Papal Primacy Question

[diggerdomer]

I think that the force of the argument that the Epistle of Clement is evidence of papal primacy is precisely that he was a bishop, not an apostle. It goes without saying that apostles had authority that transcended the boundaries of “diocesan” churches (to use an anachronism)–everybody in the early Church was bound by the authority of the apostles. But for a “diocesan” bishop to exercise such authority, that is noteworthy.

I don’t think the examples of St. James or the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews have much impact here since there is no evidence that they were writing to anyone other than their own flocks. And both epistles are essentially hortatory.

And the epistles of St. Ignatius actually provide support for the argument on papal primacy, as has been pointed out already. Again they are by and large letters of exhortation, not letters of command like the Epistle of St. Clement. And the tone adopted by St. Ignatius with respect to the Church of Rome is very different, much more deferential and designating that latter church as that which “presides over [the] love”. As our Holy Father has said:

And precisely in the service of unity to the Catholic Church, the Christian community of Rome exercised a sort of primacy of love: “The Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness… and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father…” (Romans, Prologue). GENERAL AUDIENCE, 14 March 2007]

I don’t think a huge amount of weight can be put on the Epistle of St. Clement taken by itself. But as has been said here already, it is definitely one valid piece in a full-orbed apologetic.

Nothing in the letter (epistle) identifies Clement as a bishop.

 

[DavidPalm]

Nothing in the letter (epistle) identifies Clement as a bishop.

True, but external evidence does. Not sure what you’re driving at here.

Generally the argument runs that the church at Corinth appealed to the bishop of Rome to adjudicate a matter, potentially indicating that they saw in that See a higher authority. Taken by itself it is not a definitive argument, but as a piece of the whole picture I think it’s a valid argument.

 

[Apologist78]

This question has been bothering me for a while so I thought I’d ask it here. I’ve seen people use Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians to show that the Bishop of Rome had authority over the Corinthian church. This makes sense but also raises a problem since Paul, John, James and the author of Hebrews did the same thing. Ignatius of Antioch also wrote to other churches. You could even argue that Rev 2-3 should have come from the Bishop of Rome rather than John. I understand that all these men - with the possible exception of the author of Hebrews - were also bishops but they had the option to exercise authority over churches other than theirs. Thoughts?

Yes, I have some thoughts.

Your point is exactely why we have to be careful when we read the Early Church Fathers. The problem is that both Catholics and Protestants read them anacranistically.

The early Church was definately Catholic, but that does not imply that the early Church thought in the same catagories the modern Church does. In other words- the modern Catholic mind reads back into the Letter of Clement a modern notion of primacy- namely a primacy of juristiction. This is a legalistic understanding of primacy which was alien to the early Church. In the early Church collegiality and communio (communion) was the operative model. The bishops worked together, they functioned as one. This is not to say Rome had no primacy, it is to say Rome had a primacy of communion. This is to say the pope was seen as the center or hub of communion.

A modern day analogy might be helpful here to illustrate what I am trying to say. In the 1920’s if you were to ask an American the question “Who is the most powerful person in the word?” They would not have answered “The President of the USA.” They would have answered “Rockefeller” or the like. Does this mean the president is a modern invention, something that has no basis in the founding of our country? No, what it means is that the people in the 1920’s thought in different catagories then we do today. The office of the president is historical, and was part of the founding of our country, but the manner in which the office has been exercised has changed throughout history to suit the times and crisis’s our country has faced, not to mention the catagories in which people saw the office. The papacy is no different.

The way the primacy of the pope is exercised is going to depend on the circumstances surrounding the problems and issues the Church is facing. Central to the notion of primacy is a primacy of communio, not necessarily a legalistic juristiction. Certainly juristiction is part of it, but we cannot reduce the primacy simply to one of juristiction, as it seems many Catholic apologists want to do when they read something like a Clement.

So indeed- if you go back and ask John the apostle whether the bishop in Rome is in chanrge and everyone answers to him- such would have been a meaningless question becasue he would not have thought in such catagories. This does not mean there was no pope, or no primacy- it simply means such debates or questions were not yet on the consciousness of the people alive.

 

[diggerdomer]

True, but external evidence does. Not sure what you’re driving at here.

Generally the argument runs that the church at Corinth appealed to the bishop of Rome to adjudicate a matter, potentially indicating that they saw in that See a higher authority. Taken by itself it is not a definitive argument, but as a piece of the whole picture I think it’s a valid argument.

What external evidence?

What source do you have that says the church at Corinth appealed to the “bishop” of Rome?

 

[clmowry]

First, let me say that I am Catholic. I have been doing some reading in the early Church Fathers lately and, pondering the letters of Ignatius of Antioch made me think of this. If we use Clement of Rome (pope #4) demonstrating papal authority over the church at Corinth, weren’t these other men also exercising the same authority over the churches they wrote to? Am I not making myself clear?

I don’t think the letters provide equally clear examples of one bishop giving instruction to anothers Church.

It seems pretty clear that Clement was resolving a dispute about leadership for another church.

Where do you see something like that in Ignatius’ writings?

Chuck