On the Divine Institution of The Papacy

Since there are some who go even farther than the former group, maintaining that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were promised by Christ not to Peter but to the Church, when He said, I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; as though He had said, to you, that is, to the Church signified by you, and not to you personally, I must address them as well. They agree with the former in this, that they remove Peter from the Lord's promise and maintain that the keys were not given to any individual man, but were promised as a gift of God. They differ only in this: whereas the former maintain that this gift of God, namely the keys, is found in every just man, or at least in every priest, these latter assert that the keys were given to the gift of God as it exists in the Church, because they contend that Christ addressed Peter not as an individual but insofar as he bore the person of the Church when He said, I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. They endeavor to establish this by many arguments.

First. Their first argument is this. Christ Himself explains to whom He is speaking and to whom He gives the keys, saying: Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. Now if Peter in this passage is not Peter, then neither is he flesh and blood, nor Simon Bar-Jona. Peter is entirely removed from consideration as an individual man and becomes nothing other than the recipient of the Father's revelation, to whom the keys are given. Therefore the keys were given to no private individual, but to the Church alone; for we cannot be certain of any private individual that he possesses this revelation of the Father, whereas concerning the Church no such doubt is possible. Therefore the Church herself is that Peter who hears the revelation and receives the keys.

Second. Their second argument is drawn from what immediately follows. After Christ's glorious commendation of Peter, Peter sought to prevent Him from dying, whereupon Christ rebuked him, saying: Get behind Me, Satan; you do not savor the things that are of God. Thus, because such a rebuke follows immediately upon so great a commendation, it is clear, they say, that the earlier Peter who received the keys was not Peter the son of Bar-Jona, but the Church, the daughter of God, who hears the word of God and perseveringly confesses it to the end, never at one time failing to understand the things of God nor ever being commanded to go behind Christ as Peter was.

Third. Their third argument is taken from Christ's words: Upon this rock I will build My Church; that is, upon the faith confessed by Peter in the person of the whole Church. Therefore, wherever in any particular church this rock of faith is found, there also are the keys.

Confirmation. This argument is further strengthened by the fact that Peter himself did not remain steadfast in that same confession; for immediately after receiving the keys he fell into error, and yet the keys were not bestowed upon him a second time. Therefore he received them not in his own person but in that of the Church.

Fourth. Their fourth argument is this. When a pope is elected, does he bring the keys with him, or does he not? If he brings them with him, then he was pope before his election. If he does not, from whom does he receive them? Surely not from an angel descending from heaven. Does he not receive them from the Church? Likewise, when a pope dies, to whom does he leave the keys except to the Church from which he received them? What, then, can be said against this most evident experience, which is the best interpreter of the Gospel, namely that the keys were given neither to Peter nor to his successor but to the Church alone, from whom every priest in every church receives them as a minister?

Fifth. Their fifth argument is modeled upon that employed by Paul in Romans iv and Galatians iv, where he argues that just as righteousness was reckoned to Abraham because of his faith, so it will likewise be reckoned to all who believe. Therefore, in the same way, if the keys were given to Peter because he possessed the Father's revelation and confessed Christ, then they must likewise be given to every man who possesses the same revelation and makes the same confession. But this can belong to no one except the Church, since no individual believer can know with certainty that he possesses this confession steadfastly and perseveringly, as Peter himself demonstrates.

Sixth. Their sixth argument is that, as Augustine testifies in Book I of On Christian Doctrine, chapter seventeen, Christ gave these keys not only to Peter but to His Church, so that whatever she should loose upon earth would be loosed also in heaven. Likewise Augustine says in his Tractates on John that the Apostle Peter, because of the primacy of his apostleship, bore in a representative manner the person of the Church. Therefore he received the keys not in his own person but in the person of the Church.

This is confirmed even more strongly by Augustine's own words in the same place, where he says: As regards Peter himself personally, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, and by a more abundant grace one and the same chief Apostle. But when it was said to him, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven," he represented the whole Church.

First confirmation. The same doctrine is confirmed by the words of Augustine on Psalm 108: Certain things are said which seem to pertain to the Apostle Peter, yet they admit of no clear understanding unless they are referred to the Church, whose person he is recognized to have borne figuratively because of the primacy which he held among the disciples; such as, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." In like manner Judas represents the person of Christ's enemies.

From these words it appears, they argue, that Peter received the keys not in his own person but in the representative person of the Church, since Augustine says that the passage has no clear meaning unless it is referred to the Church. Moreover, after speaking of Peter's personal characteristics, Augustine immediately adds by way of contrast: But when it was said to him, "I will give you," he represented the Church.

Second confirmation. This is further confirmed by the Evangelist's account. When Christ asked whom men said that the Son of Man was, none of the disciples gave a definite answer, but merely repeated the various opinions that were circulating. Yet when He asked them concerning Himself, Peter alone answered decisively and with firm conviction, declaring the confession of faith, thereby teaching that the true knowledge of Christ must be confessed with unity and firmness, and not tossed about like a reed by the varying opinions of many. Therefore Peter represents the unity of the Church.

Fourth confirmation. To these arguments they add the authority of Cyprian, cited in Distinction XXIV, question I, who speaks as follows: Although after His resurrection Christ bestowed equal authority upon all the Apostles, nevertheless, in order to manifest unity, He established by His own authority the source of that unity as beginning from one. Certainly the other Apostles were what Peter was, endowed with an equal fellowship of honor and authority; yet the beginning proceeds from unity, so that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one. Hence, they conclude, it was not one man but unity that received the keys, as is likewise attested by the chapters Omnibus and Quodcumque, in Distinction XXIV, question I, from Jerome and Augustine.

To clarify these matters, it must first be observed that the Fathers say one thing, namely, that Peter signified the Church when he received the keys. From this, however, two conclusions may be drawn. The first is that the Church received the keys when Peter received them. The second is that Peter himself did not receive the keys in his own person. Error may therefore arise in two ways: either by denying the former, or by affirming the latter. To deny that Peter signified the Church is to contradict the interpretation of the Fathers. But to affirm that the Church received the keys in such a way that Peter himself did not receive them is an error more than heretical, for by this the Gospel narrative itself is denied, and history is turned into allegory. Indeed, I have understated the case: for by the same reasoning every historical narrative, even that of the Old Testament, would be transformed into allegory.

Let me explain each point. If the keys were promised not to Peter in his own person, but only to the Church represented by him when Christ said, I will give you the keys, then Peter is introduced merely as an allegorical figure, and what is narrated is no longer history but parable when Scripture says: Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi and questioned His disciples, together with all that follows. By the same license through which this history is converted into allegory, every other history, not only of the New Testament but also of the Old, may likewise be turned into allegory. For it is written: All these things happened to them as figures. If Peter is made into a merely figurative person because he bore the figure of the Church, then Martha and Mary, who represented the active and contemplative life, must likewise become allegorical figures. The three resurrections performed by Christ must also become allegories, since they signify the three kinds of sinners rising spiritually from death. Indeed, even the death and resurrection of Christ would become allegories, since the former signifies our death to sin and the latter our newness of life. In short, the entire credibility of sacred history collapses under such a principle.

The true and approved doctrine, however, is that something may signify in two different ways. One is by way of parable, as the prodigal son signifies the sinner, and the laborers hired for the vineyard signify those who labor in the Church of Christ, and likewise in other such examples. The other is by way of an event that truly occurred, such that the historical event itself signifies another reality; thus the passage of the Hebrews through the Red Sea signifies our passage from vice to virtue, and the coming of the Magi to adore Christ signifies the pilgrimage of travelers toward the heavenly homeland.

The difference between these two kinds of signification, so far as our present subject is concerned, is this: in parabolic signification there is no concern for the persons who appear in the narrative considered in themselves, since they are introduced solely for the sake of signifying something else, just as poets do in comedies and tragedies. But when an actual event signifies another reality, one must first establish with the greatest care the historical event itself and the persons involved according to their own proper reality, for this constitutes the literal sense. From this alone, according to Dionysius and Augustine, may valid theological argument be drawn.

Therefore, in historical passages we must first establish the truth of the events and of what is said concerning the persons according to the truth of the faith. Only afterwards may the spiritual sense be added, whereby the historical event signifies another reality and the historical person represents something else. This spiritual sense serves for the edification of Christ's faithful, not for proving doctrines of faith that are matters of controversy.

Accordingly, one must first preserve the historical sense intact and not transform the person of Peter into an allegorical figure when the historical truth of the Gospel is at issue and the literal sense is being investigated: namely, that Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, questioned His disciples first in one way and then in another, heard first the answers of the disciples and then that of Peter, replied to Peter, and promised him the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Once the truth of the literal sense has been established, namely that these words and promises were addressed to Peter himself, it is then permissible to add the mystical sense, according to which Peter represents the Church. The same is evident in similar cases, such as the active life signified by Martha, to whom it was said, You are anxious and troubled about many things, and the contemplative life signified by Mary, of whom it was said, She has chosen the better part, which shall not be taken away from her, and so also in other examples. It is therefore true that the keys were promised to Peter in the person of the Church, provided this is understood in such a way that they were first and literally promised to Peter himself. The former belongs to the mystical sense; the latter to the literal sense.

Reply to the first objection. In reply to the first objection, it is clear from what has already been said that the Lord's words, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father, pertain not to Peter's primacy but to his confession and to the fruit of that confession. Accordingly, in their literal sense they are altogether irrelevant to the present question. To transfer these personal characteristics of Peter to the Church by means of a mystical interpretation may indeed be tolerated. What cannot be tolerated is that the mystical sense should exclude the literal, that Peter should exclude himself, that the hearer should exclude the one who heard, and that Simon, the son of John, should be transformed into an allegorical person.

Reply to the second objection. The second objection likewise rests upon a false interpretation of the reason why Peter, after receiving so great a commendation, was nevertheless rebuked. According to the plain literal sense, Peter himself is first praised because of the divine gift he had received, and afterward rebuked because of his own human judgment. According to the historical truth, both the praise and the rebuke belong to Peter himself, for both are personal. The mystical sense is different. There, whatever in Peter proceeds from merely human judgment and affection is rebuked, while everyone who follows the divine revelation is commended in Peter.

Reply to the third objection. To the third objection it is answered that by this rock the Lord literally signifies the faith existing in Peter himself, as has already been shown. Therefore it does not follow that the keys were equally given to every particular church in which the faith is found. It is enough that they were given to every member of the faithful in the head of the whole Church, namely upon this rock on which Christ builds His Church.

Reply to the confirmation. To the confirmation it is answered that although Peter erred, he nevertheless did not cease to be the rock. First, because by those words alleged against him, Far be it from You, Lord; this shall never happen to You, Peter lost neither faith nor charity. Hence the Lord did not say to him, Depart from Me, Satan, as He had said to the tempter, but rather qualified the rebuke, saying, Get behind Me, Satan, as though He were saying: You ought to follow Me, not I your inclinations. Secondly, as has already been said, even when Peter afterwards denied Christ, he did not lose the faith, but remained the rock through the faith that persevered in his heart. Therefore, as Theophylact remarks on Luke xxii, Christ afterwards restored him to the apostolic office when He said: Strengthen your brethren.

Reply to the fourth objection. To the fourth objection it is answered that when a pope is elected, he neither brings the keys with him nor receives them from the Church, but from Christ, not by a new bestowal but by that ancient one whereby He bestowed them upon Peter. The Church, by the ministry of election, designates the person who is to succeed Peter; Christ Himself, however, bestowed the keys upon every successor in blessed Peter. Consequently the question from whom he receives them, or to whom he leaves them when he dies, is pointless. For the ever-living word of Christ bestows the keys upon each successor, and one pope does not leave them to another.

Reply to the fifth objection. To the fifth objection it is answered that although the argument is similar in form, it differs in matter and therefore does not hold. Righteousness and faith are goods of the soul ordered to the benefit of the believer and the righteous man himself. The keys, however, signify in addition an authority ordered to the government of others. Therefore, although faith is reckoned for righteousness to every believer who imitates Abraham, just as it was to Abraham, it does not follow that the keys, that is, the authority to open and shut for others, must likewise be given to every believer who confesses Christ, or even to everyone who imitates Peter in faith, any more than everyone who imitates Abraham's faith is thereby made the father of many nations, in whose seed all nations should be blessed, although those promises were given to Abraham because of his faith.

As for what is added, namely that no one except the Church can possess Peter's confession with steadfast certainty and perseverance, if this is understood of the persons themselves, the Apostle Paul refutes it in Romans viii when he says: Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress? and afterwards adds: For I am certain..., speaking literally of the elect. But if the objection concerns not the reality itself but our knowledge of it, because we do not know who will persevere, the answer is easy. God, who orders all things sweetly, requires from man no greater certainty than that which belongs to faith and to ordinary human judgment, whereby men are known from their fruits.

Reply to the sixth objection. To the sixth objection it is answered that it is true both that the keys were given to the Church, and that Peter bore the person of the Church in figure, and that the unity of Peter signified the unity of the Church. The arguments fail, however, because from these truths they attempt to infer another truth which does not follow. None of these truths is contrary to the further truth that Peter received the keys in his own person. All these propositions are simultaneously true. The first and the last, as will appear in Chapter VI, belong to the truth of the literal sense, for according to the letter Peter received the keys in his own person in such a way that the Church also received those same keys. The remaining propositions belong to the truth of the mystical sense; for according to the spiritual sense the one Peter signifies the unity of the Church, and beyond this represents the Church itself.

Reply to the confirmation. Accordingly, the passages from Cyprian, Jerome, and Augustine that have been cited are entirely true, but according to the mystical sense. They do not, however, oppose the literal sense, according to which, as the Gospel history testifies, Peter himself, to whom the revelation was made, answered Christ and received the promise of the keys.

Clarification of Augustine's words. For a clearer understanding of Augustine's words, it must be observed that he compares the two senses of the Gospel: the literal sense, according to which to you means to Peter I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and the mystical sense, according to which to you means to the Church signified by you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. He compares them not as true and false, but as more or less clear. For it belongs to the mystical sense that Peter bears the person of the Church in figure, just as it belongs to the mystical sense that Judas bears the person of Christ's enemies. According to the literal sense, however, Judas himself was Christ's enemy, and Peter himself was the one to whom the keys were promised.

Hence Augustine, because in the present passage the mystical sense is clearer than the literal, as is evident from the many questions that arise concerning the literal sense, and because the mystical sense is so manifest that even ordinary Christians know that the keys belong to the Church, compares the literal sense, according to which the keys were promised to Peter personally as the future shepherd of the whole Church, with the mystical sense, according to which the keys were promised to Peter as representing the Church. Thus he says that the mystical sense is the clearer one. This is precisely what his words mean: they admit of no clear understanding unless they are referred to the Church, whose person he bore in figure. He denies not the true understanding, but only the clear understanding, unless the passage is referred to the Church; for it is obvious that clear pertains to clarity rather than to truth.

That this is Augustine's intention is evident from the context. For in explaining the Psalm O God, keep not silence at my praise, which he interprets partly of Judas and partly of the Jewish people, the enemies of Christ, he first says: If all these things are understood of such a class of wicked men, namely the ungrateful Jews who were the enemies of Christ, they seem to me to be explained more clearly. Immediately afterward he adds the words already cited. From this anyone may plainly see that nothing is taken away from the truth of the literal sense, according to which the keys were promised to Peter personally, merely because that sense is not as clear as the mystical one. Nor is this passage unique in that respect; Sacred Scripture contains countless others whose most illuminating meaning is the mystical one.

Likewise, Augustine's words on John do not deny that the words I will give you the keys were spoken to Peter in his own person. Rather, they affirm that they were spoken to Peter as representing the Church. But from this true affirmation it by no means follows that the other truth must be denied.

As for the force attributed to the adversative conjunction, the answer is that the conjunction there is not adversative but augmentative, according to the very common manner of speaking by which we say that someone is not merely a good man, but also a good citizen in virtue of his office, and similarly in other cases.

Augustine, having enumerated certain personal characteristics of Peter, enlarges Peter's dignity by extending it figuratively to the whole Church. This figurative extension is entirely compatible with the fact that Peter himself, by virtue of his pastoral office, extends to the whole Church in his own proper person. Augustine does not explicitly explain this here, because in that passage he is treating Peter and John mystically, Peter representing the active life and John the contemplative.

Therefore, when it is concluded that it was not one man but unity that received the keys, the statement is true insofar as it affirms that unity received the keys, just as it is true to say that the Church received the keys. But insofar as it denies that Peter himself received the keys, it is either false or requires a pious interpretation. For if not one is intended to deny that Peter received them, the statement is false and contrary to the Gospel narrative. But if not one is intended to deny that Peter received them merely for himself alone, that is, as though he had received the keys only to take them with him to the grave, then the statement is true. In that sense, Peter did not receive the keys merely as an individual, but the unity of the Church, destined to endure until the end of the age, received the keys in that one man.

Nevertheless, nowhere in the passages cited do we find the explicit denial, One man did not receive the keys. From what has already been said, similar objections may readily be resolved, and therefore I shall not burden the discussion by rehearsing every possible argument. The remaining passages cited from Cyprian concerning the equality of the Apostles will be explained in their proper place below.