The early succession of Roman bishops is enveloped in the twilight of Christian antiquity, where memory, tradition, and later ecclesiastical consolidation converge upon a clouded timeline. Yet even amid uncertainty, these catalogues form the spine of Rome’s historical identity, linking the post-apostolic Church to its Petrine ideal. Though the precise sequence remains debated, the Roman episcopate emerged as the most venerable and uninterrupted ecclesiastical institution of the West, commanding respect through both its antiquity and perceived doctrinal integrity.
I. Sources: Eastern and Western Traditions
The chronology of the early popes relies primarily on two broad classes of sources: the oriental or Greek lists and the occidental or Latin catalogues.
Greek Catalogues
Among the Greek witnesses are the second-century lists of Hegesippus and Irenaeus, followed by the influential chronologies of Eusebius of Caesarea in his Chronicle and Ecclesiastical History. These early compilations form the backbone of Eastern papal historiography. Modern scholars such as Lipsius and Harnack rely heavily on this tradition for their critical reconstructions, appreciating its early proximity and its restrained ecclesiology.
Latin Catalogues
On the Latin side, we find a rich body of material from authors such as Augustine (Ep. 55), Optatus of Mileve (De schismate Donatistarum II.3), and a series of structured catalogues. The Catalogus Liberianus reaches to the episcopate of Liberius (354 AD), while the Catalogus Felicianus extends to 530. Another derivative work, the Catalogus Cononianus, may stem from the earlier Catalogus Leoninus (ending at 440). The most comprehensive of all is the Liber Pontificalis, long thought to depend on earlier lists, but now—following the studies of Abbé Duchesne and Waitz—regarded as possessing independent authority, possibly older than the Felician compilation.
The Liber Pontificalis survives in several manuscripts from the seventh and eighth centuries, typically presenting a text dated to 641 AD, albeit with substantial textual variation. As Waitz candidly observes: “Mit wahrer Sicherheit gelangen wir in der Geschichte des Papsthums nicht über das 7te Jahrhundert hinauf”—“With true certainty we do not rise above the seventh century in the history of the papacy.”
Supplementary Sources
To these catalogues must be added the Roman Martyrologia and Calendaria, notably the Martyrologium Hieronymianum and the Martyrologium Romanum parvum, both dating to the seventh or eighth centuries. Finally, epigraphic discoveries in the Roman catacombs since 1850 have unearthed papal tomb inscriptions—providing names and ecclesiastical titles, though lacking chronological precision.
The Catalogus Liberianus in particular has received detailed critical treatment, notably in Theodor Mommsen’s essay “Über die Chronographen des Jahres 354” (1850), which includes the text (pp. 634–637) and is reproduced by Lipsius in his Chronologie der römischen Bischöfe.
II. Modern Scholarship
The study of papal chronology has been advanced by a number of scholars whose works remain foundational:
- Phil. Jaffé: Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, a chronological register of papal documents to 1198, later continued by Potthast and Harttung.
- R. A. Lipsius: His Chronologie der römischen Bischöfe bis zur Mitte des 4ten Jahrhunderts (1869) and Neue Studien zur Papstchronologie (1880) provide exhaustive critical evaluation, though he controversially denies Peter’s Roman episcopacy.
- Abbé L. Duchesne: His Étude sur le Liber Pontificalis and multi-volume critical edition of the same text with commentary remain indispensable.
- G. Waitz: His work on the textual history of the Liber Pontificalis and critical reviews of both Duchesne and Lipsius offer further depth.
- Adolf Harnack: His studies on Ignatius and Antiochian chronology offer valuable comparisons to the Roman lists.
The Uncertain Beginnings of the Roman Episcopate
The earliest succession of Roman bishops is veiled in legend and liturgical myth. According to Tertullian and most of the Latin fathers (including the Pseudo-Clementines), Clement—mentioned in Philippians 4:3—was Peter’s immediate successor. Yet Irenaeus, Eusebius, Jerome, and the official Roman Catalogue place Clement third in line, preceded by Linus (2 Timothy 4:21) and Anacletus (or Anincletus).
Some lists merge Cletus and Anacletus; others distinguish them. A possible explanation is that Linus and Anacletus served concurrently or in rotation, possibly presiding over different ethnic branches—Jewish and Gentile—of the Roman congregation. In that era, ecclesiastical governance was still shared and collegial, lacking the centralized authority that later defined the papacy.
Significantly, the earliest Christian writers make a careful distinction between apostles and bishops. Peter, though revered, is not included in the earliest episcopal lists. The later Roman practice of placing Peter at the head of the episcopal line is anachronistic, and strikingly overlooks Paul, whose apostolic ministry in Rome is not only attested by tradition but explicitly described in his epistles and Acts.
Lipsius’s Revised Chronology
Through exhaustive comparative analysis, Lipsius reconstructs a more plausible early sequence:
- Linus, Anacletus, and Clement: Functioned as Roman presbyters or presbyter-bishops (in the New Testament sense) during the late first century.
- Evaristus and Alexander: Likely presbyters at the beginning of the second century.
- Sixtus I. (Xystus): Served as presbyter-bishop for ten years, until about 128.
- Telesphorus: Held office for eleven years, until approximately 139.
- Only after this point do we begin to see the emergence of diocesan bishops in the modern sense.
Langen similarly argues that the monarchical episcopate in Rome—the single bishop model—did not emerge until the reign of Trajan or Hadrian. Even Irenaeus, writing in the late second century, still refers to the Roman bishops up to Anicetus (154 AD) as presbyters (πρεσβύτεροι), indicating a more fluid and collegial structure than later hierarchical models suggest.
Rome’s Chronological Preeminence
Despite all uncertainties, the Roman episcopal list surpasses those of all other major sees—Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople—in terms of antiquity, completeness, and consistency. While much of it is retrospective construction, it remains remarkably coherent and enjoys unrivaled prestige in Western ecclesiastical memory.
For those who emphasize institutional continuity and external testimony, the Roman succession stands as a monument of ecclesiastical order. Yet to the Protestant mind, shaped by Scripture and the Spirit’s free movement in history, these lists are valued not as proof of divine right, but as evidence of the Church’s developing consciousness of order, tradition, and apostolic fidelity.
