No theory can be regarded as supplying a satisfactory
explanation of papal authority, unless it explains this general belief in the
necessity for a visible Head of the Western Church. In part the necessity was political.
Exposed to the common danger of secular tyranny, the national churches looked
for safety in federation; and they notified their union in the only way that
uneducated laymen could understand, by announcing their subjection to a single
spiritual sovereign. But there remained the problem of justifying this act of
independence amounting to rebellion. The justification was found in two
arguments, the one historical, the other doctrinal; the one based upon the
Roman legend of St. Peter, the other on the acknowledged importance of holding
fast to right tradition. Each of these arguments calls for some consideration.
St. Peter, says the legend, was invested with the primacy
among the Apostles; such is the plain meaning of the Saviour's declaration, Tu
es Petrus. St. Peter founded the Roman Church and instituted the Roman
bishopric. To Linus, the first bishop, Peter bequeathed his Divine commission
and his knowledge of the Christian verities. From Linus these gifts descended
without diminution to one after another in the unbroken chain of his
successors. Hence Rome is entitled to the same pre-eminence among the churches
which Peter held among his brethren. To examine the historical basis of the
legend would be a lengthy and unprofitable task. Of St. Peter's connection
with the Eternal City we know nothing certain, except that he preached and
suffered there. If bishops existed in his time, there is some reason for
thinking that the office was collegiate, and that the committee of bishops was
less important then in the spiritual life of the community than at a later
time.
