In what way is the Pope the source of jurisdiction in the Church – and what did the Fathers teach?
Editor’s Notes
In the process of researching the difficult topics of jurisdiction and apostolicity during a vacancy, we encountered the following text by Cardinal Juan de Torquemada.
Cardinal Torquemada – sometimes referred to as Turrecremata – was the uncle of the famous inquisitor, Thomas de Torquemada. This medieval Dominican theologian lived between 1388 and 1468, and was the author of what is probably the first major work of ecclesiology, his Summa de Ecclesia.
In popular circles, he is mostly known today for:
His “resistance quotes”, unjustly marshalled by the “recognise and resist” apologists (addressed here), and
His adherence to the “second position” on the Pope Question, namely that even an occult heretic Pope falls from office ipso facto.
Those who cite Torquemada for the former do not seem to have considered that the latter undermines their interpretation.
We produce the following texts on subject of the origin of jurisdiction, taken from Lib. II, Ch. LIII (p. 170–171). Of especial interest are Torquemada’s comments on the “sixth authority”, namely Pope Alexander – in which he discusses the way in which the Pope is the source of jurisdiction.
The analogy he uses – the relationship between the sun and the stars – needs to be explained for modern readers. His purpose is to explain that the Pope is not a mere distributor of “jurisdictions”, but rather one who makes others participate in his jurisdiction.
Certain understandings at the time held that the sun received light from God first, and in a greater plenitude than any of the other stars; hence the sun received light “prae omnibus” or “before all.” These understandings also held that the sun received this light “pro omnibus” or “for all”, in the sense that the purpose of this reception was that light could flow down into the other stars.
These two points are intended to establish St Peter’s pre-eminent rank over the other Apostles, and that he was the only source of the jurisdiction. Torquemada reinforces this with another analogy – that of the head and the members. The head is the most noble part of the body, and it is what receives life and sense; it then communicates them to the rest of the body.
These analogies from a “metaphysics of participation” are intended to establish the principle that a perfection which exists in many must exist first and fully in one, from which it flows to the others. As mentioned, St Peter’s role as the source of jurisdiction is not to be understood as him holding a number of domains or regions which he then hands out to others; rather, he received the plenitude of jurisdiction from Christ, and the residential bishops of the world participate in it, and exercise it in their own names and by divine right.
Jurisdiction during a Vacancy
Cardinal Juan de Torquemada
Summa de Ecclesia
Book II, Ch. LIIII
Chapter LIIII. That the power of jurisdiction of all prelates of the Church is derived from the Pope or the Apostolic See, whether mediately or immediately. The first line of argument, namely from the relation of the other Apostles to Peter.
1. Having explained above, so far as our slight ability allows, that one ruler and head of the whole Christian commonwealth had to be appointed with fullness of power – both for preserving the unity of the Christian faith and for the best government of the Church – and that this ruler is the Roman Pontiff, it now remains to examine the relation he bears to the other, lower prelates of the Church as regards the origin of their power. The question is whether the prelates of the churches receive the power of jurisdiction they hold immediately from the Apostolic See – or whether like the Pope himself, the bishops receive it immediately from Christ.
We hold, with St Thomas – in the second book of the Sentences, in the fourth book of the Sentences, and in the fourth book Against the Gentiles – that among the doctors who treat this subject, St Thomas speaks most reasonably and most in conformity with the sayings of the holy Fathers, and consequently in closest harmony with the reverence due to the faith. His position is that the whole jurisdictional power of other prelates is derived, by the common law, from the Pope. We propose to prove this conclusion by three lines of argument: first, from the relation of the other Apostles to Peter in the power of jurisdiction; secondly, by reasoning; thirdly, from the absurdities that follow from the opposite view.
The relation of the Apostles to St Peter
The first line of argument runs as follows. The other Apostles did not receive the power of jurisdiction immediately from Christ, but through Peter; therefore it follows that the prelates now in the Church likewise receive the power of jurisdiction immediately from the Pope, and not from Christ. The consequence is clear. The antecedent, for its part, is proved and established by many authorities and arguments.
First, by the authority of the blessed Anacletus, who, as recorded in Sacrosancta, dist. 22, says:
“Among the Apostles there was a certain distinction, and although all were Apostles, yet it was granted to Peter by the Lord that he should preside over all the other Apostles and hold the headship and primacy (cephas, that is, caput) of the apostolate.”
Now since the name “head” and “principle” designates the origin of power, it seems impossible to say that blessed Peter held the headship and primacy of the apostolate unless the power of jurisdiction flowed from him to the other Apostles.
The second authority is that of the blessed Cyprian, in the epistle inscribed On the Unity of the Church addressed to Novatian, which is found in Loquitur dominus ad Petrum, 24, q. 1:
“‘I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ Upon one he builds the Church; and although after the Resurrection he bestows upon all the Apostles an equal (that is, a common) power – saying, ‘As the Father has sent me, so I send you; receive the Holy Ghost’ – nevertheless, in order to display unity, he arranged by his own authority that the origin of that same unity should also begin from one.”
This indeed the other Apostles also were – endowed with an equal share of honour and of power (the Gloss specifies: in the order and dignity of consecration, not in the fullness of administration) – “but the beginning issues from unity, so that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one.” Thus Cyprian. When he says that Christ, to display the unity of the Church, arranged that the origin of power should begin from one, he plainly gives us to understand that one alone – namely Peter, upon whom alone Christ says the Church is founded – received the power of jurisdiction immediately from Christ, while the other Apostles received it through Peter. For if all the Apostles had received the power of jurisdiction immediately from Christ, the origin of power would plainly not have begun in the Church from one Apostle, since it would have been given simultaneously and immediately to all.
The third authority is Augustine, who in his homily 124 on John says:
“Peter the Apostle, by reason of the primacy of his apostolate, bore the figure of the Church in a representative universality. Considered in himself, he was one man by nature, one Christian by grace, and a more abundant grace one and the same first Apostle. But when it was said to him, ‘I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and ‘whatever you bind,’ etc., he signified the universal Church.”
And further on:
“The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ, received in Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven – that is, the power of binding and loosing sins.”
Now it seems that what is attributed to Peter alone by reason of his primacy would not be true if the other Apostles had received jurisdiction from Christ together with him and immediately, because in that case the Church could be said to have received the keys not in Peter alone but also in the other Apostles.
The fourth authority is that of the most blessed Leo, who, as found in Dominus, dist. 19, says:
“The Lord willed that the sacrament of this office should belong to all the Apostles in such a way that he placed it principally in the most blessed Peter, chief of all the Apostles, so that from him, as from a kind of head, he might pour out his gifts into the whole body, to the end that anyone who dared to withdraw from the solidity of Peter should understand himself an exile from the divine ministry.”
The fifth authority is from the same Leo, in the third sermon of his ordination, saying:
“It is far more fitting to raise the gaze of the mind to contemplate the glory of the most blessed Peter, and to celebrate this day above all in his honour, who has been so abundantly flooded from the very fountain of all graces that, though he alone received much, nothing has passed to anyone without his participation.”
And further on:
“From the whole world one Peter is chosen, who is set over the calling of all nations, over all the Apostles, and over all the Fathers of the Church, so that, although among the people of God there are many priests and many pastors, Peter may properly govern all whom Christ also principally governs. Great and wonderful, beloved, is the share in his own power that the divine favour granted this man, so that if there was anything he willed to be held in common for the other rulers along with Peter – whatever he did not withhold from others – he never gave it except through Peter.”
See how clearly this most blessed Leo, an authority beyond challenge among the Fathers of the Church, declares that whatever Christ willed to be held in common between Peter and the other rulers – namely the Apostles – he gave only through Peter, that is, everything that could be given through a man and that he did not withhold from others. And so it is plainly established that the other Apostles did not receive jurisdiction immediately from Christ, but through Peter, the prince of the Apostles.
The sixth authority is that of Pope Alexander, in Audivimus, 24, q. 1, who says:
“When the Lord gave to all the disciples an equal power of binding and loosing, he promised to give the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter before all others, saying, ‘I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ Whoever, therefore, has been cut off from the unity of the Church, which is understood through Peter, can execrate but cannot consecrate; he has no power of excommunication or reconciliation.”
In this authority two things especially deserve notice. First, that the keys were given to blessed Peter before all others. From this we may gather that blessed Peter was superior to, and greater than, all the other Apostles in the power of jurisdiction, even taken together; and consequently Peter’s successor, the Roman Pontiff, is superior to and greater than all prelates, even taken together. Secondly, we should notice what is said there: that blessed Peter the Apostle received the keys of the Church for all, which plainly shows that the other disciples of Christ and their successors did not receive the power of jurisdiction except through Peter, and so not immediately from Christ. Here one must consider that when Peter is said to have received power for all and before all, this is not to be understood as though he received it for all in the manner of a procurator who receives some gift – a castle, say, or a principality – in the name of certain others from a prince. Rather, it is to be understood in the manner in which we say the sun received its light from God before all other stars and for all other stars. Before all, because in greater fullness than the other stars. For all, because in such an order that from it, as from a fountain, light descends into the other stars.
The same comparison holds for the head, which received its power before all and for all the members. Before all, because in the head alone is the fullness of the senses. For all, because from it the other members receive sensation, motion, and governance. So it is with Peter, who was not only endowed with authority above all others, but was also constituted head and prince influencing the others throughout the whole body of the Church, as was shown most clearly above from the teaching of the saints. Hence Innocent, in the epistle he wrote to the Fathers and bishops at the Council of Carthage, says that from blessed Peter the episcopate and the whole authority of this name arose.
Arguments from reason
The same conclusion is now proved by reasoning, and first as follows. No one possesses any power of jurisdiction over a person who is not his subject; but the other Apostles did not have subjects immediately from Christ; therefore they did not have the power of jurisdiction immediately from Christ. The consequence is clear.
The major premiss is likewise evident, since no one can bind or absolve anyone who is not his subject, because no one can be bound or absolved by a judge who is not his own (De poenit. et remiss., cap. Omnis). For the power of jurisdiction, by which someone can absolve and bind, is said to be relative to a subject; and relatives, as Aristotle teaches in the Categories, are posited and destroyed together: where there is no servant, there is no master. Augustine says in De Trinitate that God was not Lord until he had his creation. Likewise, where there is no subject, there is no prelate, nor any judge who could pass judgement, according to Romans 14:
“Who are you to judge another’s servant? Before his own master he stands or falls.”
The minor premiss is proved as follows. If Christ had given subjects to others besides Peter, he would have given either all of them or only some. The first option – that he gave them all – cannot be maintained, because as has been said, a plurality of supreme rulers is not good (as stated in Metaphysics XII), and the conclusion drawn there is: “Therefore one ruler.” Furthermore, in that case the sheepfold of Christ would not be one, nor would there be one shepherd but many, contrary to John 10: “There shall be one fold and one shepherd.” Nor can the second option be maintained, since nowhere do we read that Christ immediately divided the peoples among the Apostles, and it is impossible to conjecture to which Apostle he might have subjected which peoples.
A second argument runs thus. If Christ had given the Apostles the power of jurisdiction immediately, he would have given them either a full and unrestricted power like Peter’s, or a particular, limited, and circumscribed one; but he gave neither; therefore he gave none. The consequence holds; the major premiss stands by sufficient division. As for the minor, concerning its first part: first, because the blessed Cyril says in his Book of Treasures that Christ committed what was his own in its fullness to no one other than Peter, and gave it to him alone. Secondly, because if the other Apostles had been given power in the same fullness as Peter, then Peter would have been neither greater, nor superior, nor prince, nor head of the Apostles; rather, all would have been equal in jurisdictional authority, which is erroneous. For as St Anacletus says in Sacrosancta, dist. 22:
“Among the Apostles there was a certain distinction; for although all were Apostles, yet it was granted to Peter by the Lord that he should preside over all the other Apostles and, as Cephas – that is, head – hold the primacy of the apostolate.”
The second part of the minor – that Christ did not give the Apostles any limited power either – is likewise clear, since it is impossible to conjecture what the terms of such a limitation would be. Concerning claims of this kind that are said to have been made, especially about the Apostles and the keys of the Church, nothing, it seems, should be asserted that does not have explicit or implicit testimony from the holy Scriptures, and in this matter no such testimony exists. Let this suffice on the first point, for the sake of brevity.
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Read Next:
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
Twitter (The WM Review)