901. Up to this point we have vindicated the institution of the primacy of jurisdiction in blessed Peter; now follows the controversy whether it was conferred on Peter as a privilege so personal that it ought to have perished with him, or rather whether it ought to have been transmitted to successors and be perpetual in the Church. If this latter point is established, it is asked again who is the legitimate successor of Peter, in whom the Primacy resides.
902. The Vatican Council taught the Catholic doctrine on this matter in the cited constitution Pastor Aeternus, chapter 2. For there 1) it teaches that the primacy, from Christ’s institution, ought to be perpetual, saying: “But what the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, the Lord Christ Jesus, instituted in the blessed Apostle Peter for the perpetual salvation and lasting good of the Church, must, by the same author, continually endure in the Church, which, founded upon the rock, will stand firm even to the end of the ages.” 2) It teaches that the legitimate successor of blessed Peter is the Roman Pontiff. “Indeed, it is doubtful to no one,” it adds, “indeed it has been known in all ages, that holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, column of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, Savior and Redeemer of the human race; and he, to this present time and always, lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors, the bishops of the holy Roman See, founded by him and consecrated by his blood.” 3) It declares by what right the Roman Pontiff obtains the primacy of Peter. “Whence,” it says, “whoever succeeds Peter in this Chair, according to the institution of Christ himself, obtains the primacy of Peter over the universal Church. Therefore the disposition of truth remains, and blessed Peter, persevering in the received strength of the rock, has not abandoned the government of the Church that he undertook. For this reason it has always been necessary that every Church, that is, the faithful who are everywhere, should come together to the Roman Church because of its more powerful principality, so that in that See, from which the rights of venerable communion flow out into all, they might, as members joined to the head, coalesce into the one compact structure of the body.” 4) Finally, it concludes the whole matter with a canon: “If anyone therefore shall say that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord himself, or by divine right, that blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy: let him be anathema.”
903. Moreover, the Vatican Council again confirms all these things at the beginning of the following chapter, where it says: “We renew the definition of the Council of Florence, by which it is to be believed by all the faithful of Christ that the holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy over the whole world, and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and the true Vicar of Christ, and exists as head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christians; and that to him, in blessed Peter, full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church was handed over by our Lord Jesus Christ, as is also contained in the acts of the ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons.”
904. In order that we may understand these things properly before they are demonstrated, certain things are to be noted beforehand in the usual way. And first, we have here as adversaries not only those who deny the very institution of the Primacy in blessed Peter, but also others who either, besides this, directly attack the perpetuity of the Primacy in Peter’s successors, the Roman Pontiffs, or deny this alone, while the former point is either conceded or passed over. In a word, we here attack schismatics and heretics, Greeks, Protestants, Russians, Anglicans, etc., who have always strained every nerve to attack this prerogative of the Roman Pontiffs.
905. But if, overcome by historical arguments, they cannot deny some constant exercise of primacy in the Roman Pontiffs, they say either that it was only of honor and not of jurisdiction, or even that it was conceded to them by human institution and not divine. Thus long ago Marsilius of Padua, John Wyclif, and John Hus taught that the Roman Pontiff borrowed his authority from Constantine the Great. Calvin (Institutes, book 4, chapter 7, sec. 19) judged that the primacy over the Greeks was given to the Roman Pontiff by the emperor Phocas, but over the Gauls and Germans first by Pepin and then by Charles, kings of the Franks. Luther (On the Power of the Pope) imagined that the primacy was conveyed to the Roman Pontiff by Constantine IV; elsewhere, however, in On the Supplement of Times, he teaches that the primacy of the Pope was introduced by Phocas. The Centuriators do not dissent from this opinion (Century 6, chapter 1), nor Illyricus (in his history On the Primacy), nor the Smalcald book (On the Primacy of the Pope), nor Theodore Bibliander (in Chronological Tables, table 2), etc. Earlier, however, Nilus, bishop of Thessalonica (Institutes, book 4, chapters 6-7), had already written that the Roman Pontiff does not properly succeed Peter in the primacy of the whole Catholic Church, but only in the Roman episcopate; but that from the decrees of councils he obtained a certain primacy, namely, so that he would be first of the bishops, sit first, give his opinion first, yet not preside over all the rest by power. Compare Bellarmine (book 1, chapter 12).
906. But for the sake of order and clarity, as is already clear, we must distinguish three questions: 1) whether the Primacy of Peter, from the institution of Christ, ought to be perpetual; 2) whether it ought to persevere perpetually in the successors of Peter, so that they possess the Primacy by divine right; 3) whether the Roman Pontiffs are successors of Peter by divine right, and consequently whether, as Roman Pontiffs, they obtain the primacy by divine right.
907. Now it is of faith that the Primacy ought to be perpetual in the Church, and indeed that this perpetuity is of divine right. For just as Christ Jesus instituted the Primacy in the blessed Apostle Peter, so, by the same author, as the Vatican Council speaks, the Primacy itself must continually endure even to the end of the ages.
908. With the same certainty it is established that the same Primacy will remain perpetually in the successors of Peter, and indeed by divine right. For since Christ instituted the Primacy in Peter for the perpetual salvation and lasting good of the Church, he who obtains the Primacy is the successor of Peter, and as successor of Peter, from the very institution of Christ, or by divine right, obtains the Primacy. And this is at least what the words of the Vatican Council import: “whoever succeeds Peter in this [Roman] chair, according to the institution of Christ himself, obtains the Primacy of Peter over the universal Church.” Namely, since in fact the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Peter, he, as successor of Peter, obtains the Primacy by divine right; the connection between the Primacy and the successor of Peter is of divine right. “Although,” says Bellarmine (book 2, chapter 22), “perhaps it is not of divine right that the Roman Pontiff, because he is Roman Pontiff, succeeds Peter in the prefecture of the whole Church; nevertheless if someone asks absolutely whether the Roman Pontiff is by divine right Pastor and Head of the whole Church, this must altogether be asserted. For nothing else is required for this than that the succession itself be of divine right.” Therefore, if once it is demonstrated that the Primacy was instituted by Christ in Peter so that it would be perpetual, it is also sufficiently demonstrated that the successor of Peter obtains the Primacy by divine right.
909. Nor is it an obstacle that the election of a determinate person as successor of Peter is a human fact, not divine. For one can answer 1) with Perrone and other theologians: that election is not the institution, but the mere condition by which what has been constituted by divine right is given its fulfillment. To illustrate this by a familiar example: from divine institution it happens that bread, through consecration, is converted into the body of Christ; yet it depends on the choice of the priest whether he pronounces consecration over this bread numerically rather than over another. But if once he has consecrated some bread, it is no longer in anyone’s power to remove the consecration from it, and we would truly say that by divine right, or from divine institution, that bread has been made the body of Christ. Thus, therefore, in our matter, from divine institution it is, according to what has been said, that someone, the Roman Bishop, succeeds to the primacy of Peter. The divine institution is fulfilled through the human fact of election. The one elected, verifying in himself the divine institution, can be said by divine right to bear the dignity which he bears. Or 2) with Bellarmine (On the Roman Pontiff, book 2, chapter 17): “It must be observed that in the Pontiff there are three things: the Pontificate itself, namely the primacy, which is a certain form; the person, who is the subject of the Pontificate, or primacy; and the conjunction of one with the other. Of these things, the first, namely the Pontificate itself, is from Christ alone; but the person is indeed from his natural causes absolutely, yet, insofar as he is elected and designated to the Pontificate, he is from the electors; for it belongs to them to designate the person. But the conjunction itself is from Christ, through, or with presupposition of, the human act of the electors… Therefore the electors are truly said to create the Pontiff, and to be the cause that such a one is Pontiff; nevertheless they do not give him that power, nor are they the cause of that power. Just as in the generation of a man the soul is infused by God alone, and yet, because the generating father, by disposing the matter, is the cause of the conjunction of the soul with the body, a man is said to generate a man; and yet a man is not said to produce the soul of a man.”
910. Once the right by which someone succeeds to the Primacy of Peter and possesses it has been established, it remains to inquire who is the successor of Peter. To this question the Vatican Council answers that the Primacy exists “to this present time and always in his [Peter’s] successors, the Bishops of the holy Roman See, founded by him [Peter] and consecrated by his blood”; whence it proposes as to be believed that “the holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy over the whole world, and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles.” But for demonstrating this, the most certain historical thesis concerning Peter’s coming to and session at Rome, and his death in the same See, is not absolutely necessary, although it contributes greatly to illustrating the reason of the succession. 1) It is not necessary, because from ancient, perennial, universal tradition, whether considered historically or theologically, it is most openly established that the Roman Bishop, and no one besides him, has always been held by all as the successor of Peter. Therefore either he is Peter’s successor, or no one is. But the latter hypothesis is opposed to the institution of Christ, who willed the Primacy to be perpetual; therefore the former must be admitted. 2) Still, it is useful, because to one who asks why the Roman Bishop alone is held as Peter’s successor, it must be answered: because Peter was Bishop of Rome and was crowned with martyrdom in that See; therefore he who is Roman Bishop is Peter’s successor. Therefore we do not expressly establish this historical thesis here, all the more because it is usually treated diligently by the Professor of Ecclesiastical History in this Archgymnasium. Compare, if you wish, Bellarmine (loc. cit., chapters 1-11), Peter Foggini (On the Roman Journey of St. Peter, etc.).
911. The things which we have set forth up to this point are openly handed down by the Vatican Council. But another question remains: whether the Roman Bishop, as such, obtains the Primacy by divine right. Namely, it is established: 1) that the Primacy ought to be perpetual by divine right; 2) that it is obtained by divine right by the successors of blessed Peter, and therefore that the connection of the Primacy with the successors of Peter is of divine right; 3) that, in fact, the successors of Peter are no others than the Roman Pontiffs; 4) therefore it is asked whether the connection of the Primacy with the Roman See is of divine right, so that the Roman Pontiff, as such, and not only as successor of Peter, obtains the primacy by divine right. If this is affirmed, it surely follows that the Primacy can never be separated from the Roman See by any human authority, not even by the supreme authority of the Church.
912. Now concerning this matter nothing has properly been defined. Not indeed by the Vatican Council, as is clear to one reading the cited decrees; nor by proposition 35 condemned in the Syllabus, which reads as follows: “Nothing prevents, by the sentence of some general council or by the act of all peoples, the supreme pontificate from being transferred from the Roman Bishop and city to another Bishop and another city.” For in this matter it is clear to all that the act of peoples can do nothing. Even if Rome were the See of the Primacy from human and not from divine institution, still the change could be made only by the supreme authority of the Church. But it is not certain that in the said proposition, under the name of a general Council, there comes a Council confirmed by the Pope; for then supreme power would be had. For that proposition is taken from the book of Nuytz, who repeats Febronian and Jansenian errors; but Febronius and the Jansenists, when discussing the authority of general Councils, commonly speak of Councils considered separately from the Pope.
913. Nevertheless, we make our own the affirmative opinion, that the connection of the Primacy with the Roman See is of divine right. Therefore it is better to illustrate it a little before it is established. First, we observe with Bellarmine (On the Roman Pontiff, book 2, chapter 22) that “succession is one thing, the reason of succession another. For the succession of the Roman Pontiff to the pontificate of Peter is from the institution of Christ; but the reason of the succession, by which the Roman Pontiff rather than the Antiochene, or someone else, succeeds, took its beginning from the fact of Peter. The succession itself, I say, is from the institution of Christ and by divine right, because Christ himself instituted in Peter a pontificate that would endure until the end of the world; and therefore whoever succeeds Peter receives the pontificate from Christ. But that the Roman Bishop, because he is Roman Bishop, is Peter’s successor, had its origin from the fact of Peter, not from the first institution of Christ. For Peter could have chosen for himself no particular see at all, as he did for the first five years; and then, when Peter died, neither the Roman nor the Antiochene Bishop would have succeeded, but he whom the Church had chosen for itself. He could also have remained always at Antioch; and then the Antiochene Bishop without doubt would have succeeded. But because he fixed his see at Rome and held it until death, from this it happened that the Roman Pontiff succeeds him.”
914. Hence certain older theologians thought that the annexation of the Primacy to the Roman See had so arisen from Peter that it was constituted by his authority alone; and therefore they say that it is situated in the power of the Supreme Pontiff to separate the Primacy from the Roman episcopate. The very common opinion, however, which we follow, holds that Peter, from the command and will of Christ the Lord himself, joined the supreme pontificate with the Roman episcopate; and therefore that it cannot be separated from the same by any human authority, for things which are of divine institution cannot be changed by men.
915. But the authors of this opinion carefully distinguish the See, or the place where some church was founded and constituted in this or that dignity, for example episcopal; Residence, or dwelling in that place for carrying out pastoral offices; and Title, or the name of the church itself from which the See is denominated. Among these, residence is not so affixed to one place that, when just causes intervene, it cannot be transferred elsewhere, as often happened, especially in that time when the Roman Pontiffs dwelt at Avignon. This is more easily understood in the Roman Pontiff, who, since he is bishop in the whole Church, wherever he dwells, is not there as a stranger or as a bishop outside his own diocese, but as an Ordinary in the territory of his residence. But the See, insofar as it is Peter’s, and the title of the see, cannot be changed by any human authority, nor can the title be transferred into another see. Therefore it can indeed happen that the Supreme Pontiff resides at Naples, Milan, Avignon, etc.; but it can never happen that the Bishop of Naples, Milan, Avignon, etc. is the Supreme Pontiff. Wherever, therefore, he resides, he will always be Bishop of Rome, so that he can be said to be, and truly be, successor in the primacy of Peter.
916. But in order that it may become more clearly known how the conjunction of the primacy with the Roman episcopate is to be conceived, we can consider several dignities in the Supreme Pontiff. For he is: 1) supreme Pastor of the universal Church; 2) Bishop of the particular Roman Church; 3) Metropolitan of the Roman Province; 4) Primate of the Provinces of Italy; 5) Patriarch of the West. Nevertheless it must be observed, says Bellarmine (loc. cit.), that “the Roman episcopate and the prefecture of the universal Church are not two episcopates nor two sees, except in potency. For Peter, instituted by Christ as Pontiff of the whole Church, did not join to himself the episcopate of the city of Rome in the way in which the bishop of some place joins to himself another episcopate, or a canonry, or an abbacy; but he raised the episcopate of the city of Rome to the supreme Pontificate of the whole earth. In the same way, when a simple episcopate is raised into an archiepiscopate or patriarchate, the bishop or patriarch is not twice or three times a bishop, but only once; and as a sign of this thing, only one pallium is given to the Supreme Pontiff, even if he is bishop, archbishop, patriarch, and supreme pontiff. For all these things are one in act, and many only in potency. From this it follows that he who is elected Roman Bishop, by that very fact is Pontiff of the whole Church.”
917. These things having been set forth, in order to preserve integrally the doctrine concerning perpetuity and succession in the Primacy, we establish the following: Proposition 38. 1) The Primacy which Christ instituted in blessed Peter for the lasting good of the Church must, by the same author, continually endure in Peter’s successors. 2) Since it is established that the Roman Bishops are Peter’s successors, they hold the Primacy over the whole world by divine right. 3) Indeed the connection itself of the Primacy with the Roman See seems to be of divine right; and therefore, just as by no human authority can it happen that Peter’s successor is not Primate of the whole Church, so by no authority, not even the supreme authority of the Church, can the Primacy be transferred from the Roman Bishop and city to another Bishop and another city. Section II The Perpetuity of the Primacy According to the Institution of Christ Is Established.
918. Proof I. An office which Christ instituted and ordered solely for the essential good of the Church ought to endure as long as the Church, which is indefectible, perseveres; or, it ought to be perpetual. But the office of the Primacy instituted by Christ in Peter is of this kind. Therefore the Primacy ought to be perpetual.
919. The major is explained. Although it is evident of itself, it can nevertheless suffer difficulty from the fact that the Apostolic office, properly so called, was also instituted for the good of the Church, and yet did not need to be, nor was it, perpetual. In order to meet this exception immediately, we note that for the first founding and constituting of some new society, certain endowments are necessary in the first moderators, which, once the society has already been founded and sufficiently diffused, successors no longer need. This especially has place in the institution and first diffusion of the Church. For since it was a society catholic by its own nature, it needed promulgators who, endowed with universal authority and aided by innumerable miracles, could found Churches everywhere and diffuse the faith of Christ everywhere. Therefore the Apostles were furnished with that authority; but once the Church had already been sufficiently diffused through the world and the number of promulgators increased, the universal authority of the Apostles ceased in their successors. But there are other endowments of moderators which are always required for the good of the society, and therefore of themselves ought to remain as long as the society itself. Such, for example, are the offices which we called ordinary in the Apostles (compare no. 880 ff.). Now the Primacy of Peter pertains to the good of the Church in such a way that it is necessary not only for first founding it, but also for conserving it; and therefore in Peter it was an ordinary office, not an extraordinary one. Hence we have said that the Primacy pertains to the essential good of the Church, and it can be said to be an essential part of the Church instituted by Christ. Therefore:
920. The minor is proved. 1) The supreme power of any society is instituted and ordered to the essential good of that society, and is an essential part of it. But, as is clear from the preceding thesis, the Primacy of Peter is the supreme power constituted by Christ in the Church. Therefore. This argument is confirmed from what was disputed concerning the true indefectibility of the Church. For the Church can never have another form or constitution besides that which it received from its founder Christ: “Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up” (Matt. 15.13). But from what has been said, it is established that Christ so constituted his Church that the whole of it would be under one supreme ruler, to whom all, lambs and sheep, would be subject; so that there would be one kingdom under one king, whom all would obey. But Peter was constituted Shepherd or supreme Ruler. Therefore, if the authority of Peter under that form in which Christ instituted it were to perish, it would at once cease to be that Church which Christ instituted. Can it be that, from Christ’s institution, there ought to be one constitution of the Church under the rule of the Apostles, and another under the rule of their successors? But both Greeks and Protestants are able to prove this the less, the more the former contend that they adhere to the ancient faith, and the latter that they cling to the words of Scripture. 2) Indeed, after the times of the Apostles the full power of the Primacy was much more necessary. For although it was fitting that Peter himself should sometimes exercise some primatial office, even as an example for the following ages, nevertheless the use of that power, while the Apostles were still living, and especially with respect to the Apostles themselves, was by no means so necessary (no. 885). On the contrary, when the Apostles had died and the extraordinary gifts in the successor Bishops had ceased, it was necessary that Peter’s Primacy exert its full force. Therefore either it must be said that Christ, in instituting the Primacy, willed that it should endure and be exercised so long as there was almost no necessity for its use (I say “be exercised,” because he certainly did not institute an office that would never be exercised), and then, when necessity was now urgent, be extinguished; or it must be said that Christ destined that office especially and primarily for the times following the Apostles. Everyone sees that the former hypothesis is absurd. 3) According to the testimony of Matthew 16: a) Peter was created rock or foundation of the Church, namely so that it might stand secure and firm forever; b) through the same rock the Church was made invincible, so that the gates of hell would never prevail against it. c) The Church has the same relation to Peter that a building has to the firm ground upon which it is built. If you remove the ground, the house immediately falls; therefore if you take away the rock, the Church falls. 4) According to the testimony of John 21, when the Lord said to Peter, “Feed my sheep,” he constituted the office of supreme shepherd. But this office is ordinary and perpetual, since from the nature of the thing it ought to endure as long as the sheepfold remains. But the sheepfold, which is the Church, remains and will remain even to the consummation of the world. 5) In fact, when the Lord says to Peter, “Feed my sheep,” he committed to him all his sheep, as we showed above; all, that is, not only by reason of place, but also by reason of time, since Christ willed to provide no less for us than for the first faithful. But Peter was not going to live always in the flesh; therefore when the Lord said to him, “Feed my sheep,” in him he designated all his successors. Hence Chrysostom says (book 2 On the Priesthood): “For what cause did he shed his blood? Certainly so that he might acquire those sheep whose care he was committing both to Peter and to Peter’s successors.” And St. Leo (sermon on the anniversary of his assumption): “The disposition of truth remains,” he says, “and blessed Peter, persevering in the received strength of the rock, has not abandoned the government of the Church which he undertook: clearly Peter perseveres and lives in his successors.” Compare Bellarmine (On the Roman Pontiff, book 2, chapter 12, at the beginning).
921. II. The office which Christ instituted for bringing in and protecting the unity of the Church ought to endure as long as that unity itself; and therefore it ought to be perpetual, since, as we showed when treating of the properties of the Church, unity is essential to the Church and can never be absent from it. But the Primacy of Peter was instituted by Christ for constructing and conserving unity. Therefore. The minor is proved: 1) by briefly recalling the testimonies of Matthew and John. For a) supreme authority in a society is constituted for bringing in and conserving unity in a multitude; the Primacy is supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church. b) When Christ said, “Upon this rock,” or “upon thee, Peter, I will build my Church,” he indicated that the building of the Church was to be gathered only through Peter and in Peter. But for the building of the Church to be gathered is nothing other than for its unity to be formed. c) Likewise, by saying, “Upon this rock I will build,” Christ indicated that the building of the Church must be sustained in Peter and through Peter. But a building is sustained by preventing the dissolution of its parts; unity is opposed to dissolution. Therefore this also is required from Peter, that by preventing dissolution he should perpetually conserve the unity of the Church (no. 442). d) The words of the conferral of the primacy suggest the same thing. For when Christ says, “Feed my sheep, feed my lambs,” he gathers all under the command of one. And when he says, “feed,” or “rule,” he imposes upon Peter that he should provide for the conservation of the flock, or guard against its dissolution. 2) From the Fathers. “For the good of unity,” so says St. Optatus of Milevis according to the common opinion (On the Donatist Schism Against Parmenian, book 7, chapter 3, and book 2, chapter 2), “blessed Peter, for whom it was enough if, after he denied, he obtained forgiveness alone, both merited to be preferred to all the Apostles, and alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven to be communicated to the rest.” And again: “So many innocent men stand by, and the sinner received the keys so that the business of unity might be formed; it was provided that the sinner should open for the innocent, lest the innocent should close against sinners, and the unity which is necessary could not exist.” St. Cyprian (On the Unity of the Church), after narrating the institution of Peter’s Primacy and explaining its force and end, proceeds: “Does he who strives against and resists the Church, who deserts the chair of Peter, upon which the Church is founded, trust that he is in the Church? Since also the blessed Apostle Paul teaches this same thing, to show the sacrament of unity, saying: One body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God. This unity we ought firmly to hold and vindicate, especially we bishops, who preside in the Church, so that we may prove the episcopate itself also to be one and undivided.” St. Jerome has the same things (Against Jovinian, book 1, no. 26, and Against Lucifer, no. 9). Pacian (letter 3) teaches: “As Matthew himself reports, a little earlier the Lord spoke to Peter, to one for this reason, that he might form unity from one.” Hence that saying was most received among the Fathers: that the Roman Pontiffs, no less than Peter, are the rock and foundation of the ecclesiastical building. Moreover St. Augustine, in his Psalm Against the Party of Donatus, after listing the Pontiffs of the Roman See, successors of Peter, added: “This is the rock which the proud gates of hell do not conquer.” St. Leo (sermon 5, otherwise 4, on the anniversary of his assumption, chapter 4): “For that solidity which he [Peter], being also made rock, received from Christ the rock, pours itself also into his heirs.” And Boniface I (letter 4 to Rufus of Thessalonica, no. 1): “This [Roman See] is established to have been raised high by the dignity of the spiritual rock.” Compare Schrader (On Roman Unity, part 1, from no. 90). 3) This has been confessed even by the haters of pontifical power, or by those less devoted to it. For a) Grotius the Protestant (in Votum pro Pace, on article 7) has these words: “Order, whether in the parts or in the whole, is contained in a certain principality, or in the unity of one placed over; and this is what Christ taught us in Peter.” And a little later: “This order ought always to remain in the Church, because the cause always remains, that is, the danger from schism.” Similar things are found in Cowell the Calvinist (in Examination of Doctrine Against the Acts of the Cause of Innocence), Cartwright (in defense of Whitgift), Hospinian (in Sacred History), Hooker (Of Ecclesiastical Polity, in the preface, section 6). b) But the Assembly of the Gallican Clergy in 1682, in the declaration on ecclesiastical power by which, on March 19, the famous articles were established, declared that the Roman See is that one “in which the unity of the Church is preserved.” Hence in the letter to all the archbishops and bishops of the kingdom they preface these things from St. Cyprian: “With St. Cyprian we confidently declare that Christ, in order to manifest unity, constituted one chair, and by his authority arranged the origin of unity beginning from one; and that he who deserts the chair of Peter, upon which the Church is founded, is not in the Church; but he who does not hold unity does not have the faith.” Bossuet, singing in harmony with these things in his Exposition of Catholic Doctrine, concerning the pontifical primacy, sets this down as certain by faith (chapter 21): “The Son of God, since he willed his Church to be one and firmly built upon unity, instituted the primacy of Peter for protecting and strengthening unity, and the Apostolic See is the center and root of this unity.”
922. Therefore Pius VI was setting forth the ancient and universal faith of the Church in the constitution Super soliditate, November 28, 1786, when he said: “Namely, in this principate of the Apostolic Chair Christ willed the bond of unity to be held firm and constrained, by which the Church, to be propagated throughout the whole world, from members however far apart, would, through the mutual association of all in one head, coalesce into one compact structure of the body, and thus it would come about that the force of this power would avail not only for the extent of the first See, but also especially for the integrity and safety of the whole body. Therefore it is by no means wonderful that as many as have existed through all past ages into whom the ancient enemy of the human race poured his hostile hatred against the Church have been accustomed to rush upon this first See, in which the firmness of unity is contained, so that, if it could be done, the foundation being overthrown, and the conjunction of the Churches with the head being broken - upon which especially they rest, flourish, and bloom - they might deprive the Church itself, its powers broken, miserably afflicted and torn apart, of the liberty with which Christ endowed it, and subject it to an unworthy servitude.” Section III It Is Shown That the Roman Pontiffs Are Successors of Peter, and, as Such, Obtain the Primacy by Divine Right.
923. We undertake to prove two things here: 1) that the Roman Pontiffs are successors of Peter; 2) and that as successors of Peter they obtain the Primacy by divine right. But the second can already be judged demonstrated, since he becomes Primate of the whole Church by divine right who becomes such from divine law. But the successor of Peter becomes Primate of the whole Church by divine law; for it has been established by divine law that there is to be perpetual succession in the Primacy of Peter (compare no. 908 ff.). Hence it is that Councils and Fathers, in order to affirm the rights of Primacy in the Roman Pontiff, appeal to the words of the Gospel by which Christ instituted the Primacy in Peter. The Council of Florence, for example, teaches that “the power of ruling” etc. “was handed over by Christ the Lord to the Roman Pontiff in blessed Peter.” The Fourth Lateran Council says: “The Roman Church, by the Lord’s disposition, obtains the principate of ordinary power over all others.” Lanfranc, Bishop of Canterbury, says in an English Synod: “When our Lord Jesus Christ said to Peter: Thou art Peter, etc., he could have added, if he had wished: I grant the same power to thy successors. But the omission of the statement diminishes nothing of reverence toward the successors of Peter… Indeed, it is implanted in the consciences of all Christians that they should no less tremble at the successors of Peter when they threaten than rejoice and applaud when they graciously grant serene dignity; and then at last the dispensation of all ecclesiastical things is ratified, if it has been approved by the judgment of the successors of blessed Peter. What does this effect except the force of divine liberality poured out through the Lord Jesus from blessed Peter into his vicars [successors]?” Therefore, if the rights of the Roman See sometimes seem to be attributed to synodical constitutions, they are attributed to them insofar as they were recognized or asserted by them against those who were rejecting them, not insofar as they were constituted by them.
924. Therefore the first point must rather be demonstrated from ancient, perennial, and universal tradition. But since we have already given very many express testimonies (nos. 547, 661, 736, etc.), we shall be content to exhibit a few monuments of tradition which bear on this matter, in the order in which they are proposed by the Wurzburg authors.
925. Therefore I. Constant tradition ascribes to the Roman Pontiff the very dignity of Primacy. The Fathers in the Council of Chalcedon (Act 16) speak thus: “We have considered that every primacy and chief honor is to be preserved according to the canons for the Archbishop of Old Rome.” In the letter of Adrian to Tarasius, read and approved in the Second Council of Nicaea (Act 2), it is read thus: “Whose See, obtaining the primacy throughout the whole world, shines forth and exists as the head of all the Churches of God.” We have already given the words of the Fourth Lateran Council. St. Irenaeus (book 3 Against Heresies, chapter 3) says: “To this Church [the Roman] it is necessary that every Church come together because of its more powerful principality.” Anastasius II (in his letter to the Emperor Anastasius): “Through my ministry, as it always is, the See of blessed Peter holds in the universal Church the principate assigned to it by the Lord.” In equivalent words the Fathers of the First Council of Constantinople also teach the same thing in their letter to Damasus, for they confess that “the Roman Church is the head, but we are the members.” The Fathers of Chalcedon (Acts 1, 2, and 3) call Leo “Pontiff of the universal Church.” The Fathers of the Third Council of Constantinople, in their Synodical letter to Agatho, have these words: “Therefore to thee, as prelate of the first See of the universal Church, standing upon the firm rock of faith, we leave what must be done. We acknowledge the letters of your confession as divinely prescribed by the highest summit of the Apostles.” John II, in his letter to the Emperor Justinian, writes: “Both the rules of the Fathers and the statutes of Princes declare that the Roman See is truly the head of all the Churches.” Theodoret, in his letter to Renatus: “That holy See holds the rudders for governing the Churches of the whole world.” St. Ambrose, on 1 Timothy 1: “Although the whole world is God’s, nevertheless his house is called the Church, whose ruler today is Damasus,” etc.
926. II. Constant tradition attributes to the Roman Pontiff the succession and inheritance of Peter. St. Irenaeus says and enumerates that Roman Pontiffs were given as successors to Peter (book 3, chapter 3), down to Eleutherius; Tertullian (book 3 Against Marcion, final chapter), down to Telesphorus; St. Optatus of Milevis (book 2 Against Parmenian), down to Siricius; St. Augustine (letter 165), down to Anastasius; St. Jerome, in his letter to Damasus on hypostasis, says: “I speak with the successor of the fisherman and disciple of the cross. Following no first one except Christ, I am joined in communion to your Beatitude, that is, to the chair of Peter. I know that the Church was built upon that rock.” St. Leo (sermon 1 On the Nativity of the Apostles) writes: “Through the sacred See of blessed Peter, Rome, made head of the world, presides more widely by divine religion than by earthly dominion.” St. Prosper, in his poem On the Ungrateful, sings: “Rome, the See of Peter, which, made the head of pastoral honor for the world, holds by religion whatever it does not possess by arms.”
927. III. Constant tradition ascribes to the Roman Pontiff the action and authority of Peter. Indeed, in the Council of Ephesus (Act 3), Philip, legate of the Supreme Pontiff, with no one objecting, said: “It is doubtful to no one, indeed it is known to all ages, that St. Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, column of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, and the power of loosing and binding sins was given to him, who to this present time and always lives and exercises judgment in his successors.” In Chalcedon (Act 2), after the letters of Leo were read, the Bishops exclaimed: “This is the faith of the Fathers; this is the faith of the Apostles. We all believe thus. Anathema to him who does not believe thus. Peter has spoken thus through Leo.” And in Act 18 the Fathers of the Sixth Synod said: “The supreme prince of the Apostles was fighting together with us; for we had as helper his imitator and successor of his See. Paper and ink were seen, and through Agatho Peter was speaking.” Siricius, in his letter to Himerius, writes: “We carry the works of all who are burdened; indeed, rather, Peter the Apostle carries these things in us, who, as we trust, protects and guards us in all things as heirs of his administration.” Leo, in letter 2 to Pulcheria, says: “The agreements of Bishops that are opposed to the Nicene rules, with the sole piety of your faith together with us, we send into nullity, and by the authority of blessed Peter the Apostle we annul by a general definition.”
928. IV. The care of the universal Church belongs to the Roman Pontiff. This indeed the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon testify in their letter to Leo, saying: “And after all these things, besides, he extended his madness also against him to whom the custody of the vineyard was committed by the Savior, that is, against your Apostolic Holiness also.” Athanasius, in his letter to Felix: “For this reason he constituted you and your Predecessors, namely Apostolic Prelates, in the height of summit, and commanded you to have care of all the Churches.” Acacius, in his letter to Simplicius: “Bearing around, according to the Apostle, the solicitude of all the Churches, you unceasingly exhort us.” Leo (letter 4): “We are stirred by divine precepts and Apostolic admonitions to watch with tireless affection for the state of all the Churches.”
929. V. To the Roman Pontiff is attributed the power of making laws for the universal Church. The Fathers of Ephesus prove this when in Act 1, in the condemnation of Nestorius, they pronounce thus: “Compelled by the sacred canons and by the letter of Celestine, Bishop of the Roman Church, we have necessarily come to this sentence against him.” Damasus, in letter 5 to Aurelius, says: “We desire that you guard these things, and we command them to be preached and published to others, so that they may be guarded inviolate by all with due veneration.” Leo, in letter 87 to the Bishops of Africa, says: “What we somehow suffer to be venial will afterward not be able to be unpunished, if anyone presumes to usurp what we altogether forbid.” Hence the supreme power of loosing from the obligation of law, whether by dispensation or by abrogation, is proved by Gregory, in letter 13 to Felix, dispensing with the English concerning prohibited degrees of marriage, and with the Sicilians concerning Councils to be celebrated each year; by Adrian, in his letter to the Emperor Basil in the Fourth Council of Constantinople, Act 1, relaxing the Canons because of the multitude of delinquents; and by Gelasius, in letter 1, granting indulgence in many other matters. But Gelasius there prefaces thus: “By the necessary disposition of affairs we are joined together, and by the governance of the Apostolic See we are assembled, so that we may so liberate the decrees of the paternal canons, and measure the precepts of the prelates and our predecessors of earlier times, that those things which the necessity of present times demands be relaxed for restoring the Churches, with diligent consideration applied, we may temper as much as can be done.” And Nicholas, in his letter to the Emperor Michael, writes: “Since, according to the canons, where there is greater authority, the judgment of inferiors is to be deferred, namely for dissolving or for strengthening, it is plainly clear that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is not greater in any other, is to be retracted by no one.”
930. VI. The ordering of superior magistracies belongs to the Roman Pontiff. The Council of Chalcedon, canon 28, gave to the See of Constantinople the first place of patriarchate after the Roman See. Yet Leo rescinded this, and therefore it did not have force; although the supplication of the Fathers testifies that it could have obtained firmness from his consent. For they said: “We ask that by your decrees you honor our judgment; and just as we have added harmony to the head in good things, so also let your summit fulfill for the sons what is lawful.” It is established by many testimonies that the institution of Bishops belongs to the Roman Pontiffs. Thus Leo, in a letter to the Bishops of Africa, says: “We will that Donatus of Salicine, converted from Novatianism with his people, so preside over the Lord’s flock that he remember that the libellus of his faith must be directed to us.” Gregory, in letter 34 to the Emperor Constantine, writes: “The Bishop of the city of Salona was ordained without my knowledge and without that of my Responsalis; and a thing was done which happened under no earlier princes.” Likewise the deposition of Bishops belongs to them. The fact is taught by Nicholas, in his letter to the Emperor Michael, concerning eight Patriarchs of Constantinople; by Gelasius, in his letter to the Bishops of Dardania, concerning Peter of Alexandria; by Theodoret (Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chapter 23) concerning Flavian of Antioch; and by the Acts of Sixtus III concerning Polychronius of Jerusalem. But the right is asserted by the Fathers of Ephesus in the testimony recently cited. Finally, that the restoration of Bishops belongs to the Roman Pontiffs is testified, besides many other examples, by the fact of Athanasius and Chrysostom supplicating; to these is added the summons in the Council of Ephesus (Act 1), pronounced in these words: “Let the most reverend Bishop Theodoret enter as a participant of the synod, because the most holy Archbishop of Rome has restored the episcopate to him.”
931. VII. The judgment of greater causes is reserved to the Roman Pontiff. And indeed: 1) with respect to greater causes generally, the Synod of Sardica testifies in its letter to Julius: “This will seem best and very fitting, if from each and every province the priests of the Lord refer to the head, that is, the See of Peter.” Innocent I, in his letter to Victricius of Rouen, appeals to the same thing: “But if greater causes have been brought into the midst, after episcopal judgment let them be referred to the Apostolic See, as the synod has established and blessed custom requires.” 2) Gregory IV, in his letter to all the Bishops, speaks of causes greater by reason of the magnitude of the matter, writing: “It is doubtful to no one that not only the cause of a Pontiff, but every relation of holy Religion ought to be referred to the Apostolic See as to the head of the Churches, and from there take its norm, whence it took its beginning, lest the head of the institution seem to be omitted.” And Innocent IV, in his letter to the Archbishop of Arles, says: “He understands that the greater causes of the Church, especially those touching articles of faith, are to be referred to the See of Peter, who narrated that when the Lord asked whom the Disciples said him to be, Peter answered: Thou art the Son of the living God; and that the Lord prayed for him, lest his faith fail.” 3) With respect to causes greater by reason of the dignity of persons, that those which regard Patriarchs belong to the Roman Pontiff is established when the Fathers of Ephesus, in their report to Celestine, reserve the cause of John of Antioch to the Supreme Pontiff. And as for those which regard Metropolitans, it is established when the Roman Synod under Damasus addresses the Emperors thus: “May your Piety deign to command that whoever has been condemned either by the judgment of our brother Damasus or by ours, and shall have wished unjustly to retain a Church, be summoned and come to Rome, or be led to the examination of the Metropolitan. Or if he himself is Metropolitan, let him necessarily be commanded without delay to hasten to Rome, or to those whom the Roman Bishop shall have given as judges.” Finally, concerning Bishops, Julius I has these words in his letter to the Orientals, canon 9, cause 3, question 6: “Long ago it was decreed by the holy Apostles and their successors in the ancient statutes, and the holy and universal Church has held it up to this point, that Councils ought not to be celebrated apart from the sentence of the Roman Pontiff, nor a Bishop condemned; because they willed the holy Roman Church to be the primate of all Churches.” The Council of Trent confirms this same thing in session 24, chapter 5, On Reform, establishing: “The graver criminal causes against Bishops, even that of heresy, which may God avert, which are worthy of deposition or privation, are nevertheless to be heard and terminated by the Supreme Roman Pontiff himself.”
932. The simple indication of this constant tradition by itself fully accomplishes the matter. Yet to press the demonstration which arises from it, we add two things, of which the first directly confirms the fact, and the other the right of succession. And I. it is certain: 1) that Christ willed that the Primacy conferred on Peter should be perpetual in his successors. Hence St. Ambrose wrote (on Psalm 40): “Where Peter is, there is the Church”; St. Cyprian testifies (letter 55) that “heresies and schisms arise from this, that one Priest in the Church for the time, and one judge for the time in the place of Christ, is not considered”; St. John Chrysostom (book 2 On the Priesthood) teaches that Christ shed his blood “so that he might acquire those sheep whose care he was committing both to Peter and to Peter’s successors.” 2) It is equally certain that the successor of Peter at any time can be only one person; otherwise the form of government, which was immediately instituted by Christ, would be changed, and, with a new institution introduced, the constitution of the Church would be changed. Hence St. Cyprian says (letter 52): “Since after the first there cannot be a second, whoever has been made after the one who ought to be alone is no longer second to him, but is nothing.” 3) Finally, it is certain that no one can be held as Peter’s successor except the Roman Pontiff; for the Church always and everywhere recognized him as such, and no one besides him. Therefore the Roman Pontiff alone is Peter’s successor, unless we wish to say, against the institution of Christ, that the succession of Peter in the Primacy has failed; which is absurd.
933. II. From the tradition set forth a little above it is established that, at least at the beginning of the fifth century, the universal Church believed that the Roman Pontiff, as Peter’s successor, obtained by divine right the Primacy of the whole Church. But the adversaries whom we here attack say that in the first century the Church believed all Bishops to be so equal by divine right that none of them presided over the rest. On this hypothesis it would have been necessary that, between the first and fifth centuries, the faith of the universal Church concerning this matter had been changed. But this change can in no way be admitted. For: 1) If a change of this kind had happened, since the matter was one of the greatest moment, it ought to have been known to all; hence some historical monuments, or at least some traces, would testify to it. But in all antiquity no monument of this kind exists, no trace of that change. This ought to seem all the more remarkable because mention of the Roman See and the Roman Pontiff frequently occurs; many prerogatives, many deeds concerning them are narrated. Why would it have happened that concerning the gravest fact of all, namely that change affecting the Roman See, deep silence was preserved? 2) Indeed there are many things which exclude a change of this kind. For a) it is a question of a change in faith, which would overturn the unity and government of the Church. Could that have been accomplished without anyone in the Church protesting? But where are the traces of such resistance? Changes in matters of lesser moment, as, for example, in rites, have always stirred up great difficulties; but a substantial change in the faith and government of the Church would have been completed by the consent or silence of all! b) Bishops, Fathers who always guarded the deposit of faith with the greatest diligence, many of whom flourished with distinguished sanctity, while others were crowned with martyrdom for the faith of Christ - would all of them, forgetful of their office, have permitted so great a change to be made in the Church, with no one protesting! c) But the Roman Pontiffs themselves, who existed at that time, almost all attained the honors of the Saints, and many shed their blood for Christ; and yet they themselves would have been guilty of so great a crime! d) Add finally that even the eastern Bishops recognized the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. If it seems incredible that so many western Bishops would of their own accord, and against divine right, subject themselves to One, it must be judged still more incredible that all the Bishops of the East would all obey One Bishop in the West. To pass over the rest, six hundred Bishops came together at the Council of Chalcedon; except for the Apostolic Legates, all the rest were eastern. And yet not only were the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff often asserted there, with no one objecting, but also, as we have seen, all the Fathers, in the letter to St. Leo, openly assert and declare the dogma concerning his Primacy. Section IV Certain Difficulties Are Answered.
934. You will say, I: The Fathers of Chalcedon openly teach that the preeminence of the Roman Bishops, or of the Roman See, is not of divine right, for in canon 28 they say: “To the throne of old Rome, because that city ruled, the Fathers rightly gave privileges. And moved by the same consideration, the one hundred and fifty most beloved of God gave equal privileges to the throne of new Rome [the city of Constantinople], judging rightly that the city which is honored with empire and senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the most ancient queen Rome, should also in ecclesiastical matters be exalted and made great no otherwise than she, existing as second after her.” I answer: 1) There is no authority in this canon. For a) that canon was issued by the Greek Fathers alone, while the Pontifical Legates were absent. b) These, when previously asked to assent to the sanctioning of that canon, declared that they did not have a mandate to provide this. c) Hence in the following Act, complaining of fraud, they asked that that canon be deleted; “but if otherwise,” they said, “let our contradiction be inserted in these acts, so that we may know what we ought to report to the Apostolic man, the Bishop of the universal Church.” d) St. Leo, moreover, rejected that canon; whence not even the Greeks themselves admit it. Indeed the ancient Greek collection, which Dionysius Exiguus rendered into Latin, has only twenty-seven canons and entirely omits the twenty-eighth. Theodore the Reader also omits the same canon in book 1 of his Collectanea, and so does Theodoret in the collection of canons which he himself arranged. Compare Natalis Alexander, Dissertation 15, article 3. 2) In the cited canon there is no discussion of the right of Primacy. For in the letter which the Fathers of Chalcedon gave to Leo, there is an open confession of the Primacy of the Roman See; among those Fathers there was also Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople. How therefore could they have simultaneously asserted a Primacy of the Church of Constantinople equal to the Roman Primacy? Certainly Anatolius himself suppliantly asks Leo to confirm that canon; therefore he professed the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff over the very See of Constantinople. 3) Therefore in that canon the discussion is about patriarchal right, which, as all confess, is of ecclesiastical right. For the Fathers of Chalcedon speak about those rights in relation to the Roman See which they wanted to obtain and have declared for the Church of Constantinople. But they were certainly striving to vindicate for it no other rights than patriarchal rights. Therefore. Namely, the Fathers of Chalcedon argue from the Roman See to the Constantinopolitan See on the basis of the likeness of political condition; and they say that, just as Constantinople had been made a new Rome, adorned with empire and senate, so after old Rome the Church of Constantinople should hold the patriarchate in place of the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria, with which it had previously flourished.
935. You will say, II: In canon 3 of the First Council of Constantinople it is read: “The bishop of the city of Constantinople ought to have the honor of primacy after the Roman Bishop, because it is new Rome.” But this canon was praised by the Fathers of Chalcedon. Therefore the Fathers plainly judged that the right of preeminence by which the Roman Bishop rejoices is derived from the dignity of the first city. I answer: 1) The First Council of Constantinople was not ecumenical either in convocation or in celebration; for it was not convoked by the Roman Pontiff, all the Bishops were not called to it, and only eastern Bishops assembled in it. Nevertheless, with the assent of the westerners added, and especially with the approval of the Roman Pontiff, it became ecumenical. But in what was it approved? In those things which pertain to faith. “But the Roman Church,” says St. Gregory the Great (book 7, chapter 34), “has not up to this point had nor accepted the same canons or acts of that synod; but it accepted that same synod in this, that through it a definition was made against Macedonius. But the rest of the heresies which are commemorated there it rejects as already condemned by other Fathers.” 2) The consequence can be denied. For the sense of the canon could here be this: “The Roman Pontiff indeed obtains the primacy by divine right over the universal Church; but since after him there are other dignities introduced by ecclesiastical right, it is fitting that the Bishop of the city which shines with civil principate first after Rome, and is called new Rome, should have the first place among those dignities. Thus therefore we establish.”
936. You will say, III: The power of the Roman Pontiff is restricted to certain Provinces by canon 6 of the Council of Nicaea. For if it is read according to the common interpretation, it sounds thus: “Let the ancient custom be observed throughout Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, so that the Bishop of Alexandria should have power over all these; because also there is a similar custom for the Bishop of the city of Rome.” But if Rufinus the interpreter is heard (book 10 of the History, chapter 6), it is expressed thus: “And that at Alexandria and in the city of Rome the old custom be preserved, so that the former may bear solicitude for Egypt, and the latter for the suburbicarian churches.” I answer: 1) It is certain that by this canon a new right is by no means established, but only an old custom is confirmed, as is clear from the words with which it begins: “Let the ancient custom be observed throughout Egypt,” etc. Now it is equally certain that Leo I, as successor of Peter, showed himself most firmly as ruler of the whole Church; indeed, with the adversaries freely conceding it, he was the keenest defender of the rights of his See. Yet he fully approved this canon, as is clear from his letter to the Bishops who were present at the Council of Chalcedon: “I admonish you that the rights of the Churches, as they were ordered by those three hundred eighteen divinely inspired Fathers, remain” (Hardouin 2.688). It is certain therefore that he by no means thought that his primacy was in any way harmed by that canon. 2) But, even omitting these things, the objected canon was not composed for prescribing limits to the Roman Pontiff, but for protecting the rights of the Patriarch of Alexandria. For when Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis, had dared to ordain Bishops in Egypt, the Patriarch of Alexandria raised complaints; hence the Council ordered the ancient custom to be preserved. Therefore if any comparison is made between the Roman and Alexandrian Sees, it regards that in which those Sees agree. But they do not agree with respect to the right of Primacy; for no one ever asserted a Primacy of the Alexandrian See. Therefore the rights of the Roman Primacy cannot be said to have been restricted to certain Provinces. But among critics there is a question whether it was treating of the Roman Pontiff as Primate of the Bishops of Italy, or as Patriarch of the whole West. It matters little to us to settle this dispute, since it is enough for us that it was not treating of the right of Primacy over the universal Church. Yet it seems that in that canon it is rather a question of primatial rights over the Bishops of Italy; for according to Epiphanius, heresy 68, and Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, book 1, chapter 9, only this one right had been violated by the Meletian ordinations. And in the age of Nicaea, as is also clear from the subscriptions in the Council of Chalcedon, Egypt did not yet have any Metropolitan who would be subject to Alexandria as to a Patriarch. 3) Moreover, that canon, if it is translated literally into Latin, has this: “Let the ancient customs be observed which are in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, so that the Bishop of Alexandria may have power over all these, since this also is customary for the Bishop of Rome.” Now to what must that “this” be referred, that is, “this is customary”? Certainly to the immediately preceding things, namely to the authority of the Bishop of Alexandria in the provinces mentioned; nor is there anything else in the whole canon to which it could be referred in any way. Hence the sense of the whole canon is clear and genuine: “Let the old custom be observed, according to which the Bishop of Alexandria has jurisdiction in Egypt, etc.; because this is the custom which the Roman Pontiff follows”; or, “which is received among the Roman Pontiff and approved by him”; or in other words: since it is the custom with the Roman Pontiff that the Bishop of Alexandria have care of Egypt, he has this care by right. Thus Baronius, Bellarmine, and among more recent authors Bouix interpret the canon (On Bishops, part 4, section 1, chapter 1, sec. 2). But what is there in this that imposes limits on the Roman Primacy? Indeed, by the very fact that the question is defined from the custom of the Roman Pontiff, his Primacy is acknowledged. But the version, or compendious paraphrase, of Rufinus ought in no way to move us, both because it is known that Rufinus was often less faithful in translating Greek writings, and because that paraphrase is foreign to the Greek text, as it is had in the Council of Nicaea itself and in the Council of Chalcedon, according to the Legates and Aetius.
937. You will say, IV: The preeminence of the Roman See seems to take its origin from the Synod of Sardica, which decreed almost all the prerogatives for the same See. But once the Roman See had obtained power, it was easy for it to extend that power more and more each day. I answer: It is altogether absurd to ascribe the preeminence of the Roman See to the Council of Sardica. For 1) the Council of Sardica was held in the fourth century of the Church; as we have seen, almost innumerable old monuments exist, belonging to the four earlier centuries, by which it is established that the excellence of the Roman See had long since flourished. Certainly in the second century Tertullian called the Roman Bishop “Bishop of Bishops”; and at the beginning of the same century St. Irenaeus called the Roman Church the center of unity “because of its more powerful principality.” 2) Indeed, the Synod of Sardica itself was held by the work and command of Julius I, the Roman Pontiff; Hosius presided over the council as legate of the Roman Pontiff, just as he had presided over the First Council of Nicaea. Finally, the Synod of Sardica was held so that the sentence of restitution, already passed by Julius I, to whom Athanasius, Marcellus, Asclepas, Paul, and Lucius, deposed by the Arians, had appealed, might also be confirmed by the vote of the Council. Therefore the Roman Bishop did not receive the primacy from the Synod of Sardica; on the contrary, from the primacy of the Roman Bishop the Synod of Sardica had its existence and dignity. 3) Finally, the Synod of Sardica openly supposes the primacy of the Roman Bishop. For it recognized the right of appeal from the whole world to the Roman Bishop. The unanimous Fathers give this reason for this matter in canon 3: lest in the person of the successor the honor due to blessed Peter be denied. Everyone sees that this reason would have been futile unless in the successors they recognized those same prerogatives of primacy which had been proper to blessed Peter.
938. You will say, V: The offices which are said to be proper to the Primacy seem to be common to all Bishops; therefore the Roman Bishop does not seem to obtain the Primacy before the rest. The antecedent is proved. To Bishops there belongs: 1) care of the universal Church. St. Ignatius Martyr, in the letter to the Philadelphians, attributes to Bishops “the ministry of the common Church”; St. Cyprian, in his letter to Quintus, hands down to Bishops that “the balance of governing the Church is to be held”; Venantius, in the Council of Carthage under St. Cyprian, “commends the spouse of Christ” to Bishops; Alexander, Patriarch of Alexandria, in his encyclical letter, says that “the body of the Catholic Church has been handed over” to Bishops; finally Hormisdas, in letter 77, writes that “a similar care of the faith has been committed” to him together with himself. 2) To Bishops belongs the power of making laws for the universal Church; for St. Gregory Nazianzen recounts concerning St. Athanasius that “he again prescribed laws to the whole world.” But Athanasius himself, in his Synodical letter, testifies that a Council was celebrated by him “from Italy, Arabia, and Libya.” 3) But generally St. Jerome writes, in his letter to Evagrius: “If authority is sought, the world is greater than a city. Why do you bring before me the custom of one city? Wherever a Bishop has been, whether at Rome, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, or Alexandria, or Tanis, he is of the same merit, of the same Priesthood.” It is answered: the antecedent is denied. To the first, however, I answer by distinguishing: care of the universal Church belongs to Bishops from charity, I concede; from authority, either I deny or subdistinguish: to Bishops collectively taken together with the Roman Pontiff and dependently on him, I concede; otherwise, I deny. Therefore the common Church is not taken by St. Ignatius for the universal Church, but for one body formed from several communities, over which one Bishop of Philadelphia presided. The “balance of governing the Church,” according to Cyprian, is indeed to be held by Bishops, but for the part proper to each and with dependence. The Church in Venantius is certainly the spouse commended to Bishops, yet not the whole Church to each individually, nor to all by equal right and title. Alexander says that the body of the Catholic Church was handed over to Bishops, yet to each one for his own part; hence he teaches that peace and concord in that body are to be preserved under one head. Finally, Hormisdas is not speaking of a proper care, but of a vicarious care, which he had committed to the Bishop of Constantinople. To the second, I answer by distinguishing: Athanasius prescribed laws to the whole world by teaching, I concede; by commanding, I deny. The whole text has: “He also again prescribes laws to the whole world, and turns the minds of all to himself, sending letters to some, summoning others, and instructing certain others who came of their own accord.” But if Bishops from another Patriarchate were present in the Council of Alexandria, this was not done by the command of Athanasius, but by the zeal for faith of those Bishops themselves; for since the Pontifical Legates, Lucifer of Cagliari and Eusebius of Vercelli, were then in the East, they were present at the synod. To the third, I answer: St. Jerome is not treating of the authority of the Pontiff, but of the Roman custom according to which Deacons preferred themselves to Presbyters. Moreover he asserts equality among Bishops, but by reason of order, not of jurisdiction.
939. You will say, VI, with Palmer (part 7, chapter 3): The Primacy which the Roman Pontiff held over the other churches in antiquity must be referred not to divine right, but to purely human causes. Certainly these causes were: 1) the immense number of the faithful, both clerics and laity, even though the Roman Church was suffering most terrible persecutions; 2) the great riches and extraordinary charity of the same Church; 3) its apostolic origin; 4) its pure faith and ardent zeal in condemning heretics, even from the earliest times. Indeed, while the Arian madness was favorable, the Roman Church was the bulwark of the faith; 5) the temporal dignity of the city of Rome, etc. I answer: 1) The origin of the Roman Primacy is not to be imagined a priori; its true cause has been sufficiently manifested and demonstrated by us. And indeed, several of the listed circumstances can be conditions introduced by divine providence, so that the Primacy of Peter might fittingly be constituted at Rome; but they are not causes why the prerogatives of that Primacy existed. It was certainly by divine providence that Jerusalem, the metropolis of the Jewish people rejected by God in punishment for the committed deicide, was replaced by Rome, the metropolis of the nations, so that that city which was the center of all nations and of ethnic superstition might become the center of the religion to which all nations were being called: “so that the light of truth,” says St. Leo the Great (sermon 83, no. 3), “which was being revealed for the salvation of all nations, might pour itself out more effectively from the very head through the whole body of the world.” But once the center of the Christian religion was constituted in the Roman city, it was plainly consequent that the Christian religion would exert its life there in a special way. 2) Hence most of the circumstances mentioned were nothing other than effects of the primacy constituted in the Roman See through Peter. “For therefore the clergy and faithful people abounded so greatly at Rome, because of the presence of the chair of Peter; therefore the Roman Church was called the See of Peter, because, from the things said, Peter joined the primacy to it in his stable residence; the purity of faith was always preserved in the Roman Church ‘because of its more powerful principality,’ as St. Irenaeus speaks, or because of possession of the primacy; all the more because the Fathers assert the inerrancy of the Roman Church in perpetuity because of the promises of Christ made to Peter, certainly by reason of the primacy.” 3) As we have seen, the Fathers and Councils teach that Peter received the primacy immediately from Christ, but they venerate the Roman Bishop in no other way than as the legitimate successor of Peter. Behold, therefore, the reason on account of which they ascribe a more eminent power to the Roman Bishop. It is one thing to ask why the Roman Bishop is the successor of St. Peter, about which below; another thing to ask why the successor of St. Peter, who now is the Roman Bishop, obtains the primacy, about which we are now treating. The reason for this is the divine ordinance which we have asserted; nor could the very many sayings of the Fathers be understood otherwise, when they say with Irenaeus, “it is necessary that all Churches come together to this Church [the Roman]”; with Cyprian, “the unity of the Catholic Church is proved through communion with that [Roman Church]”; with Ambrose, “the Church is where Peter is,” namely, the Roman Pontiff; with Jerome, “they are Christ’s who adhere to the Roman Bishop”; with Augustine, “the universal flock was handed over by Christ to be fed by the Roman Pontiff in the person of Peter.”
940. You will say, VII: Once succession in the Primacy by divine right is admitted, the indefectibility and visibility of the Church seem to be destroyed. For then, from the institution of Christ, the successor of St. Peter would be an essential part of the Church, just as the Head is an essential part of the body. But the successor of St. Peter is lacking when the See is vacant, and is not certainly knowable in the case of a doubtful Pontiff. Therefore then the Church would cease to exist, or would become invisible. I answer: The Church, as we have heard from the Apostle, must indeed be held as a body to which it is essential to have a Head (no. 420), and indeed, since it is a body formally visible as the mystical body of Christ, it must have a visible head. Nevertheless, just as it is not a certain physical body, or physically one body, but a moral body, so it is not necessary that it always have a head in the way required in a physical body, but in the way required in a moral body. Now the nature of a moral body, or of a society, does not allow that the head always be in it in act without any interruption, since he who is the head, who possesses supreme authority, dies, and after his death a successor is had. Therefore in the same way it must be admitted that there is always a visible head in the Church, which is a society. But just as a kingdom does not perish because of the death of the king, if a successor must be had, so the Church does not fail by the death of its supreme Ruler, whose successor is to be elected. Nor does the Church become invisible in any way. For when the Head is lacking, or exists doubtfully, there remains in the Church the necessity of having a certain Head; there remains the means which is able and ought to elect or designate that Head; there remains the common profession of faith concerning the necessity of this kind of Head, and a sincere disposition of souls toward accepting him when legitimately designated; finally, there remains the action both of those who demand, and of those who take care that the Head be designated. Therefore in all these things the true Church of Christ remains visible with its visible Head, who is the successor of St. Peter. Compare what was said (no. 672). Section V The Opinion Is Established Which Affirms That the Primacy Is Annexed to the Roman See by Divine Right.
941. To understand the force of the arguments which will immediately be brought forward, it is helpful to note: 1) that the assumption cannot properly be demonstrated except from revelation; for what is of divine right requires immediate divine institution. But immediate divine institution becomes known only from revelation. Since, however, we have nothing here from Scripture, the word of God handed down by mouth must be investigated. 2) If from tradition it is established that the Primacy is annexed by divine right to the Roman episcopate, by that very fact it is inseparable from it. Yet authors are not lacking who defend this kind of inseparability by some argument which seems to be taken from other principles; we shall also present that argument just as it stands. 3) There are certain considerations, as it were a priori, which, viewed in themselves, if they do not demonstrate the matter, at least make it most probable. These also we shall propose, all the more because, when compared with the testimonies of tradition, they seem altogether to prove the matter.
942. Therefore I. It is a historical fact already demonstrated that up to these times the Roman Pontiff has always been held as the supreme Head of the Church. But this, as is also certainly established, had its origin from the fact that Peter, constituted by Christ as Head of the Church, came to Rome, fixed his See there, and died there. Therefore he joined the Primacy to the Roman episcopate. Indeed, as we heard from Bellarmine, Peter raised the Roman episcopate itself to the supreme Pontificate; and in him first this proposition was verified: The Bishop of Rome obtains the Primacy by divine right over the universal Church. Now, once this fact exists, who will any longer be able to separate the Primacy from the Roman episcopate, with which Peter joined it? Certainly no authority outside the Church; for the Church is independent of that authority. Nor can the body of the faithful or of Pastors without the Head do it, as we have seen (no. 912). Therefore, if that separation could be made, it would have to be effected only by the successor of Peter himself. But not even the successor of Peter seems to have so great an authority. For although Christ himself did not determine the reason of succession in the Primacy conferred on Peter, but left it to him to be determined, nevertheless once Peter used that faculty, the faculty itself was, as it were, exhausted and ceased; so that the saying has place: “a thing done cannot become undone”; or, the Roman episcopate, having been raised to the supreme Pontificate, can no longer be stripped of that dignity. They explain this in several ways. For they say: 1) that the fact of Peter, even if it were not from divine right, must nevertheless be considered as a constitutive fact belonging to the fundamental statute of the Church; or 2) that the right of the primacy, by the fact of Peter, from a merely personal privilege became also a local privilege, and therefore intransferable; or 3) that if Christ, they say, did not himself immediately determine in the most specific kind the matter and form of certain Sacraments, he gave the Church the power of determining them. But, as all confess, once that determination was made, the power of the Church ceased in this respect, and that matter and form can no longer be changed. Therefore in the same way it would have to be said that, once the condition of succession in the Primacy was determined by Peter, it is no longer in the power of Peter’s successors to change that condition. Since, therefore, the Roman episcopate was so raised by Peter to the supreme Pontificate, one who afterward should abdicate from the Roman See and transfer himself to another See would by that very fact fall away from the dignity of the Primacy. And what Perrone writes seems to bear on this. “And this,” he says, “was very well known to that Pontiff residing at Avignon, of whom Francis Petrarch speaks (in the book of Letters Without Title, letter 15), in which he deplores the calamity of the city of Rome. For since the Pontiff was hostile to the Italians, one of his intimate associates advised him to snatch the papacy away from Rome and transfer it to Cahors in Gascony, so that in this way he might avenge himself on the Italians. The Pontiff received this counsel with laughter, replying: ‘You have deceived me; until now I had not known that you were mad. Do you not know, foolish man, that by this way which you seemed to yourself subtly to have established, both I and those who will succeed me would become bishops of Cahors,… but that he who presided at Rome would be Pope? Thus, while you think you are overthrowing the Italian name, you are lifting it up and restoring it to its ancient dignity… Let us not contend about titles; for whether we wish it or not, Rome will be the head of affairs…’ Namely, the Pontiff knew that no one who was not successor to Peter in the Roman chair could obtain the supreme pontificate, which is inseparably connected with succession of this kind.”
943. II. We approach certain a priori observations which suggest that Christ the Lord himself determined the reason of succession in the Primacy. And 1) it seems consonant with reason that Christ, who certainly willed the perpetuity of the Primacy, did not leave succession in it uncertain and, as it were, subject to discretion. But so that it would be certain and exposed to no contestation, there was no more suitable way than to define the certain mode by which it would be effected. 2) Indeed, in the Old Testament this certain reason of succession in the supreme Pontificate already obtained; but all the more does it seem to be admitted in the Church of Christ. For the Primacy of Peter, as we have seen, was instituted for preserving the unity of the Church, which is unity of faith and of government; hence for forestalling or restraining schisms, heresies, and dissensions. These goods could be obtained more certainly if not only perpetual succession in the Primacy were established, but also the place in which the Primacy would stand firm. For if the See of the Primacy had remained indeterminate, or at least mutable, dissensions could easily have arisen concerning the very principle of unity viewed in the concrete. Hence it is that the Fathers often exhibited the Roman Chair as a note of the Church; for from it Unity and Apostolicity proceed. 3) Once the See of the Primacy has been immutably established, the election of the successor is certainly made easier; with the successor of Peter always remaining in the same See, the universal practice of government is more safely preserved through usage and continuous tradition; the way of consulting for the necessary safety of the Church becomes clearer and safer, for by providing for the Papacy, the good of the whole Church is provided for. These things are confirmed by the very experience of the Roman Church, in which the Primacy has in fact remained up to now. But on the contrary, if the See of the Primacy is left uncertain and movable, given the mutability of all human affairs and taking account of human passions, the Primacy could often have migrated from one region to another; by this not only would those advantages be lost which we said arise from stability, but there would also be a cause of contrary evils.
944. III. The preceding a priori observations receive effective confirmation from others which are deservedly called a posteriori; for these seem to exhibit a tacit indeed, but most brilliant, testimony of tradition. And 1) during the first three centuries of the Church, the greatest persecution against Christians was raging especially at Rome; and yet neither the Pontiffs themselves nor others in the Church thought of transferring the See of the Primacy elsewhere. 2) After peace had been granted to the Church, Constantinople was made the capital of the Roman Empire and was therefore called new Rome; and yet no one thought that the See of the Primacy ought to have been transferred there. Indeed not even the Byzantines with all their ambition dared to contend that the See of the Primacy should be established among them, but at most they asked that the See of Constantinople be held second after the Roman. 3) Innumerable heresies arose, and not a few schisms existed. As heretics, so schismatics were condemned by the Roman Pontiff; many tried ways of avoiding a condemnation of this kind; nevertheless they never thought of transferring the Primacy to another See. Indeed, at the beginning of a heresy or schism, they themselves, as St. Cyprian speaks (book 1, letter 3), “sailed to the chair of Peter,” so that they might make it friendly to themselves; and the Donatists tried to establish a Bishop of their own sect at Rome, so that from there he might dominate the universal Church. 4) Generally, the Roman Pontiffs suffered the most terrible persecutions from Emperors and Kings, from Greek Patriarchs and Schismatics. It entered the mind of several persecutors to abolish or diminish the Primacy; yet no one hoped that it could be transferred elsewhere. “The Apostolic See remained at Rome,” says Bellarmine (On the Roman Pontiff, book 4, chapter 4), “notwithstanding infinite persecutions and occasions for departing. For first there was the greatest occasion for transferring the see from Rome to another place in the times of the ethnic emperors… Then again there was an occasion for transferring the see in the time of the Goths, etc… A third occasion for transferring the see was in the time of blessed Bernard because of the persecution of the Roman citizens themselves; for through many years the Roman citizens so harassed their own Pontiffs that they very often compelled the Pontiffs to go into exile from the City, as is clear both from the histories and from St. Bernard, in letter 242 to the Roman people and letter 243 to the emperor Conrad. A fourth occasion was when the Roman Pontiffs remained in Gaul for seventy years, etc.” Deservedly we ask here: whence did such a constant, such a universal persuasion, of friends and enemies, arise concerning the indissoluble bond between the Primacy and the Roman See? If the constitutive fact of that bond had been judged merely human and mutable by some authority, the haters of Pontifical authority would at some time have tried to break it.
945. IV. But let us see what tradition teaches concerning this matter. And 1) the things which Bellarmine has seem to obtain full force (book 4, chapter 4): “God himself,” he says, “commanded the Apostolic See of Peter to be fixed at Rome; but the things God commands cannot be changed by men. That God commanded this, blessed Marcellus, Pope and Martyr, testifies in his letter to the Antiochenes, where he says that Peter, at the Lord’s command, transferred his See from Antioch to Rome. Blessed Ambrose also testifies this in his oration On Handing Over the Basilicas, where he relates that Christ altogether willed that Peter should die at Rome. And for this reason, when Peter was fleeing, he said to him: I am coming to Rome to be crucified again. This is a manifest sign that God willed Peter’s See to be confirmed at Rome by Peter’s death.” Certain Protestants, namely Velenus, Peter, and Basnage, of course ridicule this history; but Foggini vigorously defended it (On the Roman Journey of Peter, exercise 17), as did Mazzochi in the Neapolitan Calendar, and others. Moreover, it is incredible that Ambrose would have proposed that history against Auxentius unless in his age the genuineness of it had been established. But the memory of the same history occurs in the Acts which are inscribed to St. Linus, as also in the Acts of Saints Processus and Martinian; Hegesippus also mentions it in book 3; and Origen seems to allude to the same thing in tome 21 on John, referring to it from the Acts of Paul, which perhaps once were published under the title Acts of Peter and Paul, such as those which Combefis reports from the royal Parisian library. Finally, St. Gregory the Great commemorates the same fact on Penitential Psalm 4. 2) The very testimonies which regard the successors of Peter in the Primacy, with no distinction made, and by the same reasoning, speak of the Roman Bishops, so that they seem to say that Christ, when conferring the Primacy on Peter, in him had regard to the Roman Church or the Roman Pontiffs as such. To recall as an example a few from the many that we have given, Pope Gelasius openly writes: “The holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church has been placed before the other Churches by no synodical constitutions, but has obtained the primacy by the evangelical voice of our Lord and Savior: Thou art Peter,” etc.; just as if the words of the Lord to Peter had been directed immediately to the Roman Church. Similarly Pelagius II, letter 1, says: “The Roman See, by the Lord’s institution, is head of all the Churches”; St. Leo the Great, letter 12 to the Africans: “The reason of piety demands that, on account of the solicitude which by divine institution we owe to the universal Church, etc.” Recall the Sardican canons, and you will see the Roman Bishop, as such, considered as Head of the Church. 3) The same thing seems to be confirmed by the decrees of Councils. For a) the Second Ecumenical Synod of Nicaea, in Act 2, receives and approves the letter of Pope Adrian to Tarasius, in which these things are contained: “Whose See,” he says, “shining as it obtains the primacy throughout the whole world, and existing as the head of all the Churches of God, from the city of Rome, whence even blessed Peter himself, feeding the Church at God’s command, omitted nothing at all, but everywhere obtained and obtains the principate.” Here it seems altogether to be treating also of the right of the see, and not only of the right of the person. b) The Fourth Lateran Council under Innocent III, in which Greeks and Latins were present together, says in canon 5: “The Roman Church, by the Lord’s disposition, obtains over all others the principate of ordinary power, as mother and mistress of all the faithful of Christ.” Here that phrase “by the Lord’s disposition” affects the Roman Church itself. c) Likewise the Council of Lyons, in which Greeks and Latins were present under Gregory X, calls the Roman Bishop Vicar of Christ, successor of Peter, ruler of the universal Church. Therefore these attributes are ascribed simply to the Roman Bishop, and indeed absolutely and for all time; and on that account they seem to inhere in the Roman Bishop as such, so that the Roman Bishop, as such, is Vicar of Christ, successor of Peter, ruler of the universal Church. 4) But here especially one must recall the definition of the Council of Florence, renewed by the Vatican Council, which we reported above (no. 903). The Council teaches “that it is to be believed by all the faithful of Christ… that the Roman Pontiff holds the Primacy over the whole world… that he himself is the successor of blessed Peter… and that to him, in blessed Peter, full power of ruling the universal Church was handed over by our Lord Jesus Christ.” Hence: here it is a question of some matter which, as being infallibly true, is proposed as to be believed, and therefore must always be true. But what is that matter, or what is the object of this definition? That the Roman Pontiff holds the Primacy, is the successor of St. Peter, and that to him in blessed Peter supreme power was handed over. But if the Primacy were separable from the Roman episcopate, it would not always be true that the Roman Bishop holds the Primacy and is Peter’s successor. Therefore the Primacy is inseparable from the Roman episcopate. Will it be said that it has been defined that the Roman Bishop, as successor of Peter, and not as Roman Bishop, holds the Primacy, so that the sense of the definition is: the successor of Peter, who now is the Roman Pontiff, holds the primacy? But a) an interpretation of this kind does violence to the words of the Council; for the subject of the definition, to whom the Primacy is attributed, is the Roman Pontiff. Therefore it must always be true of him that he holds the Primacy. b) At least it is never lawful to depart from the obvious and natural sense of a definition without a compelling reason. But here there is no compelling reason, since it is possible that Christ himself ordered the Primacy to be joined with the Roman See; indeed since, independently of this conciliar definition, that conjunction from divine right is at least most probable. c) But furthermore the Council defines not only that the Roman Pontiff holds the Primacy, but also that he himself is the successor of blessed Peter; therefore it must always be true that he is such. But can the sense of this definition be: the Roman Pontiff, as successor of St. Peter, is successor of St. Peter? Everyone sees the absurdity of this interpretation. d) Hence also the Vatican Council, in the cited canon (no. 902), after first defining perpetual succession by divine right in the Primacy of Peter, adds: “If anyone shall say… that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same Primacy, let him be anathema.” From this it is confirmed that it must be true in perpetuity that the Roman Pontiff is successor of St. Peter. But the successor of St. Peter will always be so by divine institution, and will always hold the Primacy. Therefore the Roman Pontiff will always hold the Primacy; or, the Primacy is inseparable from the Roman See.
946. Scholion. Supposing the truth of the doctrine which we here defend, one may rightly ask what would happen if Rome were destroyed. To this question one could answer: 1) if the doctrine set forth truly implies the perpetual existence of the city of Rome, it must be said that Rome is never to be destroyed, and therefore that it is an eternal city, as the old tradition of the pagans held. “Nor is it an obstacle,” says Bellarmine (loc. cit.), “that in the time of Antichrist Rome seems to be desolated and burned, as is deduced from chapter 17 of the Apocalypse. For this will not happen except at the end of the world, and besides, even then the Supreme Pontiff will be called and will be the Roman Pontiff, although he does not dwell at Rome, just as happened in the time of Totila, king of the Goths, as we said above. Add that Augustine and many others do not wish in that place of the Apocalypse the city to be burned to be understood as Rome, but the multitude of the impious, which is the city of the devil.” 2) But, as the cited words of Bellarmine suggest, in order that the primacy be indivisibly annexed to the Roman See, it is not necessary that Rome, or even the Roman diocese itself, always exist. It is enough that the title subsist with the true right of ruling the Roman Church, if it exists and as long as it will exist. Now this title and right could subsist even if Rome were destroyed; whence whoever should succeed to this right and this title would be the true successor of Peter and would obtain the primacy over the universal Church. In fact, if the question is one of mere possibility, just as Rome can, with God permitting or disposing it, be destroyed, so it can be raised up again. But meanwhile the right of the Roman Pontiffs legitimately succeeding one another, namely of ruling the Roman Church as soon as it begins again to exist, would stand unchanged. The primacy would remain annexed to this right; nor is this in any way contradictory. Compare Suarez (On Faith, disputation 10, section 3, no. 11).
947. It can also be noted that from the doctrine just established there seems to follow what the same Bellarmine teaches: “Not only can the Roman Pontiff not err in faith, but neither can the particular Roman Church. But it must be observed here that the firmness of the Church in faith must be taken in one sense, and the firmness of the Pontiff in another. For the Pontiff cannot err by judicial error, that is, while he judges and defines a question of faith. But the Roman Church, that is, the Roman people and clergy, cannot err by personal error, so that absolutely all would err and there would be none in the Roman Church adhering to the Pontiff. For although each one separately can err, nevertheless this cannot happen, that all should err together, and the whole Roman Church become apostate.” “It must be observed besides,” Bellarmine continues, “that the Roman Church cannot err in the way explained… while the Apostolic See persists at Rome.” According to this sense, he says, our proposition is most true; for the cited authors, such as Popes and Martyrs Lucius and Felix; Popes and Confessors Agatho and Nicholas; likewise Cyril and Rufinus, asserted that not only the Pontiff, but also the Roman Church, cannot err. Besides, St. Cyprian (book 1, letter 3): “They dare to sail,” he says, “to the chair of Peter and the principal Church, nor do they consider that they are Romans to whom perfidy cannot have access.” St. Jerome (book 3, Apology Against Rufinus): “Know,” he says, “that the Roman See, praised by the apostolic voice, does not receive tricks of this kind; and that, even if an angel should announce otherwise than what has once been preached, it cannot be changed, being fortified by the authority of Paul.” St. Gregory Nazianzen: “Old Rome,” he says, “from ancient times has the right faith and always retains it, as befits the City which presides over the whole world, always to have an integral faith concerning God.” The testimonies of two Pontiffs can also be added. One is Martin V, who in the Bull which he issued with the Council of Constance approving, judged that those are to be held as heretics who think otherwise about the sacraments or articles of faith than the Roman Church thinks. The other is Sixtus IV, who first through the Synod of Complutum, and then also by himself, condemned the articles of Peter Oxoniensis, of which articles one was: the Church of the city of Rome can err. Although these things must be understood chiefly by reason of the Pontiff, nevertheless because the Roman Church is not the Pontiff alone, but the Pontiff and people, therefore when the Fathers or Pontiffs say that the Roman Church cannot err, they properly assert that in the Roman Church there will always be a Bishop teaching catholically and a people learning catholically. Compare La Civilta Cattolica, April 6, 1867.