And upon this rock I will build My
Church.
Some ancient authors take
this rock to mean this faith, or this confession of faith, by which Peter had
called Him the son of the living God. Such are S. Hilary (De Trin., vi.); S. Gregory of Nyssa (Cont. Jud.); S. Chrysostom (Hom.
Iv. in loc., and Orat.ii. adv. Jud.); S.
Cyril Alexandria (Dial. iv. de Trin.);
and the author of the Commentaries on the Epistles of S. Paul, which are
ascribed to S. Ambrose (On Gal. iv.).
But the interpretation of S.
Augustin (On S. John xxvii. and
cxxiv. 4, and Serm. xiii. de verb. Dom. sec. S. Matt.): “Upon this
rock, that is, upon Myself,” because Christ was the Rock (1 Cor. 10:4, and 3:11), is still further
from the meaning. Origen takes it of all who have the same faith (Tract. in S. Matt.).
Nothing could be more alien
to the meaning of Christ than to suppose Him to say that He built the Church
upon Himself, or upon any other foundation than S. Peter. For (1) the
demonstrative pronoun “this” is here evidently put for the relative “which”. As
if Christ had said: “Thou art a rock upon which I will build My Church,” for Petrus and Petra are the same word, only of different genders. It may be
doubted why, if not S. Matthew himself, yet the Greek translator of S. Matthew,
made that distinction of word and gender. The answer is, that in the Greek πέτρος and πέτρα are masculine and feminine. Peter,
because he was a man, could not be spoken of by the word Petra, but must be described by his own proper masculine name Petrus. (2) When Christ spoke of the
foundation of the building, He called him not Petrus but Petra, though
both words meant the same thing. And in buildings of this kind, the feminine
form of the word is more used than the masculine—the masculine being Attic and
rare. Besides, who doubts that by these words Christ meant to bestow some great
and singular gift upon Peter as a reward of his confession of faith, or wished
to promise such? But what would Christ have given to him if He had only given
him the name of Peter? Nay, He would not have given him the name, for, as has
been shown, he was already called Peter; but by the words, “upon this rock,” He
signified that He would bestow upon him the great and singular dignity of
founding upon him His Church; that is, of making him the head of the Church,
and His own vicar in it. From the words that follow: “And I will give to thee
the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” it is clear that the words in question
apply to Peter, for it is absurd that a change either of things or persons
could be made by so few words. As, then, Christ said, “I will give unto thee
the keys,” so He said, “Upon this rock,” that is, upon thee, “I will build My
Church”.
He gave him the same thing
in different words, and by different metaphors, that he should be His vicar in
the Church. This dignity (prior to that of the foundation), when He said, “Upon
this rock I will build My Church,” He afterwards confirmed by the metaphor of
chief or head of the Church, when He gave him the keys like those of a city:
Christ Himself being both head and foundation of the Church; by which two names
and metaphors, not two, but one and the same thing is signified.
It may be asked why Christ
did not directly, and in one word, say: “Upon thee will I build My Church”? The
obvious reply is, that the grace and force of His words would in that case have
been lost These consisted in Christ’s using terms applicable to a building when
speaking of the Church as a building; but it would not have been consistent to
say, “Upon thee,” for buildings are not founded upon men, but upon rocks, as S.
Jerome says. Besides, if the meaning were “upon this rock,” that is, upon this
faith, or upon Myself, it would be very greatly in favour of the opponent who
thinks that Peter spoke not for himself alone, but for all the Apostles; which,
it must be confessed, some of the ancient Fathers thought as well (S.
Chrysostom, S. Jerome, in loc.; S.
Augustin, Serm. xiii. de verb. Dom. ap. S. Matt.), who shall
shortly be commented on with due respect. We have now to refute the errors of
the followers of Calvin. If Peter spoke for all, why did not Christ say to all,
“Blessed are ye”? Why were not the names of all changed? Why was it not said to
all, “To you I give the keys”? Again, when Christ asked all, why did not all
reply? Especially when a little before, when He asked whom men said that He
was, not only Peter, but all, or as many as would, answered: “Some say John the
Baptist, others Elias, others Jeremias, or one of the Prophets”. All other
authors, then, have seen more correctly that Peter answered for himself alone.
Not that the others did not believe the same thing, and would have said it, had
not Peter anticipated them; but that Peter, with a great faith, was the first
to break out with a confession. These authors meant this alone, when they said
that he answered for all, and called him the mouth of the Apostles. It is
consonant with this, that as Christ chose the twelve Apostles, after the form
of the twelve Patriarchs, so He should choose one like Abraham, who, because of
his great faith, was the head of all; and that as Abraham was the foundation of
the Old Testament—so Peter should be of the Church of the Gospel. For all
things are equal in both. Abraham excelled in faith, so did Peter. Abram’s name
was changed to Abraham, as he was to be the father of many nations (Gen. 17:5); and so Peter’s, who was to
be the father and head of all Christians. For the one sole reason given by the
heretics for denying that the Church was founded upon Peter, that it could have
no other foundation but that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 3:11), is altogether false. For S.
Paul (Eph. 2:20) calls the Apostles
and Prophets the foundation of the Church. The heretics’ interpretation of
this, as meaning the faith and doctrine, is wholly perverse. For the Apostle
adds: “Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone”. In these words, he
signifies that in the Church, as in the foundations of other buildings, there
are many stones, the first and chief corner-stone being Christ, into whom all
others are united; the second ones being the Apostles and Prophets, who are
themselves built upon the first, but who were the foundation of other
Christians; as S. John says in the Apocalypse
(21:14), in plain words, which have not yet met with any heretical explanation.
Why, then, did S. Paul not
say that we are built upon Christ rather than upon the Apostles and Prophets?
The answer is easy. We are placed further from Christ in the building of the
Church than from the Apostles and Prophets. For Christ is in the first place.
He is the first and corner-stone. Upon Christ are the Apostles and Prophets.
Upon the Apostles and Prophets are built ourselves.
Lastly, except these
heretics, all ancient authors teach that the Church was built upon Peter. So,
then, S. Clement Rome (Ep. to James),
Hippolytus (De Consum. Mundi),
Dionysius (Ep. to Tim.), Tertullian (De Præscript. and De Pudicitia), S. Cyprian (Eps.
to Jubaian. and Cornel.), Origen (Hom.
v. on Exod.), S. Epiphanius (Anchorat.), S. Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. de Moderat.), S. Basil (Hom. de Pœnit., and ii., Against Eunom.), S. Ambrose (Serm. xlvii. de Fide Petri, and lxviii. de
Nat. Pet. et Paul.), and the Hymn of the Church, which is said by S.
Augustin to be the composition of S. Ambrose:
“Hoc, ipsa petra Ecclesiæ
Canente, culpam diluit”—
“And singing this the
Church’s rock itself,
His fault condoned”.
So, S. Jerome (Ep. to Marcella against Montanus, and
bk. i., Adv. Jovin.), the author of
the Commentaries on the Epistles of S. Paul—which are commonly ascribed to S.
Ambrose—(On Gal. ii.), Leo (Serm. ii. de Pet. et Paulo, Ep. to Bp. Vienna and Ep. to Geminian), the whole Council of Chalcedon, Juvencus (Psellus ap. Theod., and iii., In Cant.), and lastly, those authors who
are thought to have held the contrary. For S. Hilary (De Trin., vi.), when he said that Christ founded the Church upon
the faith of Peter, uses these words: “After his confession of this mystery,
the blessed Simon, laying it as the foundation in the edification of the
Church, and receiving the keys”.—And (On
Ps. 131.): “So great was Christ’s
zeal of suffering for the salvation of the human race, that He named Peter,
with the railing of Satan” (Satanæ
convicio), “the first confessor of God, the foundation of the Church, the
door-keeper of the kingdom of heaven, and in earthly judgment the judge of
heaven”.—“O thou, happy in the naming of thy new name, blessed foundation of
the Church, and rock worthy of that edification which shall destroy the laws of
hell, the gates of Tartarus, and all the bars of death” (Can. xvi. on S. Matt.).
And S. Chrysostom (Hom. ii. on Ps.
l.): “Hear what Christ said to Peter, the column and foundation of the faith,
who, for the strength of his confession, was called Peter: ‘Thou art Peter; and
upon this rock I will build My Church’ ”. S. Cyril (ii., On S. John xii.): “ ‘Thou art
Simon, the son of Jona; thou shalt be called Cephas,’ rightly showing, by the
name itself, that on him, as on a rock and most firm stone, He would build His
Church”. And S. Augustin (Serm. xlix.
in verb. Dom. sec. Joann.): “He said
to Peter, on whom He establishes His Church, ‘Peter, lovest thou Me?’ ”
And (lib. i. 21 of Retract.) the
opinion of those who should say that the Church was built upon Peter he does
not disapprove.
From this it appears that
those authors who explain the words “upon this rock” by “this faith” received
it in a different sense to these heretics. It would seem the best explanation
to say that they meant that the Church was built upon the faith and confession
of Peter; that is, upon Peter because of his faith and confession, as all other
authors say.
We use such expressions
daily, as when we say that the kingdom was built upon the faith of one man;
that is, on one man because of his faith, as S. Ambrose (De Resurrect. Fide) said: “It was not the body of Peter that walked
upon the waters, but his faith; for it was not his body, but his faith that
made him do it”. It is clear from these words that they do not deny, as the
heretics do, that S. Peter is the foundation of the Church.
It may be said: If all
others, not only Apostles, but also Prophets, as S. Paul says, are the
foundation of the Church, what in particular is given to S. Peter in those
words? The answer is, that among all the Prophets and Apostles, he, after
Christ, was the first foundation of the Church, and fills Christ’s place in His
absence. But when others are a foundation also, nothing less could be given to
him than that he should be the second foundation-stone after Christ, and in the
same way in which Christ is such; that is, that not only one part, but the
whole Church, should rest on him (niteretur).
There is this difference, that Christ is the foundation by His own power, Peter
by Christ’s; and Christ rests on no other foundation, but Peter rests on
another, that is, Christ. (John Maldonatus, A Commentary on the
Holy Gospels [trans. George J. Davie; 2d ed.; Catholic Standard Library;
London: John Hodges, 1888], 2:34-39)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
