(In light of today’s first reading from the fifth chapter of Ephesians, on the headship of the husband in the family, here are some thoughts from Joshua Filipetto on Saint Joseph as the head of the Holy Family) Ed.
There was a statement which I came across a while ago in my reading on the subject of Josephology which troubled me, by an eminent theologian by the name of Cardinal Alexis-Henri-Marie Lépicier O.S.M.. In his work on Josephology called Saint Joseph, Époux de la Très Sainte Vierge: Traité Théologique, Lépicier was discussing certain titles given to Saint Joseph and was commenting on their correctness. Concerning Saint Joseph’s title “Head of the Holy Family,” he had this to say: “It is therefore not strictly correct to call St. Joseph the head of the Holy Family, at least as far as the time after the Incarnation is concerned, the word ‘head’ implying a superiority which did not belong to the holy Patriarch.”[1]
This statement troubled me for a number of reasons. The first reason is that Lépicier’s statement is contrary to Natural Law. According to the teaching of the Scholastic Theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas, every father is the head of his family precisely because every father is the principle of governance of his family,[2] and therefore it must be true that Saint Joseph is also the Head of the Holy Family because he is the father of the Holy Family,[3] and hence deserves the title of “Head of the Holy Family.”
The second reason is that this statement is contrary to Sacred Scripture in two places: 1) Luke 2:51; 2) Ephesians 5:23. Luke 2:51 confirms the truth of Saint Joseph’s headship over the Son of God, relating that Jesus “was subject to them”[4] i.e., to Mary and to Saint Joseph. Subjection signifies a relationship of an inferior to a superior, and since Luke 2:51 indicates that Jesus was subject to both His parents, this means that Jesus was also subject to Saint Joseph, and therefore Saint Joseph was the Head of Jesus. Ephesians 5:23 confirms the truth of Saint Joseph’s headship over the Mother of God, stating that “the husband is the head of the wife.”[5] Since Joseph is truly the husband of Mary and since Mary is truly the wife of Joseph,[6] and since Ephesians 5:23 states that “the husband is the head of the wife,” it stands to reason that Saint Joseph was the Head of Mary. Furthermore, since Jesus, Mary, and Joseph together comprise the Holy Family, and since the foregoing established that Joseph is the Head of both Jesus and Mary, ergo, one must conclude that Saint Joseph is the Head of the Holy Family from the authority of the Holy Bible.
The third reason is that Lépicier’s statement contradicts the reasoning of the last great Josephologist of the past century, Father Francis Lad Filas, S.J., S.T.D. Father Filas — using the same reasoning which I used by reasoning from Ephesians 5:23 — affirms the truth of Saint Joseph’s headship over Mary, and then over Jesus, writing the following: “Moreover, because of the marriage our Lady was subject to St. Joseph. St. Paul says of matrimony that the ‘husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the Church’ (Eph. 5:23). Joseph, then, was in authority over Mary. His dignity on this score can be surpassed only by the fact that Jesus, too, was subject to the Saint.”[7]
The fourth reason is that Lépicier’s statement contradicts the statement of the eminent Scholastic Theologian and Chancellor of the University of Paris, Jean Gerson. Gerson, in his famous work Sermo de Nativitate Gloriosae Virginis Mariae, Et de commendatione Virginei Sponsi ejus Joseph quite clearly affirms the correctness and truth of calling Saint Joseph “Head of the Holy Family,” writing the following: “Joseph, who was the head of Mary, having thence some authority, sovereignty, rule, or command in relation to Mary, as also Mary in her own way in relation to her own Son Jesus by right of natural maternity.”[8] While Lépicier is a lowercase “t” theologian, Gerson is an uppercase “T” Scholastic Theologian,[9] which means that the words of Gerson have more authority than those of Lépicier. This is because of the connection which Scholastic Theologians have to the Magisterium. Among the many reasons why the Scholastic Theologians have a connection to the Magisterium, the most pertinent one is given by Father Chad Ripperger, PhD: “The writing of the Theologians, in many cases did not come without a license or ecclesiastical approbation.”[10] Hence, such a connection through the license or ecclesiastical approbation given on the books or sermons which the Scholastic Theologians wrote establishes implicit Magisterial consent to the doctrines contained in those writings, meaning that the Magisterium of the pope and the bishops implicitly teaches authoritatively but not infallibly that the doctrines which any Scholastic Theologian teaches in his own writings are true.[11] Gerson’s Sermo de Nativitate Gloriosae Virginis Mariae, Et de commendatione Virginei Sponsi ejus Joseph received such ecclesiastical approbation by the Magisterium at the Council of Constance, as Edward Healy Thompson, M.A., tells us.[12] Therefore, the Magisterium at the Council of Constance implicitly taught the truth of the Josephological doctrines presented in Gerson’s Sermo de Nativitate Gloriosae Virginis Mariae, Et de commendatione Virginei Sponsi ejus Joseph, which includes the teaching of the truth and correctness of Saint Joseph’s title “Head of the Holy Family,” and hence Lépicier’s statement contradicts not only that of Gerson, but also the teaching of the Church.
The fifth and final reason is that Lépicier’s statement contradicts the explicit ordinary Magisterial teaching of Pope Leo XIII. In Quamquam Pluries, Leo XIII teaches that Saint Joseph is the Head of the Holy Family.[13] Pope Paul VI teaches in Lumen Gentium that one of the ways by which a Catholic can know the ordinary Magisterium of the Pope is “from the character of the documents.”[14] The character of a Papal Encyclical is a formal papal teaching document, and since Quamquam Pluries is a Papal Encyclical, therefore there is ordinary papal magisterial authority behind Quamquam Pluries. Further, the foregoing forces one to conclude that Leo XIII’s teaching on the truth of Saint Joseph’s Headship of the Holy Family has ordinary papal magisterial authority behind it, and hence Lépicier’s statement about Saint Joseph’s Headship of the Holy Family opposes the Ordinary Magisterium of the pope.
Hence, the foregoing five reasons are the reasons for why Lépicier’s statement troubled me. For Lépicier not only opposes reason by opposing the Natural Law, but he also opposes Faith by opposing the Holy Bible, Filas, Gerson, and Leo XIII. While Lépicier says many other great things about Saint Joseph in his treatise and proves his status as an eminent theologian, I cannot understand why Lépicier would make such an error concerning Saint Joseph’s Headship of the Holy Family when this Josephological teaching is taught and supported by such and so many sources. The only exception which I would make would be Filas, since Joseph Most Just was published twenty-four years after Lépicier’s treatise in Josephology was, whereas the other sources which I mentioned existed before Lépicier’s treatise; however, even when one reads Filas on the subject, he points to Sacred Scripture and argues from there for the legitimacy of styling Saint Joseph the “Head of the Holy Family,” and hence I do not understand why Lépicier could not draw the same conclusion from Holy Scripture. Furthermore, Filas throughout Joseph Most Just speaks of Saint Joseph as the Head of the Holy Family, and hence Filas must have understood from not only Scripture but also from Natural Law, Gerson, and Leo XIII that it is legitimate to predicate the title “Head of the Holy Family” of Saint Joseph, and surely Lépicier must have also been aware of these other sources which were published before his own treatise and could have drawn the same conclusion.
Nevertheless, it is clear from what I have presented in the foregoing that Catholics can correctly style Saint Joseph with the title “Head of the Holy Family,” and it is indeed necessary that Catholics do so. For in an age in which fathers do not properly exercise their office of being head of their families — be it natural fathers or spiritual fathers — and in an age in which paternal headship is not respected and obeyed — be it natural headship or spiritual headship — it is necessary for fathers and families to look to the Holy Family to receive correction for these erroneous behaviors; children and wives must look to Jesus and Mary respectively to see the necessity of respecting and obeying the headship of their fathers and husbands as Jesus respected and obeyed his father Joseph and as Mary respected and obeyed her husband Joseph, and fathers — both natural and spiritual — must look to Saint Joseph to see the necessity of exercising their paternal headship properly for the sake of their families — both natural and spiritual — as Saint Joseph exercised his paternal headship over Jesus and Mary properly for the sake of the Holy Family.
[1] Alexis Henri M. Lépicier, O.S.M., Saint Joseph, Époux de la Très Sainte Vierge: Traité Théologique (Paris: P. Lethelleux, 1932), http://jouzourouna.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Saint-Joseph-Epoux-de-la-Tres-Sainte-Vierge-par-Cardinal-Lepicier-1932.pdf and https://livres-mystiques.com/partieTEXTES/Lepicier/StJoseph.html, 2.6.14: “Il n’est donc pas rigoureusement exact d’appeler saint Joseph le chef de la sainte Famille, du moins pour ce qui regarde le temps qui suivit l’Incarnation, le mot « chef » supposant une supériorité qui n’appartenait pas au saint Patriarche.”
[2] Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, trans. Fr. Laurence Shapcote, O.P., ed. John Mortensen and Enrique Alarcón (Lander: The Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine, 2012), II-II, q. 102, a. 1, co., https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I: “[P]ater est principium et generationis et educationis et disciplinae, et omnium quae ad perfectionem humanae vitae pertinent. [[A] father is the principle of generation, of education, of learning and of whatever pertains to the perfection of human life.” Since governance of children and wife falls under one of the things which pertain to human life, and since according to Thomas a father is the principle of all the things which pertain to human life, therefore, according to Thomas, a father is the head of his children and wife, i.e., his family, by being the principle of governance in his family.
[3] Ibid., III, q. 28, a. 1, ad 1: “Vel, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de bono coniugali, eo modo pater Christi dicitur Ioseph quo et vir Mariae intelligitur, sine commixtione carnis, ipsa copulatione coniugii, multo videlicet coniunctius quam si esset aliunde adoptatus. Neque enim propterea non erat appellandus Ioseph pater Christi quia non eum concumbendo genuerat, quandoquidem pater esset etiam ei quem, non ex sua coniuge procreatum, aliunde adoptasset. [Or, according to Augustine (De Cons. Evang. ii), Joseph is called the father of Christ just as he is called the husband of Mary, without fleshly mingling, by the mere bond of marriage: being thereby united to Him much more closely than if he were adopted from another family. Consequently, that Christ was not begotten of Joseph by fleshly union is no reason why Joseph should not be called His father; since he would be the father even of an adopted son not born of his wife.]”
[4] Luke 2:51 (Douay-Rheims Bible).
[5] Ephesians 5:23 (Douay-Rheims Bible).
[6] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, q. 29, a. 2, co.
[7] Francis L. Filas, S.J., S.T.D., Joseph Most Just: Theological Questions about St. Joseph (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1956), 24.
[8] Joannes Gersonius, Sermo de Nativitate Gloriosae Virginis Mariae, Et de commendatione Virginei Sponsi ejus Joseph, quarta consideratio, in Opera Omnia Joannis Gersonii Doctoris Theologi & Cancellarii Parisienis (Antwerpia: Sumptibus Societatis, 1706), 1356: “Joseph, qui fuit caput Mariae, habens inde authoritatem aliquam, principatum, dominationem, vel imperium in Mariam, sicut & Maria suo modo in Filium suum Jesum jure naturalis maternitatis.”
[9] For the distinction between uppercase “T” Scholastic Theologians and lowercase “t” theologians, see Fr. Chad Ripperger, Ph.D., Magisterial Authority (Sensus Traditionis Press, 2014), 30: “When the term Theologians is used, it should not be confused with the generic (lower case) theologians. The term ‘Theologians’ refers to a specific group of men, viz. those theologians of the various scholastic schools from the twelfth century until the middle of the eighteenth century (roughly during the years of 1100 to 1750).” Since Lépicier lived in 1863-1936 A.D., Lépicier is a lowercase “t” theologian because he lived outside the time period in which a Scholastic lived; on the other hand, since Gerson lived in 1363-1429 A.D., he is an uppercase “T” Scholastic Theologian because he lived inside the time period in which a Scholastic lived.
[10] Fr. Chad Ripperger, Ph.D., The Consensus of the Fathers and Theologians (Sensus Traditionis Press, 2020), 32.
[11] For the Magisterium’s support of the teachings of the Scholastic Theologians, see Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, December 21, 1863, https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/la/documents/epistola-tuas-libenter-21-decembris-1863.html.
[12] Edward Healy Thompson, M.A., The Life and Glories of Saint Joseph: Husband of Mary, Foster-Father of Jesus, and Patron of the Universal Church (Charlotte: TAN Books, 1888), 42-43: “In the beautiful discourse [viz., Sermo de Nativitate Gloriosae Virginis Mariae, Et de commendatione Virginei Sponsi ejus Joseph] which [Jean Gerson] delivered before the Council of Constance on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin…in presence of the very Fathers who had deputed him to place on record the conciliar decrees; and not only had these Fathers not a word to say in opposition [to Gerson’s Sermo de Nativitate Gloriosae Virginis Mariae, Et de commendatione Virginei Sponsi ejus Joseph], but they greatly applauded his discourse [the discourse being Gerson’s Sermo de Nativitate Gloriosae Virginis Mariae, Et de commendatione Virginei Sponsi ejus Joseph] and ordered it to be published, accompanied by a notice that it had been delivered before them.”
[13] Leo XIII, Quamquam Pluries, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, August 15, 1889, https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15081889_quamquam-pluries.html, sec. 3, emphasis in bold and italics is mine: “Cur beatus Iosephus nominatim habeatur Ecclesiae patronus, vicissimque plurimum sibi Ecclesia de eius tutela patrocinioque polliceatur, caussae illae sunt rationesque singulares, quod is vir fuit Mariae, et pater, ut putabatur, Iesu Christi. Hinc omnis eius dignitas, gratia, sanctitas, gloria profectae…Qua ex re consequens erat, ut Verbum Dei Iosepho modeste subesset, dictoque esset audiens omnemque adhiberet honorem, quem liberi adhibeant parenti suo necesse est. — Iamvero ex hac duplici dignitate officia sponte sequebantur, quae patribusfamilias natura praescripsit, ita quidem ut domus divinae cui Iosephus praeerat, custos idem et curator et defensor esset legitimus ac naturalis. Cuiusmodi officia ac munia ille quidem, quoad suppeditavit vita mortalis, revera exercuit. [The special motives for which St. Joseph has been proclaimed Patron of the Church, and from which the Church looks for singular benefit from his patronage and protection, are that Joseph was the spouse of Mary and that he was reputed the Father of Jesus Christ. From these sources have sprung his dignity, his holiness, his glory…Hence it came about that the Word of God was humbly subject to Joseph, that He obeyed him, and that He rendered to him all those offices that children are bound to render to their parents. From this two-fold flowed the obligation which nature lays upon the head of families, so that Joseph became the guardian, the administrator, and the legal defender of the divine house whose chief he was. And during the whole course of his life he fulfilled those charges and those duties.]”
[14] Paul VI, Lumen Gentium, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, November 21, 1964, https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html, sec. 25, emphasis in italics is mine: “Hoc vero religiosum voluntatis et intellectus obsequium singulari ratione praestandum est Romani Pontificis authentico magisterio etiam cum non ex cathedra loquitur; ita nempe ut magisterium eius supremum reverenter agnoscatur, et sententiis ab eo prolatis sincere adhaereatur, iuxta mentem et voluntatem manifestatam ipsius, quae se prodit praecipue sive indole documentorum, sive ex frequenti propositione eiusdem doctrinae, sive ex dicendi ratione. [This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”