Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 12.djvu/308

 POPE

262

POPE

his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [irpoffTaffla] over the brethren. ... If anyone should say 'Why then was it James who re- ceived the See of Jeru.salem? ', I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world" ["Horn. Ixxxviii (Ixxxvii) in Joan.", i, in P. G., LIX, 47S. Cf. Origen, "In Ep. ad Rom.", v, 10, in P. G., XIV, 1053; Ephraem Syrus, "Hj-mn. in B. Petr." in "Bibl. Orient. Assemani", I, 9.5; Leo I, "Serm. 'vde natal.", ii, in P. L., LIV, 151, etc.]. Even certain Protestant commentators (e. g. Hengstenberg and recently Weizsacker) frankly own that Christ undoubtedly intended here to confer the supreme pastorate on Peter. On the other hand Dr. Gore (op. cit., 79) and Mr. Puller (op. cit., 119), relying on a passage of St. CjtiI of Alexandria ("In Joan.", XII, i, in P. G.. LXXIV, 750), maintain that the purpose of the threefold charge was simply to reinstate St. Peter in the Apostolic 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 Scriptiu'e or in patristic tradition to suggest that St. Peter had forfeited his Apostolic commission; and the supposition is absolutely ex- cluded by the fact that on the evening of the Resur- rection he received the same Apostolic powers as the others of the eleven. The solitary phrase of St. Cyril is of no weight against the overwhelming patristic authority for the other view. That such an interpre- tation should be seriously advocated proves how great is the difficulty experienced by Protestants re- garding tliis text.

The position of St. Peter after the Ascension, as shown in the Acts of the Apostles, realizes to the full the great commission bestowed upon him. He is from the first the chief of the Apostolic band — not primus inter pares, but the undisputed head of the Church (see Church, The, III). If then Christ, as we have seen, established His Church as a society subordinated to a single supreme head, it follows from the very nature of the case that this office is perpetual, and cannot have been a mere transitory feature of eccle- siastical life. For the Church must endure to the end the very same organization which Christ establi.shed. But in an organized society it is precisely the constitu- tion which is the essential feature. A change in con- stitution transforms it into a society of a different kind. If then the Church should adopt a constitution other than Christ gave it, it would no longer be His handiwork. It would no longer be the Divine king- dom established by Him. As a society it would have passed through essential modifications, and thereby would have become a human, not a Divine institution. None who beheve that Christ came on earth *o found a Church, an organized society destined to endure for ever, can admit the possibility of a change in the or- ganization given to it by its Founder. The same con- clusion also follows from a consideration of the end which, by Christ's declaration, the supremacy of Peter was intended to effect. He was to give the Church strength to resist her foes, so that the gates of hell should not prevail against her. The contest with the powers of evil does not belong to the Apostolic age alone. It is a permanent feature of the Church's life. Hence, throughout the centuries the office of Peter must be realized in the Church, in order that she may prevail in her age-long struggle. Thus an analysis of Christ's words shows us that the perpetuity of the office of supreme head is to be reckoned among the truths revealed in Scripture. His promise to Peter conveyed not merely a personal prerogative, but es- tablished a permanent office in the Church. And in this sense, as will appear in the next section, His words were understood by Latin and Greek Fathers alike.

II. Primacy of the Roman Sioe. — W'c have .shown in the la.st section that Christ conferred upon St. Peter the office of ('hief pastor, and that the permanence of

that office is essential to the very being of the Church. It must now be established that it belongs of right to the Roman See. The proof will fall into two parts: (1) that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and (2) that those who succeed him in that see succeed him also in the supreme headship.

(1) It is no longer denied by any writer of weight that St. Peter visited Rome and suffered martyrdom there (Harnack, "Chronol.", I, 244, n. 2). Some, how- ever, of those who admit that he taught and suffered in Rome, deny that he was ever bishop of the city — e. g. Lightfoot, "Clement of Rome", II, 501; Har- nack, op. cit., I, 703. It is not, however, difficult to show that the fact of his bishopric is so well attested as to be historically certain. In considering this point, it will be well to begin with the third century, when references to it become frequent, and work back- wards from this point. In the middle of the third century St. Cyprian expressly terms the Roman See the Chair of St. Peter, saying that Cornelius has suc- ceeded to "the place of Fabian which is the place of Peter" (Ep. Iv, 8; cf. lix, 14). Firmilian of Caesarea notices that Stephen claimed to decide the contro- versy regarding rebaptism on the ground that he held the succession from Peter (Cyprian, Ep. Ixxv, 17). He does not deny the claim: yet certainly, had he been able, he would have done so. Thus in 250 the Roman episcopate of Peter was admitted by those best able to know the truth, not merely at Rome but in the churches of Africa and of Asia Alinor. In the first quarter of the century (about 220) Tertullian (De Pud., xxi) mentions Callistus's claim that Peter's power to forgive sins had descended in a special man- ner to him. Had the Roman Church been merely founded by Peter, and not reckoned him as its first bishop, there could have been no ground for such a contention. Tertullian, like Firmilian, had every motive to deny the claim. Moreover, he had himself resided at Rome, and would have been well aware if the idea of a Roman episcopate of Peter had been, as is contended by its opponents, a novelty dating from the first years of the third century, supplanting the older tradition according to which Peter and Paul were co-founders, and Linus first bishop. 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", I, 259) reckons Peter in the list of Roman bishops.

We have moreover a poem, " Adversus Marcionem ", written apparently at the same period, in which Peter is said to have passed on to Linus "the chair on which he himself had sat" (P. L., II, 1077). 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 Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clem- ent of Alexandria, all the writers whose works we possess are apologists against either Jews or pagans. In works of such a character there was no reason to refer to such a matter as Peter's Roman episcopate. Irenceus, however, supplies us with a cogent argument. In two passages (.4dv. ha^r., I, xxvii, 1, and III, iv, 3) he speaks of Hyginus as ninth Bishop of Rome, thus employing an enumeration which involves the inclu- sion of Peter as first bishop (Lightfoot was undoubt- edly wrong in supposing that there was any doubt as to the correctness of the reading in the first of these passages. See "Zeitschrift fiir kath. Theol.", 1902. In III, iv, 3, the Latin version, it is true, gives "oc- tavus"; but the Greek text as cited by Eusebius reads evarot). Irena;us we know visited Rome in 177. At this date, scarcely more than a century after the death of St. Peter, he may well have come in contact with men whose fathers had themselves spoken to the Apostle. The tradition thus svipported must !)(• regarded as beyond all legitimate doubt. Liglitfoot's suggestion (Clement, I, 64), maintained as certain by Mr. Puller, that it had its origin in the