Anacletus, St. (c. 79-c.91). In the earliest succession lists of bishops of Rome he follows Linus, second in the line inaugurated by the Apostles Peter and Paul. Later convention reckons him the third pope from St. Peter. His actual functions and responsibilities can only be surmised, for the monarchical, or one-man episcopacy had not yet emerged in Rome. (J.N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes [rev ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2006], 7, emphasis added)
Recently, a popular young Evangelical “youtuber” has announced that she is converting to Roman Catholicism. When she (Lizzy Reezay) announced this in a video, she stated that Von Harnack’s work supported Roman Catholic claims to papal authority in her video, COMING HOME! My Conversion Story Into Catholicism (From an Ex-Protestant) (beginning around 24:28, “Discovering the Early Church”)
This struck me as an interesting claim; I had previously read Von Harnack’s 7-volume History of Dogma, so was familiar with much of his understanding of the theology, including the ecclesiology, of early Christianity. I decided to purchase a copy of the volume she referenced:
Adolf Von Harnack, The Constitution and Law of the Church in the First Two Centuries (trans. F.L. Pogson; London: Williams and Norgate, 1910)
However, while reading the book, I noticed that Von Harnack, instead of supporting the dogmatic claims of Catholicism about the Church and Bishop of Rome, etc., actually refuted much of modern, dogmatic teachings of Roman Catholicism on papal primacy, the one-man (monarchical) episcopacy, etc. Note the following:
Von Harnack Denies that Peter’s Office Continued After His Death:
Protestant exegetes and historians are inclined to under-estimate the position of Peter among the apostles and in the primitive community. As early as the time of Jesus he stood at the head as spokesman and primus (the Messianic line of thought does not admit of a primus among the Twelve; therefore Peter’s pre-eminence must be based on his personal qualities and on their recognition by Jesus). The fact that he was the first to behold the Risen One safeguarded and strengthened this position, which was threatened, it may be, by that of James, but as regards the Gentile Christians remained unchanged. If it was reported in the Palestinian circle, in which the Gospel of Matthew originated, that Jesus had expressly declared His intention of founding His Church on Peter, and similarly if it was reported in the “Johannine” circle that the Risen One had entrusted to him with the leadership of His flock, it would be a disastrous weakening of his claim if anyone ventured to deny that those who circulated these reports were thinking of a formal primacy of Peter in the cure of souls. It is true that he was no longer alive when they made these statements about him, and the Pauline Epistles and other sources know nothing of such a primacy in the cure of souls, however highly they value Peter’s reputation and activity. But the thought that Peter’s office and reputation could or necessarily must pass to a second and a third occurred to nobody, so far as we know, in the apostolic and post-apostolic age; even in the second century every trace of such an idea is still absent. The actual charismatic primacy of Peter is something which cannot be looked upon as transferable, unless for Peter’s benefit we do violence to the fundamental conditions and principles of the growing Church and introduce an entirely alien point of view. (pp. 7-8, n. 1, emphasis added)
The Church at Corinth did not have a Monarchical Episcopacy
Commenting on the congregation at Corinth to whom 1 Clement is addressed, Von Harnack notes the following:
(a) The community is divided into older men (πρεσβυτεροι) and the “young”; to the former honour is due (i. 3, iii. 3, xxi, 6).
(b) From these presbyters (as advanced in years) we must distinguish “the leaders” to whom obedience is due (ηγομενοι, προηγουμενοι, i. 3, xxi. 6; I can be proved from other sources that in the earliest period this was a general name in the Roman community for all leaders . . .
(c) Among these leaders the Epistle keeps in view from c. 40 onwards those who had to conduct divine service, either because this seemed to the author the most important (in certain respects it was the most important), or because the dispute centred round the order of worship. These leaders the author thrice calls “bishops and deacons,” and their office the “bishop’s office,” επισκοπη (xlii. 4 ff., xliv. 1, 4).
(d) There are appointed officials (καθιστανειν, xlii. 4, 5, xliii. 1, xliv. 2 ff., liv. 2) who as having for many years borne a good report with all (xliv. 3), and finally having been solemnly put to the test (xliv. 2), have been appointed by men of repute with the consent of the whole Church (xliv. 3).
(e) Their functions in the bishop’s office (επισκοπη) are essentially or primarily connected with public worship (“to offer the gifts,” προσφερειν τα δωρα, xl. 4; “to perform offerings and ministrations,” προσφορας και λειτουργιας επιτελεισθαι, xl. 2; “to make offerings,” προσφορας ποιειν, xl. 4; “ministration,” λειτουργια, is used in c. 44 alternatively with “bishop’s office,” επισκοπη).
(f) These officials, a section of whom has just been deposed, also bear (xliv. 5) the title “presbyters” (the passage is decisive, because it calls the deceased predecessors of the deposed bishops and deacons “the presbyters who have gone before” [προοδοιπορησαντες πρεσβυτεροι]; the passages xlvii. 6 and lvii. 1 are not decisive, because here the presbyters [οι πρεσβυτεροι] may mean [as in i. 3, iii. 3, xxi. 6] those advanced in years, and in liv. 2 they are at least included among the appointed presbyters (καθεσταμενοι πρεσβυτεροι).
(g) In spite of the great importance of the officials, ideally and in the last resort authority rests with the flock itself (το ποιμενιον, see xvi. 1, xliv. 3, liv. 2, lvii. 2) or with the people (το πληθος: liv. 1, “I do that which is ordered by the people,” ποιω τα προσ-τασσομενα υπο του πληθους).
(h) The existence of a monarchical bishop for Corinth is excluded.
(i) The author of the Epistle writes in the name of the Roman community and never abandons this attitude nor does the Roman community send people to Corinth whom it describes as clerics but as “faithful and prudent men that have walked among us from youth unto old age unblamably,” ανδρας πιστους και σωφρονας, απο ωεοτητος αναστραφεντας εως γηρους αμεμπτως εν ημιν (lxiii. 6)
These are the actual conditions which prevailed; it follows from them that the bishops and deacons who are always mentioned together, and whose common function is called a bishop’s office (επισκοπη), or ministration (λειτουργια), probably belong, as appointed presbyters (καθεσταμενοι πρεσβυτεροι), to the rulers (ηγουμενοι) . . . (pp. 69-71, emphasis added)
The Church of Rome Did Not have a Monarchical Episcopacy
The “Shepherd” of Hermas.—As regards the Roman community (but not the Corinthian), the Epistle of Clement leaves, after all, the distant possibility open that a monarchical bishop existed there . . . But this possibility is excluded by Hermas . . . Hermas mentions a certain Clement and a certain Grapte when he is speaking of the sending forth of the book. The former is to send the book “to foreign cities” (εις τας εξω πολεις), for this is what he has been commissioned to do (εκεινω γαρ επιτετραπται); the latter is to make use of it to admonish the widows and orphans. Probably the writer of the First Epistle of Clement is meant; but even if it is recognised that in this sentence (εκεινω γαρ επιτετραπται) Clement is entrusted not with a temporary commission for a particular purpose, but with a permanent and general one, still he cannot by any means be regarded as a monarchical bishop. Though he may have been very highly esteemed and was perhaps a presbyter or a bishop, yet he can only be looked upon as an official appointed to deal with the correspondence. The existence of a monarchical bishop is excluded both by the plural “the presbyters who preside over the church” (οι πρεσβυτεροι οι προισταμενοι της εκκλησιας) (in the one community of Rome) and by the plural “bishops” (επισκοποι). (pp. 74, 77-78, emphasis added)
Further Evidence Rome did not have a Monarchial Episcopacy
(v) The putting forward of lists of bishops (after the last quarter of the second century: in Rome, Antioch, Corinth, etc., Eusebius, H.E., iv. 23. 3 ff.) would have been an impudent falsification, which could not possibly have succeeded, if from an early period a single individual had not thus stood out as primus inter pares in the presbytertal college of many communities (in the sense in which Clement comes forward as author in the Roman Epistle to Corinth). Just for this very reason it is quite impossible to say when the monarchial episcopate really began. It developed by a gradual process of differentiation, though the fundamental tendency was not at the beginning monarchical in character. It is naturally first realized in the localities where the title of “bishop” is applied only to a single member of a community and not to several.
(vi) There was another reason why the development towards monarchy could never appear as a break with the past, viz. in many matters the bishop, even after he had become monarchical, acted in the same way as before, namely, as a fellow-presbyter along with the college of presbyters. As it is said of Marcion (Epiphanius, xlii. 2) that he appeared before the presbyters in Rome, so it is said of Noëtus that he was judged by the presbyters in Smyrna (Hippol., c. Noët. 1), and the name “presbyter” was still applied to the bishops for a very long period (see above), and was preserved still longer in the bishops’ practice of addressing their presbyters as fellow-presbyters and colleagues. The development towards full monarchy which is involved in these tendencies was checked for a good many decades by the universal collegiate character of this office. (pp. 99-100, emphasis added)
The earliest Bishops of Rome did not claim to be the singularly unique successor to Peter
It was not until the third century, as far as we are able to judge, that the Bishop of Rome gave himself out to be the personal successor of Peter (to the exclusion of all similar claims) and began to claim for himself the duties, rights, and honours which Peter had possessed, or which he and others attributes to Peter. Peter is something absolutely unique, and it is still more remarkable that the Roman bishop gradually succeeded in enforcing this exorbitant claim. The other episcopal occupants of apostolic seats have never felt and proclaimed themselves the personal successors of the apostles in question, in the sense in which the Bishop of Rome made this claim. They said, no doubt, that they occupied the seat of James, Mark, etc. (cathedra Jacobi, Marci), but this was hardly anything more than the statement of an historical act. Within the general conception of the apostolical succession of the bishops, the claim of the Roman bishop is historically and intrinsically an entirely exceptional case, which is by no means covered by the general idea of succession. It is an instance of the shrewedness of the Roman Church that she tries to make it appear that the authority of the Roman bishop as the successor and representative of Peter is involved, ipso facto, in the general idea of the apostolical succession of bishops, while in reality, in the form in which it is conceived and turned to account, it has hardly anything to do with it, and is entirely devoid of any historical foundation. (p. 126 n. 1)
How Lizzie missed this is beyond me. It is obvious to anyone who reads Von Harnack’s book that it refutes, not supports, the Roman Catholic claims to authority and the existence of a monarchical episcopacy in Rome (and other cities) in the earliest period of Christianity. Usually one would give someone the benefit of the doubt if they were basing this on a misreading of another source, but Lizzie owns and purports to have read Von Harnack’s book, showing that there is deliberate deception, no doubt to soothe her conscious over converting to a false Church (Roman Catholicism).
As always, this highlights the importance of checking sources and not taking anyone’s word at value (and yes, that includes me—I claim to be well-informed and well-read, but I am not infallible—something I have in common with the Roman Pontiff!)
Sadly, Lizzie seems to lack any sound exegetical training, her educational background notwithstanding. Her video (lamely) defending the perpetual virginity of Mary is just one example. To compare and contrast her flimsy eisegesis with an exegetical discussion and refutation of this dogma of Roman Catholicism, see chapter 4, “The Perpetual Virginity of Mary” in my book, Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology, pp. 83-138 as well as my articles responding to the purported biblical and historical evidence for the Mass: