HOW DID THE BISHOP OF ROME BECOME THE POPE?
In our last study, we followed the growing importance of the bishop of Rome.
Rome was an ancient and influential church.
Peter and Paul were associated with it.
Irenaeus appealed to its preservation of apostolic teaching.
Over time, Roman bishops increasingly connected their authority with Peter.
By the fifth century, Leo I was making strong claims that the authority given to Peter continued through the Roman see.
But we still have not reached the fully developed medieval papacy.
So what happened next?
The answer is not that someone invented the pope on a particular day.
The office developed over centuries.
We can follow several important changes: the weakening of imperial government in the West, the expanding responsibilities of Roman bishops, the acquisition of territory, disputes with kings and emperors, and increasingly explicit claims about papal authority.
Let us follow the evidence.
1. FIRST, WHAT DOES “POPE” MEAN?
The English word pope comes ultimately from the Greek pappas and Latin papa.
It means father.
Originally, the title was not reserved exclusively for the bishop of Rome.
Other bishops could be called papa.
Even today, the head of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria is called pope.
So finding the word pope in an early document does not prove that every feature of the later Roman papal office already existed.
A title and an office are not always the same thing.
The important question is not merely:
When was the bishop of Rome first called pope?
It is:
How did the responsibilities and authority associated with his office change over time?
2. LEO I HAD ALREADY MADE A STRONG CLAIM
We ended our last study with Leo I.
Leo was bishop of Rome from A.D. 440 to 461.
He strongly connected Roman authority with Peter.
For Leo, the responsibility Christ had given Peter did not simply disappear when Peter died.
Leo understood that responsibility as continuing in Peter's see.
That provided a theological argument for Roman primacy.
Rome was not important merely because it was ancient, influential, wealthy, or associated with the former imperial capital.
Leo claimed something more.
Christ gave Peter a particular authority.
Peter's authority continues in the Roman see.
Therefore, the bishop of Rome exercises a primacy grounded in Christ's commission to Peter.
That argument would become central to later explanations of papal authority.
But a bishop's claim and the extent to which other bishops accepted it are separate questions.
We must keep both in view.
3. THEN WESTERN IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT COLLAPSED
In A.D. 476, the last western Roman emperor was deposed.
The eastern Roman Empire continued, but political authority in the West became increasingly divided among different rulers and kingdoms.
There was no longer a western emperor ruling from Rome.
But the Roman church remained.
Its bishop was the leader of an old and organized institution with property, clergy, and connections extending beyond the city.
As political circumstances changed, the bishop of Rome became increasingly involved in public affairs.
We should not imagine that all civil government suddenly disappeared in A.D. 476. Roman institutions continued in different forms, and new rulers exercised real authority.
Nevertheless, the changing political situation created opportunities for the Roman bishop to assume responsibilities beyond those of a local congregation's shepherd.
The bishop's religious office was acquiring a larger public role.
4. THE BISHOP BECAME INVOLVED IN MORE THAN CHURCH AFFAIRS
When civil government is unstable, practical needs do not disappear.
Food must be distributed.
Property must be administered.
The poor must be cared for.
Communities sometimes need representatives to negotiate with rulers or military leaders.
Roman bishops became involved in such matters.
The church also possessed resources and organizational networks that could be used to meet public needs.
We should not assume that every bishop sought political power for its own sake.
Some responsibilities arose because circumstances demanded action.
But the effect was significant.
The bishop of Rome was becoming an important figure in the public life of the city and surrounding territories.
That was a different situation from the one described for the elders of local congregations in the New Testament.
5. THEN WE COME TO GREGORY THE GREAT
Gregory I became bishop of Rome in A.D. 590.
He is commonly known as Gregory the Great.
Gregory administered extensive church estates.
He organized relief for the poor.
He corresponded with rulers and church leaders.
He dealt with difficult political circumstances in Italy.
He supported missionary work, including the mission to the Anglo-Saxons.
His responsibilities extended far beyond the ordinary affairs of a single local congregation.
But Gregory presents us with an interesting question.
He strongly objected when the patriarch of Constantinople was associated with the title “universal bishop.”
Gregory believed such language threatened the proper relationship among bishops.
He also used the description “servant of the servants of God,” a title later closely associated with the Roman papacy.
We must not oversimplify his position.
Gregory did not reject every claim of Roman primacy. He asserted substantial responsibilities for the Roman see while objecting to a title he believed diminished the standing of other bishops.
So his objection does not mean he understood his office exactly as a first-century local elder.
It shows that the meaning and limits of primacy were still being debated, even among bishops who made strong claims for Rome.
6. EAST AND WEST WERE GROWING APART
The Christian world was not culturally uniform.
Western Christianity increasingly used Latin.
Eastern Christianity largely used Greek and other eastern languages.
Political circumstances differed.
Theological vocabulary sometimes differed.
Customs differed.
Rome remained important in the West.
Constantinople became a major center in the East.
Claims that gained acceptance in western Europe were not necessarily understood or accepted in the same way by eastern bishops.
The history of the papacy is therefore not simply:
Rome announced its authority, and every Christian accepted it.
The extent of Roman authority remained a subject of disagreement.
That disagreement would become increasingly important in the relationship between Eastern and Western Christianity.
7. THE BISHOP OF ROME BECAME A TERRITORIAL RULER
Another major change came in the eighth century.
The popes sought support from the Frankish kings amid conflict involving the Lombards and changing relations with the eastern emperor.
Pepin, king of the Franks, defeated the Lombards and transferred territories in Italy to papal control.
These grants helped establish what became known as the Papal States.
Now the bishop of Rome held more than ecclesiastical responsibilities.
He also exercised temporal rule over territory.
That meant involvement in matters such as land, revenue, administration, diplomacy, and military protection.
Compare that situation with Peter's words to the man at the temple gate:
“Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee.”
— Acts 3:6
Peter was speaking about what he could give that man on that occasion. His words are not a general command that churches may never own property or possess money.
But the contrast in responsibilities is still worth examining.
Peter was an apostle preaching Christ.
The later bishop of Rome was also a territorial ruler.
How did a church office come to include the government of lands and people?
The historical events explain how that happened.
The separate biblical question is whether territorial rule belongs to the office Christ established for church leaders.
8. THEN CAME CHARLEMAGNE
On Christmas Day in A.D. 800, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne emperor in Rome.
Consider the significance of that event.
The bishop of Rome placed an imperial crown upon the head of a European ruler.
Church leadership and political authority were now closely connected.
But what did the coronation mean?
Did the pope possess authority to confer imperial office?
Was he recognizing a ruler whose power already existed?
What obligations did the emperor have toward the pope?
What obligations did the pope have toward the emperor?
Those questions would be debated in later centuries.
The coronation did not settle them.
It did, however, demonstrate how important the relationship between the Roman bishop and western rulers had become.
The New Testament does not describe elders crowning emperors.
That does not automatically tell us how every later political relationship should be judged. It does tell us that the responsibilities of the Roman bishop had expanded into an area not described as part of the elders' work in the apostolic churches.
9. THEN CAME THE FALSE DECRETALS
During the ninth century, a collection of documents appeared that historians call the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, or False Decretals.
The collection included documents falsely attributed to early popes and other church authorities.
Among other things, these writings supported protections for bishops and strengthened the role of appeals to Rome.
For a long time, documents in the collection were treated as genuine evidence from earlier centuries.
Later scholarship established that many were fabrications produced long after the people to whom they were attributed.
We need to handle this carefully.
The papacy did not originate with the False Decretals.
Roman claims to primacy existed long before the ninth century.
We have already examined some of them.
Nor should we assume that every later papal claim depended upon these documents.
But forged writings could be used to support claims about the antiquity and scope of ecclesiastical authority.
That is why they matter to our study.
A document attributed to an early Christian leader must be examined to determine whether it actually came from that leader.
A claim does not become apostolic simply because a later document presents it as ancient.
10. THEN CAME THE INVESTITURE CONTROVERSY
By the eleventh century, another major question had developed.
Who had authority to appoint bishops?
Kings and emperors had long played significant roles in church appointments.
Church reformers increasingly opposed secular rulers controlling those appointments.
The conflict became especially intense between Pope Gregory VII and Emperor Henry IV.
Gregory VII became pope in A.D. 1073.
He asserted extensive authority for the Roman pontiff.
A set of propositions preserved under the title Dictatus Papae, associated with his pontificate, includes claims that the Roman pontiff alone could properly be called universal, that he could depose or restore bishops, and that he could depose emperors.
The document is important evidence of claims being articulated in Gregory's circle.
But we should not treat every proposition in it as though every Christian bishop and ruler accepted it.
The controversy itself shows that papal authority and royal authority were being contested.
The question was no longer only who should shepherd a congregation. It included who could appoint bishops and whether the pope could act against an emperor.
11. LOOK BACK AT PETER
Peter wrote:
“The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder.”
— 1 Peter 5:1
He told them:
“Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.”
— 1 Peter 5:3
Now, centuries later, the Roman pontiff claimed responsibilities extending beyond local elders and bishops into matters involving kings and emperors.
That is a substantial historical change.
But we should distinguish having authority from using authority in a domineering manner.
A person may hold significant responsibilities and still seek to exercise them as a servant.
The biblical question is not answered merely by observing that the later office was powerful.
We must ask:
What authority did Christ give church leaders?
What responsibilities were passed on through the apostles?
And what authority was added through later historical developments?
12. HENRY IV SHOWS HOW REAL THAT POWER HAD BECOME
Gregory VII and Emperor Henry IV clashed over the appointment of church officials and the relationship between papal and imperial authority.
Gregory excommunicated Henry.
That action had serious religious and political consequences.
Henry's standing among his subjects and political opponents became more difficult.
In January A.D. 1077, Henry traveled to Canossa in northern Italy, where Gregory was staying, and sought reconciliation.
Later accounts have sometimes dramatized the scene.
The essential historical point is clear:
Excommunication could have consequences extending far beyond participation in a local congregation's worship.
A decision concerning communion with the church could affect the standing of an emperor.
This brings us back to our earlier study about baptism, communion, and church discipline.
The New Testament teaches discipline.
But the medieval relationship between excommunication and political authority raises additional questions.
What authority does the church possess over a Christian ruler?
What authority does a Christian ruler possess over the church?
And where are the limits of each?
13. INNOCENT III AND THE MEDIEVAL PAPACY
Move forward another century.
Innocent III became pope in A.D. 1198.
During his pontificate, the Roman papacy exercised extensive influence in western European religious and political affairs.
Innocent intervened in disputes involving rulers.
He used excommunication and interdicts.
He asserted broad responsibilities for the Roman pontiff.
The pope was no longer functioning merely as the bishop of a local congregation in Rome.
He stood at the center of a large international church institution.
But his authority was not unlimited in practice.
Kings, bishops, and other political and religious leaders could resist papal decisions.
Claims of authority and the ability to enforce those claims were not always the same thing.
The medieval papacy had become a major religious and political institution, but its relationships with other authorities remained subjects of dispute.
14. THEN BONIFACE VIII MADE AN EXPLICIT CLAIM
In A.D. 1302, Pope Boniface VIII issued the document Unam Sanctam.
It presented strong claims about the relationship between spiritual and temporal authority.
Its concluding statement declared that submission to the Roman pontiff was necessary for salvation.
That statement requires careful interpretation.
Roman Catholic theologians understand it within a broader framework of teaching about the church, salvation, and the authority of the pope.
Other Christians dispute both its interpretation of Scripture and the authority claimed for the Roman pontiff.
For our historical study, the important point is that by the beginning of the fourteenth century, a pope was explicitly asserting a form of authority far beyond the local oversight described for elders in the New Testament.
That does not mean every part of the later papal office first appeared in 1302.
It means we can identify a particular claim in a particular document at a particular point in history.
That is how we should study the development.
15. WE HAVE NOW TRAVELED MORE THAN A THOUSAND YEARS
Put the evidence together.
FIRST CENTURY
Local congregations have elders who are also called bishops or overseers.
Peter is an apostle and calls himself a fellow elder.
EARLY SECOND CENTURY
Ignatius describes one bishop distinguished from the presbyters.
SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES
Bishops become increasingly important in discussions of doctrine, baptism, communion, discipline, and church unity.
FOURTH CENTURY
Metropolitan structures and major episcopal centers are clearly established.
The emperor works directly with bishops and councils.
FIFTH CENTURY
Leo I makes strong claims for Roman authority based upon Peter.
SIXTH CENTURY
Gregory the Great exercises extensive responsibilities while objecting to the title “universal bishop.”
EIGHTH CENTURY
The papacy acquires territorial rule in central Italy.
A.D. 800
Pope Leo III crowns Charlemagne emperor.
NINTH CENTURY
The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals appear and are later used as evidence in discussions of church authority.
ELEVENTH CENTURY
Gregory VII asserts extensive authority concerning bishops and secular rulers.
The Investiture Controversy demonstrates how closely ecclesiastical and political authority had become connected.
TWELFTH AND THIRTEENTH CENTURIES
The papacy exercises extensive religious and political influence in western Europe.
A.D. 1302
Boniface VIII issues Unam Sanctam, including its statement about submission to the Roman pontiff.
The historical record shows both continuity and development.
Rome's early prominence was real.
So were the later changes in its bishop's responsibilities, jurisdictional claims, and political position.
16. DO NOT OVERSIMPLIFY THE HISTORY
We should avoid two opposite mistakes.
The first is:
“Peter was the first pope, and every later feature of the papacy existed from the beginning in its medieval form.”
The historical record is more complicated than that.
The opposite claim is also too simple:
“Nothing connected with the papacy existed until the Middle Ages.”
Rome was important early.
Roman bishops made claims about Peter and the Roman see long before the Middle Ages.
Those claims developed over centuries.
Christians differed over their meaning and extent.
Our task is to distinguish what continued from earlier Christianity from what developed later.
That requires careful reading of both Scripture and history.
17. NOW ASK THE QUESTION WE HAVE ASKED THROUGHOUT THIS SERIES
Our central question is not:
Did the later system become influential?
It did.
Nor is it:
Did sincere Christians participate in it?
They did.
Nor is it:
Can we explain historically why its responsibilities expanded?
We can identify many of the circumstances involved.
Our question is more specific:
WHERE IS THE AUTHORITY FOUND IN THE TEXT?
Where does Jesus establish territorial states for bishops?
Where does Jesus give Peter authority to crown kings?
Where does Peter claim authority to govern every bishop?
Where does Paul establish a church office with power to depose emperors?
Where do the apostles explain the relationship between communion with Christ and submission to the bishop of Rome?
These questions do not assume that every later administrative practice must be named explicitly in Scripture to be permissible.
Christians disagree about how biblical teaching, apostolic tradition, and the church's continuing authority relate to later institutional developments.
But if a particular authority is claimed as something Christ gave to an office, we should ask how that claim is supported.
What does the text state?
What is inferred from it?
What do the earliest Christian witnesses say?
And when does the particular claim first appear in the surviving evidence?
18. JESUS GAVE HIS DISCIPLES A STANDARD FOR LEADERSHIP
Jesus said:
“Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.”
— Matthew 20:25
Then He said:
“But it shall not be so among you.”
— Matthew 20:26
Peter remembered that lesson.
Years later, he told elders:
“Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.”
— 1 Peter 5:3
Then Peter pointed them to:
“the chief Shepherd.”
— 1 Peter 5:4
Christ is the Chief Shepherd.
That is true whether we are speaking about an elder, bishop, metropolitan, patriarch, or pope.
Every Christian claim to leadership must be considered in light of Christ's authority and His teaching about service.
That brings us back to the question with which we began this series.
What kind of leadership did Jesus and His apostles establish for the church?
READ IT FOR YOURSELF
Begin with these New Testament passages:
Matthew 16:13–20
Matthew 20:20–28
Matthew 23:8–12
John 18:33–38
Acts 3:1–10
Acts 20:17–32
1 Peter 5:1–4
Then investigate the historical evidence:
Leo I and his writings about Peter and the Roman see
Gregory I and his letters concerning the title “universal bishop”
The Donation of Pepin and the Papal States
The coronation of Charlemagne in A.D. 800
The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals
Gregory VII and the Investiture Controversy
The Dictatus Papae
Henry IV and Canossa
Innocent III
Boniface VIII and Unam Sanctam
Do not assume the conclusion before studying the evidence.
Follow the trail.
Ask at every point:
What changed?
When did it change?
Why did it change?
What authority was being claimed?
Who accepted or disputed that claim?
And above all:
Where did Christ give that authority?
We have now followed the history from the elders of the New Testament to the medieval papacy.
That gives us enough evidence to do one final thing.
We can put the developed structure beside the New Testament:
Elder.
Bishop.
Pastor.
Priest.
Diocese.
Metropolitan.
Archbishop.
Patriarch.
Cardinal.
Pope.
Which of these words do we actually find in the New Testament?
Which are biblical words whose later use changed?
Which offices and responsibilities developed afterward?
And which claims of authority can be traced to Christ and His apostles?
That will be our final study.
TEXT B4 TRADITION
Read First. Conclude Later.
RETURN TO MAIN SERIES: ONE CHURCH, SO MANY DIVISIONS—WHAT HAPPENED?
NEXT STUDY: PUTTING THE WHOLE SYSTEM BESIDE THE NEW TESTAMENT