PRIMACY OF ST. PETER AND OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF
direct and universal over all the faithful. As Vicar of Christ, supreme arbiter of Christendom, the Roman Pontiff neither absorbs nor prejudices the independence of civil power, nor the powers proper to each bishop (just as pontifical infallibility [v.] neither dispenses with nor supplies for the human labor that prepares dogmatic definitions).
Peter himself was conscious of his position, since 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 him the oldest), nor to priority of vocation (Jn. 1:35-42; Mk. 1:16-20 and parallel passages, definitive call Mk. 3:13-15; Mt. 10:1; Lk. 6:13 with the list of the Apostles), nor to his ambition, since if the Apostles had occasion to complain about the pretensions of the sons of Zebedee (Mt. 20:24), they never did so about those of Peter. The origin of Peter's primacy must be sought in the conduct and explicit statements of Jesus. If John could consider himself the beloved Apostle, Peter felt himself surrounded by greater attentions. Jesus chose his house to dwell in (Mk. 1:29 and parall.), his boat to preach from (Lk. 5:1), to him he granted to walk on the waters (Mt. 16:29), paid the tribute for him (Mt. 17:23-29), made him a sharer in the most intimate revelations (Mt. 17:1 ff.; 26:37 and parall.), assured him of a particular prayer "that once converted he might strengthen his brethren in the faith" (Lk. 22:21 f.), while he did not spare him rebukes (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 singly (Lk. 24:34; I Cor. 15:5) and before ascending to heaven he foretold to him alone the manner of his death (Jn. 21:18). More important, in an Eastern and Hebrew setting, was the gesture performed at their first meeting: the changing of his name (Jn. 1:42). In the only cases that Hebrew history knew, those of Abraham (Gen. 17:5) and of Jacob (Gen. 32:29), it had signified the conferral of a solemn mission. The case of Simon Peter must be explained by the promise of the primacy.
1. Promise of the primacy
Toward the middle of the second year of his preaching, Jesus one day took with him only the Apostles and set out toward the pagan region of Caesarea Philippi and asked them: "Who do people say the Son of Man is?... And you, 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 John, because neither flesh nor blood (nature) has revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. Now I say to you: You are Peter (Aram.: Kēphā') and upon this rock (Aram.: kēphā') I will build my Churchand the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. To you I will give the keys of the Kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Mt. 16:15-19).
Critically the text is one of the most certain, being absent from no manuscript or ancient version, for which reason it is accepted in all recent critical editions (cf. A. Medebielle, Eglise, in DBs, II, col. 613). Opponents can only raise internal arguments against it. But against the hypothesis of a Roman interpolation stands the vividly Semitic coloring of the passage (flesh and blood, foundation stone, gates of hell, keys of the kingdom, binding and loosing), which points back 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, Italian trans., Brescia 1944, p. 83 f.). Others are scandalized by the absence of the passage in the parallel passages of Mk. and Lk. But it is this absence that needs explaining rather than the presence in Matthew, since in Mark and Luke the dialogue is interrupted. Jesus in fact could only have asked that question in order to dispose the Apostles to an important teaching, whose content Matthew reports: the role 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 compactness; he will be the holder of the keys, that is, of the supreme power, God's superintendent in the Church; therefore a) to Peter is promised a true primacy of jurisdiction b) and to him personally. It is in fact a response to his faith; to him alone is the name changed, which is identified with his function; to him singly are the words of Jesus addressed even though Peter spoke on behalf of all: "Blessed are you... and I say to you: You are Peter and upon this rock... to you I will give..."; moreover the metaphors of the keys and of the power to bind and to loose indicate the supreme power of government and of judgment in the Church. Key in fact in Sacred Scripture is a synonym for 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 Lk. 11:52: "clavis scientiae"). The faculty of binding and loosing anything indicates the full and perfect power in all religious affairs 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; I Cor. 3:11), since 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 rebuke of Christ to the Apostles who were disputing about primacy in the Kingdom of heaven be opposed (Mt. 20:25-28), because Jesus does not deny power and hierarchy in society, but only points out the duty of charity and humility to those who must command: "Not so among you...".
2. 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 answers: 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 whole chapter, but it is proved, besides by 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 with assurance. Several times the prophets had spoken of the Messiah as 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. 16:11-16). By entrusting his flock ("my lambs, my sheep") to Peter, he equivalently declared that he was constituting him his vicar on earth, with the powers of supreme head of the Church. Such powers are given only to Peter and it is not difficult to discern in them 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.St. Paul does not treat explicitly of the primacy of Peter; indeed, he names him in only two letters: six times with the Aramaic name Kefa and twice with the Greek one Πέτρος (Gal. 2:7 and 8). Clement of Alexandria (in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., I, 12, 2) had already thought of two distinct individuals in order to conclude that Paul would not have opposed Peter but rather an obscure Judaizer. But it is not necessary to explain the incident at Antioch (Gal. 2:11-14) in this way in order to safeguard the primacy of Peter, which in it is instead fully affirmed. In fact, Paul's open opposition was not an act of rebellion, but a loyal and public observation (public because the scandal was public); Paul does not undermine Peter's authority, but points out his practical inconsistency ("he stood condemned": κατεγνωσμένος ἦν) and the consequences of his equivocal conduct (ὑποκρίσις); moreover, X. Roiron acutely observes (St Paul témoin de la primauté de St Pierre, in Recherches de science religieuse, 4 [1915], p. 518) that "Paul was not a Gallican: he does not appeal from Peter to the Council (of Jerusalem), but from Peter to Peter." Besides, Peter's influence is clear from the fact that his example drew even Barnabas, who had nevertheless defended with Paul the freedom of converts from paganism (Acts 15). It should further be noted that the whole episode is reported by Paul in order to prove, by the authority of Peter which his adversaries set against him, the non-necessity of Jewish practices for salvation. A little earlier, he had said to the same purpose: "James, Cephas and John, recognized as pillars, gave to me and to
Barnabas the right hand as a sign of communion...» (Gal. 2:9). On this point the Protestant K. Holl observes: "If one is to speak of a pope in this hierarchy, it would be James, not Peter" (Der Kirchenbegriff der Paulus, Berlin 1921, p. 932). But with St. Thomas it is more natural to explain: "Praemittitur Jacobus quia erat episcopus Jerosolymorum, ubi haec facta sunt" (In Gal. 2, 9), and therefore his adherence was more suited to move the Judaizers who took strength from his name (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 PERENNITY OF THE PRIMACY OF SAINT PETER AND OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF
The primacy conferred on St. Peter was not a title of honor, but a grave task and a social function. He is the fundamental "rock" of the building, he is the shepherd of the flock; his primacy is social, ecclesiological. Jesus in fact, in establishing him as head, gives a determined imprint to his Church, a hierarchical-monarchical form, which is essential to it, specific: it could not change without the Church itself changing, indeed without it dissolving, scattering for lack of a shepherd, collapsing for lack of a foundation. But Jesus has promised indefectibility (v.) to his Church, stability, solidity, perennity on the foundation that is Peter: "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16, 18; cf. ibid. 7, 24-27: the stone as symbol of the stability of the house). With this, immortality is not promised to Peter. In conferring the primacy on him, Jesus knows well that Peter will die and how he will die (Jn. 21, 18); therefore his intention is clear that Peter's primacy passes to his successors, in whom he "even to this day, and always, lives and judges" (words of the papal legates at the Council of Ephesus: Denz-U, 112). St. Thomas (C. Gent., IV, 76) summarizes the reasons for the perennity of the primacy: "Since (Christ) was about to withdraw bodily from the Church, it was necessary (oportuni) that he entrust to someone, in his place, the care of the whole Church. For this reason he said to Peter before the ascension: Feed my lambs... But it cannot be said that, having given such dignity to Peter, through him it is not transmitted to others. It is clear in fact that Christ instituted the Church in such a way that it would last until the end of time. It is manifest therefore that he established his ministers in such a way that their power would be transmitted to posterity, for the utility of the Church, until the end of the ages."III. THE PRIMACY OF SAINT PETER AND OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF
In fact, the successor of Peter is the Bishop of Rome. There is a historical proof: St. Peter exercised his episcopal ministry in Rome and died there (v. PIETRO, APOSTOLO); and a theological proof, which is set out here: the Catholic Church has always recognized the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as successor of Peter.One cannot demand that the primacy of the Roman Pontiff should have imposed itself and been exercised at once with the same clarity and breadth as today. It is enough to discover in the origins the essential traits, from which derives the homogeneous development of the same power conferred on St. Peter. This is a law common to most revealed truths (v. DOGMA) and to the Church herself, compared by Jesus to a seed that develops. Progress, in this case, concerns not the idea in itself, as the Protestants hold, but the ever clearer consciousness of it that the Church and the pontiffs had, and the ever greater fullness of its exercise, under the pressure of circumstances.
The « épiphanie de la primauté romaine » (P. Batiffol, L'Eglise naissante et le catholicisme, Paris 1909, p. 146) is constituted by the letter of St. Clement to the church of Corinth on account of 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 from the first century the bishop of Rome was convinced of his superiority over the other bishops » (M. Giraudo, L'ecclesiologia di s. Clemente Romano, Bologna 1943, p. 46). The opinion of R. Cauvelsert (L'intervention de l'Eglise de Rome à Corinthe vers l'an 96, in Revue d'hist. ecclés., 31 [1935], pp. 267-306), who discerns 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, invoked or not, in the internal affairs of the Church of Corinth, while the apostle St. John was still living at Ephesus, and while other Asiatic Churches had closer, easier and friendlier relations with that Church, the authoritative tone and the reception given to it (attested by Dionysius of Corinth around 170, in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., IV, 23, 11), constitute a 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 praises (prol.). He acknowledges that Church as teacher of the others (« You have not envied anyone, 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 Jesus Christ alone act in place of the bishop, and your charity (ἀγάπη: 9, 1). The « charity » ἀγάπη is for Ignatius 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 the other Christian communities. This recognition has all the more value in 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 comes to the fore in the paschal controversy. A council of bishops was assembled in Asia Minor by order of Pope Victor, and, as they were unwilling to conform to the Roman custom (followed by most of the other Churches), the Pope threatened them with excommunication, which was averted by the good offices of Irenaeus, who respectfully pointed out the consequences of such an act, more harmful than advantageous (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., V, 24, 9-18).
The same Irenaeus has left the clearest testimony of the primacy of the Church of Rome. Having demonstrated that the Catholic truth is found genuinely in the traditions of the Churches founded by the Apostles, he continues: « But since it would be too long to enumerate the successors of the Apostles in all the Churches, we shall concern ourselves only with one Church, the greatest and the most ancient (maximae et antiquissimae), known to all, founded and constituted 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 out of conceit or error, out of self-complacency or vainglory, wish to seek the truth where it cannot be found (praeterquam oportet colligunt). For with this Church, on account of its superior authority (propter po[ten]tiorem principalitatem), every Church must necessarily agree (convenire = be in agreement), that is, all the faithful of 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 clause « ab his qui sunt undique » is the object of differing interpretations. G. Morin (Revue bénédictine, 25 [1908], pp. 515-20), followed by P. Batiffol (L'Eglise naissante, cit., pp. 249-52) and by M. Jugie (Le schisme byzantin, Paris 1941, p. 51), considers it an error of the copyist, to be replaced by a word indicating the presbyters who preside at Rome, e.g., « ab his qui praesunt ecclesia ». R. Jaquin (L'année théologique, 1948, p. 95 ff.), followed by Ch. Mohrmann (A propos de Irenneus, Adv. Haer., 3, 3, 1, in Vigiliae Christianae, 3 [1949], pp. 56-61), proposes to translate: « better than in all other places (Churches) », taking « ab » in the sense of « prae » (Gk. παρὰ), examples not being lacking in the Latinity of that time, especially in the Latin version of the Old Testament. For others « ab » has a causal sense: through the merit of the Church of Rome the tradition has been preserved in all the Churches (J. Forget, St Irénée et la primauté romaine, in Ephem. Theol. Lovan., 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 (Eglise séparées, Paris 1896, p. 119), to find a clearer expression: of the doctrinal unity in the universal Church; of the supreme, unique importance of the Roman Church, as witness, guardian and organ of the apostolic tradition; of its superiority in the whole of Christendom ».
Tertullian, when he was Catholic, showed great veneration for Rome, norm of truth (De praescrip. 36, 4: PL 2, 58-61), 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 acknowledges that Peter was established as 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 considered himself invested with the supreme powers as successor of Peter. In the same place he affirms that the bishop of Carthage, against whom he probably polemicizes, attributed to himself the power to bind and loose by virtue of his communion with the bishop of Rome « ad omnem Ecclesiam Petri propinquam ».
St. Cyprian, spiritually a disciple of Tertullian, takes a step forward: he regards the Church of Rome as the legitimate heir of Peter's powers, indeed as the "chair of Peter" (Ep., 55, 14: PL 3, 843-49; De unit. Eccl., c. 4: PL 4, 513-16). But it is not clear what primacy he attributes to St. Peter and respectively to the Church of Rome. The principal text is c. 4 of the De unitate Ecclesiae, which is transmitted in two slightly different recensions (one expresses Peter's primacy more clearly than the other), but both 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, which Catholic and Protestant scholars alike accepted).
The most explicit affirmations of Peter's primacy are attenuated by the recognition of equal powers in the other Apostles. For Peter there remains only a very generic primacy, which St. Cyprian understands in function of the unity of Christendom. Rome, moreover, is the "chair of Peter, the principal church, from which the sacerdotal unity (= of the bishops) has sprung" (Ep., 55, 14: PL 3, 843-49, cf. B. Poschmann, Ecclesia principalis. Ein kritischer Beitrag zur Frage des Primats bei Cyprian, Breslau 1933). In fact, however, in the controversy with Pope Stephen over the Baptism of heretics, he reduced the power of this function 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 through heresy, St. Cyprian, consulted by the bishop of Lyon, did not refer the matter back to the bishops of the province, but invited Pope Stephen himself to intervene with his authority (Ep., 65: PL 3, 1023), showing himself convinced that the bishop of Rome, and he alone, could judge and depose the other bishops. Whatever his thought may be, he testifies that deposed bishops and schismatics went to Rome to justify themselves (Ep., 55 and 67: PL 3, 843, 1023).
A testimony almost contemporary with the preceding one comes from Egypt. St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria (d. 268), denounced for suspect doctrines by some of his faithful, was invited by Pope Dionysius to justify himself: this he did without difficulty, indeed assuring him that he would consult him in all the more 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).
On the basis of 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 ends of the West, feel in all things, in faith, in discipline, in government, in rites, in works of charity, the ceaseless action of the Roman Church. It is known everywhere, as Irenaeus says, present everywhere. Before it there is no competition, no rivalry. No one has the idea of putting himself on a par with it. Later there would be patriarchates and local primacies; but hardly, in the course of the 3rd century, can their first outlines be discerned, more or less vague. Above these organisms in formation, as above the whole body of the Churches, rises the Church of Rome in its sovereign majesty, represented by its bishops whose long series links back to the two leaders of the apostolic choir; which feels itself, asserts itself, and is held throughout the world to be the center and the organ of unity" (Église séparées, Paris 1896, pp. 155-56). This did not escape the pagans themselves. In 272 the emperor Aurelian decided in favor of the bishop in communion with Rome a controversy that had arisen in Antioch over Paul of Samosata (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VII, 30, 18-19).
It should further be noted that men such as St. Polycarp, Hegesippus, St. Justin, Abercius, St. Irenaeus, Origen, traveled from Asia and Egypt to go to Rome; indeed, from the 2nd century onward, as Irenaeus, Tertullian and St. Cyprian attest, the heretics themselves (Valentinus, Cerdo, Marcion, Apelles, Praxeas, Florinus, Theodotus the Byzantine) went there to obtain a confirmation of their doctrines.
The Council of Nicaea (325), convoked by Constantine with the consent of the bishop of Rome and presided over by his legate Hosius of Cordoba together with the Roman priests Vitus and Vincent, expressed the general conviction of the Pope's primacy in the fact that they signed 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 of the Baptism of heretics. The Pope's primacy appeared more evident in the controversies that followed the Council, in which 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 Echos 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 Chalcedoine). When the Eusebian heretics turned to the Pope to have the deposition of St. Athanasius approved, Pope Julius I summoned accusers and accused to Rome, and did them justice (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 then for the first time. Julius I calls it a custom (ἔθος ἦν: St. Athanasius, Apologia c. Arian., 25) and Theodoret states of him that he acted according to the ecclesiastical norm (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 humanity." In the West they thought no differently. The Councils of Elvira (306) and of Arles (314) inform 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 the heretics (in 377 there were three bishops at Antioch at the same time), St. Jerome asked Pope Damasus which of the three bishops was really in communion with him (all three claimed to be with Rome) so as to know how to regulate them: "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 came to Rome from the West and from the East.
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, since his see was troubled by the claims of Ursinus, who, expelled by Valentinian, attempted several times to return. Against him St. Ambrose wrote to the emperor Gratian "so that he would not allow the Roman Church to be disturbed, from which come to all the rights of the venerable communion: inde enim in omnes venerandae communionis jura dimanant" (Ep. 11, 4: PL 16, 986). This indicates that there could be no communion of 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 sacerdotal unity has arisen (exorta est)"; St. Ambrose instead: "from it flow (dimanant: actually, continuously) the rights of communion." Moreover, Pope Damasus was well aware of his authority: he dictated a formula of faith, to which all "those who wished to preserve the apostolic tradition" had to adhere (Theodoret, Hist. eccl., V, 10: PG 82, 1219-22), subscribed in fact by 146 Eastern bishops at the Council of Antioch of 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), confirmed Peter of Alexandria, deposed by the Arians (Jaffé-Wattenbach, I, 236).
Contemporary with him, the First Council of Constantinople (381) declared: "The bishop of Constantinople has the primacy of honor (τὰ πρῶτα 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 only a pretext for advancing 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 should be remembered that this Council of Constantinople was not considered ecumenical with regard to the divinity of the Holy Spirit until much later: nor did the Easterners themselves (the West was unaware of this particular) avail themselves of can. 3 except at the Council of Chalcedon (451).
In fact, Constantinople did not cease to have recourse to Rome in the most difficult moments. St. John Chrysostom, setting out for exile 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 did not wish to recognize the innocence of Chrysostom; in the end they had to yield to the arguments of Rome (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 the numerous doctrinal interventions against the Donatists, the Pelagians, the Origenists, and in the pastoral solicitude for all the Churches: "We bear the burdens of all, or rather the blessed apostle Peter bears them in us, who in all things, we trust, protects us as heirs of his stewardship" wrote Pope Siricius (Denz-U, 87). More clearly Pope Innocent I, in 417, wrote to the African bishops that, according to the ancient tradition faithfully followed by them, no ecclesiastical cause, even in the most remote regions, should be considered finished until the Apostolic See has pronounced on it (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 affair (causa) the (acts of) two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See, and from there the rescripts have come. The cause is finished: let the error also finish" (Serm., 131, 10: PL 38, 734; hence the well-known aphorism: Roma locuta, causa finita). And to Pope Boniface (in 420) he repeats: "The letters of Pope Innocent of blessed memory have removed all doubt in this affair" (Contra duas epist. pelag., II, 5: PL 44, 574). On that occasion he submitted to the judgment of the Pope ("to examine and, if need be, correct") the refutation of the accusations of heresy brought against him by the Pelagians.
In the earlier anti-Donatist polemic, St. Augustine had inherited from Optatus of Milevis two great arguments, criteria of orthodoxy: the catholicity of the Church and union with the cathedra Petri: he has the true faith who is in union with Rome, which has always enjoyed the primacy as the apostolic see (Ep., 43, c. 7, 7: PL 33, 169), the chair of Peter, in whom the grace of the primacy shone forth in an eminent manner (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).
In the midst of the Council of Ephesus (431) the Roman legate Philip declared it undoubted and most well known that the blessed Peter, prince and head (ἔξαρχος καὶ κεφαλή) of the Apostles, and foundation of the Church, lives and judges in his successors at Rome (Denz-U, 112). Cyril himself had affirmed that he acted only in the name of the bishop of Rome and "constrained by the canons and by the letter of the holy father and our colleague Celestine, bishop of Rome" (Mansi, IV, 1124). As soon as he received the Acts of the Council, Celestine approved them as regards the condemnation of Nestorius, but rejected them as regards the condemnation of John of Antioch, made without his consent. Cyril and his followers, two years later, came to an agreement with the "Easterners" and John of Antioch.
John of Antioch had sought to avoid the condemnation of Nestorius, inviting him in 430 to submit to the judgment of Rome. Two friends of John, Eutherius of Tyana and Helladius of Tarsus, had recourse to Rome to justify their refusal to subscribe to the formula of union of 433 with a letter "which is an irrefragable 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). Also Theodoret of Cyrrhus, the greatest theologian of the group of the "Easterners," deposed by the Conciliabulum of Ephesus (449) presided over by Dioscorus (v.), appealed to the bishop of Rome: "We have recourse to your apostolic see to receive from you the remedies for the wounds of our Churches. To you, in fact, belongs the primacy (ἐπρατευεῖν; elsewhere he speaks of ἡγεμονία: 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 "the brigandage of Ephesus" (latrocinium Ephesium), and asked the emperor Theodosius to convoke a true ecumenical council in Italy; but he obtained this only from his successor Marcian and in the East, when he had already judged it superfluous, since the majority of the Eastern bishops had accepted the formula of faith composed by him against the Eutychian heresy. It is the famous Tomus ad Flavianum. Flavian then, bishop of Constantinople, had been deposed in the "brigandage of Ephesus" and, replaced by Anatolius, had died shortly afterward. Anatolius had hastened to communicate his appointment to Pope Leo, who however requested the subscription of the Tomus in order to accept him into his communion. Anatolius promptly subscribed (M. Jugie, op. cit., p. 70; there other interventions of Pope Leo in the Church of Constantinople).
The ecumenical Council was held from Oct. 8 to Nov. 1
451 at Chalcedon, near Constantinople, under the presidency of the papal legates. From the outset they obtained that Dioscorus be admitted only as an accused man and Theodoret instead as a member, because he had been rehabilitated by Pope Leo. The Pope's letter to Flavian was received as the faith of the Fathers and of the Apostles. "We all," they acclaimed, "believe thus... Anathema to him who does not believe thus. Peter has spoken through Leo" (Petrus per Leonem locutus est: sess. II). It was only following repeated requests of the imperial legates that the fathers of the Council decided to draw up a formula of faith shorter and more compendious than the Pope's letter.
Dioscorus was condemned, the Council wrote to the Emperor, because he did not permit the letter (the Tomus) of the most holy archbishop of ancient (venerable) Rome, Leo, to be read at the Council of Ephesus (on the Pope's primacy at Chalcedon, note should be taken of the objective and authoritative exposition of Pius XII, in the encyclical Sempiternus Rex of 8 Sept. 1951, in AAS, 43 [1951], pp. 629-32). It must be recognized 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 the Eastern Illyricum (Ep., 5, 2), "extends to all the Churches; for thus the Lord requires of us (cf. 'ex divina istititudine': Ep., 12, 1), who entrusted to the most blessed apostle Peter the primacy of the apostolic dignity as a reward for his faith, establishing in the solidity of that same foundation the whole Church." "The awareness he had of his primacy in the Church, as successor of Peter, is evident in his discourses and in his continual doctrinal and disciplinary interventions in all the Churches. Some have wished to make of him the first pope; but he created nothing, he received everything from tradition: he was simply fully pope, as no one 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).
But canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon indicated that the process of emancipation from Rome was very far advanced in the East. Without openly denying the Roman primacy, Constantinople detached itself from it more and more, ill tolerating its interference in the Eastern Churches. In this, caesaropapism played a great part. Other causes, the ambition of the patriarchs, national pride and 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 swarms, with a total of 217 years of open separation from Rome (cf. I. Pargoire, L'Eglise byzantine de 527 à 847, 3rd ed., Paris 1923, pp. 196-197). Nevertheless Photius (v.) was the first to combat with writings the primacy of the bishop of Rome: "Against those who say that Rome is the first see." He exploited the letter of canon 28 and came to claim for himself the primacy in the Church (M. Jugie, op. cit., pp. 136-38). Nonetheless the union with Rome was reconstituted when Photius lost the favor of the new Emperor and was deposed. But it could no longer be reconstituted once 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 the Sabbath day, the ring worn by bishops, and for other pretexts.
A contemporary of Photius, Ratramnus of Corbie (v.) thus expressed the thought of the Western theologians to Pope Nicholas I in 867: "We firmly hold that the authority of the Roman Pontiff excels (praemines) above all the Churches of Christ, so that all must regard him as head and on his judgment must depend everything that is arranged in ecclesiastical affairs; so that at his discretion it remains established or the error is corrected or whatever must be innovated is sanctioned" (Contra Grae. opposita, IV, c. 8: PL 121, 336). The authors of the Gregorian age and the scholastics began a theologia papalis, brief and pithy. St. Thomas (Sum. Theol., 2ª-2ª, q. 89, a. 2, 9, ad 3) affirms that the Pope has the fullness of power in ecclesiastical affairs and the care of the whole 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
PRIMACY OF ST. PETER AND OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF
amply 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 abuses of the King of France and of the Emperor. Then Giles of Rome (v.) wrote the De ecclesiastica potestate and James of Viterbo (v.) the 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 which led to the dogmatic definitions of the Vatican Council.
IV. THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH
The Catholic doctrine on the primacy of Peter and of the Roman Pontiff was set out clearly in the Second Council of Lyons of 1274 (Denz-U, 466), in the Council of Florence of 1439 (Denz-U, 694), two Councils for the union of the Greeks with Rome, in the Professio fidei Tridentina (Denz-U, 999); and finally it was solemnly defined in the Vatican Council with the apostolic constitution Pastor Aeternus approved in the fourth session (18 July 1870). It consists of four chapters, with four canons that express 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 saving work of the Redemption, determined to build the Holy Church" and to secure for it "the unity of the faith and of communion, by placing the blessed Peter at the head (praeponens) of the other Apostles, he established 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. St. Peter was constituted immediately by Jesus Christ prince of the Apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant with a primacy not of honor, but of true and proper jurisdiction (cap. 1, can. 1; Denz-U, 26, 1822-23).
2. Since the work of salvation was to be perpetuated through the centuries, by divine will, St. 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 (cap. 2, can. 2; Denz-U, 1824-25).
3. The primacy of the Roman Pontiff, the sole legitimate successor of St. Peter, consists in the full power to feed, rule and govern the whole Church, that is, in the supreme, ordinary, immediate, universal jurisdiction, independent of every 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 questions concerning faith and morals and in those of discipline and ecclesiastical government. Such authority does not annul that of the bishops, but strengthens it and vindicates it, if it is necessary (cap. 3, can. 3; Denz-U, 1826-31).
4. The Roman Pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra by personal privilege (ex sese) is infallible (cap. 4, can. 4; Denz-U, 1832-40): v. INFALLIBILITÀ.
V. OPEN QUESTIONS
The ecclesiastical magisterium has not definitively pronounced on two points: the relations between the primacy and Rome, and the origin of the power of bishops. The question is asked what bond exists between the see of Rome and the primacy of government in the Church. It is untenable that this bond is due to a simple historical fact and depends on the arbitrary will of the Church, which could dissolve it, recognizing the primacy in another bishop, even against the will of the Roman Pontiff. This presupposes conciliarism (v.)which the Church has definitively condemned. The assertion of Melchior Cano, Gregory of Valencia and above all of St. Robert Bellarmine, according to which the choice of the see of Rome was explicitly indicated by Christ, seems exaggerated. With lesser probability (the Vatican Council abstained from condemning this position), it has been thought (Paludanus, Dom. Soto, Bañez) that St. Peter chose Rome as his definitive see by purely 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; in whatever place he resides (for example, at Avignon) he is always the Bishop of Rome.
The question is further asked in what relationship the power of bishops stands to 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 the 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 every power of jurisdiction in the Church; Batiffol (Cathedra Petri, op. cit., pp. 95-103) has shown that the idea goes very far back in tradition. The Vatican Council made its own the words of St. Ambrose: "From there (from 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, as he received from God his supreme power" (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. ERRORS
They have in common the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, but differ in their more or less radical methods. Some limit the powers of the Pope in relation to civil power (the regalists of the 14th century and the supporters of the royal "placet") or in relation to the Council (v. CONCILIARISM) or in relation to the bishops (v. GALLICANISM) or in relation to the "perfect" (the Beghards of the 14th century) or to the Church in general (Febronius, v. HONTHEIM), going so far as to deny any difference of power between the bishops and the Pope (v. MARSILIUS OF PADUA) or between the clergy and the laity themselves (v. LUTHER). Or else the primacy and the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff are simply denied (Old Catholics; the Czechoslovak church; Eastern dissidents).The pretexts for such denials are various. Those of the Donatists and of the separated Easterners are of a rather dogmatic nature (the Church would have fallen into error, into heresy); the scandal of subjects belonging to the hierarchy; an error repeated by all those who set themselves up as reformers: the Waldensians (13th century), the Fraticelli (14th century); Luther. It was again the principle, accepted in Gratian's Decree and entirely uncontested throughout the Middle Ages (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), namely that the Pope is judgeable in the event that he falls into heresy, that gave rise to the conciliar theory. Subsequently motives of a political order came in, as in the opposition of Philip the Fair and Louis the Bavarian, in whose favor Marsilius of Padua wrote the Defensor pacis: not only was the primacy of Peter and of the Pope denied there, but every power was made to depend on the will of the Emperor. More openly national motives sustained the Gallicans and gave rise to the Anglican schism. In the last century Protestant criticism presented a scientific apparatus. It was like a reflowering of studies on the early Church. Characteristic was the theory of the Tübingen school (initiated by F. C. Baur, Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi, Stuttgart 1845), which saw in the episode at Antioch (Gal. 2:11-14) the revelation of two opposing currents in the early Church: Paulinism and Petrinism; the latter would have prevailed after some centuries with the Church of Rome. The theory, received by some with much favor, was strongly combated by others (F. M. Braun, op. cit., p. 46 ff.). At the end of the last century liberal Protestant criticism (Sohm, Harnack, Sabatier) held that the Church was an idea foreign to the thought of Jesus, which would have developed, under the influence of the Pauline conception of the Mystical Body and the pressure of the Gnostic and Montanist crises of the second century, from which emerged the need for a central and strong government and magisterium (cf. P. Batiffol, L'Eglise naissante et le catholicisme [v. BIBLICA.], pp. 172-93). The text of Matthew was held to be interpolated entirely or in part (F. M. Braun, op. cit., pp. 80-82). More recent Protestant theology is less radical, but refuses to see in the passage a true primacy of Peter; above all it separates Peter from the Pope, so that at most it would be a strictly personal privilege (ibid., p. 96). The Anglicans, as can be gathered from the Malines Conversations (v. MALINES, CONVERSATIONS OF), while granting the Roman Pontiff the primacy in principle, from the biblical, historical and dogmatic point of view make reservations about its nature.
BIBL.: sources