NOTES

NOTES
THE GATES OF HELL (MATT. 16:18)
In the traditional interpretation of this incisum, the phrase, “the gates of
hell” is taken as a metaphorical designation for “the powers of hell.” These
include all of the destructive powers of Satan and the demons, plus all the
human forces of evil he can muster and incite. They are represented as
constituting an aggressive force, united in ceaseless attack on the Church ini
relentless effort to destroy it. The Church is represented as the resisting
force, the impregnable citadel that stands firm against these unending
assaults because of the unconquerable endurance she derives from her
Petrine foundation. This interpretation of the text has strongly conditioner!
our habitual ways of thinking of the Church and of picturing her in our
imaginations. It is the idea usually developed in sermons on this text anc
in the literature that it has inspired. It has received its most popular ex­
pression in English in Macaulay’s famous passage on the visitor frorc
New Zealand.
Exegetes however have always felt some obscurity in this interpretation.
If this is the idea that the text means to express, there seems to be some little
distortion or at least unusualness in the way of saying it. At first sight,
“gates” does not seem to be a familiar, or even warranted, metaphor for
“Powers.” And it is a little bit puzzling to see how “gates” can be con­
ceived as an aggressive force. This difficulty has been frequently urged in
the history of the exegesis of this text: “Gates do not attack; they do not
invade.” Knabenbauer mentions this difficulty to dispose of it.1
For this reason Hamack rejected the traditional interpretation and sub­
stituted another that made the text merely a prediction of the immortality
of Peter.2 He bases his exegesis on the Greek version: τύλαι
oi
κατισχΰσουσίΡ αντί}?. In this version,
does not stand for “hell” in the
theological sense, Le., the detention place of the damned, ruled over by
Satan and his cohorts. Rather it has the classical sense of “Hades,” the
asylum of the dead, and becomes in the text merely a metaphorical designa­
tion for “death,” secondly, τΰλαι is pleonastic; it has no function at all in the
text and can be dropped without any loss to the sense, thirdly, καπσχύσονσσ
is used in its intransitive sense and means, “is stronger than.” Finally,
aûrijs in its grammatical form can modify either rérpa or ίχκλησίαν and can
1 Comm, in Mali., in h. 1.
* A pud T.agrange, Evangile selon S. Matthieu, in h. 1.
62

63

therefore designate either Peter or the Church. But since immortality
cannot be predicated of an institution but only of a person, it must here refer
to Peter. Hence Hamack translates the text: “Death shall not be stronger
than he,” i.e., Peter will be in some sense immortal.
A French Catholic critic of Hamack’s interpretation, Schepens,3 accepts
his reasoning to the extent of reading the passage as a prediction of im­
mortality. But this immortality is predicated not of Peter personally, but
of the Church. Institutions, as well as individuals, can be immortal. It is
therefore a declaration of the indefectibility of the Church.
Lagrange, criticizes and rejects each of these opinions and declares in favor
of the traditional interpretation.4 By figure of metonomy, he argues, the
word “gates” is not infrequently used in Holy Scripture to designate the
whole citadel or fortress or city. Furthermore, the underlying reasons which
suggest the metonomy are clear. The gates are initially the weakest part of
the fortress or surrounding wall; but for this very reason they were normally
fortified and reenforced to such an extent that they became the strongest
part. Consequently to take the gates was to conquer the enemy. From
this it is but a short step, by a natural extension of the metaphor, to assume
the “gates” as a figurative designation of the “powers,” the “military
strength” of the city or citadel. Hence in the text “the gates of hell” is
rightly understood as “the powers of hell.” These are represented as
taking aggressive action against the Church; but they will not prevail
because she is firmly established on the rock of Peter. Hence her inde­
structibility results from her victorious resistance to the aggressive action
of satanic forces.
Lagrange supports his reasonings with his usual scholarship, and for the
most part his conclusions seem to be decisive. But in one respect he seems
to have gone a little beyond what his citations warrant. From these it is
clear that the “gates” of the city are frequently used in Holy Scripture
metaphorically to designate the “powers” of the city. But in all the places
cited the expression seems to stand for the resisting powers of the city, rather
than its aggressive powers.
The metaphor is obviously drawn from ancient siege—warfare, in which
the resisting powers of the city were commensurate with the strength of her
gates. If these could hold out, the city was safe ; if they were battered down,
she was conquered. Consequently the gates of the city becomes a natural
and easily understood metaphor for the power or might of the city, only if
* “L’authenticité de saint Matthieu XVI, 18,” Recherches de science religieuse, I (1920),
269-302.
• Op. di., in A. 1.

64

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

these are understood as the resisting powers of the city. It becomes forced
and puzzling if understood as a metaphor for her aggressive might.
In this interpretation the picture presented in the text is reversed. The
Church is represented as the invading force, taking aggressive action against
the beleaguered citadel of Satan. The world would be represented as under
the dominion of Satan. Christ entering into the world would first organize
His forces in His Church and then attack with the purpose of breaking the
power of Satan. The text therefore becomes a guarantee that the Church
will take the offensive, carry the warfare to the enemy, and besiege his
fortified domain. In this attack she will be victorious, for “the gates of
hell will not prevail against her,” i.e., they will not stand up under her
battering assaults.
If this interpretation could be substantiated it would have some implica­
tions especially useful for our day. We have become habituated to thinking
of the Church as tightly resisting, holding her own against the unending
attacks of various hostile forces. This type of thinking cannot help but
result in a weakening of the spirit of conquest. Certainly we hear it re­
peated often enough that the Church is always on the defensive. This was
not the attitude of the primitive Church. The little band that went forth to
attack and finally overthrow the consolidated might of the pagan world, did
not think of itself as a resisting force. Perhaps a few sermons on our text
representing the Church as the aggressive force battering down the gates of
hell would result in promoting the attitude so strongly advocated in the
Christopher movement: “That’s the magic of the Christopher idea—the shift
from selfish defense to unselfish offense.”
Weston College

Louis E. Sullivan, S.J.

THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES ON ANGLICAN ORDERS

On the occasion of the celebration of the fifth centenary of the autocephaly
of the Russian Church, July 8-18, 1948, there was issued by the Moscow
Conference a “Resolution of the Committee regarding the validity of the
Anglican Hierarchy, approved by the Moscow Conference of the Orthodox
Autocephalous Churches.” The text is given here; it was translated by a
priest of the Patriarchal Church in America; only minor changes of orthog­
raphy or punctuation have been made.1

After hearing the reports “On the Anglican Hierarchy,” we, the Conference of
the Heads and Representatives of the Orthodox Autocephalous Churches, with a
feeling of good-will and brotherly love towards Anglican Christians in their at­
tempts to secure recognition of the validity of the Anglican Hierarchy, have de­
cided that:
1) The doctrine contained in the “Thirty-nine Articles” of the Anglican Church
differs sharply from the dogma, doctrine, and tradition professed by the Orthodox
Church. Therefore, in order to arrive at a decision on the recognition of the
validity of the Anglican Hierarchy, there must first be, as a basis, an agreement
with the Orthodox teaching on the Mysteries (Sacraments). Individual opinions
that the Anglican Hierarchy can agree to change the teachings of the “Articles”
regarding the Sacraments in order to approach Orthodoxy cannot serve as a basis
for a decision in the positive sense. Therefore, if the Orthodox Church cannot
agree to recognize the correctness of Anglican teachings regarding the Sacraments
in general, and in particular, the Sacrament of Holy Orders, it cannot recognize
as valid the derivations of Anglican ordinations. If the Churches of Constanti­
nople, Jerusalem, Cyprus, Roumania, and other autocephalous Churches have
given their positive reply regarding the recognition of valid Anglican Orders, we
are informed that these recognitions were conditional.
2) The question of recognition of the validity of the Anglican Hierarchy can be
considered only in conjunction with the question of the Unity and Confession of
Faith with the Orthodox Church, and having in existence an authoritative Act
regarding this from the Anglican Church, which should be derived from a Sober,
or a Conference of clergy of the Anglican confession, and presented with the
approval of the Head of the Anglican Church. Such an Act we do not have at the
present time. In this connection, we express our desire that the Anglican Church
will change its doctrine from the dogmatic, canonical, and ecclesiological point
of view, and in particular, its original understanding of the Holy Sacraments, and
more specifically, the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
3) With all due sympathy and consideration to the contemporary movement
among representatives of Anglicanism towards us, directed to resume ties and
1A resolution concerning the Vatican and smacking of the old polemical style is cited
in Eludes, Nov. 1948, pp. 256-67.

65