No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Development of the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Roman See
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 September 2009
Extract
The jurisdiction of the Roman See is, and always has been, a point of controversy, not merely between the adherents of that see and all other Christians, but even among those who look with reverence akin to devotion to the successor of St. Peter. It is not merely a legal question, it is essentially a theological question, and as a doctrine it must be de jure divino. Accordingly, it has been discussed with that acrimony which as from a psychological necessity is characteristic of so many theological disputes. But discussion of the development of the doctrine and practice does not necessarily involve polemics. For a doctrine may be true or false, and to show this is a matter of exegesis and systematic theology, but to show that as finally stated it was the result of a long development is not to touch upon the question of its truth at all. Thus one may ask as to a doctrine closely connected with that we are to discuss, does the teaching of the Church as stated in the Bull, Unam Sanctam, appear in the second or third century as an article of belief required to be held by all Christians as a condition for receiving the sacraments? To show that it does not so appear, is merely to show what nearly every one acknowledges as to almost any doctrine not involved in modern polemics, that in the earliest ages they were not formulated with any great precision, in fact were expressed in forms sometimes afterward regarded as even heretical.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society for Church History 1896
References
page 200 note 1 Cf. Rosshirt, Gesch. des Kirchenrechts, p. 13.Google Scholar
page 201 note 1 Cf. Gfrörer, Kirchengeschichte, i., 253Google Scholar
page 202 note 1 cc. 59, 62, 63.
page 203 note 1 Langen, , Geschichte d. Römischen Kirche, i., 89Google Scholar, endeavors to minimize the authoritative character of this letter from the Roman to the Corinthian Church.
page 204 note 1 Digest., I. Tit. 3, 1. 32Google Scholar. Cf. Gieseler, , Church History, Am. ed., vol. i., p. 382, n. 18.Google Scholar
page 204 note 2 So Harnack interprets the words of Ignatius, pointing out the meaning of προκάϑηгαι by reference to the Epistle to the Tralliansw here it describes the relation of bishops and clergy to the congregation. Cf. Dogmengeschichte, , i., p. 404, n. 4.Google Scholar
page 205 note 1 Cf. Eusebius, H. E., v. 16, 17, 24Google Scholar; Irenæus, , Haer. III., 3, 4.Google Scholar
page 207 note 1 The actual doctrine of Irenæus is clearly enough seen in such passages as the following “Etsi de aliqua modica questione disceptatio esset, nonne oporteret in antiquissimas recurrere ecclesias, in quibus apostoli conversati sunt, et ab eis de praesenti questione sumere quod certum et liquidum est? (iii. 4, 1). Quid autem, si neque apostoli quidem scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis, quibus committebant ecclesias (I.c.). Ubi igitur charismata Domini posita sunt, ibi discere oportet veritatem, apud quos, est ea quae est ab apostolis ecclesiae successio, et id quod est sanum et irreprobabile conversationis et inadulteratum et incorruptibile sermonis constat (iv. 26, 5).
page 210 note 1 Der heilige Cyprian von Carthago. Regensburg, 1877, p. 479.Google Scholar
page 218 note 1 Præsertim cum sit manifestum, in omnem Italiam, Gallias, Hispanias, Africam atque Siciliam, et insulas interjacentes, nullum instituisse Ecclesias, nisi eos, quos venerabilis Apostolul Petrus aut ejus successores constituerint sacerdotes. Aut legant, si in his provinciis alius Apostolorum invenitur, aut legitur docuisse.
page 222 note 1 As to what canons, it is no easy matter to say.
page 222 note 2 In the time of Damasus, the rescript of Gratian had given the right to try bishops to the Roman see, but in this he was not to act apart from his synod. By Valentinian's decree the Roman bishop himself was to act not merely as judge but as lawgiver.