Church Fathers: The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were Given to all of the Apostles (not just Peter)

 

"But you say, Matthew 16:18 the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism." (Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book 1, Chapter 26)

"Before his passion the Lord Jesus, as you know, chose those disciples of his, whom he called apostles. Among these it was only Peter who almost everywhere was given the privilege of representing the whole Church. It was in the person of the whole Church, which he alone represented, that he was privileged to hear, To you will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:19). After all, it isn't just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity. So this is the reason for Peter's acknowledged pre-eminence, that he stood for the Church's universality and unity, when he was told, To you lam entrusting, what has in fact been entrusted to all." (Augustine, Sermon 295)

"It is necessary, however, to inquire how closed heavens are to be opened. I think that they cannot be opened otherwise than by taking up the keys of the apostle Peter-the keys which the Lord bestowed on him when he said: ‘To you I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ Indeed let us ask Peter, that as a good gate keeper of the heavenly palace, he may open to us. Moreover, let us diligently ask what these keys may be. I say that Peter’s key is Peter’s faith, by which he opened heaven, by which, secure, he penetrated hades, by which, fearless, he walked on water. For so great is the power of apostolic faith, that all elements lie open to it: the angelic gates are not closed to it, nor do the gates of Hell prevail against it, nor do floods of water sink it. That key itself, which we call faith, let us see how firm and solid it is. I judge that it was produced by the work of 12 artisans; for the holy faith was comprehended in the creed of the 12 apostles, who, like skilled artisans working in concert, produced the key by their understanding. For I call the creed itself the key, which causes the shades of the devil to draw back, that the light of Christ may come. The hidden sins of conscience are brought into the open so that the clear works of justification may shine. Therefore this key must be shown to our brothers in order that they also as followers of Peter may learn to unlock hades and to open heaven." (Maximus of Turin, Sermon 28, in PL 57:587-588)

"For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now; not as an actor of a play, not as hiding his head with a mask, (for he hath another sort of words to speak), nor mounting a platform, nor striking the stage with his foot, nor dressed out with apparel of gold, but he enters wearing a robe of inconceivable beauty." (John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John)

Cyril of Alexandria, Pope Celestine and the Excommunication of Nestorius

 

Many apologists for the papacy appeal to the condemnation of Nestorius by Pope Celestine as alleged evidence that the church at that time recognized the bishop of Rome as having universal jurisdiction and authority over the Universal Church. Here is the primary quotation dealing with this issue:

“If he, Nestorius, persists, an open sentence must be passed on him…and so, appropriating to yourself the authority of our See, and using our position, you shall with resolute severity carry out this sentence, that either he shall within ten days, counted from the day of your notice, condemn in writing this wicked assertion of his….or if he will not do this he will know that he is in every way removed from our body….We have written the same to our brothers and fellow Bishops John, Rufus, Juvenal, and Flavian, so our judgment about him, or rather the divine sentence of our Christ, may be known” (The Letter of Pope Celestine to Cyril of Alexandria, found in PL 77:80, taken from Erick Ybarra's website)

Is this evidence that the bishop of Rome had universal jurisdiction at this time? No. Here is why:

1) It was not Celestine all by himself who condemned Nestorius, it was an entire synod at Rome. Cyril mentions this in his third letter to Nestorius:

“Behold, therefore, how we, together with the holy synod which met in great Rome, presided over by the most holy and most reverend brother and fellow-minister, Celestine the Bishop, also testify by this third letter to you, and counsel you to abstain from these mischievous and distorted dogmas,” (St. Cyril of Alexandria's 3rd Letter to Nestorius)

One might respond that Celestine simply convened a synod Rome simply because it was more "prudent". However, this would be unnecessary in light of canon 25 of Dictus Papae:

"That he [the Pope of Rome] may depose and reinstate bishops without assembling a synod." (https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/g7-dictpap.asp)

2) The term used for "authority" by Celestine when he says "appropriating to yourself the authority of our See" is the Latin word auctoritas. In reality, this word does not carry the idea of ecclesiastical jurisdiction at all. Karla Pollmann wrote an important essay on the concept of auctoritas in the book Being Christian in Late Antiquity. Here is what she said:

"Even if the etymology of auctoritas (‘strengthening, augmenting’) as being derived from augere (‘augment, strengthen, increase, magnify’) was not always present in the minds of those using the term, is it still crucial that auctoritas adds more weight to a person’s status, statement, or action by eliciting decisive approval in others. Moreover, one has to distinguish it from potestas, which denotes magisterial power and control by virtue of an office, while auctoritas signifies the influence which is conceded voluntarily to a person, institution, or text." (Karla Pollmann, "Christianity and Authority in Late Antiquity: The Transformation of the Concept of Auctoritas", in Being Christian in Late Antiquity, pg. 159 [source])

Thus when Celestine appropriated his "auctoritas" to Cyril, it was not in reference to jurisdictional power/authority, but rather moral authority, i.e. approval in advance of the decision of Cyril.

Note: Erick Ybarra responded to this by citing canon 5 of the synod at Hippo in North Africa which cites its "full authority"(plenas auctoritas) as the basis for the validity of its judgments over certain cases in the church. While this may be true in this one case, this is crushed by the enormous amount of evidences from contemporary Roman literature which gives the exact same meaning for auctoritas that we are giving right now (more is in Pollmann's paper). Here are two examples:

"auctoritas est argumentum verius atque honestius et cui quasi necesse habeat credi ['Authority is a more truthful and honest argument, which one thinks one has to believe as if by necessity']" (Marius Victorinus, Explanationes in Ciceronis Rhetoricam)

"The pope [Gelasius] wrote as well to Anastasius: “There are in fact two, August Emperor, by whom this world is originally governed; the consecrated authority (auctoritas) of bishops and the royal power (potestas). Of these, the responsibility of the bishops is the more weighty, since even for the rulers of men they will have to give account at the judgment seat of God.” Here Gelasius assigns to bishops auctoritas, a term consecrated in Roman law and belonging to the ideal and moral sphere whose force was derived from tradition and public opinion; to the emperor, potestas, the power granted to Roman magistrates for the carrying out of their executive duties during their term of office. " (Leo Donald Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology, pg. 211)

It is quite obvious here that authority "auctoritas" is in reference to moral authority, not potestas. 

3) We have plenty of other examples in church history of bishops excommunicating people outside of their diocese. One such example is that of John Chrysostom excommunicating several bishops in Asia, among whom was Gerontius, the bishop of Nicomedia.  Sozomen speaks of this in Book 8, Chapter 6 of his Ecclesiastical History. 

The Doctrines of Grace in Saint Augustine's Writings

 

Total Depravity/Inability

"The whole mass of the human race was under condemnation, was lying steeped and wallowing in misery, and was being tossed from one form of evil to another, and, having joined the faction of the fallen angels, was paying the well-merited penalty of that impious rebellion" (Enchiridion, Chapter 27)

"For it was by the evil use of his free-will that man destroyed both it and himself. For, as a man who kills himself must, of course, be alive when he kills himself, but after he has killed himself ceases to live, and cannot restore himself to life; so, when man by his own free-will sinned, then sin being victorious over him, the freedom of his will was lost. For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. This is the judgment of the Apostle Peter. And as it is certainly true, what kind of liberty, I ask, can the bond-slave possess, except when it pleases him to sin? For he is freely in bondage who does with pleasure the will of his master. Accordingly, he who is the servant of sin is free to sin. And hence he will not be free to do right, until, being freed from sin, he shall begin to be the servant of righteousness." (Enchiridion, Chapter 30)

Unconditional Election

"He, therefore, works the beginning of our belief who works all things; because faith itself does not precede that calling of which it is said: For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance; Romans 11:29 and of which it is said: Not of works, but of Him that calls Romans 9:12 (although He might have said, of Him that believes); and the election which the Lord signified when He said: You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you. John 15:16 For He chose us, not because we believed, but that we might believe, lest we should be said first to have chosen Him, and so His word be false (which be it far from us to think possible), You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you. Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe; and by that calling which is without repentance it is effected and carried through that we should believe. " (On the Predestination of the Saints, Chapter 38)

Effectual Calling

"God calls His many predestined children to make them members of His predestined only Son, and not with that call by which those who did not wish to come to the wedding were called, for with that call the Jews also were called, to whom Christ crucified is a scandal, and the gentiles were called, for whom Christ crucified is foolishness. Rather, He calls the predestined by that call which the Apostle distinguished when he declared that he preached Christ, the Wisdom and the Power of God, to those who were called, Jews as well as Greeks. For he speaks thus: “But unto those who were called,” to show that those others were not called, for he knows that there is a special and certain call reserved for those who are called according to God’s purpose, “whom He foreknew and predestined to be conformable to the image of His Son.” (On the Predestination of the Saints, Chapter 32)

Perseverance of the Saints

“From all which it is shown with sufficient clearness that the grace of God, which both begins a man's faith and which enables it to persevere unto the end, is not given according to our merits, but is given according to His own most secret and at the same time most righteous, wise, and beneficent will;” (On the Gift of Perservance, Chapter 33)

“They were not ‘of’ them, because they had not been ‘called according to His purpose,’ they had not been elected ‘in Christ before the foundation of the world,’ they had not ‘obtained their lot’ in Him, they had not been ‘predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things.’ For if they had had been all this, they would have been ‘of’ them, and they would no doubt have remained with them.” (On the Gift of Perseverance, Chapter 21)

Refuting Papal Proof-Texts: John 21:15

 

"When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.'" (John 21:15)

This is a common text used by the Romanists to argue that Christ gave the Apostle Peter the power of universal jurisdiction and supreme authority over the universal church. In this article, I will present some material which refutes that claim. 

#1 - Scriptural Meaning of "Feed"

The words used for "feed" in this verse are βόσκω and ποιμαίνω. The question is whether this verse signifies not only ministerial duties (preaching, etc.) but also ecclesiastical rule, which is the assertion of the Papists. I will give other examples of how this term is used which show that "feeding" is ascribed to others besides Peter: 

"Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care (ποιμαίνειν) for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood." (Acts 20:28)

"But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready." (1 Corinthians 3:1-2)

"Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends (ποιμαίνει) a flock without getting some of the milk?" (1 Corinthians 9:7)

"Shepherd (ποιμάνατε) the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly;" (1 Peter 5:2)

Concerning the meaning and nuances of ποιμαίνω, BDAG (on pg. 683) cites 1 Peter 5:2 and John 21:16 as having the same meaning of "tend" or "feed".

#2 - The Testimony of the Church Fathers

The famous encyclical Satis Cognitum cites the Ambrose and John Chrysostom (among others) as being proof for the Roman interpretation of this verse in John 21:15. We will examine those 2 fathers first, and then look at some other material.

The following passage is cited from Chrysostom:

"‘Why has He shed His blood? To buy the sheep which He handed over to Peter and his successors" (On the Priesthood, Book 2)

In the context of this quotation, Chrysostom is speaking to none other than Basil the Great (whose opinions on this text will be made clear in a moment). We see elsewhere in this same section of Chrysostom, that Basil is viewed as a successor the Apostle Peter:

"Will you, then, still contend that you were not rightly deceived, when you are about to superintend the things which belong to God, and are doing that which when Peter did the Lord said he should be able to surpass the rest of the apostles, for His words were, Peter, do you love me more than these?" (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/19222.htm)

"That is, you, as Bishop, have the same office as that committed to St. Peter by the words, Feed My sheep, and so are one of his successors." (Edward Denny, Papalism, pg. 67)

And yet elsewhere, we see that Chrysostom did not interpret John 21 in the way that Satis Cognitum does. Note the following words:

Peter, do you love me, says He; Feed my sheep: John 21:15-17 and having asked him a third time, declared this to be an infallible proof of love. But not to priests only is this said, but to every one of us also, who are also entrusted with a little flock. For do not despise it, because it is a little flock: For my Father, He says, has pleasure in them. Luke 12:32 Each of us has a sheep, let him lead that to the proper pastures." (Homily 77 on the Gospel of Matthew)

We will now move on to Ambrose, the bishop of Milan. Here is the passage cited in Satis Cognitum:

"The Lord does not hesitate. He interrogates, not to learn but to teach. When He was about to ascend into heaven, He left us, as it were, a vicegerent of His love...and so because Peter alone of all others professes his love, he is preferred to all—that being the most perfect he should govern the more perfect’ (Ambrose, Exposit. in Evang. secundum Lucam, Book 10)

However, when we look at Ambrose's comments on this text elsewhere in his writings, a very different picture emerges than what is given by the Romanists: 

"The honour and sublimity of the Episcopate can be equalled by no comparisons; certainly it was said by the Lord to blessed Peter, ‘Peter, lovest thou Me?’ and he said, ‘Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee’; and when he had been asked three times and had replied with a triple answer, it was repeated three times by our Lord, ‘Feed My sheep,’ etc., which sheep and which flock not only then did blessed Peter receive but also with him all we received" (Ambrose, De Dignitate Sacerdotali, c. I, in PL 17:569)

Here are further testimonies from the ancient fathers that this text was not viewed in the same way as Roman Catholicism views it today:

‘What was commended to Peter, what was enjoined to Peter, not Peter alone, but also all the other Apostles heard and held preserved, and most of all the partner of his death and of his day, the Apostle Paul. They heard that and transmitted it for our hearing; we feed you, we are fed together with you...Therefore hath the Lord commended His sheep to us because He commended them to Peter.’ (Augustine, Sermon 216, in PL 38:1354)

"And, we are taught this by Christ Himself constituting Peter pastor after Himself of the Church, for “Peter,” saith He, “dost thou love Me more than these? Feed My sheep.” And conferring on all pastors and teachers thenceforward the same equal authority, it is a sign that all in like manner bind and loose." (Basil the Great, Constitutiones Monasticae, 22.5; in PG 31:1410)

What are the Marks of the True Church?

 

In this article, I will defend this premise: the primary marks of the true church of Christ are the pure administration of the Word and the Sacraments. 

#1 - Scriptural Proof 

Scripture clearly shows that the Word is the soul and life of the church, without which the church could not even exist:

"Where there is no prophetic vision the people cast off restraint, but blessed is he who keeps the law." (Proverbs 29:18)

"The wise men shall be put to shame; they shall be dismayed and taken; behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" (Jeremiah 8:9)

"So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, 'If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples,'" (John 8:31)

"Whoever belongs to God hears what God says" (John 8:47)

"Jesus answered him, 'If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.'" (John 14:23)

"Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son." (2 John 9)

#2 - Patristic Testimony

The early fathers also taught that the pure administration of the Word and sacraments is a mark of the true Church. Francis Turretin, in volume 3 of his Institutes of Elenctic Theology, cites many such testimonies. I will give what I think is the clearest one:

"There comes a heathen and says, I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose? How shall we answer him? Each of you (says he) asserts, ' I speak the truth.' (b) No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule" (John Chrysostom, Homily 33 on Acts)

#3 - Further Clarifications from Francis Turretin

"It is one thing to know who are the elect singly; another to know where they are and in what assembly they may be found. Our marks do not go so far as to manifest the former to us, but only the latter (which is sufficient that we may ascertain to what assembly we ought to join ourselves). As in the state, it is not necessary to know distinctly and certainly who are true and faithful citizens, who obey the laws heartily; it is sufficient for us to know what is the republic in which such laws flourish" (IOEC III:93)

"Although the pure preaching of the word does not always prevail in the church, it does not follow that this mark is separable from the church and that it is therefore falsely said to be a mark. That purity ought to be understood with a certain latitude, nor does the church at once cease when the purity ceases according to some degrees, provided it does not cease altogether. Purity ought to be in fundamentals in order that it may be a true church, although in other respects various errors can obtain in it from which it could contract various degrees of impurity (which although they take away from it the name of a pure church, still they do not remove the name of a true church, as long as the foundation remains safe and unimpaired). The pure preaching of the word and the purity of the church walk hand in hand. If the former is in every part pure and free from error, the latter also will be pure; but if the church begins to be corrupt it does not at once cease to be a true church until the foundation is assailed." (IOEC III:93)

The Patristic View of the Bishop of Rome: Answering Robert Bellarmine [Part 3]

 

Robert Bellarmine

#10 - Sozomen

“Since on account of the dignity of his own seat regards the care of all the faithful as his own, he restored each to their church.” (Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 7)

As Bellarmine himself says in this part, Sozomen is referring to the time when Pope Julius restored Athanasius and Paul of Constantinople to their respective sees. 

Here is the full paragraph from which Bellarmine is quoting:

"The Bishop of the Romans having inquired into the accusation against each [i.e. St. Athanasius, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Artepus of Gaza]; when he found them all agreeing with the doctrine of the Nicene Synod, admitted them to Communion as agreeing with him, and inasmuch as the care of all belonged to him on account of the rank of his See, he restored each to his Church, and he wrote to the Bishops throughout the East [i.e. Antioch] censuring them for not having rightly decided the causes of these persons, and for throwing the Churches into confusion by not abiding in the decrees of Nicaea" (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26023.htm)

Sozomen is inaccurate here. Athanasius, ultimately, wasn't restored merely due to the actions of Julius. Rather, it was because Constantine, knowing the threats Constans made of war, decided to call back the bishops who had been exiled (Tillemont, Memoires pour servir a l’histoire ecclesiastique des six premiers siecles, 6:345).

[Bellarmine cites Acatius and Liberatus. I have no way of knowing whether these or in context or not or anything like that, since I cannot find the original sources online, though I checked via Google Books.]

#11 - Justinian I

"We will not suffer anything which pertains to the state of the Churches that is not also made known to your holiness, who is head of all the Churches of the world." (Justinian Codex)

The argument is obvious: Justinian calls Rome the head of all churches. I guess Vatican I is proved after all.

Just kidding. The title "head of all churches" is also used by Justinian to refer to Constantinople in Corpus Juris Civilis Romani, vol. 2, pg. 36.

#12 - Cyprian

Bellarmine provides the following quotes from Cyprian. I will number each one of them and address them specifically:

Q #1 - “Heresies do not arise from any other source, nor are schisms born, than in that because they do not obey the Priest of God, or one priest in the Church at a time, or it is not thought that there is one judge in the stead of Christ at a time. To which if all fraternity would comply according to the divine magisterium, no man from the college of priests would ever oppose anything, etc.” 

Q #2 - "There is one God, and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded upon Peter by the voice of the Lord. One cannot set up another altar, or to make a new priesthood, apart from the one altar and one priesthood. Whoever does so gathers elsewhere, and therefore, scatters."

Both of these quotes have citations given to them by Bellarmine. And yet, I was unable to find them in the Schaff set (ANF vol. 5). As far as I can tell, these quotes are not contained anywhere in the official Cyprianic corpus. 

Regarding Cyprian, I always appeal to the situation between Cyprian and Pope Stephen, and the part in the Council of Carthage where it says "no one sets himself up as a bishop of bishops." Bellarmine responds to this argument by saying the following:

"When Cyprian says: 'No one makes himself a bishop of bishops,' he speaks on those who were present at that Council in Carthage, he does not include the Roman Pontiff in that teaching, who truly is the Bishop of Bishops, and Father of Fathers, as we will show below when we treat on the titles of the Roman Pontiff." (Bellarmine)

I respond by saying two things:

1) In light of the historical context, it is frankly quite obvious that the "bishop of bishops" accusation is an allusion/rebuke to Pope Stephen. It was Stephen that tried to make himself a "bishop of bishops", not anybody else. Stephen was the one who appealed to Matthew 16:18 in an attempt to prove his authority, and yet Cyprian and the North African bishops resisted, showing that they did recognize papal authority. 

2) In the Ante-Nicene Fathers set, in volume 5, we have a critical text of the Council of Carthage under Cyprian, with a footnote that says this:

"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops [Footnote: Of course this implies a rebuke to the assumption of Stephen, ("their brother," and forcibly contrasts the spirit of Cyprian with that of his intolerant compeer).], nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there." (The Seventh Council of Carthage under Cyprian, cited in ANF 5:565)

This is why Bellarmine's argument is simply a copout. 

Concerning Cyprian's view of the papacy, there is also the case of the deposed Spanish bishops Basilides and Martian, which also refutes the claims of Vatican I (which Bellarmine does not address). I have dealt more comprehensively with that case here. 

Roman Catholic patristic scholar Johannes Quasten says the following concerning the ecclesiology of Cyprian:

"Cyprian is convinced that the bishop answers to God alone. ‘So long as the bond of friendship is maintained and the sacred unity of the Catholic Church is preserved, each bishop is master of his own conduct, conscious that he must one day render an account of himself to the Lord’ (Epist. 55.21). In his controversy with Pope Stephen on the rebaptism of heretics he voices as the president of the African synod of September 256 his opinion as follows: “No one among us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyranny and terror forces his colleagues to compulsory obedience, seeing that every bishop in the freedom of his liberty and power possesses the right to his own mind and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. We must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Chirst, who singly and alone has power both to appoint us to the government of his Church and to judge our acts therein’ (CSEL 3, 1, 436). From these words it is evident that Cyprian does not recognize a primacy of jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome over his colleagues. Nor does he think Peter was given power over the other apostles because he states: hoc erant et ceteri apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti et honoris et potestatis (De unit. 4). No more did Peter claim it: ‘Even Peter, whom the Lord first chose and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul later disputed with him over circumcision, did not claim insolently any prerogative for himself, nor make any arrogant assumptions nor say that he had the primacy and ought to be obeyed’ (Epist. 71, 3).”On the other hand, it is the same Cyprian who gives the highest praise to the church of Rome on account of its importance for ecclesiastical unity and faith, when he complains of heretics ‘who dare to set sail and carry letters from schismatic and blasphemous persons to the see of Peter and the leading church, whence the unity of the priesthood took its rise, not realizing that the Romans, whose faith was proclaimed and praised by the apostle, are men into whose company no perversion of faith can enter’ (Epist. 59, 14). Thus the cathedra Petri is to him the ecclesia principalis and the point of origin of the unitas sacerdotalis. However, even in this letter he makes it quite clear that he does not concede to Rome any higher right to legislate for other sees because he expects her not to interfere in his own diocese ‘since to each separate shepherd has been assigned one portion of the flock to direct and govern and render hereafter an account of his ministry to the Lord’ (Epist. 59, 14)." (Johannes Quasten, Patrology, Vol. 2, pgs. 375-76)

#13 - Optatus of Miletus

“Therefore, on the aforesaid dowries, that Chair is first, which we proved is ours through Peter.”

"He follows Cyprian’s opinion on the singular chair of the whole Church in his work Contra Parmen., where he says there are five dowries of the Catholic Church, and the first is the unique and singular Chair of Peter, in which unity ought to be preserved by all: but he showed that singular Chair is not only Peter’s but also his successors’ when he enumerated the Roman Pontiffs even to Siricius." (Bellarmine)

Response:

1) In the context of this writing, Optatus is arguing against Donatists who had instituted their own bishops in the church. Optatus is essentially repeating the view of Cyprian of Carthage. This view entails that Peter is merely the symbol of unity in the episcopate office throughout all of the Christian churches. I would quote Denny's observation on this point: 

"St. Optatus’s argument here refers solely to the position of the Catholic Episcopate as against that of the Donatists, having no reference whatever to any unique sovereign position belonging to the Bishop of Rome. Moreover, it is inconsistent with the existence of any such prerogative. For according to it the See of Rome holds the same position in essence as the other Sees in Christendom, the Bishop thereof, simply because the chair was the one in which Peter as Bishop actually sat, being in it considered to so occupy the like symbolical position towards the Episcopate as that Apostle did with reference to the Apostolate" (Denny, Papalism, pg. 329)

2) Optatus' view is more clearly elucidated in the following words of his: 

"‘Send your Angel, if you can, and let him shut out the seven Angels who are with our allies in Asia, to whose churches John the Apostle wrote, with whom you are proved to have no fellowship or communion...Without the Seven Churches—whatever is beyond their pale—is alien [from the Catholic Church]. Or if you have some one Angel derived from them, through that one you hold communion with the other Angels, and through the Angels with the Churches before mentioned, and through the Churches with us [i.e. the Catholics of Africa], whom, however, you regard as polluted and refuse to own." (De Schismate Donatistorum, Book 2, Chapter 2, in PL 11:947)

"St. Optatus here tells the Donatists to authoritatively exclude the Bishops of the Seven Churches of Asia if they could, and lays down that communion with these Churches is an essential condition to union with the Catholic Church, in that they represent the Church of the Apostolic Age; the reason why they are so representative being that they shared the One Episcopate, their Bishops being the successors of the seven Angels mentioned in the Apocalypse. He proceeds to clinch his argument by saying that if perchance they did claim to possess Bishops canonically derived from these Angels, thus being in communion with those Churches, the absurdity of the objection they raised against the Catholics of Africa is self–evident, since if they were so in communion, they were necessarily in communion with those whom they were denouncing" (Denny, Papalism, pg. 330)

#14 - Ambrose

"When the whole world should be of God, nevertheless his house is called the Church, whose Ruler today is Damasus."

Bellarmine provides this citation: I ad Tim., c. 3. It is commentary on 1 Timothy. I was not familiar with this before, so I did some digging around online to see if I find the original text of it. I could not. It is not contained in the Patrologia Latina set or anywhere else, so I have no clue if it is authentic or not.

However, Bellarmine does provide a quote from an authentic letter of bishop Ambrose:

“Percunctatus is a Bishop, if he should agree with Catholic bishops, that is, if he should agree with the Roman Church.” (Epistle to Satyrus)

"Why, I ask, are they not Catholic bishops unless they agree with the Roman Church, except that the Roman Church is the head of the Catholic Church?" (Bellarmine)

Denny responds by giving the historical context, which refutes the claim of Bellarmine:

"Satyrus had gone to Sardinia and St. Ambrose advised him, in order to find out whether the Bishop was orthodox or not, to inquire of him ‘whether he agreed with the Catholic Bishops, that is, with the Roman Church. Sardinia, like the rest of ‘the Roman world,’ was at this time exposed to the ravages of Arianism. It was situate within the Roman Patriarchate, consequently the shortest and easiest method by which any orthodox Western going thither could ascertain whether he was to communicate with a particular Bishop who claimed jurisdiction on the part of the island where he might be, would be to inquire whether he agreed with the Catholic Bishops, that is, the Roman Church, since the Catholic Bishops in the West were in communion with that Church ‘in the Roman world,’ which, moreover, the Churches in Sardinia, as part of the Roman Patriarchate, were necessarily bound to recognise as the head of the Patriarchate, to use a term which came into use later, so that any Bishop of Sardinia who did not agree with it would be manifestly unorthodox and to be avoided." (Denny, Papalism, pg. 524)

We will move on to the next quote from Bellarmine that he attributes St. Ambrose:

“Are we not ignorant that the Church does not have some custom, whose type and form we follow in all things?. . . In all things, I desire to follow the Roman Church, but still even we men have the sense; therefore, what is rightly preserved elsewhere, we also rightly safeguard.” (On the Sacraments, Book III, Chapter 1)

"In that place it must be observed, when Ambrose says that in all things he would follow the Roman Church, and still that he refuses to follow the custom of not washing the feet of the recently baptized: that all things must be understood on all necessary matters, and pertaining to salvation, otherwise he would be opposed to himself" (Robert Bellarmine)

It should be noted that there is dispute in patristic scholarship as to whether or not Ambrose wrote On the Sacraments. I will quote what the Society for Christian Knowledge in their introduction to this work (published along with On the Mysteries):

"But though the author has made free use of the materials of the earlier work, his style is different from that of Ambrose...Lastly, it is improbable that Ambrose would have so closely copied an earlier work of his own..But this theory fails to explain the peculiar characteristics which distinguish it from the genuine works of Ambrose. The question of authorship therefore remains open." (https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/ambrose-on-the-mysteries-and-the-treatise-on-the-sacraments) 

#15 - Jerome

"A great many years ago, when I assisted Damasus, the bishop of the city of Rome, in ecclesiastical records and in synodal consultations of the East and West, I responded, etc. " (Letter to Agemchiam of Monogamia)

"You see how from the whole Church, and the whole world responses were then sought from the Apostolic See?"(Robert Bellarmine)

This claim is honestly quite ridiculous. There is nothing in this text whatsoever to substantiate the claim of Bellarmine.

Bellarmine next cites Jerome's letter Pope Damasus. I refer the reader to my article on this subject where I address it  (and other related issues) more comprehensively. 

#16 - Augustine

 “In the Roman Church the rule of the Apostolic Chair always flourishes.” (Epistle 43)

[Bellarmine cites this as "Letter 162" but it is actually letter 43]

NewAdvent translates this as "the rule of an Apostolic Chair always flourishes", rather than "the Apostolic Chair." If the former translation is correct, then all Augustine is saying is that Rome has a successor of an apostle (Peter) as its bishop. So what? Does that entail things like infallibility and universal jurisdiction? Obviously not. We will thus move on to Bellarmine's next quote. 

“Because the Lord has placed you for his sake in that unique office, in the Apostolic seat, and he furnished such for our times, that it should avail rather more a fault of our negligence, if with your veneration, which must be furnished for the Church, we were silent, than that you could disdainfully or negligently receive, in great danger to the weaker members of Christ, we ask that you would deign to apply pastoral diligence.”

Once again, I suspect that this quote may not actually have been from Augustine for two big reasons. First, because Epistle 92 (the citation given by Bellarmine) is not even written to Innocent. It is written to Italica (according to the New Advent website). Secondly, I used Google Books to see if this quote is any other sources and I could not find a single other source. 

Here is the next quote (along with Bellarmine's comments):

“They came to me while present at Caesaraea, in which Ecclesiastical necessity had derived for us what was enjoined upon up by the venerable Pope Zozimus, the Bishop of the Apostolic Seat.” (Letter to Optatus)

"Without a doubt Zozimus had commanded that the Bishops of Africa should celebrate a Council at Caesarea: and St. Augustine reckoned it must be obeyed, and necessarily Pope Zozimus must be obeyed" (Robert Bellarmine)

There is a different translation of this in this edition of Augustine's letters:

"I received no letter of Your Holiness that was sent to me, but the letter that you sent to Caesarean Mauretania arrived while I was present in Caesarea, where a pressing work of the Church imposed upon us by the venerable Pope Zosimus of the Apostolic See had taken us."

Bellarmine's translation of "ecclesiastical necessity" is not attested in any other sources. I will go with the one above as the better one since it comes for more scholarly authors/contributors. 

This quote does not prove universal jurisdiction. The principle that "correlation does not equal causation" applies to this situation with Augustine and Pope Zosimus. 

"Additional proof that St. Augustine did not believe that the Bishop of Rome possessed the ‘supreme power of teaching’ which the Satis Cognitum, by citing him as a witness to its allegations, asserts he did, is furnished by the following facts. Zosimus, who succeeded Innocent, reversed the decision of his predecessor against Ccelestius and Pelagius.84 So far from accepting this judgment as that of the Supreme Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, St. Augustine and the Africans assembled in Council at Carthage either in the autumn of A.D. 417 or the beginning Of A.D. 418.85 Two hundred and fourteen Bishops were present and formally adhered to their former decision. In their Synodal Letter they said, ‘We decree—constituimus—that the sentence put forth by the venerable Bishop Innocent from the See of the Blessed Apostle Peter should stand until by an open confession they acknowledge that by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord we are asserted not only to know but also to do what is right in every act, so that without it we can neither possess, think, say, or do anything good and holy." (Denny, Papalism, pg. 247)

Bellarmine provides two more quotes from one Augustine's letters to Boniface, but I could not find them anywhere in the primary sources. 

#17 - Prosper of Aquitaine

“The seat of Peter at Rome, which was made head of the world for pastoral honor, holds by Religion whatever it did not possess by arms.” (Liber de Ingratis, Chapter 2)

I was able to get the Latin text, which reads as follows:

"sedes roma petri, quae pastoralis honoris Facta Caput mundo, quicquid non possidet Armis Religione Tenet".

I searched for these words in Patrologia Latina, volume 51, which contains all of Prosper's writings in their original language. I was able to find them, but am unsure as to the original context, since my Latin is a bit rusty. I have no clue as to whether Bellarmine is quoting this in context or not. 

#18 - Vincent of Lerins

"And lest Greece or the East should seem to stand alone, to prove that the Western and Latin world also have always held the same belief, there were read in the Council certain Epistles of St. Felix, martyr, and St. Julius, both bishops of Rome. And that not only the Head, but the other parts of the world also might bear witness to the judgment of the council, there was added from the South the most blessed Cyprian, bishop of Carthage and martyr, and from the North St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan." (Comminitorium, Chapter 30)

"You see, the Roman Pontiff is called the Head of the world." (Robert Bellarmine)

While Vincent calls the Roman Pontiff "the Head", he does not call him the "head of the world". Bellarmine is quite simply reading that into the text. 

Notice that Vincent of Lerins notes that the other bishops were consulted as to their judgment on the council. This implies that the bishop(s) of Rome's judgment was not in of itself conclusive. Thus, this text actually works as a witness against the papacy. 

Bellarmine proceeds to cite Cassiodorus, St. Bede, Anslem of Canterbury, Hugh of St. Victor, and St. Bernard of Clairvaux. I am not addressing these specific writers either because I do not have access to the original sources, or because they are of a way later date, some of whom are after the first millennium. My general position is that for the first 600-700 years of church history, the papacy was not the general belief of the church. I acknowledge that after that point in time is when the papacy (as it is known today) began to develop quite drastically. 

The Patristic View of the Bishop of Rome: Answering Robert Bellarmine [Part 2]

 

Robert Bellarmine

#7 - John Chrysostom

Bellarmine next appeals to Chrysostom's exchange with Pope Innocent I as proof for his claims (the context of this appeal was due to Chrysostom's deposition by Theophilus, the patriarch of Alexandria). A few things may be said in response here:

1) Bellarmine does not tell his readers this important fact in this episode of church history: namely, that Chrysostom did not appeal only to Innocent I, but also to Venerus, the bishop of Milan, and Chromatius, the bishop of Aquilea.

"It was entirely natural that John, now effectively primate of the eastern churches, should resort to Innocent in his hour of crisis. His move in no way implied that he recognised the holy see as the supreme court of appeal in the church (much as the pope would have relished it if he had). Such an idea, absent from his sermons and other writings, is ruled out by his simultaneous approach to the two other western patriarchs." (J.N.D. Kelly, Golden Mouth - The Story of John Chrysostom: Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop, pg. 247)

2) Chrysostom in his correspondences appeals to the canons of Nicaea and Constantinople I as being authoritative, not merely the judgment of Pope Innocent. 

3) Innocent wrote the following to both Chrysostom and Theophilus: "Brother Theophilus, we acknowledge both thee and Brother John to be in our communion, as in our first letters we made known our mind...except a fitting judgment follow upon such acts of mockery, it is impossible that we should without reason decline John’s communion. So that if thou art confident in the judgment, meet the Council assembling according to Christ, and there set forth thy accusations according to the Canons of Nicaea, which alone the Roman Church acknowledges, and so thou wilt have undeniable security." (PL 20:493, 495)

Innocent himself does not act in a way consistent with the the views of Bellarmine on this situation. Rather than appealing to his own authority jure divino as the bishop of Rome/successor of the Apostle Peter, he instead views the canons of Nicaea as the ultimate judge in this controversy ("which alone the Roman church acknowledges" [i.e. in the specific situation at hand]).

#8 - Cyril of Alexandria

Bellarmine appeals to the well-known correspondence between Cyril of Alexandria, Pope Celestine, and Nestorius. I have dealt with this more comprehensively in this article. 

Bellarmine then cites two passages from the text Thesauri, which is commonly attributed to Cyril. In fairness, this text is contained in Patrologia Graeca vol. 35, however the words given to us by Bellarmine are not there at all. Bellarmine himself admits that these words are not contained in the extant copies (at his time) of Thesauri. However, he attempts to defend their authenticity by saying that they are cited by Thomas Aquinas in his treatise Contra Errores Graecorum (the full text can be read here), and that a bishop at the Council of Florence cited them (during session 7). However, I do not find either of these proofs convincing that these words were a part of the original words of Cyril of Alexandria. I checked the acts of Florence from two different sources and could not find any reference to the Thesauri or even to Cyril of Alexandria at all during session 7 of the council. Regardless, even if it is there, it close to 1000 years removed from the period in which Cyril of Alexandria lived (and the same goes for the citation from Thomas Aquinas)! This is in no way conclusive for discerning whether these words were a part of Thesauri or not. We would need evidence that is centuries closer to Theodoret (at least to some degree) before we can even think about the authenticity of these words in any sort of meaningful way. 

Regardless, we have evidence elsewhere from Cyril that he did not believe in the papacy the way Bellarmine did or in the way that the Roman Catholic church believes today. This is found in the same case above with the controversy between John Chrysostom and Theophilus of Alexandria. Theophilus, before he died, did not put Chrysostom's name in the diptychs, contrary to the view of Pope Innocent I (though, to be fair, Innocent [as far as I know] never made an official decree on this specific issue or anything like that). After Theophilus died, Cyril of Alexandria succeeded him as the patriarch and followed his decision is not putting Chrysostom's name in the diptychs (until 419 AD) contrary to the probable opinion of Innocent I. 

#9 - Theodoret

Bellarmine next appeals to two passages from the letters of Theodoret of Cyrus. I will deal with them individually. 

“I await the judgment of your Apostolic seat, and I beg and entreat your holiness that you would impose the might of your just and right judgment to my appeal, and that it might bid you to hasten and show that my doctrine follows in the Apostolic footsteps.” (Letter 113 to Pope Leo)

"Yet here was an Asian Bishop who was in charge of 800 churches, as he says in the same place, nevertheless he acknowledges the Roman Pontiff as his supreme judge." (Robert Bellarmine)

I respond with the following points:

1) In light of other historical data, we can be reasonably sure that Theodoret was making a general appeal to the bishops of the West, not to Pope Leo by himself. This is shown by the fact that Theodoret also wrote a letter to Anatolius, the patrician of Constantinople, at the same time (letter 119). 

2) A few years later in 451 AD, at the Council of Chalcedon, when Theodoret was introduced at session 1, they did not immediately view him as being restored to his see, despite the actions of Pope Leo to that end, showing their lack of recognition of papal authority in that regard (similar to the case of Canon 28 of that same council). The council's judgment was "in accordance with the decree of the holy Council, Theodoret shall again be put into possession of the Church of Cyrus" (Mansi 4:1302). The very fact that the Council of Chalcedon took so long to restore Theodoret to his See, despite the judgment of Pope Leo, shows that they did not view him as having ultimate jurisdictional authority. 

Bellarmine next cites letter 116 to Renatus:

“They have despoiled me of priesthood and thrown me from the cities; neither is age considered in religion nor reverence for grey hairs. This is why I beg you, that you might persuade the most holy Archbishop Leo, that he would use his Apostolic authority, and that he might bid me to approach your Council. That holy seat holds the reigns of government over every church of the world.”

At first glance, it may seem like Theodoret viewed Leo has having universal jurisdiction. I note the following things:

1) A better translation of the last sentence (in light of the whole context of this statement in the following statements) is better translated "For that holy see has precedence over all churches in the world" (this is the translation of the NewAdvent website). 

2) Notice the full context of the words of Theodoret: "For that holy see has precedence over all churches in the world, for many reasons; and above all for this, that it is free from all taint of heresy, and that no bishop of heterodox opinion has ever sat upon its throne, but it has kept the grace of the apostles undefiled". 

The main reason why Theodoret views Rome "as having precedence over all churches in the world" is not because it possessed universal jurisdiction and authority jure divino, but rather because it has remained orthodox in its confession of faith throughout the preceding centuries up to that point. Until then, they had not had any pope who had been guilty of heresy. If Theodoret had the view Bellarmine did, he would've said something alone the lines "For that holy see has presedence over all churches in the world, for many reasons; and above all for this, it possesses supreme authority since its bishop is the successor of the Apostle Peter." But that is not at all what Theodoret says in any way shape or form. It is simply due to Rome's firm orthodox standing at that point in time, as we see explicitly stated in the letter itself.