used in the Church in the celebration
of the Holy Eucharist, or in the administration of the
Sacraments, do not affect the unity of worship pro­
vided the essential nature of the Sacrifice and the Sac­
raments, as instituted by Christ, be left intact. Neither
is unity of worship disturbed by the use or the neglect
of devotions which are not essential, such as the invo15 Tit. iii, 10, 11.
10 “De Praescriptionibus,” XXXVII; P. L., 2, 51.

100

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

cation of saints, prayers for the dead, pilgrimages and
the like. Denial of their efficacy or lawfulness would
constitute heresy, which is opposed to the unity of
faith, but lack of uniformity in their use does not
break the unity of worship. Practically, then, unity of
worship means that all members of the Church be in­
itiated by the same sacramental rite of Baptism, par­
ticipate in the fruits of the same sacraments, and wor­
ship God by the same Eucharistic sacrifice.
According to Protestant teaching, all men are free to
worship God according to the dictates of their own
conscience. This doctrine is widely proclaimed today
as “freedom of conscience” or “freedom of worship.”
It simply means that every man is free, not only to
believe according to his own interpretation of the
Scriptures, but also to worship God in his own way.
This either denies that Our Lord established any def­
inite form of worship in the New Law, or maintains
that we cannot know with certainty what it is, for
surely no Christian could believe that he is free to wor­
ship as he pleases, if he admits that Christ has estab­
lished a definite form of worship to be used by His
followers.

Thesis.—The Church of Christ is necessarily one
by unity of worship
Proofs. I. From Reason. Unity in the outward
profession of faith and in the use of the means neces­
sary to attain the purposes for which the Church was

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

101

instituted, constitutes unity of worship, because in the
Church, which is a religious society, all these things
pertain to worship. Furthermore, no one can deny
that God has the right to demand one and the same
form of worship from all His faithful children in the
New Law as He did in the Old. The fact that unity
of worship was demanded in the Old Law makes it very
probable that a like unity is demanded in the more
perfect Law of Christ, which was prefigured by the
rites and institutions of the Old Law.
II. From Scripture. A comparison of the Church
with the Synagogue makes it very probable that one
form of worship is demanded of all the faithful in the
New Law; the words of Christ made it certain. All
men must be initiated into the Church by one and the
same sacramental rite: “Teach all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Ghost .” 1 For this reason St. Paul says:
“In one Spirit were we all baptized into one body F 12
All must likewise partake of the same Eucharistic
Bread: “Amen I say unto you; except you eat the
flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall
not have life in you.” 3 St. Paul also teaches that the
reception of the one Eucharistic Bread is not only a
sign, but also a wonderful source of that unity whereby
the faithful are united with one another and with Christ
their Head: “And the bread which we break, is it
1 Matt, xxviii, 19.
2 1 Cor. xii, 13.
3 John vi, 54.

102

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

not the partaking of the body of the Lord? For we
being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake
of the one bread.”4
At the institution of the Holy Eucharist, Christ said
to the Apostles: “Do this for a commemoration of
me.”5 And again: “As often as you shall eat this
bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death
of the Lord until he come.” 6 This is the institution
of that clean oblation which shall be offered in every
place from the rising of the sun even to the going
down,7—one and the same sacrificial worship to be
offered at all times and in all places, until He come.
Unity of worship in the Sacrifice of the Mass and in
the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist are ex­
pressly demanded by Christ Himself; the necessity for
unity in the use of the other Sacraments is equally evi­
dent from the very nature of a Sacrament. Christ
alone has authority to say how grace shall be given;
He alone can institute Sacraments to confer it, and no
one can change them, abolish them, or add to their
number. They must remain the same for all men at
all times. But since the Sacrifice of the Mass and the
use of the same Sacraments constitute the essential
elements of worship, that worship must be the same for
the whole Church, i. e., there must be essential unity
of worship.
4 1 Cor. x, 16 sq.
0 Luke xxii, 19.
8 1 Cor. xi, 26.
7 Mai. i, 11.

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

103

ART. II. HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH

Synopsis.—1 Nature

of

holiness.—2.

Physical

HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH.----3. MORAL HOLINESS OF THE

Church.—4. Manifestative

holiness.—5.

Objections

ANSWERED.

§ 1. Nature of Holiness

The English word holiness originally meant whole­
ness, soundness, or health. It is now used almost ex­
clusively as an equivalent of the Latin sanctitas, from
the verb sancire,—to set apart, to dedicate. Therefore
a thing is holy (sanctum) when set apart or devoted in
some manner to God, and holiness or sanctity is the
state or condition of the thing thus set apart and de­
voted to God. Holiness also includes the idea of being
pleasing to God because of some union or conformity
with Him. Finally, that which serves to manifest
holiness is also said to be holy. Hence we have a three­
fold holiness,—physical, moral, and manifestative.
a) Physical HoUness consists in the consecration or
dedication of a thing in some manner to the honor and
glory of God. It is also called real because it is often
connected with inanimate things (res in Latin). In
this sense a church, an altar, or a chalice is said to be
holy. Persons are also holy in this sense if consecrated
to God in some special manner as, for example, by Holy
Orders or religious vows.
tx f ‘
If the person or thing consecrated to God is instru­
mental in producing moral holiness in others, it is said

104

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

to possess active or causative holiness; otherwise it has
mere passive or ontological1 holiness. The Sacra­
ments, the laws of God, the precepts of the Church and
the hierarchy, all possess active holiness because they
are instruments for producing holiness in the souls of
men. A chalice, on the other hand, possesses mere
passive or ontological holiness.
b) Moral Holiness consists in the consecration of
the will to God by conforming it to His will. Moralists
usually define it as that moral uprightness by which
a person is made like to God and united with Him
through charity. It is also called personal holiness,
since it belongs to persons only. In the present order
of things, all personal sanctity involves divine grace
and is, therefore, supernatural.
c) Manijestativc Holiness, as the name indicates, is
any external evidence that a person or thing is holy
and pleasing in the sight of God. As applied to the
Church, it signifies rather the abiding power to pro­
duce such evidence when needed, and since miracles
are practically the only proofs of sanctity, it may be
defined as the permanent power of the Church to per­
form miracles when needed to manifest her physical
or personal holiness.
In the Apostles’ Creed we profess our faith in “the
holy Catholic Church” The Vatican Council has
also declared that the “eternal Pastor . . . decreed to
establish a holy Church.” 2 It is therefore an article
1 From the Greek οι·τα, things.
2 Dcnzinger, n. 1S21.

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

105

of faith that the Church of Christ is holy, but in what
particular sense is not defined. Theologically, it is cer­
tain that the Church must be holy in every respect.
Physical sanctity, both passive and active, is an essen­
tial property; personal and manifestative sanctity also
belong to the Church, if not as essential elements, then
certainly as qualities contributing to her perfection ac­
cording to the will of Christ.

§ 2. Physical Holiness oj the Church

Thesis.—The Church of Christ possesses physical
holiness, both passive and active
I. Passive Holiness. The Church of Christ must
be eminently holy, since her Divine Founder is infinite
Holiness itself, and because the very purpose of her
existence is eminently holy. She possesses passive or
ontological holiness by virtue of her intimate union with
Christ. The Church is the mystical body of Christ;
therefore, the union between Christ and the Church
must be as intimate as that between head and members
in a physical body. Again, Christ is the spouse of His
Church and His union with it is proclaimed the exem­
plar for that union which should exist between husband
and wife, who are “two in one flesh.” 1 The only
union between God and a creature more intimate than
that between Christ and His Church, is the union of
the Word with human nature in the person of Jesus
1 Ephes, v, 23.

106

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

Christ. Hence the Church possesses ontological holi­
ness to a degree surpassed only by the human nature of
our divine Lord. Well, then, does St. Paul say:
“Christ loved the Church and delivered himself zip for
it that he might sanctify it, cleansing it . . . that
he might present it to himselj a glorious Church not
having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it
should be holy and without blemish.” 2 Clement
of Alexandria, writing of the Church, says: “Shall we
not with propriety call the Church holy, made for the
honor of God, sacred to God, of great value, and not
constructed by mechanical art, but by the will of God
fashioned into a temple?” 3
The ontological holiness of the Church consists prin­
cipally in the union of its members with Christ through
Baptism and the Holy Eucharist. By Baptism the
members of the Church are engrafted, as it were, into
the body of Christ,—coincorporated with Christ, as St.
Paul says,'1 and as Christ Himself indicates when He
says: “7 am the vine, you are the branches.” 5 This
union is strengthened and preserved by the Holy Eu­
charist so that the members of the Church ever remain
“members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones.” 0
They become “a chosen generation ... a holy nation,
a purchased people.” 7 On this account St. Paul ad2 Ephes, v, 25-27.
3 “Stromata,” VII, 5; P. G., 9, 438*
4 Rom. vi, S (Greek text).
6 John xv, S.
0 Ephes, v, 30.
7 1 Peter ii, 9.

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

107

dresses all the faithful as “saints, i. e., holy ones,” 8 be­
cause all members of the Church retain in some degree
this ontological holiness of union with Christ, so long
as they remain within the bosom of the Church.
II. Active Holiness. There can be no question in
regard to the active holiness of the Church, because its
sole reason for existence is to produce sanctity in her
members and thus lead them to eternal life. Among
the many means at her command to produce sanctity
are the Sacraments, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the
sacramentals, the preaching of the Gospel, the authority
to teach and govern, and even the hierarchy, as repre­
sentatives of Christ and bearers of His Person, have
a wonderful power for the sanctification of men. This
sanctifying power of the Church is symbolized by the
“leaven which a woman took ami hid in three measures
oj meal till the whole was leavened.”9

§ 3. Moral Holiness oj the Church
Preliminary Remarks. Moral or personal sanc­
tity may be either perject or imperfect, and both admit
of varying degrees. Perfect sanctity is the effect of
sanctifying grace and the infused virtues of faith, hope,
and charity; imperfect sanctity requires the infused
virtues of faith and hope, and the exercise of, at least,
some acts made supernatural by the aid of actual grace.
Moral sanctity, being a quality of the soul, can be
8 Philip, i, 1 ; 2 Cor. i, 1.
9 Luke xiii, 21; Matt, xiii, 33.

IOS

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

predicated in the strict sense of persons only; the
Church is said to possess it only in so far as her mem­
bers are personally holy. Consequently the moral
sanctity of the Church may vary from time to time,
according to the number of holy persons within her
fold, and also according to the degree of their sanctity.
But this moral sanctity of the Church can never be
entirely lost; there must ever be found a goodly num­
ber of holy persons in the Church,—persons who are
holy because of her sanctifying powers. Moreover, the
Church will always be noted for persons of eminent
sanctity.
Many early heretics, especially the Novatians, Donatists, and Pelagians, exaggerated the moral sanctity of
the Church by teaching that sinners cannot belong to
the Church. ‘‘The Wicliffites taught that the Church
includes only the predestined. The Anabaptists and
the English dissenters asserted that it consists only of
those who are visibly holy in their lives . . . there­
fore they departed [from the Anglican communion] to
form a pure society of saints in which no sinner was to
find place.” 1 Many of the early Reformers held a
similar doctrine; others went to the opposite extreme by
teaching that the Church of Christ may become so
corrupt as to lose all personal sanctity. All Protestants
today seem to agree in taking little or no account of
extraordinary or eminent sanctity. It could not be
otherwise, since they reject the most fruitful means of
sanctity,—the Sacraments, the practice of the Evangel1 William Palmer, “Treatise on the Church,” Vol. I, p. 134.

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

109

ical Counsels and works of supererogation. The Ar­
ticles of the Anglican Church say: “Voluntary works,
besides, over and above God’s commandments, cannot
be taught without arrogancy and impiety.” 2 It is true
that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (the Eucharist)
have been retained as Sacraments by most Protestants
sects, but they have been completely devitalized by
teaching that the Eucharist is a mere memorial service,
and Baptism a rite of initiation similar to that used by
any ordinary society.

Thesis.—The Church of Christ possesses moral
sanctity, i. e., she must always number among
x her children many persons of sanctity,
even of eminent sanctity
Proofs. I. From Reason. Christ instituted the
Church to sanctify and save all men; “jor this is the
will of God, your sanctification.” 3 Is it possible that
this purpose of Christ can be frustrated, even for a
single day? Is it possible that at any time all the
means of holiness especially instituted by Christ for the
sanctification of souls, shall utterly fail in their efficacy?
To assert such a possibility, would be to accuse Christ
of failure.
II. From Scriptlire. Our Lord proclaimed the
moral sanctity of His Church by comparing it to a field
of wheat oversown with cockle; it contains much cockle,
2 The Thirty-Nine Articles, Art. xiv.
3 1 Thess. iv, 3.

110

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

but still remains a wheat-field until the harvest.4 The
good shall never entirely fail in the Church; in fact,
the parable leads to.the inference that the good shall
always predominate. The same idea is suggested by
the parable of the wedding-feast, in which Christ com­
pares the Church to a banquet, at which one alone was
found unworthy.5 The Church is also a net cast into
the sea of this world; it takes both good and bad fish,
and they shall be separated only on the shores of
eternity. This indicates that there shall always be good
and holy persons in the Church.
St. Peter calls the faithful “a chosen generation, a
kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people
. . . who in time past were not a people, but are now
the people oj God. Who had not obtained mercy, but
now have obtained mercy!"6 These words presuppose
a considerable number of holy persons in the Church
at all times to make it a chosen generation, a holy na­
tion. The Prophets of old speak in similar terms.
Ezechiel, for example, speaking in the name of God
concerning a new covenant to be established, says:
“And I will put my spirit in the midst oj you and I
will cause you to walk in my commandments and to
keep my judgments and do them . . . and you shall
be my people and I will be your God!"7 These words
intimate that in the new covenant,—the Church of
4 Matt, xiii, 24 sq.
5 Matt, xxii, 11 sq.
c 1 Peter ii, 9-10 ; Osee ii, 24.
7 Ez. xi, 19; xxxvi, 26 sq.

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

111

Christ,—there will ever be faithful souls to walk in
His precepts and keep His judgments.
Eminent Holiness.—The dignity and holiness as­
cribed to the Church in Holy Scripture cannot be justi­
fied by anything short of extraordinary sanctity in
many of her children. She is represented as the body
of Christ and, therefore, intimately united with Him,
who is the fountain of all holiness. She is also endowed
with the most wonderful means of sanctification in the
Sacraments, especially in the Holy Eucharist. Such
union with Christ and such means of grace cannot fail
to produce corresponding effects in some souls at least;
neither would the Church be a body suited to her divine
Head were she not resplendent with sanctity in some of
her members.
The Church is also represented as the bride of Christ,
and should, therefore, be adorned with sanctity be­
fitting her Divine Spouse, according to the words of
the royal Psalmist: “The queen stood on thy right
hand in gilded clothing, surrounded with variety.”8
She should also bring forth children worthy of such a
union;—children eminent for sanctity and the practice
of those counsels so often commended by Christ in the
Gospels.
§ 4. Manijestative Sanctity oj the Church

Preliminary Remarks.

Sanctity itself is some-

8Ps. xliv, 10. This text is more appropriately rendered thus:
“The queen stands at thy right hand, adorned with gold and em­
broidery.” (Cfr. Berry, “Commentary on the Psalms,” pp. 332-334.)

112

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

thing internal and invisible, but it may be manifested
by external signs. This outward manifestation is called
manifestative sanctity. There are various means of
judging with more or less probability that a particular
person or thing is pleasing and acceptable to God; but
there is only one means of certain knowledge,—the tes­
timony of God Himself, given through miracles,
wrought under circumstances that leave no doubt that
the person or institution through which they are per­
formed, is pleasing to Almighty God. Miracles,
therefore, constitute manifestative sanctity, but as mir­
acles are facts, they cannot be a property or quality of
the Church. Hence, manifestative sanctity, as a prop­
erty of the Church, is rather the permanent power oj
the Church to perform miracles, or at least a permanent
right to have them performed, when necessary to prove
her sanctity and her divine mission. “The Church is
said to be holy on account of her miraculous powers,
because such powers prove that she is pleasing to God
who dwells within her and continues to operate through
her; they prove her divine mission in the most con­
vincing manner. For this reason the power of miracles
will be most prominent when evidence for the truth
and sanctity of the Church is most needed.” 1
Protestants, with few exceptions, deny the power of
miracles in the Church today, although many admit the
occurrence of miracles in the first ages. Middleton,
a non-Catholic, says: “The most prevailing opinion
is that they subsisted through the three first centuries,
1 Dorsch. “De Ecclesia Christi,” p. 500.

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

113

and then ceased in the beginning of the fourth.” But
he himself rejects this opinion, because, “by granting
but a single age of miracles after the times of the Apos­
tles, we shall be entangled in a series of difficulties
whence we can never fairly extricate ourselves till we
allow the same powers to the present age.” 2 Although
universally condemned by Protestants of his day, the
opinion of Middleton is quite logical. If miracles
ever existed in the Church, there is no reason why they
should cease at the end of the third century rather than
in the tenth, or the nineteenth, or any succeeding cen­
tury. The circumstances that made them necessary or
useful in the second or third century, may be present
in any other century, until the end of time. Hence, we
must either sweep aside the testimony of all antiquity
and deny the existence of miracles in every age, or
admit that the Church is endowed with miraculous
powers for all time, unless it can be proved that Christ
has ordained otherwise.

Thesis.—The Church of Christ possesses mani­
festative sanctity, i. e., she has a permanent
power of performing· miracles when cir­
cumstances make them necessary or
useful
Proofs. I. From Reason. The Church as vice­
gerent of Jesus Christ, carries forward His mission on
earth. Therefore, she should have the same means
2 C. Middleton, “Introductory Discourse,” pp. 46, 96.

114

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

for proving her mission and establishing her authority
that Christ Himself used to establish His own. For
this purpose Christ performed miracles; therefore, the
Church also should have power to perform miracles
when circumstances demand the exercise of such power.
II. From Scripture. St. Paul represents the Church
as the body of Christ animated by the Holy Ghost,
who manifests His indwelling presence through the
working of miracles: “To one indeed, by the Spirit is
given the word oj wisdom ... to another the grace of
healing in the same spirit; to another, the working of
miracles; to another prophecy; to another, the discern­
ing of spirits; to another, diverse kinds of tongues; to
another, interpretation of speeches. But all these
things, one and the same Spirit worketh, dividing to
every one according as he will . . . For in one Spirit
were we all baptized into one body.33 3 Therefore, so
long as the Holy Ghost dwells within the Church to ani­
mate it and guide it, we shall expect these external
manifestations of His presence and power by the work­
ing of miracles.
When Christ sent forth His Apostles to preach the
Gospel and organize His Kingdom, He said to them:
“And these signs shall follow them that believe: in my
name they shall cast out devils: they shall speak with
tongues . . . They shall lay their hands upon the sick,
and they shall recover F 4 In these words Christ prom­
ised the power of miracles to His disciples,—a power
3 1 Cor. xii, 8 sq; 27 sq.
4 Mark xvi, 17.

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

115

connected with the profession of the true faith, and un­
limited as to time and place. This promise, as we
know, is not fulfilled in Our Lord’s disciples as individ­
uals, for no one will maintain that all members of
Christ’s Church have the power of working miracles.
Therefore, the promise must be fulfilled in the disciples
taken collectively as a society, which is the Church, and
Holy Scripture testifies that such was the case in the
days of the Apostles. They wrought miracles to prove
their mission and confirm their teachings; in this man­
ner many were brought to the knowledge of truth and
won for Christ. St. Peter healed the lame man at the
gate of the Temple, and “many oj them who heard the
word believed, and the number of the men was made
five thousand.” 5 At Lydda, he also healed Eneas of
the palsy and “all that dzvelt at Lydda and Saron saw
him, who were converted to the Lord.” G In Joppe, he
raised Tabitha to life and “it was made known through­
out all Joppe; and many believed in the Lord.” 7 At
Paphos, St. Paul wrought a miracle upon the magician
of Ely mas and “the proconsul, when he had seen what
was done, believed, admiring at the doctrine of the
Lord.”8 When writing to the Galatians, the same
Apostle appeals to the miracles wrought in their midst
as a confirmation of his teaching: “He therefore who
giveth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among
c Acts
0 Acts
7 Acts
8 Acts

iii, 2 sq ; iv, 4.
ix, 38 sq.
ix, 33-35.
xiii, 8 sq.

116

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

you; doth he do it by the works oj the Law or by the
hearing oj the faith?” 9
If miracles were necessary, or at least useful, for the
Apostles when carrying the Gospel to those who had
never heard of it, or who denied the Apostolic mission
to preach a new faith, are they not likewise necessary
under similar conditions in every age? Christ did not
promise to be with His Church for a few years, or a
few centuries only, but for all time, “even to the con­
summation oj the world.” 10
III. From Tradition. Practically all the early Fa­
thers appeal to the miracles wrought in the Church
as proof of her divine mission. Middleton, a non­
Catholic scholar, candidly admits this: “It must be
confessed, in the first place, that this claim of a miracu­
lous power, which is now peculiar to the Church of
Rome, was universally asserted and believed in all
Christian countries and in all ages of the Church till
the time of the Reformation.” 11 In view of this fact,
it will suffice to quote but one early Father on the mat­
ter. In his work against heresies, St. Irenæus says:
“Those who are in truth His disciples, receiving grace
from Him, do in His name perform miracles, so as to
promote the welfare of other men according to the
gift which each one has received from Him. For some
do certainly and truly drive out devils, so that those
who have been thus cleansed from evil spirits, fre» Gal. iii, 5.
10 Matt, xxviii, 20.
11 “Introductory Discourse,” p. 44.

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

117

quently both believe and join themselves to the Church
. . . Others heal the sick by laying their hands upon
them, and they are made whole. Yea, moreover, as I
have said, the dead even have been raised up and
remained amongst us for many years. And what shall
I say more? It is not possible to name the numUer
of the gifts which the Church scattered throughout the
whole world has received from God in the name of Jesus
Christ . . . and which she exerts day by day for the
bene iit σί the gentiles.” 12

§ 5. Objections Answered
Objection I.—All members of Christ’s Church are
free moral agents, capable of falling from grace at any
time. Therefore, all may fall at the same time, leaving
the Church deprived of moral sanctity.
Answer.—Sanctity in the individual depends upon
his own free-will at all times; sanctity in the whole
body of the faithful depends upon the will of Christ
and the providence of God. By the distribution of
efficacious graces God can provide unfailing sanctity
for His Church without destroying man’s free-will. In
the Old Law God’s purposes in regard to the Chosen
People were not, and could not be, defeated, yet each
and every member of the Hebrew nation was left to the
full exercise of his free-will. In like manner God will
carry out His purposes in the New Law by preserving
12 “Adversus Hærcses,” Π, 32, 4; P. G., 7, 829.

118

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

personal sanctity in His Church and free-will in the in­
dividual.
Objection II.—The Church, as the mystical body
of Christ, must follow the analogy of a physical body,
which is said to be sick, or unsound, when any single
member is diseased. Hence the Church loses her moral
sanctity by the presence of a single sinner within her
fold.
Answer.—A natural body is not rendered unsound
throughout by the unsound condition of one or more
members, unless they be vital members. In the Church
the vital members are Christ and the Holy Ghost, who
are sanctity itself. A body with an unsound member
is not perfectly sound; it is diseased, because the un­
sound member reacts upon the whole body thereby
causing pain, discomfort or dis-ease. In like manner
the presence of sinners in the Church deprives her of
perfect moral holiness, because, as stated above, the
Church has moral holiness in so far only as her mem­
bers are personally holy. The presence of sinners
causes her pain and sorrow {dis-ease') ; she sorrows over
sinners as she rejoices over the good: “If one member
suffer anything, all the members stiffer with it; or if
one member glory, all the members rejoice with it.” 1
The infection of one member cannot spread to the
whole body of the Church, as often happens in a phys­
ical body; her powers of resistance are always sufficient
to prevent such general infection.
Objection III.—Our Lord did not intend His
1 I Cor. xii, 26.

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

119

Church to have the power of miracles; in fact, He
warns against the workers uof great signs and won­
ders,” who will act as agents of Satan to deceive the
faithful: “There shall arise jalse Christs and jalse
prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, in­
somuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.” 2
Answer.—Christ is here warning the faithful against
the prodigies that the agents of Satan will produce in
the days of Antichrist, to deceive them if possible.
Such prodigies are not miracles, but as St. Paul says,
“signs and lying wonders.” This very warning on the
part of Our Lord presupposes the power of miracles
in the Church, for otherwise there would be no reason
for Satan to attempt such counterfeits. There can be
no counterfeit coins where there are no genuine coins
to counterfeit. The prophecies of the Apocalypse show
that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive
mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition
to the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the
rôle of Messias; his prophet will act the part of Pope,
and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the
Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation
of the miracles wrought in the Church.3
Objection IV.—Miracles are no proof of sanctity,
for Christ has said that on the day of judgment many
will say to Him: “Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied
in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done
many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess
2 Matt, xxiv, 24.
3 Cfr. Berns “The Apocalypse of St. John,” pp. 138 sq.

120

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

unto them, I never knerw you: depart from me, you that
•work iniquity.” 4
Answer.—Not every miracle is a proof of sanctity'
in the person through whom it is wrought, nor in the
society in which it is wrought. The circumstances and
purposes of miracles must be taken into account. For
example, the prophecy of Balaam was no proof of
sanctity on his part, but the circumstances and pur­
pose of the prophecy gave undeniable proof that the
people of Israel were under the special protection of
God. In like manner, a miracle wrought through the
use of relics, or the intercession of a saint, shows be­
yond doubt that the veneration of relics and the inter­
cession of saints are practices pleasing to God, since
He has sanctioned them by direct intervention of His
own power to perform a miracle. When God wrought
miracles through the Apostles and thereby brought
many souls into the Church, did He not thereby show
that the Church is holy and pleasing to Him? What
was true in the days of the Apostles, is true at all times
in the Church.
Objection V.—“The performance of miracles is not
essential to real sanctity. It will surely not be pre­
tended, even by Romanists, that all those who are
honored by the Church as saints must have wrought
miracles.” 5
Answer.—There is no claim that the power to per4 Matt, vii, 22; cfr. Palmer, “Treatise on the Church,” Vol. I, pp.
142 sq.
5 Palmer, “Treatise on the Church,” Vol. I, p. 143.

I

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

121

form
miracles
constitutes
sanctity
or
is
in
any
way
— -__- —-- ~
" ·—1 ■■ ’·**'·* -****^WRBte*:
necessary for its existence. Miracles are simply the
means, and the only certain means, to make known the
presence of sanctity in a person or an institution. But
as there is no necessity for sanctity to be made known
in all cases, so neither was there any necessity for all
the saints to perform miracles.
Objection VI.—If miracles were a property of the
Church, they would have to be wrought continuously,
because a property, being essential, can never be lack­
ing. But miracles rarely occur in the Church today.
Answer.—Miracles themselves are not a property
of the Church; the power to perform miracles when
necessary constitutes the property which is ever pres­
ent in the Church. It is not necessary that this power
be constantly exercised. Christ did not perform mir­
acles at all times, yet He possessed the power at all
times. Miracles are performed in the Church only
when necessary according to circumstances of time and
place; consequently they will be more frequent in one
age than in another. In the first ages they were more
necessary than at present, for, as St. Gregory the Great
says, “Miracles were necessary in the beginning of the
Church that the faith might grow by their nourish­
ment. In the same way we water newly planted trees
until we see they have taken root in the soil; then we
cease to water them any longer.” 0 In like manner
Lacordairc: “When Jesus laid the foundations of His
Church, it was needful for Him to obtain faith in a
0 “Homily in Evang.,” 29; P. L., 76, 1213.

122

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

work then beginning; now it is formed, although not
yet completed. You behold it, you touch it, you com­
pare it, you measure it, you judge whether it is a human
work. Why should God be prodigal of miracles to
those who do not see the miracle?”7
As the Church becomes better established and more
widely known, the need for miracles decreases, and they
become less frequent, but they have never entirely
ceased.8 Changed circumstances of future years may
make them as necessary as they were in the first ages
of the Church.
ART. ΠΙ. CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH

Synopsis.—1. Use and meaning of the term.—2.
The Church Catholic by diffusion.—3. Catholicity
of Church further defined.—4. Perfect catholicity
TO BE ATTAINED.

§ 1. Use and Meaning oj the Term

A Distinctive Title. The Church has been called
Catholic from the earliest years of her existence. St.
Ignatius Martyr, in his letter to the Christians of
Smyrna, written about the year 107, says: “Wher­
ever Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” 1 A few
years later (140 a. d.) an account of the sufferings and
death of St. Polycarp was addressed “to all the parishes
7 Lacordaire, “Jesus Christ,” Confer, ii, p. 39 (Eng. Tr.).
8 Cf. below pp. 161.
1 “Epist. ad Smyrnæos,” VIII ; Funk, Vol. I, p. 283.

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

123

of the holy Catholic Church throughout the world.” 2
The same title is applied to the Church in an ancient
document known as the Fragment oj Muratori, which
was written about 200 A. d. All Christians still profess
their faith in the holy Catholic Church as often as they
recite the Apostles’ Creed, which dates back to the
days of the Apostles, or at least to the years immedi­
ately following.
From the earliest times the word Catholic has been
used as a proper name to distinguish the true Church
from heretical sects. St. Cyril of Jerusalem thus ad­
dressed his catechumens in the year 348: “If ever
thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where
the Lord’s House is, for sects of the profane also attempt
to call their dens houses of the Lord. Neither do you
ask merely where the Church is, but where is the Cath­
olic Church, for such is the peculiar name of this holy
Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our
Lord Jesus Christ.” 3 In like manner St. Augustine
says: “The Church is called Catholic by all her en­
emies as well as by her own children. Whether they
wish it or not, heretics and schismatics, when speaking
with those outside their own sects, can call the Church
by no other name than Catholic, for they would not be
understood unless they used the name by which the
Church is known to the whole world.” 4
Meaning of the Word Catholic. The word
2 Martyrdom of Polycarp, Funk, Vol. I, p. 315.
3 “Catecheses,” XVIII, 26; P. G., 33, 1043 *
4 “De Vera Religione,” 7; P. L., 34, 128.

4

fI

I

I
I

124

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

Catholic is derived from the Greek καθ’ 5λον, which
means concerning all, or embracing all. Hence Catho­
licity implies universality of some sort. When applied
to the Church, it may mean (a) that the Church is to en­
dure for all time; (ό) that she teaches all the doctrines
of Christ and uses all the means instituted by Him for
salvation; (c) that she is destined for all men; or (if)
that she is spread throughout the whole world,—καθ’
όλην την γην. St. Cyril of Jerusalem briefly explains the
Catholicity of the Church in these various senses:
“It is called Catholic, then, because it extends over
all the world from one end of the earth to the other; and
because it teaches universally and completely one and
all the doctrines which ought to come to man’s knowl­
edge concerning things both visible and invisible, heav­
enly and earthly; and because it brings into subjection
to godliness the whole race of mankind, governors and
governed, learned and unlearned; and because it uni­
versally treats and heals the whole class of sins which
are committed by soul and body, and possesses in
itself every form of virtue which is named, both in
deeds and in words, and in every kind of spiritual
gifts.” 5
Catholicity of Diffusion. The idea of diffusion,
or extension, throughout the world has so predominated
in the notion of universality that the term Catholic is
now used almost exclusively in that sense. The other
forms of universality are easily identified with other
properties or attributes of the Church. The universal­
's “Catecheses,” XVIII, 23; P. G., 33.

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

125

ity of time is simply the perpetuity of the Church; uni­
versality in doctrine and means of salvation pertain to
the perpetual unity of faith and worship.
Catholicity of diffusion may be either de jure or de
jacto. The Church is catholic or universal de jure (by
right) because it is destined for the salvation of all
men, and therefore endowed with the ability to spread
to all parts of the world to fulfill that mission; it is
catholic de jacto (in fact) when actually diffused or
spread throughout the world. All who admit that
Christ founded any church at all, must admit that it is
Catholic de jure,—that it was commissioned by Christ
to carry salvation to all nations, and that it was con­
sequently endowed with the ability to spread through­
out the world for this purpose. Hence de jure Catholiicity is an essential property possessed by the Church
of Christ from the first moment of her existence. It is
immediately evident that de jacto Catholicity could
come only with the lapse of time, and gradually increase
with the passing centuries, until the Church becomes
completely Catholic, embracing all nations, tribes and
tongues. Therefore de jacto Catholicity is not an es­
sential property of the Church in the sense that it must
have been present at all times from the very beginning;
it is an essential property in the sense that it necessar­
ily flows from the very nature of the Church as a so­
ciety destined to carry the Gospel to all nations. Start­
ing at Jerusalem, the Church was to spread to all parts
of the known world and to extend its limits as new
countries were discovered; when once spread over the

126

ί»

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

world it was never to be reduced again to the narrow
limits of a nation, or other relatively small portion of
the world. This is clearly indicated by the parable
of the mustard seed, “which is indeed the least oj all
seeds,” yet it gradually grew into a tree greater than
all herbs, “so that the birds of the air come and dwell
in the branches thereof.” 6 The same idea is expressed
by Daniel when he compares the Messianic Kingdom to
a small stone that “became a great mountain and filled
the whole earth.” 1 Christ Himself plainly indicated
the progressive expansion of His Church when He said
to the Apostles: “You shall be witnesses unto me in
Jerusalem, and in Judea, and Samaria, and even to the
uttermost part of the earth.”3 Many other texts of
Scripture could be quoted in this matter, but these few
are sufficient.
All Christians admit that the Church of Christ must
be de facto universal in some sense, but Protestants
maintain that the Church Catholic is an intangible
something of which all Christian churches are but so
many parts. It has been proved already that the
Church of Christ is a visible society that enjoys com­
plete unity in government, faith, and worship. There­
fore, if the Church is to be Catholic in fact, its mem­
bers and all its parts throughout the world must be
so united as to form but one society,—a visible society
with unity of government, faith, and worship. Hence
0 Matt, xiii, 31, 32.
T Dan. ii, 35.
* Acts i, 8.

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

127

the words of St. Augustine to the Donatists of Africa:
‘'Dissention and division make you heretics; peace and
unity make Catholics.” 9 It is not sufficient for actual
Catholicity that a Church have members scattered far
and wide throughout the world; the Church itself, as a
society, must exist in the various parts of the world to
exercise its authority and carry on the mission of
Christ. In other words, the Church of Christ must
be formally universal. Neither will mere numbers con­
stitute universality; a large number of members con­
fined to a relatively small portion of the world does not
constitute universality.
§ 2. The Church Catholic by Actual Diffusion

Thesis.—The Church of Christ possesses de jure
catholicity of diffusion as an essential attri­
bute, from which de facto and progres­
sive catholicity necessarily follows,
thus constituting' a; property of
the Church
The doctrine, as stated, seems so self-evident that
proofs are really unnecessary. Any one who admits
that Christ instituted a Church to save all men, must
admit that He intended it to become actually universal
and to remain so for all time. To ascribe any other
intention to Christ would be to accuse Him of folly.
Proofs. I. From Scriptiirc. The Church of
Christ must be as depicted in Holy Scripture, but, as
9 “Contra Litteras Petii.,” II, 95; P. L., 43, 333.

128

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

St. Augustine says, “almost every page of Scripture
proclaims Christ and the Church spread throughout
the whole world.” 1 In fact, the Prophets single out
universality as the chief mark of the Messianic King­
dom. Thus they oppose it to the Mosaic dispensation,
which was limited to the one nation of the Chosen Peo­
ple. Isaias says: “And in the last days the mountain
of the house of the Lord shall be prepared . . . and all
nations shall flow unto it.” 2 Zacharias : “He shall
speak peace to the gentiles, and His power shall be
from sea to sea, and from the rivers even to the ends
of the earth.”3 Daniel compares the Church to a
mountain that fills the whole earth; he represents Christ
as a king whom “all peoples, tribes and tongues shall
serve.”4 Malachias foretold the offering of a new
sacrifice in all places and among all peoples from the
rising of the sun to the going down.5 The Church in
which this sacrifice is offered must therefore be uni­
versal.
Christ distinctly proclaimed the universality of His
Church when He said to the Apostles: “Go ye into the
whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature.” 6
On another occasion: “This Gospel of the kingdom
shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony
1 “Sermon.” 46; P. L., 38, 289.
2 Is. ii, 2.
3 Zach, ix, 10.
4 Dan. ii, 35 sq; vii, 14.
R Mai. i, 11.
0 Mark xvi, 15.

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

129

to all nations.”1 Again: “You shall be witnesses
unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria,
and even to the uttermost part of the earth.” 7
8
Many other texts could easily be quoted to the same
effect, but these are amply sufficient.
II. From Tradition. “The primitive Church al­
ways understood the prophecies relating to the univer­
sality of Christianity [the Church] as descriptive of
its permanent condition; for we find the Fathers not
merely asserting the fact that the Church of Christ was
really diffused throughout the whole world, but arguing
that the Church of which they were members must be
the true Church, because it was so diffused, and that
the societies of heretics which claimed to be the only
true Church could not be so from their deficiency in
this essential characteristic.” 9 A few quotations from
the Fathers will prove the justice of this statement of a
non-Catholic author.
st. Cyril of Jerusalem:
“The Church is called
Catholic because it is spread all over the world from one
end of the earth to the other.” 10* st. augustine:
“The Church is given the Greek name Catholic, be­
cause it is spread over the whole world.” 11 st. opta­
tus of mileve argues thus with Parmenian, the Dona7 Matt, xxiv, 14.
8 Acts i, 8.
θ W. Palmer, “Treatise on the Church,” Vol. I, p. ISO.
io “Catecheses,” XVIII, 23; P. G., 33, 1043.
n “Epist. ad Severianum,” P. L., 33, 194.

130

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

tist: “Thou has said, brother Parmcnian, that the
Church is only amongst you . . . therefore that it may
exist with you in a part of Africa,—a corner of a small
region. It must not be amongst us in the other part
of Africa, nor in Spain, Italy, Gaul, where you are not.
. . . Where then is the propriety of the name Catholic,
since the Church is called Catholic because it is diffused
everywhere.” 12 st. athanasius and the bishops of
the Alexandrian patriarchate use the same argument
in their letter to the Emperor Jovian. They tell him
that the Catholic faith must be the true one because it
is the faith held universally throughout the world,
whereas the Arian doctrines are professed by a few
only.13

§ 3. Catholicity oj Church Further Defined

The Church of Christ must be universal, or Catholic,
by diffusion throughout the world, but this diffusion
may be either physical or moral, simultaneous or succes­
sive, absolute or relative. Therefore, it may be asked,
what is the precise nature of the universality necessary
for the Church, and also whether this universality must
be perpetual.
Morally Catholic. Physical universality would
be realized if the Church were so completely spread
over the earth that she actually exercised her authority
over every portion of the inhabited world. It is evi12 “De Schismate Donatistarum,” II, 1; P. L., 11, 942.
13Theodoret, “Church History,” IV, 3; P. G., 82-1126, 1127.

z A-'·

ΥΓΖ- /'Λ<>Τ/Ύ 'Vv€

Λ^Α

Μ*

(JaAaASjIa
ü/aAAAA^

C(aa^ ^ L-Ιλααα^

.ft'f.

J &Μ"4· 'h-ctS■·

Χ^λΑ/ΙΛ

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

131

dent that the Church has never been so diffused, and
therefore such universality cannot be necessary. The
early Fathers evidently held this view; even in the third
and fourth centuries they proclaimed the Church al­
ready universal because of her diffusion, yet as St.
Augustine said: “It still had much room to increase
before the prophecy concerning Christ, prefigured by
Solomon, would be fulfilled: ‘He shall rule jrom sea
to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth? ” 1
It is sufficient, then, that the Church be morally uni­
versal, i. e., that she be so wide-spread throughout the
world that she may easily be known even in those re­
gions in which she does not actually exist; or, as Suarez
puts it: “If she has such universal renown that she '
may be known and distinguished from all heretical
sects.” 2
Simultaneously Catholic. The Church might
have a successive existence in various parts of the world,
dying out in one place as it springs up in another, until
finally the Gospel would have been announced in all
parts of the world. This would constitute successive
catholicity, but it is evident that such universality is not
sufficient, because at no time would the Church be really
Catholic in any true sense of the word. Therefore,
the Church must be simultaneously Catholic, i. e., it
must be present throughout the whole world at one and
the same time. It is true, of course, that the Church
may cease to exist in this or that part of the world,
1 “Epist. ad Hesych.,” P. L., 33, 922; cfr. Ps. Ixxi, S.
2 “Defensio Fidei,” I, xvi, 10.

132

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

but it must ever remain at least morally universal, as
explained above.
Absolutely Catholic. Absolute Catholicity is the
universality of the Church, considered in itself, regard­
less of any other religious society. Relative catholicity
refers to the universality of the Church as compared
with that of some other society. In this latter sense,
the Church will be Catholic if it is more wide-spread
than any other single church. As already noted, mere
numbers do not constitute universality; one church
is not more Catholic, or universal, than another because
of the mere fact that it numbers more adherents.
Absolute Catholicity is necessary in the true Church
as shown above, but relative Catholicity does not seem
necessary; at least, its necessity can be proved neither
from Scripture nor tradition, and there seems to be no
reason why a false sect might not become universally
distributed over the world, unless perhaps God in His
providence prevents it, of which we have no assurance.
Perpetually Catholic. The reason for the
Church’s universality demands that it be also perpet­
ual; in so far as the Church might fail in her univer­
sality at any time, in just that far must she also fail
in her mission of carrying the Gospel to all nations.
Moreover, all the prophecies of old and all the promises
of Christ concerning the universality of the Church
were made without restrictions or limitations as to
time. They never contemplate any failure; they never
so much as intimate that the Church will ever be re­
duced to narrow or insignificant limits. Cardinal Bel-

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

133

larmine seems to have held that the Church might be
so reduced in extent as to be confined for a time to one
single country or province, provided it is still recog­
nized as the Church that had been universally spread
over the world. This is practically the same as say­
ing, ‘‘provided it remain morally universal,” which
does not in reality deny perpetual universality. How­
ever, his opinion does not seem probable and has not
been generally accepted.

§ 4. Perfect Catholicity to be Attained

Thesis.—The Church of Christ shall at length at­
tain perfect catholicity, i. e., it shall finally
embrace all nations and all peoples with­
out exception
Although moral universality is sufficient to make the
Church truly Catholic, the prophecies of old certainly
demand something more for their adequate fulfillment;
one and all announce a kingdom that shall be universal
to the last degree. Λ few examples will make this
clear: (a) “He shall ride from sea to sea, and from
the river unto the ends of the earth . . . and all kings
of earth shall adore him; all nations shall serve him
... And in him shall all tribes of the earth be blessed';
all nations shall magnify him.” 1 (ύ) “And all the na­
tions thou hast made shall come and adore before thee,
O Lord; and they shall glorify thy name.” 2 (c) “His
1 Ps. Ixxi, S sq.
2 Ps. Ixxxv, 9.

134

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

empire shall be multiplied and there shall be no end of
peace.” 3 (d) “And judgment shall sit . . . that the
kingdom, and power, and the greatness oj the king­
dom under the whole heaven may be given to the
saints oj the most High; whose kingdom is an everlast­
ing kingdom, and all kings shall serve him and obey
him.” 4 (β) “He shall speak peace to the gentiles, and
his power shall be from sea to sea, and from the rivers
even to the ends oj the earth.” 5
Prophecies such as these find no adequate fulfillment
in the conversion of a few thousand, or even a few mil­
lion souls among the vast pagan populations of earth.
Neither can a world largely steeped in paganism, torn
by schism and distracted by heresy, be the only fruit
of Christ’s death upon the Cross. We are forced to
say with St. Augustine: “Even in the islands of the
sea shall be fulfilled the word of prophecy, ‘He shall
rule from sea to sea,’ and if a prophet cannot deceive,
it is necessary that all nations whatsoever He has made,
shall adore Him.” 6
Even the scattered nation of the Jews shall follow
the gentiles into the Church, as St. Paul plainly states:
“I would not have you ignorant, brethren, oj this mys­
tery . . . that blindness in part has happened in Israel
until the fulness of the gentiles should come in. And
so all Israel should be saved as it is written: There
3 Is. Lx, 7.
4 Dan. vii, 26, 27.
5 Zach, ix, 10.
c “Epist. ad Hesychium,” P. L., 33, 922.

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

f

shall come out oj Sion, he that shall deliver and shall
turn away ungodliness jrom Jacob.” 7 Again he says
of the Jewish people: '7/ the loss oj them be the rec­
onciliation of the world, what shall the receiving oj
them be but lije from the dead?” 8
After the gentile nations have entered the Church,
the Jews also shall submit to the faith of Christ and
the Church shall be universal indeed. Then shall be­
gin the reign of Christ in all its fullness, “from sea to
sea,” and all the prophecies shall be justified. This
does not mean that each and every individual of every
nation and tribe shall submit to the Church; nations
and peoples, not individuals, have been promised to the
Church for her inheritance. It does mean, however,
that all nations, as nations, and at least the vast ma­
jority of their subjects, shall recognize the true Church
of Christ and submit to her authority.
These prophecies will not be fulfilled before the time
of Antichrist, since the Apocalypse makes it certain
that he will come into a world harassed by paganism,
apostacy, schism, and heresy.9 The Jews, still unconverted, will accept him as Messias and assist in his war­
fare against the Church. Only after the defeat of
Antichrist and the conversion of the gentile nations,
will the Jews accept Christ as Messias. According to
the generally accepted opinion, this will take place
shortly before the end of the world, since the coming of
7 Rom. xi, 25.
8 Rom. xi, 15.
9 Apoc. ix, 20, 21.

It

i
r

135

136

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

Antichrist is looked upon as a prelude to the consum­
mation of all things earthly. If this be true, the uni­
versal reign of Christ would seem a failure in point of
time. It certainly does not seem probable that thou­
sands of years spent in preparation shall lead up to a
universal reign of Christ lasting but a few short months,
or at most, a few short years. It would be considered
a mark of folly in a human society to labor for years
building itself up to the point where it could most
effectively carry out its programme, and then disband.
Are we not accusing Christ of like folly if we suppose
He will in like manner bring the earthly career of His
Church to an end almost immediately upon attaining
the state in which it can perfectly carry out its mission?
It seems far more probable that the period of fru­
ition will at least equal, and perhaps even exceed, the
period of preparation, and therefore that many cen­
turies will intervene between the destruction of Anti­
christ and the end of the world. The progressive
character of the Church in her extension has already
been noted. Beginning at Jerusalem, she spread with
miraculous rapidity, extending her limits ever farther
and farther with the passing centuries, yet all the while
the gates of hell were struggling to prevent it. The
Church has been forced to wage unceasing war upon her
enemies. Judaism assailed her in infancy; then fol­
lowed. in succession, Arianism, Islamism, the Greek
schism, the pseudo-Reformation of the sixteenth cen­
tury, and Rationalism in the eighteenth. Today she is
warring against indifferentism and the denial of all re­

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

137

ligion. The “mystery of iniquity,” mentioned by St.
Paul,10 grows apace with the spread of the Church,
and will culminate in the coming of Antichrist, when
Satan will make a last supreme effort to prevent the
universal reign of Christ in His Church. After a short
but desperate struggle, the Church will emerge victori­
ous, Antichrist will perish, and the powers of Satan
will be curbed, so “that he should no more seduce the
nations.” 11
After the defeat and destruction of Antichrist, all
nations will flow into the Church, the Jews will enter
her fold, and the universal reign of Christ will be estab­
lished over all peoples, tribes, and tongues. Then shall
the words of Christ be literally and completely ful­
filled: “I have overcome the world.” 12 After a long
period of time, symbolically designated as a thousand
years,13 “Satan shall be loosed out oj his prison} and
shall go forth to seduce the nations which are over the
four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, and shall
gather them together to battle” 14 for a final persecu­
tion of the Church. By special intervention of God,
these hostile nations shall be quickly defeated and the
Church shall stand forth once more victorious. Then
will the day of judgment be near at hand.15
10 2 Thess. ii, 7.
11 Apoc. xx, 3.
12 John xvi, 33.
13 Apoc. xx, 2, 3.
54 Apoc. xx, 7.
15 Cf. Berry, “The Apocalypse of St. John,” pp. 189 sq.—The in­
terpretation of the prophecies regarding the time of Antichrist and

138

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST
ART. IV. APOSTOLICITY OF THE CHURCH

Synopsis.—1. The Nature of Apostolicity.—2. The
Church of Christ Apostolic.

§ 1. The Nature of Apostolicity
Apostolicity denotes connection in some manner with
the Apostles, or a likeness to them. Hence we speak
of Apostolic men, i. e., men who lived in the days of
the Apostles, or who are inspired with a like zeal in
their ministry. In like manner the Church is said to
subsequent events is given as an opinion to be accepted for what
it is worth. So far as we know, there is no pronouncement of
the Church on this question. In fact, no doctrine is involved. It
is generally held by Catholic theologians that the Church will be
completely Catholic after the days of Antichrist. This doctrine is
not materially affected by the further consideration concerning the
time of his appearance. This is merely an interesting speculation,
of which the above solution seems probable to us. It might be ob­
jected that Christ Himself places the end of the world immediately
after the attainment of complete Catholicity by the Church: “This
gospel shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all
nations, and then shall the consummation come.” (Matt, xxiv, 14.)
And St. Paul connects the coming of Antichrist with the second
coming of Christ. “And then that wicked one shall be revealed
whom the Lord Jesus . . . shall destroy with the brightness of his
coming.” (2 Thess. ii, 8.) Neither objection has any weight; in
the first Our Lord was simply assuring the Apostles that there would
be sufficient time to carry the gospel to all nations, since the con­
summation will not come until that has been accomplished. He
does not say that it will come immediately upon its accomplishment.
In the other case, we see no reason why “his coming—παρουσία,—
must be taken to mean the personal coming of Our Lord at the last
day, rather than a metaphorical coming in manifest judgment against
Antichrist.

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

139

be Apostolic because of some relation it bears to the
Apostles. Historians use the term to designate the
Church as it existed in the days of the Apostles; with
theologians, it means that the Church is, in some man­
ner, derived from the Apostles. In this sense the
Church is Apostolic in origin, doctrine, and ministry.
The Church is Apostolic in origin, because it is and must
ever remain, the identical society founded by Christ
and organized through the ministry of the Apostles;
it is Apostolic in doctrine, because it teaches the self­
same truths that Christ committed to its custody in the
persons of the Apostles. Finally, the Church is Apos­
tolic in ministry (or siicccssion), because the authority
which Christ conferred upon the Apostles has come
down through an unbroken line of legitimate succes­
sors in the ministry of the Church.
Succession. Apostolicity of origin and of doctrine
are easily understood without further explanation, but
some knowledge of snccessio'n is necessary for a proper
conception of apostolicity of ministry. Succession, as
used in this connection, is the following of one person
after another in an official position, and may be either
legitimate or illegitimate. Theologians call the one
jormal succession; the other, material. A material
successor is one who assumes the official position of
another contrary to the laws or constitution of the so­
ciety in question. He may be called a successor in as
much as he actually holds the position, but he has no
authority, and his acts have no official value, even
though he be ignorant of the illegal tenure of his office.

140

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

A formal, or legitimate, successor not only succeeds to
the place of his predecessor, but also receives due au­
thority to exercise the functions of his office with bind­
ing force in the society. It is evident that authority
can be transmitted only by legitimate succession; there­
fore, the Church must have a legitimate, or formal, suc­
cession of pastors to transmit apostolic authority from
age to age. One who intrudes himself into the ministry
against the la\\s of the Church receives no authority,
and consequently can transmit none to his successors.
Twofold Power. Succession in the Church differs
from that in other societies from the fact that there is
a twofold power to transmit,—the power of Orders and
the power of jurisdiction or government. The power
of Orders is purely spiritual and concerned directly
with the conferring of grace; it is obtained through the
Sacrament of Orders validly received and cannot be re­
voked by any power of the Church. For this reason,
the power of Orders may be obtained by fraud or con­
ferred against the will of the Church by anyone having
valid Orders himself, and therefore does not depend
upon legitimate succession.
Jurisdiction is authority to govern and must be trans­
mitted in the Church as in any other society; it can be
conferred only by a lawful superior, according to the
constitution and laws of the society, and may be re­
voked at any time. Consequently jurisdiction in the
Church can neither be obtained nor held against the
will of her supreme authority; its transmission depends
entirely upon legitimate succession. It is not sufficient,

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

141

therefore, that a church have valid Orders; it must also
have a legitimate succession of ministers, reaching
back in an unbroken line to the Apostles, upon whom
our Lord conferred all authority to rule His Church.
Union with Rome. No one can be a legitimate
successor in any society unless he receive due authority
therein; it follows, therefore, that there can be no
legitimate successor in the Church of Christ who has
not received jurisdiction either directly or indirectly
from her supreme authority. But, as will be proved
elsewhere, supreme authority in the Church of Christ
was committed to St. Peter and his lawful successors,
the bishops of Rome: consequently all legitimate suc­
cession, or Apostolicity of ministry in the Church, de­
pends upon communion with the chair of Peter and is
lost the moment that communion is severed. Hence no
particular part of the Church is indefectibly Apostolic,
save the see of Peter, which is universally known by
way of eminence as the Apostolic See.
Errors. Those who deny that Christ founded any
visible Church must also deny the possibility of Apos­
tolicity in the sense just explained. Practically all
Protestants admit the necessity of Apostolicity of some
sort in the Church, but they differ in regard to its
nature according to their different conceptions of the
Church itself. Anglicans maintain that the Church
must be Apostolic in its ministry, but they seem to place
this Apostolicity in the valid transmission of Orders
alone: “The authoritative ministry fof the Apostles]
was propagated by being imparted in succession to oth-

142

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

ers in different degrees by the laying-on of hands.” 1
§ 2. The Church oj Christ Apostolic

Thesis.—The Church of Christ is necessarily
Apostolic in origin, doctrine, and ministry
That the Church is in some sense Apostolic, is a
dogma of faith as appears from the Nicene Creed: “I
believe in one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”
Apostolicity of ministry and of doctrine have been de­
fined, at least implicitly, by the Vatican Council: “If
any one should say that it is not by the institution of
Christ, and therefore not by divine right, that the
blessed Peter has perpetual successors in his primacy
over the whole Church, ... let him be anathema.” 1
“The Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of
Peter that He might reveal to them a new doctrine, but
that He should assist them to preserve religiously and
jaithjully expound the revelation, or deposit oj jaith,
handed down by the Apostles.” 12
Proofs. I. From Reason and Scripture. The
thesis is a self-evident truth, rather than a proposition
to be demonstrated.
a) Origin. Christ instituted but one Church
through the ministry of the Apostles, and to none other
1 Bishop Gore (Anglican), “Catholicism and Roman Catholicism,”
Lecture I; cfr. Church Times, Dec., 1922; also W. Palmer, “Treatise
on the Church,” Vol. I, p. 171 ss.
1 Denzinger, n. 1825.
2 Denzinger, n. 1836.

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

143

did He give any authority to organize a church in His
name. Consequently a church existing at any time
since then, is either the identical Church established by
Him, and therefore Apostolic, or it is not that identical
Church, and therefore in no wise the Church of Christ,
but merely a false claimant having no right to exist.
6) Doctrine. Our Lord committed the teaching of
all His doctrines to the Apostles and promised to be
with them until the consummation of the world:
“Teach all nations . . . teaching them to observe all
things whatsoever I have commanded you . . . And
behold, I am with you all days even to the consumma­
tion oj the world.” 3 He also promised to them the
Spirit of Truth, to remain with them forever guiding
them in all truth: “I will ask the Father, and he shall
give you another Paraclete that he may abide with you
jor ever ... he will teach you all things, and bring
all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said
to you.” 4 Christ has either failed in His promises, or
the Church must ever preserve and teach all truths com­
mitted to her through the ministry of the Apostles. In
other words, the Church must be Apostolic in her doc­
trine even to the consummation of the world.
c) Ministry. It is evident that there can be no au­
thority in the Church save that which comes directly
or indirectly from her Divine Founder, Jesus Christ.
But there is not the slightest intimation in Scripture or
tradition that Christ ever promised to confer authority
3 Matt, xxviii, 19-20.
4 John xiv, 16, 20, 26.

144

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

directly upon the ministers of the Church; consequently
it can only be obtained by lawful succession from those
upon whom Christ personally and directly conferred it,
i. e., from the Apostles. In other words, the Church
must be Apostolic in her ministry by means of a
legitimate succession reaching back in an unbroken line
to the Apostles.
I. From Tradition. In controversies with the
heretics of their age, the early Fathers always appealed
to Apostolic succession as a proof for the true Church
of Christ, and argued that heretical sects could not be
the true Church for the simple reason that they lacked
this succession. In order to show that the Catholic
ê
Church actually possessed Apostolic succession, many
early writers drew up lists of bishops in various churches
running back to Apostolic days. Among the compilers
of such catalogues of bishops may be mentioned Hegesippus, St. Irenaeus, Eusebius, and St. Optatus of Mileve. A few quotations will show the mind of the
Fathers on this question.
a) St. Irenæus: “It is necessary to obey the pres­
byters in the Church, those who, as I have shown,
possess the succession from the Apostles; those who,
together with the succession of the episcopate, have re­
ceived the certain gift of truth according to the good
pleasure of the Father.” 5
Z>) Tertullian: “But if there be any [heresies]
bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the
Apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have
5 “Adversus Hæreses,” IV, 26; P. G., 7, 1053.

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH

145

been handed down by the Apostles because they ex­
isted in the time of the Apostles, we can say: Let them
unfold the roll of their bishops running down in due
succession from the beginning in such manner that their
first bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and
predecessor some one of the Apostles, or of Apostolic
men,—a man moreover who continued steadfast with
the Apostles.” 6
c) St. Cyprian: “Novatian is not in the Church;
nor can he be reckoned as a bishop who succeeding no
one and despising the Evangelical and Apostolic tradi­
tion, sprang from himself. For he who has not been
ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to
the Church in any way.” 7
0 Tcrtullian, “De Præscriptionibus,” xxxii, P. L., 2, 44.
7 St. Cyprian, “Epist. ad Magnum,” n. 3. P. L., 3, 1140.

CHAPTER IV
MARKS OF THE CHURCH

Thus far we have considered the Church of Christ
as portrayed for us on the pages of Holy Scripture and
in the writings of the early Fathers. We have learned
that Christ established a Church as an external visible
society endowed with perpetual and indefectible unity,
sanctity, Catholicity, and Apostolicity. Since the
Church is perpetually indefectible, it must exist today
with all its essential properties; it must still be per­
petually and indefectibly one, holy, Catholic and Apos­
tolic. The Church which possesses these character­
istics must be the one true Church of Christ; all others,
mere human inventions.
Since Christ intended His Church to be known and
accepted by all, He must have endowed it with certain
exterior marks, by which it may be known with cer­
tainty and clearly distinguished from all false claimants.
Therefore it is necessary to consider (1) what is re­
quired for a mark of the Church, (2) which properties
of the Church fulfill these conditions, and (3) in what
church these properties are found today.
ART. I. REQUISITES FOR Λ MARK OF THE CHURCH

§ 1. The Nature of a Mark

f A mark (Latin, nota} may be defined as a quality or
14G

MARKS OF THE CHURCH

147

characteristic by which the subject in which it inheres
may be recognized and distinguished from every other
thing. Hence it must be a manifest and essential
quality, (fl) It must be manifest, i. e., it must be
something that can be perceived, otherwise it cannot
lead to the knowledge of the subject in which it inheres,
(ό) It must be an essential quality, something that
must be present at all times. A mere accidental qual­
ity may be present or absent without affecting the
nature of the subject; it may even be found in subjects
of entirely different nature, and, therefore, can never
serve as a distinguishing mark.
Marks may be either positive or negative. A positive
mark is one whose presence is sufficient to distinguish
the subject in which it inheres from all other objects;
e. g., the presence of a right angle is sufficient of itself
to distinguish a right-angled triangle from all other
triangles. A negative mark is a quality that can never
be absent in the thing sought, yet its presence is not
sufficient to distinguish that object from all others;
e. g., a square must have four straight sides. Any figure
in which this quality is lacking cannot be a square, but
a figure having four straight sides is not necessarily a
square; many other figures have this same character­
istic.
Marks of the Church. The requisites for a mark
of the Church arc easily deduced from the above con­
siderations: (1) it must be an essential characteristic
or property of the Church, (2) it must be externally
manifest to all, (3) it must be suited to the capacity of

148

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

all, whether learned or unlearned. All men are bound
to accept the faith of Christ and submit to the author­
ity of His Church. Therefore; the marks by which the
Church is recognized must be such that the unlearned
as well as the learned may know and accept it. Finally,
if there is question of a positive mark, it must be a
characteristic found nowhere save in the true Church
of Christ.
The four properties,—unity, sanctity, Catholicity
and Apostolicity,—fulfill these conditions, and are
therefore true marks. Moreover, as they are the only
characteristics of the Church that do fulfill these condi­
tions, they must be sufficient; otherwise the Church
could not be known. It follows, then, that any church
lacking a single one of these marks cannot be the
Church of Christ, and any Church possessing all of
them must be the true Church of Christ.
§ 2. Marks Claimed by Non-Catholics

Orthodox Churches. The schismatic churches of
the East agree with Catholics in teaching that the
Church of Christ must be one, holy, Catholic and Apos­
tolic, but they maintain that identity with the Church
oj the first centuries is the only distinctive mark by
which it may be known today. This identity is to be
recognized by strict conformity with the doctrine and
discipline laid down by the first seven ecumenical coun­
cils.
Criticism. Identity with the early Church proves

MARKS OF THE CHURCH

149

nothing unless we know that the Church of those cen­
turies was in reality the true Church of Christ. The
marks by which the faithful of those days recognized
the true Church, must still be sufficient for the people
of our own day. It is true that the Church must be
identical with the Church of the first centuries in all
essential things, but this identity could not serve as a
mark, even if it be granted that the early Church was
true. Only the learned could make the investigation
necessary to establish the fact of such identity.
Protestants. The Reformers of the sixteenth cen­
tury and many of their followers claimed two marks for
the Church, or rather for a church. Calvin wrote:
“Wherever we see the word of God sincerely preached
and heard, and the Sacraments administered according
to the institution of Christ, there without doubt is a
church of God.”1 The nineteenth article of the
Anglican Church reads: “The visible Church of
Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the
pure word of God is preached and the Sacraments be
duly administered according to Christ’s ordinance in
all those things that are of necessity to the same.”
Bullinger, an Anglican theologian, says: “There are
two special and principal marks: the sincere preaching
of the word of God and the lawful partaking of the
Sacraments of Christ.” 2
Criticism. Calvin and Bullinger make sincere
preaching of the Gospel a mark of the Church. There
1 “Institutiones,” IV, 1.
2 W. Wilson, “The Thirty-Nine Articles,” p. 168.

150

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

is a vast difference between sincere and true preaching
of the Gospel. Sincerity can never make truth out of
falsehood; neither can sincere preaching serve as a
mark for the true Church. The doctrine proclaimed
by the Thirty-Nine Articles is equally foolish. The
pure word of God must be preached in the true Church
of Christ, and the Sacraments must be administered ac­
cording to the will of Christ, but how shall we know
what is the true word of God? How shall we know
that the Sacraments are duly administered unless we
first know what Sacraments Christ really instituted,
whom He ordained to administer them, and what is
essential to their right administration? These are not
questions to be decided without study and investigation
beyond the ability of the unlearned. Even learned
Protestants do not agree on these matters.
Many Protestants of the present day are little con­
cerned about marks of any kind; the question of decid­
ing between true and false in religion never occurs to
them. They hold that all churches are equally true,
since all taken collectively constitute the Church
Catholic with which a man may be united by a good life
even though he belong to no particular church organiza­
tion. It is a matter of supreme indifference whether a
person belong to one church or another; in fact, it
seems to matter little whether he belong to any church.
Moreover, they hold that every man enjoys full liberty
to worship God according to the dictates of his own
conscience. Hence every man is free to select the
church that suits his fancy or convenience, or failing

MARKS OF THE CHURCH

151

that, he may establish a new one to carry out any
peculiar ideas he may have about religion or divine wor­
ship. God, it seems, has no voice in the matter; He
must be content to receive such worship as man sees
fit to render Him. It is evident that marks for rec­
ognizing the true Church have no place in such a sys­
tem.
ART. II.

THE FOUR MARKS OF THE CHURCH

§ 1. Unity as a Mark of the Church
Several eminent theologians, such as Bellarmine,
Stapleton, and Perrone, maintained that unity is a posi­
tive mark, sufficient of itself to identify the true Church
of Christ and distinguish it from all others. In support
of this opinion they appealed to the words of Christ:
“I pray . . . that they may be made perfect in one;
and the world may know that thou hast sent me.” 1
These words leave no doubt that Christ intended the
unity of His disciples to be a proof of His own divine
mission, and, therefore, a proof also for the Church es­
tablished to carry out that same mission till the end of
time. But the words of Christ do not prove that this
unity is a positive mark, which in fact it cannot be.
Unity as a mark of the Church must be a unity of faith,
worship, and government, regardless of their nature; or
a unity of true faith, true worship, and legitimate gov­
ernment. But as the preaching of true doctrine (the
1 John xvii, 23.

152

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

pure word of God) and the practice of true worship
(due administration of the Sacraments) cannot consti­
tute a mark of the Church, so neither can unity of true
doctrine and true worship. The same reasons hold
good in both cases; how are we to know what is true
doctrine or true worship? How are we to know
whether the government is legitimate or not? All
these things must be accepted on the authority of the
Church, and cannot be accepted until the Church her­
self has been accepted. On the other hand, if we take
unity of faith, worship, and government, regardless of
truth or legitimacy, we have only a negative mark.
Any Church lacking unity in these things cannot be the
true Church of Christ, but a church is not necessarily
true because it has such unity, since unity of false
faith, false worship, and illegitimate government is pos­
sible, at least for a time. Therefore unity, considered
in itself, is merely a negative mark, yet it has always
had the force of a positive mark due to the fact that
unity in any form has always been found in one church
alone.

§ 2. Sanctity as a Mark of the Church

Sanctity, being essentially internal and invisible, can
serve as a mark only in so far as it is manifested in
some outward act. Hence the ontological sanctity of
the Church need not be considered in this connection.
The other forms,—causative, personal, and manifesta­
tive,—will be considered separately.

MARKS OF THE CHURCH

153

Causative Sanctity. The active or causative
sanctity of the Church is manifested principally through
its effects in bringing men to the practice of virtue. It
is also manifest in the outward means of grace,—
Sacraments, doctrine, and discipline,—if they are
recognized as eminently suited to produce personal holi­
ness. In this sense causative sanctity constitutes, at
least, a negative mark, because any Church lacking
such means of sanctification cannot be the Church of
Christ. This is especially true if the church in ques­
tion not only lacks such means, but also teaches a doc­
trine or practice clearly opposed to right reason and
morality.
In fact, causative sanctity almost amounts to a posi­
tive mark, since the presence of means eminently fitted
to lead men to a holy life gives at least a very strong
presumption in favor of the Church possessing them.
Personal Sanctity. Ordinary personal sanctity,
considered in itself, is a negative mark of the Church,
because, as noted above,1 the Church of Christ can
never be without a large number of persons devoted to
the practice of Christian virtues; but the value of per­
sonal sanctity as a mark is somewhat lessened by the
fact that persons of virtuous life may be found in all
Churches, owing to the fact that all have retained some
salutary doctrine and discipline, and in many cases they
retain the Sacrament of Baptism and even the Holy
Eucharist, as do many schismatic Churches of the
East. Nevertheless, a Church that stands out promin1 Ci. above pp. 109.

154

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

ent for the works of piety which it inspires, and for the
number of members leading holy lives, certainly has a
very strong presumption in its favor,—perhaps even
certain proof that it is the Church of Christ.
Manifestative Sanctity. Miraculous power man­
ifested by the performance of undoubted miracles is a
positive mark sufficient in itself to make known the true
Church of Christ. Since miracles require the direct
intervention of God, they are certain and infallible
signs of divine approval for any doctrine or institution
in whose favor they are wrought. Therefore, even one
undoubted miracle wrought under circumstances that
make it an approval of any distinctive doctrine or
practice of a Church, is proof sufficient that it must be
the true Church of Christ. Extraordinary or eminent
sanctity must be referred to the miraculous, especially
if practiced by many, because such sanctity is not ac­
quired without special assistance from Almighty God.
For this reason, personal sanctity was limited in the
above paragraph to such as is practiced in the ordinary
degree.

§3. Catholicity as a Mark oj the Church
There can be no doubt that catholicity is at least a
negative mark, since a church that is not universally
spread throughout the world cannot be the Church fore­
told by the prophets and set forth in the promises of
Christ. But is catholicity also a positive mark, so
that the true Church may be recognized by the mere

MARKS OF THE CHURCH

155

fact of its universal diffusion throughout the world?
Some theologians maintain that it is. Straub says that
“catholicity, which is both absolute and relative, can
belong to the true Church alone; therefore such catho­
licity is a positive mark.” 1 This argument presup­
poses that the true Church must be relatively catholic,
i. e.> it must be more wide-spread than any other Chris­
tian church. But the necessity for such catholicity
cannot be proved from Scripture or tradition, and there
seems to be no reason why a false Church might not
become universal, even more universal than the true
one, at least for a time.
Wilmers holds that catholicity of diffusion is a posi­
tive mark when taken in connection with the fact that
this diffusion began at Jerusalem. It matters not how
widely a church may be diffused, if it did not begin at
Jerusalem, it cannot be the Church of Christ.2 The
fallacy of this argument is immediately apparent to
any one who asks himself what Church really began
its diffusion at Jerusalem. All the schismatic churches
of the East can lay claim to this honor, if material suc­
cession alone be considered. Moreover, the circum­
stance of beginning at Jerusalem belongs to the Apostolicity of the Church rather than to its catholicity.
A third opinion was proposed by De San, who main­
tained that catholicity is a positive mark, because it is
externally manifest in the undying zeal with which the
light of the Gospel is constantly spread farther and
1 “De Ecclesia Christi,” Vol. II, n. 1443.
2 “De Ecclesia Christi,” p. 557.

156

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

farther throughout the world. Although a like zeal
may be found in false sects, it can never be so ardent
nor so fruitful as it is in the true Church, endowed with
all the means of sanctification.3 The futility of this
opinion is quite evident; comparative degrees of zeal
and fruitfulness are not so easily recognized by all.
Moreover, zeal and fruitfulness belong not to the
catholicity of the Church, but to her sanctity.
It is evident from the above considerations that
catholicity in itself is merely a negative mark of the
Church; practically, however, it has always been a posi­
tive mark, owing to the fact that the one Church alone
has ever been truly catholic by universal diffusion
throughout the world, and it is probable that this one
Church has been relatively more wide-spread at all
times than any other Church.

§4. Apostolicity as a Mark of the Church

Apostolicity of doctrine is equivalent to “preaching
the pure word of God,” and, therefore, cannot be a
mark of the Church; in fact, it is only through the
testimony of the Church, already known and accepted,
that all the doctrines taught by the Apostles may be
known with certainty. Apostolicity of doctrine may
serve as a mark of the true Church in individual cases.
A person may know from a study of Scripture or tradi­
tion that a certain doctrine is undoubtedly Apostolic;
he can then easily judge that any Church rejecting this
3 “Tractatus de Ecclesia,” p. 123.

MARKS OF THE CHURCH

157

' j*

doctrine is not the true Church of Christ, and if there
be but one Church teaching and professing it, that
Church must be the true one.1
Apostolicity of origin, being necessarily included in
that of succession, need not be considered here. Apos­
tolicity, as a mark, is thus restricted to succession, and
that a material succession, since legitimacy is not an
external quality easily recognized by all, whereas ma- / \ ' C I U4
terial succession, i. e., an unbroken line of pastors f / X.
reaching back to the Apostles, can be known even by
the unlearned as easily as the succession of civil rulers
in the State. But since Apostolicity of material suc­
cession may, and probably does, exist in some schismat­
ical churches, it constitutes a negative mark only.

§ 5. Persecretion as a Mark oj the Church
Persecution may serve as a quasi-mark of the Church
during the period of preparation prior to the coming
of Antichrist. Christ has foretold that His Church
must suffer unrelenting hatred and persecution: “If
the world hate you, know ye that it hath hated me be­
fore you . . . But because you are not of the world,
but I have chosen you out oj the world, therefore the
world hateth you. Remember my word that I said
to you: The servant is not greater than his master.
If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute
you . . . But all these things they will do to you for
my name’s sake.” 2 Again He said: “They will put
1 T. W. Allies, “The See of Peter,” Introd.
2 John xv, 18-21.

158

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

you out oj the synagogues; yea, the hour cometh that
whosoever killeth you, will think that he doth a service
to God . . . and you shall be hated by all men for my
name’s sake.”2
As Christ was hated, despised, calumniated, and
persecuted in His natural body, so also shall He be in
His mystical body, the Church. Therefore a Church
that is not thus despised and persecuted, can scarcely
be the one which Christ had in mind when He uttered
the words quoted above. It is always consoling to
realize that those who calumniate the Church and stir
up persecution against her, are fulfilling the prophecies
of Christ and thus they unwittingly prove her divine
character. Thus does “He that dwclleth in heaven
laugh at them; and the Lord deride them.” 3
CONCLUSION

The power of miracles (manifestative sanctity) is the
only positive mark whose presence alone is sufficient to
identify the true Church of Christ. The other marks,
taken separately, are only negative; the presence of one
or another is not sufficient proof that the true Church
has been found. Taken collectively, however, they
furnish infallible proof for the Church in which they
are found.
Today there are hundreds of religious organizations
claiming to be the Church of Christ, yet we know there
2 John xvi, 2, 3; Matt, x, 22.
3 Ps. ii, 4.

MARKS OF THE CHURCH

159

can be but one true Church. Knowing the marks
which this one true Church must possess, we begin our
search for it by examining the different churches one
by one. If we chance upon a church with the power
of miracles,—the signature of God’s own writing,—we
look no further; God’s approval is sufficient proof.
But if examination shows a church to lack any one of
the four marks, it must be rejected and the search con­
tinued, until a church is found possessing all four.
When once this Church is found, further investigation
is unnecessary; the true Church has been identified,
and the others must be false. This is the investigation
to be carried out in the following pages by examining
(1) the Catholic Church, (2) the Protestant churches,
(3) the Anglican Church, and (4) the schismatic
Churches of the East. The Anglican Church will be
considered separately, not because it differs essentially
from other Protestant churches, but because the High
Church party makes special claims to Apostolicity.
ART. III. MARKS OF THE CHURCH APPLIED

§ 1. The Catholic Church

A.

The Catholic Church Possesses Unity of
Faith, Worship, and Government

Unity oj Faith. Absolute unity of faith is found
in the Catholic Church. This fact is patent to any
one who will examine her creeds, the decrees of her
councils, her catechisms and other books of instruction,
a)

160

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

in which the same doctrines are proposed to each and
every member throughout the world. It is also a wellknown fact that the Catholic Church demands com­
plete and unqualified acceptance and profession of all
her teachings.
b) Unity oj Worship. The Catholic Church main­
tains strict unity of worship throughout the world by
administering the same Sacraments and by offering the
same Sacrifice in all places and at all times. She even
maintains unity in many things that are not essential;
e. in the invocation of Saints, the veneration of relics
and images, praying for the dead, and many similar
devotions. These facts are obvious to all who will ob­
serve them.
c) Unity oj Government. If there is any one char­
acteristic of the Catholic Church more widely known
than another, it is her unity of government; in fact, it
is so well-known that Catholics are often unjustly ac­
cused of blind obedience to the Church even in civil
matters. Unity of government is preserved by the ex­
ercise of one supreme authority, to which all Catholics
give willing obedience in things spiritual; all bishops
are appointed by the Roman Pontiff and rule their
dioceses in subjection to him. Every priest in the
Church receives authority from a bishop in communion
with Rome. All laws for the universal Church are
enacted by the one supreme authority, and there is but
one supreme judge for the whole Church. Moreover,
every part of the Church is in communion with every
other part under the direction of the chief pastor, the

MARKS OF THE CHURCH

161

Bishop of Rome, just as all members of the body are
united under one common head. In other words, there
is perfect social unity in the Catholic Church. Père
Lacordaire has eloquently portrayed the unity of the
Church in these words: “I hear from far and near,
from the depths of ages and of generations; I hear the
voices which form but one,—the voices of infants, of
virgins, of young men, of the aged; of artists, of poets,
of philosophers; the voices of princes and nations; the
voices of time and space: the deep musical voice of
unity! It chants the canticle of the only society of
minds found here below; it repeats without ceasing that
declaration, the only one to be found which is stable
and consolatory: Credo in unam, sanctam, catholicam
et apostolicam Ecclesiam y 1
B.

The Catholic Church Possesses Manifestative and Causative Sanctity

fl) Miracles. The
sanctity of the Catholic Church is proved by a series of
innumerable miracles reaching back to the day when
St. Peter cured the lame man at the gate of the Temple.2
Even today miracles are frequent in the Church and
performed under conditions that make them a con­
firmation of her doctrines and practices. The many
miracles performed every year at Lourdes in France
are a divine approval of the veneration which the
i. MANiFESTATiVE

sanctity,

1 “Conferences on the Church,” Conf. 29 (Eng. tr.).
2 Acts iii, 1 sqq.

162

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

Church gives to the Mother of God,3 and the miracle
of St. Januarius’s blood that takes place at Naples
several times each year is a positive approval for the
veneration of relics.4 These are only a few of the
better known miracles taking place in the Church to­
day, and they are mentioned in particular because they
are well authenticated by the testimony of eminent
men, both Catholic and non-Catholic.
b) Eminent Sanctity. The Catholic Church is
justly renowned for the eminent sanctity of many of
her children. Witness the glorious line of martyrs,
confessors and virgins of both sexes, of every age, and
from every condition of life that has spread lustre
upon the Church from the days of St. Stephen, the first
martyr, until the present day! How many youths and
virgins, how many men and women has the Church
been able to hold up as perfect examples of all virtues!
Their very names fill volumes.
Eminent sanctity shines forth daily in the many re­
ligious orders of the Church, where the Evangelical
Counsels are reduced to daily practice in hospitals, or­
phanages, and other charitable institutions that dot
every’ country of the globe. Note, too, the many
priests and religious who, from pure love of God, give
themselves up to a living death in caring for lepers in
different parts of the world.5
z Dr. A. Marchand, “The Facts of Lourdes and the Medical Bu­
reau”; E. Le Bee, “Medical Proof of the Miraculous.”
4 E. P. Graham, “The Mystery of Naples,” Herder.
6 Cf. Robert L Stevenson’s “Open Letter to Rev. Dr. Hyde”;
Charles W. Stoddard, “The Lepers of Molokai.”

MARKS OF THE CHURCH

163

c) Wonderfid Fecundity. Along with the eminent
sanctity of her children, the wonderful fecundity of the
Catholic Church must be classed as a moral miracle at­
testing her divine mission. Here should be noted her
unprecedented propagation throughout the Roman Em­
pire in the first ages of her existence, and her glorious
triumph over paganism. In the centuries that fol­
lowed this triumph, she tamed the fierce barbarians
from the North, and reared the present structure of
Christian civilization in Europe. In fact, the Catholic
Church alone has succeeded in bringing barbarian tribes
and nations to civilization and to the fakh of Christ.
Others have tried, but the only result is extermination.
Witness the native tribes of America; wherever the
Catholic Church announced the Gospel, the Indians
were converted and remain today in the process of
civilization. Everywhere else they have practically
disappeared.
The civilizing and leavening power of the Catholic
Church is evident today in the various pagan lands
where converts are being made by the millions, while
others are self-admitted failures. In 1897 the secre­
tary of Protestant Missions in India wrote: “The
Romanists are advancing by leaps and bounds in
Tonquin. . . . Their advance is still greater at present
in China and Corea where there are more than a million
and an half converts with one thousand priests and
eight hundred schools. In India and Ceylon the strides
of Romanism are startling and unprecedented.” 0 Anc Quoted in the London Tablet, Jan. 30, 1897.

164

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

other non-Catholic wrote some years ago: “The
Roman Church in India is gaining ground so rapidly
that in many districts it threatens to swamp the Estab­
lished missions, which it is able to outbid, while else­
where it has the field to itself.”7 The progress of the
Catholic Church is no less remarkable in Africa where
today she numbers ninety bishops, three thousand
priests and over three million faithful. The native
Protestants of Africa number about four hundred
thousand, with little more than half that number re­
ported as “communicants.” In China the Catholic
Church now has more than two million converts whereas
the native Protestants scarcely amount to fifty thou­
sand.8
n. causative sanctity. It is immediately evident
to any investigator of the Catholic Church that her
every doctrine and precept, all her practices of devo­
tion, and especially her sacramental system, are emi­
nently fitted to lead men to the practice of virtue and to
a life of holiness. This becomes still more evident
when it is noted that her members are always holy in
exact proportion to their faithfulness to her teachings
and precepts. It will be sufficient to call attention to
her teaching and practice in regard to marriage and
divorce, to the honor she pays to the Blessed Virgin,
and to the practice of confession. The Church teaches
7 Church Times, Jan. 28, 1910.
s Cfr. Encyclopedia Americana, art. “China”; Catholic Encyclo­
pedia, art. Africa.

MARKS OF THE CHURCH

165

that marriage is a Sacrament of the New Law, indis­
soluble except by death; this sanctifies the union of
husband and wife, and protects the morality of the in­
dividual, the home and society to a degree that cannot
be overestimated.
Lecky, a rationalist, has eloquently set forth the in­
fluence of veneration for the Blessed Virgin: “The
world is governed by its ideals, and seldom or never
has there been one which has exercised a more pro­
found, and, on the whole, a more salutary influence than
the medieval conception of the Virgin. For the first
time woman was elevated to her rightful position, and
the sanctity of weakness was recognized as well as the
sanctity of sorrow. . . . The moral charm and beauty
of female excellence was for the first time felt. A new
type of character was called into being; a new kind of
admiration was fostered. Into a hard and ignorant
and benighted age this ideal type infused a conception
of gentleness and purity unknown to the proudest civ­
ilizations of the past. ... All that was best in Europe
clustered around it, and it is the origin of many of the
purest elements of our civilization.” 9
The value of confession, even apart from any ques­
tion of sacramental absolution, has been recognized by
many non-Catholics. Leibnitz said: “This whole in­
stitution, it cannot be denied, is worthy of divine wis­
dom; and if, in the Christian religion, there be any or­
dinance singularly excellent and worthy of admiration,
9 W. E. H. Lecky, “Rationalism in Europe,” Vol., I, p. 225.

166

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

it is this. ... I believe a pious, prudent, and grave
confessor to be a powerful instrument in the hands
of God for the salvation of souls.” 10
C. The Catholic Church Possesses Universality
of Diffusion

The universal diffusion of the Catholic Church is ad­
mitted by all. Wherever the name of Christ is heard
and reverenced, there also is the Catholic Church
known. There also has she her pastors with faithful
subjects in communion with the See of Rome. For
this reason she is known preeminently as the Catholic
Church. Even in the beginning of the fifth century
St. Augustine could say: “In the Catholic Church
there are many things that justly hold me; . . . among
these is the very name itself, which this Church alone
among so many heresies has obtained. Even those
heretics who wish to be known as Catholics, when asked
by a stranger where the Catholics meet for worship, will
never point out their own basilica or house of w’orship.”11
The Catholic Church is not only diffused throughout
the whole world, but is also more widely diffused than
any other Christian denomination, and most probably
has always been thus relatively universal. Many
theologians insist upon the fact that the Catholic
Church numbers more adherents than any other Chris10 “Systema Theologicum.”
11 “Contra Epist. Fundament.,” P. L., 42, 175.

MARKS OF THE CHURCH

167

tian Church, perhaps even more than all the others com­
bined; but, as already noted, this has no bearing on the
question of Catholicity, since it is diffusion, not num­
bers, that makes a Church universal. Simply as a
matter of interest it may be stated that H. K. Carroll,
a non-Catholic, estimated the Christian population of
the world for the year 1918 as follows: Catholics 294,583,000; Protestants 194,102,000; Eastern Schismatics
120,729,000.12
Roman Catholic. The Church is usually referred to
as Roman Catholic. The title Roman, however, is not used
in a restrictive sense, to indicate that the Church exists only
in Rome; neither is it used as a distinctive term, intimating
that there are other Catholic churches from which this one
must be distinguished. The title Roman merely points out
the fact that Rome is the centre from which all authority in
the Church radiates; it is the centre whose circumference
occupies the whole world.

D.

The Catholic Church Possesses Apostolicity
of Succession

The unbroken succession of bishops in the Roman
See from the days of St. Peter to the present time, is a
matter of historical knowledge, admitted by all, and
since all parts of the Church are in communion with the
See of Rome and derive authority from it, there can be
no doubt of Apostolic succession in the whole Church.
12 H. K. Carroll in the Encyclopedia Americana, art. “Christian
Church.”

168

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST
CONCLUSION

The four characteristic marks of the Church founded
by Christ are completely realized in the Catholic
Church of today; therefore she is the one true Church
of Christ, the Church commissioned to carry the Gos­
pel and the means of salvation to all nations until the
consummation of the world. She has received power
and authority to carry out this mission, and all men
are obliged to accept her teaching and submit to her
authority under pain of eternal damnation. “If he will
not hear the Church let him be as the heathen and the
publican.” 13

E. Objections Answered
Objection I. At the time of the Western Schism
the Catholic Church lost her unity for many years by
being divided into two, and even three, parties each
following a pope of its own choosing.
Answer.—The Western Schism caused great harm
to the Church in many ways, but it did not affect her
unity. After the death of Gregory XI, in 1378, the
cardinals proceeded to elect Urban VI as his successor.
Three months later, several cardinals claimed the elec­
tion of Urban to be invalid and selected Robert of
Geneva as Pope, under the name of Clement VII. Dif­
ferences of opinion naturally arose regarding the valid­
ity of these elections; some believed Urban VI the
13 Matt, xviii, 17.

MARKS OF THE CHURCH

169

rightful pope, while others accepted Clement VII. In
1409 an attempt was made to remedy this situation,
but the result was disappointing, and matters were made
worse by the election of a third claimant, who took
the name of Alexander V. Thus matters continued
until the Council of Constance, in 1417, when
Martin V was elected and recognized by all as the law­
ful Pope.
At no time during these troubles did any one ever
entertain the idea that there were three popes, or that
the Church was divided in its government. All ad­
mitted that there could be but one legitimate pope, and
each party followed the one whom they believed to be
the lawfully elected successor of St. Peter. The
Church was no more divided by the schism than our
own government would be by a disputed election to the
office of presidency.
Objection II. During the Arian heresy in the
fourth century, the Catholic Church ceased to be Cath­
olic or universal, for, as St. Jerome said on one oc­
casion: “The whole world groaned and was surprised
to find itself Arian.” 14
Answer.—These words of St. Jerome are not to be
taken literally, as is evident from the circumstances.
At the councils of Rimini and Seleucia, in 359, the
Arians gained a victory by having a creed adopted in
which their errors were not directly condemned. This
aided them in the spread of their doctrines, because
they could make it appear that the councils had ap14 “Contra Luciferianos”; P. L., 23, 172.

170

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

proved them. When hearing of this, St. Jerome used
the words quoted in the objection. It is true that the
Arians made rapid strides, even many priests and
bishops fell into their errors, but the Church never
ceased to be truly universal, and most probably con­
tinued at all times more wide-spread than the Arian
sect, despite the fact that the emperors did all in their
power to spread the heresy. St. Athanasius and the
bishops of his patriarchate wrote to the Emperor in
this matter: ‘‘The churches of every nation agree
with the Nicene Faith,—those in Spain, Britain, and
Gaul; in Italy, Dalmatia and Mysia; in Macedonia, in
all Greece and the whole of Africa; in Sardinia, Cyprus,
Crete, Pamphylia, Isauria, and Lycia, and in all Egypt
and Lybia, Pontus, Cappadocia, and adjacent districts,
and in all the eastern churches, except a few who be­
lieve with Arius. We have certain knowledge regard­
ing the above-mentioned churches, because we have
letters from them, and we know, most religious Em­
peror, how few they are who contradict this faith.” 15
Even granting that these words contain some rhetor­
ical exaggeration, they still show that the Church had
not ceased to be truly Catholic by her diffusion through­
out the then knowm world.
Objection HI.—The condition of Catholic coun­
tries as compared with countries in which Protestantism
prevails, clearly proves that Protestantism has far
greater influence on the progress and civilization of
16 St. Athanasius, “Ad Jovianum,” quoted in Theodoret’s Church
History, IV, 3; P. G., S2, 1126.

MARKS OF THE CHURCH

171

the world than the Catholic Church, and, therefore, has
greater claims to consideration as the true religion of
Christ.
Answer.—The solution of this objection depends to
a great extent upon the meaning attached to progress
and civilization. Does it consist in spiritual or ma­
terial progress? The Church of Christ was commis­
sioned to preach the Gospel and save souls, not to pro­
vide material prosperity and bodily comfort. She was
not established to build factories, railroads, and steam­
ships, nor to increase the commerce of nations. That
is the purpose of civil governments, and progress in
these matters depends not upon religion, but upon
racial genius, climate, soil, geographical position, and
the nature of governments. Religion has only an in­
direct effect upon material progress. Many heathen
nations surrounding Palestine were far more advanced
materially than were the Israelites, yet no one would
claim this as proof that the religion of those nations
was superior to that of the Chosen People.
Nations, like individuals, are often materially pros­
perous precisely because they have neither religion nor
conscience. A church that makes material progress
and prosperity the measure of truth cannot be the
Church of Him who said: “Lay not up to yourselves
treasiires on earth, . . . but lay zip to yourselves
treasiires in heaven.” 10 When it is said that Protes­
tant countries are more prosperous than Catholic coun­
tries, it is implied that the Protestant religion has pro­
ie Matt, vi, 19, 20.

172

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

duced this prosperity and, therefore, should be pre­
ferred to the Catholic religion. Prosperity and wealth
are held out as the motive for accepting it. This is the
argument used long ago by Satan when he said: “Be­
hold the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them.
All these will I give to thee, if falling down thou wilt
adore me.” 17 Any church that wishes to appropriate
this argument of Satan is welcome to it; the Catholic
Church has no need for it.18
§ 2. Protestant Churches
Having discovered that the Catholic Church pos­
sesses all the marks of the true Church, it is unneces­
sary to make further investigation; the true Church has
been identified and all others must be rejected as hu­
man inventions, having no claim upon our considera­
tion. Yet, for the sake of making our investigations
complete, it is well to show that no other church has
any claim whatever, since they all lack every single
mark of the Church as set forth in the Sacred Scrip­
tures.
I. Unity. It is obvious to the most casual observer
that Protestant churches, whether taken collectively
or singly, posses no unity of faith. Such unity is ab­
solutely excluded by their fundamental doctrine of
private interpretation in matters of faith. Each one
17 Matt, iv, 8-9.
lsOn this matter cfr. Father Young, “Catholic and Protestant
Countries Compared”; II G. Graham, “Prosperity Catholic and
Protestant”; Balmes, “Histon· of European Civilization.”

MARKS OF THE CHURCH

173

must decide for himself what doctrines he is to be­
lieve, with the result that there are as many different
faiths as there are members in the churches. They
agree in one thing only,—protesting against the
Catholic Church; hence the name Protestant. “Pro­
testantism always bears the same name despite the
great diversity of faith, and this because the name is
purely negative, signifying nothing save renunciation of
Catholicism. Hence the less they believe and the more
they protest, the more truly do they become Protes­
tants.” 1
The total lack of unity of faith in Protestant
Churches is well illustrated by the following words of a
Presbyterian author: “The catholicity of the Presby­
terian Church appears in her one condition of church
membership. . . . The applicant is not asked to sub­
scribe to our standards or to assent to our theology.
He is not required to be a Calvinist, but only to be a
Christian. He is not examined as to his orthodoxy,
but only as to his ‘faith in and obedience unto Christ.’
He may have imperfect notions about the Trinity and
the atonement; he may question infant baptism, elec­
tion, and final perseverance; but if he trusts and obeys
Christ as his personal Saviour and Lord, the door of the
Presbyterian Church is open to him, and all the
privileges of her communion are his.” 2
As there is no unity of faith, so neither can there be
unity of worship in Protestant churches. For example,
1 J. De Maistre, “Du Pape,” IV, 5.
2 E. W. Smith, “The Creed of Presbyterians,” p. 198,

174

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

some hold Baptism to be necessary and religiously look
to its proper administration; others reject it as an
empty ceremony, having no more value than the initia­
tion ceremonies of a lodge. Some practice infant Bap­
tism, while others reject it as unscriptural. These dif­
ferences are found, not only among members of the dif­
ferent denominations, but also among the members of
one and the same Church.
The lack of unity in government is no less obvious
than in faith and worship. No Protestant church even
claims to be the Church of Christ; each is but a part of
the Church universal, yet they are in no way united to
form one universal, visible Church. Any attempt at
union results in further division, because their funda­
mental doctrine of private interpretation is a principle
of division that continually separates them into an ever
increasing multiplicity of sects. The Methodists of
this country are now divided into twenty-five distinct
churches’ And still the division goes on. Some years
ago Dr. Stowe said: “Protestantism is a kind of
modern Cerberus with a hundred and twenty-five heads,
all barking discordantly, and is like the mob of
Ephesus. Thoughtful Christians looking on and be­
holding with sadness this confusion worse confounded,
cannot fail to ask: Did our Lord Jesus Christ come
on this earth to establish this pitiful mob of debating
societies, or a Church of the living God, capable of
making itself felt as a pillar and ground of truth?” 3
II. Sanctity. Protestant Churches lack all mani3 Dr Chas. E. Stowe in the Boston Herald, Dec. 15, 1905.

MARKS OF THE CHURCH

175

festative sanctity; in fact they stoutly deny that the
Church has any power of miracles, and they make no
pretence to eminent sanctity in their members. They
have never produced a saint and claim none. A non­
Catholic author, writing of St. Catherine of Siena, said:
“The rarity of such saints in Protestantism is probably
to the devout mind the strongest argument in favor of
Catholic claims.” 4 Protestants have rejected the very
means to produce such saints; they ridicule the practice
of the Evangelical Counsels, and stigmatize works of
supererogation as superstitions. Therefore, as a non­
Catholic periodical admitted, “religious orders cannot
flourish in Protestant countries. Those who wish to
establish such orders must betake themselves to the
Church of Rome.” 5
Protestant Churches also lack causative sanctity, ex­
cept in so far as they have retained Catholic teaching
and practices. Every distinctively Protestant doctrine
tends directly to break down morality and lessen sanc­
tity in the lives of the people. Witness, for example,
the distinctively Protestant teachings on marriage and
divorce. The evil results have been incalculable, as all
students of social conditions admit. In rejecting con­
fession, Protestants have removed a most powerful in­
fluence for good in restraining evil passions. Refusing
honor to the Mother of God has resulted logically in a
wide-spread denial of the divinity of her Son, and
private interpretation of the Bible has brought about
4 T. W. Stead, in the Review oj Reviews, Feb., 1897.
cThe Independent, Nov. 28, 1895.

->·»■

176

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

the present rejection of inspiration by an ever increas­
ing number outside the Catholic Church. The group
of Fundamentalists, who are striving to check the
spread of this evil, are acting contrary to Protestant
principles. The Modernist group are correct in their
contention that they are carrying the principles of the
Reformation to their logical conclusions. With justice
then has it been said that “the doctrines and morals of
Protestantism have been placed in the balance these
three hundred years, and have been found wanting.” 6
III. Catholicity. Protestant churches, taken
singly, are not universal in any sense of the word. For
the most part they are merely national churches strictly
limited in their diffusion. Even if taken together as
forming one Church,—which they do not,—they can
scarcely be called universal in their diffusion.
IV. Apostolicity. With the exception of the
Anglican Church, no Protestant church makes any
claim to Apostolicity for the very good reason that it
could establish no succession beyond the sixteenth cen­
tury. Moreover most Protestant churches have re­
jected the very idea of a ministry having any authority
to teach and govern other than that derived from the
faithful.

§ 3. The Anglican Church
All that has been said concerning Protestant churches
in general, applies also to the Anglican Church in parc Rev. Dr. Percival in the Nineteenth Century, Vol. 46, p. 515.

MARKS OF THE CHURCH

177

ticular ; but we have reserved it for separate treatment
because an influential party in that Church lays special
claims to Catholicity and Apostolicity by what are
known as the Branch Theory and the Theory of Con­
tinuity. For convenience sake we include under the
term Anglican both the Established Church of Eng­
land and the Protestant Episcopal Church in America,
because the latter is a lineal descendant of the former
and holds the same views on the matter in question.
Before beginning an examination of the Anglican
claims, it should be noted that such an examination is
really unnecessary, because the Anglican Church is
notoriously deficient in another essential mark of the
Church; it lacks unity of doctrine, and therefore could
not be the true Church of Christ even though it pos­
sessed Catholicity and Apostolicity, as claimed.
Unity. Lack of unity of faith in the Anglican com­
munion is proved by the mere fact that it contains three
distinct parties, teaching doctrines directly opposed one
to another. The High Church party is strikingly
Catholic in its teaching; it accepts almost every doc­
trine of the Catholic Church except the infallibility of
the Pope. The Low Church is thoroughly Protestant
in its teachings and practices and rejects nearly all
Catholic doctrine as “Romish superstition.” The
Broad Church is rationalistic and makes no definite
statement of doctrine. Yet all these parties are recog­
nized as members of the Anglican Church, teaching
and professing her approved doctrines! This con­
stitutes her “glorious comprehensiveness,” by which

178

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

every shade of doctrinal difference is embraced within
her fold. Justly, therefore, did Macaulay say that
“the religion of the Church of England ... is in fact
a jumble of religious systems without number.” 1
There can be no unity because there is no authority
to enforce it. “The Church,” says an Anglican vicar,
“possesses no control over the conscience, mind or
spiritual life of its members, save by consent; and even
then can only exercise that control indirectly,—by ap­
peal, suggestion, or influence.” 2 “Bishops of the An­
glican Communion,” says Father Finlay, “can meet
together in Lambeth or in Canterbury; and the An­
glican Archbishop who holds the cathedral of Anselm
and Thomas à Becket will probably be invited to pre­
side over them. But no one has a right to convoke
them; they meet because they themselves choose to
meet, as the members of a Section on Religion in the
British Association; and the outcome of the confer­
ence and discussions is entirely without authority.
They cannot decide a doctrinal controversy. They
cannot determine a point of liturgy. They cannot
enact or abrogate a single detail of Church discipline.
They know, they have been warned, and they profess,
that even a Pan-Anglican Synod can only discuss and
offer counsel; it can neither teach nor command author­
itatively. There is no living principle of unity in the
Anglican, as there is none in the Greek Communion.” 3
1 Macaulay, “Essay on Church and State.”
2 Charles A. Barry’, “First Principles of the Church,” p. 36.
3 Peter Finlay, S. J., “The Church of Christ,” p. 168.

MARKS OF THE CHURCH

179

The Branch Theory. As already noted, the
Branch Theory maintains that the Church of Christ
consist of three parts or branches,—the Roman, the
Greek, and the Anglican, and that consequently the An­
glican Church is truly Catholic, since it is a part of the
Church universal and a corporate continuation of the
Church in England before the Reformation. The fol­
lowing quotation from Father Finlay will show the utter
absurdity of this theory: “Though it has been promi­
nently before the world for three-quarters of a century,
it finds no one to accept and advocate it outside of the
Anglican Communion. A section,—a small minority
probably of the Church of England,—maintains the the­
ory. The large majority of Protestant Episcopalians
know nothing of it; while Greeks and Roman Catholics
repudiate it utterly. Is it likely that the Church of
Christ is constituted on a pattern which not one in a
hundred of her members will acknowledge? Are we to
believe that the true constitution of the Church was hid­
den from mankind,—from the Church herself,—through
nineteen centuries, and was only then to be made
known to a little group of Anglican theologians who
have failed to persuade any but a handful of their own
Communion that their conception of the Church is that
of Christ?” 4
The Continuity Theory. According to this the­
ory the Anglican Church is a continuation of the Cath­
olic Church which existed in England before the Refor­
4 “Church of Christ,” p. 168.

180

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

mation; thus she is an integral part of the Church
universal and truly Apostolic in her succession, which
reaches back in an unbroken line beyond Augustine to
the first missionaries who brought the Gospel to the
British Isles, perhaps even in the days of the Apostles.
She differs only in a few accidental matters from the
other branches of the Church. “The facts of history,”
says an Anglican writer, “compel us to assume the ab­
solute identity of the Church of England after the Ref­
ormation with the Church of England before the
Reformation. ... No act was done by which legal and
historical continuity was broken.” 5
This theory has as little to commend it as the Branch
Theory. The facts of history compel us to assume
the absolute lack of identity between the Church of
England before the Reformation and the Church of
England after the Reformation because acts were done
that did break the legal and historical continuity. The
year in which continuity was finally broken can be
given, as well as the acts and the actors by which it was
accomplished.
The Catholic religion had been reëstablished in Eng­
land by Mary, but in 1559, shortly after the accession
of Elizabeth. Parliament again rejected the authority of
the Pope, declared Elizabeth supreme head of the
Church, and reinstated the reformed ritual of Edward
VI. An oath recognizing royal supremacy in matters
ecclesiastical was demanded of all the bishops. Those
who refused to take it were to be deprived of their sees.
c E. A. Freeman, “Disestablishment and Disendowment.”

MARKS OF THE CHURCH

181

As a result of this action but one bishop was left by the
end of that year. The places of the others were filled
by men conspicuous for their attachment to the new
order of things. Matthew Parker was appointed Arch­
bishop of Canterbury, but no Catholic bishop would
consecrate him; even Kitchen of Landaff, the only one
who took the oath of supremacy, pleaded ill-health
to escape the responsibility of consecrating the new
pseudo-archbishop. Elizabeth then took matters in
hand and commissioned Barlow, Scorey, Coverdale, and
Hodgkins to consecrate Parker according to the Edwardine ritual. This act was undoubtedly invalid,6
yet every bishop in the Anglican Church derives his
orders and succession from Parker.
In 1560 a. d. the ritual was revised and the forty-two
Articles reduced to thirty-nine, as at present accepted
by the Anglican Church. These articles renounced the
authority of the Pope, made Elizabeth head of the
Church in England, rejected five Sacraments, the doc­
trine of Purgatory, the invocation of saints and the
veneration of relics, and declared the Mass a blasphe­
mous fable and a vain deceit. It is evident, then, that
the faith of the Church was changed in its essential
doctrines,—the supremacy of the Pope, the Mass, and
the Sacraments. Elizabeth also removed every lawful
bishop and filled the sees with pliant tools of her own
choice, contrary to all the canons and traditions of
e Cf. Alzog, “Church History,” Vol. Ill, p. 329, note 2 (Eng. ed.) ;
Catholic Encyclopedia, art. “Anglican Orders”; H. C. Semple, S. J.,
“Anglican Ordinations.”

182

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

the Church, and had them consecrated by an invalid
ceremony. If the Church resulting from these acts
be identical with the Church before the change, there is
no possibility of destroying continuity. On the same
principle the United States of America are still a part
of the British Empire, because the change wrought by
the American Revolution was no greater in the realm
of political life than the revolution caused by Elizabeth
in the Church. The American colonies rejected the
authority of the English king, ousted his officials, drew
up new articles of political faith, and established a su­
preme authority instead of the rejected authority of
the king.—and the result is recognized by all as a dis­
tinct and independent government, a new nation, hav­
ing no legal continuity with the British government and
forming no part of it. Elizabeth and her Parliament
did the same for the English Church, and the result was
a new and independent Church, established, not by
Christ but by Parliament,—a Church having no conti­
nuity with the ancient Church in England and forming
no part of it.
Succession. The Church of England, having no
valid Orders, can have no Apostolic succession in re­
gard to the power of Orders, since this power is trans­
mitted by valid consecration. But even granting her
valid Orders, she can have nothing more than material
succession, because her whole line is derived from an
intruder, who obtained his position contrary to the
canons of the Church and, therefore, did not receive

MARKS OF THE CHURCH

183

the jurisdiction or authority belonging to the office.
Λ usurper may found a new dynasty; he cannot con­
tinue the old.
But for the sake of argument, let it be supposed that
all bishops of the Anglican Communion have valid
Orders, and that all the bishops of Elizabeth’s creation
were selected according to the canons of the Church
and actually confirmed by the Roman Pontiff; even
then they could lay no claim to legitimate succession of
jurisdiction, for the simple reason that it would have
been lost by their rejection of papal supremacy. Com­
munion with Rome, as we have seen,7 is an essential
condition for receiving or retaining jurisdiction in the
Church. The situation is aptly expressed in the words
of St. Optatus of Mileve to the Donatists of Africa:
“You should realize, even at this late date, that you are
limbs broken from the tree; branches torn from the
vine; a stream separated from its source. ... By the
chair of Peter, which is ours, the other marks are
proved to be in the holy Catholic Church.” 8
§ 4. Schismatic Churches oj the East
I. Unity. The schismatic churches of the East
all lack unity of government. What is known as the
Orthodox Church of the East is a mere fiction; in real­
ity it is but a number of independent, national churches,
7 Cf. above, p. 141.
8 “De Schismate Donatistarum,” II, 9; P. L., 11, 962.

184

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

united only in their opposition to Rome. Neither have
they unity of faith, since there is no supreme authority
to teach or govern. Under such conditions, differences
and changes in doctrine are inevitable. The rejection
of the deuterocanonical books of Scripture may be cited
as an example of changed teaching. The Eastern
churches always numbered these among the inspired
books of Scripture until Prokopovitch rejected them at
the beginning of the eighteenth century. There was
no authority to correct this error, and in the course
of a few years it became the official doctrine of the
schismatic churches. Even the official creeds, e. g.,
the creed of Moghila and that of Dositheus, teach con­
tradictory doctrines on many important points,1 and in
many cases their official teaching is contradicted by
their liturgies.
II. Catholicity. The schismatic churches of the
East, even when considered as one church, are in no
sense Catholic or universal in their diffusion. They
are limited almost entirely to Asia Minor, Egypt, Abys­
sinia, and eastern Europe.
III.Apostolicity. Most of the
Orthodox
churches of the East have valid Orders, and to that ex­
tent may be called Apostolic; they have Apostolic suc­
cession of the powers of Orders. In some cases they
may also have a material succession of bishops from
Apostolic times, but this avails them nothing, since
they lack both unity and Catholicity,—two essential
1 Cf. D’Alès, “Dictionnaire Apologétique,” art. “Grecque, Église.”

MARKS OF THE CHURCH

185

marks of the true Church. In no case do they have
legitimate succession; there is no transmission of juris­
diction because they have withdrawn from communion
with Rome, the centre and source of all jurisdiction.

PART II
DOGMATIC
ORGANIZATION AND POWERS

OF THE CHURCH

“Behold the

tabernacle of

WILL DWELL WITH THEM.
PEOPLE.

God with men, and He

AND

THEY SHALL

—Apocalypse

BE HlS
xxi, 3.

INTRODUCTION

In Apologetics, the institution and nature of the
Church is considered only in so far as necessary to
determine which of the many Christian churches exist­
ing today is the true Church of Christ. When this
Church has been identified, dogmatic theology proceeds
to investigate more thoroughly its organization and
powers. This investigation is most easily carried out
by studying the Church as set forth on the pages of
Scripture, and as she has existed through the centuries.
The prophecies of old and the words of Our Lord give
us the plans,—the blue-prints, as it were, according to
which the Church was established and built up; the
writings of the Fathers and the official acts of the
Church herself show us what she has been in every age
since the days of the Apostles, who actually carried out
the organization according to the plans laid down for
them by Christ, the Divine Architect.
Complete and systematic knowledge of a thing is best
obtained by studying its various causes,—efficient, final, ■
material, and formal. The efficient cause of a thing
is the agent whose activity brings it into being; the
final cause is the purpose for which it is brought into
being. The material and formal causes are the consti­
tutive elements,—the material of which a thing is made
189

I

190

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

and that by which the material becomes this particular
thing instead of something else. For example, the ma­
terial cause of a watch is the metal from which it is
made; the formal cause is the shape and arrangement
of parts by which the metal becomes a watch. Apply­
ing these notions to the Church, it is evident that Christ
is its efficient cause, and the salvation of souls its proxi­
mate final cause. The members of whom it is com­
posed are the material cause, and the bonds by which
they are united to form the particular society known as
the Church of Christ constitute the formal cause. But
since all the bonds by which men are constituted a so­
ciety depend upon authority for their preservation, we
may, for all practical purposes, consider authority as
the formal cause of the Church.
Since the efficient and final causes of the Church have
been sufficiently considered in the first part of our work,
we may now pass on to a study of its material and
formal causes, i. e., the members who constitute it and
the bonds by which they are united. But no study of
the Church would be complete unless it took into con­
sideration St. Paul’s conception of it as the Body oj
Christ. Finally, the Church must exist in the Avorld
side by side with civil authority; therefore, it is neces­
sary to consider their mutual relations. Hence this
second part of our work will consider, (1) the Church
as the mystical body of Christ, (2) its members, (3)
its authority, (4) its ministry, i. e., those in whom au­
thority resides and by whom it is exercised, (5) the
relations between Church and State.

CHAPTER V
THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

In describing the Church as the body of Christ, St.
Paul sets forth its real nature in a manner that could
never be known from a mere study of its external or­
ganization and powers. When understood in this light,
the Church stands out in all the glory of her divine
majesty, and the ineffable union of her members with
Christ is clearly perceived. This conception of the
Church also sheds much light upon other doctrines,
particularly upon the nature and operation of the Sacra­
ments. “The Apostle surely was well aware how won­
derful was the truth which he was communicating when
he affirmed Christians to be members of Christ’s body
*
from His Flesh and from His Bones; for he himself
declared it to be a great mystery.1 . . . The mystical
Body of Christ has an organic life like His Body nat­
ural; for Christ was personally Incarnate in that Body
which was slain, but by power and presence will He be
Incarnate in His Church till the end of the world.
As the Gospels are the record of His Presence in the
one, so is Church History that of His Presence in the
other.” 2
1 Ephes, v, 30-32.
2 B. I. Wilberforce, “Principles of Church Authority,” p. 29.
191

192

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

The Church as the body of Christ must be a living
body; therefore, it is necessary to inquire, (1) in what
sense it is the body of Christ, and (2) what is its life­
giving principle; its soul.
ART. I.

THE CHURCH AS THE BODY OF CHRIST

We often speak of a body of men and we refer to
societies as bodies; in fact, certain organizations are
known officially as corporations, from the Latin corpus
—a body. In the days of St. Paul such usage was unknown. The Greek σώμα {body} was never used in
reference to a society, nor κ^αλη {head} for its chief
ruler. In Latin corpus {body} was sometimes used to
designate a band of soldiers, but the modern use of
the word to designate a society seems to be in imitation
of St. Paul. It is evident, then, that the Apostle wished
to convey some special doctrine when he called the
Church a σώμα; it is no mere figure of speech. There
is, of course, a striking similarity between the Church
as a society and a human body; both are composed of
members, each having its own peculiar duties or func­
tions, yet all working together for the good of the whole.
“.4s in one body we have many members, but all the
members have not the same office. So we being many,
qre_one body in Christ and every one members one oj
another:"1 But St. Paul goes beyond this mere ex­
ternal similarity by which any society may be called
a body; he not only compares the Church to a human
1 Rom. xiii, 4, 5.

THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

193

body, but also calls it the body oj Christ: “He gave
some apostles and some prophets . . . for the edifying
oj the body of christ.” 2 Elsewhere he says: “Now
you are the body of christ and members oj mem­
ber y 3 Again he says: “For as the body is one and
hath many members; and all the members of the body,
whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is
Christ” [i.e., the Church].4 Writing to the Colossians, he says: “And he is head of the body, the
Churchy 5
The mere fact that Christ is Head of the Church is
not sufficient to make it His body. A king or ruler is
often called the head of his people, but they are never
referred to as his body, neither are they called his
members. This proves that the bonds of union in the
Church are far different from those found in mere hu­
man societies. The members of a human society are
united to their head by moral bonds only, i. e., by mu­
tual rights and duties; there is no physical connection
of member with member, or of members with the head.
In the Church, the members are united one with an­
other, and all with Christ, their Head, by_ the real
physicalG bond of supernatural grace flowing from the
Head into each and every member, thus making them
partakers of His divine nature: “He hath given us
2 Ephes, iv, 11, 12.
3 1 Cor. xii, 27.
4 1 Cor. xii, 12.
5 Col. i, 13.
c The word physical is here opposed to moral, and therefore does
not imply anything material.

194

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

most great and precious promises, that by these you
may be made partakers of the divine nature.” ' So
real is this union between Christ and His faithful that
St. Paul could say: “I live, now not I, but Christ
livcth in me.” 78*10For the same reason he says that by
Baptism we are ~concorporated with Christ, being engrafted, as it were into His bodyAJ
According to this doctrine of St. Paul, the union be­
tween Christ and the Church must be in every respect
analogous to that between head and members in the
human body, where the head holds the position of emi­
nence and direction, exercises a vivifying influence,
and together with the members forms one complete
whole, the body:
a) Preeminence. In the human body the head oc­
cupies the most prominent position, being placed above
all other members to guard and direct them. In like
manner, Christ occupies the position of preeminence;
He sits at the right hand of God the Father, whence He
looks out, as it were, upon His Church, to guard and
direct it: “Above all principality, and power, and vir­
tue, and domination, and every name that is named not
only in this world, but also in that which is to come.
And He hath subjected all things under his feet, and
hath made hint head over all the Church which is his
body, and the fulness of him who is filled all in all.” 10
7 2 Pet i, 4.
6 Gal. ii, 20.
s Rom. vi, 5 (Greek text).
10 Ephes, i, 21-23.

THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

195

The head also excels all other members of the body,
particularly because it contains the brain, the seat of
all the senses and the intellectual faculties which di­
rect every bodily power and all their activities. So
also does Christ, in His divine perfection, excel by far
every other member of His mystical Body, whose every
power and activity He directs. “Our Head inter­
cedes for us at the right hand of the Father; some He
receives as members; some He punishes, others He
cleanses; some He consoles, others He creates; some
He calls, others He recalls; some He corrects, others
He reinstates.” 11 St. Paul compares Christ’s foster­
ing care for His Church to that of a bridegroom for his
bride: “Christ also loved the Church and delivered
himself up for it, that he might sanctify it .. . that he
might present it to himself a glorious Church not having
spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be
holy and without blemish . . . for no man ever hated
his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it; so
also Christ doth his Church, because we arc members
of his body, of his flesh and of his bones.” 12
/;) Vivifying Influence. The vitalizing forces of the
human body reside principally in the head, whence im­
pulses go out along the tiny nerve filaments to every
cell, directing its activities and thus enabling it to
discharge its proper functions. In like manner, im­
pressions received in any portion of the body are
carried back along the nerve fibres to the brain. Any
11 St. Augustine, “Enarratio in Ps.,” Ixxxv, S; P. L., 37, 1085.
12 Ephes, v, 25 sq.

196

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

member cut off from this union with the head by a sev­
erance of its nerves, soon decays and ceases to be a
member of the body. So also in the Church, the vivi­
fying power of grace resides in Jesus Christ, its Head,
whence it flows into every member, thus uniting him
with Christ and enabling him to perform supernatural
acts. “I am the vine” says Christ, “and you the
branches; he that abideth in vie, and I in him, the same
beareth much fruit; for without me you can do noth­
ing. Jf any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth
as a branch, and shall wither.” 13 As the branches of
a vine draw from it the life-giving sap, so do the mem­
bers of Christ’s mystical body draw from Him the life­
giving principle of grace. This is done principally in
the Sacraments, especially in the Holy Eucharist, where
we are corporally united with Christ, as St. Paul ex­
plains: “The chalice of benediction which we bless,
is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And
the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of
the body of the Lord?” 14
c) Intimate Union. In the material body, head and
members are physiologically united to form one com­
plete whole; neither the head nor the trunk is complete
without the other. In like manner the Church is so
united with Christ as Head that St. Paul does not hesi­
tate to call the resulting whole by the very name of
Christ himself: “As the body is one and hath many
13 John xv, 5-6.
14 1 Cor. x, 16.

I

THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

197

members; and all the members of the body, whereas
they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ.” 15
Here the Apostle plainly applies the name Christ to the
Church. In another place he says that we grow to­
gether in Christ as the members of a natural body with
their head : “Doing the truth in charity we may in all
things grow up in him who is the head, even Christ
from whom the whole body being compacted and fitly
jointed together, by what every joint supplieth accord­
ing to the operation in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in
charity.” 1,5 These words represent Christ as dwelling
within the Church, where He operates through every
joint and member, that we all may grow together with
Him {concrescamus cum illoj, and be ever more closely
united with Him through charity. The Church, then,
is not merely a society of men instituted by Christ and
subject to His authority; it is also a society of men so
intimately and physically united with Him that it may
be called the Body of Christ or Christ Himself.
The Fullness of Christ. St. Paul also calls the
Church the fulness of Christ {plenitudo Christi), for he
says: “And he hath subjected all things under his feet,
and hath made him head over all the Church which
is his body and. the fulness of him who is filled all in
all.”17 St. Thomas explains this as follows: “If
15 1 Cor. x, 12.
10 Ephes, iv, 15.
17 Ephes, i, 22-23.

198

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

any one should ask, why the natural body has such
varied members,—hands, feet, mouth, and the like,
—we reply: That they may serve the different op­
erations proceeding from the soul as their principle
and cause . . . The body was made for the soul, not
the soul for the body; therefore, the natural body is
the julness (or complement) of the soul. Unless the
body be complete in all its members, the soul could not
completely perform its varied operations. So also with
Christ and the Church, which was instituted on His
account and is, therefore, rightly called His julness.” 18
The Church is the instrument in which and through
which Christ ordinarily exercises His divine power in
the world.
Mystical Body. The Church is called the mys­
tical body of Christ, to distinguish it from a natural
physical body on the one hand, and from a mere moral
body on the other. The word mystical shows that the
Church is not a body hypostatically united to the Word
after the manner of Christ’s human nature. It also
shows that the Church is not a merely natural society,
in which the members are united to their head by the
simple bonds of rights and duties. The Church far
surpasses such societies, because her members are actu­
ally and physically united to Christ by means of super­
natural grace. The Church is called a mystical body
also because many mysteries of faith underlie this union
with Christ,—a union which “the sensual man per18“In Ephes,” c. i, Lee. 8.

THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

199

ceiveth not” ; 19 it can be known by faith alone.20
Corollaries.—I. Channels oj Grace. The natural
body is ecpiipped with various systems of organs for
carrying on the processes of life. The most important
of these are the circulatory system and the nervous
system. The former consists of a wonderful net-work
of arteries, veins, and capillaries, through which the
life-bearing stream of blood flows to every cell of the
body. This system is regulated in its every part by
a net-work of nerves, which have their common centre
in the brain. In the mystical body of Christ the Sacra­
ments are the arteries through which the life-giving
streams of grace flow into each and every soul. For
this reason they are often called the channels oj grace.
The nervous system of the natural body is here replaced
by the ministerial power of the Church; her priests
participate in the priesthood of Christ to direct the flow
of grace through the Sacraments which they administer.
II. The Second Adam. St. Paul's conception of
the Church as the mystical body of Christ is intimately
connected with the doctrine of original sin, upon which
he insists so strongly. Adam was endowed with super­
natural gifts, not only as an individual, but also as
head of the whole human family. Eve was formed
from his side that this “bone of his bone and flesh of
10 1 Cor. ii, 14.
20 Cf. Dorsch, “De Ecclesia Christi,” p. 364; Hurter, “Compendium
Theol. Dogmat.,” Vol. I, n. 210; B. I. Wilberforce, “Principles of
Church Authority,” ch. i.

200

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

his flesh” might become the mother of all living, who
would thus form one body with Adam as its head.
Every member of that body was to participate in the
blessings bestowed upon its head, but by Adam’s dis­
obedience those blessings were lost, and we as members
of his body share in his guilt as well as in his loss:
“By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin
death; and so death passes upon all men, in whom all
have sinned.”21 We are members of a diseased body,
and the history of mankind is the history of that body
reaching out through time and space, with its deepen­
ing malady of sin in the individual and in society.
This is the mystery oj original sin: without any act or
will on our part we share in the guilt of our common
head. But “where the obscurity of the fall was deep­
est, the light of the restoration is brightest; and where
the sentence was most severe, the grace was most won­
derful.” 22 The divine Word assumed human nature
in order to become a second Adam,—a second head of
the human family: “The first man Adam was made
into a living sold; the last Adam into a quickening
spirit.” 23
The Church formed from the side of Christ, “bone of
His bone, and flesh of His flesh,” becomes the mother of
a new race, who also form a body with Christ as Head,
and “as there is a unity of the fallen Adam ... so
much the more is there a unity of the second Adam,
21 Rom. v, 12.
22 T. W. Allies, “Formation of Christendom,” Part II, p. 78.
23 1 Cor. xv, 45.

THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

201

which is not a collection of individuals, but a body with
its Head.” 24 As in the mystical body of Adam we
inherit his guilt without any fault of our own, so like­
wise in the mystical body of Christ we inherit His
graces without any merits on our part. “Where sin
abozinded, grace did more abound.” 25 In the history
of the Church we see the body of the second Adam
reaching out into time and space with its ever increas­
ing blessings for the individual and for society. Eve
still bears children of men to the first Adam, but the
Church bears children of Christ to the second Adam.
“These are not two mysteries, but one, unfathomable
in both its parts of justice and mercy; but the whole
history of the human race bears witness to the first,
and the whole history of the Christian people, to the
second . . . Our Lord stands in the midst of His
Church visibly forming from day to day and from age
to age that Body of His which reaches through the
ages. He takes from Himself and gives to us. He in­
corporates Himself in His children. He grow’s up in
us, and by visible streams from His heart maintains
the life first given.” 20
ART. II.

THE SOUL OF THE CHURCH

“The Church,” says Leo XIII, “is not something
dead; it is the body of Christ endowed with supernat24 T. W. Allies, “Formation of Christendom,” Part II, p. 79.
28 Rom. v, 20.
Ibid., Part II, p. 102.

202

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

ural life.” 1 Therefore, the Church must possess the
two elements essential to every living body,—it must
have an external organism and an internal principle
of life,—a body and a soul. In the Mystical Body of
Christ, the external organism is the Church, considered
merely as a society of faithful with Christ as their
Head. It possesses all the organs necessary for the
vital functions of such a body; it has Sacraments, a
Sacrifice, an organized hierarchy, authority, and vari­
ous institutions to promote supernatural life. But all
these are as nothing unless they be animated by a life­
giving principle. There must be a soul to vivify them
with supernatural life and constitute them the Mystical
Body of Christ, just as the human soul vivifies the
natural body of man and constitutes it a human body.
The vital activities of the Church consist in the dis­
tribution of supernatural grace to her members and the
supernatural acts performed by them through its aid.
The principle or source of these activities can be none
other than the Holy Ghost, by whom “the charity oj
God is poured jorth in our hearts,” 2 for to Him is ap­
propriated the work of sanctification. Therefore the
Holy Ghost is the Soul of the Church; the principle
of supernatural life, who unites with the external or­
ganism of the Church to make it a living body, a di­
vine body, the Body of Christ. For this reason St.
Augustine says: “What the soul is to the body, that
the Holy Ghost is to the body of Christ, which is
1 Encyclical “Satis cognitum/' July 29, 1S96.
2 Rom. v, 5.

THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

203

the Church. What the Holy Ghost does in the whole
Church, that the soul does in all the members of each
body.” 3 The Holy Ghost is the informing element in
the Mystical Body of Christ, and its vital principle.
a) Informing Principle. In the language of Scho­
lastic philosophy, the informing principle, or formal
cause of a thing is that constitutive part which unites
with the material element to form a complete entity
of a particular kind. A human soul, for example, is
the informing principle that unites with a material
body to form the one complete entity, a man. The soul
does not act upon the body from without, but dwells
within and unites with every part to vivify it and to
coordinate it with every other part. The Holy Ghost
informs the Church in a similar manner; He dwells
within it by a real substantial presence and is, in a
sense, substantially united with its every member. The
Church, taken as a society, is the material element, the
organism whose every member is vivified by the in­
dwelling presence of the Holy Ghost and through Him
united with every other member and with Christ the
Head, thus constituting the Mystical Body of Christ.
This is the teaching of St. Paul who says: “Know you
not that you arc the temple of God, and that the Spirit
of God· dwelleth in you?” 4 Again he says: “And
because you are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his
Son into your hearts crying; Abba, Father.” $ Christ
3 “Sermon.,” 267, 4; P. L., 38, 1213.
4 1 Cor. iii, 16.
0 Gal. iv, 6.

204

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

himself also promised that the Holy Ghost should
dwell with His Church for all time: “And I will ask
the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete,
that he may abide with you forever. ... He shall
abide with you and shall be in you.” 6
The early Fathers are explicit in their teaching on
this subject. St. Gregory Nazianzen says: “Now the
Holy Ghost is given more perfectly, for He is no longer
given by His [mere] operation, as of old, but is present
with us, so to speak, and converses with us in a sub­
stantial manner.”7 St. Cyril of Alexandria says:
‘‘The Holy Ghost works in us by Himself, truly sanc­
tifying us and uniting us to Himself . . . makes us
partakers of the divine nature.”8 Another ancient
author says: “The holy universal Church is one body
constituted under Christ the Head . . . and as the
soul is one which quickens the various members of the
body, so the Holy Spirit quickens and illuminates the
w’hole Church. For as Christ, who is the Head of
the Church, was conceived by the Holy Ghost, so the
holy Church which is His Body, is filled with the same
Spirit, that it may have life, and is confirmed by His
power that it may subsist in the bond of one faith and
charity.”9 Therefore, as Cardinal Manning says:
“We are under the personal direction of the Third Per­
son as truly as the Apostles were under the guidance
6 John xiv, 16-17.
T “Oratio in Pentecosten”; P G., 36, 443.
’‘‘Thesaurus de Trinitate”; P. G., 75, 593.
9 “Expositio in Ps. Poenit.” (author unknown); P. L., 79, 602.

THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

205

of the Second. The presence of the Eternal Son by in­
carnation, was the centre of their unity; the presence
of the Eternal Spirit, by the incorporation of the mys­
tical body, is the centre of unity for us.” 10
ό) Vital Principle. All our vital activities,—acts of
intellect and will, sensation, and even the bodily func­
tions of nourishment and growth,—proceed in some
way from the soul as their ultimate source. In like
manner all activities in the Mystical Body of Christ
proceed from the Holy Ghost: “There are diversities
oj graces but the same Spirit ... to one indeed, by the
Spirit is given the word oj wisdom; and to another,
the word oj knowledge according to the same Spirit;
to another, faith in the same Spirit; to another, the
grace oj healing in one Spirit; to another, the working
oj miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, the dis­
cerning oj spirits; to another, interpretation oj speeches.
But all these things one and the same Spirit worketh,
dividing to every one according as he will; for the body
is one, and hath many members ; and all the members
of the body whereas they are many, yet are one body,
so also is ChristT 11 In this passage St. Paul repre­
sents the Church as the body of Christ, whose members
have varied functions to perform, but the Holy Ghost
is the source of all power to perform them; from Him
flows the diversities of graces. All our supernatural
virtues find their source in the graces of the Holy
Ghost: “The fruit oj the Spirit is charity, joy, peace,
10 “Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost,” p. 68.
11 1 Cor. xii, 7-12.

206

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

patience, . . . mildness, faith, modesty, continency.” 1213
Even the simplest prayer comes only from a soul united
in some manner with the Holy Ghost, for “no man can
say the Lord Jesus but by the Holy Ghost,12 who
also helpeth our infirmity. For we know not what we
should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit himself
asketh for us with unspeakable groanings.” 14
St. Augustine aptly describes the office of the Holy
Ghost in His capacity as Soul of the Church. He says:
“The spirit by which man lives is called the soul. Now
see what the soul does in the body; it gives life to all
the members; it sees through the eyes, hears through
the ears, smells through the nostrils; with the tongue it
speaks, with the hands it works, with the feet it walks.
It is present in every member to give it life; it appor­
tions to every part its proper function. . . . What the
soul is to the body, that the Holy Ghost is to the
Church. . . . Through some He works miracles, in
others He speaks truth, in others He preserves virgin­
ity. In some He does one thing, in others another
thing, but each has his proper task, yet all alike live
by Him.” 15
A similarity between the soul of our natural body and
the Soul of the Church is seen even in the bodily func­
tions of assimiliation and growth. Under the direc­
tion of the soul, food is prepared and received into the
12 Gal. v, 22, 23.
131 Cor. xii, 3.
14 Rom. viii, 26.
“Sermon.,” 267, 4; P. L., 38, 1231.

THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

207

body, where it is digested and assimilated by activities
which proceed likewise from the soul; the food then
becomes an integral part of the body, united to the soul
and vivified by it. In like manner the Holy Ghost pre­
pares men by His graces for union with the Church;
through Baptism He unites them to Himself and makes
them members of Christ’s Mystical body: “For in one
Spirit were we all baptized into one body.” 16
Corollaries.—I. Creation oj the Mystical Body.
The formation of the Mystical Body of Christ bears a
striking similarity to the creation of the first man.
Adam’s body was formed from the slime of the earth
and did not become man until God breathed into it the
living soul. The Church was instituted by Christ,
when He sent forth the Apostles with authority to teach,
govern and sanctify, but it remained a lifeless body, as
it were, until Christ ascended to the Father and
breathed upon it the Spirit of Life; the Holy Ghost
descended upon the Church and it became a living
body,—the Mystical Body of Christ. Hence the com­
ing of the Holy Ghost on that first Pentecost was in
reality the creation of the Church.
There is another noteworthy parallel between the
formation of Christ’s natural body and that of His
Mystical Body. When the Word was about to assume
human form, the angel announced to the chosen Virgin:
“The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power
oj the Most High shall overshadow thee. And there­
fore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be
16 1 Cor. xii, 13.

208

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

called the Son of God.”17 Before ascending into
Heaven, Our Lord makes a similar announcement to
His Apostles and disciples: “You shall receive the
power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you ... I send
the promise of my Father upon you; but stay you in
the city till you be endued with power from on high.” 18
The natural body was formed by the action of the
Holy Ghost within the body of the Virgin Mary; the
Mystical Body, by the same Spirit acting within the
little band or body of Apostles and disciples.
II. Indissoluble Union. Before the coming of the
Holy Ghost on Pentecost, He had been united with
individual souls by His work of enlightening and sancti­
fying, but this union was conditioned upon the coopera­
tion and fidelity of individuals. His union with the
Church is an indissoluble union of personal and sub­
stantial indwelling. The union with individual souls is
still conditional; it still depends upon fidelity to grace;
but the union with the Church is unconditional and in­
dissoluble; “The Father shall give you another Para­
clete that he may abide with you for ever.” 19 Indi­
viduals may fail; the Church cannot fail. “Individuals
may fall from it, as multitudes have fallen; provinces
and nations, particular churches may fall from it; but
the body still remains, its unity undivided, its life
indefectible. . . . The line of faith, hope and charity
is never dissolved. The threefold cord cannot be
17 Luke i, 35.
18 Acts i, 8; Luke xxiv, 49.
18 John xiv, 16-17.

THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

209

broken, and the ever-blessed Trinity always inhabits
His tabernacle upon earth,—the souls of the elect who
“are builded together into an habitation oj God the
Spirit.” 20 From this indissoluble union of Body, Head
and indwelling Spirit flow all the attributes and proper­
ties of the Church,—unity, sanctity, authority, infalli­
bility and the like.
III. Membership. There is a widely accepted the­
ory that the soul of the Church is wider in extent than
the body; that many persons belong to the soul of the
Church who are in no wise connected with her external
organization. This theory seems to have been invented
to explain the axiom ‘Out of the Church no salva­
tion,” 21 but it is not tenable if we carry out the doc­
trine of the Mystical Body. In the natural body noth­
ing pertains in any way to the soul unless it be
physiologically connected with the body. Once a mem­
ber is severed from the body, it ceases to be animated
by the soul; it loses all life and immediately decays.
In like manner, any part of the body that ceases to re­
ceive any life-giving influence from the soul, also decays
and sloughs off; it ceases to be a part of the body.
Now, since the Church is an organic body, vivified by
the Holy Ghost as its life-giving principle, no person
can belong to the one unless he belongs also in some
degree to the other. He who belongs to the soul of
the Church, must therefore also belong to her body,
20 Cardinal Manning, “Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost,” p.
74; Ephes, ii, 22.
21 See below, p. 240 sq. for an explanation of this axiom.

210

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

and he who belongs to her body, must also belong to
her soul. A member may be diseased, because the life­
giving influence of the soul is impeded or lessened; but
once all influence ceases, the member is dead,—he is
no longer a portion of Christ’s Mystical Body.
The Fathers of the Church strongly insist upon this
doctrine. For example, St. Augustine says: “But see
what ye have to beware of, to watch over, and to fear.
In the body of man it may happen that a member, the
hand, the finger or foot may be cut off. Does the soul
follow the severed member? While it was in the body,
it was alive; cut off, its life is lost. So a man is a
Christian and a Catholic while he is alive in the body;
cut off, he becomes a heretic. The Holy Ghost does
not follow the amputated limb.” 22
22 “Sermon ,” 267; P. L., 38, 1231. For further information on
the subject of this chapter see T. W. Allies, “Formation of Christen­
dom,” Part II, Ch. viii ; Cardinal Manning, “The Temporal Mission
of the Holy Ghost,” Ch. I.

CHAPTER VI
MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH

In studying man, we may turn our attention to the
nature and powers of the soul, or we may examine the
organic structure of his body and investigate the func­
tions of its various parts. Finally, we may investigate
the manner in which body and soul are united, the
action of one upon the other and the nature of the
composite being resulting from their union. The strik­
ing analogy between the Mystical Body of Christ and
the natural body of man suggests a similar method of
treatment for both. The nature of the mystical body
resulting from the union of the Church with Christ as
its Head, and with the Holy Ghost as its Soul, was con­
sidered in the preceding chapter. This and the fol­
lowing chapters are devoted to the anatomy and physi­
ology of the Church: the one considers its organic struc­
ture, i. e.f the members who compose it and the manner
in which they are united to constitute the Church of
Christ; the other investigates the acts by which all
conspire to a common end and the power or authority
by which these acts are performed.
The members of the Church constitute its material
cause; the authority by which their union into a society
is preserved and directed, may be considered the formal
211

212

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

cause. The material cause of a society is either proxi­
mate or remote: the former consists of those who actu­
ally compose the society; the latter, those who are
eligible for membership. The whole human race con­
stitutes the remote matter for the Church, since it was
established for the salvation of all men, regardless of
race, color, or condition. The proximate matter of
the Church consists of those who fulfill the necessary
conditions of membership and thereby become constitu­
ent parts of her organization.
In order to arrive at a proper conception of these
matters, it is necessary (1) to consider some errors
regarding the conditions of membership in the Church,
(2) to establish the true conditions, (3) to point out
those who certainly do not belong to the Church, (4)
to consider certain classes whose membership is doubt­
ful, and (5) to prove the necessity of membership in
the Church.
ART. I.

FALSE CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP

Wyclif, Huss, and Calvin taught that none but the
predestined 1 are members of the Church. According to
Wyclif and Huss all the predestined without exception
1 God decreed from all eternity that those who, by their own free
will, cooperate with His grace and keep His commandments, should
be saved. In His infinite knowledge, He knew from all eternity
who would thus freely cooperate and be saved. In this sense it can
be said that God has predestined us to eternal life or eternal damna­
tion. Calvin taught that every man is predestined to Heaven or
hell regardless of bis merits or demerits. No one is predestined in
this sense.

4

MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH

213

belong to the Church; according to Calvin, only such
as are predestined to accept the true faith of Christ.
Luther taught that all the just, and they alone, belong
to the Church; he thus made the state of grace the one
necessary condition for membership in the Church.
This seems to be the prevailing doctrine among Protes­
tants of the present day, at least among those who main­
tain that the true Church of Christ is invisible. The
visible churches may contain sinners, but not the
Church invisible.
§ 1. Predestination as a Condition

Thesis.—Predestination is not a condition for
membership in the Church; much less is it the
only condition
This thesis is an article of faith, as appears from the
condemnation of the following propositions at the
Council of Constance: “There is but one holy and
universal Church, i. e.} the Church which consists of all
the predestined,” and “The grace of predestination is
the bond by which the Church and all its members are
indissolubly joined to Christ the Head.” 1
Proof, g) It has been proved that the Church is
essentially an external, visible society; therefore, all
members of this visible society are members of the
Church. But predestination is not a condition for
membership in this visible society, as Christ himself
teaches by the parable of the wheat and the cockle.
1 Dcnzingcr, nn. 627, 647.

214

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

The field is the Church, the wheat and the cockle are
the members, who will not be separated until the day
of judgment. The cockle to be gathered up and
burned at the harvest cannot be those who are predes­
tined to eternal life, yet they too are represented as
members of the Church, since the cockle continues to
grow in the field together with the wheat. Likewise,
in the parable of the net cast into the sea, the bad fish
are as truly a part of the draught taken as the good,
yet they cannot be those destined to eternal life, since
they are to be separated from the good at the shore, i. e.f
on the day of judgment. In the parable of the ban­
quet, the man cast forth into the darkness because he
had not on a wedding garment could not have been
predestined, yet he was actually a guest and partook
of the banquet as really as those who were properly
arrayed for the occasion.2
b) If predestination were the only condition for
membership in the Church, it would follow that all who
are predestined to eternal life, are actually members
of the Church, although they may be Mahometans,
pagans, or even atheists at present. It would also be
useless to send missionaries to pagan lands, since all
those who are predestined to be saved are already
members of the Church.
c) The predestined are known to God alone; there­
fore, the Church must be invisible if none but the pre­
destined belong to it. Pastors could not recognize their
flock, nor the flock its pastors. St. Paul’s admonition
2 Matt, xiii, 24 sq; xrii, llsqq.

W

-----------

MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH

215

to the pastors of Ephesus would have been useless:
“Take heed to yoiirselves and to the whole flock,
wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops to
rule the Church of God.” 3 All authority would be
impossible and the duty of obedience would cease.
Hence Calvin and Luther were strictly logical when
they taught, contrary to the express words of Christ,
that the Church is invisible.
§ 2. The State of Grace as a Condition

Thesis.—The state of grace is not a condition for
membership in the Church
This also seems to be a defined doctrine of the
Church, as appears from the condemnation of several
propositions that at least imply the necessity of sancti­
fying grace for membership in the Church. Among
these may be mentioned the following condemned by
Clement XI: “A mark of the Christian Church is that
it is Catholic, comprising, as it does, ah the angels of
heaven and all the elect and just on earth during all
the centuries”; and “The Church, which is Christ en­
tire, has the Word Incarnate as Head and all the just
as members.” 1
Proofs, a) This theory also destroys the Church
by making it invisible, since the just as well as the pre­
destined can be known only to God. It seems probable
that Luther and his followers adopted this doctrine
3 Acts xx, 28.
1 Denzingcr, n. 1424.

216

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

when they were forced to accept the theory of an invis­
ible Church, as mentioned above.2 At any rate, the
two doctrines are so intimately related that either one
logically leads to the other.
b) Holy Scripture plainly teaches that sinners will
always be found among the members of Christ’s Church
on earth. The parables of the wheat and the cockle,
of the good and bad fish, and of the man without a
wedding garment, show that just and unjust, saints and
sinners will be found mingled together in the Church
until the end of the world, for then only will “the Son of
man send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of
his kingdom all scandals, and them that work iniq­
uity.”3 Those who work iniquity cannot be gathered
out of the kingdom, unless they be in the kingdom.
St. Paul admonishes Timothy how to conduct him­
self toward the faithful. He says: “In a great- house
there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of
wood and of earth; and some indeed unto honor, but
some unto dishonor.”4 The vessels unto honor are the
just; those unto dishonor, the unjust, as is evident from
the words which immediately follow those just quoted:
“If any man, therefore, shall cleanse himself from these,
he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified and profitable
to the Lord, prepared unto every good work.” Ac­
cording to St. Paul, therefore, the great house of the
2 Sec above, pp. 73.
3 Matt, xiii, 41.
4 2 Tim. ii, 20-23.

MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH

217

Church contains vessels unto honor and vessels unto
dishonor, i. e.> both saints and sinners.
c) The very purpose for which the Church was in­
stituted would be in a large measure frustrated if all
sinners were excluded from membership; the Sacra­
ments, the greatest means of sanctification, would have
to be denied them, and the Church’s influence over
them would be indirect and of slight effect. We cannot
conceive that Christ founded a Church to save all men,
and at the same time excluded those who stand most in
need of its ministrations.

§3. Objections Considered

Objection I.—The Church could not be holy if
sinners were numbered amongst her members.
Answer.—This objection has been answered in con­
nection with the holiness of the Church.1 It may be
noted, however, that the personal sanctity of the Church
need not be perfect, and may vary from time to time,
but can never be entirely lost. There will always be a
large number of holy persons in the Church, even
though the sinners may at times outnumber them.
Objection II.—No one can be a member of Christ
and a member of Satan at the same time, yet St. John
says: “He that commiteth sin is oj the devil.” 2
Answer.—A person cannot belong to two societies
that are opposed to each other, but he may belong to a
1 See above, pp. 108.
2 1 John iii, 8.

218

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

society and yet act in a manner derogatory to it. A
sinner belongs to the Church, because he retains at
least the supernatural gifts of faith and hope, and pre­
serves the other bonds of union; he belongs to the devil
in so far as he imitates him in his actions. A sinner
does not become a member of the devil in the same
sense that he is a member of Christ, because the devil
has no mystical body; his imitators form no real
society.
Objection III.—When speaking of certain sinners,
St. John says: “They went ont from us, but they were
not oj us. For if they had been of us, they woidd no
doubt have remained with us.” 3 These words leave
no doubt that these sinners were not members of the
Church; they were not of us.
Answer.—In this passage St. John is not speaking of
sinners in general, but of certain men, whom he calls
Antichrists, because they had “denied the Father and·
the Son.” Consequently they were heretics and as
such did not belong to the Church, as will be proved
elsewhere.4
Objection IV.—If sinners are members of the
Church here, they must also be members hereafter,
since death is a mere separation of body and soul that
in no way affects man’s spiritual condition. But such
a conclusion is manifestly absurd.
Answer.—The conclusion is not only absurd, but
also unfounded. God, who ordained that sinners may
3 1 John ii, 19.
4 See above, pp 224.

MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH

219

be members of the Church in this life, also ordained
that they shall not be members in the life to come.
This is evident from the many passages in which Christ
foretells eternal death for all sinners who die impeni­
tent. Moreover, death severs all the bonds by which
sinners arc united to the body of the faithful in this
life. After death there remains to them neither faith,
hope, nor charity, and there is no external bond of union
with the just.
Objection V.—In many passages of his work on
Baptism, St. Augustine teaches that sinners do not be­
long to the Church.
Answer.—These passages must be interpreted in
the light of others, where St. Augustine proves at length
against the Donatists that sinners may be true mem­
bers of the Church. Moreover, we have the Saint’s
own interpretation of these passages. He says:
“Wherever in those books [on Baptism] I have re­
ferred to the Church as not having spot or wrinkle,
I do not mean the Church as it is, but as it shall appear
when glorified.” 5
ART. II.

TRUE CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP

Conditions for membership in the Church, as in every
other society, include those things which are absolutely
necessary to make one a member in the true sense of
the word. There is no question about the conditions
necessary to make a perfect member, or even a good
5 “Liber Retractationum,” II, 18; P. L., 32, 637.

220

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

member. St. Paul compares the Church to a house,
in which there are vessels unto honor and vessels unto
dishonor, yet all are vessels in the true sense of the
term, and all belong to the house. In this connection
we do not ask why they are honorable or dishonorable,
but simply why they are vessels at all.
Initiation. The first condition for membership is
deduced from the social nature of the Church. No one
becomes a member of any society unless he is received
into it by proper authority, and made a participant in
its benefits according to his capacity. The official act
of receiving a person into a society must be manifested
externally in some manner. This is usually done by
a symbolic act, known as the rite of initiation. The
initiatory rite of the Church was instituted by Christ
himself, when He sent forth the Apostles to make
disciples of all nations: “Going therefore, teach
(μαθητεύσατε) all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” 1
Baptism, therefore, is the rite of initiation into the
Church; hence St. Paul says: “In one Spirit were we
all baptized into one body.” 1
2 For this reason also
the Council of Trent calls Baptism the door by which
we enter the Church,3 and Eugenius IV in his decree
pro Armenis says: “By Baptism we are made mem­
bers of Christ and of His Body, the Church.” 4
1 Matt, xxviii, 19.
2 1 Cor. xii, 13.
3 Denzinger, n. 895.
4 Denzinger, n. 696.

MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH

221

Profession of Faith. Every member of a society
must accept its end and aims according to his ability,
and he must strive, at least in some degree, to realize
those aims. He that rejects the purposes of a society
thereby rejects the society itself; he can neither become
a member, nor remain one if already received into the
society.
The practice of the Christian religion, which consists
in the external profession of Christian faith, is the
proximate end to be obtained in the Church. There­
fore, external profession of faith is an essential condi­
tion for membership. Moreover, the Church must be
one in the external profession of faith, consequently
he that severs this bond of unity is separated from
the body of the Church, i. e., he ceases to be a mem­
ber.
Subjection to Authority. The very existence of
a society depends upon the subjection of its members
to authority; therefore he that rejects the authority of
a society, rejects the society itself and ceases to be a
member. Neither can the end of a society be realized
unless the members be directed by its authority in their
common endeavors to that end. Therefore, rejecting
the authority of a society is tantamount to rejecting its
end and aims, which is to reject the society itself. Con­
sequently no one can be a member of any society unless
he submits to its authority according to his ability.
Furthermore, in regard to the Church, there must be
unity in the external profession of the true faith, which
Christ committed to the teaching authority of the

222

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

Church.5 Therefore, the profession of faith necessary
for membership in the Church practically resolves itself
into submission to her teaching authority.
Summary of Conditions, i. for adults. The
above considerations show tliat three conditions are
absolutely necessary and of themselves sufficient for
membership in the Church; viz.:
a) Initiation by Baptism, which gives the right to
participate in all the benefits of the Church;
b) External profession of the true faith, which is
had by submission to the teaching authority of the
Church;
c) Submission to the ruling authority of the Church.
These conditions may be briefly summarized in one
phrase: the reception of Baptism and the preservation
of the unities,—unity of faith, unity of worship, and
unity of government; or, in other words, the reception
of Baptism and submission to the teaching and ruling
authority of the Church. It should be noted, however,
that perfect observance of the unities is not required for
mere membership in the Church; a person need not
make explicit profession of faith at all times, nor con­
form all his actions to it. He need not make diligent
use of the Sacraments at all times, neither must he be
free from all infractions of Church laws and precepts.
His transgressions will not exclude from membership
unless they amount to total rejection of authority.
From the principles just established it follows that
the adult membership of the Church comprises all those
6 See below, pp. 98.

MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH

223

who have been baptized and have not rejected her
teaching or ruling authority.
ii. for infants. In the explanations given above
it was stated that a member of the Church must submit
to her teaching and ruling authority according to his
ability, because infants,0 not having the use of reason,
are incapable of such submission. They become mem­
bers of the Church by the valid reception of Baptism,
and remain members so long as they do not violate the
bonds of unity by their own free act, which, of course,
cannot take place before the age of discretion. From
this it follows that the validly baptized children of
heretics and schismatics are true members of the Cath­
olic Church until they attain the age of discretion and
reject the authority of the Church by their own free
act. Benedict XIV, writing on this matter, says:
“We hold it for certain that those baptized by heretics
are separated from the Church and deprived of all the
blessings enjoyed by her members, ij they have arrived
at the age oj discretion and have adhered to the errors
oj their sect.”7
ART. III. PERSONS EXCLUDED FROM MEMBERSHIP

Only those who fulfill the three conditions mentioned
above, enjoy the privilege of membership in the
Church; therefore all unbaptized persons, whether inc The term infant includes all persons, of whatever age, who have
not attained the age of discretion, i.e., sufficient use of reason to
distinguish between right and wrong.
7 Benedict XIV, “Singulari nos,” Feb. 9, 1749.

224

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

fants or adults, all manifest heretics and schismatics,
and those excommunicated as vitandi are excluded.
There is one class of unbaptized persons that might
seem to have some claims to membership in the Church.
These are the catechumens, i. e., persons preparing to
receive Baptism. They have fulfilled all the conditions
necessary on their part by submitting to the authority
of the Church in preparation for Baptism, but the
Church has not yet accepted them; consequently they
cannot be accounted members. The mind of the
Church on this point is expressed in her prayer on Good
Friday: “Increase the faith and understanding oj our
catechumens, that, being reborn in the font of Baptism,
they may be associated with the children of thine adop­
tion.” 1 They are not yet associated with the children
of adoption.—they are not yet members of the Church.
In the early centuries catechumens were never num­
bered with the faithful, but formed a class apart and
were not even permitted to be present at Mass.

§ 1. Manifest Heretics and Schismatics

A heretic is usually defined as a Christian, i. e., a
baptized person, who holds a doctrine contrary to re­
vealed truth; but this definition is inaccurate, since it
would make heretics of a large portion of the faithful.
A doctrine contrary to revealed truth is usually stig­
matized as heretical, but a person who professes an
heretical doctrine is not necessarily a heretic. Heresy,
1 Roman Missal, “Mass of the Presanctified.”

*

I

, */ïk
A- *

T

f

F
·

MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH
I

225

from the Greek αψεσις, signifies a choosing; therefore
a heretic is one who chooses for himself in matters of
faith, thereby rejecting the authority of the Church
established by Christ to teach all men the truths of
revelation. He rejects the authority of the Church by
following his own judgment or by submitting to an au­
thority other than that established by Christ. A per­
son who submits to the authority of the Church and
wishes to accept all her teachings, is not a heretic, even
though he profess heretical doctrines through ignorance
of what the Church really teaches; he implicity accepts
the true doctrine in his general intention to accept all
that the Church teaches.
A person may reject the teaching authority of the
Church knowingly and willingly, or he may do it
through ignorance. In the first case he is a formal
heretic, guilty of grievous sin; in the second case, he is
a material heretic, free from guilt. Both formal and
material heresy may be manifest or occult. Heresy is
manifest when publicly known to such an extent that its
existence could be proved in a court of law; it is occult
if not externally manifested by word or act, or if not
sufficiently public to allow proof of its existence in
court.
The word schism is derived from the Greek σχίσ/χα,
which means a division or separation; hence a schis­
matic is a Christian who separates from the Church by
rejecting her authority. He may do this by refusing
submission to his bishop, no less than by rejecting the
supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff. It is evident,

226

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

however, that a person does not become a schismatic by
a mere act of disobedience; there must be some word
or act that involves rejection of authority. Schism,
like heresy, may be formal or material, manifest or oc­
cult.
Excluded from Membership. Manifest heretics
and schismatics are excluded from membership in the
Church. Heretics separate themselves from the unity
of faith and worship; schismatics from the unity of
government, and both reject the authority of the
Church. So far as exclusion from the Church is concerned, it matters not whether the heresy or schism be
formal or material. Those born and reared in heresy
or schism may be sincere in their belief and practice,
yet they publicly and willingly reject the Church and
attach themselves to sects opposed to her; they are
not guilty of sin in the matter, but they are not mem­
bers of the Church. For this reason, the Church makes
no distinction between formal and material heresy when
receiving converts into her fold.
There is no need to adduce arguments from Scrip­
ture or tradition for a truth that is practically selfevident. It may be noted, however, that St. Paul ex­
pressly refers to it in his letter to Titus: “A man that
is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid,
knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted and
sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.” 1 In
commenting on these words, St. Jerome, says: “An
adulterer, a homicide, and other sinners are driven from
1 Titus iii, 10.

1

i»-

*Λ

MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH

227

the Church by the priests [/. e., by excommunication] ;
but heretics pass sentence upon themselves, leaving the
Church by their own free-will.” 2 St. Augustine gives
expression to the same doctrine: “If you do not wish
to belong to the Church, . . . separate yourselves from
her members, cut yourselves off from her body. But
why should I now urge them to leave the Church, since
they have already done this? They are heretics, and
therefore already out.” 3
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED

Objection I.—Heretics and schismatics retain the
baptismal character, a perpetual sign of their initiation
into the Church. Therefore, they also remain members
of the Church, whose rite of initiation they have re­
ceived.
Answer.—The spiritual character imprinted upon
the soul in Baptism does not make one a member of the
Church; it is rather a sign or badge showing that he
has received the rites of initiation, but it does not
prove that he retains membership. This may be illus­
trated by the case of a person receiving a tattoo mark
as a sign of initiation into a society that uses such
marking. If the person afterward leave the society, he
would cease to be a member, though he still bore the
indelible sign of his initiation.
Objection II.—The Church claims jurisdiction over
2“In Titum,” iii, 10; P. L., 26, 597.
3 “Sermon.,” 181; P. L., 38, 980.

228

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

heretics and schismatics, as is evident from the fact
that she formerly interpreted many of her marriage
laws as binding upon them. But the Church could not
thus exercise jurisdiction over persons who do not be­
long to her fold, for as St. Paul says: “What have I
to judge them that are without? . . . For them that
are without, God will judge.”4
Answer.—This objection overlooks the necessary
distinction between members and subjects. A person
may be subject to a society even though he is not a
member. This is a well-known fact in our own civil
life; persons coming to our shores from foreign coun­
tries are not members (citizens) of our government
until they have been naturalized by legal process, yet
they are subject to our State and Federal laws. Like­
wise, citizens by naturalization or birth, who lose their
rights of citizenship for any reason, cease to be mem­
bers of the State, but remain subject to its laws so long
as they remain within its borders. Heretics and
schismatics lose their rights of citizenship in the
Church; they cease to be members, but they remain
subject to her laws so long as they remain within her
territory, which comprises the whole world.

§ 2. Excommunicates
Just as a person cannot enter a society against its
wishes, so neither can he retain membership therein
against its expressed will. It is acknowledged by all
that a society, not subject to a higher jurisdiction, has
4 1 Cor. v, 12-13.

MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH

229

full power and authority to expel a member with or
without cause. In the latter case it would act unjustly,
but none the less effectively.
The Church, being a society subject to no authority
save that of Christ, must also have the right to deprive
members of communion with her, unless Christ has
ordained otherwise, which we know He has not done.
On the contrary, He gave the Church full authority in
the matter when He said: “Whatsoever you shall
bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven,” 1 and
again when He said: “If he will not hear the Church,
let him be to thee as the heathen and publican,” i. e.,
let him be excluded from membership. St. Paul seems
to have been the first to exercise this power by excom­
municating the incestuous Corinthian.2
A person expelled from the Church loses the benefits
and privileges of membership and is deprived of com­
munion with the faithful; for this reason he is said
to be ex-communicat cd. The Church exercises this
power, for the most part, by decreeing that any person
guilty of certain specified sins is excommunicated by
that very fact. In some cases, however, excommunica­
tion does not take place until judicial sentence has been
pronounced against a person proved guilty of a crime
for which such punishment has been established by
law. The first is known as excommunication latae
sententiae; the second as excommunication jerendae
sententiae.
1 Matt, xviii, 17-18.
2 1 Cor. v, 1-5.

230

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

Excommunication, like heresy and schism, may be
either manifest or occult. Manifest excommunication
is incurred by judicial sentence of excommunication, or
by commission of a public sin known to involve the
punishment of excommunication. Occult excommuni­
cation is incurred by the secret commission of a sin to
which excommunication is attached by law. Those
who incur manifest excommunication are either vitandi
or tolerati. The former are deprived of communica­
tion with the faithful so far as possible even in civil
and social life; they are to be entirely avoided
{vitandi}. The second class are deprived of commun­
ion with the faithful in things spiritual, but may be
tolerated {tolerati} in civil and social matters. No one
incurs excommunication unless he knows before com­
mission of the crime that it involves such punishment;
consequently there can be no question of formal and
material excommunication.
Since the Church may deprive a person of all the
privileges and benefits of membership in punishment for
sin, it follows, as a matter of course, that she may also
deprive him of any part of them short of actual ex­
clusion from membership. Consequently it depends
upon the intention of the Church whether excommuni­
cation shall involve actual loss of membership or not.
The new Code of Canon Law defines excommunication
as “a censure by which a person is excluded from the
communion oj the faithful.” 3 This can scarcely mean
anything less than complete loss of membership in the
3 Canon 2257.

MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH

231

Church; at least when there is question of excommuni­
cation in all its severity. For this reason all theolo­
gians are agreed that the vitandi lose all membership in
the Church. In regard to the tolerati, the answer is not
so certain. Since the canon just cited makes no dis­
tinctions, it would seem that all excommunicates with­
out exception are excluded from the Church. Another
canon, however, does make a distinction between these
two classes; it provides that an excommunicated per­
son be deprived of the benefits and emoluments arising
from any office or dignity that he may hold in the
Church, and in case of a vitandus, the office or dignity
itself is lost.4 It is evident, then, that a toleratiis does
not lose his office or dignity in the Church, but it is
not at all probable that the Church would exclude a per­
son from membership and still allow him to hold an
office or dignity of any kind.
Corollary I. A person unjustly excommunicated
loses membership in the Church; he is deprived of the
Sacraments and all other benefits arising from union
with the Church. In this case he can only rely upon
the mercy and goodness of God to compensate him in
some other way for the loss unjustly sustained until
such time as the excommunication is lifted.5 It should
be noted, however, that the caution exercised by the
Church in such matters makes an injustice of this
kind practically impossible.
Corollary II. Excommunication is an official
4 Canon 2266.
5 Cf. Dorsch, “De Ecclesia Christi,” p. 412.

'

232

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

juridical act; therefore, an excommunicated person,
although reconciled to God by an act of perfect con­
trition, is not reinstated in the Church until the censure
of excommunication has been lifted by another official
act on the part of the Church.
An excommunicated person remains a subject of the
Church, bound by all her laws, just as a person de­
prived of citizenship still remains a subject of the
country in which he lives.
ART. TV. PERSONS OF DOUBTFUL MEMBERSHIP

§ 1. Persons Invalidly Baptized

There is room for doubt concerning the membership
of persons who have been invalidly baptized.1 or not
baptized at all, yet are publicly known as Catholics
and live as such in the firm conviction that they have
been baptized. Many eminent theologians, e. g., Bellarmine, Palmieri, and Straub,2 maintain that such per­
sons are true members of the Church because the neces­
sary conditions are fulfilled; the persons in question
submit to the teaching and ruling authority of the
Church, and she, on her part, publicly recognizes them
as members by admitting them to the Sacraments and
other privileges of membership. Innocent II is also
cited in support of this opinion because of the reply he
1 “Invalidly baptized,” i. e., an invalid ceremony of Baptism was
performed.
2 Bellarminc, “De Ecclesia Militante,” iii, 10; Palmieri, “De Romano
Pontifice,” Proleg., xi, 4; Straub, “De Ecclesia Christi,” n. 13041307.

MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH

233

made to inquiries concerning such a person: “I do not
hesitate to assert that the person who died, as you say,
without Baptism, was freed from original sin and has
obtained the joys of Heaven because he persevered in
the faith of holy mother, the Church, and in the confes­
sion of Christ’s name.” 3
Dorsch and Wilmers 4 are of the opinion that such
persons cannot be considered members of the Church
because they are incapable of receiving the other Sacra­
ments validly, and, therefore, do not participate in the
most essential benefits of the Church. They are
publicly regarded as members, but wrongly so; being
regarded a member and being a member are two dif­
ferent things. These authors rightly claim that the
words of Innocent II prove nothing in the matter, since
he does not say that the person in question was a mem­
ber of the Church; he simply says that he attained sal­
vation, which, as all theologians admit, can be obtained
by perfect contrition and a desire for membership in
the Church, if actual membership is impossible. The
question is of little practical importance, since the
number of such persons will always be small, and their
salvation cannot be affected in the least by our opinions,
one way or the other, in the matter.

§ 2. Occult Heretics and Schismatics
The condition of occult heretics and schismatics in
3 Denzinger, n. 388.
4 Wilmers, “De Ecclesia Christi,” p. 627; Dorsch, “De Ecclesia

234

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

regard to membership in the Church has long been a
matter of dispute among theologians. Many, such as
Bellarmine, Cornelius à Lapide, Perrone, Palmieri,
Straub, and Billot, maintain that they are true, even
though very imperfect, members of the Church.
Suarez, Franzelin, Billuart, Dorsch,1 and others hold
that they are not members, and, therefore, belong to
the Church in appearance only. Practically speaking,
the question has little importance, because, as we shall
see, such persons are always in bad faith; consequently
membership or lack of membership makes little or no
difference in their spiritual condition. The matter is
considered here simply because it helps to a better un­
derstanding of the real nature of membership in the
Church.
The question concerns only such as are publicly re­
garded as Catholics, because the moment one becomes
publicly known as a heretic or a schismatic, his heresy
or schism ceases to be occult, and there is no longer any
doubt that he has lost membership in the Church.
Here, then, we have to consider only such as outwardly
conduct themselves as Catholics, but inwardly reject
the authority of the Church; in a word, those who are
hypocrites in their adherence to the Church. Since it
is practically impossible for a person to act thus in good
faith, material heresy and schism may be disregarded
in this connection. The question then narrows itself
down to this: Does a person who conducts himself
1 Consult these various authors in their respective works on the
Church.

MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH

235

outwardly as a Catholic while inwardly rejecting the
Church, still belong to it? This is but another phase
of the question referred to in connection with the unity
of the Church: Is interior faith necessary for the unity
of the Church, or is the mere external profession of a
faith that does not inwardly exist, sufficient? The
question under either form is still debated, but most of
the arguments adduced by both sides are merely dis­
guised statements asserting or denying that interior
faith is necessary. Those wishing to pursue the sub­
ject further may consult the authors mentioned above.
ART. V. NECESSITY OF MEMBERSHIP

Kinds of Necessity. In regard to attaining salva­
tion, theologians distinguish between those things which
are necessary by a necessity oj means and those which
are necessary by a necessity oj precept. The former
are the means to salvation, constituted such by their
nature or by divine institution; the latter are necessary
simply because prescribed by law. Matters of mere
precept are necessary because by omitting them we
commit grievous sin, which excludes salvation; con­
sequently whatever excuses from sin in these matters
also excuses from their necessity, e. g., fasting before
Communion is necessary for salvation because violating
the fast constitutes a grievous sin, but any circum­
stance that renders this violation licit also takes away
the necessity for the fast. The case is quite different
with those things necessary as the means to salvation;
thev cannot be omitted without loss of salvation, even

—<”*^231

236

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

though the omission be without fault on our part. In
some cases the thing is absolutely necessary, because it
is of such nature that nothing can supply for its
absence; e. g., sanctifying grace is an absolute necessity,
whose absence cannot be supplied by anything else.
Other things are necessary, not by their very nature,
but by divine institution. In regard to these things
God is pleased to accept substitutes when the things
themselves cannot be had. Such means of salvation
may be called relatively necessary, to distinguish them
from those of absolute necessity. Baptism is an ex­
ample of a relative necessity for salvation; it is a neces­
sary means of salvation, because Christ has so ordained,
but if for any reason it is impossible to receive Baptism,
its absence can be supplied by perfect contrition and a
sincere desire to receive it. The reason for this is
obvious: God, being all-wise and merciful, cannot de­
mand the impossible from His creatures.
With this brief explanation, we proceed to show that
membership in the Church is necessary by the twofold
necessity of precept and means, but that the necessity
of means is only relative.
§ 1. Twofold Necessity of Membership

Thesis,—Membership in the Church is necessary
both by necessity of means and necessity of
precept
The doctrine set forth in the thesis is a dogma of
faith, since the Church has often declared membership

MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH

237

in her fold necessary for salvation. The Fourth
Latcran Council decreed: “There is one universal
Church, out of which no one can be saved.” 1 Even
stronger are the words of Boniface VIII: “We de­
clare, say, define, and pronounce that subjection to the
Roman Pontiff is strictly necessary to all men for sal­
vation.” 2 Pius IX •declared
that “it must be held as
·
an article of faith that out of the Apostolic Roman
Church no one can be saved.” 3 These declarations.are
sufficient to prove that the thesis is a dogma of faith,
at least in regard to necessity of precept.
Proofs, i. from reason. Christ said that no one
can come to the Father except through the Son, who is
the way, the truth and the life.” 4 But the Church
bears the person of Christ to carry out His mission on
earth; therefore, no one can come to the Father except
through the Church. The Church is also the Mystical
Body of Christ; consequently no one can receive the
vivifying influence of Christ the Head, nor be animated
by the Soul, which is the Holy Ghost, unless he be
united as a member with the Body. Hence St.
Augustine says: “A Christian man is a Catholic while
he remains in the body; cut off, he becomes a her­
etic. The Spirit does not follow the amputated mem­
ber.” 5
ii. from scripture. In Holy Scripture, Baptism,
1 Denzinger, n. 430.
2 “Unam Sanctam,” Denz., n. 469.
3 Allocutio die 9 Dec., 1834; Denzinger, n. 1647.
4 John xiv, 6.
5 “Sermon.,” 267; P. L., 38, 1231.

238

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

faith, and subjection to the authority of the Church are
set forth as necessary means of salvation: “Unless a
man be born again oj water and the Holy Ghost, he
cannot enter the kingdom oj God.” 0 “He that be­
lieveth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that be­
lieveth not shall be condemned.” 7 “Ij he will not hear
the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and pub­
lican.” 8 The conditions laid down in these passages
as necessary for salvation are precisely the conditions
necessary for membership in the Church. Therefore,
it is only by becoming a member of the Church that one
can fulfill the conditions for salvation: in other words,
membership in the Church is a necessary means of sal­
vation.
God has destined all men to salvation ; “He will have
all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge oj
the truth.”9 Therefore the means necessary for salva­
tion must be a matter of precept. Again, Christ sent
forth His Apostles with the injunction to bring all na­
tions into the Church and to teach them all truth:
“Going therefore, teach all nations (f. e., makes disci­
ples oj all nations), teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you.” 10 Such an in­
junction on the part of Christ necessarily presupposes
a corresponding command that all nations hearken to
cJohn iii, 5.
7 Mark xvi, 15.
8 Matt, xviii, 17.
8 1 Tim. ii, 4.
10 Matt, xxviii, 19.

MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH

239

the teachings of the Apostles and become disciples by
entering the Church. There are also the express words
of Christ demanding this: “He that heareth you,
hearet h me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me.” 11
Hence union with the Church is a matter of divine com­
mand; it is a necessity of precept.
in. from tradition. The Fathers have from the
very earliest ages, insisted upon the necessity of union
with the Church. For example:
û) St. Ignatius Martyr: “Do not be deceived,
brethren, if any one follows a person making a schism,
he cannot obtain the inheritance of the divine king­
dom.” 11
12
ύ) Origen: “Let no one deceive himself; outside
this house, i. e., outside the Church, no one can be
saved.” 13
c) Council oj Cirta (412 a. d.): “If a person be
separated from the Catholic Church, it matters not how
praiseworthy his life may be otherwise, he shall not
have life, but the anger of God rests upon him for this
one crime of separation.” 14
d) St. Cyprian: “Fie cannot have God for his
Father who does not have the Church for his mother.
If anyone escaped death outside the ark of Noah, then
also may a person escape outside the Church.” 15
11 St. Luke x, 16.
12 “Epist. ad Philad.,” 3; Funk, I, 267.
13 “Hom. in Josuc,” IV, 5; P. G., 12, 841.
14 “Epist.,” 141; P. L., 33, 579.
15“De Unitate Ecclesiae”; P. L., 4, 503.

240

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

§ 2. Membership a Relative Necessity
Membership in the Church is necessary for salva­
tion not only by necessity of precept, but also by neces­
sity of means; Christ commands all men to belong to
the Church because it is the means which He estab­
lished for salvation. Hence the well-known axiom of
theologians, “Out of the Church there is no salvation.”
Pius IX declared this an article of faith, as already
noted, but he immediately added: “It is likewise cer­
tain that those who are in ignorance of the true re­
ligion, are not accountable for any guilt in the matter
before God if the ignorance be invincible.” 1 On an­
other occasion he wrote to the bishops of Italy: “It
is known to us and to you that those who are in in­
vincible ignorance concerning our most holy religion
. . . can attain eternal life by the power of divine light
and grace.”12 St. Augustine says: “The effects of
Baptism are invisibly wrought when the ministry of
Baptism is excluded, not through contempt of religion,
but by force of necessity.” 3 We also know that the
Church numbers among her saints persons who died
without the Sacrament of Baptism; v.g., St. Emerentiana, a catechumen who suffered martydom in the
third century, is commemorated as a saint.
These facts prove that membership in the Church is
1 Allocutio die 9 Dec , 1854; Denzinger, n. 1647.
2 Pius IX, “Quanto conficiamus mœrore” 10 Aug., 1863.
1677.
3 “De Baptismo,” iv, 22; P. L., 43, 173.

Denz. n.

MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH

241

a relative necessity, i. e., if actual membership is im­
possible for any reason, other means are available to
supply the deficiency. This is usually explained by
distinguishing between membership in the soul of the
Church and membership in the external society, or body
of the Church. According to this explanation, a per­
son in ignorance of the true Church or otherwise
hindered from entering it, belongs to the soul of the
Church if he be in the state of sanctifying grace
through perfect contrition or an act of perfect love of
God. Hence, it is said that membership in the soul
of the Church is an absolute necessity of means for
salvation, whereas membership in the body of the
Church is merely a necessity of precept. But the
Church herself never makes this distinction between
body and soul, when there is question of membership
in her fold, and it has already been noted that a per­
son cannot belong to the soul of the Church unless he
also belongs to her body.4 Moreover, all Scriptural
texts cited to prove the necessity of membership in the
Church refer directly to the Church as an external or­
ganization. Therefore, union with the body of the
Church is a necessity of means, no less than union with
the soul of the Church.
‘Out of the Church there is no salvation” is a dogma
of faith, and membership in the Church means union
with the body as well as with the soul of the Church;
yet it is certain that persons who do not externally be­
long to the Church may be saved. How are these
4 See above, pp. 209.

242

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

facts to be reconciled? Cardinal Bellarmine gives the
true explanation: “When we say, Out oj the Church
there is no salvation, it must be understood of those who
belong to the Church neither in fact nor in desire, as
theologians commonly teach concerning Baptism.”5
The necessity of belonging to the Church,—both body
and soul,—is a relative necessity of means; if actual
membership is impossible, it can be supplied by per­
fect contrition, or perfect love of God, with the desire
to belong to the true Church of Christ. This is evident
from the fact that Baptism is the rite of initiation into
the Church,—the door to the Church, as the Council of
Trent calls it. The necessity of membership in the
Church must be the same as the necessity for the rite
by which one becomes a member. But all admit that
Baptism is a relative necessity of means; when its
actual reception is impossible, perfect contrition or per­
fect love of God, with the desire to receive it, will effect
the same results as far as the mere attainment of sal­
vation is concerned, but the person has not received
the Sacrament of Baptism nor has the baptismal char­
acter been imprinted upon his soul.
Objection. It may be objected that a person in the state
of sanctifying grace is necessarily united with the Holy
Ghost dwelling within him and that, therefore, he belongs to
the soul of the Church, the Holy Ghost, although he docs not
belong to the external society or body of the Church. The
conclusion does not follow. The Holy Ghost is not restricted
5 “De Ecclesia,” III, 9.

MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH

243

is His operations to the limits of the Church: “The Spirit
breatheth where He will.” '* He operates outside the Church,
just as He operates outside the Sacraments, distributing
graces as He will. But the person receiving the grace no
more belongs to the Church in the one case, than he actually
receives a Sacrament in the other. In neither case is the
Holy Ghost acting in His capacity as soul of the Church.

Corollary I. A person who knowingly and will­
ingly remains outside of the Church and dies in that
condition, cannot hope for salvation; he has rejected
Christ by rejecting His Church: “He that despiseth
you, despiseth me.” 7 But a person who is out of the
Church through no fault of his own, can obtain salva­
tion by an act of perfect contrition, or perfect love of
God and, at least, an implicit desire to belong to the
Church. He is then a member of the Church, both
body and soul, not in fact but in desire,—non in re sed
in voto. The desire to belong to the Church is im­
plicitly contained in the general desire to do all that
Christ commands, even though the person never heard
of the Church or actually rejects it through ignorance
of its real character.
Corollary II. All men are bound to belong to the
true Church of Christ, because He has so commanded,
and also because it is the means established by Him
for our salvation. Therefore, it is absolutely wrong
to maintain that it matters not to what Church a man
belongs, provided he accept Christ as his personal
c John iii, 6.
7 Luke x, 16.

244

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

Saviour and lead a virtuous life. Even those in .good
faith, sincerely believing that they really belong to the
true Church, are far less secure of their salvation than
they would be in the Church with the use of the Sacra­
ments and other means of salvation found there.
Corollary HI. As all men are bound to belong to
the true Church of Christ, so also are they bound to use
all possible efforts to find and embrace it, despite any
temporal losses that may ensue. The amount of effort
necessary will depend upon each one’s ability and the
opportunity presented for study and investigation. In­
vestigation is impossible for the person who sincerely
and firmly believes that he already possesses the true
Church, but the moment a doubt or suspicion arises in
his mind, he is bound to use all means at his command
to discover the truth. If a sincere and serious effort
fails to bring him to the truth, he is still in invincible
ignorance and, therefore, guiltless of his errors before
God.

CHAPTER VII
AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

Having considered the membership of the Church
and the bonds by which the individual members are
united into a visible society, we now turn our attention
to the power of authority that preserves these bonds of
union and enables the Church to attain the purpose of
her existence by bringing the fruits of Redemption to
all men. The existence and origin of authority in the
Church are self-evident. Being a true society, the
Church necessarily possesses authority of some sort,
and since Christ is the Author and supreme Head of
the Church, whatever authority she possesses must come
from Him. It has also been proved that Christ con­
ferred upon His Church the power and authority to
teach, govern, and sanctify,1 as the very nature and
purpose of the Church demanded.
Every society is directed to the attainment of its
purposes by the power of ruling which is more properly
called authority; there must also be suitable means for
attaining the end sought and power to use them effec­
tively. The end to be obtained by the Church re­
quires acceptance of certain truths as well as the ob­
servance of precepts, for “without faith it is impossible
1 Cf. above pp. 21 sq.

245

246

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

to please God,” 2 and “faith withotit works is dead.” 3
Therefore, authority in the Church requires submission
of intellect and will; in other words, the Church has au­
thority to teach as well as authority to rule in the
stricter sense of that term. And since the salvation of
souls is the immediate end of the Church, she must
also have the priestly power of sanctification. This
power is concerned with the offering of sacrifice and
the administration of Sacraments; its treatment belongs
more properly to Sacramental Theology. The author­
ity to teach is intimately connected with the infallibil­
ity of the Church and will be considered in connection
with it. The present chapter, therefore, will be limited
to the power of government, or authority in the strict
sense of the word.
ART. I. AUTHORITY TO GOVERN

Synopsis.—1. Threefold powers of government.—
2. Right of temporal punishment.—3. Right to in­
flict corporal punishment.—4. Persons subject to
PUNITIVE POWER.

§ 1. Threefold Power of Government
Government implies a threefold powrer,—legislative,
judicial, and coercitive. Government without laws
is impossible, but laws without interpretation and
application are worthless; there must be an author2 Hcb. xi, 6.
3 Jas. ii, 20.

AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

247

ity to interpret the laws officially and to judge whether
they have been violated in individual cases. Both
the law-making power and the judicial power pre­
suppose coercitive power; a law without sanction,
i. e., without power to enforce its observance by ade­
quate punishment, is not a law but a mere counsel:
and a judicial sentence that cannot be executed by
force, if necessary, is a pure travesty.1 It is evident,
then, that Christ conferred this threefold power upon
His Church by the very fact that He instituted it under
the form of a society. Moreover, we have the express
words of Our Lord referring to each of these powers
separately, and we find the Apostles exercising them
from the very first days of their ministry.
I. Legislative Power. Christ conferred the lawmaking power upon His Apostles when He said to
them: “Whatsoever you. shall bind upon earth, shall
be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall
loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” ~ The
words bind, and loose refer to bonds which, by the very
nature of the case, can be none other than moral bonds,
or laws, by which the faithful are obliged to do some­
thing or leave something undone. The Apostles them­
selves understood the words in this sense, for we find
them exercising the power to make laws from the very
beginning. At the Council of Jerusalem they decreed:
“It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to
lay no further burden upon you than these necessary
1 Cfr, Murray, “De Ecclcsia Christi,” Disp. xv, n. 26.
2 Matt, xviii, 18.

248

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

things; that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols,
and from blood, and from things strangled, and from
fornication” 3 This decree had the force of law in all
the churches, for it is said that St. Paul “went through
Syria and Cilicia, confirming the chiirches, command­
ing them to keep the precepts of the Apostles and
ancients.”4 St. Luke also says that St. Paul and
Timothy “passed through the cities, and delivered unto
them the decrees for to keep, that were decreed by the
Apostles and ancients who were at Jerusalem.” 5 St.
Paul himself decreed that women should pray with
head covered, and that no one should be bishop if mar­
ried a second time.6 He also warned the faithful to
“obey your prelates, and be subject to them, for they
watch as being to render an account of your souls.”1
II. Judicial Power. The words of Christ pre­
suppose judicial powers in the Church, for He said:
“If any brother offend against thee, . . . tell the
Church. And if he will not hear the Church, let him
be to thee as the heathen and publican.” 8 It is evi­
dent that our Lord does not command such a case to be
brought before the Church for mere counsel or advice;
it is to be a judicial proceeding, and should the guilty
party refuse to comply with the sentence, he is to be
3 Acts xv, 28-29.
4 Acts xv, 41.
8 Acts xvi, 4.
β 1 Cor. xi, 5 sq.; 1 Tim. iii, 1 sq.
7 Heb. xiii, 17.
sMatt. xviii, 15 sq.

AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

249

excommunicated: “Let him be to thee as the heathen
and publican.”
The Apostles certainly knew what powers they had
received from the Divine Master, and we find them
exercising judicial as well as legislative power. St.
Peter passed judgment upon Ananias and Saphira,9 and
St. Paul gave judgment in the case of the incestuous
Corinthian: “I indeed absent in body, but present in
spirit, have already judged as though I were present
him that doth such things.” 10 He even laid down rules
for the guidance of Timothy in hearing cases against
priests accused of misconduct.11 This presupposes
that Timothy had power and authority to hear and
judge such cases according to their merits.
HI. Coercitive Power. Christ plainly acknowl­
edged coercitive, or punitive, power in the Church,
when He said: “If he will not hear the Church, let him
be to thee as the heathen and publican.” Excommuni­
cation is the severest form of punishment known in the
Church. St. Paul exercised this power when he ex­
communicated the Corinthian and delivered him “to
Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit
may be saved in the day of the Lord Jeszis Christ.” 12
He also excommunicated Hymeneus and Alexander,
whom he “delivered up to Satan, that they may learn
» Acts v, 1 sq.
10 1 Cor. v, 3.
11 1 Tim. v, 19 sq.
ia 1 Corinth, v, 5.

·;

j
|
i

250

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

not to blaspheme.” 13 Now, if the Church has author­
ity to inflict the supreme penalty of excommunication,
she also has power to inflict lesser punishments.
Appeal to tradition in regard to these powers of the
Church is needless, since it is well known to all that
she has ever claimed and exercised legislative, judicial,
and punitive powers. This is evident from the canons
of councils, the decrees of popes, and the acts of in­
dividual bishops. In every age the Church has estab­
lished laws, judged the erring and the guilty, and pun­
ished those who refused to submit to her authority.

§ 2. Right oj Temporal Punishment

Punishment consists in depriving a person of some
good in reparation for an offense.1 Hence there are
three kinds of punishment, corresponding to the three
orders of goods,—spiritztal, temporal, and corporal.
Spiritual punishment deprives one of some spiritual
good, the use of the Sacraments, participation in the
prayers of the Church, communion with the faithful,
and the like. Temporal punishment deprives one of
the goods of this world by fines, confiscation, inability
to hold office, and the like. Corporal punishment af­
fects the very person of the offender by depriving him
of bodily comforts, freedom, and even life itself.2
131 Tim. I: 20.
1 Suarez, “De Fide,” xx, 3, 13.
2 In connection with indulgences, temporal punishments are often
mentioned as distinct from eternal. Here the word is used in oppo­
sition to spiritual. As a general term it includes corporal punish­
ments as well as those known simply as temporal.

AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

251

Thesis.—The Church has authority to impose
both temporal and corporal punishments
This is a defined dogma of Catholic faith, as appears
from the condemnation of the following propositions;
one by Pius VI, the other by Pius IX, who stigmatized
them as heretical: “It does not belong to the Church
to exact obedience to her decrees by external force,”
and “The Church has no right to coerce the violators
of her laws by temporal punishments.” 3 To these
proofs may be added the decrees of several ecumenical
councils; the second Council of Lyons, the fourth
Lateran Council, the Council of Vienna, and the Coun­
cil of Constance decreed fines and imprisonment for
various crimes. The new Code of Canon Law declares
that the Church has an innate right, independent of any
human authority, to coerce her delinquent subjects by
temporal as well as spiritual punishment.4
Proofs. The Church, being a society, even more
perfect and independent than the State, must have
coercive powers at least equal to those of the State.
Therefore, she has authority to inflict any just punish­
ment which she finds necessary or useful, unless Christ
has ordained otherwise. But Christ has not forbidden
the use of temporal or corporal punishment, and such
punishment is often useful or even necessary.
i. not forbidden. Christ never denied the Church
the use of temporal or corporal punishment; on the con3 Denzinger, n. 1504, 1697.
4 Codex Juris Canonici, can. 2214.

252

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

trary, He implicitly granted authority to use it when
He said: “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall
be bound also in heaven.” 5 These words, universal in
themselves, are not limited by the context nor by any
other ordinance of Christ. They refer directly and
primarily to moral obligations, but these include the
obligation to undergo punishment inflicted by the
Church just as our moral obligations to the State in­
clude that of submitting to just punishment.
ii. useful.—The Church is a spiritual society, be­
cause the end to be attained is spiritual; consequently
the means to that end will be in large measure spiritual.
On the other hand, the Church is composed of human
beings, who do not always yield to purely spiritual
motives. Therefore, temporal, and even corporal,
punishments must be resorted to at times by the Church
as well as by the State. St. Augustine recognized
this fact, although he was opposed to temporal and
corporal punishments except as a last resort. He says:
“It is better indeed for men to be brought to the wor­
ship of God by doctrine, than to be compelled by fear
and pain; but these means are not to be neglected be­
cause the other is better. Experience has proved and
still proves that it is profitable to many to be forced by
fear and pain that they may afterward be taught.” 6
5 Matt, xviii, 16.
® “Epist. ad Bonifatium,” 6; P. L., 33, 802.—The so-called Re­
formers of the sixteenth century taught that heretics should suffer
temporal and corporal punishment, but in accordance with their
system they assigned the power of punishment to the State. Calvin
and Bcza wrote works in defense of this doctrine, and Beza quotes

AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

253

§3. Right to Inflict Corporal Punishment
Many theologians maintain that although the Church
has the authority to decree corporal punishment, she
has no authority to actually inflict it, but must call
upon the State,—the secular arm as they call it,—to ex­
ecute the sentence. In confirmation of this opinion
they cite the words of Boniface VIII: “The Gospels
teach us that there are two swords in the power of the
Church,—one spiritual, the other temporal. . . . One
is to be exercised for the Church, the other by the
Church. One is wielded by the hand of the priest; the
other by the hands of kings and soldiers, but according
to the will and permission of the priest.” 1 These
words, however, are not to the point, because Boniface
was not treating of the coercive power of the Church,
but of the relations between Church and State.
It seems that the Church has never inflicted corporal
punishment directly, but it is certain that she has often
turned persons over to the State for corporal punish­
ment and demanded under pain of excommunication
that such punishment be administered. The difference
between this and direct administration of the punish­
ment is slight indeed. Moreover, it would be strange
for the Church to have authority with no inherent
right to use it, yet such would be the case if she could
Luther and Melanchthon as advocates of it. Calvin was the insti­
gator and prime mover in having Michael Servetus burned at the
stake as a heretic.
1 “Unam sanctam”; Dcnzingcr, n. 469.

254

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

not directly inflict corporal punishments. Prudence,
of course, may often prevent the exercise of a power that
is otherwise licit, for, as St. Paul says, power is “given
unto edification and not unto destruction” 2 There
seems to be nothing but the law of prudence to pre­
vent the Church from inflicting corporal punishment
directly and in her own name whenever she deems it
necessary or useful.

§4. Persons Szibject to Punitive Powers
It is evident that only members of the Church are
subject to her spiritual punishments, since they alone
enjoy spiritual benefits of which she can deprive them
in punishment for crime. In regard to temporal and
corporal punishments, three classes of persons must
be considered,—members of the Church, baptized per­
sons who are not members, and unbaptized persons.
There is no doubt that the Church has full authority to
punish her own members by spiritual, temporal, or
corporal punishments, as she deems best. It is like­
wise certain that the Church has no authority to pun­
ish or coerce the unbaptized, since they are neither
members nor subjects. The Fathers and theologians
of the Church are unanimous on this point. St. Paul
says: “What have I to do to judge them that are
without? . . . For them that are withozit, God will
judge.” 1 From this it follows that the Church can
2 2 Cor. xiii, 10.
1 1 Cor. v, 12-13.

AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

255

never use force of any kind to bring persons into her
fold, nor to make them accept her doctrines; but she
may use force against those who unjustly invade her
rights or the spiritual rights of her members. This is
merely the natural right of self-protection granted to
every individual and to every lawful group of individ­
uals.
Since all baptized persons are subjects of the Church,
even though they may not be members, it follows that
heretics and schismatics are subject to the coercive
or punitive authority of the Church, but the exercise of
this authority would be unjust and illicit in the case
of those who are out of the Church through no fault
of their own. Punishment, by its very nature, pre­
supposes guilt, but in the supposition there is no guilt,
and the use of force in such cases would only result in
evil for the Church and spiritual harm to those coerced.
Hence the Church can exercise punitive or coercive
power against none but her own members and against
formal heretics or schismatics, i. e., those who are out
of the Church through their own fault. The fear of
the Church, entertained by many non-Catholics be­
cause of her supposed claims in this matter, is ground­
less. The doctrine of the Church forbids the use of
force to bring any one into her fold, and history proves
that she has never resorted to force for this purpose.
The much dreaded Inquisition was instituted to search
out and punish heretics, but only such as had fallen
away from the Church through their own fault. Its
purpose was to bring back such persons to a sense of

256

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

the duties they had freely accepted and acknowledged.
Whether this was psychologically the best means to
employ for the purpose, is another question, but there
can be no doubt that the Church was acting within
her rights. The State resorts to the same means when
it searches out and punishes traitors, and in a lesser
way, when it forces persons to fulfill obligations which
they have undertaken. If force was ever used to bring
persons into the Church, it was without her sanction and
against her will.2
ART. II. NATURE OF CHURCH POWERS

Powers of Christ. Our Divine Saviour possesses
a twofold power, corresponding to His dual nature as
God and man. As God, He possesses a power that is
infinite and divine; as man, He received a finite power
that is human since it proceeds from His human nature,
but divine in as much as it belongs to His divine Per­
sonality. It is evident that the Apostles did not par­
ticipate in the power that proceeds from the divine
nature of Christ, because man, being finite, cannot be­
come the subject of an infinite power. Hence the
power conferred upon the Church in the person of the
Apostles is that which flows from the human nature of
Christ,—the power which He himself had received:
“All power is is given to me in heaven and on earth.
2Vacandard, “L’Inquisition”
C. S. P.).

(Eng. trans, by B. L. Conway,

AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

257

Going therefore, teach all nations. ... As the Father
hath sent me, I also send you.” 1
But the power proper to the human nature of Christ
is also twofold, because He came in the double capacity
of priest and king. A priest, says St. Phul, “is ordained
for men in the things that appertain to God, that he
may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins.” 2 Our Lord
offered Himself on the cross as a propitiation for our
sins, “to reconcile all things . . . making peace
through the blood of his cross.” 3 Thus was He con­
stituted a priest forever. He also came as king, to col­
lect all men into His spiritual kingdom and direct them
to their eternal destiny: “He shall reign in the house
of Jacob forever. And of his kingdom there shall be
no end.” 4 But His kingdom is a kingdom of truth:
“Thou sayest that I am a king. For this was I born,
and for this came I into the world that I should give
testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth
heareth me.” 5 Therefore, the kingdom of Christ re­
quires submission of intellect as well as submission of
will: “He was teaching them as one having power,
and not as the scribes and. Pharisees.” c
When Christ said to His Apostles: “As the Father
hath sent me, I also send you,” He made them par1 Matt, xxviii, IS; John xx, 21.
2Hcb. v, 1.
3 Coloss, i, 20.
■‘Luke i, 32-33.
6 John xviii, 37.
6 Matt, vii, 20.

258

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

takers of all the powers proper to His human nature,—
all the powers given to Him as priest and king. They
were to go forth to offer zip gifts and sacrifices for sin
and to apply the fruits of His redemption through the
administration of the Sacraments. They were also to
teach and govern the disciples gathered from all na­
tions into His Church.
Powers Limited. The powers conferred upon the
Church through the Apostles, seem all-comprehensive:
“As the Father hath sent me, I also send you” and
“Whatsoever you shall bind . . . whatsoever you shall
loose.” Yet these powers are necessarily limited to
some extent, since all derived or delegated power is
limited by the nature of the purpose for which it is
given and by the nature of the society in which it is to
be exercised. In regard to the powers of the priest­
hood, the Apostles received no authority to institute new
Sacraments or to change essentially those already in­
stituted. They were commanded to baptize accord­
ing to a prescribed rite, and to offer a sacrifice instituted
by Christ himself. They were simply agents to ad­
minister the Sacraments and to offer Sacrifice in the
name of Christ and by His power.
In regard to governing power, the Apostles were con­
stituted superiors to rule the Church already established
by Christ; they received no authority to change or
abolish it, much less to establish another. Hence St.
Paul speaks of the “power which the Lord hath given
me unto edification and not unto destruction ” 7 This
7 2 Cor. xiii, 10.

AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

259

is clearly implied in the words addressed to St. Peter:
“I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven.” 8 He that receives the keys of the house from
the master, receives power and authority to care for
the house and to preserve it, not to destroy or change
it. Hence the Apostles and their successors are the
custodians who preside over the house of the Lord, to
guard and preserve both the house and the treasures
which it contains. For this reason the rulers of the
Church are called bishops, from the Greek word
ίπισκοττάν^ which means to superintend or oversee.
In regard to doctrine, the Apostles were commis­
sioned to teach only those things which Christ com­
manded: “Teach them to observe all things whatso­
ever I have commanded.” 9 They could neither add
to nor subtract from the truths taught them by their
Divine Master; they were but the dispensers of His
mysteries: “Let a man so account of us as of the
ministers of Christ and the dispensers of the mysteries
of God.” 10
Ministerial Power. When a person acts in the
name and by the authority of another, he is a mere
instrument in the hands of the one whom he represents;
he is an agent or minister, and the power or authority
by which he acts is ministerial. The power of con­
ferring grace and forgiving sins in the Church is purely
ministerial, because the human agent is merely an in8 Matt, xvi, 19.
9 Matt, xxviii, 20.
10 1 Cor. iv, 1.

260

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

strument in the hands of Christ. For this reason the
one who confers a Sacrament is rightly called the min­
ister of that Sacrament. It is Christ himself who con­
fers the grace through the instrumentality of the Sacra­
ment and its minister. Hence the Apostles always re­
fer to themselves as ministers of Christ when there is
question of conferring grace or forgiving sins. St. Paul
says: 11 Christ hath placed in us the word oj reconcilia­
tion. For Christ therefore we are ambassadors, God
as it were exhorting by us.” 11 Again he says: “Was
Paul then crucified for you? Or were you baptized
in the name of Paul?” 11
12 St. Augustine explains this
matter in regard to Baptism in particular. He says:
“Lest as many baptisms should be spoken of as there
are servants who received power from the Lord to bap­
tize. the Lord kept to Himself the power of baptizing,
and gave to His servants the ministry. The servant
says that he baptizes; he says so rightly, as the Apostle
says. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas,
but as a servant.” 13 The Council of Florence has con­
firmed the teaching of St. Augustine by defining that
“The Holy Trinity is the principal cause whence Bap­
tism derives its efficacy, but the minister who confers
the Sacrament externally is the instrumental cause.” 14
Since the minister of the Sacraments is only an in­
strument in the hands of God, the efficacy of the Sacra11 2 Cor. v, 19-20.
12 1 Cor. i, 13.
13 Augustine, “On the Gospel of St. John,” v, 7 ; P. L., 35, 1417.
14 Denzinger, n. 696.

AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

261

ments does not depend upon the worthiness of the one
who administers it, for, as St. Augustine says, “the
special virtue of the Sacrament is like the light; it is
received pure by those to be enlightened, and if it pass
through the impure, it is not stained.” 15
In regard to priestly power, Christ is the supreme and
only Head of the Church. No bishop or pope can con­
fer this power, except in so far as he is an instrument in
the hands of Christ to administer the Sacrament of Holy
Orders, and in this matter the pope has no more power
than any other bishop. When Orders are once validly
conferred, no power on earth can revoke or annul them;
therefore, even an excommunicated bishop can ordain
a priest, consecrate a bishop, celebrate Mass, or con­
fer any other Sacrament that does not require jurisdic­
tion, just as validly as the Pope.
Principal Power. A person who acts in his own
name and by his own power is a principal cause, and
the power by which he acts is a principal power. If
the power be that of commanding others, it is properly
called authority, and the person possessing it is thereby
constituted a superior. Authority may be obtained by
virtue of an office, or it may be delegated by another;
in either case it is a principal power if it is exercised in
the name of the person who possesses it.
In regard to jurisdiction or power of ruling, the
Apostles were constituted true superiors with authority
to enact laws in their own name: 11 It hath seemed
good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay no further
16 “On the Gospel of St. John,” v, 15; P. L., 35, 1422.

262

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

burden upon you”16 The enactments of this first
council are known as the decrees, not of Christ but of
the Apostles and ancients: “Paul went through Syria
. . . commanding them to keep the precepts oj the
apostles and ancients.” 17 When writing to the Corin­
thians, St. Paul lays down certain precepts in his own
name and carefully distinguishes them from the pre­
cepts of Christ: “To them that are married, not I,
but the Lord commandeth ... for the rest I speak,
not the Lord.” 18 It is evident therefore that jurisdic­
tion, or the power to rule, is a principal power con­
ferred by Christ, but exercised by the Church in her
own name. He who holds supreme jurisdiction in the
Church is as truly head of the Church as a king is of
his kingdom; no jurisdiction in the Church can be ob­
tained or held against his will. Since the Church ex­
ercises a principal power in ruling, it also follows that
she has full authority to abrogate or dispense from her
laws at anv•r time,
Protestant Teaching. Protestants in general seem to
hold that all power in the Church is purely ministerial and
consists in authority to preach the Gospel and administer the
Sacraments. Stahl, a German Protestant, says: “With
Protestants the Church is an electric conductor that conveys
the divine spark to men. With Catholics it is a glowing
10 Acts xv, 28.
17 Acts xv, 41.
18 1 Cor. vii, 6 sq.

AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

263

iron having in itself the power of burning.” 10 The simile
is good, but wrongly applied. According to Protestant the­
ology, the faith of the individual is the sole cause of justifi­
cation; neither the Church nor the Sacraments have any in­
trinsic efficacy. Consequently faith, not the Church, should
be compared to an electric conductor. According to Catho­
lic teaching, the Church is both an electric conductor and a
glowing iron;—an electric conductor in the power of Orders,
where it acts merely as the agent of Christ; a glowing iron
in the power of jurisdiction, which the Church exercises in
her own name.

Church Powers Perpetual. Perpetuity of the
powers of the Church is a necessary consequence of
her perpetual indefectibility. It follows also from the
very purpose for which the Church was instituted,
namely, the glory of God and the salvation of souls.
The power of Orders is directly concerned with both;
therefore, it must exist so long as there are men on
earth to attain salvation through the proper worship
of God. The power of jurisdiction is ordained for
the government of the Church, a visible society that
must endure until the end of time; therefore, this power
itself must be perpetual. Finally Christ has promised
perpetual powers to His Church: “Behold I am with
you all days even to the consummation of the world.” 20
10 Fr. J. Stahl, “Gegcnwartige Parteicn in Staat und Kirche,” p.
373.
20 Matt, xxviii, 20.

CHAPTER VIII
RULERS OF THE CHURCH

The nature of the powers conferred upon the Church
being determined, the further question arises: To whom
were these powers committed? To the whole body of
the faithful, or to superiors divinely commissioned to
teach, govern, and sanctify? The answer to this ques­
tion demands (1) a notice of the principal errors in
the matter; (2) proof that Christ himself instituted a
ruling body in the Church by conferring all power and
authority upon the Apostles and their successors, to
the exclusion of all others; (3) an inquiry to establish
the identity of these successors to the Apostles; (4)
consideration of the prerogatives proper to the Apostles
and therefore not transmitted to their successors.
ART. I.

ERRONEOUS DOCTRINES

Marsilius of Padua (1270-1342 a. d.). During
the troubles between Louis of Bavaria and Pope John
XXII, Marsilius of Padua and Jean de Jandun sided
with the Emperor and defended his position in a work
entitled Dejcnsor Pacis (Defender oj Peace}. In this
work they maintained that all power of government in
the Church rests with the faithful, who exercise it
264

RULERS OF THE CHURCH

265

through their chosen representatives, the secular rulers.
Consequently the Church is subject to the State, and
neither bishops nor Pope can make any laws or regula­
tions for Church government without the consent of the
State, for whom they are mere agents. These authors
admitted that the power of Orders is conferred inde­
pendently of the faithful, but they denied any distinc­
tion between priests and bishops.
Protestants. With the exception of a party in the
Anglican Church, Protestants follow the teaching of
Luther and Calvin, that whatever powers the Church
possesses, resides in the body of the faithful, but since
it is impossible for all to exercise authority, certain ones
are chosen to act as delegates in the matter. They
maintain that “every believer is a priest of God. Every
believer has as much right as anybody else to pray, to
preach, to baptize, to administer communion. . . . But
it does not follow that therefore the clergy are super­
fluous. Experience has shown that certain persons
are by natural endowment better fitted for spiritual
functions than others, and also that in the Christian
communities there will be leaders to whom will gravi­
tate the major part of the work. The clerical order
took its rise therefore in the very necessity of the
case. ... If everybody discharged the spiritual func­
tions of which they are capable, then confusion and an­
archy would result. . . . The office is only necessary
to the orderly progress of the Church. But the means
of grace gain not a whit of efficiency from their adminis­
tration. Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, preaching and

266

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

praying, like singing and taking up a collection; reading
the Scriptures, like reading of notices,—may be per­
formed by laymen with precisely the same spiritual ef­
fect as if the highest or the most godly minister in the
land had been the administrator.” 1
According to this doctrine, Protestant clergymen are
mere agents or representatives of their people, and are
therefore rightly called ministers,—ministers, not of
God, but of the people, from whom they receive their
call, and by whom they are hired and discharged, much
the same as an ordinary servant. Ordination is not a
Sacrament, but a mere external ceremony by which a
person is constituted a minister of the people to preach
the Gospel and administer what few sacred rites they
have. This is a logical deduction from the Protestant
viewpoint that the real Church of Christ is invisible.
The various external organizations known as churches
are merely human societies, differing from hundreds
of other private societies only in this, that they are re­
ligious. They were organized without any special au­
thority from Christ, and there is no reason why one
person should have any special power not possessed by
every other. A person becomes a leader or minister
because he is selected by the society for that purpose.
Febronius. Nicholas von Hontheim, auxiliary
bishop of Treves, conceived the idea of effecting a union
between Catholics and Protestants by paring down the
teachings of the Church to such an extent that Protes­
tants might be induced to accept them. With this pur1 Burger in Schaff-Herzog, art. “Clergy, Biblical.”

RULERS OF THE CHURCH

267

pose in view, he wrote a work under the fictitious name
of Justin Febronius. The work, edited in 1763, was
entitled De Statu Ecclcsiœ {On the State of the
Church'). The doctrine which it sets forth differs little
from that of Protestants. All power in the Church
belongs to the faithful; the bishops, including even the
Roman Pontiff, are merely representatives delegated by
the people to act in their name in the government of the
Church, especially in ecumenical councils.2
ART. II.

A RULING BODY OF DIVINE INSTITUTION

It is a defined doctrine of Catholic faith that the
pastors of the Church are constituted a ruling body by
divine appointment, and receive their power and au­
thority, not from the faithful, but from Christ, through
succession from the Apostles, upon whom He conferred
all power in the Church. The Council of Trent de­
creed: “If anyone should say that all Christians have
equal powers to preach and to administer the Sacra­
ments let him be anathema.” 1 Pius VI condemned as
heretical the “proposition which states that all power
was given by God to the Church to be communicated
to the pastors, who are her ministers for the salvation
of souls; if the proposition be understood to mean that
the power of ministry and government is communicated
to the pastors by the faithful.” 2 The Vatican Council
2Cir. Catholic Encyclopedia, art. “Febronianism.”
Denzinger, n. 853.
2 Denzinger, n. 1502.

268

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

declared that, as Christ “sent the Apostles ... as He
himself had been sent by the Father, so He willed that
there should ever be pastors and teachers in His Church
to the end of the world.’’3 This doctrine of the Church
presupposes (1) that Christ conferred all authority in
the Church upon the Apostles exclusively, and (2) that
this authority descends to their legitimate successors
for all time.

§ 1. Apostles Alone Receive All Authority

Thesis.—All power in the Church, whether of Or­
ders or jurisdiction, was immediately con­
ferred upon the Apostles alone
Proof, a) From the Words oj Christ. Whenever
there is question of conferring power or authority,
Christ addresses none but the twelve chosen disciples,
whom He calls Apostles: “He called unto him his discipics; and he chose twelve of them whom he also called
apostles 1 ... And having called his twelve disciples
together he gave them power over unclean spirits.” 2
It was to the twelve alone that Christ said: “Amen I
say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall
be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall
loose on earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” 3 It is
certain that the twelve alone are meant for, as a non3 Dcnzinger, n. 1821.
1 Luke vi, 13.
2 Matt, x, 1.
3 Matt, xviii, 16-20.

RULERS OF THE CHURCH

269

Catholic author says, “The word disciple is applied
most especially to the twelve in all four Gospels, some­
times with δώδεκα 4 and sometimes without; they are the
disciples. Matthew seems indeed to confine the plural
to them, unless v, 1 and viii, 21 be exceptions.” 5*
After the Resurrection Jesus appeared to the eleven
in Galilee and “spoke to them saying: All power is given
to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach
ye all nations.” 0 In these words He gave full power
to the Apostles, and to them alone. On the very day
of the Resurrection, “when it was late that same day
. . . and the doors were shut where the disciples were
gathered, together, . . . Jesus came and stood in the
midst of them. . . . He breathed on them and said:
Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins yoil shall for­
give, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall
retain, they are retained. Now Thomas one of the
twelve who is called Didymus, was not with them when
Jesus came.”7 Here again Power is conferred, and
the Apostles alone are mentioned; they are even called
the twelve, although at that time there were only eleven.
This indicates that the Apostles formed an official body
known as The Twelve.
b) From the Practice of the Apostles. The Apostles
always proclaimed by word and act that all their pow­
ers came immediately from Christ. In His name they
4 The Greek word for twelve.
5 Hasting’s Bible Dictionary, art. “Disciples.”
cMatt, xxviii, 16-20.
7 John xx, 14-19.

2Ίΰ

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

spoke, in His name they taught, in His name they ruled.
St. Paul distinctly says that he is “an Apostle, not oj
men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the
Father.”3 To the Romans he writes: “By Christ
we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to
the faith in all nations.” 9 In the Epistle to the Gala­
tians he proves at length that he is the equal of the other
Apostles, for the simple reason that he received author­
ity, not from man, but from Christ himself. St. Peter
likewise claims authority from God and a divine com­
mand to teach: “Him God raised up the third day,
and gave him to be made manifest, not to all the
people, but to witnesses preordained by God, even to
us who did eat and drink with him after he arose again
from the dead. And he commanded us to preach to the
people.” 10
The Apostles placed bishops and other ministers over
the various churches without the advice or consent of
the faithful. St. Paul leaves Titus as bishop of Crete,
with orders to constitute other pastors in every city,
but there is no mention that the faithful have any voice
in the matter.11 It is God, not the people, who “hath
set some in the church; first apostles, secondly proph­
ets, thirdly doctors.” 12
These few references are sufficient to show that the
Apostles never recognized any power or authority in
» Gal. i, 1.
8Rom. i, 5.
10 Acts x, 41-43.
11 Titus i, 5.
12 1 Corinth, xii, 28.

RULERS OF THE CHURCH

271

the people; in fact, St. Paul tells the Corinthians plainly
that the Apostles, as ministers of Christ, are independ­
ent of the faithful, and therefore have no fear of any
criticisms: “Let a man so account of us as of the min­
isters of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of
God. Here now it is required among dispensers that a
man be found faithful. But to me it is a very small
thing to be judged by you, or by man’s day.” 13
Corollary. An Objection. St. Peter calls the
faithful “a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a
holy nation a purchased people.” 14 Therefore, the
faithful are both rulers and priests,—a kingly priest­
hood; all have equal powers and rights to rule and to
perform spiritual functions as Protestants maintain.
Answer. In this passage St. Peter applies to the
faithful of the New Law words addressed to the chosen
people of the Old: “You shall be to me a priestly
kingdom, and a holy nation.” 15 These words did not
constitute all the people rulers in Israel, neither did they
give to all the power of the priesthood, as Core, Dathan,
and Abiron learned to their sorrow.10 In both pas­
sages the words are used in a spiritual sense. The
faithful of the Old Law as well as those of the New,
are in a sense priests; they are consecrated to God
and offer to Him the spiritual sacrifice of praise and
thanksgiving according to the admonition of St. Paul:
13 1 Cor. iv, 1-3.
14 1 Pet. ii, 9.
15 Ex. xix, 6.
ie Numb, xvii, 1 sq.

272

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

“Let us offer the sacrifice of praise always to God,
that is to say, the fndt of lips confessing his name,” 17
In this sense St. Jerome calls Baptism the priesthood
of the laity, which he contrasts with the true priest­
hood of Orders.18 In the same spiritual sense the
faithful may be called kings, because by Baptism they
become co-heirs with Christ, the King of kings, des­
tined to reign with Him: “They who receive abun­
dance of grace, and of the gift and of justice, shall
reign in life throiigh one, Jesus Christ.” 19

§ 2. Apostolic Power Descends by Succession

Thesis.—The power of Orders and jurisdiction,
conferred upon the Apostles, is perpetuated
in their successors according to the insti­
tution of Christ
Proof. All power in the Church was originally con­
ferred upon the Apostles, to the exclusion of all others,
and there is not the slightest intimation in Scripture or
tradition that Christ promised to confer a similar power
upon others at any time in the future. It follows, then,
that all power, whether of Orders or jurisdiction, must
be perpetuated by an unbroken line of succession,
reaching back to the Apostles, who received it di­
rectly from Christ Himself. This is clearly intimated
in the words of Christ to the Apostles: “Behold I
17 Heb. xiii, 15.
18 “Dialog, adversus Luciferianos,” 4; P L., 23, 158.
18 Rom. v, 17.

RULERS OF THE CHURCH

273

am with yoii all days even to the consummation oj the
world.” 1 Christ was with His Apostles during their
life on earth; He remains with them in their succes­
sors through all the centuries. Therefore, succession
is a matter of divine institution, and those who occupy
the place of the Apostles in the Church, obtain also
their power and authority; they obtain it independently
of any action on the part of the faithful, and exercise
it by divine right.
The practice of the Apostles shows how their power
was to be transmitted to others. Matthias, elected
to succeed Judas, was immediately “numbered with the
eleven apostles” and exercised equal authority with
them.1
2 A little later, Paul and Barnabas were also
numbered with the Apostles and, in turn, appointed
others to teach and govern the faithful: “And when
they had. ordained to them priests in every church,
and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to
the Lord.” 3 St. Paul left Titus in Crete with author­
ity over the church there, and commanded him to or­
dain others for the various cities: “I left thee in
Crete that thou shouldst set in order the things that are
wanting, and shouldst ordain priests in every city, as
I also appointed thee.” 4
The teaching of the Fathers on this question will
be given in the following article on the successors of the
1 Matt, xxviii, 20.
2 Acts i, 20 sq.
3 Acts xiv, 22.
4 Titus i, S sq.

274

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

Apostles. It will be sufficient here to record the words
of St. Clement of Rome, a friend and disciple of St.
Peter, and the third to occupy his throne as Supreme
Pontiff. In his Letter to the Corinthians, St. Clem­
ent says: ‘Our Apostles also through our Lord Jesus
Christ . . . appointed the first rulers in the church
at Corinth, and ordained that after their death other ap­
proved men should succeed to the ministry.” 6 Here
we find a complete description of the manner in which
power and authority are transmitted in the Church.
By the authority of Christ, SS. Peter and Paul appoint
the first ministers at Corinth and ordain that the line
of succession be continued by other approved men at
the death of those whom they had appointed.
ART. III.

THE SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES

In the strict sense of the term, the successors of the
Apostles are those in the Church who obtain by right of
succession the full powers of Orders and jurisdiction
enjoyed by the Apostles. Other ministers of the
Church, who participate more or less in the power of
Orders and exercise a delegated jurisdiction, may also
be called successors in a less proper sense of the term.

§ 1. True Successors of the Apostles

Thesis.—The bishops of the Church are the true
successors of the Apostles
It is a doctrine of faith, defined by the Council of
5 “Epkt. ad Corinth.,” 44; Funk, Vol. I, p. 155.

RULERS OF THE CHURCH

275

Trent, that the bishops of the Church are the true and
legitimate successors of the Apostles: “Wherefore
the holy Synod declares that besides the other ecclesi­
astical grades, bishops in particular belong to the hier­
archical order, since they succeed to the place of the
Apostles and were placed, as the Apostle says, by the
Holy Ghost to rule the Church of God.” 1
Proofs. It has just been proved that the Apostles
must have successors to perpetuate their powers of
teaching, governing, and sanctifying until the end of
time; but it is a well-known fact that the bishops, and
the bishops alone, have ever claimed and exercised
these powers in their fullness, and they alone have
ever been recognized as the legitimate successors to
these powers. Before the so-called Reformation of the
sixteenth century, the right of the bishops to rule as
successors of the Apostles was never questioned, except
by a few individuals swayed by political or private in­
terests. Even today, all parties admit that the bishops
were the recognized successors of the Apostles, at least
from the second century until the time of the pseudo­
Reformation. Testimony from the Apostles and early
Fathers prove that they were recognized as such from
the earliest years of the Church. - Now, it is manifestly
impossible for any body of men to obtain recognition
as successors of the Apostles from the very beginning
of the Church, and maintain that position undisputed
for sixteen centuries, unless they were in fact what
they claimed to be,—true successors. Any other hy1 Denzinger, n. 960.

216

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

pothesis would mean that the Church, as Christ founded
it, ceased to exist with the death of the Apostles, and
that the world has since been without the means of
salvation; it would mean that Christ failed in His
promise to be with the Church all days, even to the
consummation of the world. If the bishops of the
Church are not the successors of the Apostles, then
there are no successors, for no one else has even claimed
this distinction; in that case the power and authority
committed to the Apostles have lapsed, and cannot
be renewed, except by a direct intervention of Christ
in conferring them anew and reestablishing His Church.
Such an act on the part of Christ would have to be con­
firmed by the performance of miracles as the only
means by which we could be assured of its reality.
The following testimonies are sufficient to prove that
bishops were recognized as the successors of the Apos­
tles from the very beginning of the Church:
a) st. Paul plainly intimates that Timothy was to
carry forward the work which he himself had begun:
“Be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work oj
an evangelist, fulfil thy ministry . . . for I am even
now ready to be sacrificed ; and the time o f my dissolu­
tion is at handy - When addressing the leaders of the
church of Ephesus, he says: “Take heed to yourselves
and the whole flock in which the Holy Ghost hath
placed you bishops to ride the Church of God.”3
These words of the Apostle show that St. Timothy and
2 2 Tim iv, 5-6.
3 Acts XX, 28

RULERS OF THE CHURCH

277

the other ministers of Ephesus, known as bishops, ruled
the Church there, and were expected to continue in that
work after the death of St. Paul. In a word, they were
his successors in the Church.
b) st. John the apostle. In the Apocalypse St.
John narrates that he was ordered to write to the angels
of the seven churches in Asia. In each church there is
a single minister Rangel) held responsible for doctrine
and morals. This presupposes that he was also charged
with the government of that particular church.4 From
other sources we know that ministers thus charged
with the care and government of a church were called
bishops, and held precisely the same position as bishops
in every age of the Church.5 This is evident from the
following testimonies of the Fathers.
c) st. Ignatius martyr. In his letter to the Chris­
tians of Smyrna, St. Ignatius says: “Let all be subject
to the bishop, as Jesus Christ was to the Father; . . .
apart from the bishop let no one do any of those things
which pertain to the Church. ... It is not lawful with­
out the bishop either to baptize or celebrate a love­
feast; but whatsoever he shall approve, that is also
pleasing to God.” 6
d) st. irenæus. The testimony of St. Irenæus is
especially valuable, because he was a disciple of St.
Polycarp, who in turn had been a disciple of St. John
the Apostle. He says that he had heard Polycarp tell
4Apoc. ii, 1 sq.
β Cf. Testimony of St. Clement, above, pp. 274.
® “Epist. ad Smyrncos,” viii, 9; Funk, Vol. I, p. 2S3.

278

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

of his relations with John the Apostle and with others
who had seen the Lord, and that he had learned much
from them concerning the Lord, His miracles and teach­
ing.7 With such opportunities for knowing the teach­
ings of Christ and the /Xpostles, St. Irenæus wrote:
“We are in position to reckon up those who were by
the Apostles instituted bishops in the churches, and to
demonstrate the succession of these men to our own
times. . . . The Apostles were desirous that these men
should be very perfect and blameless in all things,
whom also they were leaving behind as their successors,
delivering up their own place of government to them.” 8
c) TERTULLiAN. A few years after St. Irenæus
wrote the above words, Tertullian challenged the here­
tics of his day to prove the soundness of their position
by tracing their succession back to an Apostle: “Let
them unfold the roll of their bishops, running back in
due succession from the beginning in such manner that
their first bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer
and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of Apos­
tolic men; ... as the Church of Smyrna, which re­
cords that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as
also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have
been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly
the same way the other churches likewise exhibit those
whom they regard as transmitters of the Apostolic seed,
7 “Epist. ad Florin.,” in Eusebius, “Church History,” P. G., v, 20.
8 “Adversus Hæreses,” III, 3; P. G., 7, 848.

RULERS OF THE CHURCH

279

having been appointed to their episcopal places by the
Apostles.” 9
§ 2. Other Ministers oj the Chzirch

Several orders of ministers are mentioned in Holy
Scripture, especially by St. Paul, who enumerates apos­
tles, prophets, doctors, evangelists, deacons, presbyters,
bishops, and several others, whose duties are little un­
derstood. Most of these orders served a temporary
need in the Church and then disappeared. The most
important of these seem to have been the evangelists,
doctors, and prophets. The evangelists most probably
assisted in spreading the Gospel among unbelievers,
much the same as cathechists do today in missionary
countries. The doctors and prophets seem to have
been charged with further instruction for those who had
been received into the Church; the doctors being per­
manently attached to particular churches, whereas the
prophets travelled from place to place. St. Paul inti­
mates that the members of these various orders were
endowed with special miraculous I gifts
{charismata)
,
1
..
but they exercised no jurisdiction in the Church and,
therefore, did not belong to the hierarchy. They were
subject to the Apostles even in the exercise of their
miraculous powers.2
Deacons, presbyters, and bishops constituted the rul9 “De Præscriptionc,” n. 32; P. L., 2, 44.
11 Cor. xii, 28; Eph. iv, 11.
2 1 Cor. xiii, xiv.

1

j

—*

280

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

ing body or hierarchy. They are the permanent orders
of the Church, constituted to teach and govern, and to
perform the offices of the priesthood. The powers and
duties of bishops will be considered elsewhere,3 but
some consideration of deacons and priests is necessary,
since they participate more or less in the powers of the
priesthood and exercise a delegated jurisdiction in the
Church; to this extent they also are successors of the
Apostles.
Deacons. Shortly after the ascension of Our Lord,
the Apostles associated with themselves a number of
assistants, known as deacons, a Greek word signifying
ministers. A temporal need in the Church at Jerusa­
lem gave occasion for the introduction of deacons,4 but
they also exercised certain spiritual functions, such as
preaching the Gospel, baptizing and assisting other
ministers in their sacred functions; e.g., Philip
preached the Gospel in Samaria and baptized many:
“Philip going down to the city of Samaria, preached
Christ unto them . . . bid when they had believed
Philip preaching the kingdom of God, in the name of
Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and
women.” 5 St. Ignatius distinctly mentions deacons as
of divine institution: ‘‘Reverence the deacons as be­
ing the institution of God.” 6
In the first centuries, the deacons administered the
3 Cf. below, pp. 406 sq.
4 Acts vi, 1 sq.
5 Acts viii, 5, 12.
e “Epist. ad Smyrneos,” viii; Funk, Vol. I, 283.

RULERS OF THE CHURCH

281

temporalities of the Church, cared for the cemeteries,
and directed the various works of charity. These du­
ties were gradually taken over by other agencies in the
Church, and the deacons then gave themselves entirely
to the spiritual work of baptizing and assisting at di­
vine services. Even these duties were finally per­
formed by other ministers, and the order of deacons
ceased to have any utility. Today the order scarcely
exists in the Church except as a preparatory step to
the priesthood.
Priests. From the very earliest times priests have
formed an important part of the ministry of the Church,
and since they share in large measure the power of
Orders conferred upon the Apostles, they constitute
an order of divine institution, as the Council of Trent
solemnly declared: “If anyone says that there is no
hierarchy in the Catholic Church of divine institution,
consisting of bishops, priests, and ministers, let him be
anathema.” 7 Yet it is a matter of dispute whether
simple priests, i. e.> priests as distinguished from bish­
ops, existed in the days of the Apostles, or whether
they were introduced later, as the needs of the Church
demanded. Sacred Scripture mentions both bishops
(episcopi) and priests (presbyteri), but it seems that
these terms were not used in the same distinctive sense
in which we use them today.
The word presbyter is simply the Greek πρεσβύτερος
(an elderly man) used in a special sense. It is ren­
dered an ancient in the Douay version and an elder in
7 Denzinger, n. 966.

282

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

the King James. Episcopus is also a Greek word mean­
ing overseer and is so translated in the King James
version. It is practically certain that in the first years
of the Church, all ministers above the order of deacon
were known indiscriminately as presbyteri or episcopi.
St. Paul commands Titus to “ordain presbyters in
every city.” He then enumerates the qualities neces­
sary in the candidates for, as he says, “a bishop (^episcopus} must be without crime.” 8 When at Miletus,
the same Apostle, sending to Ephesus, “called the pres­
byters of the Church,” but in his address to them he
calls them episcopi: “Take heed to the whole flock in
which the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops {episcopos).”» In his letter to the Philippians, St. Paul
enumerates bishops and deacons, but makes no mention
of presbyters.™ On the other hand, St. Peter mentions
presbyters without any reference to bishops.11 The
Didache, a work written toward the end of the first
century, says: “Elect to yourselves bishops and dea­
cons worthy of God.” 12 St. Clement of Rome like­
wise says: “The Apostles constituted bishops and
deacons for those who were to believe.” 13 If the words
episcopus and presbyter were used as they are today,
to denote two separate orders, no reason can be assigned
why St. Peter should omit the bishops, or why St. Paul
3 Titus i, 5-7.
’Acts xx, 17-20.
10 Phil. i, 1.
11 1 Pet. v, 1.
12 Didache, ch. xv; Funk, Vol. I, 33.
18 “Epist. ad Corinth.,” 42; Funk, Vol. I, 153.

RULERS OF THE CHURCH

283

and the other writers mentioned should omit the
presbyters.
The above considerations leave no room for doubt
that presbyter and episcopus were used as synonymous
terms and the reason for this is not far to seek. Among
the Jews every synogogue was ruled by a committee
composed originally of the older men of the congrega­
tion. For this reason they soon came to be known
officially as elders (presbyteri).—a name applied even
to those who were not advanced in years. Christian
converts from Judaism would naturally employ the
same terms of respect to designate the rulers in the
Church. On the other hand, converts coming from
paganism would use the term episcopus, which they
had been accustomed to apply to anyone holding au­
thority. In a short time both terms were used indis­
criminately by all, whether of Jewish or pagan origin.
Matter in Dispute. It seems that in the earliest
years particular churches were ruled by a council of
ministers variously known as bishops or presbyters, but
the exact status of these ministers is a matter of dis­
pute. Some maintain that all were priests in the pres­
ent meaning of the term, but those acting as chairmen
or presidents of these committees, soon acquired greater
power and influence and thus became what we know as
bishops. This opinion is rejected by practically all
Catholic scholars, and rightly so, since it can scarcely
be reconciled with the divine origin of the episcopate.
Others hold that each church was ruled by a bishop,
assisted by a number of priests, who, with the bishop,

284

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

constituted the presbyterium in much the same way as
a bishop and his canons now form a cathedral chapter
for the government of the diocese. This opinion fits
in well with the fact that a monarchical form of gov­
ernment for each church is known to have prevailed
from very early times. Nevertheless, several eminent
Catholic scholars believe that all ministers above the
grade of deacons were originally bishops, strictly socalled, and that simple priests wTere not introduced until
some years later. In favor of this opinion they cite
the fact that in the Church of Alexandria, and perhaps
in other churches also, those known as presbyters, not
only elected the bishops, but also consecrated them.
This, of course, presupposes that the presbyters were
really bishops.14
Monarchical Government. Whatever may be
said of the Government of the various churches in the
first years of Christianity, it is certain that the mo­
narchical form of government, i. e., the rule of one
bishop in each church, is of Apostolic origin. It is evi­
dent from the first chapters of the Apocalypse that in
the days of St. John the Apostle the churches of Asia
were each ruled by a single bishop. St. Ignatius also
speaks of a single bishop in each church. He says:
‘‘There is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and there
is one chalice in the unity of His blood; there is one
altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and
14 Cf. Duchesne, “Histoire ancienne de l’Église” vol. I, c. 8; Cabrol,
“Dictionnaire d’Archéologie” t. I, col. 1204.

RULERS OF THE CHURCH

285

the deacons my fellow-servants.” 15* In almost every
epistle he warns the faithful to obey the bishop and the
deacons. St. Paul likewise intimates that there should
be but one bishop in charge of each church; he always
speaks of the bishop in the singular and of the deacons
in the plural, e. g., “It behooveth a bishop to be
blameless . . . deacons in like manner chaste.”10
The Council of Nicaea (325) mentions it as a well rec­
ognized axiom that there should be but one bishop in
each city; “In one church there shall not be two bish­
ops.” 17 There is also the testimony of several early
writers, such as Hegesippus, St. Irenæus, and Eusebius,
who drew up lists of bishops for various churches. In
each case these lists show a line of single bishops reach­
ing back in unbroken succession to one who had re­
ceived the ministry directly from the Apostles.

ART. IV.

APOSTOLIC PREROGATIVES

§ 1. The Apostolic Office
The name Apostle, from the Greek άποστελλάν, to
send, signifies one sent, a messenger who is also com­
missioned to act as legate for the one sending. An
Apostle, therefore, differs from an άγγελος (angel) be­
cause the latter acts merely as a messenger. The word
15 “Epist. ad Philadelp.,” 4; Funk, Vol. I, 267.
10 1 Tim. iii, 2, 8.
17 Council of Nicaea, canon viii.

286

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

Apostle occurs but once in the Septuagint version of
the Old Testament,1 but its use in the New Testament
is frequent, especially in the writings of St. Paul. In
a few instances St. Paul uses the word in its original
meaning of a messenger; for example, he calls Epaph­
roditus an apostle of the Philippians because he had
acted as their messenger in carrying a letter.2 He also
mentions apostles oj the churches, i. e., messengers sent
to him from the various churches which he had
founded.3 But he always speaks of himself as an
apostle in a peculiar, or technical, sense: “Paul an
apostle oj Jesus Christ by the will oj God.” 4 He care­
fully distinguishes himself as an Apostle from his co­
laborers, who did not enjoy that dignity: “Paul an
apostle . . . Timothy our brother.” 5
Conditions Required. According to St. Paul, a
mission from Christ is the first and most important con­
dition for the Apostolic office. An Apostle must be
sent, “not oj men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ
and God the Father.” G Throughout the whole Epistle
to the Galatians, St. Paul insists that he is truly an
Apostle, equal to the others, because he had received
his mission directly from Christ: “The Gospel which
was preached by me is not according to man. For
τ3 Kings xiv, 6.
2 Phil, ii, 25.
8 2 Cor. viii, 23.
4 1 Cor. i, 1 ; Rom. i, 1.
6 2 Cor. i, 1.
® Gal. i, 1.

RULERS OF THE CHURCH

287

neither did I receive it oj man; but by the revelation oj
Jesus Christ.” 7 He then proves that he had received
neither his mission nor his knowledge of the Gospel
from the other Apostles: “When it pleased him who
separated me from my mother’s womb and called me by
his grace, to reveal his Son in me that I might preach
him among the gentiles, immediately I condescended
not to flesh and blood. Neither went I to Jerusalem
to the apostles who were before me, but I went into
Arabia.” 8 These arguments put forth by St. Paul in
defense of his Apostleship presuppose that a personal
mission from Christ is a necessary condition.
St. Peter set forth the second condition necessary in
an Apostle when he proposed the election of a suc­
cessor to Judas: “Wherefore, oj these men who have
accompanied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus
came in and went otit among us, beginning from the
baptism oj John, until the day wherein he was taken up
from us, one oj these must be made a witness with us
of his resurrection.” 9 It is necessary for an Apostle to
have been a witness of the entire public Life of Our
Lord, i. e., from His Baptism in the Jordan to His ascen­
sion into Heaven; it is especially necessary that he be
able to bear witness to the Resurrection, because, as
St. Paul says, “Ij Christ be not risen again, then is
our preaching vain and your faith is also vain.” 10
7 Gal. i, 11-12.
8 Gal. i, 15-16.
0 Acts i, 21-22.
10 1 Cor. XV, 14.

288

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

Our Lord first selected twelve from among His dis­
ciples, “whom he also named apostles.” 11 After the
Ascension, Matthias succeeded to the place left vacant
by the defection and death of Judas. Matthias had
been a constant companion of the Lord and His little
band of Apostles; he also received a commission di­
rectly from Christ because his election was left to His
decision by means of lots. Paul and Barnabas were
afterward numbered with the twelve,11
12 and St. Paul
seems to account Andronicus and Junias as Apostles,
but his meaning is not certain.13 St. Paul had not been
an eye witness of Our Lord’s life on earth; in fact it
seems that he had never seen Christ during His earthly
life, but he was made a witness by means of direct
revelation. Hence he appeals to these visions and rev­
elations in proof of his apostleship: “Am I not an
apostle? Have not I seen Christ Jesus Our Lord?” 14
We have no record of the calling of St. Barnabas as an
Apostle, unless it be that mentioned in the Acts: “The
Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Sazd and Barna­
bas for the work whereunto I have taken them.”15
This seems to be a call to a particular work of the
Apostolate, rather than to the Apostolate itself, since
St. Paul considered himself a true Apostle before this
time. It is certain, however, that Barnabas did receive
11 Luke vi, 13.
12 Acts xiv, 13.
13 Rom. xvi, 7.
14 1 Cor. ix, 1.
15 Acts xiii, 2.

RULERS OF THE CHURCH

289

a divine call and became a witness of the life, death, and
Resurrection of Our Lord in some manner, because St.
Luke calls him an Apostle along with St. Paul: “When
the apostles Barnaba-s and Paul had heard, . . . they
leaped out among the people.” 16
§ 2. Special Prerogatives
The first ministers of the Church were not only bish­
ops endowed with full power and authority to teach,
govern, and sanctify; they were also Apostles, i. e.,
witnesses of Our Lord’s life, death, and Resurrection,
whom He personally commissioned to carry out the
organization of the Church which He had established.
For this purpose they were endowed with special pre­
rogatives; they were personally infallible, exercised uni­
versal jurisdiction, were confirmed in grace, and pos­
sessed the power of working miracles. As bishops,
they were to have true successors, with equal powers
to teach, govern, and sanctify; as Apostles they could
have no successors, as is evident from the nature of the
Apostolic office. Hence the prerogatives peculiar to
the Apostles as such, are not perpetuated in their
successors.
û) infallibility. The mission entrusted to the
Apostles, and the conditions under which they labored,
made the gift of personal infallibility a practical neces­
sity. They were sent forth to become the foundation
stones for the churches which they were to establish
lcActs xiv, 13.

290

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

among the nations; the faithful, as St. Paul says, being
11built upon the foundation oj the Apostles and proph­
ets” 1 /. e., upon the doctrines preached by them con­
cerning Christ, the chief cornerstone. Hence the Apos­
tles, being the foundation stones of doctrine for the
churches, must have been enabled to announce the true
doctrines of Christ without any admixture of error;
they must have been infallible. But the infallibility
granted to them as a body was of little use. Circum­
stances made it impossible for them to meet, except on
rare occasions; in consequence each one was left al­
most entirely to his own resources in the matter of doc­
trine and discipline. Yet each must preach the true
doctrines of Christ if he would be a foundation stone
instead of shifting sand. Moreover, all men were
obliged under pain of eternal damnation to hear and
accept their teaching: “He that believeth not shall be
condemned” 12 and “He that despiseth you despiseth
me.”3 Such a demand on the part of Christ pre­
supposes that He had provided against the possibility
of error by endowing His Apostles with personal in­
fallibility.
Another argument is found in the words of St. Paul:
“Though we or an angel from heaven preach a gospel
to you besides that which we have preached to you
let him be anathema.” 4 These words prove that the
1 Eph. ii. 19-20.
2 Mark xvi, 16.
3 Luke x, 16.
< Gal. i, 8.

RULERS OF THE CHURCH

291

great Apostle was confident of his own infallibility in
regard to the truths of the Gospel; not even an angel
from heaven could convict him of error. On several
occasions he appeals to his Apostolic office as sufficient
proof for his teachings, fully confident that no further
proof would be demanded.5 This proves that St. Paul
considered infallibility a prerogative attached to the
office itself and therefore common to all his brethren
in the apostolic college.
The Fathers of the Church show their belief in the
personal infallibility of the Apostles when they appeal
to the Apostolicity of a doctrine as a certain and un­
deniable proof that it is a doctrine of Christ Himself.
It is a well-known fact that they constantly make this
appeal.
ό) universal jurisdiction. Because of the mo­
narchical form of government that prevails in all dio­
ceses throughout the Church, each bishop is limited to
a particular territory or diocese. He is known as the
bishop of that particular diocese and is forbidden to
exercise jurisdiction outside its limits. The Apostles,
on the contrary, exercised universal jurisdiction. Each
and all were sent to teach all nations. Like St. Paul,
they were “separated unto the Gospel of God . . . and
received grace and apostleship for obedience to the
faith in all nations.”0 They are not known as Apos­
tles of this or that place, of this or that particular na­
tion or people; they are simply the Apostles of Jesus
5 Rom. xv, 15 ss; 2 Cor. xii, 12 sq.
6 Rom. i, 1, 5.

292

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

Christ, commissioned to carry the Gospel to every
creature.7
c) confirmed in grace. Catholic theologians hold
that the Apostles were confirmed in grace and there­
fore preserved from all sin, or at least from grievous
sin. St. Thomas does not hesitate to say that “the
Apostles, even in their mortal life, could not sin griev­
ously, although they could be guilty of venial sin.” 8
This opinion prevailed widely in the sixteenth century
and is still the common opinion, yet it would be difficult
to offer any positive proof other than that of fitness.
It was eminently fitting that the Apostles should be
preserved at least from all grievous sin.
d) gift of miracles. As legates of Christ to all
nations, the Apostles needed some means to prove their
mission no less than Christ himself. For this reason
they received the power to perform miracles as is evi­
dent from many passages of Holy Scripture; e. g., “But
they (the Apostles) going forth preached everywhere ;
the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with
signs that followed.”9 Again: “By the hands of the
apostles were many signs and wonders wroiight among
the people.” 10
The power of miracles, however, was not a pre­
rogative peculiar to the Apostles alone; many of the
faithful were endowed with like powers, as is evident
7 See below, pp. 21 sq.
«“Comment in Sent,” III, dist. 12, qu. 2, ad 1.
9 Mark xvi, 20.
10 Acts v, 12; xix, 11 sq; Rom. xv, 18 sq.

RULERS OF THE CHURCH

293

from the words of St. Paul to the Corinthians.11 This
power always remains in the Church, as was proved
elsewhere,12 but it does not descend by right of succes­
sion, and as it was not limited to the Apostles in the
beginning, so neither is it limited now to their succes­
sors. It is a power residing in the Church, to be ex­
ercised at such times and by such persons as God in
His wisdom determines, because, unlike the power of
Orders or jurisdiction, it is needed only for extraor­
dinary occasions.
Glossolalia. Among the miraculous powers shared by
the Apostles and many of the faithful was the gift of tongues,
technically known as glossolalia, a Greek word, which means
speaking with tongues. In narrating the events of Pente­
cost St. Luke says: “And they were all filled with the Holy
Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues accord­
ing as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak.” 13 St. Paul
mentions speaking in tongues as one of the gifts enjoyed by
many at Corinth, and also states that he himself possessed it:
“I thank my God that I speak] with all your tongues.” 14
No doubt the Apostles were able to preach the Gospel in
any language, if need be, just as St. Francis Xavier is said
to have done, but there is no proof for this in Scripture.
The gift of tongues mentioned there Avas not for the purpose
of preaching, but for prayer and praising God. This may
be gathered from the words of St. Paul: “He that speaketh
in a tongue, speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no
11 1 Cor. xiv, 22 sq.
12 See above, pp. 112.
13 Acts ii, 4.
141 Cor. xiv, 18.

1

294

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

man heareth. I et by the Spirit he speaketh mysteries. But
he that prophesieth speaketh to men unto edification. . .
But in the Church I had rather speak five words with my
understanding that I may instruct others, than ten thousand
words in a tongue.” 15
»

151 Cor. xiv, 2-9; cfr. Semeria, “Venticinque Anni di Storia,”
Leet. II, n. 12; Catholic Encyclopedia, art. “Tongues, Gift of”;
Ecclesiastical Review, May and June, 1910.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

CHAPTER IX
THE PRIMACY PROMISED

As a physical body cannot live and function without
a head, so neither can a moral body. Every society
must have a head, i. e., a person or group of persons in
whom supreme authority resides and by whom it is
exercised. Without such a head a society speedily dis­
solves and passes out of existence. Hence the Church,
being a true society, must have a head invested with
the supreme authority to teach, govern, and sanctify
the faithful. Therefore, after examining the body of
the Church, its organization and powers, it is necessary
to investigate the nature and person of its head. Is
it a single person or a group of persons? What powers
does it possess, and what relation does it bare to the
rest of the body? Christ Himself is the supreme and
only Head of the Church, considered as His Mystical
Body; the question here regards the Church simply as
an external organization or society of men, and as such
it must have a human head.
It has been proved that all power in the Church was
conferred upon the Apostles to be transmitted to their
295

296

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

lawful successors, the bishops, who constitute the ruling
body in the Church. Consequently the Church is
neither a democracy nor a republic in her form of gov­
ernment; she is governed by a divinely constituted body
of rulers, but do they rule as a body whose members
have equal power and authority, or are they subject
to one who exercises supreme authority over the whole
Church? In other words, is the Church a monarchy
or an oligarchy? These questions are answered by
proving that St. Peter was given the primacy of juris­
diction over the universal Church, and that this primacy
descends to his successors.
ART. I.

THE PREEMINENCE OF PETER

The Twelve. The New Testament constantly rep­
resents the Apostles as members of a ruling body in the
Church. They are referred to as The Twelve, even
when their number was more or less, (a) He called
unto him his disciples; and he chose twelve oj them
whom also he named apostles.” 1 (ό) “And having
called his twelve disciples together . . . and the names
oj the twelve apostles are these . . . These twelve Jesus
sent.” 2 (c) “And he made that twelve should be with
him and that he might send them to preach.” 3 (tZ)
“And when evening was come, he came with the
twelve.”4 (e) “Jesus answered them: Have not 1
1 Luke vi, 13.
2 Matt, x, 1, 2, 5.
3 Mark iii, 14
4 Mark xiv, 17; Matt, xxvi, 20.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

297

chosen yon twelve and one oj you is a devil? Now
he meant Judas Iscariot . . . for the same was about
to betray him, whereas he was one oj the twelve.” 5
St. Paul also mentions the twelve although at the time
of which he was writing, there were only eleven: “He
was seen by Cephas; and. after that by the twelve.” G
“It is true,” says Batiffol, “that at a very early date
The Twelve are spoken of; the Apocalypse, for in­
stance, reckons only twelve Apostles of the Lamb.1
The title chosen by the Didache is: The Lord’s Teach­
ing through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations. The
expression, The Twelve Apostles, is synthetic rather
than enumerative; writers speak of the Twelve . . .
regardless of the fact that the Twelve were actually
fourteen.” 8 This manner of referring to the Apostles
as The Twelve in the Scriptures and in the earliest
Christian writings, presupposes that they formed a
body or corporation, as it were, to rule the Church.
This fact is intimated by Christ himself, for He al­
ways addresses them collectively when there is question
of conferring power or authority upon them: “What­
soever you shall bind {alligaveritis} . . . Going there­
fore, teach {docete) all nations . . . Do this {hoc fa­
cite) in commemoration of me. . . . Receive ye the
Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive {remis­
eritis).”" His words are always in the plural, al5 John vi, 71, 72.
°1 Cor. xv, 5 (Greek text).
7 Apoc. xxi, 14.
8 P. Batiffol, “Primitive Catholicism,” p. 52 (Eng. tr.).
8 Matt, xviii, IS; xxviii, 20; Luke xxii, 19; John xx, 23; Luke x, 16.

298

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

ways addressed to the whole body of the Apostles.
St. Peter the Head. Since the Apostles consti­
tuted a ruling body in the Church, it is natural to ex­
pect a head or leader for the little band, and this ex­
pectation is realized; St. Peter is everywhere set forth
as first among the Apostles, both before and after the
Ascension of Our Lord.
a) before the ascension. Even while Our Lord
was personally present among the Apostles, St. Peter
enjoyed a certain preeminence. Wherever two or more
of them are named, St. Peter always heads the list,
but the order of the others varies.1011 In fact, St. Mat­
thew distinctly calls St. Peter the first, without assign­
ing any order for the others: “The names of the
twelve apostles are these: First Simon, who is called
Peter, and Andrew, his brother, James. . . .” 11 There
are many other indications of this preeminence; v.g.,
“And all denying, Peter and they that were with him
said . . . Mary Magdalen ran therefore and cometh to
Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesiis loved.” 12
St. Peter was also the first to confess the divinity of
our Lord,13 and when Christ “said to the twelve: Will
you also go away?” Peter answering for all said:
“Lord to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of
eternal life.” 14
10 Mark iii, 16; Luke vi, 14 sq; Acts i, 13 sq.
11 Matt, x, 2.
12 Luke viii, 45; John xx, 2, 3.
13 Matt, xvi, 16.
14 John vi, 69.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

299

b) after the ascension. Immediately after the
Ascension, St. Peter assumed the rôle of leader among
the Apostles. He proposed the election of a successor
to Judas, and preached the first sermon to the peo­
ple; 15 he performed the first miracle and was the first
to receive gentiles into the Church.16 Being filled with
the Holy Ghost, he defended the other Apostles be­
fore Annas and Caiphas,17 and at the Council of Jerusa­
lem, when he spoke, the matter was settled, and the
people immediately turned to hear Paul and Barnabas
relate their experiences among the gentiles: “And
when there had been much disputing, Peter rising up
said to them . . . and all the multitude held their
peace; and they heard. Barnabas and Paid telling what
great signs and wonders God had wrought among the
gentiles by them.” 18 St. Paul also hints at the pre­
eminence of Peter, when he says that he went up to
Jerusalem for the express purpose of seeing him:
“Then after three years, I went to Jerusalem to see
Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days. But other
Apostles I saw none saving James the brother of the
Lord.” 19
Whence the Preeminence. There can be no
doubt that St. Peter held a position of honor among
the Apostles and even exercised some authority over
15 Acts
16 Acts
17 Acts
18 Acts
10 Gal.

i, 15 ss; ii, 14 sq.
iii, Iss; x, 44-48.
iv, 8 sq.
xv, 7, 12.
i, 18, 19.

300

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

them, but whence did he derive this preeminence, and
what was its nature? Did his impetuous nature lead
him boldly to assume an attitude of superiority, or was
he. perhaps, elected to this position by the other Apos­
tles on account of some special fitness for the office?
Many non-Catholics give such explanations,20 and they
might seem plausible if we had nothing but the fore­
going indications to guide us. Fortunately, we have
the very words of Christ promising to Peter the pri­
macy, which He afterward conferred upon him in most
explicit terms. Before entering further into this ques­
tion, it is well to consider the nature of primacy in gen­
eral and its various kinds.
Primacy. Etymologically the word primacy, from
the Latin primus—first, signifies the state of being first
among others for any reason whatsoever. Hence there
are many kinds of primacy, the most important being
those of honor, excellence, order, and jurisdiction. Pri­
macy of honor consists in holding the first place among
equals; it confers no privilege other than that of
being accorded certain marks of respect, such as the
place of honor at table or in assemblies. The primacy
of excellence is a certain preeminence due to some
personal merit or accomplishment. In this sense De­
mosthenes is known as the prince of orators, Homer as
the prince of poets; they hold the first rank of excel­
lence in their respective arts. The primacy of order
consists in the directive authority necessary to carry out
20 Cf. Palmer, “Treatise on the Church,” Vol. II, p. 478; SchaffHerzog, art. “Peter.”

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

301

some business with order and promptness. The chair­
man of an assembly exercises such primacy in direct­
ing its deliberations and other proceedings according to
recognized rules of order. The primacy of jurisdiction
consists in holding the supreme powers of government
in a society,—the supreme legislative, judicial, and co­
ercive powers.
Such is the primacy claimed for St. Peter over the
universal Church, and the Vatican Council declares
it an article of faith that this primacy was conferred
upon him by Our Lord: “If any one says that Christ
the Lord did not constitute the blessed Peter prince
of all the Apostles and head of the whole Church mili­
tant; or if he says that this primacy is one of mere
honor and not of real jurisdiction received directly
and immediately from Our Lord Jesus, let him be
anathema.” 21
Erroneous Teachings. Today most non-Catholic
scholars admit that St. Peter held a certain preeminence
among the Apostles, but they maintain that it was a
mere primacy of honor. Their doctrine that all power
in the Church comes from the body of the faithful,
necessarily excludes a primacy of jurisdiction by divine
institution; even the primacy of honor was due to ac­
cidental circumstances. The extraordinary zeal of St.
Peter, his love for Christ, his impetuous nature, or per­
haps his more advanced age, caused him to be more
highly honored than the others.
The schismatic churches of the East and many An21 Denzingcr, n. 1823.

302

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

glicans concede the primacy of honor by divine institu­
tion, but they hold that power in the Church was con­
ferred equally upon all the Apostles to be exercised
by them as a body. “The special dealing with Peter
and the promises to Peter are connected with our Lord’s
personal dealings with him; and though he appears as
leader of the Apostles, it does not appear that any
office or authority is given to him which is not shared
equally with all the Apostles.” 22
These errors are refuted and the true position of St.
Peter established by proving that Christ promised him
the primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and
afterwards conferred it upon him. The primacy was
promised when Christ foretold that Peter was to be (1)
the foundation rock of the Church, (2) the key-bearer
of the kingdom, (3) its law-giver, and (4) the con­
firmer of his brethren.
ART. II.

PETER THE ROCK FOUNDATION

Thesis.—The primacy of jurisdiction over the
universal Church was promised to Peter un­
der the figure of a rock foundation
Proof. The proof of this thesis is found in the
words of Christ addressed to St. Peter on the way to
Cæsarea Philippi: “Jesus saith to them [the Apos­
tles] : But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter
answered and said: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the
-- Bishop Gore (Anglican), "Catholicism and Roman Catholicism.”

I.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

303

living God. And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed
art thou Simon Bar-Jona; because flesh and blood hath
not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
And I say to thee: Thou art Peter and upon this rock
I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it.” 1
In these words Christ promised to St. Peter a real
primacy of jurisdiction, (1) if the Church mentioned
in the text is the universal Church of Christ, (2) if St.
Peter is the rock upon which the Church is to be
founded, and (3) if this rock foundation symbolizes
the power of jurisdiction. There can be no doubt in
regard to the first condition; any one who admits that
Christ founded a church at all, must admit that it is
the Church mentioned in the text quoted. Christ sim­
ply says “My Church,—μου την εκκλησίαν” without re­
striction or qualification. It is the Church which He
is about to establish upon a rock, and the rock is Peter.

§ 1. St. Peter the Rock
The foilowing considerations show conclusively that
St. Peter is the rock designated by Christ as the founda­
tion upon which He will build His Church:
c) The Greek ΐΜτρος {Peter) is simply a masculine
form of ττίτρα (a rock), adopted for use as a proper
name. This is evident from the fact that in Aramaic,
the language spoken by Christ, the one word Kepha
was used. This originally Aramaic word has been re1 Matt, xvi, 15-18.

304

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

tained in the name Cephas, given to St. Peter in sev­
eral passages of S. Scripture; 1 in one instance St. John
explicitly says that it signifies the same as Πέτρο?:
“And Jesus looking upon him said: Thou art Simon the
son of Jona; thou shalt be called Cephas, which is in­
terpreted Peter:”2
In his commentary, St. Ephraim of Syria uses the
same word (kipho, a rock) for Petros and petra, just
as the French use the one word pierre: “Tu es Pierre
et sur cette pierre, etc.” The proper English transla­
tion would be “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock I
will build my Church.”
b) The context demands that Petros and petra refer
to the same subject. Our Lord has given His Apostle
a new name: “Thou art Simon the son oj Jona; thou
shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.”
But we know that new names are never given in Scrip­
ture without some special reason. The name of Abram
was changed to Abraham, and that of Sarai to Sara;
Jacob received the name Israel, and the Blessed Virgin
was directed to call her Child Jesus.3 In every case the
name given by God foreshadowed an important office
or dignity. The new name given to Simon must like­
wise portend some important office or dignity to be con­
ferred upon him. On this occasion Our Lord reveals
to him the nature of this office as a reward for his open
confession of faith. Thou hast confessed that I am
1 Cfr. 1 Cor. i, 12 ; iii, 22; ix, 5; xv, 5; Gal. ii, 9.
2 John i, 42.
3 Gen. xvii. 5; xvii, 15; Matt, i, 21.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

305

the Son of God; thou hast acknowledged my divinity.
I in return shall reveal to thee who and what thou art:
Thou art the son of Jona. I have called thee Peter
(a rock), because upon thee shall I build my Church.
The sense of the passage is so evident that all in­
terpreters of any note, whether Catholic or Protestant,
agree that St. Peter is the rock upon which Christ
founded His Church; the only disagreement is in re­
gard to the office or dignity symbolized. Siefert, a
non-Catholic, says: “By rock Jesus meant the person
of the Apostle addressed, as is proved by the fact that
in Aramaic, which He spoke, rock and man of
rock would both be expressed by the same word,
kcpha.” 4 Weiss, a rationalist, says: “The emphasis
lies on this, pointing to Peter; on no other than upon
this rock, i. e., upon this rock nature ... I will build
my Church.” 56
The testimony of tradition is unnecessary in a matter
so evident, yet a few witnesses may be quoted: (a)
tertullian:
“Could any of these things be hidden
from Peter who was called the rock, on which the
Church was to be built?” 0 (ό) origen. “See what
the Lord said to that great foundation of the Church;
that most solid rock upon which Christ founded His
Church.” 7 (c) james of sarug (451-521) in a Syr­
iac hymn to St. Peter:
4
5
6
7

F. Siefert in Schaff-Herzog, art. “Peter the Apostle.”
B. Weiss, “Matthâus-Evangelium,” t. I, p. 334.
“De Præscript.,” xxii; P. L., 2, 34.
“Homil. in Exodum,” v, 4; P. G., 12, 329.

306

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

“Thou art Kipho;8 down in the foundations of the
great house
I set thee. Upon thee will I build my elected Church.
I will place thee first in my building, thou being hardy.
Be thou basis to the Holy Temple which I am to inhabit.
On thee will I expand all the superstructures of the
Daughter of day.”9
d) the Greek liturgy calls St. Peter “the founda­
tion of the Church and the rock of faith (ή κρηπϊς της
εκκλησίας και η πέτρα τής πίστεως)10
§ 2. Primacy of Jurisdiction Symbolized
Proofs. St. Peter is not represented as the corner­
stone of the Church, nor even as its substructure; he
is the immovable rock upon which the whole building is
securely raised. Therefore the relation of St. Peter to
the Church must be that of a foundation rock to the
structure build upon it; he is to give the Church
strength and solidity, and preserve the unity of its parts
against all destructive forces, whether they come from
within or without. In a society such strength and
union of parts is secured and preserved by means of au­
thority; therefore, in calling St. Peter the rock founda­
tion of His Church, Christ promised him the primacy
of power and jurisdiction over it.
1 The Syriac word for rock.
'•'James of Sarug, Homily xxiv, quoted in “Traditions of the
Syriac Church of Antioch,” by most Rev. Cyril Benham Benni, p.
21.
10 Nilles, “Kalcndarium Manuale,” I, 72.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

307

Christ himself assigns the reason for founding His
Church upon a rock; namely, that “the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it.” The whole passage is an
evident allusion to the parable of the wise man who
built his house upon a rock. “The rain fell, and the
floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon
that house and it jell not for it was founded upon a
rock.” 11 All down the centuries the forces of evil,—
the powers of earth and hell,—will beat upon the
Church, but it shall not fall, for it is founded upon a
rock, and that rock is Peter. Weiss, a rationalist,
commenting on this passage says: “On no other than
upon this rock, i. e., upon this rock of nature which, as
the rock in the parable, could ensure tlie existence of
the house, the continuance and cohesion of the new com­
munity, I will build my Church. The primacy among
the Apostles is here undoubtedly awarded to Peter.” 12
The Church is here depicted as an impregnable for­
tress, secure against every foe, because founded upon
Peter, the rock. The interpretation of this symbolism
is evident: the fortress is the Church and the rock is
St. Peter, who renders the Church secure against her
every foe. This implies that St. Peter is in supreme
command of all her forces with authority to make ordinances, to appoint or remove subordinate officers
and to provide everything necessary for all operations
both defensive and offensive.
The voice of tradition is in complete accord with the
11 Matt, vii, 25.
12 B. Weiss, “Matthaus-Evangelium,” Vol. I, p. 334.

308

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

above interpretation of the rock as a symbol of supreme
authority in the Church, as the following passages
show:
û) st. Ambrose: “It was this Peter to whom Christ
said: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build
My Church. Therefore where Peter is, there also is
the Church.” 13
b) st. ephrem of syria introduces Christ speak­
ing to St. Peter in these words: “Simon, I have made
thee foundation of My holy Church; I have called
thee Peter, because thou shalt sustain the whole edifice.
Thou shalt be overseer of those who build up for Me
the Church on earth, ... if they select faulty ma­
terial, thou the foundation, shalt restrain them. . . .
Behold I have made thee master of all my treasures.” 14
c) Greek liturgy. In the office for the 29 June,
St. Peter is called “the leader and ruler of the Church
(προστάτες και πρόωρος εκκλησίας).” 15

d) syriac liturgy. In the Syriac Liturgy for the
29 June, St. Peter is thus addressed: “Thou, 0 Simon,
who duly wast named Kipho when Our Lord estab­
lished the true and immaculate faith of the Church
which He had redeemed by Christ, thou wert made and
authorized head shepherd of rational sheep.” 10
c) syro-chaldaic liturgy: “He is Simon, the
head of the Apostles, the foundation, the ruler, the
“In Ps.” xl, n. 30; P. L., 14, 1082.
u “De Passione et Ressur. Salvatoris,” R. 1. (Lamy, I, 412.)
16 Nillcs, “Kalendarium Manuale,” I, 194.
18 Benni, “Traditions of the Syriac Church of Antioch” p. 57.
13

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

309

pastor and the governor of the Church of Christ, to
whom his Lord bore witness saying: Thou art a rock
(kiphoj, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” 17
§ 3. Objections Answered

Objection I.—St. Paul says that the Israelites in
their wanderings “drank oj the spiritual rock that fol­
lowed them, and the rock was Christy 1 The rock is
a symbol of Christ; therefore, Christ himself and not
Peter is the rock upon which the Church is founded.
Answer.—The application of a symbol is not always
the same; the meaning it is intended to convey must be
determined from the context in which it is found. Be­
cause rock is a symbol for Christ in one passage, does
not prove that it must be in another. Christ himself
said: “I am the light of the world,” 2 yet this did not
prevent Him from saying to the Apostles: “You are
the light of the world.” 3 They were truly the light
of the world, because they participated in and reflected
“that true light which enlighteneth every man that
cometh into this world.” 4 In like manner both Christ
and His Apostle, St. Peter, are the rock upon which the
Church is built; Christ primarily and by nature, St.
Peter secondarily and by participation as an ancient
author explains: ‘Teter indeed is a rock, but not in
17 Benni, “Traditions of the Syriac Church of Antioch,” p. 55.
1 1 Corinth, x, 4.
2 St. John viii, 12,
3 St. Matt, v, 14.
4 St. John i, 19.

310

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

the same manner as Christ, who is the immovable rock.
Peter is rock because of that other Rock, for Jesus can
share His dignities without exhausting them ... He
is a Priest, yet He constitutes others priests ... He is
a Rock, yet He fashions a rock and gives to His servant
His own dignities.” 5
Objection II.—In his first Epistle to the Corin­
thians St. Paul says: “Other foundation no man can
lay, bzit that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.” 6
How, then, can St. Peter be called a foundation?
Answer.—In this passage the Apostle makes no
reference whatever to the foundation of the Church; he
is speaking of the fozmdation of doctrine, or faith.
Rival parties had sprung up at Corinth and were caus­
ing much strife. Some claimed to be the followers of
Paul; others of Apollo, whom they praised as a more
eloquent preacher and a better teacher of doctrine.
St. Paul rebukes them for such folly; he and Apollo
taught them the same doctrine, although he had been
unable to use the eloquence of Apollo or to expound the
more sublime doctrines of Christ: “I, brethren, could
not speak to you as unto spiritual ones, but as unto
carnal; as unto little ones in Christ. J gave you milk
to drink, not meat, for you were not able as yet. But
neither indeed arc yozt now able, for yozi arc yet
carnal”7 as your conduct shows. The Corinthians,
6 “Homily on Penance,” a work formerly attributed to St. Basil,
P. G., 31, 1483.
0 1 Cor. iii, 11.
7 1 Cor. iii, 1 sq.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

311

being babes in Christ, St. Paul was forced to omit all
attempts at eloquence and to teach them the mere rudi­
ments of doctrine. He taught them nothing “but Jesus
Christ, and Him crucified.” 8 This is the foundation
of all faith and any one who gives them further in­
struction must build upon it, for “other foundation no
man can lay.”
Even though St. Paul were speaking of Christ as the
foundation of the Church, it would offer no difficulty;
what was said above concerning Christ as the Rock of
the Church would be sufficient to explain it.
Objection III.—St. Paul writes to the Ephesians:
“You are no more strangers and foreigners; but you
are fellow citizens with the saints, and domestics oj
God, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and
prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner­
stone.” 9 Here all the Apostles are mentioned equally
as the foundation stones of the Church in dependence
upon our Lord as the chief cornerstone.
Answer.—This passage also has reference to doc­
trine, as is evident from the context, in which the
prophets are associated with the Apostles as founda­
tion stones of the Church. Yet the prophets were
certainly not foundations of the Church in the same
sense that Christ calls St. Peter the foundation rock.
St. Paul teaches that the faithful are built upon the
foundation of the prophets and Apostles by being in­
structed concerning Christ crucified, whom the prophets
8 1 Cor. ii, 2.
°Eph. ii, 19-20.

312

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

had foretold, and whom the Apostles now preach to
them. Christ Himself is the chief cornerstone, i. e.>
the One foretold and now announced to the people.
Although St. Paul does not refer to the Apostles as
the foundation of the Church, he could have done so
with perfect truth; all were in a true sense foundation
stones. They were the first members of the Church
and its first ministers; through them Our Lord effected
the actual organization of His Church, and by them it
was extended far and wide to Jew and Gentile. For
this reason it is often said that Christ instituted the
Church in and through the Apostles, and St. John
describes the Church triumphant as a city, “and the
•walls oj the city had twelve foundations, and in them
the twelve names oj the twelve apostles oj the Lamb.” 10
The twelve Apostles were the twelve foundation stones;
St. Peter was even more than this. He was also the
solid rock upon which stood both foundation and super­
structure.
Objection IV.—The Fathers frequently speak of
Christ as the rock of the Church; they also mention
Peter’s faith as the rock. Hence they did not recognize
St. Peter himself as the rock.
Answer.—The Fathers frequently speak of Christ
as the Rock of the Church, and rightly so, for, as noted
above, Christ was primarily and by nature the Rock
or Foundation of the Church, St. Peter only secondarily
and by participation. In this sense the Fathers call
him the rock upon which the Church is built, as the
10 Apoc. xxi, 14.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

313

quotations given above amply prove. Innocent III
says: “Although the first and principal foundation
of the Church is Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son
of God, . . . the second and subordinate foundation is
Peter, who ... by authority was chief among the
others.” 11
The faith of St. Peter and his open confession may
also be called the rock or foundation of the Church, as
is done at times by the Fathers. It was through his
faith that St. Peter merited the honor of becoming the
foundation; it was through his faith that he participated
in the nature of the principal Rock and thus himself
became a rock.
ART. HI. PETER THE KEY-BEARER

Thesis.—Primacy of jurisdiction over the univer­
sal Church was promised to St. Peter under
the symbol of keys
Proof. When Christ had designated St. Peter as the
rock upon which He would build His Church, He im­
mediately added: 11 And I will give to thee the keys
oj the kingdom oj heaven.” 1 In these words Christ
promised to St. Peter the primacy of universal jurisdic­
tion, (1) if St. Peter was the person addressed, (2) if
the Kingdom oj Heaven meant the Church which Christ
was about to establish, and (3) if the keys are a symbol
of supreme power in the Church. There can be no
11 "Epist. ad Patriarch. Constantinop”; P. L., 214, 758.
1 Matt, xvi, 19.

314

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

doubt in regard to the first two conditions. It is evi­
dent from the whole context that St. Peter and he alone
was addressed by Our Lord, and all interpreters con­
cede that the Kingdom oj Heaven is here the same as
the Church to be established on Peter the rock. It is
the kingdom in which St. Peter shall exercise the power
of the keys; therefore, it must be a visible society exist­
ing among men, which can be no other than the Church
militant. It is also evident that keys are here taken
symbolically and, since no explanation is given, Our
Lord must have intended the symbolism then in com­
mon use, for otherwise His words could not have been
understood.
Significance of Keys. Among all ancient peoples,
especially those of the East, keys were a symbol of
power and authority, and the giving of keys indicated
a transfer of authority. Henderson, a non-Catholic,
says: “In the East the key is the symbol of power
and authority, with special reference to palaces,
treasures, stores, etc. It resembles a sickle with a
long handle, and the crooked part is so formed as to al­
low of its being suspended on the shoulder or around
the neck. That it actually formed part of the insignia
of office, and that the language is not to be taken fig­
uratively, is unquestionable. Among the Greeks it
was worn as a badge of sacerdotal dignity.” 2
The use of symbols was much more common among
Eastern peoples of antiquity than with us, yet we still
2 E. Henderson, “Commentary on St. Matthew.”

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

315

preserve traces of this use of the key as a symbol of
authority. When cities were protected by walls and
the only entrance was by means of gates, possession of
the keys to these gates gave full authority, because a
city was in the power of him who controlled its en­
trances. City walls long since disappeared as a means
of protection, but the ancient custom of giving a king,
or other ruler, the keys of the city upon his solemn
entry, still obtains. Even in our own country, a person
of distinction is honored by giving him the “keys of the
city.” A similar use of keys also obtains in the trans­
fer of a house or other building; a person leasing or
purchasing a building does not get full possession or
control until the keys have been delivered to him.
Outside of the passage under consideration, keys
are mentioned but six times in Scripture.34 In five of
these passages, the key is used as a symbol of power or
authority; three times the power of Christ is directly
signified, and once a power typifying that of Christ.
The latter is found in Isaias: “I will call my servant
Eliacim the son of Hclcias and I will clothe him with
thy robe . . . and will give thy power into his hand
. . . and 1 will lay the key oj the house of David
upon his shoulder; and he shall open and none shall
shut; and he shall shut and none shall open.” 1 Our
Lord applies these same words to Himself in the Apoc­
alypse: “These things saith the Holy One the True
3 Judges iii, 25; Is. xxii, 22; Luke xi, 52; Apoc. i, 18; iii, 7; ix, 1.
4 Is. xxii, 19-22.

316

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

One, he that hath the key oj David; he that openeth and
no man shutteth; shutteth and no man openeth? . . .
And behold I am living jor ever and ever, and have the
keys oj death and hell.” 6
This Scriptural use of the key as a symbol of power,
together with its use in the same sense by all nations of
antiquity, proves beyond a doubt that Our Lord
promised some special and extraordinary power to St.
Peter when He promised him “the keys oj the kingdom
oj heaven.”
Symbol of Jurisdiction. The words of Christ,
considered in their context and compared with other
passages of Scripture, leave no doubt that real jurisdic­
tion over the universal Church militant was promised
to St. Peter. Christ had just compared His Church to
a house; He now promises the keys to St. Peter, thus
constituting him administrator and sole custodian dur­
ing the Master’s absence. Knabenbauer aptly notes
that the keys of a house belong to the master and that,
by giving them to another, the master thereby entrusts
to him the care and administration of the whole house
and all that it contains. Therefore, in promising to
St. Peter the keys of the kingdom, Christ promised
him a power in the Church, subject only to His own.7
Mason, a non-Catholic, gives a similar interpreta­
tion: “The kingdom of heaven, here to be understood
of the Messianic theocracy about to be established, is
c Apoc. iii, 7.
e Apoc. i, 18.
7 Knabenbauer, “Commentarium in Mattbæum,” Vol. II, p. 66.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

317

likened to a house or palace of which Our Lord promises
that St. Peter shall be the chief steward or major-domo,
who is entrusted with full authority over everything
which the house contains. The keys are not merely
those of the outer doors of the house, which give the
holder power to admit or reject; the porter’s office is
only part of the authority committed to St. Peter.
They are the keys of the inner chambers also, giving
command, for example, of the treasures from which
it will be his duty to feed the household. As the
house is at the same time the Kingdom, it is evident
that the authority is of very wide range.” 8
An Objection.—On one occasion Christ said to the Phar­
isees: “Woe to ye lawyers, for yon have taken away the
key of knowledge: yon yourselves have not entered in, and
those that were entering in, you have hindered.” 9 By their
false teachings and unwarranted interpretations of Scripture,
these Pharisees were preventing the people from accepting
Christ as the Messias; thus they “shut the kingdom of heaven
against them.” 10 The power of the keys, therefore, is the
power or authority to teach. Hence the keys promised to
St. Peter symbolizes a mission to preach the Gospel,—a
primacy in evangelizing, which he exercised by preaching
the first sermon to the people on Pentecost and by admitting
the first gentiles into the Church.
Answer.—The objection strengthens the arguments for
8 A. J. Mason in Hasting’s “Dictionary of the Bible,” art. “Power
of Keys.”
0 Luke xi, 52.
10 Matt, xxiii, 13.

318

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

Peter’s supremacy rather than refuting or weakening them.
Christ promised to Peter not the key of knowledge, but the
keys of the kingdom. The objection admits that the key oj
knowledge symbolizes some power or authority over doctrine;
therefore the keys of the kingdom must signify power and
authority over the Church, which is the Kingdom of Heaven
on earth,—a power that includes authority to teach, as
proved elsewhere.11 The keys of the kingdom are promised
to Peter alone; therefore, he alone shall receive supreme
power or primacy of jurisdiction over the kingdom.

ART. IV. PETER THE LAW-GIVER

Thesis.—Primacy of universal jurisdiction over
the Church was promised to St. Peter under
the symbol of binding and loosing
Proof. Having promised the keys of the kingdom,
Our Lord continued to address St. Peter with these
words: “And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth,
it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou
shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” 1
It cannot be denied that Christ was directly address­
ing St. Peter in these words; neither can there be any
doubt that some extraordinary power was promised to
him. Our Lord seems to be fairly struggling, as it
were, to convey in human language an adequate idea
of the unprecedented powers to be conferred upon St.
Peter. He is to be the rock foundation, upon which the
Church will stand secure against the natural forces of
11 See below, pp. 325.
1 Matt, xvi, 19.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

319

decay and all the powers of evil; he shall be its supreme
ruler, subject to Christ alone. Now he is told that
these powers shall be limited in extent only by the con­
fines of the earth: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon
earth, . . . whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth.”
Nay more, his every official act on earth shall be rat­
ified in Heaven!
What can be the nature of this most extraordinary
power? What must St. Peter and the other Apostles
have understood by the words bind and loose? These
words are often taken as a continuation of the preceding
symbol of the keys, with special reference to the power
of forgiving sins. But it must be evident to all that
keys are for opening and closing, not for binding and
loosing. In Sacred Scripture keys are never mentioned
in connection with binding or loosing, but in five of the
seven passages in which keys are mentioned, they are
connected with opening and closing. Consequently
there is a new and distinct symbol presenting the powers
of Peter under a different aspect. It refers directly
and primarily to the power of jurisdiction; it makes
St. Peter the law-giver in the Church as was Moses in
the Synagogue. This supreme power of jurisdiction
includes the power to forgive sins, but only implicitly.
Power of Legislation. Since Christ evidently
used the words bind, and loose in a figurative sense,
He must have intended them to be accepted according
to the meaning current at the time; otherwise neither
St. Peter nor the other Apostles could have understood
their meaning without explanations, which were not

320

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

given. Hence the words must be interpreted according
to their acceptation in the time of Christ, with only
such changes as the context demands. They
are
found
%
in hundreds of passages in the Talmud, and in almost
every case to bind means to declare unlawful, while to
loose is to pronounce lawful. In the Jerusalem Tal­
mud, for instance, we read: “They do not begin a sea
voyage on the eve of the Sabbath nor on the fifth day of
the week. The school of Shammai binds it even on the
fourth day, but the school of Hillel looses,” 2 i. e., the
followers of Shammai declare it unlawful to under­
take a sea voyage on the fourth day of the week,
whereas the followers of Hillel maintain that it is
lawful.
If the person who declares a thing lawful or unlaw­
ful, does so officially, he thereby imposes an obligation
in conscience, i. e., he commands or forbids, makes laws
or abrogates them. Consequently, the terms to bind
and to loose assumed by natural transition the sense
of making and unmaking laws. There can be little
or no doubt that the terms were used in this sense by
the rabbis in the days of Our Lord. In fact, Christ
himself used the words in this sense: “Do not think
that I am come to destroy [Greek, to loose} the law or
the prophets.” 3 In this passage the word to loose
evidently means to repeal or abrogate. Again He said
of the Pharisees: “They bind heavy and insupportable

2 J.

Lightfoot, “Horæ Hebraicæ in Evang. Matt.,” xvi, 19.
8 Matt, v, 17.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

321

burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders.” 4 The con­
text shows clearly that the insupportable burdens were
foolish laws and precepts which the Pharisees imposed
{bound) upon the people.
“The doctors of the Mosaic Law interpreted it and
accordingly determined what was lawful and what was
unlawful. In like manner Peter is to interpret the Law
of Christ; he is to determine and prescribe what is licit
and what is not licit according to the mind and doctrine
of Christ. . . . This he shall do by the promulgation
of laws, precepts, and prohibitions. Hence no one can
rightly deny that these words of Christ confer a law­
giving power.”5 Mason, a non-Catholic, gives the
same interpretation: “Authority is given to St. Peter
to say what the law of God allows and what it forbids;
and the promise is added that his ruling shall be up­
held in Heaven,—and is consequently to be regarded
as binding upon the conscience of Christians. The
power of binding and loosing is in fact the power of
legislation for the Church.” 6
Judicial and Coercive Powers. The legislative
power explicitly promised to St. Peter necessarily im­
plies the judicial and coercitive powers without which
laws would be useless. The very words of Our Lord
also imply these powers, since no restrictions or limita­
4 Matt, xxii, 4.
8 Knabcnbauer, “Commentarium in Matt.,” Vol. II, p. 68.
β A. J. Mason in Hasting’s “Dictionary of the Bible,” art. “Power
of Keys.”

322

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

tions of any sort are added: whatsoever Peter prohibits,
whatsoever he permits by legislative, judicial, or coer­
cive power, shall be prohibited or permitted by Christ
in Heaven. Thomas Arnold, a non-Catholic, makes
some pointed observations on this matter. He says:
“To bind and to loose are metaphors certainly, but
metaphors easy to be understood. They express a leg­
islative and judicial power. To bind legislatively is to
impose a general obligation; to say that a thing ought to
be done, or ought not to be done; to bind men’s con­
sciences either to the doing of it, or to the abstaining
from it. . . . Again, to bind judicially is to impose a
particular obligation on an individual, to oblige him to
do or to suffer certain things for the sake of justice,
which, if left to himself, he would not choose to do or
suffer. Again to loose judicially is to pronounce a man
free of any such obligation. . . . But such legislative
and judicial power is the power of government; govern­
ment, in fact, consisting mainly of these two great
powers.” 7
Primacy of Power. The power of government
promised to St. Peter under the figure of binding and
loosing, extends to the whole Church and to everything
subject to the Church. It is a power to be exercised
on earth without restrictions as to time or place, and
includes within its scope all persons or things subject
to the Church,—‘‘whatsoever thon shalt bind . . .
whatsoever thou shalt loose.” In a word, the power
here promised to St. Peter is the supreme power of
T Thomas Arnold, “Fragment on the Church,” pp. 35-36.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

323

jurisdiction over the universal Church,—the primacy
of jurisdiction.
The fact that Christ afterward addresses these same
words to all the Apostles 8 does not militate against the
primacy of Peter. On that occasion Our Lord ad­
dressed the Apostles collectively; He conferred upon
them as a body complete authority to rule, but in
subjection to St. Peter, their head, to whom alone the
words of Christ were addressed individually: “What­
soever thou shalt bind . . . whatsoever thou shalt
loose.”9
Limitations. The words of Christ to St. Peter are
absolutely universal and contain no restricting clause.
Therefore, the power promised to him is subject to no
limitations save those incidental to all authority, i. e.,
it must be subject to the divine law and be conformed
to the nature of the society in which it is exercised.
Consequently the power of binding and loosing extends
to every bond or obligation that may be imposed or
removed by divine law, but since it is to be exercised
in the Church, it extends only to persons and things
subject to her authority. The power of Peter is
measured by the power of the Church. The Church
has no authority to change the teachings of Christ, to
increase or diminish the number of Sacraments or to
sever the bonds of a consummated marriage; neither
was such authority promised to Peter. The Church
has authority to define doctrines, to make or repeal
8 Matt, xviii, 18.
9 See below, p. 338.

324

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

laws, to inflict punishment, to constitute or remove
pastors; the same authority was promised to Peter
when Christ said: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind, . . .
whatsoever thou shalt loose.” In fact, the Church has
authority only in so far as it was conferred upon the
Apostolic college, of which St. Peter was the head.
ART. V. PETER CONFIRMER OF THE BRETHREN

Thesis.—Primacy of universal jurisdiction in
teaching and governing was promised to St.
Peter as the one appointed to confirm his
brethren
Proof. On the night of the Last Supper Christ
said to Peter: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath de­
sired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat ; but I
have prayed for thee that thy jaith jail not: and thou,
being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” 1 On
this occasion Our Lord was admonishing the Apostles
that eternal happiness in Heaven is to be obtained only
after many labors, sorrows, and temptations. Unceas­
ing vigilance and special help from God are necessary,
because Satan never wearies in his efforts to lead souls
astray; in fact, he was even then seeking to try the
Apostles, as he had long before sought to try the con­
stancy of Job: 2 “Behold Satan hath desired you, that
he may sijt you as wheat.” As he had tempted the
Lord, so now he would tempt the Apostles, and through
1 Luke xxii, 28-32.
2 Job i, 9-12.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

325

them the whole Church; 3 he would seek especially to
weaken and destroy their faith, the very foundation
of all spiritual life, but Christ has provided for this
danger: “Satan hath desired you all, but I have prayed
jor thee, Simon, that thy jaith jail not.”
Primacy in Teaching. The unconditional prayer
of Christ for unfailing faith in His Apostle must pro­
duce the effect desired; the faith of Peter shall ever re­
main immune to all error. This is nothing less than a
promise of infallibility made in the clearest terms.
Satan seeks to tempt all the Apostles,—“Satan hath de­
sired you [the plural, Pos],”—but Christ prays for
Peter alone,—“I have prayed jor thee, that thy jaith
jail not.” Peter is then constituted the future guide
for all in matters of faith, the supreme teacher in the
Church: “And thou being once converted, conjirm
thy brethren.” 4 It shall be the duty of St. Peter to
confirm the other Apostles in the faith, and through
them all the faithful for all time; but this constitutes
8 Temptation is aptly compared to the sifting of wheat. As the
wheat is tossed and shaken in the sieve, the light particles of straw
and chaff are caught up by the wind and carried away, while the
heavier grains remain behind. In like manner, those who are truly
virtuous and sound in faith remain unmoved by temptation, whereas
the weak and vacillating fall away and arc lost. Cfr. Cornelius à
Lapide, “Commentarium in Lucam,” xxii, 31.
4 Interpreters do not agree in explaining the words “thou being
once converted.” Some take them to mean, “thou being converted
to Me again after thy denial and fall.” Others interpret them, “and
thou in turn confirm thy brethren.” But this question has no bear­
ing on our matter, for in cither case St. Peter is the one appointed
to confirm his brethren.

326

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

the primacy of teaching authority for the whole
Church.
The other Apostles, being themselves infallible, stood
in no need of Peter’s confirming power, but Christ was
providing for His Church in later ages. The bishops
of the Church were not to succeed the Apostles in their
special prerogatives; they were not to enjoy the
privilege of personal infallibility and would, therefore,
need the strengthening power of Peter’s faith handed
down through his successors.
Primacy of Jurisdiction. The primacy of teach­
ing authority in the Church necessitates the primacy
of jurisdiction. The Church founded by Christ is a
kingdom of truth, in which unity of true faith must
be preserved at all times until the end of the world;
but such unity cannot be had nor preserved without
proper laws and precepts binding on all. Therefore,
he who holds the supreme authority as teacher, must
also have the supreme power of ruling, i. e., he must
have the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal
Church.5
Corollary. The parallelism between the words of
Our Lord as recorded in Matthew xvi, 18, 19 and those
recorded in Luke xxii, 31, 32 is immediately evident
upon comparison. In St. Matthew the primacy of
jurisdiction over the whole Church is promised ex­
plicitly but in symbolic language. The primacy of
teaching authority is implicitly contained in that of
jurisdiction. In St. Luke the primacy of teaching au5 For the testimony of tradition in this matter, see pp. 334 sq.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

327

thority is explicitly promised and in plain language,
while the primacy of jurisdiction is only implied.
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED

Objection I.—The temptations of Satan mentioned by
Our Lord in the passage from St. Luke have reference to the
time of the Passion, when, as Christ foretold, “all you shall
be scandalized in me.” 0 Hence there is no promise of in­
fallibility or primacy of teaching authority.
Answer.—In the passage quoted there is question of
temptations to which all the Apostles succumbed, and the
fall of St. Peter was especially grievous. In the text from
St. Luke it is distinctly foretold that St. Peter shall not only
remain steadfast, but also confirm his brethren. Conse­
quently there is no reference here to the time of the Passion,
as the facts plainly show.
Objection II.—St. Peter not only deserted Our Lord
during His Passion, but even denied Him with an oath.
How, then, can he lie called the rock of the Church and the
con-firmer of his brethren?
Answer.—It is a disputed question whether St. Peter
actually denied his faith in Christ on that occasion, or simply
sinned against it by denying that he knew Our Lord.7 But
even granting that he actually denied his faith, there is no
difficulty to be explained, because at that time he was neither
the rock of the Church nor the confirmer of his brethren.
As yet these powers and dignities had only been promised
to him. It was not until after the Resurrection of Christ
that he was actually constituted head of the Church with
universal power to rule and infallible authority to teach.
°Matt. xxvi, 31.
’ Ci. Cornelius à Lapide, “Commentarium in Lucam,” xxii, 31.

CHAPTER X
r'l

F

4 J
1

THE PRIMACY CONFERRED

The mere promises of Christ are amply sufficient to
establish the fact of St. Peter’s primacy over the
Church, but we also have the words of Our Lord ac­
tually conferring this dignity and power upon him.
Then we have the teaching of the Fathers to prove
that our interpretation of these words is correct.
These facts being established, two other questions call
for consideration; viz., the relation of St. Peter to the
other Apostles, and the perpetuity of the primacy in
the Church.
ART. I. INSTITUTION OF THE PRIMACY

§ 1. Peter Constituted Chief Pastor

Thesis.—The primacy of universal jurisdiction
was conferred upon St. Peter when he was
constituted supreme pastor in the Church
Proof. After the Resurrection Our Lord appeared
to His disciples on the shore of Lake Tiberias, and the
following dialogue with St. Peter ensued: “Simon, son
of John, lowest thou me more than these? He saith
328

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

329

to him: Yea Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He
saith to him: Feed My lambs. He saith to him again:
Simon, son oj John, lovest thou me? He saith to him:
Yea Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to
him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time:
Simon, son oj John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved
because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou
me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all
things; thou knowest that I love thee. He said to
him: Feed my sheep.” 1
With this threefold charge, Our Lord solemnly en­
trusted the care of His flock to St. Peter and thereby
conferred upon him the primacy of universal jurisdic­
tion in the Church (a) if the lambs and sheep represent
the whole body of the faithful, and (ό) if the pastoral
office signifies the power of jurisdiction.
a) There can be no doubt that here, as elsewhere,
the sheep are Christ’s faithful,—those for whom the
Good Shepherd gave His life: “I am the good Shep­
herd. The good shepherd giveth his life jor his sheep.
... I am the good Shepherd . . . and I lay down my
life for my sheep. And other sheep I have that are not
oj this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear
my voice and there shall be one fold and one shep­
herd.” 1
2 When about to leave this one fold by ascend­
ing into heaven, Christ constituted Peter supreme pastor
1 John xxi, 15-17. The Greek text for Christ’s words of commis­
sion are: βόσκΐ τα άρνία μου,—ποίμαινε τα προβάτιά μου—βύσκΐ τά
προβάτία μου.

2 John χ, 11-16; cfr. Jer. xxiii, Isq; Zach, xiii, 7.

330

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

in His stead to care for the whole flock: “Feed my
lambs; jeed my sheep.” No exceptions are made;
Christ says My lambs, My sheep, and it matters not
whether lambs and sheep represent the young and the
old in years, the week and the strong in faith, or laity
and clergy; in any case the whole flock of Christ, in­
cluding even the other Apostles, is clearly meant.
b) In depicting St. Peter as chief shepherd of the
flock, Christ teaches that his powers and duties in re­
gard to the faithful shall be those of a shepherd for the
sheep committed to his care. He shall guide them into
suitable pastures and restrain them from things hurt­
ful; he shall protect them from ravening wolves, from
savage dogs, and lurking thieves; he shall care for the
weak and bring back those strayed from the fold. If
need be, he shall appoint other pastors subject to his
own authority, or remove them when the good of the
flock demands it.3
What more picturesque symbol could be found for
the supreme ruling authority in the Church? Trans­
lating the imagery into plain language shows St. Peter
endowed with supreme power to rule and guide the
faithful in all things pertaining to their eternal salva­
tion. He has authority to teach the universal Church,
to define doctrines to be accepted as true and whole­
some or rejected as false and injurious. He has the
power to make laws for the whole Church, or for any
part of it, and to dispense or repeal them. He has
3 Cfr. Jer. xxiii, 1 sq; Ezech. xxiv, 1 sq; 2 Kings v, Isq.; John x,
11 sq.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

331

authority to take cognizance of all things pertaining to
faith and morals at any time and throughout the entire
Church. He has universal power to judge, absolve,
punish, reprove, and correct. He has authority to con­
stitute pastors for any and all parts of the Church, and
to limit their jurisdiction in regard to persons, places,
and things, or, if need be, to remove them from office.
The words are few, “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep,”
but they are the words of God; their power is divine.4
§ 2. Objections Considered

Objection I.—Feeding is simply providing food;
hence when Christ said, “Feed my sheep,” He meant
that St. Peter should provide the faithful with the
spiritual food of doctrine by preaching the Gospel to
them,—a mission given equally to all the Apostles:
“Going therefore, teach all nations.” 1 There is no
proof for a primacy of jurisdiction conferred upon St.
Peter in this passage.
Answer.—Neither the English nor the Latin version
brings out the full meaning of our Lord in this passage.
The Greek text has βόσκε (feed) and ποίμαινε (shepherd).
Hence Moffatt, a non-Catholic, correctly translates:
“Feed my lambs, ... be shepherd to my sheep, . . .
feed my sheep.” 2 Feeding the flock is only part of
St. Peter’s duty; he must fulfill all the duties of a shep4 Murray, “De Ecclesia Christi,” Disp. xviii, n. 69.
1 Matt, xviii, 19.
2 James Moffatt, “Translation of the New Testament.”

332

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

herd toward his flock: “Shepherd my sheep.” In all
ancient literature, whether sacred or profane, ποιμαίναν
taken figuratively means to rule as king, i. e.> with
supreme authority. Homer often calls kings ποι/χενκ
λαών (pastors oj the people). The Psalmist says:
“The Lord ruleth me (ποιμαίνω /xc),3 and in the Apoc­
alypse it is said that Christ shall rule (πίημανά) with a
rod of iron.4 Arnold, a non-Catholic, says: “This
term of feeding as a shepherd feeds his flock, is one of
the oldest and most universal metaphors to express a
supreme and at the same time a beneficent govern­
ment.” 5
Objection II.—On this occasion Our Lord was
simply restoring to St. Peter the Apostolic dignity and
office lost by his denial on the eve of the Passion. The
triple profession of love was to atone for the threefold
denial.
Answer.—There is not the slightest indication any­
where in Scripture that St. Peter lost the Apostolic of­
fice on account of his denial, and even had he lost it,
he must have received it anew on the very day of the
Resurrection, when Our Lord said to him as to the
other Apostles: “As the Father hath sent me I also
send you.” 6 The threefold profession of love was evi­
dently intended to remind St. Peter of his fall and give
him the opportunity to make public reparation. St.
3 Psalm xxii, 1.
4 Apoc. xix, 15.
5 Thomas Arnold, “Fragment on the Church,” p. 26.
6 John xx, 21.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

333

Peter must have understood it in this light, because he
was grieved when Christ asked him the third time:
“Lovest thou me?” But this fact has no bearing on
the nature of the powers conferred; it would serve to
warn him of the manner in which they should be ex­
ercised, for as St. Augustine remarks: “What else
mean the words, ‘Lovest thou me? Feed my sheep,’
than if it were said, If thou lovest me, think not of
feeding thyself, but feed my sheep as mine, and not as
thine own; seek my glory in them, and not thine own;
my dominion, and not thine; my gain, not thine.” 7
Objection III.—St. Paul evidently did not recognize
in St. Peter any superiority, such as the primacy of
jurisdiction would have conferred upon him, other­
wise he would not have rebuked him as he did at
Antioch: “But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I
withstood him to the jace, because he was to be
blamed.” 8
Answer.—The same argument would force us to
deny that Herod was king for we read that John the
Baptist rebuked him to his face. Superiors can claim
no exemption from just reproof on the part of a sub­
ject, provided that due respect be observed. Hence
St. Paul’s rebuke to St. Peter at Antioch proves nothing
against the primacy; in fact, it proves rather that St.
Paul did recognize some sort of superiority in St. Peter.
Some false brethren of Jewish origin had been trying to
force all Christians to observe the Mosaic Law. St.
7 “Tractatus in S. Joannem,” cxxiii, 5; P. L., 35, 1967.
8 Gal. ii, 11.

334

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

Paul was their great opponent in this matter, and for
this reason they wished to minimize his authority. It
seems that they had even denied that he was an Apostle
of equal standing with the rest. St. Paul wrote to the
Galatians to warn them against these Judaizers and
proves that he is a true Apostle and recognized as such
by Peter, James, and John, whom the Judaizers were
holding up as pillars of the Church. He then goes on
to show how he had constantly opposed those “who
came in privately to spy our liberty which we have in
Christ Jesus that they might bring us into servitude [to
the Mosaic Law].” He had even gone so far as to
withstand Peter to his face when he was acting impru­
dently in this matter at Antioch. St. Paul’s whole line
of argument indicates that his rebuke to St. Peter was
something out of the ordinary and therefore presup­
posed some sort of superiority on the part of St. Peter.
This superiority, as just proved, consisted in his pri­
macy of jurisdiction over the whole Church.
ART. II. THE TESTIMONY OF TRADITION

It is to be expected that a doctrine so clearly set
forth in S. Scripture as that of St. Peter’s primacy will
find frequent mention in the writings of the Fathers.
This expectation is fully justified by facts. Implicit
references are innumerable, since all the Fathers and
Councils of the Church from the very earliest times
teach that the Roman Pontiff holds supreme jurisdiction
in the Church, because he is the legitimate successor of

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

335

St. Peter. Such implicit testimony usually has more
weight that direct statements, because only doctrines
admitted as certain by all can be adduced in proof of
other doctrines without the formality of proof for their
own truth. Many such implicit arguments will be
found in the chapter on the Roman Pontiff: 1 For the
sake of brevity only a few of the more explicit testi­
monies from the Eastern and Western Churches will be
cited here.
I. Eastern Church, a) origen: “When the
chief care of the sheep was being committed to Peter,
and the Church was being founded upon him as the
foundation, the profession of no other virtue than
charity was demanded of him.” 2
b) st. John Chrysostom: “He said unto him;
Feed my sheep. And why, having passed by the
others, doth He speak with Peter on these matters?
He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouthpiece
of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account
also Paul went up upon a time to inquire of him rather
than the others. And at the same time to show him
that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was
done away, Jesus putteth into his hands the chief au­
thority among the brethren. . . . He said: If thou lovest Me, preside over My brethren. . . . And if any
one should say: How then did James receive the chair
at Jerusalem?—I would make reply, that He appointed
Peter teacher, not of the chair but of the world. . . .
1 See below pp. 351 sq.
2 “In Epist. ad Romanos,” i, 5; P. G., 14, 1053.

I

336

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

He was entrusted with the chief authority over the
brethren.” 3
c) st. ephrem syrus : “Our Lord selected Simon
Peter, constituted him prince of the Apostles, the foun­
dation of His holy Church and her firm support. He
made him head of the Apostles and commanded him to
feed His flock and teach laws for the preservation of
pure doctrine.” 4
d) Greek liturgy. In the Greek Liturgy St. Peter
is often referred to as occupying the chief throne among
the Apostles (θ προτόθρονος τών αποστόλων^ the supreme
head of the Apostles (θ κορυψαι,ότατος τών αποστόλων) and
the one presiding over them (πρόεδρός τών αποστόλων).5
e) syriac liturgy: “Christ, the Head-Shepherd,
stayed thee up, 0 Peter, as ruler of the faithful, and
entrusted thee with the management of His flock.” 0
I) syro-chaldaic liturgy: “Here is Simon, whom
the Lord thrice called upon, saying, Feed my rams and
my gentle sheep. I entrust thee with the keys of my
spiritual treasury, that thou mayest bind and loose on
earth and in Heaven. I will install thee vicar of the
Heavenly Kingdom; rule justly and govern the chil­
dren of thy household the Church.” 7
II. Western Church, a) st. cyrian: “Peter,
whom the Lord chose first and upon whom He built
a“Hom., in Joannem,” Ixxxviii, I, 2; P. G., 59, 478 *
4 “De Abraham Kidnuaia,” Hymn, v (Lamy, I, 75).
c Nilles, “Kalendarium Manuale,” I, 72, 194.
0 Benni, “Tradition of the Syriac Church of Antioch,” p. 57.
1 Op. at., p. 50.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

337

His Church, when Paul disputed with him about cir­
cumcision, did not claim anything insolently, nor did he
arrogantly assume anything so as to say that he held
the primacy and ought to be obeyed by novices.” 8 In
this passage St. Cyrian praises St. Peter for his humil­
ity and meekness in not arrogantly asserting his power
of primacy, as he might have done.
b) marius victorinus: “After three years, says
Paul, I came to Jerusalem. He then gives the reason:
To see Peter! For if the foundation of the Church
was placed in Peter, as the Gospel says, and this was
known to Paul by revelation, he realized that he ought
to visit the one to whom Christ had given such great
authority.” 9
c) ambrosiaster: “Paul’s desire to see Peter was
praiseworthy because Peter was the first among the
Apostles and the one to whom the Saviour had commit­
ted the care of the churches.” 10
d) st. leo the great: “Peter alone, out of the
whole world, was selected to preside over the calling of
all nations, and was placed over all the Apostles and
all parts of the Church, so that, although there are
many priests and pastors among the people of God,
Peter really rules those whom Christ primarily
rules.” 11
8 “Epis, ad Quintum,” 3; P. L., 4, 410.
0 “In Galatas,” I, IS; P. L., 8, 1155.
10 An ancient commentary formerly attributed to St. Ambrose,
hence the unknown author is designated “Ambrosiaster.” (P. L.,
17, 344.)
11 “Sermon.,” IV; P. L., 54, 149.

338

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

ART. ΙΠ. ST. PETER AND THE OTHER APOSTLES

Apostles Subject to Peter. St. Peter alone was
constituted the foundation of the Church and supreme
pastor of the flock. He alone was appointed to con­
firm the brethren, and to him alone were given the
keys of the kingdom. He was therefore constituted
supreme ruler of the whole Church and of its every
part; all the faithful, individually and collectively, were
subjected to his authority. Consequently St. Peter
possessed real power of jurisdiction over the other
Apostles, both as individuals and as members of the
Apostolic college.
When speaking to all the Apostles as a body, Christ
said: “All power is given to me in heaven and on
earth, going therefore, teach ye all nations. ... As the
Father hath sent me I also send you. . . . Whatsoever
you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven;
and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be
loosed also in heaven.” 1 These words, taken by them­
selves, would indicate that equal powers were given to all
the Apostles, and that in consequence St. Peter enjoyed
no preeminence of authority over the rest. But, as
noted before, all authority must be exercised according
to the constitution of the society for which it is given.
The power conferred upon the Apostles was to be exer­
cised in the Church instituted by Christ as a kingdom
with St. Peter as supreme ruler. It is evident, then,
that all power received by the other Apostles was sub1 Matt, xxviii, 18, 19; John xx, 21; Matt, xviii, 18.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

339

ject to the authority of St. Peter and to be exercised
under his direction, i. e., St. Peter had real jurisdiction,
both direct and indirect, over the other Apostles.
Direct Jurisdiction. All the faithful were com­
mitted to the teaching and governing power of St. Peter,
when Christ said to him: “Feed my lambs; feed my
sheep” The Apostles were included with the rest of
the faithful, since Christ made no exception; in fact,
an exception for the Apostles is precluded by the very
nature of their office. The Apostles constituted an or­
ganized governing body, of which St. Peter was the
divinely appointed head; consequently they were di­
rectly subject to him as members of the Church and
also as members of the Apostolic body. But the
Apostles, being personally infallible, confirmed in grace
and endowed with special knowledge by the Holy
Ghost, could neither err against faith nor fail seriously
in regard to charity or prudence; hence there was but
little need for the exercise of any authority over them
on the part of St. Peter. Such authority was needed
only for extraordinary affairs such as, for instance, the
election of St. Matthias, the calling of a council or the
enactment of disciplinary regulations for the whole
Church.
Indirect Jurisdiction. The Apostles were also
indirectly subject to St. Peter because of his direct
jurisdiction over those immediately subject to them.
In virtue of their office, received directly from Christ,
the Apostles had equal authority to preach the Gospel
and to establish churches in any part of the world, but

340

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

orderly progress and discipline in the Church demanded
that no Apostle should interfere with, or exercise juris­
diction over, a church established by another Apostle.
For this reason St. Paul writes to the Romans that he
had long desired to preach the Gospel to them as to
other nations, but that he had been restrained hitherto
because it was his custom not to preach “where Christ
was named, lest I should build upon another man’s
foundation.”2 Peter alone, as supreme pastor, was
privileged to exercise jurisdiction over all churches
throughout the world. It was his special prerogative
to make laws for all the faithful, even against the will
of the Apostle who labored among them. He could also
annul any law or regulation made by the other Apostles
for their respective churches.
Corollary. St. Peter, as an Apostle, was in no
way superior to the other Apostles. In virtue of the
Apostolic office, all possessed the same power of Orders
and the same authority to teach and govern. For this
reason the Fathers often say that the Apostles enjoyed
equal powers; e.g., St. Cyprian says: “Assuredly the
rest of the Apostles were also the same as Peter, en­
dowed with a like partnership both of honor and
power.” 3 St. Peter exercised supreme jurisdiction be­
cause he was more than an Apostle; he was also the
head of the Church, as St. Cyprian explains in the pas­
sage from which the above words are quoted: “Al­
though to all the Apostles, after the Resurrection,
2 Rom. I, 11 sq.; xv, 20.
3 “De Unitate Ecclesiae,” 4; P. L., 4, 449.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

341

Christ gives an equal power, ... yet that He might
set forth unity, He arranges by His authority the origin
of that unity as beginning from one [St. Peter].”
ART. IV. THE PRIMACY A PERMANENT INSTITUTION

Protestant scholars today generally admit that St.
Peter enjoyed a certain preeminence of honor; some
even admit a primacy of jurisdiction; but practically
all agree that whatever privileges or powers he pos­
sessed were strictly personal and, therefore, not to be
perpetuated by a line of succession. “Protestants gen­
erally,” says a non-Catholic author, “even when they
have admitted the individual primacy of Peter, have
denied that these powers and privileges have been con­
tinued in his successors, the Bishops of Rome. The
usual assertion and favorite contention of Protestants
is that the papacy originated in the Middle Ages and
was the result of the worldly ambition and love of
power on the part of certain designing popes. When
the stern light of history, thrown upon the medieval
period, has forced these controversialists to seek a more
distant beginning for the papacy, they have hit upon
some earlier Pope, as Gregory the Great, Leo I, or
Victor, as the originator of the Roman supremacy.” 1
Lightfoot even admits that the first steps toward
papal domination are found in the Epistle of Clement
of Rome to the Corinthians, towards the end of the
first century.2 But whatever the date of its origin, the
1 Edmund S. Middleton, “Unity and Rome,” p. 62.
2 J. B. Lightfoot, “St. Clement of Rome,” Vol. I, p. 70.

342

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

primacy found in the Church today, in the opinion of
Protestants, is a mere human institution that owes its
existence chiefly to the importance which attached to
the Church of Rome on account of its location in the
capital of the Empire.
Eastern schismatics admit a primacy of honor trans­
mitted to the successors of St. Peter, but they seem to
hold that this primacy was transferred to Constanti­
nople when that city became the capital of the Roman
Empire.3 Anglicans of the High Church party also
admit a primacy of honor perpetuated to an extent in
the successors of St. Peter; a few of the more advanced
High Churchmen even admit a primacy of jurisdiction.
Opposed to these theories is the doctrine of the Catholic
Church, expressed in the following thesis:

Thesis.—St. Peter’s primacy of universal juris­
diction over the Church is perpetuated in his
successors according to divine institution
This doctrine is a dogma of faith, defined by the
Vatican Council in the following words: “If any one
should deny that it is by the institution of Christ the
Lord, or by divine right, that blessed Peter should have
a perpetual line of successors in the primacy over the
universal Church, ... let him be anathema.” 4
It is here maintained that the primacy of universal
jurisdiction conferred upon St. Peter was not a personal
3 D'Alès, “Dictionnaire Apologétique,” Vol. II, col. 365.
4 Dcnzinger, n. 1825.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

343

privilege, such as the power of working miracles, or
freedom from sin, but a permanent institution, neces­
sary for the very existence of the Church. Therefore,
the primacy with all its powers and privileges is trans­
mitted to the successors of St. Peter, who form an un­
broken line of supreme pastors to rule the Church in
its continued existence as the one, holy, Catholic, and
Apostolic Church founded by Christ.
Proof. The various symbols used by Our Lord to
designate the powers conferred upon St. Peter, clearly
indicate their nature and the purpose for which they
were conferred, thus proving also that their continued
existence in the Church is a necessity.
a) St. Peter was constituted the rock foundation
of the Church in order to give it unity and strength,
and to secure it against the powers of darkness and
the gates of hell in all ages, “even to the consummation
oj the world y Therefore, the power and authority
that made St. Peter the rock of the Church must re­
main intact for all time; his primacy of jurisdiction
must be perpetuated in the only possible way, i. e., by
transmission through a continuous line of successors.
No doubt, Our Lord could have provided some other
means to preserve the unity of His Church and secure
it against all foes, but we are not concerned with what
He could have done; we wish to know what He actually
did, and the only answer is that He provided for the
continued existence of the Church by establishing a
primacy of jurisdiction. Therefore, such a primacy is
necessary by divine institution.

344

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

ό) Through the power of the keys, St. Peter became
custodian of the Church and all its spiritual treasures;
the power to bind and loose constituted him supreme
law-giver and judge in the Church. Such powers are
never given for the benefit of him who exercises them,
but for those over whom he rules; therefore, the dura­
tion of Peter’s primacy is to be measured, not by the
brief span of his mortal life, but by the ever lengthen­
ing centuries of the Church’s existence. The Church
must ever have a custodian, a supreme law-giver and
judge, if she is to continue as Christ founded her.
The primacy was not a personal privilege granted
to St. Peter as a reward for his outspoken professions
of faith and love, as some would have it. To institute
an office is one thing; to confer that office upon one
person rather than another is quite a different thing.
St. Peter’s faith and love, no doubt, merited for him
the honor of being chosen supreme pastor of the
Church, but they contributed nothing to the institu­
tion of the office itself.
c) The permanent character of the primacy is also
deduced from the teaching authority committed to St.
Peter with the injunction to confirm his brethren. In
conferring this power, Christ was undoubtedly looking
to the future, when the successors of the Apostles, lack­
ing the gift of personal infallibility, would stand in
need of such a guiding power in the Church to prevent
their being “carried about by every wind oj doctrine;
ever learning but never attaining to the knowledge oj

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

f

345

truth.” 5 The wisdom of Christ in establishing such
an authority is readily seen by comparing the unity of
faith in the Church with the Babel of confusion that
reigns outside.
6 Eph. iv, 14; 2 Tim. iii, 7.

I

THE ROMAN PONTIFF
CHAPTER XI
I

SUCCESSORS OF ST. PETER

Since the primacy of St. Peter is a permanent institu­
tion, perpetuated in the Church by a line of legitimate
successors, the question naturally arises: Who are those
successors? The answer is stated in the form of a
thesis.

ART. I.

THE DOCTRINE AND ITS PROOFS

Thesis. The Roman Pontiff is the legitimate suc­
cessor of St. Peter in his primacy of universal
jurisdiction over the Church
Doctrine Defined. The doctrine set forth in the
thesis has been defined as a dogma of faith by the
Vatican Council: “If any one should deny .
that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of the blessed
Peter in his primacy; let him be anathema.” 1 And
again: “Peter the Prince and Chief of the Apostles
. . . lives, presides, and judges to this day and al­
ways in his successors, the bishops of the Holy See of
1 Denzinger, n. 1825.
346

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

347

Rome, which was founded by him and consecrated by
his blood. Hence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this
See, does by the institution of Christ himself obtain
the Primacy of Peter over the whole Church.” 23
Fifteen hundred years before this, Pope Damasus I
had defined the same doctrine. In the year 382 he
solemnly decreed that “the holy Roman Church ob­
tained the primacy, not by decrees of councils, but
by the words of the Lord and Saviour: Thou art
Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.”2
Nature of Proofs. Whether or not the bishop of
Rome is the legitimate successor of St. Peter is a
purely historical question that must be established in
the same manner as every other historical fact, i. e.,
by the testimony of competent witnesses and by a
critical examination of everything connected with it.
Therefore it is necessary (1) to adduce competent wit­
nesses sufficient to establish the fact, and (2) to con­
sider the objections urged against it.
It is taken for granted that St. Peter came to Rome,
where he established his episcopal see and gave his life
for the faith. These facts are now admitted by all,
but the truth of our thesis does not depend upon them.
Christ could have personally designated the bishop of
Rome as the successor of St. Peter, or He could have
left it to St. Peter to designate a line of succession. In
2 Denzinger, n. 1824.
3 This decree, first made by Damasus I, was afterwards re­
peated by Gclasius I, in 495. (See Denzinger, n. 163; P. L., 59,
159.)

348

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

either case the bishop of Rome, being designated as
such, would have become the lawful successor of St.
Peter with all his powers of jurisdiction, even though
St. Peter had never set foot within the Eternal City.
As a matter of interest, however, it may be mentioned that all scholars of reputation, both Catholic
and non-Catholic, admit that St. Peter came to Rome
and died there about the year 67. It will be sufficient
to quote the eminent archeologist, Rodolfo Lanciani:
“For the archeologist the presence of SS. Peter and
Paul in Rome are facts established beyond the shadow
of doubt by purely monumental evidence. There was
a time when persons belonging to different creeds made
it almost a case of conscience to affirm or deny a priori
these facts according to their acceptance or rejection
of the tradition of any particular church. This state
of feeling is a matter of the past, at least for those who
have followed the progress of recent discoveries and
of critical literature.” 4
The Argument Stated. Since the successors of
St. Peter are the supreme pastors in the Church with
jurisdiction over bishops, priests, and people in every
part of the world, their identity must have been a mat­
ter of common knowledge to all in every age. No
organized society, as least none publicly known and
operating in the light of day, can be ignorant of its
own organization and of the official who exercises its
supreme power. Therefore, whoever has been recog­
nized at all times by the whole Church as supreme
4 Rodolfo Lanciani, “Pagan and Christian Rome,” p, 123.

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

349

pastor, must be the legitimate successor of that first
pastor, St. Peter. But the bishop of Rome, and he I
alone, has been recognized at all times by the universal
Church as its supreme head on earth. Therefore the
bishop of Rome is the legitimate and only successor
of St. Peter and rules the Church by divine authority.
In order to substantiate the fact of universal recog­
nition of the bishop of Rome as supreme head of the
Church, it is necessary to consider the first five or six
centuries only. Even the most pronounced enemies
of the Roman Primacy freely admit that the bishop of
Rome has been universally recognized as head of the
Church in the West since the sixth century, and per­
haps even since the fifth. They also admit that the
idea of the Primacy was forming in the Church even
before that date, but maintain that it was entirely
unknown in the first centuries and was never accepted
in the East, except, perhaps, as a primacy of mere
honor.
It will be sufficient, then, to cite a few of the in­
numerable witnesses at hand to prove that both East
and West recognized in the bishop of Rome a primacy
of real jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this
not from the third or fourth century only, but from
the very days of SS. Peter and Paul in Rome. These
witnesses will be arranged by centuries, beginning with
the fifth and going back to the first. Brevity is sacri­
ficed for accuracy by quoting more at length than is
customary in order to show that the sense of a writer
has not been perverted by taking his words out of

350

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

their context. Brief notices of councils and other
historical events are added to bring out the exact values
of the testimony cited.
The wealth of material in this matter and its real eviden­
tial value can be appreciated only by an extended study of
the literature of those ages. No amount of quoting from
authors can do justice to the question. The voluminous cor­
respondence that passed between the bishops of Rome on the
one hand, and the bishops and emperors of the East on the
other, seldom mentions the primacy of Rome directly; this
fact was admitted by all, and other questions are discussed
on that basis. Even a casual perusal of the varied corre­
spondence brings this fact home with striking force; but
from the nature of the case, it is often impossible to select
any single passage that will even partially reveal this con­
stantly underlying faith in the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.
Witnesses are selected largely from the Eastern Church,
and for two reasons: first, because of the persistent claim
that the Eastern Church never recognized a primacy of juris­
diction in the Church of Rome, and, secondly, because any
authority exercised over the Eastern Church by the Roman
Pontiff must be ascribed to his primacy over the universal
Church. The Pope, as is well known, exercises a multiple
authority in his various capacities as bishop of Rome, primate
of Italy, patriarch of the West, and supreme pastor of the
whole Church. Authority exercised over a church of the
West might, at times, be ascribed to his power as patriarch,
but this cannot be the case in the East, where he possesses
no authority except that of supreme pastor of the universal
Church.

I

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

351

ART. II.THE TESTIMONY OF HISTORY

§ 1. Witnesses from the Fifth Century
I. Flavian of Constantinople. Eutyches, archi­
mandrite of a monastery outside the walls of Con­
stantinople, was excommunicated and deposed by
Flavian. He appealed to Rome and accused Flavian
of condemning him after he had made an appeal.
Flavian also wrote the Pope, Leo the Great, as follows:
“Deign to confirm by your letters the deposition ca­
nonically made. . . . The affair needs only aid and
pressure on your part to bring peace and tranquillity
at once through your prudence. By the help of God,
through your letters, the heresy which has arisen and
the tumult which it has caused will be easily ended.
The council, which reports say is to be called, will
also be forestalled and disturbance to all churches
throughout the world prevented.” 1
The fact that Eutyches appealed to Rome proves
that the Pope had an acknowledged right to interfere
in matters pertaining to the Eastern Church. When
Leo rebuked Flavian for condemning Eutyches after
he had appealed his case to Rome, Flavian did not ex­
culpate himself by saying that Leo had no authority
to interpose in the matter, but simply explained that
Eutyches had misrepresented the case by stating that
1 uEpist. ad Leonem”; P. L., 54, 747.

352

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

his condemnation had taken place after appeal to
Rome, which was not true. It was on this occasion
that Flavian wrote the words quoted above, openly
acknowledging supreme power of jurisdiction in the
bishop of Rome, because without such power letters
from him could not have ended the heresy and even
forestalled a council.
II. Council of Chalcedon. Eutyches having lost
his case in Rome, now turned to the civil power for
assistance. The Emperor Theodosius yielded to his
entreaties and called a council to meet at Ephesus in
449. By command of the Emperor, Dioscorus patri­
arch of Alexandria, presided, but Leo’s letter to the
council was not read, the canons of the Church were
disregarded, and the whole proceedings were carried
out in such a high-handed manner that the Pope dubbed
it the Robber Council, and annulled all its acts. This
fact alone proves the recognized power of the Pope
over the Eastern Church, but the sequel is still more
convincing.
In 451 another council of about six hundred Eastern
bishops convened at Chalcedon, to correct the evils
caused by the Robber Council of Ephesus. When the
legates sent by Pope Leo saw Dioscorus sitting in the
council, one of them, Paschasinus by name, arose and
addressed the bishops in these words: “We hold in
our hands letters from that most blessed and Apostolic
man, the Pope of Rome, who is head of all the churches.
His Apostolic Excellency commands by these letters
that Dioscorus shall not have a seat in the council and

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

353

shall only be admitted for a hearing. It is necessary
that these instructions be carried out.” Then turn­
ing to the imperial officers, he continued: “Your Ex­
cellencies will order this man to leave, or we go out.”
When asked for the reason of this action, Lucentius,
another legate, replied: “Because he has dared to hold
a council without authority from the Apostolic See,
a thing that was never done before, and is not lawful
to be done.” 2
Dioscorus was ejected from the council, his case
was heard, and sentence pronounced against him in
these words: “Leo, the most holy and blessed Arch­
bishop of the great and elder Rome, through us and
through this holy Synod, together with the thrice
blessed and most praiseworthy Apostle Peter, who is
the rock and support of the Catholic Church and the
foundation of true faith, has stripped Dioscorus of his
episcopal dignity, and also removed him from all
priestly ministration.” 3
At the close of the council, the bishops sent the Acts
to Pope Leo for confirmation. In the accompanying
letter they said: “If Christ promised to be in the
midst of two or three gathered together in His name,
what should we not expect when five hundred and
twenty bishops are assembled, . . . especially when
thou didst preside as head over its members. This
thou didst in those who represented thee. . . . We
have brought the whole contents of what we have done
2 Mansi, t. vi, coll. 579-582.
3 Mansi, t. vi, col. 1047.

354

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

to thy knowledge, and have communicated it to thee
for confirmation and assent.” 4
Comments on the transactions just described are
superfluous; they speak for themselves, explicitly ac­
knowledging supreme power of jurisdiction in the
bishop of Rome. Words could not be plainer, and
they express the unanimous belief of more than five
hundred Eastern bishops!
III. The Council of Ephesus. Pope Celestine
condemned the heretic Nestorius and deposed him from
the See of Constantinople. Execution of the sentence
was entrusted to St. Cyril of Alexandria in these words:
“Taking to yourself the authority of our See, and act­
ing in our stead, you will execute the sentence strictly
according to its provisions; viz., He shall condemn
his evil teachings in writing within ten days, ... or
failing this, Your Holiness will immediately look to the
good of his church and let it know that he must be
entirely removed from our body.” 5
Nestorius, after the usual manner of heretics, ap­
pealed to the civil authorities, and Theodosius, wish­
ing to favor him, called a council, which met at Ephesus
in 431. St. Cyril presided. After the council had
opened, legates arrived from Rome with a letter from
Pope Celestine, saying: “In our solicitude we have
sent the holv brethren, our fellow-ministers, . . .
Bishop Arcadius, Bishop Projectus and the Presbyter
Philip, to take part in the proceedings and to carry
4 Migne, P. L., 54, 959 sq.
8 “Epist. ad Cyrillum Alcxand.”; P. L., 50, 463.

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

355

out what we have already decreed. We do not doubt
that Your Holiness will give assent thereunto.” 0
In the second session of the council Philip addressed
the bishops as follows: “No one doubts, in fact it
has been known in all ages, that the most holy and
most blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, the pillar
of faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, re­
ceived the keys to the kingdom from Our Lord Jesus
Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind. The
power of binding and loosing sins was also given to
him, who even today and ever lives and judges in his
successors. Our holy and most blessed Pope, Bishop
Celestine, holding the place of this Peter in due order
of succession, has sent us to represent him in this holy
synod.” 7
After the three citations demanded by canon law,
the council proceeded to pass sentence of deposition
against Nestorius: “We come to the sorrowful sen­
tence against him in accordance with the sacred canons,
being constrained of necessity by the letter of the most
holy Father and fellow minister Celestine, bishop of
the Roman Church. . . . Wherefore, let Nestorius
understand that he is separated from communion in
the priesthood of the Catholic Church.” 8
Here again two hundred bishops of the Eastern
Church acknowledge by word and act the supreme
jurisdiction of Rome. Pope Celestine excommunicated
0 “Epist. ad Synodum Ephesinam”; P. L., 50, 511.
7 Mansi, t. iv, col. 1295.
8 Mansi, t. iv, coll. 1211, 1295.

356

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

and deposed Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, at
that time capital of the Empire; he commissioned St.
Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, to execute the sentence.
He sent legates to the council with letters directing the
bishops to confirm what he had decreed, yet there was
not a word of protest voiced in the council. On the
contrary, the bishops acknowledged his rights and
powers in the matter; they openly stated that they
were constrained,—necessarily constrained,—by Celes­
tine’s letter to proceed against Nestorius. In the
second session of the council, the Pope’s legate stated
that St. Peter’s position as head of the Church was
known to all, and that Celestine, being his legitimate
successor, occupied the same position, yet no one denied
or questioned the statement. A more explicit acknowl­
edgment of Rome’s supremacy could not be made.
§ 2. Witnesses from the Fozirth Century

I. Pope Damasus I (366-384). The convictions of
Pope Damasus in this matter are evident from his
decree of 382: [“The Church of Rome was not raised
above the other churches by any synodical decree, but
received the primacy by virtue of the words of Our
Lord and Sayiour recorded in the Gospel: Thou art
Peter, etc.”1 He exercised this supremacy over East
and West alike. He condemned Eustatius and Apol­
linaris, both heretics of the East; he deposed Maximus
1 Denzinger, n. 163; P. L., 59, 159.

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

357

the Cynic from the See of Constantinople and con­
firmed the election of Nectarius in his stead. 2 When
a number of Eastern bishops petitioned him to depose
Timothy, also an Eastern bishop, he replied: “It is
indeed a great honor to yourselves that you give due
reverence to the Apostolic See. ... I wish to inform
you, brethren, that we have already deposed Timothy,
the profane disciple of Apollinaris, and condemned his
impious doctrine.” 3 St. Jerome also informs us that
matters from every part of the Church were brought to
Pope Damasus for adjudication. He says: “Several
years ago, while I was assisting Damasus, bishop of
the City of Rome, in the office of the Church archives,
I used to reply to synodical matters referred both from
the East and from the West.” 4
II. St. Jerome. In 376 St. Jerome himself con­
sulted Pope Damasus concerning a matter pertaining
to the church in Antioch, where a schism was in pro­
gress, with three claimants for the episcopal throne.
He says: “The church here is divided into three
parties, each trying to draw me to their side. . . .
But I cry out: I hold with the one who is in union
with the chair of Peter. Melitius, Vitalis, and Paulinus all claim to be in union with you. If only one
of them claimed this, I could believe him, but as it
is, two at least, and perhaps all of them, are lying.
2 Jaffé, “Regist. Episcoporum,” 237, 238.
3 Pope Damasus, “Epist. ad Episcopos Orientis”; P. L., 13, 370.
4 “Epist. ad Ageruchiam”; P. L., 22, 1952.

358

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

Therefore, I beseech Your Blessedness ... to inform
me by letter with whom I am to communicate here
in Syria.” 5
These words of St. Jerome leave no doubt that union
with the See of Rome and approbation by the Roman
Pontiff were considered necessary at Antioch, itself a
patriarchal see that claimed St. Peter as its founder.
If the primacy of Rome be denied, there is no reason
why Antioch should have considered union with her any
more important than union with the other patriarchal
sees.
III. St. Basil the Great. Appeal was also made
to Pope Damasus from the East by St. Basil the Great
of Cappadocia. In 371 he wrote to Damasus describ­
ing the sad condition of the Church in those parts, and
implored his assistance: “I have looked upon the visit
of Your Mercifulness as the only possible solution of
our difficulties. Ever in the past have I been consoled
by your extraordinary affection; and for a short time
my heart was cheered by the gratifying report that
we shall be visited by you. But as I was disappointed,
I have been constrained to beseech you by letter to be
moved to help us. . . . In this I am by no means
making any novel request, but am only asking what
has been customarv.” 6
In another letter on the same subject, St. Basil says:
“Of these things I implore you to take due heed. This
will be the case if you will consent to write to all the
6 “Epist. ad Damasum”; P. L., 22, 359.
6 “Epist. ad Damasum”; P. G., 32, 434.*

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

359

churches of the East, that those who have perverted
these doctrines are in communion with you if they
amend, but that if they contentiously determine to
abide by their innovations, you are separated from
them.” 7 Even stronger words are found in a letter
to St. Athanasius: “It has seemed to me to be de­
sirable to send a letter of the Bishop of Rome, begging
him to examine our condition, and since there are
difficulties in the way of representatives being sent
from the West by a general synodical decree, to advise
him to exercise his own personal authority in the matter
by choosing suitable persons to sustain the labors of
a journey,—suitable too, by gentleness and firmness of
character to correct the unruly amongst us.” 8
IV. The Case of Eustatius. The history of this
case proves the authority of the Roman Pontiff over
the Eastern Churches. Eustatius, bishop of Sebaste
in Asia Minor, was deposed by the Synod of Melitene.
He immediately appealed Pope Liberius, who reversed
the decision and ordered his reinstatement. When he
appeared with the Pope’s letter at the Synod of Tyana,
he was restored to his see without further question.
This is evident from a letter of St. Basil written to
Liberius’s successor, Pope Damasus, regarding Eusta­
tius: “What propositions were made to him by Liber­
ius, and to what he agreed, I am ignorant. I only
know that he brought a letter restoring him, which
7 “Epist. ad Damasum”; P. G., 32, 982.*
8 St. Basil the Great, “Epist. ad Athanasium”; P. G., 32, 431.*

360

ORGx^NIZATION OF THE CHURCH

he showed to the synod of Tyana and was restored
to his see.” 0
V. Council of Sardica (343 or 344). Among the
decrees passed at Sardica in Moesia, several deal with
the trial and deposition of bishops and with the pro­
cedure in case of appeal to the Bishop of Rome. One
of these reads: “If judgment has gone against a
bishop in any case, and he thinks that he has a good
case, in order that the question may be reopened, let
us, if it be your pleasure, honor the memory of St.
Peter, the Apostle, and let those who tried the case
write to Julius, the Bishop of Rome, and if he shall
judge that the case should be retried, let that be done,
and let him appoint judges.” 10
Another decree provides that in case a bishop, con­
demned in this second trial, should appeal to Rome,
no one shall be consecrated in his stead, until the bishop
of Rome has decided the case: “When any bishop
has been deposed by the judgment of those bishops
who have sees in neighboring places, and he shall an­
nounce that his case is to be examined in the city of
Rome,—no other bishop shall in any wise be ordained
to his see after the appeal of him who is apparently
deposed, unless the case shall have been determind in
the judgment of the Roman bishop.” 11
These decrees explicitly acknowledge the right of
any bishop to appeal his case to the supreme tribunal
°St Basil the Great, “Epist. ad Damasum”; P. G., 32, 979 *
10 Mansi, t. iii, col. 32.*
11 Mansi, t. iii, col. 32.*

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

361

of the Roman Pontiff, and in case he does so, any
sentence of deposition pronounced against him shall
be held in abeyance,—he is only apparently deposed,—
until the sentence has been ratified in Rome. For this
reason no one is to be ordained to his see in the mean­
time.
VI. Pope Julius I (337-352). The Eusebian
party of Arians unjustly brought about the deposi­
tion and exile of St. Athanasius and Marcellus in 336.
They then met at Antioch and passed decrees to pre­
vent their return. Pope Julius severely condemned
this action and wrote as follows: “Even if they were
guilty of crime, as you say, judgment should have been
given according to the canons of the Church, not in
the manner in which you acted. You should have
written to us first of all, that we might decide what
was just. . . . Above all, why was nothing written to
us from the church at Alexandria? Do you not know
that it is the custom to write us first of all, so that
justice may be dispensed from here? If any suspicion
attached to the bishop of that city, it should have been
notified to this church. But they have proceeded in the
matter without notifying us; ... but that was a
strange procedure, a novel invention.” 12
The Pope’s action in this matter, and even the tone
of his letter, shows that the bishop of Rome possessed
a recognized authority of long standing in the Eastern
Church; acting without his authority was a strange
and novel proceeding. Nor was this a mere assump12 Pope Julius I, “Epist. ad Antiochenos”; P. L., 8, 906.

362

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

tion on the part of Julius, as is evident from the fact
that St. Athanasius journeyed to Rome to lay the
matter before him,—a useless undertaking if the Pope’s
authority was not recognized in the East.
§3. Witnesses from the Third Century
The incessant persecutions that harassed the Church
during the first three centuries made it difficult, and
often impossible, for the Roman Pontiff to exercise
jurisdiction over distant churches; nevertheless, several
incidents are recorded which prove that the Pope was
recognized as chief pastor in the Church, and that he
actually exercised authority as such, when occasion
demanded and circumstances permitted.
I. Tertullian. After Tertullian fell away from
the Church, he became very bitter toward the bishops
of Rome, as heretics are wont to do. In his work De
Pudicitia he inveighs against a certain edict published
by Zephyrinus or Callistus. He says: “I even hear
• that an edict has been published,—a peremptory edict,
which the supreme pontiff, that bishop of bishops, has
put forth.” 1 The titles here used in derision by Ter­
tullian evidently presuppose a claim to supreme juris­
diction on the part of the Pope; no other meaning
could be attached to the phrase “bishop of bishops.”
This is also true of the other title, “supreme pontiff.”
The Pontifex Maximus (supreme pontiff) was the
highest in authority among the pagan priests of Rome,
with jurisdiction over all religious matters. The office
1 “De Pudicitia,” c. I; P. L., 2, 980.

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

363

had been held by the emperors themselves since the
year 13 b. c. Hence, when Tertullian applies the term
to the bishop of Rome, he clearly intimates the position
claimed for the pope in the Church.
II. Dionysius of Alexandria (d. 264). St.
Athanasius says that when Dionysius, patriarch of
Alexandria, was accused of heresy by some of his people,
the Pope, who happened to bear the same name, im­
mediately asked for an explanation and a profession of
faith. The patriarch at once complied by composing
two works concerning the faith which he submitted
to the Pope: “When Dionysius the bishop, . . .
moved by zeal for religion, had written to Ammonius
and Euphranor against the Sabellian heresy, some of
the brethren . . . betook themselves to Rome and
accused him before his namesake, Dionysius, bishop of
Rome. When he had heard these things, he sent a
letter to Dionysius to acquaint him of the things of
which he was accused by these men. In order to
prove his innocence, Dionysius set about at once to
edit the books which he entitled Elenchus and Apo­
logia.” 2
The very fact that these men went to Rome to ac­
cuse their bishop, proves that they recognized some
superior authority in the bishop of that city, and
Dionysius’ solicitude to refute their charges shows
that he also acknowledged this superiority.
III. St. Cyprian (200-258). Felicissimus and
Fortunatus rejected the authority of St. Cyprian in
2 St. Athanasius, “In Sententiam Dionysii”; P. G.> 25, 499.

364

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

Carthage and started an open schism by setting up a
bishop of their own. They then sent emissaries to
Rome, in order to stir up like troubles there. St.
Cyprian, apprised of this project, writes to Pope
Cornelius. He describes their actions in Carthage and
then adds: “After such things as these they still
dare ... to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic
and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the
chief Church, whence priestly unity takes its source.”3
On another occasion, when St. Cyprian had heard
that Marcian, bishop of Arles, had fallen into heresy,
he wrote to Pope Stephen, asking him to excommuni­
cate Marcian and have another bishop installed in his
place. He says: “It behooves you to write a very
copious letter to our fellow bishops appointed in Gaul,
not to suffer any longer that Marcian . . . should in­
sult our assembly, because he does not yet seem to
be excommunicated by us. . . . Let letters be directed
by you into the province and to the people abiding
at Arles, by which Marcian being excommunicated,
another may be substituted in his place.” 4
St. Cyprian takes for granted that Pope Stephen has
the necessary authority to excommunicate a bishop in
Gaul and to see to it that another is consecrated in his
stead; it is only necessary to remind him of the need
for taking such action.5 No doubt is entertained that
*“Epist. ad Cornelium,” xiv; P. L., 3, 818*
4 St. Cyprian, “Epist. ad Stephanum Papain”; P. L., 3, 993-994.
5 See pp. 38S sq. regarding St. Cyprian's controversy with Pope
Stephen.

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

365

such action will be taken; in fact, it is so certain that
St. Cyprian speaks as if the matter were already set­
tled, for he says:
“Inform us who has been substi­
tuted at Arles in the place of Marcian, that we may
know to whom to direct our brethren, and to whom we
ought to write.”
IV. Emperor Aurelian (270-275). The supreme
authority of the Roman Pontiff was known even to
the pagans of Rome, as is evident from an incident
that happened in the reign of Aurelian. Paul of Samo­
sata, bishop of Antioch, had been deposed by his fellow­
bishops, but refused to give up possession of the epis­
copal residence. He was protected in this matter by
Zenobia, queen of Palmyra. When Aurelian came to
Antioch after his victory over Zenobia, the case was
brought before him for settlement; “and he decided
it most equitably, ordering the building to be given to
those to whom the bishops of Italy and of the city of
Rome should adjudge it.” 0
The mention of bishops of Italy in connection with the
bishop of Rome does not weaken the testimony in the least,
since it is well-known that the Pope did not decide important
questions without first seeking counsel of others. It was
customary to convoke a synod composed of the bishops in the
vicinity of Rome, and those who happened to be visiting there
at the time. The titular priests and regional deacons also
took part in the deliberations. The decisions arrived at
were embodied in the form of synodal decrees. For this rea­
son the Pope generally employed the plural we when comc Eusebius, “Hist. Ecclesiastica,” vii, 30, xix; P. G., 20, 719.*

366

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

municating with other churches. The Pope still has his ad­
visers; the bishops in the vicinity of Rome, the titular priests
of the City, and the regional deacons form the college of
cardinals,—the Pope’s cabinet of official counselors.

§ 4. Witnesses jrom the Second Century
I. St. Irenæus (d. about 200). The testimony of
St. Irenæus is especially valuable, because it gives
the faith of the Church in the East and West alike.
He was born and grew to manhood in Asia Minor,
where he heard the teaching of St. Polycarp, a disciple
of St. John the Evangelist. He then came to Rome
and was finally made bishop of Lyons in Gaul.
In his work Against Heresies, St. Irenæus appeals
to the doctrines handed down by lawful succession from
the Apostles as proof against the heretics of his day.
He then says: “It would be very tedious, in such a
volume as this, to reckon up the successions in all the
churches,” it will be sufficient “to indicate that tradi­
tion derived from the Apostles of the very great, the
very ancient and universally known Church founded
and organized at Rome by the two most glorious
Apostles, Peter and Paul, ... for it is a matter of
necessity that every Church should agree with this
Church on account of its prééminent authority, that
is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the Apostolic
tradition has been preserved by those who exist every­
where.” 1
1 “Adversus Hareses,” iii, 2, 2; P. G., 7, 848.

——

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

367

It is evident that St. Irenæus attributes some special
preeminence to the Roman Church, whose bishops are
the lawful successors of SS. Peter and Paul: “The
blessed Apostles, then having founded and built up
the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the
office of the episcopate ... to him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the
Apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.” Con­
sequently the Roman Church is eminent, not because
it was located at Rome, but because it was founded by
the Apostles and derives its authority from them. St.
Irenæus indicates the nature of this preeminence in
his account of St. Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians:
“In the time of this Clement, no small dissension hav­
ing occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church
in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the
Corinthians exhorting them to peace, renewing their
faith and declaring the tradition which it had lately
received from the Apostles.”2 In other words, the
Church at Rome, under the guidance of St. Clement,
exercised a preeminence of real jurisdiction over the
Church at Corinth.
Some non-Catholic scholars seek to evade the force of the
passage from St. Irenæus by claiming that the preeminent
authority was that of the city, to which people flocked from
all parts of the Empire, bringing with them the traditions of
their own churches. “Everybody visits Rome,” says one
author, “hence you find there faithful from every side; and
2 “Adversus Hærcses,” iii, 3, 3 ; P. G., 7, 849.*

368

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

their united testimony it is which preserves in Rome the pure
Apostolic tradition. The faith is preserved by those who
come to Rome, not by the Bishop who presides there.” 3 In
this interpretation the Latin convenire is taken to mean as­
semble or resort, instead of agree; “Every church must resort
to the Church of Rome because of the fact that it is located
in the capital of the Empire.” But this does not suit the
context; the principality is that of the Church in Rome, not
of the city itself, which is mentioned only incidentally.
Furthermore, why was it necessary for every church to resort
to the church at Rome, if it possessed no special authority?
St. Irenæus plainly states that Apostolic traditions are pre­
served in the Roman Church, not by the faithful who flock
there, but by the lawful succession of pastors in that church.
He says: “To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus . . .
Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now in
the twelfth place from the Apostles, hold the inheritance of
the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the
ecclesiastical tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching
of the truth have come down to us.” 4

II. Pope Victor I (189-198). The Churches of
Asia Minor celebrated Easter on the day of the Jewish
Pasch, regardless of the day of the week on which
it might fall. The Western Church had always cele­
brated the feast on a Sunday. Several years before
the time of Victor, this difference in rite had been dis­
cussed by Pope Anicetus and St. Polycarp but nothing
was done in the matter. Pope Victor now decided to
bring about uniformity by having the churches of Asia
3 Roberts-Donaldson, “Ante-Nicene Fathers,” Vol. I, p. 460.
♦“Adversus Hæreses,” iii, 3, 3; P. G., 7, 8*

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

369

follow the practice of the West; he therefore asked the
bishops of those parts to hold conferences to consider
the matter and report to him. This is evident from
the letter of Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, informing
Pope Victor of their decision. He says: “I could
mention the bishops who were present, whom I sum­
moned at your request.” He then continues to inform
the Pope that the bishops had decided to continue the
old custom, because it had been handed down from
the days of St. John the Apostle, and had been hal­
lowed by the approval of many saintly bishops.5
This decision did not please the Pope; he condemned
their custom and threatened to excommunicate all who
refused to conform with the practice of the West in this
matter. At this juncture, St. Irenæus wrote to Pope
Victor, with due reverence (προσηκόντων) t as Eusebius
informs us, but more sharply than was necessary
(ττλν/κηκίότερον). He did not accuse the Pope of ex­
ceeding his authority by threatening excommunication,
but simply advised moderation in a matter that was
purely disciplinary. He cited the example of Victor’s
predecessors, who were content to tolerate a custom of
such antiquity. The whole tenor of the letter, as
preserved by Eusebius, recognizes full authority in the
Pope to proceed with the threatened excommunication,
but questions the prudence of such action. β
It is not certain whether Victor actually excom­
municated the refractory bishops of the East; but
5 Eusebius, “Hist. Eccles.,” v, 24 (Greek text); P. G., 20, 495.
e Eusebius, “Hist. Eccles.,” v, 24 ; P. G., 20, 494 sq.

370

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

the western custom of celebrating Easter on Sunday
soon became the practice of the universal Church, des­
pite the Apostolic origin claimed for the practice of
the Asiatic churches. This in itself shows the influence
which Rome exercised over the whole Church in those
early days.
III. St. Abercius. In the epitaph which Abercius,
bishop of Hieropolis in Phrygia, composed for his own
tomb, he says that he had travelled to Rome at the
command of Christ, “to contemplate the royal city,
and to behold a queen in vestments of gold, and golden
sandals on her feet. There I saw a people having a
gleaming seal.”
Abercius uses symbolic language throughout the in­
scription. For example, he calls Christ “the Fish
which the chaste virgin drew from the fountain.” In
like manner he refers to the church in Rome as “a
queen in vestments oj gold.” Lowrie, a non-Catholic
scholar, says: “Under the figure of the queen clad in
gold, he refers to the Roman Church. The Christian
people of Rome had the gleaming seal. It is well
known that baptism was commonly spoken of under
the figure of a seal.” 7
Now, since Abercius undertook the long and diffi­
cult journey to Rome at the command of Christ to
see the church there, he must have recognized some
special importance attached to that church. The
epitaph does not state the nature of that prééminence,
T Walter Lowrie, “Monuments of the Early Church,” p. 236;
cfr. Lederq in “Dictionnaire d'Archéologic,” Vol. I, col. 66 sqq.

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

371

but it may easily be conjectured, if we remember that
only a few years later St. Irenæus calls it the very
great and very ancient church founded by the two
great Apostles Peter and Paul; the church with which
all others must agree, or to which all others must re­
sort, on account of its prééminent authority.

§ 5. Witnesses from the First Century
I. St. Ignatius Martyr.1 About 107 St. Ignatius,
bishop of Antioch in Syria, was sent to Rome to be
cast to the wild beasts in the amphitheatre. While on
his journey he wrote to several churches in Asia and
also to the church at Rome. Each letter begins with
epithets in praise of the church addressed; those in
praise of the Roman Church are far more numerous
and more significant than any other. It is the church
“which has obtained mercy through the majesty of the
Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten
Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by
the will of Him that willeth all things which are accord­
ing to the love of Jesus Christ, our God; which pre­
sides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy
of God, worthy of honor, worthy of the highest happi­
ness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every
desire, worthy of being deemed holy and which pre­
sides over love.” 2
1 The letters of St. Ignatius were written in the first years
of the second century, but his testimony is placed in the first,
because practically his whole life belonged to that century.
3 Funk, “Patres Apostolici,” Vol. I, p. 253 *

372

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

Such praise bestowed upon the Church of Rome
certainly bespeaks some prééminence, as the Anglican
Bishop Lightfoot concedes.3 The Roman Church pre­
sides in the country of the Romans; she presides over
the love-feasts or as some scholars render it: “presid­
ing over the society oj charity, i. e., the Church,”—
προκαθημάη ττμ; αγάπης. Duchesne remarks that “if the
martyr had been writing to the bishop of Rome, these
presidencies might be considered local in character, be­
cause in his own diocese the bishop always presides.
But here there is no question of the bishop, but of the
Church. Over what did the Roman Church preside?
Was it merely over some other churches or dioceses
within a limited area? Ignatius had no idea of a
limitation of that kind. Besides, were there in Italy
any Christian communities distinct in organization
from the community of Rome? The most natural
meaning of such language is that the Roman Church
presides over all the churches.” 4
St. Ignatius also refers to a teaching authority ex­
ercised by the church at Rome over other churches.
He says: “Ye have never envied any one; ye have
taught others. Now I desire that those things may
be confirmed (by your conduct) which in your in­
structions ye enjoin (on others).” 56
3 J. B. Lightfoot, “St. Clement of Rome,” Vol. I, p. 71.
4 Duchesne, “Églises Séparées,” Engl. Tr. by A. H. Mathew, pp.
85-86.
6 Funk, “Patres Apostolici,” Vol. I, p. 255.*

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

373

II. St. Clement of Rome (91-100). About ten
years before St. Ignatius addressed his letter to the
Romans, St. Clement had occasion to use the teaching
authority referred to in that letter. He also inter­
posed in the government of another church, thus show­
ing his primacy of jurisdiction. “In the time of this
Clement,” says St. Ircnæus, “no small dissention hav­
ing occurred at Corinth, the Church in Rome dis­
patched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians,
bringing them to peace, renewing their faith, and de­
claring the tradition which it had lately received from
the Apostles.” G This letter mentioned by St. Irenæus
is still extant, and all scholars admit that it was written
by St. Clement of Rome, the third successor of St.
Peter.
It is not certain whether the Corinthians had ap­
pealed to St. Clement, or whether he intervened of his
own accord, but it is certain that he acted with full
authority, as Lightfoot candidly admits. He says:
“It may perhaps seem strange to describe this noble
remonstrance as the first step toward papal domina­
tion; and yet undoubtedly this is the case.” 6
7 If this
be the first step toward papal domination, then such
domination must have been of Apostolic origin, for,
as St. Irenæus says, “this man [Clement],
as
he
had
9
seen the blessed Apostles, and had been conversant with
them, might be said to have the preaching of the
6 St. Irenæus, “Adversus Hærcses,” III. 3, 3; P. G., 7, 850.
7 J. B. Lightfoot, “St. Clement of Rome,” Vol. I, p. 70.

374

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

Apostles still ringing in his ears, and their traditions
before his eyes.” 8
One passage will be sufficient to show the tone of
authority used by St. Clement: “But if any will not
obey these things which He [Christ] has spoken
through us, let them know that they will be implicat­
ing themselves in no small danger and offense.” 9 This
passage alone amply justifies the statement of Bishop
Lightfoot. St. Clement claims divine authority; it is
Christ who has spoken through him, and those who
do not obey, will be guilty of grievous sin. Yet
despite this imperious tone and the claim to divine
authority, there was not the slightest protest on the
part of the Corinthians. For many years the letter was
read at Corinth during divine services and even num­
bered among the inspired works of Scripture, as
Eusebius informs us.10 The Corinthians must have
accepted this “first step toward papal domination” as
in full accord with the teaching of Christ and His
Apostles!
CONCLUSION

The testimony of Christian antiquity proves beyond
doubt that the bishop of Rome was universally recog­
nized as head of the Church by East and West alike.
The witnesses for the third, fourth, and fifth centuries
are numerous; those from the first and second are
8 “Adversus Hærcses,” III, 3, 3; P. G., 7, S50*
9 Funk, “Patres Apostolici,” Vol. I, p. 175.
i°“Hist. Eccles.,” iv, 23; P. G., 20, 390.

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

375

necessarily few in number, because very few documents
have come down to us from those times. Only three
extra-scriptural documents by Christian authors can
be ascribed to the first century, yet one of these shows
the bishop of Rome exercising undisputed supremacy
in the Church. A recent author has said: “Instead
of being distressed at the small amount of evidence
for the papal claims in the earliest times, I stand
amazed at the celerity with which the papal idea came
to maturity. . . . The most eminent Protestant
scholars in Germany take a view of the development
of the Roman Church which in some cases, I think,
exaggerates its rapidity and import. But when all
allowances are made, the facts as they are, present us
with a surprising development in an age when the re­
lation of the Son of God to the Father, and the Divinity
of the Holy Ghost . . . were ill understood, or in­
correctly stated, by Catholic writers.” 1
The actual exercise of papal powers gradually in­
creased with the growth of the Church. Many powers,
latent in the primacy of Peter, were not exercised or
fully realized until circumstances demanded it. This
is true of all governmental powers, and was therefore
to be expected in the Church. Christ instituted the
primacy to meet conditions as they arose in the Church;
it must be sufficiently elastic to accommodate itself to
the ever-growing needs of the Church, as she increases
in numbers and extent. It must also be able to meet
the problems presented by the advancing stages of
1 Dom Chapman, “Bishop Gore and Catholic Claims,” p. 62.

376

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

civilization among the various peoples and nations.
There must be a gradual unfolding of latent powers
to make it possible for the Church “to keep her identity
without losing her life, and keep her life without losing
her identity; to enlarge her teachings without chang­
ing them, and to remain ever the same, yet always de­
veloping.” 2
God summed up His revelations to man when He
promised that the seed of the woman should one day
bruise the serpent’s head; all subsequent prophecy
was but the unfolding of this one promise. So like­
wise in the creation of His Church, Christ set forth
in a word the person of its ruler and the nature of its
perpetual government. He spoke to Peter once in
promise and once in fulfillment. It was the voice
of the Creator summing up his work in a word. Age
after age brings to light more and more the force of
that word. Time has not vet exhausted that first
prophecy made to Adam, neither has it revealed all
contained in those words addressed to Peter on the
shores of Lake Tiberias some nineteen hundred years
ago.3
OF

ART III. OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED

Objection I.—The Roman primacy is excluded by
the fact that Christ alone is Head over all the Church:
“The Church, being to abide through all generations
of time, needs also an ever-abiding head; and such is
2W. H. Mallock, “Is Life Worth Living?” p 313.
3T. W. Allies, “The See of Peter,” pp. 167-168.

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

377

Jesus Christ alone. Wherefore the Apostles take no
higher title than that of ministers of the Church.” 1
Answer.—This is the stock argument of the Eastern
schismatics, who do not seem to realize that it would
also exclude the authority of their own patriarchs,
since Christ is Head of each and every part of the
Church in the same sense in which He is Head of the
whole Church. Only Protestants who maintain that
the Church is essentially invisible can logically bring
such an objection against the primacy. But it has al­
ready been proved against them that the Church is
an external, visible society, and as such must have a
visible head. The Roman Primacy does not exclude
or deny the headship of Christ, since the Roman Pontiff
is head of the Church in his capacity as Vicar of
Christ. Our Lord said to Peter: “Feed My lambs;
feed My sheep’" The chief shepherd of a flock need
not be the owner of it.
The fact that the Apostles called themselves min­
isters is no objection; they were ministers of Christ
and as such exercised jurisdiction over His Church
with St. Peter at their head. Their position in the
Church is determined from the authority they exer­
cised, rather than from the title they assumed. The
Pope frequently signs himself, “the servant oj serv­
ants’’ but he does not thereby intend to renounce his
supreme authority in the Church.
Objection II.—The primacy of the Roman Pontiff
1 Philaret’s “Longer Catechism of the Eastern Church”;
Schaff, Vol. ii, p. 485.

cfr.

378

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

is due entirely to human causes. The bishop of Rome,
living in the capital of the Empire, soon came to be
regarded as having some preeminence over other
bishops. This gradually developed into a preeminence
of power and jurisdiction, which ambition gladly seized
upon for its own aggrandizement.2
Answer.—No hypothesis, however plausible it may
seem, can be accepted in explanation of a fact whose
true explanation we know to be different. We know
why the bishop of Rome was accepted as supreme
pastor in all ages, because we have the testimony of
those who so accepted him. The Fathers of the
Church and the bishops assembled in councils have
always proclaimed the Roman Pontiff supreme pastor,
because he holds the place of Petèr, prince of the
Apostles and foundation of the Church. They never
connected the primacy with Rome because Rome was
the capital of the Empire. Moreover, the bishop of
Rome did not lose his preeminence when the imperial
power was transferred to Constantinople, which was
never recognized as anything more than a patriarchal
see, and that only after long and persistent efforts on
the part of bishops and emperors.
There is no doubt that God, in His wisdom, selected
Rome as the seat of primacy in the Church, because
external circumstances made the exercise of universal
jurisdiction easier there than elsewhere. The imperial
preeminence of Rome was not the cause of the primacy,
but the reason why it was located there instead of else3 Cf. W. Palmer, “Treatise on the Church,” Vol. ii, p. 547 sqq.

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

379

where, for, as Leo the Great says, “The most blessed
Peter, prince of the Apostolic band, was appointed to
the citadel of the Roman Empire, that the light of
truth, which was being displayed for the salvation of
all the nations, might spread itself more effectively
throughout the body of the world from the head it­
self.” 3
Objection III.—The first Council of Constantinople
(381) issued a decree to the effect that “the bishop
of Constantinople shall have the prerogative of honor
after the bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is
New Rome.”4 Therefore, the Roman Pontiff owes
his prééminence to the fact that he is bishop of “Old
Rome,” as the Council of Chalcedon explicitly stated
in its twenty-eighth canon (451): “We also enact
and decree the same things concerning the privileges
of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is
New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges
to the throne of Old Rome, because it was the royal
city. And the hundred and fifty most religious
bishops,5 actuated by the same considerations, gave
equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome,
justly judging that the city which is honored with the
Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges
with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical
matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after
her, so that in the Pontic, the Asian and the Thracian
sLeo the Great, “Sermon.,” 82, 3; P. L., 54, 424.*
4 Mansi, T. Ill, col. 573.
5 The bishops attending the first Council of Constantinople.

380

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also
of the dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians,
should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne
of the most holy Church of Constantinople.” β
Answer.—The two canons quoted are a proof for
the divine origin of the Roman primacy rather than
an objection against it. If the bishop of Rome ob­
tained preeminence because of the imperial dignity of
the city, the bishop of Constantinople, now become the
capital of the Empire, should have received this pre­
eminence instead of ranking next after Rome. The
Fathers of two great councils would certainly not have
committed such a blunder.
As a matter of fact, neither of these two canons is
concerned with the primacy of Rome; they refer to
patriarchal rights and privileges, as the latter part of
the canon of Chalcedon explicitly states. From the
earliest times, the Church had been divided into three
patriarchates,—Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch,—with
precedence of honor in the order named. In each case
the patriarch had certain rights and privileges in re­
gard to consecrating bishops and archbishops in
his territory. The Nicene Council (325) had recog­
nized these ancient rights and ordered them to be
respected.
The Emperors and bishops of Constantinople con­
stants strove to have their own church raised to
patriarchal dignity next to that of Rome, and there­
fore, with precedence over Alexandria and Antioch.
6 Mansi, t. vii, col. 370.*

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

381

But the ancient arrangement sanctioned by the sixth
canon of Nicæa stood in their way; they could offer
but one reason for changing the established order,—
because Constantinople is New Rome, i. e., the new
capital of the Empire. They would have it raised to
patriarchal dignity with jurisdiction over the churches
of Pontus, Asia Minor, and Thrace. Leo the Great,
who was pope at the time of the Council of Chalcedon,
rejected the canon on the ground that it violated the
sixth canon of Nicæa, but he made no reference to
any violation of his own rights as supreme pastor.
Consequently he failed to see any denial of the Roman
Supremacy involved, although his legates were present
at the council and must have known the sentiments of
its Fathers.
In regard to this matter, a non-Catholic scholar says:
“It should be remembered that the change effected
by this canon did not affect Rome directly in any way,
but did seriously affect Alexandria and Antioch, which
till then had ranked next after the See of Rome. When
the Pope refused to acknowledge the authority of this
canon, he was in reality defending the principle laid
down in the canon of Nicæa that in such matters the
ancient customs should continue. Even the last clause,
it would seem, could give no offence to the most sensi­
tive on the papal claims, for it implies a wonderful
power in the rank of Old Rome, if a See is to rank
next to it because it happens to be “New Rome.” 7
J

7 Henry R
xiv, p. 178.

/

Percival in “Nicene and Post-Niccne Fathers,” Vol.

382

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

Objection IV.—The sixth canon of Nicæa makes
the Church of Alexandria equal in power with that of
Rome: “Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya,
and the Pentapolis prevail, that the bishop of Alex­
andria have jurisdiction in all these, since this is also
the custom for the bishop of Rome.”
Answer.—This canon was evidently intended to
confirm some rights of jurisdiction which the church of
Alexandria had been exercising over other churches in
Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis. What these rights
were is uncertain, but the reasons for their official
recognition are given; viz., their antiquity (“let the
ancient customs prevail·’) and the authority, or per­
haps the example, of the Roman Church (“this is also
the custom for the bishop of Rome”). The meaning
of this last phrase is very obscure. Some take it to
mean that the ancient customs should prevail because
approved of by the bishop of Rome. The more prob­
able meaning is that the ancient customs should pre­
vail because a like custom obtains at Rome, i. e., the
bishop of Rome exercises like jurisdiction over the
churches of his patriarchate. The first interpretation
explicitly recognizes the supremacy of Rome,—customs
are to prevail because approved by Rome. The second
implicitly recognizes that supremacy by making the
Roman Church the model for all others. But in any
case the council is concerned only with patriarchal
rights, as a non-Catholic author freely admits: “It
is evident that the council has not in view here the

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

383

primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the whole Church,
but simply his power as patriarch.” 8
Objection V.—The Church in Africa did not rec­
ognize any primacy in the Roman Church, as is evident
from the action taken at the provincial council held
at Mileve in 416. It decreed that “presbyters, dea­
cons, and lower clerics, who are dissatisfied with the
judgments of their bishops in any case, may be heard
by neighboring bishops; . . . but if they wish to ap­
peal from their decision, such appeal shall be made to
an African council or to the primates of their provinces.
Any one presuming to appeal beyond the seas, shall
be excommunicated in Africa.” 9 The phrase, beyond
the seas, evidently refers to Rome. Consequently any
appeal to Rome from Africa was punished by excom­
munication, according to this canon, which was ap­
proved by a synod held at Carthage in 418 and by an­
other at Mileve in 419.
Answer.—The right of appeal beyond the seas was
denied priests and lower clerics only; bishops were not
included in the provisions of this canon, and the case of
Apiarius proves that appeal to Rome on the part of
priests was not so strictly forbidden as the canon would
indicate. Apiarius, a priest in Africa, was excommuni­
cated and deposed shortly after this decree had been
passed, but he went to Rome and presented his case
8 Henn·· R. Percival in “Niccne and Post-Niccne Fathers,” Vol.
xiv, p. 16.
9 Canon xxii; Labbe-Cosart, t. ii, col. 1542.

3S4

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

to Pope Zosimus, who decided that he should have
a rehearing. As a result, the African bishops ab­
solved and reinstated him. Four years later he was
again deposed, and again appealed to Rome. Celestine,
who was then Pope, ordered him reinstated and sent a
legate into Africa to see that the order was carried out.
In the meantime, Apiarius had confessed to the crimes
of which he was accused, and the legate’s mission came
to nought, because it was evident that the Pope had
acted without due knowledge of the case. The bishops
of Africa then wrote to Cesletine: “We beseech you
that hereafter you will not give ear too readily to per­
sons coming from Africa, nor receive into communion
those whom we have excommunicated, lest it appear
that persons excommunicated in their own provinces
have been too hastily restored to communion by Your
Holiness without due consideration.” 10
These words contain a sharp but well-deserved re­
buke, yet they plainly recognize the primacy of Rome.
There is no denial of the pope’s authority; neither is
there any complaint that Apiarius had violated the
canon against appeals beyond the seas,—a canon made,
not to deny the supremacy of Rome, but to prevent
just such mistakes as Celestine had made in the case
of Apiarius.
Objection VI.—St. Jerome, writing to Evangelus,
says: “If you ask for authority, the world outweighs
its Capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it
be at Rome or at Eugubium, whether it be at Con10 “Epist. ad Cælcstinum”; P. L., 50, 424.

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

385

stantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria
or at Zaon, his dignity is one and his priesthood is
one.” 11
Answer.—The words quoted from St. Jerome’s let­
ter have no reference whatever to the primacy of the
Roman Pontiff, but are directed against an abuse then
prevalent at Rome. This abuse consisted in an as­
sumption of superiority over the priests on the part
of the deacons. St. Jerome says: “Bad habits have
by degrees so far crept in that I have seen a deacon,
in the absence of the bishop, seat himself among the
presbyters and at social gatherings give his blessing
to them. Those who act thus must learn that they
are wrong and must give heed to the Apostles’ words.
. . . They must consider the reasons which led to the
appointment of deacons in the beginning.”
When it was objected that this was the custom at
Rome, St. Jerome replied: “Why do you bring for­
ward a custom which exists in one city only? Why
do you oppose to the laws of the Church a paltry ex­
ception which has given rise to arrogance and pride?
. . . If you ask for authority, the world outweighs
its capital,” i. e., if you seek to justify your actions by
appealing to custom, you should appeal to the customs
of the Church in general, not to the abuse of your own
city. Why should deacons be set above priests in your
city, if they are not so exalted in the rest of the world,
since priests are of equal dignity wherever they are
found? In fact, priests differ from bishops only in the
11 “Epist. ad Evangelum”; P. L., 22, 1194.*

386

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

power of giving Orders, yet all bishops have the same
priesthood and are entitled to the same honor. If
deacons are not exalted above bishops in any part of
the world, why should they be exalted above priests
in Rome or elsewhere?
There is not a single word in the whole letter that
refers even remotely to the primacy of the Roman
Pontiff.
Objection VII.—St. Gregory the Great severely
rebuked John the Faster, bishop of Constantinople, for
assuming the title of “universal bishop.” He says:
“None of the Roman Pontiffs ever wished to be known
by such a title; no one was ever so foolhardy as to
assume such a name.” 12 Here, then, is an explicit
repudiation of the primacy; before Gregory’s day no
bishop of Rome was so foolhardy as to assume the
title of universal bishop, as the Popes now do.
Answer.—In reply to this objection it may be
asked, why St. Gregory dared to reprove the bishop
of an eastern Church if he had no authority to do so?
It was not a case of fraternal correction; he sent
Sabinianus as legate to Constantinople and wrote to
John saying: “In case of your refusing to amend,
I forbade him to celebrate Mass with you, that so I
might first appeal to Your Holiness through a sense
of shame, to the end that, if the execrable and profane
assumption could not be corrected through shame,
12 “Epist. ad Eulogium”; P. L., 77, 771.

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

387

strict canonical measures might be resorted to.” 13 In
another letter to John, bishop of Syracuse, he says:
“Who doubts that the Church of Constantinople is
subject to the Apostolic See, as the most pious Emperor
and our brother, the bishop of the same city, con­
stantly profess?” 14
Why, then, did Gregory say that no bishop of Rome
had ever assumed such a title as that of universal
bishop? The solution of this question is very simple
when it is known that John the Faster used the title
to signify that he was the only bishop properly socalled; all others were merely his vicars or agents.
That, at least, is the sense in which St. Gregory under­
stood it, for he wrote to Empress Constantia: “It is
sad to see how my brother and fellow-bishop is pa­
tiently borne with when he rejects all others and
wishes to be called the only bishop.” 15 He uses the
same words in his letter to John himself: “Having re­
jected your brethren, you desire to be known as the
only bishop.” 10 It is perfectly true that no bishop
of Rome ever assumed the title of universal bishop in
that sense.
Objection VIII.—There is not a single word con­
cerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff in St. Cyp13 St. Gregory the Great, “Epist. ad Joannem Constant.”; P.
L. 77, 738 *
11 St. Gregory the Great, “Epist. ad Joannem Syracusanum”;
P. L. 77, 957.
15 “Epist. ad Constantiam”; P. L., 77, 749.*
10 “Epist. ad Joannem Constant.”; P. L., 77, 738.

388

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

rian’s treatise on the unity of the Church, yet in a
work of that nature he could scarcely have failed to
mention the primacy if it had been known to him.
Answer.—St. Cyprian wrote this treatise on unity
for the purpose of combating a schism then ravaging
the Church at Carthage. His sole intention was to
prove that, according to the institution of Christ, there
can be but one lawful bishop in each church, and that,
as a consequence, whoever withdraws from the author­
ity of that one bishop, ceases to be a member of the
Catholic Church. He was concerned with the unity,
not of the whole Church, but of each particular church
or diocese. For this reason he had no occasion to treat
of the Roman primacy. He mentions the See of Peter
merely as an example of what Christ intended each par­
ticular church to be in regard to unity.
Objection IX.—St. Cyprian and his friend Firmilan of Cæsarea stoutly resisted the decree of Pope
Stephen concerning Baptism and declared that, in
ruling their dioceses, bishops are accountable to no one
except God. They also referred to Pope Stephen as
proud, ignorant, contumacious, and the friend of here­
tics. This proves that neither St. Cyprian nor Firmilian recognized any superior authority in the Roman
pontiff.
Answer.—In the heat of controversy St. Cyprian
acted against his better judgment and thus involved
himself in many errors and inconsistencies. The best
answer to the objection will be found in a short history
of the controversy itself.

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

389

St. Cyprian had been teaching that Baptism adminis­
tered by anyone outside the Church must be invalid,
and consequently heretics and schismatics coming into
the Church must be re-baptized, or rather baptized,
since the former ceremony was no Baptism at all.
This doctrine, which he explains at length in a letter
to Magnus, was approved by a synod of African bishops
at Carthage in 255. A letter to this effect was sent to
the bishops of Mauretania, but they rejected the doc­
trine as opposed to the tradition of the Church. When
St. Cyprian heard of this, he rejected the authority of
tradition, saying: “The matter is to be settled by
reason, not tradition.” 17 In this he contradicted him­
self, because tradition was the principal argument he
adduced in his letter to the bishops of Numidia: “We
set forth no new doctrine, but one already established
by our predecessors.” 18
A second synod of sixty bishops held at Carthage in
the beginning of 256 reaffirmed the doctrine of St.
Cyprian and sent a synodical letter to St. Stephen, in
which they openly declared that bishops are free in the
administration of their respective dioceses, having to
render account to God alone. Consequently each
bishop was free to act as he thought proper in the mat­
ter of re-baptizing: “In this matter we constrain no
one, nor make laws for anyone, since each bishop is
free in the administration of his own church and must
17 “Epist. ad Quintum”; P. L., 3, 1106.
18 “Epist. ad Januarium”; P. L., 3, 1038.*

390

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

render an account to God for his acts.” 19 Here, again,
St. Cyprian contradicted himself. He had been teach­
ing that this question of Baptism, was a matter of
faith; now it is a mere matter of discipline, in which
each bishop may act as he thinks best.
St. Stephen’s reply to this letter has not been pre­
served, but it is evident from St. Cyprian’s letter to
Jubaianus that he severely reprehended the bishops
for their action and called them perverters of the truth.
The bishops had written: “We constrain no one, nor
do we make laws for anyone.” St. Stephen did both
by issuing a peremptory decree and threatening excom­
munication for those who violated it. The decree
read: “Therefore, if a person comes to you from any
heresy whatsoever, nothing shall be done except what
has been handed down by tradition; viz., that hands be
imposed upon him in penance.” 20
These facts and the nature of the decree are gathered
from St. Cyprian’s letter to Pompey and from Firmilian’s letter to St. Cyprian. Firmilian plainly indi­
cates that St. Stephen had threatened excommunication
and based his authority for so doing upon the fact of
his being the successor of St. Peter: “Stephen dares
to break the peace with you, which his predecessors
have always kept. . . . And in this I am justly indig­
nant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that
he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and
contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on
19 St. Cyprian, “Epist. ad Stcphanum”; P. L., 3, 1050.
20 St. Cyprian, “Epist. ad Pompeium”; P. L., 3, 1123.

—*■

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

391

whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should
introduce many other rocks. ... He is not ashamed
to divide the brotherhood for the sake of maintaining
heretics; and in addition calls Cyprian a false Christ,
a false prophet, and a deceitful worker.” 21
In September 256 another synod was held in Car­
thage. Various letters were read to the assembled
bishops, but St. Stephen’s letter was not among them;
neither does his name seem to have been mentioned
during the session, yet the address of St. Cyprian
shows that the Pope’s authority was strongly felt in
that meeting. After the letters had been read, St.
Cyprian urged the bishops to express their sentiments
freely and without fear: “It is now time for every
one to express his opinions in this matter of Baptism
without judging any one or depriving him of commun­
ion if he happens to differ from us. None of us have
constituted ourselves a bishop or bishops, neither do we
wish to restrain our colleagues by tyrannical fear.” 2223
What was the necessity for such admonition if every
bishop was free in the government of his own church,
having to give an account to God alone? Why the
mention of a bishop oj bishops,22 if no one claimed that
position? Why the reminder that no one was to be
excommunicated or constrained by tyrannical fear for
holding dissenting views? Almost every word of St.
21 Firmilian, “Epist. ad Cyprianum”; P. L., 3, 1169 sq*
23 St. Cyprian, “Epist. ad Jovianum”; P. L., 3, 1086.
23 This phrase seems to be an echo of Tcrtullian, whose works
greatly influenced St. Cyprian. Cfr. above, p. 362.

392

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

Cyprian manifests a fear of superior authority resting
in some bishop of bishops, who could be none other than
St. Stephen, Bishop of Rome. Furthermore, if St.
Cyprian and the other bishops did not recognize the
primacy of Rome, why were they so solicitous to gain
the approval of St. Stephen? The bishops of Maure­
tania had rejected their doctrine, but no further at­
tempts were made to win them over. The bishop of
Rome,—one single bishop,—rejects the doctrine and
strenuous efforts are made to secure his approval;
synods are held, letters are dispatched, and at least two
delegations are sent to Rome.
Persecution put an end to the controversy, but the
decree of St. Stephen was finally accepted throughout
the whole Church. Rome had spoken, the case was
ended. This is the best proof we could have for the
primacy of the Roman Pontiff. St. Cyprian, bishop of
the important sec of Carthage, with many bishops of
Africa and Asia Minor, were arrayed on one side; St.
Stephen, bishop of Rome, on the other; acting as suc­
cessor of St. Peter, he issued a decree of some dozen
words, and that decree becomes the law of the uni­
versal Church’ Rivington well says: “If there be
in this an argument against the supremacy of the pope,
we can desire nothing better than that our opponents
should discover many similar ones in their historical
studies.” 24
This brief account makes it evident that St. Cyprian
really resisted the authority of Pope Stephen, and even
-4 The Primitive Church and the See of Peter,” p. 116.

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

393

denied his primacy, but in words only. In the heat of
controversy, he was carried away and would have
rejected the authority of Rome, but his inner self
would not permit. He struggled against his own con­
victions and lost the fight. His every action proves that
his heart would not consent to what his head contrived.
Hence we may say with St. Augustine: “If any cloud
of human frailty crossed his mind, it was dispelled by
the glorious light of his blood.” 25 He suffered mar­
tyrdom for the faith in 258.
25 St. Augustine, “Contra Donatistas,” I, IS; P. L., 43, 125.

CHAPTER XII
PRIMACY AND EPISCOPATE

The supreme power of the Roman Pontiff brings him
into certain necessary relations with the other bishops
of the Church: (1) in the government of their respec­
tive dioceses, and (2) when assembled in council for
the government of the universal Church. The nature
of these relations is determined by the nature and ex­
tent of the powers exercised by the Roman Pontiff in
the discharge of his duties as supreme pastor and to
some extent also by the manner in which he obtains
these powers.
ART. I.

§ 1.

NATURE OF POWERS AND TENURE OF OFFICE

Nature of the Powers Exercised by the Roman
Pontiff

The Roman Pontiff is the lawful successor of St.
Peter in his supreme power to teach and govern the
whole Church and all its parts. To him belongs the
power and authority to define doctrines and to con­
demn errors, to make and repeal laws, to act as judge
in all matters of faith and morals, to decree and inflict
punishment, to appoint and, if need be, to remove
pastors. This supreme power to shepherd the whole
394

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPATE

395

flock of Christ is truly episcopal, ordinary, and imme­
diate, as the Vatican Council has declared: “We
teach and declare that by the ordinance of the Lord,
the Roman Church holds the primacy of ordinary
power over all others, and that this truly episcopal
power of jurisdiction, which belongs to the Roman Pon­
tiff, is also immediate.” 1
g) episcopal. De Dominis and Febronius taught
that the power of the Roman Pontiff is that of a mere
inspector or supervisor, and consequently he can do no
more than watch over the other bishops so that
they may discharge their duties faithfully. This doc­
trine gives the Roman Pontiff a sort of jurisdiction over
the bishops, but no direct power over the faithful.
The Vatican Council rejected this doctrine when it de­
clared the power of the Roman Pontiff to be truly
episcopal, i. e., he has the same power over all the
faithful that the bishop has over those of his diocese,—
a power that is exercised directly, without any inter­
vention on the part of the bishops.
When Christ said, “Feed My lambs; feed My
sheep,” He gave to St. Peter, and through him to his
successors, direct jurisdiction over all the faithful,—a
jurisdiction that does not have to be exercised through
the bishops, but reaches the faithful directly in every
part of the world, as is evident from those others words,
likewise addressed to St. Peter: “Whatsoever thou
shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven;
and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be
1 Denzingcr, n. 1827.

396

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

loosed also in heaven.33 Hence the Roman Pontiff, as
successor to St. Peter, has power and authority to im­
pose laws upon the faithful without the consent of their
bishop, and even against his wishes. He can also annul
any law or obligation imposed by a bishop upon his
people. In other words, all the faithful, individually
and collectively, are directly subject to the authority of
the Roman Pontiff, which is therefore truly episcopal.
Z>) ordinary. The term ordinary is here opposed
to extraordinary. Febronius, Eybel, and others taught
that the Roman Pontiff can exercise his supreme au­
thority for extraordinary cases only; e.g., when a
bishop fails to perform his duties, or when some un­
usual danger threatens the Church. The Vatican
Council condemned this doctrine in express terms:
“If any one should say . . . that this power [of the
Roman Pontiff] is not ordinary and immediate, . . .
let him be anathema.” 2
Our Lord did not say to St. Peter, “Feed My sheep
if others fail to do so, or if some special danger threat­
ens”; He said simply: “Feed My lambs, feed My
sheep.” The pastoral office thus committed to St.
Peter is lawfully and validly exercised at any time, in
any place, and for any cause whatever pertaining to
the good of the flock. Ordinarily, however, the Roman
Pontiff acts only in matters of general interest to the
Church, or in matters of local interest that have been
referred to him for adjudication. When affairs in a dio­
cese are proceeding in an orderly manner and religion
2Dcnzinger, n. 1831.

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPATE

397

is prospering under the direction of the bishop, there
is little necessity for the Pope to interpose the exercise
of his supreme authority.
c) immediate. The power and authority of the
Roman Pontiff is immediate in the sense that it is re­
ceived immediately from Christ and not through the
agency of another person or group of persons. It has
been proved that power and authority in the Church
do not come to her ministers through the faithful, but
were conferred directly upon the Apostles and descend
to their successors by divine institution. In like man­
ner the supreme power of jurisdiction was conferred
directly and immediately upon St. Peter, to the exclu­
sion even of the other Apostles. Therefore, neither the
faithful nor the bishops of the Church can confer the
powers of the primacy upon the successors of St.
Peter, for, as the axiom says, Nemo dat quod non
habet?
Christ ordained that St. Peter should have successors
in his primacy of jurisdiction over the Church, but He
did not designate the person of the successor. It is
left to the Church to elect, or otherwise designate, the
person who then obtains the power of universal juris­
diction by virtue of divine institution, i. e., immediately
from Christ, not from those who have elected him.
When the Apostolic See is vacant, there is no supreme
authority in the Church; the bishops retain power to
rule their respective dioceses, but no laws can be made
for the universal Church, no dogmas of faith can be de3 No one can give what he does not possess.

398

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

fined, no legitimate council convened. In place of this
supreme authority, the Church has the right and the
duty of selecting someone upon whom Christ will again
bestow it. It is evident, then, that the Apostolic suc­
cession cannot fail in the Apostolic See so long as the
Church herself continues to exist, for although the see
be vacant for many years, the Church always retains
the right to elect a legitimate successor, who then ob­
tains supreme authority according to the institution of
Christ.

§ 2.

Tenure oj the Siipreme Pastoral Office

Eligibility. Any person of the male sex having
the use of reason can be elected Supreme Pontiff, pro­
vided he be a member of the Church and not excluded
from the office by ecclesiastical law. It is absolutely
necessary that the Roman Pontiff be of the male sex,
for to such only has Christ committed the government
of His Church and the power of Orders.1 He must
also be a member of the Church since no one can be
the head of any society unless he also be a member of
that society. Finally, he must have the use of reason
because the primacy consists essentially in the exer­
cise of jurisdiction, and this in itself is an act of reason.
Consequently a person who is permanently insane, or a
person who has not yet attained the age of discretion,
cannot be validly elected to the supreme pontificate.
1 This is proved in any dogmatic treatise on Holy Orders ; e. g.,
MacGuinness, “Commentarii Theologici,” Vol. Ill, p. 506.

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPATE

399

A layman can be validly elected to the office, since
the power of jurisdiction can be exercised without the
power of Orders. In such a case, the person elected
would receive the power of jurisdiction immediately
upon his election, but the power of Orders would come
only through the Sacrament of Orders, which he would
be obliged to receive, since Christ evidently intended
that His Church be governed by bishops,—bishops by
the power of Orders as well as by the power of juris­
diction.
The very nature of the office makes it necessary that
the Supreme Pontiff be a member of the Church and
have the use of reason; the will of Christ demands that
he be of the male sex. Other conditions may be re­
quired by the Church, since the Pope, having full
authority in the government of the Church, may estab­
lish laws that would render a papal election null and
void unless the prescribed conditions be fulfilled. It
is true that the laws made by one pope do not bind his
successors, but they can and do bind the one to be
elected.
Election. Since Christ left to His Church the
right to select the person of St. Peter’s successor, she
has authority to make such regulations in the matter as
she deems proper. But as the Roman Pontiff holds
supreme authority in the Church, the right and duty
of making such regulations devolves upon him alone;
he alone has authority to designate the electors and the
manner of election. In the earlier ages the clergy and
people of Rome elected the Pope. St. Cyprian, re­

400

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

ferring to the election of Pope Cornelius, says: “He
was made bishop by the testimony of almost all the
clergy, by the suffrage of the people who were present,
and by the assembly of the ancient priests and good
men.” 2 Since the middle of the twelfth century the
right of electing the pope has been restricted to the
cardinals.
It is a disputed question whether the pope has au­
thority to appoint his successor, but the common opin­
ion is that he has not. A few popes did name their
successors, but this seems to have amounted to nothing
more than a nomination, since “none of the persons
thus named ever presumed to declare themselves popes
before the ratification of the legal electors had been
obtained.” 3
Loss of the Primacy. The power of the primacy
may be lost by voluntary resignation. Pope Pontian is
said to have resigned when sent into exile, in 235.
This he did to allow another to be elected in his stead
and thus save the Church the inconveniences that
would arise from his enforced absence. Pope Celestine
V also resigned, in 1294, after he had consulted the
cardinals and with their unanimous consent officially
declared that a pope may validly and licitly resign his
office.
Perpetual or long continued insanity would deprive
2 “Epist. ad Antonianum”; P. L., iii, 770 *
8 Catholic Encyclopedia, Art. “Papal Elections.”

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPATE

401

a pope of his office as supreme pastor, because, without
the use of reason, he could not perform the duties es­
sential to that office. A temporary attack, however,
would not deprive him of jurisdiction, but should there
be frequently recurring attacks, he would probably be
obliged in conscience to resign, since there would al­
ways be reason to doubt the validity of his acts and,
as a result, the whole Church would suffer. As a
matter of fact, no pope has ever been afflicted with in­
sanity, and it is probable that God in His providence
will never permit such an unfortunate circumstance to
arise. But should the condition arise, it would devolve
upon the bishops of the Church to establish and de­
clare the fact officially; the cardinals would then pro­
ceed to the election of a successor.
Finally, if a pope, in his private capacity as an in­
dividual, should fall into manifest heresy, he would
cease to be a member of the Church, and in conse­
quence would also cease to be her supreme pastor. But
this is another purely theoretical hypothesis, since no
Pope is known to have fallen into heresy, and it is
most probable that the vicar of Christ is divinely pro­
tected from such a misfortune, although the Church
has never defined anything in the matter.
In case a Pope becomes a scandal to the Church on
account of a sinful life, he can and ought to be admon­
ished by the bishops, singly or in council, but they
have no authority to depose him. “It would be un­
lawful to go beyond admonition; a change of heart must

402

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

be left to the Providence of God and sought only by
prayer and supplication.” 4
A Doubtful Pope. When there is a prudent doubt
about the validity of an election to any official position,
there is also a similar doubt whether the person so
elected really has authority or not. In such a case no
one is bound to obey him, for it is an axiom that a
doubtful law begets no obligation—lex dubia non obli­
gat. But a superior whom no one is bound to obey is
in reality no superior at all. Hence the saying of
Bellarmine: a doubtful pope is no pope. “Therefore,”
continues the Cardinal, “if a papal election is really
doubtful for any reason, the one elected should resign,
so that a new election may be held. But if he refuses
to resign, it becomes the duty of the bishops to adjust
the matter, for although the bishops without the pope
cannot define dogmas nor make laws for the universal
Church, they can and ought to decide, when occasion
demands, who is the legitimate pope; and if the matter
be doubtful, they should provide for the Church by
having a legitimate and undoubted pastor elected.
That is what the Council of Constance rightly did.” 5
Roivre and the Papacy. It is an article of faith
that the successor of St. Peter holds supreme jurisdiction in the Church, and that by divine institution. It
is also a matter of faith that according to the present
order of things the bishop of Rome is that successor.
4 Perrone, “Praclect. Theolog.,” n. 633 ; cfr. Suarez, “De Fide,”
X, 6.
5 Bellarmine, “De Concilio,” ii, 19.

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPATE

403

Theologians, going farther, inquire by what right the
primacy is connected with the Roman See, and whether
it could be transferred to another. The solution of
these questions depends upon the manner in which
Rome was selected as the see of St. Peter’s successors.
There are only three ways in which this could have been
done: (c) Our Lord could have personally designated
Rome as the see of St. Peter and his successors, or (ό)
St. Peter could have been left free to select his own
see, to which Christ would then attach the primacy for
him and his successors. In either case, the primacy
would be attached to the chosen see by divine institu­
tion and could be changed only by divine intervention.
Finally, (c) Christ could have left the selection of a
suitable see entirely in the hands of St. Peter and his
successors. In this case the primacy would be con­
nected with Rome by purely ecclesiastical law and
could be changed at any time by papal authority.
Arguments can be adduced on either side, but the
Church, it seems, has never defined the question. The
majority of theologians hold that the primacy is at­
tached to the Roman See by divine institution and,
therefore, cannot be changed under any circumstances.
Straub even maintains that this is an article of faith.
He appeals to three documents in particular to support
this opinion: (a) A letter of Nicholas I to the Em­
peror Michael, in which he says: “The privileges of
the Roman Church . . . cannot be lessened in the least
nor infringed upon, nor changed, because no human
power can remove the foundation which God has

404

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

laid.”0 (ό) The letter of Clement VI to the Catholi­
cos of the Armenians, stating the conditions for reunion
with Rome: “If you are ready to believe that all the
Roman pontiffs canonically succeeding the blessed
Peter, have succeeded and will succeed him in the same
plenitude and jurisdiction of poAver.” 7 (c) A decree
of the Council of Florence: “We define that the holy
Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff holds the primacy
over the whole world, and that the same Roman Pon­
tiff is the successor of St. Peter.” 8
These documents have considerable weight, but they
are not entirely convincing. The first two may easily
be interpreted without any reference to the question
under discussion, and the third, the decree of the
Council of Florence, was repeated almost verbatim by
the Vatican Council without any intention of deciding
this matter, as is evident from the acts: “The ques­
tions and hypotheses, more or less freely debated, con­
cerning the perpetuity of the city of Rome and the
union of the Primacy with the Roman See were passed
by; they did not wish at this time to stigmatize the
opinion which holds that Peter’s fixing his see at Rome
was of human authority.” 9
Corollary. The Roman Pontiff does not cease to be
bishop of Rome by the mere fact of taking up his residence
0 Denzinger, n. 332.
7 Denzinger, n. 3011.
8 Denzinger, n. 694.
9 Coll. I, vii, 293, 364 sq.

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPATE

405

elsewhere. For many years the popes lived at Avignon in
France, yet they remained the true and legitimate bishops of
Rome. Even granting, then, that the primacy is attached
to the Roman See by divine institution, there is nothing to
prevent the pope taking up his residence in Jerusalem, as
some think he will from the days of Antichrist until the end
of the world. He could simply change his residence while
still remaining bishop of Rome, or the papacy itself might be
removed by divine intervention at the time of Antichrist.
The necessity for a change of residence is indicated in the
Apocalypse, where the complete destruction of Rome is
prophesied,—a destruction that shall continue for all time:
‘"That great city shall be thrown down, and shall be found
no more at all.” 1011 On the other hand, a future greatness
is promised to Jerusalem that would be fittingly fulfilled by
the pope’s residing there to rule the Church, then completely
universal by the submission of all nations and the conver­
sion of the Jews. ‘‘And there shall be one day,” says the
prophet, “which is known to the Lord. . . . And it shall
come to pass in that day that living waters shall go out from
Jerusalem; half of them to the east sea, and· half of them
to the last sea; they shall be in summer and winter. And
the Lord shall be King over all the earth; in that day there
shall be one Lord, and His name shall be one. . . . And
there shall be no more anathema; but Jerusalem shall sit
secure. . . . And many nations shall be joined to the Lord
in that day, and they shall be my people, and 1 will dwell
in the midst of them.” 11
10Apoc. xviii, 21 sq.
11 Zach, xiv, 7-11; ii, 10—12; Cfr. Berry, “The Apocalypse of St.
John,” pp. 193 sqq.

406

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

ART. II.

THE POPE AND THE BISHOPS SEVERALLY

The Episcopate of Divine Origin. The Apostles
personally received from Christ a real power of juris­
diction to be exercised in subjection to St. Peter, their
divinely constituted head. Christ also ordained that
the Apostles should have successors in the Church for
all time. He said to them: “Going therefore, teach
ye all nations, . . . and behold, I am with yon all
days even to the consummation oj the world.” 1 Con­
sequently the bishops of the Church, as successors of
the Apostles, constitute an order of divine institution.
It is the will of Christ that there should always be
bishops to teach and govern the particular portions of
the Church committed to their care. The pope, then,
is not free to govern the Church alone without the as­
sistance of bishops, for, as Leo XIII says, ‘‘although
the power of Peter and his successors is complete and
supreme, it is not an only power. He who made Peter
the foundation of the Church, also selected the twelve,
whom He called Apostles. Just as the authority of
Peter must be perpetuated in the Roman Pontiff, so
also the ordinary power of the Apostles must be in­
herited by their successors, the bishops. Hence the
order of bishops pertains of necessity to the very con­
stitution of the Church.” 2
The Apostolic Succession. Every lawfully con­
stituted bishop is a true successor of the Apostles, taken
1 Matt, xxviii, 19-20.
2 “De Unitate Ecclesiæ,” 29 June, 1896.

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPATE

407

collectively. The Apostles, with St. Peter at their
head, formed a ruling body that must be perpetuated
for all time, and enlarged, as the Church increases in
numbers and extent. In this respect the Apostolic
body is like a legal corporation,—it must be perpetuated
and enlarged by the admission, from time to time, of
new members, who participate in the powers originally
conferred upon its first members, the Apostles. A
bishop, then, is a new member incorporated into the
Apostolic body perpetuated in the Church; he suc­
ceeds the Apostles in the same sense that a new mem­
ber of a corporation succeeds its charter members.
The presidency, or supreme power, over the Apostolic
body is held ex officio by the Roman Pontiff, in virtue
of the fact that he is the direct and only successor of
St. Peter, whom Christ personally constituted its first
head, ordaining that his successors should hold the same
position.
Every episcopal see in the Church is truly Apostolic,
because its bishop is a true successor of the Apostles
and inherits their episcopal powers and authority to
teach and govern, although he does not inherit the
prerogatives peculiar to them as Apostles. The Ro­
man See is preëminently Apostolic, because its bishop
succeeds one particular Apostle, St. Peter, not only in
his episcopal power, but also in his power as supreme
head of the apostolic body. For this reason the term
Apostolic See has been applied exclusively to Rome for
many centuries. St. Vincent of Lerins, in the begin­
ning of the fifth century, deemed it unnecessary to use

408

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

any other title to distinguish the Roman See from all
others.
The Appointment of Bishops. Christ personally
selected the first members of the Apostolic body: “He
called unto him whom he would himself, and they
came to him. And he made that twelve should be
with him and that he might send them to preach.”
None but those chosen by Christ Himself could be
numbered with the Apostles, for He said to them:
“You have not chosen me; but I have chosen you and
have appointed you, that you should go and bring
forth fruit.” 3
4 St. Paul also says: “Neither doth any
man take the honor to himself, but he that is called oj
God, as Aaron was.” 5
After the Ascension St. Peter and his successors take
the place of Christ as visible head of the Apostolic body,
with full authority to carry out His will: “Whatsoever
thou shall bind on earth, it shall be bound also in
heaven.” 0 Consequently the Roman Pontiff, as suc­
cessor of St. Peter, has sole authority to accept new
members into the Apostolic body, i. e., he alone has
authority to constitute bishops, since authority to teach
and govern the faithful was conferred upon the Apostles
as a body and can be obtained only by incoporation into
that body.
The veryr nature of the episcopal office and of the
3 Mark iii, 13-14.
4 John xv, 16.
5 Heb. v, 4.
0 Matt, xvi, 19.

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPATE

409

primacy proves that the Roman Pontiff has exclusive
authority to constitute bishops for every part of the
Church. Bishops are shepherds for portions of the
flock that was committed in its entirety to the pastoral
care of St. Peter and his successors; but no one be­
comes a shepherd of any portion of a flock unless he be
made such by the chief pastor of the whole flock. It is
also evident that the chief purpose of the primacy,—
the preservation of unity,—could not be realized if the
bishops of the Church were not subject in all things to
her supreme pastor.
The authority of the Roman Pontiff to constitute
bishops for all parts of the Church may be exercised
directly by personal appointments, or indirectly by
delegating others, either by law or by approved custom,
to elect persons to the episcopal office. The former
method is in general use today, at least in the Western
Church; the latter was common in the earlier ages and
is practiced to some extent even today.7
Episcopal Jurisdiction. Since the episcopate is
a divine institution, bishops receive the power of juris­
diction from Christ; but whether this power comes
directly from Christ or through the agency of the Ro­
man Pontiff, is a disputed question. The opinion that
jurisdiction is conferred by episcopal consecration is
made untenable by the fact that a bishop-elect may
exercise jurisdiction even before his consecration,
whereas a consecrated bishop loses jurisdiction by dep­
osition; schismatic bishops, though validly conse7 Cf. Catholic Encyclopedia, art. “Bishop.”

410

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

crated, have no jurisdiction in the Church. Valid epis­
copal consecration can be given without the consent
of the Roman Pontiff, or even against his will, and
when once given, cannot be revoked. Consequently,
if jurisdiction were given by episcopal consecration, the
Pope could not prevent the installation of a bishop,
nor depose one already installed; the bishops would be
independent of his authority, and the unity of the
Church at an end.
Since jurisdiction does not come through the recep­
tion of Orders, it must be conferred upon appointment
to the episcopal office by the Roman Pontiff; but the
question still remains whether the Pope actually con­
fers jurisdiction or whether he simply designates the
person upon whom Christ himself confers it. This
question was discussed at the Council of Trent, but no
decision was given, probably because it has no prac­
tical bearing. If the Pope confers the jurisdiction, he
may validly withdraw it by deposing a bishop at any
time, with or without cause; if he simply designates
the person to receive jurisdiction from Christ, he can­
not validly withdraw it without sufficient reason.8
Not Mere Vicars. Even though bishops receive
all jurisdiction immediately from the Roman Pontiff,
they are not mere agents acting in his name; they are
veritable rulers in their respective dioceses, for which
they make laws in their own name and act as judges in
all matters pertaining to their jurisdiction. Hence Leo
XIII says: “Although bishops do not exercise coms Cfr. Straub, “De Ecclesia Christi,” n. 767 sqq.

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPATE

411

plete and universal power, nor hold supreme authority,
they must not be considered mere vicars of the Roman
Pontiff. They are, in the truest sense of the word,
rulers of their people, because they exercise a power
proper to them.” 9
Ecclesiastical Dignities. The Roman Pontiff
and the bishops exercise jurisdiction by divine institu­
tion; all other offices in the Church are of ecclesiastical
origin and their incumbents exercise a delegated juris­
diction. Cardinals, patriarchs, primates, and metro­
politans (archbishops) hold jurisdiction from the Ro­
man Pontiff; pastors, from their bishops. The cardi­
nals are official advisers of the pope and assist him
in the government of the Church. Upon the death
of the pope it is their privilege and duty to elect a
successor. Patriarchs were originally the bishops of
the three patriarchal sees of Rome, Alexandria, and
Antioch. Jerusalem and Constantinople were after­
ward added to the list. At present several uniat
bishoprics of the East enjoy patriarchal privileges,
which consist in certain rights of jurisdiction over other
bishops within a prescribed district known as the pa­
triarchate.10 An archbishop (metropolitan) presides
over a number of dioceses united to form an ecclesias­
tical province, whereas a primate unites under his
jurisdiction all the provinces of a country or nation.
In former times, when communication with Rome
was slow and difficult, the organization of dioceses into
°“Dc Unitate Ecclesiæ,” 29 June, 1896.
10 Cfr. Catholic Encyclopedia, art. “Patriarch.”

412

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

provinces, and provinces into patriarchates, was almost
a necessity for the orderly government of the Church.
The primates and metropolitans then exercised far
greater authority over their suffragan bishops than at
present.11
In each diocese the bishop is the divinely constituted
teacher and governor of the faithful, but since he can­
not personally care for all the souls committed to his
charge, he constitutes pastors, who act as his repre­
sentatives and hold jurisdiction from him in the govern­
ment of particular portions of the diocese, known as
parishes. The doctrine of parochialism, which arose
in the thirteenth century, maintained that the division
of a diocese into parishes under the care of pastors is
a matter of divine institution, and therefore pastors
exercise jurisdiction by divine right. This theory is
refuted by the fact that the parish system was not gen­
erally adopted until the eleventh century, and did not
become universal until the Council of Trent in the
sixteenth.12
ART. in.

THE POPE AND THE BISHOPS IN COUNCIL

Ordinarily the bishops of the Church are dispersed
throughout the world, each engaged in the government
of his own diocese, but at times they assemble in coun­
cil, where, in union with the Roman Pontiff, they define
dogmas of faith or legislate for the universal Church.
11 Cfr. Catholic Encyclopedia, art. “Metropolitan.”
13 Cf. Straub, “De Ecclesia Christi,” n. 793.

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPATE

413

The relation of the Pope to the bishops thus assembled
in council is easily determined by considering (1) the
nature of councils in general and of ecumenical councils
in particular, (2) the rights and powers of the Roman
Pontiff in regard to councils, and (3) the objections
urged against these rights and powers.

§ 1.

Nature and Various Kinds oj Councils

The word council is probably derived from the Latin
conciere—to call or bring together. It signifies an
assembly, especially an assembly held for delibera­
tion and consultation. In ecclesiastical language, it
signifies a lawful assemblage of bishops to decide ques­
tions of faith or morals and to legislate for the good
of the faithful. Therefore, a Church council is similar
to the legislative body in a civil government, yet they
differ in certain important features. The bishops as­
sembled in council represent their respective churches,
but they are not elected by the people, neither are they
delegates of the people, as are the members of our
legislative bodies. Again, our legislative bodies have
authority to make laws independently of the executive
power of the State, whereas a council has no authority
to act independently of the Roman Pontiff. This dif­
ference arises from the fact that in our government the
supreme legislative, executive, and judicial powers are
vested in separate and distinct persons or bodies,
whereas in the Church they are all vested in one per­
son, the Roman Pontiff. Hence the bishops in union

414

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

with the Roman Pontiff constitute one law-making
body, but separated from him they have no authority
whatever.
Councils may be provincial, national, general or
ecumenical. A provincial council consists of the
bishops of a province convoked and presided over by
their metropolitan. Their acts have legal force for the
faithful of that province, but not until they have been
approved and sanctioned in some way by the Roman
Pontiff. A national council is an assemblage of the
bishops of a nation or patriarchate convoked and pre­
sided over by their primate or patriarch, as the case
may be. A council is general when it represents the
entire Eastern or Western Church. When both the
Eastern and the Western Churches are represented, the
council is ecumenical.
In the earlier centuries all councils exceeding the
limits of a single province were known indiscriminately
as universal, plenary, or general, and for many centuries
all councils were called synods. Today this term is
usually restricted to an assembly of diocesan priests
presided over by their bishop or archbishop, as the case
may be.
Ecumenical Councils. For the present purpose
it will be sufficient to consider ecumenical councils only,
since they alone have jurisdiction over the universal
Church, and what is true of them is also true of the
others in their respective spheres. In order to be com­
pletely ecumenical, a council must be universal by con­
vocation, celebration, and confirmation.

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPATE

415

A council that is truly ecu­
menical must represent the whole Church—την
οΙκονμ.ίηρ'} whence the name ecumenical. Consequently
all the bishops of the Church must be notified and
summoned to attend. It is understood, of course, that
all is not to be interpreted mathematically to mean
each and every bishop without a single exception. It
means that practically all must be summoned. And
none but bishops need be summoned, for to them alone
was the government of the Church committed. Nei­
ther laymen nor priests, and perhaps not even titu­
lar bishops, have any right to sit in councils, unless
this has been provided for by the law of the Church or
by special act of the Roman Pontiff. The Code of
Canon Law provides that the following persons be sum­
moned in addition to the bishops: all cardinals, whether
bishops or not, abbots and prelates nullius, abbots pri­
mate and abbots Superiors of monastic congregations,
the supreme moderators of exempt religious clerics, and
titular bishops.1
ό) by celebration. A council is ecumenical by
celebration when the universal Church is represented
by its bishops. Such representation does not require
the presence of all the bishops of the whole world,
which would be a practical impossibility; neither does
it require a majority of them. It does require, how­
ever, that a sufficient number be present to represent
practically all parts of the Church. It would be diffi­
cult to assign any definite number. Cardinal Bellara) by convocation.

1 Canon 223.

416

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

mine says that “the number cannot be defined ac­
curately, but that it should be sufficient to constitute a
moral representation of the whole Church. There
should be at least some bishops from the majority of
provinces.2 Bishops who were summoned but fail to
attend thereby renounce their rights and consent be­
forehand to all decrees enacted by their brethren.
c) by confirmation. A council becomes ecumeni­
cal, i. e., its decrees obtain the force of law for the
universal Church, when confirmed by the Roman Pon­
tiff, even though it had not been ecumenical either in
its convocation or in its celebration. Papal confirma­
tion may be given either post jactum or ante factum,
i. e., the pope may give his approval after the council
has taken action, just as the president of the United
States signs bills that have been passed by Congress,
or he may request certain action to be taken by the
council, somewhat in the same manner as the president
manages to have measures presented to Congress. In
this case, the requested action is approved ante jactum
and needs no further confirmation.

§ 2. Rights oj the Roman Pontiff in Regard to
Ecumenical Councils.

I. The Right of Convocation. “No council is
ecumenical unless convoked by the Roman Pontiff.” 1
The Roman Pontiff alone has authority to convoke an
» "De Conciliis,” I, 17.
1 “Codex Juris Canonici,” Can. 222, Γ. "Dari nequit Oecumenicum Concilium quod a Romano Pontifice non fuerit convocatum.”

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPATE

417

ecumenical council, since he alone, as head of the Apos­
tolic body of bishops, has authority over all its mem­
bers; even the very calling of a council is an act of
jurisdiction affecting the whole Church, and therefore
to be exercised only by her supreme pastor. Bishops,
as such, have no authority outside the limits of their
own dioceses; consequently they can take no action,
separately or collectively, that will have the force of
law for the universal Church, unless authority to do
so be given them by the Roman Pontiff, who alone pos­
sesses it. A meeting of bishops without authority of
the Roman Pontiff would be similar in every respect
to a convention of the State governors in this country;
they could pass resolutions and recommend needed
legislation, but their action would have no legal force.
Hence Straub remarks that he who convokes an ecu­
menical council must be able to confer upon its mem­
bers authority to enact laws binding upon the whole
Church. But since the Roman Pontiff alone possesses
such power, it is evident that the bishops assembled in
council receive from the Roman Pontiff authority to
unite with him in making laws for the universal
Church. This authority is conferred by the very act of
convocation.2
The Right to Preside. “The Roman Pontiff pre­
sides over an ecumenical council either in person or by
delegates; he also designates the matters to be con2 Straub, “De Ecclesia Christi,” n. 806; cfr. Palmieri, “De
Romano Pontifice,” p, 671 sqq.; Wcrnz, “Jus Decretalium,” Vol. II,
n. 844.

418

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

sidered and the order to be observed.” 3 It is not only
a matter of right that the Pope, as supreme master of
the Church, preside at all ecumenical councils; it is
also a matter of necessity, since the bishops receive
from him all authority to legislate for the Church and
in union with him constitute one supreme source of
teaching and governing power. The moment the pope
withdraws his authority, the council ceases to exist; it
becomes a mere convention of bishops without author­
ity to legislate, to sit in judgment, or to define doctrines.
Since the Roman Pontiff confers all authority upon
the bishops to legislate and define matters for the uni­
versal Church, he is free to restrict this authority
within certain limits; in other words, he has the right
to designate the matter to be discussed and the order
to be followed. This also follows from his duty as
supreme pastor of the flock, which he has been charged
to feed. He has the right as well as the duty to deter­
mine what shall be given the sheep at any and all
times.
The Right of Confirmation. “The decrees of
councils have no binding force unless confirmed by the
Roman Pontiff and promulgated by his authority.” 4
The doctrine expressed in this canon is simply a corol­
lary to what has been said regarding the authority of
3 “Codex Juris Canonici,” can. 222, 2: “Romani Pontificis est
Oecutncnico Concilio per sc vel per alios processe, res in eo tractan­
das ordinemque servandum constituere ac designare.”
4 “Codex Juris Canonici,” can. 227: “Concilii decreta vim definiti­
vam obligandi non habent, nisi a Romano Pontifice fuerint confir­
mata et eius iussu promulgata.”

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPATE

419

bishops assembled in council. Their authority comes
from the Roman Pontiff and they hold it only while in
union with him; hence no decree can have binding
force unless accepted and approved by him. ‘‘The
final sentence remains with the pope. He it is that
ratifies the decrees either at the council itself, if he is
personally present, or when they are submitted to him,
generally by the secretary of the council.” 5 The ne­
cessity for such ratification has always been recognized
by the councils themselves; every ecumenical council
without exception presented its acts to the pope for
confirmation. The decrees ratified by him obtained the
force of law, whereas those rejected were considered
null and void. Pope Gelasius I (492-496) said of the
Council of Chalcedon: “Everything, as we have said,
remains with the Apostolic See. Whatever the Apos­
tolic See confirmed in this synod, obtained the force
of law; whatever it rejected, could have no effect.” G
Hence Leo XIII justly remarks: “The acts and de­
crees of councils have ever been ratified or rejected by
the Roman Pontiffs. Leo the Great annulled all the
acts of the conciliabulum of Ephesus; Damasus re­
jected those of Arimini, and Hadrian I, those of Con­
stantinople.7 The twenty-eighth canon of Constanti­
nople which lacked the consent and authority of the
Apostolic See, remained a dead letter.” 8
5 Chas. Augustine, O. S. B., “Commentary on Canon Law,” Vol.
II, p. 225.
a Gelasius I, “De Anathematis Vinculo”; P. L., 59, 107.
7 This refers to a pseudo-synod held in 753 or 754.
8 Leo XIII, “De Unitate Ecclesiæ,” 29 June, 1896.

420

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

The necessity for papal confirmation extends to all
councils, whether ecumenical, national or provincial,
because without authority from the Apostolic See,
bishops can make no laws binding outside the limits
of their respective dioceses. They might meet and
agree on certain measures, which each bishop could
give the force of law for his own diocese, but such
agreement would not be legislative action, and the as­
sembly would not constitute a council.
The Conciliar Theory. At the time of the Wes­
tern Schism, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries,
there were two and even three claimants for the throne
of Peter, and the faithful were divided in their alle­
giance, since it was not clear who was the legitimate
pope, yet none of the claimants was willing to aban­
don his position. This produced an intolerable state
of affairs that all parties were anxious to remove, but
the great question was how to go about the matter,
since there was no authority to depose a Roman Pontiff.
Finally Peter D’Ailly, Gerson and others hit upon the
doctrine of Marsilius of Padua, who had maintained
that an ecumenical council is superior to the pope and
therefore could depose him.9 Since the position of all
three claimants was doubtful, there was really no legiti­
mate pope, for, as Cardinal Bellarmine says, a doubt­
ful pope is no pope. Consequently the proper pro­
ceeding was for the bishops to declare this fact and
authorize the cardinals to elect a legitimate pope.
* Cf. L. Salembier, “The Great Schism of the West,” pp. 109 sqq.
(Eng. Tr.)

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPATE

421

This was finally done at the Council of Constance,
when Martin V was elected.
The doctrine of Marsilius, afterward espoused by
the Gallicans and Febronians, was condemned by the
Vatican Council in these words: “None may re-open
the judgment of the Apostolic See, than whose author­
ity there is no greater, nor can any lawfully review its
judgments. Wherefore they err from the right course
who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judg­
ments of the Roman Pontiff to an ecumenical coun­
cil, as to an authority higher than that of the Roman
Pontiff.” 10 Pope Gelasius I, at the end of the fifth
century, had stated the same doctrine: “We state
only what is known by the whole Church throughout
the world; viz., that the See of blessed Peter the
Apostle has authority to loose what has been bound by
sentence of any bishops whatsoever, because it has
authority to judge all churches, but can be judged by
none. Appeals may be made to it from all parts of
the world, but no one may appeal from it.” 11 Almost
a hundred years before this, Pope Zosimus wrote to
Aurelius of Carthage: “It is not unknown to you that
we rule the Roman Church and hold its power. This
you know, my brethren, and as priests you ought to
know it. Such is our authority, that no one dare re­
vise our judgment.” 12
The very nature of a council proves the absurdity of
10 Denzinger, n. 1830.
11 Gelasius I, “Epist. ad Episcopos Dardaniae”; P. L., 59, 66.
13 Zosimus, “Epist. ad Aurelium”; P. L., 20, 676.

422

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

the theory which would make it superior to the Roman
Pontiff, from whom it holds all authority. It is simply
asserting in different words that the pope is superior
to himself. There is only one supreme authority in
the Church, and this was committed to St. Peter and
his successors. The pope united with the bishops in
council has no greater authority than when acting
alone. The pope acting alone can legislate, define doc­
trine, and judge matters for the whole Church; he can
also dispense or abrogate any law or disciplinary de­
cree enacted by any ecclesiastical authority whatso­
ever, including even ecumenical councils.
§ 3. Objections Considered

Objection I.—The first eight general councils were
called, not by the Pope, but by the emperors; yet they
were all accepted as legitimate and truly ecumenical.
Consequently the calling of councils was not recog­
nized as an exclusive right of the Roman Pontiff until
later centuries.
Answer.—A council convoked without authority of
the Roman Pontiff is not ecumenical by convocation;
in fact, it is not even a council in the strict sense of the
word, and its decrees have no binding force on anyone,
unless accepted and confirmed by the Roman Pontiff.
When thus approved, the council becomes ecumenical
by confirmation. If those first councils were convened
by sole authority of the emperors, they were not ecu­
menical until accepted and ratified by the pope. It is

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPATE

423

certain, however, that some of them were convoked by
the emperor with the consent, and even at the instiga­
tion, of the pope. For instance, Leo the Great ear­
nestly begged Theodosius to convoke a council in Italy,
but finally consented to have it meet in Chalcedon,1
where Dioscorus was deposed, because “he had dared
to hold a synod without authority from the Apostolic
See,—a thing which was never done before, and is not
lawful to be done.” 2 In view of this statement it
seems very probable that the emperors in every case
acted with the knowledge and consent of the Roman
Pontiff in summoning councils.
Objection II.—The emperors not only summoned
the councils, but also presided over their deliberations.
Constantine, for instance, presided at the Nicene
Council.
Answer.—It is historically certain that the Roman
Pontiffs, through their legates, really presided at all
ecumenical councils except the first and second of Con­
stantinople, which were not originally intended to be
ecumenical, but became such afterwards by papal con­
firmation. Although the papal legates directed and
dominated the councils, the emperors or their repre­
sentatives were, at times, given an honorary presidency.
This was perfectly legitimate and, under the circum­
stances, a becoming recognition of the emperor’s inter­
est and good will. Without his aid the council could
1 Leo Great, “Epist. ad Pulcheriam Augustam”; P. L., 54, 873 sq.;
“Epist. ad Thcodoium Augustum”; P. L., 54, 890.
2 See above, pp. 353.

424

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

not have been held; he provided a suitable place for
its meetings, supplied the bishops with the means of
travel, and protected them with his soldiers from the
attacks of heretics and other enemies.
Objection HI.—If the Roman Pontiff can take all
neccessary measures for the government of the Church
without a council, and can even nullify its actions by
refusing to ratify them, there can be no reason for its
existence. The bishops can only discuss and approve
what the pope can do without their approval, and even
despite their disapproval.
Answer.—The Roman Pontiff has power and au­
thority sufficient to rule and guide the Church at all
times and under all circumstances, and this he usually
does. Ecumenical councils are confessedly an extra­
ordinary means for the governance of the Church.
This is evident from the fact that only twenty such
councils have been held in the course of nineteen
centuries. Councils are not necessary because of any
lack of authority on the part of the Roman Pontiff,
yet they may be necessary at times to obtain results
more effectively and with greater promptness than
w’ould otherwise be possible. The knowledge that
matters of great importance have been decided after
mature deliberation by the bishops of the whole world,
cannot fail to have a wholesome effect upon the minds
of the faithful. Even the bishops themselves will feel
an increased responsibility and greater readiness to
put into effect laws and regulations which they have
helped to formulate.

PRIMACY AND EPISCOPATE

425

A council can also be of great assistance to the Pope
in framing suitable laws for the Church. He cannot
use his supreme authority for the best interests of the
Church unless he knows her various needs, and the
circumstances under which she labors in the different
parts of the world. There are many ways to obtain
this knowledge, but an ecumenical council may, at
times, be the easiest and most effective. When bishops
from all parts of the world assemble, the needs of all
are made known, and the united counsel of many can
scarcely fail to discover the most effective and salutary
course to follow.

CHAPTER XIII
THE INFALLIBLE TEACHING AUTHORITY

The Church received from her Divine Founder the
solemn commission to teach all nations whatsoever He
had commanded. With this commission she received
authority to demand acceptance of her doctrines and
the promise of immunity from error in discharging
her duty as teacher of the nations.
ART. I. THE TEACHING AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

The Teaching Office. Teaching must be num­
bered among the principal duties of the Church.
Christ himself constituted the Apostles teachers for
all nations: “Going therefore, teach ye all izations,
. . . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I
have commanded you." 1 Again He said to them:
“Going into the whole world preach the Gospel to
every creature."12 Because of these commands St.
Paul says: “If I preach the Gospel, it is no glory to
me, for a necessity Heth upon me; for woe is unto me
if I preach not the Gospel” 'Λ The other Apostles also
1 Matt, xxviii, 18-19.
2 Mark xvi, 15.
3 1 Cor. ix, 16.
426

>

INFALLIBLE TEACHING AUTHORITY

427

proclaimed that their teaching was by command of
God, for when the high priests Annas and Caiphas
“charged them not to speak at all, nor to teach in the
name oj Jesus; Peter and John said to them: Ij it
be just in the sight oj God to hear you rather than
God, judge ye.” 4 St. Paul even intimates that his
principal duty as an Apostle was that of preaching:
“For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the
Gospel.” 6
Authority in Teaching. The Apostles were not
only commissioned to teach, but were also endowed
with authority, such that all who heard their teach­
ing were obliged, under pain of eternal damnation, to
accept it: “He that bclieveth not shall be con­
demned,” 6 and “he that heareth you, heareth me;
and he that despiscth you, dcspiseth me.”1 St. Paul
says that he received the grace of the Apostlate “jor
obedience to the jaith in all nations, . . . bringing in­
to captivity every understanding unto the obedience oj
Christ; and having in readiness to revenge all dis­
obedience.”8 He admonished Titus: “These things
speak and exhort and rebzike with all authority. Let
no man despise thee.” 0
These few references prove that the teaching office,
or magisterium, of the Church belongs to her power
4 Acts iv, 18-20.
5 1 Cor. i, 17.
6 Mark xvi, 16.
7 Luke x, 16; Matt, x, 14.
8 Rom., i, 5 ; 2 Cor. x, 4 sq.
9 Titus ii, 15.

428

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

of jurisdiction, which, therefore, includes authority
both to rule and to teach and likewise demands sub­
mission of intellect and will.
Bishops, the Teachers. The very purpose of the
teaching office in the Church demands that it be per­
petual, for, as St. Paul says, “God will have all men
to be saved and to conic to the knowledge oj the
truth.” 10 And Christ not only promised that He Him­
self would be with the Apostles for all time in the dis­
charge of their duty as teachers; He also promised
them the Holy Ghost to assist them in this same work
forever: “I will ask the Father and he shall give you
another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for
ever ... He will teach you all things and bring all
things to your mind whatsoever I shall have said.”11
Since the teaching authority conferred upon the
Apostles is a permanent institution in the Church, it
must descend to their lawful successors, the bishops,
who thereby become the divinely appointed teachers
to preserve the doctrines of Christ and bring them
to the knowledge of men in all ages until the consumma­
tion of the world. For this reason St. Paul was careful
to mention ability to teach as a necessary qualification
in bishops: “It bchooveth a bishop to be blameless,
. . . given to hospitality, a teacher.” 12 And to Titus
he writes: “A bishop must be without crime, . . .
embracing that jaithjul word which is according to
10 1 Tim. ii, 4.
11 John xiv, 16, 26.
12 1 Tim. iii, 2.

INFALLIBLE TEACHING AUTHORITY

429

doctrine, that he may be able to exhort in sound doc­
trine, and to convince the gain sayers” 13
The bishops of the Church are the only divinely
authorized teachers, since teaching with authority is
an act of jurisdiction, which they alone possess by
divine right. From this it follows that the Roman
Pontiff, holding the supreme power of jurisdiction, also
holds the supreme teaching authority in the Church.
In each diocese the bishop is the divinely constituted
teacher and judge in matters of faith, but he exercises
this office in subjection to the supreme teaching author­
ity of the Roman Pontiff.
Extent of Teaching Authority. Christ himself
determined the extent of the Church’s teaching author­
ity when He said: “Teach all nations, teaching them
to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded
you.” 14 The whole body of revealed truth,—whatso­
ever Christ has taught,—is committed to the Church
for the enlightenment of nations. It is her duty, then,
to preserve, interpret, and proclaim these truths of
revelation, and whatever is necessary for this purpose
falls within the scope of her teaching authority. Since
this question comes up again in connection with in­
fallibility,15 it will be enough to mention here only a
few practical conclusions that follow from the Church’s
duty of preserving and teaching the truths of revela­
tion.
13 Titus i, 7-8.
14 Matt, xxviii, 19-20.
15 See below, pp. 503 sq.

430

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

I. Repression of Heresy. It is the duty of the
Church to see to it that the faithful receive the true
doctrines of Christ, and to this end she may use ade­
quate means to protect them from the contaminating
influence of those who seek to spread false doctrines.
She has not only the right, but also the duty, to take
all necessary measures to protect the spiritual health
of her members, just as the State protects the physical
health of its citizens by various regulations, even ex­
cluding diseased aliens from its borders. Hence the
Church is obliged to condemn and proscribe every
doctrine at variance with the teachings of Christ. For
this reason St. Paul warned Titus of certain persons
in Crete “who must be reproved, who siibvert whole
houses, teaching things which they ought not. . . .
Wherefore rebuke them sharply that they may be sound
in the faith.” 1G Our Lord also commanded St. John
to write to certain bishops of Asia Minor, severely re­
proving them because they had not condemned and
rooted out false teachings.17
II. Prohibition of Books. The duty of preserv­
ing the truths of revelation and of protecting the
spiritual life of the faithful makes it necessary for
the Church to point out and condemn books and period­
icals dangerous to the faith and morals of her sub­
jects. The State claims the same right in regard to
writings considered dangerous to civil order and to
the good of the community. For this reason it for16 Titus i, 3 sq.
17 Apoc., ii, 14 sq.

INFALLIBLE TEACHING AUTHORITY

431

bids the publication and sale of works advocating trea­
son, anarchy, or the commission of crime; it also
forbids the use of the mails for any scheme to de­
fraud the unsuspecting. If the State may prohibit
books dangerous to the temporal welfare of its citizens,
the Church certainly has like authority to protect the
eternal welfare of her members.
Many persons ridicule the Church for her practice
of condemning books and forbidding their use to the
faithful. They claim it is a suppression of the freedom
of thought and a tyrannical use of power in favor of
ignorance. But very often these same persons clamor
for state and national censorship of theatres, and the
suppression of immoral literature, and by so doing
prove the wisdom of the Church in her censorship of
books.
St. Paul was the first to use this power of the Church
by condemning evil books, which he even committed
to the flames: “And many of them who had fol­
lowed cztrious arts, brought together their books and
bztrned them before all; and counting the price of
them, they fozind the money to be fifty thousand pieces
oj silver.” 18 The Church follows the example set by
St. Paul. In the sixth century Pope Leo the Great
said: “He that uses books condemned by the Catholic
Church, cannot be considered a Catholic.” 19
III. Imprimatur. The Church has long recog­
nized the importance of prophylaxis, or prevention of
18 Acts xix, 19.
19 “Epist. ad Turribium”; P. L., 54, 688.

432

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

disease. She not only forbids the use of literature
dangerous to faith and morals, but also prevents the
publication of such literature by demanding that all
books dealing with matters of faith and morals be
submitted to her inspection before publication. In
this matter, of course, the Church can exercise author­
ity over her own subjects only. The bishops, as
divinely constituted teachers in their dioceses, are
charged with the duty of inspecting all books on mat­
ters of faith and morals before granting permission
for publication in places under their jurisdiction.
Needless to say, the Roman Pontiff holds supreme
authority in this matter for all parts of the world.
If the bishop, upon examining a work, finds nothing
in it contrary or injurious to faith or morals, he gives
permission for its publication by the Latin formula,
Imprimatur, or Imprimi potest, i. e., it may be pub­
lished. Hence the permission itself has come to be
known as Imprimatur.
IV. Approbation for Preaching. The duty of
preserving purity of doctrine in regard to faith and
morals extends to the spoken as well as to the written
word. Consequently the Church forbids any one to
preach or publicly teach such doctrines without her
consent and approval. Here again, the bishops are
charged with the duty of guarding the deposit of faith
in their several dioceses. They cannot be expected to
examine all sermons and religious discourses to be de­
livered under their jurisdiction, but they are expected
and commanded to select and approve only such per-

INFALLIBLE TEACHING AUTHORITY

433

sons as they know to be qualified for the office of
preacher or teacher.
The necessity for episcopal approval in these matters
also follows from the fact that the bishop is the only
divinely constituted teacher in the diocese. All others
act as mere agents to assist him in the work of teach­
ing, but no one can act as agent for another unless
he has been selected and commissioned for that express
purpose. Consequently no one dares to assume the
office of preaching in a diocese without due permission
and approval from the bishop: “No one may exercise
the ministry of preaching unless he has received due
permission from a lawful superior.” 20
ART. II.

INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH

The Church not only teaches and interprets the
doctrines of Christ with divine authority, but also
possesses the gift of infallibility, by which these doc­
trines are proposed and accepted without the possibility
of error. Therefore, it is necessary to consider (1)
the nature of infallibility, (2) infallibility in teaching,
(3) infallibility in believing, and (4) the objections
urged against this prerogative of the Church.

§ 1. Nature of Infallibility

Infallibility, from the Latin in—not and falli—to
be deceived, signifies inability to err, and therefore
20 “Codex Juris Canonici,” can. 1328.

434

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

differs from inerrancy. A person is inerrant when free
from error; he is infallible when free from the possibil­
ity of error. Infallibility must also be distinguished
from revelation and inspiration. Revelation is a mani­
festation or making known of truths; inspiration is a
divine impulse to commit certain truths to writing, and
I a positive assistance of the Holy Ghost to direct the
writer in recording precisely those truths which God
wishes to have recorded and in the particular way that
He wishes them recorded. Infallibility is merely a
divine protection by which a person is unfailingly pre­
served from error in declaring and interpreting truths
already revealed. Consequently, infallibility does not
bring to light any new truths; it simply provides that
revealed truths be proposed and interpreted without
the possibility of error.
Infallibility does not require special divine influence
at all times. The interposition of such influence is
necessary only when the person, left to his own natural
powers, is about to fall into error. The difference be­
tween inspiration and infallibility may be illustrated
by the assistance given a child in writing. The teacher
may grasp the hand of the child and direct it in writ­
ing such words as the teacher wishes and in the way
he wishes, or he may simply hold his hand in readiness
to prevent the child from making any errors in writ­
ing the words to be copied. The first case illustrates
the action of the Holy Ghost in inspiration; the second,
His action in preserving a person from error by the
gift of infallibility.

INFALLIBLE TEACHING AUTHORITY

435

The above explanation makes it evident that in­
fallibility does not exclude, but rather presupposes,
the use of natural means to avoid error. The divine
protection is only to supply the deficiency of natural
means and thereby preclude the possibility of error,
but since the exclusion of error is the end to be obtained
without fail, neglect on the part of the human agent
will not prevent the Holy Ghost from realizing that
end. Hence if the person endowed with infallibility
fails to use the natural means at hand for discovering
the truth, he commits sin, but will be protected from
error none the less, because infallibility is a gratia
gratis data,—a gift freely bestowed for the good of
others.
Infallibility, as a property of the Church, is an ever­
present right to be divinely preserved from error when­
ever such divine assistance is needed.
Degrees of Infallibility. Perfect infallibility
belongs to God, the Eternal Truth, but rational crea­
tures may enjoy a certain immunity from error,—
an immunity which they hold as a gift from God. This
communicated infallibility is either natural or super­
natural. Natural infallibility is the immunity from
error which all men possess in regard to certain selfevident truths. We know from experience that there
are certain truths so evident that no one having the
use of reason can mistake or misunderstand them.
Supernatural infallibility is an immunity from error
maintained by special assistance of the Holy Ghost.
This special gift may concern the teaching of truths

436

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

without error, and is then known as active infallibility,
or infallibility in teaching. When its purpose is to
prevent error in the acceptance of truths taught, it
is called passive, or infallibility in believing. The
Church possesses both active and passive infallibility.

§2. Active Infallibility of the Chzirch

Thesis.—The Church of Christ is infallible in
teaching· revealed truths
De Fide. The Vatican Council indirectly pro­
claimed the Church infallible in teaching when it de­
clared that “the Roman Pontiff possesses that infalli­
bility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His
Church should be endowed for defining doctrine re­
garding faith or morals.” 1 Even before this declara­
tion the doctrine was rightly considered a dogma of
faith for, as Fenélon had said, “the Church always
takes for granted that she possesses this fundamental
authority and exercises it against those who dare call
it in question. This constant practice of the Church
is a continual declaration of her infallible authority.” 2
Opponents of Infallibility, a) protestants.
All Protestants without exception reject the very idea
of infallibility as an absurdity. For them it is quite
sufficient if a church have authority to declare what
doctrines it teaches and to demand their profession by
all who wish to become members. No society, it seems,
1 Denzinger, n. 1839.
2 “Instructio Pastoralis,” iii, 57.

INFALLIBLE TEACHING AUTHORITY

437

could be denied such authority, yet the fundamental
Protestant doctrine of private interpretation renders
even this modicum of authority impossible. In order
to become a member of a Protestant church, it is not
necessary to accept its doctrinal standards, because all
are free to take their faith from the Bible according
to their own interpretation of it. In such a system
there is no place for a teaching authority, fallible or
infallible. No minister can logically claim to present
anything more than his own private opinion, which
others are, therefore, free to accept or reject. Accord­
ing to this theory, the faithful must be, as St. Paul
says, “ever learning and never attaining to the knowl­
edge oj truth.” 3
ό) eastern schismatics. The position of the
schismatic churches of the East on this question is
difficult to determine. They teach that the first seven
ecumenical councils were infallible, or at least free from
error, in proclaiming the doctrines of Christ. They
also maintain that these doctrines have been preserved
intact bv all so-called Orthodox churches, but whether
the Church still possesses an infallible teaching author­
ity seems to be a disputed question. Among the Ortho­
dox theologians of the present day, Androutsos teaches
that the Church is infallible, while Kyriakos is said
to deny it.1
The Question. It is evident that the infallibility
3 2 Tim. iii, 7.
‘Androutsos, “Δογματική
’Ορθοδόξου Εκκλησίας” p.
D’Alcs, “Dictionnaire Apologétique,” Art. “Grecque, Église.”

265;

438

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

of the Church in teaching can be nothing else than
the infallibility of those who exercise the teaching
authority in the Church. Hence, to prove the Church
infallible in teaching is to prove that the bishops, as
successors of the Apostles, are infallible in teaching
the truths of Revelation. This must be established
by proving that the gift of infallibility was bestowed
upon the Apostles, not only as individuals, but also
as members of the Apostolic body, of which St. Peter
was the head.
Infallibility granted to the Apostles as individuals
was a personal prerogative, and consequently did not
descend to their successors. But if infallibility was
also granted to them as a body, then the bishops, who
perpetuate that body in the Church, must possess the
same prerogative and in the same manner, i. e., not
as individuals, but as a body.
Proofs. I. From Reason, a) The Church, as the
mystical body of Christ, is animated and vivified by
the Holy Ghost, much the same as the natural body
is informed and vivified by the soul; and as in the
natural body, all vital activities proceed from the soul,
so likewise those of the Church must proceed from
the Holy Ghost. Therefore, if the Church as a whole
falls into error through her official teaching body, that
error must be ascribed to the Holy Ghost, the Spirit
of Truth, which is manifestly impossible. Conse­
quently, the bishops, as the teaching body in the
Church, must be infallible.
ό) Christ ordained that all men must accept the

INFALLIBLE TEACHING AUTHORITY

439

teachings of the Church under pain of eternal damna­
tion: “He that believeth not shall be condemned.” 5
Therefore, He is bound in justice to provide against
the possibility of our being led into error by following
this precept of obedience to the teaching authority of
the Church. Besides, it is inconceivable that Christ,
the eternal Truth, could allow a single error to be pro­
claimed to the world in His name; yet this would be
the case if the Church, teaching in His name and by
His authority, were not infallible.
II. From Scripture, a) Our Lord proclaimed His
Church infallible when He said: “The gates oj hell
shall not prevail against it.” 6 If gates of hell means
the powers of darkness, then Christ directly promised
His Church infallibility, because the moment she would
fall into error, she would succumb to the powers of
darkness, and the promise of Christ would be made
void. On the other hand, if the gates of hell is merely
a synonym for death or destruction, Christ has prom­
ised that His Church will endure for all time, un­
changed in any essential feature, because the moment
it would lose a single essential feature, it would cease
to be the Church established by Christ. Therefore
Christ has implicitly promised the gift of infallibility,
without which unity of faith could not be preserved
through all the centuries among peoples of every na­
tion, tribe, and tongue, especially since many of the
truths to be preserved transcend the powers of human
8 Mark xvi, 16.
6 Matt, xvi, 18.

440

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

understanding. “The Church of Christ would fail
in her immutability, fall from her dignity, and cease
to be the necessary means of salvation, if she could
wander from the saving truths of faith and morals,
or if she could either deceive or be deceived in ex­
pounding and proclaiming them.” 7
Z>) “And Jesus coming, spoke to them [the Apostles],
saying: All power is given to me in heaven and on
earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations, . . .
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and behold I am with you all days
even to the consummation oj the world.” 8 With these
words Our Lord conferred upon His Apostles unlimited
authority to teach: Teach all nations, teach all truths;
and behold I am with you—not for a month, or a year,
or a life-time, but all days, even to the consummation
of the world. The mission is for all time; for the
Apostles and their successors down through the ages.
It is evident from the very words of Our Lord that
He was conferring a most extraordinary power. He
appeals to His own divine power to prove, as it were,
His authority for the commission He is conferring:
“All Power is given to me in heaven and in earth;
going therefore, teach with all my divine power and au­
thority. Only a few days before, Our Lord had made
a similar appeal as a prelude to the conferring of an­
other extraordinary power: “As the Father hath sent
me I also send you. . . . Receive ye the Holy Ghost.
7 Canon 9 of the schema proposed at the Vatican Council.
8 Matt, xxviii, 16-18.

INFALLIBLE TEACHING AUTHORITY

441

Whose sms you shall forgive they are forgiven them.” 9
Hence, divine power must be as necessary in one case
as in the other, but the mere office of preaching the
Gospel would not require such extraordinary power;
the ordinary assistance of God’s grace would be amply
sufficient for that. What, then, was the purpose of
this unusual power and the solemn manner in which
it was conferred? There can be but one answer to
this question: Our Lord was conferring upon His
Apostles and their successors an infallible authority to
teach all nations whatsoever He had commanded them;
He constituted them teachers, whom all must accept
under pain of eternal damnation; therefore, He made
them infallible.
Christ not only conferred a divine prerogative upon
the Apostles as teachers of the nations, but He also
promised to be with them in this work until the end
of time: “Behold I am with you all days even to the
consummation of the world.” But why this special
and constant presence of Christ with His Apostles and
their successors down through the ages? Evidently,
that they might teach aright the truths of Revelation
to all nations until the consummation of time. Here,
then, is a promise of complete and perpetual infalli­
bility. Wherever God is said to be with a person, it
is a promise of special divine assistance that never fails
in its purpose. For example, when Moses was sent
to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, he hesitated to ac­
cept the difficult mission, but God assurred him of His
9 John xx, 22-23.

442

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

assistance and success: “I will be with thee.” 1011 In
like manner God said to Josue: “As I have been with
Moses, so will I be with thee: I will not leave thee nor
forsake thee.” 11 It is also said of the Apostles: “And
the hand oj the Lord was with them: and· great num­
bers believing were converted to the Lord.” 12 Hence
when Christ promised to be with the Apostles and their
successors, He promised them an assistance that can­
not fail in its purpose; they shall infallibly teach aright
the truths committed to them for the enlightenment
of all nations.
c) On the night of the Last Supper Our Lord prom­
ised His Apostles the guiding presence of the Holy
Ghost, and He promised this not once, but many times:
“And I will ask the Father, and he shall give y oil an­
other Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, that he may abide
with you forever. . . . But the Paraclete, the Holy
Ghost whom the Father will send in my name, he will
teach you all things and bring all things to your mind
whatsoever I shall have said to you. . . . But when
the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the
Father, the Spirit of truth who proceedeth from the
Father, he shall give testimony oj me. . . . But I tell
you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go, for if
I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you. . . . I
have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear
10 Ex. iii, 11-12.
11 Jos. i, 5.
12 Acts xi, 21.

INFALLIBLE TEACHING AUTHORITY

443

them now, But when he, the Spirit of truth is come,
he will teach yori all truth.” 13
Throughout this whole discourse, Our Lord refers
to the Holy Ghost as the Paraclete, i. e., the Helper or
Advocate. Christ himself was the Paraclete or Helper
of the Apostles during His life on earth, and promised
to be with them for all time. He now promises an­
other Paraclete to assist and guide them during His
bodily absence after the Ascension. The coming of
this second Paraclete is even more important for the
Apostles than the continuation of Our Lord’s personal
presence among them: “It is expedient for you that
I go, for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to
you.” The mission of this second Paraclete is clearly
marked out. He is the Spirit of truth, who is to keep
clearly before the minds of the Apostles all things
taught them by Christ: “He will teach you all truth,”
or as the Greek text has it, “He will lead you into all
truth.” 14
The Holy Ghost is to abide forever with the Apostles
and their successors, and His guidance shall be ef­
fective; He shall lead them into all truth and preserve
them therein. In a word, the Holy Ghost shall pre­
serve the Apostles and their successors free from every
error. He shall render them infallible. Christ had
commissioned the Apostles to teach “all things what­
soever I have commanded.” He now promises them
13 John xiv, 16-17; xiv, 26; xv, 26-27; xvi, 7; xvi, 12-13.
14 Οδηγτ/σα û/xôs els τήν αλήθειαν πάσαν.

444

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

the Holy Ghost to keep these same truths ever before
their minds, that they may teach them without the fear
or possibility of error; “He will bring all things to
your mind whatsoever I shall have said to you.”
Could Our Lord have promised infallibility in more
explicit or more emphatic language?
d) St. Paul explicitly appeals to the infallibility of
the Church in his first Epistle to Timothy. He ad­
monishes Timothy that sound doctrine must be care­
fully guarded and preached, and all Jewish fables
avoided, as becomes a bishop of the Church: “These
things I write to thee . . . that thou mayest know how
thou oughest to behave thy solj in the house oj God.”
He then adds the reason: “Because the Church oj the
living God is the pillar and ground oj truth.” 15
The Church is the pillar of truth because, like the
pillar of a material building, it sustains and strengthens
the whole structure of divine Revelation. It is the
jozindation upon which revealed truths are based and
made secure for all time. In a word, the Church is
the firm foundation and the secure guardian of the
truth which she teaches with infallible security from
all error.16
III. From Tradition. The infallible teaching au­
thority of the Church has been recognized in all ages,
as is evident from the fact that any one who denied
or questioned a single dogma of her teaching was
15 1 Tim. iii, 15.
16 Knabenbauer, Commentarius in 1 Tim., iii, 15.

INFALLIBLE TEACHING AUTHORITY

445

promptly condemned as a heretic and cut off from com­
munion with the faithful. There was never the least
question that her teachings might be false. The
Fathers also manifest their faith in the infallible au­
thority of the Church by appealing to her teachings
as the standard of truth. A few examples will illus­
trate this belief.
a) St. Irenæus: “It is incumbent to obey the
presbyters who are in the Church,—those who, as I
have shown, possess the succession from the Apostles;
those who, together with the succession of the episco­
pate, have received the certain gift of truth according
to the good pleasure of the Father.” 17
ά) St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “The Church is called
Catholic, because it extends all over the world . . .
and because it teaches universally and completely one
and all the doctrines which ought to come to maris
knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible,
heavenly and earthly.” 18
c) St. Athanasius. After enumerating a number of
errors, St. Athanasius says: “It is enough merely to
answer such things as follows: We are content with
the fact that this is not the teaching of the Catholic
Church, nor did the fathers hold this.” 19
d) St. Augustine. “Many tongues contradict the
true doctrine; hasten thou to the tabernacle of God,
17 “Adversus Hæreses,” iv, 26; P. G., 7, 1053.*
18 “Catecheses,” xviii, n. 23; P. G., 33, 1043 *
10 “Epist. ad Epictetum”; P. G., 26, 1055.*

446

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

cling to the Catholic Church, be not separated from the
standard oj truth, and thou shalt be protected in the
tabernacle from the contradiction of tongues.” 20

§ 3. Passive Infallibility of the Church

Thesis.—The body of the faithful infallibly accept
the truths of revelation proposed to them by
the teaching authority of the Church
The Church is infallible in believing, ij., the faith­
ful, as a body, are preserved from error in accepting
and professing the doctrines taught by the Church.
Individuals may err; whole provinces, and even nations
may fall away from the faith, as history testifies; but
those professing the true faith must always remain
sufficient in number and in distribution throughout the
world to preserve the Church truly Catholic in the
unity of faith and worship.
Proofs. I. From Reason. Passive infallibility, in
the sense just explained, is a necessary consequence of
the indefectible unity of faith and the perpetual Cathol­
icity of the Church. Since the Church is immutably
one in the profession of faith, the faithful as a body
must be free from error, otherwise the faith would not
be one, but many. Moreover, the profession of a false
faith constitutes manifest heresy and excludes one from
membership in the Church. Consequently, if the
faithful as a body could fall into error in the profession
of faith, the Church would immediately cease to be
20 “Ennaration. in Ps.,” xxx, Scrmo. 3; P. L., 36, 2533.

INFALLIBLE TEACHING AUTHORITY

447

Catholic and would therefore cease to be the Church
of Christ. It is evident, then, that the faithful as a
body must be infallible or free from error, at least in
the profession of faith.
II. From Scripture, a) The Church is the mys­
tical Body and the Spouse of Christ, for which He
“delivered himselj up that he might sanctify it, cleans­
ing it by the laver oj water in the word oj life: that
he might present it to himselj a glorious church, not
having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it
might be holy and without blemish F 1 But a Church
tainted with error and the profession of falsehood would
be neither glorious nor without spot; neither would it
be a spouse worthy of Christ. If the faithful as a
body could fall into error, would not Christ have de­
livered Himself in vain to cleanse and sanctify the
Church which they constitute? And would not the
error of the mystical Body be justly imputable to its
Head and to the Holy Ghost who animates it?
b) St. Paul describes the Church as the pillar and
ground of truth, but this she cannot be, unless the
body of the faithful be preserved free from error in
accepting and professing the truths of faith. She is
the pillar and ground of truth, because the gates of
hell cannot prevail against her. In the words of St.
Augustine, “the Church is true, the Church is Catholic,
fighting against all heresies. She may fight, but she
cannot be overcome. All heresies have gone out from
her, like useless brambles pruned from the vine. She
1 Eph. v, 25-27.

448

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

herself remains firmly rooted. . . . The gates of hell
shall never conquer her.” 2
III. From Tradition. The Fathers constantly ap­
peal to the faith professed, as well as to that taught,
by the universal Church as an unfailing norm of truth.
Hence, the famous axiom of st. vincent of lerins
in the fifth century: “We confess that one faith to be
true which the whole Church throughout the world
confesses.”3 st. augustine expresses the same
thought in almost identical terms: “What is held by
the whole Church, and that not as instituted by coun­
cils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly
held to have been handed down by Apostolic author­
ity.” 4 TERTULLiAN expressly states that the Church
is preserved from error in the profession of faith by
the action of the Holy Ghost: “The Floly Ghost was
sent with this in view by Christ, and for this asked of
the Father that He might be the teacher of truth. . . .
Has He neglected His office, permitting the churches
for a time to understand differently, and to believe
differently what He himself was preaching by the
Apostles?” 5 He uses this argument to prove that the
faith professed in the Catholic Church had not varied
from that taught by the Apostles, as the heretics
claimed.
Corollary. Since the faithful as a body are in3 “Sermon, de Symbolo,” c. 6; P. L., 40, 635.
3 “Commonitorium,” c. 2; P. L., 50, 640.*
■‘“De Baptismo,” iv, 24; P. L., 43, 174.
5 “De Præscrip. Hær.,” 28; P. L., 2, 40.

INFALLIBLE TEACHING AUTHORITY

449

fallible in accepting and professing the faith proposed
to them, it follows that any doctrine professed by the
whole Church as a matter of revelation is infallibly
true and may be defined as an article of faith by the
teaching authority of the Church. A mere opinion
or pious belief accepted by the whole Church is not
necessarily true, but should not be rejected lightly,
because such universal acceptance gives strong pre­
sumption in favor of its being a doctrine handed down
from the Apostles.
Passive infallibility, bestowed upon the Church pri­
marily for the purpose of preserving unity of faith,
also furnishes a rule of faith, since any doctrine pro­
fessed by the whole Church must be a revealed truth.
Practically, however, such a rule of faith is not suf­
ficient for the needs of the faithful, because it re­
quires long and diligent research to discover whether
any particular doctrine is held by the universal Church,
and also whether it is held as a revealed truth or merely
as a pious belief.
§4. Objections Answered
Objection I.—Infallibility cannot be inferred from
the necessity of preserving the true faith, nor from the
command of Christ that all must accept the teachings
of the Church. In the Old Law there were revealed
doctrines to be conserved, and the people were com­
manded to accept the teachings of their superiors under
pain of death: “He that shall be proud and refuse to

450

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

obey the commandment oj the priest . . . and the de­
cree oj the judge, that man shall die.” 1 Yet, despite
these facts the Synagogue, the Church of the Old Law,
was not infallible.
Answer.—Whether the Synagogue was infallible or
not is a disputed question, but granting that it was
not, this proves nothing against the necessity of in­
fallibility in the Church. In the Old Law there were
but few supernatural truths to be conserved, and those
only in one nation, among a people of one language.
Yet, even under these conditions, it was necessary for
God to send prophets at frequent intervals to recall
the people to a knowledge of the truth and to a sense
of their duty. In the New Law there are many truths
transcending the powers of the human intellect, and
these must be preserved intact among peoples of all
nations, tribes, and tongues, not for a few centuries
only, but for all time. Because of these different con­
ditions under the New Law, God substituted an in­
fallible teaching authority for the prophetic ministry
of the Old Law.
Objection II.—Catholics claim to prove the in­
fallibility of the Church from the authority of Scrip­
ture, and then, in open violation of all logic, they pro­
ceed to establish the authority of Scripture from the
infallible authority of the Church.
Answer.—Catholics prove the infallibility of the
Church from the Scriptures taken as purely historical
documents. The historical reliability of the Scriptures
1 Deut. xviii, 12.

INFALLIBLE TEACHING AUTHORITY

451

must be established the same as that of any other docu­
ment. Catholic and non-Catholic scholars have done
this to the satisfaction of all reasonable men. Taking
the Scriptures as genuine historical documents, Catho­
lics prove that Christ was a divine legate, that He
established a Church, and endowed it with infalli­
bility. Having thus established the infallibility of the
Church by purely historical arguments, Catholics then
appeal to it in proof of the inspired character of those
same Scriptures. The whole process is perfectly log­
ical, since the historical accuracy of a work is quite
different from its inspiration; many human works are
historically accurate, but not divinely inspired.
Objection III.—Even granting the infallibility of
the Church, we must still have recourse to the Protes­
tant principle of private judgment. Infallibility is
known only by an act of our own reason, but if we
must rely on private judgment in this most important
matter, why not also in other matters of faith? Again,
the knowledge of infallibility rests upon an act of our
own judgment. Consequently, an infallible authority
can never give any greater certainty than that of the
judgment accepting it; a chain is never stronger than
its weakest link, which in this case is an act of our own
private judgment. Therefore, infallibility is use­
less.2
Answer.—The objection is refuted by the old axiom
that “who proves too much, proves nothing.” The
2 Cf. G. Salmon, “Infallibility of the Church,” pp. 47 sq.

452

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

same argument would destroy the infallible authority
of God and make divine Revelation useless. The ex­
istence of God and His infallible authority are known
only by an act of our own reason, but if we exercise
our judgment in regard to these truths, why not in
other matters as well? Therefore, Revelation is use­
less and does not exist since God can do nothing useless.
The absurdity of this conclusion proves the absurdity
of the argument from which it is deduced.
We exercise our own reason and judgment to es­
tablish the existence of God, His infinite knowledge and
truthfulness, and the fact that He has made a Revela­
tion. Then, as becomes rational beings, we accept the
infallible authority of God for the knowledge of truths
beyond our own powers of intellect, and also for truths
which we could know by our own reason, but not so
easily or so securely. In like manner, we establish the
existence of infallible authority in the Church by the
use of reason, and then rely upon that authority for
truths which we cannot know by reason, or which we
cannot know with ease and security. Even supposing
that all men could attain knowledge of all revealed
truths by their own private judgment, an infallible
authority would not be useless by any means. Any
mathematician can construct a table of logarithms, yet
he finds it very useful to have one at hand which he
knows to be perfectly accurate.
Finally, if infallible authority in the Church could
give no certainty of faith, because that authority itself
must be established by reason, then all faith, both

INFALLIBLE TEACHING AUTHORITY

453

human and divine, would become impossible. Divine
faith rests upon the testimony of God; human faith,
upon the testimony of man; but in either case we must
use our reason to establish the existence and trust­
worthiness of the testimony.
Objection IV.—An infallible teaching authority in
the Church is useless unless every member of the
Church can be infallibly certain what that authority
teaches. But for this knowledge, the members of the
Church must depend upon priests, catechists, or par­
ents, none of whom are infallible. Consequently, they
believe upon the fallible authority of their teachers
instead of the infallible authority of the Church. In
other words, they have only human faith.
Answer.—This objection also proves too much. It
proves that divine Revelation is useless and divine
faith impossible. Many persons learn the truths of
Revelation from parents, catechists, or pastors, who
are neither infallible nor inspired. Therefore, they
cannot be infallibly certain what truths have been re­
vealed. Even if these truths be learned directly from
Holy Scripture, the person accepting them must rely
upon the fallible and uninspired testimony of others
for the fact that the books of Scripture are genuine
and have come down through the centuries uncorrupted.
Consequently, they believe upon the fallible authority
of man instead of the infallible authority of God; their
faith is human, not divine. The absurdity of the con­
clusion proves the absurdity of the argument.
Priests, catechists, parents, and others are simply

454

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

witnesses to the teachings of the Church. They are
human witnesses, it is true, but their testimony can
give absolute certainty when the proper conditions are
verified, i. e., when we know the witnesses have suffi­
cient knowledge of the matter and are truthful. These
two facts are easily established beyond the possibility
of doubt when there are many independent witnesses
testifying to the same thing. Who, for instance, could
force himself to doubt the existence of the city of
Paris, although his only knowledge of the fact has been
derived from the testimony of others? The witnesses
for the teachings of the Church are just as numerous
and just as reliable as those for the existence of Paris,
and the certainty they beget is no less absolute.
Bishops, priests, catechists, parents, learned friends
and companions, official creeds and catechisms, books,
pamphlets, and periodicals all agree in their testimony
regarding the teachings of the Church. From this
human testimony we know with absolute certainty
what the Church teaches, and knowing this, we believe
it, because of her infallible authority.
Objection V.—The infallibility of the Church can­
not be a dogma of faith. The Church would have to
use her infallible authority to define her own infalli­
bility which is manifestly begging the question,—tak­
ing for granted the very thing to be proved. There­
fore, since the infallibility of the Church cannot be a
dogma of faith, we are not obliged to believe it.
Answer.—If we need not accept the testimony of
the Church defining her own infallibility, neither are

INFALLIBLE TEACHING AUTHORITY

455

we obliged to accept the testimony of God revealing His
authority, since in both cases the existence of the
authority must be established by reason before its
testimony can be accepted. The falsity of the conclu­
sion proves the falsity of the argument. As a matter
of fact, we arrive at a knowledge of God and His
divine authority by the use of reason. Then, relying
upon that authority, we accept the testimony of God
revealing it to us. In like manner, we prove the in­
fallible authority of the Church from Revelation and
then rely upon that authority of the Church when she
defines it as an article of faith. What we know by
reason, we also accept by faith.

CHAPTER XIV
INFALLIBILITY OF THE BISHOPS

The infallibility of the Church in teaching can be
none other than that of her divinely constituted
teachers, who, as successors of the Apostles, perpetu­
ate the Apostolic body with all its powers and preroga­
tives for teaching and governing the faithful. The
bishops, then, as successors of the Apostles, enjoy the
gift of infallibility, not as individuals, but as a body
in union with the Roman Pontiff, their divinely con­
stituted head. But since the bishops exercise their
teaching authority when assembled in council to de­
fine doctrines of faith or morals for the whole Church,
and also when instructing the people of their own
dioceses in these same doctrines, it is necessary to
consider (1) the infallibility of ecumenical councils,
and (2) the infallibility of the episcopal body in its
ordinary work of teaching the faithful in the various
parts of the Church.
ART. I.

INFALLIBILITY OF ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

Thesis.—The bishops assembled in ecumenical
council are infallible when exercising their
supreme authority to define questions of
faith or morals for the universal Church
§ 1. Preliminary Explanations

Conditions.

Certain conditions are necessary for
456

INFALLIBILITY OF THE BISHOPS

457

the exercise of infallible teaching authority by bishops
assembled in council, namely: a) the council must be
summoned by the Roman Pontiff, or at least with his
consent and approval, because all power in the Church,
whether of teaching or governing, is subject to the
supreme authority of the pope. Again, since the
bishops enjoy infallibility in their corporate capacity
only, they cannot exercise it independently of the
Roman Pontiff, their divinely constituted head. From
this it also follows that all definitions must have the
approval and confirmation of the Roman Pontiff, for
without such confirmation the bishops are acting in­
dependently of their head and, therefore, without any
authority.
ό) The council must be truly ecumenical by cele­
bration, i. e., the whole body of bishops must be repre­
sented. This, of course, does not require the presence
of each and every bishop of the whole Church, for if
such were the case, the willful or enforced absence of
one bishop would frustrate the will of the entire body.
Neither is it necessary that every bishop present should
consent to the definition proposed, for since the bishops
individually are fallible, false opinions will almost in­
variably find some supporters among them. On this
account it would be practically impossible to define any
doctrine if unanimous consent were necessary, yet at
times a definition is imperative, because some funda­
mental doctrine of Christianity is at stake, as hap­
pened during the Arian and Nestorian heresies. Hence
a lawful and infallible definition may be made with-

458

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

out the unanimous consent of the Fathers present. In
case of a real division in a council, truth must lie with
the party whom the Roman Pontiff supports, since no
definitions have any force unless confirmed by him.
Definitions of faith may also be made by councils
that are not truly ecumenical in their celebration, but
in that case the infallible authority is not that of the
bishops, but that of the Roman Pontiff, who approves
the decrees and thus makes them his own.
c) Bishops assembled in council are infallible only
when exercising their supreme authority as teachers
of faith or morals by a definite and irrevocable decree
that a doctrine is revealed and, therefore, to be ac­
cepted by every member of the Church.1 But since
the bishops need not intend such an irrevocable de­
cision at all times, it is necessary that an infallible
definition be so worded as to indicate clearly its defini­
tive character. For this purpose no set formula is
necessary; it is sufficient to mention the doctrine as
an article of faith, a dogma of faith, a Catholic dogma,
a doctrine always believed in the Church, or a doctrine
handed down by the Fathers. Anathema pronounced
against those who deny a doctrine is also sufficient evi­
dence of a dogmatic definition.
A large majority of the acts of councils are not in­
fallible definitions, because they are not intended as
such. “Neither the discussions which precede a dog­
matic decree, nor the reasons alleged to prove and
1 Other matters falling under the infallible authority of the Church
will be considered elsewhere. Cfr. pp. 503 sq.

INFALLIBILITY OF THE BISHOPS

459

explain it, are to be accepted as infallibly true. Noth­
ing but the actual decrees are of faith, and these only
if they are intended as such.” 2
d) Since infallibility is due to mere assistance of the
Holy Ghost, human agencies should be employed to
discover and understand the truth to be defined, but
the certitude of the definition does not depend upon
the previous investigation made by the bishops of the
council, nor upon their skill and learning. Failure to
make proper investigation would be sinful on the part
of the bishops, but the Holy Ghost can and does pre­
vent all error in the actual definition, even though all
investigation has been neglected, or false reasons ad­
duced to prove the doctrine.
Adversaries. Protestants, of course, deny the in­
fallibility of ecumenical councils, since they reject the
very idea of infallibility in any form. One of the
Thirty-nine articles of the Anglican Church reads:
“General councils . . . may err and sometimes have
erred even in things pertaining to God.” 3 The Gal­
licans and Jansenists of the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries professed to accept the infallibility of ecu­
menical councils, but actually denied it by teaching that
their decrees and definitions are not irreformable un­
less accepted by all the faithful. The Modernists hold
practically the same doctrine, as is evident from the
proposition condemned by Piux X: “In the defini­
tion of truths the Church teaching and the Church
2 Cardinal Bellarmine, “De Conciliis,” I, 17.
3 Art. XXI. Cfr. Schaff, Vol. Ill, p. 500.

460

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

taught work together in such wise that nothing re­
mains for the Church teaching except to sanction the
common opinions of the Church taught.” 4

§ 2. Infallibility of Councils Demonstrated

Proofs. I. From Reason, a) If the bishops are
free from error at any time, they certainly must be
when assembled in council by the supreme head of the
Church to exercise their authority as teachers in the
most solemn manner by defining matters of faith and
morals for the universal Church.
b) If the bishops assembled in council to define
questions of faith or morals for the whole Church
should fall into error, the Church herself would in­
evitably fall into the same error, since the faithful are
obliged to accept their teachings. Then would the
gates of hell prevail against the Church, the Holy
Ghost, the Spirit of truth, would fail in His mission;
the indefectibility and Apostolicity of the Church
would be destroyed; the Church would cease to be
the pillar and ground of truth established by Christ
upon the rock.
II. From Scripture. “Where two or three are
gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst
of them.” 1 On the occasion when Our Lord uttered
these words He was speaking to His Apostles of the
man who proves incorrigible under fraternal correc4 Pius X, “Decree Lamentabili,” 3 July, 1907; Denzinger, n. 2006.
1 Matt, xviii, 15.

INFALLIBILITY OF THE BISHOPS

461

tion. He is to be denounced to the Church for official
correction, but “if he will not hear the Church, let him
be to thee as the heathen and publican.” Then, to
show that the ministers of the Church have authority
to handle such cases, He added: “Whatsoever you
shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven”
Christ then continues to tell the Apostles that, when­
ever they meet to consider a case of tin’s kind, or, in
fact, any matter of interest to the Church, they shall
have special assistance and shall obtain whatever they
ask of the Father: “Again I say to you, that if two
of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing
whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by
my Father who is in heaven. For where two or three
arc gathered together in my name, there am I in the
midst of them.”
Now, if two or three gathered together to decide
matters of such minor importance, are promised special
assistance and shall obtain whatever they ask of the
Father, what must be expected when the bishops of
the whole world are called together by the supreme
head of the Church to define questions of faith or
morals for all the faithful? Will not the promise of
Christ be fulfilled when they ask the Father for wisdom
and light to know the truth and to define it unerringly
for the faithful?
III. From Tradition. In refuting heretics, the
Fathers of the Church constantly appeal to the defini­
tions of ecumenical councils as to a secure standard
of faith. For example:

462

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

d) St. Gregory the Great says: “I confess that I
accept and venerate the four councils even as the
four books of the Gospel.” 2 At that time there had
been but four ecumenical councils, and St. Gregory ac­
cepts them as of equal authority with the Gospels.
b) St. Cyril of Alexandria: “When the Fathers [of
the council] issued canons of sincere and irreproach­
able faith, they were directed by the Holy Ghost, that
they might not depart from the truth. In fact, as
Christ the Saviour testifies, it was not they who spoke,
but the Spirit of God the Father who spoke in them.”3
c) St. Athanasius: “The word of the Lord, which
came through the ecumenical Synod of Nicæa, abides
forever.” 4
d~) Pope Hormisdas: “Those who hold to the con­
stitutions of the Fathers and cherish those foundations
of faith, do not depart from the things which they de­
fined by the impelling power of the Holy Ghost.” 5
The Fathers of the councils always looked upon their
definitions as infallibly true and, therefore, excom­
municated all who dared deny or question them. The
Council of Chalcedon distinctly asserted the fact of
divine assistance: “We seemed to see the heavenly
Bridegroom present with us. For if where two or
three are gathered together in His name, He has said
that there He is in the midst of them, must He not
2“Epist.
8 “Epist.
4 “Epist.
6 “Epist.

ad
ad
ad
ad

Joannem Constantinop.”; P. L., 77, 478.
Monachos Aegypti”; P. G., 77, IS.
Episcopos Afros”; P. G., 26, 1031 *
Epiphanium Hierosol.”; P. L., S3, S19.

INFALLIBILITY OF THE BISHOPS

463

have been much more particualrly present with five
hundred and twenty bishops, who preferred the spread
of knowledge concerning Him to their country and
their ease?”6
§ 3. Objections Answered

Objection I.—St. Gregory of Nazianzen certainly
did not believe councils infallible, for he says: “If I
am to write the truth, I keep as far as possible from
any meeting of bishops, because I never knew a council
with a happy ending, nor one that did not do more
harm than good.” 1
Answer.—In this passage St. Gregory refers to the
numerous local councils, in which Arian bishops, under
the protection of the emperor, sought to pervert the
Catholic faith. Only one ecumenical council,—that
of Nicæa in 325,—had been held up to the time of
St. Gregory, and he speaks of it with the greatest re­
spect. He says: “In the holy Synod held at Nicæa,
the Holy Ghost brought together three hundred and
eighteen most chosen men.” 2
Objection II.—St. Augustine expressly declares
that ecumenical councils are fallible, for he says:
‘‘Councils which are held in the several districts and
provinces must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt,
to the authority of plenary councils, which are formed
0 “Epistola Synodica ad Leonem”; P. L., 54, 951 *
1 “Epist. ad Procop.”; P. G., 37, 226.
2 St. Gregory Nazianzen, “Oratio in Laudem Athanas”; P. G-, 35,
1095.

464

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

for the whole Christian world; and even of the plenary
councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which
follow them.”3 Councils thus subject to correction
cannot be infallible.
Answer.—When St. Augustine wrote these words,
only two ecumenical councils had been held,—one at
Nicæa in 325, and one at Constantinople in 381. Con­
sequently, he was not referring to ecumenical councils
when he said that “the earlier are ojten corrected by
those which follow them.” Plenary councils are evi­
dently those which represent more than one province
or district of the Church, but not the whole Christian
world in the literal sense. But even granting that
ecumenical councils are meant, there is nothing to in­
dicate that St. Augustine denied them infallibility. He
says: “The earlier are often corrected by those which
follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things
are brought to light which were before concealed, and
that is known which previously lay hid.” A doctrine
defined by one council in its more general aspects may
be taken up by another council and defined more in
detail, because further study or controversy has made
such action necessary or advisable. The doctrine of
transubstantiation, for instance, was defined by the
Fourth Lateran Council, but was afterward defined in
more definite terms by the Council of Trent, because
the controversies on this subject in the sixteenth cen­
tury made such action necessary. The words of St.
Augustine naturally suggest just this sort of correction.
3 “De Baptismo,” ii, 3; P. L., 43, 128 *

INFALLIBILITY OF THE BISHOPS

465

Objection III.—In 431 the Council of Ephesus re­
affirmed the Nicene Creed and anathematized any one
who should dare write or compose any other. Yet
many other creeds have been composed by subsequent
councils.
Answer.—This objection has reference to the
seventh canon of Ephesus, which reads: “The holy
Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring
forward, or to write or compose, a different faith as a
rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled
with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.” 4 If “to compose a
different faith” simply means to express in different
words, or with fuller explanation, the faith defined at
Nicæa, the canon is merely disciplinary and might be
changed by any subsequent council. On the other
hand, if the phrase refers to a jaith inconsistent with
that defined at Nicæa, it is an evident acknowledgment
of infallibility in the Council of Nicæa, whose dogmatic
decrees cannot be changed by any authority in the
Church. That this is the true meaning is evident from
the words of St. Cyril of Alexandria, who presided at
the Council of Ephesus and seems to have been the
author of the canon in question. He says: “The
holy Ecumenical Synod gathered at Ephesus provided,
oj necessity, that no other exposition of faith besides
that which existed, which the most blessed Fathers,
speaking in the Holy Ghost, defined, should be brought
into the Churches of God.” Then he answers those
who accused him of violating this canon by his own
1 Labbé-Cossart, T. Ill, col. 689.*

466

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

explanations of the faith: “The divine disciple wrote,
'Be ready always to give answer to every one who
asketh you an account of the hope which is in you.’
But he who willeth to do this, innovates nothing, nor
doth he frame any new exposition of faith, but rather
maketh plain to those who ask him, what faith he hath
concerning Christ.” 5
ART. II.

INFALLIBILITY OF THE BISHOPS

IN

THEIR

ORDINARY TEACHING CAPACITY

Thesis.—The bishops of the Church, taken as a
body in union with the Roman Pontiff, are in­
fallible in the ordinary exercise of their
universal teaching authority
§ 1. Explanation and Proof
Explanation. The ordinary teaching authority of
the bishops is that which they exercise in teaching the
faithful of their respective dioceses by pastoral letters,
by sermons delivered by themselves or by others ap­
proved for that purpose, and by catechisms or other
books of instruction edited or approved by them.1
When the bishops of the Church, thus engaged in the
duty of instructing their people, are practically unani­
mous in proclaiming a doctrine of faith or morals, they
are said to exercise a universal teaching authority, and
5 St. Cyril of Alexand., “Epist. ad Acacium”; P. G., 77, 190*
1 Wilmers, “De Ecclesia Christi,” n, 226.

INFALLIBILITY OF THE BISHOPS

467

are then infallible in regard to that doctrine. In other
words, a doctrine of faith or morals in which practically
all the bishops of the Church agree, is infallibly true.
Taken in the sense just explained, the thesis is a
dogma of faith, defined by the Vatican Council in the
following words: “All things are to be accepted by
divine and Catholic faith, which are contained in the
written or traditional word of God and set forth by the
Church as divinely revealed, whether this be done by
solemn decree or by the ordinary and universal teaching
authority.” 2
Proofs. I. From Reason. The faith of the
Church believing must correspond to the faith pro­
posed by the bishops who constitute the teaching body
in the Church. Therefore, if the bishops as a body
were not infallible, the whole Church might be led into
error at any time, and thereby cease to be the Church
of Christ, the pillar and ground of truth. The faith­
ful, it is true, have often refused to accept false teach­
ings from bishops and priests, but they refused pre­
cisely because the doctrines were recognized as differing
from those commonly taught in the Church. In such
cases particular churches were saved from error by
the recognized infallible authority of the episcopal body
as a whole.
IL From Scripture. Christ promised special as­
sistance to His Apostles and their successors in the
discharge of their duty as teachers. He promised that
2 Denzinger, n. 1792.

468

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

He himself would be with them all days even to the
consummation of the world, and that the Holy Ghost
abiding with them forever would lead them into all
truth. Neither of these promises was limited to the
rare occasions of ecumenical councils; such limitation
would nullify the words of Christ, “I am with you all
days.”
HI. From Tradition. The Fathers often appeal to
the universal teaching of the Church as to an undoubted
norm of divine truth. For example, St. Vincent of
Lerins says: “Whatever a man shall ascertain to have
been held, written, or taught, not by one or two, but by
all equally with one consent, openly, frequently, and
persistently, that, he must understand, he himself also
is to believe without any doubt or hesitation.” 3
Many heresies in the Church were overcome by the
unanimous teaching of the bishops, without the inter­
vention of ecumenical councils. When heretics urged
that councils be called to pass judgment on their doc­
trines, the Fathers often objected that the universal
teaching of the Church was sufficient to condemn them.
St. Augustine, for instance, said of the Pelagian heresy:
“Indeed was there need of the congregation of a synod
to condemn this open pest, as if no heresy could at any
time be condemned except by a synodical congrega­
tion? On the contrary, very few heresies can be found
for the sake of condemning which any such necessity
has arisen.” 4
3 “Commonitorium,” 3; P. L., 50, 641.*
4 “Contra Epistolas Pelagianorum,” iv, 34; P. L., 44, 638.*

INFALLIBILITY OF THE BISHOPS

469

§ 2. Practical Conclusions

Majority Infallible. Since the bishops are in­
fallible in their corporate capacity only, individual
bishops may err at any time in regard to faith and
morals, but all cannot fall into the same error at the
same time. The further question now arises: Can a
majority of the bishops fall into error at one and the
same time regarding a matter of faith or morals? Or,
to state the opposite side of the question; Is the agree­
ment of a majority of the bishops of the world sufficient
to establish the infallible truth of a doctrine, or must
there be a practically unanimous agreement? It seems
most probable that the agreement of a majority is suf­
ficient to insure the truth of any doctrine, for it would
certainly be a great evil for the Church if the greater
part of her teaching body could fall into error at any
time. It is true that in such a crisis the infallible au­
thority of the Roman Pontiff would be sufficient to
preserve the faith, but the Catholicity of the Church
would be seriously affected, if not destroyed. Besides,
it can scarcely be admitted that Christ, in His wis­
dom, would allow such a calamity to befall His Church.
But it may be objected that this very thing did happen
at the councils of Arimini and Seleucia, in 359, when
practically all the bishops of the West and many from
the East signed an heretical formula of faith. An ex­
amination of the facts show that no defection from
faith really took place.
The Arian party gained a victory at the double coun­

470

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

cil of Arimini and Seleucia by skillfully managing to
avoid any direct condemnation of their doctrines.
They succeeded in having a creed signed that prac­
tically ignored the questions at issue, but the creed it­
self was not heretical. It clearly taught the equality of
the Father and the Son, who was “born before all
ages, . . . who is similar to the Father in all things as
the Scriptures say and teach.” 1 The bishops also con­
demned in express terms all those who taught that the
Son is unlike tlie Father, but the words sub stance, per­
son, consubstantivi, around which the whole contro­
versy raged, were entirely omitted. Hence the bishops
did not err in regard to faith, but simply failed to meet
the occasion, as they should have done, by a direct and
decisive condemnation.
Custodians of Faith. Even though not infallible
as an individual, each bishop is the divinely constituted
teacher and judge of the faith in his diocese. He is
the custodian of the faith for those committed to his
care; his duty is to teach and interpret the truths of
revelations and to decided controverted points, when
necessity requires. Consequently, his teaching and his
declarations on matters of faith and morals are to be
accepted, unless they are opposed to the universal
teachings of the Church. Should any doubts arise on
this point, it must be decided by superior authority, not
by the faithful. The bishop is neither the supreme
teacher nor the supreme judge in matters of faith or
1 Socrates, “Hist. Eccles.,” ii, 37 ; P. G., 67, 306.
Sozomen, “Hist. Eccles.,” iv, 17; P. G., 67, 1162.

INFALLIBILITY OF THE BISHOPS

471

morals; hence, appeal may always be made to a higher
tribunal; but order and unity in the Church demand
that the bishop’s judgment be respected until final de­
cision has been made.
Value of Tradition. The value of Tradition as
proof for revealed doctrine rests principally upon the
active and passive infallibility of the Church. When­
ever there are sufficient witnesses to prove that a cer­
tain doctrine is accepted by the whole Church as a
revealed truth, or that it is taught as such by a majority
of the bishops, it is immediately evident that the doc­
trine is infallibly true and could be defined as a dogma
of faith, if not already so defined. When appealing to
tradition in this sense, it matters not what age of the
Church be selected, since truth does not change with
the centuries. The truth of a doctrine is established
just as securely by proving its universal acceptance
today, as by showing that it was universally accepted
in any past age of the Church. But when tradition is
used simply for its historical value, as a witness to
what Christ or His Apostles did or taught, then the
earlier the witness, the more valuable his testimony,
because he approaches nearer to those who actually
saw and heard the things related.2
2 So far wc have used tradition simply for its historical value.
Now that the infallibility of the Church has been established, we
may use tradition as a witness to prove that a doctrine is infallibly
true because taught or professed by the universal Church.

CHAPTER XV
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF

Since the Roman Pontiff holds supreme power in the
Church, the infallible teaching authority of the bishops
must be exercised in complete subjection to him. This
fact alone is sufficient proof that he himself must be
preëminently infallible, for otherwise the infallible au­
thority of the bishops would be thwarted by subjection
to their fallible head; but the doctrine is so often mis­
understood and so strenuously opposed by non­
Catholics that it is necessary to treat it more in detail.
This is most conveniently done (1) by giving an ac­
curate statement of the doctrine with proofs drawn
from Scripture and Tradition, (2) by answering the
principal objections urged against it.
ART. I.

THE DOCTRINE OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

Thesis.—The Roman Pontiff is infallible when he
speaks ex cathedra, defining a doctrine of
faith or morals for the universal Church
§ 1.

The Doctrine Explained

Dogma of Faith. The doctrine of papal infalli­
bility was defined by the Vatican Council in the follow472

INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE

473

ing words: “Faithfully adhering to the tradition re­
ceived from the beginning of the Christian faith, for
the glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the
Catholic religion, and the salvation of the Christian
people, the Sacred Council approving, we teach and
define that it is a dogma divinely revealed that the
Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is,
when in the discharge of the office of pastor and teacher
of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic
authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or
morals to be held by the universal Church, by the
divine assistance promised him in the blessed Peter, is
possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine
Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed
for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and
that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff
are irreformable of themselves, and not from the con­
sent of the Church.” 1
Conditions of Infallibility. The Council care­
fully states the conditions under which the Roman
Pontiff enjoys the gift of infallibility; viz., that he
speak (û) ex cathedra, (Z>) for the universal Church,
(c) with supreme authority, (d) on matters of faith or
morals.
a) EX cathedra. The Greek word cathedra (seat)
is here used to designate office or authority, just as
Our Lord used it when He said: “The scribes and
Pharisees have sitten on the chair [cathedra ] of Moses.
All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you,
1 Denzinger, n. 1839.

474

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

observe and do2 The English equivalents for this word
are used in the same sense when we say that a judge
occupies the bench, or a professor, the chair of philoso­
phy. In fact, chair is as widely recognized as a symbol
of teaching authority as throne is for ruling authority.
In Church usage cathedra unites both ideas and desig­
nates, in particular, the authority of a bishop to teach
and govern, since his throne is known as a cathedra,
whence the name cathedral, i. e., the church containing
the bishop’s cathedra. It is evident, then, that when
the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he is speaking officially
as supreme pastor of the universal Church, and it is
then only that the Council declared him infallible.
There is nothing to indicate that he is infallible in his
private capacity as a theologian or as teacher instruct­
ing others in the faith.
b) for the universal church. As noted above,
the Pope is not only supreme head of the Church, but
also bishop of Rome, primate of Italy, and patriarch
of the West. The Council declared him infallible only
in his capacity as supreme pastor,—“when discharging
the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians.”
Consequently decisions rendered in particular cases, or
decrees issued for particular churches, are not con­
sidered infallible; but it is not necessary that the Pope
directly address all the faithful, or even all the bishops,
when defining a doctrine ex cathedra. Theologians
commonly hold that such a decree might be issued di­
rectly to one bishop only, provided it is evidently in2 Matt, xxiii, 2-3.

INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE

475

tended for the whole Church. Hence, as Cardinal
Mazzella observes, “it should be noted for whom, rather
than to whom the Pope speaks. If it is evident from
the nature of the matter treated, from the manner of
treatment, or from any other circumstance, that he
speaks for all, there seems to be nothing lacking for an
ex cathedra pronouncement.” 3
c) with supreme authority. Λ definition of
faith or morals is not infallible unless intended to be
such, for the Pope acting as supreme pastor may issue
decrees for the whole Church and still not intend them
to be definite and irrevocable pronouncements on the
matter treated. Hence the Council says: “When, by
virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a
doctrine,” i. e., when he uses his supreme authority to
give a final and irrevocable decision. This does not
require the use of a set formula; any words may be
used that will sufficiently indicate the definitive nature
of the decree.
</) faith or morals. Infallibility is given as a
means to preserve the truths committed to the custody
of the Church,—truths concerning faith and morals,
which alone pertain to the matter of salvation. Con­
sequently, the very purpose of infallibility restricts it
to these same truths.
Source of Infallibility. The Council expressly
stated that the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is due
to divine assistance; both revelation and inspiration are
thus excluded, and the use of natural means of knowl3 Mazzella, “De Religione et Ecclesia,” η. 1052.

476

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

edge presupposed. Before issuing a definition of faith,
the Pope must diligently inquire into the matter to be
defined, for otherwise he would be forcing God, as it
were, to give supernatural assistance where natural
means are sufficient. Should the Pope neglect to make
due investigation, he would be guilty of sin, but his
decree would be protected from error, because infalli­
bility would be utterly useless if definitions could not
be accepted with certainty until it were known that
sufficient investigation and study of the matter had
been made.
Personally Infallible. The advocates of Gallicanism in the seventeenth century taught that the de­
crees of the Roman Pontiff are not infallible unless
accepted by the whole Church. “His judgment is not
irreformable or exempt from revision unless accepted
by the Church.” Some tried to maintain a sort of
papal infallibility by making a distinction between the
See of Rome and its occupant. They held that the
See itself is infallible, although individual Popes may
err; if one Pope falls into error, his mistake will be
corrected without fail by some successor, thus preserv­
ing the See from error.4
The Council rejected this doctrine by declaring that
“definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of
themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.”
To make infallibility depend upon acceptance by the
Church is to subvert the very constitution of the
Church and make the faithful judges of their divinely
4 Ci. Catholic Encyclopedia, art. “Gallicanism.”

INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE

477

constituted rulers and teachers. Power and authority
in the Church was given to the Apostles and their
successors independently of the consent of the faithful,
and the Church never sought such consent to make laws
or to define doctrines of faith. The supreme power in
the Church was conferred directly upon St. Peter, and
through him upon his successors, independently even
of the other Apostles; consequently, whatever power
and prerogatives the Roman Pontiff holds as successor
of St. Peter, he holds and exercises independent of all
others, and neither his decrees nor his definitions of
faith receive any binding force or infallible authority
from the consent of bishops or faithful.
The absurd distinction made by the Gallicans be­
tween the See and its occupant would frustrate the very
purposes of papal infallibility. If individual popes may
err, their definitions could not be accepted as infallible
until tested by time, but who is to decide what length
of time is necessary? And if one pope reverses the
definition of a predecessor, who is to decide which
definition is to be accepted as true?
In Private Capacity. The Council declared the
Roman Pontiff personally infallible when speaking
officially as head of the universal Church, but left un­
touched the question whether the Pope in his private
capacity, or in his official capacity as bishop, primate
or patriarch, can fall into heresy or teach heresy.
Some theologians
maintain that he can. Straub cites
o
Hadrian II and Innocent III as favoring this opinion.
Cardinal Bellarmine, Suarez, and many other eminent

478

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

theologians consider the opposite opinion more prob­
able. Suarez says: “God could provide that no in­
jury would accrue to the Church from an heretical pope,
but it seems more in accord with His divine providence
to preserve the pope from heresy in consequence of
the promise that he shall never err in defining faith.
Furthermore, as such a thing has never happened in
the Church, we may conclude that, in the providence of
God, it cannot happen.” 5

§ 2. The Doctrine Proved jrom Scripture
The passages of Scripture having direct reefrence
to this subject are found in Matthew xvi, 18, 19; Luke
xxii, 31, 32 and John xxi, 16, 17. In the text from
Matthew infallibility is implicity promised to St. Peter
in symbolic language. In Luke it is again promised,
but this time explicitly and in plain language. Finally,
in John the promise is fufilled when the primacy of
teaching and governing authority is conferred upon St.
Peter under the symbol of pastoral care for the flock
of Christ. In every case St. Peter is addressed as head
of the Apostolic body, and the power conferred upon
him is to endure until the end of time; it is a power to
be perpetuated in his successors, the bishops of Rome.
These texts have been considered in their relation to
Peter’s primacy of jurisdiction; we shall now examine
them briefly in their bearing upon the question of in­
fallibility.
5 Straub, ‘‘De Ecclesia Christi,” n. 1068; cfr. Card. Bellarmine,
“De Romano Pontifice,” iv, 6; Suarez, “De Fide,” Disp. x, 6, n. 11.

INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE

479

a) Matthew xvi, 18-19: “Thou art Peter, and
upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates
of hell shall not prevail against it.” In these words
Our Lord promised that St. Peter and his successors
should be the rock-foundation, to render His Church
firm and impregnable for all time, even to the consum­
mation of the world. It is to be the pillar and ground
oj truth, and therefore impregnable against the as­
saults of error. Should the Church fall into error, it
would cease to be the Church of Christ and the gates
of hell would prevail against it. Therefore, the
Church is rendered infallible and preserved infallible
by that rock-foundation which secures it against the
gates of hell and constitutes it the pillar and ground
of truth; and since the Church derives her infallibility
from this rock-foundation, i. e., from St. Peter and his
successors, the latter must also be infallible, and their
infallibility is even prior to that of the Church.
On this same occasion Christ promised that whatever
St. Peter would bind or loose on earth, should be bound
or loosed also in Heaven. On another occasion the
same words were addressed to all the Apostles collec­
tively; but here they are addressed to St. Peter alone,
thus promising him a supreme power of binding and
loosing that is unlimited in its extent and application;
it applies to teaching as well as to governing authority.
In fact, most Protestant interpreters claim that it re­
fers to teaching authority alone. Consequently, what­
ever St. Peter or his successors teach on earth shall be
ratified in Heaven, and that without fail since the

480

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

promise is unconditional. Could such a promise be
made by Our Lord if there were any possibility of er­
ror in the teaching which He assures us will be ratified
in Heaven?
ό) Luke, xxii, 31-32: “Simon, Simon, behold
Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sijt you
as wheat; but I have frayed jor thee, that thy jaith
jail not; and thou being once converted, confirm thy
brethren” These words form part of the last will and
testament of Our Lord, made but a few hours before
His death on the cross. Looking out upon the cen­
turies, He saw the trials and temptations prepared for
His faithful by Satan; He foresaw the many heresies
that would arise to lead astray the unwary and the un­
suspecting. He provides against these dangers by con­
ferring a special grace,—the gift of infallibility,—upon
the chief pastor of His flock, and charges him to con­
firm his brethren: “I have prayed jor thee, that thy
jaith jail not. Confirm thy brethren.” Plainer or
more emphatic words could not have been uttered by
Him who came as the Teacher of mankind.
c) John xxi, 16-17: “Feed my lambs . . . jeed
my sheep.” These solemn words of Our Lord, uttered
shortly before His Ascension, conferred upon St. Peter
and his successors the promised primacy of jurisdiction
with its grace of infallibility. The entire flock of
Christ was committed to the care of their supreme
pastor; the lambs and the sheep were subjected to his
authority in all things. But if the pastor, whom the
sheep must obey, would fall into error, they would in-

INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE

481

evitably be led into the same error; he would feed them
poison instead of the wholesome food of revealed truth
and the promises of Christ would be void, for the
Spirit of truth would desert the Church. Our Lord
must have provided against such an eventuality in the
only way possible, i. e., by making the chief pastor of
the flock infallible.

§ 3. Doctrine Proved from Testimony of Councils

The doctrine of papal infallibility is established be­
yond the possibility of doubt by the fact that it is ac­
cepted throughout the entire Church as a revealed doc­
trine and taught as such by the bishops of the whole
world in their ordinary teaching capacity. It was also
defined by an almost unanimous vote of more than
eight hundred bishops assembled in ecumenical coun­
cil from every part of the world. No one can deny
these facts today, and it has been proved in the pre­
ceding chapters that the believing Church {ecclesia
discens) is infallible in accepting truths of revelation,
and that the bishops as a body are infallible in their
ordinary teaching capacity, no less than when assem­
bled in ecumenical council. Again, the fact that a doc­
trine is now believed and taught by the whole Church
as a revealed truth, is positive proof that it has been
so believed and taught in all ages, since the Church
must proclaim and profess the entire deposit of faith
at all times. Hence, in defining the doctrine of papal
infallibility, the Vatican Council professed to “adhere

482

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

faithfully to the tradition received from the beginning
of the Christian faith.” Just how faithfully the
Fathers of the Vatican Council adhered to tradition
may be gathered from a study of other councils cele­
brated at various times. For this purpose we select
five ecumenical councils, ranging over a period of al­
most ten centuries. With one exception, they were all
celebrated in the East and attended almost exclusively
by bishops from the Eastern Church which, it is now
claimed, never recognized the Roman Primacy, much
less the doctrine of papal infallibility.
(A) Council of Lyons (12 74). Thç infallibility
of the Roman Pontiff is clearly implied in the following
words: “The holy Roman Church also holds supreme
and complete primacy and domination over the uni­
versal Catholic Church, which primacy and dominanation she truthfully and humbly recognizes as com­
ing from Our Lord himself through the blessed Peter,
prince and head of the Apostles, and whose successor
is the Roman Pontiff. Wherefore, as he is obliged
above others to defend the truth of faith, it follows that
when any questions concerning faith arise, they are to
be decided by his judgment.” 1
This decree was reaffirmed by bishops from the East
and the West assembled at the ecumenical Council of
Florence during the years 1439-1445.
(B) Fourth Council of Constantinople (869).
All the Fathers attending this council signed a formula
of faith, in which the following significant words occur:
1 Dcnzinger, n. 466.

INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE

483

“The first requisite of salvation is to cling to the rule
of right faith, and to depart in nothing from the con­
stitutions of the Fathers. Neither can those words of
Our Lord Jesus Christ be neglected: ‘Thou art Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ The
words have been proved by their effects, for in the
Apostolic See the Catholic religion has ever been pre­
served jrce from stain. . . . Therefore I hope to be
worthy to remain with you2 in that communion
preached by the Apostolic See, in which the true Chris­
tian religion is preserved entire and in perfect solid­
ity.” 3
This formula, signed by the bishops at Constaninople in the ninth century, is also a witness to the
faith of the Eastern Church in the sixth century, since
it was originally drawn up by Pope Hormisdas, about
the year 516 and submitted to a number of eastern
bishops, who wished to abandon the Acacian schism
and return to the Church.4
(C) Third Council of Constantinople (680).
The letter of Pope Agatho, read before the Fathers of
the council and approved by them, contains the follow­
ing words, setting forth the doctrine of papal infalli­
bility in unmistakable terms: “Through the protec­
tion of Peter, who was pronounced blessed, this his
Apostolic church has never departed from the way of
truth into any error whatsoever. ... In prosperity
2 These words were addressed to Pope Hadrian II.
3 Denzinger, n. 171-172.
4 Hormisdas, “Epist. ad Joannem Nicopolitanum” ; P. L., 63, 393.

484

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

and in adversity, the rule of true faith is held and de­
fended by this spiritual mother, . . . who, by the
grace of God, shall never be known to have erred nor
succumbed to heretical novelties. From the beginning
of the Christian faith even unto the end, she remains
unsullied, according to the divine promise made by the
Saviour himself to the prince of His disciples: ‘Peter,
Peter, behold Satan hath desired to have you, etc.’
Let your clemency 5 consider, therefore, that the Lord
and Saviour of all, who promised unfailing faith to
Peter, admonished him to confirm his brethren. This
the Apostolic pontiffs, predecessors of my unworthi­
ness, have ever done, as is known to all.” c
At the close of the council the acts were sent to Pope
Agatho for his approval and confirmation. The ac­
companying letter contained these words: “We leave
to your judgment what should be done, since as bishop
of the first See in the universal Church you stand upon
the firm rock of faith. We willingly agree with the let­
ters of true confession sent to the most pious Emperor
by your fatherly Beatitude; we acknowledge them as
divinely prescribed by the chief head of the Apostles.
. . . By means of them we have put down the here­
tical sect lately arisen . . . and we have cut off the
heretics by anathemas, according to the sentence al­
ready decreed against them by your sacred letters.” 7
It would be difficult to find a more explicit acknowl5 The letter was addressed to the Emperor.
6 St. Agatho, “Epist. ad Augustos”; P. L., 87, 1169.
7 “Epist. ad Agathonem”; P. L., 87, 1248-1249.

INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE

485

edgment of papal infallibility, even today, after it def­
inition by the Vatican Council.
(D) Council of Chalcedon (451). Leo the
Great sent representatives to this council, with the in­
struction that the bishops gathered there should sub­
scribe to the faith as formulated in his letter to Flavian,
archbishop of Constantinople. He wrote: “Most
dear brethren, let all attempts at disputing against the
divinely inspired faith, and the vain unbelief of here­
tics be laid to rest, and let not that be defended which
may not be believed; since in accordance with the
authoritative statements of the Gospel, in accordance
with the utterances of the prophets and the teaching
of the Apostles, with the greatest fulness and clearness
in the letter which we sent to Bishop Flavian oj happy
memory, it has been laid down what is the loyal and
pure confession upon the mystery oj Our Lord Jesus
Christ’s Incarnation.” 8
It is evident from these words that Pope Leo formu­
lated the doctrine to which all were to subscribe with­
out any attempts at disputing against the divinely in­
spired jaith, yet no one raised his voice in protest
against this manifest assumption of infallible author­
ity. When the Pope’s letter to Flavian was read, the
bishops cried out with one voice: “This is the faith
of the Fathers. . . . Anathema to him who believes
differently. Peter hath spoken thus by the mouth of
Leo.” 0 The sentence of deposition against Dioscorus
8 Pope Leo, “Epist. ad Synodum”; P. L., 54, 937, 939 *
0 Mansi, VI, col. 971.*

486

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

was also passed in the name of Leo, the successor of
St. Peter and the foundation oj true jaith. It reads:
“Leo through us and through this holy synod, in union
with the thrice blessed and most holy Apostle Peter, the
rock and support of the Catholic Church and the
foundation of the true faith, hath stripped Dioscorus
of his episcopal dignity.” 10
(E) Council of Ephesus (431). Pope Celestine
wrote the Fathers at Ephesus, directing them to “carry
out what things have been already decreed by us.”
When the letter was read, “all the most reverend
bishops cried out at the same time: ‘To Celestine the
guardian of the faith! To Celestine of one mind with
the Synod! To Celestine the whole Synod offers its
thanks!’ ” Philip, one of the papal legates, then said:
“We offer our thanks that when the writings of our
holy and blessed Pope had been read to you, ... ye
joined yourselves to the most holy head by your holy
acclamations. For Your Blessedness is not ignorant
that the head oj the whole jaith, the head oj the Apos­
tles, is blessed Peter the A postle. . . . We ask that ye
give order that there be laid before us what things were
done in this holy Synod before our arrival, in order
that, according to the opinion of our blessed Pope, . . .
we may likewise ratify their determination.” 11
In the bishops’ letter to Pope Celestine these words
occur: “The zeal of Your Holiness for piety, and your
care for the right faith, so grateful and highly pleasing
10 Mansi, VI, col. 1047.
11 Labb-Cossart, III. 617.*

INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE

487

to God, the Saviour of us all, are worthy of all admira­
tion. For it is your custom in such great matters to
make trial of all things and the confirmation of the
Churches you have made your own care.” 12
These various references to the position and author­
ity of the Roman Pontiff do not explicitly mention the
doctrine of infallibility, but they certainly presuppose
it. The Pope is the guardian oj the jaith, the succes­
sor of St. Peter, head oj the whole jaith; he cares for
the right jaith, makes trial of all things, and confirms
the Churches. Duties such as these demand infalli­
bility for their proper performance, yet the Fathers of
the council express no misgivings on that point. These
expressions of the Fathers at Ephesus leave no doubt
as to their import when they are considered in the light
of the more explicit testimony of later councils and of
the Fathers who wrote before and after that time.
Remark. Very little has come down to us from the first
council held at Nicæa in 325, or of the first council of Con­
stantinople, in 381. Consequently we have no record of
their belief in regard to papal infallibility, but we do have
the testimony of the Fathers who lived and wrote in that
century. It proves that the doctrine was recognized by the
whole Church then as now.

§4. The Doctrine Proved from the Testimony oj the
Fathers

The testimony of the councils proves that the in­
fallibility of the Roman Pontiff was officially recognized
12“Epist. ad Coclestinum”; P. L., 50, 511*

488

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

in every age of which we have a record. It also gives
us the united testimony of the hundreds of bishops and
Fathers who attended these councils, thus making it
really unnecessary to quote from any individual
Father or writer of those ages, yet for the sake of
completeness, a few private witnesses may be added
(a) from the West, and (ό) from the East.
I. From the West, (a) fulgentius ferrandus (died 533). Severus, a scholastic of Constanti­
nople, wrote to Fulgentius, a deacon of Carthage, for
instructions concerning the Blessed Trinity, and re­
ceived the following reply: “Let those speak and
preach who have received authority to teach along with
the honor of the priesthood. We are ever ready to
learn, but do not presume to teach others. Therefore,
most prudent man, if you wish to learn the truth, ad­
dress first of all the bishop of the Apostolic See, whose
doctrine is preserved, soiind by the judgment oj truth
and is supported by the strength oj authority.” 1
b) Ascanius of tarragona. About the year 465,
Ascanius of Tarragona in Spain and the bishops of his
province wrote to Pope Hilary concerning a bishop who
had been consecrated contrary to the canons of the
Church. They said: “Even though we were not com­
pelled by ecclesisatical discipline, it would still be our
duty to have recourse to that privilege of your See by
which the preaching of the most blessed Peter sufficed
for the illumination of all throughout the whole world.
. . . Therefore, we have recourse to that faith praised
’ “Epist. ad Severum”; P. L., 67, 914.

INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE

489

by the Apostle, and seek a reply where nothing is given
out in error or presumption.” 2
c) st. leo the great (440-461). “The solidity of
the faith which was praised in the chief of the Apostles
is perpetual; and as that remains which Peter believed
in Christ, so that remains which Christ instituted in
Peter. . . . The blessed Peter, persevering in the
strength of the rock which he received, has not aban­
doned the helm of the Church . . . and still today he
more fully and effectually performs what is entrusted
to him. And so if anything is rightly done and rightly
decreed by us, it is his work and merits, whose power
lives and whose authority prevails in his See. . . .
With such solidity is it endued by God that the de­
pravity of heretics cannot mar it nor the unbelief of
the heathen overcome it.” 3
(Γ) st. Augustine (died 430). In speaking of the
Pelagian heresy, St. Augustine says: “Two councils
sent reports of this matter to the Apostolic See, and
the decision has come back. The case is finished.
Would that the error also were ended.” 4 These few
words, clearly recognizing the decision of Rome as
final, and therefore infallible, have been crystallized
into the well-known saying, “Rome has spoken, the
case is ended.”
e) st. Jerome (died 420). When St. Jerome was
in Syria, a great controversy was going on concerning
2“Epist. ad Hilarium”; P. L., 58, 14-15.
3 “Sermon.,” iii; P. L., 54, 146.
4 “Sermon.,” cxxxi, n. 10; P. L., 38, 734.

490

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

the use of the Greek word hypostasis in reference to
the persons of the Trinity. Although one of the great­
est scholars of his age, Jerome turned to Rome for
authoritative information. He wrote to Pope Damasus: “I think it my duty to consult the chair of
Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been
praised by Paul. . . . You alone keep the heritage of
the fathers intact. . . . You are the light of the world.
. . . Let the state of Roman majesty withdraw; my
words are addressed to the successor of the fisherman,
to the disciple of the Cross. As I follow no leader save
Christ, so I communicate with none but Your Blessed­
ness. For this, I know, is the rock on which the
Church is built. ... I implore Your Blessedness,
therefore, to authorize me by letter, either to use or to
refuse this formula of the three hypostases!’δ
/) st. Ambrose (died 397). Satyr, a brother of
St. Ambrose, suffered shipwreck on a voyage to Africa.
He was a catechumen at the time, and in thanksgiving
for his deliverance, immediately sought baptism; ‘‘but
he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called
the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no
true thanksgiving except it spring from true faith, he
enquired whether he [the bishop] agreed with the
Catholic bishops, that is with the Roman Church.” 6
There were heretical bishops in Africa at the time, but
Satyr makes sure to receive Baptism from none of
5 St. Jerome, “Epist. ad Damasum Papam”; P. L., 22, 356—358.*
e St. Ambrose, “De Excessu Fratris sui Satyri,” i, 47; P. L., 16,
1306 *

INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE

491

them; he applies the test of true faith,—agreement with
the Catholic bishops, which is established by agreement
with the bishop of Rome, for, as St. Irenæus had writ­
ten two hundred years before, “it is a matter of neces­
sity that every church should agree with this Church,
on account of its preeminent authority.” 7
II. From the East, (a) st. Theodore of
studium (died 826). When the iconoclast heresy was
raging in the East, Theodore, the learned abbot of a
monastery at Constantinople, wrote to Pope Paschal
for assistance. He said: “Give ear, O Apostolic
head, whom God hath constituted shepherd of Christ’s
sheep, doorkeeper of the kingdom of Heaven, and the
rock of faith upon which the Catholic Church is built.
Thou art Peter, adorning and guiding the See of Peter.
Ravening wolves have broken into the house of the
Lord; the gates of hell are loosed against it as of old.
Come forth from the West, 0 follower of Christ. Arise
and do not cast us off forever! Christ hath said to
thee, ‘Confirm thy brethren.’ Behold, now is the time,
and here is the place. Come to our assistance, thou
whom God hath raised up for that purpose! . . . Thou
hast the power since thou art head over all! ...
Strike terror, we beseech thee, into these fierce heretics
by the pen of thy divine word.” 8
Z>) maximus the confessor was born at Con­
stantinople about 580; died in exile in 662. He wrote:
7 St. Irenæus, “Adversus Hærcscs,” iii, 3, 2; P. G., 7, S48.*
8 St. Theodore of Studium; “Epist. ad Paschalem”; P. G., 90, 1151,
1154.

492

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

“It is not lawful to praise a man who has been con­
demned and cast out by the Apostolic See of Rome,
until he has been reconciled and received back by it.
. . . Therefore, if one does not wish to be a heretic
and be known as such, let him not seek reconciliation
with this or that see; such action is unnecessary and
unreasonable. Let him seek peace with the See of
Rome above all others, because he will then be recog­
nized everywhere and by all as orthodox. ... In vain
does he seek recognition elsewhere, if he has not re­
course to the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of
the Romans, i. e., the Apostolic See, which holds from
the Incarnate Word of God Himself the power of
government and the authority to bind and loose all
things for all men.” 9
c) JOHN, BISHOP OF JERUSALEM (572-592). In a
letter to an Albanian bishop, John of Jerusalem men­
tions the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff in express
terms: “We, that is, the Catholic Church, have the
words of Our Lord addressed to Peter, head of the
Apostles, giving him the primacy oj firm faith for the
Churches. ... To Peter also he gave the keys of the
kingdom of heaven and earth, hence . . . the succes­
sors in his holy and venerable See remain sound in
faith and infallible according to the promise of the
Lord.” 10
d) sozomen (died about 447.) Sozomen in his
9 St. Maximus Confessor, “Epist. ad Petrum”; P. G., 91, 144.
10 John of Jerusalem, “Epist. ad Abbatem Albanorum,” quoted
by Staub, n. 996.

INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE

493

Church History describes the controversy concerning
the divinity of the Holy Ghost and then says: “When
this question was being agitated and the heat of con­
troversy was daily increasing, the matter was brought
to the attention of the bishop of Rome, who wrote to
the Churches of the East that the three Persons of the
Trinity are of the same substance and of equal dignity.
This doctrine, he said, must be confessed by the bishops
of the East as by those of the West. The question
having been thus decided by the Roman Church, peace
was restored, and the question seemed finally at an
end.” 11
e) st. Gregory of nazianzus (died 390). Tim­
othy, a disciple of Apollinarius, was condemned for
heresy by Pope Damasus, but his followers in Cappa­
docia spread the report that his doctrines were later
approved by Rome. St. Gregory says: “If those who
hold the views of Apollinarius have either now or
formerly been received, let them prove it, and we shall
be content. For it is evident that they can only have
been so received as assenting to the orthodox faith, for
this were impossible on any other terms.” 12 These
words prove that St. Gregory accepted approval by
Rome as an infallible test of the true faith; if those
accused of heresy can show that they have been ap­
proved at Rome, he is content to admit them to com­
munion, because such approval “were impossible with­
out assent to the orthodox faith.”
11 Sozomen, “Church History,” vi, 22; P. G., 67, 1347.
12 St. Gregory Nazianzen, “Epist. ad Cledonium”; P. G, 37, 178.*

494

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

/) Greek

liturgy.

In the Greek Liturgy, Pope
Sylvester is addressed as the divinely constituted head
of the Church, a teacher rendered infallible through
the power of the Holy Ghost: “O father Sylvester,
thou didst stand forth a pillar of fire, ... an over­
shadowing cloud, and didst deliver the faithful from
the Egyptian error [Arianism], and didst lead them to
the divine light by thy ever infallible teachings. As di­
vine head of the sacred Fathers thou didst establish
the most sacred dogma and didst close the mouth of
heretics. . . . Tongues which consented to error were
put to shame by the power oj the Holy Ghost, who
wrought in thee.” 13
The testimony of the councils and these few quota­
tions from the many Fathers of the East and the West
who could be cited in this matter, prove conclusively
that the Vatican Council did “faithfully adhere to the
tradition received from the beginning of the Christian
faith.” In defining the doctrine of papal infallibility,
it introduced nothing new, but simply defined a doctrine
held by the universal Church in all ages.
ART. Π.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

The doctrine of papal infallibility is completely over­
thrown if even one pope is found to have erred in his
teachings. But history testifies that not only one, but
many have actually erred in their teachings concerning
faith or morals. For example, the following may be
mentioned:
13 Nilles, “Kalendarium Manuale,” I, 51, 106 sq.

INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE

495

а) liberius (352-356) signed an heretical formula
of faith drawn up at Sirmium by the Arians.
б) zosiMUS (414-418) approved the heretical teach­
ings of Pelagius and Celestius and declared that they
contained nothing contrary to the Catholic faith.
c) hormisdas (514-523) and John II (532-535)
taught contradictory doctrines, since Hormisdas de­
clared it heretical to say that “one of the most Holy
Trinity was crucified,” whereas John II approved the
formula as an expression of Catholic doctrine.
d) vigilius (538-555) at first approved what are
known as the Three Chapters, and afterwards con­
demned them as heretical.
e) honorius i (625-638) approved the doctrine of
the Monothelites, who taught that there is but one will
in Christ. On this account he was condemned as a
heretic by the Council of Constantinople in 680, and the
condemnation was approved by Pope Leo II.
/) zacharias (741-752) ordered a certain Virgilius
to be excommunicated, because he taught that there are
people living on the opposite side of the world.
g) John xxn (1316-1334) fell into heresy concern­
ing the Beatific Vision.
A) Galileo was condemned as a heretic for teaching
that the earth moves around the sun.
Answer. It is true that the doctrine of papal in­
fallibility could not be maintained if one single Pope
had ever erred in teaching ex cathedra, as explained
above; but the promise of Christ precludes such a possi­
bility and history offers no evidence to the contrary.

496

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

The alleged examples of erroneous teaching present
no difficulty, because the requisites for an ex cathedra
definition of faith are lacking in every instance, and in
very few cases was any error really taught. This be­
comes evident upon examination.
a) pope liberius was sent into exile by the Arian
Emperor Constantius, but was afterward allowed to
return to his see. It is claimed that he obtained his
release by signing an heretical creed, drawn up at Sir­
mium by the Arian party, who denied the divinity of the
Son by teaching that He is like (όμοούσως) the Father,
but not of the same nature (όμοωι'σιος). The nature of
the creed signed by Liberius is a matter of conjecture.
In fact, it is by no means certain that he signed any
creed at all. Sozomen, the Church historian, is our
principal source of information in this matter. If his
testimony be accepted, the creed was not heretical, ex­
cept through a false interpretation made possible by
the omission of the disputed terms homoousios and
homoiousios. And Sozomen further states that the
Pope first demanded a confession from all present, that
“those who say the Son is not like the Father in sub­
stance and in all things, are cut off from communion in
the Church.” 1 If this be true, Liberius can be ac­
cused of nothing more than imprudence in signing a
document open to false interpretation.
Even granting that Liberius actually signed an hereti­
cal creed on that occasion, this would prove nothing
against the doctrine of papal infallibility. All admit
1 Sozomen, “Church History,” iv, 15; P. G., 67, 1151.

INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE

i
i

497

that the signing, if done at all, was done under fear and
compulsion, after the Pope had been broken by the
hardships of exile. And act performed under such cir­
cumstances was not free and, therefore, not valid.2
ό) zosimus. Pelagius and Celestius appealed to
Pope Zosimus to examine their teachings and to correct
them, if found erroneous. The Pope, deceived by this
false pretense of good faith, ordered them to be treated
with charity, as they were innocent of intentional
wrong-doing in the matter; but he never approved their
errors. Hence St. Augustine says: “They were ap­
proved on account of their willingness to amend; not
on account of their false doctrines.” 34
c) hormisdas. John Maxentius and a number of
Scythian monks of Constantinople sponsored the saying
that “One oj the Trinity was crucified,” and wished to
have it inserted into the Creed. Hormisdas refused to
sanction this, partly because the formula was open to
heretical interpretation, but more particularly because
its sponsors, who were even then suspected of heresy,
displayed an unbecoming spirit in the matter. John II
afterwards approved the formula in its Catholic sense
that Our Lord, who was one of the three divine Persons,
suffered in His human nature.'1 In the days of Hor­
misdas, many interpreted it to mean that Our Lord has
but one nature, the divine, in which He suffered.
2 Cf. Catholic Encyclopedia, art. “Liberius.”
3 St. Augustine, “Contra Pclagianos”; P. L., 44, 574.
4 Hormisdas, “Epist. ad Possessorem”; P. L., 63, 490; John II,
“Epist. ad Senatores”; P. L., 66, 20-21.

498

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

J) vigilius. The Three Chapters, strictly speaking,
were propositions condeming the works of Theodore of
Mopsuestia, the works of Theodoret of Cyrus against
St. Cyril, and a letter written by Ibas of Odessa to
Maris of Persia; but the works themselves were also
known as the Three Chapters. There is no doubt that
these works contained heretical teachings. Vigilius re­
fused to condemn them because, being ignorant of
Greek, he did not recognize their real nature. Upon
learning that they were heretical, he condemned them,
but soon after withdrew the decree as inopportune.
Finally, under changed circumstances, he reissued the
decree of condemnation. The Pope’s prudence in the
matter may be questioned, but not his faith. At no
time did he approve the works, and always condemned
their errors even while refusing to condemn the works
as a whole.5
e) honorius i. The charge of heresy against
Honorius is based upon certain statements in his letters
to Sergius of Constantinople. These statements are
claimed to be a denial of the two wills in Christ and be­
cause of this denial he was condemned as a heretic by
the Council of Constantinople.
Before considering the statements themselves, it
should be noted that Honorius disclaimed any intention
of issuing a dogmatic decree in the matter. He says
that “in order to remove any scandal, we should neither
define nor preach one or two operations.” Moreover,
the documents were private letters to Sergius, advising
5 Cf. Catholic Encyclopedia, art, “Vigilius” and “Three Chapters.”

ί

INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE

;
(

1

‘

499

him to act prudently in the use of newly devised terms,
lest they be misinterpreted. Consequently there was
no ex cathedra definition of faith; first, because it was
not intended as such, and, secondly, because it was not
issued for the universal Church. The letters in ques­
tion were merely a matter of personal advice requested
by Sergius, but even as such, they contain no error of
doctrine.
At that time the terms will and operation were com­
ing into use in the East in reference to Our Lord. The
L·
« ·
«
Eutychians taught that Christ has but one nature and,
therefore, but one will. The Nestorians held that there
are two persons in Christ and, therefore, two wills.
Catholics were also using these terms, but in a different
sense; they said that Christ has two wills, or operations,
one corresponding to His human, the other to His
divine nature, but these two wills are one in the sense
that the human cannot be at variance with the divine.
This confusion in the use of terms lent itself to mis­
understandings and controversy and greatly disturbed
the minds of the people. For this reason Sergius, arch­
bishop of Constantinople, wrote to Pope Honorius for
advice in the matter. In his reply, Honorius plainly
teaches that there are two wills in Christ,—the one
human, the other divine,—but that they are one in the
sense of being in harmony one with the other. He
then advises Sergius that it were better to avoid entirely
the use of such newly invented terms that may easily
lead the people into error.0
® Honorius, “Epist. ad Sergium”; P. L., 80, 474—476.

500

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

This advice was simply approving the sentiments ex­
pressed by Sergius himself in his letter to the Pope and,
under the circumstances described by Sergius, would
have been given by any prudent man; but it seems that
the heretics continued to spread their false doctrines
under the plea that they had not been condemned. For
this reason, the Council of Constantinople condemned
Honorius as an abettor of heresy. He had not actually
taught any heretical doctrine, but his failure to condemn
it promptly and decisively made its propagation easier.
This, at least, is the sense in which Pope Leo says that
he approved the condemnation by the council: ‘‘The­
odore, Cyrus, and Sergius were punished by eternal con­
demnation, . . . along with Honorus, who did not re­
press the flame of heretical doctrine, as becomes the
Apostolic authority, but favored it by negligence.” He
gives the same explanation in a letter to the Emperor
Constantius: “Honorius did not illumine this Apos­
tolic Church by the doctrine of Apostolic tradition, but
permitted it to be defiled by profane treason.” 7
/) zacharias. Virgilius, a priest or bishop of Ger­
many, had been accused of heresy in regard to the ex­
istence of people beneath the earth, and Zacharias
directed St. Boniface to depose him if he were found
guilty of the charge. There is no question of an ex
cathedra definition of faith; it was simply an order for
St. Boniface to proceed with canonical punishment if
7 Leo II, “Epist. ad Hispaniæ Episcopos”; P. L., 96, 414; “Epist.
ad Constantium”; P. L., 96, 408; Cfr. Mann, “Lives of the Popes,”
Vol. I, P. 1, pp. 330 sqq.

INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE

501

the case demanded it. We cannot even say that Zach­
arias committed an error in the matter, since we know
nothing of the doctrine except what can be gathered
from the slight reference to it by Zacharias himself.
He says: “If it shall be proved that he teaches there
is another world and other people beneath the earth,
... let him be deposed.” 8 The mention of another
world and other people makes it probable that Virgilius
had fallen into the error of those who taught the ex­
istence of people on the opposite side of the world, who
were not descended from Adam and therefore not sub­
ject to original sin.
g) John xxii. Before ascending the papal throne,
John had written works in which he maintained that the
souls of the just do not enjoy the Beatific Vision until
after the resurrection of the body. After becoming
Pope, he still maintained the opinion as probable, but
distinctly stated that he did so in his capacity as a
private theologian. He justified this action on the
ground that the question had never been defined by the
Church and was therefore open for discussion by theo­
logians. The question of infallibility is in no way
involved in the matter, which was not definitely decided
until the time of Benedict XII.9
/z) the galileo case. The condemnation of Gali­
leo is brought forth as undeniable proof for almost
every charge against the Church, but it has no bearing
8 Zacharias, “Epist. ad Bonifatium”; P. L., 89, 946.
9 Cf. Straub, “De Ecclesia Christi,” n. 1045; Jungmann, “Dissert.
Historicae,” Dissert. 32, n. 10.

502

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

whatever on the question of papal infallibility. The
condemnation was made by the Congregation of the
Index, in 1616, and approved by Paul V in the ordinary
routine manner; but no theologian ever dreamed that
such decrees are infallible; they are not intended to be
such. The congregation made a mistake, but that has
nothing to do with papal infallibility.10
10 Cf. Vacandard, “Études de Critique,” Series I, pp. 339 sqq.;
D’Alès, “Dictionnaire Apologétique,” art. “Galilée”; Catholic En­
cyclopedia, art. “Galilei.”

!

CHAPTER XVI
THE EXTENT OF INFALLIBILITY

The extent of infallibility refers to the truths that
may be defined by the Church with infallible authority.
Some truths are directly subject to the infallible au­
thority of the Church by their very nature; others only
indirectly because of their connection with the former.
The one set of truths constitute the primary, the other
the secondary extent of infallibility.
ART. I.

PRIMARY EXTENT OF INFALLIBILITY

Revealed Truths. Since infallibility is nothing
more nor less than protection from error in teaching
and explaining truth, it extends primarily and directly
to all the truths committed to the teaching authority of
the Church. This includes the whole body of Chris­
tian Revelation,—the deposit of faith,1—for Christ
said to His Apostles: “Teach them to observe all
things whatsoever I have commanded you.” 2 He also
promised them the Spirit of truth to preserve them
1 St. Paul was the first to use this term in reference to the body
of revealed truths. He said to Timothy: “Custodi depositum.”
(1 Tim. vi, 20; Cfr. 2 Tim. i, 14.)
2 Matt, xxviii, 20.
503

504

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

from error in teaching these truths: “He will teach
you all things, and bring all things to your mind what­
soever I shall have said to you.”3 It is evident then
that infallibility extends directly and primarily to all
revealed truths, whether of faith or morals.
Faith and Morals. Theologians frequently refer
to matters of faith and matters of morals. The former
includes all those revealed truths proposed for belief
rather than practice, since they are not immediately
concerned with the direction of our lives. The latter
embraces truths directly and immediately concerned
with our actions, and necessary for leading a Christian
life, but as they also are revealed, they must be believed
no less firmly than the others.
Corollaries. Since the infallibility of the Church
extends to all revealed truths, she must be infallible in
determining the sources of revelation and in explaining
their meaning. Therefore,
û) The Church is infallible in determining the canon
of Sacred Scripture, i. e., in deciding what books are
divinely inspired and, therefore, to be received as the
word of God. Inspiration is a fact that can be known
by revelation only; consequently the Church, being in­
fallible in defining revealed truth, is necessarily infalli­
ble in defining what works belong to Holy Scripture.
b) The Church is infallible in expounding the true
sense of revealed truth, whether written or unwritten,
because the Church being infallible in teaching revealed
truth, must likewise be infallible in interpreting the
3 John xiv. 26.

EXTENT OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

SOS

words through which it K—/ is revealed. Furthermore,/
there could be no certain knowledge of revealed truth,
unless there were also certain knowledge of the true
meaning of the words in which it is embodied.
c) The Church is infallible in selecting terms suit­
able to convey the truths which she defines. Truths
can be set forth in words only, i. e., by means of creeds
and dogmatic decrees. Therefore, to be infallible in
teaching, the Church must also be infallible in choosing
words that accurately express her meaning without
ambiguity.
d) The Church is infallible in condemning doctrines
opposed to revealed truth, because in knowing the truth
with infallible certainty, she knows with like certainty
that its contradictory is false. It is metaphysically
impossible for the contradictory of a true proposition to
be anything but false.
e) The Church is infallible in explaining the laws
and precepts of God and the Evangelical Counsels of
Our Lord, since these are all matters of divine revela­
tion.
ART. II.

SECONDARY EXTENT OF INFALLIBILITY

Since the Church is endowed with infallible authority
for the express purpose of preserving intact the deposit
of revealed truth and for expounding it without error,
she must also be infallible in judging of doctrines and
facts so intimately bound up with revealed truths that
they cannot be denied or questioned without endanger-

506

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

ing revealed truth itself. Such doctrines and fact con­
stitute the secondary object or extent of infallibility.
They fall within the province of infallibility only in so
far as they are connected with revealed truth. This
secondary or indirect extent of infallibility includes
especially (a) theological conclusions, (Z>) truths of the
natural order, (c) dogmatic facts, and (J) general dis­
ciplinary matters.
c) Theological Conclusions. A theological con­
clusion is a proposition logically deduced from prem­
ises, one of which is a revealed truth, the other a truth
known by reason, e. g., Christ is true man (revealed
truth); but man is composed of body and soul (truth
known by reason); therefore, Christ has a human body
and a human soul (theological conclusion). The in­
fallible authority of the Church necessarily extends to
such conclusions, for otherwise the deposit of faith
could not be preserved intact. “If the Church were
infallible in revealed truths, but not in matters in­
separably connected with them, she would be like a
commander ordered to defend a city without authority
to make fortifications or to destroy the machinery of
war prepared by the enemy.” 1
6) Natural Truths. Faith necessarily presup­
poses many truths of the purely natural order; such, for
example, as the spirituality of the soul, the possibility
of revelation and miracles, and also the possibility of
attaining certain knowledge through human testimony.
“There are also truths and conceptions, and even terms
1 Van Noort, "De Ecclesia Christi,” n. 88.

EXTENT OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

507

of such nature that revealed truths cannot be set forth
and properly explained without them. Such, for in­
stance, are the notions of substance, person, transubstantiation.” 2 The Church must have infallible au­
thority in regard to all such natural truths, in so far as
they are connected with revealed truth, because without
such authority she could not preserve and expound
revelation with infallible security.
c) Dogmatic Facts. A dogmatic fact is one that
has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected
with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge
of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the
doctrine. For example, was the Vatican Council truly
ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was
the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be
decided with certainty before decrees issued by any
council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or
binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the
Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and
since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in
teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous con­
sent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council
as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately
elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the
fact.
Whether a particular book or document contains
heresy or true doctrine is also a dogmatic fact. Hence,
the pope is infallible in condemning books as heretical
if the condemnation is issued as an ex cathedra decision.
2 Dorsch, “De Ecclesia Christi,” P· 333.

508

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

“We do not maintain,” says Tanquerey, “that the pope
is infallible in judging a book to be the work of this
or that author, or that the author meant to convey the
ideas expressed in his work. But we do maintain that
the pope can determine with infallible accuracy the
sense which the words of the author actually do convey,
when considered in the context, and that he can judge
with infallible certainty whether that sense is heretical
or not.” 3
The Church, and therefore the Pope also, can declare
with infallible authority that a particular version of
Holy Scripture is authentic, i. c., he can declare that it
contains no mistakes or corruptions of the original af­
fecting doctrines of faith or morals. The Latin Vul­
gate has been declared free from all such errors and
made the official version of the Church. This does not
mean that it contains no errors whatsoever, as is evident
from the fact that a commission was appointed some
years ago to bring out a revised edition; but it does
mean that it contains no substantial errors that could
in any way affect doctrine.
d) Disciplinary Matters. Under this head are
included the laws and precepts established by ecclesias­
tical authority for the regulation of worship or for the
guidance of the faithful throughout the world. Such
laws and precepts are necessarily subject to the infalli­
ble authority of the Church, because of their intimate
connection with doctrines of faith and morals. For
example, the law prescribing Communion under one
3 Tanquerey, “Synops. Theol. Dogm.,” Vol. I, p. 488 (6th ed.).

EXTENT OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

509

species presupposes the doctrine that Our Lord is pres­
ent whole and entire under either form, and the laws
concerning the exposition of relics likewise presuppose
that veneration of them is licit. Hence in making laws,
the Church implicitly passes a twofold judgment: —
one of doctrine, the other of prudence; she judges
that the law is not opposed to any revealed truth and
that, under the circumstances, it will assist and guide
the faithful in the performance of their Christian
duties. The Church is necessarily infallible in this doc­
trinal judgment, for if she were not, the faithful might
be led into errors of doctrine at any time. But there is
no promise that the rulers of the Church shall always en­
joy the greatest degree of prudence; consequently, there
is no guarantee that their laws and precepts will always
be the best possible under the circumstances. Neither
is the Church infallible in applying her laws to particu­
lar cases. The pope, for instance, may be mistaken
in declaring a particular marriage valid or invalid.4
Corollaries, a) The prayers prescribed or ap­
proved for universal use in public worship cannot be
opposed to any revealed truth. Hence, the axiom, Lex
orandi est lex credendi,—the rule of prayer is the rule
of faith.
b) In the solemn approbation of religious orders the
Church is infallible in declaring that their practices and
regulations are adapted to the promotion of Christian
perfection,
c) The Church is also infallible in canonizing saints,
4 Van Noort, “De Ecdesia Christi,” n. 91.

510

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

for, as Benedict XIV says: “The universal Church
cannot be led into error concerning matters of morals
by the Supreme Pontiff; but this would be the case if he
were not infallible in the canonization of saints.” 5 In
the act of canonization, the Church proclaims the saint
a model of virtue; she commands all the faithful to
honor him, and exhorts all to imitate his life. If the
Church could be mistaken in this matter, the faithful
would be led into grievous error by imitating the life of
a sinner and by honoring one who is forever estranged
from the friendship of God.
d) Before canonizing a person the Church usually
demands evidence that a certain number of miracles
have been performed through his or her intercession.
Since the Church uses her authority to judge of the
authenticity of these miracles, she may do so with an
infallible judgment if she wishes. This, however, is
not the custom of the Church either before canonization
or in the act of canonization. The decree concerns the
sanctity of the person canonized, not the authenticity
of the miracles performed; they are merely an incentive
for the Church to exercise her infallible authority in
canonizing the person in question.6
e) The Church could also use her infallible authority
to determine the genuineness of relics exposed for the
veneration of the faithful, but this is rarely if ever done.
The veneration paid to relics is, in reality, an honor paid
to the person whom they represent or call to mind and
6 Benedict XIV, “De Canoniz. et Beatific. Servorum Dei.”
c Straub, “De Ecclesia Christi,” n. 917.

!J
1
J

EXTENT OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

511

cannot be affected by any defect in the relics. For this
reason the authenticity of relics can scarcely ever be
a matter of such importance as to demand the exercise
of infallible authority on the part of the Church.
Conclusion. The infallible authority of the
Church is primarily and directly concerned with re­
vealed truths only; secondarily, with every doctrine or
fact necessary for the proper understanding or faithful
preservation of revealed truth. All are equally certain
when defined by the Church, but they beget different
kinds of faith. Revealed truths, when defined, become
the object of divine and Catholic faith; they must be
accepted on the authority of God who revealed them.
Natural truths defined by the Church become the ob­
ject of ecclesiastical faith; they are not accepted on the
authority of God directly, but on the infallible authority
of the Church defining them.

CHAPTER XVII
CHURCH AND STATE

The Church, being an external society, must come
into daily contact with the various civil powers that
direct the temporal destinies of man. Her members are
their members; her mission is closely allied to theirs,
and like them, she also must employ certain material
means to attain the purpose of her existence. These
intimate relations beget certain mutual rights and duties
between Church and State and also determine the
powers of the pope in regard to civil rulers. Order and
clearness in investigating these matters will be obtained
most easily by considering ( 1 ) the various theories ad­
vanced at different times on the subject, (2) the Catho­
lic doctrine from which are deduced, (3) the mutual
rights and duties of Church and State, with (4) some
practical applications of the principles established, and
(5) the powers of the Roman Pontiff in regard to secu­
lar rulers.
ART I.

VARIOUS THEORIES ON CHURCH AND STATE

I. Marsilius of Padua. According to the teach­
ing of the Dejensor Pads, the joint work of Marsilius
and Jean de Jandun, all power, whether civil or eccle­
siastical, resides in the people, who delegate it to the
512

CHURCH AND STATE

513

civil authorities to be exercised in their name. Conse­
quently, the Church can exercise no authority except by
permission of the civil power, which has complete juris­
diction over it. In refuting this doctrine of absolute
subjection to the State, Augustus Triumphus went to
the opposite extreme by giving the Church supreme
power in both temporal and spiritual matters. He
taught that temporal rulers are mere agents of the
Roman Pontiff, who holds supreme temporal and spirit­
ual power over the whole world.
II. The Reformers. The so-called Reformers of
the sixteenth century were forced to confer all spirit­
ual authority upon secular princes in order to obtain
their assistance and protection. A non-Catholic writer
says that “the maxim, cuius regio, eius religio,1 the
pithy definition of territorialism which makes the reli­
gion of the people dependent on the religion of the ruler
of the country, became the leading principle in all
Protestant States on the Continent. . . . Furthermore,
as the bishops everywhere protested against the Ref­
ormation, the episcopal authority and jurisdiction had,
in the Protestant countries, to be conferred on the civil
ruler. . . . The Church became a mere department of
his government.” 2 The Church of England declares
that “the King’s Majesty hath the chief power in this
realm of England and his other dominions . . . over
all estates in this realm whether they be ecclesiastical
1 A phrase meaning that the religion of a country must be that
of its ruler.
2 Schaff-Hcrzog, art. “Church and State.”

514

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

or civil.”3 According to this doctrine of the Re­
formers, the “State is supreme, the Church its serv­
ant.” 4
III. Gallicanism. The doctrines of Gallicanism,
if put into practice, would logically lead to the insti­
tution of national Churches, subject to the civil power.
Its advocates held that civil rulers are completely inde­
pendent of Church authority in the administration of
their office; that the civil power has the right of vigi­
lance and influence in ecclesiastical affairs, and that the
decrees and constitutions of the Roman Pontiff have no
force unless approved by the king and published with
his authority. This approval was known as the royal
placet or exequatur.
The doctrine itself is known as Gallicanism, because
its advocates proclaimed it for the French Church only.
They did this on the plea that the authority of the pope
was limited in France by ancient custom and by Church
canons. The principles of Gallicanism were first systemized by Guy Coquille and Pierre Pithou in a work
edited in 1594 under the title, Liberties oj the Gallican
Chzirch. Under the influence of Louis XIV, these prin­
ciples were reduced to four articles and published in
1682 as the Declaration oj the French Clergy, although
they were signed by only thirty-four out of the hundred
and thirty-five prelates of France.5
3 The Thirty-nine Articles, Art. xxxvii.
4 Schaff-Herzog, art. “Church and State.”
δ Cf. Catholic Encyclopedia, art. “Gallicanism”; Devivier-Sasia,
“Christian Apologetics,” Vol. II, p. 163 sqq.

CHURCH AND STATE

515

IV. Febronianism. Nicholas von Hontheim, writ­
ing under the name of Justinus Febronius, set forth
serious errors regarding the constitution of the Church
and its relation to the State. According to his doctrine,
all powers must be subordinated to the State, which is
absolute. From this principle he deduced the right of
the State to regulate the external affairs of the Church,
—to convoke councils, reform Church discipline, grant
and revoke immunities, administer the goods of the
Church and receive appeals from the judgment of ec­
clesiastical authorities.
V.Josephism. Emperor Joseph II of Austria, in­
fluenced by Gallicanism, Febronianism, and the teach­
ings of Voltaire, introduced the system known to history
as Josephism. It was simply an attempt to create a
national Church subject to the State, or, as one of his
supporters expressed it, to make “the Church a depart­
ment of the police, which must serve the aims of the
State until such time as the enlightenment of the people
permit its release by the secular police.” G According
to this policy the State is the administrator of all church
property and has authority to regulate, change, or sup­
press anything in divine worship or in the government
of the Church that is not essential to religion. As the
State was sole judge in the matter, it turned out that
religion had very few “essentials.” Joseph interfered
with Church services to such an extent that Frederick
the Great dubbed him “our brother sacristan.”
VI. Liberalism. Rationalists and materialists, as8 Sonnenfels, quoted by Catholic Encyclopedia, art. “Joseph II.”

516

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

suming the title of Liberals, teach that the State is su­
preme and absolute in its powers; from it all rights are
derived, and to its power everything must be subjected.
The individual exists for the State, not the State for
the individual. This doctrine makes the Church a mere
private corporation, existing at the pleasure of the State,
and subject to the State in every respect. It is a return
to the pagan idea of the State as a divinity to be wor­
shipped.7
The teaching of Modernism is closely allied to Lib­
eralism on the subject of Church and State and logically
leads to it. The Church, according to the Modernists,
is not a divine institution, but a society of the faithful,
which arose through evolutionary processes. Conse­
quently it must be a private society, having neither
rights nor authority other than those granted by the
State. Pius X says “that since the phenomena of faith
must be subject to science, as they say, so must the
Church be subject to the State in its temporal concerns.
Perhaps they have not openly asserted this as yet, but
they are logically forced to admit it.” 8
VII. Modified Liberalism. The advocates of this
theory maintain that Church and State are completely
independent of each other both in their existence and in
their activities. Their motto is “A free Church in a
free State,”—a phrase that tickles the ear and serves
7 Cf. Ryan and Millar, “The State and the Church,” p. 195 sqq.
8 Pius X, “Pascendi Dominici Gregis,” 7 Sept., 1907; Denzinger,
n. 2093.

CHURCH AND STATE

517

to cover up much false doctrine. Taken at its face
value, the phrase expresses a fundamental truth con­
cerning the relations of Church and State, but it is in­
terpreted to mean that religion is an affair of the indi­
vidual alone, and that the State should give no thought
to religion in any of its acts or counsels, since anything
is right and just that the popular will demands or con­
sents to. All powers of the State and every right of the
individual flow from the consent of the people.
Theoretically, this form of Liberalism grants com­
plete freedom of worship and equal rights to all forms
of religion; practically, however, it results in an attempt
to overthrow all religion. Those who advocate separa­
tion of Church and State on account of peculiar cir­
cumstances which obtain in various countries, cannot be
classed as Liberals in the sense just explained. Separa­
tion is often necessary to avoid greater evils.
Résumé. The ancient world subordinated religion
and the priesthood to the State, and at Rome the em­
peror assumed the title and office of “Pontijex Maxi­
mus.” This idea of State supremacy clung for a time
to the Christian emperors, especially in the East, where
they meddled to a considerable extent in ecclesiastical
affairs. During the Middle Ages there was a decided
tendency to subject the State to the Church by placing
temporal power in the hands of the pope. A non­
Catholic historian says: “It was characteristic of the
whole period known as the Middle Ages that the State
was too weak to stand alone, and consequently sought

518

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

support in the spiritual authority of the Church.” 9
This resulted in a dependence of the State upon the
Church and gave to her considerable temporal power,
which saved the peoples of the West from absolutism
such as that exercised by the ancient State.
The Reformation of the sixteenth century brought
about a reversal of this relation between Church and
State by subjecting religion to political power. Comte
describes this absorption of religion by the State as a
“relapse into barbarism.”10 This change, brought
about by the Reformation, gradually developed into the
doctrine of State absolutism, which culminated in the
teachings of Hegel, who declared the State the highest
manifestation of Universal Reason, which all persons
and institutions must serve and magnify.11 The sys­
tem commonly advocated today proclaims Church and
State completely independent of each other in their
existence, aims, and activities. While some of these
systems may be the best obtainable under given circum­
stances, they are all false in principle and opposed to the
teaching of the Church.
ART II.

CATHOLIC DOCTRINE ON CHURCH AND STATE

Catholic doctrine concerning the relations of Church
and State may be summarized in three propositions:
9 Hans Dclbrück, quoted by Mausbach, “Catholic Moral Teaching,”
p. 345.
10 A. Comte, quoted by Mausbach, “Catholic Moral Teaching,”
p. 347.
11 F. W. Hegel, “Philosophie des Rechts,” quoted by Ryan and
Millar, “The State and the Church,” p. 198.

I

CHURCH AND STATE

519

(fl) Church and State are distinct and perfect societies,
each supreme in its own province; (ό) the State is
indirectly subordinate to the Church, and (c) Church
and State should be joined in mutual and friendly co­
operation.
§ 1. Church and State Distinct and Perfect Societies
I. Distinct Societies. Under the Christian dis­
pensation, Church and State are separate and distinct
societies, as all admit, and this distinction is a matter
of divine institution, as is evident from the origin and
purposes of the two societies and from the nature of the
means employed to attain those purposes.
a) origin. Both State and Church have God for
their author, for, as St. Paul says, “there is no power
but from God; and those that arc, are ordained of
God.” 1 Yet the two societies owe their existence to
God in quite different senses. Civil power considered
in the abstract is from God; the Church in its concrete
form is of divine institution.
Man was created to live in the society of his fellow­
men and cannot live happily without it; in fact, he can
scarcely eke out an existence without the cooperation of
others. Therefore, civil authority which is absolutely
necessary for men to live together in peace and security,
is from God, who gave man his social nature and social
instincts. But the particular form which civil govern­
ment assumes, depends upon the will of man. God
wills that there be civil government with authority to
1 Rom. xiii, 1.

520

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

rule, but He does not determine whether this govern­
ment shall be a monarchy, a republic, or a pure democ­
racy. The condition of the Church is quite different,
since Christ directly established it in the concrete form
under which it exists; He not only gave the authority,
but also determined the particular form of government,
and left no authority to change it in the least. It is
evident, then, that the distinction between State and
Church is of divine institution and cannot be abolished
by any human authority.
6) purpose. The civil power, being a natural so­
ciety, is ordained for the attainment of a natural end;
viz., the happiness of its citizens in this life. It would
also have been the duty of the State to provide for man’s
eternal happiness if God had not ordained otherwise;
but since man is destined for a supernatural happiness,
the State, being a purely natural society, is not suffi­
cient to attain this end. For this reason the Church
was instituted to provide for man’s eternal happiness,
leaving to the State, as its immediate end, the temporal
well-being and happiness of its citizens. The purposes
of the two societies are thus separate and distinct: the
one temporal, the other eternal; the one natural, the
other supernatural.
c) means employed. The means employed by the
State to attain its end are all of the natural order; those
employed by the Church are both natural and super­
natural, the principal ones being supernatural, such as
Revelation, the Sacraments, divine authority, infallibilitv, and the like.
7

CHURCH AND STATE

521

II. Perfect Societies. Church and State are not
only distinct, they are also independent societies,—in­
dependent in their origin, in their existence, and in the
means employed to attain their respective ends. Christ
indicated this when He said: “Render therefore to
Ccesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the
things that are God’s.” 2 It is evident, then, that both
Church and State fulfill all the requirements for a per­
fect society; 3 neither depends upon the other or upon
any other society for its existence or for the means to
attain its end. Furthermore the ends to be attained are
different and not subordinated to any other end in the
same order. Therefore, both Church and State are
perfect societies, each supreme in its own sphere, as
Leo XIII explicitly teaches: “God has divided the
care of the human race between two powers, the ecclesi­
astical and the civil; one placed over divine things, the
other over human. Each is supreme in its own sphere,
and each is confined within certain limits defined by
its very nature; . . . therefore each has a world of its
own, as it were, in which to exercise its proper func­
tions.” 4

§ 2. The State Indirectly Siibordinate to the Church
Subordinate. Church and State being distinct so­
cieties, must be of equal or unequal rank. In other
3 Matt, xxii, 21.
3 See above, p. 45.
4 Leo XIII, “Immortale Dei,” 1 Nov., 18S5; Denzinger, n. 1S66.

522

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

words, the relation between them must be that of co­
ordination or subordination, but societies cannot be
truly coordinate unless they belong to the same order
and are concerned about the same end, e. g., sovereign
States are coordinate societies; so also are similar polit­
ical subdivisions of a State, or independent corporations
engaged in the same line of business. It is immediately
evident, therefore, that Church and State cannot be co­
ordinate, since they belong to different orders and are
concerned about different ends. The one is super­
natural, the other natural; the one is concerned with
man’s eternal happiness, the other with his temporal
well-being. Consequently, one must be subordinated
to the other, and in precisely the same manner that the
ends to be attained by the two societies are subordinated
one to the other.
Since man was created for eternal happiness, all tem­
poral things must subserve that end. Temporal happi­
ness and material well-being are not things to be sought
after for themselves alone; right reason demands that
they be used as a means to man’s last end, or at least,
that they be not opposed to that end, for, as Christ has
said, “what doth it profit a man if he gain the whole
world, and stiffer the loss of his own soul?” 1 There­
fore, as man’s temporal happiness and prosperity must
be subordinate and subservient to his eternal happiness,
so also must the State, which provides for the former, be
subordinate and subservient to the Church, which pro­
vides for the latter. Hence Boniface VIII declared
1 Matt, xvi, 26.

CHURCH AND STATE

523

that “sword should be subject to sword; the temporal
authority to the spiritual power, for, as the Apostle says,
there is no power but from God, and those that are
jrom God are ordered. But they would not be ordered
if sword were not subject to sword and the lower di­
rected by the higher to a supreme end.” 2
Indirect Subordinate. Subordination may be di­
rect or indirect. X society is directly subordinated to
another when it has the same end in view and its sphere
of action falls within that of the superior society. For
example, the political divisions of a nation are directly
subordinate to the nation itself, and the dioceses of the
Church to the Church as a whole. In direct subordina­
tion the superior society has jurisdiction over the in­
ferior with authority to prescribe its course of action
and to approve or nullify any of its acts. There can
be no question of such subordination of State to Church.
The State, being a perfect society, supreme in its own
order, is not and cannot be directly subject to the
Church.
Indirect subordination can occur only when the so­
cieties concerned have different aims in view and dis­
tinct spheres of action, i. e., when the one is not in­
cluded within the other. Under these conditions
subjection of one society to another may arise from
three different sources,—its members, the end it has in
view and the means to attain that end.
a) If the members of a society happen to be subject
2 Boniface VIII, “Unam Sanctam,” 18 Nov., 1302; Denzinger, n.
469.

524

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

to another and higher authority, the society itself is
thereby indirectly subjected to that higher authority: it
has no right to take any action that would cause its
members to violate their duties to the higher authority.
The State is thus indirectly subject to the Church, in
so far as its citizens happen to be subject to the higher
spiritual authority of the Church. This sort of sub­
ordination is only indirect and negative; it demands that
the State refrain from any action that would cause her
citizens or rulers to violate their duties to the Church or
interfere in any way with the Church’s exercise of
spiritual authority over every single member, be he the
humblest citizen in the land or the king on his throne.
b) A society is also indirectly subject to another if
the end it has in view is subordinated to that of the
other society. But the temporal happiness of man, the
end directly sought by the State, is necessarily sub­
ordinate and Subservient to his eternal happiness, to be
obtained through the Church. Therefore, the State has
neither the right nor the authority to seek any temporal
happiness or material prosperity for its citizens detri­
mental to their eternal welfare, and since there can be
no true temporal prosperity except that which leads to
eternal happiness, it is the duty of the State to provide
for eternal happiness indirectly by providing for true
temporal happiness. Consequently, the State is indi­
rectly subject to the Church in this matter both nega­
tively and positively, i. e., the State must not only
refrain from anything that would impede the Church

CHURCH AND STATE

525

in her mission of salvation, it must also assist the
Church indirectly by providing a temporal prosperity
that will be conducive to the eternal welfare of her
citizens.
c) Finally, a society is indirectly subject to another
if the means it employs to attain its end are in any way
connected with the attainment of a higher good for its
members in that other society. The State is therefore
indirectly subject to the Church in this respect, since
right reason demands that the State cede to the Church
whatever is necessary for her preservation and the
proper attainment of her higher purpose,—the eternal
salvation of man. Moreover, the actions of civil offi­
cials in carrying out the duties of their office often have
a moral aspect that affects the spiritual welfare commit­
ted to the care of the Church. Consequently, the
Church has direct jurisdiction over the official acts of
civil authorities in regard to the moral aspect of those
acts if the persons in question happen to be subjects of
the Church. In this matter, therefore, the Church also
exercises an indirect authority over the State.
Corollary. The Church has jurisdiction over all
things pertaining to the salvation of man and to those
only. Consequently the Church has sole jurisdiction in
purely spiritual matters, but in temporal matters that
neither impede her work in saving souls nor are neces­
sary for that work, she has absolutely no jurisdiction.
Temporal things consecrated to God or to the worship
of God, and all things necessary for the proper fulfill-

526

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

ment of her mission, are subject to the authority of the
Church, and therefore removed from that of the State.
Consequently, the Church has an inherent right to ac­
quire and possess churches, schools, hospitals, orphan­
ages, cemeteries, and the like, together with sufficient
funds for their proper maintenance, and the State has
no right to tax such properties, since they are not sub­
ject to State authority. The Church also has the right
to exempt from the jurisdiction of the State all persons
consecreted to God by the reception of Orders or by re­
ligious profession. Such exemption is known as privi­
legium fori, because persons so exempt have the
privilege of being tried for any crime in the courts
{forum) of the Church and punished by her authority,
if found guilty.
Leo XIII briefly stated these principles in the follow­
ing words: “The nature and scope of that connection
[between Church and State] can be determined only by
having regard to the nature of each power, and by
taking account of the relative excellence and nobility of
their purpose. One has for its proximate and chief
object the well-being of this mortal life; the other the
everlasting joys of Heaven. Therefore, whatever in
things human is sacred in character, whatever belongs
by nature or by reason of the end to which it is referred,
to the salvation of souls, or to the worship of God, is
subject to the power and judgment of the Church.
Whatever is to be ranged under civil and political order,
is rightly subject to civil authority. Jesus Christ Him­
self has given command that what belongs to Cæsar

CHURCH AND STATE

527

must be rendered to Cæsar, and that what belongs to
God is to be rendered to God.”3
In case a conflict of rights should occur, or a con­
troversy arise between Church and State concerning the
limits of their respective jurisdictions in particular
cases, the State as the inferior society would be obliged,
theoretically, to yield to the judgment of the Church.
In practice, however, the Church desires that such mat­
ters be settled by mutual agreement. “There are oc­
casions,” says Leo XIII, “when another method of con­
cord is available for the sake of peace and liberty. We
mean, when rulers of the State and the Roman Pontiff
come to an understanding touching some special matter.
At such times the Church gives signal proof of her
motherly love by showing the greatest possible kindness
and indulgence.” Agreements of this sort between
Church and State concerning matters of more or less
permanent nature are known as concordats, and corre­
spond to treaties between nations.

§ 3. Church and State in Mutual Support
The prevailing doctrine today advocates complete
separation of Church and State allowing each to go its
way without regard to the other. The opposite ex­
treme is union of Church and State, in which one ab­
sorbs the other and exercises all authority, both civil
and ecclesiastical. Both extremes are wrong in prin­
ciple and opposed to Catholic teaching. The fact that
3 Leo XIII, “Immortale Dei,” 1 Nov., 1885; Denzinger, n. 1866.

528

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

Christ instituted the Church as a society distinct from
the State and independent of it, proves that they should
not be united in such wise that either dominates or ab­
sorbs the other. On the other hand, complete separa­
tion is detrimental to both and, therefore, contrary to
the will of Christ.
With societies as with individuals, complete separa­
tion is lawful only when just rights and duties are not
thereby violated. Persons bound by mutual rights and
duties may not disregard them by complete separation,
especially if the rights of others are involved. Husband
and wife, for example, owe to each other certain duties
which neither may lawfully evade by separation without
consent of the other. Even mutual consent of the par­
ties will not make separation lawful when the rights of
children are concerned. The relation between Church
and State is similar to that between husband and wife.
Both were instituted to promote the common welfare of
mankind,—the Church to care for his spiritual needs,
the State for his temporal welfare. But neither of
these can be properly provided for unless the other be
taken into consideration. This fact gives rise to mutual
rights and duties between Church and State, and if
these are not fulfilled by friendly cooperation, the sub­
jects of both societies must suffer injury. Leo XIII
compares the ideal union between Church and State to
that between body and soul in man: “Even in physical
things, although of a lower order, the Almighty has so
combined the forces and springs of nature with tem­
pered action and wondrous harmony, that no one of

529

I

them clashes with another, and all of them most fitly
and aptly work together for the great purpose of the
universe. There must, accordingly, exist between these
two powers [Church and State] a certain orderly connection, which may be compared to the union of body
and soul in man.” 1
The nature and extent of this ideal union between
Church and State is easily deduced from their mutual
rights and duties, as described in the following article;
but what it shall be in any particular case will depend
upon various circumstances. The principles remain
the same, but their application will differ, because it
often happens that insistence upon a theoretical right
may cause harm rather than good. In such cases it is
the part of prudence to avert the greater evil by fore­
going the use of a right whose exercise is not absolutely
essential.

I
I
I
I

CHURCH AND STATE

i

ART. III.

MUTUAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES

I. The State, a) rights. Since the State is a
perfect society, supreme in its own sphere, it has the
right to free and untrammeled action in those things
pertaining to its jurisdiction, such as selecting the form
of government, making necessary laws, providing for
the common defense, making public improvements, and
the like. In a word, the State has an inherent right to
free action in everything tending to promote the com­
mon good of its citizens, provided nothing is done con1 Leo XIII, “Immortale Dei,” 1 Nov., 1885.

530

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

trary to the laws of God or the good of the Church. In
certain matters of a mixed nature both State and
Church have rights and duties that must be carefully
distinguished. Education and marriage belong to this
class and demand special attention, because they are
matters of constant concern to Church and State alike.
Education tends to promote the welfare of society and
the security of the State, especially in a representative
government, where the people participate in it through
the right of ballot. Consequently, the State has a just
right to demand suitable instruction, to establish and
maintain schools to impart such instruction, and to re­
quire all children to attend them, unless their education
is otherwise provided for. The State also has the
right to demand reasonable proficiency in all private
schools and to see to it that nothing detrimental to the
common good is taught or inculcated in them, and, since
morality is necessary for the common good, the State
has the right and also the duty to see to it that nothing
contrary to morality is taught in any school or incul­
cated by books, newspapers, theatres, or other agencies.
But since it belongs to the Church to teach faith and
morals, the State must seek guidance from her in these
matters and accept her judgment.
Since the peace and security of the nation depends to
a large extent upon the peace and security of the family,
the State has a just right to regulate marriage in its
civil effects. For this purpose it may demand publicity
for all marriages by means of an official license or the
publication of banns and by a public registration of all

CHURCH AND STATE

1

j

531

marriages performed. The State also has authority to
regulate the rights of husband and wife in regard to
the ownership and inheritance of property, and to pro­
tect the rights of children by demanding that parents
give them proper care and education. The State has
no right to interfere with marriage as a Sacrament by
prescribing how it shall be solemnized or by establish­
ing diriment impediments. These matters were com­
mitted to the authority of the Church, when Christ
raised marriage to the dignity of a Sacrament. It
should be noted, however, that the marriage of un­
baptized persons is not a Sacrament and that the con­
tracting parties are not subject to Church authority;
consequently, it belongs to the State to regulate such
marriages, but in no case can it grant an absolute di­
vorce, since this is contrary to the law of Christ.
ό) duties to church. Since civil society owes its
existence to God no less than the individual, the State
as such is obliged to acknowledge and honor Him by
public worship of a social character. “The State,”
says Leo ΧΙΠ, “is clearly bound to act up to the mani­
fold and weighty duties linking it to God, by the public
profession of religion. Nature and reason, which com­
mand every one to worship God devoutly in holiness
because we belong to Him and must return to Him from
whom we came, also bind the civil community by a
similar law. For men living together in society are
under the power of God no less than individuals, and
society no less than individuals, owes gratitude to God,
who gave it being and maintains it, and whose ever

532

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

bounteous goodness enriches it with countless blessings.
As no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to
God, and as the chief duty of all men is to cling to
religion in its teachings and its practice, ... it is a
public crime to act as though there were no God. So,
too, is it a sin in the State to act as though religion were
something beyond its scope or of no practical benefit.” 1
These same principles were proclaimed by Pius IX
when he condemned the teaching that “the best interests
of society and civil progress demand that governments
be organized and ruled with no more regard to re­
ligion than if it did not exist, or at least with no dis­
tinction between true and false religion.” 2
The State, as well as the individual, must recognize
and worship God in the manner prescribed by Him; it
may not “out of many forms of religion adopt that one
which chimes in with its fancy, for we are bound ab­
solutely to worship God in that way which He has
shown to be His will.” 3 In fine, the State as such is
obliged to profess and protect the true religion of
Christ, which is found in the Catholic Church alone.
Moreover, as the State is bound to acknowledge and
worship God, it is also obliged to prohibit and repress,
as far as possible, whatever is opposed to His honor and
glory, i. e., whatever is opposed to the natural or posi­
tive law of God and the good of His Church. The
State must frame its laws and regulate its practices ac1 Leo XIII, “Immortale Dei,” 1 Nov., 1885.
3 Pius IX, “Quanta Cura,” 8 Dec., 1864; Denzinger, n. 1689.
3 Leo XIII, “Immortale Dei,” 1 Nov., 1885.

CHURCH AND STATE

,

'

533

cording to right reason and the truths of Revelation, as
interpreted by the Church, the divinely appointed
teacher and interpreter of all revealed truth.
The duties of the State in matters of religion, which
we have deduced from its dependence upon God, “the
King oj kings and Lord oj lords,” may also be inferred
from its one chief duty, that of providing for the tem­
poral happiness and prosperity of its citizens. This
happiness must be in accord with man’s nature as a ra­
tional creature of God destined for eternal happiness.
Therefore, as St. Thomas says, “it is the duty of the
king [or civil authorities] to provide for the good of
the people in a manner that will lead to eternal happi­
ness in Heaven; he must command those things which
will lead to eternal happiness, and forbid, as far as pos­
sible, whatever is opposed to its attainment.” 4 But as
man can attain eternal happiness only through the prac­
tice of true religion in the Catholic Church, it is the
duty of the State to protect and promote the interests of
the Church in order to promote the true temporal in­
terests of its subjects.
Again, it is the duty of the State to protect every
natural and civic right of its subjects; for this espe­
cially are governments organized and maintained.
But the right of every man to acquire truth, whether
natural or revealed, and the right to attain his supreme
destiny through the practice of true religion, are funda­
mental and innate, and the State is obliged to protect
them in the only way possible,—by protecting and
4 St. Thomas Aquinas, “De Rege et Regno,” I, xv,

-

534

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

promoting the interests of the Church divinely ap­
pointed to teach and save mankind. Finally, the Staté
is obliged in justice to the people to provide for its own
security and preservation, but true religion is the very
foundation of all society for the rights of man are not
secure when the rights of God are contemned. Society
without morality cannot continue long in peace and
happiness, and without religion there can be no moral­
ity; wherefore the State secures its own position and
strengthens its own authority by encouraging and pro­
moting true religion, and every attack upon true religion
is an attack upon the very foundations of civil govern­
ment. On this account heresy was formerly punished
as a crime against the State, just as blasphemy or vio­
lation of the Sunday are punished by the State in many
places at the present time.
II. The Church, a) rights. The Church be­
ing a perfect society, supreme in its own sphere, has the
right to free and unimpeded action in everything that is
necessary for the salvation of souls,—in teaching, in
the administration of the Sacraments, in matters of
discipline and worship, and in the education of the
clergy. She also has the right to acquire and admin­
ister church property, to open schools, and to see to it
that nothing contrary to faith or morals is taught in the
State schools. She likewise has a right to protection
and assistance on the part of the State.
6) duties toward the state. The Church is
bound in justice to recognize the supremacy of the State
in purely temporal things and to leave to secular author-

CHURCH AND STATE

535

ity complete control of such affairs. The Fourth
Lateran Council is explicit on this matter: “Since we
do not wish the laity to invade the rights of the clergy,
so neither do we wish the clergy to usurp the rights of
the laity. Therefore, we forbid all clerics to make
the liberty of the Church a pretext for extending their
jurisdiction at the expense of secular justice. Let them
remain content with approved constitution and customs,
by which the things of Cæsar are rendered to Cæsar,
and the things of God to God.” 56
The Church is also obliged to assist the State by in­
culcating public honesty and respect for lawful author­
ity, and by promoting peace and tranquillity, all of
which tend both to the spiritual and to the temporal
welfare of the people. When necessary, the Church
must also assist the State in warding off impending
dangers that threaten Church and State alike, as often
happens in time of war or hostile invasion. The his­
tory of our own country is an eloquent witness to the
manner in which the Church has always fulfilled this
duty to the government. Finally, the Church owes the
duty of prayer for the State and its authorities. She
must pray, as St. Paul commands, “for kings, and jor
all that are in high station, that we may lead a quiet
and peaceable life in piety and chastity.”G The
Church conscientiously fulfilled this duty even to the
pagan emperors of Rome during the worst days of per5 Mansi, T. xxii, col. 1027.
6 1 Tim. ii, 2-3.

536

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

secution, and continues to pray for all civil rulers in
her public and private devotions.
Conclusion. The most superfical examination of
the mutual rights and duties flowing from the very
nature of the two societies must convince any thinking
man that the ideal relation of Church and State is that
of friendly cooperation, for, as Ivo of Chartres says,
“when the civil and ecclesiastical powers agree, the
world is well ruled and the Church flourishes and bears
fruit. But when there is discord, everything fails mis­
erably.” 7 This ideal may be difficult to realize in
practice, and history bears witness that it has seldom
if ever been realized in the past, partly because the
agents through which both powers must work are hu­
man beings with all the innate frailties of human nature,
but ideals are not to be abandoned because they are
seldom realized in their fullness. If such were the case,
the progress of nations and the betterment of the human
race would have to be abandoned as mere idle dreams.
Union of cooperation and mutual support is un­
doubtedly the ideal relation of Church and State, yet
separation must be preferred to a so-called union that
amounts to subjection of the Church to the State, for
separation with freedom is better far than union with
slavery. Attempted unions in the past generally have
led to subjection, and present experiences are far from
satisfactory. The ideal is, perhaps, more nearly real­
ized in the United States that in any other part of the
world today, and this in spite of our protestations of
" Ivo of Chartres, “Epist. ad Paschalem”; P. L., 162, 246,

CHURCH AND STATE

537

complete separation. The State recognizes its duty to
God and religion by proclaiming a day of national
thanksgiving, by opening sessions of Congress and State
legislatures with prayer, by appointing chaplains for
army and navy, by protecting freedom of worship and
the rights of the Church to own and administer her
property without taxation, to educate her clergy, and
to conduct schools for her children. Both national and
State governments, it is true, recognize all religions
alike, and secure equal rights to all, contrary to the
principles of right reason, since truth alone has rights
and falsehood can only be tolerated to avoid greater
evils. But under the conditions prevailing in this coun­
try, the government could not prudently act otherwise,
even if it so wished. In fact, any other course would
be unjust to vast numbers living in good faith, because
at the very inception of the government a solemn con­
tract was made to recognize all religions alike in order
to avoid greater evils.
ART. IV.

PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES

Present conditions in the religious and political world
seem to preclude all hope of attaining ideal relations
between Church and State, yet there are certain rights
for which the Church may reasonably demand recogni­
tion and respect. What these rights are, and what
action the Church may take to enforce them against
an unwilling government, must be determined from the
circumstances of the case, and will depend largely

538

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

upon whether the State in question is Catholic or non­
Catholic, Christian or non-Christian.
a) catholic state. In a Catholic State the Church
must demand recognition of all her rights, and may
reasonably insist that all of them be respected, unless
special circumstances prevent the State from fulfilling
certain duties toward her. But should the State un­
justly refuse to respect the rights of the Church, her
course of action is evident, for in this case the author­
ities of the State and, at least, a large majority of the
people are Catholics, directly subject to the spiritual
jurisdiction of the Church. This makes it possible for
the Church to enforce respect for her rights by means
of ecclesiastical punishments, which have generally
proved effective in the past. But if such means were
not sufficient, the Church could justly call upon other
Catholic nations to defend her rights by force of arms.
The prudence of such action would have to be judged
from the circumstances of the case.
Z?) νον-catholic state. In a Christian State that
is professedly non-Catholic, the Church cannot expect
recognition of all her rights from the simple fact that
she is not recognized as the true Church of Christ; but
she can reasonably demand freedom of worship for
Catholic subjects of the State and freedom for herself
in teaching and making converts. The reasonableness
of these demands follow from the fundamental Protes­
tant doctrine of private interpretation and freedom to
w’orship God according to the dictates of one’s con­
science, which a Protestant State could not consistently

CHURCH AND STATE

539

deny to any of its subjects. According to the same
principle, the Church can reasonably demand recogni­
tion as a private society in the State, with all the rights
and privileges accorded such societies.
But should the State refuse to respect even these de­
mands of the Church, there is practically no means to
enforce them. Theoretically, of course, the authorities
and people of the State are subject to the jurisdiction of
the Church, for, according to the supposition, they are
baptized Christians. But they do not recognize this
subjection, and cannot be expected to recognize it so
long as they do not recognize the Church herself. This
fact would render ecclesiastical punishments of no use
whatever, unless enforced by the arms of Catholic na­
tions, but the laws of prudence and charity would limit
such action to cases of the most extreme necessity. It
would always produce great harm and seldom, if ever,
any good.
c) non-christian state. In a non-Christian
State force of arms wielded by other nations is the only
means of defense against unjust invasion of the rights
of the Church, for neither rulers nor people in such a
State are subject in any way to the authority of the
Church. Such force may be justly used to protect the
right of the Church to preach the Gospel and bring
souls to Christ, because all men, whether Christians or
pagans, Jews or Gentiles, are subject to Christ, who
commanded the Gospel to be preached to every creature
and commissioned the Church to carry out this mission.
Therefore, if a non-Christian State forbids the Gospel

540

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

to be preached to its subjects, or to be accepted by
them, the Church may call upon other nations to inter­
fere by force of arms, if necessary. Both Catholic and
Protestant nations have often intervened in this manner
to protect missionaries and converts and thus secure
freedom for the Gospel in pagan lands.
d) indifferent state. There is a growing tend­
ency today for governments to assume an attitude of
complete indifference toward all religions. Such an at­
titude cannot be defended as an abstract principle by
Catholics, but it may often be necessary through force
of circumstances. A State may be compelled to toler­
ate false religions and hold all religions equal before
the law, in order to preserve social peace and tranquil­
lity. Where such conditions exist, Catholics may and
do advocate a policy of religious indifference on the part
of the State,—not as an abstract right, but as the least
objectionable condition possible under the circum­
stances.
ART. V.

THE ROMAN PONTIFF AND SECULAR RULERS

The supreme authorities in Church and State must
stand in the same relation to each other as the societies
over which they rule. From this we deduce the follow­
ing principles: (1) secular rulers are indirectly subject
to the Roman Pontiff; (2) the Roman Pontiff is exempt
from all civil jurisdiction; and (3) temporal power is
necessary to secure this exemption.

CHURCH AND STATE

I

I

'

I

541

§ 1. Secular Rulers Indirectly Subject to Roman
Pontiff

Boniface VIII decreed that all men are subject to the
Roman Pontiff, and the context shows that he had
i i *
·
·
·
temporal rulers especially in mind, for the whole docu­
ment is designed to prove that the civil power must be
subject to the spiritual. He says: “If the worldly
power deviates from the right path, it shall be judged
by the spiritual; but if the supreme spiritual power
deviates, it can be judged by God alone, as the Apostles
testifies: The spiritual man judges all things, but he
himself is judged by no one. . . . Therefore, we de­
clare, say, define, and pronounce that it is necessary for
salvation that every human creature be subject to the
Roman Pontiff.” 1
Taken by themselves, these words of Pope Boniface
might suggest a direct and complete subjection of
temporal to spiritual rulers, but they have always been
interpreted by theologians and by the Church herself
as referring to an indirect subjection only. Member­
ship in the Church, which is necessary for salvation,
can be neither acquired nor retained without submission
to the spiritual authority of her supreme head. For
this reason Pope Boniface rightly says that subjection
to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for every human
creature, be he the meanest subject in the land or the
1 Boniface VIII, “Unam Sanctam,” 18 Nov., 1302; Denzinger. n.
469.

542

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

mightiest monarch on his throne. All Catholic rulers,
as members oj the Church, are directly subject to the
spiritual authority of the Pope; as civil rulers, they are
indirectly subject to the same authority, in so far as
their official acts have a moral bearing. Since the Ro­
man Pontiff has the right and duty of teaching faith and
morals to the whole Church and to every member of the
Church, it is his duty to instruct Catholic kings and
rulers concerning the morality of all their acts, both
private and official. It is his duty to decide what is
contrary to the laws of God or the Church, and what is
necessary for the protection of public and private moral­
ity. If a Catholic ruler violates the laws of God or of
the Church, either in private or by official acts, the
pope must admonish and punish him, if necessary, by
excommunication, interdict, or other ecclesiastical cen­
sure, just as he would punish any other member of the
Church. It is evident, then, that temporal rulers in
their official capacity are subject to the authority of
the pope only indirectly; he has no jurisdiction over
their official acts except in so far as these acts have a
moral bearing. The pope cannot forbid any act on
the part of a civil ruler, unless that act be sinful;
neither can he command any act, unless its omission
would be a sin against the laws of God or the Church.
Corollary I. The jurisdiction of the Roman
Pontiff extends to all subjects of the Church, and, there­
fore, to all validly baptized rulers of the State, whether
Catholic or non-Catholic; but any attempt to exercise
this authority over non-Catholic rulers would seldom,
J

1

CHURCH AND STATE

543

if ever, be expedient, for the simple reason that it is not
recognized by them and would produce no good effect.
Unbaptized rulers, not being subjects of the Church, are
not subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, ex­
cept as noted below, but it must not be concluded that
on this account they are in a better position than Cath­
olic rulers. On the contrary, their position is far in­
ferior; they are bound by the laws of God in all their
official acts, but are deprived of the infallible authority
of the Church to guide them.
Corollary II. All civil rulers, whether Christian or
non-Christian, may become indirectly subject to the
authority of the Roman Pontiff through his spiritual
jurisdiction over their subjects. The duty of the Ro­
man Pontiff obliges him to instruct all the faithful in
their duties, both private and civic. Therefore, if a law
of the State is contrary to the law of God, the pope is
bound in conscience to instruct the faithful that it can­
not be obeyed, and if the conditions of government are
such that the citizens are no longer bound by their oath
of allegiance, it is the Pope’s right to declare that fact
to his own subjects for their spiritual guidance, and if
all, or a large majority of the citizens be Catholics, this
declaration would be equivalent to deposition of the
ruler. In this sense only does the Pope, as such, have
power to depose civil rulers. The same power is
claimed by Protestants, but it operates in a different
manner. With them each individual would have re­
course to his own private judgment whether he is bound
to allegiance or not, and might easily be misled in the

544

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

matter by passion or interest. In such a case Catholics
would have recourse to the judgment of the Roman
Pontiff, to give them an authoritative decision, but in
either case the results would be the same so far as the
government authorities are concerned.
In the Middle Ages the popes seem to have exercised
a direct power of deposing kings and emperors, but this
was done by virtue of international law or custom,
recognized at that time by all as conferring such author­
ity upon the Pope as head and father of Christians
nations.

§ 2. The Roman Pontiff Exempt jrom Civil
Authority
The Roman Pontiff is not subject to any power on
earth, whether civil or ecclesiastical. This follows of
necessity from his position as supreme head of the
Church, which is subject to no authority save that of
Christ alone. “Being supreme head of the Church, he
cannot be judged by any other ecclesiastical power,
and as the Church is a spiritual society superior to any
temporal power whatever, he cannot be judged by any
temporal ruler. Therefore, the supreme head of the
Church can direct and judge the rulers of temporal pow­
ers, but he can neither be directed nor judged by them
without a perversion of due order founded in the very
nature of things.” 1 This doctrine is taught by the
1 Cardinal Bellarmine, “De Romano Pontifice,” ii, 26.

CHURCH AND STATE

545

Fathers and incorporated in the canons of the Church:
“The first See is judged by no one.” 2 A synod of
bishops held in Rome in 503, to investigate charges
against Pope Symmachus, declared that “God wished
the causes of other men to be decided by men, but He
reserved to His own tribunal, without question, the
ruler of this See.” 3
This complete exemption of the Roman Pontiff from
all civil jurisdiction is of divine institution, for Christ
himself conferred it upon St. Peter and his successors,
at least implicitly, when He entrusted to them the
supreme authority, which necessarily implies such ex­
emption. Some also see an explicit exemption from
civil authority in the words of Christ concerning the
payment of tribute: “What is thy opinion, Simon?
The kings oj the earth, oj whom do they receive trilncte
or custom? Oj their own children or oj strangers?
And he said: Oj strangers. Jesus said to him:
Then the Children are jree. But that we may not
scandalize them . . . give to them jor me and thee.” 4
Christ here clearly proclaims His exemption from
earthly powers and seems to include St. Peter in the
same.

§ 3. Temporal Power Necessary

The claim to temporal power on the part of the Ro2 “Codex Juris Canonici,” can. 1556.
3 Ennodius of Ticino, “Apologia”; P. L., 63, 200.
4 Matt, xvii,

546

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

man Pontiff is not a pretension to exercise temporal
dominion over the nations of the world, as many non­
Catholic falsely believe. It is simply claiming the
right to a territory, large or small, free from the do­
minion of any other power, in which the Pope may be
free to rule the Church without let or hindrance. Such
power is necessary because of the unique position of the
pope as a person exempt from all human authority. In
civil society, as well as in the Church, all persons must
be classed as subjects or rulers, but if the pope were
not the ruler of his own territory, he would find himself
in the strange position of being neither subject nor
ruler; of being in society without forming any part of
it. Such a position could not be maintained without
grave danger to his freedom in governing the Church.
If he were a subject, or even an honored guest of any
temporal ruler, his freedom of communication with all
parts of the Church and with other nations might be
seriously hampered at any time, or even lost entirely in
times of war. He would also be open to the suspicion
of being unduly influenced by his host. Such suspicion
would greatly discredit his power and bring harm to the
Church, as happened during the residence of the Popes
at Avignon in France. For this reason the bishops
gathered in Rome for the allocution of Pius IX, on 9
June, 1862, unanimously declared that “it is indeed
necessary for the Roman Pontiff, as head of the whole
Church, to be subject to no prince, nor even the guest
of a prince. He should have his own dominion and his
own kingdom, so that he may protect and spread the

CHURCH AND STATE

547

Catholic faith, rule and govern the Christian common­
wealth in noble and peaceful freedom.” 1
Our Lord conferred no temporal kingdom upon St.
Peter; consequently, we cannot say that temporal
power is a matter of divine institution; but it is condi­
tionally of divine right, for, since the pope is exempt
from all temporal power by divine right, whatever is
necessary to protect and preserve this immunity is also
of divine right, but only on condition that other suitable
means cannot be found to serve the same purpose.
Temporal power seems to be the only possible means
to secure the necessary freedom and independence of
the pope in the government of the Church; but whether
this power should be restricted to a small territory, as
at present, or extended to a larger dominion, as form­
erly, must be judged from circumstances. Either con­
dition presents many advantages over the other, and
both also have disadvantages.
Exemption from civil authority is a matter of divine
right for the Roman pontiff’s, but its actual enjoyment
is not absolutely necessary for the existence or mission
of the Church, and, as a matter of fact, was not always
enjoyed by the popes. St. Peter and his successors for
the first three centuries were exempt from civil author­
ity, but could not enjoy the privilege while paganism
ruled the world and persecution raged on every side.
At the beginning of the fourth century, when paganism
was practically overthrown, divine Providence so or1 Quoted from Dorsch, “De Ecclesia Christi,” p. 467; Cfr. Leo
XIII, “Inscrutabili,” 21 April, 1878.

548

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

dered affairs that the chief pastors of the Church began
to reap the benefits of their privilege by means of civil
exemption and power conferred upon them. This was
really the beginning of temporal power, which steadily
increased, until it was explicitly and solemnly recog­
nized by Charlemagne in the ninth century.2 From
that time it continued with varying fortunes, until the
capture of Rome by Garibaldi, in 1870, when nothing
but the Vatican and the territory immediately surround­
ing it was left to the Popes.
2 Cf. De Maistre, “Du Pape,” Vol. I, ch. 7 ; T. W. Allies, “The
See of Peter and the Wandering of the Nations.”

INDEX
Aaron, priesthood of, 66
Abercius, inscription of, 370
Abiron punished for schism, 271
Abram, name changed to Abra­
ham, 304
Adam, head of human race, 199
Adam, mystical body of, 201
Adam, Christ the second, 200
Adults, conditions for member­
ship in Church, 222
Africa, growth of Church in, 164
Africa, number of Protestants in,
164
African bishops write to Pope
Celestine, 384
Agatho, synodical letter to, 483
Alexander excommunicated by
St. Paul, 249
Alexander V, Pope, 169
Alexandria, patriarchate of, 379,
382, 411
Alexandrians, synagogue of, 14
Allies, T. W., Mystical body of
Christ, 201
Ambrose, St., Papal infallibility,
490
Peter’s primacy, 308
Unicity of Church, 40
Ambrosiaster, Peter’s primacy,
337
Anabaptists and holiness of the
Church, 108
Anaclctus, Pope succeeded Linus,
367
Ananias, punishment of, 249

Andronicus mentioned as Apos­
tle, 288
Androutsos, Chrestos, Infallibil­
ity of Church, 437
Angel, meaning of word, 285
Anglican Church, established by
Parliament, 182
lack of authority, 178
lack of unity of doctrine, 177
lack of succession, 182
parties in, 177
Anglicans,
and
Apostolicity,
142, 180
the Branch Theory, 179
Church and State, 513
the Continuity Theory, 179 sq.
Infallibility, 459
reject Catholic doctrines, 181
reject five Sacraments, 181
reject works of supererogaation, 109
Anicetus, Pope, and Easter ques­
tion, 368
Anselm, St. see of, 178
Antichrist and end of world,
135 sq., 405
false miracles of, 119
Antioch, patriarchate of, 379,
382, 411
schism in, 357
Apiarius appeals to Rome, 383
Apostle, meaning of term, 285
use of in Old Testament, 286
use of in New Testament, 286
use of by St. Paul, 286

549

550

INDEX

Apostles, authority to teach, 21
commissioned by Christ, 21 sq.
confirmed in grace, 292
constitute bishops, 270
gift of miracles, 292
infallible, 289
Apostles, jurisdiction of, 290
light of world, 309
ministers of Christ, 271
obedience to, 23
personally chosen by Christ,
286
powers to govern, 21
power to sanctify, 22
prerogatives of, 289
receive sole authority, 268
subject to St. Peter, 338 sq.
succeeded by the bishops, 275
witnesses for Christ, 287
Apostles’ Creed, 82, 123
Apostolic See, 141, 407, 492
Apostolicity, of Church, 55,
138 sq.
of doctrine, 139, 143
errors regarding, 141 sq.
as mark of Church, 156
of ministry, 139, 143
nature of, 138
of origin, 139, 142
lacking in Orthodox Eastern
Churches, 184
lacking in Protestantism, 176
of succession, 139, 143
of succession in Catholic
Church, 167
Appointment of bishops, 408
Appolinaris condemned, 356
Approbation for preaching, 432
Arcadius, papal legate, 354
Archbishops, 411
Arian heresy, 136, 169, 469
Arimini, council of, 469
Arnold, Thomas on power of
binding and loosing, 322

Articles of Anglican Church re­
vised, 181
Ascanius of Tarragona on in­
fallibility, 488
Athanasius, St. appeals to Rome,
362
on Arian heresy, 170
on catholicity of Church, 130
on infallibility, 445, 462
on visibility of Church, 76
Attributes of Church, 55 sq.
Augsburg Confession on visibil­
ity, 71
Augustine, St. on catholicity, 123,
127, 128, 129, 131, 134
St. Cyprian, 393
extent of Church, 10
indefectibility, 64
infallibility, 445, 447, 448, 463,
468, 489
membership in Church, 210,
219, 227, 237
ministerial powers, 260
Pelagius and Celestius, 497
synagogue and Church, 13, 34,
66
soul of Church, 206
temporal punishment, 252
visibility, 77
Augustine, Charles, confirmation
of councils, 419
Aurelian, Emperor and Roman
Primacy, 365
Aurelius of Carthage to Pope
Zosimus, 421
Authority of Church, 245 sq.
Apostles alone receive, 268
formal cause of Church, 190
governing, 21, 268 sq.
lack of in Anglican Church,
178
subjection to necessary, 221
teaching, 21, 426 sq.
Avignon, Popes at, 548

INDEX
Baptism, concorporation with
Christ, 108
door to Church, 53, 242
by heretics, 389
necessity of means, 238
priesthood of laity, 272
rite of initiation, 23, 220, 238
Sacrament of, 102
Baptized, the invalidly, 232
Barlow, consecrates Parker, 181
Barnabas, an Apostle, 288
Barry, Chas, on lack of author­
ity in Anglican Church, 178
Basil the Great appeals to Rome,
358, 359
Batiffol, P. “The Twelve,” 297
Becket, Thomas à, sec of, 178
Beckwith, C. A. on nature of
Church, 17
Bellarminc, Card., Catholicity of
Church. 132
doubtful pope, 402
infallibility, 477
membership in Church, 232,
234
Bellarminc, Card., properties of
Church, 83
salvation out of Church, 242
Benedict XII, Beatific \rision,
501
Benedict XIV, canonizing of
Saints, 510
membership in Church, 223
Billot, Card., occult heretics and
schismatics, 234
Billuart, C. R., occult heretics
and schismatics, 234
“Binding and losing,” meaning
of terms, 319, 320
power of, 318 sq.
symbol of primacy, 322
Bishop, meaning and use of
term, 282 sq.
Bishop of bishops, 362, 391

551

Bishops, appointment of, 408
appointed by Elizabeth, 181
constituted by Apostles, 270
custodians of faith, 470
infallibility of, 466 sq.
jurisdiction of, 409
lists of, 285
removed by Elizabeth, 181
schismatic, 409
successors of Apostles, 270 sq·,
407
teachers, 428
not mere vicars of Pope, 410
Body, mystical, of Adam, 201
of Christ, 38, 105, 111, 191 sq·,
198, 241 sq.
Boniface, St., consults Pope
Zacharias, 495, 500
Boniface VIII, Church and
State, 522, 541
membership in Church, 237
temporal punishments, 253
Books, censorship of, 431
imprimatur for, 431
prohibition of, 430
Bozius, Oratorian, Properties of
Church, 83
Branch Theory, 72, 86, 179
Bride of Christ, 111
Broad Church, 177
Buddeus, J. F., Visibility of
Church, 71
Bullinger, H., Marks of Church,
149
Burger, Rulers of Church, 265

Called, the, 11
Callistus, Pope, 362
Calvin, John, Marks of Church,
249
membership in Church, 212
Michael Scrvetus, 253 (note)
rulers of Church, 265
visibility, 71

552

INDEX

Canon Law on temporal punish­
ment, 251
Canonizing of Saints, 509
Canons, cathedral, 284
Cardinals, 400, 402, 411
Carthage, synods of, 389, 391
Catechumens, not members of
Church, 224
Catherine of Siena, 175
Catholic, distinctive term, 122
meaning of, 123
Roman, meaning of, 167
Catholic Church, apostolicity of,
167
catholicity of, 166
causative sanctity of, 164
civilizing influence of, 163
eminent sanctity in, 162
fecundity of, 163
manifestative sanctity of, 161
unity of faith in, 159
unity of government in, 160
unity of worship in, 160
Catholic doctrine on Church and
State, 518 sq.
Catholicity, absolute, 120, 132
de facto, 125
de jure, 125, 127
diffusion, 124 sq.
formal, 127
lacking in Orthodox Churches,
184
lacking in Protestantism, 176
mark of true Church, 154 sq.
mark of Messianic Kingdom,
128
moral, 130 sq.
perfect, 133 sq.
perpetual, 132
physical, 130
simultaneous, 130, 131
successive, 130
in Catholic Church, 166

Catholics, number of in Africa,
164
Catholics, number of in China,
164
in world, 167
Cause of Church, efficient, 189
final, 40, 189
formal, 190
material, 190, 212
Cause of Mystical Body, formal,
190
material, 190, 212
Celestine I, condemns Nestorius,
354
hailed as voice of Peter, 486
orders Apiarius reinstated, 384
Celestine V resigns, 400
Celestius appeals to Rome, 495,
497
Censorship of books, 431
Ceremonies of Old Law, 33
Ceylon, growth of Church in,
163
Chalcedon, Council of, Primacy
of Rome, 353, 379
infallibility, 462, 485
Channels of grace, 199
Chapman, Dom, Primacy of
Rome, 375
Chapter, cathedral, 284
Chapters, the Three, 498
Character, baptismal, 227
Charismata, 279
Charlemagne, confirms temporal
power of Pope, 548
Chiliasm, 59
China, growth of Church in, 164
Christ, the second Adam, 200
Mystical Body of, 191 sq.
second coming of, 29
confers powers on Apostles,
21 sq., 256
contrasted with Moses, 26

INDEX
founds Church, 19 sq.
founds but one Church, 37
the Foundation, 310
frequents Temple, 31
fullness of, 137
Head of Church, 82, 193 sq.
Light of world, 309
personal reign of, 59
powers of, 256
the Rock, 309
the Vine, 106
visible, 82
Christianity and Church, 44
Chrysostom, St. John, indefectibility, 64
Primacy of Rome, 335
visibility, 77
Church, derivation and uses of
term, 9 sq.
apostolicity of, 55, 138 sq.
attributes of, 55
authority of, 245 sq., 426
Body of Christ, 38, 191 sq.
catholicity of, 26, 55, 122 sq.
132
and Christianity, 44
door to, 58
Church, errors regarding nature
of, 16 sq.
eschatological kingdom, 19, 29
a fortress, 307
Head of, 82, 183 sq.
of Holy Ghost, 67
indefectibility of, 56, 60
infallibility of, 55, 436 sq.,
446 sq.
institution of, 19 sq.
Joannine, 59
and the Jews, 134
and
the
Kingdom,
48,
52 sq.
magisterium of, 427
marks of, 145 sq.

553

members of, 211 sq., 226 sq.
membership in, 209, 212 sq.,
219 sq., 241 sq.
militant, 10
miracles in, 112
object of faith, 82
of Old Law, 11
parables of, 77 sq.
Pauline, 58
period of preparation, 170 sq.
perpetuity of, 55, 56
persecuted, 28
Petrine, 58
pillar and ground of truth,
444
powers of, 229, 256 sq.
purpose of, 40, 41, 189
Church, and prosperity, 170sq.
rights of, 534
rulers of, 264 sq.
salvation
out
of,
209,
241 sq.
sanctity of, 55, 103 sq.
a society, 14 sq., 43 sq.
soul of, 201 sq.
spouse of Christ, 38
subjects of, 228
suffering, 10
symbols of, 24, 76
and State, 512 sq.
and Synagogue, 11, 25, 28, 34,
65
triumphant, 10
unicity of, 35 sq.
unity of, 55, 83
unity of doctrine in, 94
unity of government in, 88 sq.
unity of worship in, 100
visibility of, 55, 68, 74 sq.
Church of England. See Anglican
Church
Churches, Protestant. See Protes­
tantism

554

INDEX

Citra, Council of, Membership in
Church, 239
Clement of Rome, succeeds Anacletus, 315
bishops and deacons, 282
Roman Primacy, 373
Clement of Alexandria, holiness
of Church, 106
unicity of Church, 39
Clement VI, Rome and Papacy,
404
Clement VII (Robert of Ge­
neva), 168
Clement XII, Membership in
Church, 215
Commission to Apostles, 21 sq.
Comprehensiveness, glorious, 177
Comte, A., Church and State,
518
Conciliar theory, 420
Conclusions, theological, 506
Concordats, 527
Confirmation of councils, 418
Conscience, freedom of, 100
Constance, Council of, elects
Pope, 402
temporal punishment, 251
Constantinople, 1st. Council, Ro­
man Primacy, 379
2nd. Council of, and Honor­
ius I, 495, 498
infallibility, 483
4th Council of, infallibility,
483
Constantius exiles Liberius, 496
Continuity theory, 187 sq.
Convocation of councils, 416
Coquille
Guy,
Gallicanism,
514
Core, punished for schism, 271
Corea, growth of Church in, 163
Cornelius, Pope, election of, 400
Cornelius à Lapide, occult here­
tics, 234

Councils, celebration of, 415
confirmation of, 416, 418
convocation of, 415
Councils, ecumenical, 414 sq.
infallibility of, 456 sq.
kinds of, 414
nature of, 413
presidency of, 417
utility of, 424
Counsels, evangelical, 108, 175,
505
Coverdale, at consecration of
Parker, 181
Creed, Augsburg, 71
Apostles’, 82
Dositheus, 184
Moghila, 184
Niccne, 83
Crete, Titus in, 270, 273
Custodians of faith, 470
Cyprian, St., Apostolicity, 144
controversy with St. Stephen,
388 sq.
election of Cornelius, 399
institution of Church, 24
membership in Church, 239
Primacy of Rome, 336, 340,
363, 387
unicity of Church, 39
unity of Church, 91, 97
Cyrenians, synagogue of, 14
Cyril of Alexandria, St., papal
delegate, 354
creed of Ephesus, 465
soul of Church, 294
Cyril of Jerusalem, St., Catholic
Church, 123, 124
catholicity, 129
infallibility, 445

D’Ailly, Peter, Supremacy of
Councils, 420
Damascus, Pope, annulled de­
crees of Arimini, 419

INDEX
condemned
Eustatius
and
Apollinaris, 356
confirmed election of Nectarius, 357
deposed Maximus the Cynic,
356
Roman Primacy, 347, 356
Daniel, prophet, Abrogation of
Old Law, 66
universality of kingdom, 126,
128
Dathan, punished for schism,
271
Deacons, Order of, 279, 280
Declaration of French Clergy,
514
Defensor Pads, 264, 512
De Maistre, Protestant lack of
unity, 173
Deposing power of Pope, 543
De San, catholicity of Church,
155
Devotion to B. V. Mary, ef­
fects of, 165
Didache, bishops and deacons,
282
unicity of Church, 39
Diffusion of Catholic Church,
125, 166
Dignities, ecclesiastical, 411
Diocese, ruler of, 412
Dionysius of Alexandria, St., Ro­
man Primacy, 363
Dioscorus of Alexandria, pre­
sided at Robber Council, 352
deposed at Chalcedon, 353
Divorce, effects of, 175
Doctors, order in early Church,
279
Doctrine, apostolicity of, 139,
143
unity of, 85
Doctrines, fundamental, 87, 93
Dominicum, 12

555

Donatists,
and
holiness
of
Church, 108
Dorsch, Æmil., membership in
Church, 233, 234
Dotes, of Church, 55
Duchesne, L., Roman Primacy,
372
Easter question, 368
Eastern Church and Primacy of
Peter, 335 sq.
Ecclesia, origin and meaning of
word, 9 sq.
Education, rights of Church and
State, 530
Edwardinc ritual reformed, 180
Election of Pope, 399
Eligibility to papacy, 398
Elizabeth declared head of
Church, 180
makes and unmakes bishops,
181
Elymas healed by St. Paul,
115
Emperors convene and preside
over councils, 422
Eneas healed by St. Peter, 115
England, Church of. See Angli­
can Church
Epaphroditus called apostle, 286
Ephesus, council of condemns
Nestorius, 355
and infallibility, 465, 486
and Roman Primacy, 355
Ephrem Syrus, St., Primacy of
Peter, 304, 308, 336
Episcopate of divine origin, 408
and Roman primacy, 394 sq.
Episcopus, origin and meaning
of term, 282
dispute regarding use of,
282 sq.
Eucharist source of unity, 106
Eugene J.V on baptism, 220

556

INDEX

Eusebius gives lists of bishops,
285
Eustatius appeals to Rome, 356
359
Eutyches appeals to Rome,
351
Evangelists,
order in
early
Church, 279
Excommunicates, 228 sq.
subjects of Church, 231
Excommunication, nature and
kinds of, 229 sq.
power of in Church, 228
Eybel on power of pope, 396
Ezechial, prophet, holiness of
Church, 110
Facts, dogmatic, 507
Faith, necessity of internal, 92
objective, 92
profession of, 98, 221
subjective, 92
unity of, 92, 159
Febronius, Church and State,
515
councils, 421
powers of Pope, 396
rulers of Church, 266
Fecundity of Catholic Church,
163
Felicissimus, of Carthage, 363
Fichte, threefold Church, 58
Finlay, Peter, Branch theory, 179
lack of authority in Anglican
Church, 178
Firmilian, controversy with St.
Stephen, 388
Flavian of Constantinople, Ro­
man Primacy, 351
Florence, Council of, infallibility,
482
ministerial powers, 260
Roman Primacy, 404
Fortunatus of Carthage, 363

Franzelin, Card., membership in
Church, 234
Freedom of conscience, 100
of worship, 100
Freeman, E. A., continuity the­
ory, 180
Fulgentius, infallibility, 488
Fullness of Christ, 197
Fundamental doctrines, 87, 93
Fundamentalists, 59, 176
Galileo condemned as heretic,
501
Gallican liberties, 514
Gallicanism, 514
Gallicans, ecumenical councils,
421
infallibility, 476
Garizim, Mount, 80
Garibaldi seizes papal states, 548
“Gates of hell,” meaning of, 62
Gelasius I., confirmation of coun­
cils, 419
Roman Primacy, 421
Genuineness of relics determined,
510
Gerson, supremacy of councils,
420
Glossolalia, 293
Gog
and
Magog
persecute
Church, 137
Gore, Anglican Bishop, apostolicity, 141
primacy of Peter, 302
Government, authority of, 21
monarchical in Church, 284
threefold powers of, 246
unity of, 16 sq., 85 sq.
unity of in Catholic Church,
160
unity of lacking in Orthodox
Churches, 183
unity of lacking in Protes­
tantism, 174

INDEX
Grace, channels of, 199
condition for membership in
Church, 215
Greek liturgy. See “Liturgy”
Gregory Great, St., extent of
Church, 10
infallibility, 462
necessity of miracles, 121
reproves John the Faster, 386,
387
Gregory Nazianzen, St., infalli­
bility, 463, 493
soul of Church, 204
unity of government, 91
Gregory XI, Pope, 168

Harnack, A., kingdom of God, 51
nature of Church, 17
Hart, R. L., fundamentalism, 59
Head, preeminence of, 194
vivifying influence of, 195
union with body, 196
of Church, 193 sq.
of human race, 199, 200
Hegel, nature of State, 518
Hegesippus, gives list of bishops,
285
Henderson, E., meaning of
“keys,” 314
Heresy, Iconoclast, 491
Monothelite, 495
Nestorian, 499
repression of, 430
Heretic, definition of, 225
formal, 225
manifest, 225
material, 225
occult, 225
Heretics, baptism by, 389
membership in Church, 224 sq·,
233
subjects of Church, 227
High Church party, 177

557

Hilary, Pope appealed to by As­
canius, 488
Hillel, 320
Hodgkins assists at consecration
of Parker, 181
Holiness. See “sanctity”
Holy Ghost, soul of Church,
201 sq.
united with Church, 208
Homer, “shepherds of the peo­
ple,” 332
Hontheim, Nicholas von, see
“Febronius”
Honor, primacy of, 300
Honorius I condemned as here­
tic, 495, 498
Hormisdas, Pope, infallibility,
462, 495, 497
Huss, John, membership in
Church, 212
Hypostasis, 490

Ibas of Odessa, 498
Iconoclast heresy, 491
Ignatius Martyr, St., bishops suc­
ceed Apostles, 277
Catholic Church, 122
deacons, 280
membership in Church, 239
monarchical government, 284
unity of government, 91
Impeccability of Apostles, 292
Imprimatur for books, 431
Indefectibility, 55 sq.
India, growth of Church in, 163
Indifferentism, 136
Inerrancy, 434
Infallibility of Apostles, 289
of bishops, 466 sq.
of Church, 433 sq.
of councils, 456 sq.
degrees of, 435
Infallibility, extent of, 503 sq.
opponents of, 436

558

INDEX

and private judgment, 4SI sq.
of Synagogue, 450
Infallibility of Pope, 472 sq.
conditions for, 473
objections to, 495 sq.
personal privilege, 476
proofs for, 478 sq.
source of, 475
Infants, condition for member­
ship in Church, 223
Iniquity, mystery’ of, 137
Initiation, condition for member­
ship in Church, 220
rite of, 23, 220, 238
Innocent II, salvation of unbap­
tized, 232
Innocent III, Christ the founda­
tion, 313
Inspiration, 434
Institution of Church, 19 sq.
Irenæus, St., apostolicity of suc­
cession, 144
bishops successors of Apostles,
277
infallibility, 445
power of miracles in Church,
116
Primacy’· of Rome, 366 sq.
unity of faith, 96
unity of government, 91
letter to Pope Victor, 369
Isaias, prophet, catholicity of
kingdom, 128
Islamism foe of Church, 136
Israel figure of Church, 11

James of Sarug, St., Primacy of
Peter, 305
Jandun, Jean de, Church and
State, 512
rulers of Church, 264
Jansenists, infallibility, 459
Januarius, St., miracle of blood,
162

Jeremias, prophet, foretells New
Covenant, 66
Jerome, St., abuse at Rome, 384
Arian heresy, 169
and Pope Damasus, 357, 489
indefectibility, 64
infallibility, 489
priesthood of laity, 272
primacy of Rome, 357
Jerusalem, council of, 247
destruction foretold, 31
and Papacy, 405
patriarchate of, 411
prophecies concerning, 405
Jews, enter Church, 134
expect kingdom of God, 50
persecute Church, 28
religion of tolerated at Rome,
28
John, St., bishops successors of
Apostles, 277
membership in Church, 217,
218
monarchical government, 284
John
the
Faster,
universal
bishop, 386
John of Jerusalem, infallibility,
492
John II, infallibility, 495, 497
John XXII, Beatific Vision, 501
and Louis of Bavaria, 264
Joseph II of Austria, 515
Josephism, 515
Judaizers, 334
Judicial powers of Church,
248 sq.
Julius I, Roman Primacy, 360,
361
Jurieu, unity of doctrine, 87
Jurisdiction, of Apostles, 290
of bishops, 409
over heretics and schismatics,
227
primacy of, 141, 300 sq.

INDEX

559

Lex orandi, 509
Liberalism, 515, 516
Liberius, Pope, Roman Primacy,
359
Kepha, Aramaic for Peter, 308
infallibility, 495, 496
Key-bearer, 313 sq.
Liberties, Gallican, 514
Key of knowledge, 317
Libertines, synagogue of, 14
Keys, significance of, 316 sq.
Lightfoot, J. B., Ignatius’ letter
Kingdom, eschatological, 29, 53
to Romans, 372, 373
of God, 48
papal domination, 341
and the Church, 48 sq.
Linus, Pope, succeeds St. Peter,
Kitchen of Landaff, 181
367
Knabenbaur, “binding and loos­
Liturgy, Greek, primacy of Peter,
ing,” 321
306, 308, 336
symbolism of keys, 316
Κυριάκόν f 312
infallibility, 494
Liturgy, Syriac, primacy of
Kyriakos, infallibility, 437
Peter, 308, 336
Lacordaire, miracles, 121
Syro-Chaldaic,
primacy of
Peter, 308, 336
unity of Church, 161
Louis of Bavaria and John
Lambeth, conference of, 178
XXII, 264
Lamentabile, decree, condemns
Louis XIV, and Gallicanism, 514
errors of Modernism, 20
Lanciani, Rudolfo, St. Peter in
Loisy, A., nature of Church, 19
Rome, 348
Loosing and binding, power of,
318 sq.
Lateran, Council of, corporal
Lourdes, miracles at, 161
punishment, 251
Low Church party, 177
membership in Church, 237
Lecky, W. E. IL, Devotion to
Lowric, Walter, inscription of
B. V. Mary, 165
Abercius, 370
Leibnitz, confession, 165
Lucentius, papal legate, 353
Leo the Great, Council of Chal­
Luther, membership in Church,
cedon, 352 sq.
213
infallibility, 489
rulers of Church, 265
primacy of Peter, 337
visibility, 70
Robber Council, 352, 419
Lydda, miracles at, 115
Leo II condemns Honorius I,
Lyons, Council of, infallibility,
495, 498, 500
482
Leo XIII, Church and State,
temporal punishment, 251
521, 526, 527, 528, 531
confirmation of councils, 419
Macaulay, lack of unity in An­
episcopate, 406, 410
glican Church, 178
nature of Church, 44
Magisterium of Church, 427
perpetuity, 60
MaJachias, prophet, catholicity
soul of Church, 201
of kingdom, 128
principal power, 261
succession of, 140, 272 sq.

560

INDEX

Manning, Card., soul of Church,
204
union of Church and Holy
Ghost, 209
Marcellus, exiled, 361
Marcian of Arles deposed, 364
Maris of Persia, 498
Marks of Church, 145 sq.
apostolicity as mark, 156
catholicity as mark, 154
claimed by Orthodox, 148
claimed by Protestants, 149
lacking in Anglican Church,
177
lacking in Orthodox Churches,
183
lacking in Protestant Churches,
172 sq.
persecution as a mark, 157
sanctity as a mark, 152 sq.
requisites for, 145 sq.
Marriage, rights of Church and
State regarding, 530
sanctity of, 165
Marsilius of Padua, Church and
State, 512
councils, 420
rulers of Church, 264
Martin V elected, 169, 421
Mary, reestablishes Catholic re­
ligion in England, 180
Mason, A. J., “binding and loos­
ing,” 321
symbolism of keys, 316
Matthias elected, 273, 288
Mauretania, Cyprian to bishops
of, 389
Maximus Confessor, infallibility,
491
Maximus the Cynic deposed, 356
Melanchton, visibility, 70
Mclitene, synod of deposes Eustatius, 359
Mclitius of Antioch, 357

Members of Church, 211 sq.,
228, 232
Membership in Church, condi­
tions of, 219 sq.
errors regarding, 212 sq.
necessity for, 235 sq.
Methodists, divisions of, 174
Metropolitans, 411
Middleton, C., power of mira­
cles in Church, 112, 116
Middleton, Edmund, primacy of
Peter, 341
Mileve, Council of, Roman Pri­
macy, 383
Ministry, Apostolic, 21, 42
apostolicity of, 139, 143
Miracles, false, 119
gift of, 292
of St. Januarius’ blood, 162
at Lourdes, 161
power of in Church, 112 sq.
Modernist, Church and State,
516
indefectibility, 58
infallibility, 459
nature of Church, 18
Moffat, James, “shepherd My
sheep,” 331
Moghila, creed of, 184
Monothelitc heresy, 495
Moses contrasted with Christ,
26
Muratorian Fragment, Catholic
Church, 123
Mystical Body of Christ, 38, 105,
111, 191 sq., 198, 241 sq.
Mystery of iniquity, 137

Necessity of means, 235
of precept, 235
Nectarius, election of confirmed,
357
Need of the divine, 18

INDEX
Nero, decree against Christians,
28
Nestorian heresy, 499
Nestorius condemned, 355
Nicene Council, 6th canon of,
381, 382
monarchical government, 285
Roman Primacy, 382
unicity of Church, 37
Nicholas I, privileges of Roman
See, 403
Novatians, and holiness of
Church, 108
Numidia, Cyprian to bishops of,
389
Oath of royal supremacy, 180
Old Law, abrogation foretold,
66
ceremonies of, 33
relation to Church, 34
stages of, 34
Operations in Christ, 499
Optatus of Mileve, St., catholi­
city, 129
succession, 182
Order, primacy of, 300
Orders, powers of, 261
succession of, 140, 272 sq.
in Orthodox Churches, 184
Orders, approval of religious, 509
Origen, membership in Church,
239
primacy of Peter, 335
Origin, apostolicity of, 142
Orthodox, number of, 167
succession of Orders, 184

Palmer, Wm., unity of govern­
ment, 87
visibility, 73
Palmieri, Dominico, membership
in Church, 232, 234

561

Papacy and Jerusalem, 405
and Rome, 402 sq.
Papal legates at Ephesus, 354
at Chalcedon, 352
Parables of the Church, 77 sq.
Parker, consecrated, 181
source of succession in Angli­
can Church, 181
Parliament establishes Church of
England, 182
rejects authority of Rome, 180
Parousia, 138 (note)
Parochialism, 412
Paschal, Pope appealed to from
East, 491
Paschasinus papal legate, 412
Pastors vicars of bishop, 412
Patriarchs, 411
Paul, St., an Apostle, 288
censures books, 431
compares Church with Syna­
gogue, 28, 67
indefectibility, 62
infallibility, 290, 444, 447
inflicts temporal punishment,
254
intimates monarchical govern­
ment, 285
membership in Church, 216
Mystical Body of Christ, 191
sq.
power of miracles, 114
Paul, St., profession of faith, 99
rebukes St. Peter, 333
sanctity of Church, 106
successors of Apostles, 276
unity of doctrine, 96
Paul of Samosata deposed, 365
Paulinus of Antioch, 357
Pcdagogus, the Synagogue a, 66
Pelagius appeals to Rome, 495,
497
Pelagians and holiness of Church,
108

562

INDEX

Percival, H. R. 6th canon of
Nicaea, 3S2
28th canon of Chalcedon, 381
failure of Protestantism, 176
Perfect society, conditions for, 45
Perpetuity of Church, nature of,
55, 56
Persecution as mark of Church,
157
Peter, significance of name, 303,
304
Peter, St., chief pastor, 329
confirmer of brethren, 324 sq.
foundation of Church, 302 sq.
head of “the Twelve,” 293 sq.
key-bearer, 313 sq.
more than Apostle, 340
powers, how limited, 323
primacy of, 296 sq.
rebuked by St. Paul, 333
in Rome, 347
successors of, 346 sq.
Peter, St., holiness of Church,
110
priesthood of laity, 271
presbyters, 282
visibility of Church, 81
Philip the deacon, 280
Philip papal legate, 354, 486
Pithou, Pierre, Gallicanism, 514
Pius VI, rulers of Church, 267
temporal punishment, 251
Pius IX, membership in Church,
237
salvation out of Church, 240
temporal punishment, 251
unity of government, 88
Pius X, Modernism, 516
Polycarp, and Easter question,
368
Polycrates and Easter question,
369
Pontian, Pope resigns, 400

Pontifex Maximus, 362
Pontiff, Roman, Sec Pope
Pope, and councils, 4*16 sq.
deposing power, 543
doubtful, 402
election of, 399
exempt from civil power, 544
infallibility of, 472 sq.
Primacy of, 346 sq.
powers of, 395 sq.
and secular rulers, 540 sq.
Pope, successor of St. Peter, 349
sq.
supreme teacher, 429
temporal power of, 545
Popes at Avignon, 546
Power, coercive, 249
of government, 246
judicial, 248
legislative, 247
ministerial, 259
of Orders, 260
principal, 261
of santification, 22
Powers, of Christ, 256
of Church, 256 sq.
conferred on Apostles, 21 sq.,
256
of jurisdiction, 272 sq.
of Orders, 272 sq.
of Peter, 323
of Pope, 323, 395 sq.
Preaching, approbation for, 432
Predestination, 212 note
as condition for membership,
213
Preeminence of St. Peter, 296 sq.
Prerogatives of Apostles, 289 sq.
Presbyter, meaning of word, 279
dispute regarding use of, 283
Presbyterium, 284
Presidency of councils, 417
Priests, See Presbyter

INDEX
Priesthood of laity, 272
Primacy, meaning of term and
kinds of, 300
Primacy of Peter, 295 sq.
conferred, 328 sq.
permanent institution, 341
promised, 302 sq.
proof from tradition, 335 sq.
Primacy of Pope, divine origin,
377
eligibility to, 398
and episcopate, 394 sq.
loss of, 400 sq.
objections to, 376 sq.
powers of, how limited, 323
proofs for, 351 sq.
Primates, 411
Profession of faith, necessity of,
321
unity of, 98
Projectus papal legate, 354
Prokopovitch,
deuterocanonical
books, 184
Properties of Church, 55, 83
Prophets, order in early Church,
279
Prosperity and the Church, 170
sq.
Protestant Episcopal Church, 177
Protestantism, lacks marks of
true Church, 172 sq.
moral failure, 176
Protestants, apostolicity, 141
catholicity, 126
indefectibility, 57
infallibility, 436, 459
kingdom of God, 51
nature of Church, 16 sq.
number of, 164, 167
power of miracles, 112
rulers of Church, 51
unicity, 35
unity, 85 sq.

563

visibility, 70 sq.
Pseudo-Ambrose, indefectibility,
62
Punishment, kinds of, 250 sq.
right of Church to inflict, 250
sq.
Purpose of Church, 40, 41, 189
Pusey, E. B. unity of govern­
ment, 87

Rationalists, indefectibility, 58
Redemption, 42
Reformers, Church and State,
513
temporal punishment, 252 note
Reinhard, visibility, 72
Relics, genuineness determined,
510
Resignation of Roman pontiff,
400
Revelation, 434
Rights of Church against State,
534
of State against Church, 529
Rimini, Council of, 169
Ritual, Edwardine, 180, 181
Rivington, Luke, Cyprian’s con­
troversy, 392
Rulers, of Church, 264 sq.
secular, how subject to Church,
540 sq.
Ruling body in Church, 267 sq.
Robber Council annulled, 252
Robert of Geneva (Clement
VII), 168
Rock, faith of Peter, 313
Peter the rock, 302 sq.
symbol of jurisdiction, 306
Rome, destruction of foretold,
405
and Papacy, how connected,
402 sq.
patriarchate of, 379, 382, 411

564

INDEX

persecuted Christians, 28
tolerated Jewish religion, 28
Roman Catholic, meaning of,
167
Roman Pontiff, See Pope.
Sabatier, formation of Church,
19
Sacraments, channels of grace,
199
Saints, canonizing of, 509
Salmon, G., infallibility, 541
Salvation out of Church, 209,
241 sq.
Sanctification, power of, 22
Sanctity, nature and kinds of,
103, 104
Sanctity of Church, causative,
107
eminent, 111
manifestative, 111 sq.
Sanctity of Church, mark of,
152 sq.
moral, or personal, 107 sq.
ontological, 104
physical, 104
Sanctity in Catholic Church,
161 sq.
lack of in Protestant Churches,
175
Saphira, punishment of, 249
Sarai, name changed to Sara, 304
Sardica, Council of, Roman
Primacy, 360
Satyr, brother of St. Ambrose,
490
Schelling, threefold church, 58
Schism, sin of, 90
Western, 168, 420
Schismatic, definition and kinds
of, 225, 226
Schismatics,
membership
in
Church, 226, 233
subjects of Church, 227

Schismatic Churches of East, not
catholic, 183
no legitimate succession, 184
no unity, 183
valid Orders, 184
Scorcy, assisted consecration of
Parker, 181
See, Apostolic, 141, 407, 492
Seleucia, Council of, 169, 469
Semeria, Church and Synagogue,
35
Sergius of Constantinople, 499
Shepherd,
symbol
of ruler,
330
Siefcrt, F. Peter the rock, 305
Sin, original, 200
Smith, E. W. lack of unity in
Protestantism, 173
Social nature of kingdom, 52
Society, nature of, 14
formal element of, 15
material element of, 15
perfect, 45
Sonncnfels, Church and State,
515
Soul of Church, 201 sq.
membership in, 241 sq.
Sozomen, infallibility, 492
Liberius, 496
Spouse of Christ, 38, 105
Stahl, powers of the Church,
262
State and Church, 512 sq.
duties toward Church, 531
and education, 530
and marriage, 530
rights of, 529
subordinate to Church. 521 sq.
Stead, T. W. lack of Saints in
Protestantism, 175
Stephen, St., controversy with
St. Cyprian, 388 sq.
Stowe, Chas. E., lack of unity
in Protestantism, 174

INDEX
Straub, convocation of councils,
417
catholicity as mark, 155
infallibility, 477
membership in Church, 232,
234
Strauss, D. F., nature of Church,
17
Suarez, infallibility, 477
Suarez, membership in Church,
234
Subjects of Church, 22S, 254
Successors of Apostles, 270 sq.,
407
Successors of St. Peter, 346 sq.
Succession, apostolic, 139, 143,
406
formal, 139
of jurisdiction, 140, 272 sq.
material, 139
of Orders, 140, 272 sq.
none in Anglican Church, 182
in Catholic Church, 167
none in Orthodox Churches,
184
none in Protestant Churches,
176
Supererogation, works of, 109,
175
Supremacy, oath of, 180
Sylvester, Pope, 494
Symbols of Church, 24, 76
Synagogue, abrogation of, 65
compared with Church, 28, 81
infallibility of, 450
meaning of term, 13
a preparation for Gospel, 26
Syriac liturgy, see Liturgy
Syro-Chaldaic liturgy, See Lit­
urgy

Talmud, “binding and loosing,”
320

565

Tanqucrcy, abrogation of Old
Law, 34
infallibility, 508
Teaching authority, 21, 426
extent of, 429
infallible, 426 sq.
primacy of, 325
Temple frequented by Christ and
disciples, 31, 32
Temporal power of Pope, 545
Tertullian, apostolicity, 144
infallibility, 448
Primacy of Peter, 305
Roman Primacy, 362
successors of Apostles, 278
unity, 97, 99
Theodoret of Cyrus, 498
Theodore of Mopsucsta, 498
Theodore of Studium, infallibil­
ity, 491
Theodosius calls Robber Council,
352
Thomas Aquinas, St., nature of
Church, 10
fullness of Christ, 197
impeccability
of
Apostles,
292
Three Chapters, 498
Thucydides, use of word “eclesia,” 10
Timothy condemned by Pope
Damasus, 493
Titus, bishop of Crete, 270, 273
Tolerati, 231
Tradition, value of, 471
Trent, Council of, “door” of
Church, 220
jurisdiction of bishops, 410
priests part of hierarchy, 281
rulers of Church, 267
succession of powers, 275
Triumphus, Augustus, Church
and State, 513
Twelve, the, 269, 296

566

INDEX

Tyana, synod of restores Eustatius, 359

Unbaptized not members of
Church, 223
Unicity of Church, 35 sq.
Union with Holy Ghost, 208
Unity of Church, bonds of, 84
errors regarding, 85
of doctrine, 85, 159, 172, 183
of government, 85 sq., 160, 172
sq., 183
as mark of Church, 151 sq.
of profession, 98
and Western Schism, 168 sq.
of worship, 98
Urban VI, 168
Vatican, Council of, apostolicity,
142
councils, 421
infallibility, 436, 476, 467, 473
institution of Church, 20
perpetuity, 60
power of Pope, 395, 396
Primacy of Peter, 301
Primacy of Roman Pontiff,
342, 346
Vatican, Council of, unity of
doctrine, 95
unity of government, 88
visibility, 74
Victor, Pope and Easter ques­
tion, 68
Victorinus, primacy of Peter, 337
Vigilius and the Three Chapters,
498
Vienna, Council of, temporal
punishment, 251
Vincent Lcrins, Apostolic See,
407

infallibility, 468
Visibility of Church, 55 sq.
errors regarding, 70
formal, 68
material, 68
objections to, 77 sq.
Vitalis of Antioch, 357
Vitandi, 231
Vulgate, authentic version
Scripture, 508

of

Waterland, fundamental doc­
trines, 94
Weiss, B, Peter the rock, 305,
307
Weizsâcker, nature of Church,
18
Westminster Confession, visibil­
ity, 72
Wilmers, catholicity, 155
membership in Church, 233
Worship, freedom of, 100
in spirit and truth, 80
unity of, 85, 99
unity of in Catholic Church,
160
Wyclif, holiness of Church, 108
Wyclif, membership in Church,
212

Zacharias, prophet, foretells cath­
olic kingdom, 128
Zacharias, Pope and infallibility,
495, 500
Zenobia of Palmyra, 365
Zosimus, Pope, councils, 421
infallibility, 495, 497
restores Apiarius, 384
Zwingli, visibility, 71