Mark Bonocore: Opening Statement
Good evening.
The title of this debate is: "Did Christ establish the Papacy?" Now, before Protestants and Catholics can reasonably discuss this issue, we must first determine what the Papacy is; and, perhaps even more importantly, what it is not. And I point this out for a specific reason. For example, I'm sure that my Protestant brethren in the audience will readily admit that the term "Papacy" (or "Pope") carries a negative, if not utterly distasteful, connotation in the Protestant mind. Indeed, to a Protestant, "a Pope" is generally seen as some pompous, autocratic dictator wearing splendid robes and a "pointy hat," who demands that all Christians bow to his decrees without question. And this, I'm sure we can all agree, is the predominate image of a Pope in the English-speaking world. Yet, do we Catholics believe that this is what Christ established? Not at all. Rather, we see the Papacy in an entirely different light --a positive light, which is unaffected by any resentment stemming from the 16th Century Protestant reformation.
Now, this is not to say that the Protestant perspective has absolutely no validity. On the contrary, it is quite valid to maintain that the Popes of Rome have acted in an autocratic and dictatorial style at many times in Christian history. However, that style of Papacy does not define the Papacy itself; nor does it address the Papacy's existence in the early Church.
And I call this to your attention so that we may not be misled by negative preconceptions --negative preconceptions which are consistently exploited by anti-Catholic authors such as James White, William Webster, Robert Zins, and others (all of whom my opponent will be drawing from), who try to apply the Protestant, "dictatorial" image of the Papacy to the ancient Church, and then ask why we don't see "a Pope" in the New Testament or in the early centuries of Christianity. Well, to answer their question, we do not see what they define as "a Pope" in the New Testament or in the early centuries of Christianity because that style of Papacy did not yet exist. However, the Papacy itself (properly defined) was there from the beginning; and it existed from the moment Christ first commissioned Peter.
So, at this point, let’s turn to our definition of the Papacy (as Christ created it) --a definition which I required of my opponent before I would agree to this debate. And so, as it says in our debate proposition, the Papacy is properly defined as:
“The ministry of a supreme pastor with the power of jurisdiction to maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian Church.”
This, my friends, was the ministry of the fisherman named Simon Peter and that of the Roman bishops who succeeded him. And anything more than that --such as the Pope’s princely manner or temporal (i.e., political) authority --is not intrinsic to the Papacy as Christ created it at all. Rather, these things were added on to the Papacy via its historical experience throughout the first millennium of the Christian era, which (whether rightly or wrongly) forced the Popes to adapt their style of ministry in order to meet the challenges which presented themselves to the Church. And, by these challenges I, of course, mean things like:
a) The legalization of Christianity by the Roman government (c. 313 A.D.), in which the Church was transformed from a persecuted, underground society to the official religion of the Roman Empire; thus requiring the Popes to operate within the perimeters of imperial Roman law (e.g. the first Ecumenical Councils), and to deal with other secular influences creeping into the Church.
b) The fall of the Western Roman Empire (in 476 A.D.), in which the Papacy acquired the awesome responsibility for holding Western civilization together.
c) 700 years of struggle (c. 342-1054 A.D.) between the Roman Papacy and the Emperors of Constantinople for control over the universal Church. In this, the Byzantine Emperors (the successors of Constantine) saw themselves as “the Christ on earth,” who wielded final authority over the Church (especially in the East). Thus, it was through “competing” with these emperors (many of whom were heretics) that the Popes of Rome were forced to acquire their “emperor-like trappings.” ... “Emperor-like trappings” which were equally useful in maintaining peace and relative unity among the warlike kingdoms of medieval Europe; and thus preserving Christian Europe from invasion by the Muslims.
Now, as I said, all of these things affected the style of the Papacy, eventually producing the “dictatorial” image of a Pope that is so repugnant to Protestants. Yet, this has absolutely nothing to do with Christ’s creation of the Papacy itself. Indeed, in the early days of the Christianity (when the Church was still an illegal, underground society) the Papacy manifested itself in an entirely different way; with Rome acting more as a final “court of appeal,” rather than as a “hands-on administrator” or secular-style “ruler of the Church.” Therefore, we should not be surprised if we don’t see the earliest Popes acting in an autocratic or dictatorial style (since the historical events which produced that style of Papacy had not yet taken place). On the contrary, in 1 Peter 5:1-4, St. Peter himself illustrates the style in which Popes (and, indeed, all bishops) would exercise their authority for the first 400 or so years of Christianity. He writes:
“So, I exhort the presbyters (i.e., bishops) among you, as a fellow presbyter (i.e., bishop) and witness to the sufferings of Christ and one who has a share in the glory to be revealed. Tend the flock of God in your midst, overseeing not by constraint but willingly, as God would have it, not for shameful profit but eagerly. Do not lord it over those assigned to you, but be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd (i.e., Christ) is revealed, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.”
So, the first Popes acted like true Christians! Big surprise! Thus, they did not exercise authority in a secular way, but rather they imitated the humility of Christ, Who did not come to be served, but to serve (e.g. John 13:5-17, Mark 9:35).
Therefore, it is little wonder that anti-Catholics like James White cannot find “a Pope” in the early centuries of the Church. When Pontius Pilate looked at Christ, he did not see “a King” either. If one exercises authority in the way described by St. Peter above, one is not readily perceived as an authority figure by the secular world. Rather, we must look with Christian eyes, and judge authority according to Christian standards (e.g. Mark 9:35, Luke 22:24-26) and not by secular ones. And I would ask you to keep this in mind throughout our debate.
I would also ask you to keep in mind the approach of my opponent, who (like James White before him) will not only try to exploit and misapply Protestant preconceptions about the Papacy, but who will also, no doubt, present numerous, irrelevant arguments having to do with the subsequent history of the Catholic Church. Yet, do not be fooled, or distracted from the issue at hand. This is a debate about what Christ did, or did not, establish. This is not a debate about the subsequent history of the Papacy, or about Papal Infallibility, or about any Papal teaching which my opponent may consider erroneous. Rather, it is about whether or not Christ established ...
“The ministry of a supreme pastor with the power of jurisdiction to maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian Church.”
I maintain that this is what Christ established through Peter; and my opponent denies this. Therefore, in order for me to win this debate, I need only to show two things:
1) That the ministry described above was bestowed upon the Apostle Peter by Christ.
2) That the early bishops of Rome succeeded to this “Petrine ministry” after the Apostle’s death.
Everything else is irrelevant. Indeed, ... If my opponent wishes to argue that the present Roman Papacy is somehow in error in regard to the dimensions of its authority, he may very well do so; but that is a subject for another debate. It does not speak to the original intention of Christ or how that intention was honored by the early Church.
So, with that established, let’s explore the questions at hand:
1) Was Peter commissioned by Christ with a ministry to preserve universal unity and orthodoxy within the Church? Did Peter hold the power of jurisdiction, and did Christ establish him a “supreme pastor” (i.e., “principal shepherd”) over the flock?
Well, first of all, I’m sure we can all agree that Christ desired His Church to be one --united in Faith; and that He intended His Church to remain united for all time. This is quite clear in Scripture, as when the Lord prays over the Apostles in John 17:20-21, saying:
“I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may be one, as You, Father, are in me and I in You, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.”
And this kind of unity continued throughout the Apostolic age:
Acts 4:32: "The community of believers was of one heart and one mind ..."
1 Corinth 1:10: "I urge you, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose."
Philippians 1:27: "...that you are standing firm in one Spirit, with one mind struggling together for the faith of the Gospel, not intimidated in any way by your opponents."
Philippians 2:2: "...complete my joy by being of the same mind, with the same love, united in heart, thinking of one thing."
Ephesians 4:1-6 -- “...bearing with one another through love, striving to preserve unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace: one Body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism; one God and Father of all ...”
1 Peter 3:8: "Finally, all of you, be of one mind ..."
So, does this describe the state of Christianity today? Do all those who claim the name “Christian” share such unity with one another? Far from it. We are living in a time when there exist well over 28,000 separate Christian denominations --all with the same Bible, yet all interpreting it differently. Thus, the problem of Christian disunity has, at its core, the error of heterodoxy --the very thing condemned in the Scripture quotes above.
Therefore, what happened to Jesus’ prayer for His Church? What happened to Christian unity? Does it still exist? And, if so, where are we to find it? ...That is to say, who speaks for Christ and for orthodoxy? To whom can we go?
Well, here again, I’m sure we can agree that, when Christ was on earth, disunity and heterodoxy did not pose a problem. Rather, Christ was clearly the Shepherd; and those who followed Him were clearly His sheep. And, indeed, if anyone departed from Him (like the disciples who leave Him in John 6:66-68), it was quite clear that they had broken away from what we may call the true Church.
Ah! But what about after the Lord’s Ascension into Heaven? At this point, anyone and their brother could claim that they were speaking for Christ and for orthodoxy (e.g. Acts 15:1-2). Therefore, is it not reasonable to assume that Christ would appoint a vicarious shepherd --a final authority, who could settle such disputes among Christians? ...That is, someone who could stand in Christ’s physical place, and so continue to preserve unity and orthodoxy among the faithful. Well, that’s exactly what the Scriptures present to us.
In John 21:15-19, the resurrected Christ, in the midst of the Apostles, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.” Now, earlier in this same Gospel (John 10:11-16), Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says how there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep????
Now, clearly, Jesus can. After all, He is God. Yet, if that’s the case, why is He commissioning Peter to do it? Clearly, in John 21:15-19, Christ is speaking in an earthly, vicarious sense. Notice, for example, how the sheep do not cease to belong to Jesus. They are still “my sheep.” Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. He is, therefore, being commissioned to act as Christ’s “stand-in” after the Lord’s Ascension into Heaven. Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will “feed” and “tend” the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock.
And we can see this quite clearly in the original Greek. For example, the word which is used for “feed” in John 21 is “boskein” --a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st Century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is actually the Greek “poimanao” --the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. Therefore, like Jesus, Peter is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the vicarious shepherd (i.e., “supreme pastor”) of the Church in Christ’s physical absence.
Now, the anti-Catholic author James White has challenged this interpretation. White maintains that there is nothing in John 21 which implies that Peter is to be the shepherd of the entire flock, but that Christ is merely re-appointing Peter as an Apostle (after Peter’s 3-fold denial in John 18:15-18 & 25-27). Thus, according to White, Peter is simply to “feed” and “tend” the sheep along with the other Apostles; yet he is not being given a special ministry at all.
Well, White’s assertion is totally blown away when we turn to a similar account in Luke 22:31-32, which reads:
“Simon, Simon, behold satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”
Here in Luke’s Last Supper account, we see quite clearly that Peter is singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. Therefore, he is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all. And, that my friends, is a special ministry --the ministry of the vicarious shepherd.
Indeed, White’s position is further undermined when we turn to the next two verses (i.e., Luke 22:33-34), where Jesus predicts Peter’s 3-fold denial. If you will recall, White maintains that Peter’s 3-fold commission in John 21:15-19 is merely meant to restore him to his position as an Apostle after he denied Christ 3 times. Yet, in Luke 22:31-34, we see Peter’s 3-fold denial contrasted, not with Peter’s apostleship, but rather with Peter’s special ministry to strengthen and unify the other Apostles ...and this before he denies Christ 3 times. Thus, if Peter is restored to anything in John 21, it must include the commission he was given in Luke 22:31-32. And so, White’s position cannot stand. In both Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:15-19 Peter is commissioned, and then re-commissioned, as the vicarious shepherd over the entire flock in Christ’s physical absence.
Now, at this point, I should perhaps say a word about Matt 16:18-19 -- over which much ink has been spilled in trying to establish who is “the Rock.” Yet, in the interest of time, I’m going to set that issue aside, and focus instead on “the Keys.” For, in Matt 16:19, Jesus tells Peter:
“I will give to you the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”
Now, while it is true that, in Matt 18:18, Jesus bestows a similar authority to “bind and loosen” upon all of the Apostles collectively, it is to Peter alone that Christ entrusts “the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.” So, what are these Keys? What are they suppose to signify?
Well, to discover the answer, we need to look no further than Isaiah 22:20-22, which reads:
“On that day I shall summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah. I will ... give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the Key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, and when he shuts, no one shall open.”
Here, Isaiah is describing the “Prime Minister” (or “Vicar”) of the Davidic Kingdom of Israel --an office which is also referred to in 1 Kings 4:6, 16:9, 18:3, and elsewhere.
Indeed, in ancient Israel, the King himself (e.g. King David or King Solomon) was surrounded by an entire court of ministers, all of whom played a specific role in administering the Kingdom. Yet, one of these ministers was the Prime Minister (or “Major-Domo”), who --while merely being one minister among others --also acted as the King’s vicar (or “stand in”) when the King was not personally present. That is to say, he was commissioned to act with the King’s own authority. Thus, ‘when he opened, no one could shut, and when he shut, no one could open.’ And the symbol of this Prime Minister’s vicarious authority was the “key” (“or keys”) of the King’s Household (i.e., dynasty) --that is, the key (or keys) of the Kingdom itself.
Now, once again, I’m sure we can agree that the ancient, Davidic kingdom of Israel was merely a prefigurement of the New Testament’s Kingdom of God. Indeed, in Luke 1:32-33, the angel Gabriel tells the Virgin Mary how her Son will succeed to “the throne of David,” and how He will “rule over the House of Jacob forever.” Thus, if Christ is to be the new King of Israel, does it not make sense that He would appoint a new “Prime Minister” to govern His Household, which is the Church (1 Tim 3:15)?
Furthermore, this new “Prime Minister” was not to be the steward of a mere earthly king, but rather of a King Who would rule from Heaven. And this is exactly what we see in Matt 16:19, where Christ tells Peter: “I will give to you the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven.”
So, here again, we see Jesus commissioning Peter to act as His representative in an earthly capacity after His Ascension into Heaven. Thus, like the Prime Minister of the ancient kingdom of Israel, Peter is to be the final authority in the King’s physical absence.
Yet, this does not make Peter the king himself. Far from it. Like his Old Testament counterpart, Peter is still one minister among others (one Apostle among the Twelve). Yet, he also possesses an additional ministry --a ministry to unite the other “royal ministers” and to preserve the integrity of the King’s Household / Kingdom / Church on earth. In this, Peter can be justly compared to the captain of a basketball team. He is merely a player, like the other players; yet he is a player with a special ministry --a ministry to lead the team, to hold it together, and to preserve the orthodoxy of its “game plans.” And this is exactly the role we see Peter exercising immediately upon Christ’s Ascension in glory. For example, ...
In Acts 1:15-23, shortly after Jesus' Ascension, yet before the coming of the Holy Spirit, Peter takes charge of the Jerusalem church and initiates the election for Judas’ successor. Here, one cannot deny that Peter is acting as an organizer and unifier for the Church; and that he gives “spiritual nourishment” to the assembly by authoritatively interpreting the Psalms (Acts 1:20) --Psalms which say nothing about Judas or about their Apostolic mission. Thus, Peter is exhibiting a teaching authority which is independent of the OT Scriptures; and he does this before the Holy Spirit has supplied the Church with the charism to teach (Acts 1:8; 1 Corinth 12:7-11).
And, we can quote example after example of Peter’s unique authority --most especially Acts 10:1-48, where Peter exercises his power to “bind and loosen” by unilaterally admitting the first Gentiles into the Church. And, he does this after receiving a personal vision from Jesus instructing him to do so. Furthermore, in Acts 11:1-18, none of the other Apostles question Peter's authority to admit the Gentiles into the Church. Rather, they accept the unilateral decision of Peter. And, a few years later, when some Jewish Christians from the party of the Pharisees try to impose circumcision on these Gentiles, Peter (in Acts 15:7-12) gives the definitive teaching at the Jerusalem council. After he speaks, the entire assembly falls silent and all debate on the Gentile issue comes to an end.
So, can we deny that Peter was established by Christ to be the “supreme pastor” (i.e., “principal shepherd”) over the flock? Can we deny that he was given the power of jurisdiction (represented by the Keys)? Can we deny that Peter was commissioned to maintain unity and orthodoxy within Christ’s Church? I don’t think so; and neither can anyone who takes the Scriptures seriously. Indeed, the consistent and universal testimony of the early Church depicts the ministry of Peter exactly as I’ve presented it above. And I challenge my opponent to produce one Church father or ancient Christian writer who denies that Peter presided over the flock.
So, with that established, let’s move on to our second point of contention:
2) That the early bishops of Rome succeeded to this ministry of Peter.
Now, if you accept that Christ commissioned Peter with a ministry to maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within His Church, I would like you to ask yourself two essential questions:
Was this ministry still needed after Peter’s death? And, if so, who succeeded to it?
As we’ve already seen in Acts 1:15-23, Peter himself was quite conscious of the importance of succession. Therefore, are we to seriously believe that he would not be concerned with the succession of his own ministry, as important as it was? Indeed, what would be the sense of Jesus establishing this unifying ministry of Peter if it was merely to end at the time of Peter’s death? After all, as we’ve also seen, Jesus intended the unity of His Church to continue (e.g. John 17:20-21). Therefore, if the ministry of Peter was essential to that unity, it would be the height of irresponsibility for Peter not to name a successor --especially when, as 2 Peter 1:13-15 and John 21:18-19 show us, the Apostle knew his death was coming, and had plenty of time to prepare for it.
Now, in searching for a successor to the Petrine ministry, we must begin by recognizing an indisputable fact. Whenever a crisis arose in the ancient Church --especially a crisis of universal significance, all Christians everywhere looked invariably to the church of Rome. And this regard for the Roman church can be justly compared to the way ancient Jews of the Diaspora looked reverently toward Jerusalem for teaching and instruction (e.g. Acts 28:17-21). Indeed, the Jewish historian Josephus tells us how "doubts were referred [to Jerusalem] for solution" (Josephus, Contra Apion 1.30-36).
And, in the earliest days of the Church, when the Apostles still resided there, Jerusalem was also the “court of appeal” for Christians (e.g. Acts 15:2 & Acts 16:4). Yet, with the destruction of the city in A.D. 70, Jerusalem could no longer be seen as the Church’s “H.Q.” ...Nor had it been for some time, since the sack of Jerusalem was predicted by the Lord Himself (Matt 24:1-25); and the Apostles would have prepared accordingly. That is why Peter established his base at Antioch; and after that at Rome.
Now, my opponent has previously conceded that he believes Peter resided in Rome and that he met his death there. However, for those in the audience who have problems with this, I ask that you consider the universal witness of the early Church, which maintained that Rome was the “See of Peter,” and that Peter was martyred atop Vatican Hill. And, indeed, we see this in all of the earliest testimonies. For example, ...
"Not as Peter and Paul did do I command you. They were Apostles, and I am merely a convict." (Ignatius of Antioch to the Romans, 4:3 --107 A.D.)
"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church." (Irenaeus of Lyon, Against the Heresies 3, 1:1 --180 A.D)
"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign of the emperor Nero. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. ...I can point out the trophies of the Apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican Hill (Peter's grave site) or to the Ostian Way (Paul's), you will find the trophies of those who founded this church." (Gaius of Rome, Disputation with Proclus, in a fragment found in Eusebius, History of the Church, 2, 25:5 --198 A.D).
And, if anyone still has problems with Peter’s presence in Rome, I’d ask you to read 1 Peter 5:13, where the Apostle describes his Roman church as “the chosen one at Babylon.” “Babylon” was the Christian “code name” for the city of Rome, as we see in Rev 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2, 18:10, and 18:21. ....And I have yet to meet an anti-Catholic Protestant who denies this in regard to the Book of Revelation.
Yet, was Peter’s ministry to maintain unity and orthodoxy within the universal Church inherited by the church of Rome; and was the Roman bishop recognized as the legitimate successor to that ministry?
Well, in order to explore this, we are forced to turn to the only written evidence we have --that is, the testimony of the earliest Church fathers (i.e., those who lived within the first and second generations after the Apostles). Now, in doing so, we must not forget that we are dealing with mere scraps of information. These are the writings of a persecuted, underground society; and they reveal precious little (perhaps 5 or 10%) of the overall historical picture. Indeed, given the scale of the 1st & 2nd century Christian persecutions (especially those of the emperors Nero and Domitian), we are fortunate to have what little we do. And so, in reading these early Church fathers, we must keep in mind that they give us only faint glimpses of our earliest history; writing at a time when the Christian experience was primarily oral.
And I call this to your attention because my opponent has a history of twisting the Church fathers (especially the early ones) out of their historical context, thereby exploiting his readers’ general ignorance of who these fathers were, when they lived, and what they actually believed. Therefore, I wish to impress upon you both the importance of chronology, and that of the intended objectives of these fathers’ writings. Indeed, as I pointed out earlier, these early fathers were writing at a time when Christian authority was exercised with considerable benevolence (e.g. 1 Peter 5:1-4). Furthermore, it must be recognized that none of these early fathers are writing with the intention of promoting the supreme authority of the Roman church. Rather, this was a time when the Faith itself was still being communicated and defined. Therefore, any references to Rome’s authority are incidental at best.
So, keeping this in mind, let me introduce you to the five earliest Church fathers available to us, so that we may see just how close to the Apostles they were; and so gain a clear picture of their historical, and geographical, significance. I would also encourage you to read their writings for yourself, which are available on-line at http://www.newadvent.org
Of our five Church fathers, the earliest is St. Clement of Rome, who wrote sometime between A.D. 88 and A.D. 97. Clement was a disciple of both Peter and Paul; and he is mentioned in Philippians 4:3, where Paul calls him his “co-worker.” Upon the deaths of the Apostles, Clement became one of the earliest bishops of Rome; and we know of him primarily from an epistle which he issued to the church of Corinth.
The next Church father is St. Ignatius of Antioch, who wrote sometime between A.D. 100 and A.D. 107. Ignatius was the disciple of the Apostle John, and the second bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was also a disciple of Peter.
The next is St. Polycarp of Smyrna, another disciple of John, and a close associate of Ignatius of Antioch. Polycarp lived to a very old age; and was active between A.D. 107 and A.D. 156, the year of his death.
The next is St. Irenaeus of Lyon, who was a disciple of St. Polycarp. He was active from about 160 A.D. onward; producing his famous work, “Against the Heresies,” in 180 A.D.
And the last of our earliest fathers is St. Dionysius of Corinth, who was a contemporary of Irenaeus, and who wrote before 170 A.D.
Now, ... If we recognize that St. Peter died between A.D. 65 and A.D. 67 (after the 64 A.D. fire of Rome), then that means we have ...
a) St. Clement of Rome speaking about 25 years after Peter’s death
b) St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp giving their witness about 40 years after Peter’s death, and ...
c) St. Irenaeus and St. Dionysius of Corinth about 90 years after Peter’s death.
So, all these men are speaking within living memory of the Apostles. ...Especially if we consider that they were all quite old when they first put pen to paper. Yet, what do these fathers tell us about the authority of Rome? Well, ....
Sometime around A.D. 90, St. Clement of Rome, who was (let us not forget) the Bishop of Rome, issued an epistle to the Corinthian church. Indeed, this epistle is the earliest Christian writing we have outside of the New Testament. And Clement writes to the Corinthians because the church there had fallen into a state of schism. Some members of the church had overthrown the legitimately-appointed presbyters (contra Acts 14:23), and were refusing to listen to them (contra Hebrews 13:17). And, thus, St. Clement begins his epistle to the Corinthians, saying ...
“Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have befallen us (i.e., the persecutions of Emperor Domitian), 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 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 loved, has suffered grievous injury.” (1 Clement Chapter 1)
Notice how it was the Corinthians who appealed to Rome. ...Just as the early church of Antioch appealed to the Apostles at Jerusalem for a solution to their problems in Acts 15:2. But, why so in this case, since there were no living Apostles in Rome? Indeed, why didn’t the Corinthians of this time appeal to nearby Ephesus (as they did in the days of Paul: 1 Corinth 7:1 & 16:8), where the Apostle John was still alive and presiding!
This fact is documented by another of our early fathers, St. Irenaeus, who 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." (Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, Book III, Chapter III, 180 A.D.).
The Emperor Trajan reigned from A.D. 98 until A.D. 117. Therefore, the Apostle John was indeed presiding in nearby Ephesus when the Corinthians appealed to St. Clement at Rome. So, what was so special about Rome that gave it the authority to settle such disputes? ...And to do so even during a time of persecution.
Also, in his quote above, Clement speaks of Rome “turning its attention” to the problems of Corinth, thus implying that Rome routinely instructed the other churches. And he also praises the faith of the Corinthians in a universal context --a context he could only invoked if Rome had universal jurisdiction. And, Clement continues ...
“Your schism has subverted [the faith of] many, has discouraged many, has given rise to doubt in many, and has caused grief to us all. And still your sedition continueth.” (1 Clement Chap. XLVI)
Here Clement speaks on behalf of the universal Church in condemning the Corinthian schism. And, he goes on ....
“Ye, therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue.” (1 Clement Chap. LVII)
Clement now gives a direct command, ordering the trouble-makers to submit to the local Corinthian presbyters. Well, ... Why does he have the authority to do this? Why should they listen to him when they won’t even listen to their own presbyters?
So, here --as early as A.D. 90 --we have the church of Rome teaching and issuing authoritative instruction to the other churches --something that is never done in the reverse.
For example, ... Just 5 to 10 years later, we have the witness of St. Ignatius of Antioch. As bishop of Antioch, and thereby the leading bishop in all of Syria (if not all of Asia), Ignatius was captured by imperial authorities and sentenced to death in the Roman arena. He was transported to Rome by overland route --something which was, no doubt, intended to be a sobering example to the Christian churches along the way. And, in the course of his journey, Ignatius writes a total of 7 epistles to these churches, including the churches of Ephesus (Rev 2:1-7), Smyrna (Rev 2:8-11), and Philadelphia (Rev 3:7-13) --and this only 5 to 10 years after John’s Revelation was addressed to them. Now, to all these Asian churches, Ignatius (who was the disciple of an Apostle) issues teachings and authoritative instruction. Yet, when Ignatius writes his final epistle --an epistle addressed to the church of Rome --he conspicuously offers no teachings and no instruction at all! Rather, he tells the Roman church ...
“You have never envied anyone, you have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed, which in your instructions you 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 truly be found to be one.” (Ignatius to the Romans, Chap. III)
Here, Ignatius is asking the Roman church not to interfere with his martyrdom; yet, in doing so, he tells us how this church has “taught” and “given instruction” to the other churches (e.g. Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians). And, the mere fact that Ignatius --a Christian from far-off Syria --knows what the Roman church has taught in the past shows that Roman teaching authority reached, at least, as far as the Middle East.
Ignatius also says how Rome “presides in the chief place” and how it “presides in love” (Ignatius to the Romans, Chap. I). Here, Ignatius uses the Greek word “prokatheemai,” which is defined as an authoritative, jurisdictional position; and this is the meaning of the word “presides” whenever Ignatius uses it (e.g. Ignatius’ Epistle to the Magnesians 6:1). However, Ignatius never applies this word to the authority of another church, but only to the church of Rome.
And, in the close of his epistle to the Romans, Ignatius writes:
“Remember in your prayers the church of Syria, which now has God for its bishop, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love [will also regard it].”
This is most significant. While Ignatius asks all the churches he writes to to pray for his church of Syria (Antioch), he never commends it to the care of another church, but only to Rome. Also, the phrase he uses is quite interesting, echoing the terminology he invokes in his introduction, where he says how Rome “presides in love.” Now, in his closing, he says of Antioch: “Jesus Christ alone will oversee it (i.e., be its bishop), and [also] your love will regard it.” ....That is, the presiding love of Rome.
So, again we see the ministry of an earthly, vicarious shepherd for the universal Church. And that ministry is held by the church of Rome.
Turning to St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who was also a disciple of John, and the close associate of Ignatius of Antioch, ... In 155 A.D., at the age of 85, Polycarp traveled to Rome as the representative of all the Asian churches, to explain to Anicetus, Bishop of Rome, why the Christians of Asia Minor celebrated Easter (the feast of the Lord’s Resurrection) on a different date than that observed by Rome and the rest of the universal Church. An account of this is recorded by Polycarp’s disciple St. Irenaeus, both in Book III of his “Against the Heresies” and in a letter from Irenaeus to Victor of Rome. Now, the immediate question springs to mind: Why did Polycarp have to defend the Asian custom to the Bishop of Rome? Remember, Polycarp was the venerable, elder churchman; and someone who knew the Apostle John personally. Pope Anicetus never knew an Apostle personally. So, why did Polycarp have to confer with him? ...Let alone travel all the way from Asia Minor to Italy in order to do so; and at the age of 85!
Clearly, Polycarp had an understanding of Roman authority --an understanding which he would pass on to his disciple Irenaeus (as we shall see in a moment).
But, first, let’s look at St. Dionysius of Corinth --the bishop of Corinth who, around 170 A.D., corresponded with the immediate successor of Anicetus, Pope Soter of Rome. Now, we do not have all the details of their correspondance; yet, as in the days of Clement, the Corinthian church apparently appealed to Rome for instruction on a particular matter, and Pope Soter of Rome sent them an epistle. In response, Bishop Dionysius writes back to Pope Soter, saying ...
“Today we kept the Holy Day, the Lord’s Day (Sunday), and on it we read your letter (Pope Soter’s epistle). And we shall ever have it with us to give us instruction, even as the former one written through Clement.” (Dionysius Epistle to Pope Soter in Eusebius)
So, here, we not only see the church of Corinth taking instruction from the church of Rome, but we see that the Corinthians had a long-standing tradition of taking such instruction --still retaining the epistle of St. Clement, which was sent to them some 80 years before. And, Dionysius continues to address the Roman bishop, saying ....
“You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time." (Dionysius Epistle to Pope Soter of Rome 25:8 in Eusebius).
So, Dionysius compares the teaching of Pope Soter to that of Peter and Paul. And, he continues, ....
"For from the beginning, it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city . . . This custom your blessed bishop, Soter, has not only preserved, but is out-doing, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints, and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying. (Dionysius, Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius' Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170])
So, Dionysius refers to the bishop of Rome as a "father" (i.e., root of the word "Pope"), speaking of the Christians in every city as his "children," whom he "urges," "consoles," and provides for. ....And Dionysius says that this has been the custom of the Roman church “from the beginning.”
And, writing exactly 10 years later (in 180 A.D.), Polycarp’s disciple, St. Irenaeus of Lyon, gives us our first historical overview of the Roman episcopate and its authority. And, while he does this incidentally (his actual intention being to show how episcopal succession undermines the claims of heretics), his regard for the authority of Rome is unmistakable:
“Since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness or wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper (i.e., renegade heretics), by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient (i.e., established) church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the Tradition and the Faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For it is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this church (Rome), on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. The blessed Apostles (Peter & Paul), 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 Tim 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 known 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 dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the Tradition which it had lately received from the Apostles ... To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the Apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. (Irenaeus Against the Heresies, Book III, 3:2)
So, for Irenaeus of Lyon, the church of Rome was “the greatest church known to all” --the church which held “preeminent authority.” ...The preeminent authority which we have seen exhibited by Clement, Anicetus, and Soter in teaching and instructing the other churches.
Yet, before Irenaeus’ death and the close of the 2nd Century, the Roman church would exercise its authority once more; and this time on a universal scale. This would be through Pope Victor I --the successor of Pope Eleutherius (the last bishop of Rome listed by Irenaeus above). In the days of Victor (c. 190 A.D.), the controversy over the Easter date became an issue once again. As the Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (writing in 312 A.D) tells the story, ...
"A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the churches of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day ...should be observed as the feast of the Savior's Passion. . . . But this was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world ...Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the Resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord's day (Sunday) ...Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately acted to cut off from the community the churches of all Asia [Minor] ...as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all of the bishops, and they besought him to reconsider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love ..." (Eusebius, Church History, 5:23:1 24:11).
So, the bishop of Rome took it upon himself to excommunicate the Asian churches for not celebrating Easter on the same date as the rest of the Church. And, while some of the other bishops objected to this, notice how they do not question his authority to do it. Rather, they “besought him to reconsider.” And one of these bishops was Irenaeus of Lyon.
Indeed, St. Irenaeus drafted a letter to Pope Victor --a letter which still exists today. In this letter, Irenaeus uses his “clout” as the disciple of Polycarp to persuade Victor not to carry out the excommunication because the dispute was merely liturgical, rather than doctrinal. And how does he do this? By appealing to the authority of Victor’s own predecessor, Pope Anicetus of Rome --the same Pope Anicetus who received St. Polycarp, and who granted him permission to use the Asian Easter date. Irenaeus writes to Pope Victor, saying ...
“For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John the disciple of our Lord .... nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the whole Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who did not.” (Epistle of Irenaeus to Pope Victor)
And so, by appealing to the authority of Victor’s own predecessor, St. Irenaeus convinced the Roman bishop to withdraw the excommunication. However, ... What cannot be denied is the motive which caused Victor to issue the excommunication in the first place. Clearly, here in 190 A.D., the bishop of Rome considered himself responsible for preserving unity and orthodoxy throughout the universal Church. This cannot be ignored.
And so, that brings us to the end of the 2nd Century, and the earliest evidence available. Indeed, we could continue to quote the fathers of the next two centuries, such as Tertullian (220 A.D.), Hippolytus of Rome (220 A.D.), Pope Anterus (235 A.D.), Pope Fabian (240 A.D.), Cyprian of Carthage (250 A.D.), Dionysius of Alexandria (260 A.D.), and the other fathers, up to the time of Constantine (c. 313) --all of whom provide abundant evidence for the primacy of Rome.
Yet, what has been presented is more than enough to establish that the church of Rome succeeded to the ministry of Peter. Indeed, according to the earliest evidence, the Church of Rome ...
a) Was founded by Peter, along with Paul; b) Was the place where Peter’s earthly ministry came to an end; c) Was a church presided over by disciples of Peter (e.g. Linus & Clement); d) Was a court of appeal for the other churches (e.g. Corinth, Antioch, Smyrna, Lyon); e) Was viewed as an authority while some Apostles (e.g. John) were still alive and presiding elsewhere; f) Exhibited a teaching authority recognized as far away as Syria (e.g. Ignatius to the Romans); g) Issued commands to churches which had their own bishops (e.g. Corinth); h) Possessed the authority to excommunicate other churches (e.g. the churches of Asia); i) Is said to “preside in the chief place” (Ignatius), and to be the “greatest church,” having “preeminent authority” (Irenaeus); and j) Is called a “father” to the other churches (e.g. Dionysius). ...And all within living memory of the Apostles.
So, if my opponent wishes to deny that Rome is exhibiting a unique authority here (i.e., the authority of a “supreme pastor”), let him produce another ancient city-church which exhibits these same qualities. Indeed, let him give me one example in which the church of Rome received authoritative instruction from another church, as opposed to consistently giving it. Yet, this my opponent is unable to do.
Rather, ... Only the church of Rome exhibited the Petrine ministry to preserve unity and orthodoxy within the universal Church. And that was because its bishop was the direct and immediate successor of Peter.
I now yield to my opponent.
Mark J. Bonocore
April 3rd, 1999
About | Apologetics | Philosophy | Spirituality | Books | Audio | Links