No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Bishop of Rome Revisited
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2024
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
The Jewish community in Rome in the first century was indeed very large (some tens of thousands) and not unified but divided between several central synagogues. The early Christian community in Rome was also large, sprawling and diverse, accustomed to receive incomers from all parts of the world and somewhat subject to factions. It would have been difficult to exercise leadership effectively over such a body. This is not in dispute. What is at issue is simply and solely the question of whether, within Rome in the first century, there was an office of president of the college of ministers, that is, the office of a single presiding bishop of the church in Rome.
Dr Duffy writes that ‘we can afford to be honest historians, and let the evidence lead us where it will’. Yet what is at issue is what counts as evidence, and, in particular, whether it is legitimate to use the great wealth of second-century sources as a guide to first century practice. The Shepherd of Hermas says that the role of sending letters to other local churches was proper to Clement. Dr Duffy claims that this assertion ‘seems to imply [he was] the presbyter in charge of foreign correspondence’. If Clement dealt with other churches, are we to presume that this was all he did? The suggestion is left unexamined that Clement had authority to issue letters to other churches because it was he who presided over the local Church of Rome. Should not the fact that there are many other examples of bishops who wrote on behalf of the local church, and that Clement is counted by second century Roman lists as presiding over the local church, count as evidence?
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1999 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers
References
1 Is it the case though that ‘It is clear from Paul's letter to the Romans that there were a number of churches there’ [Duffy‐ p. 306]? Are there any early texts attesting to the existence of churches in Rome, rather than a church in Rome?
2 Jones, D.A., “Was there a bishop of Rome in the first century”, New Blackfriars, March 1999.
3 Duffy p.308.
4 pempsei oun Klemes eis tas exo poleis, ekeino gar epitetraptai. Hermas V.2. iv.
5 Duffy p.304.
6 Duffy p.307.
7 For English translations see Staniforth, M., Early Christian Writings, Penguin, Hardmondsworth, 1998Google Scholar and The Ante‐Nicene Fathers Volume II, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983Google Scholar.
8 Dix, G., “The Ministry in the Early Church” in Kirk, KE., (ed.) The Apostolic Ministry, London 1946Google Scholar.
9 Duchesne, L., Histoire Ancienne de Ľ Eglise, Paris 1906Google Scholar. The translations given here mainly follow the Early History of The Christian Church London 1909 reprinted 1957 (sometimes adding emphasis), but references will be to the French original.
10 Que conclure de tout cela, sinon que ľépiscopal unitaire existait déjà dans les pays situés àľ'Occident de ľ Asie, au temps où furent écrits des livres commes Pasteur ? Hermas, la II Clementis, la Doctrine des Apo̧tres, ľépi̧tre de saint Clément, et que, par suite, les témoignages donnés par ces vieux textes àľépiscopat collégial sont nullement exclusifs de ľépiscopat unitaire? Duchesne p. 93.
11 Jones NB March 1999
12 Jones NB March 1999, p. 142.
13 Chadwick, H., The Early Church, Penguin, Harmondsworth. 1993, p. 51Google Scholar; Frend, W.H.C., The Rise of Christianity. DLT, London, 1984, p. 139–140Google Scholar; Hengel, M., Acts and the theology of Earliest Christianity, London 1979, p. 121–122Google Scholar; Staniforth, M., (ed. and notes) Early Christian Writings, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1986, p. 236Google Scholar. The dichotomy of ‘lay democracy’ over and against ‘clerical authoritarianism’ is identified by Chadwick [p.59], who describes it as ‘often supposed’. It is without doubt a potent part of the overall myth, operative at a subterranean level, even for many who expressly reject its historical plausibility. It is not an invention of this author [pace Duffy pp. 302].
14 Jones NB March 1999, p. 142 emphasis added.
15 Duffy p. 302.
16 Duffy p. 301.
17 Duffy p. 308.
18 C'est aussi comme un état defait, incontesté et traditionnel, que ľépiscopat unitaire nous apparai̧t, vers le milieu du II siècle, dans les chrétientés occidentales, à Rome, à Lyon,à Corinthe,à Athènes, en Crète, tout comme dans les provinces situées plus àľ est. Nulle part il n'y a trace ? une protestation contre un changement brusque et comme révolutionnaire, qui aurait fait passer la direction des communautés du régime collégial au régime monarchique. Duchesne, p. 91.
19 De mȩme on pouvait, en parlant des prȩtres de Rome ou desévȩques de Corinthe, réunir dans une seule expression les deux degrés supérieurs [président et conseillers] de la hiérarchie. Mais le progrès naturel des choses allait à une concentration de ľ autorité entre les mains ? un seul; ce changement, si changement il y eut,était de ceux qui se font tout seuls, insensiblement, sans révolution. Entre ce président [du conseil épiscopal] et ľévȩque unique des siècles suivants il n'y a pas de diversité spécifique. Duchesne, p. 94–95.
20 Duffy p. 301.
21 Duffy p. 306.
You have
Access