They Shall Be One Flesh

 The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony

And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said: This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore, shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Genesis 2, 21-24

The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her
husband. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the
same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.
1 Corinthians 7, 3-4

In the Catholic faith, Holy Matrimony is one of the two sacraments of service along with Holy Orders. Marriage is both a sacrament and a vocation. God is the author of marriage in the order of creation. “The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1603). By vocation, the Catholic Church means a call to persons to accomplish a task preordained by God in the economy of salvation. Archbishop J. Francis Stafford says, “The highest joy in life for a Christian is searching out, discovering, and pursuing the purpose for which God called him into existence. The idea of vocation implies and demands a larger design to life.”

The mutual love between spouses mirrors God's “absolute and unfailing love” for humanity. This love that God blesses “is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation” (CCC, 1604). Thus, marriage as a divine vocation or service ordered by the will of God requires unity and fruitfulness. Spouses are called to grow daily in their communion through constant fidelity to their marriage vow of complete mutual self-giving. Marriage is created by God, so the spouses are called to a perpetual, faithful, and fruitful union directed toward the well-being of the spouses and their offspring. The dissolution of a marriage thwarts God’s purpose for it.

Wives, subject yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife,
as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is
subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your
wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her,
having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in
all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. For
this reason, a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become
one flesh.
Ephesians 5, 22-27, 31

In a sacramental marriage, God’s love becomes present to the spouses in their total union and flows through them to their family and community. The couple reveals something of God's unconditional love through their permanent, faithful, and exclusive giving to each other, symbolized in their conjugal relations and being fruitful. The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony involves their entire life as they journey together through the better and the worse of marriage and become more equipped to give to and receive from each other. Their life becomes sacramental to the extent that the spouses cooperate with God’s action in their life and perceive themselves as living “in Christ” and Christ living and acting in them in how they relate to and treat each other. Conjugal love involves a totality in which all the person's characteristics enter. It aims to achieve a deeply personal unity that extends beyond union in one flesh to the formation of one heart, mind, and soul. This Christ-centered love demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual self-giving and sacrifice and is open to fertility. A marriage that is no longer sacramental is a failed marriage.

Holy Matrimony is a sacrament of service. As such a sacrament, a husband and wife's devotion to each other (and thereby to Christ) must mirror Christ’s love and service to the Church. Through marriage, a couple is bound to help build each other and their offspring up in faith, serve each other and the Church, and be faithful to each other until death. In Catholic teaching, six character traits of faithfulness should also be applied to marriage: commitment, love, longsuffering, patience, endurance, and steadfastness.

Marriage is an exclusive lifetime partnership, so marriage must possess these characteristics to be sacramental and successful. A sacramental marriage is vocational, and the spouses in this bond are called to discipleship. Thus, “Christ dwells with them, gives them the strength to take up their crosses and so follow him, to rise again after they have fallen, to forgive one another, to bear one another’s burdens, to ‘be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ,’ [Eph 5:21] and to love one another with supernatural, tender, and fruitful love. In the joys of their love and family life, he gives them here on earth a foretaste of the wedding feast of the Lamb” (CCC, 1642). The love of the spouses should mirror the love that Christ has for his Church and the love we all should have for each other in our discipleship, “ requires of its very nature, the unity, and indissolubility of the spouses’ community of persons, which embraces their entire life: “so they are no longer two, but one flesh.” They “are called to grow continually in their communion through day-to-day fidelity to their marriage promise of total mutual self-giving. This human communion is confirmed, purified, and completed by communion in Jesus Christ, given through the sacrament of Matrimony” (CCC, 1644).

“By its very nature, conjugal love requires the inviolable fidelity of the spouses. This is the consequence of their gift to each other. Love seeks to be definitive; it cannot be an arrangement “until further notice.” The “intimate union of marriage, as a mutual giving of two persons, and the good of the children, demand total fidelity from the spouses and require an unbreakable union between them” (CCC, 1646). “The deepest reason is found in the fidelity of God to his covenant, in that of Christ to his Church. Through the sacrament of matrimony, the spouses can represent and witness this fidelity. Through the sacrament, the indissolubility of marriage receives a new and deeper meaning” (CCC 1647).

The Old Testament addresses the fidelity and perpetuity of marriage and likens Yahweh’s covenant with Israel to that between husband and wife. God created man and woman out of love and commanded them to imitate His love in their relations with each other. Man and woman were created for each other: “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him. … The two of them become one body.” (Gen 2:18, 24). Catholic teaching holds that all the sacraments bestow grace on those who receive them with the proper disposition. Grace describes how God shares His divine life with us and gives us the help we need to live as followers of Christ. In marriage, the grace of this sacrament brings to the spouses the particular help they need to be faithful to each other and good parents. It also helps a couple serve others beyond their immediate family and show the community that a loving and lasting marriage is desirable and possible if centered in Christ.

The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is thus a covenant of love. Being married isn’t just about having a “soul mate” or being with somebody for the sake of practical convenience. Marriage isn’t a business arrangement or even a legal contract. A marriage cannot be healthy or indissoluble in practice unless it is a covenant of unconditional love, despite one’s partner’s imperfections, state of health, or financial contributions. Marriage does not lie within the criteria of a contract but rather that of a covenant. A fundamental difference between a contract and a covenant is that a contract is divided between two human parties and agreed upon as a matter of honor and personal security. Legal proceedings are in place to enforce such private agreements. Each party is more concerned about its own private interests. Unconditional love, fidelity, and self-sacrifice aren’t part of the criteria for signing a legal contract.

“The consent by which the spouses mutually give and receive one another is sealed by God himself. From their covenant arises “an institution, confirmed by the divine law. . . even in the eyes of society.” The covenant between the spouses is integrated into God’s covenant with man: “Authentic married love is caught up into divine love” (CCC, 1639). “Thus, the marriage bond has been established by God so that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. This bond, which results from the free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God’s fidelity. The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom” (CCC, 1640). “” The unity of marriage, distinctly recognized by our Lord, is made clear in the equal personal dignity which must be accorded to man and wife in mutual and unreserved affection” (CCC, 1645).

Jesus unequivocally taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman as his heavenly Father willed it from the beginning. Permission given by Moses to divorce one’s wife was a concession to the hardness of hearts. But the union of man and woman is indissoluble: God himself has determined it: “What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” (cf. Mt 19:3-10). “By restoring the original order of creation disturbed by sin, he gives the strength and grace to live marriage in the new dimension of the Reign of God. By following Christ, renouncing themselves, and taking up their crosses, spouses will be able to “receive” the original meaning of marriage and live it with the help of Christ. This grace of Christian marriage is a fruit of Christ’s cross, the source of all Christian life” (CCC, 1615).

The exchange of consent between the spouses makes the marriage valid. If consent is lacking because of coercion or circumstantial pressure, no marriage can thereby be annulled by the Church. Consent must be canonically expressed between two persons capable of giving it. By their free, mutual consent, the couple forms the marriage covenant. It is on this covenant they build a life-long bond. While the sacrament is received at one moment in real-time, sacramental grace continues to flow and be received throughout the married couple’s lives. The offering of themselves to each other is a gift of grace. Grace is added upon grace as they continue to grow in conjugal love and bear the fruits of their marriage.

Thus, marital consent is a free human act that isn’t based on individual self-interest in which the man and the woman offer themselves to each other as gifts of grace. The consent by which the spouses mutually give to each other and receive is sealed by God. The covenant between the spouses is integrated into God’s covenant with human beings. The four characteristics of a marriage blessed by God through the administration of the sacrament are freedom of consent, the totality of giving oneself to the other, faithfulness, and fruitfulness. All these characteristics are grounded on and reinforced by the greatest theological Christian virtue: unconditional love from which flow kindness, gentleness, humility, patience, forbearance, honesty, compassion, mercy, and understanding.

Sacred Scripture confirms Catholic tradition and the sacramental nature of matrimony. We see that, from the beginning, man and woman are joined together by God and become one body as husband and wife (Gen 2:20-24). A human body cannot be divided or dismembered and still be animated with life. A husband and wife share a single soul in one body in the order of God’s creation. God speaks through His prophet and declares, ““For I hate divorce,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with violence,” says the LORD of armies. “So be careful about your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously” (Mal 2:16).

Indeed, Jesus makes it clear that God joins the husband and wife together according to His will. What God joins together must not be dissolved (Mt 19:6). Our Lord actually says that whoever divorces and remarries another commits adultery (Mt 19:9; Mk 10:11-12; Lk 16:18). This is an offense against the natural law that has been established by God. Paul reiterates Jesus’ teaching that sacramental marriage followed by a divorce and remarriage is adultery. The apostle writes: ‘Thus a married woman is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man, she is not an adulteress’ (Rom 7:2-3; cf. 1 Cor 7:10-11).

The Lord permits divorce only for porneia (πορνεία ). This Greek noun often refers to unlawful sexual intercourse and non-sacramental unions such as between siblings and other close family members (incest). The Lord does not permit divorce for adultery (mocha / μοιχεία), such as in the case of an extra-marital affair. We should note that in unlawful cases, a marriage (between a father and his daughter, for instance) never existed in the first place, so the Lord is not permitting divorce but declaring a dissolution of an unlawful union by annulling it as a non-existent marriage.

But to the married, I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife is not to leave her husband (but
if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband, and that the husband is
not to divorce his wife.
1 Corinthians 7, 10-11

Finally, Paul says that the sacramental union of husband and wife is the image of Christ and the Church. A husband and wife are inseparable as much as Christ the Bridegroom and His Bride the Church are (Eph 5:22-32). A civil divorce cannot dissolve a sacramental marriage between two baptized Christians. However, we have what the Catholic Church calls the “Pauline privilege.” If two unbaptized people marry, and afterward, one of the spouses is baptized, the Christian is free to remarry if the unbaptized spouse decides to end the marriage. This is because the marriage between two unbaptized people is non-sacramental (1 Cor 7:12-15).

The marital union of man and woman reflects Christ’s union with the Church at the heavenly marriage supper (Rev 19:9). Those who get married in the Church must first be baptized and understand this divine mystery. Just as Christ and the Church have become one flesh through the sacrament of Holy Eucharist, and the union brings forth spiritual life for God’s children, a man, and a woman become one flesh, and their union brings forth physical life for the Church. This marital union is sacramental and thus indissoluble.

Hence, Holy Matrimony is one of the two sacraments of service. It is sacramental in that the mutual love between spouses mirrors God's absolute and unfailing love for humanity and Christ for his bride, the Church. A husband and wife's devotion to each other must mirror Christ’s love and service to the Church. In a sacramental marriage, God’s love becomes present to the spouses in their total union and flows through them to their family and community.

By its very vocational nature, marriage is ordered for the good of the couple and for the generation and education of children. Conjugal love involves a totality in which all the person's characteristics enter. It aims to achieve a deeply personal unity that extends beyond union in one flesh to the formation of one heart, mind, and soul. Conjugal love requires the inviolable fidelity of the spouses. The Old Testament addresses the fidelity and perpetuity of marriage and likens Yahweh’s covenant with Israel to that between husband and wife. The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is thus a covenant of love. The consent by which the spouses mutually give and receive one another makes the marriage valid and is sealed by God Himself. By following Christ, renouncing themselves, and taking up their crosses, spouses (disciples of Christ) will be able to receive the original meaning of marriage and live it with the help of Christ.

Early Sacred Tradition

“Flee wicked arts; but all the more discourse regarding them. Speak to my sisters, that they love
in our Lord, and that their husbands be sufficient for them in the flesh and spirit. Then, again,
charge my brethren in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they love their wives, as our Lord
His Church. If any man is able in power to continue in purity, to the honor of the flesh of our
Lord, let him continue so without boasting; if he boasts, he is undone; if he becomes known
apart from the bishop, he has destroyed himself. It is becoming, therefore, to men and women
who marry, that they marry with the counsel of the bishop, that the marriage may be in our
Lord, and not in lust. Let everything, therefore, be done for the honor of God.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, To Polycarp, 5
(A.D. 110)

“Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly
contained in the law, ‘Thou shalt not put away thy wife, except for the cause of fornication;’
and it regards as fornication, the marriage of those separated while the other is alive. Not to
deck and adorn herself beyond what is becoming, renders a wife free of calumnious suspicion
while she devotes herself assiduously to prayers and supplications; avoiding frequent
departures from the house, and shutting herself up as far as possible from the view of all not
related to her, and deeming housekeeping of more consequence than impertinent trifling. ‘He
that taketh a woman that has been put away,’ it is said, ‘committeth adultery; and if one puts
away his wife, he makes her an adulteress,’ that is, compels her to commit adultery. And not
only is he who puts her away guilty of this, but he who takes her, by giving to the woman the
opportunity of sinning; for did he not take her, she would return to her husband.”
St. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 2:24
(A.D. 202)

“‘What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.’ See a teacher’s wisdom. I
mean, that being asked, Is it lawful? He did not at once say, It is not lawful, lest they should be
disturbed and put in disorder, but before the decision by His argument He rendered this
manifest, showing that it is itself too the commandment of His Father, and that not in
opposition to Moses did He enjoin these things, but in full agreement with him. But mark Him
arguing strongly not from the creation only, but also from His command. For He said not that
He made one man and one woman only, but that He also gave this command that the one man
should be joined to the one woman. But if it had been His will that he should put this one away,
and bring in another, when He had made one man, He would have formed many Women. But
now both by the manner of the creation, and by the manner of lawgiving, He showed that one
man must dwell with one woman continually, and never break off from her.”
St. John Chrysostom, On Matthew 62:1
(A.D. 370)

“There is hardly anything more deadly than being married to one who is a stranger to the faith,
where the passions of lust and dissension and the evils of sacrilege are inflamed. Since the
marriage ceremony ought to be sanctified by the priestly veiling and blessing, how can that be
called a marriage ceremony where there is no agreement in faith?”
St. Ambrose, To Vigilius, Letter 19:7
(A.D. 385)

“Therefore the good of marriage throughout all nations and all men stands in the occasion of
begetting, and faith of chastity: but, so far as pertains unto the People of God, also in the
sanctity of the Sacrament, by reason of which it is unlawful for one who leaves her husband,
even when she has been put away, to be married to another, so long as her husband lives, no
not even for the sake of bearing children: and, whereas this is the alone cause, wherefore
marriage takes place, not even where that very thing, wherefore it takes place, follows not, is
the marriage bond loosed, save by the death of the husband or wife.”
St. Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, 24:32
(A.D. 401)

“Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and
female… Have you not read, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and
be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’? So they are no longer two but one.
What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”
Matthew 19, 4-6

Pax vobiscum

This Is My Body, This Is My Blood

 The Last Supper

While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it
to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and after
giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of
the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will
never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my
Father’s kingdom.
Matthew 26, 26-29

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ?
The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?
1 Corinthians 10, 16

The event of Christ offering himself as the paschal lamb in the Last Supper is what the celebration of the Eucharist became for the New Covenant believers. That night of the Jewish Passover, Jesus transformed the traditional sacrificial meal of the Passover lamb. For us to see how this happened, we must examine the course of our Lord’s supper in the traditional manner. Jesus is celebrating or presiding over the Passover Seder meal with his apostles which requires them to drink four cups of wine. Matthew, however, begins his narrative at the serving of the third cup (Berekah) or the “Cup of Salvation” since Our Lord is looking towards his own immolation as the Passover lamb (Mt 26:29; Mk 14:25). [1] Paul uses the “Cup of Blessing” (Berekah) to refer to the Eucharist, connecting the Seder meal to the Eucharistic sacrifice (1 Cor 10:16). The third cup actually makes present the Paschal sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb who was slain for our sins (Isa 53:7; Jn 1:29).

Yet Jesus omits the serving of the fourth cup (Hallel) or “Cup of Consummation.” This is a significant omission that joins the Eucharistic sacrifice being offered in the Seder meal to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. In other words, they comprise one single sacrifice. The Last Supper, therefore, is a pre-presentation of our Lord’s sacrifice on the cross, which is made present in the Seder meal. This one and the same sacrifice isn’t completed until Jesus partakes of the fourth cup of wine just before he dies on the cross after saying, “It is consummated” (Jn 19:29, 30; cf. Mt 27:48; Mk 15:36). [2]

Jesus was given sour wine on a “hyssop” branch that was used to sprinkle the lamb’s blood on the doorposts on the night of the first Passover (Ex 12:22) and by the priests in the sacrificial offerings of the Old Covenant. [3] This joins Christ’s sacrifice of himself to the lambs that were slaughtered and consumed by the Jews in the Seder meal, which was ceremonially completed by drinking the wine in the Cup of Consummation. Thus, Christ’s sacrifice began in the upper room and was completed on Mount Golgotha.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Catholic Church is a re-presentation of this one single sacrifice. It is the Lord’s Supper or Seder meal of the New Covenant that makes Christ’s sacrifice on the cross perpetually present as a visible sign of the marriage feast in heaven (Rev 19:9). St. Paul tells us that we need to celebrate the Eucharistic feast:  “Therefore, let us celebrate the festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor 5:8). In other words, we must worthily eat the flesh of the Lamb of God and drink His blood in the Blessed Sacrament to be in holy communion with God and reap the fruits of Our Lord’s sacrifice (1 Cor 11:17-22).

Hence, the Lord’s Supper isn’t just a symbolic memorial meal, as most Protestants contend, but a marriage feast that marks God’s establishment of the New Covenant in which the Eucharist makes Christ’s one eternal sacrifice present. Scripture confirms this truth in the words of consecration – “Do this in remembrance of me” – used by Jesus in the Last Supper: touto poieite tan eman anamnasin (Lk 22:19; cf. 1 Cor 11:24-25). What our Lord literally says is, “Offer this as a memorial sacrifice.” The Greek verb poiein (ποιεῖν) or “do” is used in the context of offering a sacrifice where, for instance, in the Septuagint, God uses the same word poieseis (ποιέω) regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar (Ex 29:38-39). The noun anamnesis (ἀνάμνησις) or “remembrance” also refers to a sacrifice that is really or actually made present in real-time by the power of God in the Holy Spirit, as it reminds us of the actual event (Heb 10:3; Num 10:10). [4]

So, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass isn’t merely a memorial of a past event but a past event actually made present in time. Christ’s Eucharistic sacrifice is the memorial or reminder of what our Lord has accomplished for us and continues to accomplish by his single sacrifice, not what he had accomplished and is finished in time. Only the crucifixion itself remains a past historical event. Christ’s single sacrifice of himself on the cross is ever-present in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

We read in Leviticus 24:7: ‘By each stack put some pure incense as a memorial portion to represent the bread and to be a food offering presented to the LORD.’ The word “memorial” in Hebrew in the sacrificial sense is the feminine noun azkarah ( אַזְכָּרָה ), which means “to actually make present.” There are many instances in the Old Testament where azkarah refers to sacrifices that are currently being offered, and so are present in time (Lev 2:2,9, 6:5; 16; 5-12; Num 5:26; 10:10). [5] These are one and the same sacrifices that are memorially being offered in time. Jesus’ command for us to offer the bread and wine (transubstantiated into his body and blood) as a memorial offering shows that the sacrificial offering of his body and blood is made present in time over and over again while serving as a reminder of what he has accomplished for us through his one, single sacrifice of himself. Thus, the Holy sacrifice of the Mass is sacramentally a re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross that began at the Last Supper and historically occurred on Calvary.

Sadly, Protestants argue in disbelief that Jesus is speaking metaphorically about eating his flesh and that the bread only symbolizes his body. But the Greek verbs used in John 6 (The Bread of Life Discourse) render their interpretation implausible. Throughout John 6:23-53, the Greek text uses the verb phago (φάγω) nine times. This verb means to literally “eat” or physically “consume.” Jesus repeated himself this often because of the Jews’ disbelief. He was, in a sense, challenging their faith in him while driving an important point home. In fact, many of his disciples deserted him since they knew he was speaking literally and feared he was mad. For this reason, Jesus uses an even more literal verb that describes the process of consuming food (Jn 6: 54, 55, 56, 57). This is the verb trogo (τρώγω) which means to “gnaw” “chew” or “crunch.” Though phago may be used in a metaphorical sense, trogo is never applied symbolically. [6]

Anyway, for further clarification, Jesus says, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (Jn 6:55). Jesus is responding to those who refused to believe in what he was saying. Also, when Jesus institutes the sacrament of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, he says, “This is my body and blood” (Mt 26:26; Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19-20). The Greek phrase is “Touto estin to soma mou.” So, what our Lord means to say is “This is really or actually my body and blood.” St. Paul uses the same phraseology in his First Letter to the Corinthians 11:24. Paul does reaffirm that “the cup of blessing” and “the bread of which [the Corinthians] partake” is “actual” participation in Christ’s body and blood” (1 Cor 10:16). The Greek noun koinonia (κοινωνία) denotes a “participation” that isn’t merely symbolic. [7]

Moreover, the Greek text in John’s Gospel uses sarx (σάρξ), which literally means “flesh.” The phrases “real food” and “real drink” contain the adjective alethes (ἀληθής), which means “really” or “truly” (Jn 6:55). This adjective is used on occasion when there is doubt concerning the reality of something, in this case, which is Jesus’ flesh being food to eat and his blood being something to drink for everlasting life. [8] Jesus is assuring his doubters that what he is literally saying is, in fact, true. The Apostles refused to desert Jesus after listening to their Master’s discourse and attended the Seder meal with him, on which occasion, they (except Judas) consumed the flesh of the sacrificed Lamb of God and drank his blood just as the Jewish people ate the flesh of the sacrificed lamb and were sprinkled with its blood for the forgiveness of sin (Ex 12:5-8; 24:8).

Early Sacred Tradition

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like
manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our
salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the
prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are
nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”
St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66
(A.D. 155 )

“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood,
from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he
affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.”
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2
(c. A.D. 190)

“It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy
body and blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, ‘He that eateth my flesh and
drinketh my blood hath eternal life.’ And who doubts that to share frequently in
life, is the same thing as to have manifold life. I, indeed, communicate four times a
week, on the Lord’s day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the
other days if there is a commemoration of any Saint.”
St. Basil, To Patrician Caesaria, Epistle 93
(A.D. 372)

“Perhaps you will say, ‘I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive
the Body of Christ?’ And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what
evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but
what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of
nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed…The Lord Jesus Himself
proclaims: ‘This is My Body.’ Before the blessing of the heavenly words another
nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks
of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood.
And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth
utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks.
St. Ambrose, On the Mysteries, 9:50
(A.D. 390-391)

“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger,
and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.”
John 6, 35

Notes & Sources

[1-3] Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist (New York: Doubleday, 2011)

[4-8] John Salza, The Biblical Basis for the Eucharist (Huntington, Ill: Our Sunday Visitor, 2008)

Pax vobiscum

Upon this Rock

 Papal Primacy & Infallibility

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You
are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are
you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my
heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my
church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the
keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and
whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Matthew 16, 16-19

In Roman Catholic theology, papal infallibility is the doctrine that the pope, acting as the supreme leader or shepherd under extraordinary circumstances, cannot err when he teaches matters in faith and morals. This doctrine is based on the belief that Jesus entrusted his Church with a teaching mission whose mandate required that it remain faithful to Christ’s teaching under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who guarantees that what the Church teaches is always absolutely true and can be accepted with absolute certainty without any shadow of a doubt. The charism of papal infallibility ensures that the Church teaches only that which Christ has taught without the least taint of adulteration in his teachings. Meanwhile, this doctrine is related to but distinguished from the concept of the Church’s indefectibility, viz., the doctrine that the grace Jesus has promised his Church assures its preservation of the faith until our Lord returns in glory at the end of time.

The definition of the First Vatican Council (1869-70) states the conditions under which the pope has spoken infallibly or ex-cathedra (“from his chair” of supreme teacher): 1. “The Roman pontiff speaks;” 2. “he speaks ex-cathedra;” 3. “defines the following;” 4. “that doctrine concerning faith and morals;” 5. “must be held by the whole Church.” We have one instance of a pope speaking ex-cathedra and with infallibility in the Apostolic Constitution, Benedictus Deus, of Pope Benedict Xll in A.D. 1336.

1 (The Roman Pontiff speaks)

“The Apostolic Constitution, Benedictus Deus, of Pope Benedict Xll”

2 (Speaks ex-cathedra)

“with apostolic authority”

3 (We pronounce, declare, and define)

“define the following”

4 (That doctrine concerning faith and morals)

Pope Benedict declares ex-cathedra that each soul will be particularly judged immediately after death according to his or her deeds before the general day of judgment.

5 (Must be held by the whole church)

Thus, with the definition of the First Vatican Council, it is more accurate to say that papal infallibility is a “dogma” of the Catholic Church which states, in virtue of Jesus’ promise to Peter, the Pope, when appealing to his universal primacy of authority (Extraordinary Magisterium) as the supreme leader or as the head shepherd, is preserved or safeguarded by the Holy Spirit from the possibility of committing an error of doctrine first given to the apostolic church and handed down in the deposit of faith: Scripture and Tradition.

The pope isn’t only the visible head of the Church but also the head of the episcopal college. When Jesus founded the Twelve, “he constituted them in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them.” Just as Peter and the Apostles constitute a single apostolic college, likewise the Roman Pontiff (Peter’s apostolic successor) and the bishops in the entire world (successors of the rest of the apostles) are associated with each other in a bond of unity (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 880).

Jesus made Simon, whom he would name Peter, alone the “rock” of his Church. He gave Peter the “keys” of his Church and established him as shepherd of the entire flock. The office of “binding and loosing” was given to Peter and was also assigned to the College of Apostles, united to its head (CCC, 881). Bishop Vincent Ferrier Gassier explains the importance of this prerogative that our Lord conferred on Peter. “The purpose of this prerogative is the preservation of truth in the Church. The special exercise of this prerogative occurs when there arise somewhere in the Church scandals against the faith, i.e., dissensions and heresies that the bishops of the individual churches or even gathered together in the provincial council are unable to repress so that they are forced to appeal to the Apostolic See (in Rome) regarding the case, or even the bishops themselves are infected by the sad strain of error” (The Gift of Infallibility: Ignatius Press, 2008). This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops who are united to the Pope under his universal primacy of authority.

The bishop of Rome, who is the pope in a universal capacity as Peter’s successor in the divine office, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful” (CCC, 882). The Roman Pontiff, because of being the Vicar of Christ and as pastor of the entire Church, has “full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered” (CCC, 883). Thus, the College of Bishops has no authority or power to teach with infallibility unless it is united with the Pope since he has succeeded Peter as head of the entire Church, both clergy and laity. As such, the college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church, but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.” The College of Bishops exercises its authority in a formal and solemn manner in an ecumenical council. But “there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor” (CCC, 884). On the occasion of an ecumenical council in which we have the College of Bishops defining matters of faith and morals in union with the pope, there is the exercise of what we call the Universal Magisterium.

Since the Roman Pontiff is believed to be graced with the charism of infallibility in virtue of being the apostolic successor of Peter, we must turn to the New Testament to see whether Jesus had, in fact, established the apostle as the visible head of the Church and bestowed on him the gift of infallibility. To make this determination, we must examine the meaning of the words “rock” and “keys” and the power to “bind and loose” while, in the meantime, uncovering the ancient Jewish roots of Peter’s unique office that lends it credibility and establishes its validity.

Scriptural support for the pre-eminence of Peter in the nascent church and his unique role as head shepherd is found in the fact that his name is mentioned no less than 191 times in the New Testament. Next in line is the beloved disciple John, who is mentioned 48 times. If this isn’t strong enough evidence, however, we can turn to the list of the apostles in the Gospel of Matthew to support the Church’s tradition. We read in Chapter 2, Verse 1: “The names of the twelve apostles are these: First, Simon called Peter,” The Greek word for “First” that describes Peter is protos (πρῶτος). Methodist theologian and professor James H. Strong defines the word “before, principal, most important” (Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: Hendrickson, 2009. Entry 4413. Protos).  In other words, among the apostles, Peter is “first and foremost” or “primary first.” Peter’s description as being “first” is not “an arbitrary numerical detail” or a “chronological indicator” of when Peter became an apostle. We see in John 1:41 that Peter’s brother Andrew was the first one chosen by Jesus to be an apostle of his. Peter’s name appears first in the list of apostles because he is the “primary” apostle within the entire college (John Salza, The Biblical Basis for the Papacy: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 2007).

Other New Testament writers use protos to describe the pre-eminence of individuals. Luke uses protos to describe Publius as “the chief (protos) man on the island” (Acts 28:7). He was the chief magistrate of the island of Melita and a man of authority. Paul also describes himself as a sinner “of whom I am the chief (protos). Other translations have Paul humbly describe himself as the “foremost” sinner (1 Tim 1:15). In the Septuagint (Old Testament), protos is also used as a title of pre-eminence. The sacred author describes the “chief (protos) singers appointed, to praise with canticles, and give thanks to God” (2 Ezdra 12:45; 2 Neh in the RSV-CE). So, Peter is described as “the first” of the apostles because he is the “chief” or “foremost” among them. He holds a pre-eminent place in the apostolic college (The Biblical Basis for the Papacy).

This fact becomes more obvious by seeing how Jesus and Peter relate to each other while they are together during our Lord’s three-year public ministry. To begin, Peter is the first apostle to profess the divinity of Christ. Jesus tells him that he has received this divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father (Mt 16:16-17). As we have noted, Jesus built his Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the cornerstone or head (Mt 16:18). And the keys which represent authority over the entire Church (clergy and laity) are given only to Peter (Mt 16:19). Further, a tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus’ tax payment because he must be aware that the apostle is our Lord’s spokesperson (Mt 17:24-25). This incident illustrates what Catholics mean about the pope being the vicar of Christ. He speaks for Christ, and our Lord speaks through him on the occasion of making a declaration ex-cathedra. In fact, Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel for both himself and Peter (Mt 17:26-27) since he is our Lord’s representative on earth.

We have an example of Peter assuming a leadership role among the apostles when he asks Jesus to explain the rules of forgiveness for all to understand (Mt 18:21). He actually speaks on behalf of all the apostles, besides himself, when he assures Jesus that they have left everything to follow him (Mt 19:27; cf. Mk 10:8). In the Garden of Gethsemane, at the start of our Lord’s passion, Peter and the apostles are sound asleep while Jesus is praying. But our Lord asks no one else but Peter why he was sleeping at this hour. This is because Peter is accountable to Jesus in a special way above the rest of the apostles. Since he has been appointed as their leader, he should be awake or alert and set a good example to the others (Mk 14:37).

What is also intriguing is that Jesus chooses to preach from Peter’s boat (Lk 5:3). In biblical typology, a boat may metaphorically represent the Church. Such is the case with Noah’s Ark in the Old Testament. This verse implies that Jesus guides his Church in all truth through his vicar. It’s on Peter’s boat of all boats where Jesus instructs Peter of all the apostles to lower his net again for a catch of fish. What follows is a miraculous catch (Lk 5:4, 10). Jesus recognizes Peter as the chief “fisher of men.” Without Jesus, he couldn’t have caught such an extraordinary number of fish at a time when they weren’t active. Peter’s divine office rests on the authority of Jesus the Head, and his exercise of office relies on his grace to be fruitful.

Moreover, in the Gospel, it’s Peter who answers on behalf of the apostles after Jesus has asked who touched his garment (Lk 8:45). It appears none of the other apostles ever dared to speak first because they saw Peter as their leader and doing otherwise would have been disrespectful or insubordinate of them. Peter not only speaks first but also speaks on behalf of the rest. He does so at our Lord’s transfiguration, after being the first apostle to reach the mountain height (Lk 9:28, 33), and when he seeks clarification of a parable (Lk 12:41).

Finally, Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and he charges Peter to strengthen the apostles in the event their faith is shaken (Lk 22:31-32). Since Peter holds a primacy of authority, it’s imperative that his faith does not fail so that he can preserve the faith in the apostolic college and its unity. Peter is assigned a greater measure of responsibility for making sure the other apostles hold true to their faith in communion with him. Our Lord’s grace is designed to keep Peter free from teaching error, and it’s that same grace Our Lord bestows on the other apostles but with Peter’s collaboration.

In the Gospel of John, at the Last Supper, Jesus chooses to wash the feet of Peter to set an example of what it takes for him to be the servant of servants (Jn 13: 6-9). Peter could have washed the feet of the other apostles in emulation of our Lord who “did not come to be served but to serve” (Mt 20:28), though it isn’t recorded. Indeed, Jesus asks Peter in front of the apostles whether he loves him more than them (Jn 21:15). This is because he has been appointed the visible head of the apostolic see. His allegiance is, first and foremost, to Christ without any compromise. Soon before he leaves to return to the Father, Jesus charges Peter to “feed [his] lambs” and “feed [his] sheep” (Jn 21:15-17). These lambs or sheep mean all people, including the apostles. Our first pope is charged with the primary responsibility of tending to the faith of both the clergy and the laity in a universal capacity.

Peter’s unique position as “the first” of the apostles is clearly spelled out in Matthew 16:13-19. Simon Peter’s supernatural ability to intuit divine knowledge from God (a fundamental Christological truth) and communicate it without error to the present apostles illustrates what the Catholic Church understands about the concept of papal infallibility. The pope isn’t infallible by nature but by the operation of the Holy Spirit, who guides his thoughts. When Simon pronounces the first papal infallible decree in Church history, Jesus changes his name to Peter, in Greek Petros. The name ‘Cephas’ (also spelled Kepha) is a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic word “rock” (See Jn 1:42; 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Gal 2:9).

The Greek text is a translation of Jesus’ words, which were actually spoken in Aramaic. Aramaic only had one word for rock, kepha, which explains why Peter is often called Cephas in the Bible. The word kepha in Aramaic means “huge rock.” The Aramaic word for “little stone” is evna and Peter isn’t called “Evna.” In Aramaic, Jesus said, “You are Peter (Kepha), and upon this rock (kepha) I will build my Church.” The metaphor works well in Aramaic, where nouns are neither feminine nor masculine.

D. A. Carson explains, “… the words petros and petra were synonyms in first-century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.” If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used” ( The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).

In the kingdom of David, the king who ascended to the throne delegated his royal authority to a chief steward who would rule and govern in his absence. The king would formally invest his chief steward with this authority by presenting him with the keys to the kingdom. As the keeper of the keys, the chief steward (vizier or vicar) was said to be “over the house” of the king, viz., the house of David. He would be second only to the king and would have plenary power over the palace and the authority to pass judgments over the king’s subjects. Jesus came into the world to restore the kingdom of David in a new dimension, so like his royal ancestors on the throne of David, he presented his chief steward or vicar with the keys to a visible kingdom, namely the Church. He appointed Peter over “the house of God” (cf. 2 Cor 5:1; 1 Tim 3:15; 1 Pet 4:15), who would rule and govern God’s household in the king’s absence after his ascension into heaven.

The Hebrew Scriptures mention “keys” only once, and that is in the context of the authority of the Davidic king’s chief steward. Around 715 B.C., Hezekiah was the king of the Southern Kingdom, and Shebna was his chief steward or vice-regent. God reveals through the prophet Isaiah that He will remove Shebna from his office and replace him with Eliakim, to whom he will give the “key to the house of David.”

This is what the Lord, the Lord Almighty, says:
Go, say to this steward,
to Shebna the palace administrator:
What are you doing here and who gave you permission
to cut out a grave for yourself here,
hewing your grave on the height
and chiseling your resting place in the rock?
“Beware, the Lord is about to take firm hold of you
and hurl you away, you mighty man.
He will roll you up tightly like a ball
and throw you into a large country.
There you will die
and there the chariots you were so proud of
will become a disgrace to your master’s house.
I will depose you from your office,

“In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe
and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to
those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the
house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I will drive
him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat of honor for the house of his father.
Isaiah 22, 15-23

So, God gives Eliakim the key to the house of David, which was previously held by Shebna. This office is transferrable by appointing successors. Having custody of the key to David’s kingdom, whatever Eliakim opens, no one will shut, and whatever he shuts, no one will open. In other words, his final judgment is indisputable and irrevocable since he represents the king in his absence and speaks for the king in accordance with his will. Eliakim will be known as a “father” to Israel in the exercise of his office. Just as God was directly involved in the administration of his kingdom in the Old Dispensation, so He is in charge of the administration of His kingdom in the New Dispensation.

That God should choose the reign of King Hezekiah to reveal the succession of the chief steward is significant. We read in Isaiah 7, 14:

Therefore, the Lord Himself will give you a sign:
Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son,
and shall call His name Immanuel.
Isaiah 7, 14

The “great sign” John sees in heaven is that of the restoration of the Davidic Messianic kingdom in the person of the Blessed Virgin Mary herself giving birth to the Messiah King (Rev 12:1-5). The Nativity of Christ is the fulfillment of all the Old Testament prophetic signs of the restoration (cf. Micah 5:1-3). In ancient Judaic tradition, Hezekiah prefigured the Messiah more closely than the other Davidic kings had. In a Christian context, Hezekiah resembles Christ more closely than the others do. God decrees Hezekiah’s sickness unto death and then promises to raise him up or heal him on the third day.

In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz
went to him and said, “This is what the Lord says: Put your house in order, because you are going
to die; you will not recover.” Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the Lord,
“Remember, Lord, how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and
have done what is good in your eyes.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly. Before Isaiah had left the
middle court, the word of the Lord came to him: “Go back and tell Hezekiah, the ruler of my
people, ‘This is what the Lord, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and
seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the
Lord.
2 Kings 20, 1-5

By raising Hezekiah on the third day, God makes him the most important Messianic figure among the kings who inherited David’s throne. Since the king prefigures the Messiah, his kingdom prefigures the kingdom of our Lord and King in the house of David. Just as Hezekiah had a succession of chief stewards, so, too, Jesus would also have a succession of chief stewards. Linus was the first successor to Peter in A.D. 67 (See 2 Tim 4:1). Just as Eliakim would be known as a “father” to Israel in the kingdom of Judah, so, too, Peter and his successors would be known as “holy fathers” in the new kingdom or house of Israel, which is the Church. Thus, we have a biblical precedent for appointing Peter as the steward or vicar of Jesus’ kingdom on earth. Now, let’s turn to the topic of binding and loosing.

As we have seen, just as Eliakim had the authority to “open and shut,” Peter is also given the authority to “bind and loose.” Since this authority is derived from possessing the keys to the kingdom, Jesus confers this authority on Peter alone and not also on the Twelve. John Salza explains what the terms binding and loosing mean in a Jewish context. “Binding and loosing’ (Heb. asar ve-hittar) were common rabbinical terms used by the Jewish religious authorities of the day. These terms described their legislative and judicial authority to ‘forbid’ or ‘permit.’ This included rules of conduct (halakah) for God’s people, as well as issuing definitive interpretations of Scripture, oral tradition, and the whole of the Mosaic law. In short, the terms described the Pharisees’ authority over doctrinal and disciplinary matters” (The Biblical Basis for the Papacy).

We see Peter exercising this authority in Acts 15, 12-17. At the general council in Jerusalem, he resolved the first doctrinal and disciplinary issue on whether the Gentiles should be circumcised after they had been baptized. None of the apostles in attendance question or dispute with Peter but remain silent. Only after Peter issues his statement, in the capacity of Christ’s chief steward or vicar on earth, do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) respond in support of Peter’s definitive declaration. Finally, James, who has presided over the council as Bishop of Jerusalem, gives his assent.

Further, in the time of Jesus, the scribes and Pharisees were successors of Moses and the appointed religious teachers of Israel. The “chair of Moses” Jesus refers to in Matthew 23:2-4 signified their authority to interpret and expound the Mosaic law. The chair was placed in the middle of a synagogue where the official teacher of the Law would sit to read the Scriptures and address the congregation. The Jews based this tradition on Exodus 18, where God says, “And the next day, Moses sat to judge the people” (v. 13). Moses rendered God’s judgments from the chair he was sitting on. ‘And Moses answered him: “The people come to me to seek the judgment of God. And when any controversy (extraordinary circumstance) falls out among them, they come to me to judge between them, and to show the precepts of God, and His laws”’ (vv. 15-16). The authority of Moses and the tradition of the chair were passed on through generations to Joshua, the judges or elders, the prophets, and finally to the Sanhedrin of Jesus’ time (The Biblical Basis for the Papacy). The chair stood for the divine office, which presupposes there should be successors.

Jesus himself acknowledged the scribes and Pharisees to be legitimate successors to the chair of Moses, and taught with his authority, despite their personal shortcomings and imperfections. Our Lord told the apostles to observe “everything” (panta hosa) they said while sitting on the chair (Mt 23:5-7). Although Jesus harshly criticized them for abusing their divine authority and exercising it in pride and contempt towards the common Jew, notably the marginalized (Mt 23:5-7, 13), he acknowledged their authority to “bind” and “loose” and to “open” or “shut” in the kingdom of God in matters of faith and morals following the Torah.

Jesus uses terms familiar to the Jews when he addresses Peter. By this, he inaugurates a new ruling and teaching authority in his Church. There is to be a transfer of power and authority of the teachers of the Law to the teachers of the Law of Christ (Gal 6:2). The New Covenant of grace and charity (agape) shall replace the Law of the Old Covenant with all its civil and ceremonial prescriptions under the curse of the law. As a result, Moses's chair will be replaced by Peter's chair. Not unlike Moses, Peter shall have the authority to “render the judgment of God” (Ex 18:15) and shall be the official interpreter of God’s word (See 2 Peter 3:16). Peter shall have the power Eliakim had to “open” what none can “shut” (Isa 22:22). And with the authority of the Sanhedrin of his time, Peter shall be able to “shut the kingdom of heaven against men who separate themselves from his teaching (Mt 23:13). Only Peter and his successors in the papacy have the plenary authority to excommunicate heretics and schismatics from the Church whether they be clergy or laity.

Hence, there is biblical and ancient traditional support for papal infallibility and the universal primacy of papal authority in the Church that Christ has established. What Peter binds on earth, heaven binds. What Peter looses on earth, heaven looses. Heaven’s reciprocal binding (estai dedemenon) and loosing (estai lelumenon) are in the passive voice. This could be translated as “shall be bound” or “shall having been bound” (The Biblical Basis for the Papacy).  Heaven is receiving the binding and loosing from Peter and ratifying his decisions. At the same time, the Holy Spirit ensures that Peter makes the right decision per divine revelation. Just as God revealed to Peter a fundamental Christological truth of salvation, God will now confirm all of Peter’s official teachings on salvation, and so shall all his successors on the chair.

The future tense (“shall be bound”) indicates that heaven’s ratification of Peter’s decisions will have occurred at the time he has made them. Heaven will ratify what Heaven has guided him to say through the Holy Spirit and not by any private judgment of his (flesh and blood) that would amount to an arbitrary theological opinion. “The Holy Spirit’s unique use of the future tense with the passive voice to describe heaven’s reciprocal binding and loosing underscores that Peter truly speaks for heaven just as he did when he confessed the divinity of Christ. Peter’s binding and loosing decisions are ordained by God” (The Biblical Basis for the Papacy).

The gift of papal infallibility basically means that God has protected Peter and protects all his successors who speak from his chair (ex-cathedra) from teaching error in matters of faith and morals. The Holy Spirit guarantees that what they have declared and taught is part of God’s revelation. Since Jesus has promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his Church and has promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in all truth (Jn 16:12-13; cf. 1 Tim 3:15) until his glorious return, papal teachings from the chair of Peter shall always be free from error. An ex-cathedra pronouncement is a definitive teaching on faith or morals and is intended to be infallible and be believed by the entire Church without question because of the seal of the Holy Spirit.

Early Sacred Tradition

“The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth
But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve
themselves in transgression and in no small danger.”
St. (Pope) Clement of Rome
1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1
(c. A.D. 96)

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the
Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all
the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and
hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is
given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the
apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine
that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has
he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain,
especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself
to be the one and undivided.”
St. Cyprian of Carthage
The Unity of the Church, 4-5
(A.D. 251-256)

”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might
not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very
serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting
that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the
See of Peter, the Apostle.”
Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius
(A.D. 342)

“You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter,
in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat…in which Chair unity should be preserved by all,
so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that
unique one.”
St. Optatus of Mileve
The Schism of Donatists, 2:2-3
(c. A.D. 367)

“Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been
known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of
the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord
Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of
loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due
order his successor and holds his place…Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the
priests of the eastern and western churches are present…Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is
alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church.”
Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431)

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us,
and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter
the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the
orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic
worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus
to the canonical penalties.”
Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451)

But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not:
and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.
Luke 22, 32

Pax vobiscum