Categorized quotes on Church authority, with some commentary

The raison d’être of Papal authority

“But the power to remit which Christ gave Peter by a privilege has as its object matters relevant to the kingdom of heaven.” (Cajetan 2011, 58)

“As the name ‘apostle’ indicates, pastoral work pertains to the apostles as to the legates of Christ, and so they are called pastors of the Lord’s flock precisely as legates of Christ. But it is evident from what we have said (and what we will say) that Peter was appointed as ordinary pastor even over the apostles themselves. This is what Christ meant by the words, ‘Feed my Sheep.’” (Cajetan 2011, 117)

“For to feed the sheep of Christ is an act of authority by the one feeding, an act benefiting the sheep, having its ultimate purpose in Christ. By committing his followers to Peter as sheep to be fed, he made it absolutely clear that he set Peter over the others as a shepherd is over the sheep.” …

“Therefore, even though”feed” does not mean “rule”, it does indicate the act of an ecclesiastical ruler. Also, if it does not mean “rule”, it does presuppose ruling because it presupposes a shepherd.” …

“Chrysostom agreed that feeding my sheep meant taking over care of one’s brethren. In the Gloss of Alcuin feeding the sheep means strengthening believers in Christ so that their faith does not fail, arranging earthly support for one’s subjects if needed, offering both the preached word and the example of virtue, defending against foes, and correcting wayward subjects.” …

“Hence, although feeding does not mean ruling, it does mean directing the sheep of Christ, which entails ruling. Though it does not mean ruling, it implies this, just as it implies seeking out, leading back, binding up, strengthening, protecting, and healing, as the Lord says in Ezechiel 34[:4.16]” …

“Furthermore, the work commissioned shows what is primary in Peter’s office, where feeding the elect is to be the primary pontifical act. The supreme work of God’s providence is caring for the elect […]”

“One could ask why Our Lord entrusted the pontifical office to Peter by referring to feeding his sheep and not by words referring to prelacy, authority, or dignity. The answer lies near at hand in the matter itself, because one is a prelate or has authority in order to feed the sheep of Christ, and not vice versa. Another purpose was to check ambition, since what one seeks in pontifical office is not a high position, not dignity or authority, but the feeding of the sheep of Christ. As the Apostle later said,”If one aspires to be a bishop, he desires an excellent task.” [1 Timothy 3:1]. Another reason was the fulfillment of Scripture, since he had said before his passion, “the kings of the gentiles hold rule over them, and those exercising authority are called benefactors; but not so with you, since the greater among you should become like the lesser” [Luke 22:25f]. Consequently in the ministerial act of feeding the sheep of Christ there is a tacit reference to the pontifical office as to an added element which is to be valued only for the benefit of the sheep of Christ, in contrast to gentile kings and lords who regulate all things to promote their own rule and lordship.” …

“The excellence of this entrusted work becomes yet more evident when one goes through the pastoral and pontifical tasks, namely,”seeking out the lost, leading back the fallen away, binding up the injured, strengthening the weak, healing the sick, and watching over the fat and strong” [Ezechiel 34:16.4]. The Lord attests that these six pastoral actions pertain to feeding the sheep when he accuses the shepherds, “Woe to the shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves. Should not shepherds feed the sheep? But you drink the milk and cover yourselves with the wool” [Exechiel 34:2f]. The reason he gives for their neglect is clearly that the evil shepherds feed themselves, not the sheep, and the reason for performing all these tasks is to feed the same sheep.”

(Cajetan 2011, pp 118-122)

“The ministerial service of Peter and his successors is to strengthen the faithful amid the turbulence of uncertainty and questioning about the faith. Hence Our Lord said to Peter, and to his successors,”Strengthen your brethren” [Luke 22:32] (Cajetan 2011, 138)

The demands of Papal authority over others

Re: binding authority of Papal decretals:

“First there is the principle that recognizes the letters and decrees of the Roman Pontiffs as ranking in authority next to Holy Scripture. This is enunciated both in In canonicis in Distinction 19 and in the defense of the apostolic Extravagantes in canon 1 of the same Distinction. . . . the chapter Ad abolendam in the decretals De haereticis lays it down that on questions of sacramental doctrine no one is allowed to dissent from the teaching and practice of the Roman Church.” (Cajetan 2011, 72)

“Instead one’s mind and tongue should be made obediently subject to Christ in his Vicar when his words seem to us inappropriate, providing the teaching of the faith remains unsullied.”(Cajetan 2011, 100)

Note the proviso!

In (Cajetan 2011, 109), the translators give a synopsis of a particular section of Cajetan’s discourse, rather than a full translation. Their synopsis contains this sentence:

“In answering the initial arguments of this chapter, Cajetan points to Peter’s humility in working in the early mission as the equal of the other Apostles, not exercising the power given him.”

I read this as saying, “Peter could totally have decided where all the other apostles were going and what they should have been doing, but he decided not too just out of humility.” I am very unsatisfied by this answer. In many other places, Cajetan and other theologians are happy to take the actions of the apostles in the early Church, as recorded in Scripture, as the normative pattern for the structure of the Church as a whole. But in just this instance, he decides “it was just Peter’s humility and no other reason”?

I don’t like it and this reinforces my feeling that Cajetan is missing something real and important about the structure of authority in the Church and how it was meant to operate.

“The fact that the person himself can become heretical does not tell against the truth of what we have said about the faith of the Roman Pontiff in his own person. For as soon as his faith fails, he immediately ceases to be Peter’s successor in actual fact before God. In God’s judgment,”he who does not believe is condemned already,” as we read in John 3[:18], however it might be in the external order of the Church. In this latter order the same situation obtains, for by the fact that a man called the successor of Peter is even unwillingly subjected to the judgment of the Church for falling from faith, it becomes obvious that in actual fact he is no longer the successor of Peter. For if he were in fact Peter’s successor, he would be judge over the whole Church, not one brought in unwilling submission to the Church.” (Cajetan 2011, 138)

A disputable position, I think.

“We answer the sixth objection by recalling that authority is one thing while exercise of authority is something else. By praiseworthy custom, although the Roman Pontiff has authority over the whole Church, he does not exercise authority in particular matters of concern in the other churches, except when some case demands this.” (Cajetan 2011, 140)

Analogies of the Church to secular structures of authority

Re: indulgences:

“In all states the ruler is the one who distributes the common goods to the state.”(Cajetan 2011, 75)

Goes to the role of the Roman Pontiff. I think this point needs more elaboration than Cajetan gives it.

A synopsis of an untranslated section of text given by the translator is as follows (Cajetan 2011, 110):

“Christ in heaven is simply and absolutely head, while Peter is vicecaput on earth”.

“Right reason demands that the power ordered to the ultimate end is able to command all others in relation to that ultimate end, as is evident in the crafts and in the cases of men holding offices of commander, general, or prince. Every artisan, commander, general, or prince assigned a higher end is able to order other artisans, commanders, generals, and princes to his end and thus give them commands in so far as they are directed to his end. Clearly the kingdom of heaven is the supreme end, the one corresponding to the power of the keys promised to Peter. All other matters of a temporal character must at some time be ordered to this end. Consequently, this power given Peter entails the power of commanding all kings and princes with reference to the kingdom of heaven.” (Cajetan 2011, 114)

(In Cajetan 2011, 214–16): a passage about the intercession of the saints. I am interested here in how he equates “intercession” with “rule through intermediaries”.

The internal structure of the Church

Re: communion of the believers:

“Since the communion between believers consists in both giving and receiving, their interior communion will entail both sides of this exchange. They give of their merits, prayers, and suffrages before God as intercession and aid for the benefit of others. They receive by the help of others gifts of grace and increase of grace, and the protection of God sheltering them from evil and increasing the good things in their lives. There is a twofold cause at the origin of these spiritual aids. At times they arise directly from an individual’s loving concern, as when a person living in charity prays according to his individual intention on another’s behalf, or does a good work or some penance for this person, and so obtains for him the gift of grace, increase of grace, protection against temptation, or the like. But at other times help is given by way of an institution, or action of the Church, as when by masses and by other official forms of worship people are helped toward doing good or avoiding evil.” (Cajetan 2011, 92)

This goes towards the positive work one expects of a member of the Church, as a member. Individual good works and personal prayer are a constituent part of the treasury of grace in the Church.

“Hence, concerning what a person receives there is no fundamental difference between the interior communion of direct sharing in love and the interior communion by way of the action and institution of the Church.” (Cajetan 2011, 93)

In general, Cajetan’s discussion on excommunication (see Cajetan 2011, pp 94-95) is interesting for insisting on the connection between external membership in the Church and internal graces.

References

Cajetan, Tommaso de Vio. 2011. Cajetan Responds: A Reader in Reformation Controversy. Edited and translated by Jared Wicks.