Also, a Catholic translation of Chapter 63.2 reads:

“For you will afford us joy and gladness if you obey what we have written through the Holy Spirit and get rid of the wicked passion of jealousy, according to the plea for peace and harmony which we have made in this letter.”

In this translation, their obedience to Clement seems to be also obedience to the Holy Spirit.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Clement is sending his legates to make sure that the Church at Corinth does as he requests. Because of his wise and patient manner, Clement doesn’t beat them over the head with his authority. But on several occasions he is vaguely threatening, and he indicates at least implicitly that he expects his legates to be obeyed.

As for the question of his quotation of scripture . . . we’re talking about jurisdiction, not doctrine. If we were in a discussion of whether he had the doctrinal primacy to interpret scripture his own way, then a letter composed of mere quotations of scripture without any claims to the ability to authoritatively interpret said scripture would be bad evidence for the Catholic case. But Catholics are not claiming that Clement demonstrated his authoritative interpretation of scripture in this letter (at least Catholics that I have read). We are claiming that he is demonstrating his jurisdiction. What better way to use one’s jurisdiction than to demand that those under your jurisdiction must follow the inerrant truths of scripture — and to send trustworthy men as a “witness between you and us” so that their obedience can be assured?

So yes, I do agree with Nicholas Afanassieff that Clement phrased his letter as an exhortation. But I also agree with him that he is assuming a type of jurisdiction over these far-off Christians, without their request or without even a defense of his right to do so. Would you accept legates from the Pope today if they were sent with a letter like the one Clement wrote, and told you that Pope Benedict XVI eagerly awaited the news that you had replaced the pastors of your flock after you had unjustly removed them, according to the clear guidelines of scripture? I think not. That is because, among other things, you don’t recognize that he is in the same Church as you and that he has some type of jurisdiction in your area. We would accept such a letter (in fact the Pope still sends them out) because we do recognize that he is in the same Church as us and that he has some type of jurisdiction in our area.

Now I have broken my own rule to spend time working or with my family — it is tempting for me to continue this, but I beg the other people at CTC to take up the cause of defending the Catholicity of Clement and Ignatius. I recommend looking carefully at the greek words that Ignatius uses to describe the Bishop, and the greek words he uses for the Church at Rome. Be careful of protestant translations that simply drop some of his greeting to the Church at Rome. Finally, regarding the habit in the early Church of speaking of the whole Church of Rome when discussing the primacy, please someone who has more time and resources address Andrew’s concerns! Finally, please correct my distance from Rome to Corinth – it is hundreds of miles, not thousands.

Sincerely,

K. Doran

Also, I suspect he wouldn’t have said the following:

“If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin, and, instant in prayer and supplication, shall desire that the Creator of all preserve unbroken the computed number of His elect in the whole world through His beloved Son Jesus Christ . . .”

First, he actually claims that Christ has spoken through him, and that they are therefore disobeying Christ by disobeying his letter. But more importantly, this is the language of someone who claims he would be guilty of the sin of not protecting his flock if he didn’t do his duty and try to protect them. I am called by God to correct my neighbor, but the idea of the sins of others actually being counted as my sins is most seriously the case when God has actually placed me in an authoritative role as the teacher of His Gospel over those people; is this not the case? In Acts 18:6, Paul realizes that he has failed to convince the Jews. He chooses a new flock, the Gentiles, who he now has authority over to preach the gospel. In doing so, he declares that he won’t preach the gospel to the Jews anymore — and this seems to be the reason why he won’t be guilty of their blood. Likewise, in Acts 20: 25-27, Paul indicates that he won’t see his flock at Ephesus ever again. It is his lack of contact with them that will end his future responsibility over this flock (25), and it is the good job that he has already done in the time that was allotted to him (27) that ensures that he won’t be judged by God (26). Thus, it is especially those Divinely-ordained pastors with jurisdiction to preach the Word to a particular flock that are particularly concerned with being judged by God for not doing a good job of this preaching. Clement knows he has some sort of jurisdiction over this far-away group of Christians. So he does his job to avoid being judged for their sins.

To increase the probability that the website will accept my post, I will break it into parts.

Part I

You wrote:

“Various Protestants have looked at Clement’s epistle and seen something that sounds very much like letters of exhortation that they have written or received.”

Yes, he did write in the form of an exhortation. Wisely so, especially considering the pride of the congregation that invalidly kicked someone out of the episcopate.

” The letter could be seen as being written from one in authority over those who were his intended audience, but do you think that it would sound any different if Clement did not see that they had any formal authority over the Corinthians?”

Yes, I suspect that if he was not a legitimate authority over a Church thousands of miles away from him then he would not have sent a letter regarding an intra-congregation squabble without their request.

You are starting in the right place with your ground up (so as to speak) analysis of the authority of the Church. It’s good to start with the thought forms of the era we are speaking of rather than trying to analyze the intentions of the writers using thought forms of a later era of history. I was trying to persuade Tim that this was the right approach but I don’t think he understood what I was getting at. In his post of a couple of days ago he said, “The magisterial Protestant sees the Church as initially having an authoritative magisterium, …” But then no Protestant would say this since the the term “authoritative magisterium” is filled with assumptions about the RCC that are just what we are trying to examine. So when you start off with the words of Clement it’s rather what I was trying to do by analyzing the words of Ignatius when he referred to “bishops, presbyters, and deacons” (sometimes without the deacons reference) in the context he put those terms in which was the context of the congregation in question (and maybe the city although that’s questionable).

So on Clement, one thing that interests me is that he does not write the letter in his own authority but rather in the authority of his church at Rome. Why do you think he does that?

Various Protestants have looked at Clement’s epistle and seen something that sounds very much like letters of exhortation that they have written or received. The letter could be seen as being written from one in authority over those who were his intended audience, but do you think that it would sound any different if Clement did not see that they had any formal authority over the Corinthians? The Corinthians were being told to repent because they were sinning. Clement proves his points again and again directly and indirectly from Scripture which he knew certainly would (or should) have authority. Protestant pastors write the same such exhortations to those congregations or individuals who have sinned. So why do you think that it is necessary to posit formal authority of Rome over the Corinthians?

BTW, congratulations on baby!!

And Tim, I don’t mean to talk around you or ignore you, but there has just been two much arguing between us over who misunderstood who about what in which context. I could fill out another long post with all the ways I think you have misunderstood me in your last post, but don’t think that will get anywhere. I’m just not making myself understood….

And I really appreciate your last thought.

I find myself in the possession of a comment from K. Doran, which he was (due to yesterday’s technical difficulties) unable to post, but which shouldn’t get lost in the shuffle. So I’ll paste it below, and then shuffle back to my seat.

Neal

**********

Dear Andrew,

I wish I could do more, but my wife and I have just had a baby boy, so I will have to limit myself a little bit. But the guys here can add more as your questions arise, and I will recommend some sources that you should look at.

Let’s start with Clement. There are three things to look at to find evidence for jurisdictional primacy throughout the early Church: (1) actions by the Pope that indicate that he believes he has jurisdictional primacy; (2) the reception of these actions by the people directly involved; and (3) the perspective of third parties at the time of these actions. I will discuss (1) and (2) in reference to Clement — I will leave it to others to discuss (3), since I don’t know of any evidence in that category regarding Clement’s epistle (although this is an important category for later evidence).

What service did Clement render the Corinthians in his first epistle? He exhorted them to live according to the gospel; and he expected them to end the ecclesiastical controversy going on in their city on his terms. I quote:

“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.”

The Corinthians seemed to have unjustly ejected someone from the episcopate. Clement tells them this is wrong. And he further indicates that he expects them to do as he has commanded:

“Right is it, therefore, to approach examples so good and so many, and submit the neck and fulfill the part of obedience, in order that, undisturbed by vain sedition, we may attain unto the goal set before us in truth wholly free from blame. Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter. We have sent men faithful and discreet, whose conversation from youth to old age has been blameless among us—the same shall be witnesses between you and us. This we have done, that you may know that our whole concern has been and is that you may be speedily at peace.”

In closing, he states:

“Send back speedily to us in peace and with joy these our messengers to you: Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, with Fortunatus; that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for [among you], and that we may the more quickly rejoice over the good order re-established among you. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you, and with all everywhere that are the called of God through Him, by whom be to Him glory, honour, power, majesty, and eternal dominion, from everlasting to everlasting. Amen.”

How should we interpret his actions? I quote from Nicholas Afanassieff, an Eastern Orthodox scholar:

“The epistle is couched in very measured terms, in the form of an exhortation; but at the same time it clearly shows that the Church of Rome was aware of the decisive weight, in the Church of Corinth’s eyes, that must attach to its witness about the events in Corinth. So the Church of Rome, at the end of the first century, exhibits a marked sense of its own priority, in point of witness about events in other churches. Note also that the Roman Church did not feel obliged to make a case, however argued, to justify its authoritative pronouncements on what we should now call the internal concerns of other churches. There is nothing said about the grounds of this priority….Apparently Rome had no doubt that its priority would be accepted without argument.”

So much for (1). What about (2), the response of the Corinthians? Well, as you probably know, Clement’s letter was read as scripture in Corinth for years afterwords.

Is this consistent with Clement having a primacy of jurisdiction as recognized in the Catholic Church today? Yes. Is it consistent with Clement having less of a primacy of jurisdiction, but at least the seed of what was to come? Yes. Is it consistent with your statement: “The jurisdiction from what I can tell from their writings was limited to their congregations or maybe at most their region.” No, it is not. Corinth was an eastern city near Athens, not even in the same region as Rome.

If I have time, I will discuss Ignatius as well. Though I think that the other guys here would also do a great job for both Clement and Ignatius. It will help if we can post Greek words in our comment boxes, which I don’t know how to do.

Andrew, let me also recommend some sources for you. For the basic Catholic case (the line that fits through the majority of the data points, so to speak), see Steve Ray’s book “Upon this Rock.” If you look it up on google books, he seems to have allowed much of it to be viewed for free. For the outliers (many of which are merely outliers because of some vary naughty history written by gallican and anglican partisans) see Dom John Chapman’s book: “Studies on the Early Papacy” You can find excerpts from his book at the Catholic Apologetics website links below, listed by Chapter heading (I will also try to scan in my copy of the book for you, if I get a chance):

St. Augustine, Pelagianism, and the Holy See:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/apolog.htm

Pope Zosimus and Pelagianism:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num17.htm

St. Cyprian on the Church and the Papacy:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num44.htm

St. Athanasius, Arianism, and the Holy See:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num51.htm

St. John Chrysostom on the Apostle Peter:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num52.htm

St. Jerome and Rome:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num53.htm

Although I may not have much time to visit the site in the near future, do to, among other things, our new bundle of joy, know that I will be praying for all of you — including you, Andrew.

Sincerely,

K. Doran

I very clearly challenged you guys to look up Ignatius and see that he discusses bishops and elders and deacons in the context of the local congregation. I got no answer to that.

This is not a rebuttal to our arguments. In fact, you ignored the arguments in 71 & 75 and made this claim which does not have any support. You were answered on this point in 84 and 85 and you subsequently appeared to back down from it 87 saying , “I’m getting into a debate here where I can’t say I have much stake in the outcome.”

If by “in the context the local congregation” you mean that he wrote it to bishops who ruled only over single congregations and that a single bishop over a city was a later development, we have shown this to be untenable and you have not responded.

I also pointed out that even if you wanted to stretch the meaning of phrases like “Polycarp of Smyrna” to mean mean that there was a bishop over each city,

I must have missed that. That’s not how St. Ignatius addresses St. Polycarp. Here it is:

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnæans,

You said:

this is still something that is very different from what the bishops of Rome were claiming centuries later.

Bringing up the primacy of Rome is a red-herring and a distraction. I can see how you think it is related, and certainly if there are bishops then there is a bishop of Rome, and that has implications, but we’re not there yet. We’re still trying on the topic of the mere existence of an episcopacy in the early Church. Although, once you admit that there existed the same basic Catholic episcopal structure as today, then K. Doran has already expressed his willingness to demonstrate the primacy of Rome in the early fathers.

On 72, Marshall was just misunderstanding my point about cardinals, etc and I noted this.

Taylor did not misunderstand you, he was pointing out that you do not understand the current Catholic episcopal system. If you responded to him, I was unable to find it. Where did you respond?

I used the EO term “autocephalous” but nobody commented on this. This is an EO term, not mine.

Not all EO bishops are autocephalous, some report to patriarchates. Again, this is not a helpful addition to the conversation. It is a distraction because the EO have virtually the same episcopal structure as we do. Which is why when EO Churches become Catholic, the only thing that changes is their allegiance to Rome. They retain all of the Eastern theology and polity, even their filioque-less creed. Andrew P. lives in my town but is under a different bishop than me, yet we’re both Catholic.

I pointed out that the term “first among equals” was purely titular, but nobody responded back.

No one responded because that’s not what we’re talking about. We can’t chase every red-herring tossed out.

Am I just not your intellectual equal? And truly not to be sarcastic, but if what you say is true, why do you waste any time bothering to answer me. I sure wouldn’t.

I try to treat everyone as my intellectual equal and if I’ve failed to do that with you, then I apologize. Please show me where I have done this so I can learn from my mistake and correct it. But assuming you are an intellectual equal does not mean I will pretend that your arguments are equally strong as the ones we’ve been making. They’re not. But you’ve made mostly baseless claims and then have failed to back them up when pressed.

We like having the discussion with you, but it can be frustrating, not because the conversations don’t go anywhere, but because they go everywhere. We need to hone in on the specific issue to have real progress and I think you’re having trouble doing that. If you want an idea of what that looks like, take a look at the dialogue between Kenny and myself starting at comment 8 here:

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/on-perspicuity-and-commentaries/

Kenny didn’t become Catholic and I didn’t become Protestant, but we did stay on topic and answered each other honestly and directly. That is exactly the type of dialogue we want to encourage here. That’s not what’s happening in this thread. I’m pointing it out not to insult you or to pretend that you are my intellectual inferior, far from it; I’m pointing it out so that neither of us waste our time.

Andrew, I don’t want to defeat you in a debate, I want to be in full communion with you as a brother in Christ.

K. Doran,

I agree with this. They both held to a distinct jurisdictional and doctrinal primacy. The jurisdiction from what I can tell from their writings was limited to their congregations or maybe at most their region. Ignatius speaks of the bishop (and presbyter and deacon) within the context of the congregation. In later theologians the power had centralized quite a bit, particularly in the Bishop of Rome. But I find I have people here who are disagreeing with me on this (I’m not sure why) so I will have to see what you think.

Tim,

You have a very odd idea of what it means to “refute.” Concerning 71 and 75 I very clearly challenged you guys to look up Ignatius and see that he discusses bishops and elders and deacons in the context of the local congregation. I got no answer to that. And I also pointed out that even if you wanted to stretch the meaning of phrases like “Polycarp of Smyrna” to mean mean that there was a bishop over each city, this is still something that is very different from what the bishops of Rome were claiming centuries later. There is again nothing close to a centrally controlled system in Ignatius. But again, no answer to this, but again I’ve been refuted? Tim, just saying that someone is refuted does not mean it is true.

On 72, Marshall was just misunderstanding my point about cardinals, etc and I noted this.

And yes, I do understand EO as relates to RCC on ecclesiology. Kalistos Ware writes on the subject in whose book, The Orthodox Church. He quotes an EO theologian right at the beginning of his book calling the Pope “the first Protestant” for breaking with the Church and claiming power that was not his own. I used the EO term “autocephalous” but nobody commented on this. This is an EO term, not mine. I pointed out that the term “first among equals” was purely titular, but nobody responded back.

Unless I’ve missed it, you haven’t, to date on CTC, demonstrated or attempted to demonstrate a single substantive claim.

That is a very sad statement, TIm. I think you and Neal and Bryan and others have certainly demonstrated many substantive points here and I’m glad to have heard them. Am I just not your intellectual equal? And truly not to be sarcastic, but if what you say is true, why do you waste any time bothering to answer me. I sure wouldn’t.

If I have not demonstrated anything I really do need to make a mental note not to come back.

Tim, in #95 you didn’t say to me that I had not answered you; you said that in my answer I had misunderstood you. But you did not say what I had misunderstood.

I’m sorry, I thought you didn’t really misunderstand but were avoiding the question. If you re-read the question, you’ll notice that I wasn’t talking about Calvin but Prof. Killen.

I was not aware that I had been refuted on the points above.

I was referring to this part:

as well as elements which are not found in the earliest centuries of the Church.

But you should also drop the stuff about the EO because you do not understand the differences between East and West, and you’re not EO. Protestants commonly try to use EO as leverage to argue against the Catholic Church and do not understand what they are talking about. If you visited Andrew Preslar’s parish or Matt Yonke’s, you wouldn’t know the difference between them and an Eastern Orthodox parish. Or if you are knowledgeable about the difference between say Ukrainian Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox and I don’t know it, feel free to show how the former is in clear discontinuity with the early episcopacy and the former isn’t. Otherwise, that is if you’re not willing to back up your claims, then I’m asking you directly to stop making them. Don’t make any claim that you aren’t willing to demonstrate. Unless I’ve missed it, you haven’t, to date on CTC, demonstrated or attempted to demonstrate a single substantive claim.

This is what I was referring to. Did anyone try to refute this? I cannot imagine they would want to.

If by “elements” (above) you mean accidental elements then I have misread you. But if you mean substantial novelties then yes, you have been refuted on this (e.g. 71, 72, 75).

If you meant accidental elements which could potentially, but not necessarily, have developed organically then I can’t be blamed for misunderstanding you because you’ve said it in the context of a discussion where you’ve initially made claims that Presbyterian government was closer to the early Church (66), were refuted on this point (68, 69, 73), responded to very few of the arguments therein made, and later said that the difference between the Presbyterian government and the early Church, now demonstrated, just “didn’t matter” to you (122).

And I realize that you have a lot to respond to, but if you go to a large family and start making unsubstantiated and unflattering claims about their mother, you can expect to have some explaining to do and some of the sons may not offer a real warm welcome. So in other words, you made your bed, you need to lie in it. That’s what’s going on here. You’ve made a number of false claims about the Catholic Church and several of her sons have taken you to task. But you’re not responding directly to many of the things we’ve said. In this very response, you picked the weakest of my arguments to respond to and ignored the rest.

I admire you for sticking in here with us on one hand, but I don’t get the impression that you’re really interested in getting to the bottom of some of these underlying issues. I’d love to be proven wrong on this, but that would require more direct interaction on your part. I may be wrong about some of the things I’m saying, but you shouldn’t have trouble showing that I am if that’s the case.

I’m only interested in truth. I don’t believe for a second that you’re not interested in the same. But our respective approaches to finding that truth are very different. In some ways that might be ok, but in others its not. There is a noticeable difference in one’s disposition, and it can be seen by others, when their heart is open to the truth – wherever that may lead. There is another method which assumes, facts be damned, that you already have it. That might be fine as long as you happen to already have it. This sets one’s own ideology up and will not entertain thoughts which undermine it. I do not feel like you are entertaining the arguments I’m laying out before you. I know that you are not responding to them directly, that is objective; whether you are actually entertaining them in your mind I cannot know.

We have reason to be cautious about entertaining ideas outside our ideology when we truly believe our ideology to be Christ centered. But if there is a competing ideology which can be shown to leave the non-negotiables intact, and we approach the issue prayerfully, we can hold do so boldly trusting in the Holy Spirit to guide us into truth (where He wants us). Protestants will not honestly entertain Catholic claims for two primary reasons: 1. their circle of “non-negotiables” is too large (e.g. they think that John Calvin’s particular opinion on the gospel is a non-negotiable part of Christianity) or 2. they misunderstand an element of Catholicism that appears to undermine one of the non-negotiables (e.g. they think Mariology displaces Christocentricity)

Would you like to discuss the evidence of jurisdictional interference and doctrinal authority of the Church of Romefrom one or more of the early centuries of the Church? It is difficult to know what evidence to bring forward until you state your mind clearly about which Fathers you take to have a fundamentally different ecclesiological viewpoint from modern Catholics.

I am tempted to take Augustine as a good example, because reformed often revere him. But I want you to pick the fathers that you are most relying on in your claim that the early church ecclesiology was fundamentally different (i.e. different in a way that couldn’t even be called the seed of what was to come) than modern catholic ecclesiology. You know best which fathers you believe to be evidence for your case.

If it is Clement and Ignatius, then I think we have a lot to say in support of the belief that they held to an ecclesiology that involved a jurisdictional and doctrinal primacy. We can go though the evidence step by step if that would make it clearer. The case will get easier with fathers whose words and actions are more copiously preserved, such as Augustine. Looking at Augustine would serve the added benefit of correcting some misconceptions protestant and modernist Catholic historians may have given you about the supposed independence of the African Church, or (more humorously) about Augustine’s supposed disgust with Pope Innocent’s and Pope Zosimus’ imperious language in the Pelagian controversy.

Sincerely,

K. Doran