Cronología, usos y armonía patrística de las interpretaciones «San Pedro» y la «Confesión de Fe de San Pedro» como la Roca en Mateo 16:18

A propósito de las dos interpretaciones más conocidas de Mateo 16:18, a continuación expongo un breve texto donde muestro la cronología de la aparición de la interpretación de que la roca es la «Confesión de Fe de San Pedro», la cual fue un desarrollo de mediados del Siglo IV, en contraste con la interpretación de que la roca es «la persona de San Pedro», la cual es la interpretación que se remontaría al primer siglo.

1. Un mismo texto bíblico puede contener varias enseñanzas y verdades de la Fe.

Empecemos mencionando que la hermenéutica de los Padres de la Iglesia y Escritores Eclesiásticos de los primeros siglos no respondía a una única y cerrada interpretación para cada uno de los textos de las Sagradas Escrituras (como es la práctica de muchos protestantes), sino que permitía explotar todas las ideas, enseñanzas y argumentos que encerraban los textos bíblicos, y de dicha riqueza interpretativa, ellos seleccionaban los argumentos específicos que podían ser aplicados a un contexto en particular, a saber, apologético, pastoral, dogmático, homilético, etc.

No obstante, dicha libertad interpretativa de los textos bíblicos por parte de los Padres de la Iglesia y Escritores Eclesiásticos sí estaba, y como es lógico, circunscrita principalmente por tres fronteras:

– Primera frontera: las verdades ya proclamadas dogmáticamente y defendidas por la Iglesia de su tiempo (v.g. Concilios);
– Segunda frontera: las verdades explícitas proclamadas en las Sagradas Escrituras y;
– Tercera frontera: las verdades que la Iglesia tenía como universales y que entendía tenían origen apostólico y venían siendo transmitidas y/o practicadas desde la época apostólica (Tradición).

(*) Nota: Cabe señalar que sí han habido matices por parte de algunos Escritores Eclesiásticos, y en algunos casos, dichas posiciones se materializaban posteriormente en un cisma o herejía. Es más, dichos matices se pueden leer incluso hoy en día de parte de los conocidos Católicos Contestatarios.

Un ejemplo de una verdad contenida en la tercera frontera es la Santísima Trinidad. Así por ejemplo, es conocido que San Atanasio, el campeón de la Ortodoxia, recibió dicha verdad por Tradición de parte de sus maestros cristianos, los monjes del desierto, principalmente del monje Anthony, un monje asceta e iletrado, es decir, que no podía leer ni un solo versículo de la Biblia, lo cual sin embargo no le impidió llegar a altísimos niveles de espiritualidad en el camino cristiano y ser uno de los cristianos más respetados de su época. Cabe mencionar que el monje Anthony nació alrededor del 240 D.C., y a su vez habría recibido las verdades de la Fe por la Tradición, la cual se remontaba al Siglo I. Como nota adicional para no extenderme más en este asunto de la Trinidad, precisamente eran los defensores de la herejía arriana los que recurrían a la Sola Escritura, mientras que la verdad de la Santísima Trinidad fue defendida por el lado Ortodoxo apelando a la Tradición.

Con relación al texto de Mateo 16:18, dicho texto proporciona tal riqueza argumentativa, de manera que del mismo se pueden desprender argumentos fuerza para exponer y/o defender determinadas verdades de la Fe Cristiana. En ese sentido, las dos interpretaciones más populares en los primeros siglos, a saber, que la “Roca sobre la cual se edifica la Iglesia es la persona de San Pedro” y que la “Roca sobre la cual se edifica la Iglesia es la Confesión de Fe de San Pedro”, tuvieron su contexto y motivación particular, apareciendo en determinados escenarios y etapas del cristianismo de dichos primeros siglos, y sin embargo la segunda no se concibió para colisionar o atacar la primera, como veremos a continuación.

2.Interpretación de la Roca como la persona de San Pedro: La más antigua y de origen apostólico.

Como se puede observar en la colección de las cuarenta y un (41) citas patrísticas que recopilé en mi otro artículo (Click aquí), y tal como lo confirman diversos autores (ver por ejemplo J. Waterworth S.J., A Commentary; London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), hasta antes de las citas de San Hilario de Poitiers registradas en su tratado sobre la Trinidad que data alrededor del 350 D.C., se tiene que la única interpretación registrada es que la Roca sobre la cual se edificaría la Iglesia del Señor en Mateo 16:18 es la persona de San Pedro, interpretación que se puede leer en al menos doce (12) Padres y Escritores Eclesiásticos anteriores al año 350 D.C.

De dichas citas, la más antigua de la cual se tienen registros correspondería a Tertuliano dentro de su periodo ortodoxo, es decir antes que se volviera al Montanismo alrededor del 205 D.C, la cual cito a continuación:

CHAP. XXII.–ATTEMPT TO INVALIDATE THIS RULE OF FAITH REBUTTED. THE APOSTLES SAFE TRANSMITTERS OF THE TRUTH. SUFFICIENTLY TAUGHT AT FIRST, AND FAITHFUL IN THE TRANSMISSION.

But inasmuch as the proof is so near at hand, that if it were at once produced there would be nothing left to be dealt with, let us give way for a while to the opposite side, if they think that they can find some means of invalidating this rule, just as if no proof were forthcoming from us. They usually tell us that the apostles did not know all things: (but herein) they are impelled by the same madness, whereby they turn round to the very opposite point, and declare that the apostles certainly knew all things, but did not deliver all things to all persons,–in either case exposing Christ to blame for having sent forth apostles who had either too much ignorance, or too little simplicity. What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, “when they were alone, He used to expound” all things which were obscure, telling them that “to them it was given to know those mysteries,” which it was not permitted the people to understand? WAS ANYTHING WITHHELD FROM THE KNOWLEDGE OF PETER, WHO IS CALLED “THE ROCK ON WHICH THE CHURCH SHOULD BE BUILT,” WHO ALSO OBTAINED “THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN,” WITH THE POWER OF “LOOSING AND BINDING IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH?”
[The Prescription Against Heretics: Chapter XXII.-Attempt to Invalidate his Rule of Faith Rebutted. The Apostles Safe Transmitters of the Truth. Sufficiently Taught at First, and Faithful in the Transmission, ANF Vol 3, 24.]

Para englobar la posición de Tertuliano sobre San Pedro y Mateo 16:18, la cita anterior se puede complementar con esta otra cita también de su periodo ortodoxo:

(4) Again, He CHANGES THE NAME OF SIMON TO PETER, (5) inasmuch as the Creator also altered the names of Abram, and Sarai, and Oshea, by calling the latter Joshua, and adding a syllable to each of the former. But why Peter? If it was because of the vigour of his faith, there were many solid materials which might lend a name from their strength. Was it because Christ was both a rock and a stone? For we read of His being placed «for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence.»(6) I omit the rest of the passage.(7) THEREFORE HE WOULD FAIN(8) IMPART TO THE DEAREST OF HIS DISCIPLES A NAME WHICH WAS SUGGESTED BY ONE OF HIS OWN ESPECIAL DESIGNATIONS IN FIGURE; BECAUSE IT WAS, I SUPPOSE, MORE PECULIARLY FIT THAN A NAME WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM NO FIGURATIVE DESCRIPTION OF HIMSELF.
[Contra Marción, IV, 13 (ANF 3:365)]

De estas dos citas no es difícil ver que Tertuliano en su periodo ortodoxo defendía lo siguiente:

– Para Tertuliano la roca donde el Señor edifica su Iglesia es la persona San Pedro quien además tiene todas las prerrogativas derivadas de la entrega de las Llaves y del poder de “Atar y Desatar”.
– A diferencia de muchos protestantes que creen el Señor solo le puso a Simon un sobrenombre (Pedro), Tertuliano es categórico en afirmar que Jesús le CAMBIÓ el nombre a San Pedro, así como sucedió con Abram, Saraí y Oseas.
– En la segunda cita, en la parte que he resaltado en mayúsculas, Tertuliano dice: «Por lo tanto Él (El Señor) con agrado le impartiría a su discípulo MÁS QUERIDO un nombre que fuera sugerido por la figura de una de sus DESIGNACIONES (nombramientos) especiales; porque, supongo, fue más característicamente adecuado que en el caso de un nombre que podría haber sido derivado de una descripción no figurativa de él mismo.» Como notamos aquí, Tertuliano hace énfasis en que su nuevo nombre de Pedro reflejaría su nueva «designación especial».

Ahora, ¿Tertuliano en su periodo ortodoxo tenía alguna posición en especial sobre la primacía del Obispo de Roma? Uno de los registros más explícitos de su periodo ortodoxo se puede leer en su tratado “De praescriptione haereticorum, XXXVI”:

Chapter 36. The Apostolic Churches the Voice of the Apostles. Let the Heretics Examine Their Apostolic Claims, in Each Case, Indisputable. The Church of Rome Doubly Apostolic; Its Early Eminence and Excellence. Heresy, as Perverting the Truth, is Connected Therewith.
Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. SINCE, MOREOVER, YOU ARE CLOSE UPON ITALY, YOU HAVE ROME, FROM WHICH THERE COMES EVEN INTO OUR OWN HANDS THE VERY AUTHORITY (OF APOSTLES THEMSELVES). HOW HAPPY IS ITS CHURCH, ON WHICH APOSTLES POURED FORTH ALL THEIR DOCTRINE ALONG WITH THEIR BLOOD! WHERE PETER ENDURES A PASSION LIKE HIS LORD’S! Where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile! See what she has learned, what taught, what fellowship has had with even (our) churches in Africa! One Lord God does she acknowledge, the Creator of the universe, and Christ Jesus (born) of the Virgin Mary, the Son of God the Creator; and the Resurrection of the flesh; the law and the prophets she unites in one volume with the writings of evangelists and apostles, from which she drinks in her faith. This she seals with the water (of baptism), arrays with the Holy Ghost, feeds with the Eucharist, cheers with martyrdom, and against such a discipline thus (maintained) she admits no gainsayer. This is the discipline which I no longer say foretold that heresies should come, but from which they proceeded. However, they were not of her, because they were opposed to her. Even the rough wild-olive arises from the germ of the fruitful, rich, and genuine olive; also from the seed of the mellowest and sweetest fig there springs the empty and useless wild-fig. In the same way heresies, too, come from our plant, although not of our kind; (they come) from the grain of truth, but, owing to their falsehood, they have only wild leaves to show.
[ANF Vol 3]

No obstante, son los escritos del periodo donde abrazó la herejía Montanista los que nos dan las luces más claras sobre lo que la Iglesia de su época defendía, y lo que él, ya fuera de la comunión de la Iglesia, atacaba con todos sus recursos intelectuales.

En su tratado “De pudicitia” (Sobre la Modestia), escrito alrededor del 213 D.C. durante su periodo como Montanista, tenemos las siguientes dos citas relevantes:

«In opposition to this (modesty), could I not have acted the dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict set forth, and a peremptory one too. THE PONTIFEX MAXIMUS — THAT IS, THE BISHOP OF BISHOPS — issues an edict: I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication. O edict, on which cannot be inscribed, Good deed! And where shall this liberality be posted up? On the very spot, I suppose, on the very gates of the sensual appetites, beneath the very titles of the sensual appetites.”
[ANF Vol 4. De pudicitia, Chapter 1. God Just as Well as Merciful; Accordingly, Mercy Must Not Be Indiscriminate]

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, Upon this rock will I build My Church, to you have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom; or, Whatsoever you shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens, you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, WHAT SORT OF MAN ARE YOU, SUBVERTING AND WHOLLY CHANGING THE MANIFEST INTENTION OF THE LORD, CONFERRING (AS THAT INTENTION DID) THIS (GIFT) PERSONALLY UPON PETER? On you, He says, will I build My Church; and, I will give to you the keys, NOT TO THE CHURCH; AND, Whatsoever you shall have loosed or bound, not what they shall have loosed or bound. For so withal the result teaches. In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what (key): Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you, and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which (kingdom) are loosed the sins that were beforetime bound; and those which have not been loosed are bound, in accordance with true salvation; and Ananias he bound with the bond of death, and the weak in his feet he absolved from his defect of health. Moreover, in that dispute about the observance or non-observance of the Law, Peter was the first of all to be endued with the Spirit, and, after making preface touching the calling of the nations, to say, And now why are you tempting the Lord, concerning the imposition upon the brethren of a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to support? But however, through the grace of Jesus we believe that we shall be saved in the same way as they. This sentence both loosed those parts of the law which were abandoned, and bound those which were reserved. Hence the power of loosing and of binding committed to Peter had nothing to do with the capital sins of believers; and if the Lord had given him a precept that he must grant pardon to a brother sinning against him even seventy times sevenfold, of course He would have commanded him to bind— that is, to retain — nothing subsequently, unless perchance such (sins) as one may have committed against the Lord, not against a brother. For the forgiveness of (sins) committed in the case of a man is a prejudgment against the remission of sins against God.
[ANF Vol 4. De pudicitia, [Chapter 21. Of the Difference Between Discipline and Power, and of the Power of the Keys.]

En el segundo texto Tertuliano lanza una ofensiva argumentativa tratando de demostrar que la correcta interpretación de Mateo 16:18, es aquella donde las prerrogativas otorgadas por el Señor se dirigen únicamente a la persona de San Pedro, y que ni sus sucesores ni la Iglesia tienen parte en dichas prerrogativas, a menos que alguno de ellos sea un apóstol o un profeta, en cuyo caso deben demostrar dicho origen divino. Adicionalmente, el resto de su argumento tiene que ver con una novedosa interpretación (c.f. W.J. Waterworth, A Commentary) donde trata de mostrar que la promesa del Señor termina y se cumple en San Pedro. Lo interesante aquí es que se puede entender el argumento de Tertuliano, toda vez que Montano se consideraba no solamente un profeta sino el Paráclito prometido por el Señor, y así lo creían quienes se adherían a su grupo y sus doctrinas.

Por otro lado, en el primer texto citado de “De pudicitia”, se puede ver como se refería al Obispo de Roma de la época (Victor), de quien hacía ironía (burla) empleando el título de origen pagano “Pontifex Maximus”, lo cual respondería a que Tertuliano habría considerado que la superioridad de parte del Obispo de Roma sobre otros Obispos (Obispo de Obispos), era una pretensión injustificada.

Como se puede apreciar, no es difícil inferir cuál era la posición de la Iglesia de la época, a la cual Tertuliano atacaba desde fuera de la comunión de la misma, y que se podría resumir así: La roca sobre la cual el Señor edificaría su Iglesia en Mateo 16:18 era la persona de San Pedro, cuyas prerrogativas (las Llaves, y el poder de Atar y Desatar) se transferían a sus sucesores, quienes seguirían el oficio Petrino de guiar y unificar a la Iglesia, bajo su Autoridad y Cátedra, Iglesia a la cual el Señor prometió que las puertas del infierno no vencerían.

3.Contexto del surgimiento de la interpretación de la “Confesión de Fe” como la Roca en Mateo 16:18 en el año 350 D.C.

El primer registro de esta interpretación aparece alrededor del año 350 D.C. con San Hilario de Poitiers, en su tratado sobre la Trinidad, Libro Sexto. Como se sabe, a San Hilario de Poitiers se le considera el San Atanasio de Occidente por su defensa magistral de la Fe Ortodoxa Trinitaria ante la herejía Arriana. Precisamente, su Tratado sobre la Trinidad de doce (12) volúmenes se considera su obra cumbre contra los Arrianos y el escrito más profundo hasta entonces sobre el Dogma de la Santísima Trinidad.

Cuando la controversia Arriana surgió con fuerza, del lado ortodoxo se desarrollaron argumentos y una apologética especializada en contrarrestar la posición Arriana. Así, es entendible y lógico que el versículo donde se mencionaba la confesión de Fe hecha por San Pedro, que Jesús era el Cristo, el Hijo del Dios viviente, no pudiese quedar al margen de la discusión, por lo que fue debidamente explotado para enfrentar esta controversia (c.f. W.J. Waterworth, A Commentary).

En vista de que dicha confesión fue declarada como proveniente de revelación divina directamente del Padre, que fuera además aprobada por el Hijo, y que causó además que San Pedro sea declarado como Bendito por parte del mismo Señor, configurándose así el cumplimiento de la promesa del Señor de que Simón seria Cephas, o la Roca, que se le entregaría las Llaves y la autoridad para Atar y Desatar; en ese sentido, la confesión de la Divinidad del Señor, fue reorientada estratégica e ingeniosamente para ser el fundamento de la Iglesia, y en vista de ello, los Arrianos, al negar la Divinidad del Señor, quedaban denunciados como los que intentaban derribar y subvertir completamente los fundamentos de la Iglesia.

En este nuevo enfoque, la causa y el efecto quedan combinados, teniéndose que San Pedro, así como su Confesión de Fe, conforman la Roca donde se funda y edifica la Iglesia del Señor. En ese sentido, San Pedro es aún la Roca, pero su confesión, la cual no podría quedar separada de él (como flotando en el aire), también llega a ser la Roca, en un sentido secundario.

Con todo, esta interpretación es nueva a la fecha del 350 D.C. y respondió a las controversias de su tiempo, y en la teología de San Hilario, esta nueva interpretación no excluye ni colisiona la antigua interpretación, que data desde los orígenes del cristianismo, esto es, que San Pedro es la Roca donde se edifica la Iglesia del Señor. Por tanto, vemos como el surgimiento de una nueva herejía conlleva a nuevas aplicaciones de los textos de las Sagradas Escrituras, así como ha sucedido con otros textos y con otras herejías, y esto sin colisionar o contravenir otras verdades expuestas con dichos mismos textos bíblicos. Esto lo podemos ver claramente en los escritos de San Hilario, tal como se mostrará a continuación:

23. Let Sabellius, if he dare, confound Father and Son as two names with one meaning, making of them not Unity but One Person. He shall have a prompt answer from the Gospels, not once or twice, but often repeated, This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased. He shall hear the words, The Father is greater than I John 14:28, and I go to the Father , and Father, I thank You , and Glorify Me, Father , and You are the Son of the living God. Matthew 16:17 Let Hebion try to sap the faith, who allows the Son of God no life before the Virgin’s womb, and sees in Him the Word only after His life as flesh had begun. We will bid him read again, Father, glorify Me with Your own Self with that glory which I had with You before the world was John 17:5, and In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God , and All things were made through Him , and He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world knew Him not. Let the preachers whose apostleship is of the newest fashion— an apostleship of Antichrist— come forward and pour their mockery and insult upon the Son of God. They must hear, I came out from the Father and The Son in the Father’s bosom , and I and the Father are One , and I in the Father, and the Father in Me. And lastly, if they be wrath, as the Jews were, that Christ should claim God for His own Father, making Himself equal with God, they must take the answer which He gave the Jews, Believe My works, that the Father is in Me and I in the Father. THUS OUR ONE IMMOVABLE FOUNDATION, OUR ONE BLISSFUL ROCK OF FAITH, IS THE CONFESSION FROM PETER’S MOUTH, YOU ARE THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD. Matthew 16:16 On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth.
[NPNF Vol IX, On The Trinity, Book II, 23]

36. A belief that the Son of God is Son in name only and not in nature, is not the faith of the Gospels and of the Apostles. If this be a mere title, to which adoption is His only claim; if He be not the Son in virtue of having proceeded forth from God, whence, I ask, was it that the blessed Simon Bar-Jona confessed to Him, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God Matthew 16:16 ? Because He shared with all mankind the power of being born as one of the sons of God through the sacrament of regeneration? If Christ be the Son of God only in this titular way, what was the revelation made to Peter, not by flesh and blood, but by the Father in heaven? What praise could he deserve for making a declaration which was universally applicable? What credit was due to Him for stating a fact of general knowledge? If He be Son by adoption, wherein lay the blessedness of Peter’s confession, which offered a tribute to the Son to which, in that case, He had no more title than any member of the company of saints? The Apostle’s faith penetrates into a region closed to human reasoning. He had, no doubt, often heard, He that receives you receives Me, and He that receives Me receives Him that sent Me. Matthew 10:40 Hence he knew well that Christ had been sent; he had heard Him, Whom he knew to have been sent, making the declaration, All things are delivered unto Me of the Father, and no one knows the Son but the Father, neither knows any one the Father save the Son. What then is this truth, which the Father now reveals to Peter, which receives the praise of a blessed confession? It cannot have been that the names of ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ were novel to him; he had heard them often. Yet he speaks words which the tongue of man had never framed before:— You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. For though Christ, while dwelling in the body, had avowed Himself to be the Son of God, yet now for the first time the Apostle’s faith had recognised in Him the presence of the Divine nature. Peter is praised not merely for his tribute of adoration, but for his recognition of the mysterious truth; for confessing not Christ only, but Christ the Son of God. It would clearly have sufficed for a payment of reverence, had he said, You are the Christ, and nothing more. But it would have been a hollow confession, had Peter only hailed Him as Christ, without confessing Him the Son of God. And so his words You are declare that what is asserted of Him is strictly and exactly true to His nature. NEXT, THE FATHER’S UTTERANCE, THIS IS MY SON, HAD REVEALED TO PETER THAT HE MUST CONFESS YOU ARE THE SON OF GOD, FOR IN THE WORDS THIS IS, GOD THE REVEALER POINTS HIM OUT, AND THE RESPONSE, YOU ARE, IS THE BELIEVER’S WELCOME TO THE TRUTH. AND THIS IS THE ROCK OF CONFESSION WHEREON THE CHURCH IS BUILT. But the perceptive faculties of flesh and blood cannot attain to the recognition and confession of this truth. It is a mystery, Divinely revealed, that Christ must be not only named, but believed, the Son of God. Was it only the Divine name; was it not rather the Divine nature that was revealed to Peter? If it were the name, he had heard it often from the Lord, proclaiming Himself the Son of God. What honour, then, did he deserve for announcing the name? No; it was not the name; it was the nature, for the name had been repeatedly proclaimed.

37. THIS FAITH IT IS WHICH IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven. This faith is the Father’s gift by revelation; even the knowledge that we must not imagine a false Christ, a creature made out of nothing, but must confess Him the Son of God, truly possessed of the Divine nature. What blasphemous madness and pitiful folly is it, that will not heed the venerable age and faith of that blessed martyr, Peter himself, for whom the Father was prayed that his faith might not fail in temptation; who twice repeated the declaration of love for God that was demanded of him, and was grieved that he was tested by a third renewal of the question, as though it were a doubtful and wavering devotion, and then, because this third trial had cleansed him of his infirmities, had the reward of hearing the Lord’s commission, Feed My sheep, a third time repeated; who, when all the Apostles were silent, alone recognised by the Father’s revelation the Son of God, AND WON THE PRE-EMINENCE OF A GLORY BEYOND THE REACH OF HUMAN FRAILTY BY HIS CONFESSION OF HIS BLISSFUL FAITH! What are the conclusions forced upon us by the study of his words? He confessed that Christ is the Son of God; you, lying bishop of the new apostolate, thrust upon us your modern notion that Christ is a creature, made out of nothing. What violence is this, that so distorts the glorious words? The very reason why he is blessed is that he confessed the Son of God. THIS IS THE FATHER’S REVELATION, THIS THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH, THIS THE ASSURANCE OF HER PERMANENCE. HENCE HAS SHE THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, HENCE JUDGMENT IN HEAVEN AND JUDGMENT ON EARTH. THROUGH REVELATION PETER LEARNED THE MYSTERY HIDDEN FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD, PROCLAIMED THE FAITH, PUBLISHED THE DIVINE NATURE, CONFESSED THE SON OF GOD. HE WHO WOULD DENY ALL THIS TRUTH AND CONFESS CHRIST A CREATURE, MUST FIRST DENY THE APOSTLESHIP OF PETER, HIS FAITH, HIS BLESSEDNESS, HIS EPISCOPATE, HIS MARTYRDOM. AND WHEN HE HAS DONE ALL THIS, HE MUST LEARN THAT HE HAS SEVERED HIMSELF FROM CHRIST; FOR IT WAS BY CONFESSING HIM THAT PETER WON THESE GLORIES.
[NPNF Vol IX, On The Trinity, Book VI, 36 y 37]

Como se puede apreciar, en el texto de su libro II menciona incluso que el único fundamento inamovible es la Confesión de la boca de San Pedro. Asimismo, en los dos textos mostrados de su libro VI, San Hilario utiliza el argumento de que la Confesión de Fe de San Pedro es el fundamento de la Iglesia o, que es sobre la roca de confesión que la Iglesia está construida. En particular, notemos que al inicio del numeral 37 se menciona que es esta Fe la que es el fundamento de la Iglesia, la que recibe las llaves y la cual ata y desata. No obstante, en el mismo numeral 37 se puede leer además que San Hilario menciona que San Pedro obtuvo la pre-eminencia de una Gloria que supera el alcance de la fragilidad humana, por la confesión de su dichosa Fe, y menciona además las glorias que ganó San Pedro por haber confesado dicha verdad.

Ahora, veamos que en el mismo tratado y en el mismo libro (VI), en el numeral 20 podemos leer lo siguiente:

20. What is this hopeless quagmire of error into which You have plunged me? For I have learned all this and have come to believe it; this faith is so ingrained into my mind that I have neither the power nor the wish to change it. Why this deception of an unhappy man, this ruin of a poor wretch in body and soul, by deluding him with falsehoods concerning Yourself? After the Red Sea had been divided, the splendour on the face of Moses, descending from the Mount, deceived me. He had gazed, in Your presence, upon all the mysteries of heaven, and I believed his words, dictated by You, concerning Yourself. And David, the man that was found after Your own heart, has betrayed me to destruction, and Solomon, who was thought worthy of the gift of Divine Wisdom, and Isaiah, who saw the Lord of Sabaoth and prophesied, and Jeremiah consecrated in the womb, before he was fashioned, to be the prophet of nations to be rooted out and planted in, and Ezekiel, the witness of the mystery of the Resurrection, and Daniel, the man beloved, who had knowledge of times, and all the hallowed band of the Prophets; and Matthew also, chosen to proclaim the whole mystery of the Gospel, first a publican, then an Apostle, and John, the Lord’s familiar friend, and therefore worthy to reveal the deepest secrets of heaven, AND BLESSED SIMON, WHO AFTER HIS CONFESSION OF THE MYSTERY WAS SET TO BE THE FOUNDATION-STONE OF THE CHURCH, AND RECEIVED THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, and all his companions who spoke by the Holy Ghost, and Paul, the chosen vessel, changed from persecutor into Apostle, who, as a living man abode under the deep sea 2 Corinthians 11:25 and ascended into the third heaven, who was in Paradise before his martyrdom, whose martyrdom was the perfect offering of a flawless faith; all have deceived me.
[NPNF Vol IX, On The Trinity, Book VI, 20]

¿Contradicción? No, simplemente San Hilario está exponiendo la otra verdad que se desprende del mismo texto bíblico y que es además la más antigua de entre las dos interpretaciones. Para refrendar el análisis sobre los textos de San Hilario, a continuación veamos un texto de su obra «Commentary in Matthews» correspondiente al comentario del capítulo 16 de Mateo, que es de nuestro interés para la presente exposición:

Having explained from St. Matthew xvi., how St. Peter was the first to know and proclaim Christ the Son of the living God, he continues: «And in truth Peter’s Confession obtained a worthy recompense, because he had seen in man the Son of God. Blessed is he that was praised, as having both penetrated and seen beyond the ken of human eyes; not looking upon that which was of flesh and blood, but beholding, by the revelation of the heavenly Father, the Son of God, and was judged worthy to be the first to acknowledge what was in the Christ of God. O IN THY DESIGNATION BY A NEW NAME, HAPPY FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH, AND THE ROCK WORTHY OF THE BUILDING UP OF THAT WHICH WAS TO DISOLVE THE INFERNAL LAWS, AND THE GATES OF HELL, AND ALL THE BARS OF DEATH. O BLESSED KEEPER OF THE GATE OF HEAVEN, TO WHOSE DISPOSAL ARE DELIVERED THE KEYS OF THE ENTRANCE INTO ETERNITY; WHOSE JUDGMENT ON EARTH IS AN AUTHORITY PREJUDGED IN HEAVEN; SO THAT THE THINGS WHICH ARE EITHER LOOSED OR BOUND ON EARTH, ACQUIRE IN HEAVEN ALSO A LIKE STATE OF SETTLEMENT.»
[Hilario de Poitiers, Commentary in Matthews, xvi,7 in Berington and Kirk, Faith of Catholic, 2:15 // PL, Migne, Vol 9 Columna 1010.]

Como vemos, a pesar que se trata de los comentarios al capítulo 16 de San Mateo, del libro de “Comentarios sobre Mateo” de San Hilario, no se aprecia la interpretación de que la Confesión de San Pedro sea el fundamento o la roca sobre la cual se edifica la Iglesia del Señor; y más bien se aprecia la interpretación de que el fundamento de la Iglesia es San Pedro y que las prerrogativas de las llaves y de Atar y Desatar recaen en él. ¿Incoherencia? ¿Contradicción? ¿Deficiencias exegéticas o hermeneúticas de San Hilario? No, simplemente está exponiendo la interpretación que en la Iglesia se ha tenido desde siempre con relación a dicho versículo, la cual, repito, no entra en conflicto con la otra interpretación que él usa en sus escritos para defender la Trinidad frente a los arrianos. Son complementarios, ortodoxos y no excluyentes.

Finalmente, debo señalar que la interpretación de que la Roca es la “Confesión de Fe” se encuentra frecuentemente en los tratados apologéticos sobre la Trinidad y la Encarnación (Natividad, etc). Así, tenemos a los siguientes Padres y Escritores que emplean dicha interpretación en las siguientes obras:

– San Hilario (Sobre la Trinidad),
– Didimo el Ciego (Sobre la Trinidad, I, I,30),
– Pablo de Constantinopla (Homilía sobre la Natividad),
– San Ambrosio (The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord 4.32-5.35, pp. 230-1.),
– San Juan de Damasco (Homilía sobre la Transfiguración)
– Epifanio de Salamis, (párrafo sobre la Divinidad del Señor en “The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis”, Book II, 59.7,3), etc.

Anuncio publicitario