The Keys of the Kingdom and the Visible Catholic Church
Sep 27th, 2010 | By Andrew Preslar | Category: Blog PostsThe idea that the Church is a spiritual communion, identified and unified by sharing the same faith and sacraments, while excellent as an affirmation, is inadequate as a definition of the Church that Christ founded, since this idea fails to account for the governmental and hierarchical principle of the Church, as symbolized by the keys of the kingdom of heaven. These keys are no more divided and internally opposed than the faith or the sacraments themselves. Thus, the Church must be every bit as united in government as she is in faith and sacraments. Furthermore, our Lord’s words to Simon Peter concerning the Church, recorded in Matthew 16, suggest that the government of the universal church is not only invisible (i.e., in heaven), but visible (i.e., on earth). [1]
An invisible or balkanized universal Church would be unable to speak her mind or regulate her life. Yet, it seems clear from Sacred Scripture (Matthew 16:18-19) that the Church that Christ founded would be governed as one Church on earth. If a visible and visibly unified universal Church has never existed, then it is difficult to make sense of Christ’s promises. If such a Church did exist, but has subsequently been destroyed or rendered inoperative, well, forget about difficulty of making sense–Our Lord would have manifestly broken his promises. But that is not possible.
The “catholic” Church is, of course, present in the manner described by St. Ignatius: where the bishop is present, particularly in the Eucharistic celebration, there is the catholic Church. [2] However, I have never seen an argument to the effect that Ignatius believed that the catholic Church, in its visible dimension, is thus reducible to the set of all local churches. At least, such reductionism is not entailed by Ignatius’ affirmation of the presence of the universal Church in the (lawful) eucharistic assembly. The local church is a microcosm of the universal Church, but it is also a part of that Church. Thus, for example, the Apostles and presbyters assembled at Jerusalem (Acts 15) could exercise authority over the local church in Antioch. The universal Church was adjudicating upon a doctrinal and a disciplinary matter. The judgment of the universal Church was binding upon all local churches. As it was then, so it is now, precisely because the universal Church founded by Jesus Christ is yet protected by his power according to his own promise.
Some non-Catholics are fond of referring to widespread dissent from Church teaching, among Catholic clergy, religious and laity, as an indication that the Catholic Church is no more united than Protestantism, and far less so than Orthodoxy. But what is actually established by the undeniable fact of dissenting Catholics is that there is more than one way to become separated from the unity of the universal Church. Once we distinguish the various ways of schism, we can more accurately assess whether dissent from Church teaching or departures from Church discipline dissolves the essential unity of the Catholic Church. One assessment is that what is dissolved or perilously weakened by dissent is not the essential unity of the Church but the dissenters’ own participation in that unity. The only way that dissent within the Church could imply the disunity of the Church would be if each of the disputants had equal ecclesial authority, such that the power of the keys could be exercised in mutually exclusive ways. But this is not [ultimately] the case in the Catholic Church.
__________
[1] Recently, I came across a website that, among other things, is committed to the defense, from a Reformed perspective, of invisible church ecclesiology. The issue is raised several times in a recent series on apostolic succession, beginning here. I am intrigued by this position, partly because I think that it is, ultimately, the only alternative to understanding apostolic succession, and indeed the papacy, to be of the essence of the “catholic” Church.
[2] St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaenas, Chapter VIII.
Can you please explain what do you mean exactly with this:
I am intrigued by this position, partly because I think that it is, ultimately, the only alternative to understanding apostolic succession, and indeed the papacy, to be of the essence of the catholic church.)?
Andy,
The position to which I am alluding is that which claims that the one, universal (catholic) church founded by Christ is only invisible (I mean, to us, on earth). Once we grant, as some Protestants do indeed grant, that the catholic church is visible, then we must give some account of how this visible church is, in fact, one visible church. As has been argued here, Protestantism has no principle of visible unity, such that a visible catholic church would be any different, in reality, from an invisible catholic church with visible members and denominations. More arguably, Orthodoxy lacks a principle of visible unity, precisely because she is constituted as a mere plurality of churches, lacking unified, ecclesial government.
Apostolic succession is a principle of visible unity with Christ, the Head of the Church in heaven and on earth, extending through the apostles to their successors, the bishops, down to the present day. The papacy is the principle of visible unity within the episcopal college, and thence for the entire visible catholic church. Both apostolic succession and the specifically Petrine succession in the bishop of Rome are undeniably of ancient origin; more arguably, these institutions go back to Christ himself, who appointed and established the apostolic college, providing for the succession by means of the sacrament of Holy Orders, and establishing, within that college, also as a perpetual office, a visible head, to exercise the keys of the kingdom on behalf of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. No other principles of visible unity satisfy the conditions of adequacy and antiquity. If there is one visible, catholic church, you can bet that it is something that we don’t get to make up ourselves. Like I said, it seems to me that the best way to avoid this conclusion is simply to deny that the universal church is visible. There are problems with the invisible church position, of course, some of which I alluded to in the post.
Andrew
“You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. ”
Matt 5:14
Along with Matt 16, I have always read the above to be a reference to a visible Church and its foundation on Christ. The proof evident in the visible acts of binding and loosing in Matt 16:19 is closely prefigured by Isaiah 22:22, which demonstrates the dynastic succession via the keys in what was a visible hierarchy of temple high priests.
Hey Alan,
Thanks for sharing these thoughts on Matthew 5 and 16. I always, and only, thought of the former in connection with the personal testimonies of individual believers. Here is another case of both / and, another instance of how Catholicism fills up, rather than replacing, what I already believed. Thanks again.
Andrew
Hi Andrew,
Yes, I think Catholicism has a way of perfecting our understanding in a most beautiful and faithful way. Much like how Christ took the Jews interpretation of the Law on marriage and did not throw it out, but rather perfected it. (Matt 5:31-32)
So very true. The dissent in the Catholic Church is problem, but it has been with the Church since its founding. I dont think there was ever a golden age of obedience. We only have to look at Judas to see that 1 in 12 was a traitor while the Lord walked this very earth. Even the invisible Church Triumphant lost a third of the angels who followed Satan.
I must admit that I don’t know the reasoning for believing the Church to be invisible, unless we are talking of the Church Triumphant, and the Church Suffering. In which case, it is understood as being invisible. But in most cases, when people refer to the Church, they are by default talking of the Church Militant. Then I become a little shady on what the arguments are in support of such a position.
In my understanding, the verse above makes reference to the flocks of Jew and Gentile, and how they are all called to be under one fold, and under one Sheppard. It is not coincidental that Jesus also tells Peter(as His Vicar) to feed His sheep. You cannot tend to one universal flock unless you know how to recognize your sheep, and your sheep know how to recognize you. The sheep will scatter without a visible sheppard, and the sheep will scatter if they cannot find the fold. An invisible church that is comprised of a collection of loosely connected individuals who recognize neither one shepperd nor one fold, nor one baptism, nor one faith, does not possess the marks that constitute a Church with the attributes as established by Christ. I think this is why the Holy Father refers to them as ecclesial communities. Not as an insult, but as a faithful recognition of what it means to be a Church.
Yours in Christ,
Alan
“The only way that dissent within the Church could imply ecclesial disunity would be if each of the disputants had equal ecclesial authority”
Of course, that should be tightened up, with the addition of something like: “and there were, in principle, no possibility of appeal to a higher, and ultimately binding, ecclesial authority.”
Andrew P:
Maybe it’s just me, but I could never take “invisible-church” ecclesiology seriously. God became incarnate in Jesus Christ. So the analogy of faith suggests that his Mystical Body would be, in part but necessarily, like him of whom she is the body in a mystical marriage: one, historically continuous, and utterly concrete. The notion that “the Church” is not a unitary visible body just strikes me as a way of defining “the Church” away.
Best,
Mike
Mike,
I agree with you concerning the fitness of the analogy. I think that there is a tendency to read “spiritual” as “invisible” or “immaterial.” St. Paul derails that train of thought in 1 Cor 15.
As far as I can remember, from my (Dispensationalist, quasi-Calvinist) evangelical education, the “catholic” church is simply the set of all the elect, i.e., everyone who has genuine faith in Christ, having the Holy Spirit dwelling within, being therefore one with Christ, members of his mystical Body, the Church. The fellows at the site to which I linked (at the end of this post) were suggesting that this sort of notion is more congruent with sola fide than any other; i.e., visible stuff, like sacraments and institutions, are not necessary for spiritual union, justification, etc. Everyone who is united to Christ and justified (by faith alone) is part of the universal church. So, if you take away every visible institution, and every sacrament, you still have the same set of people, the elect / justified, i.e., the catholic church. A *visible* church does require an institution and sacraments, but the *catholic* church doesn’t, it seems, require any visible church. In fact, I think that we accounted for the period 100–1520 AD by simply assuming that there were no true, visible churches in existence, only the catholic / invisible church, comprised (on earth) by a few nameless rogues. Most of the Reformed folk I talk to don’t go this route, but I think that it might be easier, in some ways (though not in others), if they did.
Andrew
Indeed, Andrew. I notice that Steve Wedgewood, Peter Escalante, and their ilk won’t go that route. The reasons why should, I think, be obvious. But the careful alternative they try to develop amounts to saying that the gates of hell did prevail against the visible Church for a long while, and were only turned back by a subset of Protestants who refounded the visible Church in the 16th century. That thesis seems even harder to maintain, given the words of Christ.
Best,
Mike
Andrew, or any other Ctc Staffs
There is a question Protestant apologist James White has asked most times in his debates with Catholic apologists on the doctrine of the papacy-and none of them has given him a solid answer.
This is the question: We know that Jesus did not give St Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven in this passage since He speaks of giving St Peter in the future: ”I will give you the keys…”. So when did Jesus actually give St Peter these keys???
White has answered the question himself in a way that fits his paradigm, he said that Jesus gave St Peter the keys when he was giving the other apostles in Matthew 18:18 and therefore St Peter was not unique in regards to the keys. Please how do Catholics answer this question James White has raised?
Augustine,
Here’s what St Thomas Aquinas says in his Commentary on Matthew about the use of the future tense in Matt 16:19:
Source
in Christ,
jds
JDS
Thanks a lot. I thought as much. I knew it would be in John 21:15-17 where Peter was given the keys but I was looking for a patristic support.
Do you know of any other patristic writings or evidence of this interpretation asides St Thomas Aquinas?
Also please do you know of any link to a site of St Thomas commentary on the gospel of Matthew( I don’t mean ‘catena aurea’). The link you gave was not written in English Language.
Thanks
Augustine,
I do not know off the top of my head of any Fathers who concern themselves with the future tense of “I will give,” though some of them do link the scenes in Matt. 16 and John 21 (e.g., Cyprian, On the Unity of the Catholic Church 4), but I have not made an exhaustive study of the question.
The link I sent you includes both Latin and English columns. Just scroll to the right for the English.
in Christ,
jds
Augustine,
Could you provide some more details of White’s argument? From what you wrote in your initial comment, the argument seems to be this:
1. Christ promised to give Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven at some unspecified future time. (Matthew 16)
2. Christ gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to all the disciples gathered about him not long after this. (Matthew 18)
3. Therefore, Peter was not given the keys in any unique manner.
There are a few problems here, but I will just note the main one: the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
The timing issue is interesting, theologically and (perhaps) apologetically. The possible link between Mt 16 and Jn 21 is important in this regard, as is the question of whether Christ gave the keys to the disciples in Capernaum, or simply gave them some instructions on “binding and loosing” in the context of the church—an activity clearly related to the keys, which were themselves to be given at a later time.
Andrew:
If I may butt in here, I thought I would comment here about something that helped me when I was struggling with becoming a Catholic. I thought – and think – that there are actually three New Testament passages that are important here. Matthew 16:13-20 and the John 21 passage. Also important is Luke 22:31-32. And in particular, there is something in both the Matthew and the Luke passages that easily escape modern English readers. Even when they know the fact that seems important to me, the feeling of the fact does not easily come to us modern English readers.
This is because modern English has no distinction between second person singular and plural pronouns. Indeed, this distinction is so natural to language that most dialects of English has invented a way of making this clear – though these ways are almost universally socially deprecated. In New Zealand, people (again, not considered ‘proper’ usage :-) ) say “youse” for plural, “you” for singular.
Both Aramaic and Greek – the former being, one assumes, the language Jesus was speaking, the latter the language the evangelists wrote in – do have this distinction. In the Matthew, passage, Jesus says (using the old English singular pronoun) “blessed art thou, Peter”. This, of course, does not mean that He is excluding the others; it is Peter who is speaking. The Luke passage seems to me more important. Jesus says (quoting from the King James, which preserves the singular/plural in the second person – ‘you’ is ‘you plural’; ‘thee/thy/thou’ are singular:
Don’t know if you read Greek, but for comparison, here it is:
I think the contrast between the two would be much more powerful for readers whose native language made the distinction.
For what it’s worth!
John Thayer Jensen
Andrew,
Thanks for writing
I think you got my question right.
1) Jesus promised to give Peter the keys in the future without specifying ‘when He would’
2) The meaning of the keys are expressed in the words ”…whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven &c” as written in Matthew 16:18
3) This power to bind and loose was given to the apostles in general including Peter and this is where Peter receives the keys. Since he receives it with others, then he does not really have a primacy. I think this is how he puts the question
Augustine,
Thanks. Such an argument seems to suppose that if ecclesial authority (represented by the keys) is given to multiple persons then it must be given to each of those persons to the same degree. But we know that multiple persons can possess the same kind of authority in varying degrees, e.g., governmental authority is possessed in different degrees by different officers of the state, who rule together. In the Catholic Church, ecclesial authority is possessed by the pope with the other bishops, who rule together. If they initially received this authority together (granting, for the sake of argument, that the keys were given along with the instructions recorded in Matthew 18), that would not pose any problem for Catholic ecclesiology, so far as I can see. (It is also, in my opinion, better to read the plurality of authority in Matthew 18 as not cancelling out the singularity of authority in Matthew 16, and vice versa.)
John,
Thanks. I think that those three Petrine passages in the Gospels clearly point to a singularity or distinctiveness of Peter’s ministry within the Apostolic college.
In the original post, I argued that one implication of this distinctive ministry is that in the Catholic Church there is a “court of final appeal” regarding the exercise of the keys. I would clarify here that this argument pertains to the synchronic exercise of the keys. It does not contain any suggestion as to how ecclesial authority is manifested diachronically.
One way to make more comprehensible this kind of argument from Matthew 18 for parity (in church authority) among apostles (Peter included) and by extension among their successors, the bishops (the bishop of Rome included), might be to argue that if a hierarchy of authority were intended within the apostolic college, then the kinds of formal distinctions (manifest in words, ceremonies, etc) pertaining to such hierarchy would require separate occasions for bestowing the keys.
The problems with this, however, are (1) there is no reason to think that distinct offices with requisite formal distinctions in their institutions cannot be bestowed on one occasion, so (2) we would have to assume that such distinctions were not present on the particular occasion of the keys’ bestowal to all of the apostles at that (or any other) time. But such an assumption is not warranted from the text, because there is no record in Matthew 18 of Jesus formally giving the keys to anyone (he simply provides some instructions on their use to the disciples gathered there). In which case, this argument is an argument from silence with no good reason to think that this silence is indicative of parity of apostolic authority.
(If there is a better way to “steel man” White’s argument, I would be happy consider it, but I cannot presently think of it.)
On the other hand, there is explicit scriptural evidence for the distinctiveness of Peter’s ministry within the apostolic college, as indicated in Gospel texts mentioned in previous comments (e.g., Mt 16, Lk 22, Jn 21). This biblical witness provides positive support for the traditional understanding of Petrine primacy as developed in the Catholic Church.
In the previous comment, I mentioned that my argument in the original post was synchronic in focus, to the effect that papal primacy guarantees that the keys cannot ultimately be set against themselves by conflicting judgments among bishops, since the pope is the court of final appeal in all ecclesial matters. I mention this now because it was only in the course of these recents comments that I realized my original argument (unintentionally) left out the diachronic aspect of the exercise of the keys, such that it did not address the question of whether or how ecclesial authority might be exercised by a reigning pope in a manner that conflicts with the ecclesial acts of previous popes. This further question brings up a host of important considerations (e.g., the distinction between doctrine and disciple, the pope’s relation to tradition—including the judgments of his predecessors, the layman’s relation to the Magisterium, the Church militant’s relation to the Church triumphant), which are significant points of intra-Catholic discussion and debate, and by extension important considerations for apologetics and ecumenical dialogue.
#87. Andrew
I may have mentioned this somewhere on C2C before, that Peter/Kephas/Rock, is given the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and entrusted to Tend, to Shepherd and to Feed Christ one flock; is called to build Christ’s Church in Matthew 16:18-19 and John 21:15-17. Nowhere in the New Testament does God the Father call anyone by name except one person. In Acts 10, Simon bar-Jona is called by God the Father for the purpose of Church-Building, bringing the Gentiles into the One Church:
Acts 10:13 RSV
And there came a voice to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”
“Rise, Peter/Kephas/Rock; kill and eat.”
Peter is called to fulfill what Christ Himself said He must do:
John 10:16 RSV
And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.
JESUS does bring in this other flock, the Gentiles, in Persona Christi and in accordance with the Ecclesial Authority that the Keys symbolize.