East-West discussions of Pope St. Clement I

[GaryTaylor]

The “opposite” side of this came full circle at Lambeth.

However, Irenaeus wrote of the necessity for every Church to agree doctrinally with the Church of Rome, the greatest, the best known and most ancient of all, in Against Heresies. You can also view other translations, however, what will not nor cannot change in any translation is “prinicipality” in context. This is the SJ translation you can compare to Early Christian Writers also, which the word “powerful” is substituded. Context/Content remains the same.

“For to this church on account of her more powerful principality it is necessary that every church should agree (or come together), that is the faithful from everywhere, in which, always, that which is the tradition from the Apostles has been preserved by those who are from everywhere.”

Course his works can be read on-line also in Latin or Greek by Irenaus. If you cannot find the complete works let me know and I’ll post them.

Among the apostolic Churches, only the Church of Rome was so distinguished. It is not impossible that the reason for this was a belief in the primacy of the papal magisterium.

• from-Lambeth 1910-1930 Irenaeus/Augustine

therealpresence.org/archives/Papacy.htm

Howvever, the argument which places this in context is with the Anglicans at Lambeth since Denny, Pusey and other Anglicans bought to light, since it was the basis of the Anglican debate. I’ll post it above for you, so you can read the entire situation which leads basically to 2012. And it also Cover’s St Cyrils work as mentioned above along with many other’s.

The idea that V-I is a different than the Primacy existed from the 5th back is incorrect. Dogma and the Deposit of Faith were already in place. The Infallibliity of the Church has “always” existed. When we speak 1st-2nd century the research becomes very different since limited work exists in any period or persecution, in particular till the 3rd century.

Peace

 

[Cavaradossi]

The “opposite” side of this came full circle at Lambeth.

However, Irenaeus wrote of the necessity for every Church to agree doctrinally with the Church of Rome, the greatest, the best known and most ancient of all, in Against Heresies. You can also view other translations, however, what will not nor cannot change in any translation is “prinicipality” in context. This is the SJ translation you can compare to Early Christian Writers also, which the word “powerful” is substituded. Context/Content remains the same.

“For to this church on account of her more powerful principality it is necessary that every church should agree (or come together), that is the faithful from everywhere, in which, always, that which is the tradition from the Apostles has been preserved by those who are from everywhere.”

Course his works can be read on-line also in Latin or Greek by Irenaus. If you cannot find the complete works let me know and I’ll post them.

Among the apostolic Churches, only the Church of Rome was so distinguished. It is not impossible that the reason for this was a belief in the primacy of the papal magisterium.

Actually, Irenaeus gives a reason for why he only points to Rome just one sentence beforehand: Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches…

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Papal Succession is documented by Irenaues for Rome. Had he documented the other Apostolic Churchs that would have been well and fine. However he mention’s what he does for one reason…

“on account of ‘her more powerful principality’ it is necessary that ‘every church’ should agree (or come together), that is the faithful from everywhere, in which, always, that which is the tradition from the Apostles has been preserved by those who are from everywhere.”

Doesn’t distract from the quoted sentence in any way. Had he intended to clarify another reality in other regards he fails to mention this in his 5-works. Why? Simple there no resaon to doubt Apostolic Sussession in the East, there was reason to understand what was transpiring in Rome, thus the above statement.

Also you should read the articles from Lambeth a few are Doctoral Thesis’s so they take a few moments. However the complexity continues with Cyril, Cyprian, Augustine, and so forth.

 

[Mort_Alz]

I’d also like to say that it doesn’t really matter if St. Clement wrote the letter while he was Bishop of Rome or not. The fact that it was in the name of the Church in Rome is sufficient enough. We know from basic Ignatian ecclesiology that the Church is in the bishop as the bishop is in the Church, so anything written in the name of the Church of Rome necessarily includes the authority of her Bishop. It doesn’t make a difference. By extension, the letter was from the Bishop of Rome.

It should also be pointed out that noting the collegial nature of the letter does not refute anything against Catholicism. Papal authority is, first and foremost, collegial, even as defined in Vatican I.

 

[Dollinger]

I’d also like to say that it doesn’t really matter if St. Clement wrote the letter while he was Bishop of Rome or not. The fact that it was in the name of the Church in Rome is sufficient enough. We know from basic Ignatian ecclesiology that the Church is in the bishop as the bishop is in the Church, so anything written in the name of the Church of Rome necessarily includes the authority of her Bishop. It doesn’t make a difference. By extension, the letter was from the Bishop of Rome.

It should also be pointed out that noting the collegial nature of the letter does not refute anything against Catholicism. Papal authority is, first and foremost, collegial, even as defined in Vatican I.

It is begging the issue, nothing in the epistle of Clement even look like Vatican I ecclesiology.

 

[Dollinger]

The Papal Succession is documented by Irenaues for Rome. Had he documented the other Apostolic Churchs that would have been well and fine. However he mention’s what he does for one reason…

“on account of ‘her more powerful principality’ it is necessary that ‘every church’ should agree (or come together), that is the faithful from everywhere, in which, always, that which is the tradition from the Apostles has been preserved by those who are from everywhere.”

Doesn’t distract from the quoted sentence in any way. Had he intended to clarify another reality in other regards he fails to mention this in his 5-works. Why? Simple there no resaon to doubt Apostolic Sussession in the East, there was reason to understand what was transpiring in Rome, thus the above statement.

Also you should read the articles from Lambeth a few are Doctoral Thesis’s so they take a few moments. However the complexity continues with Cyril, Cyprian, Augustine, and so forth.

St Ireneaus is only talking about Rome in his time. He is not saying Rome will always and until the end of time be the criteria for truth. In fact, it is perfectly orthodox: we all need to agree with the apostolic churches as long as they remain faithfull to the Tradition of the apostles. But as soon as it is no longer the case, we must no longer agree with this church.

with the Church of Rome, the greatest, the best known and most ancient of all

Rome the most ancient church of all? Is it a serious claim?

 

[Mort_Alz]

It is begging the issue, nothing in the epistle of Clement even look like Vatican I ecclesiology.

That really depends on what you mean by that.

 

[Mort_Alz]

St Ireneaus is only talking about Rome in his time. He is not saying Rome will always and until the end of time be the criteria for truth. In fact, it is perfectly orthodox: we all need to agree with the apostolic churches as long as they remain faithfull to the Tradition of the apostles. But as soon as it is no longer the case, we must no longer agree with this church.

How are we to know when they fall away?

 

[Dollinger]

That really depends on what you mean by that.

It does not mention papal infailibility, nor immediate and absolut juridiction over all churches. It is only pastoral advices and teachings.

 

[Dollinger]

How are we to know when they fall away?

When the faithfull from everywhere see that innovations are introduced. There are objectiv realities, and the life of the Church proved it this way.

 

[Mort_Alz]

It does not mention papal infailibility, nor immediate and absolut juridiction over all churches. It is only pastoral advices and teachings.

You’re right, it doesn’t mention infallibility, but I never said it does. And, no, it does not explicitly mention the extent or function of papal jurisdiction, no one is saying that, either.

Saying “It is only pastoral advices and teachings,” however, is not true.

 

[Mort_Alz]

When the faithfull from everywhere see that innovations are introduced. There are objectiv realities, and the life of the Church proved it this way.

Hmm, that’s difficult to tell. I hardly think that the folks on the Eastern side of the schism between East and West (Orthodox and Catholic for distinction purposes) constituted “the faithful from everywhere.”

And, you’re right, there are objective realities. I completely agree with you.

 

[Dollinger]

You’re right, it doesn’t mention infallibility, but I never said it does. And, no, it does not explicitly mention the extent or function of papal jurisdiction, no one is saying that, either.

Saying “It is only pastoral advices and teachings,” however, is not true.

Well, if it does not, all what this epistle proves is that Rome had great auhtority and glory. But that is what we orthodox believe as well. So to debate on this epistle is simply a waist of time for apologetic purpose.

Hmm, that’s difficult to tell. I hardly think that the folks on the Eastern side of the schism between East and West (Orthodox and Catholic for distinction purposes) constituted “the faithful from everywhere.”

Well they were. Once in schism or heresy, the people no longer are faithfull, they just remained from everywhere!
But of course it is a matter of viewpoint then.

 

[dcointin]

The “opposite” side of this came full circle at Lambeth.

However, Irenaeus wrote of the necessity for every Church to agree doctrinally with the Church of Rome, the greatest, the best known and most ancient of all, in Against Heresies. You can also view other translations, however, what will not nor cannot change in any translation is “prinicipality” in context. This is the SJ translation you can compare to Early Christian Writers also, which the word “powerful” is substituded. Context/Content remains the same.

“For to this church on account of her more powerful principality it is necessary that every church should agree (or come together), that is the faithful from everywhere, in which, always, that which is the tradition from the Apostles has been preserved by those who are from everywhere.”

Course his works can be read on-line also in Latin or Greek by Irenaus. If you cannot find the complete works let me know and I’ll post them.

Among the apostolic Churches, only the Church of Rome was so distinguished. It is not impossible that the reason for this was a belief in the primacy of the papal magisterium.

• from-Lambeth 1910-1930 Irenaeus/Augustine

therealpresence.org/archives/Papacy.htm

Howvever, the argument which places this in context is with the Anglicans at Lambeth since Denny, Pusey and other Anglicans bought to light, since it was the basis of the Anglican debate. I’ll post it above for you, so you can read the entire situation which leads basically to 2012. And it also Cover’s St Cyrils work as mentioned above along with many other’s.

The idea that V-I is a different than the Primacy existed from the 5th back is incorrect. Dogma and the Deposit of Faith were already in place. The Infallibliity of the Church has “always” existed. When we speak 1st-2nd century the research becomes very different since limited work exists in any period or persecution, in particular till the 3rd century.
Peace

I would be very interested to see the originals for this citation. Thanks!

 

[Mort_Alz]

Well, if it does not, all what this epistle proves is that Rome had great auhtority and glory. But that is what we orthodox believe as well. So to debate on this epistle is simply a waist of time for apologetic purpose.

Well they were. Once in schism or heresy, the people no longer are faithfull, they just remained from everywhere!
But of course it is a matter of viewpoint then.

No, it is still useful for examination. The Corinthian Church could not appeal to her bishop because the entire issue surrounded the question of the Corinthian bishop anyway. One Church sent a letter to resolve the issue (with a very authoritative tone and obedience clearly expected). The importance of this is that it is an authoritative instance of one bishop interfering in another bishop’s Church, so, apparently that could happen quite early on. That is why the letter is still of importance.

“Well they were. Once in schism or heresy, the people no longer are faithful, they just remained from everywhere!” That’s just circular and doesn’t address the objection I made.

 

[Dollinger]

No, it is still useful for examination. The Corinthian Church could not appeal to her bishop because the entire issue surrounded the question of the Corinthian bishop anyway. One Church sent a letter to resolve the issue (with a very authoritative tone and obedience clearly expected). The importance of this is that it is an authoritative instance of one bishop interfering in another bishop’s Church, so, apparently that could happen quite early on. That is why the letter is still of importance.

“Well they were. Once in schism or heresy, the people no longer are faithful, they just remained from everywhere!” That’s just circular and doesn’t address the objection I made.

No that is not circular, those who believed that Christ has only one nature, or one will etc, became heretics and schismatics, and were no longer faithfull. THey only remained from everywhere.

For Clement, you just say, with different words what i said. But since this letter agrees with orthodox ecclesiology and teaching, it is useless for apologetic purpose, and to bring it as a kind of proof for vatican I is useless.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Please answer this question:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=677822
Thanks

 

[Mort_Alz]

No that is not circular, those who believed that Christ has only one nature, or one will etc, became heretics and schismatics, and were no longer faithfull. THey only remained from everywhere.

For Clement, you just say, with different words what i said. But since this letter agrees with orthodox ecclesiology and teaching, it is useless for apologetic purpose, and to bring it as a kind of proof for vatican I is useless.

I’m afraid it is circular. We’re asking, “How can I know true doctrine?” We unanimously respond, “We can know true doctrine by listening to the Church which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The next question asks, “There are two churches contesting that position (Catholics-Orthodox), how do I know the true Church?” Catholics respond by saying, “The one who possesses the divine means for unity, the primacy of Peter.”

This is where your response gets circular: the Orthodox respond by saying, “the one that has true doctrine.” (Or the one who remained orthodox). Do you see it yet?

It’s only useless for apologetic purposes to you if you don’t address what I said about it earlier.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Please answer this question:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=677822
Thanks

Are you insinuating something? I love it when people are up front and honest with me.

 

[Dollinger]

I’m afraid it is circular. We’re asking, “How can I know true doctrine?” We unanimously respond, “We can know true doctrine by listening to the Church which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The next question asks, “There are two churches contesting that position (Catholics-Orthodox), how do I know the true Church?” Catholics respond by saying, “The one who possesses the divine means for unity, the primacy of Peter.”

This is where your response gets circular: the Orthodox respond by saying, “the one that has true doctrine.” (Or the one who remained orthodox). Do you see it yet?

It’s only useless for apologetic purposes to you if you don’t address what I said about it earlier.

We follow the truth that has been handled unto us by our holy fathers and the apostles. And this is how the church works for 2000 years:

From the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II, Session VII (553): “But we bishops answered him (Pope Vigilius): "If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate.”

The Fathers of the 5th oecumenical council didnt need Vigilius opinion to know the truth. And they made it known to him.

Catholics respond by saying, “The one who possesses the divine means for unity, the primacy of Peter.”

Except when you dont even know who possesses it:

File:Western schism 1378-1417.svg - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

**This schism of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries differs in all points from the Eastern Schism. The latter was a real revolt against the supreme authority of the Church, fomented by the ambition of the patriarchs of Constantinople, favoured by the Greek emperors, supported by the Byzantine clergy and people, and lasting nine centuries. The Western Schism was only a temporary misunderstanding, even though it compelled the Church for forty years to seek its true head; it was fed by politics and passions, and was terminated by the assembling of the councils of Pisa and Constance.

From this brief summary it will be readily concluded that this schism did not at all resemble that of the East, that it was something unique, and that it has remained so in history. It was not a schism properly so called, being in reality a deplorable misunderstanding concerning a question of fact, an historical complication which lasted forty years. In the West there was no revolt against papal authority in general, no scorn of the sovereign power of which St. Peter was the representative. Faith in the necessary unity never wavered a particle; no one wished voluntarily to separate from the head of the Church. Now this intention alone is the characteristic mark of the schismatic spirit (Summa, II-II, Q. xxxix, a. 1). On the contrary everyone desired that unity, materially overshadowed and temporarily compromised, should speedily shine forth with new splendour. The theologians, canonists, princes, and faithful of the fourteenth century felt so intensely and maintained so vigorously that this character of unity was essential to the true Church of Jesus Christ, that at Constance solicitude for unity took precedence of that for reform. The benefit of unity had never been adequately appreciated till it had been lost, till the Church had become bicephalous of tricephalous, and there seemed to be no head precisely because there were too many.
There was simply ignorance, and among the greater number invincible ignorance regarding the person of the true pope, regarding him who was at that time the visible depositary of the promises of the invisible Head.**
newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm
Nihil Obstat. February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.