During the Ubi Petrus (Denny
Sallen)/Ybarra debate on the papacy from 2024, Ybarra, during his opening
statement, referred to the work of Vasily Bolotov. Ybarra quoted Bolotov
to the effect that
All the Roman prerogatives of
supremacy are to be found exactly as they have been defined by the Council of
the Vatican.
He provided Sallen with the following reference:
Vasily Bolotov, Lektissi po
Isotorii drvnei Tserkvi, vol. 3, ed. A. Brilliantov (St. Petersburg, Russia
1913), 281-85
I think I found it on a Russian Website. I am providing a
fuller reference (translated from the Russian; emphasis in bold added):
All these unfinished thoughts and
expressions about the primacy of the bishop of Rome finally find fulfillment in
the remarkably clear, powerfully expressed, and complete system of the first
doctor ecclesiae on the Roman see, Leo the Great (440–461). He expounded this
teaching primarily in his sermons, delivered on the day of his consecration
before the assembly of Italian bishops. Some passages are repeated literally in
these words. Here are the main points of this teaching.
1. Apostle Peter a)
is the princeps of the entire order of apostles, surpassing all others in
authority (while there was equality of honor and election—par electio, in
similitudine honoris—among the apostles there was also a quaedam discretio
potestatis (a certain difference in authority)). The danger of falling
threatened all the apostles, but Christ especially, proprie, speciali cura
(with special care), prays for Peter: may the princeps apostolorum remain
steadfast—and the steadfastness of others is assured in his steadfastness. b)
Apostle Peter is the foundation of the entire Church. He himself rests on the
indestructible strength of the one foundation, Christ, but this steadfastness,
inherent in Christ propria potestate (by his own authority), is imparted to
Peter participatione (by participation). Peter is received into the closest
communion of inseparable unity with Christ—in consortium individuae unitatis
assumptus—and represents the mediator between Christ and the entire Church.
Linked to the latter as a head to a body, he concentrates within himself the
gifts of grace, which only through him descend upon the apostles themselves.
The fullness of grace and authority is abundantly communicated first and
foremost to Peter, and through him, as head, it flows organically, manat, to
the entire body of the Church. Thus, Peter is totius ecclesiae princeps , primus
of all bishops. He is entrusted with the care of all the sheep; upon him are
entrusted the concerns, sollicitudo, of all the pastors of the Church.
"Everything," says
Sermo IV, "earth and heaven, was submissive to the incarnate Word;
everything served the purposes of the divine dispensation. Yet, from the entire
world, Peter alone is chosen and placed above all the apostles and all the
fathers of the church. The Lord asks all the apostles what people think of Him,
and only so far do they collectively respond, conveying the wavering opinions
of human ignorance. But as soon as the disciples themselves are asked what they
think, the one who was first in apostolic dignity emerges first in confessing
the Lord." And when he said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the
living God," Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah,
for blessed are you, because My Father has taught you that I am His only
begotten Son. And as My Father has revealed My divinity to you, so I also
confess to you your superiority. You are Peter. That is, I am the immovable
rock, I am the cornerstone that makes both one, I am the foundation besides
which no one can lay another. Yet you too are a rock, because you are
established by My power, so that what is proper to Me by virtue of My authority
is shared with you by Me. And upon this rock I will build an eternal temple,
and the height of My church, ascending to heaven, will be erected on the
firmness of this faith." Thus, "as a reward for his faith, the Lord
granted to the most blessed Apostle. Peter received the primacy of apostolic
dignity, building the universal church on this firm foundation, on Peter's
steadfastness. Consequently, there was not complete equality among the
apostles: "And among the most blessed apostles, despite the similarity of
honor, there was some difference in authority, and although the election of all
was equal, nevertheless, one was granted preeminence over the others."
Peter is the prince of the apostles, their head and center, in whom the
spiritual interests and privileges of their council are organically
concentrated, and the mysterious mediator between Christ and them. All the
apostles faced the common danger of temptation and seduction before Christ's
suffering. "And yet the Lord is especially concerned for Peter, and
actually prays for his faith, as if demonstrating that the position of the
others will be safer if the mind of (their) prince remains unshaken. Thus, in
the person of Peter, the steadfastness of all is protected, and the assistance
of divine grace is distributed so that the strength that Christ bestows upon
Peter is communicated through Peter to the apostles." To this end, received
into the communion of inseparable unity with Christ, Peter was favored in a
special way: he alone received much, and nothing is imparted to anyone else
except through communion with him. In him, as the supreme apostle, are
concentrated, above all, the rights and duties of the apostleship common to all
the apostles, and from him, as head, these gifts flow to the entire body. Peter
is the organic center of the priesthood and pastorate. "The Lord has
honored him with such communion in His authority that if Peter has anything in
common with other leaders of the church, He gives to these latter only through
Peter himself what is not denied them." "He is the prince of the
whole church,and to him belongs the care of all the shepherds for the sheep
entrusted to him, so that, although among the people of God there are many
priests and many shepherds, yet in the proper sense Peter rules over them all,
just as Christ in the primary sense rules over them.”
2. All other pastors
of the Church, the apostles and priests, received their authority from Christ
Himself. He is its source. Consequently, they are not delegates of the supreme
apostle. But a) all the gifts and prerogatives of the apostleship, priesthood,
and pastorate were given fully and primarily to Peter and through him, and only
through his mediation, are conferred by Christ and all the other apostles and
pastors; b) Although there are many priests and many pastors among the people
of God, the entire universal Church is governed principaliter by Christ Himself
and proprietor by Peter. On these points, the jus proprium episcopatus (the
proper right of the episcopacy) approaches the jus delegatum (delegated right)
(not in principle, but de facto).
3. Primatus,
principatus an. Peter's office is not temporary, but permanent, because the
truth of his confession is eternal: "You are the Christ, the Son of the
living God." And just as Christ is the Son of God forever, so Peter,
having taken the reins of the Church, does not abandon them. Invisibly ,
beyond any doubt, he still personally shepherds the flock of Christ, and now
even more fully fulfills what has been entrusted to him and fulfills his duties
comprehensively in Christ Himself and with Christ Himself, who glorified him.
And visibly, he shepherds the Church through his successors in
the Roman See, where his power resides and his authority shines.
4. The communion of
the Roman bishops with the chief apostle is very close – both in depth and in
results – to the consortium potentiae Peter with Christ, a) in depth,
because this communion is almost personal: the Roman Church, in the person of the
new bishop, receives Peter on the Peter's See; moral dignity does not diminish
in the apostle's successors, despite their personal moral shortcomings; Peter
speaks through the lips of his successors, b) in results, because the gracious
power bestowed upon Peter through this consortium se transfundit spills
over onto his successors: they are the heirs of his plenitudo potestatis
Not alongside others, but before all other bishops, they succeed Peter. The
Roman See is the spiritual center of the entire Christian world. While other
bishops are obliged to care only for the flocks entrusted to them, the
successor of Peter is required to have that all-embracing love to which the
entire universal church is entrusted, and “cura cum omnibus communis”, and there
is no church unit in whose governance he would not take part.
Thus, Leo the Great envisioned a
universal church, governed in parts by bishops, consolidated by metropolitans,
and, through the vicars of the apostolic throne, brought into contact with its
center and united within it. The entire ecclesiastical structure is a
reflection of the relationships that existed among the apostles. Just as there
was equality of election but no equality of power, so too the bishops are equal
in hierarchical dignity, but not in their canonical rights, nor in their
participation in church governance. Among them are metropolitans, whose
jurisdiction is limited to a particular province. Above them rise those whom
the Bishop of Rome appointed as his vicars, calling them to participate in the
labors of church governance, albeit without full authority. They are to act as
intermediaries in the provinces' relations with the single center of the
universal church, the See of Peter, where the successor of the chief apostle,
vested with plenitudo potestatis, sits. The care of all churches belongs to the
Bishop of Rome, principaliter ex divina institutione. However, Leo the
Great also recognizes metropolitan authority as "divinitus
datum," and only the papal vicars possess their authority in the
strict sense of jure delegate. The episcopatus universalis of the Roman
pontiff, outlined by Leo the Great, does not exclude the hierarchical
(sacramental) equality of all bishops; only the latter do not possess plenitudo
potestatis.
From this theory Leo the Great
drew the following practical consequences (against Hilary of Arles):
1) Since the entire church is
founded on the firmness of Peter, then he who moves away from this stronghold
places himself outside the mysterious body of Christ – the church.
2) He who encroaches on the
authority of the Roman bishop and refuses to obey the apostolic throne does not
want to obey the blessed apostle Peter.
3) He who rejects the authority
and primacy, principatum an. of Peter, cannot in the least diminish its
dignity, but, puffed up with a spirit of pride, casts himself down to hell.
At the same time, Valentinian III
(July 8, 445), under the influence of Leo the Great, wrote to Gaul: "Let
no one attempt anything not authorized by this See, and let what the authority
of the Apostolic See has decreed be law for all. A bishop summoned to Rome must
be compelled to appear by the civil authority. For only then is universal
ecclesiastical peace possible when the entire universe recognizes its ruler...
And is there anything in ecclesiastical matters that exceeds the authority of
such a pontiff?"
The expressions of other Roman
bishops pale in comparison with this developed system and only from it receive
full illumination.
Even if the idea of the
infallibility of the Bishop of Rome was beyond Leo the Great's comprehension,
all the prerogatives later confirmed at the Vatican Council had already been
granted on a legal basis. A trial of the Bishop of Rome was unnecessary:
even if he had shortcomings, they were atoned for and covered by the virtues of
Peter, who held the See of Rome as Bishop. Thus, it is assumed that the Bishop
of Rome should be free of serious sins. It would be quite interesting to know
how Leo the Great viewed his predecessors, some of whom even renounced the true
faith, but Leo the Great does not comment on this. Leo's speeches on the day of
his consecration must have been all the more significant because bishops from
regions near Rome came there to offer their congratulations to the Pope. Later
documents indicate that it was even considered improper for bishops not to be
in Rome on the anniversary of a pope's consecration. Pope Gregory the
Great even wrote letters of dismissal to some bishops. Therefore, Leo the
Great spoke with careful consideration. If some of his expressions lack the
desired clarity, it must be remembered that the Church at that time was still
living in the forms of classical education, and Leo the Great was a distant
successor to Cicero and Julius Caesar. A distinctive feature of this education
is the aesthetic quality of language. The mathematical and logical nature of
our exposition was inappropriate for the concepts of that time. We use the same
term throughout our speech for the sake of precision, and any addition is an
attempt to change its meaning. The Pope, however, varied words for aesthetic
purposes and to avoid repetition. Leo the Great expressed the position that all
the apostles received supreme authority from Jesus Christ, but received it
through the Apostle Peter as their head. The Pope analogizes his relationship
with other bishops to that of the Apostle Peter, but this is unclear. We await
the Pope's answer to the question: are the powers of other bishops transmitted
to them through the Bishop of Rome or not? The Pope did not answer, and this
would have been very important. Subjects receive their powers from the
sovereign and lose them upon his death; the successor must restore them. The
legate enjoyed the pope's powers only during his lifetime, and after his death,
he had to await new powers. If all powers were received through the living
pope, how can we explain the state of the church after the pope's death? All
these questions, so essential for us, did not arise for Leo's contemporaries,
or did so less insistently.
Enough has been said to survey
the breadth of the conclusions drawn from Leo the Great's views. If Peter's
powers are exceptional, then the popes necessarily have plenitudo potestatis
not only over the West but also over the East. History must determine the
extent to which this necessity was recognized and implemented. (Vasily Bolotov,
Lektisii
po Istorii drvnei Tserkvi [St. Petersburg, Russia: 1913], volume 3)
Ubi Petrus, btw, has an excellent two-part review of the
debate on his “members only”
section of his youtube channel. I would strongly recommend subscribing, even for
just one month, and watching both to see the quote-mining Ybarra engaged in
during that debate. It was truly eye-opening.
