3 - Clement of Rome: The Earliest Christian Author after the Apostles | Way of the Fathers 

Thanks so much!

Indeed, I feel it is more edifying when we Christians can focus more on a common love: the fathers of the faith. Peace

Interesting! Thanks.

Are referring the the writing Clementine Recognitions? Because it shows that in its narrative and diary record from Clement.

And that he went astray.

@@lucaswilhelmmeyer6943over the argument of diet. Even the Jews can’t figure out if they should still follow kosher. Sounds like it’s a human thing over how we should fast for God. The fathers make it clear to fast WED and Friday and during certain periods. Meaning the apostles and Deciples came to the conclusion following kosher wasn’t needed unless it was sacrificed to idols.

Thanks!

"Clement" as an adjective means mild or merciful in disposition or character; lenient; compassionate. That's what Mary is being called in that prayer. Or temperate, when referring to weather.

O clement, referring to an aspect of Mary's virtues. As in, O kindly or O generous.

No correspondence between St. Peter and St. Clement. As to the second question, here is Mike's answer: "Irenaeus certainly thought so, and so did Eusebius, Tertullian, and Cyprian. Even when they don't use the B-word, they're clearly talking about someone who functions as a monarch-leader in the Church (local and universal). Oscar Cullmann, a Protestant, reviewed the evidence and concluded that Peter led the Church in Rome and died there. William Farmer, also a Protestant at the time, came to the same conclusion. Tradition presents a preponderance of evidence, but I don't think it's the kind of evidence that will satisfy extreme skeptics. There's no single line carved in marble proclaiming the fact and using the proper terms. The Wikipedia article for Clement of Rome puts the problem on display: "...there is no evidence for a monarchical episcopacy in Rome at such an early date. There is also, however, no evidence of a change occurring in ecclesiastical organization in the latter half of the 2nd century, which would indicate that a new or newly-monarchical episcopacy was establishing itself." So we choose the silence we want to argue from. Which seems more sensible? A scholar of the first rank, Matthew Thomas, is working on a book on these issues, and he tells me he's presenting some neglected evidence. I'm eager to see it."

Any correspondence between Pope Saint Linus & Pope Saint Peter and/or Pope Saint Clement? Did Saint Ignatius of Antioch,first Church Father to use the term "Holy Catholic Church",write to the 3 aforementioned Popes?

Mike addressed some of these questions at greater length in our livestream last night, from about 14:48-31. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NNXvhOJuLZ8.html

@@E.C.2 “Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3). Cyprian of Carthage “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone today does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he should desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251] Eusebius of Caesarea “Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]” (Church History 3:4:9-10 [A.D. 312] Pope Julius I “[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. . . . What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you” (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], contained in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20-35). Council of Sardica “If any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province” (Canon 3 [A.D. 342] Optatus “You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head-that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]-of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367] Epiphanius of Salamis “At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]

Bishops Apostle Brothers...

Specifically,how are his writings "far removed" from the Nicean Fathers?

@@E.C.2 : His writings and his view of God are much closer to the writing of the NT and far removed from the POST Nicean fathers who spoke about the nature of God in neo-platonic terms .

Mike addressed some of these questions at greater length in our livestream last night, from about 14:48-31. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NNXvhOJuLZ8.html

It depends what you mean by "project the ideas of papacy and Roman Primacy". If by that you mean assume the Pope at that time actually exercised the kind of centralized control he does now, you're right. But if you mean that the papacy and Roman primacy were not established in principle by this time, I disagree. The papacy was established by Christ and, following upon it, Roman primacy was established by Peter passing on his episcopate at Rome. That's a matter of Catholic faith, not just to be determined as absent due to lack of sufficiently strong documentation. But even if the letter is not from the bishop but from the whole church of Rome or from a group of elders, it still gives evidence of the primacy of Rome as a church. (This is the channel manager, not Mike responding btw)

@@CatholicCulturePod Maybe it depends on what one means by "primacy." 1 Clement certainly shows the Church in Rome exercising influence over the Church in Corinth, and it seems to have been successful. Whether there was a Papal Office in Rome as we understand the term at the time of the letter, or whether there was even what we would call a "monarchical episcopacy" is a question that faithful scholars (such as the two I mentioned in my first comment) continue to explore.

@@FalkTim Since another commenter asked about this as well, I thought I'd copy and paste Mike's response here: Commenter: "Do we have any evidence that Peter was considered "Bishop of Rome" from historians at this time?" Mike Aquilina: "Irenaeus certainly thought so, and so did Eusebius, Tertullian, and Cyprian. Even when they don't use the B-word, they're clearly talking about someone who functions as a monarch-leader in the Church (local and universal). Oscar Cullmann, a Protestant, reviewed the evidence and concluded that Peter led the Church in Rome and died there. William Farmer, also a Protestant at the time, came to the same conclusion. Tradition presents a preponderance of evidence, but I don't think it's the kind of evidence that will satisfy extreme skeptics. There's no single line carved in marble proclaiming the fact and using the proper terms. The Wikipedia article for Clement of Rome puts the problem on display: "...there is no evidence for a monarchical episcopacy in Rome at such an early date. There is also, however, no evidence of a change occurring in ecclesiastical organization in the latter half of the 2nd century, which would indicate that a new or newly-monarchical episcopacy was establishing itself." So we choose the silence we want to argue from. Which seems more sensible? A scholar of the first rank, Matthew Thomas, is working on a book on these issues, and he tells me he's presenting some neglected evidence. I'm eager to see it."

@@CatholicCulturePod Mike, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'm going to pretend that you didn't cite Wikipedia on this. The question isn't really about whether there is "any" evidence, as I think by your reply you realize, but what evidence is most convincing (enticing?). You know, of course, that Eusebius relied on what others had written. If you look at lists of "Bishops of Rome" from before the time of Leo, you get perplexing results. Some of them name Peter and Paul as co-bishops! Some of them list Peter but don't include him in the count. So there is inconsistency to say the least. I'm not familiar with Matthew Thomas but will look for his book as this is a topic in which I am most interested. I would refer you, and anyone else interested in studying this topic to a book by Raymond Brown and John Meier (both Catholic New Testament Scholars of the highest repute) called "Antioch and Rome." The book is easy to find, easy to read, and will open up a whole new world to many interested in studying the earliest days of the Church. Again, thank you Catholic Culture for posting these very good treatments of the roots of the Faith.

Mike addressed some of these questions at greater length in our livestream last night, from about 14:48-31. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NNXvhOJuLZ8.html

Mike says: "Irenaeus certainly thought so, and so did Eusebius, Tertullian, and Cyprian. Even when they don't use the B-word, they're clearly talking about someone who functions as a monarch-leader in the Church (local and universal). Oscar Cullmann, a Protestant, reviewed the evidence and concluded that Peter led the Church in Rome and died there. William Farmer, also a Protestant at the time, came to the same conclusion. Tradition presents a preponderance of evidence, but I don't think it's the kind of evidence that will satisfy extreme skeptics. There's no single line carved in marble proclaiming the fact and using the proper terms. The Wikipedia article for Clement of Rome puts the problem on display: "...there is no evidence for a monarchical episcopacy in Rome at such an early date. There is also, however, no evidence of a change occurring in ecclesiastical organization in the latter half of the 2nd century, which would indicate that a new or newly-monarchical episcopacy was establishing itself." So we choose the silence we want to argue from. Which seems more sensible? A scholar of the first rank, Matthew Thomas, is working on a book on these issues, and he tells me he's presenting some neglected evidence. I'm eager to see it."

@@CatholicCulturePod do you have any quotes from these church fathers that specifically mentioned the Roman Catholic papacy in their letters?

​@@Hanshotfirst6688 Not using the word "pope" which is a later development, but the bishopric or monarchical leadership at Rome. Mike is about to leave for Sicily so I probably won't be able to get the quotes from him right now. If there is an ambiguity about the letter of Clement on this point, it's less whether Rome had primacy in some sense (which is indicated by this and by Ignatius's letter to the Romans), but whether Rome was led by a single bishop or by some kind of council of elders, i.e. whether that primacy rested in one man or in the Roman church more broadly. So put that together with the above-mentioned Fathers saying there was a bishop at Rome...

@@CatholicCulturePod Well I would appreciate the quotes once you can get them to me. Quite frankly I don’t see anything in early church history or the Bible (more importantly) that establishes the Roman Catholic papacy.

@@Hanshotfirst6688 I will try. Also I will be doing a livestream with Mike on May 8 and maybe I can ask him to talk about it then. Until then, there's always Christ clearly bestowing authority on Peter in the Gospel. Why He would make one apostle the leader of the rest only temporarily when all the rest of their authority was passed down, I don't know...