We studied earlier the essence of the papacy, and said that although the style of its exercise has varied throughout history, this does not imply that it did not exist. In the present chapter we will examine in greater detail the historical evidence related to the primacy of the bishop of Rome during the first centuries of Christianity.

St. Clement of Rome (? – 101 A.D.)

As bishop of Rome and third successor of St. Peter[1], he had to confront a rebellion in the community of Corinth, which occurred around the year 96, in which the legitimately constituted bishops had been stripped of their ministries. Clement sent a disciplinary letter in the name of the Church of Rome that brought the revolt to an end and restored peace to that community. Here are some excerpts from that letter:

“The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth. Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to us, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent and alien to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally beloved, has suffered grievous injury.”[2]

“If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger… But we shall be innocent of this sin.”[3]

Although Protestant historians do not usually see in this letter evidence in favor of the Roman primacy[4], there are powerful reasons to think that such evidence is indeed present. First, it is significant that the author begins by apologizing for not having been able to attend promptly to the irregularities in the community — which proves, as Johannes Quasten remarks, that:

“the letter was not inspired solely by the Christian vigilance of the early days, nor by the mutual solicitude of communities for one another. If that were the case, it would have been obligatory to apologize for interfering in the controversy. On the contrary, the bishop of Rome considers it a duty to take the matter in hand, and believes the Corinthians would sin if they did not obey him… Such an authoritative tone is not sufficiently explained by the mere fact of the close cultural relations that existed between Rome and Corinth. The writer is convinced that his actions are inspired by the Holy Spirit: ‘You will give us joy and gladness if you obey what we have written through the Holy Spirit.’”[5]

José Orlandis[6] offers a similar explanation:

“It is a fact so significant — both for the time at which it occurred and for its content — that Pierre Batiffol[7] called it ‘the epiphany of the Roman primacy.’”[8]

He also explains:

“Clement, in the name of the Roman Church, commands the rebels to submit to the presbyters and to do the penance that will obtain their forgiveness. The letter does not say whether the Roman Church intervened at the request of the deposed presbyters — which would constitute the first known case of an appeal to the Roman See — or whether this See acted on its own initiative, which would prove that it was conscious of its authority to intervene in the affairs of another church whenever the public ecclesiastical good — the safeguarding of faith or discipline — so demanded. But what is most significant is the favorable reception that the Roman intervention received in Corinth: it was accepted without resistance and held in great honor. Dionysius of Corinth attests that around the year 170 the custom of reading Clement’s letter at the Sunday liturgy still persisted in that community. At the same time, in Egypt, the letter was held in such high esteem that a writer of the stature of Clement of Alexandria regarded it as a ‘holy Scripture.’ Finally, Eusebius of Caesarea adds that even in his own time — the first half of the fourth century — the epistle of Clement was still being read in many churches.”[9]

It is also quite significant that at the time the revolt occurred, the Apostle St. John was still alive and presiding over the nearby church of Ephesus — a fact attested by St. Irenaeus when he writes:

“Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.”[10]

Since Trajan reigned from 98 A.D. to 117 A.D., John must still have been alive when the revolt occurred (year 96). That the bishop of Rome felt obliged to discipline the revolt of a distant church — and not the Apostle John, who was much closer — only makes sense if it was the bishop of Rome who, as successor of Peter, exercised “the ministry of supreme shepherd with jurisdictional power to maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian Church.” There is no other satisfactory explanation for why the Corinthians would be bound to submit to the bishop of a remote church, when they had already disobeyed and removed their own presbyters from office.[11]

St. Ignatius of Antioch (? – 107 A.D.)

A disciple of Peter and Paul, second bishop of Antioch, and martyr during the reign of Trajan around the year 107 A.D. When condemned to death he was ordered to travel from Syria to Rome to be martyred. On his way to Rome he wrote seven epistles addressed to the churches of Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Philadelphia, Smyrna, Rome, and a letter to St. Polycarp[12].

The most important is the letter he wrote to the church of Rome, and it is impossible not to notice a different tone from that which he used with the other churches — in the others, unlike this one, he adopts a tone of authoritative instruction.

“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High God the Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father…”[13]

Ignatius’s acknowledgment of this Church as the one that “presides at Rome” and “presides over love” is unmistakable. Equally unmistakable is the tone — not that of one imparting instruction, but of one soliciting its confirmation:

“You have never envied any one; you have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct], which in your instructions ye enjoin [on others]. Only request in my behalf both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but truly will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really found to be one.”[14]

“I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were Apostles; I am but a condemned man; they were free, while I am, even until now, a slave…”[15]

Mark Bonocore, in his debate with Jason Engwer, comments on this matter:

“What is most significant is that while Ignatius asks all the churches to which he writes to pray for his church of Syria (Antioch), he never entrusts it to the care of any other church — only to Rome. The phrase he uses is also quite interesting, and echoes the terminology he invokes in his introduction, where he says how ‘Rome presides in love.’ Now, in his closing, he says of Antioch:”

“Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which, instead of me, has God for its shepherd. Jesus Christ alone shall be its bishop — He and your love.”[16]

Irenaeus of Lyon (130–202 A.D.)

In his treatise Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies), he testifies that he is able to enumerate the bishops appointed by the Apostles in the various churches and the series of their successors down to his own time; however, as the task would be too lengthy, he limits himself to giving us the episcopal succession of the Church of Rome, which he characterizes as “the greatest”, “most ancient”, and “best known to all”.

“But since it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; we do this, I say, by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, as also the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops…”[17]

He then follows this with a most important declaration, highlighting the primacy of the Church of Rome over the rest, for which the preserved Latin reads: Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est omnes qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio.

One possible translation would be: “…For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority — that is, the faithful everywhere — inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere.”

An objection to the evidence afforded by St. Irenaeus’s writings on behalf of the primacy of the bishop of Rome as Peter’s successor is explained by the Catholic Encyclopedia: “Some non-Catholic writers have attempted to tone down the text by translating convenire as ‘resort to,’ understanding Irenaeus to mean only that the faithful from everywhere resorted to Rome so that the flow of the Church’s doctrine might remain immune from error. This translation, however, is refuted by the conclusion of the argument, which rests entirely on the assertion that Roman doctrine is maintained pure owing to its origin in the two Apostles who founded that church, Peter and Paul. The frequent visits of members of other Christian churches to Rome added nothing to that. Moreover, the traditional translation is demanded by the context itself; and although it has been subjected to countless attacks, no other with better real probability has been found (see Dom J. Chapman in Revue Bénédictine, 1895, p. 48).”[18]

St. Irenaeus then proceeds to list the bishops of Rome, continuing with Linus, Anacletus, Clement, down to Eleutherus:

“The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy (2 Timothy 4:21). To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had recently received from the apostles…”[19]

Finally, it is important to mention the explicit attribution of the founding of the Church of Rome to Peter and Paul. There was a time when some Protestant scholars denied that Peter had even been in Rome; today this objection is increasingly rare: specialized historiography — including Protestant historiography — regards Peter’s stay and martyrdom in Rome as firmly established.

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast (John 21:20; 13:23), did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”[20]

The Paschal Controversy

The Paschal Controversy gave rise to an increasingly explicit affirmation of the supremacy of the Church of Rome over other churches. It arose from the differences existing between the Church of Rome — which nearly all the others followed — and the Asian churches regarding the date of the celebration of Easter. Although the difference might seem secondary, this date conditioned the entire liturgical cycle, which was a visible sign of communion among all the churches.

It is important to note how, already in the time of Pope Anicetus (c. 155), St. Polycarp (disciple of St. John himself) traveled to Rome at more than eighty years of age. He argued that he could not renounce a tradition he had received from St. John himself. Although they did not reach an agreement, Pope Anicetus and St. Polycarp maintained peace and communion. Later, however, at the end of the second century the problem re-emerged when certain observances with a Judaizing character were introduced into the liturgy of the Asian churches — now represented by Polycrates of Ephesus. Pope Victor I, conscious of his primatial authority, convened the holding of provincial synods in the various churches; and all of them, except the Asian ones, declared themselves in agreement with the Pope’s position and the Roman tradition. Pope Victor then threatened canonical sanctions and excommunication. The schism was avoided thanks to the intervention of St. Irenaeus, who, after acknowledging his own adherence to the Roman observance, asked the Pope not to excommunicate them in view of their attachment to their ancient traditions, since the matter was not a doctrinal question. The Pope agreed not to excommunicate them, and they eventually came to accept Roman discipline.

Here again we have a bishop of Rome exercising the ministry of unity, conscious of the authority he has received — to the point of threatening other churches with excommunication — which demonstrates that even at this early date, the Church of Rome was conscious of its primacy.

Notes

  1. As recorded in the oldest list of Roman bishops left to us by St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3, 3, 3) and by Eusebius of Caesarea in his Ecclesiastical History 3, 15, 34. ↩
  2. Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians I. ANF, vol. 1, p. 5. ↩
  3. Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians LIX. ANF, vol. 1, p. 20. ↩
  4. César Vidal Manzanares, Protestant theologian and historian, writes about this letter in his Diccionario de patrística (Dictionary of Patristics): “The letter is of some importance insofar as it not only contains a significant testimony concerning Peter’s stay in Rome and Paul’s in Spain, but also presents in it the first express declaration of apostolic succession (XLIV, 1-3); even so, it does not affirm the primacy of the see of Rome.” ↩
  5. Johannes Quasten, Patrología I (Patrology I), BAC 206, Fifth Edition, Madrid 1995, p. 56. ↩
  6. José Orlandis was professor of History of Law at the University of Zaragoza, Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law and first Director of the Institute of Church History. He produced more than two hundred scholarly works and more than twenty books. ↩
  7. Pierre Batiffol, French historian, was first chaplain of the College of Saint Barbara and rector of the Catholic Institute of Toulouse. He wrote a series of scholarly essays on the history of the early Church and is recognized as an authority on Church history. ↩
  8. José Orlandis, El pontificado Romano en la historia (The Roman Pontificate in History), Editorial Palabra, Second Edition, Madrid 2003, p. 36. ↩
  9. Ibid. ↩
  10. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies 3, 3, 4. ↩
  11. The historian Berthold Altaner, while acknowledging an awareness of the primacy of the Church of Rome — attested also by the positive reception of the letter — attempts an alternative explanation: “In the intervention of the Church of Rome — Clement himself immediately takes an active part — this can be explained in part by early Christian vigilance and the mutual concern of the Churches, as well as by the close political and cultural relations that existed between Corinth and Rome, since the latter had been refounded as a Roman colony (44 B.C.). Nevertheless, already here one can anticipate the spirit, the power, and the claim of Rome to maintain a special position among all the other communities of the καθολική ἐκκλησία (Ign., Smyrn. 8, 2). The particular esteem with which the epistle was received at the beginning of the second century points in the same direction” (Berthold Altaner, Patrology, Herder KG 1960, p. 99). An explanation that seems less satisfactory than that of the historian José Orlandis, precisely because, even if close political and cultural relations did exist between Rome and Corinth, these would not have created a moral obligation of obedience of one church toward the other. ↩
  12. Polycarp. Bishop of Smyrna and disciple of the Apostle St. John. He died a martyr. ↩
  13. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, Greeting. ANF, vol. 1, p. 73. ↩
  14. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans 3, 1. ANF, vol. 1, p. 74. ↩
  15. Ibid., ANF, vol. 1, p. 75. ↩
  16. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans IX. ANF, vol. 1, p. 77. ↩
  17. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies 3, 3, 2. Johannes Quasten, Patrología I (Patrology I), BAC 206, Fifth Edition, Madrid 1995, p. 303. ↩
  18. Catholic Encyclopedia, “Pope”. ↩
  19. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies 3, 3, 3. ↩
  20. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies 3, 3, 1. ↩