In the first part, I ultimately led to a hypothesis that the reasons for the lack of a mention of a Bishop of Rome by St. Ignatius was meant to keep the Church in Rome hidden from persecution by the authorities. That doesn't seem too overtly problematic. I demonstrated from the early Church's history that the differences in the papal lines between St. Irenaeus's list and Tertullian's list was never considered problematic as modern scholars of the early papacy like to cite. This is for two reasons being that on the one hand St. Irenaeus was considered the more orthodox of the two and had his list established as canonical, and on the other hand, Tertullian ended up ultimately outside the Church as a heretic. The differences between the Irenaean list and the other remaining lists are shown to very reasonably and quite legitimately be attributed to scribal errors or copyist mistakes. The fact that the other lists show tremendous harmony is ample proof that the Irenaean list was accepted as canon.
In this, I seek to provide for evidence to back my own hypothesis that I made mention of. I do not think it is a stretch of the imagination by any means. That there is no mention of a specific bishop of Rome until the Irenaean list of popes should not harm the idea that St. Peter was indeed the first pope who passed on the Apostolic lineage through his successors. One need only notice that there is certainly absence of much commentary on the early life of Jesus. Does this mean he was never a child? No. It means that there were multiple other points to make mention of. There was no written history of the Virgin Birth until the 50s A.D. Does this mean the Virgin Birth did not happen? No. It means there was no mention of it. Indeed, I think it is actually harder to maintain the point that the early papacy "never was" until St. Irenaeus created the list. How does the papacy just get invented out of thin air?
One interesting point to consider is this. When does the concept of a priesthood first appear in the New Testament? Raymond Brown argues that the priesthood was a later development that occurred after the New Testament! That is because there appears to be an absence of mention of priests in the NT writings. He is incorrect, but we'll get back to that later. He insists "the traditional explanation of the NT about Christian priests has one point that may supply the key to a much more radical solution....I think more was involved than an association of the name with the Jewish priesthood; rather I suggest that the early Christians acknowledged the Jewish priesthood as valid and therefore never thought of a priesthood as their own" (Priest and Bishop, 16-17). He then goes on, "[f]or the emergence of the idea of a special Christian priesthood in place of the Jewish priesthood...[f]irst, Christians had to come to think of themselves as constituting a new religion distinct from Judaism and replacing the Jews of the Synagogue as God's covenanted people...second...Christianity had to have a sacrifice at which a priesthood could preside" (17-19).
That explains a lack of mention of a specific order of the priesthood in the Book of Acts. (Although, as a former Anglican, I would mention that St. Stephen was an archdeacon, and would be considered a priest in the Western rite.) But despite the fact that there is a lack of mention, does not mean those things did not exist! These were already being written about and reflected upon by the early Church much more than Brown would seem to imply. St. Paul is already heavily reminding people that there is no Jew nor Greek (Gal. 3:28, Col. 3:11) and the Eucharist has also been firmly established by St. Paul as a sacrifice (1 Cor. 10:14-22). It would be odd for St. Paul to insist that the Jewish identity did not matter if he perceived himself as no different than a Jew. It would likewise be odd for St. Paul to insist on comparing the Lord's table to food that is offered as a sacrifice to demons if he did not perceive the Eucharist as a sacrifice. Since both these conditions are met, it is odd that Brown would think that Christians thus had no priesthood!
Now, we should get a better understanding of how the early Church may have indeed understood the nature of the early papacy. St. Clement of Rome is considered to be the first bishop of Rome (Ratzinger, Church Fathers: From Clement of Rome to Augustine, 7) and while many letters are attributed to him, we know for certain that his Letter to the Corinthians was indeed authentic (8). So perhaps a good assessment as to how the early Church understood the early nature of the episcopal structure of Rome, we should turn to St. Clement of Rome first. He begins his letter,
The church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the church of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied. (First Epistle to the Corinthians, ch. 1)
He writes with authority to address specific problems that have arisen in the Church of Corinth since the Apostles and he writes as the representative of the Church of Rome. This would be odd to do if he had no specific status as an authoritative figure in the Church of Rome. When a bishop nowadays writes something, he speaks on behalf of his Eparchy or Diocese and he speaks as the full representative of his Diocese or Eparchy. If he has someone else write the letter for him, he puts his seal of authority on the document to demonstrate that he has given full authority. Not only does it show he has monarchial authority over his Diocese or Eparchy, it also shows that he is the final arbiter for the Diocese or Eparchy. St. Clement of Rome is writing to a Church which would be within his jurisdiction as if he has authority over it and is a final arbiter for its decisions. He clearly views it well within his right to do so. There are no objections. He sees himself as the full representative of the Church of Rome. No one else. That demonstrates a monarchial command.
Compare this with the way St. Ignatius writes to the Church of Rome.
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God. (Epistle to the Romans, intro)
He writes with the intention to show Rome as the presiding Church over all. It would be odd not only for Rome not to have a bishop but also odd for a bishop to think of a Church with multiple bishops as presiding over the entirety of the Church. His letter confirms that Rome is the presiding episcopal see of the entire Church and also has a presider. He may not mention it in name but the term episkopos does mean "overseer". It would be nonsense for the Church to both be presiding and lack an overseer! His lack of mention of the specific bishop does not nullify that there was no such bishop in existence at the time of his writing of the letter. In the Marian theology, there is lack of mention of the Virgin Birth, lack of mention of her Dormition, lack of mention of much of her involvement and role in the early Church. The Ever-Virgin desired that much of this be kept secret until much later in the Church's history in order to preserve her humility while on Earth. This is not a stretch at all to state that the monarchial bishop of Rome was kept a secret at this time when St. Ignatius was martyred. The stretch is on the other side to demonstrate that the episcopal structure of Rome appeared in the writings and history of St. Irenaeus out of the blue and as an invention to ward off heretics.
No comments:
Post a Comment