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

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if either Christ or Peter had clearly decreed that, once the apostle-primate was dead, the primatial see should be withdrawn from the Roman bishop and transferred to another church.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