The True Church
guidelines and perimeters
Ref: http://www.christian-faith.com/religion/catholic-authority.html
Tradition is important because without it the Church has no roots.
It is like a family--father and mother are the roots and the children are the branches that bare the fruit. drm
What is the church--the true church?
The Vatican said in a brief document, “DOMINUS IESUS,” that its doctrinal congregation reaffirmed that the Catholic Church is the one, true church, and, that Protestant communities should not properly be called “churches” because of major differences over the ordained priesthood and the Eucharist. This has left a lot of consternation among Catholics and Protestants alike. It was an ecumenical sore point to many.
Below is the document and declaration (significant parts of the document) on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church and other articles.
____________________________
DECLARATION
"DOMINUS IESUS"
ON THE UNICITY AND SALVIFIC UNIVERSALITY OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE
CHURCH
INTRODUCTION
1. The Lord Jesus, before ascending into heaven, commanded his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to the whole world and to baptize all nations: “Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk 16:15-16); “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the world” (Mt 28:18-20; cf. Lk 24:46-48; Jn 17:18,20,21; Acts 1:8)
2. The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is a historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.” With the expression subsists in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”, that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.
17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.
On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church. Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.
“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach” In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities.” “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.”
The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.
VI. THE CHURCH AND THE OTHER RELIGIONS IN RELATION TO SALVATION
History of the Christian Church
THE CHRISTIAN FAMILY (A history of the Christian Church) Celebrating Jesus Together by Fr.Thomas Bokenkotter
After two millennia of Christian history, the search for greater unity among Christians is at a crossroads. The 20th century saw the rise of the ecumenical movement as first Protestants, Orthodox and then Catholics began to show interest in breaking down the historic barriers between the Churches. The ecumenical movement that emerged made some real gains, thanks to a new spirit on both sides of the wall separating Protestants, Orthodox and Catholics.
Many high-level dialogues have been held between Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic theologians and many sentiments about the need for unity have been voiced. The pope himself has gone out of his way to join in prayer with Protestant and Orthodox leaders. But some observers think ecumenism has lost much of its momentum.
Is it the best of times or the worst of times for ecumenism? Will Rome's celebration of the Jubilee in the year 2000 spark a renewal of interest in Christian unity? As we wonder about such questions at the dawn of another millennium, we might take a look at the sprawling, messy Christian family as it stands at present. Why so many Churches? Where did they all come from?
East and West
When we look at the Christian family tree, we see that until the 16th century it had basically only two large branches: the Western and the Eastern Churches. Already by the fifth century the Western Churches had come more or less under the rule of the Bishop of Rome, while the Eastern--also known as the Orthodox--Churches were, for the most part, under the rule of the patriarchs who occupied the main sees of Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Antioch. One notable exception is the Assyrian Church of the East which went its own way after the Council of Ephesus in 431. The other exception is a group of six ancient Churches known as the Oriental Orthodox Churches, which parted with other Christians after the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
While culturally, politically and socially quite disparate, the Western and Eastern Churches were able to maintain some form of communion during the first millennium with only a few exceptions. However, a definitive schism occurred after 1054 when the issue of papal sovereignty, which had long bedeviled the relationship of East and West, finally came to a head. The papal legate and the Patriarch of Constantinople anathematized each other, causing a lasting schism between Creek and Latin Christendom.
Many social, political and doctrinal factors over time led to the rift. Doctrinally, in addition to disagreement over the role of the pope, East and West also had a deep difference of understanding regarding the way we talk about the Holy Spirit in the creed (the Filioque controversy).
Similar basic beliefs
Over the centuries since then various attempts were made at reconciliation but they never proved lasting. Nevertheless both branches share the same basic doctrines. The Eastern Orthodox Churches base their doctrines on the teachings of the first seven ecumenical councils of the Church held from the fourth to the eighth century at Nicaea (l and II), Ephesus, Chalcedon and Constantinople (I, II and III).
The Orthodox differ from the Roman Catholics in the formulations. For example, while holding to seven sacraments they do not sharply distinguish them from other quasi-sacramental actions. Again, they too believe the elements of bread and wine are changed into the real body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, but do not insist on the term transubstantiation which was developed in the West after the schism. And they are deeply devoted to the Virgin Mary as the Mother of Christ, but do not require belief in the dogma of her Immaculate Conception, another Western insight. But their main doctrinal difference with the Roman Church is over the authority of the pope, to whom they ascribe merely a primacy of honor. Moreover, they demand celibacy only of their bishops, not their priests.
Today the Orthodox or so-called Eastern Churches form a communion of self-governing Churches, including the four ancient patriarchates, of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem as well as five patriarchates of more recent origin: Russia, Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria and Georgia. Within this communion are found also the Orthodox Churches of Cyprus, Greece, the Czech Republic, Slovakia_ Poland and Albania.
There are also Eastern Churches in full communion with Rome: the Eastern Catholic Churches. They retain their respective traditions of liturgy, theology, spirituality and canon law. These Churches are often grouped according to their liturgical traditions: the Byzantine rite (the Bulgarian, Creek, Melkite, Italo-Albanian, Romanian, Ruthenian, Slovak, Ukrainian, Yugoslav and Hungarian Catholic Churches), the Alexandrian rite (the Coptic and Ethiopian Catholic Churches), the Antiochene rite (the Syro-Malankara, Maronite and Syrian Catholic Churches), the Chaldean or East Syrian rite (the Chaldean and Syro Malabar Catholic Churches), and the Armenian rite (the Armenian Catholic Church).
Like the Western Churches, the Eastern Churches have gone through periods of renewal and decay, power and persecution. One of their glorious missionary chapters began with the work of Sts. Cyril and Methodius in the ninth century and led eventually to the conversion of Bulgaria, Serbia and Russia. The latest persecution took place under the Communists. With the downfall of Communism in 1989 there are signs that the Orthodox Church in Eastern Europe is poised for another period of renewal.
The Western branch divides
When we turn to the branches that stem from the 16thcentury Reformation the Christian family tree takes on a baffling complexity. This is no doubt due to the principles the Protestant Reformation espoused: faith alone as the means of salvation and recognition of Scripture as primary authority.
Martin Luther began this Reformation in 1517 and it swept across Europe like a tornado. One sometimes wonders what he would think were he to see the myriad of separate Churches which derived from his principles. His original intention was not to found a new Church, but to reform the Catholic Church he had grown up in. Yet ultimately he decided that allegiance to the pope and reform of the ancient Catholic Church were totally incompatible.
A theological and spiritual genius, be created, in effect, a new Church based on beliefs that were seen to be at odds with the Catholic tradition. His basic belief was summarized in the phrase "justification by faith alone," as opposed to the then popular belief among Catholics that you earned salvation by your good works. Luther went on to offer many other doctrines and practices opposed to traditional Catholicism, including belief in only two sacraments and rejection of essential Catholic doctrines regarding the Eucharist, the Mass and the nature of the Church as a divinely established visible institution. Indeed for Luther the true Church was to be found wherever the "Gospel was rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered."
In effect, two main pillars of Catholic authority were undermined by Luther and the other Protestant reformers: the magisterium of pope and bishops and the authority of tradition. The Catholic hierarchical magisterium was denied by such teachings as the priesthood of all believers. The authority of tradition was impugned by the principle of "Scripture alone," sola Scriptura.
The tendency to division within Protestant ranks which would eventually produce a myriad of separate Churches soon became apparent in the dispute over the Eucharist between Luther and Ulrich Zwingli, the Swiss reformer. While Luther taught that, when consecrated, the bread and wine really became Christ's body and blood, Zwingli considered them only symbols. The French reformer John Calvin found a position midway between the other two reformers with his doctrine that the bread and the wine are instruments by which Christ distributes to us his body and blood.
Four main Reformation branches
Each of the Churches that emerged from these and other disputes developed its own distinctive teachings, liturgies and structures. Without claiming to be all-inclusive, one can roughly divide them into four main branches: the Lutheran, the Reformed, the Church of England (Anglican) and the Anabaptists.
Lutheran Churches. These originally took root in Germany and Scandinavia. They modified but generally retained traditional liturgical forms, putting equal emphasis on preaching and sacraments. Arriving in North America early in the 17th century, Lutheranism divided into a plethora of Lutheran Church bodies. But the 20th century saw these converging into three major Lutheran Churches: the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada. By the 1990's the Lutheran World Federation included 57 million of the world's 61 million Lutherans.
On October 31, 1999, the Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation signed a "Joint Declaration on Justification" that lays to rest the major issue that sparked the Protestant Reformation, salvation by faith versus salvation by works. In the Declaration, the fruit of 30 years' dialogue, both Lutherans and Catholics acknowledge that the salvation of humanity comes from God alone. Yet that gracious act of God's mercy, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, calls us to cooperate with God's grace, to live holy, charitable lives. Reformation-era condemnations on both sides no longer apply, says the Declaration. The signing of this Declaration was a historic step in ecumenism.
Reformed Churches. This second branch stemming from the Reformation embraces those most heavily influenced by the theology of John Calvin, John Knox and Ulrich Zwingli. It includes the Presbyterians and the Congregationalists. Presbyterians and Congregationalists prospered early in the history of the United States, especially in New England, where already in1783 Ezra Stiles, president of Yale College, predicted that the American Christian future would be about equally divided between Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians. Not a bad prediction, for the three Churches did maintain a dominant position in the religious mainstream well into the 20th century, though theBaptists and Methodists eventually took over the first two places. Congregationalists espouse a Church polity that insists on the independence and autonomy of each local congregation and democracy in governance. They also favor a form of worship centered on long sermons, while celebrating the Lord's Supper less frequently. (This tradition of nonliturgical worship became especially characteristic of the Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodists and Baptists.) In 1957 the Congregationalists joined with the Evangelical and Reformed Churches in the United States to form the United Church of Christ.
To some extent the rationalistic and anti-dogmatic Unitarians in the United States stemmed from the Congregationalists although the Unitarians can also be placed in a different category.
Baptists can be seen as an offshoot of the Reformed Churches, too.
Presbyterians follow a Calvinist Church order that gives elected laypersons (called elders) a right to participate in the work of the priesthood (presbytery). They join the minister(s) and deacon(s) in the preaching, teaching and sacramental ministry of the congregation. The United Presbyterian Church, then the largest American Presbyterian body, adopted a Book of Confessions in 1967 that included many historic creeds, including the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds. It merged in 1983 with other Presbyterian bodies to form the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.
The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) originated with certain Presbyterians concerned for evangelism on the American frontier in the early 19th century. (But the Disciples may also be placed in another category) Alexander Campbell (d. 1866), the cofounder (with Barton Stone) of the Disciples, was much influenced by John Locke's idea that reason alone could reveal the essential message of the New Testament. He therefore opposed the imposition of creeds or tests of faith and accordingly left the Presbyterians. His Church became one of the largest American denominations.
The Church of England (Anglicans). The third Western branch grew from the Church of England, which emerged from Henry Vlll's 16th-century break with the pope. The Episcopal Church is a body of the Anglican Communion, which includes the Church of England and other self-governing Anglican Churches. Like the Church of England, the Episcopal Church is known for its great latitude in doctrinal and disciplinary matters.
Also emerging from the Church of England, yet no longer in full communion with it, are the Methodists and the Quakers. The United Methodist Church traces its roots to the dynamic preaching of John Wesley, a Church of England clergyman aided by his brother Charles, also a clergyman and a talented author of hymns. Wesley held long, unritualistic, outdoor services that climaxed when the individual was inspired to make a personal commitment to Christ.
But Wesley was also devoted to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and celebrated it regularly. The relations of the two Wesleys and their followers with the Church of England remained undefined, and only after their death did the Methodist Church emerge as a completely independent Church. Methodist Churches spread widely in the United States even during the lifetime of the Wesleys. Methodism has traditionally manifested an active concern with both evangelism and social welfare.
Like the Methodists, the Quakers originated from a fervent preacher, in this case, George Fox (d. 1691). His magnetic personality, immense spiritual power, selfless devotion and patience under persecution won him a large following whom he loosely organized into the so-called Meetings. Without traditional liturgy, creeds or sacraments, Quakers rely on an Inner Light and direct experience of God for guidance and empowerment. They are especially noted for their deep commitment to the Holy Spirit, social betterment and pacifism.
Anabaptists. The fourth branch of the Reformation, the Anabaptists, formed the most radical section of the 16th-century Reformation and were given their name because they denied that infant Baptism was true Baptism. The Anabaptist movement from the start embraced a number of separate groups that espoused a wide variety of Views including strong antigovernment and apocalyptic views. In the United States they include the Amish and the closely related Mennonites, many of whom are known for their communal and extremely anti-modern life-style. Church of the Brethren is also included here.
Loosely associated at the beginning with the Anabaptist movement, the Baptists are the largest Protestant community in the United States. (They share roots with the Reformed Churches, too.) Billy Graham is their most well-known preacher. Many of them were pioneers in the quest for religious liberty. Perhaps the most famous of these, Roger Williams, founded a Baptist Church at Providence, Rhode Island, in 1649, an event usually regarded as the beginning of American Baptist history.
Baptists were in the forefront of the Protestant world missionary movement that began in the 18th century, and Baptist preachers were also in the vanguard as the frontier was carried westward in the United States. Baptists cherish the autonomy of the local congregation.
Many scholars consider the Christian Churches that grew from the African American experience to be distinct. Members of black Baptist congregations exceed 8 million. The African Methodist Episcopal (A.M.E.) Church has 3.5 million members. The Church of God in Christ claims 5.5 million.
Newer forms. Finally, beyond these Four main branches stemming clearly from the Reformation there is another category of Churches whose origins are peculiarly American. They exemplify our nation's penchant for religious novelty which is, no doubt, caused in part by the absence here of a dominant national Church with a lengthy religious tradition.
A recent study of this phenomenon by Paul Conkin attempts to classify these "originals" according to a number of types: restoration (Christians and Disciples), humanistic (Unitarian and Universalist), apocalyptic (Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons), spiritualist (Christian Science and Unity) and ecstatic (Holiness and Pentecostal). These represent, according to Conkin, well over 90 percent of Americans who have embraced new or original forms of Christianity.
But new religions are constantly sprouting up with, it is said, five new ones organized each week. Already by 1985 there were nearly 2,000 separate denominations in the United States! Many of these call themselves "nondenominational."
As we conclude this overview of the Christian family, one must admit there's something awe-inspiring about the way the gospel has manifested such vitality in our world in this great profusion of Churches. At the same time, however, the spectacle of Christians divided in such a bewildering multiplicity haunts those Christians who feel the challenge of Jesus' prayer that all may be one.
Thomas Bokenkotter, a free-lance writer, is a Catholic historian and pastor whose works include Concise History of the Catholic Church and his latest book, Church and Revolution: Catholics in the Struggle of Democracy and Social Justice (both by Image Books). He is a priest of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati.
20. From what has been stated above, some points follow that are necessary for theological reflection as it explores the relationship of the Church and the other religions to salvation.
Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door.” This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation.”
The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation,” since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God's plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being. For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit;” it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit.”
22. With the coming of the Saviour Jesus Christ, God has willed that the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity (cf. Acts 17:30-31). This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism “characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ‘one religion is as good as another'.” If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation. However, “all the children of the Church should nevertheless remember that their exalted condition results, not from their own merits, but from the grace of Christ. If they fail to respond in thought, word, and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be more severely judged.” One understands then that, following the Lord's command (cf. Mt 28:19-20) and as a requirement of her love for all people, the Church “proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life (Jn 14:6). In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself (cf. 2 Cor 5:18-19), men find the fullness of their religious life.”
23. The intention of the present Declaration, in reiterating and clarifying certain truths of the faith, has been to follow the example of the Apostle Paul, who wrote to the faithful of Corinth: “I handed on to you as of first importance what I myself received” (1 Cor 15:3)
In treating the question of the true religion, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council taught: “We believe that this one true religion continues to exist in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus entrusted the task of spreading it among all people. Thus, he said to the Apostles: ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you' (Mt 28: 19-20). Especially in those things that concern God and his Church, all persons are required to seek the truth, and when they come to know it, to embrace it and hold fast to it.” [And thus have the gate of Heaven open to them. We must afford ourselves all benefits of Catholic teaching].
There are many Protestant Christian religions Presbyterian; too many to mention here. They all believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. But they only believe in some truths that Catholics believe. This does not mean that they are not in a loving relationship with God.
IV. UNICITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH
Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church.” Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church's integrity — will never be lacking.
Understanding the Church
To understand the Catholic Church and where it is coming from you have to understand the meaning and definition of the word “Church” as it was used by the Catholic Church from the time of Christ and especially during the third Century till the present time.
The term church (Anglo-Saxon, cirice, circe; Modern German, Kirche; Sw., Kyrka) is the name employed in the Teutonic languages to render the Greek ekklesia (ecclesia), the term by which the New Testament writers denote the society founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. The derivation of the word has been much debated. It is now agreed that it is derived from the Greek kyriakon (cyriacon), i.e. the Lord's house, a term which from the third century was used, as well as ekklesia, to signify a Christian place of worship.
The Second Vatican Council used the term “church” in reference to Orthodox churches because, although separated from the Catholic Church, they have preserved apostolic succession, the ordained priesthood and the Eucharist.
Christian communities born out of the Reformation on the other hand do not enjoy apostolic succession – the unbroken succession of bishops going back to St. Peter – and therefore “cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called ‘true churches’ in the proper sense.” Christ instituted one Church, not many with different teachings. The reality of the Eucharist and the succession of the Bishops from St. Peter on down is paramount in truth which the doctrine of Holy Catholic Church teaches.
Christ’s intention in employing the term [church] “on this rock I will build my church” denote the society He Himself was establishing cannot be mistaken. It implied the claim that this society now constituted the true people of God, that the Old Covenant was passing away, and that He, the promised Messias, was inaugurating a New Covenant with a New Israel.
It may signify the whole body of the faithful, including not merely the members of the Church who are alive on earth but those, too, whether in heaven or in purgatory, who form part of the one communion of saints. Considered thus, the Church is divided into the Church Militant, the Church Suffering, and the Church Triumphant.
It is further employed to signify the Church Militant of the New Testament. Even in this restricted acceptation, there is some variety in the use of the term. The disciples of a single locality are often referred to in the New Testament as a Church (Revelation 2:18; Romans 16:4; Acts 9:31), and St. Paul even applies the term to disciples belonging to a single household (Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:19, Colossians 4:15; Philemon 1-2).
The definition of the Church given by Bellarmine is usually adopted by Catholic theologians: "A body of men united together by the profession of the same Christian Faith, and by participation in the same [all seven] sacraments, under the governance of lawful pastors, more especially of the Roman Pontiff, the sole vicar of Christ on earth"
Its extent will be universal (Matthew 28:19), and its duration to the end of time (Matthew 13:49); all powers that oppose it shall be crushed (Matthew 21:44). Moreover, it will be a supernatural kingdom of truth, in the world, though not of it (John 18:36). It will be one and undivided, and this unity shall be a witness to all men that its founder came from God (John 17:21).
The question at issue is, whether the Apostles did, or did not establish in the Christian communities a hierarchical organization. All Catholic scholars, together with some few Protestants, hold that they did so. The opposite view is maintained by the rationalist critics, together with the greater number of Protestants.
St. Paul in his earlier Epistles has no messages for the bishops or deacons, although the circumstances dealt with in the Epistles to the Corinthians and in that to the Galatians would seem to suggest a reference to the local rulers of the Church. When he enumerates the various functions to which God has called various members of the Church, he does not give us a list of Church offices. "God", he says, "hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors [didaskaloi]; after that miracles; then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues" (1 Corinthians 12:28). This is not a list of official designations. It is a list of "charismata" bestowed by the Holy Spirit, enabling the recipient to fulfill some special function. The only term which forms an exception to this is that of apostle. Here the word is doubtless used in the sense in which it signifies the twelve and St. Paul only.
At first the Apostles themselves fulfilled, it would seem, all the duties of Supreme oversight. They established the office when the growing needs of the Church demanded it. The Pastoral Epistles leave no room to doubt that Timothy and Titus were sent as bishops to Ephesus and to Crete respectively. To Timothy full Apostolic powers are conceded. Notwithstanding his youth he holds authority over both clergy and laity. To him is confided the duty of guarding the purity of the Church's faith, of ordaining priests, of exercising jurisdiction. Moreover, St. Paul’s exhortation to him, "to keep the commandment without spot, blameless, unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" shows that this was no transitory mission. A charge so worded includes in its sweep, not Timothy alone, but his successors in an office which is to last until the Second Advent [coming].
It is to be a kingdom ruled in His absence by men (Matthew 18:18; John 21:17). It is therefore a visible theocracy; and it will be substituted for the Jewish theocracy that has rejected Him (Matthew 21:43).
When it is asked, what is this kingdom of which Christ spoke, there can be but one answer. It is His Church, the society of those who accept His Divine legation, and admit His right to the obedience of faith which He claimed. His whole activity is directed to the establishment of such a society: He organizes it and appoints rulers over it, establishes rites and ceremonies in it, transfers to it the name which had hitherto designated the Jewish Church, and solemnly warns the Jews that the kingdom was no longer theirs, but had been taken from them and given to another people. The several steps taken by Christ in organizing the Church are traced by the Evangelists. He is represented as gathering numerous disciples, but as selecting twelve from their number to be His companions in an especial manner. These share His life. To them He reveals the more hidden parts of His doctrine (Matthew 13:11). He sends them as His deputies to preach the kingdom, and bestows on them the power to work miracles. All are bound to accept their message; and those who refuse to listen to them shall meet a fate more terrible than that of Sodom and Gomorra (Matthew 10:1-15).
The conclusion reached is put beyond all reasonable doubt by the testimony of the sub-Apostolic Age. This is so important in regard to the question of the episcopate that it is impossible entirely to pass it over. It will be enough, however, to refer to the evidence contained in the epistles of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, himself a disciple of the Apostles. In these epistles (about A. D. 107) he again and again asserts that the supremacy of the bishop is of Divine institution and belongs to the Apostolic constitution of the Church. He goes so far as to affirm that the bishop stands in the place of Christ Himself, [as the priest stands at Holy Mass during the consecration of the Body of Christ]. "When ye are obedient to the bishop as to Jesus Christ," he writes to the Trallians, "it is evident to me that ye are living not after men, but after Jesus Christ. . . be ye obedient also to the presbytery as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ" (ad Trall., n. 2). He also incidentally tells us that bishops are found in the Church, even in "the farthest parts of the earth" (ad Ephes., n. 3) It is out of the question that one who lived at a period so little removed from the actual Apostolic Age could have proclaimed this doctrine in terms such as he employs, had not the episcopate been universally recognized as of Divine appointment. It has been seen that Christ not only established the episcopate in the persons of the Twelve but, further, created in St. Peter the office of supreme pastor of the Church. (His solemn charge, "Feed my sheep", constituted Peter the common shepherd of the whole collective flock.)
Early Christian history tells us that before his death, he fixed his residence at Rome, and ruled the Church there as its bishop. It is from Rome that he dates his first Epistle, speaking of the city under the name of Babylon, a designation which St. John also gives it in the Apocalypse (c. xviii). At Rome, too, he suffered martyrdom in company with St. Paul, A.D. 67. The list of his successors in the see is known, from Linus, Anacletus, and Clement, who were the first to follow him, down to the reigning pontiff. The Church has ever seen in the occupant of the See of Rome the successor of Peter in the supreme pastorate.
The church, as has been seen, is a society formed of living men, not a mere mystical union of souls. As such it resembles other societies. Like them, it has its code of rules, its executive officers, its ceremonial observances. Yet it differs from them more than it resembles them: for it is a supernatural society. The Kingdom of God is supernatural alike in its origin, in the purpose at which it aims, and in the means at its disposal. Other kingdoms are natural in their origin; and their scope is limited to the temporal welfare of their citizens.
The doctrine of the absolute necessity of union with the Church was taught in explicit terms by Christ. Baptism, the act of incorporation among her members, He affirmed to be essential to salvation. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark 16:16). Any disciple who shall throw off obedience to the Church is to be reckoned as one of the heathen: he has no part in the Kingdom of God (Matthew 18:17). St. Paul is equally explicit. "A man that is a heretic", he writes to Titus, "after the first and second admonition avoid, knowing that he that is such a one is . . . condemned by his own judgment" (Tit., iii, 10 sq.). The doctrine is summed up in the phrase, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. This saying has been the occasion of so many objections that some consideration of its meaning seems desirable. It certainly does not mean that none can be saved except those who are in visible communion with the Church. [again it is incumbent on its members to know what the Church teaches].
The earliest successors of the Apostles speak as plainly as the medieval theologians, and the medieval theologians are not more emphatic than those of today. From the first century to the twentieth there is absolute unanimity. St. Ignatius of Antioch writes: "Be not deceived, my brethren. If any man followeth one that maketh schism, he doth not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walketh in strange doctrine, he hath no fellowship with the Passion" (ad Philad., n. 3). Origen says: "Let no man deceive himself. Outside this house, i.e. outside the Church, none is saved" (Hom. in Jos., iii, n. 5 in P. G., XII, 841). St. Cyprian speaks to the same effect: "He cannot have God for his father, who has not the Church for his mother" (De Unit., c. vi). The words of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Lateran (1215) define the doctrine thus in its decree against the Albigenses: "Una est fidelium universalis Ecclesia, extra quam nullus omnino salvatur" (Denzinger, n. 357); and Pius IX employed almost identical language in his Encyclical to the bishops of Italy (10 August, 1863):
The power to recognize the Church for what it is presupposes certain moral dispositions. Where there is a rooted unwillingness to follow God's will, there may be spiritual blindness to the claims of the Church. Invincible prejudice or inherited assumptions may produce the same result. But in such cases the incapacity to see is due, not to the want of visibility in the Church, but to the blindness of the individual. The case bears an almost exact analogy to the evidence possessed by the proofs for the existence of God. The proofs in themselves are evident: but they may fail to penetrate a mind obscured by prejudice or ill will. From the time of the Reformation, Protestant writers either denied the visibility of the Church, or so explained it as to rob it of most of its meaning. After briefly indicating the grounds of the Catholic doctrine, some views prevalent on this subject among Protestant authorities will be noticed.
The doctrine of the older Protestant writers is that there are two Churches, a visible and an invisible. This is the view of such standard Anglican divines as Barrow, Field, and Jeremy Taylor (see e.g. Barrow, Unity of Church, Works, 1830, VII, 628). Those who thus explain visibility urge that the essential and vital element of membership in Christ lies in an inner union with Him; that this is necessarily invisible, and those who possess it constitute an invisible Church. Those who are united to Him externally alone have, they maintain, no part in His grace. Thus, when He promised to His Church the gift of indefectibility, declaring that the gates of hell should never prevail against it, the promise must be understood of the invisible, not of the visible Church. In regard to this theory, which is still tolerably prevalent, it is to be said that Christ's promises were made to the Church as a corporate body, as constituting a society. As thus understood, they were made to the visible Church, not to an invisible and unknown body. Indeed for this distinction between a visible and an invisible Church there is no Scriptural warrant. Even though many of her children prove unfaithful, yet all that Christ said in regard to the Church is realized in her as a corporate body. Nor does the unfaithfulness of these professing Catholics cut them off altogether from membership in Christ. They are His in virtue of their baptism. The character then received still stamps them as His. Though dry and withered branches they are not altogether broken off from the true Vine.
The doctrine of the visibility in no way excludes from the Church those who have already attained to bliss. These are united with the members of the Church Militant in one communion of saints. They watch her struggles; their prayers are offered on her behalf. Similarly, those who are still in the cleansing fires of purgatory belong to the Church. There are not, as has been said, two Churches; there is but one Church, and of it all the souls of the just, whether in heaven, on earth, or in purgatory, are members (Catech. Rom., I, x, 6). But it is to the Church only in so far as militant here below -- to the Church among men -- that the property of visibility belongs.
The authority established in the Church holds its commission from above, not from below. The pope and the bishops exercise their power as the successors of the men who were chosen by Christ in person. They are not, as the Presbyterian theory of Church government teaches, the delegates of the flock; their warrant is received from the Shepherd, not from the sheep. The view that ecclesiastical authority is ministerial only, and derived by delegation from the faithful, was expressly condemned by Pius VI (1794) in his Constitution "Auctorem Fidei" (q.v.); and on the renovation of the error by certain recent Modernist writers, Pius X reiterated the condemnation in the Encyclical on the errors of the Modernists. In this sense the government of the Church is not democratic. This indeed is involved in the very nature of the Church as a supernatural society, leading men to a supernatural end. No man is capable of wielding authority for such a purpose, unless power is communicated to him from a Divine source. The case is altogether different where civil society is concerned. There the end is not supernatural: it is the temporal well-being of the citizens. It cannot then be said that a special endowment is required to render any class of men capable of filling the place of rulers and of guides. Hence the Church approves equally all forms of civil government which are consonant with the principle of justice. The power exercised by the Church through sacrifice and sacrament (potestas ordinis) lies outside the present subject. It is proposed briefly to consider here the nature of the Church's authority in her office (1) of teaching (potestas magisterii) and (2) of government (potestas jurisdictionis).
As the Divinely appointed teacher of revealed truth, the Church is infallible. This gift of inerrancy is guaranteed to it by the words of Christ, in which He promised that His Spirit would abide with it forever to guide it unto all truth (John 14:16; 16:13). It is implied also in other passages of Scripture, and asserted by the unanimous testimony of the Fathers. The scope of this infallibility is to preserve the deposit of faith revealed to man by Christ and His Apostles. The Church teaches expressly that it is the guardian only of the revelation, that it can teach nothing which it has not received. The Vatican Council declares: "The Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter, in order that through His revelation they might manifest new doctrine: but that through His assistance they might religiously guard, and faithfully expound the revelation handed down by the Apostles, or the deposit of the faith" (Conc. Vat., Sess. IV, cap. liv).
It is needless to point out that if the Christian Faith is indeed a revealed doctrine, which men must believe under pain of eternal loss, the gift of infallibility was necessary to the Church. Could she err at all, she might err in any point. The flock would have no guarantee of the truth of any doctrine. The condition of those bodies which at the time of the Reformation forsook the Church affords us an object-lesson in point. Divided into various sections and parties, they are the scene of never-ending disputes; and by the nature of the case they are cut off from all hope of attaining to certainty. In regard also to the moral law, the need of an infallible guide is hardly less imperative. Though on a few broad principles there may be some consensus of opinion as to what is right and what is wrong, yet, in the application of these principles to concrete facts, it is impossible to obtain agreement. On matters of such practical moment as are, for instance, the questions of private property, marriage, and liberty, the most divergent views are defended by thinkers of great ability. Amid all this questioning the unerring voice of the Church gives confidence to her children that they are following the right course, and have not been led astray by some specious fallacy.
Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt