827. Those things which we have disputed thus far provide sufficient knowledge of the Church considered, as it were, in the abstract, no. 625. For since we have scrutinized Christ’s institution by investigating its nature, properties, and endowments, the answer to the question is easy: what and what kind of thing the Church of Christ is. In order that we may take the fruit of the whole disputation, we turn our mind to contemplating the Church in the concrete. For if, as Tertullian says (Against the Valentinians), “wasps also make honeycombs, and Marcionites make churches,” it is necessary that, considering the diverse assemblies which wish to seem to be churches, we be able to discern the true Church from the false, and thus to answer the question: which is the true Church of Christ.
828. After all those things which we have already established, it is permitted to dispatch this question briefly. For first it is not necessary expressly to prove here that the true Church of Christ can certainly be known; for 1) the Church is a necessary society. Therefore, unless we wish to say that God fails in necessary things, it must be said that the true Church is certainly knowable. 2) The Church is formally visible. Therefore the true Church can certainly be discerned. Recall, therefore, what we discussed, no. 159, and in the treatise On the Infused Virtues, no. 885.
829. But if the true Church can certainly be discerned, everyone understands that there are some notes through which it is certainly manifested. For unless these existed, since there are several assemblies which vindicate for themselves the name of Christian Church, the true Church could by no means be discerned from false churches. Hence the Innovators themselves, although they often said that the Church is invisible, nevertheless, agreeing little with themselves, do not refuse to admit external notes by which the true Church of Christ is known. Thus, for example, it is read in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (article 4, section 144): “The Church is not only a society of external things, as other polities are, but principally is the society of faith, hope, and the Holy Spirit in hearts, which nevertheless has external notes, so that it can be known.” Recall what was said, no. 160.
830. The nature and office of the notes is also easily understood from what has been laid down above. Nevertheless it is useful to recall something here. Therefore the notes of the Church can be described thus: “external, proper, and permanent characters, through which the true Church of Christ can certainly be known easily and by all.” It is said: 1) external characters, for the question concerns discerning the Church, which is a society essentially visible; nor, if they were altogether internal, could they be known by men. 2) Proper. “For if,” says Bellarmine, “I wished to designate to you with certainty a man whom you have never seen, so that as soon as you see him you may distinguish him from others, I ought not to say: he is a certain man who has two eyes, two hands, etc.; for these things are common to all.” 3) Permanent. For since the Church is a society always necessary, it must always be able to be known. Therefore the characters through which it is known ought always to remain. Besides, as we shall see at once, the notes of the Church are her properties insofar as they are manifested externally; but these either regard the very essence of the Church or necessarily follow it. Therefore as long as the Church exists, so long the characters by which it is known ought to remain. 4) Through which the Church is known. Namely, the notes are a means leading us to knowledge of the Church; therefore they ought to be better known and known by us prior to the Church itself, for our mind proceeds only from things known to things unknown in the acquisition of truth. Yet observe that the notes lead us into knowledge of the true Church of Christ in the concrete and in the individual case, but not of the Church in the abstract. Therefore they ought to be better known to us than the Church in the concrete, but not known by us prior to the Church in the abstract. Indeed, knowledge of the notes presupposes knowledge of the Church in the abstract; for the notes of the Church cannot be invented at pleasure, but must be derived from the very nature of the Church according to Christ’s institution. Therefore it must first be known what and what kind of thing the Church of Christ is, so that from this, the notes having been established, through them we may discern among the various assemblies which glory in the Christian name which one is the true Church. 5) Easily and by all. For the Church was instituted for all men, learned and unlearned, and is necessary for all. Therefore the characters through which the Church is known must be such that they can manifest her even to the untaught. Compare On the Infused Virtues, no. 884. Observe, however, that the demonstration concerning the true Church of Christ in the concrete instituted through the notes is the same in substance, whether it is instituted for the learned or for the unlearned; for it rests on entirely the same principles. But the manner in which the demonstration is proposed, the breadth with which it is developed, and the force with which it is defended, are diverse according to the diversity of minds, culture, and prejudices. Hence the simple and obvious application of the notes, which suffices for simple and sincere souls, would have to be proposed and defended by a certain scientific method for those whose mind has been preoccupied by prejudices and difficulties. To this point pertain those things which we disputed more fully concerning this matter when treating of the manner of forming the judgment of credibility, which is prerequired for the act of divine faith, On the Infused Virtues, no. 814 ff.
831. From these things the office of the notes of the Church is already understood. But in order to determine it more clearly, let it be noted: 1) at this stage of the question we no longer consider the Church under the generic aspect of true religion, comparing it with the other anti-Christian sects. This question was completed in the second disputation, through the notes of true revelation which we indicated in the first disputation. Here, therefore, the question is among those who already confess that the Christian religion alone is true; and the comparison is instituted among assemblies which, although diverse, nevertheless all contend that they are the true Church of Christ. If this observation is kept before the eyes, several difficulties are avoided, as being out of place. If someone objected, for example: in the Mohammedan religion also unity of doctrine flourishes; therefore unity of this kind cannot be a note of the true Church; one could answer, prescinding from the multiplicity of sects among the Mohammedans, that not unity of just any doctrine, but unity in the profession of Christian doctrine, is a note of the Church; but that the doctrine and religion of Mohammed is proved false by other characters, whether intrinsic or extrinsic. 2) Nor is it necessary to call back to the scales absolutely all heretical or schismatic sects. For many are extinct, and others are already almost extinct. Theodoret counts 76 different heresies, of which, as he himself testifies, very few were surviving in his time; St. Augustine enumerates 88, but says in Psalm 57 that very many of them have perished; Bellarmine (On the Notes of the Church, chapter 6), having counted 200 heresies down to the time of Luther, adds: “But of these there survive only certain remains of the Nestorians and Eutychians in the East, and of the Hussites in Bohemia; all the rest have utterly perished.” Therefore it will be enough to conduct the question concerning the Roman Church, the assembly of Protestants, and the assembly of the Greek Schismatics; what is said concerning these can easily be adapted also to others, if there are any. 3) But in judging these from the notes, we can proceed negatively or positively. For a) if even one of the notes is lacking to some sect, it is at once permitted to conclude that it is not the true Church of Christ; b) if all together agree with some assembly, it is certainly established that it constitutes the true Church of Christ; c) but if the individual notes are applied, some judge that some of them accomplish the matter positively, others only negatively. Yet if any note whatever is taken adequately, any one seems positively to discern the true Church of Christ. Compare what was said, no. 165. 4) Finally, to avoid cavils, let it be noted that the denomination Roman Church can be taken in two ways. For either it signifies the particular Church which formerly was and still is at Rome; or the collection of all the faithful who, dispersed throughout the whole world, formerly adhered and still adhere to the Roman Pontiff. In this latter sense we take the denomination Roman here. Hence the same Church is usually called Catholic, or universal; Pontifical, because she adheres and obeys the Supreme Pontiff; Roman, from the nobler part of herself.
832. But what, indeed, are those notes? Luther (book On Councils and the Church) first assigned seven notes, always excluding those which are found in the Creed, and especially Apostolicity. But afterward the Innovators commonly acknowledged only two, namely, the sincere preaching of the word of God and the legitimate use of the Sacraments. These two comprehend Luther’s first five. Compare Bellarmine, book 2, chapter 2.
833. But these two notes can in no way be admitted; for those conditions are lacking which are required for constituting a note. In reality, 1) they are not notes proper to the true Church alone. For according to the truth of the matter they can be found in those assemblies which certainly are not the true Church of Christ. Among pure schismatics, both sincere doctrine and the legitimate use of the Sacraments can flourish for a time, as happened among the Luciferians and Donatists at the beginning of the schism. But according to the opinion of those whom we are attacking, any sect whatever vindicates for itself the sincere preaching of the word of God and the sincere use of the Sacraments. Therefore another indication is needed, so that we may discern among which of them the preaching of the word of God is truly sincere, and among which it is falsely boasted. 2) Nor are these same two notes better known to us than the Church itself. For the sincerity of preaching and the use of the Sacraments, as the adversaries contend, must be taken from conformity with the word of God. But it is more difficult to know the true word of God than the Church; for who will easily judge the authenticity of copies, the fidelity of versions, the truth of interpretation, and so forth? Hence it is that the Fathers teach that the truth of doctrine must be judged only through the Church; compare the testimonies already given, no. 653, and what we said in the treatise On the Infused Virtues, disputation 4. 3) Hence through these same two notes the true Church of Christ could not be discerned from false sects easily and by all; for can all easily know what is the genuine word of God, in what version it is faithfully exhibited, what is its genuine sense, and so forth?
834. But the Innovators allege in vain, for establishing these two notes: 1) certain testimonies of Sacred Scripture. For all these, as is easily established by all, either in no way pertain to the matter, or at most prove that the sincere preaching of the word of God pertains to the true Church of Christ, and therefore discerns it ontologically; but not that through that same preaching the true Church of Christ becomes known to us, or that it is discerned through it logically and with respect to us. 2) In vain also they allege certain testimonies of the Fathers, in which they seem to teach that the true Church of Christ is known through Scripture. For a) they teach that the Church shines forth of herself to all: “The Church,” says Origen (Homily 30 on Matthew), “is full of brightness from East even to West”; and St. Cyprian (On the Unity of the Church): “The Church of the Lord, suffused with light, stretches forth her rays through the whole world”; and St. Augustine (Tractate on the Epistle of John): “Do we point out the Church with a finger? Is she not open?” b) As we indicated a little before, they constantly teach that we receive Scripture from the Church. c) Hence they teach that through the Scriptures the true Church of Christ is known in the abstract, I concede; in the concrete, I distinguish; absolutely and of itself, I deny; hypothetically and by accident, I concede. Namely, if the matter is being handled with adversaries who already admit something in Scripture as pertaining to the Church, according to their nature, they can be convicted from the Scriptures that they do not pertain to the true Church of Christ. Compare Bellarmine, loc. cit., chapter 2.
835. Therefore, these having been rejected, what are the notes of the true Church? St. Augustine (Against the Epistle of the Foundation, chapter 4) enumerates six notes; St. Jerome (Against the Luciferians) two; St. Vincent of Lerins (Commonitorium) three, and so forth; and thus also the older Theologians assign more or fewer notes. But now by unanimous consent we all acknowledge and employ four, without on that account disagreeing in reality from the ancients. For the Fathers themselves employed those four notes: by assigning fewer, they by no means rejected the rest, but reduced these to those; but by enumerating more, they taught that they were contained in those four. Hence Bellarmine, for example, who weighs fifteen notes, says (loc. cit., chapter 3): “We shall propose fifteen notes, which, if anyone wishes, can in some way be recalled to those four which are commonly assigned by more recent authors from the Constantinopolitan Creed: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.” Therefore it is ours to establish these notes, and by their aid to define the true Church of Christ in the concrete. Section II The Proposed Question Is Solved. Proposition XXXVI. 1. Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, and Apostolicity are the notes of the true Church. 2. By these rightly applied, just as it is certainly established that the Roman Church is the one true Church of Christ, so all the other assemblies which, outside her communion, vindicate for themselves the Christian name are proved by conviction by no means to constitute the true Church of Christ.
836. The first part is proved. I. Any thing whatever is best and certainly known from its properties, if they become known externally. If, for example, you have the definition of man, and from speech or other signs you see in some individual the use of reason, from this you gather that in the same individual there is a rational soul; and then, since you see the body in itself, you rightly conclude that this individual is a man. But Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, and Apostolicity, as has already been demonstrated, are properties of the Church; and they become known externally, as we shall confirm at once. Therefore Unity, and so forth, are notes of the Church of Christ, or characters through which the true Church of Christ is certainly known.
837. II. To Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, and Apostolicity belong all the conditions which we said are required for constituting a note of the Church. Therefore they are notes of the true Church. The antecedent is proved. And 1) they are something proper and not common; for, as is clear from their concept as explained and demonstrated, they either pertain to the very essence of the Church, or at least are her properties. 2) Hence it follows that the same are permanent in the Church. 3) They are also external and knowable. Indeed, unity of faith is manifested through the external profession of faith, which cannot be hypocrisy in the whole assembly, no. 464; the government of men ought to be external, just as obedience ought to be external. Sanctity is manifested externally through excellent exercise of virtues even in a heroic degree, through marvelous fruitfulness, through miracles, which are sensible facts. Apostolic succession is also external. But since, from what has been said, Apostolic succession comprehends adequate Apostolicity in itself, no. 720 ff., the Apostolicity of the Church is simply visible, or certainly knowable. Catholicity likewise, factual and simultaneous, is something external; but that the catholicity of the Church is of this kind has already been demonstrated. 4) They are besides knowable easily and by all. This will be clear from the very application of those notes. But, to illustrate the matter at once, anyone will easily understand, for example, that the Church of Christ ought to be one by unity of doctrine; for it cannot be said that Christ taught contradictories, or taught and did not teach one and the same thing. But anyone also will easily perceive that in his own sect there are almost as many opinions as heads, nor is there any sufficient principle of unity in faith; just as, on the contrary, in the Catholic Church, the very common profession of some external and infallible magisterium argues unity of doctrine. So likewise, anyone will easily understand that the government of the Church ought to be Apostolic, for no one is ignorant that the Church was founded by Christ in the Apostles. But the very name of the diverse sects, the epoch of their foundation, and so forth, manifests the defect of Apostolicity in them; while, on the contrary, in the Catholic Church, Apostolic succession in the Roman See and the communion of the others with it is conspicuous. Anyone will be able to pursue these things, and the matter will be evident, especially if the observation already made is retained concerning the diverse manner of proposing the whole demonstration according to the diverse dispositions of minds, no. 830, and the things which we said in the treatise On the Infused Virtues, no. 313 ff. 5) Finally, the same characters of Unity, and so forth, are better known with respect to us than the true Church itself considered in the concrete and in the individual. For since they are external, they first and immediately, as it were, strike the eyes; but from them, with knowledge of the true Church of Christ in the abstract supposed, we gather as by reasoning that this assembly and not others is the true Church of Christ. But that which leads us to knowledge of another thing is better known with respect to us than that thing. Therefore. Hence the Fathers always used these same notes for discerning the true Church, nos. 653, 661, 689, 707, and 736.
838. The second part is proved. I. From the Unity of the Church. And first indeed: the Roman Church is One. Indeed, there belongs to her 1) unity of faith with respect to fact, no. 633. For all the faithful dispersed throughout the world have the same profession of faith, by which they believe the truths defined by the Church; truth once authentically defined has never been retracted; new definitions indeed have been brought forth with the succession of time, but by these the same ancient revelation has been proposed more expressly and more explicitly. Compare On the Infused Virtues, no. 533 ff. There can be disagreement among Catholics concerning certain truths not yet defined by the Church, but all profess themselves ready to accept her judgment. The Church has constantly cast out from her bosom anyone who denied even one of the truths certainly revealed. Compare On the Infused Virtues, no. 990. So great is the unity and stability in the same faith in the Catholic Church that the adversaries turn this into a fault against her, either because, they say, that stability is a sign of death, or because it is hostile to progress. Compare On the Infused Virtues, nos. 930 and 517. 2) To the same Church belongs unity of faith with respect to right, since she acknowledges an extrinsic effective principle of unity, that is, the apostolic magisterium, to which she attributes infallibility in teaching. 3) But all members, wherever they may be, adhere to One Head, namely, the Roman Pontiff, in whom they acknowledge the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church; and therefore unity of government belongs to the Roman Church. Secondly: no sect has the note of unity. And 1) the very authors of the Reformation fight with themselves. Luther taught that the Saints are to be invoked (Sermon on the Ten Commandments), which he denied when writing to the Waldenses (Sermon on Mammon); he affirmed that the Church is infallible (Reply to the Dialogue of Sylvester Prierias), which he denied (Postil on the First Sunday after Epiphany); he affirms (On the Power of Excommunication) that Prelates are to be obeyed, which he denies (On the Babylonian Captivity), and so forth. Nor was the inconstancy of Calvin less; for (Institutes, book 1, chapter 18) he affirms that God is the author of sin, which he denies (Harmony, and on Matthew chapter 4); he affirms (on John chapter 3) the necessity of baptism, which he denies (Institutes, book 4, chapter 16), and so forth. Compare Cardinal Gotti (On the True Church of Christ, chapter 10). Hence first of all that saying of St. Hilary fits them (book Against Constantius): “Now you force one council, now another, and in each one you vary the faith. What usually happens to unskilled builders, to whom their own works are always displeasing, happens to you: that you always destroy what you always build.” 2) The authors of the Reformation fight among themselves a fortiori; the insults of the Lutherans against the Calvinists, and conversely, are known; sects are daily dissolved into sects, until they betake themselves into rationalism. Compare On the Infused Virtues, no. 979 ff. Hence to the Innovators can be applied what St. Athanasius writes (Oration 1 against the Arians): “That also,” he says, “is altogether remarkable, that all heresies, as many as there are, in inventing bring forward diverse and mutually conflicting things, and agree nowhere except in falsity”; or also what St. Jerome has (on Isaiah chapter 7): “Those who disagree among themselves agree in attacking the Church, according to that saying that Herod and Pilate, disagreeing among themselves, are joined in friendship in the Passion of the Lord.” 3) The principle of unity in faith is lacking to them; indeed there is in them a principle destructive of unity, namely private judgment, which they hold as the supreme rule of faith. Therefore of them can be repeated what Tertullian writes (On Prescription, chapter 42): “I lie if they do not also vary among themselves from their own rules, while each one likewise tunes according to his own judgment the things he has received, just as the one who handed them down composed them according to his own judgment. The progress of the thing recognizes its own nature and the custom of its origin. The same thing was permitted to the Valentinians as to Valentinus; the same to the Marcionites as to Marcion: to innovate faith according to their own judgment.” 4) With respect to unity of government, they would contend absurdly that they possess it. Indeed, the diverse sects are mutually independent. Individual sects have a shadow of government, since, as we have seen, they deny true power to it. The same sects, existing in diverse regions, form diverse and independent communities. Certainly, if they affect any government, it is not apostolic, as we shall prove at once.
839. II. From the Sanctity of the Church. And first indeed: the Roman Church is Holy. Indeed, 1) in her there have always flourished those who both professed the life of perfection in the practice of the evangelical counsels, and reached the heroic degree of virtue; and indeed in so great a number that their most brilliant light of sanctity illumines the whole Church to which they belonged. Religious profession, just as it is conspicuous in the Catholic Church, so has always stirred up the hatreds of non-Catholics. The holy Fathers, whom the whole world venerates, lived and died in Roman communion. In the first eight centuries of the Church, scarcely three or four of the Roman Pontiffs were not numbered among the Saints. St. Augustine recounts marvelous examples of sanctity (On the Morals of the Church, book 1, chapter 31 ff.) concerning anchorites, cenobites, holy women, and clerics. Luther himself (on Galatians chapter 5) admires the sanctity “of Benedict, Gregory, Bernard, Francis, and the like”; Calvinist writers (in Bohours, Life of St. Francis Xavier, book 6) esteem St. Francis Xavier so highly that they say: “If Xavier had been of our religion, even among us he would with truth have to be esteemed as another Paul”; indeed Luther (Letter to Two Pastors on Anabaptism) writes: “I say that under the Papacy there is true Christianity, indeed the kernel of Christianity, and many pious and great Saints.” But that the series of Saints has never failed is clear from the causes of Beatification and Canonization; and it is enough to consult the collection of the Bollandists. The very great number of martyrs belongs only to the Roman communion. 2) Also conspicuous is the fruitfulness of the Roman Church, by whose ministry alone unbelieving nations have been converted to the Christian faith. Protestants invent the beginnings of corruption in the Roman Church especially from the sixth century. Nevertheless in that same century St. Gregory the Great sent monks into Great Britain, who brought the Angles to the faith of Christ. In the seventh century, by the work of St. Kilian, sent by Pope Conon, the Franks were converted. In the eighth century, a great part of Germany was brought to the faith by the work of St. Boniface, whom Gregory II had sent. In the ninth century, through the monks of Corbie, the Vandals were converted to the faith; the Bulgarians, Poles, Danes, and Moravians were subjected to the Roman Pontiff. In the tenth century, Albert, archbishop of the Bohemians, and Methodius, archbishop of the Moravians, enrolled entire kingdoms to Christ. In the eleventh century, the Hungarians, having received the faith of Christ, received Bishops from the Roman Pontiff. In the twelfth century, Adrian II before his Pontificate, having been sent by Eugene, converted Norway. It is known by whose work in more recent times the faith of Christ has been disseminated in the East Indies, Japan, in the broad empire of the Chinese, and so forth. 3) Nor is it marvelous, since the gift of miracles and of the other charisms has been perennial in the Roman Church. For the more remote age, one can consult St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies, book 2, chapter 32, 66), St. Basil (On the Holy Spirit, chapter 29), St. Gregory of Nyssa (in the Life of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus), St. Jerome (Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Authors), St. Hilary (book Against Constantius the Emperor), St. Gregory Nazianzen (Oration 18), St. Augustine (On the City of God, book 22), and Theodoret (Oration 8 against the Greeks). For more recent times, the other things being omitted, let those things be recalled which are contained in the lives of the Saints and in the Acts for their Canonization. Compare what was said, no. 210. Secondly: the note of Sanctity belongs to no sect. And 1) the life and morals of the authors of the Reformation, and the occasion of the same, are the greatest prejudice. Luther, a monk and priest, against the faith given to God, married a nun, from whom he received a son a few days after the wedding had been celebrated. If you judge him from his writings, you will find him blasphemous against God, abusive toward neighbor, puffed up with remarkable pride. Zwingli (in Gretser, tom. 13) gave examples of insolence and foul lust at Glarus and Zurich; he himself testifies concerning himself that a genius, whom he does not know whether he was black or white, was the author to him of denying the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Calvin, marked with a stigma for an infamous crime, blasphemous against God, desirous of revenge, poured out his soul amid blasphemies, execrations, and invocations of demons. What was the occasion in England of departing from the ancestral religion, and by what most atrocious means they attempted to eradicate the Roman faith, is known to all. Who would believe that these and others like them were sent by God to reform the Church of Christ? 2) Protestant doctrine certainly is not that which conduces to sanctity. Namely, they teach that faith alone justifies, that good works are not necessary for salvation, that men sin whatever they do, that God does not punish sins if someone through faith applies to himself the justice of Christ, that free will is extinguished, that God is the author of sin, and so forth. If therefore any good persons are found among them, either they are such by a certain natural or external honesty, or, remaining in error in good faith, some are divinely illumined and aided by an extraordinary means, as can also happen among unbelievers, and they establish their life contrary to the principles of their sect. 3) Hence it is no wonder if those distinguished marks of sanctity are lacking, which both redound upon the assembly itself and render its sanctity conspicuous and certain. The practice of the evangelical counsels is proscribed rather than promoted; men distinguished by sanctity, who had flourished before in great number, are no longer found among those who were separated from Roman unity; miracles rather are mocked, nor do they judge that they are to be sought, nos. 680 and 734; and these things are common also to the Greek schismatics. 4) With respect to fruitfulness, these things are certain: the Greek schismatics do not even contend that they possess it; Protestants from the beginning judged that one should not even think about the conversion of unbelievers; toward the end of the seventeenth century, in imitation of the Roman Church, they established missions; although they abounded in material means, those missions were altogether sterile with respect to the conversion of unbelievers; the whole labor of Protestant missionaries is directed to this, that Catholics be perverted, or that they themselves become rich. You will find documents for all these things indicated in Perrone (On True Religion, part 2, proposition 10).
840. III. From the note of Catholicity. It is permitted to dispatch the application of this note more briefly. Material diffusion is broader in the Roman communion than in all the sects taken together, no. 307. Now, just as in the time of St. Augustine, the Roman communion is distinguished from the sects among all by the denomination Catholic, no. 707. All the sects taken together always lack formal catholicity, no. 693. Therefore to this point pertain the things which St. Augustine writes (sermon 46, otherwise 165, On Time, chapter 8, no. 18): “Not all heretics,” he says, “are over the whole face of the earth, but nevertheless heretics are over the whole face of the earth. Some here, others there… they themselves do not know one another. One sect is in Africa, another heresy in the East, another in Egypt, another in Mesopotamia… In diverse places there are diverse ones… But nevertheless that one [the Roman Church] knows all, because she is spread with all. For example, the party of Donatus is in Africa; the Eunomians are not in Africa; but the Catholic is here with the party of Donatus. The Eunomians are in the East; there the party of Donatus is not; but the Catholic is there with the Eunomians. That one is thus like a vine spread everywhere by growing; those are thus like useless branches cut off by the sickle of the farmer because of the merit of their sterility, so that the vine might be pruned, not amputated.”
841. IV. From the note of Apostolicity. Moreover, we have already proved, no. 736 ff., that the Roman Church is Apostolic. But that Apostolicity belongs to no sect can easily be proved by many things. And 1) Apostolic succession, in which the whole of Apostolicity is comprehended, no. 720, supposes Episcopal consecration, no. 723. But Calvin was not even a priest, although he was called Bishop of Geneva; Luther, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius, as is certainly established and as they themselves confess, were never ordained Bishops. Hence neither do they acknowledge the distinction by divine right between clerics and laity, nor the hierarchy instituted by Christ in the clerical order, which error we refuted above. 2) But from whom did the Innovators receive the mission itself? The Roman Church, from which they were separating, according to them was no longer the true Church of Christ; this, they say, had failed at that time. Therefore from her, according to their own principles, they could not have received a mission. Hence against them we rightly urge the argument which the Fathers commonly used against the ancient heresies. “Who are you,” asks Tertullian (On Prescription), “whence and when did you come? Where have you lain hidden so long?” And St. Optatus (Against Parmenian, book 2): “Show the origin of your chair, you who wish to claim the holy Church for yourselves.” And St. Hilary (On the Trinity, book 6): “This age of the present world has brought forth these most pious Doctors for me late. My faith, which you instructed, had these teachers late; having heard none of all these, therefore I believed in you,” etc. And St. Augustine (On Baptism, book 3, chapter 2): “Whence, therefore, did Donatus appear? From what land did he sprout? From what sea did he emerge? From what heaven did he fall?” 3) Hence it is almost superfluous to show that Apostolicity of doctrine is lacking to Protestant sects; for when Apostolic succession is lacking, the principle by which doctrine is safely guarded is lacking. Bellarmine (On the Notes of the Church, chapter 9) both reports testimonies of Calvin expressly professing the repugnance of his doctrine with antiquity, and then composes a catalogue of heresies condemned long before the Reformation, which were renewed by the Innovators. 4) But the defect of Apostolicity in the sects of the Innovators is so evident that they invoke an extraordinary mission, which we rejected above, no. 733 ff. 5) To deny Apostolic succession among the Greek schismatics, it would be enough to recall the things which we have already established, nos. 724 ff. and 736 ff. But we add one thing for the full evidence of the matter: it is known that the Greek Church before the separation adhered to the Roman Church, and in the Roman Pontiff acknowledged the center of unity. Either, therefore, before the separation it was the true Church; and by the very fact that it was separated from the true center of unity, by schism it was constituted outside the Church of Christ, and consequently has no apostolic mission; or before the separation it was a false Church of Christ, and through separation began to become the true Church; and it is asked from whom it then received mission. These things have force a fortiori for the Russian Church, which toward the end of the seventeenth century was separated from the Patriarch of Constantinople, for whom, by the authority of the Emperor, a Synod was substituted, of which the Emperor himself is president. Who does not see that this Church, guilty of a double schism, lacks apostolic mission? Did the Emperor of the Russians possess it, so that he could communicate it; or could he communicate to others what he himself did not have? And these same things can be applied, if there is need, to the Anglican Church.
842. V. We have scarcely sketched the demonstration of this thesis, and it is better to complete it here with three observations, which each one can develop for himself, so that he may obtain the full demonstration of the matter. And 1) the notes themselves considered in themselves, and, as it were, prescinding from the positive institution of Christ, constitute motives of credibility by which the Christian religion is shown to be divinely revealed and the one true religion. Moreover, sanctity comprehends miracles; unity is a true miracle in the moral order, for naturally it cannot happen that innumerable men dispersed throughout the world subject their intellect to one visible magisterium, constantly believing all things which it teaches; apostolicity and catholicity are recalled to the propagation and conservation of the Christian religion, no. 303, concerning which we treated in the second disputation. Hence the Vatican Council (Constitution Dei Filius, chapter 3) said: “The Church by herself, namely, on account of her admirable propagation, eminent sanctity, and inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good things, on account of Catholic unity and unconquered stability, is a certain great and perpetual motive of credibility, and an irrefragable testimony of her divine legation. Whence it happens that she herself is like a sign lifted up among the nations,” etc. 2) From the things disputed thus far, one perspicuous demonstration can be formed thus: either there is now no Church of Christ, or that Church is the Roman Church; but it cannot be said that the Church which Christ promised and willed to be indefectible no longer now exists; therefore the Roman Church is the true Church of Christ. For proving the major, it must be recalled that there is no sect in which the notes fit at least as well as they do in the Roman Church. This is the Church which at least comes nearer to the primitive Church, which, by the confession of all, was the true Church of Christ. She alone constantly appeals to ancient tradition, preserves the same principle of unity, is equally tenacious of unity and impatient of heresy and schism, has always been visible, and no occasion, time, place, or author of her defection can be assigned by the adversaries. The contrary altogether happens with all the other sects. 3) He who has once demonstrated the institution of the Primacy in Peter, and its perpetual duration in the Roman Pontiffs, Peter’s successors, will now easily judge that the Roman Church is the true Church of Christ. For in the Roman Pontiff there is had the center of unity, and therefore apostolic succession, the principle of unity of faith, unity of religion, and the principle of formal catholicity. Hence deservedly St. Cyprian, no. 736, taught that an easy and compendious demonstration of the true Church of Christ is contained in that Primacy.
843. Thus far, considering the whole Body of the Church, we have looked into its intimate constitution, properties, and endowments; now we turn our study and investigation to the principal visible part of the visible Church, which is its Head. Bellarmine clearly expressed of how great moment an investigation of this kind is, when he wrote (preface to the book On the Supreme Pontiff): “What matter is being treated when the Primacy of the Pontiff is being treated? I shall say very briefly: the sum of the Christian matter. For this is asked: whether the Church ought to continue to stand longer, or whether rather she is to be dissolved and fall down. For what else is it to ask whether the foundation ought to be removed from a building, the shepherd from a flock, the commander from an army, the sun from the stars, the head from the body, than whether the building ought to fall, the flock to be scattered, the army to be routed, the stars to be obscured, the body to lie dead? Moreover the adversaries, that is, the heretics, although in almost all other dogmas they disagree no less among themselves than from us, nevertheless in this one they all agree, that with all their strength and with the highest exertion of mind they attack the See of the Roman Pontiff. There have never been any enemies of Christ and of the Church who have not at the same time waged war against this See.”
844. Nor do the enemies of the Catholic Church now think otherwise. Among them Palmer (p. 7, On the Roman Pontiff, chapter 1, in Perrone) does not hesitate to assert: “The doctrine concerning the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the universal Church is the hinge around which all the other controversies turn which grow hot between the Roman Church and the other churches; since if Christ the Lord instituted in the Catholic Church a primacy proper by office to some Bishop, which ought always to endure, and the Roman Bishop has inherited this primacy, it at once follows that the Catholic Church is restricted to the Church alone of Roman obedience, and that the councils, doctrine, and traditions of that Church have been sealed by the authority of the whole Christian world.”
845. Hence the Vatican Council (Constitution Pastor Aeternus) says: “Since the gates of hell, in order to overthrow the Church if it could be done, rise up from every side day by day with greater hatred against its foundation divinely laid, We judge it necessary for the custody, safety, and increase of the Catholic flock, the sacred Council approving, to propose to all the faithful, as to be believed and held according to the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church, the doctrine concerning the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred Apostolic Primacy, in which the strength and solidity of the whole Church consists, and to proscribe and condemn contrary errors so pernicious to the Lord’s flock.”
846. Therefore, insisting on the safest way which the Council has opened for us, we shall treat first of the institution of the Primacy in Blessed Peter; then of its perpetual duration in the Roman Pontiffs, the successors of Blessed Peter; of its force and nature; and finally of its preeminent prerogative, which is placed in the infallible magisterium.