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

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.