Pope Saint Alexander I

A discreet name, but in the right place

Alexander I left neither an authentic letter, nor a contemporary decree, nor a conciliar act. The temptation would therefore be to reduce him to a line in a list. That would miss the real interest of the subject: in the primitive Church, some popes matter through their writings, like Clement; others matter through the continuity they attest. Alexander belongs to this second category.

Saint Irenaeus does not cite the first bishops of Rome to satisfy a chronological curiosity. He writes against the Gnostics, who claim to possess a secret doctrine. His answer is very concrete: true faith is recognised in the apostolic Churches and in the public succession of their pastors.^[10] Alexander matters because he is already present in this ancient proof, between Evaristus and Sixtus.

A generation that no longer has the apostles, but keeps their rule

The pontificate of Alexander falls about a generation after the death of the last apostolic witnesses. Eusebius places his accession "about the twelfth year of Trajan", after the eight years of Evaristus.^[11] At that date, the Church can no longer rest on the physical presence of the apostles. It must live from the Tradition received, the Scriptures, the liturgy and the succession of ministers.

This passage is decisive for understanding the Catholic Church. Faith is not preserved by a vague memory, but by visible Churches, known pastors, transmitted rites and doctrinal vigilance. Alexander does not found this structure; he receives it and hands it on.

A time when the defence of the faith becomes public

Under Hadrian, Quadratus and Aristides address apologies to the emperor. Eusebius even quotes a fragment of Quadratus affirming that some beneficiaries of the healings and resurrections of Christ had lived "even to our own time".^[12] This shows the intellectual climate of the early 2nd century: Christianity is no longer merely a local preaching; it must answer publicly to the authorities and to accusations.

Alexander governs Rome on the threshold of this apologetic era. He is not himself known as an apologist, but his pontificate belongs to the moment when the Church learns to speak before the Empire, without renouncing its faith or confusing itself with revolted Judaism or the Gnostic sects.

Table of the principal witnesses

Irenaeus: the place in the Roman chain

The text of Irenaeus is the foundation. After Clement and Evaristus, he writes: "Alexander succeeded Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed."^[13] The expression "sixth from the apostles" refers here to Sixtus, not to Alexander; Alexander is therefore the fifth successor after Peter and Paul in the logic of Irenaeus, and the sixth pope in the official list including Peter as the first.

This point helps to avoid confusions of rank. Depending on the mode of counting, Alexander may be called the fifth successor of Peter or the sixth pope. The two formulations do not contradict each other: they do not count from the same starting point.

"It is necessary that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of her more excellent origin." — Saint Irenaeus of Lyon, on the Church of Rome^[14]

Eusebius: ten years between Trajan and Hadrian

Eusebius gives two reference points. In book IV, chapter 1, he writes that Alexander received the Roman episcopate about the twelfth year of Trajan, after eight years of Evaristus.^[15] In chapter 4, he adds that Alexander died in the third year of Hadrian, after ten years in office, and that Xystus succeeded him.^[16]

"At that time also, Alexander, fifth in the line of succession from Peter and Paul, received the episcopate at Rome, after Evaristus had fulfilled his office eight years." — Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, IV, 1^[17]

"In the third year of the same reign, Alexander, bishop of Rome, died after having exercised his office ten years. His successor was Xystus." — Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, IV, 4^[18]

These dates must not be forced with modern precision. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that critics have proposed 106–115 or 109–116, while the Holy See gives 108/109–116/119.^[19][20] The safe conclusion is more modest: Alexander governs Rome for about ten years, at the end of Trajan and the beginning of Hadrian.

Hegesippus and the Roman catalogue

The Catholic Encyclopedia stresses that there is no reason to doubt that Alexander figured in the "catalogue of bishops" drawn up or consulted at Rome by Hegesippus before the death of Pope Eleutherus, around 189.^[21] The text of Hegesippus is lost, but Eusebius reports his stay at Rome under Anicetus and down to the time of Eleutherus.^[22]

This detail matters because it brings Alexander close to the most ancient Roman memories. Before the medieval compilations and before the Liber Pontificalis, his name already circulates in the lists that serve to establish apostolic continuity.

After Pliny and Trajan: a legally vulnerable Church

A few years before or during the pontificate of Alexander, Pliny the Younger questions Trajan on how to treat Christians in Bithynia. Eusebius summarises the imperial reply: Christians are not to be actively sought out, but are to be punished if they are denounced and convicted.^[23]

This rule creates an unstable situation. The Church is not persecuted everywhere continuously, but it lives without legal protection. A local denunciation can suffice to bring about trial, forced apostasy or death. Alexander therefore governs a Roman community that can grow, pray and organise, but under a threat that is always possible.

The first apologies under Hadrian

Eusebius reports that Quadratus and Aristides address apologies to Hadrian, because evil men were attempting to trouble the Christians.^[24] The fragment of Quadratus is particularly strong: it insists on the public character of the miracles of Christ, to the point that some beneficiaries are said to have still been alive in his time.

"The works of our Saviour were always present, for they were true: those who were healed, those who were raised from the dead, were seen not only at the moment when they were healed or raised, but also long afterwards." — Quadratus, fragment preserved by Eusebius^[25]

Even if Quadratus is not a Roman author directly linked to Alexander, his testimony sheds light on the age: the Church publicly defends the historical reality of Christ, of the miracles and of the Resurrection. The Roman succession and the nascent apologetics belong to the same world: that of a faith which no longer hides itself like a private gnosis.

Gnosis and false knowledge

Eusebius also situates, in these decades, the rise of Saturninus and Basilides, two Gnostic masters from the movement of Simon and Menander.^[26] Basilides, at Alexandria, claims ineffable mysteries, invents prophets with barbarous names, and produces twenty-four books on the Gospel according to the testimony reported by Agrippa Castor.^[27]

The Catholic answer to this type of doctrine is precisely the one Irenaeus will formulate a few decades later: against secrets, visible catalogues; against invented myths, the received rule; against self-proclaimed masters, the apostolic Churches.

The Qui pridie in the Canon

The Liber Pontificalis attributes to Alexander the insertion, in the Eucharistic prayer, of the words recalling the institution of the Lord: Qui pridie quam pateretur.^[28] The Catholic Encyclopedia judges this attribution fragile, because the words of the institution are certainly primitive and original in the Mass.^[29]

Historical caution is therefore simple: Alexander probably did not invent nor introduce for the first time the Eucharistic memory of the Last Supper. On the other hand, the tradition that attaches his name to the Canon shows that Roman memory placed him on the side of liturgical guardianship.

Water mingled with wine

The same tradition attributes to Alexander the practice of mingling water with the Eucharistic wine. Here again, rite and personal attribution must be distinguished. The mixture of water and wine is very ancient, rooted in primitive liturgical practice, in the symbolism of the blood and water that flowed from the side of Christ, and in the ordinary use of Mediterranean wine mixed with water.^[30][31]

The Liber Pontificalis may therefore preserve the memory of an ancient Roman rite without proving that Alexander was its inventor. This is often how the notices of the first popes must be read: they project onto ancient figures usages received as apostolic.

Blessed water with salt

Another attribution: Alexander is said to have prescribed the blessing of water mingled with salt for Christian dwellings.^[32] The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that Duchesne saw in this the trace of an ancient Roman blessing, close to what the Gelasian Sacramentary would later preserve.^[33]

This tradition has an interesting spiritual scope. It shows a Church that does not limit faith to the sanctuary, but also blesses homes. Even if the personal decree of Alexander remains uncertain, the intuition is profoundly Catholic: the grace of Christ must reach the altar, the family table, the places of life and the ordinary combats against evil.

The traditional narrative

The tradition of the Liber Pontificalis reports that Alexander, Roman by birth, was beheaded on the Via Nomentana, on 3 May, with Eventius and Theodulus.^[34] The old Roman Martyrology long relayed this identification, placing the passion of Saints Alexander, Eventius and Theodulus at Rome, on the Nomentan Way.^[35]

This tradition explains why Alexander I has often been presented as pope and martyr, with a feast on 3 May in some ancient calendars. It also explains the importance of the catacomb of Saint Alexander on the Via Nomentana, discovered in the 19th century.

The difficulty: two Alexanders confused

Modern research distinguishes, however, Pope Alexander I from the martyr Alexander of the Via Nomentana. The Catholic Encyclopedia already noted that Duchesne refused the identity between the martyr and the pope, while admitting that the confusion was ancient, probably earlier than the 6th century.^[36]

Current Vatican authorities go in the same direction. Vatican News, in its notice on Eventius, Alexander and Theodulus, states that these martyrs were first believed to be of the 2nd century, before it was established that they belong to the 4th century, and that the identification of Alexander with Pope Alexander I is now excluded.^[37] The Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology also presents the basilica-catacomb of Saint Alexander as monumentalising the tombs of the martyrs Alexander, Evenzio and Teodulo, persecuted in the time of Diocletian.^[38]

How to honour Saint Alexander without hardening the legend

The Catholic conclusion is balanced. Alexander I is indeed a holy pope of the primitive Roman succession. His traditional martyrdom belongs to ancient liturgical memory, but the narrative of the Via Nomentana seems to come from a confusion with another martyr named Alexander.

This distinction does not diminish his holiness. It makes the article more solid. The Church does not need to turn every late detail into certainty in order to honour a saint. It can venerate Alexander as an ancient Roman pastor, while correcting the archaeological and martyrological confusion.

"We know almost nothing about him: why publish this?"

Because the little we know touches a major point: the apostolic Roman succession. Alexander is named by Irenaeus in a list intended to prove that the Catholic faith is transmitted publicly, and by Eusebius in an ancient chronology of the Church of Rome.^[39][40]

A serious article must therefore not invent a biography. It must explain why a silent pontificate can be doctrinally important: it shows that Rome lives not only from a few brilliant figures, but from a continuous chain.

"Are the liturgical decrees of the Liber Pontificalis reliable?"

They are useful, but rarely demonstrative for the first popes. The Liber Pontificalis preserves Roman traditions, but it likes to attribute to very ancient popes usages that may be later, or much more primitive than their pontificate. This is the case with the Qui pridie: the memory of the Eucharistic institution belongs to the very heart of the Mass, not to a late innovation by Alexander.^[41]

The right method is therefore to keep these notices as witnesses of memory, not as administrative minutes.

"Does the confusion over the martyr Alexander weaken Pope Alexander I?"

No. It weakens only one particular hagiographic narrative. The existence and the place of Alexander I in the Roman succession do not rest on the catacomb of the Via Nomentana, but on Irenaeus, Eusebius, the ancient lists and Roman tradition.^[42][43]

The martyr Alexander of the Via Nomentana may be another holy martyr, probably of the time of Diocletian. Pope Alexander I remains the successor of Evaristus and the predecessor of Sixtus.

"Can one speak of the papacy at the beginning of the 2nd century?"

Yes, if one speaks precisely. It would be anachronistic to imagine Alexander with a medieval curia, regulated conclaves, authenticated decretals and a pontifical state. But it would be equally false to conclude that Rome has no succession and no particular role.

Irenaeus already sees in the Church of Rome a public reference point of apostolic tradition, "on account of her more excellent origin".^[44] Alexander belongs to this reference point. The papacy develops historically, but it does not spring from nothing in the Middle Ages.

Fidelity without brilliance

Alexander I teaches fidelity without brilliance. The sources give him no great discourse, no incontestable miracle, no preserved letter. They give him a place. And this place suffices to express a vocation: to receive the Church of Rome after Evaristus and to hand it on to Sixtus.

In Christian life, many missions resemble this. One does not always see the fruit; one does not always sign a work; but one keeps the faith, prayer and communion for those who will come after.

"What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." — Saint Paul, 2 Timothy 2:2^[45]

A liturgical holiness

The traditions about Alexander revolve around the liturgy: Canon, chalice, blessed water. Even if the precise attributions are uncertain, they say something true: the primitive Roman Church understands itself as a Church that guards prayer.

Faith is transmitted through lists of succession, but also through liturgical gestures. Bread, wine mingled with water, the memory of the Passion, the blessing of homes: so many signs that Catholicism is not an abstract idea, but a life received, prayed, blessed and handed on.

A name against imaginary genealogies

The Gnostics invented secret filiations, hidden masters, reserved mysteries. Irenaeus answers with public names: Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus. This simplicity is powerful. True tradition does not need to be esoteric; it can be named.

Saint Alexander I thus remains a short but necessary article in the series of the first popes. It recalls that the Church is not a floating memory: it is a visible communion, guarded by pastors, through the centuries.

• Pope Saint Peter — apostolic foundation of the Church of Rome.
• Pope Saint Linus — first named successor after Peter and Paul.
• Pope Saint Anacletus or Cletus — second successor of Saint Peter.
• Pope Saint Clement I — author of the great Roman letter to the Corinthians.
• Pope Saint Evaristus — immediate predecessor of Alexander I.
• Why is the pope necessary? — theological meaning of the Petrine ministry.
• The heresies of the first centuries — doctrinal context of the first Christian generations.