Earlier in this thread Bill Webster's excellent study of the Fathers was cited at length to show the context in which the usual Catholic ECF quotations should be placed. That shows that whilst there were those who read the Petrine verses as they are now read, there were many who did not.
For the Orthodox the place to begin would be with the Apostolical Canons which most scholars accept as representative of early canon law within the Church. We would rest on canons XXXIII and XXXIV:
The same line is maintained in Canon 6 of Nicaea:
An equality of all the ancient Apostolic Sees is confirmed by this Canon. There is no mention of Rome, though it may already have been viewed as "first among equals", as being the "Universal See" with which all other Sees need to be in communion. A the very least the canon law as we can retrieve it of the early Church contains no mention of Roman primacy. The same is true of the Apostolic Fathers.
If we start with Clements letters, the first thing to note is that although the Catholic quotation lists call him Pope Clement, this is not the unequivocal tradition of the Church. Origen and Eusebius (Commentary on St. John; Ecc. Hist. 3.4.15, respectively) state that he was the companion of St. Paul mentioned in Philippians 4:3. Tertullian (Prescription 32) says Clement was the second Pope; Irenaeus (who of course does not have St. Peter as the first Pope at all) has him as the third Pope following Linus and Anacletus.
One of the problems with asserting that this Clement is the bishop of Rome, and resting upon this letter the argument that it illustrates the authority of the early bishops of Rome is that nowhere in the letter does Clement say who he is or that he is writing ,as bishop of Rome. The author of the Shepherd of Hermas who was also from Rome, nowhere mentions a bishop of Rome, and the assertion that the Clement he mentions is the same Clement as the author of the letters is simply that; there is no proof it is the same person, and even if there were, there is none that Clement is a bishop of Rome, nor any that he claims universal authority. Indeed, in chapter 44 of 1 Clement he uses the terms presbyter and bishop interchangeably, which does not suggest a clear distinction between the two offices was recognised. Ignatius manages to write to Rome without giving any impression that there is a single bishop in charge.
So, from the Orthodox point of view, this letter does not get to first base as evidence that the bishops of Rome held power over other Churches. At best it is evidence that the Church of Rome thought it had the right to admonish another Church. We do not, of course, have any response to it or know whether that claim was accepted. But there is, at the least, no evidence it is from a bishop of Rome. Clement himself sets out no theological claim to personal authority, just as he does not claim to be writing as the bishop of Rome. If we look at chapters 42 and 44, we see claims that have nothing to do with any exclusive rights of the bishop of Rome. He tells us that Christ appointed the Apostles, who appointed the leaders of the Churches, who then picked their successors. His argument to the Corinthians is that since the deposed presbyters were appointed by leaders appointed by the Apostles, to oppose them is to oppose those selected by those who had been chosen by Christ. There is no suggestion of any exclusive authority for the bishop of Rome.
If we move on to Ignatius, no one could deny that he attributes primacy to the Roman Church in the 'region of the Romans, but it is hard to see how this is an argument for Romes jurisdiction outside that area. Origen (Hom. 6 in Luke) and Eusebius (Ecc. Hist. 3.22.36) have him as the second or third bishop of Antioch after St. Peter and, of course, Antioch never makes any claims based on Peter's time as bishop there). In his Epistle, St. Ignatius refers to the Roman Church as worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of holiness, and pre-eminent in love; thats a long list, but it doesnt include preeminent in authority; neither is there mention of the Pope. His letter refers (6) to the brothers but never to one single bishop. He does not adopt a different tone here from that in his other letters. So I am not seeing in either of these Fathers anything that would make me even think there was a single bishop of Rome at this early stage, let along that such a person was claiming jurisdiction over other Churches
None of this is to deny that Rome's understanding of the Petrine verses developed as it did; it is to say that that understanding was far from universal in the early Church. In fact, there are Catholic historians, such as Professor Duffy of Cambridge, who understand this and still have no problem because they describe how the understanding developed, and why it did so.
In a West under threat of heresy from one side, and from pagan barbarians on most sides, it is hardly surprising that the fifth century saw Leo the Great interpret Matthew 16-18 as he did. Had there not been a unifying focus during the next few hundred years, Western Christendom might have been lost - and there would have been no Christianity to have been exported to the Americas.
Peace,
Anglian
