On this day, March 7, 1274, St. Thomas Aquinas fell asleep in the Lord.  In the old calendar, this was his feast day.  And so in his honor, I would like to show how St. Thomas Aquinas explains that the sacraments do not dispense the need for faith and repentance in the recipient. A recipient may place an impediment such that the sacrament does not have its effect, but this is not to say that the sacrament is not inherently efficacious.

If a sacrament was efficacious, wouldn’t that mean that it always has its effect regardless of the disposition of the recipient? No. We do not disprove the tendency of a rock to fall to the ground by catching it. We only prove that something might hinder the rock from doing what it would have otherwise accomplished. One who places an impediment in between a sacrament and his own reception is like one who stops a rock from falling.

Sacraments contain grace like words contain information. The sacrament will confer that grace upon the recipient, so long as he places no obstacle in its path, just as a word will convey information to the hearer so long as the hearer does not place an obstacle in its path (such as deliberately ignoring the word or sticking his fingers in his ears).

I have already responded once to the repeated claims that the Catholic doctrine on sacramental efficacy amounts to belief in magic. You can read that response here. But I would like to show that if one were familiar with the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, he would already know how misplaced and uninformed these sort of accusations are.

The first thing one should know about the Catholic doctrine of sacraments is that their function is to confer grace. Reformed Protestants view the few sacraments they retain as signs of, not causes of grace. God is the cause of grace, they argue. They are right that God is the cause of grace, but their doctrinal error is caused by a failure to distinguish between types of causes. God is the principal cause of grace, and the sacrament is the instrumental cause of grace.¹ Thus, to say that sacraments cause grace is not to deny that God is the origin of that grace.

Since sacraments cause grace, what is true of grace is also true of the sacrament as its cause. As St. Thomas often repeats, grace does not destroy nature but rather perfects it. This is an easy way to recognize the falsity of the Protestant caricature that Catholics view sacramental efficacy as a magical override of nature. Free will belongs to man’s nature; hence sacraments do not destroy man’s free will. Rather, sacraments confer grace which perfects man’s will. A man’s will can place an impediment to reception of the sacramental grace. For example, if a man were forcibly baptized against his will, the sacrament would not have its effect. St. Thomas says, “in order that a man be justified by Baptism, his will must needs embrace both Baptism and the baptismal effect.”²

What about forgiveness of sins? Does man have to repent or can he simply receive the sacrament of baptism, penance, or extreme unction? Many Protestants would say that the Catholic Church teaches that one must simply receive the sacraments and that one’s will to repent is not important, or at the very least, not essential. But St. Thomas says, “there is no remission of sins, even in Baptism, without an actual change of the will, which is the effect of Penance.”³ Repentance is essential to forgiveness. The sacraments do not forgive one’s sin in spite of one’s impenitence; that is impossible. Furthermore, properly speaking, forgiveness of sins is an effect of penance as a virtue. That is, forgiveness of sins is a proper result of a man repenting of his sins. The grace is conferred by penance as a sacrament, but its proper cause is the virtue of penance.⁴

According to St. Thomas, ‘“the power of the sacraments which is ordained unto the remission of sins is derived principally from faith in Christ’s Passion.”⁵ And he goes on to say:

No sin can be forgiven save by the power of Christ’s Passion: hence the Apostle says that “without shedding of blood there is no remission.”⁶ Consequently no movement of the human will suffices for the remission of sin, unless there be faith in Christ’s Passion, and the purpose of participating in it, either by receiving Baptism, or by submitting to the keys of the Church. Therefore when an adult approaches Baptism, he does indeed receive the forgiveness of all his sins through his purpose of being baptized, but more perfectly through the actual reception of Baptism.⁷

We have seen that according to Catholic doctrine, repentance is necessary for forgiveness of sins and that man may freely reject the graces offered to him in the sacrament. As stated above, faith is also necessary. St. Thomas also says that, “she [the Church] does not intend to give Baptism save to those who have right faith, without which there is no remission of sins.”⁸ Thus faith, repentance, and assent are all necessary components of receiving sacramental grace.⁹ As with other issues of contention, the sandy ground on which the Protestant objection was built washes away once we examine the authentic Catholic doctrine.

St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us that we might be able to better understand the mysteries of the sacraments and more so that we would often avail ourselves to them and be found worthy recipients of the grace that they confer unto salvation.  Amen.

1. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 3.62.4
2. Ibid., 3.69.9
3. Ibid., 3.86.2
4. Ibid., 3.86.6
5. Ibid., 3.62.5
6. Hebrews 9:22
7. Ibid., 3.69.1
8. Ibid., 3.68.8
9. This applies even to children because these things which they are not able to produce are produced by the Church. Thus in child baptism, the Church believes, wills, and repents on his behalf.

“Thou hast written well of me, Thomas; what reward wilt thou have?”

“None other than Thyself, Lord.”

-St. Thomas Aquinas to the Lord Jesus after composing the treatise on the Eucharist, AD 1273.

Joining the Order of Preachers, the Dominicans, at a young age, Thomas devoted himself to the mystery of God throughout his life. Most know that his chief work is the Summa theologica. Few also know that he commented on the Sacred Scriptures, on the philosophical works of Aristotle, and, earlier, on the Sentences of Peter Lombard (the production of the latter being a standard requirement for attaining the bachelor of theology in the thirteenth century). Thomas composed various disputations drawn from his university teaching on topics such as truth, creation, the nature of evil, and the various types of virtues. Today the Church uses many of his hymns and prayers, particularly in her celebration of the Holy Eucharist. For example, Thomas wrote the liturgy for the feast of Corpus Christi. His method and works have been commended by popes to form priests and laity in the sapiential–that is, wisdom-seeking–quest for the knowledge of God, the universe, and the mysteries of salvation.

Archbishop J. Augustine Di Noia, OP

Yesterday the Catholic University of America and the Dominican House of Studies celebrated the feast of St. Thomas early with Archbishop J. Augustine Di Noia, OP, Secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.¹ In his homily, the archbishop correlated two themes one finds in the life of the great saint: an indefatigable thirst for greater understanding of the mystery of God and an intense dedication to Christ Jesus in the Eucharist. One may listen to the homily by watching this video of the Mass, beginning around minute twenty-one. I highly recommend the homily and have prepared a few thoughts in honor of St. Thomas as inspired by Archbishop Di Noia’s preaching.

The first theme is St. Thomas’s understanding that faith is not only compatible with human reason, but that human reason can continually grow in its understanding of the mysteries of faith. The mysteries of faith, according to Archbishop Di Noia, are “by definition without end [...] endlessly comprehensible and explicable [...] Not darkness but too much light [...] An unending and inexhaustible power to attract and transform the minds and hearts of the individual and communal lives in which they are pondered, digested, and ultimately loved and adored.” The light of faith purifies reason and prepares reason to serve the human journey to the blessed communion of the Three Persons. Thomas appropriated elements of Greek philosophy, whether Aristotelian, Platonic, or otherwise, often doing so in conversation with accomplished Jewish and Muslim philosophers of his day. He sat at the feet of the Church Fathers, read and re-read Sacred Scripture, and adverted to the symbols of faith in the Church’s creeds and pronouncements when necessary. St. Thomas thus synthesized various philosophical and theological sources for the mission of understanding more deeply the things of God, the movement of the rational creature to God, and the way in which this is possible in the Lord Jesus Christ. In his writings we can find an astounding coherence to the faith, not only in the correspondence of its various parts but also of the breadth and height of its contents.

A surprising point made by Archbishop Di Noia in this regard is that we often think of a “mystery” as something impenetrable or inscrutable to human reason. “It’s a mystery,” we say as we dismiss further reflection on a topic or event. Yet St. Thomas understood God to be the author of reason and that human reason participates in God’s rationality (cf. I-II q. 94 a. 2 on the eternal law of God and the rational participation therein of the human creature). In fact, God is reason:

Now, the end of each thing is that which is intended by the its first author or mover. But the first author and mover of the universe is an intellect, as will be later shown. The ultimate end of the universe must, therefore, be the good of an intellect. This good is truth. Truth must consequently be the ultimate end of the whole universe, and the consideration of the wise man aims principally at truth. (Summa contra Gentiles, ch. 1)

And because God is infinite, the conclusion is that the mystery of God is infinitely sought by the rational creature. Ultimately man’s journey into the mystery of God is possible only with the ontological, moral, and epistemological elevation of the rational creature to God through grace, but such elevation does not destroy, nullify, or circumvent the human mind. In fact, we pursue with theology now what we behold in substance in the life to come: the unending and limitless expansion of our awe and amazement at the beauty of the Triune God’s very being and love. Although God is simple, we behold the one mystery of God through various means. Included in these means are the seven “mysteries” or sacraments of Christ.

This touches on the the second theme of the homily, which was St. Thomas’s love for Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament and how in that Sacrament Thomas entered into the deep truth of the God who is love. Archbishop Di Noia related how Thomas had the habit of celebrating daily Mass and then attending a second Mass immediately following. At this second Mass, Thomas would serve at the altar. Often the great theologian would be found weeping at the beauty of God’s love shown forth in Christ Jesus. Jean-Pierre Torrell, OP, quotes St. Thomas on the same theme, saying that “the concrete manner in which everything that the Savior did and suffered in the flesh reaches us even today [is...] ‘spiritually through faith and bodily through the sacraments, for Christ’s humanity is simultaneously spirit and body in order that we might be able to receive into ourselves [we who are spirit and body] the effect of the sanctification that comes to us through Christ.’”² Thomas understood that the sacraments are the means of grace, the ways of participating in the divine life. The encounter with the Lord through the consumption of his Body and Blood in the Eucharist vivifies the spirit through the divine nature of Jesus Christ, bringing us to the Father through the work of the Holy Spirit. In the sacraments, believers enter into the mystery of the Triune God, where the inexhaustible mystery may be forever contemplated, searched, and enjoyed. Thomas wept because of the beauty of the mystery.

We who think ourselves theologically attuned can learn many things from St. Thomas. With the collapse of Enlightenment foundationalism under the pressure of the post- or late-modern critique comes also a collapse of confidence in human reason’s ability to wonder at the deep truth’s of existence and, above all, the God who upholds it every moment. Reason has been reduced to innocent delusion at best or hungry quest for power at worst. Sadly, this attitude of suspicion toward reason–even redeemed reason–has had deleterious influence on much modern theology. Despite the origin of man from God, who is pure spirit, many doubt that that which is most spiritual in man–his intellect–is incapable of attaining true sapientia from and in God. St. Thomas Aquinas, the “simple” friar who lived eight-hundred years ago, knew better and his writings stand to show us the way. Let us ask him to help us as we seek the face of the living God in the Body and Blood of the living Savior.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, you always had Jesus, the Wisdom of God and the Bread of God, before your eyes. Pray for us, that we might weep with great joy in His presence!

1. The University news report can be found here.
2. Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas, vol. 2: Spiritual Master (CUA Press: 2003), 139, quoting De veritate q. 27 a. 4.

Moreover, Aquinas follows Boethius in arguing that “unity belongs to the idea of goodness” because “a thing exists so far as it is one” and as St. Thomas explains, both goodness and unity are convertible with being. ² Thus, along with goodness and truth, unity is one of the ‘transcendentals’ because it is convertible with being. These transcendentals are simply being apprehended under different modes. This complements St. Augustine’s teaching that evil is not its own being but the corruption of being. All things, in so far as they exist, that is, in so far as they have being, are good and they exist in truth and unity.

Harmony or proportion is also closely related to unity. For harmony is a bringing together of two or more things into a unity while maintaining some aspect of their distinctive identity. Proportion is the perfect representation of another thing or conformity to some good. St. Thomas gives the example of the Son as the perfect image of the Father and thus said to be in perfect proportion. ³ Elsewhere he states that God is beautiful as being “the cause of the harmony and clarity of the universe.” ⁴ He also states that love, which is the most beautiful virtue, is “a certain harmony of the appetite with that which is apprehended as suitable.” ⁵

Unity and harmony, as qualities of beauty, can be understood when we consider the attractiveness of a complex piece of music (or any artwork) over something simple. All other things equal, the complexity makes the piece more beautiful. This is because the act of harmoniously incorporating additional forms and components into a greater unity approximates truth, beauty, and goodness. The unity of the Trinity is the perfect archetype of harmony and pure oneness (out of something like a plurality). A family is beautiful because of its unity; and a well ordered society is for the same reason. That is all to say that unity and harmony point to not just any truth, but to truth itself, God, as do all things beautiful.

The dissolution of a thing arises from a defect therein. Disunity is an evil because its end is the dissolution of a being in the same way that the end of sin is the dissolution of some good. The ugliness of disunity is evidenced by the pain that accompanies it. St. Thomas quotes St. Augustine saying, “what else is pain but a feeling of impatience of division or corruption?” ⁶ and goes on to say, “the good of each thing consists in a certain unity” in defense of his proposition that the desire for unity is a cause of sorrow.⁷

With all of these ideas considered, we followers of Christ ought to sorrow at the disunity of Christians and earnestly pray for the re-unification, the integration, of all Christians into one body: the Church. Unity is beautiful because it is good and Christ intended unity for His Church⁸ because it is His own body. Our theological differences notwithstanding, I hope that Christians of all backgrounds will join together during this week of prayer for Christian unity to petition the Holy Spirit to move on the hearts of men that we may be unified not only in spirit, but in body, that is, in Church.

1. Summa Theologica, 1.39.8
2. Ibid., 1.6.4; 2.36.3
3. Ibid., 1.39.8
4. Ibid., 2b.145.2. Aquinas is quoting Pseudo-Dionysius
5. Ibid., 2.29.1
6. De Lib. Arb. iii, 23
7. Summa Theologica 2.36.3
8. cf. John 17

We will summarize the significance of each type of statement and add some light commentary where expedient. The appendix will contain a few brief responses to anticipated objections as well as some scholarly support for early Christian belief in this doctrine and suggestions for further reading.

I – Affirmation of Change During Consecration
II – Simple Identification of Consecrated Species as the Body and Blood
III – Demand of Extraordinary Reverence
IV – Appendix

Introduction

The claim that the Church fathers believed in Transubstantiation is not a claim that any particular father commanded a precise understanding of the doctrine as formulated by Trent. Any given Church father could no sooner express this doctrine precisely in its developed form than could any given ante-Nicene father express the Niceno-Constantinoplitan doctrine of the Trinity. Yet this does not mean either that they did not believe it, or even that it existed in mere “seed form.” The Nicene doctrine of the Trinity can be detected not only in the early Christian writings and in the New Testament, it is an unavoidable development. That is, anything other than the Niceno-Constantinopolitan doctrine of the Trinity would be contrary to the Tradition of the Church. Likewise, the affirmations that the fathers made about the Eucharist were not only compatible with Transubstantiation, they were incompatible with anything less.

I – Affirmation of Change

Statements that directly affirm a change in the species clearly indicate that the speaker believed in what we now call Transubstantiation. The word ‘transubstantiation’ comes from the Latin trans (across) and substantiare (substantiate). ² It simply means a change of substance. There are only two types of changes, substantial and not-substantial (i.e. accidental). That is to say, if a thing changes, it either changes into another substance (into another thing) or some non-essential feature of it changes. But if a non-essential feature of something changes, we continue to refer to it in the same way. When a man gets a hair cut, we continue calling him a man; but when a log is burnt, we begin calling it a pile of ash.

In some rare cases we do change a name for something after it undergoes an accidental change. But we only do this when the name is associated with the thing accidentally. Thus we no longer call a bachelor a bachelor after he marries (an accidental or relational change). We call him a husband. Yet the name “bachelor” is an accidental term in the first place. He is a man; he is accidentally a bachelor and later becomes accidentally a husband. Throughout the change he is referred to as a man, because that is what we call him in reference to his essence.

Now bread is not called “bread” accidentally but essentially. Therefore the only time it would be proper to call it something else is when it had changed (substantially) into something else. e.g. If we burnt it into a pile of ash, we would call it a pile of ash. We would not call it something other than bread if it only changed accidentally.

But the fathers spoke of the bread differently after the consecration. They referred to it as “the Body” which is compatible only with a substantial change. Therefore, when the fathers spoke of a change in the Eucharist, they were speaking of a substantial change. Since Transubstantiation simply means “substantial change,” they were speaking of what we now call Transubstantiation.

We will clearly see the concept of “substantial change” in the fathers below. Additionally, in AD 1079, nearly 500 years before the Reformation at the sixth council of Rome, Berengarius affirmed the following in an oath:

…the bread and wine which are placed on the altar are substantially changed into the true and proper and living flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, our Lord…³

The Fourth Lateran Council in AD 1215 also declared:

Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood…⁴

This was again confirmed by Pope Innocent III (AD 1208), the Second Council of Lyons (AD 1274), Pope Benedict XII (AD 1341), the Council of Constance (AD 1415), and the Council of Florence (AD 1439). ⁵ This shows that in denying Transubstantiation, the Protestants rejected centuries of official Church teaching. Later some Protestants claim to be rejecting only Trent’s declaration. But as we have already seen, there were official councils and documents that affirmed a substantial change in the sacrament long before Trent. Now let us examine the fathers to see whether or not they believed that the bread changed into something else during consecration or whether it remained the same.

For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change (transmutation) of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus. – St. Justin Martyr First Apology 66

Notice that St. Justin does not merely affirm that the food (bread) has been changed, but that it had been changed specifically by the Eucharistic prayer. The change in species is related to the host independently of the communicant. There is no hint here, or elsewhere in the fathers, that it depended on anything but the power of the Holy Spirit working in the consecration. This rules out the heresy of receptionism.⁶

When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him? – St. Irenaeus Against Heresies 5:3

For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. – Ibid. 4.18.5

We give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread becomes by prayer a sacred body, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it. – Origen Against Celsus 8:33

The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ. – St. Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures 19:7

He once in Cana of Galilee, turned the water into wine, akin to blood, and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood? – Ibid. 22.2

St. Cyril goes on to explicitly profess what the Church is doing in the consecration, or rather, what God is doing in the consecration:

Then having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual Hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him; that He may make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ; for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has touched, is surely sanctified and changed. Ibid. 23.7

Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood, ‘do show the Lord’s Death.’ – St. Ambrose On the Christian Faith 4, 10:125

We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit. – Theodore of Mopsuestia Catechetical Homilies 5:1

He did not say, ‘This is the symbol of My Body, and this, of My Blood,’ but, what is set before us, but that it is transformed by means of the Eucharistic action into Flesh and Blood.” – Theodore of Mopsuestia Commentary on Matthew 26:26

Rightly then do we believe that the bread consecrated by the word of God has been changed [Gr., metapoieisthai] into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was bread in power, but it has been sanctified by the dwelling there of the Word, who pitched his tent in the flesh. The change that elevated to divine power the bread that had been transformed into that Body causes something similar now. In that case, the grace of the Word sanctified that Body whose material being came from bread and was, in a certain sense, bread itself. In this case, the bread “is sanctified by God’s word and by prayer”⁷, as the Apostle says, not becoming the Body of the Word through our eating but by being transformed [Gr., metapoiumenos] immediately into the body by means of the word, as the Word himself said, ‘This is my Body.’ …He shares himself with every believer through the Flesh whose material being [Gr., sustais] comes from bread and wine . . . in order to bring it about that, by communion with the Immortal, man may share in incorruption. He gives these things through the power of the blessing by which he transelements [Gr., metastoikeiosas] the nature of the visible things [to that of the Immortal]. – St. Gregory of Nyssa The Great Catechism 37

He [Jesus] disseminates Himself in every believer through that flesh, whose substance comes from bread and wine, blending Himself with the bodies of believers, to secure that, by this union with the immortal, man, too, may be a sharer in incorruption. – Ibid.

The bread again is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ – St. Gregory of Nyssa Sermon on the Day of Lights or on The Baptism of Christ

You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, consecrated by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what the chalice holds, consecrated by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. Through those accidents the Lord wished to entrust to us His Body and the Blood which He poured out for the remission of sins. – St. Augustine Sermons 227

St. Augustine here anticipates the developed form of the doctrine of Transubstantiation with surprising clarity. According to St. Thomas Aquinas many years later, the accidents of the bread and wine remain after Transubstantiation without a subject. (Summa 3.77.1) ⁸ It is through these “accidents” that the Lord’s Body and Blood are revealed to us. That is why we say that the Body and Blood are contained under the species of bread and wine. The bread and wine, as substances, no longer exist as they have been wholly converted into the precious Body and Blood. ⁹

The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread¹⁰. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s Body.” – St. Augustine Sermons 234:2

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. ‘This is my body,’ he says. This word transforms the things offered. – St. John Chrysostom Against the Judaizers 1.6

St. John Chrysostom explains that it is not the priest that effects the change; rather it is Christ Himself. This is why the claim that it amounts to a magician’s trick (or ‘monkey trick’ in the words of John Calvin) is false. It is not a trick but a miracle.

Far be it from me to censure the successors of the apostles, who with holy words consecrate the body of Christ, and who make us Christians. – St. Jerome Letter to Heliodorus

You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ….When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body. – St. Athanasius Sermon to the Newly Baptized

St. Athanasius, the great champion of Trinitarian orthodoxy, could not be any more explicit in affirming that a substantial change occurs at the consecration.

The following is a dialogue from Theodoret’s Eranistes on the subject of the miracle of consecration and the ‘change in nature’ it effects:

Eran.–You have opportunely introduced the subject of the divine mysteries for from it I shall be able to show you the change of the Lord’s body into another nature. Answer now to my questions.
Orth.–I will answer.
Eran.–What do you call the gift which is offered before the priestly invocation?
Orth.–It were wrong to say openly; perhaps some uninitiated are present.
Eran.–Let your answer be put enigmatically.
Orth.–Food of grain of such a sort.
Eran.–And how name we the other symbol?
Orth.–This name too is common, signifying species of drink.
Eran.–And after the consecration how do you name these?
Orth.–Christ’s body and Christ’s blood.
Eran.–And do yon believe that you partake of Christ’s body and blood?
Orth.–I do.”
- Theodoret of Cyrus Eranistes 2

Christ said indicating (the bread and wine): ‘This is My Body,’ and ‘This is My Blood,’ in order that you might not judge what you see to be a mere figure. The offerings, by the hidden power of God Almighty, are changed into Christ’s Body and Blood, and by receiving these we come to share in the life-giving and sanctifying efficacy of Christ. – St. Cyril of Alexandria Commentary on Matthew 26, 27

The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth body united with divinity, not that the body which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God’s body and blood. But if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit. And we know nothing further save that the Word of God is true and energises and is omnipotent, but the manner of this cannot be searched out. But one can put it well thus, that just as in nature the bread by the eating and the wine and the water by the drinking are changed into the body and blood of the eater and drinker, and do not become a different body from the former one, so the bread of the table and the wine and water are supernaturally changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Christ, and are not two but one and the same. – St. John of Damascus Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4:13

St. John Damascene explains that Christ does not “come down” and hide Himself among the host as is often caricatured. The bread is assumed into His Body, that is, it is lifted up to His heavenly Body by a miracle which is analogically compared to the process by which ordinary food is assumed into the higher unity of a human being upon its consumption. In fact, non-miraculous transubstantiation (change of substance) occurs anytime we eat anything. Food is transformed into human beings by consumption and analogically, the bread is transformed into the Body of Christ by the miracle of the Eucharistic consecration.

II – Simple Identification of the Species

On the topic of the Eucharist, the Council of Trent declared:

If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema. – Session 13, Canon I

The following quotations will show that the early fathers would not have been anathematized by this canon. At the same time, those modern Christians who deny Transubstantiation are, by their rejection of Christ’s substantial presence, at odds with this canon of the Catholic Church. As argued above, it is not enough to profess a belief in Christ’s presence in the reception of the Eucharist, even if it is professed to be a substantial presence. The Church fathers made little or no mention of the communion process in describing the Real Presence as we will see below. Christ’s presence does not depend on our reception or our faith. The significance of the simple identification statements is that they do not merely say Christ is present alongside the host, or within the host, or that He is present with us in receiving this sacrament. They explicitly affirm that this host is the Body of Christ.

The fathers affirmed that His presence was contained in the Body and Blood and such simple identification is consistent only with a host that had been substantially changed, i.e. a consecrated host. If the fathers were speaking (merely) in a symbolic manner, they would be able to call the bread the Body even before the consecration. That is, if nothing actually changed about the bread itself during the consecration, then it would not be wrong to call it the Body before the consecration. But we saw above that the fathers did change how they referred to the host after the consecration. Further, we will see below that the fathers consistently referred to the consecrated host as the Body and to the unconsecrated host as bread. This is not only consistent with Transubstantiation–it doesn’t make sense unless we affirm the doctrine. Finally, some fathers even explicitly denied that the term “Body” was a merely symbolic reference.

I take no pleasure in corruptible food or in the delights of this life. I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who is the seed of David; and for drink I want his Blood which is incorruptible love. -St. Ignatius to the Romans 7:3

They [those with heterodox opinions] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. – St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 7:1

The Docetists denied that Christ had a physical Body. Naturally, they denied His metaphysical presence in the Eucharist. St. Ignatius is condemning their heresy. ¹¹

If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood? – St. Irenaeus Against Heresies 4:33–32

If Christ was speaking metaphorically, there would be no difficulty in explaining what St. Irenaeus was attempting to explain. Either St. Irenaeus had not considered the idea that Christ might be referring to the bread as His Body metaphorically, or he (Irenaeus) was taking it for granted that Jesus spoke literally. Since St. Irenaeus refrained from explaining the matter, it is clear that he was asking the question rhetorically and was taking it for granted that Christ spoke literally and that his readers would have already known this.

He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. – Ibid. 5:2

‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’¹² refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper – St. Hippolytus Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs

It is not bread and wine that are offered as a memorial, but the actual Body and Blood.

Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.’¹³ – Origen Homilies on Numbers 7:2

Among the early fathers, Origen and the Alexandrian tradition in general favored allegorical interpretations and leaned heavily in that direction. On several other occasions, Origen referred to the Eucharist as a symbol, as did his predecessor, St. Clement of Alexandria. Yet he also referred to it as the “true Body,” associating the Eucharist with John 6 where Jesus Himself explicitly affirmed the same.

After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink. – Aphraahat the Persian Sage Treatises 12:6

We speak in an absurd and godless manner about the divinity of Christ’s nature in us — unless we have learned it from Him. He Himself declares: ‘For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him’¹⁴. It is no longer permitted us to raise doubts about the true nature of the body and the blood, for, according to the statement of the Lord Himself as well as our faith, this is indeed flesh and blood. And these things that we receive bring it about that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is this not the truth? Those who deny that Jesus Christ is the true God are welcome to regard these words as false. He Himself, therefore, is in us through His flesh, and we are in Him, while that which we are with Him is in God. – St. Hilary of Poitiers The Trinity 8.14

It would not make sense to bring up the possibility of doubting the veracity of the Eucharist, were it only a symbol. It is not feasible to think that anyone ever doubted that the bread represented Christ’s Body. St. Hilary’s quotation is only intelligible if we assume He was speaking of the possibility of doubting that the consecrated bread is actually the Body. Furthermore, his addition of the word “indeed” so as to match our Lord’s words, would be intentionally deceitful and misleading were he not intending to convey the actual and simple identification of the consecrated host as Christ’s Body. No one adds “indeed” to something meant to be understood metaphorically.

Since then He Himself declared and said of the bread, ‘This is My Body,’ who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has Himself affirmed and said, ‘This is My Blood,’ who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His Blood? – St. Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures 22.1

Unfortunately there are many Christians today who dare to doubt it; and what’s worse, many of them profess to be in harmony with the early Church fathers on this issue.

Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” – Ibid. 22:6,9

Notice that St. Cyril does not merely state that the true Body is present among the bread in some mystical sense but that the apparent bread is actually not bread. The introduction of the sense experience into the question of identification clearly shows that he is meaning to identify the host with the Body.

Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ. – St. Ambrose The Mysteries 9:50, 58

Notice the order of the last sentence. According to St. Ambrose, we do not say it is Christ’s Body because Christ is in the sacrament; rather Christ is in the sacrament because it is Christ’s Body.

When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. – Theodore of Mopsuestia Catechetical Homilies 5:1

Here Theodore explicitly rejected a merely symbolic view of the Eucharist.

Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body.’¹⁵ For he carried that body in his hands. – St. Augustine Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10

What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. – St. Augustine Sermons 272

It does not require faith to understand something as a symbol. It does require faith to assert that what appears to be bread is actually the Body of Christ. It would not have made sense for St. Augustine to demand that men believe (against their senses) that something was a symbol. If one wanted to object that perhaps St. Augustine was simply exhorting men to believe that Jesus was actually present along with the bread, he (the objector) would have to use another text as proof because here St. Augustine said explicitly that the bread is the Body, not that the Body is present along with the bread or in the ceremony.

When you see the Lord immolated and lying upon the altar, and the priest bent over that sacrifice praying, and all the people empurpled [made purple in coloring] by that precious blood, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you lifted up to heaven? – St. John Chrysostom On the Priesthood 3.4.177

According to St. John Chrysostom, Christ is literally present on the altar.

‘Because the Bread is one, we, the many, are in one Body’¹⁶. ‘Why do I say communion?’ he says; ‘for we are that very Body.’ What is the Bread? The Body of Christ! What do they become who are partakers therein? The Body of Christ! Not many bodies, but one Body. For just as the bread, consisting of many grains, is made one, and the grains are no longer evident, but still exist, though their distinction is not apparent in their conjunction; so too are we conjoined to each other and to Christ. For you are not nourished by one Body while someone else is nourished by another Body; rather, all are nourished by the same Body. – St. John Chrysostom Homily on the First Epistle to the Corinthians 24.2.4

When you see [the Body of Christ] lying on the altar, say to yourself, ‘Because of this Body I am no longer earth and ash, no longer a prisoner, but free. Because of this Body I hope for heaven, and I hope to receive the good things that are in heaven, immortal life, the lot of the angels, familiar conversation with Christ. This body, scourged and crucified, has not been fetched by death . . . . This is that Body which was blood-stained, which was pierced by a lance, and from which gushed forth those saving fountains, one of blood and the other of water [symbolizing the sacraments of Communion or the Eucharist and Baptism] , for the world.’ . . . This is the Body which He gave us, both to hold in reserve [for worship] and to eat, which was appropriate to intense love; for those whom we kiss with abandon we often even bite with our teeth. – Ibid. 24.4.7

Let us therefore in all respects put our faith in God and contradict Him in nothing, even if what is said seems to be contrary to our reasonings and to what we see. Let His word be of superior authority to reason and sight. This too be our practice in respect of the Mysteries [Sacrament of Eucharist or Communion], not looking upon what is laid before us, but taking heed also of His words. For words cannot deceive; but our senses are easily cheated. His word has never failed; our senses err most of the time.
When the word says, ‘This is my Body,’ be convinced of it and believe it, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ did not give us something tangible, but even in His tangible things all is intellectual. So too with Baptism: the gift is bestowed through what is a tangible thing, water, but what is accomplished is intellectually perceived: the birth and the renewal. If you were incorporeal He would have given you those incorporeal gifts naked; but since the soul is intertwined with the body, He hands over to you in tangible things, that which is perceived intellectually. How many now say, ‘I wish I could see His shape [Gr. ton tupon], His appearance, His garments, His scandals.’ Only look! You see Him! You touch Him. You eat Him. He had given to those who desire Him, not only to see Him and fix their teeth in His flesh, and to embrace Him and satisfy all their love. St. John Chrysostom Homily on Matthew 82.4

And not as common flesh do we receive it [the Eucharist]; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. – Council of Ephesus, Session 1, Letter of St. Cyril to Nestorius

Notice that the third ecumenical council directly rejects the idea that the divine presence of Christ merely “indwells” in the Eucharist; rather the Eucharist “truly” is the “very flesh of the Word Himself.” This is incompatible with Reformed doctrine even while many Reformed Christians claim to accept the first four ecumenical councils. Notice, in case one would object that the context is reception, that St. Cyril is not talking about the act of reception, nor is there any reference to the reception as a cause of the Real Presence. His claim regards what is received rather than what happens when we receive. Objectively, what is received is the consecrated host, and this host is received as the true Body.

After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith that they had eaten of Christ’s body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole Sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. Then He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own Blood, which was about to be poured out . . . Christ commanded them to drink, and He explained to them that the cup which they were drinking was His own Blood: ‘This is truly My Blood, which is shed for all of you. Take, all of you, drink of this, because it is a new covenant in My Blood. As you have seen Me do, do you also in My memory. Whenever you are gathered together in My name in Churches everywhere, do what I have done, in memory of Me. Eat My Body, and drink My Blood, a covenant new and old. – St. Ephraim Homilies 4,4

According to St. Ephraim, the Eucharist was explained directly to the disciples by Christ Himself at the Last Supper. This is why the early Christians did not need to rely exclusively on the Scriptures to discern the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Indeed, the earliest Christians did not have access to the New Testament. This is the source of the Apostolic doctrine of Transubstantiation. The Church has always confessed the Eucharist to be the true Body because Christ had explained this to the Apostles, and the Apostles explained it to the Churches.

The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, ‘This is My body,’ not, this is a figure of My body: and ‘My blood,’ not, a figure of My blood. And on a previous occasion He had said to the Jews, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. For My flesh is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. And again, He that eateth Me, shall live. – St. John of Damascus Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4:13

Again, St. John Damascene rejected a merely figurative view of the Eucharistic species. Notice that he was not only rejecting memorialism. He was referring to the very bread and wine (that is, the species of bread and wine) when he said that they “are not merely figures.” He insisted, as we have seen consistently from the fathers, in identifying the consecrated hosts themselves as the Body and Blood. He also associated the Eucharist with John 6.

III – Extraordinary Reverence

A third type of statement shows that the Church fathers believed that extraordinary reverence, even adoration, should be given to the species itself. Of course, many Protestants who do not believe in Transubstantiation exhibit significant reverence for the act of communion but not for the species itself. The quotations below show that the early Church went beyond a mere respect for the communion rite. They hallowed and revered the consecrated host. Respect for the host would also be consistent with Consubstantiation but Consubstantiation is not consistent with adoration of the consecrated host.

In the context of the Eucharist, Tertullian explains the Tradition of the Church:

We take anxious care lest something of our Cup or Bread should fall upon the ground. – Tertullian The Crown 3:3-4

Similarly, Origen wrote:

You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish… how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting His body? – Origen Homilies on Exodus 13:3

And St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote:

He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’¹⁷. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord. – St. Cyprian of Carthage On the Lapsed 15–16

Finally, St. Augustine wrote:

He walked here in the same flesh, and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. But no one eats that flesh unless he first adores it; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored; and not only do we not sin by adoring, we do sin by not adoring. – St. Augustine Commentary on Psalms 98:9

St. Augustine affirmed that the Flesh we eat in the Eucharist is the same Flesh as when Christ walked the earth. Consequently, it is proper and right to adore it (the Eucharist). In fact, it is a sin not to adore it according to St. Augustine. But if the Eucharist had not actually been changed into the Flesh of Christ, it would be idolatry to adore it. Thus, either St. Augustine was advocating idolatry or he believed in Transubstantiation.

Approaching [the Eucharist] therefore, do not come forward with the palms of the hands outstretched nor with the fingers apart, but making the left [hand] a throne for the right since this hand is about to receive the King. Making the palm hollow, receive the Body of Christ, adding ‘Amen’. Then. carefully sanctifying the eyes by touching them with the holy Body, partake of it, ensuring that you do not mislay any of it. For if you mislay any, you would clearly suffer a loss, as it were, from one of your own limbs. Tell me, if anyone gave you gold-dust, would you not take hold of it with every possible care, ensuring that you do not mislay any of it or sustain any loss? So will you not be much more cautious to ensure that not a crumb falls away from that which is more precious than gold or precious stones?
Then, after you have partaken of the Body of Christ, come forward only for the cup of the Blood. Do not stretch out your hands but bow low as if making an act of obeisance and a profound act of veneration. Say ‘Amen’. and sanctify yourself by partaking of Christ’s Blood also. While the moisture is still on your lips, touch them with your hands and sanctify your eyes, your forehead, and all your other sensory organs. Finally, wait for the prayer and give thanks to God, who has deemed you worthy of such mysteries.- St. Cyril of Jerusalem Catechesis Mystagogica V, 11-22

Notice that St. Cyril demanded that the faithful approach with great reverence. This would be unfitting if they did not believe that the bread and wine had actually become the Body and Blood of the Lord. He, like St. Augustine, also exhorted adoration of the sacrament.

Additionally, the well known practice of the ante-Nicene Christians carrying the consecrated Eucharist to the sick and shut-in only makes sense given that the bread had become the Body. If not, it would suffice to eat any bread so long as one believed that he was consuming Christ. Rather, the early Christians even risked their lives to transport the Eucharist. This is consistent only with Transubstantiation. St. Hippolytus also warned those Christians who did reserve consecrated hosts to be careful lest it should be consumed by an unbeliever or even a mouse. ¹⁸

Finally, on a slightly different note, St. Ignatius of Antioch explains that only an ordained presbyter or bishop can consecrate the Eucharist.

Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. – St. Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8:1

If the Eucharist were a mere symbol, it would not make any sense whatsoever to talk about a “valid” Eucharist or an “invalid” Eucharist. It could still make sense to speak of an illicit Eucharist, but not of an invalid Eucharist. If the bread and wine only symbolized, and did not actually become the Body and Blood, then anyone anywhere could achieve the same thing (symbolize Christ’s Body) whether or not they were ordained. It might be the case that they were wrong in doing so, since they should have done it in the context of the Church, but nevertheless it would not be invalid. This is additional evidence that Transubstantiation was believed by the Church from her earliest days.

IV – Appendix

i – Objections

1. Is the doctrine of Transubstantiation dependent on Aristotlean metaphysics?

On the contrary, (then) Lutheran scholar, Jaroslav Pelikan writes:

The victory of orthodox Christian doctrine over classical thought was to some extent a Pyrrhic victory, for the theology that triumphed over Greek philosophy has continued to be shaped ever since by the language and the thought of classical metaphysics. For example, the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 decreed that “in the sacrament of the altar… the bread is transubstantiated into the body [of Christ],and the wine into [his] blood,” and the Council of Trent declared in 1551 that the use of the term “transubstantiation” was “proper and appropriate.” Most of the theological expositions of the term “transubstantiation,” beginning already with those of the thirteenth century, have interpreted “substance” on the basis of the meaning given to this term by such classical discussions as that in the fifth book of Aristotle’s Metaphysics; transubstantiation, then, would appear to be tied to the acceptance of Aristotelian metaphysics or even of Aristotelian physics.

Yet the application of the term “substance” to the discussion of the Eucharistic presence antedates the rediscovery of Aristotle. In the ninth century, Ratramnus spoke of “substances visible but invisible,” and his opponent Radbertus declared that “out of the substance of bread and wine the same body and blood of Christ is mystically consecrated.” Even “transubstantiation” was used during the twelfth century in a nontechnical sense. Such evidence lends credence to the argument that the doctrine of transubstantiation, as codified by the decrees of the Fourth Lateran and Tridentine councils, did not canonize Aristotelian philosophy as indispensable to Christian doctrine.¹⁹

2. Does patristic reference to Eucharistic symbolism indicate disbelief in an actual change?

On the contrary, Catholics affirm that the Eucharist is also symbolic. Protestant historian Adolf Harnack helps explain the ancient mind on the topic of symbolism:

What we nowadays understand by “symbol” is a thing which is not that which it represents; at that time [antiquity] “symbol” denoted a thing which in some kind of way really is what it signifies.²⁰

The Fathers clearly teach the Real Presence of Christ, that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. Harnack’s explanation of the ancient understanding of what it means to be a symbol explains how the Fathers could believe that the Eucharist was truly the Body and Blood of Christ and also a symbol. However, the Eucharist is real in a way that other “symbolic” things are not (this is understood now and in antiquity). This shows the weakness of the argument that denies the reality of the sacrifice of the Eucharist by relegating the mystery to symbolism. Since the modern mind apprehends ‘symbolism’ to mean that something is not real, whereas the ancient mind did not, this argument is weak. That is, the patristic use of the word ‘symbol’ in reference to the Sacrament does not connote what the modern use of the term ‘symbol’ connotes to us. And because of this, the patristic use of the term ‘symbol’ to refer to the Eucharist does not imply that the Fathers thought of the Eucharist as “merely symbolic” à la Zwingli.

3. Do some patristic statements indicate that a particular father disbelieved in substantial change?

Even if it were shown that a Church father disbelieved in Transubstantiation, it would only prove that that particular father was in error on this point. As shown above, the Church authoritatively defined it as dogma on several occasions including no less than four ecumenical councils. Here are some example quotations that are sometimes used in an attempt to justify one’s disbelief in Transubstantiation:

And extending His hand, He gave them the bread which His right hand had made holy: ‘Take, all of you eat this, which My word has made holy. Do not regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread, and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called my Body, that it is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands, and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat, because this is my Body, and whoever eats it in belief, entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it in belief eats it in Fire and Spirit. But if any doubters eat of it, for him it will be only bread. And whoever eats in belief the Bread made holy in My name, if he be pure, he will be preserved in his purity; and if he be a sinner, he will be forgiven.’ But if anyone despise it or reject it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as a certainty that he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body. – St. Ephraim Homilies 4,4

One way to read the bolded phrase above is to claim that St. Ephraim believed that the consecrated host was really bread but that if you had faith, you could receive Christ. Thus, the doubters only receive bread because they do not have the faith to receive the Body. The problem with this way of reading the phrase is that he explicitly states in this same passage that it is the Body. Above, we quoted from this same passage showing that St. Ephraim went into great detail and used explicit language to affirm his belief that the bread truly becomes the Body. Since he clearly affirmed a substantial change, either we must conclude that he contradicted himself, or “for him it will be only bread” must be read in another way.

In fact, there is another feasible way to read this phrase. The phrase should be understood as referring to the effect of the sacrament rather than the sacrament itself. A believer receives the Body unto salvation, but the doubter does not receive any benefit; for him it has the same effect as would normal bread. Since this way is fully compatible with the rest of what St. Ephraim said and the other way is a contradiction, this is the more probable way of interpreting his statement.

Another one sometimes used is this quotation from St. Augustine:

They said therefore unto Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already.²¹

We have seen above that St. Augustine affirmed that the bread become the Body and that the communicants must adore it before receiving. So how is this quotation compatible with his other statements? St. Augustine is not denying Transubstantiation by affirming that we can receive Christ by faith. As St. Thomas Aquinas explained, there are two ways to receive Christ: spiritually and sacramentally. ²² To receive Him by faith is to receive Him spiritually, and to receive Him by consumption of the Eucharistic species is to receive Him sacramentally. Ideally, one would receive Christ in both ways at each communion. But in the case of the doubter above, he receives only sacramentally and does not receive spiritually because he lacks faith. St. Augustine in this passage is referring to the spiritual reception of Christ’s Body which is not opposed to the sacramental reception and far less does it disprove his belief in a substantial change in the Eucharist.

Two other quotations often used to argue against the historicity of Transubstantiation are from Pope Gelasius and Theodoret:

Surely the sacrament we take of the Lord´s body and blood is a divine thing, on account of which, and by the same we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to be. And certainly the image and similitude of Christ´s body and blood are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. – Pope Gelasius Tractatus de duabus naturis 14

You are caught in the net you have woven yourself. For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they are become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be. Compare then the image with the archetype, and you will see the likeness, for the type must be like the reality. For that body preserves its former form, figure, and limitation and in a word the substance of the body; but after the resurrection it has become immortal and superior to corruption; it has become worthy of a seat on the right hand; it is adored by every creature as being called the natural body of the Lord. – Theodoret, Dialogue II

On the contrary, W.R. Carson writes:

…it is assumed wrongly that by the words “nature” and “substance” the Fathers cited, writing centuries before heresies had made accurate definition and precise terminology necessary, intended to mean what the Tridentine Fathers meant by them. This is demonstrably untrue. The words ‘substance’ and ‘nature’ are synonymous with what at Trent were called the ‘species’ or ‘accidents.’ This is surely evident (a) from the context of the various passages, where a conversion (metabolen), to use Theodoret’s word, of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, is mentioned; (b) from the fact that they constantly and uniformly speak of such ‘nature’ and ‘substance’ as symbols; (c) from Leibnitz’ (a Protestant authority) well-known observation that the Fathers do not use these terms to express metaphysical notions.(53) (d) As regards Theodoret, from the confession of the Lutherans of Madgeburg that he is opposed to their doctrine and cannot be read with safety.(54) It should be added that the passages attributed to Theodoret and St. Gelasius occur in works that are considered spurious by many competent critics.²³

This list is not an exhaustive; more could be cited for and against the doctrine but this is representative and contains the majority of the strongest objections from patristic sources.

4. Does Transubstantiation undermine the true corporeality of Christ’s Body?

John Calvin erroneously claimed that the ubiquity of Christ’s presence on Catholic altars was impossible because it would undermine the true corporeal nature of Christ’s risen Body.

On the contrary, this is false because Christ is not present in the sacrament as a thing is present in a place. St. Thomas explained that here. ²⁴ That is, Christ is present metaphysically (or “after the manner of a substance”). It could also be said that He is present ‘supernaturally’ as opposed to ‘naturally.’ His Body is not subjected to physical laws and cannot be said to be present physically, insofar as ‘physically’ denotes that the thing belongs to the physical order in the way that ordinary physical objects do. ²⁵ Therefore, Transubstantiation is consistent with the true corporeality of Christ’s risen Body. ²⁶

5. Do the Eastern Orthodox reject Transubstantiation?

On the contrary, the Catholic Church affirms that the Eastern Churches have a valid Eucharist and that they have correct doctrine in respect to the Eucharist.²⁷ This is evidenced by the fact that there is an open invitation (on the side of the Catholic Church) for Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters to receive Catholic communion. This would be impossible were the Church to understand them as rejecting the essential elements of Transubstantiation.

6. Is Transubstantiation tantamount to cannibalism?

On the contrary, this objection assumes the error of reducing the Eucharistic reception to a purely physical process. In the Eucharist Christ is not received physically, but spiritually and sacramentally as explained above. Also see this post on the Real Presence and Cannibalism.

ii – Additional Reading

Council of Trent on the Eucharist

Fr. Al Kimel on Transubstantiation (Long but well worth the read.)

W. R. Carson – The Antiquity of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation

Books:

Eucharist, by Louis Bouyer
A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist, by Abbot Vonier, Peter Kreeft, and Aidan Nichols
The Hidden Manna: A Theology of the Eucharist, by James T. O’Connor

Finally, Protestant historian J. N. D. Kelly writes:

Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood.²⁸

Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally. ²⁹

In Conclusion, it is clear that the doctrine of Transubstantiation extends in concept to the earliest days of the Church, was upheld and affirmed by several popes and ecumenical councils, and was then rejected by Protestants in the sixteenth century. The patristic support is heavily on the side of the Catholic dogma.

1. Such a defense will be written in the future on Called to Communion.
2. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=transubstantiation&searchmode=none
3. As quoted by Denzinger Sources of Catholic Dogma, 355
4. Ibid., 430
5. Ibid., 424, 465, 544, 581, 698
6. See also Council of Trent, Session 13, Canon IV: “If any one saith, that, after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but (are there) only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that, in the hosts, or consecrated particles, which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true Body of the Lord remaineth not; let him be anathema.”
7. 1 Tim 4:5
8. There are strong reasons to believe this particular metaphysical nuance of the doctrine but the council of Trent did not directly canonize this Thomistic idea. In other words, there is some room for speculation on these grounds. One can accept Trent without affirming strict Aristotlean metaphysics. It should also be stated that Aristotle, for this very reason, would have rejected Transubstantiation as an impossibility since accidents cannot, according to him, exist without a subject. Ordinarily, St. Thomas would agree, but he considers this a uniquely miraculous event.
9. Council of Trent, Session 13, Canon II
10. Luke 24:16,30-35
11. See also Kelly, J.N.D., Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 197-198
12. Proverbs 9:2
13. John 6:55
14. John 6:56-57
15. Matthew 26:26
16. 1 Cor 10:17
17. 1 Corinthians 11:27
18. For more, see Chadwick, Henry The Early Church, pp. 262, 266
19. Pelikan, Jaroslav The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, p. 44; emphasis added.
20. Harnack, Adolf History of Dogma 1888, I. p. 397
21. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 25, 12.
22. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 3.80.1
23. Carson, W. R. The Antiquity of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation which can be read online here.
24. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 3.76.5
25. Unfortunately, the modern mind often uses the word “physical” to denote that something is “actual” as if “physical” were the opposite of “imaginary” or “untrue.” This is due in large part to the influence of materialism on the modern way of thinking. But the term “physical” means that the aspect described is relegated to the physical world, i.e. to matter. This is clearly not true of the Real Presence of Christ; hence we say metaphysical rather than physical, supernatural rather than natural.
26. See also St. Gregory of Nyssa The Great Catechism, 37 in which he anticipated and explained the answer to Calvin’s objection.
27. This is not to say that there aren’t Eastern Orthodox Christians who deny the dogma.
28. Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines p. 440
29. Ibid., pp. 211-212

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.

Like all sins, the species of covetousness takes its act from its object, but not all objects are the same. Desiring a man’s material possessions is a distinct sin from desiring his wife because the object differs in kind. Consent to the former leads to theft, but consent to the latter leads to the greater, and specifically distinct, sin of adultery. Therefore, Sts. Augustine and Aquinas are correct in apprehending that there are two specifically distinct sins of covetousness forbidden in the Decalogue.

St. Thomas Aquinas raises an interesting objection as to whether there should be prohibitions against covetousness:

Further, murder is a more grievous sin than adultery or theft. But there is no precept forbidding the desire of murder. Therefore neither was it fitting to have precepts forbidding the desire of theft and of adultery. (Summa 2b.122.6.o4)

To which he replies:

Murder in itself is an object not of concupiscence but of horror, since it has not in itself the aspect of good. On the other hand, adultery has the aspect of a certain kind of good, i.e. of something pleasurable, and theft has an aspect of good, i.e. of something useful: and good of its very nature has the aspect of something concupiscible. Hence the concupiscence of theft and adultery had to be forbidden by special precepts, but not the concupiscence of murder. (Summa 2b.122.6.r4)

All men desire good, and every deliberate act is an act towards acquiring some good (real or perceived). Man’s pursuit of a particular good is moved by the concupiscible appetite. The object of concupiscence is a pleasurable good. Protestants generally believe that concupiscence is simply our proclivity to sin. But St. Thomas argues that there are different types of concupiscence. Some concupiscences are natural (called irrational) and some are unnatural (called rational). The natural concupiscences are called irrational because they are common to animals and men, but the unnatural concupiscences are called rational because they are proper only to rational beings. (Summa 2a.30)

Natural concupiscence leads a man (or an animal) to seek things because they are suitable to one’s nature (like food and drink). These things, because they are suitable to nature, are pleasurable. Thus, natural concupiscence does not lead to sin. The unnatural concupiscence is what leads a man to seek a thing because he apprehends it “as good and suitable, and consequently takes pleasure in it.” (Ibid., article 3)

It is an unnatural concupiscence which leads a man to covet either another man’s material objects or another man’s wife. He perceives (by coveting) that he will have pleasure in theft or in adultery. But neither of these are suitable to his nature (as are food or drink for example). So they are not driven by natural concupiscence. Therefore the sins of theft and adultery arise from unnatural concupiscence. In the case of covetousness, a man seeks the pleasure of a good rather than a good suitable to nature which is pleasurable for that reason.

St. Thomas explains that, while murder is a greater evil than adultery or theft, murder itself is not an object of concupiscence. No one can desire the “pleasurable good” of murder because murder is not a pleasurable good. Now adultery is not a good and neither is theft. But in both cases, there is “an aspect of a certain kind of good.” The aspects he refers to are sex and acquisition of material goods respectively. Both of these are aspects of a certain kind of good but killing a man does not have such an aspect of good.

The significance of the prohibitions against covetousness is the condemnation of unnatural concupiscence. This principle is foundational for many other precepts and doctrines; some of which have been abandoned by most non-Catholic traditions. It is a divine precept that underlies the prohibition of covetousness: you shall not seek mutable goods merely for the sake of pleasure. Rather, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind;” (Lk 10:27) and “seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” (Mt 6:33)

A simple answer of why God allowed the Fall of man runs like this. God did not desire man’s sin but He respected man’s free will by allowing him to eat the apple. If that works for you, then I say let it continue to work for you (and don’t continue reading).

But in fact that argument doesn’t work. Imagine the parent that placed a knife in his child’s crib, hoping that the child wouldn’t play with it. The parent does not will for the child to play with it, but he will respect the child’s free will. It would be better, apparently, for the parent to avoid placing dangerous objects in the child’s crib. The parent can preveniently protect the child from evil by not allowing him access to it. This prevenient protection does not violate the child’s free will. On the contrary, it allows the free will to be even freer since it cannot make a dangerous mistake. Likewise, God could have simply not placed the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden.

Now could God have created a world without evil? Absolutely speaking, that is possible. God could have created a world where evil didn’t exist. But for at least two reasons, God desired that evil should exist. First, so that all possible good might exist, and second, that we might know Him.

The good of perseverance and fortitude cannot exist without the evil of pain and suffering. Without evil, we would lack the good of martyrs. It was God’s desire that the good of perseverance, etc. would exist.

Another reason why God created a world with evil is so that we might know Him. Following Aquinas, as quoted in my article on the Divine Metaphor, “We can speak of simple things only as though they were like the composite things from which we derive our knowledge.” Now in God there is no evil, nor is there a hierarchy of diversity, one thing more perfect than another.  God is simple, but we can only know the simple through complex things.  Therefore, in order for us to know God, it was necessary to create a complex universe organized into a hierarchy of diversity.

This hierarchy of diversity, which God created, is intended to show us what He is like by analogy. The Scriptures teach us that God is like a king, for example. This is meaningful to us because a king is the highest office; in that particular respect, God is like a king. Of course, we cannot compare God to a human king in any direct sense because whatever can be said of God, in truth cannot be said of anyone or anything else. Our kingship is only like God’s “kingship.” Even the goodness and beauty of the world is only like God who is truly good and truly beautiful. God the Son, is also compared to a lion. This is meaningful for us because lions hold a place of honor among the beasts. They are mightier and fiercer than the other beasts. In this regard, God the Son is like a lion. Rather, a lion is like God the Son.

To simplify this thought, imagine that all beasts were exactly the same. God could not be referred to as a beast because He would not be like a beast. He is only referred to as a lion because lions are greater than other beasts. Imagine if there were no government. God could not be likened unto any human office because no man would be above any other man. But God is above us, and in that way is likened unto a king. This is only a simple way to conceptualize the point I’m trying to make. Imagine (the absurd proposition) that God created a world without this hierarchy of diversity or distinction. If all things were equal, we could in no way relate to God because in our finite capacity, we cannot comprehend God. We only know Him by knowing things which He has revealed to us via the material world. We understand His greatness only by understanding the greatness of kings and lions, etc. and by amplifying that greatness to the best of our ability.

Evil is not a thing that God created. As St. Augustine taught, evil is simply a privation of good as a shadow is a privation of light. But the good of a king cannot be grasped without the privation of that kingly goodness which exists in his subjects. The goodness of the lion cannot be known to us without the privation of that same goodness in his prey or in the lesser beasts. That is: If privation of good didn’t exist in this world, we would have no way to  understand God’s goodness.

God could have instantly given us the capacity to see Him directly (which is the Beatific Vision or Heaven), but He chose not to for reasons given above (that the good of fortitude, perseverance, etc. should exist). Thus, in order for us to know Him at all, without the Beatific Vision, it was necessary to create a world wherein privation of good existed so that there would be a hierarchy of diversity whereby we might know what God is like. Our participation in evil, which is by no means necessary, consists in turning away from the Creator and choosing a created good. Jesus Christ, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, overcame the world by never choosing a created good over God the Creator. May we imitate Him this Easter season and until we finish the race. Amen.

Temptation, Fall, and Expulsion
Brothers Limbourg (1411-1416)

When a Catholic monk named Martin Luther posted ninety-five theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg in October of 1517, he initiated a controversy that eventually led not only to his excommunication on January 3, 1521, but to the subsequent separation of Protestants from the Catholic Church. During the following two decades the Church attempted to effect a reconciliation with Protestants. These efforts culminated in Pope Paul III convoking an ecumenical council in 1542, the nineteenth ecumenical council in the history of the Church.² This council met in the city of Trent, and had its first session in 1545. The purpose of the Council was two-fold: to extirpate various heresies that had arisen, and to reform the morals among the clergy and the lay faithful.³

The First Session formally opened the Council. The Second Session set forward the manner in which the bishops should conduct themselves during the Council. The Third Session expressed the Creed of the Church. The Fourth Session addressed the canon of Scripture. The Fifth Session addressed the doctrine of original sin. And the Sixth Session addressed the doctrine of justification.

It was not by accident that the Council addressed the doctrine of original sin before taking up the doctrine of justification. The doctrine of justification depends in part on the doctrine of original sin, as I shall show below. So in order rightly to understand the Council’s teaching on justification, one must first understand its teaching on original sin. In previous posts in this series, I presented and explained St. Thomas’s theology of original sin. (See “Aquinas and Trent: Part 2,” in which I explain the essence of original sin, according to St. Thomas, and “Aquinas and Trent: Part 3,” in which I explain the effect of original sin, according to St. Thomas.) I will not repeat here what I have said there; and what I say here presupposes that the reader has read at least those two posts in this series.

Why is the Council of Trent relevant to the reconciliation of Protestants and Catholics? Shouldn’t we just put the past behind us, and move forward? The reason why the Council of Trent remains relevant is that the canons of the Council of Trent are infallible, so the Church has no authority to overturn them. Whatever was declared heretical at Trent will remain heretical until Christ returns in the clouds in glory. The authority of the canons does not depend on whether those claims were in fact affirmed by any person. Nor does it depend on the bishops’ degree of understanding of the Protestants’ theological positions. But the canons condemn only the claims stated in the canons; they do not condemn unstated positions that may have been held by Protestants. Doesn’t the infallibility of the canons of Trent make ecumenical dialogue pointless? Not at all. To understand why, see my post titled “Two Ecumenicisms.” Protestants and Catholics can be reconciled only by coming to the truth concerning their separation in the sixteenth century. And that requires coming to terms with the Council of Trent. Protestants can no more reject the Council of Trent on the basis of their own interpretation of Scripture than any other heresy in the history of the Church could justifiably reject the teaching of an ecumenical council on the basis of its own interpretation of Scripture.

The Fifth Session: The Decree Concerning Original Sin

The Decree of the Fifth Session begins with an introductory paragraph:

That our Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please God,⁴ may, after the destruction of errors, remain integral and spotless in its purity, and that the Christian people may not be carried about with every wind of doctrine,⁵ since that old serpent,⁶ the everlasting enemy of the human race, has, among the many evils with which the Church of God is in our times disturbed, stirred up also not only new but also old dissensions concerning original sin and its remedy, the holy, ecumenical and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding, wishing now to reclaim the erring and to strengthen the wavering, and following the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures, of the holy Fathers, of the most approved councils, as well as the judgment and unanimity of the Church herself, ordains, confesses and declares these things concerning original sin:

Here the Tridentine Fathers affirm that the Church’s faith, without which it is impossible to please God, includes things concerning original sin and its remedy.  In other words, the gospel includes a teaching on original sin. The bishops explain that they are addressing this subject in response to what they believe to be the work of the devil in stirring up dissensions new and old concerning the doctrine of original sin and its remedy. They state again that they are assembled as a “general and ecumenical” council, in accordance with the laws of the Church, and presided over by legates of the Apostolic See (i.e. Rome). For this reason they are assured of the presence and guidance of the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church into all truth (John 16:13), most assuredly when her bishops are assembled in ecumenical council.⁷ The Council states its intention to bring back those sheep that are erring, and to strengthen those sheep that are wavering. Lastly, the bishops affirm that what they are teaching regarding original sin follows both the testimony of the Holy Scriptures, and that of the unanimity of the Church, not only at that time but throughout the 1500 year history of the Church preceding the Council.

Next the Council in five paragraphs addresses five errors pertaining to original sin. I will examine each of these five paragraphs in turn.

I. The Error of Denying Original Sin

In the first paragraph the Council declares:

1. If anyone does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he transgressed the commandment of God in paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice in which he had been constituted, and through the offense of that prevarication incurred the wrath and indignation of God, and thus death with which God had previously threatened him,⁸ and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil,⁹ and that the entire Adam through that offense of prevarication was changed in body and soul for the worse,¹⁰ let him be anathema.

In this first paragraph, the Council is condemning the error of denying that Adam, by his sin, lost the original holiness and righteous that God had given him. According to the Council, when Adam transgressed God’s commandment, the following five things happened: (1) he lost the holiness and justice in which he had been constituted, (2) he incurred the wrath and indignation of God, (3) he incurred the death with which God had previously threatened him, (4) he incurred captivity under the power of the devil who from that time on had the empire of death, and (5) he was changed for the worse both in body and soul. The statement about the change in “body and soul” is a reaffirmation of the first canon of the Second Council of Orange (529 AD), which canon was intended to refute the error of those who taught that not the soul but only the body was damaged by Adam’s sin.

The loss of the original holiness and justice in which man had been constituted refers to the loss of what St. Thomas treats as the third good of human nature, explained here and here in previous posts in this series. There too I laid out his explanation for death as the result of sin, and what it means to be “changed for the worse” both in body and in soul. The wrath and indignation of God I discussed in my post on St. Thomas’s doctrine on the Passion of Christ. St. Thomas discusses man’s captivity under the power of the devil in Summa Theologica III Q.49 a.2.

The most important thing to understand in this first paragraph, with respect to reconciling Protestants and the Catholic Church, is what the Council is saying when it teaches that by his sin Adam lost the holiness and justice in which he had been constituted. The holiness and justice to which the Council refers are due to the presence of sanctifying grace and agape in Adam’s soul. Adam was holy because he had sanctifying grace in his soul, that is, he was a participant in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), and enjoyed the indwelling of the Trinity.¹¹ And he was just (or righteous) because he had agape, i.e. love for God as Father. This original holiness and justice was not something Adam produced by his own nature. Nor were they part of the essence of his human nature; otherwise, in losing them he would have ceased to be human.

Why is this important for Protestant-Catholic reconciliation? Many Protestants believe that grace is only for the forgiveness of sins, and hence only something Adam and Eve received after they sinned. For this reason they tend to treat salvation prior to the Fall as by human-works-apart-from-grace, and salvation after the Fall as by grace-apart-from-human-works. But the notion that Adam and Eve, apart from grace, could have merited the Beatific Vision, is a form of Pelagianism.¹² Only God has His [divine] inner life and the perfect happiness of seeing God, by His very nature. Man could have the Beatific Vision by his nature without grace only if he were God. But man is not God; man is a creature. Therefore, in order to attain the Beatific Vision, which is supernatural end [i.e. an end above the reach of man's nature as such], man needs grace. In order for man to enter into heaven, i.e. into the perfect beatitude of the inner Life of the Trinity, God must give to man a participation in this inner Life; man must receive the gift of grace from God.

The Second Council of Orange (AD 529), which was primarily responding to Pelagianism, declared:

“Even if human nature remained in that integrity in which it was formed, it would in no way save itself without the help of its Creator.” (Can. 19)

Notice that “save” is not only from punishment, because human nature would remain in that integrity in which it was formed, only if Adam had not sinned. And where there is no sin, there is no punishment. But yet, according to Orange contra the Pelagians, even a sinless Adam and Eve would have needed divine help in order to be “saved.” In other words, they would have needed grace, to attain heaven, even if they had not sinned. St. Thomas concurs, writing:

But man’s perfect Happiness, as stated above (Question 3, Article 8), consists in the vision of the Divine Essence. Now the vision of God’s Essence surpasses the nature not only of man, but also of every creature, as was shown in the I, 12, 4. For the natural knowledge of every creature is in keeping with the mode of his substance: thus it is said of the intelligence (De Causis; Prop. viii) that “it knows things that are above it, and things that are below it, according to the mode of its substance.” But every knowledge that is according to the mode of created substance, falls short of the vision of the Divine Essence, which infinitely surpasses all created substance. Consequently neither man, nor any creature, can attain final Happiness by his natural powers.¹³

And that is why, in Catholic theology, Adam and Eve were given grace by God, prior to their Fall. It was by grace that they were able to walk with God in the cool of the day. No one can have friendship with God apart from grace, because no one can have friendship with God without agape, and no one can have agape without grace. Agape is supernatural;¹⁴ it is poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit.¹⁵ Man does not cease to be man if he loses agape. Hence, agape is not an essential component of our human essence or human nature. If agape were had by nature, then man without agape would be a contradiction in terms. God did not have to walk with Adam in the cool of the day. He did not have to form a friendship with man. He did this gratuitously, as a gift. This divine friendship with man as Father to son was a superadded gift of grace, not something man has by his nature as man.¹⁶

Yet, when we recognize that grace was necessary prior to the Fall, in order for Adam and Eve to have merited the Beatific Vision, then we no longer have a principled basis for excluding works done in grace from being meritorious toward the Beatific Vision under the New Covenant. And the role of works under grace is explicitly one of the points of disagreement between Protestants and the Catholic Church. It is also addressed in the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent. So here we see that rightly understanding the reasons for a doctrine taught in the Sixth Session requires understanding what was taught in the Fifth Session.

II. The Error of Denying that Adam’s Sin Deprived His Posterity of Original Holiness and Justice

In this second paragraph, the Council declares:

2. If anyone asserts that the transgression of Adam injured him alone and not his posterity,¹⁷ and that the holiness and justice which he received from God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has transfused only death and the pains of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul, let him be anathema, since he contradicts the Apostle who says: By one man sin entered into the world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.¹⁸

In this second paragraph, the Council is condemning the error of denying that Adam’s sin deprived his posterity of original holiness and justice. The Council here affirms three things: (1) Adam’s transgression did not only injure himself, but also his posterity, (2) Adam’s transgression lost not only for himself but also for us his posterity the original holiness and justice that he had been given by God, (3) Adam’s transgression transfused to us not only bodily pains and bodily death, but also transfused sin, which is the death of the soul, into the whole human race. Adam was supposed to be propagate sanctifying grace to his offspring. In this way, the sexual act would have been a means of grace for the child conceived. But, by his sin, Adam passed on to his offspring the privation of sanctifying grace and agape, and hence the privation of holiness, righteousness. And that is precisely what original sin is, the privation of original righteousness. That is what it means for the soul to be dead, not for it to lack natural life, but for it to lack divine life, i.e. sanctifying grace and agape.

In addition,  because Adam lost the original righteous he had been given, he also lost the preternatural gifts (integrity of powers of the soul, infused knowledge, impassibility, and immortality)  he had enjoyed, and therefore he passed on concupiscence, ignorance, suffering, and death to his offspring. Those who claim that grace is only needed for forgiveness of sin, falsely conclude from the fact that the infant has committed no actual sin that the infant does not yet need grace for salvation, and therefore does not yet need baptism. This again, is Pelagianism, because it denies that sanctifying grace is absolutely needed to attain to heaven.  Similarly, those who mistake concupiscence (i.e. disordered appetites) for original sin find that such disordered appetites remain after baptism, and falsely conclude that baptism is not the remedy for original sin. But the fundamental problem of man, is not that he has disordered lower appetites, but that he lacks sanctifying grace, and hence lacks agape.  That’s what original sin is; the privation of sanctifying grace and agape. And for that, the remedy is baptism, as we will see in the next paragraph.

III. Errors Regarding the Remedy for Original Sin

3. If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam, which in its origin is one, and by propagation, not by imitation, transfused into all, which is in each one as something that is his own, is taken away either by the forces of human nature or by a remedy other than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ,¹⁹ who has reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification and redemption;²⁰ or if he denies that that merit of Jesus Christ is applied both to adults and to infants by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church, let him be anathema; for there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.²¹ Whence that declaration: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sins of the world;²² and that other: As many of you as have been baptized, have put on Christ.²³

In this third paragraph, the Council condemns two errors. The first error is to claim that the remedy for original sin is something other than the merit of Jesus Christ, the Second Adam. The second error is to deny that adults and children receive Christ’s merit through the sacrament of baptism. Positively, in this paragraph the Council is teaching three things: (1) the sin of Adam that is transfused into all his posterity by propagation, not by imitation, is in each of us as something that is our own, (2) this sin [of Adam] in each of us is not taken away either by the forces of human nature or by any remedy other than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who has reconciled us to God in His own blood, and (3) the grace that Christ merited in His Passion, by which the sin [of Adam] in us is removed, is applied both to adults and to infants by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church.²⁴

This paragraph is relevant to the reconciliation of Protestants with the Catholic Church because many Protestants deny that baptism is anything more than a sign or symbol, not recognizing baptism as the sacrament Christ established as the means through which we receive the sanctifying grace He merited for us in His Passion. For these Protestants, to be forgiven only requires believing the message about Christ and trusting in Him; baptism is something one does subsequently in obedience to Christ’s command. But the Church has always believed and taught that it is in baptism that we are joined to Christ, and receive the grace He merited for us in His Passion. This is what we say in the Creed: “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” And the efficacy of baptism as the sacrament of salvation is taught unanimously by the Church Fathers.²⁵ Of course faith does come by hearing. But in Catholic doctrine the sanctifying grace through which we have the virtues of faith, hope and agape, comes to us through the sacrament of baptism. We first come to believe the good news, and have love for Christ, by hearing the gospel.²⁶ But in the sacrament of baptism, faith, hope and agape are deepened; they are made to be firmly planted dispositions in our soul. In baptism they become theological virtues.²⁷ In baptism we are ingrafted into Christ (cf. Rom 6), and by becoming firmly rooted dispositions faith, hope, and agape become part of who we are, not just acts we do.²⁸

IV. The Error of Denying that Infants Need Baptism as a Remedy for Original Sin

4. If anyone denies that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, are to be baptized, even though they be born of baptized parents, or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins,²⁹ but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam which must be expiated by the laver of regeneration for the attainment of eternal life, whence it follows that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins is to be understood not as true but as false, let him be anathema, for what the Apostle has said, by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned,³⁰ is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church has everywhere and always understood it.

For in virtue of this rule of faith handed down from the apostles, even infants who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this reason truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that in them what they contracted by generation may be washed away by regeneration.³¹ For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.³²

In this fourth paragraph the Council condemns two errors. The first is the error of denying that infants are to be baptized. The second is the error of denying that infants should be baptized for the remission of original sin. Positively, the Council here teaches four things: (1) Newly born infants are to be baptized, even if born of baptized parents, (2) Newly born infants are to be baptized for the expiation of original sin from Adam for the attainment of eternal life, (3) The words of the Apostle Paul in Romans 5:12 should not be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church has everywhere and always understood them, and (4) According to this rule of faith [i.e. how Romans 5:12 has everywhere and always been understood by the Church] handed down from the apostles, even infants who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are (like adults) truly baptized for the remission of sins in order that what they contracted by generation [i.e. original sin] may be washed away by regeneration.

The primary problem for the newborn infant, prior to baptism, is not that he is not yet a member of the covenant family by a public sign or seal. The primary problem for the newborn infant is that he does not have sanctifying grace and agape, and thus does not have original righteousness or holiness, and thus is not in friendship with God. And that problem infinitely outweighs all other problems because what is at stake is eternal life and eternal separation from God. Doing a baby-dedication is a pious act, but Christ never instituted ‘dedication’ as a means by which anyone would receive grace; He instituted baptism. We know, of course, that God is capable of acting in extraordinary ways to give grace to whomever He wills at whatever times He wills. It is surely not beyond His power to do so. But we must not treat the possibility of the extraordinary as an excuse not to pursue with all our effort the ordinary means God has established through Christ by which adults, children, and infants are given the grace that translates them from death to life, from enemies of God to His friends.

V. Errors Regarding the Removal of Sin Through Baptism

5. If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or says that the whole of that which belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only canceled or not imputed, let him be anathema. For in those who are born again God hates nothing, because there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism unto death,³³ who walk not according to the flesh,³⁴ but, putting off the old man and putting on the new one who is created according to God,³⁵ are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, joint heirs with Christ;³⁶ so that there is nothing whatever to hinder their entrance into heaven. But this holy council perceives and confesses that in the one baptized there remains concupiscence or an inclination to sin, which, since it is left for us to wrestle with, cannot injure those who do not acquiesce but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; indeed, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned.³⁷ This concupiscence, which the Apostle sometimes calls sin,³⁸ the holy council declares the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin in the sense that it is truly and properly sin in those born again, but in the sense that it is of sin and inclines to sin. But if anyone is of the contrary opinion, let him be anathema. This holy council declares, however, that it is not its intention to include in this decree, which deals with original sin, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the mother of God, but that the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV, of happy memory, are to be observed under the penalties contained in those constitutions, which it renews.³⁹

In this fifth paragraph the Council first condemns two errors. The first is the error of denying that by the grace of Christ which is conferred at baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted. The second is the error of claiming that the whole of that which belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but that the [debt] of sin is merely canceled or not imputed. The Council then proceeds to teach six things: (1) God hates nothing in those who are born again [i.e. those who are regenerated through the grace conferred in baptism], because by their baptism they have been buried together with Christ, put off the old man, put on the new man, made innocent, free from condemnation, immaculate, pure, guiltless, beloved of God, heirs of God, and heirs with Christ, so that nothing hinders their entrance into heaven, (2) In baptized persons there remains concupiscence, which is an inclination to sin, and which is left with us to wrestle with, (3) Concupiscence cannot injure those who do not give into it, but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ, (4) Those who have lawfully resisted concupiscence shall be crowned⁴⁰ (5) The Catholic Church has always understood concupiscence not to be sin in the sense that it is truly and properly sin in those who are born again, but to be sin in the sense that it is of sin (as an effect) and inclines to sin (as a cause), and (6) What this Council says about the universality of original sin in mankind should not be taken to apply to the blessed Virgin Mary.

Of all five paragraphs in the Fifth Session of the Council of Trent, this last one was the one most incompatible with the theology of Luther and Calvin. Luther and Calvin agreed that the grace of Christ that is conferred at baptism remits original sin. But, they denied that this grace removes the whole of that which belongs to the essence of sin. Instead, they claimed that sin remained in the baptized person, but the debt of sin was canceled, and the remaining sin was not imputed or counted. This is typically referred to as simul iustus et peccator (simultaneously justified and sinner), illustrated in the cartoon at right.⁴¹ Whereas in Catholic doctrine, the grace of Christ given to us through the sacrament of baptism truly removes all our sin, in Luther and Calvin’s opinion, the grace of Christ does not remove all our sin; it leaves sin in our soul, but by God’s favor on account of Christ, sin in our soul is no longer counted  against us.

Two things need to be said here. First, in Catholic doctrine, there is a sense in which that cartoon is correct, but there is also a sense in which that cartoon is heretical. In order to understand these two senses, we must distinguish between mortal and venial sin. Mortal sin removes agape from the soul; venial sin does not. That’s because in mortal sin the sinner directly chooses something else over God as his last end.  By contrast, the person committing venial sin still loves God more than himself, and still seeks God as his final end, but chooses something other than the best path by which to attain to God. Even the saints sinned venially every day (the Blessed Mother excepted). So, if the sign held by the person in the cartoon above is referring to venial sin, then it is true that the baptized person remains a sinner. But even so, it is not that Christ’s righteousness hides or covers his venial sin. God sees every venial sin. But He sees it as venial, as still coming from a heart that loves Him above all else. And so He sees it with mercy, not wrath. Yet if the sign in the cartoon is referring to mortal sin, then the cartoon is heretical, because then it is affirming the second error condemned in this fifth paragraph of the Fifth Session of Trent.

The reason why it is impossible to be simultaneously in a state of mortal sin, and justified, is because God cannot lie. God can only count as righteous that which is actually inherently righteous. That’s because the relational problem between man and God necessarily depends upon the internal condition of man. As St. Thomas said, “But the effect remains so long as the cause remains. Wherefore so long as the disturbance of the order remains the debt of punishment must needs remain also.”⁴² In other words, so long as man is turned away from God, and without agape, the debt of sin remains, because the cause of that debt remains. God does not only look at the outside of man; He looks at the heart, and is related to man according to the condition of the man’s heart.⁴³ If a man has sanctifying grace and agape in his soul, then his relation with God is one of friendship and he is justified, and the God who cannot lie cannot claim that he is unjust. But if a man does not have sanctifying grace and agape, then he is not a friend of God, and the God who cannot lie cannot say that he is just, without first making him just in his soul.

The Protestant response is to claim that God is speaking truly when He declares us just, because He performs an extrinsic relational transaction in which the merits of Christ are credited to our account, and the demerits of our sins are credited to Christ’s account. However, the problem with that position is that for a God from whom nothing is hidden, there can be no difference between what one is internally, and what is in one’s account. Necessarily, before the God of Truth, what is in one’s ‘account’ is always and only what one actually is. God cannot pretend that I am Christ or that Christ is me. God cannot pretend that my account is His, or that His account is mine. He always sees everything for exactly what it is, nothing more and nothing less. And therefore for a God of Truth, there can be no swapping of accounts. Because our ‘accounts’ are based on what we really are, the notion of account swapping presupposes that God is capable of deceiving Himself into thinking that Christ’s account is mine, and that my account is Christ’s. But a God of Truth cannot be deceived, and therefore there can be no swapping of accounts.

When Protestants think about being inherently righteous, they tend not to think about agape, but about having perfectly kept every law, and not having any wayward thoughts. And they tend to think that that is impossible, and so find forensic imputation much more plausible and attractive than this [seemingly] impossible standard of perfect legal righteousness that God expects of us. So, for example, they find vices in themselves after baptism, and take that as evidence that they are in fact unrighteous, and that provides the attraction of simul iustus et peccator. Yet in Catholic doctrine the law is fulfilled by those having agape,⁴⁴ and venial sins (by definition) do not remove agape from the soul. Our righteousness before God (as friends of God) is not determined by or effected by our venial sins. So, while at the Judgment we are judged for all that we have done in the body, yet, our justification only requires that we have agape. Not having the mortal-venial distinction makes many Protestants conceive of the Catholic life as one of losing justification many times a day. And that seems (rightly) ridiculous to them. But in Catholic doctrine it is agape by which we fulfill the law, and mortal sin (in which agape is lost) is not something we should (ordinarily) be committing on a daily basis.

The second thing that needs to be said about this fifth paragraph, concerns concupiscence (i.e. disordered appetites). The Catholic Church teaches that concupiscence is not itself a sin. Concupiscence comes from sin, and it inclines to sin. But it itself is not sin, because sin requires the use of the will.⁴⁵ , and the motions of concupiscence are not willed. We discussed this in Aquinas and Trent: Part 2. Nor is concupiscence original sin. Baptism removes original sin, by giving the person sanctifying grace. But baptism does not remove concupiscence. Christ leaves us with concupiscence so that we, by manfully resisting it, may merit a greater reward. The early Protestants, however, believed that concupiscence was itself sin. And therefore, finding concupiscence in themselves daily, even after baptism, and not recognizing  the mortal-venial distinction, they concluded that justification does not depend upon the internal condition of the sinner, but upon a forensic declaration. Because they [wrongly] believed that concupiscence was sin, and because they [rightly] believed that concupiscence remained after baptism, they concluded that after baptism there remains in us something that God hates, and for that reason were drawn toward to the notion of simul iustus et peccator.

From the Catholic point of view, the notion that we are simul iustus et peccator, where the sin in question is mortal sin, is extremely dangerous, because it leads people to think that their sin doesn’t really matter, so long as they continue to trust in God. This notion removes all motivation for pursuing the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.⁴⁶ It produces no saints. Its danger cannot be underestimated, because what is at stake is eternal life. The notion of simul iustus et peccator could lead persons who are in a state of mortal sin, and thereby at risk of dying in a state of mortal sin and remaining eternally separated from God, to think that they are right with God. Of course some Protestants think that the Catholic Church teaches a false gospel. I will address that when we discuss the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent, on the doctrine of justification.

May Christ our Lord lead all Protestants and Catholics to unity in the truth, and full reconciliation. In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

1. A fascinating summary of his life and death can be found here.
2. The Pope had originally attempted to convoke this council in the city of Mantua in 1537, but for political reasons the council was unable to meet there.
3. cf. Session Three
4. Heb 11:6
5. Eph 4:14
6. Gen 3:1ff; Apoc. 12:9; 20:2
7. Cf. Acts 15:28. In that passage we see another example of a non-monergistic way of conceiving the cooperation of men with God. The Apostles recognize that what seems good to them, in council, is what also seems good to the Holy Spirit, precisely because the Holy Spirit is directing them in council.
8. Gen 2:17
9. Heb 2:14
10. Cf. II Synod of Orange (529)
11. Jesus said, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.” (John 14:23)
12. Pelagianism ultimately reduces to one of two claims: it either denies that man has a supernatural end, and thus denies that man needs grace [i.e. participation in the divine nature] to attain man’s natural end, or it denies that grace is a participation in the divine nature, and thus implies that man, by his own natural power, can attain to the supernatural end that is heaven. The former denies that God has called man to enjoy eternal participation in His inner Life. The latter essentially denies the Creator-creature distinction. It claims that man, who is infinitely below God, can by his own natural power of intellect and will ‘climb up’ into the inner Life of the eternal Trinity.
13. Summa Theologica I-II Q.5 a.5 co.

14. All virtues have as their final scope to dispose man to acts conducive to his true happiness. The happiness, however, of which man is capable is twofold, namely, natural, which is attainable by man’s natural powers, and supernatural, which exceeds the capacity of unaided human nature. Since, therefore, merely natural principles of human action are inadequate to a supernatural end, it is necessary that man be endowed with supernatural powers to enable him to attain his final destiny. Now these supernatural principles are nothing else than the theological virtues. They are called theological: (1) because they have God for their immediate and proper object; (2) because they are Divinely infused; (3) because they are known only through Divine Revelation. The theological virtues are three, viz. faith, hope, and charity [agape]. (Catholic Encyclopedia article ‘Virtue‘.)

15. Romans 5:5
16. For more on this see The Natural Desire to See God According to St. Thomas Aquinas and His Interpreters, by Lawrence Feingold, (Sapientia Press, 2010).
17. 1 Cor. 15:21f.; II Synod of Orange, c.2
18. Rom 5:12
19. 1 Tim. 2:5
20. 1 Cor 1:30
21. Acts 4:12
22. John 1:29
23. Gal 3:27
24. By “rightly administered in the form of the Church” they mean according to the form taught by the Church, namely, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
25. We plan to post something showing this in the near future at CTC.
26. The Council acknowledges this in Session 6 Chapter 6.
27. See Session 6 Chapter 7.
28. This becomes relevant to Session 6 Canon 9, because that canon is condemning the notion that merely believing the message about Christ is entirely sufficient for justification, and that repentance (as a preparation for baptism) and baptism itself are not also necessary for the justification we receive through the sacrament of baptism, wherein belief in Christ is made to be the virtue of faith.
29. Acts 2:38
30. Rom. 5:12
31. C.153, D.IV de cons.
32. John 3:5
33. Rom. 6:4; C.13, D.IV de cons.
34. Rom. 8:1
35. Eph. 4:22, 24; Col. 3:9f.
36. Rom. 8:17
37. II Tim. 2:5.
38. Rom. 6-8; Col. 3
39. Cc. 1, 2, Extrav. comm., De reliq. et venerat. sanct., III, 12.
40. Those who castrate themselves, for example, are resisting concupiscence unlawfully.
41. This cartoon is from Michael Horton’s Putting Amazing Back Into Grace.
42. Aquinas and Trent: Part 5
43. “ God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” (1 Sam 16:7)
44. cf. Rom 13:8, Gal 5:14, James 2:8
45. See Aquinas and Trent: Part 5
46. Hebrews 12:14

St. Thomas Before the Cross
Sassetta (1423)
Pinacoteca, Vatican

He raises the following question: Is it possible for a man who disbelieves one article of faith to have [even] lifeless faith in the other articles?¹ In other words, if a man disbelieves, for example, only one line of the Creed, but believes all the other articles of the faith, then does he retain, while disbelieving that one line of the Creed, even dead faith?

St. Thomas answers that the person

who disbelieves [even] one article of faith does not have faith, either formed or unformed.²

In other words, the person who disbelieves even one article of the faith, has neither living faith nor dead faith. St. Thomas’ answer is startling to the minds of many twenty-first century Christians, and prompts many questions, among which the first is “Why? Why can’t a person have faith, even if he disbelieves one or a few articles of the faith?”

St. Thomas answers this question in the corpus of his responseo. Here I will quote his responseo, and then explain it below.

The reason of this is that the species of every habit depends on the formal aspect [ratione] of the object, without which the species of the habit cannot remain. Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Sacred Scripture and the teaching of the Church. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Sacred Scripture, has not the habit of faith, but holds the [other articles] of faith by a mode other than faith. If someone holds in his mind a conclusion without knowing how that conclusion is demonstrated, it is manifest that he does not have scientific knowledge [i.e. knowledge of causes], but merely an opinion about it. So likewise, it is manifest that he who adheres to the teachings of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teachings of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves [even] one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things (but if he is not obstinate, he is not a heretic but only erring). Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will.”³

First St. Thomas explains that what distinguishes faith from the other virtues is that its formal object is the First Truth as revealed in Sacred Scripture and the teaching of the Church.⁴ By ‘formal object’ here he is referring to the way in which one knows. What makes faith to be faith is not merely believing the content of the faith contained in Sacred Scripture, but adhering to it through the teaching of the Church, on the basis of the Church’s divinely given authority to articulate and define the articles of faith. So, says St. Thomas, if a person does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, this person does not have faith. If he disbelieves one article of the faith, even while believing all the others, he reveals that he believes the others not by faith, but on some other basis.

St. Thomas gives as an example the difference between a person who holds a claim to be true because he knows what makes it true, and the person who holds a claim to be true though not knowing it to be true or knowing what makes it to be true. The former person, says St. Thomas, has knowledge in the proper sense, while the latter person does not have knowledge, but only opinion. St. Thomas uses this example to contrast two types of persons in relation to faith. One person adheres to the teachings of the Church, as to an infallible rule, and therefore assents to whatever the Church teaches, precisely because the Church teaches it. The other type of person picks and chooses from among the Church’s teachings, accepting what he wants to believe, and rejecting what he wants to reject. The former person has faith, because he adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible and Divine rule, not because the teaching of the Church conforms to his own will or judgment. The latter person (i.e. the one who disbelieves even one article of the faith) does not have faith, not even in the other articles of faith, because his basis for believing them is his own judgment. This is revealed by his disbelief of the one article of faith, for in disbelieving it, he shows that he has placed his own judgment above the authority of the Church in her divinely established teaching and interpretive authority. If he believed the other articles on the basis of the authority of the Church, then he would also accept the one he rejects, for the very same reason. But because he rejects the Church’s authority regarding the one article, he shows that his acceptance of the others is not on the basis of the Church’s authority, but instead on the basis of his own judgment.

According to St. Thomas, such a person, if he is obstinate in disbelieving one or more articles of the faith, is a heretic.⁵ If, however, he is not obstinate, but upon discovering that the Church teaches otherwise is willing to change his belief, then he is not a heretic, but only mistaken. The reason why such a person still possesses faith, even though, like the heretic, he disbelieves at least one article of the faith, is that his basis for believing the articles that he believes is the authority of the Church, as shown by his willingness to conform to the Church upon being shown that his current beliefs are not in agreement with the teaching of the Church. What entails that the heretic does not have faith, is not his disbelief in at least one article of the faith. That disbelief is merely a manifestation of the basis for his belief in the other articles. What entails that the heretic does not have faith is that he believes the articles he believes, on the basis of his own private judgment, instead of on the authority of the Church. A person could affirm every single article of the faith, but believe them not on the basis of the authority of the Church, but on the basis of his own private judgment. Such a person likewise, would not have faith.

Two Objections

St. Thomas considers and refutes three objections to this answer. Here I’ll discuss only the first two. The first objection is that since without the gift of faith the truths of the faith are beyond the natural power of reason to know, and since the heretic still believes the other articles of faith, therefore, it seems that so long as the heretic believes even one of the articles of the faith, he must have the gift of faith. St. Thomas replies:

A heretic does not hold the other articles of faith, about which he does not err, in the same way as one of the faithful does, namely by adhering simply to the Divine Truth, because in order to do so, a man needs the help of the habit of faith; but he holds the things that are of faith, by his own will and judgment.⁶

We can better understand St. Thomas’ reply by distinguishing between the content of an article of the faith, and the basis for holding that content to be true. Much of the content of the articles of faith cannot be known without God supernaturally revealing it. Think of the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, for example. Mankind could not attain to such truths, on the basis of the natural power of reason. But, once these articles have been supernaturally revealed to the world through the Church, a man may believe them on the basis of the divine authority by which they are revealed, or on the basis of his own private judgment. Once articles of the faith have been revealed, believing them on the basis of one’s own private judgment can be done without additional divine help, just as believing the truths of mathematics can be done without additional divine help, beyond the ordinary help of God’s providential governance of the world. But adhering to the articles of faith on the basis of their being taught by God through the Church, requires the help of the habit of faith, which habit is a gift of God through grace. Hence the heretic, who believes the other articles of faith on the basis of his own private judgment, does not have the gift of faith, even though he could not know at least some of the articles he does believe, unless they had been supernaturally revealed.

The second objection St. Thomas considers is that just as a science (e.g. geometry) contains many truths, and a man who knows some of them but not others, still possesses that science, so likewise a man who believes some of the articles of faith but not others, can still have faith. St. Thomas replies:

The various conclusions of a science have their respective means of demonstration, one of which may be known without another, so that we may know some conclusions of a science without knowing the others. On the other hand faith adheres to all the articles of faith by reason of one mean, viz. on account of the First Truth proposed to us in Scriptures, according to the teaching of the Church who has the right understanding of them [propter veritatem primam propositam nobis in Scripturis secundum doctrinam Ecclesiae intellectis sane]. Hence whoever abandons this mean is altogether lacking in faith.⁷

Here St. Thomas explains that within a science there are different means (or channels) of demonstration, and therefore a person who knows through one means within that science but not through other means within that same science, may still rightly be said to possess the science. By contrast, the articles of the faith are all adhered to in faith by only one means: the teaching of the Church, through whom the First Truth proposed to us in the Scriptures, is explicated in the form of the articles of faith. The Church is the means by which faith adheres to Christ (who is the First Truth), because Christ has given the Church the charism of understanding the Scriptures rightly [intellectis sane]. Therefore, concludes St Thomas, whoever abandons this means of knowing the articles of faith, is altogether lacking in faith.

We see here one more reason why “he cannot have God for his Father who does not have the Church for his mother.” The deposit of faith was given by Christ to the Apostles, who are the foundation stones of the Church.⁸ This deposit was then entrusted by the Apostles to their successors, both in its written and oral forms, and is adhered to by the faithful of each succeeding generation on the basis of the divinely established and divinely preserved authority of the Church, explicating that same sacred deposit. It is not the Scriptures alone through which the faithful know the articles of the faith. According to St. Thomas it is through the Church, which has the authority to determine the right understanding of the Scriptures, that the faithful know what are the articles of faith. And it is by adhering to the articles of faith on the basis of the Church’s divine authority to teach them, that one has faith, and not merely private judgment.

Implications

Does this mean that whoever (Catholic or non-Catholic) is not in full accord with the Church’s teaching is faithless, and is therefore in a state of mortal sin? No. It is true that whoever does not have faith, does not have agape. It is also true that whoever does not have agape, does not have grace, and is thus in a state of mortal sin. But, as St. Thomas himself points out, not everyone who is not in full accord with the Church’s teaching is faithless. The person who does not know that the Church teaches otherwise, and who, when shown that the Church teaches otherwise, conforms to the Church’s teaching, is only in error; he is not faithless. He accepts the Church’s authority, but is simply misinformed about what the Church teaches. This would include those Catholics whose dissent from a teaching of the Church is due to invincible ignorance of the Church’s teaching, and who would conform to the Church’s teaching, were they to discover that their present belief is contrary to the Church’s teaching. It would also include those Protestants who, out of invincible ignorance, do not know the identity of the Church Christ founded, and who, upon discovering that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded, conform their beliefs to her doctrine.

How is what St. Thomas says in this article relevant to the division between Protestants and the Catholic Church? We can see the relevance in the following quotation from the Catholic encyclopedia article on “Protestantism”:

Again, it is illogical to base faith upon the private interpretation of a book. For faith consists in submitting; private interpretation consists in judging. In faith by hearing, the last word rests with the teacher; in private judgment it rests with the reader, who submits the dead text of Scripture to a kind of post-mortem examination and delivers a verdict without appeal: he believes in himself rather than in any higher authority. But such trust in one’s own light is not faith. Private judgment is fatal to the theological virtue of faith. John Henry Newman says “I think I may assume that this virtue, which was exercised by the first Christians, is not known at all amongst Protestants now; or at least if there are instances of it, it is exercised toward those, I mean their teachers and divines, who expressly disclaim that they are objects of it, and exhort their people to judge for themselves” (“Discourses to Mixed Congregations”, Faith and Private Judgment). … Where absolute reliance on God’s word, proclaimed by his accredited ambassadors, is wanting, i.e. where there is not the virtue of faith, there can be no unity of Church. It stands to reason, and Protestant history confirms it. The “unhappy divisions”, not only between sect and sect but within the same sect, have become a byword. They are due to the pride of private intellect, and they can only be healed by humble submission to a Divine authority.

Because faith consists in submitting, it cannot consist in submitting to whoever-agrees-with-my-own-interpretation-of-Scripture, as Neal and I pointed out in our article titled “Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura and the Question of Interpretive Authority“, for such a ‘submission’ is no submission at all. As we showed there, submitting to those who share one’s interpretation of Scripture, because they share one’s interpretation of Scripture, is only superficially, not essentially different from simply ‘submitting’ to one’s own interpretation of Scripture. But, since the basis for identifying those to whom we are to submit, in order to have faith, cannot be their agreement with our own interpretation of Scripture, the basis for their authority can only be their having received, by apostolic succession, the authorization and commissioning that Christ gave to the Apostles. Moreover, the necessary relation between faith and the Church explained by St. Thomas entails that the Church must be indefectible and infallible in her explication of the deposit of faith entrusted to her, otherwise Christ would have failed to establish a way in which faith can remain until He returns.⁹

What makes St. Thomas’ words so shocking to modern ears is that many persons have grown accustomed to thinking of faith as something quite entirely independent of the authority of the Church. Protestants of the sixteenth century openly defied the authority of the Church. Now, in the present time, dissent on various teachings of the Church is commonplace, even among Catholics.  One can reject the authority of the Church outright, as dissenting Catholics do, or one can fashion a ‘Church’ in one’s own interpretive image, as Protestants do, and convince oneself that one is submitting to the Church. But both actions are rejections of the divinely established authority through which faith adheres to the articles of faith. For the reasons St. Thomas explains, where there is faith there can be no picking and choosing from among the Church’s teachings, because what makes faith to be faith is not essentially the set of articles believed, but the basis on which they are believed, namely, the authority of God, given to the Church to teach and interpret the deposit of faith.

1. Summa Theologica II-II Q.5 a.3. Latin: “discredit unum articulum fidei possit habere fidem informem de aliis articulis“. By lifeless faith we are speaking of faith without agape. Living faith is faith with agape. I explain this in more detail here.
2. Summa Theologica II-II Q.5 a.3 co.
3. Summa Theologica II-II Q.5 a.3 co.
4. Regarding the formal aspect of the object of faith, St. Thomas writes, “if we consider, in faith, the formal aspect of the object, it is nothing else than the First Truth. For the faith of which we are speaking, does not assent to anything, except because it is revealed by God.” Summa Theologica II-II Q.1 a.1 co. For a fuller explanation of what gives habits their species, see Summa Theologica II-I Q.54 a.2.
5. This term ‘heretic’ comes from the Greek αἵρεσις, which has its root in the verb ἁιρέω, meaning “I choose” or “I prefer.” Heresy has its root in the placing of private judgment over the authority of the Church in which and through which the First Truth is found.
6. Summa Theologica II-II Q.5 a.3 ad 1
7. Summa Theologica II-II Q.5 a.3 ad 2
8. Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14
9. That is supported by St. Thomas’ teaching that nothing false can come under faith. See Summa Theologica II-II Q.1 a.3

St Peter Martyr Altarpiece
Fra Angelico
1427-28
Museo di San Marco, Florence

The Aquinas Catechism

In the last year of his life, St. Thomas Aquinas preached a series of sermons during Lent in the city of Naples. According to a contemporary, almost the whole population of the city came daily to hear these sermons. Reginald de Piperno made careful transcripts of these sermons, which were aimed at providing a summary of the faith. In them, St. Thomas preached through the Apostle’s Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the Sacraments.

In his comments on the line of the Apostles’ Creed “the holy catholic Church,” St. Thomas briefly talks about the four marks of the Church (i.e. one, holy, catholic and apostolic) explicitly taught in the Nicene Creed. One of those four marks is unity. Regarding the unity of the Church, St. Thomas first says the following:

The unity of the Church

Of the first, it must be known that the Church is one. Although various heretics have founded various sects, they do not belong to the Church, since they are but so many divisions whereas the Church is one. Of her it is said: “One is My dove; My perfect one is but one.” (Song of Solomon 6:8)

Various heretics have founded sects, St. Thomas says, but these sects do not belong to the Church. They may very well have been founded by well-intentioned persons; perhaps none of these founders of sects thought they were heretics, or that they were making a schism. But, says St. Thomas, these sects do not belong to the Church. They were founded by mere men. The Church, by contrast, was founded by the incarnate God-man, Jesus Christ. Only by remaining in the Church Christ founded do we truly participate in the supernatural unity Christ imparted to His Church. The sects show that they are not united, by their many divisions. The Church, by contrast, cannot be divided; unity is one of the four essential marks of the Church, because the Church’s unity is Christ’s unity, and Christ cannot be divided. (1 Cor 1:13) Schismatics and dissenters can separate themselves from her in various ways, but they cannot divide her.

St. Thomas goes on to show the three-fold sources of unity in the Church, in the three theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. He says:

The unity of the Church arises from three sources:

(1) From the unity of faith. All Christians who are of the body of the Church believe the same doctrine. “I beseech you . . . that you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you.” (1 Cor 1:10) And: “One Lord, one faith, one baptism;” (Eph 4:5)

(2) From the unity of hope. All are strengthened in one hope of arriving at eternal life. Hence, the Apostle says: “One body and one Spirit, as you are called in one hope of your calling;” (Eph 4:4)

(3) From the unity of charity. All are joined together in the love of God, and to each other in mutual love: “And the glory which Thou hast given Me, I have given them; that they may be one, as We also are one.” (John 17:22) It is clear that this is a true love when the members are solicitous for one another and sympathetic towards each other: “We may in all things grow up in Him who is the head, Christ. From whom the whole body, being compacted, and fitly joined together, by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in charity.” (Eph 4:15,16) This is because each one ought to make use of the grace God grants him, and be of service to his neighbor.

No one ought to be indifferent to the Church, or allow himself to be cut off and expelled from it; for there is but one Church in which men are saved, just as outside of the ark of Noah no one could be saved.

This is the unity of the Body of Christ. First that we share the same faith, i.e. the same doctrine, and the same sacraments. We also share the same hope, i.e. the hope of eternal life, not merely everlasting existence, but a glorious union with God in which we enjoy the Beatific Vision and thus enter into His eternal life of perfect beatitude. Finally, we are joined together in the supernatural virtue called ‘charity’ (i.e. agape), by which we freely give ourselves in joyful sacrifice to Christ, serving each other for His sake, all working together to build up His Body, the Church. Persons in schisms or sects are not all working to build up the same Body. They work to build up their own schism or sect, even seeking to snatch away members from the true Body. This opposition is evidence that the persons involved are not all members of the same Body.

Summa Contra Gentiles

In Chapter 76 of Book IV of his Summa Contra Gentiles, St. Thomas gives further insight into the nature of the unity of the Church. First he explains why bishops are necessary to administer the Sacrament of Order, also called Holy Orders. He writes:

There must be some power of higher ministry in the Church to administer the Sacrament of Order; and this is the episcopal power, which, though not exceeding the power of the simple priest in the consecration of the Body of Christ, exceeds it in its dealings with the faithful. The presbyter’s power is derived from the episcopal; and whenever any action, rising above what is common and usual, has to be done upon the faithful people, that is reserved to bishops; and it is by episcopal authority that presbyters do what is committed to them; and in their ministry they make use of things consecrated by bishops, as in the Eucharist the chalice, altar-stone and palls.

St. Thomas is saying here that with respect to the power to consecrate the Eucharist, the bishop has no greater power than does the priest. However, the presbyter’s (i.e. priest’s) power to consecrate the Eucharist is derived from the bishop’s power. It is by the bishop’s power, says St. Thomas, that presbyters “do what is committed to them.” They receive their power from the bishops; they also receive their commission from the bishops, and the sacred vessels they use have been consecrated by the bishops.

St. Thomas then gives three reasons why Christ established the Church to have one visible head. He writes:

1. Though populations are different in different dioceses and cities, still, as there is one Church, there must be one Christian people. As then in the spiritual people of one Church there is required one Bishop, who is Head of all that people; so in the whole Christian people it is requisite that there be one Head of the whole Church.

St. Thomas shows here that the requirement of one person as the visible head is a principle at every level of a society. Even though the universal Church is spread out all over the world, yet it is one society by the same principle of visible unity we find at every more particular level. Every parish has a priest, and if there is more than one priest, the other priests are his assistants. They do not all have equal authority, because that would lead to strife, conflict and division. Likewise, every diocese has a bishop who has charge over the priests in his diocese. If there is more than one bishop in a diocese, the others are auxillary bishops there to assist and serve the diocesan bishop, so that there is no cause for faction between them. Then St. Thomas points out that this need for a visible head at these local levels is no less present at the universal level. Just as the local Church requires a visible head, so the universal (i.e. catholic Church) requires a visible head. This visible head of the catholic Church supports and maintains the unity of the universal Church spread out throughout the whole world.

St. Thomas next provides a second reason:

2. One requisite of the unity of the Church is the agreement of all the faithful in faith. When questions of faith arise, the Church would be rent by diversity of judgments, were it not preserved in unity by the judgment of one. But in things necessary Christ is not wanting to His Church, which He has loved, and has shed His blood for it: since even of the Synagogue the Lord says: What is there that I ought further to have done for my vineyard and have not done it.? (Isai. v, 4.) We cannot doubt then that by the ordinance of Christ one man presides over the whole Church.

Here St. Thomas makes the following argument. The unity of the Church requires unity of faith (i.e. doctrine and sacraments). But when disputes about the faith arise, the Church would be torn apart into many schisms if there were not ultimately one person having the authority to adjudicate these disputes. Hence it is necessary for preserving the unity of the faith that there be one person presiding in the Church, having the authority to resolve such disputes. But Christ would not leave His Church without anything that is necessary for her preservation, since He has already shown that He is willing to shed all His blood for His Church. Therefore since such an office is necessary for the Church, and Christ would not fail to provide her with what is necessary, we cannot doubt that it is by Christ’s ordination that one man presides over the whole Church.

Lastly, St. Thomas provides a third reason:

3. None can doubt that the government of the Church is excellently well arranged, arranged as it is by Him through whom kings reign and lawgivers enact just things (Prov. viii, 15). But the best form of government for a multitude is to be governed by one: for the end of government is the peace and unity of its subjects: and one man is a more apt source of unity than many together.

The best form of government for a multitude is to governed by one. That is because the purpose of government is the peace and unity of the citizens governed. One man is better able to provide a unified course of direction than many leaders all with equal authority. This is why each country has one person as its governor at any given time, even if there are other governing bodies assisting and collaborating the individual leader. We all recognize the need for a unified head of government. This principle is no less true in the Church. The same God who ordered and arranged the natural requirements of governing cities and nations, is the same God who established and ordered His Church. St. Thomas is here implicitly making use of the principle that grace builds on nature. Just as the best form of government in the natural order requires a single visible head, so because grace builds on nature, the best form of government in the order of grace (i.e. the Church) likewise requires a single visible head. It would be arbitrary to acknowledge that a unified visible head is necessary at every level of the Church particular, but deny that a unified visible head is necessary at the level of the Church universal.

St. Thomas then anticipates and responds to two rather common Protestant objections, first, that the head of the universal Church is only Christ, and not a man whom Christ has appointed. He writes:

But if any will have it that the one Head and one Shepherd is Christ, as being the one Spouse of the one Church, his view is inadequate to the facts. For though clearly Christ Himself gives effect to the Sacraments of the Church, — He it is who baptizes, He forgives sins, He is the true Priest who has offered Himself on the altar of the cross, and by His power His Body is daily consecrated at our altars, — nevertheless, because He was not to be present in bodily shape with all His faithful, He chose ministers and would dispense His gifts to His faithful people through their hands. And by reason of the same future absence it was needful for Him to issue His commission to some one to take care of this universal Church in His stead. Hence He said to Peter before His Ascension, Feed my sheep (John xxi, 1) and before His Passion, Thou in thy turn confirm thy brethren (Luke xxii, 32); and to him alone He made the promise, To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. xvi, 19).

St. Thomas shows that even though Christ is present in the sacraments of the Church, this sacramental presence is not adequate for the visible governance of the universal Church (as it is not adequate for visible governance of the local parish or diocese). This is why Christ set aside St. Peter, entrusted to him the keys of the Kingdom, and commissioned him to feed Christ’s sheep and strengthen his brethren. Because Christ, after His ascension is invisible in heaven, and because His sacramental presence is inadequate for the role of visible governance of the universal Church, therefore it was necessary that Christ choose one man to stand in His place as visible head of the universal Church, until His return.

St. Thomas then anticipates and responds to a second Protestant objection:

Nor can it be said that although He gave this dignity to Peter, it does not pass from Peter to others. For Christ instituted His Church to last to the end of the world, according to the text: He shall sit upon the throne of David and in his kingdom, to confirm and strengthen it in justice and judgment from henceforth, now, and for ever (Isai. ix, 7). Therefore, in constituting His ministers for the time, He intended their power to pass to posterity for the benefit of His Church to the end of the world, as He Himself says: Lo, I am with you to the end of the world (Matt. xxviii, 20).

The second objection is that the unique authority that Christ gave to St. Peter to be visible head of the universal Church, passed away with the death of St. Peter, and did not pass on to others who succeeded him. St. Thomas refutes that objection by showing that the need for such authority did not cease with the death of St. Peter, because Christ established His Church to endure until the end of the world.  Therefore Christ, knowing that the Church would continue long after the death of St. Peter, intended that the power He entrusted to St. Peter would pass on to his successors, “for the benefit of the Church to the end of the world.”

St. Thomas concludes:

Hereby is cast out the presumptuous error of some, who endeavour to withdraw themselves from obedience and subjection to Peter, not recognizing his successor, the Roman Pontiff, for the pastor of the Universal Church.

To reject obedience and subjection to St. Peter (and his successors) is to reject those persons who, by His authorization stand in His place, to govern His universal Church until He returns. Once a person recognizes that Christ entrusted this authority over the universal Church to St. Peter and his successors, he understands that to listen to St. Peter and his successors is to listen to Christ, and to reject St. Peter and his successors is to reject Christ.¹

Summa Theologica

In St. Thomas’ Summa Theologica we read the following:

Wherever there are several authorities directed to one purpose, there must needs be one universal authority over the particular authorities, because in all virtues and acts the order is according to the order of their ends (Ethic. i, 1,2). Now the common good is more Godlike than the particular good. Wherefore above the governing power which aims at a particular good there must be a universal governing power in respect of the common good, otherwise there would be no cohesion towards the one object. Hence since the whole Church is one body, it behooves, if this oneness is to be preserved, that there be a governing power in respect of the whole Church, above the episcopal power whereby each particular Church is governed, and this is the power of the Pope. Consequently those who deny this power are called schismatics as causing a division in the unity of the Church. Again, between a simple bishop and the Pope there are other degrees of rank corresponding to the degrees of union, in respect of which one congregation or community includes another; thus the community of a province includes the community of a city, and the community of a kingdom includes the community of one province, and the community of the whole world includes the community of one kingdom.²

The argument here is similar to what we saw in the Summa Contra Gentiles. The first point has to do with acts ordered to a single end. Whenever there are multiple authorities directed to one purpose, there must be a universal authority over these particular authorities, to order their acts toward one single end. Otherwise each authority will not be acting in unison with the other authorities. This is why armies have generals, and why there must be a commander-in-chief. If there is not a single unified leader of the army, then its various units will not be coordinated together to act in concer in one unified purpose and plan. Likewise, if there were not a visible governing authority for the universal Church, then the bishops of the various dioceses would likewise not be ordered in their actions toward one end in the visible Church. They would each be doing their own activity, according to their own plan and vision. But their actions would not be ordered toward one end, and so the universal Church would reduce to a collection of particular Churches. Just as without a commander-in-chief there would not be one army but as many armies as highest-ranking generals, so without a visible authority over the universal Church, there would not be one universal Church, but as many particular Churches as there are bishops.

According to St. Thomas, to deny the “power of the Pope,” is to make oneself a schismatic, by causing a division in the unity of the Church. The Church itself does not lose unity when a schism occurs; her unity is Christ’s unity. Rather, when a schism occurs, the Church loses the participation in her unity by the schismatic who separates himself from the authority of the Pope.

One other place in Aquinas’ Summa Theologica is notable for its implications regarding the unity of the Church. That is the section on the sin of schism. In Summa Theologica II-II Q.39 a.1, St. Thomas writes:

As Isidore says (Etym. viii, 3), schism takes its name “from being a scission of minds,” and scission is opposed to unity. Wherefore the sin of schism is one that is directly and essentially opposed to unity. For in the moral, as in the physical order, the species is not constituted by that which is accidental. Now, in the moral order, the essential is that which is intended, and that which results beside the intention, is, as it were, accidental. Hence the sin of schism is, properly speaking, a special sin, for the reason that the schismatic intends to sever himself from that unity which is the effect of charity: because charity unites not only one person to another with the bond of spiritual love, but also the whole Church in unity of spirit.

Accordingly schismatics properly so called are those who, willfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church; for this is the chief unity, and the particular unity of several individuals among themselves is subordinate to the unity of the Church, even as the mutual adaptation of each member of a natural body is subordinate to the unity of the whole body. Now the unity of the Church consists in two things; namely, in the mutual connection or communion of the members of the Church, and again in the subordination of all the members of the Church to the one head, according to Colossians 2:18-19: “Puffed up by the sense of his flesh, and not holding the Head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God.” Now this Head is Christ Himself, Whose viceregent in the Church is the Sovereign Pontiff. Wherefore schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.

We can learn something about the unity of the Church by studying the sin against that unity. Strictly speaking, says St. Thomas, the sin of schism is one in which the person willfully and intentionally separates himself from the unity of the Church.³ The person who does so in ignorance or unintentionally, is less culpable (if culpable). But the person who discovers himself to be in schism, even if born into that schism, is culpable if he does not seek to cease to be in schism. To willfully remove oneself from the unity of the Church, or to willfully remain in schism from the Church, is to sin against charity. As heresy is a sin against faith, so schism is a sin against the charity which “unites the whole Church in unity of spirit.”

What does it mean to be in schism? Some Christians think that so long as they love other Christians, they are therefore not in schism. But St. Thomas explains that the unity of the Church consists in two things: the mutual connection of the members of the Church, and the subordination of all the members to the Church’s visible head, who represents Christ. So there are two ways to be a schismatic, according to St. Thomas. One way is to refuse to hold communion with other members of the Church. The other way is to refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff. Both forms of schism are sins against charity, for they both act against the charity by which the whole Church is held together in love.

Here we see the relation between authority and charity, described earlier this week in Jeremy Tate’s essay. Love and authority are not mutually exclusive. Rather, love for Christ is expressed by humbly subordinating ourselves to those with His authorization, especially the successor of the Apostle to whom Christ entrusted the keys of the Kingdom.

1. cf. Luke 10:16
2. Summa Theologica Supp. Q.40 a.6
3. Here we see an implicit distinction between formal schism (intentional, willful schism), and material schism, i.e. schism that is unintentional or done in ignorance.