Witness of Ancient Heretics to the Roman Primacy

In one of his famous Sermons "Tu es Petrus", the other outstanding 19th century convert, English Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, asked:

"Where, then, is this Church [of Christ] to be found? There is one sure test by which we may find it. The Apostles were united with Peter. He was first among them. He was the head of all. They took no separate acts apart from him. They taught no other doctrine than the doctrine of Peter. They laid no other foundation. All their prerogatives they held in common with him. The Keys of the Kingdom of heaven which they bare were given first into Peter's hands. They had stood by and heard from the lips of the Incarnate Word himself, anointed by the Holy Ghost: 'Thou art Peter; and on this Rock I will build My Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, and unto thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound in heaven.' (Matt. 16: 19) Peter then was their head; he was the chief in that Apostolic College which, on the day of Pentecost, was the organ of the Holy Ghost. Has he ever ceased to be so? Who stands in Peter's place at this hour? Is there any successor to his authority?"
("Ecclesiastical Sermons", Vol. II, p.13)

The Cardinal who would be noted later for his leading role in Vatican I's dogmatic definitions of Papal supremacy and infallibility noted how the history of the "Undivided Church" attested to the witness of history to the establishment of the Papacy as the fulfillment of Christ's promise for the Church's "perpetual stability in faith."

"As the endowments of the body are the prerogatives of the head, so the illumination which is diffused throughout the whole body of the Church resides eminently in the Episcopate, but resides preeminently and above all in the chief of Bishops, the Pastor of Pastors, the Vicar of the Incarnate Word Himself. Here then we have the fulfillment of Christ’s prophecy."
[contained in the famous Petrine texts of Scripture- Matt. 16: 18-19; Lk. 22: 31-32; Jn. 21: 15-17]

On another occasion, Cardinal Manning noted: "To say that Christianity is Catholicism, and Catholicism is Christianity, is to utter a truism". It is a truism, he observed in his writings, that ecclesiastical history confirmed as a "matter of fact". That truism was supported by all the data of Scripture and Apostolic Tradition affirming that the Roman Primacy of universal authority exercised by the Successor of Peter belonged to the very hierarchical structure of Christ's one visible Church. It was a truth solemnly set forth, moreover, in the Church's Ecumenical Councils such as Lyons (1274), Florence (1439), Vatican I (1870), and later, of course, in Vatican II (1962-65) which the great prelate did not live to see but which elaborated on the relationship between Papal Primacy and the Collegiality of Bishops. He lamented that men only too often:

"treat history as an idle page, which they may read for their amusement, but refuse as a guide for their consciences. And yet, it is indubitable that the one only Church of God, the circumference of which rested on the sunrise and the sunset, had a center, and that center was in Rome."

Some of the key historical evidence for Catholic teaching on the Petrine authority of the Pope as found in the writings of the orthodox Fathers, Saints, and Councils of the First Millennium Church have been collected in my book "The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy: Letters to a Greek Orthodox on the Unity of the Church" (available from the author- $27.95 a copy). It is abundantly patent from their testimonies that orthodoxy in faith was always identified as doctrine maintained and taught by the one Church called "Catholic" and that the Catholic Church was that ecclesiastical body known to both the orthodox and heretics as the communion of bishops, priests, religious and laity having allegiance to the See of Peter at Rome. Simply put, the witness of the First Millennium Church was that to be orthodox was to be in communion with Peter's See at Rome which presided over all the Churches of the Catholic Communion.

It should be noted that the testimonies of heretics who revolted against and rejected the Petrine authority of the Bishop of Rome are of particular value in demonstrating the existence of the Roman Primacy as it was understood by orthodox believers and this long before the negations of the Byzantine Greek Schism of the 12th century. The attacks on the Roman Primacy by ancient Arian and Monophysite heretics give further witness, in Cardinal Manning's wise words:

"that the mind and voice of the Church has never changed by an accent or an iota. As every age has had its heresy, so every heresy has been cast out; some sooner, some later, some with ease, because they were superficial and weak; some with difficulty, because they were tenacious and strong, like the diseases of a living body, of which some are upon the skin, some in the substance, but all alike are cast out by the vigor of health and life."
("The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost", p.232)

The following examples of heretical attacks on the Popes for upholding the integrity of the Catholic Faith are of great interest. The Arian heretic Maximinus (c. 381) attacked St. Ambrose and Pope Damasus I in terms similar to Protestant and Eastern Orthodox writers who radically degrade the Roman Primacy to a mere "primacy of honor" and would claim the superiority of Councils over the Pope:

"Why does not he (Damasus) realize, why do you not understand that the See of Peter is shared in common by all bishops, since that holy Apostle, through God's gracious will, gave it not only to the Bishop of Rome but to all bishops, and he himself, far from claiming any personal privileges over his fellow Apostles, was ready to serve them… And if in the case of mere Samaritans, the blessed Peter, who on account of his primacy was the pillar of the Apostles, was still humble and willing to serve, whence may I ask, comes this insolence of Damasus, who not only does not deign to lend his personal presence to a Council assembled for the sake of our common faith, but as head of the hierarchy, excuses the absence of others, interposing through your connivance, the weight of his authority."
("Dissertatio Maximini contra Ambrosium" (ed. Friedrich Kaufmann, Strasburg, 1899)

The Acts of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431 A.D.) provide ample evidence concerning the actions of the Roman See under Pope Celestine to deal with the outbreak of the Nestorian heresy and even to depose from his see Nestorius, the patriarch of Constantinople (428-431 A.D.). It is remarkable that in his book ("The Bazaar of Heraclides") wherein the excommunicated Nestorius before his death sought to justify himself against his opponents, he frankly acknowledged the primatial preeminence of Rome and its bishop as being the successor of Peter. Referring to the "Robber Council" held in 449 A.D. against the orthodox Bishop Flavian who was supported by Pope Leo I, Nestorius observed:

"The Bishop of Rome was not there nor the See of Saint Peter, nor the apostolic honor, nor the primacy dear to the Romans."
In another place, referring to the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) he noted:
"The Bishop of Rome [Leo] had read what had been stated against Eutyches and he condemned Eutyches because of his impiety. I render thanks to God that the Church of Rome has an orthodox and irreproachable confession of faith [he refers to the Tome of Leo] although the Romans were otherwise disposed in my case."

Nestorius also clearly affirmed Pope Leo's headship of the hierarchy in writing of "the faithful Leo, head of the priests, who fought for piety…" (quotes from F. Nau's French version "Le Livre d’Heraclide de Damas" published in 1910). It is remarkable that among the Nestorians of today (more properly speaking, the "Assyrian Church of the East") the ancient tradition of St. Peter as "the head of the Twelve" by divine appointment and his Petrine ministry continued in the See of Rome and the Bishops of Rome as his successors has been preserved. (See this author's previous article "The Church of the East Sheds Light on the Roman Primacy", The Wanderer, 9/2/06)

However, with the Monophysite heretics, who rejected the Council of Chalcedon's teaching that in Christ there were "two natures in one Person", there developed open attacks on the Roman Primacy when Pope Leo the Great and St. Flavian declared Nestorians heretics! In a work against the Council of Chalcedon that has been preserved, the 6th century Monophysite John Philoponos angrily protested:

"What ecclesiastical canon, what Imperial law has given the bishop of Rome such power that he can do what he wants, legitimately promulgate a decree outside of a Synod, act illegally, and do what he pleases even when nobody agrees with him? Only tyrants act this way. If they put forward the apostolic authority of Peter, and if they believe that the keys of the kingdom of heaven have been given to them, let them consider the other cities that have been graced with the apostolic aureole. I pass under silence our bishop [of Alexandria] who directs the see of Mark the Evangelist. As regards the Church of Ephesus instituted by the Apostle John, it is now directed by the bishop of Constantinople, because the seat of Empire was transferred there… Why do not the Bishops of Antioch claim the precedence for themselves? They would be able to, in the first place because Peter, on whom the Romans support their enormous pretention, first exercised his authority there; then, too, because it was there that the honorable name of Christian was first came into use. Why not the see of Jerusalem? What! We ought to change the faith of the entire world because of the apostolic throne of Rome whose bishop is manifestly in error? What disciple of Christ would dream to follow him? Because the bishop of Rome alone had authority in the imperial city, he obtained the precedence over all others by a certain usage, because of the greatness of the city and the imperial authority. But no ecclesiastical canon has instituted, nor has any Imperial law established the bishop of Rome as autocrat of the whole world. It is not in the power of the bishop of Rome to reunite an Ecumenical Synod, but in the power of the Emperors… Who then has allowed your Leo to judge alone regarding ecclesiastical disagreements?"

He also denounced the "arrogance of [Pope] Damasus and the others of Rome". Another Pope (Vigilius) was attacked on the grounds that it is the Emperors who convene Ecumenical Councils, not the Pope. (See: Daniel Stiernon's "Interpretations, Resistances et Oppositions en Orient" in "Il Primato del Vescovo di Roma Nel Primo Millennio", Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1991, pp. 664-666).

The voices of the Arian Maximinus and the Monophysite John Philoponus are the voices of heresy in denial of the hierarchical constitution on the Church as built and centered by Christ on the Chief of the Apostles, Peter. Despite the sophisms that would be repeated by the Byzantine Greeks later, Peter's headship of authority as continued in Peter's successors, the Bishops of Rome, was repeatedly affirmed by the Fathers, Saints, Popes, and Councils of the First Millennium. True, there were also voices which engaged in quarrels with the Popes and criticized various exercises of the Roman Primacy but it was heretics responsible for explicit schisms in the ancient Church who dared to formally deny the Bishop of Rome's universal authority and jurisdiction in the Catholic Church. The evidence of these heretical denials with their clear rejection of the Roman Primacy in Church history only serves to highlight further what was the Church's perduring and orthodox belief.

At this writing, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologians are having talks in Cyprus focusing on "The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium". There is opposition being registered by some intransigent Orthodox, but this is a most welcome development marking the ecumenical journey of both Communions. May all our readers pray that certain misconceptions concerning the role of Peter's successor be removed, in order that the long-hoped-for restoration of full communion between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches be achieved.

May Our Lady, venerated in her beautiful and miraculous icon, the "Softener of Evil Hearts", grant this grace.

 

---