Rome and the
Origin of Sunday

The Church of Rome and the Sabbath

The adoption and enhancement of Sunday as the exclusive new day of worship presupposes the abandonment and belittling of the Sabbath. We would presume therefore that the Church where Sunday worship was first introduced and enforced adopted some measures to discourage Sabbath observance. While it must be admitted that we have evidence for the observance of both days, particularly in the East, (58) this must be viewed as a compromise solution on the part of those who wished to retain the old Sabbath while at the same time accepting the new Sunday worship. Their very concern to preserve some type of Sabbath observance disqualifies them as pioneers of Sunday keeping, since they could hardly have championed the new day while trying to retain the old.

In the Church of Rome the situation was substantially different. Not only was Sunday worship urged there, but concrete measures were also taken to wean Christians away from any veneration of the Sabbath. These we shall now consider, endeavoring to identify those motives which may have caused such a course of action.

We shall start our investigation with Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 100- ca. 165), who taught and wrote in Rome by the middle of the second century. While prior to him Ignatius in Asia Minor (ca. A.D. 110) and Barnabas at Alexandria (ca. A.D. 135) explicitly upbraided Sabbath keeping, it is Justin who provides the most devastating and systematic condemnation of the Sabbath and the first explicit account of Christian Sunday worship. Since in the subsequent chapter we shall closely examine Justin’s views on the Sabbath and Sunday, here we need only to state his position. (59)

The Sabbath for Justin is a temporary ordinance, derived from Moses, which God did not intend to be kept literally, for He Himself "does not stop controlling the movement of the universe on that day." He imposed it solely on the Jews as a mark to single them out for punishment they so well deserved for their infidelities." (60) The acceptance of this thesis makes God guilty, to say the least, of discriminatory practices, inasmuch as He would have given ordinances for the sole negative purpose of singling out Jews for punishment.

Someone could argue that Justin’s position does not necessarily reflect the attitude of the whole Church of Rome toward the Sabbath, especially since Rome was the crossroads of all ideas. While this caution deserves attention, it is well to note that Justin does not represent a solitary voice in Rome against the Sabbath. Similar views were expressed by the renowned heretic, Marcion, who at that time (ca. A.D. 144) established his headquarters in Rome. The influence of Marcion’s anti-Judaic and anti-Sabbath teachings was felt far and wide. (61) More than half a century later, Tertullian still found it necessary to defend the Christians in North Africa from the influence of Marcion's teaching by producing his longest treatise, Against Marcion, which he revised in three successive editions. (62) In Rome particularly, as Justin testifies, "many have believed him [i.e. Marcion] as if he alone knew the truth." (63) Regarding the Sabbath, according to Epiphanius Marcion ordered his followers

"to fast on Saturday justifying it in this way: Because it is the rest of the God of the Jews... we fast in that day in order not to accomplish on that day what was ordained by the God of the Jews." (64)

How would fasting on the Sabbath demonstrate hatred against the "evil" God of the Jews? The answer is to be found in the fact that for the Jews the Sabbath was anything but a day of fast or of mourning. Even the strictest Jewish sects objected to fasting on the Sabbath. The rabbis, though they differed in their views regarding the time and number of the Sabbath meals, agreed that food on the Sabbath ought to be abundant and good. The following statement epitomizes perhaps the typical rabbinic view: "‘Do you think that I (God) gave you the Sabbath as burden? I gave it to you for your benefit.’ How? Explained Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, ‘Keep the Sabbath holy with food, drink and clean garment, enjoy yourself and I shall reward you." (65)

That the early Christians adopted this Jewish custom is implied, for instance, by Augustine’s rhetorical remark, when referring to the Sabbath, he says: "Did not the tradition of the elders prohibit fasting on the one hand, and command rest on the other?" (66) Further support can be seen in the opposition to the Sabbath fast by Christians in the East and in some important Western areas, such as in Milan at the time of Ambrose (d. A.D. 397), and in certain churches and regions of North Africa. (67) The transformation of the Sabbath from a day of feasting and joy to a day of fasting and mourning, as we shall see, represents a measure taken by the Church of Rome to degrade the Sabbath in order to enhance Sunday worship. (68)

It should be noted that Justin and Marcion, though they differ in their theological interpretation of the Sabbath, both share the same anti-Sabbath attitude: the former devaluates the theological meaning of the day, making it the trademark of Jewish wickedness; the latter deprives the day of its physical and psychological pleasures to show contempt to the God of the Jews.

Marcion was expelled from the Church of Rome because of his dualistic-Gnostic views, but the custom of fasting on the Sabbath was retained. In fact, the historical references from Pope Callistus (A.D. 217-222), Hippolytus (ca. A.D. 170-236), Pope Sylvester (A.D. 402-417), Pope Innocent 1 (A.D. 401-417), Augustine (A.D. 354-430) and John Cassian (ca. A. D. 360-435) all present the Church of Rome as the champion of the Sabbath fast, anxious to impose it on other Christian communities as well. (69)

Did the Church of Rome borrow the custom directly from Marcion? It would seem strange that the Church would have adopted a custom advocated solely by a heretic whom she disfellowshiped, and whose motivations for the Sabbath fast were mostly unacceptable. It seems more likely that some, at least, already practiced Sabbath fasting in Rome prior to Marcion’s arrival. It has been suggested in fact that the weekly Sabbath fast originated as an extension of the annual Holy Saturday of Easter season when all Christians fasted. Tertullian and Augustine, for instance, associated the two, but while they approved of the annual paschal Sabbath fast, they condemned the fasting of the weekly Sabbath which Rome and a few Western Churches practiced. "You sometimes," Tertullian writes, "continue your station [i.e. fast] even over the Sabbath, a day never to be kept as a fast except at the Passover season." (70)

Since Easter Sunday, as we shall soon show, was apparently introduced first in Rome in the early part of the second century to differentiate the Christian Passover from that of the Jews, it is possible that the weekly Sabbath fast arose contemporaneously as an extension of the annual paschal Sabbath fast. If this was the case, Sabbath fasting was introduced prior to Marcion’s arrival in Rome, and he exploited the new custom to propagate his contemptuous views of the God of the Jews. That the weekly Sabbath fast was introduced early in Rome is clearly implied by a statement of Hippolytus (written in Rome between A.D. 202-234) which says: "Even today (kai gar nun) some... order fasting on the Sabbath of which Christ has not spoken, dishonoring even the Gospel of Christ." (71) While it is difficult to establish whether Hippolytus was referring to Bishop Callistus’ decretal concerning the Sabbath fast or to some Marcionites against whom he wrote a treatise (possibly to both?), the expression even today" clearly presupposes that the custom had been known for some time, presumably since the introduction of Easter Sunday. (72)

Hippolytus does not explain who are those who "order fasting on the Sabbath." However, since a liturgical custom such as Sabbath fasting could be rightfully enjoined only by official ecclesiastical authority, and since Bishop Callistus, according to the Liber Pontificales, did intensify at that time a seasonal Sabbath fast, it would seem reasonable to assume that the writer was indirectly referring to the very hierarchy of the Roman Church as responsible for the ordinance. It might be objected that Hippolytus, by disapproving the custom, weakens the argument of a widespread Sabbath fast in Rome. The objection loses force, however, when we consider the writer’s cultural background and position in Rome. In fact, even though he lived in Rome under the pontificate of Zephyrinus (A.D. 199-217), Callistus (A.D. 217-222), Urban (A.D. 222-230) and Pontianus (A.D. 230-235), he was neither a Roman nor a Latin. His language, philosophy and theology were Greek. (73) Furthermore, after he lost the election to the Papal See (Callistus was elected instead in A.D. 217), he headed a dissident group and was consecrated antipope. His condemnation of those who ordered the Sabbath fast could then be explained in the light of his Eastern origin and orientation (Sabbath fast was generally condemned in the East because of the existing veneration for the day) (74) and of his conflicts with the hierarchy of the Church of Rome. In other words, both personal and theological reasons could have motivated Hippolytus to oppose the Sabbath fast which by the decretal of Callistus at that time was enjoined particularly as a seasonal fast.

The Roman custom of fasting on the Sabbath was not however unanimously accepted by Christians everywhere. Opposition to it, in fact, seems to have been known even in Rome, as indicated by Pope Siricius’ condemnation (A.D. 384-398) of a certain priest, Jovinianus, who according to the Pope, "hates the fastings ... saying they are superfluous; he has no hope in the future." (75) Augustine, who wrote at length and repeatedly on the subject, limits the practice of Sabbath fasting prevailing in his day to "the Roman Christians and hitherto a few of the Western communities. (76) John Cassian (d. ca. A.D. 440) similarly confines the Sabbath fasting custom to "some people in some countries of the West, and especially in the city [i.e., Rome]." (77)

Most scholars agree that the custom originated in Rome and that from there it spread to certain Western communities. It should be added that Rome maintained such a custom until the eleventh century, in spite of repeated protests by the Eastern Church. Mario Righetti in his scholarly History of Liturgy notes for instance that

"Rome and not a few Gallican churches, in spite of the lively remonstrances of the Greeks, which were refuted by the polemic works of Eneas of Paris (d. 870 A.D.) and Retrannus of Corby (d. A.D. 868), preserved the traditional Sabbath fast until beyond the year A.D. 1000." (78)

R. L. Odom has persuasively brought out that the Roman insistence on making the Sabbath a day of fast contributed significantly to the historic break between the Eastern and Western Christian Church which occurred in A.D. 1054. (79) The fact that the Sabbath fast seemingly originated in Rome is however of relatively little value to our present research, unless we understand why such a practice arose in the first place and what causal relationship exists between it and the origin of Sunday.

The sources usually present the Sabbath fast as the "prolongation—superpositio " of that of Friday, making both fasting days commemorative of the time, when to use Tertullian’s phrase, "the Bridegroom was taken away," that is, when Christ was under the power of death. (80) The Easter-Friday and Sabbath fasts were however designed to express not only sorrow for Christ’s death, but also contempt for its perpetrators, namely the Jews. In two related documents, the Didascalia Apostolorum (dated in the earlier half of the third century) and the Apostolic Constitutions (ca. A.D. 375), Christians are in a similar vein enjoined to fast on Easter-Friday and Saturday "on account of the disobedience of our brethren [i.e., the Jews] . . . because thereon the People killed themselves in crucifying our Saviour, (81) . . .because in these days . . . He was taken from us by the Jews, falsely so named and fastened to the cross." (82)

In the light of the close nexus existing between the annual Paschal Sabbath fast and the weekly one, (83) it is reasonable to conclude that the latter originated in Rome as an extension of the former, not only to express sorrow for Christ’s death but also to show contempt for the Jewish people and particularly for their Sabbath. (84) Pope Sylvester (A.D. 314-335) in a historic statement, often quoted by his successors in defense of the Roman Sabbath fast, clearly supports this conclusion:

"If every Sunday is to be observed joyfully by the Christians on account of the resurrection, then every Sabbath on account of the burial is to be regarded in execration of the Jews (exsecratione Judaeorum). In fact all the disciples of the Lord had a lamentation on the Sabbath, bewailing the buried Lord, and gladness prevailed for the exulting Jews. But sadness reigned for the fasting apostles. In like manner we are sad with the saddened by the burial of the Lord, if we want to rejoice with them in the day of the Lord’s resurrection. In fact, it is not proper to observe, because of Jewish customs, the consumption of food (destructiones ciborum) and the ceremonies of the Jews" (85)

In this statement Pope Sylvester places in clear contrast the difference in theological meaning and manner of observance between Sabbath and Sunday. Christians are enjoined to mourn and abstain from food on the Sabbath, not only on account of the burial" of Christ, but also to show contempt for the Jews (exsecratione Judaeorum), and for their Sabbath feasting (destructiones ciborum). (86) Apparently the Sabbath fast was intended also to provide greater honor and recognition to Sunday: "We are sad [on the Sabbath]"... Pope Sylvester wrote, "to rejoice... in the day of the Lord’s resurrection."

Victorinus, Bishop of Pettau (ca. A.D. 304), present-day Austria, similarly emphasizes the same function of the Sabbath fast when he writes: "On the seventh day... we are accustomed to fast rigorously that on the Lord’s day we may go forth to our bread with giving thanks." (87) The sadness and hunger which Christians experienced even more severely on the Sabbath, because their fasting had already started on Friday, (88) were designed therefore to predispose the Christians to enter more eagerly and joyfully into the observance of Sunday and on the other hand, as stated by Victorinus, to avoid "appearing to observe the Sabbath with the Jews, of which the Lord of the Sabbath Himself, the Christ, says by His prophets that His soul hateth." (89)

A strict Sabbath fast would naturally preclude also the celebration of the Eucharist, since the partaking of its elements could be regarded as breaking the fast. While some Christians opposed such a view, believing rather that the reception of the Lord’s Supper made their fast more solemn, (90) in Rome we know for certain that Saturday was made not only a day of fasting, but also a day in which no eucharistic celebration and no religious assemblies were allowed. Pope Innocent I (A.D. 402-417) in his famous letter to Decentius which was later incorporated into the Canon Law, establishes that "as the tradition of the Church maintains, in these two days [Friday and Saturday] one should not absolutely (penitus) celebrate the sacraments." (91) Two contemporary historians, namely Sozomen (ca. A.D. 440) and Socrates (ca. A.D. 439) confirm Innocent I’s decretal. The latter writes, for instance, that "although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this." (92)

Socrates does not explain why in Rome and Alexandria there were no eucharistic celebrations on the Sabbath; he states however that the custom went back to "an ancient tradition." This would allow us to suppose that the proscription of the celebration of the Mass and the injunction of fasting, because of their close nexus, may well have originated contemporaneously, possibly early in the second century as part of the effort to break away from Jewish rites. (93) Sozomen’s description of the customs prevailing in his day is strikingly similar to the one of Socrates, though he speaks only of religious assemblies, without reference to any eucharistic celebration. He confirms however that while "the people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week," such a "custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria." (94)

In the light of this cumulative evidence, it appears that the Church of Rome played a key role in early Christianity in emptying the Sabbath of its theological-liturgical significance and in urging the abandonment of its observance. (95) The injunction to fast on the Sabbath, accompanied by the prohibition to celebrate the Lord’s Supper and to hold religious meetings on this day, represent definite measures taken by the Church of Rome, on the one hand, to wean Christians away from the veneration of the Sabbath, and, on the other hand, to enhance Sunday worship exclusively. The reason for such an intransigent attitude toward Jewish institutions such as Sabbath keeping can be found in the need for a radical differentiation from Judaism which was particularly felt in the early part of the second century. We noted above how the fiscal, military, political and literary attacks and measures of the Romans against the Jews encouraged Christians to sever their ties with the latter. This was particularly true in Rome where most Christian converts were of pagan extraction and experienced an earlier differentiation from the Jews than in the East. (96) The change of the date and manner of observance of Jewish festivals such as the Sabbath and Passover would help to clarify to the Roman authorities their distinction from Judaism. The adoption of Easter Sunday, which we shall now consider, furnishes an additional indication to support this thesis.

Rome and the Easter Controversy
The Origin of Easter Sunday

The historian Eusebius (ca. A.D. 260-340) provides a valuable dossier of documents regarding the controversy which flared up in the second century over the date for the celebration of the Passover." (97) There were of course two protagonists of the controversy. On the one side, Bishop Victor of Rome (A.D. 189-199) championed the Easter Sunday custom (i.e., the celebration of the feast on the Sunday usually following the date of the Jewish Passover) and threatened to excommunicate the recalcitrant Christian communities of the province of Asia which refused to follow his instruction. (98) On the other side, Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus and representative of the Asian Churches, strongly advocated the traditional Passover date of Nisan 14, commonly called "Quartodeciman Passover." Polycrates, claiming to possess the genuine apostolic tradition transmitted to him by the Apostles Philip and John, refused to be frightened into submission by the threats of Victor of Rome.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (from ca. A.D. 176), according to Eusebius, intervened as peacemaker in the controversy. In his letter to Victor, Irenaeus not only displays a magnanimous spirit, but also endeavors to show to the Roman Bishop that the predecessors of Soter, namely, "Anicetus, and Pius, and Hyginus and Telesphorus and Sixtus," even though "they did not observe it [i.e., the Quartodeciman Passover] ... were none the less at peace with those from the dioceses in which it was observed." (99) By stating that Soter’s predecessors did not observe the Quartodeciman Passover, Irenaeus implies that they also, like Victor, celebrated Easter on Sunday. By tracing the controversy back to Bishop Sixtus (ca. A.D. 116-ca. 126), mentioning him as the first non-observant of the Quartodeciman Passover, Irenaeus suggests that Passover began to be celebrated in Rome on Sunday at his time (ca. A.D. 116-126). To conclude this from this passing reference of Irenaeus may be rightly deemed hazardous. There are however complementary indications which tend to favor this possibility. Bishop Sixtus (ca. A.D. 116-ca. 126), for instance, administered the Church of Rome right at the time of Emperor Hadrian (A.D. 117-138) who, as we noted earlier, adopted a policy of radical repression of Jewish rites and customs. (100) These repressive measures would encourage Christians to substitute for customs regarded as Jewish, new ones. In Jerusalem, we noticed, the Judaeo-Christian members and leaders were at that time expelled from the city together with the Jews, and were replaced by a new Gentile group. It was also at that historical moment that, according to Epiphanius, the Easter-controversy arose. The Bishop of Cyprus writes, "the controversy arose after the time of the exodus (ca. A.D. 135) of the bishops of the circumcision and it has continued until our time." (101)

If, as Epiphanius implies, the controversy was provoked by the introduction after A.D. 135 of the new Easter Sunday celebration which a significant number of Quartodeciman Christians rejected, then Sixtus could very well have been the initiator of the new custom, since he was Bishop of Rome only a few years before. Some time must be allowed before a new custom becomes sufficiently widespread to provoke a controversy. The references of Irenaeus and Epiphanius appear then to complement one another. The former suggests that Easter Sunday originated in Rome under Sixtus and the latter that the new custom was introduced in Jerusalem by the new Greek bishops, thus provoking a controversy. Both events occurred at approximately the same time.

Marcel Richard endeavors to show that the new day was introduced at this time not by the Church of Rome but by the Greek bishops who settled in Jerusalem. Owing to Hadrian’s prohibition of Jewish festivals, they would have pioneered the new Easter Sunday date to avoid appearing "Judaizing" to the Roman authorities. (102) While we accept Richard’s conclusion that Easter Sunday was first introduced in Hadrian’s time, we find it hard to believe that it was the new Gentile leadership of the Jerusalem Church that introduced the new custom and to cause a large segment of ‘Christianity to accept it especially at a time when the Church in the city had fallen into obscurity. There is a wide consensus of opinion among scholars that Rome is indeed the birthplace of Easter Sunday. Some, in fact, rightly label it as "Roman-Easter." (103) This is suggested not only by the role of the Church of Rome in enforcing the new custom and by Irenaeus’ remarks, (104) but also by later historical sources. In two related documents, namely the conciliar letter of the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) (105) and Constantine’s personal conciliar letter addressed to all bishops, (106) the Church of Rome is presented as the prime example to emulate on the matter of Easter Sunday, undoubtedly because of her historical position and role in championing its observance.

Easter Sunday and Weekly Sunday

What is the relationship, one may ask, between the annual Easter Sunday and the weekly Sunday? Were the two feasts regarded perhaps as one similar feast that celebrated at different times the same resurrection event, or were they considered as two different feasts which fulfilled different objectives? If the two were treated as one similar feast, it would seem plausible to suppose that the birthplace of Easter Sunday could well be also the place of origin of the weekly Sunday observance, since possibly the same factors acted in the same place to cause the contemporaneous origin of both.

In numerous patristic testimonies the weekly and annual Easter Sunday are treated as basically the same feast commemorating the same event of the resurrection. In a document attributed to Irenaeus it is specifically enjoined not to kneel down on Sunday nor on Pentecost, that is, the seven weeks of the Easter period, "because it is of equal significance with the Lord’s day." (107) The reason given is that both feasts are a symbol of the resurrection." Tertullian confirms that custom but adds the prohibition of fasting as well: "On Sunday it is unlawful to fast or to kneel while worshiping. We enjoy the same liberty from Easter to Pentecost." (108) F. A. Regan comments on the text, saying: "In the season extending from Easter to Pentecost, the same custom was followed, thus showing the relation between the annual and weekly feasts." (109)

Origen explicitly unites the weekly with the yearly commemoration of the resurrection: "The resurrection of the Lord is celebrated not only once a year but constantly every eight days." (110) Eusebius similarly states: "While the Jews faithful to Moses, sacrificed the Passover lamb once a year ... we men of the New Covenant celebrate every Sunday our Passover." (111) Pope Innocent I, in a letter to Bishop Decentius of Gubbio, confirms the unity existing between the two feasts: "We celebrate Sunday because of the venerable resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, not only at Easter but in actuality by the single weekly cycle [i.e. every Sunday]." (112)

In the light of these representative statements, it would appear that when the weekly and yearly Easter Sunday gained acceptance, they were regarded by many as one feast that commemorated at different times the same event of the resurrection. Though the resurrection is not presented in earlier sources as the dominant motivation for Sunday observance, there seems to be no question as to the basic unity of the two festivities.

At this point it is important to ascertain what in Rome caused the abandonment of the Quartodeciman Passover and the introduction of Easter Sunday. We would presume that the same causes motivated also the repudiation of the Sabbath and the introduction of Sunday keeping, since the latter was regarded by many Christians as an extension of the annual Easter. (Today Italians still refer to Sunday as "pasquetta"—which means little Easter.)

Scholars usually recognize in the Roman custom of celebrating Easter on Sunday instead of the 14th of Nisan, to use J. Jeremias’ words, "the inclination to break away from Judaism." (113) J. B. Lightfoot holds, for instance, that Rome and Alexandria adopted Easter Sunday to avoid "even the semblance of Judaism." (114) M. Righetti, a renowned liturgist, points out also that Rome and Alexandria, after "having eliminated the Judaizing Quartodeciman tradition, repudiated even the Jewish computations, making their own time calculations, since such a dependence on the Jews must have appeared humiliating." (115) The Nicene conciliar letter of Constantine explicitly reveals a marked anti-Judaic motivation for the repudiation of the Quartodeciman Passover. The Emperor, in fact, desiring to establish a religion completely free from any Jewish influences, wrote:

"It appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul Let us then have nothing in common with the detestabte Jewish crowd: for we have received from our Saviour a different way... Strive and pray continually that the purity of your souls may not seem in anything to be sullied by fellowship with the customs of these most wicked men... All should unite in desiring that which sound reason appears to demand, and in avoiding all participation in the perjured conduct of the Jew" (116)

The anti-Judaic motivation for the repudiation of the Jewish reckoning of Passover could not have been expressed more explicitly and forcefully than in the letter of Constantine. Nicaea represents the culmination of a controversy initiated two centuries earlier and motivated by strong anti-Judaic feelings and one which had Rome as its epicenter. The close nexus existing between Easter Sunday and weekly Sunday presupposes that the same anti-Judaic motivation was also primarily responsible for the substitution of Sabbath keeping by Sunday worship. Several indications have already emerged in the course of our study supporting this conclusion. We noticed, for instance, that some Fathers reinterpreted the Sabbath as the trademark of Jewish unfaithfulness. Specific anti-Sabbath measures were taken particularly by the Church of Rome. The ‘Sabbath was made a day of fasting to show, among other things, contempt for the Jews. Similarly, to avoid appearing to observe the day with the Jews, the eucharistic celebration and religious assemblies were forbidden on the Sabbath. Additional evidence on the role played by anti-Judaism in the abandonment of Sabbath observance will be submitted in chapters seven and nine.

The Primacy of the Church of Rome

In the course of our investigation various indications have emerged which point to the Church of Rome as the one primarily responsible for liturgical innovations such as Easter Sunday, weekly Sunday worship and Sabbath fasting. But the question could be raised, did the Church of Rome in the second century already exert sufficient authority through her Bishop to influence the greater part of Christendom to accept new festivities? To answer this question, it is necessary to verify the status she enjoyed particularly in the second century.

The process of affirmation of the primacy of the Bishop and of the Church of Rome in the early Church is difficult to trace, primarily because the sources available report facts or events but do not define the jurisdictional authority exerted 3t that time by the Church of Rome. However, history teaches us that the authority of Metropolitan Sees was defined not prior to but after their actual establishment. (117) For the purpose of our study we shall make no attempt to define the nature or extent of the jurisdictional authority of the Roman Church, but simply to describe what appears to be the status quo of the situation in the second century.

About the year A.D. 95, Clement, Bishop of Rome, wrote a letter to the Church of Corinth to settle a discord which had broken out within the Church and had resulted in the deposition of the presbyters (chapter 47). The prestige of the Roman Church in this case is implied by the resolute and in some cases even threatening tone of the letter that expects obedience (cf. chapters 47:1-2; 59:1-2). (118) As J. Lebreton observes: "Rome was conscious of its authority, and the responsibility which this involved; Corinth also recognized it and bowed to it. Batiffol has described this intervention as ‘the Epiphany of the Roman Primacy’ and he is right." (119)

The fact that the letter was highly respected and regularly read not only in Corinth but in other churches as well, so that it came to be regarded by some as inspired, implies, as Karl Baus notes, "the existence in the consciousness of non-Roman Christians of an esteem of the Roman Church as such which comes close to according it a precedence in rank." (120)

Ignatius, few years later (about A.D. 110-117) in his Letter to the Romans, similarly attributes ‘unusual honorific and fulsomely respectful epithets to the Church of Rome (c. Prologue). While in his Epistles to the other Churches Ignatius admonishes and warns the members, in his Letter to the Romans he expresses only respectful requests. The singular veneration of the Bishop of Antioch for the Roman Church is evident when he says: "You have never envied any one; you have taught others. What I desire is that what you counsel and ordain may always be practiced" (Romans 3:1). In his prologue Ignatius describes the Church of Rome as being "worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthily pure and preeminent in love." In his final recommendation he requests: "Remember in your prayers the church of Syria, which has God for its pastor in my place. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, together with your love" (Romans 9:11). Though these statements do not define the actual jurisdictional power exerted by the Church of Rome, nevertheless they do indicate that Ignatius at the beginning of the second century attributed to her a precedence of prestige and honor.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (from ca. A.D. 178), whom we have already met as peacemaker in the Easter-controversy, in his book Against Heresies (composed under the pontificate of Pope Eleutherus—A.D. 175-189), describes the Church of Rome as "the very great, the very ancient and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul." (121) He then states categorically: "For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority (potentior principalitas) that is, the faithful everywhere." (122) Irenaeus’ high regard for the office and authority of the Bishop of Rome is best exemplified in his embassy to Bishop Eleutherus (A.D. 175189) intended to solicit his intervention in the Montanist heresy which was disturbing the peace of the churches of Gaul, as well as in his letter to Bishop Victor (A.D. 189-199) on the Quartodeciman problem. (123) In the latter instance, it is worth noting that though Irenaeus protested against Victor’s excommunication of the Asiatics, as P. Batiffol aptly observes, "he did not dream of questioning Victor’s power to pronounce this excommunication." (124)

The Bishop of Rome demonstrated his unsurpassed authority when enforcing the Roman-Easter. Asian Bishops such as Polycarp and Polycrates, though they refused to accept the Roman custom, nevertheless both took cognizance of the request of the Roman Bishops. The former felt the compulsion in A.D. 154 to go personally to Anicetus of Rome to regulate the Passover question and other matters. The latter complied with the order of Victor to summon a council. "I could mention the bishops who are present," Polycrates wrote him in about A.D. 196, "whom you required me to summon and I did so." (125)

When notified of the Asian bishops’ refusal to accept Easter Sunday, Victor drastically "declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated." (126) This is perhaps the most explicit evidence of the authority of the Roman Bishop to enforce a new custom, and even to cut off from the communion of the Church an entire dissident community. P. Batiffol aptly comments in this matter that "It is Rome alone that Ephesus answers and resists. We see the authority Rome exercises in this conflict. Renan has said appropriately in reference to this case: ‘The Papacy was born and well born.’" (127)

The undisputed authority exerted by the Church of Rome through her Bishop could be further substantiated by later instances such as: Pope Victor’s excommunication of the Monarchian Theodotus; Tertullian’s statement that from the Church of Rome "come into our hands the very authority of apostles themselves"; (128) Callistus’s (A.D. 217-222) excommunication of the heretic Sabellius; Pope Stephen’s (A.D. 245-7) rehabilitation of Basilides of Emerita in spite of his deposition by Cyprian; Cyprian’s request to Pope Stephen to depose Marcion of Arles, a convinced follower of Novatian. Other indications could be added such as the designation of the Church of Rome as the "Chair of Peter—Cathedra Petri" by the Muratorian fragment, by Cyprian and by Firmilian of Caesarea; the role played by the Pope in the question of the lapsed as well as of the heretical baptism; (129) the introduction and enforcement by the Church of Rome of the date December 25 for the celebration of Christmas. (130)

In the light of these indications the Church of Rome seems to have emerged to a position of pre-eminence already in the second century. The Roman Pontiff was in fact the only ecclesiastical authority widely recognized and capable of influencing the greater part of Christendom (even though some churches rejected his instructions) to accept new customs or observances.

Conclusion

The role that the Church of Rome played in causing the abandonment of the Sabbath and the adoption of Sunday has been underestimated, if not totally neglected, in recent studies. If one recognizes, as admitted by O. Cullmann, that "in deliberate distinction from Judaism, the first Christians selected the first day of the week," (131) then Rome emerges as the most logical place for the origin of Sunday. It is there that we found both the circumstances and the authority necessary to accomplish such a liturgical change. Vincenzo Monachino in the conclusion of his dissertation on the Pastoral Care at Milan, Carthage and Rome in the Fourth Century acknowledges the role of leadership in the West by the Church of Rome. He writes, "we do not think to err if we affirm that the place where this type of pastoral care had been elaborated was the city of Rome, though we must recognize for Milan some influence from the Orient." (132) C. S. Mosna specifically admits that Rome was influential in causing the disappearance of the veneration of the Sabbath. He states, "perhaps in this [i.e. disappearance of Sabbath] the example of Rome, which never had any special cult on the Sabbath, must have been influential." (133) These conditions did not exist in the East where Jewish influence survived longer, as evidenced by the survival of a veneration for the Sabbath and of respect for the Jewish reckoning of the Passover. (134)

Our investigation so far has established that Sunday observance arose, as W. D. Davies states, "in conscious opposition to or distinction from the Jewish Sabbath." (135) We have found that the change in the day of worship seems to have been encouraged, on the one hand, by the social, military, political and literary anti-Judaic imperial policies which made it necessary for Christians to sever their ties with the Jews, and, on the other hand, by the very conflict existing between Jews and Christians. The Church of Rome, whose members, mostly of pagan extraction, experienced a break from the Jews earlier than in the East and where the unpopularity of the Jews was particularly great, appears to have played a leading role in inducing the adoption of Sunday observance. This we found indicated not only by the introduction and enforcement of the new Easter Sunday festivity (closely related to the weekly Sunday) but also by the measures Rome took to devaluate the Sabbath theologically and practically. The Sabbath was in fact re-interpreted to be a temporary institution given to the Jews as a sign of their unfaithfulness. Therefore Christians were enjoined to show their dissociation from the Jewish Sabbath by fasting on that day, by abstaining from the Lord’s supper and by not attending religious assemblies.

In view of the fact that anti-Judaism has emerged as a primary factor which contributed to the introduction of Sunday observance in the place of Sabbath, it is now important to more fully verify its presence and influence in the Christian literature of the early part of the second century.