Now we follow the Roman bishop from the strong claims we saw under Leo I into the medieval papacy. The important thing is not to pretend there was one moment when someone simply “invented the pope.” There wasn't. We can trace several developments—political collapse in the West, Gregory the Great, the rise of the Papal States, the False Decretals, the Investiture Controversy, and finally very explicit claims of papal supremacy.
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?
HOW DID THE BISHOP OF ROME BECOME THE POPE?
Once again, the answer is not:
It happened one day.
It developed over centuries.
1. FIRST, WHAT DOES “POPE” MEAN?
The English word pope comes ultimately from the Greek pappas and Latin papa.
It means something like:
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 by itself prove that the modern papal office already existed.
That is an important historical rule:
A TITLE AND AN OFFICE ARE NOT ALWAYS THE SAME THING.
The real question is not:
When was someone first called pope?
The better question is:
When did the bishop of Rome acquire the authority later associated with the papacy?
2. LEO I WAS AN IMPORTANT TURNING POINT
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, Peter's authority had not simply disappeared when Peter died.
It continued in Peter's see.
That provided a theological argument for Roman primacy.
Rome was no longer important merely because it was:
old,
large,
wealthy,
apostolic,
or the imperial capital.
Its bishop could claim something stronger:
Christ gave authority to Peter.
Peter's authority continues in Rome.
Therefore:
Rome possesses a divinely established primacy.
That argument would become enormously important.
3. THEN THE WESTERN ROMAN EMPIRE COLLAPSED
In A.D. 476, the last western Roman emperor was deposed.
The political situation in western Europe became increasingly fragmented.
There was no longer a powerful western emperor ruling from Rome.
But the bishop of Rome remained.
Think about what that meant.
Governments changed.
Kings came and went.
Invading peoples established new kingdoms.
But the Roman church remained an old, organized institution.
The bishop of Rome therefore became important not only religiously but increasingly in public affairs.
A political vacuum had developed in the West.
And the Roman bishop was one of the most important surviving authorities.
4. THE BISHOP WAS BECOMING MORE THAN A CHURCH LEADER
When civil government is weak, somebody still has to deal with practical problems.
Food must be distributed.
Property must be administered.
The poor must be cared for.
Invading armies must sometimes be negotiated with.
Rome's bishops increasingly became involved in matters that extended beyond teaching and shepherding a congregation.
This was not necessarily because someone had drawn up a master plan.
Circumstances pushed the Roman bishop into a larger public role.
But again notice the development.
The first-century elders shepherded local churches.
The medieval bishop of Rome would eventually become both:
a religious ruler
and
a political ruler.
That is an enormous change.
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 exercised enormous influence.
He administered large church estates.
He cared for the poor.
He negotiated in political circumstances.
He sent missionaries.
He exercised authority well beyond the city of Rome.
He was unquestionably one of the most important bishops in the Christian world.
But Gregory gives us a fascinating historical problem.
He strongly objected when the patriarch of Constantinople was associated with the title “universal bishop.”
Gregory considered such a claim dangerous.
He even used the famous description:
“servant of the servants of God.”
That title later became associated with the popes.
So here is something worth thinking about.
Around A.D. 600, the bishop of Rome possessed enormous authority.
Yet Gregory himself objected to language suggesting that one bishop was the universal bishop over all others.
The development was still not complete.
6. EAST AND WEST WERE ALSO GROWING APART
The Christian world was not culturally uniform.
The western church increasingly used Latin.
The eastern churches largely used Greek and other eastern languages.
Political circumstances differed.
Theological vocabulary sometimes differed.
Customs differed.
Rome remained enormously important in the West.
Constantinople became enormously important in the East.
The relationship between the two increasingly became strained.
This matters because claims that might become widely accepted in western Europe were not necessarily accepted in the same way in the eastern churches.
The story of the papacy is therefore not simply:
Rome announced its authority and every Christian accepted it.
They did not.
7. THE BISHOP OF ROME BECAME A LANDHOLDER AND POLITICAL RULER
Another major change came in the eighth century.
The popes increasingly looked toward the Frankish kings for military and political protection.
Pepin the Short defeated the Lombards and transferred territories to papal control.
These grants helped establish what became known as the:
PAPAL STATES.
Now stop and compare.
Peter said:
“Silver and gold have I none.”
— Acts 3:6
Peter described himself as a fellow elder.
— 1 Peter 5:1
He told elders not to domineer over the flock.
— 1 Peter 5:3
But centuries later, the bishop who claimed succession from Peter could rule territory.
He could possess lands.
He could participate directly in European politics.
He could eventually command armies and negotiate as a temporal ruler.
Whatever historical reasons produced this development, one thing should be obvious:
THIS IS NOT THE OFFICE WE SAW IN ACTS.
8. THEN CAME CHARLEMAGNE
On Christmas Day in A.D. 800, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne emperor.
Think about the symbolism.
The bishop of Rome placed the imperial crown upon the head of a European ruler.
Church and political authority were now deeply intertwined.
Later generations would argue about what that coronation meant.
Did the pope make the emperor?
Did the emperor protect the pope?
Which authority stood above the other?
Those questions would produce enormous conflict.
But the New Testament elders never faced such questions.
Why?
Because Jesus had not given them kingdoms to rule.
9. ANOTHER IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT: THE FALSE DECRETALS
During the ninth century, a collection of documents appeared that historians usually call the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretalsor False Decretals.
They included documents falsely attributed to early popes and church leaders.
These documents supported protections for bishops and strengthened appeals to Rome.
For centuries they were treated as genuine historical evidence.
Eventually scholars demonstrated that many of them were later fabrications.
This point needs to be handled carefully.
The papacy did not originate with the False Decretals.
Roman claims existed long before them.
We have already documented that.
But forged documents could be used to make later claims appear much older than they really were.
That makes them important in the history of papal authority.
10. THEN CAME THE INVESTITURE CONTROVERSY
By the eleventh century another enormous question had developed.
Who had authority to appoint bishops?
Kings and emperors had long played major roles in church appointments.
But church reformers increasingly resisted secular control.
The conflict became especially intense between:
Pope Gregory VII
and
Emperor Henry IV.
Gregory VII became pope in A.D. 1073.
His view of papal authority was extremely strong.
A collection of propositions associated with his pontificate, known as the Dictatus Papae, included claims that the Roman pontiff alone could properly be called universal, that he could depose or restore bishops, and that he could depose emperors.
Think about how far we have traveled.
11. LOOK BACK AT PETER
Peter wrote:
“I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder...”
— 1 Peter 5:1
He told them:
“not domineering over those in your charge.”
— 1 Peter 5:3
Now, centuries later, the Roman pontiff claims authority not merely over local elders...
not merely over bishops...
but even authority with enormous consequences for kings and emperors.
The historical development is impossible to miss.
12. HENRY IV SHOWS HOW REAL THAT POWER HAD BECOME
Gregory VII and Emperor Henry IV clashed over the appointment of church officials.
Gregory excommunicated Henry.
Henry's political position became extremely dangerous.
Eventually Henry traveled to Canossa in northern Italy, where Gregory was staying.
In January 1077, Henry sought reconciliation with the pope.
The details have sometimes been dramatized in later retellings, but the central fact is unmistakable:
EXCOMMUNICATION NOW HAD POLITICAL POWER.
Remember our earlier study.
We asked what happens when control of communion becomes concentrated in the hierarchy.
Here we can see one answer.
Exclusion from church communion could affect the standing of an emperor.
A church action could become a political earthquake.
13. INNOCENT III REPRESENTS THE MEDIEVAL PAPACY NEAR ITS HEIGHT
Move forward another century.
Innocent III became pope in A.D. 1198.
During his pontificate, papal authority reached extraordinary heights in western Europe.
He intervened in disputes involving kings.
He used interdicts and excommunication.
He claimed extensive authority for the Roman pontiff.
The pope was no longer merely bishop of a local congregation in Rome.
He stood at the center of an enormous international religious institution.
14. THEN BONIFACE VIII MADE THE CLAIM EXPLICIT
In A.D. 1302, Pope Boniface VIII issued the document Unam Sanctam.
Its language concerning papal authority was extraordinarily strong.
It concluded by declaring that submission to the Roman pontiff was necessary for salvation.
Whether later Roman Catholic theologians explain the precise scope of that statement in various ways is a separate question.
Historically, however, the document demonstrates how far papal claims had developed by the beginning of the fourteenth century.
Compare that with Peter saying:
“I am a fellow elder.”
The contrast deserves serious consideration.
15. WE HAVE NOW TRAVELED MORE THAN A THOUSAND YEARS
Put the development together.
FIRST CENTURY
Local congregations have elders/bishops.
Peter is an apostle and calls himself a fellow elder.
↓
EARLY SECOND CENTURY
One bishop becomes distinguished from the presbyters.
↓
SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES
Bishops gain increasing authority over doctrine, communion, baptism, and discipline.
↓
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 enormous Roman influence while objecting to the title “universal bishop.”
↓
EIGHTH CENTURY
The papacy acquires territorial rule in central Italy.
↓
A.D. 800
The pope crowns Charlemagne emperor.
↓
ELEVENTH CENTURY
Gregory VII asserts extensive authority over bishops and secular rulers.
↓
TWELFTH AND THIRTEENTH CENTURIES
The medieval papacy becomes one of Europe's greatest religious and political powers.
↓
A.D. 1302
Boniface VIII declares submission to the Roman pontiff necessary for salvation.
Now ask:
DOES THIS LOOK LIKE A SINGLE UNCHANGED OFFICE?
Or are we watching an office develop?
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.”
The historical record is much more complicated.
But the opposite claim is also too simple:
“Nothing connected with the papacy existed until the Middle Ages.”
That is not true either.
Rome was important early.
Roman bishops increasingly claimed Petrine authority.
Those claims developed over centuries.
The evidence shows continuity and development.
Our job is to distinguish them.
17. NOW ASK THE QUESTION WE HAVE ASKED THROUGHOUT THIS SERIES
Not:
Did the system become useful?
Not:
Did sincere Christians participate in it?
Not:
Did it survive for centuries?
Not even:
Can we explain historically why it developed?
We can.
Our question is simpler:
WHERE IS IT 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 over every bishop?
Where does Paul establish an office capable of deposing rulers?
Where do the apostles say communion with Christ depends upon submission to one bishop located in Rome?
If those things belong to the office Christ established, we should be able to find them in the apostolic teaching.
18. JESUS GAVE A DIFFERENT PICTURE OF LEADERSHIP
Jesus said:
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them.”
— Matthew 20:25
Then:
“It shall not be so among you.”
— Matthew 20:26
Peter remembered that lesson.
Years later he told elders:
“not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.”
— 1 Peter 5:3
And then Peter pointed them to:
“the chief Shepherd.”
— 1 Peter 5:4
There is the final authority.
Not Peter.
Not an elder.
Not a bishop.
Not a metropolitan.
Not a patriarch.
Not a pope.
CHRIST IS THE CHIEF SHEPHERD.
READ IT FOR YOURSELF
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:
Leo I
Gregory I
The Donation of Pepin and the Papal States
The coronation of Charlemagne
The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals
Gregory VII
The Investiture Controversy
The Dictatus Papae
Innocent III
Boniface VIII
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?
And above all:
WHERE DID CHRIST GIVE THAT AUTHORITY?
We have now followed the development 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 entire structure beside the New Testament:
elder
bishop
pastor
priest
diocese
metropolitan
archbishop
patriarch
cardinal
pope
Which of these do we actually find?
Which words are biblical but later changed meaning?
Which offices developed later?
And which claims of authority can be traced directly to Christ and His apostles?
That will be our final study.
We have now followed the history far enough. The last page can put the New Testament structure on one side and the developed hierarchy on the other, while being very careful about words such as bishop and pastor that really are biblical words but came to be used differently.
That will bring the entire series back to its original question: not “Which tradition do you belong to?” but “What does the text actually say?”