Victor R. Claveau, MJ
One of the principle objections of Protestants against the Church is the doctrine of papal supremacy. They claim that the Church had no organization, no unity, no visibility, no definite hierarchy or concert of action during the early ages. Some claim that the entire body of those who professed Christianity, i.e., Donatists, Arians, Pelagians, Mariconites, Novatians, Catholics, etc. constituted the Church. That is, those who regarded Jesus as true God and true man, and those who regarded him as simply a man and prophet are to be equally regarded as members of the one Church founded by the Son of God. It is claimed that the only bond of unity among the Christians of this period was a vague and general belief in the teachings of Christ and opposition to the polytheistic doctrines of pagan Rome. It is further claimed that there was no regular body of ministers, no definite rule of faith, no uniform code of worship, no visible Church and no bishop who was regarded as the head of the Church. But the proofs are ample and conclusive, from both sacred and profane history that the Roman pontiffs have always been recognized as the supreme heads of the entire Christian Church, up to and since the Protestant Reformation. Volumes of testimony could be cited in support of this assertion, but we will limit ourselves to a few pertinent facts.
For the practical dissemination and development of his doctrines, it is probable that our Savior adopted the most natural and efficient means of accomplishing his goals. Jesus left nothing to chance, taught nothing vague or doubtful. He left a divinely protected ecclesiastical organization, with Peter as the supreme head, and a body of subordinate ministers as the means of establishing Christianity among the nations. Jesus relied on ordinary human methods in order to establish his Church. He organized a working ministry, taught them the truths he had received from the Father, endowed them with special graces and powers, and commanded them to preach and teach the same doctrines throughout the world. In order to secure organizational unity and concert of action, it was necessary that there should be a Prime Minister around whom the entire Christian Church could rally, and who should serve as the representative sovereignty of the Church. It was necessary to install a leader or chief Father whose duty would be to preside over the, not only the priests of the Church, but also the spiritual welfare of the entire Christian family. If this had not been the will of Jesus, he would not have singled out Peter for special responsibilities; he would have conferred equal powers on all the apostles. Instead of this, the messiah selected Peter, and upon him he founded his Church, gave him the keys of the kingdom, and assured him that he would be with him forever. After the ascension, Peter assumed and performed the duties of the papal office until his martyrdom in 67 A.D.[1]
There was no other way that the Church could perpetuate herself. Without a visible head, she could not have retained her unity, organization or existence. If a ruler or president is indispensable for a nation, how much more is such a leader necessary in a Church, which has spiritual subject in all the nations of the earth! Even in subordinate branches of government, each branch must have its chief, with special powers and functions, or confusion would be the inevitable result. What army would go into battle without a leader to whom all other officers and soldiers were subordinate? What would become of unity, discipline, and efficiency?
The wisdom of this arrangement is appreciated when we contemplate the trials through which the Church has passed, during the first three centuries of Roman persecution, during the dark ages when Europe was overrun by the barbarians, and during the last five innovating centuries of the Christian era.
An unbroken succession of Bishops of Rome can be traced from St. Peter to the present pontiff and since the days of the apostles, all the prominent fathers of the Church have acknowledged the supremacy of these bishops. The chain of evidence establishing the direct succession from the apostles is conclusive. This is evident, first, from the fact that the doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church have always coincided perfectly with those of the Church founded by Christ. Second, all the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures clearly indicate that the Catholic is the true apostolic Church, and third from the traditions of the Jews, the opponents of Christ, and the most prominent historians of the first centuries. Fourth, from the writings of the fathers of the patristic period.
The Patristic Period
The writings of SS. Clement, A. D. 91, of Ignatius, A. D.107, of St. Polycarp, A. D. 110, of St. Dionysius of Corinth, A. D. 168, of St. Irenæus, A. D. 177, of Praxeas, A. D. 201, of Tertullian, A. D. 204, of Origen, A. D. 230, of St. Hippolytus, A. D. 230, of St. Cyprian, A. D. 250, and numerous others, clearly demonstrate apostolic succession.
[1] According to St. Jerome, “Simon Peter, the son of John, of the town of Bethsaida, brother of the apostle Andrew, and prince of the apostles, after exercising the episcopate over the church at Antioch, went to Rome; for thirty-three years in all he held the sacerdotal chair. Buried at Rome, in the Vatican, near the Via Triumphalis, he is honored with the veneration of the whole city.” (Cat. Script. Eccles.)