Conciliarism vs universal Papal jurisdiction + Ecumenical council...?

[joe370]

Can any non-Catholic provide an example where the bishop of Rome, in order to speak authoritatively/definitively, needed to defer to an Ecumenical council first? I am asking because I am told that in the early centuries the Bishop of Rome had no juridical power over the other bishops and that God intended His Church to be governed by an Ecumenical council of bishops exclusively, which would mean that any one bishop, such as the bishop of Rome, would naturally have to defer to an Ecumenical council first before speaking authoritatively?

I see quite the opposite in places like the first letter of Clement to the Corinthians, and it had a profound impact on the early church and was commonly read aloud everywhere even in the fourth century, almost on a level with the canonical writings, which demonstrates the letter’s importance to the early Christians.

The first letter to Corinth does not contain Clement’s name, but rather addressed by* “the Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth”* - but it is attributed to Clement, bishop of Rome, by scholars. If one does not believe that it was written by Clement, one cannot deny that it did come from the leadership of the church in Rome as a request from the leadership in Corinth. It says, very forcefully, that the Corinthians must come into line with his teaching, and the effect ultimately put an end to schism in the Church at Corinth:

*“If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgressions and in no small danger.”
*
While it may be possible to read this as simply one bishop telling the church leaders in Corinth what to do, the fact remains that Rome was hundreds of miles from Corinth, and the Apostle John, who lived in Ephesus, was clearly much closer. Why would Clement, a bishop of Rome, (or even the general leadership of the church in Rome) - think that he (or they) - had the authority to write and tell a remote Church – which had its own bishop, and one of the twelve Apostles living nearby, how to behave, keeping in mind that Clement’s letter was written in response to a request from the Church at Corinth for clarification? Why would they write to the bishop of Rome (or even to the general leadership of the church in Rome) - as opposed to deferring to the local bishop, or even the Apostle John, if the bishop of Rome did not inherent Peter’s primacy? Why the need to even involve Rome which was about 700 miles from Corinth?

Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., iii. 16):

*“There is one acknowledged Epistle of this Clement (whom he has just identified with the friend of St. Paul), great and admirable, which he wrote in the name of the Church of Rome to the Church at Corinth, sedition having then arisen in the latter Church. We are aware that this Epistle has been publicly read in very many churches both in old times, and also in our own day.” *

Appreciate some feedback…

 

[joe370]

These 2 Ecumenical councils seem to lean toward Papal jurisdiction + Ecumenical Council, as opposed to pure Conciliarism:

451 AD - Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon:

“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said,** 'We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches**, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops (eastern) - cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! **Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’”
**
431 - Ecumenical Council of Ephesus:

“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: **who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors.’” **

 

[Radical]

I see quite the opposite in places like the first letter of Clement to the Corinthians, and it had a profound impact on the early church and was commonly read aloud everywhere even in the fourth century, almost on a level with the canonical writings, which demonstrates the letter’s importance to the early Christians.

you should note that your understanding of 1 Clement isn’t in line with the scholarly consensus

The first letter to Corinth does not contain Clement’s name, but rather addressed by* “the Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth”* - but it is attributed to Clement, bishop of Rome, by scholars.

yes, he is seen to be the author, writing on behalf of the leaders of the Roman Church (being, at the time, a number of elders). As such, he is not writing as the monarchical bishop of the universal Church and in fact, he was not even the monarchical bishop of the Roman Church

If one does not believe that it was written by Clement, one cannot deny that it did come from the leadership of the church in Rome as a request from the leadership in Corinth.

Where do you get the idea that it was requested from the leadership of the Corinthian Church… are you using the best translation in this regard?

It says, very forcefully, that the Corinthians must come into line with his teaching, and the effect ultimately put an end to schism in the Church at Corinth:

*“If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgressions and in no small danger.”
*

the “Him” is Christ not Clement. The Roman Church thought that its admonition was inspired by the HS and should be obeyed…not obeyed b/c Clement had an extraordinary authority, not obeyed b/c the Roman Church had authority over the Corinthian Church, but b/c their instructions reflected the will of God

While it may be possible to read this as simply one bishop telling the church leaders in Corinth what to do, the fact remains that Rome was hundreds of miles from Corinth, and the Apostle John, who lived in Ephesus, was clearly much closer.

John, at the time, was much deader too.

Why would Clement, a bishop of Rome, (or even the general leadership of the church in Rome) - think that he (or they) - had the authority to write and tell a remote Church – which had its own bishop,…

Corinth, at that time, also did not have a monarchical bishop, but was governed by a number of presbyters

… and one of the twelve Apostles living nearby,

nope dead, not living

…how to behave, keeping in mind that Clement’s letter was written in response to a request from the Church at Corinth for clarification?

please demonstrate this alleged request. Please note this is how Lightfoot translated a key sentence in the first chapter:

By reason of the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which are befalling us, brethren, we consider that we have been somewhat tardy in giving heed to the matters of dispute that have arisen among you, dearly beloved,…

and this is Edgar Goodspeed’s comment:
*
There is nothing to suggest that the Roman church has been appealed to by the Corinthians; the epistle seems rather to be an unsolicited contribution.*

Why would they write to the bishop of Rome (or even to the general leadership of the church in Rome) - as opposed to deferring to the local bishop, or even the Apostle John, if the bishop of Rome did not inherent Peter’s primacy? Why the need to even involve Rome which was about 700 miles from Corinth?

all of these questions seem to hinge on your unfortunate misunderstanding of the letter

 

[joe370]

you should note that your understanding of 1 Clement isn’t in line with the scholarly consensus

Says those scholars who disagree? I"ll buy that.

yes, he is seen to be the author, writing on behalf of the leaders of the Roman Church (being, at the time, a number of elders). As such, he is not writing as the monarchical bishop of the universal Church and in fact, he was not even the monarchical bishop of the Roman Church

 

[mardukm]

yes, he is seen to be the author, writing on behalf of the leaders of the Roman Church (being, at the time, a number of elders). As such, he is not writing as the monarchical bishop of the universal Church and in fact, he was not even the monarchical bishop of the Roman Church.

I agree that the bishop of Rome is not the monarchial bishop of the universal Church - something more akin to presidential. But I disagree with your opinion that he was not the monarchial bishop of the Roman Church. A bishop’s authority in his local diocese is essentially monarchial, though it is not absolute as he is bound by Sacred Tradition.

Where do you get the idea that it was requested from the leadership of the Corinthian Church… are you using the best translation in this regard?

please demonstrate this alleged request. Please note this is how Lightfoot translated a key sentence in the first chapter:

By reason of the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which are befalling us, brethren, we consider that we have been somewhat tardy in giving heed to the matters of dispute that have arisen among you, dearly beloved,…

and this is Edgar Goodspeed’s comment:
*
There is nothing to suggest that the Roman church has been appealed to by the Corinthians; the epistle seems rather to be an unsolicited contribution.*
all of these questions seem to hinge on your unfortunate misunderstanding of the letter

That’s a self-refuting proposition. If you claim that no appeal was made, then the only other scenario is that the bishop of Rome took it upon himself to micromanage the affairs of another Church. Given the fact that no early Christian witness disputed the authority of the Letter of Clement, that would mean the early Church accepted the absolute authority of the Bishop of Rome. Do you really want to go down that slippery slope?

the “Him” is Christ not Clement. The Roman Church thought that its admonition was inspired by the HS and should be obeyed…not obeyed b/c Clement had an extraordinary authority, not obeyed b/c the Roman Church had authority over the Corinthian Church, but b/c their instructions reflected the will of God.

Yes. That is the self-understanding of the Catholic Church. What makes you think it is otherwise?

Corinth, at that time, also did not have a monarchical bishop, but was governed by a number of presbyters

How are you sure of this? What are your sources?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[joe370]

Radical, what about:

Can any non-Catholic provide an example where the bishop of Rome, in order to speak authoritatively/definitively, needed to defer to an Ecumenical council first? I am asking because I am told that in the early centuries the Bishop of Rome had no juridical power over the other bishops and that God intended His Church to be governed by an Ecumenical council of bishops exclusively, which would mean that any one bishop, such as the bishop of Rome, would naturally have to defer to an Ecumenical council first before speaking authoritatively?

 

[joe370]

mardukm;8538299]I agree that the bishop of Rome is not the monarchial bishop of the universal Church - something more akin to presidential.

Kind of like the CEO of the board of directors…

But I disagree with your opinion that he was not the monarchial bishop of the Roman Church. A bishop’s authority in his local diocese is essentially monarchial, though it is not absolute as he is bound by Sacred Tradition.

That’s a self-refuting proposition. If you claim that no appeal was made, then the only other scenario is that the bishop of Rome took it upon himself to micromanage the affairs of another Church.

Yeah…

Given the fact that no early Christian witness disputed the authority of the Letter of Clement, that would mean the early Church accepted the absolute authority of the Bishop of Rome. Do you really want to go down that slippery slope?

 

[joe370]

Mardukm, in your opinion, is there an example where the bishop of Rome, in order to speak authoritatively/definitively, needed to defer to an Ecumenical council first? As I have mentioned in post #1, I am asking our non-Catholic brothers and sisters, because I am told that in the early centuries the Bishop of Rome had no juridical power over the other bishops and that God intended His Church to be governed by an Ecumenical council of bishops exclusively, which would mean that any one bishop, such as the bishop of Rome, would naturally have to defer to an Ecumenical council first before speaking authoritatively.

 

[joe370]

Radical, after reading the following excerpt, you still agree with Edgar Goodspeed’s comment, even in light of what Mardukm has said?

*There is nothing to suggest that the Roman church has been appealed to by the Corinthians; the epistle seems rather to be an unsolicited contribution.
*
Excerpt:

“By reason of the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which are befalling us, brethren,we consider that we [the Church at Rome] have been somewhat tardy in giving heed to the matters of dispute that have arisen among you, dearly beloved, and to the detestable and unholy sedition, so alien and strange to the elect of God, which a few headstrong and self-willed persons have kindled to such a pitch of madness that your name, once revered and renowned and lovely in the sight of all men, hath been greatly reviled…Ye therefore that laid the foundation of the sedition, submit yourselves unto the presbyters and receive chastisement unto repentance, bending the knees of your heart… Receive our counsel, and ye shall have no occasion of regret. For as God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit, who are the faith and the hope of the elect, so surely shall he, who with lowliness of mind and instant in gentleness hath without regretfulness performed the ordinances and commandments that are given by God, be enrolled and have a name among the number of them that are saved through Jesus Christ, through whom is the glory unto Him for ever and ever. Amen… But if certain persons should be disobedient unto the words spoken by Him (Jesus) - through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger…For ye will give us great joy and gladness, if ye render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit…And we have also sent faithful and prudent men that have walked among us from youth unto old age unblamably, who shall also be witnesses between you and us.” (St. Clement of Rome: Letter to the Corinthians – 1:1; 46:9; 47:3,6; 57:1; 58:2; 59:1; 63:2; 63:3)

Also, if Clement is not the bishop/leader of the Church in Rome but rather some local catholic elder, then what would give him any kind of right or authority to write such a strongly worded admonition on behalf of the leaders of the Church of Rome, to the Church of Corinth?

“*The Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which
sojourneth in Corinth…”
*

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Joe,

Mardukm, in your opinion, is there an example where the bishop of Rome, in order to speak authoritatively/definitively, needed to defer to an Ecumenical council first? As I have mentioned in post #1, I am asking our non-Catholic brothers and sisters, because I am told that in the early centuries the Bishop of Rome had no juridical power over the other bishops and that God intended His Church to be governed by an Ecumenical council of bishops exclusively, which would mean that any one bishop, such as the bishop of Rome, would naturally have to defer to an Ecumenical council first before speaking authoritatively.

From my own studies, there is not a single example that a Pope needed to defer to an Ecumenical Council first for his decrees to be authoritative/definitive.

Non-Catholics often make much of the circumstance in the Fourth Ecumenical Council of the Council Fathers putting the Tome of Leo to the test, so to speak. It should be noted, however, that the great majority of the Fathers at Chalcedon, according to the Council records, did not feel a need to put Leo’s Tome to the test. They agreed to study Leo’s Tome first on the exhortations of a relatively small group of bishops. They did this to ensure unanimity on the matter. And what was the result? The Fathers affirmed the Tome of Leo. For the non-Catholic to prove his/her point, they must show an instance when an Ecumenical Council contradicted a previous authoritative/definitive decree of a Pope of Rome. That’s never happened.

However, there is a divine imperative (not merely a moral imperative) for the Pope to ensure that his statements are in line with the consensus of the Church FIRST BEFORE he makes such authoritative/definitive decrees. Normally, he can achieve this purpose by consulting his brother bishops, though he can achieve the same purpose by other means in and through the Church. This divine imperative is reflected in the very ancient Apostolic Canon 34, which instructs us that head bishops should not make decisions apart from his brother bishops in order to ensure the unity of the Church. We need not go through the well-known Scriptural exhortations from our Lord Himself on the divine necessity of unity among the ecclesiastical Magisterium.

This is a great difference between the Absolutist Petrine view and the High Petrine view. Absolutist Petrine advocates simply expect the Church and her bishops to kowtow to anything the Pope decrees, whereas the High Petrine view understands that the Pope must himself ensure BEFORE making such decrees that the necessary consensus will be achieved (ensuring the unity of the Church is, after all, his primary responsibility). The Pope can ensure the necessary consensus by FIRST determining that what he will propose is in accord with Sacred Tradition. He normally does this by consulting his brother bishops, but he has other means as well aside from direct consultation with his brother bishops.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[joe370]

Hey Mardukm…

mardukm;8539266]Dear brother Joe,

From my own studies, there is not a single example that a Pope needed to defer to an Ecumenical Council first for his decrees to be authoritative/definitive.

That is what I have discovered thus far and your affirmation certainly helps reinforce said discovery.

Non-Catholics often make much of the circumstance in the Fourth Ecumenical Council of the Council Fathers putting the Tome of Leo to the test, so to speak. It should be noted, however, that the great majority of the Fathers at Chalcedon, according to the Council records, did not feel a need to put Leo’s Tome to the test. They agreed to study Leo’s Tome first on the exhortations of a relatively small group of bishops. They did this to ensure unanimity on the matter. And what was the result? The Fathers affirmed the Tome of Leo. For the non-Catholic to prove his/her point, they must show an instance when an Ecumenical Council contradicted a previous authoritative/definitive decree of a Pope of Rome. That’s never happened.

However, there is a divine imperative (not merely a moral imperative) for the Pope to ensure that his statements are in line with the consensus of the Church FIRST BEFORE he makes such authoritative/definitive decrees. Normally, he can achieve this purpose by consulting his brother bishops, though he can achieve the same purpose by other means in and through the Church. This divine imperative is reflected in the very ancient Apostolic Canon 34, which instructs us that head bishops should not make decisions apart from his brother bishops in order to ensure the unity of the Church. We need not go through the well-known Scriptural exhortations from our Lord Himself on the divine necessity of unity among the ecclesiastical Magisterium.

I agree with what you have said here: (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=291956)

From this, naysayers have dreamed up a fantastic array of powers and prerogatives for the Pope, including, but not limited to:

1. The Pope can reject the orthodox teaching of orthodox bishops for an ex cathedra decree.
2. The Catholic Church is a one-man show.
3. The Pope is NEVER required to search the mind of the Church through his brother bishops for an ex cathedra decree.
4. The Pope can conceivably violate Sacred Tradition in an ex cathedra decree.

This is a great difference between the Absolutist Petrine view and the High Petrine view. Absolutist Petrine advocates simply expect the Church and her bishops to kowtow to anything the Pope decrees, whereas the High Petrine view understands that the Pope must himself ensure BEFORE making such decrees that the necessary consensus will be achieved (ensuring the unity of the Church is, after all, his primary responsibility). The Pope can ensure the necessary consensus by FIRST determining that what he will propose is in accord with Sacred Tradition. He normally does this by consulting his brother bishops, but he has other means as well aside from direct consultation with his brother bishops.

Thanks for the feedback brother…

 

[JonNC]

However, there is a divine imperative (not merely a moral imperative) for the Pope to ensure that his statements are in line with the consensus of the Church FIRST BEFORE he makes such authoritative/definitive decrees. Normally, he can achieve this purpose by consulting his brother bishops, though he can achieve the same purpose by other means in and through the Church. This divine imperative is reflected in the very ancient Apostolic Canon 34, which instructs us that head bishops should not make decisions apart from his brother bishops in order to ensure the unity of the Church. We need not go through the well-known Scriptural exhortations from our Lord Himself on the divine necessity of unity among the ecclesiastical Magisterium.

Blessings,
Marduk

With respect, when has this happened since the Second Council of Nicea? Is it possible for the pope to do this while the Church is in Schism?

Jon

 

[Radical]

I agree that the Roman Church thought that its admonition was inspired by the HS and should be obeyed. Why?

b/c they thought that they had discerned a truth. They believed that the Corinthian church had dismissed several presbyters who had fulfilled their function righteously. Clement et al concluded that such a dismissal was sinful. By opposing sin they were describing the will of God.

Why would the leadership of the church in Rome - think that they had the authority to write and tell a remote Church – which had its own bishop, how to behave?

first, Corinth didn’t have “its own bishop.” Corinth had a group of presbyters in charge. Any Christian that sees another Christian sinning, shouldn’t stand by and merely observe. We should call our brethren to account. That is what the Roman Church likely thought it was doing.

Why would they write to the leadership of the church in Rome, ….

We don’t know that they did….maybe the ousted ones wrote looking for support that they couldn’t find in Corinth

….as opposed to deferring to the local bishop of Corinth?

the alleged sinners were the current leaders of the Corinthian Church

Why, if it’s unsolicited, the need for the apology regarding his delay “in giving our attention to the subjects of dispute in your community”?

they apologized for a delay b/c they took their time in confronting the alleged sinners….apparently they realized that they should have acted sooner

What gave him the right to tell….

not “him”…Clement wasn’t writing merely on his own behalf

… them to be “obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit”?

being right gives the right…just as one brother (who sees another brother sin) should act and confront that other (equal) brother for sinning….or are you suggesting that by confronting Peter, Paul demonstrated his authority over Peter?

Why send three legates to Corinth to investigate?

b/c they didn’t have a FedEx account? My translation calls the three “messengers” (I don’t know what you mean by “legates”) and where is an investigation mentioned?

In your opinion, did their involvement help resolve matters in Corinth?

I don’t know….I suspect it did (b/c it was preserved)

Maybe I am the one misunderstanding. Is it also possible that you are the one understanding?

I am telling you what the majority of scholars believe….so, know that you should preface your argument with: “If one disagrees with the majority of scholars and believes what I do about 1st Clement, then doesn’t it support papal authority?”

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut friend.

You could look at the relevant portion of Sullivan’s “From Apostles to Bishops”…it is on Google books

 

[Marybeloved]

With respect, when has this happened since the Second Council of Nicea? Is it possible for the pope to do this while the Church is in Schism?

Jon

But Jon, why do you put the line at the 7th Council? Weren’t the Orientals true churches as well? Their schism was earlier, but why don’t people consider that “a problem” with regard to the church’s exercise of her infallible teaching authority?

 

[Radical]

… I disagree with your opinion that he was not the monarchial bishop of the Roman Church. A bishop’s authority in his local diocese is essentially monarchial, though it is not absolute as he is bound by Sacred Tradition.

the scholarly consensus is that Rome did not have a single monarchical bishop at the time of Clement…it was a later development in that part of the empire. As such, Clement would have been (perhaps the most prominent) of a number of leaders… but not “the bishop” as you suggest. It is also believed that the Shepherd of Hermas (8.3) identifies Clement as the correspondence secretary of the church in Rome.

That’s a self-refuting proposition.

only if one adheres to your extremely forced dichotomy

If you claim that no appeal was made, then the only other scenario is that the bishop of Rome took it upon himself to micromanage the affairs of another Church.

are you then suggesting that Peter must have appealed to (his superior) Paul and sought advice as to how he should conduct himself at Antioch?..or is it possible that the Roman Church felt that the new leaders of the Corinthian Church, like Peter, stood condemned by their actions?

Given the fact that no early Christian witness disputed the authority of the Letter of Clement,…

The letter doesn’t claim any authority other than they claim to have spoken for Christ in pointing out sin and calling for that sin to be remedied. That is an authority any Christian could possess.

…. that would mean the early Church accepted the absolute authority of the Bishop of Rome. Do you really want to go down that slippery slope?

you must be wearing your special Vatican spy glasses b/c you can see both an absolute authority and a slippery slope when neither is there.

How are you sure of this? What are your sources?

the letter uses bishop and presbyter interchangeably and speaks of the removal of several presbyters… the consensus is that the Corinthian Church was governed by a group of presbyters.

Blessings

 

[Marybeloved]

only if one adheres to your extremely forced dichotomy
are you then suggesting that Peter must have appealed to (his superior) Paul and sought advice as to how he should conduct himself at Antioch?..or is it possible that the Roman Church felt that the new leaders of the Corinthian Church, like Peter, stood condemned by their actions?
The letter doesn’t claim any authority other than they claim to have spoken for Christ in pointing out sin and calling for that sin to be remedied. That is an authority any Christian could possess.
you must be wearing your special Vatican spy glasses b/c you can see both an absolute authority and a slippery slope when neither is there.

Radical, Mardukm’s point is not forced at all. If you say that the Corinth church did not appeal, you’re saying that Rome, 700 miles away just made a unilateral call to pass over all the churches in between simply to correct another church. Mardukm says that you would then be implying an even greater authority for Rome than she claims for herself! .

How can you compare this to Paul with Peter at Antioch, who witnessed Peter doing something wrong and corrected him? Rather it would be like John in Ephesus (just an example for illustration, I don’t know where John was at this time) taking it upon himself to deal with Peter in Antioch bypassing both Paul in Antioch and St. James in Jerusalem- That, my friend is an extreme busybody. One who would not likely be tolerated. If he was not set straight, we would assume a very great authority on his part. Much more reasonable to conclude is that a request was made for help rather than that a church with its own business and occupations just “flying” 700 miles from its base to address ecclesiastical disputes so far away!

 

[Radical]

Radical, Mardukm’s point is not forced at all. If you say that the Corinth church did not appeal, you’re saying that Rome, 700 miles away just made a unilateral call to pass over all the churches in between simply to correct another church.

No, I am saying that if the Corinthian Church did not appeal, then the Church at Rome thought it should speak out about a sin that had continued for some time…if you are really dead set on thinking somebody appealed to Rome, then the likely candidate would be the ousted presbyters who were probably looking for support wherever they could find it and if they appealed to Rome, who knows who else they appealed to. BTW, what were all the Churches in between at 95 AD?

Mardukm says that you would then be implying an even greater authority for Rome than she claims for herself!

That might be what Mardukm thinks is implied, but he is off side of scholars on that point. As Sullivan says: “…(1st Clement) is generally recognized as the kind of exhortation one church could address to another without any claim to authority over it.” and “…some have seen an exercise of Roman primacy, but most scholars nowadays, including Catholics, interpret this (59 & 63) rather as an expression of confidence that the Holy Spirit has spoken through what they have written.”

How can you compare this to Paul with Peter at Antioch, who witnessed Peter doing something wrong and corrected him?

very easily…to use your wording: The Roman Church witnessed the Corinthian Church doing something wrong and corrected it.

 

[Marybeloved]

No, I am saying that if the Corinthian Church did not appeal, then the Church at Rome thought it should speak out about a sin that had continued for some time…

There was St. John the Beloved himself- An Apostle! still in Ephesus and the Church there in between them, right in the middle, 300 miles from Corinth. Corinth itself had it’s own Bishop- How does Rome 700 miles away just decide to involve itself with the ecclesiastical business of a Church so far away? Again, my friend- This is an extreme busybody that you’re describing here- if he does not actually have the authority to interfere like that.

if you are really dead set on thinking somebody appealed to Rome, then the likely candidate would be the ousted presbyters who were probably looking for support wherever they could find it and if they appealed to Rome, who knows who else they appealed to.

This is from St. Clement’s letter

“Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us;”

They did consult Rome, so I think your scholars are way off to deny that. And no, there was no one else consulted. We can’t start employing the Dan Brown tactics of appealing to non-existent evidence to prove our own modern-day theories. :tsktskLike how Jesus married St.Mary Magdalene and made her ruler of the Church and had a child and what other nonsense).

That might be what Mardukm thinks is implied, but he is off side of scholars on that point. As Sullivan says: “…(1st Clement) is generally recognized as the kind of exhortation one church could address to another without any claim to authority over it.” and “…some have seen an exercise of Roman primacy, but most scholars nowadays, including Catholics, interpret this (59 & 63) rather as an expression of confidence that the Holy Spirit has spoken through what they have written.”

That might be a good point if it weren’t for the great distance involved- It would appear insane to consult a church 700 miles away rather than the nearer church which probably appreciates the issues even better. When African countries are in trouble internally, the neighboring countries are first on the scene, urging solutions/reconciliations/trying to diffuse tensions. **No one **else comes from far unless they have some serious weight or some authority over that country - Like the U.S.A., the UN and donor countries.

very easily…to use your wording: The Roman Church witnessed the Corinthian Church doing something wrong and corrected it.

St. Paul was with Peter in Antioch- who else would have given brotherly correction? But Clement needs to busy himself with a church 700 miles away despite the “successive calamitous events” he describes in his own church? Why? -Because other Christians are asleep? I really think that the only reasonable conclusion is to say that the Corinthians consulted the church of Rome which did settle the matter.

 

[Radical]

There was St. John the Beloved himself- An Apostle! still in Ephesus and the Church there in between them, right in the middle, 300 miles from Corinth.

John is dead at the time and Ephesus, like Rome is a sea away…and Ephesus is not between Rome and Corinth. Rome is across the sea to the west…Ephesus to the east

Corinth itself had it’s own Bishop-…

no it didn’t…that is what the letter is addressing. A group at Corinth ousted some of their leaders (that led as a group)

How does Rome 700 miles away just decide to involve itself with the ecclesiastical business of a Church so far away?

b/c of continuing sin

Again, my friend- This is an extreme busybody that you’re describing here…

no, it is a fellow body of believers addressing (what they perceive to be) continuing sin in another body of believers…

• if he does not actually have the authority to interfere like that.

it is not “he”…Clement is the author of a letter on behalf of the entire leadership at Rome (which isn’t Clement in the role of a monarchical bishop…as indicated Hermas identified a Clement as a secretary for the Church at Rome…very possibly the same Clement).

This is from St. Clement’s letter

“Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us;”

yep…that is how a bad translation of the letter reads. As I pointed out earlier “consulted us” isn’t in Lightfoot’s translation. I expect it is an addition/translation made by someone who wanted to have the letter be more than it really was.

They did consult Rome, so I think your scholars are way off to deny that.

I’ll go with them and their translation over you and yours

And no, there was no one else consulted. We can’t start employing the Dan Brown tactics of appealing to non-existent evidence to prove our own modern-day theories. :tsktsk:

and what is your evidence that no one else was consulted? (Well of course your evidence that Rome was consulted is bad…but your evidence that no one else was consulted is non-existent)…I am saying that, on the evidence, we don’t know if others were contacted or wrote…you are the one claiming that you know what happened in that regard.

That might be a good point if it weren’t for the great distance involved- It would appear insane to consult a church 700 miles away rather than the nearer church which probably appreciates the issues even better.

the consultation is your presumption, the lack of involvement by other churches is also your presumption and I am still not sure which nearer Church you have in mind…Ephesus at 300 miles? The difference isn’t all that significant.

St. Paul was with Peter in Antioch- who else would have given brotherly correction? But Clement needs to busy himself with a church 700 miles away despite the “successive calamitous events” he describes in his own church? Why? -Because other Christians are asleep? I really think that the only reasonable conclusion is to say that the Corinthians consulted the church of Rome which did settle the matter.

well, just know that the majority of scholars disagree with you…so, like Joe, you should preface your claim with: “If one disagrees with the majority of scholars and believes what I do about 1st Clement, then doesn’t it support papal authority?”

That is a rather weak position, but by all means carry on…

 

[Cavaradossi]

These 2 Ecumenical councils seem to lean toward Papal jurisdiction + Ecumenical Council, as opposed to pure Conciliarism:

451 AD - Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon:

I haven’t read the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, so I have no commentary to make on that quotation, but I have read the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon.

“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said,** 'We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches**, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

This quotation is taken out of context. Paschasinus, because he is acting on behalf of Rome, is of course going to insist that Rome’s directions be followed; however, the council does not immediately consent to the demand.

1. Paschasinus, the most devout bishop and guardian of the apostolic see, took his stand in the centre together with his companions and said: ‘We have instructions from the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the city of Rome, the head of all the churches, in which he has thought it right to declare that Dioscorus should not take a seat at the assembly, and that if he has the effrontery to attempt to do so, he should be expelled.This we are obliged to observe. Therefore, if it pleases your greatness, either he must leave, or we shall leave.’
2. When these words had been translated into Greek by Veronicianus, the hallowed secretary of the divine consistory, the most glorious officials and the eminent senators said: ‘What particular charge do you bring against Dioscorus the most devout bishop?’
3. Paschasinus, the most devout bishop and guardian of the apostolic see, said: ‘His entrance makes it necessary to oppose him.’
4. The most illustrious officials and the most eminent senators said: ‘As we have already proposed, let the charge against him be specified.’
5. Lucentius the most devout bishop, representing the apostolic see, said: ‘He should render an account of his judgement. Although he did not possess the role of a judge, he usurped it. He presumed to hold a council without the leave of the apostolic see, which has never been allowed and has never been done.’*
6. Paschasinus the most devout bishop, representing the apostolic see, said: ‘We cannot go against the instructions of the most blessed and apostolic bishop who occupies the apostolic see, nor against the ecclesiastical canons or the traditions of the fathers.’
7. The most illustrious officials and the most eminent senators said: ‘You need to make clear his specific offence.’
8. Lucentius the most devout bishop, representing the apostolic see, said: ‘We will not tolerate so great an outrage both to you and to us as to have this person taking his seat when he has been summoned to judgement.’
9. The most illustrious officials and the most eminent senators said: ‘If you are taking the role of a judge, you cannot in that capacity plead your cause.’
10. When at the bidding of the most glorious officials and of the holy senate Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria had taken a seat in the centre, and the most devout Roman bishops had also sat down in their proper places and had ceased speaking, Eusebius the most devout bishop of the city of Dorylaeum came to the centre and said: ‘By the preservation of the masters of the world, order my petition to be read, in accordance with the wishes of our most pious emperor. I have been wronged by Dioscorus; the faith has been wronged; Bishop Flavian was murdered. He together with me was unjustly deposed by Dioscorus. Order my petition to be read.’

*The Council of Ephesus II was called by Emperor Theodosius II, who summoned Pope Leo. Leo Responded, “I have exerted myself to obey your clemency’s commands in some measure by sending from here brethren of mine … who can represent me.” Lucentius’ charge, therefore, was unfounded.

As you can see, the senators ask several times what charge is being brought against Dioscorus, that he should not be seated at the council. The senators eventually decide near the end of this excerpt that one cannot be both seated at a council (that is, acting as a judge), and pleading his cause at the same time (i.e., acting as a defendant), so we see that Dioscorus sits at the center (that is, he is not being seated as a judge), while the charges are about to be brought against him. It is pretty clear, however, that the representatives of Rome are far from running the show here. The senate says several times that Dioscorus cannot be denied a seat unless a specific charge is brought against him, and it is not until the senators decide that Dioscorus cannot act as judge and defendant that they bid him to sit in the center, and have the Roman bishops take their proper seats and stay silent while the charges against Dioscorus are being read.