HOW DID THE BISHOP OF ROME BECOME DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER BISHOPS?
We have followed church leadership a long way.
We began with local congregations having elders who were also called bishops or overseers.
Then, in the churches described by Ignatius, one bishop was distinguished from the presbyters.
Bishops became increasingly important in baptism, communion, discipline, and the preservation of teaching.
Regional structures developed.
Metropolitan bishops acquired recognized responsibilities.
Then emperors began dealing directly with bishops and councils.
Now we come to another major development.
Among those bishops, one eventually claimed a unique position.
THE BISHOP OF ROME.
How did that happen?
Was the bishop of Rome always understood to govern the worldwide church?
Did Peter establish such an office?
How did other early bishops understand Rome's position?
And how did Roman claims change over time?
Once again, we will begin with the New Testament, then follow the surviving historical evidence.
1. PETER WAS IMPORTANT
We should not minimize Peter in order to make an argument.
Peter plainly held an important place among the apostles.
His name usually appears first in lists of the Twelve.
When Jesus asked His disciples who they believed Him to be, Peter answered:
“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
— Matthew 16:16
Jesus replied:
“Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.”
— Matthew 16:18
Jesus then spoke of giving Peter:
“the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”
— Matthew 16:19
Peter preached on Pentecost (Acts 2).
He played a major role in the opening of the gospel to Cornelius and the Gentiles (Acts 10).
The New Testament gives Peter a prominent place.
But recognizing Peter's importance does not settle every question about the later bishop of Rome.
We must distinguish two questions:
What authority did Jesus give Peter?
What authority, if any, passed from Peter to the bishops of Rome?
Those questions are related, but they are not identical.
2. WAS PETER THE ONLY APOSTLE GIVEN AUTHORITY TO BIND AND LOOSE?
In Matthew 16, Jesus tells Peter:
“And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
— Matthew 16:19
That is an important statement.
Two chapters later, Jesus uses similar language while speaking to His disciples:
“Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
— Matthew 18:18
After His resurrection, Jesus told His disciples:
“As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.”
— John 20:21
So we should not read Matthew 16 as though the other apostles possessed no authority.
They clearly did.
Christians interpret Peter's particular role in Matthew 16 differently.
Catholic teaching understands the passage as part of the biblical foundation for Peter's primacy and its continuation in the bishops of Rome.
Other Christians understand Peter's role as important without concluding that the passage establishes a continuing office of universal jurisdiction.
The text gives us Peter's commission.
The further question is how that commission relates to the office of bishop of Rome.
3. WHAT HAPPENS IN ACTS?
Peter is prominent in the early chapters of Acts.
But Acts also shows him working with the other apostles and explaining his actions to fellow believers.
In Acts 8, the apostles in Jerusalem sent Peter and John to Samaria (Acts 8:14).
In Acts 11, believers questioned Peter about entering the house of Gentiles.
Peter explained what had happened and how God had acted (Acts 11:1–18).
These accounts show Peter participating in the shared work of the apostles.
They do not describe the administrative structure of a later papacy.
At the same time, being sent by fellow apostles or explaining his actions does not, by itself, disprove every claim of Petrine primacy.
We should not force these accounts to answer a question they do not expressly address.
Instead, we should ask:
What do they positively tell us about how Peter exercised his responsibility?
4. WHAT ABOUT THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL?
Acts 15 records a major controversy over whether Gentile Christians had to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses.
Peter spoke.
His testimony was important.
But Peter did not act alone.
Paul and Barnabas spoke.
James spoke and appealed to Scripture.
James then said:
“Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God.”
— Acts 15:19
The decision was communicated in a letter sent in the name of the apostles and elders, with the church involved in the process (Acts 15:22–23).
The letter said:
“For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us.”
— Acts 15:28
Acts describes apostles and elders considering the matter together.
Christians differ about what Peter's speech and James's role imply concerning their respective authority.
But the account does not expressly describe a bishop of Rome exercising jurisdiction over the worldwide church.
We should distinguish Peter's role in this council from the later claims made for his successors.
5. PAUL CONFRONTED PETER
Galatians gives us another important picture.
Paul writes:
“But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.”
— Galatians 2:11
Peter's conduct toward Gentile Christians had become inconsistent with the truth of the gospel.
Paul corrected him publicly.
Peter was important.
But his importance did not place his conduct beyond correction.
The gospel remained the standard.
Catholic teaching does not claim that a pope is incapable of personal wrongdoing, so Paul's correction of Peter does not, by itself, settle the question of later papal authority.
What it does establish is important for every church leader:
No leader's position makes conduct contrary to the gospel acceptable.
6. PETER CALLED HIMSELF A FELLOW ELDER
Peter's own words are worth reading.
He wrote:
“The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ.”
— 1 Peter 5:1
He then instructed them to shepherd God's flock and exercise oversight.
He warned them against ruling in a domineering manner.
Then he pointed beyond every human shepherd:
“And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.”
— 1 Peter 5:4
Peter calls himself a fellow elder.
He also identifies himself as a witness of Christ's sufferings.
And he identifies Christ as the Chief Shepherd.
That language emphasizes shared responsibility, faithful service, and Christ's ultimate authority.
Christians who affirm Petrine primacy understand Peter's description of himself as a fellow elder to be compatible with his particular commission.
Others see it as evidence against assigning him a distinct governing office over the other elders.
The passage itself does not describe how an office in Rome would inherit Peter's authority.
For that claim, we must examine other passages and the historical evidence.
7. WHY DID ROME BECOME SO IMPORTANT?
Several factors came together.
Rome was the capital of the empire for centuries and remained a major political and cultural center even as imperial administration changed.
Its church was ancient.
Early Christian tradition connected both Peter and Paul with Rome and with their deaths there.
Christians traveled to and from the city.
The Roman church became an important point of contact for other Christian communities.
Its apostolic associations gave it particular significance.
Its leaders were involved in disputes extending beyond Rome itself.
None of that is surprising.
Rome mattered.
But we must distinguish several kinds of importance.
A church can be influential because of its location.
It can be respected because of its history.
It can be consulted because of its teaching.
Its bishop can hold a recognized place of honor among other bishops.
Those facts do not all mean exactly the same thing as universal jurisdiction—the claimed authority to govern the entire church.
We need to watch how those different forms of importance appear in the historical record.
8. CLEMENT SHOWS THAT ROME HAD EARLY INFLUENCE
Near the end of the first century, the church at Rome wrote to the church at Corinth about a serious dispute involving its leaders.
That letter is known as 1 Clement.
It is important evidence.
The Roman church was concerned about events in another congregation.
The letter strongly urged the Corinthians to restore order and reinstate leaders who had been wrongly removed.
Notice how it begins:
“The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth.”
— 1 Clement, opening address
The letter speaks in the name of the Roman church.
It does not begin by identifying Clement as supreme bishop of the worldwide church.
But we should not reduce the letter to a casual suggestion between friends.
It speaks firmly and expects its appeal to be taken seriously.
Catholic interpreters have regarded it as early evidence of Rome exercising responsibility beyond its own congregation.
Other interpreters see a respected church intervening in a serious dispute without proof that its bishop possessed universal jurisdiction.
The document shows early Roman involvement in another church's affairs.
It does not set out the complete jurisdictional structure claimed by the later papacy.
9. IRENAEUS GIVES ROME SPECIAL ATTENTION
Around A.D. 180, Irenaeus wrote against teachers who claimed to possess secret apostolic knowledge.
He appealed to churches associated with the apostles and to the public teaching preserved through their succession of leaders.
In Against Heresies 3.3, he gave particular attention to Rome.
He described its connection with Peter and Paul and listed a succession of its bishops.
He also made a strong statement about the relationship of other churches to Rome.
The translation and interpretation of that statement have been debated.
Some understand it as evidence that Rome already possessed a special authority among the churches.
Others emphasize Rome's prominence as a publicly known witness to apostolic teaching.
We should not ignore the strength of Irenaeus' language.
Nor should we assume that his statement defines every feature of the later papal office.
By the late second century, Rome occupied an unusually prominent place in arguments about the preservation of apostolic teaching.
The nature and extent of the authority implied by that prominence remain questions for careful examination.
10. ROME DID NOT ALWAYS GET ITS WAY
Near the end of the second century, Christians disagreed about the date for observing the annual commemoration of Christ's death and resurrection.
Churches in Asia Minor followed one practice.
Rome followed another.
Victor, bishop of Rome, attempted to cut off the churches following the Asian practice from communion.
Other bishops objected.
Irenaeus urged Victor to preserve peace.
This episode tells us two things.
First, the bishop of Rome was willing to act in a dispute affecting churches outside his own city.
His action mattered enough to provoke responses from other bishops.
Second, those bishops did not simply accept his action without objection.
The incident is evidence of Roman claims and influence, as well as resistance to a particular exercise of that influence.
It does not, by itself, establish the full extent of Rome's accepted authority.
11. CYPRIAN GIVES US ANOTHER IMPORTANT EXAMPLE
In the third century, Cyprian of Carthage spoke highly of Peter and the unity of the church.
He also became involved in a major dispute with Stephen, bishop of Rome, over baptism performed outside the recognized church.
Stephen opposed Cyprian's practice of baptizing those who came into the church after having already received baptism in another Christian community.Cyprian disagreed.
The dispute became serious.
At a council in Carthage during this controversy, Cyprian rejected the idea that one bishop should act as a “bishop of bishops” and compel his fellow bishops to obey him.
That statement is important evidence of Cyprian's understanding of the relationship among bishops.
Rome was prominent.
But Cyprian did not treat Stephen's position as settling the baptismal controversy for every bishop.
Christians interpret Cyprian's broader writings about Peter, Rome, and church unity differently.
We should therefore read both his statements about unity and his conduct during the baptismal controversy.
Third-century bishops did not all understand or accept Roman authority in precisely the same way.
12. NICAEA IS IMPORTANT
Now move to A.D. 325.
Canon 6 of the Council of Nicaea refers to ancient customs.
It recognizes the customary authority of Alexandria in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis.
It refers to a corresponding custom concerning Rome.
It also preserves the privileges of Antioch and other provinces.
Look carefully at the picture.
We have several major episcopal centers.
Rome.
Alexandria.
Antioch.
Nicaea recognizes established arrangements and privileges.
But Canon 6 does not provide a full definition of the later papal office or describe every bishop in the world as being under Rome's direct administrative jurisdiction.
Catholic interpreters understand the canon as addressing regional arrangements without denying Rome's broader primacy.
Other interpreters regard its treatment of major centers as evidence of a more regional and conciliar structure.
The canon establishes that Rome was an important episcopal center. Its implications for universal papal jurisdiction are disputed.
13. THEN CONSTANTINOPLE BECAME IMPORTANT
Constantine established Constantinople as a new imperial capital.
The city rapidly became an important political center.
What happened to its bishop?
At the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381, Canon 3 assigned the bishop of Constantinople the place of honor immediately after the bishop of Rome.
The reason given was that Constantinople was New Rome.
Notice what that tells us.
The political importance of a city could affect the standing assigned to its bishop.
Rome already held first place in the order of honor recognized by this canon.
Constantinople was now assigned second place.
But a place of honor is not necessarily identical to authority to govern every other bishop.
We must distinguish precedence from jurisdiction.
That distinction becomes especially important in the next council.
14. CHALCEDON MAKES THE ARGUMENT MORE EXPLICIT
At the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451, Canon 28 addressed the privileges of Constantinople.
The canon explained Rome's earlier privileges by referring to its status as the imperial city.
It then argued that Constantinople, as New Rome, should receive comparable privileges because it too possessed the emperor and senate.
That is important evidence.
The bishops who supported the canon connected the standing of major episcopal centers with the political importance of their cities.
But this was not the only explanation offered for Rome's primacy.
Rome's bishops increasingly emphasized Peter's commission from Christ and the Roman church's connection with Peter.
Those were different grounds for explaining ecclesiastical authority.
And they could lead to different conclusions.
Was Rome first because of its place in the empire?
Because of its association with Peter?
Or because of several factors understood together?
Christians did not all answer those questions in the same way.
15. ROME'S BISHOPS DEVELOPED A DISTINCTLY PETRINE ARGUMENT
Rome's bishops did not base their claims only on the importance of their city.
They appealed to Peter.
Jesus had said:
“Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.”
— Matthew 16:18
He had given Peter the keys of the kingdom.
Peter had been prominent among the apostles.
Early Christian tradition associated Peter with Rome.
The Roman bishop came to be understood as occupying Peter's chair.
Here the argument goes beyond Rome's size, age, or political standing.
It becomes a claim about authority received from Christ through Peter.
The reasoning is:
Christ gave Peter a particular commission.
Peter's ministry became associated with the church at Rome.
The bishop of Rome succeeds Peter in a continuing office.
The critical question is whether—and in what sense—the authority Christ gave Peter continues in that office.
That is the theological claim we must examine, not merely Rome's historical importance.
16. LEO I STATES ROMAN CLAIMS MORE EXPLICITLY
By the fifth century, we come to Leo I, bishop of Rome from A.D. 440 to 461.
Leo repeatedly appealed to Peter when explaining the responsibilities of the Roman see.
He understood Peter's authority as continuing in the office of Rome's bishop.
He also asserted responsibilities extending beyond his own local church.
Leo's claims were more explicit than simply saying:
“Rome is an old and respected church.”
His argument was that the Roman bishop exercised an office grounded in Peter's commission.
That is important evidence of how Roman primacy was being understood and articulated in the fifth century.
But Leo's claims and the extent to which other bishops accepted them are two separate historical questions.
To understand his position, we must examine both his writings and the responses of other church leaders.
17. CHALCEDON SHOWS THAT THE QUESTION WAS STILL CONTESTED
Leo was influential at the Council of Chalcedon.
His Tome, a statement concerning Christ, was received with great respect.
Yet the same council adopted Canon 28, assigning Constantinople extensive privileges and connecting those privileges with the city's imperial status.
Leo rejected that canon.
Here we see two approaches to ecclesiastical primacy coming into conflict.
Leo emphasized the authority associated with Peter and the Roman see.
The bishops supporting Canon 28 also appealed to the standing of major imperial cities and the authority of councils.
That disagreement matters.
We should not take the fully developed papal system of later centuries and assume that everyone in A.D. 451 understood Roman authority in exactly the same way.
The surviving evidence shows significant disagreement over the nature and extent of Rome's authority.Rome's claims were developing, and their relationship to the authority of other bishops and councils remained contested.
18. WATCH THE EVIDENCE DEVELOP
Put the evidence in order.
NEW TESTAMENT
Peter is a leading apostle.
Christ gives him an important commission.
The other apostles also exercise authority.
Christ remains the Chief Shepherd.
The passages we have examined do not explicitly describe a succession of bishops at Rome inheriting Peter's commission.
LATE FIRST CENTURY
The Roman church writes a forceful letter to Corinth about a dispute involving its leaders.
SECOND CENTURY
Rome's apostolic associations and publicly preserved teaching make it an important reference point.
Irenaeus gives Rome particular prominence.
Victor attempts to exclude churches in Asia Minor from communion, and other bishops object.
THIRD CENTURY
Rome's bishop exercises influence beyond his local church.
Cyprian's dispute with Stephen shows that Roman claims were not accepted without disagreement.
A.D. 325 — NICAEA
Rome is recognized alongside other major episcopal centers in a canon addressing established customs and privileges.
A.D. 381 — CONSTANTINOPLE
The bishop of New Rome receives the place of honor immediately after the bishop of Rome.
FIFTH CENTURY — LEO I AND CHALCEDON
Leo articulates Roman authority in explicitly Petrine terms.
Chalcedon recognizes Rome's high standing but also grants Constantinople extensive privileges.
Leo rejects that grant.
Rome's prominence is early. Its claims to wider authority become clearer over time. The extent of that authority remains disputed.
19. NOW ASK THE TEXTUAL QUESTION
We are not asking:
Was Rome important?
It plainly was.
We are not asking:
Was Peter important?
He plainly was.
We are not asking:
Did early Christians respect the Roman church?
Many did.
We are asking something more precise:
Did Jesus establish a continuing office in which Peter's particular authority would pass to the bishop of Rome and his successors?
If so, what authority belongs to that office?
How is it related to the authority of other bishops?
What is its relationship to councils?
And how do we identify its biblical foundation?
Catholic Christians answer these questions by appealing to Scripture together with their understanding of apostolic tradition and the church's continuing authority.
Orthodox and Protestant Christians offer different interpretations of the relevant biblical passages and historical evidence.
We should examine those arguments without assuming that a later title, by itself, settles the question.
20. DO NOT ARGUE MORE THAN THE EVIDENCE ALLOWS
It would be too simple to say:
“The papacy suddenly appeared.”
The historical record shows developments over centuries.
It would also be too simple to say:
“Rome had no special place until the Middle Ages.”
Rome possessed unusual prominence much earlier.
The evidence requires us to distinguish:
Early influence.
Recognized precedence.
Claims to primacy.
Claims to jurisdiction.
The extent to which those claims were accepted by other churches.
These are not interchangeable.
A church can be respected without governing other churches.
A bishop can hold first place in an order of honor without possessing every form of authority later associated with that position.
A bishop can also claim wider authority before other bishops agree that he possesses it.
The task is to identify what was claimed, what was practiced, what was accepted, and what was contested at each stage.
READ IT FOR YOURSELF
Begin with these New Testament passages:
Matthew 16:13–20
Matthew 18:15–20
Acts 2
Acts 8:14–25
Acts 10–11
Acts 15
Galatians 1:6–9
Galatians 2:1–14
1 Peter 5:1–4
Then compare the historical evidence:
1 Clement
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3
The Easter controversy involving Victor of Rome
Cyprian's dispute with Stephen
Council of Nicaea, Canon 6
Council of Constantinople, Canon 3
Council of Chalcedon, Canon 28
The letters and sermons of Leo I
Do not begin with the modern papacy and assume that every feature of it existed in A.D. 33.
Do not begin by assuming that Rome's later claims had no connection with earlier Christian history.
START WITH THE TEXT.
Then follow the history.
Ask at every stage:
What authority is described?
Who exercised it?
Over whom?
On what basis?
Was that authority claimed, recognized, or disputed?
When we ask those questions, we can see that Rome's position did not take its later form overnight.
Its influence was early.
Its claims became more explicit.
Peter's commission became central to its explanation of authority.
But we have not yet reached the medieval papacy.
There are still major developments ahead.
So our next question is:
HOW DID THE BISHOP OF ROME BECOME THE POPE?
TEXT B4 TRADITION
Read First. Conclude Later.
Return to One Church, So Many Divisions
Next Study: Before East and West Divided