738. Having completed the question concerning the properties of the Church, we proceed to examine her endowments, beginning from indefectibility. The indefectibility of the Church imports not only that the Church never fails, but that she cannot fail; namely, when Christ’s institution is considered, which also includes the end, it is necessary that the Church persevere in her being as long as there are men dwelling on earth in the state of wayfarers. Some distinguish the indefectibility of the Church from her perpetuity. For perpetuity, they say, properly imports “the duration of the Church even to the end of the world”; while indefectibility properly means “identity of perpetual permanence in the same nature.” Hence they also say that perpetuity affects the existence, but indefectibility the essence of the Church.
739. But identity in the same nature can be understood either in such a way that by the name nature is signified only that which constitutes the essence of the Church, or in such a way that, in a certain broader sense, there is signified both the essence and whatever follows upon the essence of the Church from Christ’s institution. In the first way, the perpetuity of the Church necessarily includes indefectibility; for if the essence of the Church were changed, the Church herself would not endure to the end of the world, but some new institution would be put in her place. In the other way, however, indefectibility is not included absolutely and of itself in perpetuity; for absolutely it can happen that a thing remains without some one of its properties, and a fortiori without one or several of the prerogatives added to it, just as a man can endure in his existence to old age, remaining the same in his essence and even in his properties, although, weighed down by the burden of years and diseases, he loses the use of several senses or even of reason.
740. Therefore, in order that the concept of the indefectibility which must be asserted of the Church may be proposed adequately and explicitly, it must be said that it consists “in her perpetual duration even to the end of the world in that internal and external constitution, in the complex of those properties and endowments, in which she was first instituted by Christ.” From this description it is clear 1) that the indefectibility of the Church regards both the essential constitutive elements, the soul and body, whatever belongs to the nature of such a visible society, magisterium, ministry, government; and the properties, unity, holiness, etc.; and finally the remaining endowments or prerogatives, infallibility, etc. 2) That indefectibility of this kind regards all times of the Church’s existence, so that at no time can she be without any of her constitutive elements, nor without any of her properties or endowments. 3) That this very existence will endure even to the end of the world; hence the indefectibility of which we treat includes perpetuity. 4) Nevertheless this indefectibility is by no means confused with Apostolicity, taken under that general acceptance according to which the Church of any time whatsoever must be the same as the Church founded in the Apostles (nos. 716 ff.). For Apostolicity so taken means that the Church, for as long as she endures, must be the same as the Church founded in the Apostles; indefectibility means that she will endure in this identity even to the end of the world.
741. The indefectibility described by us is also customarily called indefectibility as to state, which is to be attributed to the Church in comparison with the Synagogue. That is, if the generic notion of Church is considered, just as it can be said that the Church has existed from the beginning of the world, so it can be said that the Synagogue in some way still perseveres. But if the state and form of the present Church is considered, just as she must be said to have been immediately instituted by Christ, so also it is established that the Synagogue failed (no. 432 ff.). Therefore the indefectibility of the Church is “her perpetual permanence in that form and state in which she was instituted by Christ.”
742. But it must be noted that indefectibility is attributed to the universal Church and not to each of her parts, or particular Churches; for the promises of Christ were not made to the Church existing in this or that nation, but to the whole Church. Yet however particular Churches may fail, the Church herself will always remain unfailing and indefectible; indeed, catholicity itself will remain, either because the defections of particular Churches are not simultaneous, or because while one fails, new Churches are founded elsewhere (no. 700).
743. All the Innovators err against the true indefectibility of the Church, although not all in the same degree. For 1) some, such as the Anabaptists, Swedenborgians, and Irvingians, seem to deny it absolutely, while they expect a certain new economy, which they call that of the Holy Spirit, to succeed the present economy, which they call that of the Word, just as this succeeded the economy of the Old Testament, which they call the economy of the Father. According to the Swedenborgians this new economy began in the year 1770; according to the Irvingians, in the year 1830. 2) Others, although they do not expect that third economy, nevertheless, making no distinction, hold that the Church can fail entirely for a time; indeed, that in fact she has failed. According to Palmer (part 1, chapter 1), this was taught especially by the Socinians, Arminians, Episcopius, and others. 3) Some seem to restrict indefectibility to visibility, or they constitute it in this, that there will always exist some who profess the true faith; or in this, that the essence of faith, as they call it, will never be wholly lacking from the Church; or finally all these things are mixed together by them. Compare Newman, Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church, etc., London, 1837. 4) Most, on the contrary, teach that the invisible Church cannot fail, but not so the visible Church. Hence Bellarmine (book 3, chapter 13) says: “Many of our own waste time while they prove absolutely that the Church cannot fail; for Calvin and the other heretics concede this, but say that it must be understood of the invisible Church.” Compare also Moehler, Symbolism, book 1, chapter 5, section 34. Finally, we omit the opinions of those who, although they seem to assert the indefectibility of the visible and invisible Church, nevertheless judge that she can fail as to one or another thing, for example faith, unity of government, and so forth.
744. As we have suggested, all these not only assert more or less the defectibility of the Church, but also affirm the fact of defection, by the same reasoning by which they deny the visibility of the Church (no. 449): namely, they thus strive to make honorable their own defection from the Church. But if you ask them for the epoch of this defection, Stapleton (Relection, chapter 1, question 5, article 3) enumerates seven opinions. Of these opinions two are extremes: one affirms that the defection began from the Council of Constance; the other thinks that the defection began from the very time of the Apostles, for already at that time, they say, the Church was stained with the mud of errors. Luther held each opinion, in his own manner, according to the diversity of occasions.
745. Now if the true indefectibility of the Church is demonstrated, all contrary errors will collapse at once. Yet in order that the force of the arguments which we shall exhibit may be rightly perceived, it is useful to note in advance: 1) some of them at first sight seem to demonstrate only indefectibility as to the essence strictly taken, but not as to those things which follow upon the essence, since they seem to state the perpetual existence of the Church, which, as we said, can absolutely and of itself be understood with indefectibility of the essence alone. Nevertheless, if we examine them more deeply, they prove adequate indefectibility. For if a) we consider the nature of any thing whatever, the properties which follow upon the essence are not separable from it except by a miracle. Do the adversaries teach that God works a miracle so that the Church may fail in her properties? If they do not assert this, then when the Church is shown to endure perpetually, this is rightly understood both of the essence and of those things which naturally follow upon it. b) But if we consider the nature of the Church, those things which are called her properties or endowments truly pertain to her essence, as we suggested (no. 627), and as the concept of them shows. Therefore if the Church, as instituted by Christ, is demonstrated to be indefectible as to essence, by that very fact she is shown to be indefectible as to properties and endowments. 2) Nor are there lacking arguments which directly prove the full indefectibility described by us, especially when the perpetuity of the Church is stated in opposition to the synagogue; for the latter ceased not as to essentials, but as to state (no. 437). 3) Indeed, nor are there lacking arguments which still more directly demonstrate the perpetuity of those properties and prerogatives which, according to the adversaries, can most of all fail and have at times failed in the Church. Of this kind especially is Apostolic succession, and the external ministry of teachers, upon which unity and the other things depend. Now, if even this property alone is shown to be indefectible, every approach is closed off to the adversaries for making honorable their own defection from the asserted defectibility of the Church.
746. These things, therefore, having been noted in advance: Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved. Proposition XXXII. Christ so instituted the Church that she would be the last economy of salvation, destined to endure ceaselessly and perpetually, not only as to essentials, but also as to state, as they say. Therefore she enjoys true indefectibility, by force of which she perseveres until the end of the world in the same internal and external constitution, in the same properties and endowments, with which she began to exist.
747. It is proved, I. From the Old Testament. For 1) in the Old Testament it is often asserted simply that the Church will endure perpetually. For it is read (Isa. 9.6 ff.): “A child is born to us, and a son is given to us, and the principality has been made upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called wonderful, counselor, God, mighty, father of the future age, prince of peace. His empire shall be multiplied, and of peace there shall be no end. Upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom he shall sit, to confirm it and strengthen it in judgment and justice, from now and even forever.” And (61.8-9): “I will strike an everlasting covenant with them, and their seed shall be known among the nations, and their offspring in the midst of the peoples. All who shall see them shall know them, because these are the seed which the Lord has blessed.” Likewise (Dan. 2.44) it is said: “In the days of those kingdoms the God of heaven shall raise up a kingdom which shall not be destroyed forever… and it itself shall stand forever.” Almost all of Psalm 88 treats of the perpetuity of the kingdom of Christ; especially verses 36-39, it is said: “Once have I sworn in my holy one, if I shall lie to David. His seed shall remain forever. And his throne as the sun in my sight, and as the moon perfect forever, and a faithful witness in heaven.” Compare also the testimonies which we gave at no. 465. Hence, in the cited testimonies the discussion concerns a covenant and a kingdom, to which perpetual permanence is expressly attributed. But the covenant is that which God entered through Christ, and the kingdom of which the discussion treats is the Church. Indeed, a) the kingdom of David is typically the kingdom of Christ, with whom alone God made an everlasting covenant; hence (Luke 1.32) concerning Jesus it is said: “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God shall give to him the throne of David his father, and he shall reign in the house of Jacob forever.” b) But from Christian understanding and from the Scriptures themselves we are taught that the kingdom of Christ on earth is the Church. For the kingdom itself is exhibited as a sheepfold under a shepherd, a body under a head, a building upon a foundation; all these things evidently signify the Church. Certainly she is the assembly of men who obey Christ; but this is equivalent to the kingdom of Christ. Therefore in the cited testimonies the perennial duration of the Christian Church is asserted. 2) In the Old Testament the kingdom of Christ, the new covenant, the Christian Church, are often opposed to the ancient covenant and to the Synagogue, insofar as the latter must at some time cease, while the former must endure perpetually (cf. Jer. 31.32; Hag. 2.7 ff., etc.). But the Synagogue had to cease and did cease as to state (no. 437). Therefore the Church founded by Christ must persevere perpetually as to state, and therefore she is truly indefectible. This argument the Apostle often proposes and develops while explaining the Scriptures of the Old Testament. But especially in Hebrews 7 ff. he teaches first that the priesthood is, as it were, identified with the law: once the priesthood has been transferred, it is necessary that a transfer of the law occur. Then he opposes the Levitical priesthood to the priesthood of the new law: the former he declares ineffective and to be abrogated; the latter, however, effective, eternal, and never to be abrogated. He also compares the Old Testament with the New Testament, as the movable with the immovable, the imperfect with the perfect; and in 1 Corinthians 13 and Hebrews 10 he proclaims that the intuitive vision in the fatherland will succeed to the New Testament, or to the present economy of faith. But compare what we said concerning this argument in the treatise On the Infused Virtues, no. 576 ff.
748. II. From the New Testament. From the many things which could be brought forward, we choose one or another. And 1) we argue from the classic passage (Matt. 16.18): “And I say to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her.” From this testimony it is clear that the Church in herself is a most firm building, as founded upon the rock; but relatively to her enemies, she is an impregnable citadel, against which the gates of hell will not prevail. Therefore there is no cause, whether intrinsic or extrinsic, by which the Church could be corrupted or fail. 2) We argue from the perpetuity and indefectibility of the Apostolic office, upon which the other things in the Church depend, and which, even if it alone stands, settles the case with the Innovators. Now (Matt. 28) Christ sends the Apostles to teach and baptize, and at the same time promises that he will be with them, namely with them teaching and baptizing, even to the consummation of the age. And (John 14.16) Christ the Lord says: “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, that he may remain with you forever.” And (Eph. 4) Paul teaches that Christ gave Apostles, pastors, and doctors “for the consummation of the saints,” “until we all meet in unity of faith,” “unto a perfect man.” We have already often developed this argument.
749. III. If we compare the cited places of the Old and New Testaments, we rightly ask: how would all the things which are said in them about the Church be true, if the Church, even for a time, could lose one or another of her properties and endowments? For 1) suppose that unity in faith and government should fail, so that the Church, split into two or more parts, is no longer one. It is evident that of the Church thus divided it could no longer be affirmed that she is not dissipated, that she stands forever, that she breaks in pieces and consumes all other kingdoms; rather, on the contrary, that she is torn apart, broken in pieces, and consumed. It is evident that the enemy has prevailed against her, conquered her, and that she has been abandoned by Christ. 2) Nor can it be said that the predictions and promises concerning the perpetual indefectibility of the Church were conditional, if, namely, she remained faithful. For a) promises of this kind were made by Christ not only to the Church, but to Christ himself, to whose merits the reward of an everlasting kingdom is paid; whence to him himself, who acquired the Church by his blood, it is said: “Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations for thy inheritance.” Is there any condition on the part of Christ, or, if there is any, can it fail on his part? b) The promises made to the Church express no condition at all. Indeed, since they were made to the universal Church, they exclude conditions of fidelity on the part of the Church herself; for then promises of this kind would have this meaning: the Church will not err, if she has not departed from the truth; she will hand down pure doctrine, if she has not corrupted it, etc.; which are surely ridiculous. c) There is added the common sense of the Fathers.
750. IV. From the Fathers. Their testimonies are innumerable; but we select a few in which the Church is said not only to endure perpetually, but always to flourish, shine, grow, never grow old, not only not be conquered, but not even be inclined, and so forth. All these things certainly show adequate indefectibility. St. Ambrose (book On Solomon, chapter 4) says: “By the ship we ought to understand the Church… Although she is often vexed by the waves or storms of the waters, nevertheless she can never suffer shipwreck, because on her mast, that is, on the Cross, Christ is raised; at the stern the Father sits as Governor; the Paraclete Spirit guards the prow. Twelve rowers lead her through the narrow straits of this world into port,” that is, the twelve Apostles. St. Jerome (commentary on Isaiah, chapter 4): “The Church founded upon the rock is shaken by no tempest, overthrown by no whirlwind and winds.” St. John Chrysostom (in the Oration That Christ Is God): “From the day on which it was said, the Church stands solid and stable and unconquered, flourishing and shining, and day by day more and more vigorous, growing and taking more strength, and furnishing to all who will exist from that day even to the coming of the Lord that they may take from her the greatest fruits and ineffable utility.” And in the Homily on the Capture of Eutropius, no. 6: “Do not abstain from the Church, for nothing is stronger than the Church. Your hope is the Church, your salvation is the Church, your refuge is the Church. She is higher than heaven and broader than earth. She never grows old, but is always vigorous. Therefore, demonstrating her firmness and stability, Scripture calls her a mountain,” etc. St. Augustine (on Psalm 71): “They [the gentiles] think that the religion of the Christian name is to live in this world up to a certain time, and afterward will not exist. Therefore it will remain with the sun: as long as the sun rises and sets, that is, as long as these times roll on, the Church of God, that is, the Body of Christ on earth, will not be lacking.” And in the Enarration on Psalm 103, sermon 2, no. 5: “He has established the Church upon the firmament of the Church. What is the firmament of the Church? What is the foundation of the Church except… Christ Jesus? And therefore, supported by such a foundation, what did she deserve to hear? ‘She shall not be moved forever and ever…’ The Church will totter if the foundation has tottered. But whence will Christ totter, who before he came to us and took flesh, all things were made through him and without him nothing was made; who contains all things by majesty, and us by goodness? Since Christ does not totter, ‘she shall not be moved forever and ever.’ Where are those who say that the Church has perished from the world, when she cannot even be inclined?”
751. V. From theological reason. For - 1) the Church was instituted by Christ so that she might continue his mission on earth for the sanctification and salvation of souls (no. 482 ff.). Therefore she must endure as long as there are men to be saved through Christ, or even to the end of the ages, so that for all and always Christ may be the way, the truth, and the life. But unless she endured truly indefectible, she could not pursue her end and continue her mission. For this it is required that men be able to approach her in order to obtain salvation through her; and therefore it is necessary that the Church be recognizable as the true Church of Christ (no. 462). But if she could ever fail in even one of her properties or endowments, the Church is not recognizable. This can be proved in many ways. To suggest something, we say that this is clear from the intimate bond by which those things which constitute the Church, or follow upon her constitution, are mutually connected. Suppose, for example, that visibility perishes; apostolic succession, which depends upon it, will already perish, and therefore unity also. Suppose that apostolic government perishes; the efficient principle of unity will now cease, and the Church will no longer be a society. But if you substitute another government, it will no longer be that society which Christ instituted. Suppose that infallibility perishes; the extrinsic principle of unity of faith will now cease. Protestants say that the Church can fail as to faith. But if you take away or change this, you overturn the radical germ of the soul of the Church; and what will become of holiness when that is lacking which is called the beginning and root of all justice? Each person can pursue these things further. 2) If the Church could ever fail, at no time could she exercise her mission and authority efficaciously. For if it were established antecedently that the mission of the Church could either entirely collapse or at least be interrupted, it would now be rendered of no weight, or would have no practical force. For every refractory person would immediately say that the mission of the Church had failed or been corrupted, and therefore that faith should no longer be given to her, nor obedience to her. Indeed, the example of the Innovators confirms this, who, from that supposition, conducted themselves in this way and invented an extraordinary mission.
752. Scholion. Almost all the objections have in part been anticipated in this article, and in part are the same as those which are usually urged against unity of government and catholicity. There is, however, one which is drawn from the synagogue, and to which it is helpful to respond briefly. Therefore they say I: The Synagogue of the Jews often failed; therefore the Church also can fail. The antecedent is proved: 1) because in the time of Moses, Aaron with the whole people adored the calf (Exod. 32); 2) in the time of Elijah, when he complained (3 Kings 19.4), saying: “I have been left alone, and they seek my life, that they may take it away”; 3) the same occurred in the time of Isaiah and Jeremiah (Isa. 1.7; Jer. 2.13), which is confirmed from those words (2 Chron. 15.3): “Many days shall pass in Israel without the true God, and without a priest teacher, and without law.” I respond. 1) Whatever may be the case concerning the antecedent, the consequence must be denied. For it was said not of the synagogue, but of the Church of Christ: “the gates of hell shall not prevail against her.” 2) But the antecedent must also be denied. Indeed, as regards the first point, a part of the synagogue, and not the whole synagogue, failed in faith in the time of Moses; for Moses himself did not fail, nor did the Levites and Priests. Whence also it is said (Exod. 32): “Therefore Moses, seeing the people, said: if anyone is the Lord’s, let him be joined to me. And all the sons of Levi were gathered to him. Now the sons of Levi were twenty-two thousand.” As regards the second and third points, it must be recalled that in the time of Elijah, Isaiah, and Jeremiah two kingdoms belonged to the Synagogue: the kingdom of Judah, which consisted of two tribes, and the kingdom of Israel, which consisted of the remaining ten tribes. The latter indeed declined into idolatry, yet not in such a way that there were none who adored the true God. Hence, when Elijah thought that he alone had been left, God answered him (3 Kings 19.18): “I have left to myself in Israel seven thousand men, whose knees have not been bent before Baal.” But the kingdom of Judah underwent diverse vicissitudes according to the diverse kings, good or bad, which it had; yet even to the Babylonian captivity the use of Sacrifices according to the Mosaic law always persevered, as is clear from those words (2 Macc. 1): “when our Fathers were being led into Persia, the Priests who then were worshippers of God secretly hid the fire taken from the altar in a valley where there was a deep and dry well.”
753. II. They say: at least the whole synagogue with its ceremonies expired in the time of Christ; and yet promises of perpetual permanence seemed to have been made to it. Therefore likewise the Church of Christ can fail. I respond. 1) The synagogue indeed ceased in the time of Christ, insofar as it was then repudiated with its ceremonies and sacrifices, and in its place the Church of Christ succeeded. “Since in the law and prophets,” says Maldonatus on the words “Do not think that I have come to destroy the law,” etc., “there were four parts, promises and prophecies, precepts of the Decalogue, ceremonial things, and judicial things, Christ fulfilled them all: the promises and prophecies by exhibiting the things which had been promised and predicted; the moral precepts of the Decalogue by interpreting them better; the ceremonial things by exhibiting the things which were signified through the ceremonies, as for the circumcision of the flesh, baptism and the circumcision of the heart; the judicial things because he changed corporeal and temporal rewards and punishments into spiritual and eternal ones. In what way, therefore, did he abrogate the law? Not by dissolving, but by fulfilling; not by violating, but by perfecting; just as a painter, as Theophylact says, when he applies the final hand and uses colors on an image begun and sketched only with the outermost outlines, abolishes the prior image and brings in a new one. But he abolishes it not by dissolving, but by completing; not by deleting, but by perfecting.” 2) Of the promises made to the synagogue, some were made to it as such and were to be fulfilled in it, as, for example, the promise of temporal happiness according as the people would observe or transgress the law. Others were made to it insofar as it was a figure of the Church of Christ, and were to be fulfilled in this Church, as, for example, the promise of the aggregation of the nations into it, and other things of this kind. Hence St. Augustine (The City of God, book 17, chapter 6, no. 1) says: “When eternity was promised to it [the Aaronic priesthood], it was promised not to the shadow and figure itself, but to that which was shadowed and figured through it.” Certainly if in some testimonies the indefectibility of the Jewish church seems to be promised, in very many others the same is circumscribed within certain limits. But there is no text limiting the indefectibility which is everywhere promised to the Church of Christ. 3) Therefore Becanus rightly concludes (Manual of Controversies, book 1, chapter 3, no. 47) that from the fact that the synagogue was repudiated it does not follow that the Church of Christ is similarly to be repudiated: “Indeed, the contrary follows. First, because the maidservant of Abraham, who was repudiated, represented the Synagogue; but the wife of Abraham, who was not repudiated, represented the Church. Secondly, the Synagogue was further repudiated because it was neither perfect nor sufficient for salvation, according to that saying (Heb. 7.19): ‘The law brought nothing to perfection…’ But the Church of Christ is perfect and sufficient for salvation… Whence Augustine (on Psalm 73): ‘the sacraments of the New Testament give salvation; the sacraments of the Old Testament promised the Savior.’ Thirdly, the Synagogue contained the shadow of future things (Heb. 10.1); the Church contains the light, which is Christ (John 1.9). But the shadow necessarily fails when the light approaches; therefore the synagogue with the Mosaic sacrifices had to cease when the Church came with Christ. Fourthly, the synagogue was instituted for servants, the Church for sons; but servants receive temporal wages from their lords and are thus dismissed; sons, however, succeed to the perpetual inheritance. The Apostle intimates this (Gal. 4.30): ‘Cast out the bondwoman and her son. For the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman.’”