Did the Early Church Have a Pope - Part II - The Stewards

In the previous note I attempted to resolve the issue of intractable disagreement between bishops.  Drawing on evidence from the Bible, I proposed that the solution was a unique gift of authority and protection given to Peter.  This authority would be passed down to his successors – who resided in Rome - so that there can always be a person to speak with finality on an issue. 

But does early Christian history reflect what I have proposed? 

Today I wanted to begin looking at some testimonial evidence from history.  Specifically, what did the early bishops of Rome say about their own ministry?

Clement of Rome: 4^th Pope (88-97AD)

The first place I would point you is Saint Clement’s letter to the Corinthians. I’ve referenced that letter as a witness to the system of Apostolic succession as a whole, but now I want to ask another question:  Why does that letter even exist?

The letter is addressing a crisis in the Corinthian church in which the laity had tossed out their bishops.  In order to adjudicate this issue they wrote a letter to … the bishop of Rome.  Not only that, they sent this letter to while John the Apostle still lived – and was geographically closer.

Why would they do that?  The simplest answer is that Clement was the Steward of the Church. 

In his reply, Clement doesn’t make any explicit mention to the ministry of Peter or the Keys.  Rather, he does something perhaps even more bold; he claims to be making a binding decision while speaking on behalf of God Himself:

“Let us, therefore, flee from the warning threats pronounced by Wisdom on the disobedient, and yield submission to His all-holy and glorious name, that we may stay our trust upon the most hallowed name of His majesty. Receive our counsel, and you shall be without repentance. 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.” – Letter to the Corinthians 58-59, 95AD

Pope Stephen: 23^rd Pope (254-257 AD)

From what my amateurish research has revealed, very little written by the bishops of Rome during the period of the Roman persecutions survived.  The lone surviving instance I was able to find where a Pope described his own ministry was recorded by Saint Cyprian of Carthage in 256AD. 

There was a controversy at the time regarding whether baptism performed by schismatic heretics would still be considered valid by the Church.  The reigning Pope at the time, Pope Stephen, rendered his opinion – saying they were still valid. 

Saint Cyprian was actually quite annoyed by Pope Stephen’s decision and publicly criticized it.  He wrote a letter to a neighboring bishop, Firmilian, about the decision.  But in that letter he recorded that Pope Stephen invoked his authority as successor to Peter and keeper of the keys.   [Epsistle of Cyprian to Firmilian (Epistle 74), Section 16-17]

Pope Siricius: 38^th Pope (384-399AD)

In 385AD, a bishop from Spain named Himerius sent a letter to a newly installed Pope Siricius.  It asked questions on different points concerning baptism, penance, church discipline, and the celibacy of the clergy. 

Pope Siricius predicated his response by saying that as the successor to Peter he has care over the whole Church and cannot afford to be silent on the issues that were raised:

"To your inquiry we do not deny a legal reply, because we, upon whom greater zeal for the Christian religion is incumbent than upon the whole body, out of consideration for our office, do not have the liberty to dissimulate nor to remain silent. We carry the weight of all who are burdened; nay rather the blessed apostle Peter bears these in us, who, as we trust, protects us in all matters of his administration, and guards his heirs." - Epistle to Bishop Himerius, Section 1, 385 AD.

Pope Leo the Great: 45^th Pope  (440-461 AD)

Lastly, during the reign of Pope Leo there was a controversy in France.  Hilary, the Bishop of Arles, was starting to make heavy-handed power grabs in the region. 

The matter was brought before Pope Leo.  His response began with an account of Petrine authority which is so complete that I will not spare you its length: 

“Our Lord Jesus Christ, Savior of mankind, instituted the observance of the Divine religion which He wished by the grace of God to shed its brightness upon all nations and all peoples in such a way that the Truth, which before was confined to the announcements of the Law and the Prophets, might through the Apostles' trumpet blast go out for the salvation of all men. 

 But this mysterious function the Lord wished to be indeed the concern of all the apostles, but in such a way that He has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the Apostles.  And from him as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body, so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter's solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery.

For He wished him who had been received into partnership in His undivided unity to be named what He Himself was, when He said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church’ that the building of the eternal temple by the wondrous gift of God's grace might rest on Peter's solid rock - strengthening His Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it.

With the approval, as we believe, of God, we are striving to correct these things by mature counsel and to share with you the task of setting your churches in order.  Not by innovations but by restoration of the old; that we may persevere in the accustomed state which our fathers handed down to us.

And so we would have you recollect, brethren, as we do, that the Apostolic See has times beyond number been referred to and consulted by the priests of your province as well as others, and in the various matters of appeal, as the old usage demanded. […] For not only was the power of loosing and binding given to Peter before the others, but also to Peter more especially was entrusted the care of feeding the sheep.” – Letter to the Bishops of Vienne (Epistle 10), Sections 1-2, 445AD

Note especially that he says this order of things is not some new innovation, but the way things have always been.  He says the primacy of the successor of Peter is the order established by Christ and handed on through the generations.  And that this authority had historically been sought to resolve tons of problems in the Church.

Loudmouths?:

So I think there is a fair amount of evidence for one to conclude that the Bishops of Rome in the early Church thought of themselves as holding a special office which continued the ministry of Peter.  This office entailed the care of the entire Church worldwide by sorting out issues between other bishops. 

Still, perhaps this could be the delusions of arrogant loudmouths who insist on inserting themselves into other people’s problems.  The question remains… did anyone else in the Church think the Pope had this authority?

We will begin looking at that [next time.]