Talk:Clement of Rome

Theology?

Cool, but this guy is also an apostolic church father, so he must have developed the Christian theology on some important point. Anyone who knows? Said: Rursus 20:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Does 1 Clement have any real theological content? I don't know. Leadwind (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"pope"?

In what sense is this guy a pope? Why is the article titled "Pope Clement 1" (RCC POV) and not "Saint Clement" (more common designation)? Were there even bishops in the 1st century? Isn't that more of a 2nd century development? When did the Church first identify him as the 4th bishop of Rome? He certainly didn't consider himself to be pope. Leadwind (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you the standard Catholic answer: he was a pope in that he was the bishop of Rome. They're the same thing. Probably its titled Pope Clement I because Catholics are more likely to have an interest in editing the page since we're the ones who particularly venerate the saints, and who acknowledge the pope. And I would say there were bishops in the first century; the word from which we get bishop is used in the NT by Paul and Peter. Clement's epistle also uses the title, and also talks about apostolic succession (42, 44). In writing to Corinth, he was asserting his primacy over that church, which I don't know has been found in epistles of bishops of dioceses other than Rome. I'm sure the idea of "pope" wasn't developed as much as it is today, but there are indications that the early bishops of Rome saw themselves as having some primacy over the others.

Also, the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch have a better developed sense of the episcopy as we think of it, and he was martyred around 107, but definitely by 117. All of these are in the Pengiun book "Early Christian Writings". In its intro bit on Clement, it calls him Pope and bishop of Rome, and its hardly a Catholic publishing house.

I think it would be best to leave the page where it is, because the next day an atheist could come along and say "Why is this page "Saint Clement"? I don't believe in saints, I think it should just be "Clement of Rome"." Even using Saint in the title is going to be POV, so we should just maintain the status quo. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Clement might have seen himself as the bishop of Rome and as the first among bishops, but he wasn't a pope (other than in the RCC). More people call him Saint Clement than Pope Clement, so let's change the title to Saint Clement. Clement of Rome would also be fine. Leadwind (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"And I would say there were bishops in the first century; the word from which we get bishop is used in the NT by Paul and Peter." Carl, could you please give me the verses in question? Leadwind (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but no one's a pope other than in the RCC. Protestant leaders could care less whether or not the bishop of Rome considers himself the pope. I really think that since he is a Catholic saint, the title should stay as is. Even if he didn't think of the Latin/Greek word for "pope" when he thought of himself, if you concede that he thought of himself as first among bishops, that's the whole point of the papacy--that the bishop of Rome is first among the bishops. He is listed as a pope in the pope infobox. Whether or not he considered himself "pope" doesn't affect the fact that he was.

As for the verses, in Ac 20:28 where it says "guardians" in the RSV and "overseers" in the NKJV, the Greek is "episcopos", and it is quoting Paul. Peter uses "episcopos" at 1 Pet 2:25 of Christ, while discussing presbyters (priests), and that they are to be like Christ the bishop (episcopos). Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There have been popes outside RCC (e.g. Alexandria, Asia Minor). Paul refers (literally) to overseers (epi- skopos), but there's no indication that these are ranking clergy or even clergy in any official sense. Peter didn't write 1 Peter; someone else did. East and West call him Saint Clement. Only the RCC calls him Pope Clement. Why does the RCC view take precedence over the original East-West view? Leadwind (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Because he was bishop of Rome, a RC position. There is indication that Paul was refering to clergy, and Peter as well. It doesn't matter whether Peter wrote 1 Peter or not; the letter is Scripture, regardless of who was the human author. The West is the Catholic Church, especially since Protestants don't particularly care, as a set, about saints. RCC view takes precedence because he is a RC saint. Articles about RC saints, including the popes, naturally show a RC viewpoint. There is no sense in rocking the boat; you might as well start renaming articles about other popes, because that they were popes is RC pov. But they were the pope, even though other communities don't acknowledge the authority. Clement was pope, even though the full definition of the papacy was not yet developed in his time. Saying the RCC view is incompatible with the "original East-West view" is itself pov and complete bs. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So there's the difference between us. You want this page to favor the RCC POV, and I don't. WP policy is not to do so. Leadwind (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Calling him Pope Clement I isn't RCC pov, because he was pope. Every WP article calls the bishops of Rome pope; WP is that way because it is that way. Leaving the article title as is is not pov, it is pragmatic and reflects reality. Carl.bunderson (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"Calling him Pope Clement I isn't RCC pov, because he was pope." Who says he was pope? Who says he was even a bishop of Rome? The Saint Peter page isn't called Pope Peter I. Leadwind (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Catholics, who acknowledge the popes, consider him pope. It's not a pov thing; if you're the bishop of Rome, you're the pope. There is no reason to change the status quo here; I'm not advocating changing the title of Saint Peter, but this should stay as it is. You're not at all concerned with npov; if you were you would want it called "Clement of Rome"; but you want it called "Saint Clement", which is a generic Christian pov, as I pointed out above. Wanting to change it from "Pope Clement I" to "Saint Clement" is suggestive of anti-Catholic bigotry on your part. It is widely acknowledged, even in secular sources, that he was bishop of Rome. As I said before, the Penguin "Early Christian Writings" acknowleges this, and I'm sure I can find more on demand. He even calls himself a bishop in his epistle. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent for sanity's sake) "Clement of Rome" would be fine. I like "saint" because it identifies him as an important Christian, but "Clement of Rome" is even more generic. As to C. calling himself bishop, really? Where, exactly? Here's what I find online. "The letter refers only to the presbyters of Corinth, and makes no reference to the bishop of Corinth. Moreover, there is no mention of a bishop at Rome--the letter is sent as from the Church at Rome collectively, and Clement's name does not appear. From this, some have inferred that the office of bishop had not yet developed at either Rome or Corinth, and that in both congregations the office of presbyter was the highest office known. A probable alternate explanation, however, is that the troubles in Corinth had arisen when the bishop of that congregation had died, and the congregation had split into factions, none containing both a majority of the presbyters and a majority of the congregation." [1] So the historical record seems inconclusive as to whether there even were bishops at the time. Leadwind (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't explicitly call himself bishop, but the claim is implicitly there: In paragraph 59 he says "if there are any who refuse to heed the declarations He has made through our lips...". That's a pretty big claim, and he is writing in the name of the church at Rome; that would make him the representative of it; that is as good a description of "bishop" as one can ask for. This makes even more sense when we see that bishops did in fact exist at the time, and Clement acknowledges this. The whole point of his letter is that they had ousted their bishop. He explicitily discusses the office of bishop at 42-44. It is obvious that he acknowledged the office of bishop, and it is therefore reasonable to expect that he identified himself as bishop of Rome. He is so concerned with respect for the office of bishop that he would not presume to write in the name of the church at Rome unless he was its bishop. Also, the introduction to the letter in my edition acknowledges that he was bishop: "Its author was the Clement who is mentioned fourth (after Peter, Linus and Anencletus) in the most reliable lists of the Bishops of Rome." And, "Apart from his authorship of the letter and his being Bishop of Rome in the last decade of the first century...we know nothing about Clement." To say that there were not bishops at this time is to ignore the content of his letter. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

These references to "bishops" are references to "overseers" (episkopoi). Are episkopoi the same as bishops? Apparently not. Did Rome have one clergyman designated as its episkopos, the way one bishop is designated bishop of a city? There's no evidence that this was so. Your Penguin book is a clear reference to C as bishop, but there's no such clear reference in C's letter or in contemporary texts. Leadwind (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If it translates "episkopoi" as bishop, then yes, that is apparent evidence that it means bishop. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So some historians say there were bishops in C's time and others that there weren't. You think there were. I'm going to agree with the historians and say "maybe." Is that pretty much where we disagree? Leadwind (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you could say that. I still think that this whole deal is an anti-Catholic rant, since you prefer changing it to "St Clement" rather than "Clement of Rome". But, for the sake of compromise, I would be ok with moving it to "Clement of Rome". Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind that. This page doesn't need to be moved. It has been where it is for nearly six years, without any problem. And I have Julian the Apostate on my watchlist, and was looking at the talk page, and it has been suggested that it be moved several times, but it stays. And "the Apostate" is much more pov than "pope". Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, Carl and I are deadlocked. Anyone else care one way or another if this page is Pope Clement I or Clement of Rome? Leadwind (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(Isn't it annoying when only two people are participating in one of these kind of things?) Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I lean toward "Pope Clement I". Majoreditor (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in. It would help if you gave a reason. At this point it's a discussion, not a vote. Leadwind (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Primarily because he's best known for serving as bishop of Rome / pope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majoreditor (talk • contribs) 15:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This article should remain Pope Clement I. It conforms to the standard Wikipedia practice for naming of articles of popes. This is true for each and every pope except for St. Peter, who was the only individual serve as both an apostle and pope. Dgf32 (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a significant problem in the current first paragraph of this article. One sentence says that ancient sources name Clement as the third bishop of Rome. The next sentence says that there is no evidence that Clement was bishop of Rome. As you can see, they contradict eachother. The citation given for "No evidence corroborates that Clement was a bishop of Rome" is from Lake's Apostolic Fathers; however, there was no page reference included in the citation. I reviewed the relevant passages from the book, and I was unable to find support for the citation. I also reviewed the Catholic Encyclopedia article. It summarizes the hisotrical sources and asserts that Clement was the fourth pope and fourth Bishop of Rome. I am going to update the article to remove the contradiction, leaving in place the citation to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Dgf32 (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

To follow up, the source of the dates is the Annuario Pontificio. I left the {{Fact}} tag in place until we get the citation added. Dgf32 (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here [2] is Kirsopp saying that there's no corroborating or contrary evidence for Clement being Pope. Also, you deleted the section about scholars disagreeing about whether there even was a bishop of Rome at this time. Please don't ditch referenced material, even if you don't like it. Leadwind (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I couldn't find the reference when I looked through the book since I didn't have a page number, so thanks for pointing it out for me. Dgf32 (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding such a complexed and nuanced discussion over whether or not Rome may or may not have had a bishop for certain years at the end of the first century is good content for this article, but it didn't really fit in the first paragraph of the lead section. It adversely affected readability and accessability of the introduction, and so I moved it to the identity section. I also split the lead section up into more readable paragraphs. Dgf32 (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So add a sentence based on the Kirsopp reference. I haven't deleted anything sourced. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Which it seems you just did, while I was typing that. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Re whether he's "Pope Clement," How about we get a nice, neutral, scholarly work, like the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, and call Clement whatever it calls Clement? That way we know we're not pro- or anti-RCC POV. I honestly don't know what term the ODCC uses for him, and would be happy to follow its example. Leadwind (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I really feel that's unnecessary, per Dfg's first comment. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do contend that there is no evidence to suggest that Clement was any more than another of the several presbyters (elders) and nothing in the letter establishes primacy, unless one might argue that to be speaker is to be the first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stinssd (talk • contribs) 00:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There's certainly evidence to suggest it, even if it is debatable; these are two very different positions. And as you can see, we've had a great deal of discussion about this already. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It is "somewhat certain" that he died in the year 99? That makes as much sense as saying my wife is "somewhat pregnant." Also, as others have pointed out it is very much revisionist history to call Clement a pope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.77.118 (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

historical criticism in lead

Historical criticism was moved out of the lead and into the identity section. But the lead is supposed to summarize the article, so I summarized the criticism from the identity section and put it in the lead. Moving things you don't like out of the lead isn't fair and isn't WP policy. If you want to move this material out of the lead again, cite a policy or guideline in support of doing so. Leadwind (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to modify the lead. First, it doesn't make any sense for the article to contradict itself in the length of two sentences. Second, this (Ancient sources disagree on which bishop Clement was, and historians dispute whether Rome had a bishop during Clement's life.) was given and source from New Advent. I read through it, albeit quickly, and I can't find anything that says those two thing. Also, the first clause doesn't really make sense. I will replace it with a brief sentence discussing the uncertainty of all this. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I did put a short sentence in the lead about the disputed bishop issue. However, look at the pages of other early popes. This sort of info is not in their leads. I don't think its appropriate here either. It belongs further on in this article, but only as it relates directly to Clement; it most properly belongs to articles dealing with say Christianity in the apostolic era, History of the Papacy, or Apostolic succession. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Leads are very often not in accord with WP:LEAD. If you think this material shouldn't be here, find a guideline that's on your side. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I am, then there's a policy or guideline that says so. The lead guidelines say that the lead should cover the whole topic and be able to stand alone as a discrete summary of the topic. You're not the first person to move information out of the lead in an attempt to protect a POV. For now, I'm not reverting your changes, in a spirit of compromise. Leadwind (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you read how I changed the article? It's not as though I removed all mention of controversy. What I see as relevant here is: "briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." I have it still briefly describing the notable controversy, but little or no more attention should be given it here because that may constitute undue weight. Please don't imply that we are in clear violation of WP policies; in practise this is much more subjective than the policies would have one think. It is up to consensus to determine how policies are to be interpreted/carried out in each article. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

All three of us have made compromises to reach was seems to be a fair version of the article. Those coming to an article on Pope Clement I are coming to read about Pope Clement I, not about a debate as to the degree to which the episcopacy may or may not have been established at the end of the 1st century. There are plenty of places for debates on the historical development of the church. We've included plenty of the historical criticisms here. However, this article is about the first person named Clement who was and is generally considered to be Pope. This is the same type of debate that always occurs in articles on saints, and eventually, it ends up with an article that is at least minimally accepted to everyone. It's all about finding a balance between an article that can integrate the religious history and modern historical criticisms of the traditional religious history. I think we've come to a pretty balanced introduction. Not perfect, but at least It doesn't logically contradict itself and retains a NPOV. Thank you to both of you for your help with improving this article. Dgf32 (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've agreed to stop fighting over this page, but I haven't agreed that the result is fair. People coming to the page to read about the author of 1 Clement are coming to read about a historical figure about whom little is known. They are not thinking, "I wonder who this Pope Clement guy is." They're thinking "I wonder who wrote that epistle." This page is pro-RCC POV, even if you guys agree on your talk pages to both oppose me. Furthermore, I put real work into this page. Real writing time, and real research. It's not fair for you two to show up and push my work around. If you want to contribute to the article, add information to it, don't squash my information. But, you two have demonstrated a willingness to compromise even though you outnumber me, so I'm not taking it to a RfC or anything. But maybe we'll see each other on the Irenaeus page or something. Leadwind (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, yes, issues of the episcopacy in the first century is important and needs to be in WP. It should be mentioned in this article, but in this article the attention you're giving it is undue weight, I think. Discussing as it relates specifically to Clement is appropriate here--nothing more. And I honestly couldn't find where in the NewAdvent you were getting your text from. If you'd just point me to which heading you were under, it would help. And I think we should, if we don't already, have a wikilink to an article about the first century episcopacy in the see also on this page. And your current version on the Ireneaus lead is better than the first one, I think. Just try and remember none of us own any of this, and we are all free to edit eachother's edits ruthlessly. I don't modify your edits because I don't like you, I edit them because I think they are poorly worded or ill-judged in some other way. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Some defenders of the RCC POV do real work to improve WP. Others just suppress information they don't like. If you're going to protect your POV, please show that you're also putting real work into improving WP, not just impeding other editors. Now exactly which information do you not find in the source I cite? Leadwind (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"on which bishop Clement was"...I read through the section that talked all about Cletus/Anencletus/w/e his name is, but it seemed to me like the article did in fact say that they were different popes. Maybe your wording could just be clearer on what you meant by it. Also, I didn't see where it said in that page that whether or not Rome had a bishop is disputed. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia (read online) lists various ancient witnesses placing Clement as the third, fourth, or fifth bishop of Rome. Leadwind (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Linus, Cletus, Clemens (Hegesippus, ap. Epiphanium, Canon of Mass).

Linus, Anencletus, Clemens (Irenaeus, Africanus ap. Eusebium). Linus, Anacletus, Clemens (Jerome). 2. Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, Clemens (Poem against Marcion), 3. Linus, Clemens, Cletus, Anacletus [Hippolytus (?), "Liberian Catal."- "Liber. Pont."].

4. Linus, Clemens, Anacletus (Optatus, Augustine).

Catholic Encyclopedia says that the texts make no distinction between bishops (superintendents) and presbyters (priests) and refers to Adolf Harnack as saying that that Rome was governed not by a bishop but by presbyters. "Harnack in 1897 (Chronol., I) upheld the paradox that the Church of Rome was so conservative as to be governed by presbyters until Anicetus; and that when the list of popes was composed, c. 170, there had been a bishop for less than twenty years; Clement and others in the list were only presbyters of special influence." The CE itself points out discrepancies in ancient witnesses and disputes in scholarship. Leadwind (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Carl and Dgf32, please find a modern, reliable, NPOV source that names Clement as Pope. If you do, you will have contributed materially to this page instead of merely impeded my work. Leadwind (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the CE, which you're upholding as a RS, titles its article "Pope St Clement I". It is modern, reliable, and NPOV. Please note that right after it gives the varying lists of popes, its notes, "At the present time no critic doubts that Cletus, Anacletus, Anencletus, are the same person." So that really cuts it down to Clement was either the fourth or third pope, which should be mentioned in the article if it is not already. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As for the Harnack reference, the material you can get from it belongs, as I have said before, in articles on the early episcopacy, and (which I hadn't thought of before) on Clement's epistle. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Where the current {[fact}} flag is in the Identity section, the claim was not supported by the citation. Unless someone has another citation for that, I propose we use the following statement from the top of the article, which presents the situation in a straightforward manner: "Whether or not the episcopacy was established as early as Clement's lifetime is disputed by some historians." Dgf32 (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC) "Whether or not the episcopacy was established as early as Clement's lifetime is disputed by some historians."

I would be fine with that. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Dgf32 (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Retitle article

Leadwind is absolutely correct. Pope is an anachronistic title. It is also POV. There was no recognised title of Pope for many centuries. In Catholic doctrine, it is right and proper to retrospectively style Clement of Rome in this fashion, however, it is not the practice of non-Christian historians, Protestants, Orthodox, Pentacostals or Messianic Judaism. If Jesus Christ is a redirect at Wiki, I'm sure Clement of Rome will not mind following in his footsteps and being redirected also. :)

Google scholar hits for Clement of Rome and for Pope Clement I.

The first of the Google scholar hits, Henry S. Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, Oxford University Press (1956), is a standard source for early church history. An interested party can do yet another search on Bettenson to see how widely cited he is. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)