|
0 members (),
321
guests, and
22
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,295
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
|
OP
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346 |
The attached link and article quote comments by Pope Benedict XVI which document that St. Clement, the third Pope of Rome, intervened directly to resolve some issues at Corinth. The Apostle St. John the Theologian was still alive when St. Clement occupied the Chair of Peter. St. Clement was a witness to the teachings of the Apostles. In Christ, Dn. Robert http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=49698Pope cites 1st-century Pope's views on church-state Vatican, Mar. 7, 2007 (CWNews.com) - At his regular weekly public audience on March 7, Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) continued his series of talks on the early Church by recalling the figure of St. Clement, the 3rd successor to St. Peter. Speaking to about 16,000 people in the Paul VI auditorium, the Holy Father cited the words of St. Irenaeus, who reported that St. Clement had been personally acquainted with the original apostles, and �still had their preaching in his ears and their tradition before his eyes.� Thus the 4th Pope, who led the Church at the end of the 1st century, extended the apostolic era. Little is known today about St. Clemente, in whose honor the Church in Rome built a magnificent 4th-century basilica near the Coliseum. But he is known for his letter to the Church in Corinth. Pope Benedict pointed out that this letter, in which St. Clement intervened to settle a dispute among the city�s Christians, is �the first exercise of the primacy of Rome after the death of Peter.� The letter of St. Clement clarifies the nature of the Church, as �an organized structure in which each member undertakes his mission according to his vocation,� the Pope observed. The letter emphasizes that the mission of the Church is sacramental rather than political, and encourages the faithful to respond to God�s invitation with �a generous and courageous journey of conversion." St. Clement�s letter is also significant in that it concludes with a prayer for political leaders, Pope Benedict continued. This prayer is the first Christian invocation for public authorities, and �has guided the attitude of Christian towards politics and the state� since that day, the Pope noted. The prayer is noteworthy, too, because it was written shortly after the death of the Roman Emperor Domitian, who organized the persecution of Christians. The Pope of that day, �though aware that the persecutions would continue, did not cease to pray for those same authorities that had unjustly condemned them,� Pope Benedict said. Through his letter to the Corinthians, St. Clement offered a clear distinction between the roles of Church and state, the Holy Father said. The 1st-century Pope showed his deference to public authority, but also insisted that a political ruler should act justly and gently-- that the ruler himself is subject to the demand of moral conduct. At the same time, St. Clement upheld the authority of the Church, and her separate mission of salvation. In short, the Pope concluded, St. Clement taught that �Caesar is not everything. There is another kingship, the origin and essence of which are not of this world."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
To stay purely in the RCC context, here is what Catholic scholar and author of a book on the history of the Papacy Eamon Duffy wrote about this in particular: In the conventional accounts of the history of the papacy, the letter of Clement, written from Rome to the Church at Corinth around the year AD 95, is often thought of as the first papal encyclical, attributed to Pope Clement, Peter�s third successor and the last pope personally known to the Prince of the Apostles. In fact, the letter is written on behalf of the whole Roman Church, it is unsigned, and the author speaks unequivocally of "the elders who rule the Church", in the plural. This was an article called "The Popes:theory and fact" published in the Catholic journal the Tablet. http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/6636/--- This is interesting too The letter is occasioned by the fact that a group of Christians at Corinth had banded together against their leaders and had deposed them from office. Clement writes to tell them that they have behaved badly, and to remind them of the importance of Christian unity and love. He speaks at length of the way in which each kind of official in the church has his own function for the good of the whole. The letter is an important witness to the early Christian understanding of Church government, but an ambiguous witness in that we are never told precisely why the Corinthians had deposed their leaders, and therefore the letter can be read as saying that presbyters ought not to be deposed without reasonable grounds, or as saying that they cannot be deposed on any grounds at all.
The letter refers only to the presbyters of Corinth, and makes no reference to the bishop of Corinth. Moreover, there is no mention of a bishop at Rome--the letter is sent as from the Church at Rome collectively, and Clement's name does not appear. From this, some have inferred that the office of bishop had not yet developed at either Rome or Corinth, and that in both congregations the office of presbyter was the highest office known. A probable alternate explanation, however, is that the troubles in Corinth had arisen when the bishop of that congregation had died, and the congregation had split into factions, none containing both a majority of the presbyters and a majority of the congregation.
The letter makes no apology for intervening in what might be thought an internal affair of the congregation at Corinth. On the contrary, the writer apologizes for the delay in commenting, as if an earlier intervention might have been expected. From this, some have inferred that, even at this early date (96 AD or, some think, earlier), when the Apostle John was perhaps still alive, the authority and jurisdiction of the Roman congregation over every other congregation of the Christian Church was already universally conceded. However, a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation is that the congregation at Corinth, torn by division, had agreed to settle their disputes by inviting another congregation, or the head of another congregation, to act as arbitrator. This would be a reasonable thing to do, and the choice of Rome as that congregation was natural, partly because of the prestige of the city, and the prestige of one of the largest congregations in the Church, and because the Corinth of Clement's day had been built as a Roman colony, with a special dependence directly on the city of Rome (a civil relation that might affect the habits of thought of the Corinthians on matters ecclestiastical as well), but also because Rome was far enough away so that it could be assumed to be impartial and not affected by local personalities. Thanks for bringing this up, I wasn't aware of some of the history behind this.
Last edited by AMM; 03/08/07 03:47 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491 |
I would note that what AMM has suggested about the role of the Church of Rome (rather than just the Pope) actually substantiates the importance of the Church of Rome in the life of the Church from the very beginning. Many historians have noted that St Ignatius' letter to the Romans does not mention a Bishop by name, even though he mentions other Bishops by name in other letters.
This does not deny the doctrine of the Petrine ministry at all but rather reminds us of the fact that each Bishop (even the Pope) is the head of a local community and his authority flows through that community. Thus, the authority of the Papal See begins with his authority as head of the Roman Church and Patriarch of the West.
This reminds us that the current situation (on both the Catholic and the Orthodox side) does not match the early Church's ecclesiology. In the early Church, clearly the Church of Rome and its Bishop occupied an unique role as "first among equals," etc. When the split between the East and West occurred, both suffered and the original ecclesiastical structure was altered.
A Church with 4 Patriarchs without the Bishop of Rome does not meet the early patristric model -- it is missing the Bishop of Rome. It was common until recently for Orthodox to admit this and to state that this was the reason there has not been another ecumenical council -- because there must be 5 Patriarchs for an ecumenical council to occur.
But a Church without the eastern Patriarchs also does not meet the early Patristic model. (I take this to be the meaning behind Benedict's call for a recovery of the ecclesiological model of the 1st millenium.)
This is why Union between East and West is so important and imperative. Without Union, the mission and ministry of the Church suffers.
Last edited by PrJ; 03/08/07 04:37 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
|
|
OP
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346 |
To stay purely in the RCC context, here is what Catholic scholar and author of a book on the history of the Papacy Eamon Duffy wrote about this in particular: In the conventional accounts of the history of the papacy, the letter of Clement, written from Rome to the Church at Corinth around the year AD 95, is often thought of as the first papal encyclical, attributed to Pope Clement, Peter�s third successor and the last pope personally known to the Prince of the Apostles. In fact, the letter is written on behalf of the whole Roman Church, it is unsigned, and the author speaks unequivocally of "the elders who rule the Church", in the plural. This was an article called "The Popes:theory and fact" published in the Catholic journal the Tablet. http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/6636/--- This is interesting too The letter is occasioned by the fact that a group of Christians at Corinth had banded together against their leaders and had deposed them from office. Clement writes to tell them that they have behaved badly, and to remind them of the importance of Christian unity and love. He speaks at length of the way in which each kind of official in the church has his own function for the good of the whole. The letter is an important witness to the early Christian understanding of Church government, but an ambiguous witness in that we are never told precisely why the Corinthians had deposed their leaders, and therefore the letter can be read as saying that presbyters ought not to be deposed without reasonable grounds, or as saying that they cannot be deposed on any grounds at all.
The letter refers only to the presbyters of Corinth, and makes no reference to the bishop of Corinth. Moreover, there is no mention of a bishop at Rome--the letter is sent as from the Church at Rome collectively, and Clement's name does not appear. From this, some have inferred that the office of bishop had not yet developed at either Rome or Corinth, and that in both congregations the office of presbyter was the highest office known. A probable alternate explanation, however, is that the troubles in Corinth had arisen when the bishop of that congregation had died, and the congregation had split into factions, none containing both a majority of the presbyters and a majority of the congregation.
The letter makes no apology for intervening in what might be thought an internal affair of the congregation at Corinth. On the contrary, the writer apologizes for the delay in commenting, as if an earlier intervention might have been expected. From this, some have inferred that, even at this early date (96 AD or, some think, earlier), when the Apostle John was perhaps still alive, the authority and jurisdiction of the Roman congregation over every other congregation of the Christian Church was already universally conceded. However, a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation is that the congregation at Corinth, torn by division, had agreed to settle their disputes by inviting another congregation, or the head of another congregation, to act as arbitrator. This would be a reasonable thing to do, and the choice of Rome as that congregation was natural, partly because of the prestige of the city, and the prestige of one of the largest congregations in the Church, and because the Corinth of Clement's day had been built as a Roman colony, with a special dependence directly on the city of Rome (a civil relation that might affect the habits of thought of the Corinthians on matters ecclestiastical as well), but also because Rome was far enough away so that it could be assumed to be impartial and not affected by local personalities. Thanks for bringing this up, I wasn't aware of some of the history behind this. Some comments re: the above: In recent years, the Tablet in Britain has had a reputation for being somewhat in the liberal/modernist/progressivist camp, so I wouldn't expect them to be stalwarts in upholding traditional Catholic teachings. The Anglican source holds out the possibility that the local Church in Corinth may have appealed to Rome for "unbiased" help. It is my understanding that this was not unusual. I remember reading that many of the great Eastern Fathers, such as St. Athanasius and St. John Chrysostom would appeal to Rome for help when they were persecuted and deposed by local authorities who favored heretical parties in the early Christological controversies. Another point that must be brought up in laying out the Catholic "case" for the Papal primacy is text of the Gospel of St. John, chapter 21, Verses 15-17, where Our Lord asks Peter three times "do you love me". After each positive response, Our Lord is quoted as saying "Feed my lambs", "Tend my sheep", and "Feed my sheep". Nowhere in the Gospels do we find the other Apostles being addressed in such a fashion. This is not to argue for an overbearing, authoritarian way of exercising the primacy. The ideal is only to have Papal intervention when a situation gets "out of hand", with local hierarchs being either unable or unwilling to resolve bad situations,as probably happened in Corinth in the first century. Of note is the fact that Pope John Paul II actually asked for input from non-Catholic Christian leaders as to how the primacy could be exercised to their satisfaction. Just some additional thoughts. In Christ, Dn. Robert
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
Well it all boils down to the same issue to me. Primacy is not supremacy, and the Corinth situation is simply to me another example.
History is also full of interventions in all directions which further complicates the matter.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491 |
My two cents on this issue:
I think we have to be careful as Catholics not to overstate the historical record. There are good theological and historical supports for the necessity of the Petrine office in the Church. But very often Catholics overstate their case and (IMHO) do more harm than good in promoting dialogue.
What we now know (as historians) is that the office of the Bishop gradually evolved in the Church over time in response to the attacks of heretics and was not fully established in the Church until the mid-2nd century. The principle established by Christ's unique words to Peter certainly did establish a principle of primacy that the Church followed as it submitted to the Bishop of Rome, etc.
Unlike the Protestants who claim to find everything in Scripture, the Church is a living organism and has changed and evolved over time in her discipline. Scripture does not map out a complete ecclesiology -- it gives principles that the Church adopted, followed and adapted to the local situations, etc.
What is clear from history is that the Church of Rome and her Bishop has always been looked to and followed. A Church without Rome is not Patristic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
Well lots and lots of people disagree with that one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
In reading the "white" papers published as the book called "The Petrine Ministry," in preparation for the bilateral talks now underway, I am struck by the fact that the Orthodox contributors, to that volume, not only are willing to talk about, but actually introduced, the question of whether or not there is real primatial power and authority.
The consensus seems to be that "yes" there is real primatial power and authority, at least in the pentarchy as it was in the first thousand years. And then the question is raised if not yet answered concerning the logic that argues that if there is real primatial powers, then the first among equals may well not have been simply an honorific, but real primatial power excercised by the "first" in a real and meaningful way. Not ceremonial power, but real power and authority that gave meaning to being "first" in the ecclesiastical hierarchy.
So whether or not lots and lots of people disagree with the idea that papal primacy is patristic, the question is on the table and it is being discussed, not just shut down as though it is already decided.
Mary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21 |
Dear Mary, I think many Eastern Catholics would agree with the Orthodox (in communion with Orthodoxy, that is) that the Papacy should return to the way it was exercised in the first Millennium. If that were to occur, I believe that even many "High Church" Protestants would be willing to accept it! The way the Ukrainian Catholic Church tends to operate today, as do other EC Churches, is to go ahead and do things with the view to letting Rome know about it later . . . It is always easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission, after all!  Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
So whether or not lots and lots of people disagree with the idea that papal primacy is patristic, the question is on the table and it is being discussed, not just shut down as though it is already decided. Primacy has never been a question. You cannot have a synod without primacy involved in some form. The issue is supremacy, which is not primacy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
Primacy has never been a question. You cannot have a synod without primacy involved in some form.
The issue is supremacy, which is not primacy. It would be useful sometimes in these discussions to actually use the text from the dogmatic constitution rather than looking at our own personal understandings of things. Sometimes we miss important things. I would like to make a preliminary assertion that the concept of "supreme" has a highly specific meaning in the act from the First Vatican Council that I am pretty sure is missed more often than not in these discussions. What I would like you to do before we try to carry this discussion forward is to go and look at the dogmatic constitution from the First Vatican Council that defines primacy and infallibility. I'd like you to cite for us how many times you find the complete phrase "papal supremacy." And if you cannot find that phrase then look for the word "supreme" and cut and paste the text here for us to look at. I know it is difficult to do this kind of systematic examination in this particular kind of board or forum but we might be able to do it. Too many times I see this kind of discussion founder in the dustbin of presumption. I would be more than happy to try looking a the ideas and issues in a different light, in a different way. So I will suggest again in a preliminary way that the idea of "supreme" in the actual act of the council is functionally and really a subset of infallibility, and fits rather nicely with the idea of the servant of the servants of God and with the idea of "First among equals" with "first" actually meaning just that. You don't need to go along with me of course. It is just a thought. Mary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
One simply need look in the Catechism or the CCEO to find the various manifestations of supremacy. CCC 882 says
�the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."
CCC 937 says
"The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, 'supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls.'�
UOJ among things things is simply an example. You'll find various "The Roman Pontiff alone can etc., etc." which are simply further examples.
and I've been told multiple times, by multiple people, the recent proclamations are a much better reference than Pastor aeternus.
I'm truly not interested in arguing the point. I follow what my church teaches and I believe it is fully consistent with the church of the first millenium which is held to be the model.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
I'm truly not interested in arguing the point. I follow what my church teaches and I believe it is fully consistent with the church of the first millenium which is held to be the model. That is unfortunate that you've declined. Then I will simply say that as you appear to be using it there is no such thing in papal Catholic teaching as "papal supremacy." It is a concept that is cobbled together to be used as a hammer to try to demolish the actual traditional content of Pastor Aeternus. You of course are free to use it, and I am free to give the appropriate credit for accuracy and precision, where that credit is due. Another interesting thing that I found in the Orthodox papers in The Petrine Ministry was the outright statement that contemporary Orthodoxy is no longer the Church of the pentarchy in terms of her manner of internal governance, and that fact will factor heavily in any future comparisons of both Orthodoxy and the papal Church. So I suspect that the bilateral discussion on the Petrine ministry will be as much an examination of Orthodoxy as it is going to be an inquisition of the papal Church. I am very much looking forward to the next couple of years. I think there will be fireworks, but it will bear good fruit, I pray. Mary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
Your own catechism uses the term. I didn't make it up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
Your own catechism uses the term. I didn't make it up. No. The CCC does not use the phrase "papal supremacy" ever, nor is it used in any other formal document. That is a construct devised by detractors as a catch phrase that means something that the papal Church never intended in all of her history. I think that I mentioned that the terms "supreme" has a very precise meaning in that document and is a subset of the Church's teaching on infallibility, which is not the same thing as primacy, and it is only one of several subset categories, each one having a particular meaning in particular circumstances, and only has meaning at all if one understands that the source of infallibility in the Church is the Church, or the Body of Christ. Without those things in context, your catch-phrase has no meaning at all, within the Catholic Church. As I said, you may use the catch-phrase as you like. Mary
|
|
|
|
|
