Annotation CIV

”When you see the abomination,” etc. — Matthew 24:15

Whether the true Church can be recognized by certain marks, and by which.

The author of the Opus imperfectum, homily 49, writes that the Church cannot be known [as to] whether it is the true [one] — neither from [its] bishops, nor from miracles, nor from sacraments, nor from good morals; but only from the divine Scriptures. The words expressing such an opinion are these: “For those wishing to know which is the true Church of Christ, there is no other way than through the Scriptures. Why? Because all these [things], since they belong properly to Christ in truth, those heresies too have in [their] schism — likewise churches, likewise the divine Scriptures themselves, likewise bishops and the other orders of clergy, likewise baptism, likewise the Eucharist, and all other [things], and then Christ himself. Whoever, therefore, wishes to know which is the true Church of Christ — whence should he know [it], amid so great a confusion of likeness, except only through the Scriptures? Likewise, formerly [true and false Christians] were recognized also by signs — who were true Christians and who false — in what way? The false either could not do [signs] as the true Christians [did], or could not [do] such [signs] as the true Christians: but they did empty [ones], producing admiration indeed, but having no usefulness, as we have frequently explained. But the [true] Christians did full [signs], not only producing admiration, but also having every usefulness. And by these it was recognized who were true Christians, [and] who false. But now the working of signs is altogether removed [ceased]: nay rather, feigned [signs] are found to be done even among those who are false Christians. And, as Peter expounds in [the writings of] Clement, to Antichrist too the power of doing full signs is to be given. Likewise, from the morals themselves the Church of Christ was formerly known, when the conversation [way of life] of Christians —

[the way of life of Christians] was holy — either of all, or of many — which was not [found] among the impious. But now Christians have become either such [as], or worse than, the heretics or the gentiles are. And still greater continence is found among those [heretics], although they are in schism, than among [the] Christians. Whoever, then, wishes to know which is the true Church of Christ — whence should he know [it], except only through the Scriptures?” This passage, under the name of Chrysostom, the heretics of our age usurp — who, the judgment of the fathers and the definition of the councils being scorned, contend that one must rely only on the divine Scriptures, and that the knowledge of the true Church must be sought from these alone.

But how miserably these unhappy [men] are deceived, that most holy — and, among the fathers who flourished nearly twelve hundred years ago, most learned and most eloquent — Vincent of Lérins most clearly demonstrated, in a truly golden little book published [by him], which all lovers of catholic piety ought to turn over with assiduous hand, as a handbook, or a soldier’s little dagger against the profane innovations of all heresies. He, then, among other [things] which he disputed concerning the method of discerning the true Church and faith from the false church and faith of the heretics, brought forward three rules — beyond and after the divine Scripture — by which the difference of the two churches may most certainly be detected. And these are: the Universality, the Antiquity, [and] the Consent of ecclesiastical tradition. But it is better to report these in his most elegant words, which are had almost at the beginning of the same little work in this manner: “Often, inquiring with great zeal and the utmost attention from very many men outstanding in sanctity and doctrine, in what way I might be able — by a certain fixed, and as it were general and regular, way — to discern the truth of the catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity: I always received a response of this kind from almost all, that whether I, or anyone [else], wished to detect the frauds of the rising heretics, and to avoid [their] snares, and to remain sound and whole in a sound faith, he ought — the Lord helping — to fortify his faith in a twofold manner: first, namely, by the authority of the divine law [Scripture], and then next by the tradition of the catholic Church.

Here perhaps someone may ask: Since the canon of the Scriptures is perfect, and of itself more than sufficiently suffices for all things — what need is there that the authority of ecclesiastical understanding be joined to it? [I answer:] because, namely, on account of its very depth, not all receive Sacred Scripture in one and the same sense; but one and another interprets its utterances in one way and another way, so that almost as many opinions seem able to be drawn thence as there are men. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, [and] Macedonius another; Photinus, Apollinaris, [and] Priscillian another; Jovinian, Pelagius, [and] Coelestius another; and lastly Nestorius another. And therefore, on account of so great [and] so various windings of error, it is very necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed according to the norm of the ecclesiastical and catholic sense. And within the catholic Church itself, great care must be taken that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. For this is truly and properly ‘catholic’ — as the very force of the name, and its reasoning, declares — [that name] which comprehends all things truly [and] universally. But this [we shall achieve] only thus,

if we follow Universality, Antiquity, [and] Consent. And we shall follow Universality in this way, if we confess this one faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; but Antiquity thus, if we in no way depart from those senses [interpretations] which it is manifest our holy elders and fathers celebrated; and Consent likewise, if in that very antiquity we follow the definitions and opinions of all — or at least of almost all — the priests and teachers alike. What, then, shall a catholic Christian do, if some little part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, indeed, but that he prefer the health of the whole body to a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion tries to defile not now a small portion only, but the whole Church equally? Then likewise he will provide to cleave to antiquity, which now cannot in any way be seduced by any fraud of novelty. What, if in that very antiquity an error of two or three men, or certainly of one city, or even of some [one] province, be detected? Then he will altogether take care that, over against the rashness or ignorance of a few, he prefer — if there are any — the decrees of a universal council [made] universally of old. But if any such thing should emerge, where nothing of this kind is found: then he will take pains to consult, and to interrogate, the collated opinions of the elders — of those only who, though [living] at diverse times and places, yet remaining in the communion and faith of the one catholic Church, stood forth as approved teachers; and whatever he shall recognize that not one or two only, but all alike, with one and the same consent, openly, frequently, [and] perseveringly held, wrote, [and] taught — let him understand that this too is to be believed by him without any doubt.” Thus far Vincent.

But Augustine, compressing the same marks of the true Church into fewer words, and showing that these very [marks] are found in the Roman Church, speaks thus in the book Against the Letter of Mani, chapter 4: “There are many [things] which most justly hold me in the bosom of the Church. The consent of peoples and nations holds me; the authority holds [me] — begun by miracles, nourished by hope, increased by charity, [and] confirmed by antiquity; the succession of priests holds me — from the very see of Peter the Apostle (to whom, after his resurrection, the Lord commended his sheep to be fed) down to the present episcopate; lastly, the very name of ‘catholic’ holds [me] — which, not without cause, this [Church] alone has obtained amid so many heresies.”