Back to History and Evolution
Archives.
History and Evolution:
By William E. Steinman:
Part 41, The Early Church of Rome:
January 5, 2004:
The claim to legitimacy for this Church of Rome lies in some very vague and iffy Christian history. It begins with a few words that Jesus allegedly laid on Simon. Bible students will recall that the Disciple, Simon was the first disciple along with his brother Andrew who was called to follow Jesus. (Matt. 4:18) They were fishermen and Jesus promised to make them "fishers of men."
Here are the questionable passages for legitimacy from the Gospel according to Matthew from the Douay version of the Holy Bible. (Matt. 16:16 - 19:)
16, Simon Peter answered and said, "Though art the Christ,
the Son of the living God."
17, Then Jesus answered and said, "Blessed art thou, Simon
Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to thee, but
my father in heaven.
18, And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it.
19, And I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven; and
whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and
whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
This is the only place in the bible where I could find these exact words recorded. Mark and Luke do not record the answer of Jesus to Simon and in John, Jesus names Simon as the rock without elaboration in their first meeting. Further, it is not clear that Jesus, even if he said those words, intended what was legitimized through them. I cannot picture this humble teacher wishing for or needing the opulent palaces and the garish vulgar trappings of power and wealth which grew up in his name. Those things would be suitable for an emperor perhaps, but hardly for a religious group of men teaching humility and piety.
My reading indicates something entirely different. It seems quite clear that the faith of Simon was the foundation or rock upon which the church was to rest. As I see it, the church of Jesus was to consist of the faith of men. It was to reside in the minds and hearts of men, not in the structures built by men. He intended his Disciples to be teachers like himself. In fact, there are many places in these gospels where Jesus speaks specifically against seeking and accumulating wealth and power. For example the laying up treasures on earth instead of in heaven. Or, how about a camel passing through the eye of a needle. Remember that one?
Let us realize that we can take isolated phrases from that bible and make a case for almost anything we wish, even incest. We could probably do that with almost any ancient mythical/historical documents. However, that is a dishonest way to use these texts. Whether we accept them as divine revelation or not, we must accept them as a whole fabric, a gestalt. We know various religious fools with intent have meddled with them from time to time. Fortunately, they were too dumb to change the message, they only bollixed up the prose and the window dressing. So the versions we have are really approximations of the original. There is a flow, direction, and intent to them. To take parts of them out of context is to deny that flow and is a shameless disservice to their creators.
Regardless of the justification, we do find a Church of Rome and, according to tradition, Peter the Apostle was the first Pope of this church. When we talk of Peter it is important to keep in mind that he was a Disciple and had intimate knowledge of Jesus. We only have two epistles which can be attributed directly to him. So, his reports of these early events are limited, but they are first hand. We also have the four Gospels and some letters from Paul which help give us a picture of Peter.
Though there is general agreement in the Gospels, the dates and locations of events are not so accurate. These were, after all, reports after the fact from memory. Poor souls that they were, these fellows had no video cameras or even tape recorders. All agree however that Peter was called by Jesus and did act as the leader of the Disciples. Peter also, according to some scripture, was the first to witness the resurrection. Being a witness to the resurrections according to Acts was a requisite to being an apostle (Acts 1:22).
After the resurrection, things get really iffy about the life of Peter. We know he banged around Jerusalem for a time. There he caused so much ruckus amongst the Jews that Herod had his brother James beheaded. Then, according to scripture, he threw Peter into the hoosegow. King Herod was the local Jewish tody for the empire. He was allowed a great deal of autonomy so long as he kept reasonable order. When Peter allegedly escaped, the scriptures have him going to Rome. They also have him as the first Pope being martyred by crucifixion.
In fact, the evidence to support the assertion of Peter's residency and Papacy in Rome is very vague. This brings us to the problem of authority in the Church. There seems little doubt that Peter was seen as the leader of the Disciples. There is much less evidence as to who was the leader of the Church. There was the brother of Jesus, James who was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. This brother James was not one of the twelve Disciples. However, his church was considered to be the Mother Church for some time.
The problem of authority became serious after the deaths of all the Apostles. It seems Peter died in ad- 64 or thereabouts. Until their deaths, the Apostles were the living authorities concerning Christian doctrine. After that, there was a great deal of fussing about authority as indicated by the Christian documents of that time. It is not at all clear as to who was in charge if anyone. The evidence which supports the idea of Peter as the first Pope of Rome is not evidence at all. It was generate by the Church more than a century after the fact. The same is true of his alleged Martyrdom. Was he crucified? That is not proven at all. If he was, Nero gets to be the heavy. He was the emperor at that time.
The reality is, all of the debate about authority is old news about internal nitpicking. We can set it aside. However it came about, authority gradually accumulated to the Bishop of the Church of Rome. So the Bishop of Rome is, by Church rule, the Pope. Pope simply means the top bishop, the chief of chiefs as it were.
So, here is how it all shakes out. Bishops are the real powers in the church. Bishops are the guys who appoint other members of the clergy. Their duty is to run the affairs of their diocese. In the Church of Rome, a bishop is selected by the pope and is confirmed by an archbishop and two other bishops. The title Pope (papa) was at first a title of affection for any bishop. Even though we are shown a string of Popes from Peter onward, Pope did not become the official title of the Bishop of Rome until sometime around the sixth century.
This early church struggled for survival for a long time. It
was not until St. Sylvester I who was Pope from 314 to 335 that
things began to turn around, thanks to Constantine I. Recall that
Constantine was the first Roman emperor to claim Christianity
as his religion. It was he who begin the empowerment the Church
of Rome.
Back to History and Evolution
Archives.
|
|
|
|