The Supremacy of the Popes

The Church did not perish with Peter. It was ordained by Christ to endure until the consummation of time; and therefore, whatever official prerogatives were conferred upon Peter were not to cease with his death, but were to be transmitted to his successors from generation to generation.

The Church in every age stands as much in need of a Supreme Ruler as it did in the days of the Apostles. Indeed, even more so now, since the Church is now more widely diffused throughout the world and governed by men more frail than those of Apostolic times. A central power is more necessary than ever to preserve unity of faith and uniformity of discipline.

Whatever privileges, then, were conferred upon Peter and deemed essential to the governance of the Church, have been inherited by the Bishops of Rome, as the successors of the Prince of the Apostles—just as the constitutional powers first exercised by George Washington have passed to his successors in the Presidency of the United States.

Peter, it is true, besides the prerogatives inherent in his office, was endowed with the gift of inspiration and the power of working miracles. These two gifts are not claimed by the Pope, as they were personal to Peter and not essential to the ordinary government of the Church.

God acts toward His Church as we would towards a young and tender sapling. When we first plant it, we water it carefully and loosen the soil about its roots. But once it has taken deep root, we entrust it to the established laws of nature.

In like manner, when Christ first planted His Church, He nourished its infancy by miraculous agency; but once it had grown into a tree of fair and noble proportions, He entrusted it to be governed by the general laws of His Providence.

From what has already been said, you may easily infer that the arguments in favour of Peter’s Primacy bear equal force in proving the supremacy of the Popes.

As the present subject is of vast and solemn import, I shall now endeavour to demonstrate, from incontestable historical evidence, that the Popes have, from the days of the Apostles, continued to exercise supreme jurisdiction—not only in the Western Church until the Reformation, but also throughout the Eastern Church until the great schism of the ninth century.

An appeal is never made from a superior to an inferior court, nor even from one tribunal to another of equal jurisdiction. We do not appeal from Washington to Richmond, but from Richmond to Washington.

Now, if we find that the See of Rome, from the very beginning of Christianity, was entertaining and adjudicating appeals from the Oriental Churches, and that her decisions were held to be final and irrevocable, we must conclude that the supremacy of Rome over all the Churches is a matter not of theory, but of historical fact.

Let me present a few illustrations.

To begin with Pope St Clement, the third successor of St Peter, who is laudably mentioned by St Paul in one of his Epistles. When dissension and scandal broke out in the Church of Corinth, the matter was brought before Pope Clement. He at once exercised his supreme authority, addressing to the Corinthians letters of remonstrance and admonition.

So profound was the reverence entertained for these Epistles that for more than a century afterwards, it remained customary in Corinth to have them read publicly in their churches.

But why, one must ask, did the Corinthians appeal to Rome, far distant in the West, rather than to Ephesus, so near at hand in the East, where the Apostle St John was still living?

The answer is evident: the jurisdiction of Ephesus was local, while that of Rome was universal.

About the year 190, a dispute arose in the East concerning the proper day for celebrating Easter, and the matter was referred to Pope St Victor I. The Eastern Churches generally observed Easter on the day on which the Jews celebrated the Passover, while in the West, it was observed—then as now—on the first Sunday after the full moon following the vernal equinox.

St Victor, seeking uniformity, directed the Eastern Churches to conform to the Western practice, and his instructions were universally followed.

St Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, was martyred in the year 258. From his appeals to Pope St Cornelius and to Pope St Stephen, especially regarding the contentious question of baptism, from his writings and extensive correspondence, and indeed from the whole tenor of his episcopal governance, it is unmistakably evident that St Cyprian—and with him, the African episcopate—recognised and upheld the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.

Later, Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, around the middle of the third century, having heard that the Patriarch of Alexandria had expressed erroneous views on certain points of doctrine, demanded an explanation. The Patriarch, in obedience to his superior, promptly responded and vindicated his orthodoxy.

St Athanasius, the great Patriarch of Alexandria, in the fourth century, appealed to Pope Julius I from an unjust sentence passed against him by an Eastern council of bishops. The Pope reversed the decision of the Oriental prelates.¹⁶⁸

St Basil, Archbishop of Cæsarea in the same century, in his time of trial and adversity, sought and found protection in Pope Damasus.

St John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople, in the early fifth century, appealed to Pope Innocent I for redress against the injustices inflicted upon him by certain Eastern prelates and by Empress Eudoxia of Constantinople.

St Cyril appealed to Pope Celestine against Nestorius; and Nestorius, in turn, also submitted an appeal to the same Pontiff, who, after due deliberation, chose to support Cyril, thereby affirming the orthodox doctrine.

At a Synod held in 444, St Hilary, Archbishop of Arles in Gaul, deposed Celidonius, Bishop of Besançon, citing an alleged canonical impediment to his consecration. The deposed bishop, however, appealed to the Holy See, and both he and the Metropolitan travelled to Rome to lay their case before Pope Leo the Great. Following a careful investigation, Pope Leo declared the Synod's sentence invalid, revoked the censure, and restored Celidonius to his See.

The same Pontiff also rebuked Hilary for having irregularly deposed Projectus from his episcopal office.

What lends additional weight to this exercise of papal judicial authority is the fact that St Hilary was not an insubordinate or defiant prelate, but rather a pious and zealous bishop, esteemed by the whole Church. He is now venerated as a canonised Saint, and, after his death, Pope Leo affectionately referred to him as “Hilary of happy memory.”

The distinguished Church historian and Bishop of Cyrrhus, Theodoret, having been condemned by the pseudo-council of Ephesus in 449, appealed to Pope Leo the Great in the following moving words:

“I await the decision of your Apostolic See, and I supplicate your Holiness to succour me, who invoke your righteous and just tribunal; and to order me to hasten to you, and to explain to you my teaching, which follows the steps of the Apostles…. I beseech you not to scorn my application. Do not slight my grey hairs…. Above all, I entreat you to teach me whether to put up with this unjust deposition or not; for I await your sentence. If you bid me rest in what has been determined against me, I will rest, and will trouble no man more. I will look for the righteous judgment of our God and Saviour.” “To me,” continues Theodoret, “as Almighty God is my Judge, honour and glory are no object, but only the scandal that has been caused; for many of the simpler sort, especially those whom I have rescued from diverse heresies, seeing the See which has condemned me, now suspect that perhaps I truly am a heretic, being incapable themselves of discerning the accuracy of doctrine.”¹⁶⁹

Pope Leo declared the deposition invalid, and Theodoret was restored to his episcopal See.

John, Abbot of Constantinople, appealed from a decision rendered by the Patriarch of that city to Pope St Gregory I, who reversed the sentence of the Patriarch.

In 859, Photius addressed a letter to Pope Nicholas I, seeking the Pope’s confirmation of his election to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. When Pope Nicholas, following his conscience, refused to grant approval, Photius broke communion with the Catholic Church and became the author of the Greek schism.

These are but a few examples—chosen almost at random—from the pages of Church History. And what do we see?

We see prelates eminent in sanctity and learning, occupying the highest ecclesiastical positions in the Eastern Church, far removed from Roman influence, yet consistently appealing, in every age of the early Church, from the decisions of their own bishops and councils to the supreme judgment of the Holy See.

If this does not constitute superior jurisdiction, then I know not what superior authority could mean.

Christians of every denomination admit the orthodoxy of the Fathers of the first five centuries of the Church. No one has ever dared to question the faith of such pillars as Basil, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, and Leo.

They were universally recognised as guardians of the true doctrine, and as the living witnesses of “the faith once delivered to the saints.” They were to the Church of their time what Peter and Paul and James were to the Church in its infancy.

We instinctively consult them regarding the faith of those early ages—for to whom shall we go for the words of eternal life, if not to them?

Now, the Fathers of the Church, with one united voice, pay homage to the Bishops of Rome as their superiors.

The limited space I have allowed myself in this little volume does not permit me to include any direct extracts from the writings of the Fathers. However, for the benefit of any reader who may be unacquainted with the original languages or who does not possess the texts of the Fathers, I refer him to the excellent work entitled “The Faith of Catholics.” In that volume, he will find copious English translations from the early Christian writers, vindicating the Primacy of the Popes.

Ecumenical Councils provide another eloquent vindication of the supremacy of the Pope. An Ecumenical or General Council is an assembly of bishops from across the entire Catholic world, convened to deliberate on matters of doctrine or discipline. In the structure of the Church, such a council is analogous to the Executive and Legislative branches in Washington within the constitutional system of the United States.

Up to the present time, there have been nineteen Ecumenical Councils, including the First Vatican Council. Of these, the last eleven were held in the West, while the first eight were convened in the East.

I shall pass over the Western Councils, for it is universally admitted that they were subject to the authority of the Pope.

Let us focus instead, and briefly, on the influence exerted by the Holy See in the first eight Councils of the East:

1. First Council of Nicæa – A.D. 325
2. First Council of Constantinople – A.D. 381
3. Council of Ephesus – A.D. 431
4. Council of Chalcedon – A.D. 451
5. Second Council of Constantinople – A.D. 553
6. Third Council of Constantinople – A.D. 680
7. Second Council of Nicæa – A.D. 787
8. Fourth Council of Constantinople – A.D. 869

In all these Councils, the Bishops of Rome either convoked the assembly themselves or at least gave formal consent to its convocation. In each of them—with the exception of the first and second Councils of Constantinople—they presided by their legates, and in every single case, the Council's decrees required papal confirmation to possess the force of law.

Just as our Congressional legislation in the United States requires the President’s signature before becoming binding, so too the Acts of these Ecumenical Councils did not become authoritative in the Church until they received the Pope’s ratification.

Is not this a striking illustration of the Primacy? The Pope convenes, rules, and ratifies the Synods, not by courtesy, but by right. A dignitary who summons an assembly, presides over its deliberations, and whose signature is necessary to confirm its decrees, unquestionably holds a higher authority than the other members.

I now refer to one more historical witness in favour of the Pope’s universal jurisdiction—a fact both remarkable and indisputable: every nation hitherto converted from Paganism to Christianity since the days of the Apostles has received the light of the Gospel from missionaries who were either specially commissioned by the See of Rome, or who acted in open communion with that See.

This historical pattern is without exception. Let us briefly consider a few prominent examples:

• Ireland’s Apostle is St Patrick. Who sent him? Pope St Celestine, in the fifth century.
• St Palladius, Apostle of Scotland — likewise commissioned by Pope Celestine.
• The Anglo-Saxons were converted by St Augustine, a Benedictine monk, whose mission is affirmed by all historians, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.
• Who empowered Augustine to preach? Pope Gregory I, at the close of the sixth century.
• St Remigius established the faith in France toward the end of the fifth century, while in full communion with the See of Peter.
• Flanders received the Gospel in the seventh century from St Eligius, who acknowledged the supremacy of the reigning Pope.
• Germany and Bavaria honour St Boniface—originally known as Winfrid, an Englishman—as their Apostle.
• He was commissioned by Pope Gregory II at the beginning of the eighth century, and was consecrated bishop by the same Pontiff.
• In the ninth century, two saintly brothers, Cyril and Methodius, evangelised Russia, Sclavonia, Moravia, and other northern regions of Europe.
• They faithfully acknowledged the authority of Pope Nicholas I, and of his successors Adrian II and John VIII.

This unbroken line of missionary commission, proceeding from or confirmed by the See of Rome, forms a compelling testimony to the Papal supremacy in the Church’s evangelising mission throughout history.

In the eleventh century, Norway was converted to Christianity by missionaries brought from England by the Norwegian King, St Olave.

The conversion of Sweden was accomplished during the same period through the labours of the British Apostles, St Ulfrid and St Eskill. Both of these nations, immediately after their conversion, began to pay Romescot—a small annual tribute to the Holy See—which serves as clear and concrete evidence of their communion with the Chair of Peter.¹⁷⁰

All the other nations of Europe, having been converted prior to the Reformation, received the light of the Gospel from Roman Catholic missionaries, for at that time Europe recognised but one Christian Chief.

Passing beyond Europe to Asia and America, the facts are no less striking. In the sixteenth century, St Francis Xavier and his fellow missionaries—evangelists aflame with zeal—carried the Kingdom of Jesus Christ to India and Japan, and did so in full communion with the Holy See.

Likewise, those missionaries who in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries brought the Gospel to the aboriginal tribes of South America and Mexico had received their apostolic mandate from the Chair of Peter.

But one may ask: Do you claim the people of the United States, who profess to be a Christian nation, as part of this Roman inheritance?

Most certainly.

Even those American Christians who are now, by unhappy division, separated from the Catholic Church, owe their initial knowledge of the Gospel to missionaries in communion with the Holy See.

The white races of North America trace their descent to England, Ireland, Scotland, and the nations of continental Europe. These European peoples were converted by missionaries under the authority of Rome. Therefore, regardless of your denominational creed, if you are descended from any part of Christianised Europe, you are indebted to the Church of Rome for your knowledge of Christianity.

Do not these facts clearly demonstrate the Primacy of the Pope? The Apostles of Europe and of other nations received their authority from Rome. And surely—is not the power that sends an ambassador greater than he who is sent?

Thus we see that the name of the Pope is indelibly inscribed on every page of ecclesiastical history. The Sovereign Pontiff stands ever before us as the commander-in-chief in the grand army of the Church.

Do the bishops of the East find themselves aggrieved by their Patriarchs or civil rulers? They look to Rome for redress, as to the star of their hope.

Are the Fathers and Doctors of the early Church consulted? With one voice they all offer homage to the Bishop of Rome, acknowledging him as their spiritual Prince.

Is an Ecumenical Council to be convened, whether in East or West? The Pope is its guiding authority and presiding spirit.

Are new nations to be converted to the Christian faith? The Holy Father clothes the missionaries with authority and sends them forth with his apostolic blessing.

Are new errors to be condemned anywhere in the Christian world? All eyes turn to Rome to hear the Pope’s judgement, and when the anathema is pronounced, his solemn verdict echoes throughout the globe.

You might as well attempt to shut out the light of day or exclude the air of heaven from your daily life as to remove the Pope from his rightful and necessary place in the hierarchy of the Church.

Indeed, the history of the United States without its Presidents would be more intelligible than the history of the Church without reference to the Vicar of Christ.

And how, I ask, could such an authority endure through the centuries if it were merely a usurpation?

But some will object: “The supremacy of the Pope has been disputed in many ages.” Yes—and so has the authority of God. Indeed, His very existence has been denied. For, as it is written:

“The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”¹⁷¹

Does such denial destroy the existence or dominion of God? Has not parental authority been questioned from the beginning? But by whom? By unruly children. Was David no longer king because Absalom claimed his throne?

So it is likewise with the Popes. Their paternal authority has been resisted only by undutiful sons, weary of bearing the yoke of the Gospel.

• Photius, the instigator of the Greek schism, remained obedient to the Pope until Pope Nicholas I refused to acknowledge his usurped authority.
• Henry VIII, once a vigorous defender of the Pope's supremacy, turned against Clement VII only after the Pontiff declined to sanction his adulterous union.
• Martin Luther, too, was at first professedly submissive to the Holy See—until Pope Leo X condemned his errors.

You cannot, dear reader, profess to be a loyal citizen of the United States while at the same time denying the constitutional authority of its President. Likewise, if the Bishop of Rome is appointed not by man but by Jesus Christ, the President of the Christian commonwealth, then you cannot claim to be a true citizen of the Church so long as you reject the legitimate supremacy of its Divinely constituted Head.

“He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.”
— Luke 11:23 (NRSV-CE)

How then can one be with Christ if he stands against His Vicar?

The great tragedy of our times is the division among those who profess the name of Christ. From countless hearts arises a yearning cry for unity of faith and union of churches.

It was undoubtedly with this noble intention that the Evangelical Alliance convened in New York in the autumn of 1873. Delegates from various religious communities gathered in the hope of realising reunion. But the effort, however sincere, was lamentably fruitless. Indeed, the only tangible outcome was the formation of a new sect under the leadership of Dr Cummins.

Thus, when unity is sought apart from the Divinely established centre—the See of Peter—it produces not reconciliation, but further fragmentation.

That reverend gentleman, with the characteristic modesty of all religious reformers, was determined to improve upon the work of Jesus Christ. And, like so many others of his kind, he echoed the words of those who once sought to build the tower of Babel:

“Let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”¹⁷²

The Evangelical Alliance failed, and failed inevitably, because its members lacked a common platform on which to stand. There was no voice in that assembly empowered to say with divine authority: “Thus says the Lord.”

I, too, join heartily in the prayer for Christian unity, and I would gladly surrender my life for such a blessed consummation. But I must tell you, in all fidelity, that Jesus Christ has already pointed out the only means by which this unity can be secured—namely, the recognition of Peter and his successors as the visible Head of His Church.

Build upon this foundation, and you shall not construct a tower of Babel, nor build upon shifting sands.

If all Christian sects were reunited with the centre of unity, then the scattered hosts of Christendom would become one mighty army, before which atheism and infidelity could not long stand. Then, indeed, we could all proclaim with Balaam:

“How fair are your tents, O Jacob, and your encampments, O Israel!”¹⁷³

Let us pray, with one heart and one soul, that the day may soon come when religious dissensions shall cease, and when all Christians shall march forward with a united front, under one common leader, to plant the Cross in every land and to win new kingdoms to Jesus Christ.

Reference: ¹⁶⁸ Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, Book II, Chapter XV.

¹⁶⁹ Theodoret, Epistle 113.

¹⁷⁰ See Butler’s Lives of the Saints — St Olave, July 29th.

¹⁷¹ Psalm 53:1 (NRSV-CE)

¹⁷² Genesis 11:4 (NRSV-CE)
¹⁷³ Numbers 24:5 (NRSV-CE)