(The) Pope
ShareCatholic Encyclopedia: Pope, The
(Ecclesial Latin
The title pope, once used with far greater latitude (see below, section V), is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth. Besides the bishopric of the Roman Diocese, certain other dignities are held by the pope as well as the supreme and universal pastorate: he is Archbishop of the Roman Province, Primate of Italy and the adjacent islands, and sole Patriarch of the Western Church. The Church's doctrine as to the pope was authoritatively declared in the First Vatican Council in the Constitution "Pastor Aeternus". The four chapters of that Constitution deal respectively with the office of Supreme Head conferred on St. Peter, the perpetuity of this office in the person of the Roman pontiff, the pope's jurisdiction over the faithful, and his supreme authority to define in all questions of faith and morals. This last point has been sufficiently discussed in the article INFALLIBILITY, and will be only incidentally touched on here.
The present article is divided as follows: I. Institution of a Supreme Head by Christ II. Primacy of the Roman See III. Nature and Extent of the Papal Power IV. Jurisdictional Rights and Prerogatives of the Pope V. Primacy of Honour: Titles and Insignia VI. Election of the Popes VII. Chronological List of the Popes
I. INSTITUTION OF A SUPREME HEAD BY CHRIST
The proof that Christ constituted St. Peter head of His Church is found in the two
famous Petrine texts, Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17. In Matthew 16:17-19, the
office is solemnly promised to the Apostle. In response to his profession of faith in the
Divine Nature of his Master, Christ thus addresses him:. "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-
Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in
heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my
church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys
of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound
also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in
heaven." The prerogatives here promised are manifestly personal to Peter. His
profession of faith was not made as has been sometimes asserted, in the name of the
other Apostles. This is evident from the words of Christ. He pronounces on the
Apostle, distinguishing him by his name Simon son of John, a peculiar and personal
blessing, declaring that his knowledge regarding the Divine Sonship sprang from a
special revelation granted to him by the Father (cf. Matthew 11:27). He further
proceeds to recompense this confession of His Divinity by bestowing upon him a
reward proper to himself: "Thou art Peter [
Here then Christ teaches plainly that in the future the Church will be the society of those who acknowledge Him, and that this Church will be built on Peter. The expression presents no difficulty. In both the Old and New Testaments the Church is often spoken of under the metaphor of God's house (Numbers 12:7; Jeremiah 12:7; Osee 8:1; 9:15; 1 Cor. 3:9-17, Eph. 2:20-2; 1 Tim. 3:5; Hebrews 3:5; I Peter 2:5). Peter is to be to the Church what the foundation is in regard to a house. He is to be the principle of unity, of stability, and of increase. He is the principle of unity, since what is not joined to that foundation is no part of the Church; of stability, since it is the firmness of this foundation in virtue of which the Church remains unshaken by the storms which buffet her; of increase, since, if she grows, it is because new stones are laid on this foundation. It is through her union with Peter, Christ continues, that the Church will prove the victor in her long contest with the Evil One: "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it." There can be but one explanation of this striking metaphor. The only manner in which a man can stand in such a relation to any corporate body is by possessing authority over it. The supreme head of a body, in dependence on whom all subordinate authorities hold their power, and he alone, can be said to be the principle of stability, unity, and increase. The promise acquires additional solemnity when we remember that both Old Testament prophecy (Isiah 28:16) and Christ's own words (Matthew 7:24) had attributed this office of foundation of the Church to Himself. He is therefore assigning to Peter, of course in a secondary degree, a prerogative which is His own, and thereby associating the Apostle with Himself in an altogether singular manner.
In the following verse (Matthew 16:19) He promises to bestow on Peter the keys of
the kingdom of heaven. The words refer evidently to Isaiah 22:22, where God declares
that Eliacim, the son of Helcias, shall be invested with office in place of the worthless
Sobna: "And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall
open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut and none shall open." In all countries the
key is the symbol of authority. Thus, Christ's words are a promise that He will confer
on Peter supreme power to govern the Church. Peter is to be His vicegerent, to rule in
His place. Further the character and extent of the power thus bestowed are indicated. It
is a power to "bind" and to "loose" -- words which, as is shown below, denote the grant
of legislative and judicial authority. And this power is granted in its fullest measure.
Whatever Peter binds or looses on earth, his act will receive the Divine ratification. The
meaning of this passage does not seem to have been challenged by any writer until the
rise of the sixteenth-century heresies. Since then a great variety of interpretations have
been put forward by Protestant controversialists. These agree in little save in the
rejection of the plain sense of Christ's words. Recent Anglican controversy tends to the
view that the reward promised to St. Peter consisted in the prominent part taken by
him in the initial activities of the Church, but that he was never more than
The promise made by Christ in Matthew 16:16-19, received its fulfilment after the
Resurrection in the scene described in John 21. Here the Lord, when about to leave the
earth, places the whole flock -- the sheep and the lambs alike -- in the charge of the
Apostle. The term employed in 21:16, "Be the shepherd [
The position of St. Peter after the Ascension, as shown in the Acts of the Apostles,
realizes to the full the great commission bestowed upon him. He is from the first the
chief of the Apostolic band -- not
II. PRIMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE
We have shown in the last section that Christ conferred upon St. Peter the office of chief pastor, and that the permanence of that office is essential to the very being of the Church. It must now be established that it belongs of right to the Roman See. The proof will fall into two parts: (a) that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and (b) that those who succeed him in that see succeed him also in the supreme headship.
(a) that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome
It is no longer denied by any writer of weight that St. Peter visited Rome and suffered martyrdom there (Harnack, "Chronol.", I, 244, n. 2). Some, however, of those who admit that he taught and suffered in Rome, deny that he was ever bishop of the city e. g. Lightfoot, "Clement of Rome", II, 501; Harnack, op. cit., I, 703. It is not, however, difficult to show that the fact of his bishopric is so well attested as to be historically certain. In considering this point, it will be well to begin with the third century, when references to it become frequent, and work backwards from this point. In the middle of the third century St. Cyprian expressly terms the Roman See the Chair of St. Peter, saying that Cornelius has succeeded to "the place of Fabian which is the place of Peter" (Ep 55:8; cf. 59:14). Firmilian of Caesarea notices that Stephen claimed to decide the controversy regarding rebaptism on the ground that he held the succession from Peter (Cyprian, Ep. 75:17). He does not deny the claim: yet certainly, had he been able, he would have done so. Thus in 250 the Roman episcopate of Peter was admitted by those best able to know the truth, not merely at Rome but in the churches of Africa and of Asia Minor. In the first quarter of the century (about 220) Tertullian (De Pud. 21) mentions Callistus's claim that Peter's power to forgive sins had descended in a special manner to him. Had the Roman Church been merely founded by Peter and not reckoned him as its first bishop, there could have been no ground for such a contention. Tertullian, like Firmilian, had every motive to deny the claim. Moreover, he had himself resided at Rome, and would have been well aware if the idea of a Roman episcopate of Peter had been, as is contended by its opponents, a novelty dating from the first years of the third century, supplanting the older tradition according to which Peter and Paul were co-founders, and Linus first bishop. About the same period, Hippolytus (for Lightfoot is surely right in holding him to be the author of the first part of the "Liberian Catalogue" -- "Clement of Rome", 1:259) reckons Peter in the list of Roman bishops.
We have moreover a poem, "Adversus Marcionem", written apparently at the same
period, in which Peter is said to have passed on to Linus "the chair on which he
himself had sat" (P.L., II 1077). These witnesses bring us to the beginning of the third
century. In the second century we cannot look for much evidence. With the exception
of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement of Alexandria, all the writers whose works we
possess are apologists against either Jews or pagans. In works of such a character there
was no reason to refer to such a matter as Peter's Roman episcopate. Irenaeus,
however, supplies us with a cogent argument. In two passages (Adv. haer. 1:27:1, and
3:4:3) he speaks of Hyginus as ninth Bishop of Rome, thus employing an enumeration
which involves the inclusion of Peter as first bishop (Lightfoot was undoubtedly
wrong in supposing that there was any doubt as to the correctness of the reading in the
first of these passages. See "Zeitschrift fer kath. Theol.", 1902. In 3:4:3, the Latin version,
it is true, gives "octavus"; but the Greek text as cited by Eusebius reads
(b) that those who succeed him in that see succeed him also in the supreme headship
History bears complete testimony that from the very earliest times the Roman See has ever claimed the supreme headship, and that that headship has been freely acknowledged by the universal Church. We shall here confine ourselves to the consideration of the evidence afforded by the first three centuries. The first witness is St. Clement, a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus, succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes. In his "Epistle to the Corinthians", written in 95 or 96, he bids them receive back the bishops whom a turbulent faction among them had expelled. "If any man", he says, "should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger" (Ep. 59). Moreover, he bids them "render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit". The tone of authority which inspires the latter appears so clearly that Lightfoot did not hesitate to speak of it as" the first step towards papal domination (Clement 1:70). Thus, at the very commencement of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men's minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head.
A few years later (about 107) St. Ignatius of Antioch, in the opening of his letter to the
Roman Church, refers to its presiding over all other Churches. He addresses it as
"presiding over the brotherhood of love [
During the pontificate of St. Victor (189-98) we have the most explicit assertion of the supremacy of the Roman See in regard to other Churches. A difference of practice between the Churches of Asia Minor and the rest of the Christian world in regard to the day of the Paschal festival led the pope to take action. There is some ground for supposing that the Montanist heretics maintained the Asiatic (or Quartodeciman) practice to be the true one: in this case it would be undesirable that any body of Catholic Christians should appear to support them. But, under any circumstances, such a diversity in the ecclesiastical life of different countries may well have constituted a regrettable feature in the Church, whose very purpose it was to bear witness by her unity to the oneness of God (John 17:21). Victor bade the Asiatic Churches conform to the custom of the remainder of the Church, but was met with determined resistance by Polycrates of Ephesus, who claimed that their custom derived from St. John himself. Victor replied by an excommunication. St. Irenaeus, however, intervened, exhorting Victor not to cut off whole Churches on account of a point which was not a matter of faith. He assumes that the nope can exercise the power, but urges him not to do so. Similarly the resistance of the Asiatic bishops involved no denial of the supremacy of Rome. It indicates solely that the bishops believed St. Victor to be abusing his power in bidding them renounce a custom for which they had Apostolic authority. It was indeed inevitable that, as the Church spread and developed, new problems should present themselves, and that questions should arise as to whether the supreme authority could be legitimately exercised in this or that case. St. Victor, seeing that more harm than good would come from insistence, withdrew the imposed penalty.
Not many years since a new and important piece of evidence was brought to light in Asia Minor dating from this period. The sepulchral inscription of Abercius, Bishop of Hieropolis (d. about 200), contains an account of his travels couched in allegorical language (see ABERCIUS, INSCRIPTION OF). He speaks thus of the Roman Church: "To Rome He [Christ] sent me to contemplate majesty: and to see a queen golden-robed and golden-sandalled." It is difficult not to recognize in this description a testimony to the supreme position of the Roman See. Tertullian's bitter polemic, "De Pudicitia" (about 220), was called forth by an exercise of papal prerogative. Pope Callistus had decided that the rigid discipline which had hitherto prevailed in many Churches must be in u large measure relaxed. Tertullian, now lapsed into heresy, fiercely attacks "the peremptory edict", which "the supreme pontiff, the bishop of bishops", has sent forth. The words are intended as sarcasm: but none the less they indicate clearly the position of authority claimed by Rome. And the opposition comes, not from a Catholic bishop, but from a Montanist heretic.
The views of St. Cyprian (d. 258) in regard to papal authority have given rise to much discussion (see CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE, SAINT). He undoubtedly entertained exaggerated views as to the independence of individual bishops, which eventually led him into serious conflict with Rome. Yet on the fundamental principle his position is clear. He attributed an effective primacy to the pope as the successor of Peter. He makes communion with the See of Rome essential to Catholic communion, speaking of it as "the principal Church whence episcopal unity had its rise" (ad Petri cathedram et ad ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est). The force of this expression becomes clear when viewed in the light of his doctrine as to the unity of the Church. This was he teaches, established by Christ when He founded His Church upon Peter. By this act the unity of the Apostolic college was ensured through the unity of the foundation. The bishops through all time form a similar college, and are bound in a like indivisible unity. Of this unity the Chair of Peter is the source. It fulfils the very office as principle of union which Peter fulfilled in his lifetime. Hence to communicate with an antipope such as Novatian would be schism (Ep. 68:1). He holds, also, that the pope has authority to depose an heretical bishop. When Marcian of Arles fell into heresy, Cyprian, at the request of the bishops of the province, wrote to urge Pope Stephen "to send letters by which, Marcian having been excommunicated, another may be substituted in his place" (Ep. 68:3). It is manifest that one who regarded the Roman See in this light believed that the pope possessed a real and effective Primacy. At the same time it is not to be denied that his views as to the right of the pope to interfere in the government of a diocese already subject to a legitimate and orthodox bishop were inadequate. In the rebaptism controversy his language in regard to St. Stephen was bitter and intemperate. His error on this point does not, however, detract from the fact that he admitted a primacy, not merely of honour but of jurisdiction. Nor should his mistake occasion too much surprise. It is as true in the Church as in merely human institutions that the full implications of a general principle are only realized gradually. The claim to apply it in a particular case is often contested at first, though later ages may wonder that such opposition was possible.
Contemporary with St. Cyprian was St. Dionysius of Alexandria. Two incidents
bearing on the present question are related of him. Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 7:9) gives us a
letter addressed by him to St. Xystus II regarding the case of a man who, as it
appeared, had been invalidly baptized by heretics, but who for many years had been
frequenting the sacraments of the Church. In it he says that he needs St. Xystus's advice
and begs for his decision (
The limits of the present article prevent us from carrying the historical argument further than the year 300. Nor is it in fact necessary to do so. From the beginning of the fourth century the supremacy of Rome is writ large upon the page of history. It is only in regard to the first age of the Church that any question can arise. But the facts we have recounted are entirely sufficient to prove to any unprejudiced mind that the supremacy was exercised and acknowledged from the days of the Apostles. It was not of course exercised in the same way as in later times. The Church was as yet in her infancy: and it would be irrational to look for a fully developed procedure governing the relations of the supreme pontiff to the bishops of other sees. To establish such a system was the work of time, and it was only gradually embodied in the canons. There would, moreover, be little call for frequent intervention when the Apostolic tradition was still fresh and vigorous in every part of Christendom. Hence the papal prerogatives came into play but rarely. But when the Faith was threatened, or the vital welfare of souls demanded action, then Rome intervened. Such were the causes which led to the intervention of St. Dionysius, St. Stephen, St. Callistus, St. Victor, and St. Clement, and their claim to supremacy as the occupants of the Chair of Peter was not disputed. In view of the purposes with which, and with which alone, these early popes employed their supreme power, the contention, so stoutly maintained by Protestant controversialists, that the Roman primacy had its origin in papal ambition, disappears. The motive which inspired these men was not earthly ambition, but zeal for the Faith and the consciousness that to them had been committed the responsibility of its guardianship. The controversialists in question even claim that they are justified in refusing to admit as evidence for the papal primacy any pronouncement emanating from a Roman source, on the ground that, where the personal interests of anyone are concerned, his statements should not be admitted as evidence (cf., for example, Puller, op. cit., 99, note). Such an objection is utterly fallacious. We are dealing here, not with the statements of an individual, but with the tradition of a Church -- of that Church which, even from the earliest times, was known for the purity of its doctrine, and which had had for its founders and instructors the two chief Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul. That tradition, moreover, is absolutely unbroken, as the pronouncements of the long series of popes bear witness. Nor does it stand alone. The utterances, in which the popes assert their claims to the obedience of all Christian Churches, form part and parcel of a great body of testimony to the Petrine privileges, issuing not merely from the Western Fathers but from those of Greece, Syria, and Egypt. The claim to reject the evidence which comes to us from Rome may be skilful as a piece of special pleading, but it can claim no other value. The first to employ this argument were some of the Gallicans. But it is deservedly repudiated as fallacious and unworthy by Bossuet in his "Defensio cleri gallicani" (II, 1. XI, c. vi).
The primacy of St. Peter and the perpetuity of that primacy in the Roman See are dogmatically defined in the canons attached to the first two chapters of the Constitution "Pastor Aeternus":
- "If anyone shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle
was not constituted by Christ our Lord as chief of all the Apostles and the visible head
of the whole Church militant: or that he did not receive directly and immediately from
the same Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of true and proper jurisdiction, but one of
honour only: let him be anathema." "If any one shall say that it is not by the institution
of Christ our Lord Himself or by divinely established right that Blessed Peter has
perpetual successors in his primacy over the universal Church: OF that the Roman
Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this same primacy. -- let him be
anathema" (Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion", nn. 1823, 1825).
A question may be raised as to the precise dogmatic value of the clause of the second
canon in which it is asserted that the Roman pontiff is Peter's successor. The truth is
infallibly defined. But the Church has authority to define not merely those truths
which form part of the original deposit of revelation, but also such as are necessarily
connected with this deposit. The former are held
III. NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE PAPAL POWER
This section is divided as follows :
the pope's universal coercive jurisdiction
the pope's immediate and ordinary jurisdiction in regard of all the faithful, whether singly or collectively
the right of entertaining appeals in all ecclesiastical causes.
The relation of the pope's authority to that of ecumenical councils, and to the civil power, are discussed in separate articles (see COUNCILS, GENERAL; CIVIL ALLEGIANCE).
(1) The Pope's Universal Coercive Jurisdiction Not only did Christ constitute St. Peter
head of the Church, but in the words, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be
bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed in
heaven," He indicated the scope of this headship. The expressions binding and loosing
here employed are derived from the current terminology of the Rabbinic schools. A
doctor who declared a thing to be prohibited by the law was said to
Protestant controversialists contend strenuously that the words, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind etc.", confer no special prerogative on Peter, since precisely the same gift, they allege, is conferred on all the Apostles (Matthew 18:18). It is, of course, the case that in that passage the same words are used in regard of all the Twelve. Yet there is a manifest difference between the gift to Peter and that bestowed on the others. In his case the gift is connected with the power of the keys, and this power, as we have seen, signified the supreme authority over the whole kingdom. That gift was not bestowed on the other eleven: and the gift Christ bestowed on them in Matthew 18:18, was received by them as members of the kingdom, and as subject to the authority of him who should be Christ's vicegerent on earth. There is in fact a striking parallelism between Matthew 16:19, and the words employed in reference to Christ Himself in Apocalypse 3:7: "He that hath the key of David; he that openeth, and no man shutteth; shutteth, and no man openeth." In both cases the second clause declares the meaning of the first, and the power signified in the first clause by the metaphor of the keys is supreme. It is worthy of note that to no one else save to Christ and His chosen vicegerent does Holy Scripture attribute the power of the keys.
Certain patristic passages are further adduced by non-Catholics as adverse to the meaning given by the Church to Matthew 16:19. St. Augustine in several places tells us that Peter received the keys as representing the Church -- e. g. "In Joan.", tr. 1:12: "Si hoc Petro tantum dictum est, non facit hoc Ecclesia . . .; si hoc ergo in Ecclesia fit, Petrus quando claves accepit, Ecclesiam sanctam significavit' (If this was said to Peter alone, the Church cannot exercise this power . . .; if this power is exercised in the Church, then when Peter received the keys, he signified the Holy Church); cf. tr. 124:5; Serm. 295. It is argued that, according to Augustine, the power denoted by the keys resides primarily not in Peter, but in the whole Church. Christ's gift to His people was merely bestowed on Peter as representing the whole body of the faithful. The right to forgive sins, to exclude from communion, to exercise any other acts of authority, is really the prerogative of the whole Christian congregation. If the minister performs these acts he does so as delegate of the people. The argument, which was formerly employed by Gallican controversialists (cf. Febronius, "De statu eccl.", 1:76), however, rests on a misunderstanding of the passages. Augustine is controverting the Novatian heretics, who affirmed that the power to remit sins was a purely Personal gift to Peter alone, and had disappeared with him. He therefore asserts that Peter received it that it might remain for ever in the Church and be used for its benefit. It is in that sense alone that he says that Peter represented the Church. There is no foundation whatever for saying that he desired to affirm that the Church was the true recipient of the power conferred. Such a view would be contrary to the whole patristic tradition, and is expressly reprobated in the First Vatican Decree, cap. 1.
It appears from what has been said that, when the popes legislate for the faithful,
when they try offenders by juridical process, and enforce their sentences by censures
and excommunications, they are employing powers conceded to them by Christ. Their
authority to exercise jurisdiction in this way is not founded on the grant of any civil
ruler. Indeed the Church has claimed and exercised these powers from the very first.
When the Apostles, after the Council of Jerusalem, sent out their decree as vested with
Divine authority (Acts 15:28), they were imposing a law on the faithful. When St. Paul
bids Timothy not receive an accusation against a presbyter unless it be supported by
two or three witnesses, he clearly supposes him to be empowered to judge him
(2) The Pope's Immediate and Ordinary Jurisdiction
In the Constitution "Pastor Aeternus", cap. 3, the pope is declared to possess ordinary,
immediate, and episcopal jurisdiction over all the faithful: "We teach, moreover, and
declare that, by the disposition of God, the Roman Church possesses supreme ordinary
authority over all Churches, and that the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is
true episcopal jurisdiction is immediate in its character" (Enchir., n. 1827). It is further
added that this authority extends to all alike, both pastors and faithful, whether singly
or collectively. An ordinary jurisdiction is one which is exercised by the holder, not by
reason of any delegation, but in virtue of the office which he himself holds. All who
acknowledge in the pope any primacy of jurisdiction acknowledge that jurisdiction to
be ordinary. This point, therefore, does not call for discussion. That the papal authority
is likewise immediate has, however, been called in question. Jurisdiction is immediate
when its possessor stands in direct relation to those with whose oversight he is
charged. If, on the other hand, the supreme authority can only deal directly with the
proximate superiors, and not with the subjects save through their intervention, his
power is not Immediate but mediate. That the pope's jurisdiction is not thus restricted
appears from the analysis already given of Christ's words to St. Peter. It has been
shown that He conferred on him a primacy over the Church, which is universal in its
scope, extending to all the Church's members, and which needs the support of no other
power. A primacy such as this manifestly gives to him and to his successors a direct
authority over all the faithful. This is also implied in the words of the pastoral
commission, " Feed my sheep ". The shepherd exercises immediate authority over all
the sheep of his flock. Every member of the Church has been thus committed to Peter
and those who follow him. This immediate authority has been always claimed by the
Holy See. It was, however, denied by Febronius (op. cit., 7:7). That writer contended
that the duty of the pope was to exercise a general oversight over the Church and to
direct the bishops by his counsel; in case of necessity, where the legitimate pastor was
guilty of grave wrong, he could pronounce sentence of excommunication against him
and proceed against him according to the canons, but he could not on his own
authority depose him (op. cit., 2:4:9). The Febronian doctrines, though devoid of any
historical foundation, yet, through their appeal to the spirit of nationalism, exerted a
powerful influence for harm on Catholic life in Germany during the eighteenth and
part of the nineteenth century. Thus it was imperative that the error should be
definitively condemned. That the pope's power is truly episcopal needs no proof. It
follows from the fact that he enjoys an ordinary pastoral authority, both legislative and
judicial, and immediate in relation to its subjects. Moreover, since this power regards
the pastors as well as the faithful, the pope is rightly termed
It is frequently objected by writers of the Anglican school that, by declaring the pope to possess an immediate episcopal jurisdiction over all the faithful, the First Vatican Council destroyed the authority of the diocesan episcopate. It is further pointed out that St. Gregory the Great expressly repudiated this title (Ep. 7:27; 8:30). To this it is replied that no difficulty is involved in the exercise of immediate jurisdiction over the same subjects by two rulers, provided only that these rulers stand in subordination, the one to the other. We constantly see the system at work. In an army the regimental officer and the general both possess immediate authority over the soldiers; yet no one maintains that the inferior authority is thereby annulled. The objection lacks all weight. The First Vatican Council says most justly (cap. iii): "This power of the supreme pontiff in no way derogates from the ordinary immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, in virtue of which the bishops, who, appointed by the Holy Spirit [Acts 20:28], have succeeded to the place of the Apostles as true pastors, feed and rule their several flocks, each the one which has been assigned to him: that power is rather maintained, confirmed and defended by the supreme pastor" (Enchir., n. 1828). It is without doubt true that St. Gregory repudiated in strong terms the title of universal bishop, and relates that St. Leo rejected it when it was offered him by the fathers of Chalcedon. But, as he used it, it has a different signification from that with which it was employed in the First Vatican Council. St. Gregory understood it as involving the denial of the authority of the local diocesan (Ep. 5:21). No one, he maintains, has a right so to term himself universal bishop as to usurp that apostolically constituted power. But he was himself a strenuous asserter of that immediate jurisdiction over all the faithful which is signified by this title as used in the First Vatican Decree. Thus he reverses (Ep. 6:15) a sentence passed on a priest by Patriarch John of Constantinople, an act which itself involves a claim to universal authority, and explicitly states that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See (Ep. 9:12). The title of universal bishop occurs as early as the eighth century; and in 1413 the faculty of Paris rejected the proposition of John Hus that the pope was not universal bishop (Natalis Alexander, 'Hist. eccl.", saec. XV and XVI, c. ii, art. 3, n. 6)
(3) The Right of Entertaining Appeals in All Ecclesiastical Causes
The Council goes on to affirm that the pope is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that to him appeal may be made in all ecclesiastical causes. The right of appeal follows as a necessary corollary from the doctrine of the primacy. If the pope really possesses a supreme jurisdiction over the Church, every other authority, whether episcopal or synodal, being subject to him, there must of necessity be an appeal to him from all inferior tribunals. This question, however, has been the subject of much controversy. The Gallican divines de Marca and Quesnel, and in Germany Febronius, sought to show that the right of appeal to the pope was a mere concession derived from ecclesiastical canons, and that the influence of the pseudo-Isidorean decretals had led to many unjustifiable exaggerations in the papal claims. The arguments of these writers are at the present day employed by frankly anti-Catholic controversialists with a view to showing that the whole primacy is a merely human institution. It is contended that the right of appeal was first granted at Sardica (343), and that each step of its subsequent development can be traced. History, however, renders it abundantly clear that the right of appeal had been known from primitive times, and that the purpose of the Sardican canons was merely to give conciliar ratification to an already existing usage. It will be convenient to speak first of the Sardican question, and then to examine the evidence as regards previous practice.
In the years immediately preceding Sardica, St. Athanasius had appealed to Rome against the decision of the Council of Tyre (335). Pope Julius had annulled the action of that council, and had restored Athanasius and Marcellus of Ancyra to their sees. The Eusebians, however, had contested his right to call a conciliar decision in question. The fathers who met at Sardica, and who included the most eminent of the orthodox party from East and West alike, desired by their decrees to affirm this right, and to establish a canonical mode of procedure for such appeals. The principal provisions of the canons which deal with this matter are:
- that a bishop condemned by the bishops of his
province may appeal to the pope either on his own initiative or through his judges;
that if the pope entertains the appeal he shall appoint a court of second instance
drawn from the bishops of the neighbouring provinces; he may, if he thinks fit, send
judges to sit with the bishops.
Having thus shown that there is no ground for the assertion that the right of appeal
was first granted at Sardica, we may now consider the evidence for its existence in
earlier times. The records of the second century are so scanty as to throw but little light
on the subject. Yet it would seem that Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla appealed to
Rome against the decision of the Phrygian bishops. Tertullian (Con. Prax. 1), tells us
that the pope at first acknowledged the genuineness of their prophecies, and that thus
"he was giving peace to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia", when further information
led him to recall the letters of peace which he had issued. The fact that the pope's
decision had weight to decide the whole question of their orthodoxy is sufficiently
significant. But in St Cyprian's correspondence we find clear and unmistakable
evidence of a system of appeals. Basilides and Martial, the bishops of Leon and Merida
in Spain, had in the persecution accepted certificates of idolatry. They confessed their
guilt, and were in consequence deposed, other bishops being appointed to the sees. In
the hope of having themselves reinstated they appealed to Rome, and succeeded, by
misrepresenting the facts, in imposing on St. Stephen, who ordered their restoration. It
has been objected to the evidence drawn from this incident, that St. Cyprian did not
acknowledge the validity of the papal decision, but exhorted the people of Leon and
Merida to hold fast to the sentence of deposition (Ep. 67:6). But the objection misses the
point of St. Cyprian's letter. In the case in question there was no room for a legitimate
appeal, since the two bishops had confessed. An acquittal obtained after spontaneous
confession could not be valid. It has further been urged that, in the case of Fortunatus
(Ep. 59:10), Cyprian denies his right of appeal to Rome, and asserts the sufficiency of
the African tribunal. But here too the objection rests upon a misunderstanding.
Fortunatus had procured consecration as Bishop of Carthage from a heretical bishop,
and St. Cyprian asserts the competency of the local synod in his case on the ground
that he is no true bishop -- a mere
The difficulties at Carthage which led to the Donatist schism provide us with another instance. When the seventy Numidian bishops, who had condemned Caecilian, invoked the aid of the emperor, the latter referred them to Rome, that the case might be decided by Pope Miltiades (313). St. Augustine makes frequent mention of the circumstances, and indicates plainly that he holds it to have been Caecilian's undoubted right to claim a trial before the pope. He says that Secundus should never have dared to condemn Caecilian when he declined to submit his case to the African bishops, since he had the right "to reserve his whole case to the judgment of other colleagues, especially to that of Apostolical Churches" (Ep. 43:7). A little later (367) a council, held at Tyana in Asia Minor, restored to his see Eustathius, bishop of that city, on no other ground than that of a successful appeal to Rome. St. Basil (Ep. 263:3) tells us that they did not know what test of orthodoxy Liberius had required. He brought a letter from the pope demanding his restoration, and this was accepted as decisive by the council It should be observed that there can be no question here of the pope employing prerogatives conferred on him at Sardica, for he did not follow the procedure there indicated. Indeed there is no good reason to believe that the Sardican procedure ever came into use in either East or West. In 378 the appellate jurisdiction of the pope received civil sanction from Emperor Gratian. Any charge against a metropolitan was to come before the pope himself or a court of bishops nominated by him, while all (Western) bishops had the right of appeal from - their provincial synod to the pope (Mansi, III, 624). Similarly Valentinian III in 445 assigned to the pope the right of evoking to Rome any cause he should think fit (Cod. Theod. Novell., tit. 24, De episcoporum ordin.). These ordinances were not, however, in any sense the source of the pope's jurisdiction, which rested on Divine institution; they were civil sanctions enabling the pope to avail himself of the civil machinery of the empire in discharging the duties of his office. What Pope Nicholas I said of the synodal declarations regarding the privileges of the Holy See holds good here also: "Ista privilegia huic sanctae Ecclesiae a Christo donata, a synodis non donata, sed jam solummodo venerata et celebrata" (These privileges bestowed by Christ on this Holy Church have not been granted her by synods, but merely proclaimed and honoured by them) ("Ep. ad Michaelem Imp." in P. L., CXIX, 948).
Much has been made by anti-Catholic writers of the famous letter "Optaremus",
addressed in 426 by the African bishops to Pope St. Celestine at the close of the
incident relating to the priest Apiarius. As the point is discussed in a special article
(APIARIUS OF SICCA), a brief reference will suffice here. Protestant controversialists
maintain that in this letter the African bishops positively repudiate the claim of Rome
to an appellate jurisdiction, the repudiation being consequent on the fact that they had
in 419 satisfied themselves that Pope Zosimus was mistaken in claiming the authority
of Nicaea for the Sardican canons. This is an error. The letter, it is true, urges with
some display of irritation that it would be both more reasonable and more in harmony
with the fifth Nicene canon regarding the inferior clergy and the laity, if even
episcopal cases were left to the decision of the African synod. The pope's authority is
nowhere denied, but the sufficiency of the local tribunals is asserted. Indeed the right
of the pope to deal with episcopal cases was freely acknowledged by the African
Church even after it had been shown that the Sardican canons did not emanate from
Nicaea. Antony, Bishop of Fussala, prosecuted an appeal to Rome against St.
Augustine in 423, the appeal being supported by the Primate of Numidia (Ep. ccix).
Moreover, St. Augustine in his letter to Pope Celestine on this subject urges that
previous popes have dealt with similar cases in the same manner, sometimes by
independent decisions and sometimes by confirmation of the decisions locally given
(ipsa sede apostolica judicante vel aliorum judicata firmante), and that he could cite
examples either from ancient or from more recent times (Ep. 209:8). These facts appear
to be absolutely conclusive as to the traditional African practice. That the letter
"Optaremus" did not result in any change is evinced by a letter of St. Leo's in 446,
directing what is to be done in the case of a certain Lupicinus who had appealed to
him (Ep. 12:13). It is occasionally argued that if the pope really possessed
IV. JURISDICTIONAL RIGHTS AND PREROGATIVES OF THE POPE
In virtue of his office as supreme teacher and ruler of the faithful, the chief control of every department of the Church's life belongs to the pope. In this section the rights and duties which thus fall to his lot will be briefly enumerated. It will appear that, in regard to a considerable number of points, not merely the supreme control, but the whole exercise of power is reserved to the Holy See, and is only granted to others by express delegation. This system of reservation is possible, since the pope is the universal source. of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Hence it rests with him to determine in what measure he will confer jurisdiction on bishops and other prelates.
(1) As the supreme teacher of the Church, whose it is to prescribe what is to be believed by all the faithful, and to take measures for the preservation and the propagation of the faith, the following are the rights which pertain to the pope:
- it
is his to set forth creeds, and to determine when and by whom an explicit profession of
faith shall be made (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. 24, cc. 1 and 12); it is his to prescribe
and to command books for the religious instruction of the faithful; thus, for example,
Clement XIII has recommended the Roman Catechism to all the bishops.
The pope alone can establish a university, possessing the status and privileges of a canonically erected Catholic university; to him also belongs the direction of Catholic missions throughout the world; this charge is fulfilled through the Congregation of the Propaganda.
It is his to prohibit the reading of such books as are injurious to faith or morals, and to determine the conditions on which certain classes of books may be issued by Catholics; his is the condemnation of given propositions as being either heretical or deserving of some minor degree of censure, and lastly he has the right to interpret authentically the natural law. Thus, it is his to say what is lawful or unlawful in regard to social and family life, in regard to the practice of usury, etc.
(2) With the pope's office of supreme teacher are closely connected his rights in regard to the worship of God: for it is the law of prayer that fixes the law of belief. In this sphere very much has been reserved to the sole regulation of the Holy See. Thus the pope alone can prescribe the liturgical services employed in the Church. If a doubt should occur in regard to the ceremonial of the liturgy, a bishop may not settle the point on his own authority, but must have recourse to Rome. The Holy See likewise prescribes rules in regard to the devotions used by the faithful, and in this way checks the growth of what is novel and unauthorized.
At the present day the institution and abrogation of festivals which was till a comparatively recent time free to all bishops as regards their own dioceses, is reserved to Rome.
The solemn canonization of a saint is proper to the pope. Indeed it is commonly held that this is an exercise of the papal infallibility. Beatification and every permission for the public veneration of any of the servants of God is likewise reserved to his decision.
He alone gives to anyone the privilege of a private chapel where Mass may be said.
He dispenses the treasury of the Church, and the grant of plenary indulgences is reserved to him. While he has no authority in regard to the substantial rites of the sacraments, and is bound to preserve them as they were given to the Church by Christ and His Apostles, certain powers in their regard belong to him; he can give to simple priests the Power to confirm, and to bless the oil of the sick and the oil of catechumens, and he can establish diriment and impedient impediments to matrimony.
(3) The legislative power of the pope carries with it the following rights: he can legislate for the whole Church, with or without the assistance of a general council; if he legislates with the aid of a council it is his to convoke it, to preside, to direct its deliberations, to confirm its acts.
He has full authority to interpret, alter, and abrogate both his own laws and those established by his predecessors. He has the same plenitude of power as they enjoyed, and stands in the same relation to their laws as to those which he himself has decreed; he can dispense individuals from the obligation of all purely ecclesiastical laws, and can grant privileges and exemptions in their regard. In this connexion may be mentioned his power to dispense from vows where the greater glory of God renders it desirable. Considerable powers of dispensation are granted to bishops, and, in a restricted measure, also to priests; but there are some vows reserved altogether to the Holy See.
(4) In virtue of his supreme judicial authority
His appellate jurisdiction has been discussed in the previous section. It should,
however, be noted that the pope has full right, should he see fit, to deal even with
He further reserves certain cases to his own tribunal. All cases of heresy come before the Congregation of the Inquisition. A similar reservation covers the cases in which a bishop or a reigning prince is the accused party.
(5) As the supreme governor of the Church the pope has authority over all appointments to its public offices. Thus it is his to nominate to bishoprics, or, where the nomination has been conceded to others, to give confirmation. Further, he alone can translate bishops from one see to another, can accept their resignation, and can, where grave cause exists, sentence to deprivation.
He can establish dioceses, and can annul a previously existing arrangement in favour of a new one. Similarly, he alone can erect cathedral and collegiate chapters.
He can approve new religious orders, and can, if he sees fit, exempt them from the authority of local ordinaries.
Since his office of supreme ruler imposes on him the duty of enforcing the canons, it is
requisite that he should be kept informed as to the state of the various dioceses. He
may obtain this information by legates or by summoning the bishops to Rome. At the
present day this
It is to be further observed that the pope's office of chief ruler of the Church carries
with it
The pope has further the right to impose taxes on the clergy and the faithful for ecclesiastical purposes (cf. Trent, Sess. XXI, cap. iv de Ref.).
V. PRIMACY OF HONOUR: TITLES AND INSIGNIA
Certain titles and distinctive marks of honour are assigned to the pope alone; these
constitute what is termed his primacy of honour. These prerogatives are not, as are his
jurisdictional rights, attached
(1) Titles
The most noteworthy of the titles are
(2) Insignia and Marks of Honour
The pope is distinguished by the use of the tiara or triple crown (see TIARA). At what date the custom of crowning the pope was introduced is unknown. It was certainly previous to the forged donation of Constantine, which dates from the commencement of the ninth century, for mention is there made of the pope's coronation. The triple crown is of much later origin. The pope moreover does not, like ordinary bishops, use the bent pastoral staff, but only the erect cross. This custom was introduced before the reign of Innocent III (1198-1216) (cap. un. X de sacra unctione, I, 15). He further uses the pallium (q. v.) at all ecclesiastical functions, and not under the same restrictions as do the archbishops on whom he has conferred it. The kissing of the pope's foot -- the characteristic act of reverence by which all the faithful do honour to him as the vicar of Christ -- is found as early as the eighth century. We read that Emperor Justinian II paid this respect to Pope Constantine (708-16) (Anastasius Bibl. in P. L., CXXVIII 949). Even at an earlier date Emperor Justin had prostrated himself before Pope John I (523- 6; op. cit., 515), and Justinian I before Agapetus (535-6; op. cit., 551). The pope, it may be added, ranks as the first of Christian princes, and in Catholic countries his ambassadors have precedence over other members of the diplomatic body.
VI. ELECTION OF THE POPES
The supreme headship of the Church is, we have seen, annexed to the office of Roman bishop. The pope becomes chief pastor because he is Bishop of Rome: he does not become Bishop of Rome because he has been chosen to be head of the universal Church. Thus, an election to the papacy is, properly speaking, primarily an election to the local bishopric. The right to elect their bishop has ever belonged to the members of the Roman Church. They possess the prerogative of giving to the universal Church her chief pastor; they do not receive their bishop in virtue of his election by the universal Church. This is not to say that the election should be by popular vote of the Romans. In ecclesiastical affairs it is always for the hierarchy to guide the decisions of the flock. The choice of a bishop belongs to the clergy: it may be confined to the leading members of the clergy. It is so in the Roman Church at present. The electoral college of cardinals exercise their office because they are the chief of the Roman clergy. Should the college of cardinals ever become extinct, the duty of choosing a supreme pastor would fall, not on the bishops assembled in council, but upon the remaining Roman clergy. At the time of the Council of Trent Pius IV, thinking it possible that in the event of his death the council might lay some claim to the right, insisted on this point in a consistorial allocution (Phillips, "Kirchenrecht", V, p. 737 n.). It is thus plain that a pope cannot nominate his successor. History tells us of one pope -- Benedict II (530) -- who meditated adopting this course. But he recognized that it would be a false step, and burnt the document which he had drawn up for the purpose. On the other hand the Church's canon law (10 D. 79) supposes that the pope may make provision for the needs of the Church by suggesting to the cardinals some one whom he regards as fitted for the office: and we know that Gregory VII secured in this way the election of Victor III. Such a step, however, does not in any way fetter the action of the cardinals. The pope can, further, legislate regarding the mode in which the subsequent election shall be carried out, determining the composition of the electoral college, and the conditions requisite for a definitive choice. The method at present followed is the result of a series of enactments on this subject.
A brief historical review will show how the principle of election by the Roman
Church has been maintained through all the vicissitudes of papal elections. St. Cyprian
tells us in regard to the election of Pope St. Cornelius (251) that the comprovincial
bishops, the clergy, and the people all took part in it: "He was made bishop by the
decree of God and of His Church, by the testimony of nearly all the clergy, by the
college of aged bishops [
In 769 a council was held under Stephen III to rectify the confusion caused by the intrusion of the antipope Constantine. This usurper was a layman hurriedly raised to priest's orders to render his nomination to the pontificate possible. To make a repetition of the scandal impossible it was decreed that only members of the sacred college were eligible for election. The part of the laity was, moreover, reduced to a mere right of acclamation. Under Charlemagne and Louis the Pious the Church retained her freedom. Lothair, however, claimed more ample rights for the civil power. In 824 he exacted an oath from the Romans that none should be consecrated pope without the permission and the presence of his ambassadors. This was, in fact, done at most of the elections during the ninth century, and in 898 the riots which ensued upon the death of Pope Stephen V led John IX to give ecclesiastical sanction to this system of imperial control. In a council held at Rome in that year he decreed that the election should be made by bishops (cardinal) and clergy, regard being had to the wishes of the people, but that no consecration should take place except in the presence of the imperial legate (Mansi XVIII, 225).
The due formalities at least of election appear to have been observed through the wild disorders which followed the collapse of the Carlovingian Empire: and the same is true as regards the times of Otto the Great and his son. Under the restored empire, however, the electors enjoyed no freedom of choice. Otto I even compelled the Romans to swear that they would never elect or ordain a pope without his or his son's consent (963; cf. Liutprand, "Hist. Ott.", viii). In 1046 the scandals of the preceding elections, in which the supreme pontificate had become a prize for rival factions entirely regardless of what means they employed, led clergy and people to leave the nomination to Henry III. Three popes were chosen in this manner. But Leo IX insisted that the Church was free in the choice of her pastors, and, until he was duly elected at Rome, declined to assume any of the state of his office. The party of reform, of which Hildebrand was the moving spirit, were eager for some measure which should restore an independent choice to the Church. This was carried out by Nicholas II. In 1059 he held a council in the Lateran and issued the Decree "In Nomine". This document is found in two recensions, a papal and an imperial, both of early date. There is however little doubt that the papal recension embodied in the "Decretum Gratiani " (c. 1. d. XXIII) is genuine, and that the other was altered in the interest of the antipope Guibert (1080, Hefele, "Conciliengesch.", IV, 800, 899). The right of election is confined to the cardinals, the effective choice being placed in the hands of the cardinal bishops: clergy and people have a right of acclamation only. The right of confirmation is granted to the Emperor Henry IV and to such of his successors as should personally request and receive the privilege. The pope need not necessarily be taken from the number of cardinals, though this should be the case if possible.
This decree formed the basis of the present legislation on the papal election, though the system underwent considerable development. The first important modification was the Constitution "Licet de Vitanda" [c. vi, X, "De elect." (I, 6)] of Alexander III, the first of the decrees passed by the Third Oecumenical Council of the Lateran (1179). To prevent the evils of a disputed election it was established by this law that no one should be held dub elected until two thirds of the cardinals should have given their votes for him. In this decree no distinction is made between the rights of the cardinal bishops and those of the rest of the Sacred College. The imperial privilege of confirming the election had already become obsolete owing to the breach between the Church and the Empire under Henry IV and Frederick I. Between the death of Clement IV (1268) and the coronation of Gregory X (1272) an interregnum of nearly three years intervened. To prevent a repetition of so great a misfortune the pope in the Council of Lyons (1179) issued the Decree " Ubi periculum " [c. iii, " De elect.", in 60 (I, 6)], by which it was ordained that during the election of a pontiff the cardinals should be secluded from the world under exceedingly stringent regulations, and that the seclusion should continue till they had fulfilled their duty of providing the Church with a supreme pastor. To this electoral session was given the name of the Conclave (q. v.). This system prevails at the present day.
VII. CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF THE POPES
The historical lists of the popes, from those drawn up in the second century to those of the present day, form in themselves a considerable body of literature. It would be beyond the scope of the article to enter upon a discussion of these catalogues. For an account of the most famous of them all, the article LIBER PONTIFICALIS may be consulted. It appears, however, desirable to indicate very briefly what are our authorities for the names and the durations in office of the popes for the first two centuries of the Church's existence.
Irenaeus, writing between 175 and 190, not many years after his Roman sojourn, enumerates the series from Peter to Eleutherius (Adv. Haer. 3:3:3; Eusebius, "Hist. eccl." 5:6) . His object, as we have already seen, was to establish the orthodoxy of the traditional doctrine, as opposed to heretical novelties, by showing that the bishop was the natural inheritor of the Apostolic teaching. He gives us the names alone, not the length of the various episcopates. This need is supplied by other witnesses. Most important evidence is furnished by the document entitled the " Liberian Catalogue " -- so called from the Pope whose name ends the list. The collection of tracts of which this forms a part was edited (apparently by one Furius Dionysius Philocalus) in 354. The catalogue consists of a list of the Roman bishops from Peter to Liberius, with the length of their respective episcopates, the consular dates, the name of the reigning emperor, and in many cases other details. There is the strongest ground for believing that the earlier part of the catalogue, as far as Pontian (230-35), is the work of Hippolytus of Portus. It is manifest that up to this point the fourth century compiler was making use of a different authority from that which he employs for the subsequent popes: and there is evidence rendering it almost certain that Hippolytus's work "Chronica" contained such a list. The reign of Pontian, moreover, would be the point at which that list would have stopped: for Hippolytus and he were condemned to servitude in the Sardinian mines -- a fact which the chronographer makes mention when speaking of Pontian's episcopate. Lightfoot has argued that this list originally contained nothing but the names of the bishops and the duration of their episcopates, the remaining notes being additions by a later hand. The list of popes is identical with that of Irenaeus, save that Anacletus is doubled into Cletus and Anacletus, while Clement appears before, instead of after, these two names. The order of Popes Pius and Anicetus has also been interchanged. There is every reason to regard; these differences as due to the errors of copyists. Another witness is Eusebius. The names and episcopal years of the bishops can be gathered alike from his "History" and his "Chronicle". The notices in the two works; can be shown to be m agreement, notwithstanding certain corruptions in many texts of the "Chronicle". This Eastern list in the hands of Eusebius is seen to have been identical with the Western list of Hippolytus, except that in the East the name of Linus's successor seems to have been given as Anencletus, in the original Western list as Cletus. The two authorities presuppose the following list: (1) Peter, xxv; (2) Linus, xii; (3) Anencletus [Cletus], xii; (4) Clement, ix; (5) Evarestus, viii; (6) Alexander, x; (7) Sixtus, x; (8) Telesophorus, xi; (9) Hyginus, iv; (10) Pius, xv; (11) Anicetus, xi;, (12) Soter, viii; (13) Eleutherius, xv; (14) Victor, x; (15) Zephyrinus, xviii; (16) Callistus, v; (17) Urban, viii; (18) Pontian, v (Harnack, "Chronologie", I, 152).
We learn from Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 4:22) that in the middle of the second century Hegesippus, the Hebrew Christian, visited Rome and that he drew up a list of bishops as far as Anicetus, the then pope. Eusebius does not quote his catalogue, but Lightfoot sees ground for holding that we possess it in a passage of Epiphanius (Haer. 27:6), in which the bishops as far as Anicetus are enumerated. This list of Hegesippus, drawn up less than a century after the martyrdom of St. Peter, was he believes, the foundation alike of the Eusebian and Hippolytan catalogues (Clement of Rome I, 325 so.). His view has been accepted by many scholars. Even those who, like Harnack (Chronologie, I, 184 sq.), do not admit that this list is really that of Hegesippus, recognize it as a catalogue of Roman origin and of very early date, furnishing testimony independent alike of the Eusebian and Liberian lists.
The "Liber Pontificalis", long accepted as an authority of the highest value, is now acknowledged to have been originally composed at the beginning of the fifth century, and, as regards the early popes, to be dependent on the "Liberian Catalogue".
In the numbering of the successors of St. Peter, certain differences appear in various lists. The two forms Anacletus and Cletus, as we hare seen, very early occasioned the third pope to be reckoned twice. There are some few cases, also, in which it is still doubted whether particular individuals should be accounted genuine popes or intruders, and, according to the view taken by the compiler of the list, they will be included or excluded. In the accompanying list the Stephen immediately following Zacharias (752) is not numbered, since, though duly elected, he died before his consecration. At that period the papal dignity was held to be conferred at consecration, and hence he is excluded from all the early lists. Leo VIII (963) is included, as the resignation of Benedict V, though enforced, may have been genuine. Boniface VII is also ranked as a pope, since, in 984 at least, he would seem to have been accepted as such by the Roman Church. The claim of Benedict X (1058) is likewise recognized. It cannot be affirmed that his title was certainly invalid, and his name, though now sometimes excluded, appears in the older catalogues. It should be observed that there is no John XX in the catalogue. This is due to the fact that, in the " Liber Pontificalis ", two dates are given in connexion with the life of John XIV (983). This introduced confusion into some of the papal catalogues, and a separate pope was assigned to each of these dates. Thus three popes named John were made to appear between Benedict VII and Gregory V. The error led the pope of the thirteenth century who should have been called John XX to style himself John XXI (Duchesne, "Lib. Pont." 2:17). Some only of the antipopes find mention in the list. No useful purpose would be served by giving the name of every such claimant. Many of them possess no historical importance whatever. From Gregory VII onward not merely the years but the precise days are assigned on which the respective reigns commenced and closed. Ancient authorities furnish these details in the case of most of the foregoing popes also: but, previously to the middle of the eleventh century, the information is of uncertain value. With Gregory VII a new method of reckoning came in. The papal dignity was held to be conferred by the election, and not as previously by the coronation, and the commencement of the reign was computed from the day of election. This point seems therefore a convenient one at which to introduce the more detailed indications.
Chronological List of the Popes
St. Peter, d. 67 (?)
St. Linus, 67-79 (?)
St. Anacletus, I, 79-90(?)
St. Clement I, 90-99(?)
St. Evaristus 99-107(?)
St. Alexander I, 107-16(?)
St. Sixtus (Xystus) I, 116-25(?)
St. Telesphorus, 125-36(?)
St. Hyginus, 136-40(?)
St. Pius, 140-54(?)
St. Anicetus, 154-65(?)
St. Soter, 165-74
St. Eleutherius, 174-89
St. Victor, 189-98
St. Zephyrinus, 198-217
St. Callistus I, 217-22
St. Urban I, 222-30
St. Pontian, 230-35
St. Anterus, 235-36
St. Fabian, 236-50
St. Cornelius, 251-53
St. Lucius I, 253-54
St. Stephen I, 254-57
St. Sixtus (Xystus) II, 257-58
St. Dionysius, 259-68
St. Felix I, 269-74
St. Eutychian, 275-83
St. Caius, 283-96
St. Marcellinus, 296-304
St. Marcellus I, 308-09
St. Eusebius, 309(310)
St. Melchiades (Miltiades), 311-14
St. Sylvester I, 314-35
St. Marcus, 336
St. Julius I, 337-52
St. Liberius, 352-6
Damasus I, 366-84
St. Siricius, 384-98
St. Anastasius I, 398-401
St. Innocent I, 402-17
St. Zosimus, 417-18
St. Boniface I, 418-22
St. Celestine I, 422-32
St. Sixtus (Xystus) III, 432-40
St. Leo I, 440-61
St. Hilarius, 461-68
St. Simplicius, 468-83
St. Felix II (III), 483-92
St. Gelasius I, 492-96
St. Anastasius II, 496-98
St. Symmachus, 498-514
St. Hormisdas, 514-23
St. John I, 523-26
St. Felix III (IV), 526-30
Boniface II, 530-32
John II, 533-35
St. Agapetus I, 535-36
St. Silverius, 536-38(?)
Vigilius, 538(?)-55
Pelagius I, 556-61
John III, 561-74
Benedict I, 575-79
Pelagius II, 579-90
St. Gregory I, 590-604
Sabinianus, 604-06
Boniface III, 607
St. Boniface IV, 608-15
St. Deusdedit, 615-18
Boniface V, 619-25
Honorius I, 625-38
Severinus, 638-40
John IV, 640-2
Theodore I, 642-49
St. Martin I, 649-55
St. Eugene I, 654-57
St. Vitalian, 657-72
Adeodatus, 672-76
St. Agatho, 678-81
St. Leo II, 682-83
St. Benedict II, 684-85
John V, 686-86
Conon, 686-7
St. Sergius I, 687-701
John VI, 701-05
John VII, 705-07
Sisinnius, 708
Constantine, 708-15
St. Gregory II, 715-31
St. Gregorv III, 731-41
St. Zacharias, 741-52
Stephen II (III), 752-57 St. Paul I, 757-67 Stephen III (IV), 768-72 Adrian I, 772-95 St. Leo III, 795-816 Stephen IV (V), 816-17 St. Paschal I, 817-24 Eugene II, 824-27 Valentine, 827 Gregory IV, 827-44 Sergius II, 844-47 St. Leo IV, 847-55 Benedict III, 855-58 St. Nicholas I, 858-67 Adrian II, 867-72 John VIII, 872-82 Marinus I (Martin II), 882-84 Adrian III, 884-85 Stephen V (VI), 885-91 Formosus, 891-96 Boniface VI, 896 Stephen VI (VII), 896-97 Romanus, 897 Theodore II, 897 John IX, 898-900 Benedict IV, 900-03 Leo V, 903 Christopher, 903-04 Sergius III, 904-11 Anastasius III, 911-13 Lando, 913-14 John X, 914-28 Leo VI, 928 Stephen VII (VIII), 928-31 John XI, 931-36 Leo VII, 936-39 Stephen VIII (IX), 939-42 Marinus II (Martin III), 942-46 Agapetus II, 946-55 John XII, 955-64 Leo VIII, 963-65 Benedict V, 964 John XIII, 965-72 Benedict VI, 973-74 Benedict VII, 974-83 John XIV, 983-84 Boniface VII, 984-85 John XV, 985-96 Gregory V, 996-99 Silvester II, 999-1003 John XVII, 1003 John XVIII, 1003-09 Sergius IV, 1009-12 Benedict VIII, 1012-24 John XIX, 1024-32 Benedict IX (a) , 1032-45 Gregory VI. 1045-46 Clement II, 1046-47 Damasus II, 1048 St. Leo IX, 1049-54 Victor II, 1055-57 Stephen IX (X), 1057-58 Benedict X, 1058-59 Nicholas II, 1059-61 Alexander II, 1061-73 St. Gregory VII, 22 Apr., 1073-25 May, 1085 Victor III, 9 May, 1087-16 Sept., 1087 Urban II, 12 March, 1088-29 July, 1099 Paschal II, 13 Aug., 1099-21 Jan., 1118 Gelasius II, 24 Jan., 1118-28 Jan., 1119 Callistus II, 2 Feb., 1119-13 Dee. 1124 Honorius II, 15 Dec., 1124-13 Feb., 1130 Innocent II, 14 Feb., 1130-24 Sept., 1143 Celestine II, 26 Sept., 1143-8 March, 1144 Lucius II, 12 March, 1144 (cons.)-15 Feb.,1145 Eugene III, 15 Feb., 1145-8 July, 1153 Anastasius IV, 12 July, 1153 (cons.)-3 Dec., 1154 Adrian IV, 4 Dee., 1154-1 Sept., 1159 Alexander III, 7 Sept., 1159-30 Aug., 1181 Lucius III, 1 Sept., 1181-25 Nov., 1185 Urban III, 25 Nov., 1185-20 Oct., 1187 Gregory VIII, 21 Oct.-17 Dec., 1187 Clement III, 19 Dec., 1187-March, 1191 Celestine III, 30 March, 1191-8 Jan., 1198 Innocent III, 8 Jan., 1198-16 July, 1216 Honorius III, 18 July, 1216-18 Mareb, 1227 Gregory IX, 19 Mareh, 1227-22 Aug., 1241 Celestine IV, 25 Oct.-10 Nov., 1241 Innocent IV, 25 June, 1243-7 Dec., 1254 Alexander IV, 12 Dec., 1254-25 May 1261 Urban IV, 29 Aug., 1261-2 Oct., 1264 Clement IV, 5 Feb., 1265-29 Nov., 1268 St. Gregory X, 1 Sept., 1271-10 Jan., 1276 Innocent V, 21 Jan.-22 June, 1276 Adrian V, 11 July-18 Aug., 1276 John XXI, 8 Sept., 1276-20 May, 1277 Nieholas III, 25 Nov., 1277-22 Aug., 1280 Martin IV, 25 Feb., 1281-28 March, 1285 Honorius IV, 2 Apr., 1285-3 Apr., 1287 Nicholas IV, 22 Feb., 1288-4 Apr., 1292 St. Celestine V, 5 July-13 Dec., 1294 Boniface VIII, 24 Dec., 1294-11 Oct., 1303 Benedict XI, 22 Oct., 1303-7 July, 1304 Clement V, 5 June, 1305-20 Apr., 1314 John XXII, 7 Aug., 1316-4 Dec., 1334 Benedict XII, 20 Dec., 1334-25 Apr., 1342 Clement VI, 7 May, 1342-6 Dec., 1352 Innocent VI, 18 Dec., 1352-12 Sept., 1362 Urban V, 6 Nov. 1362 (cons.)-19 Dec., 1370 Gregory XI, 30 Dec., 1370-27 March, 1378 Urban VI, 8 Apr., 1378-15 Oct., 1389 Boniface IX, 2 Nov., 1389-1 Oct., 1404 Innocent VII, 17 Oct., 1404-6 Nov., 1406 Gregory XII, 30 Nov., 1406-4 July, 1415 Alexander V, 26 June, 1409-3 May, 1410 John XXIII, 17 May, 1410-29 May, 1415 Martin V, 11 Nov., 1417-20 Feb., 1431 Eugene IV, 3 March, 1431-23 Feb., 1447 Nicholas V, 6 March, 1447-24 March, 1455 Callistus III, 8 Apr., 1455-6 Aug., 1458 Pius II, 19 Aug., 1458-15 Aug., 1464 Paul II, 31 Aug., 1464-26 July, 1471 Sixtus IV, 9 Aug., 1471-12 Aug., 1484 Innocent VIII, 29 Aug., 1484-25 July, 1492 Alexander VI, 11 Aug., 1492-18 Aug., 1503 Pius III, 22 Sept.-18 Oct., 1503 Julius II, 1 Nov., 1503-21 Feb., 1513 Leo X, 11 March, 1513-1 Dec., 1521 Adrian VI, 9 Jan., 1522-14 Sept., 1523 Clement VII, 19 Nov., 1523-25 Sept., 1534 Paul III, 13 Oct., 1534-10 Nov., 1549 Julius III, 8 Feb., 1550-23 March, 1555 Marcellus II, 9-30 Apr., 1555 Paul IV, 23 May, 1555-18 Aug., 1559 Pius IV, 25 Dec., 1559-9 Dec., 1565 St. Pius V, 7 Jan., 1566-1 May, 1572 Gregory XIII, 13 May, 1572-10 Apr., 1585 Sixtus V, 24 Apr., 1585-27 Aug., 1590 Urban VII, 15-27 Sept., 1590 Gregory XIV, 5 Dec., 1590-15 Oct., 1591 Innocent IX, 29 Oct.-30 Dec., 1591 Clement VIII, 30 Jan., 1592-5 March, 1605 Leo XI, 1-27 Apr., 1605 Paul V, 16 May, 1605-28 Jan., 1621 Gregorv XV, 9 Feb., 1621-8 July, 1623 Urban VIII, 6 Aug., 1623-29 July, 1644 Innocent X, 15 Sept., 1644-7 Jan., 1655 Alexander VII, 7 Apr., 1655-22 May, 1667 Clement IX, 20 June, 1667-9 Dec., 1669 Clement X, 29 Apr., 1670-22 July, 1676 Innocent XI, 21 Sept., 1676-11 Aug., 1689 Alexander VIII, 6 Oct., 1689-1 Feb., 1691 Innocent XII, 12 July, 1691-27 Sept., 1700 Clement XI, 23 Nov., 1700-19 March, 1721 Innocent XIII, 8 May, 1721-7 March, 1724 Benedict XIII, 29 May, 1724-21 Feb., 1730 Clement XII, 12 July, 1730-6 Feb., 1740 Benedict XIV, 17 Aug., 1740-3 May, 1758 Clement XIII, 6 July, 1758-2 Feb., 1769 Clement XIV, 19 May, 1769-22 Sept., 1774 Pius VI, 15 Feb., 1775-29 Aug., 1799 Pius VII, 14 March, 1800 20 Aug., 1823 Leo XII, 28 Sept., 1823-10 Feb., 1829 Pius VIII, 31 March, 1829-30 Nov., 1830 Gregory XVI, 2 Feb., 1831-1 June, 1846 Pius IX, 16 June, 1846-7 Feb., 1878 Leo XIII, 20 Feb., 1878-20 July, 1903 Pius X, 4 Aug., 1903- ROCABERTI, G. H. JOYCE Transcribed by Gerard Haffner Taken from the New Advent Web Page (www.knight.org/advent). This article is part of the Catholic Encyclopedia Project, an effort aimed at placing the
entire Catholic Encyclopedia on the World Wide Web. The coordinator is Kevin Knight,
editor of the New Advent Catholic Website. If you would like to contribute to this
worthwhile project, you can contact him by e-mail at (knight@knight.org). For
more information please download the file cathen.txt/.zip. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
www.ewtn.com
