The following is taken from the book, "THE CATHOLIC'S READY ANSWER" by BY Rev. M. P. HILL, S.J. IMPRIMATUR 1914 The intention of this book was to give Catholics ready answers when they were confronted about certain subjects concerning the Faith.
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST
HOW TO FIND IT
Objection.—If the true Church of Christ is still in existence the claimants to that title are so numerous that the problem of finding the Church is beyond the powers of any but extraordinary minds. The average man might be excused if he gave up the search.
The Answer—The problem is not so difficult in itself; it is often made difficult by the way in which it is approached. Christ established a Church that could be recognized by all men, high and low, learned and unlearned. "Go ye into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature." These are His words; and when He added, ''He that believeth not shall be condemned," He implied that to recognize the truth was possible, and more than possible, for otherwise the refusal to do so would not incur damnation. But the acceptance of the bare teaching of the Gospel was not enough; that teaching was to be enshrined in a Church —an organized society—to whose rulers obedience was to be due. Christ speaks of "building" a Church, that is to say, of founding a permanent organization for the guidance of men to salvation. He enjoins obedience to it in such words as, "He that will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican." The sacred writings abound in allusions to a Church, or assembly of believers, governed by the apostles or those appointed by them; a Church, too, about entering or not entering which there could be no question: to belong to it was a universal obligation.
CONDITIONS FOR SOLVING THE PROBLEM
The obstacles preventing one from getting at the truth about the Church vary, of course, with the individual. There are persons who feel a sort of fascination in merely skirmishing with the subject, and, generally, in merely playing with religious ideas. Religion is an interesting subject; mystery is always alluring; and in our age there is a tendency to speculate about religion much in the spirit in which Doctor Johnson says the Greeks were wont to do, that is to say, without much sense of personal religious obligation. But such is not the spirit that pervades the New Testament. In the mind of Christ religion has a practical aspect which can not be dissociated from it. A right mode of worship, a working out of one's salvation by the aid of religion, a submission to divinely appointed authority in the Church (one true Church, as is plain), all this was an essential part of the plan of salvation to which Christ came to give effect.
There is no choice left us but to use the means of salvation which He has provided. As He equipped the apostles and their successors with extraordinary powers, even that of binding and loosing, and that of opening and closing the gates of heaven, and commanded all men to hear them — "He that heareth you heareth Me : and he that despiseth you despiseth Me" (Luke x. 16)—the possession of such authority would be absurd if men might at pleasure submit or refuse to submit to those who possessed it. Membership in the Church presided over by the successors of the apostles is therefore a matter of the strictest personal obligation; and for those who are not yet among its members the duty of inquiry and of prompt and generous action is one of the most pressing nature.
Before or after one has begun his inquiry he may be hampered by another obstacle prejudice, especially inherited prejudice, or that instilled in early childhood— prejudice that tends to block out all inquiry in certain directions in which it is taken for granted that the truth can not possibly be found. Many a convert to the Faith has been kept out of the Fold of Christ by prejudice the greater part of his life. Whenever there is question of putting oneself in an order established by Providence, or of personal salvation, which is the same thing, the closing of any avenue by which truth may reach the mind involves a risk which no man has any warrant for taking. Another obstacle lies in the complexity of the problem; a complexity, however, which is not of its essence. The solution is difficult because it seems to be a matter of deciding between hundreds of sects all of which are denominated Christian, or of shifting from one sect to another till the right one is found. The problem must be simplified, and so simplified that a key to its solution may be put into the hands of all. The Church, we must repeat, is a Church that may easily be recognized by all, for to all the Gospel was to be preached. The Church must, therefore, possess distinguishing marks which can easily be recognized.
THE MARKS OR SIGNS OF THE TRUE CHURCH
The necessity of some marks or notes by which to distinguish the Church is acknowledged by Protestants as well as by Catholics; but the notes set forth by Protestants may be shown to be impracticable as guides. Protestants tell us that the true Church is to be found wherever there is a right preaching of the word of God and a right administration of the sacraments. Now this double criterion is clearly delusive; not only because it fails to distinguish the Church from schismatical bodies, but also and chiefly because these two supposed notes of the Church are, practically, no notes at all —that is to say, outward visible marks which are easily distinguished. They are facts, it is true, to any one to whom they can be proved to be facts, but they are not signs or marks which can be matter of direct observation. Sermons and rites are, of course, observable facts, but the rightness or wrongness of sermons or rites is not an observable fact. If I am told, therefore, that any given religious sect is known to be the one true Church of Christ by the fact that it preaches the Gospel aright and administers the sacraments aright, my answer at once is a challenge: Prove that such is the character of its preaching and of its sacramental system. I have asked for a sign and am given instead a proposition that needs to be proved.
The Catholic Church, on the other hand, insists on the application of tests which are more ready to hand but which, nevertheless, are infallible. The notes of the Church to which she appeals are supplied by the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by the greater part of Christendom. The true Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Here we have four distinguishing traits which, comparatively speaking, are easily discerned. The church possessing them can not easily conceal them. Unity and catholicity (or universality) will be manifest to the average observer. Holiness in ends, means, results, can not long lie hidden. As to apostolicity, or the Church's descent from the apostles, if any world-wide church possesses it, the fact will be written legibly on the pages of history.
Now the Roman Catholic Church is the only church to which these marks, either singly or in their totality, belong. In the first place, there is prima facie (or first sight) evidence of their belonging to the Church of Rome. The "old" Church, as every one calls it, conspicuous for its unity, spread throughout the world (it is anything but narrow or national), and exerting a special power and influence for good—does not this sound like a description of the Church of Rome? And in what other church does the presence of these traits show itself on the very surface? Here, then, we have a point of departure for the inquirer: the claims of the Roman Catholic Church merit first consideration, just as in physical science first indications all pointing one way have the first claim to the attention of the investigator.
In the course of his study the inquirer will be led to see that the "old" Church is the veritable Church of the apostles by reason of the continuity of its tradition; that its unity is perfect and could only have been preserved by a special providence; that its holiness is greater than at first sight appeared, and is due mainly to the preservation of the divine element in its ministrations; and that in its character of a world-religion it is as universal as the merciful designs of its divine Founder. The inquirer will now be ready for a more particular study of the notes as possessed by the Roman Catholic Church.
Apostolicity.—What is the origin of the present hierarchy of the Catholic Church, that is to say, of the graded ministry consisting of the Pope, the patriarchs, the bishops, the priests, etc.? It takes no profound knowledge of history to see in the present hierarchy the lineal descendants, in a spiritual sense, of the apostles and their immediate successors. In each successive age we find the hierarchy of the time safely anchored in the past. Each diocese could exhibit the unbroken line of its spiritual rulers from the beginning. In the earlier centuries heresies were triumphantly refuted by the application of the touchstone of apostolic succession. "We have it in our power," said Irenaeus in the second century, "to enumerate those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the churches and the successors of those bishops down to ourselves." The same boast is repeated by Tertullian in the third century, and by others in successive ages down to the present. It is conceded by all that the present hierarchy of the Catholic Church is in a direct line of descent from the apostles. The acknowledgment of this fact is a matter of the first importance; for undoubtedly if the question is, which of the churches is the one true Church of Christ, a church whose succession of teachers and rulers can be traced to apostolic days must possess an immense advantage in the discussion as compared with any church not possessing such perfectly visible links connecting it with the beginnings of Christianity.
And now let us apply the test of apostolicity to the other churches. How can they possibly establish any connection with the apostolic age? Lutheranism began with Luther, a self-commissioned preacher, who succeeded for a time in making his opinions acceptable to his followers. A similar origin is that of all the Evangelical religions that have sprung up since the first half of the sixteenth century. We gather from the sacred writings that a preacher must have his credentials. He can not preach unless commissioned to do so.
"How shall they preach unless they be sent?" asks St. Paul, writing to the Romans (x. 15). No one can preach in Christ's name unless commissioned by Christ Himself, as the apostles were, or by those who have received their authority from Him. Hence the necessity of a succession of commissioned preachers, each receiving his authority from another, and all tracing their commission back to Christ Himself. How shall they preach unless they he sent? What answer then can be made to the crucial question, Who sent Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli to preach? And above all, who could have sent them to preach a doctrine at variance with that universally taught in the Church of Christ? Is there any meaning in being ''sent" if the one sent preaches what he pleases?
The truth is that the whole doctrine regarding the necessity of the preacher's being sent was virtually repudiated by the self-constituted reformers of the sixteenth century. They took the bold stand of preaching a doctrine opposed to that of the Church, although it was only from the Church they could have received a commissi0n to preach at all. Did they fancy they were sent directly by the Holy Ghost? If so, what manner of credentials did they bring with them? St. Paul was sent by the Holy Ghost, but his credentials were well certified. His mission was revealed to the Church, he conferred with the other apostles about his teachings and taught the same doctrines as they. The Reformers' commission from the Holy Ghost had no such certification.
Furthermore, the idea of apostolic continuity includes much more than the bare fact of succession in office; otherwise the occupant of an episcopal see, though he turned Mohammedan and preached Mohammedanism, might still claim to be a successor of the apostles! The faith and practice of the apostles must also be handed on to posterity by the occupants of sees. If the rulers of God's Church in the twentieth century do not stand for all that the apostles stood for in point of teaching and ministry the note of apostolicity is gone. It is conceivable that a bishop duly consecrated and given local jurisdiction should lapse from the Faith and use his office in the interest of heresy. In that case apostolic succession would be a body without a soul. Jurisdiction, no less than orthodoxy, would necessarily cease, and true internal succession would be no more than a name. And if such a bishop should consecrate another to be his successor and to propagate his heresy, the status of the latter would be like that of his predecessor. This is plain common sense, as well as the teaching of the Fathers. Now if this be the case there must be in the Church of Christ a criterion of genuine internal apostolic succession; and our contention is that the only church possessing any such criterion is the Church which acknowledges the jurisdiction of the See of Rome.
It is precisely by and through this universal jurisdiction, wherever it has been acknowledged, that orthodoxy has been preserved and the faithful have been given a security that they were under the genuine successors of the apostles. It is not our purpose at present to establish the claims of the Roman primacy—that we have done elsewhere in this volume—(see ''The Pope II—Christ's Vicar"); and after all, we are dealing only with the phase of apostolicity which constitutes it a mark or sign of the true Church, easily discernible by the many. The Roman Church is the only 0ne that has any recognized criterion of apostolical succession, whilst the other churches have absolutely none.
According to the Anglican view, apostolicity in the Church consists of a number of separate streams of apostolic succession, each flowing in its own channel and never, unless accidentally, brought into conjunction with the others; whereas from the apostolic age onward the mind of Christendom has conceived of the Apostolic Church as an organic whole, symbolized, according to St. Paul and the Fathers, by the living human body, whose members are made one with the head. What possible criterion can Anglicans have in the matter of teaching and jurisdiction? Even if Anglican orders were valid, do orders confer local jurisdiction? If so, where is the proof of it? When the first Anglican bishops forced themselves out of the framework of the ecclesiastical polity in which their predecessors had been for ages, what guarantee could they give their flocks that they wielded apostolic authority? The voice of all Christendom was against them as it is today; the Pope, whose supremacy their predecessors had acknowledged, repudiated them; there was no foundation in Scripture for their anomalous position; and henceforth the veriest of heretics, if he succeeded in getting some genuine bishop to place his hands upon him, might usurp the government of a diocese in the name of Christ and His apostles. If opposed by the Anglican authorities and required to answer the question, ''Where did you get your jurisdiction?" he might with justice ask them in turn, "Where did you get yours ?"'
Historically, the Anglican system has borne its natural fruits in its evolution of doctrine and worship. Anglicanism embraces today every form of teaching from Roman Catholicism (or something akin to it) to the veriest Zwinglianism, and from Zwinglianism to Unitarianism, or worse; but its formularies and its Prayer Book are sufficiently elastic to be made to cover every vagary of the Anglican mind.
The case of the schismatical churches of the East is scarcely better than that of Anglicanism. For more than eight centuries their standing before the rest of Christendom was assured by the one bond of union which united them with all the other churches—the primacy of the See of Rome. Today, severed from the center of unity, they seek in vain for a rallying-point of orthodoxy. What is to be thought of apostolical teaching and jurisdiction in churches which for centuries acknowledged the supremacy of the Pope, then renounced it, again on two separate occasions embraced it, once more renounced it, till finally they lapsed into a state of bondage to the secular power which has been the latest stage of their downward course? It is evident, therefore, that the Church presided over by the Pope is the only one possessing the note of apostolicity. It is apostolic because its bishops are the true successors of the apostles and because it has a principle of unity which is the only guarantee of apostolic succession.
Unity.—Unity and apostolicity, though differing in idea, are nevertheless so intimately connected that the one can not exist without the other. As true apostolicity includes the transmission of the doctrine and practice, in all essential matters, of the apostolic Church, and as that Church was one and undivided, a church which possesses the note of apostolicity must be one and undivided in its teaching, its worship and its form of government. Perfect unity was an essential element of the design which our divine Lord carried into execution when He instituted the Church. For this unity He prayed and the prayer of the Son of God could not have been made in vain. "Holy Father," He prayed, "keep in Thy name those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may he one, as We also are" (John xvii. 11). "And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in Me; that they all may be one, as Thou, Father, in Me, and I in Thee ; that they also may be one in Us; that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me" (xvii. 20, 21).
As the prayer of Christ must have been heard, there still exists a Church which exhibits such unity, a unity the model of which is that which subsists between the Eternal Father and His only-begotten Son, a unity the possession of which by the Church is a sign that it was founded by One who was sent by the Eternal Father: ''That the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me." There must be in existence at the present moment a church which is one and undivided in belief, in worship and in corporate life.
The one Church possessing such unity is not far to seek: the only Church which exhibits this triple unity is the Church properly called Catholic—the Church in communion with the See of Rome. Its unity is, indeed, the despair of its enemies, many of whom, unable to copy it, have imitated the fox in the fable by decrying it as pernicious, as shackling human liberty and as an obstacle to human progress. The Roman Catholic Church possesses a unity which is the necessary consequence of its having a center of authority, from which radiate a power and an influence which unify the exceedingly varied human elements of which it is composed; a unity which is at once inimitable and indestructible: and both of these qualities proclaim its divine origin. If it were of human invention it would have been overthrown long before today; but this principle of unity is as strongly entrenched as ever and continues to win adherents to the Church from the ranks of those whose forefathers, a few centuries ago, abandoned it. If it were of human invention the human mind could produce some imitation of it; whereas the unity of the Catholic Church is simply inimitable. It has no parallel in any human society, religious or secular.
The unity of the Catholic Church is, of course, incompatible with absolute freedom of thought in matters religious. When a point of doctrine is explicitly set forth by Holy Writ, or when it is clearly defined by divinely constituted authority, the only rational course to be followed by the human intellect is to bow in submission to a higher authority than itself; just as in purely mundane matters one mind will accept the judgment of another better informed. But outside the circle of truth thus revealed or defined there is a vast field opened to human speculation, one, indeed, in which the brightest intellects have ranged untrammeled for centuries. In this connection, however, there is one essential difference between the Catholic Church and all other religious bodies: controversies may arise about matters as yet undefined, but the parties in each dispute acknowledge the Church's power to settle the question at issue and accept beforehand, with full interior assent, any decision which the Church may deem it advisable to give. The recognition of such authority is the one great condition for the realization of the unity for which Our Lord prayed to His Eternal Father.
It is all but needless to show how this truly Christian unity contrasts with the imperfect unity, or rather the absence of unity, that characterizes the sects. No sooner has any part of God's Church discarded the principle of unity and severed itself from the main body than, at once, discord begins to appear and sooner or later reigns supreme. Authority is superseded by opinion and opinion varies with the individual mind. We must leave it to the impartial judgment of our readers to say whether such a state of things was contemplated by the divine Founder of Christianity. And yet it is not rare to hear Protestants maintain that among themselves there is unity in essentials and disagreement in non-essentials; but if you ask them which doctrines are essential and which are not, you will find that few Protestants will give the same answer. Even doctrines once regarded as essential by all Christians—the divinity of Christ, for instance—have in recent times lost their hold upon countless minds within the Protestant pale. Religious belief has been left to the chance working out of human opinion; and gradually opinion diverges and sects multiply. The very cornerstone of Protestantism, the Bible, has lost its place of honor and the crumbling of the fabric erected over it is proceeding apace. Catholics, on the other hand, are fully entitled to use the distinction between "essential" and ''non-essential," for they have in their midst an ever-living voice of authority, which decides to-day, as
it decided in the first assembly of the apostles in Jerusalem, which teachings are essential and which are not.
Catholicity or Universality.—The mission of the apostles was to the entire world, and the mission of the Church is the same. Hence she can place no limit, geographical or racial, to the exercise of her ministry. ''You shall be witnesses unto Me in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth" (Acts i. 8). These words are at once mandatory and prophetic: they enjoin the universal preaching of the Gospel and predict the fulfillment of the injunction. In penetrating to every part of the earth the Church is, of course, dependent on time and on geographical discovery, but she would be unfaithful to her mission if she did not strenuously endeavor to extend her field of action; and Christ's promises would be unfulfilled if the Church were not actually found in every inhabitable and accessible place on the earth.
The term "Catholic" or "Universal" was variously applied by the Fathers of the early Church, but the meaning most commonly attached to the word was that of universality of place. Such ubiquitous presence was always regarded as a test whereby the true Church of Christ was to be distinguished from its counterfeits. Heretical bodies were identified with particular localities, and against them appeal was made to the Church that was known the world over, and also, be it added to the one unvarying doctrine which it everywhere taught. For this oneness of doctrine is an essential element of Catholicity regarded as a note of the Church. If the Church, whilst extending itself geographically, changed its teaching, extension would be a virtual multiplication of churches. The greater the extension the greater the number of the sects. What we shall look for, therefore, is a world-church—a church which is actually spread throughout the world and a church which is everywhere the same.
Now which of the churches answers this description? Can there be two possible answers to the question? Of the missionaries of the Catholic Church it may be said, as was said of the apostles, "Their sound hath gone forth into all the earth and their words unto the ends of the whole world." At no period of its existence has there been a known part of the earth unvisited by them. They have followed hard upon the footsteps of the explorer; nay, not unfrequently has the apostolic man been in the very van of discovery. Columbus, the greatest of discoverers, was no less an apostle than a man of the sea.
The labors and the success of our missionaries have won the enthusiastic praise even of our enemies. The ''Black Robe" among the North American Indians, the Jesuit of the South American reductions, the Xaviers and the Riccis of the Orient, have become household words among ordinary readers of history. In comparatively recent times seven million Filipinos have been won to Christianity and civilization. Even in China, where the spread of the Gospel has met with almost insuperable obstacles, the success of the French missionaries is the despair of their Protestant rivals in the same field. And who has not heard of the work of Cardinal Lavigerie and his "White Fathers" in preaching Christianity and aiding in the destruction of the slave trade in the wilds of Africa? The significance of these facts is that the Catholic Church has the same universality of outlook as the divine Master when He sent His disciples to preach the Gospel to every creature, and that in every age she endeavors more and more to realize the ideal of absolute universality which every true Christian must have at heart.
And if we ask the further question, which of the churches is actually established everywhere and is the same everywhere, the same answer is supplied by facts which all the world knows. If any one wishes to realize the ubiquity of the Catholic religion let him place himself in imagination in the Vatican, and endeavor for a moment to look abroad upon the world with the eyes of the present sovereign pontiff, Benedict XV. His children are found in all the countries of the globe. There is not a corner of the earth to which his jurisdiction does not extend. There is not an island in the remotest seas from which some ecclesiastic may not be wending his way ad limina Apostolorum, to lay the burden of his cares at the feet of the common father. St. Paul's ''solicitude for all the churches" {i.e., for the various parts of one and the same Church) was necessarily great, considering the number of foundations that claimed his care; but what would be his solicitude if he were at the head of the entire Church today ? And what glowing descriptions of the kingdom of God on earth would he give in his letters if he could look beyond the Pillars of Hercules and see the countries of a new world whose teeming populations looked to him for guidance and assistance! If the extent of the Pope's dominion be expressed in numbers of souls subject to him it is no less impressive. (In 1914) Nearly three hundred million human beings, belonging to every clime and speaking every human tongue, and yet a unit in loyalty and obedience to a common father! The more varied the membership of the Church Catholic the greater is the wonder excited by its perfect unity in belief and practice. Such perfect unanimity can not have a human origin. Any attempt to explain it by any purely human or other natural cause must prove utterly futile. The only valid explanation is to be found in the promise, "Behold, I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world."
And now let us apply the test of Catholicity to those bodies of Christians which have separated themselves from the See of Rome. The sterility of the Eastern churches is almost proverbial. Schism and heresy have produced their effect in paralyzing apostolic zeal. The churches of the East will always be the churches of the East: the local brand will always distinguish them, until one day, as we may hope, they will range themselves among the loyal subjects of Christ's Vicar on earth. And what shall we say of the Reformed churches? After four hundred years' existence the barrenness of Protestantism in the field of missionary labor is only too evident. With unlimited resources, what has it accomplished in the newer countries of the world? What are its conquests? What nation has it brought within the pale of Christianity ? The geographical extension of Protestantism has been due almost entirely to the migration of Protestants from their ancestral homes in Europe. In an age in which anything that may be transported on wheels or by water may be given some sort of universality it is not surprising that Methodism or Presbyterianism is in some manner represented in the four quarters of the globe; but in many places the sects are little more than represented. Protestant missionary enterprises as compared with Catholic have been egregious failures. Even where Protestantism has extended itself by reason of the accidents of time its unity, such as it is, has been proportionately impaired. When Anglicanism or Methodism or Presbyterianism transplants itself to a new country its new habitat will sooner or later give it a new name and a new creed.
In the beginning of its history, Protestantism, securing the patronage of certain potentates in Northern Europe, succeeded in forcing its creed upon whole countries, but its native feebleness was demonstrated wherever it was brought fairly into competition, on anything like equal terms, with Catholic zeal. In the first years of the Reformation Protestantism was in a fair way to possessing the whole of Europe; but soon an army of saintly and energetic Catholic missionaries entered the field, and 'The work of conversion," says Ranke, "advanced with resistless force," and vast provinces were recovered to the Faith. ''Fifty years after the Lutheran separation," says Macaulay, ''Catholicism could scarcely maintain itself on the shores of the Mediterranean; a hundred years after the separation Protestantism could scarcely maintain itself on the shores of the Baltic." Even today, in every country in which Protestantism once dominated, the tide of Catholicism is steadily advancing and the forces of Protestantism are steadily retiring.
We have said more than enough to show that the Church in communion with Rome is the world-religion which the religion of Christ was intended to be; that everywhere in the world it is found to be the same and always true to itself; and that it exhibits an unequaled vitality of apostolic zeal which constantly tends toward the realization of that perfect and absolute universality which was in the mind of Christ when He sent the apostles to preach the Faith throughout the world. It is the only Church, therefore, entitled to the name of Catholic.
Holiness.—As the Church is the creation of the Son of God it should partake of the holiness of its Founder. It possesses a guarantee of holiness in the promise of Christ, ''Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt, xxviii. 20), and in the assurance that the ''gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt, xvi. 18), for if it were not holy it could not withstand the attacks of the evil one. The Church must be holy in its teaching, in the means it employs to sanctify its members, and in its actual sanctification of them.
As regards personal holiness in the members of Christ's Church, it is evident from the Gospels that Christ foresaw that many would not respond to His generous designs in their regard. Men's wills would be free, and many would abuse their freedom of will and refuse to avail themselves of the means of salvation so bountifully provided for them. "It must needs be that scandals come," He said to His disciples. He foretold that iniquity would abound and that the charity of many would grow cold (Matt. xxiv. 12). Nay, before the close of His own life two of His twelve apostles, one-sixth of the whole numher!—sinned grievously, the one through weakness, the other through overruling passion. And afterward, even during the lifetime of the apostles, the beauty and the glory of Christ's Church were marred by schism and the grossest of vices. The inquirer must not, then, be misled by a false criterion. He must not be surprised if he finds tares among the wheat and vice in the near neighborhood of holiness. He must distinguish between the Church as a divine institution and the Church as an aggregate of individual men.
Once we have mastered this distinction we can turn to the Church as a divine institution, and as entrenched in the divine promises, with the expectation of finding in it a reflection of the holiness of Him who founded it. We shall expect in particular to find in the Church:
1. A loyalty to moral standards and principles;
2. An effectiveness in teaching and enforcing the divine law;
3. A preservation of the channels of divine grace ;
4. A sanctification of souls on a large scale.
Now what church can stand a comparison with the Roman Catholic touching the first two of these points? There is no need of going far afield to discover what lies at our doors. Our own country furnishes an object-lesson on the moral influence of Catholic teaching. Here in the United States, in the present perilous condition of morals, what power or influence, or if you will, what public institution can be thought able to cope with the moral corruption that is advancing upon us like a deluge? Will some faltering voice suggest "Methodism, " or ''Presbyterianism," or ''Anglicanism"? The weak influence these institutions have upon individual consciences in the present augurs ill for their influence in the future. What we need is not sermons or Bible lectures only, but an institution that shall retain a firm hold on the traditional principles of Christian morality, and at the same time use effectual means of promoting morality.
What Church can bear comparison with the Catholic in the guardianship of principles making for the moral welfare of society? The peace of families, the sacredness of the marriage bond, the religious education of the young, religion as the foundation of morality—where will any of these vital interests find in future generations an uncompromising defender except in the Church of Rome ? After three centuries or more of competition between the two rival systems of religion, the American public may now judge of the practical worth and the true intrinsic character of the system based upon private judgment, and compare it with the religion which speaks and acts with a consciousness of divinely given authority and refuses to surrender its principles to the "spirit of the age."
More than half of the effectiveness of the Church 's ministrations lies in what is called the sacramental system, which the Church teaches is of divine origin. In the sacraments there is a special embodiment of the truth uttered by Our Lord, "Without Me you can do nothing" (John XV. 5). God's grace is absolutely necessary as a means of salvation. Without grace it is impossible to overcome any grievous temptation, or even to persevere for any considerable time in the practice of the purely natural virtues. Hence Our Lord, through the Church and by means of the seven sacraments, meets every human need in the moral order and is ready with His assistance at every important turn in the journey of life. Through the sacraments a divine power is infused into the soul, and with it the germ of stability and perseverance.
It was a bold step that was taken by the Reformers when, by their simple fiat, they destroyed what from time immemorial had been regarded as divinely appointed channels of grace. The destruction of the system was followed by its natural consequence—a lack of religious vitality in the great mass of Reformed Christians. The divine nutriment once supplied the soul was now withheld and spiritual depletion was the result. Some of our Protestant readers whose surroundings may be exceptionally edifying will doubtless be offended at our implying that in point of vital religion Protestants are inferior to Catholics; but with all due regard for Protestant feeling the belief is not an unfounded one. We are not to judge by the few, but by the multitude. It was to the multitude that Christ preached, and a church's influence on the multitude must be one of the tests of its Christlike character. Will it be maintained that the sects have a hold upon the multitude here in America? Are they aware that we are confronted with a nation of indifferentists and agnostics? Are they ignorant of the influence of godless schools on practical morality? And all this, and much besides, in a country that was once the paradise of Protestantism!
In contrast with this state of things, of the fifteen or sixteen millions that make up the solid Catholic phalanx the great majority are effectually and practically influenced by their vital connection with the Church, and especially by their reception of the sacraments. There is absolutely no comparison between the religious devotion of Catholics and that of non-Catholics. Their churches are filled, not only when attendance at religious services is of strict obligation, but frequently when it is not; and in nearly every church hundreds are seen at dawn assisting at the sacrifice of the Mass, and again, on week-day evenings, attending the services of their sodalities or other such associations. Thousands are active promoters of the Apostleship of Prayer, a really great instrument for the sanctification of souls.
As regards the ordinary duties of life, the influence of the sacraments can not, of course, be brought home to the mind of any one outside the pale of the Church. Catholics know it and feel it; non-Catholics often see its effects but are unable to trace them to their cause. In the case of the sacrament of Penance, however, of the effects produced, one at least is fairly well known. A condition for the reception of the sacrament of Penance is the renouncement of every species of dishonesty and the restitution of ill-gotten gains. Indeed the renouncing of every vicious habit of a serious nature is a condition for receiving absolution from one's sins and admission to the reception of the Holy Eucharist. As regards the interior effects of the sacraments, which are best known to those who experience them, the most effective appeal we can make is to the testimony of those innumerable converts who have felt a new light and strength entering their souls with the grace of the sacraments.
One of the ripest fruits of sacramental grace is the desire to embrace what is known as the way of the divine counsels, or the way of complete renunciation. Readers of the New Testament must remember how on one occasion a young man came to Our Lord and asked Him what he must do that he might have life everlasting. Our Lord, naturally enough, bade him observe the commandments; but when the young man said he had observed the commandments from his boyhood and asked what was still wanting to him, the Lord answered: "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow Me." Such is the way of the counsels—the giving up of all, to follow Christ the more perfectly. Are all our readers aware that this life of special renunciation has flourished in the Church in every period of its history ? Are they aware that today those who follow this manner of life may be numbered by the hundred thousand? They have heard of the Religious Orders of the Catholic Church; they have heard of their work of charity; perhaps they have heard of their apostolic zeal; the great bulk of the work of converting the heathen has been accomplished by the Religious Orders; but not all who are acquainted with this particular phase of the religious life are aware that the success of Religious in external labors is rooted in the most absolute self-renunciation, consisting, not only in the sacrifice of material treasure, but also in the immolation of the flesh and the will by the vows of chastity and obedience.
It is needless to descant on the contrast between the Catholic Church and the other churches in the matter of the counsels. Attempts have indeed been made to naturalize the conventual life among non-Catholics, but they have only emphasized the need of its being planted in more congenial soil; and of this the latest proof has been given in the accession of whole communities of Anglican Religious to the Roman Catholic communion. It is plain that one important feature of Christian holiness is lacking in non-Roman religions. And this brings us to another, though not essentially different, aspect of the holiness of the Church. In the Church of Christ, which, appearing as it did after the twilight of type and prophecy, might be supposed to exhibit the noonday brightness of the reign of grace, one would expect to find some souls, nay, even very many in the course of ages, whose lives would show forth the transforming power of divine grace in an extraordinary degree. And who are these but the actual saints of the Catholic Church?—not only the canonized saints, but many besides whose memory will never be thus publicly honored. No age of the Church has been without them. Even in the sixteenth century, when the general decline in morals gave some color to the revolt against the Church of God, the number of canonized saints alone would be a surprise to our separated brethren.
What, has Protestantism, or what have the sects of the Orient, to show in comparison with this galaxy of saintly men and women? Far be it from us to belittle the virtues—in many cases the superior virtues—of those who do not share our faith; for the realm of grace is, after all, not strictly commensurate with the limits of the Catholic Church. Even pagans and infidels are not totally deprived of the divine assistance. But were we to ask for a list of men and women of world-renowned sanctity, it is difficult to see from which of the Reformed religions it would be forthcoming. Let them endeavor from the worthies of the sixteenth century —or from those of any century, or from all the centuries and from all the sects—to match a list which comprises such names as those of a Xavier, a Philip Neri, an Ignatius of Loyola, a Pius V, a Charles Borromeo, a Francis Borgia, an Alphonsus Rodriguez, an Alphonsus Liguori, a John Berchmans, a Peter Claver, a Stanislaus Kostka, an Aloysius Gonzaga, a Cajetan, a Theresa, a John of the Cross or, to come closer to the present generation, a Perboyre, a Vianney (Cure of Ars), a Dom Bosco, a Clement Hofbauer. But the attempt will, of course, never be made by any one who knows what is meant by a Catholic saint.
But there is yet another feature of the Church's holiness, which is the most distinctive of all, though it shows itself more rarely than the others. The special presence of the Holy Ghost in the Church is attested by the miraculous power conferred on at least a few in each age, and in the wonders wrought in places hallowed by the devotion of the faithful. When Our Lord commanded His apostles to preach the Gospel in the whole world, He made the following predictions: "And these signs shall follow them that believe: in My name they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover" (Mark xvi. 17, 18). That these signs did follow we are told in the Acts of the Apostles. That miracles have been wrought since the days of the apostles is the testimony of reputable historians. But we are not wholly dependent on the witness of past ages for our belief in the continuance of this mark of divine favor in the Church of God. Miracles are worked probably on as grand a scale as ever before in the history of the Church. Miraculous healing of the most astounding kind has been wrought at the famous Grotto of Lourdes, in France. Diseases pronounced incurable, diseases of an organic nature, fractures, lesions, tumors, cancers, have been cured, often instantaneously and under the eyes of numerous witnesses. Official records of these events have been kept and have been submitted to the scrutiny of medical experts. There is nothing in nature to account for these wonders, and they are all connected with devotion to the Blessed Virgin under the title of Our Lady of Lourdes. There is an extensive literature bearing on these wonderful occurrences and information on the subject is within the reach of all inquirers. (Cf. ''Lourdes: A History of its Apparitions and Cures," by Georges Bertrin,—also "Miracles" in the present work.)
But our aim just at present is not precisely to prove that miracles are actually performed. Our contention is that, as Our Lord promised this mark of His favor to the preaching of the word, as He did not, apparently, place any limit to the period of its continuance, and as it is probable that signs of His presence and power which He bestowed even upon the Jews of old would be continued in the Church which He came on earth to found, the Church which can present at least so much prima facie evidence of miracles and still believes in miracles, is more likely to be the true Church of God than any church which shows no signs of miraculous intervention and even discards a belief in miracles.
The question here is: Which of the churches bears the greatest resemblance to the Church of Christ and His apostles, in this as in every other indication of holiness? And now we have almost brought to a close this exceptionally long article on a very important subject. We have endeavored to describe the marks by which the Church of Christ is to be recognized. These marks, we have contended, should be of the most conspicuous kind in the case of a religion that was to be preached to the entire world, and these marks are found only in the Church which acknowledges the supremacy of the See of Rome; in the Catholic Church, rightly and distinctively so called. Any church which fails to present the same credentials is not the Church of Christ, and consequently not the Ark of salvation, even though it preserve, as many churches do, some elements of ancient faith and piety.
It is possible that one or other point in the above argumentation may not at once produce conviction in the mind of the inquirer. We would ask him, in that case, to look at the argument as a whole, and then ask himself in all sincerity whether any such case can be made out in favor of any church but that of Rome. If none can, there is no doubting the conclusion that a Church that exhibits so many signs of divine favor and of divine preservation must be the Church of Christ, and the one only Church of Christ, and that consequently, as Our Lord made the acceptance of the true Gospel, or, in other words, membership in His one and undivided Church, a condition of salvation, the practical step to be taken will easily suggest itself to any logical mind.
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST
HOW TO FIND IT
Objection.—If the true Church of Christ is still in existence the claimants to that title are so numerous that the problem of finding the Church is beyond the powers of any but extraordinary minds. The average man might be excused if he gave up the search.
The Answer—The problem is not so difficult in itself; it is often made difficult by the way in which it is approached. Christ established a Church that could be recognized by all men, high and low, learned and unlearned. "Go ye into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature." These are His words; and when He added, ''He that believeth not shall be condemned," He implied that to recognize the truth was possible, and more than possible, for otherwise the refusal to do so would not incur damnation. But the acceptance of the bare teaching of the Gospel was not enough; that teaching was to be enshrined in a Church —an organized society—to whose rulers obedience was to be due. Christ speaks of "building" a Church, that is to say, of founding a permanent organization for the guidance of men to salvation. He enjoins obedience to it in such words as, "He that will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican." The sacred writings abound in allusions to a Church, or assembly of believers, governed by the apostles or those appointed by them; a Church, too, about entering or not entering which there could be no question: to belong to it was a universal obligation.
CONDITIONS FOR SOLVING THE PROBLEM
The obstacles preventing one from getting at the truth about the Church vary, of course, with the individual. There are persons who feel a sort of fascination in merely skirmishing with the subject, and, generally, in merely playing with religious ideas. Religion is an interesting subject; mystery is always alluring; and in our age there is a tendency to speculate about religion much in the spirit in which Doctor Johnson says the Greeks were wont to do, that is to say, without much sense of personal religious obligation. But such is not the spirit that pervades the New Testament. In the mind of Christ religion has a practical aspect which can not be dissociated from it. A right mode of worship, a working out of one's salvation by the aid of religion, a submission to divinely appointed authority in the Church (one true Church, as is plain), all this was an essential part of the plan of salvation to which Christ came to give effect.
There is no choice left us but to use the means of salvation which He has provided. As He equipped the apostles and their successors with extraordinary powers, even that of binding and loosing, and that of opening and closing the gates of heaven, and commanded all men to hear them — "He that heareth you heareth Me : and he that despiseth you despiseth Me" (Luke x. 16)—the possession of such authority would be absurd if men might at pleasure submit or refuse to submit to those who possessed it. Membership in the Church presided over by the successors of the apostles is therefore a matter of the strictest personal obligation; and for those who are not yet among its members the duty of inquiry and of prompt and generous action is one of the most pressing nature.
Before or after one has begun his inquiry he may be hampered by another obstacle prejudice, especially inherited prejudice, or that instilled in early childhood— prejudice that tends to block out all inquiry in certain directions in which it is taken for granted that the truth can not possibly be found. Many a convert to the Faith has been kept out of the Fold of Christ by prejudice the greater part of his life. Whenever there is question of putting oneself in an order established by Providence, or of personal salvation, which is the same thing, the closing of any avenue by which truth may reach the mind involves a risk which no man has any warrant for taking. Another obstacle lies in the complexity of the problem; a complexity, however, which is not of its essence. The solution is difficult because it seems to be a matter of deciding between hundreds of sects all of which are denominated Christian, or of shifting from one sect to another till the right one is found. The problem must be simplified, and so simplified that a key to its solution may be put into the hands of all. The Church, we must repeat, is a Church that may easily be recognized by all, for to all the Gospel was to be preached. The Church must, therefore, possess distinguishing marks which can easily be recognized.
THE MARKS OR SIGNS OF THE TRUE CHURCH
The necessity of some marks or notes by which to distinguish the Church is acknowledged by Protestants as well as by Catholics; but the notes set forth by Protestants may be shown to be impracticable as guides. Protestants tell us that the true Church is to be found wherever there is a right preaching of the word of God and a right administration of the sacraments. Now this double criterion is clearly delusive; not only because it fails to distinguish the Church from schismatical bodies, but also and chiefly because these two supposed notes of the Church are, practically, no notes at all —that is to say, outward visible marks which are easily distinguished. They are facts, it is true, to any one to whom they can be proved to be facts, but they are not signs or marks which can be matter of direct observation. Sermons and rites are, of course, observable facts, but the rightness or wrongness of sermons or rites is not an observable fact. If I am told, therefore, that any given religious sect is known to be the one true Church of Christ by the fact that it preaches the Gospel aright and administers the sacraments aright, my answer at once is a challenge: Prove that such is the character of its preaching and of its sacramental system. I have asked for a sign and am given instead a proposition that needs to be proved.
The Catholic Church, on the other hand, insists on the application of tests which are more ready to hand but which, nevertheless, are infallible. The notes of the Church to which she appeals are supplied by the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by the greater part of Christendom. The true Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Here we have four distinguishing traits which, comparatively speaking, are easily discerned. The church possessing them can not easily conceal them. Unity and catholicity (or universality) will be manifest to the average observer. Holiness in ends, means, results, can not long lie hidden. As to apostolicity, or the Church's descent from the apostles, if any world-wide church possesses it, the fact will be written legibly on the pages of history.
Now the Roman Catholic Church is the only church to which these marks, either singly or in their totality, belong. In the first place, there is prima facie (or first sight) evidence of their belonging to the Church of Rome. The "old" Church, as every one calls it, conspicuous for its unity, spread throughout the world (it is anything but narrow or national), and exerting a special power and influence for good—does not this sound like a description of the Church of Rome? And in what other church does the presence of these traits show itself on the very surface? Here, then, we have a point of departure for the inquirer: the claims of the Roman Catholic Church merit first consideration, just as in physical science first indications all pointing one way have the first claim to the attention of the investigator.
In the course of his study the inquirer will be led to see that the "old" Church is the veritable Church of the apostles by reason of the continuity of its tradition; that its unity is perfect and could only have been preserved by a special providence; that its holiness is greater than at first sight appeared, and is due mainly to the preservation of the divine element in its ministrations; and that in its character of a world-religion it is as universal as the merciful designs of its divine Founder. The inquirer will now be ready for a more particular study of the notes as possessed by the Roman Catholic Church.
Apostolicity.—What is the origin of the present hierarchy of the Catholic Church, that is to say, of the graded ministry consisting of the Pope, the patriarchs, the bishops, the priests, etc.? It takes no profound knowledge of history to see in the present hierarchy the lineal descendants, in a spiritual sense, of the apostles and their immediate successors. In each successive age we find the hierarchy of the time safely anchored in the past. Each diocese could exhibit the unbroken line of its spiritual rulers from the beginning. In the earlier centuries heresies were triumphantly refuted by the application of the touchstone of apostolic succession. "We have it in our power," said Irenaeus in the second century, "to enumerate those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the churches and the successors of those bishops down to ourselves." The same boast is repeated by Tertullian in the third century, and by others in successive ages down to the present. It is conceded by all that the present hierarchy of the Catholic Church is in a direct line of descent from the apostles. The acknowledgment of this fact is a matter of the first importance; for undoubtedly if the question is, which of the churches is the one true Church of Christ, a church whose succession of teachers and rulers can be traced to apostolic days must possess an immense advantage in the discussion as compared with any church not possessing such perfectly visible links connecting it with the beginnings of Christianity.
And now let us apply the test of apostolicity to the other churches. How can they possibly establish any connection with the apostolic age? Lutheranism began with Luther, a self-commissioned preacher, who succeeded for a time in making his opinions acceptable to his followers. A similar origin is that of all the Evangelical religions that have sprung up since the first half of the sixteenth century. We gather from the sacred writings that a preacher must have his credentials. He can not preach unless commissioned to do so.
"How shall they preach unless they be sent?" asks St. Paul, writing to the Romans (x. 15). No one can preach in Christ's name unless commissioned by Christ Himself, as the apostles were, or by those who have received their authority from Him. Hence the necessity of a succession of commissioned preachers, each receiving his authority from another, and all tracing their commission back to Christ Himself. How shall they preach unless they he sent? What answer then can be made to the crucial question, Who sent Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli to preach? And above all, who could have sent them to preach a doctrine at variance with that universally taught in the Church of Christ? Is there any meaning in being ''sent" if the one sent preaches what he pleases?
The truth is that the whole doctrine regarding the necessity of the preacher's being sent was virtually repudiated by the self-constituted reformers of the sixteenth century. They took the bold stand of preaching a doctrine opposed to that of the Church, although it was only from the Church they could have received a commissi0n to preach at all. Did they fancy they were sent directly by the Holy Ghost? If so, what manner of credentials did they bring with them? St. Paul was sent by the Holy Ghost, but his credentials were well certified. His mission was revealed to the Church, he conferred with the other apostles about his teachings and taught the same doctrines as they. The Reformers' commission from the Holy Ghost had no such certification.
Furthermore, the idea of apostolic continuity includes much more than the bare fact of succession in office; otherwise the occupant of an episcopal see, though he turned Mohammedan and preached Mohammedanism, might still claim to be a successor of the apostles! The faith and practice of the apostles must also be handed on to posterity by the occupants of sees. If the rulers of God's Church in the twentieth century do not stand for all that the apostles stood for in point of teaching and ministry the note of apostolicity is gone. It is conceivable that a bishop duly consecrated and given local jurisdiction should lapse from the Faith and use his office in the interest of heresy. In that case apostolic succession would be a body without a soul. Jurisdiction, no less than orthodoxy, would necessarily cease, and true internal succession would be no more than a name. And if such a bishop should consecrate another to be his successor and to propagate his heresy, the status of the latter would be like that of his predecessor. This is plain common sense, as well as the teaching of the Fathers. Now if this be the case there must be in the Church of Christ a criterion of genuine internal apostolic succession; and our contention is that the only church possessing any such criterion is the Church which acknowledges the jurisdiction of the See of Rome.
It is precisely by and through this universal jurisdiction, wherever it has been acknowledged, that orthodoxy has been preserved and the faithful have been given a security that they were under the genuine successors of the apostles. It is not our purpose at present to establish the claims of the Roman primacy—that we have done elsewhere in this volume—(see ''The Pope II—Christ's Vicar"); and after all, we are dealing only with the phase of apostolicity which constitutes it a mark or sign of the true Church, easily discernible by the many. The Roman Church is the only 0ne that has any recognized criterion of apostolical succession, whilst the other churches have absolutely none.
According to the Anglican view, apostolicity in the Church consists of a number of separate streams of apostolic succession, each flowing in its own channel and never, unless accidentally, brought into conjunction with the others; whereas from the apostolic age onward the mind of Christendom has conceived of the Apostolic Church as an organic whole, symbolized, according to St. Paul and the Fathers, by the living human body, whose members are made one with the head. What possible criterion can Anglicans have in the matter of teaching and jurisdiction? Even if Anglican orders were valid, do orders confer local jurisdiction? If so, where is the proof of it? When the first Anglican bishops forced themselves out of the framework of the ecclesiastical polity in which their predecessors had been for ages, what guarantee could they give their flocks that they wielded apostolic authority? The voice of all Christendom was against them as it is today; the Pope, whose supremacy their predecessors had acknowledged, repudiated them; there was no foundation in Scripture for their anomalous position; and henceforth the veriest of heretics, if he succeeded in getting some genuine bishop to place his hands upon him, might usurp the government of a diocese in the name of Christ and His apostles. If opposed by the Anglican authorities and required to answer the question, ''Where did you get your jurisdiction?" he might with justice ask them in turn, "Where did you get yours ?"'
Historically, the Anglican system has borne its natural fruits in its evolution of doctrine and worship. Anglicanism embraces today every form of teaching from Roman Catholicism (or something akin to it) to the veriest Zwinglianism, and from Zwinglianism to Unitarianism, or worse; but its formularies and its Prayer Book are sufficiently elastic to be made to cover every vagary of the Anglican mind.
The case of the schismatical churches of the East is scarcely better than that of Anglicanism. For more than eight centuries their standing before the rest of Christendom was assured by the one bond of union which united them with all the other churches—the primacy of the See of Rome. Today, severed from the center of unity, they seek in vain for a rallying-point of orthodoxy. What is to be thought of apostolical teaching and jurisdiction in churches which for centuries acknowledged the supremacy of the Pope, then renounced it, again on two separate occasions embraced it, once more renounced it, till finally they lapsed into a state of bondage to the secular power which has been the latest stage of their downward course? It is evident, therefore, that the Church presided over by the Pope is the only one possessing the note of apostolicity. It is apostolic because its bishops are the true successors of the apostles and because it has a principle of unity which is the only guarantee of apostolic succession.
Unity.—Unity and apostolicity, though differing in idea, are nevertheless so intimately connected that the one can not exist without the other. As true apostolicity includes the transmission of the doctrine and practice, in all essential matters, of the apostolic Church, and as that Church was one and undivided, a church which possesses the note of apostolicity must be one and undivided in its teaching, its worship and its form of government. Perfect unity was an essential element of the design which our divine Lord carried into execution when He instituted the Church. For this unity He prayed and the prayer of the Son of God could not have been made in vain. "Holy Father," He prayed, "keep in Thy name those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may he one, as We also are" (John xvii. 11). "And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in Me; that they all may be one, as Thou, Father, in Me, and I in Thee ; that they also may be one in Us; that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me" (xvii. 20, 21).
As the prayer of Christ must have been heard, there still exists a Church which exhibits such unity, a unity the model of which is that which subsists between the Eternal Father and His only-begotten Son, a unity the possession of which by the Church is a sign that it was founded by One who was sent by the Eternal Father: ''That the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me." There must be in existence at the present moment a church which is one and undivided in belief, in worship and in corporate life.
The one Church possessing such unity is not far to seek: the only Church which exhibits this triple unity is the Church properly called Catholic—the Church in communion with the See of Rome. Its unity is, indeed, the despair of its enemies, many of whom, unable to copy it, have imitated the fox in the fable by decrying it as pernicious, as shackling human liberty and as an obstacle to human progress. The Roman Catholic Church possesses a unity which is the necessary consequence of its having a center of authority, from which radiate a power and an influence which unify the exceedingly varied human elements of which it is composed; a unity which is at once inimitable and indestructible: and both of these qualities proclaim its divine origin. If it were of human invention it would have been overthrown long before today; but this principle of unity is as strongly entrenched as ever and continues to win adherents to the Church from the ranks of those whose forefathers, a few centuries ago, abandoned it. If it were of human invention the human mind could produce some imitation of it; whereas the unity of the Catholic Church is simply inimitable. It has no parallel in any human society, religious or secular.
The unity of the Catholic Church is, of course, incompatible with absolute freedom of thought in matters religious. When a point of doctrine is explicitly set forth by Holy Writ, or when it is clearly defined by divinely constituted authority, the only rational course to be followed by the human intellect is to bow in submission to a higher authority than itself; just as in purely mundane matters one mind will accept the judgment of another better informed. But outside the circle of truth thus revealed or defined there is a vast field opened to human speculation, one, indeed, in which the brightest intellects have ranged untrammeled for centuries. In this connection, however, there is one essential difference between the Catholic Church and all other religious bodies: controversies may arise about matters as yet undefined, but the parties in each dispute acknowledge the Church's power to settle the question at issue and accept beforehand, with full interior assent, any decision which the Church may deem it advisable to give. The recognition of such authority is the one great condition for the realization of the unity for which Our Lord prayed to His Eternal Father.
It is all but needless to show how this truly Christian unity contrasts with the imperfect unity, or rather the absence of unity, that characterizes the sects. No sooner has any part of God's Church discarded the principle of unity and severed itself from the main body than, at once, discord begins to appear and sooner or later reigns supreme. Authority is superseded by opinion and opinion varies with the individual mind. We must leave it to the impartial judgment of our readers to say whether such a state of things was contemplated by the divine Founder of Christianity. And yet it is not rare to hear Protestants maintain that among themselves there is unity in essentials and disagreement in non-essentials; but if you ask them which doctrines are essential and which are not, you will find that few Protestants will give the same answer. Even doctrines once regarded as essential by all Christians—the divinity of Christ, for instance—have in recent times lost their hold upon countless minds within the Protestant pale. Religious belief has been left to the chance working out of human opinion; and gradually opinion diverges and sects multiply. The very cornerstone of Protestantism, the Bible, has lost its place of honor and the crumbling of the fabric erected over it is proceeding apace. Catholics, on the other hand, are fully entitled to use the distinction between "essential" and ''non-essential," for they have in their midst an ever-living voice of authority, which decides to-day, as
it decided in the first assembly of the apostles in Jerusalem, which teachings are essential and which are not.
Catholicity or Universality.—The mission of the apostles was to the entire world, and the mission of the Church is the same. Hence she can place no limit, geographical or racial, to the exercise of her ministry. ''You shall be witnesses unto Me in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth" (Acts i. 8). These words are at once mandatory and prophetic: they enjoin the universal preaching of the Gospel and predict the fulfillment of the injunction. In penetrating to every part of the earth the Church is, of course, dependent on time and on geographical discovery, but she would be unfaithful to her mission if she did not strenuously endeavor to extend her field of action; and Christ's promises would be unfulfilled if the Church were not actually found in every inhabitable and accessible place on the earth.
The term "Catholic" or "Universal" was variously applied by the Fathers of the early Church, but the meaning most commonly attached to the word was that of universality of place. Such ubiquitous presence was always regarded as a test whereby the true Church of Christ was to be distinguished from its counterfeits. Heretical bodies were identified with particular localities, and against them appeal was made to the Church that was known the world over, and also, be it added to the one unvarying doctrine which it everywhere taught. For this oneness of doctrine is an essential element of Catholicity regarded as a note of the Church. If the Church, whilst extending itself geographically, changed its teaching, extension would be a virtual multiplication of churches. The greater the extension the greater the number of the sects. What we shall look for, therefore, is a world-church—a church which is actually spread throughout the world and a church which is everywhere the same.
Now which of the churches answers this description? Can there be two possible answers to the question? Of the missionaries of the Catholic Church it may be said, as was said of the apostles, "Their sound hath gone forth into all the earth and their words unto the ends of the whole world." At no period of its existence has there been a known part of the earth unvisited by them. They have followed hard upon the footsteps of the explorer; nay, not unfrequently has the apostolic man been in the very van of discovery. Columbus, the greatest of discoverers, was no less an apostle than a man of the sea.
The labors and the success of our missionaries have won the enthusiastic praise even of our enemies. The ''Black Robe" among the North American Indians, the Jesuit of the South American reductions, the Xaviers and the Riccis of the Orient, have become household words among ordinary readers of history. In comparatively recent times seven million Filipinos have been won to Christianity and civilization. Even in China, where the spread of the Gospel has met with almost insuperable obstacles, the success of the French missionaries is the despair of their Protestant rivals in the same field. And who has not heard of the work of Cardinal Lavigerie and his "White Fathers" in preaching Christianity and aiding in the destruction of the slave trade in the wilds of Africa? The significance of these facts is that the Catholic Church has the same universality of outlook as the divine Master when He sent His disciples to preach the Gospel to every creature, and that in every age she endeavors more and more to realize the ideal of absolute universality which every true Christian must have at heart.
And if we ask the further question, which of the churches is actually established everywhere and is the same everywhere, the same answer is supplied by facts which all the world knows. If any one wishes to realize the ubiquity of the Catholic religion let him place himself in imagination in the Vatican, and endeavor for a moment to look abroad upon the world with the eyes of the present sovereign pontiff, Benedict XV. His children are found in all the countries of the globe. There is not a corner of the earth to which his jurisdiction does not extend. There is not an island in the remotest seas from which some ecclesiastic may not be wending his way ad limina Apostolorum, to lay the burden of his cares at the feet of the common father. St. Paul's ''solicitude for all the churches" {i.e., for the various parts of one and the same Church) was necessarily great, considering the number of foundations that claimed his care; but what would be his solicitude if he were at the head of the entire Church today ? And what glowing descriptions of the kingdom of God on earth would he give in his letters if he could look beyond the Pillars of Hercules and see the countries of a new world whose teeming populations looked to him for guidance and assistance! If the extent of the Pope's dominion be expressed in numbers of souls subject to him it is no less impressive. (In 1914) Nearly three hundred million human beings, belonging to every clime and speaking every human tongue, and yet a unit in loyalty and obedience to a common father! The more varied the membership of the Church Catholic the greater is the wonder excited by its perfect unity in belief and practice. Such perfect unanimity can not have a human origin. Any attempt to explain it by any purely human or other natural cause must prove utterly futile. The only valid explanation is to be found in the promise, "Behold, I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world."
And now let us apply the test of Catholicity to those bodies of Christians which have separated themselves from the See of Rome. The sterility of the Eastern churches is almost proverbial. Schism and heresy have produced their effect in paralyzing apostolic zeal. The churches of the East will always be the churches of the East: the local brand will always distinguish them, until one day, as we may hope, they will range themselves among the loyal subjects of Christ's Vicar on earth. And what shall we say of the Reformed churches? After four hundred years' existence the barrenness of Protestantism in the field of missionary labor is only too evident. With unlimited resources, what has it accomplished in the newer countries of the world? What are its conquests? What nation has it brought within the pale of Christianity ? The geographical extension of Protestantism has been due almost entirely to the migration of Protestants from their ancestral homes in Europe. In an age in which anything that may be transported on wheels or by water may be given some sort of universality it is not surprising that Methodism or Presbyterianism is in some manner represented in the four quarters of the globe; but in many places the sects are little more than represented. Protestant missionary enterprises as compared with Catholic have been egregious failures. Even where Protestantism has extended itself by reason of the accidents of time its unity, such as it is, has been proportionately impaired. When Anglicanism or Methodism or Presbyterianism transplants itself to a new country its new habitat will sooner or later give it a new name and a new creed.
In the beginning of its history, Protestantism, securing the patronage of certain potentates in Northern Europe, succeeded in forcing its creed upon whole countries, but its native feebleness was demonstrated wherever it was brought fairly into competition, on anything like equal terms, with Catholic zeal. In the first years of the Reformation Protestantism was in a fair way to possessing the whole of Europe; but soon an army of saintly and energetic Catholic missionaries entered the field, and 'The work of conversion," says Ranke, "advanced with resistless force," and vast provinces were recovered to the Faith. ''Fifty years after the Lutheran separation," says Macaulay, ''Catholicism could scarcely maintain itself on the shores of the Mediterranean; a hundred years after the separation Protestantism could scarcely maintain itself on the shores of the Baltic." Even today, in every country in which Protestantism once dominated, the tide of Catholicism is steadily advancing and the forces of Protestantism are steadily retiring.
We have said more than enough to show that the Church in communion with Rome is the world-religion which the religion of Christ was intended to be; that everywhere in the world it is found to be the same and always true to itself; and that it exhibits an unequaled vitality of apostolic zeal which constantly tends toward the realization of that perfect and absolute universality which was in the mind of Christ when He sent the apostles to preach the Faith throughout the world. It is the only Church, therefore, entitled to the name of Catholic.
Holiness.—As the Church is the creation of the Son of God it should partake of the holiness of its Founder. It possesses a guarantee of holiness in the promise of Christ, ''Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt, xxviii. 20), and in the assurance that the ''gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt, xvi. 18), for if it were not holy it could not withstand the attacks of the evil one. The Church must be holy in its teaching, in the means it employs to sanctify its members, and in its actual sanctification of them.
As regards personal holiness in the members of Christ's Church, it is evident from the Gospels that Christ foresaw that many would not respond to His generous designs in their regard. Men's wills would be free, and many would abuse their freedom of will and refuse to avail themselves of the means of salvation so bountifully provided for them. "It must needs be that scandals come," He said to His disciples. He foretold that iniquity would abound and that the charity of many would grow cold (Matt. xxiv. 12). Nay, before the close of His own life two of His twelve apostles, one-sixth of the whole numher!—sinned grievously, the one through weakness, the other through overruling passion. And afterward, even during the lifetime of the apostles, the beauty and the glory of Christ's Church were marred by schism and the grossest of vices. The inquirer must not, then, be misled by a false criterion. He must not be surprised if he finds tares among the wheat and vice in the near neighborhood of holiness. He must distinguish between the Church as a divine institution and the Church as an aggregate of individual men.
Once we have mastered this distinction we can turn to the Church as a divine institution, and as entrenched in the divine promises, with the expectation of finding in it a reflection of the holiness of Him who founded it. We shall expect in particular to find in the Church:
1. A loyalty to moral standards and principles;
2. An effectiveness in teaching and enforcing the divine law;
3. A preservation of the channels of divine grace ;
4. A sanctification of souls on a large scale.
Now what church can stand a comparison with the Roman Catholic touching the first two of these points? There is no need of going far afield to discover what lies at our doors. Our own country furnishes an object-lesson on the moral influence of Catholic teaching. Here in the United States, in the present perilous condition of morals, what power or influence, or if you will, what public institution can be thought able to cope with the moral corruption that is advancing upon us like a deluge? Will some faltering voice suggest "Methodism, " or ''Presbyterianism," or ''Anglicanism"? The weak influence these institutions have upon individual consciences in the present augurs ill for their influence in the future. What we need is not sermons or Bible lectures only, but an institution that shall retain a firm hold on the traditional principles of Christian morality, and at the same time use effectual means of promoting morality.
What Church can bear comparison with the Catholic in the guardianship of principles making for the moral welfare of society? The peace of families, the sacredness of the marriage bond, the religious education of the young, religion as the foundation of morality—where will any of these vital interests find in future generations an uncompromising defender except in the Church of Rome ? After three centuries or more of competition between the two rival systems of religion, the American public may now judge of the practical worth and the true intrinsic character of the system based upon private judgment, and compare it with the religion which speaks and acts with a consciousness of divinely given authority and refuses to surrender its principles to the "spirit of the age."
More than half of the effectiveness of the Church 's ministrations lies in what is called the sacramental system, which the Church teaches is of divine origin. In the sacraments there is a special embodiment of the truth uttered by Our Lord, "Without Me you can do nothing" (John XV. 5). God's grace is absolutely necessary as a means of salvation. Without grace it is impossible to overcome any grievous temptation, or even to persevere for any considerable time in the practice of the purely natural virtues. Hence Our Lord, through the Church and by means of the seven sacraments, meets every human need in the moral order and is ready with His assistance at every important turn in the journey of life. Through the sacraments a divine power is infused into the soul, and with it the germ of stability and perseverance.
It was a bold step that was taken by the Reformers when, by their simple fiat, they destroyed what from time immemorial had been regarded as divinely appointed channels of grace. The destruction of the system was followed by its natural consequence—a lack of religious vitality in the great mass of Reformed Christians. The divine nutriment once supplied the soul was now withheld and spiritual depletion was the result. Some of our Protestant readers whose surroundings may be exceptionally edifying will doubtless be offended at our implying that in point of vital religion Protestants are inferior to Catholics; but with all due regard for Protestant feeling the belief is not an unfounded one. We are not to judge by the few, but by the multitude. It was to the multitude that Christ preached, and a church's influence on the multitude must be one of the tests of its Christlike character. Will it be maintained that the sects have a hold upon the multitude here in America? Are they aware that we are confronted with a nation of indifferentists and agnostics? Are they ignorant of the influence of godless schools on practical morality? And all this, and much besides, in a country that was once the paradise of Protestantism!
In contrast with this state of things, of the fifteen or sixteen millions that make up the solid Catholic phalanx the great majority are effectually and practically influenced by their vital connection with the Church, and especially by their reception of the sacraments. There is absolutely no comparison between the religious devotion of Catholics and that of non-Catholics. Their churches are filled, not only when attendance at religious services is of strict obligation, but frequently when it is not; and in nearly every church hundreds are seen at dawn assisting at the sacrifice of the Mass, and again, on week-day evenings, attending the services of their sodalities or other such associations. Thousands are active promoters of the Apostleship of Prayer, a really great instrument for the sanctification of souls.
As regards the ordinary duties of life, the influence of the sacraments can not, of course, be brought home to the mind of any one outside the pale of the Church. Catholics know it and feel it; non-Catholics often see its effects but are unable to trace them to their cause. In the case of the sacrament of Penance, however, of the effects produced, one at least is fairly well known. A condition for the reception of the sacrament of Penance is the renouncement of every species of dishonesty and the restitution of ill-gotten gains. Indeed the renouncing of every vicious habit of a serious nature is a condition for receiving absolution from one's sins and admission to the reception of the Holy Eucharist. As regards the interior effects of the sacraments, which are best known to those who experience them, the most effective appeal we can make is to the testimony of those innumerable converts who have felt a new light and strength entering their souls with the grace of the sacraments.
One of the ripest fruits of sacramental grace is the desire to embrace what is known as the way of the divine counsels, or the way of complete renunciation. Readers of the New Testament must remember how on one occasion a young man came to Our Lord and asked Him what he must do that he might have life everlasting. Our Lord, naturally enough, bade him observe the commandments; but when the young man said he had observed the commandments from his boyhood and asked what was still wanting to him, the Lord answered: "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow Me." Such is the way of the counsels—the giving up of all, to follow Christ the more perfectly. Are all our readers aware that this life of special renunciation has flourished in the Church in every period of its history ? Are they aware that today those who follow this manner of life may be numbered by the hundred thousand? They have heard of the Religious Orders of the Catholic Church; they have heard of their work of charity; perhaps they have heard of their apostolic zeal; the great bulk of the work of converting the heathen has been accomplished by the Religious Orders; but not all who are acquainted with this particular phase of the religious life are aware that the success of Religious in external labors is rooted in the most absolute self-renunciation, consisting, not only in the sacrifice of material treasure, but also in the immolation of the flesh and the will by the vows of chastity and obedience.
It is needless to descant on the contrast between the Catholic Church and the other churches in the matter of the counsels. Attempts have indeed been made to naturalize the conventual life among non-Catholics, but they have only emphasized the need of its being planted in more congenial soil; and of this the latest proof has been given in the accession of whole communities of Anglican Religious to the Roman Catholic communion. It is plain that one important feature of Christian holiness is lacking in non-Roman religions. And this brings us to another, though not essentially different, aspect of the holiness of the Church. In the Church of Christ, which, appearing as it did after the twilight of type and prophecy, might be supposed to exhibit the noonday brightness of the reign of grace, one would expect to find some souls, nay, even very many in the course of ages, whose lives would show forth the transforming power of divine grace in an extraordinary degree. And who are these but the actual saints of the Catholic Church?—not only the canonized saints, but many besides whose memory will never be thus publicly honored. No age of the Church has been without them. Even in the sixteenth century, when the general decline in morals gave some color to the revolt against the Church of God, the number of canonized saints alone would be a surprise to our separated brethren.
What, has Protestantism, or what have the sects of the Orient, to show in comparison with this galaxy of saintly men and women? Far be it from us to belittle the virtues—in many cases the superior virtues—of those who do not share our faith; for the realm of grace is, after all, not strictly commensurate with the limits of the Catholic Church. Even pagans and infidels are not totally deprived of the divine assistance. But were we to ask for a list of men and women of world-renowned sanctity, it is difficult to see from which of the Reformed religions it would be forthcoming. Let them endeavor from the worthies of the sixteenth century —or from those of any century, or from all the centuries and from all the sects—to match a list which comprises such names as those of a Xavier, a Philip Neri, an Ignatius of Loyola, a Pius V, a Charles Borromeo, a Francis Borgia, an Alphonsus Rodriguez, an Alphonsus Liguori, a John Berchmans, a Peter Claver, a Stanislaus Kostka, an Aloysius Gonzaga, a Cajetan, a Theresa, a John of the Cross or, to come closer to the present generation, a Perboyre, a Vianney (Cure of Ars), a Dom Bosco, a Clement Hofbauer. But the attempt will, of course, never be made by any one who knows what is meant by a Catholic saint.
But there is yet another feature of the Church's holiness, which is the most distinctive of all, though it shows itself more rarely than the others. The special presence of the Holy Ghost in the Church is attested by the miraculous power conferred on at least a few in each age, and in the wonders wrought in places hallowed by the devotion of the faithful. When Our Lord commanded His apostles to preach the Gospel in the whole world, He made the following predictions: "And these signs shall follow them that believe: in My name they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover" (Mark xvi. 17, 18). That these signs did follow we are told in the Acts of the Apostles. That miracles have been wrought since the days of the apostles is the testimony of reputable historians. But we are not wholly dependent on the witness of past ages for our belief in the continuance of this mark of divine favor in the Church of God. Miracles are worked probably on as grand a scale as ever before in the history of the Church. Miraculous healing of the most astounding kind has been wrought at the famous Grotto of Lourdes, in France. Diseases pronounced incurable, diseases of an organic nature, fractures, lesions, tumors, cancers, have been cured, often instantaneously and under the eyes of numerous witnesses. Official records of these events have been kept and have been submitted to the scrutiny of medical experts. There is nothing in nature to account for these wonders, and they are all connected with devotion to the Blessed Virgin under the title of Our Lady of Lourdes. There is an extensive literature bearing on these wonderful occurrences and information on the subject is within the reach of all inquirers. (Cf. ''Lourdes: A History of its Apparitions and Cures," by Georges Bertrin,—also "Miracles" in the present work.)
But our aim just at present is not precisely to prove that miracles are actually performed. Our contention is that, as Our Lord promised this mark of His favor to the preaching of the word, as He did not, apparently, place any limit to the period of its continuance, and as it is probable that signs of His presence and power which He bestowed even upon the Jews of old would be continued in the Church which He came on earth to found, the Church which can present at least so much prima facie evidence of miracles and still believes in miracles, is more likely to be the true Church of God than any church which shows no signs of miraculous intervention and even discards a belief in miracles.
The question here is: Which of the churches bears the greatest resemblance to the Church of Christ and His apostles, in this as in every other indication of holiness? And now we have almost brought to a close this exceptionally long article on a very important subject. We have endeavored to describe the marks by which the Church of Christ is to be recognized. These marks, we have contended, should be of the most conspicuous kind in the case of a religion that was to be preached to the entire world, and these marks are found only in the Church which acknowledges the supremacy of the See of Rome; in the Catholic Church, rightly and distinctively so called. Any church which fails to present the same credentials is not the Church of Christ, and consequently not the Ark of salvation, even though it preserve, as many churches do, some elements of ancient faith and piety.
It is possible that one or other point in the above argumentation may not at once produce conviction in the mind of the inquirer. We would ask him, in that case, to look at the argument as a whole, and then ask himself in all sincerity whether any such case can be made out in favor of any church but that of Rome. If none can, there is no doubting the conclusion that a Church that exhibits so many signs of divine favor and of divine preservation must be the Church of Christ, and the one only Church of Christ, and that consequently, as Our Lord made the acceptance of the true Gospel, or, in other words, membership in His one and undivided Church, a condition of salvation, the practical step to be taken will easily suggest itself to any logical mind.
RSS Feed