The Early Church I-4: The origins of the Pope in Rome

 Wait! Have you read sections 1 - 3? If not you may read them here! Please feel free to comment.

Section 1: Prologue and History
Section 2: Organization of the Early Church 
Section 3: Why are we called "Catholic"?

(Part II is now out! Since this is part I, I'll just link to II-1. If you're interested and enjoy this series, please see the next parts.)

I-4: The rise of Rome

If Peter, the Apostles, and Paul met in Jerusalem when and why did Rome come into the picture? As is the case with the Apostles in general, they went out and preached to a number of towns and cities. Just as Christ gathered a community around him—the Apostles and disciples—the Apostles likewise gathered many to themselves. Communities were founded where the Apostles labored. When the Apostles felt that it was time to move on and that the situation in this or that place was stable they appointed a man to take charge of the community there.

While their labors were important there was something that further solidified their authority in the minds of people. This was martyrdom. The word “martyr” literally means witness, that is a “witness to the faith.” Tradition holds that both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome. We have already seen the influence Peter and Paul had while they lived. We have numerous written accounts of authors in the early Church who attest to Peter and Paul's labors in Rome and that they ultimately gave their lives.

The throne of the Cross, placed in Rome where Peter sits on His right, Paul His left.

Why should their death in Rome, however, be any source or reason for authority to be placed there? We have seen, first of all, that the Apostles appointed men to be their successors and co-workers within their specific ministry. While the Apostles had a specific mission to all the faithful, the Apostles among themselves also had specific missions. Peter was given the keys, called to strengthen his brothers, and commanded to feed Christ's sheep (Jn 21:15-17). Paul, likewise, was the apostle to the Gentiles (Rm 11:13). This charge was not given to the other Apostles. The early Church believed that God's providence was not coincidental, but very intentional. Christ died in Jerusalem because it was necessary that the perfect sacrifice would be made in the only place sacrifices could be made. Where the Apostles died, for them at least, was not coincidence but deigned by His will.

Secondly, we find in Scripture that the blood of the just and holy turn the Lord's ear most of all. From the very beginning the blood of Abel cried to God from the soil (Gen 4:10). Indeed, all sacrifices made by the Jews were meant to be clean and without blemish. Their blood was spilled on the altar to be symbolic, among many things, of the contrition of a people. Eventually this this blood offering was modified. Psalm 51 states “My sacrifice, God, is a broken spirit; God, do not spurn a broken, humbled heart … [and] then you will be pleased with proper sacrifice” (51:19, 20). Christ's blood was offered as sacrifice, first at the holy Eucharist he gave us and then on the Cross. Finally in heaven, those who stand before God's throne are the ones who “have survived the time of great distress; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” (Rev 7:14).

The blood of the martyrs became holy ground. Their intercession was sought and miracles were worked in Christ name through devotion to them.
(Perpetua and Felicity)

All this being said, the place where someone was martyred was considered holy ground. The place of Christ's crucifixion was a source of veneration and prayer. The same became true of the saints and martyrs. To this very day the places of their death have churches erected in their place. This practice is an ancient one, originating with the Apostles and early Christians who venerated the death of holy men and women who gave their lives for the faith. The blood that was shed because of Christ became holy ground. The bishops who were killed because they were leaders and followers of Christ became especially important. The blood of Peter and Paul carried great weight as a result.

But even if some aren't convinced of this argument, it only stands to look at how the early Church regarded the ministry of Peter and Paul, those Peter chose as his successor in Rome, and how Rome was regarded.

Tertullian, writing in Carthage at about 200 AD, said, “Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the Apostles are still preeminent in their places … since you [in Carthage] are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority of apostles themselves. How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood … against such a discipline thus maintained admits no gainsayer” (Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, quoted from Sommer (We Look for a Kingdom) 186. Gainsayer means “one who opposes or contradicts.”)

Irenaeus of Lyons (in France), writing in the late 2^nd century (about 175-180 AD), claims that one can dispel rumor and error “by indicating that tradition derived from the Apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; … It is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority" (Against Heresies, III.iii.2).

Irenaeus is also a great help to our understanding of those who succeeded Peter as successor in Rome. His influential work is one I will return to when I discuss Apostolic succession and his work stands as one of the most significant works in our entire history.

The bishops from among the churches across the Empire often sought each others advice. We saw already that Paul sought out Peter in Jerusalem (cf. Gal 1:18) and he again went to Jerusalem with others to decide on matters pertaining to the whole Church (cf. Acts 15). We have numerous letters of bishops consulting one another. Often times new communities and newly elected bishops would seek the advice of older bishops and older communities.

The most powerful example of this, and the only one I'll focus on (out of concern for length) is Clement's letter to the church in Corinth. This a benchmark letter, written around 96 AD, and one that was so revered by early Christians that many saints considered it to be Scripture. So powerful was its message that numerous churches throughout the Empire sought to make a copy for themselves.

A brief background to the situation in Corinth. There had been a sort of uprising in the church at Corinth where younger men from the presbytery and community deposed and turned against the bishop, older presbyterate, and the elders of Corinth. Those in Corinth could not resolve the issue internally and the scandal caused by the whole ordeal became a large concern to the surrounding communities. Many, including those in Corinth, contacted Rome to interfere and Clement and those on Rome did. This letter stands as proof of other Churches going to Rome, even after the death of the Apostles, to seek counsel and authoritative speech. Not much is known about this uprising, perhaps because of the successful resolution that Clement's letter had among them.

The letter opens up in a telling way. It is not a letter from one man to another, but rather from one Church to another. It says “The Church of God which resides as a stranger in Rome to the Church of God which is a stranger at Corinth.” This is important because it is not at the bequest of a man, but a letter that demands a response. He says “You, therefore, prime movers of the schism, submit to the presbyters, and bending the knees of your hearts, accept correction and change your minds" (1 Cor sec. 57). These words echo Peter who said “Likewise you younger members, be subject to the presbyters … the chosen one at Babylon [i.e., the Church in Rome] sends you greeting” (1 Pet 5:5, 13).

Clement further cements the sternness of his letter as well as his expectations for a speedy resolution. He writes, “But should any disobey what has been said by Him through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in transgression and no small danger" (1 Cor sec. 59).

Clement wrote this letter in order to reestablish peace among the Corinthians and secure order for all the faithful there. He sent an entourage of prominent men from (most likely) his presbyterate to them, men who were “worthy and prudent men, who have led blameless lives among us from youth to old age” and this was done “to make you feel that our whole care has been, and is, directed toward establishing speedy peace in your midst" (1 Cor sec. 63).

The letter produced its effect. The power of its reasoning, the influence of Rome, and the mixture of charity and discipline in its writing established in Rome what was expected of it—an authoritative voice, founded on the unique ministry of Peter, that helped to direct the many communities of Christianity when disagreement, error, or dissent arose.

As such, the notions put forth by some that the papacy was a medieval invention, the scheming of those who desired power, or that it is worthless was not the opinion of the early Church, nor should it be ours.

Epilogue: Lessons

What are some of the lessons we can learn from all of this? The early Church concerned itself with electing good and holy men to the presbyterate and the office of bishop. The bishops exemplified, more so than the presbyters, the succession of the Apostles and the highest authority on faith and morals in that local area. St. Ignatius of Antioch was going to his death and still he preached constantly of obedience to the bishop and harmony of life together.

The early Church understood, perhaps more than us, that disunity is one of the greatest evils for the faithful. Ignatius of Antioch says that one must “shun division as the beginning of evil" (Letter to the Smyrnians, sec. 7).

When a presbyter, Valens, caused some scandal involving money (little more is known), St. Polycarp (bishop and martyr, d. 155 AD) wrote that those from that community should “be considerate in this matter: do not treat such persons as enemies, but reclaim them as diseased and straying members, so that you may preserve the whole your community intact. In fact, by acting thus, you promote your personal spiritual growth" (Letter to the Phillipians, sec. 11).

Clement of Rome further states that “Love unites us with God; love covers a multitude of sins (cf. Prv 10:12, 1 Pet 4:8, James 5:20); … love creates no schism, love does not quarrel; love preserves perfect harmony" (1 Cor, sec. 49).

The Didache, written as early as 75 AD (in parts), states that “Day and night remember him who preaches God's word to you (cf. Heb 13:7) and honor him as the Lord, for where His lordship is spoken of, there is the Lord. … Do not start a schism, but pacify contending parties" (Didache, sec. 4:1, 3).

Finally, Ignatius writes to Polycarp as a fellow bishop and says “Do justice to your office with the utmost solicitude, both physical and spiritual. Be concerned about unity, the greatest blessing" (Letter to Polycarp, sec. 1:2).

Christ the King, who reigns forever and ever. Around him the holy Apostles who built His Church.

As such, unity was indeed a primary concern of the Church. If we, the Body of Christ were not united in thought, heart, and action we would be a Body that spoke with two or many voices. Music was a favorite example among many authors in the early Church and for good reason. We notice rather quickly when someone is off key—the voices of many are heard as contrasting and conflicting with one another. When many voices join together in harmony the one sound they produce is indistinguishable from the many. The harmony of the Church is her doctrine, her disciplines, her leaders, her members, and their concord with one another and with the blessed Trinity.

The music that the early Church sung was still a work in progress. The Church is human and divine, so while it has the benefit of divinity it also has the difficulties of being human. The Church is divine insofar as “Christ is ultimately always the one who calls people forth to ministry; [it is] human in that it is always human persons who are called, and human offices to which they are called" (Sommer, We Look for a Kingdom, 159). We should not fear this human aspect of our Church however, not should we be too strict with those who falter in morals or faith. It is that faltering humanity that Christ came to redeem. Likewise, it is that limited humanity that Christ assumed in the flesh. Finally, it is that humanity to whom He entrusted His mission, namely the salvation of all in His name. I hope that this simple look at the faith of our ancestors inspires you to see how we and they are one in Christ and that we should strive see their urgings as applicable today as well. May we pray for unity and that each one submit him and herself to correction from each other and, as Paul says, from those “over us in the Lord and who admonish you” (1 Thes 5:12). May we all endure in our labors and rejoice in the harvest promised to us.

===

Next time, we will look at Apostolic succession and how the early saints and martyrs affected the structure and look of the Church. Where the martyrs were powerful witnesses to the faith they also posed problems for bishops at times. I will endeavor to explore the facets, how both bishop and witness shaped the Church for the better but how challenges arose as a result.

The Early Church I-1: History and Morality

(This is the first part of a presentation given on 4/23/2013. This is the extended version. The shorter, presentation version will be the last piece posted after some time for revision.)

See part I-2 here: Organization of the Early Church. 
See part I-3 here: Why "Catholic"?

See part I-4: The Origins of the Pope in Rome, Lessons

(Part II is now out! Since this is part I, I'll just link to II-1. If you're interested and enjoy this series, please see the next parts.)

Prologue

The early Church for many Christians is something that receives little attention. Many see the early Church as a people who were persecuted by the Roman empire and eventually rose to prominence after Christianity was legalized in 313 AD. While these persecutions were very real and Christianity really did triumph, the early Church has a rich history while at the same time a very human history. This is not a bad thing, however, for the mission of the Church is the interaction with sinful humanity in hopes of redeeming it. The Church, the Body of Christ, is both human and divine—a great mystery, and one worth entering. 

Throughout our Catholic history there are been great saints and great sinners, both sorts have been at the highest office in our Church. This should not give us reason to believe that the Church is purely man-made, however, but it rather speaks to the whole history and situation of Israel that came before us. God saw fit to use both good and wicked men to effect His designs, both enemies and anointed leaders (e.g., both good: 2 Kings 22:10-13, 18-20; Ruth 3: 13-17. And the bad: Isaiah 10:5-13; 1 Kings 11). Good men and women drew others to God by their example and obedience to both Jesus and Church. Wicked men and women served as an example that drove people away from vice and led to God by different paths. When power becomes addictive men will abuse power. As a result, those who love the Lord will strive to live heroic humility. Great sinners inspire saints to be even greater.

May we all grow to love the Church in a greater capacity for she is the bride of Christ. Christ's promise has been held since he proclaimed it: the powers of hell have not prevailed against the Church. Even in the midst of corruption and sin she has been protected and safeguarded. Pray that one day we might all be one.

Part I: History

I.A Jew and Gentile

The Catholic Church began in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 1:8, 12) which was a part of the Roman Empire. The Apostles, filled with the Spirit at Pentecost then proceeded to preach the name of Jesus to everyone. Their word spread very quickly and they put a fire in a great number of people from Jews to Gentiles. How Christianity spread was unique to both the Jews and the Gentiles.

For the Jews who came to believe, they followed the prophets and the law of Moses faithfully. They recognized that Jesus was the “suffering servant” as proclaimed by Isaiah nearly 700 years before (Is 42 – 43:12). Similarly, the words and actions of Christ were prefigured in many other utterances by the prophets. These Jews joined the Apostles as followers of Christ. The Jews had the benefit of a rich symbolism, culture, understanding of God, and history of their people to aid their understanding and faith. The Gospel of Matthew is the first precisely because it is meant to bridge the history of Israel with the advent of Christ who is a continuation of that history. This is why Paul said salvation came to all who believed, but “for Jew first, then Greek [i.e., Gentile]” (Rom 1:16). The Jews who accepted Christ could accept Him more fully at this time.

Simeon, a sage of Israel, receives the Messiah whom he has long waited for. Many of the greatest first-generation bishops were Jewish-born and expounded beautifully on Scripture when explaining Christ to both Jew and Gentile.

How the Gentiles (that is, everyone else) were converted was a different story. Many did not believe that the Hebrew Scriptures were inspired, nor were they aware of the history of Israel or salvation. This was not a disadvantage, however, because Christians were now to carry on the mission Israel had been given, to be “a light to the Gentiles” (Is 49:6b, Acts 14:47). In order to convince the Gentiles it must be done with deeds. In this manner, the early Christians could not rely on words, but rather the very life they led (or bled) would be the proof behind their words. It echoed James who said “I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works” (James 2:18). Likewise, Peter had told his followers to “always be ready to give an explanation who asks you for a reason for your hope” (1 Pet 3:15). This attitude, showing Christ to the world by our deeds, inspired Ignatius of Antioch when he said, “Whenever Christianity is hated by the world, what counts is not the power of persuasion, but greatness” (Letter to the Romans 3:3).

The Romans at this time had enjoyed a great period of peace and prosperity. As they gathered more gods to their pantheon, which was their practice when they conquered a people or territory, their religion became more convoluted.

The culture, likewise, was one of leisure and experimentation. Since a large portion of the manual labor in the Empire was done by slaves many Romans occupied their times with education and entertainment. Many opted for entertainment in the form of blood sports, drinking, and gambling. As time progressed many began to grow weary of the of local religious practices and sought out exotic practices and cults. For the Roman citizen, then, religion was either an exercise of bland mechanism or dangerous extremism. A large number of Roman men and women believed in gods out of tradition or compulsion. To others still it was just folklore.

Many of these Romans, however, were tired of the indulgent, apathetic, and impulsive culture that surrounded them. Educated and noble Romans sought out “schools” which were philosophical communities that proposed a particular way of life. Some such schools were the Stoics, the Epicureans, and the Neo-Platonists. While each had their merits and preached moderation, self-control, and intellectual contemplation none of them were particular concerned with the spiritual. The “spiritual” for them was intellectual and personal. If there were gods, they didn't care about humanity. The gods enjoyed higher things and if they truly were gods they would find pleasure in temporal, human affairs. Many of these schools of thought were concerned with ascending humanity or accepting the human condition with a sort of defeated-resignation.

I.B: Morality

When Christianity entered the scene it was something familiar yet entirely exotic. Christians proclaimed a man who was killed as a criminal-revolutionary as God. They claimed that there was one God, that He was a personal God who lowered Himself for the sake of His people. His son “took the form of a slave” (Phil 2:7) and gave his flesh to eat. While this sounded like the extremism that Romans were wary of many onlookers took note of the unusual moral strictness of these Christians. They fasted and denied their bodies overindulgence in pleasures, they prayed at regular intervals, they cared for those who were sick, they cared for widows, and they cared for all those who came to them. Justin Martyr, a 2^nd century saint, wrote that “Straightaway a flame was kindled in my soul; and a love of the prophets, and of those men who are friends of Christ, possessed me; and whilst revolving his words in my mind, I found this philosophy alone to be safe and profitable" (Dialogue with Trypho, sec. 8). What attracted Justin and men like him to Christianity was a Christian's perseverance in suffering and the joy they found, even in death.

Justin, like many other educated men of his day, were not looking for an amusing philosophy but for a way of life that led to happiness and allowed one to face trial with courage.

Christianity did not see humanity as wicked, but it also saw humanity as lacking—something experience makes readily apparent to us. They held that “In the beginning He made the human race with the power of thought and choosing the truth and acting rightly, so that all people are without excuse before God; for they have been born capable of exercising reason and intelligence" (1st Apology, sec. 28). While Christians believed in many strange and mysterious things they also conducted themselves in the world with reason, moderation, and order—something that would pique the interest of someone looking for order and meaning in their life.

One such example of this strange belief was the virtue of loving one's enemy. Ignatius of Antioch, a bishop of the 2^nd century, instructs others to “pray unceasingly for the rest of men, for they offer ground for hoping that they may be converted and win their way to God. Give them an opportunity therefore, at least by your conduct, of becoming your disciples. Meet their angry outbursts with your own gentleness, their boastfulness with your humility, … [and] their error with your constancy in the faith; beware of trying to match their example" (Letter to the Ephesians, sec. 10). A Christian not only expressed common, everyday virtues that were accepted. They practiced exemplary virtue in the face of injustice, ridicule, and death. This sort of courage, a well-regarded virtue for a Roman, could not come from one who was deluded but from someone who really did possess a sort of divine inspiration.

We have records of what early Christians were taught in the form of handbooks and catechisms. One of the earliest “handbooks” was the Didache, or “The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles.” A short excerpt of its teaching will suffice: “You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery; you shall not corrupt children; you shall not be sexually immoral; you shall not steal; you shall not practice magic; you shall not engage in sorcery; you shall not abort a child or commit infanticide … You shall not hate any one; instead you shall reprove some, and pray for some, and some you shall love more than your own life” (Didache 2:2, 7).

Strengthening this sentiment Christians were further distinguished by living in such a manner that did not destroy a culture but transformed it. This has been a hallmark of Catholic history: maintain what is good and sacred in another culture but order it to God. We may see the wisdom of the Didache echoed in The Epistle to Diognetus, written in the mid-to-late 2^nd century, which recounts that the Christians “[inhabit] Greek as well as barbarian cities … and [follow] the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct … they marry, as do all others; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed” (cf. Ep. Diognetus 5:1-6)

Socially, the Roman world respected women if they were noble or wealthy, but typically they were considered as property (at least if they were inconvenient). Children were not respected in either Jewish or Gentile communities. In most philosophical and cultural traditions men were the pure embodiment of humanity while women, children, and slaves were weak derivations of humanity. Christians, however, claimed that “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). With regard to husbands and wives St. Paul taught “Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ. … So [also] husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself” (Eph 5:21, 28).

This attracted a large number of women, both noble and common, to the Church. Children also followed because they were instructed as ones with equal dignity to their elders. Many children of this period were exposed to the elements and beasts if the father of a household did not want them. Christians routinely sought out the places where families would abandon their children and rescue them, raising them as their own. Justin Martyr also recounts, “We have been taught that to expose newly born infants is the work of wicked people; firstly because we see that almost all those exposed, not only the girls but also the boys, are growing up in prostitution" (1st Apology, sec. 27). So on top of preserving the lives of children, they also sought to protect them from predators and those who raised these children as sex slaves and sub-human objects. Slaves were accepted as brothers and sisters, whether they were freed or not. That Christians considered man, no matter who, dignified was one of the primary causes of Christianity's favorable reception.

With this foundation in place, namely the word of God coming to many, we will not see what the Church looked like in these circumstances—how was it formed and governed? What is “Tradition” as Catholics describe it, and in what manner do we say we are “universal”? We shall pick up these topics in Part II: Organization of the Church.

======

This was a presentation given to a group of 40 parishioners as part of a adult-education series on the Early Church. The hope is to generate discussion but more so I hope to inspire others to learn about the zeal of our early faith, to be confident in the history of the Church, to proclaim her with intelligence and patience, and to teach our children and fellow adults the Truth of Christ by understanding the divinity and humanity of our Church.