Papal supremacy and 1 Clement

[AnthonyB]

theophilus,

If Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and passed on authority, from which papal authority follows, why is such a claim not made in 1 Clement?

A senior member of the church of Rome (possibly the person listed as the third Pope) is writing a letter to the Corinthinian church around 95-97 AD and is attempting to make them heed rightful authority. If he had the slightest knowledge of apostolic authority existing in Rome on the basis on which Rome now claims it, why would he have not used such? (Or if you can detect such a claim in 1 Clement please list in which verses?)

[jadams_4040]

theophilus,

If Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and passed on authority, from which papal authority follows, why is such a claim not made in 1 Clement?

A senior member of the church of Rome (possibly the person listed as the third Pope) is writing a letter to the Corinthinian church around 95-97 AD and is attempting to make them heed rightful authority. If he had the slightest knowledge of apostolic authority existing in Rome on the basis on which Rome now claims it, why would he have not used such? (Or if you can detect such a claim in 1 Clement please list in which verses?)

Everything i have ever studied on this simply does not hold water.

[Islander]

In his famous and lengthy refutation of gnostic doctrine, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, France, goes on to give a list of all the Bishops of Rome, from Linus at the time of the Apostles to Eleutherus (AD 173-188) in his own day. He does not mention Peter anywhere.

The issue has been debated for 2000 years and I suspect the RCC will stand its ground on the subject. But any objective student of history, with no theological agenda, looking at the pages of history will fail to conclude that Peter was the Bishop of Rome, but rather that the later claim of the bishops at the seat of the Empire was nothing but a geo-political claim. I arrived at such conclusion 10 years before I decided to join any church after living in an atheist country for most of my life.

[Guest Godless]

I'm no religious historian, but didn't Rome convert to Christianity long after Peter's death?

[theophilus]

Islander,

Actually, the debate has not lasted for 2,000 years. There has not been a "debate" until rather recently.

The "debate" is only in the minds of people who find it necessary to usurp authority. Even the initial reformers knew it was a lost debate. Not until the apparent "freedom" which secularization introduced via the Reformation took hold, nobody with an once of conscience would experiment with debating the most basic things. All the "restoration" churches have no choice but to try to knock out the champ so the title can be theirs. When looked at from the outside, it is clear. Even the format of the BofM is clearly designed to initially sour its readers to Christianity (1 Nephi 13 and 14) so a "new and improved" model can be sold. That was the ace in the hole for Joseph Smith. While other restoration movements relied on sola scriptura (which scripture itself denies) Joseph was able to offer bling! There is no debate, only an agenda.

Jadams,

That's too bad. Study is usually what converts people to the Church. As we all know, it is "feelings" that tend to convert people to the LDS church. In all your studies perhaps you've come across the quote, "To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant." Not that you are a Protestant, but I'm sure your valuable studies have familiarized you with the context of the quote.

Godless,

"Rome converting to Christianity" doesn't make any sense. Do you mean the Roman Church? The Roman Church IS Christianity. Christ built one Church. That Body is the CC today. This is not a debate in any way, that's why the "authority" of that Body is the what is attacked. In other words, Restoration churches want to convince people that Christ failed. Christ didn't bring a kingdom. Christ didn't build his Church on Peter. The Church is NOT the pillar and foundation of truth.

AnthonyB,

I'm impressed you are even aware of Clement, seeing as how most LDS don't even read their own saints as I clearly showed last month (a term that I've explained numerous times). I can see how that may seem condescending but I mean it. I've not encountered a LDS who would even pretend to have read such meaningless drivel. But I do sense a little bit of insincerity in you question--the kind that Mormons sense when fundamentalist Christians bombard this board with the typical Ed Decker questions.

To answer your question: I don't know why people write as they do. I don't care. For all we know, there were hundreds of letters by the 4th Pope to Corinth other than the two we have and perhaps all of them were titled "I'm the pope, hear me roar". What we do know is that the churches (which were all Catholic) accepted apostolic Christianity. The 44th chapter of Clement 1 actually supports that. SO, when I see 1 Clement supporting apostolic Christianity, no argument from anywhere within Christianity against it, and the fact that Christianity was still mostly an "oral religion" I have no problem at all believing that this topic actually supports everything I've put forward.

I don't know if you've ever put much study into oral traditions. If so, you'll know that "things that are most widely known" usually don't end up in written records of oral traditions. For example, when the Pope addresses the Church even to this day, RARELY does he inject the authority of his seat--it is already known.

[Guest Godless]

Godless,

"Rome converting to Christianity" doesn't make any sense. Do you mean the Roman Church? The Roman Church IS Christianity. Christ built one Church. That Body is the CC today. This is not a debate in any way, that's why the "authority" of that Body is the what is attacked. In other words, Restoration churches want to convince people that Christ failed. Christ didn't bring a kingdom. Christ didn't build his Church on Peter. The Church is NOT the pillar and foundation of truth.

The RCC came about after Constantine converted to Christianity in an event that is known to historians as the "Conversion of Rome". This is what I was referring to.

[theophilus]

Constantine was not a Church Ruler. He was emperor. He had not say in Church dogma.

The "conversion of rome" was a result of the edict of Milan. It gave religious freedom. It did not force Christianity on anyone, it simply allowed it.

That is not a "conversion" in a religious sense, it is a conversion in a political sense.

The RCC existed prior to Constantine. Believing otherwise is nonsense. The BODY that is the RCC is the same BODY that existed before Constantine.

Edited January 30, 2010 by theophilus
edit: Added last line.

[Jason_J]

The RCC came about after Constantine converted to Christianity in an event that is known to historians as the "Conversion of Rome". This is what I was referring to.

Preface: Even though I am a Catholic considering conversion to the LDS church, I think I that I can still accurately state Catholic doctrines and practices

The statement that the Catholic Church came about after Constantine's conversion (a popular refrain by anti-Catholics, not that you are one) does not hold up according to history. There is a lot of evidence for the existence of the Catholic Church prior to Constantine. The Church of Rome specifically (if we note that early Christianity had different "particular churches" or "patriarchates" that together made the one Church, such as the Church of Constantinople, Church of Jerusalem, Church of Antioch, Church of Rome, and Church of Alexandria) existed before Constantine.

[rameumptom]

Even if there were a papal succession, it would have had a major problem getting to the other side of the Great Schism. In 1054, the Patriarch of the Eastern Church and the Pope of the Western Church were both duly ordained, and they excommunicated one another.

Then in 1294, Pope Boniface VIII was ordained. He was very unpopular, and moved the Church's headquarters to Avignon, France. The Italians did not like it, and ordained their own Pope. In 1404, a council was put together to replace both papacies with with Alexander V. However, neither of the other popes would relinquish their papacies. They ended up excommunicating one another. In 1417, Martin V was elected Pope in an ecumenical council, and the other three popes accepted him.

So, their history of succession has some problems.

[Jason_J]

I don't think that the Great Schism necessarily provides an issue for "Papal Succession". Because of the Schism, one would have to ask themselves (in theory) which church, the Catholic or the Orthodox, is the continuation of that pre-schism church. The Catholic Church thinks it is it, and the Orthodox Church thinks it is it.

Interestingly, the schism of the Oriental Orthodox communion also adds an added question of which group of churches is the continuation of the original church (ignoring the concept of apostasy and restoration of course).

[Faded]

Islander,

Actually, the debate has not lasted for 2,000 years. There has not been a "debate" until rather recently.

I wouldn't say it's been a debate exactly. NONE of the popes from Linus I till Gregory I (the Great) were given open acknowledgement as "head of the Church." They weren't acting like men with supreme authority. Those that did try to exert authority over other Bishops were treated with contempt and quite often were strongly rebuked. So for roughly the first 500 years, the Petrine Succession was not universally accepted as belonging to the Bishop of Rome.

Gregory I seems to have been the first "Pope" that acted the part.

Truthfully, the presumed superiority of the Bishop of Rome was not absolutely established until the Great Schism of 1054 AD. The Patriarch of Constantinople certainly did not recognize the Pope's authority, and it was for that reason that the Church was split in two -- Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic. So from the death of Peter up to 1054 AD, the claimed successorship was not univerally recognized.

I think the Pope came to his position of power by attrition and by sheer lucky location. Early in the Church's history, five Bishops were considered to be higher in authority than other bishops: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Rome. Out of the five, two were the capital cities within the empire: Constantinople and Rome. Ultimately, all were overrun but Muslim conquerers with only one exception: Rome. And unlike Constantinope, eclesiastical authority was not shared with the Roman (Byzantine) Emperor once the Western emperors declined and utterly ceased.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Faded

[Faded]

The statement that the Catholic Church came about after Constantine's conversion (a popular refrain by anti-Catholics, not that you are one) does not hold up according to history. There is a lot of evidence for the existence of the Catholic Church prior to Constantine. The Church of Rome specifically (if we note that early Christianity had different "particular churches" or "patriarchates" that together made the one Church, such as the Church of Constantinople, Church of Jerusalem, Church of Antioch, Church of Rome, and Church of Alexandria) existed before Constantine.

Quite true, depending upon what you want to call "The Catholic Church".

There was a religious body that survives intact from the Apostles going forward. But many parts of that body were at odds with each other doctrinally.

Roman Catholic seems to come about as the Bishop of Rome laid claims to supremacy centuries later. Those who accepted his authority become Roman Catholic. Those that didn't accept the Bishop of Rome became something else: Armenian, Assyrian, Coptic, Eastern Orthodox, etc. There are many surviving parts of the original body of the Church that have no tradition of accepting Rome's supremacy.

If the Bishop of Rome's supremacy was never questioned, then shouldn't we find a tradition of his authority in Ethiopia and amongst Assyrian Christians?

[Jason_J]

Quite true, depending upon what you want to call "The Catholic Church".

There was a religious body that survives intact from the Apostles going forward. But many parts of that body were at odds with each other doctrinally.

Roman Catholic seems to come about as the Bishop of Rome laid claims to supremacy centuries later. Those who accepted his authority become Roman Catholic. Those that didn't accept the Bishop of Rome became something else: Armenian, Assyrian, Coptic, Eastern Orthodox, etc. There are many surviving parts of the original body of the Church that have no tradition of accepting Rome's supremacy.

If the Bishop of Rome's supremacy was never questioned, then shouldn't we find a tradition of his authority in Ethiopia and amongst Assyrian Christians?

I think the problem with many Roman Catholics today (noting that Eastern Catholics, whose ancestors were Eastern Orthodox Christians who came into union with Rome, see it differently) is that they try to "read" the current view of the role of the Bishop of Rome back into early times, especially pre-Great Schism. A great quote from Pope Benedict XVI's book "Principles of Catholic Theology" is:

"Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium."

This is talking about reunion between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. What this quote means is what those Roman Catholics I mentioned above don't seem to realize: that there has been a development in the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Catholic Church, and that he did not always function in the way that he does now. Eastern Orthodox do recognize that the Bishop of Rome had primacy in the pre-schism Church (and that that primacy now resides in the Ecumenical Patriarch, since Rome is of course in schism from them), though Catholics and Orthodox view the origin of that primacy differently. What they reject are those "developments" that are seen as such in the Catholic Church, which the Orthodox see as false "innovations", including Papal Infallibility and the so-called "Supremacy of Jurisdiction".

I think that the Bishop of Rome has been "questioned" in the history of Christianity, and no Catholic can reject that. Pope Honorius was even condemned for heresy by an Ecumenical Council (a favorite event of Eastern Orthodox apologists). Eastern Orthodox and Catholics can agree that Rome had a primacy in the early Church. What they disagree on is what that primacy meant (as well as where that primacy came from), with many Roman Catholic apologists attempting to read back into history the role of the Pope now, which just won't work. I'm not sure how the Oriental Orthodox churches view this issue.

[Vanhin]

The "debate" is only in the minds of people who find it necessary to usurp authority. Even the initial reformers knew it was a lost debate. Not until the apparent "freedom" which secularization introduced via the Reformation took hold, nobody with an once of conscience would experiment with debating the most basic things. All the "restoration" churches have no choice but to try to knock out the champ so the title can be theirs. When looked at from the outside, it is clear. Even the format of the BofM is clearly designed to initially sour its readers to Christianity (1 Nephi 13 and 14) so a "new and improved" model can be sold. That was the ace in the hole for Joseph Smith. While other restoration movements relied on sola scriptura (which scripture itself denies) Joseph was able to offer bling! There is no debate, only an agenda.

Although many have read 1 Nephi 13-14 to mean the RCC alone, I think from the text it can be established that it is not the case. Take the following excerpt from the passages.

And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. (1 Ne. 14:10)

Simply put, the church of the devil is what everyone belongs to who do not belong to the church of the Lamb of God. So, it is not a matter of "knocking out the champ" as you have asserted from a mistaken understanding of our scriptures. If one were to assume that the RCC is the "mother of harlots", and that the LDS Church is the church of the Lamb of God, where does that leave the other religions in the world? It doesn't make sense to argue that Hinduism, for instance, is a "harlot" of the RCC. The church of the devil is not a specific organization.

What Nephi is talking about is no more or less than the "whore that sitteth upon many waters" that John describes in Revelation 17 (see also 1 Ne. 14:18-30).

Just as a brief side note- There are members of the LDS Church who belong the to church of the devil, because they do not keep their covenants, and love mammon (for instance) more than God; and there are members of other religions, who will be considered members of the Church of the Lamb of God in the end. Concerning the urgency of our missionary efforts, the following is written in our Doctrine and Covenants:

For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it— Therefore, that we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness, wherein we know them; and they are truly manifest from heaven— These should then be attended to with great earnestness. (D&C 123:12-14)

Little children who have not reached the age of accountability, and others who are not accountable for their actions, because of mental illness, are also considered members of the church of the Lamb of God, regardless of their current religion or their parents religion, because they are "redeemed from foundation of the world through [the] Only Begotten" (see D&C 29:46, and Moroni 8:12)

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

format of the BofM is clearly designed to initially sour its readers to Christianity

I also take issue with this assertion for another reason. I challenge you to find anything in the Book of Mormon that is "clearly designed to sour it's readers to Christianity". Nothing could be further from the truth as far as the Book of Mormon is concerned. I would argue that there is not another book in all the world that promotes Christianity to Jewish, Christian, or Gentile readers, better than the Book of Mormon does. 2 Nephi chapter 25 is just a sample of what I am talking about, if you want to check it out. Even your references (1 Ne. 13-14) are promoting membership in the "church of the Lamb of God", above everything else. To latter-day saints, as with other Christians, the Lamb of God is Jesus Christ.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Faded]

I think that the Bishop of Rome has been "questioned" in the history of Christianity, and no Catholic can reject that. Pope Honorius was even condemned for heresy by an Ecumenical Council (a favorite event of Eastern Orthodox apologists). Eastern Orthodox and Catholics can agree that Rome had a primacy in the early Church. What they disagree on is what that primacy meant (as well as where that primacy came from), with many Roman Catholic apologists attempting to read back into history the role of the Pope now, which just won't work. I'm not sure how the Oriental Orthodox churches view this issue.

By the time the Edict of Milan rolls around, the concept of had already evolved that the five Bishops already mentioned -- Jerusalem, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Rome -- had authority greater than that of other bishops. So the idea that Rome had primacy was clear enough. They were part of a circle of five equals which essentially presided over the Church. The idea that they held supremacy over the other four was not well established.

How did those five grow to such significance? I think it is very likely that those bishops in turn ordained and established numerous bishoprics across the ancient world that had not been established by the Apostles themselves. This may have created an "unequal relationship among equals." The fact that the acknowledged superiors to the bishops -- the Apostles -- were gone left the ancient Church without leadership, so de facto leadership of some fashion was bound to move into that void.

There were a couple of Patriarchs of Constantinople who gave deference to the Bishop of Rome prior to the Schism. The Orthodox would view them as weak patriarchs, and would essentially write there actions off in the same way the RCC pretty much just writes off Alexander VI and all his debauchery.

As to the Oriental Churches, the Armenians had an early tradition of sending their Catholicos (effectively, their Pope today) to Caesarea. This tradition finds its beginnings when in 302, Gregory received consecration as Patriarch and Catholicos of Armenia from Leontius of Caesarea, his childhood friend. It is likely that Gregory had not been ordained a Bishop and needed to be, but that is not certain. The brief tradition of sending the Catholicos to Caesarea for commissioning ceased in 373 when King Pap appointed Catholicos Yusik without first sending him to Caesarea. The Armenian Church has maintained a relationship with the rest of the Church throughout history, but does not look to the Bishop of Rome nor the Patriarch of Constantinople for leadership.

Coptic Christianity centers its authority around the "Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarch of All Africa on the Holy See of Saint Mark." Interestingly, they too lay claim to direct succession from the Apostles in claiming that the first Bishop of Alexandria was the Apostle Mark. The Bishop of Alexandria views his authority as a continuation of the Pentarchy (circle of five equals) of the early Christian Church.

Assyrian Christianity originally looked to the Patriarch of Antioch for leadership. As fears of Roman influence within the Persian Empire grew, pressure was exerted by the Persian Emperors to sever ties to the Church in the Roman Empire. "In 424 the bishops of Persia met in council under the leadership of Catholicos Dadiso and determined that there would be no reference of their disciplinary or theological problems to any other power, especially not to any bishop or church council in the Roman Empire. The formal separation from the See of Antioch and the western Syrian Church under the Byzantine Emperors, occurred at this synod in 424." They have effectively been operating under their own authority ever since then. Interestingly, prior to their separation, it was Antioch and not Rome that they looked to as their superior.

[Jason_J]

There were a couple of Patriarchs of Constantinople who gave deference to the Bishop of Rome prior to the Schism. The Orthodox would view them as weak patriarchs, and would essentially write there actions off in the same way the RCC pretty much just writes off Alexander VI and all his debauchery.

Are you sure that the Orthodox would view them as weak patriarchs? In my discussions with Orthodox, they believed that the Bishop of Rome/patriarchate of Rome had primacy among the others (as a "first among equals" stature, whatever that means), though they see that primacy as being given by the Church, and not by Jesus Christ in Matt 16:18 (since "tradition" holds that the Patriarch of Antioch is also a successor of Peter, since tradition holds that Peter established a church there. This actually brings up a whole other issue, since if Peter established churches in Antioch and Rome (along with Paul), then why doesn't Antioch have a primacy. That goes into speculative territory, where Catholics typically say that because Peter died in Rome, the primacy ended there). Because the Roman Catholic Church went into schism/heresy, that primacy moved to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (again since they believe that the primacy can be given and taken away by the Church). If the Catholic Church re-united with the Orthodox Church, some Orthodox say that the primacy would go back to the Bishop of Rome.

[Faded]

Are you sure that the Orthodox would view them as weak patriarchs? In my discussions with Orthodox, they believed that the Bishop of Rome/patriarchate of Rome had primacy among the others (as a "first among equals" stature, whatever that means), though they see that primacy as being given by the Church, and not by Jesus Christ in Matt 16:18 (since "tradition" holds that the Patriarch of Antioch is also a successor of Peter, since tradition holds that Peter established a church there. This actually brings up a whole other issue, since if Peter established churches in Antioch and Rome (along with Paul), then why doesn't Antioch have a primacy. That goes into speculative territory, where Catholics typically say that because Peter died in Rome, the primacy ended there). Because the Roman Catholic Church went into schism/heresy, that primacy moved to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (again since they believe that the primacy can be given and taken away by the Church). If the Catholic Church re-united with the Orthodox Church, some Orthodox say that the primacy would go back to the Bishop of Rome.

I was pointing more to the Orthodox Church at the time of the Schism, and not today. And even if they had accepted him as "greatest among equals" that was not well established in the early Church at all. But it is very interesting that modern day Orthodox are willing to accept primacy from Rome. I wonder if it is a reconciliatory gesture or if they really believe in the legitimacy of Rome's claim as "the seat of Peter."

What strikes me as very interesting is that the Pentarchy of Bishops (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria) seemed to feel it necessary to infuse greater authority by laying claim on linear authority from specific Apostles. Most of my library is packed up (we're trying to sell the house and then move) so I'm having to go from memory a lot here. I wonder where that tradition got started.

I don't know how it played out off the top of my head, and I can't look it up. But as a case in point of how I think it all played out: One of the five bishops, let's say it's he Bishop of Alexandria -- stakes the claim that Mark was their Bishop anciently. This would seem to increase their perceived authority. In response, Rome and Antioch lay their claim to Peter. I don't buy into any of these claims. I don't think any of the Apostles were bishops. But it seems logical that many of the claims to specific Apostles originates from a one-upmanship pissing contest of "my authority is bigger than your authority."

Perhaps the biggest hole in the claim that "the seat of Peter" descend through the Bishopric of Rome is this: Peter never led the Church from Rome. He was never at Rome for any great length of time throughout his life. Rome is the traditional place of his death, but it is not absolutely certain that he really died there.

Historical evidence seems to indicate that Peter's theoretical immediate successor, Linus was never ordained as Bishops at all. "It should be remembered that contrary to pious Catholic belief--that monoarchical episcopal structure of church governance (also known as the monarchical episcopate, in which each diocese was headed by a single bishop) still did not exist in Rome at this time (McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper, San Francisco, 2005 updated ed., pp. 33-34). " Linus' successor Cletus was not a Bishop. "Pope" Clement seems to get thoroughly confused with several other people named Clement, but it does not appear that the religious leader of Rome named Clement was ever a Bishop, nor an apostle. You have to make a lot of assumptions in favor of "Pope" Clement, which pious accounts undoubtedly will do.

I'm being cut short by the wife, so I can't poke around and find the name ... but it was several "Popes" down the list before we find a bonifide Bishop of Rome. Thusly, how does succession happen via a vacant Bishopric? Does Peter geographically pass on his authority somehow just by dying in Rome?

If that were enough then clearly Jerusalem's authority would far exceed Rome's. After all, Jesus Christ, the Son of God died there. You can't do much better than that.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Faded

[jbrumley]

I recently read "The Early Papacy" by Adrian Fortescue. There are four points which Adrian makes, which are supported by various writings of Church "fathers" from 100 to 451 AD:

1. The Bishop of Rome (the pope) was considered the chief bishop of the early Church.

2. The pope had jurisdiction over other bishops in the Church.

3. To be a member of the Church, one had to be in communion with the pope.

4. The early Church believed that God's providence would prevent the Church, and therefore the pope, from errors in his teaching.

Mr. Fortescue quotes from Ignatius, Irenaeus, Clement, Justin Martyr, (2nd century), Cyprian (3rd century), who, in various surviving writings, supported these claims.

If you are interested in the Catholic argument for papal primacy, (either to argue for it or against it), then I highly recommend the book.

Hope this helps,

Jonathan

[volgadon]

I was pointing more to the Orthodox Church at the time of the Schism, and not today. And even if they had accepted him as "greatest among equals" that was not well established in the early Church at all. But it is very interesting that modern day Orthodox are willing to accept primacy from Rome. I wonder if it is a reconciliatory gesture or if they really believe in the legitimacy of Rome's claim as "the seat of Peter."

Can't say that this is the case with any Orthodox I've met. Those that do accept the Pope's primacy become Uniates of sorts.

[Guest]

Even if there were a papal succession, it would have had a major problem getting to the other side of the Great Schism. In 1054, the Patriarch of the Eastern Church and the Pope of the Western Church were both duly ordained, and they excommunicated one another.

Then in 1294, Pope Boniface VIII was ordained. He was very unpopular, and moved the Church's headquarters to Avignon, France. The Italians did not like it, and ordained their own Pope. In 1404, a council was put together to replace both papacies with with Alexander V. However, neither of the other popes would relinquish their papacies. They ended up excommunicating one another. In 1417, Martin V was elected Pope in an ecumenical council, and the other three popes accepted him.

So, their history of succession has some problems.

No problem at all. If you think this is a problem, then you will have to acknowledge that Brigham Young's authority as leader of the LDS church has some problems. Because, just as one example... James Strang proclaimed himself the Prophet and excommunicated the 12 Apostles. And, of course, there's Joseph Smith III who was ordained prophet as well.

Yes, this is not a good argument to posit (it's a redirect), but Jason_J did a good job of it in his post on the first page already. That the schism argument is only valid if you consider all of the popes that are in schism as having the exact same authority from God.

Edited January 27, 2011 by anatess

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

theophilus,

If Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and passed on authority, from which papal authority follows, why is such a claim not made in 1 Clement?

A senior member of the church of Rome (possibly the person listed as the third Pope) is writing a letter to the Corinthinian church around 95-97 AD and is attempting to make them heed rightful authority. If he had the slightest knowledge of apostolic authority existing in Rome on the basis on which Rome now claims it, why would he have not used such? (Or if you can detect such a claim in 1 Clement please list in which verses?)

The fact that he is writing the letter in the first place demonstrates it.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

In his famous and lengthy refutation of gnostic doctrine, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, France, goes on to give a list of all the Bishops of Rome, from Linus at the time of the Apostles to Eleutherus (AD 173-188) in his own day. He does not mention Peter anywhere.

Linus was the first person ordained to be bishop in the See of Rome created by Peter (and Paul). Linus is mentioned in other documents as the first after Peter.

The issue has been debated for 2000 years and I suspect the RCC will stand its ground on the subject. But any objective student of history, with no theological agenda, looking at the pages of history will fail to conclude that Peter was the Bishop of Rome, but rather that the later claim of the bishops at the seat of the Empire was nothing but a geo-political claim. I arrived at such conclusion 10 years before I decided to join any church after living in an atheist country for most of my life.

Actually, many throughout Christianity considered Rome to be the head of the Church. Many saw him as the supreme authority. As the east drifted away from the west, many leaned towards seeing the headship of Rome as holding symbolism, not authority.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I'm no religious historian, but didn't Rome convert to Christianity long after Peter's death?

Rome is a city and the conversion of the city took centuries. It had Christians before Peter and Paul arrived there.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

The RCC came about after Constantine converted to Christianity in an event that is known to historians as the "Conversion of Rome". This is what I was referring to.

The Catholic Church existed long before Constantine lived. There were bishops of Rome long before Constantine's birth.

Protestant Christian fundamentalists tend to fabricate a story in which Constantine took over the Church. As though the Christian Church just embraced a new structure and theology because of a pagan's interest.

In reality, the term "Catholic Church" was being used around 100 AD. Long before Constantine, people realize that the Bishop of Rome held great importance in the Church and was the successor of Peter. And of course, the 4th Century followed centuries of horrible, brutal oppression of Christians by pagans. The idea that Christians handed over their Church to a pagan emperor is absurd and there is not historical argument for it.