Errors are hard to kill — almost as hard as Bruce Willis in any of the Die Hard sequels. One of those errors is the alternative and nearly mythological history that has spread within Protestantism, claiming that the Church Fathers rejected the primacy of Peter and the bishop of Rome as his successor. To sustain their version of history, Protestants typically supply a series of patristic quotations with which they attempt to prove that the exegesis the Catholic Church gives today on Matthew 16:18 (“You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church”) is contrary to the consensus of the Church Fathers. They also commonly claim that the Fathers did not recognize the primacy of Peter, but rather considered him one among equals within the Apostolic College.
I will take as an example an article that has been circulating on the Internet for several years by Dr. Fernando Saraví (a Protestant apologist), in which the following line of reasoning is employed.
1. According to the official declarations of the Magisterium of the Church, the consensus of the Fathers is a fundamental criterion for the correct interpretation of Scripture.
2. That very consensus is opposed to the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18, since the Fathers affirmed that Jesus did not refer to Peter as the rock, but rather to Peter’s confession of faith, or to Jesus Christ Himself.
The Roman Catholic Church itself does not conform to what she herself defines — namely, the avoidance of interpreting Scripture outside the unanimous consent of the Fathers — since the idea that the “Rock” of Matthew 16:18 refers to the person of the Apostle Peter is far from the thought of the Fathers…
What is the actual Catholic Exegesis of Matthew 16:18?
The official Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:
424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe and confess concerning Jesus:
“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16). On the rock of this faith, confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; St. Leo the Great, serm. 4, 3; 51, 1; 62, 2; 83, 3).
552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve (cf. Mk 3:16; 9:2; Lk 24:34; 1 Cor 15:5); Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18). Christ, the “living Stone” (1 Pet 2:4), thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakeable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it (cf. Lk 22:32).
881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church (cf. Mt 16:18-19); he instituted him shepherd of the whole flock (cf. Jn 21:15-17). “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head” (LG 22). This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
One can observe how from the very outset the Protestant objection begins on the wrong foot, for it is inexplicable how it can be true that the Catholic Church fails to conform to what she herself defines — namely, the avoidance of interpreting Scripture outside the consensus of the Fathers — when her own official Catechism likewise recognizes as a valid interpretation that Christ builds his Church upon Peter’s confession of faith.
There should be no surprise, then, that just as the Catechism does, the Church Fathers make use of both interpretations. Certainly the Church is built upon faith in Christ, the Son of the living God; but it is equally true that Peter was chosen to lead the Apostolic College by virtue of that faith — both things are true and they do not mutually exclude each other. As we shall see in what follows, when a Father of the Church makes use of one interpretation of Matthew 16:18, he does not thereby necessarily exclude the other. We shall also see how their exegesis is a universe away from the current Protestant position (which generally rejects Peter as the rock in the most emphatic terms), and how the Fathers not only considered both interpretations valid, but regarded them as complementary. Peter was called the Rock by virtue of his confession of faith, and by that same confession he was appointed steward of the Kingdom of Heaven and head of the Apostolic College. We shall also see how none of these Fathers in fact rejected the primacy of Peter, as is today being attributed to them.
And the Ecumenical Councils?
Before beginning with the Fathers cited in the article, I wish to draw attention to something that the article in question fails to mention: namely, that in the very midst of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, a solemn proclamation of the Petrine primacy took place, calling Peter the prince and head of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time recognizing the bishop of Rome as his successor.
“It is undoubted, nay, it has been known to all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race; and that to him was given the power of binding and loosing sins; and that he, in his successors, down to this day and forever both lives and judges.”[1]
The same occurred at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, where there were approximately 520 bishops, almost all Eastern — apart from the papal legates and two African bishops, there were practically no Westerners:
“This is the faith of the Fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! We must believe it! Anathema to him who does not believe it! Peter has spoken through Leo… This is the true faith.”[2]
“For the most holy and most blessed Leo, archbishop of great and ancient Rome, through us, and through this present most holy Council, together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Apostle Peter, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church and the foundation of the orthodox faith.”[3]
It is simply incomprehensible how it could be possible that the Fathers rejected the interpretation that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built in Matthew 16:18, when precisely such a proclamation was made at not one but two Ecumenical Councils filled with Church Fathers and bishops from every region of Christendom. Is it not curious — if that interpretation were truly rejected by the consensus of the Fathers — that no one breathed a word of objection?
And the Church Fathers?
We will now survey the opinions of the ecclesiastical writers and Church Fathers in those texts where they pause to analyze Matthew 16:18-19:
Tertullian (160–220 A.D.)
“If, because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock will I build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,’ you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly altering the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) on Peter personally? ‘On thee,’ He says, ‘will I build My Church;’ and, ‘I will give to thee the keys,’ not to the Church; and, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound,’ not what they shall have loosed or bound. For so withal the result teaches. In (Peter) himself the Church was reared, that is, through (Peter) himself; he himself essayed the key; you see what (key): ‘Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,’ and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which (kingdom) are ‘loosed’ the sins that were beforetime ‘bound;’ and those which have not been ‘loosed’ are ‘bound,’ in accordance with true salvation…”[4]
“Again, He changes the name of Simon to Peter… But why Peter? If it was on account of the vigor of his faith, there were many solid materials which might lend their name on account of their strength. Was it because Christ is both a rock and a stone? For we read that He was set as ‘a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.’”[5]
Before beginning to analyze Tertullian’s texts, it is necessary to clarify that, although this ecclesiastical writer was at first widely read in the Catholic Church, he ultimately embraced the Montanist heresy.
For this reason we may classify his writings into two stages: pre-Montanist (works written during his period as a Catholic) and post-Montanist (when he had already embraced Montanism, and when he finally left it to found his own sect: the Tertullianists).
In the pre-Montanist texts concerning the primacy, there is an implicit acceptance on Tertullian’s part of the preeminence of the Church of Rome. In De praescriptione haereticorum (The Prescription Against Heretics) he affirms that in the Church of Rome authority stands ready, and mentions the martyrdom of Saints Peter and Paul there.
“But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is always within reach. What a happy Church that is, on which the Apostles poured out their whole doctrine along with their blood; where Peter is made equal to the Lord’s Passion; where Paul is crowned in a death like John’s [the Baptist]; where the Apostle John, after being plunged into boiling oil and suffering nothing, is relegated to an island.”[6]
In the same treatise, where he attempts to demonstrate to heretics that the Lord concealed nothing from the Apostles’ knowledge, he takes Peter and John as his examples; but of Peter he says that he is the rock upon which the Church was to be built, that he received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and the power of binding and loosing — whereas of John he makes reference only as the beloved disciple.
“Who, then, of sound mind can think that those were ignorant of anything whom the Lord ordained to be masters, keeping them inseparably at his side, in his company, his discipleship, his board? for it was to them that He used to expound privately the difficult parts of His parables, telling them that to them it was given to know those mysteries which the people were not allowed to understand;
Was anything concealed from Peter, who is called the rock upon which the Church was to be built, who also obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the power of loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?”[7]
At this point, if Protestants intend to present Tertullian as an opponent of the interpretation that recognizes Peter as the rock of Matthew 16:18, they face serious difficulties, since he not only did not reject that interpretation, but in fact made use of it.
Now, when Tertullian embraced Montanism, he rejected the idea that the power conferred upon Peter by virtue of the keys was inherited by his successors, and also denied that bishops in communion with him could make use of it — contradicting what he himself had established in De Paenitentia (On Penitence). He declares bluntly in De Pudicitia (On Modesty):
“If, because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘I will build my Church upon this rock; I have given thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt bind or loose upon earth shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,’ you presume that the power of binding and loosing has come down to you, that is, to every Church in communion with Peter, what sort of man are you? You dare to subvert and wholly change the manifest intention of the Lord, who conferred this privilege upon Peter personally and upon no one else. ‘Upon thee,’ He said, ‘will I build my Church’; and ‘I will give the keys to thee,’ not to the Church. ‘Whatsoever thou shalt loose or bind,’ etc. — and not whatsoever they shall loose or bind… Consequently, the power of binding and loosing granted to Peter has nothing to do with the remission of the capital sins committed by the faithful… This power, indeed, in accordance with the person of Peter, was to belong to spiritual men alone, be he Apostle or prophet.”[8]
In short, in this text Tertullian did not reject the idea that Peter was the rock — on the contrary, he went to the extreme of affirming that he alone was, and that Peter’s office was exclusive and non-transferable. Thus even as a heretic, Tertullian offers no support whatsoever for the Protestant argument.
Best of all, this text — written by a hostile Tertullian — is most revealing, for it becomes evident that he was confronting a bishop who was using Matthew 16:18-19 to affirm that churches in communion with Peter had the authority to forgive even grave sins — in Tertullian’s own era! That interpretation could not have been so unpopular at the time, given that Tertullian not only used it during his Catholic period, but after leaving the Church he found himself opposing a bishop who was wielding it against him.
Origen (185–254 A.D.)
“And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the Church built by God.”[9]
“The promise given to Peter is not restricted to him, but is applicable to all disciples like him. But if you suppose that upon this Peter only the whole Church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder, or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church’? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only… But in the Gospel of John the Saviour, having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them, said, ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost’…
“‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And if anyone says this to Him… he will obtain the things spoken, according to the letter of the Gospel, to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as Peter was. For all who are imitators of Christ bear the surname of “rock” — that is, of the spiritual rock that followed those who were being saved, so that they might drink from it in the spiritual drought. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. But also, as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him, they are called Christians; and from the rock, Peters.
“And concerning His other names, you will apply them in like manner as epithets of the saints; and to all such it is possible to say the declaration of Jesus: ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc., down to the words, ‘shall not prevail against it.’ But what is ‘it’? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? I think this is true; for neither against the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, nor against the Church, will the gates of Hades prevail…”[10]
The first thing that stands out is that Origen does not here oppose the interpretation that recognizes Peter as the rock, as the Protestant argument maintains. On the contrary, Origen sees in the metaphor comparing the Church to a spiritual building, a construction in which the stones are “believers” (persons) upon whom Christ is building the Church. For Origen, Peter is the first stone, and we too are stones that make up the spiritual edifice that is the Church.
In short, whereas the Protestant position denies that Peter was called the Rock, Origen goes to the opposite extreme and holds that all Christians can also be “rocks” of which the Church is built.
Now, does Origen’s interpretation — that everyone who confesses Christ as the Son of God becomes another Peter — constitute a rejection of Peter’s primacy? The first thing to understand is that this manner of speaking is entirely characteristic of Origen’s metaphorical and allegorical language, which brought him many enemies and later sparked the Origenist controversy. Many simply did not understand him, just as some might not understand a preacher today who said that “every Christian is another Christ.”
The difficulty lies in the fact that in these texts Protestants see support for their model of the invisible Church. In this vision of a purely invisible Church there would be no apostolic succession, no visibly organized Church with authority to teach, correct, and excommunicate: each believer would be, in practice, the ultimate judge of his own doctrine, for in the end one “Peter” would have no authority over another “Peter” as long as both confess Christ as the Son of God. And note the inconsistency: the historic Protestant communities that retain ecclesiastical government and discipline (Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed) do so by borrowing a principle of visible authority that their own theory of the “invisible church” denies them.
To attempt to frame these ideas within Origen’s thought is an anachronism. Origen sees the Church as the city of God upon earth, outside of which there can be no salvation[11]. The laity owe submission to their presbyters, and must even, in confessing their sins, submit to the presbyter’s judgment as to whether public confession is required[12]. He sharply rebukes those who arrogate to themselves the power of forgiving sins that was granted to priests[13], and he never rejects apostolic succession, which he affirms is what safeguards the tradition — writing: “Since the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the Apostles, and remaining in the churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition.”[14].
It is important to mention that there are other texts of Origen frequently omitted by Protestants in which he explicitly recognizes Peter as the Rock of Matthew 16:18:
“And Peter, upon whom the Church is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail…”[15]
“Upon him [Peter] on earth, the Church was founded.”[16]
“But who is so happy as to be free from the burden of temptations, so that no thought of doubt should surprise his soul? See what the Lord says to the great foundation of the Church, to that most solid rock upon which Christ founded the Church: ‘O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?’”[17]
“Peter was called Rock by the Lord, from the time He said to him: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’”[18]
These texts demonstrate that Origen also made use of the interpretation in which Peter is the rock of Matthew 16:18. Therefore, if Origen is cited as an opponent of this interpretation, the Protestant argument fails once again.
Cyprian of Carthage (200–258 A.D.)
“Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: ‘I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.”[19]
“Also the Lord in the Gospel, when His disciples forsook Him as He was speaking, turned to the twelve and said, ‘Will ye also go away?’ then Peter answered Him: ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life; and we believe, and are sure, that Thou art the Son of the living God.’ Peter speaks there, on whom the Church was to be built, teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who would not hear and obey might depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock which adheres to its pastor.”[20]
“The Lord speaks to Peter and says: ‘I say unto 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 although to all the Apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power and says: ‘As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained’ — yet, that He might set forth unity, He established one chair, and arranged by His authority that the origin of that unity should begin from one. Assuredly the rest of the Apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. To Peter the primacy is given, that there might be shown to be one Church of Christ… He who holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith?… He who strives against and resists the Church, is he assured that he is in the Church?… The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one in solidum. The Church also is one, which is spread abroad far and wide into a multitude by an increase of fruitfulness — just as there are many rays of the sun, but one light; and many branches of a tree, but one trunk founded on a firm root; and as when many streams flow from one spring, although their number may seem multiplied by the abundance of waters, the unity of their origin is preserved. Separate a ray of the sun from its body: the unity of the light admits no division; break a branch from the tree: the broken branch will not be able to bud; cut off the stream from its fountain: the stream so cut off dries up. Thus also the Church, flooded with the light of the Lord, sheds forth her rays over the whole world; yet it is one light which is everywhere diffused, nor is the unity of the body separated. With her fruitfulness and vigour she stretches her branches over all the earth; she spreads her flowing streams far and wide; yet there is one head, one origin, and one mother, abundant in the results of fruitfulness. From her womb we are born, by her milk we are nourished, by her spirit we are animated.”[21]
Here, according to the very patristic texts cited in the Protestant apology, we see Cyprian referring to Peter as the rock upon which the Church is built — meaning that the text in question does not serve its intended purpose of proving that the Church Fathers opposed recognizing Peter as the rock. Other similar texts:
“Peter, upon whom the Church was built by the Lord Himself, one speaking for all, and answering with the voice of the Church when he said: ‘Lord, to whom shall we go?’”[22]
Another point of importance to note is that Cyprian explicitly acknowledges that the primacy is given to Peter. One may debate the manner in which he conceived that primacy (honorary, jurisdictional, or otherwise), but one can never claim that he rejected it — above all because it is in Cyprian’s own words that it is acknowledged.
It is important to understand that there WAS a significant change in Cyprian’s position regarding his understanding and interpretation of the primacy of the bishop of Rome, arising from his conflict with Pope Stephen. He never denied the primacy, but he denied its jurisdictional character — a character he had previously, if not explicitly, recognized, as will be addressed further on.
Before this conflict, Cyprian was far more explicit in recognizing the papal primacy, to the point that one could not belong to the Church if one lost communion with the Chair of Peter. Cyprian then writes about Novatian, who had rebelled against Cornelius (the Pope):
“…The Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without the Church. For if she is with (the heretic) Novatian, she was not with (Pope) Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honour of the priesthood, the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, then Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can in no way belong to the Church.”[23]
At that time, the exercise of the Roman primacy functioned principally as a court of appeals, and Cyprian began to look with displeasure upon the way heretics would rush to appeal to the Pope whenever they wished to resist his own episcopal authority. He then writes complaining that heretics dared to bring their cause to “the Chair of Peter, the principal Church whence priestly unity takes its source.”
“They were not satisfied with forsaking the Gospel, with removing from heretics all hope of pardon and repentance, with keeping those entangled in robberies, or defiled with adulteries, or contaminated with the deadly contagion of sacrifices, away from every feeling and fruit of repentance, so that they no longer pray to God nor confess their sins in the Church; they were not content with setting up, outside the Church and against the Church, a conventicle of their corrupt faction, where the throng of those who have a bad conscience and are unwilling either to entreat God or to do penance might take refuge. After all this, still, having had a false bishop appointed for them by heretics, they dare to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the Chair of Peter, and to the principal Church whence priestly unity takes its source; and they did not consider that these are the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the Apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access. Why have they gone there to announce that a pseudo-bishop has been set up against the bishops? For either they are pleased with what they have done and persevere in their crime, or they repent and retract, and then they know whither they ought to return. For since it was established by all of us — and it is alike fitting and just — that the case of each one should be heard there where the crime was committed, and a portion of the flock has been assigned to each pastor, which he is to rule and govern, rendering an account of his doings to the Lord, those over whom we are set ought not to wander about, nor to break up the harmonious concord of the bishops with their crafty and deceitful rashness, but to plead their cause there where they may have both accusers and witnesses of their crime; unless perchance the authority of the bishops constituted in Africa seems too small to a few desperate and abandoned men.”[24]
When the differences between the Pope and Cyprian over the baptism of heretics finally erupted, Cyprian stubbornly refused to submit to his jurisdiction over the affairs of his own church — an event that nearly degenerated into a full schism.
Scholars such as M. Bévenot — whom Quasten considers accurate — note that there is evidence demonstrating that Cyprian recognized he was obliged to bring to the Pontiff matters of greater importance.
An example of this can be found in Cyprian’s reaction to Pope Cornelius’s inquiry concerning Fortunatus, the pseudo-bishop set up by the schismatics in Carthage — a matter that Cyprian had not previously communicated to Rome. In his reply, the African prelate acknowledges his duty to refer all matters of greater importance to the Pontiff, and writes offering his excuses:
“I did not write to you immediately, dearest brother, because it was not a matter so important and so grave as to require to be at once communicated to you… I trusted that you knew all this, and was sure that you remembered it. Therefore I judged that it was not necessary to write to you with such celerity and urgency about the follies of heretics… And I did not write to you about all those things, because, for the rest, we all despise them; and I lately sent you the names of the bishops here who are placed over the brethren and who have not been contaminated by heresy. The unanimous opinion of all in this region was that I should send you these names.”[25]
This letter is quite suggestive, for had Cyprian not recognized the primacy of the bishop of Rome, the excuses for not having notified him sooner would make no sense. Had there been any interference from the Pope, it would have been enough to plead that it was a matter of his own church; yet based on his own testimony, it is clear that the unanimous opinion of all in the region was to keep the bishop of Rome informed.
Something similar occurred during the persecution of Decius (250). St. Cyprian went into hiding, but sent a letter to the Church of Rome explaining the reasons that moved him to flee:
“I have thought it necessary to write you this letter, to render you an account of my conduct, my conformity with discipline, and my diligence… But though absent in body, I have been present in spirit…”[26]
It is evident that at that moment he recognized in the Church of Rome an authority to which an account was owed; otherwise, a letter to Rome justifying his conduct would have been unnecessary. Regarding these epistles, Quasten comments:
“In this reply we do not read that the bishop is responsible only before God; rather, in rendering an account of the incident, Cyprian acknowledges Cornelius’s right to demand submission on every ‘matter of sufficient importance and gravity.’ This same reasoning explains why Cyprian acted in exactly the same manner during the vacancy that followed the death of Pope Fabian (250). When the clergy of the capital expressed their disapproval of his decision to go into hiding, Cyprian justified himself by sending them an account of his conduct. Moreover — and most tellingly — Cyprian adopted the Roman position in the controversy over the lapsed. It is clear, therefore, that he felt himself bound not only to the Bishop of Rome, but to the see itself.”[27]
Aphraates the Syrian (? – 350 A.D.)
“Faith… is like a building which is built of many pieces of craftsmanship, and its edifice rises to the summit. Know, my beloved, that foundations are laid in a building, and on the stones the whole building is reared, until it is completed. So also the true Stone, our Lord Jesus Christ, is the foundation of all faith. And upon Him, upon this Stone, is faith based. And upon faith resting the whole structure is reared until it is completed. For the foundation is the beginning of the whole building. When a man is brought near to the faith, he is placed by it upon the Stone, that is, our Lord Jesus Christ. And His building cannot be shaken by the waves, nor damaged by the winds. By the assault of the tempest it shall not fall, because its structure is built upon the rock of the true Stone. And in that I have called Christ the Stone, I have not spoken my own thought, but the Prophets called Him beforehand a Rock.”
“And now hear concerning the faith that is based upon the Rock, and concerning the building that is raised upon the Rock… So also let the man who becomes a house — yea, a dwelling — for Christ, attend to what is needed for the service of Christ, who dwells in him, and by what things he can please Him. For first he builds his building upon the Rock, which is Christ. Upon Him, upon the Stone, faith is built… All these things does the faith demand that is based upon the rock of the true Stone, that is, Christ. And if perchance thou shouldst say: ‘If Christ is laid as foundation, how is it that Christ also dwells in the building when it is completed?’ For the blessed Apostle said both things. For he said: ‘As a skilled master-builder I have laid the foundation.’ And there he defined the foundation and made it plain, for he said as follows: ‘No man can lay another foundation than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’… And therefore that word is fulfilled, that Christ dwells in men — namely, in those who believe in Him — and He is the foundation upon which the whole building is raised.”[28].
Here is an example of how a text that in no way denies the Petrine primacy can be misinterpreted, so as to attribute to Aphraates a rejection that never existed. One can observe how, for the Protestant mentality, any text stating that our faith must be placed in Christ somehow excludes the recognition of a visible authority conferred by Christ Himself and exercised through the Petrine primacy.
That Aphraates refers to Christ as the rock in this kind of metaphor does not mean that he denies that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16:18 — after all, metaphorical elements need not retain the same meaning across different metaphors.
The truth is that Aphraates is yet another Father of the Church who makes use of BOTH interpretations according to context and preaching. In those same Demonstrations he urges his readers to imitate Simon, whom he calls the chief of the disciples and the foundation and rock of the Church.
“the chief of the disciples… The Lord accepted him and established him as the foundation, calling him the rock and the structure of the Church.”[29]
Other similar texts:
“Jesus, our Saviour, called Simon the firm Rock and He set him as a faithful witness among the nations.”[30]
Elsewhere, he gives Peter preeminence over James and John, calling Peter the foundation of the Church, and James and John pillars.
“Simon Cephas, the foundation of the Church… James and John, firm pillars of the Church.”[31]
“David… the chief of the kings of Israel, confessed his iniquity and was forgiven; and Simon also, the chief of the disciples… when he repented… our Lord received him and made him the foundation, and called him Cephas, the building of his Church.”[32]
It is fitting to mention another illustrious Father of the same region, known as Ephrem the Syrian (306-373), who also sees Peter as the Rock upon which the Church is built:
“Simon, my disciple, I have made thee the foundation of the holy Church. I have called thee Peter, because thou wilt support all the buildings. Thou art the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me.
“He was the prince of the Apostles, and had received the keys and had been appointed shepherd of the flock.”[33]
“If they wish to build anything false, thou, the foundation, wilt condemn them. Thou art the head of the spring whence My teaching flows; thou art the chief of My disciples. Through thee I will give drink to all peoples… I have chosen thee to be the first-born in My institution… I have given thee the keys of My kingdom and authority over all My treasures.”[34]
“…Peter, the tongue of the disciples, the voice of the preachers, the eyes of the Apostles, the guardian of heaven, the first-born of those who bear the keys.”[35]
The “Demonstrations” attributed to James of Nisibis (? – 338 A.D.)
“Faith is composed and compacted of many things. It is like a building, for it is built up and completed with much hope. Thou art not ignorant that great stones are placed in the foundations of a building, and then all that is builded thereon has its stones fitted together, and so is raised until the work is completed. Thus, of all our faith, our Lord Jesus Christ is the firm and true foundation; and upon this rock our faith is established. Therefore, when any man has come to the faith, he is placed upon a firm rock, which is our Lord Jesus Christ. And in calling Christ a rock, I say nothing of myself, for the Prophets have before called Him a rock.”[36]
Another text that harmonizes with Catholic doctrine and which Protestants present as if it were contrary — this time under the name of James of Nisibis. It should be clarified that patristic scholarship established that the “Demonstrations” which circulated under that name belong, in fact, to Aphraates the Syrian — the same Father we have just examined — so that this does not constitute a second, independent witness. In any case, what Protestants omit is that the author himself affirms that it was Peter who was called the Rock by virtue of his faith:
“Simon, who was called Rock, was deservedly called Rock by reason of his faith.”[37]
The author likewise recognizes Peter as the head of the Apostles and explicitly calls him the foundation and rock upon which the building of the Church is erected:
“And Simon, the chief of the Apostles, who denied Christ, saying that he had not seen him, and cursed and swore that he did not know him — from the moment when he offered to God contrition and penitence, and washed away his sins in the tears of his grief, our Lord received him and made him the foundation, and called him the rock of the building of the Church.”[38]
Ambrosiaster (366–384 A.D.)
“Paul writes concerning ecclesiastical orders; here he deals with the foundations of the Church. The Prophets prepared, the Apostles laid the foundations. Wherefore the Lord says to Peter: ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that is, upon the confession of the catholic faith I shall establish the faithful in life.”[39]
Once again the same thing occurs here. When Protestants make use of this quotation, they forget to mention that Ambrosiaster recognized Peter as the first Apostle, and as the one to whom the Lord gave the keys:
“The first Apostle, to whom the Lord gave the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.”[40]
“…all were included in Peter, because he was constituted their head.”[41]
In the following text Ambrosiaster declares the jurisdictional primacy of Peter over the churches:
“It is right, indeed, that he [Paul] should be eager to see Peter, because he was the first of the Apostles, and was entrusted by the Saviour with the care of the churches.”[42]
He also refers to Pope Damasus as the one who governs the Church:
“Whereas the whole world is God’s, yet the Church is said to be His house, which at this day Damasus governs.”[43]
Eusebius of Caesarea (263–340 A.D.)
“But you will not miss the realm of truth if you suppose that ‘the world’ is in reality the Church of God, and that its ‘foundation’ is, in the first place, that ineffably solid Rock upon which it is founded, as Scripture says: ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’; and elsewhere: ‘The Rock, moreover, was Christ.’ For, as the Apostle indicates with these words: ‘No one can lay another foundation than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’ Then also, after the Saviour himself, you may rightly judge that the foundations of the Church are the words of the Prophets and the Apostles, according to the affirmation of the Apostle: ‘Built upon the foundation of the Apostles and the Prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone.’”[44]
Eusebius was another of the Fathers who employed both interpretations of Matthew 16:18 according to the context of his preaching. In his most celebrated work, the Ecclesiastical History, he affirms, citing Origen, that the Church was built upon Peter:
“And Peter, upon whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail.”[45]
The historian on several occasions references the stay and preaching of Peter in Rome[46], and he also calls Peter the guide of the other Apostles and God’s captain:
“…a gracious Providence guided to Rome the great and mighty Peter, chosen for his merits as guide of the other Apostles. Like a noble captain of God, he proclaimed the Gospel of light and the Word that saves souls.”[47]
“[Christ] became a stranger to these His brethren at the time of His passion, when all His disciples forsook Him, and the chief of the Apostles, Peter, denied Him three times.”[48]
Eusebius also explicitly identifies the bishops of Rome as successors of Peter. In Book III, chapters 1-2, he records how Linus succeeded Peter as bishop of Rome, and does the same in III.21. Noteworthy also is his account of Origen’s commentary on Genesis regarding the death of Peter in Rome.
“…They claim that all their predecessors and the Apostles themselves taught as they do, and that the true teaching was preserved until the times of Victor, the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter…”[49]
Hilary of Poitiers (315–367 A.D.)
“A belief that the Son of God is Son in name only, and not in nature, is not the faith of the Gospels and of the Apostles… wherefore I ask, was it the blessed Simon Bar-Jona who confessed to Him, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God?… If He were Son by adoption, wherein lay the blessedness of Peter’s confession, which offered a tribute to the Son to which, in that case, He had no better right than any member of the company of the saints? The Apostle’s faith penetrated into a region closed to human reasoning… And this is the rock of confession whereon the Church is built… that Christ must be not only named, but believed, the Son of God.”[50]
“This faith is that which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven… The very reason why he is blessed is that he confessed the Son of God. This is the revelation of the Father, this is the foundation of the Church, this is the guarantee of her permanence. Hence it is that she has the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence the judgment in heaven and the judgment on earth…”[51]
“Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter’s mouth: Thou art the Son of the living God. Upon it we can base a reply to every objection which the perverse ingenuity or corrupt treachery of men may devise.”[52]
It is common to find Protestant apologists selectively citing the works of St. Hilary of Poitiers. But before analyzing those texts, it is important to understand the context of his work: St. Hilary is not speaking here specifically about the primacy of Peter, but rather defending Trinitarian doctrine against the Arian heretics. He is not denying Peter’s primacy, but establishing that Peter was chosen for this ministry by virtue of his confession of faith. This can be verified from what he says shortly after:
“He who, in the silence of all the Apostles, on recognizing, by revelation of the Father, the Son of God, merited a surpassing glory that exceeds all human weakness, by the confession of his blessed faith.”[53]
“…For this he has the keys of the kingdom of heaven; for this his earthly judgments are heavenly. He learned, through a revelation, a mystery hidden from eternity; he expressed the faith, he proclaimed the divine nature of Christ, he confessed Him as Son of God. He who denies this, confessing Him to be a creature, must first deny the apostolate of Peter, his faith, his blessedness, his priesthood, his witness; and after all this, let him know that he has separated himself from Christ, because Peter merited all these things by confessing Him as Son.”[54]
The force of St. Hilary’s argument against the Arians is to make them understand that to deny Christ in His divinity implied denying that by which Peter merited to hear those glorious words, and by which he was chosen for his ministry.
But those who cite these texts never cite others found even in the same works, in which Hilary refers to Peter as having been established as the rock-foundation of the Church — demonstrating that for him, unlike the Protestant position, both interpretations are complementary:
“and the blessed Simon, who after his confession upholds the edifice of the Church and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”[55]
The text as translated by Philip Schaff (a Protestant) in The Early Church Fathers (NPNF2-09) reads: “and blessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys of the kingdom of heaven” — which is even clearer and more explicit.
Other texts in which Hilary maintains the same idea:
“Peter believed first, and is the prince of the apostolate.”[56]
“Fear shook the Apostles at the lowliness of the Passion (so that even the firm rock upon which the Church was to be built trembled).”[57]
“He [Jesus] took Peter, to whom shortly before He had given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, upon whom He was about to build the Church, against which the gates of hell could in no way prevail, and whose binding or loosing on earth would be bound or loosed in heaven. This same Peter, the first confessor of the Son of God, the foundation of the Church, the bearer of the keys of the heavenly kingdom — and in his judgment on earth, a judgment of heaven.”[58]
If all this were not sufficiently clear, in the following text Hilary himself explains with clarity how Peter’s confession earned him the reward of being designated as the bearer of the keys and foundation of the Church — a reward expressed precisely through his change of name:
“And on the worthy confession of Peter he obtained a worthy reward… O, in thy designation by a new name, happy foundation of the Church, and a rock worthy of the building up of that which was to scatter the infernal laws, and the gates of hell, and all the bars of death! O blessed keeper of the gate of heaven, to whose disposal are delivered the keys of the entrance into eternity; whose judgment on earth is an authority prejudged in heaven, so that the things that are either bound or loosed on earth acquire in heaven too a like state…”[59]
He also recognizes the bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter, with jurisdiction over all the provinces. To Pope St. Julius I he writes:
“And you, most esteemed and beloved brother, though absent from us in body, present in oneness of mind and will… For this is judged best and by far most fitting, that the priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to (or, consult) the head, that is, the See of the Apostle Peter.”[60]
Athanasius of Alexandria (295–373 A.D.)
“For this reason we must seek before all things whether He is Son, and on this point especially search the Scriptures: for this it was, when the Apostles were asked, that Peter answered, saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God’… this is the truth and the sovereign principle of our faith… And as He is a foundation, and we stones built upon Him… The Church is firmly established; it is founded upon the rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it… And because this is the faith of the Church, let them in some manner understand that the Lord sent the Apostles and commanded them to make this the foundation of the Church.”[61]
As can be observed, the confession that faith is the foundation of the Church was not, for the Church Fathers (nor for us), a rejection of the primacy of Peter. Nor can one assume that because a Father makes use of this interpretation he is thereby rejecting the other, in which Peter figures as the Rock. A study of the life and works of St. Athanasius rules out any suggestion that he rejected the primacy of Peter.
In his controversies with the Arians, Athanasius was severely persecuted for defending the faith of the Council of Nicaea; even deposed from his see of Alexandria and exiled, he had recourse to the bishop of Rome, in whom he recognized the primacy and the authority capable of restoring him to his office (which Pope Julius did).
“When I left Alexandria, I did not go to the court of your brother, nor to any other persons, but to Rome alone; and having laid my case before the Church (for that was my only concern), I devoted my time to public worship.”[62]
At the Council of Sardica (the council in which Athanasius took part and where his case was judged), the primacy of the bishop of Rome was recognized, and it was decided that if any bishop had been judged or deposed he could appeal to the bishop of Rome, thus honoring the memory of the Apostle Peter.
“Can. 3 [Isid. 4]. Bishop Hosius said: This also: that a bishop shall not pass from his own province to another province where there are bishops, unless he be invited by his brethren, lest it seem that we are closing the gate of charity. — Provision must also be made for another point: if in any province a bishop has a dispute against a brother bishop, let neither of them call in bishops from another province. — And if any bishop has been judged in any cause and believes he has good ground for the judgment to be renewed, if it please you, let us honor the memory of the most holy Apostle Peter: let those who examined the cause, or the bishops who dwell in the neighboring province, write to the Bishop of Rome; and if he judge that the judgment ought to be renewed, let it be renewed, and let him appoint judges. But if he find that the case is not such that what has been done should be reopened, what he shall decree shall stand confirmed. Does this please all? The Council answered in the affirmative.
“(Isid. 5) Bishop Gaudentius said: If it please you, to this sentence which you have pronounced, full of holiness, this should be added: when a bishop has been deposed by the judgment of the bishops who dwell in the neighboring places, and proclaims that his case is to be heard in the city of Rome, let no other bishop whatever be ordained to the same chair after the appeal of him whose deposition is in question, until the cause shall have been determined by the judgment of the Bishop of Rome.
“[Can. 3 b] (Isid. 6) Bishop Hosius said: It has also been resolved that, if a bishop has been accused, and the assembled bishops of his own region have judged him and deposed him from his dignity, and he appears to have appealed and to have had recourse to the most blessed bishop of the Roman Church, and the latter is willing to hear him and judges it just that the examination be renewed, let him deign to write to the bishops who are in the adjoining and neighboring province, that they themselves may diligently investigate everything and decide according to the faith of the truth. And if he who asks that his cause be heard anew shall by his entreaties move the Roman bishop to send a presbyter from his own side, it shall be in the power of the bishop to do what he wills and what he judges right; and if he decree that judges be sent, to sit in judgment together with the bishops and invested with the authority of him who sent them, that shall be at his discretion. But if he believe that the bishops suffice to bring the matter to a conclusion, let him do what in his most wise counsel he shall judge best.”[63]
Athanasius also refers to Rome as “the Apostolic Throne.”[64]
Basil of Caesarea (329–379 A.D.)
“And the house of God, situated on the peaks of the mountains, is the Church, according to the word of the Apostle. For he says that one must know ‘how to conduct oneself in the house of God.’ Now, the foundations of this Church are upon the holy mountains, since it is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. One of these mountains was assuredly Peter, upon which rock the Lord promised to build his Church. Truly, and by the highest right, are the sublime and elevated souls — souls that rise above earthly things — called ‘mountains.’ The soul of the blessed Peter was called an exalted rock because he had a firm hold upon the faith and bore constantly and bravely the blows inflicted by temptations. All, therefore, who have attained an understanding of divinity — by reason of the breadth of their mind and of those actions that proceed from it — are the peaks of the mountains, and upon them the house of God is built.”[65]
Here we see how, in the very text cited by the Protestant apology, it is recognized that Peter was called Rock by virtue of his faith — which, as has already been said, is precisely the traditional Catholic exegesis, distinct from the one Protestants maintain, in which the rock is faith itself or Christ Himself (which is not what St. Basil holds here).
There are other texts in which he maintains the same idea: “He who [referring to Peter], on account of the preeminence of his faith, received upon himself the building of the Church.”[66]
Gregory of Nyssa (331–394 A.D.)
“the blessed Peter, who was preferred before all the other disciples, who alone received a greater testimony and blessing than the rest, and to whom were entrusted the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.”[67]
“The warmth of our praises does not extend to Simon [Peter] insofar as he was a fisherman; rather, it extends to his firm faith, which is at the same time the foundation of the whole Church.”[68]
Another Father who harmonizes and makes use of both interpretations. In the same panegyric on St. Stephen he also writes:
“Peter, who is the head of the Apostles… he is the most firm and the rock, upon which the Saviour built his Church.”[69]
Another Church Father worthy of mention is Gregory (Nazianzen), who also uses the interpretation in which Peter is the Rock in Matthew 16:18:
“Observe that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were exalted and deserving of election, one is called rock, and is entrusted with the foundation of the Church.”[70]
Ambrose of Milan (340–397 A.D.)
“Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the flesh of Peter, but of his faith, that it was said, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.’ … Make an effort, therefore, to be a rock! Do not seek the rock outside yourself, but within! Your rock is your work; your rock is your mind. Upon this rock your house is built. Your rock is your faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If you are a rock, you will be in the Church, for the Church is upon a rock. If you are in the Church, the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.”[71]
Another perfectly Catholic text; yet once again, in this case, Protestants omit texts in which Ambrose refers to Peter explicitly as the Rock upon which Christ builds his Church:
“Until, after having been tempted by the devil, upon Peter the Church is fixed.”[72]
“It is to Peter himself that He said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’; where the Church is, there is no death but life eternal… Blessed Peter, against whom the gates of hell shall not prevail, nor were the gates of hell closed against him, but who, on the contrary, destroyed the powers of hell and opened heavenly places.”[73]
“Peter is called ‘rock’ because, like an immovable rock, he sustains the joints and the mass of the whole Christian edifice.”[74]
He speaks of communion with the Catholic bishops as synonymous with communion with the Church of Rome:
“But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop, and judging that there can be no true gratitude save that which springs from true faith, the speaker asks whether he is in agreement with the Catholic bishops — that is, with the Roman Church.”[75]
“Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, there is no death, but life eternal.”[76]
An excerpt from the letter of Ambrose the Great to the Emperor Gratian is very interesting for the subject we are dealing with, because he recognizes in Rome the head of all Christendom:
“Your grace must not allow anything to disturb the Church of Rome, the head of the whole Roman world and of the most sacred apostolic faith, from which flow to all the bonds of sacred communion.”[77]
Didymus the Blind (313–398 A.D.)
“How powerful is the faith of Peter and his confession that Christ is the only-begotten God, the Word, the true Son of God, and not merely a creature. Although he saw God on earth clothed in flesh and blood, Peter did not hesitate, for he was prepared to receive what ‘flesh and blood had not revealed.’ Moreover, he recognized the consubstantial and coeternal offspring of God, thereby glorifying that uncreated root, that root without beginning, which had revealed to him the truth. Peter believed that Christ was one deity with the Father; and thus he was called blessed by the one who alone is the blessed Lord. Upon this rock the Church was built — the Church against which the gates of hell, that is, the arguments of the heretics, shall not prevail; to him were given the keys of heaven.”[78]
Here Didymus is speaking of Peter, and it is he whom he calls rock and to whom the keys are given. Examining the citation in its entirety, one observes that the rock to which he was referring was Peter. One might say that Didymus holds that Peter is called rock for recognizing the divinity of Christ (the same argument Hilary of Poitiers uses against the Arians).
Epiphanius of Salamis (315–403 A.D.)
“This is, first of all, because he confessed that ‘Christ’ is ‘the Son of the living God,’ and it was said to him, ‘Upon this rock of sure faith I will build my Church’ — for he clearly confessed that Christ is the true Son.”[79]
Another text employed in the same manner as the foregoing ones. Yet there are other texts of Epiphanius that those who cite him never produce, in which he develops the idea with clarity: both are the rock — faith upon which the Church is built, and Peter, who becomes a firm rock of the construction and foundation of the house of God:
“And the blessed Peter, who denied the Lord for a time, who was the chief of the Apostles, who became for us in truth a firm rock upon which the faith of the Lord rests, upon which the Church is built in every sense: first, in that he confessed that Christ was the Son of the living God, and heard that upon this firm rock of faith He would build His Church… Moreover, he also became a firm rock of the building and foundation of the house of God, in that, after having denied Christ and having been converted again, being found by the Lord and deemed worthy to hear, ‘Feed my sheep and feed my lambs.’”[80]
“The saints are called the temple of God, because the Holy Spirit dwells in them, as the chief of the Apostles testifies — he who was found worthy to be blessed by the Lord, because ‘the Father had revealed it to him.’ To him the Father revealed His true Son, and he is blessed; and he himself (Peter) reveals the Holy Spirit. This corresponds to him first as being the first of the Apostles, the firm rock upon which the Church of God is built, and ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ ‘The gates of hell’ are the heretics and the heresiarchs. In every sense the faith is confirmed in him, who received the keys of heaven, who binds on earth and is bound in heaven… He heard from God Himself: ‘Feed my sheep,’ Peter — to him was the flock entrusted; he leads them admirably in the power of his own Master.”[81]
John Chrysostom (347–407 A.D.)
“Therefore He added this: ‘And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church’ — that is, upon the faith of his confession… For Christ did not add anything more to Peter, but as if his faith were perfect, said that upon this confession He would build the Church; in the other case [John 1:49-50] He did nothing of the sort, but rather the opposite…”[82]
“His meaning [1 Cor 3:11] is this: I have preached Christ to you, I have delivered to you the foundation. ‘For no other foundation can a man lay than that which is laid.’ Upon this, then, let us build, and as a foundation let us cleave to it, as a branch to a vine; and let there be no distance between us and Christ.”[83]
Of both texts cited from St. John Chrysostom, neither can be used as proof of a rejection of Petrine primacy.
In the first text he employs the popular interpretation used against Arianism, in which it is emphasized that Peter was chosen as steward of the Kingdom of Heaven by virtue of his confession of faith. In the second text he comments on 1 Corinthians 3:11 (not Matthew 16:18-19). Both are distinct metaphors in which the figurative elements have different meanings. In 1 Corinthians 3 the metaphor depicts the believer building the Church through his works — works that may be built upon the foundation of the Gospel (Christ) or outside it, receiving reward or punishment (1 Corinthians 3:14-15); in Matthew 16:18 the metaphor compares the Church to a spiritual edifice in which the stones represent the faithful.
But just as St. John Chrysostom makes frequent use of the interpretation in which the rock of Matthew 16:18 is faith, there are also other texts in which he makes use of the interpretation in which Peter is the rock.
“Peter, the leader of the choir, the mouth of the rest of the disciples, the head of the brotherhood, the one set over the entire universe, the foundation of the Church.”[84]
“The first of the Apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of the disciples.”[85]
“The foundation of the Church, the ardent lover of Christ…”[86]
“Peter, the base, the pillar…”[87]
“The Coryphaeus, Peter, the foundation of the faith, Paul the vessel of election.”[88]
“He was made the foundation of the Church.”[89]
“Peter himself, the head or crown of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father…. this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbreakable Rock, the unshakable foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.”[90]
Texts such as these abound. He also affirms that Peter, James, and John exceeded the rest of the Apostles, but he recognizes Peter as the head of them all.
“He (Jesus) did not say to Peter, ‘If you love me, work miracles,’ but ‘feed my sheep,’ and, before the whole world, giving him greater honor than the rest, together with James and John — so tell me, did He not prefer him?”[91]
“In the Kingdom, therefore, the honour was not equal, nor were all the disciples equal, but three were above the rest, and among these three there was also a great difference… and all were Apostles, all shall sit upon twelve thrones, and all left their possessions, and all were with Christ — and yet He selected these three. And again, among the three, He said that one was to excel. For ‘to sit on my right hand and on my left,’ He said, ‘is not mine to give, but to those for whom it is prepared.’ And He placed Peter before them, saying: ‘Do you love me more than these?’ And John He loved more than the rest…”[92]
In other texts he emphasizes how the Apostle Paul gives Peter the first place.[93]
“I would ask those who wish to reduce the dignity of the Son: what are the greater gifts — those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave him? The Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; and the Son gave to him the mission of bringing the Father and Himself to the whole world, and to a mortal man He entrusted authority over all that is in the heavens, giving the keys to him who spread the Church throughout the whole world, and showed himself stronger than the world.”[94]
He also recognizes that Peter was given the headship of the universal Church — an explicit recognition of his jurisdictional primacy:
“After a grievous fall (for there is no sin equal to denial), after so great a sin, He brought him back to his former honor and entrusted to him the headship of the universal Church, and, above all, He showed us that he had a greater love for his Master than any of the other Apostles, for it was said of him: ‘Peter, do you love me more than these?’”[95]
He explains that the reason Paul desired to see Peter more than the rest of the Apostles is that he was their head:
“He said to him, ‘Feed my sheep.’ Why, passing over the others, does He speak to Peter about the sheep? He was the elect one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir; for this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others…”[96]
“And if anyone should say, ‘How then did James receive the chair of Jerusalem?’ I would reply that He appointed Peter teacher not of a chair, but of the world…”[97]
It is necessary to pause here, because the number of texts in which Chrysostom speaks of the primacy of Peter is too abundant.
Jerome (340–420 A.D.)
“Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness draws me. From the priest I claim the care of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep… My words are addressed to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross.
“As I follow no leader save Christ, so I hold communion with none but your blessedness — that is, with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock upon which the Church is built! This is the only house where the paschal lamb can rightly be eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.”[98]
“If, then, the Apostle Peter, upon whom the Lord has founded the Church, has expressly said that the prophecy and promise of the Lord were then and there fulfilled, how can we claim another fulfillment for ourselves?”[99]
“But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter. Although in another place the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends on them all alike; yet one among the twelve is chosen, so that when a head has been appointed, all occasion for schism may be removed.”
“But why was John, who was a virgin, not preferred? Deference was paid to age, because Peter was the elder: a young man, one might almost say a boy, could not be set over men of advanced age; and a good teacher who was disposed to remove every occasion of strife among his disciples… would not, it is to be supposed, give cause for envy against the young man whom he loved… Peter is an Apostle, and John is an Apostle; but Peter is only an Apostle, whereas John is an Apostle, and an Evangelist, and a Prophet. An Apostle, because he wrote to the churches as a teacher; an Evangelist, because he composed a Gospel — a thing which none of the other Apostles, except Matthew, did; a Prophet, because he beheld in the island of Patmos, whither he had been banished by the emperor Domitian as a witness to the Lord, a Revelation containing the boundless mysteries of the future… The virgin writer unfolded mysteries which the married man could not unfold; and to sum up all briefly and show how great was the privilege of John, the virgin Mother was entrusted by the virgin Lord to the virgin disciple.”[100]
“The one foundation which the apostolic architect laid is our Lord Jesus Christ. Upon this stable and firm foundation, laid upon solid ground, the Church of Christ is built… For the Church was founded upon a Rock… Upon this Rock the Lord established his Church; and the Apostle Peter received his name from this Rock (Mt 16:18).”[101]
“She who is founded with firm root upon the Rock, Christ — the Catholic Church — is the one dove; she stands as the perfect one, at His right hand, and has nothing sinister in her.”[102]
“The Rock is Christ, who granted to his disciples that they also might be called rocks: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church.’”[103]
Little needs to be added about St. Jerome, since the texts are sufficiently clear. In the first text cited (the letter to Pope Damasus), Jerome clearly affirms that the Church was founded upon Peter — as he also does in his Epistle to Marcella — which proves that Jerome cannot be counted among those who oppose seeing in Peter the Rock of Matthew 16:18. In addressing the Pope, he acknowledges the bishop of Rome as the successor of the “fisherman” and affirms that the Church was built upon the Chair of Peter, which he compares to Noah’s Ark.
“My words are addressed to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I hold communion with none but your beatitude — that is, with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the Rock on which the Church is built. This is the only house where the Passover lamb can with good reason be eaten. This is Noah’s Ark, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.”[104]
In Jerome’s thought, Peter is rightly called Rock because he has received his name from Christ, the Rock, and it is correct to say that Christ built his Church upon him:
“‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ As He Himself gave light to the Apostles that they might be called the ‘light of the world,’ and the other names that were distributed by the Lord, so also to Simon, who believed in Christ as the rock, the name ‘Peter’ is generously given; and according to the metaphor of the word ‘rock,’ it is rightly said to him: ‘I will build my Church upon you.’”[105]
“If, then, the Apostle Peter, upon whom the Lord has founded the Church, has expressly said that the prophecy and promise of the Lord then took place and was completely fulfilled (Acts 2:14-18), how can we ask another fulfillment for ourselves?”[106]
But clearest of all is to read St. Jerome himself explaining that not only Christ is called Rock, but Peter as well:
“Christ is not the only one to be called rock, for He granted to the Apostle Peter that he too should be called rock.”[107]
In his treatise against Jovinian the thought of St. Jerome is illustrated quite well. For him, the bishops have exactly the same powers by virtue of their ordination, whatever the difference in their jurisdiction. It is thus logical that he should understand why Christ chooses one of them to place him at the head, in order to avoid future schisms and divisions.
Someone might allege that Jerome is here recognizing in Peter only a primacy of honor and not of jurisdiction, but this makes little sense. If, in order to avoid schism among the Apostles, Peter had been given only a supremacy of honor, he could not demand submission from the bishops precisely in order to avoid schism. A jurisdictional primacy is necessary to fulfill that purpose.
Nilus of Ancyra (? – 430 A.D.)
“If, moreover, a man of the Lord is signified, the first to be compared to gold would be Cephas, whose name, interpreted, is ‘rock.’ This is the highest of the Apostles, also called Cephas, who provided in his confession of faith the foundation for the building of the Church.”[108]
This text speaks of Peter, and it is said that his name is interpreted as “rock.” As if that were not enough, he recognizes him as the highest of the Apostles.
With Nilus of Ancyra the same occurs as with Chrysostom (given that he was his disciple). Like him, he harmonizes both interpretations: Peter was rightly called Rock by virtue of his faith, and he was also the head of the Apostolic College, which he governed.
“[Peter] the head of the Apostolic College.”[109]
“Peter, who was everything in the Apostolic College and always governed among them.”[110]
Augustine of Hippo (354–430 A.D.)
Despite being a solid exponent of the Petrine primacy, St. Augustine is profusely cited by Protestants for certain texts where he identifies Christ Himself, or faith in Him, with the stone with which the Church is built. But before beginning it is necessary to recall a little history and to note that the bishop of Hippo made use of both interpretations simultaneously throughout his life. On some occasions he recognized Peter as the Rock of Matthew 16:18:
“…But that Rock, Peter himself, the great mountain…”[111]
“We do not allow ourselves to listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to forgive all sins. They err because they do not recognize in Peter the Rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of heaven have, from his own hands, been given to the Church.”[112]
“When in this manner He had said to His disciples, ‘Will ye also go away?’, Peter, the Rock, answered for all: ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.’”[113]
“Peter, who had confessed Him as the Son of God, and in that confession had been called the Rock upon which the Church should be built.”[114]
On other occasions he adopts the interpretation where the rock is Peter’s faith:
“He then says to them: And you, who do you say that I am? Peter, answering, says to him: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. At once he heard from the Lord: Blessed art thou, Simon, son of Jonah, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but my Father, who is in heaven. Attend to the praises bestowed upon this faith: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church. What does upon this rock I will build my Church mean? Upon this confession of faith, upon this which was said: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Upon this rock, says Jesus, I will build my Church.”[115]
“Consider in this Peter the rock. For he it was who, when the Lord asked who his disciples said He was, answered: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God… Why have I wished to anticipate these things to you? To point out to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, in effect, built His Church not upon a man, but upon the confession of Peter. Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God: behold the rock, behold the foundation, behold where the Church is built, which the forces of hell do not overcome.”[116]
In the end, in his Retractations, he acknowledges both interpretations as possible and leaves the reader free to decide which he considers the more probable:
“Here I said somewhere, ‘concerning the Apostle Peter, that on him as on the rock the Church is founded’, a sense which many sing with the verses of the most blessed Ambrose, when he says of the crowing of the cock: ‘When the cock crowed, / he, the rock of the Church, / wept for his sin.’ But I remember having explained afterwards very many times that which the Lord said: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, so that it should be understood as referring to Him whom Peter confessed when he said: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God; as if Peter, so named from that rock, represented the person of the Church, which is built upon that rock, and which received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. For it was not said to him: Thou art the rock, but Thou art Peter. For the rock was Christ, whom Simon confessed, as the whole Church confesses Him, and he was called Peter. Of these two opinions, let the reader choose the more probable.”[117]
But even on the occasions when St. Augustine chooses to understand the Rock as the faith confessed by St. Peter, he does not reject his primacy, but maintains that Peter is called rock by virtue of his faith, and that by this primacy he represents the whole Church. In this regard he writes: “Peter was called thus from the rock, representing the role of the Church, maintaining the primacy of the apostolate”[118] and then “in one single Apostle, in Peter, first and principal in the order of the Apostles and who represented the Church, the two groups had to be signified, that is, the strong and the weak; for without both there is no Church.”[119]
He maintains the same idea in other texts:
“…the first and chief in the order of the Apostles, in which the Church was represented.”[120]
“This makes the Church happy with that hope during this laborious life. Of this Church, by the primacy of his apostolate, Peter bore the representation in all its universality.”[121]
“The Apostle Peter is a type of the one Church. This Peter, first in the choir of the Apostles, always ready in the love of Christ, frequently answers alone in the name of all… Thou art Peter. For before he was called Simon; that name, by which we call him Peter, was given him by the Lord, and that so that in figure he might signify the Church. If Christ is the rock, Peter is the Christian people. Rock is the principal name; hence Peter comes from rock, not rock from Peter, just as Christ does not come from Christian, but the Christian is so called by reason of Christ. Therefore He said: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock, which thou hast confessed, upon this rock, which thou hast recognized, in saying: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, I will build my Church, that is, upon Myself, the very Son of the living God, I will build my Church. Upon Me I will build thee, not Myself upon thee. Men, not wishing to build upon men, were saying: I am of Paul, I of Apollos, I of Cephas, that is, Peter. And others, who did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the rock, were saying: I am of Christ. When the Apostle Paul saw that he was chosen and Christ set aside, he said: Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? If you were not baptized in the name of Paul, neither in that of Peter, but in that of Christ; so that Peter might be built upon the rock, not the rock upon Peter. Peter was called thus from the rock, representing the role of the Church, maintaining the primacy of the apostolate.”[122]
There is also no doubt that he considered this primacy a primacy of jurisdiction and not of honor:
“It cannot be believed that you keep the Catholic faith, you who do not teach that the Roman faith must be kept.”[123]
“Even setting aside the sincere and genuine wisdom…, which in your opinion is not to be found in the Catholic Church, many other reasons keep me in her bosom: the consent of peoples and nations; the authority, erected with miracles, nourished with hope, increased with charity, confirmed by antiquity; the succession of bishops from the very see of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after the resurrection, entrusted the feeding of His sheep, down to the episcopate of today; and finally, the very name of Catholic, which not without reason this Church alone has attained… These bonds of the Christian name – so many, so great and most sweet – keep the believer in the bosom of the Catholic Church, even though the truth, on account of the dullness of our mind and the unworthiness of our life, does not yet show itself.”[124]
St. Augustine declares that in the Church of Rome the primacy of the apostolic chair has always resided (there can be no more explicit acknowledgment of its primacy).
“…They saw that Caecilian was united by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the primacy of the apostolic chair has always resided…”[125]
But perhaps one of the greatest evidences of St. Augustine’s attitude toward the bishop of Rome is found in his conflict with the Pelagians. After the councils held at Carthage and Milevis, the African bishops condemned Pelagianism and appealed to the Pope to ratify their decision. An excerpt from the letter that 68 bishops sent to the Pope says:
“We have had recourse, according to custom, to the Church of Carthage, and a synod was held to discuss various matters, when our brother the priest Orosius presented to us letters from our holy brethren and fellow bishops Heros and Lazarus, which we enclose. Upon reading them, we perceived that Pelagius and Caelestius were accused of being authors of a perverse error, and that they must be condemned by all of us. On this account we ask that everything that has been done here in Carthage regarding Caelestius these some five years past be carried through to the end. When this had been read, as your Holiness may perceive from the acts we attach, although the decision was clear — by which it had been shown that so great a wound had been amputated from the Church by episcopal judgment — we nonetheless thought it fitting, in common deliberation, that the authors of this persuasion (although it was said that this Caelestius has since attained to the priesthood) be openly anathematized so that, if their own salvation is not achieved, at least that of those who have been or may be deceived by them might be procured, once they learn of the sentence against them. We thought it right, honorable brother, that this act be communicated to your holy charity, so that to the statutes of our lowliness there might be added the authority of the Apostolic See (ut statutis nostrae mediocritatis etiam apostolicae sedis adhibeatur auctoritas) for the preservation of the safety of many, and for the correction of the perversity of some.
And we fear that, in repeating to you these same things which you preach with greater grace from the Apostolic Chair (quae majore gratia de sede apostolica praedicas), it might seem that we act in an inconvenient manner. But we do so only taking into account our greater weakness: the more zeal we show in preaching the Word of God, the more constant and bold are the assaults of the heretics. If, therefore, Pelagius seems to your Holiness justly absolved by the episcopal acts said to have been negotiated in the East, in any case the error itself and the impiety which now has many promoters in diverse places must also be anathematized by the authority of the Apostolic See. Let your Holiness consider and feel with us in his shepherd’s heart how vain and destructive for the sheep of Christ are the necessary consequences of their sacrilegious discussion.
For even if Pelagius and Caelestius have corrected their conduct, or announce that they never held such opinions, and deny that any writings presented to us as evidence against them are theirs, and if there is no way of convincing them of their falsehood, still in general whoever dogmatically asserts, etc., let him be anathema. Whatever other things are objected against them, we doubt not that your Reverence, after reading the episcopal acts said to have been drawn up in the East for the same cause, will pronounce such a sentence as will make us all rejoice in the mercy of God (id judicaturum unde omnes in Dei misericordia gaudeamus).”[126]
Another letter was sent by 61 bishops of the Council of Milevis — St. Augustine included — which said:
“Since God, by a special gift of His grace, has placed you in the Apostolic See, and has given us someone such as you in our times, so that it may rather be imputed to us as a fault of negligence if we fail to show your Reverence what is suggested for the Church, than that you could have received these things with contempt or negligence, we beg you to engage your pastoral diligence toward the great danger of the weak members of Christ.
In suggesting these things to your Apostolic breast we need not say much, nor pile up words concerning this impiety, for without doubt it will move in you such wisdom that you will not be able to refrain from correcting them, so that they may not continue to creep in further… The authors of this pernicious heresy are said to be Pelagius and Caelestius, who in truth ought rather to prefer to be cured in the Church than to be separated from the Church without need. It is said that one of them, Caelestius, has even attained to the priesthood in Asia. Your Holiness is better informed by the Council of Carthage of what was done against him some years ago. Pelagius, as letters from some of our brethren inform us, is in Jerusalem, and is said to have deceived many there.
Many more, however, who have been able to examine his views more closely, are combating him in the name of the Catholic Faith, but specifically your holy son, our brother and fellow priest, Jerome.
But we consider that, with the help of the mercy of our God, to whom we pray that He may counsel you and hear your prayers, those who hold these perverse and vain opinions will more easily yield to the authority of your Holiness, which has been taken from the authority of the Holy Scriptures (auctoritati sanctitatis tuae, de sanctarum scripturarum auctoritate depromptae facilius… esse cessuros), so that we may rejoice in their correction rather than grieve over their destruction. But whatever they themselves may choose, your Reverence perceives that care must at least be taken for those many who may be entangled in their nets if they do not honestly submit. We write this to your Holiness from the Council of Numidia, imitating our fellow bishops of the Church and province of Carthage, who, we understand, have written on this matter to the Apostolic See which your Grace adorns.”[127]
In these letters the Pope is pointed to as the one who received from God the special grace of sitting in the apostolic chair; but what is most striking is that, although the sentences of two local councils full of bishops (Augustine included) are rejected by the heretics, the authority of the apostolic chair can either instill terror in them or perhaps convert them.
It is necessary to point out that the bishops ask the Pope for an authoritative condemnation of those doctrines which they had already previously condemned, so that the evil may be entirely eradicated, implicitly recognizing that while a local council can only reach the African regions, the reach of the Pope has universal force. If this is not primacy of jurisdiction, ask yourself what is.
And if the bishop of Rome had no authority over the whole Church, why would the bishops of Africa and Augustine care about what the Pope (also a bishop) said or did not say? Why would the heretics who had ignored the decision of more than 100 bishops be converted by what one said?
Subsequently St. Augustine sends a letter to a bishop named Hilary, warning him against the heretics:
“…we have heard that in the Church of Carthage a decree of a council of bishops has been made against them, to be sent by letter to the holy and venerable Pope Innocent, and we have similar letters from the Council of Numidia to the same apostolic see.”[128]
Let us now look at the Pope’s reply to the letters of the African bishops on January 3, 417:
“In inquiring about those things that must be treated with all solicitude by bishops, and especially by a true and just Catholic Council, preserving, as you have done, the example of the ancient tradition and caring for ecclesiastical discipline, you have truly strengthened the vigor of our Faith, no less now that you consult us than when you passed your verdict. Since you decided that it was fitting to refer to our judgment, knowing what is due to the Apostolic See, since all of us who are placed here desire to follow the Apostle (Peter) from whom the episcopate itself and the entire authority of this name are derived. Following his steps, we know how to condemn evil and approve the good. Likewise, you have preserved by your priestly office the customs of the Fathers, and have not disdained that which is decreed by a divine and not human sentence, that whatever is done, even in distant provinces, must not be concluded without having been made known to this See. That it is by its authority that all just pronouncements must be strengthened, and that from these all the other Churches (like waters flowing from their source and running through the diverse regions of the world, the pure streams of the one incorrupt head) must receive what they are to enjoin, whom they must wash, and whom this water, worthy of pure bodies, must avoid as defiled with unwashable filth. I congratulate you, therefore, dear brethren, for having directed letters to us through our brother and fellow bishop Julius, and because, while you care for the Churches you govern, you have shown your solicitude for the well-being of all and ask for a decree that must benefit all the Churches of the world at once, so that the Church, having established her rules and confirmed by this decree of just pronouncement against these errors, may avoid fearing these men, etc.”[129]
“Within the duties of the Roman Church and the activities of the Apostolic See, in which we deal with the faithful and healing discussions of the consultations of various persons, our brother and fellow bishop Julius has brought me, without our expecting them, the letters of your charity which you send from the Council of Milevis in your serious cares for the Faith, adding to the document a similar complaint from the Council of Carthage.
It is therefore with due care and appropriately that you consult the secrets of the apostolic office (apostolici consulitis honoris [al. oneris] arcano) that office, I mean, to which belongs, as well as the things outside, the care of all the Churches, as to what opinion you ought to hold on this troubling question, following then the ancient rule which you know has been observed with me throughout the world. But I pass over this subject, for I do not think it unknown to your prudence; otherwise, why confirm it by your action, if you did not know that answers always flow from the Apostolic Source to all the provinces for those who ask for them? Especially as often as a question of faith is discussed, I think that all our brothers and fellow bishops ought to refer them to none other than Peter, the author of their name and office, even as now your charity has referred to us a matter that can be useful throughout the world to all the Churches in common. For of necessity we must become more cautious when we see the inventors of wickedness, by reason of the report of the two synods, cut off by our sentence from ecclesiastical communion. Your charity will therefore do a double good. For you will obtain the grace of having preserved the canons, and the whole world will share in your benefit.”[130]
It would be most foolish to deny the conviction expressed by the Pope in his letters to the African bishops (Augustine included) concerning his jurisdiction over the world. Indeed, he expresses it plainly when he affirms that matters of importance “must not be concluded without having been made known to this See. That it is by its authority that all just pronouncements must be strengthened”. Note how it is affirmed that this is an ancient rule that “is followed everywhere”, and still more clearly one observes the conviction that to it belongs “the care of all the Churches”, and that “answers flow from this apostolic source to all the provinces that request them”, above all in questions of faith.
It is needless to say that such a letter would not have been well received by St. Augustine and the African bishops had they rejected the jurisdictional primacy of the Pope over the provinces of the world — for if they had, the Pope’s words would have been completely out of place. Yet St. Augustine shows no evidence whatsoever that this letter caused him any discomfort; on the contrary, he rejoiced at the Pope’s ruling and wrote that since Rome has spoken, the case is therefore closed:
“Already for this reason two missives have been sent to the apostolic see, and from there two rescripts have also come. The cause is finished, so that the error may finally come to an end.”[131]
In the future St. Augustine reaffirms his thinking on the definitive character of the decree of Pope Innocent.
“[Caelestius] should have maintained his assent to the decree of the apostolic chair which had been published by his predecessor of sacred memory. The accused, however, refused to condemn the objections raised by the deacon, yet he did not dare to hold out openly against the letter of the blessed Pope Innocent.”[132]
“…he answered that he consented to the letters of Pope Innocent of blessed memory, in whom all doubt about this matter was removed.”[133]
“The words of the venerable bishop Innocent concerning this matter to the Carthaginian Council. What could be more clear or manifest than the judgment of the apostolic chair?”[134]
Cyril of Alexandria (370–444 A.D.)
“But why do we say that they are ‘foundations of the earth’? For Christ is the foundation and immovable base of all things… But the following foundations, those nearer to us, may be understood to be the Apostles and evangelists, those eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word who have risen up for the strengthening of the faith. For when we acknowledge that their own traditions must be followed, we serve a faith that is true and does not deviate from Christ.
For when [Peter] wisely and boldly confessed his faith to Jesus, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ Jesus said to the divine Peter, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ Now by the word ‘rock’ Jesus indicated, I believe, the immovable faith of the disciple…”[135]
“‘And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ The appellation, I believe, calls nothing other than the unshakable and most firm faith of the disciple ‘a rock,’ upon which the Church was founded and made firm, and remains continually impregnable even with respect to the very gates of hell.”[136]
Cyril of Alexandria also makes use of both interpretations, and recognizes that Peter is called “rock” by virtue of his faith, on account of which the Church is built upon him.
“He changed his name to Peter, from the word stone (rock); for upon him He would afterwards found His Church.”[137]
“Blessed art thou… called, I imagine, nothing other than the rock, in allusion to his name, for the immovable and stable faith of the disciple upon whom the Church of Christ is founded and fixed without danger of failing.”[138]
“He promises to found the Church, establishing it immovable, as He is the Lord of strength, and over it He places Peter as shepherd.”[139]
He calls Peter “the prince of the holy disciples”:
“…Peter who was the prince of the holy disciples…”[140]
“Besides all this, permit me to present the leader of the holy disciples, Peter, who, when the Lord, on a certain occasion, asked him, ‘Who do men say that the Son of man is?’ cried out at once, thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”[141]
In other texts he calls him “the chosen one of the holy Apostles,” “the Coryphaeus,” etc.
Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393–458 A.D.)
“Let no one foolishly suppose that the Christ is any other than the only-begotten Son. Let us not imagine ourselves wiser than the gift of the Spirit. Let us hear the words of the great Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Let us hear the Lord Christ confirming this confession, for ‘Upon this rock,’ He says, ‘I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ Therefore also the wise Paul, most excellent architect of the churches, fixed no other foundation than this. ‘I,’ he says, ‘as a skilled master-builder have laid the foundation, and another builds upon it. But let each one see how he builds. For no man can lay another foundation than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.’ …
Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ permitted the first of the Apostles, whose confession He had fixed as a sort of groundwork and foundation of the Church, to waver, and to deny Him, and then raised him up again… Assuredly he is calling the pious faith and the true confession a ‘rock.’ For when the Lord asked his disciples who the people said that he was, the blessed Peter spoke, saying ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ To which the Lord answered: ‘Verily, verily 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.’”[142]
Theodoret recognizes him as “the first of the Apostles” and affirms that the Church is built upon his confession of faith. In his epistle to Pope Leo he exhorts to have recourse and appeal to the apostolic see (Rome), which holds the first place, when the wounds of the Churches need to be healed.
“If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter so that he might carry from him the desired solution of the difficulties to those in Antioch who were doubting about life according to the law, how much more do we, insignificant and tiny men, hasten to the apostolic chair to receive a cure for the wounds of the Churches. For all those reasons it is maintained in the first place, inasmuch as you see it adorned with so many privileges.”[143]
Basil of Seleucia (? – 468 A.D.)
“In obedience the tongue of Peter was set in motion and, though ignorant of the doctrine, brought an answer: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God’… Now Christ called this confession a rock, and named him who confessed it ‘Peter,’ perceiving the appellation as fitting for the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this is the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: ‘For no one can lay another foundation than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’”[144]
The same anachronism keeps being repeated — thinking that because a Father writes that Peter received his name (rock) on account of his confession, his primacy is somehow rejected. Texts where his primacy is acknowledged are likewise omitted:
Likewise, for Basil, St. Peter is the leader (coryphaeus) of the Apostles, and the chief of the disciples of Christ[145].
“Peter is again called the Coryphaeus of the Apostles.”[146]
Leo the Great (400–461 A.D.)
“Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, instituted the observance of the divine religion which He willed — through the grace of God — to shed its brightness upon all nations and all peoples, in such a way that the Truth, which before was confined to the proclamation of the Law and the Prophets, might through the trumpet-call of the Apostles go forth for the salvation of all men, as it is written: ‘Their sound has gone forth to every land, and their words to the ends of the world.’ But this mysterious sacrament the Lord desired to be the business of all the Apostles, in such a way, however, that He has placed the principal charge in the blessed Peter, chief of all the Apostles; and from him, as from the Head, He desires His gifts to flow into the entire body; so that whoever dares to withdraw from the solid rock of Peter may understand that he has no part nor share in the divine mystery. For He desired that the one received into fellowship with His undivided unity should be named as He Himself was named, when He said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’; so that the building of the divine temple, through the wondrous gift of God, might rest upon the solid rock of Peter — strengthening His Church so surely that neither human rashness could assail her, nor the gates of hell prevail against her. But against this most holy firmness of the Rock — raised up, as we have said, by the building hand of God — a man must desire to destroy it in extreme impiety when he strives to break its power, following his own desires rather than what he received from the ancients…”[147]
“And when they had recorded the various opinions of other persons, He said, ‘But you, who do you say that I am?’ … Whereupon the blessed Peter, whose divinely inspired confession was destined to benefit all nations, said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And not undeservedly was he declared blessed by the Lord, deriving from the original Rock the solidity of power which his name also expresses — he who, through the revelation of the Father, confessed Him to be at once Christ and Son of God…”[148]
“And if Eutyches had intelligently and fully believed this, he would never have strayed from the path of this Faith. For Peter received this answer from the Lord through his confession: ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood have not revealed this 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 Hades shall not prevail against it.’ But he who so rejects the confession of the blessed Peter as to contradict the Gospel of Christ is very far from union with this building; for he shows himself never to have had any zeal for understanding the Truth, and to have only the vain appearance of high standing — he who has adorned the grey hairs of old age with no mature judgment of the heart.”[149]
“Since, therefore, the universal Church has become a rock (petra) through the building of the original Stone, and the first of the Apostles, the most blessed Peter, heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock (petra) I will build my Church,’ who is there that dares to assail such an impregnable strength, unless it be the Antichrist or the devil — who, remaining unconverted in his impiety, is anxious to sow lies through vessels of wrath fit for his perfidy, while under the false pretense of diligence he pretends to seek the Truth.”[150]
“And from His eternal governance and protection we have also received the support of the apostolic aid, which assuredly does not cease from its operation; and the strength of the foundation upon which the whole superstructure of the Church is built is not weakened by the weight of the temple that rests upon it. For the solidity of that faith which was praised in the chief of the Apostles is perpetual; and as that remains which Peter believed in Christ, so that remains which Christ instituted in Peter. For when, as has been read in the Gospel lesson, the Lord had asked the disciples who they thought He was, and the blessed Peter had replied, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ the Lord said: ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah, because flesh and blood have not revealed this 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 Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven also; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven also.’”
“The dispensation of Truth therefore abides, and the blessed Peter persevering in the strength of the Rock which he has received has not abandoned the helm of the Church which he undertook. For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called the Rock, from his being pronounced the Foundation, from his being constituted the Doorkeeper of the Kingdom of Heaven, from his being set as the Umpire to bind and to loose — whose judgments shall retain their validity in heaven — from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ. And even now he more fully and effectively performs what is entrusted to him, and carries out every part of his duty and charge in Him and with Him, through Whom he has been glorified. And so, if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is gained from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his See. For this, dearly beloved, was gained by that confession which, inspired in the heart of the Apostle by God the Father, transcended all the uncertainty of human opinions, and was endowed with the firmness of a rock which no assault could move. For throughout the whole Church Peter daily says: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and every tongue which confesses the Lord accepts the instruction his voice conveys. This Faith overcomes the devil and breaks the bonds of his prisoners. It plucks us from the earth and plants us in heaven, and the gates of Hades cannot prevail against it. For with such solidity is it endowed by God that the depravity of the heretics cannot harm it nor the unbelief of the gentiles overcome it.”[151]
“And rightly was the blessed Apostle Peter praised for confessing this union, who when the Lord was enquiring of the disciples what knowledge they had of Him, quickly anticipated the rest and said: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And this he undoubtedly saw, not by the revelation of flesh and blood — which might have impeded his inner sight — but by the very Spirit of the Father working in his believing heart, so that in preparation for governing the whole Church he might first learn what he would have to teach, and for the strengthening of the faith which he was destined to preach might receive this assurance: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ This strength, therefore, of the Christian faith — which, built upon an impregnable rock, fears not the gates of death — acknowledges the one Lord Jesus Christ as both true God and true Man, believing Him likewise to be the Son of the Virgin, who is the Creator of His Mother; born also at the end of the ages, though He is the Creator of time; Lord of all power, and yet mortal; ignorant of sin, and yet sacrificed for sinners in the likeness of sinful flesh.”[152]
These texts shared by the doctor are an excellent synthesis of the Catholic doctrine on the primacy, of which Leo counts as a most important exponent.
It is important to observe that Leo sees both interpretations of Matthew 16:18 as complementary. In one place he says: “so that whoever dares to withdraw from the solid rock of Peter may understand that he has no part nor share in the divine mystery” — which is a direct recognition of Peter as the rock (and therefore Leo does not reject this interpretation). In another place he clarifies: “Peter received this answer from the Lord through his confession.” He affirms that “the solidity of that faith which was praised in the chief of the Apostles is perpetual; and as that remains which Peter believed in Christ, so that remains which Christ instituted in Peter” — which is an affirmation that Christ truly instituted in Peter an imperishable ministry, and he makes this explicit elsewhere: “He was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called the Rock, from his being pronounced the Foundation, from his being constituted the Doorkeeper of the Kingdom of Heaven.”
This time it is to be commended that the Protestant apology not only submitted the texts where Leo I sees in the confession of Peter the rock upon which the Church is built, but also those where he refers explicitly to Peter as the Rock, and as the Doorkeeper of the Kingdom of Heaven.
But there are many other texts of Leo I in favor of the Roman primacy. It is well worth reading in its entirety Epistle 10 (the already cited epistle to the bishops of Vienne) where he teaches that Christ placed the principal charge upon blessed Peter, the first of all the Apostles, willing that from him, as from the head, His gifts should flow to the whole body of the Church, so that the faith and ecclesiastical order are likewise guaranteed by the see of Peter. He bases his interpretation principally on the texts Matthew 16:16-19; Luke 22:32f and John 21:15-19. He also calls Peter the guide of all pastors [153] and, conscious of his primacy, points out to the emperor that he cannot make Constantinople an apostolic see[154].
Other interesting texts where Leo I shows a clear consciousness of his jurisdictional primacy:
“…that, imitating our meekness, you might assist us in the care which we principally owe by divine institution to all the churches, and might, in some measure, make us present by visiting those distant provinces… The connection of the whole body makes us all healthy, all alike beautiful, and this relation indeed requires the unanimity of the whole body, but above all demands harmony among the priests.
And although they have a common dignity, yet they do not have the same rank, inasmuch as even among the blessed Apostles, notwithstanding the similarity of their honorable estate, there was a certain distinction of power, and while the election of them all is equal, it was given to one to take the leadership of the rest… the care of the universal Church must converge toward the see of Peter, and nowhere must it be separated from its Head.”[155]
“Out of the whole world only one, Peter, is chosen to preside over the calling of all nations, and over all the other Apostles, and over the Fathers of the Church. . . Peter. . . governs them all, of whom Christ is also their chief governor.”[156]
“The most blessed Peter received the headship of the Apostles from the Lord, and the Church of Rome still abides by his institutions.”[157]
Gregory the Great (540–604 A.D.)
“But since it is not my cause but God’s, since the pious laws, the holy synods, and the very commandments of our Lord Jesus Christ are overturned by the invention of a certain proud and pompous phrase, may it be the most pious Lord who cuts away the place of the wound and binds the negligent patient in the chains of august authority. For in binding these things rightly you bring relief to the commonwealth; and while you cut them off, you provide for the prolongation of your reign.”
“For to all who know the Gospel it is apparent that by the voice of the Lord the care of the whole Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of all the Apostles, Peter. For to him it is said: ‘Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep.’ To him it is said: ‘Behold, Satan hath desired to sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not. And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.’ To him it is said: ‘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 thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.’”
“Lo, he received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and power to bind and loose is given to him, and the care and principality [principatus] of the whole Church is committed to him; and yet he is not called the universal Apostle. But the most holy man, my fellow-priest John, attempts to be called universal bishop. I am compelled to cry out and say: O times! O manners!”
“Lo, all things in the regions of Europe have been given over to the power of the barbarians; cities are destroyed, fields laid waste, provinces depopulated, no tiller inhabits the land; idol-worshippers prevail and dominate for the slaughter of the faithful; and yet even priests, who should themselves be lying weeping upon the ground and in ashes, seek for themselves names of vainglory, and glory in new and profane names.”
“Is it in this matter my own cause that I am defending, most pious Lord? Do I resent what is done against me? It is the cause of Almighty God, it is the cause of the universal Church.”
Who is this who, against the evangelical ordinances, against the decrees of the canons, presumes to usurp for himself a new name? That man would do it, were it for himself alone, if it could be without any diminution of the others – he covets to be universal.
“And certainly we know that many priests of the Church of Constantinople have fallen into the whirlpool of heresy… If then any one of that Church takes to himself that name whereby he makes himself the head of all the good, it follows that the universal Church falls from its position (which God forbid) when that one falls who is called universal. But far from Christian hearts be that name of blasphemy, in which the honour of all priests is taken away, while it is madly usurped by one alone.”
“Certainly, in honour of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, it was offered by the venerable synod of Chalcedon to the Roman pontiff. But none of them has ever consented to use this title of singularity, lest by conceding something peculiar to one individual, priests in general should be deprived of the honour due to them. How is it then that we do not seek the glory of this title even when it is offered to us, and another strives to seize it for himself even when it is not offered?”[158]
This text is not really cited in order to present it as a rejection by Gregory I of the primacy of Peter, since plainly, when Gregory I writes there that “the care of the whole Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of all the Apostles, Peter” he is not only reaffirming the primacy of Peter in the Church, but reaffirming his jurisdictional primacy over all the Churches of the world (likewise when he says that to him “the care and principality of the whole Church is committed”). This text is cited because Gregory I here rejects the title of universal bishop.
As this controversy is beyond the scope of this chapter, a brief reference will suffice. The patriarch of Constantinople had made his own the title of universal bishop, which the Pope had refused to use even though he acknowledges that he himself did have the right to use it, as the ecumenical council of Chalcedon had proclaimed. That is why the Pope affirms that anyone of that see (Constantinople) who by usurpation seizes that title is a precursor of the antichrist.
To understand that refusal correctly, one must attend to the sense of the title in dispute. What Gregory rejects — in John of Constantinople and for himself — is the title understood as that of a sole and exclusive bishop, one that would reduce all the other bishops to mere delegates of his. What is at stake is not the primacy of the Roman See, which Gregory himself affirms and exercises in the letters cited here; he refuses the title for himself as well, without thereby renouncing the authority that he claims as successor of Peter.
The Pope would not have acted in that manner had he not been convinced of his jurisdictional primacy even over the patriarch of Constantinople. On this his declarations are most explicit, to the point of affirming that no one doubts that the church of Constantinople is under subjection to the apostolic See[159].
If St. Gregory the Great believed that the apostolic see is the head of all the Churches (Ep. 13,1), that councils have no authority or force without the consent of the apostolic see (Ep 9,156), and that the Pope, as successor of Peter the chief of the Apostles, has a divine right of primacy (Ep 3,30), it makes no sense to maintain that he rejected the Petrine primacy. And if the intention with those quotations was to prove that St. Gregory the Great rejected that Jesus referred to Peter as the rock of Matthew 16:18, here too it has failed.
Other texts:
“Who can be ignorant of the fact that the holy church is consolidated in the solidity of the prince of the Apostles, whose firmness of character extended to his name, so that he should be called Peter from the ‘rock’, when the voice of truth says ‘I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.’ To him again it is said: ‘When thou hast turned again, be the support of thy brethren.’”[160]
“… the Apostolic See, is, by the ordering of God, set over all the Churches…”[161]
Bede the Venerable (672–735 A.D.)
“Thou art Peter, and upon this rock whence thou takest thy name — that is, upon myself — I will build my Church: upon that perfection of faith which thou hast confessed I will build my Church, so that by the unanimity of this confession, if any should deviate from it, though he might seem to do great things in himself, he would not belong to the building of my Church. … Metaphorically it is said to him that the Church is to be built upon this rock — that is, the Saviour whom thou hast confessed — who has granted participation in His name to the faithful confessor.”[162]
The same case, where Bede is seen making use of an interpretation that does not intend to deny the primacy of Peter. Once again, texts where he acknowledges it explicitly are omitted:
“The blessed Peter received in a special way the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and the headship of judicial power, so that all believers throughout the world may understand that all who in any way separate themselves from the unity of the faith and communion, for example, can neither be released from the consequences of their sins, nor enter through the gate of the Kingdom of Heaven.”[163]
The following text is an even clearer recognition of the Petrine primacy:
“Peter received the keys of heaven as a sign for all the children of the Church, so that if they separate themselves from the faith which he teaches, they renounce all hope of being absolved from their guilt and of entering the eternal portals… And I say to them that Peter is the doorkeeper, whom I will not contradict, but whose decrees I will obey in everything, lest when I come to the gates of heaven they should not be opened.”[164]
It is important to clarify that there are many other Church Fathers with quite clear testimonies in favor of the primacy of Peter, but for reasons of length I could not mention them all. Thanks be to God, their voices rise up from the past to keep history from being distorted.
After all of this it is abundantly clear that it is false that the Church Fathers rejected the primacy of Peter, or even Peter himself as the Rock of Matthew 16:18.
Those who master English are recommended the following specialized works, which can be downloaded free of charge from the website archive.org in PDF format: Joseph Berington, John Kirk, The Faith of Catholics, Vol II, Frederick Pustet & Co., Fifth edition revised and enlarged.
Colin Lindsay, The Evidence for the Papacy, London: Longmans, Green & Co, 1870.
Charles F.B. Allnatt, Cathedra Petri, The Titles and Prerogatives of St. Peter, London: Burns & Oates, 1879.
Notes
- Council of Ephesus, Speech of Philip, Legate of the Roman Pontiff, Session 3. ↩
- Council of Chalcedon, Acts of the Council, Session 2. ↩
- Council of Chalcedon, Acts of the Council, Session 3. ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: On Modesty, 21 (ANF 4:99) ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: Against Marcion, IV, 13 (ANF 3:365) ↩
- Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum, XXXVI.2-3. Salvador Vicastillo, Fuentes Patrísticas 14, Tertuliano, “Prescripciones” contra todas las herejías, Editorial Ciudad Nueva, Madrid 2001, p. 271. ↩
- Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum, XXII.3-4. Ibid., p. 217. ↩
- Tertullian, De pudicitia 21. Johannes Quasten, Patrología I (Patrology I), BAC 206, Fifth Edition, Madrid 1995, p. 631. ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: Commentary on Matthew, 10 (ANF 10:456) ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: Origen, Commentary on Matthew, XII, 11 (ANF 10:456). ↩
- Origen, In Ios. Hom. 3,5. ↩
- Origen, In Ps. Hom. 37, 2, 5. ↩
- Origen, De oratione 28. ↩
- Origen, Peri Archon (De Principiis), Preface 1-2. Johannes Quasten, Patrología I (Patrology I), BAC 206, Fifth Edition, Madrid 1995, p. 372. ↩
- Origen, Commentary on John 5:3; ANF, Vol. X, 347. William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. I, The Liturgical Press, Minnesota 1970, p. 202. ↩
- Origen, In Epist. Ad Rom. lib. v. c. 10, tom. iv. p. 568. Charles F. B. Allnatt, Cathedra Petri, The Titles and Prerogatives of St. Peter, London: Burns & Oates, 1879, p. 16. ↩
- Origen, In Exod. Hom. v. n. 4, tom. ii. p. 145, ed. De la Rue, Migne. Charles F. B. Allnatt, Cathedra Petri, The Titles and Prerogatives of St. Peter, London: Burns & Oates, 1879, p. 15-16. ↩
- T. iii. Comm. In Matt. n. 139, p. 927 (Alib. Tr. 35). Joseph Berington, John Kirk, The Faith of Catholics, Vol. II, Frederick Pustet & Co., Fifth Edition Revised and Enlarged, p. 6. ↩
- Cyprian, Letter 26:1 (ANF 5:305). ↩
- Cyprian, Letter 68:8 (ANF 5:374). ↩
- Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church, 4-5 (trans. Caminero 4,404-5). ↩
- Cyprian, Ep. lv. Ad Cornel. p. 83. Colin Lindsay, The Evidence for the Papacy, London: Longmans, Green & Co, 1870, p. 22. ↩
- Cyprian, Letter 75,3. ↩
- Cyprian, Letter 59, 14. On the legitimacy of the appeal to Rome. ↩
- Cyprian, Letter 59,9. ↩
- Cyprian, Letter 20. ↩
- Johannes Quasten, Patrología I (Patrology I), BAC 206, Fifth Edition, Madrid 1995, p. 670-671. ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: Selected Demonstrations, 1:2-6, 13, 19. ↩
- Aphraates, Homily 7:15, De Paenitentibus, ed. Parisot in Patrologia Syriaca, vol. 1, col. 335. Michael M. Winter, Saint Peter and the Popes, Baltimore: Helicon, 1960, p. 58. ↩
- (x,4). Butler, Dahlgren, Hess, Jesus, Peter & the Keys, Queenship Publishing Company, USA 1996, p. 226 ↩
- (xxiii), Aphraates, in S. Herbert Scott, The Eastern Churches and the Papacy, London: Sheed & Ward,1928, p. 60 ↩
- VII, 15 (Dom J. Parisot, Patrologia Syriaca, Aphraatis Demonstrationes). ↩
- Ephrem, Tom. ii. Syr. Lvi. Adv. Haer. Charles F.B. Allnatt, Cathedra Petri, The Titles and Prerogatives of St. Peter, London: Burns & Oates, 1879, p. 41 ↩
- Ephrem, Homilies 4,1. William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. I, The Liturgical Press, Minnesota 1970, p. 311 ↩
- Ephrem, Encom. S.S. Petri et Pauli. S. Herbert Scott, The Eastern Churches and the Papacy, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928, p. 62-63 ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: Sermon 1, On the Faith 1,13 ↩
- James of Nisibis, Serm. i. De Fide, n.i.13, Galland, tom. v. p. 9. Charles F.B. Allnatt, Cathedra Petri, The Titles and Prerogatives of St. Peter, London: Burns & Oates, 1879, p. 18 ↩
- James of Nisibis, Orat. Vii. De Paenit. no. 6, p. lvii. Galland. t.v. p. lxxxiv. Colin Lindsay, The Evidence for the Papacy, London: Longmans, Green & Co, 1870, p. 27 ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: Commentary on Ephesians (PL 17:380) ↩
- Ambrosiaster, Com. In Ep. Ad Galat. ii. II, Ap. Op. St. Ambros. Charles F. B. Allnatt, Cathedra Petri, The Titles and Prerogatives of St. Peter, London: Burns & Oates, 1879, p. 33. ↩
- Ambrosiaster, Quaest. 75, ex N. Test. In App. St. August. Tom. iii. 2894. Charles F. B. Allnatt, Cathedra Petri, The Titles and Prerogatives of St. Peter, London: Burns & Oates, 1879, p. 43. ↩
- Ambrosiaster, Comm. On Galatians, Migne Patrologia Latina, vol. 17, col. 344. Michael M. Winter, Saint Peter and the Popes, Baltimore: Helicon, 1960, p. 62. ↩
- Ambrosiaster, Comment. In Epist. i. ad Tim. Inter. Op. S. Ambros. Charles F. B. Allnatt, Cathedra Petri, The Titles and Prerogatives of St. Peter, London: Burns & Oates, 1879, p. 107. ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: Commentary on the Psalms (PG 23:173, 176) ↩
- Origen, quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Book VI, 25; NPNF 2, Vol. I, 273. ↩
- Ibid., Book VI, 14. ↩
- Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Book II, 14, Simon Magus and Peter. Paul L. Maier, Eusebius: The Church History, Kregel, Grand Rapids, 1999, p. 72. ↩
- Eusebius, Comm. In Ps. lxix. t. i. p. 373, Nov. Collect. Joseph Berington, John Kirk, The Faith of Catholics, Vol II, Frederick Pustet & Co., Fifth Edition Revised and Enlarged, p. 13. ↩
- Paul L. Maier, Eusebius: The Church History, Kregel, Grand Rapids, 1999, p. 201. ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: On the Trinity, VI,36 (NPNF2 9:111) ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: On the Trinity, VI,37 (NPNF2 9:112) ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: On the Trinity, II,23 (NPNF2 9: 5) ↩
- Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, VI, 20. BAC 481, p. 280-282. ↩
- Ibid. ↩
- Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, VI, 20. BAC 481, p. 259. ↩
- Hilary of Poitiers, Comment. in Matth. c. 7, n. 6, p. 701, t. i. Joseph Berington, John Kirk, The Faith of Catholics, Vol. II, Frederick Pustet & Co., Fifth Edition Revised and Enlarged, p. 15. ↩
- Hilary of Poitiers, Tract. in Ps. cxli. n. 8, p. 603, t. i. Ibid. ↩
- Hilary of Poitiers, Tract. in Ps. cxxxi. n. 4, pp. 502-3, t. i. Ibid., p. 14-15. ↩
- Hilary of Poitiers, Comm. in Matth. c. xvi. n. 7, pp. 749-50. Joseph Berington, John Kirk, The Faith of Catholics, Vol. II, Frederick Pustet & Co., Fifth Edition Revised and Enlarged, p. 15. ↩
- St. Hilary of Poitiers, Fragment 2 ex opere Historico (ex Epistle Sardic. Concil. Ad Julium) n.9, p. 629 ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: Four Letters to Serapion 1:28. ↩
- Athanasius Defence before Constantius 4, NPNF 2, Vol. IV, 239 ↩
- Council of Sardica, Canon 3. ↩
- Hist. Arian. ad. Monarch, 35 ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: Commentary on the Prophet Isaiah, 2:66 (PG 30:233) ↩
- Basil, Adversus Eunomius 2:4. Migne Patrologia Graeca, vol. 29, col. 577. Michael M. Winter, Saint Peter and the Popes, Baltimore: Helicon, 1960, p. 55 ↩
- T. ii. p. 1. Procem de Judic. Dei, n. 7, p. 221. Colin Lindsay, The Evidence for the Papacy, London: Longmans, Green & Co, 1870, p. 35. ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: Panegyric on St. Stephen (PG 46:733) ↩
- Panegyric on St. Stephen, 3; Winter, 56 ↩
- Gregory Nazianzen (Oration 32, 18; Winter, 56) ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: Commentary on Luke VI,98 (CSEL 32:4) ↩
- Ambrose, Commentary on the Psalms, 43:40 (AD 397), in GILES, 145 ↩
- T. i. In Ps. xl. n. 30, p. 879-880. Colin Lindsay, The Evidence for the Papacy, London: Longmans, Green & Co, 1870, p. 37. ↩
- Ambrose, Sermon 4, in The Great Commentary of Cornelius Lapide, II, Catholic Standard Library, trans. Thomas Mossman (John Hodges & Co., 1887), 220, in Michael Malone, ed., The Apostolic Digest (Irving, TX: Sacred Heart, 1987), 248. ↩
- Ambrose, The Death of his Brother Satyrus, 1, 47; NPNF 2, Vol. X, 168 ↩
- Ambrose, Commentaries on Twelve of David’s Psalms, 40, 30; Jurgens, II, 150 ↩
- Ambrose, Letter to Emperor Gratian, Epistle 11:4; Winter, 160 ↩
- Didymus, On the Trinity, I, I, 30 (PG 39:416) ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: Panarion, II-III ↩
- Adv. Haeres. p. 500. Colin Lindsay, The Evidence for the Papacy, London: Longmans, Green & Co, 1870, p. 35-36. ↩
- T. ii. in Anchor. n. 9. p. 14-15. Ibid., p. 36. ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: Homilies on the Gospel of John XXI, 1 (NPNF 14:73). ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: Homilies on 1 Corinthians VIII, ver. 11 (NPNF 12:47). ↩
- In Illud, hoc Scitote, n. 4. p. 282. Colin Lindsay, The Evidence for the Papacy, London: Longmans, Green & Co, 1870, p. 41. ↩
- Chrysostom (Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt, 17, vol III, 517[504]) ↩
- Chrysostom, (In illud, Vidi dominum, 3, vol VI, 123[124]) ↩
- Chrysostom. Hom Quod frequenta conueniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[328] ↩
- Chrysostom (Against Games and Theatres, 1, vol VI, 265[273]) ↩
- Chrysostom (Hom 3 in Matt 5, vol VII, 38[42]) ↩
- T. ii. Hom. iii. De Paenit. n. 4, p. 300. Colin Lindsay, The Evidence for the Papacy, London: Longmans, Green & Co, 1870, p. 41. ↩
- Chrysostom (Hom 46[47] in Matt 3, vol VII, 480[485] ) ↩
- Chrysostom (Hom 32, in Rom 4, vol IX, 672[750]) ↩
- Hom 4 in Acta 3, vol IX, 46[37]; Hom 65[66] in Matt 4, vol VII, 622[648], ibid Hom 50[51], 506[515]; Hom 35 in 1 Cor 5, vol X, 303[329]; Hom 8 in Acta 1, vol IX, 71-72[64-65] ↩
- Chrysostom (Hom 54[55] in Matt VII, 531[546] seq) ↩
- Chrysostom (Hom 5 de Poen 2, vol II, 308[311]) ↩
- Chrysostom (Hom 88[87] in Joann 1, vol VIII, 477-9[525-6]) ↩
- Chrysostom, on John, Homily 88, Migne Patrologia Graeca, 59:478, Giles page 164 ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: Letter to Pope Damasus, XV, 2 (NPNF2 6:1) ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: Letter to Marcella XLI, 2 (NPNF2 6:55) ↩
- Jerome, Against Joviniano I, 26 (NPNF2 6:366) ↩
- Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, on Mt 7:25-27. ↩
- Jerome, Epistle 65 (to Principia), 15. ↩
- Jerome, On Amos, VI, 12-13. ↩
- Jerome, Letters 15 [ca. 375 A.D.]), in Philip Shaff and Henry Wace, eds.,Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers-Jerome:Letters and Select Works,2nd series,vol 6,(Peabody,MA:Hendrickson,1994),18 ↩
- Ib. l. iii. Comm. In Matt. Pl. i. col. 74. Colin Lindsay, The Evidence for the Papacy, London: Longmans, Green & Co, 1870, p. 40. Also in Comm. On Matthew III, 16, 18, Migne Patrologia Latina, vol. 26, col. 117. Michael M. Winter, Saint Peter and the Popes, Baltimore: Helicon, 1960, p. 63. ↩
- Jerome, Letters 16 [385 A.D.], in Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers — Jerome: Letters and Select Works, 2nd series, vol. 6 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 55. ↩
- Jerome, Comm. on Jeremias 3:65, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (Vienna), vol. 59, 202 [415 A.D.]. Michael M. Winter, Saint Peter and the Popes, Baltimore: Helicon, 1960, p. 63. ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: Commentary on the Song of Songs (PG 87 [ii]: 1693) ↩
- Nilus of Ancyra, Lib. ii. Epist. cclxi. p. 252, Bib. M. xxvi. Charles F. B. Allnatt, Cathedra Petri, The Titles and Prerogatives of St. Peter, London: Burns & Oates, 1879, p. 55. ↩
- Nilus of Ancyra, Tract. Ad Magnam. c. 8, p. 244. Ibid. ↩
- Augustine of Hippo, In Psalms, 104[103]:16 (A.D. 418), in NPNF1, VIII:513 ↩
- Augustine of Hippo, Christian Combat, 31:33 (A.D. 397), in JUR, 3:51 ↩
- Augustine of Hippo, Homilies on John, Tract 11:5 (A.D. 417), in NPNF1, VII:76 ↩
- Augustine of Hippo, In Psalms, 69:4[PL 36, 869] (A.D. 418), in Butler, 251 ↩
- Augustine of Hippo, Homilies on the First Epistle of John, 10,1 | Obras completas de San Agustín, Tomo XVIII, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, Madrid 1959, p. 346-347 ↩
- Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 229 P, 1 | Obras completas de San Agustín, Tomo XXIV, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, Madrid 1983, p.371 ↩
- Augustine of Hippo, Retractaciones, I, 21, 1 | Obras completas de San Agustín, Tomo XL, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, Madrid 1995, p. 723-724 ↩
- Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 76,3 | Obras completas de San Agustín, Tomo X, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, Madrid 1983, p. 393 ↩
- Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 76,4 | Obras completas de San Agustín, Tomo X, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, Madrid 1983, p. 395 ↩
- Augustine of Hippo, Serm 76,3 ↩
- Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on the Gospel of John, 124,5 | Obras completas de San Agustín, Tomo XIV, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, Madrid 1965, p. 635 ↩
- Augustine, Sermon 76, “Peter Walks on the Water”, 1-3 | Obras completas de San Agustín, Tomo X, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, Madrid 1983, p. 392-393 ↩
- Augustine of Hippo, Serm.120 n.13 ↩
- Augustine of Hippo. C. ep. Man. 4,5. | Instituto Patrístico Augustiniano, Patrología, Tomo III, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, Madrid 1981, p.482-483 ↩
- Augustine of Hippo, Ep 43,3,7 ↩
- Council of Carthage to Pope Innocent I ↩
- Council of Milevis to Pope Innocent I ↩
- Augustine of Hippo, Ep 178, p. 773 ↩
- Letter of Pope Innocent I to the Council of Carthage, Ep 181 in FC, XII:121-122, 125, 127 ↩
- Letter of Pope Innocent I to the Council of Milevis, Ep 182, in FC, XII:127, 128, 130, 131 ↩
- Augustine of Hippo, Sermo 131,10,10 ↩
- Augustine of Hippo, On Original Sin, 7:8 (A.D. 418), in NPNF1, V:239 ↩
- Augustine of Hippo, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, 3:5 (A.D. 420), in NPNF1, V:393 ↩
- Augustine of Hippo, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, 4:6 (A.D. 420), in NPNF1, V:394 ↩
- Commentary on Isaiah IV,2 (PG 70:940) ↩
- Dialogue on the Trinity IV (PG 75:866) ↩
- Cyril of Alexandria, T. iv. Comm. In Joan., p. 131 | Colin Lindsay, The Evidence for the Papacy, London: Longmans, Green & Co, 1870, p. 50 ↩
- Cyril of Alexandria, On the Holy Trinity, Dialogue 4. (P.G. 75. 865) | E. Giles, Documents Illustrating Papal Authority A.D.96-454, London:SPCK, 1952, p. 258 ↩
- Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. On Matt., ad. Loc., Migne Patrología Griega, vol.72, col.424 | Michael M. Winter, Saint Peter and the Popes, Baltimore: Helicon, 1960, p. 74. ↩
- Ib. l. xii. p. 1064 | Joseph Berington, John Kirk, The Faith of Catholics, Vol II, Frederick Pustet & Co., Fifth Edition Revised and Enlarged, p. 46 ↩
- Cyril of Alexandria, T. v. P. 2, Hom. viii. De Fest. Pasch. p. 105. | Joseph Berington, John Kirk, The Faith of Catholics, Vol II, Frederick Pustet & Co., Fifth Edition Revised and Enlarged, p. 46. ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: Epistle 146; 77; Commentary on the Song of Songs, II,14. (NPNF2 3) ↩
- Theodoret of Cyrus, To Pope Leo, Epistle 113 (A.D. 449), in NPNF2, III:293 ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: Oration XXV,4 (PG 85:297-298) ↩
- Basil of Seleucia, Oratio XVII, MPG, vol. 85, col. 217 | Michael M. Winter, Saint Peter and the Popes, Baltimore: Helicon, 1960, p. 74 ↩
- Basil of Seleucia, Orat. XXV, p. 138 | Joseph Berington, John Kirk, The Faith of Catholics, Vol II, Frederick Pustet & Co., Fifth Edition Revised and Enlarged, p. 48 ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: Epistle to the Bishops of the Province of Vienne, X (NPNF2 12:8-9) ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: Letter to Flavian, XXVIII, 5 (NPNF2 12:41-42) ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: Letter to the Synod of Ephesus XXXIII, 1 (NPNF2 12:47) ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: Letter to Emperor Leo CLVI, 2 (NPNF2 12:100) ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: Sermon III, 2-3 (NPNF2 12:117) ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: Sermon on the Passion, XI, Sermon LXII, 2 (NPNF2 12:174) ↩
- Leo I, Sermon 4,2 and 5,2 ↩
- Leo I, Ep 104,3 ↩
- Leo I (Letter XIV. To Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, I, XII; NPNF 2, Vol. XII) ↩
- Leo I, Sermon 4, 2 | William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. III, The Liturgical Press, Minnesota 1979, p. 275 ↩
- Leo I, To Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria: Letter 9, 1, NPNF 2, Vol. III, 7 ↩
- Gregory the Great, Epistle XX to Maurice Caesar (NPNF 2 12:170-171) ↩
- Gregory the Great, Ep. 9,26 ↩
- Gregory the Great (Ep 40; Winter, 66) ↩
- Gregory the Great, Letter to Subdeacon John; Register of the Epistles, Book III, Epistle XXX; NPNF 2, Vol. XII ↩
- Cited by Dr. Saraví: Homilies 23 (PL 94:260) ↩
- Beda Ven. Hom. in die S.S. Pet. et Paul. | Charles F.B. Allnatt, Cathedra Petri, The Titles and Prerogatives of St. Peter, London: Burns & Oates, 1879, p. 36 ↩
- Beda, in Colman Barry, Readings in Church History (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1957, vol. 1,273) Michael Malone, The Apostolic Digest, Irving, TX: Sacred Heart, 1987, p. 243 ↩
