Compendium Theologiae Dogmaticae Tomus I: De Christo Legato Divino, De Ecclesia Christi, De Fontibus Theologicis

Cf. Bellarminus, De ecclesia; I. B. Franzelin, Theses de ecclesia Christi, Romae 1885; De divina Scriptura et traditione⁴, Romae 1906; I. V. de Groot, Summa apologetica de ecclesia catholica³, Ratisbonae 1896; Guil. Wilmers, De Christi ecclesia, Ratisbonae 1897; G. van Noort, Tractatus de ecclesia Christi², Amstelodami 1909; P. Batiffol, L'église naissante et le catholicisme, Paris 1909 (also in German: Urkirche und Katholizismus, Kempten 1910); I. Ottiger, Theologia fundamentalis II, Friburgi Brisg. 1911.

PRELIMINARIES.

185. We have proved that Jesus Christ, the divine envoy, proposed his doctrine as revealed by God and as something all people are bound to accept (above, n. 133 sqq). Christ, however, did not remain among human beings, but returned to the Father shortly after the Resurrection. The question, then, is how, according to Christ’s intention, revealed doctrine is to be preserved and propagated to all people of every age, until the end of the world.

The Modernists, together with many rationalists, say that Christ made no provision for this, since he thought he would soon return for the judgment. We have already spoken of this error (above, n. 135). Protestants commonly say that after the time of Christ and the apostles, the sole source and norm of faith is Sacred Scripture, especially the New Testament. We say that Christ instituted a living teaching office, destined to endure perpetually to preserve and propagate his doctrine; that is, he entrusted his doctrine to a certain religious society called the Church. This must be proved first of all.

We must then inquire what this society is and where it is, how it is distinguished from other societies, who in this society is the subject of authority, and in what sources the doctrine of the ecclesiastical teaching office is found. Accordingly, the treatise is divided into these parts: on the institution and constitution of the Church, on the properties of the Church, on the marks of the Church, and on the subject of ecclesiastical authority. To these is added, as the third part of the whole inquiry, the treatise on theological sources.

As regards the manner of argument, we must observe what we have already indicated: we use the books of the New Testament simply as historical documents, not as inspired books. Nevertheless, when Christ or another divine envoy speaks in these books in the name of God, his words are of divine and infallible authority; if they have a certain and clear meaning, they are conclusive arguments. For this authority does not depend on the inspiration of the book, but consists in God’s speaking; once this is historically established, every doubt as to whether the things said are true is thereby wholly excluded.

Proposition XXIII. Christ instituted a living apostolic teaching office to preserve and propagate his doctrine, and conferred on it the prerogative of infallibility in handing on his doctrine.

186. Position of the question. A living teaching office means people who teach by oral preaching and can explain their doctrine, in contrast to a written book, which presents its doctrine to readers but, because it is not alive, cannot explain itself.

By the force of the word, an apostle is the same as one sent, or an envoy (cf. 3 Rg 14, 6, where the Hebrew is written shaluach and the Greek ἀπόστολος). Thus the apostolic teaching office, taken concretely, consists of people sent by Christ to teach others in his name and by his authority the doctrine revealed by Christ (cf. Io 13, 16). In Scripture Christ himself is once called an apostle (Hebr 3, 1). Those who are apostles are often also called disciples (e. g. Mt 11, 1), but not all disciples are apostles (cf. Act 1, 21 26; 8, 1; 1 Cor 12, 28 sq); the name apostle denotes a special office and authority (cf. Rom 1, 1; Gal 1, 1).

187. Proof, part I. Christ instituted a living apostolic teaching office. “It came to pass in those days that he went out to the mountain to pray, and he spent the night in prayer to God. And when day came, he called his disciples and chose twelve of them, whom he also named apostles” (Lc 6, 12 sq; cf. Mc 3, 13 sq). “Having called the twelve apostles together, he gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick” (Lc 9, 1 sq). Christ trained these apostles in a special way to discharge their office properly (Mt 10, 1 sqq; 13, 10 sqq. Lc 9, 1 sqq. Io 13, 12 sqq). The office for which he had appointed them was to preach Christ’s doctrine, not only to the Jews but to all people.

Christ had foretold this to his apostles before his death (Mt 10, 16 sqq; 24, 14. Mc 13, 9 sqq). After his Resurrection he said to them: “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt 28, 18 sq. Mc 16, 15). Yet he wished them to wait until they had received the Holy Spirit (Lc 24, 19 sqq. Act 1, 4). “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Act 1, 8).

Matthias was chosen in place of Judas the traitor (Act 1, 26), and Paul was called in a special way by Christ himself to the office of apostle (Act 9, 15; 22, 3 sqq. Gal 1, 12) and numbered among the other apostles (Act 9, 27 sqq. Gal 2, 9).

The apostles understood that Christ had imposed on them the task and duty of preaching Christ’s doctrine. “They went forth and preached everywhere” (Mc 16, 20). “We cannot but speak the things we have seen and heard” (Act 4, 20). “Christ sent me to evangelize” (1 Cor 1, 17). “If I preach the Gospel, this is no cause for boasting, for necessity is laid upon me; woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel” (1 Cor 9, 16). For faith is necessary for people’s salvation, and preaching is the ordinary way by which they attain faith. “How will they believe him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? And how will they preach unless they are sent?” (Rom 10, 14 sq).

188. Proof, part II. Christ conferred on the apostles the prerogative of infallibility in handing on Christ’s doctrine. All people must believe under pain of eternal damnation. “Whoever does not believe is already judged” (Io 3, 18). “Whoever does not receive you or hear your words, as you leave that house or city, shake the dust from your feet. Amen, I say to you: it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that city” (Mt 10, 14 sq). “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; but whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mc 16, 16). “Whoever receives the one I send receives me; and whoever receives me receives him who sent me” (Io 13, 20). “Whoever hears you hears me, and whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Lc 10, 16). But Christ could not impose on people, under pain of eternal damnation, a duty to believe false doctrine. Therefore, the apostles’ doctrine is infallibly true.

Since the apostles were fallible human beings in themselves, Christ promised them his perpetual assistance and the help of the Holy Spirit. “Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the age” (Mt 28, 20). “I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, to remain with you forever, the Spirit of truth. … The Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and bring to your mind all that I have said to you” (Io 14, 16 sq 26). “When that Spirit of truth comes, he will teach you all truth” (Io 16, 13). Therefore, the Holy Spirit speaks in the apostles and through the apostles. The Spirit of truth, “who proceeds from the Father, will bear witness to me, and you also will bear witness” (Io 15, 26 sq; cf. Mt 10, 20). Therefore, the apostles’ words are the words of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, and so are infallible.

This was the apostles’ conviction. “Christ speaks in me” (2 Cor 13, 3). “We are witnesses of these words, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to all who obey him” (Act 5, 32). “It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Act 15, 28). To receive the apostles’ words is to obey God. “We have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all nations for his name” (Rom 1, 5). “When you received from us the word of God that you heard, you received it not as the word of men but, as it truly is, the word of God” (1 Thess 2, 13). The apostles’ doctrine is the doctrine of Jesus Christ, who comes “in flaming fire to take vengeance on those who do not know God and who do not obey the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thess 1, 8). Through their doctrine, the apostles take every thought captive, “being ready to punish every disobedience” (2 Cor 10, 5 sq). Hence, “even if an angel from heaven should preach to you a Gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal 1, 8). Anyone who speaks in this way is certain of the infallible truth of his doctrine.

God also confirmed the apostles’ doctrine by many miracles (Act 2, 43; 3, 1 sqq; 5, 12 sqq; 9, 32 sqq. 2 Cor 12, 12. Hebr 2, 3 sq). Therefore, since the apostles demanded absolute faith in their integral doctrine, and God supported this demand with miracles, it follows that the apostles were infallible in proposing Christ’s doctrine, since God does not confirm error by miracles.

189. Objection I. The apostles often did not understand Christ’s doctrine correctly and were therefore rebuked by Christ (Mt 15, 16). Therefore, they were not infallible.

I answer I deny the argument’s assumption. For the question is not what the apostles were like before the Holy Spirit was sent, but what they were like after receiving the Holy Spirit. Christ told them expressly: “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will teach you all truth” (Io 16, 12 sq). “But you, remain in the city until you are clothed with power from on high” (Lc 24, 49). Moreover, even when the apostles were sent to preach during Christ’s mortal life, Christ undoubtedly saw to it that the few things they were then to announce would be proposed with infallible truth.

190. Objection II. The apostle Paul said to the people of Miletus: “I know that you will see my face no more” (Act 20, 25); yet later he was again at Miletus, where he left Trophimus (2 Tim 4, 20), for on his earlier journey he had taken Trophimus with him to Jerusalem (Act 21, 29). Therefore, the apostles were fallible.

I answer. I grant the antecedent. I distinguish the consequence: The apostles were fallible in proposing Christ’s doctrine, I deny the consequence; in other matters not pertaining to the doctrine of faith and morals, I grant the consequence. On that occasion Paul expressed his personal expectation, but at the same time had said: “I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there” (Act 20, 22).

191. Objection III. Peter also erred in a matter of faith and morals by compelling the Gentiles to Judaize (Gal 2, 11 sqq). Therefore, he was not infallible in proposing Christ’s doctrine.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: Peter taught that the Gentiles had to observe the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament, I deny the antecedent; by his conduct Peter compelled the Gentiles to Judaize, I grant the antecedent. And I deny the consequence.

Peter explicitly taught that the Gentiles were not bound to observe circumcision and thus subject themselves to the ceremonial law (Act 15, 10). Since he was a Jew, he could live as a Jew. But because he had earlier lived at Antioch in the manner of the Gentile Christians, and later withdrew from them so as not to offend the Jews, in practice he compelled the Gentiles to Judaize. Therefore, Paul rebuked him not for teaching something false but for not walking rightly (Gal 2, 12). On this matter Tertullian says: “If Peter was rebuked because, after he had lived with the Gentiles, he later separated himself from their company out of regard for persons, the fault was certainly one of conduct, not of preaching” (De praescr. 23). See also Praelect. dogm. V, n. 523 sqq.

192. Objection IV. The apostles thought that the Second Coming of Christ was already very near (Rom 13, 11 sq. 1 Thess 4, 14 16). Yet they were mistaken about this. Therefore, they were not infallible.

I answer. I distinguish the major: The apostles held a private opinion that the coming of Christ was near, I concede the major; they said this was a doctrine revealed by Christ, I deny the major. I distinguish the minor: The apostles were mistaken in a private opinion, I concede the minor; in proposing Christ’s doctrine, I deny the minor. And I distinguish the consequence in the same way.

The apostles knew well that they had received no revelation from Christ about the time of the judgment (Mt 24, 36 44. Act 1, 7); but, like Christ himself, they warned everyone always to be ready. Nevertheless, since the time was wholly uncertain, they did not want people to neglect their daily duties (1 Thess 5, 1 sqq. 2 Thess 3, 6 sqq), and they carefully provided for the future course of the Church (2 Cor 5, 3 8. Phil 1, 23 sqq. 1 Tim 5, 22. 2 Tim 4, 6. Tit 1, 5. Act 14, 22; 20, 28).

Proposition XXIV. Christ conferred primacy on Peter within the college of apostles.

193. Position of the question. Christ did not choose the apostles so that they would remain twelve separate men, each a divine envoy without any connection to the others, as, for example, the prophets of the Old Testament were. Rather, he chose them to be one moral body, one teaching college. A college is understood as a group of people united among themselves to pursue some definite end in common. The apostles formed such a college, for they are called by a collective name and are distinguished as a college from others. They are called οἱ δώδεκα, or, after Judas’s defection, οἱ ἕνδεκα (Mt 10, 1; 11, 1; 20, 17 24; 28, 16. Mc 3, 14; 4, 10; 6, 7. Lc 8, 1; 9, 1 12. Io 6, 68. Act 6, 2). They are distinguished from the others as οἱ ἕνδεκα καὶ οἱ λοιποί or οἱ ἕνδεκα καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτοῖς. “Jesus sent these twelve, instructing them … as you go, preach … whoever receives you receives me” (Mt 10, 5 7 40). Since a college may consist either of equals or of unequals, the question arises whether all the apostles were equal or whether one of them held primacy—that is, since they were a sacred college, whether they formed a hierarchical college under one head.

As long as Christ lived with the apostles, he alone was their head. After he departed from this world, he remained their invisible head, from whom all the apostles’ authority descended. But he wished a visible head to remain as well, and so appointed Simon, Andrew’s brother, as primate. Primacy is either of honor alone or of authority. We may take as certain that Christ did not institute mere ranks of honor among his disciples, since nothing was more alien to his mind than ceremonial vanities. It is therefore clear a priori that, if he instituted any primacy, it was a primacy of religious authority. The arguments will make this clear in any case.

Among Protestants and non-Catholic Eastern Christians, some deny that any primacy was conferred on Peter; others concede a primacy of honor, and still others some kind of primacy of authority. In the Catholic Church, there has been complete agreement on this matter from the earliest centuries.

194. Argument I. From the promise of primacy.

Jesus changed Simon’s name to Kepha, that is, “rock”; the corresponding Greek word is Πέτρος, which was also retained in Latin (Io 1, 42. Mt 10, 2. Mc 3, 16. Lc 6, 14). Peter thus became a proper name, by which that apostle is almost always called thereafter in Scripture.

Jesus himself explained the reason for the change of name. For after Peter confessed, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Jesus answered: “Blessed are you, Simon Bar [son of] Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to you that you are Peter [Kepha], and upon this rock [Kepha] I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Mt 16, 16 sqq).

But by these words Christ promised Peter a primacy of authority. Therefore, he also gave him that primacy.

To the major. Protestants who did not wish to admit Peter’s primacy devised various evasions, such as claiming that Christ was not addressing Peter, or that Christ called not Peter himself but the faith Peter had confessed the foundation of the Church. But since these and other evasions are manifestly groundless, in our time some have preferred to deny that the text is genuine, on the ground that it was added to Matthew’s Gospel around the end of the second century. They concede that perhaps the words “You are Peter, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against you” were present from the beginning, but claim the other words are interpolated. So A. Harnack (Die Acta Archelai und das «Diatessaron» Tatians 149 sq). A. Resch, H. Monnier, and others agree with him. Against them have written C. Kneller (Stimmen aus Maria-Laach L, 129 sqq), Y. de la Brière (Études CXIX, 558 sqq), P. Batiffol (L'église naissante 101 sqq), and others.

That assertion not only has no solid foundation but is wholly implausible. For by the end of the second century, the Aramaic text of Matthew had long since fallen out of use, and the Greek text had everywhere taken its place. Therefore, at that time no one could have thought of inventing a text already marked by a Semitic character, so remote from every Greek manner of conceiving and speaking (cf. above, n. 113). The text, then, was plainly written by a Jew for Jews in the first century.

Moreover, the text was in Tatian’s Diatessaron. Therefore, it was being read in the Gospel before the year 170. This is evident from the statements of St. Ephrem, who gives this paraphrase of the text: “Blessed are you, Simon, head of the disciples, because the Son of God called you blessed … and gave you the keys of the kingdom … and bestowed on you divine power and authority to bind and loose … Blessed are you, Peter, because the Son of God set you as the foundation of the Church, to bear the weight of the whole creation … Blessed are you, Simon, because upon you the Church was built, the beautiful bride of light, to whom the Son of God promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against her” (Hymni dispersi III, ed. Lamy IV, 682 sqq).

These are the very things found in Mt 16, 17 sqq, although this is not a verbatim quotation. Ephrem often repeats similar passages (cf. Lamy I 374 412 534; II 186; IV 534 738). But Ephrem used Tatian’s Diatessaron in place of the fourfold Gospel. Therefore, the text existed in that work and consequently was not interpolated at a later time.

Without doubt, Christians would not have patiently endured having so serious an interpolation, previously unknown, imposed on them, nor would they have received it so unanimously throughout the world that not even a single uncorrupted manuscript remained. For the text is found in all manuscripts and all versions, even the older Syriac version that predates Tatian, without any variant reading of significance.

The argument from the silence of those few Fathers who wrote before the middle of the second century—and even that silence is not complete—and the further argument that the text does not fit its context are so weak and empty that they scarcely deserve consideration. Also relevant is the claim that Christ could not have spoken of his Church. Christ certainly did not speak Greek. He therefore used some Aramaic word by which he meant the religious community he was to found. That Christ founded such a society is evident from Scripture, as we shall see later. Thus the genuineness of the text remains unshaken. If the text is genuine, it is also historically true, for the Evangelist was neither deceived nor lying in this matter: the words themselves are not difficult to remember, the occasion was very solemn, and there was no reason to assign such a dignity to Peter.

195. Proof of the minor. 1. Christ declares that Peter will be the foundation of the society he is to institute, or declares that he will be the real principle of this society’s firmness and stability (cf. Mt 7, 24 sqq). But the real principle of firmness and stability in a society is the authority, or power, effectively to direct the members of that society toward attaining its social end; in the Church this power is usually called jurisdiction. Therefore, Peter, and he alone, has this power over the whole Church, for he alone was designated by Christ as the future foundation of the Church. All the apostles together may indeed be called the foundation of the Church by reason of their office and doctrine (Eph 2, 20). Nevertheless, no apostle in particular was told, “You are the rock upon which I will build my Church”; this prerogative belongs to Peter alone. Therefore, Peter alone is the common principle of stability for the whole Church and each and every part of it. The fact that the apostles together with Peter are collectively the foundation does not exclude Peter’s being the foundation in a special sense within this college, in which the whole college has its principle of unity and stability.

2. Christ adds: “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Christ speaks, as it were, in the role of an architect saying, “I will build my house upon a rock”; because it is built upon a rock, it will be so firm that no hostile powers can overthrow it. “Hell” (Ἁίδης) is either, in general, the place of the dead who are not in blessedness (Act 2, 31; Apc 6, 8), or, in particular, the place of the damned (Lc 16, 22 sq. Mt 11, 23. Apc 20, 3). The “gates” of hell are hell’s own kingdom (cf. Gn 22, 17. Is 38, 10). Therefore, the kingdom of hell is the hostile power that seeks to overthrow Christ’s kingdom. In itself, then, Christ’s words could mean: “I will establish my kingdom so firmly upon Peter that death, which conquers all things, will not be able to overcome it.” Nevertheless, death as such is never presented as a power fighting against Christ’s kingdom; rather, the devil and his angels are always presented in that way (cf. Io 12, 31; 14, 30; 16, 11. Lc 11, 20 sqq. Hebr 2, 14. Eph 6, 12). Against these diabolical attacks, Christ promises by his prayer to protect Peter (Lc 22, 31 sq). Thus, through Peter, insofar as Christ made him the foundation and gave him a share in Christ’s own firmness, the Church will become firm and unconquerable against every hostile attack. It is evident from Christ’s words and from the nature of the matter that this refers not to a passing act of Peter but to a lasting office.

3. Finally, Christ adds: “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” This too is a metaphor, which Christ immediately explains by saying: “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” In other words, God will ratify the acts of binding and loosing that Peter performs on earth. Therefore, Peter will be appointed the keyholder of the Church, with the power to close and open—that is, with jurisdiction over the whole Church. Christ, indeed, possesses the principal authority: “He has the key of David; he opens and no one shuts, he shuts and no one opens” (Apc 3, 7; cf. Is 22, 22). But he shared this authority with Peter in such a way that Peter exercises in the Church the supreme vicarious power.

There can be, and are, others in the Church who have the power to bind and loose, but no one else is the keyholder of the whole Church. Thus in Mt 18, 18 Christ promises the college of apostles the power to bind and loose; but here he appoints none of the apostles supreme keyholder, nor does he give any of them in particular universal authority over the whole Church, as he gave it to Peter in Mt 16, 19. The apostles, as apostles, were equal among themselves; but just as they were all subject to Christ, so they were subject to Christ’s vicar, Peter, because everyone in the kingdom is subject to the one who holds the keys of the kingdom.

Thus, the dignity of being the foundation and keyholder of the whole kingdom of Christ was promised to Peter alone; therefore, the primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church was promised to him (cf. Knabenbauer, In Matth., II², 130 sqq).

196. Argument II. From the conferral of primacy.

After the Resurrection, when he appeared to some disciples by the Sea of Galilee, “Jesus says to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? He says to him: Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He says to him: Feed my lambs. He says to him again: Simon, son of John, do you love me? He says to him: Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He says to him: Feed my lambs. He says to him a third time: Simon, son of John, do you love me? … And he said to him: Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my sheep” (Io 21, 15 sqq).

But by these words Christ handed over to Peter the primacy he had formerly promised. Therefore, Peter received primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church.

To the major. The text is critically certain and has no notable variant readings. Since Christ was about to entrust his flock to Peter, he first questions him three times about his love, for great love is needed to tend Christ’s flock properly. Perhaps he also alludes to Peter’s threefold denial. Peter had already been restored to the dignity of an apostle, for Christ had already said to him, together with the other apostles: “As the Father has sent me, I also send you … Receive the Holy Spirit” (Io 20, 21 sq). Therefore, Io 21, 15 sqq does not concern restoring this dignity but something else, namely the actual conferral of the primacy previously promised.

197. Proof of the minor. Christ calls himself the shepherd whose flock is the faithful people of the New Testament (Mt 9, 36; 10, 6. Io 10, 11 sqq). In the Old Testament the people of God were already called the Lord’s flock, whose shepherds were the priests. But because they neglected the flock, God rejected them and promised a new shepherd, Christ (Ez 34, 1 sqq 23; cf. above, n. 161, 2). This new shepherd again appointed another shepherd as his vicar, who after Christ’s Ascension would govern his flock, that is, the whole community of the faithful: Βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου, ποίμαινε τὰ πρόβατιά μου. Even if someone does not wish to insist that ἀρνία means the ordinary faithful, while προβάτια or πρόβατα means superiors or those set over them, since opinions differ on this point, it is nevertheless evident that these words designate Christ’s entire flock. Christ, therefore, made Peter the shepherd of the whole Church, or entrusted him with the power to teach and govern the whole Church. To be the shepherd of people is the same as governing them through the power of jurisdiction (2 Reg 5, 2. Is 44, 28. Mt 2, 6 in Greek). Thus, when these words are compared with the promise of primacy (Mt 16, 17 sqq), there is no doubt that Christ here fulfilled what he had then promised and made Peter primate of the universal Church.

198. Confirmation I. From the apostles’ way of acting.

At first the apostles understood no more about the force of the primacy conferred on Peter than they did about Christ’s predicted Passion and death and his various other teachings. But after the coming of the Holy Spirit, their dispute over which of them seemed to be the greatest ceased, and they conceded the leading place to Peter without envy. Therefore, when the Evangelists wrote, they too having now received the Holy Spirit, they gave Peter precedence over all the others.

For 1. In the lists of the apostles Peter is placed first (Mc 3, 16. Lc 6, 14. Act 1, 13) and is expressly called “first” among the apostles, not as part of an enumeration, since “second, third” does not follow; nor because he was Jesus’ first disciple, since others joined Jesus before him (Io 1, 35 sqq); nor for any other reason, since none is indicated, but simply because he is Peter: “First, Simon, who is called Peter” (Mt 10, 2). This is also suggested by other expressions that present Peter as the head of the apostolic college: ὁ Σίμων καὶ οἱ μετ' αὐτοῦ (Mc 1, 36), ὁ Πέτρος καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ (Lc 9, 32), ὁ Πέτρος σὺν τοῖς ἕνδεκα (Act 2, 14), Πέτρος καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι (Act 2, 37), Πέτρος καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι (Act 5, 29). In 1 Cor 1, 12 the order is reversed, and there is a progression: Paul puts himself in the lowest place, then Apollos, then Peter, then Christ. Likewise in 3, 22 and 9, 6. The reading in Gal 2, 9 is uncertain; if James is placed first, the reason is that the passage concerns those who were held in honor at Jerusalem, and so James, bishop of that city, is named first.

2. The Evangelists report that Peter was honored by Christ in a special way. Whenever Christ was in the city of Capernaum, he stayed in Peter’s house (Mt 8, 14. Mc 1, 29. Lc 4, 38); he taught from Peter’s boat (Lc 5, 3); after the miraculous catch of fish he told Peter that he would become a fisher of people (Lc 5, 10); by a miracle he provided a stater for Peter to pay on behalf of Christ and himself (Mt 17, 26); and after the Resurrection he appeared to Peter when Peter was alone (Lc 24, 34. 1 Cor 15, 5).

3. After Pentecost, whenever the apostles were together, Peter presided and spoke on behalf of them all. So he did at the election of Matthias (Act 1, 15), on Pentecost (Act 2, 14), and before the rulers and elders of the Jews (Act 4, 8). He was the first to admit the Gentiles to the Church (Act 10, 34), the first to settle a question at the council of the apostles (Act 15, 7), and he visited and strengthened all the churches (Act 9, 32 sqq).

Taken together, these things show that Peter’s position in the early Church was entirely singular, and thus confirm what we have proved about his primacy. But if this primacy is denied, there is plainly no reason why Peter should have held this singular place of honor.

199. Confirmation II. From the testimony of the ancient Church.

Origen says of Peter: “Look at what the Lord says to that great foundation of the Church and most solid rock upon which Christ founded the Church” (In Exod. hom. 5, n. 4); Peter is “prince of the apostles” (In Luc. hom. 17). Tertullian: “Was anything hidden from Peter, who was called the rock on which the Church was to be built, who received the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the power of loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?” (De praescript. 22.) St. Hilary addresses Peter: “O happy foundation of the Church in the pronouncement of your new name” (In Matth. 16, 18), “doorkeeper of the heavenly kingdom” (In Ps. 131, n. 4). St. John Chrysostom: “Those things that are proper to God alone—namely, to forgive sins, to render the Church unmoved amid such a gathering of waves, and to make a fisherman more solid than rock while the whole world assails him—these [Christ] promises to give to him [Peter]” (In Matth. hom. 54, n. 2). St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Peter is ὁ κορυφαιότατος καὶ πρωτοστάτης τῶν ἀποστόλων (Catech. myst. 2, 19). See also Breviario Rom. on 13 Jan. and 22 Feb. Whence this great esteem for Peter above all the apostles, unless Peter held primacy?

200. Objection I. Many Fathers teach that the rock on which the Church was built is the confession of Christ’s divinity. Therefore, Peter is not the rock; rather, it is his faith or confession.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: The Fathers speak in this way to exclude Peter’s primacy, I deny the antecedent; to include Peter’s primacy, I grant the antecedent. And I deny the consequence.

The Holy Fathers use this way of speaking chiefly when arguing against the Arians, who denied Christ’s divinity. Against them they insist that Peter received primacy only after he confessed Christ’s divinity. “Upon this rock of confession, then, the Church is built.” So says St. Hilary (De Trin. l. 6, n. 36), who repeatedly says that Peter is the foundation of the Church (e. g. In Ps. 131, n. 4; In Ps. 141, n. 8). St. Ambrose likewise often says that Peter was made “the Church’s support” (In Luc. l. 4, n. 70; De virginit. c. 16, n. 105; De fide l. 4, c. 5, n. 56); nevertheless, he says: “Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church; for it was not said of Peter’s flesh but of his faith that the gates of death would not prevail against it” (De incarn. c. 5, n. 34). The same holds for the other Fathers. These two explanations, then, do not exclude one another: that Peter was made the foundation of the Church and that Peter’s faith was the reason for this are entirely consistent with each other (cf. Knabenbauer, In Matth., II², 58 sqq).

Nor is Peter’s primacy contradicted by the fact that the Fathers sometimes say that anyone who imitates Christ is a rock upon which the Church may be built. Such statements, and the like, are not explanations of the text but moral applications.

201. Objection II. Peter was sent by the apostles to Samaria (Act 8, 14), and was rebuked by Paul (Gal 2, 11). But a superior is neither sent nor rebuked by inferiors. Therefore, Peter did not hold primacy among the apostles.

I answer. I distinguish the major: Peter was sent and rebuked with authority, I deny the major; by friendly advice or admonition, I grant the major. I distinguish the minor: A superior is not sent or rebuked by an inferior with authority, I grant the minor; nor can this ever happen by way of advice or friendly admonition, I deny the minor. With this distinction in place, I deny the consequence.

Peter’s primacy did not immediately appear from the beginning in the same way as the primacy of the Roman Pontiff does now. Primacy too has its history, both with respect to its perfect recognition and with respect to its use. Especially in the earliest times, when there were few believers and the Church’s government was less at issue than spreading the Gospel and founding Christian communities, the primatial power remained almost always in first act and could manifest itself in little more than the way it is seen in the first chapters of the Acts of the Apostles. Even if we grant that all the apostles received their jurisdiction immediately from Christ (although few deny this; cf. Suarez, De fide disp. 10, sect. 1, n. 4), since Christ said equally to them all, “Whatever you bind …” (Mt 18, 18), “As the Father has sent me, I also send you” (Io 20, 21), and “Go, teach all nations …” (Mt 28, 19; cf. Gal 1, 1), nevertheless this jurisdiction depended on Peter’s jurisdiction. For Peter alone could give laws to the whole Church, including the apostles, and the churches founded by the apostles were subject to Peter, not to the other apostles. Peter therefore possessed the fullest authority, while the other apostles had a share in this fullness.

202. Objection III. The apostle Paul considers himself equal to Peter, saying: “The Gospel for the uncircumcised was entrusted to me, just as the Gospel for the circumcised was entrusted to Peter” (Gal 2, 7). But if Paul is equal to Peter, the other apostles are equal to Peter as well.

I answer. I distinguish the major: Paul considers himself equal to Peter insofar as he himself received from Christ immediately the mission to preach the Gospel, especially among the Gentiles, just as Peter received immediately from Christ the mission to preach the Gospel, especially among the Jews; and in the respect of an immediate mission all the apostles are likewise equal, I grant the major; Paul and the other apostles are equal to Peter in governing the whole Church, I deny the major.

St. Paul himself explains the meaning of his words: “Paul, an apostle, not from men nor through a man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father … For he who worked through Peter for the apostleship of the circumcised also worked through me among the Gentiles” (Gal 1, 1; 2, 8). Yet this division of the apostolate is not exclusive, for Paul also preached to Jews and Peter also to Gentiles. Nor does it detract from Peter’s primacy that Paul also puts himself ahead of him in another respect: “For I am the least of the apostles … but I labored more abundantly than all of them” (1 Cor 15, 9 sq). How greatly Paul acknowledged Peter’s eminence is clear from these words: “I went to Jerusalem to visit (ἱστορῆσαι) Peter, and I stayed with him fifteen days. I saw no other apostle, except James, the brother of the Lord,” the bishop of that city (Gal 1, 18 sq). On these words St. John Chrysostom says: “He did not say ἰδεῖν Πέτρον, but ἱστορῆσαι Πέτρον, as those are accustomed to speak who visit great and splendid cities in order to learn about them. So worthwhile did he judge it to be even just to see the man … For he both honors the man and loves him above all; indeed, he writes that he came on account of no other apostle, but on his account alone” (In Gal. 1, 18).

203. Corollary. From what has been said, we understand the foundation on which Catholic doctrine rests, as defined in Conc. Vatic. sess. 4, c. 1: “If anyone says that the blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed by Christ the Lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant, or that he received from our Lord Jesus Christ directly and immediately only a primacy of honor, and not a primacy of true and proper jurisdiction, let him be anathema” (Denz. n. 1823).

As early as 1647, by a decree of the S. Officii, the doctrine of Arnauld and certain others concerning the complete equality of the apostles Peter and Paul was rejected: “His Holiness … judged and declared the following proposition heretical: ‘St. Peter and St. Paul are two princes of the Church who make up one’; or, ‘They are the two leaders and supreme guides of the Catholic Church, joined together in the highest unity’; or, ‘They are the twin summit of the universal Church, divinely united into one’; or, ‘They are the two chief shepherds and rulers of the Church who constitute one head’—when this is explained to posit complete equality between St. Peter and St. Paul, without the subordination and subjection of St. Paul to St. Peter in the supreme authority and government of the universal Church” (Denz. n. 1091).

Likewise, at the same place, the Council of the Vatican rejected the opinion “of those who assert that this same primacy was conferred not immediately and directly on the blessed Peter himself, but on the Church and, through it, on him as its minister” (Denz. n. 1822). Christ did not say, “I will build Peter upon the Church,” but, “I will build the Church upon Peter”; and he gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter himself. As Tertullian already emphasizes: “If you still think heaven is closed, remember that the Lord left its keys here to Peter and, through him, to the Church” (Adv. gnosticos Scorpiace c. 10). But because the Montanists and others taught that the keys were given to Peter as a private individual and that Peter’s dignity ended with his death (Tertull., De pudicit. 21), the Holy Fathers say that Peter received the keys insofar as he bore the person of the whole Church. Thus, for example, St. Augustine says: “Because of the very person whom he alone bore as representing the whole Church, [Peter] deserved to hear, ‘I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’; for these keys were received not by one man but by the unity of the Church” (Sermo 295, c. 2, n. 2). Peter did not represent the Church by delegation from the Church, but as its visible head, and he received the keys for the perpetual benefit of the Church. In this sense, the whole Church received the keys in Peter as its public person.

Finally, by the decree «Lamentabili», n. 55, this proposition of the Modernists was condemned: “Simon Peter never even suspected that Christ had entrusted him with a primacy in the Church” (Denz. n. 2055).

Proposition XXV. Christ conferred on the college of apostles the power of jurisdiction and the power of order.

204. Position of the question. We have already seen (Proposition XXIII) that Christ gave the college of apostles the office of teaching. This is not a bare faculty to teach, such as a private person may have, but is a public office to which certain duties and rights are attached. The apostles must preach by Christ’s command; therefore, they also received from God the right to preach. Thus, when the Jewish rulers ordered the apostles “not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus,” Peter and John answered them: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, judge for yourselves. For we cannot but speak the things we have seen and heard” (Act 4, 18 sqq). Those who received the apostles’ doctrine as revealed by God were thereby subject to the apostles’ authority in everything pertaining to Christ’s doctrine. The apostles therefore had the power to require intellectual obedience and to punish disobedience: “taking every thought captive in obedience to Christ and being ready to punish every disobedience” (2 Cor 10, 5 sq).

Thus, the teaching office entrusted to the apostles includes 1. the power to propose Christ’s doctrine infallibly, or the key of knowledge, to which the act of faith corresponds on the part of those who hear; 2. the power to bind the faithful to profess this doctrine, or the key of jurisdiction, to which the act of obedience corresponds on the part of the faithful. The power of jurisdiction—that is, the power to direct the faithful through laws enacted in matters of faith and morals, and consequently the power to judge whether laws are observed and to punish their violations—is not limited to authoritative teaching alone, but extends to all laws, judgments, and penalties that conform to the end of the Christian religion. Hence, the power of jurisdiction includes both the power to teach and the power to govern.

Distinct from the power of jurisdiction is the power of order, that is, the power to offer sacrifice and to sanctify people through certain rites instituted by Christ, which are called sacraments. Here we do not yet inquire into the number or the mode of efficacy of the sacraments; we merely show in general that Christ gave this power to the apostles. It is called the power of order because its exercise belongs to the priestly order.

Some distinguish only two powers, jurisdiction and order, just as Christ as man had royal and priestly power, and they refer the power of teaching to the power of jurisdiction. Others prefer a division into the powers of teaching, order, and governance, which they compare to Christ’s threefold office of prophet (or teacher), priest, and king. This difference in manner of speaking changes nothing in the matter itself (cf. Franzelin, De ecclesia 46; Wilmers, De ecclesia 98 sqq; van Noort, De ecclesia 24 42).

Since we have already spoken of the power of teaching, it remains here to treat the power of governance and the power of order.

205. Proof, part I. The apostles received the power of jurisdiction.

1. First of all, this power was promised to them. For Christ said to the apostles: If someone «does not hear the church, let him be to you as a gentile and a tax collector. Amen I say to you: Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven» (Mt 18, 17 sq). The occasion for these words was his teaching about fraternal correction. Christ advises that private admonition be given first; if it accomplishes nothing, public authority is to be approached. It had already been said at Mt 16:18 sq. that the Church is an assembly of the faithful, not of equals but of those placed under authority. The power of binding and loosing, previously promised to Peter, is here promised to all the apostles: «I say to you». Therefore Christians have the duty to hear the apostles, since God by his own judgment approves what the apostles have decreed: whatever you bind or loose on earth will also be bound or loosed in heaven. Religious democracy was entirely unknown both to the Jews and to Christ’s disciples. Thus «tell it to the church» means the same as «tell it to the prelates of the Church». The Christian people are not for that reason necessarily excluded from judgment about a sinning brother; nevertheless, the judges are those to whom Christ gave the power to judge. The people, if reason suggests it, may be admitted to consultation.

The power is promised as universal within the limits of the end for which it is given, so that nothing pertaining to the Church’s welfare is excluded. Therefore Christ promised the apostles the power to issue precepts, to judge, to absolve, and to punish.

2. After his death, Christ conferred power on the apostles, saying: «As the Father sent me, I also send you» (Io 20, 21). Christ was sent by the Father with full authority; likewise the apostles are sent by Christ with full authority. That the subject is authority is shown by the words: «Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose you retain, they are retained» (Io 20, 23). Again, appealing to the fullness of his own authority, Jesus says to the apostles: «Make disciples (μαθητεύσατε) of all nations … teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you» (Mt 28, 19 sq). Just as Christ commanded with authority, so the apostles authoritatively insist on observance of Christ’s commands.

3. The apostles understood that Christ had given them true legislative, judicial, and coercive power. Thus they gave a law to the gentile Christians living among the Jews, that they abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, from blood, and from what is strangled (Act 15, 29), which is a positive ecclesiastical law (cf. 1 Cor 10, 25 sqq). «As they [Paul and Timothy] passed through the cities, they delivered to them the decrees [precepts] to keep, which had been made by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem¹» (Act 16, 4). S. Paul writes: «I praise you, brothers, because … you keep my precepts as I delivered them to you» (1 Cor 11, 2). S. Paul commands men to pray with head uncovered, women with head veiled, and those who are hungry to eat at home rather than take an elaborate meal in the public Christian assembly, scandalizing others; «the rest I will arrange when I come» (1 Cor 11, 34). He gives other precepts in his letters to Timothy and Titus. He commands all these things not because he received this power from men, but because he acts as an envoy on behalf of Christ (2 Cor 5, 20).

S. Paul passed judicial sentence on the incestuous Corinthian (1 Cor 5, 3 sqq) and on Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Tim 1, 19 sq). He asks the Corinthians: «What do you want? Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of meekness?» (1 Cor 4, 21.) «I have warned, and I warn, as when present and now absent, those who sinned before and all the others, that if I come again I will not spare them. Do you seek a test of the one who speaks in me, Christ? … Therefore I write these things while absent, so that when present I may not act harshly, according to the power that the Lord gave me for building up and not for tearing down» (2 Cor 13, 2 sq. 10).

But the other apostles also received from Christ the power that Paul received. Therefore they all had judicial and coercive power. Hence they can also impose penalties, both spiritual and temporal, insofar as these help toward the spiritual end.

206. Proof, part II. The apostles received the power of order.

1. Christ teaches: «Unless someone is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God» (Io 3, 5). But he gave the apostles the power to regenerate people by water and the Holy Spirit. «Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit» (Mt 28, 19). Again he said: «Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you» (Io 6, 54). But at the Last Supper he gave the apostles the power to give people the body and blood of Christ (Lc 22, 19 sq). After his resurrection he said to the apostles: «Receive the Holy Spirit: whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them» (Io 20, 22 sq). Therefore the apostles received from Christ the power to sanctify people through certain external rites.

2. In fact, the apostles sanctified people through external rites. By baptism they wipe away sins and receive people into the Church (Act 2, 38 41). By the laying on of hands they give the Holy Spirit (Act 8, 17) and appoint bishops (2 Tim 1, 6). They serve at the altar, blessing the cup, which is «communion in the blood of Christ», and breaking the bread, which is «participation in the body of the Lord» (1 Cor 10, 16). Therefore the apostles considered themselves to possess the power of order. For they did not guide people only through doctrines and precepts, so that by keeping the precepts they might sanctify themselves; rather, they used rites which, by Christ’s institution, possessed the power to confer inward gifts of grace on people.

The thesis has been dogmatically defined, but this matter, and other questions that may be raised about the power of order and individual sacred rites, belong to the Treatise on the Sacraments.

207. Objection I. Christ rebuked the apostles because they disputed which of them was the greatest, and said to them: «The kings of the gentiles lord it over them … but you are not so» (Lc 22, 25 sq). Therefore he did not institute sacred dominion, or a hierarchy.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: Christ rebuked the ambition of the apostles, who were disputing about the first place, and set himself before them as an example of humility, I concede the antecedent; Christ denied that he had a kingdom and power and that he wished to share this power with the apostles, I deny the antecedent (cf. Lc 22, 29). I distinguish the consequence: he did not institute a hierarchy that would be an object of ambition, I concede the consequence; he did not institute a hierarchy to which people would be called according to the Father’s choice, I deny the consequence (cf. Mt 20, 23; Mc 10, 40).

208. Objection II. External rites belonged to the Old Testament, which was abolished in the New Testament, in which God is worshipped in spirit and truth (Gal 4, 9. Io 4, 23 sq).

I answer. I distinguish the assertion: the rites proper to the Old Testament merely signified the salvation to come and could not themselves sanctify people inwardly, I concede the assertion (Hebr 10, 1 sqq); the New Testament has no rites effective for inward sanctification, because such rites conflict with worship of God in spirit and truth, I deny the assertion. The New Testament was not established for pure spirits either, but for human beings, who need external worship with appropriate rites (cf. supra n. 44, 49). In the New Testament God is worshipped in spirit and truth because the inward grace that the Mosaic law merely promised was given through the Messiah, so that people might be children of God and live and act as children of God.

209. Objection III. In religious matters no one should be compelled, but each should be left to his conscience, since compelled worship is no worship at all. Therefore the Church has no judicial or coercive power.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: no one who is not yet a member of the Church should be compelled by ecclesiastical power to become a member, I concede the antecedent; no one who is already a member of the Church can be compelled by ecclesiastical power, I subdivide the antecedent: if the matter concerns purely inward acts, I pass over the antecedent, since this matter will be discussed later; if it concerns external acts, I deny the antecedent. For in every well-ordered kingdom there must be power to restrain evil acts that become public, both through medicinal penalties imposed for the sinner’s good and through vindictive penalties for protecting the common good. What penalties are appropriate depends on many circumstances, about which it is for the magistrates to judge.

These things apply to the Church insofar as it is a society and, as a society, has a human power proper to itself, even though given by Christ; that is, they apply in what is called the external forum. In this forum the Church acts not as a purely instrumental cause but as a principal cause in its own way. Hence its laws are human laws. In the internal forum, however—that is, in judging and forgiving people’s sins and dealing with other matters that are purely inward—the Church acts only as an instrumental cause, while God alone is the principal cause. These matters must be treated elsewhere.

Proposition XXVI. By instituting the apostolic college under Peter as primate, with the power of jurisdiction and order, Christ became the founder of a religious, hierarchical, monarchical society, which he called his Church.

210. Position of the question. This thesis is a corollary of what has gone before and requires explanation more than proof. In our time rationalist Protestants, followed by the Modernists, have denied that Christ founded any society in the proper sense of the word. They say that he only taught people to worship God as their heavenly Father and to regard and conduct themselves as children of this Father, joined to one another by the bond of charity. From this there supposedly arose immediately a certain «ideal» Church, that is, an assembly of believers distinguished from unbelieving Jews; from this ideal Church, they say, a real Church gradually arose, that is, a society politically organized on the model of civil society. The way in which the primitive multitude of believers developed into the Church has been described in very many books, beginning with A. Ritschl (Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche², Bonn 1857) and continuing through the works of A. Harnack, A. Sabatier, and other modern writers. In Die neueren Forschungen über die Anfänge des Episkopats by Stan. v. Dunin-Borkowski (Freiburg 1900), about a hundred writers on this matter are listed; Batiffol added others in L’église naissante, 172 sqq. It would be long and useless to discuss all these theories. As usually happens when one departs from the truth, there is the greatest disagreement among these writers; not rarely the same writer later rejects as false what he earlier had posited as a necessary demand of scholarship. What theory is now most commonly circulated is sufficiently clear from the decree Lamentabili, propositions 52 sqq., and the encyclical Pascendi (Denz. n. 2052 sqq 2091 sqq). According to the Modernists, the Church arose from the collective consciences of the faithful, insofar as the faithful, to protect and increase the common good, created magistrates whose task was to direct their associates toward a common end and safeguard their common doctrine and worship. On this account, the primitive Catholic Church came into existence around the beginning of the third century and thereafter underwent, and continues to undergo, constant changes. To some, such as R. Sohm, this transformation seems to have been the ruin of the primitive Christian religion; others, such as Harnack, think that the nature of things made it impossible for the Gospel itself to be preserved unless the first form of Christian society perished, and for the same reason they consider continual transformation and adaptation to the needs of each century necessary.

Since these theories conflict with various passages of the New Testament, their advocates either force those passages into another meaning or, if they cannot, declare them interpolations. Here we do not investigate the genuineness of the texts again; rather, taking as given what we have proved so far, we explain the individual parts of the thesis.

211. Proof, part I. Christ instituted a true society. For the person who unites many people in a stable way under a common authority to pursue a common end institutes a society. But Christ did this. Therefore.

Proof of the minor. From the beginning of his public life Christ began to proclaim the kingdom of God, or the kingdom of heaven (Mt 4, 17. Mc 1, 15. Lc 4, 43). He required people to accept his doctrine as revealed by God (supra n. 127 129 sq) and to observe his precepts (Mt 7, 21 sqq). He called those who received his words his disciples (Lc 14, 26 sq. Io 8, 31) and himself their teacher (Mt 23, 8). He invites everyone to become his disciple: «Come to me, all … and learn from me» (Mt 11, 28 sq). Yet not everyone comes, but only those to whom it has been granted by the Father (Io 6, 66). «For many are called, but few are chosen» (Mt 22, 14). Those whom Christ himself chose according to the Father’s will (Io 15, 16; 17, 6), he distinguishes from the world (Io 15, 19), that is, from unbelievers, whether gentiles or Jews (Mt 10, 16 sqq), and calls them his flock. «Do not be afraid, little flock» (Lc 12, 32). «I am the good shepherd … and I have other sheep that are not of this fold [the Jewish one]; I must bring them also, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock and one shepherd» (Io 10, 11 16).

The faithful, under Christ their head, constitute the kingdom of God, whose character is spiritual and supernatural. Therefore, since the Jews expected a worldly kingdom, glorious in civil and military power, Christ warns that the kingdom of God does not come with pomp: «For behold, the kingdom of God is within you» (Lc 17, 21)—it is already present among you in me and my disciples.

The kingdom of God is not used in only one sense in the Gospels. Often it is the same as the state and society of the blessed (Mt 25, 34; cf. 8, 11); indeed, this perfect state is at least indirectly in view whenever the kingdom of heaven is mentioned. Nevertheless, the kingdom of God is often spoken of in terms of the imperfect state of this life. The kingdom of God is compared to a king’s household, in which there are faithful and idle servants (Mt 18, 23 sqq); to workers in a vineyard who await their wages in the evening (Mt 20, 1 sqq); to a net cast into the sea, by which good and bad fish are gathered (Mt 13, 47); and to a field where wheat and weeds grow (Mt 13, 24 sqq). But at the end of the world the angels will gather from this kingdom all causes of scandal, that is, «those who do iniquity, and they will cast them into the furnace of fire» (Mt 13, 41 sq). Since these things cannot be understood of the kingdom of the blessed, they are said of the kingdom of God as it exists on earth. This kingdom, then, is an assembly of the faithful, including both those who will one day be in heaven and those who will be excluded from heaven. The king of this kingdom is Christ, whom the believing Jews acclaim: «Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, the king of Israel» (Io 12, 13). When Jesus was asked by Pilate, “Are you a king?”, he answered: «I am a king» (Io 18, 37). On the metaphors of the city, house, and temple, and the parables by which Christ illustrated the nature of his kingdom, cf. Passaglia, De ecclesia I, 3; I. Schäfer, Das Reich Gottes, Mainz 1897, 109 sqq.

Therefore, since Christ gathered a stable body of people (Mt 24, 14) to profess his doctrine and follow his precepts, and since he instituted the apostolic college to teach and govern the faithful, there can be no doubt that he instituted a true society. Yet before Christ’s death the institution of this society was only being prepared; the society was not perfectly established until after Christ’s resurrection, because only then did Christ confer on the apostles the power he had previously promised. Indeed, he willed that the apostles not begin their public office until after the coming of the Holy Spirit. For this reason Pentecost can, in a certain sense, be called the birthday of the Church, which Christ nevertheless truly instituted himself, because it was instituted by his will and according to the rule and power received from him.

212. Proof, part II. The society instituted by Christ is a religious society. Different societies are distinguished from one another by their end, which is the ideal bond of every society. Thus there are literary, political, and economic societies, according as their ends are literary, political, or economic. But the end of the society Christ founded is religious. Therefore that society is a religious society.

Since society is a kind of moral body, it must also have social action. A society does not exist merely because several people pursue the same end—for example, because many want to become rich, learned, or skilled—but because they unite their wills and actions to pursue a common end. Therefore, for a religious society truly to be a society, religious goods must be pursued through social action. It is not necessary, however, that all the members of the society act in the same way, since in every society some direct and others carry out instructions, and generally various operations are required which can be performed separately by different people.

What end the Christian society is to pursue through social action is clear from what we have said. Christ sent the apostles to preserve and propagate the doctrine he had revealed, to govern people and guide them toward the blessed life, and, by administering prescribed rites, to worship God and sanctify people. Some preserve the sacred doctrine by teaching, others by learning; some give salutary precepts and others receive them, while each must fulfil his own duties in his own order; some administer sacred rites and others receive them. Thus there is a kind of social life in the whole Church, in which each of its members participates. It belongs to the whole Church to preserve the Christian religion; it belongs to each of the faithful to practise the Christian religion within the Church and, by practising it, attain the salvation of his soul.

Christ emphasizes this religious end of the Church especially in his priestly prayer, in which he prays to the Father to preserve in the true faith and sanctify the apostles and all who will believe through them, to strengthen them in charity, and finally to lead them to where Christ is in glory, so that God may thus be glorified in all (Io c. 13)².

Thus Christ founded a religious society, that is, a body of people morally and steadfastly united by unity of doctrine, rites, and government, who pursue a religious end under the apostles and their primate Peter. And because both the end and the means to that end are not natural but supernatural in order, this society is also a supernatural society (cf. Wilmers, De eccl. 1 sqq 28 sqq 53 sqq).

213. Proof, part III. The society instituted by Christ is a hierarchical society. Hierarchy is sacred authority. Therefore the Church is a hierarchical society if, by Christ’s institution, some in it are superiors and others subjects. But we have already proved that Christ conferred the power of jurisdiction and order on the apostolic college. Therefore Christian society is hierarchical.

The institution of the hierarchy is recounted not only in the Gospels; in all the writings of the New Testament we see the faithful divided into superiors and subjects. S. Paul compares the community of the faithful to the organism of a human body, whose «members do not all have the same function» (Rom 12, 4). Thus in the Church there are those who have a ministry, those who teach, those who exhort, and those who preside (Rom 12, 7 sq). The faithful, for their part, are admonished: «Remember your superiors … Obey your superiors and be subject to them; for they keep watch as those who must give an account for your souls» (Hebr 13, 7 17). The superiors are told: «Tend the flock of God that is among you, providing for it, not under compulsion but willingly according to God, not for shameful gain but eagerly, not as lording it over the clergy but becoming examples to the flock from the heart» (1 Petr 5, 2 sq).

The apostles appointed superiors in each Church (Act 14, 22) through the laying on of hands with prayer (1 Tim 4, 14. 2 Tim 1, 6). Those appointed in this way did not, like the apostles, have jurisdiction over the universal Church, but only over the particular Church of which they were superiors (Act 20, 28. 1 Thess 5, 12. Tit 1, 5 sqq. Apc 2, 2 14 sq 20; 3, 2 sq 9).

These superiors have three names: they are called bishops, presbyters, and deacons. As the name indicates, deacons are ministers or assistants to the other superiors in handling temporal affairs, preaching the word of God, and administering the sacraments, as is clear from what is recounted about Stephen and Philip the deacons (Act 6, 1 sqq; 8, 5 sqq). By its etymology, bishop means the same as overseer. Presbyter means elder or one advanced in age; accordingly, it is sometimes translated that way in the Vulgate, but often the word presbyter is retained. In the Septuagint, bishops are those placed over others in carrying out a public office (Nm 4, 16; 31, 14. Iud 9, 28. 4 Rg 11, 15 18). Presbyters are the elders who represent the people (Ex 19, 7 sq; cf. 3, 16 18; 4, 29 sqq), members of the college chosen to govern the people (Nm 11, 16 sqq), and members of the Jewish Sanhedrin (Dn 13:28, 61; in Greek before ch. 1, 1 Mach 12:35). Thus, according to the usage of the Septuagint, both names signify a public office to which some jurisdiction is attached.

If one asks what the difference is in the New Testament between bishops and presbyters, who are ecclesiastical superiors, no certain answer can be given, because the same men are called both bishops and presbyters (Act 20, 17 28. Tit 1, 5 7. 1 Petr 5, 1). This manner of speaking did not immediately disappear later, either. Thus S. Irenaeus says: «We must obey the presbyters who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the gift of truth» (Contra haer. 4, 26, 2). Some later writers think that even simple presbyters were given the name bishops. Thus S. Ioannes Chrysost. comments on Phil 1:1, where several bishops of Philippi are greeted.

Hence various opinions have arisen among learned Catholics of our time. A. Michiels maintains that in apostolic times those called bishops were no more than simple priests; that priests of the first order then had neither fixed sees nor a distinctive title, but were missionaries like the apostles (prophets and evangelists); that a college of simple priests presided over each city, while the apostles and their missionary companions reserved full jurisdiction to themselves. Gradually, however, one man with full power of jurisdiction and order was placed over the principal Churches, and the name “bishop” passed exclusively to these men (L'origine de l'épiscopat, Louvain 1900, 167 sqq 210 sqq). P. Batiffol proposes this system: from the beginning, presbyter was merely an honorific title given to those who had first received the Christian religion. From among these veterans, men were chosen to be ordained priests to govern the Churches collegially. As the apostles gradually died, bishops in the proper sense were appointed in place of those presbyter-bishops (Etudes d'histoire et de théologie positive I⁵, Paris 1907, 225 sqq 258 sqq). Most recent exegetes, such as Felten, Belser, and Knabenbauer, deny that simple presbyters ever bore the name bishops and say that Act 20:17 speaks of bishops and presbyters, but Phil 1:1 of the bishops of the Churches of Macedonia. The matter is uncertain. Therefore, from Sacred Scripture we can prove that the constitution of the Church is hierarchical, but the individual ranks of the hierarchy must be learned from Tradition. More on this later.

214. Proof, part IV. The society instituted by Christ is a monarchical society. Just as hierarchy is opposed to democracy, or government by the whole multitude, so monarchy is opposed to aristocracy, or government by a few equals. We have indeed seen that Christ gave the apostolic college the power of jurisdiction to govern the Church (Prop. XXIII), but we have also seen that Christ gave Peter primacy of jurisdiction within the apostolic college (Prop. XXIV), so that all members of the Church were subject to one as their visible head. This is a monarchical constitution. The whole edifice of the Church rests on one rock, the whole flock of Christ is entrusted to one supreme shepherd; this shepherd holds the keys of the kingdom.

Nevertheless, the society instituted by Christ is not an absolute monarchy, but has an aristocratic element mixed into it. Christ did not leave it to Peter’s discretion whether he wished to choose assistants to govern the Church, but himself instituted the apostolic college and gave it the power of jurisdiction. Therefore the other apostles were not Peter’s vicars, but exercised their own authority under Peter. Since Peter could not change the form instituted by Christ, he could not abolish the offices of the others and reserve all jurisdiction to himself alone. Hence, according to its constitution, the Church is a limited monarchy. If anyone prefers to call it a simple monarchy, there is no need to dispute over the name, provided the reality is conceded.

215. Proof, part V. Christ called the society he founded his Church; that is, he used an Aramaic name suitably rendered by this Greek word. In the Septuagint, the word ecclesia is usually used for the Hebrew word kahal, and signifies the people of Israel as an assembly dedicated to God (Dt 23:2 sq.; Neh 13:1; Mich 2:5). Just as the people of the Old Testament were called «the Church of God», Christ calls the faithful people of the New Testament «my Church». This was a theocratic term from Old Testament usage; on the other hand, it was suited to distinguish Christ’s disciples from the religious assembly of the Jews, which at that time was called the synagogue (Hebrew edah). Thus we understand why Christ chose it to designate the society of the faithful.

This name is read only twice in the Gospels: Mt 16:18 and 18:17. The fact that this word is not found in Mark and Luke proves nothing, for it is not in the Gospel of Ioannes either, although it is certain that by the time that Gospel was written the word had long been in use. The Christian society is regularly called by this name as its proper title by the apostles themselves (Act 5, 11; 8, 3; 9, 31; 12, 1; 20, 28. 1 Cor 6, 4; 10, 32; 14, 12; 15, 9. Gal 1, 13. Eph 1, 22; 3, 10 21; 5, 23 sqq. Phil 3, 6. Col 1, 18 24). The same word, with an addition or in the plural, signifies particular Christian communities (Act 25, 41³. 1 Cor 4, 17; 14, 33. 1 Thess 1, 1; 2, 14 etc.). Sometimes it means the public assembly of the faithful (1 Cor 11, 18); after apostolic times it also came to mean the material building in which Christians gather to celebrate the sacred mysteries. Therefore, since the word “Church” was already in universal use in the earliest times, this is a sign that Christ himself had named the assembly of the faithful in this way.

216. Corollary. From what has been said, the definition of the Church can be gathered. The Church is an assembly of people who, through profession of the same faith and communion in the same sacraments, under the apostolic pastors and their primate, constitute the kingdom of Christ on earth (cf. Bellarm., De eccl. 3, 1; Suarez, De relig. tr. 7, l. 1, c. 2, n. 2). This definition contains all the elements which, in the preceding propositions, we proved to belong to the constitution of the Church by Christ’s institution.

217. Objection I. Christ opened the way for all people to approach God the Father without any human intermediaries (Hebr 4, 16), and for all to be a royal priesthood (1 Petr 2, 5 9), and gave them an interior anointing by which they are taught, so that they need no one else to teach and govern them (1 Io 2, 27). Therefore the whole hierarchical constitution of the Church that is imagined is contrary to the spirit of Christ.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: Christ instituted not only external government, but also brought about the inward kingdom of grace with inward worship and the inward governance of the Holy Spirit, I concede the antecedent; the inward kingdom of grace excludes external worship and government, I deny the antecedent. And I deny the consequence.

S. Paul, who so strongly proclaims adoption as children of God and the faithful’s inward communion with God, nevertheless insists that all Christians form a social body in which some preside and others obey. S. Peter, who praises the royal priesthood of all Christians, still teaches that pastors have been appointed in the Church to tend the flock of God (supra n. 213). And if S. Ioannes had wished to exclude all external teaching, why did he write his letter to teach and admonish his «children»? The writings of the New Testament make it clear that from its very beginning the Church was a hierarchical society.

218. Objection II. From the beginning the Church was governed by charismatic people, who received revelations, knowledge, prophecy, and other gifts from God, and by the diversity of these gifts the Church resembled a body whose individual members have their own functions (1 Cor 12, 7 sqq). Magistrates, however, were appointed only later, when the first enthusiasm had cooled and Christian society needed to be provided for in another way.

I answer. I distinguish the assertion: in the earliest times charisms were frequently given «as a sign», that is, to prove or confirm the truth of Christian doctrine, for both the faithful and unbelievers, as S. Paul says (1 Cor 14, 22); these charisms were later given less frequently, but never entirely ceased in the Church, I concede the assertion; in the earliest times there were no ecclesiastical magistrates to receive people into the Church through baptism and govern those who had been received, I deny the assertion. For the apostles, bishops, and deacons were not appointed only after the first enthusiasm had cooled, but from the very beginning, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles. Writing to those who had charisms, S. Paul authoritatively sets out doctrine and gives them precepts; he does not admonish Christians to obey the charismatics, but to obey their superiors (cf. supra n. 205, 213). It was fitting to choose the Church’s superiors from among those endowed with gifts of knowledge, prophecy, or skill in governing; thus prophets or charismatics in general could also be among the Church’s superiors. Nevertheless, they did not govern or discharge sacred offices because they were charismatic, but because the apostles had appointed them to these offices.

Proposition XXVII. Christ willed that the Church he founded should endure until the end of the world.

219. This proposition is of the greatest importance in itself; for if Christ had willed that what he instituted should perish with the death of the apostles, this matter would have no relevance for us now, except insofar as it concerned knowing a historical fact from past centuries. Nevertheless, the proposition needs no new arguments; for from what we have seen so far it is clear enough that the Church was not instituted for a short time, but to endure until the end of the ages. Therefore, to make this clearer, we need only recall or add a few points.

The perpetuity of the Church can be understood in two ways: either the Church is said to endure merely materially in some fashion, even if it changes substantially, provided that the later state develops without interruption from the preceding state; or the Church perseveres until the end of the world formally, remaining the same in substance. Among others, the Modernists posit that the Church is indefectible only materially; for them nothing in it is stable, but through continual change what came before dies to produce what follows. They say that everything living is changeable (cf. Denz. n. 2094 2104). We, on the contrary, say that what Christ decreed concerning the constitution of the Church is indefectible and, by divine power, exempt from substantial change. We do not deny—in fact, we affirm—that the Church is living: every day it teaches, governs, and sanctifies people; it also adapts its manner of teaching and governing to each time and circumstance. Nevertheless, it teaches by preserving, proposing, explaining, defending, and applying the same revealed doctrine; it governs according to the form prescribed by Christ; and it sanctifies through rites instituted by Christ. It can never substitute another doctrine for revealed doctrine, transform the government established by Christ into another form, or abolish rites instituted by Christ. But it can make, change, and abolish its own laws; add or remove various incidental rites; and cultivate and promote understanding of revealed doctrine in many ways. Thus the Church remains the same in substance if its teaching office and doctrine remain substantially the same, if its worship and sacred rites remain substantially the same, and if its form of government remains substantially the same.

220. Argument 1. From the perpetuity of ecclesiastical offices.

Christ willed that substantially the same doctrine, the same worship, and the same ecclesiastical government should endure until the end of the world.

Therefore he willed that the Church he founded should endure until the end of the world.

Proof of the antecedent. Christ said: «Go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the consummation of the age» (Mt 28, 19 sq). Therefore, by Christ’s will, the apostolic teaching office and sacred ministry for teaching, sanctifying, and governing people will endure until the consummation of the age; therefore the doctrine of Christ, the commands of Christ, and the rite of baptism will also endure until the end of the world. For this reason Christ promised the apostles the Holy Spirit, who would remain with them «forever», establish them firmly in the truth, and defend them from errors (Io 14, 16 sq). Therefore S. Paul says: «Even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a Gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be anathema» (Gal 1, 8). Christ said that his Gospel, and no other, must be preached to all nations before the end comes (Mt 24, 14). When Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist, he said to the apostles: «Do this in memory of me» (Lc 22, 19). Writing on this, S. Paul says: «Whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes» (1 Cor 11, 26), that is, until the end of the world. The angels will not come before the end of the world to gather all causes of scandal from Christ’s kingdom (Mt 13, 41 sqq). By these and other sayings of Christ it is clear that he willed the kingdom he founded to gather all people of all ages. Therefore the apostles, who would not live until the end of the world, appointed ecclesiastical prelates to perpetuate the apostolic ministry and government, and charged them to appoint others after them (Act 14, 22. 1 Tim 1, 3 18; 4, 14; 5, 7 19 sq. Tit 1, 5; 2, 15).

In particular, Christ willed that primacy should be perpetual in the Church; for he instituted primacy for this end: that the gates of hell should not prevail against the Church built upon a firm rock (Mt 16, 18). Since a building has no stability without a foundation, Christ willed that the foundation from which the Church derives its stability should remain as long as the Church itself remains; for Christ never indicated that the first foundation was to be removed and another put in its place. He also entrusted his whole flock to Peter to shepherd (Io 21, 15 sqq). But this flock includes all the faithful of every age. Therefore they must all be shepherded by Peter’s successors. Without primacy, the Church’s perfect unity could not endure. Thus Peter’s primacy was indeed a personal prerogative of Peter, insofar as it was given to him above the other apostles, but it was not to be extinguished with Peter himself. Protestants show by their own example how miserably a society deprived of its supreme principle of unity falls into sects. Christ certainly did not will that so miserable a condition of dissension and discord should characterize his Church (Mt 12, 25. Io 17, 20 sq).

221. Argument 2. From the prophecies concerning the Church.

The perpetuity of the Messianic kingdom was foretold by prophecies in both the Old and New Testaments. But these prophecies cannot fail to be fulfilled. Therefore the Church will be perpetual.

Proof of the major. The Old Testament foretells of the Messianic king: «His power is an eternal power that will not be taken away, and his kingdom will not be destroyed» (Dn 7, 14). «And in the last days the mountain of the house of the Lord will be prepared on the top of the mountains … and the Lord will reign over them on Mount Sion from now and forever» (Mich 4, 1 7). «I will make with you an everlasting covenant, the faithful mercies of David» (Is 55, 3; cf. supra n. 161). Therefore the angel announces concerning Christ: «He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end» (Lc 1, 32 sq). God had foretold: «Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also heaven» (Agg 2:7). These words concern the Messianic kingdom, and S. Paul explains them thus: «And when he says, ‘Yet once more,’ he declares the removal of what can be shaken [the Old Testament], as things that have been made, so that what cannot be shaken [the kingdom of Christ] may remain. Therefore, as we receive an unshakable kingdom, let us have grace» (Hebr 12, 27 sq). The same apostle says: «Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever» (Hebr 13, 8). But Jesus Christ is not only a physical person; as head of the Church, which is his body, he is also a moral person (1 Cor 12, 12 sqq. Eph 1, 22 sq. Col 1, 18). It is this moral relation that the apostle discusses in his letter to the Hebrews. For Christ will not abandon his body, but will always give it life, «until we all attain to the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ» (Eph 4, 13). The Church is Christ’s beloved bride, whom he will never repudiate (Eph 5, 22 sqq; cf. Os 2, 19 sq). Therefore the Church must endure as long as there are people to be led to salvation, for God «wills all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth» (1 Tim 2, 4). Therefore the Church will remain on earth until the end of the world, and then pass into a glorious state in heaven.

For this reason, from the earliest centuries Christians professed: «I believe in one holy Church.» Since this is an article of faith to be accepted by all Christians, all Christians were evidently convinced that the Church would never perish, but would be perpetual. «The Church has its seasons, namely persecution and peace. For it seems to wane like the moon, but it does not wane. It may be overshadowed, but it cannot fail» (S. Ambrosius, In Hexaem. 4, 2, 7). «The Church will not be conquered, uprooted, or yield to any temptations, until the end of this age comes» (S. Augustinus, In Ps. 60, n. 6).

222. Objection I. The things foretold by the prophets about the perfect happiness of God’s servants in the Messianic kingdom (e. g. Is 65, 17 sqq), about a thousand-year kingdom (Apc 20, 1 sqq), and about an eternal Gospel (Apc 14, 6) have not been fulfilled in the Church’s present state. Therefore another, essentially different state of the Church must be awaited.

I answer. I concede the antecedent. I distinguish the consequence: therefore an essentially different state must be awaited in heaven, I concede the consequence; on earth, I deny the consequence.

The things foretold by the prophets concerning the kingdom of the Messiah refer only in part to the earthly form of this kingdom; many of them will be fulfilled perfectly only in the glorious kingdom of the Messiah. Nor must things that the prophets seem to see and announce together necessarily be fulfilled together; it is enough that they be fulfilled successively. Moreover, metaphorical statements are not to be understood literally. This holds for prophecies of both the Old and New Testaments (e. g. Apc 21, 10 sqq). Therefore we should not expect a time when lions eat straw (Is 11, 7), or when other things described by the prophets as coverings for a spiritual meaning happen materially. The thousand years in Ioannes signify that long period during which the kingdom of God will flourish and grow on earth. The eternal Gospel signifies God’s eternal plans concerning the lot of the just. Besides, during this life Christ requires all his disciples to take up their cross daily and follow him through many tribulations to glory (Lc 9, 23; 14, 27; cf. Praelect. dogm. IX, 695 sqq).

223. Objection II. At some time there will be a great apostasy (2 Thess 2, 3. 1 Tim 4, 1), so that there will no longer be faith or charity on earth (Mt 24, 12 24. Lc 18, 8), but all will serve the devil (Apc 13, 3 sqq). Therefore the Church will not persevere until the end of the world.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: before the end of the world very many will fall away from the Church, I concede the antecedent; even «the elect» will fall away, I deny the antecedent, for they are expressly excepted in those passages. I distinguish the consequence: therefore in those times the Church will be subject to great persecutions and deprived of external glory, I concede the consequence; it will completely disappear, so that even people of good will can no longer find it, I deny the consequence.

What ecclesiastical authority declared concerning the various states of the Church against the Fraticelli (Denz. n. 485 490) and against the Pistoiese (Denz. n. 1501) may be consulted. «By the will of its founder, [the Church] must be one throughout all the earth and endure through all ages … The Church of Christ is therefore one and perpetual. Whoever separates from it departs from the will and command of Christ the Lord, and, having abandoned the path of salvation, goes toward destruction» (Leo XIII., Encycl. «Satis cognitum», 29. Iun. 1896; Denz. n. 1955).

Cf. P. Murray, De ecclesia Christi I, Dublinii 1860; C. Passaglia, De ecclesia Christi, Ratisbonae 1857; Fr. Suarez, De fide disp. 9; — Defensio fidei catholicae adversus anglicanae sectae errores l. 1; A. et P. de Walenburch, De unitate ecclesiae.

Proposition XXVIII. The Church is a visible society.

224. Position of the question. After considering the institution and constitution of the Church, we must consider certain properties that flow naturally from its institution and constitution. Those things that pertain to the Church’s constitution can indeed also be stated as properties, and the Church can be said to be a religious, hierarchical, monarchical, indefectible society founded by Christ. The matter itself does not change merely because it is expressed in different ways. Nevertheless, everyone understands that a society must first be conceived as constituted in a definite way before we speak of its properties. We therefore rightly call properties those features that are logically subsequent to the Church’s constitution and are qualities arising from the constitution of ecclesiastical society. They can be distinguished into four. For because the Church was instituted for human beings, it must be such that human beings can find it, that is, it must be visible; because it is equipped with suitable means for the supreme end, it is a perfect society; because it gathers all people under one teaching office and government, it is one; because it is not offered to people at their discretion but all are bound to join it, it is necessary for salvation. We shall therefore consider these properties of the Church in order, beginning with its visibility.

Visibility is that property of the Church by which this society can be distinguished from every other society. The phrase is “this society,” for there is no need to prove that the people who belong to the Church are visible; the question is whether people can know who belongs to ecclesiastical society, that is, whether this society, taken precisely as a society, can be known in a human way. “Visible” does not mean only what is visible in its entirety in itself, but also what has something invisible within it and yet manifests itself visibly through its external manner of existing and acting. Thus, although a human being has an invisible soul, that person manifests himself as a human being through his body and external actions. Likewise, the Church has many invisible internal gifts in itself, but certain of its constitutive elements and actions make it visible as this society.

Protestants have sometimes said that the Church is a society of the faithful known to God alone and therefore invisible; sometimes they have said that it is a visible society; and sometimes they have distinguished two Churches, one visible, consisting of those who outwardly profess the Christian faith, the other an invisible society of the saints (cf. I. A. Moehler, Symbolik § 46 sqq; Wilmers, De eccl. 58 sqq).

225. Argument 1. From the institution and constitution of the Church.

Christ appeared visibly in this world and instituted the teaching office, ministry, and apostolic government in a visible way. He imposed on the apostles the office of teaching, sanctifying people through external rites, and governing them, and he wished this apostolic office to be perpetual. But a society subject to a visible teaching office, ministry, and government is a visible society, for it can be seen who submits to this visible authority. Therefore, by the constitution it received from Christ, the Church is a visible society. The major was proved above, n. 186 sqq. The minor is evident. For this reason Christ calls the Church by names that signify a visible society, such as a sheepfold, vineyard, family, and tree. And he commands, “Tell it to the Church” (Mt 18, 17). How could anything be said to an invisible Church?

226. Argument 2. From the prophecies.

The prophets of the Old Testament, although they often emphasize the spiritual character of the messianic kingdom, no less emphasize its visibility under various metaphors. But these prophecies cannot be false. Therefore, the Church is visible.

Isaiah says: “In the last days, the mountain of the house of the Lord will be prepared on the top of the mountains and raised above the hills; all nations will flow to it, and many peoples will go and say, ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord’” (Is 2, 2 sq; cf. Mich 4, 1 sq). “On that day the root of Jesse, who stands as a sign for the peoples, will be sought by the nations … And he will raise a sign for the nations” (Is 11, 10 12). Therefore, the Church is visible to all people, so that all can come to it; it is like a city set upon a mountain that cannot be hidden (Mt 5, 14).

This is how Christian antiquity understood these prophecies. St. Basil: “The house of God set upon the tops of the mountains is the Church, according to the Apostle’s words [1 Tim 3, 15. Eph 2, 20] … whose foundations are on the holy mountains; for it is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (In Is. n. 66). St. John Chrysostom: “Neither is the sun so splendid nor its light so bright as the affairs of the Church. For the house of God is above the summit of the mountains” (In Is. c. 2, n. 2). St. Augustine: “Is it not manifest? Has it not possessed all nations? … Behold the mountain filling the whole face of the earth; behold the city of which it was said, ‘A city set upon a mountain cannot be hidden’ … ‘In the last days, the mountain of the house of the Lord will be manifest’” (In 1 Io. tr. 1, n. 13). Other Fathers speak in the same way; therefore, they did not consider the Church invisible.

227. Argument 3. From fittingness.

A human being is a being composed of soul and body, and is a social being. But God deals with creatures in a manner suited to their nature. Therefore, in religious matters he will neither direct a human being in an entirely invisible way nor treat that person as a solitary being, but will lead him to salvation in a visible society. Just as all human education takes place in society and in a social manner, so we always and everywhere see people gathering into religious societies and practicing religion socially. Hence an invisible Church is something entirely alien to human nature and custom.

228. Objection I. Although those who practice the Christian religion cannot exist without some external communion, this external communion is only a “mass of the Church”; the true Christians, however, are only the just. Therefore, the true kingdom of Christ is invisible, a treasure hidden in a field (Mt 13, 44).

I answer. I distinguish the major: True Christians are the just who submit to the visible government instituted by Christ, I grant the antecedent; people can be true Christians and just while refusing in every way to submit to the government instituted by Christ, I deny the antecedent. I distinguish the consequence: The kingdom of Christ contains invisible elements, I grant the consequence; it is not a visible society, I deny the consequence.

I said, I grant the antecedent, because even sinners can belong to Christ’s Church, provided they are baptized, profess the true faith, and preserve the necessary unity. Nevertheless, in a certain preeminent sense the just are true Christians, just as one may say of a morally upright man, “This is a true man”—not as though other human beings lacked what is required for human nature, but insofar as the wicked fall short of the perfect dignity of a human being (cf. Palmieri, De rom. pont. 47 sqq). The treasure in the field is invisible to those who do not know it and visible to those who find it. In any case, that parable is not about the visibility or invisibility of the kingdom but about the great value of the messianic kingdom, for which everything must be given up. If some passages of Scripture emphasize invisible elements of the Church (e. g. Hebr 12, 18 22 sq; Eph 5, 27), other passages indicate visible elements no less clearly. Therefore, neither one side nor the other should be denied; all these things must instead be harmonized.

229. Objection II. The Church must be believed. But things that are seen are not believed. Therefore, the Church is not seen.

I answer. I distinguish the major: The Church must be believed because and insofar as it has been revealed by God, I grant the major; because and insofar as it is seen, I deny the major. I distinguish the minor: Things that are seen are not believed because and insofar as they are seen, I grant the minor; because and insofar as they have been revealed by God, I deny the minor. And I deny the consequence.

Just as Christ was seen by many and yet believed, so the Church is known by us through certain signs or marks; thus it is not believed but, once known, is itself a motive of credibility. But insofar as it has been revealed by God, it is not seen but believed. This question of things seen and believed must be treated more fully in the Treatise on Faith.

230. Objection III. The Church consists of those who, among other requirements, have the baptismal character. But the baptismal character cannot be seen. Therefore, the Church is invisible.

I answer. I grant the major. I distinguish the minor: The baptismal character itself cannot be seen, I grant the minor; the rite of baptism by which the character is imprinted cannot be seen, I deny the minor. I distinguish the consequence: The Church is invisible in certain respects, I grant the consequence; simply speaking, I deny the consequence.

Moreover, the question here is not whether it can be determined with certainty that this or that person belongs to the Church, but whether the Church, as a society, can be seen. If the Church is seen, it is otherwise evident that it does not lack invisible elements, without which it cannot be the Church of Christ.

Scholium 1. On the members of the Church.

231. The question of the Church’s members is connected with its visibility, for in a visible society there must be a norm by which its members are distinguished from those who do not belong to it. In civil society, it is generally clear who the citizens are, although there is doubt about some; likewise, in the Church it is generally known who its members are, although the matter is uncertain for some people.

1. All baptized people who do not separate themselves from the profession of the same faith or from the unity of ecclesiastical government are members of the Church. Through baptism a person is received into the Church (Act 2, 41. 1 Cor 12, 13). Whoever professes another faith does not remain in the Church, for “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4, 5). Likewise, a person is outside the Church if he separates himself from the unity of its government, for the Church is “one body and one spirit” (Eph 4, 4). A person does not, however, leave the Church through every transgression of an ecclesiastical precept, but only through rebellion against the Church’s government. All infants who are duly baptized are members of the Church, until, having attained the use of reason, they voluntarily separate themselves from it.

To separate oneself from the Church does not absolutely require a sinful act; a person may also be separated from it in good faith, since entry into or withdrawal from a visible society is judged according to external acts, not purely internal ones.

2. One who maintains an external connection with the Church remains its member, even if inwardly he has defected from the Church. This is the teaching of the great majority of theologians (e. g. Bellarminus, De eccl. militante 3, 10; Palmieri, De rom. pont. 43 sqq). Some deny it (such as Suarez, De fide disp. 9, sect. 1, n. 23 sqq). The more common opinion should be maintained, because the nature of a visible society requires that judgment be made according to visible acts, and that is in fact how judgment is made: as everyone admits, a bishop who is secretly a heretic remains a bishop and validly performs acts of jurisdiction.

3. Catechumens are not members of the Church—that is, those who profess the Church’s faith and wish to receive baptism but have not yet received it. The reason is that entry into the Church occurs only through the actual reception of baptism (cf. Conc. flor. decr. pro armen., and Conc. trid. sess. 14, de paenit. c. 2; Denz. n. 696 895). The Church has no jurisdiction over catechumens, though it may require certain things of them as conditions without which they will not be admitted to baptism (see the opposing opinions on this matter in Bellarmin., l. c. c. 3, and Suarez, l. c. n. 18). Catechumens can be justified through acts of faith and charity, for not all inside the Church are just, just as not all outside the Church are unjust; those who are not in the Church through no fault of their own can attain justification with divine grace. The just who are not members of the Church’s visible body are said to belong to the soul of the Church, that is, to that internal principle of supernatural life which is present in the Church in itself and, accidentally, also outside the Church.

4. The unbaptized, unbelievers, apostates, notorious heretics and schismatics, and those justly excommunicated are not members of the Church. Heretics are those who profess a doctrine opposed to the Church’s doctrine. Anyone who denies all faith is an unbeliever. If someone first believes and then becomes either an unbeliever or a heretic, he is an apostate. Schismatics are those who, even if they do not err in doctrine, are separated from the unity of ecclesiastical government and either simply refuse to obey or establish sects. The excommunicated are those expelled from the Church by a sentence of ecclesiastical authority. Only a just excommunication—that is, one that is not certainly unjust—is valid before God. Full excommunication occurs only when people are declared “to be avoided,” that is, people with whom the faithful are not permitted to communicate and who are deprived of all ecclesiastical goods, participation in which can be granted or withdrawn by ecclesiastical authority. Those tolerated despite excommunication, who are not deprived of all communion with the faithful or of all ecclesiastical goods, should not be said to have been expelled from the Church; rather, they remain members of the Church, though subject to a very severe penalty intended to break their obstinacy. Some theologians hold that people are not expelled from the Church even by the greater excommunication. But since the very formula of excommunication expresses separation from the Church, this opinion must not be accepted (cf. Denz. n. 763 1546).

5. The opinion that only the predestined or only the just are members of the Church is false. These errors were often condemned by the Church: against the Hussites, propositions 1 and 3 (Denz. n. 627 629); against Quesnel, propositions 72 sq (Denz. n. 1422 sq); and against the Pistoia synod, proposition 15 (Denz. n. 1515). For they conflict with Christ’s teaching that at the end of the world sinners will be gathered out of his kingdom and cast into the fire (Mt 13, 41 sq). In what sense the just are members of the Church in a more perfect way than sinners, we have already said (above, n. 228). In the just, in addition to the bond of faith and subjection, there is also the bond of charity. Wilmers, De eccl. 619 sqq, discusses this whole question of the Church’s members at length; cf. Franzelin, De eccl. thes. 22 sq; Murray, De eccl. I 143 sqq.

Scholium 2. On the name “Church” taken in a broader or narrower sense.

232. When we speak simply of the Church, we mean baptized people living on this earth in the unity of the visible Church.

Nevertheless, the name “Church” is sometimes taken more broadly, to include all who, from the beginning of the world, have professed faith in Christ, at least implicitly. “The saints [the faithful] before the Law, the saints under the Law, the saints under grace—all these, completing the body of the Lord, are constituted as members of the Church” (S. Gregor. M. l. 5, ep. 18). Since all who are under Christ the head constitute his kingdom, the angels in heaven also belong to the Church (Col 1, 18 20. Hebr 12, 22 sq). The same is true of the souls in purgatory. Hence arises the distinction between the Church militant on earth, the Church undergoing purification in purgatory, and the Church triumphant in heaven. These three parts are united by the bond of grace, assistance, and prayer under Christ the head (Eph 1, 20), and thus constitute the communion of saints. But since they are not united by the bond of an external society, they do not constitute the Church simply or in the strict sense.

Although in a certain true sense the Church of Christ also existed in the Old Testament, the synagogue is distinguished in many ways from the Church of Christ in the strict sense. The synagogue was not the mystical body of Christ, because Christ had not yet become man; the Church is the mystical body of Christ (Eph 1, 22 sq; 4, 15). The synagogue was also a civil community; the Church is not. The synagogue was a type (a real prophecy) of the Church, and, as a type, did not give interior grace but promised it through ceremonies and legal sanctification; the Church, as the antitype (the fulfillment of the prophecy), gives grace (Hebr 7, 18 sq; 9, 9 sqq; cf. Eugen. IV. decr. pro armen.; Denz. n. 695; Conc. trid. sess. 6, c. 1; Denz. n. 793). The synagogue was a national Church; the Church of Christ is universal (cf. Praelect. dogm. V, n. 464 sqq).

The damned alone have no relation to the Church at all; all people still on life’s journey, however, have some relation to the Church, because by God’s will they are destined for the Church (1 Tim 2, 1 4). Those who have the baptismal character are subject to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, even if they are invincibly ignorant of this. The excommunicated are separated from the Church so that, frightened by this penalty, they may return to a better way of life.

Proposition XXIX. The Church is a perfect society.

233. Position of the question. A perfect society is one that is supreme and independent in its own order by reason of its end and means; an imperfect society is one that by its nature is destined to coalesce with others into a greater society. In the natural order, the perfect society is the commonwealth, or civil society, whose end is the complete good of the community of citizens and which possesses all the means necessary to attain this end. Families, municipalities, and other lesser societies, which cannot provide the complete human good but must be joined together in a commonwealth to provide all the benefits of life, are imperfect societies.

The Church is a society of the supernatural order. It is therefore perfect if its end is the supreme supernatural end and if it has the means necessary for this end. Parishes and dioceses, however, are imperfect societies that are not sufficient by themselves.

The internal independence of a perfect society corresponds to external independence, because a society that is self-sufficient by reason of its end and means does not depend on another society in its own order.

234. Argument I. From the constitution of the Church.

The Church was instituted by Christ so that through the right worship of God it might lead people to eternal salvation, and it received the means necessary for this end. But a society constituted in this way is a perfect society. Therefore.

The major was proved in the preceding sections; for we saw that Christ instituted an apostolic teaching office, government, and priesthood to instruct all people about divine revelation, govern them, sanctify them, and lead them to eternal life.

Proof of the minor: the Church has a supreme spiritual end and the broadest authority necessary for this end. As for the temporal goods it needs, divine law has provided that the members of the Church support it with temporal goods in return for the spiritual benefits they receive (Mt 10, 10. Lc 10, 7. 1 Cor 9, 4 sqq. Gal 6, 6. 1 Tim 5, 18). The Church can therefore demand temporal goods from its subjects as a matter of right, although it prefers the method of voluntary contributions (cf. Praelect. dogm. IX, n. 371 sqq).

Since natural societies have no power in the supernatural order, it is clear that the Church is subject to none of them. Nor did Christ subject it to another society; rather, he himself gave all authority to the apostles and their successors. Thus, the apostles did not approach the civil authority to receive their power from it (cf. Gal 1, 1; Eph 4, 11 sqq); relying instead on their own authority, they did not allow the civil power to intervene in this matter (Act 4, 19; 5, 29 42), following the teaching they had received from Christ (Mt 10, 17 sqq).

235. Argument II. From the conviction of Christians.

From the time of the apostles to our own day, Christians have been convinced that the office and government of the Church do not depend on the goodwill of secular rulers; rather, even Christian rulers are subject to the ecclesiastical teaching office and government in matters concerning eternal salvation. But the Church could not have erred constantly in this matter. Therefore, the Church truly is a perfect society.

Proof of the major. We have already spoken of the apostles. After the time of the apostles, Clement of Rome (1 Cor. 42 44) says: “The apostles were made preachers of the Gospel for us by the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent by God. Christ, then, was sent by God and the apostles by Christ; both things took place in due order according to God’s will. Having received their instructions … they set out with the sure confidence of the Holy Spirit, proclaiming the coming of the kingdom of God. So, preaching throughout regions and cities … they appointed bishops and deacons … They appointed the men mentioned above and thereafter established the rule that, when these men had died, other proven men should take up their ministry.” During the times of persecution, Christians consistently refused to obey secular rulers in religious matters. After the persecutions, St. Gregory Nazianzen addresses Christian rulers: “You too are subject to my authority and the law of Christ subjects you to my throne. For we also exercise authority, and I add, authority that is more excellent and perfect” (Sermo 17, n. 8). St. Athanasius: “If this is a decree of the bishops, what does it have to do with the emperor? … When has a decree of the Church ever received its authority from the emperor, or been regarded as a decree because of him? … The emperor has never made a careful inquiry into ecclesiastical matters” (Hist. arian. n. 52). Hosius of Corduba to the Emperor Constantius: “Do not meddle in ecclesiastical matters or command us about them; rather, learn these things from us. God entrusted the empire to you and committed ecclesiastical affairs to us” (apud S. Athan., Hist. arian. n. 44). St. Ambrose: “The tribute belongs to Caesar; it is not denied. The Church belongs to God. It certainly must not be added to Caesar’s possessions, for the temple of God cannot be Caesar’s property … The emperor is within the Church, not above the Church” (Epist. 21, n. 35). See also Denz. n. 330 sqq 495 sqq, from which it is clear that the same conviction prevailed in the Middle Ages.

In our own time, Pius IX condemned this proposition 19 of the Syllabus: “The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free, nor does it possess its own enduring rights conferred on it by its divine Founder; rather, it belongs to the civil power to define the rights of the Church and the limits within which it may exercise those rights” (Denz. n. 1719). Leo XIII says in the encyclical «Immortale Dei», 1 Nov. 1885, that the Church “is distinguished from and differs from civil society, and, what matters most, is a perfect society in its nature and by right, since by the will and favor of its Founder it possesses fully and in itself all the means necessary for its preservation and action” (cf. below, n. 239).

Thus it is clear that the Church, according to its own awareness of itself as a society instituted by Christ, is a perfect society and entirely independent of every other society. It would be absurd to think that the Church has always persistently adhered, and still adheres, to error in this most serious matter.

236. Objection I. St. Optatus of Milevis says: “The commonwealth is not within the Church, but the Church is within the commonwealth” (De schism. donat. 3, 3). But these words teach that the Church is subject to the civil power. Therefore, the Church is not a perfect society.

I answer. I grant the major, I deny the minor and the consequence. By these words St. Optatus does not teach that the Church is part of the Roman Empire, still less that it is subject to that empire; rather, he warns the Donatists not to rebel against the emperor but to pray for him, since the Church enjoys better conditions in the Roman Empire than among barbarian peoples. This is the context of his statement: Donatus “was considering doing injury to rulers and kings, contrary to the precepts of the Apostle Paul, for whom, if he had listened to the Apostle, he ought to have prayed every day … For the commonwealth is not in the Church, but the Church is in the commonwealth, that is, in the Roman Empire … where the sacred priesthood, chastity, and virginity are secure—things that do not exist among the barbarian peoples and, if they did, could not be safe.” Thus the issue is the Church’s protection, not its subjection.

237. Objection II. The Church has no territory of its own but entered a territory already occupied by the commonwealth. But no one may enter another’s territory without the possessor’s permission. Therefore, at least in this respect, the Church depends on the commonwealth’s discretion.

I answer. I distinguish the major: The Church has no territory over which it exercises civil dominion, I grant the major; it has no territory over which it exercises spiritual dominion, I deny the major. For Christ assigned the whole world to it: “Go into all the world.” This territory was not occupied by the commonwealth through spiritual but through civil dominion, which the Church does not seek. I distinguish the minor: One may not enter private territory without the permission of the possessor or a superior authority, I grant the minor; territory insofar as a civil commonwealth exists there, I subdivide the minor: One may not establish another civil government there, I grant the minor; citizens of the commonwealth may not embrace the Christian faith and, in accordance with Christ’s command, submit themselves to the Church’s spiritual dominion, I deny the minor. For not everything in its territory is subject to the commonwealth’s power, but only those things within the limits of its end. The religious and supernatural order, instituted by Christ for all people, is not among these; the commonwealth cannot arrogate this order to itself or impede it without injustice to God.

238. Objection III. The coordination of Church and commonwealth gives rise to endless disputes and conflicts. But God, who is peace, surely did not wish for an order of affairs that is a constant source of discord. Therefore, we must conclude that God wishes the Church to be subject to the commonwealth, since the latter has existed longer.

I answer. I distinguish the major: Disputes and conflicts arise when ecclesiastical and secular rulers alike keep within the limits of their authority and act toward one another in a friendly spirit, I deny the major; when they go beyond their limits and seek discord with hostile intent, I grant the major. I distinguish the minor: God wishes peace to be preserved by disturbing the order he instituted, I deny the minor; by preserving the order he instituted, I grant the minor. And I deny the consequence. Besides, the commonwealth preceded the Church only in general; most of the particular states with which the Church now lives arose after it. But this makes no difference. For God, the supreme Lord of all states, determined the Church’s rights by positive revelation.

239. Scholium. On the relation of the Church to the civil commonwealth.

Since the relation of the Church to civil society is treated in canon law (cf. I. Laurentius, Instit. iur. eccl. n. 931 sqq), it is enough here to excerpt a few points from the encyclical of Leo XIII, «Immortale Dei» (cf. Denz. n. 1866 sqq).

1. By God’s ordinance, the Church and the commonwealth are two perfect and independent societies; for “God divided the care of the human race between two powers, the ecclesiastical and the civil, the one set over divine matters, the other over human affairs. Each is supreme in its own kind [a perfect society]; each has definite limits within which it is contained, limits determined by the nature and proximate cause of each; thus, as it were, a sphere is marked out in which each carries out its activity by its own right … Whatever in human affairs is in any way sacred, whatever pertains to the salvation of souls or the worship of God … all of this is under the power and judgment of the Church. The rest, which belongs to the civil and political order, is rightly subject to the civil authority.” Or, as the encyclical «Sapientiae christianae» of 10 Jan. 1890 puts it: “The Church and the state each have their own power, and neither is subject to the other.”

2. Neither a monarchical, aristocratic, democratic, nor mixed form of government conflicts with the doctrine of the Church. “None of the various forms of government is in itself condemned, since they contain nothing opposed to Catholic doctrine, and, if wisely and justly employed, each can preserve the state in the best condition. Indeed, it is not in itself objectionable for the people to have a greater or lesser share in the commonwealth, since at certain times and under certain laws this can pertain not only to the advantage but also to the duty of citizens.”

3. Not only individual citizens but also the commonwealth is subject to God and divine law. Therefore, we must reject the doctrine condemned by Pius IX in Syllabus n. 39: “The state, as the source and origin of all rights, possesses a certain right without any limits.” A state therefore cannot permit unlimited freedom to spread any opinions contrary to good morals and divine precepts (Syll. n. 79). “It must be understood that the origin of public power must be traced back to God himself, not to the multitude … It is wrong for private individuals, and wrong for states, to disregard religious duties entirely or to treat different religions in the same way.” Nevertheless, “although the Church judges it impermissible for different forms of divine worship to have the same rights as the true religion, it does not for that reason condemn civil rulers who, for the sake of attaining some great good or preventing some evil, patiently tolerate by custom and practice that each form of worship have a place in the state. The Church is also careful to ensure that no one is compelled against his will to embrace the Catholic faith.”

4. The Church and the commonwealth must not be separated from one another, because they have the same subjects and can and ought to give one another mutual assistance in promoting the common good. On this matter Gregory XVI says in the encyclical «Mirari vos» of 15 Aug. 1832: “We could not expect more auspicious results for religion and government from the wishes of those who desire the Church to be separated from the kingdom and the mutual harmony of empire and priesthood to be broken. For it is well known that this harmony, which has always been beneficial and salutary for both the sacred and civil orders, is feared by the most shameless lovers of liberty.” Pius IX, however, condemned this thesis in Syll. n. 55: “The Church must be separated from the state and the state from the Church.” The separation of the Church from the commonwealth may be tolerated in practice only because of unjust conditions and to avoid a greater evil, provided that it is observed in good faith and is not made a pretext for enacting measures harmful to the Church.

5. There ought to be friendship, not war, between the Church and the commonwealth. Although the Church expressly recognizes the commonwealth’s independence in civil affairs, war or discord arises when the commonwealth, relying on its physical power, tries to subject even sacred matters to itself, or to direct mixed matters—which pertain in different respects both to the Church and to the commonwealth—in such a way that the Church is excluded from their administration or obstructed in it. “To wish the Church to be subject to the civil power in carrying out its duties is a great injustice and great presumption. This disturbs the order, because natural things are given precedence over those above nature; it removes or at least diminishes the abundance of benefits with which the Church would enrich common life if nothing impeded it; and, besides, it paves the way for enmities and conflicts, whose destructive effect on both societies experience has shown all too often.” It must be understood that “those who hold supreme authority must neither force the Church to serve or be subject to them, nor deprive it of the freedom to conduct its own affairs, nor take away any of the other rights conferred on it by Jesus Christ. In matters of mixed jurisdiction, it is most in accord with nature and with God’s designs that one authority not secede from the other, much less contend with it, but that there be complete harmony, suited to the proximate causes that gave rise to each society.” These causes are Christ’s positive institutions with respect to the Church, and the precepts of natural law with respect to the civil commonwealth.

Proposition XXX. The Church of Christ is one.

240. Position of the question. Anglicans and other Protestants maintain that the individual ecclesiastical societies which retain at least the essential elements of the Christian religion, even if entirely separated from one another in their government, together constitute the whole Church of Christ: they are branches of one tree (Branch-Churches) or sister churches (Schwesterkirchen). Against them we maintain that there can be only one Church of Christ and that other groups wrongly claim this name for themselves.

241. Argument I. From the things instituted by Christ.

Christ instituted a single apostolic government under one primate. But, given the unity of its end, the unity of government brings about the unity of a society. Therefore, the Church of Christ is one.

The major has been proved in Proposition XXIII sqq. Christ wished his flock to be one (Io 10, 16), built his entire Church upon the one foundation of primacy, gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to one (Mt 16, 18 sq), and entrusted all his sheep to one shepherd (Io 21, 17). Christ never speaks of his kingdoms, his flocks, or his churches, but always of one kingdom, one flock, and one Church. — The minor of the argument follows from the concept of a society.

242. Argument 2. From the teaching of the apostles.

Although the apostles speak of individual churches, as we do, they recognize only one Church of Christ. “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so also is Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body … You are the body of Christ and members of it, each in your own part. And God has placed some in the Church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers” (1 Cor 12, 12 sq 27 sq). “One body and one spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all” (Eph 4, 4 sqq). The Church is the bride of Christ (Apc 21, 2). For this reason husbands are told: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church … This sacrament [of marriage] is great, but I speak in Christ and in the Church. Nevertheless, each one of you should love his wife as himself” (Eph 5, 25 32 sq). Does Christ have several brides? Does he have several bodies, and bodies as different from one another as the groups from which Protestants wish the Church of Christ to be made up? If all these groups, with their opposing doctrines, constituted¹ the Church of Christ, the Apostle’s words would not be true: “The Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3, 15).

243. Argument 3. From the teaching of the ancient Church.

In the Creeds, the profession of faith is made not in churches but in the Church, or in the one holy Church (Denz. n. 269 1486). Clement of Alexandria teaches that “there is one true Church, the one that is truly ancient … the one Church, which heresies try to divide into many” (Strom. 7, 17). St. Basil: “Do not devise private halls or churches for me. There is one holy hall of God” (In Ps. 28, n. 3). St. Cyprian: “Upon one [Peter, Christ] builds the Church … To manifest unity, he established by his authority the origin of that same unity, beginning from one … We must hold and defend this unity firmly, especially we bishops who preside in the Church” (De unit. eccl. 4 sq). St. Optatus of Milevis: “Christ is the bridegroom of one Church” (De schism. donat. 1, 10). St. Ambrose: “There are not many congregations; there is one congregation and one Church” (In Hexaem. 3, 1, 3).

This constant faith of the apostles and Fathers is why ecclesiastical authority has often rejected the doctrine that there are many Churches. Thus Pius IX writes in Syllabus n. 18: “Protestantism is nothing other than a different form of the same true Christian religion, in which one may please God just as in the Catholic Church” (Denz. n. 1718). The S. Officium, writing to the bishops of England on 16 Sept. 1864, says that Anglicans teach that “three Christian communions—the Roman Catholic, the Greek schismatic, and the Anglican—although separated and divided from one another, nevertheless claim the Catholic name with equal right … since, as is supposed, they all together already constitute the Catholic Church.” This doctrine “turns the divine constitution of the Church upside down … Therefore, the Catholic Church is one … There is no other Catholic Church than that which, built upon one Peter, rises into one connected and compact body through unity of faith and charity” (Denz. n. 1685 sq). Leo XIII says in the encyclical «Satis cognitum» of 29 June 1896: “Jesus Christ did not fashion and form the Church as a body embracing several communities similar in kind but distinct, and not joined by the bonds that would make the Church² an individual and unique one, exactly as we profess in the Creed, ‘I believe in one Church’ … Any other Church one might imagine apart from this one, since it was not founded by Jesus Christ, cannot be the true Church of Christ” (Denz. n. 1955).

244. Objection I. The essential unity of a society can be preserved even if disagreements arise among its members and external communion is interrupted for a time. But this is how things stand among the various Christian communities. Therefore, all these societies together constitute one Church of Christ.

I answer. I distinguish the major: The unity of a society is preserved as long as all recognize one supreme social authority and are willing to submit to its decrees, I grant the major; if they no longer recognize any authority and obstinately refuse obedience, I deny the major. I distinguish the minor: Those communities that, despite other differences, recognize one supreme ecclesiastical authority instituted by Christ and are ready to obey its definitive decrees remain within the Church, I grant the minor; those that theoretically or practically separate themselves from this authority, I deny the minor. And I deny the consequence.

245. Objection II. In the ancient Church there were often disagreements about the day of Easter, the rebaptism of heretics, and other matters. Yet at that time communities that held different views were not said to have departed from the unity of the Church. Therefore, even now communities that dissent should not be said to have departed from the Church.

I answer. I distinguish the major: In the ancient Church, some bishops at times disagreed with the common doctrine or practice of the Church on certain points but acknowledged the necessary unity of the supreme ecclesiastical government, and merely thought the questions at issue had not yet been sufficiently clarified and defined, I grant the major; they denied the unity of government itself, I subdivide the major: if they were heretics or schismatics, I grant the major; if they were not, I deny the major. I distinguish the minor: Those who acknowledged the necessity of unity were not said to have departed from the Church, I grant the minor; those who denied it, I deny the minor. With the same distinction, I deny the consequence.

In the ancient Church heretics and schismatics arose, and at times there were also Catholics who held incorrect views. These latter, however, did not doubt the question of right but erred about the question of fact. Heretics and schismatics, on the other hand, made false claims about the question of right, just as the heretics and schismatics of our own age do.

246. Objection III. In various Christian communities there are people who, with God’s grace, observe Christ’s commands and make spiritual progress. But if they were outside the Church of Christ, the Holy Spirit would not help them with his grace. Therefore, they are within the Church of Christ.

I answer. I grant the major. I distinguish the minor according to whether the people in question are outside the Church in bad faith or in good faith: The Holy Spirit helps those who are outside the Church of Christ in bad faith only with the intention of making them abandon their evil will, I grant the minor; the Holy Spirit does not help those who are outside the Church of Christ in good faith with his grace so that, notwithstanding their inculpable error, they may make spiritual progress, I deny the minor. And I distinguish the consequence: Those people of good faith are inwardly within the Church as regards the state of grace, I grant the consequence; outwardly, as regards union with the visible Church, I deny the consequence. This will be discussed in the following thesis. Why God does not lead all people of good faith to the Church pertains to God’s inscrutable judgments. At most, we can make some probable conjectures about these, for example, that God perhaps wishes to preserve some good leaven in those communities so that such a great mass of people in error may not be utterly corrupted.

Proposition XXXI. The Church of Christ is necessary for all people to attain salvation.

247. Position of the question. What is necessary for salvation is something without which eternal salvation cannot be attained. This necessity arises either from the nature of the thing or from God’s positive institution. Thus, by the nature of the thing, some special help from God is necessary in order to see God immediately. The Church of Christ, however, is necessary for salvation not by the nature of the thing but by positive institution (cf. Denz. n. 1954), since God could in himself have led people to salvation by another way as well. A thing may in turn be positively instituted either as a precept to be observed or as a means to be used. Thus, in the Old Testament God gave the precept that all men should come to the Temple three times a year (Dt 16, 16). Anyone who could not come was excused, for observance of a precept is necessary insofar as its transgression, when gravely culpable, brings about a state of mortal sin and thus impedes salvation. The necessity of a means, however, consists in this: something is required to attain an end, and therefore, even if it is omitted without fault, the end cannot be attained. In this way baptism is necessary for the salvation of infants (except martyrs); hence, although infants are incapable of transgressing a precept, they cannot attain the beatific vision unless they are baptized. Thus, the necessity of precept must be distinguished from the necessity of a means.

The necessity of a means is twofold: absolute and hypothetical necessity. Absolute necessity obtains when something is required for an end in such a way that it can never be supplied by another means. Thus, the state of grace at the time of death is an absolutely necessary means for attaining salvation. Hypothetical necessity obtains when, under certain conditions, a means necessary in itself for salvation can be supplied by another means. In this way the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation such that, if it is impossible to receive it, salvation may be attained through an act of charity together with the desire for the sacrament.

Now the Church was instituted by Christ as a means necessary for salvation and therefore commanded to all by divine law. Nevertheless, if someone is physically or morally unable to enter the Church, he can attain salvation with the help of divine grace through living faith.

248. Argument I. From Sacred Scripture.

By Christ’s will people cannot attain salvation unless they have believed, have been baptized, and have listened to the Church (Mt 18, 17. Mc 16, 16.

Io 3, 5. Act 2, 38. Rom 10, 9 sqq. Hebr 11, 6). But through faith, baptism, and obedience a person becomes a member of the Church³. Therefore, the Church is necessary for all people to attain salvation.

This necessity is a necessity of precept, as is evident. But it is also a necessity of a means. For Christ did not give the means he instituted for attaining salvation to just anyone, but to the apostles and their successors (above, Proposition XXV sqq), so that the Church alone, by virtue of the office it received from Christ, infallibly teaches the true doctrine of salvation, rightly administers the means of sanctification, and rightly directs people toward the end of beatitude. Therefore, since this office was entrusted to no one outside the Church, the Church is necessary for salvation as a means. For this reason, someone who does not receive baptism, or who separates himself from the Church through an alien doctrine or obstinate disobedience, cannot be saved. “Avoid a heretical person after one or two admonitions, knowing that such a person is perverted and sins, being condemned by his own judgment” (Tit 3, 10 sq).

249. Argument II. From the constant teaching of the Church.

St. Ignatius of Antioch: “Do not be deceived, my brothers: whoever follows one who causes schism does not inherit the kingdom of God” (Philad. 3, 3). St. Irenaeus: “Those who are outside the Church are outside the truth … Those who cause schisms are empty, having no love of God” (Contra haer. 4, 33, 7). St. Cyprian: “He cannot have God as his Father who does not have the Church as his mother. If whoever was outside Noah’s ark could escape, then whoever is outside the Church will escape too” (De unit. eccl. 6). St. Augustine: “What does it profit you if you confess God … acknowledge his Son … and blaspheme his Church? … Therefore, beloved, all of you hold unanimously to God as Father and the Church as mother” (In Ps. 88 sermo 2, n. 14). Many other Fathers teach similarly. The same doctrine prevails in the following centuries. In the sixth century Pelagius II says: “Consider that whoever is not in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord” (Denz. n. 246). In the thirteenth century Boniface VIII says: “Outside her [the Church] there is neither salvation nor remission of sins … There was, namely, one ark of Noah at the time of the Flood, prefiguring the one Church” (Denz. n. 468). In our own time Pius IX says: “It must indeed be held as a matter of faith that no one can be saved outside the apostolic Roman Church; this is the one ark of salvation, and whoever does not enter it will perish in the Flood” (Denz. n. 1647). Leo XIII: above, n. 223. All these statements teach not merely the necessity of precept but also the necessity of a means, as is clear, for example, from the comparison with Noah’s ark so often used by the Church’s teachers.

250. Objection I. Whoever teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church consigns everyone who dies outside the Church to eternal damnation. But it is not for a human being to judge the eternal fate of the dead. Therefore, that doctrine should not be maintained.

I answer. I distinguish the major: Whoever teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church teaches that those who through no fault of their own do not belong to the visible Church are damned, I deny the major; those who through their own fault are outside the Church, I subdivide the major: the teacher himself consigns them to eternal damnation, I deny the major; he proposes Christ’s teaching that they are damned, I grant the major. A human being does not therefore judge in each individual case whether someone has good or bad faith, but leaves this judgment to God. I distinguish the minor: It is not for a human being to judge the eternal fate of individual people insofar as the question concerns each person’s good or bad faith, I grant the minor; insofar as the question concerns only the universal doctrine revealed by Christ, I deny the minor. And I deny the consequence.

The meaning of the teaching proposed is this: Christ instituted the Church as the ordinary means of salvation and therefore commanded all people to enter the Church. Those who are not yet in the Church but have recognized it as the true Church must have an explicit intention of joining it. This intention is usually called a votum (that is, a desire); hence such people are said to belong to the Church by desire. Anyone who is invincibly ignorant of the Church must at least have the intention of using the means of salvation prescribed by God. Since the Church is also one of these means, such a person has an implicit desire for the Church, through which he can be saved insofar as this desire is informed by perfect charity toward God. All those who are justified in this way without actually receiving baptism and joining the visible Church are said to belong to the soul of the Church, even though they are outside the body of the Church. The soul of the Church is sanctifying grace. Therefore, for every adult person, becoming or being an actual member of the Church is necessary by the necessity of precept; having at least an implicit desire to be a member of the Church is necessary by the absolute necessity of a means, from which necessity no ignorance excuses anyone, because every adult must have the intention of following all the precepts and using all the means revealed by God as necessary for salvation.

This is the Church’s express teaching, which Pius IX sets forth in these words: “We must condemn the gravest error in which some Catholics are unhappily involved: they think that people living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity can attain eternal life. This is entirely contrary to Catholic teaching. It is known to us and to you that those who labor under invincible ignorance concerning our most holy religion, and who carefully observe the natural law and its precepts, inscribed by God in the hearts of all, and are ready to obey God, lead an honest and upright life; through the working power of divine light and grace, they can attain eternal life, since God, who clearly sees, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and dispositions of all, in his supreme goodness and clemency does not allow anyone who is not guilty of voluntary fault to be punished with eternal torments” (Denz. n. 1677). See also Praelect. dogm. I, n. 395.

251. Objection II. If the principle “Outside the Church there is no salvation” were true, tolerance of those who think differently would be excluded. But then a war of all against all would arise. Therefore, that principle cannot be admitted.

I answer. I distinguish the major: Doctrinal tolerance of error would be excluded, I grant the major; civil and private tolerance of those who err would be excluded, I deny the major. I distinguish the minor: War arises from doctrinal intolerance of error, I deny the minor, unless “war” means the intellectual defense of truth against its attackers, which does no harm; a war of all against all could arise from civil and private intolerance, I grant the minor. And I deny the consequence.

Doctrinal tolerance is the same as indifferentism toward truth and falsehood, which the Church has often condemned (Denz. n. 1613 sq 1646 sq 1715 sqq). Civil tolerance is permission granted by civil authority to practice different forms of worship. On this matter Leo XIII says: “Although the Church judges it impermissible for different forms of divine worship to have the same rights as the true religion, it does not for that reason condemn civil rulers who, for the sake of attaining some great good or preventing some evil, patiently tolerate by custom and practice that each have a place in the state” (Denz. n. 1874). Private tolerance is not properly mere toleration but rather the exercise of charity that must be shown to everyone, even those who err, as Pius IX says: “Let the children of the Catholic Church never be enemies in any way to those who are not joined with us by the same bonds of faith and charity. Rather, whether those people are poor, sick, or afflicted by any other hardships, let them always strive to treat and assist them with every duty of Christian charity, and especially strive to rescue them from the darkness of error in which they unhappily lie and to bring them back to Catholic truth and to the Church, their most loving mother” (Denz. n. 1678).

252. Objection III. History bears witness that bloody persecutions of heretics have followed from the principle “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” Therefore, the Church accepts tolerance only because it lacks the power to act otherwise and fears that force may be met with force.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: In the past, heretics were sometimes treated more harshly because conditions of the times and customs were different, I grant the antecedent; the doctrinal principles the Church now proposes on this matter were not accepted then, I deny the antecedent. And I distinguish the consequence: Therefore, the Church does not sincerely propose the principles of tolerance, I deny the consequence; if circumstances were different, the application of the principles would also be different, I grant the consequence.

The way of dealing with heretics was not the same in every age. For many centuries, heretics were simply excluded from the Church without any other punishment. When the Church became closely joined to the civil commonwealth, the Church not infrequently called on the secular arm for assistance against heretics’ violence, or secular rulers considered and treated heretics as disturbers of the public good. The severity of the punishments did not arise from any ecclesiastical principle but from the customs of that age, when it was considered fitting to punish crimes with severe and cruel penalties. The first civil laws against heretics were enacted by Constantine the Great, later by Theodosius the Great, and others (cf. Kirch, Enchir. 760 sqq). St. Augustine, as he himself recounts in Epist. 93, n. 17 and De haer. 69, had first thought that force should not be used against heretics, but later changed his view, chiefly because of the crimes of heretics called “Circumcellions” (Kirch n. 669 704). Yet the danger of invoking the secular arm became clear when the Arians, relying on the support of emperors, began to persecute Catholics. Nevertheless, in the Middle Ages the civil power usually regarded heretics as enemies of the commonwealth and punished them as such. In fact, the Albigensians and other sectarians were dangerous to civil society no less than to ecclesiastical society. Still, not everything ever done against heretics, nor every individual action, should be approved or defended. Besides, when the civil power favored them, heretics inflicted far more appalling things on Catholics or other heretics than Catholics inflicted on heretics. The dreadful persecutions in England, Holland, and Germany during the so-called Reformation are examples. Indeed, many of those who now denounce the Church’s intolerance most loudly would recoil from no atrocity if by this means they could bring about the Church’s destruction. Consider what is happening in France, Portugal, and other regions.

253. Scholium. On the Church as the mystical body of Christ.

Every society is a kind of moral body, because it consists of many members who, under a common authority as their head, work together toward one end. In this sense the Church too is a body, whose head is Christ as man, from whom all ecclesiastical authority has arisen. Nevertheless, Christ is the head of the Church in a far more excellent way than those who hold supreme authority in other societies are their heads. For they conduct the affairs of their societies only from outside, but Christ is the internal principle of all the Church’s vitality. He indicated this himself in the words: “I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him bears much fruit, for without me you can do nothing” (Io 15, 5).

St. Paul sets forth this vital union of Christ with the Church under the image of the human body, whose head is Christ. “For just as in one body we have many members … so we, though many, are one body in Christ” (Rom 12, 4 sq). “You are the body of Christ” (1 Cor 12, 27). God “gave him as head over the whole Church, which is his body, the fullness of him who is made complete in all things” (Eph 1, 22 sq), that is, Christ requires many members, who are the faithful with their various ministries exercised in this moral organism, in order that he may have a complete (moral) body.

From the humanity of Christ, as an instrument united to the divinity, all power of jurisdiction and order descends. “He gave some as apostles, some as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers, to perfect the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ” (Eph 4, 11 sq). Christ as man works in the sacraments, as in baptism, “cleansing it by the washing of water in the word of life, so that he might present the Church to himself in glory, without spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind, but holy and immaculate” (Eph 5, 26 sq). In the sacrifice of the Mass he offers himself daily for the Church; in the Eucharist he remains sacramentally with it forever; he constantly watches over it. “Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the age” (Mt 28, 20). At the same time, he is in heaven at the Father’s right hand, “always living to intercede for us” (Hebr 7, 25). Thus, both through external government and through the internal infusion of supernatural gifts, Christ is the source of all spiritual life in the Church. “From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace” (Io 1, 16), that is, graces succeeding one another without interruption. Every grace, insofar as it is in Christ as the source from which it descends into the Church, is called the grace of the head. The Church, as an organism joined to Christ and given life by the influx of graces, is called the mystical body of Christ—mystical, indeed, because this relation to Christ is something spiritual and supernatural, not visible to the eyes but perceived by faith alone (cf. Franzelin, De eccl. 296 sqq; Wilmers, De eccl. 80 sqq).

Cf. Bellarminus, De ecclesia militante l. 4; Suarez, De fide disp. 9, sect. 4 sqq; Wilmers, De ecclesia 492 sqq; Manzoni, De ecclesia n. 209 sqq; I. Doellinger, Kirche und Kirchen (in French: L'église et les églises, Paris 1862); Th. Specht, Lehrbuch der Apologetik 291 sqq.

Proposition XXXII. The four marks of the true Church of Christ are apostolicity, unity, catholicity, and holiness.

254. Position of the question. Since the Church of Christ is a visible society (above, n. 224 sqq), it necessarily also has certain visible properties by which it is distinguished from other groups. These properties are called marks. For a mark is an inherent and essential property by which this subject is distinguished from every other subject. A mark is an inherent property; a merely external sign by which a subject is distinguished from others is not its mark. For instance, the fact that a person lives in this house or that one is not a mark of that person, even if it may be enough to find him; a person’s distinguishing appearance and face, however, are a mark of that person. A mark is also an essential property, because an accidental property, which may be present or absent, does not distinguish this subject from every other with certainty and invariably. Therefore, a mark of the Church is a property inherent in the true Church of Christ alone and visibly manifesting it as the Church of Christ.

The question is not how individual people come to the Church, since someone might be led to the Church by a wholly accidental sign or motive, such as a miracle God performs in his favor. The sole question instead is what, objectively, has the character of a mark in the Church. The author of the marks is the author of the Church himself, who distinguished it by certain characteristics through which it would be manifest to all.

Since a mark belongs to the class of signs, it must be more manifest than what is demonstrated by that mark. For when someone asks how to find what he is seeking, it would be absurd to answer by pointing to something that is no better known, or even less well known. For this reason, we cannot accept the teaching of many Protestants that the marks of the Church are the pure preaching of the word of God and the correct administration of the sacraments. For we know the true doctrine and the right use of the sacraments through the true Church, not the other way around. All sects claim true doctrine and true sacraments for themselves; this is easy because this truth is hidden in itself, and something better known must serve to find it.

Bellarminus (De eccl. 4, 3 sqq) lists fifteen marks, but adds: “If anyone wishes, these can in some way be reduced to those four,” which theologians commonly establish by following the article of the Creed in which we profess “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” In any case, just as the Church itself is visible, so its marks are visible things, although they can contain something invisible in themselves: holiness, for example, is invisible in itself but is manifested through visible works.

255. Argument I. From the institution and constitution of the Church.

In its origin, the Church is essentially apostolic; in its constitution, it is one; in the extensiveness and outwardness of its efficacy, it is catholic; in the intensiveness and inwardness of its efficacy, it is holy. But these four essential properties are visible and proper to the true Church alone. Therefore, they are marks of the true Church of Christ.

To the major. a) We proved above (n. 186 sqq; 204 sqq) that Christ gave the apostles supreme and universal power to teach, govern, and sanctify, and wished this power to remain in the apostles’ legitimate successors until the end of the world (n. 219 sqq). Therefore, by reason of its institution, the Church is essentially apostolic. For however many ages separate those who govern the Church now from the apostles, through a legitimate mission their office nevertheless traces back to the apostles themselves and is derived from them.

b) Moreover, the Church’s unity follows immediately from its apostolicity: by this unity the Church is distinguished from every other society and is undivided in itself. For those who are subject to one and the same apostolic authority thereby constitute one society. The supreme ecclesiastical authority immediately brings about social unity, from which unity of faith and unity of worship follow. Unity of faith does not require that everyone explicitly know and believe each and every article of faith, but that they recognize one supreme teaching office and be ready to submit to its decisions. Nor does unity of worship require the same laws to be prescribed to everyone at every time and place; it does require that everyone observe what Christ commanded everyone to observe and that all be subject to the same supreme government. Tolerance of obstinate disobedience, whether in matters of faith or of morals and discipline, is incompatible with this unity.

c) The apostles were sent to all people of every age (Mt 28, 19. Mc 16, 15. Act 1, 8). Therefore, the Church of Christ is not the particular Church of this or that people but the universal, or catholic, Church. This divine mission will not be without fruit (Io 15, 16), and many people from all nations will be gathered into the kingdom of God (Mt 8, 11. Mc 13, 27). Therefore, the Church will be catholic not only in its intended scope but also in fact—not immediately from the beginning, but gradually, nor ever so perfectly that absolutely all people belong to it, since Christ foretold persecutions of the Church until the end of the world. Thus, at every age the Church’s catholicity will be as great as people’s free cooperation with divine grace permits. Absolute catholicity is that quality by which the Church exists visibly everywhere in the world; relative catholicity is the great number of Church members by which the Church surpasses every other Christian group, whether heretical or schismatic. This relative catholicity seems rightly deducible from the fact that God’s grace assists the Church alone and makes its labors fruitful beyond what human powers can accomplish by themselves. It is evident that the mark of unity is included in the mark of catholicity: if one group were here and another there, none of them would be universal.

d) Christ instituted the Church as holy, that is, to sanctify people (Io c. 17. Eph 5, 26 sqq. Tit 2, 14), and for this end he gave it internal and external means of sanctification (above, n. 204 sqq): holy doctrine, holy precepts, holy government, and holy sacraments. But “every good tree bears good fruit” (Mt 7, 17), especially when it is nourished by supernatural and divine power. Therefore, there will always be holy people in the Church, indeed not merely holy in some ordinary way but exceptionally holy. For Christ did not pray in vain “that they may be sanctified in truth” (Io 17, 19). There will never be a lack of those who follow the evangelical counsels (Mt 19, 12 21. 1 Cor 7, 25). Nor will those charismatic signs of holiness that Christ promised ever be entirely absent from the Church (Mc 16, 17. Io 17, 22. 1 Cor c. 12).

256. Proof of the minor. a) These properties are visible. For it can be seen whether ecclesiastical authorities are legitimately appointed and whether their predecessors were legitimately appointed; thus one can trace the historical line back to the apostles. Even though not everyone can conduct a historical investigation, this is nevertheless an objective fact knowable in a human way in the Church no less than in other societies. Indeed, this question is easier to resolve in the Church than in other societies, because the person sent by the primate of the whole Church, or recognized by the whole Church, thereby has apostolic succession. But more on this later. Unity too is visible, since it can be seen who obeys ecclesiastical government. Catholicity is visible, or one can see whether the Church is universal both in its scope and in fact. Finally, one can see whether the Church teaches and acts holily, and whether God assists it with charismatic gifts.

b) These properties are proper to the true Church of Christ alone. For no society apart from the true Church can have legitimate apostolic succession, since by the very fact that someone is legitimately sent, he is also subject to legitimate ecclesiastical authority. It can indeed happen that in some particular Church there was once a formally apostolic succession and that this succession continued materially, that is, without external interruption, and yet that Church is no longer apostolic. But this can happen only if a certain bishop and his successors have separated themselves from the body of the Church and consequently from formal apostolic succession through heresy or schism. Purely material succession, then, is not enough for apostolicity; legitimate succession, that is, a lasting union with the teaching office and government instituted by Christ, is required. By the very nature of the matter, this union cannot exist outside the true Church of Christ, since the Church is one (above, n. 240 sqq). This itself makes clear that the Church’s unity cannot be found outside it: whatever bond may unite other societies, it is certainly not the bond of the authority instituted by Christ. This unity is included in the concept of catholicity; hence the Church is catholic if it is spread throughout the whole world while nevertheless remaining one. Given the great diversity of opinions and inclinations among different and distant nations, this is morally impossible without special divine assistance, which God does not give to heretics or schismatics. Consequently, if a sect spreads through a large part of the world, it soon loses its internal unity and splits into new sects. If this is so, no sect can ever possess relative catholicity. Nor will God ever adorn false sects with exceptional holiness and charismatic gifts. Therefore, those four properties are essential, visible, and proper to the true Church alone; in other words, they are true marks.

257. Argument II. From the teaching of the Church.

The Church has always been convinced that those four marks belong to it alone in such a way that people can know it through them. But this conviction cannot be false. Therefore, those properties truly are marks of the Church.

Proof of the major. a) Apostolicity is urged most strongly by the Holy Fathers. St. Irenaeus says: “Those who are in the Church ought to obey the presbyters [bishops], who have succession from the apostles … and who, together with episcopal succession, have received the sure gift of truth according to the Father’s good pleasure. But they should regard as suspect those who depart from the principal succession and gather in any place … One must keep away from all such people and cling to those who, as we have said, preserve the doctrine of the apostles” (Contra haer. 4, 26, 2 sq). Since it is difficult to investigate the succession of each individual church, he says, the simplest way to resolve the question is to see whether they maintain union with the Roman Church (3, 3, 2), where Peter’s chair is; “for it is necessary that every Church should agree with this Church because of its more powerful preeminence” (Kirch, Enchir. n. 112). St. Ambrose points to the same way: “Where Peter is, there is the Church” (In Ps. 40, n. 30). Tertullian says of heretics: “Let them set out the origins of their churches and unfold the order of their bishops, running down through succession from the beginning in such a way that their first bishop had as his author and predecessor one of the apostles or apostolic men who persevered with the apostles. For in this way the apostolic Churches produce their records: the Church of the Smyrnaeans reports that Polycarp was placed there by John; the Church of the Romans reports that Clement was ordained by Peter; and likewise the other Churches show those whom the apostles appointed bishops and who have inherited apostolic seed” (De praescr. 32). St. Jerome: “One must remain in that Church which was founded by the apostles and endures to this day” (Adv. Lucif. 38). Likewise, the Fathers often refute heretics and schismatics by showing that their origin is not apostolic.

b) Unity is preached by the Fathers as an absolutely necessary distinguishing mark of the Church. We have already heard some examples above (n. 243). St. Irenaeus says that the Church “carefully preserves the teaching of the apostles, though spread throughout the whole world, as if dwelling in one house; it believes alike, as if it had one soul and one heart; and in harmony it preaches, teaches, and hands these things on, as if it possessed one mouth. For although the languages of the world differ, the power of the tradition is nevertheless one and the same” (Contra haer. 1, 10, 2). Tertullian: “So many and so great are the Churches, yet there is one first Church from the apostles, from which all the others come. Thus all are first and apostolic, since all together prove unity … one tradition of the same sacrament [doctrine] … We are in communion with the apostolic Churches because there is no different doctrine in any of them; this is the testimony of truth” (De praescr. 20 sq). St. Cyprian: “Does one who does not hold the unity of the Church think that he holds the faith?” (De unit. eccl. 4).

c) Catholicity is a predicate already attributed by the apostolic Fathers to the true Church, as by St. Ignatius (Smyrn. 8, 2) and in the martyrdom of St. Polycarp (in the inscription and 8, 1). St. Cyril of Jerusalem instructs the catechumens not simply to ask in a foreign city where the Church is, “but where the Catholic Church is; for this is the proper name of this holy Church, the mother of us all, who is also the bride of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Catech. 18, n. 26). St. Augustine says that by this name the true Church alone is known throughout the whole world (De vera relig. n. 12). Hence St. Pacian’s saying: “Christian is my name, Catholic is my surname. The one names me; the other shows what I am. By the former I am identified; by the latter I am described” (Ep. 1 ad Sympron. n. 4). In other words, the fact that I am a true Christian is proved by my being Catholic. The name does have various meanings among the Holy Fathers, who call the Church catholic because it gathers many groups into one, exists in every age, hands on the whole doctrine of Christ, and receives all people. Thus St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who nevertheless says first: “It is called Catholic because it is throughout the whole world” (Catech. 18, n. 23). The Holy Fathers usually explain catholicity in this sense and emphasize it as a mark of the Church. Thus St. Augustine, in serm. 46, n. 18, teaches that the true Church of Christ alone is spread throughout the whole world, while heretics are in different places, with none everywhere: “Not all heretics are over the whole face of the earth, but there are heretics over the whole face of the earth. Some are here, others there, but they are never absent.” The Catholic Church is everywhere the heretics are. “It is like a vine, growing and spreading everywhere; they are like useless branches, rightly cut off by the farmer’s pruning knife because of their fruitlessness … The vine, growing everywhere, knows both its branches that have remained in it and those beside it that have been cut off from it.”

d) According to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, holiness is also an essential predicate of the Church because, in order to be catholic, the Church must be holy in every way. “For it is called Catholic … also because it subjects the whole human race to the right worship … and, finally, because it treats and heals every kind of sin generally, sins committed through soul and body; and it possesses every kind of virtue, whatever it may be called, in deeds and words and spiritual gifts of every kind” (Catech. 18, n. 23). St. Irenaeus already says: “Where the Church is, there too is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there are the Church and every grace” (Contra haer. 3, 24, 1). He also objects to the heretics that they do not have the charisms that never fail in the true Church (ibid. 2, 31, 2). St. Augustine preaches the Church’s holiness in serm. 214, where in n. 11 he says: “Honor, love, and proclaim the holy Church, your mother, as the heavenly Jerusalem, the holy city of God … she tolerates in the communion of the sacraments those wicked people who will be separated at the end, and from whom she is already separated by the difference in their way of life.” He also warns that we must not think the charisms ever wholly cease in the Church (Retract. I, 13).

These few things will suffice, since the things that the holy Fathers say about these four marks in their exposition of the Creed are far too numerous to be set forth here.

258. Objection I. Christ says: “My sheep hear my voice” (Jn 10:27); “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mk 16:16); “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in their midst” (Mt 18:20). But these and similar sayings signify right faith and the right use of the sacraments. Therefore these two are marks of the Church.

I answer. I grant the major and minor premises and deny the conclusion, because the inference is lacking. For nothing follows except that right doctrine and the right use of the sacraments are properties of the Church; it does not follow that this property is a mark, because it is not manifest in itself, and therefore all sects boast that this property belongs to them.

259. Objection II. The holy Fathers often say that one must learn from Scripture where the true Church is, e.g. St. Augustine, On the Unity of the Church 2, 3. Therefore, according to this teaching, the true Church is where Scripture is admitted as the supreme rule of faith.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: the holy Fathers say that those who admit Sacred Scripture can be shown from Scripture where the true Church is, I grant the antecedent; they say that the true Church is where Sacred Scripture is received, I deny the antecedent. For the Donatists of whom Augustine speaks there admitted Scripture no less than the Catholics. Hence Augustine says that if they wish to be sincere, they can learn from Scripture the truth of the Catholic Church. And with the distinction granted, I deny the conclusion. 260. Objection III. Those who preserve the fundamental dogmas are rightly said to constitute the true Church of Christ. But the fundamental dogmas are the articles concerning the one and triune true God, Christ the Redeemer, and justification. Therefore profession of these dogmas is a mark of the true Church.

I answer. I distinguish the major: those who admit, in theory and in practice, those things which by Christ’s institution are necessary for salvation by necessity of means or precept constitute the true Church of Christ, I grant the major; those who, according to their own notions, choose certain things which they call fundamental and disregard others as indifferent, I deny the major. I distinguish the minor: these three are certain principal dogmas to be held in the sense in which Christ revealed them, I grant the minor; Christ revealed nothing else as necessary for salvation, and these three can be preserved in the right sense if the others are disregarded, I deny the minor. And I deny the conclusion. Those who have rejected the teaching office and governance instituted by Christ cannot boast of agreement about the fundamental articles, both because they do not agree among themselves about which are fundamental and because, cut off from legitimate authority, they pervert the meaning of dogmas, even the most fundamental.

261. Objection IV. To find the Church, one must know the things essential to the Church. But true doctrine is most essential to the Church. Therefore, to find the Church, one must first know the truth of its doctrine.

I answer. I distinguish the major: to find the Church, one must know something essential and proper to the Church alone, I grant the major; all its essential things, I deny the major; for once the Church is found, one can learn the other essential things through the Church itself. I distinguish the minor: the truth of doctrine is something essential to the Church, I grant the minor; it is the sole essential thing and is visible of itself, I deny the minor. And I deny the conclusion. If some certain mark or certain argument establishes that this is the true Church of Christ, it is thereby established that this Church infallibly teaches the true doctrine revealed by Christ. Therefore there is no need first to examine the whole doctrine in order to judge whether the Church is true; rather, one must proceed in the reverse way and first show which is the true Church, so that one may know where Christ’s true doctrine is.

Proposition XXXIII. The four marks of the true Church belong to the Roman Church alone.

262. Position of the question. It is sufficient in itself to consider only the Roman Church, that is, the one whose supreme visible head is the Bishop of Rome. For if we show that this is the true Church of Christ, it is also certain that no other assembly is the true Church, since there is only one such Church. Nevertheless, it will be useful to add something about the other assemblies. They can conveniently be divided into three groups. There are (a) the Eastern schismatic churches (about 127,000,000), which separated from the Roman Church in 1054, recently not because of differing doctrines but because they did not wish to obey the Roman Pontiff; later, however, they also received various false dogmas. They are nevertheless usually counted among schismatics rather than heretics. (b) The Eastern sects, that is, the Nestorians (in Kurdistan, at most 500,000, probably far fewer) and the Monophysites (Jacobites in Syria, Gregorian Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians, independent of one another but all together about 9,000,000). (c) The Protestants, all together about 186,000,000.

Both the Eastern schismatics and the Protestants are divided into very many groups that dissent from one another. The schismatics are: the Russians under the “Holy Synod,” whose head is the emperor, in whose name some military officer presides; the Greeks under the Athenian synod; the patriarchates of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch; and nine other independent groups, as in Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria. The Protestants are: Lutherans, Calvinists, United Evangelicals (in Prussia), Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists. All of these, however, are divided into many other smaller sects, of which about three hundred are counted in England alone. Moreover, something similar holds of the Russian schismatics.

The number of Catholics is about 293,000,000. (These figures are taken from the article “Religionsstatistik” by H. Krose, in Staatslexikon IV [1911], 575 ff.) Now, if one must judge between the Roman Church and the other Christian groups, most of the small sects cannot be considered in advance, since no one would seriously apply the name Church of Christ to them. The question comes down almost entirely to this: whether the true Church of Christ is constituted by Roman Catholics, or by the larger Eastern schismatic groups, or by Anglicans together with the other Protestants.

But the Anglicans, seeing that not all four of those marks of the true Church certainly belong to them, sometimes devised a theory according to which it is enough to have one of those marks, even if the others are lacking. They said, therefore: the Anglican Church, if it is not catholic, is nevertheless apostolic; and if its apostolicity is perhaps doubted, it is nevertheless holy; this, however, suffices to show that it is a part of the true Church of Christ. H. Newman tells this story about himself (Apologia pro vita sua. New edition, London 1874, 106 ff., 114 ff., 148 ff.); he gradually came to understand, however, that this opinion could not be sustained, and became a Catholic. Others, however, seem to have persisted in a similar theory. Therefore the Congregation of the Holy Office, in a letter given to the bishops of England on 16 September 1864, warns: “The true Church of Jesus Christ is constituted and recognized by the fourfold mark which we profess in the Creed must be believed by divine authority; and each of these marks is so connected with the others that it cannot be separated from them. Hence the Church which truly is and is called Catholic must shine forth with the prerogatives of unity, holiness, and apostolic succession as well” (Denz. no. 1686).

263. Proof, part I. The four marks belong to the Roman Church.

a) The Roman Church is apostolic. For the Church of the city of Rome was founded in apostolic times and recognized by the apostles as an apostolic Church, as is clear from St. Paul’s letter to the Romans and from many other documents. The bishops of this Church have continued in an unbroken line down to our own time. All the other Catholic bishops throughout the world are in communion with the Bishop of Rome and receive jurisdiction from him. Therefore their succession, too, is apostolic. St. Irenaeus says: “Since it would be very long to enumerate the successions of all the churches, we confound all those who gather together otherwise than they ought by pointing to the tradition which the Church founded and established at Rome by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul, the greatest and most ancient Church, known to all, has received from the apostles, and to the faith announced to men, which has come down to us through the successions of bishops” (Contra haer. 3, 3, 2). All the other Churches founded by the apostles have perished through the injuries of time, although some of them were later revived. The Roman Church alone has endured through all the vicissitudes of time. Thus, if this Church is not apostolic, none is apostolic, which is impossible. All the other groups arose too late to be apostolic.

Moreover, before there were recent heretics, before there were Eastern schismatics, the Bishop of Rome was recognized by all Christians as the successor of Peter and the primate of the universal Church, as we shall show later. But the universal Church could not be deceived in error. Therefore, because legitimate succession has remained in the Roman Church, Pius X, too, is the successor of St. Peter and primate of the Church.

b) The Roman Church is one. For it is subject to the college of bishops under their primate, the Roman Pontiff. All profess the same doctrine and obedience to ecclesiastical governance. Freedom is permitted concerning matters the Church has not definitively established, but all are ready to embrace definitions and constitutions, if any are made. Concerning Catholic unity, St. Irenaeus says: “Neither do the Churches founded in Germany believe or hand down anything different, nor those in Iberia, nor those among the Celts, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those established in the middle of the world; but just as the sun, God’s creature, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so too the light, the preaching of the truth, shines and enlightens everywhere all people who wish to come to knowledge of the truth” (Contra haer. 1, 10, 2).

c) The catholicity of the Roman Church needs no proof. In Europe there are more than 188,000,000 Catholics; in South and Central America, more than 65,000,000; in North America and Canada, not much fewer than 18,000,000; in Africa, about 3,000,000; in Australia and Polynesia, more than 1,200,000; and in Asia, more than 12,000,000 (cf. Staatslexikon³ sub verbo «Religionsstatistik»). Therefore the Roman Church visibly exists throughout the world, nowhere as a national Church but everywhere as the universal Church. Nor does it ever forget its catholic destination, but it always remembers the Lord’s words: “Preach the Gospel to every creature.” The Church also surpasses every other group even when compared relatively. For the largest group of schismatics numbers 110,000,000; and it is not one Church but is divided into many sects.

d) The Roman Church is holy with that conspicuous holiness which is a mark of the true Church of Christ. For its doctrine is holy: by it vices are corrected, virtues inculcated, people stirred to strive for perfection, and not only Christ’s precepts but also the evangelical counsels are commended. The Church defends this holy doctrine with great courage and freedom, and has never made the truth for sale on account of any temporal gain or loss; rather, through its immovable constancy in holding to the true doctrine, it does not fear to arouse the world’s hatred against itself. Besides many other things, the vigorous struggle in our own time against the errors of modernists and rationalists bears witness to this. The Church has never betrayed Christ, never betrayed his doctrine or precepts, never betrayed Sacred Scripture or apostolic tradition; instead, in their defense it has manfully and fearlessly endured, and continues to endure, the gravest hatred from those who err and act unjustly, and the worst persecutions. The Church’s sacraments are holy, its worship holy, its laws holy, its institutions holy, by which it is accustomed to promote the spiritual life.

This holy tree has always borne the richest fruits of holiness. In the Church there are indeed, as Christ foretold would be the case, just people and sinners; but the just live according to its laws, while sinners disobey the Church’s precepts and have never obtained through the Church permission to become foul in their vices, but have continually been urged to reform. After the apostles, there have never been lacking in the Church men and women devoted to holiness: martyrs, confessors, virgins, hermits, monks, and outstanding practitioners of charity toward their neighbors. This also holds of our own times. For scarcely anything moves people more often and more effectively to admire the Church than seeing so many men and women among its members, even noble and wealthy people, renounce worldly comforts in order to devote themselves wholly to the service of Christ and their neighbors. Fruits and proofs of holiness also include so many magnificent churches, hospitals, orphanages, and the exceptional care given to the poor and the sick. The Church subjected the lives of many Christians who flourished in a reputation for holiness to the strictest examination, and declared that they had truly been outstandingly holy. In that very sixteenth century, when the innovators complained of the Church’s great corruption, many heroes of holiness appeared, such as Pius V, Charles Borromeo, Philip Neri, Ignatius, Francis Xavier, Francis Borgia, Stanislaus Kostka, Aloysius, Teresa, John of the Cross, and not a few others. In the nineteenth century 310 were declared blessed and 78 saints. Therefore, even in our own times the race of outstanding saints has not died out. Finally, charisms, which Christ promised to his Church, have never been lacking in the Church. Although they occurred more frequently in the earliest times because they were more necessary, they have never been absent at any time. The miracles of all those who are beatified or canonized by the Church have been approved after careful investigation. It seems that only those who refuse a priori to admit miracles can deny that miracles have taken place near Lourdes. The same holds for the life of John B. Vianney and for other events of our own time.

What St. Augustine says remains true: “There are many things which most rightly hold me in the bosom of [the Catholic Church]. The agreement of peoples and nations [unity] holds me; the authority, begun by miracles, nourished by hope, increased by charity, and confirmed by age [holiness], holds me; the succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord entrusted his sheep to be pastured after the resurrection, down to the present episcopate [apostolicity], holds me; finally, the very name ‘Catholic’ holds me, which, not without reason, this Church alone has obtained among so many heresies, so that although all heretics wish to be called Catholics, nevertheless, if some stranger asks where the Catholic assembly is held, no heretic dares to point out either his own basilica or his own home. So many and such great bonds, so dear to the Christian name, rightly hold a believing man in the Catholic Church” (Contra ep. Manich. c. 4).

264. Proof, part II. Those four marks belong to no heretical or schismatic group.

a) Apostolicity is not found in Protestantism; for before the sixteenth century there were no Protestants, but they arose through apostasy from the Catholic Church, which they had previously recognized as the true Church. Very many Protestant communities were founded by civil rulers, among whom apostolic succession certainly did not remain. The same holds of the Russian Church, which received its form from Emperor Peter the Great (1689–1725). He instituted the “Holy Synod,” to which all doctrinal and ecclesiastical affairs are subject, while the Synod itself is subject to the Tsar. In 1833 the Church of the Greek kingdom declared itself independent of the Church of Constantinople. The only part of the Eastern schismatics that preserved some outward appearance of succession is the Patriarchate of Constantinople. But the Turkish government once used to sell the patriarchal dignity to whoever offered the most money; this is not a legitimate means of apostolic succession. Moreover, before Photius, the Greeks recognized the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, and condemned Photius at the Fourth Council of Constantinople (the Eighth Ecumenical Council, 869–870) (Denz. no. 341). Therefore, either at the time of this council and before it the Greek Church had apostolicity, and then those who later made a schism lost it; or it did not have it, and consequently neither do those who came later. At the Councils of Lyons and Florence, too, the Greeks recognized the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, and later again fell away. Therefore, among them there is no constant and perpetual tradition.

b) Unity and catholicity are entirely lacking in Protestantism. For if all the sects are taken together, there is no unity among them; if they are taken individually, none is catholic. The “United Evangelicals” are not found outside Prussia, the Anglicans are found in very small numbers in Europe outside Britain, and so on with the others. Most Protestant groups wish to be national churches. And how diverse are the elements contained within even one such national church, from the “orthodox,” who preserve belief in the Trinity, the Incarnation, and other Christian dogmas, to the numerous “liberals,” who do not believe in a personal God and reject all those dogmas. The Eastern schismatics are scarcely in a better condition: they are found neither throughout the whole world nor united among themselves, and they obtain some appearance of unity by almost no other means than the support of the secular arm. Protestant rationalism is increasingly creeping into the Greek and Russian clergy. Moreover, there is a great number of sectarians in Russia.

c) Holiness was not a mark of Protestantism from the beginning. Certainly neither Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, nor the other founders of Protestantism stood out for it. They denied the necessity of good works for salvation and the freedom of the human will; Protestants gradually rejected very many articles of faith and paved the way for libertinism. History teaches what fruits followed. Men distinguished for holiness have not appeared in Protestantism up to now. So far are Protestants from having charisms that many of them deny that such things can happen at all. Scarcely anything better can be said of the Eastern schismatics. It is well known what kind of men Photius, Michael Cerularius, and Emperor Peter the Great were. The Russian Church is a political institution serving political ends, whose secular clergy enjoy very little esteem. The Greek Church, once a fruitful mother of saints, has produced no man of outstanding holiness since the schism. It must not be denied that among heretics and schismatics there are people who lead upright lives in good faith and piety. But if God wishes to lead someone to great holiness, he will not leave that person in the darkness of ignorance, even if inculpable, but will lead him to the true Church, as is shown by the example of many distinguished people who have converted to the Church.

Therefore the four marks of the true Church of Christ are found in the Roman Catholic Church alone; therefore this is the one true Church of Christ.

265. Objection I. At the time of the great Western Schism (1378–1417), there were three rivals to the Roman papacy in the Roman Church, and the Roman Church was divided into several “obediences.” Therefore, in that age the unity and apostolicity of the Roman Church perished.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: at the time of the schism there was doubt about a question of right, whether there ought to be one supreme pontiff in the Church, I deny the antecedent; there was doubt about a question of fact, who had been legitimately elected pontiff, I grant the antecedent. I distinguish the conclusion: unity perished with respect to the question of fact, I grant the conclusion; with respect to the question of right, I deny the conclusion; the apostolicity of the Church perished, I deny the conclusion, because the question of fact, too, was resolved in a legitimate manner by legitimate authority when Martin V was elected, whom the whole Church recognized. Historically, moreover, Urban VI was the legitimate pontiff and, consequently, so were his legitimate successors Boniface IX, Innocent VII, and Gregory XII. Their opponents were antipopes, illegitimately elected.

266. Objection II. At one time the greatest part of Christians were Arians, since St. Jerome testifies: “The whole world groaned and wondered to find itself Arian” (Adv. Lucif. n. 19). Therefore, in that age the Roman Church was not catholic.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: Jerome says that in that age the whole world was Arian, I deny the antecedent; that the whole world wondered to find itself Arian, I grant the antecedent. And I deny the conclusion. The Emperor Constantius had summoned a synod of the bishops of the West at Rimini (in 359). A much greater part of the bishops thought in a Catholic way and professed the Nicene faith. Therefore, the Arians proposed an ambiguous formula, to which Catholics, too, subscribed, some having been deceived by fraud, others compelled by force. But shortly afterwards some of them expressly declared that they had by no means intended to accept the heretical meaning of the formula. Jerome’s saying applies to this matter. Therefore, in that age the world was not truly Arian, but seemed to be Arian through force and fraud. St. Athanasius objects to the Arians that no prudent and courageous man stood on their side (De decr. nicaenae syn. n. 27), which he certainly would not have said if nearly all the bishops had been Arians (cf. Kirch, Enchir. no. 374 ff.).

267. Objection III. There have often been very bad people in the Roman Church, not only laymen but also priests and bishops, indeed even supreme pontiffs; by contrast, among the Protestants there are many people who lead truly good lives. Therefore, compared with Protestantism, the Roman Church is not distinguished by the mark of holiness.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: there have been many bad people in the Roman Church and many good people among the Protestants who were such by virtue of the ecclesiastical communion to which they belonged, I deny the antecedent; who were such because of their individual character, I grant the antecedent. And I distinguish the conclusion: the mark of holiness does not belong to each individual Catholic in preference to each individual Protestant, I grant the conclusion; the mark of holiness does not belong to the Catholic Church in preference to Protestantism considered as an ecclesiastical society, I deny the conclusion. These points have been explained in the thesis. The Roman Pontiffs themselves, although some of them were bad, nevertheless did not found new churches, as the founders of sects did; therefore, if some of them were bad, they merely failed to order their private lives according to the doctrine and precepts they publicly professed. Moreover, there are so many outstanding and holy men among the Roman Pontiffs that, in this respect, no succession of rulers can be compared with them. Protestantism, however, as a system or society, continually slides from bad to worse, and there is no authority within it that can effectively prevent the course of the wicked.

268. Conclusion. Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church is constituted in such a way that not only learned people but also the less educated can recognize it quite easily as the true Church of Christ. For all rational people can see, even without much study, that it is more ancient than every other Christian group, that it alone is truly catholic, and that it is marked by a unity found nowhere outside it. Nor is it difficult to understand that no group outside the Catholic Church has produced men or women who can be compared with so many and such great Catholic saints. And if the lives of Catholic priests, missionaries, and religious are compared in general with the lives of Protestant ministers, people are not so dull-witted that they cannot see a great difference; at times Protestant writers themselves have not been afraid to bear witness to this.

The fact that relatively few sectarians return to their mother, despite the manifest superiority of the Catholic Church over the sects, has various causes: 1. It is much easier for a natural man to live as a Protestant than as a Catholic, especially if one holds the principle that good works are not required for salvation but faith alone suffices, or if one holds with Luther that the human will is not free, or if one asserts with modern writers that no authority is to be obeyed in religious matters, but only subjective conviction is to be followed. Confession of sins, obedience to ecclesiastical authority, observance of the Church’s precepts, and similar things frighten not a few people. — 2. Most people do not know the true Church, but only a distorted image of it, which has been placed before their eyes since childhood for the purpose of making them conceive a horror of it and flee from anything Catholic as if from a plague. A few, indeed, who seek the truth by their own study, are all the more attracted to the Church when the deception is exposed; but most are entirely incapable of freeing themselves from prejudices so deeply impressed on their minds. — 3. The bad example of many Catholics is a great obstacle to the conversion of Protestants or others, since the latter excuse themselves by saying: “Why should I become a Catholic, when Catholics are no better than we are?” — 4. The grace of conversion, like other graces, depends to no small extent on prayers and good works offered to God to obtain it. Therefore, the less zeal and diligence there is in this respect, the fewer conversions there will be. — 5. Finally, many people would indeed like to be Catholics if they had been born and raised that way; but they lack the courage to leave behind many things very dear to them, which must be left behind if they wish to become Catholics. Cardinal Newman, in his book «Difficulties of Anglicans», explains how trivial and empty the considerations often are by which people allow themselves to be held back from returning to the Church. Nevertheless, every year divine grace brings many thousands of heretics or schismatics into the Church.

Scholium. On theological prescription.

269. Since the apostolicity of the Church also includes the apostolicity of its doctrine, the theologian must show that this or that doctrine which the Church proposes to be held is either contained in the apostolic deposit or derived from apostolic doctrine by a legitimate inference. But it may happen that a direct demonstration of apostolicity would be too lengthy or even impossible, because there are no documents that reach back to the apostles themselves. If this happens, apostolicity is demonstrated indirectly by an argument from prescription, which rests on the principle: The possessor has the better position. This principle is rightly applied to theology, because theology is concerned not with discovering a new doctrine but with rightly proposing and explaining Christ’s doctrine. Consequently, (a) of two opposed doctrines, the more recent one is not true, because it is not apostolic, even if it does not immediately follow that the older one is apostolic; (b) a doctrine received for some time by the Church morally as a whole is apostolic, since, because of the Church’s infallibility, it is impossible for a doctrine in no way handed down by the apostles to be proposed by the whole Church as belonging to the apostolic deposit. The force of this argument remains even when considered on purely historical grounds, because a conspiracy in universal error is impossible. Therefore, if opponents cannot show when, by whom, or how some doctrine that is universally admitted was first introduced, one must concede that such a doctrine has an apostolic origin. In this way an objection raised indirectly against a doctrine as apostolic is removed by the argument from prescription.

St. Irenaeus already uses the argument from prescription against heretics. Tertullian wrote a special work on it. Many things pertaining to this matter have been collected in the first volume of the Course of Theology edited by Migne.

ARTICLE I.

ON BISHOPS.

Cf. Petavius, De ecclesiastica hierarchia, ed. Barri-Ducensis (tomus 8); Stanis. v. Dunin-Borkowski, Die neueren Forschungen über die Anfänge des Episkopats, Freiburg 1900; P. Batiffol, Études d'histoire et de théologie positive I⁵, Paris 1907, 225 sqq; H. Bruders, Die Verfassung der Kirche, Mainz 1904; among canonists, e.g. Fr. X. Wernz, Ius decretalium II, n. 729 sqq

Proposition XXXIV. The bishops are the successors of the college of apostles in the ecclesiastical teaching office and ministry.

270. Position of the question. Since we have seen which is the true Church, to which Christ entrusted his doctrine and the power of sanctifying and governing people, the question arises: who in this society are those who, in the name of Christ and by his institution, exercise the sacred teaching office and ministry? At the beginning, all ecclesiastical power had indeed been given to the apostles. But since they have died, while the Church must remain until the end of the world (supra n. 219 sqq), we must investigate who the successors of the apostles are. We answer: the college of bishops.

A bishop is one who, equipped with the supreme power of order, governs a particular church or diocese by virtue of ordinary office. If one of these conditions is lacking, he is not a bishop in the full sense: for example, if someone already has supreme jurisdiction but has not yet received episcopal ordination; or conversely, if he has received ordination but does not actually have jurisdiction over any diocese; or if he administers a diocese, not as its bishop but by delegation from the supreme pontiff.

The apostles had a twofold office: one, to be apostles, that is, envoys sent immediately by God (Christ), instructed by new revelations, to preach infallibly everywhere in the world the revealed doctrine and confirm it by miracles; the other, to be pastors and rulers of the churches they had founded. The office of apostleship itself was temporary, to end with the death of the apostles; for after them other men were not called immediately by God to receive and propose new revelations, nor was each one infallible, nor was the jurisdiction of each unlimited with respect to place and subjects. The other office, however, that is, the pastoral office, was to be perpetuated in the Church, because there must never be lacking in the Church those who teach, sanctify, and govern. It is in this sense alone that bishops are called successors of the apostles.

Moreover, bishops are called successors of the apostles insofar as the college of bishops succeeded the college of apostles. For no individual bishop is formally the successor of a particular apostle, e.g. John, Bartholomew, or Matthew; rather, only the pastoral office, which once resided in the apostles as its subject, now resides in the bishops as its subject. Hence, even if the bishops of some Church had come down through an unbroken succession from a particular apostle to our own times, the power of that apostle rather than that of the other apostles would not thereby have passed to them; rather, in the order of episcopal power, this succession would be purely accidental and material. In this sense St. Cyprian rightly said: “The episcopate is one, a part of which is held by each bishop in its entirety” (De unit. eccl. 5). The Roman Pontiff alone is excepted, since he is the successor of St. Peter as head of the college of apostles (cf. Suarez, De fide disp. 10, sect. 1, n. 4 25).

Above (n. 213) we showed that the Church was instituted by Christ as a hierarchical society, but at the same time we said that from Sacred Scripture alone one cannot determine with certainty the difference between bishops and presbyters. Hence we now turn to tradition, to learn this difference from it. We presuppose that it has been proved (supra n. 220 sqq) that the constitution of the Church is substantially immutable.

The Eastern schismatics admit that bishops are successors of the apostles, as do Anglicans and some other Protestants; most Protestants, however, deny it. The error of the Modernists is expressed in these words (Proposition 50): “The elders who exercised the office of oversight in Christian assemblies were instituted by the apostles as presbyters or bishops to provide for the necessary ordering of the growing communities, not properly to perpetuate the apostolic mission and power” (Denz. n. 2050). Catholic doctrine is stated in the Council of Trent, session 23, ch. 4, where, among other things, it says: “The holy synod declares that, besides the other ecclesiastical grades, bishops, who succeeded to the place of the apostles, belong especially to this hierarchical order” (Denz. n. 960; cf. n. 966 sqq).

271. Argument I. From historical facts.

From the time of the apostles onward, individual bishops presided over individual particular churches, and in this sense they were “monarchical.” But this fact shows that the apostles handed down “monarchical” episcopal power to those placed over the churches. Therefore, by virtue of this power received from the apostles, bishops are rightly called successors of the apostles in the pastoral office.

Proof of the major premise. Around the middle of the second century, Hegesippus, a Catholic from the East (Syria or Palestine), was at Rome. To investigate the pure apostolic tradition, he visited many Churches. He “writes that, when he was on his way to Rome, he visited many bishops and heard the same doctrine from all of them… The Church of the Corinthians, indeed, remained in the right faith until Primus, the bishop of that place, with whom I conversed familiarly… When I had come to Rome, I made a list down to Anicetus [† 166], whose deacon at that time was Eleutherus. After the death of Anicetus, Soter [† 175] succeeded him, and Eleutherus [† 189] followed Soter. In each succession of bishops and in each city, the same things remain that were preached through the Law and the Prophets and by the Lord himself” (Euseb. H. E. 4, 22; Kirch, Enchir. n. 58). Therefore, by the middle of the second century, the Church was already convinced that the true doctrine of the apostles had come down to that time through the continuous succession of bishops.

Around the year 195, Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, then sixty-five years old, wrote a letter to Pope Victor († 199), in which he says: “Polycarp, who was bishop and martyr at Smyrna, and likewise Thraseas, bishop and martyr of Eumenia, who rests at Smyrna. Why should I mention Bishop Sagar, also a martyr, who died at Laodicea?… I too, Polycrates, the least of you all, follow the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have also followed; for there were altogether seven bishops among my relatives, and I am the eighth” (Euseb. H. E. 5, 24; Kirch, Enchir. n. 79 sq). This testimony too, by which Polycrates proves that he and his fellow bishops in Asia Minor preserve the apostolic tradition, shows that at the beginning of the second century, indeed in the apostolic age, there were “monarchical” bishops in the Church.

St. Irenaeus bears the same witness: “We can enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles, and their successors down to us… For they wished those whom they left as their successors, handing on their own place of teaching, to be in all respects very perfect and irreproachable… Therefore the blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and instructed the [Roman] Church, handed over the administration of the Church’s episcopate to Linus… Anacletus succeeded him; after him, Clement, third from the apostles, received the episcopate, and he had also seen the apostles themselves… Evaristus succeeded this Clement, and Alexander succeeded Evaristus… Now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, Eleutherius holds the episcopate… Polycarp, too, was not only taught by the apostles and conversed with many of those who had seen our Lord, but was also appointed bishop by the apostles in Asia, in the Church at Smyrna, and we ourselves saw him in our early years” (Contra haer. 3, 3; cf. Kirch, Enchir. n. 83 111 sqq).

From other very ancient documents, Eusebius excerpted lists of bishops of various Churches: (a) the bishops of Alexandria: after Mark the Evangelist, Annianus, Abilius, Cerdo, Primus… (H. E. 2, 24; 3, 14 21; 4, 1 4 sq 11 19; 5, 22); (b) the bishops of Antioch: Evodius, instituted by the apostle Peter, Ignatius, Hero, Cornelius… (H. E. 3, 23 36; 4, 20 24; 5, 19); (c) the bishops of Jerusalem: “The first was James, who was called the brother of the Lord, the second Simeon, the third Justus…” (H. E. 4, 5).

Therefore, historical documents establish that there were bishops in apostolic times or shortly thereafter at Rome, Jerusalem, Smyrna, Antioch, Alexandria, Corinth, and other places. To these may be added the bishops of the other Churches of Asia Minor, who are spoken of in Revelation (c. 2 3) under the name “angels.” For the angels to whom the care of the Churches is said there to have been entrusted cannot be blessed spirits, who are incapable of sin and negligence and do not need threats to compel them to fulfill their office. Therefore they are bishops, as the Muratorian fragment also says, speaking of the apostle John and “his bishops” (Kirch, Enchir. n. 135).

Therefore, bishops were instituted very soon after the beginning of the Church as successors of the apostles in the office of teaching and governing particular churches.

272. Argument II. From the teaching of the holy Fathers.

In the very oldest writers, the names “presbyter” and “bishop” are still used interchangeably, but the institution of bishops is expressly traced to the apostles. St. Clement of Rome (1 Cor. 42 44): The apostles, “preaching the word through the regions and cities, and testing their first converts by the Spirit, appointed bishops and deacons for those who would believe… They appointed the aforesaid, and afterwards gave an ordinance, that when these had died other approved men should take up their ministry.” He compares the ecclesiastical hierarchy with the hierarchy of the Old Testament: “We ought to do in order all the things which the Lord commanded us to perform at appointed times… For to the high priest his own offices have been assigned, to the priests their proper place has been allotted, and the Levites are charged with their ministries. The layman is bound by lay precepts” (l. c. 40). This comparison is frequent among the holy Fathers (cf. Constit. apost. 8, 46; St. Jerome, ep. 52, n. 7; St. Leo the Great, serm. 59, c. 7). In St. Justin Martyr, the one who governs ecclesiastical assemblies, celebrates the Eucharist, gives sermons to the people, and keeps and distributes the offerings to those in need is called “the presider” (προεστώς) (Apol. I, 65 67).

From the letters of St. Ignatius Martyr we learn not only that he himself was bishop of Antioch (Smyrn. 11, 1), but also the names of other bishops: Onesimus, bishop of Ephesus (Eph. 1, 3); Damas, bishop of Magnesia (Magn. 2); Polybius, bishop of Tralles (Trall. 1, 1); Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna (Magn. 15). The bishop of Philadelphia is highly praised, but his name is not given (Philad. 1). Indeed, bishops were appointed “throughout the regions of the earth,” that is, throughout the whole world (Eph. 3, 2), and this was done “according to the decision,” that is, by the will of Jesus Christ, as is said in the same place. Since Ignatius suffered martyrdom under Trajan (98—117), at the beginning of the second century the “monarchical” episcopate was not a recent institution, but its beginnings go back to the time of the apostles. What, then, is a bishop according to St. Ignatius? He is the highest-ranking person in the ecclesiastical hierarchy of his Church. In every Church there is “one bishop with the presbytery¹ and deacons” (Philad. 4). “Without these it is not called a Church” (Trall. 3, 1). A deacon is worthy of praise if, as he ought, he is subject to the bishop and presbytery (Magn. 2). The presbytery, in turn, must be “so joined to the bishop as strings to a harp” (Eph. 4, 1). “Obey the bishop, all of you, as Jesus Christ obeyed the Father… Apart from the bishop, let no one do anything pertaining to the Church. Let that Eucharist be considered valid which is celebrated by the bishop or by someone to whom he has granted permission. Where the bishop appears, there let the congregation be, just as where Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted to baptize or celebrate the love feast without the bishop; but whatever he approves is pleasing to God as well, so that everything done may be firm and valid” (Smyrn. 8). “It is clear, therefore, that one ought to regard the bishop as the Lord himself” (Eph. 6, 1).

We have already heard other testimonies above (n. 257). Tertullian says: “The high priest, who is the bishop, certainly has the right to administer [baptism]; then the presbyters and deacons, but not without the bishop’s authority” (De bapt. 17). According to Origen, the bishop “holds the citadel of the whole Church” (In Ier. hom. 11, n. 3). According to St. Cyprian, bishops were instituted by Christ himself, because the apostles were bishops instituted by him (Ep. 3, 3 [ed. Hartel]). The whole power and unity of the Church reside in the bishop. What is the Church? “A people united to its priest, a flock cleaving to its shepherd. Hence you should know that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and that anyone who is not with the bishop is not in the Church” (Ep. 66, n. 8).

From what has been said, it is clear that according to a tradition reaching back to the time of the apostles, bishops possess supreme teaching and ministerial authority, and are therefore called successors of the apostles. St. Cyprian: Bishops “succeed the apostles by a vicarious ordination” (Ep. 66, 4). St. Jerome: “Among us, bishops hold the place of the apostles” (Ep. 41, 3). St. Gregory the Great: “The bishops now hold in the Church the place of these [the apostles]” (In evang. hom. 26, 5). Therefore the Council of Trent follows the ancient tradition when it says of bishops: “Those who succeeded to the place of the apostles” (sess. 23, c. 4; Denz. n. 960). The Council of the Vatican teaches the same (sess. 4; Denz. n. 1821).

273. Objection I. St. Jerome writes as follows: “The presbyter, therefore, is the same as the bishop; and before, at the instigation of the devil, factions arose in religion and people began to say, ‘I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and I am of Cephas’ [1 Cor 1:12], the Churches were governed by the common counsel of presbyters. But after each person began to think that those whom he had baptized belonged to him, not to Christ, it was decreed throughout the whole world that one of the presbyters should be chosen and placed over the others, to whom the whole care of the Church would belong, and that the seeds of schisms might be removed… Just as presbyters know that by the custom of the Church they are subject to the one who has been placed over them, so let bishops know that they are greater than presbyters more by custom than by the truth of the Lord’s arrangement, and that they ought to govern the Church together, imitating Moses, who, although he alone had authority to preside over the people of Israel, chose seventy with whom he would judge the people” (In Tit. 1, 5). Elsewhere he says: “The Apostle clearly teaches that presbyters are the same as bishops,” and recounts that at Alexandria the presbyters chose one from their own body and named him bishop (Ep. 146). Therefore the episcopate was introduced by ecclesiastical custom alone, not instituted by the apostles at Christ’s command.

I answer. I grant the antecedent. I deny the consequent and the inference.

There has been much debate about those words of St. Jerome (cf. Historisches Jahrbuch, Munich 1900, 221 ff.). Some, such as Vazquez (Disputation 140, ch. 1, no. 15), think Jerome was mistaken. That could certainly have happened; and if it did, it would prove nothing against a doctrine firmly established. Others, however, think Jerome’s words can be rightly explained, provided one discounts a certain rhetorical exaggeration, which Jerome often uses, especially when he writes in anger, as happened in this case.

a) Jerome teaches that bishops are greater than presbyters in the power of order, as in ep. 146 ad Evangelum: “What does a bishop do, except ordination, that a presbyter does not do?” (cf. Adv. Ioann. Hieros. n. 37). b) What he says, “the presbyter is the same as the bishop,” he explains immediately in the same place as a matter of designation: “at that time they called the same persons bishops as they called presbyters.” Learned men disagree about the sense in which this is true (supra n. 213). c) The statement that from the beginning “the Churches were governed by the common counsel of presbyters” may be admitted as a probable hypothesis, provided these words are not explained as though the monarchical episcopate of which Jerome says, “Certainly there could not be several bishops, as they are now called, in one city” (In Tit. 1, 5), did not yet exist in apostolic times. According to him, the monarchical bishops in apostolic times were James, “the brother of the Lord,” in Jerusalem; Linus in Rome; Polycarp in Smyrna; Papias in Hierapolis; and others in other places (De vir. ill. 2, 15 17 sq). Indeed, he says generally that the apostles “ordained presbyters and bishops throughout the individual provinces” (In Matth. 25, 26). d) What he says, that on the occasion of the Corinthian factions it was decreed throughout the world that one should become bishop, is a fiction, as L. Sanders rightly judges (Études sur St. Jérôme, Bruxelles 1903, 327 sq). Moreover, Jerome himself says in Tit. 3, 13 that before those factions Apollos had been bishop of Corinth, left the city because of the factions, and later returned there from Crete. e) What he recounts about the Church of Alexandria can be understood as follows: in that Church, the presbyters alone, excluding the people, chose one bishop from their own body (cf. Epiph., Haer. 49, 11). But this matter is obscure.

In the middle of the fourth century the heresy of Aërius arose concerning the equality of bishops and presbyters; St. Epiphanius attacks this doctrine as utterly foolish (Haer. 75, 1 sqq; cf. S. Aug., De haer. 53).

274. Objection II. At the beginning of the Christian religion there were many Churches that had no bishop. But if Churches can exist without a bishop, the episcopate is not a divine but a human institution. Therefore bishops were introduced either by custom or by human law.

I answer. I distinguish the major: there were some beginnings of Christian communities that had no bishop, I grant the major; there were fully constituted Churches that had no bishop, I deny the major. I distinguish the minor: if Churches can be fully constituted without a bishop, the episcopate is not divinely instituted, I grant the minor; if only beginnings of Christian communities can exist without a bishop, I deny the minor. And I deny the conclusion.

Certainly the apostles did not immediately establish a complete hierarchy wherever they had converted some people to the faith, but waited for circumstances to develop and for the people to receive sufficient instruction, until they gave those new communities their final form. Likewise, in foreign missions today there are Christian communities presided over only by a catechist; others have at least a priest; in entire kingdoms or regions there is no bishop, but an “apostolic prefect”; later there are “apostolic vicars,” who have episcopal ordination and the title of some extinct Church, but in the missions have only jurisdiction delegated by the Roman Pontiff; finally, when everything has matured, a complete and ordinary hierarchy is established. Similarly, in the apostolic age there were “household Churches” without any priest, or urban and regional Churches with priests alone, whose supreme governance the apostles had reserved to themselves. But when the individual Churches had developed to their proper condition, they placed bishops over them. This, then, is not an essential change in the constitution of the Church, but a development from an imperfect state to the perfect state intended from the beginning. Those ancient witnesses, Ignatius, Hegesippus, Polycrates, and Irenaeus, know nothing of any introduced change; rather, they regard the episcopate as an institution necessary from the time of the apostles for preserving right doctrine and governing the Church.

275. Objection III. In former times bishops were elected by the people. But whoever is elected receives all his power from the one who elects him. Therefore, in former times episcopal power was conferred by the people.

I answer. I distinguish the major: in some places in the ancient Church the judgment of the people was sought regarding the worthiness of those to be elected, I grant the major; the people ever conferred by their election the power either of order or of jurisdiction, I deny the major. I distinguish the minor: one who becomes a bishop by the act of election itself receives power from the one electing him, I pass over the minor; one who is declared acceptable and worthy of the office by the election, I deny the minor. And I deny the conclusion.

In Sacred Scripture, sacred ministers are said to be appointed by the apostles or their assistants (Act 14, 22. Tit 1, 5). On one occasion the judgment of the people is requested concerning the good reputation of those to be appointed (Act 6, 7). According to Clement of Rome (1 Cor. 44), the first bishops were appointed by the apostles “or afterwards by other outstanding men, with the whole Church consenting.” According to St. Cyprian, “we must diligently observe and hold what comes from divine and apostolic tradition and practice, and what is observed among us and almost throughout all the provinces: that, for the proper celebration of ordinations, the neighboring bishops of the same province should assemble with the people over whom the bishop is being appointed, and the bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, who know each person’s life most fully and have observed each one’s conduct from his manner of life” (Ep. 67, 5 [ed. Hartel]). Concilium nicaenum I, can. 4, decreed that a bishop must be ordained by all the bishops of the same province, or at least by three, with the others’ consent (Kirch, Enchir. n. 364). Concilium constantinopolitanum IV post act. 10 can. 22, decreed that promotions and consecrations of bishops be made by election and decree of the college of bishops, without the intervention of laypeople. In the twelfth century the right to elect a bishop was given to the chapter of the cathedral Church (Decr. Greg. IX, l. 1, tit. 6, c. 14; Conc. later. II, can. 28). According to common law in our own time, the designation of the person takes place through the free appointment of the Roman Pontiff, but this right undergoes various modifications in different regions.

Scholium 1. Various errors condemned by the Church concerning the conferral of ecclesiastical power.

276. In the fourteenth century, Marsilius of Padua teaches in «Defensore pacis» that all ecclesiastical power resides in the Christian people and is conferred by them, or by the emperor as the people’s representative, upon ecclesiastical superiors, so that the emperor can even appoint and depose the supreme pontiff, since the whole hierarchy was instituted by human will alone. This doctrine was condemned as heretical by John XXII (Denz. n. 495 sqq; cf. 1719).

The heresiarchs of the sixteenth century, such as Luther in his book «De missa privata» and Calvin (Instit. 4, 3 sq), renewed the same error. They said that all Christians are equally priests, but since not all can devote themselves to the ministry of the word, some are called by the people or magistrate to this office, and their authority derives solely from this calling. The concilium tridentinum condemned this error, sess. 23, c. 4 et can. 17 (Denz. n. 960 sq 967).

In the seventeenth century Edmund Richer taught in his pamphlet «De ecclesiastica et politica potestate» that the fullness of ecclesiastical power first resides in the whole Church, then in all the bishops and presbyters taken together; individuals, however, receive a certain scope of power by delegation, and the supreme pontiff himself is only the ministerial head of the Church, subject to the college of bishops. Later van Espen, Febronius, the Pistoiese, and others taught similar things (cf. Wilmers, De eccl. 239 sqq). This doctrine, which especially pleased the Gallicans, Jansenists, and Josephinists, was condemned several times (cf. Denz. n. 1502 sq cum nota). Nevertheless, the Modernists renewed this error (Denz. n. 2091 sqq).

Scholium 2. On the hierarchical grades instituted by the Church.

277. In the hierarchy of order, besides the three grades instituted by Christ—episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate—there are other orders, which theologians now commonly judge to have been instituted by the Church: subdiaconate, acolyte, exorcist, lector, and porter, which are treated in the tract on the sacrament of Order.

In the hierarchy of jurisdiction, only two grades were instituted by Christ: the primacy and the episcopate. Therefore, anyone other than the supreme pontiff and bishops who has jurisdiction in the Church, whether ordinary or delegated, has it not by virtue of divine institution but by virtue of ecclesiastical law or custom. Below the bishops, parish priests have ordinary jurisdiction in the internal forum, that is, by virtue of their office. But in the first three centuries there were no parish priests in the Church; from about the fifth century onward, certain rural churches became parishes in the true sense, and from the eleventh century onward parishes also began to be established in episcopal cities (cf. I. Laurentius, Ius decret. n. 203 sq). Even now, however, it is not impossible for there to be dioceses in which the bishop is the sole true parish priest, while the other priests are his assistants, delegated by him, because the whole institution of parish priests is of ecclesiastical law. The opinion of the Gallicans and Jansenists, according to which parish priests, no less than bishops, are judges of the faith and rulers of the Churches by their own right, was rejected by Pius VI (Denz. n. 1509 sqq).

Above the bishops are archbishops, patriarchs, and others, whose dignity or power arose partly through a certain natural development and partly through ecclesiastical legislation, and can be abrogated or changed by the supreme pontiff for just causes. All these matters are treated in canon law.

Proposition XXXV. By divine right, bishops have jurisdiction in the internal and external forums in their dioceses, and are authentic teachers; nevertheless, individual bishops are not infallible teachers, but only the whole teaching Church, that is, the college of bishops under its head, the Roman Pontiff, is infallible.

278. Position of the question. We have said that bishops are successors of the apostles in the pastoral office. This pastoral office of bishops must now be determined somewhat more precisely, because various questions can arise, and have arisen, about it. First, we must see what in the episcopal office is of divine law and what is of ecclesiastical law. We are not dealing with the power of order; for bishops receive this power through consecration, that is, through the sacrament of Order instituted by Christ, whose highest grade is the episcopate. Consequently, this power is conferred immediately by God and cannot be limited in any way; it is present by the efficacy of the sacrament, as is explained in the treatise on the sacraments. The matter is different with respect to the power of jurisdiction, and this alone is in question. We can distinguish it into the power of governing and the power of teaching. Thus the thesis has several parts.

279. Proof, part I. a) Each bishop has jurisdiction in his own diocese. The apostles had been sent without restriction to all people and could preach everywhere and exercise jurisdiction everywhere. Bishops are not so. Above (n. 213) we said that there is a certain obscurity in the way Scripture speaks of bishops and presbyters. On the other hand, Scripture clearly testifies that already from the time of the apostles there were superiors appointed over individual Churches, each to govern his own Church: “When they had appointed presbyters in every church…” (Act 14, 22). “Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops, to govern the Church of God” (Act 20, 28). “I urged you to remain at Ephesus” (1 Tim 1, 3). “I left you in Crete so that you might correct what is lacking and appoint presbyters in every city, as I directed you. If anyone is without reproach… for a bishop must be without reproach” (Tit 1, 5 sqq). “Tend the flock of God that is among you” (1 Petr 5, 2). Hence St. John speaks of the angel of the Church of Ephesus, the angel of the Church of Smyrna, and so on (Apc c. 2).

Likewise, the holy Fathers, some of whose testimonies we heard in the preceding thesis, consistently teach that bishops are to govern their own Churches, “since a portion of the flock has been assigned to each shepherd, for each to rule and govern” (S. Cyprian., Ep. 58, n. 14 [ed. Hartel]). Hence St. Augustine says that it is not his “proper concern to care for any Church except the Church of Hippo… In other cities, however, we do only what pertains to the Church to the extent that the bishops of those cities either permit us or impose it upon us” (Ep. 34, n. 5). The Council of the Vatican, session 4, ch. 3, says concerning episcopal jurisdiction: “By this power the bishops… as true shepherds, each feed and govern the flocks assigned to them individually” (Denz. n. 1828). Therefore bishops have the duty to reside in their dioceses (which were formerly called parishes). This duty is insisted upon in many ecclesiastical canons, which the Council of Trent renewed together with the penalties established for those who neglect it (session 6, ch. 1 on reform).

b) Bishops are established by divine right. Therefore, unlike parish priests, they are in the Church not by human right but by Christ’s will, so that the Roman Pontiff cannot govern the Church by himself and through his delegates without ordinary bishops. We learn what Christ’s will was from this: on the one hand Christ is the author of the Church and its constitution, and on the other the Church has never existed without bishops. If Christ had not willed the Church to be governed by bishops, it would be impossible to understand why the Church had an episcopal constitution everywhere from the first century onward and why it regarded this constitution as divinely given. “The Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops to govern the Church of God” (Act 20, 28). Christ “gave some as apostles, some as prophets, others as evangelists, and others as pastors and teachers” (Eph 4, 11). Therefore, just as Christ had chosen apostles and their assistants (prophets and evangelists) to found Churches, so he appointed pastors and teachers to govern the Churches already founded; this twofold office belongs first and principally to bishops. In John’s vision in Revelation, Christ appears holding “seven stars in his right hand” and says: “The mystery of the seven stars… The seven stars are the angels [bishops] of the seven Churches” (Apc 1, 16 20). These words and those that follow also indicate that Christ wills bishops to be in the Church, having governance and care of the individual Churches. For this reason, the holy Fathers teach that bishops were appointed by the apostles at God’s command. Clement of Rome (1 Cor. 43): “And what is surprising if those [the apostles], to whom this office in Christ was entrusted by God, appointed the aforesaid [bishops]?” St. Ignatius of Antioch (Eph. 6, 1) says: “Whoever the master of a household [Christ] sends to govern his household, we ought to receive as the very one who sent him. It is clear, therefore, that one ought to regard the bishop as the Lord himself.” St. Cyprian insists: “The Lord chose the bishops and superiors.” “We can do nothing against God, who makes bishops” (Ep. 3, 3 [ed. Hartel]). Other Fathers say the same. The theologians agree on this matter. The Council of the Vatican teaches: “So far is this power of the supreme pontiff from detracting from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops, placed by the Holy Spirit and succeeding to the place of the apostles, as true shepherds each feed and govern the flocks assigned to them, that this same power is asserted, strengthened, and defended by the supreme and universal shepherd” (sess. 4, c. 3; Denz. n. 1828).

c) Jurisdiction is probably conferred upon bishops by the supreme pontiff. There are two theological opinions on this matter. Some hold that not only was the episcopate instituted by Christ, but also that at ordination episcopal jurisdiction in first act is conferred immediately by Christ upon each bishop; the exercise of this jurisdiction in second act, however, depends on the supreme pontiff. At the Council of Trent, the Spaniards especially defended this opinion, against whom Lainez disputed (cf. Grisar, Iacobi Lainez disputationes tridentinae I, 31*, 190 ff.). Although Lainez, by the force of his arguments, drew many theologians to his opinion, some later continued to defend the view that the jurisdiction of bishops is conferred immediately by God, and that at the very consecration (Wirceburg., De leg. n. 103 sqq). But this opinion is improbable, because through consecration itself a bishop does not receive determined subjects or a determined diocese. For a bishop’s consecration is valid even if he belongs to no diocese and receives no jurisdiction. Christ indeed gave jurisdiction immediately to all the apostles. But not all the privileges of the apostles passed to the bishops. Moreover, since there is a supreme pontiff in the Church, whose power suffices to confer jurisdiction on bishops, it is unreasonable to appeal to God himself, who does not usually produce effects without the concurrence of secondary causes when those secondary causes are capable of producing them. If the Roman Pontiff confers jurisdiction, it is easy to understand how he can enlarge it, restrict it, or remove it, which no one denies he can do. This is the teaching of St. Thomas (In Matth. 16, 2), Bellarmine (De rom. pont. 4, 24), Suarez (De leg. 4, 4), and many other theologians. Hence Benedict XIV says: This opinion “seems more in conformity with reason and authority” (De syn. l. 4, n. 2). Pius VI, in the constitution “Super soliditate” dated 28 November 1786, proposes the same doctrine (Denz. n. 1500). Many declarations of provincial councils also support it (cf. Wernz, Ius decret. II, n. 737). This doctrine is therefore now commonly received, although the contrary has not been condemned. See more in Wilmers, De eccl. 355 sqq

The act by which the supreme pontiff confers power is called appointment; for appointment is an act of the will by which a superior imposes upon someone the care of governing others. By this act the pontiff effects two things: he imposes on the bishop the office of governing, with its attached rights and duties, and makes him an ecclesiastical ruler; and he makes the faithful of a certain territory his subjects and commands them to obey the bishop. Thus, in appointment, the effect is produced immediately by human will; whereas in the consecration of a bishop, the effect (character and grace) is produced immediately by divine will. In consecration, the minister is bound to sacramental rites instituted by Christ; in appointment, no particular rite is necessary, but any suitable manner may be chosen.

d) A bishop has jurisdiction in the internal and external forums. The sacrament of penance pertains especially to the internal forum. Therefore a bishop can absolve all his subjects and give other priests the faculty to absolve them sacramentally. Moreover, all the spiritual cases of individual faithful which are not settled sacramentally pertain to the internal forum, such as, for example, matters concerning private vows. Therefore, both within and outside the sacrament, a bishop has jurisdiction in the internal forum over his subjects, within the limits established either by common law or by a special ordinance of the supreme pontiff.

The jurisdiction of the external forum directly concerns the public good. Provision is made for the public good by laws, tribunals, penalties, visitations, administration of property, and other means set forth in canon law; it is sufficient to indicate them here.

280. Proof, part II. a) Bishops in their dioceses are authentic teachers. An authentic teacher or doctor is one who is established by virtue of his office to propose the Church’s doctrine with authority. Therefore, a bishop proposing Christian doctrine is to be heard not on account of his particular learning or because of the persuasive arguments he presents, but because he teaches with authority, having been sent for this purpose immediately by the supreme pontiff and mediately by Christ himself. The holy Fathers, as we saw (n. 271), especially emphasize that the apostolic tradition in the Church must be preserved through bishops. In Sacred Scripture bishops are already admonished to guard sound doctrine carefully (Tit 1, 9), and those who are negligent in this duty are rebuked (Apc 2, 14 sqq 20). The Council of Trent warns: Since preaching the Gospel “is the chief office of bishops, this holy synod has decreed and ordained that all bishops… are bound personally, unless they are lawfully impeded, to preach the holy Gospel of Jesus Christ” (session 5, ch. 2 on reform; cf. session 24, ch. 4 on reform). It is also the bishops’ duty to take care that false doctrines do not creep in; therefore, in their dioceses, both by virtue of their ordinary office and as delegates of the Apostolic See, they can, and sometimes must, prohibit books they judge harmful to faith or good morals; the censorship of books to be published on matters of faith and morals also belongs to them. Pius X insists upon this duty in the most serious terms at the end of the encyclical Pascendi. It is therefore clear in what sense bishops are authentic teachers.

b) Individual bishops are not infallible teachers. St. Paul, addressing the bishops whom he had summoned to Miletus, says: “From among your own selves men will arise speaking perverse things, to draw the disciples away after them” (Act 20, 30). He writes the same to Timothy: “Avoid foolish and old wives’ fables… Avoid foolish and undisciplined questions” (1 Tim 4, 7 [cf. 6, 20]. 2 Tim 2, 23). Likewise to Titus (1, 5 sqq; 2, 7; 3, 9). But no one addresses people in this way if they are infallible in teaching. Moreover, history testifies that certain bishops became teachers of heresy, such as Paul of Samosata, Nestorius, and so many Arian bishops. Even among Catholics certain bishops taught errors, as, for example, St. Cyprian and the other African bishops on the rebaptism of heretics. In the Church it has always been admitted that individual bishops can err, even in matters of faith and morals. Cf. propositions 6 and 85 of the Synod of Pistoia (Denz. 1506 1593), which synod, together with its many errors, confirms the doctrine that individual bishops are fallible.

c) The college of bishops under the Roman Pontiff, that is, the teaching Church, is infallible. For we have proved that Christ instituted an infallible teaching office (n. 186 sqq) and willed that this teaching office remain until the end of the world (219 sqq). Therefore, since individual bishops are not infallible, at least the whole college must be infallible, so that it may be “the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of truth” (1 Tim 3, 15). For if the whole college of bishops proposed false doctrine in matters of faith and morals, either the whole Church would err if it followed the bishops, or the unity of the Church would be destroyed if the flock rebelled against its shepherds. Thus neither would what Christ promised be fulfilled: “Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” (Mt 28, 20); nor would the Spirit of truth remain with the Church or lead it into all truth (Io 14, 16 sqq; 16, 12 sq); and the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Church. Since this cannot happen, the teaching Church is infallible in proposing and explaining revealed doctrine and in rejecting opposing errors. On this matter Pope St. Simplicius writes in 476: “This same rule of apostolic doctrine endures in his successors, to whom the Lord entrusted the care of the whole flock, promising that he would never be absent from them until the end of the age, that the gates of hell would never prevail against them, and testifying that what they bound on earth could not be loosed even in heaven… What it has deserved to cut off with the blade of the Gospel sickle, by apostolic hands and with the consent of the universal Church, cannot recover the strength to be reborn; nor can what is known to have been consigned to eternal fire return as a fruitful branch to the Lord’s vine” (Denz. n. 160). We shall see later how the Church exercises its infallible teaching office (n. 304 sqq).

281. Objection I. In the earliest times those said to have been bishops, such as Timothy, Titus, and others, were not bound to one place but performed apostolic offices in various places, as is recounted, for example, in Acts 18:5; 19:23; 20:4; 2 Tim 4:8, 10. Therefore bishops who have fixed sees do not belong to the primitive constitution of the Church².

I answer. I grant the antecedent and deny the conclusion. For Timothy, Titus, and others could first have been mere assistants to the apostles in their apostolic labors and only later become bishops. Those who were already bishops could also have been sent by the apostles on extraordinary missions. In these cases, then, they did not use ordinary but delegated power, like apostolic vicars in our own time. We have proved by certain arguments that from the time of the apostles there were bishops who were shepherds of souls, entrusted with the care of a particular flock.

282. Objection II. Things instituted by God are immutable. But the jurisdiction of bishops is mutable. Therefore it was not divinely instituted.

I answer. I distinguish the major: things instituted by God are immutable precisely within the scope in which they were instituted by God, I grant the major; beyond that scope, I deny the major. I distinguish the minor: the jurisdiction of bishops is mutable insofar as those who, by ordinary office, pasture individual portions of the Lord’s flock with both the supreme power of order and the power of jurisdiction in the internal and external forums may or may not exist in the Church, I deny the minor; the jurisdiction of bishops can be changed in many ways while its substance remains, I grant the minor. And I distinguish the conclusion: episcopal power is not divinely instituted as to its substance, I deny the conclusion; as to other matters, I grant the conclusion. What pertains essentially to episcopal jurisdiction and what can be changed is taught in canon law. It is essential to a bishop that he have his own flock, or his own diocese. But whether the flock is larger or smaller, whether there are more or fewer dioceses in the world, is not of the essence of the episcopate. Similarly, it is essential to a bishop that he be able to absolve his subjects from sins; nevertheless, the Roman Pontiff can reserve certain special cases to himself. The same must be said of cases that pertain to the external forum.

283. Objection III. Bishops are successors of the apostles. But the apostles received jurisdiction immediately from Christ. Therefore bishops receive it in the same way, and for that reason are said to have been placed by the Holy Spirit.

I answer. I distinguish the major: bishops are successors of the apostles in the ordinary office of governing the Church, I grant the major; in absolutely all prerogatives, I deny the major. I grant the minor. I distinguish the conclusion: bishops receive jurisdiction from Christ and are placed by the Holy Spirit insofar as the episcopate is divinely instituted and, by virtue of this institution, validly conferred by the Roman Pontiff, I grant the conclusion; insofar as Christ immediately confers jurisdiction upon each bishop, not through the Roman Pontiff, I deny the conclusion. In the consecration of a bishop, God as the principal cause immediately imprints the character and confers grace. But this alone does not yet make anyone a perfect bishop; rather, a flock must be assigned and power over the flock conferred, which takes place by an act of the Roman Pontiff’s will. Only in the case in which the pope’s jurisdiction is doubtful and there is at the same time a colorable title and common error should God be considered to supply the objectively invalid jurisdiction in matters necessary, as canonists and moral theologians teach in similar cases concerning the Church’s supplying the doubtful jurisdiction of a parish priest or confessor. But this is an extraordinary case, by which one must not judge what regularly happens in the Church (cf. Wilmers, De eccl. 257 365 sq).

284. Objection IV. The Church of the Old Testament, or the synagogue, preserved and handed down revealed doctrine. But the synagogue did not have an infallible teaching office; for the high priest and the other teachers rejected the true Messiah and led the whole people into error. Therefore, an infallible teaching office is not required for preserving and handing down revelation.

I answer. I deny the supposition underlying the whole argument. For we have not argued from the premise that God cannot provide in many ways for the preservation and transmission of revelation, but from the fact that Christ actually instituted a teaching office to which all must submit. The synagogue was an inferior Church, especially with respect to its teaching office. In the Old Testament, there were few things for the common people to believe by divine faith, such as that God is one, the creator and governor of all, and that the Messiah would come. A fallible Aaronic teaching office sufficed to teach these few things. If the ordinary shepherds failed in their duty, God sent prophets to lead the priests and people back to the right way. Thus, through ordinary and extraordinary shepherds, sufficient provision had been made for that preparatory Church until the Messiah would come, bring all things to perfection, and, while remaining in the Church perpetually, endow its perpetual teaching office with the prerogative of infallibility.

285. Objection V. Since people are not infallible in themselves, some supernatural habit would have to be infused into the bishops to make them permanently infallible. But this is unheard of, and it is not clear what it is. Therefore, it must not be admitted.

I answer. I deny the major. Infallibility is not a quality inhering in the teaching Church, but an external assistance of the Holy Spirit, directing the Church and guarding it lest it ever propose falsehood as truth. The Holy Spirit therefore helps in various ways so that the teaching Church may perceive and propose the truth, and prevents it from accepting and teaching error. He can and does bring about both without an infused habit of infallibility. This influence is neither revelation nor inspiration properly so called, nor anything that makes the bishops mere instruments of the Holy Spirit; rather, in exercising its teaching office, the Church is the principal cause of its own acts.

ARTICLE II.

ON THE ROMAN PONTIFF.

Cf. Bellarmine, De romano pontifice; Suarez, De fide, disp. 10; P. Ballerini, De vi ac ratione primatus romanorum pontificum; D. Palmieri, De romano pontifice³, Romae 1902; T. W. Allies, The See of S. Peter, London 1866; I. Ottiger, De ecclesia Christi, 526 sqq

Proposition XXXVI. The Roman Pontiff is the successor of St. Peter in the primacy.

286. Position of the question. Just as the college of bishops succeeds the college of apostles in the office of governing the individual Churches, so the Roman Pontiff succeeds St. Peter in the primatial office, which concerns the whole Church. Jesus Christ made St. Peter the head of the apostles and conferred upon him the office of governing all Christ’s sheep (supra n. 193 sqq). At the same time, he willed that this primacy of Peter remain in the Church forever (supra n. 220); but Sacred Scripture says nothing about the manner in which it is to be transferred. Historically, however, it is established that the primacy was always attached to the Roman see, so that whoever became bishop of Rome was thereby the supreme pontiff, or primate, and successor of St. Peter.

Above (n. 201) we have already noted that the dogma of the primacy, like the other dogmas of the Church, has its own history and development both in the matter of perfect knowledge and doctrinal exposition, and in practical use. Hence not all the incidental questions had already been settled perfectly in theory and practice in the first centuries. It is sufficient that the Church always recognized the dogmatic principle on which the Roman primacy rests.

As for the arguments, some are dogmatic and others historical. Since the Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals (supra n. 280 c), the Roman Pontiff is primate if the Church has taught this. The historical arguments also show how the primacy passed from St. Peter to the Roman Pontiffs. Even if this second question could not be settled with certainty, the demonstration of the fact itself from the agreement of the Church would remain unshaken. Therefore, this matter does not depend on whether Peter was at Rome and died as bishop of that Church; for it was absolutely possible that St. Peter chose no see for himself, but only indicated how the primacy was to be transferred to his successors after his death.

All who are not Catholics either deny the Roman primacy or concede only a primacy of honor; for every Christian who acknowledges the primacy in theory and in practice is thereby a Catholic, while whoever denies it is thereby not a Catholic.

287. Argument I. From the will of Christ.

The will of Christ, who instituted the primacy and willed it to be perpetual, could not fail of its effect. But unless the Roman Pontiff were the successor of St. Peter in the primacy, Christ’s will would fail of its effect. Therefore, the Roman Pontiff is the successor of St. Peter in the primacy.

Proof of the minor premise. No one other than the Roman Pontiff has ever been acknowledged in the Church as the successor of St. Peter in the primacy; indeed, no other bishop has ever dared to claim this dignity for himself. Therefore, either there is no successor of St. Peter in the primacy, or the Roman Pontiff is that successor. The former is false; therefore, the latter is true. There have been people who claimed to be Roman Pontiffs when they were not (antipopes). This matter does not touch the question of right concerning the necessity of the primacy’s perpetuity, but concerns the question of fact: who was the true primate in those times. Many deny that the primacy was instituted by Christ, but this question is presupposed as already settled here. Nor can they deny that for many centuries the whole Church acknowledged the primacy as instituted by Christ. Therefore, since the whole Church cannot err in a matter of dogma, the primacy was instituted by Christ; and consequently the Roman Pontiff is the successor of St. Peter in the primacy.

288. Argument II. From the agreement of the Church.

The Roman Pontiffs have always claimed succession in the primacy of St. Peter for themselves, and the Church has acknowledged this doctrine. But the whole Church cannot have been deceived by error in this doctrine. Therefore, it is true that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of St. Peter in the primacy.

Proof of the major premise, part I. The Roman Pontiffs claimed the primacy for themselves.

In the first century, around the year 96, St. Clement of Rome (teste Eusebio, H. E. 3, 16 38) admonished the Corinthians with a strong assertion of authority to settle the disturbances that had arisen in their Church. “We are writing to remind you of your duty” (1 Cor. 7, 1). “It is disgraceful, brothers, yes, very disgraceful and unworthy of the Christian way of life, to hear what we have learned: that the very firm and ancient Church of the Corinthians is fomenting sedition against its presbyters because of one or two people” (ibid. 47, 6). “But if some do not obey the things he [Christ] has said through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small offense and danger, while we shall be innocent of this sin” (ibid. 59, 1 sq). “You will bring us joy and gladness if, becoming obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit, you remove the unlawful zeal of your rivalry, in accordance with the exhortation concerning peace and harmony that we made in this letter” (ibid. 63, 2; cf. Denz. n. 41). No one speaks in this way unless he claims authority over those to whom he speaks. Hence the Roman Church claimed authority over the Corinthians, specifically the authority and duty to teach and direct them and to demand their obedience under pain of sin. The Roman Church could not have had such authority unless it had received it from God. The letter does not indicate where and how it received it.

In the second century, St. Victor I (189—199) wrote (teste Eusebio, H. E. 5, 24) to Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, against the custom of the “Quartodecimans” (that is, those who celebrated Easter from the fourteenth day of the month of Nisan). He admonished him to summon the bishops of Asia Minor and enjoin them to conform to Roman custom, threatening to excommunicate those who disobeyed; he did, however, desist from this excommunication at the request of St. Irenaeus and others (cf. Kirch, Enchir. n. 84 sqq). Therefore St. Victor claimed authority over those Churches.

In the third century, St. Callistus (217—222) decreed that the sins of adultery and fornication, too, were to be forgiven penitents. Therefore Tertullian, addressing him in ironic words, says: “I hear that an edict has also been issued, and indeed a peremptory one. The supreme pontiff, that is, the bishop of bishops, declares: ‘I remit the sins of adultery and fornication to those who have done penance’” (De pud. 1). “Good shepherd and blessed pope, you are preaching” (ibid. 13). “Show me, then, even now, apostolic man, examples from the prophets… Now I ask about your own judgment, whence you usurp this right for the Church. Is it because the Lord said to Peter: ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church; to you I have given the keys of the kingdom of heaven’; or, ‘Whatever you bind or loose on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Mt 16:18 f.], that you presume the power of binding and loosing has therefore been passed on to you, that is, to every Church near Peter, such as you are, overturning and changing the Lord’s clear intention, which conferred this personally upon Peter?… And what now is this ‘spiritual’ thing, even in your Church?” (ibid. 21). Thus it was the doctrine of the “spiritual,” that is, the Catholics, that Christ built his Church upon Peter and that the power of binding and loosing descended from Peter to his Roman successors and to “every Church near Peter.” — In the same century, Pope St. Stephen († 257) rejected the doctrine of Cyprian and many other African and Asian bishops concerning the rebaptism of heretics, and the Church followed Stephen, not Cyprian and the other bishops.

In the fourth century, St. Siricius wrote to Himerius, bishop of Tarragona, in 385: “We do not refuse to give a fitting answer to your inquiry, because, considering our office, we have no liberty to dissemble or be silent, upon whom a greater zeal for the whole Christian religion rests. We bear the burdens of all who are burdened; indeed, blessed Peter the Apostle bears them in us, and, as we trust, protects and guards us in all things as the heirs of his office” (Denz. n. 87).

In the fifth century, St. Innocent I wrote to the Council of Carthage (a. 417): “You have approved that the matter be referred to our judgment, knowing what is owed to the Apostolic See, since all of us placed in this position desire to follow the Apostle [Peter], from whom the episcopate itself and the whole authority of this name arose… [The Fathers] decreed by divine, not human, wisdom that whatever was being done, even in distant and remote provinces, should not be considered finished before it came to the knowledge of this See, so that its just pronouncement might be confirmed by the full authority of this See” (Denz. n. 100). In 418, St. Zosimus again wrote to the African bishops: “Although the tradition of the Fathers has granted such great authority to the Apostolic See that no one would dare dispute its judgment, and has always observed this through canons and regulations, and ecclesiastical discipline, still in force under its laws, pays the reverence due to the name of Peter, from whom it too descends… since Peter is the head of such great authority… yet although we had such authority that no one could revise our sentence, we have done nothing without voluntarily reporting it to your knowledge by our letters” (Denz. n. 109).

Many other pontiffs taught the same, such as St. Leo I (Kirch, Enchir. n. 810 sqq), St. Gelasius I (Denz. n. 163), Pelagius I (Denz. n. 230), Hadrian I (Denz. n. 298), and St. Nicholas I (Denz. n. 332 sq). But we omit these, since no one can deny that the Roman primacy was universally acknowledged in those times.

289. Proof of the major premise, part II. The Church acknowledged the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. This is already indicated in some way by St. Ignatius of Antioch, who, in the inscription of his letter to the Romans, says: “To the Church… which presides in the region of the Romans, worthy of God… and presiding over the whole assembly of charity.” Thus the Roman Church is called προκαθημένη τῆς ἀγάπης. Προκαθῆσθαί τινος means to preside over some place or society. Over what does the Roman Church preside? “Over charity.” Ἀγάπη, when followed by the name of the Smyrnaeans, Ephesians, or others, signifies a particular Church (cf. Trall. 13, 1). Therefore, without an added qualifier, it can signify the whole assembly of the faithful, or the universal Church. Indeed, it cannot signify anything else here; for what some would have it mean—“the Church that excels in charity”—cannot be admitted, because προκαθῆσθαι with the genitive does not have this sense, and because the article τῆς ἀγάπης is used.

St. Irenaeus says of the Roman Church: “It is necessary that every Church, that is, the faithful from everywhere, should agree with this Church because of its more powerful [preeminent] principality; in it the tradition handed down from the apostles has always been preserved by the faithful from everywhere” (Contra haer. 3, 3, 2; Kirch, Enchir. n. 112). In context, the subject is how the true apostolic tradition is known. Irenaeus says it is known from the unbroken series of bishops, especially from the Roman Church, with which all the faithful must agree because of its more powerful principality, that is, they must agree in the faith, so that the Roman faith is the faith of the whole Church. Therefore, a singular authority over the whole Church is attributed to the Roman Church. But according to Irenaeus, the authority of the Church resides in the bishop. Therefore, that singular authority is the authority of the Roman Pontiff.

In the same second century, illustrious men often came to Rome to consult the Roman Pontiff about matters of faith and morals. Thus Polycarp came to Anicetus concerning the question of Easter (Euseb. H. E. 4, 14; cf. Kirch, Enchir. n. 87). Hegesippus came to the same pontiff to investigate right doctrine (supra n. 271). Irenaeus went to Pope Eleutherius (Euseb. 5, 4; Kirch, n. 53). Abercius, bishop of Hierapolis, says of himself: “The holy Shepherd [that is, Christ] sent me to Rome, both to behold the royal citadel and to see the queen, clothed in gold and shod with gold; I saw there, too, the people bearing a splendid seal” (Kirch, n. 133). Why did these and other men come to Rome over questions of faith and discipline, while the Roman Pontiff never visited other Churches to be instructed by them? There is no other reason than the primacy of the Roman See. The heretics themselves also tried to be recognized by this See, because they knew that otherwise their efforts would be fruitless (cf. e.g. Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 1). Heresies were suppressed at Rome; all the Churches conformed themselves to Roman discipline and doctrine, even if they initially resisted, as is clear from the history of Gnosticism and Montanism and from the questions concerning Easter, the rebaptism of heretics, etc.

St. Cyprian asks Pope Cornelius not to allow himself to be deceived by the lies of certain people who, after being condemned in Africa, had taken refuge at the Roman See. “They dare to sail and carry letters from schismatics and profane men to the Chair of Peter and the principal Church, from which sacerdotal unity arose, without considering that the Romans are those whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and to whom unbelief cannot gain access” (Ep. 59, n. 14 [ed. Hartel]). When false rumors about Pope Cornelius’s election had spread in Africa, Cyprian, having learned the truth of the matter, said: “Cornelius was made bishop by the judgment of God and his Christ… when the place of Fabian, that is, the place of Peter and the rank of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant” (Ep. 55, n. 8). He writes to Cornelius that he had arranged for letters to be sent to all the bishops of Africa, “so that all our colleagues might approve and firmly uphold you and your communion, that is, the unity and charity of the Catholic Church” (Ep. 48, n. 3). He asks Pope Stephen to depose and excommunicate Marcian, bishop of Arles, who had joined Novatian, and to ensure that another be appointed in his place (Ep. 68). It must indeed be conceded that Cyprian nowhere clearly explains the force and nature of the Roman primacy, and perhaps did not have a clear understanding of it; but it cannot be denied that according to him the Roman Church possesses a preeminence that belongs to no other Church (cf. Kirch, Enchir. n. 242 sqq 260).

St. Jerome writes to Damasus: “I am joined in communion with your Beatitude, that is, with the Chair of Peter. I know that the Church is built upon that rock. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane” (Ep. 15). St. Augustine says of the Roman See: “In which the primacy of the apostolic chair has always flourished” (Ep. 43, n. 7). St. Optatus of Milevis: “You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was first conferred upon Peter, in which Peter, the head of all the apostles, sat… so that now he would be a schismatic and sinner who set up another chair against the unique chair” (De schism. donat. l. 2, n. 2). Many other Fathers say the same.

But, what is even more important, not only individual teachers but also ecumenical councils acknowledged the same primacy. At the Council of Ephesus (act. 3), Philip, legate of the Apostolic See, said with the Fathers’ consent: “No one doubts, indeed, it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, the keys of the kingdom, and that the power to loose and bind sins was given to him; he lives and exercises judgment in his successors even to this day and forever” (Denz. n. 112). These words were incorporated by the Council of the Vatican (sess. 4, c. 2) into its definition (Denz. n. 1824). The Council of Chalcedon wrote to Pope Leo: “You were set as the head over [the council’s bishops] as the head over the members” (Denz. n. 149). The Fathers of the Third Council of Constantinople say of Pope Agatho: “The supreme prince of the apostles fought alongside us; for we had as our helper his imitator and successor in the See, illuminating the divine mystery by his letters… and Peter was speaking through Agatho” (Denz. n. 288, nota 2). At the Second Council of Nicaea, the letters of Pope Hadrian were read, in which he says: “His [Peter’s] See, holding the primacy over the whole world, shines forth and stands as the head of all the Churches of God.” After the letters had been read, the papal legates asked: “Let the holy synod tell us whether it accepts the letters of the most holy pope, the elder of Rome, or not.” The synod replied: “We follow, receive, and accept them” (Hardouin, Collection of Councils IV, 102 f.; cf. Denz. no. 298). To omit many other things, at the Second Council of Lyons the profession of Michael Palaeologus was approved, in which we read: “The holy Roman Church holds the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church, which it truly and humbly recognizes that it received from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, prince or head of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, with the fullness of power” (Denz. n. 466). The Council of Florence decreed in its decree of union: “We define that the holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy over the whole world, and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church, and father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church was delivered to him in blessed Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ, as is also contained in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons” (Denz. n. 694).

290. Conclusions. Finally, the Council of the Vatican repeats the doctrine of the preceding councils and gathers it into several conclusions:

First conclusion: “Whoever succeeds Peter in this [Roman] chair obtains the primacy of Peter over the whole Church according to Christ’s own institution… Therefore, if anyone says that, by the institution of Christ himself or by divine right, blessed Peter does not have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this same primacy, let him be anathema” (sess. 4, c. 2; Denz. n. 1824 sq). — Thus, by the very fact that someone is legitimately elected Bishop of Rome and consents, he obtains from Christ, by virtue of the original institution, the primacy over the whole Church. The person is designated by human beings in the legitimate manner that has varied at different times and now consists in election by the cardinals assembled in conclave. Jurisdiction is conferred upon the designated person by Christ himself, because there is no human being who holds supreme jurisdiction, nor anyone who can transfer it to another; nor did Christ designate any human being to confer this power on Peter’s successors. The doctrine condemned as heretical by Pius VI is “that which asserts that the Roman Pontiff is a ministerial head, explained in such a way that the Roman Pontiff receives the power of ministry not from Christ in the person of blessed Peter but from the Church, by which he, as the successor of Peter, the true vicar of Christ, and head of the whole Church, holds power throughout the universal Church” (Denz. n. 1503).

Second conclusion: “We therefore teach and declare that the Roman Church, by the Lord’s arrangement, holds the primacy of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate, and to it pastors and faithful of every rite and dignity are bound by the duty of true hierarchical subordination and obedience, both individually and all together, not only in matters of faith and morals but also in those pertaining to the discipline and governance of the Church spread throughout the whole world; so that, by preserving unity both of communion with the Roman Pontiff and of profession of the same faith, the Church of Christ is one flock under one supreme shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation” (sess. 4, c. 3; Denz. n. 1827). — Therefore, the power of the Roman Pontiff over the whole Church is ordinary power, not delegated; it is episcopal, not a mere office of inspection and direction; it is immediate over all bishops and all their subjects. This is so because Christ entrusted to Peter the office of pasturing all his sheep. But it is clear both from the very words and from the conciliar definitions we have cited that this is ordinary power, conferred by way of office, to govern all and each of Christ’s sheep. St. Thomas illustrates the difference between mediate and immediate jurisdiction in this way: “It is clear that an archbishop does not have immediate jurisdiction over those who belong to a bishop’s diocese, unless a case is referred to him. But a bishop has immediate jurisdiction over the parishioners of a priest… The reason is that the priest’s power is naturally and by divine right subject to the bishop’s power, since it is imperfect in relation to the latter; but the bishop is subject to the archbishop only by ecclesiastical ordinance… The pope has immediate jurisdiction over all the Churches, because the Roman Church was not set above the other Churches by synodal decrees, but obtained the primacy by the Gospel voice of our Lord and Savior” (Contra impugn. relig. 4).

Third conclusion: The Roman Pontiff exercises “supreme power of governing the whole Church,” not merely each Church taken separately but all of them together (cf. Denz. n. 1961). “And since by divine right of the apostolic primacy the Roman Pontiff presides over the universal Church, we also teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical examination recourse may be had to his judgment; but no one may revise the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is greater than that of no one, nor is anyone permitted to judge its judgment. Therefore those depart from the right path of truth who assert that it is permissible to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an ecumenical council as an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff” (sess. 4, c. 3: Denz. n. 1829 sq.). — For Peter alone is the foundation of the whole Church; he alone received the office of pasturing all Christ’s sheep. But a building never supports its foundation, nor do sheep pasture their shepherd. Therefore, it is not the Church that has jurisdiction over Peter’s successor; rather, Peter’s successor has supreme jurisdiction over the Church, nor is he himself subject to any ecclesiastical laws (cf. Denz. n. 1324).

Finally, the Council ends the definition with these words: “If anyone, therefore, says that the Roman Pontiff has only an office of inspection or direction, and not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in matters of faith and morals but also in those pertaining to the discipline and governance of the Church spread throughout the whole world; or that he has only the more important share, and not the whole fullness of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, whether over all Churches individually or over all pastors and faithful individually, let him be anathema” (Denz. n. 1831).

Here we have expressed in clear and defined words what the Church taught and believed through so many centuries. But the Church could not have constantly erred in this fundamental matter. Therefore, this doctrine is true and revealed by God.

291. Objection I. By far the greatest part of Eastern Christians, and among Western Christians the Anglicans and generally all Protestants, deny the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, so that this doctrine is denied by almost as many as admit it. But this is a sign that it is not revealed by God. Therefore…

I answer. I distinguish the major: they began to deny this doctrine by apostatizing from a doctrine previously commonly admitted, I grant the major; while remaining in the prior tradition and faith, I deny the major. I distinguish the minor: dissent, had it existed from the beginning and through all subsequent centuries, would show that the doctrine was not revealed, I grant the minor; dissent even by very many, arising through apostasy from prior agreement, I deny the minor.

The schism of the Greeks began with Photius in the ninth century and was completed by Michael Cerularius in the eleventh. Until those times, not only individual teachers but also councils held in the East acknowledged the primacy of the supreme pontiff, and Photius was condemned by the Fourth Council of Constantinople (Denz. n. 341). Therefore, later Greeks defected not only from the Latins but also from the earlier Greek Church itself and its doctrine. Among Western Christians, rebellions against the Apostolic See have indeed sometimes occurred, as among the Waldensians and other sectarians; yet such heresies or schisms never caused the Roman Pontiff’s primacy to be denied or called into doubt by a notable part of the Church in the West. The first great defection in the West took place in the sixteenth century; but all the communities that defected from the Church’s unity also paid the penalty of that crime in that they soon split into more and more mutually hostile sects, became infected with the worst errors, became estranged from many revealed and fundamental doctrines, and are increasingly rushing into unbelief. Therefore, this very fact is no small argument for how wisely Christ provided for the Church’s unity and purity of doctrine by instituting the primacy.

292. Objection II. The first Christians knew nothing of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff; rather, through a natural and historical development, the episcopal see of the city of Rome, which was the capital of the world, acquired a certain indefinite prerogative of excellence; the Roman Pontiffs, using it, increased their power as occasions arose, until, overcoming the protests of many, they gradually attained the full power of the primacy. Therefore, the primacy is not a matter of divine institution but of historical development.

I answer. I deny the antecedent. For this theory was not drawn from historical sources, but was established a priori by rationalists, who deny all supernatural things and therefore must construct natural origins and developments for the Christian religion and Church. Critical and historical considerations come only second, to adorn those constructions with the ornaments of scholarship.

The principles and foundations of the primacy are laid down in Sacred Scripture; the Roman primacy is already indicated by the earliest ecclesiastical writers, such as Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian; and the knowledge and exercise of the primacy develop through the following centuries. All of this is well understood and explained on the supposition that this dogma is true. But a purely natural explanation is all the more improbable because not only do different rationalists explain the matter differently, but each often changes his own theory and attempts new constructions day by day.

293. Objection III. St. Gregory the Great not only severely reproved the title “ecumenical bishop” in John the Faster, bishop of Constantinople, but also rejected it for himself, writing: “Certainly, in honor of blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, that [title] was offered to the Roman Pontiff by the venerable Council of Chalcedon. But none of them ever consented to use this title of singularity, lest, while something private was given to one, all priests [bishops] be deprived of the honor due to them” (Letters, book 5, letter 20). Therefore St. Gregory did not acknowledge that he was bishop of all the Churches.

I answer. I grant the antecedent. I distinguish the conclusion: St. Gregory did not wish to be an “ecumenical bishop” in the sense that the others would not be true and ordinary bishops but only vicars of the Roman Pontiff, and he rejected the title insofar as it could suggest this false idea, I grant the conclusion; St. Gregory denied that he had jurisdiction over the other Churches, I deny the conclusion. Indeed, he writes about the See of Constantinople itself: “Who could doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Both the most pious lord emperor and our brother, the bishop of that same city, continually profess this” (Letters, book 9, letter 12).

Nor need we fear that the Roman Pontiff’s power over all the Churches will cause confusion, as if each Church were governed by two bishops. For supreme power was not given to the pontiff so that he might interfere in the everyday affairs of the dioceses, but so that he might intervene only when special causes and reasons demand it (cf. Denz. n. 1828). History teaches that no disturbance arises in the individual Churches from the exercise of the Roman Pontiff’s power, but that very grave evils are often averted by it, although it is not absolutely impossible for people sometimes to abuse this power, as they can abuse any power.

294. Objection IV. That great power which was attributed to the Roman Pontiff in the Middle Ages is a product of the forgeries of Pseudo-Isidore. Therefore, it must not be referred to the institution of Christ.

I answer. I deny the antecedent. The Decretals of Isidore are a collection of canons that arose in ninth-century Gaul, when civil and ecclesiastical affairs there were in the gravest disorder. To remedy this evil, an unknown person (perhaps Benedict the Levite) tried, by collecting ecclesiastical laws into one body, to call the Church’s discipline to people’s attention. He did not devise a new discipline, but confirmed with false decretals the discipline then in force, which he himself or another source from which he drew attributed to pontiffs or councils of earlier centuries; and he attributed the whole work to Isidore (of Seville). These false decretals passed into the works of later writers; but with respect to the primacy they contain nothing that had not been acknowledged in the Church long before, as, for example, Palmieri shows (De rom. pont. 530 sqq). Cf. Paul Fournier, De l'origine des fausses décrétales (Congrès scient. internat., Paris 1889), 403 sqq.

295. Objection V. The Council of Constance, in session 5, declared that this synod “has its power immediately from Christ, whom everyone of every state or dignity, even if he is pope, is bound to obey in matters pertaining to the faith and the eradication of the said schism.” Therefore, the pope is at least subject to an ecumenical council.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: these words are found in the acts of the council, I grant the antecedent; they are a conciliar definition, I deny the antecedent. For Martin V, in the two bulls Inter cunctas and In eminentis, approved only the decrees made against Wyclif, Hus, and Jerome of Prague, then those on communion under one species and the safe conduct of heretics.

Moreover, those words can have various meanings, and even at the time of the council they were understood differently by different people. For they can refer to a doubtful pope, which was then under discussion; a doubtful pope, however, is no pope (Bellarminus, De conc. 2, 19, ad 3 arg. Gerson.), if his election was doubtful from the beginning (one who is unquestionably legitimate cannot later become doubtful). If the words are understood in this way, they say nothing about the nature of the primacy. Some, however, interpreted them universally and wished to subject a true pope to a council. In this sense, the words were not only unapproved but also condemned (cf. Denz. n. 657 nota 740 1323).

Therefore a certainly legitimate pope cannot be deprived of jurisdiction by a council; he loses it only by (a) death, (b) voluntary resignation, (c) certain and perpetual insanity, because an insane person cannot exercise jurisdiction, or (d) manifest heresy, by which he is separated from the Church, although many theologians either deny or call into doubt that even the supreme pontiff can fall into heresy, even privately. More on this matter is found among the canonists (e.g. Wernz, Ius decret. II, n. 612 sqq). In none of these cases is the Roman Pontiff deposed by the Church; at most, a declaratory sentence is pronounced concerning jurisdiction already lost.

296. Objection VI. According to St. Leo I (ep. 106, n. 5), “the sees are one thing, and those who preside over them another.” Therefore, from the fact that certain rights or privileges belong to the Roman See, the same rights or privileges must not be attributed to each individual Roman Pontiff.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: according to St. Leo’s meaning, the rights and privileges of the sees are the same, even though the merits of the individuals who preside over them differ, I grant the antecedent; there are certain rights and privileges of sees that do not belong to those presiding over them, I deny the antecedent. Although St. Leo is not speaking there of the Roman Pontiff (but of the Patriarch of Alexandria), the distinction also applies in this sense to the supreme pontiff. The Gallicans abused this distinction against the privileges of the Roman Pontiff, as if they resided in the Roman Church or in the whole series of pontiffs, not in individual pontiffs. Each pontiff loses all his power at death; hence even St. Peter has no jurisdiction over the Church; rather, the whole jurisdiction resides only in the one who is currently the Roman Pontiff. Before the election of a new pontiff, this jurisdiction is in no human being but in the will of Christ, who confers it upon the legitimate successor. “Therefore whoever succeeds Peter in this chair obtains the primacy of Peter over the whole Church according to Christ’s own institution” (Conc. Vat. sess. 4, c. 2; Denz. n. 1824).

Scholium 1. By what arguments it is proved that Peter was at Rome and died there.

297. In his first letter (5, 13), St. Peter writes: “The Church gathered in Babylon greets you, and so does Mark, my son.” This Babylon is neither Babylon on the Euphrates, which at that time was an almost deserted region, nor another city, but the city of Rome, which is also called Babylon in Revelation (c. 14 sqq) and by other ancient writers. That Peter is speaking of the city of Rome is testified by Papias and Clement of Alexandria, cited by Eusebius (H. E. 2, 15; Kirch, Enchir. n. 386 sq). The ancients also report that Mark wrote the Gospel that Peter preached at Rome (Euseb. 6, 14; Kirch n. 394). It is inferred from Sacred Scripture that Mark was at Rome (Col 4, 10. Phil 24).

Clement of Rome includes the apostles Peter and Paul among “the great athletes of our generation τῆς γενεᾶς ἡμῶν,” who “among us, ἐν ἡμῖν,” suffered martyrdom (1 Cor. 5, 6; Kirch n. 8 sq). St. Ignatius of Antioch writes to the Romans: “I do not command you as Peter and Paul did” (Rom. 4, 3; Kirch n. 20). Dionysius of Corinth reminds the Romans that Peter and Paul preached and suffered martyrdom at Rome (Euseb. 2, 25). The presbyter Gaius: “I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you wish to go either to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded that Church” (Euseb. l. c.; Kirch n. 117). Irenaeus, too, testifies that the Roman Church was founded by Peter and Paul (Contra haer. 3, 3; Kirch n. 110 112 sq). Clement of Alexandria likewise testifies that Peter preached at Rome (Euseb. 6, 14). Tertullian says that Peter and Paul “left the Gospel to the Romans sealed even by their blood” (Adv. Marc. 4, 5; cf. De praescr. 36; Scorpiace 15; Kirch n. 186 170 192). Origen writes of Peter: “At last he came to Rome, where he was crucified with his head hanging down; for he had prayed to be placed on the cross in this way” (Com. in Gen. tom. 3; Kirch n. 388). No city other than Rome has ever claimed that St. Peter died and was buried there. It seems superfluous to gather further evidence, since the tradition is entirely unanimous in testifying that Peter preached and died at Rome (cf. Ottiger, De eccl. 560 sqq). How long Peter was at Rome has nothing to do with the question of the primacy; we therefore leave this question to historians.

Scholium 2. By what arguments it is proved that Peter was bishop of Rome.

298. This, too, is established by the unanimous tradition of the ancients, who name no one but St. Peter as the first Roman bishop. When St. Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, the Roman Church was already fully constituted and enjoyed a great reputation throughout the world. But a Church is not complete without a bishop, as Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, and others teach. Therefore what some invent about a college of presbyters governing the Roman Church is, by the nature of the matter, unbelievable and lacks historical foundation. No source indicates another Roman bishop before Peter.

The ancient lists of the Roman Pontiffs, a considerable number of which survive in the Eastern and Western Churches and which rest on a very ancient tradition, begin the series of Roman Pontiffs with St. Peter. The first of these lists originated around the middle of the second century. Eusebius, who had these lists before him, writes under the year 2058 of Abraham: “The apostle Peter, after first founding the Church at Antioch, went to Rome, preaching the Gospel. He himself presided over the Roman Church as well as the Church of Antioch until his death” (verba graeca apud Kirch, Enchir. n. 381; cf. n. 492 520 570). The wording is not exactly the same in Jerome’s version and other translations, but all clearly say that Peter was bishop of Rome. The hypothesis that this was a fiction originating in the second century and accepted everywhere in the East and West is too flimsy to deserve serious consideration (cf. Duchesne, Le Liber pontificalis).

Tertullian calls the Roman See the chair of Peter: “Go through the apostolic Churches, where the very chairs of the apostles still preside in their places… If you are near Italy, you have Rome… where Peter is made equal to the Lord in his passion” (De praescr. 36; Kirch n. 170). Pseudo-Tertullian, in his poem «Adv. Marcionem» listing the Roman Pontiffs from Peter to Anicetus, says: “Peter ordered Linus, first, to sit in this chair in which he himself had sat, and great Rome appointed him.” St. Cyprian: “Cornelius was made bishop… when the place of Fabian, that is, the place of Peter and the rank of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant” (Ep. 55, n. 8 [ed. Hartel]). St. Jerome to Damasus: “I am joined in communion with your Beatitude, that is, with the Chair of Peter” (Ep. 15). St. Augustine: “What has the chair of the Roman Church, in which Peter sat, done to you?” (Contra litt. Petil. 2, 51.) St. Optatus of Milevis: “You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was first conferred upon Peter” (De schism. donatist. 2, 2). Others say the same, but I omit them; for none of the ancients contradicted this. Some evidence has already been given above, nos. 288 f.

What about the Easterners? Not at all different. We have already heard Eusebius. In the same way, all who draw up lists of the Roman Pontiffs say that Peter was bishop of Rome. Thus, for example, Epiphanius: “This is the succession of the Roman Pontiffs: Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus, Clement, Evaristus” (Haer. 27, 6). Theodoret on 2 Tim 4:21: “They report that Linus succeeded great Peter and occupied the Roman Church’s see after him.” Chrysostom says similarly on the same passage: “Some report that Linus was bishop of the Roman Church after Peter.” Sozomen calls the Roman See “the See of Peter, τὸν Πέτρου θρόνον” (H. E. 4, 15). The Council of Sardica: “If any bishop has been judged in some matter and thinks he has a good case, so that the judgment (χρίσις) may be renewed, if it pleases you, let us honor the memory of the holy apostle Peter, so that those who examined the case may write to Julius, bishop of Rome; and if he judges that the judgment ought to be renewed, let it be renewed… but if he approves… what he decrees shall be confirmed” (Kirch, Enchir. n. 448).

From these and other testimonies it is clear what the Church’s understanding was in the first centuries. Protestants almost unanimously contradict it. But even if the matter is considered purely historically, we must presume that those who were closer to the events in question and held so firmly to tradition judged more correctly; whereas those who are recent and resist tradition, so that they need not admit the Roman primacy, fail to see the truth because their eyes are clouded. If the matter is considered dogmatically, although the dogma of the Roman primacy does not necessarily depend on this historical question, Peter’s Roman episcopate is in fact a dogmatic fact that no Catholic may call into doubt (cf. Denz. n. 1824).

Scholium 3. By what right the primacy is attached to the Roman See.

299. This question can be understood in two ways:

a) In the present order, is the Roman Pontiff the successor of St. Peter in the primacy by divine right or by ecclesiastical right? The answer is: by divine right. For when Christ instituted a perpetual primacy, he willed that each and every one who legitimately succeeded St. Peter should have the primacy. But in the present order, only the Roman Pontiffs legitimately succeed St. Peter. Therefore all and only they have the primacy by Christ’s will. Thus, at least in the hypothetical sense that only the Roman Pontiff is the legitimate successor of St. Peter, the primacy is attached to the Roman Church by divine right (cf. Denz. n. 163 332).

b) But is the succession of St. Peter so bound by divine right to the Roman See that it cannot be joined to another see by any human authority? Certainly, such a transfer, if it is possible at all, can be made only by the Roman Pontiff, or at least not without his consent (cf. Denz. n. 1735). But theologians disagree about whether it is possible at all. Benedict XIV says: “The opinion of those who asserted that the aforesaid connection [of the primacy with the Roman See] is of human right in such a way that it can be dissolved by the Church and one separated from the other does not seem defensible” (De syn. 2, 1, 1). This is the more common opinion of theologians, and it rests on the following reasoning: For many centuries the Roman Catholic Church has been preached everywhere (cf. Denz. n. 694 991). But if the primacy were transferred to another see, this statement would no longer be true, and the Church would have to be called the Parisian Catholic Church or the Viennese Catholic Church, or by some other name. This sounds intolerable to Catholic ears. The Roman Pontiff may, however, while remaining what he is, reside elsewhere, even permanently, if a just cause demands it. Likewise, if the city of Rome were destroyed, the Roman Church could still remain, that is, the body of the faithful under its bishop.

Therefore, Christ either himself indicated to Peter that the primatial see should be located at Rome, or gave him the command to choose the see whose bishops thereafter would be Peter’s successors in the primacy. Thus the principle of divine right is either an act of Christ’s will that preceded any act of Peter concerning this matter, or Christ’s special confirmation of Peter’s own choice. We do not know which way Christ acted. These points hold on the supposition of the more common and more probable opinion that the primacy’s connection with the Roman See is of divine right.

Scholium 4. On the passive subject of ecclesiastical authority.

300. Just as there are superiors in the Church, so there are subjects. The former are the active subject of ecclesiastical authority, because they have the power to govern; the latter are the passive subject, because they must allow themselves to be governed, that is, obey. Up to now we have spoken of the active subject; something must now be said about the passive subject.

a) No one has the right to govern except his own subjects. Now, people become subjects of the Church through baptism (cf. supra n. 231). Therefore, only the baptized are subject to the Church’s jurisdiction, “since the Church exercises judgment over no one who has not first entered it through the door of baptism” (Con. trid. sess. 14, de paenit. c. 2; Denz. n. 895). But all the baptized are subject to the Church’s jurisdiction, even if, for some reason, they are no longer members of the Church, because through baptism they received, by divine law, the obligation to obey the Church (Mt 28, 18 sqq; cf. Denz. n. 864 870). If they suffer from invincible ignorance, they certainly do not sin by neglecting purely ecclesiastical commands; but the obligation to obey is not itself removed merely because someone withdraws from the authority instituted by God. This is sufficiently clear in itself. Nevertheless, the obligation to observe the Church’s precepts has certain limitations in the case of heretics, about which one should consult moral theology or canon law (cf. Denz. n. 1454 2070, § 3).

b) The Church cannot compel Jews, pagans, or other unbelievers to hear the preaching, much less to receive baptism. If unbelievers resist the preaching of the Gospel by force, the Church may defend its right with the aid of the secular arm. When unbelievers are subjects of Christian rulers and live among Christians, this civil relation makes it possible for the Church to command the unbaptized in certain matters that it cannot command directly by virtue of ecclesiastical authority alone. In this way, the unbaptized were sometimes compelled to hear Christian instruction.

c) The Church can command even its own subjects only in matters within the scope of the commission it received from Christ, that is, matters that in some way pertain to the religious and supernatural order, not purely civil and political affairs.

Nor is objective divine law, which God himself established by his natural or positive law, subject to ecclesiastical authority in such a way that the Church can abrogate it, change it, or dispense from it. Therefore, it cannot give itself another constitution, institute other sacraments, grant permission to steal, and so on. The reason is that God neither expressly gave it this power, nor is this power necessary for the Church’s end, nor has the Church ever shown by its words or deeds that it has such power. Ecclesiastical authority can, however, interpret divine law authentically, because this is required if it is to be able always to direct people securely on the way of salvation.

There is also subjective divine law, as it is called, or God’s right arising from certain human acts. For by people’s sins God acquires the right to hate and punish them. It is a matter of faith that the Church has the power, in God’s name, to remit sins and penalties, as is proved in the treatise on penance. Furthermore, people can promise something to God, or before God as witness, by a vow or oath; from this God acquires the right to demand that the promise be fulfilled. Now, it can happen that the common good requires the cancellation of such a promise. In that case, the Church must be said to have received from God the right to cancel such a promise, because it received universal power to direct people in all their acts pertaining to eternal salvation. This is confirmed by the Church’s practice. The same must be said of the one sacred contract made among Christians, namely marriage (if unconsummated), because the common good may sometimes require such a contract to be dissolved (cf. Suarez, De leg. 10, 6).

By the force of jurisdiction in the external forum alone, the Church cannot command its subjects to perform merely internal acts, e.g. to elicit an act of faith every day. For the Church has never indicated that it has such power; nor can it judge such acts in the external forum or use coercion regarding them. But jurisdiction in the external forum requires judicial and coercive power (cf. S. Thom. 1, 2, q. 91, a. 4; 2, 2, q. 104, a. 5; Suarez, De leg. 4, 12). The Church can, however, command external acts for which internal acts are necessary, such as annual Communion or the Mass that a parish priest must celebrate for his parish. Through the power of jurisdiction, a priest can command internal acts in the administration of the sacrament of penance. Ecclesiastical superiors can also command internal acts by virtue of dominative power from those who have freely subjected themselves to them in such acts by a vow of obedience or in another way.

It will suffice to have indicated briefly these points concerning the passive subject of ecclesiastical authority; each is explained more fully elsewhere.