The pontificate of St. Leo the Great is a convenient point at which to halt an investigation of the history of the early popes. From St. Leo to the present the papacy has changed so little that an inquirer whose experience was confined to the modern popes would have no difficulty in seeing that Leo held the same office in the church as, for instance, Pius XI. An examination of his pontificate shows that he possessed all the characteristics which are now recognized as being of the essence of the papacy. Mgr. Batiffol remarked that he was not, as has been alleged, the first pope, but he was fully a pope. In his pontificate the institution of the papacy can be said to have achieved its term of normal development. It is necessary now to reflect on the history of that institution from Peter to Leo in order to propose a theory which will explain adequately all the relevant facts. In particular it is necessary to account for the prominent position of St. Peter, followed by an apparent regression, and then swift rise to pre-eminence by those who claimed to be his successors.
Four main theories have been suggested to explain the phenomenon. The theories of the usurpation of a power which was never given by Christ, the acquisition of pre-eminence by reason of the civil importance of the imperial capital, straightforward historical evolution, and finally institution by Christ together with the normal development which has attended all Christian doctrines.
The theory of usurpation has in its favour the undeniable fact that this kind of thing was not unknown in the early church. It was this type of ambition which prompted the depositions of Chrysostom and Flavian at the hands of Theophilus and Dioscorus. Similarly the ambitions of the bishops of Constantinople motivated their endeavours to secure for their see the primacy of honour. It is, however, important to bear in mind that the rivalry between the great sees of the church, which was pursued so unscrupulously, was a characteristic which appeared fairly late upon the ecclesiastical scene. The bishoprics were sought by the unscrupulous, and their power was augmented only in the period when they had become sources of wealth and influence. The special authority of Rome is seen to have been a reality before that era. It was during the persecutions, in the time of heroic and unwordly bishops, that the church of Rome occupied the position which at a laterdate many other churches would have liked to possess. By the end of the persecutions, when the sees became desirable to the worldly, and when the great Eastern bishops strove to increase their power, the Bishop of Rome was already in possession of his peculiar authority. In fact, a close examination of the activities of the early Roman bishops yields no satisfactory evidence to substantiate the charge of usurpation. It is principally on account of this lack of historical realism that the theory of usurpation has generally been abandoned at the present time.
The second theory, that of the advancement of the Bishops of Rome thanks to the civil importance of the city, has been popular for a longer period than the suggestion of usurpation. Like its predecessor it has in its favour the fact that it is intrinsically impossible. The political influence of Rome could indeed have promoted its ecclesiastical importance, but on one condition: namely, if there had been any close link between the two institutions. In the East an adequate connexion between church and state did exist after the conversion of the emperor. The sovereigns thenceforward took no small interest in the affairs of the church, thus promoting the cause of the bishop of the capital city. The result for Constantinople was almost unbelievable. In the year 300 there was no thought even of building such a city, yet by the end of the century its bishop was so powerful that his only serious rival in the East was the patriarch of Alexandria. All this, it must be remembered arose as a result of the very real link between the emperor and the bishop of his city. On the other hand, the absence of such a connexion was equally effective in determining the opposite kind of result. In the Middle Ages, when the authority of the popes was secure, Rome might well have been expected to have become the center of the intellectual life of the church. In fact, no such thing happened. Paris, Bologna and other university cities saw the flowering of the sciences, while Rome remained the administrative centre. At first sight this situation might appear somewhat unusual. However, in view of the fact that there is no necessary connexion between the centre of authority and the centre of learning, there is no reason why Rome should have been prominent intellectually.
The contention that the Bishop of Rome benefited from the civil importance of the city stands or falls by the strength of the bonds which united emperor and pope and in the formative period of the latter’s authority. During the Apostolic era the church was not sufficiently developed to have anything like official relations with the civil government. By the time she had become in any way established the mutual attitudes had been determined by the legislation of the state. Persecution was the official policy and the two systems were destined to be estranged from each other for the first three centuries. This state of mutual hostility was further aggravated by the spiritual reaction against paganism and everything that it stood for. In the fervour of their conversion the early Christians developed an attitude of loathing and contempt for the pagan religions, morals, customs, and even the culture which had been bred by non-Christians society. They did not at once separate the good from the bad in pagan civilization, but classed it all as evil. The persecution merely strengthened this hostility, and on Rome, the centre of it all, they bestowed the most derogatory title at their disposal – Babylon, the symbol of all that is abominable in the eyes of God. Early in the third century the school of Alexandria began the task of sifting out what was good in the culture of the pagans with a view to using it in the service of God. In the West, however, the old hostility persisted, so much so that Tertullian did not hesitate to brand civil government as the enemy of God. Although there were degrees of animosity, it is true to say that a state of hostility was the normal attitude of the Church to the government during the period of the persecutions. For this early period it is clear that the Bishop of Rome would gain nothing in the eyes of Christians from his proximity to the seat of the Imperial organization. As a recent writer has expressed it, “There is no single positive piece of evidence from the first three centuries to prove that the respect or submission which Christians showed to Rome, and which the Bishop of Rome frequently presumed upon, was connected with the civil importance of the imperial capital.” [Jalland, The Church and the Papacy]. It should also be noted that no other religion looked to Rome as its centre, not even those which might have been expected to be the most closely allied to the city. Rome did not provide a spiritual centre for Judaism after the fall of Jerusalem, nor for Mithraism, nor, most surprisingly, did it become the focus of the cult of the emperor.
The period of official toleration could have benefited Rome, had the circumstances been other than they were. By the time that Constantine had become actively interested in the affairs of the church Rome had ceased to be the imperial capital. From the time of Diocletian’s transference of the authority to Milan the north of Italy became the centre of gravity of the Western empire. For the next half-century, during the reigns of Constantine and his son Constantius II, the Eastern empire overshadowed the West, and Constantinople, not Rome, became the most important city in the world. Moreover, in the religious policy of these two emperors there was no room for a pope. The Bishop of Constantinople acquired a great power it is true, but only as the servant of the emperors, and the sovereigns themselves wielded much of the universal control which should have been the popes’. The policy of these Christian emperors, together with other factors described elsewhere, had the effect of obscuring the papal authority in the East until the fifth century.
In the West considerable attention had been focused on the imperial rescripts which gave support to the sentences of the Pope’s tribunal. Their effectiveness was confined to giving civil recognition to an already established ecclesiastical authority. They came too late to influence the growth of papal power. In the West the Pope’s position had been long since acknowledged, while the East, being already in a state of political separation, would take little hedd of such provisions in favour of a Western bishop. Their effectiveness, too, was severely limited. The emperors who issued them, mere shadows of their former glory, were not long destined to hold sway in the West. Before long the Roman power would be swept away, leaving the popes strong in the possession of their spiritual authority.
To be continued …
This is an excerpt from Michael M. Winter’s Saint Peter and the Popes (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1960), pp. 224-227.
CU,
I like the disspassionate approach of this author. But then, he throws this in without any context or background – “the sovereigns themselves wielded much of the universal control which should have been the popes’. Is the context for this supposition in a yet to be posted part?
>The contention that the Bishop of Rome benefited from the civil importance of the city stands or falls by the strength of the bonds which united emperor and pope and in the formative period of the latter’s authority…. As a recent writer has expressed it, “There is no single positive piece of evidence from the first three centuries to prove that the respect or submission which Christians showed to Rome, and which the Bishop of Rome frequently presumed upon, was connected with the civil importance of the imperial capital.” [Jalland, The Church and the Papacy].
Mr. Winter (and Jalland) either ignore or are ignorant of the part played by the principle of *accommodation* in the structure of the early Church, whereby the early Church consciously adopted the political structure of the Empire in determining the organization of the Church, including the prominence of the respective bishops and diocese (the latter a Roman political division). This has been cocnclusively shown by RC historian Francis Dvornik in *Byzantium and the Roman Primacy* and is also acknowledged by Yves Congar in *After Nine Hundred Years* (both of which need to be read concerning the papacy).
Thus, the first sentence of the paragraph above is blatantly false. The “civil importance” postulate in no way depends on the bonds between pope and emperor. Winter’s statements and reasoning here call into question his knowledge, his objectivity, or both. Joe
Stephen –
I’m actually posting the conclusion to the book, so this is just the tail-end of his argument.
I don’t exactly like the way he phrased it (“universal control”), but I think that he’s referring to the problem of “caesaropapism” in the Byzantine Church (a charge which, I know, Orthodox resist, and which can be overblown by RC apologists).
So, as I read it, he’s saying that the Eastern Roman Emperors often tried to exercise a universal primacy over the Church which according to the Roman understanding should belong only to the spiritual primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
Isn’t there at least one more possibility…that the Church of Rome does have a genuine call and appointment by Christ…(hence its strong place in defining doctrine in the early Church); but, that also the Church of Rome has not always correctly understood that call and its ramifications…at times with truly nasty results?
The Church of Rome has produced the Tome of Leo and also the letter of Honorius; it has stood firm for the dignity of human life and has also authorized the African slave trade; it has been a champion of the poor and oppressed and has also ordered heretics burnt; it has dethroned tyrants and also invaded Italian city states led by popes in armor. No church has shone with greater light; but there have also been great mistakes.
These contrasts have troubled me for years: I suppose I have a love-hate relationship with the papacy.
Joe –
We both agree that Dvornik’s contribution is very important, but I fail to see how Winter has gone fundamentally wrong here, or where he completely contradicts Dvornik. (Remember that Dvornik has an awful lot to say about the principle of apostolicity as well!)
Winter’s point, if I may frame it in Dvornik’s language, is that the principle of accommodation alone cannot explain the Papacy. If it were a question of imperial accommodation alone, then Constantinople would have been the top Patriarch, easily, rather than Old Rome, which became somewhat of a backwater in terms of imperial importance.
So, if I’m reading Winter properly, I think that he would argue that the principle of accommodation easily explains the rise of Constantinople, but it does not satisfactorily explain the place of the Bishop of Rome within the universal Church. Winter by no means ignores “the part played by the principle of accommodation in the structure of the early Church”. In fact, he discusses the principle at length! But, like Dvornik, he believes that the primacy of the Church of Rome can only be explained by the principle of apostolicity.
If it’s wrong for RCs to ignore what Dvornik says about the principle of accommodation in the early Church, don’t you think it’s equally wrong for Orthodox to ignore what Dvornik has to say about the principle of apostolicity in the early Church?
Please let me know where I’ve gone wrong.
P.S. Actually, as Prof. Tighe has pointed out here, in the mind of someone like Leo the Great, the two principles described by Dvornik are intimately related (Peter and Paul came to Rome because it was the capital of the Empire). I hope to post some excerpts from the Walter Ullmann article recommended by Prof. Tighe, as well as the interesting article from the Dublin Review about Canon 28 of Chalcedon.
I find one of the initial statements to be odd: “From St. Leo to the present the papacy has changed so little that an inquirer whose experience was confined to the modern popes would have no difficulty in seeing that Leo held the same office in the church as, for instance, Pius XI. An examination of his pontificate shows that he possessed all the characteristics which are now recognized as being of the essence of the papacy.”
One must distinguish between what St. Leo considered to be his rights and powers as Pope, and what was granted him by the rest of the Church. About the first of these I disagree with Winter, but it is not crazy for him to hold that St Leo has a similar theory of the papacy to that of more modern popes. On the other hand, the idea that at the time of Leo the rest of the Church considered Rome the way that the rest of the RC Church does now, is much harder to support. Imagine the RC Church having a council now in which something like this is affirmed by all but the Pope’s legates:
“The Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (isa presbeia) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her.”
Or imagine voices being raised against the Pope’s solemn pronouncement, that it’s Nestorian: “They are Nestorians; let them go to Rome.”
Or imagine a theologian considered to be one of the greatest and most orthodox, writing in response to the Bishop of Rome’s attempt to sideline a certain Meletius, “I shall never be able to persuade myself on these grounds to ignore Meletius… I shall never consent to give in, merely because someone is very elated at receiving a letter from men. [The Pope’s decree on the matter declaring Paulinus the rightful patriarch.] Even if it had come down from heaven itself, but he [Paulinus, or maybe the Pope] does not agree with the sound doctrine of the faith, I cannot look upon him as in communion with the saints.” Okay, this last is not during the lifetime of St. Leo, but less than a hundred years before, during the reign of the previous bishop of Rome with a very high view of the papacy– Damasus. The theologian is St. Basil the Great, who also wrote a letter to St Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria: “The worse the diseases of the Churches grow, teh more do we all turn to your excellency… I could not make a more fitting beginning than by having recourse to your excellency, as to the head and chief of all.” This sort of language shows up in letters were, it is certainly true, also writting to the Pope– indeed more often– but one cannot imagine an orthodox RC theologian writing in such a way to an RC bishop who was not the Pope, at least not since the eleventh century.
As St Leo points out there are two principles working here in a type of synergy. Christ appointed a sense of hierarchy and order into the Church, which He establishes in the Apostles with Peter as the Prince of the Apostles; later he is joined, by Christ’s will, by Paul, who was on the surface unfit to be an Apostle but became perhaps the greatest Apostle, in volume and influence of works outshining even Peter.
This order is naturally best reflected in mapping it to the order of the world at the time, which is based on the Roman Empire with Rome as its capital. Thus politics gave the framework within which the Christ establishes the Church order and this order becomes part of Tradition and beyond time and change in Christ. Thus, Rome was chosen for initially because of its political position, there is nothing particularly important spiritually there at the time Jerusalem was the obvious choice here, but remains in its position as enshrined in the Tradition of the Church. Constantinople was grafted in later for political grounds, as it has tenuous “apostolic” grounds but its position also becomes enshrined in Tradition and Apostolic. This goes against an absolute theory of only Apostolically founded Sees having primacy; in fact the Ecumenical Councils speak of no such theory but only of the political foundation that is enshrined in the Tradition.
Even though politics and Imperial influence were never far from the Church, it is nevertheless the Body of Christ and ordered directly by Him. Any theory that makes any part of the Life of the Church something that is simply the result of human politics or practicality is mistaken. Christ orders all in the Church even though man is free to act in different directions, which does influence but does not determine the life of the Church and its order etc.
Taking the four options above, this is a mix between option two and four but different from both. It is closer to four but four is coined in such a way that it seems to imply a very “Papist” view of Christ’s ordering of the Church and not really allow an Orthodox view of the matter. Also, I can’t agree that the development of the Papacy ended with St Leo, although its maturity may have. Option one is an issue of dispute between Roman Catholics and Orthodox and it is not really an independent theory in its own right. It touches on the issue of the development of the Papacy after St Leo and this issue is still very much an open discussion, as far as I am aware.
The so called “problem of “caesaropapism”” is another issue that needs more thought. There seems to be an instant negative stance taking place immediately with the thought of an Emperor taking part in Church matters. However, the Emperor is a member of the Church responsible to God for maintaining the Empire in Christ. He has responsibility as a Christian to ensure the true Faith is maintained in the various local Churches and he has ecumenical power over the Empire to use for good or bad. Emperors may abuse their power but they do have a genuine and legitimate interest in the Church and in many ways they are the voice of the laity. There are no easy lines to draw between Emperor and Bishop and each position is part of the Mystery of Christ. Even though Emperors have an ecumenical power in the life of the Church, I don’t think that they properly breached the distinction between Emperor and Bishop very often, and in terms of serving the Eucharist I know of no account of an Emperor usurping such a thing.
One only has to read Pope St. Gregory the Great’s letters to understand the multi-faceted dynamic that existed when it came to the Emperor. It was a very symbiotic, synergistic relationship between Emperor and Pope and Patriarch, one that was lost in the West eventually, but certainly not in St. Gregory’s time. Plus, the very impulse to create a negative impression by the use of the term “cesaero-papism” had its origin among hard-core secularists well after the Reformation; imagine their joy whatn Catholics took up this cudgel against the East, which only fostered the impression among Orthodox that the secularists sprang from the bosom of the post-reformation church in the West.
I would urge Cathedraunitatis to hasten to fulfill his promise in #7.
Prof. Tighe –
It may take a week or so, but I plan on it! 🙂
Re: #12,
Had you not had copies on hand, and had you been willing to reveal yourself to me — my e-mail address is tighe.at.muhlenberg.edu, btw — I would gladly have sent you photocopies of the two articles myself.
You might also be interested in Ullmann’s “The Significance of the ‘Epistola Clementis’ in the Pseudo-Clementines” in the same volume of the *Journal of Theological Studies* (N.S., XI [1960]), pp. 295-317 — which, albeit not “Leonine” is relevant to the general theme.
Prof. Tighe,
Thanks much for the offer! I have an absolutely wonderful theological library near me, so I haven’t had any problem finding the articles you referenced. I am, however, having quite a bit of trouble finding the Dix book you mentioned a while back. I will e-mail you about that one.
Dr. Tighe: I am extremely remiss, and the longer I delay in responding to you and Andy Bartus, the more remiss (and remorseful) I become. I would like to take this opportunity, at least, to say THANK YOU to both you and Andy for the Dix book and the other Dix materials. I am finding the Dix book fascinating. (Have gotten as far as his discussion of Nicaea, which is very good.)
I did have some reservations about the early part of the book. I found the distinction between “primacy of leadership” and “primacy of jurisdiction” a tad artificial, especially as the former supposedly encompasses doctrine as well as liturgics–that seems pretty “jurisdictional” to me! Also, Dix didn’t always define his terms precisely–or, rather, he seemed to define them elastically, so that, on one occasion, he even seemed to equate “jurisdiction” with “lording it over” people…not a very useful definition, I contend. ISTM that, if you’re going to distinguish between “leadership” and “jurisdiction,” you owe it to your readers to define both terms out the wazoo, so that no ambiguity (possibly leading to misunderstanding) remains.
Also, in the first chapter, Canon Dix had me half-convinced the sub-Apostolic Church was presbyterian…and that I should run out and join the PCA. (Only kidding!)
But those are minor quibbles. In the main, the book is fascinating and persuasive (and completely consonant with Newman’s view of the development of the papacy: Newman provides the explanatory schematic, while Dix supplies the historical facts and circumstances). Thank you so much for arranging to have these materials sent to me. And thanks also to Andy Bartus—I will thank you both via e-mail, I promise!
CU: If you sign up for Dr. Tighe’s mailing list, you won’t regret it, believe me. From time to time, you will receive a little surprise package in the mail–always a wonderful treat. (Have I let the cat out of the bag, Dr. Tighe? Will you now be besieged by importunate students of Church history, begging for books? LOL–sorry ’bout that!)
BTW, my favorite remains the Eric Mascall (sp?) book of humorous poetry–especially his delicious parody of “The Owl and the Carpenter”: “The Thomist and the Palamist.”
God bless,
Diane
Oy! That should be “The Walrus and the Carpenter,” of course. I guess I kind of fused it with “The Owl and the Pussycat.” I type faster than I think, I fear.
Another issue I have with Dix is his idea (I am relying on memory here) that the bishops of the generation of the Council of Nicea were quite a sorry and wretched bunch. That contrasts sharply with the impression I have from elsewhere that many of them were martyr-confessors during the persecution of Diocletian, and that these brave men now had the opportunity to also proclaim their faith “before governors and kings”.
Diane, remind me about the presbyterian issue. Is Dix thinking that there was not a distinction between episcopos and presbyteros in the first centuries?
What’s this about Dr Tighe’s mailing list? I love his posts at Pontifications and Sacramentum Vitae and, I think, TitusOneNine.
What? A Dr. Tighe fan club/ mailing list? I want to join, too!
Alas, I am at best semi-literate in computer matters. Every once in a while I simply forward to a variable number of addressees whom I pick out from my address book some news item, observation, document or link that I think might be of interest, even if only passingly, to the recipients. Usually that is the end of the matter, but on occasion someone makes a barbed remark, an ill-informed observation, an apercu that cuts too close to the bone for some — responses are made, the responses are met with rejoinders, some individuals begin to protest at the tone of the exchanges or their volume and inevitably begin to demand “take me off your list!” Sometimes I reply that I have no idea what “a list” might be, at others that once the “Reply All” button gets pushed I can no more control the “flow volume” than the boy that broke the dike can control the waterflood. Inevitably the matter settles down and for a long season I take extreme care not to copy anything to X that is going to Y, or vice-versa — but inevitably there is another dust-up and the process occurs anew. So be warned!
Dr Tighe, a think a blog is indicated. But if there is another location where a curious person might read more of your work (other than Touchstone, etc.) i would like to know about it. I too suffer from online autism and often come across the wrong way, but I can assure I’ll never respond with criticism since I don’t know anything about anything.
Dr. Tighe: I take back what I said about Dix’s not having defined “primacy of leadersship” precisely enough. I spoke too soon! I’ve just reached the point in the book where Dix does define his terms WRT the Scriptural record re Peter’s role. Excellent stuff! Dix shows exactly why the term “primacy of leadership” (understood as something less than “jurisdiction”) fails to do justice to the Scriptural witness re Peter’s primacy. He shows (again, somewhat echoing Newman) that the principle of universal jurisdiction was there right from the git-go, in the Divine institution of the papacy…although it took a little while for this principle to be fully crystallized in practice, in the actual exercise of papal authority.
Dix rocks! 🙂
Thanks again!
Diane
Diane,
Also, I think he makes the point somewhere that a “primacy of leadership” can be at one and the same time both more and less than a defined jurisdictional primacy.
The last paragraph of the book is fun, too: he’s referring to the attempt of the ultra-liberal Bishop Barnes of Birmingham (Bp. from 1924 to 1950), the “Spong of his generation” to refuse to institute a well-known ultra-papalist Anglo-Catholic clergyman to a benefice in his diocese simply because of his objection to his theological views. I’ll say no more about it here, but Dix manages to “score” on more fronts than one with his delightful example.
Could you point me to the book by Dix that you guys are referencing?
Thanks.
Tizzidale: I’m having a senior moment and can’t remember the book title. Will find it out for you, though (unless Dr. Tighe answers first :)).
Sean: I don’t know anything about anything, either, but that has never stopped me. 😉
Re: #24,
*Jurisdiction in the Early Church: Episcopal and Papal* by Dom Gregory Dix (London, 1975: Church Literature Association). This was a posthumous publication, in book form (Dix lived from 1901 to 1952) of a series of articles that originally appeared in *Laudate,* the quarterly publication of the English Anglican Benedictines of Nashdom Abbey, in 1937 and 1938.
I would also recommend the little book *Communio: Church and Papacy in Early Christianity* by Ludwig (Freiherr von) Hertling, SJ (Chicago, 1972: Loyola University Press), which was a translation of an article that appeared in German as “Communio und Primat” in *Una Sancta,* v. 17 (1962).
OK, found it: Jurisdiction in the Early Church: Episcopal and Papal.
Am nearing the end (it’s short, more a mongraph than a full-fledged book). Dix just goes from strength to strength. If I get a chance (this week is going to be very busy, both at work and at home), I’ll post some of the juicier excerpts. 🙂
BTW, Dix also makes short shrift of the argument that the Roman primacy was based on Old Rome’s prestige and power as the imperial capital. Dix notes (among other things) that not one of the earliest Fathers (first several centuries) assigns the Roman See’s primacy to the imperial city’s political preeminence. Not one! Rather, the ECFs associated Rome’s primacy with the fact that Peter and Paul had died there and Peter had led the Church there. This is the witness of the earliest Fathers. The polemical claim that Rome’s primacy is based on the city’s imperial prestige arose much later, at least according to Dix. He points out that many people simply assume this argument, but those who do so never bother providing the slightest shred of patristic evidence for it.