Sundays: 9:00 AM Sunday School | 10:30 AM Worship Service

Watch Live

|

Contact

|

App

|

Sunday School

Lesson 2: The Rise of the Papacy

Speaker
David Capoccia

Listen to Audio Save MP3 Save PDF


Slides / Handouts

PDF document available for this sermon.

Your browser doesn’t support PDF embedding.

Download PDF

Reading Tools:

Aa

Auto Transcript

Note: This transcript and summary was autogenerated. It has not yet been proofread or edited by a human.

Summary

This lesson examines the rise of the papacy in the early Middle Ages, exploring how the bishop of Rome accumulated unprecedented spiritual and political authority. Three key factors converged to enable this rise: the evolution of monoepiscopacy (rule by a single bishop), Rome’s geographic isolation as the only western patriarchate, and the political vacuum left by the fall of the Western Roman Empire. We then meet two pivotal early popes—Leo the Great and Gregory the Great—who, despite being likely true believers, significantly advanced papal claims to supreme authority.

Key Lessons:

  1. Church government structures can drift far from biblical patterns when pragmatic concerns like unity and efficiency override scriptural instruction, as seen in the shift from a plurality of elders to monoepiscopacy and eventually to the papacy.
  2. The Bible does not support Petrine supremacy—Matthew 16:18 uses two different Greek words (Petros and Petra), and the rest of Scripture shows Peter as a fellow elder, not a supreme leader, who was even rebuked by Paul.
  3. Even good leaders with genuine faith (like Leo and Gregory) can promote serious errors, reminding us that faithfulness in some areas does not guarantee correctness in all areas.
  4. Galatians 1:8 establishes that Scripture holds authority over any church leader—if even an apostle preaches contrary to the gospel, he is to be rejected.

Application: We are called to evaluate all claims of spiritual authority against Scripture, submitting to God’s Word above any human leader. We should be grateful for biblical church government—a plurality of qualified elders—and guard against the temptation to elevate any single leader to unbiblical prominence.

Discussion Questions:

  1. How can churches today guard against the gradual drift toward centralizing authority in one leader, similar to what happened in the early centuries of church history?
  2. Leo the Great and Gregory the Great were likely genuine believers who nonetheless promoted serious errors. How should we evaluate leaders who are faithful in some areas but wrong in others?
  3. Gregory rebuked the idea of a “universal priest” as the work of Antichrist, yet his own effective leadership ironically increased papal authority. How can our good works unintentionally contribute to unhealthy structures?

Scripture Focus: Matthew 16:18 is examined in its Greek context to challenge the claim of Petrine supremacy; Galatians 1:8 establishes that Scripture’s authority supersedes any apostle or church leader; 1 Peter 5 shows Peter calling himself a “fellow elder” rather than claiming supreme authority.

Outline

Introduction

Welcome back to our new series on medieval church history. Church history 102.

You can find your seats, please. Last week we overviewed medieval church history as well as the fall of Rome and the rise of Islam. Today we talk about another important medieval rising to which Islam inadvertently contributed: the rise of the papacy, the consolidation of power and influence in the bishopric of Rome.

I told you last week that not all of Rome’s popes were bad. Some were, from what we can tell, true believers, especially in the early Middle Ages, and we have some reason to be grateful for them.

Some of the later popes, however, were clearly not believers, and they exerted an evil and dispiriting influence on those who were seeking to follow Christ in Western Europe.

Now in today’s class I’m going to focus on the papacy in the early Middle Ages: the emergence of the papacy and specifically the factors encouraging church power in Rome, the centralization of power in the bishopric of Rome, and then two important early popes—Leo the Great and Gregory the Great. We’ll be dipping back a little bit into late antiquity, kind of in that transition space between late antiquity and the early Middle Ages, talking mostly early Middle Ages today.

Let’s pray as we continue. Lord God, I pray that you’d bless this look at church history and that you would enable me to explain it well. And Lord, we would not only understand the world better, but give you thanks for you doing everything perfectly just as you have determined in Jesus’ name.

Factors Encouraging Church Power in Rome

Amen. We begin today by talking about factors encouraging church power in Rome. People like Leo and Gregory, those we’ll talk about today, did not step into a vacuum to bolster the papacy single-handedly. Circumstances were already converging in late antiquity, that would be AD 200 to about 500, and the early Middle Ages, 500 to 1,000, to enable men like them to act as they did, or even independently of them to promote the Roman church’s rise in prominence.

“Circumstances were already converging in late antiquity to enable men like them to act as they did.”

The Evolution of Monoepiscopacy

Let’s look together at the three most important factors encouraging church power in Rome. Some of this we previewed at the end of last week’s lesson.

The first is the evolution of monoepiscopacy. According to the Bible, who should govern in the church? Elders, pastors and elders.

That’s two terms for the same thing. Now, is it one person at the top of a group, or is it a group with shared authority?

It’s a group. It’s a plurality. But we saw that there was an impetus to change this government structure in the early centuries. In particular, there was one apostolic father who encouraged an alteration to church government. Anybody remember who that was?

Ignatius of Antioch, second century. He advocated monoepiscopacy, which means rule by one elder, one overseer, one bishop—episcopos in Greek. Now why did he advocate this? For unity’s sake and for efficiency’s sake. We talked about his arguments. You can see where he’s coming from from a human perspective, even though it’s not biblical.

Because of Ignatius and others, the church gradually did adopt monoepiscopacy. But even then that church government didn’t stay static. It evolved. At first, monoepiscopacy meant that there would be a lead elder who was a leader among equals, the president of a board of presbyters or elders. Presbyter is another Greek term.

Soon, however, the bishop came to have sole authority over the presbyters, who were called priests for short. They then submitted to and served under the bishop in the local church. So we go from a leader among the leaders to one leader, and the other leaders are submitting to him—the bishop over the presbyters or priests.

But that also evolved. Rather than each local church submitting to its own bishop, certain bishops began to exert influence on less important churches in the surrounding area. The bishop in the city, for example, began to have influence on how churches were to be run in the countryside or in the surrounding towns.

“We go from a leader among the leaders to one leader and the other leaders are submitting to him.”

Eventually, certain cities and the churches in them became important enough that they gained authority over entire regions and over all church leaders in those regions. We’re just seeing a hierarchy keep on building. This isn’t too crazy. We could see how this could start even today.

Even today, there are certain churches or certain church leaders that, even though technically they’re equal to every other church or every other church leader, people nonetheless look to them as having a certain degree more authority. Even among Protestant evangelicals, you can think about certain famous pastors or certain famous churches and say, “Well, there’s a reason that they’re so great. We should listen to them.” Even in our own local church, many people will think that way.

This especially happens in situations of church planting. New churches birthed by one or more old churches almost inevitably maintain a degree of respect and submission to those old churches and to their leaders. How could you not be grateful in that way? They birthed you. How could you not follow their direction at least somewhat?

Add to that history and tradition. You’re more likely to have reverence for a church and its pastors if that church has been around and faithful for a hundred years than if that church and pastor have only been around for ten years. It seems to have more prestige, more authority.

These same forces were at work to elevate certain churches in late antiquity. The bishops of these superchurches soon had a different title. Does anybody know what they were called?

The Rise of the Patriarchs

These bishops of the super churches were given a different title. They were called patriarchs. And what does that mean?

Father. It’s the male head of the family. There came to be five patriarchs and thus five patriarchates in the Roman Empire. We did mention these at the end of last lesson: Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Constantinople.

These were the most important cities with the most important churches with the most important bishops, now called patriarchs. The reason why these cities were considered important had to do with that city’s history, especially Christian history.

Rome was the site of many Christian martyrdoms, including Paul’s and Peter’s, and also the place that Peter pastored for a time. Antioch was one of the first major Christian centers, a missionary base for Paul, and said to be founded by Peter.

Alexandria was said to be founded by Mark. It was a very old church with a famous Christian school in the city, known for its scholarship. Jerusalem was the oldest church, led chiefly by the Apostle James at first, and a very significant city in God’s dealings with man throughout history.

Constantinople was added later as the new Christian capital and the seat of the emperor. It was also supposedly the region, if not the city, where Andrew first brought the gospel.

“These were the most important cities with the most important churches with the most important bishops, now called patriarchs.”

While these superbishops, these patriarchs, none of them had unquestioned authority. Even lesser bishops supposedly under them would seek autonomy or elevation of prestige themselves at times.

In late antiquity, church leaders generally came to accept that these five cities had the most important churches and that the other bishops in their regions generally should submit to their leadership.

Geographic Location

These are the guiding lights of the entire church. This change in church hierarchy occurred in the first three to four centuries of the church and was extending into the early middle ages. This contributed to the rise of the papacy in Rome. That’s the first major factor.

A second is geographic location. As we noticed last week, what is it about Rome’s geography that made it conducive to increased authority?

Compared to those other four seats, those other patriarchs, it doesn’t have any other patriarchs near it, patriarchates. The pentarchy—these five leading churches—is the only one more or less in the west. All the other four are in the east. This makes sense from a historical perspective. No major churches were established by the apostles west of Rome.

But this means that the region of Rome’s authority and control as a patriarchate was potentially much larger and uncontested compared to the patriarchates in the east. The other patriarchs in the east often jockeyed for position with one another. They say, “Oh you should follow my leadership or I’m the leader of the leaders.” But there were no other major churches in the west to balance out Rome’s power. It was alone in its authority. It didn’t have another church to check it.

“There were no other major churches in the west to balance out Rome’s power. It was alone in its authority.”

Additionally, I mentioned church planting before. Let’s not forget that Christian missionary work continued even after the first few centuries. I’ll talk more about this in an upcoming lesson.

But for new churches in the west among the various barbarian kingdoms, whom are they going to see as their parent church? Well, who sent the missionaries?

Ultimately Rome did.

The Political Situation

As east and west became more divided by language, culture, and political system over time, and as Islam would spread and subsume three of the five pentarchy seats, Rome would feel more and more independent from the authority of the eastern churches and their patriarchs. Monoepiscopacy and geography both contributed to the rise of the papacy in a major way.

The third factor is the political situation. Going back to last lesson at the beginning of the Middle Ages, what is the biggest difference between the political situation of the east and the west? In the east, we still have strong emperors. In the west, you have weak or non-existent emperors—they are puppets or they’re just gone.

Now the term that comes to define the relationship between the church and the state in the east, notwithstanding Ambrose’s famous showdown with Theodosius in the 4th century, is Caesaropapism.

Caesaropapism vs. Papal Monarchy

Caesarism, which means Caesar is father, Caesar is pope. In other words, the Christian emperor in Constantinople had ultimate authority in the church. Even if he didn’t have or claim the title of pope, he was essentially the head of the Eastern Church. He’s the one who could call church councils. He’s the one who could depose bishops. He’s the one who could outlaw and persecute heretics, etc. Caesar is pope.

“The Christian emperor in Constantinople had ultimate authority in the church.”

But in the west before 476, the Roman emperors are essentially powerless. They don’t have the ability to get anything done.

Much less enforce decisions on the church. Not only is the patriarchy in Rome much more independent than those in the east because of the lack of strong state government, but the disappearance of the Roman Empire in the west created a power vacuum for Roman Christians. Who is going to take care of these ex-Roman Christians in the west when the emperors could not or were non-existent?

Well, what about the next greatest authority in the west? The bishop, the bishop of Rome.

Certainly many Christians were not enthused about looking toward the pagan barbarian kings for leadership or guidance, especially in spiritual things. But they were used to submitting to Rome in matters of religion and spirituality. Could not the bishop of Rome also take care of practical needs of Christians in the west?

Therefore, some refer to what ends up developing in the west as papal monarchy. This is the opposite of what develops in the east. In the east, the king becomes pope. In the west, the pope becomes king. People are used to following his spiritual authority, so they say, why not follow his secular authority? Could he also govern us in secular things? Could he not also hold power?

These three factors—monoepiscopacy, geography, and political situation—all encourage not only the elevation of the spiritual authority of the Roman patriarch but also his political authority.

Now let’s meet two men who built on, who reacted to, and played an important role in response to these factors in the rise of the papacy. They are Leo I and Gregory I. Both of these men, though believing in and promoting some serious errors, nevertheless fall under the category of good popes, even probably true believers who genuinely sought to shepherd faithfully God’s church.

By the way, the title pope is just another word for father. It was used to refer to any of the five patriarchs at first—those five I mentioned earlier—but later it is used to refer just to the patriarch of Rome. So pope just means father.

Now as two of the earliest and greatest popes, many other Catholic popes in history who would come after them would choose to take the name Leo or Gregory upon assuming the papal office.

“In the east, the king becomes pope. In the west, the pope becomes king.”

By doing so, they were essentially saying, “I want to be like that first Leo, or I want to be like that first Gregory.” Interestingly, we just had a newly elected pope. What name did he take? Leo. We have Leo the 14th. So we see the same thing even in our own day.

Leo the Great: Founder of the Papacy

But let’s look at these two popes that so many other popes want to model themselves on. The first is Leo I, or Leo the Great.

While we don’t have too many details of his early life, Leo was apparently first a deacon and later elected bishop of Rome in 440. Leo was a brilliant theologian and a very successful pope. He actively defended the church against heresies while also building the Roman church’s power.

I’d love to take you through some of the more positive things about Leo, but I need to focus on what is most notable about him. That is, he firmly believed in the supremacy of Rome over all other Christian churches. He’s not just one of the patriarchs—he’s the patriarch—and he was going to advocate for that position.

Almost everything Leo did or said was somehow connected with increasing the Roman church’s authority and legitimacy.

So you could say that Leo is the true founder of the papacy. This papal state, this thing that became known as the Catholic Church led by the pope—in many ways Leo is the founder of it. Indeed, the standard Roman Catholic arguments that we hear today about Petrine supremacy, the apostolic succession from Peter that gives Roman popes their consmate authority, that Peter is the rock that Jesus mentions in Matthew 16:18, and therefore you should listen to the popes in Rome—those arguments are first articulated by Leo.

“Almost everything Leo did or said was somehow connected with increasing the Roman church’s authority and legitimacy.”

Leo’s Argument for Petrine Supremacy

He’s the one who promulgates those. For example, we won’t read through this. You can read through it later on the slides when they’re posted to the website, usually on Monday.

In a letter to one of the patriarchs in Alexandria, Dascorus Leo argues to this patriarch that just as John Mark followed and submitted to Peter, so Mark’s successor in Alexandria should submit to Peter’s successor in Rome. This was his argument. Notably, Dasclorist didn’t buy it.

The position of most patriarchs in the east was either okay, Rome, you’re the first among equals or no, we’re just all leaders. Don’t try and get too uppidity. Nevertheless, Leo continued to make these arguments.

And while he didn’t sway the other patriarchs, he did reach many Christian laymen. Here’s a clearer example of Leo’s thinking. And this one I will read to you. If the text is small, don’t worry. Just listen and you can look it up later on the slides.

Here’s a clear example of Leo’s thinking in a sermon that he preached on his birthday and on his anniversary of becoming pope in Rome. Here’s Leo:

“And from God’s overruling and eternal protection, we have received the support of the apostles aid also, which assuredly does not cease from its operation. And the strength of the foundation on which the whole superstructure of the church is reared is not weakened by the weight of the temple that rests upon it. For the solidity of that faith which was praised in the chief of the apostles is perpetual. And as that remains which Peter believed in Christ, so that remains which Christ instituted in Peter.

“For when as has been read in the gospel lesson, the Lord had asked the disciples whom they believed him to be amid the various opinions that were held. And the blessed Peter had replied saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God.’ The Lord says, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonah, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my father which is in heaven.

And I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shalt be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven.’

“The dispensation of truth therefore abides. And the blessed Peter persevering in the strength of the rock which he has received has not abandoned the helm of the church which he undertook.

“For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called the rock. From his being pronounced the foundation. From his being constituted the doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven. From his being set as the umpire to bind and to loose, whose judgment shall retain their validity in heaven. From all these mystical titles, we might know the nature of his association with Christ.

“And still today, he more fully and effectually performs what is entrusted to him and carries out every part of his duty and charge in him and with him through whom he has been glorified. And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his see.”

So if you followed all that, Leo argues not only does the supreme apostolic authority live on today, but what also continues not just Peter’s authority and his successors, but they head still as heads. That’s right. So it’s not just that he’s the head in authority. He’s received that as a succession from Peter, but Peter’s power continues.

He must have a power that continues because consider all those mystical titles he was granted. That’s not like just while a little while he was on the earth.

“Leo argues not just Peter’s authority continues in his successors, but Peter’s power continues.”

That’s perpetual. His power continues.

So as Leo closes this excerpt, whatever righteousness Leo does, it’s not Christ in Leo, but whom in Leo?

Peter in Leo.

In a strange mystical way. Now, this is an important claim for Leo to make because if he were only to claim the authority and not some kind of extra supernatural power or assistance, then some might accuse Leo or other Roman popes of having the same fallibility as any other bishop, making that extra authority moot. If you’re granted extra authority and not extra power, well, so what? That’s not going to help the church.

So Leo says, “Roman popes have both.” Now Leo was not only able to persuade some laymen with these types of arguments, but he also managed to get the Western Emperor on his side. Now this wasn’t too hard considering how weak the Western emperors were at the end of the Western Roman Empire. But it did help Roman prestige, papal prestige.

Emperor Valentinian III decreed in 445, and again you can read this later, that the Roman church was the highest spiritual authority and that all bishops in Western Roman territory must be subject to the pope or else the secular magistrates will intervene. Now again the emperor didn’t really have much authority to enforce this, but it certainly enhanced the prestige of the pope and it gave him the upper hand when dealing with any uppidity local bishops.

Did Peter Have Special Authority?

Now, it’s worth taking a moment to pause. Could Leo be right? Are the Roman bishops special successors to authority and power from Peter? Well, there are two main issues with Leo’s assertion, and I’ll break it down in several other ways.

First, did Peter really have special authority and power compared to the other apostles?

Second, if Peter did, did that special authority and power pass to the leaders in Rome specifically?

Considering the first issue, we must admit that the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 that Leo provides and that many Roman Catholic popes have provided since then is dubious. Examining the Greek of the passage, we have masculine Petros, Peter’s name, which means stone, set against feminine Petra, which means rock or bedrock.

Not only are they two different terms referring to two different ideas, but they’re in two different genders grammatically. Protestants have made much of this. This continues to be an interpretive battleground between Protestants and Roman Catholics. But the difference in terms suggests that it’s not exactly the same.

When Jesus says, “Peter, I say you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church,” Jesus is making a distinction between Peter and what he’s building on. That suggests that Peter himself is not the foundation. He’s not the one given special authority and power.

It’s also worth noting that this type of defense, specifically from Matthew 16:18, was never used by any other Roman bishop before Leo, which is striking.

“The difference in Greek terms suggests Peter himself is not the foundation Jesus is building on.”

Early church fathers did not assert that they had special apostolic authority or power. Though they did talk about apostolic succession in the sense of receiving the authoritative truth from the apostles, namely the scriptures.

So where did this come from? If this was always true, why did nobody talk about this before? Now certainly Peter was a leader among the apostles. He was often the spokesperson. But the other apostles certainly did not submit to Peter as supreme leader. Otherwise, there’d be no reason for a Jerusalem council.

Actually, Peter calls himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:2 with other elders. Peter also had to be confronted at times—first by Jesus more than once. “Get behind me, Satan.” And we’ll see one later in the sermon today. And then by Paul, opposed to his face because Peter was in the wrong and leading the other Christians in a wrong way.

So even apart from Matthew 16:18, just looking at the rest of the Bible, if you want to argue succession from Peter, that succession must be no different than from any other apostle. Which means it is a meaningless succession unless the teaching and ministry of that new successor of Peter adheres to the scriptures.

You want to say you’re a successor of Peter? Then teach what the scriptures say. That’s the only way your succession is meaningful. You don’t have any special authority from Peter otherwise. In fact, I like what Galatians 1:8 says in light of this discussion.

This is Paul, but relevant to the question. Paul says in Galatians 1:8, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed.” So much for apostolic succession and authority. If even an apostle says something that goes against the scriptures, don’t believe him. Consider him set aside by God for judgment.

In other words, it doesn’t matter if you’re a bishop, a pope, a pastor, or a layman. If what you say is not biblical, but you call me to follow you, I will not. I cannot submit to it.

Galatians 1:8: “Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to what we have preached, he is to be accursed.”

Does Rome Hold Peter’s Succession?

And my resistance to your authority is based on the authority of the apostles who base their words on the authority of Christ. If you truly want to submit to Peter as one of the apostles, then you need to follow Peter and Paul and the other apostles. Then you need to follow Galatians 1:8. You submit to the scriptures before you submit to any church leader.

So then, far from confirming Petrine supremacy, the Bible points away from special authority or power to Peter above the other apostles. But that’s just the first issue. Did Peter have special authority compared to the other apostles? Let’s consider the second issue.

The Bible and simple logic should cause us to object to the claim that Rome is the site of Peter’s apostolic succession. If Petrine supremacy is based on Peter’s founding or pastoring a church, then many other churches could claim Petrine supremacy.

Peter first of all did not begin the church of Rome. Paul does not mention Peter even in the book of Romans. Peter not only ministered in Rome but also in Jerusalem, Caesarea, and Antioch. He wrote letters to the churches in Asia Minor.

Why shouldn’t these church sites also claim Petrine succession? Furthermore, if the line of apostolic succession is Peter ordaining a bishop who then ordains a bishop who then ordains a bishop, and so on, then what happens if a bishop was not ordained before the previous one died?

That line of appointing bishops was broken because we just didn’t know the guy was going to die and so nobody was appointed as a successor. You say, well, maybe he didn’t need to appoint a replacement. It can be appointed after the fact.

If an ordained bishop in the line of Peter didn’t ordain a replacement before his death, then how do you know who really should fit Peter’s office? Who should fulfill Petrine succession? How do you know that any particular bishop in the Roman line isn’t an impostor filling the post?

What if the impostor then appoints bishops after him? If a bad bishop ordains another bishop, whether that bishop is good or bad, is that latter bishop’s appointment valid? Is he truly a successor to Peter?

“If the line of apostolic succession was broken, how do you know any particular bishop isn’t an impostor?”

How could you ever know? How could you resolve the issue of Petrine succession in such a situation? How could you not admit it’s broken?

This issue of lineage that I’m talking about, it’s not theoretical. As we go through church history, we will see this happen multiple times in the Roman papacy, especially with the bad popes.

The Authority of Scripture Over Any Leader

In response to Leo, he did some other good things for the early church and the late antiquity church. Nevertheless, we must reject his assertion that one church leader is meant to have authority over God’s whole church.

Whatever Jesus is saying to Peter in Matthew 16:1, and we can get a fuller investigation another time, Jesus was not creating a papacy or even a system of patriarchs with special authority. Rather than focus on Matthew 16 for our pattern for church government, we would do better to heed the direct instructions from the apostles in their letters.

What is that instruction? Appoint qualified men in every church to serve as a plurality of elders who will teach and shepherd the flock locally and raise up other men afterward to do the same.

In short, the special authority and power of the apostolic office was never explained as something that would continue. The apostles laid the foundation with Christ being the cornerstone and then they passed from the scene.

“The special authority of the apostolic office was never explained as something that would continue.”

Leo’s Actions: Negotiation and Protection

Nevertheless, we must acknowledge historically that Leo really believed this and he worked tirelessly to get people to see that the patriarch of Rome was the most important person in Christianity.

Now, it wasn’t just Leo’s arguments that facilitated this increased power and authority. Leo’s actions also increased Rome’s authority. Leo was an able administrator and a skilled negotiator.

The Western Emperor once called upon Leo to settle a dispute between two senior government officials, which is interesting. Here’s a religious leader being pulled into a secular role to negotiate.

But an even more significant negotiation came later. You ever heard of a guy named Attila the Hun?

Well, the Huns had been pushing various barbarian tribes toward and through Rome’s borders in the 400s. Finally, the Huns themselves arrived looking for plunder from Rome.

In 452, the emperor sent Leo and some other delegates to meet Attila to see if they could persuade the barbarian to call off his invasion of Italy.

Now, there’s no record of what actually was said in the negotiation, but they proved successful. Leo turned the armies of Attila away from Italy.

You can imagine the reaction of fearful Roman Christians to that news. Wow, Leo is quite a guy. Leo’s got power.

“Leo managed to turn a whole army away—increasing the prestige and authority of the Roman popes.”

He managed to turn a whole army away by himself. How did he do it? Maybe there is something to these claims of special authority and power from Peter. I mean, I’m not so convinced biblically, but just look at circumstances. Look what he did.

Now, historians can only speculate as to why Leo was successful in this negotiation. Some say he brought a large sum of money with him. Others say he informed Attila of the sorry state of Rome and its lack of resources. Basically, Attila, you’ll be wasting your time if you try and pillage us. We got nothing.

Others say that it didn’t really matter what Leo said because disease had already greatly weakened Attila’s forces and other Roman troops were on the way. So he wasn’t going to try and invade at all. Probably the answer is some combination of these.

Roman Christians, though, had a different explanation for what happened. Stories circulated—and this is what you see in the painting a little bit. Stories circulated about an angel or a giant warrior with a sword appearing that no one could see except Attila.

Other stories said that Attila was so awed by the humble, righteous demeanor of Leo that he was convicted of his violent attempts and he went away. That’s probably not the case, but that’s what many Roman Christians were saying.

Now, when the Vandals, another barbarian group, came to sack Rome three years later, Leo could not stop them. But he apparently convinced them to go easy on the city’s inhabitants, and they were grateful. Once again, Leo pulled through for us.

Leo and the Council of Chalcedon

Both of these people protecting peace brokering ventures increased the prestige and authority of Leo and of the Roman popes in general. People were saying, “Look at this authority. We should give them our support.”

One other item to mention about Leo is definitely in the positive category. You might remember that Leo was important in the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Again, this is 101 material. This council was about the nature of Christ.

Does Jesus have two disconnected natures? Does he have a human nature and a divine nature which totally don’t interact? Or does he have one hybrid nature? Is he not human or divine but human-divine? Is he a mixture of the two?

These two positions were articulated by leaders from two other patriarchates at that time: Antioch and Alexandria. They were arguing about these two positions, and there was a council called to resolve the issue.

Well, it ended up that the issue was only resolved by the adoption of the explanation of hypostatic union, which was presented by Leo. Even today, you can look up Leo’s tome and you’ll see this explanation of the hypostatic union. It was this explanation that was adopted by the council and resolved the issue.

What is hypostatic union? Does anybody remember? Two natures—two natures but intimately united so that there’s no real competition or separation between the two. He’s not a mixture because otherwise he’s not human. He’s not completely human or he’s not completely divine.

But he’s not so separate in his natures that it’s like, I don’t know, “Am I going to be human today or am I going to be divine?” He’s not schizophrenic. It’s two natures, intimately united, and beyond that, we can’t say anything. There’s a limit to how far our theology can go. That’s where the scriptures lead us.

He’s definitely human. He’s definitely God. He’s totally united in his own person. But beyond that, we can’t really say anything. That was the explanation given by Leo, and it is a biblical explanation to which we still find help and clarity today.

So I don’t want you to just think, “Man, that Leo guy—bad. His thing about Petrine supremacy was really unhelpful.” But he was helpful in other ways, especially in his theology at Chalcedon.

Oh, by the way, this did partially increase the authority of Rome because you had these two patriarchs who couldn’t come to a resolution, and it took this third patriarch from Rome to be like, “Guys, listen to me. I’ll fix it.” And they did listen. That seemed to elevate the bishop of Rome. See, he is the leader among the leaders. Or maybe he’s a leader above the leaders.

Though there was a resolution of the council that slightly undercut whatever authority Leo gained from his tome because specifically they said, “Oh, by the way, yes, Rome has preeminent honor as the greatest city in the empire, but spiritually the Roman bishop is equal to the other bishops.” Leo was not happy about that resolution, but that’s what the council said.

That brings me to the end of our discussion of Leo. What to make of him?

“Two natures, intimately united—beyond that, we can’t say anything. That’s where the scriptures lead us.”

Gregory the Great: Life and Background

Certainly, we are indebted to him for his clear biblical explanation of the relationship between Christ’s humanity and divinity. But he also put a lot of energy into elevating an unbiblical institution and supreme church authority for which the Middle Ages would only increase it.

After Leo, the prestige and authority of the papacy would actually wane somewhat. It’s kind of interesting. He worked so hard to build it up and after him it just started to decline again until the next great pope, Pope Gregory I, born in 540. Gregory the Great.

He also falls under the category of good pope. He’s known as a missionary pope, but he too would increase the power of the Roman bishop. Now it must be admitted that Gregory was definitely doctrinally off in some important areas.

For instance, he believed in and helped popularize for the whole Middle Ages the idea of purgatory. He wasn’t the one who came up with it, but he definitely popularized it. That is a serious error.

But Gregory was nevertheless right on many important points, including in his commitments as a church leader: namely, preaching the word of God, taking the gospel to the lost, and meeting the needs of the poor.

It’s actually partially through Gregory’s commitment to biblical pastoring that he ends up increasing papal authority because Gregory was such a good pastor and he was such a skilled leader that people ended up respecting his church more—the Roman papacy.

Let’s briefly overview Gregory’s life. Born in Rome, Italy to a wealthy aristocratic family, his father served in government as a senator and prefect of Rome.

“It’s partially through Gregory’s commitment to biblical pastoring that he ends up increasing papal authority.”

Prefect is a high position that’s kind of like mayor or governor. Gregory received a very privileged education and though he showed great aptitude in everything he studied—including rhetoric, grammar, literature, science, and law—he pursued a career in government following after his father.

Italy’s Tumultuous Times

Gregory himself became prefect of Rome in 573 at age 33. The situation in Italy and Rome during the mid to late 500s was quite tumultuous. Going back to last lesson, Justinian, the great Eastern Roman Emperor, sought to reconquer Italy for the empire. The battles and sieges between the Romans and the Goths devastated the population and resources of Italy. If that wasn’t enough, plagues and flooding further crushed the people.

In 542, the plague of Justinian—unfortunately named after the emperor, though the disease probably originated in China—reached Italy, causing widespread sickness and death. Plagues in the Middle Ages would come back again and again and again.

Later in 589, heavy rainfall caused the Tiber to flood, destroying many homes, crops, and storehouses. Widespread famine and disease resulted.

One source I read said that Rome became “a very city of the dead.” Business was at a standstill and the streets were deserted save for the wagons which bore countless corpses for burial and common pits beyond the city walls.

“Rome became a very city of the dead—business at a standstill, streets deserted save for wagons bearing corpses.”

Gregory’s Conversion to Monastic Life

The middle to late 500s was a very rough time to be alive in Italy. But these were the circumstances into which Gregory found himself.

Gregory was insulated from much of this turmoil due to his family’s wealth, but he nonetheless must have been affected by the widespread misery that he frequently saw around him. After serving as prefect for only one year, Gregory’s father died and Gregory decided to become a monk.

He converted a number of family estates into monastic communities and left secular life. He and his fellow monks withdrew from society for five years. Though apparently devoted to the Lord since his youth, Gregory really loved monastic life and only very reluctantly rejoined society due to the Pope’s special request.

The Pope made Gregory a deacon in Rome and papal ambassador to Constantinople. During that time, Gregory also began to preach and write, speaking to many aristocrats in Constantinople as well as his fellow monks outside of Rome.

In 590, the pope died and due to Gregory’s obvious Christian devotion and his competence as a servant of the pope, Gregory was selected to be the next pope. Even though he really did not want the job, he was in the end strong-armed into the position and he served as pope until his death apparently from old age in 604.

His body was entombed in Rome and is still there in St. Peter’s Basilica. Now we know a bit about his life. Let’s find out a little about what kind of pope Gregory was.

Gregory was not an outstanding theologian. You won’t find anything like Leo’s tome in Gregory’s writings. He was, however, extremely diligent, meticulous, and the perfect administrator. His skills manifested themselves in three important areas.

“These were the circumstances into which Gregory found himself.”

Reforming the clergy, taking care of the people of Rome, and sending out missionaries.

Reforming the Clergy

First, Gregory sought to correct issues he observed in Western church leaders. Many of them were not actually preaching, or they were not submitting to Rome’s guidance and leadership, or they were not fulfilling their vows of celibacy.

At this time, more and more people expected church leaders to live an ascetic lifestyle, even though that was technically not required. This ascetic lifestyle would include celibacy. Some clergymen were claiming to be celibate when they actually weren’t, and that’s not good.

Seeking to change the situation with the clergy, Gregory wrote hundreds of letters, many of which survive today. He preached many sermons exhorting the clergy to holy living, faithful preaching, faithful shepherding, and also submission to Rome.

Interestingly, almost 900 years later, John Calvin, the reformer, cites Gregory positively in his Institutes as someone looking to reform the church toward true godliness when the seeds of corruption were taking root. You can read what Calvin says later in the slides. Though things would obviously get worse by Calvin’s time, Gregory was successful in getting many Western clergymen back in line toward faithful ministry.

These efforts increased the Roman church’s authority. Moreover, Gregory developed relations with many bishops in Spain and France, places where the church had become more independent. By his frequent correspondence, Gregory was able to bring many of these areas back to following Rome’s lead.

While Gregory may not have been the greatest theologian, he was a great compiler and synthesizer. He studied the early church fathers and harmonized their theological contributions with his own writings. The summary of previous theological work that he produced became what many clergymen studied in the medieval period, along with other works from Gregory. He had an important impact on pastoral practice and medieval theology.

“Gregory exhorted the clergy to holy living, faithful preaching, faithful shepherding, and submission to Rome.”

Caring for the People of Rome

Second, Gregory not only wanted to help Christians spiritually through righteous, educated, and connected clergy, he also sought to take care of people practically. You’ll see some overlap with Leo here a little bit. As you heard, Italy was in great need during Gregory’s time. Because the civil authorities either could not or would not act to change the situation, Gregory stepped up to take care of the people himself.

By Gregory’s pontificate, the church of Rome already owned a good amount of land, property, and money. How did this happen? Pious people were gifting it to the Roman church. By the way, this is something you see throughout the Middle Ages.

These circumstances encouraged church authority and even corruption. Many Christians, looking to express their love for Christ or in a more misguided way seeking to earn favor with God, gave their land or their money to the church. One source estimates that the church of Rome by Gregory’s time had already accumulated 1,300 to 1,800 square miles of land both in Italy and elsewhere.

This generated no less than $1.5 million a year in today’s dollars. And that’s just land income. That doesn’t account for what any accumulated wealth might do. Increased wealth often leads to increased love of wealth, which is a problem that we’ll see throughout the Middle Ages. But not for Gregory.

Gregory saw the accumulated wealth and the income of the Roman papacy as a great opportunity for the church to help the poor and to help the struggling. And he did just that. Using the church’s wealth, Gregory came up with a system of almsgiving that worked extremely well because Gregory did not miss any details. He kept strict accounts of the money and goods coming in and going out for the Roman church with accounting precision that was unusual for the time.

People could not be lazy or corrupt under Gregory’s watchful eye. If they were, they were ousted and Gregory replaced them. Now you can imagine how such an extensive effort to help the Italians would win support for the pope and the Roman church. People are going to be grateful for this kind of action from the papacy.

But it wasn’t just food, clothing, and housing that Gregory provided. He also worked for the people’s protection. As new groups of barbarians threatened Italy, it was Gregory, not the inept Byzantine government centered in Ravenna, that prepared Rome’s defenses and negotiated treaties. Historian Justo González summarizes Gregory’s practical measures in his book, The Story of Christianity.

“Gregory saw the accumulated wealth of the papacy as a great opportunity for the church to help the poor.”

Since there was nobody else to do it, Gregory organized the distribution of food among the needy in Rome, and he also took measures to guarantee the continuing shipments of wheat from Sicily. Likewise, he supervised the rebuilding of the aqueducts and of the defenses of the city, and the garrison was drilled until morale was restored.

Since there was little help to be expected from Constantinople, he then opened direct negotiations with the Lombards, that’s the barbarian group, with whom he secured peace.

So then, even though Gregory is technically only the leader of the Roman church, what is he acting like? A king, a ruler, the leader of Italy or at least part of Italy. And Gonzalez says the same. Thus by default the pope was acting as ruler of Rome and the surrounding area. This is papal monarchy coming into fruition.

Gregory the Missionary Pope

Gregory and his administration provided much practical benefit for the people of Rome and of Italy. We see Gregory reform the clergy and provide for the people of Rome. But we also see Gregory reach out to the people beyond Rome by sending missionaries. Gregory is considered the first great missionary pope.

Some historians say that no one since the Apostle Paul was as deliberate or strategic in missionary efforts.

“Some historians say that no one since the Apostle Paul was as deliberate or strategic in missionary efforts.”

The most notable mission sponsored by Gregory is the mission to Britain, sometimes called the Gregorian Mission.

The Gregorian Mission to Britain

The story goes that Gregory was first inspired to send missionaries to England when, as a deacon, he saw some boy slaves in the Roman forum who stood out because of their paler skin tone. Asking those standing by who they were and learning that they were Angles, Gregory reportedly replied, “Angeli, which means what?”

Not Angles, but angels, reportedly continuing, “Well-named, for they have angelic faces and ought to be co-heirs with the angels in heaven.” Now, we don’t know if that really happened, but it is a story associated with him.

Before becoming pope, Gregory almost went to be a missionary in England himself, but he was recalled soon after he set out due to people wanting him to remain in Rome.

Instead, after Gregory became pope, he sent one named Augustine—not the same one as Augustine of Hippo—later known as Augustine of Canterbury, to bring the gospel to the Anglo-Saxons and Jutes who had settled in England. Remember, there were Christians before in England, but these migrating or more likely invading barbarian tribes were not Christian, and now they’re the ones in control of most of the area that will later become England.

In particular, Augustine was to try to convert the rulers of England, hoping to spread Christianity from the top down. Apparently, Augustine wasn’t the greatest missionary, but somehow his efforts were successful. The strategy worked and Christianity spread among the Angles and Saxons.

By the way, the first place that accepted it was the ruler of Kent in southeast England. The first bishop’s seat was established in Canterbury, which is why you later have the Archbishop of Canterbury in England, which still exists today.

From Britain, missionaries would later bring the message of Jesus into the Netherlands and Germany. There’s a knock-on effect to this missionary effort, and it even extends to our own day, right?

Christianity didn’t emerge in America out of nowhere. It came because of people who migrated from those territories—England, Germany, other places. In a sense, we have to be grateful to Gregory for this specific mission, for this missionary effort. Not only were souls saved at that time, but the gospel tradition eventually spread to even where we live through those missionary efforts.

“The gospel tradition eventually spread to even where we live through those missionary efforts.”

Though we must note that what was spread by those Gregorian missionaries was Roman Christianity—nice in the sense that it was what was believed by Christians throughout the empire but was given special authority and noted to the pope in Rome. This is only going to increase papal authority and influence.

In summary, Gregory’s diligence and zeal displayed itself in clergy reformation, provision for Italian Christians, and successful missionary work. These simultaneously built up Christ’s body, but they also built up the authority of the pope, and that is only going to increase after Gregory’s day.

Two other things to say about Gregory: Gregory is notable for some changes he made to the order of liturgy in the church and also for music.

Gregory’s Surprising Rejection of Universal Authority

Perhaps you’ve heard of something called Gregorian chant. That is attributed to him, though it’s debated whether he really did that or not. Gregorian chant is marked by all the voices singing in unison.

Before Gregory’s time, it had become popular for voices to go back and forth, but he’s like, “How about we do all in unison?” And that became popular in the Middle Ages. Again, that’s reportedly what he did. We’re not sure if that actually is true.

But one last thing to say about Gregory, and this is kind of amazing in light of everything I’ve shared thus far. Though Gregory was zealous to support submission to the Roman bishop in the West, Gregory apparently did not believe that the Roman pope should be the one supreme leader of Christianity.

Why do I say this? Because in the late 500s, the eastern emperor Maurice bestowed the title of ecumenical patriarch or universal father on the bishop of Constantinople, Bishop John of Constantinople, who wanted preeminence.

Hey, I want to be the most important patriarch. I want everybody to ultimately submit to me. Can I have this title? Emperor’s like, sure.

In response, Gregory wrote letters to both the bishop and the emperor reproving the move. And not because, hey, I’m the supreme leader. No, listen to what Gregory wrote to Emperor Maurice, much to the embarrassment of many later Roman popes.

Now, I confidently say that whosoever calls himself or desires to be called universal priest is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error. For as that perverse one wishes to appear as above all men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called universal priest, he extols himself above all other priests.

To that we should all say amen. Christ by his word is the head of the church, not any human pope.

“Whosoever calls himself universal priest is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist.”

Looking Ahead: The Papacy’s Dramatic Turn

Well then, so far in regard to the papacy, we’ve looked at the early papacy when the popes were relatively good.

Yet the papacy was rapidly growing in power and influence both spiritually and politically. As we move forward into the early Middle Ages, however, the papacy will take a dramatic turn for the worse.

One major catalyst toward this end is a document known as the Donation of Constantine. We’ll take a look at that document next time and what resulted from it, namely the corruption of the papacy and almost ridiculous papal schisms in the later Middle Ages.

Got time for one or two questions?

“The papacy will take a dramatic turn for the worse—one major catalyst is the Donation of Constantine.”

Questions and Answers

Yeah, Dwayne.

If they believe in papal succession, who would they say that Peter ordained as the next pope? And what happened to all the successions between that and Leo, who then all of a sudden started to bring it up?

Yeah, good question, Dwayne. If Petrine succession is a thing, then who do they say succeeded Peter? Do they have a specific name? Actually, they do.

I don’t know if this was known or tabulated in the early Middle Ages, but if you look at what Catholics will say today—Roman Catholics—they’ll say, “Oh yeah, we can say it was this pope and then this pope.” I think the one we’re going to see next time with the Donation of Constantine was apparently Pope Sylvester, who was one of the early successors to Peter. So they’ve got names.

Whether those names are true and whether they’re just reading back into history, that’s certainly an open question. But they’ll at least have some names to trot out.

Another question. Go, Glenda.

If Leo said that he came in succession to Peter, did he quote Matthew 18 where Christ said, “On this rock, I will build my church”? But did he go down into the other part of the scriptures where Peter was married? Where did that come in with the Catholic church saying popes and priests should not be married if he’s following Peter’s line as the first pope?

Good question, Glenda. If Peter was married and popes are supposed to model themselves as successors of Peter, then how does that fit with popes being required to be celibate?

So two things to say. I’m not entirely sure of the Roman Catholic response to this, but I would not be surprised if they said, “Well, he was married, but then after a time he wasn’t married, and that’s when he became the pope of Rome.” Maybe they would make that argument.

But also, we should understand that it was not mandated. It was not required that any bishop, even the Roman bishop, be celibate. It was expected. It was desired, but it wasn’t required.

So even if they said, “Oh yeah, Peter was married,” they would not necessarily say that Peter was wrong for doing that or that it invalidates people being his successor if they are not married. They might see Peter as a special case.

The requirement of celibacy for Roman Catholic priests and bishops doesn’t come until the high Middle Ages, where it’s actually put down as church law that you cannot be married. You must be celibate.

All right, I think we have time for one more. Let’s go, Danny. Can you hear me?

Yeah. So Leo taught that he had the power of Peter. Did that power eventually become the pope making infallible decisions or doctrines?

Good question, Danny. Did the power of Peter translate into papal infallibility for Leo? I need to go back and look at the answer to that.

I don’t think the doctrine of papal infallibility was formulated at Leo’s time because even in his little birthday sermon, he says if anything good comes out of me, it’s Peter’s power in me. So that’s not to say everything I do is perfect and good.

But whatever I do that’s perfect and good comes from Peter. So there seems to be some admission that he’s not completely infallible, though he is the leader to which everyone should look.

Today we should remember that papal infallibility is somewhat of a misnomer or it’s a little bit misleading because it’s only under very particular circumstances. Only when the Roman pope claims to speak ex cathedra is he infallible.

But when he’s just talking with people or leading mass, he’s not necessarily infallible. I believe that doctrine comes out later in the Middle Ages, but I have to double-check that.

Good questions. If you have other ones, come talk with me afterwards or email. Like I said, we have some things that we can be grateful for among these early popes. It’s concerning the way they’re consolidating power.

But what happens in the latter part of the early Middle Ages and in the high and late Middle Ages is very grievous and gets a little ridiculous. We’ll talk about that next time.

And it definitely shatters any real argument for Petrine succession because we’re going to see some bad popes, even multiple popes at the same time. It just becomes a mess.

Closing Prayer

We’ll talk about that next time. Lord, thank you for this time in looking at this history. Thank you, Lord, that you’re the one that we look to for leadership. You are the head of the church, not any person on the earth.

And Lord, we are guided by your word and we follow your directions for church government: a plurality of elders, a plurality of overseers according to the qualifications of scripture. Thank you, Lord, that we can rest on that.

Protect us, Lord, from error and from holding our own ideas or man’s ideas instead of what your word actually says. In Jesus’ name, amen. Thank you everyone.

Share this sermon:

More from Church History 102: The Medieval Church