They began to be concerned with their own history…The Marcionite church had is beginning with Marcion…The Montanists went back to Montanus…All of these bore the names of founders whom people knew, while the Christian churches normally went back beyond the turn of the first century into the time of the apostles. Only that which can trace its history back into the earliest time, either directly or through fellowship with churches which are able to document it directly, can be genuine. In this way the concept of apostolic tradition developed and along with it, apostolic succession.
In this context people sometimes proceeded quite liberally in building the chain of tradition...Then, as now, historical thinking was overlaid with wishes.
The idea that both of them [Peter & Paul] first came to Rome after the church had already existed there for a longer time had no place in early Christian thinking, which in this case wanted to forge a connection between something they knew and the earliest and best-known men whose names they knew.
In the first century and the beginning of the second, the Roman church was led by a college of presbyters, as we learn reliably from 1 Clement which we have frequently mentioned. We can no more speak about an apostolic succession, by which Peter passed on the episcopal office by a laying on of hands, than we can about many other things. This idea was a product of the second century when the idea of apostolic succession inevitably developed from the concept or requirement of apostolic tradition. Both existed only after the second half of the second century. K. Aland, A History of Christianity (Fortress 1985), 1:118-120.
"In the first century and the beginning of the second, the Roman church was led by a college of presbyters, as we learn reliably from 1 Clement"
That there was a college of presbyters would hardly prove that there wasn't a head amongst them, which they may or may not at that date have designated as bishop, which would be a mere argument of terminology. This would hardly have been a stretch seeing as Ignatius in contemporaneous times assumes a single bishop.
The rather stretched Protestant assumption that there was no single bishop, reading into Clement something which isn't actually there, and assuming what is in contravention to other contemporaneous writers, not to mention writers from Rome in the 2nd century, would have to be regarded as more wishful thinking that serious historical investigation.
You've got it backwards: It is the Roman Catholic assumption that reads something into Clement something that clearly isn't there. It stretches -- that there WAS "a head" among them -- that is not something that Protestants read out of Clement -- that is something that Romans want to "read in" -- a thing that clearly is not there.
This is where the study of the culture is more than helpful -- the letter clearly falls into the genre of symboule -- it calls itself such (or would you like to read that out) -- a letter of persuasion, not one of authority.
What "isn't there" in Clement, is just that - an argument from silence. Silence does not trump other sources which are not silent.
What authority is in the bishop of Rome with regards to the remote listeners... well that's an entirely different matter to whether there was a bishop in Rome.
"The rather stretched Protestant assumption that there was no single bishop, reading into Clement something which isn't actually there..."
That's not a "Protestant assumption." Read Raymond Brown's Priest and Bishop.
"...and assuming what is in contravention to other contemporaneous writers, not to mention writers from Rome in the 2nd century, would have to be regarded as more wishful thinking that serious historical investigation."
What makes you more expert than Brown or Aland?
Moreover, reading later 2C developments back into the 1C is precisely the kind of anachronism that Aland was correcting. You're the one who indulges in wishful thinking.
Why is an Orthodox apologist so eager to defend Roman primacy, anyway? Are you going soft in the knees?
"In the first century and the beginning of the second, the Roman church was led by a college of presbyters, as we learn reliably from 1 Clement"
ReplyDeleteThat there was a college of presbyters would hardly prove that there wasn't a head amongst them, which they may or may not at that date have designated as bishop, which would be a mere argument of terminology. This would hardly have been a stretch seeing as Ignatius in contemporaneous times assumes a single bishop.
The rather stretched Protestant assumption that there was no single bishop, reading into Clement something which isn't actually there, and assuming what is in contravention to other contemporaneous writers, not to mention writers from Rome in the 2nd century, would have to be regarded as more wishful thinking that serious historical investigation.
You've got it backwards: It is the Roman Catholic assumption that reads something into Clement something that clearly isn't there. It stretches -- that there WAS "a head" among them -- that is not something that Protestants read out of Clement -- that is something that Romans want to "read in" -- a thing that clearly is not there.
DeleteThis is where the study of the culture is more than helpful -- the letter clearly falls into the genre of symboule -- it calls itself such (or would you like to read that out) -- a letter of persuasion, not one of authority.
What "isn't there" in Clement, is just that - an argument from silence. Silence does not trump other sources which are not silent.
DeleteWhat authority is in the bishop of Rome with regards to the remote listeners... well that's an entirely different matter to whether there was a bishop in Rome.
"The rather stretched Protestant assumption that there was no single bishop, reading into Clement something which isn't actually there..."
DeleteThat's not a "Protestant assumption." Read Raymond Brown's Priest and Bishop.
"...and assuming what is in contravention to other contemporaneous writers, not to mention writers from Rome in the 2nd century, would have to be regarded as more wishful thinking that serious historical investigation."
What makes you more expert than Brown or Aland?
Moreover, reading later 2C developments back into the 1C is precisely the kind of anachronism that Aland was correcting. You're the one who indulges in wishful thinking.
Why is an Orthodox apologist so eager to defend Roman primacy, anyway? Are you going soft in the knees?