CINXE.COM

<!DOCTYPE html> <html lang="en"> <head> <title>CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Pope</title><script src="https://dtyry4ejybx0.cloudfront.net/js/cmp/cleanmediacmp.js?ver=0104" async="true"></script><script defer data-domain="newadvent.org" src="https://plausible.io/js/script.js"></script><link rel="canonical" href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm"> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"> <meta name="description" content="The bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter, chief of the whole Church, and the Vicar of Christ on earth"> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="RSS" href="http://feeds.newadvent.org/bestoftheweb?format=xml"><link rel="icon" href="../images/icon1.ico" type="image/x-icon"><link rel="shortcut icon" href="../images/icon1.ico" type="image/x-icon"><meta name="robots" content="noodp"><link type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" href="../utility/screen6.css" media="screen"></head> <body class="cathen" id="12260a.htm">  <br/> <div id="capitalcity"><table summary="Logo" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width="100%"><tr valign="bottom"><td align="left"><a href="../"><img height=36 width=153 border="0" alt="New Advent" src="../images/logo.gif"></a></td><td align="right"> <form id="searchbox_000299817191393086628:ifmbhlr-8x0" action="../utility/search.htm">  <input type="hidden" name="safe" value="active"> <input type="hidden" name="cx" value="000299817191393086628:ifmbhlr-8x0"/> <input type="hidden" name="cof" value="FORID:9"/>  <label for="searchQuery" id="searchQueryLabel">Search:</label> <input id="searchQuery" name="q" type="text" size="25" aria-labelledby="searchQueryLabel"/>  <label for="submitButton" id="submitButtonLabel" class="visually-hidden">Submit Search</label> <input id="submitButton" type="submit" name="sa" value="Search" aria-labelledby="submitButtonLabel"/> </form> <table summary="Spacer" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td height="2"></td></tr></table> <table summary="Tabs" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_color_on_beige" href="../"> Home </a></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_white_on_color" href="../cathen/index.html"> Encyclopedia </a></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_color_on_beige" href="../summa/index.html"> Summa </a></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_color_on_beige" href="../fathers/index.html"> Fathers </a></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_color_on_beige" href="../bible/gen001.htm"> Bible </a></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_color_on_beige" href="../library/index.html"> Library </a></td> </tr></table> </td> </tr></table><table summary="Alphabetical index" width="100%" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td class="bar_white_on_color"> <a href="../cathen/a.htm"> A </a><a href="../cathen/b.htm"> B </a><a href="../cathen/c.htm"> C </a><a href="../cathen/d.htm"> D </a><a href="../cathen/e.htm"> E </a><a href="../cathen/f.htm"> F </a><a href="../cathen/g.htm"> G </a><a href="../cathen/h.htm"> H </a><a href="../cathen/i.htm"> I </a><a href="../cathen/j.htm"> J </a><a href="../cathen/k.htm"> K </a><a href="../cathen/l.htm"> L </a><a href="../cathen/m.htm"> M </a><a href="../cathen/n.htm"> N </a><a href="../cathen/o.htm"> O </a><a href="../cathen/p.htm"> P </a><a href="../cathen/q.htm"> Q </a><a href="../cathen/r.htm"> R </a><a href="../cathen/s.htm"> S </a><a href="../cathen/t.htm"> T </a><a href="../cathen/u.htm"> U </a><a href="../cathen/v.htm"> V </a><a href="../cathen/w.htm"> W </a><a href="../cathen/x.htm"> X </a><a href="../cathen/y.htm"> Y </a><a href="../cathen/z.htm"> Z </a> </td></tr></table></div> <div id="mobilecity" style="text-align: center; "><a href="../"><img height=24 width=102 border="0" alt="New Advent" src="../images/logo.gif"></a></div>  <div id="mi5"><span class="breadcrumbs"><a href="../">Home</a> > <a href="../cathen">Catholic Encyclopedia</a> > <a href="../cathen/p.htm">P</a> > The Pope</span></div> <div id="springfield2"> <div class='catholicadnet-728x90' id='cathen-728x90-top' style='display: flex; height: 100px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; '></div> <h1>The Pope</h1> <p><em><a href="https://gumroad.com/l/na2"><strong>Please help support the mission of New Advent</strong> and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more  all for only $19.99...</a></em></p> <p>(<a href="../cathen/09019a.htm">Ecclesiastical Latin</a> <em>papa</em> from Greek <em>papas</em>, a variant of <em>pappas</em> father, in <a href="../cathen/09032a.htm">classical Latin</a> <em>pappas</em>  Juvenal, "Satires" 6:633).</p> <p>The title <em>pope</em>, once used with far greater latitude (see below, <a href="../cathen/12260a.htm#V">section V</a>), is at present employed solely to denote the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Bishop</a> of <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a>, who, in virtue of his position as <a href="../cathen/01641a.htm">successor</a> of <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">St. Peter</a>, is the chief <a href="../cathen/04049b.htm">pastor</a> of the whole <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>, the <a href="../cathen/15403b.htm">Vicar of Christ</a> upon earth.</p> <p>Besides the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishopric</a> of the <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">Roman Diocese</a>, certain other dignities are held by the pope as well as the supreme and universal pastorate: he is <a href="../cathen/01691a.htm">Archbishop</a> of the <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Roman</a> <a href="../cathen/12514a.htm">Province</a>, <a href="../cathen/12423b.htm">Primate</a> of <a href="../cathen/08208a.htm">Italy</a> and the adjacent islands, and sole <a href="../cathen/11549a.htm">Patriarch</a> of the <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">Western Church</a>. The <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">Church's doctrine</a> as to the pope was authoritatively declared in the <a href="../cathen/15303a.htm">Vatican Council</a> in the <a href="../cathen/04320a.htm">Constitution</a> "Pastor Aeternus". The four chapters of that <a href="../cathen/04320a.htm">Constitution</a> deal respectively with the office of Supreme Head conferred on <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">St. Peter</a>, the perpetuity of this office in the <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">person</a> of the Roman pontiff, the pope's <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">jurisdiction</a> over the <a href="../cathen/05769a.htm">faithful</a>, and his supreme authority to <a href="../cathen/04675b.htm">define</a> in all questions of <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a> and <a href="../cathen/10559a.htm">morals</a>. This last point has been sufficiently discussed in the article <a href="../cathen/07790a.htm">INFALLIBILITY</a>, and will be only incidentally touched on here.</p> <div class="CMtag_300x250" style="display: flex; height: 300px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; "></div> <p>The present article is divided as follows:</p> <div class="bulletlist"><dl> <dd><a href="../cathen/12260a.htm#I">I. Institution of a Supreme Head by Christ</a> <dd><a href="../cathen/12260a.htm#II">II. Primacy of the Roman See</a> <dd><a href="../cathen/12260a.htm#III">III. Nature and Extent of the Papal Power</a> <dd><a href="../cathen/12260a.htm#IV">IV. Jurisdictional Rights and Prerogatives of the Pope</a> <dd><a href="../cathen/12260a.htm#V">V. Primacy of Honour: Titles and Insignia</a></dl></div> <h2 id="i">Institution of a supreme head by Christ</h2> <p>The <a href="../cathen/12454c.htm">proof</a> that <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> constituted <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">St. Peter</a> head of His <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> is found in the two famous Petrine texts, <a href="../bible/mat016.htm#vrs17">Matthew 16:17-19</a>, and <a href="../bible/joh021.htm#vrs15">John 21:15-17</a>.</p> <h3>Matthew 16:17-19</h3> <p>In <a href="../bible/mat016.htm#vrs17">Matthew 16:17-19</a>, the office is solemnly <a href="../cathen/12453a.htm">promised</a> to the <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Apostle</a>. In response to his profession of <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a> in the Divine <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">Nature</a> of his <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Master</a>, <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> thus addresses him:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="../cathen/02599b.htm">Blessed</a> art thou, <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Simon Bar-Jona</a>: because flesh and blood hath not <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revealed</a> it to thee, but my <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Father</a> who is in <a href="../cathen/07170a.htm">heaven</a>. And I say to thee: That thou art <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a>; and upon this rock I will build my <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>, and the gates of <a href="../cathen/07207a.htm">hell</a> shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the <a href="../cathen/08631b.htm">keys</a> of the <a href="../cathen/08646a.htm">kingdom of heaven</a>. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in <a href="../cathen/07170a.htm">heaven</a>: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in <a href="../cathen/07170a.htm">heaven</a>.</p></blockquote> <p><strong>"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven."</strong> The prerogatives here <a href="../cathen/12453a.htm">promised</a> are manifestly personal to <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a>. His profession of <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a> was not made as has been sometimes asserted, in the name of the other <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a>. This is evident from the words of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a>. He pronounces on the <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Apostle</a>, distinguishing him by his name Simon son of John, a peculiar and personal <a href="../cathen/02599b.htm">blessing</a>, declaring that his <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">knowledge</a> regarding the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Divine Sonship</a> sprang from a special <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revelation</a> granted to him by the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Father</a> (cf. <a href="../bible/mat011.htm#vrs27">Matthew 11:27</a>).</p> <p><strong>"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter. . ."</strong> He further proceeds to recompense this confession of His Divinity by bestowing upon him a reward proper to himself:</p> <blockquote><p>Thou art Peter [<em>Cepha</em>, transliterated also <em>Kipha</em>] and upon this rock [<em>Cepha</em>] I will build my <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>.</p></blockquote> <p>The word for <em>Peter</em> and for <em>rock</em> in the original Aramaic is one and the same; this renders it evident that the various attempts to explain the term "rock" as having reference not to <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> himself but to something else are misinterpretations. It is <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> who is the rock of the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>. The term <em>ecclesia</em> (<em>ekklesia</em>) here employed is the Greek rendering of the <a href="../cathen/07176a.htm">Hebrew</a> <em>qahal</em>, the name which denoted the <a href="../cathen/08193a.htm">Hebrew nation</a> viewed as <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">God's Church</a> (see <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">THE CHURCH</a>, I).</p> <p><strong>"And upon this rock I will build my Church. . ."</strong> Here then <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> teaches plainly that in the future the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> will be the <a href="../cathen/14074a.htm">society</a> of those who acknowledge Him, and that this <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> will be built on <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a>.</p> <p>The expression presents no difficulty. In both the <a href="../cathen/14526a.htm">Old</a> and <a href="../cathen/14530a.htm">New Testaments</a> the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> is often spoken of under the metaphor of <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God's</a> house (<a href="../bible/num012.htm#vrs7">Numbers 12:7</a>; <a href="../bible/jer012.htm#vrs7">Jeremiah 12:7</a>; <a href="../bible/hos008.htm#vrs1">Hosea 8:1</a>; <a href="../bible/hos009.htm#vrs15">9:15</a>; <a href="../bible/1co003.htm#vrs9">1 Corinthians 3:9-17</a>, <a href="../bible/eph002.htm#vrs20">Ephesians 2:20-2</a>; <a href="../bible/1ti003.htm#vrs5">1 Timothy 3:5</a>; <a href="../bible/heb003.htm#vrs5">Hebrews 3:5</a>; <a href="../bible/1pe002.htm#vrs5">1 Peter 2:5</a>). <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> is to be to the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> what the foundation is in regard to a house.</p> <p>He is to be the principle of <a href="../cathen/15179a.htm">unity</a>, of stability, and of increase. He is the principle of <em>unity</em>, since what is not joined to that foundation is no part of the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>; of <em>stability</em>, since it is the firmness of this foundation in virtue of which the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> remains unshaken by the storms which buffet her; of <em>increase</em>, since, if she grows, it is because new stones are laid on this foundation.</p> <p><strong>"And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."</strong> It is through her union with <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a>, <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> continues, that the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> will prove the victor in her long contest with the <a href="../cathen/04764a.htm">Evil One</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>The gates of <a href="../cathen/07207a.htm">hell</a> shall not prevail against it.</p></blockquote> <p>There can be but one explanation of this striking metaphor. The only manner in which a man can stand in such a relation to any corporate body is by possessing authority over it. The supreme head of a body, in dependence on whom all subordinate authorities hold their power, and he alone, can be said to be the principle of stability, <a href="../cathen/15179a.htm">unity</a>, and increase. The <a href="../cathen/12453a.htm">promise</a> acquires additional <a href="../cathen/14133a.htm">solemnity</a> when we remember that both <a href="../cathen/14526a.htm">Old Testament</a> <a href="../cathen/12477a.htm">prophecy</a> (<a href="../bible/isa028.htm#vrs16">Isaiah 28:16</a>) and <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ's</a> own words (<a href="../bible/mat007.htm#vrs24">Matthew 7:24</a>) had attributed this office of foundation of the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> to Himself. He is therefore assigning to <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a>, of course in a secondary degree, a prerogative which is His own, and thereby associating the <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Apostle</a> with Himself in an altogether singular manner.</p> <div class="CMtag_300x250" style="display: flex; height: 300px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; "></div> <p><strong>"And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven."</strong> In the following verse (<a href="../bible/mat016.htm#vrs19">Matthew 16:19</a>) He <a href="../cathen/12453a.htm">promises</a> to bestow on <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> the <a href="../cathen/08631b.htm">keys</a> of the <a href="../cathen/08646a.htm">kingdom of heaven</a>.</p> <p>The words refer evidently to <a href="../bible/isa022.htm#vrs22">Isaiah 22:22</a>, where <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> declares that Eliacim, the son of Helcias, shall be invested with office in place of the worthless Sobna:</p> <blockquote><p>And I will lay the <a href="../cathen/08631b.htm">key</a> of the house of <a href="../cathen/04642b.htm">David</a> upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut and none shall open.</p></blockquote> <p>In all countries the key is the symbol of authority. Thus, <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ's</a> words are a <a href="../cathen/12453a.htm">promise</a> that He will confer on <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> supreme power to govern the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>. <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> is to be His vicegerent, to rule in His place.</p> <p><strong>"And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."</strong> Further the character and extent of the power thus bestowed are indicated. It is a power to "bind" and to "loose"  words which, as is shown below, denote the grant of legislative and judicial authority. And this power is granted in its fullest measure. Whatever <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> binds or looses on earth, his <a href="../cathen/01115a.htm">act</a> will receive the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Divine</a> ratification.</p> <h4>Objections</h4> <p>The meaning of this passage does not seem to have been challenged by any writer until the rise of the <a href="../cathen/12700b.htm">sixteenth-century heresies</a>. Since then a great variety of interpretations have been put forward by <a href="../cathen/12495a.htm">Protestant</a> controversialists. These agree in little save in the rejection of the plain sense of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ's</a> words. Some <a href="../cathen/01498a.htm">Anglican</a> controversy tends to the view that the reward <a href="../cathen/12453a.htm">promised</a> to <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">St. Peter</a> consisted in the prominent part taken by him in the initial activities of the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>, but that he was never more than <em>primus inter pares</em> among the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a>. It is manifest that this is quite insufficient as an explanation of the terms of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ's</a> <a href="../cathen/12453a.htm">promise</a>.</p> <h3>John 21:15-17</h3> <p>The <a href="../cathen/12453a.htm">promise</a> made by <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> in <a href="../bible/mat016.htm#vrs16">Matthew 16:16-19</a>, received its fulfilment after the <a href="../cathen/12789a.htm">Resurrection</a> in the scene described in <a href="../bible/joh021.htm">John 21</a>. Here the <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Lord</a>, when about to leave the earth, places the whole flock  the sheep and the lambs alike  in the charge of the <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Apostle</a>. The term employed in <a href="../bible/joh021.htm#vrs16">21:16</a>, "Be the shepherd [<em>poimaine</em>] of my sheep" indicates that his task is not merely to feed but to rule. It is the same word as is used in <a href="../bible/psa002.htm#vrs9">Psalm 2:9</a> (<a href="../cathen/13722a.htm">Septuagint</a>): "Thou shalt rule [<em>poimaneis</em>] them with a rod of iron".</p> <p>The scene stands in striking parallelism with that of <a href="../bible/mat016.htm">Matthew 16</a>. As there the reward was given to <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> after a profession of <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a> which singled him out from the other eleven, so here <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> demands a similar protestation, but this time of a yet higher <a href="../cathen/15472a.htm">virtue</a>: "<a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Simon, son of John</a>, <a href="../cathen/09397a.htm"><em>lovest</em></a> thou Me more than these"? Here, too, as there, He bestows on the <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Apostle</a> an office which in its highest sense is proper to Himself alone. There <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> had <a href="../cathen/12453a.htm">promised</a> to make <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> the foundation-stone of the house of <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a>: here He makes him the shepherd of <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">God's flock</a> to take the place of Himself, the Good Shepherd.</p> <p>The passage receives an admirable comment from <a href="../cathen/08452b.htm">St. Chrysostom</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>He saith to him, "Feed my sheep". Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a>? He was the chosen one of the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a>, the mouth of the <a href="../cathen/05029a.htm">disciples</a>, the head of the choir. For this reason <a href="../cathen/11567b.htm">Paul</a> went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [<em>prostasia</em>] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say "Why then was it <a href="../cathen/08280a.htm">James</a> who received the <a href="../cathen/05001a.htm">See</a> of <a href="../cathen/08344a.htm">Jerusalem</a>?", I should reply that He made <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> the teacher not of that <a href="../cathen/05001a.htm">see</a> but of the whole world. <br>[<a href="../cathen/08452b.htm">St. John Chrysostom</a>, <a href="../fathers/240188.htm">Homily 88 on John, 1</a>. Cf. <a href="../cathen/11306b.htm">Origen</a>, "In Ep. ad Rom.", 5:10; Ephraem Syrus "Hymn. in B. Petr." in "Bibl. Orient. Assemani", 1:95; <a href="../cathen/09154b.htm">Leo I</a>, "Serm. iv de natal.", 2].</p></blockquote> <p>Even certain <a href="../cathen/12495a.htm">Protestant</a> <a href="../cathen/04157a.htm">commentators</a> frankly own that <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> undoubtedly intended here to confer the supreme pastorate on <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a>. But other scholars, relying on a passage of <a href="../cathen/04592b.htm">St. Cyril of Alexandria</a> ("In Joan." 12:1), maintain that the purpose of the threefold charge was simply to reinstate <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">St. Peter</a> in the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostolic</a> commission which his threefold denial might be supposed to have lost to him. This interpretation is devoid of all probability. There is not a word in <a href="../cathen/13635b.htm">Scripture</a> or in <a href="../cathen/06001a.htm">patristic tradition</a> to suggest that <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">St. Peter</a> had forfeited his <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostolic</a> commission; and the supposition is absolutely excluded by the fact that on the evening of the <a href="../cathen/12789a.htm">Resurrection</a> he received the same <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostolic</a> powers as the others of the eleven. The solitary phrase of <a href="../cathen/04592b.htm">St. Cyril</a> is of no weight against the overwhelming <a href="../cathen/06001a.htm">patristic</a> authority for the other view. That such an interpretation should be seriously advocated <a href="../cathen/12454c.htm">proves</a> how great is the difficulty experienced by <a href="../cathen/12495a.htm">Protestants</a> regarding this text.</p> <h3>Conclusion</h3> <p>The position of <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">St. Peter</a> after the <a href="../cathen/01767a.htm">Ascension</a>, as shown in the <a href="../cathen/01117a.htm">Acts of the Apostles</a>, realizes to the full the great commission bestowed upon him. He is from the first the chief of the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostolic</a> band  not <em>primus inter pares</em>, but the undisputed head of the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> (see <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">THE CHURCH</a>, III).</p> <p>If then <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a>, as we have seen, established His <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> as a <a href="../cathen/14074a.htm">society</a> subordinated to a single supreme head, it follows from the very <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">nature</a> of the case that this office is perpetual, and cannot have been a mere transitory feature of <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">ecclesiastical</a> life. For the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> must endure to the end the very same organization which <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> established. But in an organized <a href="../cathen/14074a.htm">society</a> it is precisely the constitution which is the <a href="../cathen/05543b.htm">essential</a> feature. A change in constitution transforms it into a <a href="../cathen/14074a.htm">society</a> of a different kind. If then the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> should adopt a constitution other than <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> gave it, it would no longer be His handiwork. It would no longer be the <a href="../cathen/08646a.htm">Divine kingdom</a> established by Him. As a <a href="../cathen/14074a.htm">society</a> it would have passed through <a href="../cathen/05543b.htm">essential</a> modifications, and thereby would have become a <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">human</a>, not a Divine institution. None who <a href="../cathen/02408b.htm">believe</a> that <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> came on earth to found a <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>, an organized <a href="../cathen/14074a.htm">society</a> destined to endure for ever, can admit the possibility of a change in the organization given to it by its <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Founder</a>.</p> <p>The same conclusion also follows from a consideration of the end which, by <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ's</a> declaration, the supremacy of <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> was intended to effect. He was to give the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> strength to resist her foes, so that the gates of <a href="../cathen/07207a.htm">hell</a> should not prevail against her. The contest with the <a href="../cathen/04764a.htm">powers of evil</a> does not belong to the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostolic</a> age alone. It is a permanent feature of the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church's</a> life. Hence, throughout the centuries the office of <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> must be realized in the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>, in order that she may prevail in her age-long struggle.</p> <p>Thus an <a href="../cathen/01450a.htm">analysis</a> of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ's</a> words shows us that the perpetuity of the office of supreme head is to be reckoned among the <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">truths</a> <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revealed</a> in <a href="../cathen/13635b.htm">Scripture</a>. His <a href="../cathen/12453a.htm">promise</a> to <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> conveyed not merely a personal prerogative, but established a permanent office in the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>. And in this sense, as will appear in the next section, His words were understood by <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">Latin</a> and <a href="../cathen/05230a.htm">Greek</a> <a href="../cathen/06001a.htm">Fathers</a> alike.</p> <h2 id="ii">Primacy of the Roman See</h2> <p>We have shown in the last section that <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> conferred upon <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">St. Peter</a> the office of chief <a href="../cathen/04049b.htm">pastor</a>, and that the permanence of that office is essential to the very being of the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>. It must now be established that it belongs of <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a> to the <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">Roman See</a>. The <a href="../cathen/12454c.htm">proof</a> will fall into two parts:</p> <div class="bulletlist"><ul> <li>that <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">St. Peter</a> was <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Bishop</a> of <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a>, and </li><li>that those who <a href="../cathen/01641a.htm">succeed</a> him in that <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">see</a> <a href="../cathen/01641a.htm">succeed</a> him also in the supreme headship.</li></ul></div> <h3>St. Peter was Bishop of Rome</h3> <p>It is no longer denied by any writer of weight that <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">St. Peter</a> visited <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a> and suffered <a href="../cathen/09736b.htm">martyrdom</a> there (Harnack, "Chronol.", I, 244, n. 2). Some, however, of those who admit that he taught and suffered in <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a>, deny that he was ever <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a> of the <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">city</a> (e.g. Lightfoot, "Clement of Rome", II, 501; Harnack, op. cit., I, 703). It is not, however, difficult to show that the fact of his <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishopric</a> is so well attested as to be historically <a href="../cathen/03539b.htm">certain</a>. In considering this point, it will be well to begin with the third century, when references to it become frequent, and work backwards from this point.</p> <h4>St. Cyprian</h4> <p>In the middle of the third century <a href="../cathen/04583b.htm">St. Cyprian</a> expressly terms the <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">Roman See</a> the <a href="../cathen/03551e.htm">Chair of St. Peter</a>, saying that <a href="../cathen/04375c.htm">Cornelius</a> has succeeded to "the place of <a href="../cathen/05742d.htm">Fabian</a> which is the place of <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a>" (<a href="../fathers/050651.htm">Epistle 51:8</a>; cf. <a href="../fathers/050675.htm">75:3</a>).</p> <h4>Firmilian of Caesarea</h4> <p><a href="../cathen/06080b.htm">Firmilian of Caesarea</a> notices that <a href="../cathen/14288a.htm">Stephen</a> claimed to decide the controversy regarding rebaptism on the ground that he held the <a href="../cathen/01641a.htm">succession</a> from <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> (<a href="../cathen/04583b.htm">Cyprian</a>, <a href="../fathers/050675.htm">Epistle 75:17</a>). He does not deny the claim: yet certainly, had he been able, he would have done so. Thus in 250 the <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Roman</a> <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">episcopate</a> of <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> was admitted by those best able to <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">know</a> the <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">truth</a>, not merely at <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a> but in the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">churches</a> of <a href="../cathen/01191a.htm">Africa</a> and of <a href="../cathen/01782a.htm">Asia Minor</a>.</p> <h4>Tertullian</h4> <div class="CMtag_300x250" style="display: flex; height: 300px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; "></div> <p>In the first quarter of the century (about 220) <a href="../cathen/14520c.htm">Tertullian</a> (<a href="../fathers/0407.htm"><em>On Modesty</em> 21</a>) mentions <a href="../cathen/03183d.htm">Callistus's</a> claim that <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter's</a> power to <a href="../cathen/01061a.htm">forgive</a> <a href="../cathen/14004b.htm">sins</a> had descended in a special manner to him. Had the <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">Roman Church</a> been merely founded by <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> and not reckoned him as its first <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a>, there could have been no ground for such a contention. <a href="../cathen/14520c.htm">Tertullian</a>, like <a href="../cathen/06080b.htm">Firmilian</a>, had every motive to deny the claim. Moreover, he had himself resided at <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a>, and would have been well aware if the <a href="../cathen/07630a.htm">idea</a> of a <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Roman</a> episcopate of <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> had been, as is contended by its opponents, a novelty dating from the first years of the third century, supplanting the older <a href="../cathen/15006b.htm">tradition</a> according to which <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> and <a href="../cathen/11567b.htm">Paul</a> were co-founders, and <a href="../cathen/09272b.htm">Linus</a> first <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a>.</p> <h4>Hippolytus</h4> <p>About the same period, Hippolytus (for Lightfoot is surely right in holding him to be the author of the first part of the "Liberian Catalogue"  "Clement of Rome", 1:259) reckons <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> in the <a href="../cathen/12272a.htm">list of Roman bishops</a>.</p> <h4>"Adversus Marcionem"</h4> <p>We have moreover a poem, "Adversus Marcionem", written apparently at the same period, in which <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> is said to have passed on to <a href="../cathen/09272b.htm">Linus</a> "the <a href="../cathen/03551e.htm">chair</a> on which he himself had sat" (P.L., II 1077).</p> <h4>St. Irenaeus</h4> <p>These witnesses bring us to the beginning of the third century. In the second century we cannot look for much evidence. With the exception of <a href="../cathen/07644a.htm">Ignatius</a>, <a href="../cathen/12219b.htm">Polycarp</a>, and <a href="../cathen/04045a.htm">Clement of Alexandria</a>, all the writers whose works we possess are <a href="../cathen/01618a.htm">apologists</a> against either <a href="../cathen/08399a.htm">Jews</a> or <a href="../cathen/11388a.htm">pagans</a>. In works of such a character there was no reason to refer to such a matter as <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter's</a> <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Roman</a> episcopate.</p> <p><a href="../cathen/08130b.htm">Irenaeus</a>, however, supplies us with a cogent argument. In two passages (<a href="../fathers/0103127.htm"><em>Against Heresies</em> I.27.1</a> and <a href="../fathers/0103304.htm">III.4.3</a>) he speaks of <a href="../cathen/07593a.htm">Hyginus</a> as ninth <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Bishop</a> of <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a>, thus employing an enumeration which involves the inclusion of <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> as first <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a> (Lightfoot was undoubtedly wrong in supposing that there was any <a href="../cathen/05141a.htm">doubt</a> as to the correctness of the reading in the first of these passages. In <a href="../fathers/0103304.htm">III:4:3</a>, the Latin version, it is <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">true</a>, gives "octavus"; but the Greek text as cited by <a href="../cathen/05617b.htm">Eusebius</a> reads <em>enatos</em>.</p> <p><a href="../cathen/08130b.htm">Irenaeus</a> we <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">know</a> visited <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a> in 177. At this date, scarcely more than a century after the death of <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">St. Peter</a>, he may well have come in contact with men whose fathers had themselves spoken to the <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Apostle</a>. The <a href="../cathen/15006b.htm">tradition</a> thus supported must be regarded as beyond all legitimate <a href="../cathen/05141a.htm">doubt</a>.</p> <p>Lightfoot's suggestion (Clement 1:64), that it had its origin in the <a href="../cathen/04039b.htm">Clementine romance</a>, has proved singularly unfortunate. For it is now recognized that this work belongs not to the second, but to the fourth century. Nor is there the slightest ground for the assertion that the language of <a href="../cathen/08130b.htm">Irenaeus</a>, <a href="../fathers/0103303.htm">III:3:3</a>, implies that <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> and <a href="../cathen/11567b.htm">Paul</a> enjoyed a divided <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">episcopate</a> at <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a>  an arrangement utterly unknown to the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> at any period. He does, it is <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">true</a>, speak of the two <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a> as together handing on the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">episcopate</a> to <a href="../cathen/09272b.htm">Linus</a>. But this expression is explained by the purpose of his argument, which is to vindicate against the <a href="../cathen/06592a.htm">Gnostics</a> the validity of the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> taught in the <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">Roman Church</a>. Hence he is naturally led to lay stress on the fact that that <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> inherited the teaching of both the great <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a>. <a href="../cathen/13393b.htm">Epiphanius</a> ("Haer." 27:6) would indeed seem to suggest the divided <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">episcopate</a>; but he has apparently merely misunderstood the words of <a href="../cathen/08130b.htm">Irenaeus</a>.</p> <h3>Those who succeed Peter in Rome succeed him also in the supreme headship</h3> <p>History bears complete testimony that from the very earliest times the <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">Roman See</a> has ever claimed the supreme headship, and that that headship has been freely acknowledged by the <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">universal</a> <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>. We shall here confine ourselves to the consideration of the evidence afforded by the first three centuries.</p> <h4>St. Clement</h4> <p>The first witness is <a href="../cathen/04012c.htm">St. Clement</a>, a <a href="../cathen/05029a.htm">disciple</a> of the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a>, who, after <a href="../cathen/09272b.htm">Linus</a> and <a href="../cathen/01446a.htm">Anacletus</a>, succeeded <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">St. Peter</a> as the fourth in the <a href="../cathen/12272a.htm">list of popes</a>. In his <a href="../fathers/1010.htm">"Epistle to the Corinthians"</a>, written in 95 or 96, he bids them receive back the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> whom a turbulent faction among them had expelled. "If any man", he says, "should be disobedient unto the words spoken by <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger" (Ep. 59). Moreover, he bids them "render <a href="../cathen/11181c.htm">obedience</a> unto the things written by us through the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a>". The tone of authority which inspires the latter appears so clearly that Lightfoot did not hesitate to speak of it as "the first step towards papal domination" (Clement 1:70). Thus, at the very commencement of <a href="../cathen/07365a.htm">church history</a>, before the last survivor of the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a> had passed away, we find a <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Bishop</a> of <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a>, himself a <a href="../cathen/05029a.htm">disciple</a> of <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">St. Peter</a>, intervening in the affairs of another <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a>. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostolic</a> teaching was yet fresh in <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">men's</a> <a href="../cathen/10321a.htm">minds</a> the <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">universal</a> <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> recognized in the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Bishop</a> of <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a> the office of supreme head.</p> <h4>St. Ignatius of Antioch</h4> <p>A few years later (about 107) <a href="../cathen/07644a.htm">St. Ignatius of Antioch</a>, in the opening of his <a href="../fathers/0107.htm">letter to the Roman Church</a>, refers to its presiding over all other <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Churches</a>. He addresses it as "presiding over the brotherhood of <a href="../cathen/09397a.htm">love</a> [<em>prokathemene tes agapes</em>] The expression, as <a href="../cathen/06322c.htm">Funk</a> rightly notes, is grammatically incompatible with the translation advocated by some non-Catholic writers, "pre-eminent in works of <a href="../cathen/09397a.htm">love</a>".</p> <h4>St. Irenaeus</h4> <p>The same century gives us the witness of <a href="../cathen/08130b.htm">St. Irenaeus</a>  a man who stands in the closest connection with the age of the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a>, since he was a <a href="../cathen/05029a.htm">disciple</a> of <a href="../cathen/12219b.htm">St. Polycarp</a>, who had been appointed <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Bishop</a> of <a href="../cathen/14060b.htm">Smyrna</a> by <a href="../cathen/08492a.htm">St. John</a>. In his work "Adversus Haereses" (<a href="../fathers/0103302.htm">III:3:2</a>) he brings against the <a href="../cathen/06592a.htm">Gnostic</a> <a href="../cathen/13674a.htm">sects</a> of his day the argument that their <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrines</a> have no support in the <a href="../cathen/15006b.htm">Apostolic tradition</a> faithfully preserved by the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Churches</a>, which could trace the <a href="../cathen/01641a.htm">succession</a> of their <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> back to the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Twelve</a>. He writes:</p> <blockquote><p>Because it would be too long in such a volume as this to enumerate the <a href="../cathen/01641a.htm">successions</a> of all the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">churches</a>, we point to the <a href="../cathen/15006b.htm">tradition</a> of that very great and very ancient and universally <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">known</a> <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>, which was founded and established at <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a>, by the two most glorious <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a>, <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> and <a href="../cathen/11567b.htm">Paul</a>: we point I say, to the <a href="../cathen/15006b.htm">tradition</a> which this <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> has from the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a>, and to her <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a> proclaimed to <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">men</a> which comes down to our time through the <a href="../cathen/01641a.htm">succession</a> of her <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a>, and so we put to shame . . . all who assemble in unauthorized meetings. For with this <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>, because of its superior authority, every <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> must agree  that is the <a href="../cathen/05769a.htm">faithful</a> everywhere  in communion with which <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> the <a href="../cathen/15006b.htm">tradition of the Apostles</a> has been always preserved by those who are everywhere [<em>Ad hanc enim eoclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quâ est ab apostolis traditio</em>].</p></blockquote> <p>He then proceeds to enumerate the <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Roman</a> <a href="../cathen/01641a.htm">succession</a> from <a href="../cathen/09272b.htm">Linus</a> to <a href="../cathen/05378a.htm">Eleutherius</a>, the twelfth after the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a>, who then occupied the <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">see</a>. Non-Catholic writers have sought to rob the passage of its importance by translating the word <em>convenire</em> "to resort to", and thus understanding it to mean no more than that the <a href="../cathen/05769a.htm">faithful</a> <em>from</em> every side (<em>undique</em>) resorted to <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a>, so that thus the stream of <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> in that <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> was kept immune from <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">error</a>. Such a rendering, however, is excluded by the construction of the argument, which is based entirely on the contention that the <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">Roman</a> <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> is pure by reason of its derivation from the two great <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostolic</a> founders of the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>, Sts. <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> and <a href="../cathen/11567b.htm">Paul</a>. The frequent visits made to <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a> by members of other <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Christian Churches</a> could contribute nothing to this. On the other hand the traditional rendering is postulated by the context, and, though the object of innumerable attacks, none other possessing any real degree of probability has been suggested in its place (see Dom. J. Chapman in "Revue Benedictine", 1895, p. 48).</p> <h4>St. Victor</h4> <p>During the pontificate of <a href="../cathen/15408a.htm">St. Victor</a> (189-98) we have the most explicit assertion of the supremacy of the <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">Roman See</a> in regard to other <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Churches</a>. A difference of practice between the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Churches</a> of <a href="../cathen/01782a.htm">Asia Minor</a> and the rest of the <a href="../cathen/03699b.htm">Christian world</a> in regard to the <a href="../cathen/05228a.htm">day of the Paschal festival</a> led the pope to take action. There is some ground for supposing that the <a href="../cathen/10521a.htm">Montanist</a> <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heretics</a> maintained the <a href="../cathen/01782a.htm">Asiatic</a> (or Quartodeciman) practice to be the <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">true</a> one: in this case it would be undesirable that any body of <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> <a href="../cathen/03712a.htm">Christians</a> should appear to support them. But, under any circumstances, such a diversity in the ecclesiastical life of different countries may well have constituted a regrettable feature in the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>, whose very purpose it was to bear witness by her <a href="../cathen/15179a.htm">unity</a> to the oneness of <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> (<a href="../bible/joh017.htm#vrs21">John 17:21</a>). <a href="../cathen/15408a.htm">Victor</a> bade the <a href="../cathen/01782a.htm">Asiatic</a> <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Churches</a> conform to the <a href="../cathen/04576a.htm">custom</a> of the remainder of the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>, but was met with determined resistance by Polycrates of Ephesus, who claimed that their <a href="../cathen/04576a.htm">custom</a> derived from <a href="../cathen/08492a.htm">St. John</a> himself. <a href="../cathen/15408a.htm">Victor</a> replied by an <a href="../cathen/05678a.htm">excommunication</a>. <a href="../cathen/08130b.htm">St. Irenaeus</a>, however, intervened, exhorting <a href="../cathen/15408a.htm">Victor</a> not to cut off whole <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Churches</a> on account of a point which was not a matter of <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a>. He assumes that the pope can exercise the power, but urges him not to do so. Similarly the resistance of the <a href="../cathen/01782a.htm">Asiatic</a> <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> involved no denial of the supremacy of <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a>. It indicates solely that the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> believed <a href="../cathen/15408a.htm">St. Victor</a> to be abusing his power in bidding them renounce a <a href="../cathen/04576a.htm">custom</a> for which they had <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostolic</a> authority. It was indeed inevitable that, as the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> spread and developed, new problems should present themselves, and that questions should arise as to whether the supreme authority could be legitimately exercised in this or that case. <a href="../cathen/15408a.htm">St. Victor</a>, seeing that more harm than <a href="../cathen/06636b.htm">good</a> would come from insistence, withdrew the imposed penalty.</p> <h4>Inscription of Abercius</h4> <p>Not many years since a new and important piece of evidence was brought to light in <a href="../cathen/01782a.htm">Asia Minor</a> dating from this period. The <a href="../cathen/01040a.htm">sepulchral inscription of Abercius</a>, <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Bishop</a> of <a href="../cathen/07322b.htm">Hierapolis</a> (d. about 200), contains an account of his travels couched in allegorical language. He speaks thus of the <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">Roman Church</a>: "To <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a> He [<a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a>] sent me to contemplate majesty: and to see a queen golden-robed and golden-sandalled." It is difficult not to recognize in this description a testimony to the supreme position of the <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">Roman See</a>.</p> <h4>Tertullian</h4> <p><a href="../cathen/14520c.htm">Tertullian's</a> bitter polemic, <a href="../fathers/0407.htm">"De Pudicitia"</a> (about 220), was called forth by an exercise of papal prerogative. <a href="../cathen/03183d.htm">Pope Callistus</a> had decided that the rigid <a href="../cathen/05030a.htm">discipline</a> which had hitherto prevailed in many <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Churches</a> must be in large measure relaxed. <a href="../cathen/14520c.htm">Tertullian</a>, now lapsed into <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heresy</a>, fiercely attacks "the peremptory edict", which "the supreme pontiff, the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a> of <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a>", has sent forth. The words are intended as sarcasm: but none the less they indicate clearly the position of authority claimed by <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a>. And the opposition comes, not from a <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a>, but from a <a href="../cathen/10521a.htm">Montanist</a> <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heretic</a>.</p> <h4>St. Cyprian</h4> <p>The views of <a href="../cathen/04583b.htm">St. Cyprian</a> (d. 258) in regard to papal authority have given rise to much discussion. He undoubtedly entertained exaggerated views as to the independence of individual <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a>, which eventually led him into serious conflict with <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">Rome</a>. Yet on the fundamental principle his position is clear. He attributed an effective <a href="../cathen/12423a.htm">primacy</a> to the pope as the <a href="../cathen/01641a.htm">successor</a> of <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a>. He makes communion with the <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">See of Rome</a> essential to <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> communion, speaking of it as "the principal <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> whence episcopal unity had its rise" (<em>ad Petri cathedram et ad ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est</em>).</p> <p>The force of this expression becomes clear when viewed in the light of his <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> as to the <a href="../cathen/15179a.htm">unity of the Church</a>. This was, he teaches, established by <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> when He founded His <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> upon <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a>. By this act the unity of the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostolic</a> college was ensured through the unity of the foundation. The <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> through all time form a similar college, and are bound in a like indivisible unity. Of this <a href="../cathen/15179a.htm">unity</a> the <a href="../cathen/03551e.htm">Chair of Peter</a> is the source. It fulfils the very office as principle of union which <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> fulfilled in his lifetime. Hence to communicate with an <a href="../cathen/01582a.htm">antipope</a> such as <a href="../cathen/11138a.htm">Novatian</a> would be <a href="../cathen/13529a.htm">schism</a> (<a href="../fathers/050666.htm">Epistle 66:1</a>).</p> <p>He holds, also, that the pope has authority to <a href="../cathen/04737b.htm">depose</a> an <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heretical</a> <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a>. When Marcian of Arles fell into <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heresy</a>, <a href="../cathen/04583b.htm">Cyprian</a>, at the request of the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> of the <a href="../cathen/12514a.htm">province</a>, wrote to urge <a href="../cathen/14288a.htm">Pope Stephen</a> "to send letters by which, <a href="../cathen/09644a.htm">Marcian</a> having been <a href="../cathen/05678a.htm">excommunicated</a>, another may be substituted in his place" (<a href="../fathers/050666.htm">Epistle 66:3</a>). It is manifest that one who regarded the <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">Roman See</a> in this light <a href="../cathen/02408b.htm">believed</a> that the pope possessed a real and effective <a href="../cathen/12423a.htm">primacy</a>.</p> <p>At the same time it is not to be denied that his views as to the <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a> of the pope to interfere in the government of a <a href="../cathen/05001a.htm">diocese</a> already subject to a legitimate and <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodox</a> <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a> were inadequate. In the rebaptism controversy his language in regard to <a href="../cathen/14288a.htm">St. Stephen</a> was bitter and intemperate. His <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">error</a> on this point does not, however, detract from the fact that he admitted a <a href="../cathen/12423a.htm">primacy</a>, not merely of <a href="../cathen/07462a.htm">honour</a> but of <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">jurisdiction</a>. Nor should his mistake occasion too much surprise. It is as <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">true</a> in the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> as in merely <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">human</a> institutions that the full implications of a general principle are only realized gradually. The claim to apply it in a particular case is often contested at first, though later ages may wonder that such opposition was possible.</p> <h4>St. Dionysius of Alexandria</h4> <p>Contemporary with <a href="../cathen/04583b.htm">St. Cyprian</a> was <a href="../cathen/05011a.htm">St. Dionysius of Alexandria</a>. Two incidents bearing on the present question are related of him.</p> <p><a href="../cathen/05617b.htm">Eusebius</a> (<a href="../fathers/250107.htm"><em>Church History</em> VII.9</a>) gives us a letter addressed by him to <a href="../cathen/14031c.htm">St. Xystus II</a> regarding the case of a man who, as it appeared, had been invalidly <a href="../cathen/02258b.htm">baptized</a> by <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heretics</a>, but who for many years had been frequenting the <a href="../cathen/13295a.htm">sacraments</a> of the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>. In it he says that he needs <a href="../cathen/14031c.htm">St. Xystus's</a> advice and begs for his decision (<em>gnomen</em>), that he may not fall into <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">error</a> (<em>dedios me hara sphallomai</em>).</p> <p>Again, some years later, the same <a href="../cathen/11549a.htm">patriarch</a> occasioned anxiety to some of the brethren by making use of some expressions which appeared hardly compatible with a full <a href="../cathen/02408b.htm">belief</a> in the Divinity of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a>. They promptly had recourse to the <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">Holy See</a> and accused him to his namesake, <a href="../cathen/05009b.htm">St. Dionysius of Rome</a>, of <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heretical</a> leanings. The pope replied by laying down authoritatively the <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">true</a> <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> on the subject.</p> <p>Both events are instructive as showing us how <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">Rome</a> was recognized by the <a href="../cathen/01300b.htm">second see in Christendom</a> as empowered to speak with authority on matters of <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a>. (<a href="../cathen/02035a.htm">St. Athanasius</a>, <a href="../fathers/2810.htm">"De sententia Dionysii"</a> in P.G., XXV, 500).</p> <h4>Emperor Aurelian</h4> <p>Equally noteworthy is the action of <a href="../cathen/02108b.htm">Emperor Aurelian</a> in 270. A <a href="../cathen/14388a.htm">synod</a> of <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> had condemned <a href="../cathen/11589a.htm">Paul of Samosata</a>, <a href="../cathen/11549a.htm">Patriarch</a> of <a href="../cathen/01300b.htm">Alexandria</a>, on a charge of <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heresy</a>, and had elected Domnus <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a> in his place. <a href="../cathen/11567b.htm">Paul</a> refused to withdraw, and appeal was made to the <a href="../cathen/02137c.htm">civil power</a>. The emperor <a href="../cathen/04670a.htm">decreed</a> that he who was acknowledged by the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> of <a href="../cathen/08208a.htm">Italy</a> and the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Bishop</a> of <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a>, must be recognized as <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">rightful</a> occupant of the <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">see</a>. The incident <a href="../cathen/12454c.htm">proves</a> that even the <a href="../cathen/11388a.htm">pagans</a> themselves <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">knew</a> well that communion with the <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">Roman See</a> was the <a href="../cathen/05543b.htm">essential</a> mark of all <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Christian Churches</a>. That the imperial Government was well aware of the position of the pope among <a href="../cathen/03712a.htm">Christians</a> derives additional confirmation from the saying of <a href="../cathen/04583b.htm">St. Cyprian</a> that <a href="../cathen/04666a.htm">Decius</a> would have sooner heard of the proclamation of a rival emperor than of the <a href="../cathen/12270a.htm">election of a new pope</a> to fill the place of the <a href="../cathen/09736b.htm">martyred</a> <a href="../cathen/05742d.htm">Fabian</a> (Ep. 55:9).</p> <p>The limits of the present article prevent us from carrying the historical argument further than the year 300. Nor is it in fact necessary to do so. From the beginning of the fourth century the supremacy of <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a> is writ large upon the page of <a href="../cathen/07365a.htm">history</a>. It is only in regard to the first age of the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> that any question can arise. But the facts we have recounted are entirely sufficient to prove to any unprejudiced <a href="../cathen/10321a.htm">mind</a> that the supremacy was exercised and acknowledged from the days of the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a>.</p> <p>It was not of course exercised in the same way as in later times. The <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> was as yet in her infancy: and it would be irrational to look for a fully developed procedure governing the relations of the supreme pontiff to the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> of other <a href="../cathen/05001a.htm">sees</a>. To establish such a system was the work of time, and it was only gradually embodied in the <a href="../cathen/03287a.htm">canons</a>. There would, moreover, be little call for frequent intervention when the <a href="../cathen/15006b.htm">Apostolic tradition</a> was still fresh and vigorous in every part of <a href="../cathen/03699b.htm">Christendom</a>. Hence the papal prerogatives came into play but rarely. But when the <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">Faith</a> was threatened, or the vital welfare of <a href="../cathen/14153a.htm">souls</a> demanded action, then <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a> intervened. Such were the causes which led to the intervention of <a href="../cathen/05009b.htm">St. Dionysius</a>, <a href="../cathen/14288a.htm">St. Stephen</a>, <a href="../cathen/03183d.htm">St. Callistus</a>, <a href="../cathen/15408a.htm">St. Victor</a>, and <a href="../cathen/04012c.htm">St. Clement</a>, and their claim to supremacy as the occupants of the <a href="../cathen/03551e.htm">Chair of Peter</a> was not disputed.</p> <p>In view of the purposes with which, and with which alone, these early popes employed their supreme power, the contention, so stoutly maintained by <a href="../cathen/12495a.htm">Protestant</a> controversialists, that the <a href="../cathen/12423a.htm">Roman primacy</a> had its origin in papal <a href="../cathen/01381d.htm">ambition</a>, disappears. The motive which inspired these men was not earthly <a href="../cathen/01381d.htm">ambition</a>, but <a href="../cathen/15753a.htm">zeal</a> for the <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">Faith</a> and the <a href="../cathen/04274a.htm">consciousness</a> that to them had been committed the responsibility of its guardianship. The controversialists in question even claim that they are justified in refusing to admit as evidence for the <a href="../cathen/12423a.htm">papal primacy</a> any pronouncement emanating from a <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Roman</a> source, on the ground that, where the personal interests of anyone are concerned, his statements should not be admitted as evidence. Such an objection is utterly fallacious. We are dealing here, not with the statements of an individual, but with the <a href="../cathen/15006b.htm">tradition</a> of a <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>  of that <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> which, even from the earliest times, was known for the purity of its <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a>, and which had had for its founders and instructors the two chief <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a>, <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">St. Peter</a> and <a href="../cathen/11567b.htm">St. Paul</a>. That <a href="../cathen/15006b.htm">tradition</a>, moreover, is absolutely unbroken, as the pronouncements of the long series of popes bear witness.</p> <div class="CMtag_300x250" style="display: flex; height: 300px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; "></div> <p>Nor does it stand alone. The utterances, in which the popes assert their claims to the <a href="../cathen/11181c.htm">obedience</a> of all <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Christian Churches</a>, form part and parcel of a great body of testimony to the Petrine privileges, issuing not merely from the <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">Western</a> <a href="../cathen/06001a.htm">Fathers</a> but from those of <a href="../cathen/06735a.htm">Greece</a>, <a href="../cathen/14399a.htm">Syria</a>, and <a href="../cathen/05329b.htm">Egypt</a>. The claim to reject the evidence which comes to us from <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a> may be skilful as a piece of special pleading, but it can claim no other value. The first to employ this argument were some of the Gallicans. But it is deservedly repudiated as fallacious and unworthy by <a href="../cathen/02698b.htm">Bossuet</a> in his "Defensio cleri gallicani" (II, 1. XI, c. vi).</p> <p>The <a href="../cathen/12423a.htm">primacy</a> of <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">St. Peter</a> and the perpetuity of that <a href="../cathen/12423a.htm">primacy</a> in the <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">Roman See</a> are <a href="../cathen/05089a.htm">dogmatically</a> <a href="../cathen/04675b.htm">defined</a> in the <a href="../cathen/03287a.htm">canons</a> attached to the first two chapters of the <a href="../cathen/04320a.htm">Constitution</a> "Pastor Aeternus":</p> <div class="bulletlist"><ul><li>"If anyone shall say that <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Blessed Peter the Apostle</a> was not constituted by <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ our Lord</a> as chief of all the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a> and the visible head of the whole <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> militant: or that he did not receive directly and immediately from the same <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Lord Jesus Christ</a> a <a href="../cathen/12423a.htm">primacy</a> of <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">true</a> and proper <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">jurisdiction</a>, but one of <a href="../cathen/07462a.htm">honour</a> only: let him be <a href="../cathen/01455e.htm">anathema</a>."</li><li>"If any one shall say that it is not by the institution of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ our Lord</a> Himself or by divinely established <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a> that <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Blessed Peter</a> has perpetual <a href="../cathen/01641a.htm">successors</a> in his <a href="../cathen/12423a.htm">primacy</a> over the <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">universal</a> <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the <a href="../cathen/01641a.htm">successor</a> of <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Blessed Peter</a> in this same <a href="../cathen/12423a.htm">primacy</a>.  let him be <a href="../cathen/01455e.htm">anathema</a>" (<a href="../cathen/04736b.htm">Denzinger-Bannwart</a>, "Enchiridion", nn. 1823, 1825).</li></ul></div> <p>A question may be raised as to the precise <a href="../cathen/05089a.htm">dogmatic</a> value of the clause of the second <a href="../cathen/03287a.htm">canon</a> in which it is asserted that the Roman pontiff is <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter's</a> <a href="../cathen/01641a.htm">successor</a>. The <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">truth</a> is <a href="../cathen/07790a.htm">infallibly</a> <a href="../cathen/04675b.htm">defined</a>. But the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> has authority to <a href="../cathen/04675b.htm">define</a> not merely those <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">truths</a> which form part of the original deposit of <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revelation</a>, but also such as are necessarily connected with this deposit. The former are held <em>fide divina</em>, the latter <em>fide infallibili</em>.</p> <p>Although <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> established the perpetual office of supreme head, <a href="../cathen/13635b.htm">Scripture</a> does not tell us that He fixed the <a href="../cathen/09053a.htm">law</a> according to which the headship should descend. Granting that He left this to <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> to determine, it is plain that the <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Apostle</a> need not have attached the <a href="../cathen/12423a.htm">primacy</a> to his own see: he might have attached it to another.</p> <p>Some have thought that the <a href="../cathen/09053a.htm">law</a> establishing the <a href="../cathen/01641a.htm">succession</a> in the <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Roman</a> episcopate became <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">known</a> to the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostolic</a> <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> as an historic fact. In this case the <a href="../cathen/05089a.htm">dogma</a> that the Roman pontiff is at all times the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church's</a> chief <a href="../cathen/04049b.htm">pastor</a> would be the conclusion from two premises  the <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revealed</a> <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">truth</a> that the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> must ever have a supreme head, and the historic fact that <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">St. Peter</a> attached that office to the <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">Roman See</a>. This conclusion, while necessarily connected with <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revelation</a>, is not part of <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revelation</a>, and is accepted <em>fide infallibili</em>.</p> <p>According to other <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theologians</a> the proposition in question is part of the deposit of <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a> itself. In this case the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a> must have <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">known</a> the <a href="../cathen/09053a.htm">law</a> determining the <a href="../cathen/01641a.htm">succession</a> to the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Bishop</a> of <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a>, not merely on <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">human</a> testimony, but also by <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">Divine revelation</a>, and they must have taught it as a <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revealed</a> <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">truth</a> to their <a href="../cathen/05029a.htm">disciples</a>. It is this view which is commonly adopted. The <a href="../cathen/04675b.htm">definition</a> of the <a href="../cathen/15303a.htm">Vatican</a> to the effect that the <a href="../cathen/01641a.htm">successor</a> of <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">St. Peter</a> is ever to be found in the Roman pontiff is almost universally held to be a <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">truth</a> <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revealed</a> by the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a> to the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a>, and by them transmitted to the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>.</p> <h2 id="iii">Nature and extent of the papal power</h2> <p>This section is divided as follows:</p> <div class="bulletlist"><ol><li>the pope's universal coercive <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">jurisdiction</a></li><li>the pope's immediate and <a href="../cathen/11284b.htm">ordinary</a> <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">jurisdiction</a> in regard of all the <a href="../cathen/05769a.htm">faithful</a>, whether singly or collectively</li><li>the <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a> of entertaining <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appeals</a> in all <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">ecclesiastical</a> causes. </li></ol></div> <p>The relation of the pope's authority to that of <a href="../cathen/04423f.htm">ecumenical councils</a>, and to the <a href="../cathen/02137c.htm">civil power</a>, are discussed in separate articles (see <a href="../cathen/04423f.htm">GENERAL COUNCILS</a>; <a href="../cathen/03794b.htm">CIVIL ALLEGIANCE</a>).</p> <h3 id="A">The pope's universal coercive jurisdiction</h3> <p>Not only did <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> constitute <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">St. Peter</a> head of the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>, but in the words, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in <a href="../cathen/07170a.htm">heaven</a>; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed in <a href="../cathen/07170a.htm">heaven</a>," He indicated the scope of this headship.</p> <p>The expressions <em>binding</em> and <em>loosing</em> here employed are derived from the current terminology of the <a href="../cathen/12617b.htm">Rabbinic</a> <a href="../cathen/13554b.htm">schools</a>. A doctor who declared a thing to be prohibited by the <a href="../cathen/10582c.htm">law</a> was said to <em>bind</em>, for thereby he imposed an <a href="../cathen/11189a.htm">obligation</a> on the <a href="../cathen/04268a.htm">conscience</a>. He who declared it to be lawful was said to <em>loose</em>). In this way the terms had come respectively to signify official commands and permissions in general. The words of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a>, therefore, as understood by His hearers, conveyed the <a href="../cathen/12453a.htm">promise</a> to <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">St. Peter</a> of legislative authority within the <a href="../cathen/08646a.htm">kingdom</a> over which He had just set him, and legislative authority carries with it as its <a href="../cathen/10733a.htm">necessary</a> accompaniment judicial authority.</p> <p>Moreover, the powers conferred in these regards are plenary. This is plainly indicated by the generality of the terms employed: "<em>Whatsoever</em> thou shalt bind . . . <em>Whatsoever</em> thou shalt loose"; nothing is withheld. Further, <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter's</a> authority is subordinated to no earthly superior. The <a href="../cathen/13720b.htm">sentences</a> which he gives are to be forthwith ratified in <a href="../cathen/07170a.htm">heaven</a>. They do not need the antecedent approval of any other tribunal. He is independent of all save the <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Master</a> who appointed him. The words as to the power of binding and loosing are, therefore, elucidatory of the <a href="../cathen/12453a.htm">promise</a> of the <a href="../cathen/08631b.htm">keys</a> which immediately precedes. They explain in what sense <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> is governor and head of <a href="../cathen/08646a.htm">Christ's kingdom</a>, the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>, by promising him legislative and judicial authority in the fullest sense. In other words, <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> and his <a href="../cathen/01641a.htm">successors</a> have power to impose <a href="../cathen/09053a.htm">laws</a> both preceptive and prohibitive, power likewise to grant <a href="../cathen/05041a.htm">dispensation</a> from these <a href="../cathen/09053a.htm">laws</a>, and, when needful, to annul them. It is theirs to judge offences against the <a href="../cathen/09053a.htm">laws</a>, to impose and to remit penalties. This judicial authority will even include the power to <a href="../cathen/01061a.htm">pardon</a> <a href="../cathen/14004b.htm">sin</a>. For <a href="../cathen/14004b.htm">sin</a> is a breach of the <a href="../cathen/09053a.htm">laws</a> of the <a href="../cathen/08646a.htm">supernatural kingdom</a>, and falls under the cognizance of its constituted judges. The <a href="../cathen/06553a.htm">gift</a> of this particular power, however, is not expressed with full clearness in this passage. It needed <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ's</a> words (<a href="../bible/joh020.htm#vrs23">John 20:23</a>) to remove all ambiguity. Further, since the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> is the <a href="../cathen/08646a.htm">kingdom</a> of the <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">truth</a>, so that an <a href="../cathen/05543b.htm">essential</a> note in all her members is the <a href="../cathen/01115a.htm">act</a> of submission by which they accept the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> in its entirety, supreme power in this <a href="../cathen/08646a.htm">kingdom</a> carries with it a supreme <a href="../cathen/15006b.htm"><em>magisterium</em></a>  authority to declare that <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> and to prescribe a <a href="../cathen/05766b.htm">rule of faith</a> <a href="../cathen/11189a.htm">obligatory</a> on all. Here, too, <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> is subordinated to none save his <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Master</a> alone; he is the supreme teacher as he is the supreme ruler. However, the tremendous powers thus conferred are limited in their scope by their reference to the ends of the <a href="../cathen/08646a.htm">kingdom</a> and to them only. The authority of <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> and his <a href="../cathen/01641a.htm">successors</a> does not extend beyond this sphere. With matters that are altogether extrinsic to the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> they are not concerned.</p> <p><a href="../cathen/12495a.htm">Protestant</a> controversialists contend strenuously that the words, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind etc.", confer no special prerogative on <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a>, since precisely the same <a href="../cathen/06553a.htm">gift</a>, they allege, is conferred on all the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a> (<a href="../bible/mat018.htm#vrs18">Matthew 18:18</a>). It is, of course, the case that in that passage the same words are used in regard of all the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Twelve</a>. Yet there is a manifest difference between the <a href="../cathen/06553a.htm">gift</a> to <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> and that bestowed on the others. In his case the <a href="../cathen/06553a.htm">gift</a> is connected with the <a href="../cathen/08631b.htm">power of the keys</a>, and this power, as we have seen, signified the supreme authority over the whole <a href="../cathen/08646a.htm">kingdom</a>. That <a href="../cathen/06553a.htm">gift</a> was not bestowed on the other eleven: and the <a href="../cathen/06553a.htm">gift</a> <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> bestowed on them in <a href="../bible/mat018.htm#vrs18">Matthew 18:18</a>, was received by them as members of the <a href="../cathen/08646a.htm">kingdom</a>, and as subject to the authority of him who should be <a href="../cathen/15403b.htm">Christ's vicegerent on earth</a>. There is in fact a striking parallelism between <a href="../bible/mat016.htm#vrs19">Matthew 16:19</a>, and the words employed in reference to <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> Himself in <a href="../bible/rev003.htm#vrs7">Apocalypse 3:7</a>: "He that hath the <a href="../cathen/08631b.htm">key</a> of <a href="../cathen/04642b.htm">David</a>; he that openeth, and no <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">man</a> shutteth; shutteth, and no <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">man</a> openeth." In both cases the second clause declares the meaning of the first, and the <a href="../cathen/08631b.htm">power</a> signified in the first clause by the metaphor of the <a href="../cathen/08631b.htm">keys</a> is supreme. It is worthy of note that to no one else save to <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> and His chosen <a href="../cathen/15403b.htm">vicegerent</a> does <a href="../cathen/13635b.htm">Holy Scripture</a> attribute the <a href="../cathen/08631b.htm">power of the keys</a>.</p> <p>Certain <a href="../cathen/11560a.htm">patristic</a> passages are further adduced by non-Catholics as adverse to the meaning given by the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> to <a href="../bible/mat016.htm#vrs19">Matthew 16:19</a>. <a href="../cathen/02084a.htm">St. Augustine</a> in several places tells us that <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> received the <a href="../cathen/08631b.htm">keys</a> as representing the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>  e.g. <a href="../fathers/1701001.htm">Tractate 1 on the Gospel of John, no. 12</a>: "Si hoc Petro tantum dictum est, non facit hoc Ecclesia . . .; si hoc ergo in Ecclesia fit, Petrus quando claves accepit, Ecclesiam sanctam significavit' (If this was said to <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> alone, the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> cannot exercise this power . . .; if this power is exercised in the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>, then when <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> received the <a href="../cathen/08631b.htm">keys</a>, he signified the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Holy Church</a>); cf. <a href="../fathers/1701124.htm">Tractate 124 on the Gospel of John, no. 5</a>; Sermon 295. It is argued that, according to <a href="../cathen/02084a.htm">Augustine</a>, the power denoted by the <a href="../cathen/08631b.htm">keys</a> resides primarily not in <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a>, but in the whole <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>. <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ's</a> <a href="../cathen/06553a.htm">gift</a> to His people was merely bestowed on <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> as representing the whole body of the <a href="../cathen/05769a.htm">faithful</a>. The <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a> to <a href="../cathen/01061a.htm">forgive</a> <a href="../cathen/14004b.htm">sins</a>, to exclude from communion, to exercise any other acts of authority, is really the prerogative of the whole <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Christian congregation</a>. If the <a href="../cathen/10326a.htm">minister</a> performs these acts he does so as delegate of the people. The argument, which was formerly employed by Gallican controversialists (cf. <a href="../cathen/07463a.htm">Febronius</a>, "De statu eccl.", 1:76), however, rests on a misunderstanding of the passages. <a href="../cathen/02084a.htm">Augustine</a> is controverting the <a href="../cathen/11138a.htm">Novatian</a> <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heretics</a>, who affirmed that the power to <a href="../cathen/01061a.htm">remit</a> <a href="../cathen/14004b.htm">sins</a> was a purely personal <a href="../cathen/06553a.htm">gift</a> to <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> alone, and had disappeared with him. He therefore asserts that <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> received it that it might remain for ever in the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> and be used for its benefit. It is in that sense alone that he says that <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> represented the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>. There is no foundation whatever for saying that he desired to affirm that the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> was the <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">true</a> recipient of the power conferred. Such a view would be contrary to the whole <a href="../cathen/06001a.htm">patristic tradition</a>, and is expressly reprobated in the <a href="../cathen/15276b.htm">Vatican</a> <a href="../cathen/04670a.htm">Decree</a>, cap. 1.</p> <p>It appears from what has been said that, when the popes legislate for the <a href="../cathen/05769a.htm">faithful</a>, when they try offenders by juridical process, and enforce their <a href="../cathen/13720b.htm">sentences</a> by <a href="../cathen/03527a.htm">censures</a> and <a href="../cathen/05678a.htm">excommunications</a>, they are employing powers conceded to them by <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a>. Their authority to exercise <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">jurisdiction</a> in this way is not founded on the grant of any civil ruler. Indeed the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> has claimed and exercised these powers from the very first. When the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a>, after the Council of <a href="../cathen/08344a.htm">Jerusalem</a>, sent out their <a href="../cathen/04670a.htm">decree</a> as vested with <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Divine</a> authority (<a href="../bible/act015.htm#vrs28">Acts 15:28</a>), they were imposing a <a href="../cathen/09053a.htm">law</a> on the <a href="../cathen/05769a.htm">faithful</a>. When <a href="../cathen/11567b.htm">St. Paul</a> bids <a href="../cathen/14727b.htm">Timothy</a> not receive an accusation against a <a href="../cathen/12406a.htm">presbyter</a> unless it be supported by two or three <a href="../cathen/15677a.htm">witnesses</a>, he clearly supposes him to be empowered to judge him <em>in foro externo</em>. This claim to exercise coercive <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">jurisdiction</a> has, as might be expected been denied by various <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heterodox</a> writers. Thus <a href="../cathen/09719c.htm">Marsilius Patavinus</a> (Defensor Pacis 2:4), <a href="../cathen/05113b.htm">Antonius de Dominis</a> (De rep. eccl. 4:6-7, 9), Richer (De eccl. et pol. potestate, 11-12), and later the <a href="../cathen/12116c.htm">Synod of Pistoia</a>, all alike maintained that coercive <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">jurisdiction</a> of every kind belongs to the <a href="../cathen/02137c.htm">civil power</a> alone, and sought to restrict the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> to the use of <a href="../cathen/10559a.htm">moral</a> means. This <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">error</a> has always been condemned by the <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">Holy See</a>. Thus, in the <a href="../cathen/03052b.htm">Bull</a> <a href="../cathen/02068b.htm">"Auctorem Fidei"</a>, <a href="../cathen/12131a.htm">Pius VI</a> makes the following pronouncement regarding one of the <a href="../cathen/12116c.htm">Pistoian</a> propositions:</p> <blockquote><p>[The aforesaid proposition] in respect of its insinuation that the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> does not possess authority to exact subjection to her <a href="../cathen/04670a.htm">decrees</a> otherwise than by means dependent on persuasion: so far as this signifies that the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> "has not received from <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> power, not merely to direct by counsel and persuasion but further to command by <a href="../cathen/09053a.htm">laws</a>, and to coerce and compel the delinquent and <a href="../cathen/04340a.htm">contumacious</a> by external and salutary penalties" [from the <a href="../cathen/03052b.htm">brief</a> "Ad assiduas" (1755) of <a href="../cathen/02432a.htm">Benedict XIV</a>], leads to a system already condemned as <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heretical</a>.</p></blockquote> <p>Nor may it be held that the pope's <a href="../cathen/09053a.htm">laws</a> must exclusively concern <a href="../cathen/14230a.htm">spiritual</a> objects, and their penalties be exclusively of a <a href="../cathen/14230a.htm">spiritual</a> character. The <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> is a perfect <a href="../cathen/14074a.htm">society</a> (see <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">THE CHURCH</a>, XIII). She is not dependent on the permission of the <a href="../cathen/14250c.htm">State</a> for her existence, but holds her charter from <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a>. As a perfect <a href="../cathen/14074a.htm">society</a> she has a <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a> to all those means which are <a href="../cathen/10733a.htm">necessary</a> for the attaining of her end. These, however, will include far more than <a href="../cathen/14230a.htm">spiritual</a> objects and <a href="../cathen/14230a.htm">spiritual</a> penalties alone: for the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> requires certain <a href="../cathen/12466a.htm">material possessions</a>, such, for example, as <a href="../cathen/03041a.htm">churches</a>, <a href="../cathen/13554b.htm">schools</a>, <a href="../cathen/13694a.htm">seminaries</a>, together with the <a href="../cathen/05421b.htm">endowments</a> <a href="../cathen/10733a.htm">necessary</a> for their sustentation. The administration and the due protection of these <a href="../cathen/12466a.htm">goods</a> will require <a href="../cathen/09053a.htm">legislation</a> other than what is limited to the <a href="../cathen/14230a.htm">spiritual</a> sphere. A large body of canon law must inevitably be formed to determine the <a href="../cathen/04211a.htm">conditions</a> of their management. Indeed, there is a fallacy in the assertion that the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> is a <a href="../cathen/14230a.htm">spiritual</a> <a href="../cathen/14074a.htm">society</a>; it is <a href="../cathen/14230a.htm">spiritual</a> as regards the ultimate end to which all its activities are directed, but not as regards its present constitution nor as regards the means at its disposal.</p> <p>The question has been raised whether it be lawful for the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>, not merely to <a href="../cathen/13720b.htm">sentence</a> a delinquent to physical penalties, but itself to inflict these penalties. As to this, it is sufficient to note that the <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a> of the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> to invoke the aid of the <a href="../cathen/02137c.htm">civil power</a> to execute her <a href="../cathen/13720b.htm">sentences</a> is expressly asserted by <a href="../cathen/02662a.htm">Boniface VIII</a> in the <a href="../cathen/03052b.htm">Bull</a> <a href="../cathen/15126a.htm">"Unam Sanctam"</a>. This declaration, even if it be not one of those portions of the <a href="../cathen/03052b.htm">Bull</a> in which the pope is defining a point of <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a>, is so clearly connected with the parts expressly stated to possess such <a href="../cathen/03584b.htm">character</a> that it is held by <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theologians</a> to be theologically <a href="../cathen/03539b.htm">certain</a> (Palmieri, "De Romano Pontifice", thes. 21). The question is of theoretical, rather than of practical importance, since <a href="../cathen/02137c.htm">civil Governments</a> have long ceased to own the <a href="../cathen/11189a.htm">obligation</a> of enforcing the decisions of any <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">ecclesiastical</a> authority. This indeed became inevitable when large sections of the population ceased to be <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a>. The state of things supposed could only exist when a whole nation was thoroughly <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> in spirit, and the force of papal decisions was recognized by all as binding in <a href="../cathen/04268a.htm">conscience</a>.</p> <h3 id="B">The pope's immediate and ordinary jurisdiction</h3> <p>In the <a href="../cathen/04320a.htm">Constitution</a> "Pastor Aeternus", cap. 3, the pope is declared to possess <a href="../cathen/11284b.htm">ordinary</a>, immediate, and <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">episcopal</a> <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">jurisdiction</a> over all the <a href="../cathen/05769a.htm">faithful</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>We teach, moreover, and declare that, by the disposition of <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a>, the <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">Roman Church</a> possesses supreme <a href="../cathen/11284b.htm">ordinary</a> authority over all <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Churches</a>, and that the <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">jurisdiction</a> of the Roman Pontiff, which is <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">true</a> <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">episcopal</a> <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">jurisdiction</a> is immediate in its <a href="../cathen/03584b.htm">character</a> (Enchir., n. 1827).</p></blockquote> <p>It is further added that this authority extends to all alike, both <a href="../cathen/04049b.htm">pastors</a> and <a href="../cathen/05769a.htm">faithful</a>, whether singly or collectively. An <a href="../cathen/11284b.htm">ordinary</a> <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">jurisdiction</a> is one which is exercised by the holder, not by reason of any <a href="../cathen/04696b.htm">delegation</a>, but in virtue of the office which he himself holds. All who acknowledge in the pope any <a href="../cathen/12423a.htm">primacy</a> of <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">jurisdiction</a> acknowledge that <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">jurisdiction</a> to be <a href="../cathen/11284b.htm">ordinary</a>. This point, therefore, does not call for discussion. That the papal authority is likewise immediate has, however, been called in question. <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">Jurisdiction</a> is immediate when its possessor stands in direct relation to those with whose oversight he is charged. If, on the other hand, the supreme authority can only deal directly with the proximate superiors, and not with the subjects save through their intervention, his power is not immediate but mediate. That the pope's <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">jurisdiction</a> is not thus restricted appears from the <a href="../cathen/01450a.htm">analysis</a> already given of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ's</a> words to <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">St. Peter</a>. It has been shown that He conferred on him a <a href="../cathen/12423a.htm">primacy</a> over the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>, which is universal in its scope, extending to all the <a href="../cathen/05769a.htm">Church's members</a>, and which needs the support of no other power. A <a href="../cathen/12423a.htm">primacy</a> such as this manifestly gives to him and to his <a href="../cathen/01641a.htm">successors</a> a direct authority over all the <a href="../cathen/05769a.htm">faithful</a>. This is also implied in the words of the pastoral commission, "Feed my sheep". The shepherd exercises immediate authority over all the sheep of his flock. Every member of the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> has been thus committed to <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a> and those who follow him.</p> <p>This immediate authority has been always claimed by the <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">Holy See</a>. It was, however, denied by <a href="../cathen/07463a.htm">Febronius</a> (op. cit., 7:7). That writer contended that the <a href="../cathen/05215a.htm">duty</a> of the pope was to exercise a general oversight over the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> and to direct the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> by his counsel; in case of <a href="../cathen/10733a.htm">necessity</a>, where the legitimate <a href="../cathen/04049b.htm">pastor</a> was guilty of grave <a href="../cathen/14004b.htm">wrong</a>, he could pronounce <a href="../cathen/13720b.htm">sentence</a> of <a href="../cathen/05678a.htm">excommunication</a> against him and proceed against him according to the <a href="../cathen/03287a.htm">canons</a>, but he could not on his own authority <a href="../cathen/04737b.htm">depose</a> him (op. cit., 2:4:9). The <a href="../cathen/06023a.htm">Febronian doctrines</a>, though devoid of any historical foundation, yet, through their appeal to the spirit of nationalism, exerted a powerful influence for harm on <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> life in <a href="../cathen/06484b.htm">Germany</a> during the eighteenth and part of the nineteenth century. Thus it was imperative that the <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">error</a> should be definitively condemned. That the pope's power is truly <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">episcopal</a> needs no <a href="../cathen/12454c.htm">proof</a>. It follows from the fact that he enjoys an <a href="../cathen/11284b.htm">ordinary</a> pastoral authority, both legislative and judicial, and immediate in relation to its subjects. Moreover, since this power regards the <a href="../cathen/04049b.htm">pastors</a> as well as the <a href="../cathen/05769a.htm">faithful</a>, the pope is rightly termed <em>Pastor pastorum</em>, and <em>Episcopus episcoporum</em>.</p> <p>It is frequently objected by writers of the <a href="../cathen/01498a.htm">Anglican</a> <a href="../cathen/13554b.htm">school</a> that, by declaring the pope to possess an immediate <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">episcopal</a> <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">jurisdiction</a> over all the <a href="../cathen/05769a.htm">faithful</a>, the <a href="../cathen/15303a.htm">Vatican Council</a> destroyed the authority of the <a href="../cathen/05001a.htm">diocesan</a> <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">episcopate</a>. It is further pointed out that <a href="../cathen/06780a.htm">St. Gregory the Great</a> expressly repudiated this title (<a href="../fathers/360207027.htm">Epistle 7:27</a> and <a href="../fathers/360208030.htm">Epistle 8:30</a>). To this it is replied that no difficulty is involved in the exercise of immediate <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">jurisdiction</a> over the same subjects by two rulers, provided only that these rulers stand in subordination, the one to the other. We constantly see the system at work. In an army the regimental officer and the general both possess immediate authority over the soldiers; yet no one maintains that the inferior authority is thereby annulled. The objection lacks all weight. The <a href="../cathen/15303a.htm">Vatican Council</a> says most justly (cap. iii):</p> <blockquote><p>This power of the supreme pontiff in no way <a href="../cathen/04739b.htm">derogates</a> from the <a href="../cathen/11284b.htm">ordinary</a> immediate power of <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">episcopal</a> <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">jurisdiction</a>, in virtue of which the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a>, who, appointed by the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a> [<a href="../bible/act020.htm#vrs28">Acts 20:28</a>], have succeeded to the place of the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a> as <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">true</a> <a href="../cathen/04049b.htm">pastors</a>, feed and rule their several flocks, each the one which has been assigned to him: that power is rather maintained, confirmed and defended by the supreme <a href="../cathen/04049b.htm">pastor</a> (Enchir., n. 1828).</p></blockquote> <p>It is without <a href="../cathen/05141a.htm">doubt</a> <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">true</a> that <a href="../cathen/06780a.htm">St. Gregory</a> repudiated in strong terms the title of universal <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a>, and relates that <a href="../cathen/09154b.htm">St. Leo</a> rejected it when it was offered him by the fathers of <a href="../cathen/03555a.htm">Chalcedon</a>. But, as he used it, it has a different signification from that with which it was employed in the <a href="../cathen/15303a.htm">Vatican Council</a>. <a href="../cathen/06780a.htm">St. Gregory</a> understood it as involving the denial of the authority of the local <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">diocesan</a> (<a href="../fathers/360205021.htm">Epistle 5:21</a>). No one, he maintains, has a <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a> so to term himself universal <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a> as to usurp that <a href="../cathen/01648b.htm">apostolically</a> constituted power. But he was himself a strenuous asserter of that immediate <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">jurisdiction</a> over all the <a href="../cathen/05769a.htm">faithful</a> which is signified by this title as used in the <a href="../cathen/15276b.htm">Vatican</a> <a href="../cathen/04670a.htm">Decree</a>. Thus he reverses (<a href="../fathers/360206015.htm">Epistle 6:15</a>) a <a href="../cathen/13720b.htm">sentence</a> passed on a <a href="../cathen/12406a.htm">priest</a> by <a href="../cathen/08493a.htm">Patriarch John of Constantinople</a>, an <a href="../cathen/01115a.htm">act</a> which itself involves a claim to universal authority, and explicitly states that the <a href="../cathen/06752a.htm">Church of Constantinople</a> is subject to the <a href="../cathen/01640c.htm">Apostolic See</a> (<a href="../fathers/360209012.htm">Epistle 9:12</a>). The title of universal <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a> occurs as early as the eighth century; and in 1413 the faculty of <a href="../cathen/11495a.htm">Paris</a> rejected the proposition of <a href="../cathen/07584b.htm">John Hus</a> that the pope was not universal <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a> (<a href="../cathen/01296c.htm">Natalis Alexander</a>, "Hist. eccl.", saec. XV and XVI, c. ii, art. 3, n. 6)</p> <h3 id="C">The right of entertaining appeals in all ecclesiastical causes</h3> <p>The <a href="../cathen/15303a.htm">Council</a> goes on to affirm that the pope is the supreme judge of the <a href="../cathen/05769a.htm">faithful</a>, and that to him <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appeal</a> may be made in all <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">ecclesiastical</a> causes. The <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a> of <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appeal</a> follows as a <a href="../cathen/10733a.htm">necessary</a> corollary from the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of the <a href="../cathen/12423a.htm">primacy</a>. If the pope really possesses a supreme <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">jurisdiction</a> over the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>, every other authority, whether <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">episcopal</a> or synodal, being subject to him, there must of <a href="../cathen/10733a.htm">necessity</a> be an <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appeal</a> to him from all inferior tribunals. This question, however, has been the subject of much controversy. The Gallican divines <a href="../cathen/09637b.htm">de Marca</a> and <a href="../cathen/12601c.htm">Quesnel</a>, and in <a href="../cathen/06484b.htm">Germany</a> <a href="../cathen/07463a.htm">Febronius</a>, sought to show that the <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a> of <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appeal</a> to the pope was a mere concession derived from <a href="../cathen/03287a.htm">ecclesiastical canons</a>, and that the influence of the <a href="../cathen/05773a.htm">pseudo-Isidorean decretals</a> had led to many unjustifiable exaggerations in the papal claims. The arguments of these writers are at the present day employed by frankly anti-Catholic controversialists with a view to showing that the whole <a href="../cathen/12423a.htm">primacy</a> is a merely <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">human</a> institution. It is contended that the <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a> of <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appeal</a> was first granted at <a href="../cathen/13473a.htm">Sardica</a> (343), and that each step of its subsequent development can be traced. <a href="../cathen/07365a.htm">History</a>, however, renders it abundantly clear that the <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a> of <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appeal</a> had been <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">known</a> from primitive times, and that the purpose of the <a href="../cathen/13473a.htm">Sardican</a> <a href="../cathen/03287a.htm">canons</a> was merely to give <a href="../cathen/14388a.htm">conciliar</a> ratification to an already existing usage. It will be convenient to speak first of the <a href="../cathen/13473a.htm">Sardican</a> question, and then to examine the evidence as regards previous practice.</p> <p>In the years immediately preceding <a href="../cathen/13473a.htm">Sardica</a>, <a href="../cathen/02035a.htm">St. Athanasius</a> had <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appealed</a> to <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a> against the decision of the Council of <a href="../cathen/15109a.htm">Tyre</a> (335). <a href="../cathen/08561a.htm">Pope Julius</a> had annulled the action of that council, and had restored <a href="../cathen/02035a.htm">Athanasius</a> and <a href="../cathen/09642a.htm">Marcellus of Ancyra</a> to their <a href="../cathen/05001a.htm">sees</a>. The Eusebians, however, had contested his <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a> to call a <a href="../cathen/14388a.htm">conciliar</a> decision in question. The fathers who met at <a href="../cathen/13473a.htm">Sardica</a>, and who included the most eminent of the <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodox</a> party from <a href="../cathen/05230a.htm">East</a> and <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">West</a> alike, desired by their <a href="../cathen/04670a.htm">decrees</a> to affirm this <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a>, and to establish a <a href="../cathen/03287a.htm">canonical</a> mode of procedure for such <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appeals</a>. The principal provisions of the <a href="../cathen/03287a.htm">canons</a> which deal with this matter are:</p> <div class="bulletlist"><ul><li>that a <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a> condemned by the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> of his <a href="../cathen/12514a.htm">province</a> may <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appeal</a> to the pope either on his own initiative or through his judges;</li><li>that if the pope entertains the <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appeal</a> he shall appoint a court of second instance drawn from the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> of the neighbouring <a href="../cathen/12514a.htm">provinces</a>; he may, if he thinks fit, send judges to sit with the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a>.</li></ul></div> <p>There is nothing whatever to suggest that new <a href="../cathen/12436b.htm">privileges</a> are being conferred. <a href="../cathen/08561a.htm">St. Julius</a> had recently, not merely exercised the <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a> of hearing <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appeals</a> in the most formal manner, but had severely <a href="../cathen/03527a.htm">censured</a> the Eusebians for neglecting to respect the supreme judicial <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">rights</a> of the <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">Roman See</a>: "for", he writes, "if they [<a href="../cathen/02035a.htm">Athanasius</a> and <a href="../cathen/09642a.htm">Marcellus</a>] really did some wrong, as you say, the judgment ought to have been given according to the <a href="../cathen/03287a.htm">ecclesiastical canon</a> and not thus.... Do you not <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">know</a> that this has been the <a href="../cathen/04576a.htm">custom</a> first to write to us, and then for that which is just to be defined from hence?" (<a href="../cathen/02035a.htm">Athanasius</a>, "Apol." 35) . Nor is there the smallest ground for the assertion that the pope's action is hedged in within narrow limits, on the ground that no more is permitted than that he should order a re-hearing to take place on the spot. The fathers in no way disputed the pope's <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a> to hear the case at <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a>. But their object was to deprive the Eusebians of the facile excuse that it was idle for <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appeals</a> to be carried to <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a>, since there the requisite evidence could not be forthcoming. They therefore provided a <a href="../cathen/03287a.htm">canonical</a> procedure which should not be open to that objection.</p> <p>Having thus shown that there is no ground for the assertion that the <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a> of <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appeal</a> was first granted at <a href="../cathen/13473a.htm">Sardica</a>, we may now consider the evidence for its existence in earlier times. The records of the second century are so scanty as to throw but little light on the subject. Yet it would seem that <a href="../cathen/01711c.htm">Montanus</a>, Prisca, and Maximilla <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appealed</a> to <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a> against the decision of the Phrygian <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a>. <a href="../cathen/14520c.htm">Tertullian</a> (<a href="../fathers/0317.htm"><em>Against Praxeas</em> 1</a>), tells us that the pope at first acknowledged the <a href="../cathen/02137a.htm">genuineness</a> of their <a href="../cathen/12473a.htm">prophecies</a>, and that thus "he was giving peace to the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Churches</a> of <a href="../cathen/01782a.htm">Asia</a> and Phrygia", when further information led him to recall the letters of peace which he had issued. The fact that the pope's decision had weight to decide the whole question of their <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodoxy</a> is sufficiently significant. But in <a href="../cathen/04583b.htm">St. Cyprian's</a> correspondence we find clear and unmistakable evidence of a system of <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appeals</a>. <a href="../cathen/02326a.htm">Basilides</a> and Martial, the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> of <a href="../cathen/09175a.htm">Leon</a> and <a href="../cathen/10202a.htm">Mérida</a> in <a href="../cathen/14169b.htm">Spain</a>, had in the <a href="../cathen/11703a.htm">persecution</a> accepted <a href="../cathen/09211a.htm">certificates of idolatry</a>. They confessed their guilt, and were in consequence <a href="../cathen/04737b.htm">deposed</a>, other <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> being appointed to the <a href="../cathen/05001a.htm">sees</a>. In the hope of having themselves reinstated they <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appealed</a> to <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a>, and succeeded, by misrepresenting the facts, in imposing on <a href="../cathen/14288a.htm">St. Stephen</a>, who ordered their restoration. It has been objected to the evidence drawn from this incident, that <a href="../cathen/04583b.htm">St. Cyprian</a> did not acknowledge the validity of the papal decision, but exhorted the people of <a href="../cathen/09175a.htm">Leon</a> and <a href="../cathen/10202a.htm">Mérida</a> to hold fast to the <a href="../cathen/13720b.htm">sentence</a> of <a href="../cathen/04737b.htm">deposition</a> (<a href="../fathers/050667.htm">Epistle 67:6</a>). But the objection misses the point of <a href="../cathen/04583b.htm">St. Cyprian's</a> letter. In the case in question there was no room for a legitimate <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appeal</a>, since the two <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> had confessed. An acquittal obtained after spontaneous confession could not be valid. It has further been urged that, in the case of <a href="../cathen/06149a.htm">Fortunatus</a> (<a href="../fathers/050659.htm">Epistle 59:10</a>), <a href="../cathen/04583b.htm">Cyprian</a> denies his <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a> of <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appeal</a> to <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a>, and asserts the sufficiency of the <a href="../cathen/01181a.htm">African</a> tribunal. But here too the objection rests upon a misunderstanding. <a href="../cathen/06149a.htm">Fortunatus</a> had procured <a href="../cathen/04276a.htm">consecration</a> as <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Bishop</a> of <a href="../cathen/03385a.htm">Carthage</a> from a <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heretical</a> <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a>, and <a href="../cathen/04583b.htm">St. Cyprian</a> asserts the competency of the local <a href="../cathen/14388a.htm">synod</a> in his case on the ground that he is no <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">true</a> <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a>  a mere <em>pseudo-episcopus</em>. Juridically considered he is merely an insubordinate <a href="../cathen/12406a.htm">presbyter</a>, and he must submit himself to his own <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a>. At that period the established <a href="../cathen/04576a.htm">custom</a> denied the <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a> of <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appeal</a> to the inferior <a href="../cathen/04049b.htm">clergy</a>. On the other hand, the action of <a href="../cathen/06149a.htm">Fortunatus</a> indicates that he based his claim to bring the question of his status before the pope on the ground that he was a legitimate <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a>. Privatus of Lambese, the <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heretical</a> <a href="../cathen/04276a.htm">consecrator</a> of <a href="../cathen/06149a.htm">Fortunatus</a> who had previously been himself condemned by a <a href="../cathen/14388a.htm">synod</a> of ninety <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> (<a href="../fathers/050659.htm">Epistle 59:10</a>), had <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appealed</a> to <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a> without success (<a href="../fathers/050636.htm">Epistle 36:4</a>).</p> <p>The difficulties at <a href="../cathen/03385a.htm">Carthage</a> which led to the <a href="../cathen/05121a.htm">Donatist</a> <a href="../cathen/13529a.htm">schism</a> provide us with another instance. When the seventy Numidian <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a>, who had condemned Caecilian, invoked the aid of the emperor, the latter referred them to <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a>, that the case might be decided by <a href="../cathen/10318a.htm">Pope Miltiades</a> (313). <a href="../cathen/02084a.htm">St. Augustine</a> makes frequent mention of the circumstances, and indicates plainly that he holds it to have been Caecilian's undoubted <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a> to claim a trial before the pope. He says that Secundus should never have dared to condemn Caecilian when he declined to submit his case to the <a href="../cathen/01181a.htm">African</a> <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a>, since he had the <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a> "to <a href="../cathen/12784a.htm">reserve</a> his whole case to the judgment of other colleagues, especially to that of <a href="../cathen/01634a.htm">Apostolical Churches</a>" (<a href="../fathers/1102043.htm">Epistle 43:7</a>). A little later (367) a council, held at <a href="../cathen/15106b.htm">Tyana</a> in <a href="../cathen/01782a.htm">Asia Minor</a>, restored to his <a href="../cathen/05001a.htm">see</a> <a href="../cathen/05627b.htm">Eustathius</a>, <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a> of that city, on no other ground than that of a successful <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appeal</a> to <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a>. <a href="../cathen/02330b.htm">St. Basil</a> (<a href="../fathers/3202263.htm">Epistle 263:3</a>) tells us that they did not <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">know</a> what test of <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodoxy</a> <a href="../cathen/09217a.htm">Liberius</a> had required. He brought a letter from the pope demanding his restoration, and this was accepted as decisive by the council. It should be observed that there can be no question here of the pope employing prerogatives conferred on him at <a href="../cathen/13473a.htm">Sardica</a>, for he did not follow the procedure there indicated. Indeed there is no good reason to believe that the <a href="../cathen/13473a.htm">Sardican</a> procedure ever came into use in either <a href="../cathen/05230a.htm">East</a> or <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">West</a>. In 378 the <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appellate</a> <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">jurisdiction</a> of the pope received civil <a href="../cathen/13428a.htm">sanction</a> from <a href="../cathen/06729c.htm">Emperor Gratian</a>. Any charge against a <a href="../cathen/10244c.htm">metropolitan</a> was to come before the pope himself or a court of <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> <a href="../cathen/11093a.htm">nominated</a> by him, while all (<a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">Western</a>) <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> had the <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a> of <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appeal</a> from  their <a href="../cathen/14388a.htm">provincial synod</a> to the pope (<a href="../cathen/09609c.htm">Mansi</a>, III, 624). Similarly <a href="../cathen/15255b.htm">Valentinian III</a> in 445 assigned to the pope the <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a> of evoking to <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a> any cause he should think fit (Cod. Theod. Novell., tit. 24, De episcoporum ordin.). These ordinances were not, however, in any sense the source of the pope's <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">jurisdiction</a>, which rested on Divine institution; they were civil <a href="../cathen/13428a.htm">sanctions</a> enabling the pope to avail himself of the civil machinery of the empire in discharging the <a href="../cathen/05215a.htm">duties</a> of his office. What <a href="../cathen/11054a.htm">Pope Nicholas I</a> said of the synodal declarations regarding the <a href="../cathen/12436b.htm">privileges</a> of the <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">Holy See</a> holds good here also: "Ista privilegia huic sanctae Ecclesiae a Christo donata, a synodis non donata, sed jam solummodo venerata et celebrata" (These <a href="../cathen/12436b.htm">privileges</a> bestowed by <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> on this <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Holy Church</a> have not been granted her by <a href="../cathen/14388a.htm">synods</a>, but merely proclaimed and <a href="../cathen/07462a.htm">honoured</a> by them) ("Ep. ad Michaelem Imp." in P.L., CXIX, 948).</p> <p>Much has been made by anti-Catholic writers of the famous letter "Optaremus", addressed in 426 by the <a href="../cathen/01181a.htm">African</a> <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> to <a href="../cathen/03477c.htm">Pope St. Celestine</a> at the close of the incident relating to the <a href="../cathen/12406a.htm">priest</a> <a href="../cathen/01594a.htm">Apiarius</a>. As the point is discussed in a special article (<a href="../cathen/01594a.htm">APIARIUS OF SICCA</a>), a brief reference will suffice here. <a href="../cathen/12495a.htm">Protestant</a> controversialists maintain that in this letter the <a href="../cathen/01181a.htm">African</a> <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> positively repudiate the claim of <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a> to an <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appellate</a> <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">jurisdiction</a>, the repudiation being consequent on the fact that they had in 419 satisfied themselves that <a href="../cathen/15764c.htm">Pope Zosimus</a> was mistaken in claiming the authority of Nicaea for the <a href="../cathen/13473a.htm">Sardican</a> <a href="../cathen/03287a.htm">canons</a>. This is an <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">error</a>. The letter, it is <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">true</a>, urges with some display of irritation that it would be both more reasonable and more in harmony with the <a href="../fathers/3801.htm">fifth Nicene canon</a> regarding the inferior <a href="../cathen/04049b.htm">clergy</a> and the <a href="../cathen/08748a.htm">laity</a>, if even <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">episcopal</a> cases were left to the decision of the <a href="../cathen/01199a.htm">African synod</a>. The pope's authority is nowhere denied, but the sufficiency of the local tribunals is asserted. Indeed the <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a> of the pope to deal with <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">episcopal</a> cases was freely acknowledged by the <a href="../cathen/01191a.htm">African Church</a> even after it had been shown that the <a href="../cathen/13473a.htm">Sardican</a> <a href="../cathen/03287a.htm">canons</a> did not emanate from Nicaea. Antony, <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Bishop</a> of Fussala, prosecuted an <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appeal</a> to <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a> against <a href="../cathen/02084a.htm">St. Augustine</a> in 423, the <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appeal</a> being supported by the <a href="../cathen/12423b.htm">Primate</a> of Numidia (Ep. ccix). Moreover, <a href="../cathen/02084a.htm">St. Augustine</a> in his letter to <a href="../cathen/03477c.htm">Pope Celestine</a> on this subject urges that previous popes have dealt with similar cases in the same manner, sometimes by independent decisions and sometimes by confirmation of the decisions locally given (ipsa sede apostolica judicante vel aliorum judicata firmante), and that he could cite examples either from ancient or from more recent times (Ep. 209:8). These facts appear to be absolutely conclusive as to the <a href="../cathen/15006b.htm">traditional</a> <a href="../cathen/01181a.htm">African</a> practice. That the letter "Optaremus" did not result in any change is evinced by a letter of <a href="../cathen/09154b.htm">St. Leo's</a> in 446, directing what is to be done in the case of a certain Lupicinus who had <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appealed</a> to him (<a href="../fathers/3604012.htm">Epistle 12:13</a>). It is occasionally argued that if the pope really possessed <em>jure divino</em> a supreme <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">jurisdiction</a>, the <a href="../cathen/01181a.htm">African</a> <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> would neither have raised any question in 419 as to whether the alleged <a href="../cathen/03287a.htm">canons</a> were <a href="../cathen/02137a.htm">authentic</a>, nor again have in 426 requested the pope to take the <a href="../fathers/3801.htm">Nicene canon</a> as the norm of his action. Those who reason in this way fail to see that, where <a href="../cathen/03287a.htm">canons</a> have been established prescribing the mode of procedure to be followed in the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>, right <a href="../cathen/12673b.htm">reason</a> demands that the supreme authority should not alter them except for some grave <a href="../cathen/03459a.htm">cause</a>, and, as long as they remain the recognized the <a href="../cathen/09053a.htm">law</a> of the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> should observe them. The pope as <a href="../cathen/15403b.htm">God's vicar</a> must govern according to <a href="../cathen/12673b.htm">reason</a>, not arbitrarily nor capriciously. This, however, is a very different thing from saying, as did the Gallican divines, that the pope is subject to the <a href="../cathen/03287a.htm">canons</a>. He is not subject to them, because he is competent to modify or to annul them when he holds this to be best for the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>.</p> <h2 id="iv">Jurisdictional rights and prerogatives of the pope</h2> <p>In virtue of his office as supreme teacher and ruler of the <a href="../cathen/05769a.htm">faithful</a>, the chief control of every department of the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church's</a> life belongs to the pope. In this section the <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">rights</a> and <a href="../cathen/05215a.htm">duties</a> which thus fall to his lot will be briefly enumerated. It will appear that, in regard to a considerable number of points, not merely the supreme control, but the whole exercise of power is reserved to the <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">Holy See</a>, and is only granted to others by express <a href="../cathen/04696b.htm">delegation</a>. This system of reservation is possible, since the pope is the universal source of all <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">ecclesiastical jurisdiction</a>. Hence it rests with him to determine in what measure he will confer <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">jurisdiction</a> on <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> and other <a href="../cathen/12386b.htm">prelates</a>.</p> <p>(1) As the supreme teacher of the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>, whose it is to prescribe what is to be <a href="../cathen/02408b.htm">believed</a> by all the <a href="../cathen/05769a.htm">faithful</a>, and to take measures for the preservation and the propagation of the <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a>, the following are the <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">rights</a> which pertain to the pope:</p> <div class="bulletlist"><ul><li>it is his to set forth <a href="../cathen/04478a.htm">creeds</a>, and to determine when and by whom an explicit profession of <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a> shall be made (cf. <a href="../cathen/15030c.htm">Council of Trent</a>, Sess. 24, cc. 1 and 12);</li><li>it is his to prescribe and to command books for the religious instruction of the <a href="../cathen/05769a.htm">faithful</a>; thus, for example, <a href="../cathen/04032a.htm">Clement XIII</a> has recommended the <a href="../cathen/13120c.htm">Roman Catechism</a> to all the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a>.</li><li>The pope alone can establish a <a href="../cathen/15188a.htm">university</a>, possessing the status and <a href="../cathen/12436b.htm">privileges</a> of a canonically erected <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> <a href="../cathen/15188a.htm">university</a>;</li><li>to him also belongs the direction of <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> missions throughout the world; this charge is fulfilled through the <a href="../cathen/12456a.htm">Congregation of the Propaganda</a>.</li><li>It is his to prohibit the reading of such books as are injurious to <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a> or <a href="../cathen/10559a.htm">morals</a>, and to determine the <a href="../cathen/04211a.htm">conditions</a> on which certain classes of books may be issued by <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholics</a>;</li><li>his is the condemnation of given propositions as being either <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heretical</a> or deserving of some <a href="../cathen/10331a.htm">minor</a> degree of <a href="../cathen/03527a.htm">censure</a>, and lastly</li><li>he has the <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a> to interpret authentically the <a href="../cathen/09076a.htm">natural law</a>. Thus, it is his to say what is lawful or unlawful in regard to social and <a href="../cathen/05782a.htm">family</a> life, in regard to the practice of <a href="../cathen/15235c.htm">usury</a>, etc. </li></ul></div> <div class="CMtag_300x250" style="display: flex; height: 300px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; "></div> <p>(2) With the pope's office of supreme teacher are closely connected his <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">rights</a> in regard to the worship of <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a>: for it is the <a href="../cathen/09053a.htm">law</a> of <a href="../cathen/12345b.htm">prayer</a> that fixes the <a href="../cathen/09053a.htm">law</a> of <a href="../cathen/02408b.htm">belief</a>. In this sphere very much has been reserved to the sole regulation of the <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">Holy See</a>. Thus</p> <div class="bulletlist"><ul><li>the pope alone can prescribe the <a href="../cathen/09306a.htm">liturgical</a> services employed in the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>. If a <a href="../cathen/05141a.htm">doubt</a> should occur in regard to the <a href="../cathen/03538b.htm">ceremonial</a> of the <a href="../cathen/09306a.htm">liturgy</a>, a <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a> may not settle the point on his own authority, but must have recourse to <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a>. The <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">Holy See</a> likewise prescribes rules in regard to the <a href="../cathen/12275b.htm">devotions</a> used by the <a href="../cathen/05769a.htm">faithful</a>, and in this way checks the growth of what is novel and unauthorized.</li><li>At the present day the institution and abrogation of <a href="../cathen/06021b.htm">festivals</a> which was till a comparatively recent <a href="../cathen/14726a.htm">time</a> free to all <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> as regards their own <a href="../cathen/05001a.htm">dioceses</a>, is reserved to <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a>.</li><li>The <a href="../cathen/14133a.htm">solemn</a> <a href="../cathen/02364b.htm">canonization</a> of a saint is proper to the pope. Indeed it is commonly held that this is an exercise of the <a href="../cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB">papal infallibility</a>. <a href="../cathen/02364b.htm">Beatification</a> and every permission for the public <a href="../cathen/05188b.htm">veneration</a> of any of the servants of <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> is likewise reserved to his decision.</li><li>He alone gives to anyone the <a href="../cathen/12436b.htm">privilege</a> of a private <a href="../cathen/03574b.htm">chapel</a> where <a href="../cathen/10006a.htm">Mass</a> may be said.</li><li>He dispenses the treasury of the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>, and the grant of plenary <a href="../cathen/07783a.htm">indulgences</a> is reserved to him. While he has no authority in regard to the <a href="../cathen/14322c.htm">substantial</a> <a href="../cathen/13064b.htm">rites</a> of the <a href="../cathen/13295a.htm">sacraments</a>, and is bound to preserve them as they were given to the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> by <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> and His <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a>, certain powers in their regard belong to him;</li><li>he can give to simple <a href="../cathen/12406a.htm">priests</a> the power to confirm, and to <a href="../cathen/02599b.htm">bless</a> the oil of the sick and the oil of catechumens, and</li><li>he can establish diriment and impedient <a href="../cathen/07695a.htm">impediments</a> to <a href="../cathen/09691b.htm">matrimony</a>. </li></ul></div> <p>(3) The legislative power of the pope carries with it the following <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">rights</a>:</p> <div class="bulletlist"><ul><li>he can legislate for the whole <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>, with or without the assistance of a <a href="../cathen/04423f.htm">general council</a>;</li><li>if he legislates with the aid of a <a href="../cathen/04423f.htm">council</a> it is his to convoke it, to preside, to direct its deliberations, to confirm its acts.</li><li>He has full authority to interpret, alter, and abrogate both his own <a href="../cathen/09053a.htm">laws</a> and those established by his predecessors. He has the same plenitude of power as they enjoyed, and stands in the same relation to their <a href="../cathen/09053a.htm">laws</a> as to those which he himself has <a href="../cathen/04670a.htm">decreed</a>;</li><li>he can <a href="../cathen/05041a.htm">dispense</a> <a href="../cathen/07762a.htm">individuals</a> from the <a href="../cathen/11189a.htm">obligation</a> of all purely ecclesiastical laws, and can grant <a href="../cathen/12436b.htm">privileges</a> and exemptions in their regard.</li><li>In this connection may be mentioned his power to <a href="../cathen/05041a.htm">dispense</a> from <a href="../cathen/15511a.htm">vows</a> where the greater <a href="../cathen/06585a.htm">glory</a> of <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> renders it desirable. Considerable powers of <a href="../cathen/05041a.htm">dispensation</a> are granted to <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a>, and, in a restricted measure, also to <a href="../cathen/12406a.htm">priests</a>; but there are some <a href="../cathen/15511a.htm">vows</a> reserved altogether to the <a href="../cathen/07424b.htm">Holy See</a>.</li></ul></div> <p>(4) In virtue of his supreme judicial authority</p> <div class="bulletlist"><ul><li><em>causae majores</em> are reserved to him. By this term are signified cases dealing with matters of great moment, or those in which personages of eminent dignity are concerned.</li><li>His <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appellate</a> <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">jurisdiction</a> has been discussed in the previous section. It should, however, be noted</li><li>that the pope has full <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a>, should he see fit, to deal even with <em>causae minores</em> in the first instance, and not merely by reason of an <a href="../cathen/01652a.htm">appeal</a> (Trent, Sess. XXIV; cap. 20). In what concerns punishment,</li><li>he can inflict <a href="../cathen/03527a.htm">censures</a> either by judicial <a href="../cathen/13720b.htm">sentence</a> or by general <a href="../cathen/09053a.htm">laws</a> which operate without need of such <a href="../cathen/13720b.htm">sentence</a>.</li><li>He further reserves certain cases to his own tribunal. All cases of <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heresy</a> come before the <a href="../cathen/13136a.htm">Congregation</a> of the <a href="../cathen/08026a.htm">Inquisition</a>. A similar reservation covers the cases in which a <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a> or a reigning prince is the accused party. </li></ul></div> <p>(5) As the supreme governor of the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> the pope has authority over all appointments to its public offices. Thus</p> <div class="bulletlist"><ul><li>it is his to <a href="../cathen/11093a.htm">nominate</a> to <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishoprics</a>, or, where the <a href="../cathen/11093a.htm">nomination</a> has been conceded to others, to give confirmation. Further, he alone can translate <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> from one see to another, can accept their resignation, and can, where grave cause exists, <a href="../cathen/13720b.htm">sentence</a> to <a href="../cathen/04737b.htm">deprivation</a>.</li><li>He can establish <a href="../cathen/05001a.htm">dioceses</a>, and can annul a previously existing arrangement in favour of a new one. Similarly, he alone can erect <a href="../cathen/03438a.htm">cathedral</a> and <a href="../cathen/04114a.htm">collegiate</a> chapters.</li><li>He can approve new <a href="../cathen/12748b.htm">religious</a> orders, and can, if he sees fit, exempt them from the authority of local <a href="../cathen/11284b.htm">ordinaries</a>.</li><li>Since his office of supreme ruler imposes on him the <a href="../cathen/05215a.htm">duty</a> of enforcing the <a href="../cathen/03287a.htm">canons</a>, it is requisite that he should be kept informed as to the state of the various <a href="../cathen/05001a.htm">dioceses</a>. He may obtain this information by <a href="../cathen/09118a.htm">legates</a> or by summoning the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> to <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a>. At the present day this <em>jus relationum</em> is exercised through the triennial visit <em>ad limina</em> required of all <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a>. This system was introduced by <a href="../cathen/14033a.htm">Sixtus V</a> in 1585 (Constitution, "Rom. Pontifex"), and confirmed by <a href="../cathen/02432a.htm">Benedict XIV</a> in 1740 (Constitution, "Quod Sancta") .</li><li>It is to be further observed that the pope's office of chief ruler of the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> carries with it <em>jure divino</em> the <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a> to free intercourse with the <a href="../cathen/04049b.htm">pastors</a> and the <a href="../cathen/05769a.htm">faithful</a>. The <em>placitum regium</em>, by which this intercourse was limited and impeded, was therefore an infringement of a sacred <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a>, and as such was <a href="../cathen/14133a.htm">solemnly</a> condemned by the <a href="../cathen/15303a.htm">Vatican Council</a> (Constitution, "Pastor Aeternus", cap. iii). To the pope likewise belongs the supreme administration of the <a href="../cathen/12466a.htm">goods of the Church</a>.</li><li>He alone can, where there is just cause, alienate any considerable <a href="../cathen/12591a.htm">quantity</a> of such <a href="../cathen/12462a.htm">property</a>. Thus, e.g., <a href="../cathen/08564a.htm">Julius III</a>, at the time of the restoration of religion in <a href="../cathen/05445a.htm">England</a> under <a href="../cathen/09766a.htm">Queen Mary</a> validated the title of those <a href="../cathen/08748a.htm">laymen</a> who had acquired <a href="../cathen/12466a.htm">Church lands</a> during the spoliations of the previous reigns.</li><li>The pope has further the <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a> to impose taxes on the <a href="../cathen/04049b.htm">clergy</a> and the <a href="../cathen/05769a.htm">faithful</a> for <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">ecclesiastical</a> purposes (cf. Trent, Sess. XXI, cap. iv de Ref.). </li></ul></div> <p>Though the power of the pope, as we have described it, is very great, it does not follow that it is arbitrary and unrestricted. "The pope", as <a href="../cathen/07262a.htm">Cardinal Hergenröther</a> well says,</p> <blockquote><p>is circumscribed by the <a href="../cathen/04274a.htm">consciousness</a> of the <a href="../cathen/10733a.htm">necessity</a> of making a righteous and beneficent use of the <a href="../cathen/05215a.htm">duties</a> attached to his <a href="../cathen/12436b.htm">privileges</a>....He is also circumscribed by the spirit and practice of the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>, by the respect due to <a href="../cathen/04423f.htm">General Councils</a> and to ancient <a href="../cathen/09053a.htm">statutes</a> and <a href="../cathen/04576a.htm">customs</a>, by the <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">rights</a> of <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a>, by his relation with <a href="../cathen/02137c.htm">civil powers</a>, by the traditional mild tone of government indicated by the aim of the institution of the papacy  to "feed"  and finally by the respect indispensable in a <a href="../cathen/14230a.htm">spiritual</a> power towards the spirit and <a href="../cathen/10321a.htm">mind</a> of nations ("Cath. Church and Christian State", tr., I, 197).</p></blockquote> <h2 id="v">Primacy of honour: titles and insignia</h2> <p>Certain titles and distinctive marks of <a href="../cathen/07462a.htm">honour</a> are assigned to the pope alone; these constitute what is termed his <a href="../cathen/12423a.htm">primacy</a> of <a href="../cathen/07462a.htm">honour</a>. These prerogatives are not, as are his <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">jurisdictional</a> <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">rights</a>, attached <em>jure divino</em> to his office. They have grown up in the course of <a href="../cathen/07365a.htm">history</a>, and are <a href="../cathen/04276a.htm">consecrated</a> by the usage of centuries; yet they are not incapable of modification.</p> <h3>Titles</h3> <h4>Pope</h4> <p>The most noteworthy of the titles are <em>Papa</em>, <em>Summus Pontifex</em>, <em>Pontifex Maximus</em>, <em>Servus servorum Dei</em>. The title <em>pope</em> (<em>papa</em>) was, as has been stated, at one <a href="../cathen/14726a.htm">time</a> employed with far more latitude. In the <a href="../cathen/05230a.htm">East</a> it has always been used to designate simple <a href="../cathen/12406a.htm">priests</a>. In the <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">Western Church</a>, however, it seems from the beginning to have been restricted to <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> (<a href="../cathen/14520c.htm">Tertullian</a>, <a href="../fathers/0407.htm"><em>On Modesty</em> 13</a>). It was apparently in the fourth century that it began to become a distinctive title of the Roman Pontiff. <a href="../cathen/14026a.htm">Pope Siricius</a> (d. 398) seems so to use it (Ep. vi in P.L., XIII, 1164), and <a href="../cathen/05478a.htm">Ennodius of Pavia</a> (d. 473) employs it still more clearly in this sense in a letter to <a href="../cathen/14377a.htm">Pope Symmachus</a> (P.L., LXIII, 69). Yet as late as the seventh century St. Gall (d. 640) addresses <a href="../cathen/04751a.htm">Desiderius of Cahors</a> as <em>papa</em> (P.L., LXXXVII, 265). <a href="../cathen/06791c.htm">Gregory VII</a> finally prescribed that it should be confined to the <a href="../cathen/01641a.htm">successors</a> of <a href="../cathen/11744a.htm">Peter</a>.</p> <h4>Pontiff</h4> <p>The terms <em>Pontifex Maximus, Summus Pontifex</em>, were doubtless originally employed with reference to the <a href="../cathen/12407b.htm">Jewish high-priest</a>, whose place the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Christian bishops</a> were regarded as holding each in his own <a href="../cathen/05001a.htm">diocese</a> (<a href="../fathers/1010.htm"><em>Epistle of Clement</em> 40</a>). As regards the title <em>Pontifex Maximus</em>, especially in its application to the pope, there was further a reminiscence of the dignity attached to that title in <a href="../cathen/11388a.htm">pagan</a> <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a>. <a href="../cathen/14520c.htm">Tertullian</a>, as has already been said, uses the phrase of <a href="../cathen/03183d.htm">Pope Callistus</a>. Though his words are ironical, they probably indicate that <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholics</a> already applied it to the pope. But here too the terms were once less narrowly restricted in their use. <em>Pontifex summus</em> was used of the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a> of some notable see in relation to those of less importance. <a href="../cathen/07349a.htm">Hilary of Arles</a> (d. 449) is so styled by <a href="../cathen/05595a.htm">Eucherius of Lyons</a> (P.L., L, 773), and <a href="../cathen/08784c.htm">Lanfranc</a> is termed "primas et pontifex summus" by his biographer, <a href="../cathen/10317b.htm">Milo Crispin</a> (P.L., CL, 10). <a href="../cathen/11054a.htm">Pope Nicholas I</a> is termed "summus pontifex et universalis papa" by his <a href="../cathen/09118a.htm">legate</a> Arsenius (<a href="../cathen/07135c.htm">Hardouin</a> "Conc.", V, 280), and subsequent examples are common. After the eleventh century it appears to be only used of the popes.</p> <h4>Servant of the Servants of God</h4> <p>The phrase <em>Servus servorum Dei</em> is now so entirely a papal title that a <a href="../cathen/03052b.htm">Bull</a> in which it should be wanting would be reckoned unauthentic. Yet this designation also was once applied to others. <a href="../cathen/02084a.htm">Augustine</a> (Ep. 217 a. d. Vitalem) entitles himself "servus Christi et per Ipsum servus servorum Ipsius". <a href="../cathen/04751a.htm">Desiderius of Cahors</a> made use of it (<a href="../cathen/14697c.htm">Thomassin</a>, "Ecclesiae nov. et vet. disc.", pt. I, I. I, c. iv, n. 4): so also did <a href="../cathen/02656a.htm">St. Boniface</a> (740), the apostle of <a href="../cathen/06484b.htm">Germany</a> (P.L., LXXIX, 700). The first of the popes to adopt it was seemingly <a href="../cathen/06780a.htm">Gregory I</a>; he appears to have done so in contrast to the claim put forward by the <a href="../cathen/08493a.htm">Patriarch of Constantinople</a> to the title of universal <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a> (P.L., LXXV, 87). The restriction of the term to the pope alone began in the ninth century.</p> <h3>Insignia and marks of honour</h3> <h4>Tiara</h4> <p>The pope is distinguished by the use of the <a href="../cathen/14714c.htm">tiara</a> or triple crown. At what date the <a href="../cathen/04576a.htm">custom</a> of <a href="../cathen/04380a.htm">crowning</a> the pope was introduced is unknown. It was certainly previous to the <a href="../cathen/06135b.htm">forged</a> <a href="../cathen/05118a.htm">donation of Constantine</a>, which dates from the commencement of the ninth century, for mention is there made of the pope's <a href="../cathen/04380a.htm">coronation</a>. The <a href="../cathen/14714c.htm">triple crown</a> is of much later origin.</p> <h4>Cross</h4> <p>The pope moreover does not, like <a href="../cathen/11284b.htm">ordinary</a> <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a>, use the bent <a href="../cathen/04515c.htm">pastoral staff</a>, but only the erect cross. This <a href="../cathen/04576a.htm">custom</a> was introduced before the reign of <a href="../cathen/08013a.htm">Innocent III</a> (1198-1216) (cap. un. X de sacra unctione, I, 15).</p> <h4>Pallium</h4> <p>He further uses the <a href="../cathen/11427a.htm">pallium</a> at all <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">ecclesiastical</a> functions, and not under the same restrictions as do the <a href="../cathen/01691a.htm">archbishops</a> on whom he has conferred it.</p> <h4>Kiss</h4> <p>The <a href="../cathen/08663a.htm">kissing</a> of the pope's foot  the characteristic <a href="../cathen/01115a.htm">act</a> of reverence by which all the <a href="../cathen/05769a.htm">faithful</a> do <a href="../cathen/07462a.htm">honour</a> to him as the <a href="../cathen/15403b.htm">vicar of Christ</a>  is found as early as the eighth century. We read that Emperor Justinian II paid this respect to <a href="../cathen/04294b.htm">Pope Constantine</a> (708-16) (Anastasius Bibl. in P.L., CXXVIII 949). Even at an earlier date Emperor Justin had prostrated himself before <a href="../cathen/08421a.htm">Pope John I</a> (523-6; op. cit., 515), and <a href="../cathen/08578b.htm">Justinian I</a> before <a href="../cathen/01202c.htm">Agapetus</a> (535-6; op. cit., 551). The pope, it may be added, ranks as the first of <a href="../cathen/03712a.htm">Christian</a> princes, and in <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> countries his ambassadors have precedence over other members of the diplomatic body.</p> <p>(<em>For the full list of men who have held this office, see</em> <a href="../cathen/12272b.htm">LIST OF POPES</a>.)</p> <div class='catholicadnet-728x90' id='cathen-728x90-bottom' style='display: flex; height: 100px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; '></div> <div class="pub"><h2>About this page</h2><p id="apa"><strong>APA citation.</strong> <span id="apaauthor">Joyce, G.</span> <span id="apayear">(1911).</span> <span id="apaarticle">The Pope.</span> In <span id="apawork">The Catholic Encyclopedia.</span> <span id="apapublisher">New York: Robert Appleton Company.</span> <span id="apaurl">http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm</span></p><p id="mla"><strong>MLA citation.</strong> <span id="mlaauthor">Joyce, George.</span> <span id="mlaarticle">"The Pope."</span> <span id="mlawork">The Catholic Encyclopedia.</span> <span id="mlavolume">Vol. 12.</span> <span id="mlapublisher">New York: Robert Appleton Company,</span> <span id="mlayear">1911.</span> <span id="mlaurl"><http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm>.</span></p><p id="transcription"> <span id="transcriber"></span> <span id="dedication"></span></p><p id="approbation"><strong>Ecclesiastical approbation.</strong> <span id="nihil"><em>Nihil Obstat.</em> June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.</span> <span id="imprimatur"><em>Imprimatur.</em> +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.</span></p><p id="contactus"><strong>Contact information.</strong> The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmaster <em>at</em> newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.</p></div> </div> <div id="ogdenville"><table summary="Bottom bar" width="100%" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td class="bar_white_on_color"><center><strong>Copyright © 2023 by <a href="../utility/contactus.htm">New Advent LLC</a>. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.</strong></center></td></tr></table><p align="center"><a href="../utility/contactus.htm">CONTACT US</a> | <a href="https://cleanmedia.net/p/?psid=491-308-20180429T2217479770">ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT</a></p></div> <ins class="CANBMDDisplayAD" data-bmd-ad-unit="30849120210203T1734389107AB67D35C03D4A318731A4F337F60B3E" style="display:block"></ins> <script src="https://secureaddisplay.com/au/bmd/"></script>  <ins class="CMAdExcludeArticles"></ins> </body> </html>