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the manner of argument, we must observe what we have already indicated: we use the books of the New Testament simply as historical documents, not as inspired books.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).