Western Civilization

The Development of the Papacy - Page 2 of 14

Foundations of Papal Authority

On what basis, by what authority, did the Bishop of Rome claim power over all other bishops and over all Christians? Some of the claim was based on biblical passages, but some of it derived from political and cultural realities.

Being bishop of an important city naturally gave increased stature, and Rome was (until the 4th century) the most important city in the western world. It certainly gave the Roman bishop automatic prestige in the western Mediterranean, where there were no other cities to rival it. In the east, however, there were rivals indeed: Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople. The bishop of this latter city never did bow to Roman claims.

But tradition conferred further special prestige on Rome. It was a city of martyrs. The first persecutions, instigated by Nero, were at Rome. Peter himself was martyred at Rome.

Moreover, no heresy had ever flourished at Rome, a fact that gained increasing weight in the later Empire. The East was a hotbed of heresy and cities such as Alexandria were permanently tainted by the fact, especially since some of their own bishops had been leading figures in the heresies. The Bishops of Rome, and their flock, had generally remained constant.

Prestige builds prestige. Especially in the west, Rome gradually became the arbiter of theology and church authority. By the 5th century, it was generally acknowledged that any bishop deposed by a local council could appeal his case to the bishop of Rome. Eastern bishops could and did take advantage of this as well.

But none of this would have supported papal claims later in the Middle Ages, when the city of Rome no longer commanded such automatic respect. But the bishop of Rome could point also to the Bible to buttress his claims.