The following comes from:
Karlfried Froehlich, “Saint Peter, Papal Primacy, and the
Exegetical Tradition, 1150-1300,” in The Religious Roles of the Papacy: Ideals
and Realities, 1150-1300, ed. Christopher Ryan (Papers in Mediaeval Studies
8; Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1989), 14-16
A basic lack of the primatial
context also characterizes the exegetical tradition about the “keys of the
kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19). Again, the major reason may have to be sought
in the influence of biblical parallels. In the patristic commentaries, the keys
were understood as penitential authority, primarily the priestly power of
excommunication and reconciliation. This understanding was nourished by the
parallel passages of Matt. 18:18 (“Amen dico vobis, quaecumque alligaveritis
super terram, etc.”) and especially John 20:23, where binding and loosing
seemed to be explained as the retaining and forgiving of sins.[33] Both texts,
however, extended this power beyond the one Peter to all apostles. Thus,
exegetes were faced with the fact that “what was bestowed on Peter, was also
given to all apostles.” [34]
Almost invariably, they discussed
the verse in the context of lengthy considerations of penance and of the
priestly powers, declarative or effective, in relation to this sacrament.
Ludwig H6dl has traced the complicated development through the early scholastic
Sentences and the exegetical guaestiones literature; he pointed to the erosion
of the priestly power of the keys with the change from public to private
penance and from the accent on the forum externum to effective contrition and
the forum internum. [35]
Since Bede, the plural
"keys" were understood as a clavis scientiae and a clavis potestatis
- the designation of the first one echoing Luke 11:52 ("Vae vobis
legisperitis, qui tulistis clavem scientiae"); the second perhaps derived
from the "key of David" (Isa. 22:22; Rev. 3:7). [36] The first, more
problematic key was identified as the discretio exercised by the priest who, as
Jerome had explained, discerns and pronounces authoritatively about the
presence or absence of leprosy, i.e., sin (Luke 17:14; Lev. 14:2f.). [37]
Medieval theologians saw difficulties with this concept. They tried to
distinguish the clavis scientiae clearly from the main key which had to be at
least the authority to excommunicate, if not to impose and remit penances. But
can scientia really be a key? Can and must every priest be assumed to have
discretionary knowledge? And with regard to the power to admit or to exclude
from the kingdom: is it simply given with the priestly ordo? Does one not have
to add the concept of proper jurisdiction to its exercise? The commentaries on
Matt. 16:19 do reflect some of these discussions which led to ever more
elaborate revisions of the traditional concept of the keys, including their
reduction to a single key.[38] What they show even more clearly is that the
weight of the biblical and traditional authorities was still stronger than any
pressure for theological accommodation. Exegetes could not leave it at one key
only when they discussed Matt. 16:19. [39] On the other hand, the
christological accent of v. 18 could make itself felt even in the
interpretation of v. 19. To some exegetes, it seemed noteworthy that Christ
reserved the key of death and hell to himself (Rev. 1:8); others emphasized
that all priestly forgiveness is derived from the one who alone absolves and
binds, Christ. In this connection, the reference of Gregory I to John 11:44 was
often repeated: Christ alone raised Lazarus; the disciples were only ordered to
untie him.” [40]
Notes for the Above:
[33] The combination of Matt. 16
and 18 with John 20:23, and the explanation of the power of the keys through
the latter passage is not warranted by the biblical text itself. In the early
medieval tradition it was developed by Bede in his Homilia 16 on the feast of
Peter and Paul (PL 94: 222p-223a). There is patristic precedent, especially in
the North African tradition, even though Matt. 18:18 does not seem to have been
quoted there before Tyconius ( Beati in Apocalypsin Libri xu; ed. H. A.
Sanders, Rome, 1930, p. 86): Cyprian, Epistola 75.16 (Firmilian of Caesarea;
CsEL 3.2, pp. 820, 1. 26 - 821, 1.6); De unitate ecclesiae, chapter 4 (long
version). Peter Abaelard again attempted to distinguish the ecclesiastical
power to excommunicate, given to all apostles and bishops (Matt. 16:19 and
18:18), from a new gift of the Spirit and of forgiveness, bestowed after the
Resurrection on worthy apostles and prelates only (Peter Abelard’s Ethics, ed.
D. E. Luscombe, Oxford, 1971, pp. 124, 1. 30 - 126, 1. 17).
[34] Augustine, Sermo 149.6 (PL
38: 802p): “Petrus enim in multis locis Scripturarum apparet quod personam
gestet ecclesiae maxime illo in loco ubi dictum est: Tibi dabo, etc. (Matt. 16:19). Numquid istas claves Petrus
accepit et Paulus non accepit? Petrus accepit et Johannes et Jacobus non
accepit? Aut non sunt istae in Ecclesia claves, ubi peccata quotidie
dimittuntur? Sed quoniam in significatione personam Petrus gestabat Ecclesiae,
quod illi uni datum est, ecclesiae datum est.” A good medieval example
is Rupert of Deutz, De Trinitate et operibus eius: In IV evangelia XXV De
primatu Petri (cccM 23, ed. Hrabanus Haacke, 1972, p. 1813, ll. 1258-1277): “Et
tibi dabo claues regni caelorum. Pars
iuris caelestis et senatoriae dignitatis, quae subiecta est his verbis: Et
quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in caelis etc. (Matt.
16:19). Ceteris quoque apostolis communiter contradita est. Dixit enim alibi:
Amen dico uobis, quaecumque alligaueritis super terram, erunt ligata et in
caelo etc. (Matt. 18:18). Itemque et alibi: Quorum remiseritis peccata,
remittuntur eis, et quorum retinueritis, retenta sunt (Io. 20:23). Itaque
potestas quidem communis est omnium, sed unum et singulare unius est Petri
priuilegium, cui prius et singulariter dictum est: Tibi dabo claues regni
caelorum”; cf. his Commentary on John, xtv, at 20:23 (PL 169: 8124).
[35] Ludwig Hédl, Die Geschichte der scholastischen Literatur und der
Theologie der Schliisselgewalt. 1. Teil. Die scholastische Literatur und die
Theologie der Schlüsselgewalt von ihren Anfängen an bis zur Summa Aurea des
Wilhelm von Auxerre, BGPTMA, Band xxxvill, Heft 4 (Miinster, 1960), esp. pp.
376-391 (“Riickblick”).
[36] Bede, Homilia xvi (PL 94: 222): “... absque ea confessione et fide
regnum coelorum nullus posset intrare. Claves autem regni coelorum ipsam
discernendi scientiam potentiamque nominat, qua dignos recipere in regnum,
indignos secludere deberet a regno.”
[37] Jerome, Commentarius in Evangelium Matthaei, m, on Matt. 16:19 (PL 26:
122as): “Istum locum episcopi et presbyteri non intelligentes aliquid sibi de
Pharisaeorum assumunt supersticio, ut vel damnent innocentes, vel solvere se
noxios arbitrentur: cum apud Deum non sententia sacerdotum, sed reorum vita
quaeratur. Legimus in Levitico de leprosis, ubi jubentur ut ostendant se
sacerdotibus, et si lepram habuerint, tunc a sacerdote immundi fiant (Lev.
14:2-4); non quo sacerdotes leprosos faciant et immundos, sed quo habeant
notitiam leprosi et non leprosi, et possint discernere qui mundus, qui immundus
sit.” While, in the Middle Ages, Jerome’s sententia could be used to
stress the necessity of oral confession, it also pointed to the limits of the
priestly powers and provided the warrant for the strong tradition of a merely
declarative understanding of absolution.
[38] Hdl, Schiisselgewalt, pp.
380f, cites a number of earlier theologians and canonists for this latter
position; from the school of Peter the Chanter he mentions Robert of Courson
and an anonymous quaestio in an Erlangen Ms (Bibl. univ., Cod. lat. 260). In most
instances, the biblical plural is explained as the two usus of the one key of
priestly auctoritas.
[39] The section from Petrus de
Scala’s commentary, In Matthaeum (ll. 44-55) demonstrates not only the general
impact of these discussions on an exegete of the late thirteenth century but
also the attempt to maintain two keys while actually arguing for one only.
[40] Gregory 1, Homilia 26 (PL
76: 1200). The interpretation goes back to Augustine, Tractatus in Ioannem
49.24 (cc 36, p. 431, ll. 22-25); cf. 22.6 (ibid., p. 227, Il. 35-38);
Enarrationes in psalmos, C1, sermo 2.3 (cc 40, p. 1440, Il. 7-20).
