Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 12.djvu/311

 POPE

265

POPE

not merely from the Western Fathers but from those of Greece, Syria, and Egypt. The claim to reject the evidence which comes to us from Rome 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 Galileans. But it is deservedly repudiated as fallacious and unworthy by Bossuet in his "Defensio cleri gallicani" (II, 1. XI, c. vi).

The primacy of St. Peter and the perpetuity of that primacy in the Roman See are dogmatically defined in the canons attached to the first two chapters of the Constitution "Pastor ^Eternus" : (a) "If anyone shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not constituted by Christ our Lord as chief of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant: or that he did not receive directly and immediately from the same Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of true and proper jurisdiction, but one of honour only: let him be ana- thema." (b) "If any one shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ our Lord Himself or by divinely established right that Blessed Peter has perpetual successors in his primacy over the universal Church: or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this same primacy: — let him be anathema" (Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion", nn. 1823, 182.5).

(3) A question may be raised as to the precise dog- matic value of the clause of the second canon in which it is asserted that the Roman pontiff is Peter's succes- sor. The truth is infallibly defined. But the Church has authority to define not merely those truths which form part of the original deposit of revelation, but also such as are necessarily connected with this deposit. The former are held fide divina, the latter fixle infalli- uili. Although Christ established the perpetual office of supreme head, Scripture does not tell us that He fixed the law according to which the. headship should descend. Granting that He left this to Peter to deter- mine, it is plain that the Apostle need not have at- tached the primacy to his own see: he might have attached it to another. Some have thought that the law estabhshing the succession in the Roman episco- pate became known to the Apostolic Church as an historic fact. In this case the dogma that the Roman pontiff is at all times the Church's chief pastor would be the conclusion from two premises — the revealed truth that the Church must ever have a supreme head, and the historic fact that St. Peter attached that office to the Roman See. This conclusion, while necessarily connected with revelation, is not part of revelation, and is accepted fide infaltibili. According to other theologians the proposition in question is part of the deposit of faith itself. In this case the Apostles must have known the law determining the succession to the Bishop of Rome, not merely on human testimony, but also by Divine revelation, and they must have taught it as a revealed truth to their disciples. It is this view which is commonly adopted. The definition of the Vatican to the effect that the successor of St. Peter is ever to be found in the Roman pontiff is almost uni- versally held to be a truth revealed by the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and by them transmitted to the Church.

III. Natore and Extent of the Papal Power. — This section is divided as follows: (1) the pope's uni- versal coercive jurisdiction; (2) the pope's immediate and ordinary jurisdiction in regard of all the faithful, whether singly or collectively; (3) the right of enter- taining appeals in all ecclesiastical causes. The rela- tion of the pope's authority to that of oecumenical councils, and to the civil power, are discu.ssed in sep- arate articles (see Councils, General; Civil Alle- giance).

(1) Popes. — Not only did Christ constitute St. Peter head of the Church, but in the words, "Whatsoever thou .shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it

shall be loosed in heaven," He indicated the scope of this headship. The expressions binding and loosing here employed are derived from the current terminol- ogy of the Rabbinic schools. A doctor who declared a thing to be prohibited by the law was said to bind ("wN), for thereby he imposed an obligation on the conscience. He who declared it to be lawful was said to loose (Tnn, Aramaic N^'i'). In this way the terms had come respectively to signify official commands and permissions in general. The words of Christ, there- fore, as understood by His hearers, conveyed the promise to St. Peter of legislative authority within the kingdom over which He had just set him, and legisla- tive authority carries with it as its necessary accom- paniment judicial authority. Moreover, the powers conferred in these regards are plenary. This is plainly indicated by the generality of the terms employed: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind . . . Whatsoever thou shalt loose"; nothing is withheld. Further, Peter's authority is subordinated to no earthly supe- rior. The sentences which he gives are to be forthwith ratified in heaven. They do not need the antecedent approval of any other tribunal. He is independent of all save the Master who appointed him. The words as to the power of binding and loosing are, therefore, elucidatory of the promise of the keys which imme- diately precedes. They explain in what sense Peter is governor and head of Christ's kingdom, the Church, by promising him legislative and judicial authority in the fullest sense. In other words, Peter and his succes- sors have power to impose laws both preceptive and prohibitive, power likewise to grant dispensation from these laws, and, when needful, to annul them. It is theirs to judge offences against the laws, to impose and to remit penalties. This judicial authority will even include the power to pardon sin. For sin is a breach of the laws of the supernatural kingdom, and falls under the cognizance of its constituted judges. The gift of this particular power, however, is not ex- pressed with full clearness in this passage. It needed Christ's words (John, xx, 23) to remove all ambiguity. Further, since the Church is the kingdom of the truth, so that an essential note in all her members is the act of submission by which they accept the doctrine of Christ in its entirety, supreme power in this kingdom carries with it a supreme magislerium — authority to declare that doctrine and to prescribe a rule of faith obligatory on all. Here, too, Peter is subordinated to none save his Master 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 kingdom and to them only. The authority of Peter and his successors does not extend beyond this sphere. With matters that are altogether extrinsic to the Church they are not con- cerned.

Protestant controversialists contend strenuously that the words, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind etc.", confer no special prerogative on Peter, since precisely the same gift, they allege, is conferred on all the Apos- tles (Matt., xviii, 18). It is, of course, the case that in that passage the same words are used in regard of all the 'Twelve. Yet there is a manifest difference be- tween the gift to Peter and that bestowed on the others. In his case the gift is connected with the power of the keys, and this power, as we have seen, signified the supreme authority over the whole king- dom. That gift was not bestowed on the other eleven: and the gift Christ bestowed on them in Matt., xviii, 18, was received by them as members of the kingdom, and as subject to the authority of him who should be Christ's vicegerent on earth. There is in fact a striking parallelism between Matt., xvi, 19, and the words employed in reference to Christ Himself in Apoc, iii, 7: "He that hath the key of David; he that openeth, and no man shutteth; shutteth, and no man openeth." In both cases the second clause de-