847. The Vatican Council (the cited Constitution, chapter 1) 1) proposes the Catholic doctrine concerning the Primacy of Peter, saying: “Therefore we teach and declare, according to the testimonies of the Gospel, that the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was promised and conferred immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord.” 2) It indicates the two principal testimonies of Sacred Scripture by which the doctrine concerning the Primacy is most clearly handed down. “For the Lord,” it says, “spoke to Simon alone, to whom he had already said: Thou shalt be called Cephas, after he had issued his confession, saying: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, in these solemn words: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to thee, but my Father who is in heaven; and I say to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven. And to Simon Peter alone Jesus conferred after his resurrection the jurisdiction of supreme pastor and ruler over his whole fold, saying: Feed my lambs; Feed my sheep.” 3) It sets forth the errors opposed to this doctrine, adding: “To this so manifest doctrine of the sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, there are openly opposed the depraved opinions of those who, perverting the form of government constituted by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter alone, before the other Apostles, whether singly one by one or all together, was furnished by Christ with the true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or who affirm that the same primacy was delivered immediately and directly not to Blessed Peter himself, but to the Church, and through her to him as minister of the Church herself.” 4) Finally it expressly defines the truth, concluding: “If anyone therefore shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not constituted by Christ the Lord prince of all the Apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that the same received from the same our Lord Jesus Christ directly and immediately a primacy of honor only, but not of true and proper jurisdiction: let him be anathema.”
848. To understand these things it will be enough to note a few matters. And first, a twofold Primacy can be distinguished: one of honor, the other of jurisdiction. The first is “preeminence, authority prescinded from, such as is usually competent to the first among equals in a college of equals.” But the other is “a prerogative by which someone is constituted a true superior of others, and as having true power over them as over subjects to himself.” Or, as Valentia says (tom. 3, disp. 1, q. 1, point 7, section 27): “By the name of Primacy of this kind we understand nothing other than such an authority to which all the faithful, in both forums, internal and external, ought to obey in those things which regard either morals, worship, or faith, that is, in the business of salvation.” Let these things suffice for now, since below we must treat directly of the force and nature of the Primacy.
849. Although among the adversaries there are not lacking those who concede, or at least do not deny, that a certain primacy of honor was conferred on Peter, nevertheless all deny the Primacy of jurisdiction. Proposition 25 condemned in Luther is this: “The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is not the vicar of Christ over all the Churches of the whole world, instituted by Christ himself in Blessed Peter.” But in Catholic doctrine each primacy must be asserted for Peter; yet there is no reason for us to linger in vindicating the primacy of honor. For from the primacy of jurisdiction the whole notion also of the primacy of honor in Peter arises, or rather this is contained in that; for he who has supreme jurisdiction over all, by that very fact holds before all the supreme place of honor and dignity.
850. But the denial of the institution of the primacy of jurisdiction in Blessed Peter does not have the same account among all. For to the Innovators, 1) it is a certain consequence of their whole system concerning the constitution of the Church. For since they denied the distinction by divine right between clerics and laity, the hierarchy of true name instituted in the clerical order, and consequently asserted that the form of government which flourishes in the Church is democratic, no. 518, it was necessary to deny the institution of the Primacy in Peter alone. 2) Others, although they seem to concede that authority was not immediately conferred on the whole faithful people, but on the Apostles, nevertheless contend that an equal power of ruling the Church was conferred by Jesus Christ on all the Apostles, without any prelation among them. Hence among the articles of Marsilius of Padua condemned by John XXII (Licet iuxta, 1327), the second is: “Blessed Peter was not more head of the Church than any of the other Apostles, nor did he have more authority than the other Apostles had: Christ left no head to the Church, nor did he make anyone his Vicar.” 3) There was also another way of attacking the Primacy of Peter. For in 1645 there were published in France writings of certain Jansenists, in which several heads of depraved doctrine were handed down. Innocent X condemned the following propositions, excerpted from them for our matter, in the Congregation of the Inquisition, January 24, 1647: “The most Holy One judged and declared heretical this proposition: ‘St. Peter and St. Paul are two princes of the Church, who make one’; or, ‘They are two leaders and supreme commanders of the Catholic Church joined together in the highest unity’; or, ‘They are the twin summit of the universal Church, who most divinely coalesced into one’; or, ‘They are two supreme pastors and presidents of the Church, who constitute one head,’ explained in such a way that it posits an equality in every respect between St. Peter and St. Paul, without subordination and subjection of St. Paul to St. Peter in the supreme power and government of the universal Church.” 4) Finally not a few pseudo-Catholics attacked the Primacy, not indeed by denying its divine institution, but by saying that it was conferred immediately on the Church, by which it was, as it were, transferred to Peter, who would exercise the offices of the Primacy as the instrument of the Church herself. In this matter the first parts are owed to Edmund Richer, from whom, as from a common source, all the other haters of pontifical power enriched their own streams: Febronius, Dupin, the apostate de Dominis, Ricci, Tamburini, the Jansenists generally, the patrons of the liberties of the Gallican Church, and finally all those who even in our age do not fear to insist on their footsteps, no. 520 ff. A system of this kind, often condemned by the Church, as we have seen, when it was renewed by the Synod of Pistoia, was again condemned by Pius VI (Auctorem fidei, censure 2): “The proposition which establishes that ‘the Roman Pontiff is the ministerial head,’ so explained that the Roman Pontiff receives the power of ministry not from Christ in the person of Blessed Peter, but from the Church, by which, as successor of Peter, true vicar of Christ, and head of the whole Church, he has power in the universal Church. Heretical.”
851. From these things we easily understand the whole breadth of the doctrine concerning the institution of the Primacy which the Vatican Council declared, and the contrary errors which it proscribed. Therefore, so that we may protect this part of the Constitution Pastor Aeternus integrally, we establish the following: Proposition XXXVII. 1. Just as from the words of Christ (Matt. 16) it is established that the Primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church was promised to Blessed Peter, 2. so from the words of the same Christ (John 21) it is drawn out that it was conferred on Peter immediately and directly. Therefore they are altogether opposed to the manifest doctrine of the Scriptures who 3. deny that Peter alone, before the other Apostles, whether singly one by one or all together, was furnished by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; 4. or who affirm that the same primacy was delivered immediately and directly not to Blessed Peter himself, but to the Church, and through her to him as minister of the Church herself. Section II The Primacy of Peter Is Demonstrated from the Words of Matthew 16.
852. Therefore it is read (Matt. 16.13 ff.): “And Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, and he was asking his disciples: Whom do men say the Son of man is? But they said: Some John the Baptist, and others Elijah, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. Jesus says to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answering said: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven.”
853. The argument which is formed from these words can be stated thus: the promise of Christ which these words contain regards Peter directly and immediately. But by those words Christ promises the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church. Therefore a primacy of jurisdiction of this kind was promised directly and immediately by Christ to Peter.
854. Before we prove the major and the minor, it will be useful to note two things. The first is this: since Christ spoke in the Chaldaic or Syriac language which the Jews then used, beyond doubt he employed the same word Kepha in both clauses: “Thou art Kepha, and upon this Kepha.” This is confirmed from the words of Christ when Peter was first brought to him (John 1.42): “Thou art Simon the son of Jonah; thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.” And this was confessed, among other Protestants, also by Beza, who did not hesitate to write on this text of Matthew: “The Lord, speaking Syriac, used no paronomasia, but in each place said Cepha; just as also the vernacular name, Pierre, is said both of the proper name and of the appellative.” But if you ask why the Latin interpreter did not translate, “Thou art rock, and upon this rock,” the immediate answer is that he followed the Greek codex. But why did the Greek interpreter use words of diverse gender? The reason is that, although petros and petra signify the same thing, nevertheless the masculine termination is more fitting for a man; and therefore in the first clause petros is placed. But in the second clause the feminine gender is used, because although petros could also signify a stone or rock, in the whole of Scripture there is not even one example of its use; while the use of the word petra to signify a rock is very common. Thus Exodus 17.6; Exodus 33.21-22; Numbers 20.8, 10; Deuteronomy 8.15; 1 Kings 19.11; Isaiah 2.10; Matthew 7.24-25; Matthew 27.51, 60; and so forth. Compare Bellarmine (On the Roman Pontiff, book 1, chapter 10). Hence the remaining versions constantly have rock in both places; and from among these the Persian, in Walton, energetically renders: “And I say to thee: thou art the rock of my religion, and the foundation of my Church will be constructed upon thee, and the gates of hell shall not destroy it.” Footnote 1. Others simply affirm this meaning of petros; compare Parkhurst under Kephas, Bloomfield on this place. But others deny it, as Liddell, who writes: “petros, a piece of a rock, a stone, and thus distinguished from petra.” Footnote 1 ends.
855. The other thing which must be noted here is this: if it is a question of the whole text of Matthew cited above, what Bellarmine observes from Cajetan is verified (On the Roman Pontiff, book 1, chapter 12), namely, that Christ in the whole context designated the person of Peter in so many ways that notaries who draw up public instruments are accustomed to describe some definite man with no more circumstances. For he expressed the substance of the singular person by the pronoun to thee; then he added the name imposed in birth, when he said: “Blessed art thou, Simon.” He joined the name of the father when he said: “Son of Jonah.” Soon also he adds the name recently imposed by himself, adding: “I say to thee, that thou art Peter.” But nothing is more absurd than such an accurate designation of the person, if nevertheless Christ did not really intend to designate the very person of Peter. Therefore the whole question is whether also these words, “upon this rock I will build my Church,” are referred directly and immediately to Peter.
856. Now the major is proved: the promise of Christ regards Peter directly and immediately. This is clear 1) from the very form of speaking. For a) the whole discourse of Christ from beginning to end is directed to Peter, and Christ addresses no one other than Peter himself face to face: ”… Jesus said to him: Blessed art thou… has not revealed to thee… I say to thee, that thou art Peter… to thee I will give the keys… whatsoever thou shalt bind… whatsoever thou shalt loose…” If therefore the words “this rock,” placed in the middle of the discourse, signified not Peter but another person or thing, this would have to be indicated in some way; otherwise the narration of the Evangelist would lead the reader into inevitable error. b) Especially since Christ said: “Thou art Kepha, and upon this Kepha,” or, “Thou art rock, and upon this rock.” For when the same name is used in two clauses immediately joined, it signifies the same object, whether a thing or a person, in each clause, unless a diverse supposition of the name can be drawn from the added words or from the character of the subject. Common usage of speaking requires this, and it is necessary lest one hearing or reading be led into error. c) But in the context there is a reason requiring identity of supposition for rock in both clauses. For the demonstrative pronoun is used: “and upon this rock.” Now the pronoun this must necessarily be referred to that rock which was named most nearly; but the rock most nearly named is no other than the rock which is Peter: “Thou art Cephas, and upon this Cephas I will build my Church.” Indeed, unless the pronoun this is referred to Peter just named, there is no subject in the whole preceding context to which it could be referred; for there is nothing in it which had been exhibited under the concept of rock, so that correlatively to it there could be added: “and upon this rock.” Footnote 1 begins. Altogether marvelous is the invention of certain Protestants; namely, they say that Christ pointed his finger toward himself, and consequently, when he said “upon this rock,” designated himself; just as, they say, when (John 2.19) he said: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” But 1) Protestants admit nothing which is not read in the Scriptures; where, therefore, is it said that Christ, saying “upon this rock,” designated himself with his finger? 2) The example which they bring forward proves nothing, since before those words “destroy this temple” a material temple is not found to have been named by Christ, just as rock is found to have been named before the words “upon this rock.” Moreover John at once warns the reader, saying: “But he spoke of the temple of his body”; why did Matthew omit a similar explanation? 3) The reasons which are brought forward in the argument positively and absolutely exclude the Protestant invention. 4) Finally the Protestants themselves acknowledged this. Thus Marsh (Comparative View, appendix, note D) says: “But though it was so easy to confute the arguments of the Romish writers on this subject,” as will be seen below, “both the Lutheran and the Calvinist divines from the very commencement of the reformation had recourse to the uncritical expedient of torturing the words of our Saviour to a meaning which they cannot convey… The Lutheran and Calvinist divines saw no other expedient of confuting their adversaries than by asserting that the latter of the passage [‘and upon this rock I will build my Church’] applied not to Peter at all… It seems a desperate undertaking to prove that our Saviour alluded to any other person than to St. Peter; for the words of the passage can indicate no one else.” And Bloomfield, on this place, says that “almost every modern [Protestant] expositor of note” holds the Catholic interpretation; so Bloomfield himself, Kuinoel, Alford, Bengel, Rosenmuller, Whitby, Hammond, S. Clare, Schleusner, Parkhurst under Kephas, Stanley (Sermons and Essays on the Apostolic Age, p. 118), and so forth. Footnote 1 ends. 2) The same thing is drawn from those things which precede in the context. For if the promise of Christ does not regard Peter accepted in his own person, the sense of Christ’s discourse here will be: “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood has not revealed to thee… And I say to thee”: thou indeed hast been surnamed Cephas by me; but thou thyself wilt not be Cephas, or the Rock of the Church. I called thee Cephas, but another subject distinct from thee will be that upon which I will build my Church. Nothing more absurd than this discourse can be imagined. This is all the more so because here there is manifestly an allusion to the name Cephas imposed by Christ on Simon (John 1.42), and the mystery of that imposition is here revealed. For Peter did not have the name Cephas from birth; and therefore the words “Thou art Cephas” necessarily import: “Thou art by surname Cephas,” or “thou wast surnamed Cephas by me.” But when Christ adds: “And upon this Cephas I will build my Church,” he openly reveals the reason why he imposed the name Cephas on Peter, and discloses the mystery of this deed done by himself. 3) The same thing is confirmed from those things which follow in the context. For he a) is called rock to whom soon it is said: “And to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven,” etc. But all these things are said to Peter alone exclusively. Therefore. Indeed, as to the major, no one fails to see that the promise of the keys is closely joined with him who had antecedently been designated as the rock of the Church, and is referred to the same one as by reason of consequence. But as to the minor, the promise of the keys is made to Peter; the personal pronoun to thee openly shows this, which can designate absolutely nothing except the person of Peter. The words “thou shalt bind and thou shalt loose” confirm the same thing; since they express individual and personal acts, they again can fit in the context only the person of Peter. b) The reason why Christ makes this promise to Peter before the others confirms the matter; for it is clear that that promise is a certain reward, which certainly is referred to him who set down the merit. For Peter alone had said: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”; and therefore Christ, as if repaying in turn, says: and I say to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock, etc. Otherwise behold the sentence which would come forth from the words of Christ: Thou, Peter, hast celebrated the praise of my name; and I say to thee that thou art Peter, but I will not build my Church upon thee, but upon another rock!
857. The minor is proved: Christ promises the primacy of jurisdiction. This is clear 1) from the very words “upon this rock I will build my Church.” For Christ, by changing the name of Simon into that of Kepha, or Peter, certainly wished to signify something; for it is foreign to a prudent man to change someone’s name without a just cause. Hence whenever in the Scriptures a similar change or imposition of a name divinely made is reported, we understand that it was the symbol of some singular dignity. “It is God himself,” says Chrysostom (Homily 18 on John), “who fittingly imposes names. He who called Abram Abraham, Sarai Sarah, and Jacob Israel. To many he imposed names from birth, such as Isaac and Samson, and those whom Isaiah and Hosea mention. For some he changed the appellation which they received from their parents, as for the aforesaid and for Jesus. It was also the ancient custom that names be imposed from things. Elijah also did this. But this is not done rashly, but so that that appellation be imposed which may be a perpetual monument of divine benefit, and the memory may be impressed upon the minds of hearers through the aforesaid names.” See also St. Thomas, part 3, q. 37, article 2. Now the new name which Christ imposed on Simon was that of Kepha, which, as we have seen, does not signify any rock whatever, but a solid and unbreakable stone, indeed a cliff and stone upon which a building to be constructed may suitably rest. Hence Christ added: “upon this rock I will build my Church.” This indeed corresponds to the idea which Scripture often employs concerning the Church, when it calls her a house which the Holy Spirit inhabits, whose faithful are stones, and which finally is God’s building, no. 442. These things having been set down, behold the argument: Peter is in the Church what the foundation is in a building. But the office of the foundation is that in it and through it first and of itself the unity of the building be composed; for upon the foundation all the stones are gathered, and the individual parts from which the building coalesces, which, although they must also be joined mutually, nevertheless constitute one building insofar as they are built over only one foundation. Likewise the notion of foundation chiefly demands that from it the building borrow solidity and immobility; and therefore its conservation and unity chiefly depend upon the foundation. Therefore the office of Peter is that through him unity be had in the Church and be preserved, and through him there be had the firmness of the Church which is never dissolved. But this imports a primacy not of honor only, but of jurisdiction. For a) the Church, as we showed above, is a true and perfect society; therefore that gives unity and firmness to the Church which also gives them to any Society whatever. But that is authority. Therefore authority was conferred on Peter, upon whom the unity and firmness of the Church depends. b) Certainly the unity which Christ willed in the Church is both of faith and of government, as we also demonstrated above. But unity of government is had through subjection to one supreme authority; unity of faith through adherence to one authentic and infallible magisterium. Therefore to Peter, upon whom the unity of the Church depends, that supreme power was conferred which also includes an authentic magisterium. c) This is confirmed from the immediately following words, “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” By the gates of hell here are openly understood all the enemies of the Church. And that sentence, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” is certainly connected with the preceding words, “And upon this rock I will build my Church,” unless we wish to say that those words were inserted by Christ incongruously, apart from the matter being treated and without any connection. But it is the same whether that word it, “against it,” is referred to the rock named a little before, or to the Church itself. For if you refer it to the rock, the sense will be that the gates of hell are not going to prevail against Peter, who is the rock of the Church. But if you refer the same to the Church, it is signified that the gates of hell are not going to prevail against the Church insofar as she is founded on Peter and borrows stability from him. For if she could have stability from herself, she would be taught in vain by Christ to be founded on Peter, or upon the rock. Hence: Peter was constituted in the Church so that through him the enemies would never prevail against her; or to Peter there was promised the office of invincibly defending the Church against all dangers and all enemies. But for this the primacy of jurisdiction is required. For in any society, in order that someone may be able to watch effectively over its safety and defend it unconquerably against all hostile attacks, it is necessary that he have the power to establish subordinate rulers Footnote 1 begins. Some have asserted, in Bloomfield on this place, that by the gates of hell is understood death, which they contend to confirm from those words (Isa. 38.10): “I said: In the midst of my days I shall go to the gates of hell”; and which therefore, they say, David calls the gates of death, saying (Ps. 9.15): “Who exaltest me from the gates of death.” Hence the sense of Christ’s promise would be that death is not going to prevail against the Church, because the faithful will rise gloriously. The whole account of the context and the scope of Christ’s discourse openly exclude an interpretation of this kind, as is clear from what has been said. But it is useful to add that pylai hadou properly signifies the seat of souls after death, especially of the impious. This is shown very well by the illustrious Patrizi (On the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture, book 2, q. 10, article 3, section 1, argument 2). Hence the Protestants themselves admit our interpretation. Thus Rosenmuller says: “Which [my Church] no force, not even of the most powerful enemies, will destroy… Pylai hadou: tartarean powers, counsels, and efforts of demons, tyrants, and enemies of the Church. For pylai denotes such a gate where judgment or rule is held, the court of a prince, the power of ruling; whence the royal court of the Emperor of the Turks is called the Porte. But Hades is the underworld, Orcus, Tartarus, the whole republic of shades.” Kuinoel holds the same thing (Commentary on the Historical Books of the New Testament, on this place), and Calvin himself (Commentary on the Harmony from the Three Evangelists). Footnote 1 ends. who are able to administer the society rightly, to bring those laws which are required for the good of the society, and to compel subjects to that which the defense of the society demands. But these things can be furnished only by him who obtains supreme authority. This indeed has place all the more in the Church, the more numerous, crafty, and hostile her enemies are; the greater the unity and firmness which is required in her; and the greater the necessity of preserving her unharmed even to the consummation of the age. 2) A new argument is taken from the added promise: “And to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” First let it be noted that the kingdom of heaven, mention of which often occurs in the Scriptures, and which is also often called the kingdom of God, or simply the kingdom, is a spiritual and supernatural kingdom. Compare Patrizi, On the Gospels, book 3, dissertation 46. Moreover it is called the kingdom of heaven either by reason of its origin, compare John 18.36 and Apocalypse 21.2, or by reason of the seat of its king, or by reason of the term toward which it tends. Now this kingdom is the Church; but sometimes that appellation signifies the Church triumphant, more often the Church militant on earth, especially in the parables, and sometimes with an adequate signification it embraces both. But here the kingdom of heaven signifies that Church of which mention immediately precedes, “I will build my Church, and to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” or the Church militant on earth, at least by direct signification. For it is a question of that Church in which to Peter is promised the power of binding and loosing, or jurisdiction; but Peter obtained this only over the Church militant on earth. For this reason almost all Protestant interpreters concede this, such as Schleusner, Rosenmuller, Kuinoel, Bloomfield, and others; and Robinson wrote ineptly when he said that here is signified the Church “as perfected in the future world.” Compare what we said, nos. 440 and 747. These things having been set down, behold the argument: in the cited words there is contained the promise 1) of true power, 2) indeed of supreme power in the Church. But these words, as we said, regard Peter directly and immediately. Therefore supreme power, or the Primacy of jurisdiction over the Church, was promised to Peter. The major is proved as to the first point: the conferral or handing over of keys is a sign of power. Hence in the time of the Hebrew monarchy the steward of the royal house carried the key on his shoulder as an insignia of power. For this reason (Isa. 22.22) we read concerning Eliakim, son of Hilkiah: “And I will give the key of the house of David upon his shoulder; and he shall open, and there shall be none who shuts; and he shall shut, and there shall be none who opens.” Indeed also the supreme power of Christ (Apoc. 3.7) is designated by the same symbol of keys: “These things says the holy and true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shuts; shuts and no one opens.” But although the use of symbols had greater force among the ancients, especially orientals, nevertheless traces of the symbol of the keys for signifying power remain even now. Hence one who is said to hold the keys of a city presides over the city; keys were accustomed to be offered to a king entering a city as a symbol of his supreme power. This use persevered even after cities, no longer enclosed by walls, did not have gates; the surrender of a besieged fortress also was completed by the handing over of keys. The major is proved as to the second point: the power of the keys is supreme in its order; but here the keys of the kingdom are promised to Peter. Therefore his power is royal, namely supreme. Hence if he shuts, no one opens, and vice versa; which certainly would be false if he had a superior power on earth upon which he depended. 3) Finally it is confirmed from the other words: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind,” etc. For these words 1) import true legislative, judicial, and coercive power, nos. 766 and 772; 2) power universal with respect to object, “whatsoever thou shalt bind,” etc.; 3) power universal with respect to persons, for it is power over the whole kingdom; and the Church, of which Peter is called the foundation, is the universal Church, as we have shown, no. 658; 4) independent power, and therefore supreme, as we also showed, no. 558.
858. The exegetical interpretation of the text of Matthew, evident of itself, can also be confirmed by the consensus of the Fathers. Indeed, if it is a question of that first promise, “upon this rock I will build my Church,” which the Innovators especially attack, it is certain 1) that before the Arian heresy, the reason for this distinction between Fathers writing before and after Arianism will appear below, our interpretation was handed down from the Orientals by Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea, in the letter to Cyprian; by Origen (on Exodus, tom. 5, p. 145; ed. Migne, tom. 2, p. 329), who calls Peter “that great foundation of the Church and most solid rock, upon which Christ founded the Church”; but that the Latins departed from them in no way is established among all, and St. Cyprian (letters 60-73) and Tertullian (On Prescription, chapter 22) testify lucidly. 2) After the Arian controversies, however, that the same interpretation flourished among the Greek Fathers is easily clear. For St. Epiphanius (Ancoratus, chapter 9) says that Peter is “first among the Apostles, that solid rock, upon which the Church of God was founded, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” St. Basil, speaking of Peter (on Isaiah, chapter 2, no. 66), says: “upon which Rock the Lord had promised that he would build his Church.” St. Gregory Nazianzen (Oration 26) teaches that one of the disciples of Christ “was called rock of the sublime and exalted things and of those worthy of choice, and receives the foundations of the Church into his faith.” St. John Chrysostom (on the passage I Saw the Lord, homily 4, no. 3) says that “Peter is the base of the Church, the foundation of faith, the leader of that choir, the mouth of all the apostles, the head of that family, prefect of the whole world, foundation of the Church, burning lover of Christ, first of the Apostles, foundation of the Church, prince of the company of the disciples, and leader of all.” Cyril of Alexandria (on John 1.42) relates that Jesus did not wish Peter, coming to him, any longer “to be called Simon, claiming him for himself by his own power already then as his own; but by a fitting likeness it pleased him that he be called Peter from rock, namely, as the one upon whom he was going to found his Church”; and hence he calls him “prince of the most holy Apostles.” 3) The Latin Fathers also have the same opinion. St. Hilary of Poitiers (Commentary on Matthew 16) exclaims: “O in the naming of a new name, happy foundation of the Church, and rock worthy of her building, which would dissolve the infernal laws and the gates of Tartarus and all the bars of death!” St. Jerome (letter to Damasus 57) calls Peter “prince of the Apostles; upon whom the Church is founded; who for that reason is chosen as one among the twelve, so that, the head having been constituted, the occasion of schism may be removed.” St. Ambrose (On Virginity, single book, chapter 16, etc.) describes Peter as “a wise and grave man, in whom there was the firmament of the Church and the magisterium of discipline.” Pacian of Barcelona (letter 3 to Symphorian) relates that “the Lord spoke to Peter, to one, therefore, so that he might found unity from one.” St. Leo the Great (to the metropolitan bishops through Illyricum, constitution, letter 5, chapter 2) writes: “And because our care is stretched out through all the churches, the Lord requiring this from us, who entrusted the primacy of his faith to the most blessed Apostle Peter as a reward, constituting the universal Church in the solidity of his foundation, we share the necessity of the solicitude which we have with those who are joined to us by the charity of the college.” The Fathers gathered in the Synods of Ephesus and Chalcedon pronounced this same thing. 4) Finally St. Augustine himself, who sometimes, as we shall soon see, indicated another interpretation, in many places interpreted Peter as being called by Christ the rock and foundation of the Church. Thus in the sermon On the Chair of Peter (15, On the Saints) he says: “The Lord named Peter the foundation of the Church, and therefore the Church fittingly honors this foundation, upon which the height of the ecclesiastical building rises.” Likewise (on Psalm 69): “Peter had confessed Christ as the Son of God, and in that confession he had been called the rock, upon which the Church would be built.” Likewise (Tractate 11 on John): “Peter, that rock, answered with the voice of all: Lord, to whom shall we go?” But concerning the very principate which Peter had in the Church, and which is usually signified metaphorically by the word rock, head, foundation, gatekeeper of heaven, St. Augustine never doubted in any way. Wherefore (Tractate 56 on John) he writes: “Who does not know that the most blessed Peter is first of all the Apostles?” Likewise (Question 75 from the New Testament): “The Lord constituted him,” he says, “to be their head, so that he might be shepherd of the Lord’s flock.” Likewise (first exposition on Psalm 108): “He had the Primacy among the disciples.” Likewise (book 2, On Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 1): “Who does not know that that principate of the Apostolate of Peter is to be preferred to any episcopate?”
859. But if the discourse is about the other promise, “To thee I will give the keys,” etc., the Fathers unanimously interpret it as we do. Compare, if you like, their testimonies in Schrader (On Roman Unity, part 1, nos. 174-184). You will also find many testimonies of the Fathers for each promise in Valentia (tom. 3, disp. 1, q. 1, point 7, section 28) and in Bellarmine (On the Roman Pontiff, book 1, chapters 10 and 12). Recall also the testimonies which we gave at no. 547. Section III The Difficulties Against the Argument Brought Forward Are Satisfied.
860. You will say, I: The Apostle (1 Cor. 3.11) says: “No one can lay another foundation besides that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus.” Hence: the Church cannot have another foundation of herself besides Christ. Therefore if in Matthew 16 by the name of rock the foundation of the Church is designated, no one other than Christ can be understood by it. I answer by distinguishing the antecedent. The Church cannot have another foundation of herself besides Christ that is primary and unparticipated, I concede; secondary and participated, such as Peter is, I deny. That Paul speaks only in the former sense is clear: 1) from the fact that Paul himself (Eph. 2.20) says that the Church is built “upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets.” Therefore, according to the Apostle, Christ is not the foundation in such a way that he excludes any other whatever. 2) Hence the Apostle himself in this place, to the Ephesians, distinguishes the primary foundation, which is Christ, from the secondary, which is the Apostles; for he adds: “Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone.” 3) The purpose of the Apostle confirms the same thing, who in the place objected, to the Corinthians, reproves those ministers of the Gospel who, seeking vain glory under the appearance of a certain loftier preaching, were trying to diminish Paul’s authority among the Corinthians. Answering these, the Apostle says that they can build in various ways upon the foundation once laid by himself among the Corinthians, but by no means can they furnish what he had done, namely, lay a new foundation. He gives this reason for the matter: that no other Christ is to be preached besides him whom he himself had preached, nor another faith, another hope, another charity: “As a wise architect I have laid the foundation; but another builds upon it. But let each one see how he builds upon it. For another foundation,” etc.
861. You will say, II: Even among the Fathers there are various interpretations of that rock, “upon this rock”: for some understand by that rock Christ, others the faith of Peter, others the confession of faith, others Peter. But especially St. Augustine, who more than once had interpreted the rock of Christ, recalling this interpretation (Retractations, book 1, chapter 2), leaves it to the choice of the reader. Therefore. I answer 1) indirectly. The Innovators cannot argue thus against us from their principles, since they reject tradition and interpret Scripture according to the rules of exegesis. Nor can they argue thus against the man; for although we Catholics hold that Scripture is to be understood according to the unanimous consensus of the Fathers, nevertheless we do not say that this consensus is the only means of interpreting Scripture. Wherefore, if in the case such a consensus were lacking, which we altogether deny, by that very fact another means of interpretation would have to be employed. But it is established that the interpretation which we have given is exact according to all the rules of exegesis. I answer 2) generally, by distinguishing the antecedent. The Fathers understand that rock of someone other than Peter in the proper, immediate, and literal sense, I deny; in a less proper, mediate sense, and sometimes by accommodation, I subdistinguish; so that they exclude the primary interpretation, I deny; so that they suppose it, I concede. The same Fathers who seem to understand that rock otherwise, elsewhere, as we have seen, themselves hand down the interpretation given by us. This general answer is confirmed by considering the individual interpretations objected. Hence: I answer 3) with respect to the interpretation concerning faith or the confession of faith, by distinguishing the antecedent. The Fathers hand down this interpretation metonymically and without excluding the proper sense, I concede; otherwise, I deny. By common usage that Metonymy is very well approved by which the name of some quality, whether good or bad, is used for the person in whom that quality is distinguished. Thus, if a prince by his wisdom were to save the republic from the greatest dangers, we would say that the wisdom of the prince saved the republic. It is established that the same usage flourished among the ancients. Hence Cicero, against Verres, says: “What things luxury in outrages, cruelty in punishments, avarice in insults could have effected”; where luxury, cruelty, and avarice are taken for the luxurious, the cruel, and the avaricious man. Nor does Scripture itself refuse this usage; for it is said (1 John 5.4 ff.): “This is the victory which overcomes the world, our faith. Who is he who overcomes the world, except he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?” I answer 4) with respect to the interpretation concerning Christ, by distinguishing the antecedent. The Fathers by the name Rock understood Christ as the principal and meritorious rock of the firmness of the secondary rock, I concede; to the exclusion of the secondary rock, namely Peter, who is made firm in the principal rock, I deny. Namely, through an interpretation of this kind the Fathers signified that Christ alone is the principal rock of the Church, according to that saying of Paul (1 Cor. 3.11): “No one can lay another foundation besides that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus.” But they by no means deny that Peter is the secondary rock founded in Christ, just as we have seen the exegetical interpretation of the text of Matthew demand. I answer 5) with respect to St. Augustine understanding the rock of Christ: a) he brought forward that interpretation as his private opinion, and in no way as the common tradition or faith of the Church. This is clear both from the fact that he himself testifies that it was not the common interpretation, and also from the fact that elsewhere he made his own the interpretation which truly is common, and finally from those things which he says in his Retractations. For if the interpretation concerning Christ had been in the common faith of the Church, he would not have left it to the choice of readers. b) St. Augustine seems to have come into that interpretation from ignorance of the Hebrew language. For the holy Doctor writes (book 1 of the Retractations, chapter 21): “In that book [against the letter of Donatus] I said in a certain place concerning the Apostle Peter that the Church was founded upon him as upon a rock; which sense is also sung by the mouth of many in the verses of most blessed Ambrose, where he says concerning the cock, ‘At this, the rock itself of the Church singing, washed away the fault…’ But I know that afterward I very often explained thus what was said by the Lord: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ so that he whom Peter confessed should be understood, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God’; and as if Peter, named from this rock, bore the person of the Church, which is built upon this rock and received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For it was not said to him, Thou art rock; but, ‘Thou art Peter.’ But the rock was Christ, whom Simon confessed, just as the whole Church confesses him, and he was called Peter. Of these two opinions, let the reader choose which is more probable.” Footnote 1 begins. Wherefore one can conclude with Schrader (On Roman Unity, part 1, no. 180, note 6), who, having reported those four interpretations, adds: “It must be observed that all these four interpretations together express the adequate and fullest meaning of Christ’s words; and therefore one neither excludes the other, nor is excluded by the other, but rather all are together required. Certainly the first is required in the immediate literal sense. The second is required, since neither is Peter the rock of the Church from himself and as principal, nor can the Church of Christ be conceived without Christ as its foundation from himself and as principal. The third is required, since from the connection with the preceding things it is understood that the cause on account of which Peter was designated the rock of the Church was his faith, and therefore Peter as having faith is the rock of the Church; as if Christ had said, through faith thou art rock, or even thy faith is the rock upon which I will build my Church. The fourth is required, since the faith of Peter was not completed by an internal act of faith, but was a public profession of faith in Christ the Son of the living God. Therefore, emitting this, Peter was constituted the rock of the Church. If therefore whatever Christ’s words signify, both immediately and mediately, both directly and indirectly, both absolutely and relatively, are taken together, their whole and full and adequate sentence comes forth.” Footnote 1 ends.
862. You will say, III: The power of binding and loosing which is promised to Peter is the same as the power which is handed over to the other Apostles (John 20.23). But this is the power of remitting or retaining sins. Therefore through the power of binding and loosing the Primacy of jurisdiction is not promised. I answer. The power of remitting or retaining sins is indeed included in the power of binding and loosing; but the latter is not restricted to the former alone, and therefore it is the same with it only inadequately. In reality, 1) the words of Matthew are most universal, “whatsoever thou shalt bind”; the words of John expressly signify a definite matter, “whose sins you shall forgive.” 2) Hence in each text the order is inverted; for in Matthew the power of binding, to which the power of retaining corresponds inadequately, is placed first; but in John the power of remitting, which inadequately corresponds to the power of loosing, is placed first. For the power of ruling is primarily and chiefly ordered to coercing the liberty of men by laws, precepts, and penalties, that is, to binding. But the power of remitting and retaining sins is primarily and chiefly, indeed altogether ultimately, ordered to the extinction of sin, that is, to remitting. 3) The preceding words, “upon this rock I will build my Church,” and “To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” do not allow the power of binding and loosing to be restricted to the remission of sins alone. 4) Finally, always when in Scripture mention is made of the remission of sins, either the word “sin” is used or something else is employed indicating that the question concerns sin. But in the whole context of Matthew 16 neither is the word “sin” used, nor is anything else placed by which sin is in any way signified.
863. You will say, IV: If by the words of Christ (Matt. 16) there had been signified the primacy of jurisdiction promised to Peter, the Apostles would have understood this. But they by no means understood it, since they disputed among themselves who of them would have the primacy. Therefore. I answer 1) Those very contentions of the Apostles sufficiently show that they in some way knew that some primacy was to be constituted. For it was not disputed among them whether there would be some primacy, but “which of them was greater,” or who would obtain it. Hence St. Jerome (on Matt. 17.1) writes: “Because they had seen the same tribute paid for Peter and the Lord, from the equality of the price, they thought that Peter had been preferred to all the Apostles, who in the payment of the tribute had been compared to the Lord; therefore they ask who is greater in the kingdom of heaven.” I answer 2) by distinguishing the major. The Apostles would have understood this after receiving the Holy Spirit, I concede; at the time when Christ made that promise, I deny. It is certain that Christ more than once rebuked the Apostles, saying: “Are you also still without understanding?” (Matt. 15.16); “Why do you not understand?” (Matt. 16.11), etc. Especially when it was a question of the Passion of Christ, it is said of the Apostles (Luke 9.45): “But they did not understand this word”; and (Luke 18.34): “And they understood none of these things.” Yet from this it is not inferred that Christ did not predict, and indeed often and clearly, his Passion. Hence St. John Chrysostom (on Matthew, homily 65, otherwise 66, no. 2) says: “Let no one be disturbed, seeing the Apostles so imperfect. For the cross had not yet come, the grace of the Spirit had not yet been given. But if you wish to learn their virtue, consider them after these things, and you will see them superior to every disease of soul. For he reveals their imperfections for this reason, that afterward you may know what sort of men they became from grace. That therefore they were seeking nothing spiritual, nor had any knowledge of the heavenly kingdom, is clear from here, verse 22… But they wished, as I think, because they had heard, ‘You shall sit upon twelve thrones’ (Matt. 19.28), to obtain the first seat. Moreover they knew that they preceded others; but they feared Peter, and they say: ‘Say that one may sit,’” etc. And no. 4: “Do you see how imperfect they all were, both these who were trying to precede the ten, and those ten who envied the two? But, as I said, show them to me after these things, and you will see them empty of all these passions. Hear how this same John, who now approached for this cause, always yields first places to Peter, both when he is preaching and when he is performing miracles in the Acts of the Apostles.”
864. You will say, V: To bind and to loose properly signifies to declare something illicit or licit, as is established from the Talmudic Writers, among whom the Rabbis bind and loose according as they teach that something is illicit or licit. But a faculty of this kind does not import the Primacy of jurisdiction. Therefore. I answer by distinguishing the major. To bind and to loose sometimes, as for the Rabbis in the Talmud, signifies to declare, etc., I concede; always, and by name in the text about which we are treating, I deny. Therefore we confess that those words bind and loose are taken in the Talmud in the sense objected; but from this it is not proved that this sense is exclusive. Indeed, it is positively established that this sense is not exclusive; for the Greek words employed by the interpreter of Matthew, according to the testimony of Diodorus Siculus, and the Hebrew or Chaldaic words, according to the testimony of Josephus, have a broader signification. Certainly when the power of binding and loosing is asserted of the same subject concerning whom immediately before the power of the keys is asserted, that power cannot be restricted to declaring the illicit and the licit. Hence the maimed interpretation of the Protestants was unknown to all antiquity. Besides, I scarcely understand what the Protestants would gain by this new interpretation of theirs. For even if it were granted, the Primacy of jurisdiction would be sufficiently proved from the preceding parts of the text of Matthew; and elsewhere, if the power of teaching, or of declaring what is licit or illicit, was conceded to Peter, then in this let them obey Peter. Several objections were forestalled in the demonstration itself, or exposition of the argument; others pertain to the following parts of the same thesis, and therefore we shall weigh them below. Section IV The Primacy of Peter Is Demonstrated from John 21.
865. It is read in John (21.15 ff.): “When therefore they had dined, Jesus says to Simon Peter: Simon of John, lovest thou me more than these? He says to him: Yes, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He says to him: feed my lambs. He says to him again: Simon of John, lovest thou me? He says to him: Yes, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He says to him: shepherd my lambs. He says to him the third time: Simon of John, lovest thou me? Peter was saddened because he said to him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: feed my sheep.”
866. From these things we argue thus: the office of feeding, concerning which Christ treats in the cited testimony, regards Peter alone, and is imposed on him alone. But that office is nothing other than the Primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church. Therefore that Primacy was conferred on Peter alone.
867. The major is proved: the office of feeding here regards Peter alone. And indeed 1) from the name “Simon of John,” which is proper to Peter. Nor without a mystery, as Bellarmine rightly notes, does Christ call Peter by the same name both when he promises him the keys (Matt. 16) and when he commits the sheep to be fed, John last chapter: namely, so that we might understand that that very thing is given in reality which had been promised, and that it is given to that same Simon to whom it had before been promised. 2) From those words “Lovest thou me more than these?” For it is said, “Feed my sheep,” to him to whom it is said: “Lovest thou me more than these?” But this is said to Peter alone. For the others are excluded by the express words in that comparison “more than these.” But the others who are excluded are not just any men, but chiefly the Apostles. For at that time there were present there with Peter Nathanael, whom many think to be Bartholomew, James, John, Thomas, and two other disciples, one of whom it is credible was Andrew. Therefore it is said not to all the Apostles, but to Peter alone: “Feed my sheep.” Nor is it an obstacle that Christ asked from Peter what Peter did not know. For Peter, not knowing whether he loved Christ more than the other Apostles, humbly responded: “Thou knowest, Lord, that I love thee.” But Christ did not interrogate in order that he might learn from Peter the preeminence of his love, but so that he might teach the others what degree of love he demanded in Peter: “The Lord,” says St. Ambrose (book 10, no. 175), “interrogates not so that he might learn, but so that he might teach whom, about to be raised into heaven, he was leaving to us as the Vicar of his love.” 3) From the threefold interrogation. For, according to Cyril, St. Augustine, and others on this place, Peter was interrogated three times whether he loved more than the others because he had denied three times. But the threefold denial pertains only to Peter. Therefore Peter alone is interrogated, and consequently to him alone it is said: “Feed my sheep.” 4) From those words: “Peter was saddened,” etc. For, as St. John Chrysostom notes, Peter was saddened for this reason, because he feared lest perhaps he was mistaken when he answered: “Thou knowest, Lord, that I love thee”; just as he had been mistaken when he said: “Even if it should be necessary for me to die with thee, I will not deny thee.” But that cause of sadness is proper to Peter alone, who had denied the Lord. Therefore, just as Peter alone was saddened, so Christ addresses Peter alone when he says: “Feed my sheep.” 5) From the words immediately following, verses 18 ff.: “When thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch out thy hand,” etc. For it is said, “Feed,” to him to whom crucifixion is predicted; but by these words death on a cross is predicted to Peter alone. Compare Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, book 1, chapter 14.
868. The minor of the proposed argument is resolved into two parts: 1) the words of Christ express the Primacy of jurisdiction; 2) over the universal Church. The first part is proved: 1) From the very force of the word. For, as is clear from the text already recited, Christ the Lord used a twofold verb, boske and poimaine; and although the first does not have so broad and noble a signification as the other, nevertheless when they are used in the same discourse, concerning the same subject and object, they are rightly held as synonyms. Certainly, since the verb poimainein also has been employed, whatever it imports must be retained. Now the same verb with something added signifies the authority of the magisterium, as, for example (Jer. 3.15): “And I will give you pastors according to my heart, and they shall feed you with knowledge and doctrine.” But without something added it signifies the authority of ruling. Hence the Ruler of men is called Shepherd, and to feed is taken for to rule with command. This is established a) from the usage of the Scriptures; for, to bring forward some examples, it is said (2 Sam. 5.1 ff.): “And all the tribes of Israel came to David in Hebron, saying… When Saul was king over us, thou wast leading out and leading back Israel; but the Lord said to thee: Thou shalt shepherd my people Israel, and thou shalt be leader over Israel.” And (Ps. 48.14): “This is our God forever and ever; he will rule us forever.” And (Ps. 80.1): “Thou who rulest Israel, attend: thou who leadest Joseph like a sheep.” And (Isa. 40.10-11): “Behold the Lord God will come in strength, and his arm shall rule… Like a shepherd he shall feed his flock.” And (Ezek. 34.23-24): “I shall raise up over them one shepherd, who shall feed them, my servant David, who shall feed them… David shall be prince in their midst.” And Micah (5.2, 4): “And thou Bethlehem Ephrathah art little among the thousands of Judah: from thee shall go forth for me one who shall be ruler in Israel… and he shall feed in the strength of the Lord.” And Matthew (2.6): “And thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, art by no means least among the princes of Judah: for from thee shall come forth a leader, who shall rule my people Israel.” And Apocalypse 12.5 and 19.15: “And she brought forth a male child who was to rule all nations with an iron rod.” 2) It is also established from the usage of profane writers. One can see what Homer has concerning Agamemnon (Iliad 2.243), concerning Menelaus (5.566), concerning Achilles (16.2), concerning Hector (14.423); but in Hesychius poimen is explained as basileus. 3) Bellarmine also explains the origin of this metaphor, whose use is so universal; for he notes that among the ancient Orientals, princes of tribes exercised the office of shepherds of sheep, concerning which matter examples are also had in Genesis. Footnote 1. “This term,” says Arnold (Fragment of the Church, etc., p. 26), “of feeding as a shepherd feeds his flock is one of the oldest and most universal metaphors to express a supreme and at the same time a beneficent government.” Footnote 1 ends. These things having been set down, 1) anyone understands that Christ said to Peter, rule with command my lambs and my sheep, when he said to him, Feed; and therefore that he conferred on him the Primacy of jurisdiction. This indeed can be confirmed by insisting on the word Feed. For a) he is not said to feed others who in any way supplies food, but he who, placed over a family, city, or Kingdom, by office procures and provides food, according to that saying (Luke 12.42): “Who, thinkest thou, is the faithful and prudent steward whom the Lord has constituted over his family, that he may give them their measure of wheat in due time?” b) Nor is it only the shepherd’s office to procure food for the sheep, but also to lead them, bring them back, protect them, rule them, and chastise them; all of which, when they regard men, import true preeminence and jurisdiction. Compare what is contained in John 10, Jeremiah 23, and Ezekiel 34, where the offices of a shepherd are described. 2) The same thing can be confirmed by comparing at once the text of Matthew and that of John. For on the one hand we have seen that in Matthew Christ promised to Peter the primacy of jurisdiction; but the promise, as regarding an essential good of the Church, which Christ willed absolutely, was itself absolute. Therefore Christ had to fulfill it at some time. But there is no place in Scripture, besides that place in John which we are weighing, where that promise is better understood to have been fulfilled. Therefore in those words, Feed my lambs… Feed my sheep, Christ conferred on Peter the Primacy of jurisdiction. And conversely one may argue thus: Christ conferred on Peter in John what he had promised in Matthew; but he had promised the primacy of jurisdiction, as has been proved; therefore he conferred this primacy. Therefore certain persons have devised in vain that Christ only exhorted Peter to show his love by feeding the lambs and sheep. For if that word Feed imports Rule with command, Christ could not exhort Peter to feed his flock without conferring on him that command, or power.
869. The minor is proved with respect to the second part. Christ conferred on Peter jurisdiction over the universal Church. Let it be noted: 1) it matters little whether once one ought to read little sheep rather than sheep, as we noted in the text; for it always remains true that Christ committed to Peter the lambs and sheep to be fed. 2) By lambs and sheep the faithful are certainly understood. Hence Christ was foretold by the Prophets as Shepherd, he himself called himself the Shepherd who has sheep, for whom he gave his life; finally the Apostle calls the assembly of the faithful a flock, in which the Holy Spirit placed a Bishop to rule it. 3) But what is the true signification of that distinction of the faithful into lambs and sheep? Some understand Jews and Gentiles; others the perfect and imperfect; finally others, more commonly, the simple faithful and the Pastors. “First lambs,” says Bruno of Asti, on this place, Migne, vol. 165; “then he committed sheep to him, because he constituted him not only shepherd, but shepherd of shepherds. Therefore Peter feeds lambs, and he feeds sheep; he feeds sons, and he feeds mothers; he rules both subjects and prelates. Therefore he is shepherd of all, because besides lambs and sheep there is nothing in the Church.” Hence: 1) Christ committed to Peter the lambs and sheep to be fed or ruled. But by lambs and sheep, whether Jews and Gentiles are understood, or the perfect and imperfect, or the faithful and pastors, the whole flock of Christ is always signified, or the universal Church. Therefore Christ conferred on Peter primacy over the universal Church. 2) In reality Christ did not say simply, “feed lambs… feed sheep,” but “feed my lambs… feed my sheep…” Therefore Christ committed to Peter to be fed those who are lambs or sheep of Christ. But whoever are in the Church are certainly lambs or sheep of Christ. Therefore Christ conferred on Peter the Primacy over the universal Church. Certainly those words “feed my lambs… feed my sheep” are equivalent to this: rule my fold. But the fold of Christ is one, and comprehends all the faithful. 3) As Bellarmine argues, loc. cit., chapter 16, when the Lord says, “Feed my sheep,” either he commended to Peter all his sheep, or none, or certain and definite sheep, or some indefinite sheep. But no one will say that none or certain sheep were commended. For this is manifestly false. Nor even some indefinite sheep, because it does not belong to a wise provider to leave care indefinite when he can define it, especially since certain confusion and disturbance would arise from that indetermination. Besides, to commend some and not indicate which seems to be the same as if none were commended. For which, I ask, will he feed who does not know his flock? It remains, therefore, that Christ assigned absolutely all his sheep to Peter to be fed.
870. This exegetical interpretation of the text is confirmed by the tradition of the Fathers. Thus Origen (on the Epistle to the Romans, chapter 6) says: “When to Peter the sum of affairs concerning feeding the sheep was being handed over, and the Church was being founded upon him as upon a rock, the confession of no other virtue was required from him except charity.” St. Ambrose (book 10 on Luke, at chapter 24) says: “The Lord did not doubt, who was interrogating not that he might learn, but that he might teach whom, about to be lifted into heaven, he was leaving to us as the vicar, as it were, of his love… because he alone professes from all, he is preferred to all… The third time the Lord asked, no longer Lovest thou me? but Dost thou love me? and now he is commanded to feed, not lambs, as though to be fed with a certain first milk, nor little sheep, as the second time, but sheep, so that, being more perfect, he might govern the more perfect.” Gregory the Great (book 4, letter 32, to the Emperor Maurice) says: “It is clear to all who know the Gospel that by the Lord’s voice the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter, the most blessed prince of all the Apostles.” Epiphanius (in Ancoratus): “This is he who heard: feed my sheep, to whom the fold was entrusted.” Chrysostom, on this place: “The others having been omitted, he addresses Peter alone; he commits to him the care of the brethren.” And below: “For when the Lord had communicated great things to Peter, and had entrusted to him the care of the whole world,” etc. Theophylact (on the last chapter of John) says: “When the meal had ended, he was commending to Peter the prefecture of the sheep of the whole world; but he handed it over not to another, but to this man.” And on Luke chapter 22, he says: “Thou, Peter, having been converted, wilt be a good example of repentance to all, who, although thou hast been an Apostle and hast denied, wilt again receive the primacy of all and the prefecture of the world.” Leo (sermon 3, on the anniversary of his assumption): “From the whole world Peter alone is chosen, who is set over both the calling of all nations and all the Apostles and all the Fathers of the Church; so that although in the people of God there are many priests and many pastors, nevertheless Peter rules all whom Christ principally rules.” Finally, lest I be excessive, St. Bernard (book 2, On Consideration, chapter 8) thus excellently discusses those words of Christ: “Feed my sheep. Which? The peoples of this or that city, or region, or certain kingdom? My sheep, he says. To whom is it not plain that he did not designate some, but assigned all? Nothing is excepted where nothing is distinguished.” Compare the whole text which we gave, no. 548. Footnote 1 begins. Wherefore if certain Fathers sometimes seem to understand the words which we have weighed not of Peter alone, but also of the other Apostles, indeed of Bishops and Priests, they then take those words in a sense not formal and precisive, but extensive, not excluding that sense, but supposing it. Hence Schrader deservedly says, loc. cit., no. 212: “According to the literal sense of the Scriptures, from the common opinion of the Fathers, Christ conferred on Peter and on him alone, immediately and directly, all the power which is read as expressed especially in the places narrated in Matthew and John; and by this power being received Peter is and is called truly and properly the leader of the Apostles. But if power is said to have been conferred on all priests in Peter, then indeed a) this must not be taken so that Peter’s prerogative is taken away from him; but b) it must be taken so that Peter’s prerogative is supposed. And therefore it must be taken so that Peter is considered as a paradeigma of the others, and as, so they say, the highest juridical person, who, just as in himself, no otherwise than the prince or head of a society or of some body, possesses the summit of all power, so plainly as a typical and juridical person can represent the others. Wherefore if the words of Christ, both in Matthew and in John, are said to be referred also in this typical, juridical, and likewise mediate sense to all the Apostles and priests, they involve a manifest confirmation by which Peter’s highest authority and prerogative is asserted.” Footnote 1 ends. Section V It Is Expressly Shown That Peter Obtained the Primacy Over the Apostles Themselves.
871. Although from the arguments set out thus far Peter’s preeminence before the Apostles themselves is openly clear, nevertheless it will be useful to demonstrate this more expressly, both for overthrowing special errors and also so that there may be a place for the solution of certain difficulties. But since some have said that all the Apostles, others that at least St. Paul, were altogether equal to Peter, nos. 850 ff., we shall first give arguments by which Peter’s Primacy with respect to all the Apostles is established; then we shall add something by which it is established more directly with respect to Paul himself.
872. Therefore Peter had the Primacy over all the Apostles. Proof I, by briefly recalling the arguments explained above. For 1) Peter was constituted the foundation of the whole Church, from which the Church receives firmness and unity; but this, as we have shown, imports supreme power over the universal Church. But the Apostles themselves most of all belonged to the Church. Therefore Peter was constituted over the Apostles themselves. Moreover, if the Apostles had had no dependence on Peter, they could have founded Churches without subjecting them to Peter’s authority. But then what would have become of that unity of the Church which Christ willed? How would Peter be called the foundation of the whole Church? 2) Christ committed to Peter alone all the lambs and all the sheep to be fed, all who pertain to Christ’s fold. But the Apostles themselves were sheep of Christ. Therefore Peter was constituted over the Apostles themselves. 3) If several are set over some matter to be done equally, it is not the office of the individuals, but of all, to carry out that matter; just as, for example, if the power of making laws is conceded to some assembly, let us say of senators, individuals do not have the power of making laws, but all or the majority, or the assembly itself. Therefore by equal reasoning, if some one person, by a singular mandate, is set over the same work by himself and separately, to him is entrusted the full and supreme office of executing that work. Imagine that one man, by singular mandate, is constituted leader of the whole army in which there are other leaders; it is plain that he is the leader of the whole army, and that he has in himself the fullness of authority, and indeed over the leaders themselves. Since therefore Christ chose one Peter from the twelve Apostles, constituted him the foundation of the whole Church, and gave him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, it is evident that Peter was constituted over all. Compare Veith, On the Roman Pontiff, section 9.
873. II. With these things presupposed, the following observations have their whole force of proving; with these things presupposed, I say, for if those observations, inspected in themselves, did not clearly and apodictically show the Primacy of Peter, nevertheless, considered with the preceding arguments with which they harmoniously cohere, they borrow light from them. Therefore: 1) let the four catalogues of the names of the Apostles be read (Matt. 10.2 ff.; Mark 3.16 ff.; Luke 6.14 ff.; Acts 1.13). Now a) in each Peter is named in the first place; the cause of this was not vocation, since Andrew was called earlier; nor age, for how would it be shown that Peter was older than Andrew? why would John be placed in the fourth or even the second place? nor favor or grace, by which John surpassed Peter. b) Peter is always placed in the first place; and in naming the others, if you except Philip, who is always named sixth, and James of Alphaeus, who is always named ninth, the same order is not always preserved. Andrew, for example, who holds the second place in Matthew and Luke, is named in the fourth place in Mark and Acts. c) In the list of names in Matthew, and in certain manuscripts in Mark, Peter is not only named in the first place, but is increased with the title of Primacy: “But the names of the twelve Apostles are these: First Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, James of Zebedee and John his brother,” etc. Now if that First had been used only as a numerical adjective, the sequence of speech ought to have been this: “First Simon, second Andrew, third James,” etc. Since, therefore, only of Peter is it said first, without second, third, etc., being placed, it is a sign that that first signifies Peter’s dignity above the rest. This seems to be confirmed from the usage of Scripture; for it is said (Matt. 20.27): “Whoever wishes to be first among you”; and (Mark 12.28 ff.): “the first commandment of all”; and (Acts 16.12) “the first city of that part of Macedonia”; and (Acts 28.7): “Now in those places there were estates of the chief man of the island.” 2) Not only in those lists of the names of the Apostles, but everywhere Peter, when named with others, is placed in the first place. Thus (Matt. 4.18): “Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother”; (Matt. 17.1; Mark 5.37; Mark 9.2; Mark 13.3; Mark 14.33; Luke 8.51; Luke 9.28; Matt. 26.37): “Peter and James and John”; and (Luke 22.8; Acts 3.1): “Peter and John”; and (John 21.2): “Simon Peter, and Thomas, who is called Didymus, and Nathanael, who was from Cana of Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples.” 3) Only four places are excepted, which nevertheless have an easy and suitable explanation. For a) it is said in John: “But Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.” But here the two brothers are commemorated not as Apostles, but as inhabitants of the city, and Andrew perhaps is named first because he was older by birth. b) The text (1 Cor. 1.12) rather favors us: “Each one of you says: I indeed am of Paul, but I of Apollo, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ.” Here the Apostle begins from himself for the sake of modesty and humility, according to that saying (ibid. 15.9): “For I am the least of the Apostles, who am not worthy to be called an Apostle”; and he ascends to the greatest, Christ, whom Peter immediately precedes. c) The same must be said of the other text (ibid. 3.22). d) But concerning the text (Gal. 2.9), Estius answers on this place: “He names James in the first place for the honor of the Lord, whose brother he was; and because he was Bishop of Jerusalem, where these things were being done; and because he was of the greatest name among the Jews because of the opinion of sanctity, as is clear from Josephus and Hegesippus.” Others add: “It is altogether consonant with the truth of the matter that Paul, coming to Jerusalem, had James first of all meet him, conferred with him, and entered into fellowship with him. For the others, in order to perform the office imposed on them of propagating the evangelical light, were frequently absent from the city, in which James, as its proper pastor, remained stable. Therefore it is a conjecture by no means to be neglected that James is numbered first for this reason, because he first in time declared his agreement with Paul. Wherefore neither is he placed before the rest because he did not excel the rest in dignity.” 4) After Christ’s ascension into heaven, as the condition of things then bore, Peter at once acted as Primate. For (Acts 1.15), “Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren” proclaimed the election of a new Apostle in place of Judas, according to the oracles of the prophets. After the coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2.14), “Peter standing with the eleven lifted up his voice,” announced Christ, and commanded believers to be baptized. After the notable miracle had been performed (Acts 3), and filled with the Holy Spirit, he has a grave discourse to the people and to the rulers of the people and elders (Acts 4). Peter (Acts 8) reproves and condemns Simon Magus because he wished to acquire sacred power by money. Peter (Acts 9) passes through all the assemblies in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria, as a commander, as St. Chrysostom observes (Homily 21 on Acts), reviewing his troops. Having had a vision, he learns (Acts 10) that the Gentiles also are to be admitted to the Christian faith, and therefore he himself joins Cornelius with other Gentiles to the Church. While Peter is detained by Herod in prison (Acts 12), “prayer was being made without ceasing by the Church to God for him.” In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), Peter, rising, has a discourse, proposes the matters to be handled, and first gives his sentence. Now a) although the Apostles had previously had contentions concerning the primacy, nevertheless in no way after the coming of the Holy Spirit did they rebuke Peter because of the aforesaid manner of acting; indeed it is rather established that they held him in the greatest honor. b) Nor can all these things exhibit a primacy of mere honor. For this first of all would not agree with those things which openly prove the primacy of jurisdiction. And then, the rest being omitted, God willed that the Church be founded in humility, and especially that the Apostles bear before themselves the humility of the cross. He willed that it be manifest to all that his Church is the work of God alone, and not of men, nor to be propagated and preserved by human counsels or powers. Therefore for the beginnings of the Church “God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might confound the wise, and the weak things of the world,” etc. But Bellarmine pursues all these things more fully, On the Roman Pontiff, book 1, from chapter 17.
874. III. The Fathers constantly and unanimously affirm that Peter obtained an authority more eminent than the other Apostles. Origen (on Diverse Gospel Passages, homily 2), speaking of Peter, asks: “Who would be higher among the Apostles than he who is and is called their summit?” St. Hilary of Poitiers, on Matthew 6, says: “Peter first believed, and is Prince of the Apostolate.” Eusebius of Caesarea (Ecclesiastical History, book 2, chapter 11) names Peter “the strongest and greatest among the Apostles, and by merit of virtue the prince and patron of all the rest.” St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catecheses 2, 7, and 18) calls Peter “the highest of the Apostles, and Prince and key-bearer of the heavenly kingdom.” St. Basil (Proemium on the Judgments of God) says: “Blessed Peter was set before all the disciples, to whom alone greater testimonies were given than to the others, who was proclaimed blessed, to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven were entrusted.” St. Gregory Nazianzen (Poem Concerning Himself and Against the Bishops) calls Peter “Prince of the Apostles” and “Pillar of the Church.” St. Gregory of Nyssa (Sermon 2 on Stephen) says: “The memory of Peter is celebrated, who is head of the Apostles, and together with him the other members of the Church are glorified.” St. Optatus of Milevis (book 2 against Parmenian) writes: “The chair is one… where Peter sat, head of all the Apostles… in which one the unity of the chair would be preserved.” St. Ambrose (on 1 Corinthians 12) writes: “Andrew first followed the Savior, but he did not receive the Primacy; Peter did.” St. Epiphanius (in Ancoratus, after the beginning) says: “This the prince of the Apostles [Peter] testifies, whom the Lord constituted first of the Apostles… to whom the fold was entrusted”; and (Heresy 5): “He chose Peter, that he might be leader of the disciples.” St. Chrysostom (homily 88 on John) says: “Christ committed to Peter the prefecture of the brethren… and Peter was established by Christ as teacher of the whole world”; and (oration 8 against the Jews) he says: “Peter so washed away that denial that he was even made first of the Apostles, and the whole world was committed to him.” He honors Peter with distinguished names; for he calls him “prince of the apostolic choir, mouth and summit of the disciples, pastor and head of the Church, column of the Church, firmament of faith, foundation of confession, fisher of the whole world.” St. Augustine (book 2 On Baptism) says: “In the holy Scriptures we have learned that the Apostle Peter, in whom the primacy of the Apostles preeminent by an excellent reason, stands out”; and in the same place he adds: “Who does not know that that Principate of the Apostolate of Peter is to be preferred to any episcopate?” and (exposition on Psalm 108) he says: “For this reason the Lord left blessed Peter a little while, so that for him who was to be future ruler of the Church there might be placed a certain rule of forgiving those who sin.”
875. Let these testimonies suffice; for we have given others above, nos. 547 and 736 ff. The things which we exhibited a little before in the interpretation of the text of Matthew 16 and John 21 can also be recalled. We merely note: 1) The Fathers unanimously affirm Peter’s preeminence before the other Apostles, and also unanimously affirm that it was instituted by Christ for the good of unity. 2) But they give various reasons why that Primacy was conferred on Peter rather than on another. For some think this was done because of his confession concerning the divinity of Christ; others ascribe it to his zeal and love toward Christ, etc. But, as is clear, diversity of opinions with respect to this second point does not destroy unanimity with respect to the first.
876. Now what we proposed in the second place must be proved, namely, that the Primacy of Peter was not common and divided with Paul. This is chiefly established by recalling again the arguments already given concerning the promise and institution of the Primacy in Peter alone; and therefore these must always be kept before the eyes. But it is proved besides.
877. I. From the Fathers, who expressly say that Paul is inferior to Peter. Thus St. Augustine (book 2 On Baptism, chapter 1) says: “Cyprian commemorates the Apostle Peter, in whom the primacy of the Apostles preeminent by such excellent grace, who was accustomed to act concerning circumcision otherwise than truth demanded, to have been corrected by the later Apostle Paul.” Similarly, on the Epistle to the Galatians he calls Paul “the later Pastor”; and in letter 82 to Jerome he adds these things: “Peter received what was being done by Paul with the liberty of charity by the piety of humility; and thus he offered an example to those after him of being corrected even by those later than himself, as Paul was, by which inferiors might confidently dare to resist even superiors for defending evangelical authority, fraternal charity being preserved.” St. Gregory (book 2 on Ezekiel, homily 18), speaking of the same rebuke, writes: “Behold, he does not disdain to be rebuked by his inferior. He does not recall to memory that he received the keys of the kingdom of heaven; he gave himself to agreement with the lesser brother, and he was made one following, so that already even in this he might lead; so that he who was first on the summit of the Apostolate would also be first in humility.” Theodoret, concerning Paul visiting Peter in the Epistle to the Galatians, comments thus: “For since Paul did not need human teaching, as one who had received it from the God of all, he rendered to the Prince of the Apostles the honor which was fitting.” Hugh of St. Victor (Sermon 64) discusses it thus: “Peter more eminent than the rest by excellence of power, Paul by excellence of preaching; Peter the sun, Paul the moon; Peter the sun by power divinely conferred on him, Paul the moon by wisdom divinely conferred on him,” etc.
878. II. By recalling what was established above, this part of the thesis can easily be confirmed. To suggest something, let it be noted: 1) All the arguments by which we showed that the government of the Church, from Christ’s institution, is monarchic exclude division of the supreme power in Peter. 2) We have fully demonstrated the institution of the Primacy in Peter; but where is there discourse concerning the Institution of the same Primacy in Paul, who would divide it with Peter? 3) Indeed, the very testimonies which demonstrate the institution of the Primacy manifest that it belongs exclusively to Peter. 4) If Paul had received power altogether equal with Peter, how would it have happened that Peter always had a successor in the Primacy, but Paul never? Section VI Certain Difficulties Against the Things Just Established Are Answered.
879. You will say, I: Whatever Peter received from Christ, the other Apostles also received; therefore it cannot be said that Peter obtained the Primacy over the Apostles themselves. The antecedent is proved. 1) Just as Peter was constituted an Apostle, so also the rest, who are called Apostles. 2) Just as Peter received immediately from Christ a power which would embrace the whole earth, so also the other Apostles. 3) Just as Peter is called the foundation of the Church, so also the other Apostles (Eph. 2.20). 4) Just as the office of feeding the flock of Christ was committed to Peter, so also to the Apostles, and also to others constituted by them (Acts 20.28; 1 Pet. 5.1-4). 5) Just as the power of binding and loosing was given to Peter, so also to the remaining Apostles. 6) Hence St. Cyprian says: “The other Apostles assuredly were what Peter was, endowed with an equal fellowship of honor and power.” And St. Jerome (book 1 Against Jovinian): “Upon all the Apostles equally the strength of the Church is founded.” Similar things are also read among other Fathers.
880. Since this, in the present matter, is the strongest difficulty, it is better to solve it briefly, so far as can be done, but most fully. Therefore: 1) Certain things must be noted beforehand concerning the third and fourth proofs of the antecedent. And first: Peter himself was called by Christ the Rock or foundation, upon which the Church was to be built; but the Apostles are not in like manner called foundations of the Church. Rather, the Church is said to have been built upon the foundation of the Apostles; and this phrase can signify, not that the Apostles themselves are the foundation, but that they laid the foundation, that is, the doctrine, upon which the Church was built. This interpretation coheres with Ephesians 2, in which “and of the Prophets” is also said; for this seems to imply that the Church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles in the same way as upon the foundation of the Prophets. But since the passage there treats of the Prophets of the Old Testament, as is clear from the immediate context (2.20), where an allusion is made to Isaiah 28.16 and Psalm 117.22, and as St. Augustine testifies (On the Words of the Lord, Sermon 49), the dignity of foundation can be predicated only of doctrine. 2) But even if the Apostles themselves are called the foundation, they will not be the foundation in the same order, but in a different order from Peter; just as Peter himself is not in the same order as Christ (no. 860). In fact, a) Peter alone is called the foundation in Matthew; and, on the other hand, all the Apostles would be called the foundation. But the same prerogative attributed to one and to many differs at least in intensity. b) Peter is called the foundation of the universal Church, which, since it includes the Apostles themselves, means that they themselves are built upon Peter; but the Apostles in Paul would be the foundation upon which the rest of the faithful are built. With respect to the office of feeding, that office, as we have seen, was committed to Peter in relation to the universal Church; but the texts cited for the same office imposed upon others by the Apostles exhibit a certain and determinate flock to be fed. Thus in 1 Peter 5.2 it is said: “Feed the flock of God which is among you”; and in Acts 20.28: “Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops to rule the Church of God”; where that “whole” is restricted by the words that follow. 2) Now, to the general argument, I answer first by denying the antecedent, namely, that whatever Peter received from Christ, the Apostles also received. But when it is added that the individual Apostles also received the universal power of binding and loosing, etc., I answer by distinguishing: an ordinary power, I deny; an extraordinary power, I subdistinguish; one altogether equal to the power of Peter and not subordinated to it, I deny; otherwise, I concede. To confirm this answer immediately, let us recall that one class of testimonies exhibits a power given to all the Apostles, while the other exhibits a power given to Peter alone. Therefore, just as the former indicates some equality among the Apostles, so the latter shows a certain preeminence in Peter. Hence if the Apostles are compared among themselves, they all stand forth as distinguished by a universal authority of teaching and ruling; but before the rest Peter puts on the person of the Head, to whom the rest, as Teachers and Pastors, are subject. Indeed, the testimonies which regard Peter must be reconciled with those which are brought forward for the other Apostles. But there is no other way of reconciling them except that some prerogative be attributed to Peter before the rest of the Apostles, by reason of which that was promised and granted to him by name which otherwise would seem common to the rest. But that prerogative must be either one of honor or one of jurisdiction. Yet it cannot be merely one of honor; for the things which Christ declares about it are not referred merely to honor, but chiefly to jurisdiction, as we have seen. Therefore there is promised or conferred upon Peter a prerogative of jurisdiction which is proper and personal to him before the other Apostles, and which they do not share. Accordingly, in Peter there is had a certain singular and chief head among the Apostles themselves.
881. But in order to unfold this answer in a few words, it is helpful here to consider three things: 1) what the Apostles had in common with Peter, and what Peter had before them; 2) what the successors of the Apostles received from the Apostles, and what the successors of Peter received from Peter; 3) from these things there will be understood the exercise itself of the prerogative, both of Peter with respect to the Apostles, and of the successors of Peter with respect to the Bishops, successors of the Apostles.
882. Beginning from the first, we say: 1) it is not necessary here to consider the power of order, since the Primacy imports the power of jurisdiction. Still, it can be noted that all the Apostles were Bishops, and therefore equal in the power of order. But if the origin of this power is sought, in Peter it certainly was immediately from Christ; but in the others some judge that this power proceeded from Christ only mediately, insofar as Christ himself ordained Peter, and Peter ordained the others (compare Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, book 1, chapter 23). 2) Nor is it necessary here to consider several prerogatives granted to the Apostles, such as confirmation in grace, the gift by which they were made organs of new revelations, etc.; for since such prerogatives are not of themselves joined to the Apostolate or the Primacy, they passed neither to the successors of the Apostles nor to the successors of Peter. 3) Therefore the proper prerogative of the Apostolate, and consequently one common to all and only the Apostles, regards the power of jurisdiction; and it comprises two things, as Valencia noted (tom. 3, disp. 1, q. 1, p. 7, sec. 28). One is that the Apostles received from Christ himself immediately the authority of the ecclesiastical ministry. For this reason they are also said to have been sent by him, as he himself had been sent by the Father. Footnote 1. Concerning this matter there can be no doubt at all. For if there were any difficulty, it would affect the mission of Matthias, who was substituted in place of Judas, and of Paul, who after Christ’s ascension into heaven was called to the Apostolate. But concerning the first Bellarmine very well demonstrates (On the Roman Pontiff, book 4, chapter 23): “Matthias the Apostle was not elected by the Apostles, nor was any authority given to him by them; but, after his election had been implored and obtained from God, he was immediately numbered among the Apostles.” But the Apostle writes of himself (Gal. 1.1): “Paul, an Apostle, not from men nor through men, but through Jesus Christ”; whence he also adds: “For neither did I receive it [the Gospel] from man, nor did I learn it, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ.” Moreover, in order to show that he received his mission from Jesus Christ, by whom he had been called, he notes that before he went to Jerusalem to his predecessors, the Apostles, he went away into Arabia, and returned thence to Damascus (Gal. 1.17), in which city he was preaching Christ (Acts 9.19, 22). Footnote 1 ends. The other is that they received that authority from Christ in such a way that they could duly and legitimately discharge ecclesiastical functions, not only in this or that part of the world, but absolutely everywhere. For, says Matthew 28, “Going, teach all nations.” And: “Preach the Gospel to every creature” (Mark 16). In these two things, and therefore in this dignity and prerogative of the Apostolate, all the Apostles were equal.
883. But in what does the character of the Primacy properly consist, or, with respect to the power of jurisdiction, in what was Peter constituted above the other Apostles? Peter excels the other Apostles chiefly in two things with respect to this power. The first is that he received an independent power, and a power over the Apostles themselves, as is clear from the demonstration already given; whereas the other Apostles, individually, did not have power over the other Apostles, and they depended on Peter both individually and collectively. The other is that Peter’s power over the universal Church, that is, the Primacy, was ordinary, and therefore to be transmitted to successors, as will be proved more expressly below; whereas the universal power in the individual Apostles was extraordinary, and therefore was to be extinguished with them (compare Valencia, loc. cit.). But you will ask: from where can this be proved? Note: 1) from the Scriptures the universal jurisdiction of Peter, and of all the Apostles together with Peter, is openly proved; but from Scripture alone it would be difficult, at least, to show the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the individual Apostles. Therefore for those who profess Scripture to be the only rule of faith, it would be ridiculous to reject the Primacy of Peter on the pretext that the universal power of the individual Apostles is an obstacle to it. 2) The Apostles themselves were constituting their successors, Bishops throughout the several cities (Titus 1.5, 7); Peter admonishes “elders” as a “fellow-elder,” saying: “Feed the flock of God which is among you.” Compare the other testimonies which we gave (no. 523). 3) Hence there has never been any Bishop, except the Roman one, who, as successor of the Apostles, claimed for himself power over the universal Church; indeed you will find the contrary sanctioned even in the earliest Councils and in the Apostolic Canons (compare canons 14, 32, 35). Moreover, the defection of certain Bishops from the true faith itself shows that the infallibility which was attributed to the individual Apostles did not pass to their individual successors.
884. And from these things there is now understood the second point which we proposed, namely, what the successors of the Apostles, that is, Bishops, are with respect to the successors of Peter. Namely, the power of the Primacy, as being ordinary, must be found entire in the successors of Peter; but the power of the Apostles, since it was extraordinary with respect to the things mentioned, did not pass to their successors. Hence the successors of Peter, as we shall see, still rule and teach the universal Church. But the successors of the Apostles can indeed, all together with Peter, teach the universal Church infallibly and make laws for the universal Church; and individually, dependently on Peter, they can govern the part of the flock committed to them, etc. These were ordinary offices. But individually they cannot found or rule Churches everywhere, or exercise universal jurisdiction; they cannot teach infallibly, etc. These in the Apostles were extraordinary offices.
885. Hence there is also gathered the third point proposed, namely, the exercise of the power of Peter and of his successors with respect to the Apostles and their successors. And first, of Peter with respect to the Apostles. 1) Peter was constituted the head of all and the center of unity; therefore it was necessary that the Apostles should not retain for themselves the Churches which they founded, but should aggregate them to Peter as to the center, and subject them to him. But if, per impossibile, the Apostles had neglected this, those Churches would have been schismatic, as being outside the center of unity and torn away from it. 2) But the Apostles were endowed with personal infallibility; therefore, with respect to the faith to be taught with truth, Peter had nothing that he had to do in the Apostles. 3) Likewise, with respect to undertaking a mission in this or that part of the world, since the Apostles had received from Christ a mission into the whole world. 4) Nor should it be said that perhaps Peter could have restricted the office of some Apostle because of a manifest necessity of the Church, in the way in which Pius VII, at the beginning of this century, took jurisdiction away from the Bishops of France, or because of an admitted fault. For a) with God ruling the Church and the Apostles by his special providence, that necessity could not have existed, and in fact did not exist. b) Through the descent of the Holy Spirit the Apostles were confirmed in grace, and therefore none of them could commit any grave sin. Indeed, it was necessary that the perfection of Christian life be greatest in the Apostles; for they were constituted in the highest degree of perfection, and they received an abundance of the Spirit in every way (compare Suarez, On the Mysteries of the Life of Christ, disp. 8, section 1, no. 9).
886. Secondly, in the successors of the Apostles, because of the absence of the personal offices which were proper to the Apostles, the force of the primacy had to exercise all its faculty, both formerly under Peter and now under the Roman Pontiffs, successors of Peter. And 1) Bishops can defect both in faith and in morals, and violate the holiness and unity of the Church; therefore he who holds the primacy in the Church can exercise every power of ruling and coercing Bishops. 2) Likewise, Bishops, successors of the Apostles, do not have mission and institution immediately from Christ himself; therefore it is necessary that they receive it from him who bears the place of Christ in the primacy of the whole Church, and in whom, as in the center of unity, the fullness of power resides. 3) Finally, the successors of the Apostles, Bishops, do not have, as the Apostles had, a universal mission and power over the whole Church; therefore it is necessary that they obtain from him, into whom the power of taking counsel for the whole world and of everywhere enlarging and preserving the Church was poured from St. Peter, the definite region over which they are to exercise jurisdiction.
887. Moreover, the aforesaid dependence of the Apostles on Peter can be proved even by the very testimonies of the Fathers that are objected. For according to St. Jerome and Cyprian, the Apostles are equal with Peter in the power of order and in the prerogatives proper to the Apostolate; but they were by no means altogether equal in such a way that the dependence of the others on Peter, and consequently his Primacy, would be excluded. Indeed the whole text of St. Jerome is: “Although upon all the Apostles equally the strength of the Church is established, nevertheless for this reason one is chosen among the twelve, so that, a head having been constituted, the occasion of schism might be removed.” And the whole text of St. Cyprian is: “The other Apostles indeed were what Peter was, endowed with an equal fellowship of honor and power. But the beginning proceeds from unity, so that the Church may be shown to be one.” He splendidly declares this in these words: “The Lord speaks to Peter: I say to thee, he says, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it: I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, etc. And after his resurrection he says: feed my sheep. Upon that one he builds his Church, and to him he commands his sheep to be fed. And although after his resurrection he bestows an equal power on all the Apostles and says: As the Father has sent me, so I send you; receive the Holy Spirit, etc.; nevertheless, in order that he might manifest unity, he arranged by his authority the origin of that same unity beginning from one.” The words objected follow; and then the holy Doctor continues: “The Church is one, which is extended more widely into a multitude by the increase of fruitfulness; just as the rays of the sun are many, but the light is one, and the branches of a tree are many, but the strength is one, founded in a tenacious root; and when from one source very many streams flow out, though a numerousness seems diffused by the abundance of an overflowing supply, nevertheless unity is preserved in the origin. Tear a ray of the sun away from the body: unity does not receive a division of light. Cut a stream off from the source: once cut off, it dries up. So also the Church, etc.” These things indeed solve the proposed difficulty most fully.
888. You will say, II: 1) Peter (Acts 11) gave an account of the journey undertaken for instructing the Gentiles; but this is done only with respect to a superior or an equal. 2) Indeed, in Acts 8 he is sent by the brethren to confirm the Samaritans; but one who is sent by another is not superior to him. Therefore Peter is not superior to the other Apostles. I answer to the first: Peter gave an account of the journey undertaken to the Gentiles from an equal condition with the rest, I deny; from a prudent economy, which it was especially fitting to use in those beginnings of things, I concede. Certainly this can be done for either reason; but that in this case it was done for the latter reason, and not the first, is sufficiently shown first of all by the things that have already been said about Peter’s preeminence. But besides, as is clear from the objected text (Acts 11.2), it was not the Apostles themselves who raised the difficulty because the Gentiles had been instructed in the faith, but those “who were of the circumcision,” or Judaizers. Is Peter then said to be inferior not only to the remaining Apostles, but even to the Judaizers themselves? I answer to the second: Peter was sent with John to Samaria by an authoritative mission, I deny; by one exhortatory and of mere counsel or persuasion, I concede. It is certain that even inferiors can exhort a superior and advise him to do something; in which case, by advising him, they would send him. Thus in Joshua 22.13-14, Phinehas and the princes of the tribes were sent by the Israelites to the Reubenites, who had defected to idolatry; Paul and Barnabas were sent by the Antiochians to consult the Apostles (Acts 15.2); Peter and John were urged to go to Samaria. But this, far from diminishing the preeminence of St. Peter, rather commends it; for since the matter was of great moment, namely, the restraining of the tricks of Simon Magus, it seemed most expedient to oppose to him the very prince of the Apostles with John, the beloved disciple.
889. You will say, III: It is said in 1 Corinthians 12.28: “God indeed has set some in the Church: first Apostles, second Prophets, third Teachers, then powers, etc.” Hence: St. Paul enumerates in the first place those who possessed the supreme and most excellent office. But he enumerates the Apostles first, without making any mention of the Primacy. Therefore. I answer: 1) The Apostle here enumerates ecclesiastical offices insofar as the charisms of the Holy Spirit chiefly shine forth in them, not insofar as they pertain to the hierarchy. Hence it by no means pertained to his purpose to set out distinctly either all the grades or the first hierarchical grade. This is clear a) from the whole context; for from the beginning of chapter 12 up to chapter 14, excepting those things which he most beautifully discusses concerning charity in chapter 13, the Apostle treats this matter of charisms; b) from the objected text itself, for in it he enumerates several things that are altogether different from jurisdiction, namely Prophets, powers, graces, healings, etc. I answer: 2) Even if it were granted that the Apostle wished to enumerate the hierarchy, and indeed according to the order of preeminence, he rightly placed the Apostles in the first place, because the Apostles obtained the first grade, although among them there was one first of all, the Apostle of the Apostles. In fact, the Primacy is, as it were, the supreme grade of Apostolate. Therefore the Apostle did not enumerate the Primacy distinctly, but neither did he deny it; in nearly the same way as the Council of Trent taught that the ecclesiastical hierarchy consists of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, although it cannot be inferred from this that, according to the mind of the Council, there is not a first among Bishops, who is Bishop of Bishops.
890. You will say, IV: Paul seems at least equal to Peter. For 1) Paul is called “the Apostle” by antonomasia; this seems to suggest that he was Prince of the Apostles. 2) He equates himself with Peter; writing to the Galatians (2.7-8), he says: “The Gospel of the uncircumcision was entrusted to me, just as that of the circumcision was to Peter; for he who worked in Peter unto the Apostolate of the circumcision worked also in me among the Gentiles.” 3) The same one says (ibid., verse 5) that he “did not yield in subjection, not even for an hour”; and (verse 11) that he “withstood Cephas to the face.” I answer to the first: Paul is called “the Apostle” by antonomasia by reason of excellence of power, I deny; by reason of excellence of work, I concede. Augustine had already noted this well, who writes thus (book 3 to Boniface, chapter 3): “When ‘the Apostle’ is said, if it is not expressed which Apostle, none is understood except Paul; because he is better known by more epistles, and labored more than all.” To the second: Paul equates himself with Peter with respect to the primary and special destination of preaching, I concede; with respect to authority and the primacy of the apostolic office, I deny. Hence St. Jerome (on this place) writes that Peter and Paul “divided, not power, but works,” insofar as the conversion of the Jews was specially committed to one, and that of the Gentiles to the other. Moreover, from the Acts of the Apostles it is openly clear that Paul also preached to Jews, just as Peter also preached to Gentiles. To the third: The Apostle indeed says that he did not yield in subjection; but he is speaking of “false brethren secretly brought in,” as is clear from the preceding verse, to whom alone, and not to Peter, he did not yield, not even for an hour. But that Paul corrected Peter, he did not do this from authority, but from charity, according to which even inferiors can sometimes resist superiors. Hence the Fathers, as we have seen (no. 877), openly say that in this case a superior was corrected by an inferior. We omit, however, the opinion of those who judge that the Cephas of whom this treats is someone other than Simon Peter; for this is not sufficiently proved, and it seems to be contrary to the more common opinion of the Fathers. It can be added that this very correction by Paul rather confirms Peter’s Primacy. For what was at issue? Peter had taught by words and example that one must not live Jewishly; but from a certain economy of prudence and charity toward the converted Jews, lest he create a scandal for them, he sometimes withdrew himself from the Gentiles and did not eat with them. But Paul feared rather that this manner of acting by Peter would create scandal, insofar as others, by Peter’s example, would be led into Judaizing. Hence St. John Chrysostom notes: “If someone other than Peter had been there, his change would not have had such force as to draw even the other Jews. For he neither exhorted nor counseled, but only withdrew and separated himself; and that withdrawal and separation was able to draw all the other disciples because of the dignity of the person.”
891. You will say, V: In the same epistle to the Galatians, the Apostle seems openly to exclude every superior over himself. For he writes (2.6, 9): “But from those who seemed to be something, what sort they once were makes no difference to me… for those who seemed to be something contributed nothing to me… And when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, had recognized the grace which was given to me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.” It is answered. If the general purpose of the Apostle in this Epistle to the Galatians is kept before one’s eyes, the explanation of the words objected from it will not be difficult. Certainly the purpose of the Apostle was not to show that he had no superior and was not subject to Peter with respect to the government of the Church; for Paul neither declares this in any way, nor is it gathered from the controversy which he had with the Galatians. The Apostle’s purpose was to show that his Gospel was equally divine with that of James, Cephas, and John, and that he had received it, together with the Apostolate, immediately from Christ, no otherwise than they had. For the pseudo-apostles, in order to lessen Paul’s authority, kept saying that Peter, James, and John had been taught by the Lord himself, from whom they had also received their mission; but that Paul, on the contrary, was a disciple of men and had been sent by men. From this they inferred that Paul’s Gospel was not to be made as much of as the Gospel of the others. Hence it is that the Apostle begins his epistle by saying: “Paul, an Apostle, not from men, nor through man, etc.” With these things premised, it is easily understood that Paul denies that he received the Gospel or the Apostolate from men, or from those who seemed to be pillars; he affirms that those who seemed to be pillars did not confer on him the power of preaching the Gospel, nor communicate the Gospel to him, since he had received these things immediately from Christ. But when he says, “what sort they once were makes no difference to me,” it imports that he recognizes them to be pillars, although before they had been unlearned men and fishermen; it is enough to know what sort of men they had been constituted by Christ. Nevertheless, he had received nothing from them. Everyone therefore sees that here it is in no way a question of equality with Peter with respect to the government of the Church, as though Peter’s Primacy were denied; for the remaining Apostles also had received immediately from Christ the Apostolate and the Gospel, and yet they were subject to Peter.
892. You will say, VI: 1) The Roman Pontiffs themselves, in their constitutions, often decree and define “by the authority of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.” 2) Indeed, in the seals of Pontifical documents the images of both Apostles are also expressed, and Paul for the most part occupies the right side. I answer to the first: The Roman Pontiffs define from the authority of Peter and Paul insofar as they invoke the authority of both, I concede; insofar as they ascribe equal authority to both, I deny. Certainly the Roman Pontiffs could invoke the authority of all the Apostles; for since they hold the whole authority of Peter, by that very fact they possess the whole authority of the whole apostolic college. Yet they make special mention of Paul because he, together with Peter, labored for the founding of the Roman Church; both he and Peter closed their final day at Rome and obtained the crown of martyrdom. Therefore both are special patrons both of the Roman Pontiff and of the Roman See. To the second: For the same reason the likeness of both Apostles is expressed in the seals of documents. In fact, the chair and power of a Coadjutor is one and the same with the power of the Ordinary and Pastor, to whom nevertheless the Coadjutor is subject; yet in the Fisherman’s ring, by which Apostolic Briefs are sealed, the image of Peter alone is found. It is known, moreover, that the right hand was not always and everywhere regarded as the more honorable: in the Council of Chalcedon, Dioscorus, soon to be condemned, held the right side, while the Pontifical Legates held the left; and it was often the custom that the senior and more honored person should be on the left, while the junior covered the right side for him. Compare on this matter [The first lines of PDF page 712 complete this sentence:] St. Peter Damian and St. Thomas (lecture 2 on chapter 1 of the Epistle to the Galatians); but especially see what Bellarmine has (On the Roman Pontiff, book 1, chapter 27). Section VII The Primacy Was Promised and Conferred on Peter Immediately, and Not Through the Mediation of the Church.
893. This last part of the thesis is also easily demonstrated by recalling the arguments already given. For: I. In the testimonies adduced, Matthew 16 and John 21, no trace is found by which it would be signified that the words of Christ are to be understood immediately and directly, not of Peter, but of the Church. For we have considered the words in which the promise and conferral of the Primacy are contained, both in themselves and in their connection with what precedes and follows in the context; and we have seen, according to every respect, that the speech of Christ promising or conferring the Primacy is so directed to Peter that it can in no way be turned aside to another subject. Let us recall at least one example to mind. Christ said to Peter: “I will give thee the keys: I,” he says, “will give,” not “the Church will give”; “to thee” I will give, not “to the Church” I will give. Yet in the opinion which we here oppose, it would not have been Christ, but the Church, that gave the keys to Peter, and Christ would have given them not to Peter, but to the Church. Hence, since Christ gave the keys to Peter, he consequently said immediately to Peter: thou thyself will be able to loose and bind on earth whatever can be loosed or bound in the spiritual order. For our matter nothing clearer than these forms of speaking can be desired; for if the adversaries themselves had had to place in the mouth of Christ the opinion which we maintain, they could have suggested no other words than those which have already been used by Christ.
894. II. On the contrary, there are many things in those testimonies which most openly stand against the Richerian interpretation. For 1) in the text of Matthew, the Church to be founded is said to be founded upon the rock; therefore if this rock were immediately the Church, the consequence would be that the Church was to be built upon the Church, or upon itself; nothing more absurd than this can be imagined. 2) Similarly, the gates of hell are said not to prevail against the Church insofar as the Church is to be built upon that rock. Therefore if this rock designated the Church, the sense would be: the gates of hell are not to prevail against the Church, insofar as the Church, built and founded upon itself, would stand. 3) But in the testimony of John, Christ enjoins on Peter the office of feeding his lambs and his sheep, or the whole Lord’s flock. But the lambs and sheep of Christ, or the Lord’s flock, are the Church itself. Hence, in the opinion of the adversaries, the Lord’s flock would be ordered to be fed by the Lord’s flock itself, namely, the Church by the Church. Are not all these things evidently discordant and mutually contradictory? 4) If Christ had wished to confer the power of the keys immediately, not on Peter but on the Church, after he had said, “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” he would naturally have continued his speech in this way: “And to it [the Church] I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Why therefore, after those words “against it,” did he turn his speech to Peter and say: “And to thee I will give the keys”? 5) Finally, these things are so evident that Richer himself could find nothing to oppose to the interpretation of the texts that has been set forth. Febronius, however, so felt the force of the texts and of the interpretation that he contended (op. cit., chapter 1) that the instituted analysis and exegesis of the passages of Matthew and John belonged to the futile trifles of the scholastics. Hence he concludes that the matter must be defined from tradition, which, through an impudent lie, he asserts to favor himself.
895. III. In fact, it would suffice to recall the testimonies of the Fathers already given; but we add a few which touch our matter more closely. Tertullian (Scorpiace, chapter 10) writes: “Remember,” he says, “that the Lord left the keys to Peter, and through him to the Church.” According to the adversaries he ought to have said: “The Lord left the keys to the Church, and through it to Peter.” St. Optatus (book 7 Against Parmenian, chapter 3): “For the good of unity, blessed Peter both merited to be preferred to all the Apostles, and alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven to be communicated to the rest.” According to the adversaries it ought to have been said: “The Church alone received the keys to be communicated to Peter and the rest,” that is, to the Supreme Pontiff and the Bishops. St. John Chrysostom (homily 54 on Matthew) speaks thus: “And to thee I will give,” he says, “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”; as if he were saying, just as the Father gave to thee to know me, so also I will give something, namely the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Therefore just as not flesh and blood, but the heavenly Father, revealed Christ’s divinity to Peter, and Peter himself confessed, “Thou art the Son of the living God,” so also Christ gave to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, with supreme power over the Church. St. Augustine (book 2 Against Gaudentius, chapter 25) says: “Was Razias better than the Apostle Peter, who, when he said, Thou art Christ the Son of the living God, was called so blessed by the Lord that he merited to receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven? Yet he is not therefore believed to be imitated where, immediately afterward at the same moment, having been reproved, he heard: Go behind me, Satan, for thou savorest not the things that are of God.” Therefore, according to Augustine, that same man received the keys from Christ who was reproved by Christ in his own person; but in that very chapter 16 of Matthew, scarcely four verses after the promise of the keys, Peter is reproved by Christ, and certainly the Church is not reproved in his name. St. Hilary (on Psalm 134, no. 4), treating the same argument, says: “When [Christ] had spoken certain things about his passion to his disciples, and Peter had rejected this as unworthy of the Son of God, Peter, to whom above he had given the keys of the kingdom of heaven… this man, rejecting this sacrament of the passion, he received with such an insult: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal to me.” And in book 6 On the Trinity: “So great,” he says, “was his religious zeal for suffering for the salvation of the human race, that he would call Peter, the first confessor of the Son of God, the foundation of the Church, the gatekeeper of the heavenly kingdom, and in earthly judgment the judge of heaven, by the insult of Satan,” etc. Hence the Council of Florence, which is also cited by the Vatican Council, under Eugene IV, with Greeks and Latins alike subscribing, solemnly defined: “To him [the Roman Pontiff], in blessed Peter [and not in the Church], full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church was handed over by our Lord Jesus Christ [and not by the Church].”
896. IV. To this point there truly belong those arguments by which we excluded the democratic form of government from the Church and established the monarchical form; nor can we sufficiently marvel at the contradiction of Richer, who stated: “The Church is a monarchical polity tempered by aristocratic government”; and yet he teaches that supreme power resides as in a subject in the universal Church.
897. You will say, I: The keys, or the power of binding and loosing, as St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Gregory, and other Fathers commonly teach, were given by Christ to the Church itself. Therefore they were not given immediately to Peter. I answer by distinguishing the antecedent: they were given to the Church, namely to the pastors of the Church, to the ruling Church, I concede; to the Church, namely to the whole body of the faithful, I subdistinguish; finally, that is, that power was given for the good of the whole Church, I concede; formally, that is, that it was given to the whole Church as to its subject, I deny. The truth of this answer is clear: 1) from the purpose of the Fathers. For the Fathers who are objected against us were wholly engaged in refuting the Novatians and Montanists. These contended that the Church no longer possessed the power of remitting all crimes; for, according to them, since that power had been given personally to Peter and the Apostles, it expired with them. What else, then, ought the Fathers to have opposed to this error except that the power conferred on Peter was not a personal privilege, but an office instituted for the good of the Church, and therefore to be propagated in it until the end of the ages? 2) It is clear from the express words of the same Fathers. For St. Ambrose (Exposition on Psalm 38, no. 37) says: “To thee,” [Christ] says, “I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, so that thou mayest both loose and bind. Novatian did not hear this, but the Church of God heard it: therefore he is in lapse, we in remission; he in impenitence, we in grace. What is said to Peter is said to the Apostles. We do not usurp power, but serve the command.” And, passing over the rest, St. Augustine (Sermon 149, otherwise 24, On Diverse Matters, no. 7) says: “Peter, in many places of the Scriptures, appears to bear the person of the Church, especially in that place where it was said: To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven… Did Peter receive those keys, and Paul not receive them? Did Peter receive them, and John and James not receive them, and the rest of the Apostles? Or are not these keys in the Church, where sins are daily remitted?” From these things it is clear that the Fathers intend nothing else except that the power of the keys still perseveres in the Church, not insofar as the universal Church itself received them, but insofar as Peter and the Apostles received the keys for its good. Moreover, here the Fathers treat of the power of the keys insofar as it comprises the power of remitting sins. Do the adversaries whom we are here opposing attribute this power to all the faithful? Compare Bellarmine (On the Roman Pontiff, book 1, chapter 12).
898. II. You will insist: But the power of the keys was immediately given to the whole Church as to its subject. For, according to the same Fathers, the keys were given to Peter insofar as “Peter bore the person of the Church.” I answer by distinguishing: Peter represented the Church as a juridical person from the prerogative of head and exemplar of all pastors, I concede; from the delegation either of pastors or of the Church, I deny. Therefore Peter represented the Church not as the legate of a prince, who would receive the keys of a city in the name and place of that prince, but as the prince and moderator of the whole Church constituted by Christ himself; almost in the way in which we say that something is given to a kingdom when it is given to the king himself, if it turns to the public utility. But representation of this kind does not confer, but supposes, the dignity of Head. And that this is the mind of St. Augustine is manifestly gathered from the fact that almost wherever he says that Peter was the figure of the Church and represented the Church, he explains that he asserts this by reason of the primacy. Indeed, in the last tractate on John: “Of this Church,” he says, “the Apostle Peter, because of the primacy of his apostolate, bore the person in a figurative universality.” And on Psalm 108: “Of this [Church] he is recognized to have borne the person because of the primacy which he had among the disciples.” Again, in Sermon 13 On the Words of the Lord: “Peter,” he says, “named from the rock, blessed, bearing the figure of the Church, holding the principate of the apostolate,” etc. From this the holy Doctor again concludes, according to his purpose, that the power of remitting sins endures in the Church. For if Peter received the keys as supreme prelate of the Church, he signified that all his successors, and the other prelates, would have the same keys; but these were to be communicated by Peter, and not without measure. For Peter received them not so that he alone would use them, but so that he would communicate them with Bishops and Presbyters, with only the Apostles excepted, who by a certain extraordinary reason received them immediately from Christ, as we demonstrated above. Therefore Peter was the exemplar of the whole body of ecclesiastical ministers, in whose person the possession and use of the keys would never be lacking in the Church. And in this sense Augustine said (tractate 4 on John): “If this was said to Peter alone, the Church does not do this; but if this is done in the Church, when Peter received the keys, he signified the holy Church.” Compare Schrader (On Roman Unity, part 1, nos. 185-187).
899. III. You will insist: If these things were true, the Fathers would not have said that the Church itself looses and binds, or remits sins. But St. Augustine, his disciple St. Fulgentius, the Venerable Bede, etc., commonly asserted this. Therefore. I answer by distinguishing the minor: St. Augustine and others teach that the ruling Church itself, that is, the pastors of the Church, binds and looses, I concede; the Church itself, taken for the body of the faithful, I subdistinguish; authoritatively, or from the power of the keys immediately residing in it of itself as in a subject, I deny; through its charity and prayers, and therefore improperly, I concede. “Blessed Augustine,” Bellarmine notes (loc. cit.), “because of the Donatists, devised a new mode of speaking about the keys and the remission of sins. For besides that mode by which we say that sins are remitted by priests in the administration of the sacraments of baptism and penance, a mode of speaking which he himself commonly uses with the other Fathers, he also often says that sins are remitted ‘by the charity of the Church, by the groaning of the dove, by the prayers of the saints,’ and in this mode that the keys of the kingdom belong only to the just, and that Peter signified this when he received the keys… Moreover, by these words St. Augustine does not signify that the Church of the just remits sins from authority, but that sins are remitted to no one, however much he may be baptized or reconciled, unless the charity of the Church extends to him. Hence St. Augustine (book 3 On Baptism, chapter 17, which passage is objected) says: ‘For because in the type of unity the Lord gave power to Peter, so that what he loosed on earth would be loosed, it is manifest that that unity is also called one perfect dove.’ And below: ‘Through the prayers of the spiritual saints, who are in the Church, as through the most frequent groaning of the dove, a great sacrament is carried on, and a hidden dispensation of the mercy of God, so that the sins are also loosed of those who are baptized not through the dove, but through the hawk, if they approach that sacrament with the peace of catholic unity.’”
900. You will say, IV, with Richer himself (On Ecclesiastical and Political Power, chapter 1): God and nature intend the whole supposit more priorly and immediately than any part of the supposit, however noble; the faculty of seeing, for example, was given not so much to the eyes as to the whole man, namely so that man might exercise the faculty of seeing through the eye as through his organ and minister. For the eye exists both through man and for man. Therefore, by parity of reasoning, the same must be said of the Church. I answer by distinguishing the antecedent: God and nature, etc., I distinguish; in the order of end, I concede; in the order of subject, I deny. It is pleasing to explain this in the words of Richer himself (in his last retraction, to proposition 2): “The likeness,” he says, “convicts its own author; for just as the faculty of seeing is in the eye formally and subjectively, and the eye alone essentially and immediately sees, while man sees only mediately, namely through the eye, so that the reduction of the likeness to the likeness fits well: the Roman Pontiff and the other Bishops, whom I compared to the eye, possess ecclesiastical jurisdiction formally and essentially. For if ruling the faithful people in spiritual things is not proper and essential to the Roman Pontiff and the other Bishops, what will be proper and essential to the pontifical and episcopal dignity, by which it is distinguished from other human offices and duties of life?” Yet this does not prevent the power itself from being ordered to the good of the whole ecclesiastical republic, just as vision in man is directed to the good of the whole man. “The eye alone sees in the body,” says St. Augustine (tractate 22 on John), “but does the eye see for itself alone? It sees for the hand, and it sees for the foot, and it sees for the other members.” So it is with ecclesiastical jurisdiction.