N
Nicea325
Guest
But it sure supports the RCC position a lot more than the opposition. If Clement was not the “head” bishop as so many claim, I find it extremely odd not one clergy member rebukes his strong message.
- Status
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
Nailed it!
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Who would argue such a thing? On what sane historical model would one suggest that a person might argue against a concept which mightn’t exist at that point in time?
N
Novocastrian
Guest
I haven’t moved the goalposts at all. My original point was that it is anachronistic to suggest that there was a monarchical episcopate in first century Rome. My secondary point regarding second century episcopal lists was wrong, and I immediately conceded as such. I think I’m being pretty much intellectually honest and responsible here…
N
Novocastrian
Guest
We don’t even know he was a bishop as such, let alone the head bishop…
For the record, I certainly think that we should see Clement as *a *bishop, we just don’t have evidence suggesting that Rome had only one bishop in the first century.
Why should that be odd?
First, it seems clear that Clement was quite simply right. Being right grants authority, even if one is not Pope…
Second, we have virtually no documentary evidence beside Clement’s own letter. Surely you can see why your statement is historically problematic?
G
GaryM
Guest
Love this citation:thumbsup:, but believe this comes from 1 Tim 3:15
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Traverse,
Thanks for your response.
Footnote 21 on page 125 of Stephen Ray’s “Upon This Rock”:
“I Clement 1, ANF 1:5. Some go to great lengths to point out that Clement does not call himself Pope in this epistle, implying that he did not assume any special authority as the bishop of Rome. Or that, since he speaks not in his own name but in the ‘plural’ name of the Church of Rome, he is denying papal authority. This is a serious misconception. According to Luke Rivington, ‘The very doctrine of Papal Infallibility implies that he can never act apart from the general teaching of the Church……When, then, the Popes used the plural ‘we’ they were not only using the majestic plural, but they had gathered into their utterances with a special closeness a portion of that great whole (the Church) in whose name they were justified in speaking……The supremacy which belongs strictly to the Bishop of Rome, as the successor of St. Peter, is often attributed, not to the Bishop of Rome, but to the Church of Rome. In the later history of the Church we constantly meet with the supremacy of the bishop spoken of as though it belonged to the Church of Rome” (Primitive Church, 3,4). It should also be noted that Paul frequently used the plural ‘we’ without ever placing his individual authority in question. (e.g., 1 Cor 1:23; 4:10; 2 Cor 1:24, 8:1; Gal 1:8)”
Nobody claims that Clement’s Letter to the Church at Corinth PROVES anything about Papal Authority or Papal Infallibility. In fact, this letter is only one of dozens of similar documents, which, on the whole, make a very good case for the beginnings of a ‘thing’ that became more formal as time went on (due to necessity). On the other hand, this letter does speak directly against any kind of notion that the Bishop of Rome didn’t have some sort of ‘special relationship’ with (or possibly over) Churches which were not in Rome.
God Bless You Traverse, Topper
Thanks for your response.
Would you consider it relevant if Clement, instead of writing from Rome, writing as the Bishop of Rome, were rather some local presbyter or low level functionary at some location other than Rome? Would it be irrelevant if Clement was the Bishop of Crete or something? I would suggest that then you would find it relevent. But the fact remains that Clement WAS the Bishop of Rome, and clearly he was demonstrating authority over a far away Church. The only way for that to NOT be revelant is if evidence for papal authority is automatically dismissed whenever it is encountered.
OK, so then it comes to you to provide some reason why the Corinthians looked to Rome to settle their internal dispute? I would suggest that they did it because they recognized the Bishop of Rome as (at the very least) ‘first among equals’.
Footnote 21 on page 125 of Stephen Ray’s “Upon This Rock”:
“I Clement 1, ANF 1:5. Some go to great lengths to point out that Clement does not call himself Pope in this epistle, implying that he did not assume any special authority as the bishop of Rome. Or that, since he speaks not in his own name but in the ‘plural’ name of the Church of Rome, he is denying papal authority. This is a serious misconception. According to Luke Rivington, ‘The very doctrine of Papal Infallibility implies that he can never act apart from the general teaching of the Church……When, then, the Popes used the plural ‘we’ they were not only using the majestic plural, but they had gathered into their utterances with a special closeness a portion of that great whole (the Church) in whose name they were justified in speaking……The supremacy which belongs strictly to the Bishop of Rome, as the successor of St. Peter, is often attributed, not to the Bishop of Rome, but to the Church of Rome. In the later history of the Church we constantly meet with the supremacy of the bishop spoken of as though it belonged to the Church of Rome” (Primitive Church, 3,4). It should also be noted that Paul frequently used the plural ‘we’ without ever placing his individual authority in question. (e.g., 1 Cor 1:23; 4:10; 2 Cor 1:24, 8:1; Gal 1:8)”
Nobody claims that Clement’s Letter to the Church at Corinth PROVES anything about Papal Authority or Papal Infallibility. In fact, this letter is only one of dozens of similar documents, which, on the whole, make a very good case for the beginnings of a ‘thing’ that became more formal as time went on (due to necessity). On the other hand, this letter does speak directly against any kind of notion that the Bishop of Rome didn’t have some sort of ‘special relationship’ with (or possibly over) Churches which were not in Rome.
God Bless You Traverse, Topper
N
Nicea325
Guest
Again,where does Clement explicitly state he is not acting like a pope? Show me where in his letter it is clear as crystal?
N
Nicea325
Guest
Novocastrian:
But Clement sure speaks as one and his words sure seem suggest they must be obeyed. No hint it is only an option.
And no historian would argue the fact we simply do not have a lot of writings from the first century. However, let us not forget what external force was fiercely against Christians? Does not rule out a lot of information may have been lost or destroyed. Nonetheless, the letter sure does sure a lot about the Bishop of Rome,little or not.
Because if universal jurisdiction was a late belief or innovation or simply against what the early church believed,someone would more than likely speak his mind. Do not others say something about Gnostics in the first century? St. Paul sure did. More important, we see many more similar situations after the first century, where bishops of other Sees seek the Bishop of Rome to settle grave issues. Again, if it was NOT the custom or tradition to pay a visit at Rome to settle grace matters,then where is the other tradition of bishops? Why not settle any issue,small or large, at one’s own See? Why go to Rome at all?
First it is not a right,but a calling to be a priest/Bishop given by Christ to His Apostles and so forth.
On the contrary, historically it is more problematic for the opposition because I have yet to read anything saying otherwise.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
The pagan Roman empire recognized the universal authority office of all the bishops of Rome held in High esteem by all Catholic Church’s. Pagan Rome’s famous military motto was to cut off the head of pagan Rome’s enemies can be by historical account that pagan Rome martyred the first 34 popes including Peter himself. To include the early Jewish accounts that later influenced the 21st. century Jewish religious community to officially and publicly declare that Jesus of Nazareth founded the Catholic Church upon Peter and the bishops of Rome. Secular history accounts have all the historical bishops of Rome as the leader of the Christians beginning with Peter to today.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Jon,
I noticed a recent conversation in which you responded to comments that pablope made:
The early Church employed Ecumenical Councils to settle disputes. However, Councils only work when the people who are attending are willing to follow the decisions of those Councils. In other words, when you attend a Council, vote, and then the vote does not go your way, you don’t take your ball, go home and start your own denomination. Only an Ecumenical Council can unite Christianity and I would suggest that one be called.
In order for an Ecumenical Council to be successful, there are a couple of fundamental presumptions that would have to be agreed upon universally. The most obvious presumption is that Christ intended us to be united doctrinally and communally. Next, we would have to have enough faith in Christ to believe that He was perfect enough to design a system for His Church that would allow for unity (with the knowledge of course that there will always be heretics who will break away no matter what). Next, we would have to have enough faith in Christ to believe that this system that He designed, would be well enough designed that we would be able to recognize it as being obviously superior to that of all of the false and heretical ‘systems’. In addition, we would have to presume that – when that Council prayed to the Holy Spirit that the Spirit guide them, they would receive that guidance such that the Council would be precluded from teaching error (on issues of faith and morals, lets say).
Making this Ecumenical Council successful would require a demonstration of humility throughout all of Christianity that would be truly astonishing. Each of the delegates (or delegations) would have to agree to abide by the decisions of the Council, even if it meant going against their long held beliefs and traditions. These delegates would also be presumed to have the authority and credibility to take the decisions of the Council back to their home denominations and local churches and – sell it to their congregations such that everybody “falls into line” doctrinally.
The next practical consideration is - who would attend the Council. This is where it gets really sticky. Should each and every Christian attend and vote? That sounds silly but, it certainly would be the most ‘democratic’. So, there would have to be a way to pick a manageable number of delegates. Let’s talk about a number of 100. Now – how do we determine the makeup of those hundred? Should the RCC have a seat, along with each of the (17) EO communions, and then have the other 82 be assigned to the various Protestant denominations? That doesn’t seem fair. So, how about breaking it up in terms of the percentages of Christendom as a whole? If we did, that would result in approximately the following number:
RCC – 51
EOC – 20
Protestantism - 29
Now, if we apportion out the 29 Protestant seats, it would appear that the Lutherans would be assigned only 3 seats. Of course there are more competing Lutheran denominations than that, so that means that the Lutherans are going to have to have a Pre-Ecumenical Council in which the Lutheran churches get their act together doctrinally and send their delegates to the Council with a common position. Obviously the other 26 non-Lutheran seats will have to be chosen at various other Pre-Council meetings. But at least, as long as everyone arrived at the meeting with the commitment to follow the decisions of the Council, Christianity WOULD be united at its conclusion.
So Jon, I agree with your comment that if all Christian leaders spoke with the same voice, that would be optimal. I also think that my plan is the ONLY way that it is going to happen and would be interested in your thoughts. Please tell me if you think my plan will work. If not then why not?
God Bless You Jon, Topper
I noticed a recent conversation in which you responded to comments that pablope made:
I think the word ‘optimal’ is key here. In fact, I will go you one better – what would be optimal would be for everyone to be in ONE communion, the way that Christ intended. But then man’s fallen nature makes that less than possible. Also, Luther’s Sola Scriptura and the “right” of the individual to correctly interpret made it that kind of Christian communion absolutely impossible. So, when you say ‘optimal’ I see that as being unrealistic because it simply cannot happen. Actually – it could, but only if some rather radical steps are taken. I am suggesting that those steps be taken, as follows:
The early Church employed Ecumenical Councils to settle disputes. However, Councils only work when the people who are attending are willing to follow the decisions of those Councils. In other words, when you attend a Council, vote, and then the vote does not go your way, you don’t take your ball, go home and start your own denomination. Only an Ecumenical Council can unite Christianity and I would suggest that one be called.
In order for an Ecumenical Council to be successful, there are a couple of fundamental presumptions that would have to be agreed upon universally. The most obvious presumption is that Christ intended us to be united doctrinally and communally. Next, we would have to have enough faith in Christ to believe that He was perfect enough to design a system for His Church that would allow for unity (with the knowledge of course that there will always be heretics who will break away no matter what). Next, we would have to have enough faith in Christ to believe that this system that He designed, would be well enough designed that we would be able to recognize it as being obviously superior to that of all of the false and heretical ‘systems’. In addition, we would have to presume that – when that Council prayed to the Holy Spirit that the Spirit guide them, they would receive that guidance such that the Council would be precluded from teaching error (on issues of faith and morals, lets say).
Making this Ecumenical Council successful would require a demonstration of humility throughout all of Christianity that would be truly astonishing. Each of the delegates (or delegations) would have to agree to abide by the decisions of the Council, even if it meant going against their long held beliefs and traditions. These delegates would also be presumed to have the authority and credibility to take the decisions of the Council back to their home denominations and local churches and – sell it to their congregations such that everybody “falls into line” doctrinally.
The next practical consideration is - who would attend the Council. This is where it gets really sticky. Should each and every Christian attend and vote? That sounds silly but, it certainly would be the most ‘democratic’. So, there would have to be a way to pick a manageable number of delegates. Let’s talk about a number of 100. Now – how do we determine the makeup of those hundred? Should the RCC have a seat, along with each of the (17) EO communions, and then have the other 82 be assigned to the various Protestant denominations? That doesn’t seem fair. So, how about breaking it up in terms of the percentages of Christendom as a whole? If we did, that would result in approximately the following number:
RCC – 51
EOC – 20
Protestantism - 29
Now, if we apportion out the 29 Protestant seats, it would appear that the Lutherans would be assigned only 3 seats. Of course there are more competing Lutheran denominations than that, so that means that the Lutherans are going to have to have a Pre-Ecumenical Council in which the Lutheran churches get their act together doctrinally and send their delegates to the Council with a common position. Obviously the other 26 non-Lutheran seats will have to be chosen at various other Pre-Council meetings. But at least, as long as everyone arrived at the meeting with the commitment to follow the decisions of the Council, Christianity WOULD be united at its conclusion.
So Jon, I agree with your comment that if all Christian leaders spoke with the same voice, that would be optimal. I also think that my plan is the ONLY way that it is going to happen and would be interested in your thoughts. Please tell me if you think my plan will work. If not then why not?
God Bless You Jon, Topper
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Hi Topper like your posts. Just a thought. An Ecumenical Church council always included the same body of believers that included the Secular ruling Emperor’s participation at council which made it Ecumenical. If the Catholic made such a gathering today of differing Christians I’m not sure it would fall under the category of Ecumenical but may be labeled by another title with ecumenical efforts attached. Unless the Church redefines what an Ecumenical Church council is? Which I doubt because some of our Orthodox catholics are still ruled over by their secular Emperors or secular governments over their bishops or patriarchs thus with these orthodox catholics an Ecumenical Church council is always possible. I’m just commenting what makes up an ecumical church council.
I don’t know about impossible, since nothing is impossible for God. Of course, for a Lutheran, there is no “right” of individual interpretation when it comes to doctrine, but all that said, the divisions in the Church prior to the Reformation are at least twice as long in duration, so we all have that sin to confess. All that said…
Certainly I would agree that an ecumenical council is, and should be considered authoritative.
Agreed.
As an American, I don’t believe in democracy, so this isn’t an issue for me.
Understand, of course, that some protestant groups would not attend under any circumstances, that would complicate things.
Let me see here, the CC has 51% of the vote - convenient?
This isn’t a new idea, Tim, and I’d be all for it. In fact, veteran members here at CAF will tell you that, for this Lutheran, even if the EO and CC agreed and came into unity, that would be enough for me. I also think it would put pressure on other particularly liturgical, sacramental communions to reconsider the necessity of staying outside of such a dramatic union.
Jon
S
spina1953
Guest
Yes, I do think that it is possible that it was understood in the first century as well as the second and third centuries that the Bishop of Rome was looked on as the head of all the Christian communities. yes I do see why historians have problems with the assumption as they have to have proof and also evidence one way or the other. However, that being said, Historians use their own interpretations of the facts or lack thereof in deciding how they want to view it. Historians often like to omit that which they do not agree with or does not fit their own particular thinking of it. As one poster who is a historian said that all historians are biased in one form or another to what they want to convey. In the end those who read history interpret as per their understanding of what was said or written and one can either believe or not as the case maybe.
S
steido01
Guest
Such a union would require the issue of papal supremacy to be solved, the understanding and language used to describe the Real Presence to come to convergence, and the definition and usage of the Sacraments as well. It would unquestionably be a great miracle of the Holy Spirit. I’m not sure I could ignore such a hypothetical either, should it ever happen.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Would you say that they are capable of error?
Are humans involved?
Of course they would be capable of error. But of all the possibilities of preventing error in the teaching of the Church, the model of the councils of the early Church is the best. Under grace, I could abide by that.Jon
It would be an undeniable and resistible movement of the Holy Spirit within the Church.
Jon
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Maybe. I’m not sure!Are humans involved?
Jon
- Status