The Rise of Rome

/lecture/0nv0I/the-rise-of-rome

Have a question? Discuss this lecture in the week forums.

Interactive Transcript

The 15th century fresco by Pietro Perugino found in the Sistine Chapel in Rome, portrays the scene from Matthew 16 of Peter receiving the keys to the kingdom from Christ. 

Later from the 18th century we have a statue of Peter holding the keys. Peter and Rome are central to our story of the early Christianity. 

By this middle of the 2nd century, Rome had begun to emerge to a position of primacy within the universal church. 

We've already talked about the importance of bishops as leaders in the early church, of their struggle for example against Gnosticism. 

A struggle to establish the apostolic succession. 

Above all, it was those episcopal sees with particular association with early Christianity that had a place of honor. 

Why did Rome rise to a position of preeminence? 

The reason, primarily was because of Peter and Paul who did not found the church in Rome but became its moral leaders, they were martyred in the city. 

As the theological debates raged in the Eastern churches, Rome was seen as Sebastian of Orthodoxy. 

And during the 4th century, Rome begun to assert it's position and influence, not always with success. For the Greek churches were not willing to exempt its authority. But, Rome was the only See of apostolic foundation in the West. Carthage, for instance, in North Africa, could not make that claim. 

The position of Rome was succinctly put by the church father Irenaeus of Lyon, a man who died in the year 202. In his work against Heresies, he made an argument that was to prove highly influential. 

The teaching of Christ, Irenaeus wrote, was to be found in the doctrine preached publicly in the churches, in their bond with the past. The Apostolic sees were essential to the preservation of the rule of faith and the church of Rome was the outstanding Apostolic see. 

It is the one he wrote with which all must be in agreement. 

Under constant time, Rome had played a limited role. That the Lateran Basilica and the church of St Peter were from the beneficence of the emperor. In the First Council of Nicaea, as we've already seen, Rome's participation was limited. In the bitter battles between Arians and Orthodox after Nicaea, Rome, however, had taken in Athanasius. 

And the condemnation of the Alexandrian Church Father was rejected by the bishop of Rome. 

East and West were divided. 

And attempts to bring about reconciliation such as the Council of Sardica in 343 were not successful. 

The Western Church and the supporters of Athanasius increasingly asserted that Rome should judge in such weighty theological matters. 

But Rome had a growing rival in Constantinople. 

Which in 381, was recognized as the new Rome, second only in primacy to the Old Rome. 

This decree caused a problem for Rome and the Roman church. For the canon that made this decree establish the Constantinople's rank in terms of its civil position. 

The Roman church saw the matter quite differently. 

Rome's primacy was because of a Divine Will not because of politics or historical circumstance. 

By the mid-4th century, evidence suggests that Roman bishops asserted the city's place within the Apostolic see. 

Relations between Rome and the North African church were strong as we see from the letters of St Augustine. 

The high point without doubt of the authority of Rome was the Papacy of Leo the Great, Leo the First from 440 to 461. Leo's the first Roman bishop from whom we have homilies and letters revealing him to be a great pastoral figure of the church. 

Leo was the first to be called great. And first to be called Pope, coming of course from the Latin, Papa. 

His stories are the stuff of legend. When Attila the Hun threatened the city of Rome, it is said that Leo went out and met the warrior and persuaded him not to attack. A scene that we see represented here in this 15th century picture Leo before Attila. 

But, like Gregory the Great a century and a half later, Leo was a powerful leader of the church both spiritually and politically. 

He had in the words of one historian, 

an almost mystical identification with Peter. 

The bishop of Rome should not just be received as the successor of Peter. 

But he spoke of Christ that because Christ had given greater responsibility to Peter so the Bishop of Rome had greater position within the Church. 

Leo argued that as Bishop of Rome, one should actually become like Peter. He played a crucial role in the debates over the nature of Christ that dominated the 5th century. And wrote a long exposition on the question of Christ's nature. 

The work was known as his tomb. At first, it received little attention. 

But at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, it was read aloud in its entirety and enthusiastically received. 

Leo's tomb was intended as an intervention of Rome to solve the fractious debates over Christ that dominate the Eastern church. 

And in so doing, he played a crucial role in the rise of Rome as a center of the Western Christian Church. 

The Nature of Christ

/lecture/vdHHl/the-nature-of-christ

Interactive Transcript

The Council of Nicaea by no means, wholly resolved the most important question of all, who is Jesus Christ? 

The position of Athanasius, which prevailed at the council did not entirely take hold. And there were dramatic shifts in theological sympathies. 

The council of Armenian, for example, in 359 was called by a pro-Arian emperor 

and it was attended by over 400 bishops from the western church. 

The result of this council was a pro-Arian statement, which was then roundly denounced by Pope Liberius. 

The emperor Constantine, we remember, had distinctly pro-Arian sympathies towards the end of his reign. 

Let's remind ourselves of the differences, for Arians, broadly speaking, Jesus Christ was created by the father. They stressed the indivisibility of God over against the trinity. 

Arianism, however, was by no means the only position in the debate. We find the emergence of the Monophysites, who held that Christ remained divine and not human even though he took human form in an earthly body. 

The Monophysites rejected the position of the two natures, divine and human as would be asserted at the council of Chalcedon. The question was how did Christ's humanity and divinity relate to one another, and major figures such as Apollinaris the Younger who lived from 310 to 390 considered how the two perfections became one, and he argued that it was the human that would have to compromise. In another significant position that emerged was that of Nestorius of Antioch who died in 451. He argued that Christ had two natures, meaning that God had not really become human, but had been united with a human. 

Christ was one, Nestorius wrote, but as if with two eyes separated into the human and the divine nature. 

We've discussed that the emperor Theodosius called the second council in 381, and affirmed the creed of the first Nicene council. 

Nevertheless, much of the Christian world was Arian in sympathy. The Vandals In North Africa, the Visigoth in Spain, and the Lombards in Italy. 

A compromise between the Catholic and Arian positions was established at the Council of Ephesus in 431. 

The Council was called to condemn Nestorius. But in a statement on Christ's nature, at Ephesus, stressed his two natures. 

But this resolution did not hold, and in 449 there was another Council At Ephesus, which took the Monophysite position that Christ had but one nature. 

This resolution brought the wrath of Pope Leo I who famously referred to it as a robber council. 

Resolution came at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Chalcedon in modern day Turkey was located close to Constantinople. 

It became known as the fourth ecumenical council after Nicaea of 325, Constantinople of 381 and Ephesus 431. The council was called by the Emperor 

to bring religious unity to the empire. 

The complexity of the situation regarding Christ was evident among the prominent leaders who gathered at the Council and who held a variety of positions. 

Such was the complexity that it's impossible for us to map out their Marius manifestations. The imperial counselors, however, demanded that a statement of faith be made by the Council. 

And it was at this time Pope Leo I's Tome was enthusiastically received. Rome sought to assert its influence on the proceedings. 

The Romans saw a line of orthodoxy that began with Nicaea in 325, extended through Constantinople in 381, Ephesus in 431 and then to the work of Leo's Tome. 

As far as they were concerned, the major enemies was one Eutyches on the other hand and Nestorius on the other. The first, Eutyches defended only one nature of Christ. Nestorius, as we have said, spoke of two separate persons. 

The statement issued at Chalcedon argued that the two natures of Christ, divinity and humanity, were neither divided nor separate. 

The Chalcedon definition was pronounced Christ to be perfect God and perfect man, consubstantial with the Father in his Godhead and with us in his humanity. 

Christ is made known in two natures without confusion or separation. 

The properties of each nature are kept intact, and both come together to form one person. 

This position of Constantine was brought together from a variety of sources and persons, including the Tome of Leo I. 

The canons of council also decreed Constantinople to have a place of honor second only to Rome. 

After the seventh century, outside the regions of the eastern church where the Monophysites remained, Chalcedon would emerge as the major statement of the church on Christology. The debate over Christ was not easily healed and enduring divisions tore at the very fabric of the church. Many attempts at reconciliation were made, but unity prove elusive. 

The debate over the nature of Christ was closely interwoven with a range of political and ecclesiastical controversies. 

Four centuries after the crucifixion of Christ the Christian church has remained divided over who it was that died on the Cross.