The Good Shephedrd Mosaic, from the museum of Galla Placidia.
If you have interacted with Roman Catholic pop-apologetics1 much, you will know that the claim that “all the fathers believed ‘X'” is not uncommon as a defense for certain Roman doctrines. Such claims are particularly leveled against Protestants, who at a popular level tend not to be prepared to respond well to such claims. A certain “you have tradition, we have the Scriptures” response is common, which opens the Protestant up to an epistemological counter-attack: “how do you know what those Scriptures mean but by tradition? And if so many fathers believed that Scripture text to mean ‘X’, who are you to disagree?” An appeal is made to the confusion in Biblical interpretation among Protestants as evidenced by the mass schism over doctrinal issues in the Protestant tradition soon following the Reformation, thus causing the Protestant to doubt his own ability to understand the Scriptures, especially given this unanimous consensus of ancient Christians, those closer to the Scripture authors themselves, who disagree with them. And soon after, he crosses the Tiber into Rome as a proselyte.
The Argument Being Made
It must be admitted that there is a certain persuasiveness to this mode of argumentation. It identifies a perceived problem in the Protestant’s position which he may not have before considered. It identifies real, practical fruit (a real problem within modern Protestantism) which are claimed to be downstream from this perceived problem. And it, most importantly, it identifies an easy solution, in the pure, unadulterated Roman system, which has remained unchanged since Christ gave the keys to St. Peter.
However, there is a major problem with the Apologists’ initial claim which was ignored and implicitly accepted in the Protestant’s initial response. Notice that it was not demonstrated, but assumed that “Christians have always believed ‘X'”. This is a claim which ought to be analyzed. If true, perhaps there is some weight to the Roman Catholic claim. However, in many cases, this is a false assumption, as can be demonstrated with historical analysis.
In this article, this claim will be examined particularly with a view to perhaps the most fundamental Roman distinctive, that from which the others come, namely, the Papacy, from a significant ancient source which has something to say about church government in the second century, namely, the Shepherd of Hermas. The Shepherd of Hermas, for those uninitiated, is a late first to early second century Jewish-Christian apocalyptic text, whose main character, Hermas, was a congregant at Rome. The conclusion will be that Rome, far from having a “bishop of bishops,” hardly had a “bishop” in the late first to early second century. Although it will not be necessary, it is encouraged that you read at least the Shepherd of Hermas Vision 2: it, along with all the subapostolic texts, are widely available online.
The Relevant Passage
σὺ δὲ ἀναγνώσῃ εἰς ταύτην τὴν πόλιν μετὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων τῶν προϊσταμένων τῆς ἐκκλησίας
Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 2.4 [8.3]2
You, Hermas, will read the little book to this city, along with the presbyters who are set over the church.
For a little context, the person speaking here is an old woman (πρεσβυτερα), who is a personification of the Church herself. Her message is tantamount to divine revelation within the book, with Hermas even confusing her for the Sibyl (a prophet or priestess known to all in antiquity). She orders the protagonist, Hermas, to read aloud a document which she gave him. The content of the document does not matter for our purposes, although it is explained to be a message of judgment and visions (Svigel and Osiek, p. 2.4). For the relevance to this article, an important contextual note is that when the Church speaks of “this city” (ταύτην τὴν πόλιν), she means Rome, Hermas’ home.
Hermas is not alone in this endeavor: joining him in the proclamation of this divine message is another party, indicated by the prepositional phrase with (μετὰ). Who are his cohorts? They are a group identified as the presbyters (τῶν πρεσβυτέρων).
Depending on English translation, you may see the word “presbyter” come up a few times in your New Testament. It’s not an English word, but a transliteration of the Greek word πρεσβύτερος. In its simple sense, it simply means “an older man.” In fact, many English Bibles will render this term as “elder,” which is why many English-speaking churches nowadays have an office called “elder.” In the New Testament, a “presbyter” does not usually refer simply to a relatively aged male. Acts 11.30 is an example of the term “presbyter” being used in a technical sense, to refer to a specific person who holds leadership within the Church. This technical sense is why I chose in my translation to transliterate, rather than to translate: to convey that this is a specific title referring to leaders within the Church.
Notice that the text does not say “with the presbyter” but “with the presbyters“: it is quite clear that Hermas has a decent amount of company to help him deliver his message. The precise number is not specified, it could be as few as two, but, the syntax requires that there is more than one in view. This will be key to the argument in a second, so keep this in mind.
Further specification is given, which identifies precisely which “presbyters” we’re talking about. Namely, it is those who are set over the church (τῶν προϊσταμένων τῆς ἐκκλησίας). To be unambiguous, this is the church at Rome which is being discussed specifically. But what does it mean that these presbyters are “set over” the church of Rome? Some close grammatical examination is in order.
The word used for the Presbyters being “set over” the church is προΐστημι. In the passive voice (the form in which it is found in the Greek text above), it refers to leadership, especially over some sort of party, or as some some sort of political figure.3 The Genitive form of the following word (“church”) identifies it as that over which the presbyters govern: the (Roman) church.
But notice that, if the Roman system of church government is assumed, there is something missing: where is the bishop in all of this? The Old Lady makes no mention of him, only mentioning elders who govern the congregation. This is a glaring omission; would anyone expect that the most significant one “set over” the church simply goes unmentioned here? It seems that Hermas is unaware of there being any bishop in Rome at this time. In fact, the only governing body mentioned are a plurality of presbyters.4
The Role of Clement: that of a Bishop?
γράψεις οὖν δύο βιβλαρίδια καὶ πέμψεις ἓν Κλήμεντι καὶ ἓν Γραπτῇ. πέμψει οὖν Κλήμης εἰς τὰς ἔξω πόλεις, ἐκείνῳ γὰρ ἐπιτέτραπται· Γραπτὴ δὲ νουθετήσει τὰς χήρας καὶ τοὺς ὀρφανούς.
Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 2.4 [8.3]5
You will write, therefore, two little books, and send one to Clement and the other to Grapte. Clement will send it to those who are outside the city (because that is left for him as his duty). Grapte will warn the widows and orphans.
In the absence of a bishop in the previous sentence, one could perhaps be convinced of one’s presence in Rome at this time based upon the mention of a familiar name to anyone versed in Patristics: Clement. “Ah!” says the reader, “the Bishop of Rome is specifically mentioned: St. Clement of Rome is explicitly named!” That interpretation will be here checked.
For context, these are the sentences prior to the one we had just analyzed. I rearranged them in this brief commentary, because the latter section is really my focus. The significance of this short section for the conclusions drawn is really just the presence of Clement, a figure who will be explored here.
Laying some contextual foundations, the first sentence constitutes an announcement that Hermas will write (γράψεις), because the contents of the Old Lady’s book needs to be made known to all of God’s chosen people (οὖν, c.f 8.2). He is to write two “little books” (βιβλαρίδια), which supposedly constitute two copies of the Old Lady’s book. To two specific people he is to give (καὶ πέμψεις) a copy of the book: “Clement” (ἓν Κλήμεντι) and “Grapte” (ἓν Γραπτῇ).
Because she is less significant to the overall argument being built, Grapte will be first discussed. Very little is known about her, other than the action given here: she is to teach or warn of6 (Γραπτὴ δὲ νουθετήσει) the contents of the little book. She warns the widows and orphans (τὰς χήρας καὶ τοὺς ὀρφανούς), presumably because she has charge over them. Interestingly for the development of church government, but unrelated to the question of the Papacy, this probably means that Grapte is a Deaconess,7 comparing with the institution of the Diaconate as described in Acts 6.
Clement is filled in a little bit more than Grapte is, but there still is not much told here about him. Firstly, it’s good to just stick with the text before introducing other ideas about who this specific Clement may be. Because the all God’s elect must know the Lady’s message, after receiving the little book from Hermas, Clement will send it along (πέμψει οὖν Κλήμης) to those churches outside the city of Rome (εἰς τὰς ἔξω πόλεις). He will do this because it is left to him as his duty (ἐκείνῳ γὰρ ἐπιτέτραπται), probably referring to a specific role which he held at the church at Rome, as is the understanding underlying at least the most mainstream modern translation of the book.8
It is important to highlight that, assuming the veracity of Hermas’ report, this is all we know about this Clement and his role at the Church at Rome — that he sent books (“documents,” i.e. letters). Connections with other figures, most significantly St. Clement of Rome, are tenuous and speculative. There is unsettled debate in scholarship as to the identity of this specific Clement, with many scholars just throwing up their hands and giving up trying to identify him. Clement is too common a name to be absolutely sure that this is the “Clement” being described, although the time frame of authorship (late first century) probably fits (Svigel and Osiek, p. 59).
So, let us first for the sake of argument not assume any connection with the author of 1 Clement. Is the fact that Clement (1) has a specific role at Rome, and (2) that he sends letters for the church there, evidence that Clement even holds the office of presbyter? Certainly not. Phoebe, who presumably carries the book of Romans as a courier (Romans 16.1-2), cannot be a presbyter, being a woman (although she is a deaconess of Cenchreae). And given that a mere deaconess may have such a privilege, no inference may be drawn about any orders bestowed on Clement by the fact that he is a courier at Rome alone, especially not to the highest office in Christendom.
On the other hand, if there is an identity between this Clement and the Clement who authors 1 Clement, then we know that he holds pastoral office at Rome, and that he would describe himself as a “bishop” of Rome (ἐπίσκοπος, cf. Ep. Cor. 42). A separate article discussing Clement’s view of church government is in order, but for now let it be said that the majority view of scholarship is that Clement held presbyter and bishop to be synonymous terms. So Clement likewise would have described himself as a “presbyter” of Rome, which in later understanding is not the same thing as a bishop of Rome. Assuming the view of the majority of scholars, that Clement was a “presiding presbyter” in Rome, namely, a presbyter set above the others (Holmes, p. 34-35), that doesn’t change the fact that Clement was a presbyter, which is a different thing than a bishop in later understanding. If Clement is a presbyter, then he cannot be a Pope, because Popes are not presbyters. In a separate post later, a demonstration of this from 1 Clement will be attempted, but for now this conclusion is reliant upon scholarly opinion.
Therefore, although the connection between Clement in the Shepherd and Clement in 1 Clement is tenuous at best, even assuming it, it cannot be claimed based on the actual data we have that Clement was a Pope according to what later understanding means by that claim. Therefore, the reference to Clement here does not grant support to mono-episcopacy in Rome: in fact, St. Clement of Rome himself serves as another witness to there not being a mono-episcopacy in Rome until a later date.
Significance
An Argument from Silence?
One could argue perhaps that bishop of the church simply goes unnamed here: such is the nature of “arguments from silence.” One not mentioning something does not necessarily mean that he does not know about it. However, arguments from silence are not necessarily wrong: certainly a reason why someone may not mention something is because he does not know about it.
And, realize, that when examining the historical veracity of something like the Papacy, arguments from silence will, to some extent, be necessary from the perspective of one who denies a first century papacy. If the thesis is true that there was not a bishop in Rome yet, then obviously ancient Christian sources claiming that there is not a bishop in Rome would not exist. The very fact that an ancient source speaks about a bishop in Rome in the late sense would necessitate there already being one (or perhaps a Christian from another part of the world imposing their own church’s polity onto Rome).
For an argument from silence to work, it must be deafening — that is, the matter is not touched on when, if something were true, it should have been. So, the question is, would a mention of a bishop have been expected here? Certainly yes, because the point of the text is that the leaders of the church at Rome, who are identified with the presbyters, are to join in his proclamation of the little book. The thesis that the bishop was simply not included in this proclamation seems to imply then that the most significant person “set above” the church was not included.
This is made much more problematic by the fact that this is not just any bishop being discussed, but the bishop of bishops, the “eternal pastor” himself. If it would be doubtful that a bishop would exist here where he is not mentioned, then how is it to be believed that the most significant Christian leader on earth is there in Rome, but was left unmentioned?
The Reliability of the Shepherd as a Historical Witness on this Point
It may be called into question whether the Shepherd may be taken as reliable on this point. Clearly there are frankly weird ideas expressed within the book which would not make it a great source of apostolic doctrine when compared with the New Testament.9
However, the question of the existence of a particular institution is a different story. Recall that the church of Rome is Hermas’ home church. Regardless of whatever weird views one might believe in the pew, it would be expected that he knows the name of the pastor, correct? Let alone, whether there is a pastor? And clearly Hermas knows about other institutions within the church, such as the presbyters.
Without a Mono-episcopacy, there is not a Papacy
If you may have noticed, thus far there are two, independent theses that I am defending: (1) there was not a monarchical bishop in Rome at the time of Hermas; (2) there was not a pope in the time of Hermas. These are of course, however, interrelated. It would require less to prove that there was a bishop in Rome than a pope, since more would be required to prove a pope: one would need to show that both (1) a bishop existed there, and (2) he exercised authority over the entire church.
But notice that there being a bishop in Rome is a precondition for there being a pope. Theoretically, you could have a bishop in Rome, without a pope: certainly the Eastern churches would believe this to have been the situation at this time. However, there cannot be a pope in Rome if there was not a bishop. This post has attempted to demonstrate that there was not a bishop in Rome at the time of Hermas, which furthermore shows that there was not a pope.
Takeaways
Neither the Papacy nor Bishops are Essential to the Institutional Church
If it is true that there was not a pope in Rome at the time of Hermas, then it cannot be likewise held that either bishops or popes are essential to what constitutes Christ’s church, if it is to be believed that late first century Rome constituted a true church prior to having a pope. Clearly Paul acknowledges the Romans as if they constituted a true church in his day, which is not far off from Hermas’.
That is not to say that there are no institutional elements which constitute a true church: clearly there have always been presbyters to preach and administer the sacraments, and deacons have existed to meet needs by apostolic appointment since Acts 6, so that the presbyters can do their jobs well. However, it seems clear that bishops were not part of this picture during the period of revelation, the Apostolic Era, as even St. Jerome admits.
Encouragement to Roman Catholic Readers
Roman Catholics have a few options, none of which I find compelling. One approach would be to simply deny that Hermas’ language absolutely excludes the presence of a bishop in Rome. I have already explained at length why this is an unlikely view, under “An Argument from Silence?”
A popular route for addressing historical claims against the papacy is to appeal to divinely-guided doctrinal development, following Cardinal Newman. It goes as follows: “the papacy did not exist in the first century, but only existed in seed form (Christ gave the keys to St. Peter). Like the doctrine of Christ in the Old Testament, it was revealed over the ages until it manifested into a fully-sprouted doctrine of the papacy.” This solves the conundrum, since by this understanding of tradition as a developing entity a pope is not necessary in the first century, nor even a Trinity (as was Newman’s go-to “developed doctrine”). The problematic nature is that the tradition given by the apostles is viewed as final in the New Testament. Jude calls his readers to “contend for the faith,” but not just any faith: for the faith “which was once for all delivered to the saints.” Something which is delivered “once for all” cannot essentially develop. Surely, understanding can develop, as can clarity in articulation, but that does not change the actual apostolic deposit which grounds them. Lest we forget that the church is built upon the “prophets and apostles”, not the fourth century bishops. The very fact that a doctrine substantially “developed” proves that it is not apostolic.
It is my contention that the major “developments” we see over history, such as in the Nicene crisis and the period of the creeds, are of this nature. To take Nicaea as the guiding example, Arian dissenters gave the Church an opportunity to better understand what it really means that “the Word was God,” and to clarify ambiguous language (“genitum, non factum“). But those words, John 1.1, did not suddenly become Trinitarian with the advent of the Nicene crisis: they did not change, nor did their meaning. The Apostle John meant what he meant by those words from the time of his writing. Therefore, these changes were not substantial, that is, having to do with the true substance of that apostolic deposit. But it is a wholly different thing to say, “the first century had no pope, but in the tenth it is a requirement for a true church.” That represents a substantial change: something that was not previously in the deposit has been placed inside it: this is not the clarification of an ambiguity nor the better understanding of the once-for-all deposit.
As an aside, I think this is why Sola Scriptura is so key. Because, otherwise, the definition for what constitutes that apostolic deposit is incredibly vague and amorphous. The Scripures then are our access to that first-century apostolic tradition, as it was “inscripturated” for the Church. Post-apostolic tradition, then, serves a ministerial role to help us understand that one deposit, but is not actually part of that deposit, because by being later it is essentially different than the apostolic tradition.10
Do the Work before Claiming to Know Anything
It was discussed earlier that a common argument for Roman Catholicism has to do with an appeal to what the Church always taught. I call this the “Appeal to Universality” or the “Appeal to Catholicity.” In theory, I think such argumentation can be a weighty supporting argument. If someone claims that a Scripture text teaches ‘X,’ I may not incline to believe him if he is the only person ever to think that the text means ‘X.’ However, if it can be demonstrated that a text has been commonly interpreted throughout history in this way, that makes ‘X’ more tenable. ‘X’ being the traditional view does not make it true, but if a range of possible meanings can be demonstrated through rigorous analysis, then our forefathers taking it to mean ‘X,’ especially those who are earlier, is a significant point in favor of that view.
However, if I say “all the fathers believed ‘X’,” the next logical question ought to be, “which fathers.” An appeal in the general, “the fathers,” is very easy to make. Actually digging through texts to find specific examples, and furthermore weighing how relevant those examples are, takes work. And any appeal to “the fathers” really means nothing without that necessary background. Oftentimes, what “the fathers” tend to teach in this scenario is “whatever my church nowadays teaches,” which is then imposed on them, either by necessity (in the case of some Roman Catholics, and all Eastern Orthodox) or simple bias (like Baptists claiming Tertullian for their sacramental views).
So the mode of argumentation for the “Catholic Appeal” ought to be thus: specific fathers are mentioned, and discussion is then had about whether those specific fathers are actually relevant. Realize that some fathers are more relevant than others, too: a statement by St. Augustine about the bishopric in Rome is simply less relevant than these statements by Hermas or those by St. Clement, because we know for certain that the bishopric already existed in Rome by Augustine’s day, and therefore no significant data has been gained about whether the bishopric is a development in Rome, and, if so, in what way it developed.
But I just want to appeal to the reader: if you claim something, especially something historical, ensure that you have done the work prior to confidently asserting, because, unless you have done the work above (in the case of the Catholic Appeal), then your assertion is meaningless. This does not apply only to the Catholic Appeal, but can really be generalized to any discussion of ideas. And I open dissent from the opinions expressed in this article if reason is given, but to claim that I have simply “arbitrarily broken from what the church has always taught” is naive at best, and dishonest at worst.
Bibliography / Further Reading
Svigel, Michael J., and Caroline P. Buie. The Shepherd of Hermas: A New Translation and Commentary. Cascade Books, 2023.
Holmes, Michael W., ed. and trans. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. Baker Book House, 1999.
- I here distinguish pop-apologetics, that is, “apologetics for the masses,” from more rigorous apologetic materials. Apologetics, literally, “a spoken defense,” is a broad term which can encompass many kinds of materials. This isn’t a bad thing: any thought-group, be it Christian or otherwise, will have a certain level of “pop” understanding which is downstream from rigorous works. This is necessary because the common person doesn’t read dissertations for fun. ↩︎
- The Greek text is taken from Holmes’ wonderful of the edition of the Apostolic Fathers, p. 468. The translation is my own. I’ve taken liberty in translation to add the referent to whom the Church speaks to (Hermas), and what is being read (the little book given Hermas) ↩︎
- LSJ. https://lsj.gr/wiki/%CF%80%CF%81%CE%BF%CE%90%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%B9 ↩︎
- Later in the letter, there will be mention of bishops, as distinguished from teachers. However, in this context, notice that there is no mention made of presbyters: this has led most to believe that Hermas understands these terms as interchangeable, as St. Clement of Rome seems to as well. ↩︎
- cf. 2. ↩︎
- This stem basically refers to “making something known.” In this context, I think that to “warn” fits better in translation, because the book is one of judgement. ↩︎
- cf. Svigel and Osiek, p. 153. I find the presence of women deacons in the early church interesting and important, so I will probably do an article in the future about it. ↩︎
- This would be the one included in Holmes’ Apostolic Fathers text, which reads, “because that is his job.” ↩︎
- For example, Clement seems to express a view that a Christian can only repent one time post-baptism. This would probably put him more in line with the Novatianists than anything else. ↩︎
- This is the language from a book I read once, entitled The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Mathison. For understanding these issues of revelation at a basic popular level, I would recommend it. I think its basic thesis is correct, although I would not uncritically accept everything within the book. But I have been convinced that this at a basic level, is not essentially different from, for example, St. Irenaeus: the apostolic tradition, the content of the Scriptures, were kept within the Church by divine providence through the succession of bishops. ↩︎