Papal Primacy Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter garysibio
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

garysibio

Guest
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?
 
garysibio said:
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?
Click to expand...
My thoughts are this:
The Pope is the bishop of Rome. He is the first among equals.

I hope that this simple answer is suffice.

-Prophecy
 
garysibio said:
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?
Click to expand...
as apostles maybe they had more authority than your regular run-of-the-mill bishop
 
Prophesy said:
My thoughts are this:
The Pope is the bishop of Rome. He is the first among equals.

I hope that this simple answer is suffice.

-Prophecy
Click to expand...
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?
 
VetA said:
as apostles maybe they had more authority than your regular run-of-the-mill bishop
Click to expand...
The James who wrote the Letter of James was not the apostle James who was martyred (Acts 12:2). He was the James identified as the “brother” (close relative) of Jesus. We have no idea who the author of the Letter to the Hebrews was so we certainly don’t know that he was an apostle. Neither Ignatius of Antioch nor Clement of Rome were apostles.
 
I don’t know the others, but I think Paul wrote letters to the churches he founded.

Which communities did James and John wrote to that were not their own besides the universal Church?
 
Pilgrim2001 said:
I don’t know the others, but I think Paul wrote letters to the churches he founded.

Which communities did James and John wrote to that were not their own besides the universal Church?
Click to expand...
He did found many of the churches but I’m not sure if that is relevant. Paul did not found the church at Rome and had not even visited it when he wrote Romans.
 
The tone of Ignatius’ letters is exhortive except for his letter to Rome.

The Corinthians specifically sought out Clement’s council as you can deduce from the opening lines from his letter. This despite the Apostle John very likely still alive in much-closer Ephesus at the time.

Later writings of the 2nd century Corinthian bishop Dionysius stated how Clement’s letter was so highly regarded that they read it during Sunday worship—which if you did not know, was one of the considerations the early Church gave in determining books of Scripture.

Also, Papal primacy does not rest on Clement’s letter in a vacuum. By itself, it may not look like a “proof” of primacy, but it does when you study it in the context of history, the primacy of Peter’s role before that letter, and the primacy of the Roman bishop after that. Looking at the early Church as a whole, there is a fluidity in recognizing the special authority of Clement’s letter.
 
I have a papal primacy question too! Why did Constantine convene the council of Nicaea and not Pope Sylvester I??? I thought that popes were the only ones with the power to convoke important ecumenical councils.
 
i am not clear on what your actual question is. it does not take the fathers to show the primacy of peter, it takes only the scriptures. the fathers writings certainly uphold and confirm what scripture shows us. if you read the tracts on this topic in the catholic answers library tab, you will have much more information on the topic in a nutshell. It will give you the scriptures and the fathers writings and clarify whatever question you have.
 
romesweethome said:
i am not clear on what your actual question is. it does not take the fathers to show the primacy of peter, it takes only the scriptures. the fathers writings certainly uphold and confirm what scripture shows us. if you read the tracts on this topic in the catholic answers library tab, you will have much more information on the topic in a nutshell. It will give you the scriptures and the fathers writings and clarify whatever question you have.
Click to expand...
I’m not looking to either prove of disprove the doctrine. I’m taking a look at the validity of the argument that Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians shows that the Bishop of Rome had authority over them.
 
garysibio said:
I’m not looking to either prove of disprove the doctrine. I’m taking a look at the validity of the argument that Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians shows that the Bishop of Rome had authority over them.
Click to expand...
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.
 
DavidPalm said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your interesting comments. As far as James and the author of Hebrews, they wrote to the Jews of the Diaspora and not a specific church.
 
MarcoPolo said:
Not necessarily. This article from Catholic Answers addresses your question specifically. :o

Papal Authority at the Earliest Councils
Click to expand...
MarcoPolo thanks for that article, and sorry for butting in on the thread. i just wanted some facts to tell anti-catholics who cant seem to get it out of their heads that Constantine started the Catholic church, when will they accept that is was Jesus who did!!!??? ¡¡¡VIVA CRISTO REY!!!
 
elcristero said:
MarcoPolo thanks for that article, and sorry for butting in on the thread. i just wanted some facts to tell anti-catholics who cant seem to get it out of their heads that Constantine started the Catholic church, when will they accept that is was Jesus who did!!!??? ¡¡¡VIVA CRISTO REY!!!
Click to expand...
Often when you want to get apologetics info, search the words “Catholic apologetics” along with the issue in question, like “Constantine” or “started by Constantine.”

Here’s a sample search. :o
 
garysibio said:
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?
Click to expand...
Eastern Orthodox use this as an example of what “papal primacy” meant back then, and how it is supposed to be today. Clement was not exercising authority in the sense of being a ruler over churches outside his bishopric. He did not have ruling authority. He had persuasive authority. He was an honored and respected bishop. His opinions and exhortations were valued.

The only way to take it farther than that is with a preconceived bias.
 
garysibio said:
I’m not looking to either prove of disprove the doctrine. I’m taking a look at the validity of the argument that Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians shows that the Bishop of Rome had authority over them.
Click to expand...
There is no objective evidence that the letter of Clement to the Corinthians shows that the Bishop of Rome had authority over them.

The question you ask is a good one, but one that’s open to opinion and speculation. There is no definitive answer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top