Apologeticae sive Theologiae Fundamentalis, Tomus II (Pars Altera): Demonstratio Catholica

The apostles were not twelve men set apart from one another, each of whom fulfilled a divine mission separately, but rather they were one moral body, one apostolic college.

For they are called by the collegiate name οἱ δώδεκα¹ and are distinguished from others collegially by the express expression: "the eleven and all the rest"² or "the eleven and those who were with them"³ It is asked, however, whether the apostles were a college of equals or a college of unequals, in which one held the primacy. While Christ lived and dwelt with the apostles, he alone was their visible head and sole teacher: "your teacher is one, Christ."⁴ But did Christ not provide that, when he had returned to heaven, his vicar should be perpetually present, the visible head and primate of the whole apostolic college and consequently of the whole Church? Non-Catholics deny it; Catholics affirm it.

1°. All non-Catholics, with some false-named Catholics applauding, either explicitly reject the Petrine primacy or at least implicitly, adulterating it. In the fourteenth century Marsilius of Padua and John of Jandun (schismatic partisans of Louis of Bavaria against John XXII) defended the thesis: "That blessed Peter the apostle had no more authority than the other apostles had, nor was he the head of the other apostles. Likewise that Christ left no head to the Church, nor made anyone his vicar."⁵ At the beginning of the fifteenth century Wycliffe and Hus renewed the same error, contending: "Peter is not and was not the head of the holy catholic Church."⁶ In the sixteenth century the Reformers followed them, and all Protestants follow them to our very age. With these are joined the recent Greek and Russian schismatics, the "Old Catholics," and finally the Modernists, whose proposition condemned by Pius X sounds: "Simon Peter never even suspected that the primacy in the Church was entrusted to him by Christ."⁷

Most of them indeed concede that Peter was marked out by Christ with a primacy of honor, of the sort that "first among equals" has in a college of equals by reason of age, prudence, or merits; indeed that Peter received some primacy of order or of direction, such as the president of a senate enjoys. But they altogether deny that Peter obtained a true primacy of jurisdiction or a preceptive power over the whole Church, in virtue of which he could rule the apostles and all the faithful as subjects.⁸

Finally, several would readily concede to blessed Peter a primacy of jurisdiction, yet one conferred not directly and immediately by Christ, but by the Church. Already in the fifteenth century some doctors of the university of Paris hesitated, in doubt whether to assert that Peter's primacy was founded by Christ immediately or only mediately.⁹ With this doubt set aside, soon Edmund Richer, rector of the same university of Paris, in 1611 openly denied that the primacy of Peter was conferred immediately by Christ. The Gallicans, the Jansenists, and the bishops of the pseudo-synod of Pistoia approved him most of all.¹⁰

Against all these errors: 2°. Catholics oppose the doctrine "on the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter" thus enunciated in the Vatican council:¹¹ "We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimonies of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was promised and conferred immediately and directly to blessed Peter the apostle by Christ the Lord ... To this so manifest doctrine of the sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic Church, are openly opposed the wicked opinions of those who, perverting the form of government established by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter alone, before the other apostles, whether considered singly or all together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction: or who affirm that the same primacy was not delivered immediately and directly to blessed Peter himself, but to the Church, and through her to him as minister of the Church herself. If anyone therefore shall say that blessed Peter the apostle was not constituted by Christ the Lord the prince of all the apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant; or that he received from the same Lord our Jesus Christ a primacy of honor only, but not a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction, directly and immediately, let him be anathema."

This conciliar definition shines with such clarity that it needs no explanation. To prove it, with the Vatican council itself as guide, we shall adduce only the "doctrine of the sacred Scriptures," adding the exegetical tradition only on some occasions, so that it may be perceived in what sense Christian antiquity understood the texts of sacred Scripture that concern the Petrine primacy.

For in sacred Scripture, to be sure, the Petrine primacy I. is clearly promised; II. is solemnly conferred; III. is luminously illustrated; IV. is perpetually established.

Toward the end of his preaching in Galilee, Jesus, when he was in the region of Caesarea Philippi, asked his disciples: "Who do men say that the Son of Man is?" But they said: "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, others again Jeremiah or one of the prophets." Jesus says to them: "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered and said: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered and said to him: "Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to you: you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven."¹

It is clear that by these words Christ promises that Peter will be the foundational rock of the Church to be built, and likewise the key-bearer and lawgiver of the kingdom of heaven to be founded. But in order that it may fully be established that Peter thereby received by that very fact the promise of the primacy, both the subject and the object of the promise must be examined.

1. The subject of the promise is Peter alone as a person distinct from the other apostles, and therefore the promised dignity is not common to the whole college, but is proper to blessed Peter.

The matter is indeed beyond doubt. Nevertheless it needs proof, because many adversaries have imagined that Peter confessed Christ as the Messiah, the Son of God, in the name of all the apostles, and that therefore Christ also rewarded all the apostles. But that hypothesis is rejected both by the obvious context of the discourse and by the emphatic designation of Peter.

a) The context of the discourse proves that Peter did not speak in the name of the whole college. For to the earlier question of Christ the apostles had answered indiscriminately: "But they said..." Hence the apostles had not entrusted their role to Peter. Therefore Peter, answering alone to the later question of Christ, must be said to have acted on his own initiative, unless one wishes to assert absurdly that in the intervening time he had been appointed common spokesman by his fellow colleagues.

That Peter acted on his own initiative the Savior himself significantly manifests. For having accepted Peter's confession, he proclaims blessed and rewards with a promise not all the apostles, but him alone, as inspired by the Father: "Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to you …"

Moreover, even if Peter had answered in the name of all, it would not follow from this that the promise made to Peter was made to all. For on the one hand Peter, answering in place of the apostles, bore the person of the rest in the same way in which any principal acts for the cause of others whose deficiency he supplies. From which it follows that as Peter stands out by his answer, so he also stands out by the reward received. On the other hand "the promise of an office is not the promise of a reward due to all who should be in the same disposition; but the profession of faith cannot be conceived except as a suitable disposition, to which gratuitously and evidently not in all, but in Peter alone, with clear distinction from all the others, the primatial office is promised (as a gift freely given)."²

Indeed:

b) The designation of Peter as the subject of Christ's promise is made with such weight that it excludes every doubt. About to give the promise, Christ at the beginning of the discourse first accurately describes the personal marks of the one to be rewarded. He expresses the substance of the singular person through pronouns: "I say to you, you are." He adds the name given to him at birth: "Blessed are you, Simon." He joins the name of the father: "Bar Jona", i. e. son of Jona. He adds the name recently imposed on him by himself: "You are Peter." By so many ways and means, then, does Christ designate the person of Peter, that those notaries who publicly draw up instruments scarcely describe some certain man with more circumstances.³ But such an accurate description of the person of Peter would be inept, if Christ's promise did not regard Peter himself and him alone.

And indeed Christ, continuing the discourse, assigns the reward to the person thus described: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." That "this rock"⁴, upon which Christ promises to build his Church, is openly identical with the person of Peter, the Latin version itself clearly expresses. More clearly, however, the Greek text: "Σὺ εἶ Πέτρος καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ." For in Greek πέτρος and πέτρα are synonyms; for they signify a rock indifferently in the masculine and in the feminine gender. The translator puts the masculine gender in the first place as more fitting to the person of Peter; in the second place, however, the feminine gender, as more adapted to the thing signified. Finally, in the Aramaic language, in which Christ spoke and Matthew wrote, the privilege promised to him is called by exactly the same word as Peter: "You are kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."

The rock, therefore, upon which Christ will build the Church, is the apostle Peter and he alone.

Likewise he alone will be the key-bearer and lawgiver of the kingdom of heaven: "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven." That these words fit Peter alone, as do the earlier words, is clear from the fact that, as we shall show, they contain exactly the same power or the same object as those earlier words, which are about the rock of the Church. Moreover, these later words are joined immediately with the former through the particle: "And I will give you the keys ... And whatever you bind ..." and are referred to the same subject, Peter. Likewise the pronoun ... "you" and the verbs "you bind ... you loose", expressed in the singular number, apply not to all the apostles, but to Peter alone.

Therefore the subject of Christ's promise is Peter alone as a person distinct from the other apostles, and therefore the promised dignity is not common to the whole college, but is proper to blessed Peter. But what is that promised dignity, or what is the object of Christ's promise?

2. The object of Christ's promise is the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church. Christ does not indeed use the technical term by which we today designate the primacy of jurisdiction, but a metaphorical expression, promising that primacy under a threefold symbol, namely under the symbol of the foundation, under the symbol of the keys, under the symbol of binding and loosing.

For the technical terms which in the course of time have been used to designate the primacy would not have been understood in the age of Christ; but the metaphors employed by Christ were and are easily understood by all.

a) The metaphor of the foundation of the Church. After Peter had confessed the christological faith, Christ began to speak of his Church. And indeed he presents the Church under the figure of a building, just as it is frequently represented in sacred Scripture under the image of a temple or of the house of God. The architect of this house is Christ himself: "οἰκοδομήσω = I will build the house." But as a wise architect Christ builds his Church upon a rock, that is, a stony foundation, just as on another occasion he had compared himself to "a wise man who built his house upon a rock. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it did not fall; for it was founded upon a rock (kepha)."⁵ That rock, in and upon which the building of the Church is founded and constructed, is Peter: "You are kepha (rock, stone, crag),"⁶ and upon this kepha I will build my Church." Peter therefore appears under the metaphor of a rocky foundation, i. e. of a firm, immovable, unshaken, stable one. Upon this petrine foundation the Church itself will be rendered so firm, immovable, unshaken and stable, that no adverse force, not even the greatest power of the demons, can shake it: "And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."⁷

But in order that Peter, like a rocky foundation, may be able to make firm the building of the Church, namely the society of the faithful, he needs the highest authority, that is, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church: For unless Peter could govern and rule all the faithful, taken both individually and collectively, the Church would succumb to internal schisms and external enemies. Therefore, lest this ever happen, supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church was promised to Peter.

This can be best illustrated by the example of civil society. No one doubts that the protection and safety of civil society can be preserved only by a supreme authority. He who is constituted in a republic to defend it against all internal and external dangers is by that very fact invested with jurisdiction over the whole commonwealth and over its individual parts and all its members. Hence the office promised to Peter, of defending and of keeping unharmed and unconquered the Church of Christ, necessarily demands supreme and universal jurisdiction.

Wherefore they misinterpret the metaphor of the petrine foundation of the Church:

1°. Those who think that Peter is the foundation of the Church only in this, that he had the leading part in the preaching, announcing the gospel first both to the Jews⁸ and to the Gentiles.⁹ Nevertheless, because Peter converted certain first-fruits of the Jews and of the Gentiles and thus in a certain way laid the first stones of the Church, he could not be called the foundation upon which the whole Church rests, upon which the whole Church is built, and from which it derives all its firmness, so that it cannot be overcome even by the gates of hell.

2°. Those who call not Peter's person, but his faith, the foundation of the Church. Upon Peter's christological faith the Lord did indeed build the Church, but not upon Peter's faith in the abstract, but upon Peter's faith in the concrete, i. e. upon Peter's person because of his faith, upon Peter believing unshakenly. Peter's faith in the Messiah, the Son of God, is the meritorious cause on account of which the apostle was chosen as the first. Hence Peter's faith causally, Peter's person formally, must be called the foundation of the Church. It is in this very sense that the Fathers call now Peter's faith, now Peter's person, the "rock of the Church".¹⁰

3°. Those who assert that all the apostles are the foundation of the Church, at least in the sense that Peter is only the first among equals. Against this opinion it is objected that Christ said to Peter alone as a person distinct from the other apostles: "You are kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church." Since therefore the whole building of the Church rests upon the petrine foundation, the other apostles as well are subject to the authority of Peter. In vain do the adversaries appeal to Eph 2, 20: "You are fellow citizens of the saints and members of God's household, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone." For the force of these words is: that Christ called the faithful to the Church through the apostles and prophets.¹¹

4°. Those who think that Christ, to the exclusion of Peter, is the foundation of the Church. Formerly the more eager Protestants contended that Christ, by saying: "Upon this rock I will build my Church", signified himself. Yet all adversaries today blush at this exegetical cavil. Some, however, contend today that the apostle Paul, to the exclusion of Peter, preaches Christ alone as the foundation of the Church, writing to the Corinthians: "For no one can lay any other foundation, besides that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus."¹²

Now that the Church was to be built and has been built upon the foundation of the person and doctrine of Christ, Paul clearly affirms, since Christ alone is the author, soul and invisible head of the Church. That Peter, however, was constituted in the name and place of Christ as the visible foundation of the Church, is affirmed not indeed by Paul the disciple, but by the master himself, Christ Jesus, saying to Peter: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." That the metaphor of the foundation is to be understood in this way is confirmed:

b) The metaphor of the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Thus far Christ has described the Church as a house to be built upon a petrine foundation. Now he adds that he will hand over to Peter the keys of the house now already built: "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven (καὶ δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν)." That by the name of the kingdom of heaven the Church militant on earth is designated is evident from the context and is admitted by all. And indeed that the keys of the whole Church are in question is clear from the fact that the discourse is simply about the keys of the kingdom of heaven, with even the articles added: τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας.

But the keys, from profane and sacred usage, are a symbol of supreme power. In profane usage, indeed, the handing over of the keys of a house or city was among all eastern and western peoples the sign of power handed over and acknowledged over the house or city. The architect hands over the keys of the completed building to the owner; the father of the family entrusts the keys to the steward, so as to signify the vicarious authority committed to him; the one selling a house consummates the transfer of ownership only by the handing over of the keys. Likewise, the keys of a besieged fortress or city are offered to the enemy, the general or the king, thereby acknowledging the surrender of the fortress or city. With the same meaning the figure of the keys is employed several times in the sacred Scripture of the Old and of the New Testament.¹³ And Christ himself expresses by the symbol of the keys his supreme power over death, over hell and over the kingdom of heaven, as the Apocalypse testifies: "I am the First and the Last; and I am alive, and was dead; and behold I am living for ever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of hell … Thus says the Holy One and the True One, who has the key (τὴν κλεῖν) of David; who opens, and no one closes, closes, and no one opens."¹⁴

Therefore if the same Christ the Lord says to Peter: "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven", the sense of these words is: "I will give you supreme power over the kingdom of heaven, that is, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church." Peter the primate, to be sure, depends on Christ, who alone has of himself the "key of David" (i. e. the key of the kingdom of David, that is, of the kingdom of heaven), and from whom Peter therefore obtains the keys by participation. Nevertheless, in the name and place of Christ, Peter has been constituted key-bearer of the kingdom of heaven independently of the consent of the Church, so that he can perform all acts of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and have subject to himself all the faithful, not even the apostles themselves excepted. When Peter closes, no one can open; when Peter opens, no one can close: when Peter commands, all and everything are bound to be subject. That this is the genuine meaning of the symbol of the keys is further explained:

c) The metaphor of binding and loosing, which exhibits the power of the keys as actually exercised. For while Christ first shows the house of the Church as to be built upon a petrine foundation, then hands the keys of the built house to Peter, now at last he shows the same Peter governing in the very house of the Church, saying: "And whatever (ὃ ἄν) you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven."

By the words of loosing and binding is signified the lawgiving power and, what is necessarily joined with it, as following from it, the judicial and punitive power. For in the time of Christ the rabbis authoritatively imposed upon the people what was lawful in the Law, what was forbidden, or what was commanded, what was interdicted. Now to signify this, the words to loose and to bind were in familiar use. To bind was the same as to forbid, to interdict, to command, to constrain by a religious obligation;¹⁵ to loose was the same as to permit, to give as lawful, to absolve or free from a religious bond. In short, to bind and to loose signified the whole authority of the rabbis of making and abrogating laws, which pertained to the religion and government of the Jews.¹⁶

With these same familiar words of binding and loosing, therefore, Christ promises to Peter the power of jurisdiction over the Church of the new testament. And indeed this power of Peter will be most ample in respect of things, because Peter can bind and loose "whatever (ὃ ἄν) religious bond"; it will be universal in respect of place and of persons, because Peter can bind and loose simply "on [the whole] earth (ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς)"; finally it will be supreme and authentic in respect of authority, because its exercise is absolutely sanctioned and confirmed by God: "it shall be bound also in heaven … it shall be loosed also in heaven."

Unjustly do the adversaries object that Christ promised the same power also to the other apostles: "Amen I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven: and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven."¹⁷ Therefore nothing singular was promised to Peter. In reality, the power is promised first to Peter separately, which afterwards is promised to the apostles together with Peter. It is promised to Peter without the others, what is promised to the others not without Peter. Peter alone possesses the jurisdiction which the others possess only collegially with Peter and under Peter. Hence Christ promises to Peter something special, which he does not promise to the other apostles, i. e. preeminence, that is, the primacy of jurisdiction.

The matter is manifest with such evidence that the modern rationalists, in despair, say that the whole text of Mt 16, 17-19 is spurious. For either they maintain that this passage was not written by Matthew, but was added to the Gospel of Matthew only in the second century,¹⁸ or they contend that it was indeed written by Matthew, but not from the mouth of Christ. But to one asking on what ground they assert these things, besides smoke and fog they truly only din in that the text Mt 16, 17-19 is openly "catholic",¹⁹ containing namely the promise of the petrine primacy.²⁰ Which indeed was what we had to prove.

That the primacy was conferred upon Peter already stands beyond doubt from the promise of this privilege. For whatever Christ, divine fidelity and truth, promised, he fulfilled in its own time. Therefore he certainly at length conferred upon Peter the primacy of jurisdiction that had been promised, even if perhaps the Gospel recorded nothing of this kind. But indeed the Gospel expressly relates that, when and how Peter obtained the promised dignity.

After his resurrection, namely, the Lord appeared to seven disciples at the sea of Tiberias, ate with them, and then constituted Peter his vicar. This event St. John, an eyewitness and earwitness, narrates as follows:

"When therefore they had breakfasted, Jesus says to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these (πλέον τούτων)? He says to him: Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He says to him: Feed my lambs (βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου). He says to him again: Simon, son of John, do you love me? He says to him: Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He says to him: Feed my lambs (ποίμαινε τὰ πρόβατά [al. πρόβατά] μου). He says to him the third time: Simon, son of John, do you love me? Peter was grieved, because he said to him the third time, Do you love me? and he said to him: Lord, you know all things: you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my sheep (βόσκε τὰ πρόβατά [al. πρόβατά] μου)."¹

It escapes no one that the pastoral office was conferred by these words. But in order that the force of the words may be fully weighed, three things can be asked, namely: on whom, what, and over whom Christ conferred the pastoral office?

1. On whom did Christ confer the pastoral office: Answer: on Peter alone, so that the conferred prerogative is not common to several apostles, but is Peter's own. For Peter is with emphasis described as an individual person, in the singular number and with his name, surname, and father's name expressed: "He says to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, do you love me? … Simon, son of John, do you love me? … Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter is distinguished from the rest, since his love rather than that of the other apostles is three times sought out and manifested; since he himself, reminded of and conscious of his threefold denial, is grieved at the third interrogation; since in the context he is shown as about to be crucified and is commanded to follow Christ before the others.² Finally Peter is set over against the others: "Do you love me more than these (ἀγαπᾷς με πλέον τούτων)?" Some absurdly maintain that Jesus asked: "Do you love me more than these," namely, fellow disciples. Such a question would have been wholly useless, since Christ demands superhuman love from all men,³ and since Peter would undoubtedly have had at least this minimal love, so as to love the Master more than the disciples. Not content, however, with this love, Christ demands to be loved more by Peter, because he had previously been denied by him and because he now wished to confer a greater dignity upon him. Therefore it is a question of Peter's individual dignity. But what is that dignity, namely:

2. What pastoral office did Christ confer? According to the Greek text Christ commands Peter: "βόσκε … ποίμαινε … βόσκε …" Which the Latin Vulgate renders with one word repeated three times: "Pasce … Pasce … Pasce." And indeed rightly. For although the verb ποιμαίνειν chiefly means "to lead or rule the flock," while the verb βόσκειν rather means "to procure pasture or nourishment for the flock," both nevertheless simply contain the office of feeding the flock. But by the name of feeding the flock in this place, as is evident, is not understood the irrational flock or the one properly so called, but Christ's rational flock, or the one so called metaphorically. But the very metaphor of feeding the rational flock, both from its own nature and from usage of speech, designates the office of exercising jurisdiction or governance over subject men.

By its nature the metaphor of feeding the rational flock signifies jurisdiction or authority to be exercised over subject men, so that the pastor of men is the same as one holding supreme authority. For in this consists the third point of comparison between feeding one's own or irrational flock and the improper or rational flock: just as the shepherd not only procures pasture for the sheep, but leads and brings back the sheep, watches over the sheep, defends them from the attack of wolves and other dangers, and recalls the wandering ones to the fold, so the shepherd of the rational flock is bound to direct, rule, defend, and spiritually nourish subject men. But this he attains only by the exercise of social authority. Therefore Peter possesses social authority over the flock of the faithful, because it was said to him: "Feed my sheep." The metaphor of feeding has the same signification from:

From profane and biblical usage of speech. Among Homer and other Greek authors the princes of peoples are wont generally to be called ποιμένες λαῶν. Similarly in the holy Scriptures by the word "feeding" (Greek ποιμαίνειν, Hebrew raah) the act of royal power is expressed; by the word "shepherd" (Greek ποιμήν, Hebrew roeh) the person of a leader, a prince, a king. Thus Ier 23, 1. 2: "Woe to the shepherds, who destroy and tear apart the flock of my pasture, says the Lord. Therefore thus says the Lord God of Israel to the shepherds who feed my people: You have scattered my flock and driven them out and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the malice of your pursuits, says the Lord." Especially David, the greatest of the kings of Israel, is again called shepherd.⁴ Indeed in the Old Testament the king Messiah⁵ and God the Savior⁶ come under the name of shepherd. In the New Testament, however, our Lord Jesus Christ is described as the shepherd of the faithful by the mouth of the apostles⁷ and also by his own mouth.⁸ If, therefore, Christ constituted Peter the shepherd of the faithful, he undoubtedly constituted him his vicar in ruling the ecclesiastical society. From this the answer to the third question already almost becomes clear:

3. Over whom did Christ confer the pastoral office: For the obvious sense of the text is that Peter is set as supreme shepherd over the whole Church of Christ. For he is commanded to feed both the lambs and the sheep⁹ of Christ, with no exception made, indeed with the possessive pronoun added: "Feed my lambs … Feed my sheep." Most think that by the name of lambs the simple faithful are described, but by the name of sheep, inasmuch as they are the mothers of the lambs, the hierarchs or clerics inferior to Peter; others understand by the name of lambs the imperfect faithful, by the name of sheep the perfect faithful; others take lambs and sheep synonymously. But whichever interpretation at length fits, it is evident that by the very enumeration of the parts the whole flock is signified. A fortiori this holds when the possessive pronoun meos, meas is considered. For by the force of this pronoun all are assigned to Peter to feed, to whom that pronoun extends, i. e. all who are lambs and sheep of Christ, Peter himself alone excepted. Therefore Peter is constituted shepherd of the whole fold of Christ, or the primate of the universal Church, the apostles also included.

Thus indeed Christian antiquity always understood these words of Christ in this way. E. g. Origen says that to Peter "the supreme charge of the feeding of the sheep" was handed over.¹⁰ Ephraem syr.: "The Lord entrusted to [Simon] his flock, the sheep, the lambs, and the little sheep."¹¹ Ambrosius: Peter "is preferred to all … and now is commanded to feed not lambs, as at first, to be nourished with a certain milk, nor little sheep, as at second, but sheep, the more perfect, so that, being more perfect, he might govern."¹² Leo M.: "From the whole world one Peter is chosen, who is to be placed over the calling of all nations and over all the apostles and all the pastors of the Church, so that, although in the people of God there are many priests and many pastors, Peter nevertheless properly rules all those whom Christ also rules principally."¹³

Hence certain adversaries wrongly object against the words Io 21, 15-17 that Christ restored to Peter only the apostolic dignity lost by the threefold denial. For they gratuitously contend that Peter fell from the apostleship by his denial. But even if he had fallen, the apostleship would already have been restored to him, because he had received apostolic order and jurisdiction together with the other apostles after the resurrection.¹⁴ But besides this power, which Peter had then received in common with all the apostles, he now receives an authority proper to himself over the rest, namely supreme and universal jurisdiction over the whole flock of Christ.

The primacy promised and conferred upon Peter is illustrated by many facts, on the part of Christ, of Peter himself, and of the remaining apostles. Although these facts, taken singly, are not all certain indications of primatial dignity, they nevertheless accord with the primacy, adorn the primacy, and are not explained without the primacy. These facts, therefore, are as it were a shadow of the primatial person, or a picture, in which the image of Peter the primate, depicted in Mt 16 and Io 21, is contained. These, then, are the facts:

1. Christ, setting aside the promise and conferral of the primacy, preferred Peter to the other apostles by several other indications, by imposing on him a symbolic name, by treating him with special favour, and by committing to him the office of confirming the brethren.

a) Peter's symbolic name. When Christ first saw Peter, he said: "Thou art Simon, the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas."¹ Afterwards, in the election of the apostles, he expressly imposed this name upon him.² Now God, as holy Scripture testifies, never imposes bare and empty names, but rather at the same time actually bestows what the name signifies.³ But the meaning and force of Simon's new name the Lord himself interpreted with reference to the primacy or foundation of the Church: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church."⁴

b) Peter's special favour. Christ turned aside at Capharnaum to Peter's house;⁵ he teaches from Peter's boat;⁶ he bids Peter walk with him upon the waters;⁷ to Peter alone after the miraculous catch of fish he says: "Fear not, from henceforth thou shalt catch men;"⁸ the didrachma, which the tax-collectors had demanded of all the apostles, Christ paid for himself and Peter alone,⁹ so that the remaining disciples at once suspected that Peter was to be set in a higher place, namely in the very vicariate of the Master;¹⁰ Peter's feet he washes first;¹¹ he takes care that his resurrection be announced to Peter in a special manner;¹² to Peter before the others the risen Christ appears.¹³ Thus Christ preferred Peter to the other apostles in many ways.

c) Peter's office of confirming the brethren. Before the passion the Lord says to Peter: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren."¹⁴ Peter is commanded to confirm the brethren (i. e. the apostles and, a fortiori, the other disciples), who had been most violently tempted and shaken in faith. For the fulfilling of this office Peter will be eminently fitted, if he is the head of the whole Church and of the apostles themselves, the vicar of Christ on earth. Deprived, however, of this primatial authority, he would be unfit for that office. If Peter could not give commands to the other apostles, nor were the others bound to obey Peter, Peter's intervention would be ineffective.

Christ, therefore, employed so special a dispensation toward Peter that he conspicuously illustrated the pre-eminence, or primacy, of the apostle.

2. Peter himself, Christ having scarcely yet returned to the Father, showed himself the supreme leader of the rest, as the circumstances of that primitive age permitted. After Christ's ascension, Peter alone teaches the necessity of choosing a new apostle (in place of Judas the transgressor) and directs the entire business of the election, the rest assenting and obeying.¹⁵ On the day of Pentecost, Peter alone, before the others and for the others, who keep silence, preaches and joins the believers to the Church.¹⁶ The first-fruits also of the Gentiles, instructed by a divine vision, he receives into the Christian assembly before the rest of the apostles.¹⁷ In working miracles Peter is first, and he alone defends the apostles before the sanhedrin,¹⁸ just as, of course, a superior is wont to speak not only for himself, but also for his subjects. Peter, before the rest of the apostles, plays the part of judge concerning Simon the magician,¹⁹ and concerning Ananias and Sapphira, God himself miraculously approving the judgment.²⁰ Peter visits all the churches of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee, even those which he himself had not founded.²¹ Acting as president of the council of Jerusalem, Peter first pronounces his judgment, i. e. he so settles the question concerning the legal observances that the others, all controversy being removed, assent.²²

These things being considered, it is clear that Peter exercised the primacy in all those ways and by all those means in which it could then be exercised, since on account of the primitive state of the Church and on account of the extraordinary gifts of the apostles, a more ample exercise of the primatial rights was neither necessary nor opportune. Not only, however, did Peter claim for himself the leading role, but also:

3. The other disciples attributed the leading role to him both in their manner of speaking and in their manner of acting.

a) The disciples' manner of speaking about Peter. As often as Peter is mentioned together with the other apostles in the Gospels, in the Acts, and in the Epistles, he alone is singled out and preferred.

If all the apostles are enumerated by name, Peter is first of all. In all the catalogues of the apostles, just as Judas Iscariot is placed last, so Peter is placed first in order, while the names of the others continually change their place.²³ Nay, Peter is significantly called first in dignity: "The first (πρῶτος) Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, James of Zebedee …"²⁴

"First" is not a numeral adjective, because the others do not hear "second, third, fourth", but it is an appositive of pre-eminence, which according to the usage of the New Testament signifies: one set over others, a prince, a primate.²⁵ Thus Peter is called by the disciples who wrote the sacred records the prince of the apostles, because while Christ was living he was destined for the primacy, whereas after Christ had returned to the Father and while the evangelists were writing, he possessed the primacy in act.

But even if only a few apostles are enumerated by name in Peter's presence, he constantly appears in the first place. Thus "Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother;"²⁶ "Peter and James and John;"²⁷ "Peter and John,"²⁸ "Simon Peter and Thomas, who is called Didymus, and Nathanael... and the sons of Zebedee and two others of his disciples."²⁹ The reason for this preference can be nothing other than Peter's special dignity, since Peter is first neither in age nor in vocation.³⁰ It is confirmed by the fact that, if several are enumerated in order, ascending from the lesser to the greater, Peter is placed in the highest position, immediately before Christ, so that from this we may learn that Peter surpasses all the disciples and is inferior to Christ alone.³¹

Finally, if with the names of all concealed the apostles are cited as a group, Peter nevertheless alone is wont to be expressly named, by means of these expressions: "Simon and they that were with him;"³² "Peter and they that were with him;"³³ "Peter with the eleven;"³⁴ "Peter and the apostles."³⁵ In the same way, moreover, Jesus is written of together with his disciples, so that it may appear that he was the Lord and head of the disciples.³⁶ Therefore this manner of speaking about Peter admonishes that he was acknowledged as the prince of the apostles and the vicar of Christ.

b) The disciples' manner of acting with Peter. Although all were equal in the apostolate, Peter himself also included, nevertheless all the disciples, and Paul himself as well, show in act that Peter was greater in the pastoral office, or hierarchical jurisdiction. All the disciples, and with them the whole primitive Church, tacitly submit to the primacy exercised through Peter by deeds, as we have already seen. They explicitly acknowledge the Petrine primacy when in the election of Matthias the apostle and in the council of Jerusalem, Peter presiding and pronouncing the judgment, all assent and obey; when, Peter decreeing it, the Gentiles are admitted into the bosom of the Church; when the whole Church pours forth common prayer for the imprisoned Peter;³⁷ when in the first twelve chapters of the Acts, where the earliest history of the universal Church is described, almost only Peter's deeds are recorded, while the deeds of the other apostles are touched upon only very briefly.

Paul, in particular, acknowledges Peter as the primate of all. Although, as teacher of the Gentiles taught by God himself, he would not have to be instructed by Peter or by any apostle, nevertheless, to honour Peter, he judged that a journey to Jerusalem must be undertaken: "Neither went I to Jerusalem, to the apostles who were before me: but I went into Arabia, and again I returned to Damascus. Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem, to see (ἱστορῆσαι) Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James, the brother of the Lord."³⁸ Peter was of so great authority that, the other apostles being disregarded, Paul undertook the journey to see him alone. Nay, not merely to see him, because "he did not say ἰδεῖν Πέτρον, but ἱστορῆσαι Πέτρον, as those are wont to speak who visit great and splendid cities for the sake of becoming acquainted with them."³⁹

From this it is already to be presumed that Paul does not deny the Petrine primacy, when in the same epistle, with a few verses interposed, he writes that he withstood to his face the Judaizing Peter,⁴⁰ and likewise affirms that he is equal to Peter in the apostolate.⁴¹

The primatial jurisdiction did not stand in the way of Paul's withstanding to his face the Judaizing Cephas. For sometimes an inferior not only can, but also ought, to correct a superior with due reverence, especially when it is a question of preventing scandal. But Peter's incautious intercourse with the Judaizers, the Mosaic law of foods being observed, was a scandal to the conversion of the Gentiles. Therefore Peter truly had to be reproved, and indeed most fittingly by the apostle of the Gentiles.

Likewise, the primatial jurisdiction did not stand in the way of Paul's affirming that he was equal to Peter in the apostolate. For although Peter excelled in the power of the pastoral office, yet not in the privilege of the apostolate, with which Paul, equally with Peter, had been divinely endowed. Nay, if the exercise of the apostolate, or of preaching, is regarded, Paul surpassed not only Peter, but also all the other apostles,⁴² so much so that he deserves to be called the apostle by excellence and the prince in the apostolate. By as much as Paul was greater than Peter in preaching, by so much was he less than him in jurisdiction.⁴³ In this respect alone, and with this distinction made, both are princes of the apostles and of the Church, according to the verse of Venantius Fortunatus:⁴⁴ "Peter first by the key, Paul also first in doctrine."

From what has been said, the primacy, while Peter lived, was exercised and acknowledged in the Church. It is asked, however, whether, once he died, the primatial prerogative also perished, or whether rather it endures perpetually in the successors of Peter. That the primacy begun in blessed Peter is continued perennially is concluded from the very institution of the primatial office, and indeed from the fact, from the words, and from the end of the institution.

1. From the fact that Christ instituted the primacy. For "the monarchical form of government, which Christ conferred upon the Church instituted by Himself, must be said to persevere as long as Christ abrogates it or converts it into another, aristocratic or democratic, form. For no one but the author of the Church is permitted to convert its form into another, and thereby to destroy the prior one. But Christ nowhere promised that He would convert its form into another, nor did He do anything by which such a future change is intimated. Rather, since He promised that the Church instituted by Him would be everlasting, He at the same time indicated that its monarchical form also would be everlasting. For if another form succeeded the monarchical one, another Church would succeed, since a society is changed by an essential change of the form of government, as is evident when, somewhere a monarchy having been converted into a republic, the new civil society, the republic, is said to have succeeded the old one, the monarchy."¹

Against this the adversaries wrongly object: "The primacy was Peter's personal prerogative; therefore it was extinguished by his death." The primacy was indeed Peter's personal prerogative, inasmuch as it was proper to Peter alone, not common to the other apostles; but it was not a personal prerogative in the sense that it was granted to Peter as a private person. Rather, Peter received the primacy as a public person, i. e., as the supreme pastor of the Church. But an office that is public, or that regards the good of the Church, ought never to have ceased. The rights that a prince acquires are acquired for the kingdom, and when the prince dies they remain proper to the kingdom. Thus the primatial right, which prince Peter obtained, he obtained for the Church, and hence it is to endure perennially in the Church.²

2. From the words by which Christ instituted the primacy. It is easily shown that the words by which Christ promised and conferred the primacy regard Peter not as a private person shortly to die, but as a person to live perpetually in his successors.

a) The words of the promise constitute Peter the indestructible foundation of the Church: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." But a foundation must endure as long as the building will stand. Now Christ so founded His Church that it would be everlasting; hence by that very fact He does not allow its foundation to be withdrawn when Peter dies. This is clear a fortiori, because Christ foretells that the Church will be attacked perpetually, and yet will never be destroyed by the gates of hell, because it has Peter as its foundation. Thus by that very fact the Petrine foundation is to endure perennially. Hence Leo the Great: "The firmness of the foundation, upon which the whole height of the Church is built, is not assailed by any mass of the temple incumbent upon it. For the solidity of that faith which was praised in the prince of the apostles is perpetual; and just as what he believed in Christ remains, so what Christ instituted in Peter remains . . . The disposition of truth, therefore, remains, and blessed Peter, persevering in the strength of the rock he received, has not relinquished the governance of the Church he undertook."³

Peter is moreover constituted the key-bearer of the kingdom of heaven, endowed with the divine power of binding and loosing: "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." But the key-bearer of the kingdom of heaven must be present and discharge the office of binding and loosing as long as the everlasting Church shall endure. For he bears the keys and is commanded to bind and loose not for Peter's advantage, but for the Church's benefit. In this sense Tertullian: "Remember that here the Lord left his keys [of the kingdom of heaven] to Peter and through Peter to the Church."⁴ And Augustine teaches that the keys were given to Peter as to one bearing the person of the Church.⁵

b) The words of the conferral establish Peter as the supreme pastor to feed the whole flock of Christ. But to the flock of Christ belong all the sheep and lambs without restriction of time, i. e., the bishops and the faithful of both the apostolic and the post-apostolic age. Therefore Peter must feed not only those, but also these — indeed, in his successors. But indeed, if the primatial pastorate had ceased with the death of Peter, the flock of Christ would from then on be without a shepherd, i. e., the visible body of Christ would be without a visible head — a truncated body. That this is absurd is evident of itself. A fortiori, however, the thesis shines forth:

3. From the end for which Christ instituted the primacy. Christ conferred the primacy upon Peter to preserve the unity of the Church. But the necessity of preserving ecclesiastical unity urges perpetually. Therefore, even after the death of the prince of the apostles, the primacy endures. It is proved thus:

Major. That Christ conferred the primacy upon Peter to preserve the unity of the Church is established both implicitly by the nature of the matter and explicitly by the will of Christ manifested in word. By its nature, a supreme government entrusted to a single physical person singularly tends to preserve the moral unity of a society. St. Thomas gives the reason for this: "For . . . that which is one of itself can be the cause of unity more fittingly than many united."⁶ Hence wherever the author of nature wished to promote the strictest unity, He chose monarchical government: think of the domestic society, over which He placed the father of the family, and likewise of the religious society of the Old Testament, over which He placed the high priest. Likewise in civil societies, even in those constituted democratically, on the occasion of a revolution a dictatorial government is instituted to recover unity. Indeed St. Jerome writes: "Even dumb animals and the herds of wild beasts follow their leaders. Among bees there are princes; cranes follow one in an ordered line. There is one emperor, one judge of a province. Rome, as soon as it was founded, could not have two brothers as kings at the same time, and it is consecrated by parricide . . . The individual bishops of the churches, the individual archpriests, and the whole ecclesiastical order rest upon their own rulers."⁷ Therefore it is to be presumed that Christ also granted the primacy to Peter for this end, that the unity of the Church might be intimately preserved. In truth this will of Christ is expressly manifested in those titles given to Peter the primate: rock, key-bearer, shepherd. Peter is called the rock of the Church because, like a foundation, he unites all the parts of the ecclesiastical building; he is called the key-bearer of the kingdom of heaven because, as a true steward, he rules the united Church and keeps factions away from it; he is called the shepherd because he is bound to unite the sheep of Christ in his own person. Therefore the unity of the Church is the end to be attained through the Petrine primacy.

Minor. But the necessity of preserving ecclesiastical unity always urges,⁸ since the Church must always remain one within and without, the one spouse of Christ, the one body of Christ, the one fold, the one house of God — in brief, since the most ardent desire of Christ always urges: "That they may be one."⁹ Indeed, the necessity of preserving unity urges much more in the post-apostolic age than in that apostolic time, when the Church was less widely diffused; when "the multitude of believers had one heart and one soul"¹⁰; when the memory of Christ the Lord, still living, remained fixed in minds; when finally the individual apostles, by their authority and personal infallibility, more easily held the Church throughout the world in unity.¹¹

Conclusion. Therefore, even after the death of the prince of the apostles, the primacy endures — that distinguished means and bond of ecclesiastical unity chosen and instituted by Christ Himself. This indeed the Fathers proclaim with one voice, and among them especially Cyprian in his golden little book "De catholicae ecclesiae unitate".¹² This the council of Ephesus declared.¹³ This the Vatican council again proposed for belief, teaching: "But that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, and that the whole multitude of believers might be preserved in the unity of faith and communion through priests adhering to one another, placing blessed Peter before the other apostles, He instituted in him the perpetual principle of both unities . . . What the Lord Christ, prince of pastors and great shepherd of the sheep, instituted in blessed Peter the apostle for the perpetual salvation and perennial good of the Church, that, by the same author, must endure continuously in the Church, which, founded upon the rock, will stand firm even to the end of the ages . . . If anyone, therefore, shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself or by divine right that blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church . . . let him be anathema."¹⁴