Papacy

In Eastern Christendom the papacy was at this period an almost forgotten institution, whose pretensions were always met by the combined opposition of the imperial authority, which was still preponderant in the Byzantine Church, and the authority of the patriarchate of Constantinople, around which centred all that survived of Christianity in those regions. To complete the situa tion, a formal rupture had occurred in 1054 between the patriarch Michael Cerularius and Pope Leo IX.

Position of the Papacy in Theory and Practice.

In the West, Rome and her sanctuaries had always been held in the highest veneration, and the pilgrimage to Rome was still the most important in the West. The pope, as officiating in these holiest of all sanctuaries, as guardian of the tombs of St. Peter and St. Paul and the inheritor of their rank, their rights, and their traditions, was the greatest ecclesiastical figure and the highest religious authority in the West. The greatest princes bowed before him; it was he who consecrated the emperor. In virtue of the spurious donation of Constantine, forged at Rome in the time of Charle magne, which was at first circulated in obscurity, but ended by gaining universal credit, it was believed that the first Christian emperor, in withdrawing to Constantinople, had bestowed on the pope all the provinces of the Western empire, and that in con sequence all sovereignty in the West, even that of the emperor, was derived from pontifical concessions. From all points of view, both religious and political, the pope was thus the greatest man of the West, the ideal head of all Christendom.

When it was necessary to account for this position, theologians quoted the text of the Gospels, where St. Peter is represented as the rock on which the Church is built, the pastor of the sheep and lambs of the Lord, the doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven. The statements made in the New Testament about St. Peter were applied without hesitation to all the popes, considered as his successors, the inheritors of his see (Petri sedes) and of all his prerogatives. This idea, moreover, that the bishops of Rome were the successors of St. Peter was expressed very early—as far back as the 2nd century. Whatever may be said as to its historical value, it symbolizes very well the great authority of the Roman Church in the early days of Christianity; an authority which was then administered by the bishops of Rome, and came to be more and more identified with them. The councils were

also quoted, and especially that of Nicaea, which does not itself mention the question, but certain texts of which contained the famous gloss: Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum. But this proof was rather insufficient, as indeed it was felt to be. The Gospel and unbroken tradition offered a better argument.

In his capacity as head of the church, "and president of the Christian agape," as St. Ignatius of Antioch would have said, the pope was considered to be the supreme president and moderator of the oecumenical assemblies. When the episcopate met in council the bishop of Rome had to be at its head. No decisions of a general nature, whether dogmatic or disciplinary, could be made without his consent. The appeal from all patri archal or conciliary judgments was to him; and on those occa sions when he had to depose bishops of the highest standing. notably those of Alexandria and Constantinople, his judgments were carried into effect. During the religious struggles between the East and West he was on a few occasions condemned (by the Eastern council of Sardica, by Dioscorus, and by Photius) ; but the sentences were not carried out, and were even, as in the case of Dioscorus, considered and punished as sacrilegious attacks. In the West the principle, "prima sedes a nemine iudicatur," was always recognized and applied.

In ordinary practice this theoretically wide authority had only a limited application. The apostolic see hardly ever inter fered in the government of the local Churches. Save in its own metropolitan province, it took no part in the nomination of bishops; the provincial or regional councils were held without its authorization; their judgments and regulations were carried out without any suggestion that they should be ratified by Rome. It is only after the False Decretals that we meet with the idea that a bishop cannot be deposed and his place filled without the con sent of the pope. And it should be noticed that this idea was put forward, not by the pope with the object of increasing his power, but by the opinion of the Church with a view to defending the bishops against unjust sentences, and especially those inspired by the secular authority.