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

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).