[Part 2] East and West: Standing at the Crossroads
"For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority"—St. Irenaeus of Lyons
In the previous essay, I spent a good deal of time covering the often-fraught relationship between the East and the West. We saw how in some senses it is hard to pinpoint an exact date for the schism, even if undoubtedly we know that there certainly is a schism. While 1054 is certainly a good symbolic date, if we latch onto it too firmly, we will overlook the early Photian Schism of the 9th century, not to mention the fact that even after 1054, at points the schism remained ambiguous among some of the Patriarchs, particularly Alexandria and Antioch. Even in the early 13th century there is not a total break, and reconciliation was briefly achieved, no matter how fragile and political it may have been, late in the 13th century, and again for a short time in the late 15th century. And of course, even in this time, the Metropolitan of Kiev, as we have seen, was for a time in communion with both the church of Russia, which rejected the Union of Florence, and with Rome in the West. But again, this is not to say there was no schism, and that everything is fine and dandy, and that we should just stop considering the question between the East and the West, what I am trying to indicate is that this issue we are dealing with is actually highly complex, nuanced and is not as straightforward as any of us would like to think. If only it was this easy to adjudicate between all of the sources! And in fact, even as I have sat down to re-research a bit in preparation to writing this second part, I have felt more overwhelmed than ever at the sheer amount of material and complexity that we have before us. Thus, this will go even beyond the present part. I do not know how many parts this will have anymore. I will go until I complete my task.
All of this said, in part two I want to first explore the similarities in ecclesiology between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, and then afterwards, I want to turn to the distinctive of the Roman dogmas regarding the nature of the Bishop of Rome and his prerogatives. After this, in order to assess these claims, I begin with a historical overview that begins in the 2nd century, and ends with the dispute between St. Cyprian of Carthage and Pope St. Stephen. The overview, which is part of an assessment of these Roman claims, will begin in this essay, and will continue beyond it, whereafter I will finish it, and then attempt to address counterclaims, or at the very least, various potential difficulties and considerations to take in mind while reviewing the evidence of the first millennium.
Ecclesiology, Headship and Ranking
Differences in ecclesiology are, in my opinion, the biggest point of division between the East and West today, even more than issues such as the Filioque clause or the theology behind it. On the face of it, there are many similarities between the constitution of both communions, which is to be expected due to their historical split. Both believe that the church hierarchy is, in its most fundamental sense, constituted by a threefold hierarchy of Bishops, priests and deacons. Among these three, the Bishop is the bearer of the fullness of priesthood and possesses apostolic succession stretching back to the apostles and ultimately to Jesus Christ as the source of their authority. The Bishops, as successors to the Apostles, have the authority to govern the church, assemble on synods, excommunicate or discipline members of their flock, and to grant dispensations, among many other things. In both communions, bishops are organized in various ways. Although they are one in virtue of possessing the episcopate, they are ranked by ecclesiastical and canonical customs. Canon 9 of Antioch is a good illustration of this, which reads as follows:
It behooves the bishops in every province to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the metropolis, and who has to take thought for the whole province; because all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis. Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank, and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him, (according to the ancient canon which prevailed from [the times of] our Fathers) or such things only as pertain to their own particular parishes and the districts subject to them. For each bishop has authority over his own parish, both to manage it with the piety which is incumbent on every one, and to make provision for the whole district which is dependent on his city; to ordain presbyters and deacons; and to settle everything with judgment. But let him undertake nothing further without the bishop of the metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of the others. (Synod of Antioch in Encaeniis (A.D. 341))
Within a given region, one Bishop presides among the other Bishops, they are to remain harmonious with him, and do nothing apart from him, in the same way, the primate is to be harmonious with his suffragans. This is a system of ranking, as it is clear from the canon, which outright says "it is decreed that he have a precedence in rank". Thus, the bishops are all one in terms of their participation in the sacrament of orders, but through ecclesiastical organization and canonical customs, there is a ranking within the episcopate. Classically, this is best illustrated by the distinction between Bishops, Archbishops or Metropolitans, and patriarchs at the highest level. We see though, that the notion of a 'primacy of honor' or 'first' among the Bishops entails much more than mere 'honor', however, given that the Bishops of the province are to acknowledge the primate, to do nothing extraordinary without the primate, and anything beyond the basic functions of ordination and the managing the parishes is to be done with the consent of the primate, and vice versa when it comes to extraordinary situations.
Roman Primacy in General
To make matters more complicated, both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox alike acknowledge the notion of Roman primacy in particular (at least historically or theoretically). Frequent recourse is made to the notion of the Pentarchy, a particular form of ecclesiastical organization that developed over time beginning around the time of the Council of Nicaea in 325, when Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were singled out (Canon VI), and reaching its mature form by the time of the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when Jerusalem was elevated from being a suffragan of the Metropolitan of Heraclea into a Patriarchate in its own right, giving us the so-called Pentarchy of the Patriarchates of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, which were viewed as the most important and authoritative sees in the world, and were also, in the secular sphere, some of the most powerful and largest cities (with the exception of Jerusalem). Rome occupied the position of the protos or 'first' among the taxis or ranking of the churches, to the extent where the Bishop of Rome could be referred to as "Archbishop of all the churches" (Session IV, Council of Chalcedon) or the city itself as the "head of all the churches" (Session I, Council of Chalcedon). Indeed, this was well-known enough where even in the time of the Emperor Justinian (527-565), it was acknowledged in the Codex Justiniani that Rome was the head of all of the churches. The first section of the Codex contains some correspondence between Pope St. John I (523-526) and Justinian. Pope John I wrote:
Among the conspicuous reasons for praising your wisdom and gentleness, Most Christian of Emperors, and one which radiates light as a star, is the fact that through love of the Faith, and actuated by zeal for charity, you, learned in ecclesiastical discipline, have preserved reverence for the See of Rome, and have subjected all things to its authority, and have given it unity. The following precept was communicated to its founder, that is to say, the first of the Apostles, by the mouth of the Lord, namely: "Feed my lambs." This See is indeed the head of all churches, as the rules of the Fathers and the decrees of Emperors assert, and the words of your most reverend piety testify
The reply of Justinian is recorded as well, and he agrees with the Pope on this point, writing:
We have exerted Ourselves to unite all the priests of the East and subject them to the See of Your Holiness, and hence the questions which have at present arisen, although they are manifest and free from doubt, and, according to the doctrine of your Apostolic See, are constantly firmly observed and preached by all priests, We have still considered it necessary that they should be brought to the attention of Your Holiness. For we do not suffer anything which has reference to the state of the Church, even though what causes the difficulty may be clear and free from doubt, to be discussed without being brought to the notice of Your Holiness, because you are the head of all the Holy Churches, for We shall exert Ourselves in every way (as has already been stated), to increase the honor and authority of your See. (Codex Justiniani)
Thus, the headship of the Roman See over all the churches of the world should be an uncontroversial fact. This means Catholicism wins, right? Well, actually, it's not that simple. When communicating with very well-read Orthodox, they will not necessarily deny that Rome may have had headship of all the churches, exercised a primacy of honor and jurisdiction, holding that nothing should be done without the cooperation of Rome, in line with the notions put forward in Apostolic Canon 34 and the previously-cited Canon 9 of Antioch, albeit applied on the universal rather than the national level, though the basic notion is the same and may be applied analogously. In Metropolitan Kallistos Ware's book The Orthodox Church, I was surprised to read him give a quite robust view of what Rome's honor and prerogatives could look like in a Church united in faith again:
"Surely we Orthodox should be willing to assign to the Pope, in a united Christendom, not just an honorary seniority, but an all-embracing apostolic care. We should be willing to assign to him the right, not only to accept appeals from the whole Christian world, but even to take the initiative in seeking ways of healing when crisis and conflict arise anywhere among Christians. We envisage that on such occasions the Pope would act, not in isolation, but always in cooperation with his brother bishops. We would wish to see his ministry spelt out in pastoral rather than juridical terms. He would encourage rather than compel, consult rather than coerce.
In 1024, Patriarch Eustathius of Constantinople suggested to Pope John XIX the following formula, differentiating between the primacy of Rome and that of the Ecumenical Patriarchate: 'Let the Church of Constantinople be called and accounted universal in her own sphere, as Rome is throughout the world.' Might not the Orthodox/Roman Catholic Joint Commission take this as a basis for discussion at some future meeting?" (Ware 309-310).
Thus we can see that even prominent Eastern Orthodox hierarchs acknowledge the point that I am making regarding the notion of primacy of honor, and the extent of what is possible in a world where Rome could again, in a united East and West, exercise the role of the "head of all the churches".
Roman Primacy by Divine Right
Having dwelt on some similarities and the notion of primacy and ranking among the Bishops of the Church, and the forms that this can take, I believe I have laid a fair degree of common groundwork from which to depart to the differences that have divided the two communions for centuries. As Eastern Orthodox author Fr. Laurent A. Cleenewerck says, "It is not the primacy of Rome that is in question but rather its divine origin, absolute "fullness of power," ontological reality and unlimited scope" (Cleenewerck 117). The claims of Rome are mostly clearly summarized in the Vatican I document, Pastor Aeternus:
"Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world."
Thus, far from headship being a thing of mere canonical origin, in the teaching of the Catholic Church, headship is actually of divine origin among the episcopate as a whole. The Bishop of Rome is not of a wholly different class of hierarch, but he is a Bishop like other Bishops, the difference being that through the promises of Jesus Christ, that the Bishop of Rome enjoys pre-eminence above all of the others in rank, and has immediate and universal jurisdiction over the Catholic Church. This is primarily rooted in Matthew 16:13-20, where Christ confirms St. Peter as the rock of the Church, against which the gates of Hades will not prevail, also granting him the power of binding and loosing.
At this point, I believe terms need to be defined before moving forward any further.
Ordinary: "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."
Immediate: "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." (The Pope)
One would think at this point that refuting Catholicism would be as easy going through history and finding a few examples where immediate or ordinary jurisdiction is hindered or even denied, and then wrapping it up there, but as with most things, it is not that easy. Ultimately, I accept the papacy because I think that a greater plurality of the authoritative saints and councils give us evidence to believe that the primacy of the successor of St. Peter, i.e. the Bishop of Rome, is by divine ordinance and not mere man-made ecclesiastical organization, as is the ranking of Bishops such as Metropolitans, Patriarchs, etc. Rome is the source of ecclesiastical unity, the rock of the Church, against which the gates of Hades shall not prevail. Thus first I will provide a positive case, and then I will give the negative case, or at the very least, various potential difficulties and considerations to take in mind while reviewing the evidence of the first millennium. The positive case will begin in this part, and stretch beyond it, and the negative case will come in a future essay in this series.
In my case, when I was a catechumen in Eastern Orthodoxy, I operated (unfortunately) on a very ignorant foundation. I wish I had known anything about half the stuff I have written above! In my view, the 'supremacy' of Rome (as opposed to its primacy) was an accretion that metastasized gradually in the late second half of the first millennium of the Church, ultimately culminating in the excesses of Dictatus Papae, and a severance of West from East, founded solely on various false decretals, the Donation of Constantine and the ecclesio-political situation of the Bishop of Rome being the only Patriarch in the West.
However, as I continued my studies, I quickly discovered that it was not so simple as this. Above all, what gradually eroded my confidence in the claims of Eastern Orthodoxy was reading the words of the saints venerated by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Of course, one may echo the common refrain that "the saints are not infallible", to which I must of course concur, however, after seeing Roman primacy by divine ordinance being repeated over and over among the saints and in ecumenical councils, I began to think that there was an issue at hand that needed to be explained. One of the first quotes that stuck out to me was from St. John Chrysostom (c. 347-407 AD), who of course was Patriarch of Constantinople at one point. In Chrysostom's 88th homily on the Gospel of John, Chrysostom remarks rather off hand that
"And if any should say, How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem? I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair, but of the world."
"He" here, of course, refers to the risen Christ. The episcopate of St. James was in Jerusalem, as we know from tradition, but the role of St. Peter but forth here is something much broader in its horizons, extending to the entire world. I was disturbed by this when I read it as an Eastern Orthodox catechumenate, as it flew in the face of what I was being taught and imbibing. In the coming months I would go and dig up even more, which would disturb me, needless to say, but I would merely conclude that the case between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy was ultimately much more 'murky' than many Eastern Orthodox apologists online were telling me.
Rome in the First Millennium
Even in apostolic times, Rome had a certain amount of renown among the churches, leading St. Paul to address them in Romans 1:8 as the church whose faith is proclaimed throughout the world. The prestige of Rome would also forever be bolstered in the eyes of Christians by the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul within the city, and by the subsequent veneration of the relics of these two great saints. By the late 1st century, St. Clement, third in succession from Peter as Bishop of Rome, wrote to the church of Corinth against a revolution of sorts against the established order of the Corinthian church, writing throughout in a fraternal yet authoritative tone. The letter is indicative of a great solicitude for the churches that existed in Rome even from a very early date, and this reading of the letter is shared in a source shared by Eusebius of Caesarea in his Ecclesiastical History, in which he includes a letter written by Bishop St. Dionysius of Corinth to Pope St. Soter (c. 166-c. 174) less than a century after Clement sent his famous epistle:
From the start it has been your custom to treat all Christians with unfailing kindness, and to send contributions to many churches in every city, sometimes alleviating distress to those in need, sometimes providing for your brothers in the mines by the contributions you have sent from the start. Thus you Romans have observed the ancestral Roman custom, which your reverend Bishop Soter has not only maintained but enlarged, by generously providing the abundant supplies distributed among God's people, and by encouraging with inspired words fellow Christians who come to the city, as an affectionate father encourages his children (Eusebius 4:23)
He likewise mentions that epistle of Clement was customarily read within the church of Corinth. Needless to say, the mere fact of Roman generosity and solicitude does not prove anything per se, since Eusebius himself writes of how Dionysius of Corinth wrote epistles to Sparta, Athens, Nicomedia, Amastris, and communities in Pontus and on the island of Crete, variously supporting them, or giving advice or support, sending his letters "not only on those under him but also on those in foreign lands, rendering the greatest service to all in the general epistles which he indited to the churches" (Eusebius 4:23).
St. Ignatius of Antioch on Roman 'Presiding out of Love'
This kept in mind, the precedence of Rome was still viewed as something special among numerous early Bishops and writers of the Church, and already by the time of St. Ignatius of Antioch in the early 2nd century, he writes to the Roman church saying that it is the church "which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessedness, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, presiding out of love..." (Epistle to the Romans)
Furious debate has raged over these words, but the general import seems clear enough, especially when viewed in contrast with Ignatius' other epistles to the churches of Asia. Ignatius refuses to direct them like Peter and Paul did, and in fact, the church of Rome has has "taught others" Fr. Klaus Schatz recognizes this same tonal difference, writing:
"Whereas he urges the other communities to preserve unity, especially with the bishop ("Do nothing without the bishop"), and warns them against heresies, his letter to the Romans has a completely different tone. It contains no admonitions, no instruction, only praise; this is the church that needs no instruction between it "taught others" (Schatz 5).
Thus, by the early second century, we already have a picture of the Roman church in which it a universal fraternal solicitude for churches far beyond its region, providing material aid as well as spiritual aid, not to mention correction. Rome was a teacher of others, and not in need of correction.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons on the Roman Tradition
Later in the same century, we have yet another witness of the authority of Rome in the writing of St. Irenaeus of Lyons in the third book of his famous Against Heresies. The purpose of St. Irenaeus is to demonstrate from the unbroken succession of bishops the preservation of the apostolic tradition and its teaching against the secret teachings of so-called 'gnostics'. St. Irenaeus clearly thinks that it is possible to demonstrate his point against the gnostics via listing numerous succession lists from churches all around the world, but he declares it to be tedious, and instead appeals to the example of Rome, which is home to "the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul" (Irenaeus 3.3.2):
"For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority" (Irenaeus 3.3.2):
As with the passage from St. Ignatius we have already discussed briefly, much ink has likewise been spilled over the meaning of the phrase "preeminent authority" (potentior principalitas), although it seems clear that the example of the Roman church is the best and clearest example of the universal Christian tradition being passed down from the time of the apostles. In fact, we can find the example of the Roman succession specifically being of particular interest to Christian writers. The Jewish Christian Hegesippus is one example recorded in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. Traveling to Rome, Hegesippus "mixed with a number of bishops and found the same doctrine among them all" (Eusebius 4:22), but still, he appears to show a special interest in the Roman episcopal succession in particular:
"On arrival at Rome I pieced together the succession down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus, Anicetus being succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus" (Eusebius 4:22)
With a similar goal as Irenaeus in writing polemical texts against gnostics, Tertullian (d. early 3rd century), writing in his pre-Montantist phase in his work Prescription against Heretics also challenges heretics to demonstrate the apostolic pedigree of their secret doctrines via the churches founded by the apostles:
Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! Where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! Where Paul wins his crown in a death like John's where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile! See what she has learned, what taught, what fellowship has had with even (our) churches in Africa! (Tertullian 36)
Again, Rome appears to stand out in some manner. Fr. Klaus Schatz gives the best summation of this quote in his work, writing:
"At first glance it seems that Rome is simply placed on the same level as the other apostolic churches; it is merely the one nearest to the West, that is, to North Africa, and therefore "responsible" for that region. And yet it is again striking that when Tertullian begins to speak of Rome he suddenly abandons his prosaic style and waxes lyrical. The Roman church seems to be surrounded by a special nimbus, or to enjoy enjoy a more than ordinary status. Its universal spiritual importance also makes it extraordinarily authoritative for the truth faith" (Schatz 11).
Quartodeciman Controversy
Pope St. Victor (189-198) gives us another example of Roman authority and influence being exercised within the Church. The event is well-known: a dispute arose in the late 1st century regarding the date of celebration of Easter-whether it should always be observed on a Sunday, or whether it should be observed on the fourteenth of Nisan, i.e. the first full moon after the beginning of spring, no matter what day of the week, in accordance with Jewish Passover customs. Synods were held throughout the Church in Asia, Mesopotamia, Palestine, and Gaul, probably in response to an initiative of Pope Victor, as is recorded in the preserved letter of Bishop Polycrates of Ephesus: "I could have mentioned the bishops who are within me and whom I summoned in response to your request" (Eusebius 5:24). As Schatz remarks regarding this flurry of synodal activity in response to the controversy, and the centrality of Rome in this dispute, "This is the first known case of a universal Church initiative coming from a bishop of Rome, or, to put it another way, it is the first occasion when Rome assumed responsibility for the whole Church. It may also be the beginning of the institution of the synod" (Schatz 12).
All of the churches come to agree with the Roman practice except those of Asia. "Thereupon Victor, head of the Roman church, attempted at one stroke to cut off from the common unity all the Asian dioceses, together with the neighboring churches, on the ground of heterodoxy, and pilloried them in letters in which he announced the total excommunication of all his fellow-Christians there" (Eusebius 5:24). The bishops did not agree with Victor's course of action here too, and Bishops such as Irenaeus of Lyons intervened and urged that Victor take a path of peace rather than total excommunication. In the end, Victor was not successful in his endeavor to bring about uniformity with Roman custom, and there was thankfully no enduring separation between Asia and the rest of the Church. Regardless, this event does raise an interesting question about the nature of Roman influence and authority at this early date in the late 2nd century. Not only does the Bishop of Rome believe that he has the authority and influence to intervene in the customs of churches hundreds of miles away, even those who themselves had verifiably apostolic foundations (such as Ephesus), he also used his influence and authority to request the convocation of synods across in places as diverse as Mesopotamia, Pontus, Greece, and Gaul, which were heeded. Though it is true that there seems to have been no notion of whatever Rome says being law. Tradition was viewed more highly in these cases, as we can see with bishops such as Polycrates of Ephesus, who clearly viewed the observance of Easter on 14th Nisan as genuinely apostolic and thus dug in his heels at attempted Roman interference, appealing to the words of Peter and the apostles in the Book of Acts: "We must obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29). Two things must be kept in mind when reviewing this evidence. For one, the fact that Pope Victor was not ultimately successful in his attempt to cut off all of Asia does not mean that Pope Victor could not do it if he pleased—we see the bishops attempting to defuse the situation and urge peace rather than confrontation rather than claiming Victor could not do such a thing, and second, the mere fact of resistance does not necessary delegitimize the use of the Easter controversy as a point in the debate on papal power. The event is significant regardless, and in fact, the next century would see another highly similar series of events unfold, this one being much more well-documented— the dispute between St. Cyprian of Carthage and Pope St. Stephen over the issue of rebaptizing heretics who wished to enter into the Church.
Episcopus Episcoporum?
St. Cyprian provides us with a fascinating look into the situation in the 3rd century, simultaneously providing us with a witness to Roman primacy, as well as being a great opponent of the Pope. As we shall see, there are many paradoxes in the thought of Cyprian on this issue. For St. Cyprian, Rome is the Chair of St. Peter, as well as "the primordial Church from whose source has arisen the united body of sacred bishops" (Ep. 59.14.1), as he writes in a letter to Pope Cornelius (251-253). In another letter to him, Cyprian says in regards to those who sail off to Rome that "we have exhorted them to acknowledge and hold the root and matrix of the Catholic Church" (Ep. 44.3) We must realize that these are quite the claims, not applied to other churches by Cyprian. Even despite all of which we shall cover in this section, Cyprian has said some quite surprising things in relation to Rome. In general, though, Cyprian's view is that Bishops are successors of Peter, and that the Bishop is the ruling principle of the Church, with the Church being founded upon the Bishops. The episcopate spread throughout the world is one, and it is held by each individual bishop in solidum, that is to say 'in common' (On the Unity of the Catholic Church 5). In the most basic sense, all of the Bishops have some responsibility for the solicitude and health of the other churches.
We can see a good example of this in Cyprian's 68th epistle, which is addressed to Pope Stephen. In this letter, Cyprian writes to Stephen regarding a certain Marcian of Arles, a Bishop who had aligned himself with the rigorist antipope Novatian. Cyprian writes to Stephen urging him to write to the Bishops of Gaul in order that Marcian may be excommunicated, and a successor appointed in his place. In the course of the letter, Cyprian dwells for a moment on what is the good reason for "why our body of bishops is so tightly bound together by the glue of mutual concord and by the bond of unity", saying that it is so that if anyone from the college of bishops attempts to form a heretical sect, that other bishops may be able to come to the rescue, and gather the sheep of the Lord back into the fold (Ep. 68.3.2). Cyprian had already excommunicated this man, but action was needed on the part of Stephen in Rome, who, possessing a greater deal of prestige and authority, would be able to cajole and persuade the Bishops of Gaul to act and remove Marcian from his position. It is clear that Cyprian, however, had a strongly collegial ecclesiology: "For though we are many shepherds, yet the flock we feed is but one, and it is our duty to gather in and tenderly care for every single one of the sheep which Christ has won by His own sufferings and blood" (Ep. 68.4.2). Indeed, his views on this matter are so extreme that he believed that there simply could not be serious disagreements within the Church, for he says "Hence it is plainly evident that a man does not hold the truth of the Holy Spirit with the rest of his colleagues when we find that his opinions are different from theirs" (Ep. 68.5.2)
Cyprian's epistles also attest to the fact that already in the 3rd century, it was a common practice for Bishops from all over the Christian world to go to Rome for appeals. We see many instances in the corpus of Cyprian where bishops attempt to go to Rome to win recognition, or to ask them to intervene with the weight of their authority in some matter, as in the case of Marcian of Arles (as we have seen), or with the other cases of Basilides and Martial, two Bishops who were expelled in Spain. These men had obtained certificates of sacrifice during the persecution and were expelled from the episcopate, but had managed to gain recognition from Pope Stephen in Rome by deception, according to Cyprian in his 67th epistle. In response, Cyprian convened an African synod of thirty-seven bishops and warned the two Spanish communities to reject the decision of Rome and not to pollute themselves with their sins. In general, Cyprian seems to not be too fond of the idea of Bishops running to run for a review of their case, and in the case of the delegation of Felicissimus to Rome in his 59th epistle, he clearly says that cases should be conducted where the accused and witnesses are, and asks Pope Cornelius "I suppose that you do not think that the authority of bishops who are found in their places in Africa is less than that of a few desperate men on their way to destruction?" (Ep. 59.14.2). Not all appeals were rubber-stamped by Rome, however, as the case of a certain Privatus of Lambesa attests, as documented in a letter written by Pope Cornelius himself:
"But the deceitfulness of that crafty man could not be hid from us even before we had your letters; for previously, when from the company of that very wickedness a certain Futurus came, a standard-bearer of Privatus, and was desirous of fraudulently obtaining letters from us, we were neither ignorant who he was, nor did he get the letters which he wanted" (Ep. 29.4)
Compare this with the case of Basilides, who appears to have attained the letters he sought.
Before going to the re-baptism controversy proper, let us summarize briefly. It is clear that during the mid 3rd century, when Cyprian was writing, that Bishop of Rome was considered to be the most important of all sees in the Church, otherwise it would make little sense to give this church exceedingly lofty names such as "root", "matrix", "Primordial church" and the very source of episcopal unity. Likewise, the letters in the Cyprianic corpus provide us with fascinating insight into how Rome was also a great place of appeals for the Church, with Bishops traveling from Spain, North Africa and surrounding regions with their appeals and cases. Even though Cyprian is clearly not a 19th century Ultramontantist, he does have a doctrine of Petrine primacy that in some sense involves the Roman see, though he clearly does not view Rome as inerrant on faith and morals, as we shall shortly see in regards to the rebaptism controversy.
In his treatise On the Unity of the Catholic Church, there are two recensions of Cyprian's Petrine doctrine. One of them, seen by scholars generally as being the original recension, reads as follows:
And the same Jesus after his resurrection said to Peter: "Feed my sheep". Upon him he builds his Church, and to him he hands over in trust his sheep to be fed and, although he might assign to all the apostles equal power, he however established one Chair and ordained by his own authority that Chair as the source of unity and its guiding principle.
The remaining apostles were of necessity that which Peter was, but the first place was granted to Peter and thus one Church was exemplified by the one Chair. And all are shepherds but one flock is exemplified which is nurtured by all the apostles in unanimous agreement. Can anyone believe that he himself sticks fast to the faith without sticking fast to the unity of Peter? Can someone be confident that he himself is in the Church if he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church is founded? (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church, 4)
Cyprian then goes on in chapter 5 to say what was already explained earlier, about the bishops possessing the one episcopate in common. The Church is a unity which extends itno plurality. Cyprian uses the examples of rays of light emanating from the sun, or many streams flowing from one fountain, or many branches from one trunk of a tree. Summing this up, he says "[T]hese are examples of a multiplicity, nevertheless their unity is preserved in her source". Let us stop here—what does Cyprian call the Roman see? The Chair of Peter. 'But wait,' comes the objection 'All bishops are Peter!" The objection, however, is without force, as Cyprian himself has already said in the primacy recension that "The remaining apostles were of necessity that which Peter was", however, Christ established one Chair, and that Chair is indeed identified by Cyprian as the Chair of Peter in Rome. Likewise, looking at Cyprian's analogies of rays, branches and streams, and their unity being preserved in their source, does this not fit neatly with how Cyprian, in writing to Pope Cornelius, describes Rome as "the primordial Church from whose source has arisen the united body of sacred bishops"? I do not feel as if I am reaching in any of this.
In fact, Eastern Orthodox priest and theologian, Fr. Nicholas Afanassieff similarly is able to read the sources and put two-and-two together. He compares Cyprian's basic working idea of the Church and its bishops to a truncated cone:
The Church of Cyprian's doctrine might well be compared to a truncated cone: the larger inferior base of the cone would be numerous but united local churches, and the small top platform the "multiplicity in concord" of the bishops...The truncated cone is incomplete in itself. Cyprian had all the data for making his cone perfect: according to his doctrine there should have really been one single bishop at the head of the Universal Church. He was unwilling to place the Bishop of Rome outside the concors numerositas of bishops, and yet the place given by him to the Roman Church did raise it above the "harmonious multitude". The ideal "Peter's throne" became confused in Cyprian's mind with the actual throne occupied by the Bishop of Rome. According to Cyprian, every bishop occupies Peter's throne (the Bishop of Rome among others"), but the See of Peter is Peter's throne par excellence. The Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly, and sometimes only by the mediation of Rome. Hence Cyprian's insistence that the Church of Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church
The subject is treated in so many of Cyprian's passges that there is no doubt: to him, the See of Rome was ecclesia principalis unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est. But he does not proceed to draw any conclusions from this doctrine about the See of Rome. Being so keely aware of the Church's actual life, Cyprian could not deny that the See of Rome held a preponderant position: but he was intuitively in step with trends in the whole Church which did not allow him to make the Bishop of Rome head of the episcopate. The Bishop of Rome undertook to relieve him, and drew the necessary conclusions himself. Logically, it was inevitable. If the Universal Church, as Cyprian saw it, can be compared to a truncated cone, we must admit that the upper place is in fact above the multitude of local churches. It is at the head of the multitude, so to speak, because the power in the Church belongs to it, and through it, also belongs to each bishop in his church. The world-wide unity of the cannot be built upon the model of Roman imperial unity unless we bring in the fundamental principle which held the Empire together—lawful right. Cyprian certainly brought a legal element into his consideration of power inside the Church, but he refused to stretch it to cover the relations of bishops with one another. The concors numerositas of bishops constitutes the power within the Church, but within its own membership it disallows the power united on a foundation of concord. No wonder Cyprian's system turned out to be a historical failure! In his declining years, Cyprian was to see his system crash before his won eyes. He saw that the concors numerositas was only an ideal; in real life there is certainly numerositas, but not concord, since a concors numerositas cannot work without a head" (Ed. Meyendorff 98-99)
What a passage! I have little more to say on it, but it will be important to keep in mind in regards to the events that shall follow. At some point during the pontificate of Pope Stephen, a dispute rose over the question of whether baptism administered by heretics was valid. The view of Rome was affirmative on this matter—the baptisms of heretics were true baptisms, there was no need to rebaptize those who were baptized among heretics. The position of Asia Minor and North Africa, where Cyprian was, was vehemently opposed to the notion of accepting the baptisms of heretics. Only the Catholic Church could confer baptism. Anything else was just a mere washing in water. No sins were remitted, and the Holy Spirit was not given. Writing in a letter to Pope Sixtus II (257-258), Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria recounted that Stephe had written to Helenus, Firmilian, and all who came from Cilicia, Cappadocia, Galatia and all of the neighboring countries "saying he would have nothing to do with them, for this reason—they rebaptized heretics" (Eusebius 7.5). Thus began essentially what was a redux of the Easter controversy from the previous century. In the Cyprianic corpus, there is a veritable slew of letters on rebaptism after this point. For example, Epistle 71 was sent to a certain Quintus on the subject of rebaptizing heretics. Against the claims of Pope Stephen to tradition, Cyprian appeals to reason. Interestingly, and almost surely not coincidentally, Cyprian turns to the example of Paul's rebuke of Peter over the issue of circumcision and dining with the Gentiles, as recounted in Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. Cyprian writes regarding Peter: "[N]ot even he showed any arrogant pretensions or made any special claims for himself. He did not assert that he had the rights of seniority and that therefore upstarts and late-comers ought to be obedient to him" (Ep. 71.3.1). Interestingly, in Letter 72 to Pope Stephen, Cyprian writes that he is attaching his letter to Quintus to the letter to Stephen, which very likely would have been read as a stinging rebuke to the Pope, further inflaming the situation at hand. In contrast to the attempts of Pope Stephen to enforce a uniform view regarding the sacrament of baptism onto the Church, Cyprian declares simply that "We are not forcing anyone on this matter; we are laying down no law. For every appointed leader has in his government of the Church freedom to exercise his own will and judgment, while having one day to render an account of his conduct to the Lord" (Ep. 72.3.1)
The more we read into Cyprian's corpus of letters though, the more and more heated the rhetoric seems to become, just see for example Cyprian's Epistle 74, written to Pompeius on the topic of Stephen and the re-baptism controversy. In summary, Stephen is said to be endeavoring to champion the cause of heretics, and we learn that Stephen has forbidden the baptism of all heretics coming into the Church, appealing to the fact that "there is to be no innovation beyond that has been handed down". Cyprian goes onto to accuse at some length Stephen of holding the traditions of men as doctrines. He mockingly remarks on how the Church now follows the tradition of antichrists instead of the words of St. Paul and the Lord in the Gospels (Ep. 74.3.2-7.4.1). To discover the truth we should go back to the "source and fountainhead of divine tradition" (Ep. 74.10.1-7.10.3), for "[C]ustom without truth is but error grown old". At one point in the letter, Cyprian asks "Does he give honor to God who, being the friend of heretics and the foe of Christians, considers that those priests of God who seek to protect the truth of Christ and the unity of the Church deserve to be excommunicated?", a reference seemingly to how Stephen threatened excommunication of those who refuse to adhere by his baptismal policy, as Eusebius likewise recorded.
We see that things have significantly heated up. We need to realize what we are looking at here. Cyprian clearly and outright states that the Pope in Rome, under the guise of custom and tradition, is abandoning the Gospel for the doctrines of antichrists, and that he is an enemy of Christians, and a friend of heretics. It is quite clear that Cyprian has no idea of a divine charism of infallibility for Rome regarding faith and morals, as anyone reading the letter will see that what Cyprian is saying is tantamount to declaring the Pope an apostate.
The tenor of Epistle 75, written not by Cyprian himself, but by Firmilian of Caesarea (mentioned above by Eusebius) to Cyprian is highly instructive in this regard, not only in reference to the controversy at hand, but the self-image of the Roman see in the 3rd century. The background of this epistle is that Cyprian has sent a letter to the bishop of Caesarea, Firmilian, by the hand of a certain deacon Rogatianus. Firmilian replies in support of Cyprian, who in no uncertain terms declares Stephen to be akin to Judas. According to Firmilian, anyone who gives approval to the baptism of heretics passes judgment upon himself and damns himself by making himself their partner (Ep. 75.5.3). Indeed, Rome does not even observe in all particulars those things handed down by the beginning, thus they cannot appeal to the apostles (For example, regarding the date of Easter). Their practices differ from that of Jerusalem, which Firmilian seems to note as something amiss with the Roman tradition. He acknowledges that there is great diversity in the Church, but it does not mean that there has been any departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church (Ep. 75.6.1). Stephen on the other hand is said to have broken off peace with Cyprian that his predecessors had. It is a tradition of men that heretical baptisms are to be accepted. To extent of the controversy is also indicated in the letter of Firmilian, for Stephen is accused of provoking quarrels and dissensions “throughout the churches of the world”. In fact, “While imagining it was in your power to excommunicate everyone, you have in fact succeeded in excommunicating yourself alone, from everyone else!” (Ep. 75.24.2) Stephen is accused of not even accepting in his audience bishops sent by Cyprian, issuing orders that no one was to receive them into his own home. Stephen is said to have called Cyprian a “bogus Christ, a bogus apostle, and a crooked dealer” (Ep. 75.25.4)!
It is safe to say that Firmilian of Caesarea seems to have no notion of a papacy whatsoever, or if he did, he has completely discarded it. Stephen is now a prideful Judas who has excommunicated himself from the Church and has strayed from the apostolic customs on baptism, the date of Easter and other things. He has made himself partner with heretics, and has thus damned himself. It is impossible to know how common such views were like Firmilian's. We can clearly see, however, that there are echoes of the views of Polycrates of Ephesus in Firmilian's ideas regarding apostolic tradition, Easter and a refusal to merely bend over for papal dictates coming from the West. Unfortunately, we do not seem to possess any sort of reply from Cyprian in this letter, but I do not think it is much of stretch from a close reading of Epistle 74 to Pompeius.
We see in Firmilian's epistle, however, evidence of a papal self-conception by the Bishop of Rome. In accusing Stephen of Pride, Firmilian says of him that:
“He is a man who finds the location of his bishopric such a source of pride, who keeps insisting that he occupies the succession to Peter, upon whom the foundations of the Church were laid, and yet, by using his authority to defend heretical baptism, he is introducing many other rocks and he is is laying the foundations of and building up many new churches” (Ep. 75.17.1).
And following this, a few lines later, Firmilian accusing him of vaunting that he occupies the Chair of Peter. These remarks are certainly tantalizing—and they are extremely important in the study of the primacy of Rome in the 3rd century. An appeal to the succession of Peter, upon whom the Church was built, is an appeal to a divine establishment of one's position, and thus, in occupying the Chair of Peter, as did Pope Stephen, as acknowledged by Cyprian, and Firmilian too, it seems (even if he denies all of its importance), Pope Stephen has inherited this very authority. The case of Cyprian's position, as we have seen, is full of tensions and problems, given how he extols Rome in lofty terms in his early writings from the time of Pope Cornelius, and later, under Stephen, seems to make almost a complete reversal, seeing as how he seemingly edited his treatise The Unity of the Catholic Church to scrub the version with a lofty notion of primacy involving cleaving to the one Chair of Peter, instead writing a version which stressed the equality of all Bishops in honor and power.
The culmination of this struggle came in September 256, when Cyprian took it upon himself to call an extraordinary synod of bishops in North Africa. The following excerpt from the council is highly interesting in light of everything that we have said in this section:
It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there (On the Baptism of Heretics)
Clearly, Cyprian was reluctant to break communion with anyone over an issue that he ultimately saw as up to individual bishops to decide. The problem began with Cyprian when one tried to force his own view on the other bishops, lording over his brothers, so to speak. This is essentially rehashing what he wrote to Pope Stephen before this, saying that "We are not forcing anyone on this matter; we are laying down no law. For every appointed leader has in his government of the Church freedom to exercise his own will and judgment, while having one day to render an account of his conduct to the Lord" (Ep. 72.3.1). What is most interesting from the above quotation is how this is connected with the denial of the notion of a "bishop of bishops", which is clearly an attack on Pope Stephen. It is clear at this point in the controversy that Cyprian's ecclesiology has completely gone off the rails. When the tensions between his earlier views regarding Rome and the issues with Stephen came to a head, he chose to defend what he saw as orthodoxy regarding the sacraments rather than doggedly following the dictates of the Bishop of Rome across the sea, regardless of whatever esteem he may once have had.
With the situation reaching a fever pitch, the tension was to some extent lessened by the deaths of both men. "The situation might have become desperate had not Stephen died on 2 Aug. 257, and Cyprian, as a martyr, a year later" (Kelly 17).
Everything we have said requires a summary, I feel. The case of Cyprian and Pope Stephen is highly complex and very important to any discussion of the papacy. As I have said, it is clear that the view of Cyprian under Pope Cornelius was far more exalted than it happened to be under Pope Stephen, where it seemed like, due to the attempted imposition of Roman baptismal traditions, that Cyprian rapidly soured towards the Bishop of Rome, leading him seemingly to reassess certain statements that he had made earlier regarding the Chair of Peter. And as we have said, Firmilian in the East provides an even stronger and more hostile anti-Roman position, labeling Stephen's appeals to unique Petrine authority a form of sinful pride and audacity. What does this mean for the papacy? We have already gone over how this period provides evidence for a significant amount of Roman prestige, however, it was not unlimited, nor evidently was it impossible for the Bishop of Rome to fall into serious error, effectively allying with heretics and becoming an enemy of Christians. We are forced to conclude that Cyprian would be utterly alien to the papal understanding of the modern Catholic Church today, especially since the victory of Ultramontantism in the 19th century, however, I must concur with the lengthy excerpt from Fr. Nicholas Afanassieff that I quoted at length above, namely that Cyprian certainly had all the data for a first episcopal head of the Church, who would by the logic of his own writings necessary be the Chair of Peter occupied by Pope Stephen. Cyprian simply never was able to put two-and-two together here, but as Fr. Nicholas said, Pope Stephen was able to, and was confident enough in his office and rule, much like Pope St. Victor before him, to attempt to enforce his view on the Church, even if it would cause dissension and controversy, as both events did. Anglican author JND Kelly himself summarizes, saying the following:
"These incidents throw light on the growing recognition, in the middle of the 3rd century, of the pre-eminent position of Rome, as a court of appeal at any rate for Gaul and Spain, and as the see with which other sees deemed it appropriate to be in communion. Stephen emerges as an imperious and uncompromising prelate, fully aware of his special prerogative; his rival bishops did not hesitate to put the blame for splitting the church on him. It is interesting that he was accused of 'glorying in his standing as a bishop and of claiming to hold the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the church were laid'" (Kelly 17)
Briefly, however, there is another principle which we must keep in mind, however, and that is that resisting a legitimate authority does not mean that that authority is thereby not actually legitimate. It sounds banal to say, but too often when reading these sources, one may immediately conclude that Cyprian and Firmilian were right, and therefore Pope Stephen was necessarily a usurper or someone overreaching far beyond his actual authority, and therefore one cannot use the example of Pope Stephen and his unique Petrine claims as evidence for the papacy in the 3rd century. I vehemently disagree. Even given the scale of resistance to Pope Stephen's views on baptism, this does not mean that Pope Stephen did not actually possess the authority to do what he did. The same goes with Pope Victor a century beforehand. I think it is also worth noting that in both of these controversies, in the long term, the Roman position was actually victorious. Reception of heretics without re-baptizing them is contained in the canons of ecumenical councils such as the First Council of Constantinople in 381 (Canon 7), the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (Canon 14), and other important councils such as Trullo in 691/2 (Canon 95). Likewise, the practice of celebrating Easter on Nisan 14, i.e. Quartodecimanism, would likewise eventually die out, with there being so evidence that it would persist into the time of St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) according to Socrates Scholasticus (6.11), even following the agreement on Easter that came from the Council of Nicaea in 325, which agreed on the Roman custom. Is one wrong to see the influence of the Holy Spirit in this, who will lead the people of God into all truth? (John 16:13). In every case, Cyprian's distinctive views were discarded by the Church, even if they lingered for a time.
Regarding the Eastern Orthodox reading of this situation, in some senses they can certainly be very comfortable in reading Cyprian's actions and his later views of the Church, as they seem to have developed (if I am interpreting them correctly), but on the other hand, his earlier views from the time of Pope Cornelius certainly appear to be discordant with modern Eastern Orthodox notions as I have encountered them in person at parishes, or in my reading of the literature, as limited as that may be. Likewise, the papal claims of Stephen on the basis of Matthew 16 may likewise be a bit troubling, as were the actions of Pope Victor the previous century, given that this is evidence that pushes back the emergence of claims for a papacy founded on the divine ordinance of Jesus Christ further and further back into the past and closer to the origins of the Church, something which, of course, is problematic for the Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, which today is far more Cyprianic (and it is telling that the Eastern Orthodox today venerate Firmilian as a saint, while the West does not!). Likewise, as we have already said, the remarks of Eastern Orthodox writers such as Fr. Nicholas also demonstrate the tensions regarding Rome within the thoughts of Cyprian. Just as this whole situation can certainly not be described as the purest triumph of Rome (in the short term at least!), an Eastern Orthodox reading of this situation likewise is not without a few issues. If it were on the basis of this one event alone, however, I certainly might lead against the Catholic case, but viewed from a much broader perspective of the history of the Church in the first millennium, including the first few centuries, it feels much less threatening.
However, I feel as if in some senses I may have seemed to have been too hard on St. Cyprian though, I certainly do not intend to besmirch his legacy. I concur with the words of St. Augustine, which, while written on the topic of baptism, may just as easily be said of any wrong-headed views of the papacy that he may have had:
Whilst then, that holy man entertained on the subject of baptism an opinion at variance with the true view, which was afterwards thoroughly examined and confirmed after most diligent consideration, his error was compensated by his remaining in catholic unity, and by the abundance of his charity; and finally it was cleared away by the pruning-hook of martyrdom (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book 1, Chapter 18)
Brief Summary
We have seen that the Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiologies overall are very similar in their basic structure, though the biggest difference most relevant to our concerns is clearly the notion of Roman primacy as held by the Catholic Church, which believes that in essence the primacy of Rome does not come from councils or synods, but from the promises of Jesus Christ to St. Peter. An honest view of Church history should leave Eastern Orthodox unafraid of the idea of headship within the episcopate, given that they already acknowledge it regionally, and the ecumenical councils already acknowledge this title as being one that can be properly given to the Roman See within the first millennium. Thus the difference comes down to divinely-ordained headship rather than the notion of universal headship itself.
We have also seen that in the first three centuries, Rome was clearly seen as a special place within the Christian world. It was the resting place of Ss. Peter and Paul, and home to their holy relics. Along with this, Rome was viewed as the See of St. Peter, and showed charitable and spiritual concern for the other churches of the one Catholic Church to a remarkable extent. It is true that in this era, the nature of the Roman authority seems to be less juridical, but more of a sense of reverence, respect, and acknowledgement of something special about Rome. It is clearly associated with St. Peter, and in the 3rd century, as we have seen, there is a clear identification of this one particular See with St. Peter’s successor in a special way, acknowledged by opponents of Rome and the Bishop of Rome alike. There is remarkable evidence already at this date that Rome was a hub of appeals for Bishops, especially in the West. The Bishops of this era, overall, appear to have been very zealous in defending the deposit of faith as they had received it, not being willing to easily change their practices on account of Roman intervention, particularly in Asia it seems, though the Quartodeciman Controversy shows that the Bishops could and would respond to Roman requests to convene synods, and would come to agree to Roman views in some cases. Overall, we see many rudiments of what would come into even clearer relief in the following centuries.
In the next part we will continue our overview of the history, before attempting to address counterclaims, or, various potential difficulties and considerations to take in mind while reviewing the evidence of the first millennium.
TO BE CONTINUED
Sources
Augustine of Hippo, On Baptism, Against the Donatists
Cyprian, On the Unity of the Catholic Church
Cyprian, Epistle 29
Cyprian, Epistle 44
Cyprian, Epistle 59
Cyprian, Epistle 67
Cyprian, Epistle 68
Cyprian, Epistle 71
Cyprian, Epistle 72
Cyprian, Epistle 74
Cyprian, Epistle 75
Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans
Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies
Kelly & Walsh, Oxford Dictionary of Popes
Meyendorff, The Primacy of Peter
Schatz, Klaus, Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present
Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics
Ware, Timothy, The Orthodox Church
Links
88th Homily on the Gospel of John: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240188.htm
Codex Justiniani: https://droitromain.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/Anglica/CJ1_Scott.htm#1
On the Baptism of Heretics: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm
Pastor Aeternus: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/teachings/vatican-is-dogmatic-constitution-pastor-aeternus-on-the-church-of-christ-243
The Pope: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm
Synod of Antioch in Encaeniis (A.D. 341): https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3805.htm