How can Newman be named a Doctor of the Church when the Church has always taught Jesus established a visible church whereas Saint Newman said the Church was an idea?
Matt 16 accord to Cornelius a Lapide:
When He was come . . . Cesarea Philippi. This was a town of Phœnicia, situated at the foot of Lebanon. It was previously called Dan, because it had been captured by that tribe: and because two streams, named Jor and Dan, there unite and form the river Jordan. But because the name of Pan, the god of shepherds, was better known to the Gentiles than the Hebrew tribe Dan, the place was called by them Paneas. Afterwards, Philip, the son of Herod of Ascalon, who was tetrarch of Ituræa and Trachonites, enlarged it and made it the capital of his tetrarchy, and called it Cesarea, in honour of Tiberius Cæsar. It must be distinguished from the Cesarea between Dor and Joppa, which is called in the Acts absolutely Cesarea of Palestine. It was the boundary of Canaan, as promised by God to the Israelites towards the north, as Beersheba was its boundary on the south. Many of the neighbouring Gentiles flocked to this city. Therefore Christ retired to it upon this occasion, that He might teach the Gentiles as well as the Jews, and that He might speak with more freedom about the Messiah. For in Judea it was perilous to speak upon this subject; since the Scribes were ready to accuse Him to the Roman governors of aiming at royal power, and of treason against Cæsar. Again this city had been a seat of idolatry, (Judges xviii. 29, &c.). Christ therefore wished to cleanse it from this stain, and to bring it to the worship of God, yea to be the beginning and the matrix of Gentile Christian nations. It is now in the possession of the Turks, and is called Belima.
When do men say, &c. i.e., whom do they say that I, who out of humility, am wont to call Myself the Son of Man, am? And, especially I now so call Myself, that I may examine your faith concerning Me, 0 ye Apostles. The Syriac less correctly divides the sentence, in this manner, What do men say concerning Me, that I am the Son of Man? For Christ does not here ask whether He be so called, but asserts that He is the Son of Man, and goes on to ask what further men think about Him.
But some said . . . or one of the Prophets. The common people among the Jews were aware that for several hundred years Prophets had failed to be amongst them, together with the ark of the covenant and the oracles from the mercy seat. Thus they thought that Christ was not a new Prophet, but one of the ancient Prophets. For in Christ they beheld their virtues: their miracles and their doctrine. Few indeed were they who believed with certainty that He was the Messiah. By far the greater number did not believe. They were offended at His humility and His poverty. They thought Messiah would come with regal pomp as the Son of Solomon; as the Jews still think and expect. Wherefore although some of the people had recently said, when they saw so many miracles done by Christ, “Is not this the Son of David?” and, “This is indeed that Prophet which should come into the world;” yet this was a sudden and transient cry, elicited by beholding a miracle, not a firm and settled opinion: thus Abulensis. They thought that the soul of one of the Prophets had passed into Christ by metempsychosis. So Jansen and Baronius. Or more probably they thought one of the prophets had risen again, and Jesus was he; as though Jesus were really John the Baptist, Elias, or Jeremias: For the Pharisees and the Jews generally believed in the resurrection of the dead. This indeed is plain from what Herod said of Christ: This is John himself who is risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do show themselves in Him. Some thought Jesus to be John the Baptist, because he appeared to be very like him in age, in sanctity and in his preaching. And since John had been shortly before put to death by Herod, he was fresh in their memory, and seemed to be worthy of rising again. Others thought Christ was Elias, on account of the like zeal in both; and because Elias was not yet dead, and was expected by all the Jews to return according to the prophecy of Malachi (iv. 5): “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet.” They thought therefore that Elias had returned, and that Jesus was he. Others were of opinion that Christ was Jeremiah, because Jeremiah was a most holy man, and a mirror of patience and charity; and because some thought Jeremiah would return with Elias to preach to the Jews, being moved by those words, “I have given thee for a prophet to the Gentiles.” (Jer. i. 5.)
Jesus saith to them, but whom do ye, &c. From the words but you, S. Jerome gathers that Christ here tacitly, as it were, calls the Apostles gods. “They indeed, because they are men have human ideas, but ye, who are gods, whom do ye think that I am?” But S. Chrysostom says with regard to the subject itself, “The Lord by His second question admonishes His disciples to think more loftily concerning Him. By the very manner of His interrogation, He shows that those common opinions fell far short of His dignity. You, He says, who have been always with Me, and who yourselves have done so many miracles in My name, whom do ye say that I am?”
Simon Peter answering, &c He who was called Simon when he was circumcised, was by Christ named Cephas, i.e., Peter. Some think Peter, as it were the mouth of the Apostles, answered not for himself alone, but for all. So S. Jerome, also Anselm, S, Thomas, the Gloss, Dionysius, Lyra, Jansen, and S. Augustine. Also S. Ambrose (l. de Incarn. c. 4). With more probability S. Hilary, Abulensis, Maldonatus, Francis Lucas, Barradi, and others think Peter spoke for himself, and his own feeling. For the other Apostles being silent, and hesitating what reply to give, Peter being wiser than the rest, forasmuch as he was taught of God, and being more fervent, lest any one should answer unworthily concerning Christ, dashed in with his answer, and replied on behalf of all: not because he knew the mind of all, for he had not spoken with them concerning the matter, but because he wished that his own opinion should be common to them all. This was what S. Jerome and the others who have been cited really meant, namely, that Peter, as about to be constituted after the resurrection the Prince of the Apostles and of the whole Church, being more deeply taught and inspired by God, recognized the Divinity of Christ, and answered concerning it what all the rest would have answered. This is plain, because to Peter only, as the reward of this confession, Christ promised the most ample reward and prerogative. For he says to him by name above the rest of the Apostles, “Blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona,” &c.
Thou art the Christ, &c. Gr. ό Χριστός, with the article. Thou, I say, art the Christ, or Messiah, i.e., anointed by God with the unction of the grace of the hypostatic Union with the WORD, and by this consecrated the Chief Doctor, High Priest, Prophet, and King of the world. Doctor, that Thou mayest teach men the will and law of God: High Priest, that by offering Thyself a sacrifice to God, Thou mayest reconcile the world to God; a prophet, that Thou mayest declare the secret things of God, and foretell things to come: a king that Thou mayest rule over Heaven and earth, and all the things which in them are.
Son of God: Not by grace and adoption, as all the saints are sons of God, but by nature and the Deity communicated to Thee by God the Father, by eternal generation. Wherefore the Greek has the definite article, ό υίὸς, i.e., that Son, viz., the only natural son, of one substance with the Father. Living, who thus, formaliter lives the Divine, uncreated and beatific life, that causaliter, He breathes into all things created by Him, His own strength and vigour, and into living things, life and a soul. For from Him, as from a fountain and a sun of life, there floweth all the light and life of all angels, men, animals and plants. See what I have said on S. John i. 4. Thus S. Leo (Serm. de Transfig.): “The divine Peter, by the revelation of the Heavenly Father, overcoming corporeal things, and transcending things human, beheld the Son of the Living God, and confessed the glory of the Deity.” Thus too S. Chrysostom, Hilary, Theophylact, Euthymius, S. Augustine, and Athanasius (Serm. 3. contra Arian.), and others, passim, who from this passage prove the Divinity of Christ.
Moreover SS. Hilary and Chrysostom and others are of opinion that S. Peter first of all men confessed the Divinity of Christ. Others deny this, saying that Nathanael confessed it before Peter, when he said, Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God, Thou are the King of Israel. Nevertheless it is plain that before this confession of Peter the Apostles acknowledged Christ to be God from His very words, and from the many and great miracles which He wrought to prove it. We see this from the words of Peter (John vi. 65 ), “Lord to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that Thou art that Christ the Son of God.” Also from the words of the Apostles themselves, “Verily Thou art the Son of God.” (Matth. xiv. 33.) But the Apostles, inasmuch as they were uninstructed, had formed a very confused and poor conception of this doctrine, and believed, after a sort, that Christ was truly the Son of God, above other Prophets, yea that He was God. But after what manner this was so, whether by eternal generation, or by some other way they were ignorant. But Peter being enlightened by God, recognized it distinctly, clearly, and sublimely, and first being asked concerning this thing, openly and constantly confessed the same and testified in this place, that verify, Christ was peculiarly the Son of God, that is, begotten of God the Father by eternal generation, and therefore consubstantial with Him, and very and eternal God. Christ required this faith concerning Himself from Peter and the Apostles—for the Apostles tacitly approved Peter’s confession, and tacitly confessed the same—as well because that faith is the foundation of our justification, as because the Passion and Death of Christ were at hand, in which it was needful that the Apostles should be sustained by this faith in the Divinity of Christ; lest when He was dead, they should think faith and all other things were dead with Him. This is plain from verse 21, &c.
Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven. That is to say, blessed and happy art thou, 0 Peter, on account of this new faith concerning Me; for this is a mighty gift and benefit, not of flesh and blood, that is, not of nature, but by the grace of God inspiring and revealing to thee this very thing. For this faith is the beginning and the foundation of all grace and glory, and therefore it shall lead thee, and many through thee and thy example and preaching, to eternal blessedness. For blessedness in the journey standeth in the faith and love of Christ: but the blessedness of the country is the vision and fruition of the same, according to those words of S. John for “this is life eternal, that they may know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent.” Hence the synod of Ephesus (Act III.) says, “Thrice most blessed and worthy of all praise is the Apostle Peter, who is the rock and the base of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the true faith.” Hence also has arisen the custom of the faithful of addressing the Pontiff “Most Blessed Father.” Hence S. Jerome saith to Pope Damasus, “I am united to thy Blessedness,” that is, to the Chair of Peter.
Simon Bar-jona. For the father of Simon Peter was called Johanna, that is John, as is plain from S. John xxi. 15, meaning “God hath given: or God hath pitied: or the gift of God, from ‘Ia’ which is contracted from Jehovah, and ‘chanan,’ that is, he hath visited, he hath given.” Peter, then, was the son of John, or the grace of God, because he was most pleasing to God, and full of His grace. S. Chrysostom observes, that Christ gave the addition “Bar-jona,” not only according to the Hebrew custom, which always adds the name of the father to the children, but with a special reference to Peter’s answer, as though Christ confirmed it and said, “Thou hast spoken truly, 0 Peter, that I am the Son of God, for as thou art the son of Jona, a man from a man, according to natural generation, so am I the Son of God the Father, but begotten of Him from eternity—God of God, of one substance and Godhead with Him.” Symbolically Jona, that is “a dove,” is the emblem of the Holy Ghost, who in the form of a dove came down upon Christ. In this place also he descended upon Peter, and revealed to him that Christ was verify and indeed the Son of God. Thus S. Jerome—“Peter obtains a name from his confession, because he had a revelation from the Holy Ghost, whose son he was to be called.” Bar-jona in our language signifies “the son of a dove.” “For flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee”—that is, not earthly parents nor friends nor any man who consists of flesh and blood has revealed unto thee that I am the Son of God—forasmuch as this knowledge far transcends all nature, and the natural knowledge of all men, but My Heavenly Father hath made it known to thee by the illumination of His grace. “What flesh and blood could not reveal, has been revealed by the grace of the Holy Ghost,” saith S. Jerome. By flesh, S. Hilary understands the bodily eyes of S. Peter, for they had told him that Christ was a man, but the revelation of the Father alone had made known to him that He was God.
And I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. “And I,” in Greek, “κα̉γὼ” i.e., but I, or now I, give back to thee as a reward, and I in turn say and promise: for as S. Jerome saith. “Christ pays back the testimony of the Apostle concerning Himself.” Peter had said, “Thou art the Christ—the Son of the living God:” this true confession received a reward, namely, “Thou art Peter.” I therefore who am the very Son of God as thou hast confessed, I the Son of God tell and assure thee, and by saying it, I make and constitute thee, Peter, so that after Me thou mayest become the rock of the Church. Christ had promised this name to Simon (S. John i. 42), Saying, “Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter:” but in this place He fulfils the promise, and gives him the name of Peter in fact. S. Leo (Ser. III, Anniver. Ascens.) thus expounds: “And I say unto thee, that even as My Father hath made known to thee My excellence, so do I also make known to thee that thou art Peter, i.e., inasmuch as I am the inviolable Rock, &c., so likewise thou art a rock, because thou art strengthened by My strength, and the things which are Mine by My own power are thine by participation with Me.”
Thou are Peter, and upon this role I will build My Church. The meaning is, thou art Peter; that is, the rock of the Church: for upon thee as upon a most solid rock I will build My Church: for the WORD declares and gives the reason why he is Peter, that is to say, “Thou art Peter, because upon thee as upon a rock I will build My Church.” S. Augustine (Tract 27, upon John, and.B. 1 Retract, C. 1) says, “Upon this Rock, that is upon Myself, because the rock was Christ,” 1 Cor. x. 4. Calvin, (B. 4, Inst. c. 6), and the heretics eagerly follow this interpretation, that they may overthrow the authority and the primacy of Peter and the Pope. But that Peter himself is here called the rock, the rest of the Fathers almost universally agree. Maldonatus and Bellarmine (B. 1, concerning the Roman Pontiff, e. 10) quote them at large. The meaning then is this, thou art “Kepha,” or “Cephas,” i.e., a rock or a very hard and very firm stone, for this is the signification of the Hebrew “Keph,” and of the Chaldee and Syriac “Kepha,” marked out and ordained by Me, that after My death, and the gift of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, having been entirely solidified and made strong, thou mayest become the foundation of the Church which I will build upon thee. For before the coming of the Holy Ghost, Peter was very far from being the rock of the Church; yea through fear he denied Christ in His Passion. So then the word “Peter,” and “Petra,” denotes the firmness of S. Peter as a prince of the Church, and of his successors the Pontiffs, and their constancy in the faith and religion of Christ. Thus among others, Angelus Caninius on the Hebrew names of the New Testament c. xu 1.
Moreover, that Peter is here called the Rock, is proved first, by the pronoun “this,” upon “this rock;” for since “this” is demonstrative it ought thus to be understood, viz.:—this rock of which I have spoken, and to whom I speak, i.e., thou art Peter the rock of the Church, and upon thee as upon a rock I will build My Church. For there had been no mention made of any other rock to which the pronoun “this” could refer, except Peter. It is otherwise in 1 Cor. x., for there it is said “they drank of that spiritual rock which followed them, and that rock was Christ.” Here the word rock precedes, which he explains by saying, that it was so, typically, that is to say, represented Christ: as if Christ had spoken in French He would have said “Tu es Pierre, et sur cest pierre je bastiray mon eglise.”
You may say, Christ said not thou art petra, but thou art Petrus, and so deny that the pronoun this refers to Peter. I answer, that Christ is said to have spoken in Syriac, thou art kepha, and upon this kepha I will build, &c. For kepha means a rock, and hence Peter in Syriac was called kepha. But the Greek translator, who is followed by the Latin, gave the masculine form of the noun—namely petrus rather than petra, which is feminine: but πέτρος and πέτρα in Greek equally signify a rock or a stone. Peter therefore is the same word aspetra, but the translator made a variation for the sake of elegance, and rendered it thou art Peter and upon this petra, not upon this Petros, as in a true and proper sense he might have done, both because petra in Greek is more frequently used for a rock or a stone than petros, and because houses are properly built upon stones, not upon men. Beza allows this when he says “the Lord speaking in Syriac did not make use of a surname, but said cepha in both places, as in the vernacular the word pierr is used both as a proper and a common noun. In Greek, likewise, πέτρος and πέτρα differ only in their termination, not in their meaning.” Thus far correctly, but mistakenly he adds, “Matthew, or whoever was his translator, seems by this difference of interpretation to have intended that Peter, who is a part of the building, should be distinguished from the rock itself on which the building stands, that is from Christ; likewise that Peter himself should be distinguished from the promise of the faith which is common to the whole Church, as ancient writers also clearly prove, in order that Antichrist (so the heretics calls the Roman Pontiff) may become most ridiculous when his followers endeavour to establish his tyranny from this passage.” How petulantly and falsely Beza writes may be seen and learnt from the original passages of the Fathers which Bellarmine and Maldonatus cite, as I have already said. Besides, the text of Scripture itself is to be preferred to the translator: nor had the Greek translator a meaning different from the Syriac text, as I have previously said. I omit many other proofs, which either from what has been said, or from what will be said, will show the falsity of Beza’s conclusion.
Secondly—The same thing is plain from this, that there would be a want of connection to say thou art Peter and upon Myself the Rock I will build My church. In this indeed there would be a lessening of the speech, and an overthrow of the benefit bestowed. For Peter might say to Christ, “I am Peter, that is the rock of the Church, how then dost thou build Thy Church not upon me but upon Thyself?”
Thirdly—Because all that goes before and that follows refer to Peter alone: “and I,” he saith, “say to thee, 0 Peter, that is, I give and assign to thee as the reward and prerogative of thy great faith and confession, that after Myself, and after My death and resurrection, I will make thee the rock and foundation of the Church;” for this is the meaning of I will build My Church.
Fourthly—Because the original oriental versions agree together in this, that petrus is the very same word as petra, and petra as petrus, whence they give the same name Kepha to Petrus and Petra. Christ therefore as Angelus Caninius says, spoke thus in Syriac: ant kepha, veal kepha hadden ebne iat tsibbuti; or as the Syriac Gospel has it, ant hu kipha, veal hada kipha ebne leidti, that is, thou art Cepha, that is a rock, and upon this Cepha, that is petra, meaning upon thee, who art Peter or a rock, “I will build my Church.” Moreover, the Hebrew Gospel, which Sebastian Munster has edited as authentic, and as written by S. Matthew himself, has in like manner atta kepha, veal kepha hazzot ebne eth macpeli. So also the Armenian Gospel: Is bim, he saith e vera ais bim, that is, thou art a rank, and upon this rock I will build, &c.; and the Arabic Gospel, ant alsachra va ala hada, alsachra abni baidti, thou art a rock, and upon that rock I will build my Church. The Æthiopic Gospel has Anta quoqueh va dibazati, quoqh annesa lebeita Christianei, that is, thou are a rock and upon this rock I will build the Christian house—that is the Church. The Coptic also has, but I say unto thee that thou art this Peter, I will found my Church upon this rock, which is none else than this Peter, otherwise there would be no connection, for he gives the reason, the because, why he will build the Church upon a rock, because indeed Peter will be a solid rock on which the whole Church being founded may rest securely as upon a strong foundation. The Persian is, “I say unto thee that thou art sanac,” i.e., a rock, “and upon this sanac,” that is, rock, “I will build my Church.” Moreover, the Persian paraphrase explains sanac as a rock, adding, thou art the rock, that is, foundation and judge. (Vide Peter Victor in Annotat. ad N. T. pp. 105, 102, where he gives at length all these versions.)
To S. Augustine it is replied that he was misled by his ignorance of the Hebrew and Syriac languages, and therefore thought that petrus was something different from petra, and that Peter was as it were called appellatively from it Petreius, although it appears from the Syriac that Petrus and Petra are the same. Again, S. Augustine admits as probable the explanation of those who say that Peter is the rock of the Church; and in this respect he is at issue with Calvin, who is of opinion that such an explanation is blasphemy against Christ. Listen to S. Augustine in his sermon on the Chair of Peter. “Lastly, for strengthening the devotion of the churches he is called the rock; as saith the Lord, ‘thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church;’ for he is called the rock because he first laid the foundations of the faith for the nations, and like an immovable rock he holds the joints and the superstructure of the entire Christian edifice. Peter then is called a rock on account of devotion, and the Lord is called a rock on account of strength; as saith the Apostle, ‘they drank of that spiritual Rock which followed them, and that Rock was Christ.’ Rightly does he deserve an association in name who had obtained an association in work. Peter lays the foundation, Peter plants; the Lord gives the increase, the Lord waters.” The same Augustine (Serm. 16 de Sanctis) says, “Worthy was Peter to be a foundation for building up the people of God, to be a pillar for support, a key to the kingdom.”
In fine, even if that exposition of S. Augustine were allowed, although it is not the true one, still it may thence be proved that Peter, after Christ, who is the Rock and Corner Stone of the Church, is still the next foundation, rock, or stone of the Church. For then the sense would be, I am the Rock upon which I will build the Church; but thou, 0 Peter, art next unto Me, and the next rock of the Church, upon whom immediately after Myself I will build My Church, and therefore thee only I call Peter, who before wast called Simon. By the same arguments the Magdeburg Centuriators (l. 1. cent. 1, chap. 4.) are refuted, and the Genevan ministers who in their Bibles expound thus—“upon this rock, that is, upon this confession or faith—viz.: that I am the Son of God.” For nowhere previously has this confession been called a rock, as Peter immediately before was called Cephas, that is, a rock.
You may say, some of the Fathers, by the rock, understand the faith which Peter confessed and set forth. So S. Chrysostom, S. Hilary (l. 6 de Trinit.), S. Cyril. (l. 4 de Trinit.), S. Ambrose (l. 6 in Luc. c. 9). I answer, these Fathers do not mean the faith abstractedly, but the faith as it was in Peter, and consequently they take Peter himself to be the rock of the Church, as they themselves afterwards fully explain. They hold that Peter, for the merit of his faith received the dignity of a rock in the Church. As SS. Hilary and Chrysostom say expressly; for on account of that faith he had deserved to be himself the foundation of the Church, and that his faith should never fail, but that he should confirm and strengthen others in the faith. (S. Luke xxii. 32.) For the Church is fashioned and renewed not of faith, but of faithful men, who are as it were its parts (for the Church is nothing else than the company of the faithful), wherefore, likewise, in order that the head of the Church may be of the same nature as the body, that head must be a faithful man—that is to say, Peter and the Pontiff. The faith then is the reason of the founding, but the foundation is Peter himself. So S. Chrysostom, Cyril (l. 4 de Trinit.) and S. Ambrose, Bellarmine (l. 1 de Pont. c. 10) where he refutes both Erasmus and Chytræus, who follow Origen, who allegorizes after his custom, and understands by the rock all the faithful. In this way indeed the whole Church would be the rock, for the whole Church consists of none other than the faithful; but where then would be the walls, the floors, and the roof of the Church? Of what then shall these be built? (See also Gretser in defence of Bellarm, l. 3. c. 5.)
Lastly, Christ bestowed this gift upon Peter as the future Pontiff of the Church; wherefore He gave the same gift to all the other Pontiffs, his successors, and that for the good of the Church, that it might be strengthened by them as by a rock, in the faith and religion of Christ. Wherefore, S. Bernard (l. 2, de Consid.) saith to Pope Eugenius, “Who art thou? A great priest—the chief Pontiff. Thou art the prince of bishops, thou art the heir of the Apostles, thou art Abel in primacy, Noah in government, Abraham in the patriarchate; in order, thou art Melchisedeck, in dignity Aaron, in authority Moses, in judgeship Samuel, in power Peter, in unction a Christ. To thee the keys have been delivered, the sheep entrusted.”
And upon this rock. From hence it is plain that like as Cephas is derived from cepha, so is Peter from petra, indeed that he is the same as petra, as I have already shown. Wherefore, when Optatus Milevit. (l. 2, against Parmen.) and others derive Cephas from the Greek κεφαλή, that is, a head—they do it by a congruous allusion, not by a real etymology. By a similar allusion, S. Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. on the Passover) derives Phase or Pascha—which is a Hebrew word, as everybody knows (Exod. xii.), from the Greek πάσχειν, that is, to suffer. For in the Passover happened the Passion of Christ, and His immolation as the Paschal Lamb. Moreover, Christ gave this name of rock, rather than other names (such as pillar, tower, anchor, foundation, &c.), because this name of rock is given in Scripture to Christ Himself (Isaiah xxviii. 16; Psalm cxviii. 22; Matthew xxi 42.) He communicated, therefore, a share in His own name, together with His dignity and office. Thus S. Jerome; and S. Gregory (On the Seven Penitential Psalms) says: “Christ is the rock, from which rock Peter received his name, and upon which He said that He would build.” Listen to S. Leo (Serm. 3, On the Anniversary of his Accession), where he introduces Christ as speaking thus to Peter: “Since I am the rock, I the cornerstone, who make of both one; I the foundation, besides which no one can lay any other; nevertheless thou art a rock likewise, because thou art strengthened by My strength in order that what things are Mine by Mine own power, may be thine also through participation with Me: and upon this rock I will build My Church; upon this strength He says, I will construct an eternal temple, &c.”
I will build My Church. That is to say, I therefore call thee Peter and the rock, because as a house is built upon a rock that it may rest firm and immovable upon it against every blast of the winds, so will I build upon thee, 0 Peter, as upon a most solid rock, My Church; that resting upon thee, it may abide firm against all the attacks of heretics and wicked men, and that thou mayest keep and sustain it in the true faith and worship of God, in like manner as a rocky foundation sustains and holds together the entire house which is built upon it. Thus S. Ambrose (Serm. 4) saith: “Peter is called the rock, because—like an immovable rock—he sustains the joints and the mass of the whole Christian edifice.”
You may say all the Apostles are the foundation of the Church, as is plain from Eph. ii. 20, and Apoc. xxi. 20; so then Peter only is not the rock of the Church. I answer, that Peter is the rock and the foundation of the whole Church and of the entire body of the faithful, and therefore of the Apostles themselves. For the office of Peter—who is primate and chief—was to retain, direct, and strengthen the Apostles in faith, religion, and duty, and if at any time they should err, to correct them. Whence S. Jerome (l. 1, contra Jovin.) says: “Wherefore among twelve one is chosen, that by the appointment of a head, occasion of schism might be taken away.” And S. Cyprian (Tract on the Unity of the Church) says, “the primacy is given to Peter that it might be shown there is one Church of Christ and one Chair.”
Observe, Christ in this place promises by two metaphors, as S. Jerome says, that after His death and resurrection He will give to Peter the principality of the Church. The first metaphor is that of a foundation or foundation rock. For that thing, which in a building is the rock and foundation, in a body is the head, in a state the ruler, in a kingdom the king, in a church the pontiff. The second metaphor is that of the keys: for keys are only given to kings and rulers.
Observe, secondly: to build the Church upon this rock, signifies two things. First, that upon this reasonable stone—namely, Peter, as the head of all the Apostles—the care and government of the whole Church devolve next after Christ. Thus S. Chrysostom (Hom. 55), S. Ambrose (Serm. 57), S. Gregory (l. 4, Epist. 32). Secondly, that the Church rests upon and is strengthened by Peter as a foundation, as the Vicar of Christ, so that it cannot err in matters of faith. Whence Peter, on account of his lofty confession of faith, received grace from Christ to become and to be appointed this foundation rock.
And this is the meaning of SS. Hilary, Chrysostom, Cyril—and Nyssen, in the end of his book (Contra Judæos)—when they say that the Church was built by Christ upon the faith and confession of Peter, as I have explained above. Moreover, S. Chrysostom in this place lays stress upon the words I will build, and says: “They are similar to those words ‘God said,’ in the first chapter of Genesis, by which words all things were created and subsist.” In like manner he says: “I will build, hath wrought all, even though tyrants oppose, soldiers fight, the people rage, custom struggles. For the word of God coming like a vehement fire, hath burnt up the thorns, hath cleansed the fields, hath prepared the ground, hath raised the building on high, &c.” S. Jerome also (Epist. 57), consulting Pope Damasus whether we may say there are three Hypostases in the Holy Trinity or only one—thus addresses him: “I am speaking with the successor of the fisherman, and the disciple of the Cross. I, following none first, except Christ, am united to your Blessedness; that is, in communion with the See of Peter. I know that upon that rock the Church is built. Whosoever eateth the Lamb outside of this house is profane; if any man be not in the ark of Noah, he shall perish in the swelling of the deluge.”
And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Namely, against the Church, because it has been founded upon Peter and his successors, as upon a most solid rock.
The gates of hell, i.e., the infernal city, meaning all hell, with its entire army of demons, and with the whole power of Lucifer its king. For hell and the city of God, i.e., the Church, are here put in opposition. When S. Augustine wrote his work de Civitate Dei, in the beginning of which he speaks of the two opposite cities; the one of God which is the Church; the other of the devil, i.e., of demons and wicked men: he takes the gates of hell to mean heresies, and heresiarchs; for they fight against the faith of Peter and the Church, and they proceed from hell and are stirred up by the devil. So S. Epiphanius (in Ancoratu), not far from the beginning. There are here the two figures of speech—synecdoche and metonymy; for by the gates he means the whole city, both because the gate is the entrance into a city, and because the chief defences and strength of a city are wont to be at the gates, because if they and the adjoining walls are safe, the city is safe, if they are taken, the city is taken.
Shall not prevail. Heb. lo juchelu la, i.e., shall not be able to stand against it—namely, the Church. So S. Hilary and Maldonatus. More simply, shall not prevail, i.e., shall not conquer or overcome, or pull down the Church. For this is the meaning of the original Greek. We have here the figure of speech, miosis: for little is said but much is meant; not only that the Church shall not be conquered, but that she shall conquer and subdue under her all heretics, tyrants, and every other enemy, as she overcame Arians, Nestorians, Pelagians, Nero, Decius, Diocletian, &c. Therefore by this word Christ first animates his Church that she should not be faint hearted when she sees herself attacked by all the power of Satan and wicked men. In the second place, He as it were sounds a trumpet for her, that she may always watch with her armour on against so many enemies, who attack her with extreme hatred. Thirdly, He promises to her, as well as to her head, Peter, i.e., the Pontiff—victory and triumph over them all. Again, Christ and the Holy Ghost assist with special guidance her head, the Roman Pontiff, that he should not err in matters of faith, but that he may be firm as an adamant, says S. Chrysostom, and that he may rightly administer and rule the Church, and guide it in the path of safety, as Noah also directed the ark that it should not be overwhelmed in the deluge. Wherefore S. Chrysostom (Hom. de Verb. Isaiah) says: “It were more easy for the sun to be extinguished than for the Church to fail;” and again, “what can be more powerful than the Church of God: the barbarians destroy fortifications, but not even the devils overcome the Church. When it is attacked openly, it conquers; when it is attacked by treachery, it overcomes.” S. Augustine on the Psalms against the Donatists, says: “Reckon up the Bishops even from the very Pontificate of Peter. That is the very rock which the proud gates of hell conquer not.” This has been made especially plain in the conversion of all nations, specially of Rome and the Romans. For Rome being the head, both of the world and of idolatry, where the idols of all nations were worshipped, has been converted from them by S. Peter and his successors, and has bowed down her proud head to the cross of Christ, which thing is of all miracles the greatest.
And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. Thee—who art one person—namely, Bar-jona, or the son of Jona, as is plain from everything which precedes and follows. Not therefore in this place were the keys of Heaven promised to Peter in the person of the Church, or primarily to the Church herself, as the heretics take it, but to Peter himself as the head of the Church; and through him to the Church and her ministers, in like manner as to the same Peter they were specially given and consigned by Christ after His resurrection, when He said: “Feed My sheep.” Thus the Greek and Latin Fathers explain, passim, whose words Bellarmine recites (l. 1 de Pontiff, c. 12), where in like manner he proves at length that this is the meaning of S. Augustine, when he says that Peter bore the figure of the Church because indeed Peter was a representative of the Church as a king of a kingdom: for so indeed S. Augustine explains himself (Tract. ult. upon S. John), where he says: “Of this Church the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his Apostleship, was a kind of general representative.” And on Psalm 109, “Of which Church he is acknowledged to be the representative, on account of the primacy which was his among the disciples.” Wherefore for the good of the Church Peter, as her head, received the keys from Christ; from which it is also plain that Christ promised the keys to Peter as a future Pontiff, and consequently promised the same keys to the other Roman Pontiffs, successors of Peter. For Christ in this place had regard to a most necessary matter, and of the highest moment to His ever-abiding Church—that is to say, to its perpetual head; and He ordained the best and most abiding constitution for her, namely, the monarchical, that the one Church of Christ should be ruled by the one Roman Pontiff, as S. Cyprian teaches on the Unity of the Church; S. Jerome (l. 1, contra. Jovin.), and others, passim. Our Gretzer, and after him Adam Contsen, ably refute the cavils of Calvin and his followers about this passage. The keys—you will ask what the keys here signify. Calvin answers (l. 4, Inst. c. 6, sec. 3), that they signify both the power to preach the Gospel, as well as the forgiveness of sins to him who believes the Gospel which promises forgiveness. But this is a jejune and worthless explanation. For by keys doors are opened, not the mouths of preachers. Whence keys specially belong to kings and rulers; not to doctors, and teachers, and preachers; wherefore the keys here signify properly the right to rule; whereunto pertains not only power to preach the Gospel, but also to absolve sins, to admonish, to ordain priests, to interpret Holy Scripture, to excommunicate, and to do all other things which pertain to the good government of the Church.
I say therefore, by the keys is here signified the chief power, both of order and jurisdiction, over the whole Church, promised and delivered in this place by Christ to Peter. For with such an object in view the keys of the cities are delivered to kings and princes. And Christ thus explains the keys in what follows, when He says: Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, &c. For he who hath the keys of a house, or of a city is its lord, to open or shut it at his pleasure: to admit into it, and to shut out of it whom he will. There is an allusion to Is. c. xxii., where God promising the principality of the synagogue to Eliakim, the Pontiff of the Old Testament, says: “And I will lay upon his shoulder the key of the house of David, so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open.” Moreover, Eliakim was a type of Christ as a priest, of whom it is said (Rev. xxi.), “I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” The sense then is this—I, Christ, will give to thee, Peter, as a Pontiff, and consequently to all the other Popes who come after thee, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, by which I mean supreme authority to rule the universal Church dispersed throughout the whole world, that by the keys, i.e., by thy power in opening or shutting the Church to men, thou mayest open or shut heaven to them. Where observe Christ said not, I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of earth, lest an earthly and temporal power should be thought to be meant, but of the kingdom of heaven, that this power might be properly and directly exercised in spiritual things, which are those that pertain to the kingdom of heaven; but that it should be exercised only indirectly with reference to temporal things, being such as are necessary, or at least very profitable to spiritual matters. Thus S. Chrysostom (Hom. 55) teaches that by the delivery of these keys by Christ to Peter there was committed to him the care and government of the whole world, and that he was created pastor and head of the entire Church. Thus also S. Gregory (l. 4, ep. 32) says: “It is plain to all who know the Gospel that by the Lord’s voice the care of the whole Church has been committed to S. Peter, the chief of all the Apostles.” And he immediately adds the reason, “for to him it is said, I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Thus also S. Hilary on this passage, and S. Leo, (Serm. 2 in Anniv. Assum.), and others, passim. Listen also to S. Augustine (Serm 28 de Sanct.) “Peter alone among the Apostles had grace to hear, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.” Worthy indeed was he to be a foundation stone for building up the people in the house of God; to be a pillar to support them, a key for the kingdom. Hence also S. Ambrose (l. 2, ep. 13) to his sister Marcellina—when he records the contest which he had with the Arians, who had demanded that the keys of the Cathedral of Milan, over which he presided should be delivered to them, and that by the command of the Emperor Valentinian the younger, who was ruled by his mother Justina, an Arian—said: “The order is given,—‘Deliver up the Cathedral.’ I answer, it is neither lawful for me to deliver it, nor is it fitting for thee, 0 Emperor, to receive it. Thou hast no right to intrude upon the house of a private person, dost thou think, that God’s house may be taken away? It is alleged, all things are lawful to the Emperor, for all things are his. I answer, Do not burden thyself, 0 Emperor, to think that thou hast any imperial right over those things which are Divine. Do not lift up thyself, but if thou wouldst reign long, be subject to God, for it is written, Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s. To the Emperor pertain palaces, but churches to the priesthood. To him has been committed the power over the public fortifications, not of sacred buildings.” Thus Hosius, bishop of Cordova, president of the Nicene Counsel, steadfastly replied to the Arian Emperor Constantius, when he made a similar demand; that to him belonged the keys of the cities, but the keys of the church to the Pontiff alone. “To thee” he says, “God has committed the empire, to us he has entrusted what belongs to the Church.”
Tropologically, the keys denote the industry, skill and wisdom in ruling which ought to exist in a Pontiff; for a key ought to be skilfully placed, fitted to, and turned in the lock, that the door may be opened; so “the art of arts is the government of souls,” says S. Gregory in his Pastoral.
And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven. Whatsoever, i.e., whomsoever, but he says whatsoever, because the neuter gender is fuller and of more universal application than the masculine. For the Pontiff binds and looses not men only, but sins, vows, oaths, &c. There is a transition from the metaphor of the keys to the kindred metaphor of binding and loosing; for to open and shut, to bind and loose, are akin. Whence, by it, he signifies the same thing—that by the keys and by the rock are meant the supreme authority of Peter and the Pontiffs in ruling the Church. The power therefore of binding is a very ample one, and is exercised by Peter and the Pontiff in various ways. First, by not absolving but retaining sins and offences, and by refusing sacramental absolution in the sacrament of penance to such as are unworthy, and without the proper dispositions, so likewise by refusing the Eucharist and other sacraments. (S. John xx. 23.) Second, by enjoining penance to the lapsed. Third, by binding such as are guilty with excommunication and other ecclesiastical censures. Fourth, by enjoining laws and precepts with respect to feasts, fasts, tithes, &c., upon the faithful. Fifth, by binding Christians with definitions of faith, when the Pontiff, ex cathedra, defines and declares what is to be believed, what is to be rejected, as erroneous and heretical, what monastic orders are good, what are not—what estate of life is honourable and lawful—what is not, &c. Hence, from the contraries, it is plain what is meant by loosing; namely, to absolve and to release from the aforesaid obligations. Christ therefore here explains the power of the keys through the metaphor, not of opening and shutting, which are the two proper offices of keys, but by one more powerful, that is of chains, by binding men with them, or loosing those that are bound; which power S. Peter and the Roman Pontiffs, his successors, have received from Christ over all men whatsoever, throughout the whole world. The Pontiffs, nevertheless, give a share of this power, as they think good, to bishops and pastors and other ministers of the Church subordinate to them; and therefore Christ said to the other Apostles also (Matthew xviii. 18): Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever ye shall 1oose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven; by which words the same power is given to the Apostles by Christ over the whole world which is here given to Peter; but the same power is here given in an especial manner to Peter only, to signify that he has the primacy and the principality in this power, so as to be able by it to be direct, constrain, correct the other Apostles, as it were subordinate to him, and committed to his care, and hence that he might, if indeed it were needful, deprive them of it. Whence the Synod of Alexandria, over which S. Athanasius presided, agreeable to the council of Nice, writes to Pope Felix that the power of binding and loosing has been, by a special privilege granted, above others, to the Roman See by the Lord Himself.
Upon earth: (Following upon these words à Lapide enters upon a discussion as to how far, and in what manner the jurisdiction of the Supreme Pontiff extends over souls in hell or purgatory. He gives various opinions of theologians, not apparently of the very highest authority, which it would be wearisome to translate, and then concludes the discussion, summing up as follows: Translator.) In fine it is more agreeable to truth that the Pope possesses judicial power to bind and loose those only who are living upon the earth, but not the dead. When therefore he gives indulgences applicable to the departed, it is not in the way of judicial absolution, because the dead are no longer under his jurisdiction, but by way of suffrages, as he is accustomed fully to express in his Bulls—namely, by expending for the dead so much of the treasure of the Church, of which he is the steward, as the departed owe of penalties to God. For this treasure is upon earth, and is at the disposal of the Pontiff. This is the opinion of S. Thomas, Bonaventura, Alensis, Gabriel, Major, Richardus, Cajetan, D. Soto, Navarre, and Bellarmine (Tract. de Indul.), whom Suarez cites and follows (de Pœnit: Disp. 53, s. 2. n. et seq.), who also adds, that properly and directly the Pontiff can neither excommunicate the dead, nor absolve them from excommunication, but only indirectly, in so far as he may directly forbid, or permit the living to pray for one who is dead, and by so doing may deprive the dead indirectly of the suffrages of the Church, as though they had been excommunicated—or, on the other hand, may give them a share in those suffrages, in the same manner as if he absolved them from excommunication. When, therefore, Christ saith here to Peter Whatsoever thou shall loose, &c., by loosing is to be understood not only judicial absolution, but every dispensation, favour and grace as well, which, by the efficacy of that power, has been conferred upon him by Christ, and of this kind is that dispensing of the treasure of the Church which, by way of suffrages, the Pontiff expends and applies for the benefit of the faithful departed. This then is the meaning of the words upon earth.
Then He commanded . . . Jesus the Christ. Some Greek MSS. and the Syriac omit the word Jesus. Then the sentence flows more clearly; for all men knew that He was called Jesus, but they did not know that He was Messiah, or Christ, the true Son of God. Christ did not wish the Apostles to preach this doctrine to others, for two reasons; first, because they themselves were not as yet sufficiently instructed and confirmed in it. Secondly, because Christ was about to be put to death by the Jews. Wherefore the Jews would have been scandalised if the Apostles had preached that He was Messiah and God, and would have said to them, Away with your Christ to destruction, Who would make us Deicides—even as the Jews say to Christians now; wherefore, had they once cast away faith in Christ, they would not have hearkened to it any more, even though it had been attested afterwards by miracles. Thus they were to wait for the death, the glory, and the resurrection of Christ; that then they might proclaim Him to be Messiah and the Son of God, and confirm this doctrine by miracles, and persuade the people, as they did at Pentecost (Acts ii.), according to the words: “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in Heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth.” (Phil. ii. 9, 10.) Thus S. Jerome: “Preach Me when I shall have suffered those things, since it is not expedient that Christ should be publicly proclaimed, and His majesty made commonly known among the people, when they are about shortly to behold Him scourged and crucified.”
From that time forth began Jesus, &c. Gr. α̉πὸ τότε, i.e., from this time in which He had made known to them His Divinity, He began to teach them concerning His Passion and Death. For there are two chief points of faith—namely, Christ’s Divinity, and His Humanity, together with His Cross and Passion, by which He redeemed the world. There was also another reason—lest when the Apostles beheld Christ put to death, they should doubt concerning His Divinity; and He would show them that the two things were not inconsistent. For in this way only could He make perfect satisfaction to the justice of God for the sins of Adam and his posterity. Lastly, He wished to instruct men how to imitate Him and bear His cross.
