The idea of papal supremacy, so dominant in later centuries, began as a subtle convergence of honor, tradition, and strategic circumstance. Though the earliest bishops of Rome did not assert universal authority, the ecclesiastical, political, and theological climate of the ancient world gradually elevated their office above others. The papacy’s ascent was not the result of a single doctrinal pronouncement but the outcome of centuries of organic development—interwoven with ambition, reaction, reverence, and necessity. In its earliest phase, the papacy appeared in embryonic form, revealing both the noble impulse for unity and the dangerous allure of unchecked power.
The Roman See and the Impulse toward Primacy
Among the great apostolic centers—Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome—it was the bishop of Rome who gradually amassed all the requisite elements for ecclesiastical preeminence. The same instinct that produced monarchical bishops over local congregations extended its reach, seeking a visible head for the universal Church. Thus, the office of bishop in Rome, once equal in rank to others, assumed a distinctive role of prominence. This primacy, at first honorary and moral, evolved toward jurisdictional supremacy.
In this formative period, one already finds the outline of the papacy—with its laudable aspirations and perilous overreaches. Alongside the earliest expressions of Roman authority, there also emerged vigorous protests against its encroachments, demonstrating that the idea of a central Christian head was never universally welcomed or unchallenged.
Theological Claims and Historical Assumptions
The Roman Church would eventually claim divine sanction for the papacy, tracing its origin to Christ’s words to Peter—seen as conferring primacy and permanence to Peter’s role in the Church’s foundation. This claim involves several critical assumptions:
- That Peter was given not merely a primacy of honor, but jurisdictional supremacy over the other apostles—despite his never asserting such power and Paul’s evident independence, even publicly rebuking him (Galatians 2:11).
- That this authority was not personal but transmissible, an official endowment passed on through succession.
- That Peter conferred this office not on the bishop of Jerusalem or Antioch (where he was present), but uniquely upon the bishop of Rome.
- That Peter not only died in Rome—a highly probable but not infallibly proven claim—but served as its bishop until his martyrdom and appointed a successor.
- That the bishops of Rome, as Peter’s successors, have always exercised universal jurisdiction—though this has never been a consistent historical reality nor universally acknowledged right.
Leaving these theological questions to later polemics, our present concern is to trace the historical ascent of the Roman see and identify the converging forces that raised it to such prominence.
Historical Forces Elevating the Roman See
Several key factors contributed to the increasing influence of the Roman bishopric:
- Antiquity and Apostolic Prestige: The Roman Church, founded in apostolic times and honored by Paul with the Epistle to the Romans, was the only apostolic mother church in the Latin West. Its prestige was immense among the churches of Italy, Gaul, and Spain.
- Martyrdom of Peter and Paul: The belief that both apostles suffered and were buried in Rome conferred immense spiritual authority upon the city, and a sense of inherited apostolic guardianship.
- Imperial Capital Status: Rome’s role as the political and cultural heart of the empire inevitably influenced the Church. As the empire’s center, Rome naturally became a focal point for both orthodoxy and heresy.
- Administrative Wisdom and Doctrinal Firmness: The Roman Church displayed consistent executive ability and orthodox instinct in controversies such as the dating of Easter, penitential discipline, and the validity of heretical baptism.
Secondary causes include its endurance under persecution and its notable generosity toward suffering believers—celebrated by Dionysius of Corinth and recorded by Eusebius.
From Paul to Victor: Rome’s Quiet Rise
Between the time of Paul’s Epistle (58 AD) and the episcopate of Victor (late 2nd century), direct information on the internal affairs of the Roman Church is scant. Yet its name appears frequently in early Christian literature. Its metropolitan location made it a hub for theological disputes, both orthodox and heretical. The city drew figures such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus. Even heresiarchs like Simon Magus, Valentinus, and Marcion gravitated there. The result was a Church that gradually assumed a voice of authority far beyond its diocese.
Clement of Rome and Early Roman Leadership
The earliest trace of Roman authority comes in Clement’s epistle to the Corinthian Church, written near the close of the first century. Though the letter never mentions Clement by name, and is framed as a collective voice of the Roman congregation, it offers firm, paternal guidance. Without solicitation, Rome sends advice and messengers to Corinth, and exhorts her to unity and order in a tone of serene authority—perhaps surprising given the probable continued presence of the Apostle John in nearby Ephesus.
This epistle, while still collegial and fraternal, already hints at the administrative leadership Rome would come to assert—though not yet through the bishop, but through the church itself.
Ignatius and Rome’s Charity
Ignatius of Antioch, in his letter to the Romans, extols the Roman Church’s reputation for charity and spiritual leadership, calling her “presiding in love” (προκαθημένη τῆς ἀγάπης). However, he makes no reference to Clement or any Roman bishop, and distinguishes clearly between apostles and bishops. He writes, “I do not command you as Peter and Paul did.” His praise, therefore, is moral, not hierarchical.
Dionysius of Corinth, writing to Bishop Soter of Rome, echoes this commendation, praising the Roman Church’s long-standing practice of sending aid and encouragement to churches across the empire.
Irenaeus and the Church of Rome
Irenaeus of Lyons presents perhaps the most important early witness. In Against Heresies (III.3.2), he calls the Roman Church “the greatest and most ancient,” founded by Peter and Paul, and asserts that “every church must agree with her on account of her superior principalitas.” Yet this is best understood as a precedence of honor, not of jurisdiction.
When Pope Victor excommunicated the Asian churches over the date of Easter, Irenaeus rebuked him sharply, calling for unity in diversity and reminding him of the apostolic traditions preserved elsewhere. The Eastern churches resisted the Roman imposition, and the issue was not resolved until the Council of Nicaea aligned practice with Rome centuries later.
Hippolytus and Roman Excess
Hippolytus, a learned and austere presbyter, criticized Popes Zephyrinus and Callistus for both doctrinal error and moral compromise. In his Philosophumena, he reveals that Callistus claimed an untouchable authority—declaring that a bishop could not be deposed even for grave sin. Though a rival bishop himself, Hippolytus’s charges speak to the emerging absolutism within the Roman episcopate.
Tertullian and the Duality of Rome
Tertullian initially revered the Roman Church as an apostolic bastion. He recounted the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, and even the legend of John’s miraculous preservation in boiling oil. Yet as a Montanist, he turned against Rome’s lax penitential policies and ridiculed its bishop as “pontifex maximus” and “bishop of bishops”—labels intended as biting satire.
Cyprian: The Architect and Opponent
No Father contributed more to the theological foundation of the papacy than Cyprian. Drawing on Peter’s primacy, he viewed the Roman bishop as the head of ecclesial unity, referring to his see as “the chair of Peter” and “the root and mother of the Catholic Church.” Yet in practice, Cyprian insisted on the equality of all bishops. He addressed the bishop of Rome as “brother and colleague,” and during the controversy over heretical baptism, opposed Pope Stephen with unapologetic boldness—refusing to yield to Roman pressure.
Firmilian: Fiery Protest from the East
Firmilian of Cappadocia went further than Cyprian. In his fierce letter, he accused Pope Stephen of “folly” and misusing his office as Peter’s successor by promoting disunity. While implicitly acknowledging Rome’s importance, he refused to accept its doctrinal overreach. His indignation was likely intensified by his loyalty to Origen, whose condemnation by a Roman council left a bitter memory.
The Modest Legacy of the Early Popes
Despite the Church of Rome’s growing stature, the first thirty popes remain relatively obscure figures. Later tradition, dubiously, declared nearly all of them martyrs. In truth, most were overshadowed by greater theological and pastoral figures like Ignatius, Cyprian, Ambrose, Irenaeus, and Augustine. Jerome names only four Roman bishops in his catalogue of early Church luminaries: Clement, Victor, Cornelius, and Damasus.
Even Hippolytus, writing in Rome around 225 AD, paints his contemporaries Zephyrinus and Callistus in unflattering tones—accusing the former of ignorance and greed, and the latter of scandalous behavior and doctrinal compromise. Such assessments cannot be dismissed merely as polemic; they reflect the unsettled and contested nature of episcopal authority in Rome during these early centuries.
