De convenientia institutorum Romanae Ecclesiae cum Evangelica libertate

1. We have shown from the sacred Scriptures that Peter was appointed by Christ, the Best and Greatest, as prince of our Catholic Church. It remains to demonstrate that the Roman Pontiff is Peter’s true successor, a claim that most heretics deny.

I would ask first, then, whether Christ appointed anyone as Peter’s successor to retain his place and dignity in governing the Christian Church. If this is denied, we must admit that the commonwealth founded by Christ and consecrated by his blood was more lowly and unfortunate than many others. Those who founded commonwealths took care that they should be firm, stable, and lasting. Thus Romulus founded the Roman commonwealth, Solon the Athenian, and Lycurgus the Spartan. But how could the Christian commonwealth be stable and enduring if no one were appointed in succession to the one whom Christ, its founder, made its head and prince? If it was founded not to endure, but only to last as long as Peter lived, then it was established in a most unhappy and wretched state, since it would last only a very short time.

2. Perhaps you will say: How, and on what grounds, are we to appoint a successor to Peter, when Christ nowhere mentions such a succession?¹ Although we nowhere read explicitly who should succeed Peter in the primacy of the Church, it can nevertheless be understood from this: Christ intended to provide Peter with a successor because he founded an enduring commonwealth in which he willed there to be one head and one prince. Furthermore, if someone is to receive Peter’s primacy, to whom else should it fall more honorably, fairly², and justly than to the Roman Pontiff? For although at the Church’s very beginning³ Peter administered the universal Church without choosing a particular see for himself, and later sat for several years at Antioch, he was then, driven by divine providence, to choose Rome as a firm and permanent see. There he presided for many years and met his final day for Christ, consecrating with his blood the see in which he would be an adequate shepherd of the Church. Although, then, sacred Scripture laid down nothing about a Roman Pontiff being appointed after Peter, Peter himself chose the Roman Church as the place where he would preside longer and spend the final years of his episcopate, assigning the other churches to the Apostles and disciples of Christ.⁴ The result was that, by the consensus of the Fathers, the man who succeeds Peter in the Roman see also succeeds him in the primacy of the Church. For when allegiance is given to the Roman Pontiff, it is given to the shepherd and prince of the Catholic Church. It was universally accepted, without controversy, that the same man must be chosen both as Roman Pontiff and as universal shepherd of the Church, though in later times some recklessly departed from this agreement of the Fathers. For whom other than the Roman Pontiff have historians recorded as Peter’s successor?⁵ We do not read that the bishop of Jerusalem, Antioch, or Constantinople, nor any other bishop besides the Roman, was accepted as universal shepherd of the Church⁶, although some Eastern churches at times fought stubbornly for the glory of such a primacy.

3. For this reason I would believe that not only the ancient Fathers but Christ’s own disciples provided that the man who held primacy in the Christian commonwealth and was Peter’s true successor should be appointed bishop of the Roman Church. The remarkable authority of that most sacred Council of Nicaea also bears on this: it wisely decreed that no council could be held without the Roman Pontiff’s permission and authority, and that an appeal could be made to him as the highest authority of all. At the Council of Chalcedon, too, where six hundred and thirty Fathers assembled, the most blessed Pope Leo was acclaimed, and the decision of all cases was left to his judgment. A decree of the Council of Constantinople also survives: “In accordance with Scripture and the definitions of the canons, we venerate the most holy bishop of Old Rome as the first and greatest of bishops.” Hence Maximus, in a letter he wrote to the Easterners, says: “All the regions of the world that have sincerely received the Lord, and Catholics everywhere who confess the true faith, look to the Church of the Romans as to the sun, and from it receive the light of the Catholic and Apostolic faith.”^789101112

4. The Lutherans may object: When this Roman Pontiff of yours is elected, from whom does he receive primacy over the Church? Does he bring supreme power with him, or does he receive it from elsewhere? If he brings it with him, then before he was elected he was shepherd of all Christians. If he receives it from elsewhere, from whom can he receive it except from the universal Church itself, which endures perpetually and never dies? The primacy of the Church is therefore not due to the Roman Pontiff because he succeeds Peter in the Roman see; rather, all the power he has—if it is true that he holds some primacy in the Church—comes to him through the authority and consent of the Christian people. Supreme authority, then, belongs to the universal Church, not to the Roman Pontiff.¹³¹⁴

But let the Lutherans answer me this: If an emperor founds a city by his own right and establishes in it a perpetual monarchy by succession, on the condition that its citizens choose as prince whomever they wish, from whom shall we say that this prince receives the power to govern and rule, if not from the emperor? So too, since Christ, the Best and Greatest, constituted the Christian commonwealth in this order—that one man should act as its supreme prince—when the Roman Pontiff is elected Peter’s successor, he does not bring his principate with him; rather, when the electors’ consent places him in Peter’s see, he receives it from Christ, who founded his commonwealth on the condition that Peter’s successor should preside over it with supreme power.¹⁵

Blessed Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, appears to hold our view when he says: “That we may remain members in our head, the apostolic throne of the Roman Pontiffs, from which we must learn what we ought to ask, believe, and hold; venerating it and beseeching it above all, since it alone has the right to rebuke, correct, decree, arrange, loose, and bind in the place of the one who built it. He gave the fullness of what is his to no one else, but to it alone; by divine right all bow their heads to it, and the rulers of the world obey it as they would the Lord Jesus Christ.”¹⁶

Hence the martyr Anacletus, as cited in Distinction XXI, says: “The most holy Roman and Apostolic Church obtained primacy not from the Apostles, but from the Lord and our Savior himself, as he said to blessed Peter the Apostle: You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.”¹⁷

The Roman Pontiff’s principate, then, is attributable in one respect to Christ’s law, in another to Peter’s will, and in another to human institution: its ample power derives from Christ’s law; the succession of the Roman Pontiff in Peter’s see derives from Peter’s will; and the pontifical dignity of this particular man—that is, Clement VII—derives from human institution. For the institution of the holy Fathers established that the man declared elected by the votes of the Cardinals should act as Roman Pontiff.¹⁸¹⁹²⁰

5. Come now: the Lutherans object again. Let it be granted that someone is appointed as Peter’s successor in the Christian commonwealth, and that he is the Roman Pontiff. Who would dare deny that the man who succeeds Peter in the power of rule ought to surpass the others in charity? For Christ did not wish to entrust his sheep to him unless he first elicited from him a declaration of exceptional love. What else was entrusted to Peter? Was it not to feed Christ’s sheep? Therefore, someone who does not love Christ more ardently than the others, and who does not feed his sheep by teaching and example, cannot be Peter’s legitimate successor. But has it not often happened that, by common agreement of the Fathers, a Pontiff has been placed in the Roman see who neither loves Christ, the Best and Greatest, nor is capable of feeding the Christian people with the teaching of the faith, being a man of corrupt life and wholly devoid of learning and expertise? Thus not every Roman Pontiff, without distinction, succeeds Peter in his rule.²¹²²²³

But if we examine the matter carefully, the Lutherans misunderstand the nature of a principate. A principate has a beginning, a mode of government, and an exercise of power. Its beginning may be good or bad: if someone enters the principate by the proper path, the beginning is good; if he seeks it by crooked means, it is bad. The form and order of a principate, which consists in a certain relation between ruler and subject, is always good by its nature. The use of power is highly praiseworthy if directed to the subjects’ benefit; if it looks only to the prince’s own advantage, it deserves blame. Thus, if a Roman Pontiff has been designated by the legitimate votes of the Fathers, he acts as the legitimate Pontiff and is the true successor of Peter, whom all Catholics are bound to obey unless they have abandoned the Christian faith. If, however, he lives a corrupt and detestable life, and lacks charity toward Christ and his sheep, he should indeed be called a Pontiff of evil conduct and unworthy of so great a rule. Yet his pontifical power is not diminished on this account, since he entered the sheepfold not by another way but through the door. Therefore, even if such a Pontiff brings some harm and loss to the Christian commonwealth and builds himself a road to hell, he is not deprived of his jurisdiction, provided he obtained that holy see by a legitimate election.²⁴²⁵²⁶

We can see the same thing in an earthly principate. Do we not say that a prince’s son, if born in lawful marriage, ought to succeed to his father’s rule just as to his father’s property? Yet it often happens that the father is renowned for every virtue, while the son is corrupt and lives a base life. I would run out of time if I tried to gather examples of this from both pagan and sacred writings. A Roman Pontiff’s evil life, then, takes nothing away from his power, even though it is far from the holiness proper to a true shepherd of the Christian Church. Therefore the Lord Jesus, admonishing his disciples, says: The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat. Whatever they tell you, observe and do; but do not act according to their works. The Apostle Peter also warns us in his letters to obey those set over us not only when they are good and considerate but also when they are difficult.²⁷²⁸

6. I think that our Savior Christ’s demand that Peter, to whom he had decided to entrust the care of the Christian people, express his love and charity was intended to teach later generations to appoint over the people’s care men who seek not their own interests but those of their subjects. Moreover, since Christ wished to establish the best commonwealth, it was fitting and proper that the man to whom he gave the name and power of chief shepherd should surpass the others not only in authority but also in virtue and conduct. As for the rule that the sheep must be fed, I think it is enough for the Supreme Pontiff, if he himself is unlearned and unable personally to provide the Christian people with teaching in the faith, to use the diligent assistance of others in instructing them. For earthly princes, too, use many advisers and ministers in administering commonwealths. Therefore, if someone is to be marked by Christian baptism, be Peter’s successor and equal to him in authority, he must be placed in the Roman see by lawful appointment and lawful votes. If he wishes to exercise this supreme power in a manner worthy of its dignity, he must surpass all Catholics in learning, prudence, and charity. Above all, however, he must beware of becoming a hireling, a tyrant, or a scatterer of Christ’s sheep. To such shepherds the Lord speaks through Jeremiah’s prophecy: Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the flock of my pasture, says the Lord. Therefore, thus says the Lord God of Israel to the shepherds who feed my people: You have scattered my flock and driven them away, and have not visited them. Behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your deeds, says the Lord. And I will gather the remnant of my flock from all the lands to which I drove them, and bring them back to their folds; and they shall increase and multiply. And I will raise up shepherds over them, and they shall feed them.²⁹

7. If someone³⁰ objects to our position that we wrong the Church of Jerusalem by setting the Roman Church above it, on the grounds that Jerusalem is older and higher in dignity, since it was in some measure the nurse of all the Apostles, and since, as the First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter XVI, shows, aid was sent to it from other churches.³¹

We must then say this: We have not granted primacy to the Roman Church in such a way that we hold it to have preceded all the others by some span of time. It is self-evident that the Church of Jerusalem was established earlier, and that James sat at Jerusalem before Peter sat at Rome. Nor do we place the Roman Church above all the others in dignity merely because it is Roman, considered apart, so to speak, from its head. Perhaps, if one weighed the matter on that basis, the Church of Jerusalem would surpass all the others, since all the other churches derived their origin from it. But if the shepherds are considered, the Roman Church is more worthy, higher, and more excellent than all the others, because, as we have shown, the Roman Pontiff succeeds Peter, who held supreme primacy in the Catholic Church. Hence Jerome, writing to Pope Damasus, says, as cited in C. 24, question 1, canon “Since the ancient East”: “Seeking no reward but Christ, I am joined in communion with Your Beatitude—that is, with Peter’s chair. I know that the Church is built upon that rock.” The aid sent to the Church of Jerusalem should be attributed not to its dignity but to its great need, which Luke mentions in the Acts of the Apostles.^32333435

8. Finally, suppose someone adduces the objection made by Ockham in his Dialogue: that nowhere in sacred Scripture is it found that Peter came to Rome, and that it is therefore false that the Roman Pontiff succeeds Peter.³⁶

I consider that this has been confirmed by so many testimonies of the holy Fathers that it needs no new proof. Jerome’s commentary on the first chapter of Romans, Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, Bernard in his letter to Pope Eugenius, and Ambrose in his letter to Auxentius, On the Surrender of the Basilicas, all attest it plainly. It is also false that the matter is nowhere found in sacred Scripture. Peter himself says in chapter five of his first letter: The church in Babylon, chosen along with you³⁷ greets you, and so does my son Mark. According to the gloss of the Venerable Bede, by Babylon he means Rome, on account of its idolatrous worship. Jerome holds the same view in his book On Illustrious Men. “Peter,” he says, “in his first letter, figuratively signifying Rome under the name Babylon, says: The Church that is in Babylon, chosen together with you, greets you.” Since Peter is nowhere said to have been with Mark in Babylon, it is not unreasonable to understand that by Babylon Peter intended the city of Rome, both because of its greatness and because of its idolatrous worship. The Apostle John, too, mentions the city of Rome under the name Babylon in the Apocalypse.^{3839404142434445}

I could have adduced many other arguments in confirmation of the Roman primacy; but since, as I said at the outset, many have treated this subject no less carefully than learnedly, let it suffice to have offered these few points.⁴⁶⁴⁷