Post by Pacelli on Jan 31, 2023 9:57:18 GMT -5
The following is excerpts from De Religione et Ecclesia: praelectiones scholastico-dogmaticae, Mazzella, Camillo, Rome, 1880.
Note to reader: Cardinal Mazzella's works have not been translated from Latin to English. Fortunately, for readers of this forum, Eric Hoyle has translated some of this work, on Mazzella's explanations of mission, the unity of the Church and the apostolic succession, which of course are very relevant to all Catholics at present. Eric Hoyle has kindly given me permission to publish his translations here.
Mazzella's books are scanned and available online for those wishing to read the texts in the original Latin: play.google.com/store/books/details/De_Religione_et_Ecclesia_praelectiones_scholastico?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&gl=US . There are also an accompanying links in the text below to the specific section translated, placed in the sections translated by Mr. Hoyle, to make it easier to read the specific sections translated in the original Latin
Here is some biographical information on Cardinal Mazzella: www.newadvent.org/cathen/10094c.htm
-----------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 372-74
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA372
454. Our task, lest we be forced to respond to every aberrant idea, is to first set forth the true concept of the visibility of the Church, and then we will try to fortify it with strong arguments; thus all errors against it will collapse as of their own weight. And from the beginning we emphasize, when we speak of the Church's visibility, we do not ask whether it is visible materially, as they say, as regards the members by which it is composed, the rites by which they are joined together, the ministry by which they are governed, etc. For it is clear that all these things must be visible whenever it regards a congregation of men. What also concerns this question is this: whether the Church be visible also formally, that is, as the true church, just as the church was instituted by Christ – the church, as they say, of the promises – whether it can with certainty be distinguished from other congregations, which are not that true Church of Christ.
455. But since the true Church of Christ consists of soul and body, if the body alone is seen, and not in any way the soul, then we do not properly see the true Church of Christ, which certainly is not a dead body. For to the true Church of Christ, the same as to any being, belong certain properties; unless these properties were visible in some way, one could not say that the Church is visible as the true Church of Christ. But here a difficulty arises: how, they say, can interior faith, sanctifying grace, and the other gifts which constitute the soul of the Church, be seen? How can some properties, e.g. unity, sanctity, be seen as to all their parts? To resolve this difficulty, one must take note that something can be visible either per se, or by something else (they say, per accidens), in which and by which it is manifested, as in a man the body is visible per se, but the rational soul that informs it, although not visible per se, yet is manifested by means of external signs, e.g. by speaking. Unless a man be visible as a rational animal, he is not formally visible, that is, as a man. Therefore the Church is visible per se as to the body; as to the soul it is visible by signs, by which it manifests itself; as to its properties it is visible partly per se, partly by something else; and consequently it is visible formally, that is, as the true Church of Christ. Indeed, internal faith, internal justice or sanctity, etc. which is as the soul informing the Church's body, do not appear, nor are they manifest per se; but neither does the soul of a man appear of itself. Nevertheless, as the soul itself shines forth, so to speak, by means of the body which it informs and vivifies, by which it acts, such that a true man can be seen; likewise the soul of the Church, informing, moving, vivifying the body, is manifested by the body, so as to make visible the true Church of Christ. Thus the visibility of the Church is “a certain manifestation of the true Church of Christ,” which makes this determination with a certain judgment: “this is the true Church of Christ.”
456. This sets forth sufficiently the concept of visibility, which we claim for the Church. We should add only that this same visibility, in Catholic doctrine, pertains to the very essence of the Church, and thus cannot be absent at any time. For just as if the soul, or the body, or the union between body and soul were absent, then there would not be a man, to whose essence all these things belong; likewise, if the Church failed as to visibility, the Church itself would fail. But we do not on that account assert here the perpetual indefectibility of the Church, which will be proved below in its own place; but we say that the Church remains visible for as long as it lasts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 379-80
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA379
464. Therefore, in order to summarize all this in a few words, we say: “The people of the Church are conceived by the preaching and hearing of the faith, which clearly is something sensible; they are born by baptism, which is a most visible sign; they are nourished by the sacraments, which again are sensible signs of interior grace; just as their pastors are adopted by certain and visible signs, so being adopted they govern by external and open laws: thus the Church by her very nature is a congregation of visible men, visibly entering it, and by many visible signs dwelling within it under pastors visibly adopted. Thus, if Christ had wished to institute a visible church, as Catholics say he truly did and Protestants deny, let them say what more he ought to have provided. For if, as in fact is true, one cannot conceive how he could more clearly have made her visible, either one must say that to make a visible church is impossible even to God Himself, which is absurd, or one must confess that the true church is visible. Again: From what has been said, one cannot deny that many elements of the Church are visible; indeed, these certainly pertain to the essence of the Church, because (1) Christ did not institute the Church except by instituting these things, and (2) they are absolutely necessary to the proper end of the Church. Therefore it is impossible to conceive a true Church of Christ that would be invisible; for thus some essential element would be missing, without which the Church herself could not exist. – Further, the elements of the Church that are invisible per se, are manifested by something else, as we said; nor can that manifestation be doubtful for the whole congregation. For it could be that the profession of faith in one or another member is a lie, as likewise the external signs of holiness in one or another could be hypocrisy; but besides the special providence by which the Church is governed, the moral law itself, which governs the human race, rules out hypocrisy and dishonesty in the whole multitude.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 386-89
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA386
473. Now suppose, as we shall soon prove, that the purpose for which Christ instituted the Church was, in the Church and by means of the Church, to make perennial his visible mission on earth, and his visible magisterium. Thus as Christ's magisterium, government, and ministry of sanctification perdure in the Church teaching and governing, so the faithful by adhering to its doctrine, obeying it, receiving the means of sanctification from it, find in the Church the safe way of salvation.
…
479. Consequently, as we have said (n. 388.), true christianity differs not from the Church, unless as the abstract from the concrete; in very truth they are one and the same thing. For just as there could not be a true Church of Christ without the doctrine and institutions of Christ, so neither can true christianity flourish outside the genuine Church of Christ. Thus, what the rationalists of our age imagine for themselves – christianity separated from the Church of Christ, and therefore freed from the obligations she is owed – must be regarded as a pure chimera. For, as we said above, our Redeemer willed that “his religion should so inhere in the society he instituted, that it remain thoroughly connected and, so to speak, concrete with it, and that there should be no true Christian religion outside of it.”
480. Indeed this proof is of the greatest importance. For if, in order to institute and propagate his religion Christ immediately undertook the founding of the Church, and deposited in her the doctrine and institutions that he revealed, for her to guard and to disseminate in perpetuity, then the Christian revelation could never, not even for one instant, be left as it were to itself; but what Christ first held as in his hands, passed thence to the Apostles, and later from the hands of the Apostles passed into the hands of their successors. Consequently, just as from the beginning the doctrine and religion of Christ was to be sought from Christ himself; just as after the ascension of Christ into heaven it was to be sought from the Apostles; likewise after the times of the Apostles until the consummationem of the world it is to be sought from the Church, that is, from her authentic magisterium, in which Christ's own magisterium still perseveres and flourishes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 389-93
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA389
Prop. XX. The end that Christ proposed to Himself in instituting the Church, was to establish forever his visible mission on earth, in the Church and by means of the Church; and thus to promote the glory of God by obtaining the eternal salvation of men. Thus the Church, in view of its end, is a religious, spiritual, and supernatural society; indeed, it is the christian religion itself in the concrete, clearly different from any other society.
482. I. We consider the the mission of Christ in general. Indeed – 1) Christ communicated his very own mission to the Apostles. For we read: “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you” (John xx. 21); and “Sanctify them in truth; Thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world” (John xvii. 17-18); and “You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go, and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain” (John xv. 16). – 2) In order to accomplish this mission, Christ imparted His own power to the Apostles. For it says: “ All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going THEREFORE, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” (Matt. 28:18-20) Thus also, after those words “as he sent” etc., Christ subjoins: “Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, etc.” (John xx.) and having bestowed the mission to preach the Gospel, he adds: “he who believeth not, shall be condemned,” (Mark xvi. 15) as it says: “he who heareth you, heareth me; and he who despiseth you, despiseth me” (Luke x. 16). – 3) This mission and power did not belong to the Apostles alone, but was to be continued in their successors. For – a) that mission and power, as is clear from the cited testimonies, was imparted to the Apostles for the good of the whole world, of all peoples, for all time; and indeed all must be saved by Christ, and by the means instituted by Him: but the Apostles could not by themselves spread abroad to all peoples in all times the mission they had received – b) From the text of Matthew in particular (chap. 18), it is clear that Christ promised to be with the Apostles as men who teach and baptize until the end of the world. But this cannot be understood only of the persons of the Apostles – c) Thus, as after the ascension of Christ into heaven the Apostles were the church teaching, governing, and administrating (this is also clear from the Acts of the Apostles and from the Letters of Peter and Paul), and they visibly caried out the ministry of Christ on earth; in the same way, the Bishops succeed to the Apostles until the end of the world, in order to visibly perform the ministry of Christ, and for the mission of Christ to continue in them.
483. II. Let us consider the individual duties of the mission of Christ. For – 1) the duty of his mission was to teach to men the true and safe way of salvation: for of this it is said: “Jesus began to do and to teach;” and he said of Himself that he came “to preach the Gospel to the poor,” that he was “the way and the truth,” etc. And he entrusted the same duty to the Apostles, to whom He said “going therefore, teach all nations” – through their successors this duty must endure “until the end of the world” – this duty is the same as authentic magisterium, as is clear from this: “who believeth and is baptized … shall be saved; but he who believeth not, shall be condemned.” Thus
2) The duty of the mission of Christ was to free men from the bonds of sins and to sanctify them; thus St. John the Baptism says of Him: “Behold the Lamb of God; behold Him who takes away the sin of the world;” Christ Himself said to the paralytic and to Magdalene “your sins are forgiven;” of Himself he declared that He had come “to save that which was lost.” And it is evident that Christ imposed the same duty upon the Apostles, in whom He founded the Church. For He spoke thus to the Apostles: “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” (John xx. 21-23) And: “Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matt. xviii. 18)
3) The duty of Christ's mission certainly was, as long as He was on earth, to personally govern the Church founded by Him. Thus he entrusted the same office to the Apostles, in whom He founded the Church. Thus He enjoins upon Peter: “Feed my sheep, feed my lambs.” But since the rest of the Apostles needed to participate in the same duty, it is said to them: “ Feed the flock of God which is among you” (I Peter v. 2); as Paul says: “Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God.” (Acts xx. 28) And lest anyone think that he could reject the authority of such pastors with impunity, Christ declared: “Amen, amen I say to you, he that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me;” (John xiii. 20) and said that one who resists the judgment of the Church should be regarded as the heathen and publican: “And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.” (Matt. xviii. 17)
484. III. From this it is clear that the purpose of the Church instituted by Christ is the continuation of the mission of Christ Himself; from which, as we have noted, it is rightly inferred that this purpose is the sanctification of men on earth and their eternal salvation in heaven. But this needs to be proved directly. Indeed – 1) The first means of sanctification and salvation is faith, which is called “the beginning, root, and foundation of all justice,” and without which, according to the Apostle, “it is impossible to please God.” (Heb. xi. 6) And indeed, by his own reasoning, following Isaias (ch. 53): “Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.” (Rom. x. 17) And from whom shall we hear the word of Christ? The same Apostle says just before: “How shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent?” (v. 14-15) And what men are sent to preach, unless those to whom Christ said “going, teach”? Thus the Apostle adds, speaking of them: “Yes, verily, their sound hath gone forth into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the whole world.” (v. 18)
2) The chief means of imparting sanctity and promoting salvation are the sacraments. But each and all of the sacraments Christ entrusted only to His Church. And most certainly he said only to the Apostles and to their successors: “Going therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them, etc.” (Matt. xviii. 19); and to them He said: “Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven,” etc.; and to the same men he said: “Do this in memory of me;” (Luke xxii. 19) and other things that are customarily explained regarding each sacrament. Consequently, the Apostle declared in general: “Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God.” (I. Cor. iv. 1)
3) This charge was given to Peter: “feed my sheep; feed my lambs;” (John xxi. 15-16) as to the others it was said, “feed the flock which is among you.” Now indeed the word “feed” means nothing more than to provide all the spiritual means by which eternal salvation can be attained: for the government of the Church is instituted for this purpose. Certainly nobody can enter in to eternal life, unless the entry into the kingdom of heaven is opened to him: but it was said to Peter: “And to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven;” (Matt. xvi. 19) therefore only by Peter, the foundation of the Church, and therefore by the Church itself, can the entry into eternal life lie open. – From this it follows that the work of redemption, as to the sufficiency and payment of the price, was accomplished by Christ, according to the Apostle: “by one oblation [Christ] has perfected forever;” (Heb. x. 14) but as to the application, it was begun by Christ, but by the Church it is to be completed by means of those whom Christ instituted “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God … unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ.” (Eph. iv. 12-13)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 489-91
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA489
The unity in general, which we are discussing, consists in this: that the Church is not many but one, and it is that same one that Christ founded and instituted. Thus a distinction is typically made between simultaneous and successive unity. For the Church is called one – 1) insofar as at no time after her institution by Christ would there be two or more Churches of Christ at the same time: which is simultaneous unity – 2) insofar as the one true Church that existed, would continue the same and self-consistent, not being changed into another: which is successive unity. – Although the unity of the Church includes all these things, yet given that successive unity is easily reduced to Apostolicity and indefectibility, we now properly and directly will discuss simultaneous unity.
631. In order that the genuine nature of this unity, which is proper to the Church, may be well understood, we must keep in mind that the Church is “the congregation of the faithful” or “the society of men who are bound together by the profession of the same faith, and by subjection to legitimate Pastors;” thus the property of unity must be such as is required for a society to be called one; and one society of the faithful. Here are usually distinguished (1) unity of faith, which exhibits the closest concord in faith, that is, the agreement of all the faithful of Christ in professing the true faith; and (2) unity of government, without which no society can be one. And all other kinds of unity, indicated by various people, are reduced to this twofold unity. Thus the unity which is called of communion or of charity, properly regards the union of members amongst themselves, and means the mutual cooperation of all the members towards the same end by the same means under the direction of one and the same government: from which union it results that, feeling the same for each other, they maintain unity by the bond of peace. But anyone can see that the unity of faith and government in the Church necessarily includes this unity of communion. Likewise it's customary to assign that unity which they call ritual, by which all in the Church keep the same rites, which are of divine institution: thus the rite of initiation, namely baptism, is one and the same for all; the sharing in the same Sacraments is common; there is one sacrifice for all, which, as it is the chief act of religion, belongs most properly to the Church of Christ, which is the Christian religious society. But anyone can also see, that this ritual unity cannot be lacking, where unity of faith and government are present. Thus it is sufficient to speak of this twofold unity.
632. But what is the meaning of unity of faith; for the Innovators themselves, unless they are willing to become practically rationalists, do not shrink from saying that the Church is somehow one in faith? For faith can be called one for various reasons: – 1) as to the formal object, also called the motive, which is one, namely the authority of God revealing – 2) as to the primary object, which is God Himself – 3) as to the principle or habit, which if it be one, extends equally to all the objects that are believed, etc. But, these things being presupposed or left aside, the unity of faith that we have in view, consists of this: that “the faithful dispersed throughout the world believe (profess to believe) all the same articles, which the Church proposes to be believed.” Indeed all and the same articles, as here: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.” (I Cor. i. 10) – Which the Church proposes to be believed, according to this: “By whom [Jesus Christ] we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith, in all nations, for his name;” (Rom. i. 5) that is, we received the apostolate to announce the faith, and by our apostolic authority to require obedience to this faith in all nations for His name, that because of His authority and name they may obey the faith.
633. From this it is clear 1) the unity of faith does not only mean the fact, that all and the same truths are believed everywhere by all; but also, as they say, the right, or the principle by which that fact is perpetually produced and conserved. This principle is the magisterium governing the Church, which is indeed infallible by the assistance of the Holy Ghost, in defining the truths of the faith. The charism of infallibility in this magisterium will be explained below; for this matter it suffices to say that unity of faith includes the consensus of all in those same truths, by the adherence of all to the same principle determining the consent, which is the apostolic magisterium.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 508-17
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA508
Prop. XXVIII. 1. The Church is also one by unity of government, by which all of the faithful throughout the world are made subject to one supreme authority. Thus any schism whatsoever, as the name itself indicates, separates from true unity – 2. nor is it permissible for any reason to begin a schism, or to remain in it.
…
661. IV. [It is proved] from the fathers, whose testimony, for the sake of brevity, we will reduce to a a few classes. And – 1) they prove it by that testimony, by which they place the unity of government in the very definition of the Church. Thus, e.g. St. Cyprian (ep. 69. to Florent. Pupianum) after saying that the Church is “the people united to the priest, and the flock adhering to its pastor;” he adds, the Bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the Bishop; he who is not with the Bishop, is not in the Church. They flatter themselves in vain, who, not having peace with the priests of God, sneak up and believe that with some they are secretly communicating: “since,” he adds, “the Church which is Catholic is one, is not split, nor divided, but by all means connected, and united by the glue of the priests who adhere to it.”
…
663. Proof of the 2nd part. I. For no reason is it ever allowed to begin a schism or to remain in it, if the necessity of maintaining external unity is absolute, and allows no exceptions. But such is its necessity. Therefore [the conclusion follows].
Proof of the minor. – 1) Scripture openly excludes every possible exception. This is obvious when one recalls the arguments just given: for since the Church is The Body of Christ, the Temple or House of God, the Kingdom of Christ, the Sheepfold of Christ; if at any time it were permitted to tear apart the unity of the Church, it would be permitted to tear apart the body of Christ, the house of God, the Kingdom of Christ, the sheepfold of Christ; that is, it would be permissible to not have Christ as Head, to live outside the house and Kingdom of Christ, to no have Christ as Pastor. But obviously such things can never be permissible, as we can never licitly be deprived of the life that Christ has granted to us. Therefore [the conclusion follows].
2) If the necessity of maintaining the unity of the Church were not absolute, it would follow according to the principles held by our adversaries that there is no such precept regarding external government, which they themselves deny. Indeed, according to them, it would be permissible to tear apart that unity for reasons of corruption, heresy, etc. But in that case, by whom would the cause for separation be established? If by the authority constituted by Christ in the Church, the schism of its adversaries would certainly be illicit, since the Church has always opposed it; and if without the consent of that authority, anyone could establish a just cause for separation by his own judgment, then the government of the Church would be absolutely destroyed. For what authority is that, which the subjects can licitly reject by their own judgment?
3) The Fathers teach that it is equally illicit to be separated from the Church by schism, as by heresy. …
4) The Fathers teach that the external unity of the Church is equally necessary as is charity. Thus, as nothing avails without charity, likewise nothing avails for those who voluntarily dwell outside the Church's unity. …
664. II. To further press the argument, and at the same time to exclude the main causes of separation proposed by our adversaries, it is best to make this argument: to begin a schism is never allowed, if there could never be a just cause for breaking unity. But so it is. Therefore [the conclusion follows].
Proof of the minor. 1) The Fathers generally deny any cause for such a thing. …
2) Could the corrupt morals of Catholics be called a just cause [for schism]? But, leaving the rest aside, this supposes that the Church is composed of only the just, which we refuted above. …
3) Could new rites instituted by the Church be called a just cause for schism? “In those things,” says St. Augustine (ep. 85. ad Casul.), “on which the divine Scripture establishes nothing certain, the custom of the people of God, or the institutions of the elders are to be held as law. If we were willing to debate such things, and to find fault with some based on the customs of others, an unending strife would arise, in which the labor of speaking with certain documents [?] would arrive at no truth, and it is to be feared that the serenity of charity would be overshadowed by a storm of contention.” …
4) Could heresies be called a just cause for schism? But – a) the Church cannot fail in faith – b) The unity of faith, as we saw in the previous proposition, depends on the unity of government – c) If, by an impossible hypothesis, the Church were to be stained with heresy, by that very fact it would cease to be the true Church of Christ; and those who would break away, would constitute it; thus the true Church of Christ would always remain one.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 557-62
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA557
718. Thus the apostolic Church, according to this general agreement, is that which permanently possesses all that by divine institution pertains to her essence, properties, and endowments. This Church is permanently a visible society, one in faith, in communion, in government; is holy by a holiness both active and passive that is indeed excellent and conspicuous, etc. Thus, as Perrone among others rightly notes, apostolicity thus understood is not anything different from the parts and the properties of the Church taken together, but is the continuous and never-failing existence of all of them in combination.
719. But now we ask, what is the proper concept of apostolicity, which is distinct from unity and from the other parts and properties of the Church? In what is it found? The Church is called apostolic for a threefold reason: – 1) by origin, insofar as she was founded by the Apostles – 2) by doctrine, or faith, insofar as she retains that faith, which the Apostles preached – 3) by succession or mission, insofar as she embraces in her bosom those who have legitimately descended from the Apostles in hierarchical order. “[The true Church is, also, to be known] from her origin, which she derives under the law of grace, from the Apostles; for her doctrines are neither novel nor of recent origin, but were delivered, of old, by the Apostles, and disseminated throughout the world. … The Holy Ghost, who presides over the Church, governs her by no other than Apostolic
men; and this Spirit, first imparted to the Apostles, has, by the infinite goodness of God, always continued in the Church.”
… 3) Thus, all apostolicity is contained in apostolicity of succession.
721. Indeed, the name itself indicates this. For the name Apostles, from which comes Apostolicity, is derived from the Greek words apo and stolon, which is the same thing as sent with commands: but it refers to apostolicity, or divine mission in matters of religion, that is, the Christian Religion; for we do not call those Apostles, who were divinely sent before Christ. Thus Apostolicity is that legitimate mission entrusted by God to certain men to propagate, teach, and govern the Church in a ministerial capacity. But since the Apostles were mortals, and received a perpetual mision, it is necessary that others be substituted, who being made the heirs and successors of the deceased, take up and possess the mission, to be transmited again to successors in an uninterrupted series, until the consummation of the world. Therefore the Apostolic Church is that which the first legates of Christ, namely the Apostles, founded and governed, and even now hold and govern by their legitimate successors. From this it is evident, that the true concept of apostolic mission and succession must be explained, that we may arrive at the genuine idea of Apostolicity.
722. Now we ask, what is the apostolic succession? It can be described: “public, legitimate, perennial or never interrupted substitution of persons in the place of the Apostles to rule and to shepherd the Church.” It says – 1) substitution, to signify that the successors of the Apostles are not their vicars; but they exercise that very office which the Apostles, insofar as they were rulers and administrators, exercised – 2) It says public; for as it treats of the authority to rule an external and public society, it must be verified by determinate criteria known to all, that these men and not others have truly succeeded to the apostolic office – 3) It says legitimate, evidently on the part of him who gives the power, and of him who receives it, and by the way in which the power is conferred, that the transmission clearly fulfills the legal standard – 4) It says perennial or not interrupted, of course both materially, insofar as persons are never entirely lacking who are continually substituted for the Apostles, and formally, insofar as these very substituted persons are empowered with the authority derived from the Apostles, receiving it from him who now actually possesses it and is able to communicate it.
723. To understand this more fully, we must remember that in the successors of the Apostles can be distinguished (1) ordination or consecration, and (2) vocation or mission; and thus a twofold power, of order and of jurisdiction. It is not necessary here to discuss ordination in detail, for – 1) what pertains to it is clear, in part from what was said about the distinction in the divine law between clerics and laics, and also chiefly from what is said in the treatise on Orders – 2) Granted that Apostolic succession necessarily includes ordination, yet in ecclesiastical terminology neither solely nor chiefly does it mean a succession of men, who trace back to the apostles by a linked transmission of the episcopal character; but chiefly it means a succession of men, who by a linked transmission of authority to teach and shepherd the faithful trace back to the Apostles – 3) From the legitimacy of vocation or mission recognized by the other conditions, the validity of ordination is legitimately inferred (if we speak of the [universal] Church and of her certain Head, not indeed of any one individual); for if the Church can never lack the apostolic succession at any time, neither can she lack any condition or element that it necessarily requires.
724. But indeed as to mission, that is, the bestowal of actual and unhindered jurisdiction in the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church, we must note – 1) that this power, unlike the power of order, can be lost; and therefore acts of this power exercised illegitimately are not only illicit but also invalid; while, on the other hand, acts of the power of order exercised illegitimately are illicit, but valid. Suppose, for example, a heretical or schismatic Bishop (we speak of one who truly received Episcopal consecration) consecrates another man a Bishop; he would be consecrated validly, and would have the power of order, not indeed of jurisdiction; for otherwise he would receive it from a man who does not have it, which clearly is nonsensical.
…
725. From these things there follows a corollary of greatest importance, namely that communion with the center of unity suffices to make known apostolicity; for if this were lacking elsewhere in some congregation that is called christian, it would be supplied, as we have said, or obtained, by that very adherence to the center of unity, in which is the fullness of apostolic authority. Therefore, in order to summarize in a few words what we have explained thus far, we say that the aforesaid adherence to the center of unity is truly the chief point in this entire controversy about the apostolicity of the Church. For the Church is called apostolic by origin, doctrine, and succession; given apostolicity of succession, apostolicity of origin and doctrine are rightly inferred; apostolicity of succession includes ordination or consecration, and mission; if legitimate mission is proved, legitimate ordination is rightly presumed or inferred; that legitimate mission is obtained or supplied by adherence to the center of unity. Thus if that adherence is proved, by that very fact adequate apostolicity is demonstrated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 562-63
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA562
727. The errors of innovators on the matter of Apostolicity can be reduced to these – 1) In words they concede the apostolicity of doctrine, but they pervert its true concept: the errors are the same as those we listed against the unity of faith – 2) As to apostolicity of succession, those errors chiefly recur, which we refuted by alleging the distinction in the divine law between laymen and clerics, and excluding the democratic form of government from the Church – 3) Those who belong to the party that they call High Church, are chiefly in error about the necessity of communion with the center of unity – 4) Thus the most characteristic error in this matter is extraordinary mission, which they have crafted in order to cover up the lack of apostolicity of mission and of origin in their sects. For when, they say, the state of the Church is such that either nobody can be appointed by an ordinary vocation to carry out the ecclesiastical functions; or that those who are appointed, are so corrupt in faith and morals that their amendment cannot be hoped for; when an ordinary vocation of better men from elsewhere is impossible; then, they say, nothing forbids those who have no ordinary vocation to take up apostolic functions by an extraordinary vocation: indeed, they add, in such a state of the Church anyone is bound in conscience, by the force of the common vocation of all Christians, to carry out apostolic duties insofar as he is able. Indeed, the Innovators assert that this took place in Luther and Calvin, who moreover were inspired by a hidden divine movement, and thus by an extraordinary vocation, to undertake the reformation of the Church.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 565-66
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA565
732. III. As to succession – 1) The Church cannot be ruled and governed, except by that authority which Christ instituted: this is evident, because Christ is the author of the Church, and because the power to govern the Church is supernatural, and therefore it cannot come from any source but from God. But Christ willed that the Church be governed by apostolic authority to endure forever in their successors. Therefore the Church must always be Apostolic in succession, or government. – Proof of the minor – a) Christ bestowed upon the Apostles the power to rule the Church, and willed that it be transmitted to their successors (n. 482-84.; 524.) – b) The Apostles preached this power which they had received from Christ. For in order to commend themselves to the faithful, they often reminded them of that distinctive power to rule and to teach, which they had received from Christ. Thus (II. Cor. V. 20.): “For Christ therefore we are ambassadors, God as it were exhorting by us;” (I. Cor. IV. 1.): “Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God;” (I. Thess. II. 13.): “We also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God.” Indeed, fortified by this persuasion, they demand that the faithful acknowledge and give full obedience to this vicarious power of theirs; thus (II. Cor. II. 9.): “For to this end also did I write, that I may know the experiment of you, whether you be obedient in all things;” (II. Thess. III. 14.): “If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and do not keep company with him” – c) The Apostles excercised this same power; they communicated it to others to be communicated by them to others.
2) Christ willed unity of faith, which consists in this: that the faithful dispersed throughout the world believe all those truths that the Apostles preached, and which their successors propose to be believed (nn. 650. seqq.). But clearly such unity cannot be had without the apostolic succession, since it is the principle of unity of faith.
733. Proof of the 2nd part. I. From Scripture. Thus – 1) the hypothesis of an extraordinary mission must be rejected, if by the institution of Christ the Apostolic succession can never fail [deficere]. But thus it is. For – a) Christ the Lord sent the Apostles into the whole world; to teach all peoples; and to these teachers he made the promise to be with them all days; until the consummation of the world. But these things would be false if the Apostolic succession could defect at any time – b) Christ, according to the Apostle (Ephes. IV.) gave apostles, pastors and doctors “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ.” By which words it is announced that the ordinary and mediate apostolic mission shall endure until the mystical body of Christ is fully built; thus there can never be pastors and doctors who, by an extraordinary mission, would make up for the failure of those who came first.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 572-75
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA572
740. Thus, in order to adequately and explicitly state the concept of indefectibility, which belongs to the Church, we say that it consists “in her perpetual continuation until the end of the world in that internal and external constitution, in the possession of those properties and endowments, in which she was first instituted by Christ.” From this description it is clear – 1) The indefectibility of the Church pertains to her constitutive essentials (soul and body, whatever is in the nature of such a visible society: magisterium, ministry, government); and to her properties (unity, sanctity, etc.); and finally to her other endowments and prerogatives (infallibility etc.) – 2) This kind of indefectibility applies to all times of the Church's existence, so that at no time could she lack any one of her constitutive parts, or any of her properties or endowments. – 3) This existence of the Church is to last until the end of the world; thus the indefectibility of which we speak includes perpetuity. – 4) Nevertheless, this indefectibility should not be confused with Apostolicity, taken in its generally accepted sense, according to which the Church of whatever age must be the same as the Church founded by the Apostles; for Apostolicity in this sense says that the Church, as long as it shall last, must be the same as the Church founded by the Apostles. But indefectibility says that the Church will last until the end of the world with this same identity.
…
742. But it should be noted, that indefectibility is attributed to the universal Church, and not to each of its parts, that is, to particular Churches; for the promises of Christ were not made to the Church as existing in this or that nation, but to the universal Church. But even if particular Churches fail, the Church itself will always remain unfailing and indefectible: indeed, her catholicity itself will remain, either because the failures of particular Churches are not simultaneous, or because when one Church fails, new Churches are founded elsewhere.
743. All innovators err against the true indefectibility of the Church, but not all to the same degree. For – … 3) Some reduce indefectibility to visibility: either they make it to mean that there will always be some men who profess the true faith; or they say that the Church shall never entirely lack the essentials of the faith (as they call them); or they mix all these things together.
4) Many, on the other hand, teach that the invisible Church cannot fail, but for the visible Church it is otherwise. Thus Bellarmine says, “many of our party waste their time when they prove that the Church cannot entirely defect, for Calvin and the other heretics admit that; but they say it must be understood of the invisible Church.” … Thus we omit the opinions of those who, although they do assert the indefectibility of the Church visible and invisible; yet they believe that it can defect as to one or another thing, such as faith, unity of government, etc.
744. As we have hinted, not only do all of these more or less assert the defectibility of the Church, but they also affirm that she in fact has defected, by that same reasoning by which they deny the visibility of the Church: that is to say, in this way they attempt to justify their own defection from the Church.
…
3) Arguments are not lacking which even more directly demonstrate the perpetuity of those properties and prerogatives which, according to our adversaries, are most capable of defecting and at times have defected in the Church: the chief of these is the Apostolic succession, and the external ministry of doctors, upon which unity and the rest depends. Now, if just this one property is shown to be indefectible, it will cut off every escape for our adversaries, to try to justify their own defection by asserting the defectibility of the Church.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 576-78, 580
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA576
Prop. XXXII. Christ so instituted the Church, that it should be the last economy of salvation, not only in regard to essentials, but also in regard to state, as they say, lasting endlessly and perpetually: and consequently it enjoys indefectibility, by the force of which it shall continue unto the end of the world in that internal and external constitution, and with those same properties and endowments, with which it began to exist.
…
748. [This is proved] II. From the New Testament. … 2) From the perpetuity and indefectibility of the Apostolic office [munus], on which the other things depend in the Church, and which, if it alone stands, the dispute with the innovators is finished. For indeed (Matth. 28.) Christ sent the Apostles to teach and baptize, and also promised that he would be with them, insofar as they teach and baptize, until the end of the world. And (John XIV. 16.) Christ the Lord said: “And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever.” And (Eph. iv.) Paul teaches that Christ gave the Apostles to be shepherds and teachers “for the perfecting of the saints;” “until we all meet into the unity of faith;” “unto a perfect man.” We have often explained this argument already.
749. III. If we consult the places cited from the Old and New Testaments, we rightly ask: how could all that is said of the Church in these places be true, if the Church, even for a time, could lose one or another of its properties and endowments? For – 1) suppose that unity of faith and government were to fail, so that the Church, divided into two or more parts, would no longer be one: it is obvious that of the Church thus divided one could no longer affirm that she is not scattered, stands forever, breaks down and consumes all other kingdoms; but rather she would be cut apart, broken down and consumed: it is clear that the enemy would have prevailed over her, have driven her out, and that she would have been deserted by Christ.
2) Nor can it be said that the predictions and promises of the Church's perpetual indefectibility were conditional, that is, provided she would remain faithful. For – a) these promises were not only made by Christ to the Church, but to Christ Himself, whose merits have obtained the reward of an everlasting kingdom; thus to him, who purchased the Church by His blood, it was said: “ask of me, and I will give you the nations as thy inheritance.” Is there any condition on the part of Christ, or if there were any, could He fail on His part? – b) the promises made to the Church do not express any condition; indeed, as they were made to the universal Church, they exclude any conditions of faithfulness on the part of the Church herself, for in that case, such promises would have this sense: the Church will not err, if she does not turn aside from the truth; she will give pure doctrine, if she does not corrupt it; etc.: which are ridiculous indeed.
…
751. V. [Indefectibility is proved] By theological reason. For – 1) The Church was instituted by Christ, in order to continue His mission on earth for the sanctification and salvation of souls. Therefore she must endure, so long as there are men to be saved by Christ, that is, until the end of ages; so that to all and forever Christ should be the way, the truth, and the life. But unless the Church continued truly indefectible, she could not work toward her end and continue her mission. For this requires that men be able to come to her in order to obtain salvation by her; thus it is necessary that the Church be knowable as the true Church of Christ. But if in even one of her properties or endowments she could fail at any time, the Church would not be knowable. This can be proved in many ways: to signify something, we say that it is clear from the intimate connection, by which the things that constitute the Church or follow from its constitution, are bound together. For example, suppose that visibility is lost; now the apostolic succession, which depends on it, will perish, and also unity. Suppose the apostolic government were to perish; now the principle that causes unity will cease, and the Church will no longer be a society: and if you substitute another government, now it will not be that society which Christ instituted. Suppose that infallibility were to perish; now the extrinsic principle of unity of faith ceases. The Protestants say that the Church can fail as to the faith. But if this be taken away or changed, it radically subverts the seed of the soul of the Church; and what will become of holiness, when that is missing which is called the beginning and root of all justice? Anyone can follow this.
2) If the Church could defect at any time, then at no time could she effectively exercise her mission and authority. For if it were known beforehand that the mission of the Church could totally fail, or even be interrupted, that would deprive it of all weight, that is to say, it would reduce its practical force to nothing. For every rebel would immediately say that the mission of the Church had failed or become corrupted; and consequently one can no longer have faith in it, nor obey it. This is confirmed by the example of the Innovators, who by that supposition behaved in that way, and invented an extraordinary mission.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 600
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA600
784. Indeed as regards infallibility in believing, two things must chiefly be noted. First is: although the faith and the belief of the faithful can be seen and explored in isolation, nevertheless it can never be really separated from the faith of the teaching Church. For the obedience of faith, which is found in the faithful, responds as the effect of the teaching authority which resides in the Pastors: thus, as there will always be a multitude of faithful professing the true faith, so likewise there will always be Pastors and Doctors with them, teaching the true faith: and thus the bond of unity shall always remain, which, by the institution of Christ, must exist between the Pastors and the people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 633-37
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA633
828. … It is not necessary to prove at length here at the outset, that the true Church of Christ can be recognized with certainty: for – 1) the Church is a necessary society; for unless we wish to say that God can fail in necessary things, we must say that the true Church can be known with certainty – 2) the Church is formally visible; therefore the true Church can be discerned with certainty. …
829. But if the true Church can be discerned with certainty, everyone understands that some marks must be given, by which she is certainly made manifest; for unless these marks were given, one could not distinguish the true church from the false churches, as there are many congregations that claim the name “christian Church” for themselves. Thus the very Innovators, although they have often called the Church invisible, are inconsistent with themselves, by not refusing to admit some external notes by which the true Church of Christ can be discerned. …
830. Also, the nature and the function of the marks is easily understood from what was said above. But it's fitting to recall some things here. Thus the marks of the Church can be described as follows: “external, proper, and permanent characters, by which the true Church of Christ can be known with certainty, easily and by all.” It says – 1) external characters: for it deals with discerning the Church, which is essentially a visible society; nor could it be known by men, if it were entirely internal. – 2) Proper; “for if,” says Bellarmine, “I wish to describe to you a certain man, whom you have never seen, so that as soon as you see him, you will distinguish him from others, I ought not to say: he is one who has two eyes, two hands, etc., for these are common to all.” – 3) Permanent; for as the Church is a society that is always necessary, it must always be able to be known: therefore the characters, by which it is known, must remain forever. Besides, as we shall soon see, the marks of the Church are her properties insofar as they are manifested externally: but those pertain to the very essence of the Church, or necessarily follow from it: therefore as long as the Church exists, so long must remain the characters by which she is known – 4) By which the Church is known: of course the marks are the means leading us to knowledge of the Church; thus they must be known to us better and earlier than the Church herself: for our mind, in attaining the truth, only proceeds to things unknown by means of things known. But take note that the marks bring us to the knowledge of the true Church of Christ in the concrete and individually, not to the true Church in the abstract; therefore they must be better known to us, than the Church in the concrete, although not known to us prior to the Church in the abstract. Indeed the knowledge of the marks presupposes the knowledge of the Church in the abstract; for one is cannot make up the notes of the Church at his own pleasure, but must derive them from the very nature of the Church, according to the institution of Christ. Thus it is necessary to first know what and how the Church of Christ is, so that by the marks thus determined, we may distinguish between the various groups that glory in the Christian name, which is the true Church – 5) Easily and by all; because the Church was instituted for all men, learned and unlearned, and is necessary to all; therefore the characters by which the Church is discerned should be such, that they can make her known even to the untaught. But observe that the demonstration of the true Church in the concrete by her marks, is the same in its substance, whether it be made for the learned or for the unlearned; for it rests entirely upon the same principles: but the way in which the demonstration is proposed, the breadth to which it is explained, the force by which it is propounded, are different according to the diversity of talents, cultures, and prejudices. Thus the simple and obvious application of the marks, which suffices for the simple and the sincere, should be proposed and argued according to a scientific method for those whose mind is preoccupied with prejudices and difficulties. …
831. From this, the function of the marks of the Church is now understood. But to make this more clear, take note – 1) in dealing with this question, we no longer consider the Church in the generic sense as the true religion, comparing it to other antichristian sects; that question was settled in the second disputation, by the marks of the true religion, which we listed in the first disputation. Here the question is between those, who now profess that the christian religion is the only true religion; and we make a comparison between congregations which, although diverse, nevertheless they all claim to be the true Church of Christ. Keeping this warning in mind, many difficulties will be avoided, as being out of place. For example, if someone objects that also in the Mohamedan religion there is unity of doctrine, therefore such unity cannot be a mark of the true Church, one could respond (leaving aside the multiplicity of sects among the Mohamedans) that not the unity of any doctrine whatsoever, but unity in the profession of the christian doctrine is a note of the Church. But the doctrine and religion of the Mohamedans is proved false by other characteristics, both intrinsic and extrinsic.
2) Nor is it necessary to analyze every single one of the heretical and schismatic sects. For many are extinct, and others are now almost extinct. … Thus it will be sufficient to consider the Roman Church, the congregations of Protestants, and the congregations of Greek Schismatics; what is said of these can easily be adapted also to others, if there are any.
…
832. But what indeed are these marks? Luther first assigned seven marks, always excluding those which are found in the Creed, and especially Apostolicity; but later, the Innovators commonly acknowledged only two: the sincere preaching of the world of God, and the legitimate use of the Sacraments. These two include Luther's first five.
833. But truly, these two marks absolutely cannot be admitted; for they lack those conditions, which are necessary to establish a mark. Indeed – 1) they are not marks proper to the true Church alone. For in very truth, they can be found in those congregations, which certainly are not the true Church of Christ: among pure schismatics can survive for a time both sincere doctrine, and the legitimate use of the Sacraments, as occurred amond the Luciferians and the Donatists after their schisms began. But according to their opinion, which we reject, any sect whatsoever will claim for itself the sincere preaching of the word of God and the sincere use of the Sacraments; thus there is need for another indication, that we may distinguish in which of them the preaching of the word of God is truly sincere, and in which it is falsely tossed about.
2) Nor are those same two marks better known to us than the Church itself. For the sincere preaching and use of the Sacraments, as our adversaries contend, is determined by their conformity to the word of God; but it is more difficult to know the true word of God, than to know the Church. For who will easily judge the authenticity of manuscripts, the fidelity of versions, the truth of interpretation, etc.? This is why the Fathers teach that the truth of doctrine is not to be judged, but by the Church.
3) Thus, by these same two marks the true Church of Christ could not be distinguished from false sects easily and by all; can it be known easily and to all what is the genuine word of God, in what version it is faithfully presented, what is its true meaning, etc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 638-41
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA638
Prop. XXXVI. 1. Unity, Holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolicity are the true marks of the Church – 2. and these being rightly applied, it is established as certain that the Roman Church is the one true Church of Christ; thus all other congregations that are outside her communion, claiming for themselves the name of Christian, are proved to not be the true Church of Christ.
836. Proof of the 1st part. I. Anything is known best and with certainty by its properties, if they are displayed exteriorly. If, for example, you have the definition of a man, and by speech or other signs you see in some individual the use of reason, you thus conclude that there is a rational soul in that individual; and seeing also his body, you rightly conclude that this individual is a man. Likewise Unity, Holiness, Catholicity, Apostolicity, as has been demonstrated, are the properties of the Church; and they are displayed exteriorly as we shall soon confirm. Thus Unity etc. are the marks, or characteristics, of the Church of Christ, by which the true Church of Christ is known with certainty.
837. II. Unity, Holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolicity fulfill all the conditions that we have said are required to constitute a mark of the Church. Thus they are true marks of the Church.
Proof of the antecedent. And – 1) they are something proper and not common; for, as is obvious from the explanation and demonstration of their meaning, they either pertain to the very essence of the Church, or at least they are her properties. – 2) Thus it follows that these same marks are permanent in the Church. – 3) They are also external and knowable. For unity of faith is manifested by the external profession of faith, which cannot be hypocrisy in the whole congregation; and the government of men must be external, just as obedience must be external. Holiness is manifested externally by the exercise of great virtues even unto a heroic degree, by wonderful fruitfulness, by miracles, which are sensible things. The Apostolic succession is also external; and since, as previously said, the Apostolic succession contains in itself adequate Apostolicity, the Apostolicity of the Church is simply visible, that is, knowable with certainty. Likewise Catholicity, both in fact and simultaneously, is something external, and we have already proved that the Church's catholicity is such. – 4) In addition, these marks are knowable easily and by all. This is clear from their very application. But, to illustrate the idea, anyone can easily understand, for example, that the Church of Christ must be one by unity of doctrine; for one cannot say that Christ taught contradictory things, or that He both taught and did not teach one and the same thing. But anyone can also easily see that in his own sect there are as many beliefs as there are men, and that there exists no sufficient principle of unity in faith; while on the contrary, in the Catholic Church the common profession of some external and infallible magisterium argues for unity of doctrine. Likewise, anyone can easily understand that the government of the Church must be Apostolic, for everyone knows that the Church was founded by Christ in the Apostles; but by the very names of various sects, the times of their founding, etc. their lack of Apostolicity is made manifest; while on the contrary, in the Catholic Church the Apostolic succession in the Roman See is conspicuous, as well as the communion of the others with it. Anyone can continue this, and the matter will be clear, if of course the previous warning is kept in mind as to the different ways of setting forth the whole demonstration as suited to different dispositions of mind … – 5) Finally, the same characteristics of Unity, etc. are better known to us than the true Church itself taken in the concrete and individually. For they, being external, strike our eyes, so to speak, first and immediately; and from these marks, supposing the knowledge of the true Church of Christ in the abstract, by reasoning we conclude that this congregation and not another is the true Church of Christ: for something that leads us to the knowledge of another thing is better known to us, than that thing itself; thus [the conclusion follows]. – Thus the Fathers always used these same marks to discern the true Church.
838. Proof of the 2nd part. I. from the Unity of the Church. And first: the Roman Church is One. Indeed it has – 1) unity of faith as to the fact; for all the faithful dispersed throughout the world have the same profession of faith, by which they believe the truths defined by the Church; the truth once authentically defined has never been retracted; indeed, in the passage of time new definitions have been issued, but by which the same ancient revelation is proposed more clearly and more explicitly. There can be disagreement among Catholics regarding some truths not yet defined by the Church, but all profess their readiness to accept her judgment; and the Church has steadfastly cast out from her bosom whoever denies even one of the certainly revealed truths. So great is the unity and stability in this same faith, in the Catholic Church, that her adversaries turn it into a vice, either because, they say, that stability is a sign of death, or because it is the enemy of progress. – The Church also has unity of faith as to the right; indeed, she recognizes an effective extrinsic principle of unity, that is, the apostolic magisterium, by which she is infallible in teaching. – 3) Indeed all her members, wherever they may be, adhere to One Head, the Roman Pontiff, in whom they acknowledge the primacy of jurisdiction in the universal Church: and thus the Roman Church has unity of government.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 645-47
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA645
841. IV. [Proof that the Roman Church is the one true Church of Christ] by the mark of Apostolicity. That the Roman Church is Apostolic, we have already proved. And in many ways it can easily be proved that none of the sects has Apostolicity. For – 1) The Apostolic Succession, in which all Apostolicity is contained, supposes Episcopal consecration: but Calvin was not even a priest, although he was called the Bishop of Geneva; Luther, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, as is certainly known and they themselves admitted, were never ordained as Bishops. Thus neither do they acknowledge the distinction of divine law between clerics and Laics, and the hierarchy instituted by Christ in the clerical order: which error we have refuted above. – 2) But from whom did the Innovators receive the mission itself? The Roman Church, from which they separated, according to them was no longer the true Church of Christ; for they said that in that time it had defected: thus from it, according to their own principles, they could not receive a mission. Thus, against them we rightly press the argument, which the Fathers customarily used against the ancient heresies. “Who are you,” Tertullian asked, “and when and where did you come from? Where have you been hiding for so long?” And St. Optatus: “Show the origin of your [Episcopal] chairs, you who want to claim the Holy Church for yourselves.” And St. Hilary: “This age of the world has now tardily produced these most pious Doctors for me. My faith is late to have them, for I learned it from you, teachers; not having heard of all of them, I believed you etc.” And St. Augustine: “Where has Donatus come from? From what earth did he sprout? From what sea did he emerge? From what heaven did he fall?” – 3) Thus it is nearly pointless to show that Apostolicity of doctrine is lacking to the Protestant sects; for lacking the Apostolic succession, they lack the principle by which doctrine is kept safely. Bellarmine mentions the testimony of Calvin, expressly admitting the incompatibility of his doctrine with that of antiquity, and gives a list of heresies that were condemned long before the reformation, which were revived by the Innovators. – 4) But the lack of Apostolicity in the Innovators' sects is so evident, that they invoke an extraordinary mission, which we rejected above. – 5) To deny the Apostolic succession among the Greek schismatics, it is sufficient to recall what we already said. But we add one thing to make the matter more clear: it is known that the Greek Church adhered to the Roman Church before the separation, and acknowledged in the Roman Pontiff the center of unity: thus either it was a true Church before the separation, and by the very fact that it is separated from the true center of unity, it has placed itself outside the Church of Christ by schism, and therefore it has no apostolic mission: or before the separation it was a false Church of Christ, and by the separation it began to be a true Church; and we ask, how then did it receive a mission? This has even more force with regard to the Russian Church, which separated at the end of the 17th century from the Patriarch of Constantinople, for whom, by the authority of the Emperor, a Synod was substituted, of which the Emperor himself is the chief. Who does not see, that this Church, guilty of a twofold schism, lacks an apostolic mission? Did the Emperor of Russia possess it, to be able to bestow it; or could he communicate to others that which he himself lacked? And this same thing can be adapted to the Anglican Church, if need be.
842. V. We have now outlined the demonstration of these theses, and we will complete it here with three observations, by which anyone can figure out for himself that a full demonstration of the matter follows. Thus – 1) these marks considered in themselves, as prescinding from the positive institution of Christ, constitute a motive of credibility, by which the Christian religion is shown to be divinely revealed, and the one true religion. For holiness includes miracles: unity is a true miracle in the moral order; for naturally it cannot happen that innumerable men dispersed throughout the world should submit their understanding to one visible magisterium, firmly believing all that it teaches; apostolicity and Catholicity may be reduced to the propagation and conservation of the Christian religion, which we discussed in the 2nd disputation. Thus the Vatican Council (Constitution Dei Filius, chap. 3) says: “The Church itself, by reason of its marvellous extension, its eminent holiness and its inexhaustible fruitfulness in every good thing, its Catholic unity and its invincible stability, is a great and perpetual motive of credibility, and an irrefutable witness of its own divine mission. And thus, like a standard set up unto the nations,” etc.
2) From the things thus far disputed, one clear demonstration can thus be composed: either there is now no Church of Christ, or it is the Roman Church; but one cannot say that the Church that Christ promised and willed to be indefectible, now exists no more; therefore the Roman Church is the true Church of Christ. To prove the major, take note that there is no sect in which the marks fit at least as well as in the Roman Church; she it is who at least approaches most closely to the primitive Church, which all admint to have been the Church of Christ; she alone constantly calls men to the ancient tradition, preserves the same principle of unity, and is equally jealous of unity as she is impatient of heresy and schism; she was always visible, nor can the occasion, time, place, and author of her defection be named by her adversaries. It is entirely the opposite with respect to all the other sects.
3) It being once demonstrated that the Primacy was instituted in Peter, and was to remain forever in the Roman Pontiffs, one can easily judge the Roman Church to be the true Church of Christ. For in the Roman Pontiff she has the center of unity, and consequently the apostolic succession, a principle of unity of faith, unity of government, and a principle of formal catholicity. Thus St. Cyprian rightly teaches, that an easy and brief demonstration of the true Church of Christ is contained in that Primacy.
Note to reader: Cardinal Mazzella's works have not been translated from Latin to English. Fortunately, for readers of this forum, Eric Hoyle has translated some of this work, on Mazzella's explanations of mission, the unity of the Church and the apostolic succession, which of course are very relevant to all Catholics at present. Eric Hoyle has kindly given me permission to publish his translations here.
Mazzella's books are scanned and available online for those wishing to read the texts in the original Latin: play.google.com/store/books/details/De_Religione_et_Ecclesia_praelectiones_scholastico?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&gl=US . There are also an accompanying links in the text below to the specific section translated, placed in the sections translated by Mr. Hoyle, to make it easier to read the specific sections translated in the original Latin
Here is some biographical information on Cardinal Mazzella: www.newadvent.org/cathen/10094c.htm
-----------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 372-74
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA372
454. Our task, lest we be forced to respond to every aberrant idea, is to first set forth the true concept of the visibility of the Church, and then we will try to fortify it with strong arguments; thus all errors against it will collapse as of their own weight. And from the beginning we emphasize, when we speak of the Church's visibility, we do not ask whether it is visible materially, as they say, as regards the members by which it is composed, the rites by which they are joined together, the ministry by which they are governed, etc. For it is clear that all these things must be visible whenever it regards a congregation of men. What also concerns this question is this: whether the Church be visible also formally, that is, as the true church, just as the church was instituted by Christ – the church, as they say, of the promises – whether it can with certainty be distinguished from other congregations, which are not that true Church of Christ.
455. But since the true Church of Christ consists of soul and body, if the body alone is seen, and not in any way the soul, then we do not properly see the true Church of Christ, which certainly is not a dead body. For to the true Church of Christ, the same as to any being, belong certain properties; unless these properties were visible in some way, one could not say that the Church is visible as the true Church of Christ. But here a difficulty arises: how, they say, can interior faith, sanctifying grace, and the other gifts which constitute the soul of the Church, be seen? How can some properties, e.g. unity, sanctity, be seen as to all their parts? To resolve this difficulty, one must take note that something can be visible either per se, or by something else (they say, per accidens), in which and by which it is manifested, as in a man the body is visible per se, but the rational soul that informs it, although not visible per se, yet is manifested by means of external signs, e.g. by speaking. Unless a man be visible as a rational animal, he is not formally visible, that is, as a man. Therefore the Church is visible per se as to the body; as to the soul it is visible by signs, by which it manifests itself; as to its properties it is visible partly per se, partly by something else; and consequently it is visible formally, that is, as the true Church of Christ. Indeed, internal faith, internal justice or sanctity, etc. which is as the soul informing the Church's body, do not appear, nor are they manifest per se; but neither does the soul of a man appear of itself. Nevertheless, as the soul itself shines forth, so to speak, by means of the body which it informs and vivifies, by which it acts, such that a true man can be seen; likewise the soul of the Church, informing, moving, vivifying the body, is manifested by the body, so as to make visible the true Church of Christ. Thus the visibility of the Church is “a certain manifestation of the true Church of Christ,” which makes this determination with a certain judgment: “this is the true Church of Christ.”
456. This sets forth sufficiently the concept of visibility, which we claim for the Church. We should add only that this same visibility, in Catholic doctrine, pertains to the very essence of the Church, and thus cannot be absent at any time. For just as if the soul, or the body, or the union between body and soul were absent, then there would not be a man, to whose essence all these things belong; likewise, if the Church failed as to visibility, the Church itself would fail. But we do not on that account assert here the perpetual indefectibility of the Church, which will be proved below in its own place; but we say that the Church remains visible for as long as it lasts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 379-80
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA379
464. Therefore, in order to summarize all this in a few words, we say: “The people of the Church are conceived by the preaching and hearing of the faith, which clearly is something sensible; they are born by baptism, which is a most visible sign; they are nourished by the sacraments, which again are sensible signs of interior grace; just as their pastors are adopted by certain and visible signs, so being adopted they govern by external and open laws: thus the Church by her very nature is a congregation of visible men, visibly entering it, and by many visible signs dwelling within it under pastors visibly adopted. Thus, if Christ had wished to institute a visible church, as Catholics say he truly did and Protestants deny, let them say what more he ought to have provided. For if, as in fact is true, one cannot conceive how he could more clearly have made her visible, either one must say that to make a visible church is impossible even to God Himself, which is absurd, or one must confess that the true church is visible. Again: From what has been said, one cannot deny that many elements of the Church are visible; indeed, these certainly pertain to the essence of the Church, because (1) Christ did not institute the Church except by instituting these things, and (2) they are absolutely necessary to the proper end of the Church. Therefore it is impossible to conceive a true Church of Christ that would be invisible; for thus some essential element would be missing, without which the Church herself could not exist. – Further, the elements of the Church that are invisible per se, are manifested by something else, as we said; nor can that manifestation be doubtful for the whole congregation. For it could be that the profession of faith in one or another member is a lie, as likewise the external signs of holiness in one or another could be hypocrisy; but besides the special providence by which the Church is governed, the moral law itself, which governs the human race, rules out hypocrisy and dishonesty in the whole multitude.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 386-89
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA386
473. Now suppose, as we shall soon prove, that the purpose for which Christ instituted the Church was, in the Church and by means of the Church, to make perennial his visible mission on earth, and his visible magisterium. Thus as Christ's magisterium, government, and ministry of sanctification perdure in the Church teaching and governing, so the faithful by adhering to its doctrine, obeying it, receiving the means of sanctification from it, find in the Church the safe way of salvation.
…
479. Consequently, as we have said (n. 388.), true christianity differs not from the Church, unless as the abstract from the concrete; in very truth they are one and the same thing. For just as there could not be a true Church of Christ without the doctrine and institutions of Christ, so neither can true christianity flourish outside the genuine Church of Christ. Thus, what the rationalists of our age imagine for themselves – christianity separated from the Church of Christ, and therefore freed from the obligations she is owed – must be regarded as a pure chimera. For, as we said above, our Redeemer willed that “his religion should so inhere in the society he instituted, that it remain thoroughly connected and, so to speak, concrete with it, and that there should be no true Christian religion outside of it.”
480. Indeed this proof is of the greatest importance. For if, in order to institute and propagate his religion Christ immediately undertook the founding of the Church, and deposited in her the doctrine and institutions that he revealed, for her to guard and to disseminate in perpetuity, then the Christian revelation could never, not even for one instant, be left as it were to itself; but what Christ first held as in his hands, passed thence to the Apostles, and later from the hands of the Apostles passed into the hands of their successors. Consequently, just as from the beginning the doctrine and religion of Christ was to be sought from Christ himself; just as after the ascension of Christ into heaven it was to be sought from the Apostles; likewise after the times of the Apostles until the consummationem of the world it is to be sought from the Church, that is, from her authentic magisterium, in which Christ's own magisterium still perseveres and flourishes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 389-93
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA389
Prop. XX. The end that Christ proposed to Himself in instituting the Church, was to establish forever his visible mission on earth, in the Church and by means of the Church; and thus to promote the glory of God by obtaining the eternal salvation of men. Thus the Church, in view of its end, is a religious, spiritual, and supernatural society; indeed, it is the christian religion itself in the concrete, clearly different from any other society.
482. I. We consider the the mission of Christ in general. Indeed – 1) Christ communicated his very own mission to the Apostles. For we read: “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you” (John xx. 21); and “Sanctify them in truth; Thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world” (John xvii. 17-18); and “You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go, and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain” (John xv. 16). – 2) In order to accomplish this mission, Christ imparted His own power to the Apostles. For it says: “ All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going THEREFORE, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” (Matt. 28:18-20) Thus also, after those words “as he sent” etc., Christ subjoins: “Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, etc.” (John xx.) and having bestowed the mission to preach the Gospel, he adds: “he who believeth not, shall be condemned,” (Mark xvi. 15) as it says: “he who heareth you, heareth me; and he who despiseth you, despiseth me” (Luke x. 16). – 3) This mission and power did not belong to the Apostles alone, but was to be continued in their successors. For – a) that mission and power, as is clear from the cited testimonies, was imparted to the Apostles for the good of the whole world, of all peoples, for all time; and indeed all must be saved by Christ, and by the means instituted by Him: but the Apostles could not by themselves spread abroad to all peoples in all times the mission they had received – b) From the text of Matthew in particular (chap. 18), it is clear that Christ promised to be with the Apostles as men who teach and baptize until the end of the world. But this cannot be understood only of the persons of the Apostles – c) Thus, as after the ascension of Christ into heaven the Apostles were the church teaching, governing, and administrating (this is also clear from the Acts of the Apostles and from the Letters of Peter and Paul), and they visibly caried out the ministry of Christ on earth; in the same way, the Bishops succeed to the Apostles until the end of the world, in order to visibly perform the ministry of Christ, and for the mission of Christ to continue in them.
483. II. Let us consider the individual duties of the mission of Christ. For – 1) the duty of his mission was to teach to men the true and safe way of salvation: for of this it is said: “Jesus began to do and to teach;” and he said of Himself that he came “to preach the Gospel to the poor,” that he was “the way and the truth,” etc. And he entrusted the same duty to the Apostles, to whom He said “going therefore, teach all nations” – through their successors this duty must endure “until the end of the world” – this duty is the same as authentic magisterium, as is clear from this: “who believeth and is baptized … shall be saved; but he who believeth not, shall be condemned.” Thus
2) The duty of the mission of Christ was to free men from the bonds of sins and to sanctify them; thus St. John the Baptism says of Him: “Behold the Lamb of God; behold Him who takes away the sin of the world;” Christ Himself said to the paralytic and to Magdalene “your sins are forgiven;” of Himself he declared that He had come “to save that which was lost.” And it is evident that Christ imposed the same duty upon the Apostles, in whom He founded the Church. For He spoke thus to the Apostles: “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” (John xx. 21-23) And: “Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matt. xviii. 18)
3) The duty of Christ's mission certainly was, as long as He was on earth, to personally govern the Church founded by Him. Thus he entrusted the same office to the Apostles, in whom He founded the Church. Thus He enjoins upon Peter: “Feed my sheep, feed my lambs.” But since the rest of the Apostles needed to participate in the same duty, it is said to them: “ Feed the flock of God which is among you” (I Peter v. 2); as Paul says: “Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God.” (Acts xx. 28) And lest anyone think that he could reject the authority of such pastors with impunity, Christ declared: “Amen, amen I say to you, he that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me;” (John xiii. 20) and said that one who resists the judgment of the Church should be regarded as the heathen and publican: “And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.” (Matt. xviii. 17)
484. III. From this it is clear that the purpose of the Church instituted by Christ is the continuation of the mission of Christ Himself; from which, as we have noted, it is rightly inferred that this purpose is the sanctification of men on earth and their eternal salvation in heaven. But this needs to be proved directly. Indeed – 1) The first means of sanctification and salvation is faith, which is called “the beginning, root, and foundation of all justice,” and without which, according to the Apostle, “it is impossible to please God.” (Heb. xi. 6) And indeed, by his own reasoning, following Isaias (ch. 53): “Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.” (Rom. x. 17) And from whom shall we hear the word of Christ? The same Apostle says just before: “How shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent?” (v. 14-15) And what men are sent to preach, unless those to whom Christ said “going, teach”? Thus the Apostle adds, speaking of them: “Yes, verily, their sound hath gone forth into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the whole world.” (v. 18)
2) The chief means of imparting sanctity and promoting salvation are the sacraments. But each and all of the sacraments Christ entrusted only to His Church. And most certainly he said only to the Apostles and to their successors: “Going therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them, etc.” (Matt. xviii. 19); and to them He said: “Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven,” etc.; and to the same men he said: “Do this in memory of me;” (Luke xxii. 19) and other things that are customarily explained regarding each sacrament. Consequently, the Apostle declared in general: “Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God.” (I. Cor. iv. 1)
3) This charge was given to Peter: “feed my sheep; feed my lambs;” (John xxi. 15-16) as to the others it was said, “feed the flock which is among you.” Now indeed the word “feed” means nothing more than to provide all the spiritual means by which eternal salvation can be attained: for the government of the Church is instituted for this purpose. Certainly nobody can enter in to eternal life, unless the entry into the kingdom of heaven is opened to him: but it was said to Peter: “And to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven;” (Matt. xvi. 19) therefore only by Peter, the foundation of the Church, and therefore by the Church itself, can the entry into eternal life lie open. – From this it follows that the work of redemption, as to the sufficiency and payment of the price, was accomplished by Christ, according to the Apostle: “by one oblation [Christ] has perfected forever;” (Heb. x. 14) but as to the application, it was begun by Christ, but by the Church it is to be completed by means of those whom Christ instituted “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God … unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ.” (Eph. iv. 12-13)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 489-91
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA489
The unity in general, which we are discussing, consists in this: that the Church is not many but one, and it is that same one that Christ founded and instituted. Thus a distinction is typically made between simultaneous and successive unity. For the Church is called one – 1) insofar as at no time after her institution by Christ would there be two or more Churches of Christ at the same time: which is simultaneous unity – 2) insofar as the one true Church that existed, would continue the same and self-consistent, not being changed into another: which is successive unity. – Although the unity of the Church includes all these things, yet given that successive unity is easily reduced to Apostolicity and indefectibility, we now properly and directly will discuss simultaneous unity.
631. In order that the genuine nature of this unity, which is proper to the Church, may be well understood, we must keep in mind that the Church is “the congregation of the faithful” or “the society of men who are bound together by the profession of the same faith, and by subjection to legitimate Pastors;” thus the property of unity must be such as is required for a society to be called one; and one society of the faithful. Here are usually distinguished (1) unity of faith, which exhibits the closest concord in faith, that is, the agreement of all the faithful of Christ in professing the true faith; and (2) unity of government, without which no society can be one. And all other kinds of unity, indicated by various people, are reduced to this twofold unity. Thus the unity which is called of communion or of charity, properly regards the union of members amongst themselves, and means the mutual cooperation of all the members towards the same end by the same means under the direction of one and the same government: from which union it results that, feeling the same for each other, they maintain unity by the bond of peace. But anyone can see that the unity of faith and government in the Church necessarily includes this unity of communion. Likewise it's customary to assign that unity which they call ritual, by which all in the Church keep the same rites, which are of divine institution: thus the rite of initiation, namely baptism, is one and the same for all; the sharing in the same Sacraments is common; there is one sacrifice for all, which, as it is the chief act of religion, belongs most properly to the Church of Christ, which is the Christian religious society. But anyone can also see, that this ritual unity cannot be lacking, where unity of faith and government are present. Thus it is sufficient to speak of this twofold unity.
632. But what is the meaning of unity of faith; for the Innovators themselves, unless they are willing to become practically rationalists, do not shrink from saying that the Church is somehow one in faith? For faith can be called one for various reasons: – 1) as to the formal object, also called the motive, which is one, namely the authority of God revealing – 2) as to the primary object, which is God Himself – 3) as to the principle or habit, which if it be one, extends equally to all the objects that are believed, etc. But, these things being presupposed or left aside, the unity of faith that we have in view, consists of this: that “the faithful dispersed throughout the world believe (profess to believe) all the same articles, which the Church proposes to be believed.” Indeed all and the same articles, as here: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.” (I Cor. i. 10) – Which the Church proposes to be believed, according to this: “By whom [Jesus Christ] we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith, in all nations, for his name;” (Rom. i. 5) that is, we received the apostolate to announce the faith, and by our apostolic authority to require obedience to this faith in all nations for His name, that because of His authority and name they may obey the faith.
633. From this it is clear 1) the unity of faith does not only mean the fact, that all and the same truths are believed everywhere by all; but also, as they say, the right, or the principle by which that fact is perpetually produced and conserved. This principle is the magisterium governing the Church, which is indeed infallible by the assistance of the Holy Ghost, in defining the truths of the faith. The charism of infallibility in this magisterium will be explained below; for this matter it suffices to say that unity of faith includes the consensus of all in those same truths, by the adherence of all to the same principle determining the consent, which is the apostolic magisterium.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 508-17
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA508
Prop. XXVIII. 1. The Church is also one by unity of government, by which all of the faithful throughout the world are made subject to one supreme authority. Thus any schism whatsoever, as the name itself indicates, separates from true unity – 2. nor is it permissible for any reason to begin a schism, or to remain in it.
…
661. IV. [It is proved] from the fathers, whose testimony, for the sake of brevity, we will reduce to a a few classes. And – 1) they prove it by that testimony, by which they place the unity of government in the very definition of the Church. Thus, e.g. St. Cyprian (ep. 69. to Florent. Pupianum) after saying that the Church is “the people united to the priest, and the flock adhering to its pastor;” he adds, the Bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the Bishop; he who is not with the Bishop, is not in the Church. They flatter themselves in vain, who, not having peace with the priests of God, sneak up and believe that with some they are secretly communicating: “since,” he adds, “the Church which is Catholic is one, is not split, nor divided, but by all means connected, and united by the glue of the priests who adhere to it.”
…
663. Proof of the 2nd part. I. For no reason is it ever allowed to begin a schism or to remain in it, if the necessity of maintaining external unity is absolute, and allows no exceptions. But such is its necessity. Therefore [the conclusion follows].
Proof of the minor. – 1) Scripture openly excludes every possible exception. This is obvious when one recalls the arguments just given: for since the Church is The Body of Christ, the Temple or House of God, the Kingdom of Christ, the Sheepfold of Christ; if at any time it were permitted to tear apart the unity of the Church, it would be permitted to tear apart the body of Christ, the house of God, the Kingdom of Christ, the sheepfold of Christ; that is, it would be permissible to not have Christ as Head, to live outside the house and Kingdom of Christ, to no have Christ as Pastor. But obviously such things can never be permissible, as we can never licitly be deprived of the life that Christ has granted to us. Therefore [the conclusion follows].
2) If the necessity of maintaining the unity of the Church were not absolute, it would follow according to the principles held by our adversaries that there is no such precept regarding external government, which they themselves deny. Indeed, according to them, it would be permissible to tear apart that unity for reasons of corruption, heresy, etc. But in that case, by whom would the cause for separation be established? If by the authority constituted by Christ in the Church, the schism of its adversaries would certainly be illicit, since the Church has always opposed it; and if without the consent of that authority, anyone could establish a just cause for separation by his own judgment, then the government of the Church would be absolutely destroyed. For what authority is that, which the subjects can licitly reject by their own judgment?
3) The Fathers teach that it is equally illicit to be separated from the Church by schism, as by heresy. …
4) The Fathers teach that the external unity of the Church is equally necessary as is charity. Thus, as nothing avails without charity, likewise nothing avails for those who voluntarily dwell outside the Church's unity. …
664. II. To further press the argument, and at the same time to exclude the main causes of separation proposed by our adversaries, it is best to make this argument: to begin a schism is never allowed, if there could never be a just cause for breaking unity. But so it is. Therefore [the conclusion follows].
Proof of the minor. 1) The Fathers generally deny any cause for such a thing. …
2) Could the corrupt morals of Catholics be called a just cause [for schism]? But, leaving the rest aside, this supposes that the Church is composed of only the just, which we refuted above. …
3) Could new rites instituted by the Church be called a just cause for schism? “In those things,” says St. Augustine (ep. 85. ad Casul.), “on which the divine Scripture establishes nothing certain, the custom of the people of God, or the institutions of the elders are to be held as law. If we were willing to debate such things, and to find fault with some based on the customs of others, an unending strife would arise, in which the labor of speaking with certain documents [?] would arrive at no truth, and it is to be feared that the serenity of charity would be overshadowed by a storm of contention.” …
4) Could heresies be called a just cause for schism? But – a) the Church cannot fail in faith – b) The unity of faith, as we saw in the previous proposition, depends on the unity of government – c) If, by an impossible hypothesis, the Church were to be stained with heresy, by that very fact it would cease to be the true Church of Christ; and those who would break away, would constitute it; thus the true Church of Christ would always remain one.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 557-62
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA557
718. Thus the apostolic Church, according to this general agreement, is that which permanently possesses all that by divine institution pertains to her essence, properties, and endowments. This Church is permanently a visible society, one in faith, in communion, in government; is holy by a holiness both active and passive that is indeed excellent and conspicuous, etc. Thus, as Perrone among others rightly notes, apostolicity thus understood is not anything different from the parts and the properties of the Church taken together, but is the continuous and never-failing existence of all of them in combination.
719. But now we ask, what is the proper concept of apostolicity, which is distinct from unity and from the other parts and properties of the Church? In what is it found? The Church is called apostolic for a threefold reason: – 1) by origin, insofar as she was founded by the Apostles – 2) by doctrine, or faith, insofar as she retains that faith, which the Apostles preached – 3) by succession or mission, insofar as she embraces in her bosom those who have legitimately descended from the Apostles in hierarchical order. “[The true Church is, also, to be known] from her origin, which she derives under the law of grace, from the Apostles; for her doctrines are neither novel nor of recent origin, but were delivered, of old, by the Apostles, and disseminated throughout the world. … The Holy Ghost, who presides over the Church, governs her by no other than Apostolic
men; and this Spirit, first imparted to the Apostles, has, by the infinite goodness of God, always continued in the Church.”
… 3) Thus, all apostolicity is contained in apostolicity of succession.
721. Indeed, the name itself indicates this. For the name Apostles, from which comes Apostolicity, is derived from the Greek words apo and stolon, which is the same thing as sent with commands: but it refers to apostolicity, or divine mission in matters of religion, that is, the Christian Religion; for we do not call those Apostles, who were divinely sent before Christ. Thus Apostolicity is that legitimate mission entrusted by God to certain men to propagate, teach, and govern the Church in a ministerial capacity. But since the Apostles were mortals, and received a perpetual mision, it is necessary that others be substituted, who being made the heirs and successors of the deceased, take up and possess the mission, to be transmited again to successors in an uninterrupted series, until the consummation of the world. Therefore the Apostolic Church is that which the first legates of Christ, namely the Apostles, founded and governed, and even now hold and govern by their legitimate successors. From this it is evident, that the true concept of apostolic mission and succession must be explained, that we may arrive at the genuine idea of Apostolicity.
722. Now we ask, what is the apostolic succession? It can be described: “public, legitimate, perennial or never interrupted substitution of persons in the place of the Apostles to rule and to shepherd the Church.” It says – 1) substitution, to signify that the successors of the Apostles are not their vicars; but they exercise that very office which the Apostles, insofar as they were rulers and administrators, exercised – 2) It says public; for as it treats of the authority to rule an external and public society, it must be verified by determinate criteria known to all, that these men and not others have truly succeeded to the apostolic office – 3) It says legitimate, evidently on the part of him who gives the power, and of him who receives it, and by the way in which the power is conferred, that the transmission clearly fulfills the legal standard – 4) It says perennial or not interrupted, of course both materially, insofar as persons are never entirely lacking who are continually substituted for the Apostles, and formally, insofar as these very substituted persons are empowered with the authority derived from the Apostles, receiving it from him who now actually possesses it and is able to communicate it.
723. To understand this more fully, we must remember that in the successors of the Apostles can be distinguished (1) ordination or consecration, and (2) vocation or mission; and thus a twofold power, of order and of jurisdiction. It is not necessary here to discuss ordination in detail, for – 1) what pertains to it is clear, in part from what was said about the distinction in the divine law between clerics and laics, and also chiefly from what is said in the treatise on Orders – 2) Granted that Apostolic succession necessarily includes ordination, yet in ecclesiastical terminology neither solely nor chiefly does it mean a succession of men, who trace back to the apostles by a linked transmission of the episcopal character; but chiefly it means a succession of men, who by a linked transmission of authority to teach and shepherd the faithful trace back to the Apostles – 3) From the legitimacy of vocation or mission recognized by the other conditions, the validity of ordination is legitimately inferred (if we speak of the [universal] Church and of her certain Head, not indeed of any one individual); for if the Church can never lack the apostolic succession at any time, neither can she lack any condition or element that it necessarily requires.
724. But indeed as to mission, that is, the bestowal of actual and unhindered jurisdiction in the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church, we must note – 1) that this power, unlike the power of order, can be lost; and therefore acts of this power exercised illegitimately are not only illicit but also invalid; while, on the other hand, acts of the power of order exercised illegitimately are illicit, but valid. Suppose, for example, a heretical or schismatic Bishop (we speak of one who truly received Episcopal consecration) consecrates another man a Bishop; he would be consecrated validly, and would have the power of order, not indeed of jurisdiction; for otherwise he would receive it from a man who does not have it, which clearly is nonsensical.
…
725. From these things there follows a corollary of greatest importance, namely that communion with the center of unity suffices to make known apostolicity; for if this were lacking elsewhere in some congregation that is called christian, it would be supplied, as we have said, or obtained, by that very adherence to the center of unity, in which is the fullness of apostolic authority. Therefore, in order to summarize in a few words what we have explained thus far, we say that the aforesaid adherence to the center of unity is truly the chief point in this entire controversy about the apostolicity of the Church. For the Church is called apostolic by origin, doctrine, and succession; given apostolicity of succession, apostolicity of origin and doctrine are rightly inferred; apostolicity of succession includes ordination or consecration, and mission; if legitimate mission is proved, legitimate ordination is rightly presumed or inferred; that legitimate mission is obtained or supplied by adherence to the center of unity. Thus if that adherence is proved, by that very fact adequate apostolicity is demonstrated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 562-63
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA562
727. The errors of innovators on the matter of Apostolicity can be reduced to these – 1) In words they concede the apostolicity of doctrine, but they pervert its true concept: the errors are the same as those we listed against the unity of faith – 2) As to apostolicity of succession, those errors chiefly recur, which we refuted by alleging the distinction in the divine law between laymen and clerics, and excluding the democratic form of government from the Church – 3) Those who belong to the party that they call High Church, are chiefly in error about the necessity of communion with the center of unity – 4) Thus the most characteristic error in this matter is extraordinary mission, which they have crafted in order to cover up the lack of apostolicity of mission and of origin in their sects. For when, they say, the state of the Church is such that either nobody can be appointed by an ordinary vocation to carry out the ecclesiastical functions; or that those who are appointed, are so corrupt in faith and morals that their amendment cannot be hoped for; when an ordinary vocation of better men from elsewhere is impossible; then, they say, nothing forbids those who have no ordinary vocation to take up apostolic functions by an extraordinary vocation: indeed, they add, in such a state of the Church anyone is bound in conscience, by the force of the common vocation of all Christians, to carry out apostolic duties insofar as he is able. Indeed, the Innovators assert that this took place in Luther and Calvin, who moreover were inspired by a hidden divine movement, and thus by an extraordinary vocation, to undertake the reformation of the Church.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 565-66
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA565
732. III. As to succession – 1) The Church cannot be ruled and governed, except by that authority which Christ instituted: this is evident, because Christ is the author of the Church, and because the power to govern the Church is supernatural, and therefore it cannot come from any source but from God. But Christ willed that the Church be governed by apostolic authority to endure forever in their successors. Therefore the Church must always be Apostolic in succession, or government. – Proof of the minor – a) Christ bestowed upon the Apostles the power to rule the Church, and willed that it be transmitted to their successors (n. 482-84.; 524.) – b) The Apostles preached this power which they had received from Christ. For in order to commend themselves to the faithful, they often reminded them of that distinctive power to rule and to teach, which they had received from Christ. Thus (II. Cor. V. 20.): “For Christ therefore we are ambassadors, God as it were exhorting by us;” (I. Cor. IV. 1.): “Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God;” (I. Thess. II. 13.): “We also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God.” Indeed, fortified by this persuasion, they demand that the faithful acknowledge and give full obedience to this vicarious power of theirs; thus (II. Cor. II. 9.): “For to this end also did I write, that I may know the experiment of you, whether you be obedient in all things;” (II. Thess. III. 14.): “If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and do not keep company with him” – c) The Apostles excercised this same power; they communicated it to others to be communicated by them to others.
2) Christ willed unity of faith, which consists in this: that the faithful dispersed throughout the world believe all those truths that the Apostles preached, and which their successors propose to be believed (nn. 650. seqq.). But clearly such unity cannot be had without the apostolic succession, since it is the principle of unity of faith.
733. Proof of the 2nd part. I. From Scripture. Thus – 1) the hypothesis of an extraordinary mission must be rejected, if by the institution of Christ the Apostolic succession can never fail [deficere]. But thus it is. For – a) Christ the Lord sent the Apostles into the whole world; to teach all peoples; and to these teachers he made the promise to be with them all days; until the consummation of the world. But these things would be false if the Apostolic succession could defect at any time – b) Christ, according to the Apostle (Ephes. IV.) gave apostles, pastors and doctors “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ.” By which words it is announced that the ordinary and mediate apostolic mission shall endure until the mystical body of Christ is fully built; thus there can never be pastors and doctors who, by an extraordinary mission, would make up for the failure of those who came first.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 572-75
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA572
740. Thus, in order to adequately and explicitly state the concept of indefectibility, which belongs to the Church, we say that it consists “in her perpetual continuation until the end of the world in that internal and external constitution, in the possession of those properties and endowments, in which she was first instituted by Christ.” From this description it is clear – 1) The indefectibility of the Church pertains to her constitutive essentials (soul and body, whatever is in the nature of such a visible society: magisterium, ministry, government); and to her properties (unity, sanctity, etc.); and finally to her other endowments and prerogatives (infallibility etc.) – 2) This kind of indefectibility applies to all times of the Church's existence, so that at no time could she lack any one of her constitutive parts, or any of her properties or endowments. – 3) This existence of the Church is to last until the end of the world; thus the indefectibility of which we speak includes perpetuity. – 4) Nevertheless, this indefectibility should not be confused with Apostolicity, taken in its generally accepted sense, according to which the Church of whatever age must be the same as the Church founded by the Apostles; for Apostolicity in this sense says that the Church, as long as it shall last, must be the same as the Church founded by the Apostles. But indefectibility says that the Church will last until the end of the world with this same identity.
…
742. But it should be noted, that indefectibility is attributed to the universal Church, and not to each of its parts, that is, to particular Churches; for the promises of Christ were not made to the Church as existing in this or that nation, but to the universal Church. But even if particular Churches fail, the Church itself will always remain unfailing and indefectible: indeed, her catholicity itself will remain, either because the failures of particular Churches are not simultaneous, or because when one Church fails, new Churches are founded elsewhere.
743. All innovators err against the true indefectibility of the Church, but not all to the same degree. For – … 3) Some reduce indefectibility to visibility: either they make it to mean that there will always be some men who profess the true faith; or they say that the Church shall never entirely lack the essentials of the faith (as they call them); or they mix all these things together.
4) Many, on the other hand, teach that the invisible Church cannot fail, but for the visible Church it is otherwise. Thus Bellarmine says, “many of our party waste their time when they prove that the Church cannot entirely defect, for Calvin and the other heretics admit that; but they say it must be understood of the invisible Church.” … Thus we omit the opinions of those who, although they do assert the indefectibility of the Church visible and invisible; yet they believe that it can defect as to one or another thing, such as faith, unity of government, etc.
744. As we have hinted, not only do all of these more or less assert the defectibility of the Church, but they also affirm that she in fact has defected, by that same reasoning by which they deny the visibility of the Church: that is to say, in this way they attempt to justify their own defection from the Church.
…
3) Arguments are not lacking which even more directly demonstrate the perpetuity of those properties and prerogatives which, according to our adversaries, are most capable of defecting and at times have defected in the Church: the chief of these is the Apostolic succession, and the external ministry of doctors, upon which unity and the rest depends. Now, if just this one property is shown to be indefectible, it will cut off every escape for our adversaries, to try to justify their own defection by asserting the defectibility of the Church.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 576-78, 580
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA576
Prop. XXXII. Christ so instituted the Church, that it should be the last economy of salvation, not only in regard to essentials, but also in regard to state, as they say, lasting endlessly and perpetually: and consequently it enjoys indefectibility, by the force of which it shall continue unto the end of the world in that internal and external constitution, and with those same properties and endowments, with which it began to exist.
…
748. [This is proved] II. From the New Testament. … 2) From the perpetuity and indefectibility of the Apostolic office [munus], on which the other things depend in the Church, and which, if it alone stands, the dispute with the innovators is finished. For indeed (Matth. 28.) Christ sent the Apostles to teach and baptize, and also promised that he would be with them, insofar as they teach and baptize, until the end of the world. And (John XIV. 16.) Christ the Lord said: “And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever.” And (Eph. iv.) Paul teaches that Christ gave the Apostles to be shepherds and teachers “for the perfecting of the saints;” “until we all meet into the unity of faith;” “unto a perfect man.” We have often explained this argument already.
749. III. If we consult the places cited from the Old and New Testaments, we rightly ask: how could all that is said of the Church in these places be true, if the Church, even for a time, could lose one or another of its properties and endowments? For – 1) suppose that unity of faith and government were to fail, so that the Church, divided into two or more parts, would no longer be one: it is obvious that of the Church thus divided one could no longer affirm that she is not scattered, stands forever, breaks down and consumes all other kingdoms; but rather she would be cut apart, broken down and consumed: it is clear that the enemy would have prevailed over her, have driven her out, and that she would have been deserted by Christ.
2) Nor can it be said that the predictions and promises of the Church's perpetual indefectibility were conditional, that is, provided she would remain faithful. For – a) these promises were not only made by Christ to the Church, but to Christ Himself, whose merits have obtained the reward of an everlasting kingdom; thus to him, who purchased the Church by His blood, it was said: “ask of me, and I will give you the nations as thy inheritance.” Is there any condition on the part of Christ, or if there were any, could He fail on His part? – b) the promises made to the Church do not express any condition; indeed, as they were made to the universal Church, they exclude any conditions of faithfulness on the part of the Church herself, for in that case, such promises would have this sense: the Church will not err, if she does not turn aside from the truth; she will give pure doctrine, if she does not corrupt it; etc.: which are ridiculous indeed.
…
751. V. [Indefectibility is proved] By theological reason. For – 1) The Church was instituted by Christ, in order to continue His mission on earth for the sanctification and salvation of souls. Therefore she must endure, so long as there are men to be saved by Christ, that is, until the end of ages; so that to all and forever Christ should be the way, the truth, and the life. But unless the Church continued truly indefectible, she could not work toward her end and continue her mission. For this requires that men be able to come to her in order to obtain salvation by her; thus it is necessary that the Church be knowable as the true Church of Christ. But if in even one of her properties or endowments she could fail at any time, the Church would not be knowable. This can be proved in many ways: to signify something, we say that it is clear from the intimate connection, by which the things that constitute the Church or follow from its constitution, are bound together. For example, suppose that visibility is lost; now the apostolic succession, which depends on it, will perish, and also unity. Suppose the apostolic government were to perish; now the principle that causes unity will cease, and the Church will no longer be a society: and if you substitute another government, now it will not be that society which Christ instituted. Suppose that infallibility were to perish; now the extrinsic principle of unity of faith ceases. The Protestants say that the Church can fail as to the faith. But if this be taken away or changed, it radically subverts the seed of the soul of the Church; and what will become of holiness, when that is missing which is called the beginning and root of all justice? Anyone can follow this.
2) If the Church could defect at any time, then at no time could she effectively exercise her mission and authority. For if it were known beforehand that the mission of the Church could totally fail, or even be interrupted, that would deprive it of all weight, that is to say, it would reduce its practical force to nothing. For every rebel would immediately say that the mission of the Church had failed or become corrupted; and consequently one can no longer have faith in it, nor obey it. This is confirmed by the example of the Innovators, who by that supposition behaved in that way, and invented an extraordinary mission.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 600
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA600
784. Indeed as regards infallibility in believing, two things must chiefly be noted. First is: although the faith and the belief of the faithful can be seen and explored in isolation, nevertheless it can never be really separated from the faith of the teaching Church. For the obedience of faith, which is found in the faithful, responds as the effect of the teaching authority which resides in the Pastors: thus, as there will always be a multitude of faithful professing the true faith, so likewise there will always be Pastors and Doctors with them, teaching the true faith: and thus the bond of unity shall always remain, which, by the institution of Christ, must exist between the Pastors and the people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 633-37
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA633
828. … It is not necessary to prove at length here at the outset, that the true Church of Christ can be recognized with certainty: for – 1) the Church is a necessary society; for unless we wish to say that God can fail in necessary things, we must say that the true Church can be known with certainty – 2) the Church is formally visible; therefore the true Church can be discerned with certainty. …
829. But if the true Church can be discerned with certainty, everyone understands that some marks must be given, by which she is certainly made manifest; for unless these marks were given, one could not distinguish the true church from the false churches, as there are many congregations that claim the name “christian Church” for themselves. Thus the very Innovators, although they have often called the Church invisible, are inconsistent with themselves, by not refusing to admit some external notes by which the true Church of Christ can be discerned. …
830. Also, the nature and the function of the marks is easily understood from what was said above. But it's fitting to recall some things here. Thus the marks of the Church can be described as follows: “external, proper, and permanent characters, by which the true Church of Christ can be known with certainty, easily and by all.” It says – 1) external characters: for it deals with discerning the Church, which is essentially a visible society; nor could it be known by men, if it were entirely internal. – 2) Proper; “for if,” says Bellarmine, “I wish to describe to you a certain man, whom you have never seen, so that as soon as you see him, you will distinguish him from others, I ought not to say: he is one who has two eyes, two hands, etc., for these are common to all.” – 3) Permanent; for as the Church is a society that is always necessary, it must always be able to be known: therefore the characters, by which it is known, must remain forever. Besides, as we shall soon see, the marks of the Church are her properties insofar as they are manifested externally: but those pertain to the very essence of the Church, or necessarily follow from it: therefore as long as the Church exists, so long must remain the characters by which she is known – 4) By which the Church is known: of course the marks are the means leading us to knowledge of the Church; thus they must be known to us better and earlier than the Church herself: for our mind, in attaining the truth, only proceeds to things unknown by means of things known. But take note that the marks bring us to the knowledge of the true Church of Christ in the concrete and individually, not to the true Church in the abstract; therefore they must be better known to us, than the Church in the concrete, although not known to us prior to the Church in the abstract. Indeed the knowledge of the marks presupposes the knowledge of the Church in the abstract; for one is cannot make up the notes of the Church at his own pleasure, but must derive them from the very nature of the Church, according to the institution of Christ. Thus it is necessary to first know what and how the Church of Christ is, so that by the marks thus determined, we may distinguish between the various groups that glory in the Christian name, which is the true Church – 5) Easily and by all; because the Church was instituted for all men, learned and unlearned, and is necessary to all; therefore the characters by which the Church is discerned should be such, that they can make her known even to the untaught. But observe that the demonstration of the true Church in the concrete by her marks, is the same in its substance, whether it be made for the learned or for the unlearned; for it rests entirely upon the same principles: but the way in which the demonstration is proposed, the breadth to which it is explained, the force by which it is propounded, are different according to the diversity of talents, cultures, and prejudices. Thus the simple and obvious application of the marks, which suffices for the simple and the sincere, should be proposed and argued according to a scientific method for those whose mind is preoccupied with prejudices and difficulties. …
831. From this, the function of the marks of the Church is now understood. But to make this more clear, take note – 1) in dealing with this question, we no longer consider the Church in the generic sense as the true religion, comparing it to other antichristian sects; that question was settled in the second disputation, by the marks of the true religion, which we listed in the first disputation. Here the question is between those, who now profess that the christian religion is the only true religion; and we make a comparison between congregations which, although diverse, nevertheless they all claim to be the true Church of Christ. Keeping this warning in mind, many difficulties will be avoided, as being out of place. For example, if someone objects that also in the Mohamedan religion there is unity of doctrine, therefore such unity cannot be a mark of the true Church, one could respond (leaving aside the multiplicity of sects among the Mohamedans) that not the unity of any doctrine whatsoever, but unity in the profession of the christian doctrine is a note of the Church. But the doctrine and religion of the Mohamedans is proved false by other characteristics, both intrinsic and extrinsic.
2) Nor is it necessary to analyze every single one of the heretical and schismatic sects. For many are extinct, and others are now almost extinct. … Thus it will be sufficient to consider the Roman Church, the congregations of Protestants, and the congregations of Greek Schismatics; what is said of these can easily be adapted also to others, if there are any.
…
832. But what indeed are these marks? Luther first assigned seven marks, always excluding those which are found in the Creed, and especially Apostolicity; but later, the Innovators commonly acknowledged only two: the sincere preaching of the world of God, and the legitimate use of the Sacraments. These two include Luther's first five.
833. But truly, these two marks absolutely cannot be admitted; for they lack those conditions, which are necessary to establish a mark. Indeed – 1) they are not marks proper to the true Church alone. For in very truth, they can be found in those congregations, which certainly are not the true Church of Christ: among pure schismatics can survive for a time both sincere doctrine, and the legitimate use of the Sacraments, as occurred amond the Luciferians and the Donatists after their schisms began. But according to their opinion, which we reject, any sect whatsoever will claim for itself the sincere preaching of the word of God and the sincere use of the Sacraments; thus there is need for another indication, that we may distinguish in which of them the preaching of the word of God is truly sincere, and in which it is falsely tossed about.
2) Nor are those same two marks better known to us than the Church itself. For the sincere preaching and use of the Sacraments, as our adversaries contend, is determined by their conformity to the word of God; but it is more difficult to know the true word of God, than to know the Church. For who will easily judge the authenticity of manuscripts, the fidelity of versions, the truth of interpretation, etc.? This is why the Fathers teach that the truth of doctrine is not to be judged, but by the Church.
3) Thus, by these same two marks the true Church of Christ could not be distinguished from false sects easily and by all; can it be known easily and to all what is the genuine word of God, in what version it is faithfully presented, what is its true meaning, etc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 638-41
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA638
Prop. XXXVI. 1. Unity, Holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolicity are the true marks of the Church – 2. and these being rightly applied, it is established as certain that the Roman Church is the one true Church of Christ; thus all other congregations that are outside her communion, claiming for themselves the name of Christian, are proved to not be the true Church of Christ.
836. Proof of the 1st part. I. Anything is known best and with certainty by its properties, if they are displayed exteriorly. If, for example, you have the definition of a man, and by speech or other signs you see in some individual the use of reason, you thus conclude that there is a rational soul in that individual; and seeing also his body, you rightly conclude that this individual is a man. Likewise Unity, Holiness, Catholicity, Apostolicity, as has been demonstrated, are the properties of the Church; and they are displayed exteriorly as we shall soon confirm. Thus Unity etc. are the marks, or characteristics, of the Church of Christ, by which the true Church of Christ is known with certainty.
837. II. Unity, Holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolicity fulfill all the conditions that we have said are required to constitute a mark of the Church. Thus they are true marks of the Church.
Proof of the antecedent. And – 1) they are something proper and not common; for, as is obvious from the explanation and demonstration of their meaning, they either pertain to the very essence of the Church, or at least they are her properties. – 2) Thus it follows that these same marks are permanent in the Church. – 3) They are also external and knowable. For unity of faith is manifested by the external profession of faith, which cannot be hypocrisy in the whole congregation; and the government of men must be external, just as obedience must be external. Holiness is manifested externally by the exercise of great virtues even unto a heroic degree, by wonderful fruitfulness, by miracles, which are sensible things. The Apostolic succession is also external; and since, as previously said, the Apostolic succession contains in itself adequate Apostolicity, the Apostolicity of the Church is simply visible, that is, knowable with certainty. Likewise Catholicity, both in fact and simultaneously, is something external, and we have already proved that the Church's catholicity is such. – 4) In addition, these marks are knowable easily and by all. This is clear from their very application. But, to illustrate the idea, anyone can easily understand, for example, that the Church of Christ must be one by unity of doctrine; for one cannot say that Christ taught contradictory things, or that He both taught and did not teach one and the same thing. But anyone can also easily see that in his own sect there are as many beliefs as there are men, and that there exists no sufficient principle of unity in faith; while on the contrary, in the Catholic Church the common profession of some external and infallible magisterium argues for unity of doctrine. Likewise, anyone can easily understand that the government of the Church must be Apostolic, for everyone knows that the Church was founded by Christ in the Apostles; but by the very names of various sects, the times of their founding, etc. their lack of Apostolicity is made manifest; while on the contrary, in the Catholic Church the Apostolic succession in the Roman See is conspicuous, as well as the communion of the others with it. Anyone can continue this, and the matter will be clear, if of course the previous warning is kept in mind as to the different ways of setting forth the whole demonstration as suited to different dispositions of mind … – 5) Finally, the same characteristics of Unity, etc. are better known to us than the true Church itself taken in the concrete and individually. For they, being external, strike our eyes, so to speak, first and immediately; and from these marks, supposing the knowledge of the true Church of Christ in the abstract, by reasoning we conclude that this congregation and not another is the true Church of Christ: for something that leads us to the knowledge of another thing is better known to us, than that thing itself; thus [the conclusion follows]. – Thus the Fathers always used these same marks to discern the true Church.
838. Proof of the 2nd part. I. from the Unity of the Church. And first: the Roman Church is One. Indeed it has – 1) unity of faith as to the fact; for all the faithful dispersed throughout the world have the same profession of faith, by which they believe the truths defined by the Church; the truth once authentically defined has never been retracted; indeed, in the passage of time new definitions have been issued, but by which the same ancient revelation is proposed more clearly and more explicitly. There can be disagreement among Catholics regarding some truths not yet defined by the Church, but all profess their readiness to accept her judgment; and the Church has steadfastly cast out from her bosom whoever denies even one of the certainly revealed truths. So great is the unity and stability in this same faith, in the Catholic Church, that her adversaries turn it into a vice, either because, they say, that stability is a sign of death, or because it is the enemy of progress. – The Church also has unity of faith as to the right; indeed, she recognizes an effective extrinsic principle of unity, that is, the apostolic magisterium, by which she is infallible in teaching. – 3) Indeed all her members, wherever they may be, adhere to One Head, the Roman Pontiff, in whom they acknowledge the primacy of jurisdiction in the universal Church: and thus the Roman Church has unity of government.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card. Camillo Mazzella, S.J., De Religio et Ecclesia, pp. 645-47
books.google.com/books?id=XdQQAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA645
841. IV. [Proof that the Roman Church is the one true Church of Christ] by the mark of Apostolicity. That the Roman Church is Apostolic, we have already proved. And in many ways it can easily be proved that none of the sects has Apostolicity. For – 1) The Apostolic Succession, in which all Apostolicity is contained, supposes Episcopal consecration: but Calvin was not even a priest, although he was called the Bishop of Geneva; Luther, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, as is certainly known and they themselves admitted, were never ordained as Bishops. Thus neither do they acknowledge the distinction of divine law between clerics and Laics, and the hierarchy instituted by Christ in the clerical order: which error we have refuted above. – 2) But from whom did the Innovators receive the mission itself? The Roman Church, from which they separated, according to them was no longer the true Church of Christ; for they said that in that time it had defected: thus from it, according to their own principles, they could not receive a mission. Thus, against them we rightly press the argument, which the Fathers customarily used against the ancient heresies. “Who are you,” Tertullian asked, “and when and where did you come from? Where have you been hiding for so long?” And St. Optatus: “Show the origin of your [Episcopal] chairs, you who want to claim the Holy Church for yourselves.” And St. Hilary: “This age of the world has now tardily produced these most pious Doctors for me. My faith is late to have them, for I learned it from you, teachers; not having heard of all of them, I believed you etc.” And St. Augustine: “Where has Donatus come from? From what earth did he sprout? From what sea did he emerge? From what heaven did he fall?” – 3) Thus it is nearly pointless to show that Apostolicity of doctrine is lacking to the Protestant sects; for lacking the Apostolic succession, they lack the principle by which doctrine is kept safely. Bellarmine mentions the testimony of Calvin, expressly admitting the incompatibility of his doctrine with that of antiquity, and gives a list of heresies that were condemned long before the reformation, which were revived by the Innovators. – 4) But the lack of Apostolicity in the Innovators' sects is so evident, that they invoke an extraordinary mission, which we rejected above. – 5) To deny the Apostolic succession among the Greek schismatics, it is sufficient to recall what we already said. But we add one thing to make the matter more clear: it is known that the Greek Church adhered to the Roman Church before the separation, and acknowledged in the Roman Pontiff the center of unity: thus either it was a true Church before the separation, and by the very fact that it is separated from the true center of unity, it has placed itself outside the Church of Christ by schism, and therefore it has no apostolic mission: or before the separation it was a false Church of Christ, and by the separation it began to be a true Church; and we ask, how then did it receive a mission? This has even more force with regard to the Russian Church, which separated at the end of the 17th century from the Patriarch of Constantinople, for whom, by the authority of the Emperor, a Synod was substituted, of which the Emperor himself is the chief. Who does not see, that this Church, guilty of a twofold schism, lacks an apostolic mission? Did the Emperor of Russia possess it, to be able to bestow it; or could he communicate to others that which he himself lacked? And this same thing can be adapted to the Anglican Church, if need be.
842. V. We have now outlined the demonstration of these theses, and we will complete it here with three observations, by which anyone can figure out for himself that a full demonstration of the matter follows. Thus – 1) these marks considered in themselves, as prescinding from the positive institution of Christ, constitute a motive of credibility, by which the Christian religion is shown to be divinely revealed, and the one true religion. For holiness includes miracles: unity is a true miracle in the moral order; for naturally it cannot happen that innumerable men dispersed throughout the world should submit their understanding to one visible magisterium, firmly believing all that it teaches; apostolicity and Catholicity may be reduced to the propagation and conservation of the Christian religion, which we discussed in the 2nd disputation. Thus the Vatican Council (Constitution Dei Filius, chap. 3) says: “The Church itself, by reason of its marvellous extension, its eminent holiness and its inexhaustible fruitfulness in every good thing, its Catholic unity and its invincible stability, is a great and perpetual motive of credibility, and an irrefutable witness of its own divine mission. And thus, like a standard set up unto the nations,” etc.
2) From the things thus far disputed, one clear demonstration can thus be composed: either there is now no Church of Christ, or it is the Roman Church; but one cannot say that the Church that Christ promised and willed to be indefectible, now exists no more; therefore the Roman Church is the true Church of Christ. To prove the major, take note that there is no sect in which the marks fit at least as well as in the Roman Church; she it is who at least approaches most closely to the primitive Church, which all admint to have been the Church of Christ; she alone constantly calls men to the ancient tradition, preserves the same principle of unity, and is equally jealous of unity as she is impatient of heresy and schism; she was always visible, nor can the occasion, time, place, and author of her defection be named by her adversaries. It is entirely the opposite with respect to all the other sects.
3) It being once demonstrated that the Primacy was instituted in Peter, and was to remain forever in the Roman Pontiffs, one can easily judge the Roman Church to be the true Church of Christ. For in the Roman Pontiff she has the center of unity, and consequently the apostolic succession, a principle of unity of faith, unity of government, and a principle of formal catholicity. Thus St. Cyprian rightly teaches, that an easy and brief demonstration of the true Church of Christ is contained in that Primacy.