Primato of S.

PRIMACY OF ST. PETER AND OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF

direct and universal over all the faithful. As Vicar of Christ and supreme arbiter of Christendom, the Roman Pontiff neither absorbs nor prejudices the independence of civil power, nor the proper powers of each bishop (just as the pontifical infallibility [V. INFALLIBILITY] neither dispenses with nor supplants the human labor that prepares dogmatic definitions).

SUMMARY: I. The primacy of St. Peter. -

II. The perpetuity of the primacy

III. The primacy of the Roman Pontiff

IV. The doctrine of the Church

V. Open questions

VI. Errors.
I. THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. - The Evangelists consistently recognize a singular position for St. Peter within the apostolic college. He is one of the three chosen to witness the healing of Jairus’ daughter (Mk. 5:37), the Transfiguration (Mt. 17:1-8; Mk. 9:1-8; Lk. 9:28-36), and Jesus’ agony (Mt. 26:37; Mk. 14:33); he is one of the two sent to prepare the Passover (Lk. 22:8), and is always named first among them. Likewise, in the lists of the Apostles, while the order of the others varies, Peter always remains first (Mt. 10:2; Mk. 3:16; Lk. 6:14; Acts 1:13), and Matthew expressly emphasizes: πρῶτος Σίμων ὁ λεγόμενος Πέτρος. This is something more than a simple ordinal number, as even A. Loisy noted (Les Evangiles synoptiques, I, Paris 1907, p. 529 ff.), for in that case the numbering would have continued before each Apostle.

Peter himself was aware of his position, as it is generally he who speaks on behalf of all (Mt. 14:28; 15:15; 16:16-22; 17:4; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33; Mk. 8:29; 10:28; 11:21; 14:29; Lk. 8:45; 9:20; 9:33; 12:41; 18:28; 22:31; Jn. 6:68; 13:6-10, 36). Peter’s particular position cannot be attributed to his seniority (there is no reason to believe he was the oldest), nor to priority of vocation (Jn. 1:35-42; Mk. 1:16-20 and parallel passages, definitive calling in Mk. 3:13-15; Mt. 10:1; Lk. 6:13 with the list of Apostles), nor to his ambition, for while the Apostles complained about the pretensions of the sons of Zebedee (Mt. 20:24), they never did so regarding Peter. The origin of Peter’s primacy must be sought in the conduct and explicit affirmations of Jesus. If John could consider himself the beloved disciple, Peter felt enveloped by greater attention. Jesus chose his house to dwell in (Mk. 1:29 and parallels), his boat to preach from (Lk. 5:1), allowed him to walk on water (Mt. 14:29), paid the tribute for him (Mt. 17:24-27), made him a participant in the most intimate revelations (Mt. 17:1 ff.; 26:37 and parallels), assured him of a special prayer «that once converted he might confirm his brothers in the faith» (Lk. 22:31-32), while not sparing him reproaches (Mt. 16:23; 14:31; Mk. 14:37; Mt. 26:31, 34; cf. Lk. 22:61). On the day of His Resurrection, He appeared to him singularly (Lk. 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5) and before ascending to heaven, He foretold to him alone the manner of his death (Jn. 21:18). More significant, in an Oriental and Jewish context, was the gesture made at their first meeting: the changing of his name (Jn. 1:42). In the only cases known to Jewish history, those of Abraham (Gen. 17:5) and Jacob (Gen. 32:29), this signified the conferral of a solemn mission. The case of Simon Peter must be explained by the promise of the primacy.

1. The Promise of the Primacy

Around the middle of the second year of His preaching, Jesus one day took the Apostles alone with Him and went toward the pagan region of Caesarea Philippi, where He asked them: «Who do people say the Son of Man is?... But who do you say that I am?» Peter answered, «You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.» And Jesus said to him, «Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for flesh and blood (nature) has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to you: You are Peter (Aramaic: Kēphā’) and upon this rock (Aramaic: kēphā’) I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against II. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven» (Mt. 16:15-19).

Critically, the text is one of the most secure, lacking in no ancient manuscript or version, and thus accepted in all recent critical editions (cf. A. Medebielle, Eglise, in DBS, II, col. 613). Opponents can only oppose internal arguments. But against the hypothesis of a Roman interpolation stands the vividly Semitic character of the passage (flesh and blood, foundation stone, gates of hell, keys of the kingdom, to bind and to loose), which points at least to an ancient Palestinian tradition where Peter was regarded as founder and head (cf. F. M. Braun, Nuovi aspetti del problema della Chiesa, trans. it., Brescia 1944, p. 83 ff.). Others are scandalized by the absence of the passage in the parallel texts of Mk. and Lk. But this absence is to be explained rather than the presence in Matthew, for in Mark and Luke the dialogue is interrupted. Jesus could not have posed that question except to prepare the Apostles for an important teaching, the content of which Matthew reports: the task of Peter in the formation and government of the Church (cf. Braun, op. cit., pp. 86-87, where three modern Protestants are cited).

The theological content of the text is evident in the clear transparency of the Semitic expressions. Peter is constituted the foundation of the Church (cf. Mt. 7:24), that is, the cause of its stability and cohesion; he will be the holder of the keys, that is, of supreme power, God’s overseer in the Church; therefore a) a true primacy of jurisdiction is promised to Peter b) and to him personally. For it is a response to his faith; to him alone is the name changed, which identifies with his function; to him singularly are the words of Jesus addressed, even if Peter spoke on behalf of all: «Blessed are you... and I say to you: You are Peter and upon this rock... I will give to you...»; moreover, the metaphors of the keys and the power to bind and loose indicate the supreme power of governance and judgment in the Church. For in Sacred Scripture, key is synonymous with authority (cf. Is. 22:22: «et dabo clavem domus David super humerum eius»; Apoc. 1:7 ff.; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1; the only exception is Lk. 11:52: «clavis scientiae»). The faculty to bind and loose anything indicates full and perfect power in all religious matters and over all persons who are part of the Kingdom of Heaven.

To this it cannot be objected that the New Testament knows only one foundation of the Church (Jn. 2:19; 1 Cor. 3:11), for Jesus, who had declared Himself the light of the world (Jn. 8:12; 9:5; 12:46), designated the Apostles as the light of the world (Mt. 5:14), nor can the reproach of Christ to the Apostles who disputed about primacy in the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt. 20:25-28) be opposed, because Jesus does not deny power and hierarchy in society, but only indicates the duty of charity and humility for those who must command: «Not so among you...».

2. The Conferral of the Primacy

The primacy was conferred after the Resurrection, as St. John, an eyewitness, narrates (Jn. 21:15-17). «After they had eaten, Jesus said to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, do you love me (more than these)? He replied: Yes, Lord, you know that I love you; (then Jesus) said to him: Feed my lambs (βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου)... Feed my sheep» (βόσκε τὰ πρόβατά μου).

The text is critically certain. Opponents deny the authenticity of the entire chapter, but it is proven, beyond the perfectly Johannine style, by the explicit attestations that the first disciples appended to the Gospel (Jn. 21:24). The meaning is clear. With the metaphor of the shepherd, Jesus constitutes Peter the supreme head of the Church with the powers to guide all the faithful securely. The prophets had often spoken of the Messiah as the shepherd of His people (Mt. 2:13; 4:6-7; 5:3; Soph. 3:19; Jer. 23:3; 31:10; Is. 40:11; 49:9-10; Ez. 34:7-24; 37:23-25; Zach. 11:7-9), and Jesus Himself had presented Himself as the true shepherd (Mt. 18:12; Lk. 15:4; Jn. 10:11-16). By entrusting His flock («my lambs, my sheep») to Peter, He equivalently declared him His vicar on earth, with the powers of supreme head of the Church. Such powers are given to Peter alone, and it is not difficult to discern therein what is today called the primacy of jurisdiction. With this act, the promises made at Caesarea Philippi were perfectly fulfilled.

3. Esercizio del p

Cominciò ancor prima del solenne conferimento, quando, crocettoso Gesù, gli Apostoli si riunirono spontaneamente intorno a Pietro. A lui per primo riferì la Maddalena del sepolcro vuoto (Io. 20, 2; cf. Mc. 16, 7: « dite ai suoi discepoli e a Pietro »), e nell'entrarvi Giovanni gli diede la precedenza (Io. 20, 6; cf. Lc. 24, 22). In seguito, la decisione di Pietro di andare a pescare trasse altri sei discepoli (Io. 21, 3). Dopo l'ascensione di Gesù, Pietro si trovò nel pieno possesso cosciente e operante del suo p. Egli presiedette all'idezione di un nuovo apostolo (Act. 1, 15-26); per primo, come capo degli Apostoli predicò (ibid. 2, 14) e come tale fu interpellato dagli uditori (ibid. 2, 37); operò il primo miracolo (ibid. 3, 6) e altri poi con la sola sua ombra (ibid. 5, 15); fu lui che rispose al Sinedrio (ibid. 4, 8) e che come capo del movimento venne incarcerato da Erode (ibid. 12, 3); giudice della comunità punì Anania e Safira (ibid. 5, 1-11). Quanto all'essere stato « mandato » (ibid. 8, 14) in Samaria con Giovanni, ciò indica che gli Apostoli ritenevano insostituibile la sua opera per stabilire la nuova comunità. Dalla narrazione inoltre risulta che egli era il capo anche in confronto a Giovanni (ibid. 8, 20 sgg.). Del resto la sua autorità si esercitava da per tutto, essendo egli in visita continua alle varie comunità cristiane (ibid. 9, 32). La sua autorità fu decisiva per ammettere i gentili alla fede (ibid. 11, 18) e in seguito si manifestò più solennemente nel Concilio di Gerusalemme che egli presiedette (ibid. 15). Il suo discorso decise la controversia (ibid. 15, 12), poiché Giacomo non fece che confermare con l'autorità della Scrittura e indicare il modo pratico di accogliere i gentili (ibid. 15, 13-21). La questione esaminata dal Concilio era stata proposta da Barnaba e Paolo. Quest'ultimo è volentieri opposto a s. Pietro, specialmente dalla scuola protestante di Tubinga. In realtà sembrerebbe che Paolo proclami la sua eguaglianza a Pietro (Gal. 2, 8) e almeno la sua indipendenza (ibid. 1, 1); altrove parrebbe arrogarsi una certa superiorità fino a rimproverarlo pubblicamente (ibid. 2, 11); nella stessa lettera lo pospone a Giacomo (ibid. 2, 9) e in I Cor. (1, 12) parla con un certo disprezzo del partito di Cefa.

S. Paolo non tratta esplicitamente del p. di Pietro, anzi lo nomina in due sole lettere: sei volte col nome aramaico Kefa e due con quello greco di Πέτρος (Gal. 2, 7 e 8). Già Clemente Alessandrino (presso Eusebio, Hist. eccl., I, 12, 2) aveva pensato a due individui distinti per concludere che Paolo non si sarebbe opposto a Pietro ma a un oscuro giudaizzante. Ma non è necessario spiegare in tal modo l'incidente di Antiochia (Gal. 2, 11-14) per salvare il p. di Pietro, che in esso viene invece pienamente affermato. Infatti l'opposizione aperta di Paolo non fu un atto di ribellione, ma un'osservazione leale e pubblica (pubblica perché lo scandalo era pubblico); Paolo non intacca l'autorità di Pietro, ma rileva la sua incoerenza pratica (« si era dato torto »: κατεγνωσμένος ἦν) e le conseguenze del suo agire equivoco (ὑποκρίσις); inoltre, osserva argutamente X. Roiron (St Paul témoin de la primauté de St Pierre, in Recherches de science religieuse, 4 [1915], p. 518) « Paolo non era un gallicano: non appella da Pietro al Concilio (di Gerusalemme), ma da Pietro a Pietro ». Del resto, l'influsso di Pietro è chiaro dal fatto che il suo esempio trasse perfino Barnaba, che pure aveva difeso con Paolo la libertà dei convertiti dal paganesimo (Act. 15). Da rilevare inoltre che tutto l'episodio è riferito da Paolo per provare con l'autorità di Pietro, che gli avversari gli opponevano, la non necessità delle pratiche giudaische per la salvezza. Poco prima, aveva detto allo stesso scopo: « Giacomo, Cefa e Giovanni, riconosciuti come colonne, porsero a me e a

Barnaba la destra in segno di comunione...» (Gal. 2, 9). A questo proposito il protestante K. Holl osserva: « Se si deve parlare di un papa in questa gerarchia, questo sarebbe Giacomo, non Pietro » (Der Kirchenbegriff der Paulus, Berlino 1921, p. 932). Ma con s. Tommaso è più naturale spiegare: « Praemittitur Jacobus quia erat episcopus Jerosolymorum, ubi haec facta sunt » (In Gal. 2, 9) e pertanto la sua adesione era più adatta a muovere i giudaizzanti che del suo nome si facevano forti (Gal. 2, 12).

Paolo del resto, esclude ogni sua dipendenza da Giacomo, affermando di averlo appena visto (εἶδον) quando salì a Gerusalemme « per far visita di omaggio a Pietro » (ibid. 1, 18). Tale è infatti il senso del greco ἰστορῆσαι Κυρῶν. Il Crisostomo osserva: « Non disse ἰδέν. Πέτρον, ma ἰστορῆσαι Πέτρον, come dicono quelli che visitano per conoscere le grandi città » (PG 61, 631). Dal contesto risulta che Paolo non salì a Gerusalemme principalmente per conoscere la dottrina, ma la persona di Pietro (cf. M.-J. Lagrange, Épître aux Galates, Parigi 1918, p. 17). Dopo ciò, ch'egli trovi a Corinto, dove Pietro non era mai stato, un partito che si vale del nome di Cefa (I Cor. 1, 12), non fa che confermare la grande influenza di Pietro nella Chiesa primitiva; Paolo anzi la suppone per provare la fede nella risurrezione di Cristo (I Cor. 15, 5) e per giustificare il suo modo di agire (ibid. 9, 5).

II. THE PERPETUITY OF THE PRIMACY - The primacy conferred upon St. Peter was not an honorary title, but a grave duty and a social function. He is the "rock" upon which the edifice is founded, the shepherd of the flock; his primacy is social and ecclesiological. Indeed, by constituting him as head, Jesus imparts a specific form to His Church—a hierarchical-monarchical structure that is essential and defining: it could not change without the Church itself being altered, indeed without dissolving, scattering without a shepherd, collapsing for lack of a foundation. Yet Jesus promised indefectibility (v.) to His Church, stability, solidity, and perpetuity upon the foundation that is Peter: "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:18; cf. ibid. 7:24-27: the rock as symbol of the house’s stability). This does not mean immortality was promised to Peter. In conferring the primacy, Jesus knew well that Peter would die and how he would die (Jn. 21:18); thus, His intention is clear that Peter’s primacy should pass to his successors, in whom he "lives and judges even to this day, and always" (words of the papal legates at the Council of Ephesus: Denz-U, 112). St. Thomas (C. Gent., IV, 76) summarizes the reasons for the primacy’s perpetuity: "Since Christ was about to withdraw His bodily presence from the Church, it was necessary (oportuni) that He entrust to someone the care of the whole Church in His stead. For this reason, He said to Peter before the Ascension: Feed my lambs... But it cannot be said that, having bestowed such dignity upon Peter, it would not be transmitted through him to others. For it is clear that Christ established the Church to endure until the end of time. It is therefore evident that He constituted His ministers in such a way that their power would be transmitted to posterity, for the good of the Church, until the end of the ages."

III. THE PRIMACY OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF

In fact, the successor of Peter is the Bishop of Rome. There is historical proof: St. Peter exercised his episcopal ministry in Rome and died there (v. PIETRO, APOSTOLO); and there is theological proof, which is expounded here: the Catholic Church has always recognized the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter.

It cannot be claimed that the primacy of the Roman Pontiff was imposed and exercised from the outset with the same clarity and breadth as today. It is sufficient to discover at the origins the essential traits from which the homogeneous development of the same power conferred upon St. Peter derives. This is a common law for most revealed truths (v. DOGMA) and for the Church itself, which Jesus compared to a seed that grows. In this case, progress concerns not the idea itself, as Protestants believe, but the increasingly clear consciousness that the Church and the pontiffs had of it, and the ever greater fullness of its exercise, driven by circumstances.

"The epiphany of the Roman primacy" (P. Batiffol, L'Église naissante et le catholicisme, Paris 1909, p. 146) is constituted by the letter of St. Clement to the church of Corinth due to a schism. "For a long time, Catholic scholars have agreed in seeing in the letter of St. Clement an act of jurisdiction and in noting that as early as the first century, the Bishop of Rome was convinced of his superiority over other bishops" (M. Giraudo, L'ecclesiologia di s. Clemente Romano, Bologna 1943, p. 46). The opinion of R. Cauvelsert (L'intervention de l'Église de Rome à Corinthe vers l'an 96, in Revue d'hist. ecclés., 31 [1935], pp. 267-306), who sees in it a simple gesture of charity and a friendly invitation to peace, has been refuted. The very fact that the Bishop of Rome, and he alone, intervened—whether invoked or not—in the internal affairs of the Church of Corinth, while the Apostle St. John was still living in Ephesus, and in any case other Asian Churches had closer, easier, and more amicable relations with that Church, the authoritative tone, and the reception it received (attested by Dionysius of Corinth around 170, in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., IV, 23, 11), are clear proof of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome at the end of the first century.

At the beginning of the 2nd century, St. Ignatius (v.) wrote to the Romans a letter rich in unusual praise (prol.). He recognizes that Church as the teacher of others ("You have envied no one; you have instructed others. I too wish to preserve what you teach and command": 3, 1); to them, after Christ, he entrusts the care of the Churches of Syria: "May only Jesus Christ act in place of the bishop and your charity (ἀγάπη: 9, 1)." For Ignatius, "charity" (ἀγάπη) is the Christian community, the Church (Trall., 13, 1; Smyrn., 12, 1; Philad., 11, 2). In this sense, he further affirms that the Church of Rome "presides over charity" (προσάβημεν τῆς ἀγάπης) or simply "presides in the region of the Romans" (προσάβηται ἐν τόπῳ χωρίῳ Ρωμᾶσιν: prol.). One does not preside over a virtue but over a society; here, moreover, it is a community that presides (προσάβηται, in absolute form), evidently over all other Christian communities. This recognition has all the more value given that St. Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch, which boasted of being the first see of Peter (cf. Gal. 2:11; Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III, 36).

In the second century, the primacy of Rome emerged in the Paschal controversy. A council of bishops was convened in Asia Minor by order of Pope Victor, and since they refused to adapt to the Roman custom (followed by most other Churches), the Pope threatened them with excommunication, which was averted by the good offices of Irenaeus, who respectfully pointed out the more harmful than beneficial consequences of such an act (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., V, 24, 9-18).

The same Irenaeus left the clearest testimony of the primacy of the Church of Rome. Having demonstrated that Catholic truth is genuinely found in the traditions of the Churches founded by the Apostles, he continues: "But since it would be too lengthy to enumerate the successors of the Apostles in all the Churches, we shall concern ourselves with only one Church, the greatest and most ancient (maximae et antiquissimae), known to all, founded and established by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul. We shall show that the apostolic tradition which it holds and the faith which it has communicated to men have come down to us through the regular succession of bishops, thus confounding all those who, in any way, whether through self-indulgence or error, through self-complacency or vainglory, seek the truth where it cannot be found (praeterquam oportet colligunt). For to this Church, on account of its superior authority (propter po[ten]tiorem principalitatem), every Church must necessarily conform (convenire = agree), that is, all the faithful throughout the world. In it (ab his qui sunt undique) the tradition of the Apostles has always been preserved" (Adv. Haeres., III, 3, 2: PG 7, 848-49). The phrase "ab his qui sunt undique" is subject to different interpretations. G. Morin (Revue bénédictine, 25 [1908], pp. 515-20), followed by P. Batiffol (L'Église naissante, cit., pp. 249-52) and M. Jugie (Le schisme byzantin, Paris 1941, p. 51), considers it a copyist's error, to be replaced with a word indicating the presbyters who preside in Rome, e.g., "ab his qui praesunt ecclesia." R. Jaquin (L'année théologique, 1948, p. 95 ff.), followed by Ch. Mohrmann (A propos de Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., 3, 3, 1, in Vigiliae Christianae, 3 [1949], pp. 56-61), proposes translating: "better than in all other places (Churches)," taking "ab" in the sense of "prae" (Gr. παρὰ), with examples of this usage in the Latin of that time, especially in the Latin version of the Old Testament. For others, "ab" has a causal sense: by virtue of the Church of Rome, the tradition has been preserved in all Churches (J. Forget, St Irénée et la primauté romaine, in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, 5 [1928], pp. 437-61; for other interpretations, cf. R. Forni, Problemi della Tradizione, S. Ireneo di Lione, Milan 1939). In any case, "it is difficult," notes L. Duchesne (Églises séparées, Paris 1896, p. 119), "to find a more explicit expression: of the doctrinal unity in the universal Church; of the supreme, unique importance of the Roman Church as witness, guardian, and organ of apostolic tradition; of its superiority within the whole of Christendom."

Tertullian, when he was Catholic, showed great veneration for Rome, the norm of truth (De praescrip. 36, 4: PL 2, 58-61), the arbiter of "communion" (Adv. Prax., 1, 6: PL 2, 178), where the Apostle Peter had lived and died (De praescrip., 36, 3: PL 2, 61). He recognizes that Peter was established as the foundation of the Church, with singular and supreme powers, which Christ willed to be transmitted to the Church (Scorpiace, 10, 12: PL 2, 164-65). But having become a Montanist, he maintained that these were strictly personal (De pudic., 21, 10: PL 2, 1078-79). By this very fact, he attests that the Bishop of Rome was considered invested with supreme powers as the successor of Peter. In the same passage, he affirms that the Bishop of Carthage, against whom he was likely polemicizing, attributed to himself the power to bind and loose by virtue of his communion with the Bishop of Rome "ad omnem Ecclesiam Petri propinquam."

BIBL.:
P. Batiffol, L'Église naissante et le catholicisme, Paris 1909; M. Giraudo, L'ecclesiologia di s. Clemente Romano, Bologna 1943; R. Cauvelsert, L'intervention de l'Église de Rome à Corinthe vers l'an 96, in Revue d'hist. ecclés., 31 (1935), pp. 267-306; M. Jugie, Le schisme byzantin, Paris 1941; G. Morin, in Revue bénédictine, 25 (1908), pp. 515-20; R. Jaquin, in L'année théologique, 1948, p. 95 sgg.; Ch. Mohrmann, A propos de Irenneus, Adv. Haer., 3, 3, 1, in Vigiliae Christianae, 3 (1949), pp. 56-61; J. Forget, St Irénée et la primauté romaine, in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, 5 (1928), pp. 437-61; R. Forni, Problemi della Tradizione, S. Ireneo di Lione, Milano 1939; L. Duchesne, Églises séparées, Paris 1896.

A. M. Vitti

St. Cyprian, a spiritual disciple of Tertullian, takes a step forward: he considers the Church of Rome the legitimate heir to the powers of Peter, indeed the "chair of Peter" (Ep., 55, 14: PL 3, 843-49; De unit. Eccl., c. 4: PL 4, 513-16). However, it is unclear what primacy he attributes to St. Peter and, respectively, to the Church of Rome. The principal text is chapter 4 of De unitate Ecclesiae, which has been transmitted in two slightly different recensions (one expresses the primacy of Peter more clearly than the other), but both are authentic (cf. J. Chapman, Les interpolations dans la traité de st Cyprien sur l'Unité de l'Eglise, in Revue bénédictine, 19 [1902], pp. 246-54; 20 [1903], pp. 26-51, to which both Catholic and Protestant scholars have adhered).

The most explicit affirmations of the primacy of Peter are tempered by the recognition of equal powers in the other Apostles. To Peter remains only a very generic primacy, which St. Cyprian understands in terms of the unity of Christendom. Rome, then, is the "chair of Peter, the principal church, whence the priestly (= episcopal) unity arose" (Ep., 55, 14: PL 3, 843-49; cf. B. Poschmann, Ecclesia principalis. Ein kritischer Beitrag zur Frage des Primats bei Cyprian, Breslau 1933). In practice, however, during the controversy with Pope Stephen over the Baptism of heretics, he reduced this function's power to very little, refusing to submit. His attitude toward the Bishop of Rome is more that of a colleague than of a subordinate. Nevertheless, when the Bishop of Arles had rendered himself unworthy due to heresy, St. Cyprian, consulted by the Bishop of Lyon, did not refer the matter to the bishops of the province but invited Pope Stephen himself to intervene with his authority (Ep., 65: PL 3, 1023), demonstrating his conviction that the Bishop of Rome, and he alone, could judge and depose other bishops. Whatever his thought may be, he attests that deposed bishops and schismatics went to Rome to justify themselves (Ep., 55 and 67: PL 3, 843, 1023).

A nearly contemporary testimony comes from Egypt. St. Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria (d. 268), denounced for suspicious doctrines by some of his faithful, was invited by Pope Dionysius to justify himself: which he did without difficulty, even assuring him that he would consult him on all the most difficult doctrinal and disciplinary questions (St. Athanasius, De sent. Dion., 13 and 18: PG 25, 461 and 500-505; cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VII, 26, 1).

Based on the correspondence of Dionysius, preserved by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., VII, 3-9), and other historical data, L. Duchesne was able to conclude that "all the Churches of the world, from Arabia, Osroene, Cappadocia, to the farthest reaches of the West, feel in all things—in faith, discipline, governance, rites, works of charity—the incessant action of the Roman Church. It is known everywhere, as Ireneus says, present everywhere. Before it, no competition, no rivalry. No one has the idea of placing themselves on its level. Later, there will be patriarchates and local primacies; but in the course of the 3rd century, one can scarcely discern their first outlines, more or less vague. Above these forming organisms, as above the whole of the Churches, rises the Church of Rome in its sovereign majesty, represented by its bishops whose long series connects to the two leaders of the apostolic choir; which feels itself, asserts itself, is held throughout the world as the center and organ of unity" (Églises séparées, Paris 1896, pp. 155-56). This did not escape the pagans themselves. In 272, Emperor Aurelian decided in favor of the bishop united with Rome in a controversy that arose in Antioch over Paul of Samosata (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VII, 30, 18-19).

It is also noteworthy that men such as St. Polycarp, Hegesippus, St. Justin, Abercius, St. Irenaeus, and Origen traveled from Asia and Egypt to Rome; indeed, from the 2nd century onward, as attested by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and St. Cyprian, even heretics themselves (Valentinus, Cerdo, Marcion, Apelles, Praxeas, Florinus, Theodotus the Byzantine) went there to obtain confirmation of their doctrines.

The Council of Nicaea (325), convened by Constantine with the consent of the Bishop of Rome and presided over by his legate Hosius of Cordova with the Roman priests Vitus and Vincentius, expressed the general conviction of the primacy of the Pope in the fact that they subscribed the acts of the council before all others, even before the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and Palestine (cf. P. Batiffol, La paix constantinienne et le catholicisme, 4th ed., Paris 1929, p. 330 ff.), and in resolving according to the Roman judgment the old questions of Easter and the Baptism of heretics. The primacy of the Pope appeared even more clearly in the controversies that followed the Council, in which both orthodox and Arians recognized Rome as the supreme court of appeal (cf. P. Bernardakis, Les appels en pape dans l'Église grecque jusqu'à Photius, in Échos d'Orient, 6 [1903], pp. 30-42, 118-26, 248-57; P. Batiffol, Cathedra Petri, Paris 1938, pp. 215-48: Les recours à Rome en Orient avant le Concile de Chalcédoine). When the Eusebian heretics appealed to the Pope to approve the deposition of St. Athanasius, Pope Julius I summoned accusers and accused to Rome and rendered justice to them (cf. La Scuola cattolica, 1928, pp. 301-306). His successor Liberius was sent into exile by the Emperor for having refused to approve the condemnation of Eustathius of Sebaste. The right of appeal was not invoked for the first time then. Julius I calls it a custom (ἔθος ἦν: St. Athanasius, Apologia e. Arian., 25), and Theodoret affirms that he acted according to ecclesiastical law (τῷ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἑπόμενος νόμῳ: Hist. eccl., II, 4: PG 82, 1219); and the historian Socrates speaks in this sense of an ecclesiastical rule (τοῦ ἐκκλησιαστικῶ κανόνος: Hist. eccl., II, 17). The same "ecclesiastical rule," according to Sozomen, a contemporary of Socrates, required that nothing important and definitive be treated without the consent of the Bishop of Rome (Hist. eccl., III, 10; cf. P. Batiffol, Le siège apostolique, Paris 1924, pp. 411-16). The right of appeal to Rome was sanctioned at Sardica (343) in the famous canons 3-5 (Hefele-Leclercq, I, pp. 763-77): "to honor the memory of the Apostle Peter and his see, head of mankind." In the West, no different view was held. The Councils of Elvira (306) and Arles (314) informed Rome first of all of their decisions because Rome is the center of catholicity, "cathedra Petri, ecclesia principalis" (P. Batiffol, Cathedra Petri, cit., p. 105 ff.). Optatus of Milevis reflects these ideas when, half a century later, he writes against the Donatists that Rome is the see of Peter, head (caput) of all the Apostles (II, 2: PL 11, 946-947) and the center of the Catholic community (II, 3: PL 11, 947-50).

In the intricate questions raised by heretics (in 377 there were three bishops simultaneously in Antioch), St. Jerome asked Pope Damasus which of the three bishops truly communicated with him (all three claimed to be in communion with Rome) in order to regulate himself: "I am in communion with Your Beatitude, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that the Church is built upon that rock... He who does not gather with you scatters, that is, he who is not of Christ is of the Antichrist" (Ep. 15 ad Dam.: PL 22, 355-56). In 402 (Contra Rufin., 1, 4: PL 23, 418-19) and in 414 (Ep. 130, 16: PL 22, 1120), he was always of the opinion that the doctrine of the Roman Church is the criterion of orthodoxy. During the time he was in Rome with Pope Damasus (380-84), he recalls countless synodal consultations that arrived in Rome from the West and the East.

BIBL.:
J. Chapman, Les interpolations dans la traité de st Cyprien sur l'Unité de l'Eglise, in Revue bénédictine, 19 (1902), pp. 246-54; 20 (1903), pp. 26-51; B. Poschmann, Ecclesia principalis. Ein kritischer Beitrag zur Frage des Primats bei Cyprian, Breslau 1933; L. Duchesne, Églises séparées, Paris 1896; P. Batiffol, La paix constantinienne et le catholicisme, 4ª ed., Paris 1929; Id., Cathedra Petri, Paris 1938; Id., Le siège apostolique, Paris 1924; P. Bernardakis, Les appels en pape dans l'Église grecque jusqu'à Photius, in Échos d'Orient, 6 (1903), pp. 30-42, 118-26, 248-57.

A. M. Vitti

It is also well known that St. Basil the Great invoked the intervention of St. Damasus in the Church of Antioch (Ep. 70 ad Dam.: PG 32, 433). The Pope could not respond as he would have wished, as his see was troubled by the claims of Ursinus, who, expelled by Valentinian, repeatedly attempted to return. Against him, St. Ambrose wrote to Emperor Gratian «so that he would not allow the Roman Church to be disturbed, from which the rights of venerable communion flow to all: inde enim in omnes venerandae communionis jura dimanant» (Ep. 11, 4: PL 16, 986). This indicates that there could be no communion among the various Churches, no Catholic unity, without the Roman Church, which is its center. St. Cyprian had said: «Rome is the principal Church from which the priestly unity has arisen (exorta est)»; St. Ambrose instead: «from it flow (dimanant: currently, continuously) the rights of communion». Moreover, Pope Damasus was fully aware of his authority: he dictated a formula of faith, to which all «those who wished to preserve apostolic tradition» had to adhere (Theodoret, Hist. eccl., V, 10: PG 82, 1219-22), actually subscribed by 146 Eastern bishops at the Council of Antioch in 379; he reinstated Eustathius of Sebaste in his see (St. Basil, Ep. 263 ad Dam.: PG 32, 979), deposed Auxentius of Milan (Mansi, III, 459), rejected the election of Maximus the Cynic to the see of Constantinople (Mansi, VIII, 749), and confirmed Peter of Alexandria, deposed by the Arians (Jaffé-Watenbach, I, 236).

Contemporary to him, the First Council of Constantinople (381) declared: «The bishop of Constantinople has the primacy of honor (τὰ πρῶσι τῆς τιμῆς) immediately after that of Rome, because Constantinople is the new Rome» (can. 3). While the primacy of Rome was recognized, its divine origin was denied; but this was merely a pretext to advance the rights of Constantinople. Rome, in fact, had never appealed to its political position to assert its primacy, but only to its apostolic origin. It must be remembered that this Council of Constantinople was not considered ecumenical regarding the divinity of the Holy Spirit until much later: nor did the Easterners themselves (the West was unaware of this detail) invoke canon 3 until the Council of Chalcedon (451).

In fact, Constantinople did not cease to appeal to Rome in the most difficult moments. St. John Chrysostom, departing into exile for the second time (404), appealed to the Western bishops, especially to Pope Innocent. In reality, it was only the Pope who acted energetically in his defense. He did not hesitate to excommunicate the bishops of Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria because they refused to recognize Chrysostom’s innocence; in the end, they had to yield to Rome’s reasons (P. Batiffol, Le siège apostolique, cit., pp. 267-326).

In the West, the primacy of Rome at the beginning of the 5th century is beyond dispute, manifesting itself in numerous doctrinal interventions against the Donatists, Pelagians, and Origenists, and in the pastoral solicitude for all Churches: «We bear the burdens of all, or rather, the blessed apostle Peter bears them in us, who, we trust, protects us in all things as heirs of his administration» wrote Pope Siricius (Denz-U, 87). More clearly, Pope Innocent I, in 417, wrote to the African bishops that, according to the ancient tradition they faithfully followed, no ecclesiastical cause, even in the most remote regions, should be considered concluded until the Apostolic See had pronounced (Denz-U, 100). With that letter, the Pope approved the condemnation of Pelagianism made by the African Councils. It was then that St. Augustine exclaimed: «On this matter (causa), the acts of two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See, and from there rescripts have come. The cause is finished: let the error also be finished» (Serm., 131, 10: PL 38, 734; hence the well-known aphorism: Roma locuta, causa finita). And to Pope Boniface (in 420), he repeated: «The letters of Pope Innocent of blessed memory have removed all doubt in this matter» (Contra duas epist. pelag., II, 5: PL 44, 574). On that occasion, he submitted to the Pope’s judgment («to examine and, if necessary, correct») the refutation of the accusations of heresy made against him by the Pelagians.

In the previous anti-Donatist polemic, St. Augustine had inherited from Optatus of Milevis two great arguments as criteria of orthodoxy: the catholicity of the Church and union with the cathedra Petri: he who is in union with Rome has the true faith, which has always enjoyed primacy as the apostolic see (Ep., 43, c. 7, 7: PL 33, 169), the chair of Peter, in whom the grace of primacy shone forth in an eminent way (De bapt., lib. 2, c. 1, 2: PL 43, 127; cf. P. Batiffol, Le catholicisme de st Augustin, 4th ed., Paris 1929, pp. 192-209).

During the Council of Ephesus (431), the Roman legate Philip declared it undoubted and well-known that the blessed Peter, prince and head (ἔξαρχος καὶ κεφαλὴ) of the Apostles, and foundation of the Church, lives and judges in his successors in Rome (Denz-U, 112). Cyril himself had affirmed that he acted only in the name of the bishop of Rome and «compelled by the canons and the letter of our holy father and colleague Celestine, bishop of Rome» (Mansi, IV, 1124). As soon as he received the Acts of the Council, Celestine approved them regarding the condemnation of Nestorius but rejected them regarding the condemnation of John of Antioch, which had been done without his consent. Two years later, Cyril and his followers reached an agreement with the «Orientals» and John of Antioch.

John of Antioch had tried to avoid the condemnation of Nestorius, inviting him in 430 to submit to Rome’s sentence. Two friends of John, Eutherius of Tyana and Helladius of Tarsus, appealed to Rome to justify their refusal to subscribe to the formula of union of 433 with a letter «which is an irrefutable testimony of their belief in the Roman primacy» (M. Jugie, op. cit., p. 68; cf. P. Batiffol, Les recours à Rome, in Cathedra Petri, cit., pp. 242-43). Even Theodoret of Cyrrhus, the greatest theologian of the «Orientals» group, deposed by the Robber Council of Ephesus (449) presided over by Dioscorus (v.), appealed to the bishop of Rome: «We turn to your apostolic see to receive from you the remedies for the wounds of our Churches. For to you belongs the primacy (ετρατευεῖν; elsewhere he speaks of ἡγημονία: Ep. 117: PG 83, 1324) by all titles. I await the sentence of your apostolic see» (Ep., 113: PG 83, 1316).

Pope St. Leo condemned the Council, defining it as «the Robbery of Ephesus» (latrocinium Ephesium), and asked Emperor Theodosius to convene a true ecumenical council in Italy; but he only obtained this from his successor Marcian and in the East, when he had already deemed it superfluous, as most Eastern bishops had accepted the profession of faith he had composed against the Eutychian heresy. This is the famous Tomus ad Flavianum. Flavian, then bishop of Constantinople, had been deposed at the «Robbery of Ephesus» and, replaced by Anatolius, had died shortly afterward. Anatolius had hastened to inform Pope Leo of his appointment, but the latter demanded the subscription to the Tomus to accept him into his communion. Anatolius promptly subscribed (M. Jugie, op. cit., p. 70; other interventions of Pope Leo in the Church of Constantinople are found there).

The ecumenical Council was held from October 8 to November 1.

In 451, the Ecumenical Council was held at Chalcedon, near Constantinople, under the presidency of the papal legates. From the outset, they secured that Dioscorus be admitted only as an accused party, while Theodoret was admitted as a member, having been rehabilitated by Pope Leo. The Pope’s letter to Flavian was received as the faith of the Fathers and the Apostles. "We all believe thus... Anathema to whoever does not believe thus. Peter has spoken through Leo" (Petrus per Leonem locutus est: sess. II). It was only after repeated requests from the imperial legates that the Council fathers decided to draft a shorter and more concise formula of faith than the Pope’s letter.

Dioscorus was condemned, as the Council wrote to the Emperor, because he did not permit the reading of the letter (Tomus) of the most holy archbishop of ancient (venerable) Rome, Leo, at the Council of Ephesus (on the role of the Pope at Chalcedon, see the objective and authoritative exposition by Pius XII in the encyclical Sempiternus Rex of 8 September 1951, in AAS, 43 [1951], pp. 629-32). It must be acknowledged that St. Leo brought to its apogee the unity of the universal Church and of the papacy, which is its head (P. Batiffol, Léon I, in DThC, IX, col. 292). "Our solicitude," he wrote to the metropolitan of Eastern Illyricum (Ep., 5, 2), "extends to all the Churches; for thus the Lord demands of us (cf. ex divina institutione: Ep., 12, 1), who entrusted to the blessed apostle Peter the primacy of apostolic dignity as a reward for his faith, establishing the entire Church upon the solidity of that same foundation." The awareness he had of his primacy in the Church, as successor of Peter, is evident in his discourses and in his continuous doctrinal and disciplinary interventions in all the Churches. Some have wished to call him the first pope; but he created nothing, he received everything from tradition: he was nothing other than fully pope, as none before him had been (cf. P. Santini, op. cit. in bibl.; V. MONACO, Genesi storica del can. 28º di Calcedonia, in Gregorianum, 33 [1952], pp. 261-91).

However, Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon indicated that the process of emancipation from Rome was well advanced in the East. Without openly denying the Roman primacy, Constantinople increasingly distanced itself from it, poorly tolerating its interference in the Eastern Churches. In this, caesaropapism played a significant role. Other causes—ambition of the patriarchs, national pride, political rivalries, autonomous evolution, and mutual ignorance (cf. M. Jugie, op. cit., pp. 3-45)—favored the definitive schism. Between 325 (Council of Nicaea) and 850 (end of iconoclasm), there were no fewer than seven schisms, totaling 217 years of open separation from Rome (cf. I. Pargoire, L'Église byzantine de 527 à 847, 3rd ed., Paris 1923, pp. 196-197). Nevertheless, Photius (v.) was the first to combat in writing the primacy of the bishop of Rome: "Against those who say that Rome is the first see." He exploited Canon 28 and even claimed the primacy in the Church for himself (M. Jugie, op. cit., pp. 136-38). Despite this, union with Rome was restored when Photius lost the favor of the new Emperor and was deposed. But it could no Michael Cerularius (v.) definitively separated from Rome, declaring it fallen into heresy on account of the Filioque (v.), the use of unleavened bread, fasting on Saturdays, the ring worn by bishops, and other pretexts.

Contemporary with Photius, Ratramnus of Corbie (v.) thus expressed the thought of Western theologians to Pope Nicholas I in 867: "We firmly believe that the authority of the Roman Pontiff excels (praemines) above all the Churches of Christ, so that all must regard him as head, and from his judgment must depend all that is arranged in ecclesiastical affairs; in such a way that by his decision it remains established, or error is corrected, or all that must be innovated is sanctioned" (Contra Graec. opposita, IV, c. 8: PL 121, 336). The authors of the Gregorian age and the early Scholastics initiated a theologia papalis, brief and concise. St. Thomas (Sum. Theol., 2º-2º, 9, 89, 2, 9, ad 3) affirms that the Pope has the fullness of power in ecclesiastical affairs and the care of the entire Church. In C. Gent. (4, 76), he demonstrates the necessity of a single head in the Church and that such is the Roman Pontiff by virtue of Christ’s words to Peter. More extensively in the opuscule: Contra errores Graecorum. Similarly, St. Bonaventure: Utrum christianae religionis sit quod omnes oboediant uni (in De perfectione evang., q. disp. 4, a. 3: Opera s. Bonaventurae, V, Quaracchi, p. 189). The beginning of the 14th century saw the overreach of the King of France and the Emperor. Giles of Rome (v.) wrote De ecclesiastica potestate Viterbo (v.) De regimine christiano, the first treatises on the Church (cf. M. Maccarrone, Il papa «vicarius Christi»: testi e dottrina dal sec. XII al principio del XIV, in Miscellanea Paedini, I, Rome 1949, pp. 466-70). The Protestant Reformation and Gallicanism provoked a deepening of the doctrine of the primacy of Rome, leading to the dogmatic definitions of the Vatican Council.

PRIMACY OF SAINT PETER AND THE ROMAN PONTIFF

IV. THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH

The Catholic doctrine on the primacy of Saint Peter and of the Roman Pontiff was clearly expounded at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274 (Denz-U, 466), at the Council of Florence in 1439 (Denz-U, 694), two councils for the union of the Greeks with Rome, in the Professio fidei Tridentina (Denz-U, 999); and it was finally solemnly defined at the Vatican Council with the apostolic constitution Pastor Aeternus, approved in the fourth session (18 July 1870). This consists of four chapters, with four canons expressing the definition proper; it is preceded by a brief introduction. "The Eternal Pastor and Bishop of our souls (Jesus Christ), in order to render perpetual the salvific work of the Redemption, decided to build the Holy Church," and to ensure for it "the unity of faith and of communion, placing at the head (praeponem) of the other Apostles the blessed Peter, establishing in him the perpetual principle and the visible foundation of all unity."

After this exordium, the Council defines as articles of faith the following truths:

1. Saint Peter was immediately constituted by Jesus Christ as prince of the Apostles and visible head of the entire Church militant with a primacy not of honor, but of true and proper jurisdiction (ch. 1, can. 1; Denz-U, 26, 1822-23).

2. Since the work of salvation was to be perpetuated through the centuries, by divine will, Saint Peter had and will have in perpetuity successors, for the exercise of the primacy in the whole Church, in the person of the Roman Pontiffs (ch. 2, can. 2; Denz-U, 1824-25).

3. The primacy of the Roman Pontiff, sole legitimate successor of Saint Peter, consists in the full power to feed, rule, and govern the entire Church, that is, in supreme, ordinary, immediate, universal, and independent jurisdiction from any civil authority. To this power corresponds in all the faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, whether considered individually or collectively, the duty of true obedience both in matters concerning faith and morals, and in those of discipline and ecclesiastical governance. Such authority does not nullify that of the bishops but rather strengthens and upholds it, if necessary (ch. 3, can. 3; Denz-U, 1826-31).

4. The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra by personal privilege (ex esse), is infallible (ch. 4, can. 4; Denz-U, 1832-40): V. INFALLIBILITÀ.

OPEN QUESTIONS

The ecclesiastical magisterium has not definitively pronounced on two points: the relations between the primacy and Rome, and the origin of the bishops' power. It is asked what connection exists between the See of Rome and the primacy of governance in the Church. It is untenable that such a connection is due to a mere historical fact and depends on the Church's arbitrary decision, which could dissolve it by recognizing the primacy in another bishop, even against the will of the Roman Pontiff. conciliarism (v.), which the Church has definitively condemned. The assertion of Melchor Cano, Gregorio de Valencia, and especially St. Robert Bellarmine—that the choice of the See of Rome was explicitly indicated by Christ—seems exaggerated. With less probability (the Vatican Council refrained from condemning this position), it has been thought (Paludanus, Domingo de Soto, Báñez) that St. Peter chose Rome as his definitive see by pure personal deliberation, so that, with the same freedom, his successor could transfer to another see. It is commonly held that the choice of Rome was not without a special divine providence: instinctu Divinitatis (Franzelin, Palmieri, Billot, de Groot, Schultes, d'Herbigny). Therefore, no one can change this choice, not even the Pope; wherever he resides (e.g., in Avignon), he is always the Bishop of Rome.

It is further asked what relationship exists between the power of the bishops and the supreme power of the Pope. Some hold that, since the episcopate is of divine right (cf. can. 108,3), the power of bishops comes to them from episcopal ordination itself. More common, and now clearly expressed in the ordinary magisterium of the Church, is the doctrine that the Roman Pontiff is the source of all power of jurisdiction in the Church; Batiffol (Cathedra Petri, op. cit., pp. 95-103) has demonstrated that the idea goes far back in tradition. The Vatican Council adopted the words of St. Ambrose: "From there (Rome) come to all the rights of venerable communion." Pius VI wrote against the Jansenists of Pistoia: "From him (the Roman Pontiff) the bishops themselves receive their authority, just as he received his supreme power from God" (Denz-U, 1500). Pius XII, in the encyclical Mystici Corporis: "(The bishops) receive immediately from the Supreme Pontiff their ordinary power of jurisdiction" (AAS, 35 [1943], p. 212).

VI. ERRORI

Hanno in comune la negazione del p. del Romano Pontefice, differiscono nei metodi più o meno radicali. Si limitano i poteri del Papa di fronte al potere civile (regalisti del sec. XIV e i sostenitori del «piacet» regio) o di fronte al Concilio (v. CONCILIARIEMO) o di fronte ai vescovi (v. GALLICANESIMO) o di fronte ai «perfetti» (Beguardi del sec. XIV) o alla Chiesa in genere (Febronio, V. HONTHEM), giungendo poi a negare ogni differenza di potere tra i vescovi e il Papa (v. MARSILIO DA PADOVA) o tra il clero e i laici stessi (v. LUTERO). Oppure si nega semplicemente il p. e l'infallibilità del Romano Pontefice (vecchi cattolici; chiesa cecoslovacca; dissidenti orientali).

I pretesti di tali negazioni sono vari. Di indole piuttosto dogmatica quelli dei donatisti e degli Orientali separati (la Chiesa sarebbe caduta nell'errore, nell'eresia); lo scandalo dei soggetti appartenenti alla gerarchia; errore ripetuto da tutti coloro che si atteggiarono a riformatori: valdesi (sec. XIII), fraticelli (sec. XIV); Lutero. Fu ancora il principio, accolto nel Decreto di Graziano del tutto incontrastato per tutto il medioevo (cf. V. Martin, Comment s'est formée la doctrine de la supériorité du concile sur le Pape, in Revue des sciences religieuses, 17 [1937], pp. 121-43, 261-89, 405-26), cioè che il Papa è giudicabile nel caso che cada in eresia, che diede origine alla teoria conciliare. In seguito subentrarono motivi d'ordine politico, come nell'opposizione di Filippo il Bello e Ludovico il Bavaro, a favore del quale Marsilio da Padova scrisse il Defensor pacis: non solo vi si negava il p. di Pietro e del Papa, ma si faceva dipendere ogni potere dal volere dell'Imperatore. Motivi più apertamente nazionali sostennero i gallicani e diedero inizio allo sciam anglicano. Nel secolo scorso la critica protestante presentò un apparato scientifico. Fu come un rifiorire di studi sulla Chiesa primitiva. Caratteristica la teoria della scuola di Tubinga (inizista da F. C. Baur, Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi, Stoccarda 1845) la quale vedeva nell'episodio di Antiochia (Gal. 2, 11-14) la rivelazione di due correnti opposte nella Chiesa primitiva: il paolinismo e il petrinismo: quest'ultimo sarebbe prevalso dopo qualche secolo con la Chiesa di Roma. La teoria, accolta da alcuni con molto favore, fu fortemente combattuta da altri (F. M. Braun, op. cit., p. 46 sgg.). Alla fine del secolo scorso la critica protestante liberale (Sohm, Har-

19 PRIM. DI S. PIETRO E DEL ROM. PONT. - PRIMICERIO E SECUNDICERIO 20

nack, Sabatier) riteneva che la Chiesa era un'idea estranea al pensiero di Gesù che si sarebbe sviluppata, sotto l'influsso della concezione paolina di Corpo Mistico e la pressione delle crisi gnostiche e montaniste del secondo secolo, da cui emerse l'esigenza di un governo e un magistero centrale e forte (cf. P. Batiffol, L'Eglise naissante et le catholicisme [V. BIBLICA.], pp. 172-93). Il testo di Matteo fu ritenuto interpolato del tutto o in parte (F. M. Braun, op. cit., pp. 80-82). La teologia protestante più recente è meno radicale, ma rifiuta di vedere nel passo un vero p. di Pietro; soprattutto separa Pietro dal Papa, onde, tutt'al più si tratterebbe d'un privilegio strettamente personale (ibid., p. 96). Gli anglicani, come si può rilevare dalle conversazioni di Malines (v. MALINES, CONVERAZIONI di), pur concedendo al Romano Pontefice il p. in linea di principio, dal punto di vista biblico, storico e dogmatico fanno delle riserve sulla natura di esso.