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

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.