chapter 10._

ALSO IN: _Francis P. Kenrick, Archbishop of Baltimore, The Primacy of the Apostolic See vindicated._

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

"The first document by which the partisans of the Papal sovereignty justify themselves, is the letter written by St. Clement in the name of the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth. They assert, that it was written by virtue of a superior authority attached to his title of Bishop of Rome. Now, it is unquestionable, 1st. That St. Clement was not Bishop of Rome when he wrote to the Corinthians. 2d. That in this matter he did not act of his own authority, but in the name of the Church at Rome, and from motives of charity. The letter signed by St. Clement was written A. D. 69, immediately after the persecution by Nero, which took place between the years 64 and 68, as all learned men agree. … It may be seen from the letter itself that it was written after a persecution; if it be pretended that this persecution was that of Domitian, then the letter must be dated in the last years of the first century, since it was chiefly in the years 95 and 96 that the persecution of Domitian took place. Now, it is easy to see from the letter itself, that it was written before that time, for it speaks of the Jewish sacrifices as still existing in the temple of Jerusalem. The temple was destroyed with the city of Jerusalem, by Titus A. D. 70. Hence, the letter must have been written before that year. Besides, the letter was written after some persecution, in which had suffered, at Rome, some very illustrious martyrs. There was nothing of the kind in the persecution of Domitian. The persecution of Nero lasted from the year 64 to the year 68. Hence it follows, that the letter to the Corinthians could only have been written in the year 69, that is to say, twenty-four years before Clement was Bishop of Rome. In presence of this simple calculation what becomes of the stress laid by the partisans of Papal sovereignty, upon the importance of this document as emanating from Pope St. Clement? Even if it could be shown that the letter of St. Clement was written during his episcopate, this would prove nothing, because this letter was not written by him by virtue of a superior and personal authority possessed by him, but from mere charity, and in the name of the Church at Rome. Let us hear Eusebius upon this subject: 'Of this Clement there is one epistle extant, acknowledged as genuine, … which he wrote in the name of the Church at Rome to that of Corinth, at the time when there was a dissension in the latter.' … He could not say more explicitly, that Clement did not in this matter act of his own authority, by virtue of any power he individually possessed. Nothing in the letter itself gives a suspicion of such authority. It thus commences: 'The Church of God which is at Rome, to the Church of God which is at Corinth.' … There is every reason to believe that St. Clement draughted this letter to the Corinthians. From the first centuries it has been considered as his work. It was not as Bishop of Rome, but as a disciple of the Apostles, that he wrote it. … In the second century the question concerning Easter was agitated with much warmth. Many Oriental Churches wished to follow the Judaical traditions, preserved by several Apostles in the celebration of that feast, and to hold it upon the fourteenth day of the March moon; other Eastern Churches, in agreement with the Western Churches according to an equally Apostolic tradition, celebrated the festival of Easter the Sunday following the fourteenth day of the March moon. {2420} The question in itself considered was of no great importance; and yet it was generally thought that all the Churches should celebrate at one and the same time the great Christian festival, and that some should not be rejoicing over the resurrection of the Saviour, while others were contemplating the mysteries of his death. How was the question settled? Did the Bishop of Rome interpose his authority and overrule the discussion, as would have been the case had he enjoyed a supreme authority? Let us take the evidence of History. The question having been agitated, 'there were synods and convocations of the Bishops on this question,' says Eusebius, 'and all unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical decree, which they communicated to all the Churches in all places. … There is an epistle extant even now of those who were assembled at the time; among whom presided Theophilus, Bishop of the Church in Cesarea and Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem. There is another epistle' (of the Roman Synod) 'extant on the same question, bearing the name of Victor. An epistle also of the Bishops in Pontus, among whom Palmas, as the most ancient, presided; also of the Churches of Gaul over whom Irenæus presided. Moreover, one from those in Osrhoene, and the cities there. And a particular epistle from Bacchyllus, Bishop of the Corinthians; and epistles of many others who, advancing one and the same doctrine, also passed the same vote.' It is evident that Eusebius speaks of the letter of the Roman synod in the same terms as of the others; he does not attribute it to Bishop Victor, but to the assembly of the Roman Clergy; and lastly, he only mentions it in the second place after that of the Bishops of Palestine. Here is a point irrefragably established; it is that in the matter of Easter, the Church of Rome discussed and judged the question in the same capacity as the other churches, and that the Bishop of Rome only signed the letter in the name of the synod which represented that Church."

_Abbé Guettée, The Papacy, pages 53-58._

"At the time of the Council of Nicæa it was clear that the metropolitans of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, held a superior rank among their brethren, and had a kind of ill-defined jurisdiction over the provinces of several metropolitans. The fathers of Nicæa recognized the fact that the privileges of these sees were regulated by customs already regarded as primitive, and these customs they confirmed. … The empire was afterwards divided for the purposes of civil government into four Prefectures. … The organization of the Church followed in its main lines that of the empire. It also had its dioceses and provinces, coinciding for the most part with the similarly named political divisions. Not only did the same circumstances which marked out a city for political preeminence also indicate it as a fit centre of ecclesiastical rule, but it was a recognized principle with the Church that the ecclesiastical should follow the civil division. At the head of a diocese was a patriarch, at the head of a province was a metropolitan; the territory of a simple bishop was a parish. … The see of Constantinople … became the oriental counterpart of that of Rome. … But the patriarchal system of government, like every other, suffered from the shocks of time. The patriarch of Antioch had, in the first instance, the most extensive territory, for he claimed authority not only over the civil diocese of the East, but over the Churches in Persia, Media, Parthia, and India, which lay beyond the limits of the empire. But this large organization was but loosely knit, and constantly tended to dissolution. … After the conquests of Caliph Omar the great see of Antioch sank into insignificance. The region subject to the Alexandrian patriarch was much smaller than that of Antioch, but it was better compacted. Here too however the Monophysite tumult so shook its organization that it was no longer able to resist the claims of the patriarch of Constantinople. It also fell under the dominion of the Saracens—a fate which had already befallen Jerusalem. In the whole East there remained only the patriarch of Constantinople in a condition to exercise actual authority. … According to Rufinus's version of the sixth canon of the Council of Nicæa, the Bishop of Rome had entrusted to him the care of the suburbicarian churches [probably including Lower Italy and most of Central Italy, with Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica]. … But many causes tended to extend the authority of the Roman patriarch beyond these modest limits. The patriarch of Constantinople depended largely for his authority on the will of the emperor, and his spiritual realm was agitated by the constant intrigues of opposing parties. His brother of Rome enjoyed generally more freedom in matters spiritual, and the diocese over which he presided, keeping aloof for the most part from controversies on points of dogma, was therefore comparatively calm and united. Even the Orientals were impressed by the majesty of old Rome, and gave great honour to its bishop. In the West, the highest respect was paid to those sees which claimed an Apostle as founder, and among these the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul naturally took the highest place. It was, in fact, the one apostolic see of Western Europe, and as such received a unique regard. … Doubtful questions about apostolic doctrine and custom were addressed certainly to other distinguished bishops, as Athanasius and Basil, but they came more readily and more constantly to Rome, as already the last appeal in many civil matters. We must not suppose however that the Churches of the East were ready to accept the sway of Rome, however they might respect the great city of the West. … The authority of the Roman see increased from causes which are sufficiently obvious to historical enquirers. But the greatest of the Roman bishops were far too wise to tolerate the supposition that their power depended on earthly sanctions. They contended steadfastly that they were the heads of the Church on earth, because they were the successors of him to whom the Lord had given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, St. Peter. And they also contended that Rome was, in the most emphatic sense, the mother-church of the whole West. Innocent I. claims that no Church had ever been founded in Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, Sicily, or the Mediterranean islands, except by men who had received their commission from St. Peter or his successors. At the same time, they admitted that the privileges of the see were not wholly derived immediately from its founder, but were conferred by past generations out of respect for St. Peter's see. {2421} But the bishop who most clearly and emphatically asserted the claims of the Roman see to preeminence over the whole Church on earth was no doubt Leo I., a great man who filled a most critical position with extraordinary firmness and ability. Almost every argument by which in later times the authority of the see of St. Peter was supported is to be found in the letters of Leo. … The Empire of the West never seriously interfered with the proceedings of the Roman bishop; and when it fell, the Church became the heir of the empire. In the general crash, the Latin Christians found themselves compelled to drop their smaller differences, and rally round the strongest representative of the old order. The Teutons, who shook to pieces the imperial system, brought into greater prominence the essential unity of all that was Catholic and Latin in the empire, and so strengthened the position of the see of Rome. … It must not however be supposed that the views of the Roman bishops as to the authority of Rome were universally accepted even in the West. Many Churches had grown up independently of Rome and were abundantly conscious of the greatness of their own past. … And in the African Church the reluctance to submit to Roman dictation which had showed itself in Cyprian's time was maintained for many generations. … In Gaul too there was a vigorous resistance to the jurisdiction of the see of St. Peter."

_S. Cheetham, History of the Christian Church during the First Six Centuries, pages 181-195._

"A colossal city makes a colossal bishop, and this principle reached its maximum embodiment in Rome. The greatest City of the World made the greatest Bishop of the World. Even when the Empire was heathen the City lifted the Bishop so high that he drew to himself the unwelcome attention of the secular power, and in succession, in consequence, as in no other see, the early Bishops of Rome were martyrs. When the Empire became Christian, Rome's place was recognized as first, and the principle on which that primacy rested was clearly and accurately defined when the Second General Council, acting on this principle, assigned to the new seat of empire, Constantinople, the second place; it was the principle, namely, of honor, based upon material greatness. … The principle of the primacy, as distinguished from the supremacy growing out of Petrine claims was the heart and soul of Gallicanism in contrast to Ultramontanism, and was crushed out even in the Roman communion not twenty years ago."

_Rt. Rev. G. F. Seymour, The Church of Rome in her relation to Christian Unity ("History and Teachings of the Early Church," lecture 5)._

ALSO IN: _H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 7, part 1._

PAPACY: Origin of the Papal title.

"'Papa,' that strange and universal mixture of familiar endearment and of reverential awe, extended in a general sense to all Greek Presbyters and all Latin Bishops, was the special address which, long before the names of patriarch or archbishop, was given to the head of the Alexandrian church. … He was the Pope. The Pope of Rome was a phrase which had not yet [at the time of the meeting of the Council of Nicæa, A. D. 325] emerged in history. But Pope of Alexandria was a well-known dignity. … This peculiar Alexandrian application of a name, in itself expressing simple affection, is thus explained:—Down to Heraclas (A. D. 230), the Bishop of Alexandria, being the sole Egyptian Bishop, was called 'Abba' (father), and his clergy 'elders.' From his time more bishops were created, who then received the name of 'Abba,' and consequently the name of 'Papa' ('ab-aba,' pater patrum=grandfather) was appropriated to the primate. The Roman account (inconsistent with facts) is that the name was first given to Cyril, as representing the Bishop of Rome in the Council of Ephesus. (Suicer, in voce). The name was fixed to the Bishop of Rome in the 7th century."

_A. P. Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church, lecture 3._

ALSO IN: _J. Bingham, Antiquities of the Christian Church, book 2, chapter 2, section 7._

_J. Alzog, Manual of Universal Christian History, section 130._

See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 312-337.

PAPACY: A. D. 42-461. The early Bishops of Rome, to Leo the Great.

The following is the succession of the popes, according to Roman Catholic authorities, during the first four hundred and twenty years: "Peter, to the year of Christ 67; Linus, Anencletus, Clement; (to 77?) Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, to 142; Pius, to 157; Anicetus, to 168; Soter, to 177; Eleutherius, to 193; Victor, to 202; Zephyrinus, to 219; Callistus, to 223; Urban, to 230; Pontianus, to 235; Anterus, to 236; Fabian, to 250; Cornelius, from 251 to 252; Lucius, to 253; Stephan, to 257; Xystus II, to 258; Dionysius, from 259 to 269; Felix, to 274; Eutychianus, to 283; Caius, to 296; Marcellinus, to 304; Marcellus, after a vacancy of four years, from 308 to 310; Eusebius, from the 20th of May to the 26th of September, 310; Melchiades, from 311 to 314; Silvester, from 314 to 335. … Mark was chosen on the 18th of January 336, and died on the 7th of October of the same year. Julius I, from 337 to 352, the steadfast defender of St. Athanasius. …

The less steadfast Liberius, from 352 to 366, purchased, in 358 his return from exile by an ill-placed condescension to the demands of the Arians. He, however, soon redeemed .the honour which he had forfeited by this step, by his condemnation of the council of Rimini, for which act he was again driven from his Church. During his banishment, the Roman clergy were compelled to elect the deacon Felix in his place, or probably only as administrator of the Roman Church. When Liberius returned to Rome, Felix fled from the city, and died in the country, in 365.

Damasus, from 366 to 384, by birth a Spaniard, had, at the very commencement of his pontificate, to assert his rights against a rival named Ursicinus, who obtained consecration from some bishops a few days after the election of Damasus. The faction of Ursicinus was the cause of much bloodshed. …

Siricius, from 385 to 389, was, although Ursicinus again endeavoured to intrude himself, unanimously chosen by the clergy and people. …

Anastasius, from 398 to 402; a pontiff, highly extolled by his successor, and by St. Jerome, of whom the latter says, that he was taken early from this earth, because Rome was not longer worthy of him, and that he might not survive the desolation of the city by Alaric. He was succeeded by Innocent I, from 402 to 417. … During the possession of Rome by Alaric [see ROME: A. D. 408-410], Innocent went to Ravenna, to supplicate the emperor, in the name of the Romans, to conclude a peace with the Goths. The pontificate of his successor, the Greek Zosimus, was only of twenty one months. {2422} The election of Boniface, from 418 to 422, was disturbed by the violence of the archdeacon Eulalius, who had attached a small party to his interests. … He was followed by Celestine I, from 422 to 432, the combatant of Nestorianism and of Semipelagianism. To Sixtus III, from 432 to 440, the metropolitans, Helladius of Tarsus, and Eutherius of Tyana, appealed, when they were threatened with deposition at the peace between St. Cyril and John of Antioch. Leo the Great, from 440 to 461, is the first pope of whom we possess a collection of writings: they consist of 96 discourses on festivals, and 141 epistles. By his high and well-merited authority, he saved Rome, in 452, from the devastation of the Huns; and induced Attila, named 'the scourge of God,' to desist from his invasion of Italy [see HUNS: A. D. 452]. Again, when, in 457 [455], the Vandal king Geiserich entered Rome [see ROME: A. D. 455], the Romans were indebted to the eloquent persuasions of their holy bishop for the preservation, at least, of their lives."

_J. J. I. Döllinger, History of the Church, volume 2, pages 213-215._

"For many centuries the bishops of Rome had been comparatively obscure persons: indeed, Leo was the first really great man who occupied the see, but he occupied it under circumstances which tended without exception to put power in his hand. … Circumstances were thrusting greatness upon the see of St. Peter: the glory of the Empire was passing into her hands, the distracted Churches of Spain and Africa, harassed and torn in pieces by barbarian hordes and wearied with heresies, were in no position to assert independence in any matter, and were only too glad to look to any centre whence a measure of organization and of strength seemed to radiate; and the popes had not been slow in rising to welcome and promote the greatness with which the current and tendency of the age was investing them. Their rule seems to have been, more than anything else, to make the largest claim, and enforce as much of it as they could, but the theory of papal power was still indeterminate, vague, unfixed. She was Patriarch of the West —what rights did that give her? … Was her claim … a claim of jurisdiction merely, or did she hold herself forth as a doctrinal authority in a sense in which other bishops were not? In this respect, again, the claim into which Leo entered was indefinite and unformulated. … The Imperial instincts of old Rome are dominant in him, all that sense of discipline, order, government—all the hatred of uniformity, individuality, eccentricity. These are the elements which make up Leo's mind. He is above all things a governor and an administrator. He has got a law of ecclesiastical discipline, a supreme canon of dogmatic truth, and these are his instruments to subdue the troubled world. … The rule which governed Leo's conduct as pope was a very simple one, it was to take every opportunity which offered itself for asserting and enforcing the authority of his see: he was not troubled with historical or scriptural doubts or scruples which might cast a shadow of indecision, 'the pale cast of thought,' on his resolutions and actions. To him the papal authority had come down as the great inheritance of his position; it was identified in his mind with the order, the authority, the discipline, the orthodoxy which he loved so dearly; it suited exactly his Imperial ambition, in a word, his 'Roman' disposition and character, and he took it as his single great weapon against heresy and social confusion."

_C. Gore, Leo the Great, chapters 6 and 7._

PAPACY: A. D. 461-604. The succession of Popes from Leo the Great to Gregory the Great.

The successor of Leo the Great, "the Sardinian Hilarius, from 461 to 468, had been one of his legates at the council of Ephesus in 449. … The zeal of Simplicius, from 468 to 483, was called into action chiefly by the confusion occasioned in the east by the Monophysites. The same may be said of Felix II (or III) from 483 to 492, in whose election the prefect Basilius concurred, as plenipotentiary of king Odoacer. Gelasius I, from 492 to 496, and Anastasius II, laboured, but in vain, in endeavouring to heal the schism, formed by Acacius, at Constantinople. This schism occasioned a division in Rome at the election of a new pontiff. The senator Festus had promised the emperor that he would enforce the reception of the Henoticon at Rome; and by means of corruption established against the deacon Symmachus, who had in his favour the majority of voices, a powerful party, which chose Laurence as antipope. Again was a double election the cause of bloody strife in the streets of Rome, until the Arian king, Theodoric, at Ravenna, declared for Symmachus, who gave to his rival the bishopric of Luceria. … More tranquil was the pontificate of the succeeding pope, Hormisdas, from 514 to 523, and made illustrious by the restoration of peace, in 519, in the eastern Church.

John I died at Ravenna, in 519, in prison, into which he was cast by the suspicious Theodoric, after his return from Constantinople.

Felix III (or IV) from 526 to 530, was chosen by the Romans, at the command of the king. At short intervals, followed Boniface II, from 530 to 532; and John II, from 533 to 535.

Agapite I went, at the desire of the Gothic king, Theodatus, to obtain peace from the emperor, to Constantinople, where he died in 536.

Sylverius died, in 540, during his second exile, on the island of Palmaria. … Vigilius, who was ordained in 537, and who became lawful pope in 540, was compelled to remain in the east, from 546 to 554, sometimes a prisoner in Constantinople, and sometimes in exile. He died at Syracuse, on his return to Rome, in 555. Pelagius I, from 555 to 560, found difficulty in obtaining an acknowledgement of his election, as, by his condemnation of the three articles, he was considered in the west as a traitor to the council of Chalcedon, and because there existed a suspicion that he was accessory to the death of Vigilius.

John III, from 560 to 573, beheld the commencement of the Lombard dominion in Italy.

Benedict I, from 574 to 578, and Pelagius II, from 578 to 590, ruled the Church during the melancholy times of the Lombard devastations. One of the most splendid appearances in the series of the Roman pontiffs was that of Gregory the Great, from 590 to 604."

_J. J. I. Döllinger, History of the Church, volume 2, pages 213-217._

{2423}

"Pope Pelagius died on the 8th of February, 590. The people of Rome … were at this time in the utmost straits. Italy lay prostrate and miserable under the Lombard invasion; the invaders now threatened Rome itself, and its inhabitants trembled; famine and pestilence within the city produced a climax of distress; an overflow of the Tiber at the time aggravated the general alarm and misery; Gregory himself, in one of his letters, compares Rome at this time to an old and shattered ship, letting in the waves on all sides, tossed by a daily storm, its planks rotten and sounding of wreck. In this state of things all men's thoughts at once turned to Gregory. The pope was at this period the virtual ruler of Rome, and the greatest power in Italy; and they must have Gregory as their pope; for, if anyone could save them, it was he. His abilities in public affairs had been proved; all Rome knew his character and attainments; he had now the further reputation of eminent saintliness. He was evidently the one man for the post; and accordingly he was unanimously elected by clergy, senate, and people. But he shrank from the proffered dignity. There was one way by which he might possibly escape it. No election of a pope could at this time take effect without the emperor's confirmation, and an embassy had to be sent to Constantinople to obtain it. Gregory therefore sent at the same time a letter to the emperor (Mauricius, who had succeeded Tiberius in 582), imploring him to withhold his confirmation; but it was intercepted by the prefect of the city, and another from the clergy, senate, and people sent in its place, entreating approval of their choice. … At length the imperial confirmation of his election arrived. He still refused; fled from the city in disguise, eluding the guards set to watch the gates, and hid himself in a forest cave. Pursued and discovered by means, it is said, of a supernatural light, he was brought back in triumph, conducted to the church of St. Peter, and at once ordained on the 3rd of September, 590. … Having been once placed in the high position he so little coveted, he rose to it at once, and fulfilled its multifarious duties with remarkable zeal and ability. His comprehensive policy, and his grasp of great issues, are not more remarkable than the minuteness of the details, in secular as well as religious matters, to which he was able to give his personal care. And this is the more striking in combination with the fact that, as many parts of his writings show, he remained all the time a monk at heart, thoroughly imbued with both the ascetic principles and the narrow credulity of contemporary monasticism. His private life, too, was still in a measure monastic: the monastic simplicity of his episcopal attire is noticed by his biographer; he lived with his clergy under strict rule, and in 595 issued a synodal decree substituting clergy for the boys and secular persons who had formerly waited on the pope in his chamber."

_J. Barmby, Gregory the Great,