The content of this post is one of the projects I have been working on for my Medieval Church History class. I opted to post if for two reasons, one as a tangible excuse for why I have not posted for a very long time (this piece of work has occupied every ounce of my writing devotion in the last little while); secondly, in the off chance that someone (other than my prof) might give it the time of day.
I realize that for many people this topic is of little interest, so if you fall into that category, the following will likely serve little purpose - other than putting you to sleep.
The Foundations of Roman Primacy: A Window into the Division Between the Eastern Orthodox And Roman Catholic Churches
Despite substantial agreement in matters of faith, the differences between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church were eventually deemed to be irreconcilable. Political, cultural, linguistic, and religious issues all contributed to the growing antagonism between the Eastern and Western Christian traditions, which culminated in the schism of 1054. The concept – and at times the application – of Roman primacy was one of those key issues. Even in the earliest years of the church there was no consensus concerning the issue of ecclesiastical structure, but rather the Western conception of the papacy – that became substantially differentiated from the East – developed unevenly as it faced a myriad of concurrent forces. The emergence of the episcopate, the political consequences of the relationship between church and state, the increasing influence of Roman jurisprudence upon the theological dialogue, and the fragmentation of an empire recoiling from Germanic and Islamic invaders all had an impact upon the bishop of Rome staking claim to the title pontifex maximus. The forces that contributed to the gradual divide between East and West were many; exploring the foundations of the Catholic claim to Roman primacy, as one of them, offers a window into the wider and complex relationship that would emerge between the Greek and Latin faith traditions.
The canonical Book of Acts contains one of the earliest examples describing the application of ecclesiastical church authority. The decision made at the Council at Jerusalem (c. 42) based its authority upon, “the apostles and elders, with the whole church.” (Acts15:22). As the first Christian generation died – without experiencing the much anticipated second coming of Christ – a crisis of leadership and structure within the church forced it to adapt.(1)
The establishment of ecclesiastical order served the dual purpose of organizing and sustaining the growth of the Christian faith and of combating the inevitable appearance of heresy. Early in the second century, Ignatius made distinct references in his epistles to the growing roll that presbyters and deacons were playing as specific offices within the structure of the church. Even more significantly for the purpose of this study, at this early date Ignatius stressed obedience “to the bishop as to Jesus Christ.” (2) R. A. Markus describes the Christian church of this early period as a “polycentric entity;”(3) as such, bishops became the hub of faith in the Christian community as they oversaw the church within the cities of their residence.
The office of the bishop also played a critical role within the concept of apostolic succession. The belief that the pristine teachings of the apostles were passed down through the bishops in an unbroken chain of authority became an effective tool in the battle against deviant Christian beliefs. Tertullian (c. 160-220) challenged the heretics of his day to “unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from… one of the apostles.”(4) The bishop's claim to possess teaching that was passed down directly from the apostles was particularly valuable in combating the Gnostic heresies, whose authority was based upon the authority of “secret” revelations.(5) As the guardians of orthodoxy, bishops grew in power and authority within the body of the church; this is just one example of the growing distinction during this period between those who were deemed to be qualified to govern and rest of the population within the Christian community. While the division between clergy and laity had yet to be fully expressed, Walter Ullmann asserts that having an awareness of this distinction between clergy and laity is critical to understanding Latin Christendom in the medieval period.(6)
Not only did apostolic succession grant special distinction to the office of the bishop, congregations that were founded directly by an apostle held greater prestige – and often authority – within the wider Christian community. As mentioned above, the church in Jerusalem played a leading role in the first century; however, the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem provided an opportunity for a new apostolic see to emerge as the leader in the Christian faith.(7) Both Alexandria and Antioch asserted significant influence in the third century, due to their apostolic foundations; the churches of Philippi, Ephesus, Corinth and Thessalonica all boasted apostolic foundations based upon the missionary work of Paul.(8) However, the church at Rome that held two distinct advantages that set it apart from all the rest. First, Rome possessed the unique claim of “dual apostolicity.” As the final resting place of Peter and Paul, not only did Rome hold a church that derived its position from two apostles – they were two apostles with enormous prestige. Secondly, the geographic location of Rome made the only church with apostolic foundations in the West. Based upon the number of presbyters and other clergy in the Roman church, Klaus Schatz estimates that it had grown to about 30,000 members by the middle of the third century.(9) Additionally, on occasion, the newly established churches in North Africa, Gaul, and Spain sought spiritual direction from Rome in a variety of matters. As time progressed, the metropolitan system became more entrenched in the East; which meant that Western bishops were just as likely to write to the bishop of Rome for direction as their own metropolitan – this was would never be the case in the East. With all this being said, Rome’s input concerning matters of faith in the wider regions of the Latin world was not always welcomed or heeded.(10)
It is of utmost importance when investigating the foundations of Roman primacy to distinguish between the theory and the capacity of the bishop of Rome to put it into practice. In the second and third centuries two attempts by the Roman See to exert its authority over the wider body of the church were initially met without success. One issue concerned the date of the Easter celebration; the other was over the issue of baptizing converts from heretical Christian sects.(11) It was in the midst of the second abovementioned controversy that Steven of Rome and Cyprian of Carthage became embroiled in a debate. Within their correspondence Steven used the Petrine text from Matthew 16:18-19 to directly support his personal position of authority, as the bishop of Rome: “18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." At the Seventh Council at Carthage (258), 86 bishops (mostly from Africa) united with Cyprian against the “tyrannical terror” expressed by his colleague’s desire to “set himself up as bishop of bishops.”(12) In Cyprian’s opinion, the Petrine text established the authority of all bishops, not one bishop above all the rest.(13) This exchange would only prove to be the beginning of a Roman bishop’s monarchial conception of his own position being challenged by another body in the wider church.
The Edict of Milan, issued by Emperors Constantine and Licinius in 313, was a turning point in the relationship between the church and the state. The new hybrid institution that emerged as a result added dynamic new elements to the development of Roman primacy. Constantine hoped that Christianity would be a catalyst for unity in his increasingly divided empire; this desire elevated the church from the status of a persecuted religious sect to the recipient of imperial favour. The donation of the Lateran palace and the establishment of St. Peter’s Basilica are but two tactile examples of how the Roman See directly benefited from this new relationship.(14) Bernhard Schimmelphfennig also listed freedom from taxation and special legal jurisdiction over legal cases relating to matters of church discipline as added to the church in Rome during the first half of the fourth century.(15) The initial insurgence of wealth, status and prestige initially belonged to the church as a whole; however, there is no question that holding the position of bishop in the capital city of the Roman Empire directly contributed to the growth of Roman primacy. Constantine’s decision to move the empire’s capital to Byzantium, thereby establishing Constantinople as ‘New Rome’ in 330, endowed a second bishop with the benefit of overseeing a church in a capital city. Over the long term, not only did this shift in imperial power create a powerful rival to Roman primacy in the East, it offered the Roman bishop greater independence from the emperor who was now situated in a distant eastern city. However, this did not mean that the bishop of Rome was left without imperial influence, the emperor continued to rule the West through an exarch, first in Milan and later in Ravenna.(16) This development forged new centers of political power in the West that would, at times, pose a threat to the growing notion of Roman primacy.
Constantine’s Synodal Letter which convened the first universal or ecumenical council in Nicea (325) expressed the newfound interest that emperors would take in “matters which concern the faith of the Church.”(17) A fragmented faith was of no use to an emperor who was in search of a catalyst. Despite Constantine’s best efforts, the Arian heresy persisted long after his death – up until the reign of Theodosius; but the manner in which this issue was eventually resolved would further exasperate tensions between East and West.(18) Meanwhile, the Council at Sardica (343), which has never been recognized by the Orthodox Church, was a failed attempt to bring resolution to the Arian controversy. In the end it only served to further enflame the East, particularly as a result of Canon V, which made the Bishop of Rome the appellate judge in disputes between bishops, thus granting him the power of jurisdiction.(19) When Theodosius summoned the Council of Constantinople in 381, it ratified the faith of Nicea, in principle; but this gathering was anything but ecumenical. Not only did the West go without a single representative at the council, Cannon III granted the bishop of Constantinople second honour “after the bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.”(20) On this surface, this canon does not appear to be a direct affront to the growing concept of Roman primacy because Constantinople appears to remain subordinate to Rome. However, up to this point Constantinople’s prestige was far outranked by the other Eastern apostolic patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria; by taking the position of second place, Constantinople became the number one see in the East and a genuine rival to Rome within the body of the church as a whole.
Damasus of Rome (366-384) immediately responded to Canon III in a pronouncement that distinguished the source of his authority from that of the bishop of Constantinople. Damasus asserted that his authority was not derived from a synod – it came directly from Christ – a claim which he based, once again, upon the Petrine text in Matthew 16:18-19.(21) In contrast to the collegial understanding of the bishop’s role – that was maintained at the Council of Constantinople – Siricius (384-399) and Innocent I (402-417) continued to build upon the Western monarchical conception of the bishop of Rome. Innocent argued that Rome, as the only see with apostolic foundations in the West, should have governing authority over the surrounding area.(22) Decretals composed by Siricius were written with the intention of having authority beyond the boundaries of southern Italy; it was during this period that the term “pope” became reserved exclusively for the bishop of Rome.(23)
At the turn of the fifth century, the assertions of Roman jurisdiction were becoming more clearly defined, yet the application of this authority was still rather limited – even in the West. Both Ambrose (c. 339-397) and Augustine (354-430) were great western thinkers whose writings are often used to support Rome’s claim to primacy. In many cases they endorsed the belief that the emperor should maintain a posture of servitude before the bishops; however, neither Ambrose nor Augustine supported Roman primacy.(24) Augustine held two councils in Carthage (419 & 424) to address the Pelagian controversy, a heresy that found its greatest audience in Rome itself. In the correspondence between Pope Innocent and Augustine of Hippo it became clear that they had two very different views about where the authority for resolving this issue resided; Innocent’s perspective was monarchical, Augustine’s still identified with the earlier ecclesiastical tradition common to the East.(25) Despite the inability of Rome to exert lasting and universally recognized authority during this period, significant ideological groundwork was established in the West; additionally, the appearance of Vandal (and later Muslim) forces in North Africa effectively eliminated a powerful intellectual opponent to Rome primacy in the West.
Up to this point, the church had enjoyed the protection and patronage of the state in exchange for taking the junior role in their partnership. The onslaught of Germanic invasions in the West significantly altered this relationship. The destruction and plunder wrought at the hands of the Visigoths (410) and the Vandals (455) changed the face of “Old” Rome. Its population spiralled downward from a robust half million down to about 100,000; whereas the population of Constantinople was quickly rising throughout this period. It reached the half million mark by the turn of the sixth century.(26) Not only were absolute numbers reduced with Rome’s city limits, demographics shifted as the Greek-speaking elite population in Rome fled to Constantinople. Markus brings further clarity to this shift in Rome’s population. In asserts that Christian intellectuals and the clergy were taking upon the mantel left by the pagan Roman aristocracy; all the while the Hellenistic civilization of the Byzantine Empire continued to advance in the East.(27) Throughout the West the established infrastructure disintegrated in the face of barbarian invasions, the administration of the Roman Catholic Church was the only viable institution that remained and it started to embrace a new role.
Building upon the foundations of Roman primacy that had already been established, Pope Leo I (440-461) infused an essential new ingredient into this ideology by combining Roman jurisprudence with a theological vocabulary. Ullmann goes to great lengths to demonstrate how previous claims to Roman primacy – that were founded purely based upon apostolic succession and the Petrine text of Matthew 16:18-19 – were fragile at best; the medieval papacy would be forged upon “the juristic foundations laid by Leo.”(28) In his fourth sermon Leo declared, “it is Peter who properly rules each one of those whom Christ also rules principally. Great and wonderful a share in his power did God see fit to bestow upon this man, dearly beloved.”(29) These words describe a mystical union between Peter and Christ, as such, Christ’s commission bestows Peter with Power of Jurisdiction – full teaching authority in the church, and with Plenitude of Power – the full capacity to make laws that govern the church. Not only is Peter mystically connected with Christ in this advanced Petrinology, Peter’s ministry to the church continues through the pope – directly. In reference to Peter’s ongoing work in the church Leo proclaimed, “Regard him as present in the lowliness of my person… His dignity does not fade even in an unworthy heir.”(30) The belief in apostolic succession, which was universally accepted within the Eastern and Western traditions, underwent an epic development under the reasoning of Leo I. The pope inherited his authority directly from Peter himself, not from the pope who preceded him. As such, it was through Leo’s advanced Petrinology that a divine monarchy was established in the office of the papacy, which essentially became an organ of government. Where the Eastern Church widely acknowledged the succession from Peter that was held by the Roman bishop, the mystical and juristic connections Leo made between his office and Peter would remain foreign to Orthodox belief. Considering Leo’s contributions to Roman primacy, and his identification with Peter, it should be no surprise that he was the first pope to be buried at St. Peter’s.(31)
The third and fourth ecumenical councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451) were called to address the complex Christological debates that were raging between the leaders of the Eastern patriarchates. Nestorius was condemned as a heretic in Ephesus, however debate continued. Once again, in Chalcedon, it was in the best interest of the emperor to restore a semblance of unity to the Eastern portion of the empire. Pope Leo played an intermediary role at Chalcedon; an extract from the Acts of Chalcedon reveals that his Tome was received with the words, “Peter has spoken thus through Leo.”(32) Yet, this statement should not give the impression that this eastern council was recognizing a unique authority in the bishop of Rome; Canon XXVIII of Chalcedon once again granted Constantinople with “equal privileges” with old imperial Rome; this was a concession that Leo refused to accept.(33)
The challenges faced by the Roman patriarch, both from the eastern emperor and the patriarch of Constantinople, are exemplified by Emperor Zeno’s Henotikon of 482. The Henotikon was an ingenuous design inspired by Acacius, the Patriarch of Constantinople.(34) Essentially, the Henotikon was a compromise with the Monophysite doctrine that had been condemned at the Council of Chalcedon back in 451, thereby alleviating the ongoing struggle between the Eastern patriarchs (who were still divided over the issue) while simultaneously undermining the authority of Leo – whose Tome was foundational in the development of the faith of 451. This ongoing participation (or interference) of the eastern emperors in the development of orthodoxy compelled Pope Gelasius I (492-496) to address the Byzantine Emperor, Anastasias I, with these words in 494: "There are indeed, most august Emperor, two powers by which this world is chiefly ruled: the sacred authority of the Popes and the royal power. Of these the priestly power is much more important, because it has to render account for the kings of men themselves at the Divine tribunal."(35) Gelasius also makes a significant contribution to the concept of Roman primacy, in an area where the jurisdictional developments made by Leo were still wanting – in respect to the role of the temporal ruler.(36) The Gelasian doctrine proposed that the pontiff bore greater authority than the emperor because he also carried the heavier responsibility – the burden of teaching the church, and ultimately salvation. Therefore, the role of the emperor was intrinsically subsidiary. He was to provide protection for the spiritual authorities, while they ruled in matters of orthodoxy.
The Gelasian doctrine had little opportunity to be applied in the West, at least in the near future, as emperor Justinian ascended to the eastern throne just a short time later. Not only did Justinian attempt to reunify the fragmented empire by reclaiming territory lost in the West to the Ostrogoths, in a series of costly wars between 535 and 553, the emperor took for himself the authoritative position in determining the doctrine of the church.(37) Consequently, the papacy reached an all time low point its ability to apply authority over the church. All power became concentrated in the hands of the emperor. Justinian exerted such jurisdiction over the bishop of Rome that all pontiffs, starting with Pelagius I in 555, had to be confirmed by his representative – the exarch of Ravenna – before they could be consecrated as pope.(38) The long-term impact of Justinian’s military conquests would be cut short by the Lombard invasion in 568, but his reign would not be without having a significant lasting effect. Among many other things, the Justinian Code greatly increased the secular administrative responsibilities of the pope within the empire.(39)
Pope Gregory I (590-604) ascended to Peter’s throne during a period when life in Rome was characterized by famine, siege, and plague. Gregory is often described as the first medieval pope because of his decisive leadership in the midst of these trials and because of his ability to apply the power of jurisdiction that had been so clearly defined by the popes who came before him. The Lombard invasions greatly reduced the value of the city of Rome in the eyes of the Eastern emperor. Justinian’s efforts to recapture Rome proved to be costly and ineffective, which reduced Rome to the status of little more than a fringe border town within the status of the empire as a whole. This political context forced Gregory to “look west” for a commodity the church had taken for granted ever since its union with the state – security. Gregory accomplished this by reaching out to the invaders. One of Gregory’s epistles was a letter addressed to all the bishops in Italy imploring them to reach out to “all the Lombards in your districts” with the teaching of the Catholic faith.(40) Gregory also expressed the extent of his leadership in the tone of his letter to Bruinchild, Queen of the Franks. Gregory’s efforts had significant political consequences for the political authority of the Roman pontiff, but it is important to keep in mind that his interests were genuinely spiritual. Having a monk’s background, his concern was for the spiritual integrity of the Frankish church when he addressed how “certain priests in those parts live so immodestly and wickedly that it is a shame for us to hear of it and lamentable to tell it.”(41) Throughout this period Gregory became increasingly involved in the administrative affairs of the military and politics, which further defined the role of the pontiff in the Roman see. The Germanic invasions were a political wedge between the East and the West; this division was only compounded when Islamic forces threatened the stability of the empire in the East. There was no longer any hope for a Roman pontiff to secure military support from an Eastern emperor. It is for this reason that Henry Chadwick concludes that from this point, “it is much more difficult to write the history of both Eastern and Western Christendom as if it were a single story.”(42)
In review, it would have been impossible to establish the foundations of Roman primacy without the formation of ecclesiastical order in the church. The concept of apostolic succession as a defense against heresy, and the role the bishop came to play as the protector and administrator of the faith was another significant development in the early period. The church at Rome was also distinguished from the early period because of its double apostolic association with Peter and Paul and because it was the only see with apostolic foundations in the West. Following the union between church and state, Rome was the initial benefactor of being the church in the capital city of the empire, and the bishop of Rome was given a measure of independence when Capital was moved to Constantinople. The ecumenical councils challenged the notion of Roman primacy, particularly as the churches in the East resented Rome’s claim that its honourable position afforded it additional authority. Popes Leo, Gelasius, and Gregory advanced Petrinology by employing Roman jurisprudence, asserting authority of bishops over temporal leaders, and by putting into practice the theory of Roman primacy in new and decisive ways. During this foundational period the concept of Roman primacy tended to be much more theorized that realized; and yet the foundations of Roman primacy would become the idealized template – looked back upon by all future generations of Roman bishops seeking to assert their authority.
Having an understanding of these foundations, at the most basic level, provides a window into the complex relationship that would emerge between the Orthodox and Catholic churches because it was one of the key contributors to the widening gulf that would, in time, become a break between East and West. In the context of an ecumenical dialogue shortly after Vatican II, Emmanuel Lanne, a Catholic theologian, went so far as to say, “…that the primacy of Rome is the principle obstacle standing in the way of reconstituted unity with the Orthodox Churches.”(43) Both of these traditions held (and hold) unswervingly to the principle of apostolic succession; however, the Orthodox Church maintains the notion of a collegial episcopate and the Roman Catholic’s is monarchial. For those in the East the title ‘first among the bishops’ simply honours one bishop as the first among equals, but in the Western tradition this same distinction elevates one bishop to the position of supreme pontiff. To have an understanding of this key issue that continues to stand as a barrier preventing unity between the Eastern and Western churches is to see one example of how these churches have developed widely divergent interpretations of a shared heritage.
End Notes:
Bernhard, Schimmelphfennig, The Papacy, 3rd ed. (New York, 1992), 2.
Ignatius. To the Trallians. In The Apostolic Fathers, J. B. Lightfoot trans. & J. R. Harmer ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1974; originally published, 1956), 73.
R. A. Markus, From Augustine to Gregory the Great: History and Christianity in Late Antiquity, (London, 1983), 358.
Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, In The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 Peter Holmes trans. (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1973), 258.
Klaus Schatz, Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present (Collegeville, Minnesota, 1996), 7.
Walter Ullmann, The Growth Of Papal Government In The Middle Ages: A study in the ideological relation of clerical and lay power. 3rd ed. (London, 1970; originally published 1955), 2.
Schimmelphfennig, 3.
Schatz, 19
Ibid.
Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, Revised ed. (London, 1993; originally published 1967), 239.
Schatz, 11-13.
Seventh Council Of Carthage Under Cyprian, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325: Volume V Hippolytus,Cyprian, Caius, Novatian. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson eds. (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1971), 565.
Cyprian, Epistle XXVI, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325: Volume V Hippolytus,Cyprian, Caius, Novatian. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson eds. (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1971), 305.
Geoffrey Barraclough, The Medieval Papacy, 1st American ed. (New York, 1968), 19.
Schimmelphfennig, 35. These tax benefits were diminished in subsequent years as the empire came under financial strain.
Ibid., 16.
Constantine, The Synodal Letter, 325, in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church (Second Series): Volume XIV The Seven Ecumenical Councils. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace eds. (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1971), 53.
Chadwick, 133.
Council of Sardica, Canon V, 343, in Documents of the Christian Church. H. Bettenson ed.; in The Middle Ages: Volume I: Sources of Medieval History, 3rd ed, edited by: Brian Tierney, (London, 1978), 62. This gathering turned out to be little more than a Western synod and its assertions granted far more jurisdiction to Rome than it actually possessed at the time.
Council of Constantinople, Canon III, 381, in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church (Second Series): Volume XIV The Seven Ecumenical Councils. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace eds. (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1971), 178.
Barraclough, 24.
Schimmelphfennig, 39.
Schatz, 28-9.
Schimmelphfennig, 46.
Markus, 356.
Schimmelphfennig, 16.
Markus, 357-8.
Walter Ullmann, “Leo I and the Theme of Papal Primacy,” Journal of Theological Studies 11 (1960), 46.
Leo, The Great. Sermons. In The Fathers of the Church: Volume 93. Jane Patricia Freeland and Agnes Josephine Conway trans. (Washington, D.C., 1996), IV, ii.
Ibid., III, iv.
Chadwick, 244.
Council of Chalcedon, 451, in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church (Second Series): Volume XIV The Seven Ecumenical Councils. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace eds. (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1971), 259.
Ibid., 287.
Chadwick, 205.
Pope Gelasius I, Letter to Anastasias I, 494, in Church and State Through the Centuries. Sidney Z. Ehler and John B. Morrall eds. Westminster, Maryland, 1954; in Readings in Church History Volume I: From Pentecost To The Protestant Revolt, Colman J. Barry ed, (New York, 1959), 147.
Ullmann, Growth, 15.
Schatz, 47.
Barraclough, 29.
Schimmelphfennig, 53.
Pope Gregory I, Epistle XVII, in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church (Second Series): Volume XII Leo The Great, Gregory The Great. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace eds. (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1969), 78-9.
Pope Gregory I, Letter to Mauricius Augustus, in Selected Epistles of Gregory the Great. J. Barmby, trans. New York, 1895; in The Middle Ages: Volume I: Sources of Medieval History, 3rd ed, edited by: Brian Tierney, (New York, 1978), 66.
Chadwick, 289.
Emmanuel Lanne, “To What Extent is Roman Primacy unacceptable to the Eastern Churches?” in Papal Ministry In The Church, Küng, Hans, ed. (New York, 1971), 62.
