4

Just wondering in what year the first historical record of the Church in Rome, against the wishes of other churches, that she should impose her tradition on them?

Note: I am simply looked for the first factual recorded date in history. I am not making an inquiry into whether the church in Rome had a right, or not, to do so.

Mike
  • 31,750
  • 20
  • 84
  • 168
  • "Impose" seems like an inherently subjective standard, and the answers reflect that there is strong disagreement, as well as misunderstanding, about what that means. I'm voting to close as opinion-based. – Mr. Bultitude Sep 24 '15 at 19:43
  • @BearinaStudebaker I could be persuaded, but at some point there must have been conflict between Rome and a different city, and Rome appealed to its status as Peter's city in order to win the argument. "Impose" might not be the best word, but I think it captures this idea. I vaguely recall learning about an event like this in church history; I'd have to look it up, however. – Nathaniel is protesting Sep 24 '15 at 21:06

3 Answers3

3

I'm frankly dumbfounded. Unless I'm reading wrongly, @Mike has asked this question, and then provided his own answer.

To answer your question, though it hardly seems necessary since you knew your answer before asking your question, before "the church in the city of Rome" tried "to impose a tradition on other churches", whatever that means, other churches were querying the church of Rome for guidance. Pope St. Clement (+AD 96) wrote to the church of Corinth in response to complaints from its leadership. The presbyters and bishop of Corinth had been deposed and chased out of the city and they wrote to Rome asking its bishop to validate their authority as appointees of the apostles. And this happened perhaps while St. John was still even alive.

It is wise, when wondering how Rome started "imposing traditions other churches," to remember that while Rome had armies, the church of Rome had none. How, precisely, is the Bishop of Roman supposed to have imposed anything on anyone?

The appeal to Rome is always an appeal to moral authority. Even in the heyday of her power, the Church of Rome and the Papal States were by-and-large reliant on other nations' for their military protection. When patriarchs in Constantinople and bishops in North Africa ask for the support of the Pope, they are not asking for his armies - at his most militarized he had precious few - they are asking for his endorsement.

Ryan Haber
  • 556
  • 4
  • 8
  • @Mike, you would profit to ask how the situation arose that bishops or presbyters in Corinth wanted Rome involved, rather than asking why Rome pushed its supposed weight around. – Ryan Haber Sep 17 '12 at 05:20
  • 1
    -1 I would not consider one church writing to another, or seeking guidance from another as imposing anything on anyone. – Mike Sep 17 '12 at 05:33
  • That's my point, Mike. The church of Rome can't impose its will on anybody. How would it do so? The fact that other churches looked to Rome for advice shows they felt it had moral authority. That is the question you should be asking. – Ryan Haber Sep 30 '12 at 05:08
0

The authority of Rome may have been presumed because of the time St Paul spent there. He died AD 64/5 and probably some of the Corinthians who heard him teach were still alive when they wrote to Rome.

At least four of Paul's doctrinal letters were written from Rome and it seems to be where his days ended, though there is some doubt. Many scholars agree that St Paul's letters were the first to be recognized as inspired by the early church, and certainly no other writings rise to the level of his prison epistles.

There seems to have been a flourishing Christian community in Rome (see Romans 16 and Philippians) and possibly the Corinthians thought some of Paul's adherents would give an answer to their questions.

Andrew Leach
  • 14,158
  • 1
  • 44
  • 74
-4

The earliest record I have been able to find was between 189-199 AD. This occurred when a dispute over what day the celebration of Easter should occur. This happened betwwen the Christians at Rome and those from the province of Asia. Victor, the bishop of Rome decided to act dictatorial actually trying to excomminicate whole churches over an extremely non essential matter, naturally greatly offending other bishops.

Victor called a meeting of Italian bishops at Rome, which is the earliest Roman synod known. He also wrote to the leading bishops of the various districts, urging them to call together the bishops of their sections of the country and to take counsel with them on the question of the Easter festival. Letters came from all sides: from the synod in Palestine, at which Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of Jerusalem presided; from the synod of Pontus over which Palmas as the oldest presided; from the communities in Gaul whose bishop of Irenaeus of Lyons; from the bishops of the Kingdom of Osrhoene; also from individual bishops, as Bakchylus of Corinth. These letters all unanimously reported that Easter was observed on Sunday.  Victor, who acted throughout the entire matter as the head of Catholic Christendom, now called upon the bishops of the province of Asia to abandon their custom and to accept the universally prevailing practice of always celebrating Easter on Sunday. In case they would not do this he declared they would be excluded from the fellowship of the Church.

This severe procedure did not please all the bishops. Irenaeus of Lyons and others wrote to Pope Victor; they blamed his severity, urged him to maintain peace and unity with the bishops of Asia, and to entertain affectionate feelings toward them. Irenaeus reminded him that his predecessors had indeed always maintained the Sunday observance of Easter, as was right, but had not broken off friendly relations and communion with bishops because they followed another custom. (Catholic Encyclopedia as posted here)

So it seems around 90-100 years after the last Apostle died, did the the first historical record appear when church of Rome tried to impose its tradition on other churches who resisted that attempt. This was around the year 195 AD.

Mike
  • 31,750
  • 20
  • 84
  • 168
  • -1 for ignoring the fact that St. Irenaeus was a proponent of the papacy. and for not reading my blog :P – Peter Turner Aug 31 '12 at 13:40
  • 1
    @PeterTurner - what did he do (besides thinking) that turned into unwanted influence or pushiness over other churches. If this happened earlier I can revise my answer accordingly. My answer is only the earliest I could find. I have no skin in the game on the actual year. – Mike Aug 31 '12 at 13:55
  • 1
    He wrote In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. – Peter Turner Aug 31 '12 at 14:00
  • Peter -> Linus -> Cletus -> Clement – Peter Turner Aug 31 '12 at 14:01
  • So, you're trying to ask, when did the Church of Rome first act all haughty, while ignoring that the Church of Rome had authority to act at all. – Peter Turner Aug 31 '12 at 14:02
  • 2
    @PeterTurner - Am trying to figure out when churches started to externally feel pressure from Rome as exerting real claimed power on Christianity regions. One single church rebuking another single church that may have been falling away does not seem significant enough. Whether Rome actually had this authority, or not, is off topic. When did this corinthian thing happen anyway? It is very interesting! – Mike Aug 31 '12 at 14:28
  • Fair enough, Clement was bishop between 80 and 99 AD, so I'd imagine it happened in that interval. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm – Peter Turner Aug 31 '12 at 14:35
  • 1
    This doesn't sound at all like an answer to the question you asked. This sounds exactly like ongoing stuff between Protestant churches today and not a case of unwarranted authority from the Roman church we eventually opposed. – Caleb Aug 31 '12 at 17:40
  • 1
    @Caleb - i am not ure i understand your comment. I am just trying to find the earliest record when Rome imposed itself on others. I added bold where Rome actually threatened excommunication. This does not have to be any different from protestant agression on another church. I just want to verify where the long practice started, so i can trace its development into what finally was rejected by protestants. This also proves such 'authority' was not acknowledged, even over a trifling matter, as several bishops rebuked the Roman bishop for his obviou arrogance. – Mike Sep 01 '12 at 01:27
  • @Caleb - oh maybe I understand. Are you thinking this is not significant enough and the date I have chosen is too early? – Mike Sep 01 '12 at 01:33
  • 1
    I'm saying you are trying to identify the start of a trait. However the example you have chosen is not an instance of that trait, I think it is representative of something else and, if anything, a contrary example. This just shows and instance of churches functioning the way Protestant churches do today. You're looking for something where they start acting differently. – Caleb Sep 04 '12 at 19:24
  • 1
    @Caleb - I respect your point but I am honestly struggling with the idea that this is like Protestant behaviour. Maybe I am naive, but do Protestants threaten total excommunication over a matter as triflings as what day a holiday should be celebrated? Keep in mind excommunication from Rome implied eternal damnation. Or do you think I am reading too much into this? I honestly don't know and am weak on Catholic history. – Mike Sep 05 '12 at 02:43
  • 1
    @Mike. The Protestant churches are full of self-appointed popes. – TRiG Sep 09 '12 at 23:39
  • @Mike, I'm sorry. Did you ask this question and then provide your own answer? Is that appropriate? I thought the s.e. system was supposed to be Q&A - not pamphleteering in Q&A format. – Ryan Haber Sep 17 '12 at 05:06
  • 1
    Yes, of course it is appropriate. If Q & A was limited to non controversial subjects then there could be almost none raised on a religious SE. One would have to deactivate the function. Also a user may post more than one, or even multiple possible answers. – Mike Sep 17 '12 at 07:54
  • @Mike, no, you missed my point. Of course religious questions will frequently involve controversy. Fine. Is this forum a place where you answer your own questions? I mean, it looks like you are trying to nail 95 theses on a door, rather than ask a question, when you start out by answering it yourself. Do you see my point? – Ryan Haber Sep 30 '12 at 04:44
  • 1
    I don't believe this is written from a neutral viewpoint and the obvious bias makes it unreliable as an answer. Quite apart from whether it's the answer to the asked question, and it doesn't appear to me that it is. – Andrew Leach Sep 30 '12 at 09:14
  • @Ryan It is perfectly legitimate on this site to answer your own questions. – Nathaniel is protesting Oct 05 '15 at 01:20
  • @Nathaniel, bah. It's nonsense. Then the site takes on the character of a catechism, asking a question in order to preach, rather than in order to solicit answers. – Ryan Haber Nov 10 '15 at 17:32