Points for consideration.
(1.) The vast majority of modern Roman Catholic historians acknowledge that there was no monarchical episcopate (a single ruling bishop rather than a plurality of elders) in the city of Rome until at least the middle of the second century. Eamon Duffy, a Roman Catholic Historian and former member of the Pontifical Historical Commission, is representative of this consensus:
To begin with, indeed, there was no ‘pope’, no bishop as such, for the
church in Rome was slow to develop the office of chief presbyter, or
bishop. By the end of the first century the loose pattern of Christian
authority of the first generation of believers was giving way in many
places to the more organised rule of a single bishop for each city,
supported by a college of elders. …There is no sure way to settle on a
date by which the office of ruling bishop had emerged in Rome, and so
to name the first Pope, but the process was certainly complete by the
time of Anicetus in the mid-150s…1
For extensive primary source documentation of this consensus (from Roman Catholic Scholars) see Appendix A.
(2.) While the petrine office would develop slowly over time in the west it was never accepted by the eastern Churches. Ronald Minnerath, Roman Catholic Historian and Archbishop of Dijon, writes:
In the first millennium there was no question of the Roman bishops
governing the church in distant solitude. They used to take their
decisions together with their synod, held once or twice a year. When
matters of universal concern arose, they resorted to the ecumenical
council. Even Leo, who struggled for the apostolic principle over the
political one, acknowledged that only the emperor would have the power
to convoke an ecumenical council and protect the church.
At the heart of the estrangement that progressively arose between East and West, there may be a historical misunderstanding. The East
never shared the Petrine theology as elaborated in the West. It never
accepted that the prōtos in the universal church could claim to be
the unique successor or vicar of Peter. So the East assumed that the
synodal constitution of the church would be jeopardized by the very
existence of a Petrine office with potentially universal competencies
in the government of the church.2
(3.) The Patristic writers, outside of the Church at Rome, never understood Matthew 16:18 to be speaking of petrine succession or authority. Yves Congar, O.P., Roman Catholic historian and the Cardinal Deacon of the Basilica of San Sebastiano al Palatino, writes:
…the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16.16-19. Except
at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal
primacy; they worked out exegesis at the level of their own
ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than
judicial. 3
John Chrysostom (c. 347-407), the Archbishop of Constantinople, is representative of the Patristic consensus regarding Matthew 16:18:
He did not say upon Peter for it is not upon the man, but upon his own
faith that the church is built. And what is this faith? You are the
Christ, the Son of the living God.4
For extensive primary source documentation of this consensus see: William Webster, The Matthew 16 Controversy: Peter and the Rock, (Battle Ground: Christian Resources Inc., 1996; second printing, revised 1999). Most of which may be read online Here and Here.
Appendix A:
Francis A Sullivan, S.J.:
Scholars differ on details, such as how soon the church of Rome was
led by a single bishop, but hardly any doubt that the church of Rome
was still led by a group of presbyters for at least a part of the
second century.5
William J. La Due, J.C.D.:
…it is now quite generally accepted that the monarchical episcopate in
Rome did not originate much before 140-150 A.D.6
Robert B. Eno, S.S.:
A new and important study by Peter Lampe draws the picture of the
early Roman community divided into a number of smaller house churches
scattered throughout the city and its environs, each presided over by
a presbyter or perhaps more than one). There was really no united and
coordinated Church leadership ad intra, i.e., within the city’s
Christian community as a whole. …This evidence (Clement, Hermas,
Ignatius) points us in the direction of assuming that in the first
century and into the second, there was no bishop of Rome in the usual
sense given to that title. The office of the single mon-episkopos
was slowly emerging in the local Christian communities around the
Mediterranean world. Men like Ignatius were strongly urging this
development. But the evidence seems to indicate that in the earliest
decades, this evolution had not yet been accomplished in Rome. This
then is that missing link referred to by Rudolf Pesch. If there were
no bishop of Rome, in what sense can one speak of a Petrine
succession?7
J. Michael Miller, C.S.B. (Archbishop of Vancouver):
While admitting that the monarchical episcopate came about as the
result of historical choices, Catholic doctrine holds that its
emergence was guided by the Spirit. …the monarchical episcopacy was
not a universal and normative ecclesial structure before the
mid-second century.8
John P. Meier, S.S.D.:
…it is not without significance that neither the Catechism of the
Catholic Church nor Pope John Paul II’s groundbreaking encyclical Ut
unum sint employed certain problematic assertions like “St. Peter was
the first Pope.” Granted, academics may smile at such an assertion,
yet it is still often heard in the popular media, to say nothing of
homilies and catechetical instruction. Hence it is at least noteworthy
that some recent authoritative documents of the Roman Catholic Church
have avoided certain types of claims that would not hold up under the
scrutiny of critical historical research. …In striking contrast to 1
and 2 Peter, where individual teachers speak not only in the name of
Peter but as Peter, the anonymous author of 1 Clement speaks as “we,”
as the whole church of Rome, which presumably, like Corinth, is led by
a group of presbyter-bishops assisted by deacons. There is no sign of
the monepiscopate soon to be championed by Ignatius. It is rather “the
church of God sojourning in Rome” as such, and not Peter, and not some
individual claiming to be the successor of Peter, that implicitly
exercises authority over a distinguished Pauline church in Greece.
Indeed, the final blessing of the epistle is extended not only to the
Corinthians but also “to all those called by God everywhere” (1
Clement 65.2).9
Klaus Schatz, S.J.:
In fact, this “letter of Clement,” written around 95, is the first
document indicating that the Roman community felt responsible for
other churches. Its name is a subsequent addition, of course:
according to Hegesippus's list of bishops Clement was bishop of Rome
at that time, the third in succession. However, he is not named as the
author of the letter; instead, the true sender is the Roman community.
We probably cannot say for certain that there was a bishop of Rome at
that time. It seems likely that the Roman church was governed by a
group of presbyters from whom there very quickly emerged a presider or
“first among equals” whose name was remembered and who was
subsequently described as “bishop” after the mid-second
century.10
Raymond E. Brown, S.S.:
One may support this conclusion from a convergence of scattered
evidence: from the instructions that had to be given to Titus (1:5) in
the Pastorals; from the failure to mention bishops in the Corinthian
correspondence where it would have been logical to invoke their aid;
from the failure to mention presbyters in any undisputed Pauline
letter; from the need of Clement in I Corinthians 42-44 to
strengthen the episcopate/presbyterate by giving it a pedigree; from
the evidence of Didache 15 that only gradually did bishops and
deacons take over the functions of prophets and teachers (mentioned in
I Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11).11
Hermann J. Pottmeyer:
Anyone who wishes to come to an understanding of the papal ministry
cannot avoid dealing with the history of this ministry. The historical
facts are not disputed, but their theological evaluation is
contentious. …It is sociologically explicable that leadership
functions became necessary in the congregations, whether in regard to
doctrine or discipline, or to representation to the outside world. In
order that these responsibilities could be exercised permanently and
in an orderly manner, the functions became offices. Among the various
leadership models, that of the monepiscopate prevailed as the most
effective. That evolved into the monarchical episcopate as the bishop
combined in one individual the functions of the teacher of the
congregation, of its leader or pastor, and of its priest, presiding at
the celebration of the Eucharist.12
Ronald Minnerath (Archbishop of Dijon):
With these second-century witnesses, attention is drawn not on the
person of Peter or on a successor in a time when monarchical
episcopacy was only beginning to emerge. The general consideration is
that the Church of Rome is the apostolic church par excellence, and
the reference for the apostolic teaching. Indeed during the second
century, it was the apostolic origin of a church that conferred on it
a particular authority in the transmission of the “rule of
faith.”13
Allen Brent:
Where we do have concrete information, as in the case of Clement in
the third place after St Peter according to Irenaeus, the notion of
the office of a single bishop in succession to a predecessor seems
lacking.
In his genuine letter to the Corinthians (c. AD 95), Clement does not write in his own name but in the name of the ‘church of God
whose pilgrim residence is at Rome to the church of God residing
similarly at Corinth’. There is no ‘Clement bishop, servant of the
servants of God’ claiming apostolic authority for his office as
successor to St Peter. He is writing, as has been pointed out, not as
a single monarch-bishop but as the secretary of the Roman
presbyterate.14
George Edward Dolan, S.T.L.:
It would appear that St. Jerome in the fourth century unwittingly
laid the foundation when he wrote a defense of the presbyterate
against the arrogance and abuses of certain Roman deacons. In order to
restore to the presbyterate its rightful place and authority Jerome
pointed out that in the very early days of the Church the terms
episcopus and presbyter signified the same individuals. In other words, as we interpret Jerome all were bishops in the sense in which
this word is understood today, with full powers to confirm and ordain.
But when the universal monarchical episcopate was introduced into the
government of the Church only the chief priest (ie., the bishop) was
given the full powers of confirming and ordaining, while all other
priests who were subjected to him (in other words, the presbyters)
were given only a limited or restricted share in the powers of the
priesthood.15
Notes:
1. Eamon Duffy, Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2006), pp. 9-10, 13.
2. James Puglisi, S.A., ed., How Can the Petrine Ministry Be a Service to the Unity of the Universal Church? (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2010), Archbishop Ronald Minnerath, “The Petrine Ministry in the Early Patristic Tradition,” pp. 47-48.
3. Yves Congar, O.P., Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay, (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1967), pp. 398-399. Cf. George Salmon: "The most elaborate examination of the opinions of the Fathers is in an Epistle [fn. *: Epist. vii., Opp. vol. v., pt. 2. p. 99: Geneva, 1731.] by the French Roman Catholic Launoy, in which, besides the interpretation that Peter was the rock, for which he produces seventeen Patristic testimonies, he gives the interpretations that the rock was the faith which Peter confessed, supported by forty-four quotations; that the rock was Christ Himself, supported by sixteen; and that the Church was built on all the Apostles, supported by eight." {George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church, (London: John Murray, 1888), p. 329f.}
4. J. P. Minge, Patrologiæ Cursus Completus: Patrologiæ Græcæ: Tomus LII, (Parisiis: 1862), Joannis Chrysostomi, Ad Homilias In Pentecosten, Sermo I, col. 806, 807; trans. Laurent Cleenewerck, His Broken Body, (Euclid University Press, 2008), p. 263. Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.): "Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? You are the Christ, the Son o f the living God. There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer." {The works of Saint Augustine, A Translation for the 21st Century: Sermons: III/6 (184-229Z), On the Liturgical Seasons, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., ed. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermon 229P, p. 327.}
5. Francis A Sullivan, S.J., From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church, (New York/Mahwah: The Newman Press, 2001), p. viii, cf. p. 217. Cf. The Shepherd of Hermas (c. 2nd century): "Therefore you will write two little books, and you will send one to Clement and one to Grapte. Then Clement will send it to the cities abroad, because that is his job. But Grapte will instruct the widows and orphans. But you yourself will read it to this city, along with the elders [πρεσβυτέρων] who preside over the church." {Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their Writings, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), The Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 2.4.8:3, p. 469.}
6. William J. La Due, J.C.D., The Chair Of Saint Peter, (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1999), p. 26.
7. Robert B. Eno, S.S., The Rise Of The Papacy, (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1990), pp. 28, 29.
8. J. Michael Miller, C.S.B., The Shepherd And The Rock, (Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor, 1995), pp. 60, 61.
9. James Puglisi, S.A., ed., How Can the Petrine Ministry Be a Service to the Unity of the Universal Church? (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2010), John P. Meier “Petrine Ministry in the New Testament and in the Early Patristic Traditions,” pp. 15, 25.
10. Klaus Schatz, S.J., Papal Primary: From its Origins to the Present, trans. John A. Otto & Linda M. Maloney, (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1996), p. 4.
11. Raymond Edward Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible, (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), n. 17, p. 134.
12. James Puglisi, S.A., ed., How Can the Petrine Ministry Be a Service to the Unity of the Universal Church? (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2010), Hermann J. Pottmeyer “Historical Development of the Forms of Authority and Jurisdiction: The Papal Ministry — an Ecumenical Approach,” pp. 98, 99.
13. James Puglisi, S.A., ed., How Can the Petrine Ministry Be a Service to the Unity of the Universal Church? (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2010), Archbishop Ronald Minnerath “The Petrine Ministry in the Early Patristic Tradition,” p. 36.
14. Allen Brent, Ignatius of Antioch: A Martyr Bishop and the origin of Episcopacy, (London: Continuum, 2007), p. 125.
15. George Edward Dolan, The Catholic University of America: Studies in Sacred Theology: (Second Series), No. 36: The Distinction Between the Episcopate and the Presbyterate According to the Thomistic Opinion: A Dissertation, (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1950), pp. 10-11. Cf. Jerome of Stridon (c. 342/7 - 420): "In writing both to Titus and to Timothy the apostle speaks of the ordination of bishops and of deacons, but says not a word of the ordination of presbyters; for the fact is that the word bishops includes presbyters also." {NPNF2, 6:289; The Letters of St. Jerome, Letter CXLVI, To Evangelus.}
Καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν.
~ Soli Deo Gloria