The following comes from:
Michael O'Connor, Cajetan's Biblical Commentaries:
Motive and Method (St Andrews Studies in Reformation History; Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 2017), 86-89.
One will note that Cajetan did believe in the spiritual
dominion of the pope but not the temporal:
In Cajetan’s comments, the
doctrinal claims of the papacy are not understated. Peter is said to have been
given a special revelation from God and to have received the keys of knowledge
and government from Christ. [101] Cajetan briefly explains the pun on
rock/Peter, but then refers the inquisitive reader to his De divina
institutione pontificatus Romani pontificis (1521) for further detail, ‘in
order to avoid repetition’. [102] Cajetan’s exegesis immediately introduces
qualifications. First, the gates of hell will certainly not prevail against the
Church; but this is not a promise that temporal powers, wealth, and comforts
will be preserved. It is the Church herself, defined as the gathering of the
faithful in faith, hope, and charity, which is assured God’s protection.
Moreover, according to the lessons of history, the Church actually thrives when
poorest, when persecuted, when prevailed against. [103] (Cajetan was writing
this part of his commentary on Matthew in the immediate aftermath of the Sack
of Rome in 1527.)
Second, the keys are indeed
promised to Peter (‘tibi dabo claves’); but they are keys to the kingdom
of heaven: his entire authority refers to spiritual matters, spiritual goods
ordered to the salvation of souls. Any temporal power or worldly jurisdiction
claimed by Peter can only be justified if it is necessary to the kingdom of
heaven. [104] Cajetan is here distancing himself from developments in the
theory of papal power arising under Gregory vii and Innocent iii, whereby the
keys were understood to indicate two powers: spiritual and temporal. Eamon
Duffy finds this theory depicted in Perugino’s fresco in the Sistine Chapel,
where Christ hands a golden key (spiritual authority) and a base metal key
(temporal authority) to Peter. [105]
Third, Peter is given power
to bind on earth. Cajetan interprets this strictly: the power to bind on earth
excludes any power over those under the earth, in hell and in purgatory. He
cannot know their circumstances, therefore he cannot have any jurisdiction over
them. They are now under the sole jurisdiction of Christ in heaven. [106] Here
Cajetan is reiterating the position he developed in a treatise shortly after he
met Luther in Augsburg (15 October 1518) and in a subsequent quaestio;
these texts can be plausibly seen as correctives to the excessive view of
Tetzel (among others) on the near-mechanical functioning of indulgences for the
dead. [107] Furthermore, Peter’s power to bind on earth is limited by what can,
or will, be bound in heaven. If what he binds on earth is to be ratified in
heaven, then he cannot act casually or wilfully or wrongfully. To suggest that
such binding and loosing would be automatically ratified in heaven is not only
foolish but blasphemous. Thus Cajetan refuses to allow Peter to become proud in
his power; rather he must fear. [108] After he has repented, he is bound to the
task of strengthening his brothers in faith. For Cajetan, this wording is
crucial: Peter must strengthen, not dominate; the other apostles are his
brothers, not his subjects. [109]
Alone of the main characters
in the gospels, Peter is the subject of several brief but unexpected
apostrophes. Cajetan asks him why, having walked on water, he now should take
fear at the wind. Cajetan explains that the miracle is tempered by Jesus in order
for Peter to learn his own weakness; to discover the degree to which, in using
the gifts God has given him, he must be strengthened by God’s assistance. [110]
In other words, God sometimes withdraws his assistance in order to show Peter
that his own strength is insufficient. And at the Last Supper, Peter is warned
by Cajetan that in presuming to be more constant than the others, he is setting
himself up for a harder fall. [111] This warning goes unheeded; at Peter’s
first denial of Christ, Cajetan sighs at this demonstration of constancy (‘Ecce
Petri constantia’). [112] Cajetan observes that, even though his faith did not
fail (since Jesus prayed that it would not), Peter’s charity and his confession
of faith most certainly did fail. Peter denies Christ not because of a lack of
faith, but because of his fear and his lack of love. [113] When Jesus
repeatedly asks Peter, ‘Do you love me?’, Cajetan comments that the first,
second, and third quality required of a pope is that he declare before God and
the Church his love of the Lord. [114]
A particularly striking
feature of Cajetan’s exegesis is the way Peter is depicted in the resurrection
narratives. In each of the gospels, Peter features preeminently, singled out
for mention by the angel(s) at the tomb and enjoying his own encounter with the
risen Jesus. For many commentators, this demonstrates his primacy within the
apostolic group, the collective witnesses to the resurrection. For Cajetan, the
focus is different, demonstrating the mercy of God: Peter denied Christ three
times and for this reason the angel names him (and him alone), so that God’s
great mercy to sinners may be known. [115] In this, Peter is aligned with that
other great sinner, Mary Magdalene: Jesus wanted to show his grace towards
sinners first of all by appearing to her who had been subject to seven demons
(i.e., all kinds of sin). [116] For Cajetan, Peter is a forgiven sinner,
reliant on God’s grace, commissioned to carry out an onerous service.
Footnotes for the Above:
[101] See Brian Tierney, Origins
of Papal Infallibility, 1150–1350: A Study on the
Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages (Leiden:
Brill, 1972), pp. 39–45.
[102] ‘Vide huius lectionis
mysteria per nos latius discussa in opusculo De institutione pontificates a
Iesu Christo, ne eadem repetamus’. On Mt 16.18, iv, 76a.
[103] ‘Non dicit adversus
delicias, divitias, temporalesque potentatus eius, sed adversus eam, quae
constat ex congregatione fidelium in una fide, spe et charitate. Immo quanto
contra ecclesiae temporalia magis praevaluerunt, tanto magis ecclesiae aucta
est numero, vel merito, ut patet in actibus apostolorum, gestis martyrum et
comparatione ecclesiae divitis ad olim pauperem’. On Mt 16.18, iv, 76a.
[104] ‘Tota Petri potestas refertur ad regnum coelorum, ad gubernandum mundum in ordine ad regnum coelorum, in ordine ad salutem animarum, in ordine ad ea quibus regnum coelorum in hominibus servatur ac augetur quae constant esse bona spiritualia. Quo fit ut temporalia non comprehendantur sub potestate Petri, nisi relata ad spiritualia’. On Mt 16.19, iv, 76b.
[105] Eamon Duffy, Saints
and Sinners: A History of the Popes (3rd edn., New Haven: Yale University Press,
2006), pp. 185–186.
See Natascia Villani, Tibi dabo claves regni caelorum:
il primato di Pietro nel pensiero di Tommaso de Vio (Naples: Editoriale
Scientifica, 2007);
Benoît Schmitz, ‘Claves
regni coelorum: le sens d’une métaphore entre hérésiologie et ecclésiologie
(xvie siècle)’, Bulletin du centre d’études médiévales d’Auxerre, Hors-série 7 (2013), accessed 29 May 2015. url:
http://cem.revues.org/12786; doi: 10.4000/cem.12786.
[106] ‘Limitabitur
hinc potestas Petri ad ea quae super terram liganda, aut solvenda sunt, ad differentiam
eorum quae sunt sub terra, qualia sunt quae sunt apud inferos aut purgatorium. Illa
enim sicut exempta sunt a cognitione Petri, non enim potest Petrus cognoscere causas
eorum, ita exempta sunt a iurisdictione Petri. Transierunt siquidem a foro
militantis ecclesiae ad forum Iesu Christi regnantis in coelo’. On
Mt 16.19, iv, 76b.
[107] Cajetan Responds, pp. 88, 272.
[108]‘Admiranda efficacia ut ligatio a
Petro facta super terram penetret coelos, sed tam stupenda efficacia
quemadmodum terribilis est ligatio a Petro, ita libranda traditur ab ipso Petro.
Colligere siquidem hinc potest, et debet quod non ad libitum ligat super
terram, sed tunc tantum quando vinculum ratificatur in coelis, alioquin
voluntarias immo etiam malas Petri ligationes et solutiones, coelestis
cogeretur curia approbare, quod est non solum stultum, sed blasphemum’. On Mt 16.19, iv, 76b.
[109]‘Officium confirmandi fratres
praedicit futurum Petri. Et hinc tollit occasionem recidivae contentionis. Sed
vide quod non subditos sed fratres vult haberi reliquos a Petro. Vide quod
officium non dominandi, sed confirmandi in bono fidei, spei et charitatis
praenunciat ac mandat’. On Lk 22.32, iv, 265a.
[110] ‘O Petre, securus ambulas in
praesenti super aquas fluctuantes, et futuram times a vento validiore
procellam? […] Divina dispensatione temperavit
Iesus miraculum, ut experiretur Petrus sine divinae gratiae assistentia
proprium defectum in utendo divinis donis’. On Mt 14.30, iv, 71a.
[111] ‘Petre, nimis de te praesumis,
praeferendo constantiam tuam caeteris condiscipulis’. On Mt 26.33, iv, 119b.
[112] On Jn 18.17, iv, 413b.
[113] ‘Non dicit ut non deficiat charitas
tua, non dicit ut non deficiat confessio fidei tuae, sed fides tua, quae est in
corde. Corde enim creditur ad iustitiam, ore autem confessio fit
ad salutem, ad Romanos decimo. Defecit siquidem Petri charitas,
defecit et confession fidei, quum Christum ter negavit, sed non defecit fides,
quoniam timore negavit, non incredulitate’. On Lk 22.32, iv, 264b.
114 ‘Ideo Iesus multiplicat quaestionem
de amore sui, ut intelligamus primum, secundum et tertium requisitum ad
pontificem esse amorem ipsius Iesu, et hinc totum negotium pendere, et sine hoc
amore non esse pontificem aut pastorem nisi aequivoce. Ut disceremus nullum
esse assumendum ad pastorale officium nisi credatur teste Iesu quod amet ipsum Iesum,
hoc est nisi credatur in veritate conscientiae coram Deo quod ille amet Iesum;
et similiter ipse qui assumitur in pastorem nisi coram Deo cognoscat se amare
Iesum, nulla debet ratione pastorale officium suscipere’. On Jn 21.17, iv, 428a.
[115] On Mk 16.7, iv, 168a–b.
[116] On Mk 16.9, iv, 169a.
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
