714. The last property of the Church which we profess in the Symbol is Apostolicity; for we say, “I believe… the Apostolic Church.” But as to why the ministerial cause of the Church, rather than the principal cause, is expressed in the Symbol, and thus she is called Apostolic rather than Christian, among other reasons this is usually given: namely, that the appellation Apostolic is fuller. For when the Church is called Christian, only the principal cause is designated; but when she is called Apostolic, the ministerial cause is designated together with the principal cause. For the name Apostle, that is, Sent One, is essentially relative, and therefore designates the ministerial cause with its dependence upon the principal cause.
715. Now, all who attribute to themselves the name Christian concede that the Church of Christ ought to be Apostolic in some sense. Indeed, Christ gave the mission to the Apostles of instituting or founding Churches throughout the whole world (John 20.21; Matthew, final chapter). The Apostle (Eph. 2.20) admonished the faithful that they had been built “upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets.” St. John (Apoc. 21.14) says that he saw the city Jerusalem, namely the Church, whose wall had “twelve foundations, and in them the twelve names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb.” Hence those very persons who require faith alone for constituting the Church, and reduce that faith itself to the fundamental article concerning Christ (no. 639), call the Church Apostolic insofar as, as to this faith, she agrees with the Church of the Apostles. But since there are diverse Christian sects, and only one can be the true Church of Christ, which therefore is also truly Apostolic, it is of the greatest importance to define the true concept of apostolicity.
716. Therefore, in a certain adequate but general acceptance, the apostolicity of the Church imports “the permanent and uninterrupted existence of the same Church which was in the Apostles and was founded by the Apostles.” Hence that Church is now called apostolic which “has identity with the primitive Church of the Apostles.” But in order that it may be well understood in what this identity consists, three kinds of institutions must be distinguished in the primitive Church: divine institutions, which were promulgated by Christ himself; divine-apostolic institutions, which, received by the Apostles from the Holy Spirit after Christ’s Ascension, were first promulgated by them; and apostolic institutions, which the Apostles introduced by their pastoral authority without a new revelation (no. 321).
717. Now the institutions of the first and second class belong to that form of the Church in which she must persevere perpetually. The institutions of the third class are indeed for the most part perpetually preserved by the Church, but they are not those things which must be preserved by absolute necessity. For since the whole apostolic power was perpetually transmitted into the Church, there is also transmitted the power of abrogating apostolic institutions and of sanctioning new ecclesiastical statutes. When the Church does this, she is so far from receding from apostolic form that, on the contrary, she uses apostolic authority, to which it essentially belongs that it cannot be bound by any created will.
718. Therefore the Apostolic Church, under this general acceptance, is that which permanently has all things which pertain by divine institution to her essence, properties, and endowments; which is permanently a visible society, one in faith, in communion, in government; holy with a certain excellent and manifest holiness, both active and passive, etc. Hence, as Perrone rightly notes with others (On Theological Places, part 1, no. 172), apostolicity understood in this way is not something distinct from the constitutive elements and properties of the Church taken together, but is the conjoined, continuous, and indefectible existence of them all. Palmer, a Protestant, writes: “The Church of Christ is, by the admission of all parties, apostolical, or derived in some manner from the Apostles.”
719. But here we inquire into the proper concept of apostolicity, which is distinguished from unity and the other constitutive elements or properties of the Church. In what is it to be placed? The Church is called apostolic for three principal reasons: 1) by origin, insofar as she was founded in the Apostles; 2) by doctrine, or faith, insofar as she retains that faith which the Apostles preached; 3) by succession or mission, insofar as she embraces in her bosom those who in the hierarchical order legitimately descend from the Apostles. “From the origin also,” says the Catechism of the Council of Trent (on the ninth article of the Symbol, no. 17), “which revealed grace derives from the Apostles, we recognize the truth of the Church; since her doctrine is truth, not recent, nor now first arisen, but long ago handed down by the Apostles and disseminated into the whole world… The Holy Spirit, who presides over the Church, governs her through no other kind of ministers than through the Apostolic. This Spirit was first indeed bestowed upon the Apostles, and afterward, by the highest goodness of God, always remained in the Church.”
720. But 1) apostolicity of origin is outside controversy (no. 715), and apostolicity of succession necessarily supposes and includes it; for no one can succeed the Apostles in the hierarchical order in the Church unless the Apostles had first held that same order. 2) Apostolicity of faith, which Tertullian (On Prescription, chapter 33) calls consanguinity of doctrine, namely with the doctrine of the Apostles, is manifestly established if apostolicity of succession is once demonstrated. This is both because, as we proved (nos. 650 ff.), the true faith of the Church consists in believing all the truths which the Church, that is, the Apostles and their successors, propose as divinely revealed and to be believed; and because Christ, as will be proved below, furnished the Apostles and their successors with the charism of infallibility in proposing the doctrine of faith. Hence the Fathers joined apostolic succession with the presumption of apostolic doctrine, as though by its own right. “It is necessary,” says St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 33, no. 2), “to obey those presbyters who are in the Church, those who have succession from the Apostles, as we have shown: those who with the succession of the episcopate” “have received according to the good pleasure of the Father” the sure charism of truth; “but as for the rest, who depart from the principal succession and gather in any place whatever, one must hold them suspect, either as heretics and of evil opinion, or as cutters-apart and puffed up and pleasing themselves.” 3) Therefore the whole of apostolicity is contained in apostolicity of succession.
721. The name itself in fact indicates this. For the name Apostle, whence Apostolicity, is derived from the Greek words apo and stolon, which is the same as one sent with commands. But the question concerns apostolicity, or divine mission in the matter of religion, indeed of the Christian Religion; for we do not call Apostles those who were divinely sent before Christ. Therefore apostolicity is that legitimate mission entrusted by God to certain men of propagating, teaching, and governing the Church in a ministerial capacity. But since the Apostles are mortal, and received a perpetual mission, it is necessary that others be substituted, who, made heirs and successors of those departing, receive and hold the mission, to be transmitted again in an uninterrupted series to those following, even to the consummation of the age. Therefore the Apostolic Church is that which the first envoys of Christ, or Apostles, founded and governed, and which even now they hold and govern through their legitimate successors. From these things it is evident that the true concept of apostolic mission and succession must be explained, so that we may attain the genuine idea of Apostolicity.
722. Come then, what is apostolic succession? It can be described as “the public, legitimate, perennial, or never interrupted, substitution of persons into the place of the Apostles for ruling and feeding the Church.” It is called 1) substitution, in order to signify that the successors of the Apostles are not their vicars, but carry on that very office which the Apostles, insofar as they were rulers and administrators of churches, carried on. 2) It is called public, since, because the matter concerns the authority of ruling an external and public society, it must be established by determinate and publicly known marks that these and not others have truly succeeded to the apostolic office. 3) It is called legitimate, so that, namely, both on the part of the one giving the power, and on the part of the one receiving it, and on the part of the mode by which the power is conferred, the transmission has been carried out according to the norm of law. 4) It is called perennial or not interrupted, both materially, insofar as persons who are continually substituted for the Apostles are not wholly lacking, and formally, insofar as these very substituted persons possess authority derived from the Apostles, receiving it from him who actually has it and can communicate it.
723. In order that we may grasp these things more fully, it must be recalled that in the successors of the Apostles there can be distinguished ordination or consecration, and vocation or mission; and hence a twofold power, of order and of jurisdiction. But it is not necessary that we treat expressly here of ordination. For 1) the things which pertain to it are partly clear from what has been said about the distinction by divine right between clerics and laymen, and are partly and principally handed down in the treatise On Orders. 2) Although Apostolic succession necessarily includes ordination, nevertheless in ecclesiastical terminology it does not solely or principally signify a succession of men which through the continual transmission of the episcopal character ascends to the Apostles; rather, it principally signifies a succession of men which through the continual transmission of the authority of teaching and feeding the faithful ascends to the Apostles. 3) From the legitimacy of vocation or mission recognized through the other conditions, the validity of ordination is legitimately inferred, if the discussion is about the Church and her certain Head, not about some individual; for if apostolic succession can never be lacking in the Church, neither can any condition or element necessarily required for it. Compare On the Infused Virtues, no. 501.
724. But as regards mission, or the conferral of actual and ready jurisdiction in the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church, it must be noted 1) that this power, otherwise than the power of order, can be lost; and therefore acts of this same power illegitimately exercised are not only illicit, but also invalid; whereas, on the contrary, acts of the power of order illegitimately exercised are illicit, but valid. Suppose, for example, that a heretical or schismatic Bishop, that is, one who truly received Episcopal consecration, consecrates another as Bishop; this man would be validly consecrated and would have the power of order, but not the power of jurisdiction. Otherwise he would receive this from one who does not have it, which is certainly repugnant. 2) In order that someone possess apostolic mission, it is necessary that he adhere to the center of unity which Christ instituted. For if he did not adhere to it, he would already be outside the Church; but one who is outside the Church cannot possess authority to rule her. Hence St. Gregory Nazianzen (Oration in praise of St. Athanasius, no. 8) writes: “For neither is he who has burst in by force to be regarded as successor… nor he who has violated the laws… nor he who holds contrary dogmas… unless perhaps someone would call him a successor in the way that we say disease succeeds health, darkness succeeds light, storm succeeds calm, and alienation of mind succeeds prudence.” And St. Cyprian (letter 76): “The Church is one, which, being one, can be both inside and not outside. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded Fabian the Bishop by legitimate ordination, Novatian is not in the Church, nor can he be counted a Bishop, who, with evangelical and apostolic tradition despised, succeeding no one, arose from himself.” 3) Since in the center of unity resides the fullness of apostolic authority, hence it happens that it is able to communicate apostolicity and to heal any defect which obstructs apostolicity. Suppose, for example, some assembly of baptized persons founded by Eutychians; that assembly certainly will not be apostolic. But if afterward, having abjured the heresy, it were subjected to the center of unity, by that very fact it would become part of the apostolic Church; for having renounced its prior adulterous birth, it would as it were obtain a second, legitimate one. Suppose also an assembly first gathered together by legitimate apostolic authority, but having lost apostolic succession through separation from the center of unity; if afterward it returns to that center, the loss incurred of apostolic origin is repaired. These things are easily understood either from those things which are required in order that someone become a member of some society, or in order that some province become part of some kingdom.
725. From these things there follows a corollary of the greatest importance, namely that communion with the center of unity suffices for recognizing apostolicity. For if this were otherwise lacking to some group which is called Christian, through the very adhesion to the center of unity, in which there is the fullness of apostolic authority, it would be supplied, as we have said, or obtained. Therefore, to summarize briefly what we have set forth thus far, we say that the aforesaid adhesion to the center of unity truly is the head in this whole controversy concerning the apostolicity of the Church. For the Church is called apostolic by origin, doctrine, and succession (no. 719); once apostolicity of succession has been established, apostolicity of origin and doctrine is rightly inferred (no. 720); but apostolicity of succession comprises ordination or consecration and mission (no. 723); legitimate ordination is deservedly supposed or inferred if legitimate mission is established (no. 723); and legitimate mission itself is obtained or supplied through adhesion to the center of unity. Therefore if this adhesion is proved, by that very fact adequate apostolicity is shown.
726. This is the genuine idea of Apostolicity, which is clear even by its exposition alone; but it will become clearer from the arguments soon to be brought forward. Meanwhile it is pleasing to confirm it at once by the authority of Tertullian (On Prescription, chapter 32). “But besides,” he says, “if any [heresies] dare to insert themselves into the Apostolic age… we can say: Let them therefore produce the origins of their Churches; let them unfold the order of their Bishops, running down through successions from the beginning, so that that first Bishop had as author and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of apostolic men, ‘who nevertheless persevered with the Apostles.’ For in this way the apostolic Churches bring forward their rolls… According to this form, therefore, they will be tested by those Churches which, although they produce as their author no one from the Apostles or apostolic men, as being much later, and which finally are instituted daily, nevertheless, agreeing in the same faith, are accounted no less apostolic on account of consanguinity of doctrine. Thus all heresies, challenged by our Churches to each form, may prove themselves apostolic in whatever way they think. But they are so far from being apostolic, and cannot prove what they are not, nor are they received into peace and communication by Churches in any manner apostolic, clearly because, by diversity of Sacrament, they are in no manner apostolic.”
727. But the errors of the Innovators in this matter can be reduced to these: 1) In words they concede apostolicity of doctrine, but they pervert its true concept; the errors are the same as those which we reported against unity of faith. 2) As regards apostolicity of succession, first recur the errors which we refuted in establishing the distinction by divine right between laymen and clerics, and in excluding the democratic form of government from the Church. 3) Those who belong to what they call the High Church especially deny the necessity of communion with the center of unity. 4) Therefore the error proper to this place is extraordinary mission, which they devised in order to cover the defect of apostolicity of mission and origin in their sects. For when, they say, the state of the Church is such that either no persons can be appointed by ordinary vocation to perform ecclesiastical functions, or those who are appointed are infected with vices of faith and morals, so that not even their amendment can be hoped for; when otherwise the ordinary vocation of better persons is impossible, then, they say, nothing prevents those who have not been called ordinarily from performing apostolic duties through an extraordinary vocation. Indeed, they add, in that state of the Church anyone is bound in conscience, by force of the common vocation of all Christians, to discharge apostolic offices according to his powers. But the Innovators suppose that this happened in Luther and Calvin, who, moreover, were stirred up by a hidden divine motion, and therefore by an extraordinary vocation, to undertake the reformation of the Church. Palmer seems sometimes even to admit this necessity, since he writes (Episcopacy Vindicated, chapter 2): “We do not contend that unlawful consecrations transmit the apostolical jurisdiction”; and in On the Church, volume 1, page 142: “This succession from the Apostles is a certain note of a Church, unless it be clearly convicted of schism or heresy.” But they err concerning the nature of schism, as we saw when treating of unity of government in the Church.
728. These things, therefore, having been set forth: Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved. Proposition XXXI. 1. The Church of Christ, founded in the Apostles, must always persevere Apostolic, both by origin and doctrine, and by public and perennial succession, by which, through a series of pastors never interrupted, proceeding from the Apostles, she is always joined with them. 2. Nor can the hypothesis of extraordinary mission, introduced by the Innovators, be admitted in any way according to Christ’s institution and promises. 3. And just as Apostolic succession alone sufficiently shows Apostolicity of origin and doctrine, 4. so the legitimate succession of the center of unity alone manifests the true Apostolic Church.
729. The first part is proved, I, as regards Apostolicity of origin. That Church must always be which Christ instituted; but Christ instituted the Church in the Apostles, and through the Apostles he willed her to be propagated. Therefore the Church must always be Apostolic by origin. In fact, if on the one hand Christ founded the Church, which was to endure perpetually, as apostolic by origin, and on the other hand the true Church could at some time not be one and the same with that which the Apostles founded, then not one Church, but a twofold Church, would be established. But from what has been said, Christ willed his Church to be one, indeed unique. Therefore.
730. II. As regards Apostolicity of doctrine. The faith of the Church at any time cannot be other than the faith and doctrine of Christ; but the doctrine of the Apostles is nothing other than the doctrine of Christ. Therefore the doctrine of the Church must always be Apostolic doctrine.
731. Hence the Fathers constantly used novelty of doctrine as a most certain sign of heresy; for it was settled among them that the doctrine or faith of the Church must be identical with the doctrine of the Apostles. Thus, for example, St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 3): “Therefore the tradition of the Apostles, manifested in the whole world, is present in the Church to be looked upon by all who wish to hear true things, and we are able to enumerate those who were appointed Bishops in the Churches by the Apostles, and their successors even to us, who taught nothing of this sort, nor knew anything such as is raved by these [heretics]. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they taught separately and secretly to the perfect apart from the rest, they would have handed these things especially to those to whom they were also entrusting the Churches themselves. For they greatly wished those whom they left as successors, handing over to them their own place of teaching, to be perfect and irreprehensible in all things; for if these acted correctly there would be great utility, but if they fell, the greatest calamity.” Tertullian (On Prescription, chapter 20): “The Apostles, first throughout Judea, after attesting faith in Jesus Christ and instituting Churches, then having gone out into the world, promulgated to the nations the same doctrine of the same faith, and accordingly founded Churches in each city; from these the other Churches borrowed, and daily borrow, the shoot of faith and the seeds of doctrine, so that they may become Churches. And by this they themselves also are accounted Apostolic, as offspring of Apostolic Churches.” St. Jerome, in his letter to Pammachius and Oceanus: “Whoever you are, assertor of new dogmas, I beg you to spare Roman ears, spare the faith which was praised by the Apostolic mouth. Why, after four hundred years, do you strive to teach us what we did not know before? Why do you bring forward into the open what Peter and Paul were unwilling to publish? Until this day the Christian world has existed without that doctrine.”
732. III. As regards succession. 1) The Church cannot be ruled and governed except by that authority which Christ instituted; this is clear both because Christ is the author of the Church, and because the power of ruling the Church is supernatural, and therefore can proceed only from God. But Christ willed that the Church be ruled through apostolic authority perpetually enduring in their successors. Therefore the Church must always be Apostolic by succession, or by government. The minor is proved. a) Christ conferred upon the Apostles the power of ruling the Church, and he willed that it be transmitted to their successors (nos. 482-484; 524). b) The Apostles preached this power of theirs received from Christ. For in order to commend themselves to the faithful, they often recalled to their memory that eminent power of ruling and teaching which they had received from Christ. Thus (2 Cor. 5.20): “We act as ambassadors for Christ, as though God exhorted through us”; (1 Cor. 4.1): “Let a man so account us as ministers of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God”; (1 Thess. 2.13): “We give thanks to God without ceasing, because when you had received from us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but, as it truly is, the word of God.” And, endowed with this persuasion, they exact from the faithful this recognition of their vicarious power, namely full obedience; thus (2 Cor. 2.9): “I wrote that I might know the proof of you, whether you are obedient in all things”; (2 Thess. 3.14): “If anyone does not obey our word, mark this man by letter and do not associate with him.” c) The Apostles exercised this same power; they communicated it to others, to be communicated by those others to still others (no. 524 ff.). 2) Christ willed unity of faith, which consists in this, that the faithful dispersed throughout the world believe all those truths which the Apostles preached and which their successors propose to be believed (nos. 650 ff.). But such unity, as is clear, could not be had without apostolic succession, for this is the principle of unity of faith. Therefore this apostolic succession must always be in the Church.
733. The second part is proved. 1. From Scripture. For 1) the hypothesis of extraordinary mission must be rejected if, from Christ’s institution, Apostolic succession can never fail. But so it is. For a) Christ the Lord sent the Apostles into the whole world, to teach all nations, and to them as teachers he promised that he would be present all days, even to the consummation of the age. But these things would be false if Apostolic succession could ever fail. b) Christ, according to the Apostle (Eph. 4), gave apostles, pastors, and doctors “for the consummation of the saints, unto the work of ministry, unto the edification of the body of Christ, until we all meet in unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ.” By these words an ordinary and mediate apostolic mission is foretold as enduring until the mystical body of Christ shall have been fully built up. Therefore pastors and doctors can never be given who, through an extraordinary mission, supply the defect of the former ones. 2) The very mission of St. Paul, which some misuse, overturns the hypothesis of the Innovators. For it is true that the Apostle received a certain extraordinary mission immediately from Christ the Lord; but because this was done after Christ’s ascension into heaven, or after the Church had been founded in the Apostles and announced through them, a) Paul is referred back to the Apostles themselves, or to others appointed by them; b) he confers with the Apostles concerning the Gospel to be preached by him; c) he brings to the Apostles in Jerusalem the question concerning legal observances which had arisen at Antioch. Therefore, far from overturning the Apostolic authority already existing and being substituted in its place, he rather acknowledges it.
734. II. If God wished to endow certain men with extraordinary mission, which all would have to acknowledge under penalty of eternal damnation, he certainly ought to confirm it by such signs that it would be plainly known to all. Now these signs are chiefly miracles: by these Christ himself showed his mission; by the same the mission of the Apostles was confirmed, as we demonstrated in the first and second disputations. Nor did Luther himself think otherwise in this matter, who, writing in the Jena volume 2 to the Senate of Muehlhausen in the case of Muenzer, says: “Let the illustrious Senate call Thomas Muenzer to itself, and, if it can be done, to the whole community, and let it ask him who sent him or called him to preach. If he says that he was sent by God and by his Spirit, as once the Apostles were, let him prove this by signs and miracles. For when God wishes the ordinary mode to be changed, he always works miracles at the same time.” But what are the miracles of the Innovators? Luther indeed attempted to expel a demon from a girl possessed; but with so unhappy a result that he was forced to desist from what he had begun, as Staphylus, an eyewitness, reports. What shall I say about the miracles of Calvin? Jerome Bolsec, an eyewitness, narrates that Calvin wished to raise up a certain Brulaeus, whom he had persuaded, from hope of gain and money, to feign himself dead; but that he found him truly dead. Cardinal Gotti vindicates this story against the objections of heretics (On the Church, volume 1, chapter 2, section 6). Hence Erasmus (Diatribe on Free Will), speaking of the Lutherans, says: “No one of them has yet existed who could heal even a lame horse.” To him Luther replied (in the book On the Bondage of the Will): “Miracles ought not to be demanded from us, who deny free will”; and Calvin (preface to the Institutes): “They act dishonestly,” he says, “because they demand miracles from us.” Compare Francis de Walenburch (tract 8, sect. 14 ff.).
735. The third part does not need to be demonstrated here; for 1) it is clear from the arguments which we indicated (no. 720); 2) from the authority of the Fathers, some testimonies of whom we have given in this very article; 3) it will be confirmed from the testimonies which we shall exhibit for the following part of the thesis.
736. The fourth part is proved. I. The Fathers, in order to prove apostolicity of doctrine, had recourse to apostolicity of succession; but in order to prove this, they constantly showed apostolic succession in the center of unity. Thus St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 3) says: “But since it would be very long in a volume of this sort to enumerate the successions of all the Churches, by indicating the tradition which that greatest and most ancient Church, known to all, founded and constituted by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul, has from the Apostles, and the faith announced to men, coming down through the successions of Bishops even to us, we confound all those who in whatever way gather otherwise than they ought, whether through self-pleasing, or vain glory, or blindness and evil opinion. For to this Church, on account of its more powerful principality, every Church must come together, that is, the faithful who are everywhere, in which Church the tradition which is from the Apostles has always been preserved by those who are everywhere.” Compare what Schrader learnedly discusses concerning this testimony of St. Irenaeus (On Roman Unity, part 1, nos. 109 ff.). Tertullian, after confirming the same heads of doctrine which we have set forth, finally (On Prescription, chapters 32-36) extols “Rome, whence authority is also at hand for us,” he says. “How happy is that Church, into which the Apostles poured out their whole doctrine together with their blood. Where Peter is made equal to the Lord’s passion. Where Paul is crowned with the departure of John [the Baptist]. Where the Apostle John, after he had been plunged into fiery oil and suffered nothing, is relegated to an island. Let us see what she learned, what she taught, what she has pledged together with the African Churches.” St. Cyprian (On the Unity of the Church): “The proof for faith is easy by the compendium of truth. The Lord speaks to Peter: I say to thee, he says, that thou art, etc… And again after his resurrection he says: Feed my sheep. Upon that one he builds his Church, and to him he commands that his sheep be fed… so that he might manifest unity, he arranged by his authority the origin of that same unity beginning from one.” St. Optatus of Milevis (On the Schism of the Donatists, book 1, chapter 2): “Therefore you cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was first conferred upon Peter, in which Peter, the head of all the Apostles, sat; whence he was also called Cephas. In this one chair unity was to be preserved by all; nor were the other Apostles each to claim separate chairs for themselves, so that he would already be a schismatic and sinner who should set up another chair against the singular chair.” St. Ambrose (On the Sacraments, book 3, chapter 7): “He himself is Peter, to whom Christ said: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church. Where Peter is, therefore, there is the Church.” And: “In all things I desire to follow the Roman Church.” St. Jerome (Against the Luciferians) concludes thus: “I could spend the day with discourse of this kind, and dry up all the little streams of propositions with the one sun of the Church. But because we have already spoken much, and the prolixity of the contest has wearied the attention of the hearers, I shall put forward to you the brief and open judgment of my mind: one must remain in that Church which, founded by the Apostles, endures to this day.” Now it is established that for Jerome the Church antonomastically Apostolic is Rome. For, answering Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, who had said that it was guarded by the rules of the Church that no one should make a divorce from his own bishop, he says (letter 63, no. 2) that he follows “the Roman faith, praised by the apostolic mouth, in which the Alexandrian Church glories that it shares.” And disputing against Rufinus (book 1, no. 4), he sharply presses him thus: “What does he call his faith? That in which the Roman Church is strong, or that which is contained in the volumes of Origen? If he answers, the Roman, then we are Catholics.” St. Augustine very often wrote in the same sense, but especially in the psalm against the party of Donatus and in the letter (letter 23, no. 2) which he himself, Fortunatus, and Alypius gave to Generosus. For in order to demonstrate that the Donatists were cut off from the Church, on both sides he weaves through the series of Roman Pontiffs even to Anastasius. And after he has proved that in that series no Donatist bishop is found, and that no prelate is present with whom the Donatists might communicate, he concludes that they are strangers to the building of the Church, which, with Christ as author, rests upon the Roman Pontiffs as upon a foundation. Hence also (Against the Letter of Manichaeus, chapter 4, no. 5) he writes: “For in the Catholic Church… the succession of priests holds, from the very see of Peter the Apostle, to whom the Lord after his resurrection commended his sheep to be fed, even to the present episcopate.” We conclude with the very beautiful words of Peter, abbot of Celle, who (letter 23, letters book 6; and letter 10, book 9) says: “There is, nevertheless, a place for gold in which it is smelted, and silver has the beginnings of its veins: the see of Peter and the Roman court, which principally holds the keys of heaven.” And again: “Turned and turned back, in whatever state of veneration and glorification, I go with you, I think with you. But if outside the form of common coinage you wish to fabricate another, which the see of Peter has not approved, to which it belongs either to approve or disapprove the order of the universal Church, I plant my foot and do not cross the established boundaries.” See more in Schrader (op. cit., especially nos. 109-134).
737. II. Adequate apostolicity, and therefore the apostolic Church itself, is sufficiently shown if there is found 1) the fullness of apostolic power, which 2) is able to communicate apostolic mission to others, and 3) with which all must communicate in order to belong to the apostolic Church. But once succession in the center of unity has been established, all these things are found. Therefore. The minor is proved as regards the fullness of power. The center of unity in any society is the supreme government; in the Church it is monarchical government; monarchical government requires that supreme authority reside undivided in one. Therefore, once legitimate succession in this one has been found, by that very fact the fullness of power is found, which indeed in the Church is apostolic. The minor is proved as regards the faculty of communicating apostolic mission. Certainly to him who by divine right possesses the fullness of apostolic power, also by divine right to be perpetuated in the Church, it belongs to communicate it to the rest (no. 515). Some difficulty could arise here from the fact that by divine right itself there must be bishops in the Church. But it should be noted 1) that the institution of bishops belongs by proper right to the Supreme Pontiff; 2) that here the question is not so much about the power of order, which is immediately from God, as about the power of jurisdiction, which apostolic mission principally signifies (no. 723); 3) even if it were granted, which we by no means concede, as will be clear in the following disputation, that jurisdiction in bishops is immediately from God, it would always be wholly dependent upon the Supreme Pontiff, as all concede. Hence by proper right it belongs to him to choose and institute bishops, to assign to them the part of the Church which they govern, to limit, suspend, revoke jurisdiction, and so forth. Hence the Fathers do not hesitate to assert that power flows down from the successor of Peter into the remaining bishops. Thus Optatus of Milevis (book 7 against Parmenian) says: “For the good of unity, Blessed Peter, for whom it would have been enough if after he denied he had obtained pardon alone, both merited to be preferred to all the Apostles, and alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven to be communicated to the others.” Before St. Optatus, Nyssenus (Against Those Who Take Correction Badly) says: “Nothing false or lying has been written in the Gospels, nor does Christ’s predilection have a fallacious outcome. Through Peter he gave to the bishops the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” St. Leo the Great, in his letter to the bishops of Gaul, or of the province of Vienne, argues thus: “The Lord willed the sacrament of this office [namely, of preaching the truth] to pertain to the office of all the Apostles in such a way that he placed it principally in the most blessed Peter, the chief of all the Apostles, so that from him, as from a certain head, he might diffuse his gifts as into the whole body.” Innocent I, in his letter to the Council of Carthage, speaks thus: “Knowing what is owed to the Apostolic See, since all of us placed in this position desire to follow the Apostle, from which the episcopate itself and the whole authority of this name has emerged.” Caesarius of Arles confesses the same, writing to Pope Symmachus: “Just as the episcopate takes its beginning from the person of Blessed Peter, so it is necessary that your holiness plainly show to individual Churches, by fitting disciplines, what they ought to observe.” And, omitting the rest, St. Cyprian (On the Unity of the Church) says: “The Church of the Lord, flooded with light, stretches her rays throughout the whole world; nevertheless there is one light which is diffused everywhere, nor is the unity of the body separated. She extends her branches into the whole earth with abundant fruitfulness; she spreads more broadly her streams flowing richly; nevertheless there is one head and one origin.” The minor is proved as regards the necessity of communion with the center of unity. This is clear 1) from what has been disputed concerning the unity of government which Christ willed in the Church; 2) from what has been indicated in this same article, especially no. 724; 3) let St. Cyprian stand for all, who immediately before the words just cited writes: “The Church is one, which is extended more broadly into a multitude by the increase of fecundity. Just as there are many rays of the sun, but one light, and many branches of a tree, but one strength founded in a tenacious root, and when very many streams flow down from one source, although number may seem diffused by the largeness of overflowing abundance, nevertheless unity is preserved in the origin. Tear a ray of the sun from the body: unity does not admit a division of light. Break a branch from the tree: what is broken will not be able to germinate fruit. Cut off a stream from the source: once cut off, it dries up. So also the Church,” etc.