On the Divine Institution of The Papacy

Peter's succession being supposed, it remains to be shown who that successor of Peter is in the pastoral care of the whole church: for it has its own difficulties whether he is the Roman bishop.

First. It is objected, then, in the first place on the side of time: because the Roman pontiff arose many years after Peter's pontificate, since Peter first sat at Antioch, and for many years before was without any particular see.

Confirmation. And this reasoning is confirmed by arguing as the Apostle argues, ad Ro. IIII, where he proves from the circumstance of the time and the fact that Abraham was justified not by circumcision but by faith, using no other argument than that Abraham before circumcision was just before God through faith. If this argument of his holds, it is necessary that this also hold: namely, that Peter, when he received the keys from Christ, was not yet bishop of the city of Rome, but was one among the apostles; therefore the keys were not given to him according to that which he afterwards either became or was changed into in place or office (just as justice was not imputed to Abraham as being whatever he might afterwards have become after faith) but insofar as he was an apostle only.

Second. If the Roman pontiff were Peter's successor in the care of the whole church (for of this succession we always speak—lest it happen that the same thing be too often repeated—unless we sometimes explain that we are speaking of the succession in the Roman episcopate alone), it would be necessary that the words of Christ pertaining necessarily to the successor of Peter be verified of every Roman pontiff: but these need not be verified of every Roman pontiff: therefore the Roman pontiff is not the successor of Peter. And the destruction of the consequent is proved from this, that the Roman pontiff can lapse into heresy: and so the words of Christ will not be verified of him, Thou art Peter, that is, solid in faith, neither upon this rock will I build my church: because the solidity of faith in him, upon which the church is to be built, would not be found: nor would 'I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not' be verified of him: all of which have been shown to have been said to the successor of Peter.

Third: because not every Roman pontiff has Christ's charity, which nevertheless Christ demanded a third time in the institution of the pastoral office: therefore he is not Peter's successor who does not succeed to the charity strictly required by Christ at that time in Peter.

Fourth, because not every Roman pontiff feeds Christ's sheep: but many of them feed their own sheep, while they exercise the pontificate for their own glory, authority, advantage, and other things of this kind. And since the Lord said, feed my sheep, he signified that Peter's successors ought either to be shepherds of Christ's sheep, loving him and feeding them with doctrine, justice, and other such things: or, if they do not love and teach, that this word pertains in no way to them; and thereby that they are not Peter's successors.

Fifth, because the early Roman pontiffs refused to be called universal: for Gregory in his letters rebukes this, and relates that his predecessors declined it. For if Gregory, together with others, was unwilling to be called universal bishop, it follows that he was not, or did not believe himself to be, a universal bishop: but "universal pontiff" and "pontiff of the whole church" mean the same thing. Therefore the Roman pontiff does not succeed Peter in the pontificate of the whole church.

Sixth. The Council of Nicaea (as is written in book X, chapter VI of the Ecclesiastical History) decreed thus. Both at Alexandria and in the city of Rome let the ancient custom be preserved: that the one may bear the care of Egypt, the other that of the suburbican churches. For if the Roman pontiff were the successor of Peter in the pontificate of the whole church, the Council of Nicaea would not have presumed to decree limits to his care in the suburbican churches.

Seventh. If the Roman pontiff by Christ's institution presides over the whole church as Christ's general vicar, it follows that all have sinned and do sin who were not and who are not under the obedience of the Roman pontiff.

First inference. And hence it follows, first, that the whole primitive church erred: since as yet there was no Roman pontiff.

The second. It follows next that so many saints and martyrs, up to four hundred years after Christ, erred, since at that time the Roman pontiff was not recognized as pastor of the whole church.

The third. It follows afterward that Asia, Africa, and Greece were in damnation: inasmuch as they did not recognize the Roman pontiff as head of all.

The fourth. It follows finally that the Christians who today are in Persia, India, Scythia, and the whole East are damned: because they are not subject to the Roman pontiff. And it is made manifest that these did not recognize the Roman pontiff: because it was not by him or by his authority that their bishops were appointed or their councils celebrated.

Eighth. Jerome, in On Illustrious Men, writes that Acacius, bishop of Caesarea, a disciple of Eusebius Pamphili, in the reign of Constantius, deposed Pope Liberius and set up Felix. But it is evident that this is repugnant to the primacy of the Roman pontiff, if he were the prelate of the whole church.

Ninth. If any church is first and mother of all churches, and immediately founded by Christ the Lord, it is none other than the church of Jerusalem: which existed for many years before the Roman: whence all the apostles and bishops went out to the whole world. In sign of which, collections were paid by all the churches, even the Roman, to the church of Jerusalem.

For the evidence of this matter two things are to be considered: first, whence it is, and second, whence it is known, that the Roman pontiff succeeds Peter. Now concerning the first, a distinction must be made between the reason of succeeding and the reason of the one succeeding: for the reason of succeeding is not the evangelical institution, but the subsequent fact of Peter, by which the Roman church was appropriated to Peter, the appropriation being firmed. I explain each, making the reader cautious first of all that it is one thing to succeed Peter, and another that this one, namely the Roman pontiff, succeed Peter. For the reason that Peter has a successor is the evangelical institution, by which the Lord instituted in Peter the pastoral office of the whole world, as was made manifest in the foregoing. But the reason that this one, that is, the Roman pontiff, succeeds Peter, is not the evangelical institution: both because by the evangelical word the Roman church was not appropriated to Peter, but the whole church committed to him, when he says feed my sheep: and therefore, if Peter had persevered to the end as he began, without the appropriation of any particular church, neither the Roman pontiff nor any other particular bishop would be Peter's successor; but, Peter passing to heaven, someone would have been chosen bishop of the catholic church, who would have been the successor of Peter. And also because, if Peter had persevered until death in the see of Antioch, which he first appropriated to himself, not the Roman but the Antiochene pontiff would be Peter's successor. And also because, if Peter had departed from Rome not only in place but in see, so that he had chosen his see elsewhere, the Roman pontiff would not have succeeded Peter: just as neither now does the Antiochene succeed Peter, because he departed thence by changing not only the place but the see. For from these things it is clear that it is not from the evangelical institution that the Roman pontiff's succeeding Peter takes its origin: for the evangelical institution does not involve itself with these changes, but left this to be disposed by subsequent facts.

Wherefore, from the fact that, the appropriation being firmed, the Roman church was assigned to Peter's pontificate, thence it arose that the Roman pontiff succeeds Peter. And we call the appropriation firmed, because it was firmed by Peter's death, and because by Christ's authority it obtained the strength of firmness. For (as the church sings, and Ambrose asserts in his oration against Auxentius on the handing over of the basilicas, which you have in book V of Ambrose's letters, after the thirty-second letter; and before him, in the third book on the destruction of Jerusalem, chapter II, Hegesippus affirms) when Peter wished to depart from the city of Rome, Christ, meeting him, commanded that he suffer death at Rome, saying to him, I come to Rome to be crucified again: so that not Peter's bare death at Rome, but the death commanded by Christ in the city of Rome, should firm the Roman see in the succession of Peter.

If therefore you look to the rise and beginning of the Roman pontiff's succession to Peter, you will find that the reason of succeeding was the appropriation of the Roman church to the pontificate of Peter, firmed both by Peter's death and by Christ's command. But when we say Peter and the Roman pontiff and the pontiff of the catholic church, do not understand two pontificates: for they are not two in act, but only in potency, that is, because they could have been two, as is clear from what has been said. Hence they are not related as two united episcopates: for there was no episcopate in the Roman church before Peter, but Peter himself raised the Roman church into the pontificate—no other than his own, which he bore with him: so that the pontificate of Peter, which he had from Christ, referred to the catholic church, Peter himself referred to the Roman church, by appropriating it to himself. And this unity of the pontificate contributes not a little to this, that the Roman pontiff and the pontiff of the catholic church are the same: not only by unity of person, but by identity of pontificate. In sign of which, two pallia are not given to the Roman pontiff, but only one: whereas it is established that several are given to one having several pontificates, to which pallia are due.

But if the discourse is about the reason of the one succeeding, the evangelical institution is found to be the reason of the one succeeding. For the Roman pontiff, succeeding Peter, has apostolic authority from the evangelical word of Christ, feed my sheep: for to every successor of Peter, in Peter, Christ said, feed my sheep. Although, therefore, the fact that the apostolic see is the Roman pontiff's had its beginning from the appropriation of the Roman church to Peter, yet, from the fact that it has been thus firmed, by the very fact that someone is a true Roman pontiff, he is a true pontiff of the catholic church, instituted by Christ in blessed Peter. It is manifest, therefore, whence the Roman pontiff is Peter's successor, and pastor of the whole church.

And this is known by divine revelation made both to the universal church, and to innumerable holy doctors, and to the sacred councils. For no Christian is permitted to doubt that whatever, pertaining to the account of the Christian faith (that this is of their number is established through the decretal Unam sanctam), is found attested by the aforesaid, proceeds from divine revelation. The common confession of Christians, both of old and now and always, has been, is, and will be, that the see of the Roman pontiff alone is the apostolic see: and this is nothing other than to confess that the Roman pontiff, the successor of Peter, is the ruler of the catholic church: for in the apostolic see (unless one be ignorant of the proper meaning of the word) apostolic authority is enclosed: and those trained in sacred letters understand that in apostolic authority is included the faculty of ruling the whole church. And this is so far clear that it is said by common accord that to the apostolic authority the world was committed by Christ: so that every apostle, wherever he happened to be, would institute churches, institute bishops, and do the rest of that kind, as even their deeds testify. Hence when, I ad Cor. XII, it is said, God has placed in the church first apostles: the interlinear Gloss says, ordainers and judges of all: showing that the apostolic authority is the ordainer and judge of all. Therefore, by confessing the see of apostolic authority, we confess, will we or not, the see that is ordainer and judge of all. And that this is the intention of those confessing is opened also from this, that we confess the see of the successor of Peter alone to be apostolic. For there exists the see of Jerusalem, in which the apostle James sat, whose successor is the bishop of Jerusalem: why is that see in which the apostle James sat (which was earlier in time than any other partial see) not itself also the apostolic see, except because in it there is not apostolic authority, and in this one there is?

For if the apostolic see were affirmed by Christ's faithful from succession to the person of an apostle alone, there is no doubt that there would be many apostolic sees: and the see of Jerusalem would be apostolic, and the Roman see would be apostolic: but now, because the Christian people knows only one apostolic see, and confesses with full voice that it is the see of the Roman pontiff, it remains clear that by "apostolic see" is understood the see of apostolic authority. And it is confirmed: because just as in an episcopal see is enclosed pontifical authority, and in an archiepiscopal see archiepiscopal authority, and in a patriarchal see patriarchal authority, so in the apostolic see is enclosed apostolic authority: and thereby, just as the Christian people, having recourse to sees of this kind, intends to have recourse to the said authorities, so, having recourse to the apostolic see, or venerating it in any way, it confesses apostolic authority.

Furthermore, in the profession of the apostolic see is enclosed the confession of its divine institution: for because, according to truth, the apostolic see as well as its authority is and can be from Christ alone, by whom alone apostles can be made (for it is no less to institute an apostolic see and authority than to institute an apostle: just as it is no less to make an episcopal authority and see than to make a bishop), it is necessary that whoever confesses the apostolic see should acknowledge that its authority is from Jesus Christ immediately, and accordingly should profess that it was instituted by divine right. And hence you have that the doctors who confess the Roman pontiff's see to be apostolic, or his apostolate, or his apostolic authority, acknowledge that the Roman pontiff is the ruler of the whole church: which is very much to be noted, both for its own sake, and lest it be necessary often to repeat it in the authorities of the saints, and so forth.

But before the authorities are brought forward, the objections must be answered. To the first, then, it is said that it in no way stands against the succession of the Roman pontiff that Peter, insofar as he was Roman pontiff, arose after the keys had been received: for it suffices for a successor to have arisen before the death of him whom he succeeds.

To the confirmation. But to the argument formed on the likeness of the argument of Paul the apostle concerning the justification of Abraham, it is answered that it militates not against our opinion, but rather against those arguing. And this is made manifest by distinguishing, as in Abraham the imputation of justice from the justice imputed, so proportionally in Peter the reception of the keys from the keys received. For just as the imputation unto justice belonged to Abraham from faith and not from the circumcision that afterward followed, so to Peter the reception of the keys belonged from the pontificate of the catholic church (for the keys were given to him then, when he was made pastor of the Christian fold) and not from the Roman church or the Roman pontificate that afterward followed. And likewise, just as the justice imputed to Abraham is not restricted to the state of uncircumcision, but is extended to the subsequent state of circumcision (the Apostle saying in the same place: therefore of faith, that according to grace the promise might be firm to all the seed, not to that which is of the law only, and so forth), so the keys received are extended to Peter's Roman pontificate that afterward followed. Again, just as the justice imputed to Abraham is appropriated to the subsequent circumcision, or to Abraham himself as he afterward became the father of the circumcision, so that his seed from the circumcision is preferred to all in the consummation of the justice, promises, and blessings of Abraham (the Apostle saying ad Gala. III, to Abraham were the promises made and to his seed, which is Christ: who, it is established, was born from the circumcision), so the keys received are appropriated to the Roman church, or to Peter as he afterward became Roman pontiff, so that through it he may open the kingdom of heaven to all the kindreds of the earth. Whence it is clear that, although from an argument of this kind it is had that the reception of the keys does not pertain to Peter except according to what he was then when he received the keys (and he was not only an apostle but pastor of Christ's sheep), yet it is not had that the keys received are restricted and confined to that state precisely: but, by following the likeness of Abraham, it is had that the keys received are both extended and appropriated to the Roman pontificate, according to the change by which the Roman church was appropriated to Peter both in place and in office.

To the second it is said that the successor of Peter, or the Roman pontiff, being unable to be unfaithful or heretical, can be understood in two ways. Either of his person in relation to the catholic church, or of his person according to itself. And in both ways it is verified, and both the Lord expressed in the gospel. For solid faith in Peter and his successors according to their own persons the Lord signified, both in saying Thou art Peter, in the present, and in saying I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, in the future. But the faith of the same in relation to the church the Lord signified, both in saying Upon this rock I will build my church, and in saying Confirm thy brethren. Nor does it stand against the Roman pontiff's person, as to the faith according to his own person, that that person can be heretical: because as soon as he ceases to be faithful, he ceases also to be Peter's successor according to the truth of the matter and before God, before whose tribunal he who does not believe is already judged, as is said Io. III—whatever is done according to the ecclesiastical forum. From which, however, the same is had: for from this very thing, that the man who is called Peter's successor, by reason of a fall from faith, is subjected by judgment—even unwilling—to the church, it is made manifest that he is no longer Peter's successor according to truth: for if he were truly Peter's successor, he would be judge of the whole church, and would not be subject to it unwilling.

And from the solidity in faith of the person of the Roman pontiff in relation to the church, it comes about that he cannot err in sententially defining concerning the Christian faith: because in a definition of this kind is constructed the faith of the universal church, and through it the church of Christ is built by Christ himself upon the rock of the apostolic see. But it is established to be impossible that the universal church err in faith. And it is pleasing to observe how sweetly a definition of faith of this kind is commended by the evangelical word: for it is established that the church is constructed by faith, since it is (as is said ad Hebr. X) the substance of things to be hoped for; and therefore it corresponds to the act of building and of confirming, for both regard the substance of the building. But because faith is the gift of God, therefore Christ attributed to himself the building of the church upon the apostolic see, saying, And upon this rock I will build my church: but to firm the faithful, wavering in the ambiguities and questions that arise concerning faith, because this is a ministerial work of Peter and his successor, therefore it is said to Peter and his successor, Confirm thy brethren: for whatever the apostolic see does in defining concerning faith is nothing other than to declare what is contained under the faith given by Christ; for so it confirms its brethren.

Hence also in the synod of Chalcedon the fathers said that those gathered in the council of Constantinople handed down the doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit: not as inferring that there was less in the preceding fathers who were gathered at Nicaea, but as declaring its meaning against the heretics. And hence it arises that, when matters of faith have been defined by the apostolic see, the Roman pontiff himself is also subject to them, just as he is subject to the faith: for he is not on that account subjected to anyone anew, but what he implicitly believed he is bound to believe explicitly: from the fact that the faith has been sufficiently explicated as regards these things which previously were not explicated to be subject to the truth of faith.

But if to anyone the things said in this response appear marvelous, let him remember that it is written, Thy testimonies are wonderful: for these are the testimonies of Jesus Christ. But why ought the faithful to marvel at so great an assistance of divine grace to his vicar on earth, when it stood by Caiaphas, the less-than-legitimate pontiff of the synagogue and persecutor of Christ himself, unto prophesying by reason of the pontificate: the evangelist Io. testifying, when he says, he said it not of himself, but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, Io. XI. For why did John teach this, why did he reveal this, unless to reveal that a divine assistance is proper to the pontiff?

To the third it is said: that the threefold love exacted from Peter regards the rectitude of the pastoral office: and therefore he who does not succeed Peter in the love of Christ in no way succeeds him in the goodness of the pastoral exercise: but he is a shepherd in office and name, yet a hireling in zeal and practice.

To the fourth it is said: that to love and feed Christ's sheep pertains to Peter's successors under the aspect of a thing committed and a thing owed: for Christ committed that he should feed his sheep, and to this the successor is bound, and to this he obligated himself by taking up the pontificate. Hence if he neither loves nor feeds, this passage does not on that account fail to pertain to him: for to feed Christ's sheep pertains much to him, to whom it pertains as a precept and as owed by office. For this passage requires one feeding and loving: because it requires that he ought to love and feed. And although one who neither loves nor feeds is unworthy of the pastoral office, and deserves to be deprived of it, yet we say, from both testaments, that he is not on that account deprived. For Ezech. XXXIIII rebukes the evil shepherds, who fed not God's flock but themselves, with prophetic threats added of the deprivation of the pastoral office to be executed by God himself: yet they remain shepherds. Also Matth. XXIII, upon the chair, says the Lord, of Moses have sat the scribes and Pharisees: whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not.

To the fifth it is said that Gregory, imitating the footsteps of his predecessors, refused to be called universal: for the reason which he himself states a thousand times, because if one is called universal bishop, he alone seems to be called bishop, and thus the episcopate would be taken away from the rest. Not, however, for the reason that the Roman pontiff's authority is restricted, and does not extend itself to the universal church: for Gregory shuddered at the proud word, as bearing before it an injury to the rest of the bishops, and not at the reality of an apostolic authority extending itself to the universal church. Hence afterward, further below, to the emperor Maurice—the words concerning Peter's authority over the whole church being adduced—he adds concerning Peter: To him is committed the care of the whole church and the primacy: and yet he is not called universal apostle. Where it is clear that Gregory at once affirms the care of the whole church, and denies the word "universal." On account of which the later Roman pontiffs, holding the reality, and departing neither from Gregory nor from Gregory's humility, transferred the name "universal" from the direct to the oblique case: and they subscribe themselves down to this present day, "I, N., bishop of the catholic church."

To the sixth it is said: that it is one thing to speak of authority, and another of execution: for, along with the authority of the Roman pontiff over the whole church, it was a praiseworthy custom that the pope should not execute those things which pertained to the particular cares of other churches, unless some case demanded it. And hence it was the custom that bishops be confirmed by archbishops, that curates be given by bishops, and innumerable like things were done. And this is that ancient custom which the Council of Nicaea recalls, which—with the Roman pontiff consenting, present there through his legates—decreed concerning the observance of this ancient custom. But from this it does not follow that anything was decreed concerning the authority of the Roman pontiff, or that his authority was injured: just as neither today is the Roman pontiff's authority diminished or injured from the fact that in many provinces obedient to the Roman pontiff, executions of this kind are done by provincials.

To the seventh it is said: that the Roman pontiff's being, by Christ's institution, prelate over the rest can be understood in two ways: either as regards the reason of the beginning, and thus it is false, according to what was declared above. Or with the appropriation of the Roman church to Peter presupposed, and thus it is most true: and therefore the consequence is granted, namely that all sin and have sinned who did not recognize him as prelate.

To the first inference. And when it is inferred first that the primitive church would have erred, the consequence is denied: because then there had not yet been the appropriation of the Roman church to Peter: which being presupposed, the Roman pontiff presides over all. For it then sufficed that the whole church recognize Peter as pastor of the whole church: but after the Roman church was appropriated, it is necessary to recognize the Roman pontiff as successor of Peter, pastor of the whole church: not insofar as he is Roman pontiff, but insofar as he is Peter's successor, speaking per se and formally.

To the second. But when it is inferred secondly that so many martyrs and saints for four hundred years would have sinned, because they did not recognize the Roman pontiff: it is answered that it is false that martyrs and saints of this kind did not recognize the Roman pontiff: for from the beginning of the church Peter was recognized, and successively the Roman pontiff succeeding him: as the subsequent acts of the saints make manifest.

To the third. And likewise when it is inferred thirdly that Asia, Africa, and Greece erred, because they were not subject to the Roman church: there is manifest error, and things are adduced which corroborate what is most false: for the register of Gregory, full of cares for Asia, Africa, and Greece, testifies the opposite.

To the fourth. That it lastly brings in that the eastern Christians of today are not subject to the Roman church (unless the discourse be of schismatics) is false, as can be clear from the deeds done in the Council of Florence under Eugene IV: for there the Jacobites, Armenians, and Greeks confessed that they recognized the Roman pontiff as pastor of the whole church. But to the proof subjoined—because neither are bishops appointed there by the pope, nor are their councils held by the pope's authority—it is now clear what must be said: namely, that a custom of executions of this kind, in whatever provinces, neither takes away nor injures the pope's authority. Nevertheless, in our age it has been seen several times that there was sent by the easterners to the Roman pontiff for the substituting of a bishop or the confirming of one elected: both in the time of Alexander VI and of Julius II.

To the eighth it is said that we speak of divine right: but those arguing object a condemned deed of violence, as Jerome's own words testify: for he says, Acacius shone forth to such a degree that in the place of Liberius he substituted Felix the Arian. Whence that Felix is not to be counted in the catalogue of pontiffs: as Augustine testifies in the letter to Generosus, and it is letter CLXV. For there Augustine, reckoning up individually and successively from Peter down to Anastasius, the Roman pontiff of that time, sets Damasus as successor to Liberius, not Felix.

To the ninth it is said that by the appellation "Roman church" can be understood either the body of the Roman church itself according to itself, or according to its head: and that although the Roman church, according to the rest of its members, is neither first nor mother of all churches, nor immediately instituted by Christ, yet that same Roman church, according to its head, Peter and Peter's successor, is first and mother and mistress of all churches, and immediately, by Christ's evangelical word, having authority and firmness, as was declared before. Hence the judgments both of the canons and of the saints, sounding forth that the Roman church is the first, the mistress and mother of all churches, or founded and firmed by Christ the Lord by the evangelical word, are true by reason of the head. And this is what they intended who wrote these things: as is clear from the fact that their judgment is founded upon the words of the Lord to Peter, who was the head, and in his successors is the head, of the Roman church. Hence the things which are adduced concerning the church of Jerusalem in no way stand against this primacy: for that church was not prior to Peter, but was subject to Peter. And the collections were given to the church of Jerusalem by the others, not as to one set over them but as to one in need: as is clear ad Gal. II. Whence they are irrelevant to the matter proposed.