The Patristic View of the Bishop of Rome: Answering Robert Bellarmine [Part 1]

 

Robert Bellarmine

Perhaps one of the best Roman Catholic scholars and apologists in history would be Robert Bellarmine. His tome De Controversiis is hailed by many as the "death-blow" to the Reformed faith and theology. However, this is shown not to be the case when one takes a look at the numerous tomes produced against Bellarmine. John Owen, in volumes 13 and 14 of his works, answers many of Bellarmine's arguments against Protestantism, especially in his treatise on schism. 

In this article, I want to take a look at chapters 15 and 16 of Bellarmine's work On the Roman Pontiff. There he provides numerous citations from the ancient fathers which he claims are proof that the early church held to the universal jurisdiction and authority of the bishop of Rome. I will answer each citation provided and show how it cannot be used to support the claims of Robert Bellarmine, and Roman Catholic apologists in general. 

[I will provide the patristic quote and then Bellarmine's commentary upon it red.] 

#1 - Ignatius of Antioch

“Ignatius, to the holy Church, which presides in the region of the Romans.” (Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 1)

"Why is the Church said to be presiding, except because it is the Head of all others?" (Robert Bellarmine)

This is entirely unconvincing. Ignatius elsewhere gives "high" language to the churches of Smyrna and Magnesia:

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the [Church] blessed in the grace of God the Father, in Jesus Christ our Saviour, in whom I salute the Church which is at Magnesia, near the Mæander, and wish it abundance of happiness in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm)

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church of God the Father, and of the beloved Jesus Christ, which has through mercy obtained every kind of gift, which is filled with faith and love, and is deficient in no gift, most worthy of God, and adorned with holiness: the Church which is at Smyrna, in Asia, wishes abundance of happiness, through the immaculate Spirit and word of God." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm)

#2 - Irenaeus

"The Church of Rome, of the greatest antiquity and recognized by all, founded and constituted by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul, that which has tradition from the Apostles, and heralding the faith to all through successions of bishops attaining even to us, we confound those men, who reveal that they gather it [the tradition] contrary to what is fitting by any manner or through their wicked charm, or vain glory, or through blindness and wicked knowledge. It is necessary for every Church to agree with this Church, on account of a mightier principality, this is, those who are faithful on every side, in which always, by these who are on every side this has been preserved, which is the Tradition from the Apostles." (Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3)

"Mark that phrase It is necessary, and that For every Church to agree. And also: On account of a mightier preeminence, as well as: in which the Apostolic Tradition has always been preserved for all. For Irenaeus proves, that he can confound all heretics from the doctrine of the Roman Church, because it is necessary for every Church to agree with this Church, and by it, just as by a head and fount, the Church depends; and hence it is necessary that its doctrine is Apostolic and true. He proves the fact that all Christians necessarily depend upon the Roman Church. In the first place, a priori, because rule was given to this Church. In the second place, a posteriori, because insofar as all always preserve the Faith in this Church, that is, in union and adhesion to this Church, as to a Head and mother" (Robert Bellarmine)

This passage is very commonly abused by the Romanists. I respond with the following points:

1) The question must be asked: What was the reason for Irenaeus' "high" view of the Roman church? Was it because of some jure divino authority inherent in her? The answer, in light of other data in book 3, is "no". Irenaeus had this view of Rome for a variety of reasons such as its being founded by two prominent apostles (Peter and Paul [not just Peter]), and also (most likely) it being the capital of the empire. 

2) Irenaeus, later on in the same chapter, gives similar language in reference to the church at Ephesus: "Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm)

All we can get from book 3 of Irenaeus' Against Heresies, is that the Roman church held a sort of non-jurisdictional primacy.]

I end with this observation from historian Eric Osborn:

“The subjection of all churches to Rome would be unthinkable for Irenaeus.” (Eric Osborn, Irenaeus Of Lyons, pg. 130)

#3 - Epiphanius

“Ursacius and Valens doing penance, together with little books professed to St Julius, the Bishop of Rome, so as to be restored from their error and crime.” (Panarion 68:9)

"Certainly they were bishops: therefore, why did they seek forgiveness from the Roman Pontiff, if the Roman Pontiff were not also the judge and Head of bishops?" (Robert Bellarmine)

William Bower, in his set The History of the Popes (vol. 1), gives a few reasons as to why this does not prove Bellarmine's claim (which was also made by Baronius):

1) Ursacius and Valens were not sent by the council, but rather went to Julius of their own accord. 

2) The matter was finally determined by the council of Milan, not by Pope Julius. 

3) Since Athanasius (and other orthodox figures at that time) had referred to Julius before, it would make sense for Ursacius and Valens to do the same thing. [page 58]

#4 - Athanasius

Bellarmine first cites a quote from Athanasius' "letter to Pope Felix". I have not been able to find this letter anywhere or the quote contained it, therefore I will deal rather with the other citation he provides from Athanasius:

“Certain men from the Church thinking rightly, but ignorant of the case That is why since it stood thus, it was written by him that they should go up to Rome, and there they accused Dionysius before the Prelate at Rome.” (On the Opinion of Dionysius)

"Why, I ask, is Dionysius the Patriarch of Alexandria accused by good men in the presence of the Roman Pontiff, except because they knew the Roman Pontiff is the common judge of all?"(Robert Bellarmine)

Bellarmine's assumption is unfounded. There could be all sorts of reasons for why they might choose to go to Rome. This is similar with the above quote from Epiphanius of Salamis. Bellarmine makes a common error or assuming that every appeal to Rome, high view of Rome, or anything like that is because of stuff like universal jurisdiction and papal authority, etc. This is wrong, as I demonstrated all of the above stuff.

#5 - Basil the Great

"It appeared agreeable to write to the Bishop of Rome, that he might look to our affairs, and impose a decree of his judgment As that is difficult, some thence asked for a sentence of the Council to be sent; these gave authority of the affair to wicked men, that they could not bear the labor of the journey, by a leniency and facility of morals. Then by a prudent and agreeable prayer they, who had returned by the right way advised that every act of the Council of Armenia they should bear with them to get them rescinded, which were carried out with violence in that place."

"Basil attributes to the Bishop of Rome authority of visiting the Eastern Churches, and from that authority of making and rescinding the general Conciliar decrees which were at Arminia." (Robert Bellarmine)

Bellarmine provides no source for this citation besides saying that it is a "letter". We thus have no way of viewing the original context of this quote allegedly from Basil. 

#6 - Gregory Nazianzen

"The sixth is St. Gregory Nazianzen, who says that the Roman Church always preserved the true teaching from God, as is fitting for the city which presides over the whole world Nor is he speaking on the temporal empire, for in that time the capital of the Roman Empire was at Constantinople, not Rome" (Robert Bellarmine)

Here, Bellarmine does not give us an actual quote from Gregory Nazianzen but rather tell us what he taught. He gives the following citation: Carm. De vita sua. As far as I know, this is indeed an authentic work of Gregory, but I cannot find the text of it anywhere online. Like the quote above, I have no way of knowing if this is actually in the writing or if it is being read in context or not. 

We do have material from elsewhere in the writings of Gregory Nazianzen which shows his lack of belief in papalism. 

Here he views responsibility for the whole church as something not to be given only to the Pope of Rome:

"Having gone through the whole set of sacred offices to pass over intervening events, he is entrusted with the presidency over the people, which is the same as saying the rule of the whole world. And I cannot say whether he received the priesthood as the reward of his virtue or to be the source and life of the Church, for she fainting, through thirst of the truth, was like Ishmael to be refreshed, or like Elijah to be revived when the earth in the drought was cooled in the stream, and from her exhaustion to be brought back to life." (Oration 21.7)