§ 1. The dignity of the Cardinals in the Church was, and even now is, less than that of the Patriarchs and Primates. For the Church never placed the collateral clerics of the Roman Pope before the Patriarchs, but gave the next place to the Patriarchs themselves. Now that most of the prelates of the Patriarchal Sees have made a secession, the Cardinals have succeeded both to their office and to the estimation of their dignity. Formerly the Patriarchs were next in dignity, seating, and the other insignia.
§ 2. Patriarchs were so called as though fathers of princes, or of Archbishops, Distinction 21, chapter 1: “A Patriarch is the prince of the fathers,” for ἄρχων means “prince.” There is also a disputation concerning these matters by Heinrich Kalteisen, On the Punishment of Public Sinners, at the Council of Basel.
Those, however, were called Patriarchs who had Archbishops and Bishops subject to themselves, such as the Constantinopolitan, the Alexandrian, and the others. Yet the name was sometimes used more broadly. For in the Council of Mâcon, which was celebrated in the year of Christ 588 under Pelagius II, Bishop Priscus is called a Patriarch; but he was Bishop of Lyons, as is evident from the subscription, in which he is first. This name, therefore, was sometimes bestowed upon an Archbishop. For Gregory of Tours, book 5, chapter 20 of the History, calls Saint Nicetius, Archbishop of Lyons, a Patriarch. The custom of his age permitted this, but it has now been abolished. The Arians, in order to make themselves equal to the orthodox, named their principal Bishops Patriarchs, as is found in Gregory and Victor. Indeed, the schismatic Bishops of Venetia, Istria, and Liguria elected Paulinus, the prelate of Aquileia, as their supreme Patriarch, as Paul the Deacon relates in book 2 On the Affairs of the Lombards. But we speak of Patriarchs in the proper sense.
§ 3. The office of Patriarchs is to govern Archbishops and Bishops, so that cases involving more serious affairs are brought before them. Saint Anacletus gives the reason for the distinction in Epistle 3:
The provinces were for the most part divided long before the advent of Christ, and afterward that division was renewed by the Apostles and by blessed Clement, our predecessor. In the capitals of the provinces, where formerly there were the primates of the secular king and the first judicial authority—to whom those dwelling throughout the other cities, whenever it was necessary, who could not flee to the court of the Emperor or of kings, or to whom it was not permitted, had recourse because of their oppressions or injustices, and appealed to them whenever there was need, as was commanded in their law—the divine and ecclesiastical laws likewise commanded Patriarchs or Primates, who retain one form although their names are different, to be placed and to exist in those same cities or places of ours. To them the Bishops, if necessary, might have recourse and appeal; and they themselves, and no others, were to enjoy the name of Primacy.
The remaining metropolitan cities, which had lesser judges, although greater than counts, were to have their own Metropolitans, who should rightly obey the aforesaid Primates, just as was formerly ordained in the secular laws; and these were to enjoy the name not of Primates, but either of Metropolitans or of Archbishops. And although the metropolitan cities have their own provinces and ought to have their own Bishops as metropolitan judges, just as formerly they had secular metropolitan judges, they nevertheless were commanded, as was stated above, both then and now to have Primates, to whom the highest affairs should come after the Apostolic See, so that there the matters of those for whom it is necessary may be disclosed and rightly restored, and those who are unjustly oppressed may rightly be reformed and supported; and so that the cases of Bishops and the judgments of the highest affairs, with the authority of the Apostolic See preserved, may be most justly terminated.
These things we have received from the ancients, these from the Apostles, these from the holy Fathers; and, as you request, we send them to you to be examined and observed in future times, and command them to be preached to the remaining brethren and handed down to all the faithful, lest those who follow become worse through the ignorance of pastors. The Lord says through the prophet, “The pastors themselves have not known understanding”; and again the Lord detests them, saying, “And those who hold the law have not known me.” Therefore Truth complains that he is not known by them, and protests that he does not know the principality of the ignorant, because assuredly those who do not know the things of the Lord are not known by the Lord, as Paul attests when he says: “If anyone does not know, he shall not be known.”
§ 4. It was not lawful to elect an Archbishop without the consent of the Patriarch. Hence Cyprus was endowed with the privilege that it need not refer the matter to the Antiochene, but that its people might themselves elect an Archbishop. Thus canon 37 of the Council of Nicaea:
If the Bishop of Cyprus has ended his day, and the peoples, because of a storm at sea, have been unable to send to Antioch so that the Patriarch of Antioch may ordain for them an Archbishop in place of the dead man, they ought to write to the Patriarch and ask that some one man whom they themselves desire be made Archbishop; nor ought the Patriarch, when it has been written to him, to prevent this. For who knows whether, after the Archbishop has died, they may remain without a head because of a winter storm, or whether perhaps one of the thirteen Bishops may depart this life, and thus it may happen that they lack an Archbishop for that entire year? For this reason the Synod established this canon; the Synod excommunicates anyone who contradicts it.
The Synod of Ephesus confirmed the same canon, lest that diocese remain for an entire year without an Archbishop.
§ 5. Patriarchs have the right to convoke a Synod, and Metropolitans are compelled to obey them. Thus the Eighth Synod, canon 27:
The holy and universal First Synod of Nicaea commands that the ancient custom be preserved throughout Egypt and the provinces subject to it, so that the Bishop of Alexandria has authority over them all, saying: “Because a custom of this kind has prevailed also in the city of the Romans.” For this reason this great and holy Synod decrees that the ancient custom be preserved in all respects both in elder and new Rome and in the See of Antioch and that of Jerusalem, so that their prelates may have authority over all the Metropolitans who are promoted by them and who receive the confirmation of Episcopal dignity either through the imposition of hands or through the bestowal of the pallium: namely, authority to convoke them, when necessity presses, to a synodal assembly, or even to restrain and correct them when report has perhaps accused them of certain offenses.
But because there are certain Metropolitans who, in order not to attend in accordance with the summons of the Apostolic prelate, plead without reason that they are detained by the prince of the world, it has pleased the Synod that an excuse of this kind be altogether invalid. For since a prince holds frequent assemblies for his own causes, it is impious that he should prevent the supreme prelates from celebrating Synods for ecclesiastical affairs, or prohibit certain men from attending their councils, although we have learned that such an impediment—
—and such a prohibition are brought about in various ways at the suggestion of the Metropolitans.
The same Synod commands that a disobedient man be separated, and afterward, if he persists in contumacy, deposed.
§ 6. The Roman Pontiff confirms the other Patriarchs, chapter Scriptum, chapter 40, On Election, in Gregory. Hence they also receive the pallium from the Roman Church, as in the Lateran Council under Innocent III, chapter 5:
Renewing the ancient privileges of the Patriarchal Sees, with the sacred universal Synod approving, we decree that after the Roman Church—which, by the Lord’s disposition, possesses the primacy of ordinary power over all others, as the mother and teacher of all Christ’s faithful—the Constantinopolitan Church shall obtain the first place, the Alexandrian the second, the Antiochene the third, and the Jerusalemite the fourth, the proper dignity of each being preserved; so that after their prelates have received from the Roman Pontiff the pallium, which is the insignia of the fullness of the Pontifical office, and have rendered to him the oath of fidelity and obedience, they themselves may lawfully bestow the pallium upon their suffragans, receiving from them a canonical profession for themselves and a pledge of obedience for the Roman Church.
Here their insignia and the right to have a cross carried before them are also confirmed. That they must be obeyed was decreed in Distinction 99, from the Epistle of Anacletus.
They hear cases only upon appeal, lest the proper Archbishops and Bishops be contemned and the Patriarchs be burdened more than is fitting. Thus Gregory, book 1 of the Decretals, title 31, chapter 9, Consultationi.
§ 7. Those Patriarchal Sees which Peter founded are designated, and in the beginning there were three. Thus Anacletus, Epistle 3:
The first See, therefore, by a heavenly benefit, is that of the Roman Church, which, as was recalled, the most blessed Peter and Paul consecrated by their martyrdom. Thus Rome, which before was, by the contrivance of the evil spirit, the mother and nurse of all errors, having shaken off the darkness and cast away the vain rites of superstitions, became, when the sun of justice had arisen, a prolific propagator of the sons of God.
The second See, at Alexandria, was consecrated in the name of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and the Evangelist, because he, directed by Peter, first preached the word of truth in Egypt and underwent a glorious martyrdom. The venerable Abilius succeeded him.
The third See, at Antioch, is held honorable in the name of the same Apostle, that is, blessed Peter, because he dwelt there before he came to Rome, and there the name of Christians first arose for the new people. The remaining things, as we have said before, we have written for you in a certain volume and sent, avoiding prolixity in this epistle. For this reason the blessed Apostles also decreed among themselves that the Bishops of the several nations should know who was first among them, so that the greater care of them might pertain to him. For among the blessed Apostles too there was a certain distinction; and although all were Apostles, it was nevertheless granted to Peter by the Lord—and they themselves willed the same thing among themselves—that he should preside over all the other Apostles and should possess the place of Cephas, that is, the head and beginning of the Apostolate. He handed down the same form to be observed by his successors, and the other Apostles handed it down to the Bishops.
Those three were founded by Peter the Apostle and therefore held honor from antiquity. Concerning them see Baronius at the year 112, number 2, and the most learned Severinus Binius in the notes to the third Epistle of Anacletus:
The three Churches—the Roman, the Alexandrian, and the Antiochene—because they were founded by Peter, Prince of the Apostles, alone and always were held to be Patriarchal, as is evident from the Council of Nicaea, canon 6; Chalcedon, Act 16; likewise from letter 53 of Leo to Anatolius and from the letter of Gregory to Eulogius, which is book 6, chapter 37. For nearly five hundred years the Jerusalemite Church was held to be the fourth Patriarchal Church not in reality but in name, not in authority but in honor only, as is evident from the Council of Nicaea, canon 7, where it is decreed that the Jerusalemite should indeed possess the fourth place and honor of Patriarchal seating, but should not on that account be exempted from subjection to Caesarea, which was the Metropolis.
Hence blessed Jerome, in the letter to Pammachius against John, Bishop of Jerusalem, addresses him thus:
You who seek ecclesiastical rules and employ the canons of the Council of Nicaea, answer me: what does Palestine have to do with the Bishop of Alexandria? Unless I am mistaken, this is decreed for you, that Caesarea is the Metropolis of Palestine and Antioch that of the whole East. Therefore you ought either to have referred the matter to the Archbishop of Caesarea, with whom you knew that we, after your communion had been spurned, were in communion; or, if a judgment was to be sought at a distance, letters should rather have been directed to Antioch. But I know why you did not wish to send to Caesarea or to Antioch. You preferred to cause trouble for ears already occupied rather than render the honor due to your Metropolitan.
The Patriarchate of Constantinople—because at the time of the Council of Nicaea the city of Constantinople had not yet been dedicated—was afterward added to these in the time of Justinian, after the five-hundredth year of the Lord, by the effort of the Emperor and with the permission of the Roman Pontiffs. In the First Council of Constantinople, and afterward at Chalcedon, the Constantinopolitan attempted to obtain not only a Patriarchate but also the second place; but in vain, since the Pontiff and the other Primates protested.
Why only the aforesaid three Patriarchal Sees were placed in that order was effected, as the proper and immediate cause of their honor and authority, by the prerogative, dignity, and primacy of Peter, Prince of the Apostles; although it cannot be denied that Peter, in choosing those Sees, had a certain regard for the greatness and nobility of the cities, as Saint Leo teaches in Epistle 84 to Anastasius. The Roman See possesses the first Patriarchal dignity because Peter the Apostle, in this See which he founded, as Saint Gregory says in book 6, letter 37 to Eulogius of Alexandria, deigned to rest and end his life. He adorned with a Patriarchal See the Alexandrian Church—to use Gregory’s words—to which he sent his disciple Mark the Evangelist. Third, he confirmed the See in which he himself sat for seven years, namely Antioch, and adorned it with the honor of a Patriarchal See. Thus Gregory in the aforesaid letter and Saint Leo, letter 52 to Anatolius. Therefore, just as Peter the Apostle is greater than Mark the Evangelist, and Mark the Evangelist than Evodius, who was neither Apostle nor Evangelist, so also the Roman Church surpasses the Alexandrian, and the Alexandrian the Antiochene, in authority and dignity. See Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, book 1, chapter 24.
The same men were called Primates, as is evident from the Epistle of Pope Stephen II:
Let no Metropolitans or other Bishops be called Primates except those who hold the first Sees and whose cities the ancients judged to be primatial. Let the others who have obtained the remaining metropolitan cities be called not Primates, but either Archbishops or Metropolitans. For the cities and places over which Primates ought to preside were appointed not by modern men, but many ages before the advent of Christ; and the Gentiles too appealed to their Primates concerning more important affairs. In those same cities after the advent of Christ the Apostles and their successors placed Patriarchs or Primates, to whom the affairs of Bishops and the greater cases are to be referred after the Apostolic See, with Apostolic authority preserved in all things.
Canon 39 of Nicaea contains things not dissimilar:
Let the Patriarch consider what his Archbishops and Bishops do in their provinces; and if he finds that anything has been done otherwise than it ought, let him alter it and arrange it as shall seem good to him. For he himself—
—is the father of all, and they are his sons. And although the Archbishop is among the Bishops as an elder brother who has care of his brothers, and obedience is owed to him because he presides, nevertheless the Patriarch stands in the place of a father, under whose dominion and power are his sons. Thus the Patriarch presides over all those who are under his authority, just as he who holds the See of Rome is the head and prince of all the Patriarchs, since he is first, as was Peter, to whom authority over all Christian princes and all their peoples was given, so that he might be the Vicar of Christ our Lord over all peoples and the entire Christian Church. Whoever contradicts this is excommunicated by the Synod.
Augustinus Steuchus cites this canon in book 2 On the Donation of Constantine, and Francisco Torres in book 2 On Dogmatic Characters, as does Alanus Copus in the Dialogues; and it stood in Arabic in the library of Marcellus II, Roman Pontiff, number 44, in this manner:
In accordance with the Scriptures and the determination of the canons, we venerate the most holy Bishop of the Roman and ancient Church as the first and greatest of all Bishops. Just as a Patriarch commands all the nations of his jurisdiction and imposes laws, and just as in the beginning Peter, the Vicar of Christ, was placed over religion, the Churches, and the other matters pertaining to Christ, and was lord and ruler of Christian princes, provinces, and all nations, so he whose principate is at Rome, like Peter and equal to him in authority, possesses dominion and primacy over all the Patriarchs. If anyone opposes this sanction and dares to resist it, by the decree of the whole Synod let him be subjected to anathema.
§ 8. Although the Constantinopolitan See was at last placed among the Patriarchal Sees, this was nevertheless done late, after a Council had been held at Constantinople. Thus chapter 5: “The Bishop of the city of Constantinople ought to possess the honor of primacy after the Bishop of Rome, because it is new Rome”; Distinction 23, chapter 5. The same thing was afterward decreed at the Synod under Justinian, chapter 36; Distinction 23, chapters 6 and 7.
The cities in which Patriarchs ought to be created are shown in Distinction 80, chapter 1. The canon says:
The cities over which Primates ought to preside were appointed not by modern men, but many ages before the advent of Christ; and the Gentiles too appealed to their Primates concerning more important affairs. In those same cities after the advent of Christ the Apostles and their successors placed Patriarchs or Primates, to whom the affairs of Bishops and the greater cases are to be referred after the Apostolic See, with Apostolic authority preserved in all things.
§ 9. As the multitude of Christians increased, more Patriarchal Sees were erected. For Saint Anacletus says that, besides the first three, others also had been designated. Then, after the order had been approved according to which the Constantinopolitan See was after the Roman, then the Alexandrian, next the Antiochene, and last the Jerusalemite, more in name and honor—for it obeyed the Metropolitan of Caesarea—others too were established.
Among the canons of the Synod of Nicaea, chapters 33, 34, 35, and 36, certain Patriarchs are added. Chapter 33:
Let there be a Patriarch in the royal city, for the honor of that city, the King, and the other presbyters together. Let the Bishop of Aelia also be honored more than the other Bishops, because he resides in the holy city whence the cross of God our Lord began and where is the place of judgment. Let the See of Seleucia, which is one of the eastern cities, likewise be honored; its prelate ought also to be called by the name of Catholicos, and he may ordain Archbishops just as the Patriarchs do, so that the eastern peoples may not suffer loss by waiting for the Patriarch of Antioch or going to him, and so that the Gentiles may find a way to meet their necessities. For in this no injury is done to the Patriarch of Antioch, since he consented after the Synod requested this of him, lest he complain of that power’s having been taken away, when the Synod desired nothing other than that the faithful of that province enjoy peace and quiet, and at the same time that the man who holds the See of Seleucia be honored with the name of Catholicos.
Chapter 34:
If it should happen that it is necessary for the Bishops of Greece to assemble, and the prelate of Seleucia of whom we have spoken is present—which Seleucia is in the province of Babylonia in the kingdom of Zabur and today is a small city—he ought to be honored greatly, esteemed highly, and exalted above all the Bishops of Greece. For he holds the place of the Patriarch in the East, and his seat in the Council ought to be sixth after the Bishop of Jerusalem. Whoever violates this constitution is excommunicated by the Synod.
Chapter 35:
The great Synod does not permit an assembly in the province of Persia to arrange anything pertaining to the order of the Church without the consent and authority of the Patriarch of Antioch. For although the prelate of Persia stands in the place of a Patriarch and seeks nothing other than the quiet and tranquility of the Persians themselves, nevertheless he is not permitted to intrude himself into establishing the order of the Church; rather, in all things let the Metropolitans be obedient to the Patriarch. Whoever contradicts this is excommunicated by the Synod.
Chapter 36:
The Ethiopians may not create or elect a Patriarch; rather, their prelate shall be under the authority of the man who holds the See of Alexandria. Nevertheless, he shall stand among them in the place of a Patriarch and shall be called Catholicos; yet he shall not have the right to establish Archbishops as a Patriarch has, since he does not possess the honor and authority of a Patriarch. But if it should happen that a Council is held in Greece and this prelate of the Ethiopians is present, let him have the seventh place after the prelate of Seleucia. And when authority to establish Archbishops in his province has been granted to him, it shall not be lawful for him to establish any one of them; and whoever does not obey is excommunicated by the Synod.
This, therefore, was the order of the Churches: the Roman, the Constantinopolitan, the Alexandrian, the Antiochene, the Jerusalemite, the Seleucian, and the Ethiopian. The Greeks too consented to this order at the Council of Florence, although they were not concerned about the Seleucian and Ethiopian Sees. Thus they write:
Περὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς δὲ πάπα, ὁμολογοῦμεν αὐτὸν ἄκρον ἀρχιερέα καὶ ἐπίτροπον, καὶ τοποτηρητὴν καὶ βικάριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ποιμένα τε καὶ διδάσκαλον πάντων χριστιανῶν, ἰθύνοντα καὶ κυβερνῶντα τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, σωζομένων τῶν προνομίων καὶ τῶν δικαίων τῶν πατριαρχῶν τῆς ἀνατολῆς· τὸν Κωνσταντινουπόλεως δεύτερον εἶναι μετὰ τὸν πάπαν, εἶτα τὸν Ἀλεξανδρείας, τὸν Ἀντιοχείας μετὰ τοῦτον, εἶτα τὸν Ἱεροσολύμων.
Concerning the primacy of the Pope, we confess him to be the Supreme Pontiff and procurator, lieutenant and Vicar of Christ, pastor and teacher of all Christians, directing and governing the Church of God, with the privileges and rights of the Patriarchs of the East preserved. The Constantinopolitan is second after the Pope; then the Alexandrian; after him the Antiochene; and last the Jerusalemite.
§ 10. I have said that Patriarchs were called Primates; nevertheless, besides those whom we are accustomed properly to call Patriarchs, others too are called Primates. For there may be a Primate even under a Patriarch, to whom the cases of Archbishops are brought. In Distinction 99, chapter 1, Gratian says that Primate and Patriarch are names differing from one another but belong to the same office; he says, however, that appeals are made from Archbishops to Primates.
Those immediately under the Supreme Pontiff—the Primates of Lyons—
—Toledo, Bourges, and Aquileia—are called Primates but not Patriarchs. For they are not under any Patriarch. The same is true of the Archbishops of Germany, for they acknowledge no Patriarch besides the Roman Pontiff. Yet if it is required of a Primate that appeals from Archbishops be made to him, scarcely any of these is a Primate. The Constantinopolitan, certainly, is called a Patriarch in another sense: twenty-six Archbishoprics were subject to him in the time of Pepin and Charles. In book 2 of the Eastern law, eighty Metropolitan Churches and thirty-nine Archbishops are enumerated. The Antiochene had under him twelve, and afterward thirteen, Archbishoprics; William of Tyre, book 12 On the Holy War, chapter 12. For the Egyptian, or Alexandrian, possessed a much broader jurisdiction because Libya was added to it.