Roman Catholic doctrine holds that the Papacy is as old as Christianity: Simon Peter, the chief of Jesus’ disciples, was also the first Bishop of Rome; and the special power to bind and to loose that Jesus conferred on Peter was passed by direct apostolic succession to each and every one of Peter’s successors, all the way to John Paul II.
From what I know of history, this isn’t necessarily so. There is some controversy as to whether Peter ever even visited Rome. Furthermore, the early Christians were not so tightly organized as the later Catholic Church. A “bishop” was merely an exalted parish priest. That’s why St. Augustine could be styled “bishop” of a small town like Hippo. Eventually bishops became much more important Church officials – but I don’t know how that happened. And eventually – say, by the time Attila the Hun invaded Italy – the Bishop of Rome got all bishops of the Western Empire to acknowledge his supremacy – but I don’t know how that happened. I don’t even know when the Bishop of Rome started using the title “Papa” exclusively. I do know that the doctrine of papal infallibility was not officially proclaimed until the 19th century.
I also know that in the Eastern Empire, the emperor was always effective head of the Orthodox Church in matters of doctrine as well as administration, right up to the Ottoman conquest in 1453. This made the politics of Byzantine imperial succession even more complicated, because a change in dynasty might lead to a change in official Church doctrine. The system is known as “caesaropapism” – in retrospect; the term would have meant nothing to the Byzantines.
And I know that in 1054 the Pope and the Patriarch of Constaninople excommunicated each other – over an abstruse point of doctrine, but mainly over the question of which should be master. And this “Great Schism” has never yet been completely healed.
But where did the Papacy come from? How did the Bishop of Rome get all the other Western bishops to follow him? And where did they come up with that silly beehive-shaped, triple-crowned papal tiara? And who invented all those sonorous papal titles – “Patriarch of the West, Vicar of Christ, Primate of the Church,” etc.?
For that matter, what was the origin of the Catholic Church itself, as a centralized, hierarchical, international organization, independent of any secular state? I find it hard to picture such a thing existing under the Roman Empire.
And when did the Catholic Church come up with formal ceremonies for ordaining priests and consecrating bishops? Once again, I find it hard to imagine the first or second or third generation of Christians after Jesus doing that kind of thing. There’s certainly nothing about such ceremonies in the New Testament. Which would seem to puncture the whole “apostolic succession” theory.
I’m familiar with a theory that the Emperor Constantine, who presided over the Council of Nicea as “pontifex maximus,” was, historically speaking, the first pope, and founder of the Catholic Church as an organized institution. But since I got that from one of Jack Chick’s anti-Catholic comic books, I’m not about to take it as authoritative.
(N.B.: I have no point to prove, I’m no Christian by any definition, I’m just starting this thread out of historical curiosity. If the moderators still think it’s too controversial, move it to GD by all means.)
Bishop’s in Christianity are older than priests, originally they were the leaders of Christian communties.
I’m not sure about the controvesy surrounding the accuracy of St. Peter’s papacy but obviously there is some doubt. Next to nothing is known about some of the early popes and some are thought to be fictional (for example St. Sixtus the [well, duh!] sixth pope whose cultus has subsequently been supressed by the Catholic Church).
The Bishop of Rome claimed suzerainity over the early western church by the doctrine known as apolistic succession, which basically gave a mandate to anyone who could trace the line of their postion back to the apostles (The Bishop of Rome wasn’t the only one who could do this). The fact that the Byzantine church was becoming just an arm of the Byzantine empire helped his cause greatly.
Orginally ‘Papa’ was a term that all Bishops could use.
I discussed church origins and the Papacy at length, in answer to your question, Brain Glutton, in the thread which gave rise to this one – because I feel that the “facts” and the interpretations put on them will end up in a religious debate.
Therefore I’d urge that this thread be moved over to GD, and request that you review my comments there. (I’ll repost them in this thread if you prefer.)
Please do repost them, Polycarp. The other, GD thread (“Not a religious debate”) was really about how broadly inclusive the word “Christian” is – a very different question from the one I’m asking here.
Here’s the post I made in GD in response to Brain Glutton – bearing in mind that it was also addressing the previously raised (in the thread he and I are referring to) question of why Orthodoxy claims to be the original church, and is therefore focused on the Orthodox perspective. The dates and bases for the claims of Popes to authority are not something on which I have any great knowledge; perhaps tomndebb or beagledave may be able to fill in the gaps there.
That said, here’s what I posted over there:
The issue is one that is really hotly debated, and while “facts” are present, their implications are subject to strong disagreement. I might add that the subject matter is not merely one of academic interest, but is at the core of how Orthodox (and to a lesser extent Anglicans) see their churches as valid and licit.
To begin with, the filioque question is not the real issue, but, like Franz Ferdinand’s assassination, it’s the proximate cause of an event with much deeper real causes. And, as you suspected, the origins of the Papacy are significant to the discussion. As objectively as I can report it, here is the background:
After Jesus’s death, Resurrection, and Ascension and the events of Pentecost, the Apostles formed an informal college for making decisions about the leadership of the newly formed church. The first eight chapters of Acts allude several times to their actions, from the calling of Matthias to fill the vacant place of Judas to the naming of the first seven deacons.
Peter was by common consent the leader of this group. However, a few years later, after apostles have gone out on missions, there is a meeting – effectively the first Ecumenical Council – held at Jerusalem to iron out differences between their views, and the man who presides is not Peter, but James the Brother of Jesus, who was Bishop of Jerusalem. and hence more or less the host for the conclave. (See Acts 15.)
Briefly, as the apostles and, later, other leaders founded new churches, they appointed deacons to attend to the charitable needs of the people and elders (presbyteroi) to preside over the services (and any meetings needed), giving one of the latter oversight (episcopé) over the church. This was the origin of the three orders of clergy: deacons, priests/elders/presbyters, and bishops. By common consent it was the elder-with-oversight (i.e., episcopos or bishop) who spoke for the local church at regional meetings and participated in ironing out the theology that soon came to play an important part in church life.
The bishops of five major metropolises, all but one founded by an apostle (the exception, Alexandria, was founded by the John Mark who wrote the Gospel), came to play leading roles in the governance of the church, and were in consequence named Patriarchs, a title more of respect and acknowledgement of leadrship than a granting of special authority: Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Rome, and Alexandria. By the third century, Ephesus was declining as a city, and when Constantine founded Constantinople, the patriarchate was moved to that city. After the two Jewish Revolts, Jerusalem became a relatively unimportant city, but kept its patriarchate as the mother church of all Christendom.
Rome was of course the Imperial City, to which all roads proverbially led, and was also the sole patriarchate of the West. And it preserved the orthodox faith through a number of controversies in which each of the three major Eastern patriarchates lapsed into and was redeemed from heresy. These factors combined to give it a first-among-equals status, a primacy of leadership, in the eyes of the united church. As the status of Constantinople grew, being the second Imperial City, its patriarch took on a second-place role, after Rome.
After the fall of the Empire, the Bishops of Rome acquired significant land of which they were temporal monarchs (a status they held until 1870, and to a miniscule extent to the present), and grew apart from the Greek-speaking East. Basing its claims on Peter’s primacy and his legendary founding of the Church in Rome, the Popes arrogated to themselves an authority not of leadership among co-equal Bishops but of authority over them. This the East rejected, preferring a collegiality of bishops in one united church that came to be organized along national lines, following the example set by Antioch in Syria, Alexandria in Egypt, and Cyprus, the first autocephalous church.
The issue came to a head in the 800s, and the first of many mutual excommunications took place. The one in 1054 “took” and an attempt at reunification in the 1430s failed.
But the Orthodox claim is that they were and are holding firm to the faith and order established by the apostles in the first place, adding doctrine only to clarify and not to supersede the existing belief system, and eschewing both the accretions of Roman Catholicism and the throw-the-Baby-Jesus-out-with-the-bathwater tendencies of much of the Reformation. Orthodox doctrine lays stress on the goodness of the world redeemed by the Atonement and the interior renewal of the believer in Christ (I’ll let Dogface speak to theosis, a doctrine I deeply believe but find difficult to put into words; Monty and AbbySthrnAccent may be fascinated by it.) It declines to get into the convolutions of the Roman Magisterium or the cataloguing of sins, nor does it accept the sola scriptura/sola fidei and sharp delineation of Saved and unsaved of evangelical Protestantism.
Catholics, of course, see the evolution of Papal authority as the growing recognition of the place of Peter’s successor as head of the church as Peter had been. They see the evolution of Catholic doctrine as material brought by the Magisterium of the Church out of the treasury of faith. And they consider the Orthodox as schismatic and faintly heretical.
Needless to say, Protestantism rejects both sides of this argument. And I need not get into the doctrinal standards of Protestants; they’ve been set forth in thread after thread.
For Anglicans, desiring to preserve the best of the old while cleansing it of error, a modified national variation on Catholicism with a touch of Bucerian doctrine mixed in was what made sense. But over the years, Anglicans have come to see their status as very much akin to that of the Orthodox churches – Collegial bishops oirganized in national churches preserving the essentials of the faith in faithful witness to the apostles’ original plan. And as Anglican doctrine has evolved, it’s grown much closer to that taught by the Orthodox in many ways, though we reserve the right to make our own judgment in many areas of church polity (married bishops and women priests, for example).
An interesting book on this, which differs from Polycarp and is more central to the OP question, is by Hans Kung called “The Catholic Church”. It is published by Modern Library. He’s battled with popes, but was well respected by at least one, too. The book covers a fairly long history of how popes gained more and more central power over the centuries. There was often very strong resistance to this by various groups of Bishops and theological centers. There were also many documents used by early popes, documents now widely viewed as fake, to show even earlier agreement on the Roman seat. Slim and very readable volume.
I would never dare say XYZ were the reasons.
Here are some factors that played into the rise of the Papacy:
Let me finish where Polycarp was on of the 5 great early cities Alexandria, Antioch and Rome were all to some extent equal centers of Christian learning and enforcers of orthodoxy. By 750 all but Rome were in Muslim hands. (jerusalem was too & it & ephesus were not major league cities anymore)
In 343 AD., at the Council of Serdicia, precedence was given to the bishop of Rome for the Arian controversy. The eastern half of the Roman empire was experiencing a doctrinal controversy with the Arians. Therefore it was felt that if an eastern church needed the input of a high ranking church leader, they should seek out Justin the bishop of Rome (because he was from the western church). This was done to safeguard the churches in need of advise against any possible Arian influence.
In 605 AD. Boniface III assumed the title “Universal Bishop”
The Empire collapsed in the West and the church in the West, with the Pope as its head, acted as a secular as well as religious authority … often it was the only true law and order around.
Secular Leaders in the West, begining around Charlemagne & continuing right through the reformation looked to the Pope to confer legitimacy on thier reign. And vice versa.
Some factors that probably played in, not the only ones.
This is what James Burkes says about it in “The pinball effect”:
"he Donation of Constantine took the form of a three thousand word document addressed to pope Sylvester I and signed by the Emporer Constantine.
Legend has it the the emporer caught leprosy, which then miraculoulsy vanished when he embraced Christianity. In gratitude for this miracle, he made the “donation”. But whatever the reason, the donation gave the popes unprecedented powers and primacy over the universal church. It also elevated the roman clergy to the nobility and conferred on Rome the provinces and cities of Italy, Lombardy, Venetia and istria. When all was said and done, because of the donation the pope was now in charge of the entire Western Empire. So it was his right to crown Charlemagne as his spiritual vassal.
Not surprisingly, the Donation became the churches fundemental instrument of power for centuries, cited by no fewer than ten popes and taken as document of precedent by all medieval lawyers and theologians.
And all this happened in spite of the fact that the Donation was a clumsy fake…"
I am uneasy with what I believe won’t amount to much actualy input from me personally, but I will try to add what I can. For convenience, I will use the stock Catholic Answers site, which while made to address the protestant rather than Orthodox POV, is still helpful, because although I have several books that cover this, i don’t feel like lugging them out and writing things down at 10 at night. So bear with me.
BrainGlutton:
This charge is of little importance. Taken from here, we can see first of all:
To lay off large copy and paste, I will leave it fit to just remind that what is apparently the tomb and remains of St. Peter were found in the Vatican only a few years ago, so if we look at the archeological evidence, it seems pretty obvious that he was at least buried there, so while I guess you could make the claim that he could have been moved there, it seems rather unlikely.
Well, while this is obviously in contention, A Catholic will say, that since Peter, aside from being first in authority among the apostles, was named by Jesus “Rock,” which was previously a name given only to God, and therefore as the visible foundation of the Church on Earth, His successors, in keeping with Apostolic Succession, hold the same position. A source here dealing with Matthew 16:18 and its implications.
On a side note, On the idea that the church lives on its weakest memberes, it is fitting that Peter would be given primacy, as in some ways he was the weakest of the apostles. Remember, he betrayed Christ by denying him three times. That this man, who was unwilling to face recognition of affiliation with Jesus, was chosen to be the shephard of the flock (John 21:15–17), speaks volumes of what Jesus really meant to do and what he was, and fits into the character of God given in the NT.
I don’t know what you mean. Early church fathers generally accepted the primacy of Peter, and seeing as how they also accepted Apostolic Succession, the connection is visible. As to his successors, Tertullian noted in Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200] that
I don’t get this either. I’d like to say, since Jesus, but that appears simplistic. Perhaps it would be when Matthias was elevated. Or maybe when the papacy passed from Peter to Linus. Anyway, as stated, please clarify.
This paragraph being a rip on the doctrine of Apostolic succession in general, I will remind you that every single Catholic (as well, IIRC, as most (if not all) Orthodox and some Anglican) Bishops can trace their lineage back to the time of the apostles. to reiterate Tertullian, in Demurre Against the Heretics:
(emphasis added)
So while specific ceremonies may have grown more elaborate, the body and the necessary have always been present.
Don’t dilute the word theory by applying it to this. However, I will address it a little.
Iranaeus in 189 refered to the Roman church being organized before Constantine:
(Emphasis added)
There are also references made to the Catholic Church and Popes throughout the pre-Constantine era. For example:
The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3:
Tertullian mentioned above,
Eusebius of Caesaream, (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]):
Also, regarding the early church and how it was organized, all one needs is a sufficient understanding of Apostolic Succession to see this claim as bunk. While I doubt my fellow Orthodox dopers interpret the above quotes in the way Catholics do, I imagine they will also strike this lie down, as it applies equally to Orthodoxy as well, although they will mos likely do it in a different way.
You mentioned Papal infallibility. As I doubt you understand the admittedly complex ideas of infallibility and the specific declaration of Vatican I, I give you this this as a bare-bones introduction.
Also you mention the Pope’s comical hat. (Big IIRC upcoming) The small white skullcap is called the Zuchetto, and is similar to those worn by the Bishops and Cardinals. The funny one is the Mitre, and is likewise worn by bishops and Cardinals, I think, and is like the Hat Peter wore. The Triple Crowned one is actually called a Tiara and I believe is now not in use. I do not , however, know why.
PolyCarp:
I find nothing in your very good summary I disagree with, except this:
Rather, i would say that the Church in Rome always claimed authority over the others, however, in the early years, there was little disagreement over this, and early Bishops, as quoted above, recognized the primacy of Rome. As time passed, due to many reasons, age, cultural isolation, branching of traditions, political situations, etc., the Patriarchates grew apart, and this caused increased agitaion over who controlled what in the church. Because of this, in an effort to increase control, the Roman Patriarch began emphasising and bringing up the previously unquestioned doctrine around this time, leading to the creation of a great deal of writte arguments, and the existence of this spate of arguing at this time might be the cause of your view.
I suggest this in regards to the idea held by some Protestants that the idea of a “Real Presence” in the Eucharist is false, because in the Bible there is no (to them) direct definition. They say the doctrine was invented at a later date, specifically in the 1100’s, which was the first real case of anyone claiming that the Real Presence was not there. This caused a broader definition of doctrine, since before this was a fact taken so for granted it was not really spelled out. I can see a similar situation involving the papacy.
Jjimmmy:
Boniface III, due to his close relationship with Emperor Phocas, obtained a decree from the emperor saying, basically, everyone be quiet and list to the Pope. He is the Universal Bishop, and higher in rank. This was similar to a pronouncement given by Emperor Justinian 80 yrs before, and is indicitive of the long standing fight between the See of Rome and of Constantiople. cite. However, would you say this was really any substantial and enduring boost to the power of the Popes? Boniface III did die a few months later, after all.
I had not heard of the Council of Sardica. I have, however, found a very interesting and thorough cite here, and it immediately strikes me as a pivotal point in Christian history, being one of the first truly ecumenical councils. This council was done basically to retry Anathasius, and the mainly arian Eastern bshops staged a large walkoff and held their own council. Sardica is not recognized in the East. It was a place where many new things were discussed, and one of it’s ecisions was to restrict the Emperor’s authority away from religious matters. In fact, if possible, i would like to make this it’s own thread, as this council is worth discussing.
Rooves:
Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for the Donation,, which is indeed a forgery.
To all:
I am not a Theologian. Hopefully, I have done a bit to fight ignorance, and upheld my side in an argument which will hit it’s 1000 birthday in 51 yrs. If I have said anything to offend, or done anything otherwise unacceptable, please notify me. If I was doctrinally wrong from the catholic standpoint, I look to my fellow Catholic dopers to correct me. I also look forward to a non-Catholic critique of my post, as I am sure is coming, that we may grow together in our understanding of Christ. However, I would like to add my general disapproval of arguments like this, seeing as how we’re almost on 2000 yrs of arguing, and every second we spend mucking around about doctrine is a second longer that we cannot do as Christ commanded. To be perfectly honest, it is difficult to love those you are arguing with. That is just human nature.
I am tired, however, So I will leave now. Good day.here
Ugh… all that writing, and I previewed too! Hmm, oh well. That last link saying “here” at the end is the same link given for the council at Sardica. Treat it like a gift, or something.
And I notice now I didn’t really say anything to Rooves. Well, that is because right now I don’t have too much to say. I ought to research more, however, i strongly doubt it gave the Pope’s a fundamental instrument of power. Also, I think you have your facts wrong regarding Charlemagne and such, but I don’t know to much about it. Do you have a cite?
Nice job on the Catholic perspective, ñañi! I was aware I was giving it very short shrift in what was supposed to be an “objective” reportage, but I’ve never been comfortable writing as an apologist for the Papacy. You filled the gap. BTW, Orthodox (and Anglicans) would recognize the Pope prior to the Great Schism as having a primacy of honor and the right to promulgate the decisions of Councils as the official teachings of the Church, but not that he had authority beyond that of any Patriarch or bishop.
And one minor nitpick: every Orthodox and Anglican bishop can and does trace his authority back to the Apostles; it’s on their commissioning by Christ and their commissioning of bishops and elders in every place that they have the authority that they do. You may be confusing our stance with that of the Lutherans, whose claim it is to hold to Apostolic faith but only the Swedish and Finnish Lutheran bishops (and those who trace their consecration to them) preserve the Apostolic Succession.
nani: I thought Boniface was important re the general tenor of the “papacy is a late myth” idea running through BrainGlutton’s OP: At least by 605 the Bishop of Rome - in the middle of a p6ssing contest with other important Bishops - was claiming Universal and/or some sort of special “overlord” Bishop status … Justinian’s decree from the 500’s wasn’t in context of the whole Papacy as much as it was to re-constitute everything in Rome – leading everyone not Roman to dismiss it when they could. Boniface was strictly papacy (& East vs. West) issues.
Right … but recall that I am answering BrainGlutton – ‘How does this happen?’ In the West, where the papacy is growing in 343 it is clear that Justin is the one whole holds the keys to the orthodox kingdom over all other Western bishops (the West says all). AND it is also important because it is “Justin the Bishop of Rome” (office) and not ‘Justin because he is smart like nanipolycarptomndeb’ (person) that is to be turned to.
The particular form of the three-tiered papal tiara–the “Triregnum”–was derived from the camelaucum, but is more elaborate. Medieval popes began adding tiers and found its final, triple-stacked design under Clement V in the early fourteenth century. It was traditionally used in coronation ceremonies, and its symbolism has been interpreted in a variety of ways, including: “the triple power of the Pope: father of kings, governor of the world and Vicar of Christ.”
Note that it’s not used anymore. Paul VI was the last pope to be crowned with it (back in 1963), and since then, a much simpler tiara has been used instead.
I wish I had more to contribute than this one pedantic point, but there you go.
I stand corrected. My misconception came from, in regards to the Anglican church, from an old thread about Anglican priests going Catholic and having to be reordained. It was stated that this was done because although some Anglican Bishops had the authority to do this, not all did and I assumed those that did where the ones that did not have Apostolic lineage.
On a nitpicky and perhaps slightly cheap level, though one that is suited to this particular discussion, it could be said, from a Catholic perspective, that everyone else lost their claim to apostolic succession when they schismed/split
If you recall my Tertullian quote, in Demurre against the Heretics:
(Emphasis Added)
This is taken further by what Cyprian of Carthage wrote in 251 in his “The Unity of the Catholic Church:”
While it can be argued from Tertullian that the Catholics were the ones who strayed from being “steadfast with the Apostles,” and that it was the Orthodox/Anglicans/etc who kept the proper faith, Cyprian seems to dispute that strongly.
As to this:
I fail to understand this. Are you disagreeing with the response I already gave you dealing with this? How do you come to this conclusion? On a related front, why, exactly, do you think that the Pope was granted the extra honor and right to promulgate doctrine? What elevated him? How does the ope get primacy of honor, but not primacy of authority, biblically? And what caused this position of authority to lose all authority in the Schism?
Also, When the Emperor appointed as patriarch of Constantiople an Arian heretic, Pope Julian excommunicated him in 343. Whle obviously there was a gret deal of dispute over this, you will note that no one actually questioned the Pope’s authority to do this, merely his judgememnt.
Jjimmmy:
Generally, in Catholicism, doctrines tended to be expounded, and not given too much thought, since everyone was expected to be on the same page. It was only when problems arose, like say, regarding the Papacy, or the Eucharist, or, in the 19th century, Papal infallibility, that the church felt the need to define on a stronger level what exactly doctrine was. You have to look at the situation in context. In 605, the Church, specifically the eastern Church, had some problems. After the Roman empire fell in 476, the Eastern half lived on, and the Emperor resided in Constantionple, and wielded tremendous power in church affairs. WHile many good patriarchs served, just as many were corrupt appointees of the Emperor, some of whom claimed to be on par with the apostles.
The Patriarchs of Constantinople constantly attempted to raise their position in the church in order to gain leverage with the Emperor. However, this led to conflict with Rome. Because of this conflict over power, it was seen as necessary to assert a previously unquesioned authority.
On a different note, it apparently turns out I was wrong about the date of the schism. From here, it says:
That page is one I had not seen before, and gives a much better Catholic brief on the Schism than I could. If Polycarp, or Tom~, or Dogface, or whoever, could give me their opinion on it, it would be appreciated. Here it is again. Thanks.
Yes…I was in fact quoting James Burke from his book “the pinball effect”.
I personally have little knowledge on the subject but that part of the book really stood out. (The book, if you know james burke, is about many other subjects too). That perticular topic is only glazed upon in several pages. (207-211)
I fail to understand this. Are you disagreeing with the response I already gave you dealing with this? if so please expand. Again in response to Brain glutton I said: At least by 605 the Bishop of Rome - in the middle of a p6ssing contest with other important Bishops - was claiming Universal and/or some sort of special “overlord” Bishop status … Justinian’s decree from the 500’s wasn’t in context of the whole Papacy as much as it was to re-constitute everything in Rome – leading everyone not Roman to dismiss it when they could. Boniface was strictly papacy (& East vs. West) issues.
How does what you have written in contradict what I said in any way?
This being GQ I’m gonna have to call you and ask for a cite, besides from a Catholic non-historical lay organization, on that.
Well, here you have one of the points of difference between the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches. The last Archbishop of Canterbury ordained just before the establishment of the Church of England was Thomas Cranmer, who was duly confirmed as Archbishop by Pope Clement VII, including receiving the pallium, or symbol of his authority as a metropolitan and archbishop. So there was no doubt that Cranmer was validly ordained as an Archbishop by the Pope himself, and thus within the apostolic succession.
However, Cranmer then went on to pronounce an anullment of Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon, and to perform the marriage of Henry to Anne Boleyn, and to participate in the various measures to establish the separate Church of England. By Roman Catholic views, that was schismatic, even if he was within the succession, which in turn might be taken to cast doubts on the validity of subsequent ordinations which Cranmer performed.
The situation gets more complicated with the issue of the Anglican orders. That was the question, raised by the Roman Catholic church, whether the subsequent ceremonies for the ordination of Anglican clergy were valid for the purposes of the Apostolic Succession. As near as I can understand it, the RC view is that for at least a certain period in the 16th and 17th centuries, the ordination rites in the C. of E. did not carry the necessary sacramental character to preserve the apostolic succession, and hence all subsequent ordinations of Anglican clergy are not valid.
The issue came up in discussions towards the end of the 19th century, and eventually Leo XIII issued a bull, Apostolicae Curae, in which he held that the Anglican orders were invalid and therefore Anglican priests wishing to be received into the R.C. clergy had to be re-ordained. Anglicans, on the other hand, maintain that there is no break in the Apostolic succesion within the Anglican communion.
Polycarp, you seem to be describing the organization of a modern Protestant church, of the kind that rejects apostolic succession entirely.
In Catholicism, ever since the Dark Ages, priests and bishops are not merely the leaders of their congregations. They are the only persons authorized to administer the sacraments (except for baptism, which can be done by any baptized person). And their power to administer sacraments is based on apostolic succession: a priest must be ordained by a bishop, who must have been consecrated by another bishop, in an unbroken line of bishops going back to one of the first disciples or apostles. I find it very hard to believe that the first couple of generations of Christians accepted this. The way you are describing it, the earliest “elders” and “overseers” of the Christian congregations were merely first-among-equals; they were not special, holy, consecrated persons like the priests of the Jewish Temple – or modern Catholic priests.
So,
When did the doctrine emerge that only priests can administer sacraments?
When did the doctrine emerge that a priest’s authority to administer sacraments is founded in his apostolic succession?
Do these doctrines predate the emergence of the Papacy as a recognizable institution?
Depictions of Sacramentology in the earliest church are a bit murky, but there is pretty clear evidence (open to dispute, of course) that the presbyteroi did, in fact, function with special authority. Fr. Ray Brown wrote a decent short survey of the origins of authority (omitting the papacy) in his Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections back in 1970. He makes a strong case for Apostolic succession while recognizing that the earliest church needed to evolve into the forms that it eventually chose.