Note: I used to have links open in a new tab per advice I got 20 years ago. Today I quit doing that. I’m going to assume that all of you know to right click if you want a link to open in a new tab or window. There are a LOT of links in this post!

Part 1 was an introduction and has links to all the posts in this series.

Part 2 dealt with Romans 1:4-5 and the apostles preaching to the lost. Today we will use Romans 1:8 as a springboard to briefly describe the changing ideas about the unity of the churches, the origin of the “Roman Catholic Church” and, finally, the origin of the Roman bishop’s claim to “full, supreme, and universal power over the whole church” (Vatican II [par. 2, 9]).

I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, that your faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world. (Rom. 1:8)

The Greatness of the Church in Rome

Although it might be important to note that Paul addresses the saints, plural, rather than the church, singular, in Rome, it is high praise that the faith of the saints in Rome is proclaimed through the whole world. Paul gives similar praise to the church in Thessalonica, writing:

You became imitators of us and of the Lord … so that you became an example to all who believe in Macedonia and in Achaia. For from you the word of the Lord has been declared, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith toward God has gone out, so that we need not to say anything. (1 Thess. 1:6-8)

Rome, though, had something no other church could have. “All roads lead to Rome” was a saying. All roads did not to Thessalonica nor to any other city. For reasons I will address in the next section, Rome’s interaction with all the churches of the empire made it a powerful witness to the true teaching of the apostles in a time when the faith was being challenged by gnostic sects that were every bit as numerous as the churches themselves.

Rome’s witness was enhanced by the fact that Peter lived and was an elder there (1 Pet. 5:1-4, 13) during the last years of his life and, of course, Paul taught there for at least 2 years as well (Acts 28:30-31).

The church in Rome embraced Paul’s praise, that their faith was praised in all  the world, and never forgot it. The Roman elders described their (commendable) response to this praise in the year 250:

For what is there either in peace so suitable, or in a war of persecution so necessary, as to maintain the due severity of the divine rigour? Which he who resists, will of necessity wander in the unsteady course of affairs, and will be tossed hither and thither by the various and uncertain storms of things; and the helm of counsel being, as it were, wrenched from his hands he will drive the ship of the Church’s safety among the rocks. (Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle 30, “The Roman Clergy to Cyprian,” par. 2)

This quote is just for context. The elders of Rome were writing to Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, because Fabian, the bishop of Rome, had been martyred in February of AD 250. Because of the raging persecution, no new bishop had been chosen there. In fact, the persecution was the reason for the letter.

During Decius’ reign as emperor (249-251), Rome (the empire) began enforcing adherence to Roman paganism. This was probably because of wars with the Goths and other barbarians. Rome thought their gods could help their army, so they were enforcing devotion to them. Christians would not offer sacrifice to the gods, so they were being imprisoned and killed.

Some Christians were faithful through persecutions, but some could not stand their ground and offered sacrifices (or bought a certificate saying they had).

Cyprian and the elders in Rome exchanged many letters about this problem, and “Epistle 30,” quoted above is one of them.

Nor is it now but lately that this counsel has been considered by us … but this is read of among us as the ancient severity, the ancient faith, the ancient discipline, since the apostle would not have published such praise concerning us, when he said “that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world” unless … that vigour had borrowed the roots of faith from those times; from which praise and glory it is a very great crime to have become degenerate. For it is less disgrace never to have attained to the heraldry of praise, than to have fallen from the height of praise; it is a smaller crime not to have been honoured with a good testimony, than to have lost the honour of good testimonies … For those things which are proclaimed to the glory of any one, unless they are maintained by anxious and careful pains, swell up into the odium of the greatest crime. (ibid.)

In the year 250, the elders of Rome knew that the Roman church was only great if it maintained its greatness with “the ancient severity, the ancient faith, the ancient discipline.” If it were to lose its strictness, change its faith, or become undisciplined, it would be a “very great crime”; indeed, it would “swell up into the odium of the greatest crime.”

Today, the Roman Catholic Church will tell you that there is a divine providence that protects the Roman bishop, now known as “the Pope,” from doctrinal error even if he is wicked.

Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular pope won’t “neglect” to teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions will be intelligently made. It would be nice if he were omniscient or impeccable, but his not being so will fail to bring about the destruction of the Church.

But he must be able to teach rightly, since instruction for the sake of salvation is a primary function of the Church. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that’s why papal infallibility exists. (Catholic.com, )

This doctrine is necessary because there was a long line of Roman bishops whose interests were not religious:

“Freedom of election had been lost in the ninth century, and in this dark age the popes and the bishops became the creatures not simply of emperors and kings, but of petty local barons.” (Horace Mann, 1925, Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages; Vol. IV; p.6)

I actually quoted this paragraph from my own book, Rome’s Audacious Claim. In that book, I used Horace Mann as a reference because he is the most favorable biographer that can be found for the popes of the 10th and 11th centuries. He was a Catholic monsignor who reports in his introduction that had he not been ordered (by Pope Pius XI) to write biographies of those popes, he would not have done it (Mann, 1925, Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages: Vol. IV; p. vii).

For example, shortly after Pope Stephen VI was consecrated as pope in 896, he had the body of his predecessor, Pope Formosus, exhumed and put on trial. Stephen appointed a deacon to answer for the Formosus’ corpse. In the end, he was deposed, stripped of his robes, and the fingers on his right hand that were used to bless when he was alive were cut off. This became known as “the Cadaver Synod.”

This awful event was the beginning of 200 years of popes that were appointed by warring Italian families and who did all sorts of horrible things. John XII was surely the most famous of them, under whose leadership the papal palace (“The Lateran”) was compared to a brothel.

The modern Catholic Church says papal infallibility was preserved during this time and even later, when the pope, the bishop of Rome, lived in Avignon, France because of strife between French and Italian cardinals. When the pope returned to Rome, the conflict was not settled, but both sets of cardinals elected competing popes for a large part of the 14th century (christian-history.org).

The elders of Rome in the year 250 would have called all of this “the greatest crime.” The leaders and apologists of modern Rome want us to believe this is all no big deal and has no bearing on their authority or their infallible teachings.

This section was to introduce you to the thinking of the leaders of the church in Rome 1800 years ago, before it lost its greatness. No matter what they may claim in words, the fruit of their modern teaching is now obvious to all (Matt. 7:15-16).

With that, let’s get on to some basic history that will let you know how the church in Rome ever came to claim that its bishop had “full, supreme, and universal power over the whole church.”

The Unity of the Churches  in the Second Century

During the second century, the unity of the churches (and thus, “the Church) was based on “apostolic tradition,” which is nothing more than “the apostles’ traditions” or “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). “Traditions” just means “collection of teachings.” The traditions that comes from Jesus through the apostles carry the authority of God. The traditions of others could possible be beneficial, but they carry no authority for Christians.

This is how a leading missionary and bishop described the beliefs of the churches around AD 185.

As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. … But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere … Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master). (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk. 1, ch. 10, par. 2)

*Note: You can find those “points” at the same link in paragraph 1. The churches at that time all had a “rule of faith,” similar to the one Irenaeus gives in paragraph 1 that would be memorized for baptism.

Irenaeus wrote from Gaul (modern France). Tertullian, a Christian from Carthage in north Africa, wrote very similar things a few years later in a book called The Prescription Against Heretics. You can read what he has to say starting in chapter 20.

The most important thing you need to know about the early unity of the churches is that they considered the apostles inspired. Irenaeus writes:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, ch. 1, par. 1)

Irenaeus was talking about the apostles, of course. The reason we have the New Testament is because the early churches held onto everything the apostles wrote. Books like the Gospels of Mark and Luke are in our Bible because the churches understood that Mark had been Peter’s companion in Rome and Luke had traveled with Paul. It was Peter and Paul who gave authority to the Gospels of Mark and Luke.

In the same manner, any letter that the churches were certain came from an apostle or a companion of the apostles were gathered. There were some, such as Hebrews and 2 Peter, that were questioned for centuries because the churches were not certain who wrote them. In the end, though, the 27 books of the New Testament are in our hands because individual churches, and especially the ones founded by apostles, believed them to be apostolic.

Because of this truth, that the apostles themselves were inspired rather than just the Scriptures, the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches claim that they have authoritative tradition beyond Scripture.

Indeed, if they can prove that one of their traditions came from the apostles, then we should all obey it. Both sets of churches have traditions that are clearly not apostolic–bowing before icons and statues, for example–but they also have traditions we should learn from.

Fortunately or unfortunately, that should obligate us, or at least our leaders and theologians, to look into their traditions to examine which are apostolic. If they are, then the first and most important tradition, that only the apostles are  inspired, says that we and all Christians must keep everything that the apostles taught (cf. Matt. 28:18-20). This is the faith once for all delivered to the saints that Jude says to earnestly contend for (Jude 1:3).

*As an aside, Tertullian, though after he was seduced into Montanist heresy and as an an enemy of the churches, makes a list of traditions that the churches, around AD 210, were all keeping, traditions so ancient and so universal that they were almost certainly from the apostles. He made the list to justify a Montanist tradition.

*There has been much written, some positive, about Montanus and the Montanists. There are letters, dating from the time of the Montanist heresy (c. AD 170), recorded by Eusebius the historian in AD 323. There are other early references to the Montanists, but these are from those who actually dealt with Montanus.

Rome in the Second Century: An excursus on Catholic Apologists

It should be no surprise that if the apostles were inspired, then the churches in which apostles had taught, and especially those they founded, were sources of apostolic teaching for those churches that came later.

Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk. 3, ch. 4, par. 1)

As said, all roads led to Rome at that time, and Rome was the most trustworthy church because of its interaction with all other churches, including the other apostolic churches. As a result, Irenaeus said of Rome:

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those who exist everywhere. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk. 3, ch. 3, par. 2)

Catholic apologists love this paragraph, of course, but it is not saying that the church in Rome has jurisdiction over all other churches. Instead, it is saying that the church in Rome is the pre-eminent authority on the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints in the same way, say, as Tesla (or Elon Musk himself) might be consider the pre-eminent authority on electric vehicles.

Victor, the bishop of Rome from 190 to 199, provided us proof of this interpretation just a decade later when he attempted to excommunicate the churches in “Asia.” At that time, “Asia” referred to an area that included Ephesus and surrounding churches. In fact, it included the 7 churches mentioned in Revelation 2 and 3. Historians now call it “Asia Minor” rather than just Asia.

From the time of the apostles, the churches continued to celebrate Passover. We still do but, sadly, we call it Easter. We no longer tell the story of God’s rescue of his people from Egypt and relate it to Jesus’ rescue of us from slavery to sin. We do celebrate Jesus’ resurrection, which is commendable, but for the early churches every Sunday was a celebration of Jesus’ resurrection. In fact, Christians did not kneel on Sundays because it was a day of celebration.

All churches did this, but the churches in Asia Minor (western Turkey in modern times) celebrated Passover on the same day as the Jews, which could fall on any day of the week. All the other churches of the empire celebrated Passover on Sunday, specifically the Sunday immediately after the Jews celebrated Passover.

Note: As far as I can tell, Asia Minor was because the apostle John shepherded those churches in the later years of his life. Apparently, it was not just John’s Gospel that was unique, but at least one of his practices as well.

Victor, knowing that celebrating Passover on Sunday was a tradition passed down from the apostles in Rome, wrote to the Asian churches to join the rest of the churches in celebrating Passover on Sundays. Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus explained he had apostolic authority for their practice too.

We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. (Eusebius, Church History, Bk. 5, ch. 24, par. 2)

Victor was not moved. He excommunicated all the churches of Asia Minor (ibid., par. 9).

Again, Catholic apologists love this. What they don’t love is …

This did not please all the bishops…. words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. (ibid., par. 10)

Eusebius goes on to say that Irenaeus wrote a more peaceful letter to Victor and brought peace to the whole situation (ibid., par. 18).

Dave Armstrong, however, a Catholic apologist, claims in his book, Catholic Church Fathers, that Victor’s instructions were “universally followed” (Kindle location 3163). I am certain that Mr. Armstrong simply did not know, but that’s just the problem. Most Catholic apologists are very ill-informed, even the ones with doctorates. (Again, see my book, Rome’s Audacious Claim.)

Note: What eventually happened is that the churches of Asia Minor agreed to celebrate Passover on Sunday at the Council of Nicea, 130 years later. Also at that council, the church in Alexandria supplied some astronomical calculations that are the reason Easter’s date no longer immediately follows the Jewish Passover.

The Unity of the Churches in the Third Century

The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” … And although to all the the apostles, after his resurrection, he gives an equal power… yet, that he might set forth unity, he arranged by his authority the origin of that unity as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter … but the beginning proceeds from unity. (Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church, par. 4)

This quote is a thrill for Roman Catholic apologists, but if they apply it to the bishop of Rome, they are mistaken. Cyprian continues:

And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole. (ibid., par. 5)

Cyprian, writing in AD 251, teaches that the unity of the church is based on the bishops, all of whom form one undivided episcopate. Every bishop, as one of a whole, was a descendant of Peter, and together they held Peter’s authority and were a foundation of unity like he was.

Because of this teaching, Catholic apologists love to misquote Cyprian. For example, Cyprian wrote:

After such things as these, moreover, they still dare—a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics—to set
sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source. (Cyprian, Epistle 54, par. 14)

While Cyprian taught that the unity of the church was founded in the unity of all bishops, whose unity was based on Peter, he was well aware that Rome’s apostolic foundation was based on Peter. This was true in the same way that Paul was the founder of Corinth and Thomas of churches in India. Cyprian was horrified that lapsed Christians carried a letter to Rome from a minor bishop demanding that they be restored to the church, but not because it was “the source” of unity. It was the “chief source,” and the bishop’s seat was descended from Peter, but all bishops together  were “the source.”

Cyprian actually called a council of 87 north African bishops during a later conflict with Stephen, bishop of Rome from 256 to 258. Their opening declaration states:

For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there. (The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian, par. 1)

This is a change from the truth-based unity of the second century. This third-century change to a unity based upon men–important and well-trained men, to be sure, but nonetheless men–is a drastic change.

The Fourth Century: Losing and Regaining Unity

As the churches grew larger in the third century, three churches in particular became the most authoritative: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. This has some to do with their spread-out locations in Italy, Egypt, and modern Turkey. It also has to do with their association with Peter. Peter was an elder in Rome, appointed the first bishop (Evaristus) in Antioch, and was a teacher to Mark, who founded the church in Alexandria.

This is a good place to throw in Tertullian’s boast (c. AD 200) that:

Nor does your [Roman] cruelty, however exquisite, avail you; it is rather a temptation to us.  The oftener we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed. (Tertullian, Apology, ch. 50)

Thus, the churches kept growing.

To this day, the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges both Antioch and Alexandria as having a descent from Peter, though of course considering their own bishop, the Pope, the authority over all churches.

At the Council of Nicea in AD 325, the jurisdiction of these three churches was acknowledged in “Canon” 6. This jurisdiction involved approving the election of bishops in their respective areas, but it also meant that the bishops of those churches could involve themselves in any disputes in their regions.

At the time, bishops of larger cities were already being called “metropolitans.” Metripolitans did the same for the towns surrounding their cities. The bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch would come to be called Patriarchs.

The Council of Nicea was called by the Emperor Constantine. When Constantine became emperor (AD 306), he was one of four emperors. Over the course of 18 years he ended the persecution of Christians and defeated the other 3 co-emperors. He envisioned an empire united around Christianity, but while he was defeating his last competitor (Licinius), a huge dispute arose over the relationship between God the Father and his Son Jesus.

Emperor Constantine was concerned that the empire he had just united under his rule would be split by this dispute. He called the council to settle the dispute, and he presided over it. Eusebius the historian, who was writing a biography of Constantine at the time, was likely the “MC,” with Constantine pitching in as he felt necessary. Eusebius’ Life of Constantine gives the only complete account of the council by an eye-witness. (It starts in Book III, ch. 8)

The Council of Nicea did not settle anything, however. The bishops who supported Arius (who was not a bishop, but only an elder) were banned, but when Constantine died, his son Constantius II restored those bishops. He also set about to remove every bishop who supported the decision at Nicea that Jesus was “begotten, not made, one in substance with the Father.”

*To be precise, they objected to the Greek word homoousios, the word that means “one in substance with the Father.” Those who opposed Nicea seemed, in my sight and based on their creeds, to grow more and more open to “begotten, not made,” but always opposed homoousios.

Constantius, however, was not the only emperor. His brothers, Constans and Constantine II, were reigning in the western half of the Empire. This conflict between East and West is important because it is surely the reason the church in Rome began claiming authority over all churches.

Every time Constantius replaced a bishop, especially the bishops in Alexandria and Constantinople (which was built after the Council of Nicea and supplanted Antioch in authority), they would run to Rome and be re-appointed to their position by Julius, Rome’s bishop. Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, was banished 5 times by Constantius and his successor, Emperor Julian “the Apostate.” Paul, the bishop of Constantinople, was put to death on his 3rd banishment.

It should be noted that once Constantine began supporting Christianity, there was a drastic change in the behavior of the churches. Eusebius wrote a history of the church up till the year 323, two years before the Council of Nicea. Five men wrote histories of the church covering the time between Eusebius history and the early fifth century (AD 400-450). Eusebius’ history has a few disputes and even splits in the church, but no violence. The histories from the 5th century are packed with violence.

By 350, both emperors in the West had died, and Constantius was able to begin replacing bishops there as well. In 358, he imprisoned bishop Liberius of Rome and forced him to deny the Nicene Creed in writing.

Jerome described the 350s with “The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian” (“Dialogue Against the Luciferians,” ch. 19).

Fortunately, Constantius II died in 361, and he was replaced by “Julian the Apostate,” who supported Roman paganism. Though he was intolerant of Christians, and especially Athanasius of Alexandria, he expected paganism to out-compete Christianity. He left the churches alone, and the western churches began restoring Nicene bishops.

The violence and battles continued between those against the Nicene Creed and those who supported it. Only after Emperor Theodosius I rose to power in 379 was the issue resolved and in a most interesting way.

Theodosius had all the sects appear before him and present evidence that their position was the same as the beliefs of Christians before the Arian Controversy (the dispute at Nicea) had arisen. The supporters of Nicea were able to do so, while those against Nicea were not. Theodosius banned the churches that opposed Nicea from being in cities, and the controversy was finally resolved.

*Note: A fascinating truth is that a “heretical” Novatian reader–someone who read the Scriptures to the church, but did not necessarily teach and was not considered ordained–suggested this to his bishop. (The Novatians were the descendants of Novatian, the bishop who split the church in Rome in AD 251. The bishops of the rest of the churches chose Cornelius in the dispute, but rather than giving in, Novatian started the only long-lasting “denomination” in the pre-Nicene church.) The emperor asked the bishop of Constantinople for advice in ending the 56-year long dispute; the bishop of Constantinople consulted with the Novatian bishop who asked advice of his brilliant reader.

The face of Christianity was much changed. It was during Theodosius’ reign that Roman bishops began presenting their claim to jurisdiction over all churches. The other major churches conceded a primacy of honor to Rome, especially after its faithfulness through the 4th century, but not a primacy of jurisdiction. The bishop of Constantinople, the second most powerful bishop in the Empire was often in conflict with the bishop of Rome over this subject.

Oddly, it would be Barbarian invaders who resolved this conflict.

The Fifth Century: Unity Dissolves

There were two major church councils in the 5th century: the Council of Ephesus in 432 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

At the first, Nestorius, a bishop in Syria, was excommunicated over the relationship between Jesus’ divine and human natures. I can’t comment on the dispute because I don’t understand it even after reading the arguments from both sides. The argument was about how the divine and human natures of Jesus interacted with each other, something no one could possibly know anything about, in my not very humble opinion.

Further, I think the division was evil. Most Syrian churches separated from the other churches of the Roman Empire with Nestorius. They have survived to this day and are known as the Assyrian Orthodox Church of the East or just Church of the East. In the 1990s they had three congregations in the USA. I visited one in Sacramento, which I was surprised to find out was charismatic!

At Chalcedon, Dioscorus of Alexandria was excommunicated. The church in Alexandria left the communion of churches with him. They are now known as the Coptic Orthodox Church, and the successor of Dioscorus today is known as “the Coptic pope,” currently Pope Tawadros II.

There is also a patriarch of Alexandria that is descended from Dioscorus’ replacement (Theodore II). He and the a number of other patriarchs lead the Eastern Orthodox Churches today. I know, off the top of my head, that there are major patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch, Istanbul (formerly Constantinople), and Moscow. There are others as well.

In the 5th century, Rome was still part of the “catholic” churches of the Roman Empire that excommunicated Nestorius and Dioscorus.

The churches in the Persian Empire pretty much moved on after all the disputes of the 4th century. They are known as the Oriental Orthodox Churches today.

There are also St. Thomas Catholic churches in India, but I don’t know their history myself.

The Sixth Century Onward

This section will wrap things up. I can’t imagine many people reading this whole thing anyway.

In 476, barbarian hordes took down Rome for the final time, fulfilling an extremely precise prediction that I cannot explain. It had been ransacked by barbarians at least twice before but, officially, the last Roman emperor reigned in Rome in 476.

Oddly, the Roman Empire continued from Greece eastward through Turkey, without Rome, until 1453 when Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Empire. It lost most of the Middle East and north Africa to the Muslims beginning in the 8th century.

Back to the church of Rome, it turned out that many of the barbarian tribes had been converted to Christianity by Emperor Valens in the 370s. He helped in a battle between tribes, and the victors switched to his religion. Interestingly, Valens, who reigned before Theodorus the Great, supported those who opposed Nicea, so the barbarians who invaded Rome believed Jesus was created, not begotten.

As Christians, while they did not accept Jesus’ teachings against violence, they did accept that a bishop descended from the apostles had authority in the church. They spared the bishop of Rome and his churches.

One thing led to another …

Pope Gregory I (“the Great”) rose to power in AD 590 (114 years later). He was a man of great character, charisma, and statesmanship. He became a father to the various barbarian tribes and kings of Europe and established “the papal see” as a secular authority as well as a spiritual one. In my opinion, Pope Gregory is the one who transformed the church in Rome into the Roman Catholic Church, the entity we know today.

Despite this, I believe he deserves the title “the Great.” He was not a Reformer, but a man of his times who did only good.

Earlier, at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, Pope Leo I gave the speech that settled the council on a doctrine regarding the two natures of Christ. After he spoke, the whole council of bishops shouted, “Peter speaks through Leo.” That event causes most Protestant historians to consider Leo as the first real pope. Perhaps this is true, but it is Gregory that made the Roman church a consultant in all the secular affairs of Europe.

The bishop of Rome has never had enforceable authority over the whole church. The churches in the East (of the Roman Empire) always accorded him a primacy of honor, not of jurisdiction.

In AD 1054, the bishops of Rome and Constantinople excommunicated each other because Rome added “from the Son” (one word in Latin: filioque) to the Nicene Creed on their own authority.

The fact that Constantinople was in the Roman Empire, and Rome wasn’t, hindered their interaction anyway. The whole process of dividing took centuries. Italian families took over the appointing of bishops throughout at least the 10th and 11th centuries, and the morality of popes and clergy throughout Europe was questionable at best.

Disputes between cardinal in France and Italy led to the bishop of Rome being in Avignon, France for most of the 14th century. When the pope returned to Rome, the French cardinals kept a pope in Avignon so that there were two popes until a German emperor called the Council of Constance, from 1414 to 1418, deposed 3 popes, and appointed Pope Martin V.

The Renaissance was going on at the time, a revival of art and learning, and the authority of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church was being questioned throughout Europe. That questioning became a Reformation when Martin Luther’s “95 Theses” made their way throughout Europe after being nailed to the cathedral door in Wittenberg.

I am not going to trace the whole Protestant Reformation in this history. This post is long enough, and the Reformation is not part of the history of the great Roman church of the early centuries of Christianity.

I will mention that the influence of the Reformation on lords and peasants alike caused a much needed reformation (called the “Counter Reformation”) in Roman Catholicism as well. They held the Council of Trent from 1545 to 1563. This brought some peace to Europe, but Rome changed few to none of the many new traditions taught by popes during the time they were outside the Roman Empire.

I am sure that the Roman elders who wrote to Cyprian in AD 250 still weep today at the fall from greatness that they surely still call a great crime.

We’ll get back to the teachings of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans in the next post.