On the Divine Institution of The Papacy

Not lacking are those who dogmatize that pontifical power is not conferred on a man immediately, but by means of the gift of virtue, such that, the gift of virtue perishing through the loss of virtue, the pontifical power must simultaneously perish, as though virtue were a kind of glue joining the pontificate to the man. Whence it follows that, in the judgment of these men, the keys were conferred not on the person of Peter, but, by virtue of his gift, on some individual minister — say, a priest, or whoever happens to be just.

They argue this from the text of this Gospel in many ways. First, because before all else the Lord affirms Peter's beatitude, saying blessed are you, doubtless in the hope of true faith: for he would not have begun Simon's beatitude unless this beatitude were oriented toward the subsequent pontificate; for nothing that Christ said ought to be irrelevant.

Second, from the fact that the Lord adds Simon Bar-Jona: that is, son of a dove, as Jerome explains. For why is Peter, about to receive the pontificate, first named son of a dove? Unless either his simplicity is signified by the dove (according to that word: be prudent as serpents, and simple as doves), or the Holy Spirit (who is designated by the dove, since he appeared in the form of a dove at Christ's baptism) pertained to the ecclesiastical principate.

Third, from the reason added: because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. For it is shown that he who is set over others in the instruction of the Christian faith was instructed not by flesh and blood, but by divine revelation.

Fourth, from the fact that the Lord added: you are Peter; and did not say you are called Peter (as the Gloss notes there), on account of the strength of faith and the constancy of confession. For this, together with all that precedes, pertains to the gifts of the virtues, which — as has been said — either were premised irrelevantly, or are fitting means toward the principate then subsequently promised.

Fifth. Whence, fifthly, he argues from the first promise added: Upon this rock I will build my church. For since this is the first promise made to Peter (since, as Cyprian, Jerome, and Augustine explain, by this rock Peter himself is shown: for Jerome says on Matthew: I will build my church upon you; and Augustine in the book of the Retractations reports that he himself said that the church was built upon the Apostle Peter as upon a rock, nor does he retract this opinion. Cyprian too, in the passage cited above, says: The Lord speaks to Peter: I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; upon one he builds the church, etc.),

Since, I say, this is the first promise made to Peter, this promise pertained to the person of Peter not immediately, but by means of the gift of firmness and solidity (as the Lord's own words attest, since he does not say upon you, but upon this rock I will build my church), it follows that the subsequent promises too are to be understood as made to the person of Simon insofar as he was Peter and son of a dove and blessed, etc.

And this is confirmed: because this promise is not only the first, but the principal one: for the chief gift conferred on Peter is to be the foundation of the church. From the fact that this promise is first and principal, it follows that the other, consequent promises follow the nature of the principal one; and by this no promise is made to the human person except by means of the gift of virtue — which was the thing to be shown.

It is not difficult for the Catholic doctor to show that this opinion is false, by leading it to condemned absurdities. For this dogma is nothing other than the heresy of those who say that ecclesiastical power is not found in wicked ministers; and that the keys of the church are held only in the just, and by all the just; and that the church consists only of the just — all of which is known to have been rejected and condemned.

But lest the heretics complain that they are oppressed by the authority of prelates and not by the Gospel, an account of Catholic doctrine must be rendered from the very text of the Gospel itself.

For the sake of this clarity, note that there are two parts in this discourse of the Lord to Peter: of which the first, according to the plain context and sense of the Gospel, pertains to the confession which Peter had made; for it contains nothing other than the agent, the fruit or reward, of the revealed confession; and the person, or condition of the person, to whom the revelation was made. By saying Blessed are you he pronounces the fruit or reward; by saying Simon Bar-Jona, he touches on the person literally, or mystically the condition of the person — namely, simplicity or spirituality; and by saying because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father, he shows the agent of the revelation: the whole first part of the discourse, then, pertains to the revealed confession, and not to the future principate.

That you may understand this more fully, consider each point. Simon is rightly called blessed on account of the revelation he received: since, if according to philosophy he is blessed in this life who arrives at the knowledge of the highest substances; if according to evangelical truth the blessedness of the wayfarer consists in the hope of true faith (according to that word: blessed are they who have not seen and have believed), far more was Simon blessed than if he had arrived at the knowledge of the mystery of the Trinity by other means — not relying on a revelation made to others (as happens to us), but on a revelation made interiorly to himself.

That Peter arrived at this knowledge is attested both by Peter's own words and by the Lord: for Peter confessed: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God; Nathanael had once confessed: You are the Son of God, John 1; those who were in the boat had confessed: Truly you are the Son of God, Matthew 14; and Peter himself, in the person of all, had confessed: And we have believed and have known that you are the Christ, John 6.

Now, however, the Lord attached the reward of beatitude only now: because now the confession had been made that he was the natural Son of God; as Peter made clear, by adding that adjective living. For this can be understood in two ways.

First, as an adjective determining its substantive absolutely: as though it were said of the true God, or of the almighty God. And thus it would be joined to Peter's confession only incidentally, for greater emphasis of the true God, as distinct from gods of stone or dead gods, such as Saturn, Jupiter, and the rest.

In another way, as determining its substantive, namely God, in relation to the son whose father is being declared, when it is said Son of the living God; and thus it is applied to Peter's confession per se and essentially, and constitutes Peter's confession as being per se, essentially, and formally true, and of the highest sense. For by this is signified most fully and formally the manner in which Christ is the Son of God — namely, that he is the natural Son of God.

And lest the height of this sense remain obscured, what we say is made clear from the different sonship that belongs to us and to Christ: for it belongs both to Christ and to us that we are sons of God (according to what is written of us, John 1: He gave them power to become sons of God), but we are sons of God because he wills it; according to that word of James 1: For of his own will he begot us by the word of truth; Christ, however, is the Son of God not because God wills it, but because he is.

For the reason why God begot us as sons is his will, by which he chose us; but the reason why God begot Christ is his essence, by which he begot the only-begotten God, by which he himself is also God.

This is signified, calling to the citadel of theology's handmaids (since, for the living, to live is to be, as is said in the second book On the Soul), by the phrase the living God: for from the fact that for the living, to live is to be, it is the same thing to be Son of the living God insofar as he lives, and Son of God insofar as he is.

Peter, however, mentions not the essence of God, nor the nature of God, but the life of God: since for whatever is a son, it belongs to it to beget a son not by the reason by which it is, nor by the reason by which it is a natural thing, but by the reason by which it lives.

If you wish to perceive this more deeply, join these together, namely Son of the living God: for since it is agreed, on the one hand, that "son" signifies one begotten such as his parent is, and on the other hand that the parent is signified as the living God, if the philosophical tradition is taken into account — namely, that it is the most natural work of all living things to make something like themselves, as is held in Book II On the Soul — you will clearly see that by saying Son of the living God the natural Son of God is signified: for from the fact that Son of God is stated, he is said to be begotten by God; and from the fact that Son of God is stated insofar as he is living, through the most natural work of a living thing, insofar as it is living, he is signified as begotten.

Most acutely, then, and most formally, Peter's confession manifests Christ not as the adoptive Son of God, but as the natural Son of God, by saying Christ, Son of the living God.

And if we strive to look yet more deeply, we shall perceive that in this response are enclosed not only two persons of the Trinity, namely the Son and the Father, and the reason and manner of generation — namely, that the one is the natural Father and the other the natural Son (as has been declared) — but also the consubstantiality, coeternity, and coequality of both: for from the fact that the natural Son is such as the Father is, and Christ is called Son of the living God, it is also signified that he himself is the living God; and since there are not many gods, it is co-signified that he is one God with the Father, and by this consubstantial, coeternal, and coequal.

Nor is the person of the Holy Spirit omitted: for Christ means "anointed by the Holy Spirit," as Peter himself declared, Acts 10.

Whence it follows that by this confession Peter taught the mystery of the divine Trinity and generation no less than John did by saying: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, etc. Indeed, although John penetrated more spiritually, reaching the immaterial and intelligible level, Peter nevertheless signified more clearly the persons by the proper names of the Son and, through him, of the Father, and the natural generation together with the reason for generating, saying: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God; and therefore he is rightly declared blessed by the Savior of the world.

You will find that Origen, Chrysostom, and Hilary have all tended toward this lofty sense of this confession. The Church too attests to this lofty sense of this confession, repeating it with daily veneration at the first hour of the day: Christ, Son of the living God, etc.

Rightly, too, Bar-Jona pertains to the same revelation: for it can be understood in two ways, as Jerome says: either reading Bar-Jona, that is, son of Jonah (for bar means the same as "son"); or that, by a scribal error, the middle syllable was dropped, when it should be read Bar-Ioanna, that is, son of John.

Simon is believed by many to be the son of John; but according to the truth he was the son of Jonah, as is clear from John 1: Simon, son of Jonah, you shall be called Cephas; although the Latin manuscripts have been corrupted by scribal error.

There is, then, a first sense, though mystical: you are the son of Jonah, that is, of the dove; and a second, literal sense: you are the son of Jonah or of John. Both senses, however, favor the proposed point: for if he is expounded as son of the dove, it indicates the simplicity and spirituality of Peter's own person as fit to receive revelation: for simplicity and spirituality most prepare one to receive divine revelation: for the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee the deceitful (as is said in Wisdom 1), and the sensual man does not perceive the things that are of the Spirit of God, 1 Corinthians 2.

But if he is understood as son of Jonah or of John, this pertains greatly to the confirmation of the confessed truth: for it belongs to this, that the Lord for this reason recalls the natural father not of himself, but of Simon: so that by adding because flesh and blood has not revealed this, but my Father, from this very fact — that he sets his own father and the natural father of Simon side by side — it is as though he said: Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah or of John, because it was not your father according to flesh and blood who revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven: from this very thing, I say, we are taught that each should understand that the Father who is in heaven is naturally my Father just as Jonah is naturally your father.

And Chrysostom already noted this, saying: it is pointless to say you are the son of Jonah or of John, unless to show that Christ is naturally the Son of God just as Peter is the son of Jonah: of the same substance as the one who begot him.

It was fitting, moreover, for our Savior to commend Peter's confession, by making known its author and reward and the rest: so that Peter's confession might be held as true; and thus he himself might be believed to be the true and natural Son of God, on the basis of Peter's confession, derived not from flesh and blood, but from the heavenly Father: for unless he had made this clear, we would take Peter's confession as a human word; but now we hold it as a sentence uttered by God.

From all of which it can be clearly seen that up to this point nothing pertaining to Peter's principate has been said.

Thus, then, the first part of the Lord's discourse to Peter concerns his confession, and pertains to the approval of the faith concerning himself, Christ the Son of the living God.

The second part, however, turns to what is promised to Peter: whence it also begins by returning the address to Simon Peter himself: And I say to you: as though he said (as Jerome noted): you have said to me: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God; and I say to you: You are Peter, etc.

Here note that there are made to Peter not only diverse promises, but promises not of one but of diverse kinds: for the first promise regards the construction of the church: I will build my church; the second, however, regards authority: I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall loose, etc.

The former regards the substance of the church, the latter its office: and they differ from each other as much as substance differs from office.

And although in the first promise a threefold understanding is found, expounding by this rock as either Christ, or Peter, or Peter's confession, as Chrysostom expounds; nevertheless, if we look more closely, there is one literal sense, namely, that by this rock Peter is shown. For Augustine, in the first book of the Retractations, chapter 21, leaves it to the reader's judgment which of the two opinions is more probable — whether Peter or Christ is shown by this rock.

Whence, relying on this freedom, we say, from the very text of the Gospel, that by this rock Peter is shown: as is clear from the fact that the Lord said: Upon this rock I will build. For if he were showing himself, he would not have said I will build, but I build: since at that time he was truly building upon himself, by making Peter out of Simon; but he did not then begin to build upon Peter, but after the resurrection. And therefore he said in the future tense: I will build: as though he openly said: you, whom I now make Peter, I will afterward make the foundation of my church.

And this sense is confirmed: because otherwise he would have prefaced You are Peter irrelevantly; whereas the Gospel implies that this was said to Peter for a very great reason; since the Lord, as though returning the address to Peter (as has been said), said: You are Peter. What great thing, then, would it mean to be Peter, or to what purpose You are Peter, unless it were subsequently shown: and upon this rock I will build my church?

Whence Jerome, expounding this passage, says: And according to the metaphor of the rock, it is rightly said to him: I will build my church upon you.

Chrysostom's exposition concerning Peter's confession comes to the same thing: since the confession of faith comes to the same thing as the solidity or firmness of faith which Peter denotes. For it does not differ from it except as act differs from habit. And again it is agreed that the church has for its foundation faith rather than the confession of faith.

Whence it remains that, literally, by this rock Peter is shown.

Speaking more exactly, he says this rock, that is: in you, the rock, in you, the solidity of faith, in you, Christ believed, in you, Christ confessed: so as to embrace all the expositions of the saints. For each is indeed true, but explains only a part of the truth, expounding faith or the confession of faith, or Peter, or Christ.

When, however, both are joined together, so that both the person of Peter and that of Christ or of faith are shown to be signified together, the whole truth, the whole sense of the letter is had, which says not upon a rock, but upon this rock.

For the metaphorical rock is individuated, and becomes this because it is in this demonstrated subject: just as anything else existing in Peter is individuated and becomes this because it is in the person of Peter himself.

This whole literal sense, then, having been disclosed and admitted, and opening it further, know from the Gospel that all the promises made to Peter agree in this: that they are all made to the one single person of Simon himself, who is called Peter — to whom it was said: You are Peter. And it is shown that this is so, first concerning the first promise, and then concerning the second.

In the first promise, consider three things: first, you; second, are Peter; third, upon this rock. By the pronoun you is shown that person to whom Christ was speaking — the person, I say, not some quality; for it is agreed that the pronoun you denotes substance without quality, even among grammarians.

Again, by the pronoun you a single person is shown, as is clear. From the joining, moreover, of that which is being Peter to that you, when it is said You are Peter, it is openly signified that the Lord affirms that single person to be Peter: and because by this rock he shows that same rock which he was then showing by the demonstrative pronoun, You are Peter.

Most significantly, that article this expresses that the same rock is being shown of which there was then discourse, which was shown both by the pronoun you and by you are Peter; and this all the more clearly, since no other rock is found shown or named in the Gospel at that point.

To be the future foundation of Christ's church, then, is joined to this Rock; and since this is joined to the person shown by the pronoun you, one must understand that being the foundation of Christ's church is promised to the single person demonstrated by you, to whom it was then given that he should be Peter.

And that you might note this all the more, the Lord began: And I say to you; not to your beatitude, not to the son of the dove, not to the son of revelation, but to you.

Concerning the second promise, moreover, it is most clearly evident, because the demonstrative pronoun of substance is expressed, saying: And to you I will give the keys.

These things must indeed be noted very carefully, since by this the fabrications of heretics and schismatics, holy in appearance but poisonous in reality, are refuted: for they say that the church is founded upon the rock, that is, upon the firmness of faith.

They speak the truth, but incompletely: for the Lord indeed said upon the rock; but he did not say this alone, but added the article this, saying: upon this rock — which, without doubt, he was then showing by saying: You are Peter. For if he were going to build upon the solidity of faith absolutely, he would not have particularized that solidity to that person.

But the schismatics strive, through these fabrications, to remove from Christ's church the unity of the personal foundation.

The Lord, however, forestalling all these, directed his discourse to Simon Peter under the pronoun, beginning: And I say to you; and adding: You are Peter: you, not your beatitude or anything of that kind; you, not you [plural]: so that the unity of the church's foundation, and likewise a personal unity, might be understood as affirmed by Christ; when it is said: You are Peter, it is you alone who will afterward be the foundation, when upon this rock, that is, Peter, I will build my church.

A twofold difference, moreover, is to be noted between these promises.

The first is that being the foundation of the church is not promised to the person of Peter absolutely, but insofar as he is Peter or rock; whereas the keys of the kingdom of heaven are promised to the person of Peter absolutely.

And you have this difference from the Gospel: since of the first it is said: And upon this rock I will build my church; and he did not say: Upon you I will build my church: for by this rock he showed the whole of what he had said, You are Peter; for rock refers back to that word Peter, and the article this refers back to the pronoun you: as though he said: You are Peter, and upon you, Peter, I will build my church.

Concerning the keys of the kingdom of heaven, however, it is not said: And to you, Peter, nor to this rock; but simply and absolutely: To you I will give the keys: showing by this word to you that he was promising the keys to the person, not to the quality signified by rock.

To the qualified person, then, it was promised that he would be the foundation of Christ's church; but to the bare person the keys of the kingdom of heaven were promised.

The other difference is this: that in the first promise, the office of sustaining the church is promised to Peter, with Christ, not Peter, as its author: for he did not say: And upon this rock you will build my church; but he said: Upon this rock I will build my church: as though he said: You will sustain [it], as a rock, while I build my church upon you, the rock.

In the promise of the keys, however, the office of opening and closing was not reserved by the Lord to himself, but he promised that he would give the keys: so that the one to whom they are given might act, opening or closing the kingdom of heaven.

These differences are established from the plain sense of the Gospel. From which it is clearly gathered that there is a difference between Peter's office as regards the power of using the keys and of loosing and binding, and his office as regards sustaining the church in faith: since the office of the keys is entrusted to the man; whereas the office of sustaining the church in faith is said to pertain to Christ as author, to the Rock as the ground of sustaining, and to the man Peter as the foundation and the underlying subject.

These things must indeed be contemplated more carefully, so that we may know how to render an account, to those who ask it of us, of the faith that is in us: for from these considerations it is easy to see that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were not given to the holiness or justice of the man; but were promised to the man as the future shepherd of Christ's sheep.

Now if someone should object against this exact exposition of the Gospel's words, on the ground that Peter was not, from that time, Peter in fact and in name — since he did not persevere solid and firm in faith, for he denied the Lord three times afterward — and that on this account the Lord's words sounding at the beginning, You are Peter, are not to be understood so exactly:

Let him who so objects note that he is mistaken, confusing the firmness of faith with the firmness of charity.

Peter, indeed, was made firm in faith from that time, Christ saying: You are Peter: as Jerome attests in expounding: And I say to you, not with empty speech having no effect, but I say to you, because my having said it is my having done it: that you are Peter.

Nor did he fail, in denying the Lord, in the faith which is in the heart, although he failed in the confession of faith: for the distinction between these was made manifest by the Apostle Paul, Romans 10: With the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

The Lord indeed attests that Peter did not fail in faith, Luke 22, saying: I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail: for it is agreed that Christ was heard in all things on account of his reverence, as is said in Hebrews chapter 5.

That he himself failed in charity, however, and manifested a false oath, is attested by the Lord in adding: And you, once converted, confirm your brethren: for he was turned away from the charity of Christ, not from faith.

Peter, therefore, always persevered.

To the first three objections.

These things having been premised, it must be said, regarding the objections to the contrary. And concerning the first three there is no need to dwell, since it has already been shown that they are irrelevant: for everything alleged in them pertains to Peter's confession.

To the other objections.

To the other objections, however, drawn from those words You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, it is said that these indeed pertain to the pontifical rank, not according to the office of the keys, but according to the office of the foundation. And it was on purpose that the Lord said, not you will be called Peter, but you are Peter: so as to affirm that you are Peter in fact and in name; that is, you are solid, firm, constant, etc., in faith, as a rock — as Leo, Gregory, and Bede explain.

Nor can anything else be inferred from this than that it belongs to him alone who has faith to be the foundation for sustaining the church in faith — which we readily grant; for from this it does not follow that being the foundation belongs to Peter by means of charity or justice, but by means of faith.

And again, from this it does not follow that being the foundation was promised to faith simply and absolutely, and thereby promised to whoever should be found to have faith; since Christ did not say upon a rock, but particularized it to the person, adding to it this, saying upon this rock: for without doubt the rock then shown by the preceding words You are Peter is being repeated, so that he who is now Peter should be the future foundation.

Wherefore it is clearly evident that, just as Simon alone was shown by saying You are Peter, so he alone is likewise repeated in saying and upon this rock I will build my church. No promise, therefore, was made to the gift of virtue absolutely; but only the first of these — namely, the building of the church — was made to the gift of faith, not in just anyone, but in the person of the future shepherd of Christ's sheep.

To the confirmation.

To the confirmation, moreover, which infers that the judgment concerning the office of the keys and the office of the foundation is alike, it is answered that from the differences in the Lord's words it has been clearly shown that the judgment concerning the two is not alike. And although the accessory follows the nature of the principal, other things being equal; yet where (as in the present case) there is the greatest disparity in other respects, the secondary need not be made to resemble the principal.

The greatest disparity, moreover, is shown in this: that in the office of the foundation, the man holds himself as it were wholly passively, Christ saying: I will build upon you, Peter; whereas in the office of the keys he did not say: I will open or close, but absolutely: to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. It is not, therefore, surprising if the office of the foundation was promised in one way, and the office of the keys in another: the former by means of the firmness of faith, the latter to the man absolutely.

This kind of difference, instituted by Christ, is moreover consonant even with human reason: for the use of the keys, whether it be right use or abuse, does not redound to the universal church; whereas the office of sustaining the faith, were it to go astray, the universal church would collapse — of which, however, the Lord says: the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The keys of the kingdom of heaven, therefore, were promised not to the gift of virtue (as the heretics imagine), but to the person of Simon Peter, the future shepherd of the sheep and lambs of Christ.