We see during this period that there is a further development in the hierarchy of the church. Of course, this development really represents a further drifting away, a further apostasy from the apostolic church and the organization of the church.

In our studies, we have already seen how the office of the “bishop” became distinguished from that of the “elder.” You recall that this became a practice apparently about the middle part of the 2^nd Century, where there would be a multiplicity of elders in a congregation, but one would be elevated above the rest. The others would continue to be referred to as “elders,” but the one who was elevated would be recognized as, and called, a “bishop.” He would be distinguished from his fellow elders. Then those “bishops” began to meet together to discuss issues and problems that faced the church, and these gatherings and meetings would be called “Synods.” At first, they were certainly not mandatory, but over a period of time they began to be more accepted and recognized; they would be more authoritative.

Well, again, these “bishops” start to develop prominence, start to develop power. It would be primarily the “bishops” who were over the churches in some of the larger cities, cities like Jerusalem, Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch, Constantinople, Rome and others. Because they were in large cities, because the churches there were large in size by comparison to some of the congregations in outlying or rural areas, we see that they, then, assert themselves more in the way of power and authority. These “bishops” came to be known as “archbishops,” and the “archbishops,” then, of the very prominent cities during this period of time [as mentioned above] grew more prominent and more influential, they began to be called and identified as “patriarchs.” They would become the “patriarchs” or the “fathers” of the “church.”

The “patriarchs” were theoretically people in authority, each one of them having equal status, equal authority. However, a series of circumstances arose which enabled the “patriarch of Rome” to gain preeminence over them all and would be recognized as the “chief patriarch,” and this for a variety of reasons. One obvious reason that the Roman “chief patriarch” became so prominent and was able to assert himself over the others was because of the prominence of the city of Rome. There was a great deal of prestige associated with the city. Even though Constantine moved the seat of the Roman government to Constantinople, Rome was still looked at by everyone as the center of the Roman Empire. From all over the Empire, people crowded into Rome, and when they returned, then, to their native lands, these persons carried with them the details of the glory of Rome. This was one of the reasons why the “chief patriarch” of Rome would be elevated.

But there were other reasons, as well. The Roman church put great interest in mission work. Missionaries from Rome went into every province, winning converts and establishing churches. It was only natural, I suppose you could say, that these churches who had been established by missionaries who had come from Rome to look to Rome for leadership. This “chief patriarch” of Rome would eventually become the pope—the papacy.

Several of the “bishops” of Rome distinguished themselves during this period of time by showing great courage, as well. The most notable of these ones was Leo the Great. He was “bishop of Rome” from 440 to 461. When Atilla the Hun swept down to Italy and posed a threat to the city of Rome—he was poised to attack Rome in 452—it was Leo, the “bishop of Rome,” who persuaded him to spare the city. And then, three years later when the city was about to be attacked from the north from Vandals in Northern Africa, Leo again spoke in defense of the city.

This, among other things, would work to the benefit of the “bishops,” specifically the “patriarch,” as he would be elevated to this place of prominence, and he would begin, then, to be recognized, not only there in Rome, but throughout the Empire, among churches in various places as the “preeminent one.”

Now, there still remains some controversy as to who was the first pope, because obviously, it was from the “patriarch,” the “father” of the church there in Rome that the office of the pope, the papacy, had its origin. Some say that it was Leo the Great, who was the “bishop,” the “patriarch” of Rome from 440 to 461 AD. Others say, “No, it’s not Leo the Great. Rather, it was Gregory the Great,” who was “bishop,” or “patriarch” of Rome from 590 to 604 AD. Well, I’m sure that wouldn’t probably trouble you that we don’t know exactly who the first pope was. Now, of course, in theory, the Catholics believe that Peter was the first pope. There is, of course, no support for such teaching, neither Biblically or even historically. There are some who claim that Peter did make a journey to Rome, but there is also evidence to the contrary, and so it is not even a fact that Peter ever even went to Rome, let alone to become the first pope! And so, I guess the controversy is really, “Who were the second and the third pope?” Maybe that’s what the controversy is.