The supremacy of the popes (of Rome).

JSRG

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2019
1,499
867
Midwest
✟164,795.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
since this is one of the anchors in your proposal - a few questions are in order

1. Was there ever a "Pope St. Clement"?? did Paul refer to anyone by that title or did anyone in the second century use that title for him?
2. Are there any first or second century documents with such a title for Clement -- published to the second century church?
3. Did any first or second century source claim that Clement "sat in Peter's chair"?? Eusebius is a 4th century source as we all know
4. Was there ever a time when any first or second century Christian called Clement a Pope? or claimed that Clement was handed something by Peter or inherited from Peter?
5. Since Clement is supposedly #4 in the list - is there any first century document/event where someone was handed "the chair" of Peter as number #2 ??
These questions seem a bit redundant; #1, #2, and #4 all seem to be asking basically the same question. I'm also confused as to why you ask for a source that says Clement "sat in Peter's chair", with the quotation marks indicating you're giving some kind of quote--but the only usage of "chair" by Xeno.of.athens was to refer to the presidential chair of the President of the United States.

But your main question, as shown by the fact it's asked multiple times, is whether Clement was referred to as pope in the first or second century. The title of "Pope" developed in the third century as a term for various bishops, though it later on--at least in the West--became an exclusive title for the Bishop of Rome. Nowadays the term "pope" is interpreted in the English world to refer to the Bishop of Rome. But since that was a later thing, obviously you won't see "Pope Clement" (let alone "Pope St. Clement") used as a phrase in the first or second centuries.

However, even if the specific term "pope" was not used, as has been noted, pope in English is simply used as shorthand for "Bishop of Rome". So if someone referred to Clement as a bishop of Rome, then that is the equivalent. As an analogy, Martha Washington was obviously the First Lady of the United States, but was never referred to during her lifetime--the phrase "First Lady" to refer to the President's wife only developed later. But she was referred to as George Washington's wife, and Washington was the President, and therefore the title fits even if the title wasn't devised until later.

So the question becomes, did anyone refer to Clement as being the bishop of Rome in the first or second century? And the answer is yes. Irenaeus did so in Against Heresies Book 3 Chapter 3 (note for context, the "blessed apostles" mentioned at the start are Peter and Paul):

"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. 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, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth."

As this is a big list of the bishops of Rome, it is obvious that Irenaeus is attesting that Clement was a bishop of Rome and a successor of Peter (and Paul). He also refers to Linus being granted his position by Peter and Paul. There's no surviving first century document saying Linus was given this, but we wouldn't expect there to be; we have almost no Christian documents aside from the New Testament from the first century. However, Irenaeus clearly describes the event as happening in the first century when he says they "committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.
May 18, 2022
5,196
1,401
Perth
✟130,911.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Why does the Pope not have Peter's ability to raise people from the dead by God's power?
There were some really bad Popes down through history, so were they part of this "chain"?
Let me say first that we do not know if any specific pope has raised a man or a woman fro the dead.

And let me say also that the Lord, Jesus Christ, chose Judas as an apostle.
 
Upvote 0

Dan Perez

Well-Known Member
Dec 13, 2018
2,946
283
87
Arcadia
✟200,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Let me say first that we do not know if any specific pope has raised a man or a woman fro the dead.

And let me say also that the Lord, Jesus Christ, chose Judas as an apostle.
I don't believe that you are saying , Jesus made a MISTAKE ??

Jesus , in John 6:70 , Have NOT I chosen 12 , , and one is a Devil ?

Judas was the that was chosen to BETRAY Jesus .

dan p
 
Upvote 0

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.
May 18, 2022
5,196
1,401
Perth
✟130,911.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I don't believe that you are saying , Jesus made a MISTAKE ??

Jesus , in John 6:70 , Have NOT I chosen 12 , , and one is a Devil ?

Judas was the that was chosen to BETRAY Jesus .

dan p
Equally I cannot believe that you are saying that the Holy Spirit made a mistake regarding any specific pope.
 
Upvote 0

Dan Perez

Well-Known Member
Dec 13, 2018
2,946
283
87
Arcadia
✟200,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Equally I cannot believe that you are saying that the Holy Spirit made a mistake regarding any specific pope.
Any one that believe that the Holy Spirit appointed a Pope , it can be solved with a Bible verse ??

dan p
 
Upvote 0

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.
May 18, 2022
5,196
1,401
Perth
✟130,911.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Any one that believe that the Holy Spirit appointed a Pope , it can be solved with a Bible verse ??

dan p
Sold with a Bible verse?

Popes are elected by Cardinals in a conclave The men who vote prayerfully consider their votes. I believe that the Holy Spirit works in the conclave to choose a man who will meet the needs of the time.
 
Upvote 0

RileyG

Veteran
Angels Team
Feb 10, 2013
15,529
9,071
28
Nebraska
✟255,995.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
In scripture, a father is one of your parents OR your Father in heaven. No priest is my father (parent) or my God in heaven.
When the scripture says “call no man your father” it obviously excludes you parent because that often occurs.
That's your interpretation. What makes it obvious?
 
Upvote 0

RileyG

Veteran
Angels Team
Feb 10, 2013
15,529
9,071
28
Nebraska
✟255,995.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, the "bad Popes" were part of the chain. And if we're going to use gifts of miracles as signs of authority then a whole lot of people are going to be left out in the cold.
There has been many bad Popes in history. Pope Benedict IX comes to mind.

(....it is my understanding the Orthodox Church sees the Pope of Rome as a legitimate successors of apostles but illicit, so to speak).
 
  • Like
Reactions: HTacianas
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

One God and Father of All

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2018
737
200
59
Wilmington, DE
✟18,183.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That's your interpretation. What makes it obvious?
Can you give an example of anyone calling an Apostle or disciple of Christ “father”.
I won’t hold my breath.
 
Upvote 0

RileyG

Veteran
Angels Team
Feb 10, 2013
15,529
9,071
28
Nebraska
✟255,995.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Dan Perez

Well-Known Member
Dec 13, 2018
2,946
283
87
Arcadia
✟200,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The epistle of 1 John.

1 Corinthians 4:15

Blessings
But in Matt 23:9 reads , And call NO // ME is a Greek DISJUNCATIVE PARTICLE , NEGATIVE and means NEVER , EVER call a man FATHER and is in the PLURAL .

For one is your FATHER in Heaven.

And in verse 10 , Neither be ye called MASTERS for one is n your MASTER , even Christ >

dan p
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,613
13,791
✟434,060.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
As usual, the RC "evidence" for their popes' supremacy involves completely twisting the consensus-based model of early Church governance, such that any other bishop (including several Popes of Alexandria -- to whom the term "Pope" was originally applied by the bishop of Rome in the letter of St. Dionysius of Rome to Philemon, 3rd century) appealing to the Pope of Rome for consensus concerning decisions or problems is as a subordinate appealing to their "boss" or whatever nonsense. I'll only say to EVERYONE here that this is absolute garbage and ignores the many, many times when bishops of Rome were openly disagreed with and/or corrected by others. As concerns my own Church, we can see this (e.g.) with regard to the letters of HH St. Dionysius (the one who was Pope of Alexandria 246-264), who wrote to his Roman counterparts Stephen and Xystus concerning the Roman stance regarding the (re)baptism of those who had been previously baptized by heretics. This would've been in the 250s AD, as you can read at the link. The bishops of Rome did not even begin using the honorific Pope to refer to themselves in any kind of exclusive sense until after Chalcedon, i.e., beginning some two centuries later than this.

Do not fall for this twisting of history. Consensus was the method of settling disputes in the early Church. Even the Romans themselves must believe this to an extent, as the bishop of Rome sent representatives to the early councils for just this reason, so that those who were present would be able to know how he would come down on the various issues being hashed out in said councils. Rome's wants and desires were never enough to overturn what the wider Church herself wanted during those times when the two did not see eye to eye, as is obvious enough from looking at the "disputed" (only by Rome...) canons of Constantinople (381), which the rest of the Church accepted and always has, whereas Rome did not and to my knowledge has not.

Just think about it logically: If "Roma locuta, causa finita est" (~ "Rome has spoken; the matter is finished") really held the day in the early Church (or ever, as that is still not something the rest of the Church accepts), then why even have councils or synods in the first place? Why not just ask the bishop of Rome what he thinks and then follow that? Yet that is not what we see when we actually look at history. HH St. Dionysius did not agree with bishops Stephen and Xystus, just as HH St. Dioscorus did not go along with Pope Leo's 445 letter asking that Alexandria adopt particular Roman practices so that Alexandria and Rome may be "one in all things". Truly, the only way you can actually believe in Rome's deceptions when it comes to the historical record is to just ignore whatever anyone else does and only focus on when Rome's backing is requested, or when the Roman bishop writes to his brother bishops in such and such a situation, with not a word said of what the response of these non-Roman bishops was (unless of course it was to just agree with what Rome says, as that is in keeping with the RCC's ecclesiology today, so it helps to be able to "backdate" it, to whatever degree they can by a selective presentation of "evidence").
 
Upvote 0

RileyG

Veteran
Angels Team
Feb 10, 2013
15,529
9,071
28
Nebraska
✟255,995.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
But in Matt 23:9 reads , And call NO // ME is a Greek DISJUNCATIVE PARTICLE , NEGATIVE and means NEVER , EVER call a man FATHER and is in the PLURAL .

For one is your FATHER in Heaven.

And in verse 10 , Neither be ye called MASTERS for one is n your MASTER , even Christ >

dan p
What do you call the man who is your biological father? Father or dad? If so, that means your breaking Matthew 23:9 apparently.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

One God and Father of All

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2018
737
200
59
Wilmington, DE
✟18,183.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
What do you call the man who is your biological father? Father or dad? If so, that means your breaking Matthew 23:9 apparently.
Are you prepared to toss out the scripture that says “call no man your father”? If not then you ought to be able to explain the meaning.

As I understand it, he says, because you have one Father and that one is God.
When a person is converted through hearing and believing the gospel he becomes a child of God. He now has an eternal Father. Although he has a mortal paternal father, his true Father in the faith is God Himself. Therefore, if your true father is God then you ought not call anyone father except He.If you do refer to your mortal father as father, it is with the understanding that your only true father is God Himself.
Therefore, it would be a denial of truth if you were to call someone who is neither your mortal paternal father or your Father in heaven as father.
However, scripture does use metaphor to describe those through whom the gospel is preached as father. Abraham is called father of the faithful. But we don’t call Abraham our father, unless it is understood as it applies to the gospel. Him being the original person through whom the gospel was preached. He would be the first of many. Therefore, it would be forbidden to call just any elder or overseer as father.
 
Upvote 0

RileyG

Veteran
Angels Team
Feb 10, 2013
15,529
9,071
28
Nebraska
✟255,995.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
Are you prepared to toss out the scripture that says “call no man your father”? If not then you ought to be able to explain the meaning.

As I understand it, he says, because you have one Father and that one is God.
When a person is converted through hearing and believing the gospel he becomes a child of God. He now has an eternal Father. Although he has a mortal paternal father, his true Father in the faith is God Himself. Therefore, if your true father is God then you ought not call anyone father except He.If you do refer to your mortal father as father, it is with the understanding that your only true father is God Himself.
Therefore, it would be a denial of truth if you were to call someone who is neither your mortal paternal father or your Father in heaven as father.
However, scripture does use metaphor to describe those through whom the gospel is preached as father. Abraham is called father of the faithful. But we don’t call Abraham our father, unless it is understood as it applies to the gospel. Him being the original person through whom the gospel was preached. He would be the first of many. Therefore, it would be forbidden to call just any elder or overseer as father.
That’s your proof text. I disagree with it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

One God and Father of All

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2018
737
200
59
Wilmington, DE
✟18,183.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
1 John 3
1
Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of [a]God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. 2Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. 3And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.

Roman 8
For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. .

2 Corinthians 6:18
And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

there’s the testimony of not two but three witnesses.

Those who believe the gospel become sons of God. And Jesus is not ashamed to call them his brethren. Heb 2:11

just as Jesus was declared to be the son of God with power after his resurrection from the dead, those to who are his brethren will be resurrected to be sons of God immortal. Rom 1:4 1 John 3:2
 
Upvote 0