The New Testament: In Medio Ecclesiae

Catholic Faith ^ | Jan 2001 | Thomas Storck

[markomalley]

The New Testament: In Medio Ecclesiae
by Thomas Storck

---

One of the strangest things about the theology of Protestants and of others, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, who claim to base their doctrine on Sacred Scripture, is their use of Scripture as a judge, even an enemy, of the Catholic Church. That is, by treating Scripture as independent of the Church, instead of as something produced by the Church, they erect the Bible, particularly the New Testament, into something it was never intended to be, an entirely independent source of sacred doctrine. In this article I intend to show from the text of the New Testament, especially from the Acts of the Apostles, that invaluable history of the Church in the early Apostolic era, that the text of the New Testament must always be viewed in medio ecclesiae, in the midst of the Church, something of, by and for the Church, a book that cannot be understood apart from the Church and which can never rightly be separated from the Church, let alone made into a judge of the Church.

---

The first thing to understand, and a fact that can hardly be denied, is that the creation of the Catholic Church preceded the creation of the New Testament. Thus all the documents of the New Testament, the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, all the various epistles, and the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse), were written by members of the Church, presuppose the existence of the Church, and reflect her teaching and liturgical practice. In the Acts of the Apostles we possess an account of the spread of the Gospel from the time of the Ascension of our Lord until shortly after St. Paul's arrest and detention in Rome. Any open-minded reader of Acts must see that from the very beginning it focuses on the work of the Church. Although all the details are by no means clear to us, the fact of the Church appears on every page of the book of Acts and must be obvious to anyone who looks at it without prejudice. Let us take a tour through that book to highlight some of the major points which reflect or presuppose the existence and doctrine of the Church.

Before doing so though, it would be well to say a word about when the Acts of the Apostles was written. For if it is not, in fact, an historical account of the earliest life of the Church, compiled from contemporary accounts, in fact written by St. Luke, companion of St. Paul, then its historical value is much less. The traditional date of the composition of Acts is about 63 A.D., that is, a mere thirty years after our Lord's Ascension. Thus concerning those events which Luke himself did not witness, such as the Ascension or the day of Pentecost, he was able to interview the participants themselves. Therefore we need have no hesitation about accepting the work as a perfectly reliable historical document. With this in mind, let us begin our journey through Acts, focusing on those elements which in some way involve the place and role of the Church.

At the very beginning of Acts, right after Jesus's Ascension is narrated, we have the account of the selection of Matthias to take the place of Judas among the Apostles. We should note here that it was Peter who initiated Matthias's selection, but for the purposes of this article, we will concentrate on the fact that already this early band of followers of Jesus Christ is acting, not only like a corporate body, but a body with officers and procedures, and at least some sense of its future mission. It was not simply some unorganized band of men who were inspired by the teachings of Jesus or who individually received enlightenment from the Holy Spirit, but a regularly constituted organization. In other words, here already we have in germ the Catholic idea of the Church, a body with officers, created by God and which received from him its authority to carry out the work of making disciples of all nations and bringing the means of grace to the human race.

Next follow the events of the day of Pentecost, when God the Holy Spirit came upon the early Catholics and endowed them with the power of preaching the Gospel throughout the world. Here also the institution of the Church is apparent: Peter preaches the first Catholic sermon, and "those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls" (Acts 2:41). Added to what? To the Church, of course, and added by means of an external and public rite, Baptism, not by a merely subjective salvation experience. And what did these new converts do? They "devoted themselves to the apostles's teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers" (Acts 2:42).

Here we would do well to pause and look more closely at this last phrase, "to the breaking of bread and the prayers." What exactly does this mean? We, of course, can be sure that it refers to the Eucharist, to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. But does the text say this exactly and without any doubt? No, for this is just one example of how the New Testament presupposes knowledge of the Church's practices in order to be fully understood. Were we "Bible-only" Christians, and seeking to emulate the life of the Jerusalem church, what would we do? Break up pieces of bread while we engaged in prayer? The point is that the book of Acts, like the rest of the New Testament, does not explain a very great amount of what it mentions or alludes to, simply because St. Luke was assuming that its readers, faithful Catholics, would understand it in a Catholic sense. We will see this happen many times as we proceed with our discussion.

The next incident in Acts that we will look at is the institution of the order of deacons in chapter 6. When confronted with a disagreement between Greek-speaking and Aramaic-speaking Catholics, the Apostles created and ordained the first deacons to take charge of the distribution of food. Here again the Apostles act with consciousness of their own authority. They clearly consider the Church to be one body of believers over which they rule. And all this happens, we should note, before any book of the New Testament exists. Unlike Protestants, they do not "search the scriptures" to find out what they should do, because either by command of Christ Himself, given to them orally when He was on earth, or by the continuing inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they, as rulers of the Church, know what to do to meet the needs and continuing crises of her existence. They clearly claim an authority that derives immediately from Jesus Christ, not simply from Jesus Christ by means of the written Scriptures, as Protestants today perforce would. The question of the creation of deacons, moreover, is akin to the question of the Sacrament of Confirmation or the conferring of the Holy Spirit. Let us look at how Acts treats this subject.

Chapter 8 of Acts contains the account of the visit of Peter and John to Samaria so that the new converts there "might receive the Holy Spirit" (8:14-15). The way St. Luke recounts the experience of various new converts with the reception of the Holy Spirit is a good example of how the bare text very often cannot be understood apart from knowledge of the Church's doctrines and practices. On the day of Pentecost God the Holy Spirit came upon the Apostles and the other members of the Church (chap. 3), and Peter promises the three thousand who were about to be baptized that they "shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (3:38), but nothing is said about there being a sepa-rate rite for this. What can we conclude from that? Nothing really, though the "Bible-only" Christian might wonder about the correct manner that the Holy Spirit is to be given to believers. Indeed, in the account of the Ethiopian eunuch who was baptized by Philip (Acts 8:27-39), there is no mention of the newly-baptized receiving the Holy Spirit. Though after Paul is converted he is told that he is to be "filled with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 9:17), again nothing is said about a separate rite for this, only that he was baptized (verse 18). And finally, in chapter 10, Cornelius, a gentile, together with his friends and relatives, receives the Holy Spirit while Peter is preaching, and immediately afterwards they are baptized by Peter's command. So here we see accounts of people being baptized with no mention of their receiving the Holy Spirit, and yet of others who receive this gift before their Baptism. But in chapter 8, as I said, Peter and John are expressly sent to Samaria because the Holy Spirit "had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." And those Apostles then "laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit" (Acts 8:17). Now what can these various narratives teach us?

I think that the "Bible-only" Christian would be perplexed here, or at least he ought to be. If he seeks to follow the teaching and practice of the New Testament Church, how is he to handle the matter of receiving the Holy Spirit? Is this for everyone or only for some? And who can confer the Holy Spirit? If only apostles, then is there anyone living today who can do this? But Catholics, knowing the practice of the Church, can see that Luke simply omits to mention the conferring of the Holy Spirit on the three thou-sand converts of the day of Pentecost or on the Ethiopian eunuch. There is no implication here that receiving the Holy Spirit is optional or simply a part of baptism. And although the early Church undoubtedly witnessed many supernatural charisms that no longer are given or are no longer common, in this matter of receiving the Holy Spirit we can see the current Catholic practice of the Sacrament of Confirmation (or chrismation). All the newly baptized are to receive the Holy Spirit, which is the reason Peter and John were sent to Samaria. And since, at this early date, it is likely that the Apostles had not yet ordained or consecrated anyone else to the priesthood, there was no one else able to confer Confirmation, which is why they had to ask Jerusalem to send someone to administer this sacrament. And if in any particular account of someone's conversion the reception of the Holy Spirit is not mentioned, this is simply an oversight by the author, it does not imply that this is optional or unimportant. But the reader of Acts who does not have the framework of the Church's teaching to help him understand has no way of knowing this. He would be in doubt about who is to receive the Holy Spirit, when (before or after Baptism), and by whom the Holy Spirit is to be conferred.

This same confusion about the sacraments is reflected in the interpretation of some Protestants (the Berean Baptists) about I Corinthians 1:17. There Paul is deploring the divisions in the church of Corinth and he states that he is grateful because he himself had baptized very few of the Catholics there. Then he says (verse 17): "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel." From this these Protestants have concluded that baptism is optional or unnecessary and that the Church in the time of St. Paul did not regard it as obligatory. Again, looking at this passage with the Catholic fullness of faith, we recognize simply one of St Paul's characteristic overstatements. But how are Protestants, using only the bare text of Holy Scripture, to deal with this objection?

In a similar vein, the question of who is the proper subject of baptism has also been a controversy between Catholics and many Protestants. That is, can infants be baptized? Does the New Testament say anything about this one way or the other? In fact, the text of the New Testament is not clear on this matter, but we might pause and look at a phrase that occurs in connection with Baptism, namely that someone is baptized `and all of his household' or a similar phrasing. Does `all his household' include children below the age of reason? From the text of the New Testatment, we do not know definitely, for some Protestants would argue that, just as the statement, "All the family enjoys reading books," excludes infants, so here there is no implication that infants are included either. The point is, that the New Testament text is not definite. But would Jesus Christ leave his followers in doubt about a matter of such great importance? Would he leave his followers merely a book, a book that can and has been interpreted a thousand different ways? Without the existence of the teaching, believing and worshipping Church, we would be in the dark about not only Baptism but about many equally important questions of faith and practice.

To return to the Acts of the Apostles, in chapter 13 we begin to read of Paul's various missionary journeys. And here again we see the Church in action, for Luke states that Paul, and his companion St. Barnabas, returned to the cities where they had preached the Gospel and "appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting . . . " (14:23). Now who are these "elders?" They are previously mentioned in Acts 11:30, but, unlike the order of deacons, no account is given of their creation. And to make matters more confusing, they are sometimes equated with another office, that of bishop (e.g., Acts 20:17 and 28, Titus 1:5-7). What can one conclude from this? If one looks at the names of the officials who lead various Protestant congregations today, sometimes one will find a pastor, sometimes an elder, occasionally even a bishop. For, again, the text of the New Testament does not set forth clearly a system of church government. A Christian who seeks to rely solely on the Bible would be confused by the variety of titles and functions. But we Catholics know that whatever names may have been used in the early Church, there are three distinct orders of ministry, bishops, priests and deacons, that are of divine institution. But from this we can see two important facts: First, that the New Testament church regarded itself as an institution which required officials, and that these officials were not free-lance agents nor did they receive their authority from their congregations; and secondly, that the bare text of the New Testament does not allow us to make any certain judgment about the powers and authority of bishops or elders and their relationship with the Apostles. Again, only our knowledge of the Church and her teachings and our recognition of the fact that, despite our inability always to understand the meaning of some of the New Testament passages, we have in the constant practice of the living Church a sure method of interpretation, allows us to avoid the confusion that ought to exist for one seeking in the biblical text alone all his theological and ecclesiastical knowledge.

In the next chapter of Acts (chap. 15) occurs one of the great events of the Apostolic Church, the Council of Jerusalem, called to decide whether the newly-converted had to submit to circumcision and keep the Mosiac law in order to become Christians. Or in other words, whether all Catholics had first to become Jews. This event alone ought to be enough to put to rest forever Protestant notions of ecclesiology, for in this serious crisis about what Christians must believe and how they are to act, it is not by consulting the Scriptures nor by individual prophecies from the Holy Spirit, but by the hierarchy meeting together and listening to the Apostles, particularly Peter, that a decision is reached. And when a decision is reached, not only is it imposed on the whole Church authoritatively, but the actual decree that is sent out begins: "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us . . . "! (15:28). What group of Protestant pastors would ever presume to speak in the name of God the Holy Spirit himself? Yet here the Catholic Church does so with no hesitation or hint of embarrassment. And to this day the Catholic Church continues to speak with authority and the world is still astonished by it, much as it was astonished at that Church's Founder "for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes" (Matthew 7:29).

Although there is much else that might be mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, Msgr. Ronald Knox sums up well the career of the Church as it is recounted in that book:

From the very outset of the Acts, you have the impression that the Church has sprung into being ready-made. Not that it has no lessons to learn from experience, needs no fresh revelations to guide it. But it knows already how to deal with each fresh situation that arises, and does so with a wonderful sureness of touch.

It would be beyond the scope of this article to review the entire New Testament in the same manner in which we have just reviewed parts of the Acts of the Apostles. But I would like to call attention to two more passages, Colossians 4:16 and I Thessalonians 5:27, each of which also illustrates something of the Catholic nature of the New Testament Church. In these passages St. Paul commands the letters he has just written to be read aloud in the congregations. In Colossians he writes: "And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you read also the letter from Laodicea." And in I Thessalonians, "I adjure you by the Lord that this letter be read to all the brethren." Now what seems interesting to me about these verses, is that very likely the practice of reading such letters aloud was common and was carried out in the case of all of St. Paul's letters, even though only twice does he specifically mention it. And what does this mean? It means that, unlike the Protestant notion of biblical interpretation, the Pauline letters were meant to be read in the context of the local church by the local clergy, and no doubt commented upon and the difficult passages and expressions explained for the benefit of the faithful. There was no notion of each believer taking his Bible into his study, reading it and coming up with his own interpretation. The Scriptures were read and interpreted within the local church. In fact, doubtless at least some of those in the congregations Paul addressed could not even read. So here again, when we actually look at the practice of the Church of the New Testament, far from seeing in it Protestant ideas and Protestant practices, we see ample evidence of Catholic faith and practice, often, it is true, not fully grown, but existing in germ. And in many other passages, we have allusions to practices and deeds which are not explained by the passage, and leave the reader in doubt about what the Apostolic practice really was. In both these cases the Catholic Church is the key to understanding the New Testament. As Catholics we must learn to see the New Testament as the prime book produced by the Church, a book that is in many ways unintelligible without the Church. If we do this, then we can rejoice with the Apostles and St. Paul, as we repeat:

Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations for ever and ever. Amen. (Ephesians 3:21)

---

1. The Catholic Church in the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of the Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, nos. 9 and 10, teaches that "Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church . . . It is clear, therefore, that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others."

2. Catholic Biblical Association, A Commentary on the New Testament (Catholic Biblical Association, 1942) p. 365; John E. Steinmueller, A Companion to Scripture Studies, (New York : Joseph F. Wagner, c. 1943), vol. 3, p. 219. John A. T. Robinson, in his important book, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, c. 1976), suggests a date of "62 or soon after" (p. 92). Robinson in this book carefully reexamines a hundred years of biblical scholarship and reaches surprisingly traditional conclusions about the dates of the New Testament books. On the other hand, Richard J. Dillon and Joseph A. Fitzmyer in The Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-Hall, c. 1968) give a late date of 80-85 A.D. for Acts, which depends on their late date for Luke (p. 165). But their whole argu-ment seems to me vitiated by a fallacy of positing the consequent. Cf. pp. 118-19.
3. Although this article does not explicitly deal with the primacy of the Apostle Peter, I will just note here that it is impossible not to see, from the text of the New Testament, that Peter was the leader of the apostles, and ipso facto, of the entire Church.
4. Catholic writers would do well to apply the term Catholic more often to the earliest Christians, for if we truly believe that it was Jesus Christ who founded the Catholic Church, and no other church, then it follows that the apostles and the earliest Christians were Catholics, and rightly called by this name, although the name itself did not come into use, as far as we know, until some time later, St. Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd century) making the first recorded use of the term.

5. This occurs in Acts 16:15, 16:33 and I Corinthians 1:16.
6. It is generally thought that in the early Church the titles bishop and elder were used interchangeably for the same office (that of priest) until approximately the time of the death of the Apostles. Elder in Greek is presbyteros, that is presbyter or priest.
7. If someone were to read a diocesan newspaper without knowing anything about the Church, he might be confused by the use of the terms pastor, associate pastor, parish priest, monsignor, parochial vicar, curate, etc., and might conclude that they referred to different offices of ministry. And to make matters more confusing, in many countries monsignor is a term of address for a bishop.
8. Ronald Knox, The Belief of Catholics (Garden City, N.Y. : Image, 1958) p. 119.

---

Thomas Storck writes from Maryland.

---

[marshmallow]

I'd simply add one thing to the article.

Look at the fruits of the "Bible trumps the Church" philosophy; division and disunity. These are the hallmarks of Satan.

Wherever you find this philosophy you will always find a plethora of dividing and continually evolving "churches", each trumpeting the Bible as its raison d' etre. It has to be this way. Once you've accepted the hypothesis that the Bible is autonomous and independent of any ecclesial structure, then it can and must be used to take one to one's own spiritual comfort zone. Each man with a Bible, becomes his own Church, so to speak.

Again, this results in confusion with respect to doctrine and splintering of a unified Christian voice proclaiming the one truth of Christ.

[Mad Dawg]

Define flaming, because from my perspective disagreement with Catholic doctrine or practice gets labeled as "Catholic bashing".

This is not a definition but an example: Look at the post immediately before yours. What is there is a counter-assertion, with no evidence offered, and the charge that we believe "hysterical myths". That's not an argument, and it's not even a simple disagreement. It's a gratuitous insult (and a misuse of 'hysterical', as far as I can tell.). THAT is an example of "bashing". The same points -- the contention that the Catholic Church originated under Constantine -- could have been made without recourse to insult.

And one of the points has some merit. "Catholic Church" has capital letters which, dollars to donuts, were not in the original text. And that's why, while I think I agree with the basic idea, this article is carelessly and needlessly controversial in it's diction.

the creation of the Catholic Church preceded the creation of the New Testament.

I would have gone with catholic Church, to address the "'catholic' as a proper name for v. as one of the 4 marks of the Church" issue.

That is, by treating Scripture as independent of the Church, instead of as something produced by the Church, ...

Personally I would have gone with "produced through the Church, " but that's just me.

[markomalley]

When you say "the early Catholics", should that not be "the early Christians"?

I fully agree with the above statement. But I didn't write the article, I just posted it. As I've stated in my earlier posts on this thread (as well as elsewhere), I believe that the two terms are completely synonymous. Unfortunately, the term "Christian" has been, in a sense, stolen from us (in common usage, not in fact).

Your statement sounds wonderful to a Catholic but how would you react to, We Protestants must patiently work with those Catholics who have been blinded from the truth by their church and pray that God will reveal His truth to them?

Actually, I posted this article for Catholic posters, not for protestant posters...to encourage them in light of the schismatics who have gone out of their way to disrupt every "Catholic" thread on FR in recent months (no, I am not calling you, Ping-Pong, a schismatic...I reserve that term for those that meet the following definition: A schismatic is a person who creates or incites schism...). In fact, the hypothesis that you put forward is EXACTLY what has been going on here...except not quite as polite as the version that you proposed.

Actually, I would far prefer a live and let live attitude on this board. Things we agree on, we work together on, things we disagree on, we POLITELY discuss or simply agree to disagree, and we work to maintain the unity of the Body of Christ.

But there are some whose mission in life is the destruction of the Church. Again, not accusing you of that. Those people are as ravenous lions. As St. Peter said, Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experience of suffering is required of your brotherhood throughout the world. Again, that criticism is NOT repeat NOT aimed at the vast majority of Protestants. Including you.

[markomalley]

Define flaming, because from my perspective disagreement with Catholic doctrine or practice gets labeled as "Catholic bashing".

Hardly

[Uncle Chip]

The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

So Peter did not know how to spell the word: "Rome"?

Babylon is where, according to Revelations 17-18?

Are you admitting therefore that the Church of Rome is the Whore of Babylon???

[adiaireton8]

How can I when Catholics often insist that the Church IS God?

What are you talking about? Which Catholics are claiming that the Church IS God???

-A8

[Uncle Chip]

Illegitimate, false, counterfeit -— like putting capital letter “C”s in the words “catholic” and “church” in Ignatius’ writings to change what he meant from a common noun applicable to the church at large to a proper noun to make it appear as if he was referring to the Church of Rome in particular.

[Campion]

I said non spurious not a fraudulent translation which that is. Those capital letters were added by dishonest disseminators of later centuries and your magisterium knows that.

Oh, horsefeathers. The text was written in Greek uncial, all caps. There's nothing "spurious" about it.

Ignatius, who knew some of the Apostles personally, and was probably ordained by them, called himself a "bishop of the Catholic Church" ... or "bishop of the catholic church" ... or "bIshOp of the caTHolic chURch" or however else you want to capitalize it.

The entire structure of the Roman Church is built on forgeries, spurious epistles, spurious sermons, spurious miracles, spurious relics, spurious councils, and spurious papal bulls

It's built on Christ, and him crucified. Period.

[P-Marlowe]

See post 32.

[Claud]

Peter might not have known how to spell at all. He was a fisherman! But since you brought it up...that “Marcus” that Peter mentions mentions in 1 Peter 5, may well be Mark the Evangelist who according to some sources was the interpreter/scribe of Peter. And that’s intriguing because Mark’s Gospel is just plain loaded with Roman transliterations in Greek like “kenturion”...more so than the other Gospels. It would definitely be consistent with a document written in Italy, where we’d expect the Greek to be a bit more Romanized.

And no, I am not admitting that the Roman CHURCH is the whore of Babylon. The Vatican doesn’t even sit on the seven hills and never has...so that is a stretch. I am saying that Rome the CITY is Babylon.

[GoLightly]

I understand your point & agree with your position in this case. Neither side has had clean hands, but I don't see very much whining about "Protestant bashing". Where's my picture of the box of Luther's Yipios? Luthifer & deformers anyone? We either ignore it or run with it & take it out to an outrageous extreme. Since our beliefs were hated by y'all since we rose up & split, we pretty much expect y'all to "bash" us, so when one of you does we feel no need to be shocked or offended by it.

[Campion]

How can I when Catholics often insist that the Church IS God?

Now, which Catholics insist that? Give some examples.

Doesn't it occur to you that when you say stuff like this, you need to be careful that you're not bearing false witness against your neighbor? (Yes, even Roman Catholics are your neighbors, whether or not you acknowledge them as brothers and sisters in Christ.) Does that not matter to you?

[Ping-Pong]

Thank you. I’m sorry I misunderstood.

[Uncle Chip]

Show me one, ONE primary source document from the 4th century that supports this claim. Or 5th century. Or 6th century. Where can I find this reported Eusebius? Sozemen? Take your pick of Late Roman historians, and find me one that says anything like this at all.

Show me where the title "Pontiff" or even "Pope" was ever used by a Bishop of Rome before Constantine????

[Salvation]

**The first thing to understand, and a fact that can hardly be denied, is that the creation of the Catholic Church preceded the creation of the New Testament.**

Bingo! You win, Catholics!

[Salvation]

Catholic Discussion Ping!

Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.

[adiaireton8]

The Church is the mystical body of Christ, as you yourself must acknowledge, since it is taught in Scripture. But that does not mean that (unqualifiedly) the "Church IS God". We are joined to God in such an intimate manner than we truly become one with Him, but not such that we *are* the divine nature but that we are partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). And that is why giving divine worship to fellow believers would be idolatry and a violation of the First Commandment, even though the Church is truly the mystical body of Christ, and what is said in post 32 is true.

-A8

[Uncle Chip]

Oh, horsefeathers. The text was written in Greek uncial, all caps. There's nothing "spurious" about it.

OH, SO THEN THE CAPITAL C's ARE ACCURATE. All the other letters must be spurious then???

[Mad Dawg]

Neither side has had clean hands,
Amen.

[Claud]

What's more striking of a claim, the title of Pope, or the authority of the Pope? You could call the bishop of Rome a ham sandwich and it still wouldn't affect what he is. But if you're asking me for a quote before Constantine that shows the *authority* of the Bishop of Rome, there's no better than that of Irenaeus of Lyons, ca. A.D. 170.

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html