What do you think?
Rate this book
The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451
Adrian Fortescue, a British apologist for the Catholic faith in the early part of the 20th century, wrote this classic of clear exposition on the faith of the early Church in the papacy based upon the writings of the Church fathers until 451. No ultramontanist, Fortescue can be a keen critic of personal failings of various Popes, but he shows through his brilliant assessment of the writings of the Church fathers that the early Church had a clear understanding of the primacy of Peter and a belief in the divinely given authority of the Pope in matters of faith and morals.
Referring to the famous passage in Matthew 16:18 where Jesus confers his authority upon Peter as the head of the Apostles, and the first Pope, Fortescue says that, while Christians can continue to argue about the exact meaning of that passage from Scripture, and the various standards that are used for judgments about correct Christian teaching and belief, "the only possible real standard is a living authority, an authority alive in the world at this moment, that can answer your difficulties, reject a false theory as it arises and say who is right in disputed interpretations of ancient documents."
Fortescue shows that the papacy actually seems to be one of the clearest and easiest dogmas to prove from the early Church. And it is his hope through this work that it will contribute to a ressourcement with regard to the office of the papacy among those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and that it will assist those outside this communion to seek it out, confident that it is willed by Christ for all who would be joined to him in this life and in the next.
Referring to the famous passage in Matthew 16:18 where Jesus confers his authority upon Peter as the head of the Apostles, and the first Pope, Fortescue says that, while Christians can continue to argue about the exact meaning of that passage from Scripture, and the various standards that are used for judgments about correct Christian teaching and belief, "the only possible real standard is a living authority, an authority alive in the world at this moment, that can answer your difficulties, reject a false theory as it arises and say who is right in disputed interpretations of ancient documents."
Fortescue shows that the papacy actually seems to be one of the clearest and easiest dogmas to prove from the early Church. And it is his hope through this work that it will contribute to a ressourcement with regard to the office of the papacy among those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and that it will assist those outside this communion to seek it out, confident that it is willed by Christ for all who would be joined to him in this life and in the next.
121 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1920
10 people are currently reading
205 people want to read
About the author
Adrian Fortescue
78 books9 followersAdrian Henry Timothy Knottesford Fortescue was an English Catholic priest and polymath. An influential liturgist, artist, calligrapher, composer, polyglot, amateur photographer, Byzantine scholar, and adventurer, he was also the founder of the Church of St Hugh of Lincoln in Letchworth.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
November 22, 2025
I would recommend this book to anyone looking for a succinct historical case for the papacy in the early church pre-451. It was written by Adrian Fortescue, a British Anglican-turned-Catholic writing after the destruction of WW1. The introduction talks about a short-lived ecumenical movement following WW1, where many Europeans lamented that soldiers hesitated to say their prayers together in the trenches. It is a sobering reminder that even in our age of relativism and ecumenicism, the lack of unity in the church is a scandal.
What is it, then, that brings unity into the church? Fortescue's case is that being in communion with the Bishop of Rome in the visible church is the only key (pun intended) and guarantor to that unity. The Fathers speak about the Bishop of Rome as being the "final court of appeal," such as St. Basil, an eastern Father, who finds recourse in the pope during divisions caused by heresy: "Our only hope is in a visitation from Your Clemency (the pope), you will bring union to the Churches of God" (Basil the Great, 371 A.D.) Fortescue cites over 50 examples of this type of appeal in the early church pre-451 in both the east and west.
This point is obviously debatable, but I found it theologically interesting that Fortescue derives papal infallibility as a logical consequence from the church's universal consensus on the pope as guarantor of unity through his primacy. He says,
"Understood so, papal infallibility is so obvious a consequence of the primacy that it would seem hardly worth special definition, were it not that some people about 1870 were not yet clear on the point. Put together three ideas: first, that the pope is the last court of appeal in matters of faith no less than in those of discipline; second, that the decisions of the final court must be accepted as final; and third, that God cannot allow his whole Church to fall into error--and you have the whole of papal infallibility at once." (p. 48)
The fathers pre-451 overwhelmingly speak of the church as infallible (ex. Augustine says "unless the Lord dwelt in the Church she would fall into error, but this is not so, for she is the Holy Temple of God" Aug. Ps. 9.12).
Basically, if the Church is infallible as the early church universally believed in the ecumenical councils, then logically the center of that unity--the Bishop of Rome--must be infallible through the providence of God.
What is it, then, that brings unity into the church? Fortescue's case is that being in communion with the Bishop of Rome in the visible church is the only key (pun intended) and guarantor to that unity. The Fathers speak about the Bishop of Rome as being the "final court of appeal," such as St. Basil, an eastern Father, who finds recourse in the pope during divisions caused by heresy: "Our only hope is in a visitation from Your Clemency (the pope), you will bring union to the Churches of God" (Basil the Great, 371 A.D.) Fortescue cites over 50 examples of this type of appeal in the early church pre-451 in both the east and west.
This point is obviously debatable, but I found it theologically interesting that Fortescue derives papal infallibility as a logical consequence from the church's universal consensus on the pope as guarantor of unity through his primacy. He says,
"Understood so, papal infallibility is so obvious a consequence of the primacy that it would seem hardly worth special definition, were it not that some people about 1870 were not yet clear on the point. Put together three ideas: first, that the pope is the last court of appeal in matters of faith no less than in those of discipline; second, that the decisions of the final court must be accepted as final; and third, that God cannot allow his whole Church to fall into error--and you have the whole of papal infallibility at once." (p. 48)
The fathers pre-451 overwhelmingly speak of the church as infallible (ex. Augustine says "unless the Lord dwelt in the Church she would fall into error, but this is not so, for she is the Holy Temple of God" Aug. Ps. 9.12).
Basically, if the Church is infallible as the early church universally believed in the ecumenical councils, then logically the center of that unity--the Bishop of Rome--must be infallible through the providence of God.
January 29, 2022
An excellent book that first defines the role and powers of the papacy, followed by proving that the same papacy we have today was practiced in the first 500 years of the Church. A great primer for the subject, and the average Catholic will find that the boundaries of the pope’s responsibility will be explained to them, perhaps for the first time.
June 8, 2022
Although written in response to Anglican controversy post-WW1, this work by Fr. Adrian Fortescue is an excellent support and testimony against arguments Eastern schismatics, learned protestants, and others who attack the Papacy on the grounds that it was not recognized in the early Church. Proof of antiquity is not the primary reason why a Catholic believes in the Papacy - faith in and submission to the authority of the Church is. Neither is it as sure and effective, as one can always argue their own interpretation of historical documents by any criterion that suits their fancy. Even so, it is another welcome confirmation of the truth of Catholic doctrine.
My favorite part was the chapter on the universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome. It is the doctrine that is the most overlooked as the keystone of all the modern confusion surrounding the Papacy, and in my opinion illuminates the simplicity of the more controversial doctrine of Infallibility. It is also the Petrine doctrine that has the most and clearest textual and historical evidence of proof, the most famous being St. Clement's first letter to the Corinthians.
In summary, I highly recommend this book to those who want a greater confidence in the antiquity of the Catholic doctrines relating to the successor of St. Peter. It is short, focused, and well written. For those wanting in faith because of the current crisis of Rome I find that the best course of action is devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, especially by saying the Rosary daily. Our Lady promised that those faithful to the Rosary would be protected from heresy.
St. Peter, pray for us.
My favorite part was the chapter on the universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome. It is the doctrine that is the most overlooked as the keystone of all the modern confusion surrounding the Papacy, and in my opinion illuminates the simplicity of the more controversial doctrine of Infallibility. It is also the Petrine doctrine that has the most and clearest textual and historical evidence of proof, the most famous being St. Clement's first letter to the Corinthians.
In summary, I highly recommend this book to those who want a greater confidence in the antiquity of the Catholic doctrines relating to the successor of St. Peter. It is short, focused, and well written. For those wanting in faith because of the current crisis of Rome I find that the best course of action is devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, especially by saying the Rosary daily. Our Lady promised that those faithful to the Rosary would be protected from heresy.
St. Peter, pray for us.
February 20, 2011
"[T]he papacy seems one of the clearest and easiest dogmas to prove from [the] early Church." This is the thesis Fr. Fortescue sets out to establish by looking at sources from the early Church from Christ to 451, the Synod of Chalcedon. He culls together sources that establish his thesis. He makes a persuasive, albeit polemical argument (this is likely a function of the time he was writing (1920)). I recommend this book for a good basic read of some of the early sources establishing papal primacy.
July 19, 2025
This is my 4th or 5th time reading this short book. Of all the apologetics and church history books I’ve read, this one has had the most concrete influence on my choice to become Roman Catholic.
Adrian Fortesque’s main goal here is to show how the papal doctrine of Vatican I is clearly found in the first 400 years of Christian history. Specifically he attempts to prove that “(1) The Pope is the chief bishop, primate, and leader of the while Church of Christ on earth; (2) He has episcopal jurisdiction over all the members of the Church; (3) To be a member of the Catholic Church, a man must be in communion with the Pope; (4) the providential guidance of God will see to it that the Pope shall never commit the Church to error in any matter of religion” (pg 39). While this 120 page book is far from exhaustive, it clearly lays out the major historical data and gives a Roman Catholic interpretation of that data.
Fortesque distills a lot of patristic references into this fantastically succinct work without being reductive, and the footnotes do a good job addressing alternative positions or philological controversies. Readers should approach this type of history with a bit of caution, as it’s fairly easy for anybody to select a string of quotations that support their position. That said, the quotations that Fortesque brings up are well known and are always discussed in dialogues about the early papacy; he is addressing the most obvious and popular evidence, not quote-mining to support an untenable position. Anybody interested in studying the formation of the papacy (or at least, the RC belief in it) would do well to start with this book.
Adrian Fortesque’s main goal here is to show how the papal doctrine of Vatican I is clearly found in the first 400 years of Christian history. Specifically he attempts to prove that “(1) The Pope is the chief bishop, primate, and leader of the while Church of Christ on earth; (2) He has episcopal jurisdiction over all the members of the Church; (3) To be a member of the Catholic Church, a man must be in communion with the Pope; (4) the providential guidance of God will see to it that the Pope shall never commit the Church to error in any matter of religion” (pg 39). While this 120 page book is far from exhaustive, it clearly lays out the major historical data and gives a Roman Catholic interpretation of that data.
Fortesque distills a lot of patristic references into this fantastically succinct work without being reductive, and the footnotes do a good job addressing alternative positions or philological controversies. Readers should approach this type of history with a bit of caution, as it’s fairly easy for anybody to select a string of quotations that support their position. That said, the quotations that Fortesque brings up are well known and are always discussed in dialogues about the early papacy; he is addressing the most obvious and popular evidence, not quote-mining to support an untenable position. Anybody interested in studying the formation of the papacy (or at least, the RC belief in it) would do well to start with this book.
April 14, 2015
This book was a fascinating read. Fortescue wrote this book shortly after WWI, when man was horrified by his own capabilities. He was responding to those who were saying what the Cathlolic Church would need to give up if we were going to have a reunited Christianity. Much like today, the central focus was the Papacy.
Most critics cite the Council of Chalcedon as being the "beginning" of the Popes. Not so, teaches the Catholic Church, and Fortescue aims to prove it. But first, he makes a few points worth quoting (note that he does not mince words, and is quite rude at times).
"All these methods of taking some early documents, whether the Bible or the Fathers, and using them as your standard, mean simply a riot of private judgment on each point of religion"-page 22
"The only possible standard is a living authority, an authority alive in the world at this moment, that can answer your difficulties,reject a false theory as it arises, and say who is right in disputed interpretations of ancient documents"-page 22
"But there is also another kind of argument for each dogma, taking each separately and proving that this was taught by Christ and has been believed from the beginning. This line of argument is neither convincing nor safe. It does now involve our private judgment as to whether the ancient texts do, or do not really prove what we claim. It requires knowledge of the texts, of dead languages; to be efficient it requires considerable scholarship. It is impossible that our Lord should give us a religion requiring all this before you know what it is."- page 27
Quotes taken out of context are dangerous because one can always skew the intended meaning,but what is being driven is the important point that we know a dogma is true because the Church teaches it, we are still responsible for inquiring about the details and effects of these, but remember that the answer is already known. This is not a condemnation of freedom to think, it is more of a map to truth, in a way.
Fortescue then goes on to show how the documents of pre-Chalcedon writers defend the authority, jurisdiction, and infallibility when teaching. His job his decent, he quotes, cites, and explains. Some questions are left alone, mostly since the intended audience is Mainline Protestants, he does not investigate the split of communions, it helps that this was post Chalcedon, so it is understandably ignored, though Eastern writers are quoted at times.
To summarize, if you would like a decent argument as to the historicity of the Pope, rather than an apology of the crimes of those in the chair, this is worth reading and discussing with others.
Most critics cite the Council of Chalcedon as being the "beginning" of the Popes. Not so, teaches the Catholic Church, and Fortescue aims to prove it. But first, he makes a few points worth quoting (note that he does not mince words, and is quite rude at times).
"All these methods of taking some early documents, whether the Bible or the Fathers, and using them as your standard, mean simply a riot of private judgment on each point of religion"-page 22
"The only possible standard is a living authority, an authority alive in the world at this moment, that can answer your difficulties,reject a false theory as it arises, and say who is right in disputed interpretations of ancient documents"-page 22
"But there is also another kind of argument for each dogma, taking each separately and proving that this was taught by Christ and has been believed from the beginning. This line of argument is neither convincing nor safe. It does now involve our private judgment as to whether the ancient texts do, or do not really prove what we claim. It requires knowledge of the texts, of dead languages; to be efficient it requires considerable scholarship. It is impossible that our Lord should give us a religion requiring all this before you know what it is."- page 27
Quotes taken out of context are dangerous because one can always skew the intended meaning,but what is being driven is the important point that we know a dogma is true because the Church teaches it, we are still responsible for inquiring about the details and effects of these, but remember that the answer is already known. This is not a condemnation of freedom to think, it is more of a map to truth, in a way.
Fortescue then goes on to show how the documents of pre-Chalcedon writers defend the authority, jurisdiction, and infallibility when teaching. His job his decent, he quotes, cites, and explains. Some questions are left alone, mostly since the intended audience is Mainline Protestants, he does not investigate the split of communions, it helps that this was post Chalcedon, so it is understandably ignored, though Eastern writers are quoted at times.
To summarize, if you would like a decent argument as to the historicity of the Pope, rather than an apology of the crimes of those in the chair, this is worth reading and discussing with others.
March 6, 2022
Very well organised and thorough. Adrian Fortescue does a very good job at bringing together the historical sources and arguments for the Catholic Papacy. The footnotes were not too dense and always added important info that was not around when Fortescue was writing.
May 14, 2012
Worth reading if you are interested in a historical apologetic for the papacy.
March 17, 2020
I wish I hadn't read this book, because it convinced me to stay Catholic instead of converting to Orthodoxy. Consider yourself warned.
March 1, 2026
This book does a great job of explaining precisely what the Papacy is, and how it works, before diving into the early sources which, from the Catholic view, prove the Papacy has always functioned the way that it does today.
A key point that is made is that what powers the Pope explicitly claims today were always implicitly held since the beginning, and that the need for explicit claims is always driven by claims which threaten the truth of faith. A non-papal example of this very reality is the dogma of the Trinity, which was implicitly held prior to the Council of Nicaea in 325, and then held explicitly afterwards.
In regards to the book itself, it is credited with honestly presenting and interpreting the early sources and quotations from the Church Fathers, but with a Catholic synthesis. In other words, there is no foul play here.
The difficulty is that the Orthodox Church can point to the same primary sources, be just as honest and charitable, and yet still come to a different conclusion on the Papacy (specifically, that the early Church was always counciliar.) That is why there remains a Schism, so I guess it depends which side your more partial to?
I wish this book weren't so directed at Anglicans as it could've been toward the Orthodox Church, because it would help me much more in deciding which of the Apostolic Churches represents the fullness. However, that is a personal critique, and doesn't take away from the experience of the book.
I think the biggest thinks that stuck out to me in the sea of quotations from primary sources, was the first century story of Clement of Rome's letter to the Corinthians. Essentially, the church in Corinth (modern day Greece) had rebelled against their presbyters (bishops and priests) and cast them out. Clement, writing to them from the other side of the known world, intervened in the affair and commanded the Corinthians to reinstate their presbyters or face judgement. The Corinthians conceded to Rome's wishes out of respect for Rome's reputation for preserving the Truth and for their prestige as the church founded by Peter and Paul. What's interesting here is that Rome intervened in the affairs of a church that was otherwise not within their jurisdiction, and that church conceded without resistance. Further, this is such an early example that St. John was still alive at the time.
The second thing that stood out to me most was that Rome undoubtedly served as the "final court of appeal" in the Church, and the author is very careful to explain that this justifies the perceived "later development of Papal Infallibility" as having always been implicit. Given that the Church Christ founded is "the pillar and beacon of truth", we can clearly understand that the Church is infallible. And if the Pope serves as the final word on issues of faith and morals, then it would logically hold that the Pope must be infallible in order to keep the Church from falling into error, which would thus invalidate the promises of Christ. Of course, Papal Infallibility is not rooted in the Pope himself, but in God's sovereignty. Put simply, God will not allow a series of events that would cause the Church, and the Pope by extension, to err in matters of faith and morals.
Overall, this book makes a great case for Catholicism, and I look forward to reading John Meyendorff's "The Primacy of Peter" which is often considered the Orthodox counter-argument to this book by Fortescue. Also, I appreciate how brief this book is, I finished it in about 5 days.
A key point that is made is that what powers the Pope explicitly claims today were always implicitly held since the beginning, and that the need for explicit claims is always driven by claims which threaten the truth of faith. A non-papal example of this very reality is the dogma of the Trinity, which was implicitly held prior to the Council of Nicaea in 325, and then held explicitly afterwards.
In regards to the book itself, it is credited with honestly presenting and interpreting the early sources and quotations from the Church Fathers, but with a Catholic synthesis. In other words, there is no foul play here.
The difficulty is that the Orthodox Church can point to the same primary sources, be just as honest and charitable, and yet still come to a different conclusion on the Papacy (specifically, that the early Church was always counciliar.) That is why there remains a Schism, so I guess it depends which side your more partial to?
I wish this book weren't so directed at Anglicans as it could've been toward the Orthodox Church, because it would help me much more in deciding which of the Apostolic Churches represents the fullness. However, that is a personal critique, and doesn't take away from the experience of the book.
I think the biggest thinks that stuck out to me in the sea of quotations from primary sources, was the first century story of Clement of Rome's letter to the Corinthians. Essentially, the church in Corinth (modern day Greece) had rebelled against their presbyters (bishops and priests) and cast them out. Clement, writing to them from the other side of the known world, intervened in the affair and commanded the Corinthians to reinstate their presbyters or face judgement. The Corinthians conceded to Rome's wishes out of respect for Rome's reputation for preserving the Truth and for their prestige as the church founded by Peter and Paul. What's interesting here is that Rome intervened in the affairs of a church that was otherwise not within their jurisdiction, and that church conceded without resistance. Further, this is such an early example that St. John was still alive at the time.
The second thing that stood out to me most was that Rome undoubtedly served as the "final court of appeal" in the Church, and the author is very careful to explain that this justifies the perceived "later development of Papal Infallibility" as having always been implicit. Given that the Church Christ founded is "the pillar and beacon of truth", we can clearly understand that the Church is infallible. And if the Pope serves as the final word on issues of faith and morals, then it would logically hold that the Pope must be infallible in order to keep the Church from falling into error, which would thus invalidate the promises of Christ. Of course, Papal Infallibility is not rooted in the Pope himself, but in God's sovereignty. Put simply, God will not allow a series of events that would cause the Church, and the Pope by extension, to err in matters of faith and morals.
Overall, this book makes a great case for Catholicism, and I look forward to reading John Meyendorff's "The Primacy of Peter" which is often considered the Orthodox counter-argument to this book by Fortescue. Also, I appreciate how brief this book is, I finished it in about 5 days.
February 10, 2018
Extremely logical thesis on the earliest years of the Catholic Church until the year 451 A.D.
This book has helped me view, understand, appreciate, and realize the magnitude of Apostolic succession.
Brilliant writer and one who objectively approaches a topic which is normally filled with emotion, personal baggage, and selfish desires.
He shows that logic can tell us a tremendous amount about the earliest moments of the Church - The Roman Catholic Church - one from the fisherman's hands of Peter.
This book has helped me view, understand, appreciate, and realize the magnitude of Apostolic succession.
Brilliant writer and one who objectively approaches a topic which is normally filled with emotion, personal baggage, and selfish desires.
He shows that logic can tell us a tremendous amount about the earliest moments of the Church - The Roman Catholic Church - one from the fisherman's hands of Peter.
July 30, 2021
Very easy read. I whizzed through this, hardly even taking my time. The author makes very funny, witty remarks near the beginning of the book about Protestants (especially toward Anglicans), but throughout the book he goes over the top in an historical proof that the "See of Peter" was supreme from the early Church.
December 5, 2024
Offers some compelling proof texts, but it's weakness is the many, many things it leaves out. Fortescue himself may not have been aware of these texts and events, but this one sided approach is deceptively convincing.
December 31, 2018
Super polemical, and way too quick in argumentation.
August 28, 2023
A solid, brief introduction to the issue of the papacy in the Early Church. Fortescue builds a good dialectical case for the acceptance of Vatican Council I's papal powers in the Early Church. Would recommend for both Catholics and curious non-Catholics alike.
May 13, 2025
I'd be fascinated to hear a protestant's argument against this book.
March 15, 2026
Short but overwhelming clarity. Main thesis is that in the early Church the Pope is chief, has universal jurisdiction, communion with Rome is necessary to be a Catholic, and is infallible.
December 13, 2024
“The Early Papacy” is a succinct and easy to read historical apologetic for the Papacy. The most this book proves is that early Christians believed the Catholic doctrines around the papacy; if you want an exegetical or philosophical argument for the papacy look elsewhere.
Fortesque is a bit hasty in his argumentation, and he could be criticized here for “quote-mining” without providing much context for the quotes he uses. That said, most of the quotes about the bishop of Rome in this book are so clear and forceful that the context would need to be extraordinary for them to mean anything other than what they seem to.
One would need to do a lot more historical study of the early church to “prove” the papacy, but this book is a very good collection of the most compelling patristic evidence for it.
Fortesque is a bit hasty in his argumentation, and he could be criticized here for “quote-mining” without providing much context for the quotes he uses. That said, most of the quotes about the bishop of Rome in this book are so clear and forceful that the context would need to be extraordinary for them to mean anything other than what they seem to.
One would need to do a lot more historical study of the early church to “prove” the papacy, but this book is a very good collection of the most compelling patristic evidence for it.
January 17, 2018
This books makes a strong case for the leadership of the Bishop of Rome over the rest of the christian world. The model of the papacy is similar to the one that is currently in power today. It does show that churches had more autonomy however and while the Bishop of Rome had supreme authority it was not used as much in practice.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews