Catholic Encyclopedia: Pope, The

(Ecclesial Latin <papa> from Gr. <papas>, a variant of  <pappas> father, in classical
Latin <pappas> -- Juvenal, "Satires" 6:633).

The title pope, once used with far greater latitude (see below, section V), is at  present
employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his  position as
successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church,  the Vicar of Christ upon
earth. Besides the bishopric of the Roman Diocese,  certain other dignities are held by
the pope as well as the supreme and  universal pastorate: he is Archbishop of the
Roman Province, Primate of Italy  and the adjacent islands, and sole Patriarch of the
Western Church. The  Church's doctrine as to the pope was authoritatively declared in
the First Vatican Council in the Constitution "Pastor Aeternus". The four chapters of
that  Constitution deal respectively with the office of Supreme Head conferred on  St.
Peter, the perpetuity of this office in the person of the Roman pontiff,  the pope's
jurisdiction over the faithful, and his supreme authority to define  in all questions of
faith and morals. This last point has been sufficiently  discussed in the article
INFALLIBILITY, and will be only incidentally touched  on here.

 The present article is divided as follows:
I. Institution of a Supreme Head by Christ
II. Primacy of the Roman See
III. Nature and Extent of the Papal Power
IV. Jurisdictional Rights and Prerogatives of the Pope
V. Primacy of Honour: Titles and Insignia
VI. Election of the Popes
VII. Chronological List of the Popes

I. INSTITUTION OF A SUPREME HEAD BY CHRIST

The proof that Christ constituted St. Peter head of His  Church is found in the two
famous Petrine texts,  Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17.  In Matthew 16:17-19,  the
office is solemnly promised to the Apostle. In response to his profession  of faith in the
Divine Nature of his Master, Christ thus addresses him:.  "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-
Jona: because flesh and blood hath not  revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in
heaven. And I say to thee: That  thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my
church, and the gates of  hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys
of the  kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound
also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed  also in
heaven." The prerogatives here promised are manifestly personal to  Peter. His
profession of faith was not made as has been sometimes asserted, in  the name of the
other Apostles. This is evident from the words of Christ. He  pronounces on the
Apostle, distinguishing him by his name Simon son of John, a  peculiar and personal
blessing, declaring that his knowledge regarding the  Divine Sonship sprang from a
special revelation granted to him by the Father  (cf. Matthew 11:27). He further
proceeds to recompense this confession of His  Divinity by bestowing upon him a
reward proper to himself: "Thou art  Peter [<Cepha>, transliterated also <Kipha>] and
upon this rock [<Cepha>]  I will build my Church." The word for Peter and for rock in
the  original Aramaic is one and the same; this renders it evident that  the various
attempts to explain the term "rock" as having reference not to  Peter himself but to
something else are misinterpretations. It is Peter who is  the rock of the Church. The
term <ecclesia> (<ekklesia>) here employed is the Greek  rendering of the Hebrew
qahal, the name which denoted the Hebrew  nation viewed as God's Church (see
CHURCH, THE, I).

 Here then Christ  teaches plainly that in the future the Church will be the society of
those who  acknowledge Him, and that this Church will be built on Peter. The
expression  presents no difficulty. In both the Old and New Testaments the Church is
often  spoken of under the metaphor of God's house (Numbers 12:7; Jeremiah 12:7;
Osee 8:1; 9:15; 1 Cor. 3:9-17, Eph. 2:20-2; 1 Tim. 3:5; Hebrews 3:5;  I Peter 2:5). Peter is to
be to the Church what the foundation is in  regard to a house. He is to be the principle
of unity, of stability, and of  increase. He is the principle of unity, since what is not
joined to that  foundation is no part of the Church; of stability, since it is the firmness of
this foundation in virtue of which the Church remains unshaken by the storms  which
buffet her; of increase, since, if she grows, it is because new stones  are laid on this
foundation. It is through her union with Peter, Christ  continues, that the Church will
prove the victor in her long contest with the  Evil One: "The gates of hell shall not
prevail against it." There can  be but one explanation of this striking metaphor. The
only manner in which a  man can stand in such a relation to any corporate body is by
possessing  authority over it. The supreme head of a body, in dependence on whom all
subordinate authorities hold their power, and he alone, can be said to be the  principle
of stability, unity, and increase. The promise acquires additional  solemnity when we
remember that both Old Testament prophecy (Isiah 28:16)  and Christ's own words
(Matthew 7:24) had attributed this office of  foundation of the Church to Himself. He is
therefore assigning to Peter, of  course in a secondary degree, a prerogative which is
His own, and thereby  associating the Apostle with Himself in an altogether singular
manner.

 In  the following verse (Matthew 16:19) He promises to bestow on Peter the keys  of
the kingdom of heaven. The words refer evidently to Isaiah 22:22, where  God declares
that Eliacim, the son of Helcias, shall be invested with office  in place of the worthless
Sobna: "And I will lay the key of the house of David  upon his shoulder: and he shall
open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut  and none shall open." In all countries the
key is the symbol of authority.  Thus, Christ's words are a promise that He will confer
on Peter supreme power  to govern the Church. Peter is to be His vicegerent, to rule in
His place.  Further the character and extent of the power thus bestowed are indicated. It
is a power to "bind" and to "loose" -- words which, as is shown below, denote  the grant
of legislative and judicial authority. And this power is granted in  its fullest measure.
Whatever Peter binds or looses on earth, his act will  receive the Divine ratification. The
meaning of this passage does not seem to  have been challenged by any writer until the
rise of the sixteenth-century  heresies. Since then a great variety of interpretations have
been put forward  by Protestant controversialists. These agree in little save in the
rejection  of the plain sense of Christ's words. Recent Anglican controversy tends to the
view that the reward promised to St. Peter consisted in the prominent part  taken by
him in the initial activities of the Church, but that he was never  more than <primus
inter pares> among the Apostles (see Lightfoot, "Apost.  Fathers", II, 480; Gore, "Roman
Cath. Claims", v; Puller, "Primitive Saints,  etc.", lect. 3). It is manifest that this is quite
insufficient as an  explanation of the terms of Christ's promise. For a more detailed
consideration of the passage the following works may be consulted:  Knabenbauer, "In
Matt.", ad loc; Passaglia, " De Praerog. B. Petri.", II,  iii-x; Palmieri "De Rom. Pont.", 225-
78.

 The promise made by Christ in Matthew 16:16-19, received its fulfilment after  the
Resurrection in the scene described in John 21. Here the Lord,  when about to leave the
earth, places the whole flock -- the sheep and the  lambs alike -- in the charge of the
Apostle. The term employed in 21:16,  "Be the shepherd [<poimaine>] of my sheep"
indicates  that his task is not merely to feed but to rule. It is the same word as is  used in
Psalm 2:9 (Sept.): "Thou shalt rule [<poimaneis>] them with a  rod of iron". The scene
stands in striking parallelism with that of Matthew 16. As there the reward was given
to Peter after a profession of faith which  singled him out from the other eleven, so here
Christ demands a similar  protestation, but this time of a yet higher virtue: "Simon, son
of John,  <lovest> thou Me more than these" ? Here, too, as there, He bestows on the
Apostle an office which in its highest sense is proper to Himself alone. There  Christ
had promised to make Peter the foundation-stone of the house of God:  here He makes
him the shepherd of God's flock to take the place of Himself,  the Good Shepherd. The
passage receives an admirable comment from St.  Chrysostom: "He saith to him, 'Feed
my sheep'. Why does He pass over the  others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was
the chosen one of the Apostles,  the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For
this reason Paul went  up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that
he must have  confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him
with the  rule [<prostasia>] over the brethren.... If anyone should say 'Why then  was it
James who received the See of Jerusalem?', I should reply that He made  Peter the
teacher not of that see but of the whole world" ["Hom. 88  (87) in Joan.", 1. Cf. Origen,
"In Ep. ad Rom.", 5:10; Ephraem Syrus "Hymn. in B. Petr." in "Bibl. Orient.  Assemani",
1:95; Leo I, "Serm. iv de natal.", 2].  Even certain Protestant commentators (e.g.
Hengstenberg and recently  Weizsecker) frankly own that Christ undoubtedly intended
here to confer the  supreme pastorate on Peter. On the other hand Dr. Gore (op. cit., 79)
and Mr.  Puller (op. cit., 119), relying on a passage of St. Cyril of Alexandria ("In  Joan."
12:1), maintain that the purpose of the  threefold charge was simply to reinstate St.
Peter in the Apostolic commission  which his threefold denial might be supposed to
have lost to him. This  interpretation is devoid of all probability. There is not a word in
Scripture  or in patristic tradition to suggest that St. Peter had forfeited his  Apostolic
commission; and the supposition is absolutely excluded by the fact  that on the evening
of the Resurrection he received the same Apostolic powers  as the others of the eleven.
The solitary phrase of St. Cyril is of no weight  against the overwhelming patristic
authority for the other view. That such an  interpretation should be seriously advocated
proves how great is the  difficulty experienced by Protestants regarding this text.

 The position of  St. Peter after the Ascension, as shown in the Acts of the Apostles,
realizes  to the full the great commission bestowed upon him. He is from the first the
chief of the Apostolic band -- not <primus inter pares>, but the undisputed head  of the
Church (see CHURCH, THE, III). If then Christ, as we have seen,  established His
Church as a society subordinated to a single supreme head, it  follows from the very
nature of the case that this office is perpetual, and  cannot have been a mere transitory
feature of ecclesiastical life. For the  Church must endure to the end the very same
organization which Christ  established. But in an organized society it is precisely the
constitution  which is the essential feature. A change in constitution transforms it into a
society of a different kind. If then the Church should adopt a constitution  other than
Christ gave it, it would no longer be His handiwork. It would no  longer be the Divine
kingdom established by Him. As a society it would have  passed through essential
modifications, and thereby would have become a human,  not a Divine institution.
None who believe that Christ came on earth to found  a Church, an organized society
destined to endure for ever, can admit the  possibility of a change in the organization
given to it by its Founder. The  same conclusion also follows from a consideration of the
end which, by  Christ's declaration, the supremacy of Peter was intended to effect. He
was to  give the Church strength to resist her foes, so that the gates of hell should  not
prevail against her. The contest with the powers of evil does not belong  to the
Apostolic age alone. It is a permanent feature of the Church's life.  Hence, throughout
the centuries the office of Peter must be realized in the  Church, in order that she may
prevail in her age-long struggle. Thus an  analysis of Christ's words shows us that the
perpetuity of the office of  supreme head is to be reckoned among the truths revealed in
Scripture. His  promise to Peter conveyed not merely a personal prerogative, but
established a  permanent office in the Church. And in this sense, as will appear in the
next  section, His words were understood by Latin and Greek Fathers alike.

II. PRIMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE

We  have shown in the last section that Christ conferred upon St. Peter the office  of
chief pastor, and that the permanence of that office is essential to the  very being of the
Church. It must now be established that it belongs of right  to the Roman See.  The
proof will fall into two parts: (a) that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and  (b) that those
who succeed him in that see succeed him also in the supreme headship.

(a) that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome

It is no longer  denied by any writer of weight that St. Peter visited Rome and suffered
martyrdom there (Harnack, "Chronol.", I, 244, n. 2). Some, however, of those  who
admit that he taught and suffered in Rome, deny that he was ever bishop of  the city e.
g. Lightfoot, "Clement of Rome", II, 501; Harnack, op. cit., I,  703. It is not, however,
difficult to show that the fact of his bishopric is  so well attested as to be historically
certain. In considering this point, it  will be well to begin with the third century, when
references to it become  frequent, and work backwards from this point. In the middle of
the third  century St. Cyprian expressly terms the Roman See the Chair of St. Peter,
saying that Cornelius has succeeded to "the place of Fabian which is the place  of Peter"
(Ep 55:8; cf. 59:14). Firmilian of Caesarea notices that Stephen  claimed to decide the
controversy regarding rebaptism on the ground that he  held the succession from Peter
(Cyprian, Ep. 75:17). He does not deny the  claim: yet certainly, had he been able, he
would have done so. Thus in 250 the  Roman episcopate of Peter was admitted by those
best able to know the truth,  not merely at Rome but in the churches of Africa and of
Asia Minor. In the  first quarter of the century (about 220) Tertullian (De Pud. 21)
mentions  Callistus's claim that Peter's power to forgive sins had descended in a  special
manner to him. Had the Roman Church been merely founded by Peter and  not
reckoned him as its first bishop, there could have been no ground for such  a
contention. Tertullian, like Firmilian, had every motive to deny the claim.  Moreover,
he had himself resided at Rome, and would have been well aware if  the idea of a
Roman episcopate of Peter had been, as is contended by its  opponents, a novelty
dating from the first years of the third century,  supplanting the older tradition
according to which Peter and Paul were  co-founders, and Linus first bishop. About the
same period, Hippolytus (for  Lightfoot is surely right in holding him to be the author
of the first part of  the "Liberian Catalogue" -- "Clement of Rome", 1:259) reckons Peter
in the  list of Roman bishops.

 We have moreover a poem, "Adversus Marcionem",  written apparently at the same
period, in which Peter is said to have passed  on to Linus "the chair on which he
himself had sat" (P.L., II 1077). These  witnesses bring us to the beginning of the third
century. In the second  century we cannot look for much evidence. With the exception
of Ignatius,  Polycarp, and Clement of Alexandria, all the writers whose works we
possess  are apologists against either Jews or pagans. In works of such a character  there
was no reason to refer to such a matter as Peter's Roman episcopate.  Irenaeus,
however, supplies us with a cogent argument. In two passages (Adv.  haer. 1:27:1, and
3:4:3) he speaks of Hyginus as ninth Bishop of  Rome, thus employing an enumeration
which involves the inclusion of Peter as  first bishop (Lightfoot was undoubtedly
wrong in supposing that there was any  doubt as to the correctness of the reading in the
first of these passages. See  "Zeitschrift fer kath. Theol.", 1902. In 3:4:3, the Latin version,
it is  true, gives "octavus"; but the Greek text as cited by Eusebius reads  <enatos>.
Irenaeus we know visited Rome in 177. At this date, scarcely more  than a century after
the death of St. Peter, he may well have come in contact  with men whose fathers had
themselves spoken to the Apostle. The tradition  thus supported must be regarded as
beyond all legitimate doubt. Lightfoot's  suggestion (Clement 1:64), maintained as
certain by Mr. Puller, that it had  its origin in the Clementine romance, has proved
singularly unfortunate. For  it is now recognized that this work belongs not to the
second, but to the  fourth century. Nor is there the slightest ground for the assertion
that the  language of Irenaeus, 3:3:3, implies that Peter and Paul enjoyed a  divided
episcopate at Rome -- an arrangement utterly unknown to the Church at  any period.
He does, it is true, speak of the two Apostles as together handing  on the episcopate to
Linus. But this expression is explained by the purpose of  his argument, which is to
vindicate against the Gnostics the validity of the  doctrine taught in the Roman Church.
Hence he is naturally led to lay stress  on the fact that that Church inherited the
teaching of both the great  Apostles. Epiphanius ("Haer." 27:6) would indeed seem  to
suggest the divided episcopate; but he has apparently merely misunderstood  the
words of Irenaeus.

 (b) that those who succeed  him in that see succeed him also in the supreme headship

History bears  complete testimony that from the very earliest times the Roman See has
ever  claimed the supreme headship, and that that headship has been freely
acknowledged by the universal Church. We shall here confine ourselves to the
consideration of the evidence afforded by the first three centuries. The first  witness is
St. Clement, a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and  Anacletus, succeeded St.
Peter as the fourth in the list of popes. In his  "Epistle to the Corinthians", written in 95
or 96, he bids them receive back  the bishops whom a turbulent faction among them
had expelled. "If any man", he  says, "should be disobedient unto the words spoken by
God through us, let them  understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight
transgression and  danger" (Ep. 59). Moreover, he bids them "render obedience unto the
things  written by us through the Holy Spirit". The tone of authority which inspires  the
latter appears so clearly that Lightfoot did not hesitate to speak of it  as" the first step
towards papal domination (Clement 1:70). Thus, at the  very commencement of church
history, before the last survivor of the Apostles  had passed away, we find a Bishop of
Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter,  intervening in the affairs of another Church and
claiming to settle the matter  by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy
Spirit. Such a fact  admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the
Apostolic  teaching was yet fresh in men's minds the universal Church recognized in
the  Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head.

 A few years later (about 107)  St. Ignatius of Antioch, in the opening of his letter to the
Roman Church,  refers to its presiding over all other Churches. He addresses it as
"presiding  over the brotherhood of love [<prokathemene tes agapes>] The expression,
as Funk rightly  notes, is grammatically incompatible with the translation advocated by
some  non-Catholic writers, "pre-eminent in works of love". The same century gives  us
the witness of St. Irenaeus -- a man who stands in the closest connexion  with the age of
the Apostles, since he was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who had  been appointed. Bishop
of Smyrna by St. John. In his work "Adversus Haereses"  (3:3:2) he brings against the
Gnostic sects of his day the argument that  their doctrines have no support in the
Apostolic tradition faithfully  preserved by the Churches, which could trace the
succession of their bishops  back to the Twelve. He writes: " Because it would be too
long in such a volume  as this to enumerate the successions of all the churches, we point
to the  tradition of that very great and very ancient and universally known Church,
which was founded and established at Rome, by the two most glorious Apostles,  Peter
and Paul: we point I say, to the tradition which this Church has from  the Apostles, and
to her faith proclaimed to men which comes down to our time  through the succession
of her bishops, and so we put to shame . . . all who  assemble in unauthorized meetings.
For with this Church, because of its  superior authority, every Church must agree -- that
is the faithful everywhere  -- in communion with which Church the tradition of the
Apostles has been  always preserved by those who are everywhere [Ad hanc enim
eoclesiam propter  potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire
ecclesiam, hoc est eos  qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique,
conservata  est ea que est ab apostolis traditio]". He then proceeds to enumerate the
Roman succession from Linus to Eleutherius, the twelfth after the Apostles,  who then
occupied the see. Non-Catholic writers have sought to rob the passage  of its
importance by translating the word <convenire> "to resort to", and thus  understanding
it to mean no more than that the faithful <from> every side  (<undique>) resorted to
Rome, so that thus the stream of doctrine in that Church  was kept immune from error.
Such a rendering, however, is excluded by the  construction of the argument, which is
based entirely on the contention that  the Roman doctrine is pure by reason of its
derivation from the two great  Apostolic founders of the Church, Sts. Peter and Paul.
The frequent visits  made to Rome by members of other Christian Churches could
contribute nothing  to this. On the other hand the traditional rendering is postulated by
the  context, and, though the object of innumerable attacks, none other possessing  any
real degree of probability has been suggested in its place (see Dom. J.  Chapman in
"Revue Benedictine", 1895, p. 48).

 During the pontificate of  St. Victor (189-98) we have the most explicit assertion of the
supremacy of  the Roman See in regard to other Churches. A difference of practice
between  the Churches of Asia Minor and the rest of the Christian world in regard to
the day of the Paschal festival led the pope to take action. There is some  ground for
supposing that the Montanist heretics maintained the Asiatic (or  Quartodeciman)
practice to be the true one: in this case it would be  undesirable that any body of
Catholic Christians should appear to support  them. But, under any circumstances, such
a diversity in the ecclesiastical  life of different countries may well have constituted a
regrettable feature in  the Church, whose very purpose it was to bear witness by her
unity to the  oneness of God (John 17:21). Victor bade the Asiatic Churches conform to
the custom of the remainder of the Church, but was met with determined  resistance by
Polycrates of Ephesus, who claimed that their custom derived  from St. John himself.
Victor replied by an excommunication. St. Irenaeus,  however, intervened, exhorting
Victor not to cut off whole Churches on account  of a point which was not a matter of
faith. He assumes that the nope can  exercise the power, but urges him not to do so.
Similarly the resistance of  the Asiatic bishops involved no denial of the supremacy of
Rome. It indicates  solely that the bishops believed St. Victor to be abusing his power in
bidding  them renounce a custom for which they had Apostolic authority. It was
indeed  inevitable that, as the Church spread and developed, new problems should
present themselves, and that questions should arise as to whether the supreme
authority could be legitimately exercised in this or that case. St. Victor,  seeing that
more harm than good would come from insistence, withdrew the  imposed penalty.

 Not many years since a new and important piece of  evidence was brought to light in
Asia Minor dating from this period. The  sepulchral inscription of Abercius, Bishop of
Hieropolis (d. about 200),  contains an account of his travels couched in allegorical
language (see  ABERCIUS, INSCRIPTION OF). He speaks thus of the Roman Church:
"To Rome He  [Christ] sent me to contemplate majesty: and to see a queen golden-robed
and golden-sandalled." It is difficult not to recognize in this description a  testimony to
the supreme position of the Roman See. Tertullian's bitter  polemic, "De Pudicitia"
(about 220), was called forth by an exercise of papal  prerogative. Pope Callistus had
decided that the rigid discipline which had  hitherto prevailed in many Churches must
be in u large measure relaxed.  Tertullian, now lapsed into heresy, fiercely attacks "the
peremptory edict",  which "the supreme pontiff, the bishop of bishops", has sent forth.
The words  are intended as sarcasm: but none the less they indicate clearly the position
of authority claimed by Rome. And the opposition comes, not from a Catholic  bishop,
but from a Montanist heretic.

 The views of St. Cyprian (d. 258) in  regard to papal authority have given rise to much
discussion (see CYPRIAN OF  CARTHAGE, SAINT). He undoubtedly entertained
exaggerated views as to the  independence of individual bishops, which eventually led
him into serious  conflict with Rome. Yet on the fundamental principle his position is
clear. He  attributed an effective primacy to the pope as the successor of Peter. He
makes communion with the See of Rome essential to Catholic communion, speaking  of
it as "the principal Church whence episcopal unity had its rise" (ad Petri  cathedram et
ad ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est).  The force of this
expression becomes clear when viewed in the light of his  doctrine as to the unity of the
Church. This was he teaches, established by  Christ when He founded His Church upon
Peter. By this act the unity of the  Apostolic college was ensured through the unity of
the foundation. The bishops  through all time form a similar college, and are bound in a
like indivisible  unity. Of this unity the Chair of Peter is the source. It fulfils the very
office as principle of union which Peter fulfilled in his lifetime. Hence to  communicate
with an antipope such as Novatian would be schism (Ep. 68:1).  He holds, also, that the
pope has authority to depose an heretical bishop.  When Marcian of Arles fell into
heresy, Cyprian, at the request of the bishops  of the province, wrote to urge Pope
Stephen "to send letters by which, Marcian  having been excommunicated, another may
be substituted in his place" (Ep.  68:3). It is manifest that one who regarded the Roman
See in this light  believed that the pope possessed a real and effective Primacy. At the
same  time it is not to be denied that his views as to the right of the pope to  interfere in
the government of a diocese already subject to a legitimate and  orthodox bishop were
inadequate. In the rebaptism controversy his language in  regard to St. Stephen was
bitter and intemperate. His error on this point does  not, however, detract from the fact
that he admitted a primacy, not merely of  honour but of jurisdiction. Nor should his
mistake occasion too much surprise.  It is as true in the Church as in merely human
institutions that the full  implications of a general principle are only realized gradually.
The claim to  apply it in a particular case is often contested at first, though later ages
may wonder that such opposition was possible.

 Contemporary with St.  Cyprian was St. Dionysius of Alexandria. Two incidents
bearing on the present  question are related of him. Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 7:9) gives us a
letter  addressed by him to St. Xystus II regarding the case of a man who, as it
appeared, had been invalidly baptized by heretics, but who for many years had  been
frequenting the sacraments of the Church. In it he says that he needs St.  Xystus's advice
and begs for his decision (<gnomen>), that he may not fall into  error (<dedios me hara
sphallomai>). Again, some years later, the same patriarch occasioned anxiety  to some
of the brethren by making use of some expressions which appeared  hardly compatible
with a full belief in the Divinity of Christ. They promptly  had recourse to the Holy See
and accused him to his namesake, St. Dionysius of  Rome, of heretical leanings. The
pope replied by laying down authoritatively  the true doctrine on the subject. Both
events are instructive as showing us  how Rome was recognized by the second see in
Christendom as empowered to speak  with authority on matters of doctrine. (St.
Athanasius, "De sententia  Dionysii" in P. G., XXV, 500). Equally noteworthy is the
action of Emperor  Aurelian in 270. A synod of bishops had condemned Paul of
Samosata, Patriarch  of Alexandria, on a charge of heresy, and had elected Domnus
bishop in his  place. Paul refused to withdraw, and appeal was made to the civil power.
The  emperor decreed that he who was acknowledged by the bishops of Italy and the
Bishop of Rome, must be recognized as rightful occupant of the see. The  incident
proves that even the pagans themselves knew well that communion with  the Roman
See was the essential mark of all Christian Churches. That the  imperial Government
was well aware of the position of the pope among  Christians derives additional
confirmation from the saying of St. Cyprian that  Decius would have sooner heard of
the proclamation of a rival emperor than of  the election of a new pope to fill the place
of the martyred Fabian (Ep. 55:9).

  The limits of the present article prevent us from carrying the  historical argument
further than the year 300. Nor is it in fact necessary to  do so. From the beginning of the
fourth century the supremacy of Rome is writ  large upon the page of history. It is only
in regard to the first age of the  Church that any question can arise. But the facts we
have recounted are  entirely sufficient to prove to any unprejudiced mind that the
supremacy was  exercised and acknowledged from the days of the Apostles. It was not
of course  exercised in the same way as in later times. The Church was as yet in her
infancy: and it would be irrational to look for a fully developed procedure  governing
the relations of the supreme pontiff to the bishops of other sees.  To establish such a
system was the work of time, and it was only gradually  embodied in the canons. There
would, moreover, be little call for frequent  intervention when the Apostolic tradition
was still fresh and vigorous in  every part of Christendom. Hence the papal
prerogatives came into play but  rarely. But when the Faith was threatened, or the vital
welfare of souls  demanded action, then Rome intervened. Such were the causes which
led to the  intervention of St. Dionysius, St. Stephen, St. Callistus, St. Victor, and St.
Clement, and their claim to supremacy as the occupants of the Chair of Peter  was not
disputed. In view of the purposes with which, and with which alone,  these early popes
employed their supreme power, the contention, so stoutly  maintained by Protestant
controversialists, that the Roman primacy had its  origin in papal ambition, disappears.
The motive which inspired these men was  not earthly ambition, but zeal for the Faith
and the consciousness that to  them had been committed the responsibility of its
guardianship. The  controversialists in question even claim that they are justified in
refusing  to admit as evidence for the papal primacy any pronouncement emanating
from a  Roman source, on the ground that, where the personal interests of anyone are
concerned, his statements should not be admitted as evidence (cf., for  example, Puller,
op. cit., 99, note). Such an objection is utterly fallacious.  We are dealing here, not with
the statements of an individual, but with the  tradition of a Church -- of that Church
which, even from the earliest times,  was known for the purity of its doctrine, and
which had had for its founders  and instructors the two chief Apostles, St. Peter and St.
Paul. That  tradition, moreover, is absolutely unbroken, as the pronouncements of the
long  series of popes bear witness. Nor does it stand alone. The utterances, in  which
the popes assert their claims to the obedience of all Christian  Churches, form part and
parcel of a great body of testimony to the Petrine  privileges, issuing not merely from
the Western Fathers but from those of  Greece, Syria, and Egypt. The claim to reject the
evidence which comes to us  from Rome may be skilful as a piece of special pleading,
but it can claim no  other value. The first to employ this argument were some of the
Gallicans. But  it is deservedly repudiated as fallacious and unworthy by Bossuet in his
"Defensio cleri gallicani" (II, 1. XI, c. vi).

 The primacy of St. Peter  and the perpetuity of that primacy in the Roman See are
dogmatically defined  in the canons attached to the first two chapters of the
Constitution "Pastor  Aeternus": <ul> "If anyone shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle
was not  constituted by Christ our Lord as chief of all the Apostles and the visible  head
of the whole Church militant: or that he did not receive directly and  immediately from
the same Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of true and proper  jurisdiction, but one of
honour only: let him be anathema."  "If any one  shall say that it is not by the institution
of Christ our Lord Himself or by  divinely established right that Blessed Peter has
perpetual successors in his  primacy over the universal Church: OF that the Roman
Pontiff is not the  successor of Blessed Peter in this same primacy. -- let him be
anathema"  (Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion", nn. 1823, 1825).

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

III. NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE PAPAL POWER

This section is divided as follows :

the pope's universal coercive jurisdiction

the pope's immediate and ordinary jurisdiction in regard of all  the faithful, whether
singly or collectively

the right of entertaining appeals in all ecclesiastical causes.

The relation of  the pope's authority to that of ecumenical councils, and to the civil
power,  are discussed in separate articles (see COUNCILS, GENERAL; CIVIL
ALLEGIANCE).

 (1) The Pope's Universal Coercive Jurisdiction  Not only did Christ constitute St.  Peter
head of the Church, but in the words, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on  earth, it shall be
bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on  earth, it shall be loosed in
heaven," He indicated the scope of this headship.  The expressions binding and loosing
here employed are derived from the current  terminology of the Rabbinic schools. A
doctor who declared a thing to be  prohibited by the law was said to <bind>, for
thereby he imposed an  obligation on the conscience. He who declared it to be lawful
was said to  <loose>). In this way the terms had come respectively to  signify official
commands and permissions in general. The words of Christ,  therefore, as understood
by His hearers, conveyed the promise to St. Peter of  legislative authority within the
kingdom over which He had just set him, and  legislative authority carries with it as its
necessary accompaniment judicial  authority. Moreover, the powers conferred in these
regards are plenary. This  is plainly indicated by the generality of the terms employed:
"Whatsoever thou  shalt bind . . . Whatsoever thou shalt loose"; nothing is withheld.
Further,  Peter's authority is subordinated to no earthly superior. The sentences which
he gives are to be forthwith ratified in heaven. They do not need the  antecedent
approval of any other tribunal. He is independent of all save the  Master who
appointed him. The words as to the power of binding and loosing  are, therefore,
elucidatory of the promise of the keys which immediately  precedes. They explain in
what sense Peter is governor and head of Christ's  kingdom, the Church, by promising
him legislative and judicial authority in  the fullest sense. In other words, Peter and his
successors have power to  impose laws both preceptive and prohibitive, power likewise
to grant  dispensation from these laws, and, when needful, to annul them. It is theirs  to
judge offences against the laws, to impose and to remit penalties. This  judicial
authority will even include the power to pardon sin. For sin is a  breach of the laws of
the supernatural kingdom, and falls under the cognizance  of its constituted judges.
The gift of this particular power, however, is not  expressed with full clearness in this
passage. It needed Christ's words (John 20:23) to remove all ambiguity. Further, since
the Church is the kingdom of  the truth, so that an essential note in all her members is
the act of  submission by which they accept the doctrine of Christ in its entirety,
supreme power in this kingdom carries with it a supreme <magisterium> --  authority
to declare that doctrine and to prescribe a rule of faith obligatory  on all. Here, too,
Peter is subordinated to none save his Master alone; he is  the supreme teacher as he is
the supreme ruler. However, the tremendous powers  thus conferred are limited in
their scope by their reference to the ends of  the kingdom and to them only. The
authority of Peter and his successors does  not extend beyond this sphere. With matters
that are altogether extrinsic to  the Church they are not concerned.

 Protestant controversialists contend  strenuously that the words, "Whatsoever thou
shalt bind etc.", confer no  special prerogative on Peter, since precisely the same gift,
they allege, is  conferred on all the Apostles (Matthew 18:18). It is, of course, the case
that in that passage the same words are used in regard of all the Twelve. Yet  there is a
manifest difference between the gift to Peter and that bestowed on  the others. In his
case the gift is connected with the power of the keys, and  this power, as we have seen,
signified the supreme authority over the whole  kingdom. That gift was not bestowed
on the other eleven: and the gift Christ  bestowed on them in Matthew 18:18, was
received by them as members of the  kingdom, and as subject to the authority of him
who should be Christ's  vicegerent on earth. There is in fact a striking parallelism
between Matthew 16:19, and the words employed in reference to Christ Himself in
Apocalypse 3:7:  "He that hath the key of David; he that openeth, and no man shutteth;
shutteth, and no man openeth." In both cases the second clause declares the  meaning of
the first, and the power signified in the first clause by the  metaphor of the keys is
supreme. It is worthy of note that to no one else save  to Christ and His chosen
vicegerent does Holy Scripture attribute the power of  the keys.

 Certain patristic passages are further adduced by non-Catholics  as adverse to the
meaning given by the Church to Matthew 16:19. St. Augustine  in several places tells us
that Peter received the keys as representing the  Church -- e. g. "In Joan.", tr. 1:12: "Si
hoc Petro  tantum dictum est, non facit hoc Ecclesia . . .; si hoc ergo in Ecclesia fit,
Petrus quando claves accepit, Ecclesiam sanctam significavit' (If this was  said to Peter
alone, the Church cannot exercise this power . . .; if this  power is exercised in the
Church, then when Peter received the keys, he  signified the Holy Church); cf. tr. 124:5;
Serm. 295. It is argued that, according to Augustine, the  power denoted by the keys
resides primarily not in Peter, but in the whole  Church. Christ's gift to His people was
merely bestowed on Peter as  representing the whole body of the faithful. The right to
forgive sins, to  exclude from communion, to exercise any other acts of authority, is
really the  prerogative of the whole Christian congregation. If the minister performs
these acts he does so as delegate of the people. The argument, which was  formerly
employed by Gallican controversialists (cf. Febronius, "De statu  eccl.", 1:76), however,
rests on a misunderstanding of the passages.  Augustine is controverting the Novatian
heretics, who affirmed that the power  to remit sins was a purely Personal gift to Peter
alone, and had disappeared  with him. He therefore asserts that Peter received it that it
might remain for  ever in the Church and be used for its benefit. It is in that sense alone
that  he says that Peter represented the Church. There is no foundation whatever for
saying that he desired to affirm that the Church was the true recipient of the  power
conferred. Such a view would be contrary to the whole patristic  tradition, and is
expressly reprobated in the First Vatican Decree, cap. 1.

 It appears from what has been said that, when the popes legislate for the  faithful,
when they try offenders by juridical process, and enforce their  sentences by censures
and excommunications, they are employing powers conceded  to them by Christ. Their
authority to exercise jurisdiction in this way is not  founded on the grant of any civil
ruler. Indeed the Church has claimed and  exercised these powers from the very first.
When the Apostles, after the  Council of Jerusalem, sent out their decree as vested with
Divine authority  (Acts 15:28), they were imposing a law on the faithful. When St. Paul
bids  Timothy not receive an accusation against a presbyter unless it be supported  by
two or three witnesses, he clearly supposes him to be empowered to judge  him <in
foro externo>. This claim to exercise coercive jurisdiction has, as  might be expected
been denied by various heterodox writers. Thus Marsilius  Patavinus (Defensor Pacis
2:4), Antonius de Dominis (De rep. eccl. 4:6-7, 9),  Richer (De eccl. et pol. potestate, 11-
12), and later the Synod of  Pistoia, all alike maintained that coercive jurisdiction of
every kind belongs  to the civil power alone, and sought to restrict the Church to the
use of  moral means. This error has always been condemned by the Holy See. Thus, in
the Bull "Auctorem Fidei", Pius VI makes the following pronouncement regarding  one
of the Pistoian propositions: "[The aforesaid proposition] in respect of  its insinuation
that the Church does not possess authority to exact subjection  to her decrees otherwise
than by means dependent on persuasion: so far as this  signifies that the Church 'has
not received from God power, not merely to  direct by counsel and persuasion but
further to command by laws, and to coerce  and compel the delinquent and
contumacious by external and salutary penalties'  [from the brief 'Ad assiduas' (1755) of
Benedict XIV], leads to a system  already condemned as heretical. " Nor may it be held
that the pope's laws must  exclusively concern spiritual objects, and their penalties be
exclusively of a  spiritual character. The Church is a perfect society (see CHURCH XIII).
She is  not dependent on the permission of the State for her existence, but holds her
charter from God. As a perfect society she has a right to all those means  which are
necessary for the attaining of her end. These, however, will include  far more than
spiritual objects and spiritual penalties alone: for the Church  requires certain material
possessions, such, for example, as churches,  schools, seminaries, together with the
endowments necessary for their  sustentation. The administration and the due
protection of these goods will  require legislation other than what is limited to the
spiritual sphere. A  large body of canon law must inevitably be formed to determine
the conditions  of their management. Indeed, there is a fallacy in the assertion that the
Church is a spiritual society; it is spiritual as regards the ultimate end to  which all its
activities are directed, but not as regards its present  constitution nor as regards the
means at its disposal. The question has been  raised whether it be lawful for the
Church, not merely to sentence a  delinquent to physical penalties, but itself to inflict
these penalties. As to  this, it is sufficient to note that the right of the Church to invoke
the aid  of the civil power to execute her sentences is expressly asserted by Boniface
VIII in the Bull "Unam Sanctam" This declaration, even if it be not one of  those portions
of the Bull in which the pope is defining a point of faith, is  so clearly connected with
the parts expressly stated to possess such character  that it is held by theologians to be
theologically certain (Palmieri, "De  Romano Pontifice", thes. 21). The question is of
theoretical, rather than of  practical importance, since civil Governments have long
ceased to own the  obligation of enforcing the decisions of any ecclesiastical authority.
This  indeed became inevitable when large sections of the population ceased to be
Catholic. The state of things supposed could only exist when a whole nation  was
thoroughly Catholic in spirit, and the force of papal decisions was  recognized by all as
binding in conscience.

 (2) The Pope's Immediate and Ordinary Jurisdiction

In the  Constitution "Pastor Aeternus", cap. 3, the pope is declared to possess  ordinary,
immediate, and episcopal jurisdiction over all the faithful: "We  teach, moreover, and
declare that, by the disposition of God, the Roman Church  possesses supreme ordinary
authority over all Churches, and that the  jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is
true episcopal jurisdiction is  immediate in its character" (Enchir., n. 1827). It is further
added that this  authority extends to all alike, both pastors and faithful, whether singly
or  collectively. An ordinary jurisdiction is one which is exercised by the  holder, not by
reason of any delegation, but in virtue of the office which he  himself holds. All who
acknowledge in the pope any primacy of jurisdiction  acknowledge that jurisdiction to
be ordinary. This point, therefore, does not  call for discussion. That the papal authority
is likewise immediate has,  however, been called in question. Jurisdiction is immediate
when its possessor  stands in direct relation to those with whose oversight he is
charged. If, on  the other hand, the supreme authority can only deal directly with the
proximate superiors, and not with the subjects save through their  intervention, his
power is not Immediate but mediate. That the pope's  jurisdiction is not thus restricted
appears from the analysis already given of  Christ's words to St. Peter. It has been
shown that He conferred on him a  primacy over the Church, which is universal in its
scope, extending to all the  Church's members, and which needs the support of no other
power. A primacy  such as this manifestly gives to him and to his successors a direct
authority  over all the faithful. This is also implied in the words of the pastoral
commission, " Feed my sheep ". The shepherd exercises immediate authority over  all
the sheep of his flock. Every member of the Church has been thus committed  to Peter
and those who follow him. This immediate authority has been always  claimed by the
Holy See. It was, however, denied by Febronius (op. cit., 7:7).  That writer contended
that the duty of the pope was to exercise a general  oversight over the Church and to
direct the bishops by his counsel; in case of  necessity, where the legitimate pastor was
guilty of grave wrong, he could  pronounce sentence of excommunication against him
and proceed against him  according to the canons, but he could not on his own
authority depose him (op.  cit., 2:4:9). The Febronian doctrines, though devoid of any
historical  foundation, yet, through their appeal to the spirit of nationalism, exerted a
powerful influence for harm on Catholic life in Germany during the eighteenth  and
part of the nineteenth century. Thus it was imperative that the error  should be
definitively condemned. That the pope's power is truly episcopal  needs no proof. It
follows from the fact that he enjoys an ordinary pastoral  authority, both legislative and
judicial, and immediate in relation to its  subjects. Moreover, since this power regards
the pastors as well as the  faithful, the pope is rightly termed <Pastor pastorum>, and
<Episcopus  episcoporum>.

 It is frequently objected by writers of the Anglican school  that, by declaring the pope
to possess an immediate episcopal jurisdiction  over all the faithful, the First Vatican
Council destroyed the authority of the  diocesan episcopate. It is further pointed out
that St. Gregory the Great  expressly repudiated this title (Ep. 7:27; 8:30). To this it is
replied  that no difficulty is involved in the exercise of immediate jurisdiction over  the
same subjects by two rulers, provided only that these rulers stand in  subordination, the
one to the other. We constantly see the system at work. In  an army the regimental
officer and the general both possess immediate  authority over the soldiers; yet no one
maintains that the inferior authority  is thereby annulled. The objection lacks all weight.
The First Vatican Council says  most justly (cap. iii): "This power of the supreme pontiff
in no way derogates  from the ordinary immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, in
virtue of  which the bishops, who, appointed by the Holy Spirit [Acts 20:28], have
succeeded to the place of the Apostles as true pastors, feed and rule their  several
flocks, each the one which has been assigned to him: that power is  rather maintained,
confirmed and defended by the supreme pastor" (Enchir., n.  1828). It is without doubt
true that St. Gregory repudiated in strong terms  the title of universal bishop, and
relates that St. Leo rejected it when it  was offered him by the fathers of Chalcedon. But,
as he used it, it has a  different signification from that with which it was employed in
the First Vatican  Council. St. Gregory understood it as involving the denial of the
authority of  the local diocesan (Ep. 5:21). No one, he maintains, has a right so to term
himself universal bishop as to usurp that apostolically constituted power. But  he was
himself a strenuous asserter of that immediate jurisdiction over all  the faithful which is
signified by this title as used in the First Vatican Decree.  Thus he reverses (Ep. 6:15) a
sentence passed on a priest by Patriarch John  of Constantinople, an act which itself
involves a claim to universal  authority, and explicitly states that the Church of
Constantinople is subject  to the Apostolic See (Ep. 9:12). The title of universal bishop
occurs as  early as the eighth century; and in 1413 the faculty of Paris rejected the
proposition of John Hus that the pope was not universal bishop (Natalis  Alexander,
'Hist. eccl.", saec. XV and XVI, c. ii, art. 3, n. 6)

 (3) The  Right of Entertaining Appeals in All Ecclesiastical Causes

The Council goes on to affirm that the pope is the supreme judge of the faithful,  and
that to him appeal may be made in all ecclesiastical causes. The right of  appeal follows
as a necessary corollary from the doctrine of the primacy. If  the pope really possesses a
supreme jurisdiction over the Church, every other  authority, whether episcopal or
synodal, being subject to him, there must of  necessity be an appeal to him from all
inferior tribunals. This question,  however, has been the subject of much controversy.
The Gallican divines de  Marca and Quesnel, and in Germany Febronius, sought to
show that the right of  appeal to the pope was a mere concession derived from
ecclesiastical canons,  and that the influence of the pseudo-Isidorean decretals had led
to many  unjustifiable exaggerations in the papal claims. The arguments of these
writers are at the present day employed by frankly anti-Catholic  controversialists with
a view to showing that the whole primacy is a merely  human institution. It is
contended that the right of appeal was first granted  at Sardica (343), and that each step
of its subsequent development can be  traced. History, however, renders it abundantly
clear that the right of appeal  had been known from primitive times, and that the
purpose of the Sardican  canons was merely to give conciliar ratification to an already
existing usage.  It will be convenient to speak first of the Sardican question, and then to
examine the evidence as regards previous practice.

  In the years  immediately preceding Sardica, St. Athanasius had appealed to Rome
against the  decision of the Council of Tyre (335). Pope Julius had annulled the action of
that council, and had restored Athanasius and Marcellus of Ancyra to their  sees. The
Eusebians, however, had contested his right to call a conciliar  decision in question. The
fathers who met at Sardica, and who included the  most eminent of the orthodox party
from East and West alike, desired by their  decrees to affirm this right, and to establish
a canonical mode of procedure  for such appeals. The principal provisions of the canons
which deal with this  matter are: <ul> that a bishop condemned by the bishops of his
province may  appeal to the pope either on his own initiative or through his judges;
that  if the pope entertains the appeal he shall appoint a court of second  instance
drawn from the bishops of the neighbouring provinces; he may, if he  thinks fit, send
judges to sit with the bishops.</ul> There is nothing whatever to  suggest that new
privileges are being conferred. St. Julius had recently, not  merely exercised the right of
hearing appeals in the most formal manner, but  had severely censured the Eusebians
for neglecting to respect the supreme  judicial rights of the Roman See: "for", he writes,
"if they [Athanasius and  Marcellus] really did some wrong, as you say, the judgment
ought to have been  given according to the ecclesiastical canon and not thus.... Do you
not know  that this has been the custom first to write to us, and then for that which is
just to be defined from hence?" (Athanasius, "Apol." 35) . Nor is there the  smallest
ground for the assertion that the pope's action is hedged in within  narrow limits, on
the ground that no more is permitted than that he should  order a re-hearing to take
place on the spot. The fathers in no way disputed  the pope's right to hear the case at
Rome. But their object was to deprive the  Eusebians of the facile excuse that it was idle
for appeals to be carried to  Rome, since there the requisite evidence could not be
forthcoming. They  therefore provided a canonical procedure which should not be open
to that  objection.

 Having thus shown that there is no ground for the assertion  that the right of appeal
was first granted at Sardica, we may now consider the  evidence for its existence in
earlier times. The records of the second century  are so scanty as to throw but little light
on the subject. Yet it would seem  that Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla appealed to
Rome against the decision of  the Phrygian bishops. Tertullian (Con. Prax. 1), tells us
that the pope at  first acknowledged the genuineness of their prophecies, and that thus
"he was  giving peace to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia", when further information
led him to recall the letters of peace which he had issued. The fact that the  pope's
decision had weight to decide the whole question of their orthodoxy is  sufficiently
significant. But in St Cyprian's correspondence we find clear and  unmistakable
evidence of a system of appeals. Basilides and Martial, the  bishops of Leon and Merida
in Spain, had in the persecution accepted  certificates of idolatry. They confessed their
guilt, and were in consequence  deposed, other bishops being appointed to the sees. In
the hope of having  themselves reinstated they appealed to Rome, and succeeded, by
misrepresenting  the facts, in imposing on St. Stephen, who ordered their restoration. It
has  been objected to the evidence drawn from this incident, that St. Cyprian did  not
acknowledge the validity of the papal decision, but exhorted the people of  Leon and
Merida to hold fast to the sentence of deposition (Ep. 67:6). But  the objection misses the
point of St. Cyprian's letter. In the case in  question there was no room for a legitimate
appeal, since the two bishops had  confessed. An acquittal obtained after spontaneous
confession could not be  valid. It has further been urged that, in the case of Fortunatus
(Ep. 59:10),  Cyprian denies his right of appeal to Rome, and asserts the sufficiency  of
the African tribunal. But here too the objection rests upon a  misunderstanding.
Fortunatus had procured consecration as Bishop of Carthage  from a heretical bishop,
and St. Cyprian asserts the competency of the local  synod in his case on the ground
that he is no true bishop -- a mere  <pseudo-episcopus>. Juridically considered he is
merely an insubordinate  presbyter, and he must submit himself to his own bishop. At
that period the  established custom denied the right of appeal to the inferior clergy. On
the  other hand, the action of Fortunatus indicates that he based his claim to  bring the
question of his status before the pope on the ground that he was a  legitimate bishop.
Privatus of Lambese, the heretical consecrator of  Fortunatus who had previously been
himself condemned by a synod of ninety  bishops (Ep. 59:10), had appealed to Rome
without success (Ep. 36:4).

  The difficulties at Carthage which led to the Donatist schism provide us  with another
instance. When the seventy Numidian bishops, who had condemned  Caecilian,
invoked the aid of the emperor, the latter referred them to Rome,  that the case might
be decided by Pope Miltiades (313). St. Augustine makes  frequent mention of the
circumstances, and indicates plainly that he holds it  to have been Caecilian's
undoubted right to claim a trial before the pope. He  says that Secundus should never
have dared to condemn Caecilian when he  declined to submit his case to the African
bishops, since he had the right "to  reserve his whole case to the judgment of other
colleagues, especially to that  of Apostolical Churches" (Ep. 43:7). A little later (367) a
council, held  at Tyana in Asia Minor, restored to his see Eustathius, bishop of that city,
on no other ground than that of a successful appeal to Rome. St. Basil (Ep.  263:3) tells
us that they did not know what test of orthodoxy Liberius  had required. He brought a
letter from the pope demanding his restoration, and  this was accepted as decisive by
the council It should be observed that there  can be no question here of the pope
employing prerogatives conferred on him at  Sardica, for he did not follow the
procedure there indicated. Indeed there is  no good reason to believe that the Sardican
procedure ever came into use in  either East or West. In 378 the appellate jurisdiction of
the pope received  civil sanction from Emperor Gratian. Any charge against a
metropolitan was to  come before the pope himself or a court of bishops nominated by
him, while all  (Western) bishops had the right of appeal from - their provincial synod
to the  pope (Mansi, III, 624). Similarly Valentinian III in 445 assigned to the pope  the
right of evoking to Rome any cause he should think fit (Cod. Theod.  Novell., tit. 24, De
episcoporum ordin.). These ordinances were not,  however, in any sense the source of
the pope's jurisdiction, which rested on  Divine institution; they were civil sanctions
enabling the pope to avail  himself of the civil machinery of the empire in discharging
the duties of his  office. What Pope Nicholas I said of the synodal declarations
regarding the  privileges of the Holy See holds good here also: "Ista privilegia huic
sanctae  Ecclesiae a Christo donata, a synodis non donata, sed jam solummodo venerata
et celebrata" (These privileges bestowed by Christ on this Holy Church have  not been
granted her by synods, but merely proclaimed and honoured by them)  ("Ep. ad
Michaelem Imp." in P. L., CXIX, 948).

 Much has been made by  anti-Catholic writers of the famous letter "Optaremus",
addressed in 426 by  the African bishops to Pope St. Celestine at the close of the
incident  relating to the priest Apiarius. As the point is discussed in a special  article
(APIARIUS OF SICCA), a brief reference will suffice here. Protestant  controversialists
maintain that in this letter the African bishops positively  repudiate the claim of Rome
to an appellate jurisdiction, the repudiation  being consequent on the fact that they had
in 419 satisfied themselves that  Pope Zosimus was mistaken in claiming the authority
of Nicaea for the Sardican  canons. This is an error. The letter, it is true, urges with
some display of  irritation that it would be both more reasonable and more in harmony
with the  fifth Nicene canon regarding the inferior clergy and the laity, if even
episcopal cases were left to the decision of the African synod. The pope's  authority is
nowhere denied, but the sufficiency of the local tribunals is  asserted. Indeed the right
of the pope to deal with episcopal cases was freely  acknowledged by the African
Church even after it had been shown that the  Sardican canons did not emanate from
Nicaea. Antony, Bishop of Fussala,  prosecuted an appeal to Rome against St.
Augustine in 423, the appeal being  supported by the Primate of Numidia (Ep. ccix).
Moreover, St. Augustine in his  letter to Pope Celestine on this subject urges that
previous popes have dealt  with similar cases in the same manner, sometimes by
independent decisions and  sometimes by confirmation of the decisions locally given
(ipsa sede apostolica  judicante vel aliorum judicata firmante), and that he could cite
examples  either from ancient or from more recent times (Ep. 209:8). These facts  appear
to be absolutely conclusive as to the traditional African practice.  That the letter
"Optaremus" did not result in any change is evinced by a  letter of St. Leo's in 446,
directing what is to be done in the case of a  certain Lupicinus who had appealed to
him (Ep. 12:13). It is occasionally  argued that if the pope really possessed <jure
divino> a supreme jurisdiction,  the African bishops would neither have raised any
question in 419 as to  whether the alleged canons were authentic, nor again have in 426
requested the  pope to take the Nicene canon as the norm of his action. Those who
reason in  this way fail to see that, where canons have been established prescribing the
mode of procedure to be followed in the Church, right reason demands that the
supreme authority should not alter them except for some grave cause, and, as  long as
they remain the recognized law of the Church should observe them. The  pope as God's
vicar must govern according to reason, not arbitrarily nor  capriciously. This, however,
is a very different thing from saying, as did the  Gallican divines, that the pope is
subject to the canons. He is not subject to  them, because he is competent to modify or
to annul them when he holds this to  be best for the Church.

IV. JURISDICTIONAL RIGHTS AND PREROGATIVES OF THE POPE

In virtue of his office as supreme teacher and ruler of the  faithful, the chief control of
every department of the Church's life belongs  to the pope. In this section the rights and
duties which thus fall to his lot  will be briefly enumerated. It will appear that, in
regard to a considerable  number of points, not merely the supreme control, but the
whole exercise of  power is reserved to the Holy See, and is only granted to others by
express  delegation. This system of reservation is possible, since the pope is the
universal source. of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Hence it rests with him  to determine
in what measure he will confer jurisdiction on bishops and other  prelates.

(1) As the supreme teacher of the Church, whose it is to  prescribe what is to be
believed by all the faithful, and to take measures for  the preservation and the
propagation of the faith, the following are the  rights which pertain to the pope:  <ul> it
is his to set forth creeds, and  to determine when and by whom an explicit profession of
faith shall be made  (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. 24, cc. 1 and 12); it is his to prescribe
and to command books for the religious instruction of the faithful; thus, for  example,
Clement XIII has recommended the Roman Catechism to all the bishops.

The pope alone can establish a university, possessing the status and  privileges of a
canonically erected Catholic university; to him also  belongs the direction of Catholic
missions throughout the world; this charge  is fulfilled through the Congregation of the
Propaganda.

It is his to  prohibit the reading of such books as are injurious to faith or morals, and to
determine the conditions on which certain classes of books may be issued by  Catholics;
his is the condemnation of given propositions as being  either heretical or deserving of
some minor degree of censure, and lastly he has the right to interpret authentically the
natural law. Thus, it  is his to say what is lawful or unlawful in regard to social and
family life,  in regard to the practice of usury, etc.

(2) With the pope's office of  supreme teacher are closely connected his rights in regard
to the worship of  God: for it is the law of prayer that fixes the law of belief. In this
sphere  very much has been reserved to the sole regulation of the Holy See. Thus the
pope alone can prescribe the liturgical services employed in the  Church. If a doubt
should occur in regard to the ceremonial of the liturgy, a  bishop may not settle the
point on his own authority, but must have recourse  to Rome. The Holy See likewise
prescribes rules in regard to the devotions  used by the faithful, and in this way checks
the growth of what is novel and  unauthorized.

At the present day the institution and abrogation of  festivals which was till a
comparatively recent time free to all bishops as  regards their own dioceses, is reserved
to Rome.

The solemn  canonization of a saint is proper to the pope. Indeed it is commonly held
that  this is an exercise of the papal infallibility. Beatification and every  permission for
the public veneration of any of the servants of God is likewise  reserved to his decision.

He alone gives to anyone the privilege of a  private chapel where Mass may be said.

He dispenses the treasury of  the Church, and the grant of plenary indulgences is
reserved to him. While he  has no authority in regard to the substantial rites of the
sacraments, and is  bound to preserve them as they were given to the Church by Christ
and His  Apostles, certain powers in their regard belong to him; he can give to  simple
priests the Power to confirm, and to bless the oil of the sick and the  oil of catechumens,
and he can establish diriment and impedient impediments to matrimony.

(3) The legislative power of the pope carries  with it the following rights: he can
legislate for the whole Church,  with or without the assistance of a general council; if he
legislates  with the aid of a council it is his to convoke it, to preside, to direct its
deliberations, to confirm its acts.

He has full authority to  interpret, alter, and abrogate both his own laws and those
established by his  predecessors. He has the same plenitude of power as they enjoyed,
and stands  in the same relation to their laws as to those which he himself has decreed;
he can dispense individuals from the obligation of all purely  ecclesiastical laws, and
can grant privileges and exemptions in their regard.  In this connexion may be
mentioned his power to dispense from vows  where the greater glory of God renders it
desirable. Considerable powers of  dispensation are granted to bishops, and, in a
restricted measure, also to  priests; but there are some vows reserved altogether to the
Holy See.

(4) In virtue of his supreme judicial authority <causae majores> are  reserved to him. By
this term are signified cases dealing with matters of  great moment, or those in which
personages of eminent dignity are concerned.

His appellate jurisdiction has been discussed in the previous section.  It should,
however, be noted that the pope has full right, should he  see fit, to deal even with
<causae minores> in the first instance, and not  merely by reason of an appeal (Trent,
Sess. XXIV; cap. 20). In what concerns  punishment, he can inflict censures either by
judicial sentence or by  general laws which operate without need of such sentence.

He further  reserves certain cases to his own tribunal. All cases of heresy come before
the Congregation of the Inquisition. A similar reservation covers the cases in  which a
bishop or a reigning prince is the accused party.

(5) As the  supreme governor of the Church the pope has authority over all
appointments to  its public offices. Thus  it is his to nominate to bishoprics, or,  where
the nomination has been conceded to others, to give confirmation.  Further, he alone
can translate bishops from one see to another, can accept  their resignation, and can,
where grave cause exists, sentence to deprivation.

He can establish dioceses, and can annul a previously existing  arrangement in favour
of a new one. Similarly, he alone can erect cathedral  and collegiate chapters.

He can approve new religious orders, and can, if he sees fit, exempt them from the
authority of local  ordinaries.

Since his office of supreme ruler imposes on him the duty  of enforcing the canons, it is
requisite that he should be kept informed as to  the state of the various dioceses. He
may obtain this information by legates  or by summoning the bishops to Rome. At the
present day this <jus relationum> is  exercised through the triennial visit <ad limina>
required of all bishops. This  system was introduced by Sixtus V in 1585 (Constitution,
"Rom. Pontifex"), and  confirmed by Benedict XIV in 1740 (Constitution, "Quod
Sancta").

It is to be further observed that the pope's office of chief ruler of the Church  carries
with it <jure divino> the right to free intercourse with the pastors and  the faithful. The
<placitum regium>, by which this intercourse was limited and  impeded, was therefore
an infringement of a sacred right, and as such was  solemnly condemned by the First
Vatican Council (Constitution, "Pastor Aeternus",  cap. iii). To the pope likewise
belongs the supreme administration of the  goods of the Church. He alone can, where
there is just cause,  alienate any considerable quantity of such property. Thus, e. g.,
Julius III,  at the time of the restoration of religion in England under Queen Mary
validated the title of those laymen who had acquired Church lands during the
spoliations of the previous reigns.

The pope has further the right to  impose taxes on the clergy and the faithful for
ecclesiastical purposes (cf.  Trent, Sess. XXI, cap. iv de Ref.).  </ul> Though the power
of the pope, as we have  described it, is very great, it does not follow that it is arbitrary
and  unrestricted. "The pope", as Cardinal Hergenroether well says, "is  circumscribed
by the consciousness of the necessity of making a righteous and  beneficent use of the
duties attached to his privileges....He is also  circumscribed by the spirit and practice of
the Church, by the respect due to  General Councils and to ancient statutes and
customs, by the rights of  bishops, by his relation with civil powers, by the traditional
mild tone of  government indicated by the aim of the institution of the papacy -- to
'feed'  -- and finally by the respect indispensable in a spiritual power towards the  spirit
and mind of nations" ("Cath. Church and Christian State", tr., I,  197).

V. PRIMACY OF HONOUR: TITLES AND INSIGNIA

Certain titles and distinctive  marks of honour are assigned to the pope alone; these
constitute what is  termed his primacy of honour. These prerogatives are not, as are his
jurisdictional rights, attached <jure divino> to his office. They have grown up  in the
course of history, and are consecrated by the usage of centuries; yet  they are not
incapable of modification.

(1) Titles

The most  noteworthy of the titles are <Papa>, <Summus Pontifex>, <Pontifex
Maximus>, <Servus  servorum Dei>. The title <pope> (<papa>) was, as has been
stated, at one time  employed with far more latitude. In the East it has always been
used to  designate simple priests. In the Western Church, however, it seems from the
beginning to have been restricted to bishops (Tertullian, "De Pud." 13). It  was
apparently in the fourth century that it began to become a distinctive  title of the Roman
Pontiff. Pope Siricius (d. 398) seems so to use it (Ep. vi  in P. L., XIII, 1164), and
Ennodius of Pavia (d. 473) employs it still more  clearly in this sense in a letter to Pope
Symmachus (P. L., LXIII, 69). Yet as  late as the seventh century St. Gall (d. 640)
addresses Desiderius of Cahors  as <papa> (P. L., LXXXVII, 265). Gregory VII finally
prescribed that it should  be confined to the successors of Peter. The terms <Pontifex
Maximus, Summus  Pontifex>, were doubtless originally employed with reference to
the Jewish  high-priest, whose place the Christian bishops were regarded as holding
each  in his own diocese (I Clement 40). As regards the title <Pontifex Maximus>,
especially in its application to the pope, there was further a reminiscence of  the dignity
attached to that title in pagan Rome. Tertullian, as has already  been said, uses the
phrase of Pope Callistus. Though his words are ironical,  they probably indicate that
Catholics already applied it to the pope. But here  too the terms were once less
narrowly restricted in their use. <Pontifex summus>  was used of the bishop of some
notable see in relation to those of less  importance. Hilary of Arles (d. 449) is so styled
by Eucherius of Lyons (P.  L., L, 773), and Lanfranc is termed "primas et pontifex
summus" by his  biographer, Milo Crispin (P. L., CL, 10). Pope Nicholas I is termed
"summus  pontifex et universalis papa" by his legate Arsenius (Hardouin, "Conc.", V,
280), and subsequent examples are common. After the eleventh century it  appears to
be only used of the popes. The phrase <Servus servorum Dei> is now so  entirely a
papal title that a Bull in which it should be wanting would be  reckoned unauthentic.
Yet this designation also was once applied to others.  Augustine (Ep. 217 a. d. Vitalem)
entitles himself  "servus Christi et per Ipsum servus servorum Ipsius". Desiderius of
Cahors  made use of it (Thomassin, "Ecclesiae nov. et vet. disc.", pt. I, I. I, c. iv,  n. 4): so
also did St. Boniface (740), the apostle of Germany (P. L., LXXIX,  700). The first of the
popes to adopt it was seemingly Gregory I; he appears  to have done co in contrast to
the claim put forward by the Patriarch of  Constantinople to the title of universal
bishop (P. L., LXXV, 87). The  restriction of the term to the pope alone began in the
ninth century.

 (2) Insignia and Marks of Honour

The pope is distinguished by the use  of the tiara or triple crown (see TIARA). At what
date the custom of crowning  the pope was introduced is unknown. It was certainly
previous to the forged  donation of Constantine, which dates from the commencement
of the ninth  century, for mention is there made of the pope's coronation. The triple
crown  is of much later origin. The pope moreover does not, like ordinary bishops,  use
the bent pastoral staff, but only the erect cross. This custom was  introduced before the
reign of Innocent III (1198-1216) (cap. un. X de sacra  unctione, I, 15). He further uses
the pallium (q. v.) at all ecclesiastical  functions, and not under the same restrictions as
do the archbishops on whom  he has conferred it. The kissing of the pope's foot -- the
characteristic act  of reverence by which all the faithful do honour to him as the vicar of
Christ  -- is found as early as the eighth century. We read that Emperor Justinian II
paid this respect to Pope Constantine (708-16) (Anastasius Bibl. in P. L.,  CXXVIII 949).
Even at an earlier date Emperor Justin had prostrated himself  before Pope John I (523-
6; op. cit., 515), and Justinian I before Agapetus  (535-6; op. cit., 551). The pope, it may
be added, ranks as the first of  Christian princes, and in Catholic countries his
ambassadors have precedence  over other members of the diplomatic body.

VI. ELECTION OF THE POPES

The supreme headship of the Church  is, we have seen, annexed to the office of Roman
bishop. The pope becomes  chief pastor because he is Bishop of Rome: he does not
become Bishop of Rome  because he has been chosen to be head of the universal
Church. Thus, an  election to the papacy is, properly speaking, primarily an election to
the  local bishopric. The right to elect their bishop has ever belonged to the  members of
the Roman Church. They possess the prerogative of giving to the  universal Church her
chief pastor; they do not receive their bishop in virtue  of his election by the universal
Church. This is not to say that the election  should be by popular vote of the Romans. In
ecclesiastical affairs it is  always for the hierarchy to guide the decisions of the flock.
The choice of a  bishop belongs to the clergy: it may be confined to the leading
members of the  clergy. It is so in the Roman Church at present. The electoral college of
cardinals exercise their office because they are the chief of the Roman  clergy. Should
the college of cardinals ever become extinct, the duty of  choosing a supreme pastor
would fall, not on the bishops assembled in council,  but upon the remaining Roman
clergy. At the time of the Council of Trent Pius  IV, thinking it possible that in the event
of his death the council might lay  some claim to the right, insisted on this point in a
consistorial allocution  (Phillips, "Kirchenrecht", V, p. 737 n.). It is thus plain that a pope
cannot  nominate his successor. History tells us of one pope -- Benedict II (530) --  who
meditated adopting this course. But he recognized that it would be a false  step, and
burnt the document which he had drawn up for the purpose. On the  other hand the
Church's canon law (10 D. 79) supposes that the pope may make  provision for the
needs of the Church by suggesting to the cardinals some one  whom he regards as
fitted for the office: and we know that Gregory VII secured  in this way the election of
Victor III. Such a step, however, does not in any  way fetter the action of the cardinals.
The pope can, further, legislate  regarding the mode in which the subsequent election
shall be carried out,  determining the composition of the electoral college, and the
conditions  requisite for a definitive choice. The method at present followed is the
result of a series of enactments on this subject.

 A brief historical  review will show how the principle of election by the Roman
Church has been  maintained through all the vicissitudes of papal elections. St. Cyprian
tells  us in regard to the election of Pope St. Cornelius (251) that the  comprovincial
bishops, the clergy, and the people all took part in it: "He was  made bishop by the
decree of God and of His Church, by the testimony of nearly  all the clergy, by the
college of aged bishops [<sacerdotum>], and of good  men"(Ep. Iv ad Anton., n. 8).
And a precisely similar ground is alleged by the  Roman priests in their letter to
Emperor Honorius regarding the validity of  the election of Boniface I (A. D. 418; P. L.,
XX, 750). Previous to the fall  of the Western Empire interference by the civil power
seems to have been  inconsiderable. Constantius, it is true, endeavoured to set up an
antipope,  Felix II (355), but the act was universally regarded as heretical. Honorius on
the occasion of the contested election of 418 decreed that, when the election  was
dubious, neither party should hold the papacy, but that a new election  should take
place. This method was applied at the elections of Conon (686) and  Sergius I (687). The
law is found in the Church's code (c. 8, d. LXXIX),  though Gratian declares it void of
force as having emanated from civil and not  ecclesiastical authority (d. XCVI, proem.;
d. XCVII, proem.). After the  barbarian conquest of Italy, the Church's rights were less
carefully observed.  Basilius, the prefect of Odoacer, claimed the right of supervising
the  election of 483 in the name of his master, alleging that Pope Simplicius had  himself
requested him to do so (Hard., II, 977). The disturbances which  occurred at the
disputed election of Symmachus (498) led that pope to hold a  council and to decree the
severest penalties on all who should be guilty of  canvassing or bribery in order to
attain the pontificate. It was moreover  decided that the majority of votes should decide
the election. Theodoric the  Ostrogoth, who at this period ruled Italy, became in his
later years a  persecutor of the Church. He even went so far as to appoint Felix III (IV)
in  526 as the successor of Pope John I, whose death was due to the incarceration  to
which the king had condemned him. Felix, however, was personally worthy of  the
office, and the appointment was confirmed by a subsequent election. The  precedent of
interference set by Theodoric was fruitful of evil to the Church.  After the destruction of
the Gothic monarchy (537), the Byzantine emperors  went even farther than the
heretical Ostrogoth in encroaching on  ecclesiastical rights. Vigilius (540) and Pelagius I
(553) were forced on the  Church at imperial dictation. In the case of the latter there
seems to have  been no election: his title was validated solely through his recognition as
bishop by clergy and people. The formalities of election at this time were as  follows
(Lib. Diurnus Rom. Pont., 2, in P. L., CV, 27). After the pope's  death, the archpriest, the
archdeacon and the primicerius of the notaries sent  an official notification to the exarch
at Ravenna. On the third day after the  decease the new pope was elected, being
invariably chosen from among the  presbyters or deacons of the Roman Church (cf. op.
cit., 2, titt. 2, 3 5),  and an embassy was despatched to Constantinople to request the
official  confirmation of the election. Not until this had been received did the
consecration take Place. The Church acquired greater freedom after the Lombard
invasion of 568 had destroyed the prestige of Byzantine power in Italy.  Pelagius II
(,578) and Gregory I (590) were the spontaneous choice of the  electors. And in 684,
owing to the long delays involved in the journey to  Constantinople, Constantine IV
(Pogonatus) acceded to Benedict II's request  that in future it should not be necessary to
wait for confirmation, but that a  mere notification of the election would suffice. The
1088 of the exarchate and  the iconoclastic heresy of the Byzantine court completed the
severance between  Rome and the Eastern Empire, and Pope Zacharias (741) dispensed
altogether  with the customary notice to Constantinople.

 In 769 a council was held  under Stephen III to rectify the confusion caused by the
intrusion of the  antipope Constantine. This usurper was a layman hurriedly raised to
priest's  orders to render his nomination to the pontificate possible. To make a
repetition of the scandal impossible it was decreed that only members of the  sacred
college were eligible for election. The part of the laity was,  moreover, reduced to a
mere right of acclamation. Under Charlemagne and Louis  the Pious the Church
retained her freedom. Lothair, however, claimed more  ample rights for the civil
power. In 824 he exacted an oath from the Romans  that none should be consecrated
pope without the permission and the presence  of his ambassadors. This was, in fact,
done at most of the elections during  the ninth century, and in 898 the riots which
ensued upon the death of Pope  Stephen V led John IX to give ecclesiastical sanction to
this system of  imperial control. In a council held at Rome in that year he decreed that
the  election should be made by bishops (cardinal) and clergy, regard being had to  the
wishes of the people, but that no consecration should take place except in  the presence
of the imperial legate (Mansi XVIII, 225).

 The due  formalities at least of election appear to have been observed through the wild
disorders which followed the collapse of the Carlovingian Empire: and the same  is true
as regards the times of Otto the Great and his son. Under the restored  empire,
however, the electors enjoyed no freedom of choice. Otto I even  compelled the Romans
to swear that they would never elect or ordain a pope  without his or his son's consent
(963; cf. Liutprand, "Hist. Ott.", viii). In  1046 the scandals of the preceding elections, in
which the supreme pontificate  had become a prize for rival factions entirely regardless
of what means they  employed, led clergy and people to leave the nomination to Henry
III. Three  popes were chosen in this manner. But Leo IX insisted that the Church was
free  in the choice of her pastors, and, until he was duly elected at Rome, declined  to
assume any of the state of his office. The party of reform, of which  Hildebrand was the
moving spirit, were eager for some measure which should  restore an independent
choice to the Church. This was carried out by Nicholas  II. In 1059 he held a council in
the Lateran and issued the Decree "In  Nomine". This document is found in two
recensions, a papal and an imperial,  both of early date. There is however little doubt
that the papal recension  embodied in the "Decretum Gratiani " (c. 1. d. XXIII) is
genuine, and that the  other was altered in the interest of the antipope Guibert (1080,
Hefele,  "Conciliengesch.", IV, 800, 899). The right of election is confined to the
cardinals, the effective choice being placed in the hands of the cardinal  bishops: clergy
and people have a right of acclamation only. The right of  confirmation is granted to the
Emperor Henry IV and to such of his successors  as should personally request and
receive the privilege. The pope need not  necessarily be taken from the number of
cardinals, though this should be the  case if possible.

 This decree formed the basis of the present legislation  on the papal election, though
the system underwent considerable development.  The first important modification was
the Constitution "Licet de Vitanda" [c.  vi, X, "De elect." (I, 6)] of Alexander III, the first
of the decrees passed  by the Third Oecumenical Council of the Lateran (1179). To
prevent the evils  of a disputed election it was established by this law that no one
should be  held dub elected until two thirds of the cardinals should have given their
votes for him. In this decree no distinction is made between the rights of the  cardinal
bishops and those of the rest of the Sacred College. The imperial  privilege of
confirming the election had already become obsolete owing to the  breach between the
Church and the Empire under Henry IV and Frederick I.  Between the death of Clement
IV (1268) and the coronation of Gregory X (1272)  an interregnum of nearly three years
intervened. To prevent a repetition of so  great a misfortune the pope in the Council of
Lyons (1179) issued the Decree "  Ubi periculum " [c. iii, " De elect.", in 60 (I, 6)], by
which it was ordained  that during the election of a pontiff the cardinals should be
secluded from  the world under exceedingly stringent regulations, and that the
seclusion  should continue till they had fulfilled their duty of providing the Church
with a supreme pastor. To this electoral session was given the name of the  Conclave (q.
v.). This system prevails at the present day.

VII. CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF THE POPES

The historical lists of the popes, from those drawn up in the  second century to those of
the present day, form in themselves a considerable  body of literature. It would be
beyond the scope of the article to enter upon  a discussion of these catalogues. For an
account of the most famous of them  all, the article LIBER PONTIFICALIS may be
consulted. It appears, however,  desirable to indicate very briefly what are our
authorities for the names and  the durations in office of the popes for the first two
centuries of the  Church's existence.

 Irenaeus, writing between 175 and 190, not many years  after his Roman sojourn,
enumerates the series from Peter to Eleutherius (Adv.  Haer. 3:3:3; Eusebius, "Hist.
eccl." 5:6) . His object, as we have  already seen, was to establish the orthodoxy of the
traditional doctrine, as  opposed to heretical novelties, by showing that the bishop was
the natural  inheritor of the Apostolic teaching. He gives us the names alone, not the
length of the various episcopates. This need is supplied by other witnesses.  Most
important evidence is furnished by the document entitled the " Liberian  Catalogue " --
so called from the Pope whose name ends the list. The  collection of tracts of which this
forms a part was edited (apparently by one  Furius Dionysius Philocalus) in 354. The
catalogue consists of a list of the  Roman bishops from Peter to Liberius, with the length
of their respective  episcopates, the consular dates, the name of the reigning emperor,
and in many  cases other details. There is the strongest ground for believing that the
earlier part of the catalogue, as far as Pontian (230-35), is the work of  Hippolytus of
Portus. It is manifest that up to this point the fourth century  compiler was making use
of a different authority from that which he employs  for the subsequent popes: and
there is evidence rendering it almost certain  that Hippolytus's work "Chronica"
contained such a list. The reign of Pontian,  moreover, would be the point at which that
list would have stopped: for  Hippolytus and he were condemned to servitude in the
Sardinian mines -- a fact  which the chronographer makes mention when speaking of
Pontian's episcopate.  Lightfoot has argued that this list originally contained nothing
but the names  of the bishops and the duration of their episcopates, the remaining notes
being additions by a later hand. The list of popes is identical with that of  Irenaeus,
save that Anacletus is doubled into Cletus and Anacletus, while  Clement appears
before, instead of after, these two names. The order of Popes  Pius and Anicetus has
also been interchanged. There is every reason to regard;  these differences as due to the
errors of copyists. Another witness is  Eusebius. The names and episcopal years of the
bishops can be gathered alike  from his "History" and his "Chronicle". The notices in the
two works; can be  shown to be m agreement, notwithstanding certain corruptions in
many texts of  the "Chronicle". This Eastern list in the hands of Eusebius is seen to have
been identical with the Western list of Hippolytus, except that in the East  the name of
Linus's successor seems to have been given as Anencletus, in the  original Western list
as Cletus. The two authorities presuppose the following  list: (1) Peter, xxv; (2) Linus,
xii; (3) Anencletus [Cletus], xii; (4)  Clement, ix; (5) Evarestus, viii; (6) Alexander, x; (7)
Sixtus, x; (8)  Telesophorus, xi; (9) Hyginus, iv; (10) Pius, xv; (11) Anicetus, xi;, (12)
Soter, viii; (13) Eleutherius, xv; (14) Victor, x; (15) Zephyrinus, xviii;  (16) Callistus, v;
(17) Urban, viii; (18) Pontian, v (Harnack, "Chronologie",  I, 152).

 We learn from Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 4:22) that in the middle  of the second century
Hegesippus, the Hebrew Christian, visited Rome and that  he drew up a list of bishops
as far as Anicetus, the then pope. Eusebius does  not quote his catalogue, but Lightfoot
sees ground for holding that we possess  it in a passage of Epiphanius (Haer. 27:6), in
which the bishops as far  as Anicetus are enumerated. This list of Hegesippus, drawn
up less than a  century after the martyrdom of St. Peter, was he believes, the foundation
alike of the Eusebian and Hippolytan catalogues (Clement of Rome I, 325 so.).  His
view has been accepted by many scholars. Even those who, like Harnack  (Chronologie,
I, 184 sq.), do not admit that this list is really that of  Hegesippus, recognize it as a
catalogue of Roman origin and of very early  date, furnishing testimony independent
alike of the Eusebian and Liberian  lists.

 The "Liber Pontificalis", long accepted as an authority of the  highest value, is now
acknowledged to have been originally composed at the  beginning of the fifth century,
and, as regards the early popes, to be  dependent on the "Liberian Catalogue".

 In the numbering of the successors  of St. Peter, certain differences appear in various
lists. The two forms  Anacletus and Cletus, as we hare seen, very early occasioned the
third pope to  be reckoned twice. There are some few cases, also, in which it is still
doubted whether particular individuals should be accounted genuine popes or
intruders, and, according to the view taken by the compiler of the list, they  will be
included or excluded. In the accompanying list the Stephen immediately  following
Zacharias (752) is not numbered, since, though duly elected, he died  before his
consecration. At that period the papal dignity was held to be  conferred at consecration,
and hence he is excluded from all the early lists.  Leo VIII (963) is included, as the
resignation of Benedict V, though enforced,  may have been genuine. Boniface VII is
also ranked as a pope, since, in 984 at  least, he would seem to have been accepted as
such by the Roman Church. The  claim of Benedict X (1058) is likewise recognized. It
cannot be affirmed that  his title was certainly invalid, and his name, though now
sometimes excluded,  appears in the older catalogues. It should be observed that there
is no John  XX in the catalogue. This is due to the fact that, in the " Liber Pontificalis  ",
two dates are given in connexion with the life of John XIV (983). This  introduced
confusion into some of the papal catalogues, and a separate pope  was assigned to each
of these dates. Thus three popes named John were made to  appear between Benedict
VII and Gregory V. The error led the pope of the  thirteenth century who should have
been called John XX to style himself John  XXI (Duchesne, "Lib. Pont." 2:17). Some only
of the antipopes find  mention in the list. No useful purpose would be served by giving
the name of  every such claimant. Many of them possess no historical importance
whatever.  From Gregory VII onward not merely the years but the precise days are
assigned  on which the respective reigns commenced and closed. Ancient authorities
furnish these details in the case of most of the foregoing popes also: but,  previously to
the middle of the eleventh century, the information is of  uncertain value. With Gregory
VII a new method of reckoning came in. The papal  dignity was held to be conferred by
the election, and not as previously by the  coronation, and the commencement of the
reign was computed from the day of  election. This point seems therefore a convenient
one at which to introduce  the more detailed indications.

 Chronological List of the Popes

St. Peter, d. 67 (?)

St. Linus, 67-79 (?)

St. Anacletus, I, 79-90(?)

St. Clement I, 90-99(?)

St. Evaristus 99-107(?)

St. Alexander I, 107-16(?)

St. Sixtus (Xystus) I, 116-25(?)

St. Telesphorus, 125-36(?)

St. Hyginus, 136-40(?)

St. Pius, 140-54(?)

St. Anicetus, 154-65(?)

St. Soter, 165-74

St. Eleutherius, 174-89

St. Victor, 189-98

St. Zephyrinus, 198-217

St. Callistus I, 217-22

St. Urban I, 222-30

St. Pontian, 230-35

St. Anterus, 235-36

St. Fabian, 236-50

St. Cornelius, 251-53

<Novatianus>, 251-58(?)

St. Lucius I, 253-54

St. Stephen I, 254-57

St. Sixtus (Xystus) II, 257-58

St. Dionysius, 259-68

St. Felix I, 269-74

St. Eutychian, 275-83

St. Caius, 283-96

St. Marcellinus, 296-304

St. Marcellus I, 308-09

St. Eusebius, 309(310)

St. Melchiades (Miltiades), 311-14

St. Sylvester I, 314-35

St. Marcus, 336

St. Julius I, 337-52

St. Liberius, 352-6

<Felix II>, 355-65

Damasus I, 366-84

St. Siricius, 384-98

St. Anastasius I, 398-401

St. Innocent I, 402-17

St. Zosimus, 417-18

St. Boniface I, 418-22

St. Celestine I, 422-32

St. Sixtus (Xystus) III, 432-40

St. Leo I, 440-61

St. Hilarius, 461-68

St. Simplicius, 468-83

St. Felix II (III), 483-92

St. Gelasius I, 492-96

St. Anastasius II, 496-98

St. Symmachus, 498-514

St. Hormisdas, 514-23

St. John I, 523-26

St. Felix III (IV), 526-30

Boniface II, 530-32

John II, 533-35

St. Agapetus I, 535-36

St. Silverius, 536-38(?)

Vigilius, 538(?)-55

Pelagius I, 556-61

John III, 561-74

Benedict I, 575-79

Pelagius II, 579-90

St. Gregory I, 590-604

Sabinianus, 604-06

Boniface III, 607

St. Boniface IV, 608-15

St. Deusdedit, 615-18

Boniface V, 619-25

Honorius I, 625-38

Severinus, 638-40

John IV, 640-2

Theodore I, 642-49

St. Martin I, 649-55

St. Eugene I, 654-57

St. Vitalian, 657-72

Adeodatus, 672-76

<Donus>, 676-78

St. Agatho, 678-81

St. Leo II, 682-83

St. Benedict II, 684-85

John V, 686-86

Conon, 686-7

St. Sergius I, 687-701

John VI, 701-05

John VII, 705-07

Sisinnius, 708

Constantine, 708-15

St. Gregory II, 715-31

St. Gregorv III, 731-41

St. Zacharias, 741-52

<Stephen II, 752

Stephen II (III), 752-57

St. Paul I, 757-67

<Constantine>, 767-68

Stephen III (IV), 768-72

Adrian I, 772-95

St. Leo III, 795-816

Stephen IV (V), 816-17

St. Paschal I, 817-24

Eugene II, 824-27

Valentine, 827

Gregory IV, 827-44

Sergius II, 844-47

St. Leo IV, 847-55

Benedict III, 855-58

<Anastasius>, 855

St. Nicholas I, 858-67

Adrian II, 867-72

John VIII, 872-82

Marinus I (Martin II), 882-84

Adrian III, 884-85

Stephen V (VI), 885-91

Formosus, 891-96

Boniface VI, 896

Stephen VI (VII), 896-97

Romanus, 897

Theodore II, 897

John IX, 898-900

Benedict IV, 900-03

Leo V, 903

Christopher, 903-04

Sergius III, 904-11

Anastasius III, 911-13

Lando, 913-14

John X, 914-28

Leo VI, 928

Stephen VII (VIII), 928-31

John XI, 931-36

Leo VII, 936-39

Stephen VIII (IX), 939-42

Marinus II (Martin III), 942-46

Agapetus II, 946-55

John XII, 955-64

Leo VIII, 963-65

Benedict V, 964

John XIII, 965-72

Benedict VI, 973-74

<Boniface VII>, 974

Benedict VII, 974-83

John XIV, 983-84

Boniface VII, 984-85

John XV, 985-96

Gregory V, 996-99

<John XVI>, 997-98

Silvester II, 999-1003

John XVII, 1003

John XVIII, 1003-09

Sergius IV, 1009-12

Benedict VIII, 1012-24

John XIX, 1024-32

Benedict IX (a) , 1032-45

<Silvester III>, 1045

Gregory VI. 1045-46

Clement II, 1046-47

<Benedict IX (b)>, 1047-48

Damasus II, 1048

St. Leo IX, 1049-54

Victor II, 1055-57

Stephen IX (X), 1057-58

Benedict X, 1058-59

Nicholas II, 1059-61

Alexander II, 1061-73

<Honorius II>, 1061-64

St. Gregory VII, 22 Apr., 1073-25 May, 1085

<Clement III>, 1084-1100

Victor III, 9 May, 1087-16 Sept., 1087

Urban II, 12 March, 1088-29 July, 1099

Paschal II, 13 Aug., 1099-21 Jan., 1118

<Sylvester IV>, 1105-11

Gelasius II, 24 Jan., 1118-28 Jan., 1119

<Gregory VIII>, 1118-21

Callistus II, 2 Feb., 1119-13 Dee. 1124

Honorius II, 15 Dec., 1124-13 Feb., 1130

<Celestine II>, 1124

Innocent II, 14 Feb., 1130-24 Sept., 1143

<Anacletus II>, 1130-38

<Victor IV>, 1138

Celestine II, 26 Sept., 1143-8 March, 1144

Lucius II, 12 March, 1144 (cons.)-15 Feb.,1145

Eugene III, 15 Feb., 1145-8 July, 1153

Anastasius IV, 12 July, 1153 (cons.)-3 Dec., 1154

Adrian IV, 4 Dee., 1154-1 Sept., 1159

Alexander III, 7 Sept., 1159-30 Aug., 1181

<Victor IV>, 1159-64

<Paschal III>, 1164-68

<Callistus III>, 1168-78

<Innocent III>, 1179-80

Lucius III, 1 Sept., 1181-25 Nov., 1185

Urban III, 25 Nov., 1185-20 Oct., 1187

Gregory VIII, 21 Oct.-17 Dec., 1187

Clement III, 19 Dec., 1187-March, 1191

Celestine III, 30 March, 1191-8 Jan., 1198

Innocent III, 8 Jan., 1198-16 July, 1216

Honorius III, 18 July, 1216-18 Mareb, 1227

Gregory IX, 19 Mareh, 1227-22 Aug., 1241

Celestine IV, 25 Oct.-10 Nov., 1241

Innocent IV, 25 June, 1243-7 Dec., 1254

Alexander IV, 12 Dec., 1254-25 May 1261

Urban IV, 29 Aug., 1261-2 Oct., 1264

Clement IV, 5 Feb., 1265-29 Nov., 1268

St. Gregory X, 1 Sept., 1271-10 Jan., 1276

Innocent V, 21 Jan.-22 June, 1276

Adrian V, 11 July-18 Aug., 1276

John XXI, 8 Sept., 1276-20 May, 1277

Nieholas III, 25 Nov., 1277-22 Aug., 1280

Martin IV, 25 Feb., 1281-28 March, 1285

Honorius IV, 2 Apr., 1285-3 Apr., 1287

Nicholas IV, 22 Feb., 1288-4 Apr., 1292

St. Celestine V, 5 July-13 Dec., 1294

Boniface VIII, 24 Dec., 1294-11 Oct., 1303

Benedict XI, 22 Oct., 1303-7 July, 1304

Clement V, 5 June, 1305-20 Apr., 1314

John XXII, 7 Aug., 1316-4 Dec., 1334

<Nicholas V>, 1328-30

Benedict XII, 20 Dec., 1334-25 Apr., 1342

Clement VI, 7 May, 1342-6 Dec., 1352

Innocent VI, 18 Dec., 1352-12 Sept., 1362

Urban V, 6 Nov. 1362 (cons.)-19 Dec., 1370

Gregory XI, 30 Dec., 1370-27 March, 1378

Urban VI, 8 Apr., 1378-15 Oct., 1389

<Clement Vll>, 1378-94

Boniface IX, 2 Nov., 1389-1 Oct., 1404

<Benedict XIII>, 1394-1424

Innocent VII, 17 Oct., 1404-6 Nov., 1406

Gregory XII, 30 Nov., 1406-4 July, 1415

Alexander V, 26 June, 1409-3 May, 1410

John XXIII, 17 May, 1410-29 May, 1415

Martin V, 11 Nov., 1417-20 Feb., 1431

<Clement Vlll>, 1424-29

<Benedict XIV>, 1424

Eugene IV, 3 March, 1431-23 Feb., 1447

<Felix V>, 1439-49

Nicholas V, 6 March, 1447-24 March, 1455

Callistus III, 8 Apr., 1455-6 Aug., 1458

Pius II, 19 Aug., 1458-15 Aug., 1464

Paul II, 31 Aug., 1464-26 July, 1471

Sixtus IV, 9 Aug., 1471-12 Aug., 1484

Innocent VIII, 29 Aug., 1484-25 July, 1492

Alexander VI, 11 Aug., 1492-18 Aug., 1503

Pius III, 22 Sept.-18 Oct., 1503

Julius II, 1 Nov., 1503-21 Feb., 1513

Leo X, 11 March, 1513-1 Dec., 1521

Adrian VI, 9 Jan., 1522-14 Sept., 1523

Clement VII, 19 Nov., 1523-25 Sept., 1534

Paul III, 13 Oct., 1534-10 Nov., 1549

Julius III, 8 Feb., 1550-23 March, 1555

Marcellus II, 9-30 Apr., 1555

Paul IV, 23 May, 1555-18 Aug., 1559

Pius IV, 25 Dec., 1559-9 Dec., 1565

St. Pius V, 7 Jan., 1566-1 May, 1572

Gregory XIII, 13 May, 1572-10 Apr., 1585

Sixtus V, 24 Apr., 1585-27 Aug., 1590

Urban VII, 15-27 Sept., 1590

Gregory XIV, 5 Dec., 1590-15 Oct., 1591

Innocent IX, 29 Oct.-30 Dec., 1591

Clement VIII, 30 Jan., 1592-5 March, 1605

Leo XI, 1-27 Apr., 1605

Paul V, 16 May, 1605-28 Jan., 1621

Gregorv XV, 9 Feb., 1621-8 July, 1623

Urban VIII, 6 Aug., 1623-29 July, 1644

Innocent X, 15 Sept., 1644-7 Jan., 1655

Alexander VII, 7 Apr., 1655-22 May, 1667

Clement IX, 20 June, 1667-9 Dec., 1669

Clement X, 29 Apr., 1670-22 July, 1676

Innocent XI, 21 Sept., 1676-11 Aug., 1689

Alexander VIII, 6 Oct., 1689-1 Feb., 1691

Innocent XII, 12 July, 1691-27 Sept., 1700

Clement XI, 23 Nov., 1700-19 March, 1721

Innocent XIII, 8 May, 1721-7 March, 1724

Benedict XIII, 29 May, 1724-21 Feb., 1730

Clement XII, 12 July, 1730-6 Feb., 1740

Benedict XIV, 17 Aug., 1740-3 May, 1758

Clement XIII, 6 July, 1758-2 Feb., 1769

Clement XIV, 19 May, 1769-22 Sept., 1774

Pius VI, 15 Feb., 1775-29 Aug., 1799

Pius VII, 14 March, 1800 20 Aug., 1823

Leo XII, 28 Sept., 1823-10 Feb., 1829

Pius VIII, 31 March, 1829-30 Nov., 1830

Gregory XVI, 2 Feb., 1831-1 June, 1846

Pius IX, 16 June, 1846-7 Feb., 1878

Leo XIII, 20 Feb., 1878-20 July, 1903

Pius X, 4 Aug., 1903-

ROCABERTI, <Bibl. Maxima Pontificia> (21 vols., Rome,  1695-99); ROKOVANY,
<Romanus Pontifex tanquam Primas Ecclesiae et princeps  civilis e Monument,
omnium saeculorum demonstratus> (16vols., Neutra, 1867-79).  The collection of
ROCABERTI embraces the works of more than a hundred authors  (from the ninth to
the seventeenth century) on primacy. ROKOVANY'S work is a  collection of documents
dealing with the primacy, the civil principality,  infallibility, the First Vatican Council,
etc. A valuable feature of the work is a  vast bibliography of books and pamphlets
treating of the subject from the  earliest times up to the date of publication, with useful
appreciations of  many of the works mentioned. BELLARMINE, <De Summo Pontifice
in Controversiae>,  I (Ingolstadt, 1601); BALLERINI, <De primatu romani pontificis> in
MIGNE,  Thesaurus, III, 906; PALMIERI, <De romano pontifice> (Rome, 1877);
PASSAGLIE, <De  praerogativis b. Petri apostolorum principis> (Ratisbone, 1850);
HERGENROETHER,  <Catholic Church and Christian State> (London, 1876). On the
primacy in the  primitive Church: RIVINGTON, <The Primitive Church and the See of
Peter> (London, 1894); IDEM, <The Roman Primacy (430-451)> (London, 1899);
CHAPMAN,  <Bishops Gore and the Catholic Claims> (London, 1905), vi-vii.  On the
right of  the pope to receive appeals: LUPUS, <Divinum et immutabile S. Petri circa
omnium sub caelo fidelium ad Romanam ejus Cathedram Appellationes in Opera>,
VIII (Venice, 1726); ALEXANDER NATALIS, <Hist. eccl.> 4:28:  <De Jure
Appellationum>; BALLERINI, <Annotationes in Dissert., V.  Quesnellii> in MIGNE,
P.L., LV, 534; HEFELE-LECLERCQ, <Hist. des conciles>, I  (2), p. 759 sq. (Paris, 1907).
On the primacy of honour: PHILLIPS,  <Kirchenrecht> (Ratisbon, 1854); HINSCHIUS,
<System des kathol, Kirchenrechts> (Berlin 1869).  On papal elections: PHILLIPS, op.
cit.; HINSCHIUS, op. cit.;  THOMASSIN, <Vetus et nova ecclesiae disciplina> (Lyons,
1706);  SCHEFFER-BOICHORST, <Die Neuordnung der Papstwahl durch Nicolaus II>
(Strasburg,  1879). On the chronology of the popes: DUCHESNE, <Liber Pontif.> (Paris,
1892);  GAMS, <Series episcoporum> (Ratisbon, 1873).

G. H. JOYCE

Transcribed by Gerard Haffner

Taken from the New Advent Web Page (www.knight.org/advent).

This article is part of the Catholic Encyclopedia Project, an effort aimed at placing the
entire Catholic Encyclopedia on the World Wide Web. The coordinator is Kevin Knight,
editor of the New Advent Catholic Website. If you would like to contribute to this
worthwhile project, you can contact him by e-mail at ([email protected]). For
more information please download the file cathen.txt/.zip.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
www.ewtn.com

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.ratthing.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.