Chapter 1: Concerning the Church and Her Authority .... 9
Chapter 2: On Councils..
Chapter 3: On the Primacy of the Apostolic and Petrine See.28
Chapter 4: That the Heretics Rashly Oppose the Scriptures.45
Chapter 5: Concerning Faith and Works.50
Chapter 6: Concerning Confirmation.63
Chapter 7: Concerning the Sacrament of Order.65
Chapter 8: On Confession.72
Chapter 9: On Satisfaction.77
Chapter 10: On the Eucharist under Both Kinds.85
Chapter 11: Concerning Marriage.89
Chapter 12: Concerning Extreme Unction.91
Chapter 13: On Human Constitutions.93
Chapter 14: On Feasts and Fasts.100
Chapter 15: Concerning the Veneration of the Saints .... 110 \
Chapter 16: Concerning the Images of the Crucified and of the Saints.122
Chapter 17: On the Sacrifice of the Mass.127
Chapter 18: Concerning Vows.134
Chapter 19: Concerning the Celibacy of the Clergy.142
Chapter 20: Concerning Cardinals and Legates of the Apostolic See.148
Chapter 21: Concerning Excommunication.150
Chapter 22: Concerning the War against the Turks.155
Chapter 23: Concerning the Immunity and Wealth of the Church.159
Chapter 24: On Indulgences.165
Chapter 25: On Purgatory.'.170
Chapter 26: Concerning Annates . 175
Chapter 27: Concerning the Burning of Heretics.178
Chapter 28: Disputations with Heretics Are to Be Held.186
Chapter 29: That Under the Eucharist Is the True Body of Christ.191
Chapter 30: Concerning the Baptism of Children .201
Chapter 31: On Free Will.210
Chapter 32: On Prayer and the Canonical Hours.220
Chapter 33: On Plurality of Priests and on Tithes.234 "W
Chap ter 34: On the Building of Churches and Their Decoration.244
Chapter 35: On the (Indelible) Stamp (Character).254
Chapter 36: On Transubstantiation.258 t
Chapter 37: That Masses Are to Be Said in Latin, Not in German.264
Chapter 38: On Private Masses.270
CHAPTER 3: ON THE PRIMACY OF THE APOSTOLIC AND PETRINE SEE
Because the supreme authority (which we contemplate in councils and in the Apostolic See is within the Church, it is fitting that we briefly affirm the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of Peter.
After Peter's confession, Jesus says to him: "Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah, because flesh and blood have not revealed to you, but my Father who is in heaven: and I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against her: and I will give to you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever you bind on earth, will be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth, 2 will be loosed also in heaven" [Mt 16:17ff]. It is clear how he meant to designate the person of Peter, for he set forth his old name, Simon, his new name, Peter, the name of his father Bar-Jonah and properly shows this. "You are, and upon this rock," Jerome explains: "That is, upon you, and I will give you the keys," etc.
And through these words the holy fathers attest that the primacy was promised to Peter, and upon Peter the Church was to be built.
Cyprian, Epist 68.8, to PupianP and 54.7, to Cornelius.^
Origen, On Matthew, Horn. 6.
Jerome, Against the Pelagians 1. and On Matthew, 16.
Ambrose, Sermon 47.^
Augustine, Against the Epistle of Donatus.^
Chrysostom, On Matthew, Horn. 4.
Hilary, On Matthew.
Leo, On the Anniversary of his Assumption of the Pontificate, Sermon 3.
Gregory, Moral!a; Epist., to Emperor Maurice.
Cyril, On John, 2.12; Council of Constantinople IV; of Pope Nicolas. See our book, On the Primacy of Peter. The power which Christ promised to Peter, He gave after the resurrection. "Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? He said to him: Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my sheep" [Jn 21:15]. This he repeated a third time: "Feed my sheep."
To Peter alone as the prince of the Apostles in the presence of the other Apostles, He committed the flock: for "to pasture" in the Scriptures means "to rule," and in Ez 34:2; Isaiah 44:28; 56:11; Jer 22:22; Jer 23:1; Ps 72:70f, kings are called "shepherds." This is true in Hebrew and in Greek.
That the primacy was given to Peter through these words, Cyprian, De Simplicitate Praelatorum, attests. Jerome in his Discourse an Peter to Eustochium, Ambrose in his Sermon on Penance, and on the Faith of Peter. Chrysostom On John, Horn. 8, on Repentance Augustine, Questions on the New and Old Testaments, Qu. 75. Leo in his Sermon on the Lord's Ascension. Gregory, Horn, in Ev., Mk 16, and Epist. to Ciranus. Bernard, in his Sermon 3 On the Seven Loaves Bede in his Homilies.
Peter's primacy is proved from many other passages of Scripture Lk 22:31f: "Simon, behold Satan has desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail, and you, being once converted, may confirm your brethren." Note that He prays for Peter more than the rest, and petitions two things: indefectibility of faith and power to confirm the faithful. Thus do the following interpret it: Augustine, Chrysostom, Leo, Cyril, Bede. In Mt, Ch. 17, Christ said to Peter: "Go to the sea, and cast in a hook; and that fish which shall first come up, take; and when you have opened its mouth, you shall find a shekel: take that, and give it to them for me and you" [Mt 17:26]. It is clear that Christ, with many disciples present, equates only Peter with himself in paying tribute. So understand this: Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, Origen, Ambrose.
*falso: concilium Chalcedonense octavum. Eck intends the 8th Ecumenical Council - Constantinople IV (AD 869).
Mt 10:2, Mk 3:6, Lk 6:14, where the appointment of the Apostles is described: by all Peter is named as head, first, that Jerome and Chrysostom reckoned on behalf of his primacy on the basis of Jn 21 that Peter alone came to Christ across the waters of the sea. This is the sign of a singular pontificate, says Bernard, On Consideration, to Eugenlus. And if to the other disciples it is commanded that they let down their nets, only to Peter is it said "launch out into the deep” [Lk 3:4]. So ponders Ambrose.
We have now heard from the holy fathers: all attribute the primacy to Peter, first promised by the Lord, then after the resurrection set forth over the whole Church. Let some thing be added to these prior proofs.
Dionysius, On the Divine Names, ch. 3.
Athanasius in his Epistles to Marcus, Liberius, and Felix II, in which he abundantly proves the primacy of the Pope.
Eusebius H.E., 2.14. Augustine On John’s Gospel, Tract. 56.* Against the Donatists, 2, etc.
Lactantius, Divine Institutes 7.
Paulinus, De S. Foelice. Anselm to Pope Urban. Valentinian, Marcian, Phocas, Justinian, Emperors under the title "On the Supreme Trinity and the Catholic Faith."
We have set forth very fully all these matters in our three books On the Primacy of Peter to Leo X,1 and you will find many rare items in the large work. Against Luther of Johann Faber, Archducal Councillor (now Bishop of Vienna). 2
Reason persuades that there was a high priest under the old Law, whose authority was heard [Dt 17 [:9]. And the monarchical rule is best: and such is the order in the Church Triumphant. This is beautifully confirmed by Gregory Nazianzus: Moses in doubtful times provided for the synagogue [Dt 17: 10ff]. Why should not Christ have provided for His bride the Church?
Gregory, Moralia, 21.15^ "(God) created all men equal in nature, but by reason of merits, he set some behind others in order by a secret dispensation. But this diversity which derives from one (nature), is distributed by divine judgment: so that, since every man does not walk the way of life, one may be ruled by another." The heretic strongly desires that the Church Militant not have a ministerial head; and that there may come to pass in the Church what is written: "In those days there was not a king in Israel, but each man did what seemed good to him" [Jdg 17:6, 18:1, 31; 21:24]
Objections of the Heretics
1. Christ did not promise or give to Peter the keys for his own person, but because he was acting in the person of the Church.
2. If the Church is built upon Peter the man, the gates of hell have already prevailed against him in the voice of one maidservant [Mt 26:69-88], and will daily prevail over his successors and sinners.
3. And since the Church was built upon a rock, but his rock was Christ [1 Cor 10:4] it cannot be referred to Peter, "... and other foundation can no one lay; save that which has been laid" [1 Cor 3:11].
4. The primitive Church of the Apostles would not have been a Church, since Peter,18 years after Christ had suffered, was still in Jerusalem. Where then was the Roman Church?
5. Peter never was at Rome.
6. Peter is a member of the Church.
7. How could Peter have been the rock, when in Mt 16:18f Christ said: "Get behind me, Satan."
Disposal of the arguments adduced against Peter.
1. We admit, with Augustine, that the keys were given to the Church, yet in the person of Peter, that is, Christ formally gave the keys to Peter, for the benefit of the Church; He gave the keys not to one, but to unity. Thus Peter acted in the person of the Church, just as the Emperor of Germany. Therefore certain persons have the keys, because otherwise there would be no use of them.
2. The gates of hell prevailed against the persons succeeding Peter, yet not against the power of Peter. This succession of Peter abode in power, although the persons might sin. But when Peter denied Christ, the Church had not yet been founded but was to be founded on him, because Christ said: "Upon this rock I shall build my church," that is to say, after the resurrection.
3. Even if Christ is the chief rock and primary foundation, yet He has vicars and substitutes, secondary rocks. For alongside Paul's statement that Christ alone is the foundation stands the statement of John [Rev 21:14]: "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them, the twelve names of the twelve apostles, and of the Lamb."
4. Luther is mistaken that Peter came so late to Rome: for he was 5 years in Pontus, and 7 years at Antioch in Asia; afterwards he migrated to Rome: although in the 18th year he came from Rome to Jerusalem to the Council. Now, nothing applies to the matter. For Peter was the supreme pontiff wherever he was, although by the revelation of the Spirit, as St. Marcellus the martyr says, he chose a see for himself at Rome. Therefore Peter was for a time supreme bishop before he became Bishop of Rome. 2
5. This is a new lie of Urban Rieger, or another Lutheran, that Peter never was at Rome and previously Paul converted those of whom he speaks in Gal. 2. St. Jerome attests to that in his comment on Rom 1:11, "that I may impart to you some spiritual grace" etc. To strengthen, he says, those Romans, holding the faith by the preaching of Peter. Paul says he wished to strengthen, not so much from their having been received by Peter, but that their faith might be strengthened by two apostles, witnesses, and doctors: otherwise he would have taken care not to build on another's foundation.
The very ancient man Hegesippus, who came to Rome under Anicetus in the year of our Lord 160, wrote in Book 3 of On the Destruction of Jerusalem, how Nero sought a pretext for killing the Apostles, and when the command was given that the Apostles be seized, Peter was asked that he give himself over to another.
Dionysius Bishop of the Corinthians, living at Rome A.D. 50, says: "You having admonitiorf from Peter and Paul, have joined the planting (plantation) of the Roman Church." Also both men arriving and teaching in this city at the same time, were crowned too with martyrdom in like manner at one and the same time. A certain writer 2 named Gaius under Pope Zephyrinus attests the same thing.
Saint Ignatius, a disciple of John the Evangelist, writes to the Tarsians: "What of the fact that Peter was crucified? That Paul and James were cut down with swords? That John wTas banished to Patmos?" And in his letter to the Romans.: "Not just as Peter and Paul do I bid you: for they were Apostles of Jesus Christ, but I am the least." Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon, Against Heretics, 3.1., says as follows: "Matthew gave the Scripture of the Gospel to the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul proclaimed the Gospel at Rome, and founded the Church."
And Ch. 3: "By the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul, the Churches of Rome were founded and established." Tertullian, living A.D. 150, wrote in Against Marcion, 3. : "To the Romans, Peter and Paul left the Gospel with the seal of their own blood." And On the Prescription of Heretics, 36, speaking of Rome, he adds: "Where Peter is broughtinto equality with the Lord's passion."
Eusebius of Caesarea, Hist. 2: says: "In those times of Claudius, by the mercy of divine providence, he led Peter, the most approved of all the Apostles, and the greatest in magnificence of faith and merit of virtue, the prime prince, to the city of Rome."
And in the book De Temporibus: "In the same year, he was seized by Herod." And later: "Peter, a Galilean by birth, the first pontiff of the Christians, after he had first founded the Church of Antioch, proceeded to Rome, where preaching the Gospel he persevered for 25 years as bishop of the same city."
Gaudentius of Brixen, a very ancient writer, says: "On this day in the city of Rome, the cruelty of Nero slew both for the name of Christ."
Jerome, On Famous Men, c.l ; "Simon Peter, son of John of the province of Galilee, of the village of Bethsaida, brother of Andrew the Apostle, and prince of the Apostles, after his episcopate of the Church of Antioch, and preaching of the dispersion of those who had believed in the circumcision in Pontus, Galatia, Cappodocia, Asia, and Bythynia, in the second year of the Emperor Claudius hastened to Rome to overcome Simon Magus; there he occupied the episcopal see for 25 years."
Dionysius the Areopagite, St. Paul's disciple, attested the same to his fellow-disciple Timothy, concerning the passing of the Apostles.
Linus the next pope after Peter, wrote to the Easterns in behalf of the martyrdom of Peter in the city.
Ambrose in Sermon 67, says: "Let us not think it came to pass without cause, that on one day, in one place they bore the sentence of one tyrant, suffered on one day, so that together they came to Christ, in one place, lest Rome should be deprived of either one." etc. And further on: "In the city of Rome, which obtained the chief position and headship of the nations," he speaks of Peter and Paul. Papias of Jerusalem, the hearer of John the Evangelist, attests that Peter wrote his first canonical epistle at Rome.
[Paulus Orosius, .Hist, 6.6, "in the 805th year since the founding of the city of Rome, Tiberius Claudius the fourth after Augustus began to reign, and remained emperor for 16 years. At the beginning of his reign, Peter, Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ came, and taught with faithful word faith unto salvation to all believers, and confirmed it with mighty virtues. And thereupon there began to be Christians at Rome." And in the following chapter: "Nero was the first at Rome to inflict torture and death upon the Christians, and ordered them to be tortured through all the provinces with equal persecutions, and attempting to uproot the very name itself, he killed the most blessed Apostles Peter with the cross and Paul with the sword."]
This is attested by Athanasius, Marcellus, Damasus, Leo, Bernard and innumerable others.
[See Johannes Faber, in his work, past the middle.]
6. We speak of Peter as member and part of the Church, but we 2 deny that he could not besides be the ministerial head, or vicar of the true head. Similarly, it is one thing to act as a private person; something else, as a public person. And if he is head he is undoubtedly a member. 7. No wonder that Peter, upbraided by Christ because he decided, contrary to his confession, that Christ should be killed, because not yet had he received the keys, not yet had he been confirmed not yet had the fulness of the spirit come upon him. Therefore not yet was he the rock, but after the resurrection Christ founded upon him the Church, as Jerome expressly states in his Commentary on Matthew, at that verse. Lastly, Chrysostom and Hilary would not apply the name of Satan to Peter, but to the devil, the supporter of this advice. Now the fall of the person does not remove the power. Origen, On Matthew, Horn. 3, says: "As yet Peter was leaden, and it could happen that he would have a revelation from the Father, whereby he might profess Christ to be the son of the living God. As yet this great mystery was hidden from him, whereby Christ willed to be crucified for the salvation of the human race, and to rise on the third day."
For when Luther by "rock" understands faith; faith, just as much as grace, is lost in man, and no more is the faith of one man than of another man: and thus upon the faith of all the faithful has the Church been built. And if all the faithful are the foundation, what Church will he then give unless he most ineptly says the same is founded upon himself?
Still Other Obj actions of the Heretics against Peter and the Pope.
1. Peter did not have authority over the Apostles, but the Apostles over him, because they sent him and John into Samaria [Acts 8:14].
2. And Peter did not ever exercise that primacy, as the Pope does; the latter does not wish there to be any bishop in the world, unless he receives the pallium and confirmation from him.
3. Peter knew this was forbidden by Christ in Lk 22:24f, when a contention broke out over who of them was to be regarded as the greatest, Jesus said to them: "The Kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they that have power over them, are called beneficent. But you are not so: but he that is greatest among you, let him become the least, and he who is the leader, as he who serves." It is clear (say the heretics) that it is the Kings of the Gentiles, not the pontiffs, who lord it over them.
4. Mk 10:37ff, when the sons of Zebedee aspired to that power, they received the reply: namely, that they should drink of the cup, and yet not be certain where they would sit [Mk 10:39f],
5. In Luke 9:46 and Matthew 18:Iff, He taught them that such superiority should be avoided.
6. Paul withstood Peter [Gal 2:11].
7. Pope Victor wishing to excommunicate the Easterns, was forbidden to do so by Irenaeus Bishop of Lyon.
8. Anicetus yielded to Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna.
9. The Eastern bishops did not obey Pope Julius. *
10.It was the Emperor Constantine IV who determined that the pope was first.
11. Thus many thousands of martyrs of the Eastern Church would have been condemned, likewise Cyprian, Augustine, Nicolas, because there never was a pope over the churches of Asia, Greece, or Africa.
12. When did he establish the Antiochian, Constantinopolitan, Alexandrian, or Indian bishoprics?
13. Theophilus of Alexandria and Epiphanius deposed Chrysostom and the same Epiphanius excommunicated John of Jerusalem.
14. The Council of Nicea attests that the bishop takes charge of suburban churches.
15. The same council decreed that bishops were to be ordained by provincial bishops, not by the pope.
16. The same council attributed the primacy to the Jerusalem bishopric, not to that of Rome. And Jerusalem was first, because "out of Zion went forth the Law" [Is 2:3].
17. At the Council of Africa IV, the bishop of the prime see was not to be called "prince of bishops" or anything of that sort, but only "bishop of the prime see"; later: not even the Roman pontiff is to be called "universal."
18. Both Pelagius and Gregory rejected the name "universal bishop."
19. The primacy of the pope is proved from the decrees and decretals of the Roman pontiffs, books originating within the last 400 years.
We have gone into these matters more deeply because the heretics have shouted more against the rock than they attacked anything else.
Disposal of Objections.
1. Now we shall say that Peter exercised the primacy, yet when you argue that Peter was sent into Samaria, why was he thus less than the Apostles? This is the form of argument of the Arians that the Father sent the Son [Jn 6:44; 10:29; Gal 4:4]. Therefore the Father is greater than the Son, because the sender is greater than the sent. As if Herod who was not greater than the Magi, did not send the three Magi, to worship the child, and it is frequent that the more powerful are sent from the college and the Senate by counsel or love, not by the authority of inferiors. Hence in Joshua 22:11-14 one reads: "And when the children of Israel had heard of it . . . that the children of Ruben and of Gad and the half tribe of Manasses had built an altar in the land of Canaan, upon the banks of the Jordan, over against the children of Israel: they all assembled in Shiloh, to go up and fight against them. And in the meantime they sent to them into the land of Gilead, Phineas the son of Eleazar the priest, and ten princes with him, one of every tribe, ' that they might censure them for having committed this sacrilege. Note that the Sons of Israel, the lesser people, sent Phineas, who "was their leader before the Lord," as stated in 1 Chr 9:20. Therefore it is clear from these Scriptural passages, that it is of no consequence to assert: he is sent; therefore he is less than the sender or the senders.
2. Peter carried out his office. We do not wish to recount what they recounted in Jn 6:69f; Lk 12:41; Mt 19:27; Lk 5:8; Mt 4:X8f; Mt 17:23f; Mt 18:21; but when in Acts he had already been created Pontiff, let us hear what he did: for first he directed the ordination of Matthias as an Apostle. "Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, standing, said: 'Men, brothers. . . etc. [Acts l:15f]. Secondly, on the day of Pentecost, he defended all the Apostles. "Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice" [Acts 2:14]. Thirdly, with John present he healed the lame man and defended him in the presence of the people [Acts 3:Iff], Fourthly, in the council he defended himself and John [Acts 4:5ff]. Fifthly, he pronounced the death sentence on Ananias and Sapphira [Acts 5:4ff]: this was the greatest indication of coercive authority. Sixthly, he condemned the accursed trafficking of Simon [Acts 8:20ff], Seventhly, he was bidden to receive even Gentiles as prelates into his power, when he saw "a sheet. . . in which there were beasts and reptiles," etc., and a voice came to him: "Arise, Peter; kill and eat" [Acts 10:11-13]. Here he was bidden as head to receive Gentiles in the body of the Church.
Eighthly, in the Apostolic Council he was the author of the decision suspending the law, as Jerome teaches, and Acts 15:7ff. Beware therefore of heretically lying against St. Peter, that he did not use the power divinely bestowed upon him. Concerning the corollary, it is false, for each patriarch confirmed his own bishops, and the patriarch of Thessalonica confirmed his own bishops in Greece, yet did so as the vicar of the pope, as is clear from the acts of Pope Leo. The heretic supposes that all bishops have the pallium, which is false, because regularly archbishops have it, and a few bishops by privilege, as the bishop of Bamberg in Germany. [See our 34V treatise On the Primacy, 3.15.] On the reason for the pallium see 1529 St. Gregory, Epist.* 3. It is agreed that Christ forbade ambition and tyranny, but not authority because that is from God, and "he who resists authority, resists God's ordinance" [Rom 13:2]. There he wished to teach the humility of the president, not to remove his power. In like manner from the fact that He was ministering and also taught other chief persons to minister, anyone would wrongly infer that Christ had no power. And when Christ asked who is the greater among you, it is evident that he wished someone else to be greater in power, although it happened to him that he was the lesser one by the showing forth of ministry. 4/5. We reply similarly, for he willed, as Jerome says, for his followers to reach the pinnacle of virtues, not by power but by humility. For those who are in power ought to humble themselves 35r within, as if they were not in power, that they may become as little children in humility, not in sense and in age-; 6. Paul reproved Peter, because he was holding onto the edification of faith, that is, to the office of the apostolate in which they were equals, yet Peter was still prior in rule and authority. For even today it often happens that the Pope and other superiors are often reproved by inferiors. Indeed, the heretic Luther censures all churchly prelates, though he is the superior of none of these.
7/8. Anicetus was the first to determine that Easter be celebrated on Sunday. First Pius, then Victor, confirmed this, and their decision prevailed. At first the Easterns resisted this, because from the bidding of St. John, they celebrated on the 14th moon of the first month. From Smyrna Polycarp addressed Anicetus (Note: Greek to Roman), and recognized that he was performing the office of bishop, yet Anicetus could not persuade Polycarp says Eusebius in the Church History. Luther the Corrupter says: Anicetus yielded to Polycarp." He wished to excommunicate the Easterns resisting Victor, whom Irenaeus warned, not that Victor should have no power over the Easterns. For why should the holy martyr have concerned himself; but to consider the concord of the Church and her peace, he determined that disturbance not arise in the Church.
9.It is wonderful that the heretic leans upon the deed of heretics, for those eastern bishops expelled Athanasius and Paul, who taking refuge with Pope Julius, after the heretics were arraigned and excommunicated, were restored. Here the heretic tumbles down, because Pope Julius more than 1100 years ago had authority over the eastern bishops of Asia and Egypt. * It is false that Constantine IV first gave the primacy to the Roman pontiff, when previously he had it from the Gospel with the confirmation of Emperors Constantine, Valentinian, Gratian, Theodosius, Marcian, Basil, and others.
10. Hence it is not inappropriate that the decree of the princes yield to the right of the Apostolic See, in order that the temerity of the rebels may be restrained. Yet the heretic has erred that Constantine IV determined anything in this matter, but he has only remitted the confirmation of the elected Pope, which the Emperor previously was accustomed to do in his own way.
11. None of the holy martyrs withdrew themselves from obedience to Peter or his successors where and when it was necessary. The heretic is mistaken: but if the pope is supreme, it is necessary that all bishops be confirmed by him, for just as it suffices for priests to be confirmed by bishops, so bishops by archbishops, primates or patriarchs. So you understand concerning Ambrose, Augustine, and Nicolas. I believe that because of the pride of the bishops in Germany it came to pass that they shook off the authority of the primate of Magdeburg. And prior things are clear from the eighth council, from the Council of Nicea and others. See Dist. 64 of the Decretals. It is clear that the bishops of Africa were under the Roman pontiff, because from the council of Milevis they wrote to Pope Innocent I, seeking confirmation of that. See Augustine, Epist. 90, 91. The third and fourth Councils of Carthage were confirmed, one by the authority of Pope Zozimus, the other by the authority of Boniface, since he sent Bishop Fatistinus thither. Augustine was concerned with them. The Councils under Cyprian in Africa sought approval from Pope Cornelius (Cyprian, Epistles, 1.2; 2.11). Now it was clear that the bishops of Asia, Egypt and Greece were under the Roman Pontiff, because it was through the Roman Pontiff that Athanasius was restored, Chrysostom was restored, Flavian was restored, Appiarus in Africa was restored. For abundant evidence, see our book On the Primacy *
12. It was not necessary for the installation of a bishop to take place directly at the hands of the Roman Pontiff, yet that those churches were subject to the pope, is clear from the fact that he restored bishops ejected from these churches. And today, from Pope Leo X, and from Hadrian VI, Asiatic bishops have received confirmation.
13. How much can heresy claim? When it has nothing solid for itself, it brings forward the utterly wicked ejection of the best of bishops, John Chrysostom, who was ejected through the utterly greedy and wicked Theophilus of Alexandria, with the help of the ungodly Empress Eudoxia. The injustice committed against this holy man the heretic takes for a lawful act, but remains silent about the fact that he was restored by Pope Innocent, and the negotiation carried on by the Pope with Alexander Bishop of Antioch; and the Emperor Arcadius resisting the Pope and Chrysostom, was excommunicated. Go now, heretic, and deny that the bishops of Greece _were under the Roman Pontiff! Concerning John of Jerusalem it is clear from St. Jerome that a council had been called at Antioch (for at that time the Bishop of Jerusalem was under that Patriarch, and under the Archbishop of Caesarea) and John was condemned by the synod, in which Epiphanius was of preeminent authority.
14. Canon 6 of the Council of Nicea goes as follows: "The ancient custom persisted in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, and the Bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these, seeing that it is a custom like to that of the Roman bishop. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces his honor is to be kept with each and every Church [Gratian Deer. 1.65.6; Fr. 1.251] that this passage does not exclude the Roman primacy which the heretic wrongly infers, but that the authority of the three patriarchal churches was then confirmed, for at that time there were only three patriarchal sees, that is, the Roman, the Antiochene, and the Alexandrine. Nay, more strongly through that council the primacy of the Roman pontiff is proved, first because although Nicea was in Asia, yet Ossius of Cordova, presided over the Council in the name of the Pope, and signed first not in his own name as all the remaining bishops, but in the Pope's name. Secondly, because it was decided in the Council of Nicea that in case of the deposition of a bishop, appeal could be made from the whole world to the Roman Pontiff. Athanasius leaned on him and obtained restoration; so did Chrysostom. And when the Church of Africa opposed Pope Zozimus in the restoration of Appiarus, once made certain of the matter by the Council of Nicea, the Church acquiesced. Go, now, heretic and rave that the Nicean Council controverts the Pope.
15. On the ordination of bishops, what has this to do with primacy, when today the pope very rarely ordains a bishop or perchance never, but at the present time three bishops meeting together, ordain and consecrate a bishop? [Deer. 1.64.1, Fr 1.247].
16. Canon 7 of this Council so provides. "For the custom and ancient tradition obtained, that the episcopal office was conferred upon Elias, that he might have the consequence of honor, apart from the rank of metropolitan" [Gratian, Deer. 1.65.7: Fr. 1.251]. This stupid heretic dreams of a primacy attributed to Jerusalem, when as yet primacy was not attributed to it, as it permitted it to be subject to the Metropolitan who was at Caesarea, as Jerome states. Therefore it decreed that Jerusalem was to be honored by ancient tradition, but says nothing about primacy, as Jerusalem was first in time but not in rank. The African Council did not deal with the primacy or with Rome, but the African bishops settled among themselves that their primates (such were the bishops of Carthage, Numidia, Mauritania, etc.) were not to flaunt their glorious titles, and their jurisdiction over others. Canon 6 of the Third African Council deals with this and nothing else. And the mad heretic when he read in the Decretals [1.99.3: Fr. 1.350f] the words of Gratian attached thereto, believed them to be the words of the Council, and they were not. But we will shortly speak of the universal bishop.
18. Gregory and Pelagius did not spurn the primacy of the Roman Church, but approved of it, as we have shown very fully in our treatise On the Primacy of Peter. But they so denied that there could be any universal bishop, because there should be a proper ruler of each Church. Since thus there could be no other bishop, the episcopal honor should both be withdrawn from all and referred back to one alone. That because there was something distinctive in the hierarchical order, the holy fathers rightfully rejected it, except for the dignity of the Roman Church.
19. The Primacy of the Roman Church is proved not only from the decrees of the Pontiffs, but from the Gospel, from the holy martyrs, councils and doctors. But the heretic is mistaken: he believes that there were no other canonical laws except after the appearance of Gratian's Decretum and the Decretals of Gregory IX, despite , the fact that there had always been statutes and laws in the Church. For example there was once a Codex of canons a Decretum of Pathasius, Decretum of Burchardus, a Panormia of Ivo, etc. Therefore all things heretical vanish like water bubbles.
Conclusion. Let us all receive the authority of the Church shining in the Apostolic See of the Roman See: since Jerome in times difficult for the faith consulted her, writing from Asia Minor to Damasus; Augustine writing from Africa to Innocent and Boniface; and Cyprian writing to Cornelius; Athanasius writing from Egypt to Marcus and 2 Julius, Ambrose writing from Italy, etc. Now those defending themselves against rebaptizers draw back from their basis, hence they confess many things not written and yet to be adhered to. Zwingli infers from the baptism of Mary 3 the baptism of children.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario