DID THE EAST EVER ACCEPT THE POPE AS HEAD OF THE WHOLE CHURCH?

ROME WAS FIRST — BUT WHAT DID “FIRST” MEAN?

This is one of those questions where a simple yes or no can be misleading.

Did Christians in the East recognize the importance of the church at Rome?

Yes.

Did they recognize Rome as holding first place among the great episcopal centers?

Yes.

Did that mean they accepted the bishop of Rome as the supreme governor of every bishop and every church?

That is a different question.

The disagreement was not simply about whether Rome mattered.

It was about what authority Rome’s special position gave its bishop.

And that disagreement became one of the major issues separating Eastern and Western Christianity.

1. ROME WAS AN IMPORTANT CHURCH FROM THE BEGINNING

We have no reason to minimize Rome.

Paul wrote a letter to the Christians there.

Early Christian tradition associated both Peter and Paul with Rome and remembered them as having died there.

Rome was also the capital of the empire for centuries.

Its church became influential well beyond the city itself.

But we need to distinguish several things.

An important church.

A respected bishop.

First place among major bishops.

Authority to govern every church.

Those statements do not all mean the same thing.

Our question is:

WHAT KIND OF PRIMACY DID ROME HAVE?

Primacy means holding first place.

But first place in what sense?

That is what we need to investigate.

2. ROME CAME FIRST AMONG THE GREAT SEES

As church organization developed, five major episcopal centers eventually received special recognition:

ROME

CONSTANTINOPLE

ALEXANDRIA

ANTIOCH

JERUSALEM

These centers did not all acquire their standing at the same time or for identical reasons.

Rome held first place in the order of honor.

Constantinople eventually held second place.

Eastern Christianity did not simply say:

“ROME HAS NO SPECIAL PLACE.”

Rome did have a special place.

But was its bishop first among bishops, or did he possess direct governing authority over all other bishops?

Those are not identical claims.

3. THE EAST COULD RECOGNIZE ROME AS FIRST

During the first millennium, Eastern Christians could recognize Rome’s bishop as holding first place among the great patriarchal sees.

This is often described as a primacy of honor.

Rome was accorded particular respect.

Its bishop could be consulted in serious disputes.

Eastern bishops sometimes appealed to Rome.

But we should not reduce the Eastern understanding to the idea that Rome merely received a ceremonial greeting before everyone else.

The precise responsibilities associated with primacy varied across time and circumstance. Rome could play a meaningful role in the wider church.

The question was whether that role amounted to ordinary jurisdiction over every church—the standing authority to govern churches simply because they belonged to the universal church.

Eastern Christians did not generally accept that understanding of Roman primacy.

ROME COULD BE FIRST WITHOUT BEING UNDERSTOOD AS THE DIRECT GOVERNOR OF EVERY CHURCH.

That distinction is central to this study.

4. EASTERN BISHOPS SOMETIMES APPEALED TO ROME

We should not ignore this evidence.

When Eastern bishops believed they had been treated unjustly, some sought help from Rome.

Athanasius of Alexandria, for example, appealed to Rome during the fourth-century controversies surrounding his removal from office.

John Chrysostom also sought support from Rome and other influential bishops after his deposition in the early fifth century.

Those appeals show that Rome’s standing was more than an empty title.

But an appeal does not, by itself, tell us the full legal or theological basis of the authority being requested.

Was the bishop asking a respected fellow bishop to intervene?

Was he invoking an established procedure for reviewing a decision?

Was he recognizing a universal right of Roman jurisdiction?

Those possibilities must be distinguished by examining the particular case.

Appeals were also made to other important bishops and to emperors. Disputes could be considered by synods and councils.

THE FACT THAT SOMEONE APPEALED TO ROME DOES NOT, BY ITSELF, ESTABLISH THAT ROME GOVERNED EVERY CHURCH.

We need to ask what authority was claimed, what action was taken, and how other bishops responded.

5. THE GREAT COUNCILS ARE IMPORTANT HERE

Consider the major councils of the early church.

Nicaea — A.D. 325

Constantinople — A.D. 381

Ephesus — A.D. 431

Chalcedon — A.D. 451

The bishop of Rome did not personally attend and preside over each of these councils as though he were the sole decision-maker for every bishop.

Rome nevertheless participated in important ways.

Roman representatives attended some councils.

Roman bishops corresponded with other church leaders.

Their theological statements could carry considerable weight.

At Chalcedon, Leo I’s teaching concerning Christ was received with great respect.

But the councils also show bishops gathering, discussing controversies, issuing decisions, and addressing questions of church organization together.

That is important evidence for understanding how authority functioned.

THE COUNCILS WERE NOT SIMPLY MEETINGS AT WHICH EVERYONE WAITED FOR ROME TO ISSUE A RULING.

Nor does the existence of councils, by itself, disprove every claim of Roman primacy.

The question is how Roman primacy and conciliar authority were understood to relate to one another.

6. CHALCEDON GIVES US A PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT EXAMPLE

We encountered Canon 28 of Chalcedon in our previous studies.

The canon explained old Rome’s privileges by referring to its position as the imperial city.

It then argued that Constantinople, as New Rome, should receive comparable privileges because it too possessed imperial importance.

Rome objected.

Leo I rejected the canon.

Why?

Part of the disagreement concerned the basis of Rome’s standing.

Leo emphasized Rome’s apostolic associations and the authority connected with Peter.

The bishops supporting Canon 28 also appealed to the political importance of the imperial cities.

These were different ways of explaining ecclesiastical precedence and privilege.

IF ROME’S POSITION RESTED UPON PETER’S PARTICULAR COMMISSION, COULD CONSTANTINOPLE RECEIVE COMPARABLE PRIVILEGES SIMPLY BECAUSE IT WAS THE NEW IMPERIAL CAPITAL?

That question was not settled by the fact that both sides recognized Rome’s importance.

The disagreement concerned what made Rome first and what authority followed from that position.

7. ROME INCREASINGLY APPEALED TO PETER

Jesus said to Peter:

“Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.”

— Matthew 16:18, KJV

He continued:

“And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”

— Matthew 16:19, KJV

These words became central to Rome’s understanding of its authority.

The Roman argument developed along these lines:

Peter received a particular commission from Christ.

Peter was associated with the church at Rome.

The bishops of Rome succeeded Peter.

Peter’s particular authority therefore continues through the Roman see.

That reasoning became foundational to the Roman Catholic understanding of the papacy.

But each step must be examined.

Peter’s importance is one question.

The continuation of his particular commission is another.

Its connection to the office of bishop of Rome is another.

And the scope of authority claimed for that office is another.

WE SHOULD NOT TREAT FOUR SEPARATE QUESTIONS AS THOUGH THEY WERE ONE.

8. WHAT DOES MATTHEW 16 ACTUALLY SAY?

Peter certainly had an important role.

He confessed Jesus as the Christ.

He preached on Pentecost.

He played a central role when the gospel came to Cornelius and his household.

We should not diminish any of that.

But read Matthew 16 carefully.

The passage does not name:

ROME.

It does not name:

THE BISHOP OF ROME.

It does not describe:

A PROCEDURE FOR CHOOSING PETER’S SUCCESSORS.

And it does not explicitly state that Peter’s particular commission will pass to the bishops of one city.

Roman Catholic interpreters understand Matthew 16 together with other biblical passages and apostolic tradition as supporting a continuing Petrine office.

Other Christians understand Peter’s commission differently.

For our study, the distinction is this:

MATTHEW 16 STATES CHRIST’S WORDS TO PETER. THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THOSE WORDS AND THE LATER ROMAN OFFICE REQUIRES FURTHER ARGUMENT.

We should examine that argument rather than assume it.

9. PETER WAS NOT THE ONLY APOSTLE GIVEN AUTHORITY

Compare Matthew 16 with Matthew 18.

Jesus told Peter:

“Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.”

— Matthew 16:19, KJV

Later, Jesus told His disciples:

“Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.”

— Matthew 18:18, KJV

Peter received an important commission.

But the other apostles also exercised authority.

We should not read Matthew 16 as though they possessed none.

At the same time, the fact that the apostles shared authority does not automatically settle whether Peter also held a particular role among them.

SHARED AUTHORITY AND A DISTINCT RESPONSIBILITY ARE NOT NECESSARILY MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

The question is what kind of distinction the New Testament establishes and whether it describes that distinction as continuing in a later office.

10. LOOK AT ACTS 15

Acts 15 gives us an opportunity to observe how the apostles addressed a major controversy.

Some Christians were teaching that Gentile believers had to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses.

The apostles and elders gathered in Jerusalem.

There was discussion.

Peter spoke.

Paul and Barnabas reported what God had done among the Gentiles.

James spoke and appealed to Scripture.

Then a decision was communicated to the churches.

Luke writes:

“Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.”

— Acts 15:22, KJV

The letter said:

“For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us.”

— Acts 15:28, KJV

Peter’s contribution was important.

But the account describes apostles and elders addressing the controversy together.

Christians differ over what Peter’s speech and James’s role imply about their respective authority.

What the account does not explicitly describe is a bishop of Rome issuing a binding decision for the worldwide church.

ACTS 15 SHOWS US HOW THIS CONTROVERSY WAS ADDRESSED DURING THE APOSTOLIC PERIOD.

We must be careful about reading a later institutional structure back into it.

11. PETER COULD BE QUESTIONED AND CORRECTED

After Peter entered the home of Cornelius, some believers in Jerusalem questioned his conduct.

Peter explained what had happened and how God had acted.

Read Acts 11:1–18.

Later, Paul described an incident at Antioch:

“But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.”

— Galatians 2:11, KJV

Peter’s conduct toward Gentile Christians had become inconsistent with the truth of the gospel.

Paul corrected him.

This does not settle every later claim concerning papal authority.

Roman Catholic teaching does not hold that a pope is incapable of personal error or wrongdoing.

But the incident establishes an important principle:

NO LEADER’S POSITION PLACES HIS CONDUCT BEYOND CORRECTION BY THE GOSPEL.

That principle applies to every Christian leader.

12. HOW DID PETER DESCRIBE HIMSELF?

Peter 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, KJV

Then he told the elders:

“Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof.”

— 1 Peter 5:2, KJV

He warned them against exercising their responsibility as domineering rulers.

And he pointed them beyond himself:

“And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.”

— 1 Peter 5:4, KJV

Peter called himself a fellow elder.

He instructed other elders to shepherd God’s flock.

And he identified Christ as the Chief Shepherd.

Catholic Christians understand that language as compatible with Peter’s particular commission.

Other Christians see it as evidence against a separate governing office over the other elders.

Whatever conclusion we reach about those interpretations, Peter’s words establish something every Christian can affirm:

CHRIST IS THE CHIEF SHEPHERD.

Every human leader remains accountable to Him.

13. THE EAST DID NOT NEED TO DENY PETER’S IMPORTANCE

Eastern Christianity did not need to deny that Peter was prominent among the apostles.

Nor did it need to deny Rome’s ancient importance.

The disagreement concerned what followed from those facts.

Did Peter’s prominence establish authority over all the other apostles?

Was his particular commission transferable?

If so, in what sense?

Did it pass specifically to the bishops of Rome?

What authority would that give them over other bishops and churches?

Those are separate questions.

Eastern Christians could honor Peter and Rome while disagreeing with the later Western answers concerning universal papal jurisdiction.

That is why the question in our title requires a careful answer.

THE EAST RECOGNIZED ROME’S PRIMACY, BUT IT DID NOT GENERALLY ACCEPT THE LATER ROMAN CLAIM THAT ITS BISHOP POSSESSED DIRECT GOVERNING AUTHORITY OVER THE ENTIRE CHURCH.

14. EAST AND WEST DEVELOPED DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF PRIMACY

In the West, Rome increasingly emphasized a line of reasoning connecting:

PETER’S COMMISSION

to

PETER’S ROMAN SUCCESSION

to

THE AUTHORITY OF THE BISHOP OF ROME.

Eastern church organization placed substantial emphasis on bishops sharing responsibility through synods and councils.

Major episcopal centers held recognized positions of honor and leadership.

Rome could hold first place within that order.

But Eastern Christians generally did not understand first place as giving Rome’s bishop the authority to govern every other bishop independently of the wider church.

We should not make the contrast too simple.

Western Christians also valued councils.

Eastern patriarchs could exercise significant authority within their own jurisdictions.

And disagreements existed within both East and West.

But the central issue remained:

WHAT AUTHORITY DID ROME’S FIRST PLACE ACTUALLY INCLUDE?

That question became increasingly difficult to resolve.

15. THIS WAS NOT MERELY A PERSONAL QUARREL

Political rivalry and personal conflicts played roles in church history.

But we should not reduce the entire controversy to ambitious men competing for power.

Serious theological questions were involved.

Christians were asking:

HOW DID CHRIST INTEND HIS CHURCH TO BE GOVERNED?

WHAT AUTHORITY DID HE GIVE PETER?

WHAT AUTHORITY DID HE GIVE THE OTHER APOSTLES?

DID APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONTINUE THROUGH BISHOPS?

DID PETER’S PARTICULAR AUTHORITY CONTINUE UNIQUELY THROUGH ROME?

WHAT AUTHORITY BELONGED TO COUNCILS?

Those questions deserve careful answers.

We should examine the Scriptures and historical evidence rather than settle for slogans about either side.

16. NOTICE THE DEVELOPMENT WE HAVE TRACED

Return to the New Testament.

There we find:

CHRIST

APOSTLES

LOCAL CHURCHES

ELDERS, ALSO CALLED OVERSEERS, WHO SHEPHERD THE FLOCK

DEACONS

Then follow the historical development we have already studied.

Over the centuries, we encounter:

BISHOPS DISTINGUISHED FROM PRESBYTERS

METROPOLITANS

PATRIARCHS

MAJOR EPISCOPAL CENTERS

ROME HOLDING FIRST PLACE

And increasingly:

ROMAN CLAIMS TO UNIVERSAL AUTHORITY.

Our question is not whether every later development was made for a bad reason.

Nor does the fact that a structure developed later automatically settle whether Christians were authorized to adopt it.

Our questions are:

WHERE DID IT COME FROM?

WHAT AUTHORITY WAS CLAIMED FOR IT?

AND HOW WAS THAT AUTHORITY CONNECTED TO THE TEACHING OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES?

Those questions apply to every church tradition, including our own.

17. EAST AND WEST COULD AGREE THAT ROME WAS FIRST

This is perhaps the most important historical distinction on this page.

The disagreement was not:

“ROME SAYS ROME MATTERS.”

And:

“THE EAST SAYS ROME DOES NOT MATTER.”

That would misrepresent the history.

Both could recognize Rome’s special standing.

The disagreement was:

WHAT DID THAT STANDING AUTHORIZE THE BISHOP OF ROME TO DO?

Could he receive appeals?

Could he intervene in another bishop’s dispute?

Could he overturn a council?

Could he appoint or remove bishops outside his own jurisdiction?

Could he issue decisions binding the entire church?

Different kinds of primacy imply different answers.

And the historical record shows that Christians did not all answer those questions in the same way.

Once we understand that, the later conflict between East and West becomes easier to follow.

18. PUT THE CLAIM BESIDE THE TEXT

Do not begin with:

“THE POPE MUST BE SUPREME BECAUSE MY CHURCH SAYS SO.”

And do not begin with:

“THE POPE CANNOT HAVE ANY PRIMACY BECAUSE MY CHURCH SAYS SO.”

Open the text.

Read:

Matthew 16:13–20

Matthew 18:15–20

Luke 22:24–32

John 21:15–19

Acts 1–2

Acts 10–11

Acts 15

Galatians 2:1–14

1 Peter 5:1–4

Then ask:

What authority did Jesus actually give Peter?

What authority did the other apostles possess?

How did the apostles exercise their responsibilities together?

Does the text say that Peter’s particular commission passed to someone else?

Does it identify that successor as the bishop of Rome?

What reasoning is used to connect those passages with the later Roman office?

Do not begin with the answer.

LET THE TEXT ESTABLISH WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS.

Then examine the arguments made from it.

19. NOW WE ARE GETTING CLOSE TO A.D. 1054

East and West still shared a great deal.

They shared ancient Christian history.

They shared Scripture.

They shared the early councils.

They shared baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

They shared episcopal church organization.

They shared centuries of communion, although that communion had been interrupted at various times.

But significant disagreements had accumulated.

They differed increasingly over:

LANGUAGE.

CULTURE.

POLITICS.

THE FILIOQUE.

And especially:

THE AUTHORITY OF THE BISHOP OF ROME.

The question was becoming unavoidable.

If Rome claimed authority extending over the whole church, and Constantinople did not recognize that claim in the same way, what would happen when a serious dispute brought them into direct conflict?

That brings us to one of the most famous dates in church history:

A.D. 1054.

But even there, we need to be careful.

The division between East and West did not begin and end on a single day.

The events of 1054 were important, but their meaning and lasting consequences must be understood within the longer history.

That is where we go next.

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN 1054?

TEXT B4 TRADITION

Read First. Conclude Later.

RETURN TO MAIN SERIES: ONE CHURCH, SO MANY DIVISIONS—WHAT HAPPENED?

NEXT STUDY: WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN 1054?