Origins of the Papacy

Origins of the Papacy

In order to get a good understanding of what are the origins of the papacy, it will be necessary to look at the question from two perspectives.

1. What are the claims of Rome regarding the origins of the papacy? And are those claims valid?

2. What are the actual causes and events which enabled the bishop of Rome to claim, and to be widely accorded, headship over Christ's Church? And are those causes and events a valid foundation upon which to base Rome's claims?

1. Rome's claims:

"The proof that Christ constituted St. Peter head of His Church is found in the two famous Petrine texts, Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17."
New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, The Pope

and,

"The principle underlying the Roman claim is contained in the idea of succession. 'To succeed' is to be the successor of, especially to be the heir of, or to occupy an official position just after, as Victoria succeeded William IV. Now the Roman Pontiffs come immediately after, occupy the position, and perform the functions of St. Peter; they are, therefore, his successors."

[...]

"To be in continuity with the Church founded by Christ affiliation to the See of Peter is necessary, for, as a matter of history, there is no other Church linked to any other Apostle by an unbroken chain of successors."
New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, Apostolic Succession

Thus we see that Rome's claims for the legitimacy of the papacy are based upon a supposed historical unbroken succession from Peter, whom they claim was constituted head of His Church by Christ on the basis of Matthew 16.17-19 and John 21.15-17.

If either or both of these premises prove to be invalid, then the conclusion drawn from them is invalid as well. We shall see that both premises are invalid, as is the conclusion drawn from them. Neither Matthew 16.17-19 nor John 21.15-17 establish Peter as head of Christ's Church; and there is no unbroken succession from Peter. Thus, deprived of both of these pretended supports, the papacy is left without a leg to stand on.

To begin with, the Scriptures tell us clearly, repeatedly, and thoroughly that Christ Himself is the Head of His Church (e.g., Colossians 1.18; 2.8-10, 18-19; I Corinthians 11.3; Ephesians 1.19-23; 4.14-16; 5.23). He Himself is the Head of His Body, and the Source of its unity. All of these Scriptures were written after Jesus had ascended to the right hand of the Father, and His Church remained on the earth. He was at that time the Head of His Church, and nothing has occurred to change that. He remains the Head of His Church today. Nowhere in the New Testament (or the Old) is there any indication that there is a second, "visible"—as Rome claims—head of the Body. Christ is all sufficient. When He ascended to the right hand of the Father, the Holy Spirit came as His Vicar on the Earth (John 14.16-17, 26; 15.26; 16.7-13). The Church doesn't have a "visible head". Our faith is in the things that are "not seen" (see e.g., II Corinthians 4.18; 5.7; Hebrews 11.1) Peter wrote of Christ, "Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls." Paul wrote to the Colossians, "If ye then were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God." Jesus is fully capable of fulfilling His office as Head of His Church while seated at the Father's right hand. He has not relegated that office to anyone else.

So, if Jesus Himself is the Head of His Church, can there be any validity to Rome's claim that Christ made Peter the head of the same? And do the Scriptures Rome refers to in Matthew and John lend any support to such a claim? Let's examine them.

Matthew 16.17-19

"Thou art Peter [Cepha, transliterated also Kipha] and upon this rock [Cepha] I will build my Church." The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same; this renders it evident that the various attempts to explain the term "rock" as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else are misinterpretations.
New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, The Pope

While Rome makes this claim, it is literally only conjecture, or guesswork, and they interpret it in this fashion in order to exalt themselves, rather than Christ and the truth. The fact is that the textual and manuscript evidence argues against their interpretation. There is no "original Aramaic" manuscript. The oldest manuscripts in existence that contain this passage are in Greek, and they use two different words for Peter (Petros) and rock (petra).

Rome claims that the masculine Petros is used for Peter's name, because it would be inappropriate to use the feminine petra. However, it is not that simple. In biblical texts, Greek petros or lithos are the more common translations of the Aramaic kepa (a smaller, movable rock); while Greek petra is the more common translation of Aramaic shua (a massive non-movable rock, or bedrock). The two words have two different meanings. This would make the "original Aramaic" (if Christ spoke these words in Aramaic) more likely, "You are Kepa, and on this shua I will build my Church". More in-depth online studies of this question are found here, and here, and here. Additionally, the question is addressed here on a Biblical Greek discussion forum, where it is shown that petra is better masculinized as petras, or petrou, or even petra, which preserve the meaning of petra better than does petros, which changes the meaning. In summary, because the Greek manuscripts read petros and petra, the heavier weight of the evidence is that the Aramaic (if Jesus spoke this in Aramaic) for 'rock' was more likely shua (Gr. petra), indicating a contrast with kepa (Petros/Peter), rather than a parallel. Christ Himself is the Rock (Gr. petra, Aram. shua) on which the Church is built, as the Scriptures clearly show. A study of the historical interpretation of this passage by the early Church is found here.

Further, in verse 19 Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Rome makes much of this and claims that because Peter alone was given these keys, he (and his successors) alone can exercise their authority. However the same keys, or the authority to bind and loose, was given to the entire Church in chapter 18, verse 18. So Rome's argument fails in this regard as well.

... For though you think heaven still shut, remember that the Lord left here to Peter and through him to the Church, the keys of it, which every one who has been here put to the question, and also made confession, will carry with him. … to be sure, I shall carry with me excellent keys....
Terutllian, Scorpiace, Chapter X

But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, "The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it," hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, "Upon this rock I will build My church"? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?… For all bear the surname of "rock" who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does.
Origin's Second Book of the Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew, Book XII, § 11

So, while Rome claims that this passage in Matthew 16.17-19 proves that Jesus made Peter the head of His Church, the truth is that it does nothing of the sort. The overwhelming testimony of the Scriptures and of the earliest Church history is that Jesus Himself is the Head of His Church and the Rock on which the Church is being built. And there is not another. The earliest interpretation of this passage in the patristic writings is found in the Shepherd of Hermas, wherein it is clearly shown that the writer understood Christ, the Son of God, to be the Rock on which the Church is being built. See here, and scroll to the "Pastor of Hermas".

John 21.15-17

With this passage, once again, Rome provides an interpretation that is rooted more in wishful imagination on their part than in the love of the truth.

Here the Lord, when about to leave the earth, places the whole flock -- the sheep and the lambs alike -- in the charge of the Apostle. The term employed in 21:16, "Be the shepherd [poimaine] of my sheep" indicates that his task is not merely to feed but to rule. It is the same word as is used in Psalm 2:9 (Sept.): "Thou shalt rule [poimaneis] them with a rod of iron".
New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, The Pope

Here papal Rome gives a classic example of its true character, wherein they seek to exalt themselves and their worldly kingdom in flagrant disregard of all Christian truth and virtue—and they attempt to (mis)use the Scriptures to do it. Christ taught his followers:

42 But Jesus called them, and saith to them, Ye know that they who are accounted to rule over the Gentiles, exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. 43 But so it shall not be among you: but whoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: 44 And whoever of you will be the chief, shall be servant of all. Mark 10

Peter echos this when, writing to the elders in his day, he referred to himself as "also an elder", and cautioned them to not be "lords over God's heritage" but to be "examples to the flock". He also gave the honor to Christ as the chief Shepherd [archipoimenos].

1 ¶ The elders who are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2 Feed [poimanate] the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight of it, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but from a ready mind; 3 Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. I Peter 5

There are well over 150 instances of the poimen in its various forms—the Greek word for shepherd—in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, and well over 30 instances in the New Testament. Out of all those examples to choose from, Rome selects only a single verse, that could be used to imply rulership with a rod of iron. That is because the true desire and purpose of the papacy is not to be a shepherd, or feed, or be an 'example to the flock', but only to exalt itself and exercise lordship over God's people.

The best understanding of this passage in John is that Christ, by giving Peter the opportunity three times to affirm his love for Him, was but restoring him after his thrice denial prior to the Crucifixion. See here. But even though this is the obvious interpretation of this passage, Rome attempts to deny it:

But other scholars, relying on a passage of St. Cyril of Alexandria ("In Joan." 12:1), maintain that the purpose of the threefold charge was simply to reinstate St. Peter in the Apostolic commission which his threefold denial might be supposed to have lost to him. This interpretation is devoid of all probability. There is not a word in Scripture or in patristic tradition to suggest that St. Peter had forfeited his Apostolic commission…
New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, The Pope

It will be up to the reader to decide why Rome would make such a statement. But here are some examples out of the patristic writings that support the interpretation that Peter's thrice affirmation of his love for Christ was a restoration after his thrice denial:

105. ... For which reason, also, Peter in the Gospel is asked three times whether he loves the Lord, that by the threefold answer the bonds of the guilt he had contracted by denying the Lord might be loosed....
Ambrose of Milan 339/340 - 397, On the Holy Spirit, Book II, Chapter X, § 105

2. It is Peter … who merits thrice to hear the words: "Feed My little lambs; feed My lambs; feed My sheep." And so, by feeding well the flock of Christ with the food of faith, he effaced the sin of his former fall. For this reason is he thrice admonished to feed the flock; thrice is he asked whether he loves the Lord, in order that he may thrice confess Him, Whom he had thrice denied before His Crucifixion.
Ambrose of Milan 339/340 - 397, Exposition of the Christian Faith, Book V, Prologue, § 2

… Therefore, after His resurrection the Lord questioned him, not as being ignorant with what a heart he would confess the love of Christ, but that he might by a threefold confession of love, efface the threefold denial of fear.
Augustine 354 - 430, Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament, Sermon LXXXVII, § 3

In summary: Rome's interpretation of this passage in John not only denies its obvious true interpretation, but attempts to force upon it an interpretation that totally disregards and contradicts the teachings of Jesus as spoken by Himself and through Peter.

So, we see that neither Matthew 16.17-19 nor John 21.15-17 gives any support to Rome's claim that Jesus, Who is the true and only Head of His Church, made Peter the head of the same. Therefore it is not necessary to look at Rome's claim of a historic unbroken apostolic succession from Peter. Nevertheless, we will look at it very briefly as well, and show that it too is an exercise in imagination, which is contradicted by the facts of history.

Apostolic Succession

Rome's claim that the validity of the papacy is supported by apostolic succession can be summarized in one sentence, as stated above:

To be in continuity with the Church founded by Christ affiliation to the See of Peter is necessary, for, as a matter of history, there is no other Church linked to any other Apostle by an unbroken chain of successors.
New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, The Pope

Simply stated, neither is Rome's bishop today linked to Peter by any unbroken chain of successors. The supposed lineage has been often and irretrievably broken. There have been numerous times when multiple claimants to the papacy were seated in opposition one to another (e.g., see list of antipopes). Only looking back with the benefit of hindsight does Rome now pick one of them as the 'true pope'. There have also been many times when there was no bishop of Rome for years at a time (e.g. 304-308, 638-640, 1085-86, 1241-43, 1269-71, 1292-94, 1314-16, 1415-17).

Former Jesuit Peter De Rosa writes in Vicars of Christ, speaking of John Paul II:

In the Vatican's lists he is called the 263rd pontiff, but the number is not certain. There have been times when no one knew who was the rightful pope of several claimants. Moreover, it was only in the year 1073 that Pope Gregory VI forbade Catholics to call anyone pope except the Bishop of Rome. Before then, many bishops were fondly addressed as 'pope' or 'papa'.

In the fourth century, Damasus I fought a long and bloody conflict with Ursicinus over the Roman bishopric. When at last Ursicinus was banished, many of his followers took refuge in the Basilica of Liberius. 'Pope' Damasus led a mob and attacked, and slew one hundred thirty seven of both sexes.

'Pope' Stephen VI disinterred the corpse of 'pope' Formosus, a predecessor, had it dressed in papal garments, put on trial as a usurper, pronounced guilty, stripped of its clerical garb, three fingers of his right hand cut off wherewith he had performed consecrations, and the corpse thrown into the Tiber. Stephen was soon cast into prison where he was strangled. After Stephen's death, the corpse of Formosus was reinterred in St. Peter's.

However, 'pope' Sergius III had the corpse of Formosus, now ten years dead, once again disinterred, placed again on trial, condemned, and this time beheaded and tossed into the Tiber. However Formosus' now headless corpse continued to—as De Rosa puts it—'lead a charmed life', for it became tangled in a fisherman's net and was returned once again to St. Peter's. In Sergius III's rise to the papal throne, he slew Leo V, his predecessor. He also slew Cardinal Christopher who had imprisoned Leo and had himself ascended to the throne as either a pope or an antipope, depending on who you ask.

Not long afterwards, in the early tenth century, was Theodora, the daughter of a wealthy senatorial family and mistress of pope John X, whom she is said to have aided to the papal throne. She had two daughters, Marozia and Theodora, prostitutes. Marozia had John thrown into prison where he died within months. After the reigns of two succeeding popes lasted a total of less than three years, Marozia had her son, allegedly the offspring of pope Sergius (he is also reported as being the son of her husband Alberic), seated on the papal throne as John XI.

Within a few years, the profligate John XII, pope at sixteen, drunkard and murderer, Marozia's grandson by her son Alberic, turned the Lateran palace into a veritable brothel. He was expelled for his wickedness and Leo VIII elected on the orders of the emperor. But John lay in wait, and when the people rebelled against the emperor and his pope, John re-ascended the papal throne. Even though Rome claims Leo was illegally elected, he is also listed among the "unbroken chain of apostolic successors of Peter", as is John XII, who was brought to the end of his twenty-four year life by a hammer blow to the back of the head from an outraged husband who caught him in bed with his wife.

Boniface VII led a conspiracy to assassinate Benedict VI—also guilty of many crimes—and had himself consecrated in his place. But his enemies soon drove him from Rome, which he fled taking with him the whole of the papal treasury, which he squandered over the next several months in scandalous living. He then returned to Rome and again acquired power. He had 'pope' John XIV arrested in the Lateran Palace, cast into the dungeon of the Castle of St. Angelo, and condemned to death by starvation. Boniface then had himself seated upon the papal throne for the second time. Upon his sudden death, whether by some apoplexy or by poison, all the people took his body from the coffin, mutilated it with swords and daggers, dragged it through the streets, and hung it up by the feet. The historian Gerbert calls him "a horrid monster surpassing all other mortals in wickedness".

Alexander VI bought the papacy, having purchased enough votes that, once his own was added, the necessary majority was attained. In his days the Vatican was the scene of frequent orgies, such as the 'Banquet of Chestnuts' (also called the 'Joust of the Whores'), attended by fifty or more prostitutes who squirmed and crawled naked amidst lit candles to pick up chestnuts thrown on the floor, and afterwards entertained the guests in carnal indulgence. Milman writes of him, "…in Alexander VI. the Papacy stood forth in all the strength of its emancipation from morality."

This litany of licentiousness could go on and on and on, but at what point does it become clear that there is no unbroken chain of apostolic successors from Peter.

And when one considers such facts as that Benedict IX was made 'pope' at age eleven (and was a scoundrel in office), and Leo X was made cardinal at age thirteen, claims of apostolic succession are seen to be more fit for ridicule than for a basis of faith.

The papacy has been bought and sold, warred over, and murdered for. There are multiple and conflicting lists of popes, with different names and numbers. If it weren't for the sad fact that so many people believe the lie of 'apostolic succession' and base their faith in God on it, it could almost be a joke—even if a sad one.

2. Actual origins of the papacy

The actual origin of the papacy is much more shadowy than the seeming definitive one concocted by Rome. It is not possible to pinpoint an individual and say he was the first 'pope'. But we can see the beginnings of the Peter = rock association; and we can see some early Roman bishops make that claim in their bid for preeminence. Tertullian, likely educated at Rome, writing in the early third century, was the first on record to refer to Peter as the rock on which the Church is being built:

... Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called "the rock on which the church should be built," who also obtained "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," with the power of "loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?"...
Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter XXII

But Tertullian did not make any association between Peter and Rome. Nevertheless we have a hint from Tertullian that the Roman bishop was already pursuing preeminence. We see this in Tertullian's rebuke of Rome's bishop, Callistus, wherein he calls him derisively bishop of bishops, and by the title of the pagan high priest Pontifex Maximus:

In opposition to this (modesty), could I not have acted the dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict set forth, and a peremptory one too. The Pontifex Maximus—that is, the bishop of bishops—issues an edict: "I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication." O edict, on which cannot be inscribed, "Good deed!" And where shall this liberality be posted up? On the very spot, I suppose, on the very gates of the sensual appetites, beneath the very titles of the sensual appetites {note: i.e. at the door of the house of prostitution}. There is the place for promulgating such repentance, where the delinquency itself shall haunt. There is the place to read the pardon, where entrance shall be made under the hope thereof. But it is in the church that this (edict) is read, and in the church that it is pronounced; and (the church) is a virgin! Far, far from Christ's betrothed be such a proclamation!...
Tertullian, On Modesty, Chapter I

Eusebius tells us that the earliest church chose James the Just as the bishop of Jerusalem. This is the same James who presided over the first Church Council in Acts chapter 15. James the Just is mentioned first, followed by John, and then Peter, as receiving knowledge from the Lord after his resurrection:

2. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem....
3. But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: "For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem."
4. But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: "The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one....
The Church History of Eusebius, Book II, Chapter I, §§ 2, 3, 4

Thus, if one wishes to view a singular leader over the nascent Church, it would be James the Just rather than Peter; and Jerusalem was the Church's central headquarters. Jerusalem was still the pattern in Cyprian's day, as evidenced by Firmilian's (bishop of Caesarea) comments about the Roman church departing from the the things "handed down from the beginning" and for not following the pattern of Jerusalem:

6. But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles;… and that all things are not observed among them alike, which are observed at Jerusalem…
19. But with respect to the refutation of custom which they seem to oppose to the truth, who is so foolish as to prefer custom to truth … And this indeed you Africans are able to say against Stephen [bishop of Rome], that when you knew the truth you forsook the error of custom. But we join custom to truth, and to the Romans' custom we oppose custom, but the custom of truth; holding from the beginning that which was delivered by Christ and the apostles....
Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea, to Cyprian, Epistle LXXIV, §§ 6, 19 [note: you could substitute 'tradition' for 'custom' in this quote.]

There are a few quotes in the ante-Nicene patristic writings that mention Peter as the rock on which the Church is being built. But they make no mention of any connection with Rome, nor of any successors of Peter. There is nothing like a papacy at that time.

There were five principal Sees in the early church. They were Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, and Constantinople. Each was presided over by a Patriarch or a Pope. The title 'pope' was originally not specific to the bishop of Rome, but was applicable to all bishops or pastors, and sometimes was even used for teachers. Each of these five Sees had jurisdiction within their geographic area. The Church government was conducted through regional councils or synods. These councils would write canons that were the law within that jurisdiction. Often one regional council would receive and adopt canons of other regional councils. More detail on early canon law is found here. Additionally, there were ecumenical councils that were attended by bishops from the entire Church.

The bishop of Rome, because he was seated in the imperial city, was accorded a primacy of honor in councils. This conferred on him things like a more honorable seat and a higher place in the roster of speakers, but did not impute to him any authority, for the authority was in the Council rather than in any individual. Later, when the empire divided into the Eastern and Western halves, the See of Constantinople, known as the New Rome, was granted an equal dignity with Old Rome, though ranking second after it.

Stephen I, bishop of Rome, was the first on record to attempt to exert authority over other churches on the basis of succession from Peter. He attempted by letters to overrule the decision of a council of African bishops concerning the baptism of heretics. In response, the Africans held a larger council of 87 bishops which upheld the previous council and rejected Stephen's decrees. This was the Seventh Council of Carthage in 258.

But, previous to Stephen, in the late second century, we see Victor, bishop of Rome, trying to assert authority over churches outside of his jurisdiction (he makes no claims regarding succession from Peter), and being rebuked for it:

9 Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.
10 But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.
11 Among them was Irenaeus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord's day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom and after many other words he proceeds as follows:
The Church History of Eusebius, Book V, Chapter XXIV, §§ 9, 10, 11

We see Zosimus, bishop of Rome, attempt in 418 to attach one of the canons of the Council of Sardica, which was a Western council, to the 6th Nicene Canon in an effort to extend his authority over some of the African churches. The Nicene Council was ecumenical, and its canons carried universal authority. The Sardican canon dealt with appeals to Rome from within Rome's jurisdiction. Zosimus was attempting to make the Sardican canon apply to African churches outside of Rome's jurisdiction.

There was a similar effort to foist a falsified version of the sixth Nicene canon by the Roman papal legate at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The falsified version began by granting a primacy to the Roman church—something that was not in the true canon.

In both of these instances, copies of the original Nicene documents were consulted by those present at the councils, and the contrivances exposed and rebuked. More detailed info is here. So, we see these early instances of Roman bishops attempting to expand their influence by any means; and we see the rest of the Church rejecting those encroachments.

Gregory I (the Great), bishop of Rome 590 - 604, offers us clear proof that there was nothing like a papacy in or previous to his day. When John bishop of Constantinople attempted to assert for himself the title of "universal bishop", Gregory, in several letters to John as well as to others, pleads against the arrogance. He claims that such a title had been offered to the bishop of Rome by the Council of Chalcedon, and by others afterwards, but that none of his forebears had ever consented to so profane a title, even when offered it. And he refused to allow others to call him by such a title. He called such a title "blasphemy", and any who would accept it "the precursor of Antichrist".

For my honour is the honour of the universal Church: my honour is the solid vigour of my brethren. Then am I truly honoured when the honour due to all and each is not denied them. For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally.... Away with words that inflate vanity and wound charity.
¶ And, indeed, in the synod of Chalcedon and afterwards by subsequent Fathers, your Holiness knows that this was offered to my predecessors. And yet not one of them would ever use this title ... .
Epistles of Saint Gregory the Great, Book VIII, Epistle XXX. To Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria

Gregory argued that Christ alone is the Head of His Church, and that there is none besides—neither apostles nor any other. Even while he claimed to be a successor of Peter and exerted authority as such within his jurisdiction at Rome, where Peter ended his life, Gregory also acknowledged that the Sees of Antioch and Alexandria were equally the Sees of Peter and their bishops equally his successors. Peter had founded the church at Antioch where he spent seven years, and he had sent his disciple Mark to found the church at Alexandria. Some relevant excerpts of the writings of Gregory are found here.

…though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See [Rome] in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See [Alexandria] to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself stablished the See [Antioch] in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside ... .
Epistles of Saint Gregory the Great, Book VII, Epistle XL. To Eulogius, Bishop

It was in the latter half of the eighth century that there appeared a document purported to be a legal title granted by the emperor Constantine, in the fourth century, to Sylvester bishop of Rome. It granted to the Roman bishop, among other things, "…supremacy... over the four chief seats Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem, as also over all the churches of God in the whole world." Before this document the papacy could not effectively assert itself, because the Church had only the Scriptures and the documents of the various councils—none of which established or supported any such office as the papacy. But here emerged a forgery, that was received everywhere as genuine, that exalted the Roman See not only above the other four principal Sees, but over the entire Church.

The Donation of Constantine provided the bishop of Rome with what appeared to be a legal claim to everything he had sought, but to which he previously had no right. He was now 'rightfully' acknowledged to be the sole and supreme spiritual ruler over the entire Church, as well as the temporal ruler over a large swath of Italy that became known as the Papal States. The Donatio was proven to be a forgery by Lorenzo Valla in 1440 in his Declamatio. But, by that time the structure of the papacy was set in place, and its adherents were well under its control, and largely either unable or unwilling to forsake it.

Not long after the Donation, there appeared in the late eighth or in the ninth century another forgery, or rather, collection of forgeries, which was widely accepted as genuine, and which also served to greatly strengthen the power and prestige of the papacy. The False Decretals were a collection of forged letters or 'decretals' purporting to have been written by earlier bishops of Rome. These decretals made vast and far-reaching claims of power and authority for the bishop of Rome that were made to appear as though they had long been established in antiquity.

Phillip Schaff writes of these Decretals,

¶ Fictitious documents, canons, and decretals were nothing new; but the Pseudo-Isidorian collection is the most colossal and effective fraud known in the history of ecclesiastical literature.
History of the Christian Church, by Phillip Schaff, Volume IV, Chapter IV, § 60

It was by means of these forged documents, along with others of similar character, that the papacy was provided with a pretended apostolic origin, lineage from Peter, and headship and authority over Christ's Church as well as over the kings of the earth.

You may have been taught, or perhaps you are teaching your children now, of the headship of the 'pope' over God's Church, and of his apostolic succession from Peter. But how much greater the blessing it is to know and understand the truth: that Christ is the only Head of the Church, and the true and only Source of its unity; and the Holy Spirit is His Vicar on the Earth.

Search Papacy Uncovered