Talk:Pope Clement I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Vague words[edit]

The second paragraph of the life section claims that "The Roman congregation of Clement's day was large and influential."

  1. There is no source for the assertion.
  2. There is no qualification on what large refers to (large compared to other congregation of that age, large compared to other religious communities in Rome)
  3. There is no qualification on influential (is this meant to imply an early primacy of Rome over Christianity at large, or does it mean locally (politically) influential?).

-- Schewek (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

:I'd be fine removing it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 07:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

To Leadwind: The word 'large' is still unqualified. What is 'large' (100 people, 1000 people, 10000 people), or large compared to what? -- Schewek (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The ODCC says "large." That's good enough for me. If the ODCC can use the term, then so can we. Leadwind (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
What is ODCC?
But regardless: In the context of the article, large is unqualified. Thus, it is an empty phrase, worthy of removal. The fact that some other source uses a word that cannot be filled with a concrete meaning does not require us to use it. -- Schewek (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Well since it is the wording used in the source, there really isn't a good reason not to use it. I agree with Lead, now. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
But what is ODCC? I would like to look it up muself. -- Schewek (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3). Lima (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) It would be good if Leadwind would indicate which of the ODCC articles he is quoting: I can't find "large" in the Clement of Rome, St article. (If it is really there, I apologize for causing problems through my failure to see it.) The 27 references in the Wikipedia article to the characteristically spelled "The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church" may perhaps be to several different articles within that 1800-page work. In that case, the 27 references should be distinguished from one another according to the articles in question. Lima (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources awaiting incorporation into the article[edit]

There's mountains of secondary literature on Clement, all discussing interpretations and reconstructions from the following primary sources. At some point this basic material needs to be added, and suitable representative secondary sources commenting on them. My sig at the bottom documents the time I originally located online copies of many of the primary sources and posted them. At some point I'll add some of the best secondary sources from the archive ... and eventually add it all to the article if no one else does this first. Cheers all. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Shepherd of Hermas (early 2nd century?) (in Greek) Vision 2:4:3 (β':IV:3) [first colon of last verse on page] says:
γράψεις οὖν δύο βιβλαρίδια καὶ πέμψεις ἓν Κλήμεντι καὶ ἓν Γραπτῇ. πέμψει οὖν Κλήμης εἰς τὰς ἔξω πόλεις, ἐκείνῳ γὰρ ἐπιτέτραπται·
I know Lima can read this, as can I, three translations are at Wikisource.
It suggests that a man called Clement was known to have had some kind of authority (ἐκείνῳ γὰρ ἐπιτέτραπται) in the Roman church (at least to authorise publication in its name, and to other cities—ἔξω πόλεις), even if the reference here was fabricated to lend credence to the Shepherd.
2. Irenaeus of Lyon (circa 115–202) in Adversus haereses (c. 180) (in Greek) (in Latin) 3:3:3 translated by Philip Schaff says:
Greek: διαδέχεται δὲ αὐτόν Ἀνέγκλητος. μετὰ τοῦτον δὲ τρίτῳ τόπῳ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν κληροῦται Κλήμης, ὁ καὶ ἑωρακὼς τοὺς μακαρίους ἀποστόλους, καὶ συμβεβληκὼς αὐτοῖς, ... Τὸν δὲ Κλήμεντα τοῦτον διαδέχεται Εὐάρεστος ... Ἐλεύθηρος.
Latin: Succedit autem ei Anacletus: post eum tertio loco ab Apostolis episcopatum sortitur Clemens, qui et vidit ipsos Apostolos, et contulit cum eis, ... Sub hoc igitur Clemente, dissensione non modica inter eos, qui Corinthi essent, fratres facta, scripsit quae est Romae Ecclesia potentissimas literas Corinthiis ... Huic autem Clementi succedit Evaristus ... Eleutherius.
This mentions an episcopacy in Rome to which succeeded Clement in tertiary location (3rd), who had conversed with the apostles. Irenaeus attributes a letter to the Corinthians to the church in Rome, rather than to Clement. Later, in the same section, he refers finally to Eleutherius, twelve places removed from the apostles (dating his own time of writing). Rather nicely for us, all the significant points in the original source are in Latin words that are still part of the English language. For those who can't follow Greek and Latin, there is an interesting difference between the two versions, not relevant to our issues, but the Greek has "blessed apostles" where the Latin has "apostles themselves". The Greek, although probably largely original, appears to have been augmented at this point by the writer or writers who cited Irenaeus, which is the only form of his original Greek that has survived.
3. Tertullian (of Carthage, circa 160–220) in (in Latin) De praescriptione hereticorum 32:2 says:
Hoc enim modo ecclesiae apostolicae census suos deferunt, sicut Smyrnaeorum ecclesia Polycarpum ab Iohanne conlocatum refert, sicut Romanorum Clementem a Petro ordinatum est.
This too I hope we can all read or guess at, and suggests that ordination was a universal practice, with apostolic precedent, John in the East and Peter in the West. It clearly connects Clement (presumably the same man as others of the name referred to above) with Peter. The analogy with Polycarp is very suggestive (though one might contrast the lack of "succession" in the East to advance either of the main positions on a Petrine succession in the West).
4. Eusebius of Caesarea (263–339) in Historia ecclesiastica (circa 325) (in Greek) 3:4:10; 3:15:1; 3:16:1; 4:23:11 translated by Philip Schaff says:
3:4:10: ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ Κλήμης, τῆς Ῥωμαίων καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκκλησίας τρίτος ἐπίσκοπος καταστάς, Παύλου συνεργὸς καὶ συναθλητὴς γεγονέναι πρὸς αὐτοῦ μαρτυρεῖται.
3:15:1: Δωδεκάτῳ δὲ ἔτει τῆς αὐτῆς ἡγεμονίας τῆς Ῥωμαίων ἐκκλησίας Ἀνέγκλητον ἔτεσιν ἐπισκοπεύσαντα δεκαδύο διαδέχεται Κλήμης, ὃν συνεργὸν ἑαυτοῦ γενέσθαι Φιλιππησίοις ἐπιστέλλων ὁ ἀπόστολος διδάσκει, λέγων· «μετὰ καὶ Κλήμεντος καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν συνεργῶν μου, ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα ἐν βίβλῳ ζωῆς».
3:16:1: Τούτου δὴ οὖν ὁμολογουμένη μία ἐπιστολὴ φέρεται, μεγάλη τε καὶ θαυμασία, ἣν ὡς ἀπὸ τῆς Ῥωμαίων ἐκκλησίας τῇ Κορινθίων διετυπώσατο, στάσεως τηνικάδε κατὰ τὴν Κόρινθον γενομένης. ταύτην δὲ καὶ ἐν πλείσταις ἐκκλησίαις ἐπὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ δεδημοσιευμένην πάλαι τε καὶ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς ἔγνωμεν. καὶ ὅτι γε κατὰ τὸν δηλούμενον τὰ τῆς Κορινθίων κεκίνητο στάσεως, ἀξιόχρεως μάρτυς ὁ Ἡγήσιππος.
4:23:11: ἐν αὐτῇ δὲ ταύτῃ καὶ τῆς Κλήμεντος πρὸς Κορινθίους μέμνηται ἐπιστολῆς, δηλῶν ἀνέκαθεν ἐξ ἀρχαίου ἔθους ἐπὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν αὐτῆς ποιεῖσθαι· λέγει γοῦν·
«τὴν σήμερον οὖν κυριακὴν ἁγίαν ἡμέραν διηγάγομεν, ἐν ᾗ ἀνέγνωμεν ὑμῶν τὴν ἐπιστολήν, ἣν ἕξομεν ἀεί ποτε ἀναγινώσκοντες νουθετεῖσθαι, ὡς καὶ τὴν προτέραν ἡμῖν διὰ Κλήμεντος γραφεῖσαν».
5. Titus Flavius Clemens of Alexandria (circa 150-215) in (in Greek) (in Latin) Stromata 4:17 (J-P Minge, PG 8:1312—other refs at 1:7; 5:12; 6:8) translated by Schaff? (Kessinger Publishing, 2004) [top of page in translation] calls Clement of Rome an apostle!
Greek: Ναὶ μὴν ἐν τῇ πρὸς Κορινθίους Ἐπιστολῇ ὁ ἀπόστολος Κλήμηνς, καὶ αὐτὸς ἡμῖν τύπον τινὰ τοῦ γνωστικοῦ ὑπογράφων, λέγει· [quotes 1 Clement]
Latin: Porro autem Clemens quoque apostolus in epistola ad Corinthios, ipse quoque nobi quamdam gnostici imaginem describens, dicit: [quotes 1 Clement].
The Latin translation expands slightly on the original Greek, having "Clement, who was also an apostle", rather than "the apostle Clement". I'll check Migne's intro for the source of the Latin.
Alastair Haines (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I should also note here that these primary sources demonstrate why the current title for this article is anachronistic—the actual documentary evidence we have nowhere calls Clement "Saint" or "Pope", which is why academic usage (outside the Roman Catholic church, of course) refers to him, neutrally, as Clement of Rome. That matter is something that impacts articles beyond just this one, so addressing it has been deferred awaiting people with time and energy to document and effect a correction. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
It's most lovely to be back on this talk page, and it's most comforting to see the same discussion continues so many years later. I've made only a minor change to some rather gangly syntax. I can't imagine that anyone would find it objectionable as it's merely a paraphrase of the cited source, and it's far easier to read than the previous version. Warm wishes to all! Dgf32 (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

anti-Catholic POV[edit]

It's clear from the history of this article that it has struggled mightily against a tendency toward developing an anti-Catholic POV. In its current state it's nearly reached a semblance of neutrality, with the exception of this line, which appears twice in the article:

Early succession lists name Clement as the first, second, or third successor of Saint Peter. However, the meaning of his inclusion in these lists is unclear. While there were presbyter-bishops as early as the first century there is no evidence for monarchical episcopacy in Rome at such an early date.

Introducing a Catholic-Protestant controversy over the nature of Apostolic succession into this article is unnecessary, and including only a description the Protestant viewpoint about that controversy is a violation of the NPOV. That this is a controversial topic is demonstrated by this excerpt from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia article on the topic of "bishops":

The historical origin of the episcopate is much controverted: very diverse hypotheses have been proposed to explain the texts of the inspired writings and of the Apostolic Fathers relating to the primitive ecclesiastical hierarchy. They are most easily found in the work of von Dunin-Borkowski, on the latest researches concerning the origin of the episcopate (Die Neuren Forschungen uber die Anfange des Episkopats, Frieburg, 1900). The Apostolic and consequently the Divine origin of the monarchical episcopate has always been contested but especially so since Protestantism put forward the doctrine of a universal Christian priesthood. At the present day, rationalistic and Protestant writers, even those who belong to the Anglican Church, reject the Apostolic institution of the episcopate; many of them relegate its origin to the second century....If the monarchical episcopate began only in the middle of the second century it impossible to comprehend how at the end of second century the episcopal lists of several important bishoprics giving the succession of bishops as far back as the first century were generally known and admitted. Such, for instance, was the case at Rome.

Since I doubt that justice can be given to this controversy in this article without detracting from its primary purpose, it would be better for this article if this line were deleted, and a new article similar to the one in the New Advent Encyclopedia were created to handle the historical origin of the monarchical episcopacy. Tombarreras (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Tom, I think it's excellent that you ensure Catholic POV is not censored. The best way is the hard way of writing and sourcing it yourself. It's easier to delete alternative views than write up one's own, but you're allowed to write a Catholic POV; and, in fact, it's ideal that Catholics do write up their own POV. They know it better than others do! ;)
The trick at Wiki is to get sources doing the talking. That way we don't end up fighting over our disagreements, we let the professionals do it for us.
There's a ton of articles where Christian POV is deleted or not present because Christians aren't working together to write it up and maintain it. Prots and RCs are allies on many, many things. Clement, Augustine and Aquinas are Prot heros as much as Catholic ones.
I'm a Prot, but I also consider myself to be a Catholic, just not a Roman one. All Christians went for the idea of a Roman Pope for hundreds of years, then the East diverged, then some Germanic countries, including England.
Perhaps we should think of Clement as a Pope, but perhaps even if the RC view on this is right, the early Christians might not have understood it properly. In God's eyes he might have been Peter's successor in the way RCs now have come to understand, but earlier Christians didn't get it. Those early guys had big biff ups over whether Jesus was God or man, and whether there was a Trinity.
Whether Clement was Pope is one question. Whether people now think he is or not is another. And what people thought at various points in the past is yet a third question.
All those questions are interesting even for people who don't believe. I can put myself in their shoes, and that's what we need to do for readers. The reader can't be expected to have a position on the topic, and Wiki certainly can't be written as though this Encyclopedia has a position.
I'm sure you know this, Tom, and I can't add much to Carl's excellent words, but I'm really posting to urge you to WP:Be bold in adding text RC and Christian here at Wiki. There are a lot of good sources available on line to back you up. The Vatican site and Catholic Encyclopedia are excellent. I use them all the time, especially for latin sources.
Pax vobiscum Alastair Haines (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason to remove the sentences. Including the Protestant POV is necessary for NPOV, and I can completely understand that removing these well-sourced sentences would make it too Catholic. We need a balance, and it's hardly as though the sentences are raving anti-popery; they're reasonable mentions of the Protestant view on 1st century bishops.
I do agree an article on the historical origin of the monarchical episcopacy is desirable, if we don't have one already. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 08:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that having the same material twice in the article is too much. Which insertion should we eliminate or reduce? I will not object if someone boldly acts on this matter. Lima (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
It does seem a bit much to me. After reading your post I considered taking out the second (relevant) sentence in the lead, leaving the body intact. That's my preference. However, refering to the thread "Monarchical episcopacy" in the archives, Lead might have a problem with that. I'm going to bed now/soon, and if no-one objects by the time I get back on here, I'll go ahead and take my preferred route, reducing its emphasis in the lead. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 08:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Good for you Carl! If it's there twice I agree with Lima, too, unless one is a natural part of the lead.
Part of the problem is having a Catholic POV title, it needs counteracting in th lead.
To bring up the unresolved issue, we can delete the Pope or not Pope thing from the lead if Pope is not already an issue raised by the title.
Clement was an early bishop of Rome attributed the writing of an early Christian letter to the Corinthian church. Other aspects of his life are believed to include etc., etc. Subsection: Bishop of Rome.
But since that's not changing any time soon, I'm very happy that you'll be consulting Lead in making your decision. Be bold. He'll let you know if he's unhappy. Best to all. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've gone and done it. Feedback here. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize to the regular contributors for riding roughshod over your edits. In this case, I really think that less is more and that the article is stronger with the reference to controversies over the nature of the office of the bishop in the early centuries removed. That Clement appears on early lists of the successors of Peter is clear. What exactly that means goes to the heart of the Reformation and can't be adequately dealt with here without significant distraction. Nevertheless, if the topic must be raised, then I would suggest it be prefaced with a note that the role and responsibilities of the early bishops is a controversial topic, followed by the quote about there being no evidence that the role was monarchical prior to the second century, and then to balance it note that there is also no evidence of a change in ecclesiastical authority in the latter half of the second century, citing the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia as the source:
The best evidence, however, for the existence at this early date of a monarchical episcopate is the fact that nowhere in the latter half of the second century is the least trace to be found of a change of organization. Such a change would have robbed the supposed college of presbyter-bishops of their sovereign authority, and it is almost impossible to comprehend how this body would have allowed itself to be everywhere despoiled of its supreme authority, without leaving in the contemporary documents the least trace of a protest against so important a change.
Readers could at least follow the link to New Advent for a fuller treatment of the subject. As for the question about the title of the article, it's just the opinion of one Catholic, but I see no reason why "Clement of Rome" shouldn't be the primary article, with "Pope Clement I" redirecting to that, since as far as I know there's no evidence one way or the other that the title of "pope" was in use in Clement's day. Tombarreras (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
You're a star Tom! :)
For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure monarchical episcopacy with a sense of succession are reasonable conclusions to work with, given the circumstantial evidence we have.
I've been surrounded by Presbyterians for a while but grew up Anglican. Episcopacy just "feels" right to me I guess.
My quibble would be with the primacy of the Roman See. That's a long story and not for this article I agree.
Love your diligence with going to sources, and Catholic scholars have written many of the best ones. This ain't no Cath v. Prot kind of article, so we don't need to worry about the commitments of scholars too much here.
Carl's got his finger on the pulse. There's a tremendously nice and diligent not-(yet <cheeky me>)-believer called Leadwind we need to lean on to keep us honest here.
You ain't ruffled no feathers, Tom. Those of us who've been knocking around here for a while are used to keeping track of changes after the event. We want new people to come in and make themselves at home. Just so long as they keep talking nicely after that. ;)
Very best to you. If in doubt ... edit! We need you. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
On the question of the title: having the word "Pope" in the title of the whole series of alleged predecessors of Benedict XVI has clear advantages that make it unlikely that a proposal to change the practice would be accepted by the Wikipedia community. It is a practice that concerns not only the Popes: I think there is only one Elizabeth II who merits an article, yet the article on her is headed "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom", in line with the heading of the articles on her predecessors. Only in the sixth century did the title "Pope" begin to mean exclusively the Bishop of Rome (see Pope#The title Pope); it is simpler to keep the title for all members of the alleged series, rather than to pick some arbitrary point at which to begin to use the designation. Lima (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I fully agree with Lima. This same issue has been debated lots of times. I agree that consensus can be changed, but when the discussion went on for more than a year, please respect the consensus up to now (=not to change the title) and have some rest for some months. I think here some people want to impose their POV not by consensus but because of tiredness of the others. As Alastair Haines demonstrated, Clement was the bishop of Rome, and in the contemporary English the bishop of Rome is referred to as "Pope". That is valid for all bishops of Rome. A ntv (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for these fairly eirenic summaries. I dispute (but only in this post) a couple of points.
The date is not arbitrary, Lima, you've given it to us.
One, admittedly non-ideal, compromise would be having the papal infobox for the whole series, but with article names according to what can be verified.
As for the consensus people speak of, I've not seen it. I'd appreciate a link to it wherever it is, since I anticipate renewing it at some stage, but only if there's new information to add, or I can identify misunderstandings in what we have already.
Finally, in contemporary Roman Catholicism, the Pope is accorded the traditional title of Bishop of Rome (not vice versa), this was demonstrated by an excellent source provided by A ntv.
I only arrived at this page at Leadwind's invitation, I have only dropped by again to welcome Tom. At some point I'll return, but my interest will be to write the primary source material into the article. I don't anticipate that my doing so will ruffle anyone's feathers here. In fact, it will only provide gold standard circumstantial evidence for orthodox Catholic doctrine (though it won't draw any conclusions, of course).
I trust I'll be seeing several people here as allies at other Christianity related articles. And I look forward to crossing swords in gentlemanly fashion when (or if) it comes to opening the article title question in the future. To be honest, I can't predict the outcome of that encounter, but I'll be working to ensure that all relevant sources and arguments from all points of view are adequately documented by the end of it. If that's already been done, then new discussion won't even get off the ground.
Have a great day everyone. I've got traumas elsewhere to worry about. Cheerio. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, in Roman Catholicism "Pope" and "bishop of Rome" are 100% synonym. There cannot exists, nor even for a few minutes, a Pope who is not Bishop of Rome, and whoever is said Pope is also bishop of Rome. This is the use also in contemporary English (in which Wiki is written, and thus in the title of this article.). Ok. There are many disagreements about which are the prerogatives/authority of the pope/bishop_of_Rome. Here Catholic understanding is different from Anglican understanding, and is different from reformed understanding and could be different from 1 century understanding: the debate about prerogatives/authority of the pope/bishop_of_Rome is not related with the use of the term "pope", who is by itself neutral (it means "daddy"), it doesn't carry in itself any prerogatives/authority: for example it has been used by Catholics/Protestants both before and after the definition of the papal infallibility in 1870. A ntv (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
[citation needed] for the comment above. For most of the church's history the first of the apostoles has been given the nickname 'Papa' and lived in Rome, but the important of the papacy is not in Rome or in the name 'Papa'. What really matters is succession. Think that during Lenin's persecution the Russian ("orthodox") bishops called the (catholic) pope for help. Argentino (talk/cont.) 15:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed "(elders)" from this sentence:

He asserted the authority of the presbyters (elders) as rulers of the church, on the grounds that the Apostles had appointed such.

There is already a link to the article for "presbyter". I don't see the need for the author to suggest a definition in this context. I also deleted the text contained in parenthesis in the following selection that further iterated that "bishop" and "presbyter" were used interchangeably as the position directly above the deacon. There is a paragraph only a few paragraphs before it that details this fact and the further inclusion of an explanation only a short distance away seems redundant.

Clement writes to the troubled congregation in Corinth, where certain "presbyters" or "bishops" have been deposed (the class of clergy above that of deacons is designated indifferently by the two terms)

--Scardinoz (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the second edit because it removed a reference. That should be avoided as far as possible, and should have an especially good reason (ie the ref isn't reliable). carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I also feel as those this article is very anti Catholic, the notion that the monarchial episcopate didn`t developp with the apostles is sold as a fact here and in many other places also. (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica[edit]

Saint Clement I, a good neutral article for a religiously sensitive topic. Leadwind (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The word pope is irrelevent[edit]

Perhaps you could word it: "Bishop of Rome Clement I". This is extremely biased in that bishops of Rome were not archbishops in Byzantine til later. During the great schism the Latin church had a hierarchy similar to the Eastern church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the term is misleading, since he was a bishop of Rome but Rome didn't have a single, monarchical bishop until 50 years after Clement. Leadwind (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
We are discussiong again and again always the same issue. Nothing wrong in it, but simply please refer to my edits in the talk page of last year to support why I'm extremly contrary to change the present Pope title.A ntv (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

We are discussing it again and will discuss it again and again because to call Clement 'Pope' against all the evidence betrays your (and the article's title's) virulently Romish bias - which is your very point of refusing to budge on the matter. Although professing Christians would not even like the moniker 'Saint Clement', it would at least provide something that was less offensive and antagonistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Jerome's quote on 2nd/4th pope[edit]

I performed the following edit on : Jerome gives Clement as "the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter" (i.e., fourth in a series that included Peter), he adds that "most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle", where i removed the parenthesis "(i.e., fourth in a series that included Peter)" : i don't think that it belongs to us to instruct the reader on how to understand Jerome's words. But User:Esoglou put it back as "(not in the sense of fourth successor of Peter, but fourth in a series that included Peter)", with the edit summary of "I think the explanation is required, to avoid ambiguity". I oppose that. Besides, the next statement in the text clarifies : he [Jerome] adds that "most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle" ; so here we see that we're talking about 2nd vs 4th, not 3rd vs 5th. --Jerome Potts (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Naturally, I won't insist, if others disagree. But I do think that most people would understand "fourth after Peter" to mean "fifth if Peter is reckoned as the first". "First after Peter" could only be interpreted in that way. Readers, if left with this false idea, would be set searching for the name to add to the series "Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clement" and for a solution to the question where to insert this missing name. So I felt and still feel that the clarification is needed to avoid the misinterpretation into which most readers would fall. Esoglou (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
How come you didn't fall for it, then ? Most likely because you've read it in other wording elsewhere. The reader can do that too, if s/he hasn't already. Somehow it strikes me as presumptuous of us to lead the reader like such. Maybe i've a psychological issue or smthg. --Jerome Potts (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Any other editor care to comment? Esoglou (talk) 06:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus. If the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy) results in more clarity as to what should be used here, this can be brought back for a new discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Pope Clement IClement of RomeRelisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC) According to the Pope article, there is no evidence the term "Pope" was used by Bishops of Rome before 300 AD, and so the current title is clearly anachronistic. On the other hand, Clement of Rome is completely unambiguous and more neutral. I also think he is better known for writing 1 Clement then he is for being a proto-typepope. StAnselm (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose, as all Popes bio articles should remain named Pope Name #. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Reasons: uniformity of the whole succession line; impossibility of deciding on any later point of time at which to start using the uniform style; "there is no evidence the term was used" is of little relevance: it is not the same as "there is evidence the term was not used". A further query: is "no redirect" a proposal also that there should not even be a redirect page "Pope Clement I"? That additional proposal would surely be wildly excessive. Even on its own the proposal to move is definitely inappropriate. Esoglou (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. I understand the papal naming consistency argument, but look at the evidence of how this person is actually known. Here's an ngram comparing the two versions - a landslide for "Clement of Rome". Clicking on the Google Books links also shows a huge preference for "Clement of Rome" - 65,700 vs. 2,660 for "Pope Clement I". As for when the title began to be used, I think that's not entirely relevant - what matters most is how we refer to this person today, which appears to be "Clement of Rome". Dohn joe (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Dohn joe's link as to usage. There shouldn't be a year cutoff either way, but rather each article should be stuck to the common name on its own merits; as an example, so little is known about Pope Linus - for instance, whether he even existed or not - that it'd probably be best to keep him there, as he isn't known outside of "the guy who people 200 years later decided was Pope after Peter off evidence and testimony we don't really have today." SnowFire (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - there is universal agreement amongst scholars that the man should be referred to as 'Clement of Rome', the use of the term 'Pope' is factually anachronistic. --Smart30 (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose, for the reasons of GoodDay and Esoglou. About the lack of evidence of the use of the term "Pope" in the first century, it by itself means nothing: actually when the studied period is far in the past and only a extremely few traces arrived to us, no serious historian can use as a proof the silent of the historical sources on any issue. A ntv (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Basically, what I gathered from this discussion is that it is unsure whether he was actually named a Pope, which, to me, makes the uniformity argument a bit weak. In contrast, there is Dohn joe's reasoning which clearly shows that Clement of Rome is the common name. I can see where those opposing are coming from, but I feel that the supporting arguments are stronger. Jenks24 (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a good idea at all, as GoodDay and Esoglou both stated. Moreover, most readers think of him as "pope" anyway. He need a title, and Bishop of Rome would still not clarify it enough for most readers. Most readers will think of pope as "the person who runs the Church, following St. Peter" and that is what he did. For all practical purposes that is the best title.History2007 (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not commonly recognized. Not up to the encyclopedia to alter names in common use. Anyway, the bishops of major cities were considered "Patriarchs." The visibility of the title "Pope" is not anachronistic to the bishops of Rome standing among Christians of the time. Student7 (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
    But what about the evidence I presented that shows that "Clement of Rome" is, in fact, the common use? Dohn joe (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Esoglou. I will support this move when the MOS on Popes' article names is changed, and not before. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
    But if the MOS allowed it, then you'd be in support? Dohn joe (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Dohn joe above has the best arguments. It does not especially matter for the purposes of this discussion whether he was thought of as a pope in the first century or not—what matters is how he is referred to in modern scholarship. Dohn joe's link gives strong evidence that "Clement of Rome" predominates in scholarly usage, so we should be using it. Ucucha 21:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Since it is widely held that Clement was never bishop of Rome (after all, he wrote for a committee of presbyters), we should not have titles which are neither common usage nor accurate. (But of course there should be a redirect from the present title, a likely search term.) It might be possible to split the article into one on Clement of Rome and one on the legend, structured like Pope Joan. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I was minded to oppose, & am VERY dubious about book ngrams, certainly in a context as rich with possible misreadings as this, but then the first item on this search is a book by Pope Benedict XVI, The Church Fathers: From Clement of Rome to Augustine. Chapter I is "Saint Clement, Bishop of Rome" who is described as "...the third Successor to Peter...", but the word "Pope" never seems to be used. When the Pope thinks you're not a Pope, you probably aren't. I think we should drop "Pope" for the first 6 is it - until at least some better evidence starts. On the other hand, consistency is a good thing, and redirects are in place. Johnbod (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose We have this naming convention for popes, and I'm fine with diverging from it if there is a strong common name issue. But I don't think it's the case here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
    How come you don't think this is a strong common name situation? Dohn joe (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as all Popes bio articles should remain named Pope Name #. Flamarande (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Note Since it isn't as well advertised as this (or any) RM discussion, a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(clergy)#Pope_article_titles has come from this RM suggestion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Clement on Atlantis[edit]

•clement of rome on atlantis

[1]••Atlantis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -

Epistle of Clement, 20: 8 The ocean, which men cannot pass, and the worlds beyond it, are ruled by the same injunctions of the Master

Some scholars believe Clement of Rome cryptically referenced Atlantis in his First Epistle of Clement, 20: 8: ....The ocean which is impassable for men, and the ...[2] Very beautifully also he draws from the harmony of the universe an incitement to concord, and incidentally expresses here the remarkable sentiment, perhaps suggested by the old legends of the Atlantis, the orbis alter, the ultima Thule, etc., that there are other worlds beyond the impenetrable ocean, which are ruled by the same laws of the Lord.12101210 3 Ch. 20: Ὠκέανος ἀνθρώποις άπέραντος καὶ οἱ μετ’ αὐτὸν κόσμοι ταῖς αὐταῖς ταγαῖς τοῦ δεσπότου διευθύνονται. Lightfoot (p. 84) remarks on this passage: "Clement may possibly be referring to some known, but hardly accessible land, lying without the pillars of Hercules. But more probably he contemplated some unknown land in the far west beyond the ocean, like the fabled Atlantis of Plato, or the real America of modern discovery." Lightfoot goes on to say that this passage was thus understood by Irenaeus (II. 28, 2), Clement of Alexandria (Strom. V. 12), and Origen ) De Princ. II.6; In Ezech. VIII. 3), but that, at a later date, this opinion was condemned by Tertullian (De Pall. 2 Hermog. 25), Lactantius (Inst. II. 24), and Augustin )De Civit. Dei XVI. 9). For centuries the idea of Cosmas Indicopleustes that the earth was a plain surface and a parallelogram, prevailed in Christian literature.210 1210 3 Ch. 20: Ὠκέανος ἀνθρώποις άπέραντος καὶ οἱ μετ’ αὐτὸν κόσμοι ταῖς αὐταῖς ταγαῖς τοῦ δεσπότου διευθύνονται. Lightfoot (p. 84) remarks on this passage: "Clement may possibly be referring to some known, but hardly accessible land, lying without the pillars of Hercules. But more probably he contemplated some unknown land in the far west beyond the ocean, like the fabled Atlantis of Plato, or the real America of modern discovery." Lightfoot goes on to say that this passage was thus understood by Irenaeus (II. 28, 2), Clement of Alexandria (Strom. V. 12), and Origen ) De Princ. II.6; In Ezech. VIII. 3), but that, at a later date, this opinion was condemned by Tertullian (De Pall. 2 Hermog. 25), Lactantius (Inst. II. 24), and Augustin )De Civit. Dei XVI. 9). For centuries the idea of Cosmas Indicopleustes that the earth was a plain surface and a parallelogram, prevailed in Christian literature

DAB (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Quoting myself, I wrote on my website several years ago, FWIMBW:

"The mode of Christian thought about Heaven on Earth was set by Augustine (430 AD) in De Civitate Dei. Augustine did not believe in the possibility of a New World on the other side of the Globe; he said such an idea was too absurd too consider. He assumed the Western Hemisphere was covered with water, and concluded that Heaven could never be on Earth (Book XVI, Chapter 9). In 1492 Columbus proved otherwise; the Puritans, founders of the great Universities of Harvard, Yale and Princeton in the 17th Century believed America was the Promised Land, the New World and the place where Zion - the New Jerusalem which John envisioned - was to be." DAB (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Augustine missed or misunderstood the part about the earth being divided in the days of Peleg as noted in Genesis 10:25, assuming that the land was still gathered together in one place as noted in Genesis 1. The concept of Continental drift was not understood by science until the twentieth century. Where Plato thought Atlantis sank in the sea west of Gibraltar it only drifted away and sank below the horizon.

DAB (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Significant Issues[edit]

Let me repeat the sentiments above that there are significant issues with this article. I am neither a patristics scholar nor an early Church historian but many problems stood out to me.

First of all, this paragraph does not belong in the lede and should be moved to the body of the article or, better still, to the References section:

"The Liber Pontificalis presents a list that makes Pope Linus the second in the line of bishops of Rome, with Peter as first; but at the same time it states that Peter ordained two bishops, Linus and Pope Cletus, for the priestly service of the community, devoting himself instead to prayer and preaching, and that it was to Clement that he entrusted the Church as a whole, appointing him as his successor. Tertullian too makes Clement the immediate successor of Peter. And while in one of his works Jerome gives Clement as "the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter" (not in the sense of fourth successor of Peter, but fourth in a series that included Peter), he adds that "most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle". Clement is put after Linus and Cletus/Anacletus in the earliest (c. 180) account, that of Irenaeus, who is followed by Eusebius of Caesarea."

This line, which appears twice in the article, seems like it was contrived to satisfy an offended party:

"The meaning of these early reports is unclear, given the lack of evidence for monarchical episcopacy in Rome at so early a date."

Why would there be there be a monarchical episcopacy in Rome when the Church was subject to anti-Christian persecutions and several early bishops of Rome suffered martyrdom? In the late first century the Church was still a mustard seed awaiting to reach its fullness in space in time.

I don't think this paragraph belongs in the Life section:

"A large congregation existed in Rome c. 58, when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans. Paul arrived in Rome c. 60 (Acts). His Captivity Epistles, as well as Mark, Luke, Acts, and 1 Peter were written here, according to many scholars. Paul and Peter were said to have been martyred here. Nero persecuted Roman Christians after Rome burned in 64, and the congregation may have suffered further persecution under Domitian (81–96). Clement was the first of early Rome's most notable bishops."

If we decide to keep this paragraph, then the following sentence needs to be strengthened:

"Paul and Peter were said to have been martyred here."

A number of early Church Fathers attest to the fact that both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome (quotes available if needed).

"The letters of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35 – c. 107) indicate the several congregations were headed by individual bishops but that Rome's congregation was not."

This should reference the actual letter(s) of Ignatius and not a secondary source with no page number listed, especially when that source comes from a controversial scholar. I have read the letters from Ignatius and can find no reference to Rome not being headed by a bishop.

There are many other issues but I do not have time to address them all. My recommendation is that this article be thoroughly reworked by an objective scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akasseb (talkcontribs) 05:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Exile to Pontus[edit]

May be ahistorical, but the tradition that he was sentenced to hard labor in the region deserves inclusion. Inter alia, it shows up in his appearance in the Annales Cambriae and the doggerel limerick

Exiled Clement, in Pontus enslaved,
Prayed for water the multitude craved.
Lo! A lamb touched the ground
Where a wellspring was found.
Many souls by this wonder were saved.

— LlywelynII 00:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Pro-RCC, Anti-Non-Romanist POV[edit]

The absurd line above indicates some anti RCC POV. Just calling Clement "Pope" and picturing him in fancy ecclesiastical duds is an academic error and pro-RCC. There really is no evidence that there was any pope at this time in ecclesiastical history. Clement is not called a pope by contemporaries. All references to a Pope Clement should be eliminated. And any assumption that there was a monarchal bishop of Rome at this also should be deleted. In the NT it is clear that there was a plurality of elders/bishops in city churches. Also it is clear that there is no office of Pope in the NT. If one thinks that by the time of Clement there were monarchal bishops and a pope, this needs good proof. (EnochBethany (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC))

Bias on the monarchial episcopate[edit]

The claim that Ignatius letters indicate that several congregations were headed by monarchial bishops but Rome wasn`t is absurd. Ignatius references the bishops of many churches, however when referencing Rome he didn`t reference any form of leadership. It was simpily a lot more secretive. It cannot be used to say there was no monarchial bishop as it doesn`t reference a college of presbyter, a collective leadership, a plurality of elders, or anything along the Protestant lines at all. In fact no church father writing refers to such a form of goverment. In fact most Protestant arguments are simpily based on terms being used more interchangibly, and on speculation, there is no clear text showing that there were a plurality of elders leading churches. As many Catholic apologists have pointed out the terminology seems to have become more clearly defined and to have spread during the second century, not the structure itself. Because once church fathers referred to the 3 way goverment, they reffered to it as coming from Jesus and the apostles, so we would have to assume they were lying, but they would in fact be lying about how things had beeen, which had been different just a few decades ago. Irenaeus list of popes, from a 180 A.D., would have been universally rejected by anyone above 35 if Rome all the way up to a 150 or later had been lead by a plurality of elders, but instead his work silenced the Gnostics who had no argument at all. In facrt in 170 A.D. Dionysius Of Corinth compares Pope Soter to Pope Clement. The view that a plurality of elders lead the early churches should be cited but not as fact. Otherwise wikipedia actively sides in a 500 year old debate involving 2 bilion people. (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)