J
JasonTE
Guest
_Christopher_:
One of the earliest documents we have related to the Roman church is First Clement. Though it’s often cited by Catholics as evidence of an early papacy, it’s more reasonably interpreted as evidence against an early papacy. “Some scholars anachronistically saw in the epistle an assertion of Roman primacy, but nowadays a hermeneutic of collegiality is more widely accepted.” (Thomas Halton, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Everett Ferguson, editor [New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999], p. 253) The letter is written in the name of the church of Rome, not the bishop of Rome. Though it cites the authority of the apostles, the authority of scripture, and the authority of the Holy Spirit, for example, in its attempt to correct the errors of the Corinthians, it never cites papal authority. A citation of papal authority, if such existed at the time, could have gone far in settling the disruptions in Corinth, yet First Clement makes many appeals to other sources of authority without ever mentioning any papal authority.
It seems that the early Roman churches were led by a plurality of elders, without a monarchical episcopate. J.N.D. Kelly argues that “government of the local church by a single bishop as distinct from a group of presbyter-bishops, finally emerged in Rome in the mid-2nd cent.” (Oxford Dictionary of Popes [New York: Oxford University Press, 1996], p. 6) Regarding another early document written by a member of the Roman church, the Catholic historian Robert Eno wrote:
“Hermas was a farmer, an ex-slave who was a member of the Roman community [around the time of the apostles] who received what we would call visions and private revelations, most of which concern the problem of sin in the Church and the issue of public penance. What is of interest here are the incidental remarks which mention the leaders of the Christian community in Rome. These leaders are usually referred to by such vague titles as ‘the leaders’ (e.g., Vision II.2.6; III.9.7). Sometimes they are called elders as ‘the elders who are in charge of the Church’ (Vis. II.4.3). It is significant to note that these references are all in the plural. In other places, bishops are mentioned (again in the plural); they are usually linked with others, e.g., bishops, teachers and deacons (Vis. III.5.1)…This evidence (Clement, Hermas, Ignatius) points us in the direction of assuming that in the first century and into the second, there was no bishop of Rome in the usual sense given to that title. The office of the single mon-episkopos was slowly emerging in the local Christian communities around the Mediterranean world. Men like Ignatius were strongly urging this development. But the evidence seems to indicate that in the earliest decades, this evolution had not yet been accomplished in Rome. This then is that missing link referred to by Rudolf Pesch. If there were no bishop of Rome, in what sense can one speak of a Petrine succession?” (The Rise of the Papacy [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1990], pp. 27-29)
Late in the second century, there was a dispute over the celebration of Easter, a dispute led largely by the Roman bishop Victor. We have a variety of sources extant commenting on that dispute, such as Irenaeus, Polycrates, and Eusebius. In Irenaeus’ letter to Victor, Polycrates’ response to Victor, and Eusebius’ description of the entire controversy, there’s no mention of papal authority. There are appeals to the authority of church traditions, for example, but neither Victor nor his opponents are ever cited discussing papal authority, even though such a dispute is the sort of context in which we might expect such a discussion.
I’ll conclude, in my next post, with some comments on the Roman church of Cyprian’s time.
Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org
What I asserted is that it seems that even Rome itself had no concept of a papacy before the time of the Roman bishop Stephen in the middle of the third century. I place emphasis on the word “seems” because I acknowledge that the Roman church prior to Stephen didn’t comment explicitly on this subject. But the weight of probability seems to support the conclusion that the early Roman churches had no concept of a papacy.
One of the earliest documents we have related to the Roman church is First Clement. Though it’s often cited by Catholics as evidence of an early papacy, it’s more reasonably interpreted as evidence against an early papacy. “Some scholars anachronistically saw in the epistle an assertion of Roman primacy, but nowadays a hermeneutic of collegiality is more widely accepted.” (Thomas Halton, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Everett Ferguson, editor [New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999], p. 253) The letter is written in the name of the church of Rome, not the bishop of Rome. Though it cites the authority of the apostles, the authority of scripture, and the authority of the Holy Spirit, for example, in its attempt to correct the errors of the Corinthians, it never cites papal authority. A citation of papal authority, if such existed at the time, could have gone far in settling the disruptions in Corinth, yet First Clement makes many appeals to other sources of authority without ever mentioning any papal authority.
It seems that the early Roman churches were led by a plurality of elders, without a monarchical episcopate. J.N.D. Kelly argues that “government of the local church by a single bishop as distinct from a group of presbyter-bishops, finally emerged in Rome in the mid-2nd cent.” (Oxford Dictionary of Popes [New York: Oxford University Press, 1996], p. 6) Regarding another early document written by a member of the Roman church, the Catholic historian Robert Eno wrote:
“Hermas was a farmer, an ex-slave who was a member of the Roman community [around the time of the apostles] who received what we would call visions and private revelations, most of which concern the problem of sin in the Church and the issue of public penance. What is of interest here are the incidental remarks which mention the leaders of the Christian community in Rome. These leaders are usually referred to by such vague titles as ‘the leaders’ (e.g., Vision II.2.6; III.9.7). Sometimes they are called elders as ‘the elders who are in charge of the Church’ (Vis. II.4.3). It is significant to note that these references are all in the plural. In other places, bishops are mentioned (again in the plural); they are usually linked with others, e.g., bishops, teachers and deacons (Vis. III.5.1)…This evidence (Clement, Hermas, Ignatius) points us in the direction of assuming that in the first century and into the second, there was no bishop of Rome in the usual sense given to that title. The office of the single mon-episkopos was slowly emerging in the local Christian communities around the Mediterranean world. Men like Ignatius were strongly urging this development. But the evidence seems to indicate that in the earliest decades, this evolution had not yet been accomplished in Rome. This then is that missing link referred to by Rudolf Pesch. If there were no bishop of Rome, in what sense can one speak of a Petrine succession?” (The Rise of the Papacy [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1990], pp. 27-29)
Late in the second century, there was a dispute over the celebration of Easter, a dispute led largely by the Roman bishop Victor. We have a variety of sources extant commenting on that dispute, such as Irenaeus, Polycrates, and Eusebius. In Irenaeus’ letter to Victor, Polycrates’ response to Victor, and Eusebius’ description of the entire controversy, there’s no mention of papal authority. There are appeals to the authority of church traditions, for example, but neither Victor nor his opponents are ever cited discussing papal authority, even though such a dispute is the sort of context in which we might expect such a discussion.
I’ll conclude, in my next post, with some comments on the Roman church of Cyprian’s time.
Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org
I don’t see any point in re-hashing all this, although some new people have never seen this stuff I guess.
