Papal Primacy Research Articles

The Bible on Christian Unity by J. F. Lescrauwaet, Sheed & Ward 10s 6d. - Unity is not Enough by M. GibbardSSJE, Mowrays 8s 6d. - The Supper and the Eucharist by J. Wilkinson, Macmillan 21s. - The Renewal of Worship Ed. by R. C. D. Jasper, Oxford 9s 6d.

THE BIBLE ON CHRISTIAN UNITY by J. F. LescrauwaetUNITY IS NOT ENOUGH by M. Gibbard SSJETHE SUPPER AND THE EUCHARIST by J. WilkinsonTHE RENEWAL OF WORSHIP Ed. by R. C. D. JasperARCHBISHOP ROBERTS by David Abner Hum. Darton, Longman 8 ToddWORSHIP IN A CHANGING CHURCH. Edited by R. S. WilkinsonA SHORT HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE by Robert M. GrantTHE BOY FROM THE LAKE, by Rosemary Haughton. Darton. Longman and ToddTHE SISTINE CHAPEL BEFORE MICHELANGELO: Religious Imagery and Papal Primacy, by L. D. EttlingerGALILEO: The man, his work, his misfortunes, by James Brodrick, S.J. Geoffrey Chapman

The Theory of Papal Monarchy in the Thirteenth Century: The Contribution of the Canonists

The work of the medieval canonists has always formed a significant chapter in the histories of medieval political thought. The law of the Church and its attendant juristic science forms the proper source material for the examination of the system of ideas which lay behind the functioning of papal government. Ecclesiastical jurisprudence was the practical branch of sapientia Christiana. It was concerned with a constitution and the exercise of power within its terms; with an organization and the methods by which it was to be run. It had of necessity to be articulate about the nature of the papacy, the constitutional and organizational linchpin. In consequence the canonists were the acknowledged theorists of papal primacy. To them rather than to the theologians belonged that segment of ecclesiology which treated of the nature of the Church as a visible corporate society under a single ruler. In that period of nearly a century which lay between the accession of Alexander III and the death of Innocent IV, canonists were required to register the increasingly numerous and more diverse applications of papal rulership to the problems of Christian society. The concept of papal monarchy came to be reexamined in academic literature because of the accelerating tempo of papal action. Under the stimulus of an active papacy, the canonists were led to examine many of the assumptions on which the popes based their actions and claims. The world of affairs conditioned the evolution of a political-theory, which in turn helped to shape the course of events.

The Problem of Papal Primacy at the Council of Florence

At Ferrara and Florence the healing of the old schism between the Eastern and Western Chruches proved to be more than a hope, and in corresponding measure the breach between the Pope and the Council of Basel became less than a real new Occidental Schism. The Florence-Ferrara conception of Christian unity has led to the doctrine of the Vatical Council and will be of great importance at the council which has been announced by the present Pope. Together with our Roman Catholic brethren we are convinced that a clear understanding of the character of Christian unity must exist prior to all attempts at union or reunion of churches, prior as a condition and as an incentive those efforts.

Dr. Jalland's Book on the Papacy

We may now turn to some particular problems in which we feel more at home. In the fourth chapter we are given a lucid account of the events that led up to the Edict of Milan, but it raises one regret that Professor H. Grégoire of Brussels has not yet published his work on Constantine the Great, which was announced a few years ago. But there is a study published by the same author about 1930 in a Belgian review not widely known (information can be found in the Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique), where regarding Constantine’s policy he expresses views that alter in many ways the whole aspect of the problem and which Church historians would do well to study carefully.The explanation of how the emperor came to the decision of convoking an Oecumenical Council makes plausible reading, but the author has evidently missed my study on the authority of the State in the Oecumenical Councils in the translation which apeared in 1934 in the ‘Christian East.’ There he would have found indications that would have facilitated his own researches and helped him to get a better understanding of the whole problem of Constantine, the Council of Nicea, the presidency of the Council and the squaring of historical facts with the theological conclusions on the papal primacy. Constantine simply borrowed the conciliar procedure from the proceedings of the senatorial sittings. Just as the Emperor presided in person or by deputy over the sessions of the Senate, led the debates and appointed their subjects, so he acted at the Councils, which were run like an ecclesiastical senate; but as the Emperor took ‘no part in the senatorial voting, so he abstained from voting with the bishops and he abode by their decisions.