Apologeticae sive Theologiae Fundamentalis, Tomus II (Pars Altera): Demonstratio Catholica

¹

We have already proved that the Church is constituted hierarchically, so that the clergy presides over the laity, and over the clergy itself preside the monarchical bishops of the individual churches, who alone possess the supreme apostolic power of governing. Now the question is whether the individual bishops are absolutely independent in governing their churches, or rather are themselves subject to one monarch or primate of the universal Church.

Generally, in any college there stands forth a president or head by whom the members of the college are ruled and united. The same must be presumed to happen in the Church, a fortiori. For if the individual bishops were not recalled to unity, there would be as many Churches of Christ as there are dioceses. But if the individual bishops are subject to one primate, the unity of government effects and preserves the unity of the Church: by one visible head the whole mystical body of Christ is drawn back together into one social organism.

From this we are already able to infer that Catholics — although all non-Catholics object — rightly hold that Christ constituted His Church monarchically, by handing over the primacy over the whole Church to Peter and his successors. In order that this opinion may be demonstrated and developed, we shall treat in two articles of the primacy of the apostle Peter and of the primacy of the Roman pontiff.

The apostles were not twelve men set apart from one another, each of whom fulfilled a divine mission separately, but rather they were one moral body, one apostolic college.

For they are called by the collegiate name οἱ δώδεκα¹ and are distinguished from others collegially by the express expression: "the eleven and all the rest"² or "the eleven and those who were with them"³ It is asked, however, whether the apostles were a college of equals or a college of unequals, in which one held the primacy. While Christ lived and dwelt with the apostles, he alone was their visible head and sole teacher: "your teacher is one, Christ."⁴ But did Christ not provide that, when he had returned to heaven, his vicar should be perpetually present, the visible head and primate of the whole apostolic college and consequently of the whole Church? Non-Catholics deny it; Catholics affirm it.

1°. All non-Catholics, with some false-named Catholics applauding, either explicitly reject the Petrine primacy or at least implicitly, adulterating it. In the fourteenth century Marsilius of Padua and John of Jandun (schismatic partisans of Louis of Bavaria against John XXII) defended the thesis: "That blessed Peter the apostle had no more authority than the other apostles had, nor was he the head of the other apostles. Likewise that Christ left no head to the Church, nor made anyone his vicar."⁵ At the beginning of the fifteenth century Wycliffe and Hus renewed the same error, contending: "Peter is not and was not the head of the holy catholic Church."⁶ In the sixteenth century the Reformers followed them, and all Protestants follow them to our very age. With these are joined the recent Greek and Russian schismatics, the "Old Catholics," and finally the Modernists, whose proposition condemned by Pius X sounds: "Simon Peter never even suspected that the primacy in the Church was entrusted to him by Christ."⁷

Most of them indeed concede that Peter was marked out by Christ with a primacy of honor, of the sort that "first among equals" has in a college of equals by reason of age, prudence, or merits; indeed that Peter received some primacy of order or of direction, such as the president of a senate enjoys. But they altogether deny that Peter obtained a true primacy of jurisdiction or a preceptive power over the whole Church, in virtue of which he could rule the apostles and all the faithful as subjects.⁸

Finally, several would readily concede to blessed Peter a primacy of jurisdiction, yet one conferred not directly and immediately by Christ, but by the Church. Already in the fifteenth century some doctors of the university of Paris hesitated, in doubt whether to assert that Peter's primacy was founded by Christ immediately or only mediately.⁹ With this doubt set aside, soon Edmund Richer, rector of the same university of Paris, in 1611 openly denied that the primacy of Peter was conferred immediately by Christ. The Gallicans, the Jansenists, and the bishops of the pseudo-synod of Pistoia approved him most of all.¹⁰

Against all these errors: 2°. Catholics oppose the doctrine "on the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter" thus enunciated in the Vatican council:¹¹ "We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimonies of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was promised and conferred immediately and directly to blessed Peter the apostle by Christ the Lord ... To this so manifest doctrine of the sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic Church, are openly opposed the wicked opinions of those who, perverting the form of government established by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter alone, before the other apostles, whether considered singly or all together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction: or who affirm that the same primacy was not delivered immediately and directly to blessed Peter himself, but to the Church, and through her to him as minister of the Church herself. If anyone therefore shall say that blessed Peter the apostle was not constituted by Christ the Lord the prince of all the apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant; or that he received from the same Lord our Jesus Christ a primacy of honor only, but not a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction, directly and immediately, let him be anathema."

This conciliar definition shines with such clarity that it needs no explanation. To prove it, with the Vatican council itself as guide, we shall adduce only the "doctrine of the sacred Scriptures," adding the exegetical tradition only on some occasions, so that it may be perceived in what sense Christian antiquity understood the texts of sacred Scripture that concern the Petrine primacy.

For in sacred Scripture, to be sure, the Petrine primacy I. is clearly promised; II. is solemnly conferred; III. is luminously illustrated; IV. is perpetually established.

Toward the end of his preaching in Galilee, Jesus, when he was in the region of Caesarea Philippi, asked his disciples: "Who do men say that the Son of Man is?" But they said: "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, others again Jeremiah or one of the prophets." Jesus says to them: "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered and said: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered and said to him: "Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to you: you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven."¹

It is clear that by these words Christ promises that Peter will be the foundational rock of the Church to be built, and likewise the key-bearer and lawgiver of the kingdom of heaven to be founded. But in order that it may fully be established that Peter thereby received by that very fact the promise of the primacy, both the subject and the object of the promise must be examined.

1. The subject of the promise is Peter alone as a person distinct from the other apostles, and therefore the promised dignity is not common to the whole college, but is proper to blessed Peter.

The matter is indeed beyond doubt. Nevertheless it needs proof, because many adversaries have imagined that Peter confessed Christ as the Messiah, the Son of God, in the name of all the apostles, and that therefore Christ also rewarded all the apostles. But that hypothesis is rejected both by the obvious context of the discourse and by the emphatic designation of Peter.

a) The context of the discourse proves that Peter did not speak in the name of the whole college. For to the earlier question of Christ the apostles had answered indiscriminately: "But they said..." Hence the apostles had not entrusted their role to Peter. Therefore Peter, answering alone to the later question of Christ, must be said to have acted on his own initiative, unless one wishes to assert absurdly that in the intervening time he had been appointed common spokesman by his fellow colleagues.

That Peter acted on his own initiative the Savior himself significantly manifests. For having accepted Peter's confession, he proclaims blessed and rewards with a promise not all the apostles, but him alone, as inspired by the Father: "Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to you …"

Moreover, even if Peter had answered in the name of all, it would not follow from this that the promise made to Peter was made to all. For on the one hand Peter, answering in place of the apostles, bore the person of the rest in the same way in which any principal acts for the cause of others whose deficiency he supplies. From which it follows that as Peter stands out by his answer, so he also stands out by the reward received. On the other hand "the promise of an office is not the promise of a reward due to all who should be in the same disposition; but the profession of faith cannot be conceived except as a suitable disposition, to which gratuitously and evidently not in all, but in Peter alone, with clear distinction from all the others, the primatial office is promised (as a gift freely given)."²

Indeed:

b) The designation of Peter as the subject of Christ's promise is made with such weight that it excludes every doubt. About to give the promise, Christ at the beginning of the discourse first accurately describes the personal marks of the one to be rewarded. He expresses the substance of the singular person through pronouns: "I say to you, you are." He adds the name given to him at birth: "Blessed are you, Simon." He joins the name of the father: "Bar Jona", i. e. son of Jona. He adds the name recently imposed on him by himself: "You are Peter." By so many ways and means, then, does Christ designate the person of Peter, that those notaries who publicly draw up instruments scarcely describe some certain man with more circumstances.³ But such an accurate description of the person of Peter would be inept, if Christ's promise did not regard Peter himself and him alone.

And indeed Christ, continuing the discourse, assigns the reward to the person thus described: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." That "this rock"⁴, upon which Christ promises to build his Church, is openly identical with the person of Peter, the Latin version itself clearly expresses. More clearly, however, the Greek text: "Σὺ εἶ Πέτρος καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ." For in Greek πέτρος and πέτρα are synonyms; for they signify a rock indifferently in the masculine and in the feminine gender. The translator puts the masculine gender in the first place as more fitting to the person of Peter; in the second place, however, the feminine gender, as more adapted to the thing signified. Finally, in the Aramaic language, in which Christ spoke and Matthew wrote, the privilege promised to him is called by exactly the same word as Peter: "You are kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."

The rock, therefore, upon which Christ will build the Church, is the apostle Peter and he alone.

Likewise he alone will be the key-bearer and lawgiver of the kingdom of heaven: "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven." That these words fit Peter alone, as do the earlier words, is clear from the fact that, as we shall show, they contain exactly the same power or the same object as those earlier words, which are about the rock of the Church. Moreover, these later words are joined immediately with the former through the particle: "And I will give you the keys ... And whatever you bind ..." and are referred to the same subject, Peter. Likewise the pronoun ... "you" and the verbs "you bind ... you loose", expressed in the singular number, apply not to all the apostles, but to Peter alone.

Therefore the subject of Christ's promise is Peter alone as a person distinct from the other apostles, and therefore the promised dignity is not common to the whole college, but is proper to blessed Peter. But what is that promised dignity, or what is the object of Christ's promise?

2. The object of Christ's promise is the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church. Christ does not indeed use the technical term by which we today designate the primacy of jurisdiction, but a metaphorical expression, promising that primacy under a threefold symbol, namely under the symbol of the foundation, under the symbol of the keys, under the symbol of binding and loosing.

For the technical terms which in the course of time have been used to designate the primacy would not have been understood in the age of Christ; but the metaphors employed by Christ were and are easily understood by all.

a) The metaphor of the foundation of the Church. After Peter had confessed the christological faith, Christ began to speak of his Church. And indeed he presents the Church under the figure of a building, just as it is frequently represented in sacred Scripture under the image of a temple or of the house of God. The architect of this house is Christ himself: "οἰκοδομήσω = I will build the house." But as a wise architect Christ builds his Church upon a rock, that is, a stony foundation, just as on another occasion he had compared himself to "a wise man who built his house upon a rock. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it did not fall; for it was founded upon a rock (kepha)."⁵ That rock, in and upon which the building of the Church is founded and constructed, is Peter: "You are kepha (rock, stone, crag),"⁶ and upon this kepha I will build my Church." Peter therefore appears under the metaphor of a rocky foundation, i. e. of a firm, immovable, unshaken, stable one. Upon this petrine foundation the Church itself will be rendered so firm, immovable, unshaken and stable, that no adverse force, not even the greatest power of the demons, can shake it: "And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."⁷

But in order that Peter, like a rocky foundation, may be able to make firm the building of the Church, namely the society of the faithful, he needs the highest authority, that is, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church: For unless Peter could govern and rule all the faithful, taken both individually and collectively, the Church would succumb to internal schisms and external enemies. Therefore, lest this ever happen, supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church was promised to Peter.

This can be best illustrated by the example of civil society. No one doubts that the protection and safety of civil society can be preserved only by a supreme authority. He who is constituted in a republic to defend it against all internal and external dangers is by that very fact invested with jurisdiction over the whole commonwealth and over its individual parts and all its members. Hence the office promised to Peter, of defending and of keeping unharmed and unconquered the Church of Christ, necessarily demands supreme and universal jurisdiction.

Wherefore they misinterpret the metaphor of the petrine foundation of the Church:

1°. Those who think that Peter is the foundation of the Church only in this, that he had the leading part in the preaching, announcing the gospel first both to the Jews⁸ and to the Gentiles.⁹ Nevertheless, because Peter converted certain first-fruits of the Jews and of the Gentiles and thus in a certain way laid the first stones of the Church, he could not be called the foundation upon which the whole Church rests, upon which the whole Church is built, and from which it derives all its firmness, so that it cannot be overcome even by the gates of hell.

2°. Those who call not Peter's person, but his faith, the foundation of the Church. Upon Peter's christological faith the Lord did indeed build the Church, but not upon Peter's faith in the abstract, but upon Peter's faith in the concrete, i. e. upon Peter's person because of his faith, upon Peter believing unshakenly. Peter's faith in the Messiah, the Son of God, is the meritorious cause on account of which the apostle was chosen as the first. Hence Peter's faith causally, Peter's person formally, must be called the foundation of the Church. It is in this very sense that the Fathers call now Peter's faith, now Peter's person, the "rock of the Church".¹⁰

3°. Those who assert that all the apostles are the foundation of the Church, at least in the sense that Peter is only the first among equals. Against this opinion it is objected that Christ said to Peter alone as a person distinct from the other apostles: "You are kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church." Since therefore the whole building of the Church rests upon the petrine foundation, the other apostles as well are subject to the authority of Peter. In vain do the adversaries appeal to Eph 2, 20: "You are fellow citizens of the saints and members of God's household, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone." For the force of these words is: that Christ called the faithful to the Church through the apostles and prophets.¹¹

4°. Those who think that Christ, to the exclusion of Peter, is the foundation of the Church. Formerly the more eager Protestants contended that Christ, by saying: "Upon this rock I will build my Church", signified himself. Yet all adversaries today blush at this exegetical cavil. Some, however, contend today that the apostle Paul, to the exclusion of Peter, preaches Christ alone as the foundation of the Church, writing to the Corinthians: "For no one can lay any other foundation, besides that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus."¹²

Now that the Church was to be built and has been built upon the foundation of the person and doctrine of Christ, Paul clearly affirms, since Christ alone is the author, soul and invisible head of the Church. That Peter, however, was constituted in the name and place of Christ as the visible foundation of the Church, is affirmed not indeed by Paul the disciple, but by the master himself, Christ Jesus, saying to Peter: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." That the metaphor of the foundation is to be understood in this way is confirmed:

b) The metaphor of the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Thus far Christ has described the Church as a house to be built upon a petrine foundation. Now he adds that he will hand over to Peter the keys of the house now already built: "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven (καὶ δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν)." That by the name of the kingdom of heaven the Church militant on earth is designated is evident from the context and is admitted by all. And indeed that the keys of the whole Church are in question is clear from the fact that the discourse is simply about the keys of the kingdom of heaven, with even the articles added: τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας.

But the keys, from profane and sacred usage, are a symbol of supreme power. In profane usage, indeed, the handing over of the keys of a house or city was among all eastern and western peoples the sign of power handed over and acknowledged over the house or city. The architect hands over the keys of the completed building to the owner; the father of the family entrusts the keys to the steward, so as to signify the vicarious authority committed to him; the one selling a house consummates the transfer of ownership only by the handing over of the keys. Likewise, the keys of a besieged fortress or city are offered to the enemy, the general or the king, thereby acknowledging the surrender of the fortress or city. With the same meaning the figure of the keys is employed several times in the sacred Scripture of the Old and of the New Testament.¹³ And Christ himself expresses by the symbol of the keys his supreme power over death, over hell and over the kingdom of heaven, as the Apocalypse testifies: "I am the First and the Last; and I am alive, and was dead; and behold I am living for ever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of hell … Thus says the Holy One and the True One, who has the key (τὴν κλεῖν) of David; who opens, and no one closes, closes, and no one opens."¹⁴

Therefore if the same Christ the Lord says to Peter: "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven", the sense of these words is: "I will give you supreme power over the kingdom of heaven, that is, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church." Peter the primate, to be sure, depends on Christ, who alone has of himself the "key of David" (i. e. the key of the kingdom of David, that is, of the kingdom of heaven), and from whom Peter therefore obtains the keys by participation. Nevertheless, in the name and place of Christ, Peter has been constituted key-bearer of the kingdom of heaven independently of the consent of the Church, so that he can perform all acts of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and have subject to himself all the faithful, not even the apostles themselves excepted. When Peter closes, no one can open; when Peter opens, no one can close: when Peter commands, all and everything are bound to be subject. That this is the genuine meaning of the symbol of the keys is further explained:

c) The metaphor of binding and loosing, which exhibits the power of the keys as actually exercised. For while Christ first shows the house of the Church as to be built upon a petrine foundation, then hands the keys of the built house to Peter, now at last he shows the same Peter governing in the very house of the Church, saying: "And whatever (ὃ ἄν) you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven."

By the words of loosing and binding is signified the lawgiving power and, what is necessarily joined with it, as following from it, the judicial and punitive power. For in the time of Christ the rabbis authoritatively imposed upon the people what was lawful in the Law, what was forbidden, or what was commanded, what was interdicted. Now to signify this, the words to loose and to bind were in familiar use. To bind was the same as to forbid, to interdict, to command, to constrain by a religious obligation;¹⁵ to loose was the same as to permit, to give as lawful, to absolve or free from a religious bond. In short, to bind and to loose signified the whole authority of the rabbis of making and abrogating laws, which pertained to the religion and government of the Jews.¹⁶

With these same familiar words of binding and loosing, therefore, Christ promises to Peter the power of jurisdiction over the Church of the new testament. And indeed this power of Peter will be most ample in respect of things, because Peter can bind and loose "whatever (ὃ ἄν) religious bond"; it will be universal in respect of place and of persons, because Peter can bind and loose simply "on [the whole] earth (ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς)"; finally it will be supreme and authentic in respect of authority, because its exercise is absolutely sanctioned and confirmed by God: "it shall be bound also in heaven … it shall be loosed also in heaven."

Unjustly do the adversaries object that Christ promised the same power also to the other apostles: "Amen I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven: and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven."¹⁷ Therefore nothing singular was promised to Peter. In reality, the power is promised first to Peter separately, which afterwards is promised to the apostles together with Peter. It is promised to Peter without the others, what is promised to the others not without Peter. Peter alone possesses the jurisdiction which the others possess only collegially with Peter and under Peter. Hence Christ promises to Peter something special, which he does not promise to the other apostles, i. e. preeminence, that is, the primacy of jurisdiction.

The matter is manifest with such evidence that the modern rationalists, in despair, say that the whole text of Mt 16, 17-19 is spurious. For either they maintain that this passage was not written by Matthew, but was added to the Gospel of Matthew only in the second century,¹⁸ or they contend that it was indeed written by Matthew, but not from the mouth of Christ. But to one asking on what ground they assert these things, besides smoke and fog they truly only din in that the text Mt 16, 17-19 is openly "catholic",¹⁹ containing namely the promise of the petrine primacy.²⁰ Which indeed was what we had to prove.

That the primacy was conferred upon Peter already stands beyond doubt from the promise of this privilege. For whatever Christ, divine fidelity and truth, promised, he fulfilled in its own time. Therefore he certainly at length conferred upon Peter the primacy of jurisdiction that had been promised, even if perhaps the Gospel recorded nothing of this kind. But indeed the Gospel expressly relates that, when and how Peter obtained the promised dignity.

After his resurrection, namely, the Lord appeared to seven disciples at the sea of Tiberias, ate with them, and then constituted Peter his vicar. This event St. John, an eyewitness and earwitness, narrates as follows:

"When therefore they had breakfasted, Jesus says to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these (πλέον τούτων)? He says to him: Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He says to him: Feed my lambs (βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου). He says to him again: Simon, son of John, do you love me? He says to him: Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He says to him: Feed my lambs (ποίμαινε τὰ πρόβατά [al. πρόβατά] μου). He says to him the third time: Simon, son of John, do you love me? Peter was grieved, because he said to him the third time, Do you love me? and he said to him: Lord, you know all things: you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my sheep (βόσκε τὰ πρόβατά [al. πρόβατά] μου)."¹

It escapes no one that the pastoral office was conferred by these words. But in order that the force of the words may be fully weighed, three things can be asked, namely: on whom, what, and over whom Christ conferred the pastoral office?

1. On whom did Christ confer the pastoral office: Answer: on Peter alone, so that the conferred prerogative is not common to several apostles, but is Peter's own. For Peter is with emphasis described as an individual person, in the singular number and with his name, surname, and father's name expressed: "He says to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, do you love me? … Simon, son of John, do you love me? … Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter is distinguished from the rest, since his love rather than that of the other apostles is three times sought out and manifested; since he himself, reminded of and conscious of his threefold denial, is grieved at the third interrogation; since in the context he is shown as about to be crucified and is commanded to follow Christ before the others.² Finally Peter is set over against the others: "Do you love me more than these (ἀγαπᾷς με πλέον τούτων)?" Some absurdly maintain that Jesus asked: "Do you love me more than these," namely, fellow disciples. Such a question would have been wholly useless, since Christ demands superhuman love from all men,³ and since Peter would undoubtedly have had at least this minimal love, so as to love the Master more than the disciples. Not content, however, with this love, Christ demands to be loved more by Peter, because he had previously been denied by him and because he now wished to confer a greater dignity upon him. Therefore it is a question of Peter's individual dignity. But what is that dignity, namely:

2. What pastoral office did Christ confer? According to the Greek text Christ commands Peter: "βόσκε … ποίμαινε … βόσκε …" Which the Latin Vulgate renders with one word repeated three times: "Pasce … Pasce … Pasce." And indeed rightly. For although the verb ποιμαίνειν chiefly means "to lead or rule the flock," while the verb βόσκειν rather means "to procure pasture or nourishment for the flock," both nevertheless simply contain the office of feeding the flock. But by the name of feeding the flock in this place, as is evident, is not understood the irrational flock or the one properly so called, but Christ's rational flock, or the one so called metaphorically. But the very metaphor of feeding the rational flock, both from its own nature and from usage of speech, designates the office of exercising jurisdiction or governance over subject men.

By its nature the metaphor of feeding the rational flock signifies jurisdiction or authority to be exercised over subject men, so that the pastor of men is the same as one holding supreme authority. For in this consists the third point of comparison between feeding one's own or irrational flock and the improper or rational flock: just as the shepherd not only procures pasture for the sheep, but leads and brings back the sheep, watches over the sheep, defends them from the attack of wolves and other dangers, and recalls the wandering ones to the fold, so the shepherd of the rational flock is bound to direct, rule, defend, and spiritually nourish subject men. But this he attains only by the exercise of social authority. Therefore Peter possesses social authority over the flock of the faithful, because it was said to him: "Feed my sheep." The metaphor of feeding has the same signification from:

From profane and biblical usage of speech. Among Homer and other Greek authors the princes of peoples are wont generally to be called ποιμένες λαῶν. Similarly in the holy Scriptures by the word "feeding" (Greek ποιμαίνειν, Hebrew raah) the act of royal power is expressed; by the word "shepherd" (Greek ποιμήν, Hebrew roeh) the person of a leader, a prince, a king. Thus Ier 23, 1. 2: "Woe to the shepherds, who destroy and tear apart 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 out and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the malice of your pursuits, says the Lord." Especially David, the greatest of the kings of Israel, is again called shepherd.⁴ Indeed in the Old Testament the king Messiah⁵ and God the Savior⁶ come under the name of shepherd. In the New Testament, however, our Lord Jesus Christ is described as the shepherd of the faithful by the mouth of the apostles⁷ and also by his own mouth.⁸ If, therefore, Christ constituted Peter the shepherd of the faithful, he undoubtedly constituted him his vicar in ruling the ecclesiastical society. From this the answer to the third question already almost becomes clear:

3. Over whom did Christ confer the pastoral office: For the obvious sense of the text is that Peter is set as supreme shepherd over the whole Church of Christ. For he is commanded to feed both the lambs and the sheep⁹ of Christ, with no exception made, indeed with the possessive pronoun added: "Feed my lambs … Feed my sheep." Most think that by the name of lambs the simple faithful are described, but by the name of sheep, inasmuch as they are the mothers of the lambs, the hierarchs or clerics inferior to Peter; others understand by the name of lambs the imperfect faithful, by the name of sheep the perfect faithful; others take lambs and sheep synonymously. But whichever interpretation at length fits, it is evident that by the very enumeration of the parts the whole flock is signified. A fortiori this holds when the possessive pronoun meos, meas is considered. For by the force of this pronoun all are assigned to Peter to feed, to whom that pronoun extends, i. e. all who are lambs and sheep of Christ, Peter himself alone excepted. Therefore Peter is constituted shepherd of the whole fold of Christ, or the primate of the universal Church, the apostles also included.

Thus indeed Christian antiquity always understood these words of Christ in this way. E. g. Origen says that to Peter "the supreme charge of the feeding of the sheep" was handed over.¹⁰ Ephraem syr.: "The Lord entrusted to [Simon] his flock, the sheep, the lambs, and the little sheep."¹¹ Ambrosius: Peter "is preferred to all … and now is commanded to feed not lambs, as at first, to be nourished with a certain milk, nor little sheep, as at second, but sheep, the more perfect, so that, being more perfect, he might govern."¹² Leo M.: "From the whole world one Peter is chosen, who is to be placed over the calling of all nations and over all the apostles and all the pastors of the Church, so that, although in the people of God there are many priests and many pastors, Peter nevertheless properly rules all those whom Christ also rules principally."¹³

Hence certain adversaries wrongly object against the words Io 21, 15-17 that Christ restored to Peter only the apostolic dignity lost by the threefold denial. For they gratuitously contend that Peter fell from the apostleship by his denial. But even if he had fallen, the apostleship would already have been restored to him, because he had received apostolic order and jurisdiction together with the other apostles after the resurrection.¹⁴ But besides this power, which Peter had then received in common with all the apostles, he now receives an authority proper to himself over the rest, namely supreme and universal jurisdiction over the whole flock of Christ.

The primacy promised and conferred upon Peter is illustrated by many facts, on the part of Christ, of Peter himself, and of the remaining apostles. Although these facts, taken singly, are not all certain indications of primatial dignity, they nevertheless accord with the primacy, adorn the primacy, and are not explained without the primacy. These facts, therefore, are as it were a shadow of the primatial person, or a picture, in which the image of Peter the primate, depicted in Mt 16 and Io 21, is contained. These, then, are the facts:

1. Christ, setting aside the promise and conferral of the primacy, preferred Peter to the other apostles by several other indications, by imposing on him a symbolic name, by treating him with special favour, and by committing to him the office of confirming the brethren.

a) Peter's symbolic name. When Christ first saw Peter, he said: "Thou art Simon, the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas."¹ Afterwards, in the election of the apostles, he expressly imposed this name upon him.² Now God, as holy Scripture testifies, never imposes bare and empty names, but rather at the same time actually bestows what the name signifies.³ But the meaning and force of Simon's new name the Lord himself interpreted with reference to the primacy or foundation of the Church: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church."⁴

b) Peter's special favour. Christ turned aside at Capharnaum to Peter's house;⁵ he teaches from Peter's boat;⁶ he bids Peter walk with him upon the waters;⁷ to Peter alone after the miraculous catch of fish he says: "Fear not, from henceforth thou shalt catch men;"⁸ the didrachma, which the tax-collectors had demanded of all the apostles, Christ paid for himself and Peter alone,⁹ so that the remaining disciples at once suspected that Peter was to be set in a higher place, namely in the very vicariate of the Master;¹⁰ Peter's feet he washes first;¹¹ he takes care that his resurrection be announced to Peter in a special manner;¹² to Peter before the others the risen Christ appears.¹³ Thus Christ preferred Peter to the other apostles in many ways.

c) Peter's office of confirming the brethren. Before the passion the Lord says to Peter: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren."¹⁴ Peter is commanded to confirm the brethren (i. e. the apostles and, a fortiori, the other disciples), who had been most violently tempted and shaken in faith. For the fulfilling of this office Peter will be eminently fitted, if he is the head of the whole Church and of the apostles themselves, the vicar of Christ on earth. Deprived, however, of this primatial authority, he would be unfit for that office. If Peter could not give commands to the other apostles, nor were the others bound to obey Peter, Peter's intervention would be ineffective.

Christ, therefore, employed so special a dispensation toward Peter that he conspicuously illustrated the pre-eminence, or primacy, of the apostle.

2. Peter himself, Christ having scarcely yet returned to the Father, showed himself the supreme leader of the rest, as the circumstances of that primitive age permitted. After Christ's ascension, Peter alone teaches the necessity of choosing a new apostle (in place of Judas the transgressor) and directs the entire business of the election, the rest assenting and obeying.¹⁵ On the day of Pentecost, Peter alone, before the others and for the others, who keep silence, preaches and joins the believers to the Church.¹⁶ The first-fruits also of the Gentiles, instructed by a divine vision, he receives into the Christian assembly before the rest of the apostles.¹⁷ In working miracles Peter is first, and he alone defends the apostles before the sanhedrin,¹⁸ just as, of course, a superior is wont to speak not only for himself, but also for his subjects. Peter, before the rest of the apostles, plays the part of judge concerning Simon the magician,¹⁹ and concerning Ananias and Sapphira, God himself miraculously approving the judgment.²⁰ Peter visits all the churches of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee, even those which he himself had not founded.²¹ Acting as president of the council of Jerusalem, Peter first pronounces his judgment, i. e. he so settles the question concerning the legal observances that the others, all controversy being removed, assent.²²

These things being considered, it is clear that Peter exercised the primacy in all those ways and by all those means in which it could then be exercised, since on account of the primitive state of the Church and on account of the extraordinary gifts of the apostles, a more ample exercise of the primatial rights was neither necessary nor opportune. Not only, however, did Peter claim for himself the leading role, but also:

3. The other disciples attributed the leading role to him both in their manner of speaking and in their manner of acting.

a) The disciples' manner of speaking about Peter. As often as Peter is mentioned together with the other apostles in the Gospels, in the Acts, and in the Epistles, he alone is singled out and preferred.

If all the apostles are enumerated by name, Peter is first of all. In all the catalogues of the apostles, just as Judas Iscariot is placed last, so Peter is placed first in order, while the names of the others continually change their place.²³ Nay, Peter is significantly called first in dignity: "The first (πρῶτος) Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, James of Zebedee …"²⁴

"First" is not a numeral adjective, because the others do not hear "second, third, fourth", but it is an appositive of pre-eminence, which according to the usage of the New Testament signifies: one set over others, a prince, a primate.²⁵ Thus Peter is called by the disciples who wrote the sacred records the prince of the apostles, because while Christ was living he was destined for the primacy, whereas after Christ had returned to the Father and while the evangelists were writing, he possessed the primacy in act.

But even if only a few apostles are enumerated by name in Peter's presence, he constantly appears in the first place. Thus "Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother;"²⁶ "Peter and James and John;"²⁷ "Peter and John,"²⁸ "Simon Peter and Thomas, who is called Didymus, and Nathanael... and the sons of Zebedee and two others of his disciples."²⁹ The reason for this preference can be nothing other than Peter's special dignity, since Peter is first neither in age nor in vocation.³⁰ It is confirmed by the fact that, if several are enumerated in order, ascending from the lesser to the greater, Peter is placed in the highest position, immediately before Christ, so that from this we may learn that Peter surpasses all the disciples and is inferior to Christ alone.³¹

Finally, if with the names of all concealed the apostles are cited as a group, Peter nevertheless alone is wont to be expressly named, by means of these expressions: "Simon and they that were with him;"³² "Peter and they that were with him;"³³ "Peter with the eleven;"³⁴ "Peter and the apostles."³⁵ In the same way, moreover, Jesus is written of together with his disciples, so that it may appear that he was the Lord and head of the disciples.³⁶ Therefore this manner of speaking about Peter admonishes that he was acknowledged as the prince of the apostles and the vicar of Christ.

b) The disciples' manner of acting with Peter. Although all were equal in the apostolate, Peter himself also included, nevertheless all the disciples, and Paul himself as well, show in act that Peter was greater in the pastoral office, or hierarchical jurisdiction. All the disciples, and with them the whole primitive Church, tacitly submit to the primacy exercised through Peter by deeds, as we have already seen. They explicitly acknowledge the Petrine primacy when in the election of Matthias the apostle and in the council of Jerusalem, Peter presiding and pronouncing the judgment, all assent and obey; when, Peter decreeing it, the Gentiles are admitted into the bosom of the Church; when the whole Church pours forth common prayer for the imprisoned Peter;³⁷ when in the first twelve chapters of the Acts, where the earliest history of the universal Church is described, almost only Peter's deeds are recorded, while the deeds of the other apostles are touched upon only very briefly.

Paul, in particular, acknowledges Peter as the primate of all. Although, as teacher of the Gentiles taught by God himself, he would not have to be instructed by Peter or by any apostle, nevertheless, to honour Peter, he judged that a journey to Jerusalem must be undertaken: "Neither went I to Jerusalem, to the apostles who were before me: but I went into Arabia, and again I returned to Damascus. Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem, to see (ἱστορῆσαι) Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James, the brother of the Lord."³⁸ Peter was of so great authority that, the other apostles being disregarded, Paul undertook the journey to see him alone. Nay, not merely to see him, because "he did not say ἰδεῖν Πέτρον, but ἱστορῆσαι Πέτρον, as those are wont to speak who visit great and splendid cities for the sake of becoming acquainted with them."³⁹

From this it is already to be presumed that Paul does not deny the Petrine primacy, when in the same epistle, with a few verses interposed, he writes that he withstood to his face the Judaizing Peter,⁴⁰ and likewise affirms that he is equal to Peter in the apostolate.⁴¹

The primatial jurisdiction did not stand in the way of Paul's withstanding to his face the Judaizing Cephas. For sometimes an inferior not only can, but also ought, to correct a superior with due reverence, especially when it is a question of preventing scandal. But Peter's incautious intercourse with the Judaizers, the Mosaic law of foods being observed, was a scandal to the conversion of the Gentiles. Therefore Peter truly had to be reproved, and indeed most fittingly by the apostle of the Gentiles.

Likewise, the primatial jurisdiction did not stand in the way of Paul's affirming that he was equal to Peter in the apostolate. For although Peter excelled in the power of the pastoral office, yet not in the privilege of the apostolate, with which Paul, equally with Peter, had been divinely endowed. Nay, if the exercise of the apostolate, or of preaching, is regarded, Paul surpassed not only Peter, but also all the other apostles,⁴² so much so that he deserves to be called the apostle by excellence and the prince in the apostolate. By as much as Paul was greater than Peter in preaching, by so much was he less than him in jurisdiction.⁴³ In this respect alone, and with this distinction made, both are princes of the apostles and of the Church, according to the verse of Venantius Fortunatus:⁴⁴ "Peter first by the key, Paul also first in doctrine."

From what has been said, the primacy, while Peter lived, was exercised and acknowledged in the Church. It is asked, however, whether, once he died, the primatial prerogative also perished, or whether rather it endures perpetually in the successors of Peter. That the primacy begun in blessed Peter is continued perennially is concluded from the very institution of the primatial office, and indeed from the fact, from the words, and from the end of the institution.

1. From the fact that Christ instituted the primacy. For "the monarchical form of government, which Christ conferred upon the Church instituted by Himself, must be said to persevere as long as Christ abrogates it or converts it into another, aristocratic or democratic, form. For no one but the author of the Church is permitted to convert its form into another, and thereby to destroy the prior one. But Christ nowhere promised that He would convert its form into another, nor did He do anything by which such a future change is intimated. Rather, since He promised that the Church instituted by Him would be everlasting, He at the same time indicated that its monarchical form also would be everlasting. For if another form succeeded the monarchical one, another Church would succeed, since a society is changed by an essential change of the form of government, as is evident when, somewhere a monarchy having been converted into a republic, the new civil society, the republic, is said to have succeeded the old one, the monarchy."¹

Against this the adversaries wrongly object: "The primacy was Peter's personal prerogative; therefore it was extinguished by his death." The primacy was indeed Peter's personal prerogative, inasmuch as it was proper to Peter alone, not common to the other apostles; but it was not a personal prerogative in the sense that it was granted to Peter as a private person. Rather, Peter received the primacy as a public person, i. e., as the supreme pastor of the Church. But an office that is public, or that regards the good of the Church, ought never to have ceased. The rights that a prince acquires are acquired for the kingdom, and when the prince dies they remain proper to the kingdom. Thus the primatial right, which prince Peter obtained, he obtained for the Church, and hence it is to endure perennially in the Church.²

2. From the words by which Christ instituted the primacy. It is easily shown that the words by which Christ promised and conferred the primacy regard Peter not as a private person shortly to die, but as a person to live perpetually in his successors.

a) The words of the promise constitute Peter the indestructible foundation of the Church: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." But a foundation must endure as long as the building will stand. Now Christ so founded His Church that it would be everlasting; hence by that very fact He does not allow its foundation to be withdrawn when Peter dies. This is clear a fortiori, because Christ foretells that the Church will be attacked perpetually, and yet will never be destroyed by the gates of hell, because it has Peter as its foundation. Thus by that very fact the Petrine foundation is to endure perennially. Hence Leo the Great: "The firmness of the foundation, upon which the whole height of the Church is built, is not assailed by any mass of the temple incumbent upon it. For the solidity of that faith which was praised in the prince of the apostles is perpetual; and just as what he believed in Christ remains, so what Christ instituted in Peter remains . . . The disposition of truth, therefore, remains, and blessed Peter, persevering in the strength of the rock he received, has not relinquished the governance of the Church he undertook."³

Peter is moreover constituted the key-bearer of the kingdom of heaven, endowed with the divine power of binding and loosing: "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." But the key-bearer of the kingdom of heaven must be present and discharge the office of binding and loosing as long as the everlasting Church shall endure. For he bears the keys and is commanded to bind and loose not for Peter's advantage, but for the Church's benefit. In this sense Tertullian: "Remember that here the Lord left his keys [of the kingdom of heaven] to Peter and through Peter to the Church."⁴ And Augustine teaches that the keys were given to Peter as to one bearing the person of the Church.⁵

b) The words of the conferral establish Peter as the supreme pastor to feed the whole flock of Christ. But to the flock of Christ belong all the sheep and lambs without restriction of time, i. e., the bishops and the faithful of both the apostolic and the post-apostolic age. Therefore Peter must feed not only those, but also these — indeed, in his successors. But indeed, if the primatial pastorate had ceased with the death of Peter, the flock of Christ would from then on be without a shepherd, i. e., the visible body of Christ would be without a visible head — a truncated body. That this is absurd is evident of itself. A fortiori, however, the thesis shines forth:

3. From the end for which Christ instituted the primacy. Christ conferred the primacy upon Peter to preserve the unity of the Church. But the necessity of preserving ecclesiastical unity urges perpetually. Therefore, even after the death of the prince of the apostles, the primacy endures. It is proved thus:

Major. That Christ conferred the primacy upon Peter to preserve the unity of the Church is established both implicitly by the nature of the matter and explicitly by the will of Christ manifested in word. By its nature, a supreme government entrusted to a single physical person singularly tends to preserve the moral unity of a society. St. Thomas gives the reason for this: "For . . . that which is one of itself can be the cause of unity more fittingly than many united."⁶ Hence wherever the author of nature wished to promote the strictest unity, He chose monarchical government: think of the domestic society, over which He placed the father of the family, and likewise of the religious society of the Old Testament, over which He placed the high priest. Likewise in civil societies, even in those constituted democratically, on the occasion of a revolution a dictatorial government is instituted to recover unity. Indeed St. Jerome writes: "Even dumb animals and the herds of wild beasts follow their leaders. Among bees there are princes; cranes follow one in an ordered line. There is one emperor, one judge of a province. Rome, as soon as it was founded, could not have two brothers as kings at the same time, and it is consecrated by parricide . . . The individual bishops of the churches, the individual archpriests, and the whole ecclesiastical order rest upon their own rulers."⁷ Therefore it is to be presumed that Christ also granted the primacy to Peter for this end, that the unity of the Church might be intimately preserved. In truth this will of Christ is expressly manifested in those titles given to Peter the primate: rock, key-bearer, shepherd. Peter is called the rock of the Church because, like a foundation, he unites all the parts of the ecclesiastical building; he is called the key-bearer of the kingdom of heaven because, as a true steward, he rules the united Church and keeps factions away from it; he is called the shepherd because he is bound to unite the sheep of Christ in his own person. Therefore the unity of the Church is the end to be attained through the Petrine primacy.

Minor. But the necessity of preserving ecclesiastical unity always urges,⁸ since the Church must always remain one within and without, the one spouse of Christ, the one body of Christ, the one fold, the one house of God — in brief, since the most ardent desire of Christ always urges: "That they may be one."⁹ Indeed, the necessity of preserving unity urges much more in the post-apostolic age than in that apostolic time, when the Church was less widely diffused; when "the multitude of believers had one heart and one soul"¹⁰; when the memory of Christ the Lord, still living, remained fixed in minds; when finally the individual apostles, by their authority and personal infallibility, more easily held the Church throughout the world in unity.¹¹

Conclusion. Therefore, even after the death of the prince of the apostles, the primacy endures — that distinguished means and bond of ecclesiastical unity chosen and instituted by Christ Himself. This indeed the Fathers proclaim with one voice, and among them especially Cyprian in his golden little book "De catholicae ecclesiae unitate".¹² This the council of Ephesus declared.¹³ This the Vatican council again proposed for belief, teaching: "But that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, and that the whole multitude of believers might be preserved in the unity of faith and communion through priests adhering to one another, placing blessed Peter before the other apostles, He instituted in him the perpetual principle of both unities . . . What the Lord Christ, prince of pastors and great shepherd of the sheep, instituted in blessed Peter the apostle for the perpetual salvation and perennial good of the Church, that, by the same author, must endure continuously in the Church, which, founded upon the rock, will stand firm even to the end of the ages . . . If anyone, therefore, shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself or by divine right that blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church . . . let him be anathema."¹⁴

That Peter would always have successors in the primacy of jurisdiction, and that by divine right, we have proved. Now we ask: Who are these successors? That the bishops of the city of Rome succeed the apostle Peter in the primacy of jurisdiction, and that by divine right, non-Catholics deny; Catholics affirm.

It is superfluous to describe the opinion of the non-Catholics more accurately, because they think about the primacy of the Roman pontiff in exactly the same way as about the primacy of Peter. (Recall what was set forth at the beginning of this chapter.) The Vatican Council expressed the opinion of Catholics thus: "The holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church ... even to this time and always lives, presides, and exercises judgment in his successors, the bishops of the Roman see, founded by him and consecrated by his blood ... If anyone, therefore, should say ... that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy: let him be anathema."¹

The graver the question is in importance, the easier it is of solution. Indeed, leaving aside for now explicit arguments, it is fully unraveled and decided implicitly by those things which we have said about the perpetuity of the Petrine primacy. For Peter has by divine right perpetual successors in the primacy. But, as friends and enemies alike admit, no pontiff is the successor of Peter except the Roman pontiff. Therefore the Roman pontiff is by divine right the successor of Peter in the primacy.

Although by this preliminary argument we could justly cut short all further inquiry, nevertheless, to convince the minds of our adversaries and to enlighten our own, we will show historically that the Roman pontiff is the successor of Peter in the primacy from this: I. Peter left the primacy to the Roman pontiff; II. The Roman pontiff always claimed the primacy for himself; III. The Fathers always taught the primacy of the Roman pontiff; IV. The Church always acknowledged the primacy of the Roman pontiff.

The argumentation, as we have said, is historical. Yet someone might wrongly object that from the historical or human fact by which the Roman pontiff is shown to succeed Peter legitimately, it does not follow that he holds the primacy by divine right. For since, as we have seen, by divine right, i. e. by the will and institution of Christ, Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy, by that very fact those who legitimately succeed Peter hold the primacy by divine right.

Peter left the primacy to the Roman bishop, if he himself, dying, was bishop of Rome. But Peter, dying, was in fact bishop of Rome. Therefore he left the primacy to the Roman bishop.

The major is evident from the common law of succession. A predecessor who dies in some hereditary office leaves to his successor all those privileges which pertain to the respective office. A dying king leaves the royal privileges to his successor, a prince the princely, a president the presidential privileges, to the heirs of the office, who constitute with them one moral person. Therefore Peter also, if dying he was bishop of Rome, left to the Roman bishop succeeding him the pontifical privileges in which he himself excelled, whether over the special Roman flock or over the universal flock of Christ. This law of primatial succession would suffer a single exception, if either Christ or Peter had clearly decreed that, once the apostle-primate was dead, the primatial see should be withdrawn from the Roman bishop and transferred to another church. But nothing is known of such a disposition of Christ or of Peter; rather, the whole history of the Church proclaims aloud that the contrary happened. Whence the major of the syllogism stands: Peter left the primacy to the Roman bishop, if he himself, dying, was bishop of Rome.

The minor has two parts, namely that Peter died at Rome and that he was then bishop of Rome. The former most adversaries concede today,¹ the latter today most deny.

Hence we expressly prove that Peter was bishop of Rome by an argument both direct and indirect.

1. Our direct argument we draw from the utterances of the Fathers, from the monuments of archaeology, and from the catalogues of the Roman bishops.

a) The utterances of the later Fathers bearing on this point are so many that they neither can nor need be brought forward, since the adversaries themselves confess that in the fifth and fourth centuries the Roman episcopate of Peter was admitted with one mind.

In the third century, moreover, the same fact is attested by Anatolius of Alexandria, Firmilianus, Cyprianus and Hippolytus. Anatolius of Alexandria (c. 268), although he defends the cause of the Quartodecimans, nevertheless calls the Roman bishops "successors of Peter and Paul"² Firmilianus (c. 253—257) writes of Pope Stephen that he "glories in the place of his episcopate and contends that he holds the succession of Peter" and "proclaims that through succession he holds the chair of Peter"³ Cyprianus († 258) relates of Cornelius, the Roman pontiff: "Cornelius, however, was made bishop ..., when the place of Fabianus, that is, the place of Peter and the grade of the priestly chair, was vacant"⁴ Hippolytus († 235), the first antipope, nevertheless reports of Pope Victor: Victor "was the thirteenth bishop of the city of Rome from Peter"⁵ It is to be noted that all these writers, in the very midst of controversy with the Roman pontiffs, confess that these pontiffs succeeded Peter, and consequently that Peter was bishop of Rome.

In the second century St. Irenaeus and St. Ignatius attest the same. Irenaeus indeed not only mentions that the apostles Peter and Paul founded and established the Roman church,⁶ but that they were bishops of the city. For of Pope Hyginus he declares: "Who held the ninth place of the episcopate by succession from the apostles."⁷ In this number Peter is included as bishop, since Hyginus reigned in the eighth place after him. Ignatius the martyr writes to the Romans: "Not as Peter and Paul do I command you. They are apostles, I am condemned; they are free, I am until now a slave."⁸ There Ignatius, a bishop, openly supposes that Peter and Paul exercised apostolic-episcopal authority with the Romans. The testimonies of Irenaeus and Ignatius, considering the age and quality of these men, are of such weight that they alone would suffice to prove the Roman episcopate of Peter.

Other very ancient writers, to attest the Roman episcopate of Peter, relate:

b) The monuments of archaeology. Among the various monuments consecrated to the memory of Peter in the City, at least two were regarded from the earliest times as testimonies of the Roman episcopate of Peter, namely his tomb and his chair.

That the tomb of Peter in the Vatican was already known and venerated from the first century is certain. Caius, a Roman presbyter under Pope Zephyrinus (toward the end of the second century), appeals to the sepulchral monuments of Peter and Paul thus: "But I am able to show the trophies of the apostles. For whether you choose to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will meet the trophies of those who founded that [Roman] church (Εὑρήσεις τὰ τρόπαια τῶν ταύτην ἱδρυσαμένων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν)."⁹ With these words Caius means to say not only that the princes of the apostles lived and died at Rome, but that they presided over the Roman church with apostolic authority. For Caius intends to confound Proclus the Montanist,¹⁰ who, to defend his heresy, had invoked the authority of the apostle Philip, buried at Hierapolis in Phrygia. To him Caius opposes the tombs of Sts. Peter and Paul, through which the apostolic authority and succession of the Roman church are proved.

At Rome, moreover, from the first centuries the episcopal chair of Peter was preserved and venerated as a pledge of the apostolic succession of the Roman pontiffs.¹¹ To it Augustine¹² and Optatus of Milevis¹³ boldly appeal when contending against the schismatics. Nay, already Tertullian: "Run through the apostolic churches, in which 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 passion of the Lord."¹⁴ Likewise the contemporary of Tertullian, the author of the poem "adversus Marcionem":¹⁵ On this chair, on which Peter himself had sat, Greatest Rome bade Linus first take his seat ... The church of Rome stood firm, vigorous in piety, Founded by Peter, whose successor he too was, And Hyginus even then in the ninth place received the chair.

c) Many catalogues of the Roman pontiffs are extant from the seventh, sixth and fifth centuries, all of which declare Peter the first bishop.¹⁶ We, however, concern ourselves only with the three oldest catalogues, of the beginning of the third century, nay, of the middle of the second century. One indeed the Liber pontificalis (354) hands down from the Chronicle of Hippolytus († 235).¹⁷ Another Eusebius (c. 324) transcribes from Iulius Africanus (221),¹⁸ Irenaeus¹⁹ and Hegesippus (155—174).²⁰ The third, finally, Epiphanius recorded from an unnamed author, who flourished under Pope Soter (166—174).²¹ These catalogues with one consent begin the series of the Roman bishops with Peter. E. g. the last-mentioned: "At Rome first of all Peter and Paul, apostles and likewise bishops, were. Thence Linus; then Cletus. After him Clement, a contemporary of the times of Peter and Paul."²² Therefore around the middle of the second century the unanimous tradition of the Roman church designated Peter as bishop of the City. It is clear that by this testimony the Roman episcopate of the prince of the apostles is conclusively proved.

To this threefold direct argument we nevertheless add:

2. The indirect argument likewise is threefold, namely of induction, of prescription, and of refutation.

a) Induction from the fact of the sojourn and death of Peter in the City. The prince of the apostles, as the adversaries confess, as has been said, sojourned at Rome for a long time, until he suffered death there.²³ But the apostles, although they tarried for a short time in the churches founded by themselves, exercised and retained episcopal governance;²⁴ nay more, Peter, in his pastoral solicitude, used to visit even those churches which he himself had not founded, passing through them.²⁵ A fortiori, therefore, he undertook the pastoral administration of the Roman church, in which he made his stable abode until death.

Even the most hostile enemies do not deny that the inference from the Roman sojourn of Peter to his Roman episcopate is valid. For those who deny this sojourn deny it only for this reason, because from it would follow the primatial episcopate of Peter and consequently of the Roman pontiff.²⁶

b) Prescription from the universal persuasion concerning the Roman episcopate of Peter. Until the thirteenth century, when the Waldensians first denied this fact, all Christians were persuaded that Peter had been bishop at Rome. The Catholics, in the course of so many centuries, followed the "apostolic" see with such veneration, faith and obedience, because they firmly believed that Peter had been the first bishop of this see. But also the earlier heretics and schismatics admitted a fact so adverse to themselves as reluctantly as undoubtingly. In no trace, finally, is it suggested that after the apostolic age the belief in this fact was born, gradually propagated, impugned and asserted, and at length universally admitted. Always it was present, by no one was it gainsaid, to all it was sacred — the persuasion concerning the Roman episcopate of Peter. But such a persuasion concerning a fact so fundamental, on which the whole monarchical constitution of the Church depends, could not have had any other cause than the truth of the fact. Whence by the prescription of the ancients all opposition of the moderns is already judged.

c) The refutation of the adverse opinion in truth demonstrates to the eyes how futilely the Roman episcopate of Peter is denied. The adversaries bring forward no positive argument. They object, however, that of the more ancient authors some are silent about the Roman bishops down to the times of Anicetus (155—166), others call Paul together with Peter a Roman bishop, others finally say that the first Roman bishop was not Peter but Linus.²⁷

But the mere silence of some authors about the first Roman bishops proves nothing, the less so in that those authors, namely Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Hermas, expressly testify that in the more notable churches bishops were already present from the age of the apostles.²⁸

That Paul is called by the Fathers a Roman bishop together with Peter,²⁹ by no means hinders Peter from having been the bishop of the City, and indeed the only proper bishop. In truth Paul testifies that the Roman church, before he himself came thither, was already founded and organized,³⁰ by the work, of course, of Peter, who was its parent and exercised pastoral care over it. Whence Paul, even excusing himself in the epistle written to the Romans, adds that it was not his to build "upon another man's foundation".³¹ And although afterwards, dwelling at Rome, he availed and merited much by his person and doctrine, the Roman church nevertheless remained the own and peculiar flock of Peter, just as the church of Jerusalem remained the own flock of James, although other apostles were also present there. Nay, although with Peter sometimes absent³² the apostle Paul, being present, administered the Roman church by that very fact, the prince of the apostles nevertheless enjoyed the episcopate of the City as a stable, ordinary, properly so-called episcopate.

Finally, the authors who call Linus the first Roman bishop intend to speak of Linus insofar as, after the apostle Peter, he was the first to hold the episcopate. Thus Irenaeus in one place begins to number the bishops from Linus,³³ and yet, as we have seen,³⁴ in another place testifies that Peter was bishop at Rome. Likewise Eusebius, while he brings on the several bishops reigning after the apostles, lists Linus first,³⁵ but notwithstanding this asserts that Peter "persevered as bishop of the same city for 25 years".³⁶ In a similar way Jerome³⁷ and Prosper Tiro (433)³⁸ put Peter first, when they speak simply of the Roman bishops, but count Linus first when they write of the successors of the apostles. In speaking thus, the ancient writers pronounce with all the care and perspicuity they can that the Roman bishop is the successor of Peter, that Peter left the primacy to the Roman pontiff forever, that Peter chose the Roman see as the heir of a perennial jurisdiction over the universal Church.

By what right he did this, whether by his own choice or by Christ's command, matters nothing to the case. For in either case the Roman pontiffs succeed Peter in the primacy by divine right, that is, by Christ's ordinance. For if Peter chose Rome as the primatial see by the command of Christ himself, the Roman bishops succeed in Peter's primacy by the antecedent will of Christ. But if Peter chose Rome as the primatial see by his own choice (which indeed seems more probably to have happened), the Roman bishops succeed in Peter's primacy by the consequent will of Christ.

Scholion. Although theologians dispute by what right Peter chose Rome as the primatial see, nevertheless with almost one voice they teach:³⁹

1°. that by a special disposition of divine providence Peter chose Rome as the primatial see. This opinion, handed down already by Eusebius, Athanasius, Leo the Great, Optatus of Milevis, Gelasius I, Innocent III and other theologians, Leo XIII thus summarizes: "Nor without a special providence of God did B. Peter, the prince of the apostles, direct his steps to that metropolis of the world's idolatry, to become its pastor and to transmit to it in perpetuity the authority of the supreme apostleship."⁴⁰ The reason for this special disposition of God Leo the Great gives thus: "The most blessed Peter, the prince of the apostolic order, is destined for the citadel of the Roman empire, so that the light of truth, which was being revealed for the salvation of all nations, might more effectively pour itself out from the head itself through the whole body of the world."⁴¹ Similarly St. Thomas: "That [the Lord] might more greatly show his power, in Rome itself, which was the head of the world, he also established the head of the Church, as a sign of perfect victory, so that from thence faith might be derived to the whole world."⁴²

2°. that the primatial see cannot be transferred from Rome elsewhere against the will of the Roman pontiff, even if all Christian peoples together with the episcopate should desire such a transfer. Wherefore Pius IX condemned this proposition of Nuytzius, a professor of Turin: "Nothing forbids the supreme pontificate being transferred from the Roman bishop and the City to another bishop and another city by the sentence of some general council [without the pope] or by the act of all the peoples."⁴³ Nay, such a transfer seems unable to be made even with the consent of the Roman pontiff. "For given," says Benedict XIV, "that Peter placed his see stably at Rome and died governing the Roman church, no one who is not a Roman bishop can be called a true successor of Peter."⁴⁴ Whence rightly Nicholas I: "The privileges of that [Roman] see or church are perpetual; they are divinely rooted and planted; they can be struck against, they cannot be transferred; they can be drawn, they cannot be torn up."⁴⁵

Nevertheless:

3°. that it is not required that the Roman pontiff always dwell in the City, but that it suffices that he keep the title of Roman bishop. "For residence is not so attached to one place that, with just causes intervening, it cannot be transferred elsewhere, as has often happened, especially in the many years in which the Roman pontiffs sojourned at Avignon; and in the hypothesis that Rome should be destroyed or that enemies of the Christian and Catholic name should take possession of it, the very same would be done."⁴⁶

Scarcely had Peter died when the Roman pontiffs claim for themselves and exercise the primatial office. Yet do not think that they at once employed the whole fullness and amplitude of primatial power. For "the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man [i. e. Christ] took and sowed in his field: which is indeed the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is greater than all herbs, and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and dwell in its branches".¹ This parable must be applied to the whole Church and therefore also to the monarchical constitution of the Church. The monarchical government of the Church, like a grain of mustard seed, smallest from the beginning, grows and unfolds more and more according as its innate inner force and outward circumstances, favorable or adverse, allow. It suffices, therefore, to show that from the first centuries the grain of the Roman primacy was present and sprouted and gradually took growth, although surrounded and hindered by the greatest difficulties with which the Church contended in the time of the persecutions.

1. We discern the firstfruits of the Roman primacy in the letter which St. Clement, "a contemporary of the times of Peter and Paul",² sent to Corinth (between the years 93 and 96) to settle the dissensions that had arisen there against the rulers of the Church. From this first primatial letter we extract a few passages: "The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God which sojourns at Corinth … Owing to the sudden and successive calamities and adverse events which have befallen us [while the persecution of Domitian was raging], we think, brethren, that we have been slow to turn to the things that are desired among you, beloved, and to the impious and detestable sedition … Shameful, brethren, shameful and utterly unworthy of the Christian manner of life are the things that have been reported to us: that the most steadfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians is, because of one or two persons, raising sedition against the presbyters … You therefore, who laid the foundations of the sedition, be subject to the presbyters in obedience and accept correction unto repentance … But if they do not obey the things which he [Christ] has said through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small offense and danger; we, however, shall be innocent of this sin … You will afford us joy and gladness if, becoming obedient to the things we have written through the Holy Spirit, you cut off the illegitimate passion of your zeal according to the exhortation which we have made concerning peace and concord in this letter … And there will be witnesses between you and us [the legates sent to Corinth]. And this we have done, that you may know that all our care both has aimed and aims at this, that you may quickly arrive at peace."³

That St. Clement acts by virtue of the primatial office is already evident from the fact that the bishop of the West involves himself in the Corinthian affair, although the apostle John and the neighboring metropolitan were then still living. Indeed Clement even excuses himself for not having attended to the care of that church earlier; with authority he adjudicates the sedition and binds the seditious to punishment; he also sends legates as witnesses of obedience and of restored order. The Corinthians, however, and other Orientals did not take Clement's jurisdiction ill, but rather for a long time read his letter in the public assembly and extolled it with the greatest praises.⁴ Some have wrongly objected that Clement did not use his own authority, but wrote in the name of the Roman church. For the authority of the Church resides in the bishop and is exercised only by the bishop alone, as we know well from what we have said concerning the episcopate.

2. In the second century, when the controversy arose about the time of celebrating Easter, Victor I (c. 196) wrote a letter to Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, ordering him to convoke synods of all the bishops of Asia and of the neighboring provinces and to enjoin upon them that they follow the Roman usage, threatening that he would cut off all the Quartodecimans "from the fellowship of communion" and separate them "from the ecclesiastical covenant". Victor indeed did not carry out the excommunication, because the Quartodeciman bishops begged him "to have regard for concord and unanimity", and especially because Irenaeus, together with the other bishops of Gaul over whom he presided, dissuaded him from "cutting off from the unity of the body so many and such great churches of God".

The primatial power, however, by which Victor issued his mandate and threatened excommunication, no one called into doubt.⁵

3. In the third century Pope Stephen († 257) exercised the primacy. For, preaching that "by succession he held the chair of Peter",⁶ he gave a decree for the whole Church by which he acknowledged the baptism conferred by heretics as legitimate, and prescribed both to the Asians and to the Africans, under penalty of excommunication, that they desist from the contrary practice.⁷ To be sure, neither the Asians nor the Africans stood by Stephen's mandate. But although Firmilian of Caesarea and Cyprian, those two luminaries, were their leaders, the Church followed not these but Stephen. Indeed even Firmilian and Cyprian themselves strove to derogate from the decree only on subjective grounds, but by no means dared to weaken the objective foundation of the decree, namely Stephen's succession in the primacy of Peter.⁸

4. In the fourth century Julius I (341-342) reproaches the Eusebian bishops for having deposed Athanasius, the patriarch of Alexandria, without his knowledge, and for seeking the consent of the Roman pontiff only after the fact. "Do you not know", he says, "that this is the custom (ἔθος), that first it should be written to us, and that from here what is just should be decided? Certainly if any such suspicion fell upon the bishop of that city [of Alexandria], it should have been written to this church [of Rome]. But now they, the matter not having been made known to us, after having done what pleased them, wish us, to whom those charges are not known, to be at last their supporters. By no means are such things the statutes of Paul; not these things did the fathers hand down … For the things which we have received from the blessed apostle Peter, these I make known to you."⁹ Julius therefore decreed that the causes of bishops and even of the Oriental patriarchs themselves were to be adjudicated at Rome, on account of the primacy granted to the Roman pontiff by the blessed Peter.

5. Shortly after, when the Arian bishops had again deposed Athanasius and the emperor Constantius was driving Pope Liberius († 366) by force and fear to consent, Liberius resisted unconquered. Ammianus Marcellinus, a pagan writer, narrates the affair, explaining it from the primacy of the Roman pontiff: "Liberius, being admonished, at the command of the prince [Constantius], to cast this man [Athanasius] out of the priestly see by subscription, thinking the same as the others [the Arian bishops], stubbornly resisted, crying out that it was the utmost crime to condemn a man neither seen nor heard, plainly kicking against the emperor's decision. For he [Constantius], always hostile to Athanasius, although he knew that it had been fulfilled [by the Arian synod], nevertheless burned with an ardent desire that it should also be confirmed by the authority whereby the bishops of the eternal city are the more powerful; and since this was not obtained, Liberius, from fear of the people, who burned with love for him, could only with great difficulty be carried off in the middle of the night."¹⁰

6. Siricius (385), in his letter to Himerius, bishop of Tarragona, famously attributes to himself the primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church in these words: "We do not deny a fitting response to your consultation, because, considering our office, it is not permitted to us to dissemble, we have not the freedom to be silent, we upon whom a greater zeal for the Christian religion lies than upon all. We bear the burdens of all who are weighed down; indeed the blessed apostle Peter bears these in us, who protects and guards us, as we trust, as heirs of his administration in all things … Let all priests [bishops] hold the aforesaid rule [which he had established concerning the administration of baptism], who are unwilling to be torn from the solidity of the apostolic rock, upon which Christ built the universal Church … What is henceforth to be followed by all the churches and what is to be avoided, we decree by a general pronouncement."¹¹ As many words, so many vindications of the Roman primacy!

7. Innocent I (417) answered the Carthaginian council: "Keeping the examples of ancient tradition and mindful of ecclesiastical discipline, you have strengthened the vigor of your religion with true reasoning no less now in consulting than before when you were pronouncing, since you have approved that judgment should be referred to us: knowing what is owed to the apostolic see, from which the episcopate itself and all the authority of this name has emerged, since we all, placed in this position, desire to follow the apostle himself. Following him, we know how to condemn evil things as much as to praise things worthy of praise. And this indeed, that, keeping the institutions of the fathers with priestly office, you judge that they are not to be trampled upon, because they decreed not by human but by divine sentence, that whatever was done, even in separated and remote provinces, should not be brought to an end before it came to the knowledge of this see, so that by its whole authority whatever pronouncement was just might be confirmed, and that from it the other churches should take what to prescribe, whom to wash clean, whom, as defiled with unwashen filth, the water worthy of clean bodies should avoid."¹² By these words St. Innocent teaches that, according to "ancient tradition" and "ecclesiastical discipline" divinely established, the judgments of the bishops of the whole world must be confirmed by the authority of the apostolic see, and that the other churches must take from the apostolic see whom they should prescribe, whom they should receive into penance and communion, whom they should reject as unworthy from the communion of the faithful. Behold the primacy of universal jurisdiction described in a concrete manner!¹³

8. Zosimus (418) writes to the African bishops: "Although the tradition of the fathers has given such great authority to the apostolic See that no one would dare to dispute its judgment, and has always preserved this through the canons and rules, and ecclesiastical discipline, still running in its own laws, pays to the name of Peter, from whom it itself also descends, the reverence which it owes … nevertheless, since there was so much authority in us that no one could retract our sentence, we have done nothing that we did not of our own accord refer to your notice by our letters."¹⁴ The authority of the apostolic See, as descending from Peter, is so great that no one dares to dispute the judgment of the Roman pontiff or can retract his sentence.

9. Boniface I (422) thus addresses all the bishops of Thessaly: "The establishment of the universal nascent Church took its beginning from the honor of the blessed Peter, in whom its governance and the sum of all things consist. For from his ecclesiastical discipline, through all the churches, with the cultivation of religion now growing, the fountain flowed … This [the Roman church] therefore it is certain is to the churches spread through the whole world as the head of its members, from which whoever cuts himself off becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he has not begun to be in the same structure … Therefore the apostolic see holds the primacy, that it may freely accept the complaints of all … Let whoever recognizes himself as a bishop obey our ordination."¹⁵ Boniface therefore simply calls the Roman church the church of the blessed Peter, the head of all the churches, furnished with the supreme primacy, by which it adjudicates the complaints of all the faithful and to which all bishops must be obedient.

10. Celestine I (422-432), in his letters to the bishops of the province of Vienne and of Narbonne, confesses that he has been "placed by God on the watchtowers", so that "he may cut off the things that must be coerced and sanction the things that must be observed", and that his care extends to the whole Christian world;¹⁶ he orders Nestorius, the patriarch of Constantinople, to be excommunicated "by our, rather by the divine sentence of our Christ",¹⁷ and to his legates sent to the council of Ephesus he enjoins that "if it should come to a disputation, you must judge concerning their [the fathers of the ecumenical council] sentences, but not enter into a contest".¹⁸ The pope therefore, by virtue of the divine constitution, extends his jurisdiction to the whole Church, even to the Oriental patriarchs, indeed to the episcopate gathered in the ecumenical council.

11. Leo the Great (440-461) insists that he has inherited the fullness of the Petrine primacy: "In the person of my humility let him [Peter] be understood, let him be honored, in whom the solicitude of all the pastors perseveres together with the custody of the sheep commended to him, and whose dignity does not fail even in an unworthy heir."¹⁹ Concerning the hierarchy of bishops he writes: "It was provided by a great ordinance that not all [bishops] should claim all things for themselves, but that in each province there should be some, whose judgment among the brethren should be held first; and again that certain ones constituted in the greater cities should take up a more ample solicitude, through whom the care of the universal Church might flow together to the one see of Peter, and nothing anywhere should dissent from its head."²⁰ The 28th canon of the ecumenical council of Chalcedon, by which the first place after the Roman pontiff was conceded to the patriarch of Constantinople, Leo rejects with these words: "We declare it void and by the authority of the blessed apostle Peter we annul it by an entirely general definition."²¹ The Roman see, the see of Peter, remains; it perpetuates the primatial care of Peter; it presides over all the faithful, all the pastors, the universal Church, in such a way that no patriarch can in any manner be compared to the pope and that it is permitted to the pope to annul even the definitions of an ecumenical council.

With these things we bring the argument to an end. For from the middle of the fifth century even the adversaries do not deny that the Roman pontiffs attributed to themselves the fullness of the primacy. But that they already claimed for themselves the primatial rights in the first centuries is abundantly evident from the testimonies adduced thus far. The grain of primatial power entrusted by Christ to Peter was carefully guarded and watered by the successors of Peter, so that already in the earliest Christian age it grew into a great tree, under whose branches the universal Church dwelt.

The most ancient Fathers approve, confirm, and defend the prerogative which the Roman pontiffs attributed to themselves.

1. First, St. Ignatius the martyr († 107) proclaims the primatial prerogative. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans differs greatly from his other epistles. The other churches he teaches and admonishes as a father his sons and as a master his disciples; the Roman church he venerates as mother and mistress. At the end of the other epistles he asks that the faithful pray for him and for his church of Antioch;¹ at the end of the epistle to the Romans he consoles himself: "Only Jesus Christ will rule that [church of Syria] in place of the bishop, and your charity (ἡ ὑμῶν ἀγάπη)."² Hence he intimates that the Roman church would provide for the church of Antioch in Syria with primatial care.

Yet he signifies the Roman primacy more explicitly in the inscription of the epistle, heaping unusual praises upon that church, "which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans … presiding over universal charity: ἣ καὶ προκάθηται ἐν τόπῳ χωρίου Ῥωμαίων … προκαθημένη τῆς ἀγάπης."³ The church which is situated "in the place of the region of the Romans"⁴ presides, is set over, stands out before the other churches as the primary, capital, principal, primatial church: προκαθημένη.⁵ But how far the Roman primacy extends, Ignatius defines with the added words: "presiding over universal charity: προκαθημένη τῆς ἀγάπης".⁶ The Roman church is the president of charity simply, or of universal charity (τῆς ἀγάπης). Charity (ἀγάπη) is used by Ignatius here and there for a certain particular church. Hence, since in our passage he employs the same word with the article τῆς added, he seems altogether to designate the entire assembly of the faithful. The sense, therefore, is: The Roman church exercises the primacy over the universal church.⁷ There are, indeed, those who think that it is to be interpreted that the Roman church presides over the works of charity of all the faithful. But even this interpretation, if it were at length correct,⁸ would not, as is evident, exclude the Roman primacy, but would include it.

Thus St. Ignatius says in substance the same thing as Theodoretus afterwards, who calls the Roman church "presiding over the whole world (τὴν τῆς οἰκουμένης προκαθημένην)".⁹

2. St. Irenaeus (c. 180) in his polemical work against the gnostic heresies affirms that there is a twofold way of knowing the doctrine handed down by the apostles. For either the apostolic doctrine is to be learned from the consensus of those churches which ascend by an episcopal succession never interrupted up to the apostles, or it is to be learned from the Roman church alone, distinguished by certain privileges. Since, however, that former way is the longer one, St. Irenaeus therefore chooses this latter one, saying: "But since it is a very long matter … to enumerate the successions of all the churches, pointing to that greatest and most ancient church, known to all, founded and established at Rome by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul, the tradition which it has from the apostles and the faith announced to men, coming down to us through the successions of bishops, we confound all those who in whatever manner, whether through evil self-complacency or vainglory or through blindness and evil opinion, gather otherwise than they ought. For to this church, on account of its more potent principality, it is necessary that every church resort, that is, those who are faithful from everywhere, in which, by those who are from everywhere, the tradition which is from the apostles has always been preserved."¹⁰

With these words Irenaeus teaches that the apostolic tradition is preserved intact in the Roman church for this reason, because it is itself the primatial church. This indeed Irenaeus already indicates by calling the church of Rome the "greatest and most ancient", i.e. the principal and preeminent [church],¹¹ in a singular manner "founded and established at Rome by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul". Then he testifies to the Roman primacy more expressly with the words: "For to this church, on account of its more potent principality, it is necessary that every church resort, that is, those who are faithful from everywhere, in which, by those who are from everywhere, the tradition which is from the apostles has always been preserved." Here the Roman primacy is enunciated with a threefold assertion, since: 1°. Irenaeus attributes to the Roman church a "more potent principality". The Latin word principality, employed many times in the version of Irenaeus, always denotes authority, principate, primacy, especially something supernatural and divine; where, however, the Greek text survives, in place of the Latin word synonymous words are read: ἀρχή, κυριότης, ἐξουσία, αὐθεντία.¹² Hence there is no doubt that in our passage Irenaeus, who ascribes to the Roman church a more potent principality, truly ascribes to it an authority or power or principate more potent than the other churches.¹³ It is confirmed, since: 2°. Irenaeus adds: "To this church, on account of its more potent principality, it is necessary that every church resort, that is, those who are faithful from everywhere." That "to resort"¹⁴ is not to be understood of a local assembly, as if all churches, or all "who are faithful from everywhere", ought to travel to Rome, is manifest and is conceded by most Protestants. The sense, therefore, is that every church, or all who are faithful from everywhere, necessarily assent in faith to the Roman church and are subject to it on account of the more potent principality or jurisdiction of this church.¹⁵ Once the duty of subjection toward the Roman primacy and of consensus with the primatial church has been established, Irenaeus finally mentions the effect of this subjection and consensus, since: 3°. he writes: "In which¹⁶ [the Roman church] by those who are from everywhere, the tradition which is from the apostles has always been preserved." By connection and consensus with the Roman church all other churches and all the faithful of the whole world have preserved and preserve the apostolic tradition. Hence, "on account of its more potent principality", or primacy, the Roman church is the center and criterion of the right faith. Thus it is evident how highly St. Irenaeus, that most zealous investigator of the most ancient Christian tradition, esteems the Roman primacy. 3. Tertullian (c. 160—220) complains that Victor or Zephyrinus, the Roman pontiff, at the instigation of Praxeas, condemned Montanism: "For this man [Praxeas] ... then compelled the Roman bishop — who was already acknowledging the prophecies of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla and, on the basis of that acknowledgment, was bringing peace to the churches of Asia and Phrygia — by asserting falsehoods about the prophets themselves and their churches, and by defending the authorities of his predecessors, both to recall the letters of peace already sent out and to desist from the purpose of receiving the charisms ... And we indeed afterwards, the acknowledgment and defense of the Paraclete separated us from the psychics [i.e. the catholics]."¹⁷ Tertullian, therefore, long a heretic, confesses that the primatial authority of Zephyrinus and of his predecessors was so great that, had they acknowledged Montanism, the whole catholic church would have kept peace with the Montanists, and that, Montanism having been condemned by the Roman pontiff, the whole catholic church repelled the adherents of that heresy.

On another occasion Tertullian inveighs bitterly and ironically against Pope Callistus, who was promising remission of the graver crimes: "I hear", he says, "that even an edict has been set forth, and indeed a peremptory one; the pontifex maximus, that is, the bishop of bishops, decrees: I remit to those who have performed penance the sins of adultery and fornication."¹⁸ From the mouth, therefore, of a heretic it is established that the Roman pontiff was accustomed to issue "peremptory" decrees, and that already at the beginning of the third century he was called "pontifex maximus" and "bishop of bishops". A peremptory decree cannot be issued except by one who enjoys peremptory, i.e. primatial, power. The pope was called "pontifex maximus" either with respect to the high priest of the Old Testament or with respect to the pontifex maximus of the pagans, both of whom were endowed with supreme power. A "bishop of bishops" is he who has power over other bishops equal to that which a single bishop has over the faithful committed to him. Hence, from the ironic words of Tertullian it is clear that the church commonly conceded the primacy to the Roman pontiff. Nay, Tertullian himself, although he resists the pope, nonetheless approves his primacy, since a little later he applies to him the words by which Christ promised the primacy to Peter, and clearly describes the pope as Peter's successor.¹⁹ 4. St. Cyprian († 258) likewise in several places calls the Roman pontiff Peter's successor, and in other places ascribes to him supreme authority in the church.²⁰ After he proved that Peter obtained the primacy from Christ, so that in him and through him all bishops and the whole church would preserve unity,²¹ he affirms that "the chair of Peter", i.e. the Roman church, is "the principal church [i.e. primatial], whence the sacerdotal [episcopal] unity arose"²² Likewise Cyprian unceasingly admonishes that all should remain with the catholic church, the mother and matrix of the faithful;²³ but he openly declares that Rome is the "matrix and root" of the catholic church itself.²⁴ Whoever is in communion with the Roman pontiff is by that very fact proved "to communicate with the catholic church".²⁵ He begs Pope Stephen that, once Marcianus, the heretical bishop of Arles, has been excommunicated, another be substituted in his place.²⁶ Cyprian, therefore, was persuaded that the right of deposing and instituting bishops anywhere in the world belonged to the Roman pontiff. From all these things it is clear that Cyprian, although on a given occasion he resisted Pope Stephen, firmly held the primacy of the Roman pontiff. 5. In the same third century Pseudo-Cyprian, a certain Novatianist antipope, protests: "Great is our care for the whole brotherhood ... Since in us divine and paternal piety has conferred the leadership of the apostleship and has ordained by heavenly condescension the vicarious seat of the Lord, and the origin of the authentic apostleship, upon which Christ founded the church ..."²⁷ The primacy of the Roman pontiff was then so incontrovertibly established among all that even a Roman pseudo-bishop contended that he, after the manner of Peter, had divinely received the "leadership of the apostleship"*, the "authentic apostleship", i.e. that authoritative one, "upon which Christ founded the church", nay, the very "vicarious seat of the Lord". 6. About the year 376, when the three bishops Meletius, Vitalis, and Paulinus were disputing among themselves over the Antiochene patriarchate, and each laid claim to communion with the Roman pontiff, St. Jerome, anxious as to whom he should join, wrote to Pope Damasus: "From the priest I demand the salvation of the victim, from the shepherd the protection of the sheep. Let envy be gone: let the ambition of the Roman summit withdraw: I speak with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the cross. I, following no first except Christ, am joined in communion with Your Beatitude, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that upon that rock the church is built. Whoever eats the lamb outside this house is profane. If anyone is not in the ark of Noah, he will perish while the flood reigns ... I do not know Vitalis, I reject Meletius, I ignore Paulinus. Whoever does not gather with you, scatters... In three parts rent, the church hastens to draw me to itself... Meanwhile I cry out: whoever is joined to the chair of Peter is mine."²⁸ Jerome, therefore, professes the Roman pontiff to be the successor of Peter and the vicar of Christ. For that reason the holy doctor considers communion with the pope absolutely necessary. Nay, the whole church considered it no less necessary, since even those three dissenting bishops of the East strive to defend themselves by appealing to communion with the Roman pontiff. 7. Already at the beginning of the fifth century so many testimonies of the Fathers proclaim the primacy of the Roman pontiff that it is not worth the effort to relate them. Think, for example, of St. Augustine, who testifies that in the Roman church "the principate of the apostolic chair has always flourished" and the "summit of authority";²⁹ of Vincent of Lerins, who calls the pope "the bishop of the apostolic see",³⁰ "the head of the world", surpassing "all the remaining bishops in authority"; of St. Peter Chrysologus, who inculcates consensus with the Roman pontiff and obedience toward him even upon the Eastern patriarchs, since at Rome "the blessed Peter both lives and presides in his own see",³¹ of Theodoretus asserting that "that most holy see [the Roman] holds the principate of the churches which are in the whole world under many titles;".³² of St. Prosper, of whom are these verses:³³ "Rome, seat of Peter, which, made the head of the world for pastoral honor, Whatever it does not possess by arms, It holds by religion."

That the Roman primacy was acknowledged by the whole Church already in the first centuries is demonstrated by:¹

1. Consultations of the whole world with the apostolic see. From every side distinguished men either came to Rome or wrote, in order to consult the pope in various ecclesiastical affairs and to seek his judgment. Thus already in the second century s. Polycarpus,² Hegesippus,³ Irenaeus⁴ and Abercius,⁵ bishop of Hierapolis, came to Rome from the remote regions of the East to treat various ecclesiastical affairs. At the same time (a. 177) the martyrs of Lyon approached pope Eleutherus by legation and letters for the peace of the churches of Asia, disturbed by the errors of Montanus.⁶ In the third century Dionysius of Alexandria writes to Xystus II († 258): "Truly I have need, brother, of your counsel, and I seek your judgment, lest perhaps I myself go astray, such a matter having been brought to me."⁷ Thereafter very many of the faithful, bishops, particular churches, and synods submit to the Roman pontiff the most difficult matters to be resolved, as is evident from the letters that remain to this day.⁸ Indeed s. Hieronymus recalls that, when he assisted Damasus, bishop of the city of Rome, in ecclesiastical documents, he answered "even the synodical consultations of the East and the West".⁹ Nay more, the council of Sardica (a. 343—344) writes to pope Julius: "For this will seem best and most fitting, that the priests [bishops] of the Lord refer from each and every province to the head, i. e. to the see of the apostle Peter."¹⁰ The reason for these things is none other than that the Roman pontiff, having regard to the primacy of all the churches, has care of them, as pope s. Caelestinus expressly notes to the bishops of Illyricum (c. a. 425): "Among the other cares and various affairs which always come to us from all the churches, that we bear a more devoted solicitude also for you ... you will be able to perceive ... We are especially bound by care for all, to whom Christ granted in s. Peter the apostle the necessity of treating of all things, when He gave him the keys of opening and closing."¹¹
2. Confirmation, deposition and restitution of bishops by the apostolic see. That the Roman pontiffs already in antiquity possessed the right of confirming bishops, even Eastern ones, is evident from many documents of the earlier centuries. Indeed it is established that not even the election of the Eastern patriarchs themselves was valid without the consent of the Roman pontiff. Thus e. g., when Nectarius had been raised to the see of Constantinople, the emperor Theodosius in a. 382 urgently requested confirmation from pope Damasus, judging that the election would have no firmness unless it were confirmed by the pope.¹² When the patriarch Anatolius contended that the see of Constantinople was first after the Roman see, Leo I (440—461) wrote to the emperor Marcianus: "Let it suffice for the aforesaid that ... he obtained the episcopate of so great a city with the assent of my favour."¹³ Pope Hormisdas (514—523) reproaches Epiphanius, patriarch of Constantinople, who had not sought the confirmation of his election: "We have wondered exceedingly that the ancient custom was neglected ... For it befitted you, dearest brother, to have sent legates to the apostolic see at the very beginnings of your pontificate, so that ... you might rightly complete the form of the ancient custom."¹⁴ Likewise the Roman pontiffs possessed the right of deposing bishops. E. g. pope Agapetus I (535—536) drove Anthimus, patriarch of Constantinople, from his see, while the empress Augusta vainly opposed it.¹⁵ Damasus I (366—384) cast down Timothy of Alexandria, Peter of Antioch and several other bishops "by the sole authority of the apostolic see".¹⁶ Finally, to the Roman pontiffs was attributed the right of restoring bishops who had been wickedly despoiled of their sees. Thus Julius I (337—352) "by the prerogative of the Roman church ... sent back" Athanasius of Alexandria, Marcellus of Ancyra and Asclepas of Gaza, driven out by the Arians, "restoring to each his own see, and at the same time rebuking those who had rashly deposed the aforesaid bishops"¹⁷ Pope Liberius (352—366) "restored" Eustathius of Sebaste, removed by the synod of Melitene, by letters sent, as s. Basilius writes.¹⁸ Theodoretus, although deposed by the Ephesine synod, was again admitted by the ecumenical council of Chalcedon, "because the most holy archbishop Leo restored to him the episcopate"¹⁹ (440—461). Thus the Roman pontiffs, with the Church not contradicting but rather approving, confirmed, deposed and restored whatever bishops and even the Eastern patriarchs themselves, with evidently primatial power. Nor does it obstruct that at times certain bishops either resisted the Roman pontiff or obeyed unwillingly. For rebels can be found in ecclesiastical society no less than in the civil republic. But just as the resistance of certain nobles does not overthrow the monarchical rights of the king, so the resistance of certain bishops does not obscure the primatial rights of the Roman pontiff.
3. Appeals of the West and of the East to the apostolic see. From the first christian centuries defendants, judged by their own bishops or synods, appealed to the Roman pontiff as the supreme judge of the whole Church. In the second century Marcion, a priest of Pontus, cast out of the church by his father and at the same time his bishop on account of debauchery,²⁰ and Montanus, already condemned by two Eastern synods, appealed to Rome.²¹ In the third century Privatus, bishop of Lambaesis, condemned for heresy and other crimes by the bishops of Numidia,²² and Fortunatus, a pseudo-bishop, excommunicated by s. Cyprian in the Carthaginian synod (a. 251—252), appealed to Rome.²³ In the fourth century Caecilianus, bishop of Carthage, whom the Donatists had judged to be invalidly ordained, was peremptorily absolved by pope Melchiades;²⁴ likewise s. Athanasius, condemned by the Arians, pleaded his cause and prevailed before Julius I.²⁵ About the same time the council of Sardica (343—344) expressly affirmed that the right belongs to bishops, by which they may appeal against the judgments of provincial synods to the supreme tribunal of the Roman pontiff.²⁶ Indeed, according to the testimony of s. Augustine, several bishops had already used this right from the most remote times before,²⁷ and very many everywhere on earth used it afterwards, as countless historical documents witness.²⁸ But once the right of appealing to the Roman pontiff was acknowledged, the Church acknowledged the primacy of the Roman pontiff. For "it is established that the supreme power is with him to whose tribunal appeal is made".²⁹
4. The communion of all churches and of the faithful with the apostolic see. Not only the Roman pontiffs,³⁰ but also the holy fathers, the heretics, and the emperors hold this communion to be altogether necessary. The fathers, as is already evident from the things said before, extol on every occasion communion with the Roman church. Irenaeus teaches: "To this church, on account of its more powerful principality, it is necessary that every church resort."³¹ Optatus of Milevis concludes against the Donatists: "It is proved that we are in the catholic church ... and that through the chair of Peter, which is ours, through it also the other endowments are with us."³² Ambrosius writes that the criterion of the true faith is this, that one agree "with the catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman church".³³ From the Roman church, he says, "the rights of venerable communion flow out into all [churches]",³⁴ i. e. through the Roman church all churches communicate among themselves, because all keep communion with Rome. Hieronymus, vexed by the Meletian schism, fled to pope Damasus: "Following no one as first except Christ, I am joined in communion to your Beatitude, i. e. to the chair of Peter ... Whoever does not gather with you, scatters."³⁵ How true this is, the heretics themselves confess, who spared neither lies nor frauds nor open violence, in order either to retain communion with the Roman see or to recover it once lost. That we may be silent about the Marcionites, Montanists, Donatists, Apollinarists, Priscillianists, Pelagians, Nestorians, Eutychians and others, it will suffice to call to mind with how many efforts and deceits the Arians and semi-Arians attempted to obtain communion with pope Liberius.³⁶ And even the emperors testify by civil legislation how necessary communion with the Roman pontiff was held to be in the whole Church. In the year 272, when Paul of Samosata, already condemned by two synods, refused to leave the episcopal house, the pagan emperor Aurelianus ordered that house to be handed over to those "to whom the italian bishops of the christian religion and the Roman pontiff" should give letters of communion.³⁷ Gratianus, a catholic emperor, decreed in general that the sacred buildings should be handed over to those bishops "who embraced the communion of Damasus [the pope]".³⁸ Theodosius M. edicted: "All peoples whom the government of our clemency rules, we wish to abide in that religion which the religion insinuated by him up to this time declares that the divine Peter the apostle handed down to the Romans, and which it is clear that the pontiff Damasus follows.³⁹

From all these things it is evident that the Roman pontiff is the centre, the head, the primate of the Church of Christ, with whom all must communicate, to whom all must be united and subject, in order that they may become and remain partakers of the religious assembly instituted by Christ.

5. The custody of the faith through the apostolic see. That infallibility was always attributed to the Roman pontiff we shall show in the treatise on the ecclesiastical magisterium. In this place we only briefly prove that the custody of the faith in the universal Church was entrusted to him at every time. This is especially evident from the purgation of the accused before the apostolic see. Any accused person whose faith was brought into suspicion strove diligently to be purged before the apostolic see.

Thus Origen, whose writings were accused of error, sending "letters ... to Fabianus, bishop of the city of Rome († 250), concerning the right account of his faith"⁴⁰ "does penance for having written such things."⁴¹

A few years later Dionysius, that illustrious patriarch of Alexandria, was accused of heresy before the Roman pontiff. Admonished by him, Dionysius immediately strove to give satisfaction by a brief letter, and then "as soon as possible published books for the sake of his own purgation, which he entitled Elenchus and Apologia".⁴²

Likewise Marcellus of Ancyra (a. 342), rendering an account of his orthodoxy, wrote to pope Julius: "Since some of those who were previously condemned because they did not believe rightly, and who were convicted by me in the Nicene synod, have not hesitated to write against me to your Piety, striving to transfer to me their own crime, namely that I think neither rightly nor according to the doctrine of the church, for that reason I judged that I must necessarily come to Rome and remind you, that you might summon those who wrote against me."⁴³

Similarly, afterwards very many upon whom the suspicion of heresy had fallen purged themselves at Rome or strove to be purged, such as Valens and Ursacius (a. 349), Vitalis of Antioch (a. 378), Rufinus of Aquileia (a. 400), Victricius of Rouen (before a. 404), Bachiarius the monk (saec. V), and others. Indeed, some forged pontifical letters, so that they might be absolved by the bishops or provincial synods by whom they had been condemned.⁴⁴

6. The relation of the councils to the apostolic see was always this, that they proclaim the primacy of the Roman pontiff both explicitly and implicitly. The earlier ecumenical councils (for about the later ones there is no question) explicitly enunciate the Roman primacy of jurisdiction. In the Ephesine council (431), with all the fathers approving,⁴⁵ the legate of the pope said: "There is no doubt, nay it is known to 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, saviour and redeemer of the human race, the keys of the kingdom, and the power of loosing and binding sins was given to him; who up to this time and always lives and exercises judgment in his successors. His successor therefore in order and representative, the holy and most blessed pope our Caelestinus, bishop ..."⁴⁶

In the Chalcedonian council (a. 451) the legate of Leo I, with six hundred fathers applauding,⁴⁷ said from the beginning: "We hold in hand the mandates of the most blessed and apostolic man, the pope of the city of Rome, who is the head of all the churches, in which he judged that it should be declared that Dioscorus [the patriarch of Alexandria] should not sit in the council... For he dared to hold a synod [namely that famous "robber synod"] without the authority of the apostolic see, which was never done nor was it lawful to be done."⁴⁸

But at the end the bishops of the council write to Leo I: "Constituted the interpreter of the voice of blessed Peter for all ... you indeed presided as head over the members in those [legates] who took your place ... We ask therefore that you honour our judgment with your decrees; and just as we have added consonance to the head in good things, so may your loftiness fulfil for the children what is fitting ... We have imparted to you the whole force of the proceedings, for the proof of our sincerity and for the firmness and consonance of the things that were done by us."⁴⁹

The Roman pontiff is therefore declared the primate of all the churches and even of the general councils themselves, without whom no council may be convoked, who presides over the assembled councils in the likeness of Peter, on whose assent and approval the whole firmness of the conciliar decrees depends.

How true this is, the fate of canon 28 of the same Chalcedonian council shows. By this canon the Chalcedonian fathers, with the legates of Leo I contradicting, had assigned to the see of Constantinople the first place of honour after the Roman see. But solely on account of the dissent of the Roman legates⁵⁰ and the lacking confirmation of Leo I⁵¹ the said canon was judged invalid, so that it was not received into the collections of canons even among the Greeks themselves.⁵²

Yet the same canon contains the first attempts of the Easterners to exalt the privileges of the imperial "new Rome" against the apostolic see. From there the seed of discord gradually grew into the pernicious crop of the Greek schism.

Nevertheless the Greeks in the three ecumenical councils immediately following and preceding the schism, namely in Constantinople III (680), Nicaea II (787) and Constantinople IV (869), continually proclaim the primacy of the Roman see.⁵³ Indeed, after the schism, in the two councils of Lyon II (1274) and Florence (1439), the Greeks, once again united to the Roman church, solemnly professed the primacy of the apostolic see. This indeed they did in the Florentine council in these words: "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, and that he is the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all christians; and that to him in blessed Peter was handed down by our Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling and governing the universal church, just as it is contained also in the acts of the ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons."⁵⁴

This definition enunciates the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff with such clarity that the Vatican council transcribed it word for word.⁵⁵

It is therefore so far from being the case that the Vatican definition establishes anything new, that it repeats the faith which the councils of all ages had established.

1. The force of the Roman primacy was defined clearly enough by the decree of the Council of Florence, which we have quoted above. But since in the meantime manifold errors against the primacy thus defined had arisen, which are commonly comprised under the name of the "episcopal system," and of which the champions were chiefly the Richerians, the Jansenists, the Gallicans, the Febronians, and the Regalists, the Vatican Council renewed the Florentine definition and developed it more fully in these words: "We therefore teach and declare that the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the primacy of ordinary power over all others, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate: to which the pastors and the faithful of every rite and dignity, whether taken singly or all together, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the whole world; so that, with the unity both of communion and of the profession of the same faith preserved with the Roman Pontiff, the Church of Christ may be 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... If anyone, therefore, shall say that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the whole world; or that he has only the greater share, but not the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, whether over all and each of the churches or over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema."¹

This conciliar definition is the necessary conclusion of those things which we have thus far argued in the whole chapter on the primacy. Hence it needs no new proof, but demands only a succinct explanation. The force or nature of the primacy is, therefore, this: that it is a power of jurisdiction that is universal, episcopal, supreme, full, ordinary, and immediate.

a) A power of jurisdiction universal in respect of subject and object. In respect of subject, that is, of persons, so that it extends to absolutely all Christians without any limitation, whether they are bishops or simple faithful, whether taken individually or collectively. In respect of object, that is, of matters, so that it extends not only to matters of faith and morals (the ecclesiastical magisterium), but also to matters of discipline and government (ecclesiastical power of governance). That this universality of pontifical jurisdiction is the principal mark of the whole primacy, the words of the Vatican Council again declare. And rightly so; for with this universality granted or denied, almost the whole doctrine of the primacy is granted or denied.

b) A power of jurisdiction that is episcopal. For the supreme pontiff, the special bishop of the Roman Church, is at the same time a bishop, not indeed special, but general, of all churches, of all bishops, of all the faithful. With the same power, therefore, by which individual bishops feed individual dioceses, with the same the supreme pontiff feeds all dioceses and their prelates and sheep. Hence he is rightly called bishop of bishops and bishop of the catholic Church.

Hence is excluded the error of Febronius and of the others, who, distinguishing a twofold dignity in the pope, namely the episcopal and the primatial, said: The Roman Pontiff as bishop can exercise episcopal or properly so-called jurisdiction only in his own Roman diocese; as primate, however, he is related to the universal Church as an archbishop or metropolitan or patriarch is related to his province, resp. provinces. Just as, therefore, an archbishop can indeed exercise a certain influence over his suffragans by admonishing and watching over them, but cannot exercise episcopal rights except in his own diocese, so too the supreme pontiff, although he has a power of inspection or of a certain direction over the universal Church, nevertheless does not enjoy episcopal power except in his own special Roman diocese.²

c) A power of jurisdiction that is supreme, so that no other hierarchical power is either greater or equal. This explanation is that of the Vatican Council itself, defining as follows: "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 that the judgment of the Apostolic See, than whose authority there is none greater, is to be retracted by no one, nor is it lawful for anyone to judge concerning its judgment. Wherefore they wander from the right path of truth who affirm that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an ecumenical council as to an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff."

Hence is struck down the error of the Gallicans, the Febronians, and the Pistorians, according to whom the pope's power proceeds from the Church and therefore also flows back into the Church and is subject to the Church.

From which error it would especially follow that a council (without the pope) is superior to the pope and can judge concerning the person and acts of the pope.³

d) A power of jurisdiction that is full, so that according to the Vatican definition the pope has not only the "greater share," but "the fullness of this supreme power." For the papal power could be supreme, although it were not full. That would happen if the hierarchical power were so divided between the supreme pontiff and the other bishops that he held the greater share of the power, yet to be completed through their lesser shares.

Such a division of the Church's power between the pope and the bishops is supposed by Article IV of the "Declaration of the Gallican clergy" (a. 1682): "In questions of faith also the greater share belongs to the supreme pontiff, and his decrees pertain to all and each of the churches, and yet his judgment is not irreformable, unless the consent of the Church has intervened."

Nevertheless, by the words quoted, with which the Vatican Council repudiates this Gallican assertion, the power of the bishops is not denied, but it is affirmed only that every power, whatever is found in the Church, is found also in the supreme power of the pope. The words of the Council are therefore to be understood positively, not exclusively.

e) A power of jurisdiction that is ordinary, so that it inheres in the office of the primacy itself and can consequently be exercised not only in extraordinary cases, but always. For the Gallicans and the Febronians had contended that the supreme pontiff could do nothing in a foreign diocese besides the Roman one, except in extraordinary circumstances, for example when particular bishops failed in their office through negligence or malice.⁴

f) A power of jurisdiction that is immediate, so that it can be exercised with no other authority intervening. The pope, therefore, can exercise all episcopal rights in all dioceses and over all Christians, without being bound to use a particular bishop as intermediary, or to ask his permission. Everywhere he can immediately teach, correct, judge, and punish, even against the will of the bishops.

Hence is excluded the error of the Febronians, who had judged that "the immediate care and direction of the individual sheep" of the universal Church does not belong to the pope, but that he can devote his solicitude in other dioceses only through the mediation of the bishops.⁵

2. The origin of the Roman primacy. From the whole chapter on the primacy it is evident that Christ instituted in the blessed apostle Peter a perennial primacy, whose heir, God so providing, Peter so disposing, and the Church of all ages so teaching, is the Roman bishop. In this sense the Roman bishop holds by divine right the power of jurisdiction described above, and accordingly the primacy has a divine origin. Hence by this very fact the hypotheses of the adversaries fall to the ground, by which they imagine the primacy to have arisen from merely human causes.

Nevertheless, although not necessarily, yet opportunely we shall still briefly review these causes. Some trace the Roman primacy to forged documents, others to political conditions, others to papal ambition, and others finally to historical necessity. But it is easily evident that the Roman primacy did not arise:

a) From forged documents. Döllinger, Friedrich, Langen and the other haters of the Vatican Council contended that the Roman primacy was introduced only in the Middle Ages, and indeed resting on false decrees of popes and synods and especially on the pseudo-Clementine writings. But this opinion is today repudiated by the adversaries themselves.⁶

Indeed, so far is it from being the case that the primacy was introduced only in the Middle Ages through forged or apocryphal writings, that it is established by sure and innumerable documents of the very first centuries that it was present. Recall the arguments from antiquity by which we have established the Roman primacy.

b) From political conditions. It is almost a dogma of the rationalists and modernists: "The city of Rome shone with such dignity and civil influence that it easily won for the Roman bishops even the religious primacy. Hence, just as the emperors were the supreme pontiffs of the pagans, so the Roman prelates, with this same political influence favoring them, became the supreme pontiffs of the Christians." But certainly the political power of the Caesarean city did not introduce the Christian primacy in the first three centuries, when that harlot Babylon⁷ burned with immense hatred against the Christians and especially against the rulers of the Church.

After the third century, however, if the primacy had finally been introduced by political force, certainly not the Roman primacy, but the Constantinopolitan, would have been introduced, since Constantine the Great and his successors had placed the seat of the civil empire in the "new Rome." Moreover, the Christians, as we have seen, never attributed the primacy to the Roman bishop for this reason, because the emperor sat in Rome holding civil power, but because in the city of Rome Peter, the prince of the Church, had fixed his seat. Hence Pius X rightly condemned that modernist proposition: "The Roman Church has become the head of all the churches not by the ordinance of divine providence, but from merely political conditions."⁸

c) From papal ambition. The adversaries infer that the Roman pontiffs arrogated the primacy to themselves out of an ambitious desire to dominate, from the fact that the popes conducted themselves as primates of the Church. Yet the exercise of the primacy is no argument for ambition, unless it is established that the Roman pontiffs attributed the primacy to themselves undeservedly. But that the contrary is established, we have proved on every count. Moreover, if the Roman pontiffs had ambitiously seized the primatial prerogative for themselves, the whole Church and especially the Eastern bishops would have protested and resisted. But so far are they from having protested and resisted, that the universal Church, including the Eastern bishops and patriarchs themselves, acknowledged and proclaimed that the Roman pontiffs hold by divine right and perpetuate the primacy instituted by Christ in blessed Peter.

d) From historical necessity. The adversaries indeed affirm that for the Christian religion spread throughout the whole world it was highly useful, indeed morally necessary, that there be some center and head by which all the churches and all the faithful might be united; and that the faithful, conscious of this necessity, gradually granted the primacy to the Roman bishop, and attributed to divine institution what had been introduced by human means.⁹

By their own mouth, therefore, the adversaries confess the necessity of the primacy. But that the faithful perceived this necessity only in the course of time and therefore invented the primacy is plainly false. For the universal Church of the very first centuries simply acknowledged the primacy as already existing, indeed as instituted by Christ himself in the prince of the apostles and continued in the Roman pontiffs. This fact cannot be explained unless we say that Christ already foresaw the necessity of the primacy and therefore constituted the Church in such a way that there would continually be a monarchical center and head, which in the name and place of Christ would exercise jurisdiction over the whole Church. Hence even the last refuge of the adversaries truly proves that the Roman primacy is not a human and natural contrivance, but a divine and supernatural institution.