by Rev. P. Rafferty, 1849
Note: Scripture references are based on the Latin Vulgate.
English translations of the Latin Vulgate include the Douay-Rheims Bible and the Knox Version.
One great means for maintaining
the Church in unity, was the institution of one chief pastor to have a
superiority and superintendence over the rest; that so all being subjected to
one, might be united in one centre; upon this account, as the holy fathers have
observed, our Lord made choice of St. Peter, to make him the chief and head
among the apostles, “that a head being constituted,” says St.
Jerome, (lib. 1, contra Jovin.) “occasion of schism might be taken
away.” Ut capita constituta, schismatis tolleretur occasio. See also
St. Cyprian, lib. de Unitate Ecclesiee, St. Optatus, lib. 2, contra
Parmenianum, &c.
In effect, nothing can be more
evident from Scripture, than that our Lord did make St. Peter
the chief pastor of the church; giving him a name that
implied no less than a rock or foundation stone, St. John i.42; St.
Matthew xvi.18; promising him “the keys of the king dom
of heaven, with the chief power of binding and loosing,” v. 19,
praying for him that “his faith might not fail,” and giving
him the commission to confirm his brethren, viz., the rest of the apostles, St.
Luke xxii. 31, 32. In fine, three times committing to his care all his lambs
and all his sheep, without exception, that is, his whole flock, St. John xxi.
15, &c. after having asked him, “Dost thou love me more than these?”
 |
| Statue of St. Peter at the National Shrine of St. Pio of Pietrelcina, Sto. Tomas, Batangas (c) Vincent Domingo |
And as our Lord was pleased to
constitute one head among the apostles, in the person of St. Peter, as the best
preservative against schism, and the best form of church government; so it is
not in the least to be questioned, but that he designed the same form of
government to continue in his church till the end of the world; and that St.
Peter's prerogative should descend to his successors: for how can any Christian
imagine Christ should appoint a head for the government of his church, and
maintaining of unity during the apostles' time, and design another kind of
government for succeeding ages, when there was like to be so much more need of
a head? Consequently it must be granted that St. Peter’s supremacy was by
divine institution to descend to his successors: and these successors are no
others than the bishop of Rome. For neither has the church of God ever
acknowledged any others, nor have any others claimed the title of St. Peter's
successors; and in that quality exercised jurisdiction in all parts of the
church from the earliest times of Christianity.
Hence the holy fathers have
frequently appealed to the Roman succession and tradition, as the touchstone of
orthodox faith; have looked upon the Roman chair as the centre of Catholic
unity, and ever alleged the communion with the apostolic see as a mark of the
true church, and an invincible argument against all sectaries. Witness the
following testimonies:
1. St. Irenaeus,
bishop of Lyons, and martyr in the second century, who in his younger days had
been a hearer of St. Polycarp, disciple of the apostles, in his third book
against all heresies, chap. 3, thus delivers himself. “Because it would
be an endless business, in a work like this, to trace up the succession of all
the churches; we allege the tradition which that greatest and most ancient
church, well known to all, founded and established at Rome by the two most
glorious apostles Peter and Paul, has received from the apostles, and the faith
which has been there delivered, coming down to us by succession of bishops; and
so we confound all those who, either through a wicked self-complacence or
vainglory, or else through blindness and error of judgment, make unlawful
assemblies (prseterquam oportet colligunt). For to this church, by reason of
its more powerful principality, (propter potentiorem, or as others read it,
potiorem principalitatem,) it is necessary that every church has recourse,
(necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam,) that is, the faithful on all sides. In
which [church] the apostolical tradition has always been preserved by those
that are in every place.”
After this he sets down the
succession of the bishops of Rome thus. “The apostles having founded
and established the church, entrusted the episcopal ministry to Linus, who is
mentioned by St. Paul in his epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus.
After him Clement, the third from the apostles, inherited the bishopric, who
also had seen the blessed apostles, and conversed with them. To this Clement
succeeded Evaristus; Alexander; to whom succeeded Xystus, sixth from the
apostles. After him came Telesphorus, who also suffered a glorious martyrdom.
Then Hyginus; after him Pius. To whom succeeded Anicetus, who had for his
successor Soter. And now Eleutherius in the twelfth place from the apostles,
inherits the bishopric. By this order and succession the tradition of the
apostles in the church, and the preaching of the truth has come down to us. And
this is a full evidence, [plenissima ostentio, a most clear demonstration] that
it is one and the same life-giving faith, which from the apostles’ days has
been preserved in the church till now.” So far St. Irenaeus.
2. Tertullian, writer
of the same age, makes use of the same argument against all heretics, (Lib.
prsescript. chap. 36.) “Come on now,” says he, “you
who have a mind to exercise a laudable curiosity in the concern of your
salvation. Run through the apostolic churches, in which to this day is
maintained a succession in the very chairs of the apostles, (apud quas
ipsae adhuc cathedrae apostolorum suis praesidentur locis.) If you are
near Italy, you have Rome, from whence we also (Africans) have authority at
hand. A church happy in her condition, to which the apostles bequeathed their
whole doc trine with their blood: here Peter was honoured with the resemblance
of the Lord's passion: here Paul was crowned with the martyrdom of the Baptist;
here John the apostle, after coming out without hurt from the burning oil,
received sentence of banishment in an island. Let us see what this church has
learnt, what she has taught, &c.” Where he goes on, confuting all
the prevailing heresies of those days by the doctrine of the church of Rome.
3. St. Cyprian, bishop
of Carthage, and martyr in the third century, in 55th epistle to Pope
Cornelius, complaining of certain African schismatics, delivers himself in this
manner. “Moreover they dare to cross the seas, and carry letters from
their schismatical and profane faction to the chair of Peter and the principal
church from which the priestly unity has its origin, (Ecclesiam, principalem,
unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est,) not considering that the Romans are they
whose faith was praised by the apostles, (Romans i) to whom false faith
(perfidia) has no access.”
4. St. Optatus, bishop
of Milevis in Numidia, and one of the principal champions of the church of God
against the Donatists, in his sacred book against Parmenianus the Donatist,
bishop of Carthage, thus addresses himself to his adversary. “You
cannot pretend to be ignorant that Peter held fast the bishop’s chair in the
city of Rome, in which Peter, head of all the apostles, sat – in which one
chair, unity might be maintained by all; lest the rest of the apostles should
each one claim his own separate chair. So that he is now a schismatic and
offender, who against this single chair erects any other. In this one chair,
which is the first of the properties of the church, Peter first sat; to him
succeeded Linus, to him Clement, &c.; to Liberius succeeded Damasus; to
Damasus, Siricius, the present bishop; with whom we (the Catholics of Africa)
and all the world communicate. Give you now an account of the origin of your
chair, you who claim to yourselves the holy catholic church.” So far
St. Optatus.
5. St. Jerome, writing
to Pope Damasus, Epist. 57, Anno 376. “Because the east, divided by
intestine jars, rends in pieces the seamless coat of Christ, - so that in the
midst of these broken cisterns, that hold no water, it is hard to find out the
sealed fountain and enclosed garden: therefore have I thought it proper to
consult the chair of Peter, and that faith which was praised by the mouth of
the apostle, seeking from thence food for my soul, where I first put on the
garment of Christ. I am joined in communion with your holiness, that is, with
the chair of Peter: upon that rock I know the church is built: whoever eats the
Lamb out of this house is profane; whosoever is not in the ark shall perish in
the deluge. I know not Vitalis, I reject Meletius, I am ignorant of Paulinus,
(he speaks of the three that at that time contended for the patriarchal see of
Antioch). Whosoever gathers not with thee, scatters; that is, he who is not of
Christ, belongs to Antichrist.”
And in his 58th epistle to the
same Pope. “On one side of me, the Arian fury rages, supported by the
secular power; on the other side, the church (of Antioch) divided in three
parts, seeks to draw me to her. In the mean time I cry out, whosoever is joined
with the apostolical see, he is my man.” So far St. Jerome.
6. St. Augustin, in
his psalm against the Donatists, thus speaks to these schismatics. “Come,
brethren, if you have a mind to be engrafted in the vine, it is a pity to see
you lie lopped off in this manner from the stock. Reckon up the prelates in the
very see of Peter; and in that order of fathers, see which has succeeded which.
This is the rock over which the proud gates of hell prevail not.” He
makes use of the same argument of the succession of bishops of Rome from St.
Peter, against the Donatists, in his 165th epistle to Generosus, and against
the Manicheans and all other heretics, in his book of the Advantage of
believing, c. 17.
And in his book against the
epistle of Manicheus, which was called the Foundation, chap. 4, he gives it
amongst other arguments or motives of credibility, which made him prefer the
Catholic communion to all others; where he writes as follows: “Not to speak
of that most sincere wisdom, which you (Manicheans) do not believe to be in the
Catholic church, there are many other things which most justly hold me in her
communion. 1. The agreement of people and nations. 2. Her authority begun by
miracles, nourished by hope, increased by charity, confirmed by antiquity. 3. A
succession of priests descending from Peter the Apostle, to whom Christ after
his resurrection, committed his flock to the present bishop. Lastly, the very
name of Catholic, of which this church alone has, not without reason, in such
manner kept the possession, that though all heretics desire to be called Catholics,
if a stranger were to ask them where the Catholics go to church, none of them
all has the face to point out his own church or meeting-house.” So far
St. Augustin. And let the world judge by this, what his sentiments would be of
modern sectaries.
From all that has been said in
this section, we gather the following arguments in favour of the ancient
religion. 1. We alone communicate with the successors of
Peter, to whom Christ committed his whole flock: therefore, we alone are the
sheep of Christ. 2dly. The chair of Peter was, according to
all antiquity, established by Christ to be the centre of unity to the whole
Church: we alone are united to this centre of unity. 3dly. The
Roman succession and tradition is ever urged by the fathers as an invincible
argument against all sectaries: this succession and tradition is wholly on our
side.
No comments:
Post a Comment