PRIMATO DI SAN PIETRO E DEL ROMANO PONTEFICE

### PRIMACY OF SAINT PETER AND OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF

The primacy which the Catholic Church acknowledges in Saint Peter within the college of the Apostles, and in every Roman Pontiff as Peter’s successor among all bishops, is not merely a special title of honor, nor is it merely a “presidential” primacy—since the president receives his powers from the society over which he presides—but is a primacy of true governing authority, of “jurisdiction,” which entails proper, supreme, and independent powers,

direct and universal over all the faithful. As Christ’s Vicar and supreme arbiter of Christendom, the Roman Pontiff does not absorb or prejudice the independence of civil power, nor the proper powers of each bishop (just as papal infallibility [V. INFALLIBILITÀ] does not dispense from or supplant human labor in preparing dogmatic definitions).

**SUMMARY:**

I. The primacy of Saint Peter

II. The perpetuity of the primacy

III. The primacy of the Roman Pontiff

IV. The doctrine of the Church

V. Open questions

---

### I. THE PRIMACY OF SAINT PETER

The Evangelists consistently recognize in Saint Peter a singular position within the apostolic college. He is one of the three chosen to witness the healing of Jairus’s 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 4:33); he is one of the two sent to prepare the Passover (Lk 22:8), and indeed he 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). Matthew expressly emphasizes: “prôtos and mēnōn déchomenos Pétros.” This is more than a simple ordinal number, as A. Loisy also noted (Les Évangiles synoptiques, I, Paris 1907, pp. 529–530), for in that case the numbering would have had to continue before each Apostle.

Peter himself was conscious of his position, for it is he who generally speaks on behalf of all (Mt 14:28; 15:15; 16:16–22; 17:4; 18:21; 19:27; 20:33; 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). The position of Peter cannot be attributed to his seniority (there is no reason to believe he was the eldest), 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, for although the Apostles had cause to complain about the pretensions of the sons of Zebedee (Mt 20:24), they never did so regarding Peter’s. The origin of Peter’s primacy must be sought in the conduct and explicit affirmations of Jesus. If John could consider himself the beloved Apostle, Peter felt himself enveloped by greater attentions. Jesus chose his house in which to dwell (Mk 1:29 and parallels), his boat from which to preach (Lk 5:1), granted him the grace to walk on water (Mt 14:28–29), paid the tribute for him (Mt 17:24–27), shared with him the most intimate revelations (Mt 17:1ff.; 26:37 and parallels), assured him of particular prayer and that once converted he would strengthen his brethren in the faith (Lk 22:32), 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, Jesus appeared to him in a singular way (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 Eastern and Jewish environment, was the gesture made at their first encounter: the change of name (Jn 1:42). In the only cases known to Jewish history, those of Abraham (Gen 17:5) and 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 primacy.

#### 1. Promise of the Primacy

About the middle of the second year of his preaching, Jesus one day took aside only the Apostles and journeyed toward the pagan region of Caesarea Philippi. He asked them: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?... But who do you say I am?” Peter answered: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him: “Blessed are you, Simon son of John, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And so I say to you: You are Peter (Aram.: Kēpha’), and upon this rock (Aram.: kēpha’) I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against II. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 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 is accepted in all recent critical editions (cf. A. Medebielle, Église, in DBs, II, col. 613). Opponents can only raise internal arguments against II. But against the hypothesis of a Roman interpolation stands the vividly Semitic coloring of the passage (flesh and blood, rock-foundation, gates of hell, keys of the kingdom, binding and loosing), which points back at least to an ancient Palestinian tradition in which Peter was regarded as founder and head (cf. F. M. Braun, Nuovi aspetti del problema della Chiesa, trans. it., Brescia 1944, pp. 83–84). Others are scandalized by the absence of the passage in the parallel texts of Mk and Lk. But this absence is more easily explained than the presence in Matthew, since 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: Peter’s task in the formation and governance 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 transparent clarity of the Semitic expressions. Peter is constituted the foundation of the Church (cf. Mt 7:24), that is, the cause of its stability and competence; he will be the holder of the keys, that is, of supreme power, the representative of God in the Church; hence Peter is promised a true primacy of jurisdiction, and this personally. It is indeed a response to his faith; it is to him alone that the name is changed, which identifies with his function; it is to him personally that Jesus’ words are 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 you...”; 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, a key is synonymous with authority (cf. Is 22:22: “et dabo clavem domus David super humerum eius”; Rev 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1; the only exception is Lk 11:52: “clavis scientiae”). The faculty to bind and loose anything indicates the 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), since Jesus, who 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 disputing about primacy in the kingdom of heaven (Mt 20:25–28) be opposed, for Jesus does not deny power and hierarchy in society, but only indicates the duty of charity and humility for those who must command: “It shall not be so among you...”

#### 2. Conferral of the Primacy

The primacy was conferred after the Resurrection, as Saint 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 said to him, ‘Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.’ He said to him, ‘Feed my lambs’... ‘Tend my sheep.’”

The text is critically certain. Opponents deny the authenticity of the entire chapter, but this is proven, 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 as supreme head of the Church with the powers to guide all the faithful with certainty. The prophets had often spoken of the Messiah as shepherd of his people (Mt 2:13; 4:6-7; 5:3; Zeph 3:19; Jer 23:3; 31:10; Is 40:11; 49:9-10; Ezek 34:7-24; 37:23-25; Zech 11:7-9), and Jesus himself had presented himself as the true shepherd (Mt 18:12; Lk 15:4; Jn 11:11-16). By entrusting his flock ("my angels, my sheep") to Peter, he declared equivalently 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 today is called jurisdiction. With this act, the promises made at Caesarea Philippi were perfectly fulfilled.

3. Exercise of the Primacy — It began even before the solemn conferral, when, after Jesus’ crucifixion, the Apostles gathered spontaneously around Peter. To him first the Magdalene reported the empty tomb (Jn 20:2; cf. Mk 16:7: "tell his disciples and Peter"), and in entering, John gave him precedence (Jn 20:6; cf. Lk 24:22). Later, Peter’s decision to go fishing drew six other disciples (Jn 21:3). After Jesus’ ascension, Peter was in full conscious and operative possession of his primacy. He presided over the election of a new apostle (Acts 1:15-26); first, as head of the Apostles, he preached (ibid., 2:14) and as such was addressed by his hearers (ibid., 2:37); he performed the first miracle (ibid., 3:6) and others with nothing more than his shadow (ibid., 5:15); it was he who answered the Sanhedrin (ibid., 4:8) and who, as head of the movement, was imprisoned by Herod (ibid., 12:3); as judge of the community he punished Ananias and Sapphira (ibid., 5:1-11). As for his being "sent" (ibid., 8:14) to Samaria with John, this indicates that the Apostles considered his work indispensable for establishing the new community. The narrative further shows that he was also head in comparison to John (ibid., 8:20, 3). Moreover, his authority was exercised everywhere, as he continually visited the various Christian communities (ibid., 9:32). His authority was decisive in admitting Gentiles to the faith (ibid., 11:18), and later it manifested itself more solemnly in the Council of Jerusalem, which he presided over (ibid., 15). His discourse decided the controversy (ibid., 15:12), since James merely confirmed with the authority of Scripture and indicated the practical way to receive the Gentiles (ibid., 15:13-21). The question examined by the Council had been proposed by Barnabas and Paul. The latter is often opposed to St. Peter, especially by the Protestant school of Tübingen. In reality, it would seem that Paul proclaimed his equality with Peter (Gal 2:8) or at least his independence (ibid., 1:1); elsewhere he seems to arrogate a certain superiority to himself, even publicly rebuking him (ibid., 2:11); in the same letter he places him after James (ibid., 2:9), and in 1 Cor (1:12) he speaks with a certain disdain of the party of Cephas.

St. Paul does not explicitly treat of the primacy of Peter; in fact, he mentions him in only two letters: six times with the Aramaic name Cephas and twice with the Greek Πέτρος (Gal 2:7 and 8). Already Clement of Alexandria (in Eusebius, Hist. ecc., 1:12, 2) had thought of two distinct individuals in order to conclude that Paul would not have opposed Peter but an obscure Judaizer. But it is not necessary to explain the Antioch incident (Gal 2:11-14) in this way to save the primacy of Peter, which is instead fully affirmed in II. Indeed, 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 attack Peter’s authority but points out his practical inconsistency ("he was shown to be wrong": κατεγνωσμένος ἦν) and the consequences of his equivocal conduct (ὑποκρισις); moreover, as X. Roiron shrewdly observes (St Paul témoin de la primauté de St Pierre, in Recherches de science religieuse, 4 [1913], p. 518), "Paul was not a Gallican: he did not appeal from Peter to the Council (of Jerusalem), but from Peter to Peter." Moreover, Peter’s influence is clear from the fact that his example even drew Barnabas, who had defended with Paul the freedom of converts from paganism (Acts 15). It should also be noted that the entire episode is recounted by Paul to prove, with Peter’s authority—which his adversaries opposed to him—that the practices of the Law were not necessary for salvation. Shortly before, he had said for the same purpose: "James, Cephas, and John, recognized as pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in a sign of communion..." (Gal 2:9). On this point the Protestant K. Holl observes: "If one must speak of a pope in this hierarchy, it would be James, not Peter" (Der Kirchenbegriff der Paus, Berlin 1921, p. 932). But with St. Thomas it is more natural to explain: "James is mentioned first because he was bishop of Jerusalem, where these things happened" (In Gal. 2:9), and thus his adhesion was more suited to influence the judgments that were made in his name (Gal 2:12).

Paul, moreover, excludes any dependence on James, affirming that he had seen him (ἐδῶν) only when he went up to Jerusalem "to visit Cephas" (ibid., 1:18). Such indeed is the sense of the Greek ἱστὸς Ἱεροσολύμων Κηφᾶν. Chrysostom observes: "He did not say ἰδὲν Πέτρον, but ἱστὸς Ἱεροσολύμων Κηφᾶν, as those who visit in order to become acquainted with great cities" (PG 61, 631). From the context it appears that Paul went up to Jerusalem not primarily to learn doctrine but to meet Peter (cf. M.-J. Lagrange, Epître aux Galates, Paris 1918, p. 17). After this, that he should find in Corinth, where Peter had never been, a party that appealed to the name of Cephas (1 Cor 1:12), only confirms the great influence of Peter in the early Church; indeed, Paul presupposes it to prove faith in the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor 15:5) and to justify his own conduct (ibid., 9:5).

II. The Perpetuity of the Papacy

The papacy conferred upon St. Peter was not an honorary title, but a grave duty and a social function. He is the "rock" upon which the Church is built, the shepherd of the flock; his papacy is social and ecclesiological. Jesus, in constituting him as head, gave a determinate importance to His Church, a hierarchical-monarchical form which is essential and specific to it: it could not change without the Church itself changing, indeed without it collapsing, dispersing without a shepherd, or crumbling for lack of a foundation. But Jesus promised indefectibility (v.) to His Church, its 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 a symbol of the stability of the house). This does not promise immortality to Peter. In conferring the papacy upon him, Jesus knew well that Peter would die and how he would die (Jn. 21:18); hence it is clear that His intention was that Peter’s papacy 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 perpetuity of the papacy: "Since Christ was about to withdraw Himself bodily from the Church, it was necessary (oportuit) that He entrust to someone the care, in His place, 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, it should not be transmitted to others through him. It is clear indeed that Christ founded the Church in such a way that it would endure until the end of time. It is manifest, therefore, that He constituted 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."

II. 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. PETER, APOSTLE); and there is theological proof, which is set forth 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 beginning 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 in the majority of revealed truths (v. DOGMA) and in the Church itself, compared by Jesus to a seed that grows. In this case, the progress does not concern the idea itself, as Protestants believe, but the ever clearer consciousness which the Church and the popes had of it, and the ever greater fullness of its exercise, under the impetus of circumstances.

The *épiphanie* of Roman primacy (P. Batiffol, *L'Église naissante et le catholicisme*, Paris 1909, p. 146) is constituted in the letter of St. Clement to the Church of Corinth because 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 even in the first century the Bishop of Rome was convinced of his superiority over the other bishops (M. Giraudo, *L'ecclesiaologica di S. Clemente Romano*, Bologna 1943, p. 46). The opinion of R. Cauwelaert (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 invited or not—in the internal affairs of the Church of Corinth, while St. John the Apostle was still living in Ephesus, and other Asian churches had closer and more friendly relations with Corinth, the authoritative tone and the reception accorded to it (attested by Dionysius of Corinth about 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 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: "Let Jesus Christ alone take the 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' (προσκόπησεν τῇ ἀγάπῃ) or simply 'presides in the region of the Romans' (προσκόπησεν ἐν τόπῳ χωρίον Πρωταθέλῳ, prol.). One does not preside over a virtue, but over a society; here it is a community that presides—προσκόπησεν, in absolute form—evidently over all other Christian communities. This recognition is all the more valuable 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 shone forth in the Paschal controversy. A council of bishops was convoked in Asia Minor at the order of Pope Victor, and, since they refused to conform 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 deleterious than beneficial consequences of such an act (Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.*, V, 24, 9-18).

The same Irenaeus left the clearest testimony to the primacy of the Church of Rome. Having demonstrated that the Catholic truth is genuinely found 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 not occupy ourselves with any other Church than the one which is the greatest and most ancient (maxima et antiquissima), 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, through blindness or error, through self-complacency or vain-glory, wish to seek the truth where it cannot be found (praeterquam oportet colligunt). For to this Church, on account of its more powerful pre-eminence (propter po[ten]tiorem principalitatem), it is necessary that every Church, that is, all the faithful of the world, should conform (convenire = be in agreement). 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 beginning “ab his qui sunt undique” is subject to various interpretations. G. Morin (Revue bénédictine, 25 [1908], pp. 515-20), followed by P. Batiffol (L'Eglise naissante, cit., pp. 249-52) and M. Jugie (Le schisme byzantin, Paris 1941, p. 51), considers it a copyist’s error, to be replaced by a word indicating the presbyters who preside in Rome, e.g., “ab his qui praesunt ecclesiis.” R. Jaquin (L'année théologique, 1948, p. 95, 95-96), followed by Ch. Mohrmann (A propos de Ireneaus, Adv. Haer., 3, 3, 1, in Vigiliae Christianae, 3 [1949], pp. 56-61), proposes to translate: “rather than in all other places (Churches),” taking “ab” in the sense of “prae” (Gr. πραξ), there being examples in Latin of that time, especially in the Latin version of the Old Testament. For others, “ab” has a causal sense: by 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, Milano 1939).

However, as L. Duchesne notes (Eglises séparées, Paris 1896, p. 119), it is difficult to find a clearer expression of the doctrinal unity of the universal Church; of the supreme and unique importance of the Roman Church as witness, guardian, and organ of the apostolic tradition; and of its superiority within the whole of Christendom.

When Tertullian was still Catholic, he showed great veneration for Rome as the norm of truth (De praescript. 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 praescript., 36, 3: PL 2, 61). He acknowledges that Peter was constituted the foundation of the Church with singular and supreme powers which Christ willed to be transmitted to the Church (Scorpiae, 10, 12: PL 2, 164-65). But having become a Montanist, he maintained that these powers were strictly personal (De pudic., 21, 10: PL 2, 1078-79). In so doing, he attests that the Bishop of Rome was regarded as invested with supreme powers as Peter’s successor. In the same passage, he affirms that the Bishop of Carthage, against whom he was probably polemicizing, claimed the power to bind and loose for his communion with the Bishop of Rome “ad omnem Ecclesiam Petri propinquam.”

St. Cyprian, the spiritual disciple of Tertullian, takes a further step: 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 to the Church of Rome respectively. The principal text is chapter 4 of De unitate Ecclesiae, which is transmitted in two slightly different recensions (one of which expresses more clearly than the other the primacy of Peter), but both are authentic (cf. J. Chapman, Les interpolations dans le 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 adhered).

The most explicit affirmations of Peter’s primacy are balanced by the recognition of equal powers in the other Apostles. To Peter there remains only a very general primacy which St. Cyprian understands in function of the unity of Christendom. Rome is then the “Chair of Peter,” the principal Church, from which the priestly unity (= of the bishops) has arisen (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 collegial than submissive. Nevertheless, when the Bishop of Arles, having rendered himself unworthy through heresy, was deposed, St. Cyprian, consulted by the Bishop of Lyons, 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), thereby demonstrating his conviction that the Bishop of Rome, and he alone, could judge and depose other bishops. Whatever his personal view may have been, he attests that deposed bishops and schismatics went to Rome to justify themselves (Ep., 55, 6: PL 3, 843, 1023).

A nearly contemporary testimony comes from Egypt. St. Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria (d. 268), denounced for suspect doctrines by some of his flock, was invited by Pope Dionysius to justify himself, which he did without difficulty, even assuring him that he would consult him in all difficult doctrinal and disciplinary matters (cf. 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, Ossory, Cappadocia, to the farthest reaches of the West, in all things—faith, discipline, government, rites, works of charity—felt the incessant action of the Roman Church. It is known everywhere, as Irenaeus says, present everywhere. Before it, no rivalry, no competition. No one even thinks of placing himself on an equal footing with II. Later there will be patriarchates and local primacies, but barely, in the course of the third century, can one discern their first, more or less vague outlines. Above these emerging structures, as above the whole of the Churches, rises the Church of Rome in its sovereign majesty, represented by its bishops whose long line is traced back to the two leaders of the apostolic choir; it is felt, affirmed, and regarded throughout the world as the center and organ of unity” (Eglises séparées, Paris 1896, pp. 155-56). This did not escape the notice of pagans themselves. In 272, the Emperor Aurelian decided in favor of the bishop united with Rome in a controversy that had arisen in Antioch over Paul of Samosata (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VII, 30, 18-19).

It should also be noted that men such as St. Polycarp, Hegesippus, St. Justin, Abercius, St. Irenaeus, and Origen traveled from Asia and Egypt to Rome; indeed, as early as the second century, as attested by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and St. Cyprian, heretics themselves (Valentinus, Cerdon, Marcion, Apelles, Praxeas, Florinus, Theodotus the Byzantine) went to Rome to obtain 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 Córdoba along with the Roman priests Vitus and Vincent, expressed the general conviction of the primacy of the Pope in the fact that the latter subscribed to 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, pp. 330 ff.), and in resolving according to the Roman judgment the old disputes regarding Easter and the baptism of heretics. The primacy of the Pope became even more evident 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 au 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 heretics attempted to secure papal decisions to secure the deposition of St. Athanasius, Pope Julius I summoned both 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 refusing to approve the condemnation of Eustathius of Sebaste. The right of appeal was not invoked for the first time at this point. Julius I calls it a custom (ἔθος ἦν: St. Athanasius, *Apologia c. Arian.*, 25), and Theodoret states that he acted according to ecclesiastical rule (τῷ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἐπόμενος νόμῳ: *Hist. eccl.*, II, 4; PG 82, 1219); and the historian Socrates speaks in this sense of an ecclesiastical rule (τῷ ἐκκλησιαστικῷ κινδύνῳ: *Hist. eccl.*, II, 17). The same “ecclesiastical rule,” according to Sozomen, a contemporary of Socrates, required that nothing of importance or definitive be treated without the consent of the bishop of Rome (*Hist. eccl.*, III, 10; cf. P. Batiffol, *Le siège apostolique*, Paris 1924, pp. 411-416). 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 the whole world.” In the West, there was no different opinion. The Councils of Elvira (306) and Arles (314) first informed Rome 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 half a century later when, writing against the Donatists, he states 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 communion (II, 3; PL 11, 947-950).

In the tangled disputes stirred up by heretics (in 377 there were three bishops simultaneously at Antioch), St. Jerome asked Pope Damasus which of the three bishops was truly in communion with him (all three claimed to be in communion with Rome) so that he might know how to act: “I am in communion with your Beatitude, that is, with the see 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 and of the Antichrist” (*Ep. 15 ad Dam.*: PL 22, 355-56). In 402 (*Contra Rufin.*, I, 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 spent in Rome with Pope Damasus (380-84), he recalls countless appeals of scandals that reached Rome from both the West and the East.

It is 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 pretensions of Ursinus, who, expelled by Valentinian, attempted several times to return. Against him, St. Ambrose wrote to 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 veneranda communio*” (*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 (exorta est) the unity of the priesthood has arisen”; St. Ambrose, on the other hand: “from it flow (dimanant) the rights of communion.” Moreover, Pope Damasus was fully aware of his authority: he composed 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), which was in fact subscribed to by 146 Eastern bishops at the Council of Antioch in 379; he restored Eustathius of Sebaste to his see (*s. Basil, Ep. 263 ad Dam.*: PG 32, 979), deposed Auxentius of Milan (Mansi, III, 439), 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-Wattenbach, I, 236).

Contemporary with him, the First Council of Constantinople (381) declared: “The bishop of Constantinople has the primacy of honor (τὰ περὶ σὰν τῇ τῇ μῆς) immediately after that of Rome, because Constantinople is the New Rome” (can. 3). While the primacy of Rome was acknowledged, its divine origin was denied; but this was only 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 that 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 detail) avail themselves of can. 3 except at the Council of Chalcedon (451).

In fact, Constantinople continued to have recourse to Rome in the most difficult moments. St. John Chrysostom, departing for his second exile (404), appealed to the Western bishops, above all to Pope Innocent. In reality, it was only the Pope who acted energetically in his defense. He did not hesitate to communicate with the bishops of Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria because they refused to acknowledge the innocence of Chrysostom; in the end, they had to yield to the reasons 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 was beyond dispute, manifesting itself in numerous doctrinal interventions against the Donatists, Pelagians, and 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, in whom we trust, as heirs of his administration, and he protects us in all things,” 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 concluded until the Apostolic See had pronounced upon 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: “When the cause is already at Rome, the acts of two councils have 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 saying: *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 matter” (*Contra duas epist. pelag.*, 11, 5: PL 44, 574). On that occasion, he submitted to the judgment of the Pope (to examine and, if necessary, correct) the refutation of the accusations of heresy made against him by the Pelagians.

In the previous anti-Donatist controversy, St Augustine had inherited from Optatus of Milevis two major arguments, criteria of orthodoxy: the catholicity of the Church and union with the cathedra Petri. He who has true faith is in union with Rome, which has always enjoyed the primacy as an apostolic see (Ep., 43, c. 7, 7: PL 33, 169), the cathedra of Peter, in which the grace of the primacy shone forth in a most 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 full session of the Council of Ephesus (431), the Roman legate Philip declared it indubitable and most well-known that the blessed Peter, prince and head (ἐξάρχος καὶ ἀρχή) of the Apostles and foundation of the Church, lives and judges in his successors at Rome (Denz-U, 112). Cyril himself had resolved to act only in the name of the Bishop of Rome and, constrained by the canons and by the letter of our holy father and fellow bishop Celestine, Bishop of Rome (Mansi, IV, 1124). As soon as he received the Acts of the Council, Celestine approved them insofar as they concerned the condemnation of Nestorius, but rejected them insofar as they concerned the condemnation of John of Antioch, which had been made without his consent. Two years later, Cyril and his party reached an agreement with the Orientals 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 judge the meaning of his refusal to subscribe to the formula of union of 433 with a letter that is an irrefutable testimony of their belief in the Roman primacy (M. Jugie, op. cit., p. 68; cf. P. Batiffol, Les recours d'Rome, in Cachedra Petri, cit., pp. 242-243). Even Theodore of Cyrus, the greatest theologian of the Eastern group, deposed at the Council 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 remedies for the wounds of our Churches. For to you belongs the primacy (τρέφειν), elsewhere he speaks of ἡγνυμόν: Ep. 117: PG 83, 1324) over all titles. I await the judgment of your apostolic see” (Ep., 113: PG 83, 1316).

Pope St Leo condemned the council, calling it the “brigandage of Ephesus” (latrocinium Ephesinum), and asked 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 that he had composed against the Eutychian heresy. It is the famous Tomus ad Flavianum. Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople, had been deposed at the “brigandage of Ephesus” and, replaced by Anatolius, died shortly afterward. Anatolius hastened to inform Pope Leo of his appointment, but the Pope requested the subscription of the Tomus in order 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 9, 451, at Chalcedon near Constantinople, under the presidency of the papal legates. From the beginning, they obtained that Dioscorus be admitted only as an accused party and Theodore instead as a member, since he had been rehabilitated by Pope Leo. The letter of the Pope to Flavian was received as the faith of the Fathers and of the Apostles. “We all believe thus,” they acclaimed, “let whoever does not believe thus be anathema. Peter has spoken through Leo” (Petrus per Leonem locutus est: sess. II). It was only after repeated entreaties by the imperial legates that the Fathers of the Council decided to draw up a briefer and more concise creed than the Pope’s letter.

Dioscorus was condemned, the Council wrote to the Emperor, because he did not permit the reading of the letter (the Tomus) of the most holy archbishop of ancient (venerable) Rome, Leo, at the Council of Ephesus (concerning the primacy of the Pope at Chalcedon, one should note the objective and authoritative exposition of Pius XII in the encyclical Sempiternus Rex of September 8, 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 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 most blessed Apostle Peter the primacy of apostolic dignity as a reward for his faith, constituting the whole Church upon the solidity of this same foundation.” The consciousness that 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 him the first pope; but he created nothing, everything he received from tradition: he was nothing more than fully pope, as no one before him had been (cf. P. Santini, op. cit. in bibl.: V. MONACO, Genesi storica del can. 28a di Calcedonia, in Gregoriano, 33 [1952], pp. 261-91).

But canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon indicated that the process of emancipation from Rome was very advanced in the East. Without openly denying the Roman primacy, Constantinople increasingly detached itself from it, ill-tolerating its interference in the Eastern Churches. In this, caesaropapism played a large part. Other causes—ambitions 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 840 (end of iconoclasm), there were no fewer than seven schisms, amounting to 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 attack in writing 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 even went so far as to claim the primacy for himself in the Church (M. Jugie, op. cit., pp. 136-38). Nonetheless, union with Rome was restored when Photius lost the favor of the new emperor and was deposed. But it could no longer be restored 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 Saturday, the ring worn by bishops, and other pretexts.

Contemporary with Photius, 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 (praeminent) over all the Churches of Christ, so that all must regard him as their head and everything that is arranged in ecclesiastical affairs must depend on his judgment; so that by his authority error may be corrected or whatever must be innovated may be sanctioned” (Contra Graec. opposita, IV, c. 8: PL 121, 336). The authors of the Gregorian age and the scholastics began a theologia papalis, brief and concise. St Thomas Aquinas (Sum. Theol., 2a-2ae, q. 89, a. 9, ad 3) affirms that the Pope has the fullness of power in ecclesiastical affairs and the care of the whole Church. In Contra Gentiles (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.

Extensively in the pamphlet: *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 arrogance of the King of France and the Emperor. At that time, Giles of Rome (v.) wrote *De ecclesiastica potestate* Viterbo (v.) *De regimine christiano*, the first treatises of the Church (cf. M. Maccarrone, *Il papa «vicarius Christi»: testi e dottrina dal sec. XII al principio del XIV*, in *Miscellanea Paschini*, I, Rome 1949, pp. 466-70). The Protestant Reformation and Galileanism provoked a deepening of the doctrine of the See of Rome, leading to the dogmatic definitions of the Vatican Council.

IV. THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH

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

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

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

3. The primacy of the Roman Pontiff, the only legitimate successor of St. Peter, consists in the full power to teach, rule, and govern the whole Church, that is, in the supreme, ordinary, immediate, universal, and independent jurisdiction from any civil authority. To this power corresponds in all the faithful, of whatever rite or dignity, whether considered individually or collectively, the duty of true obedience in matters concerning faith and morals as well as discipline and ecclesiastical governance. Such authority does not annul that of the bishops but strengthens and vindicates it when necessary (ch. 3, can. 3; Denz-U, 1826-31).

4. The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks *ex cathedra* by virtue of his office (ex sese), is infallible (ch. 4, can. 4; Denz-U, 1832-40): V. INFALLIBILITY.

V. OPEN QUESTIONS

It is also asked what relation the power of the bishops bears to the supreme power of the Pope. Some hold that, since the episcopate is of divine right (cf. can. 1083), the power of the bishops comes to them from the same episcopal ordination. 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 jurisdiction in the Church; Batiffol (*Cathédra Petri*, op. cit., pp. 95-103) has shown that this idea goes back far in tradition. The Vatican Council adopted the words of St. Ambrose: “From there (Rome) come to all the rights of the venerable communion.” Pius VI wrote against the Jansenists of Pistoia: “From him (the Roman Pontiff) the bishops themselves receive their authority, as he received his supreme power from God” (Denz-U, 1500). Pius XII in the encyclical *Mystici Corporis*: “(The bishops) receive their ordinary power of jurisdiction immediately from the Supreme Pontiff” (*AAS*, 35 [1943], p. 212).

VI. ERRORS

The pretexts for such denials are varied. Of a rather dogmatic nature are those of the Donatists and the separated Easterners (the Church would have fallen into error or heresy); the scandal of subjects belonging to the hierarchy; an error repeated by all who posed as reformers: the Waldensians (13th century), the Fraticelli (14th century), Luther. It was also the principle, accepted in Gratian’s Decree and unchallenged throughout the Middle Ages (cf. V. MARTINO G, *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 subject to judgment if he falls into heresy, which gave rise to the conciliar theory. Subsequently, political motives intervened, as in the opposition of Philip the Fair and Louis the Bavarian, in favor of whom Marsilius of Padua wrote the *Defensor pacis*: not only was the primacy of Peter and the Pope denied, but every power was made dependent 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 scholarly apparatus. It was like a revival of studies on the early Church. Characteristic is 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, welcomed by some with great favor, was strongly contested by others (F. M. Braun, op. cit., p. 46 ff.). At the end of the last century, liberal Protestant criticism (Sohm, Har

Some (e.g., Nack, Sabatier) held that the Church was an idea foreign to Jesus’ thought, 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, into the need for a strong central government and magisterium (cf. P. Batiffol, L’Église naissante et le catholicisme [V. BIBLICA.], pp. 172-93). The text of Matthew was deemed entirely or partially interpolated (F. M. Braun, op. cit., pp. 80-82). More recent Protestant theology is less radical but still rejects seeing 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). Anglicans, as can be seen from the Malines Conversations (v. MALINES, CONVERSAZIONI di), while granting the Roman Pontiff the primacy in principle, from a biblical, historical, and dogmatic standpoint raise reservations about its nature.

ANTONIO PIOLANTI