The Marks of Christ's Church

At a seminar, a man stood up during the question period and asked,. "What is the name of Christ's Church according to the New Testament?" "What do you mean?" was the rep y. !ur speaker thought the man was going to note that the "i# e doesn't use the term "$oman Catho ic Church." "Wou d you say the name of the Church is the Church of Christ?" "Natura y, Christ's Church cou d #e ca ed the Church of Christ since it's his Church." "We ," said the questioner, "%'m a former Catho ic. Now %'m a minister in the Church of Christ &a 'rotestant denomination(, which meets down the street. )ou can te from our name that ours must #e the Church Christ founded." Not surprising y, our speaker didn't quite know what to say, e*cept that he wasn't impressed with this ogic. +e was tempted to ask, #ut didn't, "%f we Catho ics change the name of our Church to 'the Church of Christ,' wou d you then say that ours is the Church Christ founded?" %f we can't te from the names a one which of the tens of thousands of 'rotestant denominations and sects is the one esta# ished #y Christ, how can we te ? -The ./01 edition of the we 2known 'rotestant reference work, The Christian 3ource "ook &New )ork, "a antine "ooks( reports that there are o4er 5.,666 denominations and sects22at ast count22and that 576 new ones spring up each year8. !n y #y e*amining a church's credentia s. The credentia s that the Catho ic Church has to offer are its four marks.

What is a 9ark? We need to keep in mind there are two aspects to a mark, :irst, it must #e an outward y 4isi# e sign. %f it's not, it's use ess as a means of identification. )our house num#er is usefu on y #ecause it's on the outside of your house and 4isi# e from the street. %f it were posted on a wa of the i4ing room, it wou dn't #e a sign that this is your house. %n short, a mark must #e e4ident to e4eryone. %t can't hide under the #ushe #asket -cf. 9att. ;,.;8. That's the first requirement. The second is that the mark must #e an essentia characteristic, one without which the Church cou dn't e4en e*ist as Christ's Church. 9arks of the Church don't e*ist on y as a means of identification, as does a watermark on paper, #ut must #e parts of the 4ery nature of the Church. %nfa i#i ity, which is an essentia characteristic of the Church, is not 4isi# e, so it's not a mark. 9irac es, which are 4isi# e characteristics, are not essentia , so they aren't marks either. "ut unity, ho iness, catho icity, and aposto icity are #oth 4isi# e and essentia , and they're the four marks of the Church.

+ow Not to <iscuss 9arks "efore we go further, et's keep in mind the wrong method of discussing the marks. This kind of sy ogism is no good at a , "%f =od founded a Church, it wou d ha4e to #e one, ho y, catho ic, and aposto ic. %n fact, the Catho ic Church is one, ho y, catho ic, and aposto ic. Therefore, it's the Church Christ founded." :irst, it isn't e4ident from the mere stating that the Church wou d ha4e to ha4e these four characteristics. 3econd, this sy ogism doesn't pro4e that some other church cou dn't share them. The most it pro4es is that if Christ founded a Church, and if that Church sti e*ists, and if no other church has these four marks, then the Catho ic Church is that Church.

A #etter, #ut sti inadequate, argument is this, "!ur >ord said his Church wou d #e one, ho y, catho ic, and aposto ic. The Catho ic Church is precise y that, so it must #e his Church." The pro# em here is that you'd find yourse f #ickering o4er e4ery scriptura passage you #ring forward as proof, "Where does Christ say the Church must #e 'one,' or 'ho y,' or 'catho ic' &a word not used in the New Testament for the Church(, or 'aposto ic' &another a#sent word(?" "esides, this kind of argument can appea to Christians on y. The Church's task, though, is to con4ert a men, so the marks must #e a# e to con4ince e4en non2Christians.

+ow To $eason :rom the 9arks A though we'4e identified the marks, we sti ha4en't identified the method to #e used to discuss them. The right method of argumentation is this, "egin with the Catho ic Church as a fact. %t e*ists, after a , as e4en its most 4iru ent opponents acknow edge. -%f it didn't e*ist, they wou dn't #other opposing it, right?8 Then take the four marks as facts which are known -or knowa# e8 #y a , e4en if they aren't fu y -or sometimes at a 8 rea i?ed #y indi4idua s. 3how what these marks pro4e. :irst, descri#e the marks as graphica y as possi# e. %t isn't enough @ust to gi4e their names. That won't con4ince anyone. When you ta k to a non2Catho ic a#out the unity or catho icity of the Church, gi4e him a menta picture of what you mean. =i4e concrete e*amp es so he can #egin to understand what you're ta king a#out. <o the same kind of thing for ho iness. We're not ta king here a#out peering into men's consciences. )ou can't do that, and it's not required anyhow. Ta k a#out the ho y doctrine of the Church -it's tough, demanding, and higher than that of other churches22take +umanae Aitae as an e*amp e of heights to which other churches don't e4en aspireB this papa encyc ica e*p ains why we're ca ed to a higher mora ity that inc udes not using contraception8, a#out the Church ha4ing the means of ho iness -the sacraments8, and a#out the saints -on y in the Church is found a p enitude of e*treme ho iness8.

Aposto icity When you come to aposto icity, use the historica y un#roken descent of the Catho ic Church and use $ome as the centra peg. % ustrate the missionary work of the Church -in a ages, not @ust since the nineteenth century, as with 'rotestant churches8. %f you ha4e descri#ed the marks we , there won't #e any question a#out their e*istence. Then you ha4e to show what their e*istence pro4es.

9iracu ous Cnity >ook again at unity and catho icity, which can #e considered together. The key here is mirac es, #ecause these marks are mirac es. They can't #e accounted for any other way. The Church has #een unified throughout the centuries, teaching one doctrine. True, indi4idua s Christians ha4e ost that unity, going this way and that, sometimes doing so corporate y in the form of sects that sp it off from the Church. "ut the Church itse f has a ways remained one, no matter how many ha4e eft its unity. -3ide note, %t's proper to pray for the unity of Christians, #ut not for the unity of the Catho ic Church. The Church a ways has #een unified22that is, one. To pray for its unity, as though it were #roken into se4era #ranches, is, strict y speaking, heretica . To pray for the unity of Christian churches22which u timate y means their reunion with the a ready2unified Catho ic Church22is perfect y proper.8

Why <idn't %t <isappear? The catho icity of the Church is something that is natura y ine*p ica# e. <uring nineteen centuries, if the Catho ic Church hadn't #een protected miracu ous y #y =od, it shou d ha4e fa en apart, disappeared e4en, any num#er of times. %t shou d ha4e #een stopped #efore it cou d spread far -cf. Acts ;,DE2D/8. )ou can't account for its duration and e*tent #y pointing to po itica y c e4er popes, for the simp e reason that many popes ha4e #een, po itica y speaking, dum#. When speaking with a non2Catho ic, make him see how superhuman the unity and catho icity of the Church must #e. -%f he is a 'rotestant, remind him of 9atthew .1,./, 9atthew 50,56, and Fohn .E,.1.8

An Cn#roken Chain Now turn to aposto icity. This shows that today's Church is one with the Church of the apost es. Trace aposto ic succession #ackwards to gi4e your istener an idea of what it is22and what it isn't. %t isn't necessary to #e a# e to trace e4ery #ishop's consecration #ack to the apost es. )ou don't need to produce something ike a f ow chart or corporate organi?ation out ine. What is needed is a mora certainty, which is shown in part #y gaps #eing fi ed in, in part #y the a#sence of counter4ai ing information. -:or instance, if "ishop " wasn't a egitimate successor to "ishop A, where are the records of comp aint?8 Cn ike the other marks, aposto icity wi appea main y to other Christians.

What +o iness 3uggests The ast mark you wi turn to wi #e ho iness. <emonstrate that the outward y manifested ho iness of its mem#ers argues to the inward ho iness of the Church, that the Church is the source of a ho iness. Note that you wi ha4e made no use of the New Testament so far, for the 4ery good reason that the Church e*isted #efore any part of the New Testament was written, and so did the marks of the Church. The marks aren't dependent on the New Testament, and they can't #e pro4ed from it, though they can #e demonstrated from it. A though the marks themse 4es wi #e sufficient proof for the atheist, with ""i# e Christians" it may #e usefu , as a concession, to end with scriptura references, #ut ne4er shou d you #egin with them. %f you do, you' end up squa## ing a#out the meaning of each te*t22something that can #e a4oided if the meaning of the marks is first made c ear. 222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222

G'icture, $HTC$NI

$eturn to Topica Tract 'age

G'icture, $HTC$NI

$eturn to Catho ic Answers +ome 'age J .//1 Catho ic Answers, %nc. This te*t may #e down oaded or printed out for pri4ate reading, #ut it may not #e up oaded to another %nternet site or pu# ished, e ectronica y or otherwise, without e*press written permission from the copyright ho der. >ast modified 9ay 5;, .//1.