The Necessity Of Baptism & The Papacy In Pope Julius I’s Important Letter To The Bishops Of Antioch (AD 341)

Dec 23, 2025

BRIEF HISTORY OF POPE JULIUS I AND ATHANASIUS

Pope Julius I’s Letter To the Bishops Assembled at Antioch (AD 341) is often cited as an important early example of papal supremacy. In that letter there are also statements that constitute further evidence for the absolute necessity of baptism. In AD 338-339 St. Athanasius (the Bishop of Alexandria) was unjustly condemned by a council in Antioch and replaced by an Arian named Gregory of Cappadocia. Gregory was installed in Alexandria in 339 with military support from Emperor Constantius II (an Arian sympathizer). Gregory remained in physical possession of the See of Alexandria until 345. This led St. Athanasius to flee to Rome and to the protection of Pope Julius I. The actions of Pope Julius and the Council of Sardica (AD 343) were instrumental in getting Athanasius restored to his see in 346.

EARLY CHURCH HISTORIANS ACKNOWLEGE THE POPE’S UNIQUE AUTHORITY

In recounting these events, noted early Church historians Sozomen (who died c. AD 450) and Socrates Scholasticus (who died c. 439) both acknowledge the Bishop of Rome’s unique and supreme position of authority in the Church.

Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chap. 8 (AD 439-450): “The Roman bishop, on learning the accusation against each individual, and on finding that they held the same sentiments about the Nicaean dogmas, admitted them to communion as of like orthodoxy; and as the care for all was fitting to the dignity of his see, he restored them all to their own churches. He wrote to the bishops of the East, and rebuked them for having judged these bishops unjustly, and for harassing the Churches by abandoning the Nicaean doctrines. He summoned a few among them to appear before him on an appointed day, in order to account to him for the sentence they had passed, and threatened to bear with them no longer, unless they would cease to make innovations. This was the tenor of his letters. Athanasius and Paul were reinstated in their respective sees, and forwarded the letter of Julius to the bishops of the East.”

Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chap. 8 (AD 439-450): “Julius… alleged that there is a sacerdotal canon which declares that whatever is enacted contrary to the judgment of the bishop of Rome is null. He also reproached them for having deviated from justice in all their proceedings against Athanasius, both at Tyre and Mareotis, and stated that the decrees enacted at the former city had been annulled…”

Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, Book 2, Chap. 8 (c. AD 440): “Neither was Julius, bishop of the great Rome, there [at the Synod of Antioch – 338/339], nor had he sent a substitute, although an ecclesiastical canon commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome.”

Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, Book 2, Chap. 8 (c. AD 440): “Julius first replied to the bishops who had written to him from Antioch, complaining of the acrimonious feeling they had evinced in their letter, and charging them with a violation of the canons, because they had not requested his attendance at the council, seeing that the ecclesiastical law required that the churches should pass no decisions contrary to the views of the bishop of Rome: he then censured them with great severity for clandestinely attempting to pervert the faith…”

POPE JULIUS I ON THE BAPTIZED VS. THE CATECHUMENS

While referencing certain false charges made against St. Athanasius in the context of these events, Pope Julius I refers to the ancient liturgical tradition that dismissed unbaptized catechumens from the liturgy prior to the Mass of the Faithful. This is more evidence from the ancient Church that only the sacramentally baptized were considered part of the Body of Christ.

Pope Julius I, Letter To The Bishops Assembled At Antioch, AD 341: “In light of this testimony, we are trying to make out how a man lying sick behind the door was able to stand up, conduct the liturgy, and offer the sacrament. Or how could it be that the offering was on the altar with catechumens still present? If the catechumens were still inside, it was not yet time for the offering.” (Glen L. Thompson, The Correspondence Of Pope Julius I, p. 63)

Pope Julius I, Letter To The Bishops Assembled At Antioch, AD 341, speaking about the unjust trial: “At first we could not believe this, but the proof was in the official reports. We were astonished at this, and I think, beloved, you must also be astonished! Although priests entrusted with the celebration of the sacrament are not permitted to be present, an inquiry about the body and blood of Christ takes place in front of a secular judge with catechumens in attendance, and, even worse, in the presence of heathen and Jews, the slanderers of Christianity! If some offense had been committed, the investigation ought to have been conducted within the Church and, as usual, by clergymen, not by heathen who detest the Logos and know nothing of the truth. I trust that you, like everyone else, are aware of the enormity of this sin. This, then, is all I have to say concerning Athanasius.” (Glen L. Thompson, The Correspondence Of Pope Julius I, pp. 69-71)

POPE JULIUS I REFERS TO HIS UNIQUE AUTHORITY FROM ST. PETER

At the end of his letter to the Bishops of Antioch Pope Julius I asserts the Apostolic Tradition that the Bishop of Rome has supreme authority

Pope Julius I, Letter To The Bishops Assembled At Antioch, AD 341: “Why were we not informed especially in the case of the church of Alexandria? Certainly, you cannot be unaware that, according to custom, we must be informed in writing before a just verdict can be determined. If there was some suspicion in regard to the bishop there, this church should have been contacted by letter. But those who have neglected to inform us and acted according to their own wishes now desire us to cast our vote with them against men whom we have not condemned! This is not the rule received from Paul or the practice handed down from the fathers; this follows a different pattern and a novel procedure. I beg of you, accept this patiently; what I write is for the common good. I am setting forth for you the tradition we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter. As I imagined this was evident to everybody, I would not have written if we had not been so troubled by the events…” (Glen L. Thompson, The Correspondence Of Pope Julius I, pp. 79-81.)

Hence, in this noteworthy early papal document we see that both the Papacy (the unique authority of the Bishop of Rome) and the necessity of baptism are important and prominent aspects of the Christian faith.