Historical? right! while Rome claims its authority has been known for all ages, it is clear from the early christian community that while Rome was respected it surely was NOT given any kind universal authority and nothing in the first couple hundred years after our Lords ascension that was written gives any other indication than that of respect, mainly because it adhered closely at that time to the teaching of the apostles
meaning Paul and Peter.
To me the evidence that the early church considered the bishop of Rome to be the leader of the universal church seems overwhelming. The epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians is just one case in point. Notice this quote from Clement who was apparently the immediate successor of Peter as bishop of Rome:
Quote:
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.
Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting
which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy
Now why would Corinth in the East be appealling to Rome for guidance in how to deal with sedition if it were not for the fact that they all recognised that Clement of Rome was of superior authority and might have the power to rule on how to resolve their differences. The letter of Clement is an incredible document. He goes through many christian principles which basically revolve around humility, doing good works, doing things in their correct order.
But here is where it becomes particularly pertinent to our issue of the primacy of the bishop of Rome where in Chapter 43 he says this.
Quote:
Chapter 43. Moses of Old Stilled the Contention Which Arose Concerning the Priestly Dignity.
And what wonder is it if those in Christ who were entrusted with such a duty by God, appointed those [ministers] before mentioned, when the blessed Moses also, a faithful servant in all his house, noted down in the sacred books all the injunctions which were given him, and when the other prophets also followed him, bearing witness with one consent to the ordinances which he had appointed? For, when rivalry arose concerning the priesthood, and the tribes were contending among themselves as to which of them should be adorned with that glorious title, he commanded the twelve princes of the tribes to bring him their rods, each one being inscribed with the name of the tribe. And he took them and bound them [together], and sealed them with the rings of the princes of the tribes, and laid them up in the tabernacle of witness on the table of God. And having shut the doors of the tabernacle, he sealed the keys, as he had done the rods, and said to them, Men and brethren, the tribe whose rod shall blossom has God chosen to fulfil the office of the priesthood, and to minister unto Him. And when the morning was come, he assembled all Israel, six hundred thousand men, and showed the seals to the princes of the tribes, and opened the tabernacle of witness, and brought forth the rods. And the rod of Aaron was found not only to have blossomed, but to bear fruit upon it. What think ye, beloved? Did not Moses know beforehand that this would happen? Undoubtedly he knew; but he acted thus, that there might be no sedition in Israel, and that the name of the true and only God might be glorified; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
So what is the issue going on way back then in this very ancient church? RIVALRY AMONGST THE PRIESTHOOD. And then Clement demonstrates from the Old Testament how essential it was that one tribe should be in preeminence to avoid rivalry. God divinely agreed with Moses judgement and caused the rod of Aaron to bud. So what do we conclude from this? That God has shown clearly in history that the Bishop of Rome has budded with divine authority to settle rivalries amongst the priesthood and in doing so has borne astonishing fruit throughout the ages. Utterly incredible. 12 princes then who were required to yield to the High Priest Aaron; and in New Testament 12 apostles of these 12 Tribes James 1:1 who were likewise required to yield to one of those 12 bishops. So why then in these last days don't they submit, when the pattern is so apparent from the Old Testament?
Clement then carries on with essential commands that the way to settle these seditions is through obedience to the presbyters. Now right at the end in the benediction he says
Quote:
Send back speedily to us in peace and with joy these our messengers to you: Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, with Fortunatus; that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for [among you], and that we may the more quickly rejoice over the good order re-established among you. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you, and with all everywhere that are the called of God through Him, by whom be to Him glory, honour, power, majesty, and eternal dominion, from everlasting to everlasting. Amen.
Now this is a nice way of putting it but clearly Ephebus, Bito and Fortunatus were emissaries from Rome who were sent with this letter to ensure that peace and harmony and discipline were restored in Corinth and who would not be returning with news to Rome until order had been restored at Corinth. Clement makes constant mention of presbyters at Corinth in his letter but the fact that there is no mention of a bishop causes scholars to conclude that a bishop was appointed as a consequence of this letter and that the ecclesiatical authority for such an appointment was the bishop of the Church of God sojourning at Rome.
Now the other thing to remember that this document was written incredibly early in Christianity.
We are talking 70-90AD so we are looking at very ancient and yet well established concepts of authority that must have been handed directly from the apostles and to which Clement is merely adding support and reinforcing in order to settle a serious schism. Also Clement mentions in numerous places how utterly abhorrent and detestable sedition and schism is to the body of Christ. Why then are we in schism?
Another example this time from about 150AD where the Bishop of Corinth Dionysius says the following about Pope Soter who had been sending alms to Corinth from Rome.
Quote:
For this has been your custom from the beginning, to do good to all the brethren in many ways, and to send alms to many Churches in different cities, now relieving the poverty of those who asked aid, now assisting the brethren in the mines by the alms you send, Romans keeping up the traditional custom of Romans, which your blessed bishop, Soter, has not only maintained, but has even increased, by affording to the brethren the abundance which he has supplied, and by comforting with blessed words the brethren who came to him, as a
father his children.
So here again we get a deliberate statement of a bishop of Corinth ( a very senior office of the church) referring to the bishop of Rome as A FATHER OF HIS CHILDREN. It shows Christians from all over the known world coming to Rome making their appeals, just as happens to this very day.
Dionysius also remembers in his letter to Pope Soter the previous letter Clement sent from Rome which we have just read from. He says
Quote:
"Today, therefore, we have kept the holy Lord's day, on which we have read your letter, which we shall always have to read and be admonished, even as the former letter which was written to us by the ministry of Clement."
So the letters from Clement of Rome and Soter of Rome were regarded with great reverence and were continually read in the church of Corinth for ongoing admonition and direction. The mere fact that the church in Corinth still exists in 150AD and has its own bishop after being in such a fractious state not 70 years previous is a testimony of how effective the intervention of the bishop of Rome had been.
These example is not just a matter of interpretation of how it might seem to be the case if it is read in a certain way. It is a clear observation of history. By denying it you are following a typical protestant tact of just avoiding the clear inferences of history.
