Where did the Pope come from? How did he become so important? These are questions many people ask today. While the history of the Papacy in Rome is long and complex, as with most things it did not start out that way.

In a previous article we saw that, as society transformed under Emperor Constantine and his successors, the Church, led by its bishops, became a prominent social and religious institution throughout the Roman Empire. Over the next two centuries, circumstances developed that would give the Church political influence as well.

This is seen most clearly in the evolution of the office of the Bishop of Rome.

Although some of Rome’s political influence diminished when Constantine moved the center of the Empire to Constantinople, the Eternal City never fully lost its religious force. Rome was always held in high esteem among the churches due to its size, resources and good works; so since Rome’s church was important, Rome’s Bishop naturally held a prominent role among church leaders. In fact, throughout the fourth and fifth centuries, this role began to expand.

At the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D., Emperor Theodosius boldly pronounced Constantinople the seat of religious as well as political authority. Damasus, the Bishop of Rome, protested that church influence should not be based on political influence; just because the city of Constantinople now held political preeminence, it did not mean that its Church should have equal power by default.

Rather, Damasus argued a supposedly more “spiritual” premise to determine church primacy—the “Petrine Theory.” This theory claimed that Jesus gave authority to the Apostle Peter when He said in Matthew 16:18-19, “On this rock I will build my church…. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Because Peter ministered in Rome and was martyred there, this authority was then passed down to the Bishop of Rome and his descendants; therefore, Rome’s Bishop deserved preeminence among the churches. It is likely that Damasus’ claim originated with second century church father Irenaeus, who referred to “…the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul….It is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this church on account of its preeminent authority.”¹

A misguided Theodosius concurred with Damasus’ claim, and in the Edict of Thessalonica he upheld the authority of the Roman Church, thereby validating the Petrine Theory. For centuries to come, this specious notion was employed liberally by the Roman Church as the power struggle between Rome and Constantinople continued over the years.

In hindsight, it seems clear that the Petrine Theory was a spiritual cloak for fleshly, political motives.

Ultimately, Damasus wanted to make sure the Roman Church stayed predominant. This wasn’t about the glory of God; it was about the glory of the Roman Church! Perhaps Damasus would have been well advised to consider the Apostle John’s rebuke of those who “like to have the preeminence among them” (3 John 9). And yet because of this turn of events, Rome did indeed continue to grow in preeminence. For example, in 401 A.D. Innocent I made a rule that no important decisions could be made by the western churches without the consent of the Bishop of Rome!

As the Roman Bishop established spiritual authority, he would soon have opportunity to claim political authority as well. Surprisingly, this came about as a result of a series of invasions of Rome beginning in 410 A.D. Although they signified the demise of the Western Empire, these attacks gave opportunity for a new leader to rise from the midst of the chaos and unite the religious and political power of the Roman Church into one figurehead—Leo I, the man who truly defined the role of the Roman Papacy. As Shelley states, Leo “provided for the first time the Biblical and theological bases of the papal claim. That is why it is misleading to speak of the papacy before his time.”²

Leo was a proud and influential nobleman who spoke out vehemently against heresy and was considered a strong defender of the faith. However, Leo also enjoyed power and control. He aggressively asserted Rome’s influence based on the arguments of the Petrine Theory. Bennett notes, “Leo believed Peter and Paul had been sent to Rome so that the knowledge of God could radiate from…the center of the civilized world.”³ He began to lay an authoritative foundation for his office, and in 445 A.D. he declared his supremacy as the leader of Christendom, stating, “As the primacy of the apostolic see is based on the title of the blessed Peter, no illicit steps may be taken against this see to usurp its authority.” From there, he took advantage of the unstable political atmosphere to extend his leadership.

In 452 A.D. Attila the Hun attacked an already vulnerable Western Empire. As he marched on Rome, Leo went out to meet him and convinced him to withdraw his position, for which Rome’s citizens were profoundly grateful. Yet three years later, Gaiseric the Vandal marched on Rome. The Romans panicked and murdered the Emperor, so once again Leo stepped in and convinced Gaiseric to withdraw after looting the city. These events catapulted Leo to the status of hero in Rome. The Romans were thankful and proud of their “Papa” or “Pope,” a familiar Latin term meaning “daddy.” Indeed, they began to view him not just as a spiritual father, but political as well. Therefore it is not surprising that “Leo’s leadership in these political crises helped begin the long process by which the Bishop of Rome became the most powerful Western figure in the Middle Ages.”⁴

We know this figure today as the Pope.

From humble beginnings, good works and rapid church growth emerged an intricate system of politics and religion still active in the twenty-first century known as the Roman Catholic Church, headed by it’s official leader, the Pope. What began as a simple position of service developed into a powerful, authoritative office whose influence extended throughout the world. The development of this complex institution is itself a commentary on the challenge of maintaining simplicity as the Body of Christ. No wonder Paul warned the Corinthians not to be “corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:3, NKJV). It is in the simplicity of the Gospel message, not a religious office or political position, that we find “the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16, NKJV).

Notes:

¹ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3. Although Irenaeus claimed that Peter and Paul founded the Roman Church, other historians believe it was founded by unknown Christians (see Church History in Plain Language by Shelley, p. 31 and A History of Christianity by Latourette, p. 66). This seems most consistent with Scripture, as Paul wrote in Romans 1:8 that the Roman Church’s faith was already being “spoken of throughout the whole world” before his arrival.

² Bruce Shelley, Church History in Plain Language

³ William Bennett, Tried by Fire: The Story of Christianity’s First Thousand Years

⁴ Mark Galli and Ted Olsen, 131 Christians Everyone Should Know

For the first three hundred years of its existence, the Christian Church was generally viewed by the Roman Empire as either an enigma, a fringe group or as a legitimate threat. Therefore, Christians did not consistently enjoy the rights and privileges of other people in the Empire; in fact, on many occasions they were stripped of any rights at all! Never was the Church fully accepted or given complete freedom of worship.

But what would happen if all of that changed? What if Christians were not only accepted as legitimate, but were given favor and support by the Emperor himself? It must have seemed unthinkable, but that is exactly what happened when a man named Constantine became the Emperor of Rome in 312 A.D.

Constantine’s rise to power was gradual.

In 293 A.D. Emperor Diocletian had created a tetrarchy of four rulers (including himself) to share control of the Roman Empire. When he and his co-Emperor, Maximian, abdicated the throne in 305 A.D., a general named Constantius became Emperor of the western half of the Empire. However, Constantius died the following year, leaving this major responsibility to his son, Constantine.

In 312 A.D., the year after the Edict of Toleration was issued to end the persecution of Christians, conflict broke out between the different factions of the tetrarchy. Constantine decided to take care of this problem by stomping out the rivalry and taking supreme control of the entire Empire for himself. It was a risky proposition, considering his main rival’s army was four times bigger than his; but as he prepared for battle, he saw a vision of the Cross and the phrase, “In this sign conquer.” He was convinced that this was a sign from the God of the Christians that he should attack, and after it resulted in victory at the Battle of Milvian Bridge, he declared himself a Christian.

Although many historians consider this a mere political conversion, noting that Constantine knew nothing of religion without politics, it seems that Constantine genuinely considered himself a Christian on some level. As a result, he supported Christianity openly, and in 313 A.D. issued the Edict of Milan, granting official freedom of worship to the Church. Latourette adds, “Beginning with Constantine, Christianity seems to have had some influence upon the laws of the realm. Constantine appears to have endeavored to rule as a Christian, to make the Empire safe for Christianity, and to create a world fit for Christians to live in….

Constantine’s legislation against gladiatorial combats seems to have been inspired by the Christian faith. So do his edicts in behalf of widows, orphans, and the poor, and against immorality…infanticide, the selling of children into slavery, prostitution….”¹

In fact, Constantine and his mother, Helena, were at the forefront in funding new church building projects (called basilicas) and spreading Christianity around the Empire. Constantine’s personal devotion was questionable—he didn’t fully do away with paganism, and he was a conspirator and murderer, having killed his own wife and son—but his actions clearly bolstered the position of the Church during his reign. After facing nearly 300 years of sporadic persecution and hostility, the Christians found themselves enjoying rights and privileges that had been denied them since the Church began!

Although many Christian contemporaries considered Constantine the “man of the hour” whom God had raised up, his conversion was both a blessing and a curse to the Church. As Shelley puts it, “The advantages for the Church were real enough, but there was a price to pay.”²One historian noted that Constantine “proceeded to create the conditions we call ‘state church’ and bequeathed the ideal to Christians for over a thousand years.”³

Essentially, the Church and State were now made one under Constantine.

And the long-term ramifications of this were monumental, as seen in terms of the following:

CHURCH BODY: Constantine’s conversion and connection with the Church instantly made Christianity a popular, trendy religion in the Empire; people certainly did not have to count the cost to follow Christ as they once did! This allowed the infiltration into the body of Christ by many who had no genuine understanding or interest in the Gospel, but were flocking to the churches simply in order to obtain favor with their newly Christian Emperor. Never before was it as attractive a proposition to become a Christian as it was now, especially in terms of sociopolitical advancement! As Shelley notes, “Prior to Constantine’s conversion, the Church consisted of convinced believers. Now many came who were politically ambitious, religiously disinterested, and still half-rooted in paganism.”⁴ It was a situation remarkably akin to Jesus’ parable about the wheat and tares in Matthew 13:24-30.

While this was clearly a great opportunity for the Church to bring the Gospel of Christ to the Roman masses, it unfortunately opened the door for paganism and secularization within the Church as well. In fact, over the next few centuries, the Church incorporated practices like the veneration of saints and angels, the use of statues and icons in worship and an unbiblical reverence for the Virgin Mary, all of which were an indirect result of pagan views brought into the Church since the reign of Constantine.

CHURCH GOVERNMENT: For the Romans, state religion was perfectly normal, and so Constantine believed that as Head of State he was also Head of the Church to some degree. Therefore, he had the right to be involved and even exert authority in church affairs; as a result, he presided over major Church councils, a precedent which future emperors would follow even when they did not fully understand the theological issues at stake. Shelley notes, “Constantine ruled Christian bishops as he did his civil servants and demanded unconditional obedience to official pronouncements, even when they interfered with purely church matters.”⁵

Because in his mind the Church and State worked together in society, Constantine also gave many bishops judicial and legal authority in addition to their spiritual authority. Not surprisingly, by the end of the fourth century, many bishops and church leaders became corrupted by their political power. The results were profoundly detrimental to the spirituality of the Church.

CHURCH DIVISION: One political decision that made an enormous impact on the Church was Constantine’s choice to move the capital city of the Empire. Because he was facing many foreign attacks in the East, Constantine felt he needed a stronger, strategic presence there. As a result, he established the city of Constantinople in 330 A.D. as his new capital, so that suddenly Rome was no longer the preeminent city that it had always been. This would eventually create a huge rift between East and West.

As the Church and State were by now so intertwined, the Church could not escape being influenced by this decision, and the political divide soon led to a religious divide as well. As time went on, the two great political cities, Rome and Constantinople, also became the home of the two great branches of the Church—the Roman Catholic in the West and the Eastern Orthodox in the East. Tragically, because of growing theological and cultural differences, the two sides continued to drift apart; never again would the Church be truly catholic (universal) as in the Early Church Era.

Clearly Constantine’s decisions and policies had a massive impact, not just on the Roman world, but on the Christian world as well!

In some ways his rule seemed to be a blessing, and in his day he was greatly appreciated by the Christians. Bennett notes, “Certainly there can be no question that Constantine was a great blessing to the church. Scarcely in history have we observed such a complete and rapid transformation of a state’s values as the one that occurred in the age of Diocletian to Constantine. In one generation, the church went from suffering its greatest interference to enjoying its greatest patronage.”⁶

However, it is also clear that Constantine’s marriage of the Church and State had detrimental ramifications that would create enormous controversies and problems for the Church in future generations. Alvin Schmidt points out just a few of these issues: “Even worse were the many contradictions that surfaced in some of the teachings and life of the organized church: tolerating clergy corruption, often on the highest level; condoning slavery; burning false teachers at the stake; and incorporating secular theories into doctrines and then defending them as biblically correct.”⁷

It is easy as Christians to sometimes wish that the government were fully on the side of the Church. Yet as we clearly see in the example of Constantine, perhaps we should be careful what we wish for.

Anything that distracts the Church from its true purpose—obeying the Great Commission and preaching the Gospel—will eventually do more harm than good. As Schmidt summarizes, “The mere outward conforming to the Christian faith, rather than being spiritually transformed, became all too frequent in the life of the church. It often impeded the spiritual transformations that were, for the most part, so vibrant and effective during the church’s first three hundred years.”⁸ Be careful what we wish for, indeed!

¹ Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity
² Bruce Shelley, Church History in Plain Language
³ Mark Galli & Ted Olsen, 131 Christians You Should Know
⁴ Shelley, Church History in Plain Language
⁵ Ibid.
⁶ William Bennett, Tried By Fire: The Story of Christianity’s First Thousand Years
⁷ Alvin J. Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World
⁸ Ibid.