chapter 50._

{2417}

PANTIBIBLON, The exhumed Library of.

See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA.

PANTIKAPÆUM.

See BOSPHORUS, THE CITY AND KINGDOM.

PAOLI, and the Corsican struggle.

See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.

PAOLI, Surprise of Wayne at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

----------PAPACY: Start--------

PAPACY: St. Peter and the Church at Rome.

"The generally received account among Roman Catholics, and one which can claim a long traditional acceptance, is that Peter came to Rome in the second year of Claudius (that is, A. D. 42), and that he held the see twenty-five years, a length of episcopate never reached again until by Pio Nono, who exceeded it. … Now if it is possible to prove a negative at all, we may conclude, with at least high probability, that Peter was not at Rome during any of the time on which the writings of the canonical Scriptures throw much light, and almost certainly that during that time he was not its bishop. We have an Epistle of Paul to the Romans full of salutations to his friends there, but no mention of their bishop. Nor is anything said of work done by Peter in founding that Church. On the contrary, it is implied that no Apostle had as yet visited it; for such is the inference from the passage already cited, in which Paul expresses his wish to see the Roman Christians in order that he might impart some spiritual gift to the end that they might be established. We have letters of Paul from Rome in which no message is sent from Peter; and in the very last of these letters Paul complains of being left alone, and that only Luke was with him. Was Peter one of the deserters? The Scripture accounts of Peter place him in Judæa, in Antioch, possibly in Corinth, but finally in Babylon. … Plainly, if Peter was ever at Rome, it was after the date of Paul's second Epistle to Timothy. Some Protestant controversialists have asserted that Peter was never at Rome; but though the proofs that he was there are not so strong as I should like them to be if I had any doctrine depending on it, I think the historic probability is that he was; though, as I say, at a late period of the history, and not long before his death. … For myself, I am willing, in the absence of any opposing tradition, to accept the current account that Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome. We know with certainty from John xxi. that Peter suffered martyrdom somewhere. If Rome, which early laid claim to have witnessed that martyrdom, were not the scene of it, where then did it take place? Any city would be glad to claim such a connexion with the name of the Apostle, and none but Rome made the claim. … From the question, whether Peter ever visited Rome, we pass now to a very different question, whether he was its bishop. … We think it scandalous when we read of bishops a hundred years ago who never went near their sees. … But if we are to believe Roman theory, the bad example had been set by St. Peter, who was the first absentee bishop. If he became bishop of Rome in the second year of Claudius, he appears never afterwards to have gone near his see until close upon his death. Nay, he never even wrote a letter to his Church while he was away; or if he did, they did not think it worth preserving. Baronius (in Ann. lviii. § 51) owns the force of the Scripture reasons for believing that Peter was not in Rome during any time on which the New Testament throws light. His theory is that, when Claudius commanded all Jews to leave Rome, Peter was forced to go away. And as for his subsequent absences, they were forced on him by his duty as the chief of the Apostles, having care of all the Churches. … These, no doubt, are excellent reasons for Peter's not remaining at Rome; but why, then, did he undertake duties which he must have known he could not fulfil?"

_G. Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church, pages 347-350._

The Roman Catholic belief as to St. Peter's episcopacy, and the primacy conferred by it on the Roman See, is stated by Dr. Dollinger as follows: "The time of … [St. Peter's] arrival in Rome, and the consequent duration of his episcopacy in that city, have been the subjects of many various opinions amongst the learned of ancient and modern times; nor is it possible to reconcile the apparently conflicting statements of ancient writers, unless we suppose that the prince of the apostles resided at two distinct periods in the imperial capital. According to St. Jerome, Eusebius, and Orosius, his first arrival in Rome was in the second year of the reign of Claudius (A. D. 42); but he was obliged, by the decree of the emperor, banishing all Jews from the city, to return to Jerusalem. From Jerusalem he undertook a journey through Asia Minor, and founded, or at least, visited, the Churches of Pontus, Gallacia, Cappadocia, and Bythinia. To these Churches he afterwards addressed his epistle from Rome. His second journey to Rome was in the reign of Nero; and it is of this journey that Dionysius, of Corinth, and Lactantius, write. There, with the blessed Paul, he suffered, in the year 67, the death of a martyr. We may now ascertain that the period of twenty-five years assigned by Eusebius and St. Jerome, to the episcopacy of St. Peter in Rome, is not a fiction of their imaginations; for from the second year of Claudius, in which the apostle founded the Church of Rome, to the year of his death, there intervene exactly twenty-five years. That he remained during the whole of this period in Rome, no one has pretended. … Our Lord conferred upon his apostle, Peter, the supreme authority in the Church. After he had required and obtained from him a public profession of his faith, he declared him to be the rock, the foundation upon which he would build his Church; and, at the same time, promised that he would give to him the keys of the kingdom of heaven. … In the enumeration of the apostles, frequently repeated by the Evangelists, we find that Peter is always the first named:—he is sometimes named alone, when the others are mentioned in general. {2418} After the ascension of our Lord, it is he who directs and governs: he leads the assembly in which a successor to the apostle who had prevaricated, is chosen: after the descent of the Holy Ghost, he speaks first to the people, and announces to them Jesus Christ: he performs the first miracle, and, in the name of his brethren, addresses the synedrium: he punishes the crime of Ananias: he opens the gates of the Church to the Gentiles, and presides at the first council at Jerusalem. … The more the Church was extended, and the more its constitution was formed, the more necessary did the power with which Peter had been invested become,—the more evident was the need of a head which united the members in one body, of a point and centre of unity. … Succession by ordination was the means, by which from the beginning the power left by Christ in his Church was continued: thus the power of the apostles descended to the bishops, their successors, and thus as Peter died bishop of the Church of Rome, where he sealed his doctrine with his blood, the primacy which he had received would be continued in him by whom he was there succeeded. It was not without a particular interposition of Providence that this pre-eminence was granted to the city of Rome, and that it became the depository of ecclesiastical supremacy. This city, which rose in the midway between the east and the west, by its position, by its proximity to the sea, by its dignity, as capital of the Roman empire, being open on all sides to communication even with the most distant nations, was evidently more than any other adapted to become the centre of the universal Church. … There are not wanting, in the first three centuries, testimonies and facts, some of which directly attest, and others presuppose, the supremacy of the Roman Church and of its bishops."

_J. J. I. Dollinger, History of the Church, period 1, chapter 1, section 4, and chapter 3, section 4 (volume 1)._

PAPACY: Supremacy of the Roman See: Grounds of the Claim.

The historical ground of the claim to supremacy over the Christian Church asserted on behalf of the Roman See is stated by Cardinal Gibbons as follows: "I shall endeavor to show, from incontestable historical evidence, that the Popes have always, from the days of the Apostles, continued to exercise supreme jurisdiction, not only in the Western church, till the Reformation, but also throughout the Eastern church, till the great schism of the ninth century.

1. Take the question of appeals. An appeal is never made from a superior to an inferior court, nor even from one court to another of co-ordinate jurisdiction. We do not appeal from Washington to Richmond, but from Richmond to Washington. Now if we find the See of Rome, from the foundation of Christianity, entertaining and deciding cases of appeal from the Oriental churches; if we find that her decision was final and irrevocable, we must conclude that the supremacy of Rome over all the churches is an undeniable fact. Let me give you a few illustrations: To begin with Pope St. Clement, who was the third successor of St. Peter, and who is laudably mentioned by St. Paul in one of his Epistles. Some dissension and scandal having occurred in the church of Corinth, the matter is brought to the notice of Pope Clement. He at once exercises his supreme authority by writing letters of remonstrance and admonition to the Corinthians. And so great was the reverence entertained for these Epistles, by the faithful of Corinth, that for a century later it was customary to have them publicly read in their churches. Why did the Corinthians appeal to Rome far away in the West, and not to Ephesus so near home in the East, where the Apostle St. John still lived? Evidently because the jurisdiction of Ephesus was local, while that of Rome was universal. About the year 190, the question regarding the proper day for celebrating Easter was agitated in the East, and referred to Pope St. Victor I. The Eastern church generally celebrated Easter on the day on which the Jews kept the Passover; while in the West it was observed then, as it is now, on the first Sunday after the full moon of the vernal equinox. St. Victor directs the Eastern churches, for the sake of uniformity, to conform to the practice of the West, and his instructions are universally followed. Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, about the middle of the third century, having heard that the Patriarch of Alexandria erred on some points of faith, demands an explanation of the suspected Prelate, who, in obedience to his superior, promptly vindicates his own orthodoxy. St. Athanasius, the great Patriarch of Alexandria, appeals in the fourth century, to Pope Julius I., from an unjust decision rendered against him by the Oriental bishops; and the Pope reverses the sentence of the Eastern council. St. Basil, Archbishop of Cæsarea, in the same century, has recourse, in his afflictions, to the protection of Pope Damasus. St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople, appeals in the beginning of the fifth century, to Pope Innocent I., for a redress of grievances inflicted on him by several Eastern Prelates, and by the Empress Eudoxia of Constantinople. St. Cyril appeals to Pope Celestine against Nestorius; Nestorius also appeals to the same Pontiff, who takes the side of Cyril. Theodoret, the illustrious historian and Bishop of Cyrrhus, is condemned by the pseudo-council of Ephesus in 449, and appeals to Pope Leo. … John, Abbot of Constantinople, appeals from the decision of the Patriarch of that city to Pope St. Gregory I., who reverses the sentence of the Patriarch. In 859, Photius addressed a letter to Pope Nicholas I., asking the Pontiff to confirm his election to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In consequence of the Pope's conscientious refusal, Photius broke off from the communion of the Catholic Church, and became the author of the Greek schism. Here are a few examples taken at random from Church History. We see Prelates most eminent for their sanctity and learning, occupying the highest position in the Eastern church, and consequently far removed from the local influences of Rome, appealing in every period of the early church, from the decisions of their own Bishops and their Councils to the supreme arbitration of the Holy See. If this does not constitute superior jurisdiction, I have yet to learn what superior authority means.

2. Christians of every denomination admit the orthodoxy of the Fathers of the first five centuries of the Church. No one has ever called in question the faith of such men as Basil, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, and Leo. … Now the Fathers of the Church, with one voice, pay homage to the Bishops of Rome as their superiors. …

{2419}

3. Ecumenical Councils afford another eloquent vindication of Papal supremacy. An Ecumenical or General Council is an assemblage of Prelates representing the whole Catholic Church. … Up to the present time, nineteen Ecumenical Councils have been convened, including the Council of the Vatican. … The first General Council was held in Nicæa, in 325; the second, in Constantinople, in 381; the third, in Ephesus, in 431; the fourth, in Chalcedon, in 451; the fifth, in Constantinople, in 553; the sixth, in the same city, in 680; the seventh, in Nicæa, in 787; and the eighth, in Constantinople, in 809. The Bishops of Rome convoked these assemblages, or at least consented to their convocation; they presided by their legates over all of them, except the first and second councils of Constantinople, and they confirmed all these eight by their authority. Before becoming a law, the acts of the Councils required the Pope's signature.

4. I shall refer to one more historical point in support of the Pope's jurisdiction over the whole Church. It is a most remarkable fact that every nation hitherto converted from Paganism to Christianity, since the days of the Apostles, has received the light of faith from missionaries who were either especially commissioned by the See of Rome, or sent by Bishops in open communion with that See. This historical fact admits of no exception. Let me particularize: Ireland's Apostle is St. Patrick. Who commissioned him? Pope St. Celestine, in the fifth century. St. Palladius is the Apostle of Scotland. Who sent him? The same Pontiff, Celestine. The Anglo-Saxons received the faith from St. Augustine, a Benedictine monk, as all historians Catholic and non-Catholic testify: Who empowered Augustine to preach? Pope Gregory I., at the end of the sixth century. St. Remigius established the faith in France, at the close of the fifth century. He was in active communion with the See of Peter. Flanders received the Gospel in the seventh century from St. Eligius, who acknowledged the supremacy of the reigning Pope. Germany and Bavaria venerate as their Apostle St. Boniface, who is popularly known in his native England by his baptismal name of Winfrid. He was commissioned by Pope Gregory II., in the beginning of the eighth century, and was consecrated Bishop by the same Pontiff. In the ninth century, two saintly brothers, Cyril and Methodius, evangelized Russia, Sclavonia, and Moravia, and other parts of Northern Europe. They recognized the supreme authority of Pope Nicholas I., and of his successors, Adrian II. and John VIII. In the eleventh century, Norway was converted by missionaries introduced from England by the Norwegian King St. Olave. The conversion of Sweden was consummated in the same century by the British Apostles Saints Ulfrid and Eskill. Both of these nations immediately after their conversion commenced to pay Rome-scot, or a small annual tribute to the Holy See,—a clear evidence that they were in communion with the Chair of Peter. All the other nations of Europe, having been converted before the Reformation, received likewise the light of faith from Roman Catholic missionaries, because Europe then recognized only one Christian Chief."

_James, Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of our Fathers,