作者：苏国怡 Socol, Carlo
THE ROMAN PRIMACY IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES OF THE CHURCH
In the 1970s a theological forum on 'post-ecumenical Christianity' identified the Vatican I definition of papal primacy and infallibility－and more precisely the former as foundation for the latter's claim-as the single greatest difficulty on the path to ecumenical agreement between the Christian churches (1). A decade later, the same question has become a burning issue in this part of the world, as scriptural, theological and historical arguments are being drawn out of the closet in an attempt to legitimatize a situation brought about largely by ideological pressure, political dictates, misunderstandings, lack of communication as well as objective difficulties, a situation that might become a de facto separation.(2)
From a historical point of view, the question concerning papal primacy is more complicated than often portrayed by both its supporters and detractors. People discussing this issue naturally enough attempt to go back to the early life of the church in order to support their views with both biblical and extra-biblical proofs. And since the rapid emergence of the Roman see as a centre of both leadership and juridical authority is such a striking feature of the life of the Western church from the middle of the 4th century onwards that there is no denying it. recourse is made to the first three centuries(3).
However, evidence for this period is scanty, discontinuous and often uncertain. It is a period no one should venture into lightheartedly. Lack of cross evidence practically deprives the historian of his most reliable working tool. That, coupled with the complexity of the issue and the confessional and theological bias that threatens objectivity, explains the variety of opinions one comes across on this and other early church questions. Evaluation of evidence is often at the mercy of each scholar.
The account which Catholic church historians give of the problem of Roman primacy, though differing in the manner of presentation as well as in the evaluation given to single events or documents, is fairly univocal. It is relatively easy to give a presentation of the Catholic position, while a dialectic approach would make the issue considerably more complex. Catholic substantial uniformity is not surprising and cannot certainly be dismissed as the consequence of apologetic preoccupations inhibiting Catholic scholars from exploring divergent hypotheses with sufficient freedom of mind. It must also be accounted for by the objective value of the testimony the past has left us as well as by a substantially correct approach to the sources (4).
Given all these difficulties, it would seem to me that the best way to go about trying to throw light on the issue is to consider all available evidence, both direct and supplementary, against the background of our general knowledge of this period, allowing the conclusions to emerge spontaneously－as far as possible－from the global experience of the church within the great becoming of history. In fact, it is not enough to limit oneself to the analysis of each piece of evidence, conclusions from which are often, well, inconclusive. Nor does it do to try to isolate certain issues deemed to be crucial and discuss them. not for this particular period in the life of the church at least (5).
Not much can be said in a short article. Available evidence, both biblical and extra-biblical, strictly related to the case is anything but abundant. Space and an 'objective' stand demand that even here the subject be dealt with in a sketchy and detached manner, and facts be allowed to speak for themselves as much as possible. They are given in a chronological order (6).
Evidence
AD 49－The oldest piece of evidence of concerning a Christian presence in Rome dates back to the reign of Claudius (41-54), who "drove from Rome the Jewish agitators stirred up by Chrestos" (SUET., Vita Claud., 25, 5). Christianity was, hence, probably introduced to the capital by a group of unknown Judaean Christians, a thing that does not clash with the tradition, related for the first time by Irenaeus, attributing the evangelization and 'founding' of the churching in Rome to the apostles Peter and Paul. The notion of 'founding' goes beyond that of a mere 'introducing'.
AD 57－Romans. By that year Rome's Christian community must have been a thriving one if it prompted Paul to address a letter to it and to express the desire to work there (Rm1 :15).
AD 54-57－The earliest New Testament witness concerning Simon-Peter are the important references contained in Galatians and 1 Corinthians: Peter as first witness to the resurrection of Christ; Peter as Paul's source of tradition about Jesus; Peter as leader in Jerusalem at the time of Paul's visits there; Peter's role in the apostolate to the circumcised (cf. Gal 1:18; 2:7-9, 11, 14: 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5) (7).
AD 64－Mark. 1 Peter. In the earliest of the four gospels consigned to writing, i.e. Mark's, Simon-Peter features prominently. In it we find the basic outline of the gospel portrait of Peter with which we are familiar. The following are the highlights: the call of the fisherman; the appointment of the Twelve, the first of whom is Simon, "whom He surnamed Peter"; Peter's confession and subsequent rebuke by Jesus; Peter's witnessing of the transfiguration along with James and John; his denial of Jesus; Peter specially sorted out as destinee of the angel's post-resurrectional message relayed by the women who had come to the empty tomb (cf. Mk 1:16-18; 1 :29-31, 35-38; 3:14-16; 5:37; 8:27-33; 9:2-13; 10:28-30; 11:12-14, 20-22; 13: 3ff; 14: 27-42. 54. 66-72: 16:7) (8).
In 1 Peter the author addresses himself to the presbyters of the communities of Asia Minor as a 'fellow-presbyter', obviously out of modesty, for he had earlier identified himself as endowed with an apostolic office (5:1-4) (9).
By this time Peter and Paul had reached Rome. Paul arrived there in chains in the Spring of 61 and suffered martyrdom under Nero in 67. When Peter got there is not known. One can only make suppositions. Yet the tradition of Peter's stay in the capital and his martyrdom there in 64 or 67 is too strong to be questioned.
This Roman tradition, never challenged in antiquity, rests on the testimony of three sources, chronologically close to each other that when taken together acquire such a weight as practically to amount to historical certainty: (1) Clement's letter to the Corinthians. AD 96, which relates events occurring in the recent past, especially the death of Peter and Paul "through jealousy and envy", and which possibly alludes to Nero's persecution. (2) The essential nucleus of this testimony is confirmed some 15-20 years later by the letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the church of Rome. (3) The Ascensio Isaiae (4,2), re-elaborated in a Christian sense ca. AD 100 and whose testimony about Peter's stay in Rome and his martyrdom there has been recently revalued, prophetically announces the death of one of the Twelve at the hands of Belial, murderer of his mother (Nero). This statement is further clarified by a fragment from the Apocalypse of Peter (early 2nd century): "Go Peter...to the city of fornication and drink the chalice I foretold"(10).
No evidence brought against the Roman tradition even closely approaches the amount and sheer weight of evidence in favour of it. The excavations under the altar of Peter's Confession in the Vatican have brought up a wealth of new circumstantial evidence as to the location of Peter's tomb. The force of these proofs, however, is dimipuished by uncertainties and above all by an annoying flaw: the bones have not been found in the tomb, but by the side of the 'trophy of Gaius', not sufficiently protected (11).
AD 70-80－Matthew, Luke, Acts. Three episodes stand out in Greek-Matthew's account of the apostle Peter, though they not the only ones: Jesus saves Peter as he sinks while walking on the water; Peter's confession and Jesus' promise to him (the text cited by the Catholic Church as scriptural basis for the authority of the papacy); Jesus, Peter, and the temple tax (Mt 14: 28-31; 16:16b-19: 17:24-27) (12).
In Luke we find the following stories: the call of Simon and the miraculous catch of fish; Jesus' prayer for Simon's faith not fo fail, to enable him to stengthen his brethren; the appearance of the risen Lord to Simon (Lk 5:1-11; 22:31-32; 24:34). On the whole Luke presents a very favourable portrait of Peter to his gentile audience. He is the last of the Twelve to be mentioned by name in Lk, and the first of the Twelve to be mentioned by name in Acts. This is probably no accident. For Lk the Twelve are the bridge between the historical Jesus and the church, and Simon-Peter plays that role par excellence (13).
In the first half of Acts it is Peter who dominates. His prominence stems from being first in the post-resurrectional list of the Eleven, from the significant role he played in the election of Matthias, and again as preacher in the Jerusalem church, as miracle worker, as object of miraculous divine care. etc.(14) Acts also describes Peter's part in the conversion of gentiles, his relation to Jerusalem and the Jerusalem authorities, his moving on "to another place" (Acts 12:17), his mediating role at the 'council' of Jerusalem, after which he disappears from the scene of Acts and we find him soon afterwords in Antioch (Gal 2:11-14).
AD 80－2 Peter. This letter, sometimes set in the 2nd century and hence considered as the last NT writing, presents Peter as the guardian of orthodox faith. His authority is called upon to correct doctrinal and moral confusion spread by false teachings since he has the authority to interpret the words of Scripture (15).
AD 96－Clement's 1 Cor.－The letter of Clement, bishop of Rome, to the Corinthians supplies impressive evidence. It was written just before the close of the apostolic era. Such was its standing in the early church, that for some time it was included in the canon of inspired writings. As late as the second half of the 2nd century it was regularly read at Corinthian liturgical gatherings This document testifies to the martyrdom of Peter and Paul under Nero with a high degree of probability. Yet its importance is due to the fact that it bears witness to the first documented intervention of the Roman church in the life of a sister church. Clement indeed wrote in the name of his community－he himself remains a background figure, as monarchical episcopate had not emerged at this early stage-to seek to re-establish peace in Corinth by means of admonition and counsel. It is not known whether Rome's intervention, which had been delayed by raging persecution, was spontaneous or had been called for. One thing is certain, though, and this is Rome's consciousness of her authority and consequent responsibility. The claims contained in the letter exceed the limits of brotherly solidarity. Its tone is authoritative, at times almost threatening, and seems to expect obedience. Corinth heeded Clement's advice. No one in antiquity ever had anything to say about Rome's action. For Pierre Batiffol. Clement's intervention represents "the epiphany of the Roman primacy" (16).
AD 100 ca.－The Gospel of John contains ten references to Simon-Peter, of which the most relevant ones are: Jesus meets Simon and tells him he will be called Cephas: Peter confesses Jesus as the Holy One of God; Peter at the empty tomb: Jesus specifically entrusts his flock to Peter (cf. Jn 1:40-42; 6:67-69; 20:2-10: 21:1-23) (17).
AD 110 ca.－Ignatius' letter to the Romans has already been mentioned. It conveys the esteem of non-Roman Christians for Rome. The bishop of Antioch wrote seven letters to as many churches, yet on comparison Romans stands out as unique: its enthusiastic introduction, resounding with honorific and fulsomely respectful epithets, bears witness to a real pre-eminence of Rome. which inspired a singular veneration throughout the ancient world. In an obvious allusion to Clement's letter, Ignatius states that the Roman congregation acts as teacher. He gives it the title 'president of love'. Accordingly he offers no advice, as he did to the other churches, but rather entrusts the communities of Syria soon to be deprived of their leaders the Rome's charity. Commenting on this letter, the Anglican scholar S.H. Scott wrote of a primacy pertaining to the church of Rome by virtue of Peter's primacy. Indeed, the letter does contain some of the elements of papal theory developed later, such as the importance of the capital, the presence of Peter and Paul. Rome's leadership in faith and love, but as it does not specifically refer to the bishop of Rome, one cannot speak of a personal primacy yet (18).
AD 140 ca.－Hermas, the author of the mystical treatise known as The Shepherd, describes Clement, bishop of Rome, as having been entrusted with the care of churches abroad (Vision 2, ch. 4).
AD 180 ca.－Irenaeus' Contra Haereses is the most famous testimony on the subject. To prove the Gnostic heretics wrong, the author outlines what he deems to be an incontrovertible and universally accepted 'rule of faith': tradition founded on the apostles and guaranteed by succession. In this respect Rome stands out as having been founded by Peter and Paul, and because he considers communion with this one community as the most reliable proof that a church is within the tradition approved by the apostles. Irenaeus provides a list of Peter's successors, the first to do so. He then concludes with an often quoted sentence: "With this church, on account of its more powerful principality alt other churches in every place must agree (Lat. 'convenire') since in it the Christians of all places have preserved the apostolic tradition" (Adv. Haer.. III, 3, 1-2).
For Louis Duchesne, one cannot find a dearer statement of (1) the doctrinal unity of the universal church, of (2) the sovereign and unique importance of the Roman church as witness, custodian and organ of apostolic tradition, and of (3) her superior preeminence among all the Christian communities. There may well be other important churches, but as far as sheer 'power' is concerned, Rome stands above them all (19).
AD 190 ca.－The controversy over the Easter date. By the end of the 2nd century various aspects of church life were becoming better and better organized: the monarchical organization had practically been established, hence news about Rome's bishops becomes more and more detailed. A canon of the scriptures was being drawn up, the first symbols or creeds were formulated (20), along with the first elaboration of liturgical traditions (21). In all this Rome was playing a relevant role. Naturally each community had traditions of its own. Yet this whole complex movement towards commonly accepted points of reference shows that nearing AD 200 Rome－whatever the exact explanation of this phenomenon may be－enjoyed a pre-eminent authority.
Extraordinary as it may be, one particular episode, that of the controversy over the Easter date, imposes itself on our attention, for it highlights Rome's role in the church's search for greater unity in a matter purely religious. Easter was celebrated on different dates in the East and in the West. In the year 154, bishop Polycarp of Smyrna had travelled all the way to see his Roman counterpart, Anicetus, to try to reach an agreement, but failed to do so. The lack of clarity over the issue was opening the gates to abuse and schism. This probably explains why, at a certain moment, having received a letter from Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, explaining the Eastern customs, bishop Victor of Rome (189-199) decided, to intervene in the question with exceptional severity, i.e. threatening the Eastern churches with excommunication: no one, not even Irenaeus, who played a mediating role. and who had nothing good to say about the excesses of Victor's intransigent centralism, ever thought of challenging Rome's right to impose a disciplinary norm under threat of excommunication (22).
AD 200 ca.－Bishop Zephyrinus of Rome (199-217) condemns Montanism. The Roman presbyter Gaius boasts of the 'trophies', i.e. the funeral monuments, of Peter and Paul in Rome. Abercius, bishop of Hieropolis in Phrygia, who had visited Rome under Marcus Aurelius (161-180), dictates a famous epitaph that bears witness to a growing awareness of the universal brotherhood being created by the church, something he had been able to experience in his travels. It also praises the majesty of the Roman church, queen of the Christian world (23).
AD 210-220 (after 213)－Hippolytus rebukes bishops Zephyrinus and Callistus (217-222) for having failed to intervene－as duty demanded－to stop the Patripassian heresy. Also Tertullian complains against a bishop (Callistus, or Agrippinus of Carthage?) whom he sarcastically calls 'supreme pontiff and 'bishop of bishops', for the authority he had claimed on the basis of Mt 16:18 was exaggerated, since the gift signified therein was intended for Peter alone (De Pudicitia, 21). Obviously, in the wake of increasing unrest and division, a search was on for irrefutable proofs of episcopal power. Tertullian's assertions are significant in that they point to a Petrine interpretation of episcopal authority－either in Carthage or in Rome－one generation before Cyprian (24).
AD 230 ca.－Origen tries to defend himself against accusations brought against him in Alexandria by writing to bishop Fabian of Rome (236-250). Origen's condemnation by an Alexandrian synod had been confirmed by a Roman synod called by bishop Pontian (230-235) (25).
AD 256－Bishop Stephen of Rome makes what appears to be the clearest claim so far to primacy by a Roman bishop. We have access to his fact through the reaction of those who opposed it, i.e. Cyprian of Carthage and Firmilian of Caesarea, at the peak of the controversy over baptism by dissidents. Stephen criticised the African bishop for reconferring such baptisms, a criticism which did not go down well. Out of some real as well as personal motivations, in the name of the rights of bishops, whom be claimed were responsible to God alone, Cyprian rejected the "tyranny" imposed by Stephen and contended with the right of his "brother" on the Roman see to make himself bishop of bishops. On other occasions, however, Cyprian recognized the right of the bishops of Rome to be informed about important matters, such as the election of bishops. For him Rome was indeed "Peter's chair", "the principal church", "the point of origin of sacerdotal [= episcopal] unity"(26). In his famous De Unitate Catholicae Ecclesiae, in a double, authentic (!), recension, he views Peter as the origin and foundation of unity. Yet his chief concern was the oneness of the local community within itself, not that of the universal church. In fact he held the opinion that all bishops had received a power equal to that of Peter. No distinction as yet had been drawn between power of orders and power of jurisdiction. Consistently with his unconquerable episcopalism, Cyprian refused to budge (27). His, at times inconsistent, theology shows all the characteristic tension between a marked sense of solidarity among all bishops and the unique position of the bishop of Rome. The African martyr holds on and bears witness to both traditions, yet he fails to harmonize them.
AD 260-262－The two Dionysiuses' affair is a fact which closely resembles in its dynamics Clement's intervention in the Corinthian affair. Dionysius the Great, bishop of Alexandria, had to deal with a group of Sabellians. dissidents who denied any real distinction between the Persons of the Trinity. The bishop himself, however, had gone too far in his attempt to explain the distinction: he had made the son less than, subordinate to. the Father (incidentally, the same error Arius was to spread in Alexandria in the following century). For this reason charges were brought against him in Rome, prompting pope Dionysius (260-268) to convene a synod and correct both the bishop and the whole catechetical school of Alexandria with its proud Origenist tradition, in what is the most important ante－Nicene document on the Trinity. The episode on the one side highlights Rome's continuous commitment to orthodoxy since the times of bishops Victor, Zephyrinus and Callistus, on the other it is evidence of Rome's magisterial authority, exercised by its bishop in a sovereign manner. The doctrine being judged and censored was held by one of the most notable and venerated bishops of antiquity. In the face of Rome's sentence the foremost episcopal see in the East and the personal prestige of its bishop seemed to count for nothing. No one even thought of appealing (28).
AD 272－Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, had been deposed and replaced by a local synod on account of his adoptionist heresy. However, he had chosen to stick to his post and refused to hand over the church buildings to his successor. Pagan emperor Aurelian, who was then passing through the town and had been called in to help solve the question concerning the right of property, sentenced that the true bishop and legitimate occupier of the episcopal house should be he whom Felix (269-274), bishop of Rome. and the bishops of Italy recognized (29).
(1)H. KUNG, Editorial, in Concilium 4/7 (April 1971), p.7. The issue is entirely dedicated to 'The Petrine ministry in the Church'.
(2)「中國天主教」創刊號(一九八０年十一月十日，北京) 二十至二十二頁。湯漢「教宗首席權與主教團的關係?中國天主教質詢的一個神學問題」，鼎刊，1981年5月，14－18頁。梁作祿，「文革後的中國天主教」，香港1982，80頁。
(3)There is a historical as well as a sentimental reason for this: the church of the first three centuries was supposedly purer, more evangelical, more charismatic, less papal, less institutionalized, less compromised with the world as compared with the 'Constantinian church', which was hopelessly caught up in a process of integration with a society that considered itself Christian, on which she patterned her typically Roman organization and legal structure, eventually emerging as state religion. Few historians nowadays would uncritically accept such a sharp distinction between a pre-Constantinian and a Constantinian church in this sense.
(4)As we come nearer to our times, one easily comes across views that diverge in a more substantial way. Readers might be familiar, for instance, with Charles Davis' A Question of Conscience (New York. 1967), or Hans Kung's The Church (Westminster. 1967). The two differ between themselves, the first being a systematic rebuttal of each piece of evidence in favour of primacy at the height of a personal crisis of faith; the second re-reads history in the light of certain ecclesiological presuppositions. Neither authors are trained historians. Different still are the views expressed by James F. McCue (Roman Primacy in the First Three Centuries, in Concilium 4/7 [April 1971] pp. 37-44). In what appears like an 'ecumenical effort', the author does not seem to endeavour to support evidence traditionally considered invaluable for the Catholic viewpoint on primacy and prefers to rest to whole issue on the nature of the Church's development.
No account is here given of the now subsided Catholic-Protestant controversy of early 20th century. Among the manuals/articles available at local libraries the following have been selected : K.BAUS, From the Apostolic Community to Constantine ( = Handbook of Church History 1.ed. H. Jedin and J. Dolan), New York 1965, pp. 151-2, 355-360; G. LEBRETON-G. ZILLER, La Chiesa primitiva (= 'Fliche & Martin' 1), Torino(3) 1958, pp. 281ff., 484ff., 491ff ; Id., Dalla fine del II secolo alla pace costantinana (313), (= 'Fliche & Martin' 2), Torino(2) 1977, pp. 595-598 (because it is a more recent edition, the Italian translation is preferred); K. BIHLMEYER-H. TUCHLE, Church History, I , Christian antiquity, Westminster 1958, pp. 112-117, 311-322; L. HERTLING, Geschichteder katholischen Kirche, Berlin(4) 1967, Chinese Ed., 1967, pp. 45-52; J. LORTZ, Geschichte der Kirche in ideeges-chichtlicher Betrachtung, 2 Bande, Munster(21) 1962, Ital. Ed.(3) 1976, pp. 90-93, 148ff., 181f.; A. FRANZEN, Kleine Kirchengeschichte, Freiburg I. Br. 1976, Engl. Ed., pp. 100ff.; M. SCHMAUS, Pope. C. Historical Development, in Scaramentum Mundi 5, pp. 42-50; G. SCHWAIGER, Pope. II. History of the Popes, ibid., pp. 50ff.; W. ULLMANN, Papacy. 1. Early period, in New. Cath. Encyc. 10, pp. 951-954; B. STUDER, Papato, in Dizionario patristico e di antichita cristiane, dir. A. Di Berardino, II, Casale Monferrato 1983, coll. 2638ff.; G. VODOPIVEC, Papato, in Dizionario Storico Religioso, dir. P. Chiocchetta, Roma 1966, pp. 712. Also WL. D'ORMESSON, The papacy, ( = Faith and Fact 80), London 1959 ; H. CHADWICK, The Early Church ( = The Pelican History of the Church 1) New York 1967. Most sources cencerning the papacy in the early period may be conveniently found in H. DENZINGER-A. SCHONMETZER, Enchiridion fontium historiae ecclesiasticae antiquae, Barcelona(9), 1965.
(5)H. Kung's exposition of the issue is vitiated, in my opinion, by this type of approach, typical of the systematic theologian. Cf. KUNG, Church, 456ff.
(6)Dates for biblical events, which are to be taken with some degree of aproximation, follow the chronological table provided in the Supplements Section of the Jerusa1em Bible. Biblical evidence is here treated as historical evidence.
(7)R. E. BROWN. Peter in the New Testament, New York 1973, pp. 23ff.
(8)Ibid., pp. 57ff.
(9)Ibid., pp. 149ff.
(10)BAUS. From the Apostolic Community, pp. 112-115.
(11)Ibid., pp. 115-118; M. GUARDUCCI. Le reliquie di Pietro sotto la confessione della basilica vaticana, Roma 1966.
(12)BROWN, Peter, pp. 75ff.
(13)Ibid., pp. 109ff.
(14)Ibid., 39ff.
(15)Ibid., 154ff.
(16)P. BATIFFOL. Le catholicisme des origines a Saint Leon－I. L' Eglise naissante et le catholicisme. Paris(9) 1927, p. 146.
(17)BROWN, Peter, pp. 129ff.
(18)FLICHE & MARTIN I, p. 416.
(19)Quoted in D' ORMESSON, Papacy, p.146.
(20)The four gospels and the thirteen Pauline letters had come to be accepted AD 130 ca. and were placed on the same footing as the Old Testament between 170 and 220. Peculiar to the Western church was the Apostolic Creed.
(21)Cf. JUSTIN, Apology, I. 61-67 (written ca 150-155): HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME, The Apostolic Tradition, (ca. 215).
(22)FLICHE & MARTIN II. pp. 575ff.
(23)The meaning of the symbolic language employed by Abercius, which had given rise to many discussions in the past. no longer seems debatable. Ibid., I. pp. 488.
(24)McCUE. Primacy, p. 41; FLICHE & MARTIN II. p. 579.
(25)Ibid., p. 383.
(26)Eg. 55,14; De Unit., 4.
(27)Only a fresh persecution avoided an open split between the bishops of Carthage and Rome. The conflict was composed under pope Sixtus, "the good and pacific pontiff", who had succeeded Stephen in 257. Cf. FLICHE & MARTIN II. p. 312; J. QUASTEN, Patrology, II. Westminster 1964, pp. 375-378.
(28)FLICHE & MARTIN II, pp. 378ff.
(29)Ibid., p. 379.
Conclusion
The last decades of the 3rd century were peaceful and largely uneventful. The church enjoyed the peace granted by Galerian's edict of tolerance (AD 260). Diocletian was reorganizing the empire but was soon to launch the fiercest persecution, which was eventually followed by a general peace in 313. From AD 67 thirty-one bishops had sat on the see of Peter, some of them outstanding, others less, some well known, others almost unknown. During the intervening 280 years the church had expanded to include over 1.000 communities, unevenly spread throughout the empire and beyond its borders to the East. What originally was just a message had grown into a movement that had won freedom and imperial recognition, and soon was to turn into Rome's single most powerful moral driving force. The church had withstood challenges from without and conquered serious crises from within. Local communities had organized evangelization and catechesis, charity and liturgy: baptismal rites, some outline for eucharistic prayers, which were largely spontaneous: the first elements of a liturgical year were taking shape. Ties and communications with other churches had been set up. There was a canon of inspired scriptures, some symbols of faith and a primitive theology. By the end of the 2nd century Christians were able to look around and really feet their religion was a universal one.
The process had been a gradual one. The progress had not been even. The churches had not had a chance yet to come together and give themselves some form of unitary organization. This was to be done by the great councils of the 4th and 5th century, notably Nicaea (325). Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451). The one symbol of unity and its driving force at this time was Rome. The vitality of other churches had spilled over the surrounding areas: Antioch for Syria, Carthage for N. Africa, Alexandria for Egypt. Rome stood out among them. The most prominent among the apostles, Simon-Peter, had worked and died there. Between the years 80-100 the NT communities had recognized in him the rock on which Christ was building his church, the leader to whom he had given specific authority to bind and loose, the shepherd to whom his flock had been entrusted. Him He had strengthened, so that he might in turn stengthen his brethren, and, in time, give his life for them, in a mission that the church was to carry out to the ends of time (Mt 28:18). If this appears like a grand role, perhaps we may remember that it was the later NT writings that began to cast Peter in an idealized role (30).
Before claiming any authority, the bishops of Rome had picked up the heritage and had gone about expanding it, well aware, from as early as the end of the 1 st century, that they were acting with an authority that had come from Christ through the apostles. At least twelve out of thirty-one bishops of Rome gave up their lives or were exiled in the course of their mission. They stood for and promoted unity and communion within the church, defended orthodoxy at home and abroad, intervened in the life of other communities, correcting, encouraging, or excommunicating, if necessary. In AD 180 Irenaeus clearly saw the bishops of Rome as 'successors' of Peter, and sort of crystalized his view in a 'rule of faith' he put forward as a point of reference for orthodoxy. As a matter of fact, they exercised a power which in some respects was what later came to be called primatial and juridical. The word of Christ to Peter was unfolding its prophetical role and was gradually being realized in an incarnated church, herself growing, expanding and getting organized (31).
This is what the documents point to. Yet the picture needs some pinpointing. Was there or was there not a Roman primacy in the first three centuries? As stated once and again, the question concerning the primacy of the bishop of Rome is a complicated one. Any answer to such a question is not possible without differentiating exactly between his position as bishop, as patriarch and as successor of Peter. To separate primacy from patriarchate is not easy, particularly in this period when no agreement on supra-diocesan organization had been mooted as yet. Nor does it do to attempt to apply categories known to have existed at a later stage, such as referring juridical notions to a church on which the concept of law had not yet impressed its mark. In this period she rather represented herself thorough categories such as 'communio', 'pax', 'agape', of which Rome was said to be the president, a type of inter-church relationship that naturally did not exclude juridical or disciplinary elements (32). Yet to attempt to reduce such concepts to juridical categories would mean failure to capture the sense of early Christian life.
Having said this. one may assert, on the basis of historical evidence, that the bishops of Rome did exercise an authority that was truly primatial, at least in the broader sense of the word. i.e. an extra-diocesan intervention that surpassed the powers later attributed to metropolitans and patriarchs. Such was the case at least in the actions of Clement, Victor, Stephen and Dionysius. While Clement's 1 Corinthians does contain a primitive theology of episcopal succession, there seems to be no manifest evidence that his action was actually 'informed' by a clear Petrine consciousness. However this somehow fits with the dynamics of a gradually developing living reality. In the cases of Victor, Stephen and Dionysius. however, the claim to authority is such that one can think of no ground to justify their papal stand-point other than that of primacy. To all effects, these interventions were 'papal'. While in the first half of the second century we have evidence of a Petrine interpretation of episcopal power, and pope Stephen possibly appealed to it in his controversy with the African bishops, the 'Petrine text' of Mt 16:18 began to become important as providing a theological and scriptural foundation to a consciousness that had grown and kept growing, only in the middle of the 4th century (33). Hence, when the council of Sardica in 343 established the appellate jurisdiction of the Roman see, and when pope Damasus (366-384) began to refer to Rome as the 'apostolic see', or when pope Leo I openly claimed to speak for Peter, no real novelties were being introduced. It was rather a matter of defining the issue in more explicit, juridical terms, fully in keeping with other parallel developments in the life of the church. The ecumenical council of Chalcedon (451) received Leo's intervention (the famed Tome to Flavian) as a true Petrine utterance: "Peter has spoken through Leo!"
(30)BROWN, Peter, pp. 55. 127.
(31)LORTZ. It. Ed.. 1. p.91.
(32)海脫令，51-52頁(HERTLING, Chinese Ed.).
(33)CHADWICK, Early Church, pp. 237-238.
(34)SCHMAUS, Pope, p.44.
(35)海脫令，49-50頁(HERTLING, Chinese Ed.).
(36)V.SOLOVIEV, La Russie et L' Eglise universelle, Paris 1889, quoted from the It. Ed., pp. 44-45, in VODOPIVEC, Papato, pp. 712-713.
(37)LORTZ, It. Ed., I, p.92.