I would like to turn our attention for a little while to Roman Catholicism: first up, the claim of authority based on apostolic succession. A central claim of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) is that the bishop of Rome (i.e., the pope) is the earthly, authoritative head of Christianity due to an unbroken line of Roman bishops going back to the apostle Peter. While this claim suffers from severe theological problems, what I would like to focus on here are the historical problems.
Here’s the truth: there is no record of a singular “bishop of Rome” until the mid-2nd century. In fact, the earliest mention of a monarchical (single-ruling) bishop of Rome is by Irenaeus around 180 AD. While the RCC officially argues otherwise, Roman Catholic academics will admit this is the truth of the matter. For example, the Jesuit Priest and theologian Francis A. Sullivan writes, “Scholars differ on details, such as how soon the church of Rome was led by a single bishop, but hardly any doubt that the church of Rome was still led by a group of presbyters for at least part of the second century” (From Apostles to Bishops, viii).
What about our historical documents? The earliest Christian documents – the New Testament – know of no bishop of Rome. There is no reference to a bishop of Rome anywhere in the New Testament, not even in Paul’s letter to the Romans. There is also no mention of apostolic succession of any sort. Consider that for a moment: if apostolic succession and the bishop of Rome are critical to the very existence of the Church, why is there absolutely no mention of them in the Church’s founding documents? Why does Paul make no mention of a bishop of Rome or send him any greetings in his letter?
Not only does the New Testament know of no such thing as a bishop of Rome, but neither do our earliest post-New Testament writings. These writings are commonly collected together and referred to as “The Apostolic Fathers.” Reading through them, you will find a striking omission: no mention of a bishop of Rome. This is especially remarkable given the nature of the documents. For example:
- 1 & 2 Clement are written from Rome to Corinth around 100 AD. There is no mention of a Roman or Corinthian bishop, and all references to congregational leaders are plural.
- The Letters of Ignatius (written around 110 AD) include many references to monarchical bishops. Ignatius is a huge fan of the idea of congregations being led by one bishop and goes out of his way to send personal greetings to the bishop of the towns he writes to. In six of his seven letters, he specifically greets and writes about the bishop of the congregation. The one exception? His letter to Rome. That is the only letter in which he does not greet or reference a bishop. The fact that Ignatius, the super-fan of bishops, makes no mention of a Roman bishop is especially damaging to Rome’s claim.
- The Shepherd of Hermas was written in Rome in the early 2nd century and refers to elders (plural) of the congregation, not to a monarchical bishop.
If the RCC is correct in its claim of an unbroken line of bishops going back to Peter, why do our early documents not evidence a bishop of Rome? The actual historical data points to a plurality of elders leading the church in Rome into the 2nd century, a point admitted even by Roman Catholic historians. Laying aside theological issues, merely from a historical standpoint Rome’s claim of apostolic succession – and the authority derived from it – lacks foundation.
Studies in the Bible 