Compendium Theologiae Dogmaticae Tomus I: De Christo Legato Divino, De Ecclesia Christi, De Fontibus Theologicis

ARTICLE I.

ON BISHOPS.

Cf. Petavius, De ecclesiastica hierarchia, ed. Barri-Ducensis (tomus 8); Stanis. v. Dunin-Borkowski, Die neueren Forschungen über die Anfänge des Episkopats, Freiburg 1900; P. Batiffol, Études d'histoire et de théologie positive I⁵, Paris 1907, 225 sqq; H. Bruders, Die Verfassung der Kirche, Mainz 1904; among canonists, e.g. Fr. X. Wernz, Ius decretalium II, n. 729 sqq

Proposition XXXIV. The bishops are the successors of the college of apostles in the ecclesiastical teaching office and ministry.

270. Position of the question. Since we have seen which is the true Church, to which Christ entrusted his doctrine and the power of sanctifying and governing people, the question arises: who in this society are those who, in the name of Christ and by his institution, exercise the sacred teaching office and ministry? At the beginning, all ecclesiastical power had indeed been given to the apostles. But since they have died, while the Church must remain until the end of the world (supra n. 219 sqq), we must investigate who the successors of the apostles are. We answer: the college of bishops.

A bishop is one who, equipped with the supreme power of order, governs a particular church or diocese by virtue of ordinary office. If one of these conditions is lacking, he is not a bishop in the full sense: for example, if someone already has supreme jurisdiction but has not yet received episcopal ordination; or conversely, if he has received ordination but does not actually have jurisdiction over any diocese; or if he administers a diocese, not as its bishop but by delegation from the supreme pontiff.

The apostles had a twofold office: one, to be apostles, that is, envoys sent immediately by God (Christ), instructed by new revelations, to preach infallibly everywhere in the world the revealed doctrine and confirm it by miracles; the other, to be pastors and rulers of the churches they had founded. The office of apostleship itself was temporary, to end with the death of the apostles; for after them other men were not called immediately by God to receive and propose new revelations, nor was each one infallible, nor was the jurisdiction of each unlimited with respect to place and subjects. The other office, however, that is, the pastoral office, was to be perpetuated in the Church, because there must never be lacking in the Church those who teach, sanctify, and govern. It is in this sense alone that bishops are called successors of the apostles.

Moreover, bishops are called successors of the apostles insofar as the college of bishops succeeded the college of apostles. For no individual bishop is formally the successor of a particular apostle, e.g. John, Bartholomew, or Matthew; rather, only the pastoral office, which once resided in the apostles as its subject, now resides in the bishops as its subject. Hence, even if the bishops of some Church had come down through an unbroken succession from a particular apostle to our own times, the power of that apostle rather than that of the other apostles would not thereby have passed to them; rather, in the order of episcopal power, this succession would be purely accidental and material. In this sense St. Cyprian rightly said: “The episcopate is one, a part of which is held by each bishop in its entirety” (De unit. eccl. 5). The Roman Pontiff alone is excepted, since he is the successor of St. Peter as head of the college of apostles (cf. Suarez, De fide disp. 10, sect. 1, n. 4 25).

Above (n. 213) we showed that the Church was instituted by Christ as a hierarchical society, but at the same time we said that from Sacred Scripture alone one cannot determine with certainty the difference between bishops and presbyters. Hence we now turn to tradition, to learn this difference from it. We presuppose that it has been proved (supra n. 220 sqq) that the constitution of the Church is substantially immutable.

The Eastern schismatics admit that bishops are successors of the apostles, as do Anglicans and some other Protestants; most Protestants, however, deny it. The error of the Modernists is expressed in these words (Proposition 50): “The elders who exercised the office of oversight in Christian assemblies were instituted by the apostles as presbyters or bishops to provide for the necessary ordering of the growing communities, not properly to perpetuate the apostolic mission and power” (Denz. n. 2050). Catholic doctrine is stated in the Council of Trent, session 23, ch. 4, where, among other things, it says: “The holy synod declares that, besides the other ecclesiastical grades, bishops, who succeeded to the place of the apostles, belong especially to this hierarchical order” (Denz. n. 960; cf. n. 966 sqq).

271. Argument I. From historical facts.

From the time of the apostles onward, individual bishops presided over individual particular churches, and in this sense they were “monarchical.” But this fact shows that the apostles handed down “monarchical” episcopal power to those placed over the churches. Therefore, by virtue of this power received from the apostles, bishops are rightly called successors of the apostles in the pastoral office.

Proof of the major premise. Around the middle of the second century, Hegesippus, a Catholic from the East (Syria or Palestine), was at Rome. To investigate the pure apostolic tradition, he visited many Churches. He “writes that, when he was on his way to Rome, he visited many bishops and heard the same doctrine from all of them… The Church of the Corinthians, indeed, remained in the right faith until Primus, the bishop of that place, with whom I conversed familiarly… When I had come to Rome, I made a list down to Anicetus [† 166], whose deacon at that time was Eleutherus. After the death of Anicetus, Soter [† 175] succeeded him, and Eleutherus [† 189] followed Soter. In each succession of bishops and in each city, the same things remain that were preached through the Law and the Prophets and by the Lord himself” (Euseb. H. E. 4, 22; Kirch, Enchir. n. 58). Therefore, by the middle of the second century, the Church was already convinced that the true doctrine of the apostles had come down to that time through the continuous succession of bishops.

Around the year 195, Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, then sixty-five years old, wrote a letter to Pope Victor († 199), in which he says: “Polycarp, who was bishop and martyr at Smyrna, and likewise Thraseas, bishop and martyr of Eumenia, who rests at Smyrna. Why should I mention Bishop Sagar, also a martyr, who died at Laodicea?… I too, Polycrates, the least of you all, follow the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have also followed; for there were altogether seven bishops among my relatives, and I am the eighth” (Euseb. H. E. 5, 24; Kirch, Enchir. n. 79 sq). This testimony too, by which Polycrates proves that he and his fellow bishops in Asia Minor preserve the apostolic tradition, shows that at the beginning of the second century, indeed in the apostolic age, there were “monarchical” bishops in the Church.

St. Irenaeus bears the same witness: “We can enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles, and their successors down to us… For they wished those whom they left as their successors, handing on their own place of teaching, to be in all respects very perfect and irreproachable… Therefore the blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and instructed the [Roman] Church, handed over the administration of the Church’s episcopate to Linus… Anacletus succeeded him; after him, Clement, third from the apostles, received the episcopate, and he had also seen the apostles themselves… Evaristus succeeded this Clement, and Alexander succeeded Evaristus… Now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, Eleutherius holds the episcopate… Polycarp, too, was not only taught by the apostles and conversed with many of those who had seen our Lord, but was also appointed bishop by the apostles in Asia, in the Church at Smyrna, and we ourselves saw him in our early years” (Contra haer. 3, 3; cf. Kirch, Enchir. n. 83 111 sqq).

From other very ancient documents, Eusebius excerpted lists of bishops of various Churches: (a) the bishops of Alexandria: after Mark the Evangelist, Annianus, Abilius, Cerdo, Primus… (H. E. 2, 24; 3, 14 21; 4, 1 4 sq 11 19; 5, 22); (b) the bishops of Antioch: Evodius, instituted by the apostle Peter, Ignatius, Hero, Cornelius… (H. E. 3, 23 36; 4, 20 24; 5, 19); (c) the bishops of Jerusalem: “The first was James, who was called the brother of the Lord, the second Simeon, the third Justus…” (H. E. 4, 5).

Therefore, historical documents establish that there were bishops in apostolic times or shortly thereafter at Rome, Jerusalem, Smyrna, Antioch, Alexandria, Corinth, and other places. To these may be added the bishops of the other Churches of Asia Minor, who are spoken of in Revelation (c. 2 3) under the name “angels.” For the angels to whom the care of the Churches is said there to have been entrusted cannot be blessed spirits, who are incapable of sin and negligence and do not need threats to compel them to fulfill their office. Therefore they are bishops, as the Muratorian fragment also says, speaking of the apostle John and “his bishops” (Kirch, Enchir. n. 135).

Therefore, bishops were instituted very soon after the beginning of the Church as successors of the apostles in the office of teaching and governing particular churches.

272. Argument II. From the teaching of the holy Fathers.

In the very oldest writers, the names “presbyter” and “bishop” are still used interchangeably, but the institution of bishops is expressly traced to the apostles. St. Clement of Rome (1 Cor. 42 44): The apostles, “preaching the word through the regions and cities, and testing their first converts by the Spirit, appointed bishops and deacons for those who would believe… They appointed the aforesaid, and afterwards gave an ordinance, that when these had died other approved men should take up their ministry.” He compares the ecclesiastical hierarchy with the hierarchy of the Old Testament: “We ought to do in order all the things which the Lord commanded us to perform at appointed times… For to the high priest his own offices have been assigned, to the priests their proper place has been allotted, and the Levites are charged with their ministries. The layman is bound by lay precepts” (l. c. 40). This comparison is frequent among the holy Fathers (cf. Constit. apost. 8, 46; St. Jerome, ep. 52, n. 7; St. Leo the Great, serm. 59, c. 7). In St. Justin Martyr, the one who governs ecclesiastical assemblies, celebrates the Eucharist, gives sermons to the people, and keeps and distributes the offerings to those in need is called “the presider” (προεστώς) (Apol. I, 65 67).

From the letters of St. Ignatius Martyr we learn not only that he himself was bishop of Antioch (Smyrn. 11, 1), but also the names of other bishops: Onesimus, bishop of Ephesus (Eph. 1, 3); Damas, bishop of Magnesia (Magn. 2); Polybius, bishop of Tralles (Trall. 1, 1); Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna (Magn. 15). The bishop of Philadelphia is highly praised, but his name is not given (Philad. 1). Indeed, bishops were appointed “throughout the regions of the earth,” that is, throughout the whole world (Eph. 3, 2), and this was done “according to the decision,” that is, by the will of Jesus Christ, as is said in the same place. Since Ignatius suffered martyrdom under Trajan (98—117), at the beginning of the second century the “monarchical” episcopate was not a recent institution, but its beginnings go back to the time of the apostles. What, then, is a bishop according to St. Ignatius? He is the highest-ranking person in the ecclesiastical hierarchy of his Church. In every Church there is “one bishop with the presbytery¹ and deacons” (Philad. 4). “Without these it is not called a Church” (Trall. 3, 1). A deacon is worthy of praise if, as he ought, he is subject to the bishop and presbytery (Magn. 2). The presbytery, in turn, must be “so joined to the bishop as strings to a harp” (Eph. 4, 1). “Obey the bishop, all of you, as Jesus Christ obeyed the Father… Apart from the bishop, let no one do anything pertaining to the Church. Let that Eucharist be considered valid which is celebrated by the bishop or by someone to whom he has granted permission. Where the bishop appears, there let the congregation be, just as where Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted to baptize or celebrate the love feast without the bishop; but whatever he approves is pleasing to God as well, so that everything done may be firm and valid” (Smyrn. 8). “It is clear, therefore, that one ought to regard the bishop as the Lord himself” (Eph. 6, 1).

We have already heard other testimonies above (n. 257). Tertullian says: “The high priest, who is the bishop, certainly has the right to administer [baptism]; then the presbyters and deacons, but not without the bishop’s authority” (De bapt. 17). According to Origen, the bishop “holds the citadel of the whole Church” (In Ier. hom. 11, n. 3). According to St. Cyprian, bishops were instituted by Christ himself, because the apostles were bishops instituted by him (Ep. 3, 3 [ed. Hartel]). The whole power and unity of the Church reside in the bishop. What is the Church? “A people united to its priest, a flock cleaving to its shepherd. Hence you should know that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and that anyone who is not with the bishop is not in the Church” (Ep. 66, n. 8).

From what has been said, it is clear that according to a tradition reaching back to the time of the apostles, bishops possess supreme teaching and ministerial authority, and are therefore called successors of the apostles. St. Cyprian: Bishops “succeed the apostles by a vicarious ordination” (Ep. 66, 4). St. Jerome: “Among us, bishops hold the place of the apostles” (Ep. 41, 3). St. Gregory the Great: “The bishops now hold in the Church the place of these [the apostles]” (In evang. hom. 26, 5). Therefore the Council of Trent follows the ancient tradition when it says of bishops: “Those who succeeded to the place of the apostles” (sess. 23, c. 4; Denz. n. 960). The Council of the Vatican teaches the same (sess. 4; Denz. n. 1821).

273. Objection I. St. Jerome writes as follows: “The presbyter, therefore, is the same as the bishop; and before, at the instigation of the devil, factions arose in religion and people began to say, ‘I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and I am of Cephas’ [1 Cor 1:12], the Churches were governed by the common counsel of presbyters. But after each person began to think that those whom he had baptized belonged to him, not to Christ, it was decreed throughout the whole world that one of the presbyters should be chosen and placed over the others, to whom the whole care of the Church would belong, and that the seeds of schisms might be removed… Just as presbyters know that by the custom of the Church they are subject to the one who has been placed over them, so let bishops know that they are greater than presbyters more by custom than by the truth of the Lord’s arrangement, and that they ought to govern the Church together, imitating Moses, who, although he alone had authority to preside over the people of Israel, chose seventy with whom he would judge the people” (In Tit. 1, 5). Elsewhere he says: “The Apostle clearly teaches that presbyters are the same as bishops,” and recounts that at Alexandria the presbyters chose one from their own body and named him bishop (Ep. 146). Therefore the episcopate was introduced by ecclesiastical custom alone, not instituted by the apostles at Christ’s command.

I answer. I grant the antecedent. I deny the consequent and the inference.

There has been much debate about those words of St. Jerome (cf. Historisches Jahrbuch, Munich 1900, 221 ff.). Some, such as Vazquez (Disputation 140, ch. 1, no. 15), think Jerome was mistaken. That could certainly have happened; and if it did, it would prove nothing against a doctrine firmly established. Others, however, think Jerome’s words can be rightly explained, provided one discounts a certain rhetorical exaggeration, which Jerome often uses, especially when he writes in anger, as happened in this case.

a) Jerome teaches that bishops are greater than presbyters in the power of order, as in ep. 146 ad Evangelum: “What does a bishop do, except ordination, that a presbyter does not do?” (cf. Adv. Ioann. Hieros. n. 37). b) What he says, “the presbyter is the same as the bishop,” he explains immediately in the same place as a matter of designation: “at that time they called the same persons bishops as they called presbyters.” Learned men disagree about the sense in which this is true (supra n. 213). c) The statement that from the beginning “the Churches were governed by the common counsel of presbyters” may be admitted as a probable hypothesis, provided these words are not explained as though the monarchical episcopate of which Jerome says, “Certainly there could not be several bishops, as they are now called, in one city” (In Tit. 1, 5), did not yet exist in apostolic times. According to him, the monarchical bishops in apostolic times were James, “the brother of the Lord,” in Jerusalem; Linus in Rome; Polycarp in Smyrna; Papias in Hierapolis; and others in other places (De vir. ill. 2, 15 17 sq). Indeed, he says generally that the apostles “ordained presbyters and bishops throughout the individual provinces” (In Matth. 25, 26). d) What he says, that on the occasion of the Corinthian factions it was decreed throughout the world that one should become bishop, is a fiction, as L. Sanders rightly judges (Études sur St. Jérôme, Bruxelles 1903, 327 sq). Moreover, Jerome himself says in Tit. 3, 13 that before those factions Apollos had been bishop of Corinth, left the city because of the factions, and later returned there from Crete. e) What he recounts about the Church of Alexandria can be understood as follows: in that Church, the presbyters alone, excluding the people, chose one bishop from their own body (cf. Epiph., Haer. 49, 11). But this matter is obscure.

In the middle of the fourth century the heresy of Aërius arose concerning the equality of bishops and presbyters; St. Epiphanius attacks this doctrine as utterly foolish (Haer. 75, 1 sqq; cf. S. Aug., De haer. 53).

274. Objection II. At the beginning of the Christian religion there were many Churches that had no bishop. But if Churches can exist without a bishop, the episcopate is not a divine but a human institution. Therefore bishops were introduced either by custom or by human law.

I answer. I distinguish the major: there were some beginnings of Christian communities that had no bishop, I grant the major; there were fully constituted Churches that had no bishop, I deny the major. I distinguish the minor: if Churches can be fully constituted without a bishop, the episcopate is not divinely instituted, I grant the minor; if only beginnings of Christian communities can exist without a bishop, I deny the minor. And I deny the conclusion.

Certainly the apostles did not immediately establish a complete hierarchy wherever they had converted some people to the faith, but waited for circumstances to develop and for the people to receive sufficient instruction, until they gave those new communities their final form. Likewise, in foreign missions today there are Christian communities presided over only by a catechist; others have at least a priest; in entire kingdoms or regions there is no bishop, but an “apostolic prefect”; later there are “apostolic vicars,” who have episcopal ordination and the title of some extinct Church, but in the missions have only jurisdiction delegated by the Roman Pontiff; finally, when everything has matured, a complete and ordinary hierarchy is established. Similarly, in the apostolic age there were “household Churches” without any priest, or urban and regional Churches with priests alone, whose supreme governance the apostles had reserved to themselves. But when the individual Churches had developed to their proper condition, they placed bishops over them. This, then, is not an essential change in the constitution of the Church, but a development from an imperfect state to the perfect state intended from the beginning. Those ancient witnesses, Ignatius, Hegesippus, Polycrates, and Irenaeus, know nothing of any introduced change; rather, they regard the episcopate as an institution necessary from the time of the apostles for preserving right doctrine and governing the Church.

275. Objection III. In former times bishops were elected by the people. But whoever is elected receives all his power from the one who elects him. Therefore, in former times episcopal power was conferred by the people.

I answer. I distinguish the major: in some places in the ancient Church the judgment of the people was sought regarding the worthiness of those to be elected, I grant the major; the people ever conferred by their election the power either of order or of jurisdiction, I deny the major. I distinguish the minor: one who becomes a bishop by the act of election itself receives power from the one electing him, I pass over the minor; one who is declared acceptable and worthy of the office by the election, I deny the minor. And I deny the conclusion.

In Sacred Scripture, sacred ministers are said to be appointed by the apostles or their assistants (Act 14, 22. Tit 1, 5). On one occasion the judgment of the people is requested concerning the good reputation of those to be appointed (Act 6, 7). According to Clement of Rome (1 Cor. 44), the first bishops were appointed by the apostles “or afterwards by other outstanding men, with the whole Church consenting.” According to St. Cyprian, “we must diligently observe and hold what comes from divine and apostolic tradition and practice, and what is observed among us and almost throughout all the provinces: that, for the proper celebration of ordinations, the neighboring bishops of the same province should assemble with the people over whom the bishop is being appointed, and the bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, who know each person’s life most fully and have observed each one’s conduct from his manner of life” (Ep. 67, 5 [ed. Hartel]). Concilium nicaenum I, can. 4, decreed that a bishop must be ordained by all the bishops of the same province, or at least by three, with the others’ consent (Kirch, Enchir. n. 364). Concilium constantinopolitanum IV post act. 10 can. 22, decreed that promotions and consecrations of bishops be made by election and decree of the college of bishops, without the intervention of laypeople. In the twelfth century the right to elect a bishop was given to the chapter of the cathedral Church (Decr. Greg. IX, l. 1, tit. 6, c. 14; Conc. later. II, can. 28). According to common law in our own time, the designation of the person takes place through the free appointment of the Roman Pontiff, but this right undergoes various modifications in different regions.

Scholium 1. Various errors condemned by the Church concerning the conferral of ecclesiastical power.

276. In the fourteenth century, Marsilius of Padua teaches in «Defensore pacis» that all ecclesiastical power resides in the Christian people and is conferred by them, or by the emperor as the people’s representative, upon ecclesiastical superiors, so that the emperor can even appoint and depose the supreme pontiff, since the whole hierarchy was instituted by human will alone. This doctrine was condemned as heretical by John XXII (Denz. n. 495 sqq; cf. 1719).

The heresiarchs of the sixteenth century, such as Luther in his book «De missa privata» and Calvin (Instit. 4, 3 sq), renewed the same error. They said that all Christians are equally priests, but since not all can devote themselves to the ministry of the word, some are called by the people or magistrate to this office, and their authority derives solely from this calling. The concilium tridentinum condemned this error, sess. 23, c. 4 et can. 17 (Denz. n. 960 sq 967).

In the seventeenth century Edmund Richer taught in his pamphlet «De ecclesiastica et politica potestate» that the fullness of ecclesiastical power first resides in the whole Church, then in all the bishops and presbyters taken together; individuals, however, receive a certain scope of power by delegation, and the supreme pontiff himself is only the ministerial head of the Church, subject to the college of bishops. Later van Espen, Febronius, the Pistoiese, and others taught similar things (cf. Wilmers, De eccl. 239 sqq). This doctrine, which especially pleased the Gallicans, Jansenists, and Josephinists, was condemned several times (cf. Denz. n. 1502 sq cum nota). Nevertheless, the Modernists renewed this error (Denz. n. 2091 sqq).

Scholium 2. On the hierarchical grades instituted by the Church.

277. In the hierarchy of order, besides the three grades instituted by Christ—episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate—there are other orders, which theologians now commonly judge to have been instituted by the Church: subdiaconate, acolyte, exorcist, lector, and porter, which are treated in the tract on the sacrament of Order.

In the hierarchy of jurisdiction, only two grades were instituted by Christ: the primacy and the episcopate. Therefore, anyone other than the supreme pontiff and bishops who has jurisdiction in the Church, whether ordinary or delegated, has it not by virtue of divine institution but by virtue of ecclesiastical law or custom. Below the bishops, parish priests have ordinary jurisdiction in the internal forum, that is, by virtue of their office. But in the first three centuries there were no parish priests in the Church; from about the fifth century onward, certain rural churches became parishes in the true sense, and from the eleventh century onward parishes also began to be established in episcopal cities (cf. I. Laurentius, Ius decret. n. 203 sq). Even now, however, it is not impossible for there to be dioceses in which the bishop is the sole true parish priest, while the other priests are his assistants, delegated by him, because the whole institution of parish priests is of ecclesiastical law. The opinion of the Gallicans and Jansenists, according to which parish priests, no less than bishops, are judges of the faith and rulers of the Churches by their own right, was rejected by Pius VI (Denz. n. 1509 sqq).

Above the bishops are archbishops, patriarchs, and others, whose dignity or power arose partly through a certain natural development and partly through ecclesiastical legislation, and can be abrogated or changed by the supreme pontiff for just causes. All these matters are treated in canon law.

Proposition XXXV. By divine right, bishops have jurisdiction in the internal and external forums in their dioceses, and are authentic teachers; nevertheless, individual bishops are not infallible teachers, but only the whole teaching Church, that is, the college of bishops under its head, the Roman Pontiff, is infallible.

278. Position of the question. We have said that bishops are successors of the apostles in the pastoral office. This pastoral office of bishops must now be determined somewhat more precisely, because various questions can arise, and have arisen, about it. First, we must see what in the episcopal office is of divine law and what is of ecclesiastical law. We are not dealing with the power of order; for bishops receive this power through consecration, that is, through the sacrament of Order instituted by Christ, whose highest grade is the episcopate. Consequently, this power is conferred immediately by God and cannot be limited in any way; it is present by the efficacy of the sacrament, as is explained in the treatise on the sacraments. The matter is different with respect to the power of jurisdiction, and this alone is in question. We can distinguish it into the power of governing and the power of teaching. Thus the thesis has several parts.

279. Proof, part I. a) Each bishop has jurisdiction in his own diocese. The apostles had been sent without restriction to all people and could preach everywhere and exercise jurisdiction everywhere. Bishops are not so. Above (n. 213) we said that there is a certain obscurity in the way Scripture speaks of bishops and presbyters. On the other hand, Scripture clearly testifies that already from the time of the apostles there were superiors appointed over individual Churches, each to govern his own Church: “When they had appointed presbyters in every church…” (Act 14, 22). “Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops, to govern the Church of God” (Act 20, 28). “I urged you to remain at Ephesus” (1 Tim 1, 3). “I left you in Crete so that you might correct what is lacking and appoint presbyters in every city, as I directed you. If anyone is without reproach… for a bishop must be without reproach” (Tit 1, 5 sqq). “Tend the flock of God that is among you” (1 Petr 5, 2). Hence St. John speaks of the angel of the Church of Ephesus, the angel of the Church of Smyrna, and so on (Apc c. 2).

Likewise, the holy Fathers, some of whose testimonies we heard in the preceding thesis, consistently teach that bishops are to govern their own Churches, “since a portion of the flock has been assigned to each shepherd, for each to rule and govern” (S. Cyprian., Ep. 58, n. 14 [ed. Hartel]). Hence St. Augustine says that it is not his “proper concern to care for any Church except the Church of Hippo… In other cities, however, we do only what pertains to the Church to the extent that the bishops of those cities either permit us or impose it upon us” (Ep. 34, n. 5). The Council of the Vatican, session 4, ch. 3, says concerning episcopal jurisdiction: “By this power the bishops… as true shepherds, each feed and govern the flocks assigned to them individually” (Denz. n. 1828). Therefore bishops have the duty to reside in their dioceses (which were formerly called parishes). This duty is insisted upon in many ecclesiastical canons, which the Council of Trent renewed together with the penalties established for those who neglect it (session 6, ch. 1 on reform).

b) Bishops are established by divine right. Therefore, unlike parish priests, they are in the Church not by human right but by Christ’s will, so that the Roman Pontiff cannot govern the Church by himself and through his delegates without ordinary bishops. We learn what Christ’s will was from this: on the one hand Christ is the author of the Church and its constitution, and on the other the Church has never existed without bishops. If Christ had not willed the Church to be governed by bishops, it would be impossible to understand why the Church had an episcopal constitution everywhere from the first century onward and why it regarded this constitution as divinely given. “The Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops to govern the Church of God” (Act 20, 28). Christ “gave some as apostles, some as prophets, others as evangelists, and others as pastors and teachers” (Eph 4, 11). Therefore, just as Christ had chosen apostles and their assistants (prophets and evangelists) to found Churches, so he appointed pastors and teachers to govern the Churches already founded; this twofold office belongs first and principally to bishops. In John’s vision in Revelation, Christ appears holding “seven stars in his right hand” and says: “The mystery of the seven stars… The seven stars are the angels [bishops] of the seven Churches” (Apc 1, 16 20). These words and those that follow also indicate that Christ wills bishops to be in the Church, having governance and care of the individual Churches. For this reason, the holy Fathers teach that bishops were appointed by the apostles at God’s command. Clement of Rome (1 Cor. 43): “And what is surprising if those [the apostles], to whom this office in Christ was entrusted by God, appointed the aforesaid [bishops]?” St. Ignatius of Antioch (Eph. 6, 1) says: “Whoever the master of a household [Christ] sends to govern his household, we ought to receive as the very one who sent him. It is clear, therefore, that one ought to regard the bishop as the Lord himself.” St. Cyprian insists: “The Lord chose the bishops and superiors.” “We can do nothing against God, who makes bishops” (Ep. 3, 3 [ed. Hartel]). Other Fathers say the same. The theologians agree on this matter. The Council of the Vatican teaches: “So far is this power of the supreme pontiff from detracting from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops, placed by the Holy Spirit and succeeding to the place of the apostles, as true shepherds each feed and govern the flocks assigned to them, that this same power is asserted, strengthened, and defended by the supreme and universal shepherd” (sess. 4, c. 3; Denz. n. 1828).

c) Jurisdiction is probably conferred upon bishops by the supreme pontiff. There are two theological opinions on this matter. Some hold that not only was the episcopate instituted by Christ, but also that at ordination episcopal jurisdiction in first act is conferred immediately by Christ upon each bishop; the exercise of this jurisdiction in second act, however, depends on the supreme pontiff. At the Council of Trent, the Spaniards especially defended this opinion, against whom Lainez disputed (cf. Grisar, Iacobi Lainez disputationes tridentinae I, 31*, 190 ff.). Although Lainez, by the force of his arguments, drew many theologians to his opinion, some later continued to defend the view that the jurisdiction of bishops is conferred immediately by God, and that at the very consecration (Wirceburg., De leg. n. 103 sqq). But this opinion is improbable, because through consecration itself a bishop does not receive determined subjects or a determined diocese. For a bishop’s consecration is valid even if he belongs to no diocese and receives no jurisdiction. Christ indeed gave jurisdiction immediately to all the apostles. But not all the privileges of the apostles passed to the bishops. Moreover, since there is a supreme pontiff in the Church, whose power suffices to confer jurisdiction on bishops, it is unreasonable to appeal to God himself, who does not usually produce effects without the concurrence of secondary causes when those secondary causes are capable of producing them. If the Roman Pontiff confers jurisdiction, it is easy to understand how he can enlarge it, restrict it, or remove it, which no one denies he can do. This is the teaching of St. Thomas (In Matth. 16, 2), Bellarmine (De rom. pont. 4, 24), Suarez (De leg. 4, 4), and many other theologians. Hence Benedict XIV says: This opinion “seems more in conformity with reason and authority” (De syn. l. 4, n. 2). Pius VI, in the constitution “Super soliditate” dated 28 November 1786, proposes the same doctrine (Denz. n. 1500). Many declarations of provincial councils also support it (cf. Wernz, Ius decret. II, n. 737). This doctrine is therefore now commonly received, although the contrary has not been condemned. See more in Wilmers, De eccl. 355 sqq

The act by which the supreme pontiff confers power is called appointment; for appointment is an act of the will by which a superior imposes upon someone the care of governing others. By this act the pontiff effects two things: he imposes on the bishop the office of governing, with its attached rights and duties, and makes him an ecclesiastical ruler; and he makes the faithful of a certain territory his subjects and commands them to obey the bishop. Thus, in appointment, the effect is produced immediately by human will; whereas in the consecration of a bishop, the effect (character and grace) is produced immediately by divine will. In consecration, the minister is bound to sacramental rites instituted by Christ; in appointment, no particular rite is necessary, but any suitable manner may be chosen.

d) A bishop has jurisdiction in the internal and external forums. The sacrament of penance pertains especially to the internal forum. Therefore a bishop can absolve all his subjects and give other priests the faculty to absolve them sacramentally. Moreover, all the spiritual cases of individual faithful which are not settled sacramentally pertain to the internal forum, such as, for example, matters concerning private vows. Therefore, both within and outside the sacrament, a bishop has jurisdiction in the internal forum over his subjects, within the limits established either by common law or by a special ordinance of the supreme pontiff.

The jurisdiction of the external forum directly concerns the public good. Provision is made for the public good by laws, tribunals, penalties, visitations, administration of property, and other means set forth in canon law; it is sufficient to indicate them here.

280. Proof, part II. a) Bishops in their dioceses are authentic teachers. An authentic teacher or doctor is one who is established by virtue of his office to propose the Church’s doctrine with authority. Therefore, a bishop proposing Christian doctrine is to be heard not on account of his particular learning or because of the persuasive arguments he presents, but because he teaches with authority, having been sent for this purpose immediately by the supreme pontiff and mediately by Christ himself. The holy Fathers, as we saw (n. 271), especially emphasize that the apostolic tradition in the Church must be preserved through bishops. In Sacred Scripture bishops are already admonished to guard sound doctrine carefully (Tit 1, 9), and those who are negligent in this duty are rebuked (Apc 2, 14 sqq 20). The Council of Trent warns: Since preaching the Gospel “is the chief office of bishops, this holy synod has decreed and ordained that all bishops… are bound personally, unless they are lawfully impeded, to preach the holy Gospel of Jesus Christ” (session 5, ch. 2 on reform; cf. session 24, ch. 4 on reform). It is also the bishops’ duty to take care that false doctrines do not creep in; therefore, in their dioceses, both by virtue of their ordinary office and as delegates of the Apostolic See, they can, and sometimes must, prohibit books they judge harmful to faith or good morals; the censorship of books to be published on matters of faith and morals also belongs to them. Pius X insists upon this duty in the most serious terms at the end of the encyclical Pascendi. It is therefore clear in what sense bishops are authentic teachers.

b) Individual bishops are not infallible teachers. St. Paul, addressing the bishops whom he had summoned to Miletus, says: “From among your own selves men will arise speaking perverse things, to draw the disciples away after them” (Act 20, 30). He writes the same to Timothy: “Avoid foolish and old wives’ fables… Avoid foolish and undisciplined questions” (1 Tim 4, 7 [cf. 6, 20]. 2 Tim 2, 23). Likewise to Titus (1, 5 sqq; 2, 7; 3, 9). But no one addresses people in this way if they are infallible in teaching. Moreover, history testifies that certain bishops became teachers of heresy, such as Paul of Samosata, Nestorius, and so many Arian bishops. Even among Catholics certain bishops taught errors, as, for example, St. Cyprian and the other African bishops on the rebaptism of heretics. In the Church it has always been admitted that individual bishops can err, even in matters of faith and morals. Cf. propositions 6 and 85 of the Synod of Pistoia (Denz. 1506 1593), which synod, together with its many errors, confirms the doctrine that individual bishops are fallible.

c) The college of bishops under the Roman Pontiff, that is, the teaching Church, is infallible. For we have proved that Christ instituted an infallible teaching office (n. 186 sqq) and willed that this teaching office remain until the end of the world (219 sqq). Therefore, since individual bishops are not infallible, at least the whole college must be infallible, so that it may be “the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of truth” (1 Tim 3, 15). For if the whole college of bishops proposed false doctrine in matters of faith and morals, either the whole Church would err if it followed the bishops, or the unity of the Church would be destroyed if the flock rebelled against its shepherds. Thus neither would what Christ promised be fulfilled: “Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” (Mt 28, 20); nor would the Spirit of truth remain with the Church or lead it into all truth (Io 14, 16 sqq; 16, 12 sq); and the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Church. Since this cannot happen, the teaching Church is infallible in proposing and explaining revealed doctrine and in rejecting opposing errors. On this matter Pope St. Simplicius writes in 476: “This same rule of apostolic doctrine endures in his successors, to whom the Lord entrusted the care of the whole flock, promising that he would never be absent from them until the end of the age, that the gates of hell would never prevail against them, and testifying that what they bound on earth could not be loosed even in heaven… What it has deserved to cut off with the blade of the Gospel sickle, by apostolic hands and with the consent of the universal Church, cannot recover the strength to be reborn; nor can what is known to have been consigned to eternal fire return as a fruitful branch to the Lord’s vine” (Denz. n. 160). We shall see later how the Church exercises its infallible teaching office (n. 304 sqq).

281. Objection I. In the earliest times those said to have been bishops, such as Timothy, Titus, and others, were not bound to one place but performed apostolic offices in various places, as is recounted, for example, in Acts 18:5; 19:23; 20:4; 2 Tim 4:8, 10. Therefore bishops who have fixed sees do not belong to the primitive constitution of the Church².

I answer. I grant the antecedent and deny the conclusion. For Timothy, Titus, and others could first have been mere assistants to the apostles in their apostolic labors and only later become bishops. Those who were already bishops could also have been sent by the apostles on extraordinary missions. In these cases, then, they did not use ordinary but delegated power, like apostolic vicars in our own time. We have proved by certain arguments that from the time of the apostles there were bishops who were shepherds of souls, entrusted with the care of a particular flock.

282. Objection II. Things instituted by God are immutable. But the jurisdiction of bishops is mutable. Therefore it was not divinely instituted.

I answer. I distinguish the major: things instituted by God are immutable precisely within the scope in which they were instituted by God, I grant the major; beyond that scope, I deny the major. I distinguish the minor: the jurisdiction of bishops is mutable insofar as those who, by ordinary office, pasture individual portions of the Lord’s flock with both the supreme power of order and the power of jurisdiction in the internal and external forums may or may not exist in the Church, I deny the minor; the jurisdiction of bishops can be changed in many ways while its substance remains, I grant the minor. And I distinguish the conclusion: episcopal power is not divinely instituted as to its substance, I deny the conclusion; as to other matters, I grant the conclusion. What pertains essentially to episcopal jurisdiction and what can be changed is taught in canon law. It is essential to a bishop that he have his own flock, or his own diocese. But whether the flock is larger or smaller, whether there are more or fewer dioceses in the world, is not of the essence of the episcopate. Similarly, it is essential to a bishop that he be able to absolve his subjects from sins; nevertheless, the Roman Pontiff can reserve certain special cases to himself. The same must be said of cases that pertain to the external forum.

283. Objection III. Bishops are successors of the apostles. But the apostles received jurisdiction immediately from Christ. Therefore bishops receive it in the same way, and for that reason are said to have been placed by the Holy Spirit.

I answer. I distinguish the major: bishops are successors of the apostles in the ordinary office of governing the Church, I grant the major; in absolutely all prerogatives, I deny the major. I grant the minor. I distinguish the conclusion: bishops receive jurisdiction from Christ and are placed by the Holy Spirit insofar as the episcopate is divinely instituted and, by virtue of this institution, validly conferred by the Roman Pontiff, I grant the conclusion; insofar as Christ immediately confers jurisdiction upon each bishop, not through the Roman Pontiff, I deny the conclusion. In the consecration of a bishop, God as the principal cause immediately imprints the character and confers grace. But this alone does not yet make anyone a perfect bishop; rather, a flock must be assigned and power over the flock conferred, which takes place by an act of the Roman Pontiff’s will. Only in the case in which the pope’s jurisdiction is doubtful and there is at the same time a colorable title and common error should God be considered to supply the objectively invalid jurisdiction in matters necessary, as canonists and moral theologians teach in similar cases concerning the Church’s supplying the doubtful jurisdiction of a parish priest or confessor. But this is an extraordinary case, by which one must not judge what regularly happens in the Church (cf. Wilmers, De eccl. 257 365 sq).

284. Objection IV. The Church of the Old Testament, or the synagogue, preserved and handed down revealed doctrine. But the synagogue did not have an infallible teaching office; for the high priest and the other teachers rejected the true Messiah and led the whole people into error. Therefore, an infallible teaching office is not required for preserving and handing down revelation.

I answer. I deny the supposition underlying the whole argument. For we have not argued from the premise that God cannot provide in many ways for the preservation and transmission of revelation, but from the fact that Christ actually instituted a teaching office to which all must submit. The synagogue was an inferior Church, especially with respect to its teaching office. In the Old Testament, there were few things for the common people to believe by divine faith, such as that God is one, the creator and governor of all, and that the Messiah would come. A fallible Aaronic teaching office sufficed to teach these few things. If the ordinary shepherds failed in their duty, God sent prophets to lead the priests and people back to the right way. Thus, through ordinary and extraordinary shepherds, sufficient provision had been made for that preparatory Church until the Messiah would come, bring all things to perfection, and, while remaining in the Church perpetually, endow its perpetual teaching office with the prerogative of infallibility.

285. Objection V. Since people are not infallible in themselves, some supernatural habit would have to be infused into the bishops to make them permanently infallible. But this is unheard of, and it is not clear what it is. Therefore, it must not be admitted.

I answer. I deny the major. Infallibility is not a quality inhering in the teaching Church, but an external assistance of the Holy Spirit, directing the Church and guarding it lest it ever propose falsehood as truth. The Holy Spirit therefore helps in various ways so that the teaching Church may perceive and propose the truth, and prevents it from accepting and teaching error. He can and does bring about both without an infused habit of infallibility. This influence is neither revelation nor inspiration properly so called, nor anything that makes the bishops mere instruments of the Holy Spirit; rather, in exercising its teaching office, the Church is the principal cause of its own acts.

ARTICLE II.

ON THE ROMAN PONTIFF.

Cf. Bellarmine, De romano pontifice; Suarez, De fide, disp. 10; P. Ballerini, De vi ac ratione primatus romanorum pontificum; D. Palmieri, De romano pontifice³, Romae 1902; T. W. Allies, The See of S. Peter, London 1866; I. Ottiger, De ecclesia Christi, 526 sqq

Proposition XXXVI. The Roman Pontiff is the successor of St. Peter in the primacy.

286. Position of the question. Just as the college of bishops succeeds the college of apostles in the office of governing the individual Churches, so the Roman Pontiff succeeds St. Peter in the primatial office, which concerns the whole Church. Jesus Christ made St. Peter the head of the apostles and conferred upon him the office of governing all Christ’s sheep (supra n. 193 sqq). At the same time, he willed that this primacy of Peter remain in the Church forever (supra n. 220); but Sacred Scripture says nothing about the manner in which it is to be transferred. Historically, however, it is established that the primacy was always attached to the Roman see, so that whoever became bishop of Rome was thereby the supreme pontiff, or primate, and successor of St. Peter.

Above (n. 201) we have already noted that the dogma of the primacy, like the other dogmas of the Church, has its own history and development both in the matter of perfect knowledge and doctrinal exposition, and in practical use. Hence not all the incidental questions had already been settled perfectly in theory and practice in the first centuries. It is sufficient that the Church always recognized the dogmatic principle on which the Roman primacy rests.

As for the arguments, some are dogmatic and others historical. Since the Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals (supra n. 280 c), the Roman Pontiff is primate if the Church has taught this. The historical arguments also show how the primacy passed from St. Peter to the Roman Pontiffs. Even if this second question could not be settled with certainty, the demonstration of the fact itself from the agreement of the Church would remain unshaken. Therefore, this matter does not depend on whether Peter was at Rome and died as bishop of that Church; for it was absolutely possible that St. Peter chose no see for himself, but only indicated how the primacy was to be transferred to his successors after his death.

All who are not Catholics either deny the Roman primacy or concede only a primacy of honor; for every Christian who acknowledges the primacy in theory and in practice is thereby a Catholic, while whoever denies it is thereby not a Catholic.

287. Argument I. From the will of Christ.

The will of Christ, who instituted the primacy and willed it to be perpetual, could not fail of its effect. But unless the Roman Pontiff were the successor of St. Peter in the primacy, Christ’s will would fail of its effect. Therefore, the Roman Pontiff is the successor of St. Peter in the primacy.

Proof of the minor premise. No one other than the Roman Pontiff has ever been acknowledged in the Church as the successor of St. Peter in the primacy; indeed, no other bishop has ever dared to claim this dignity for himself. Therefore, either there is no successor of St. Peter in the primacy, or the Roman Pontiff is that successor. The former is false; therefore, the latter is true. There have been people who claimed to be Roman Pontiffs when they were not (antipopes). This matter does not touch the question of right concerning the necessity of the primacy’s perpetuity, but concerns the question of fact: who was the true primate in those times. Many deny that the primacy was instituted by Christ, but this question is presupposed as already settled here. Nor can they deny that for many centuries the whole Church acknowledged the primacy as instituted by Christ. Therefore, since the whole Church cannot err in a matter of dogma, the primacy was instituted by Christ; and consequently the Roman Pontiff is the successor of St. Peter in the primacy.

288. Argument II. From the agreement of the Church.

The Roman Pontiffs have always claimed succession in the primacy of St. Peter for themselves, and the Church has acknowledged this doctrine. But the whole Church cannot have been deceived by error in this doctrine. Therefore, it is true that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of St. Peter in the primacy.

Proof of the major premise, part I. The Roman Pontiffs claimed the primacy for themselves.

In the first century, around the year 96, St. Clement of Rome (teste Eusebio, H. E. 3, 16 38) admonished the Corinthians with a strong assertion of authority to settle the disturbances that had arisen in their Church. “We are writing to remind you of your duty” (1 Cor. 7, 1). “It is disgraceful, brothers, yes, very disgraceful and unworthy of the Christian way of life, to hear what we have learned: that the very firm and ancient Church of the Corinthians is fomenting sedition against its presbyters because of one or two people” (ibid. 47, 6). “But if some do not obey the things he [Christ] has said through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small offense and danger, while we shall be innocent of this sin” (ibid. 59, 1 sq). “You will bring us joy and gladness if, becoming obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit, you remove the unlawful zeal of your rivalry, in accordance with the exhortation concerning peace and harmony that we made in this letter” (ibid. 63, 2; cf. Denz. n. 41). No one speaks in this way unless he claims authority over those to whom he speaks. Hence the Roman Church claimed authority over the Corinthians, specifically the authority and duty to teach and direct them and to demand their obedience under pain of sin. The Roman Church could not have had such authority unless it had received it from God. The letter does not indicate where and how it received it.

In the second century, St. Victor I (189—199) wrote (teste Eusebio, H. E. 5, 24) to Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, against the custom of the “Quartodecimans” (that is, those who celebrated Easter from the fourteenth day of the month of Nisan). He admonished him to summon the bishops of Asia Minor and enjoin them to conform to Roman custom, threatening to excommunicate those who disobeyed; he did, however, desist from this excommunication at the request of St. Irenaeus and others (cf. Kirch, Enchir. n. 84 sqq). Therefore St. Victor claimed authority over those Churches.

In the third century, St. Callistus (217—222) decreed that the sins of adultery and fornication, too, were to be forgiven penitents. Therefore Tertullian, addressing him in ironic words, says: “I hear that an edict has also been issued, and indeed a peremptory one. The supreme pontiff, that is, the bishop of bishops, declares: ‘I remit the sins of adultery and fornication to those who have done penance’” (De pud. 1). “Good shepherd and blessed pope, you are preaching” (ibid. 13). “Show me, then, even now, apostolic man, examples from the prophets… Now I ask about your own judgment, whence you usurp this right for the Church. Is it because the Lord said to Peter: ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church; to you I have given the keys of the kingdom of heaven’; or, ‘Whatever you bind or loose on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Mt 16:18 f.], that you presume the power of binding and loosing has therefore been passed on to you, that is, to every Church near Peter, such as you are, overturning and changing the Lord’s clear intention, which conferred this personally upon Peter?… And what now is this ‘spiritual’ thing, even in your Church?” (ibid. 21). Thus it was the doctrine of the “spiritual,” that is, the Catholics, that Christ built his Church upon Peter and that the power of binding and loosing descended from Peter to his Roman successors and to “every Church near Peter.” — In the same century, Pope St. Stephen († 257) rejected the doctrine of Cyprian and many other African and Asian bishops concerning the rebaptism of heretics, and the Church followed Stephen, not Cyprian and the other bishops.

In the fourth century, St. Siricius wrote to Himerius, bishop of Tarragona, in 385: “We do not refuse to give a fitting answer to your inquiry, because, considering our office, we have no liberty to dissemble or be silent, upon whom a greater zeal for the whole Christian religion rests. We bear the burdens of all who are burdened; indeed, blessed Peter the Apostle bears them in us, and, as we trust, protects and guards us in all things as the heirs of his office” (Denz. n. 87).

In the fifth century, St. Innocent I wrote to the Council of Carthage (a. 417): “You have approved that the matter be referred to our judgment, knowing what is owed to the Apostolic See, since all of us placed in this position desire to follow the Apostle [Peter], from whom the episcopate itself and the whole authority of this name arose… [The Fathers] decreed by divine, not human, wisdom that whatever was being done, even in distant and remote provinces, should not be considered finished before it came to the knowledge of this See, so that its just pronouncement might be confirmed by the full authority of this See” (Denz. n. 100). In 418, St. Zosimus again wrote to the African bishops: “Although the tradition of the Fathers has granted such great authority to the Apostolic See that no one would dare dispute its judgment, and has always observed this through canons and regulations, and ecclesiastical discipline, still in force under its laws, pays the reverence due to the name of Peter, from whom it too descends… since Peter is the head of such great authority… yet although we had such authority that no one could revise our sentence, we have done nothing without voluntarily reporting it to your knowledge by our letters” (Denz. n. 109).

Many other pontiffs taught the same, such as St. Leo I (Kirch, Enchir. n. 810 sqq), St. Gelasius I (Denz. n. 163), Pelagius I (Denz. n. 230), Hadrian I (Denz. n. 298), and St. Nicholas I (Denz. n. 332 sq). But we omit these, since no one can deny that the Roman primacy was universally acknowledged in those times.

289. Proof of the major premise, part II. The Church acknowledged the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. This is already indicated in some way by St. Ignatius of Antioch, who, in the inscription of his letter to the Romans, says: “To the Church… which presides in the region of the Romans, worthy of God… and presiding over the whole assembly of charity.” Thus the Roman Church is called προκαθημένη τῆς ἀγάπης. Προκαθῆσθαί τινος means to preside over some place or society. Over what does the Roman Church preside? “Over charity.” Ἀγάπη, when followed by the name of the Smyrnaeans, Ephesians, or others, signifies a particular Church (cf. Trall. 13, 1). Therefore, without an added qualifier, it can signify the whole assembly of the faithful, or the universal Church. Indeed, it cannot signify anything else here; for what some would have it mean—“the Church that excels in charity”—cannot be admitted, because προκαθῆσθαι with the genitive does not have this sense, and because the article τῆς ἀγάπης is used.

St. Irenaeus says of the Roman Church: “It is necessary that every Church, that is, the faithful from everywhere, should agree with this Church because of its more powerful [preeminent] principality; in it the tradition handed down from the apostles has always been preserved by the faithful from everywhere” (Contra haer. 3, 3, 2; Kirch, Enchir. n. 112). In context, the subject is how the true apostolic tradition is known. Irenaeus says it is known from the unbroken series of bishops, especially from the Roman Church, with which all the faithful must agree because of its more powerful principality, that is, they must agree in the faith, so that the Roman faith is the faith of the whole Church. Therefore, a singular authority over the whole Church is attributed to the Roman Church. But according to Irenaeus, the authority of the Church resides in the bishop. Therefore, that singular authority is the authority of the Roman Pontiff.

In the same second century, illustrious men often came to Rome to consult the Roman Pontiff about matters of faith and morals. Thus Polycarp came to Anicetus concerning the question of Easter (Euseb. H. E. 4, 14; cf. Kirch, Enchir. n. 87). Hegesippus came to the same pontiff to investigate right doctrine (supra n. 271). Irenaeus went to Pope Eleutherius (Euseb. 5, 4; Kirch, n. 53). Abercius, bishop of Hierapolis, says of himself: “The holy Shepherd [that is, Christ] sent me to Rome, both to behold the royal citadel and to see the queen, clothed in gold and shod with gold; I saw there, too, the people bearing a splendid seal” (Kirch, n. 133). Why did these and other men come to Rome over questions of faith and discipline, while the Roman Pontiff never visited other Churches to be instructed by them? There is no other reason than the primacy of the Roman See. The heretics themselves also tried to be recognized by this See, because they knew that otherwise their efforts would be fruitless (cf. e.g. Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 1). Heresies were suppressed at Rome; all the Churches conformed themselves to Roman discipline and doctrine, even if they initially resisted, as is clear from the history of Gnosticism and Montanism and from the questions concerning Easter, the rebaptism of heretics, etc.

St. Cyprian asks Pope Cornelius not to allow himself to be deceived by the lies of certain people who, after being condemned in Africa, had taken refuge at the Roman See. “They dare to sail and carry letters from schismatics and profane men to the Chair of Peter and the principal Church, from which sacerdotal unity arose, without considering that the Romans are those whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and to whom unbelief cannot gain access” (Ep. 59, n. 14 [ed. Hartel]). When false rumors about Pope Cornelius’s election had spread in Africa, Cyprian, having learned the truth of the matter, said: “Cornelius was made bishop by the judgment of God and his Christ… when the place of Fabian, that is, the place of Peter and the rank of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant” (Ep. 55, n. 8). He writes to Cornelius that he had arranged for letters to be sent to all the bishops of Africa, “so that all our colleagues might approve and firmly uphold you and your communion, that is, the unity and charity of the Catholic Church” (Ep. 48, n. 3). He asks Pope Stephen to depose and excommunicate Marcian, bishop of Arles, who had joined Novatian, and to ensure that another be appointed in his place (Ep. 68). It must indeed be conceded that Cyprian nowhere clearly explains the force and nature of the Roman primacy, and perhaps did not have a clear understanding of it; but it cannot be denied that according to him the Roman Church possesses a preeminence that belongs to no other Church (cf. Kirch, Enchir. n. 242 sqq 260).

St. Jerome writes to Damasus: “I am joined in communion with your Beatitude, that is, with the Chair of Peter. I know that the Church is built upon that rock. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane” (Ep. 15). St. Augustine says of the Roman See: “In which the primacy of the apostolic chair has always flourished” (Ep. 43, n. 7). St. Optatus of Milevis: “You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was first conferred upon Peter, in which Peter, the head of all the apostles, sat… so that now he would be a schismatic and sinner who set up another chair against the unique chair” (De schism. donat. l. 2, n. 2). Many other Fathers say the same.

But, what is even more important, not only individual teachers but also ecumenical councils acknowledged the same primacy. At the Council of Ephesus (act. 3), Philip, legate of the Apostolic See, said with the Fathers’ consent: “No one doubts, indeed, 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 from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, the keys of the kingdom, and that the power to loose and bind sins was given to him; he lives and exercises judgment in his successors even to this day and forever” (Denz. n. 112). These words were incorporated by the Council of the Vatican (sess. 4, c. 2) into its definition (Denz. n. 1824). The Council of Chalcedon wrote to Pope Leo: “You were set as the head over [the council’s bishops] as the head over the members” (Denz. n. 149). The Fathers of the Third Council of Constantinople say of Pope Agatho: “The supreme prince of the apostles fought alongside us; for we had as our helper his imitator and successor in the See, illuminating the divine mystery by his letters… and Peter was speaking through Agatho” (Denz. n. 288, nota 2). At the Second Council of Nicaea, the letters of Pope Hadrian were read, in which he says: “His [Peter’s] See, holding the primacy over the whole world, shines forth and stands as the head of all the Churches of God.” After the letters had been read, the papal legates asked: “Let the holy synod tell us whether it accepts the letters of the most holy pope, the elder of Rome, or not.” The synod replied: “We follow, receive, and accept them” (Hardouin, Collection of Councils IV, 102 f.; cf. Denz. no. 298). To omit many other things, at the Second Council of Lyons the profession of Michael Palaeologus was approved, in which we read: “The holy Roman Church holds the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church, which it truly and humbly recognizes that it received from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, prince or head of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, with the fullness of power” (Denz. n. 466). The Council of Florence decreed in its decree of union: “We define that the holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy over the whole world, and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church, and father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church was delivered to him in blessed Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ, as is also contained in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons” (Denz. n. 694).

290. Conclusions. Finally, the Council of the Vatican repeats the doctrine of the preceding councils and gathers it into several conclusions:

First conclusion: “Whoever succeeds Peter in this [Roman] chair obtains the primacy of Peter over the whole Church according to Christ’s own institution… Therefore, if anyone says that, by the institution of Christ himself or by divine right, blessed Peter does not have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this same primacy, let him be anathema” (sess. 4, c. 2; Denz. n. 1824 sq). — Thus, by the very fact that someone is legitimately elected Bishop of Rome and consents, he obtains from Christ, by virtue of the original institution, the primacy over the whole Church. The person is designated by human beings in the legitimate manner that has varied at different times and now consists in election by the cardinals assembled in conclave. Jurisdiction is conferred upon the designated person by Christ himself, because there is no human being who holds supreme jurisdiction, nor anyone who can transfer it to another; nor did Christ designate any human being to confer this power on Peter’s successors. The doctrine condemned as heretical by Pius VI is “that which asserts that the Roman Pontiff is a ministerial head, explained in such a way that the Roman Pontiff receives the power of ministry not from Christ in the person of blessed Peter but from the Church, by which he, as the successor of Peter, the true vicar of Christ, and head of the whole Church, holds power throughout the universal Church” (Denz. n. 1503).

Second conclusion: “We therefore teach and declare that the Roman Church, by the Lord’s arrangement, holds the primacy of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate, and to it pastors and faithful of every rite and dignity are bound by the duty of true hierarchical subordination and obedience, both individually and all together, not only in matters of faith and morals but also in those pertaining to the discipline and governance of the Church spread throughout the whole world; so that, by preserving unity both of communion with the Roman Pontiff and of profession of the same faith, the Church of Christ is one flock under one supreme shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation” (sess. 4, c. 3; Denz. n. 1827). — Therefore, the power of the Roman Pontiff over the whole Church is ordinary power, not delegated; it is episcopal, not a mere office of inspection and direction; it is immediate over all bishops and all their subjects. This is so because Christ entrusted to Peter the office of pasturing all his sheep. But it is clear both from the very words and from the conciliar definitions we have cited that this is ordinary power, conferred by way of office, to govern all and each of Christ’s sheep. St. Thomas illustrates the difference between mediate and immediate jurisdiction in this way: “It is clear that an archbishop does not have immediate jurisdiction over those who belong to a bishop’s diocese, unless a case is referred to him. But a bishop has immediate jurisdiction over the parishioners of a priest… The reason is that the priest’s power is naturally and by divine right subject to the bishop’s power, since it is imperfect in relation to the latter; but the bishop is subject to the archbishop only by ecclesiastical ordinance… The pope has immediate jurisdiction over all the Churches, because the Roman Church was not set above the other Churches by synodal decrees, but obtained the primacy by the Gospel voice of our Lord and Savior” (Contra impugn. relig. 4).

Third conclusion: The Roman Pontiff exercises “supreme power of governing the whole Church,” not merely each Church taken separately but all of them together (cf. Denz. n. 1961). “And since by divine right of the apostolic primacy the Roman Pontiff presides over the universal Church, we also teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical examination recourse may be had to his judgment; but no one may revise the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is greater than that of no one, nor is anyone permitted to judge its judgment. Therefore those depart from the right path of truth who assert that it is permissible to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an ecumenical council as an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff” (sess. 4, c. 3: Denz. n. 1829 sq.). — For Peter alone is the foundation of the whole Church; he alone received the office of pasturing all Christ’s sheep. But a building never supports its foundation, nor do sheep pasture their shepherd. Therefore, it is not the Church that has jurisdiction over Peter’s successor; rather, Peter’s successor has supreme jurisdiction over the Church, nor is he himself subject to any ecclesiastical laws (cf. Denz. n. 1324).

Finally, the Council ends the definition with these words: “If anyone, therefore, says that the Roman Pontiff has only an office of inspection or direction, and not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in matters of faith and morals but also in those pertaining to the discipline and governance of the Church spread throughout the whole world; or that he has only the more important share, and not the whole fullness of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, whether over all Churches individually or over all pastors and faithful individually, let him be anathema” (Denz. n. 1831).

Here we have expressed in clear and defined words what the Church taught and believed through so many centuries. But the Church could not have constantly erred in this fundamental matter. Therefore, this doctrine is true and revealed by God.

291. Objection I. By far the greatest part of Eastern Christians, and among Western Christians the Anglicans and generally all Protestants, deny the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, so that this doctrine is denied by almost as many as admit it. But this is a sign that it is not revealed by God. Therefore…

I answer. I distinguish the major: they began to deny this doctrine by apostatizing from a doctrine previously commonly admitted, I grant the major; while remaining in the prior tradition and faith, I deny the major. I distinguish the minor: dissent, had it existed from the beginning and through all subsequent centuries, would show that the doctrine was not revealed, I grant the minor; dissent even by very many, arising through apostasy from prior agreement, I deny the minor.

The schism of the Greeks began with Photius in the ninth century and was completed by Michael Cerularius in the eleventh. Until those times, not only individual teachers but also councils held in the East acknowledged the primacy of the supreme pontiff, and Photius was condemned by the Fourth Council of Constantinople (Denz. n. 341). Therefore, later Greeks defected not only from the Latins but also from the earlier Greek Church itself and its doctrine. Among Western Christians, rebellions against the Apostolic See have indeed sometimes occurred, as among the Waldensians and other sectarians; yet such heresies or schisms never caused the Roman Pontiff’s primacy to be denied or called into doubt by a notable part of the Church in the West. The first great defection in the West took place in the sixteenth century; but all the communities that defected from the Church’s unity also paid the penalty of that crime in that they soon split into more and more mutually hostile sects, became infected with the worst errors, became estranged from many revealed and fundamental doctrines, and are increasingly rushing into unbelief. Therefore, this very fact is no small argument for how wisely Christ provided for the Church’s unity and purity of doctrine by instituting the primacy.

292. Objection II. The first Christians knew nothing of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff; rather, through a natural and historical development, the episcopal see of the city of Rome, which was the capital of the world, acquired a certain indefinite prerogative of excellence; the Roman Pontiffs, using it, increased their power as occasions arose, until, overcoming the protests of many, they gradually attained the full power of the primacy. Therefore, the primacy is not a matter of divine institution but of historical development.

I answer. I deny the antecedent. For this theory was not drawn from historical sources, but was established a priori by rationalists, who deny all supernatural things and therefore must construct natural origins and developments for the Christian religion and Church. Critical and historical considerations come only second, to adorn those constructions with the ornaments of scholarship.

The principles and foundations of the primacy are laid down in Sacred Scripture; the Roman primacy is already indicated by the earliest ecclesiastical writers, such as Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian; and the knowledge and exercise of the primacy develop through the following centuries. All of this is well understood and explained on the supposition that this dogma is true. But a purely natural explanation is all the more improbable because not only do different rationalists explain the matter differently, but each often changes his own theory and attempts new constructions day by day.

293. Objection III. St. Gregory the Great not only severely reproved the title “ecumenical bishop” in John the Faster, bishop of Constantinople, but also rejected it for himself, writing: “Certainly, in honor of blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, that [title] was offered to the Roman Pontiff by the venerable Council of Chalcedon. But none of them ever consented to use this title of singularity, lest, while something private was given to one, all priests [bishops] be deprived of the honor due to them” (Letters, book 5, letter 20). Therefore St. Gregory did not acknowledge that he was bishop of all the Churches.

I answer. I grant the antecedent. I distinguish the conclusion: St. Gregory did not wish to be an “ecumenical bishop” in the sense that the others would not be true and ordinary bishops but only vicars of the Roman Pontiff, and he rejected the title insofar as it could suggest this false idea, I grant the conclusion; St. Gregory denied that he had jurisdiction over the other Churches, I deny the conclusion. Indeed, he writes about the See of Constantinople itself: “Who could doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Both the most pious lord emperor and our brother, the bishop of that same city, continually profess this” (Letters, book 9, letter 12).

Nor need we fear that the Roman Pontiff’s power over all the Churches will cause confusion, as if each Church were governed by two bishops. For supreme power was not given to the pontiff so that he might interfere in the everyday affairs of the dioceses, but so that he might intervene only when special causes and reasons demand it (cf. Denz. n. 1828). History teaches that no disturbance arises in the individual Churches from the exercise of the Roman Pontiff’s power, but that very grave evils are often averted by it, although it is not absolutely impossible for people sometimes to abuse this power, as they can abuse any power.

294. Objection IV. That great power which was attributed to the Roman Pontiff in the Middle Ages is a product of the forgeries of Pseudo-Isidore. Therefore, it must not be referred to the institution of Christ.

I answer. I deny the antecedent. The Decretals of Isidore are a collection of canons that arose in ninth-century Gaul, when civil and ecclesiastical affairs there were in the gravest disorder. To remedy this evil, an unknown person (perhaps Benedict the Levite) tried, by collecting ecclesiastical laws into one body, to call the Church’s discipline to people’s attention. He did not devise a new discipline, but confirmed with false decretals the discipline then in force, which he himself or another source from which he drew attributed to pontiffs or councils of earlier centuries; and he attributed the whole work to Isidore (of Seville). These false decretals passed into the works of later writers; but with respect to the primacy they contain nothing that had not been acknowledged in the Church long before, as, for example, Palmieri shows (De rom. pont. 530 sqq). Cf. Paul Fournier, De l'origine des fausses décrétales (Congrès scient. internat., Paris 1889), 403 sqq.

295. Objection V. The Council of Constance, in session 5, declared that this synod “has its power immediately from Christ, whom everyone of every state or dignity, even if he is pope, is bound to obey in matters pertaining to the faith and the eradication of the said schism.” Therefore, the pope is at least subject to an ecumenical council.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: these words are found in the acts of the council, I grant the antecedent; they are a conciliar definition, I deny the antecedent. For Martin V, in the two bulls Inter cunctas and In eminentis, approved only the decrees made against Wyclif, Hus, and Jerome of Prague, then those on communion under one species and the safe conduct of heretics.

Moreover, those words can have various meanings, and even at the time of the council they were understood differently by different people. For they can refer to a doubtful pope, which was then under discussion; a doubtful pope, however, is no pope (Bellarminus, De conc. 2, 19, ad 3 arg. Gerson.), if his election was doubtful from the beginning (one who is unquestionably legitimate cannot later become doubtful). If the words are understood in this way, they say nothing about the nature of the primacy. Some, however, interpreted them universally and wished to subject a true pope to a council. In this sense, the words were not only unapproved but also condemned (cf. Denz. n. 657 nota 740 1323).

Therefore a certainly legitimate pope cannot be deprived of jurisdiction by a council; he loses it only by (a) death, (b) voluntary resignation, (c) certain and perpetual insanity, because an insane person cannot exercise jurisdiction, or (d) manifest heresy, by which he is separated from the Church, although many theologians either deny or call into doubt that even the supreme pontiff can fall into heresy, even privately. More on this matter is found among the canonists (e.g. Wernz, Ius decret. II, n. 612 sqq). In none of these cases is the Roman Pontiff deposed by the Church; at most, a declaratory sentence is pronounced concerning jurisdiction already lost.

296. Objection VI. According to St. Leo I (ep. 106, n. 5), “the sees are one thing, and those who preside over them another.” Therefore, from the fact that certain rights or privileges belong to the Roman See, the same rights or privileges must not be attributed to each individual Roman Pontiff.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: according to St. Leo’s meaning, the rights and privileges of the sees are the same, even though the merits of the individuals who preside over them differ, I grant the antecedent; there are certain rights and privileges of sees that do not belong to those presiding over them, I deny the antecedent. Although St. Leo is not speaking there of the Roman Pontiff (but of the Patriarch of Alexandria), the distinction also applies in this sense to the supreme pontiff. The Gallicans abused this distinction against the privileges of the Roman Pontiff, as if they resided in the Roman Church or in the whole series of pontiffs, not in individual pontiffs. Each pontiff loses all his power at death; hence even St. Peter has no jurisdiction over the Church; rather, the whole jurisdiction resides only in the one who is currently the Roman Pontiff. Before the election of a new pontiff, this jurisdiction is in no human being but in the will of Christ, who confers it upon the legitimate successor. “Therefore whoever succeeds Peter in this chair obtains the primacy of Peter over the whole Church according to Christ’s own institution” (Conc. Vat. sess. 4, c. 2; Denz. n. 1824).

Scholium 1. By what arguments it is proved that Peter was at Rome and died there.

297. In his first letter (5, 13), St. Peter writes: “The Church gathered in Babylon greets you, and so does Mark, my son.” This Babylon is neither Babylon on the Euphrates, which at that time was an almost deserted region, nor another city, but the city of Rome, which is also called Babylon in Revelation (c. 14 sqq) and by other ancient writers. That Peter is speaking of the city of Rome is testified by Papias and Clement of Alexandria, cited by Eusebius (H. E. 2, 15; Kirch, Enchir. n. 386 sq). The ancients also report that Mark wrote the Gospel that Peter preached at Rome (Euseb. 6, 14; Kirch n. 394). It is inferred from Sacred Scripture that Mark was at Rome (Col 4, 10. Phil 24).

Clement of Rome includes the apostles Peter and Paul among “the great athletes of our generation τῆς γενεᾶς ἡμῶν,” who “among us, ἐν ἡμῖν,” suffered martyrdom (1 Cor. 5, 6; Kirch n. 8 sq). St. Ignatius of Antioch writes to the Romans: “I do not command you as Peter and Paul did” (Rom. 4, 3; Kirch n. 20). Dionysius of Corinth reminds the Romans that Peter and Paul preached and suffered martyrdom at Rome (Euseb. 2, 25). The presbyter Gaius: “I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you wish to go either to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded that Church” (Euseb. l. c.; Kirch n. 117). Irenaeus, too, testifies that the Roman Church was founded by Peter and Paul (Contra haer. 3, 3; Kirch n. 110 112 sq). Clement of Alexandria likewise testifies that Peter preached at Rome (Euseb. 6, 14). Tertullian says that Peter and Paul “left the Gospel to the Romans sealed even by their blood” (Adv. Marc. 4, 5; cf. De praescr. 36; Scorpiace 15; Kirch n. 186 170 192). Origen writes of Peter: “At last he came to Rome, where he was crucified with his head hanging down; for he had prayed to be placed on the cross in this way” (Com. in Gen. tom. 3; Kirch n. 388). No city other than Rome has ever claimed that St. Peter died and was buried there. It seems superfluous to gather further evidence, since the tradition is entirely unanimous in testifying that Peter preached and died at Rome (cf. Ottiger, De eccl. 560 sqq). How long Peter was at Rome has nothing to do with the question of the primacy; we therefore leave this question to historians.

Scholium 2. By what arguments it is proved that Peter was bishop of Rome.

298. This, too, is established by the unanimous tradition of the ancients, who name no one but St. Peter as the first Roman bishop. When St. Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, the Roman Church was already fully constituted and enjoyed a great reputation throughout the world. But a Church is not complete without a bishop, as Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, and others teach. Therefore what some invent about a college of presbyters governing the Roman Church is, by the nature of the matter, unbelievable and lacks historical foundation. No source indicates another Roman bishop before Peter.

The ancient lists of the Roman Pontiffs, a considerable number of which survive in the Eastern and Western Churches and which rest on a very ancient tradition, begin the series of Roman Pontiffs with St. Peter. The first of these lists originated around the middle of the second century. Eusebius, who had these lists before him, writes under the year 2058 of Abraham: “The apostle Peter, after first founding the Church at Antioch, went to Rome, preaching the Gospel. He himself presided over the Roman Church as well as the Church of Antioch until his death” (verba graeca apud Kirch, Enchir. n. 381; cf. n. 492 520 570). The wording is not exactly the same in Jerome’s version and other translations, but all clearly say that Peter was bishop of Rome. The hypothesis that this was a fiction originating in the second century and accepted everywhere in the East and West is too flimsy to deserve serious consideration (cf. Duchesne, Le Liber pontificalis).

Tertullian calls the Roman See the chair of Peter: “Go through the apostolic Churches, where the very chairs of the apostles still preside in their places… If you are near Italy, you have Rome… where Peter is made equal to the Lord in his passion” (De praescr. 36; Kirch n. 170). Pseudo-Tertullian, in his poem «Adv. Marcionem» listing the Roman Pontiffs from Peter to Anicetus, says: “Peter ordered Linus, first, to sit in this chair in which he himself had sat, and great Rome appointed him.” St. Cyprian: “Cornelius was made bishop… when the place of Fabian, that is, the place of Peter and the rank of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant” (Ep. 55, n. 8 [ed. Hartel]). St. Jerome to Damasus: “I am joined in communion with your Beatitude, that is, with the Chair of Peter” (Ep. 15). St. Augustine: “What has the chair of the Roman Church, in which Peter sat, done to you?” (Contra litt. Petil. 2, 51.) St. Optatus of Milevis: “You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was first conferred upon Peter” (De schism. donatist. 2, 2). Others say the same, but I omit them; for none of the ancients contradicted this. Some evidence has already been given above, nos. 288 f.

What about the Easterners? Not at all different. We have already heard Eusebius. In the same way, all who draw up lists of the Roman Pontiffs say that Peter was bishop of Rome. Thus, for example, Epiphanius: “This is the succession of the Roman Pontiffs: Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus, Clement, Evaristus” (Haer. 27, 6). Theodoret on 2 Tim 4:21: “They report that Linus succeeded great Peter and occupied the Roman Church’s see after him.” Chrysostom says similarly on the same passage: “Some report that Linus was bishop of the Roman Church after Peter.” Sozomen calls the Roman See “the See of Peter, τὸν Πέτρου θρόνον” (H. E. 4, 15). The Council of Sardica: “If any bishop has been judged in some matter and thinks he has a good case, so that the judgment (χρίσις) may be renewed, if it pleases you, let us honor the memory of the holy apostle Peter, so that those who examined the case may write to Julius, bishop of Rome; and if he judges that the judgment ought to be renewed, let it be renewed… but if he approves… what he decrees shall be confirmed” (Kirch, Enchir. n. 448).

From these and other testimonies it is clear what the Church’s understanding was in the first centuries. Protestants almost unanimously contradict it. But even if the matter is considered purely historically, we must presume that those who were closer to the events in question and held so firmly to tradition judged more correctly; whereas those who are recent and resist tradition, so that they need not admit the Roman primacy, fail to see the truth because their eyes are clouded. If the matter is considered dogmatically, although the dogma of the Roman primacy does not necessarily depend on this historical question, Peter’s Roman episcopate is in fact a dogmatic fact that no Catholic may call into doubt (cf. Denz. n. 1824).

Scholium 3. By what right the primacy is attached to the Roman See.

299. This question can be understood in two ways:

a) In the present order, is the Roman Pontiff the successor of St. Peter in the primacy by divine right or by ecclesiastical right? The answer is: by divine right. For when Christ instituted a perpetual primacy, he willed that each and every one who legitimately succeeded St. Peter should have the primacy. But in the present order, only the Roman Pontiffs legitimately succeed St. Peter. Therefore all and only they have the primacy by Christ’s will. Thus, at least in the hypothetical sense that only the Roman Pontiff is the legitimate successor of St. Peter, the primacy is attached to the Roman Church by divine right (cf. Denz. n. 163 332).

b) But is the succession of St. Peter so bound by divine right to the Roman See that it cannot be joined to another see by any human authority? Certainly, such a transfer, if it is possible at all, can be made only by the Roman Pontiff, or at least not without his consent (cf. Denz. n. 1735). But theologians disagree about whether it is possible at all. Benedict XIV says: “The opinion of those who asserted that the aforesaid connection [of the primacy with the Roman See] is of human right in such a way that it can be dissolved by the Church and one separated from the other does not seem defensible” (De syn. 2, 1, 1). This is the more common opinion of theologians, and it rests on the following reasoning: For many centuries the Roman Catholic Church has been preached everywhere (cf. Denz. n. 694 991). But if the primacy were transferred to another see, this statement would no longer be true, and the Church would have to be called the Parisian Catholic Church or the Viennese Catholic Church, or by some other name. This sounds intolerable to Catholic ears. The Roman Pontiff may, however, while remaining what he is, reside elsewhere, even permanently, if a just cause demands it. Likewise, if the city of Rome were destroyed, the Roman Church could still remain, that is, the body of the faithful under its bishop.

Therefore, Christ either himself indicated to Peter that the primatial see should be located at Rome, or gave him the command to choose the see whose bishops thereafter would be Peter’s successors in the primacy. Thus the principle of divine right is either an act of Christ’s will that preceded any act of Peter concerning this matter, or Christ’s special confirmation of Peter’s own choice. We do not know which way Christ acted. These points hold on the supposition of the more common and more probable opinion that the primacy’s connection with the Roman See is of divine right.

Scholium 4. On the passive subject of ecclesiastical authority.

300. Just as there are superiors in the Church, so there are subjects. The former are the active subject of ecclesiastical authority, because they have the power to govern; the latter are the passive subject, because they must allow themselves to be governed, that is, obey. Up to now we have spoken of the active subject; something must now be said about the passive subject.

a) No one has the right to govern except his own subjects. Now, people become subjects of the Church through baptism (cf. supra n. 231). Therefore, only the baptized are subject to the Church’s jurisdiction, “since the Church exercises judgment over no one who has not first entered it through the door of baptism” (Con. trid. sess. 14, de paenit. c. 2; Denz. n. 895). But all the baptized are subject to the Church’s jurisdiction, even if, for some reason, they are no longer members of the Church, because through baptism they received, by divine law, the obligation to obey the Church (Mt 28, 18 sqq; cf. Denz. n. 864 870). If they suffer from invincible ignorance, they certainly do not sin by neglecting purely ecclesiastical commands; but the obligation to obey is not itself removed merely because someone withdraws from the authority instituted by God. This is sufficiently clear in itself. Nevertheless, the obligation to observe the Church’s precepts has certain limitations in the case of heretics, about which one should consult moral theology or canon law (cf. Denz. n. 1454 2070, § 3).

b) The Church cannot compel Jews, pagans, or other unbelievers to hear the preaching, much less to receive baptism. If unbelievers resist the preaching of the Gospel by force, the Church may defend its right with the aid of the secular arm. When unbelievers are subjects of Christian rulers and live among Christians, this civil relation makes it possible for the Church to command the unbaptized in certain matters that it cannot command directly by virtue of ecclesiastical authority alone. In this way, the unbaptized were sometimes compelled to hear Christian instruction.

c) The Church can command even its own subjects only in matters within the scope of the commission it received from Christ, that is, matters that in some way pertain to the religious and supernatural order, not purely civil and political affairs.

Nor is objective divine law, which God himself established by his natural or positive law, subject to ecclesiastical authority in such a way that the Church can abrogate it, change it, or dispense from it. Therefore, it cannot give itself another constitution, institute other sacraments, grant permission to steal, and so on. The reason is that God neither expressly gave it this power, nor is this power necessary for the Church’s end, nor has the Church ever shown by its words or deeds that it has such power. Ecclesiastical authority can, however, interpret divine law authentically, because this is required if it is to be able always to direct people securely on the way of salvation.

There is also subjective divine law, as it is called, or God’s right arising from certain human acts. For by people’s sins God acquires the right to hate and punish them. It is a matter of faith that the Church has the power, in God’s name, to remit sins and penalties, as is proved in the treatise on penance. Furthermore, people can promise something to God, or before God as witness, by a vow or oath; from this God acquires the right to demand that the promise be fulfilled. Now, it can happen that the common good requires the cancellation of such a promise. In that case, the Church must be said to have received from God the right to cancel such a promise, because it received universal power to direct people in all their acts pertaining to eternal salvation. This is confirmed by the Church’s practice. The same must be said of the one sacred contract made among Christians, namely marriage (if unconsummated), because the common good may sometimes require such a contract to be dissolved (cf. Suarez, De leg. 10, 6).

By the force of jurisdiction in the external forum alone, the Church cannot command its subjects to perform merely internal acts, e.g. to elicit an act of faith every day. For the Church has never indicated that it has such power; nor can it judge such acts in the external forum or use coercion regarding them. But jurisdiction in the external forum requires judicial and coercive power (cf. S. Thom. 1, 2, q. 91, a. 4; 2, 2, q. 104, a. 5; Suarez, De leg. 4, 12). The Church can, however, command external acts for which internal acts are necessary, such as annual Communion or the Mass that a parish priest must celebrate for his parish. Through the power of jurisdiction, a priest can command internal acts in the administration of the sacrament of penance. Ecclesiastical superiors can also command internal acts by virtue of dominative power from those who have freely subjected themselves to them in such acts by a vow of obedience or in another way.

It will suffice to have indicated briefly these points concerning the passive subject of ecclesiastical authority; each is explained more fully elsewhere.