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

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."