Stop right there. Christ did NOT start their churches.
Personal interpretation of scripture makes everyone a pope in Protestantism.
Nice try.
Constantine was a pagan. He converted to Christianity while he was emperor of Rome and the Roman empire… He made the Catholic Church legal in the empire ergo stopped the persecution of the Church as an enemy of the State.
Where do you want to start
Doctrine is a set of accepted beliefs (Catholics base doctrine upon the Pope, Orthodox upon the witness of the Church, Protestants upon the Bible. Paul did not specify.)
Jesus did not say Peter would rule over the others, in fact Jesus turned to the others and told them the same thing as He told Peter, only He did not say the “keys to the kingdom of heaven”. However, I believe this post has already concluded that the early Church Fathers believed the keys belonged to all Bishops, and that it was interchangeable with the ability to bind and loose.
I hadn’t known that, thank you for telling me, I will look into it!
I’ve read the first Epistle of Clement, and I did not get that impression. I thought Clement was telling the lay people that they should respect the Bishops that have been rightfully put over them, and not revolt against “their own” Bishops so quickly. I never got the impression that Clement was telling other Bishops who was right and who was wrong, and telling them what to do.
Your personal opinion. A Protestant would tell you, “Stop right there, Christ did NOT start the Catholic church.” This can be debated and evidence can be given for both sides, but let us just leave it at this, I’d rather keep this thread on target.
No at best it makes the Bible a “paper pope” as has been said. Most Protestants would say that there is a clear and obvious truth in the Bible, and that God is the head of each believer, not the Pope, and not the Pastor, and not oneself. Of course in practice, more often than not, you are right, many Protestants set themselves up as Supreme head. But then again the same goes for Catholics who do not agree with the Pope and the RCC. Both sides would be doing something wrong.
My argument was valid, and there is on logical lapse of judgment. If you find my argument to be insufficient, then you can speak up and try to refute it. If not then just acting as if I haven’t accomplished the goal I have set forth, does not mean much.
Which is why I said it would not be fair for a Protestant to make such a claim, the same way for a Catholic to claim that Luther started the Lutheran Church.
Your opinion. We can debate this, but here is not the place, there are enough boards on here discussing that topic.
My dear brother in Christ. There are none. You don’t really understand the relationship so you keep asking the questions that don’t apply.
Let me be sure I understand this correctly, you are telling me that there is no difference? Or that the difference is negligible? Thus it makes little if any difference if I decide to become Orthodox or Catholic? I don’t know if I should be thrilled or incredibly dismayed. I truly believe that relativism is logically untenable.
See the following
Mt 18:18 perhaps? Mt 18:19 Jesus clarifies, it takes 2 or 3 to agree. He didn’t put that restriction on Peter in Mt 16:18… and Jesus only mentions the keys in Mt 16:19 with Peter only.
Jn 21:16, Mt 16:17…, Lk 22:32
This was bishop against bishop and laity against bishop. It was a sedition.
You insisted I provide scriptural references. So I did. Please quote the scripture that says Jesus gave the keys to anyone other than Peter.
All true. But let me add, Peter did not lobby, he did not usurp leadership. God the Father put him there. Why the Father you say?
Jesus gave the positive way to lead and rule, it’s you who puts a negative spin on lead and rule.
BTW, one of the titles of the pope is “servant of the servants of God”.
If it was a contingent promise where then are the “ifs”?
Some might say it was Constantinople who was pompous and served itself, some might say it was Luther, and Calvin, and Henry the VIII, etc etc who were MOST pompous and self serving.
what sheep did God exclude from Peter?
Peter had a unique charge. Peter was not just a leader, he WAS the leader.
Go back and read what I said.
So you agree the pope of Rome speaks for the entire Church?
Clement said the following
Corinth was an open seaport. If you use colony as a litmus, why not the entire empire being Roman, from England to Egypt, accross to N Africa?
As was Ephesus, Thesolonika, etc etc all closer to Corinth than Rome. I think you’re missing the obvious
What about those who Paul says came from Thesolonika to Corinth? They weren’t friends of Paul and highly respected?
Did you really mean to say it this way?
This is not true, I asked you to give either Scripture or Tradition (I see nothing else that could aid in this discussion, unless you want to bring personal revelation in). I did not insist on Scriptural references. If this was a debate about Sola Scripture or Protestantism, I may have said as much. You are a part of the Catholic Church, the RCC does not base its arguments on Scripture alone, thus you need to either discredit the Early Fathers, or explain them in such a way as supports your position. This challenge still stands.
No, I did not mean to put a negative spin on this, I meant to differentiate between words and their meanings. This was meant to be objective observation, not based on the feelings of words. Strenthen is different than absolute authority. The case shows that Peter was given some honor and position of authority, however this does not imply supremacy. Also, this could have been a blessing given only to the person of Peter and not to a succession. I believe we are going to need to turn to tradition to find the right interpretation of this passage. If Church History agrees, and the Early Fathers believe this was so, then we will have a strong case for your position.
I believe one of the titles of the Communist leader is “servant of the people” but this does not mean he is. No doubt some Popes were superb servants of God and the people of God, but others were not so much.
The idea is that Jesus said that the servant of all would be the greatest. This means that if you are not the servant of all, then guess what? You are not the greatest. You asserted that Jesus did not say that any of the Disciples would not be the greatest (assuming Peter would). But the qualification Jesus put would still stand. Peter himself might have exemplified this trait in his own life, but that does not mean that all Popes would (and they did not).
Again, Constantinople, Luther, Calvin, and Henry the VIII did not make the claim of being the single head of the Church, solely infallible, and with the continuous right to supremacy. We do not call Luther Pope, we do not call him servant of all, we do not call him ecclesiastically greatest. The comparison does not hold.
We are in agreement on this. However it is not so simple to say, “Thus the Pope has Apostolic Supremacy and Infallibility”.
My point was in illustrating the nature of the office of Bishop/Apostle. Bishop means sheperd, am I correct? Therefore all Bishops would have such a charge. You assert that Peter is the Bishop of Bishops persay. I believe we are going to need to look to tradition to answer this as well. Did the Church Fathers also believe this interpretation? (Clement is too vague in answering these, though it serves a different purpose)
No one doubts that the Bishop of Rome had a respected position in the Church, no one doubts that the BIshop of Rome would not have been instrumental in solving some disputes. The fact remains that we do not see Clement deposing Bishops and instating new ones. Rather, we see him affirming the already chosen Bishops. This would go in line with Jesus’ charge of “strenghtening”. It also seems clear that this was not an issue between Bishops, but between the true Bishops and some people who were trying to usurp authority.
I’ve been following this thread with some interest. I want to say that you’re doing a fine job giving a correct interpretation to the various quotations that SteveB is throwing your way, John214.
I will also add that the above quotation from St. Clement sits well in Orthodoxy. When the Pope teaches correct doctrine, he will be obeyed as will any bishop, and those who disobey such correct teaching will fall into serious sin, while the orthodox bishop will be free from such transgression. Like you, I’m not sure how this quotation proves the uniquely Roman Catholic understanding of the Papacy.Is Clement telling them (other bishops) to submit to his correction also by the very fact He is called to settle their sedition? Yes
learn to be subject to whom?
These are strong words by Clement
It’s precisely because of Christ’s authority and promises to Peter that the see of Rome has the special authority it does. This is NOT an either the authority of Christ or the authority of the see of Rome,… it’s both .
It seems from the context that he is telling them to submit to the established Presbyters who had the rightful succession, due to the laying on of hands. Certainly Clement had a position of power in the Early Church, certainly a position of respect. But this is too vague to assert Papal Supremacy, perhaps primacy (though this would be difficult as well), but not supremacy. It also does not seem so clear that Clement is the one called to settle their sedition, at least not solely him. He never refers to his own innate authority, but always to the authority of others. If there was even one reference to his own authority, by nature of the Apostolic See of Rome, then you would have a stronger argument (at least for primacy, possibly supremacy, but it would still be difficult).
Again, I was of the impression here that Clement was telling them to be subject to their own presbyters. I can see this emphasizing an early place of importance on the Church at Rome, but it is just too vague for Papal Supremacy, and all that it entails.
Well, he didn’t directly say “us”, he said Christ speaking through us. And again, we are not 100% sure who the “us” was. Also, Paul clearly said things of the exact same nature, and he even dared to say, “me”. Thus if this was a test for supremacy, then it would appear that Paul had Supremacy as well. And if Paul (not only Peter) had Supremacy, then it would support the notion that all major Bishops had Supremacy.
Again, we do not know if other Churches were involved. Perhaps they were and we don’t have copies, perhaps Rome was the only one. Either way it does not automatically mean, “Papal Supremacy” it could just as easily mean, “Papal primacy” or “Roman authority, based upon size, influence, and historical links”. Any of these options adequately explains the situation, and without other evidence, it only makes sense to choose the minimum.
Again, I am not willing to conceed this so quickly. Many Early Church Fathers spoke with the Authority of Christ, we do not say they all have supremacy. There must be something else.
I’d like to remind you that my point was not that they should rely upon the writings of Paul, but that Paul and Clement said very similar things. Since you have stated that based upon Clement’s words we can be certain that he has supremacy, it would only naturally follow that Paul also would have supremacy. If Paul has supremacy then the Bishop of Rome is not the only Bishop with Supremacy. You have two options, 1) Declare Paul a heretic, or 2) restate your position or change it.
John,
IOW anybody could say the same words as Clement, it doesn’t matter?.
I’m not following
As you aready know, no one is suggesting everything hinges on one letter. But considering this is written during the life of St John, by the bishop of Rome, settling sedition in a Greek matter, it’s a nice connection between lots of events in history connecting the story of the papacy.
:tiphat:
Probably, but they weren’t, nobody can force another to submit. Clement may have felt, and the Church in Corinth may have felt, that his letter would be a strong influence due to 1) his prestige in the Church, 2) his relationship with Paul, 3) the importance of Rome as a major city, 4) other reasons we are not aware of. We do not have to say, "Well the only reason they would have submitted, is if Clement were the head of the whole Church, able to depose and institute Bishops as he sees fit, wholly infallible. Indeed, my voice might have a lot of weight within my friends and family, but that doesn’t make my family have to believe I am Supreme and Infallible.
Certainly anyone can say these words, but you are attributing them to Supremacy and Infallibility. Therefore, anyone who said words like this would only naturally follow as being Supreme and Infallibile. If a person can say these words and not be Infallible and Supreme, then you do not have a case. Paul used these words, while Peter was alive. And yet we do not assume Paul was Supreme and Infallibile (or maybe we do?). Thus the argument doesn’t hold. I am sure many others in the Church were saying words nearly exactly like these. They were relying on the authority of their office of Bishop, not on Supremacy. Clement does not even mention his authority as being based in being the Bishop of Rome. We go to far in assuming that is why he had such authority, it is putting something on him, that he did not claim.
(tr. by Maurice Bevenot)
(tr. by G. W. Clarke)
It is certainly true that the East did recognize Rome as a position of primacy, throughout Church history. It should be noted that (I believe at the same council) Constantinople was named as second in honor and equal to Rome in all ways except honor. Primacy here, does not equal Supremacy, and though Rome had a special position of leading and taking care of the Church, they were not in the position of Supreme ruler of the Church.
Actually we do see many actions taken. Of course there was confusion and the split was not a simple event, but I do believe there were pan-Orthodox councils which condemned Rome’s position, mostly by asserting the Orthodox Church’s position as it stands in contrast. For instance, they may have called a council which explicitly stated that, “All Bishops are equal” Certainly this does not say, “The Pope is not infallible and Supreme” but what it does is prohibits such a position from being taken. It seems the Orthodox are more interested in defining what is right, and less in defining what is wrong. Something which at times frustrates me as well.
I too would like the answers to these questions, specifically from an Orthodox. All I can say is that in what I have heard, the Orthodox Church has rejected a “Two lung” or “Branch” theory, and that the RCC and Protestantism both represent two sides to the same coin (i.e. they both broke off from the Orthodox). I have also heard that the Orthodox believe the RCC, and Protestants for that matter, both have a part of the truth, but that the Orthodox is the “fullness” of the truth. Of course it should be noted that RCC and Protestants say the same. I cannot give any more specific answers to these questions though, and look forward to answers from both RCC and EO.
I might chime in the the Orthodox Church has more sound Theology, however the thing that it is missing is union with the Bishop of Rome. I don’t agree with many Papal doctrines such as Infallibility, however I still believe that the Bishop of Rome alone holds the Keys, and other Bishops may as well as long as they are in Union with Rome.