On the Divine Institution of The Papacy

Peter's pontificate of the catholic Church having been established, it is necessary to treat of his successor. And that the difference between catholics and schismatics may be clearly understood, it must first be noted in what we agree and in what we disagree: for we agree in confessing that Peter, the prince of the apostles, and the rest, was the Roman pontiff, just as the apostle James was the pontiff of Jerusalem; and that therefore any Roman bishop whatever is the successor of Peter in the pontificate of the Roman church, just as any bishop of Jerusalem whatever is the successor of James in the pontificate of the church of Jerusalem. We likewise agree in affirming that the bishop of Jerusalem does not succeed James except in the episcopate of the church of Jerusalem: for he does not succeed James in the authority of the apostolate. But we disagree immediately, when they attempt to infer that the Roman pontiff does not succeed Peter except in the episcopate of the Roman church: for we catholics confess that the Roman pontiff succeeds Peter not only in the episcopate of the Roman church, but also in the pontificate of the catholic Church. Here, if we examine the matter carefully, we shall see that two things remain to be treated: namely, whether Peter has, by divine right, a successor in the pontificate of the catholic Church, and whether such a successor is the Roman pontiff. For the schismatics deny that the Roman pontiff is the bishop of the catholic Church, and they utterly deny that it was necessary, by divine institution, that some one person should succeed Peter in the government of the whole Church; and before all else they deny that Peter was instituted by Christ pontiff of the catholic Church. Since, however, we have already shown this pontificate of Peter, it remains that we treat first whether he has any successor, and then whether that successor is the Roman pontiff.

And in accordance with the method laid down, I have judged it right to set forth the arguments by which objection is raised against a single successor of Peter in the pontificate of the catholic Church.

It is argued, then, first from the things conjoined with it. First, if these words of Christ to Peter, I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matth. XVI), and Feed my sheep (Io. ult.), extend to the successor, it is equally fitting that the antecedent, concomitant, and subsequent words spoken to Peter by Christ should also be understood as spoken not to Peter alone but to the successor: but this is clearly false, as appears by going through them one by one. For in Matthew the Lord first says, Thou art Peter, and afterward adds, rebuking Peter, Go behind me, Satan, for thou savourest not the things that are of God; likewise in John it is first said, Lovest thou me more than these? and similar things are interposed together with Peter's answers, and afterward it is added, When thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself, and so on. But none of these regards the successor according to the literal sense: therefore neither are those words, I will give thee and Feed my sheep, said to Peter and the successor according to the letter; but just as the rest are applied mystically to the successors, so also are these.

Second, from similar cases. The words of Christ in Luc. XXII, I have prayed for thee, and so on, are not said to Peter and the successor according to the letter: therefore neither are those words, I will give thee the keys and Feed my sheep, and so on, said to Peter for himself and for the successor. The consequence holds from a like case, especially since this text is brought forward by the sacred doctors for the soundness of Peter's succession in the faith. The antecedent, indeed, is shown from the fact that it is there said, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren: for if these words were said of every successor, it would be necessary that every successor should at some time be, or have been, turned away, so that it might be verified of him too, and thou, being once converted: just as Peter was turned away by denying Christ with perjury, and afterward, being converted, confirmed his brethren.

Third, from other things said by the Lord to this same Peter: for instance, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice (Matth. XXVI), and Go to the sea, and cast a hook, and so on (Matth. XVII): for why are such things expounded as said to the person of Peter alone, so as not to the successor, while those words, I will give thee and Feed, are referred to the successor? For this seems to be done arbitrarily.

Fourth, from things omitted. For nowhere did Christ say that he was speaking in those words to Peter for himself and for the successor, although he ought to have taught this, since it is proposed to the Church as one of the things necessary to be believed; and he himself said, Isa. V, What is there that I ought to do more to my vineyard, that I have not done to it? For if he did all that was owed to the synagogue of the Jews, much more did he do all that was owed to the Christian Church.

Confirmation. And this argument is strengthened by the fact that the Lord says, Matth. ult.: Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. There, because he wished to assure us that he would be with the Church for this whole span of time, by saying Behold I am with you even to the consummation of the world, he made it clear that he was speaking to the disciples for themselves and for their successors. From this, indeed, it is argued that if he had intended to say these things to Peter and the successor, he would have set forth or hinted at the successor, just as he there hinted at the successors of the disciples.

Fifth, from the co-apostles. What reason is there that none of the other apostles should have a successor in the apostolate, and Peter alone should? And again, what reason is there that the successors of the apostles should be, and be called, bishops (who are agreed to be equal, and are therefore also called brothers), while only one bishop should be the successor of Peter over the whole Church? And again, as was touched on above, what reason allows that the bishop of Jerusalem should succeed James in the episcopate of that church and not in the apostolate, while the successor of Peter should succeed him in the apostolate and pontificate of the whole Church? For this seems to have been done by no more than human reason or will, since the authority of Scripture is lacking.

Sixth, argument is then drawn by leading to many absurdities. And first: if the word of Christ refers to Peter alone, then it does not refer to the successor; and again, therefore, the keys came and departed with Peter. And the inferences are proved: because what is said to one alone cannot pertain to many.

Second: because if it is extended to the successor, then by necessary reason it must also extend to the other apostles, since they were then present, whereas the successors of Peter were not yet.

Third: because it would be ridiculous that, when the baptism of all the churches is the same, the eucharist the same, the confirmation the same, the word of God the same, the priesthood the same, the same sacraments of penance, unction, and matrimony, and the rest, the same faith, hope, charity, and grace, the same death, life, and glory — this one temporal power alone should be granted to one successor of Peter through the word of God, which is common to all.

Fourth. If one bishop is by divine right preferred above the rest, then Jerome, in the letter to Evander which is found XCIII. di. ca. Legimus, clearly teaches heresy — not he alone, but Peter, Paul, John, and Luke, whom he brings forward as unimpeachable authorities. For it is plain there that bishops are the same as priests, and that bishops are equal.

Fifth: because the same Jerome, on the epistle to Titus, which is found XCV. di. ca. Olim, says: Therefore as priests know that, by the custom of the Church, they are subject to him who has been set over them, so let bishops know that it is rather by custom than by the truth of the Lord's own appointment that they are greater than priests, and that they ought to rule the Church in common. Therefore it is not by divine right that one bishop, the successor of Peter, is greater than the others.

For the evidence of this matter it must be considered that it is made manifest by a threefold way that these words of Christ, so often repeated, were said to Peter not only for himself but for his successor. The first way proceeds from the very words of the Lord when he said Feed my sheep. For in saying Feed my sheep, he instituted one pastor of his sheep, as the words themselves testify, without need of further proof; and pastor signifies the ordinary ruler of the sheep, as appears both from the very names of pastor and sheep, and from the very notion of feeding. Also because he who ordinarily bears the care of the sheep must be either a hireling or a pastor: but he is not a hireling, since a hireling, when he sees the wolf coming, flees, and the sheep are no concern of his, because he is a hireling, as is said in Io. X; it remains, therefore, that he who ordinarily bears the care of the sheep is a pastor. Now it is agreed that the pastor, as an ordinary officer, is not brought to an end by the death of him who exercised the pastoral office, but must endure by succession. And hence it follows that the institution of a pastor is the institution of a perpetual office; and by this, whatever he bestowed on the pastor in the first institution is given to him for every successor as well. Whence, from this very fact that the Lord, in saying Feed my sheep, instituted the pastor of the whole Church, he established the pastoral office of the whole Church from that time and forever; and consequently, what he then gave to Peter, he signified that he was giving, in Peter, to every successor of Peter. Again, in saying Feed my sheep, he showed the perpetuity of the pastor to be understood from another consideration: for he knew that his sheep would endure, and he said even to the consummation of the world, in the one fold of the present misery; and moreover, by this very fact — that he provided one pastor for the sheep that were to endure in one fold even to the consummation of the world, by saying to Peter Feed my sheep — he signified that he was providing one pastor even to the consummation of the world. We have, therefore, in two ways, from the very words of the gospel, that it was instituted by the Lord that every successor of Peter should be pastor of the whole Church in the blessed Peter himself.

The second way proceeds from reasons founded upon sacred Scripture: first, because it is the mark of a foolish mind to suppose that Christ provided a pastor for his sheep for a part of the time only, and that the smallest part, namely, the time Peter lived, and not for the whole and so long a time, even to the consummation of the world, for which his sheep endure. Also because it is reasonable that the universality of time should be understood together with the universality of places; and accordingly, since in saying Feed my sheep he embraced his sheep in every part of the earth, it follows that he embraced the same for whatever future time. Also because Christ, who said to the synagogue, What more ought I to have done to my vineyard, that I have not done?, would have provided insufficiently for the Christian Church, in constituting it one fold without one pastor coeval with the fold, dwelling with the sheep sweetly, that is, sensibly, according to the manner of the sheep themselves, inasmuch as they live not by a spiritual nature alone but by a sensitive one as well — whereas it is written of him, he reacheth from end to end mightily, and ordereth all things sweetly, Sapi. VIII.

The third way, moreover, which is at once the best and the most certain, proceeds from express divine revelation made to his holy Church. For as authorities will be brought forward below, word for word, it is clearly held that the institution of Peter's pontificate over the whole Church, made by Christ, has been understood in this sense by countless saints and by the sacred universal councils. But it is more certain than certain that that is the true sense of Scripture which we hold by the concordant tradition of the saints, with the definition of a universal synod concurring. We confess, therefore, without any hesitation, that every successor of Peter, instituted in the blessed Peter, is pastor of the whole Church.

To the first, then, argument to the contrary, concerning the concomitant words, it is said that the antecedents, concomitants, and subsequents are found to be of two kinds: either pertaining to the pastoral office, or not pertaining to it. And as to those not pertaining to the pastoral office (such as that, Go behind me, Satan, as appears in the very text of the gospel), there is no need to be concerned whether they regard the successor; but as to those that do pertain, it is said that in whatever way they pertain to the pastoral office, in that same way they pertain to the successor. Whence, to come down to particulars: the words set down before in Matth., Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, and so on, do not regard the pontificate, but the confession which Peter had made (as has been declared), nor do they pertain to the successor.

But what is said, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock, and so on, because it necessarily pertains to the pontificate of the whole Church, must pertain to the successor as well; for it is necessary that the successor of Peter be a rock, that is, solid in faith, so that upon this rock Christ may build his Church. The difficulties, however, that concern this matter will be treated in the following chapter.

But what is said in John, Lovest thou me? and Dost thou love me?, in one respect regards the pastoral office, and in another respect does not. For rightness in the pastoral office requires the love of Christ; but the pastoral office itself can both be had and be exercised without the love of Christ; and therefore the love of Christ regards the successor too, as to the rightness of using the pastoral office, but not as to the having or exercising of the pastoral office itself.

And likewise, what is added, When thou wast younger, although it came to an end with Peter as to the fulfillment of the prophecy, yet as to the readiness of pastoral spirit thereby signified — to lay down one's life for the sheep of Christ — and the frequent occurrence of persecutions or death for the sheep of Christ, proper to a good pastor, it pertains to the rightness and fortitude of the successor.

To the second it is said: that those words of the Lord, according to the rule concerning things pertaining or not pertaining to the pastoral office, since it pertains to the pastoral office to confirm the brethren, are understood as said to Peter for himself and for the successor. Whence Theophylact says here: But he said this to Peter, because he might have grown proud on account of the things that had been promised him by Christ. And again: after thou hast denied me, wept, and repented, strengthen the rest, since I have appointed thee prince of the apostles; for this befits thee, who art with me the strength and rock of the Church. Cyril also says here: passing over the rest, he comes to Peter, set before the rest.

Nor is it therefore necessary that every successor of Peter should fall from the charity of Christ: for these words of the Lord signify, not the necessity, but the possibility of a turning away from charity together with the unfailingness of faith, in such a way that, should a turning away occur, he, being converted, should confirm his brethren. The unfailingness of faith, then, obtained in Peter and in his succession, is asserted; the confirming of the brethren is enjoined; a possible turning away is signified; and a conversion is foretold. And this the adverb at some time suggests: for from the fact that a conversion is foretold not always but at some time, it is likewise suggested that a turning away is to occur at some time. For this to be verified it is not necessary that every successor turn away; but it is enough, and more than enough, that some successor at some time turn away from the charity of Christ.

To the third the solution can now be plain: for only those things that were said to Peter pertaining to the pastoral office were said to him, according to the letter, for himself and for the successor; the rest, according to the letter, were said to him alone.

To the fourth (which pressed hardest) the answer is now plain: for Christ himself signified that he was speaking, in Peter, to every one of his successors, by this very fact, that he instituted him pastor of his sheep — both from the side of the pastoral office and from the perpetuity of his sheep, as has been shown above. Whence he made known here, in Peter, his successor no less than he made known, in Matth., in his disciples, their successors: for there he signified the succession from one consideration only, namely, its long duration; but here from two, namely, both from the pastoral office and from the perpetuity of his sheep, as has been shown above.

To the fifth it is said: that the reasoning is not the same for succession in the apostolate and for succession in the pontificate. For "apostle," as the very name attests, signifies one sent by another, or a legate (according to that word of the Apostle, II. ad Cor. V., We are ambassadors for Christ, and ad Ephe. VI., I act as ambassador in this chain); but it is not for legates to claim successors for themselves; rather, the embassy ends with the legate, unless another is sent by the Lord. But "pastor" signifies an ordinary office, to which it belongs to have a successor; and therefore the Church does not have apostles who have succeeded the apostles of Christ in the apostolate, but has bishops succeeding the apostles, not as to the authority of the apostolate, but as to episcopal dignity and authority alike. Whence, if one is to speak formally and most exactly, not even Peter has a successor in the apostolate: both because he held the apostolate in common with the rest of the apostles, and all were equal in the apostolate, and by this the reasoning is equal for all as regards succession in the apostolate; and because experience testifies that the writings of no successor of Peter, however holy, are among the sacred Scriptures — so much so that the epistle of Paul to Philemon, though a mere letter of commendation for one little slave, is reckoned among the sacred Scriptures. Nevertheless, because the successor of Peter, in succeeding him in the pastoral office over the sheep of Christ (which is the pontificate of the world), thereby succeeds in the chief office of the apostolate — which, as St. Thomas says, was to govern the catholic Church: for this was delegated by Christ to all the apostles in common, but was given to Peter singularly in the pastoral office; this the successor of Peter alone inherits, by this very fact, that he succeeds Peter in the pontificate of the catholic Church. Hence, therefore, the see of the successor of Peter alone is called, and is, the apostolic see: as being that in which alone resides the authority of governing the catholic Church (which holds the highest place among the powers delegated to the apostles); hence the successor of Peter is called apostolic, hence his dignity or office is called that of the apostolate, hence his authority is called apostolic authority: as embracing the supreme authority conferred on all the apostles.

Whence the solution is plain to all the questions raised: both why Peter alone among the apostles has a successor in apostolic authority — namely, because he alone was instituted by Christ pastor of his sheep; and how this stands together with the fact that all the bishops succeed the apostles in episcopal dignity and authority, and that all bishops are equal insofar as they are bishops: for this in no way stands in the way of the truth declared. And why the bishop of Jerusalem does not succeed James in apostolic authority, while the Roman bishop succeeds Peter in apostolic authority: namely, because Peter held apostolic authority also as the ordinary pastor instituted by Christ over his whole fold, whereas James held it only as an apostle. And it has been shown that this was ordained not by human reason or will, but by the institution of Christ, true God, when he instituted Peter alone pastor of his sheep, saying Feed my sheep.

To the arguments next brought forward, leading to absurdities, in reply to the first it is said that the inferences are worth nothing. But to the proof (that what is said to one alone cannot pertain to many), the answer is that what is said, in instituting a single officer, can pertain to countless successors: since what is said to him is understood as said to whoever succeeds him; and therefore what was said to Peter, instituted as the first pastor of Christ's sheep, was said to whoever should succeed him in this pastoral office. And the reasoning is the same concerning the promises made to him.

To the second it is likewise said that the inference is worth nothing: nor is there any greater or equal reason that these words should be extended to the other apostles who were present, than to the successor of Peter; since every successor, although he did not then exist in himself, nevertheless existed in Peter himself under the same form of office — in which way it is clear that the other apostles did not exist in Peter, since none of them was, or was to be, under the same form of office.

To the third it is said that it is not ridiculous, but consonant with divine reason, that, of all the churches communicating in the same sacraments and so on, just as there is one fold in number instituted by the Word of God common to all, so there should be one pastor in number of that one fold, instituted by that same Word of God common to all. This, indeed, carefully considered, is not to look after one particular church or person, but to provide for the unity of the fold; and by this, just as the unity of the fold is common to all particular churches, so the unity of the pastor is for the benefit of all the churches. And thus is most excellently fulfilled what the Apostle said, I. ad Cor. III.: All things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollo, or Cephas.

To the fourth it is said at the same time, and to the fifth, that the consequences are worth nothing, as being drawn from things irrelevant to the point at issue. For the things said by Jerome in both places are irrelevant to the point at issue: inasmuch as they are said of bishops and priests insofar as they are bishops and priests; for the equality or identity, by divine right, between bishops and priests, whether it holds or does not hold, has no bearing on the unity of the pastor of the whole Church: for the pastor of the whole Church is not one because a bishop is greater than a priest, but because there is one successor of Peter, whether the priesthood or the episcopate be the highest order in the Church of God. Now the equality, by divine right, of bishops among themselves, insofar as they are bishops, needs no proof, since we assert it; but it is irrelevant to the point at issue: since the pastor of the whole Church is not one because one bishop is more consecrated than another (for all bishops are equal in the order of the episcopate, and the successor of Peter is no more, nor more fully, a bishop than any other bishop, just as he is no more a priest than any other priest); but the pastor of the whole Church is one, and set above the rest of the bishops and priests, because there is one successor of Peter. Whence it is plain from this that, by divine right instituted by Christ, one priest or bishop, the successor of Peter, is preferred above the other bishops and priests, indeed above the whole Church; it does not follow that Jerome, and those brought forward by Jerome — Peter, Paul, John, Luke — teach heresy, as those who argue thus venture to infer; but the prudent reader understands that their sayings are drawn irrelevantly to the point at issue.