KEYS
632
KEYS
(in Matt., xvi, 19). The promise there made finds its
explanation in Isaias, x.xii, in which "the key of the
house of David " is conferred upon EHacim, tlie son of
Helcias, as the symbol of plenary authority in the
Kingdom of Juda. Christ by employing this expres-
sion clearly designed to signify his intention to confer
on St. Peter the supreme authority over His Church.
For a consideration of the text in its dogmatic bearing,
see Pope; Primacy. In the present article our sole
purpose is to give a brief historical account of the
meaning attached to the expression by ecclesiastical
writers.
I. The Fathers. — (1) In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matt., xvi, 19, are of frequent occur- rence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church's power to forgive sins. The application is a natural one, for the promise of the keys is immediately followed by the words: "Whatso- ever thou shalt bind upon earth ", etc. Moreover, the Eower to confer or to withhold forgiveness might well e viewed as the opening and shutting of the gates of heaven. This interpretation, however, restricts the sense somewhat too narrowly; for the remission of sins is but one of the various ways in which ecclesias- tical authority is exerci-sed. We liave examples of this use of the term in such passages as August., "De Doctrina Christi ", xvii, xviii: "Quid liberatius et mis- ericordius facere potuit . . . nisi ut omnia donaret conversis . . . Has igitur claves dedit EcclesiaB suiE ut quae solveret in terra soluta essent in coelo" (How could He [Christ] have shewn greater liberality and greater mercy . . . than by granting full forgiveness to those who should turn from their sins . . . He gave these keys to His Church, therefore, that what- ever it should remit on earth should be remitted also in heaven) (P. L., XXIV, 25; cf. Hilary, "In Matt.", xvi, P. L., IX, 1010).
It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded. In their references to the potestas cUivium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montamst and Novatian heretics the power in- herent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one (tract. 1 in Joan., n. 12, P. L., XXXV, 1763; Serm. ccxcv, in P. L., XXXVIII, 1349). From these passages certain Protestant con- troversialists have drawn the curious conclusion that the power to forgive sins belongs not to the priesthood but to the collective body of Christians (.see Cheetham in "Diet. Christ. Antiq.", s. v.). There is, of course, no suggestion of this meaning. St. Augustine merely signifies that the power to absolve was to be imparted through St. Peter to members of the Church's hier- archy throughout the world.
Some few of the Fathers, however, are careful to note that the bestowal of this power upon St. Peter alone, apart from the other Apostles, denoted his primacy among the twelve (Optatus, "De Schism. Don.", vii, 3, in P. L., XI, 1087). Origen dilates at length on this point, but teaches erroneously that the power conferred upon the Twelve in Matt., xviii, 18, could only be exercised within certain restrictions of place, while tlwt conferred upon St. Peter in Matt., xvi, 18, was of universal extent (Comm. in Matt., P.O., XIII, 1179).
(2) Occasionally, though infrequently, Christ's promise is not restrict(Ml to signify the power to forgive sins, but is taken in the fuller meaning of the gift of authority over the Church. Thus St. Gregory in his
letter to the Emperor Maurice, after quoting Christ's
words in Matt., xvi, 18, 19, writes: "Behold he [Peter]
received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power
of binding and loosing is committed to him, the care
of the whole Church and its government is given to
him [cura ei totius Ecclesite et principatus committi-
tur (Epist., lib. V, ep. xx, in P. L., LXXVII, 745)].
St. Maximus in a sermon on the feast of Saints Peter
and Paul (P. L., LVII, 403) says that to St. Peter was
given the key of power (clavis potentiw), to St. Paul
the key of knowledge {clavis scientics). The idea of a
key of knowledge is clearly derived from Christ's
words to the Pharisees, Luke, xi, 52: "You have taken
away the key of knowledge. " This distinction of the
clavis potentice and clavis scienticB recurs frequently in
the medieval writers, though without reference to St.
Paul.
II. The Scholastics. — By the Scholastic theolo- gians the precise significance of the term was closely analysed. (1) The view which is now universally ac- cepted is exposed at length by Suarez (De Poenit., disp. xvi). According to him, the phrase as employed by Christ in His promise to St. Peter denotes the gift of ecclesiastical authority in its widest scope. This authority was to be in a sense peculiar to St. Peter and his successors in the chief pastorate; for they alone were to possess it in its fullness. But it was to be ex- ercised in due measure by the other members of the Divinely instituted hierarchy according to their sev- eral degrees. Thus understood, the potestas clavium includes (a) the power of order, namely power exer- cised in regard to sacrifice and sacrament, (b) the power of jurisdiction, and (c) the power to define in questions of faith and morals. The various powers thus conferred upon the Church were held to belong either to the clavis poteyHim or to the clavis scientice, the latter of these two being understood to signify the power to teach, while the other departments of au- thority pertained to the clavis potentim. The distinc- tion is, however, a theological refinement, and is not involved in the expression itself. As Suarez urges, C^hrist, when using the plural form, did not intend to indicate that the gift was twofokl.
(2) The meaning attached to the term by the older Scholastics was, however, different from this. They followed the patristic tradition, and confined its signifi- cance to the judicial authority exercised in the Sacra- ment of Penance. The power of the keys, St. Thomas tells us (Summa Theol., Suppl., Q. xvii, art. 2, ad 1"'"), is a necessary consequence of the sacerdotal character. It is, in fact, identical in essence with the power to consecrate and to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The one sacerdotal gift is applied to dif- ferent ends in the different sacraments. Such, too, ap- pears to be the teaching of Pope .John XXII in a well- known passage dealing with this subject (Extravag., tit. xiv, De verborum signif., c. v. Quia quorundam). The definition, "Clavis est specialis potestas ligandi et solvendi qua judex ecclesiasticus dignos recipcre et indignos excludere debet a regno " (The keys are a special power of binding and loosing by which the ecclesiastical judge should receive the worthy [into the kingdom of heaven] and exclude the unworthy there- from), generally accepted in the Scholastic period (Pet. Lomb., "Sent.", IV, dist. xviii; John XXII, loc. cit ; St. Thomas, loc. cit.), might seem indeed to in- clude jurisdiction in the external as well as in the in- ternal forum. But in point of fact it was not so under- stood. The distinction between the clavis potentiw and the clavis scientice was employed here. By the clavis scientice was understood the priestly authority to interrogate the penitent and thus obtain cogni- zance of the facts of the case; by (he claris potentiw, the authority to grant or refuse al solution.
The view just exposed is inailniissihie as an inter- pretation of Christ's words. For it is plain that He de- sired to confer by them some special prerogative on
