Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[NewMan99]

Good grief. I can't believe what I am reading.

Trento quoted him as saying that Clement was a bishop in Rome.

Yes.

You seem to imposing a LOT into that list of bishops that Tento posted.

Yes - it's called DEFINING one's terms.

Friend, originally, you seemed to identify the Papacy as
1. Patrine.
2. Uniquely having the "keys"
3. INFALLIBLE
4. ALL Christians are "bound" to him alone as the Vicar of Christ.

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

Again you misstate my position. I did NOT say that all Christians are "bound to him" in the sense you imply. CATHOLICS in COMMUNION with the Holy See are bound to him. Not you.

Then, in 415, you give another definition that seems to stress power and lordship.

There are MANY aspects of the papacy. Is it Petrine? Yes. It is the sole "Key-bearer"? Yes. Is it infallible? Yes - but ONLY under certain conditions within a narrow context (a context which you still do not grasp on a fundamental level)...not everything the Pope says is infallible. Are Catholics in communion with the Holy See bound to him? Yes. Is the Pope the "vicar of Christ"? Yes. Did Jesus commission Peter to be the supreme pastor of the Church? Yes. Do Peter's successors succeed to Peter's special ministry? Yes. Is this special ministry - commissioned by Christ - given to Peter and his successors to keep the Church unified and orthodox? Yes.

The papacy is all these things and more.

As I pointed out, not even in the RCC it is believed that bishop = infallible/unaccountable Vicar of Christ who is lord over "the whole universal church."

Nobody ever said the RCC - or any other of the two dozen Catholic Churches in Communion with Rome - believes that. You are putting words in our mouths. But ALL Catholic Churches DO believe that the Bishop of Rome = infallible (under certain and narrow conditions) Vicar of Christ who is the supreme pastor of the universal Church. I have ZERO idea what you mean by "unaccountable" - you put that in our mouths too.

I agree with you, the snippet that our Catholic brother offered does NOT say that there was no Pope prior to Clement, but he also doesn't say that there was.

Right. So what? Schaff provided a list of Bishops of Rome and included Clement on that list (as the 4th Bishop and 3rd successor of Peter). Then, in a different quote, Schaff correctly noted that in 90 AD the Bishop of Rome (Clement) wrote a letter that is the first evidence we have of a Roman Bishop exercising jurisdictional authority over another church. And it is. In any case, the Church was still very young - it is STILL the Apostolic era - so it isn't surprising that there has to be a "first time" when jurisdictional authority is not only assumed but asserted. The Corinthians ASSUMED that the Bishop of Rome already had this authority (if not, then why didn't they appeal to the Apostle John???) and Clement likewise ASSUMED it when he ASSERTED it.

Or even that Clement was the Pope.

Clement wasn't "Pope" (read: held the office of supreme pastor with universal juridictional authority to keep the Church united and orthodox) then WHY did the Corinthians appeal to him, and why did Clement write the letter in the first place, and why did Clement demand that they obey their local bishops? Sure sounds like a Pope to me.

What he says is that all this "dominion," power, lordship seems to be the "first step TOWARD a concept of the Papacy."

Well, was a step taken or not, CJ? Which is it? If a step was taken - whether it was the first or not is irrelevent. If a step was taken - it is evidence that the office which we today call "the papacy" existed as an authoritative office on a matter pertaining to Church unity. It's an example of a successor of Peter "tending" the sheep of Jesus' flock EXACTLY as Jesus commanded the Key-bearer to do.

Now, it seems to ME that "first" implies nothing before that and that the implication is that "first" means first, and that "step" means steps, but I agree - he doesn't specifically say that.

Well, there are two "firsts" that we need to consider:

1. Was this the "first" historical evidence of a Bishop of Rome asserting universal authority in a manner consistent with what later Bishops of Rome (who eventually came to be called "Pope") did? Everyone agrees "yes" - there is no KNOWN earlier HISTORICAL evidence of a Bishop of Rome making a unilateral and authoritative command over another Church. There is, however, BIBLICAL evidence of Peter acting unilaterally on matters which affected the entire Church (eg, taking charge of the Church and deciding a successor to Judas, admitting Gentiles into the Church, among others). But Clement's letter is the first historical example.

2. Was this the "first" time the Bishop of Rome asserts some form of dominion over another Church? This is what Schaff claims...but we don't really know that. Just because the letter is the oldest example we still have, doesn't mean it wasn't asserted in other cases by Clement's predecessors. So Schaff makes an unfounded conclusion. It may very well be the first example of this exercise of universal jurisdiction - but we don't know either way. But even if it is the first, that doesn't mean that Clement took it upon himself to seize this authority or started to make up out of thin air an office that never existed before.

I agree, but he does say that in Clement (3 generations too late for the Jesus founded it claim) is "the first step toward" such.

Two things:

1. Clement was not 3 "generations" removed. Clement was likely the same age as Peter, or very close to it. According to THE BIBLE, Clement was a co-worker of the Apostles Peter and Paul. He was a CONTEMPORARY of both Apostles and he learned at their feet. He is also mentioned by name in Paul's Epistle to the Philippians. He is not "3 generations" removed from Peter. He is right there in the midst of the founding of the Church. If anyone would know what Peter intended for the office and its jurisdictional limitations (however that might be defined), it would be Clement.

2. Schaff overstates it when he concludes it is "the first step toward." A more accurate way to say it would be that it is the first KNOWN example (based on historical evidence) of "dominion" etc...

That seems to suggest two things: it was the first step (first usually implies nothing before that) and that it was a step TOWARD that.

The "first step" is actually the first known step based on historical evidence...and that doesn't mean that the authority exercised by Clement didn't already exist for ALL the previous Bishops including Peter.

And a step toward "that" only begs the question as to the nature of the "that" we are talking about. Toward what? Toward an office that exercises universal jurisdiction - and there it is - barely 25 years after the death of Peter - by a man who learned FROM Peter - and NOBODY seems to object to it...in fact...the Corinthians ASKED for it.

See my point?

I see that you misunderstand OUR point.

I see Trento's quote of this man as actually undermining your argument and the claim of the RCC alone for the RCC alone.

Really? Schaff confirms that Clement was a Bishop of Rome - and he further confirms that this Bishop of Rome asserts universal jurisdiction over another Church. If that undermines our position, I'd like to be undermined some more.

But silence substantiates nothing, my apologist friend....

If you CAREFULLY read my words you SHOULD see I did not claim that silence "substantiated" anything. What I said - IN CONTEXT - is that Schaff and you and many other non-Catholics conclude too much when you ASSUME that the first known historical evidence of a given matter is to be equated that there were no such previous UNKNOWN examples or that such authority did not pre-exist.

For example, if an anthropoloist digs up some very old human bones and they date it as the "oldest known human bones" - are we therefore to conclude that it is impossible for other OLDER bones to exist (remaining undiscovered)? You are claiming that the first known example of universal authority means therefore that no other Bishops of Rome did what Clement did - or considered themselves to be universally authoritative whether they exercised their authority or not. Just because a policeman never draws his gun during his career doesn't mean he didn't have the authority to do so if he had been called upon.

There is no evidence either way that Clement's predecessors exercised universal authority - and we should be careful about claiming that Clement's letter is THE FIRST STEP just becuase it is the first KNOWN step. I am NOT claiming that silence "substantiated" anything.


You have correctly assumed the "burden of proof" here; arguing "it's just GOTTA be a dogmatic, historic fact unless there's proof I accept that it's not" is delightfully a position to have not taken (hetherto).

Huh? I don't even know what this means. Again - you are not listening to what I am actually saying.

Friend, if it's not until 1870 that we have the first historic evidence of the Pope being understood as such, that hardly substantiates that such was the understanding in 30 AD or that Jesus founded such. Noting that there are Toyotas today hardly substantiates that there were in 30 AD or that Jesus built the first one or that they are infallible. I'm sure you understand my point.

Your point has nothing to do with what I have actually said.

To be continued...

 

[NewMan99]

Continued...

Does the quote prove that Clement was understood as the Pope as you've been defining such?

It illustrates that it was one of many examples from the early Church that the Bishop of Rome from the Apostolic era onward consistently asserted universal authority when the unity of the Chuch was under attack. And this is not an isolated example - there is a PATTERN of this in the early Church (which I will get back to - hopefully soon - when I call my next 4 witnesses). As I have said all along, our beliefs do not rest on any one piece of evidence taken in isolation. Rather, it is the preponderence of several bits and pieces of evidence that, when taken together, paint a picture that is very different than the picture you seem to suppose.

Or does it reveal that he was a respected, beloved brother in Christ whose counsel is sought and embraced?

Or BOTH, CJ? Again you put things in a false either/or dichotomy as if Clement was either a helpful friend of the Corinthians or some sort of authoritative shepherd that the Corinthians were called to obey - not not both.

"Pretty darn early" is still 3 generations away from your claim that JESUS created the office.

NO! It was the SAME generation. If anyone would know what Peter was commissioned to do by Jesus - it would be Clement.

And again, was Clement regarded as a beloved, trusted, wise Christian OR as the lording, powerful, infallible/unaccountable Vicar of Christ who alone as the "keys" in some unique sense - lord of the denomination?

Good grief. Why don't you just grill me in a court of law and ask me, "Yes or no - have you stopped beating your wife?"

1. I have NO clue what you mean by "unaccountable" - that isn't a word we use.

2. The term "lording" is a loaded term that speaks to a given STYLE. The very early papacy did not engage in the same imperial-type style that the later Popes were forced to adopt. They did not need to. I don't know if Clement was "lording" it over the Corinthians - but he DID command them to obedience. If that is how you define "lording" then I guess he was lording.

3. You continue to call me friend but then call the Catholic Church a "denomination" even though you know I find the term to be offensive. So which is it, Josiah? Am I really your friend, or am I to be a punching bag for you to hurl terms at that you KNOW are offensive to me. I don't intentionally treat my friends that way. Why do you?

No one denies that all things are possible,

You have - Schaff did. When someone says that the first historical evidence of something is the same thing as saying that something similar could not have existed prior to it...that is a denial of a possibility.

but your task that you have accepted is not to show that it's POSSIBLE that Jesus established the Papacy of the RCC but that He did. Apples and oranges. As we all know, "all things are possible with God."

I have not made a claim based on what is possible (although both you and Schaff have). What I have claimed is that silence should not be used to make the kinds of conclusions that only additional evidence can confirm. The evidence does not suggest Clement's letter was the "first step toward" Roman dominion. It does suggest that it is the first known example of Roman dominion being asserted and it ALSO suggests that Roman dominion was exercised in the Apostolic era.

Including that He founded the LDS and all the claims that it makes for itself (essentially the same that the RCC does).

Whatever. Who cares what the LDS claims - it has nothing to do with our discussion.

Did he claim to be the Pope over "the whole universal church?"

Did he need to? He acted that way - he assumed they understood it that way.

Infallible lord?

Did he need to? Did he need to use that term and that theological construct for him to have it? I am quite sure he never talked about the Trinity or the Hypoststic Union either, does that mean the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union are made up fables?

Uniquely having the keys?

He knew he had them. I am quite sure he knew the story told in Matthew 16.

SUPREME over all?

If not, then WHY would he presume to command the Corinthians in the first place?

Did the "whole universal church" acknowledge HIM as such?

Who cares? Just because Arian heretics denied the divinity of Christ does that mean that Christ was not, therefore, divine? As I have said UMPTEEN times to you, a thing does not need to be universally acknowledged for it to be TRUE.

But to answer your question...I will submit that the overall universal Church did, in fact, understand his universal jurisdiction. If not, then you need to explain away why TIME AND AGAIN Churches from all over the world would appeal to the Bishop of Rome on all sorts of things - even before the faith was legalized. (Evidence still forthcoming in future posts)

IF he was the first, then we have a 3 generation gap to the foundational claim that JESUS founded this.

No gap. Same generation. Apostolic era. Co-worker of both Peter and Paul.

And again, this historian that Trento and you want to so embrace says that in Clement, in 90 AD, we have the "FIRST STEP" toward such.

I don't embrace him - I think he is dead wrong on many things. You, however, should at least know who he was for goodness sake. I disagree with Schaff that it was DEFINITIVELY the "first step toward" - we don't know that. We only know that it is A step, the first known step.

Seems to ME, from what you supplied from him, all we have is a respected, beloved Christian whose wisdom is sought and embraced - having nothing whatsoever to do with being the Infallible, Powerful POPE over all.

First of all, Clement's letter is not an example of an "infallible" teaching. He is not offering a formal theological definition for the benefit of all. Secondly, the word "powerful" is a loaded term, even if the letter is an example of the Bishop of Rome asserting authority. Thirdly, if he did not have authority, then why did they appeal to him, why did he assert it, and why was the schism healed?

I think you're embrace of his position pretty much destroys your point. IMHO.

Of course you think that. You have mischaracterized our position and then you are arguing against it. So what?

 

[Trento]

It seems a whole lot of Rome's dogma/doctrines concerning the Papacy hinges on Peter, even him being in Rome.
I myself am still not a 100% sure of him ever being in Rome......but then, what do I know

.

Maybe some reading of Roman history is in order. In the XI vol. col 637 Inter Leon I, the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian III AD 370 both speak of "the primacy of the Apostolic See Rome, made firm on account of the merits of Peter, Chief of the Corona of Bishops"

Eusebius of Caesarea early Church historian gives us more information.

"In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. As his successor, Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement follows him, well-known to apostolic men. After him Evaristus ruled the flock without crime. Alexander, sixth in succession, commends the fold to Sixtus. After his illustrious times were completed, he passed it on to Telesphorus. He was excellent, a faithful martyr . . . " (Poem Against the Marcionites 276–284 [A.D. 267]).

 

[NewMan99]

Hi Rebekah

Why ,in Clement's letter, do you say that he had authority over the whole Church?

That is a fair question and I am glad you asked it. Of and by iself, the letter might show authority only over Rome and Corinth. Right? And if that is the case, then it follows that Clement was someone with authority over a Church (Corinth) well outside the geography of Rome.

So it begs the question: if Clement can exercise some form of authority over a Church outside its local jurisdiction - at a place that had its own hierarchy/bishops/presbyters - during a time when a living Apostle was still presiding in nearby Ephesus - then are there other Churches around the world who would also fall under the same authority that Corinth fell under (with regard to the Bishop of Rome)?

Well, the only way to answer that question (at least through historical evidence) is to see what other people have to say in other churches around the world at that GENERAL time. If there are other examples of other churches around the world deferring to the Church in Rome in a way that is similar to Corinth's deference to Rome in 90 AD...then we will have a clue as to whether or not Clement's juridiction was universal or if it was ONLY over Rome and Corinth.

The historical evidence suggests that MANY churches around the world in the very early Church (within living memory of the Apostles) appealed to Rome to settle various matters. Therefore, the early Church did not view the Bishop of Rome to merely be one Bishop among many who occupied an office that is primary but only in honor.

It is an excellent letter, he also showed great authority with his words and with his action (by writing it and having sent it to them) but I don't see where he implies the Bishop of Rome as the ultimate authority within the Church.

I am glad you see that it is an authoritative letter. But again, as I said, you need to ask the follow up question and ask why Corinth would listen to him when they did not even listen to their own legitimately-appointed presbyters. The purpose of the letter was not to provide a treatise on the overall authoritative prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome. It was strictly meant to deal with the state of schism of the Corinthian Church. It was meant to assert some form of authority over them to restore them BACK into UNITY...which is exactly what you would expect from someone given the task of supreme pastor of the Church. So the reference to Clement's authority is only incidental. But that is where we can look at other writings among the Fathers and other events from Church history.

And when taken as a whole - that is why I say that Clement's letter is one example of the Bishop of Rome exercising universal jurisdiction.

Does that answer your question?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Maybe some reading of Roman history is in order. In the XI vol. col 637 Inter Leon I, the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian III AD 370 both speak of "the primacy of the Apostolic See Rome, made firm on account of the merits of Peter, Chief of the Corona of Bishops"

Sorry, no time this year bro.......

John 11:48 "If-ever we may be be letting Him thus, all shall be believing in Him. And shall be coming the Romans and they shall be taking away/arousin <142> (5692) of Us and the Place and the Nation [Reve 6:6]

Revelation 6:6 And I hear a voice in midst of the four living-ones saying: "choinex of grain/wheat a denari and three choinex of barleys a denari, and the oil and the wine no you should be injuring". [John 11:48]

 

[NewMan99]

Sorry, no time this year bro.......

John 11:48 "If-ever we may be be letting Him thus, all shall be believing in Him. And shall be coming the Romans and they shall be taking away/arousin <142> (5692) of Us and the Place and the Nation [Reve 6:6]

Revelation 6:6 And I hear a voice in midst of the four living-ones saying: "choinex of grain/wheat a denari and three choinex of barleys a denari, and the oil and the wine no you should be injuring". [John 11:48]

LLOJ,

John was speaking of PAGAN imperial Rome, the writings Trento was speaking of come from Christian Rome. Big difference.

 

[NewMan99]

It's been fun kids, but real life is calling (my youngest daughter is getting ready for her senior prom...it is a madhouse around here...I have "honey-do" stuff to get to before "the boy" comes over...where's my baseball bat?).

See ya later!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLOJ,

John was speaking of PAGAN imperial Rome, the writings Trento was speaking of come from Christian Rome. Big difference.

That is what I see also, but I view it as YHWH using pagan Rome to destroy OC Apostate paganistic Jerusalem.

Anyway, this Orthodox is pretty much thru here. Continue on........ God bless

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

Trento quoted him as saying that Clement was a bishop in Rome

You seem to imposing a LOT into that list of bishops that Tento posted.

Yes - it's called DEFINING one's terms.

And you already agreed that bishop does not equal Pope - as you yourself have defined such in this thread.

Friend, originally, you seemed to identify the Papacy as

1. Patrine.
2. Uniquely having the "keys"
3. INFALLIBLE
4. ALL Christians are "bound" to him alone as the Vicar of Christ.​

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

Again you misstate my position. I did NOT say that all Christians are "bound to him" in the sense you imply. CATHOLICS in COMMUNION with the Holy See are bound to him. Not you.

Frustrating, lol! Now I need to go back and quote where you've made each of these points - as well as having POWER over all. You defined the papacy has infallible, having power/lordship over "the whole universal church" etc.

There are MANY aspects of the papacy. Is it Petrine? Yes. It is the sole "Key-bearer"? Yes. Is it infallible? Yes - but ONLY under certain conditions within a narrow context (a context which you still do not grasp on a fundamental level)...not everything the Pope says is infallible. Are Catholics in communion with the Holy See bound to him? Yes. Is the Pope the "vicar of Christ"? Yes. Did Jesus commission Peter to be the supreme pastor of the Church? Yes. Do Peter's successors succeed to Peter's special ministry? Yes. Is this special ministry - commissioned by Christ - given to Peter and his successors to keep the Church unified and orthodox? Yes.

... and so I was wrong to say that YOU defined the papacy as Petrine, the holding the "keys" in some unique manner, as being infallible, as being SUPREME lord and power over all Christians, the Vicar of Christ? Friend, you can't post that that's wrong and then that that's right.

The papacy is all these things and more.

Great.

Then reveal that Jesus founded that in 30 AD and that all Christians understood and accepted that by then, otherwise, we're not talking about the Papacy. Now, if you want to change your point and agree with ME that the papacy is a concept that begun well after the life/death/resurrection of Christ and has slowly evolved within The specific, singular Catholic __________ (insert whatever word you prefer to denomination) into what we know today - and perhaps the FIRST STEP TOWARD such happened in 90 AD (60 years too late for Jesus to have had a hand in such), then you have switched positions and are essentially in agreement with the Protestants.

ALL Catholic Churches DO believe that the Bishop of Rome = infallible (under certain and narrow conditions) Vicar of Christ who is the supreme pastor of the universal Church.

Of course! Who EVER suggested otherwise?

We all know that the RCC claims all this and that it requires all to accept all of it "with docility" - and faithful Catholics do. Okay. As has been noted repeatedly in this thread, this isn't about what Catholics or Orthodox or Mormons or Pentecostals BELIEVE, it's about whether the claim of the RCC alone for the RCC alone in this regard is TRUE. YOUR promise is that you'd substantiate it as TRUE, not that you'd point out that the RCC claims it, demands docilic acceptance of it, and all faithful Catholics do so. We already know that.

And, friend, YOU are the one who stressed that "the whole universal church" is "bound" (interesting word) to HIM. Not just those in his denomination, but throughout the "whole universal church." That's YOUR emphasis from day one in our discussion. Friend, I am CERTAIN that your apologetic is NOT: "Everyone who accepts him as The Pope accepts him as The Pope so therefore he is the Pope of those who accept him as the Pope." I'm certain that's not the "evidence" you have been promising was forthcoming....

I have ZERO idea what you mean by "unaccountable"

If one is infallible, by definition, he is unaccountable. How can one be regarded as potentially errant if it is impossible for them to err? Now, he'd be accountable at times and ways in which he does not claim himself infallible - but in those times, he would be unaccountable. Obviously.

I agree with you, the snippet that our Catholic brother offered does NOT say that there was no Pope prior to Clement, but he also doesn't say that there was.

Right. So what? Schaff provided a list of Bishops of Rome and included Clement on that list (as the 4th Bishop and 3rd successor of Peter). Then, in a different quote, Schaff correctly noted that in 90 AD the Bishop of Rome (Clement) wrote a letter that is the first evidence we have of a Roman Bishop exercising jurisdictional authority over another church. And it is.

Right. And more - he says that here, in 90 AD (60 years too late for Jesus' involvement), we have "THE FIRST STEP TOWARD" the papacy. Now, how does that affirm your position that Jesus established the Papacy and that such has always existed (using YOUR extensive notations of the Papacy? Doesn't "first" mean first? And doesn't step mean step? And "toward" mean heading toward such? And he didn't call Clement any kind of Pope of anything at all. Bishop. There are thousands of them in the world.

The Corinthians ASSUMED that the Bishop of Rome already had this authority (if not, then why didn't they appeal to the Apostle John???) and Clement likewise ASSUMED it when he ASSERTED it.

Well, it's impossible to know what they may have ASSUMED in 90 AD. We only know what we know - and that's only that Clement seems to be respected, loved and regarded as wise. Nothin' about his being in Infallible/unaccountable, powerful lord surpreme over all Christians, Vicar of Christ, unique holder of the keys - in fact, NOTHING that relates to the distinctive marks YOU give for being The POPE of the RCC.

Is your whole apologetic that Jesus founded the Papacy of The specific Catholic Church in or before 30 AD based on what you think maybe Clement ASSUMED and what you think maybe some Christians in Corinth ASSUMED in 90 AD (60 years after the Ascension of Jesus) but there's no evidence of such whatsoever? Is THAT the "evidence" you have been promising? Or that "Well, The Catholic Church claims this and requires that we docilicly accept it and we do?" Is THAT the evidence? Is THAT your apologetic? I'm confident not....

Clement wasn't "Pope" (read: held the office of supreme pastor with universal juridictional authority to keep the Church united and orthodox) then WHY did the Corinthians appeal to him, and why did Clement write the letter in the first place, and why did Clement demand that they obey their local bishops? Sure sounds like a Pope to me.

Here's what we're getting... question marks, what if's, possibilities, claims - not evidence.

Once again, what about the innumeral times I've asked my mother for her counsel and took her advise? Does that mean that my mother is the first Pope of the RCC? Or, to follow your 'logic,' ergo my great-greatgrandmother must have been the first Pope of the RCC? Come on, my respected friend and unseparated brother.....

What he says is that all this "dominion," power, lordship seems to be the "first step TOWARD a concept of the Papacy."

Well, was a step taken or not, CJ? Which is it? If a step was taken - whether it was the first or not is irrelevent. If a step was taken - it is evidence that the office which we today call "the papacy" existed as an authoritative office on a matter pertaining to Church unity. It's an example of a successor of Peter "tending" the sheep of Jesus' flock EXACTLY as Jesus commanded the Key-bearer to do.

1. I've already stated several times that I do NOT see cause to regard this as the "FIRST STEP TAKEN TOWARD" the papacy. I see it as a wise pastor's advise being sought and embraced - and nothing to suggest anything other than that. Christians are still seeking (and taking) the advise of those whom they respect, such does NOT suggest they are thereby The Pope as you have defined such.


2. But let's assume that this Protestant historian is right, and here in 90 AD, we have "THE FIRST STEP TAKEN TOWARD" the papacy. Then your entire argument has collasped - along with the foundational, critical, keystone claim of the RCC alone for the RCC alone: and I'm CERTAIN you are not so arguing (why would you be taking the PROTESTANT position and pulling the entire rug out from the RCC? Clearly you aren't!). If in 90 AD the first step TOWARD such occured, then OBVIOUSLY Jesus had nothing to do with it, it didn't always exist, and it's not until 60 years AFTER the glorious resurrection that we even have the FIRST STEP in the direction of the concept. Friend, I don't when that mysterious Protestant suggests the Papacy began - but he surely is indicating it wasn't with Jesus in or before 30 AD and that rather it clearly was an evolutionary ("steps") thing, and we don't even have a step in that direction until 90 AD!!! Now, I might question whether this is a "first step" in that direction (I think we just have a respected, beloved pastor - not THE POPE of the RCC), but it seems to ME that if that is your pov - then you have denounced the Catholic position, embraced the Protestant position - and the only "issue" between you and I is when we can first call this evolution "The Pope" with the distinctives YOU claim for such - but we are agreeing on all the important points: Jesus had nothing to do with this, it didn't always exist, it was an evolutionary ("steps") concept, and limited to one denomination - yours. The only point of disagreement would be can the FIRST STEP TOWARD this be as early as 90 AD? You - yes, me - unlikely. Moot since we both agree Jesus ascended into Heaven 60 years earlier, and we agree it was a slow evolutionary "steps" thing in your denomination. SURELY, you are not going to such lengths only to agree with the Protestants!!!!!! SURELY, this is NOT the apologetic you've promised; of course not!

1. Was this the "first" historical evidence of a Bishop of Rome asserting universal authority in a manner consistent with what later Bishops of Rome (who eventually came to be called "Pope") did? Everyone agrees "yes" - there is no KNOWN earlier HISTORICAL evidence of a Bishop of Rome making a unilateral and authoritative command over another Church.

1. No, not everyone agrees. I see nothing that suggests this IS a case of The Bishop of the diocese of Rome exercising lordship over all others AS SUCH.

2. If this is true, then your entirely point collasped as unsubstantiated.

2. Was this the "first" time the Bishop of Rome asserts some form of dominion over another Church? This is what Schaff claims...but we don't really know that. Just because the letter is the oldest example we still have, doesn't mean it wasn't asserted in other cases by Clement's predecessors. So Schaff makes an unfounded conclusion. It may very well be the first example of this exercise of universal jurisdiction - but we don't know either way. But even if it is the first, that doesn't mean that Clement took it upon himself to seize this authority or started to make up out of thin air an office that never existed before.

You AGAIN noting that we don't know is hardly a compelling apologetic, my respected friend. You seem to constantly retreat into "but it IS possible." Of course, AGAIN, no one questions that it's POSSIBLE. It's POSSIBLE Joseph Smith found those plates, too - I'm sure you'll agree. What you indicated you'd do is provide the evidence that Jesus founded The Papacy of the RCC, not that you'd support the Protestant position that actually the known evidence is that Jesus had nothing to do with it, and that it was a slow, evolutionary ("steps") thing within The Catholic _____________ (insert whatever word you prefer to denomination).

Again, NO ONE is questioning the angels' words that "all things are possible with God." I beleive that, you believe that, the Mormon believes that - that's not a point of disagreement and not the subject of this thread. And NO ONE is questioning whether the RCC that makes this claim for itself requires all to docilicly accept it as infallible/unaccountable dogma and that often Catholics do as their denomination requires. No one debates that. That's not the issue here. YOU gave the distinctives of the Papacy. Now, what is your evidence that Jesus founded that in or before 30 AD?

​

Two things:

1. Clement was not 3 "generations" removed. Clement was likely the same age as Peter, or very close to it.

Generation. Twenty years.
90 minus 30 is 60.
60 divided by 20 is 3.
3 generations.

But you seem to be evading the OBVIOUS issue.
90 AD is not before 30 AD.
You have a bit of a historical problem here.
Jesus's earthly minsitry ended SIXTY YEARS too early for what you claim He did.
In fact, SIXTY YEARS before you now say we have ANY evidence for even the FIRST STEP TOWARD such.,

2. Schaff overstates it when he concludes it is "the first step toward." A more accurate way to say it would be that it is the first KNOWN example (based on historical evidence) of "dominion" etc...

1. Then maybe you and Trento should not have been so quick to embrace it and state that he was supporting your position?

2. This entire thread is about evidence. You promised you'd provide the evidence. What it seems you have presented actually destroys your point and rather well supports the Protestant perspective - which is why I think you must have something else coming. Let's get to that, because at THIS point, the proverbial rug has been pulled out of your position - and indeed, you seem to be giving support to the Protestant view. And I KNOW that is not what you are attempting to do.

And a step toward "that" only begs the question as to the nature of the "that" we are talking about. Toward what?

You've already said toward WHAT.
You have given the distinctives of the Papacy. Not me, YOU.

If you CAREFULLY read my words you SHOULD see I did not claim that silence "substantiated" anything. What I said - IN CONTEXT - is that Schaff and you and many other non-Catholics conclude too much when you ASSUME that the first known historical evidence of a given matter is to be equated that there were no such previous UNKNOWN examples or that such authority did not pre-exist.

... then your 'evidence' supports the PROTESTANT position, but the evidence you now claim you do NOT have supports your position.
You seem to be insisting, "Okay, all the evidence supports the Protestant position, but if we had any evidence, we think it would support our position."

We are all expecting better than that, my unseparated and equal brother in Christ.

Again, NO ONE denies the Angel's message that all things are possible with God, that truth is NOT the subject of our discussion. And YES, it could be that evidence no one has says that the "first step toward" an understanding of Papacy came with Linus and not Clement (as if that would make any difference whatsoever) but then it could be that evidence no one has is that there are purple people on the Earth's Moon, too (no offense, but I want to make a point clear to you). APOLOGETICS is not about having no evidence but claiming and promising to present it; it is NOT an arguement purely from evidence that does NOT exist. Friend (again, NO offense intented), I had a nearly year long discussion with a Mormon apologist about the issue of Jesus founding the LDS and I think he did a far, far more compelling case. Your admission that the evidence supports the Protestant position and that all you have to support the Catholic one is a "well, nothing - but it could be true that evidence we don't have indicates that it's true" that apologetic is remarkable to me. And I cannot accept that is, essentially, the "evidence" that you promised is coming; I refuse to accept that!

There is no evidence either way that Clement's predecessors exercised universal authority - and we should be careful about claiming that Clement's letter is THE FIRST STEP just becuase it is the first KNOWN step. I am NOT claiming that silence "substantiated" anything.

Then if you admit there is no evidence for the RCC's position, rather for the Protestant position, then how can you be here as a Catholic Apologist promising us that you have the evidence for the Catholic position?

You are generally regarded here at CF (including by me) as the best Catholic apologist among us. SURELY your evidence is not in support of the PROTESTANT position and you now admit that the Catholic position has nothing - just that "if there was evidence in support of our position, then we'd have evidence." We ALL are expecting more - and certain it's coming. Let's move on, okay? THIS point in our discussion amounts to an admission that the evidence supports the Protestant position, and you have nothing to support that Catholic one. And we all know that's not your apologetic for the RCC.







I'm looking forward to your upcoming evidence....


Pax


- Josiah



.

 

[Rebekah30]

Hi Rebekah



That is a fair question and I am glad you asked it. Of and by iself, the letter might show authority only over Rome and Corinth. Right? And if that is the case, then it follows that Clement was someone with authority over a Church (Corinth) well outside the geography of Rome.

So it begs the question: if Clement can exercise some form of authority over a Church outside its local jurisdiction - at a place that had its own hierarchy/bishops/presbyters - during a time when a living Apostle was still presiding in nearby Ephesus - then are there other Churches around the world who would also fall under the same authority that Corinth fell under (with regard to the Bishop of Rome)?

Well, the only way to answer that question (at least through historical evidence) is to see what other people have to say in other churches around the world at that GENERAL time. If there are other examples of other churches around the world deferring to the Church in Rome in a way that is similar to Corinth's deference to Rome in 90 AD...then we will have a clue as to whether or not Clement's juridiction was universal or if it was ONLY over Rome and Corinth.

The historical evidence suggests that MANY churches around the world in the very early Church (within living memory of the Apostles) appealed to Rome to settle various matters. Therefore, the early Church did not view the Bishop of Rome to merely be one Bishop among many who occupied an office that is primary but only in honor.



I am glad you see that it is an authoritative letter. But again, as I said, you need to ask the follow up question and ask why Corinth would listen to him when they did not even listen to their own legitimately-appointed presbyters. The purpose of the letter was not to provide a treatise on the overall authoritative prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome. It was strictly meant to deal with the state of schism of the Corinthian Church. It was meant to assert some form of authority over them to restore them BACK into UNITY...which is exactly what you would expect from someone given the task of supreme pastor of the Church. So the reference to Clement's authority is only incidental. But that is where we can look at other writings among the Fathers and other events from Church history.

And when taken as a whole - that is why I say that Clement's letter is one example of the Bishop of Rome exercising universal jurisdiction.

Does that answer your question?

Hi NewMan, thanks for your post. I was looking for something specific within the letter itself, but in another thread I asked E.A. since he said the Church of Corinth appealed to the Church of Rome, where is was within the letter.

Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us;

I find that very interesting that they specifically sought Rome's help.
Some may think I am reading too much into that, but that says alot to me.

I am glad you see that it is an authoritative letter. But again, as I said, you need to ask the follow up question and ask why Corinth would listen to him when they did not even listen to their own legitimately-appointed presbyters.

Good point. I won't comment on specific parts of your post because you make many good points all around.
Thanks for your time NewMan.

 

[sempervirens]

How does the letter by Clement in 90 AD show that Clement was regarded as The Pope? Or even CLAIMED to be The Pope? Infallible. With power and lordship over all Christians and congregations of the world. By virtue of his having the "keys" in some unique sense.

Would you say Clement is offering advice here?

Paragraph 59:

If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger.


Paragraph 63:

Right is it, therefore, to approach examples so good and so many, and submit the neck and fulfil the part of obedience, in order that, undisturbed by vain sedition, we may attain unto the goal set before us in truth wholly free from blame. Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter.

When the archaeologists excavated the Roman forum they cleared away 20 feet of debris accumulated over the centuries to get to the foundation. Let us do the same - set aside for a moment the weight of two millenia of history - stripped to bedrock, in the earliest stage of the church do we see in Clement's letter a self-awareness of a charism to preserve unity and orthodoxy? He would have a lot of chutzpah to make the claims of paragraph 59 and 63 otherwise.

Its good to see some agreement that he was bishop at Rome when he wrote this. Set aside the development of the papacy and focus on the claims Clement as bishop at Rome makes in paragraph 59 and 63. Is he right or wrong to say such things? (its too bad we spend so much time focused on questions of authority as the rest of the letter is a beautiful meditation on Christ and what it means to follow Him; the pastoral role of the bishop at Rome, presiding in charity gets lost.)

 

[Rebekah30]

Would you say Clement is offering advice here?

Paragraph 59:

If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger.


Paragraph 63:

Right is it, therefore, to approach examples so good and so many, and submit the neck and fulfil the part of obedience, in order that, undisturbed by vain sedition, we may attain unto the goal set before us in truth wholly free from blame. Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter.

When the archaeologists excavated the Roman forum they cleared away 20 feet of debris accumulated over the centuries to get to the foundation. Let us do the same - set aside for a moment the weight of two millenia of history - stripped to bedrock, in the earliest stage of the church do we see in Clement's letter a self-awareness of a charism to preserve unity and orthodoxy? He would have a lot of chutzpah to make the claims of paragraph 59 and 63 otherwise.

Its good to see some agreement that he was bishop at Rome when he wrote this. Set aside the development of the papacy and focus on the claims Clement as bishop at Rome makes in paragraph 59 and 63. Is he right or wrong to say such things? (its too bad we spend so much time focused on questions of authority as the rest of the letter is a beautiful meditation on Christ and what it means to follow Him; the pastoral role of the bishop at Rome, presiding in charity gets lost.)

Hi sempervirens. Good post.

 

[Thekla]

Would you say Clement is offering advice here?

Paragraph 59:

If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger.

does the letter say who the "us" is, or is it an "editorial" us ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

does the letter say who the "us" is, or is it an "editorial" us ?

I suspect as a Catholic, NewMan99 would argue it's a royal "we" - as THE infallible, supreme, powerful lord over all POPE and Vicar of Christ.



.

 

[Rebekah30]

does the letter say who the "us" is, or is it an "editorial" us ?

Hi Thekla, I know you weren't addressing me, I just wanted to say that when the Pope (modern day) addresses people with words or what he writes, he usually does so with "us or we"

I will let sempervirens answer about Clement's letter though. It is obvious I need to reread it.

 

[sempervirens]

The "we" is the "majestic plural" - from our good friends at wikipedia:

The majestic plural (pluralis maiestatis in Latin) is the use of a plural pronoun to refer to a single person holding a high office, such as a monarch, bishop, pope, or university rector. It is also called the Royal pronoun, the Royal 'we' or the Victorian 'we'. The more general word for the use of "we" to refer to oneself is nosism, from the Latin nos.

The idea behind the pluralis maiestatis is that a monarch or other high official always speaks for his or her people.

Interesting it was in use back then even! John Paul dropped it in official speeches and documents

 

[Rebekah30]

I suspect as a Catholic, NewMan99 would argue it's a royal "we" - as THE infallible, supreme, powerful lord over all POPE and Vicar of Christ.



.

Hi CJ. Do you have a bee in your bonnet? I for one would like to discuss this is a civil manner.

 

[Thekla]

Hi Thekla, I know you weren't addressing me, I just wanted to say that when the Pope (modern day) addresses people with words or what he writes, he usually does so with "us or we"

I will let sempervirens answer about Clement's letter though. It is obvious I need to reread it.

Thats ok - if "jumping in" is verboten, I messed up first

I'm not familiar with the use of the plural in the editorial manner from this era and the NT - except in phrases like, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us". Then, I have a spotty memory It would be interesting to see the original language and its grammar.

 

[Thekla]

The "we" is the "majestic plural" - from our good friends at wikipedia:

The majestic plural (pluralis maiestatis in Latin) is the use of a plural pronoun to refer to a single person holding a high office, such as a monarch, bishop, pope, or university rector. It is also called the Royal pronoun, the Royal 'we' or the Victorian 'we'. The more general word for the use of "we" to refer to oneself is nosism, from the Latin nos.

The idea behind the pluralis maiestatis is that a monarch or other high official always speaks for his or her people.

Interesting it was in use back then even! John Paul dropped it in official speeches and documents (also Benedict dropped the Papal Tiara for a bishops mitre in his coat of arms)

Why would he use Latin for addressing Corinthians ?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hi CJ. Do you have a bee in your bonnet? I for one would like to discuss this is a civil manner.

Always wondered what a bee bonnet looked like