St. Optatus, Peter’s Primacy & the Papacy
This lengthy extract from St. Optatus is taken from Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists (1917) Book 2. pp. 57-119. His statements affirm that the Roman Church is the See of Peter, and the grounds of unity which makes the Church one and universal. He further argues that to deviate or break communion from it is to be cut off from possibly being a church whatsoever. All emphasis will be mine.
I. Which and where is the Catholic Church? It is spread all over the world.
We have shown who were the Betrayers, and have pointed out the origin of the Schism in such a manner that we have almost seen it take place before our eyes.1 The difference between heresy and schism has also been explained. It is now our business to show (as we promised that we would do in the second place) which is the One Church, called by Christ His Dove and His Bride.2
The Church, then, is One, and her holiness is not measured by the pride of individuals,3 but is derived |58 from the Sacraments. It is for this reason that she alone is called by Christ His Dove and His own beloved Bride.
The Church cannot be amongst all the heretics and schismatics.4 It follows that [according to you] she must be in one place only.5
You, my brother Parmenian, have said that she is with you alone. This, I suppose, can only be because, in your pride, you strive to claim some special holiness for yourselves, so that the Church may be where it pleases you, and may not be where it pleases you not. And so, in order that she may be with you in a little piece of Africa, in a corner of one small region, is she not to be with us in another part of Africa? Is she not to be in Spain, in Gaul, in Italy, where you are not? If you maintain that she is with you only, is she not to be in Pannonia, in Dacia, Moesia, Thrace, Achaia, Macedonia and in all Greece, where you are not? In order that you may be able to argue that |59 she is with you, is she not to be in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Pamphylia, Phrygia, Cilicia and in the three Syrias, and in the two Armenias, and in all Egypt and in Mesopotamia, where you are not? And is she not to be throughout innumerable islands and so many other provinces which can hardly be counted, where you are not? 6
Where in that case will be the application of the Catholic Name,7 since on this very account was the Church called Catholic, because she is in accordance with reason, and is scattered all over the world? 8 |60
For if you limit the Church just as it may please you, into a narrow corner, if you withdraw whole peoples from her communion, where will that be which the Son of God has merited, where will that be which the Father has freely granted Him, saying, in the second Psalm:
‘I will give to Thee the nations for Thine inheritance; and the ends of the earth for Thy possession’? 9
To what purpose do you break so mighty a promise, so that the breadth of all the kingdoms is compressed by you into a sort of narrow prison? Why do you strive to stand in the way of so great a largesse? Why do you fight against the Saviour’s Merits? Permit the Son to possess that which has been granted to Him; permit the Father to fulfil that which He has promised.
Why do you put bounds, why set limits? There is nothing in any part of the earth which has been withheld from His dominion, since the whole earth has been promised by God the Father to the Saviour. The whole earth has been granted to Him together |61 with its nations. The whole world is Christ’s as His undivided possession.10 God proves this when he says:
‘I will give unto Thee the nations for Thine inheritance, and for Thy possession the bounds of the earth.’ 11
And in the seventy-first Psalm, it has been written of the Saviour Himself,
‘He shall reign from sea to sea, and from the waters to the bounds of the world.’ 12
When the Father gives, He makes no exception; you, that you may give Him one fraction, endeavour to take away the whole measure. And, still, you endeavour to persuade men that the Church is amongst you alone, taking away from Christ that which He has won—-denying that God has performed His promises. What ingratitude! What folly! What presumption is yours! Christ invites you, with all others, into the company of the Heavenly Kingdom and exhorts you to be co-heirs with Him; and you strive to rob Him of the inheritance given Him by the Father, allowing Him a part of Africa and refusing Him the whole world, which the Father has bestowed upon Him.
Why do you desire to make the Holy Ghost appear a liar, who in the forty-ninth Psalm tells of the goodness of Almighty God, saying:
‘The Lord, the God of Gods has spoken and has called the earth from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof’? 13 |62
Therefore the earth has been called to become flesh.14And, as it has been written, so has it been done, and the earth owes praises to its Creator.
Once more this is mentioned, where the Holy Spirit exhorts us in the hundred and twelfth Psalm with the words:
‘The Name of the Lord must be praised from the rising of the sun even to its going down.’ 15
And again, in the ninety-fifth Psalm:
‘Sing ye to the Lord a new song.’ 16
If this were the only verse, you might say that the Holy Ghost had exhorted you alone. But that He might show that this has been said not to you alone, but to the Church which is everywhere, He continued:
‘Sing to the Lord, all the earth; declare amongst the nations His glory, His wonderful works amongst all peoples.’ 17
He said:
‘Declare amongst the nations.’ 18
He did not say, ‘in a small part of Africa, where you are’; He did say ‘Declare amongst all peoples.’ 19
He who said ‘all peoples’ excepted no man. Yet |63 you are proud to be alone and separated from ‘all peoples,’ though to them this command was given; and you maintain that you, who are not in any part of the whole,20 are yet yourselves alone the whole.
He has said:
‘The name of the Lord must be praised,’ and ‘by all the earth from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof.’ 21
Can then the Pagans, who are outside the covenant of Christ,22 either sing to God or praise the name of the Lord? Is it not His Church alone, which is within the covenant,23 that may praise Him? 24 Therefore, if you say that the Church is with you only, you are defrauding God’s ear of its due. If you alone are praising Him, ‘the whole world,’ 25 which is from the |64 rising of the sun to its going down, will be keeping silence. You have shut the mouths of all the Christian nations. You have imposed silence on all the peoples who desire to praise God from moment to moment. If then God waits for the praise which is His due, and if the Holy Spirit exhorts men to sound His praises,26if ‘the whole world’ is prepared to render to God His due, lest God be robbed—-then should you also praise Him, together with all, or, (since you have refused to be with all,) in your isolation, hold your tongues.
II. He proves from the Cathedra Petri that the Cathedra which is the first endowment of the Church belongs to Catholics, not to Donatists.
So we have proved that the Catholic Church is the Church which is spread throughout the world.
We must now mention its Adornments,27 and see where are its five Endowments (which you have said to be six 28), amongst which the CATHEDRA is the first; |65 and, since the second Endowment, which is the ‘Angelus,’ cannot be added unless a Bishop has sat on |66 the Cathedra,29 we must see who was the first to sit on the Cathedra, and where 30 he sat. If you do not know this, learn. If you do know, blush. Ignorance cannot be attributed to you—-it follows that you know.31For one who knows, to err is sin. Those who do not know may sometimes be pardoned.32
You cannot then deny that you do know 33 that upon Peter first 34 in the City of Rome 35 was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra,36 on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas 37), |67 that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all,38 lest the other Apostles might claim—-each for himself—-separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra 39would already be a schismatic and a sinner. |68
Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.40
III. The Succession of Bishops of Rome.
To Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus succeeded Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, to Evaristus 41 Sixtus, to Sixtus Telesphorus, to Telesphorus Hyginus, to Hyginus Anacetus, to Anacetus Pius, to Pius Soter, to Soter Alexander, to Alexander Victor, to Victor Zephyrinus, to Zephyrinus Calixtus, to Calixtus Urban, to Urban Pontianus, to Pontianus Anterus, to Anterus Fabian, to Fabian Cornelius, to Cornelius Lucius, to Lucius Stephen, to Stephen Sixtus, to Sixtus Dionysius, to Dionysius Felix, to Felix Marcellinus, to Marcellinus Eusebius, to Eusebius Miltiades, to Miltiades Silvester, to Silvester Marcus, |69 to Marcus Julius, to Julius Liberius, to Liberius Damasus, to Damasus Siricius,42 who to-day is our colleague, with whom ‘the whole world,’ 43 through the intercourse of letters of peace,44 agrees with us in one bond of communion.45
Now do you show the origin of your Cathedra,46you who wish to claim the Holy Church for yourselves!
IV. The Donatist Bishops and their meetinghouses in Rome.
But 47 you allege that you too have some sort of a party in the City of Rome.48 |70
It is a branch of your error growing out of a lie, not from the root of truth. In a word, were Macrobius 49to be asked where he sits in the City, will he be able to say on Peter’s Cathedra? I doubt whether he has even set eyes upon it, and schismatic that he is, he has not drawn nigh to Peter’s ‘Shrine,’ 50 against the precept of the Apostle who writes:
‘Communicating with the “Shrines” of the Saints.’ 51 |71
Behold, in Rome are the ‘Shrines’ of the two Apostles. Will you tell me whether he has been able to approach them, or has offered Sacrifice in those places, where—-as is certain—-are these ‘Shrines’ of the Saints.
So it follows that your colleague Macrobius must confess that he sits where once sat Encolpius; and if Encolpius himself could be questioned, he would say that he sat where before him sat Bonifacius of Balla; and if Bonifacius could be asked, he would in his turn reply that he sat where Victor of Garba sat, whom some time ago your people sent from Africa to a few wanderers.52
How do you explain that your party has not been able to possess a Roman citizen as Bishop in Rome? How is it that in that City they were all Africans 53 and strangers who are known to have succeeded one another? Is not craft here manifest? Is this not the spirit of faction—-the mother of schism?
This Victor of Garba was sent first, I will not say as a stone into a fountain (for he could not ruffle the pure waters of the Catholic people), but because some Africans who belonged to your party, having gone to Rome, and wishing to live there, begged that someone should be sent from Africa to preside over their public worship. So Victor was sent to them. He was there as a son without a father, as a beginner without a master, as a disciple without a teacher, |72 as a follower without a predecessor,54 as a lodger without a home, as a guest without a guest-house, as a shepherd without a flock, as a Bishop without a people. For neither flock nor people can that handful be termed, who amongst the forty and more Basilicas in Rome, had not one place in which to assemble.
Accordingly they closed up 55 a cave outside the City with trellis-work,56 where they might have a meeting-house at once,57 and on account of this were called Mountaineers.58
Since then, Claudian has succeeded to Lucian, Lucian to Macrobius, Macrobius to Encolpius, Encolpius to Boniface, Boniface to Victor. Victor would not have been able, had he been asked where he sat,59 to show that anyone had been there 60 before him, nor could he have pointed out that he possessed any Cathedra save the Cathedra of pestilence 61; |73 for pestilence sends down its victims, destroyed by diseases, to the regions of Hell which are known to have their gates—-gates against which we read that Peter received the saving Keys—-Peter, that is to say, the first of our line,62 to whom it was said by Christ:
‘To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,’ and these keys ‘the gates of Hell shall not overcome.’ 63
How is it, then, that you strive to usurp for yourselves the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, you who, with your arguments, and audacious sacrilege, war against the Chair of Peter? 64|74
1. 1 ut paene oculis perspecta videatur. St. Augustine may have had these words before his mind, when he wrote of the martyrdom of St. Stephen: ‘Hanc passionem modo de libro Actuum Apostolorum cum legitur, non solum audivimus sed etiam oculis spectavimus’ (Sermo ii de Sancto Stephano)
2. 2 In the Canticle of Canticles.
3. 3 The Donatists, like the Cathari, the Puritans and many other sectaries, prided themselves (without the slightest justification in fact) upon their sanctity. According to their teaching, the true Church was to be exclusively the Church of ‘the Saints.’ There were to be no unclean beasts in the Ark of Noah. The tares were not to be allowed to grow up with the wheat unto the harvest; nor were the bad fish to remain with the good in Peter’s net. Furthermore, they made the validity of the sacraments depend upon the supposed holiness of the minister, not upon the operation of the Holy Ghost.
4. 1 Evidently the idea of Comprehensiveness—-that the One Church could be Catholic (Universal)—-in the sense of comprehending various kinds of religious bodies, varying in belief and without any external bond of union (cf. ii, 3)—-never occurred to St. Optatus even as a possibility. Any ‘branch’ theory in which the branches were separated from the trunk or from one another (cf. ii, 9 etc.) would have seemed to him unthinkable. He agrees with Parmenian in ruling it out ab initio.
5. 2 Because no heretics or schismatics were to be found as an organised body in more than one territory.
6. 1 In some of the countries mentioned by Optatus as belonging to the Catholic Unity, Christianity has almost disappeared as an energising force. Others of those lands, such as ‘Thrace, Achaia, Macedonia, and all Greece,’ are now unhappily in schism. Still, his argument has been enormously strengthened by the lapse of centuries. The Catholic of to-day is in full communion not only, as was St. Optatus, with the See of Rome where Peter sat, with the See of Lyons where Irenaeus sat, with the See of Barcelona where Pacian sat, with the See of Tours where Martin sat, with the See of Verona where Zeno sat, with the See of Milan where Ambrose was soon to sit, with the direct successors of ‘Maternus from the city of Cologne, of Reticius from the city of Autun, of Marinus of Aries, of Felix from Florence of the Tuscans, of Gaudentius of Pisa, of Proterius of Capua,’ and of every other of the nineteen Bishops who sat in the Synod of the Lateran with Miltiades the Pope (i, 23)—-this is surely a great and striking thing—-but also with Churches of which Optatus never dreamed, in islands and continents of which he had never heard…
8. 3 rationabilis et ubique diffusa. Thus in all the MSS. Two emendations have been suggested, Non nationalis et &c, and Rationabiliter ubique diffusa. Probably, however, St. Optatus wrote it as we find it in the MSS., Rationabilis et ubique diffusa. If so, through his ignorance of Greek, he is linking together two different derivations of the word καθολικός. From κατὰand ὅλον, = ‘throughout the whole’ (i.e. scattered throughout the world), and from κατὰand λόγον = ‘in accordance with reason.’ We know that, in consequence of this last meaning of the word, Procurators fiscal in Roman law were often called Rationales or καθολικοί.St. Optatus was probably in his first derivation thinking of heretics, in his second of schismatics. The Church is Catholic or rationabilis (according to right reason) in contradistinction to heretics, who have strayed from the truth (against the due exercise of their reason); she is Catholic or ubique diffusa (spread everywhere) in contradistinction to schismatics, who are confined within clearly defined, very often within national, bounds and limits. Cf. St. Augustine, Gesta Collationis Carthagiensis diei iii, ci: ‘Christiani Afri, et appellantur et merito sunt Catholici, ipsa sua communione nomen testantes. Catholon enim secundum totum dicitur. Qui autem a toto separatus est, partemque defendit ab universo praecisam, non sibi usurpet hoc nomen, sed nobiscum teneat veritatem.’
14. 1 Vocata est ergo terra ut caro fieret. Cf. ‘I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh and will give you a heart of flesh’ (Ez. xxxvi, 26).
17. 4 Ps. xcv, 1-3: ‘Cantate Domino omnis terra, pronuntiate in gentibus gloriam Ipsius, in omnibus populis mirabilia Eius.’…
20. 1 qui in omni toto non estis. This remains to-day the great Catholic argument against the pretensions of the ‘Orthodox’ Easterns. It is as effectual now as when St. Optatus first wrote the words. Like the Donatists before them, the ‘Orthodox’ are not ‘in any part of the whole’ (they are not in that Church, which is visibly Catholic—-spread throughout the world); yet, like the Donatists again, the ‘Orthodox’ claim to be the whole. But St. Optatus teaches that only those constitute ‘the whole,’ who are visibly united ‘in the whole,’ that is who are ‘everywhere’ (ubique).
23. 4 sola Ecclesia, quae in lege est, as opposed to the ‘Pagani extralegales,’ of whom he has just written. Lex, as so often elsewhere in Optatus, means ‘Lex Christi,’ ‘Lex Catholica’ (cf. v, 5 etc.)…
25. 6 Totus orbis. By this phrase St. Optatus and St. Augustine always mean the whole Catholic world. Cf. the saying of St. Augustine: ‘Securus iudicat orbis terrarum’ (see note i, p. 52)—-by which he means, of course, not the world separated from the Catholic Church —-even less the non-Christian world—-but the Catholic world. The Catholic world is the Judge, and judges free from anxiety, for this very reason that it is, and knows itself to be, the Catholic world.
27. 2 St. Optatus has given us a summary proof that the Catholic Church is not merely local, but claims to be everywhere. He proceeds, in answer to Parmenian, to discuss the Adornments (Ornamenta) or Endowments (Dotes) of the Church. The figure is that of a Dowry bestowed by our Lord upon His Bride, the Church. There is no other reference to these Dotes in patristic literature.
28. 3 It is not difficult to reconstruct Parmenian’s argument from the pages of Optatus. We see that Parmenian had argued that the Endowments were six in number, and had maintained that they were all distinctive of Donatism and lacking to the Catholic Church.
(1) Cathedra (the expression for See so well known in Africa from the writings of St. Cyprian).
(2) Angelus (from Apoc. ii, 3).
(3) Spiritus.
(4) Fons signatus (from Cant. iv, 1).
(5) Sigillum (quo fons signatur).
(6) Umbilicus (from Cant. vii, 2).
It was common ground between Optatus and his opponent that the hortus conclusus (enclosed garden) of Cant. iv, 12-13 (‘ Hortus conclusus mea sponsa, hortus conclusus, fons signatus, emissiones tuae paradisus’) signified the Church (cf. ii, 11: ‘Quod ore tuo et sensu nostro ecclesiam paradisum esse dixisti’). Accordingly the fons signatus (sealed fountain) is the baptismal font, which (according to Parmenian) is sealed to all outside the true Church, so that Baptism by schismatics as well as by heretics is invalid. The sigillum (seal) is the baptismal creed.
The font is only made a saving fountain, if it is blessed by the true Bishop or angelus. Only thus is the third Endowment, the Spirit, in the water of Baptism. Parmenian proves this by quoting John v, 4, whence St. Optatus’ words (ii, 6): ‘Unde vobis angelum, qui apud vos possit fontem movere aut inter ceteras dotes Ecclesiae numerari?’ We see that Parmenian had evidently taken the ‘Angel’ in the Apocalypse (without identifying him with any particular Bishop) in order to prove that only a true Bishop was able so ‘to move the water,’ that the Spirit should be there for valid Baptism. By Umbilicus Parmenian understood the altar. We can thus follow what no doubt was his argument. ‘The true Church has,’ he will have said to the Catholics, ‘six Endowments.’ (1) Cathedra, a lawful right to the See. But Caecilian had no such right, for the Numidian Bishops were not called to his election, and a Council of seventy Bishops deposed him. (2) Angelus, or a Bishop sent by God, but Caecilian was ordained by a Traditor. (3) Spiritus, the Spirit of adoption, who makes sons of God in Baptism. (4) This Spirit will only work by means of the water in the Fons, which is moved by the Angelus. Hence all those persons who have been baptised by others than Donatists must be rebaptised. (5) For the Fountain is signatus sigillo (Symboli), and all but Donatists are heretical. (6) And the Umbilicus (altar) must also belong to the true Angelus. On this pretext they scraped, broke down and even utterly destroyed Catholic altars (cf. vi, 1). Such is the argument that St. Optatus had to meet. He denied (on what seems to us to be a technicality only) that Umbilicus was one of these Endowments, but proceeded (2-9) to argue against Parmenian that the first five belonged to Catholics, and were marks of the Catholic Church exclusively, and in no way shared by the Donatists. In the first place, he takes Cathedra and Angelus together, and shows that the Donatists could have neither the one nor the other unless they were in union with the See of Peter. For the Cathedra Petri pre-eminently is the Cathedra.
29. 1 St. Cyprian was the first Father to use the term Cathedra (Chair). He applied it (as a word in common use at the time) to the See of Rome which he termed the Cathedra Petri. Parmenian, evidently, had claimed the Cathedra, stating that it belonged to him through the Angelus or Bishop (in other words ‘We have valid Orders, and therefore we are in the Church’). St. Optatus replies to this in the text by making direct appeal to Rome. No man can possess a Cathedra, argues Optatus, who is not in communion with the one Cathedra, which, in all but successive sentences, he calls ‘una Cathedra,’ ‘singularis Cathedra’ and ‘Cathedra unica.’ Balduinus, in the course of a long letter which he addressed to Calvin on the occasion of bringing out his first edition of Optatus, remarked as follows: ‘Locutus est, ut scis, Christus de iis, qui sedent in Cathedra Mosis; veteres Christiani de iis, qui in Petri.’…
32. 4 This is what we are now accustomed to call ‘Invincible Ignorance’ (cf. John ix, 40).
33. 5 Evidently St. Optatus had no fear that any objection should be taken to what he was about to urge, as to something new. On the contrary, it was well known and recognised by all. ‘You cannot deny that you do know.’
34. 6 Petro primo. This in answer to who it was who first sat on the Cathedra (quis?). The answer is Peter…
35. 7 in urbe Roma. This in answer to the question where was he the first to sit (ubi?). The answer is Rome…
37. 9 Evidently this is an instance of paronomasia or play upon words (Cephas from κεφαλή). It is so atrocious etymologically to derive an Aramaic from a Greek word that Balduinus thinks that Unde et Cephas appellatus est was not written by St. Optatus, but was introduced by some librarian from a marginal note of an ignorant commentator. But we must remember that neither Optatus nor any of the ancients knew anything of etymology. In vii, 3, St. Optatus simply calls St. Peter Caput Apostolorum, without any further comment.
38. 1 in qua unica Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur. This is the doctrine so often and so clearly expressed by St. Cyprian, cf. e.g. ‘Una ecclesia a Christo Domino nostro super Petrum, origine unitatis et ratione fundata‘ (Ep. lxx, 3), and ‘Petro primum Dominus, super quern aedificavit Ecclesiam, et unde unitatis originem instituit et ostendit, potestatem istam dedit’ (Ep. lxxiii, 3), and ‘Deus unus est et Christus unus, et una Ecclesia, et Cathedra una, super Petrum Domini voce fundata‘ (xliii, 5). We should always bear in mind that St. Cyprian was at this time the great authority in Christian Africa, not only in the eyes of Catholics, but also in those of Donatists. Thus St. Augustine writes (Brev. Coll. iii, 10): ‘Repetierunt Catholici testimonium Cypriani . . . Contra quod testimonium omnino nihil ausi fuerunt respondere, cum auctoritatem Cypriani tanti habeant, ut per illam conentur defendere, quod male de iterando Baptismo sentiunt et faciunt.’
39. 2 ne ceteri Apostoli singulas sibi quisque defenderent, ut iam scismaticus et peccator esset, qui contra singularem Cathedram alteram conlocaret. This perfectly plain doctrine of St. Optatus was never once challenged amongst Christians (the Albigenses were Manichees rather than Christians) until the days of Hus and Wycliffe, some nine hundred years later. We know that the work of St. Optatus was the great authority and handbook of St. Augustine in his arguments against the Donatists. He constantly echoes the teaching of St. Optatus, concerning the Chair of Peter, and, in his controversy with the Donatists, applied the famous promise ‘Upon this Rock I will build my Church’ to this Holy See. ‘Sedes Petri . . . ipsa est Petra’ (Ps. con. Donat. St. xiv). Dr. Sparrow Simpson, however, writes as follows with reference to this passage of St. Optatus: ‘Optatus illustrates this succession from the case of Rome, because St. Peter as the chief Apostle, represents the principle of unity. No Apostle was to arrogate to himself the Apostolic powers in separation from the other Apostles‘ (St. Augustine and African Church Divisions, Chapter on St. Optatus’ Reply to the Donatists, p. 45). Unfortunately for Dr. Sparrow Simpson’s accuracy, St. Optatus has not (either here or elsewhere) written one syllable about ‘no Apostle’ separating from ‘the other Apostles.’ He has, however, explained (vii, 3) that the Apostles were not free, on account of Peter’s denial of Christ, to separate from the one Apostle ‘who alone received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to be shared with the rest.’ He has also written with all possible emphasis concerning the unlawfulness of separating from the Cathedra Petri, which he here calls ‘the unique Cathedra.’ Of all this, we regret to say that Dr. Sparrow Simpson gives not even a hint in his in some respects useful analysis of the argument of Optatus…
41. 2 St. Augustine copied this list of Popes given by St. Optatus. Yet it is incomplete and in one case inaccurate. The name Alexander should come after Evaristus, Eutychian and Gaius should come after Felix, Marcellus (probably) after Marcellinus, and where Optatus places Alexander (after Soter), he should have placed Eleutherius. It may also be mentioned that in the list given by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. iii, 3) Pius precedes Anacetus.
42. 1 In the first edition of St. Optatus written about 370 a.d. the list of Popes ended with Damasus. The name of Siricius who became Pope in 383 was added in the second edition (cf. Preface to Book VII)…
46. 5 Dr. Darwell Stone (The Christian Church, p. 143) quotes this passage, but translates Cathedra ‘Episcopal See.’ This is to miss the point. There is no question here of the origin of the Donatist See at Carthage, or as to whether that See was rightly claimed by Caecilian and Restitutus (the Catholic Bishops) on the one hand, or by Majorinus and Parmenian (the Donatists) on the other—-a matter which has already been discussed in i, 10. The present question is what have the Donatists to set against the Unica ac singularis Cathedra Petri. To this Optatus replies in the next sentence (we must remember that he knew nothing of the present division into chapters) by suggesting that they might allege their Bishops of Rome. ‘But you allege, etc’ St. Optatus is engaged exclusively with the See of Rome in the present chapters ii to vi, from the time, that is, when he begins, until he ceases, to deal with the Cathedra as an Endowment of the Church…
48. 7 Harnack points out that Donatists realised so clearly the necessity of communion with the See of Peter, that in the early days of their schism they established a line of Anti-Popes, consecrating a Bishop for the purpose and sending him to Rome, to preside over their handful of adherents in the City. He writes as follows: ‘The connection with Peter’s Chair was of decisive importance, not only for Optatus, but also for his opponent, who had appealed to the fact that the Donatists had also a Bishop in Rome‘ (Harnack, History of Dogma, v, 155).
49. 1 The Donatist Bishop in Rome at the time. When later on in this chapter St. Optatus comes to give the list of the Donatist Anti-Popes, he evidently added in his second edition the names of Lucian and Claudian, at the same time that he added the name of Siricius to that of the Popes. (See Preface, p. xxii.)
50. 2 ad cuius Memoriam non accedit. Albaspinaeus translates Relics. But Memoria is a chapel or church built over the body of a Saint. Here it refers to the Basilica built by Constantine and destroyed in the sixteenth century, where Macrobius could naturally not say Mass. Over the body of St. Paul a small Basilica was erected by Constantine. The great church, burnt in 1826, was built in the fifth century, later than St. Optatus (cf. Condi. Carthag. 14: ‘altaria, quae . . . tanquam Memoriae martyrum constituuntur ‘).
51. 3 Memoriis Sanctorum communicantes. The reference is to Romans xii, 13. It is quite unintelligible to us until we learn that some ancient MSS. had ταῖς μνείαις instead of ταῖς χρείαις.The reading μνείαιςis in the Acts of Pionius (second or third century) and in the bilingual codices D and G; it was therefore the Western and Old Latin reading. It is used, amongst others, by St. Hilary, Ambrosiaster, St. Peter Chrysologus and St. Gregory the Great, who writes (De Verbis Domini exxxvii. 3, 7, last chapter): ‘Communicatio Memoriis sanctorum martyrum.’ Both readings were known to Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Jerome, Rufinus, Augustine and Pelagius. So we see that in following this reading St. Optatus does not stand alone. There is, however, little, if any, doubt that St. Paul really wrote ταῖς χρείαις…
53. 2 toti Africani. For toti = omnes cf. ii, 5: ‘digiti, quos . . totos ‘; vii, 1: ‘libri legis dominicae toti ubique recitantur.’ Pope Miltiades was an African. The emphasis, therefore, is on the toti…
59. 6 ubi sederet, i.e. on whose Chair (Cathedra) he sat.
60. 7 illic fuisse, i.e. on his Chair.
61. 8 St. Optatus will soon make great play with this Cathedra Pestilentiae (Ps. i, 1), which he declares to belong to the Donatists.
The Chair of Pestilence is ranged by him against the Chair of Peter. For ‘Cathedra Pestilentiae’ we may compare St. Ambrose (comm. in cap. xxiii Matthaei): ‘Quod autem ait super Cathedram Moysis . . . per Cathedram legis doctrinam ostendit. Ergo et illud quod dicitur in Psalmo “In Cathedra Pestilentiae non sedit,” . . . doctrinam debemus accipere.’
62. 1 Principem scilicet nostrum, in contrast to Victor, who was the first ‘Mountaineer’ Bishop of Rome, or perhaps to the originators of the Schism, with whom Optatus often taunts the Donatists as being their Principes…
64. 3 Unde est ergo, quod claves regni coelorum vobis usurpare contenditis, qui contra Cathedram Petri vestris praesumptionibus et audaci sacrilegio militatis? (Rvb have audaciis). It may well be noted that Optatus accused the Donatists of ‘audacious sacrilege’ (audax sacrilegium) in ‘warring against’ the Chair of Peter. Their ‘warring’ consisted, according to Optatus, in claiming the keys argumentatively for themselves—-thus justifying themselves in remaining out of communion with the Holy See—-and in ignoring the Judgement of Pope Miltiades. Cf. i, 24, 25. Mr. Denny (Papalism, n. 873) quotes this passage, but translates usurpare ‘obtain,’ and omits altogether vestris praesumptionibus et audaci sacrilegio. (For praesumptionibus cf. i, 7: ‘de inconsideratis praesumptionibus et erroribus vestris’; v, 4: ‘quod praescribas praesumptionibus vestris’; vii.. 1: ‘praesumptiones vestrae.’)
No comments:
Post a Comment