De locis theologicis

IT CONTAINS THREE PROPOSITIONS BY WHICH IT IS SHOWN THAT PETER’S FIRMNESS IN FAITH ALSO PASSES TO HIS SUCCESSORS

Although I am not unaware that some dislike the scholastic form of disputation, I ought not to adopt any other way of disputing than one that I have found approved by men of the highest distinction and have always considered most suitable for refuting every error. Certainly, what Augustinus argued against the Church’s adversaries was devised with greater subtlety and expressed with greater refinement than everyone can readily understand; yet it is judged all the more suitable for defeating heresies because it cuts down to the living issue with such precision. Since I am going to demonstrate that the Apostolic See, which is also the Roman See, cannot err in faith, following the practice of the schools I will lay down three propositions on which the hinge of this question turns. First proposition: the Apostle Petrus was appointed by Christ as pastor of the universal Church. This is plainly proved by the testimony in Ioannes: “Feed my sheep.” For Christ did not distinguish these sheep from those, thereby showing that any sheep that did not recognize Petrus as its shepherd belonged outside his fold, as Innocentius argues most clearly in De mai. et ob. cap. Solitae and Bernardus in lib. De consid. Ad Eugen., cap. 6. There can be no doubt that this care specially belonged to Petrus, whom the Lord questioned before entrusting him with the sheep, and did so not once or twice but a third time: “Simon, son of Iona, do you love me more than these?” Here he stated not only Simon’s own name but also his father’s name, so that no ambiguity could evade Peter’s authority or perversely turn it toward someone else. The same point is again made clear by another testimony in Matthaeus: “Blessed are you,” the Lord says, “Simon Bar Iona, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and whatever you bind on earth…” First observe that, although all the disciples had been asked, while the others remained silent, Peter alone answered. Then notice that Christ preserved Peter’s old name, saying, “Blessed are you, Simon,” and added his father’s name so that the words could not refer to the Cananaeus. He also gave him a new name, one not shared with the other Apostles but his own. “And I say to you,” he says—not to Ioannes, not to Iacobus, but to you: “you are,” not merely called but truly are, Peter, that is, a rock. Hence in Ioannes, cap. 1, he was called Cephas by the Lord, that is, a great stone or cliff fit to bear a great building. “And upon this rock,” he says, “I will build my Church”—that is, upon you, Peter—as Hilarius explains in his commentary on Matthaeus; Ambrosius, sermone 47 de fide Petri; Cyprianus, in his letter to Quintus; Hieronymus, lib. 1, Contra Iovinian., and on Matthaeus, and in a certain letter to Marcella, and on Isaiae, ch. 2 and 16 (although in a sermon on Pentecost he explained it differently); Chrysostomus, homil. 55 in Matth.; Cyrillus, lib. 2 in Ioann., cap. 12; Origenes, hom. 1 in Matth. and hom. 5 super Exodum; and Theophylactus

Luke 22; Gregory in one letter to the Emperor Maurice and another to Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria, lib. 6, epist. 37; Leo, concione 2, de apostolis Petro et Paulo. In his letter to Flavian, Peter, he says, “drew the solidity both of his virtue and of his name from the principal rock”; and he explains this more clearly in epist. 67 ad episcop. Viennens. and 19 dist., cap. Ita Dominus. Tertullian, lib. De praescr. haer.; Epiphanius in lib. Ancoratus; and Dionysius in his letter to Timothy also say that Peter was called by Paul the foundation of the Churches. The Council of Chalcedon too calls Peter the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and consequently acknowledges that the Catholic Church was built upon Peter. I know that Augustine hesitated to grant this in his final homily on John and De verb. Domini, homil. 4. Yet in lib. 1 Retract., cap. 21 he does not reject this common view of the saints. Nor could it rightly be rejected, since it is approved not only by the Supreme Pontiffs but also by councils, as will be clear from what we say later. But there is no need to illuminate a matter already so clear by bringing in outside lights. Why, then, does the Lord say to Simon son of Jonah, “You are Πέτρος,” that is, a rock, unless we are to understand that when he immediately adds, “and upon this rock I will build my Church,” Peter himself is the very rock upon which the Church was to be built? Since, by metaphor, the foundation of a house is the same as the head, preserving the analogy of the body, it is plainly inferred that Peter is both the head and the foundation of the Church. Why should we fear to call Peter the head when we cannot deny that he is the ruler of Christ’s sheep? The rulers of peoples are called heads, Amos 6; and because Saul was king, he is called the head of the people, 1 Regum 15. But Bucer asks for the testimonies of the fathers and denies that Peter was ever called the head of the Church by anyone. His denial is utterly shameless, since Evaristus, Alexander I, Pius I, Callistus I, Gregory, Athanasius, Chrysostom, the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, and the Seventh Synod of Constantinople have plainly called Peter and his successors the head of the Church. We shall set down their testimonies shortly. Let us therefore acknowledge that Christ established Peter as head, foundation, ruler, and shepherd of the universal Church. For all these things are so closely joined that if you remove one, you must remove the rest. But Clement, 6 Dispo. lib., says: “Peter, James, and John, although they had been preferred by Christ to almost everyone, did not claim the glory of primacy for themselves, but appointed James, who was called the Just, bishop of the apostles.” Peter was therefore not, for Clement, the shepherd of the universal Church. Heretics hunt up testimonies of this kind here and there to cast darkness over the light. Dionysius, 3 c. De div. nomin., says that Peter was the highest honor and pillar of the theologians. Eusebius, lib. 2 Eccles. hist., cap. 14, writes that Peter was the most approved and greatest of all the apostles and the foremost prince in the magnificence of faith. Epiphanius, haeresi 51, asserts that Christ chose Peter to be the leader of his disciples. Leo, in his letter to the bishops of Vienne, says that the Lord wished the mystery of the evangelical office to pertain to the duty of all the apostles in such a way that he placed it principally in blessed Peter, the chief of all the apostles. Heretics do not believe these many suitable witnesses—for it would take too long to list the others—but want us to believe one Clement, who says that James was appointed bishop of the apostles. James is acknowledged as bishop of Jerusalem; he is not acknowledged as bishop of the apostles. Yet while the apostles were in Jerusalem, for the sake of edification they certainly showed great deference to James, to provide an example for later bishops to conduct themselves as subordinates in another Church. It is fortunate that Clement does not claim that the Lord established this but that the apostles did so out of modesty. In this first proposition, however, we assert that the Lord established Peter as shepherd of the Catholic Church.

Since Cajetan has shown this with many powerful arguments in libel. De auctoritate Papae et Concilii, and even more fully in another work, De Eccles. Romanae primatu, it is enough for us to have demonstrated it briefly. Second proposition: Peter could not err when he taught the Church or strengthened the sheep in faith. This is shown first by Luke 22: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has asked for you, to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, once converted, strengthen your brothers.” Notice that when the Lord said, “Satan has asked for you,” he did not say, “I have prayed for you all,” but “for you”; nor did he say, “and when you all are converted,” but “you, once converted, strengthen your brothers.” Since Christ’s prayer, as Paul attests, was always heard, Christ certainly obtained what he prayed for: that Peter’s faith would not fail, so that he might strengthen his brothers in faith. This is also shown by Matthew 16: “Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Explaining these words, Origen says in hom. 1 in Matth.: “It is clear, even if it is not expressly stated, that the gates of hell will not prevail either against Peter or against the Church. For if they prevailed against the rock on which the Church was founded, they would also prevail against the Church.” Peter, then, stood firm in faith, lest the building founded upon him collapse. Further, if Peter was given the keys of not one heaven but the heavens, as Origen noted in homil. 6 in Matth., and the keys open the heavens, it follows that they remove every obstacle to heaven. Ignorance of the faith blocks entry into heaven on the side of the understanding, just as an evil affection blocks it on the side of the will. Peter was therefore given power no less to remove ignorance than to remove sins. Whatever he loosed and whatever he bound, whether it concerned the understanding or the affections, would accordingly be loosed and bound in heaven. Peter could therefore rightfully resolve difficult questions of faith and bind the faithful by his judgment to hold what he decreed. But the faithful cannot be bound by a false judgment on faith. If “there is divination on the lips of a king, and his mouth shall not err in judgment,” as Proverbs 16 says, why should we think that Peter, appointed by God as prince of the kingdom of heaven, could have erred in a most serious judgment of faith? And if Caiaphas, an impious man in the synagogue, prophesied because he was high priest that year, should we not all the more believe that Peter, made by Christ the Supreme Pontiff of the Church, was moved by the divine Spirit to settle the truth? Finally, if Peter was appointed by God as pastor of all the faithful, he was therefore made the Church’s supreme teacher and master. If he did not give Christ’s sheep the pastures of wholesome doctrine but could feed them with false and ruinous errors, Christ would surely not have provided for the Church. Yet he did provide for it, unless Peter himself deceived us when he said: “Brothers, you know that in the early days God chose among us that the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel from my mouth and believe.” Christ therefore chose Peter in particular among the others so that the Gentiles would not only hear him speak in disputes of faith but also believe him. For after Peter gave his judgment, the whole assembly fell silent and agreed with Peter’s decision, as Luke reports in Actor. 15. Third proposition: When Peter dies, divine law requires someone to succeed him in the same authority and power. Since Christ’s sheep were to exist until the end of the age, it would surely be foolish to think that Christ appointed a temporary shepherd for a flock that would endure forever. The Lord, then, in establishing the pastoral office of the Church and conferring it on the first shepherd, is understood to have conferred it in the ordinary course on each successor, as Cajetan proved in De prim. Eccles. Rom., cap. 12.

has demonstrated with great learning. Further, the kingdom of Christ was to be eternal; therefore the rule of the Church was not temporary, as was also proved in the preceding book. Otherwise, if Peter’s power was not transmitted to his successors, we would not acknowledge that the power of the other apostles was transmitted to succeeding bishops either. The Church would now have no power belonging to either bishops or priests. This is plainly an error in faith. Bernard also uses, in confirmation of this, the testimony from Exod. in ad Eugen. lib. 2, cap. 6: “Be a mediator for the people in matters pertaining to God, to show the people the ceremonies, the rite of worship, and the way in which they must walk. Choose from all the people capable men to judge the people at all times. Whatever matter is greater, let them refer to you; let them judge only the smaller matters. If you do this, you will fulfill the command of the Lord.” When Jethro had said this, Moses did all he had suggested. Since Jethro’s advice was plainly excellent and most necessary for the synagogue—that there be one supreme judge to whom the more important cases and questions were referred—it is in no way plausible that Christ the Lord lacked advice of this kind, which the Church likewise needed. The Lord did not therefore confer this power on Peter alone; it also passed to his successors, unless God cared more for the synagogue than for the Church. This point is especially confirmed by another testimony from the Old Law, which Innocent III used in cap. Per venerabilem, qui Filii sunt legitimi. “If,” it says, “you see that a judgment among you is difficult and ambiguous, and you see that the words of the judges within your gates differ, rise and go up to the place that the Lord your God will choose; you shall go to the priests of the tribe of Levi and to the judge who is there at that time, and ask them for the true judgment. You shall do whatever those who preside in the place the Lord has chosen tell you and teach you according to his law; you shall follow their judgment and not turn to the right or left. Whoever acts arrogantly, refusing to obey the command of the priest who serves the Lord your God at that time, shall die by decree of the judge, so that no one may grow proud thereafter.” First, we must observe in these words that not every case is to be referred to the metropolitan judge and supreme priest, but only more difficult cases, beyond the power of lesser judges to resolve. Next, we must observe that this supreme tribunal, from whose judgment there was absolutely no appeal under the rule of the Law, did indeed have a senate of Levites and priests, but only one was the chief judge and supreme priest, who alone is indicated as having authority to pass judgment: “Whoever acts arrogantly,” it says, “refusing to obey the command of the priest who serves at that time”—or “who presides in the ministry,” as the Seventy translated. Again: “He shall die by decree of the judge.” It does not say, “of the priests and judges,” but “of the priest and judge.” Nor should we pass over that the Lord does not command a council to be assembled from the whole synagogue; he commands that a council of priests and Levites be convened, who would always be present in the capital as a senate for the supreme priest. Since these questions and controversies could arise repeatedly, the tribunal needed to be ready and easy to access. It would not be so if a frequent council had to be gathered from the whole synagogue to settle every dispute. We must also not neglect that the lawgiver absolutely prescribes that after the judgment of the presiding priest all must yield their opinions. “You shall do,” he says, “... and follow their judgment, and you shall not turn to the right or left.” The lawgiver rightly prescribed this,

because earlier, to make those deliberating secure, he had promised that the judgment of the senate to which the inquiry was referred would be true. “They will judge for you with true judgment,” he says. But Bucer says these things will be true if the judges have pronounced according to the Law. For Moses says, “You shall do whatever they teach you according to his Law.” First, as these men often do to us, I would like to call them back to the Hebrew truth. The Seventy translated it this way: “You shall act according to the word they announce to you from the place that the Lord your God will choose. Be very careful to do everything they have decreed for you: you shall act according to the Law and according to the judgment they tell you.” Sanctes Pagninus rendered it this way: “You shall act according to the utterance of the word they announce to you, and you shall be careful to do whatever they teach you. You shall act according to the rule of the Law that they teach you, and according to the judgment they tell you.” Moses does not command them to believe the priests if they have judged according to the Law; rather, he commands that what the priests teach be held as the Law. Otherwise, if people returning to the senate to settle a dispute about the Law and religion could seize upon this objection, no such question would ever be settled. There would always remain the point of doubt whether the priests were speaking according to the Law, and no judge would have been appointed to resolve that doubt. But I think I have discussed these matters sufficiently and carefully elsewhere. Here we are concerned only to show that God established a single supreme tribunal of the High Priest even after the time of Moses, for as long as the synagogue would exist, and that all private citizens and even lesser judges would depend on its judgment. What, then? Did Moses provide for the synagogue, while Christ failed to provide for the Church? Or do we want there to be no judge in Israel in these days, but for everyone to do and think whatever seems good to him? “We want the liberty of the Gospel,” they say. Is it liberty for a city to have no ruler? Is it liberty for a ship to be abandoned to the waves and wind without a helmsman? Liberty would then mean, as someone says, having no teacher in a school, no head in a human body, no mind in a person, but having everything confused and mixed up at the whim of one’s desires. Even beasts would not wish for that, since they need shepherds to lead them to pasture and defend them there from the harm of wild animals. Returning, then, to our point: when Peter died, one household was not left without a father, one city without a ruler, or one flock without a shepherd. Someone succeeds him in the authority to govern and feed the sheep. If you object that a suitable argument cannot be drawn from a type and figure, remember that what was sketched in that ancient people according to the pattern and order of the Church must be referred to the pattern and order of the Church. We are not arguing from a type or figure, but from the lesser to the greater, and with evident reason. For it is unbelievable that, by God’s authority, the synagogue had a judge and senate to settle disputes of faith, law, and religion, while the Church has none—especially since the Church has much greater need of one. Since it has arisen from nations, languages, minds, and customs so diverse, it must have more and greater disputes about faith and religion. Unless the prince of this commonwealth can settle them, the form and condition of the Church is surely most shameful, and its lot far worse than that of the synagogue. But setting aside the comparison of Church and synagogue, the authority appropriate to a ruler in any society is certainly prescribed by its end. The authority is not equal for every ruler: one kind suits a head of a household, another a prefect, and another a king. Each of these must have as much authority as the end of the society he governs requires, so that the head of a household

must have the authority that right reason and doctrine prescribe as necessary for the end of a domestic household, since otherwise it is entirely impossible to live in one house and under one roof where people have different natures and different duties. The Supreme Pontiff established by Christ therefore has as much authority in the Church as is necessary to keep the citizens of the Christian commonwealth in faith, religion, and duty. Disputes about faith and religion must arise among us. If Christ gave no judge to settle them, to whom every such question would finally be referred, they would continue without end in perpetual disagreement, and the Church would contain as many discordant opinions on faith and religion as it has heads, all different from one another. If the unity, charity, and fellowship of the Church must be preserved, then Christ certainly left one ruler who, like Peter, can settle the quarrels of those who disagree and resolve their questions. We see that this belongs to the ruler of every other society: if disputes arise among its members, especially disputes that properly concern the end of that society, he can settle them with the counsel of prudent and senior people he calls to his side. This third proposition was finally defined at the Council of Constance. In its 8th session, it condemned this error of Wycliffe: “The Pope is not the nearest and immediate vicar of Christ.” In its 15th session it condemned as the seventh error the following: “Peter was not and is not the head of the holy Catholic Church.” And as the thirteenth error: “The Pope is not the manifest and true successor of Peter.” And as the twenty-seventh error: “There is not even a spark of evidence that there must be one head governing the Church in spiritual matters, who always lives and remains with the Church militant.” In the bull of Martin V, who presided over the same council, the question is also asked: “Does he believe that the Pope lawfully elected at that time is the successor of blessed Peter, holding supreme power in the Church of God?” This was certainly no novelty; rather, the Church has always acknowledged one Supreme Pontiff and pastor of the whole Church succeeding Peter. If all the other power granted to Peter, whether for remitting sins or for any other duties necessary to the Christian commonwealth, belongs not to Peter alone but to his successors, then surely these words—“Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”; “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven”; “Feed my sheep”; and finally, “I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail”—must be referred to the Supreme Pontiffs who succeed Peter in the Church. The privilege of not erring in faith was granted to Peter for the benefit of the Church. For after Christ said, “I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail,” he immediately added, “And you, strengthen your brothers.” Let this suffice in general. We shall now explain more clearly, in particular, the matters relevant to this controversy.