Habemus Papam IV – Historical Considerations

The documents I’ve used are quite sound and generally accepted to be of high quality. In particular, The Faith of the Early Fathers by William A. Jurgens, is an exhaustive three volume compilation of early Church writings up to the end of the Patristic Period. It contains a great deal of information on the theology and history of the early fathers, written by the people that lived through those times.

I’m also not going to turn this into a historiography of Peter, pro and con. While I personally think that such a historiographical investigation might be fascinating, I’d probably be utterly alone.

Was Peter In Rome?

Accept for the sake of argument, that Peter died between AD 64 and 68. The case for these dates will be made in the next post, but for the moment let's accept that the archaeological data indicates AD 64 to 68. This would be during the reign of Nero, and coincides with his persecution of Christians following the great fire.

Unfortunately, there is no historical documentation that says, “I was in Rome and saw this guy named Peter, and he just went on and on about this church that he founded.” However, it is incorrect to say that the historical record is silent on Peter being in Rome.

Let’s begin with St. Clement of Rome, the fourth pope. St. Clements’ dates are rather difficult to pin down. Some papal lists place him as the Bishop of Rome in AD 92 to 101. There is a good deal of evidence to suggest that these dates are incorrect. I don’t want to get into a history of his papacy or why I believe them to be in error.

Clements’ letter to the Corinthians speaks of a great and sudden calamity. This could easily have been the explosion of Mt. Vesuvius in AD 79, the fires that were set of in Rome itself as a result of the explosion, and a period of pestilence that followed shortly thereafter. There are also other elements that suggest the letter was written sometime shortly after Vesuvius erupted. More to the point here, the letter to the Corinthians also speaks of Peter and Paul having been martyred fairly recently. Writing in or around AD 80 – the earliest non-scriptural document on the subject – St. Clement of Rome says:

Consider the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars were persecuted, and they persevered even to death. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles: Peter, who through unwarranted jealousy suffered not one or two but many toils, and having thus given testimony went to the place of glory that was his due.

This letter begins with the greeting, “The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth…”, so it is certainly written from Rome. This doesn’t specifically place Peter in Rome, but it does give a recent account (“…our own generation…”). It also goes on to discuss the fact that Paul was martyred in Rome as well. [Keating points to one source that suggests the letter could have been written as early as AD 70. This would put it within just a handful of years of Peter’s death. Having looked at some of the materials in general terms (but again, not original source material), I think AD 80 is a better estimate for our purposes.]

The next documents to discuss Peters death is a letter by St. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth. Writing to Soter, the twelfth pope, he mentions that Peter and Paul were put to death in that Rome. The letter was written around AD 166, and Dionysius mentions that Peter and Paul both taught in Italy and “suffered martyrdom at the same time.” At the very least, the death of Peter in Rome was accepted by the middle of the second century (roughly 100 years after Peter’s death).

Lastly are the comments of a Roman priest named Gaius. Gaius was a known element in Rome. He wrote several letters explaining the faith and admonishing heretics. At the end of the second century, roughly 135 years after Peter’s death (AD 200), Gaius writes of the “Tropaion of Peter.” Tropaion is an unusual Greek word that we’ll encounter in the next installment. But for now, we’ll define Tropaion as a memorial or a monument. Gaius specifically says that Peter’s Tropaion is on Vatican Hill. Later he continues:

I can point out the tokens of victory of the Apostles. If thou wilst go to the Vatican or to the Ostia Road, thou wilt find the tokens of victory of the Apostles, who founded this Church.

Not only does Gaius believe that Peter was in Rome and was buried there, but he can even point out his grave. “Tokens of victory” is as good a way to translate Tropaion as any other. The closest English word is “Trophy.”

While the historical record does not point directly at Peter being in Rome, it is far from silent on the subject. The historical record indicates that it was widely accepted very early in Church history that Peter died in Rome.

Did His Contemporaries Accept Peter’s Primacy?

Ignatius was the third bishop in Antioch and died sometime between AD 100 and 110. He may not have met Peter personally, but he did hear the Apostle John speak.

In his letter to the Romans, written shortly before his death, Ignatius mentions that he did not command the Roman Christians as Peter and Paul did. This letter, written to Roman Christians, would only make sense if Peter and Paul were leaders of the Church of Rome and the bishop of Antioch held a lower position of authority. This indicates a relationship between Rome and the rest of the Church, giving Rome the place higher than other bishoprics. He also called the church in Rome the “overseer of love”.

St. Irenæus, writing in the first half of the second century, called the Roman church, “the greatest, most ancient, and most generally known” of all churches. He specifically states that the church in Rome was founded by Peter and Paul together.

There are several other documents that acknowledge Peter as a leader of the Church, but for the sake of brevity I’ll leave them for now. The reason that we can set these others aside for the moment is that we are going to try to tie everything together in the next section.

Apostolic Succession

The package of Peter’s being in Rome, his acceptance as the leader of the Church, and the fact that he has successors, should all be taken as a whole. So far, we have at least strong hints of Peter’s being in Rome, being martyred there, and being the head of the Church.

A quick note about papal elections. The modern idea of a college of cardinals selecting the pope did not exist in antiquity. Elections did happen, but they were not regular and they were not quite what we have today. The modern method of papal selection began in 769 with Stephen III. [The college of cardinals and the conclave were established in 1274.] The votes were interfered with throughout the middle ages by various kings and princes, most notably the Holy Roman Emperors. But the election of the pope by a group of select churchmen has its origins in 769. Prior to that, some popes were selected by their predecessors, and some were elected by local Roman clergy.

Let’s begin with an accepted point in history where it’s pretty clear that most of the papal functions are in place: Leo I – The Great. Leo was selected to be pope by his predecessor, Sixtus III, and reigned from 440 to 461. His pontificate demonstrates many modern papal powers. He fought against heresy and personally led investigations into several heretical claims. He taught the faith to his bishops, and he expected them to teach the faith to the masses. He preached strict ecclesiastic discipline and worked to reorganized elements of the disordered hierarchy of his day. He functioned in many ways just as his modern successors do. If Leo the Great can be seen as a recognizable example of the papacy, can we find someone a bit earlier that also shows modern tendencies toward papal authority and also succeeded to the papacy?

Let’s step back to Tertullian writing in about 200 from Carthage. He writes of “apostolic men who continue steadfast with the Apostles.” He then goes on to mention several, including Clement I in Rome, who was “ordained by Peter.”

At about the same time, St. Cyprian of Carthage says that Rome is the “mother and root of the Catholic Church.”

Stepping back just a bit further, we come to St. Irenæus, the second bishop of Lyons. Irenæus wrote the five volumes of Adversus Hæreses (Against Heresies) between AD 180 and 199. The work was done to help stem the tide of Gnosticism. He gives a brief rundown of the early history of the popes, and includes the fact that Peter and Paul built up the Church of Rome. Two quotes, the first on Peter founding the Church:

Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.

Next on the succession of early popes:

they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the Apostles.

In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians…

Since he’s been mentioned again, let’s turn to once more to Clement I, and have another look at his letter to the Corinthians. Again, Clements’ letter is written sometime around AD 80, and shows definate signs of papal authority. He says to the Corinthians:

…we acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you…

He then goes on to instruct the Corinthians in the faith and explain how to live in accordance with Christian teachings. He advocates that they be “contentious and zealous in the things that lead to salvation.” He then admonishes against people “in revolt against the Presbyters.” The report of this revolt was carried to the pope by members of other faiths, so scandal ensued that Clement called “extremely shameful and unworthy” of the members of the Corinthian church. Toward the end of the letter, Clement encourages his readers to repentance and submission, telling them to accept his counsel “and you will have nothing to regret.” But should they decide where they stand and, should they disobey the “things which have been said by Him through us,” they will suffer some penalty. The “things which have been said by Him through us,” is an important concept given that this was written in AD 80. If this isn’t acting like a pope, then what is?

But Clement I goes even further. He mentions how the early Church selected bishops. Keep in mind, this comes from a man who knew both Peter and Paul, was ordained by Peter himself, and was only three steps from the first pope:

Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.

[In the same vein, but out of the chronological sequence we've followed so far, is this quote from the Diadache. Written somewhere between 140 and 160: “Elect for yourselves, therefore, bishops and deacons worthy of the lord, humble men and not lovers of money, truthful and proven; for they also serve you in the ministry of the prophets and teachers.”]

Babylon, oh Babylon!

We now need to stop for a moment and return to Scripture in relation to the historical record. We need to stop and consider Peter’s own words as to his location toward the end of his life. Herein lies proof, such as it exists, of Peter’s being in Rome and founding the Church there.

At the conclusion of his first epistle, Peter says:

The Church that is in Babylon, who is likewise chosen, send you greetings; and so does my son Mark. (1 Peter 5:13)

What does Peter mean here? Was he actually in the ancient city of Babylon? Not quite. In this text, Babylon is a code word for Rome.

First off, the original Babylon, capitol of the Babylonian Empire, long lay in ruins by the time of Christ. Babylon’s empire was partitioned after the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC. (I’m no expert in this branch of history, so don’t quiz me here. If I make an error, be kind.) After Alexander’s death, his successors fought for a few decades, and Babylon the city was left to decay. By the time of Christ, it’s possible that travelers would have a difficult time finding what was left of the city. There was a New Babylon built on the Tigris river during the Seleucid Empire, but it never really became a great city. There was also a Babylon in Egypt near Memphis, but this too was a small, back-water town, not a great city.

The greatness of Babylon is important when looked at with Revelation 17:5 and 18:10 in mind. Babylon is called “great Babylon” and “the mother of harlots”. It later falls into judgement. The text in Revelation doesn't fit ancient Babylon at all, but it fit Rome nicely. Babylon also means Rome in the early Christian poem Oracula Sibyl (verses 143 & 159).

Why disguise Rome with the word Babylon? Simple – the need for secrecy. But more on that in the next installment.

Where But Rome?

The historical record is far from empty. The documentation listed above is important for one reason that may not be readily apparent: there is no historical documentation to suggest that Peter was someplace other than Rome.

Even if you remove Peter’s own words about being in Babylon, you can’t escape the fact that a large number of people scattered over a broad expanse of geography (France to Antioch to Carthage), all accepted that Peter was in Rome and died there. Nor can you escape the utter silence of history about Peter being in any other location. There has never been a single source to suggest that Peter was in, for instance, Jerusalem or Corinth when he died.

No other city has ever - ever - claimed to hold the grave of Peter. It’s clear from the historical record that the early Church did know where Peter’s grave was, they did know how he died, and they accepted him as a leader of the Church.

Again, there is no smoking gun. But apostolic succession is certainly implied. At the very least, you have to take away from our discussion so far that, in the first decades of the Church, it was accepted that there was a succession to the bishops in general, and to the Bishop of Rome in particular. The succession was planned for and largely seems to have worked fairly well in the ancient world.

You also get the impression from many of the texts cited, that the early popes exercised their authority in much the same way their successors have. Yes, there were differences, but the office has evolved over the past two thousand years. The differences are not so great as to break the chain.