POST THREE OF FIVE
The Political fight for power and prominence
When the “rank of churches became determined by the prominence of cities as civil capitals,” it was inevitable that clashes between the rivals for prominence would take place. The Great Catholic Historian Duchesne observed that “the bishops of the capital did not content themselves for long with being the ecclesiastical heads of a single diocese.” This was simply human nature.
Once the episcopal seat became the highest office in the city, it became the goal of the ambition and the unscrupulous and those who were aggressive in nature. There are legions of examples of this phenomenon. “It is not the priestly office that is to blame,” writes Chrystostom, commenting on the increasing and spreading evil in his time, “but those who abuse it, as every intelligent person admits.”
Yet they continued to elect morally and religiously unqualified men , and wolves in sheeps robes instead, so that “in our day it has reached the point where, unless God very quickly snatches us from the danger and saves us and his church [all will be lost]. Pray tell me, where do you think all these riots come from that now fill the churches? From nothing in the world but the false teaching of those at the head, and from these haphazard and uncontrolled elections”.
He continues to discuss the state of contention in this early church : “Some are actually filling the churches with murder, leading whole cities to riot and revolt, all because they are fighting [to get themselves elected bishops].” This is a corrupt system that was NOT the character of the original Church of Jesus Christ. And, who rises to the top to lead other than the strongest and best able to subdue the others?
Thus the great Tertullian himself contemptuously describes the one “who calls himself the bishop of bishops.” and later Cyprian himself becomes so disgusted as to say “we recognize no bishop of bishops”. Though such religious individuals are disgusted at the type of individuals who are elected, they could not expect that a religious “lamb” was going to be elected to lead a rabble made of “pseudo-religious wolves”. Of course there are NOT just wolves in this mix, there are incredibly faithful and wonderful individuals in the mix. BUT, they are not aggressive nor are they willing to wage a limited war to gain control.
Thus, In this time of the apostolic fathers there is “fierce, loathsome, riotous sedition” within the Christian communities and the object of their warfare is so often the support of rival candidates to the office of bishop. Though the original and authentic episcopal office was not a political one, it certainly became one once it became the gift of popular election. This later episcopal office is NO LONGER an “apostolic” office.
THE INCREASINGLY POLITICAL NATURE OF ELECTIONS OF THE BISHOP OF ROME
There are good reasons for Tertullian and Cyprian and the apostolic fathers to complain of the lack of authentic religious leadership. The complete absence of any clear principle of succession at rome is strongly witnessed by the terrible strife and confusion accompanying the election of bishops in that city, especially during the fourth century. About a.d. 220, the double election of Callistus and Heppolytus led to a serious schism in the city, and the trouble was not settled until 235. Then came the schism between Cornelius and Novatus. In 354 Liberious was ordained 34th bishop of Rome, but the emperor wanted one of his own men in the position and made it an issue of doctrine to install his friend Felix.
However, the people had elected Liberious, and were insistent. The emperor finally recalled him to preside in Rome as joint bishop of Rome with Felix. But popular demonstrations continued, and the circus resounced with the shout of thousands who repeatedly exclaimed, “One God, One Christ, One bishop!” (Theodoret, Historia Ecclesiatica 2.14, in PG 82:1041)
Even worse trouble arose a few years later with the ordination of the next bishop of Rome, Damasus, whose election was challenged by the bishops, who elected a rival, Ursinus. When Damasus became bishop, writes Socrates, rioting instantly broke out all over rome because the preceding bishop had chosen not Damasus but Ursinus to be his successor (Socrates Scholasticus, Historia ecclesiatica 4.29, in PG 67:541). “So all the people rose in arms against each other, not because of any doctrine or heresy, but purely and simply over the issue of who was authorized to sit in the episcopal throne.” (Socrates Scholasticus, Historia ecclesiatica 4.29, in PG 67:541). Plainly there was still no definite rule of succession.
The next papal election brought on another crisis, reported by a contemporary, Ammianus: under Theodoric, “Symmachus and Laurentius being both consecrated, fought for the episcopal throne of Rome. By God’s decree, Symmachus, being worthy of the office, was victorious.” (Ammianus Marcellinus, Excerpta Valesiana 12.65.)
That is a significant principle of succession, for the barbarians who were ruling at the time ( and Theodoric and Ammianus were both barbarians) often believed in trial by duel: that the winner of a ritual combat was chosen of God. They now apply that principle to the election of the Roman Bishop, though is does not seem very apostolic. Later, another Symmachus, a deacon, became bishop of Rome, being “consecrated by a crowd of deacons,” says Theophanes, “from which came rioting, killing, and plundering in the city, which lasted for three years.” (Theophanes, chronographia 493, in PG 108:344)
THE GAINING OF POWER AND WEALTH AND INFLUENCE
However, once the Bishop start to vie for personal pre-eminence, they almost immediately engage in worldliness, pride and oppression. “Christ called fishermen and tent makers and tax collectors to this supreme authority,” wrote Chrystostom, “but the present clergy simply spit on those who earn their living by daily toil; whereas if someone is devoted to worldly studies, avoids hard work, etc., they receive him with open arms and admiration. Why is it that they pass right by those who have toiled and sweated all their days for the upbuilding of the church to give all the highest church offices to somebody who had never raised a finger to do any work but wasted all his time dabbling in useless, ornamental, worldly learning?”
Even the arguments at Nicaea become contaminated with the desire for pre-eminence and power and influence. For example, the letters in Patrologiae Latinae `13:583-88 indicate the east-west Arian controversy very much part of the terrible struggle for episcopal pre-eminence. It often became a contest, not between theologians arguing for a specific truth, but between individuals vying for power influence and power and using their arguments to demonstrate their rhetorical and debating skills and superior knowledge.
As the church began to accumulate power and riches under the favor of the emperor, Eusebius tells how “some that appeared to be our pastors, deserting the law of piety, were inflamed against each other with mutual strifes, only accumulating quarrels and threats, rivalry, hostility, and hatred to each others, only anxious to assert the government as a kind of sovereignty for themselves.
“But the events that occurred in the intermediate time, besides those already related, I have thought proper to pass by; I mean particularly the circumstances of the different heads of the churches, who from being shepherds of the reasonable flocks of Christ…did not govern in a lawful and becoming manner…[there were] ambitious aspirings of many to office, …great schisms and difficulties industriously fomented by the factions among the new members, against the relics of the church, devising one innovation after another. (Eusebius, Ecclesiatical History, 374-75; Eusebius, De Martyribus Palaestinae 12, in PG 20:1511-14)
POST FOUR OF FIVE FOLLOWS
