 |

Home
Church Community
Statement of
Beliefs
Contact Us Search Our Site
Bible
Study Resource
|
 |
 |

Particulars
of Christianity:
301
Roman Catholicism
Roman
Catholicism (Part 7)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 1)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 2)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 3)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 4)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 5)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 6)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 7)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 8)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 9)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 10)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 11)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 12)
Addendum:
In Their Own Words
(Continued from previous section.)
We are now entering into a very specific part of our survey.
With the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians we begin
a very small number of works, which themselves will only make
a few remarks that may be relevant to our study of the origin
of this Roman Catholic doctrine. Having then already looked
at the 1st century Scriptural evidence as well as the evidence
from the 3rd and 2nd century Traditional (non-Biblical early
Church) writings and found them to be without validation for
the views of the RCC, it would take a pretty explicit statement
in order to now substantiate this doctrine on such a small
portion of the available documentation. This is especially
true since a very large portion of the potential evidence
has already been shown to be at least indifferent to the subject.
More likely, for those who are willing to make a reasonable
assessment, it has been prohibitive of Roman Catholic teaching.
So, we turn now to Clement, who was, according to Irenaeus,
a bishop of Rome. Clement wrote an epistle known as the First
Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, which will be the subject
of the Roman Catholic appeal. This epistle was written before
the year 100 A.D. (Remember, of course, that the term "pope"
was not used as an exclusive reference to the bishop of Rome
until the eleventh century.)
"Clement I, Saint - or Clement of Rome, d. A.D.
97?, pope (A.D. 88?-A.D. 97?), martyr; successor of St.
Cletus. He may have known the apostles Peter and Paul and
was a highly esteemed figure in the church." - The Columbia
Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
"The Pope - The first witness is St. Clement, a
disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus,
succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes. In
his 'Epistle to the Corinthians', written in 95 or 96…"
- Catholic Encyclopedia
Here, then, is the argument offered by the Catholic Encyclopedia
based upon Clement's letter to the Corinthians.
"The Pope - The first witness is St. Clement,
a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus,
succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes. In
his "Epistle to the Corinthians", written in 95 or 96, he
bids them receive back the bishops whom a turbulent faction
among them had expelled. 'If any man', he says, 'should
be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us,
let them understand that they will entangle themselves in
no slight transgression and danger' (Ep. 59). Moreover, he
bids them 'render obedience unto the things written by
us through the Holy Spirit'. The tone of authority which
inspires the latter appears so clearly that Lightfoot did
not hesitate to speak of it as 'the first step towards papal
domination (Clement 1:70).' Thus, at the very commencement
of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles
had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple
of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church
and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under
the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a fact admits of one
explanation alone. It is that in the days when the Apostolic
teaching was yet fresh in men's minds the universal Church
recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head."
- Catholic Encyclopedia
Several conclusions drawn by the Catholic Encyclopedia must
be challenged.
First, the Catholic Encyclopedia claims Clement to be the
first witness to supremacy of the Roman bishopric from the
earliest times. This is an astonishing acknowledgement especially
since Clement's letter was only written in 95 or 96 A.D.
"The Pope - History bears complete testimony that
from the very earliest times the Roman See has ever claimed
the supreme headship, and that that headship has been freely
acknowledged by the universal Church. We shall here confine
ourselves to the consideration of the evidence afforded
by the first three centuries." - Catholic Encyclopedia
"The Pope - The first witness is St. Clement, a
disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus,
succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes.
In his "Epistle to the Corinthians", written in 95 or 96."
- Catholic Encyclopedia
If then this later 1st century document is the first witness
to the doctrine of Roman papal supremacy a question must be
asked as to whether or not this is sufficient to demonstrate
the origin of this Roman Catholic teaching with Jesus Christ
over six decades earlier at about 30 A.D. Is a single document
written over 60 years after the fact, by a second-hand witness
asserting that he alone holds supreme authority in the Church
enough to sufficiently establish that the doctrine he is asserting
originated with Jesus Christ? (Of course, as we will see,
Clement is not really making such a claim.)
Having demonstrated that the New Testament cannot be appealed
to as providing support for papal supremacy, we would argue
that even if Clement's letter is shown to indicate papal authority
it would not be sufficient to demonstrate therefore, that
this was the teaching of Jesus Christ or his apostles. It
would remain entirely possible that this doctrine was elaborated
or exaggerated by some later bishop of Rome such as Linus,
Anacletus, or Clement himself in order to strengthen their
power, perhaps even for virtuous reasons like preserving sound
doctrine. So, even a firm statement of support for papal supremacy
from Clement may not rise to the level of sufficiency for
substantiating the claim of the RCC that this doctrine originated
with the teaching of Jesus Christ.
Second, it must also be noted that while Clement certainly
did succeed Linus and Anacletus as bishop of Rome, the evidence
that the Catholic Encyclopedia has offered so far does not
support that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. And though
this conclusion has not be established from the evidence they
have offered, the Catholic Encyclopedia is, nevertheless,
more than willing to simply assume it to be true.
However, what we have seen is that while the Catholic Encyclopedia
insists upon referring to Clement as the fourth bishop of
Rome, Irenaeus simply calls him the third from the apostles.
By this and other statements from Irenaeus we learned that
either Peter and Paul shared the Roman bishopric or, more
likely, that neither was denoted with the title of bishop
since both held Apostolic title instead, which superceded
the lesser title of bishop and, therefore, made the title
of "bishop" unnecessary and perhaps inaccurate.
"2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume
as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches,
we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner,
whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness
and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings;
[we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived
from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and
universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by
the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also
[by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down
to our time by means of the successions of the bishops." -
Irenaeus, CHAP. III.--A REFUTATION OF THE HERETICS, FROM THE
FACT THAT, IN THE VARIOUS CHURCHES, A PERPETUAL SUCCESSION
OF BISHOPS WAS KEPT UP.
"3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built
up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office
of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in
the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and
after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was
allotted the bishopric." - Irenaeus, CHAP. III.--A REFUTATION
OF THE HERETICS, FROM THE FACT THAT, IN THE VARIOUS CHURCHES,
A PERPETUAL SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS WAS KEPT UP.
"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews(3)
in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching
at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church." -
Irenaeus, CHAP. I.--THE APOSTLES DID NOT COMMENCE TO PREACH
THE GOSPEL, OR TO PLACE ANYTHING ON RECORD, UNTIL THEY WERE
ENDOWED WITH THE GIFTS AND POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. THEY
PREACHED ONE GOD ALONE, MAKER OF HEAVEN AND EARTH.
Third, while the Catholic Encyclopedia is quick to assert
that Clement was "himself a disciple of Peter" the New Testament
bears witnesses that Clement, like Linus, was a companion
of Paul and NOT Peter. Below is Paul's letter to the Philippians
indicating that Clement was one of his fellow workers followed
by a quote from the Columbia Encyclopedia affirming this fact.
Philippians 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow,
help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with
Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose
names are in the book of life.
"Clement, in the Bible - in Philippians, one of
Paul's coworkers. He is traditionally identified with St.
Clement of Rome, the likely author of a letter written from
there to the Corinthian church in c. A.D. 96." - The Columbia
Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
And again, as we have already seen earlier Irenaeus connects
Linus and Clement to Paul and Peter rather than to just Peter
as the Catholic Encyclopedia asserts.
"3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built
up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office
of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the
Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after
him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted
the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles,
and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the
preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears],
and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in
this], for there were many still remaining who had received
instructions from the apostles." - Irenaeus, CHAP. III.--A
REFUTATION OF THE HERETICS, FROM THE FACT THAT, IN THE VARIOUS
CHURCHES, A PERPETUAL SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS WAS KEPT UP.
Given these facts, we must ask why the Catholic Encyclopedia
feels comfortable insisting that Clement was "himself a disciple
of Peter." Indeed, it is accurate to say that Clement was
a disciple of Peter. But it is inappropriate and misleading
to refer to Clement as a disciple of Peter alone given that
he was also a disciple of Paul, perhaps even more so since
Clement was a companion of Paul's during his ministry. No
such connection is attested to historically between Clement
and Peter. By omitting Clement's relationship to Paul when
discussing Clement as a disciple of Peter, the Catholic Encyclopedia
gives the mistaken impression that Clement was solely Peter's
disciple just as one would expect if Clement later succeeded
Peter as pope.
The fact that Clement was either the disciple of both Paul
and Peter and perhaps to a greater extent the disciple of
Paul detracts from the Catholic Encyclopedia's argument as
does their failure to mention this detail. Moreover, given
that Irenaeus attests to Linus receiving the bishopric from
both Peter and Paul (as we have seen), the fact that Clement
was also strongly tied to Paul and not just Peter, further
indicates that Paul and Peter together were the predecessors
and mentors of the bishops of the Roman church including both
Linus and Clement.
Fourth, we must note the meagerness of the quotation, by which
the Catholic Encyclopedia expects to prove its doctrine. In
arguing that Clement's First Epistle to the Corinthians provides
"the first witness" of Roman papal supremacy, the Catholic
Encyclopedia, again, is content to offer only two short quotes
from the letter itself. Below are the sole quotes offered
by the Catholic Encyclopedia, which they feel are sufficient
to demonstrate that Clement is providing support for their
doctrine.
"If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by
God through us, let them understand that they will entangle
themselves in no slight transgression and danger."
"…render obedience unto the things written by us through the
Holy Spirit."
And what do we see in these quotes that would lead us to the
conclusion that Clement is at all indicating Roman papal authority?
Does he remind the Corinthians of the primacy of Peter? No.
Does he remind the Corinthians that Peter was the first bishop
of Rome? No. Does he remind the Corinthians of his authority
as the Roman bishop? No.
By what means then does the Catholic Encyclopedia intend to
convince us that Clement is by these words supporting Roman
papal authority? Well, Clement does speak from a position
of authority in telling the Corinthians to be obedient to
the words spoken by God "through us." Likewise, he also, tells
them to be obedient to the things written "by us" through
the Holy Spirit.
While such phrases do certainly indicate that Clement had
some authority as a bishop in a church, which just so happened
to be at Rome, they do not indicate that Clement had more
or less authority than any other bishop in any other church.
Given the fact that all bishops exercised authority, showing
that Clement was aware of his authority as a bishop is in
no way equivalent to proving that Clement thought he had supreme
authority above and beyond all other bishops. We have already
seen from the example of Cyprian, who was the bishop of Carthage,
that church congregations in one area would often appeal to
the bishop of another area for instruction and decision in
times of trouble.
"Cyprian, Saint - When in 254 two Spanish congregations
(Mérida and León) appealed to him against a decision by Stephen
to restore bishops who had lapsed during the persecution,
he summoned a council to consider the case. The council
decided that the congregations not only had a right but
a duty to separate themselves from a cleric who had committed
a deadly sin such as apostasy. Cyprian wrote (Letter 67) that
the Holy Spirit was no longer in such a priest and that his
sacraments would lead to perdition and not salvation." -Britannica.com
There is nothing in Clement's comments here that would indicate
that something above and beyond what happened with Cyprian
is taking place in Clement's letter to the Corinthians.
Furthermore, why does Clement speak using the plural pronoun
us? If he was the pope, having all of the authority that Roman
Catholics ascribe to that position, wouldn't Clement simply
refer to himself as having this authority. Instead, he uses
the pronoun "us" indicating that the authority he is referring
to is shared by more than one person rather than in the singular
person of the pope. So, how then do Roman Catholics use Clement's
statements to support their papal doctrines?
Only by interpreting Clement's words in accordance with their
own preconceived conclusions can Roman Catholics offer Clement's
remarks as support for their doctrine. Only by assuming that
by "through us" and "by us" Clement is referring to the Roman
popes starting with Peter, then Linus, then Anacletus, and
then himself would it be the case that Clement is advocating
Roman papal authority. But Clement's remarks on their own
do not even vaguely require this interpretation.
Nowhere in his letter does Clement indicate that the succession
of Roman bishops is what he has in mind as he repeatedly refers
to "us." Therefore in order to understand Clement as supporting
the Roman Catholic position of Roman papal authority we first
must assume the Roman Catholic understanding that the papal
office did exist and was being exercised by Clement. This
is circular reasoning pure and simple.
The critical question is whether the rest of Clement's letter
indicates a special treatment of Peter and the Roman bishops
or, instead, equates Peter and the Roman bishops with other
Apostles and bishops.
In regard to this, we can see that Clement's letter does not
indicate a special position of Peter, but instead mentions
him alongside of Paul as pillars of the Church.
"But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the
most recent spiritual heroes.(11) Let us take the noble examples
furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy,
the greatest and most righteous pillars[of the Church](3)
have been persecuted and put to death.(12) Let us set before
our eyes the illustrious(13) apostles. Peter, through unrighteous
envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and
when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the
place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained
the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times
thrown into captivity,(14) compelled(15) to flee, and stoned.
After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious
reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to
the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west,(16)
and suffered martyrdom under the prefects.(17) Thus was he
removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having
proved himself a striking example of patience." - Clement,
First Epistle to the Corinthians, CHAP. V.--NO LESS EVILS
HAVE ARISEN FROM THE SAME SOURCE IN THE MOST RECENT TIMES.
THE MARTYRDOM OF PETER AND PAUL.
In this quote we see that not only does Clement place Peter
and Paul on the same level as pillars of the Church, but that
Clement identifies Peter as a pillar of the Church alongside
Paul, rather than as the singular rock upon which the Church
was to be built as Roman Catholics contend. So, Clement's
reference to Peter here shows no sign of Roman Catholicism
or of the RCC's doctrine of primacy for the bishop of Rome.
This next quote from Clement's letter speaks even more directly
to the hierarchy of Apostles and bishops.
"The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from(4) the
Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so from(4) God.
Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles
by Christ. Both these appointments,(5) then, were made in
an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore
received their orders, and being fully assured by the
resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established(6)
in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost,
they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God
was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities,
they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours],
having first proved them by the Spirit,(7) to be bishops
and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor
was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was
written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the
Scripture(8) a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops
s in righteousness, and their deacons(9) in faith."(10) -
Clement, First Epistle to the Corinthians, CHAP. XLII.--THE
ORDER OF MINISTERS IN THE CHURCH.
When presenting the order of ministers in the Church, Clement
does not identify Peter or the Roman bishops as being in a
place of pre-eminent authority as one would expect if the
papal doctrines of the RCC are indeed valid. Instead of singling
out Peter and the Roman bishops, and thereby giving a nod
to Roman primacy, Clement only broadly mentions the Apostles
together as a group as well as those they appointed as bishops
and deacons. We must note that Clement is here discussing
how the apostles appointed bishops to succeed them. Yet, there
is no indication whatsoever of any papal office or supremacy
of Peter or the bishopric of Rome as the RCC believes and
teaches. This is strong evidence corroborating the conclusion
that no such office was ever taught or exercised in the early
Church and certainly that such an office is not indicated
or supported by Clement.
Next Clement mentions the church at Rome, which he wrote from
and was bishop over.
"THE Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church
of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called
and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus
Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through
Jesus Christ, be multiplied. 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." - Clement, First Epistle to the Corinthians,
CHAP CHAP. I.--THE SALUTATION. PRAISE OF THE CORINTHIANS BEFORE
THE BREAKING FORTH OF SCHISM AMONG THEM.
Though we see that Clement indicates that the church of Corinth
consulted the church of Rome on some matter, we see that Clement
notes that this request was directed not to him singularly
as the head of the Church and bishop of Rome, but was directed
to what Clement again refers to with the plural pronouns "we"
and "us." This is similar to his comments, which we discussed
earlier, in which Clement also used the plural pronouns to
refer to those whose words the Corinthians should obey.
"If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken
by God through us, let them understand that they will
entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger."
"…render obedience unto the things written by us through
the Holy Spirit."
By reading these comments together as the Corinthians would
have when they read the letter rather than by isolating some
of them from the rest of the letter as the Catholic Encyclopdia
does, Clement's intentions become clear. As the bishop of
the Roman Church, Clement was writing the Corinthian Church
concerning a matter that the Church at Corinth had consulted
them (the entire Roman Church) about. In addressing the matter
Clement tells the Corinthians to obey "the things written
by us." The "us" to whom Clement is referring is the same
"us" to whom the Corinthians had addressed their consultation.
It is the elders of the Roman Church along with Clement for
whom Clement is speaking as the head of their local body,
the bishop of Rome, not the head of the universal church,
the bishop of bishops. And again, this is very similar to
the situation in which two Spanish congregations wrote seeking
instruction and decision from Cyprian the bishop of Carthage,
which even Roman Catholics will agree did not indicate that
the Bishop of Carthage had supreme authority over the Church.
Therefore, it is apparent from Clement's statements that he
does not have in mind some past succession of Roman bishops,
who preceded him in times past and were now dead. Instead,
he has in mind the elders of the Roman Church, who together
with Clement as their head, ruled over that local Church.
Again, there is nothing explicit or implied by Clement, which
requires the conclusion arrived at by the RCC. Only if one
first assumes the Roman Catholic position to be accurate can
one override the plain intentions of Clement's letter, which
by themselves provide no indication of Roman primacy.
In the next statement from his letter we see that Clement
rebukes the Corinthians in the same way that Paul did for
their tendency to esteem one Apostle above another. This error
of the Corinthian church seems to be repeated by the Roman
Catholics, who likewise esteem Peter above the other Apostles
and early Church leaders. Clement, whom the RCC claims succeeded
Peter as pope and who has nowhere even come close to affirming
Roman Catholic dogma on these matters here he rebukes the
Corinthians for just such behavior as is now exhibited in
the RCC's papal doctrines.
"Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What
did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began
to be preached?(2) Truly, under the inspiration(3) of the
Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and
Apollos,(4) because even then parties(5) had been formed
among you. But that inclination for one above another
entailed less guilt upon you, inasmuch as your partialities
were then shown towards apostles, already of high reputation,
and towards a man whom they had approved. But now reflect
who those are that have perverted you, and lessened the renown
of your far-famed brotherly love. It is disgraceful, beloved,
yea, highly disgraceful, and unworthy of your Christian profession,(6)
that such a thing should be heard of as that the most stedfast
and ancient Church of the Corinthians should, on account of
one or two persons, engage in sedition against its presbyters.
And this rumour has reached not only us, but those also who
are unconnected(7) with us; so that, through your infatuation,
the name of the Lord is blasphemed, while danger is also brought
upon yourselves." - Clement, First Epistle to the Corinthians,
CHAP. XLVII.--YOUR RECENT DISCORD IS WORSE THAN THE FORMER
WHICH TOOK PLACE IN THE TIMES OF PAUL.
And finally, we should remember that Irenaeus mentions this
letter of Clement to the Corinthians in his own writing. Irenaeus
places no special emphasis on Clement's letter as an exercise
of papal authority or Roman supremacy, but instead follows
it by mentioning a similar letter, issued by Polycarp the
bishop of Smyrna to the Philippians. He offers both letters
side by side as evidence of the succession of Apostolic teaching
in the universal Church without bestowing some hierarchical
authority to Clement as the bishop of Rome. Note that Irenaeus
reckons Clement's epistle to the Corinthians as being a work
of the Church at Rome and not just of Clement. This supports
our interpretation of Clement's use of plural pronouns throughout
the letter as a reference to the entire Roman Church including
its elders and himself rather than as a reference to the succession
of Roman bishops.
"In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having
occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome
despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians,
exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring
the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles."
- Irenaeus, CHAP. III.--A REFUTATION OF THE HERETICS, FROM
THE FACT THAT, IN THE VARIOUS CHURCHES, A PERPETUAL SUCCESSION
OF BISHOPS WAS KEPT UP.
"But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles,
and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also,
by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna,
whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth]
a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and
most nobly suffering martyrdom,(1) departed this life, having
always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles,
and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are
true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify,
as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the
present time…There is also a very powerful(4) Epistle of
Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who
choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can
learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the
truth." - Irenaeus, CHAP. III.--A REFUTATION OF THE HERETICS,
FROM THE FACT THAT, IN THE VARIOUS CHURCHES, A PERPETUAL SUCCESSION
OF BISHOPS WAS KEPT UP.
Clement's epistle to the Corinthians provides no objective
evidence in support of the papal doctrines of the Roman Catholic
Church. Instead of supporting some special prominence to the
bishops of Rome or to Peter, Clement's letter, instead, only
provides evidence that Peter and the bishops of Rome and their
writings carried the same authority as those of the Apostles
Paul and John and as the other bishops, like Polycarp of Smyrna.
At the beginning of their argument the Catholic Encyclopedia
informed their reader that they would begin proving the historical
authenticity of the papal doctrines beginning in the 3rd century
A.D. and then working their way back to the earlier periods
of Christian history. However, after moving from the 2nd century
apologist Irenaeus to the 1st century epistle of Clement to
the Corinthians, which the Catholic Encyclopedia refers to
as the first witness of Roman papal supremacy, the Catholic
Encyclopedia again reverses order with two final appeals.
The first of these final appeals is to an early 2nd century
letter to Rome of Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch in 107 A.D.
A second appeal is then made to events involving bishop Victor
of Rome in the late 2nd century at around 189-198 A.D.
It is hard to understand these reversals in the course of
a historical investigation. Since the Catholic Encyclopedia
identifies Clement as the first witness to their doctrine
of papal authority, why not start with him and work forward
as they do after covering Clement's writing? What they do
instead is to start with 3rd century writers, mention a single
2nd century writer (Irenaeus), then proceed to the sole 1st
century witness (Clement), and then follow with two more 2nd
century evidences (from Ignatius and Victor).
This is a very strange approach and so we again point out
its oddity. The most readily identifiable reason for why a
scholarly organization like the Catholic Encyclopedia would
employ such an unnatural methodology is that the RCC is aware
of the inadequacy of their argument. Thus, they approach the
topic in this manner in hopes of confusing the readers with
this questionable presentation and perhaps manage to use information
from later periods in order to color the earlier-dating evidence,
which on its own would not seem to support their teaching.
Given that the principal dispute is whether or not the doctrine
of papal supremacy originated in the earliest period of Church
history this circuitous approach to a historical investigation
is highly suspicious and at least implies that some less than
honest scholarship is attempting to take advantage of the
ignorance and biases of their audience.
Nevertheless, we will proceed with an examination of the writings
of Ignatius. Ignatius was a disciple of John the Apostle who
lived and wrote between 30 and 107 A.D.
"Ignatius of Antioch, Saint - d. c.107, bishop of
Antioch and Christian martyr, called Theophorus [Gr.,=
God-bearer]. He was probably a convert and a disciple of
St. John the Evangelist. On his way to Rome to be martyred
by the wild beasts of the amphitheater, he wrote the important
letters to the churches in Rome and in Asia Minor, and to
St. Polycarp. The seven epistles are an invaluable testimony
to the beliefs and internal organization of the early Christians."
- The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
In reference to a letter of Ignatius to the Church of Rome,
the Catholic Encyclopedia makes the following claim.
"The Pope - A few years later (about 107) St. Ignatius
of Antioch, in the opening of his letter to the Roman Church,
refers to its presiding over all other Churches. He addresses
it as 'presiding over the brotherhood of love [prokathemene
tes agapes]' The expression, as Funk rightly notes, is grammatically
incompatible with the translation advocated by some non-Catholic
writers, 'pre-eminent in works of love.'" - Catholic Encyclopedia
Again, it is interesting to note that at this late stage of
the investigation the Catholic Encyclopedia maintains its
preference to state their own conclusions rather than to quote
the actual statements of the authors in context, which they
claim support those conclusions. Anyone who has spent any
time reading the Catholic Encyclopedia online will realize
that this lack of quotations is not a result of attempting
to keep their articles brief. Many articles, while excessively
long on words, are decisively short on quotes from original
sources, that is when the original sources are ancient historians.
Quotes from modern scholars often abound.
First, let's get the obvious stuff out of the way. If the
bishop of Rome is supreme, why is the bishop of Antioch writing
to instruct and administrate oversight to the church of Rome?
This indicates what we've seen already in the case of Cyprian:
that bishops of different regions at times would lend a hand
to the oversight of churches in other areas. In the case of
Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage gave oversight and instruction
for churches in Spain during a time of need. Here with Ignatius,
we see the bishop of Antioch giving oversight to the church
of Rome. And in the case of Clement, we saw the bishop of
Rome giving oversight to the church of Corinth.
The obvious fact that Ignatius even writes an instructive
pastoral letter to Christians under the bishop of Rome does
two important things. Ignatius' letter further corroborates
this pattern of shared authority by bishops to help oversee
areas in need. And Ignatius' letter demonstrates that the
church of Rome was not under a supreme bishop because if it
were, then it would not be in need of pastoral instruction
from a bishop of a lesser authority, such as Antioch.
Momentarily we will look at several other writings from Ignatius
by which we will demonstrate that he offers no support for
Roman or papal primacy. However, because we have established
a pattern, whereby the quotes of the Catholic Encyclopedia,
when placed in context, do not support their claims, we will
now do for ourselves what the Catholic Encyclopedia would
not do for us. Let's take a look at Ignatius' words directly
and see for ourselves if he's saying what the Catholic Encyclopedia
would have us believe.
"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church
which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most
High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the
Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of
Him that willeth all things which are according to the love
of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place
of the report of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of
honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise,
worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed
holy,(2) and which presides over love, is named from Christ,
and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus
Christ, the San of the Father: to those who are united, both
according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments;
who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are
purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness
unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God. - The Epistle of Ignatius
to the Romans
Now, admittedly, Ignatius is writing a very long introductory
sentence with a great deal of modifying phrases. So, let's
break down what he is saying. Of course, Ignatius is writing
this epistle to the church of Rome. He begins with the phrase
"to the Church which has obtained mercy." We ask the question,
"is the Roman church the only church which has obtained mercy?"
By stating that the Roman church to whom he is writing had
obtained mercy, did Ignatius intend to convey that it was
unique in this regard? Did Ignatius intend to exclude the
other churches as not having obtained mercy? Of course not.
The Roman church is only one of many local churches who had
obtained mercy.
Ignatius continues by calling the Roman church, "the Church
which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth
all things." Here again, we must ask if Ignatius meant hold
out the church of Rome as unique in this regard to the exclusion
of all the other churches so that only the church of Rome
was beloved by God? Again, the answer is of course not. Ignatius
is neither excluding other churches from this trait nor making
the Roman church unique in this regard.
Since the previous traits that Ignatius ascribes to the Roman
church are not unique to Rome and excluding of the other churches,
why would we think that Ignatius' description of Rome as "presiding
over love" or even "presiding over the brotherhood of love"
is meant to be unique of Rome to the exclusion of the other
churches? We shouldn't.
Furthermore, we would also note that Ignatius specifies that
it is "the Church" which presides and not the bishop. This
further explains Clement's use of the plural pronouns "us"
and "we" when writing from Rome.
"THE Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church
of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called
and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus
Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through
Jesus Christ, be multiplied. 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." - Clement, First Epistle to the Corinthians,
CHAP CHAP. I.--THE SALUTATION. PRAISE OF THE CORINTHIANS BEFORE
THE BREAKING FORTH OF SCHISM AMONG THEM.
Both Clement and Ignatius were referring to the collective
authority invested in EACH local church including its elders
rather than singularly in a unique successor of Peter in Rome.
Lastly, we should note that Ignatius specifies the particular
place that is presided over. In his remarks here, Ignatius
does not say that the presiding extends over the whole world.
Instead, he writes plainly that the presiding is "in the place
of the report of the Romans worthy of God." Ignatius' use
of the word "also" is meant as "in addition" to the other
2 "which's." If we look at Ignatius' words in context he describes
the church in Rome as the church "which has obtained mercy,"
"which is beloved," and "which also presides in Rome." In
short, Ignatius is simply affirming that the Roman church
has authority and presides over the Christians in the region
of Rome. But, of course, this is no different than any other
church, since the church of Corinth would preside over the
region of Corinth and the church of Antioch, which Ignatius
is bishop over, would preside over the region of Antioch.
Second, the idea of Rome presiding over the Church in no way
indicates that it held a position of supreme authority over
the Church. Consider that at the Council of Nicaea it was
the Roman Emperor Constantine who presided over the affairs
of the meeting. The bishop of Rome was not even present and
is merely said to have sent to representatives in his place.
"Nicaea, Council of - (325), the first ecumenical
council of the Christian church, meeting in ancient Nicaea
(now Iznik, Tur.). It was called by the emperor Constantine
I, an unbaptized catechumen, or neophyte, who presided
over the opening session and took part in the discussions.
He hoped a general council of the church would solve the problem
created in the Eastern church by Arianism, a heresy first
proposed by Arius of Alexandria that affirmed that Christ
is not divine but a created being. Pope Sylvester I did
not attend the council but was represented by legates."
- Britannica.com
"Constantine I, Roman emperor - In 314 he convened
a synod at Arles to regulate the Church in the West, and in
325 he convened and presided over a council at Nicaea to deal
with the troubles over Arianism (see Nicaea, First Council
of). Thus Constantine evolved the idea of the ecumenical council."
- The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
"Nicaea, First Council of - 325, 1st ecumenical
council, convened by Roman Emperor Constantine the Great to
solve the problems raised by Arianism." - The Columbia
Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
"First Council of Nicaea - The business of the Council
having been finished Constantine celebrated the twentieth
anniversary of his accession to the empire, and invited the
bishops to a splendid repast, at the end of which each of
them received rich presents. Several days later the emperor
commanded that a final session should be held, at which he
assisted in order to exhort the bishops to work for the maintenance
of peace; he commended himself to their prayers, and
authorized the fathers to return to their dioceses. The
greater number hastened to take advantage of this and to bring
the resolutions of the council to the knowledge of their provinces."
- Catholic Encyclopedia
Does the fact that Constantine presided over this all-important
early Church council mean that Constantine held authority
over the Church and its doctrines? This may perhaps be the
case, however, Roman Catholics must deny that Constantine's
presiding over the council at all indicates that he held supreme
authority over the Church and its doctrinal decisions. For
if "presiding" indicates that one holds supreme authority
then it was Constantine, and not the bishop of Rome, who held
power over the Church and its doctrine in the early third
century and thus, the Roman Catholic idea of papal authority
is further shown to be undermined by the authority exercised
by Constantine.
So, Ignatius' statement in his letter to Rome, in no way can
be taken as evidence of papal supremacy as the Catholic Encyclopedia
claims. Yet in his other letters, Ignatius makes several comments,
which relate to the topic under discussion, which deserve
quotation. Early on in his letter to the Ephesians, Ignatius
indicates that both Peter and Paul laid the foundations for
the Church.
"This was first fulfilled in Syria; for "the disciples were
called Christians at Antioch,"[9] when Paul and Peter were
laying the foundations of the Church." - The Epistle of
Ignatius, CHAP. X.--BEWARE OF JUDAIZING.
By placing Paul first and by not mentioning Peter alone in
this task, Ignatius, from the onset of his letter exhibits
an understanding of these Apostles, which contradicts that
asserted by the RCC, which holds that Peter alone is the foundation
stone of the Church. Throughout this work, Ignatius continues
to mention Peter side by side with Paul, whom he repeatedly
places first, as acting to build and lead the Church. Each
time the idea of a pre-immanent position of Peter is conspicuously
missing from the text.
"…though I am acquainted with these things, yet am I not therefore
by any means perfect; nor am I such a disciple as Paul
or Peter." - The Epistle of Ignatius, CHAP. V.--I WILL
NOT TEACH YOU PROFOUND DOCTRINES.
"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you.
They were apostles." - The Epistle of Ignatius, CHAP.
IV.--ALLOW ME TO FALL A PREY TO THE WILD BEASTS.
"I do not, like Peter and Paul, issue orders unto you.
They are(6) apostles, but I am one condemned; they indeed
are free, but I am a slave, even until now. But if I suffer,
I shall be the freed-man of Jesus Christ, and I shall rise
in Him from the dead, free. And now being in bonds, I learn
to desire nothing." - The Epistle of Ignatius, CHAP. IV.
"Ye have been the disciples of Paul and Peter; do not
lose what was committed to your trust. Keep in remembrance
Euodias,(10) your deservedly-blessed pastor, into whose
hands the government over you was first entrusted by the apostles.
Let us not bring disgrace upon our Father. Let us prove ourselves
His true-born children, and not bastards. Ye know after what
manner I have acted among you. The things which, when present,
I spoke to you, these same, when absent, I now write to you.
"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema."(11)
- The Epistle of Ignatius, CHAP. VII.--EXHORTATION TO CONSISTENCY
OF CONDUCT.
Later on in his epistle, Ignatius, even mentions Paul along
with Peter in the context of the succession of the bishops
of Rome. Again, we must note that no place of supremacy is
attributed to Peter. And while the successors of the Roman
bishopric are presented, Ignatius does not denote them as
successor of Peter, but rather mentions first Paul and then
Peter along with him. It is hard to accommodate the Roman
Catholic papal doctrine with these statements of Ignatius.
"Now it occurs to me to mention, that the report is true
which I heard of thee whilst thou wast at Rome with the blessed
father(8) Linus, whom the deservedly-blessed Clement, a hearer
of Peter and Paul, has now succeeded." - The Epistle of
Ignatius, CHAP. IV.--COMMENDATION AND EXHORTATION.
Now, when the Catholic Encyclopedia came across this repeated
joint affirmation of Paul and Peter side by side in the writings
of Irenaeus, they attempted to sidestep the problem by suggesting
that Paul was mentioned only because Irenaeus was specifically
refuting the Gnostics. However, Ignatius is not writing against
Gnostics and he makes the very same side-by-side, joint mention
of Peter and Paul as the foundations of the Roman church and
as together handing on its governance to a successor, which
we also saw in Irenaeus' writings. Thus, while Ignatius does
not help the Roman Catholic claim that Peter held a position
of supreme authority, he does provide corroboration for Irenaeus'
comments, which we viewed earlier that both Peter and Paul
founded and ruled the Church at Rome as well as together appointed
Linus to succeed them as bishop. Ignatius' mention of Peter
and Paul side by side jointly founding the Roman church and
joint passing on its governance severely undermines the RCC
papal doctrine, just as was the case when Irenaeus made the
very same statements in his writings later on.
Elsewhere Ignatius speaks of the office and authority of the
bishop in several passages.
"And do ye also reverence your bishop as Christ Himself,
according as the blessed apostles have enjoined you. He
that is within the altar is pure, wherefore also he is obedient
to the bishop and presbyters: but he that is without is one
that does anything apart from the bishop, the presbyters,
and the deacons. Such a person is defiled in his conscience,
and is worse than an infidel. For what is the bishop but
one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority,
so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according
to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ Of
God?(6) And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly,
the counsellors and assessors of the bishop?" - The Epistle
of Ignatius, CHAP. VII.--THE SAME CONTINUED.
"Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For
there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup
to [show forth(1)] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there
is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants:
that so, whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to [the
will of] God. I have confidence of you m the Lord, that ye
will be of no other mind. Wherefore I write boldly to your
love, which is worthy of God, and exhort you to have but one
faith, and one [kind of] preaching, and one Eucharist.
For there is one flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ; and His blood
which was shed for us is one; one loaf also is broken to all
[the communicants], and one cup is distributed among them
all: there is but one altar for the whole Church, and one
bishop, with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants.
Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even
the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man;
and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth; and also one preaching,
and one faith, and one baptism;(2) and one Church which
the holy apostles established from one end of the earth
to the other by the blood of Christ, and by their own sweat
and toil; it behoves you also, therefore, as "a peculiar people,
and a holy nation,"(3) to perform all things with harmony
in Christ." - The Epistle of Ignatius, CHAP. IV.--HAVE BUT
ONE EUCHARIST, ETC.
"Let governors be obedient to Caesar; soldiers to those that
command them; deacons to the presbyters, as 82 to high-priests;
the presbyters, and deacons, and the rest of the clergy,
together with all the people, and the soldiers, and the governors,
and Caesar [himself], to the bishop; the bishop to Christ,
even as Christ to the Father. And thus unity is preserved
throughout." - The Epistle of Ignatius, CHAP. IV.--HAVE BUT
ONE EUCHARIST, ETC.
However, though Roman Catholics may be quick to interpret
these statements as support for the supremacy of the bishop
of Rome, it is clear from reading Ignatius letter in its entirety
that to do so would be to take these remarks out of context.
Like Clement, Irenaeus, and Cyprian, Ignatius holds that the
authority of the bishop was not limited to the bishop of Rome,
but was held by each bishop in his own diocese. And we have
already seen from Ignatius' opening remarks that he specifically
states that the Roman church presided in the region of Rome,
which also indicates this same universal pattern that each
local bishop along with the local elders held authority over
their own local region.
The following quote clearly establishes that this is the case
as Ignatius nowhere mentions the bishop of Rome in this letter,
but in closing mentions two bishops, Polycarp and Vitalius.
This follows Irenaeus's remarks wherein Polycarp is also appealed
to along with the Roman bishops as evidence for authenticity
of the Apostolic Tradition of the Churches against the heretical
doctrines of the Gnostics.
"Let your prayers be extended to the Church of Antioch, whence
also I as a prisoner am being led to Rome. I salute the
holy bishop Polycarp; I salute the holy bishop Vitalius, and
the sacred presbytery, and my fellow-servants the deacons;
in whose stead may my soul be found. Once more I bid farewell
to the bishop, and to the presbyters in the Lord." - The
Epistle of Ignatius, CHAP. XIV.--FAREWELLS AND CAUTIONS.
But, we should also note that in mentioning those who succeeded
the apostles as the bishops of Rome, Ignatius (see quotes
below) places the first among them, Linus, not as a successor
or disciple of Peter, as Roman Catholic teaching would demand,
but of Paul. To be sure, Ignatius denotes that Anencletus,
whom Roman Catholics regard as the second pope, is the successor
to Peter. And he also elsewhere affirms that Clement succeeded
Linus as bishop of Rome.
Therefore, in placing Linus under Paul (see quotes below)
when speaking of the succession of bishops of Rome after the
Apostles, Ignatius further undermines the papal doctrine of
the RCC. Below is a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia establishing
their understanding of the succession of the bishops of Rome
(popes) followed by Ignatius comments, which contradict the
Roman Catholic teaching that Linus succeeded Peter as bishop
of Rome.
"The Church - It has been seen that Christ not only
established the episcopate in the persons of the Twelve but,
further, created in St. Peter the office of supreme pastor
of the Church. Early Christian history tells us that before
his death, he fixed his residence at Rome, and ruled the Church
there as its bishop…The list of his successors in the see
is known, from Linus, Anacletus, and Clement, who were the
first to follow him, down to the reigning pontiff. The Church
has ever seen in the occupant of the See of Rome the successor
of Peter in the supreme pastorate. (See POPE.)." - Catholic
Encyclopedias
"And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers,(7)
fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as the
holy Stephen did to the blessed James, Timothy and Linus
to Paul, Anencletus and Clement to Peter? He, therefore,
that will not yield obedience to such, must needs be one utterly
without God, an impious man who despises Christ, and depreciates
His appointments." - The Epistle of Ignatius, CHAP. VII.--THE
SAME CONTINUED.
"Now it occurs to me to mention, that the report is true which
I heard of thee whilst thou wast at Rome with the blessed
father(8) Linus, whom the deservedly-blessed Clement, a hearer
of Peter and Paul, has now succeeded." - The Epistle of
Ignatius, CHAP. IV.--COMMENDATION AND EXHORTATION.
Ignatius' association of Linus, whom Roman Catholics regard
as the second pope with Paul rather than Peter is affirmed
by the New Testament, where in his second epistle to Timothy
we see Paul mention Linus as one of those with him who sent
greetings to Timothy.
2 Timothy 4:21 Do thy diligence to come before winter.
Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia,
and all the brethren.
(Continued in next section.)
|
 |
|
 |

|
 |