If Not United to the Chair of Peter: Papal Primacy in the Earliest Church

In the year 96 AD, the Apostle John was almost certainly still alive, living in Ephesus — just a few hundred miles from Corinth. Yet when a dispute tore apart the Church at Corinth, it was not to Ephesus that the troubled community looked for resolution. It was not the nearest bishop, not the oldest living witness to the Lord, not even the most venerated. The letter that arrived came from Rome. And it came with a tone that was not advisory. It spoke, in its own words, as “He through us.” Anyone who ignored it would “entangle themselves in transgression and no small danger.”

That letter — Pope Clement I’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, written around 96 AD — is the oldest surviving Christian document outside the New Testament. And it raises an inescapable question: why Rome? If the early Church operated as a horizontal fellowship of autonomous communities, guided loosely by the senior bishop among equals, why did no one tell Rome to mind its own business? Why did Irenaeus of Lyon later describe the letter as a potentissimas litteras — a most powerful letter? Why was it read publicly in churches across the known world for centuries?

The thesis of this article is simple, and it rests on evidence: the authority exercised by the Bishop of Rome over the universal Church is not a medieval invention, not a Constantinian power grab, not a gradual accretion of political prestige. It is a theological reality that the earliest Church recognized, described, submitted to — and, in moments of crisis, begged for.

Every historian of early Christianity agrees that Clement’s letter demonstrates something unusual. What they disagree about is what it demonstrates.

The letter does not begin apologetically. It does not say, “Forgive us for interfering, but we felt we should offer our thoughts.” It opens by lamenting that Rome’s own “sudden and repeated misfortunes” had delayed this response — implying the response was expected, even overdue. The community at Corinth had apparently been waiting for Rome to weigh in.

Read that again. “Said by Him through us.” Clement is not offering brotherly advice. He is claiming to transmit a divine word — and warning of danger to those who reject it. The letter concludes by telling the Corinthians that if they follow Rome’s counsel, “you will have nothing to regret” — and that Rome, for its part, “shall be innocent of this sin” if they do not.

Pope Benedict XVI stated in a 2007 General Audience: “This Letter was a first exercise of the Roman primacy after St. Peter’s death.” That is not a medieval pope retrofitting power onto an old document. It is a careful historian and theologian reading what the text actually says.

Around 180 AD, St. Irenaeus of Lyon wrote the most significant ecclesiological text of the second century: Against Heresies. Irenaeus was born in Asia Minor, a student of Polycarp, who had known the Apostle John personally. He became bishop in Gaul. He was, in other words, a bridge between East and West — no one’s partisan, and steeped in the tradition of the East.

When he needed to demonstrate that the Catholic rule of faith was authentic and apostolic — as opposed to Gnostic fabrications — he chose the Church of Rome as his supreme example. Not because it was politically convenient. But because of what Rome was.

Necesse est — “it is a matter of necessity.” Not convenience. Not custom. Necessity. And the reason is potentior principalitas — a phrase that has generated volumes of scholarly debate, but which in even the most minimal reading attributes to Rome a unique and indispensable authority in relation to the universal Church. Irenaeus then provides the earliest surviving list of Roman episcopal succession — from Peter and Paul through Linus, Anacletus, Clement, and on to his own day — as proof that Rome’s teaching could be trusted.

No figure is more contested in the papacy debate than St. Cyprian of Carthage. He is claimed by those who want to argue for the Pope’s supreme authority, and also by those who want to limit it. The truth, as usual, is more interesting than either caricature.

Cyprian’s treatise On the Unity of the Church (251 AD) exists in two versions, both now widely accepted as authentically his. The earlier version — the Primacy Text — could not be more explicit:

That final sentence is the title of this article — and for good reason. Cyprian is not making a mild suggestion. He is proposing that the cathedra Petri, the Chair of Peter, is the criterion of Church membership. To leave it is to leave the Church.

And Cyprian consistently located that chair in Rome. In Epistle 59, writing about schismatics who dared appeal to false sources of authority, he describes those who should rather look to “the chair of Peter, and to the principal Church whence priestly unity takes its source” — identifying that church as Rome.

Yes, Cyprian later disputed Pope Stephen I over rebaptism and refused to submit to Rome’s ruling. Catholic scholars acknowledge this honestly: it shows the doctrine of primacy was still in a formative stage — the reality present, the precise articulation still developing. Development of doctrine is not the same as invention of doctrine. Cyprian’s lived tensions with Rome do not cancel what he wrote when his pen was not otherwise engaged.

Around 190 AD, a dispute erupted over the date of Easter. The churches of Asia Minor — following a practice they traced to the Apostle John himself — celebrated Pascha on 14 Nisan regardless of the day of the week. Rome and the West celebrated on the Sunday following. Pope Victor I decided to settle the matter.

His method was striking. He convened synods simultaneously across the entire Church: in Rome, Palestine, Pontus, Gaul, Corinth, and Osrhoene. He collected their findings. Then, when the Asian churches refused to conform, he declared them excluded from communion.

Polycrates of Ephesus wrote to Victor invoking the Apostles Philip and John — and notably, he addressed his letter having “summoned” the Asian bishops “at your desire.” Victor had directed the regional synods to convene. That direction was obeyed. That is not how you treat an honorary first among equals.

The Council of Sardica (343 AD) is perhaps the most overlooked piece of evidence in the papacy debate. Bishops from across East and West gathered — and produced canons that explicitly gave the Bishop of Rome appellate jurisdiction over the entire Church.

The ground given for this authority is explicitly theological: “Let us honour the memory of Peter the Apostle.” This is not a political accommodation to Rome’s imperial status. It is a theological statement: Rome has authority because Peter had authority, and Rome continues Peter’s ministry.

When the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD) confirmed the special jurisdiction of the patriarchal sees — Rome, Alexandria, Antioch — it used a telling formula. Rome’s established custom was the precedent and basis from which the others’ authority was confirmed (Canon 6). Rome’s jurisdiction required no new authorization; everyone knew it already.

Then, at Constantinople I (381 AD), Canon 3 declared that Constantinople should have “prerogatives of honour” after Rome — the reason given being explicitly political: “because Constantinople is New Rome.” Rome’s response to this canon was immediate and theologically decisive. Pope Damasus, at the Synod of Rome (382 AD), rejected the political basis entirely:

This distinction is not a technicality. It is the entire argument. If primacy follows political importance, then a new capital city can claim it. If primacy follows Christ’s grant to Peter, then it cannot be redistributed by imperial fiat. Rome was saying: our authority is from Jesus Christ, not from the emperor. And that claim was not merely asserted — it was encoded in the liturgical texts, the canonical records, and the collective memory of the Church.

The Council of Chalcedon is, for Catholic purposes, perhaps the single most dramatic event in the history of papal primacy. When Pope Leo the Great’s Tome — his doctrinal letter on the two natures of Christ — was read aloud at the second session, the assembled bishops erupted in acclamation:

Note the grammar. Not: “Leo has spoken as Peter might have.” Not: “Leo’s teaching accords with Peter’s.” But: Peter has spoken through Leo. The present tense. As if Peter were still speaking — in his successor. This is not courtesy. It is theology expressed in liturgical acclamation.

When Dioscorus of Alexandria was condemned by the council, the papal legates declared that Leo himself had “stripped him of the episcopate” — and that Dioscorus had “dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place.” The council then passed Canon 28, elevating Constantinople’s status on explicitly political grounds. Leo rejected it. The council wrote to Leo asking him to approve it. They begged his assent. He declined. That is not the behavior of parties interacting as equals.

The Orthodox narrative requires that no Eastern Father truly acknowledged Roman jurisdictional primacy — that any apparently supportive statement was either a compliment, a misunderstanding, or a forgery. The evidence is considerably less cooperative.

From 484 to 519 AD, the Eastern Church was in schism with Rome. The Acacian Schism lasted thirty-five years — during which Rome held its doctrinal position without wavering, and the East found it could not sustain the separation. In 519 AD, the schism ended on Rome’s terms. Over 2,500 Eastern bishops — including the Patriarch of Constantinople himself — signed the following:

Even the Orthodox scholar Alexander Schmemann could not look away from this. He wrote: “The whole essence of the papal claims cannot be more clearly expressed than in this document, which was imposed upon the Eastern bishops.” Anglican historian Henry Chadwick acknowledged the Formula was “restated by the first Vatican Council in 1870.”

The Orthodox position deserves a fair hearing, because the Catholic claim is only as strong as its engagement with the best counterarguments.

St. Jerome, writing to Pope Damasus from the East in 376 AD, during the Meletian schism in Antioch (where three rival bishops each claimed legitimacy), cut through the confusion with a single line:

And again, in Letter 16: “He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!” Jerome is not asking Damasus for his personal opinion. He is asking him to render a binding judgment — the kind of judgment that can settle a schism. Jerome appeals to Rome because he believes Rome can do what no other see can do: decisively end the dispute.

St. Augustine’s famous words — often misquoted as “Roma locuta est, causa finita est” — deserve honest treatment. What he actually said in Sermon 131 was: “Two councils have been sent to the Apostolic See; from there also rescripts have come back. The cause is finished [causa finita est].” The cause is finished because the Apostolic See has spoken. That is not honorary. That is determinative.

The honest Catholic apologist acknowledges what the evidence actually shows — and what it does not. The papacy of 96 AD is not the papacy of 1870. The precise articulation of Pastor Aeternus — “full, supreme, and universal power of jurisdiction” — required centuries of theological reflection, conciliar definition, and lived experience to reach its dogmatic formulation.

But development of doctrine is not invention of doctrine. The seed is not the tree, but the tree was always in the seed. What the evidence shows across five centuries is a consistent principle recognized by East and West: that the Bishop of Rome exercises an authority over the universal Church that no other bishop possesses. That this authority is theological, not merely political. That it is Petrine, not merely honorary. That separation from it is, as Cyprian wrote, separation from the Church.

The Orthodox tradition has given us many gifts: an ancient liturgical patrimony, a rich mystical theology, a witness to the patristic heritage that shames the amnesia of the modern West. But on this question — what the early Church believed about Rome’s authority — the evidence does not support the Orthodox reconstruction. What it supports is something much older, and much more demanding:

Share this article · Domus Dei · domvsdei.com