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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scholium. On theological prescription.

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

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