Of immense importance to the question of leadership of the church today is the issue of the Apostle Peter and doctrine of apostolic succession. It has already been demonstrated that Peter was not the first bishop of the first church. We cannot, however, deprive him of the critical leadership role that he played in the early church, nor dismiss the frequent references in the early church back to the successive bishops in Rome that derived their customs and rule of faith from Peter and Paul themselves. Irenaeus in particular, draws a detailed lineage back to these two apostles in Rome. He says:

Clearly the Roman church believes that the apostolic office remains within their domain, and is past down by succession. Such confusion between the biblical and historical concept of the succession of bishops and apostolic succession has caused untold amount of novel doctrine to be declared "dogma" by the Roman church. When the Popes declared the two Marion doctrines (Immaculate Conception and Mary’s Assumption into Heaven) in 1854 and 1950, each Pope invoked the "authority of Jesus Christ, Peter and Paul, and by our own authority" to define these beliefs as essential for the catholic faith. Despite the fact that none of the early church fathers would have subscribed to such outlandish ideas, the Popes in question in fact made Mary’s sinlessness and her reign as Queen of heaven part of the apostolic rule of faith.

Along similar lines we may see in our lifetime another exercise of the "infallible" office of apostle to dogmatically affirm more Marian doctrine. There is a significant amount of pressure on the Pope to formally define Mary’s alleged role as "Mediatrix" and "Co-Redemptrix". The groups that are hoping to get these definitions want the Pope to affirm that all grace is transferred through Mary, and that her intercessory role is essential for our salvation. Based on Conciliar statements from Vatican II, and recent statements by Pope John Paul II, I suspect that these dogmas will be affirmed. The Roman church seems to be marching closer and closer to affirming the Sethian Triad of Father-Mother-Son instead of the historic doctrine of the Trinity. I have read recent publications from significant Roman Catholic theological institutions that have suggested that Mary, by virtue of the fact that she was "overshadowed" by the Holy Spirit, has a special "union" and identification with the Holy Spirit today. That brings her a few shades closer to ontologically being part of the Godhead. Such a declaration might be the best thing for our times, since the sincere believers would then hopefully see the vast dichotomy between the historic Christian church and Romanism.

Looking historically at the role of Peter and his office in the church is a task rarely undertaken by non-Roman Catholic authors. Because there is so little non-partisan information on the issue, it is common in secular historical works to find the early bishops of Rome referred to as "Popes" (Latin "Papa"). This is very inaccurate, since the title was first used by Phrygian heretics, then by adopted by various bishops throughout the church. It was not until the 10^th century that the expression was used uniquely by the bishop of Rome. Did the early church view the apostle Peter as the head of the church? Was he the "rock" according to Matthew 16:18? Was Rome, by apostolic command, to have primacy amongst the churches? Looking at the earliest sources, we can find that the church’s opinion of Peter and Rome is somewhat misrepresented by today’s Roman Catholic apologists. Taking for example, Clement of Rome’s Letter to the Corinthians (97 AD.). Clement was the third bishop of Rome from Peter. The occasion of the letter would provide an excellent opportunity to assert Papal primacy, since the Corinthian church was in disarray. It’s elders had been ousted by a younger, ambitious group of men. Since it is clear that, if the primacy of Rome was true, this would be evidence, Romanist apologists have even manufactured "quotes" from this letter, to prop up their argument. For example, Dr. Scott Hahn, former Protestant minister-turned Catholic apologist, on his tape series on "Answering Common Objections" says that:

Unfortunately, there is nothing even close to what Dr. Hahn is citing in the letter. The letter is completely devoid of anything that would come close to suggesting Roman or Petrine primacy. Hahn’s statement is completely fabricated. Lightfoot likewise makes no such concession. What the letter does, suggest, however, is that the presbyters of Rome, would desire that the Corinthian church maintain the succession that was started in their church, by, in this case Paul. Consequently, Clement’s letter makes it’s appeal to the Apostle Paul, the founder of the church, rather than any move to dictate directions from the "chair of Peter". He says

By citing this very verse from 1 Corinthians 3, Clement dissolves any possibility that Peter could be head of the church. The whole concept of Petrine primacy simply did not exist. Looking through the rest of the earliest writings we see that the idea of Roman or Petrine supremacy is absent from any writing or teaching of the first bishops and apologists. The Didache (100 AD) is silent on the issue, despite the fact that it discusses the role of bishops and prophets at length. The Epistle of Barnabas is silent. Ignatius discusses the need to be in submission to the bishop, but there is no clue of a "bishop of bishops". Mathete’s Letter to Diognetus does not allude to anything "Roman". Polycarp was known to have conflict with Anicetus of Rome, but, as according to the apostolic pattern, they mutually agreed to recognize each other’s practices as valid. (see page 26). There was, as yet, no "Roman primacy" nor "Pope" in Rome .

In the later half of the Second century, we have one of the most revealing pictures of the status of the Roman church found in the candid remarks of Justin at his trial. Justin was asked where he was teaching in Rome, and he replied to his inquisitor:

Justin says he was unaware of any other meeting in Rome while he was there. In all fairness, I suspect that if he went to the catacombs, he probably would have found a congregation, as well as several other small house churches. The point is, however, that 130 years after the church began, the leading Christian apologist of the day didn’t know of the supposed successor of Peter in Rome. Although I believe there was an overseer in the church at Rome at that time, it is not likely that he could have had the role that Roman Catholics ascribe to him today if he was unknown to the Christians in Rome and churches throughout the empire.

Moving to the latter part of the 2^nd century, we have the statements from Irenaeus previously cited regarding the succession of bishops ( page 94). When he wrote the letter, I have no doubt that the church of Rome was a benchmark of orthodoxy. However, this does not necessarily prove Petrine Primacy. As mentioned in the Irenaeus’ biography, he had no hesitation in rebuking Victor, bishop of Rome for trying to assert his paschal custom over that of the Eastern churches. Even more telling, however, is a small insight that we can get from Irenaeus regarding a certain practice that was in Rome. In Against Heresies XXV, he briefly mentions a heretical sect that had come to Rome many years earlier. He says:

According to Irenaeus, there was a heretical sect that entered Rome very early in the churches history that had images of Christ and crowned and honored them "like the heathen". This plainly and incontrovertibly proves that the practice of honoring images (even of Christ) was rejected by the universal church from the earliest days. Irenaeus says that many Christians in Rome were "led astray" by these practices. The same might be said for many "Roman" believers today. All that has changed is the degree to which the heathen practice has spread.

If we were to go right through all of the Christian literature of that century, the idea of the primacy of Rome would be conspicuously absent. The Shepherd of Hermas, the writings of Taitian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria and other 2^nd century fragments would reveal no "Rome-centered" theology. Clement’s definition of church unity, based on the Bible, rather than a church leader or place, has already been cited (see page 34-35).

In the third century, we have substantial amounts of writing from Tertullian. Tertullian, of course separated himself from the orthodox church to join the Montanist movement. Although he would therefore be considered a "hostile witness" with respect to the development of the church at Rome, and therefore somewhat biased, I am going to include his remarks regarding Petrine primacy. In On Modesty :XI Tertullian writes:

Tertullian objected to the idea that a church could claim divine prerogative merely because the said they had some type of lineal connection to Peter. Tertullian’s opinion was that the promises to the church were for those who were spiritually competent. Divine judgment was the Lord’s, not man jurisdiction. The church, he concluded, consisted of those who were spiritually joined to the Lord, not merely that of a "number of bishops".

In this statement we find the foreshadowing of virtually all of the controversy that would surround the question of Roman primacy for the next few centuries. The question is whether God is apathetic towards questions of character and orthodoxy. Are the ordinances and the offices in a church still valid, regardless of whether that church has become completely heretical, or even if the antichrist himself were leading it? Most of the church fathers in the first three hundred years would affirm that the validity of a church does rest to a degree on it’s orthodoxy and holiness. Tertullian, being a contemporary of Callistus, the alleged embezzling, heretical bishop of Rome, would likewise agree. Hippolytus also split with Rome on the same principle, since he could not stomach what Callistus was doing to the church. Origen was alive during Callistus’ bishopric as well. He wrote several times on the verses in Matthew that would eventually be used to support Petrine primacy. He said in his Commentaries chapter 11 that:

Origen’s assessment is that the promises to Peter are for everyone who confess Christ as Lord, just as Peter did. In Chapter 14 of the same commentary Origen says that all who make the confession of Christ’s Lordship are "Peters" and can "bind and loose" accordingly. He then says:

According to Origen, character counts. The promise that the "gates of Hades will not prevail" is not a blanket promise to a church at a certain geographical location, as many Romanists assert today, but it is a promise for those who are righteous before God. Apparently, the issue came to a head with the split over heretical baptism and Cyprian of Carthage’s condemnation of Stephen of Rome. (See page 27). Cyprian’s letter on Unity, written before Stephen’s bishopric during the Novatian controvesy, is considered a proof text by many Catholic scholars as to the primacy of Rome in the 3^rd century. This is problematic since there are actually two recensions of the same letter. In the one preserved at Rome, there is a statement that declares that:

Some scholars have thought this to be a forgery or interpolation. The majority of scholars today allow that it may have been in Cyprian’s first version of the letter, but he himself amended the letter afterwards, to remove any undue distinction to Rome above the other churches. Following is section four from Cyprian’s amended letter.

Cyprian consequently, at least for the latter part of his ministry, rejected the premise that the Roman church had primacy among the apostolic churches. Particularly in light of the events surrounding the conflict with Stephen of Rome, several years later, it is highly unlikely that Cyprian would hold to the primacy of Peter. Stephen had ruled that heretics who wanted to enter the catholic church would be received as if they had been in the church all along. Whatever baptism they had received, apparently whether it had been with the Montanists, Sethians or other Gnostics, was considered valid. Moreover, Stephen demanded that all other bishops follow his lead, even though there was no apostolic precedent in recognizing heretical baptism as valid. Cyprian publicly chided Stephen for making such rash assertions as to his authority, as well as his doctrinal errors. Cyprian even convened a council in Carthage to address some of Stephen's errors. In the document "Concerning the Baptism of Heretics" the combined council of African bishops (87 total) unanimously declared their contempt for Stephen's audacity and presumption. They agreed that :

One of Cyprian’s fellow bishops, Firmilian, (bishop of Caesarea) wrote a scalding letter to Cyprian regarding Stephen’s viewpoint. Firmilian agreed with Cyprian and the other bishops that Stephen’s decision to recognize the validity of heretical baptism was divisive to the church, and Stephen of Rome was in very great error. Firmilian said regarding Stephen:

It is clear that there was nearly unanimous recognition that character and orthodox beliefs were critical to the question of what was truly part of the church and what was not. It is also clear that the church universally rejected the novel claim by Stephen to primacy over the rest of the bishops. Stephen’s most significant supporters, of course, were from Rome, who helped try to persuade the other bishops throughout the empire that Stephen was correct. A number of the bishops from the Council of Carthage eventually capitulated and sided with Stephen.

Some seventy years later when the question was raised at the Council of Nicea, it was ruled that certain groups would be allowed to enter the church without being re-baptized, but that the followers of Paul of Samsota (who had a deficient view of the Deity of Christ) would have to be re-baptized. This ruling from the Council suggests that Cyprian, at least to a degree, was right, inasmuch as he was calling for the re-baptism of those whose beliefs previously were outside the parameters of the apostolic rule of faith.

The larger question of the primacy of Peter is still one that is germane to the question of church unity and leadership today. As we saw from the above texts, the whole concept of the primacy of Peter was unknown in the first two centuries, and when it was introduced (Callistus and Stephen having the dubious honor of promoting it), it was rejected by all virtually all of the writers and apologists of the day. Today, those facts are being re-written in attempt to back-date the papacy. Much is being made of the verses from Matthew where Jesus renames Peter and states "upon this rock I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18). As demonstrated above, however those verses were construed, it did not insinuate a "Rome-centered" church in the first several centuries of the Christian church. Even some of the Roman Catholic church’s greatest theologians and "doctors" from the first centuries did not see a case for Petrine primacy in those verses. Augustine for example, deals with those verses many times in his writing. In Tractate CXXIV, 24, he says:

Augustine advances the accepted position that the "rock" that the church was built on was Peter’s confession of Christ’s lordship. Christ himself is the rock. Moreover the power of "binding and loosing" is vested to the whole church, not merely Peter of his "successors".

Augustine confirms this in his Commentary on Psalm 61, where he cites the verse from Matthew regarding building the church upon the "rock", then affirms that this "rock was Christ". Likewise in his "Sermon 26" on Matthew 14, he says:

Augustine also explains this verse in his commentary on 1 John 5:1-3:

There can be no doubt that Augustine understood the text from Matthew to be indicated that the Lordship of Christ was the rock upon which the church would be built, rather than the man, Peter. John Chrysostom (d. 407 AD) made a similar case in his Homily LIV on Matthew 14:23.

Again in Homily LXXXII, Chrysostom declares that Christ " has built His church upon Peter’s confession". These are far from isolated instances. As a matter of fact the majority of references to the verse from Matthew in the early church either affirm that the "rock" is Christ, or Peter’s confession of Christ. St. Hilary of Poitiers, in his work On the Trinity , Book V, says that:

Accordingly all who make this confession have the power of "binding and loosing". Hilary also says, later in the same book that " Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter’s mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God."

One could go on. Gregory, in his epistle XXXVIII to Queen Theodelina, encourages her to "make your life firm on the rock of the Church; that is on the confession of the blessed Peter". Jerome, another contemporary of Augustine, is frequently cited by Roman Catholic scholars for his letter to Damasus of Rome, where he states that

Yet, in his letter to John (Section CXLVI), he reverses himself as to who the "rock is:

In conclusion to this point, we can positively say that the case for Petrine primacy is very weak indeed. Historically, James, was the first bishop of the first church, and we are told by the early church fathers that even Peter, while in Jerusalem, was subordinate to him,. The whole concept of a papacy, besides being a myth, has clearly opened the door for widespread disorder and falsehood, as proven by the folly of Callistus and Stephen. While the churches were autonomous and made every effort to maintain communion, (ie. Polycrates and Anicetus, see page 26) there was unity, although not conformity. It is when arrogant men are filled with the grandiose plans of absolute control and conformity that problems arise. Furthermore, the central "infallible" teaching authority of church is an easy target for demonic deception. If the papacy has ultimate control over the teaching of the whole church, novel doctrine in that one fountainhead will assuredly pollute the entire stream. Who can now reverse the adoption of images, which the fathers condemned, if the Pope approves of them? How can the church recant the novel Marian doctrines, if the Pope has declared them "infallibly? The autonomy of the separate apostolic churches provided the checks and balances that helped maintain the apostolic truth.

In the post-apostolic church, the principle of inter-dependence and autonomy were fully realized. Letters still in existence from church to church show a mutual respect for each other, and there is no evidence of one church ruling over another. It wasn't until the 3rd century that there is evidence that the Church of Rome tried to claim supremacy over the other churches, (the notorious bishop Callistus being one of the first to make such a claim to authority) but every such claim was universally rejected by all other churches, since it was known by all that every apostolic church was endowed with equal authority.

The idea that Rome had pre-eminence amongst the churches was universally rejected by the entire church, excepting, of course, Rome. What finally made the Roman church into the head of the visible Christian church? Besides the obvious benefit of being the church located in the capital city of the Empire, the Roman church had significant help from a very dubious source. Up to the 8th century, the Roman church was still struggling to assert it's authority over kings, as well as the churches throughout Christendom. Her success was mixed. Then, in the ninth century, there was "discovered" a number of documents from the second, third, and fourth centuries referred to today as the Pseudo- Isodorian Decretals. These letters were from the "Popes" of these centuries, affirming their superiority over the other churches, as well as over secular government. One of the documents was a written record of the transference of almost all the land of Italy from Emperor Constantine to the papacy! The papacy paraded these around as proof of the antiquity of the papacy, as well as the popes claim to secular authority and ecclesiastical authority. The western world was convinced. Unfortunately, it was not until the 15th century that it was proven that these documents were all a forgery. They had apparently been produced by the servant of Nicholas I in the 9th century for the very purpose of helping him expand his dominion. In reality, there were no "popes" in Rome at that time in question. There was a bishop of Rome, but he did not wield power in the sense that the papacy would like us to believe.

One of the most amazing aspects about the ascendancy of the papacy is that the church of Rome promotes the pope as the "Pontifex Maximus" or, Supreme Pontiff. The title Pontifex Maximus is mentioned numerous times by the early church fathers (particularly by Tertullian), but it was not applied to a Christian bishop. The early church fathers say that the Pontifex Maximus was the "King of Heathendom", the evil high priest of the pagan mystery religion of Rome. It is certainly not likely that Christ appointed Peter "Pontifex Maximus" of Rome.