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.