Clement versus Linus

[DavidFilmer]

Originally Posted by Erick_Ybarra

wouldn't that mean that this early bishopric of Rome did not follow the constitutions of the modern day papacy?

It surely did not follow the modern constitutions.

There have been many ways that someone becomes Bishop of Rome. At times, he appointed his successor before his death. At other times it was decided by popular acclaim (and elections among the laity were held). At other times the Emperor of Rome designated the Pope. At other times, powerful and corrupt people rigged the process to insure their choice. At times, the Office has been bought (simony). There have been periods in history when it was not clear who had valid claim to the Office - the so-called "anti-Popes" (I dislike the term because it suggests evil intent - anti-Popes were men of good will who believed they had valid claim. One anti-Pope is a Saint of the Church). There have been periods lasting many months when there was no Pope (the Chair was vacant).

Fortunately, the only thing that is required to be Pope is that the Church recognizes him as Bishop of Rome. How he got there is irrelevant.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by DavidFilmer

It surely did not follow the modern constitutions.

There have been many ways that someone becomes Bishop of Rome. At times, he appointed his successor before his death. At other times it was decided by popular acclaim (and elections among the laity were held). At other times the Emperor of Rome designated the Pope. At other times, powerful and corrupt people rigged the process to insure their choice. At times, the Office has been bought (simony). There have been periods in history when it was not clear who had valid claim to the Office - the so-called "anti-Popes" (I dislike the term because it suggests evil intent - anti-Popes were men of good will who believed they had valid claim. One anti-Pope is a Saint of the Church). There have been periods lasting many months when there was no Pope (the Chair was vacant).

Fortunately, the only thing that is required to be Pope is that the Church recognizes him as Bishop of Rome. How he got there is irrelevant.

But isn't this a lousy way to defend the point that Peter somehow passed on some authority to someone? If it is passed to anyone who occupies the throne in Rome, why isn't it made more clear from the beginning?

[Ghosty]

I guess I don't see the discrepancy. No one is ordained Pope; the Pope is simply the Bishop of Rome. Clement was ordained a Bishop by Peter, and later became official Bishop of Rome.

Peace and God bless!

[Erick_Ybarra]

OK so Linus and cletus were not ordained by peter?

[Mystophilus]

Originally Posted by Erick_Ybarra

Ok, so the following epistle from Clement to James is false?

http://www.compassionatespirit.com/H...t-to-James.htm

Eusebius, writing in the C4th, considered it false.

[Erick_Ybarra]

Originally Posted by Mystophilus

Eusebius, writing in the C4th, considered it false.

Ok. Because if you read it, Clement calls James that "Bishop of Bishops" in the opening. This is a bit odd if Clement understood himself as the universal shepherd head of the church universal.

So I am not sure how to understand what is happening in Rome's bishopric from the beginning. If Linus is the first to succeed Peter, and then Cletus is 2nd to suceed Peter, why is it said that Peter ordained Clement? Did Peter ordain all three of them while he was living? If so, are they successors or Co-Laborers? This is getting a bit disorganized, and at best, a bit skewed compared to modern day definitions of how the papacy has been since the apostles.....

[Mystophilus]

Originally Posted by Erick_Ybarra

So I am not sure how to understand what is happening in Rome's bishopric from the beginning. If Linus is the first to succeed Peter, and then Cletus is 2nd to suceed Peter, why is it said that Peter ordained Clement? Did Peter ordain all three of them while he was living? If so, are they successors or Co-Laborers? This is getting a bit disorganized, and at best, a bit skewed compared to modern day definitions of how the papacy has been since the apostles.....

It is a bit of a messy history, in part because we have to reconstruct it from what the people back then said, but in greater part because the Church was still working out how to organise itself.

To steal from another comment, the C1st Church seems to have operated quite differently from the C2nd, let alone from today.

Think of it this way: Peter, having been imprisoned previously himself, and threatened with such a fate again in Rome, realises the need to lay hands upon more than one person, in case the next in line is caught and executed alongside him. Instead, the three manage to serve out their time successively as leaders of the church at Rome. I say "leaders" because the term επισκοπος (whence our "bishop") appears not to have referred to "solo leader of a district's churches" until the C2nd.

This is also relevant to who was "ordained Pope". The term papa did not exist in this period, not least because the church at Rome was still a Greek-language church (which only changed during the C2nd, to judge by the inscriptions in the catacombs). So, no one was "ordained Pope" in these early days, but that does not at all mean that no one was appointed leader.

Does that clear it up a bit?

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by Erick_Ybarra

Ok. Because if you read it, Clement calls James that "Bishop of Bishops" in the opening. This is a bit odd if Clement understood himself as the universal shepherd head of the church universal.

So I am not sure how to understand what is happening in Rome's bishopric from the beginning. If Linus is the first to succeed Peter, and then Cletus is 2nd to suceed Peter, why is it said that Peter ordained Clement? Did Peter ordain all three of them while he was living? If so, are they successors or Co-Laborers? This is getting a bit disorganized, and at best, a bit skewed compared to modern day definitions of how the papacy has been since the apostles.....

Well, Rome only started gaining prominence after the fall of Jerusalem.

[Mystophilus]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Well, Rome only started gaining prominence after the fall of Jerusalem.

Who is the source for this?

[pablope]

Originally Posted by Erick_Ybarra

Ok. Because if you read it, Clement calls James that "Bishop of Bishops" in the opening. This is a bit odd if Clement understood himself as the universal shepherd head of the church universal.

So I am not sure how to understand what is happening in Rome's bishopric from the beginning. If Linus is the first to succeed Peter, and then Cletus is 2nd to suceed Peter, why is it said that Peter ordained Clement? Did Peter ordain all three of them while he was living? If so, are they successors or Co-Laborers? This is getting a bit disorganized, and at best, a bit skewed compared to modern day definitions of how the papacy has been since the apostles.....

I think you should go back to the quote you provided....."But before dying, taking by the hand his disciple S. Clement, S. Peter appointed him his successor, an office which S. Clement would not accept nor exercise till after the death of Linus and of Cletus, who had been coadjutors of S. Peter in the administration of the Roman bishopric.


Coadjutors are assistants or auxiliary bishops. It looks like Linus and Cletus were bishops ahead of Clement, before Peter ordained him as a bishop.

Upon the death of Peter, Linus would ascend as head bishop...then the auxiliaries would be Cletus and Clement....then Cletus, his auxiliary would be Clement.

I think you also may be presuming them as power hungry men...when in fact, Clement's humility is shown in the quote...by deferring to Linus and Clement.

I think this quote from Clement's epistle to Corinth should help you understand......where he writes about this procedure............http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ent-hoole.html


42:3 They, therefore, having received the promises, having been fully persuaded by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and having been confirmed by the word of God, with the full persuasion of the Holy Spirit, went forth preaching the good tidings that the kingdom of God was at hand.

42:4 Preaching, therefore, through the countries and cities, they appointed their firstfruits to be bishops and deacons over such as should believe, after they had proved them in the Spirit.

42:5 And this they did in no new way, for in truth it had in long past time been written concerning bishops and deacons; for the scripture, in a certain place, saith in this wise: I will establish their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith

44:1 Our Apostles, too, by the instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ, knew that strife would arise concerning the dignity of a bishop;

44:2 and on this account, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned as bishops and deacons: and then gave a rule of succession, in order that, when they had fallen asleep, other men, who had been approved, might succeed to their ministry.

[JaKael02]

Originally Posted by Erick_Ybarra

This is getting a bit disorganized, and at best, a bit skewed compared to modern day definitions of how the papacy has been since the apostles.....

Please note the Emperor Nero persecution that killed Peter/Paul and thus was a pretty dark time in Rome for Christians in the 60's A.D.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by Mystophilus

Who is the source for this?

Unbiased Church history. Try reading this book...

http://www.amazon.com/The-Primacy-Pe...imacy+of+peter

[Mystophilus]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Unbiased Church history. Try reading this book...

http://www.amazon.com/The-Primacy-Pe...imacy+of+peter

Meyerndorff I know, but this "unbiased history" is a creature I have never seen.

I will look it up to find the source, though, thanks, because I would like to know where we would find information on that.