Thomistica

What the Church Believes

 

Whether it is necessary to submit to the sovereignty of the Roman Church for the sanctification of the soul has led many to question the authenticity of the Catholic faith. The Catholic church addresses the matter thoroughly: 

 

The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.” This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope. The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered. The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff. The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council." But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter's successor. This college, in so far as it is composed of many members, is the expression of the variety and universality of the People of God; and of the unity of the flock of Christ, in so far as it is assembled under one head. (CCC 882-885)

 

The Origins of the Papacy

 

Without doubt the origins of such a structure as the magisterium are rooted in Christ but the developments which have resolved intricate difficulties have been pronounced throughout the centuries. This is without doubt where objections are raised. However, it is to be noted that the same vessel which received authority from Christ is itself infallible. Since the infallibility of the vessel, the visible church, was established at the same time the vessel itself was established, it must be said that throughout its development in later centuries, the vessel has not failed in dogmatically defining itself. Firstly, let us consider the words of Christ to Peter and then those of Christ to his apostles. When Christ refers to Peter in Matthew 16:18, the author uses the word deses which most accurately translates to “you bind” or “you might bind.” The word is in the singular, meaning it is applied to Peter uniquely in this instance. Moreover, the word is an aorist subjunctive which indicates that it refers to potential future actions. Christ is giving Peter authority not over what has already been set in motion but what will be set in motion. This is a key distinction that we must make between a stewardship sort of role and an ownership sort of role. Now, we can only call Peter an owner in virtue of the Spirit acting through him, working in unison with Christ as his representative. For Christ is the one who possesses the authority given to Peter in himself. Peter only has ownership through Christ’s delegation. There is one true owner of the Church which is Christ and Peter is an adopted co-owner. It is similar to how Christ is the natural heir of the kingdom of God and we are coheirs (Romans 8:15-17, Ephesians 1:7-12, Galatians 4:7) through adoption following our sanctification through grace. In Matthew 18:18, Christ leads into these same words but he uses desete rather than deses which has a plural application, referring to “you all” and not “you” in the singular. Now, both in Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18, when Christ uses the words “bind” and “loose,” his statement is packed with meaning. In 1st century Jewish context, binding and losing was a rabbidic privilege to prohibit and permit. This authority included things such as ordination and excommunication of leadership, the pronunciation of dogma, and it even extended to things like the establishment of religious holidays, commemorations, or necessary practices. In the Jewish encyclopedia it states that the Pharisees “who claimed the power of binding and loosing possessed and exercised the power of tying or untying a thing by the spell of their divine authority.” Quite simply put, when those who possess this authority make a judgment regarding something, it is ratified in heaven also. Christ, prior to giving his apostles this authority says that if a member of the church sins against it, and this is to include heresy, the members of the church will act as a buffer. However, if the members themselves fail to realign the individual in sin, the church itself, with its invested power of authority, is the last safeguard for the person’s soul. Because, following rejection of this authority, the individual in sin becomes a heathen, which in modern terms would be anathematization (Matthew 18:15-17). The Jewish encyclopedia reaffirms this biblical context by saying that those with the authority to bind and loose could “pronounce and revoke an anathema on a person.” To tie all of this in, we can look to Isaiah for the origin of this concept which prefigures its perfection in Christ. Elakim holds a prime minister like position in the kingdom of Judah and the Lord, through the mouth of the prophet, says that He “will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open” (v. 22). It is known that the old covenant contains like forms to what will be fully realized in their perfections in the new, through Christ. This authority can only be more extreme then in the new lest we say that Christ ushered in something less than what was prefigured. But this is not the case because Christ fulfills, not abolishes, what is prefigured (Matthew 15:17). If the role of a prime minister is to govern, appoint, and direct policy making, how much loftier is the role of Peter who is steward over a kingdom far more sublime? The government belongs to Christ, but as the Word communicates to man by uniting himself to an instrument, human nature, so it can be said that the Holy Spirit communicates to man by uniting Himself to an instrument, though not in personal identity, that being the charism of infallibility given to the college of bishops as stated in the Catechism. Christ gifts the church his seal, promising that “the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18) and that the Holy Spirit will guide its leaders “into all the truth” (John 16:13). The word that is used is “all,” not as if they would be nurtured in some truth or that they would be pointed to relative truth. It is most evident then that the fullness of truth cannot be found outside of the vessel of the church and its leaders who received such a great promise. While some truth may be found outside, its fullness cannot be found without.

 

The institution of Peter’s role in Matthew 16 follows his confession that Christ is the Son of God, to which Jesus responds, “... flesh and blood have not revealed this to you but my Father in heaven” (v. 17). It is not Peter himself but rather his profession of Christ’s divine identity which becomes the infallible rock:

 

Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church. (CCC 424)

 

And if that which is said under the influence of the Spirit is infallible by virtue of His divinity then if the rock is the profession of Peter’s faith which was revealed to him by the Spirit, consubstantial with the Father, the rock is not Peter, but a charism given to Him. Simon’s name change to “Rock” is a name given in time by Christ accidentally as grace inhering in a subject. Simon is not called by this title essentially but by virtue of a gift, a gift concomitant with binding and loosing. It is not the man Simon who bears the gift that is infallible but rather the gift itself, utilized when the Spirit works through the recipient of the gift. The name change in Peter is indicative of a permanent endowment of this gift. The accident of this particular grace is binded to the very substance of the individual receiving it. The gift is not situational such as prophesying, healing, or speaking in tongues would be. Rather, the gift is a permanent condition, or in reference to the mode of that gift, authority, it resembles an office. Contrary to strawmans, the pope possesses infallibility “by virtue of his office” (CCC 891). The Pope can err as he is human, a nature of which is subject to corruption, but he cannot err when exercising his office because the Spirit is working through him in this instance no matter the condition of his interior life. Following the institution of the Holy Eucharist, before his passion, death, and resurrection, Christ told Peter that he had “prayed for [him] that [his] own faith may not fail” and that, following his denial “when once [he had] turned back, strengthen his brothers” (Luke 22:32). His brothers, the apostles, are to be strengthened by his unfailing faith granted to him by the invocation of the man united in personhood to divinity. Thereby, the same person praying for his unfailing faith as man is the same person actualizing it as God. This means that through Christ’s prayer, this infallibility of faith is indefinitely granted to Peter. From faith proceeds true knowledge in what is unseen. The role of the Pope is to strengthen the apostles and their governance of the church as the infallible base which they can revert to, hence why Simon is called “Rock.” 

 

Expansion of Heaven to Earth

 

Now the authority is both entrusted to Peter individually and to the apostles as a whole. As the church expands and its population grows, the demands of the governing structure increase. And as a mustard seed, it makes sense that Christ’s kingdom here on Earth would expand and adapt by its nature, like a mustard seed (Matthew 13:31-32). If the kingdom of heaven is ushered in by Christ then Christ is the seed from which growth will occur. Christ is the vine and those who share Peter’s profession of faith are the branches (John 15:5). However, this profession of faith, that Christ is God’s Son, entails all that has been revealed in this mystery. Otherwise, what is meant by Son becomes relative to the interpretation and therefore includes the possibility of contradiction, which is absurd. Son has a definitive meaning. And it is ultimately delegated to the church to define what this means which is only possible if it is under the influence of the Spirit, which it is. The Spirit guides the apostles in all truth (John 16:13), and it is the apostles who establish the regulations of the church and thereby the form in which this definition is distributed to those invited to the wedding feast of heaven. Therefore, in the true church, we should expect growth rather than stagnation and we should expect an increase in dogma and doctrine as insights regarding what have been revealed are affirmed by the Spirit. What is initially the authority of Peter and the apostles develops into the bishopric office and the papacy. The development is one that is necessary. Who would be so ridiculous to say that 12 is the optimal number of leaders to govern thousands of churches in cities around the world? And so with the authority invested in them, it was wise to exercise this power to set up a lasting structure: the threefold hierarchy of bishop, priest, and deacon which we see toward the end of the lives of the apostles. And moreover, who could say that all the thousands of churches in the world can possibly be unified if they are not unified under one authority? Without ultimate authority, there remains division necessarily. There would be no tie breaker between the archbishops, even in councils. Each church would be a rogue, answering to no one. Even if we say that one church is first among equals, how then can we deny that the church which we call “first” holds primacy, making them unequal? Such a statement is contradictory. Therefore, there needed to be one church and one bishop that was sovereign over the rest so that all may be unified in practice. 

 

Primacy of Rome in the Church Fathers

 

Much of the elevation of Rome above other churches that we see in the earliest fathers greatly depends on the context. Nor do we see examples of the application of Papal Supremacy until the 4th century. However, Clement, the supposed 4th bishop of Rome, addresses a letter to Corinth in AD 96  that contains several quotes of interest for the matter at hand:

 

If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin, and, instant in prayer and supplication, shall desire that the Creator of all preserve unbroken the computed number of His elect in the whole world through His beloved Son Jesus Christ, through whom He called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to knowledge of the glory of His name, our hope resting on Your name which is primal cause of every creature… Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter. (Letter to the Corinthians, Ch. 59, 63)

 

The former quote prior to the ellipsis stresses that disobedience to “the words spoken by Him [God] through us [the Roman church]” will be broken off from “the computed number of His elect.” This quote is of significance because it is addressed to the church in Corinth, coming from another church, that in Rome. This statement would be nonsensical unless the Roman church were to also have jurisdiction in other regions. In the latter quote, posterior to the ellipsis, obedience to the words written by who Clement refers to as “us,” that being the Roman church, corresponds with their intercession for unity. 

 

In Irenaeus', Bishop of Lyons, renowned work, Against Heresies, he disproves the authenticity of the gnostic's secret knowledge by claiming that this knowledge would be contained in the churches which the apostles initially appointed bishops to preside over. To disprove councils [gnostic councils] that are convened outside of the church, Irenaeus, instead of proving the authenticity of councils by appealing to the succession of all churches, since it is “tedious” to do so, he proves it by revealing a tradition which he states was "derived from the apostles,” that all churches agree with one:

 

…it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem]. (Against Heresies, Book III, Ch. 3, sect. 2)

 

He then proceeds to cite the lineage of the Roman episcopate following Peter: Linus, Anacletus (Cletus), and Clement, Linus of which he mentions is named in Paul’s epistle to Timothy and Clement of which wrote a letter to Corinth to remove “no small dissension.” If Rome here is not superior to the other churches in authority, agreement with which unifies a church, then it at least serves as the role-model which other churches are to follow.

 

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, in AD 252, writes a letter to Pope Cornelius and makes note of the actions of a heretic group which elects their own bishop:

 

Moreover, they still dare… to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source. (Letter 54, Sect. 14)

 

What is important to note here is that Cyprian takes for granted that Rome is the source of unity of the church implying that since they write letters opposing Rome, they are disunited from the church.

 

These examples indicate that Rome holds a special place among all churches. Until this point in history it serves as the source of unity between all churches. Following this point in history, when dissension breaks out within churches, Rome becomes the deciding factor.

 

Event No. 1: The Council of Jerusalem

 

The greatest tool for weighing the evidence of this doctrine is whether it is found throughout church history as well as whether it is found in the particular form that was indoctrinated by the church in AD 1870. We will look for two elements that reinforce the form of papal infallibility found in the catechism: unrestricted, universal power to bind and loose respective to the Roman bishop and power to bind and loose only with the approval of the Roman bishop respective to bishops.

 

The first instance that we see of the deliberate use of authority in the office of Peter is at the first council convened by the church in Jerusalem,in approximately AD 50. Though at this time there is much ambiguity as to what Peter’s role is as chief pastor. The apostles and elders met together to consider what to do with the old laws instituted by Jewish rabbis, through the old covenantal authority to bind and loose. “After there had been much debate,” Peter makes a decree, ending his statement by saying, “On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, just as they will,” to which the whole assembly keeps silent (Acts 15:7, 11). The statement followed by “on the contrary” must be the definitive doctrine resulting from this council based on context for two reasons. Firstly, because Peter’s statement follows the debate, indicating that the debate concluded with Peter’s statement. Secondly, because no decisive statement follows Peter’s in the chronology of the chapter other than a specific decision to abstain from idolatry, fornication, strangles food and blood by James.  Rather, dialogue ensues regarding the miracles of Paul and Barnabas as well as how James plans to execute the statement practically as aforementioned. This is the first and only scriptural instance of Peter exercising his office. This event is a demonstration of unrestricted universal power to bind and loose via Peter’s definitive decision at the council as well as the bishop’s need for approval, since Peter’s affirmation of the decision of James, bishop of Jerusalem can be implied through Peter’s presence at the council. It may also be interpreted that James makes the final decision but this is based on Peter’s premise and nor would it negate Peter’s jurisdiction since he is present when the decision is made, given the fact that Christ gave the authority to bind and loose to the apostles and the successors whom they designated.

 

Event No. 2: Athanasius’ Deposition in the East

 

Following the institution of the Nicene Creed in 325, Arianism sprung up in the East. Athanasius was the Patriarchal bishop of Alexandria which was, at the time, one of the most prominent Christian sees. Athanasius had excommunicated Arius for his heresy which unsettled the political scene in the East. Eusebius of Nicomedia was the principal leader of an Arian faction in the East, soon to become the metropolitan bishop of Constantinople. He was also a cousin to Emperor Constantine I and so had large extra-religious political influence. In an attempt to readmit Arius, several councils/synods were convened to depose him. The first, the Council of Tyre in AD 335, accused him of murder, treason, and sacrilege. These false accusations led to his exile. The second, the Council of Antioch in AD 339, the Eastern bishops installed Gregory of Cappadocia in Athanasius’ see. Athanasius then appealed to the bishop of Rome for restoration. Pope Julius I responded by convening the Synod of Rome which exonerated Athanasius. Following this synod was the Council of Sardica in AD 343. The following doctrine resulted from this Council:

 

But if judgment have gone against a bishop in any cause, and he think that he has a good case, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it be your pleasure, honour the memory of St. Peter the Apostle, and let those who tried the case write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, and if he shall judge that the case should be retried, let that be done, and let him appoint judges; but if he shall find that the case is of such a sort that the former decision need not be disturbed, what he has decreed shall be confirmed. Is this the pleasure of all? The synod answered, It is our pleasure. It ought to be added, if it be your pleasure, to this sentence full of sanctity which you have pronounced, that — when any bishop has been deposed by the judgment of those bishops who have sees in neighbouring places, and he [the bishop deposed] shall announce that his case is to be examined in the city of Rome— that no other bishop shall in any wise be ordained to his see, after the appeal of him who is apparently deposed, unless the case shall have been determined in the judgment of the Roman bishop. (Council of Sardica, Canon 3)

 

Since Rome must have the final say in unsettled disputes, it is evident that the authority of bindinging and loosing regarding leadership relative to patriarchal and metropolitan sees must be in accord with Rome, and cannot be without it, which is meant by “unless the case shall have been determined in the judgment of the Roman bishop.”

 

Event No. 3: Pope Leo I and Anastasius

 

In AD 444, Pope Leo the Great responded to a request from Bishop Anastasius of Thessalonica regarding the election of religious authority. Pope Leo responds in his 14th Letter with several decrees, praising Anastasius for bringing the matter to him:

 

Seeing that, as my predecessors acted towards yours, so too I, following their example, have delegated my authority to you , beloved: so that you, imitating our gentleness, might assist us in the care which we owe primarily to all the churches by Divine institution, and might to a certain extent make up for our personal presence in visiting those provinces which are far off from us: for it would be easy for you by regular and well-timed inspection to tell what and in what cases you could either, by your own influence, settle or reserve for our judgment. For as it was free for you to suspend the more important matters and the harder issues while you awaited our opinion, there was no reason nor necessity for you to go out of your way to decide what was beyond your powers. For you have numerous written warnings of ours in which we have often instructed you to be temperate in all your actions: that with loving exhortations you might provoke the churches of Christ committed to you to healthy obedience. (Letter 14, II)

 

Notice that the authoritative care which the Roman Bishop, Pope Leo I, exercises is delegated to the metropolitan bishop Anastasius. “Important matters” and “harder issues” were to be forwarded to the Roman church, “reserved for their judgment” since they are “beyond [the] powers” of the archbishopric.Most importantly, Pope Leo mentions that he is following the example of his “predecessors,” plural, indicating that this method of resolution has lasted at least two generations prior, which takes us back to Celestine I in 422 but likely extends back much further. Following his introduction, Pope Leo gives several decrees issued over how bishops, priests, and deacons are to be elected in the province governed by the archbishop as well as the exchange of authority and clergy between provinces. Concerning disputes between ranks in a province, if the nature of the matter is not settled by the metropolitan bishop, it is to “be transferred to [Pope Leo I’s] jurisdiction.” The reason for the Roman office is thus such:

 

But if in that which you believed necessary to be discussed and settled with the brethren, their opinion differs from your own wishes, let all be referred to us, with the minutes of your proceedings attested, that all ambiguities may be removed, and what is pleasing to God decided. For to this end we direct all our desires and pains, that what conduces to our harmonious unity and to the protection of discipline may be marred by no dissension and neglected by no slothfulness… For the cementing of our unity cannot be firm unless we be bound by the bond of love into an inseparable solidity… And though [all in authority] have a common dignity, yet they have not uniform rank; inasmuch as even among the blessed Apostles, notwithstanding the similarity of their honourable estate, there was a certain distinction of power, and while the election of them all was equal, yet it was given to one to take the lead of the rest. From which model has arisen a distinction between bishops also, and by an important ordinance it has been provided that every one should not claim everything for himself: but that there should be in each province one whose opinion should have the priority among the brethren: and again that certain whose appointment is in the greater cities should undertake a fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter's one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head. (Letter 14, XII)

 

Since the jurisdiction “of the universal church converges towards Peter’s one seat,” his power to bind and lose is above other territories of jurisdiction, including them.

 

At this point, the authority given to Rome is manifesting itself doctrinally. An example of the insertion of this power in doctrine comes from the Canon of Sardica and the use of this doctrine is evident in Pope Leo’s words. At this point in history the office is solidified as separated from the rest. Since, following these incidents, Rome not only possesses the power of universal jurisdiction but exercises its effect, it is ultimately self-governing, answering to no one, and all churches lacking communion with it, are their own authority independent from it, a separation from the one true church must occur. Answering to no one, but rather becoming the principle operation of the Holy Spirit’s guidance, it can bind things on itself without correction. Therefore it has the power to pronounce as doctrine that which is unofficial but evident: papal infallibility. It is the case that as new challenges are presented, doctrines expounded the faith unravel throughout history. 

 

Servitude

The papacy is similar to an “inverted dictatorship” in that the modern conception of the term dictator often indicates authoritative power belonging to a sole leader. However, authority in the Catholic church is not one of power but of servitude. He who is in authority is at the service of those underneath him. For the “Son of Man came to serve not to be served” and he himself stated that “whoever so wishes to be the greatest among you must be your servant and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave” (Matthew 26-28). Or as the catechism states “Those who exercise authority should do so as a service” (CCC 2235). Pope Gregory the Great dubbed himself Servant of the Servants of God. For he who represents Christ, must represent him as Christ-like as possible. This is the duty of the Pope: to be the servant of all the servants of God. He sits atop the hierarchy of servitude and therefore all of his actions must be totally selfless and for the sake of the church which he serves. As Christ died for the church (Ephesians 5:25), so must the pope be willing to die for the church, at least to himself and his ego for the sake of upholding and emulating Christ’s example and also for the sake of properly disposing himself to the charism that he receives so that the Spirit may operate through him. If a pope lives immorally, the charism is not retracted but nor will God utilize that gift which he has implanted in him. The pope possesses nothing in himself except for that which he receives from the Lord to distribute. He is the chief distributor of the gifts presented by God. Hence why Peter is instructed to feed Christ sheep, uniquely himself, excluding the apostles (John 21:15-17). All pastors (shepherds) receive the gift which they in turn bear to others whose souls are entrusted to them (Hebrews 13:17). The pope is the captain of all pastors distributing the gift. What is the gift? The gift is that which we are thankful for (eucharista), the grace which nourishes the church and merits salvation for it through the eternal sacrifice of Christ which manifests now in our souls. The monarchy in heaven, God as head over those whom He sustains in beatitude, is imitated on Earth, the pope as head over those being sustained in sanctification. What is in heaven is immortally holy, but what is on Earth is mortally holy and therefore flawed, including the pope, who is the chief of those being sanctified, himself being sanctified with them.

​​

​

​

Article by Matthew Shuler