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

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.