Sola Scriptura...

[Novocastrian]

Yes indeed. Is this letter authenticated? I just checked en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just (not the ideal source but available instantly which can be verified when time permits) and I read that “In a third century letter pseudographically ascribed[3] to the second century Clement of Rome, James was called as the “bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the Holy Assembly of Hebrews, and all assemblies everywhere.””. As far as I know, Clement left only one genuine writing, a letter to the Church of Corinth. Unless you can proof otherwise, you are quoting false writings. I hope we have not degenerated to that level.

It is also not common for non-Catholics to quote James as he is not helpful to Protestant doctrines (epistle of straw, remember?) Hence, this is a head-scratcher. or are we clutching at straws?

It has already been pointed out that this is pseudo-Clement.

 

[aidanbradypop]

You’re quoting Pseudo-Clement, which is probably 3rd century.

Gotcha

 

[ericc]

It has already been pointed out that this is pseudo-Clement.

Not sure why, Dustin’s post was the last post I saw before I started to respond and I didn’t see any of the other later posts. I know I am not a fast typist, but I don’t think I am that slow either.

I was hoping Dustin have a scoop on latest materials. You never know what juicy titbits may come up that you are not aware of.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Not sure why, Dustin’s post was the last post I saw before I started to respond and I didn’t see any of the other later posts. I know I am not a fast typist, but I don’t think I am that slow either.

I was hoping Dustin have a scoop on latest materials. You never know what juicy titbits may come up that you are not aware of.

It was a sloppy mistake. I am fallible and it shows sometimes.

It is also not common for non-Catholics to quote James as he is not helpful to Protestant doctrines (epistle of straw, remember?) Hence, this is a head-scratcher. or are we clutching at straws?

This part does not make sense to me. How is James not helpful to a non Catholic?

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11610786]Hi Spina,

Excellent post. I agree completely.

We hear so often about the way that the canon was decided. Lately I have been hearing a lot about how Lutherans give great credence to the early Church, and thus have divided the NT into two different groups, which are used in different ways. The claim is that those books which were questioned by the early Church were put into this secondary category. However, this is not the only criteria the Church used because if it had, we would have FAR less than our 27 books.

Completely incorrect. Simply because we recognize the differences in how the books were historically considered doesn’t mean we don’t fully accept them.

When Luther was criticizing the canon, he was claiming to appeal to the early Church, but was using a much different criteria than what the Church used when it, for all intents and purposes, set the canon.

I would agree that at Trent the Catholic Church seemed to have a different criteria.

Jon

 

[ericc]

This part does not make sense to me. How is James not helpful to a non Catholic?

Among some Protestants they didn’t like his “Faith without works is Dead” verse and sometimes they don’t like James 5:16 too as it support Catholic sacrament of Confession. Protestants apparently don’t like to confess their sins to one another, only to God, although God told them to. They don’t like Catholics to pray for one another too, especially the ones living in heaven. I can never figure out why not as those in heaven are proven to be righteous and the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. Seems like a great resource not utilized and miss the chance to network with the rich and famous (in spirit). Isn’t it nice when you turn up there and you have tons of friends waiting for you there? Pity.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Novocastrian View Post
It would be deeply anachronistic of me to suppose that the first century Christians were Congregationalist protestants, with fully independent local churches, and no authoritative hierarchy throughout the world. It is equally anachronistic for you to say that 1 Clement is evidence of a Papacy as anyone would now recognise it. Clement is not clearly the sole Roman episkopos/presbuteros; he is not making any claim to infallibility; and the letter does not demonstrate anything like the kind of immediate jurisdiction that you claim for the Roman See since the time of the Apostles.

And no is stating Clement is making a declaration for infallibility. Universal jurisdiction is one thing and infallibility is another. You are getting your wires mixed up and the results usually are bad.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Ericc,
First, thank you for using the word “some” as a qualifier. For lurkers out there who might think “all” protestants…

=ericc;11617548]Among some Protestants they didn’t like his “Faith without works is Dead” verse

There may be some, but I think more often it is James 2:21 *Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? *, and 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone., as they are seen in conflict with the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone. I don’t see either of them that way because James is speaking to Christians, and is intent on providing a guide on how to live in response to Grace

and sometimes they don’t like James 5:16 too as it support Catholic sacrament of Confession. Protestants apparently don’t like to confess their sins to one another, only to God, although God told them to.

I think many of those you speak of understand confessing to one another as meaning to the ones you have sinned against, or to the whole congregation. They simply don’t believe in confession to a priest, missing the point of binding and loosing. Not all protestants take that stand, including Lutherans who practice corporate and private confession to a pastor/confessor

They don’t like Catholics to pray for one another too, especially the ones living in heaven. I can never figure out why not as those in heaven are proven to be righteous and the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.

It isn’t that they don’t believe in praying for each other. It is just that they don’t believe those who have died can hear our prayers. Lutherans make no comment on that, except to say that scripture gives no command, example, or promise regarding invocation of the saints. We do believe they pray for us, however.

Seems like a great resource not utilized and miss the chance to network with the rich and famous (in spirit). Isn’t it nice when you turn up there and you have tons of friends waiting for you there? Pity.

I think you make a good point here, as it seems many Catholics receive great peace from the practice.

Jon

 

[Novocastrian]

And no is stating Clement is making a declaration for infallibility. Universal jurisdiction is one thing and infallibility is another. You are getting your wires mixed up and the results usually are bad.

I know the difference, and the sentence I wrote doesn’t confuse them. It simply states that Clement does not seem to be acting as a Pope; at least not as the 21st century Roman Church would understand the “developed” sense of that office.

 

[ericc]

It is just that they don’t believe those who have died can hear our prayers.

Jon

Hi Jon, this has always being a mystery to me. Is there a basis for this thinking? Don’t you believe those who have died on earth and now living in heaven can hear us? In the Apostles’ Creed, we profess the communion of saints. If we are not communicating, how is this communion of saints effected?

Examples.

In the transfiguration, Jesus was seen talking to Elijah and Moses. Moses died, Elijah probably didn’t. Definitely, the saints are alive and can speak and hear. Surely they can hear us and pray for us. We can’t be in communion with dead/non-speaking/non-hearing saints.

In the Rich Man and Lazarus, you see a conversation between the rich man and Abraham. If both were dead and incapable of communicating with each other, then Jesus would be teaching a false knowledge.

In the OT, even the medium of Endor managed to bring Samuel who has fallen asleep to talk to Saul.

If one were to say they couldn’t hear you because, well, heaven is so far away, then by this reasoning, all prayers must be within earshot to be effective which you know is nonsense because prayers can be silently prayed and it doesn’t leave out the mute and the deaf in the cold.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon, this has always being a mystery to me. Is there a basis for this thinking? Don’t you believe those who have died on earth and now living in heaven can hear us? In the Apostles’ Creed, we profess the communion of saints. If we are not communicating, how is this communion of saints effected?

Examples.

In the transfiguration, Jesus was seen talking to Elijah and Moses. Moses died, Elijah probably didn’t. Definitely, the saints are alive and can speak and hear. Surely they can hear us and pray for us. We can’t be in communion with dead/non-speaking/non-hearing saints.

In the Rich Man and Lazarus, you see a conversation between the rich man and Abraham. If both were dead and incapable of communicating with each other, then Jesus would be teaching a false knowledge.

In the OT, even the medium of Endor managed to bring Samuel who has fallen asleep to talk to Saul.

If one were to say they couldn’t hear you because, well, heaven is so far away, then by this reasoning, all prayers must be within earshot to be effective which you know is nonsense because prayers can be silently prayed and it doesn’t leave out the mute and the deaf in the cold.

Hi Ericc,
You forgot to mention Luke 15:7 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

There seems evidence that they at least are aware of events on Earth.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

No, it shows authority exercised by the Roman Church, in Corinth. It does not show the authority of a Roman bishop, because the evidence suggesting Clement as a bishop is deeply problematic. And it does not show authority exercised outside Corinth, because of its very nature as a letter. Stop torturing the available evidence to make it say more than it is capable of saying!

Hi Novo,

Unless there if photographic evidence, then please feel free to doubt absolutely everything that might point to a greater authority being exercised by the Bishop of Rome in regards to the churches in other areas.

That being said, it seems to me that your comment that ‘the evidence suggesting Clement as a bishop is deeply problematic’, is revealing as a willingness to ignore the actual facts.

But in an effort to allow you to make your point, I have to ask - have you ever seen a list of the Bishops of Rome which do NOT include Clement in the first century?

Neither have I.

So, with respect to who is ‘torturing the evidence’ (as you put it) I let the evidence speak for itself.

God Bless You Novo, Topper

 

[Traverse]

Discussing whether or not Clement was actually a bishop or not seems irrelevant. The letter he wrote to the Corinthians doesn’t even imply universal jurisdiction anyway. It is clear from the intro that he’s writing to them based on an inquiry from the Corinthians themselves and not because he has an authority to judge them.

“…we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us…”

Is it worth noting that the Corinthians consulted the church in Rome about anything when they could have contacted any number of other individuals? Sure. But it’s certainly not evidence for the papacy in and of itself, neverminding the fact that Clement doesn’t even write as if from him alone but from the whole church at Rome.

 

[spina1953]

Discussing whether or not Clement was actually a bishop or not seems irrelevant. The letter he wrote to the Corinthians doesn’t even imply universal jurisdiction anyway. It is clear from the intro that he’s writing to them based on an inquiry from the Corinthians themselves and not because he has an authority to judge them.

“…we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us…”

Is it worth noting that the Corinthians consulted the church in Rome about anything when they could have contacted any number of other individuals? Sure. But it’s certainly not evidence for the papacy in and of itself, neverminding the fact that Clement doesn’t even write as if from him alone but from the whole church at Rome.

Could it be that in those days it was just understood that the Bishop of Rome had universal jurisdiction and authority? without having say written down?

 

[Novocastrian]

Could it be that in those days it was just understood that the Bishop of Rome had universal jurisdiction and authority? without having say written down?

Of course that’s logically possible. But surely you can see why historians would have a problem with that kind of assumption? We *can *assume anything in absence of evidence to the contrary; that doesn’t mean that we actually have any justificatory reason for doing so!

 

[Novocastrian]

Hi Novo,

Unless there if photographic evidence, then please feel free to doubt absolutely everything that might point to a greater authority being exercised by the Bishop of Rome in regards to the churches in other areas.

That being said, it seems to me that your comment that ‘the evidence suggesting Clement as a bishop is deeply problematic’, is revealing as a willingness to ignore the actual facts.

But in an effort to allow you to make your point, I have to ask - have you ever seen a list of the Bishops of Rome which do NOT include Clement in the first century?

Neither have I.

So, with respect to who is ‘torturing the evidence’ (as you put it) I let the evidence speak for itself.

God Bless You Novo, Topper

Have you seen one from the first or second century?

Ultimately this is a question of historiography and historic epistemology. How can one make reasonable and responsible claims about the first and second centuries without outstripping the available evidence? It seems hard to argue for a monarchical episcopate at Rome without willingly moving above and beyond the near-contemporary sources. For obvious reasons, responsible historians don’t want to do this.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

It is clear from the intro that he’s writing to them based on an inquiry from the Corinthians themselves and not because he has an authority to judge them.

Why would that be evidence AGAINST St. Clement’s authority to judge them?

“Oh, they appealed a ruling to the Supreme Court, so that means that the SCOTUS didn’t have authority.”

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Have you seen one from the first or second century?

Sure.

From Chronological Lists of Popes
St. Irenaeus, writing between 175 and 190, not many years after his Roman sojourn, enumerates the series from Peter to Eleutherius (Against Heresies III.3.3; Eusebius, Church History V.6).

Ultimately this is a question of historiography and historic epistemology. How can one make reasonable and responsible claims about the first and second centuries without outstripping the available evidence? It seems hard to argue for a monarchical episcopate at Rome without willingly moving above and beyond the near-contemporary sources. For obvious reasons, responsible historians don’t want to do this.

OK, your objection was addressed.

Waiting for the movers to work on those goal posts …

 

[Novocastrian]

Sure.

From Chronological Lists of Popes
St. Irenaeus, writing between 175 and 190, not many years after his Roman sojourn, enumerates the series from Peter to Eleutherius (Against Heresies III.3.3; Eusebius, Church History V.6).

OK, your objection was addressed.

Waiting for the movers to work on those goal posts …

Yes, you’re quite right, I forgot about Irenaeus’s testimony. It’s clear that there was a second-century tradition of Clement being an επισκοπος in the second century.

On the other hand, as I have made clear already, I don’t think we can simply assume that this means that there was always a monarchical episcopate in Rome, or one in Clement’s time, when the contemporary texts suggest otherwise.

 

[Nicea325]

I know the difference, and the sentence I wrote doesn’t confuse them.** It simply states that Clement does not seem to be acting as a Pope**; at least not as the 21st century Roman Church would understand the “developed” sense of that office.

Where does it explicity state he is NOT acting as a pope? For someone who is not “acting” like a pope he sure conveys quite the opposite what you are suggesting.