Christ Alone is the Head of the Church

Jul 22nd, 2010 | By | Category: Blog Posts

In the third part of the Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas asks the question whether it is proper to Christ to be the Head of the Church and answers in the affirmative. Protestants often claim that the Catholic Church has set the pope as the head of the Church instead of Christ. But St. Thomas believes in the universal jurisdiction of the pope and also in the unique Headship of Christ over the Church. Likewise, Catholics are able to affirm the primacy of the pope without denying that Christ is the unique Head of the Church. St. Thomas says:

It is written (Colossians 2:19): “The head” of the Church is that “from which the whole body, by joints and bands being supplied with nourishment and compacted groweth unto the increase of God.” But this belongs only to Christ. Therefore Christ alone is Head of the Church.1

But how can St. Thomas affirm that Christ is the Head of the Church even while other men, especially the pope, are understood to be the head of the Church? St. Thomas answers in two ways. First because other men are called “head of the Church” in a limited sense whereas Christ is called ‘Head’ in the proper and fullest sense.

First, inasmuch as Christ is the Head of all who pertain to the Church in every place and time and state; but all other men are called heads with reference to certain special places, as bishops of their Churches. Or with reference to a determined time as the Pope is the head of the whole Church, viz. during the time of his Pontificate, and with reference to a determined state, inasmuch as they are in the state of wayfarers.2

The second reason St. Thomas gives is that Christ is called the Head of the Church by His own power and authority whereas other men are only called head of the Church because they are acting in Christ’s place. We call the general the head of the army but not to the exclusion of the king’s headship. The general takes the place of the king on the battlefield, but he does not replace the king as the ultimate head. When we call the general “head,” we do not deny the headship of the king. We do not deny Christ as the true Shepherd when we say that pastors ‘shepherd’ their flocks, and neither do we deny His Headship by calling other men ‘head’ in a limited sense. St. Thomas writes:

Secondly, because Christ is the Head of the Church by His own power and authority; while others are called heads, as taking Christ’s place, according to 2 Corinthians 2:10, “For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes I have done it in the person of Christ,” and 2 Corinthians 5:20, “For Christ therefore we are ambassadors, God, as it were, exhorting by us.” 3

St. Thomas also quotes St. Augustine saying, “If the rulers of the Church are Shepherds, how is there one Shepherd, except that all these are members of one Shepherd?” St. Thomas concludes, “So likewise others may be called foundations and heads, inasmuch as they are members of the one Head and Foundation.”4

  1. Summa 3.8.6 []
  2. Ibid. []
  3. Ibid. []
  4. Ibid. []
Tags: , , ,

Leave a comment »

  1. What an odd coincidence… This morning I was pondering the irony of the fact that non-Catholics believe that the Catholic Church is headed by a man when the reason I am a Catholic is because it’s headed by Christ. On the flip side, Protestants believe their churches are headed by Christ when, all too often, they are cults of personality and headed by charismatic men and women who gather thousands around them because of their attractive and lively personalities and ability to arouse an emotional response.

  2. Good point Jill!

  3. Looking at Paul’s body/church analogy in 1 Cor 12 we see him say in verse 21:

    The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!”

    Does this head sound like Jesus? Paul seems to lump the head in with all the other parts that should be acting in a certain way but may or may not actually act that way. That implies a human head. Certainly it can be applied to a local church and a pastor. But how can a human head of the worldwide church be excluded? If only Jesus can be the head this is a might strange way for Paul to be talking.

  4. Interesting post. Reading this, I feel as if there’s also an analogy to the Holy Family. Who was the head of that household, Christ or St. Joseph?

  5. Irene:

    That’s a really good point. It is highly ironic to me that conservative evangelicals are out in the trenches, fighting tooth-and-nail for the complementarian ideals which assert a hierarchy in the family. They see that there cannot be multiple heads of the household, that there must be someone who has the last word. Yet they recoil in horror from the notion that God would have established this same principle in the Church, which Paul calls the “household of God.” They want wives to submit to their husbands, but they don’t want to submit to the bishops (as Hebrews tells us to do).

  6. Sorry, to make my thought more relevant to your particular point, I should have said that evangelicals realize that the father, as head of the household, does not replace Jesus as the head of the household, yet they (some of them) act as though we are replacing God with man by having an authoritative hierarchy at all, and specifically by having the pope.

  7. it must be otherwise known that Christ alone is the head of the Church. Man can only be an instrument on earth for Christ to execute his actions, thus, the Pope is Vicar of Christ (vicarius Christi)…

Leave Comment

Subscribe without commenting