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 (knight@knight.org). 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