Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/55

 DISCIPLINE

31

DISCIPLINE

Church is a phase, a practical application, of its power of jurisdiction, and includes the various forms of the latter, namely, legislative, administrative, judicial, and coercive power. As for the power of order (potestas ordinis), it is the basis of liturgical discipline by which its exercise is regulated. For the proof that the Church is a society and that, as such, it necessarily has the power of jurisdiction which it derives from Divine institution through the Apostolic succession, see Church. Disciplinary power is proved by the very fact of its exercise ; it is an organic necessity in every society whose members it guides to their end by provid- ing them with rules of action. Historically it can be shown that a disciplinary power has been exercised by the Church uninterruptedly, first by the Apostles and then by their successors. The Apostles in the first council at Jerusalem formulated rules for the conduct of the faithful (Acts, xv). St. Paul gave moral advice to the Christians of Corinth on virginity, marriage, and the agape (I Cor., vii, xi). The Pastoral Epistles of St. Paul are a veritable code of clerical discipline. The Church, moreover, has never ceased to represent her- self as charged by Christ with the guidance of mankind in the way of eternal salvation. The Council of Trent expressly affirms the disciplinary power of the Church in all that concerns liturgical discipline and Divine worship (Sess. XXI, c. ii): "In the administration of the sacraments, the substance of the latter remaining intact, the Church has always had power to establish or to modify whatever she considered most expedient for the utility of those who receive them, or best calcu- lated to ensure respect for the sacraments themselves according to the various circumstances of time and place. " In fact, we need only to recall the numerous laws enacted by the Church in the course of centuries for the maintenance, development, or restoration of the moral and spiritual life of Christians.

IV. Mutability of Discipline. — That ecclesiasti- cal discipline should be subject to change is natural since it was made for men and by men. To claim that it is immutable would render the attainment of its end utterly impossible, since, in order to form and direct Christians, it must adapt itself to the variable circum- stances of time and place, conditions of life, customs of peoples and races, being, in a certain sense, like St. Paul, all things to all men. Nevertheless, neither the actual changes nor the possibility of further alteration must be exaggerated. There is no change in those disciplinary measures through which the Church sets before the faithful and confirms the natural and the Divine law, nor in those strictly disciplinary regula- tions that are closely related to the natural or Divine law. Other disciplinary rules may and must be modi- fied in proportion as they seem less efficacious for the social or individual welfare. Thomassin aptly says [Vetus et nova Ecclesiae disciplina (ed. Lyons, 1706), [ireface, n. xvii]: "Whoever has the least idea of ec- clesiastical laws, those that concern government as well as those that regulate morals, knows well that they are of two kinds. Some represent immutable rules of eternal truth, itself the fundamental law, the source and origin of these laws, from the observance of which there is no dispensation, against which no prescription obtains, and which are not modified either by diver- sity of custom or vicissitudes of time. Other ecclesias- tical rules and customs are by nature temporary, in- different in themselves, more or less authoritative, useful, or necessary according to circumstances of time and place, having been established only to facili- tate the observance of the fundamental and eternal law." As to the variations of discipline concerning these secondary laws, the same author describes them in these terms (loc. cit., n. xv): "While the Faith of the Church remains the same in all ages, it is not so with her discipline. This changes with time, grows old with the years, is rejuvenated, is subject to growth and decay. Though in its early days admirably vig-

orous, with time defects crept in. Later it over- came these defects and although along some lines its usefulness increased, in other ways its first splendour waned. That in its old age it languishes is evident from the leniency and indulgence which now seem ab- solutely necessary. However, all things fairly consid- ered, it will appear that old age and youth have each their defects and good qualities. " Were it necessary to exemplify the mutability of ecclesiastical discipline it would be perplexing indeed to make a choice. The ancient catechumenate exists only in a few rites ; the Latin Church no longer gives Communion to the laity under two kinds ; the discipline relating to penance and indulgences has undergone a profound evolution ; matrimonial law is still subject to modifications; fast- ing is not what it formerly was ; the use of censures in penal law is but the .shadow of what it was in the Mid- dle Ages. Many other examples will easily occur to the mind of the well-informed reader.

V. Disciplinary Infallibility. — What connexion is there between the discipline of the Church and her infallibility? Is there a certain disciplinary infallibil- ity? It does not appear that the question was ever discussed in the past by theologians unless apropos of the canonization of saints and the approbation of re- ligious orders. It has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church (De Ecclesia). The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general disci- pline, i. e. the common laws imposed on all the faith- ful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would ex- act. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and can- not impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching. It is quite permissible, however, to inquire how far this infallibility extends, and to what extent, in her disciplinary activity, the Church makes use of the privilege of inerrancy granted her by Jesus Christ when she defines matters of faith and morals. Infallibility is directly related to the teaching office (magisterium), and although this office and the disciplin- ary power reside in the same ecclesiastical authorities, the disciplinary power does not necessarily depend di- rectly on the teaching office. Teaching pertains to the order of truth; legislation to that of justice and prudence. Doubtless, in last analysis all ecclesiasti- cal laws are based on certain fundamental truths, but as laws their purpose is neither to confirm nor to con- demn these truths. It does not seem, therefore, that the Church needs any special privilege of infallibility to prevent her from enacting laws contradictory of her doctrine. To claim that disciplinary infallibility con- sists in regulating, without possibility of error, the adaptation of a general law to its end, is equivalent to the assertion of a (quite unnecessary) positive infalli- bility, which the incessant abrogation of laws would belie and which would be to the Church a burden and a hindrance rather than an advantage, since it would suppose each law to be the best. Moreover, it would make the application of laws to their end the object of a positive judgment of the Church; this would not only be useless but would become a perpetual obstacle to disciplinary reform.

From the disciplinary infallibility of the Church, correctly understood as an indirect consequence of her doctrinal infallibility, it follows that she cannot be rightly accused of introducing into her discipline any- thing opposed to the Divine law; the most remarkable instance of this being the suppression of the chalice in the Communion of the laity. This has often been vio- lently attacked as contrary to the Gospel. Concern- ing it the Council of Constance (1415) declared (Sess. XlII): "The claim that it is sacrilegious or illicit to observe this custom or law [Communion under one