I asked this question in r/Christianity but would like a less biased view from historians as many of the responses were a reflection of each poster's denominational bias. I apologize if any of my assumptions or info are incorrect
I've been reading about the history of the early church, and I was surprised to learn that the modern position of "Pope" did not hold the same authority in the early church or perhaps did not exist at all. I had always assumed that following the death of Jesus that the one church recognized Peter as the first Pope and unquestioned, official head of the church. I also assumed that after becoming the first bishop of Rome that his successors were likewise recognized as the official head of the church above all else much like the President of the United States. The Catholic Church certainly believes that the position of Pope/Bishop of Rome has always held universal authority over the church and he is the leader of the one true church
Instead, what I've read is that the Bishop of Rome was one bishop among various Bishops throughout the Roman Empire who seemed to be on equal level with one another. Yes many churches and bishops looked to the Bishop of Rome to settle disputes, so there certainly was some aspect of leadership - almost like an inuflential governor of California among equal governors. However, at various times, the Bishops of Antioch, Smyrna, Jerusalem, Rome, etc. had possibly stronger influence. It's clear Rome became increasingly more influential over time, but it seems to have not fully developed into an official seat of power until centuries after Christ.
My questions:
1.) Was the Pope recognized as the universal leader of the church pre-Nicea with universal jurisdiction over all bishops?
2.) Is there any truth to the claim that Peter was only Bishop of Rome for a year or possibly never Bishop of Rome? I've even read some minority claims that he never set foot in Rome at all. Quote from a poster: "There is absolutely no evidence that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, except for a later tradition that was first recorded at the end of the second century AD, over a hundred years after he died. The only real evidence we have that he ever went to Rome is a tomb outside Rome which Roman tradition says is his."
3.) If Jesus did indeed make Peter the head of the church in Matthew 16:18 and established the Pope, why did the other bishops and Christians not recognize the Bishop of Rome as head of the church from the very beginning? If the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is correct, why did the early Church seem to recognize other leaders in Jerusalem, Antioch, and Smyrna as equal or more influential than the Bishop of Rome? Is it later Roman Catholic revisionism and re-interpretation of a verse to support Papal Primacy after Nicea? How did the early church interpret MAtthew 16:18. My understanding is that we are not even sure Peter founded the church in Rome. It seemed to pre-exist Paul's journey there so perhaps it was founded by Jews who had heard the Word and brought it there. And what about the Bishop of Antioch being the head of the church since Peter helped found that church and other churches?
4.) At any point, did all the other bishops and churches recognize the Bishop of Rome as the head of the church? Some Orthodox posters stated that most of the eastern Bishops never once recognized the Pope as having unquestioned authority over them but rather was a first among equals. Did the other bishops never once recognize the Bishop of Rome as the Pope as we know the seat today? How did the Orthodox, Assyrian, Coptic, and other Apostolic churches view the claim of Papal Primacy then and now?
5.) Why was the Bishop of Rome recognized as the head when it was not so from the start? Is it a reflection of the theological influence or the geopolitical reality and location of Rome as being in the center of the empire beginning with Constantine and the collapse of the Byzantine empire/East?
6.) How did the Protestant Reformers find it acceptable to reject Papal Primacy when I assume most of them had been educated in the Roman Catholic tradition?
7.) This might be outside the discipline of history, but are there good reasons for Christians to solely recognize the Papacy and Catholic Church as the one true Church or do the Orthodox and other Apostolic churches have equal claim?
Thanks!
Answers:
No, the Pope was never recognised as the universal leader of the pre-Nicaea church.
Apart from lists of Popes, there’s no documentary evidence from the time that demonstrates that Peter was bishop in Rome, for a year or any length of time. It’s not even clear that Peter was ever in Rome. This all relies on a body of literature suggesting it, not proving it (see below).
The catholic argument for Peter and the Pope’s authority is that Matthew 16:18 represents a specific and transmissible authority. Furthermore, that the other bishops are only bishops ‘through’ the Pope. Lastly, that this aspect of Peter’s authority was transmitted to the next bishop of Rome, no-one else.
On the interpretation of Matt 16:18, Theodore of Mopsuestia states that it refers to the confession, not to Peter, and that it is not the property of Peter alone. This is at least one demonstration that the Catholic interpretation of this text was not universal in the time period. (With some more time I would dig you up some more.)
No, at no point did all other churches recognise the bishop of Rome a head of the church.
I think this is time to transition to explaining the rise of the Papacy
The church in Rome is of unknown origin, but it at least exist by the mid 50s when Paul writes to them. Eusebius (4th century historian) claims that Peter travelled there and was bishop for 25 years, and this would have to be in the 40s. Most interpreters who hold that 1 Peter is genuinely by Peter (probably a minority now), understand ‘Babylon’ in 1 Peter 5:13 to refer to Rome. This would place Peter in Rome. Other early writers, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, associate Peter with the church there, and Dionysius of Corinth states that Peter was crucified there. By the end of the 2nd century this tradition is firmly established – that Peter (and Paul) were the founders of the Roman church and that Peter as its first bishop and martyred there. The Roman church grew in prominence as did most of the other major-city churches (Alexandria, Antioch, most obviously. Constantinople, but only later). It also benefited from this strong tie to the apostles. Lastly, as the capital of empire in the 1st century, it couldn’t help be prominent.
Remember, too, that the empire was roughly divided on linguistic lines into a western and eastern half (even when there wasn’t an administrative East-West division). Though the Roman church operated in Greek for a good few hundred years (the liturgy only shifted to Latin in the fourth century, but this was the final element), it was the only major church in the Latin-speaking west, it was located in the capital, it had apostolic associations, and it came to be the leading church in all the western empire. Furthermore, bishops at Rome had a reputation and history for being judicious leaders and of good orthodoxy in belief. The major shifts in the authority of Rome in relation to the rest of the church really begin to get into full swing in the 4th and 5th centuries. Damasus (366-384) (a) referred to Rome as the ‘apostolic see’, and (b) claimed the primacy of this see on the basis of Matthew 16:18. This trajectory was extended by Siricius (384-399) who considered his edicts ‘apostolic’ and authoritve, and then Innocent I (402-17), who took a canon (church law) from the council of Sardica (343) which said that deposed bishops in the West could have an extra hearing before the bishop of Rome, and he claimed it went back to Nicaea.
In my view, Leo I (440-461) i the first of the real ‘Popes’. In his Sermon 3, on the first anniversary of his election, he lays out a theory of the authority of the Pope on the basis of inheritance of Peter’ authority, and stated that all bishops have their authority through Peter, and so through the Pope.
At the council of Chalcedon, 451, a canon was passed to recognise Constantinople as equal to Rome (the sees, I mean). Actually this just clarifying and ratifying Constantinople 381. The language strongly suggests ‘honour’, not authority. Rome did not accept the validity of this canon (no. 28).
Leo moved the Roman church towards a papacy model both in his theory, and his practice. He effectively acted as a political ecclesiarch to establish and cement that superiority, and given that Rome was no longer the effective capital of the western empire, he often acted as the city’s highest authority. Hence, it was he who negotiated with Attila. Leo embodied ‘Pope as ruler’ in his governance.
To get back to your questions, then, a second time: the church never recognised the Pope as universal ruler and leader because this was a position that evolved in the first 5 centuries, and the theory of why it should be so also evolved. It was never accepted in the Greek East, and even less in the churches beyond the Empire. Protestant Reformers came to reject papal primacy, among other thing, because of the fundamental principles of the Reformation – they did not find a convincing proof for it in the Scriptures, and they found the Roman church in violation of what they did find in the Scriptures.
Okay, enough from me on this for now. Happy to do some follow-up questions.