Jesus singled out Peter when he told him that he would be the “rock” upon which Christ would build His Church (Matt. 16:18). In the same passage, Jesus said he would give Peter the “keys of the kingdom,” recalling the Old Testament figure of royal steward who served under the Davidic king (Matt. 16:19; Isa. 22:22). Jesus, the new Davidic king, is in effect making Peter the steward of His church.
Clearly, Peter was head of the young church. But was Peter’s shepherding role only meant for the first-century church—until his martyrdom in the mid-60s? If the newfound Christian community needed leadership in the first century, surely the church in the second century—who would be without the Apostles!—would still need leadership. And this goes for the third, and the fourth, and the fifth… all the way down to the twenty-first century—especially the twenty-first century!
In fact, early Christians not only recognized the bishop of Rome as succeeding Peter in a historical sense, but also in his capacity as leader of the church as well. The following depict the leadership of the Church of Rome immediately following the apostolic period, the mid to late first century, through the end of the second century. The last section, #7, offers an example from the 3rd century for further context.
1. AD 60s | Foundation for the Future: Peter (& Paul) establish the Church in Rome
The chief Christian figures of the apostolic era, Peter and Paul, ended their ministry in Rome. One would expect them to make provisions for the future Church, especially with any impending martyrdom in mind. (Indeed, their fate was to become martyrs under the pagan Roman Empire in the mid AD 60s.) Early Christians confirm that these two “founded and organized” the Roman church. This is the universal understanding of the early Church, which celebrated these two as the basis for Rome’s Christian legacy.
As indicated above, Peter held a Christ-given ministry as leader of the Church. As such, he was instrumental in institutionalizing the Church. So, for instance, Peter appointed leaders in several communities. Clement of Rome in the first century, himself ordained by Peter, identifies this apostolic succession as the basis for authentic Christian leadership; through the appointment of bishops, still other men continue the shepherding function of the Apostles. In addition to Rome, Antioch and Alexandria became two other prominent Christian centers because of their connection to Peter: Antioch was led by Peter before heading to Rome, and Alexandria was led by Mark, who was commissioned by Peter. However, Rome is where Peter left a successor in his office as leader of the universal Church. This Petrine ministry is specifically tied to the Bishop of Rome, then.
With this apostolic foundation of Christian Rome’s mission in mind, we can proceed to look at some of the earliest data regarding Rome’s role within the universal Church.
2. AD 70 or 90 | Authority to Admonish: The Church of Rome admonishes the Church of Corinth
Barely out of the apostolic period, the Roman church reveals its responsibility for the universal Church. The Christians of Corinth had ruptured into schism; the Corinthians’ legitimate leaders were ousted. Rome stepped in to correct the issue. Corinth may have even sought help from Rome: “We feel that we have been somewhat tardy,” states the letter, “in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us.” The Church of Rome presumes the Spirit’s backing of their authority. If “any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us,” it continues, “let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger.” Rome proceeds to send representatives to ensure the rightful restoration in Corinth. Indeed, the Corinthian problem was soon solved, and the church there would continue to celebrate the letter for decades to come—some even regarding it as sacred scripture!
That this letter’s authorship is referred to in the plural—with “we” and “us” throughout—does not at all imply that Rome’s leadership merely consisted of a plurality of leaders with equal authority. Second-century Christians (and after) knew who authored the letter: Clement, bishop of Rome. Indeed, lists of popes—from as early as the second century—identify Clement as the third successor of Peter, towards the end of the first century, when the letter was written. Even so, one can easily imagine a core group of leaders continuing the work of Peter and Paul. It makes sense that the Bishop of Rome’s ministry would be shared with others around him. The close-knit group of leaders, together with the specific successor of Peter as their leader, would thereby work jointly and speak as one. So it is with Clement’s letter to the Corinthians; so it has been ever sense. Even today, after all, the Holy See (or “Vatican”) is largely an extension of the pope’s own ministry.
With Clement’s letter, we see the Roman church understanding itself as responsible for the unity of the universal church. Already, within a decade or so after the death of Peter and Paul, the Church of Rome considered addressing the problems of distant churches as part of its mission.
3. AD 110 | Presides in Love: Ignatius praises the Roman Church
A few decades after Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians, Ignatius writes to Rome on his way to martyrdom around AD 110. In his letters, this Bishop of Antioch constantly maintains the necessity of the office of bishop in the local church. Without the bishop—along with the presbyters (or priests) and the deacons—there “is no church.” He even insists that the bishop “presides in the place of God.” Just as the bishop presides over the local church, so there is a presider in the universal Church. According to Ignatius, that presider is the Church of Rome: the church that “presides in the place of the region of the Romans” also “presides over love.” In his absence, Ignatius’ Syrian fold is without its shepherd. “Jesus Christ alone will oversee it”—but so will “your love,” i.e., the Church of Rome, insists Ignatius.
Ignatius’ esteem for Rome is evident throughout his letter. While Ignatius admonishes and advises in his letters to other churches, his epistle to the Romans is very different in tone. “I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you,” says Ignatius. Instead, Rome has “taught others” and is “purified from every strange taint.” Perhaps Ignatius is himself familiar with Rome’s past dealings with communities abroad—like Clement’s letter to Corinth. Regardless, one of the earliest expressions of Rome’s primacy was its concern for other churches, as we will also see in the next part.
With Ignatius of Antioch, we see an Eastern bishop readily acknowledge the high place of the Roman church, which “presides in/over love.” Pairing this with his emphasis on the ministry of the bishop, we can easily conclude that, for Ignatius, the Bishop of Rome has a crucical role to play in the Community of Love, the Church.
4. AD 170 | Fatherly Concern for the Churches Afar: Pope Soter provides for the Churches abroad
Around AD 170, Bishop Dionysius of Corinth wrote to Pope Soter, the Bishop of Rome, praising the latter’s concern for the universal Church. In particular, the bishop of Corinth refers to the Church of Rome’s monetary aid to those in need, which evidently includes “many churches in every city.” This is no novelty on Rome’s part. “From the beginning,” Dionysius celebrates, “it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in many ways.” Even more, Soter is said to treat those in need as a “loving father,” again suggesting the unique role of the Roman bishop. This responsibility on the part of the Roman bishop for the greater Church is probably one of the chief manifestations of Roman primacy in the post-apostolic Church. That is, caring for the basic needs of the churches in a time of persecution and vulnerability was very likely one of Rome’s top tasks. Ensuring orthodoxy and unity were critical, too—as seen as early as Clement’s letter—but more manifest evidence of this would come later as opposing sects began to threaten the integrity of the Church.
Another reference to this universal-mindedness on the part of the second-century papacy comes from the work the Shepherd by Hermas, whose brother was in fact Pius, bishop of Rome. In it, Hermas purportedly receives a vision, of which he is told to write down and make copies for the various Roman leaders. One copy is to go to a certain Clement so that he may in turn send it to the cities abroad, for “this is his duty,” we are told. The Clement referred to is likely the same Clement mentioned above—the third Bishop of Rome after Peter. Because Hermas wrote a few decades after Clement, the name “Clement” could be a symbolic reference—perhaps for the pope generally—or it might be a romantic harkening back to the past. Whatever the case, if “Clement” here is to be regarded as the bishop of Rome, then we have yet another indication of Roman bishop’s responsibility for the churches afar; after all, this responsibility “is his duty.”
Apparently, as Dionysius tells us, Pope Soter is representative of the Roman Church’s custom of caring for the churches abroad. This is concrete evidence of what we would expect from the Apostles’ providing for the Church’s future. Rome, organized by Peter and Paul, is to take care of the brethren afar.
5. AD 190 | Upholder of Unity: Pope Victor seeks to make Sunday Easter universally binding
The duty to care for the whole Church included ensuring its unity—even if that meant conflict. While many second-century Christians celebrated Easter on Sunday, Christians in Asia Minor maintained Easter’s connection to the Jewish Passover by following the Quartodeciman (“fourteenth”) practice, in which Easter is observed on the fourteenth day of the Jewish month of Nisan–regardless if Sunday or not. In about AD 190, however, Pope Victor sought to make Sunday Easter universally binding. He asked Christians to convene local meetings to resolve the issue. When the churches of Asia refused to follow the rest of the Church, Pope Victor sought to excommunicate them. That is, Victor presumed to have the authority to determine which communities were to be regarded as part of the universal Church. Victor therefore acted as the Church’s supreme authority when he sought to cut off entire churches from the communion of the universal Church.
Significantly, Victor was not challenged in his authority to do so. Clearly, Victor’s endeavor displays the Roman prerogative of acting on behalf of the entire Church. If any other bishop had acted to cut off entire churches from the universal Church, he would have appeared ridiculous. Victor’s actions provoked protest, but not ridicule: Christians understood Rome as the maintainer of unity. Victor’s action is nevertheless expressive of the bishop of Rome’s task of preserving Christian unity. Even if Victor’s attempted excommunication of churches comes across as harsh, it is easy to see such an action to be in continuity with Rome’s perceived responsibility for the Church abroad.
With Victor, there is an example of papal authority as pronounced as anything Pope Francis could do today, or even in the height of papal power in the Middle Ages. Clearly–even in the 2nd century!–the bishops of Rome not only knew of their unifying role but of their authority to determine whether or not others were in communion with the Church.
6. AD 190 | Safeguard of Orthodoxy: Irenaeus of Lyons says Rome is the Standard of the Faith
In his work Against Heresies, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in modern-day France, explains how one can determine what is in fact authentic Christianity—as opposed to the Gnostic counterfeits of his day. After emphasizing the need to consult those churches founded by the Apostles and the bishops who succeeded them, he goes on to highlight the Church of Rome as the preeminent model of Christian orthodoxy, since it is rooted in the chief Apostles, “the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul”:
Since, however, 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 [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority.” —Against Heresies 3:3:2
“Every church,” says Irenaeus, “should agree with this church.” For Irenaeus, the Roman church with its “preeminent authority” is not only the chief example of the Christian faith but is also its guarantor. It is no stretch to say that, for Irenaeus, the standard of faith is the teaching of the Church of Rome.
Irenaeus’ emphasis on the Roman church is not just due to its historical basis in the Apostles. Instead, its authority is continued in the succession of bishops. After listing the bishops of Rome through Eleutherius in his own day, Irenaeus proclaims that it is by this succession that the “tradition from the apostles” and “the preaching of the truth” has “come down to us.” Irenaeus identifies the succession of the Roman bishops as the “most abundant proof” of authentic, orthodox faith. Here, towards the end of the second century, The central place of the bishop of Rome as defender of orthodox Faith is already on full display.
What is today meant by “papal infallibility” is but a natural consequence of the thought of someone like Irenaeus, who thought Rome was the safe standard of orthodoxy.
7. Postscript: AD 200-250 | Rome, the “Chair of Peter”
By the mid third century, an explicit ecclesiology (i.e., theology of the Church) emphasizes the Petrine office in Rome as source of the Church’s visible unity. Cyprian of Carthage, himself bishop of that city in North Africa, underscores the unity of the Church—a unity which, by its very nature, is opposed to schism of any kind. Above all else, the reason for Peter’s special role is for the sake of unity. “A primacy is given to Peter,” states Cyprian, “whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair.” This primacy is extended to Peter’s successors in Rome, which is indeed “the chair of Peter” and “the principal Church.” He states that the bishop of Rome (for example, Fabian or Cornelius, as he mentions) occupies the “place of Peter” and the “sacerdotal [priestly] throne.”
Part of the spark for Cyprian’s concern was itself an enduring schism in the AD 250s, when a Roman priest, Novatian, unlawfully made himself bishop of Rome in opposition to the rightful bishop, Cornelius. Naturally enough, by claiming to be pope, Novatian caused quite a bit of confusion and division. For if Church “is with Novatian,” affirms Cyprian, then “she was not with Cornelius.” Attentive to Cornelius’ legitimacy, Cyprian could write to Cornelius in order to assure “communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church.” Notice that, for Cyprian, to be in communion with the bishop of Rome is to ensure communion with the true Church.
That Rome occupied the place of Peter and thereby had primacy in the Church did not prevent Cyprian from disagreeing with the Bishop of Rome. When it came to the baptism of heretics, Cyprian insisted on re-baptism. The pope had instead taught that baptism is baptism, no matter if performed by an orthodox Christian or a heretic. Ultimately, the Roman view would in fact become the orthodox view. (And thank goodness, for following Cyprian’s logic, today all of Protestantism would not even have true Baptism). Still, for Cyprian, the Petrine office in Rome is forever important because of its role in maintaining the unity of the universal Church of Christ.
Then & Now
What is found and formulated in the first 200 years of the Church is exactly the role of the Pope today. I boldly say “exactly” because the essence of the papal office is indeed manifested in the early Church. Whenever these early figures talk about Rome’s primacy, it is due to its Apostolic foundation, and the ministry of Bishop of Rome in particular is due to his being the successor of Peter. In nearly every example above, this ministry is exercised on behalf of the universal church: Clement and his concern for Corinth; the presumed care of Rome for Ignatius’ fold; Soter’s monetary contributions to others; Victor and his insistence on universal discipline; Rome as standard of orthodoxy, as Irenaeus says; and Rome as source of visible unity, as Cyprian declares.
Smelly Sheep 