Roman Bishop as
Bishop primus inter pares
Africanus’s bishop lists may have
suggested to Hippolytus a certain primacy enjoyed by the Roman bishop. As monepiscopus
of Rome by 235, he could be considered primus inter pares, “first among
equals,” in certain respects. Rome enjoyed special prestige in written
documents from outside Rome for a half century. About 180 Irenaeus had written
from Gaul that the Roman church was a model church in preserving doctrinal
orthodoxy, “the tradition of the apostles” (Haer. 3.3.2). Grant explains
of Irenaeus, “he is setting forth what he views as facts, not describing Roman
claims to primacy” (Grant, Augustus, 156) Then in 221 Africanus seemed
to represent the Roman episcopal succession as the source of the Alexandrian succession
in placing Peter as the founder in Rome and Mark as the founder in Alexandria.
. . . Africanus’s tracing the Roman episcopacy from Peter and the Alexandrian
one from Mark implied that the Alexandrian church was a derivative of the Roman
church according to Papias’ record that Mark was Peter’s interpreter. Again we
are dealing with what is considered fact outside Rome, not a claim from Rome.
Secondly, the opinion of the external
secretary for Roman churches had already carried special weight among his episcopal
peers. In the Easter controversy at the end of the second century all attention
was focused on the opinion of the Roman spokesman Victor. Would Rome be
persuaded to maintain fellowship with churches of variant traditions regarding
Easter (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.24.9-18)? Later, in the middle of the
third century, Cyprian of Carthage reflects a certain subordination to
Cornelius in Rome. Cyprian renders to Cornelius an account of his actions (Ep.
54.9). (Quasten, Patrology, 2:377) In the same letter Rome is termed the
“leading church.”
The Roman presbyter-bishop acting as representative
spokesman to other churches in the late second century and the early third
century enjoyed special status as a senior peer, primus inter pares, in
various respects short of outright primacy as superior authority. In light of
this status, we propose that when Demetrius asked Pontianus in 232 to break communion
with the eastern bishops supporting Origen (Jerome, Ep. 33.4) Demetrius
was appealing to Rome monepiscopus as more than simply a peer. He was
requesting the support of an episcopate not claiming superior authority but
enjoying a superior status.
Hippolytus does nothing to diminish
whatever heightened position the Roman bishop may have with respect to
Alexandria or other churches. In his episcopal list he adopts Africanus’s
perspective of a Petrine foundation for the Roman Church. (Lightfoot, Apostolic
Fathers, 1:255)
Hippolytus continues Africanus’s perspective
on the authority of the Roman bishop. Furthermore, we may speculate that Hippolytus’s
perspective had one other implication. We have seen that Hippolytus probably
supported Pontanius in affirming Demetrius’s objection to Origen’s ordination.
That action notwithstanding, our chronicler may have reestablished relations
with Origen and his episcopal admirers in the east before the deportation in
235. The actions by the new emperor Maximin against Alexander’s ecclesiastical constituency
no doubt conceal part of the story. (Robert Lee Williams, Bishop
Lists: Formation of Apostolic Succession of Bishops in Ecclesiastical Crises
[Gorgias Studies in Early Christianity and Patristics 16; Piscataway, N.J.:
Gorgias Press, 2005], 174-75)
In
a footnote to the above, we read that:
If a spirit of cooperation between
Hippolytus and Palestine existed between 232 and 235, such may account for some
of the disparate references to Hippolytus in Eusebius and hold potential for
better explanation than the earnest but unconvincing attempts of Nautin (Hippolyte
et Josipe) and others. (Ibid., 175 n. 72)