2606 The Evangelist continues, and although there were so many, the net was not torn. In the incident related by Luke (Lk 5:6) the net broke because in the present Church [in this world], which the net signifies, there are many rips of schisms, heresies and seditions. But the Church is not entirely torn apart because "I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Mt 28:20). But in the future, in our homeland, heaven, which is signified by the net which was not torn, that is, in that peace which will be in the saints, there will be no schisms: "He makes peace in your borders" (Ps 147:14).
2607 When the Evangelist says, Jesus said to them, Come and dine, we see his invitation to the meal he had prepared. First, we see Christ's invitation; then the attitude of the disciples.
2608 Christ invites us to dine with him by inspiring us himself from within, saying, Come and dine : "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you" [Mt 11:28]; "Eat, O friends, and drink; drink deeply, O lovers!" (Song 5:1). He also invites us to dine by encouraging and teaching us from without through others: "A man once gave a great banquet... he sent his servant to say to those who had been invited, Come" (Lk 14:16).
2609 The Evangelist gives their attitude when he says, Now none of the disciples dared ask him, Who are you? According to Augustine, this indicates the disciples' certainty about Christ's resurrection; they were so certain that it was Christ that none of them presumed to doubt that it was he. [10] And because a question indicates a doubt, no one presumed to ask, Who are you? "In that day you will ask nothing of me" (16:23). For Chrysostom, it indicates a reverence of the disciples for Christ which was greater than usual. [11] They would have liked to have questioned him; but Christ appeared to them in such grandeur and glory that they did not dare to question him because of their amazement and respect. It was this that particularly stopped them from questioning him, for they knew it was the Lord.
2610 Next, Jesus came and took bread and gave it to them, and we see the meal they had, with Jesus eating with them: "You open your hand, you satisfy the desire of every living thing" (Ps 145:16). For he is the one who gives nourishment at the appropriate times.
2611 But did Christ really eat with them? We should say that he did, although it does not say this here. Luke (24:43) explicitly says that he ate with them, and in Acts [1:4] we read that "while eating with them, he charged them not to leave Jerusalem."
2612 But did he truly eat? We should say to this that a thing is said to be true in two ways: true with the truth of signification, and true with the truth of its species. A thing is true in the first way when it corresponds to what is signified. For example, if I want to signify something by speech, and what I signify by it is true and agrees with the thing signified, my speech is true with the truth of signification, although not [necessarily] true with the truth of the species. When Christ said "I am the true vine" (15:1), that was true, although he is not a true vine in the sense that he has the species or nature of a vine, but he is a vine considering what vine signifies. On the other hand, something is said to be true with the truth of its species or kind, when it has what belongs to the truth of its species. These things are the principles of the species, not their subsequent effects. Thus the utterance, "Man is an animal" is true in the first way, with the truth of signification, because it signifies what is true. But is not true with the truth of species unless it is spoken by the mouth of a [human] animal using its normal organs of speech. Its truth does not depend on the effects of the speaking, for example, that it be heard by someone. So, applied to the act of eating: some cases are true only with the truth of signification, as the eating ascribed to an angel, because an angel does not have the organs for eating. But what is signified by their eating is true, that is, the desire they have for our salvation. But Christ's act of eating after the resurrection was true both with the truth of signification, because he did it to show that he had a human nature, which he did in truth have, and his eating was true according to its species, because he had the organs used for eating. However, the effects consequent on eating were not present, since the food was not transformed into his substance, since he had a glorified and incorruptible body. It was dissolved into pre‑existing matter by the divine power. However, this effect does not alter the truth of the species, as was said. [12]
2613 The Evangelist summarizes the appearances by saying, This was now the third time that Jesus was revealed to the disciples. According to Augustine, if this third time refers to the number of times, it is not true. [13] For as was said, on the first day Christ appeared five times, again on the eighth day when Thomas was present, again by the Sea as recorded here, again on the mountain in Galilee (Mt 28:16), again when they were at table (Mk 16:14), and again on the day of his ascension, when "as they were looking on, he was lifted up" (Acts 1:9). Further, he appeared to them many other times during the forty days, but these are not recorded (Acts 1:3).
Thus the third time must refer to the days on which Christ appeared. The first day he appeared was the day of the resurrection; the second day was eight days after the resurrection, eight days later (20:26); and the third day was the appearance by the lake mentioned here. Or, one could say, this statement can be true even if it is refereed to the number of times: for the only times we read that he appeared to a number of the disciples gathered together was on the first day in the evening, when the doors were shut; secondly, eight days later, when the disciples were gathered together; and thirdly, here at the Sea. Thus, he explicitly says, this was now the third time that Jesus was revealed to the disciples.
LECTURE 3
15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." 16 A second time he said to him, "Simon, Son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep" [Feed my lambs]. 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep." [14]
2614 The Evangelist just showed what the Lord did for the disciples in general; here he shows him dealing with his two especially loved disciples: first, what he did for Peter; and how he dealt with John (v 20). He does two things with the first: first, he lays on Peter the pastoral office; secondly, he predicts that he will be martyred (v18).
He imposes the pastoral office on Peter only after an examination. Thus, those who are to be raised to this office are first examined, "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands" (1 Tim 5:22). Christ examined him three times, and so this part is divided into three parts. In the first part we see our Lord's question (v 15); Peter's answer; and the imposition of the office (v 15). Looking at the first, we can consider three things: the time of the examination; the tenor of the conversation; and on what Peter was examined.
2615 The order of this event is given as When they had finished the meal. This signifies the spiritual meal by which the soul is refreshed with spiritual gifts, even when it is united to the body: "I will come in to him and eat with him" (Rev 3:20). Therefore it is appropriate that one who is raised to this office be already refreshed with this joyous meal. Otherwise, how could he refresh the hungry ones that come to him: "I will feast the soul of the priests with abundance" (Jer 31:14), with that abundance mentioned in Psalm 63 (v 5): "My soul is feasted as with marrow and fat."
2616 The tenor of the conversation is seen when he says, Jesus said to Simon Peter. Three things are given here which are necessary for a prelate. First, obedience, when he says, Simon, which means obedient. A prelate needs to be obedient because one who does not know how to obey superiors does not know how to govern inferiors: "An obedient man will speak of victory" [Prv 21:28]. Secondly, a prelate needs knowledge, indicated by Peter , which means understanding. A prelate needs understanding for he is the appointed watchman, and one who is blind is a poor watchman: "His watchmen are blind" (Is 56:10); "Because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me" (Hos 4:6). Thirdly, a prelate needs grace, for he says son of John. Prelates need grace because if they do not have grace they do not have anything: "By the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor 15:10); "And when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship" (Gal 2:9).
2617 The questions are about love; and Jesus asks, Do you love me more than these? This was a suitable question, for Peter had previously fallen, as we saw before, and it was not appropriate that he be preferred to the others until his sin was forgiven ‑ which is only brought about by charity: "Love covers a multitude of sins" (1 Pet 4:8); "Love covers all offenses" (Prv 10:12). So it was fitting that his charity be made known by this questioning, not indeed to him who looks into the depths of our hearts, but to others. So Christ said, but not as one who did not already know, Do you love me more than these? Now we read that "perfect love casts out fear" (1 Jn 4:18). Thus it was that when our Lord was about to die, Peter was afraid and denied him; but the risen Lord restored love and banished his fear. So Peter, who before had denied Christ because he was afraid to die, now, after our Lord has arisen, feared nothing. Why should he be afraid, since he now realized that death had died?
2618 This questioning was also appropriate for the office, since many who assume a pastoral office use it as self‑lovers: "In the last days there will come times of stress. For men will be lovers of self" (1 Tim 3:1). One who does not love the Lord is not a fit prelate. A fit prelate is one who does not seek his own advantage, but that of Christ's; and he does this through love: "The love of Christ controls us" (2 Cor 5:14). Love also becomes this office because it benefits others: for it is due to the abundance of love that those who love Jesus will at times give up the quiet of their own contemplation to help their neighbor. Although the: Apostle said, "I am sure that neither death nor life... will be able to separate us from the love of God" (Rom 8:39), he added, "For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren" (Rom 9:3). Thus a prelate should be questioned about his love.
2619 He adds, more than these, for even as the Philosopher says in his Politics , it is the natural order of things that the one who cares for and governs others should be better. [15] Thus he says that just as the soul is to the body that it rules, and reason is to our lower powers, so man is related to the irrational animals. And there ought to be a similar relation between prelates and their subjects. Thus, according to Gregory, the life of a pastor should be such that he is related to his subjects as a shepherd to his sheep. [16] So Christ says, more than these, because the more Peter loves the better he is: "Do you see him whom the Lord has chosen? There is none like him among all the people" (1 Sam 10:24).
2620 But in selecting someone [to rule] is it always necessary to choose the one who is unconditionally better, even if the laws say that it is enough to choose one who is merely good? To answer this two distinctions must be made. Some things are sufficient according to human judgment which are still not sufficient according to the divine judgment. According to human judgment, if a person cannot be reproached for something, this is sufficient for his election to stand. For it is obvious that it would be difficult to have elections if they could be nullified because someone was found who was better than the one actually chosen. So, according to our human judgment, it is sufficient if an election is honest and a suitable person is chosen.
But, so far as concerns the divine judgment, and our own conscience, it is necessary to choose that person who is better. Now a person can be unconditionally better; and this is the way a holier person is said to be better, for holiness makes one good. Yet such a person might not be better for the Church. For this purpose, that person would be better who is better educated, more competent, more discerning, and chosen more unanimously. But if other things are equal, such as the benefit and welfare of the Church, one would sin if he were to choose a person who was less unconditionally good than another. There has to be a reason for such a choice. This is either the honor of God and the benefit of the Church, or some private motive. If the motive is the honor of God and the benefit to the Church, these goods will be regarded as linked to the one chosen, and will make him the better person, in these respects. If there is some private motive for the choice, such as some carnal love, the expectation of ecclesiastical advancement, or temporal advantage, the election is a fraud and there has been partiality.
2621 Now we see Peter's answer, Yes, Lord; you know that I love you. This is a clear sign that he had retracted his previous denial. And it shows that if the predestined fall, they are always better after they are corrected. Before his denial, Peter thought that he was better than the other apostles, saying, "Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away" (Mt 26:33). And when Jesus said to him, "You will deny me three times," Peter went against this and even boasted that "Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you" (Mt 26:35). But now, Peter, having been conquered by his own weakness, does not presume to state his love unless it is attested to and confirmed by the Lord. He humbles himself before Christ, saying, You know that I love you : "My witness is in heaven, and he that vouches for me is on high" (Job 16:19). He also humbles himself in respect to the apostles, for he does not say that he loves Jesus more than they do, but simply, I love you. This teaches us not to rank ourselves before others, but others before ourselves: "In humility count others better than yourselves" (Phil 2:3).
2622 We can also notice, as Augustine points out, that when our Lord asks, Do you love ( diligis ) me , Peter does not answer with the same word, but says I love (amo) you , as if they were the same. [17] And they are the same in reality, but there is some difference in meaning: Love (amor) is a movement of our appetitive power, and if this is regulated by our reason it is the will's act of love, which is called "direction" ( dilectio ) ‑ because it presupposes an act of election, choice ( electio ). This is why the brute animals are not said to love ( diligere ). For if the appetitive movement is not regulated by reason, it is called amor.
2623 After this examination, Christ assigns Peter his office, saying, Feed my lambs, that is, my faithful, which I, the Lamb, call lambs: "Behold, the Lamb of God" (1:29). Thus, one should not be called a Christian who says he is not under the care of that shepherd, that is, Peter: "They shall all have one shepherd" (Ez 37:24); "They shall appoint for themselves one head" (Hos 1:11). It was appropriate that this office be assigned to Peter, the others being passed over, because, according to Chrysostom, he was the extraordinary apostle, the voice of the disciples, and the head of the group. [18]
2624 Now we have the second examination. In order to avoid a lot of repetition, note that Christ says three times, Feed my lambs, because Peter ought to feed them three ways. First, they are to be fed by being taught: "And I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding" (Jer 3:15). Secondly, they are to be fed by example: "Set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity" (1 Tim 4:12); "Upon the mountain heights of Israel," that is, in the excellence of great men, "shall be their pasture" (Ez 34:14). Thirdly, they are to be fed by being offered temporal help: "Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep?" (Ez 34:2).
2625 The third time Christ says to him, Feed my sheep. This is because there are three types of people in the Church: beginners, those who have made some progress, and the perfect. The first two types are the lambs, since they are still imperfect. The others, since they are perfect, are called sheep: "The mountains," that is, the perfect, "skipped like rams," and "the hills," the others, "like lambs" (Ps 114:4). And so all prelates ought to guard their charges as Christ's sheep and not their own. But alas! As Augustine says in his Easter Sermon : "We witness the appearance of certain unfaithful servants who have abandoned Christ's flock and by their thefts have made gold their flock. You hear them say, 'These are my sheep. What do you want with my sheep? I will not let you come to my sheep.' But if we say "my sheep," and others talk about their sheep, then Christ has lost his own sheep." [19]