THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPES.
The Church did not die with Peter. It was destined to continue till the
end of time; consequently, whatever official prerogatives were conferred
on Peter were not to cease at his death, but were to be handed down to his
successors from generation to generation. The Church is in all ages as
much in need of a Supreme Ruler as it was in the days of the Apostles.
Nay, more; as the Church is now more widely diffused than it was then, and
is ruled by frailer men, it is more than ever in need of a central power
to preserve its unity of faith and uniformity of discipline.
Whatever privileges, therefore, were conferred on Peter which may be
considered essential to the government of the Church are inherited by the
Bishops of Rome, as successors of the Prince of the Apostles; just as the
constitutional powers given to George Washington have devolved on the
present incumbent of the Presidential chair.
Peter, it is true, besides the prerogatives inherent in his office,
possessed also the gift of inspiration and the power of working miracles.
These two latter gifts are not claimed by the Pope, as they were personal
to Peter and by no means essential to the government of the Church. God
acts toward His Church as we deal with a tender sapling. When we first
plant it we water it and soften the clay about its roots. But when it
takes deep root we leave it to the care of Nature’s laws. In like manner,
when Christ first planted His Church He nourished its infancy by
miraculous agency; but when it grew to be a tree of fair proportions He
left it to be governed by the general laws of His Providence.
From what I have said you can easily infer that the arguments in favor of
Peter’s Primacy have equal weight in demonstrating the supremacy of the
Popes.
As the present question, however, is a subject of vast importance, 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.
First—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.
St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, was martyred in 258.
From his appeals to Pope St. Cornelius and to Pope St. Stephen, especially
on the subject of baptism, from his writings and correspondence, as well
as from the whole tenor of his administration, it is quite evident that
Cyprian, as well as the African Episcopate, upheld the supremacy of the
Bishop of Rome.
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(168) 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.
In a Synod held in 444, St. Hilary, Archbishop of Arles, in Gaul, deposed
Celidonius, Bishop of Besancon, on the ground of an alleged canonical
impediment to his consecration. The Bishop appealed to the Holy See, and
both he and the Metropolitan personally repaired to Rome, to submit their
cause to the judgment of Pope Leo the Great. After a careful
investigation, the Pontiff declared the sentence of the Synod invalid,
revoked the censure, and restored the deposed Prelate to his See.
The same Pontiff also rebuked Hilary for having irregularly deposed
Projectus from his See.
The judicial authority of the Pope is emphasized from the circumstance
that Hilary was not an arrogant or a rebellious churchman, but an edifying
and a zealous Prelate. He is revered by the whole Church as a canonized
Saint, and after his death, Leo refers to him as Hilary of _happy memory_.
Theodoret, the illustrious historian and Bishop of Cyrrhus, is condemned
by the pseudo-council of Ephesus in 449, and appeals to Pope Leo in the
following touching language: “I await the decision of your Apostolic See,
and I supplicate your Holiness to succor me, who invoke your righteous and
just tribunal; and to order me to hasten to you, and to explain to you my
teaching, which follows the steps of the Apostles.... I beseech you not to
scorn my application. Do not slight my gray hairs.... Above all, I entreat
you to teach me whether to put up with this unjust deposition or not; for
I await your sentence. If you bid me rest in what has been determined
against me, I will rest, and will trouble no man more. I will look for the
righteous judgment of our God and Savior. To me, as Almighty God is my
Judge, honor and glory are no object, but only the scandal that has been
caused; for many of the simpler sort, especially those whom I have rescued
from diverse heresies, considering _the See_ which has condemned me,
suspect that perhaps I really am a heretic, being incapable themselves of
distinguishing accuracy of doctrine.”(169) Leo declared the deposition
invalid and Theodoret was restored to his See.
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.
Second—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. They were the acknowledged guardians
of pure doctrine, and the living representatives “of the faith once
delivered to the Saints.” They were to the Church in their generation what
Peter and Paul and James were to the Church in its infancy. We
instinctively consult them about the faith of those times; for, to whom
shall we go for the Words of eternal life, if not to them?
Now, the Fathers of the Church, with one voice, pay homage to the Bishops
of Rome as their superiors. The limited space I have allowed myself in
this little volume will not permit me to give any extracts from their
writings. The reader who may be unacquainted with the original language of
the Fathers, or who has not their writings at hand, is referred to a work
entitled, “Faith of Catholics,” where he will find, in an English
translation, copious extracts from their writings vindicating the Primacy
of the Popes.
Third—_Ecumenical Councils_ afford another eloquent vindication of Papal
supremacy. An Ecumenical or General Council is an assemblage of Prelates
representing the whole Catholic Church. A General Council is to the Church
what the Executive and Legislative bodies in Washington are to the United
States.
Up to the present time nineteen Ecumenical Councils have been convened,
including the Council of the Vatican. The last eleven were held in the
West, and the first eight in the East. I shall pass over the Western
Councils, as no one denies that they were subject to the authority of the
Pope.
I shall speak briefly of the important influence which the Holy See
exercised in the eight Oriental Councils.
The first General Council was held in Nicæa, in 325; the second, in
Constantinople, 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 869.
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, just as our Congressional
proceedings require the President’s signature before they acquire the
force of law.
Is not this a striking illustration of the Primacy? The Pope convenes,
rules and sanctions the Synods, not by courtesy, but by right. A dignitary
who calls an assembly together, who presides over its deliberations, whose
signature is essential for confirming its Acts has surely a higher
authority than the other members.
Fourth—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, 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 Romescot, or a small
annual tribute to the Holy See—a clear evidence that they were in
communion with the Chair of Peter.(170)
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.
Passing from Europe to Asia and America, it is undeniable that St. Francis
Xavier and the other Evangelists who, in the sixteenth century, extended
the Kingdom of Jesus Christ through India and Japan, were in communion
with the Holy See; and that those Apostles who, in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, converted the aboriginal tribes of South America
and Mexico received their commission from the Chair of Peter.
But you will say: The people of the United States profess to be a
Christian nation. Do you also claim them? Most certainly; for, even those
American Christians who are unhappily severed from the Catholic Church are
primarily indebted for their knowledge of the Gospel to missionaries in
communion with the Holy See.
The white races of North America are descended from England, Ireland,
Scotland and the nations of Continental Europe. Those European nations
having been converted by missionaries in subjection to the Holy See, it
follows that, from whatever part of Europe you are descended, whatever may
be your particular creed, you are indebted to the Church of Rome for your
knowledge of Christianity.
Do not these facts demonstrate the Primacy of the Pope? The Apostles of
Europe and of other countries received their authority from Rome. Is not
the power that sends an ambassador greater than he who is sent?
Thus we see that the name of the Pope is indelibly marked on every page of
ecclesiastical history. The Sovereign Pontiff ever stands before us as
commander-in-chief in the grand army of the Church. Do the bishops of the
East feel themselves aggrieved at home by their Patriarchs or civil
Rulers? They look for redress to Rome, as to the star of their hope. Are
the Fathers and Doctors of the early Church consulted? With one voice they
all pay homage to the Bishop of Rome as to their spiritual Prince. Is an
Ecumenical Council to be convened in the East or West? The Pope is its
leading spirit. Are new nations to be converted to the faith? There is the
Holy Father clothing the missionaries with authority, and giving his
blessing to the work. Are new errors to be condemned in any part of the
globe? All eyes turn toward the oracle of Rome to await his anathema, and
his solemn judgment reverberates throughout the length and breath of the
Christian world.
You might as well shut out the light of day and the air of heaven from
your daily walks as exclude the Pope from his legitimate sphere in the
hierarchy of the Church. The history of the United States with the
Presidents left out would be more intelligible than the history of the
Church to the exclusion of the Vicar of Christ. How, I ask, could such
authority endure so long if it were a usurpation?
But you will tell me: “The supremacy of the Pope has been disputed in many
ages.” So has the authority of God been called in question—nay, His very
existence has been denied; for, “the fool hath said in his heart there is
no God.”(171) Does this denial destroy the existence and dominion of God?
Has not parental authority been impugned from the beginning? But by whom?
By unruly children. Was David no longer king because Absalom said so?
It is thus also with the Popes. Their parental sway has been opposed only
by their undutiful sons who grew impatient of the Gospel yoke. Photius,
the leader of the Greek schism, was an obedient son of the Pope until
Nicholas refused to recognize his usurped authority. Henry VIII. was a
stout defender of the Pope’s supremacy until Clement VII. refused to
legalize his adultery. Luther professed a most abject submission to the
Pope till Leo X. condemned him.
You cannot, my dear reader, be a loyal citizen of the United States while
you deny the constitutional authority of the President. You have seen that
the Bishop of Rome is appointed not by man, but by Jesus Christ, President
of the Christian commonwealth. You cannot, therefore, be a true citizen of
the Republic of the Church so long as you spurn the legitimate supremacy
of its Divinely constituted Chief. “He that is not with Me is against Me,”
says our Lord, “and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth.” How can you
be with Christ if you are against His Vicar?
The great evil of our times is the unhappy division existing among the
professors of Christianity, and from thousands of hearts a yearning cry
goes forth for unity of faith and union of churches.
It was, no doubt, with this laudable view that the Evangelical Alliance
assembled in New York in the fall of 1873. The representatives of the
different religious communions hoped to effect a reunion. But they
signally and lamentably failed. Indeed, the only result which followed
from the alliance was the creation of a new sect under the auspices of Dr.
Cummins. That reverend gentleman, with the characteristic modesty of all
religious reformers, was determined to have a hand in improving the work
of Jesus Christ; and, like the other reformers, he said, with those who
built the tower of Babel: “Let us make our name famous before”(172) our
dust is scattered to the wind.
The Alliance failed, because its members had no common platform to stand
on. There was no voice in that assembly that could say with authority:
“Thus saith the Lord.”
I heartily join in this prayer for Christian unity, and gladly would
surrender my life for such a consummation. But I tell you that Jesus
Christ has pointed out the only means by which this unity can be
maintained, viz: the recognition of Peter and his successors as the Head
of the Church. Build upon this foundation and you will not erect a tower
of Babel, nor build upon sand. If all Christian sects were united with the
centre of unity, then the scattered hosts of Christendom would form an
army which atheism and infidelity could not long withstand. Then, indeed,
all could exclaim with Balaam: “How beautiful are thy tabernacles, O
Jacob, and thy tents, O Israel!”(173)
Let us pray that the day may be hastened when religious dissensions will
cease; when all Christians will advance with united front, under one
common leader, to plant the cross in every region and win new kingdoms to
Jesus Christ.