A Scholastic Essay concerning the Papacy

At the first Vatican Council in 1870, the council explained the powers of the Roman Pontiff: “Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate.” (Session 4). When it comes to whether or not the Papacy holds true, many focus solely on the fathers of the church or sacred scripture, but a neglected approach involves the natural order of things as argued by St Thomas and the Scholastics. For using the thought of St Thomas, we can deduce that the Papacy is the proper form of Church governance, a simple syllogism proves this.

For the syllogism states that:

P1. If God were to establish a church, then it would be fitting that he would give it the best form of governance.

P2. But the best form of governance is monarchy, or the rule of one person.

C. Thus it is fitting that God would establish his church with monarchical governance or one person bearing ultimate authority over others.

Now let us cover the justification for the major and minor premise and we’ll see how the conclusion necessarily follows. For premise one it is evident that due to God’s omniscience and omnibenevolence, it would be fitting that he would give the Church the best form of governance. A good church governance is important for the faith of the members of the Church and the conversion of others who become part of the Church, which is what God has called the Church to do, thus it is fitting that God would give his church the best tools i.e governance to do so. We also know from sacred scripture that the church is not merely a scattered body of believers but has authority and governance. For as the Apostle writes: "Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account.” (Hebrews 13:17).

Now premise two of the syllogism argues that monarchy or the rule of one person is the best form of governance. Now interestingly many Orthodox have no issue with this claim that monarchy is the best form of government or governance, yet they fail to realize the ramifications of this claim. Nevertheless, let us show how monarchy or the rule of one is the best form of governance.

St Thomas argues that it is natural for man to be ruled by one for this corresponds to nature itself. He writes “whatever is in accord with nature is best, for nature does what is best in each thing. Now, every natural governance is governance by one. In the multitude of bodily members there is one which is the principal mover (namely, the heart); and among the powers of the soul one power presides as chief (namely, the reason). Among bees there is one king bee, and in the whole universe there is one God, Maker and Ruler of all. And this is reasonable, for every multitude is derived from unity. Therefore, if artificial things are an imitation of natural things, and a work of art is better according as it attains a closer likeness to what is in nature, it follows that it is best for a human multitude to be ruled by one person.” (De Regno).

Thus, is it natural for man to act in accordance with nature, and thus under the rule of one person. Notice that even countries that flaunt that they are democracies, always somewhat tend towards a type of monarchical system nonetheless, where one person wields more power than all others.

Further St Thomas argues that the order in which unity and peace is brought in the church is most properly done by the authority of one, namely the Roman Pontiff. He writes: “The unity of the Church requires that all the faithful be of one faith. Now, questions tend to arise about matters of faith, and the Church would be divided by differences of opinion unless its unity were safeguarded by the pronouncement of one. Therefore, in order to safeguard the unity of the Church, it is necessary that there be one who presides over the whole Church.” (SCG, IV, 76).

And thus Charles-Rene Billuart explicates further: “But the best government of the multitude is that it be governed by one. Therefore—The minor is proved from the end of government, which is the peace and unity of the subjects. But one is the more fitting cause of unity and concord than many; because the one is per se a cause of unity, but many only per accidens, insofar as they are in some way united: for it is manifest that many cannot unite and be in concord…” (Summa Summae, Tomo III,  Dissertatio V. De summo pontifice).

Thus, what is the Church militant left to do when there is dissension over a matter of faith, to whom do they ultimately appeal to when the church is split. It is thus proper that one should ultimately rule in this monarchical system of the church. Fr. Martin Grabmann writes: “Diverse decisions in such questions would bring division into the Church. Only a final decision by a single person can preserve unity.” (Thomas Aquinas, his personality and thought, pg. 179).

One might respond and say that Christ is the head of the church and therefore one does not need to assume one who ultimately has authority over others. But there arises many issues with this view. As St Thomas clearly points out: “But this reply is not sufficient. It is evident that Christ himself accomplishes all the Church’s sacraments: it is he who baptizes; it is he who forgives sins; he is the true priest, who offered himself on the altar of the cross, and by whose power his own body is consecrated daily on the altar. And yet, because he was not to remain bodily present to all the faithful, he chose ministers, that through them he might give that same body to the faithful, as we have shown above. For the very reason, then, that he was about to withdraw his bodily presence from the Church, he needed to appoint one to take his place in governing the whole Church. Therefore, before his Ascension, he said to Peter: Feed my sheep (John 21:17); and before his Passion: When you have converted again, confirm your brothers (Luke 22:32); and to him alone he made the promise: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt 16:19), in order to show that the power of the keys was to be received from him by others, so as to safeguard the unity of the Church.” (SCG, IV, 76).

Thus, St Thomas is able to argue in accordance with sacred scripture that since Christ was not to remain bodily present to all the faithful, he gave to Peter ultimate authority over the other Apostles and the Church itself. So that unity and guidance may abound. Thus, since both the major and minor premise of the syllogism hold true, it is evident that the conclusion that the church has one who rules over all others is fitting.

Therefore, let us proclaim that Christ gave ultimate authority of the church to Peter. As John Chrysostom himself in agreement with St Thomas declares: “Jesus said to Peter, ‘Feed my sheep’. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule over the brethren…If anyone should say ‘Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?’, I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world.” (Homily on John, 88.1).