Theology of St. Thomas: The Dogmatic Authority of the Pope

Somehow I missed this while reading the Summa Theologiae a few years ago. A cordial tip of the hat to Bryan Cross for pointing it out.

Who has authority to convoke a general council? The Pope.

The symbol [i.e., the Creed – RdP] was drawn up by a general council. Now such a council cannot be convoked otherwise than by the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, as stated in the Decretals [Dist. xvii, Can. 4,5]. [ST, II-II, Q1, A10; emphasis added]

Who has authority to draw up a symbol? The Pope. Why? Because he alone has authority to convoke a general council, such as the one that drew up the Creed. But if he alone has that authority, then:

Therefore it belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to draw up a symbol. [Ibid.]

Why would the creed need to be revised?

[A] new edition of the symbol becomes necessary in order to set aside the errors that may arise. [Ibid.]

But if this is necessary in order to eradicate error, then it seems that such a revision must have sufficient authority so as to preserve the faith. Hence St. Thomas writes:

Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, “to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred,” as stated in the Decretals [Dist. xvii, Can. 5].

In other words then, the Pope has the authority to rule in regard to matters of faith, specifically so that the faithful may believe them “with unshaken faith.” But this implies that these matters are decided not just with final authority but also infallibly, else the faithful would have no basis in his decisions for holding an “unshaken faith.”

Some might mistake St. Thomas’ appeal to the Decretals as suggesting that this authority was merely held canonically—i.e., by human law—and not by virtue of any divine vesting of authority in the papal office. But he goes on to say immediately afterwards:

Hence our Lord said to Peter whom he made Sovereign Pontiff (Luke 22:32): “I have prayed for thee,” Peter, “that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”

In other words, this authority of the Pope ultimately derives from the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave it to St. Peter. Obviously this authority must descend to his successors, in St. Thomas’ view; hence the doctrine of apostolic succession is unambiguously in view here as well.

What theological necessity is there for this?

The reason of this is that there should be but one faith of the whole Church, according to 1 Corinthians 1:10: “That you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you:” and this could not be secured unless any question of faith that may arise be decided by him who presides over the whole Church, so that the whole Church may hold firmly to his decision. Consequently it belongs to the sole authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to publish a new edition of the symbol, as do all other matters which concern the whole Church, such as to convoke a general council and so forth.

The Pope’s authority is given, says St. Thomas, for the sake of the unity of faith of the Church. This unity would be impossible if the Pope, St. Peter’s successor, lacked this authority.

The answers St. Thomas gives to objections in this article are likewise very instructive. To the claim that no further specification of the articles of faith is needed, he says:

The truth of faith is sufficiently explicit in the teaching of Christ and the apostles. But since, according to 2 Peter 3:16, some men are so evil-minded as to pervert the apostolic teaching and other doctrines and Scriptures to their own destruction, it was necessary as time went on to express the faith more explicitly against the errors which arose.

So the articles of the faith grow not because there are new truths, but rather because new errors arise that must be refuted, for the sake of the preserving the unity of faith of the Church (as we saw above).

In response to the claim that the Council of Ephesus’ prohibition against any Creed than that of Nicaea likewise binds the Pope, he says:

This prohibition and sentence of the council was intended for private individuals, who have no business to decide matters of faith: for this decision of the general council did not take away from a subsequent council the power of drawing up a new edition of the symbol, containing not indeed a new faith, but the same faith with greater explicitness. For every council has taken into account that a subsequent council would expound matters more fully than the preceding council, if this became necessary through some heresy arising. Consequently this belongs to the Sovereign Pontiff, by whose authority the council is convoked, and its decision confirmed.

The Council of Ephesus, he says, had no intention of preventing the Pope from exercising his authority to draw up a new symbol, since this would only be done for the sake of clarifying the Faith in the event of new errors.

In response to the objection that the example of Athanasius’ declaration of faith implied that any bishop could act similarly (rather than only the Pope), St. Thomas says this:

Athanasius drew up a declaration of faith, not under the form of a symbol, but rather by way of an exposition of doctrine, as appears from his way of speaking. But since it contained briefly the whole truth of faith, it was accepted by the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, so as to be considered as a rule of faith.

In other words, it was the Pope’s ratification of the creed of Athanasius that validated it; its authority for the whole Church would not otherwise stand.

The Catholic Church has a visible head in order to maintain the unity of the faithful. The Pope has authority from the Lord Jesus Christ to exercise this office.

Object Lesson - Do Not Trust The Media

There is a simple rule of thumb when dealing with media reports: do not trust them. Alternatively, we should resort to Reagan's maxim with regard to the Soviet Union: "Trust, but verify."

Unfortunately TF has apparently stumbled on this by taking a media report at face value. He has written a post based upon an article appearing on the "Indian Catholic" website. That article claimed that Pope Benedict had used quotations from Hindu sources in what TF called Benedict's "'Good Friday' meditations."

Trust, but verify: I checked the papal archive at the Vatican website, but could find nothing that sounded even remotely like this. This seemed strange, since documents for Easter (two days later) are already there. So I resorted to the next best thing for this sort of information: Zenit. Ta da!

Here is Zenit's article on the occasion (oh, and here is the official program for it - in Italian [large PDF warning] - which I was finally able to dig up). And as you can see (if you visit the Zenit link), the Indian Catholic article on which TF relied seems to have been confused. First of all, the occasion wasn't "Good Friday Meditations and Prayers." It was the Stations of the Cross, or Via Crucis. Secondly, the article says that the Pope "led" these things, but that's imprecise with respect to the present subject. Yes, he presided, but (as we shall see) that doesn't mean that he was responsible for the content of all that was said.

Thirdly and most importantly, the meditations for the various stations were composed not by the Pope, but rather (as the Zenit article makes clear) by Archbishop Thomas Menamparampil of Guwahati, India. Furthermore, as the program makes clear (even this much is obvious without being able to read Italian), and as is borne out by the Zenit translation, the Pope didn't even read the various meditations during the Stations; rather, they were (presumably) read by the archbishop himself. In any case they could not have been read by the Pope, since the meditation for the First Station includes the following:

Pope Benedict XVI says that even in our times "the Church does not lack martyrs."

Since the Pope isn't exactly notorious for third-person references to himself, we may safely conclude that he did not read the meditations. So we see that the Pope didn't write the meditations in question, and he didn't read them during the Stations.

Of course, this pretty much makes a hash out of TF's remarks, which were based on bad information. It's fair to say, though, that his comments were relatively measured, particularly in comparison to those whose comments he has thus far approved for the post. TF asked:

Will we see clarification from the Vatican? I am guessing not.

Will we see clarification from TF? I am more hopeful about him than - for whatever reason - he seems to be about the Vatican. But time will tell. In any case, the Vatican has nothing to "clarify," as far as I can tell.

No doubt some will still find reason to criticize the Pope over this, despite the fact that he wasn't the author of the material in question. Some people will never be satisfied with what Catholics do or say, just because we are Catholic, and the Pope gets more of that unjust treatment because of his office. So I'm not going to bother trying to defend everything that appears in the meditations and prayers in question. I will, though, point out that the reference to Gandhi was actually highlighting the fact that Gandhi borrowed from Christ (scandal!). TF also seems to have found a particular quotation from a Hindu writing ("Lead me from the unreal to the real, from darkness to light, from death to immortality") to be suspicious, but in the context of the Stations it is clear that it was presented not by way of "plundering or joining" the Philistines (as TF put it), but rather was explicitly described as an ancient Indian prayer, in a portion of a meditation devoted to various human reactions to death and tragedy. That meditation goes on to explicitly declare "that the reality is Christ" (emphasis in original) - a rather unambiguous Christian reply to that ancient prayer.

Lastly, as TF understands, all truth is God's truth. There can be no contradiction between truths, and surely it goes without saying that truth may be found in every culture - whether Christian or not. There may not be much to be found sometimes - so far as we can tell - but it's not possible to survive in this world while at the same time denying literally all truth. And there is nothing wrong with "plundering" that truth, as TF put it, or with commending those who hold it for the fact that they do so.

Ironically (given certain folks' remarks about the story TF posted), the prayer immediately following the reference to Gandhi started with this:

Lord, often we judge others in haste, indifferent to actual realities and insensitive to people's feelings! We develop stratagems of self-justification and explain away the irresponsible manner in which we have dealt with "the other." Forgive us!

Amen. Lord, have mercy. Pray for us, holy Mother of God, that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

Philosophy of St. Thomas - Argument for the Papacy

The Summa Contra Gentiles is a defense of the Faith intended for unbelievers. As such, St. Thomas doesn't make appeals to what can only be known by the virtue of faith; instead, he proceeds by way of argument.

There is an important sense in which SCG can only be understood as a single extended argument: that is, St. Thomas builds from what he has already said in drawing new conclusions, and he continues this course throughout the length of the book. Ultimately, you don't get to his final conclusions in book IV apart from what he said at the outset in book I. The upshot of this is that in some respects it can be difficult to extract a portion of his argument for separate consideration: what he is about to demonstrate is dependent upon what has already been said.

So it is, to a fair extent, with what St. Thomas has to say about the episcopacy and the papacy. It depends on what he has already shown in previous sections on the sacrament of Orders. It's somewhat difficult to just jump in. But I think what he has to say about the papacy in IV, 76 is sufficiently interesting that it's worth making the effort. By way of laying the groundwork, then, one can look more closely at what Aquinas says beginning with chapter 55 (on the suitability of the Incarnation) and chapters 56-73 (on the sacraments other than Orders), and arrive at 74, where he says:

It is, of course, clear from what has been said that in all the sacraments dealt with a spiritual grace is conferred in a mystery of visible things. But every action ought to be proportioned to its agent. Therefore, the sacraments mentioned must be dispensed by visible men who have spiritual power. For angels are not competent to dispense the sacraments; this belongs to men clothed in visible flesh [section 1].

In other words, just as the other sacraments confer grace through visible things, they must be dispensed by visible men (rather than invisibly, as by an angel or something). But this requires that these men be equipped and ordered to do so. And since Christ himself would not be on earth to fulfill this task,

it was necessary that Christ should establish other ministers in His place who would dispense the sacraments to the faithful; in the Apostle’s words: “Let a man so account of us as ministers of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor. 4:1). And so He committed the consecration of His body and blood to the disciples, saying: “Do this in commemoration of Me” (Luke 2:19); the same received the power of forgiving sins, in the words of John (20:2.3): “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them”; the same also were given the duty of teaching and baptizing, when He said: “Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them” (Mat. 28:19). But a minister is compared to his lord as an instrument to its principal agent, for, as an instrument is moved by the agent for making something, so the minister is moved by his lord’s command to accomplish something. Of course, the instrument must be proportionate to the agent. Hence, the ministers of Christ must be in conformity with Him. But Christ, as the Lord, by His very own authority and power wrought our salvation, in that He was God and man: so far as He was man, in order to suffer for our redemption; and, so far as He was God, to make His suffering salutary for us. Therefore, the ministers of Christ must not only be men, but must participate somehow in His divinity through some spiritual power, for an instrument shares in the power of its principal agent. Now, it is this power that the Apostle calls “the power which the Lord bath given me unto edification and not unto destruction” (2 Cor. 13:10) [chapter 74, section 2].

And it was not enough for the apostles to be granted this authority:

One must not say, of course, that power of this sort was given by Christ to His disciples in such a way as not to flow on through them to others; it was given “for building up the Church,” in the Apostle’s phrase. So long, then, must this power be perpetuated as it is necessary to build up the Church. But this is necessary from the death of the disciples of Christ to the very end of the world. Therefore, the spiritual power was given to the disciples of Christ so as to pass on from them to others [ibid., section 3].

Hopefully this is enough groundwork for us to move on to chapter 76 of book IV, where St. Thomas begins:

Now, the bestowal of all of these orders accompanies some sacrament, as was said, and the sacraments of the Church require some ministers for their dispensing; there must, therefore, be a superior power in the Church with a higher ministry which dispenses the sacrament of orders. And this is the episcopal power, which, although it does not exceed the power of the priest in the consecration of the body of Christ, does exceed the priestly power in what touches the faithful. For the priestly power itself flows from the episcopal power, and anything particularly difficult to be performed for the faithful is reserved to the bishops; by their authority, even priests are empowered to do that which is committed to them to be done. Hence, even in the tasks which priests perform they employ things consecrated by bishops; thus, in the Eucharistic consecration they use a chalice, an altar, and a pall consecrated by the bishop. Clearly, then, the chief direction of the faithful belongs to the dignity of the bishops [section 1].

But it is not enough for us to have bishops. Bishops are the pastors of specific churches in specific places. But if this is our situation, then we necessarily have an obstacle to unity: because bishop may disagree with bishop.

Aquinas says that this is not our situation.

[2] But this, too, is clear: Although people are set apart according to differing dioceses and states, yet, as the Church is one, so must the Christian people be one. Therefore, as for the specific congregation of one Church one bishop is called for who is the head of that Church; so for the entire Christian people there must be one who is head of the entire Church.

[3] Then, too, the unity of the Church requires that all the faithful agree as to the faith. But about matters of faith it happens that questions arise. A diversity of pronouncements, of course, would divide the Church, if it were not preserved in unity by the pronouncement of one. Therefore, the unity of the Church demands that there be one who is at the head of the entire Church. But, manifestly, in its necessities Christ has not failed the Church which He loved and for which He shed His blood, since even of the synagogue the Lord says: ‘What is there that I ought to do more to My vineyard that I have not done to it?” (Isa. 5:4). Therefore, one must not doubt that by Christ’s ordering there is one who is at the head of the entire Church.

[4] No one should doubt, furthermore, that the government of the Church has been established in the best way, since He has disposed it by whom “kings reign, and lawmakers decree just things” (Prov. 8:15). But the best government of a multitude is rule by one, and this is clear from the purpose of government, which is peace; for peace and the unity of his subjects are the purpose of the one who rules, and one is a better constituted cause of unity than many. Clearly, then, the government of the Church has been so disposed that one is at the head of the entire Church.

Well, what if someone suggests that Christ is the head of the entire Church? Yes, he is, but more must be said.

[7] But let one say that the one head and one shepherd is Christ, who is one spouse of one Church; his answer does not suffice. For, clearly, Christ Himself perfects all the sacraments of th Church: it is He who baptizes; it is He who forgives sins; it is He, the true priest, who offered Himself on the altar of the cross, and by whose power His body is daily consecrated on the altar—nevertheless, because He was not going to be with all the faithful in bodily presence, He chose ministers to dispense the things just mentioned to the faithful, as was said above. By the same reasoning, then, when He was going to withdraw His bodily presence from the Church, He had to commit it to one who would in His place have the care of the universal Church. Hence it is that He said to Peter before His ascension: “Feed My sheep” (John 21:17); and before His passion: “You being once converted confirm your brethren” (Luke 22:32); and to him alone did He promise: “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Mat. 16:19), in order to show that the power of the keys was to flow through him to others to preserve the unity of the Church.
[8] But it cannot be said that, although He gave Peter this dignity, it does not flow on to others. For, clearly, Christ established the Church so that it was to endure to the end of the world; in the words of Isaiah (9:7): “He shall sit upon the throne of David and upon His kingdom to establish and strengthen it with judgment and with justice from henceforth and forever.” It is clear that He so established therein those who were then in the ministry that their power was to be passed on to others even to the end of time; especially so, since He Himself says: “Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world” (Mat. 28:20).
[9] By this, of course, we exclude the presumptuous error of some who attempt to withdraw themselves from the obedience and the rule of Peter by not recognizing in his successor, the Roman Pontiff, the pastor of the universal Church.

The answer does not suffice precisely because the sacraments must be administered visibly, and we must have a visible Church with visible Orders and a visible head. It is not that Christ is not the Head of the Church; of course he is. But the Pope remains the visible head, and serves as Christ's vicar.