Papal supremacy and 1 Clement

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by duly ordained. The Pope was the patriarch of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantine held his influence in the east but they were not dual Popes over two halves of the Church.

The Pope was considered by both sides to be the head of the Church. The issue for some was that is a symbolic headship and not an authoritative one. It was actually a cardinal that ex-communicated the Patriarch of Constantinople.

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.

Actually, there was only one clear Pope at the time. Subsequent names of the Pope reveal that the other Popes were not considered Popes. There were renegade cardinals that chose their own Pope. It still happens today, there are kinds of nutcases who call themselves Pope.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

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.

The east abandoned the Catholic Church and their original teachings. So did the Coptics, so did the protestants. Even the Muslims argue that the Church and message of God went 'corrupt'.

I would think that God could establish something to be a visible sign of truth for all the world free of error. If anything did go corrupt, what keeps something from going corrupt again?

Edited March 1, 2011 by SpiritualAntiseptic

[rameumptom]

I'm not sure what you mean by duly ordained. The Pope was the patriarch of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantine held his influence in the east but they were not dual Popes over two halves of the Church.

The Pope was considered by both sides to be the head of the Church. The issue for some was that is a symbolic headship and not an authoritative one. It was actually a cardinal that ex-communicated the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Actually, there was only one clear Pope at the time. Subsequent names of the Pope reveal that the other Popes were not considered Popes. There were renegade cardinals that chose their own Pope. It still happens today, there are kinds of nutcases who call themselves Pope.

You really need to study history! The Pope was NOT considered the head of the Church by both east and west. In fact, the RCC's current stance is that the Patriarch has equal authority with the Pope, as it has established that both western and eastern Catholic churches hold the authority of God.

The Church was catholic (little 'c', meaning universal) in a sense in 100 AD. However, it was not the Catholic Church that you believe it was. There is no evidence of Linus being Peter's successor. As it was, key decisions were made by council (Nicea, Chalcedon), and the bishop of Rome did not head the discussion in these synods. In Linus and Clement's day, many of the major decision made were made by the bishop of Jerusalem, and not the bishop of Rome.

The historian Eusebius does not denote the bishop of Rome as being any more authoritative than any other bishop. One would think that by his time (3d-4th century AD), the Pope would have sat at the head of the Nicea council, or would have established the Trinity himself. Instead, it was Athanasius of Alexandria (Egypt), who led the charge against Arianism. Among his titles are "Pope" and "Patriarch", though he was never bishop of Rome or Constantinople.

The "Church" of 100 AD was fragmented. There were many sects, including what now is often called the "proto-orthodox", the many Gnostic sects, etc. There were later groups formed that fought centralizing the authority in Rome (Montanists). which included the apologist Tertullian.

Such fragmentation continued for centuries. Where Origen's teachings were embraced for over a century, Athanasius and later St Augustine would condemn many of Origen's teachings as heretical. Still, if there were truly a centralized Pope in the days of Origen, would not his teachings been rejected then as well as later?

There are too many inconsistencies regarding a centralized pope to make such a claim.

[rameumptom]

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.

James Strang held no actual high calling in the church Joseph Smith built. He was a member of the Council of 50, a political arm of the Church, and not in the ecclesiastical arm whatsoever. He claimed to have secretly been set apart by Joseph, but no evidence whatsoever. As it is, Strang's Church is totally separate from the LDS Church.

It would be like having a lay member or a deacon say he was deposing the new Pope under the secret authority the old Pope gave him.

As it was, three Popes were ordained at one time. Two of them had been ordained appropriately and properly by the school of cardinals, the third by rogue cardinals. All three excommunicated each other. They didn't form their own separate versions of the RCC, but all remained as head of the one Church (making your comparison one of apples and oranges).

For the Strangites, LDS/Brighamites, and RLDS/CoC, one can choose a separate church for each. For the three popes, there wasn't a choice. There was civil war within the religion.

Are there those who can make a good reasoning why JS-III should have been prophet rather than Brigham Young? Sure. And I don't mind discussing the issues on both sides of it. But it was different, and does not compare with the three Popes. Brigham Young was chief apostle, while Joseph Smith III was son of the Prophet. The question was, who had the true authority to continue leading the Church?

With the three Popes, each had been selected officially (or at least 2 were) by the college of cardinals. They excommunicated each other. They all received their authority in the exact same way. If an authorized Pope excommunicates another, is that pope excommunicated? If so, then is that Pope still a Pope?

[rameumptom]

The east abandoned the Catholic Church and their original teachings. So did the Coptics, so did the protestants. Even the Muslims argue that the Church and message of God went 'corrupt'.

I would think that God could establish something to be a visible sign of truth for all the world free of error. If anything did go corrupt, what keeps something from going corrupt again?

God did establish something as a visible sign of truth for all the world: prophets (Amos 3:7). Nowhere in the scriptures does it mention popes or cardinals. Paul stated that the Church of Christ is founded on apostles and prophets, with Christ as the "chief cornerstone" (Eph 2:29). So we clearly have statements in the Bible how the program is supposed to work.

There weren't always prophets. If the people rejected the prophets, either the people were destroyed, or the prophets were removed from among the people and they were left to dwell in their ignorance. Those are clear patterns shown in the Bible. No Christian argues that Moses or Isaiah was a prophet, or that Peter and John were apostles (a type of prophet). Many Christians since the early days disagreed that the bishop of Rome should hold any pre-eminence over any other bishop.

Given Paul and other prophets mentioned an apostasy would occur before the 2nd Coming, and that a restoration of all things must occur before that time (Acts 3), then we shouldn't be surprised that replacing prophets and apostles with other non-Biblical forms should bring about discord and disagreement as to who truly held the authority.

[madeleine1]

Catholic Bishops are successors to the Apostles, so, Peter was never a Bishop. The Bishop of Rome (aka the Pope) is the successor to Peter.

Another example of Apostolic succession is the Archbishop of Constantinople (aka The Ecumenical Patriarch) who is the successor of the Apostle Andrew.

All the Bishops of the churches, East and West, are successors to the Apostles. Together and in communion with each other they rule over the churches. The Great Schism (which ceased the communion of Bishops east and west) arose out of a disagreement. In this disagreement the West claimed primacy in the successor to Peter, and enforced a ruling based on this claim that the East did not agree with.

The Eastern Orthodox churches accept the Bishop of Rome as the successor to Peter. They don't accept that he has primacy but rather take the view that there is a "first in honor among equals". This title/position is given today by the Orthodox to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

As to Clement, in his letter to the Corinthians the primacy of Rome is indicated. First, in showing that the Church in Corinth asked of Rome specific counsel, and second in a rebuke of the Corinthian Church by Clement.