Commentaria in Summam contra Gentiles, Liber IV

Having enumerated all the orders directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist, St. Thomas wishes to determine concerning the power through which orders of this kind are dispensed, which is called episcopal power¹.

I. And he posits two conclusions². The first of these is: It is necessary that there be an episcopal power in the Church. It is proved. The collation of all the said orders is accomplished with a certain sacrament, as was said above. Therefore it is necessary that there be some superior power of a higher ministry in the Church to dispense the orders. But this is the episcopal power. Therefore etc. — The first consequence is proved. Because the sacraments of the Church are to be dispensed by certain ministers of the Church.

2. If it is said that the episcopal power does not exceed the priestly power: St. Thomas answers that, although it does not exceed it with respect to the consecration of the body of Christ, it nevertheless exceeds it in those things that pertain to the faithful; and to him belongs the supreme governance of the faithful people. Which is clear both because the priestly power is derived from the episcopal; and whatever arduous matter must be dealt with regarding the faithful people is reserved to bishops, by whose authority priests also are able to do that which is committed to them to be done. — And also because even in those things which priests do, they use things consecrated by the bishop, such as the chalice, altar, and palls, in the consecration of the Eucharist.

3. For the clarity of the argument adduced for the conclusion, it must be considered, from the doctrine of St. Thomas, Prima, q. 104³, and from what was said above⁴, that what is contained under some species cannot be primarily and per se the cause of that species inasmuch as it is such. For Socrates, who is contained under the human species, cannot be primarily and per se the cause of man inasmuch as he is man: because then he would be the cause of himself; for that which is primarily and per se the cause of something inasmuch as it is such, is the cause of it wherever it is found according to the same ratio. Likewise, such a thing as is per se primarily the cause of something cannot be of an inferior order to it, since a primarily and per se acting cause is not more ignoble than its effect. Therefore it is necessary that it be of some superior order. From which it follows that, where something is found to be primarily and per se the cause of all things participating in one ratio, it must be that it is of some superior order above those things that participate in that ratio.

According to this foundation, therefore, the reasoning of St. Thomas proceeds. For because all the orders directed to consecrating the Eucharist are conferred with a certain sacrament, St. Thomas infers not only that it is necessary that there be some power by which orders of this kind are dispensed, but also that that power which we call episcopal must be a power of some superior order and ministry, as being per se the cause of all those sacraments.

II. But a doubt arises from these points. For it seems to follow from this reasoning of St. Thomas that the episcopal power, through which orders are dispensed, is a sacrament; and since it cannot be reduced to any other sacrament than to the sacrament of Order, it follows that the episcopate is an order that is a sacrament; the opposite of which St. Thomas holds in the Fourth Book, d. 24⁵. — That this follows, moreover, is clear because it was said in the preceding⁶ that the power of dispensing sacraments belongs to a sacrament, since it is handed down to men under certain sensible signs. Therefore, by the same reasoning, since the episcopal power is handed down under certain sensible signs, as is clear in the consecration of a bishop; if it is a power of dispensing sacraments distinct from the priestly power, it follows that it belongs to the sacrament of order; and thus the episcopate will be a sacrament.

2. For the clarity of this, it must be considered, from the doctrine of St. Thomas in the place cited above⁷, that it is one thing to say that the episcopate, as distinguished from the priesthood, is an order, and another that it is the sacrament of Order. For the name of order is said both of Order which is a sacrament, and of a certain office with respect to whatever sacred actions. For in the second way the episcopate is an order, because it has power in the said actions with respect to the mystical body. But in the first way it is not an order. Because the sacrament of Order is ordered to the sacrament of the Eucharist according as it is actually accomplished: either, namely, to prepare something pertaining to it, like the inferior orders; or to consecrate it, as the priestly order. But the episcopate, although it is ordered to the collation of orders directed to the Eucharist, is nevertheless not ordered to the Eucharist itself as it is actually accomplished.

3. To the doubt, therefore, it is denied that that follows from the reasoning of St. Thomas.

To the proof it is said, according to the mind of St. Thomas in the place cited above, q. 3, a. 2, qu^a 2, that not every power of dispensing sacraments handed down under sensible signs is the sacrament of Order; but that which is specially and directly ordered either to actually consecrating the sacrament of the Eucharist, or to the actual ministry around the actual consecration of the Eucharist; and is a character configuring to Christ contained in the Eucharist. But the spiritual power given to a bishop in his promotion with respect to certain sacraments is not a character; nor is it immediately and directly ordered to the true body of Christ, according as it is actually consecrated, but to the mystical body of Christ, namely to confirming and ordaining and blessing the faithful, and the like. Therefore the reasoning does not follow.

4. If, however, it is urged that a sacrament is a visible form of invisible grace, etc., and this seems to belong to the episcopate, since in it grace is conferred through sensible signs, and thus it seems that it is some sacrament, granted that it is not the sacrament of Order: it can be said that, although grace is conferred in the collation of episcopal power, it is not, however, as through a cause acting instrumentally by a power existing in it, which is of the ratio of a sacrament; but as from a disposition and a cause sine qua non.

III. Concerning that which was said, that the episcopal power exceeds the priestly in those things that pertain to the faithful, but not as to the consecration of the body of Christ, it must be considered that a twofold act is attributed to the priestly power: namely, to consecrate the body of Christ, and to prepare the people for the reception of the Eucharist through absolution from sins; and thus one act of the priest is concerning the true body of Christ, but the other is concerning the mystical body, or over the faithful. The intention of St. Thomas, therefore, is that the episcopal power is not superior to the priestly power with respect to the first act, nor more excellent; but it certainly is with respect to the second act. For, as is said in the Fourth Book,⁸ as to the first act, the priestly power does not depend on any other higher power than the divine; whence a priest can consecrate any matter determined by Christ, nor is anything else required of the necessity of the sacrament. But certainly, as to the second act, it depends on some higher power, even human. Whence a priest cannot absolve anyone from sins, unless he receives jurisdiction over him from some superior, as was said above⁹.

2. But then a doubt occurs. For it was said in this chapter that it is necessary that there be some superior power by which orders are dispensed, which is the episcopal power, and that the priestly power depends on this. Therefore, since the priestly order is principally ordered to the consecration of the body of Christ, the episcopal power is superior to the priestly as to the act which is concerning the true body of Christ.

It is said that that consequence does not hold. For it is one thing to speak of the execution of the priestly act, which is to consecrate the body of Christ, and another of the reception of the priestly power, by which one has an order to that act. For through the reception of such power a man has an order to the mystical body of Christ, of which he is a part: for he would not be receptive of such power unless he were part of the Christian people. But through the execution of the priestly act around the consecration of the Eucharist, he has an order to the true body of Christ. Whence from the fact that the episcopal power is superior to the priestly order—which is principally ordered to the act concerning the true body of Christ—as being dispensative of such an order, it follows that it is superior to it as to the act concerning the mystical body of Christ, inasmuch as the bishop not only can absolve, and exercise other acts concerning the faithful which a simple priest also can, but also has the power to confer the priestly order itself; but not as to the act which is exercised immediately concerning the true body of Christ, because neither does such an act of a simple priest depend on episcopal power as to its execution, nor can the bishop do anything concerning the act of consecrating the Eucharist, as to those things which are of the necessity of the sacrament, that a simple priest cannot do.

2. It must be considered further, as is of the mind of St. Thomas, in the Fourth Book, the above-mentioned distinction, q. 3, a. 2, quª 2, ad 3, that episcopal power is a power not only of jurisdiction, but also of order: not according as order is a sacrament, but according as it is an office with respect to certain sacred actions¹⁰. Therefore, when it is said that the episcopal power is superior to the priest's power in those things that pertain to the faithful, that superiority is a superiority not only of jurisdiction, but also of order, in the manner explained.

Concerning that comparison of episcopal power to priestly power, see in Capreolus in the Fourth Book, dist. 25¹¹.

IV. The second conclusion is¹²: It is necessary that in the whole Christian people there be one who is head of the whole Church.

It is proved first. In one particular people of one church, one bishop is required, who is head of the whole people. Therefore it is so required also in the whole Christian people. — The consequence is proved. Because, although peoples are distinguished by diverse dioceses and cities, there must nevertheless be one Christian people, just as there is one Church.

Note that the argument is founded upon this: that, just as because the Christians of one diocese are one people, and therefore one bishop is appropriate to it; so, since all Christians are one people of one universal Church, it is required that of all Christians there be one bishop, who is head of all.

Secondly. For preserving the unity of the Church, it is required that there be one who presides over the whole Church. Therefore it is not to be doubted that it is so in the Church by the ordination of Christ.

The antecedent is proved. Because for the unity of the Church it is required that all the faithful agree in faith. But this could not be unless it were preserved in unity through the judgment of one: because, since it happens that questions are raised concerning those things that belong to the faith, there could be diverse opinions about the faith; and thus through diversity of opinions the Church would be divided. — The consequence, indeed, is proved because Christ did not fail the Church, which he loved and for which he shed his blood, in necessary things: since even concerning the Synagogue the Lord says, What more etc.

It must be noted, from the doctrine of St. Thomas, IIª IIae, q. 1, a. 10, that to determine finally¹³ those things that are of faith belongs to the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith; and therefore to his authority alone belongs a new edition of the creed. On this account it is fittingly argued here from the unity of faith that there must be one head in the Church.

Thirdly. The best governance of a multitude is that it be governed by one. Therefore the governance of the Church also ought to be so disposed that one presides over the whole Church. — The antecedent is proved. Because one is a more suitable cause of unity, which is the end of governance, than many. — The consequence, indeed, is proved: because it ought to be doubtful to no one that the governance of the Church is ordered in the best way, as having been disposed by him by whom kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things.

Fourthly. In the Church triumphant one presides, namely God, who also presides over the whole universe. Therefore also in the Church militant there is one who presides over all. — The antecedent is proved through that of Apoc. 21, They shall be his people etc. — The consequence, indeed, is proved: because the Church militant is derived from the Church triumphant by likeness, according to that of the Apocalypse, I saw Jerusalem etc. Whence also it was said to Moses that he should make all things according to the pattern shown to him on the mountain.

The conclusion is confirmed by the authority of Hosea 1, saying, They shall be gathered together etc.; and John 10, There shall be one fold etc.

V. If, however, anyone should say that the one head and one shepherd is Christ, who is the one spouse of the one Church: he does not answer sufficiently. Because although Christ himself accomplishes all the ecclesiastical sacraments, as is clear by running through each of them; nevertheless, because he was not going to be bodily present with all the faithful, he chose ministers through whom he would minister the aforesaid to the faithful. By the same reasoning, because he was going to withdraw his bodily presence from the Church, it was necessary that he commit to someone who in his place would bear the care of the universal Church. On account of which, before the Ascension, he said to Peter, John ult., Feed my sheep; and before the Passion, Thou once converted etc., Luke 22; and to him alone he promised, To thee I will give etc., that the power of the keys might be shown as to be derived through him to others, for preserving the unity of the Church; for Christ so instituted the Church that it would endure until the end of the world, according to that of Isaiah 9, Upon the throne etc. And in the same way it is said concerning the others who then were, because he so established them in ministry that their power would be derived to posterity, for the utility of the Church, until the end of the world: since he himself says, Matthew ult., Behold, I am with you etc.

By this is excluded the presumptuous error of those withdrawing themselves from the obedience and subjection of Peter, not recognizing his successor as shepherd of the universal Church.

VI. For the clarity of this, it must be considered, from the doctrine of St. Thomas, II Sent., last dist., in the exposition of the text¹⁴, that the Supreme Pontiff has in the Church the apex and excellence of power not only spiritual, but also secular. Therefore he is to be obeyed before all, both in those things that pertain to the salvation of the soul and in those things that pertain to the civil good.

Likewise, as the very same St. Thomas says in the book On the Governance of Rulers, bk. III, ch. 10 and 19, he can, by reason of this supreme power, punish anyone by reason of a fault, and impose tallages and levies for the preservation of the Christian commonwealth, just as a king also can in his realm.

He says also upon the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, ch. 11, lect. 2, at the end, that for the necessity of one country he can receive aid from other parts of the world. Because the Church is one body: but we see in a natural body that, when power fails in one member, nature supplies it by receiving humors and power from other members.

Yet nevertheless, because the Pope is not exempt from the observation of the divine and natural law, he is understood to be able to do these things, and every Christian is understood to be bound to obey him, saving the equality of justice; but he cannot at his own pleasure usurp the goods of each one for himself or give them to another: since, although he has universal jurisdiction in the Church, he does not nevertheless have the immediate administration of all things. Whence St. Thomas says, IV Sent., d. 25, q. 3, a. 3, ad 2, that, although the goods of the Church belong in some way to the Pope, they are not nevertheless his in every way of having, like that which he has at hand. And therefore, if he should receive a gift for anything spiritual, he would commit simony. — He says also, upon the Epistle to the Philippians, near the end¹⁵, that the Pope can receive from one Church in aid of others, but not without any cause.

From the aforesaid it is clear that the opinion of those saying that a Council and the Church are above the Pope, and that the Pope himself has authority from the Church, as instituted by it, is vain and alien to the Christian faith. For it is manifest from the aforesaid that Christ himself instituted the governance of his Church, not however the Church itself or the Christian people; and that he instituted Peter as his vicar and his successors in the Church, just as he also instituted ministers to dispense the sacraments. Whence, when he said to Peter, Feed my sheep¹⁶, he prefixed the interrogation, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? in order to show that he was giving authority to Peter as distinct from the other disciples present. On account of which Chrysostom, expounding the aforesaid words, says¹⁷: Passing over the others, he speaks to Peter: Be set in place over them instead of me, and be head of thy brethren.