Summa summae S. Thomae, Tomus III

This question is a prelude to the question concerning the primacy of the supreme Pontiff. For since the Roman Pontiff is the successor of St. Peter, whatever authority Peter had in the Church, the Roman Pontiff has. Hence what I shall say for the primacy of St. Peter proves the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.

[A threefold primacy is distinguished : of honor, of excellence, and of jurisdiction. The primacy of honor or dignity is that by which someone holds the first place among others, but without any superior preceptive power; e.g., in a deliberative assembly composed of equals, the president exercises this primacy, directing and moderating the discussions, but issuing no command. The primacy of excellence belongs to one who surpasses others by some gift, and only under this respect; in which sense Cicero is called the prince of orators. The primacy of jurisdiction is that by which someone not only holds the first place in an assembly, or excels others by some gift, but is in fact constituted superior to the rest and wields over them preceptive authority. Such is he who has the use of a threefold power, namely legislative, judicial, and coercive [continuat in p. 243]; and such is the primacy bestowed by Christ on blessed Peter, and to be handed on to his successors.

Schismatics and heretics would readily have granted the Roman Pontiff some primacy of honor, or would even admit that he once had the power of jurisdiction, but only by human law, namely granted to him by the Church, which could by equal right take it away. Thus think the Greeks, who were subject to the Roman Pontiff until the time of the patriarch Photius, around the year 887, who invaded the see of Constantinople and was condemned by the Roman Pontiff. He was the first among the Orientals openly to deny the doctrinal authority of the Pope; in practice all heretics and schismatics separated from the Church have done so. In the West Berengarius was the first to deny the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, in the eleventh century, derisively calling the Pope Pompilicus. He had imitators in impiety in Wycliffe, in the fourteenth century, whom Luther and Calvin followed, all maintaining that the Apostles were equals of Peter, whose companion only, and not lord, they would have him be. Indeed Catholics too did not call him lord, but affirmed with certainty that he was superior to the other Apostles. Since the authority of the Roman Pontiff can be nothing other than that which belonged to Peter himself, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, they spare no effort to wrest from Peter his primacy of jurisdiction over the other Apostles. The Jansenists and the followers of Richer and Febronius so limited the primacy that it almost vanished, had their doctrine prevailed. It was also attacked injuriously by the de ecclesiastica potestate declaration of the Gallican Clergy of 19 March 1682, of which below. The present-day schismatics who impudently adorn themselves with the name of Old Catholics attack the primacy more or less theoretically, but in practice, by their pertinacious rebellion, they utterly undermine it.]

I say : Peter, and he alone, is instituted by Christ the visible head of the whole Church : that is, the primacy was conferred by Christ on Peter alone, not only of honor and dignity, but of power and jurisdiction over the Apostles and the universal Church.

[It is of faith, defined by the Vatican synod, constit. Pastor aeternus, cap. 1, on the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter : « We teach and declare, according to the testimony of the Gospel, that the primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised and conferred on blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord. For to one alone, Simon, to whom he had already said, Ioann., I, 42 : Thou shalt be called Cephas, after he had made his confession, Matth., XVI, 16-19, saying : Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God, the Lord addressed solemnly these words : Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. And to Simon Peter alone Jesus conferred, after his resurrection, the jurisdiction of supreme shepherd and ruler over his whole fold, saying, Ioann., XXI, 15-17 : Feed my lambs : feed my sheep. Hence, against so manifest a doctrine of the sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic Church, are plainly set the perverse opinions of those who, perverting the form of government constituted by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter alone, before the other Apostles, whether taken singly or all together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or who affirm that the same primacy was conferred not immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but on the Church, and through the Church on him, as the minister of the Church herself. » If anyone therefore shall say that blessed Peter the Apostle was not constituted by Christ the Lord prince of all the Apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that he received directly and immediately from the same our Lord Jesus Christ only the primacy of honor, but not a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction : let him be anathema.]

Proof. 1° from two passages of Scripture. The first is Matth., [continuat in p. 245]

XVI, 17-19, where Christ, to Peter who confessed before the other Apostles that he was the Son of God, straightway repaying the office and reward of that confession, says to him : Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. In which words, taken in their obvious sense, it is signified that the primacy of jurisdiction over the Church is conferred on Peter under a twofold metaphor, namely of foundation and of keys; for what is the foundation in a building, that is the head in a body, the ruler in a city, the king in a kingdom, the father of the family in a house; and he to whom the keys are handed over is himself instituted king or governor of the city. — I subjoin. Yet these words can fit no one else among the Apostles except Peter. Therefore. — Proof of min. None besides Peter had confessed the divinity of Christ; none besides him could be called Simon Bar-Jona, that is, son of Jona; none besides him was called Cephas, which is interpreted rock, stone or crag. For Christ did not say, as the latin version has it : Thou art Petrus, but, speaking in Syriac : Thou art Cephas, that is, thou art the Rock or Stone, and upon this stone or this rock — where the pronoun hanc clearly indicates the rock mentioned shortly before, as if he said : « Thou art the Rock upon which I will build my Church. » But the latin interpreter rendered it : Thou art Petrus, and not : Thou art Petra, because he followed the greek codex, which has Petros; yet in greek both petros and petra signify stone, and it seemed to the latin interpreter more fitting to attribute to a man the masculine name Petrus than the feminine Petra. Therefore by these words the primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church was granted to Peter alone.

So also nearly all the holy Fathers interpret this passage [continuat in p. 246], especially Augustine, whom the sectaries set against us, namely in Psal. LXIX and serm. 29 de Sanctis¹. The other passage of the Gospel is Ioann., XXI, 15-17, where Christ, what he had promised Peter, in the passage cited from Matth., XVI, on account of the excellent confession of his divinity, confers in fact after the threefold confession of singular love : Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these ?... Feed my lambs... Feed my sheep. It is evident 1° that these words, as before, cannot fit anyone but Peter; for he is designated by his own name and his father's, Simon son of John; three times Christ questions him, so that the threefold confession might answer the threefold denial; questioning him alone, he excludes the others, saying : Lovest thou me more than these; and therefore Peter himself answered in his own name, not in the name of others : Lord, thou knowest that I love thee, since otherwise he could not know whether the others loved him. It is evident 2° that the ruling of the universal Church was entrusted to him. For he does not commit to him these or those sheep or lambs, but indefinitely my sheep, my lambs. Now all the faithful are the sheep of Christ, or lambs : by lambs is signified the people, by sheep the pastors. Hence Bernard., lib. II de Consider., cap. 8 : « To whom, I say, not to bishops only, but even to the Apostles, were all the sheep so absolutely and indistinguishably committed ? If thou lovest me, Peter, feed my sheep. Which ? The peoples of this or that city, region, or particular kingdom ? My sheep, he says. To whom is it not plain that he designated not some, but assigned all ? Nothing is excepted where nothing is distinguished. » And thus the holy Fathers commonly expound this passage, and consequently the conclusion is confirmed by tradition, to which the council of Chalcedon also bears witness, act. 3, where it says of St. Peter : « Who is the rock and foundation of the catholic Church, and the basis of the right faith. »

Proof. 2° by theological reason². Christ instituted in the Church a monarchical regime, in which there exists one supreme prince who administers the sum of affairs with full authority. Therefore he did not institute all the Apostles equally princes and rulers of the whole [continuat in p. 247]

Church, but only one among them. But who is this one, unless Peter, as appears from what has been said ? Nor do the heretics assign another.

The antecedent is proved in several ways. 1° The Church, Daniel, II, 44, is compared to a kingdom; Cantic., VI, 3, to an army in array; I Petr., III, 21, to a ship; Ioann., X, 16, to a sheepfold. Yet all these are governed by one supreme moderator. Therefore.

2° It must be doubted by no one that the regime of the Church is most excellently ordered³ , being disposed by him through whom kings reign and lawgivers decree just things, Prov., VIII, 15. Yet the best regime of a multitude is that it be ruled by one. Therefore. — Proof of min. from the end of the regime, which is peace and unity of subjects. Yet one is a fitter cause of unity and concord than many; because one is per se the cause of unity, while many are so only per accidens, insofar as they are somehow united; for it is evident that many cannot unite and bring into concord unless they themselves first in some way agree and unite. Therefore.

The objections are solved.

You object 1° : From the praised chapter XVI of Matth. nothing can be drawn for the primacy of St. Peter, because by these words : And upon this rock, Peter is not understood, but Christ, as Aug. teaches, tract. ultimo in Ioann., n. 5, saying : « Upon this rock which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. » Therefore.

I answer. Augustine indeed handed down both expositions, and he acknowledges this himself in lib. I Retract., c. 21, n. 1, where he prefers neither to the other but leaves it to the judgment of the reader : « Of these two opinions, he says, let the reader choose which is the more probable, » and he says that ours « is sung by the mouth of many in the verses of most blessed Ambrose; » and since it is far more conformable to the text, as has been proved, and is commonly handed down by the holy Fathers, it is altogether to be preferred.

If you ask why Augustine handed down this other exposition, as here, in several places, [continuat in p. 248]

many answer that it happened through ignorance of the hebrew or syriac language. For the reason which the holy Doctor gives in the cited passage of the Retract. why he referred these words : And upon this rock, to Christ and not to Peter, is because, he says, « it was not said to him (Peter) : Thou art petra, but : Thou art Petrus; now Petra was Christ, » judging that Cephas does not signify rock, but something derived from rock, as if petrine, as stony from stone; and for this reason he judged the latin interpreter to have rendered : Thou art Petrus, and not : Thou art Petra. And because the Church was to be built upon the rock, and not upon something petrine, St. Augustine judged that by that rock Peter was not understood, but Christ, of whom it was said : Petra was Christ. If therefore the holy Doctor had noticed that Cephas signifies nothing other than rock or stone, and that Christ said : Thou art rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church, doubtless he would everywhere have followed our exposition.

You object 2° : Christ, Matth., XVIII, 18, conferred on the other Apostles a power equal to Peter's, when he said to them : Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven, etc. Therefore.

I answer. Given that the power of binding and loosing is equal to the power of the keys, which Cajetan denies, cap. 5 and 7 de Primatu summi Pontificis — I distinguish the antecedent. That Christ granted to the Apostles a power equal to Peter's, and in the same manner, I deny; and in a different manner, I concede. For he granted it to the Apostles as delegates, to Peter as ordinary shepherd; to the Apostles dependently and subordinately to Peter, to him independently and supremely. For why, as I observed, in Matth. XVI, 19, is it said to Peter alone before the others : To thee will I give the keys, and in Ioann., XXI, 17 : Feed my sheep, and that on account of his singular faith and love, if he received nothing above the rest ?

I insist 1° : Christ, Matth., XXVII, 13, and Ioann., XX, 21, sends all the Apostles equally, and says alike to all : As the living Father hath sent me, I also send you. Going therefore teach all nations, etc. Likewise in Act., VIII, 14, Peter was sent by the Apostles; but a superior is not sent by inferiors.

I answer. to the first, that from the mission of the Apostles it follows that they were [continuat in p. 249] equal to Peter in the character of apostolate, not in that of pastoral office, as has been said, and will be explained more fully presently.

To the second. The Apostles sent Peter, not by command, but by counsel; not ordering, but consulting and persuading : just as chapters sometimes send their superiors, nay the counselors of a king send the king, on account of the gravity and exigency of the affairs to be transacted.

I insist 2° : St. Cyprian, lib. II de Unitate Ecclesiae, says : « Doubtless the other Apostles were that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership of honor and power. But the beginning proceeds from unity, and the primacy is given to Peter, that one Church may be shown. » Therefore.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent. That St. Cyprian says the other Apostles were equal to Peter in partnership of honor and power in the character of apostolate, I concede; in that of episcopate or pastoral office, I deny. Therefore as to the authority of apostolate the other Apostles were equal to Peter, because they could preach anywhere among the nations, administer the sacraments, bestow the Holy Spirit, work miracles, write the sacred books, found Churches, make laws, and create bishops : but as delegates and by extraordinary law, subordinate to St. Peter. But Peter could do these things as ordinary shepherd, by his own ordinary law, not subordinate to the other Apostles, so that he was not himself bound by their laws, while they were bound by the laws of Peter, if he should enact any for stilling schism, repressing heresy, or otherwise for the common good of the Church : in almost the same way as if the Pope were to send a legate to the East Indies with full power to do everything that should seem necessary or useful for those missions; he himself could do what the Pope can, but under a different law, the former as delegate and by extraordinary law, the Pope as ordinary shepherd and by ordinary law. That such is the mind of Cyprian the very words objected indicate : « But, he says, the beginning proceeds from unity, and the primacy is given to Peter, that one Church may be shown. » Peter therefore has the primacy for preserving the unity of the Church, which unity could not be preserved if there were no primacy [continuat in p. 250] of authority and power for stilling dissensions, removing schisms, and eliminating the other evils that could wound the unity of the Church. Likewise in the same lib. II de Unit. Ecclesiae, he openly declares that these words of Christ : Upon this rock I will build my Church, are referred personally to Peter, and that « upon one Peter the Church has been built. »

Therefore in three respects the power of Peter excels the power of the other Apostles : 1° Because it was in Peter as in an ordinary shepherd, to be transmitted to his successors; while in the Apostles it was as in delegates, insofar as it was necessary for exercising the apostolate throughout the world, nor could they easily convene Peter in emergent cases on account of the distance of places. 2° Because the power of Peter extended over the other Apostles, not the power of the Apostles over Peter. 3° Because Peter could make general laws for the whole Church, while the Apostles made particular laws for the churches which they founded.