The Papacy Under Scrutiny: Early Church Arguments against Papal Supremacy

Aaron John Michael
6 days ago
21 min read

Introduction: The Papacy and Early Church Authority

The doctrine of papal supremacy holds that the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) is the divinely appointed head of the universal Church, with supreme authority over doctrine and governance. This idea, however, has been vigorously contested on theological and historical grounds, especially by those who point to early Church evidence. Critics argue that the earliest centuries of Christianity operated with a collegial and conciliar model of leadership rather than a monarchical papacy. They note that early Church writings, councils, and events often contradict the notion of the Pope as an absolute head recognized by all. In this report, we will explore key theological arguments and historical evidence from the early Church that have been used to challenge the papacy’s claims. These include interpretations of Scripture by Church Fathers, decisions of ecumenical councils, and examples of regional churches resisting Roman authority. The focus is on what the first five centuries (and slightly beyond) reveal about the role of the Bishop of Rome, highlighting sources that dispute later papal claims.

Biblical and Theological Foundations of Papal Claims

The primary biblical cornerstone for the papacy is Matthew 16:18, where Jesus says to Peter: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.” The Catholic Church interprets “the rock” as Peter himself, with the keys of authority given to him and his successors in Rome. However, many early Christian theologians offered alternative interpretations of this passage that undermine a unique Roman primacy. For example, St. Augustine of Hippo (4th–5th century) initially thought Peter was the rock, but later retracted that view. In his final analysis, Augustine taught that Christ himself is the rock, or Peter’s confession of faith in Christ, rather than Peter’s person. Augustine explicitly wrote: “‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed…for the rock was Christ,” leaving readers to judge which interpretation is more probable. This admission suggests that even four centuries after Christ, there was no single “official” interpretation required of all believers, a situation difficult to square with later papal claims that their understanding had been held “always, everywhere, by all.”

Early theologians often extended the “rock” metaphor beyond Peter alone. St. John Chrysostom, a 4th-century Eastern Father, exalted Peter as “first of the Apostles,” yet did not teach that Peter (or Rome) held exclusive power. Chrysostom noted that others shared Peter’s authority: he taught that all Apostles were given the keys and commission (cf. Matthew 18:18, John 20:22–23) and often referred to multiple Apostles as “coryphæi” (leaders). In Chrysostom’s view, Peter’s primacy was one of honor, but the Church’s foundation was Christ and the faith in Him, in which “Peter, James, John, Andrew and Paul” all equally shared. This reflects the broader patristic outlook that all bishops collectively succeeded the Apostles, and no single see monopolized Christ’s commission.

Other early writers explicitly counter the notion that any one bishop could be “supreme.” The term “Pontifex Maximus” (high priest) and “bishop of bishops” were used ironically by Tertullian (c. 3rd century) to mock the Bishop of Rome for overreach. After Rome began loosening penitential discipline, Tertullian sneered: “The Pontifex Maximus – that is, the bishop of bishops – issues an edict: ‘I remit... the sins of adultery and fornication.’”. This biting sarcasm shows that as early as 210 A.D., clerics like Tertullian (who lived in North Africa) viewed claims of universal bishopric with scorn. He even likened such pretensions to the title of a pagan high priest (Pontifex Maximus), underscoring that the concept of a sole supreme bishop “was alien to original Christian practice.”

Ignatius of Antioch (2nd century), in his letters, stressed the importance of each local church under its own bishop, with Christ as the ultimate bishop. Eastern Orthodox scholars note that Ignatius saw each local Eucharistic community, united to its bishop, as fully “catholic” (whole and complete) in itself – “the bishop is in the place of God” for that community, and “there is no intermediary between the local bishop and God”. This suggests that the early Church’s understanding of catholicity did not require submission to a distant Pope. The Eastern Orthodox position, encapsulating patristic thought, is that “all bishops are equal ‘as Peter’”, each possessing the fullness of apostolic succession in his own local church. In this view, primacy was understood as a “first among equals” honor given to Rome (due to its size and apostolic foundation), but not an absolute jurisdiction over other churches.

Finally, Jesus’ teachings on leadership emphasize service and equality. In Luke 22:24–26, when the Apostles debated who was greatest, Christ instructed them that the greatest must be “as the youngest” and the leader as a servant. Papal critics argue that if Christ intended to establish a singular head (Peter as Pope), the New Testament and earliest Church would have made that explicit. Instead, the Book of Acts and epistles depict collegial decision-making (e.g. the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 was led by James with Peter contributing, not issuing solo decrees). There is no scriptural scene of Peter acting as an overarching governor of other Apostles; on the contrary, Paul rebukes Peter in Antioch as an equal (Galatians 2:11). This biblical ethos of shared authority set the tone for how the post-apostolic Church managed its affairs, as we will see next.

Early Church Governance and the Concept of Primacy

In the first few centuries, the Church’s structure was episcopal and regional. Each major city had its bishop, and important centers (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, later Constantinople, and Jerusalem) gained influence as regional primates. However, the principle of conciliarity, that bishops should deliberate together in councils, was paramount. No single bishop could dictate universal policy unilaterally in the earliest ecumenical councils. In fact, no ecumenical council of the first millennium was convened by a Pope; they were typically convoked by Christian Roman emperors. The Catholic Second Vatican Council itself acknowledged: “There never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized by Peter’s successor.” But historians note that prior to the 5th century, papal claims to overarching primacy were sporadic and often “denied or ignored” by those addressed. As scholar W. H. C. Frend observes, in the East a “theory of Church government” held sway that “had a place for episcopal authority, but none for Roman primacy.”

Ecumenical Councils reveal this balance of honor versus authority. For example, the First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325), the earliest ecumenical council, passed Canon 6, which explicitly affirmed the traditional authority of major regional bishops in their territories. It states: “Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise, in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.”. In other words, Alexandria’s jurisdiction over Egypt was to continue, just as Rome exercised a customary authority in its own region. The canon pointedly equates Rome’s role to that of Alexandria and Antioch, rather than placing Rome above them. It “doesn’t express the extent” of Rome’s reach beyond its local sphere, but certainly contradicts any notion that the Pope held global jurisdiction at that time. The Nicene fathers were effectively formalizing a system of multiple patriarchates, each with domestic authority, rather than a single monarchical bishop over all.

Similarly, the First Council of Constantinople (381), which became the Second Ecumenical Council, expanded the hierarchical order but still not in a way that implies absolute papal power. Its Canon 3 declared that “the Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.”. This canon again bases prerogative on the civic importance of cities (Old and New Rome), not on any Petrine theology. Crucially, Rome initially did not accept this council as ecumenical, and only later was Constantinople 381 recognized – indicating that papal recognition was a factor, but so was the broader acceptance by all patriarchates. The canon shows that by the late 4th century, the East acknowledged Rome as “first in honor,” but also expected Constantinople to be second, ahead of older sees like Alexandria, purely because of political prominence. This purely administrative primacy runs counter to the modern Catholic claim that primacy is derived from St. Peter’s commission alone. It suggests the early Church saw primacy as a human arrangement subject to council deliberation, not a divinely instituted supremacy.

By the 5th century, we do see popes like Leo the Great (mid-400s) asserting stronger claims. At the Council of Chalcedon (451), papal legates presided and Leo’s Tome (a doctrinal letter) was acclaimed as authoritative. Yet even at Chalcedon, the assembled bishops passed Canon 28, which stated that “the see of New Rome [Constantinople]” should have “equal privileges” to Old Rome, “being the new imperial capital”. This was a direct challenge to Rome’s unique status. Pope Leo’s legates protested, and Leo himself rejected Canon 28, citing the earlier Nicene order and the special position of Rome. But despite papal objections, the Eastern churches pressed forward with Canon 28. They even wrote to Leo, pleading for him to approve it, an acknowledgment of Rome’s influence, yet also showing the council felt it could enact such measures.. In practice, the Eastern Church treated the canon as effective, continuing to honor Constantinople as second in rank (a practice later ratified in the East). This incident demonstrates that even when a Pope asserted authority (nullifying a canon), the rest of the Church did not uniformly submit. The Pope was regarded as a head of the Church by honor and as a guardian of orthodoxy, but not an absolute monarch whose every decree was irrevocable. The tension surrounding Canon 28 illustrates the push-back against papal supremacy within the conciliar framework of the early Church.

Early Church Fathers against Papal Supremacy

Patristic writings from the 2nd through 5th centuries provide numerous examples of respected Church Fathers who either implicitly or explicitly resisted the idea of a supreme Pope. While Catholic apologists often quote the same Fathers praising Peter or Rome, a closer reading in context reveals that these same Fathers upheld a fundamentally collegial view of Church governance. Here we highlight some significant testimonies:

St. Cyprian of Carthage (3rd century): He is sometimes cited for calling Rome the “chair of Peter” and source of sacerdotal unity. Yet in practice, Cyprian was a staunch defender of episcopal equality. During the controversy over baptism of heretics (c. 255–257), Cyprian and an African council clashed with Pope Stephen I of Rome. Stephen demanded the Africans accept Rome’s practice of not rebaptizing heretics, even excommunicating the African churches when they refused. Far from submitting, Cyprian gathered 87 bishops at Carthage in 256 and issued a firm rebuke. In his opening address, Cyprian declared: “No one of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror forces his colleagues to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.”. This remarkable statement, “neither does anyone of us call himself bishop of bishops”, was a direct rejection of Pope Stephen’s interference. Cyprian’s council unanimously upheld the North African practice against Rome’s position. They viewed Stephen’s letters as an unwarranted “assumption” of authority. Indeed, Firmilian of Caesarea (Cappadocia), an ally of Cyprian, wrote an outraged letter against Pope Stephen, accusing him of “pride” and folly. Firmilian observed that Stephen “boasts of the place of his episcopate and contends that he holds the succession from Peter”, yet by accepting heretical baptism “he has introduced many other rocks and established new churches”, effectively “betraying and deserting unity”. In a biting tone, Firmilian asserted that Stephen, by allying with heretical practices, had cut himself off from the true unity – the very unity he claimed Peter’s office guaranteed. The African and Asian churches simply ignored Stephen’s excommunications, continuing in communion with each other (and likely re-admitting Rome only after Stephen died shortly thereafter). This episode clearly shows that third-century bishops did not recognize the Bishop of Rome as an ultimate oracle whose decisions must be obeyed. Cyprian’s famous maxim about not judging other bishops is fundamentally anti-supremacist and is frequently cited as evidence that papal jurisdiction beyond Rome was not an accepted fact in the early Church.
St. Firmilian’s language also undermines papal pretensions theologically. By sarcastically noting that Stephen “who glories in being successor of Peter” is actually “introducing other foundations” and “deserting the Rock [of Christ]”, Firmilian implies that claims to Peter’s succession in Rome mean nothing if the Roman bishop errs or breaks unity. This is a far cry from the later doctrine that the Pope, by virtue of his office, could never lead the Church into error. To Firmilian (and Cyprian), the standard of truth was the collective “rule of faith” held by the episcopate as a whole, not simply whatever Rome says. Pope Stephen’s stance was treated as one opinion among many, and in this case, a wrong one to be rejected.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd century): Irenaeus is often noted for saying the Church must agree with Rome because of its “preeminent authority,” but context matters. During the Easter (Quartodeciman) Controversy around A.D. 190, Pope Victor I attempted to enforce the Roman date of Easter on the Churches of Asia Minor, who followed a different traditional date. Victor dramatically excommunicated those Eastern communities for defying his decree. This act represents one of the earliest assertions of papal muscle, and the immediate reaction reveals how it was received. Irenaeus, though he himself kept Easter on Sunday like Rome, “sharply rebuked Victor” and other bishops wrote urging Victor to reconsider. Eusebius’ Church History records that “this did not please all the bishops”, and that they admonished Victor to pursue “peace, unity and love”, not division. Victor was essentially pressured by his colleagues to lift the excommunication, which he eventually did. St. Irenaeus’ intervention “successfully convinced Pope Victor to relent and avoid a schism”. The key point is that a 2nd-century Pope’s attempt to unilaterally bind the whole Church was met with resistance, even by those who respected Rome. The churches of Asia did not submit; they persisted in their practice (and were later vindicated when the Church peacefully resolved the issue). No one denied Victor had some authority, but many denied that such authority could be used to disrupt the communion of entire regions over a non-doctrinal dispute. Authority was tempered by the wider Church’s reception. This incident shows that Roman primacy was not understood as an unquestionable supremacy; rather, other bishops (Irenaeus in Gaul, Polycrates in Asia, etc.) felt competent to “rebuke” the Pope for overstepping.
St. Augustine and the African Church (5th century): By Augustine’s time, Rome was often consulted and revered, but the African Church still fiercely guarded its autonomy. A series of local councils in Carthage (in 418, 419, 424) addressed the issue of appeals to Rome. Canon 17 of the African Council of Carthage (419) bluntly decreed that no cleric may appeal “beyond the sea” (i.e. to Rome); any who do so are to be excommunicated in Africa. This canon was a reaction to the case of a priest, Apiarius of Sicca, who had bypassed his African judges and appealed directly to Pope Zosimus. Pope Zosimus tried to intervene, even citing a (spurious) canon to justify Roman appellate authority. The African bishops, led by St. Augustine and others, politely but firmly investigated Rome’s claims and determined that the supposed Nicene canon allowing appeals to Rome was false (it turned out to be a canon of the Council of Sardica, not ecumenical Nicaea). In 424, after enduring further meddling by Pope Celestine I in the Apiarius affair, the African synod sent a letter to Celestine. They protested his claim to appellate jurisdiction, insisted “no more judges be sent from across the sea”, and asked that his legate be recalled. The African bishops flatly told the Pope that the Nicene Council gave him no authority to interpose in their internal affairs. Pope Celestine refused to yield his view, invoking “the see’s apostolic authority”, but the Africans held their ground. This confrontation is significant because it involved St. Augustine, one of the greatest Doctors of the Church. Augustine sided with his African colleagues in denying Rome’s appellate supremacy. In his writings, Augustine did acknowledge Rome’s prestige (the famous phrase “Roma locuta est, causa finita est” – “Rome has spoken, the case is concluded” – comes from an Augustine sermon). But that quote often misleads; Augustine was referring to Rome’s agreement with African councils against Pelagianism, which confirmed the African position rather than overriding it. In the Apiarius case, Augustine and the Africans demonstrated that they did not consider the Pope an ultimate court of appeal for every dispute. Rather, they emphasized adherence to councils and the established canons, even when that meant telling the Pope “no”. This episode contradicts the notion that all early Christians believed communion with Rome was absolutely necessary for legitimate decisions, the Africans were prepared to act without Rome’s approval if needed to maintain what they saw as proper order.
St. Gregory the Great (Pope from 590–604): Ironically, one of the strongest statements against exalted papal titles comes from a Pope himself. Gregory I, revered as “Gregory the Great,” was Bishop of Rome at the turn of the 7th century. When the Patriarch of Constantinople assumed the title “Ecumenical (Universal) Patriarch,” Gregory was horrified. He wrote that any bishop who calls himself “universal bishop” is a forerunner of Antichrist. In a letter to Emperor Maurice, Gregory stated: “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.” Gregory meant to rebuke the Eastern Patriarch, but his words logically apply to any bishop claiming universal jurisdiction. In fact, later Popes would assume exactly the kind of title Gregory condemned (such as “Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church”). Gregory, while certainly holding that Rome had a primacy of honor and doctrinal authority, explicitly rejected language that would make one bishop the lone head over the Church. He preferred the model of all bishops sharing in service, with Rome as “first among equals,” as was accepted in his day. Gregory even wrote humbly to other bishops, calling himself “your brother in position”. Catholic apologists argue Gregory was not denying the papacy, only the specific title. Even so, his unequivocal words are often cited by Orthodox and Protestant scholars to show that the mind of a 6th-century Pope did not embrace an absolute monarchic papacy; if anything, he feared such an idea as presumptuous. The fact that Gregory’s successors eventually did the opposite (claiming universal titles and powers) raises the question of a developed doctrine rather than an unbroken practice from the start.
Heretical Popes and Conciliar Oversight: Another line of historical evidence against papal infallibility or unilateral authority is the fact that ecumenical councils judged and even condemned Popes when necessary. The clearest example is Pope Honorius I (regn. 625–638). Honorius wrote letters during the Monothelite controversy that were interpreted as supporting heresy (Monothelitism – the doctrine that Christ had only one will). Decades after Honorius’s death, the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III, 680–681) anathematized him by name. The council’s official acts state: “We anathematize… Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome, because he followed the false doctrines.” The council called him “the confirmer of heresy”. Honorius was condemned along with Patriarchs of Constantinople and others for failing to uphold orthodoxy. Importantly, the Pope’s own legates at the council signed onto this condemnation. No special exemption was made for the Roman bishop; the council treated him as it would any other high-ranking prelate who taught error. Later, Pope Leo II (682–683) confirmed the council and explicitly agreed that Honorius “allowed the immaculate faith to be stained” and was rightly condemned. This episode demonstrates that the early Church held the council’s authority in resolving doctrine even over a Pope’s actions. It undercuts later claims that a Pope cannot be a heretic or that his doctrinal decrees are irreformable. Clearly, Honorius was not only reformed but publicly anathematized by the universal Church. While this example goes slightly beyond the “early” period, it is within the first 700 years and shows the continuing mindset of conciliar accountability. If the papacy had always been regarded as the indisputable final voice, a council condemning a Pope would be unthinkable, yet it happened, and was accepted by Rome itself at the time.

These examples could be multiplied. For instance, St. Basil the Great in the 4th century sought help from the West but also lamented that Pope Damasus’s response was insufficient, hardly the attitude if he considered the Pope the sole ruler of the Church. St. John Chrysostom, when deposed unjustly by a local synod, appealed to both Rome and other bishops, not treating Rome’s response as automatically decisive (though Rome did support him). Moreover, the title “pope” was not unique to Rome in early centuries; it simply meant “father” and was used for many bishops (the Pope of Alexandria is still called that in Coptic tradition), indicating that the concept of a single “Pope” evolved gradually.

In summary, the Fathers of the Church frequently emphasize unity, apostolic tradition, and the honored role of Peter/Rome, but none clearly outline the Vatican I model of papal supremacy and infallibility. On the contrary, when frictions arose, the default was to convene councils or exchange letters as equals, not to wait for an ex cathedra decree from Rome. No early Father taught that communion with the Bishop of Rome was the singular litmus test of being in the Church; that idea gained traction much later. The ancient maxim was “Ubi episcopus, ibi ecclesia” (Where the bishop is, there is the Church), not “where the Pope is.” Each bishop was seen as a leader of a fully complete local church, and ecumenical unity was maintained through synods and a shared faith, with Rome as an important guide but not an autocrat.

Councils versus Papacy: The Early Balance of Power

Another critical angle is the relationship between ecumenical councils and papal authority in the first millennium. Evidence abounds that councils were the highest authority for settling matters of faith, and popes themselves bowed to them (while also later claiming to ratify them). For instance:

The Council of Nicaea (325) was called by Emperor Constantine, and Pope Sylvester I did not attend (he sent legates). The council’s decrees (the Nicene Creed and canons) were immediately upheld throughout the Church. There was no instance of the Pope “confirming” Nicaea first before it became valid – the council’s authority was self-evident by the consensus of bishops and imperial backing. Later Catholic theology says a council needs papal confirmation, but historically Nicaea and others were accepted even before Rome weighed in, because the whole Church received them. This suggests the early Church’s mindset was conciliar, not ultramontane (ultramontanism being the elevation of papal authority above council).
In the 5th century, the Council of Ephesus (431) was convened to address Nestorianism. Pope Celestine I could not attend but sent legates and authorized St. Cyril of Alexandria to preside on Rome’s behalf. At Ephesus, after condemning Nestorius, the council fathers famously cried that “Peter has spoken through Cyril,” acknowledging Rome’s agreement with Cyril. Catholics use this as evidence of papal primacy. However, note that the council was called by the emperor and held in the East, without a Pope present. It proceeded even though one set of papal legates arrived late. When a rival group held an unauthorized session and appealed to the Pope, Pope Celestine actually sided with the main council (led by Cyril) and excommunicated the rebels. This incident shows popes cooperating with councils and using their influence to help enforce their decrees, but not bypassing the conciliar process. The “headship” that the Eastern bishops accorded to Pope Celestine’s delegate at Ephesus indicates respect for Rome’s prestige, yet the council did not simply wait for Rome to decide alone, they considered the matter in council first.
The controversy over Canon 28 of Chalcedon (451) has already been discussed, but it highlights a fundamental issue: can a council establish ecclesiastical arrangements contrary to the Pope’s wishes? At Chalcedon, the answer attempted by the Eastern bishops was “yes.” They justified Constantinople’s rise in status by appealing to conciliar powers and the needs of the Church in a new era. Pope Leo’s strong rejection of that canon, and the Eastern Church’s polite yet persistent disregard of his veto in subsequent practice, created a precedent for the coming East–West tensions. Over the next centuries, the Eastern Orthodox would maintain that ultimate authority lay in the Ecumenical Council as the representation of the whole Church, not in one See. The West (especially after Gregory the Great) increasingly asserted that a council’s decrees needed Rome’s approval to be valid (“Peter speaking through the councils”). This fundamental difference was a root cause of the eventual Great Schism (1054). By then, the Pope claimed the power to even alter conciliar decisions (as with canon 28) or to act alone in emergencies, claims the East never accepted. Thus, historically, the early unified Church operated with tension between conciliar and papal authority, with the evidence showing councils frequently holding the higher hand in practice.

One telling event is the Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eastern, 879–880) which, although later not recognized by Rome, annulled a previous council and restored an excommunicated Patriarch (Photius) without papal permission. The Pope at the time (John VIII) actually approved this council initially, indicating a compromise, but later popes rejected it. The back-and-forth shows that by the 9th century, the gap between Roman and conciliar ecclesiology had widened, but in those pivotal early centuries we focus on, the conciliar model clearly had the upper hand whenever a clash occurred.

Conclusion: Early Perspectives vs. Later Papal Doctrine

The survey of early Church sources above demonstrates a crucial point: the doctrine of the papacy as defined by the First Vatican Council in 1870 (with the Pope as possessing supreme, immediate, and infallible jurisdiction over the entire Church) is not clearly visible in the first centuries of Christianity. On the contrary, both the theological mindset and the practical governance of the early Church often ran contrary to such a notion.

From a theological standpoint, early Christians saw Peter as a foremost Apostle but did not conclude that this translates into an exclusive transmissible office governing all Christendom. Authority was seen as shared among all the Apostles and their successors, with Christ as the true head of the Church. Terms like “rock” and “keys” were interpreted by many Fathers as relating to faith or to all bishops, not a single dynasty of Roman pontiffs. The concept of catholicity was tied to holding the universal apostolic faith and communion with the Church at large, not singular obedience to one bishop.

From a historical standpoint, the record shows the Bishop of Rome held a place of honor and often moral authority – churches looked to Rome for orthodox teaching and mediation in disputes. Indeed, Rome’s early track record in doctrine was admired; heresy was frequently rooted out by Roman bishops which enhanced Roman prestige. However, when Roman bishops attempted to exert juridical control beyond their local region, they met resistance or outright defiance: Pope Victor’s Easter edict was ignored until he backed down; Pope Stephen’s demands were roundly rejected by Cyprian and the Asiatic churches7; Pope Zosimus and Celestine’s interventions in Africa were repelled by councils that denied any Roman “appellate” right. Far from viewing such resistance as illegitimate, these local churches remained in the “Catholic” fold, which shows that communion with Rome was not thought to hinge on absolute submission. Unity was a more nuanced and reciprocal concept.

It was only in later centuries, especially after the early medieval period (with events like the False Decretals and the assertion of Papal States power), that the papacy steadily accrued the kind of monarchical status we recognize in the high Middle Ages. By the time of the Great Schism (1054), the Roman papacy and the Eastern patriarchs had largely incompatible views of primacy. Eastern Orthodox opposition to papal supremacy has consistently held that the early Church’s tradition of Rome’s primacy was one of honor, not the current doctrine of universal supremacy. The Orthodox note that they never “accepted the pope as de jure leader of the entire Church” in the first millennium, pointing instead to the evidence we have reviewed.

In conclusion, the early Church evidence against the papacy’s later claims can be summarized as follows:

Scripture and the Fathers: While giving Peter a certain primacy, Scripture does not establish a perpetual monarchal office for one see, and many Fathers understood Christ or the faith to be the foundation of the Church, not Peter alone. They praised Rome’s faith but did not teach that its bishop governed all others in an absolute sense.
Councils and Canons: Ecumenical councils from Nicaea onward assigned Rome a “first place” but alongside other great sees, and issued canons (like Nicæa 6 and Chalcedon 28) that limit Rome’s jurisdiction to its customary region. Regional councils (like Carthage) explicitly forbade unilateral appeals to Rome, reinforcing administrative independence.
Historical Incidents: Time after time, popes had to collaborate with their brother bishops and sometimes were even rebuked by them. The mechanisms for resolving disputes and defining dogma in the early Church were conciliar – popes participated in that process but were not exempt from it nor sole arbiters. No early council simply asked, “What does the Pope say? that is the end of it.” Instead, popes issued decisions that, if accepted by the broader Church, gained authority, a de facto reliance on the Church’s reception, not just papal issuance.
Precedents of Papal Error or Rejection: The fact that a Pope (Honorius) could be condemned as a heretic by a council, or that an ecumenical canon could be disregarded by one side and insisted on by the other (Chalcedon’s Canon 28), shows that infallibility and unchallengeable supremacy were not functioning realities at that time. The Church could survive a wayward Pope and did not see him as an unfailing guide in all things.

Ultimately, these arguments do not deny that Rome had a certain primatial role in antiquity – rather, they deny that this role was the same as the later papal monarchy. Dissenters from papal supremacy hold that the true early model was a collegial leadership of the bishops, with Rome as a leading voice but within the limits of Holy Tradition and council agreement. The head of the Church, in early Christian belief, was Jesus Christ Himself, mystically present wherever the Eucharist was celebrated, not an earthly single-office holder. The Pope was “first among equals,” a president of the brethren, not a dictator over them.

As the Christian Research Institute writers observed, non-Catholic Christians (Orthodox, Protestants) accept Peter’s special role but reject that any human is an infallible head of the Church. Even the Protestant Reformers in the 16th century revived these early Church arguments: Melanchthon’s 1537 Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope argued that the papacy had “no basis in Scripture or in the history of the early Church”, essentially re-stating the case we have outlined with patristic support.

In assessing the evidence, it appears that the modern papacy is a result of historical development, not an unbroken institution exactly as present from the start. Early Christians certainly esteemed the Pope of Rome, but they also set firm boundaries on his authority. The early Church sources provide a rich arsenal for those arguing against the papacy: they show a Church that was more federative than feudal, more synodal than monarchical. For anyone researching the topic, these early testimonies are invaluable for understanding how the Church originally functioned and how divergent the later medieval papal model really was from those origins. Thus, the theological and historical arguments against the papacy find substantial grounding in the very foundations of Church history and tradition4.