Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T08:43:09.384Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

David Albert Jones OP
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The aim of this paper is to examine the historical question as to whether mono-episcopal government existed in the local Church in Rome in the first century AD. It is not intended to engage upon the related task of theological reflection upon the role of bishops within the Church and their claim to be successors to the apostles in this role.

There has been a development in the Church’s understanding of ministry and authority, just as there has been a development in the Church’s understanding of the Trinity or the Incarnation. Leo the Great was as certain of the authority of the Petrine office, as he was of the reality of the two natures of the one person of Christ. The task of showing whether such developments were legitimate is ultimately a theological one, though it is one that will involve reflection upon history. It is not prima facie obvious that a high doctrine of the papacy does require that a single bishop exercised magisterial authority in Rome in the immediate post-apostolic age. Yet this question is only raised at this point so that it may be set aside. Here we consider the simpler historical question as to whether the evidence available requires, suggests, or excludes the supposition that Christian ministry in Rome in the latter part of the first century was mono-episcopal.

Type
Research Article
Information
New Blackfriars , Volume 80 , Issue 937 , March 1999 , pp. 128 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

References

1 Duffy, E. Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes. Yale University Press. 1997. p.7Google Scholar cf. Kelly, J.N.D., The Oxford Dictionary of popes. OUP. 1986. p.7; Frend “The Origin of the Papacy c33-440” in Johnson, P. The Papacy. Phoenix Illustrated, 1997.

2 Staniforth, M., (ed. and notes) Early Christian Writings Penguin. Harmondsworth, 1968. n.7 p. 236, see also Beyer episkopos in Kittel, G., (Ed.) Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Volume II Eerdman's Pub. Co.. Grand Rapids Michigan, 1964. Examples need not be multiplied. This view is so widely held as not to be contentious.

3 This second connects Christ as Shepherd: 1 Peter 2.25, 5.4 (cf. John 10.11); Peter himself as shepherd 1 Peter 5.1 (cf. John 21. 16); and the presbyter as shepherd: 1 Peter 5.1-4.

4 Luke is, after all, careful to distinguish different forms of ministry in Antioch [Acts 13.1] and Ephesus [Acts 20.17].

5 Paul often relied on Timothy for this function [1 Corinthians 16.10, Philippians 2.19, 1 Thessalonians 3.21].

6 Frend, W.H.C., The Rise of christianity. DL&T, London, 1984. p. 139Google Scholar.

7 Ibid. p. 140.

8 Crombie, F, (transl. and notes) “The Pastor of Hermas” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume II Grand Rapids Michigan, 1983.

9 Chadwick, H., The Early Church, Penguin, Harmondsworth. 1993. p. 51Google Scholar.

10 with acknowledgement to Mary Midgley who used this technique to uncover a quite different set of prejudices Midgley, M., Evolution as a Religion Methuen. London, 1985. p. 98Google Scholar.

11 Duffy as quoted above, but this is a tendency so common that it would unfair to single Duffy out for any special criticism.