Talk:Clement of Rome/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

I think a reasonable solution would be to keep the title, even if it is anachronistic, but put a disclaimer that some historians question if he actually was a bishop of Rome, and most question if he was "Pope" in any meaningful sense. Also, some of the introduction needs to made more NPOV. (Most protestant scholars would deny that Clement was even a bishop, some early sources list Clement as the first successor to Peter, Philip Schaff questioned in he was a martyr, and what does "miraculous ministry" mean?)--Blkgardner (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a disclaimer, though it is in the first section, rather than in the lead. I think the disclaimer found below addresses the POV issue of 'bishop', and I will remove the miraculous ministry bit. I don't have Schaff in my library, so can you provide that source and one for him being right after Peter, and edit the article accordingly? Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Works by Schaff on CCEL Schaff doesn't list his sources for who said Clement the 1st successor of Peter and who said he was the 3rd. He states: "What we know with certainty is only this, that he stood at the head of the Roman congregation at the close of the first century. Yet tradition is divided against itself as to the time of his administration; now making him the first successor of Peter, now, with more probability, the third. According to Eusebius he was bishop from the twelfth year of Domitian to the third of Trajan (A. D. 92 to 101). Considering that the official distinction between bishops and presbyters was not yet clearly defined in his time, he may have been co-presbyter with Linus and Anacletus, who are represented by some as his predecessors, by others as his successors." from [3]--Blkgardner (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I've made the additions. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:30, 12 October 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)

Ummmm, yeah. We can't always be certain about the y.o.d. of someone who lived 2k years ago. How is that in any way comparable to the 0 or 1 truth value of the pregnancy that is going on right now? Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:40, 2 October 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)

The Catholic Encyclopedia is not modern (it was published in 1907), not reliable, and has a clear point of view; the New Catholic Encyclopedia has a much better claim to be any of these things but is not available on-line. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:06, 26 October 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)

I do not consider the CE as an RS. The CE is 100 years old and, I dare say, not necessarily as NPOV as you seem to think it is. Leadwind (talk) 23:36, 24 October 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)

Dfg32 made the good point that it is standard practise on WP to title the articles "Pope whomever"; this form has been used for all the Bishops of Rome except for Peter. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There is an excellent encyclopedic reason to name popes along with their titles -- historically, it became standard practice for popes elect to adopt a new name at that time. Given the immense prominence of the office, most popes are known historically by their adopted name. Such names are also, arguably, tightly connected with the title; however, John Paul II is, of course found, not always Pope John Paul II, for example.

In the case of Clement and others, the encyclopedic issue of nomenclature does not apply, rather, it tends strongly in the other direction. Most writers refer simply to Clement of Rome, in fact, he obviously doesn't fall into the modern "name-changing" Pope category. He was always Clement, there is no advantage, only disadvantage in making him retrospectively conform to systems not designed to address his case.

I don't care sufficiently about the issue to pursue it.

The "Style box" is POV and OR and has been restored, after I removed it, without any warrant or authority in policy or common sense.

It is perhaps worth recollecting that there are manuscripts of letters to bishops of Rome with absolutely no comparable style to the sort of thing proposed in this article. Not only is there no evidence for the proposal, there is even evidence that such styles were not used. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I restored the style box because it was preceded by a note which you conveniently ignored when removing it. It clearly states that consensus was reached to place it in this, and all the other Bishops' of Rome articles. Established consensus treats the article as calling Clement pope, and you need to deal with consensus before taking down style boxes which are standard practise on all of these articles. Look at the articles on the surrounding popes...they were not called pope or 'his holiness' when living either. But established consensus is for these articles to included that style box. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My nondenominational source (oxford dictionary of the christian church) calls him Clement of Rome. Unless there's a documented consensus to call all bishops of Rome "Popes," this title should be Clement of Rome. Leadwind (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed 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.

The result of the proposal was No move Parsecboy (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

See above sections. Contemporary scholarship calls him "Clement of Rome." Leadwind (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Damasus I (Bishop of Rome, 366–384) is considered by some scholars to be the first Bishop of Rome to claim and be widely acknowledged as having primacy over other Bishops. Perhaps it may be helpful for us to investigate the sources to establish a scholastically defensible starting point for titling subjects of articles as popes. Can we all work together to let sources settle this matter for us? Thanks for your initiative Leadwind, Alastair Haines (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In his requested move statement Leadwind writes, "'Clement of Rome' is preferred, 'Pope Clement I' is Roman Catholic POV". The Library of Congress calls him "Clement I, Pope"; I had not heard that the Library of Congress was a Roman Catholic institution. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Until now, the only source being offered in support of Clement being termed Pope was the Catholic Encyclopedia. Can you give us a reference for the Library of Congress mention? In any event, Alastair Haines has shown that Google Scholar yields about 40 times as many hits for "Clement of Rome" than for "Pope Clement I." If "Pope Clement I" isn't RCC POV, it's still minority usage. Leadwind (talk) 05:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Do a search in the catalog of the Library of Congress. You'll see that the current subject heading is "Clement I, Pope"; it used to be "Clemens Romanus" - but was changed. Noel S McFerran (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Searching Library of Congress for Subject one gets the following database entry—"Clement, of Rome, Pope". The subject of our article is distinguished from other Clements (like Clement of Alexandria or Pope Clement VIII of the Clemantine Vulgate) firstly by his geographical location, only then by the title that is restrospectively applied to him according to Catholic tradition regarding their office of Pope. LoC appears to be yet another source against our title. Clement, commonly known as "of Rome", was always Clement, always "of Rome", and sometime bishop of that city—points not seriously disputed. Catholic POV clearly understands an office called Pope, which it retrospectively applies to bishops of Rome. I am unaware of alternative views within Catholicism, though protests against any primacy of the Roman see are as old as Cyprian and still current among Eastern Orthodox and Protestant writers. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

By the title of "Pope" is meant, in this context, the Bishop of Rome. Whether the Bishop of Rome has primacy over other Bishops is another matter, which can be denied not only with regard to the Bishops of Rome earlier than Pope Damasus I but even of modern Bishops of Rome without denying that they were or are Bishops of Rome. For that reason, I think Alastair's proposal isn't helpful. Documentary evidence of the belief that Clement was Bishop of Rome dates back at least to Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 3:3:3). For the sake of uniformity, there seems to be a long-standing agreement in Wikipedia to call the Bishops of Rome "Pope N.", even if they are more commonly known as, for instance, "Gregory the Great". There seems to be no valid reason for making an exception in the case of the first Pope Clement. As for encyclopedias other than the Catholic Encyclopedia that in the titles of their articles on him call him "Clement I", how about the the present-day Encyclopaedia Britannica, its 1911 predecessor, the Columbia Encyclopedia, and Encarta? Lima (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• There is a demonstrable consensus to call all the names traditionally listed as Bishops of Rome Pope so-and-so, except Saint Peter himself, who is more notable as an apostle; all of these articles are so called. This is English usage; it makes no assertion that the claim is correct, any more than titling an article Pope Joan asserts that there was such a person. So I don't think the article should be moved.
• But at the same time, we should certainly make much more clear, and even sooner, than the article now does that it is disputed
  • whether the author of the Clementine epistles was Bishop of Rome,
  • Whether the Bishop of Rome exercised any precedence before the time of Constantius,
  • whether there was any Bishop for the whole city of Rome before the middle of the second century. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lima. Fancy meeting you here. Thanks for providing references in support of your position. You say, "By the title of "Pope" is meant, in this context, the Bishop of Rome." But there's no historical evidence that he was "the" bishop of Rome. He was certainly a bishop/priest (superintendent/elder) of Rome, but the institution of a single bishop distinct from other bishops is not in evidence. Gregory the Great's page should likewise be called "Gregory the Great." He chose not to use the term pope for himself. If there's a documented ruling that all bishops of Rome should be termed pope in the article title, show us the documentation and let's move the conversation there. Leadwind (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Even though I believe that Clement was one of many presbyters, and not a monarchical bishop, the purpose of Wikipedia is to present "scholarly consensus" not attempt to prove facts one way or another. Good historians come down on both sides of the issue on Clement's office. As for Gregory the Great, the rejected the title "Bishop of Bishops" not Pope. The title "Pope" [meaning father] originally was applied to all priests/presbyters, and was only later used to refer the bishop of Rome exclusively. The Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria still uses the title Pope.--Blkgardner (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The established Wikipedia practice is to give to the articles on each and every one of the people traditionally listed (ever since, at latest, the second century) as heads of the Church in Rome titles in the form: Pope Linus, Pope Anacletus, Pope Clement I, Pope Evaristus, and so on. It would be most peculiar to change just this one on Clement, in particular since the five encyclopedias mentioned above call him "Clement I" in the titles of their articles on him. Of course, the title of "Pope" was not yet used at that time for the head of the Church in Rome. Of course, others have used in the past and even today use the title of Pope - not only the Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria, but also the Greek Orthodox Patriarch, not to speak of the head of the African group called the Legio Mariae and various other people. Of course, some hold that the figure of the bishop did not yet exist at the time of Clement. But the practice of using the word "Pope" as a handy way to mark each member of the series is in possession and any proposal to abandon it should be raised in a wider forum than this. The questions raised above can indeed be discussed within the article, but since they are questions on which "good historians come down on both sides", they provide no compelling reason to change the title. Lima (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

He shouldn't be called Pope if he wasn't the pope. Alastair Haines has offered evidence that Clement of Rome is in more common use that Pope Clement I. Since I'm an evidence-oriented guy rather than an ideologue, I admit that there are more references to Pope Clement I out there than I thought there were, but Clement of Rome still seems to outnumber those references handily. We shouldn't mistakenly call this guy Pope just because we call other non-popes Pope as well. If there's a wider forum for this discussion, where is it? Let's take it there. If there is no wider discussion, then let's get the pages right one at a time, starting here. Gregory the Great might be next. In my reading, he did indeed decline to use the term pope for himself, but I'll have to check that when we get to the issue of his article's title. Leadwind (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no need to spend more time on this. The reaction so far is such that I would be extremely surprised if Leadwind got even close to winning a consensus for changing the article title(s), whether for this one head of the Church in Rome, or for all the earliest ones, or for all those who lived before the title of "Pope" began to be used for them. Lima (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

About the fact he was a pope (= bishop of Rome) there is a clear evidence in the Clementine literature: in this literature, contrary to the the usual catholic view, Clement is seen as being installed directly by Peter, who left him his catthedra before to be martyred. (Rufinus in the IV century explains this saying that Pope Linus and Pope Anacletus were bishops while Peter was still alive). It is very difficult to date the Clementines because these books have been revised many times in the II-III and IV century, but the epilogue (where there is the passage from Peter to Clement) is considered be basically of the II century. Even if of the III century is anyway a strong proof of the tradition. The Clementines prove the ancient tradition that Clement was bishop of Rome (i.e. Pope). So I strongly support to maintain present title (Pope Clement I"). A ntv (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Clear evidence, from miracle tales which are two, or possibly three, centuries later? That is clear evidence of a fourth-century tradition that Clement was pope, which is surely attested independendently. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

When you are speaking about any ancient event you cannot get the same evidence we have for modern people. Not even the events about Julius Caesar are supported by the evidence you ask for Clement. The core of the Clementine are II century tradition (about 50 years after Clement), in second century we have also Irenaeus who says the same thing. In the III century we have Epiphanius of Salamis and so on. No ancient writer supports the contrary. For who is used to study the ancient age, this is a very strong evidence. We cannot get the certificates of bishop ordination for people before the XVI century, but this don't mean they were not bishop. A ntv (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This argument might be more plausible many ancient figures, but Caesar is a particularly unfortunate choice. Much of Caesar's life is documented in his own writing; almost all of his political career is mentioned in Cicero's contemporary correspondence. Diodorus of Sicily wrote in the next generation, and Livy, and we have independent narratives from the second century by Suetonius, Plutarch, and Appian, all of whom exercised some criticism on their sources; and Dio Cassius in the third. Comparing all this to a collection of miracle tales, written by no-one knows who, no-one knows when, is preposterous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is known that Cicero was not a third party historicist, Caesar's writings can be later pseudepigraphic (normal in such age), Livy was a generation after Caesar, as Irenaeus was for Clement. Moreover, the early emperors have the interest to create the myth of Caesar, and Livy was at personal service of August. On the contrary the 'Clementines' are un-orthodox and so more reliable. By the way, this is only to explain that all the historical evidences for the ancient age are limited in number and can be called into question. A ntv (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Lima. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Aside from the historical arguments, why should we want to move him away from the other 263 popes who weren't among the twelve apostles? Why not seek to delete Pope Hyginus, as his article has no sources at all, other than Catholic ones? The fact remains that Clement (and Hyginus too, for that matter) has for many centuries been regarded as the leader of the Christian Church in Rome and therefore accorded the title of pope. I don't see any reason why we should seek to tell the Catholic Church that they're wrong on this guy, that he wasn't the pope (for such seems to be the force of your arguments; forgive me if I understand you wrongly), or say that tradition of probably 1500+ years shouldn't be respected. Nyttend (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Lima. Not only we have a good evidence (as far as possible for such ancient age) that Clement was bishop of Rome (i.e. Pope), but he is well known by the tradition as bishop of Rome. The aim of Wiki is not to do research to confirm or not historical facts, but to be an encyclopedia. So even in the unlikely case that Clement was not a bishop, he is anyway universally known as bishop of Rome, so the title "Pope Clement I" is correct. Critical positions, if supported by accurate citations, shall be placed into the article. A ntv (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Summary: so far no reliable source has been offered to warrant our current titling of Clement as Pope in an encyclopedia entry heading. The consensus of sources is that if any title is used, it is Saint, without title he is "generally known" as Clement of Rome.

The current Encyclopaedia Britannica entry uses the title Saint—Saint Clement I—with "pope" (lower case) underneath and "byname Clement Of Rome, Latin Clemens Romanus". EB 1911 is even clearer, "CLEMENT I, generally known as Clement of Rome" [emphasis added]. In its text it explicit about the issue we are discussing—"Whilst being on our guard against reading later ideas into the title 'bishop' as applied to Clement ...". Columbia has "Clement I, Saint or Clement of Rome", offering DOB/DOD followed by dates of office as pope (lower case). Finally, Encarta also uses Saint as the title—"Saint Clement I or Clement of Rome".

So it appears, so far, that sources are still wanting to justify the opinions offered by those opposing Leadwind's motion to correct our current, idiosyncratic titling of the entry.

Additionally, some have offered the suggestion that pope is a synonym for bishop of Rome. Again this has not been established by sources. Sources show the title is also used in the Coptic tradition for the see of Alexandria. But even in the western tradition, Pope implies bishop of Rome, but not vice versa, since the title of Pope for the bishop of Rome depends both on history and ideology.

Unfortunately, we seem to be in a position where the consensus of sources is clear, but there is substantial opposition to the sources from several long-term contributors and responsible editors. Theoretically, the sources should decide the issue, I just don't like seeing strong opinions from reasonable people bypassed without at least documenting their case. Even if it cannot be established from sources, perhaps supporters of the current title could outline some kind of argument in defence of the current entry heading, even though, without sources to back it, it doesn't appear that we can retain it. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a misreading of the 1911 Britannica. They use the Roman numeral because Clement I is one of the popes, just as their article on Edward VII calls him EDWARD VII. They did not suffer our technical limitation of needing a unique title for each article, so they use name and number only. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's good we're discussing interpretations of a source, indeed terse headings are open to various interpretations and hence misreadings. However, that the body of the article provides an explicit caveat "against reading later ideas into the title 'bishop' as applied to Clement", constrains our interpretation somewhat. To what does this EB1911 warning apply if not to the "later" idea that the "bishop of Rome" has responsibility beyond his own diocese, which later tradition styled as an office of Pope? Quite possibly simply to understanding of the title of bishop itself, let alone that of Pope. Encarta's and EB2008's "Saint Clement I" are counter-examples to reading the Roman numeral as implying preference for anachronistically titling Clement primarily as Pope. Even if we accept Catholic doctrine on the papacy, as with Christology and Trinity, these are known to have been developed at later points, from very many sources (see List of Church Fathers). If we go by reliable contemporary sources, academic and encyclopedic practice diverge: academics use Clement of Rome, encyclopedias use Saint Clement I (read what you like into the numeral). I would like to see Wiki do better than other encyclopedias, but I would hate to see it do worse. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, JSTOR divides about evenly between "Pope Clement I" and "Clement of Rome", although neither gets as many as two dozen citations; the former is more common to art historians, the latter among historians of the church; many papers, including some of the book reviews, use both. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't have access. Found this cute example at WorldCat though. The epistles of St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch by Clement, Pope. How's that for having your cake, eating it, and giving it to your neighbour too! "Saint", "of Rome" and "Pope". The only thing missing is the Roman numeral. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Artfully done; some of the JSTOR citations are almost as ingenious, using Pope Clement I in reviewing a book which uses Clement of Rome in the title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:35, 28 October 2008 (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.

Split?

We have an article on the Epistles of Clement, which represents the consensus that II Clement, at least, could not have been written by a companion of St. Peter. If we redirect Clement of Rome there, and strip this article down to the semi-legendary tradition (and scholarly opinion on its origins), nearly everybody will get where he wants to go. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I love creative compromises, especially when they have clear advantages in categorising information. As long as we lose no information in the process, we could end up with two articles with genuinely different subjects, and nomenclature suited to the people most likely to want the information.

Indeed, Clement is important in my area of interest as a first century Christian writer who alluded to the New Testament frequently and closely. Sources I read as a matter of course use Clement of Rome, with no exception I can remember. However, it does appear that not only Catholic scholars publishing internally, but also various others freely use the title Pope in some other contexts.

Let me just register my interest in supporting anyone interested in juggling information between articles so Clement of Rome gives my editing of New Testament articles an appropriate target without fiddling with piping, expanding the Epistles of Clement article sounds like a great idea.

However, I am not just concerned about my own convenience, and that of others working on similar pages. I am genuinely keen to see a reliable, non-anachronistic treatment of other early Popes (as Catholic orthodoxy's very notable POV has it). The Joseph Ratzinger article is now quite responsibly (imo) Pope Benedict XVI. The style template is not only accurate and reliable, had I met him while he was here in Sydney, it would have been rather helpful to someone like me who rather likes some kinds of protocol.

I have two concerns. One is the use of a style template for forms of address in English, applied to someone who died before the English language existed, and for whom we have no evidence of being the recipiant of analogous Latin forms of address. I don't think it's a very serious matter, I think readers will simply giggle, not lose confidence in Wiki.

The second concern notes that Joseph Ratzinger, for example, simply is Pope, whether one is a Catholic or not, and even if one is an atheist. What a Pope is varies on your POV, who was Pope at a certain point generally does not (lets leave antipopes aside for the time being, for whom, incidently the style box would actually be appropriate).

The office of Pope is a very ancient one, with ancient documents attesting to it, but I think we actually undermine that by extending the sequence further back. Yes, this article should have the "Pope info box", which summarizes neatly and concisely the notable Catholic POV we certainly want to document. But actually titling the entry that way, excludes a genuinely NPOV option, let's say arguably more common in academic writing.

I'll give one more example and then sit back for a bit. I know Pope Gregory I as Gregory the Great, but I agree with prefering the title Pope Gregory I because it is verifiable, and meshes nicely with a sequence extending up to Benedict XVI (who is indeed exceptionally good with words). Whether the style box would be appropriate for Gregory I, I really don't know. I expect it would depend on Latin salutations available to us from letters to popes prior to Gregory.

So, with regard to Clement, let's compromise away together, but Leadwind's comment bears on a broader set of issues than satisfying someone like me who's only really interested in documents that quote the Bible, and those known or presumed to be responsible for them. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Clement of Rome was a man, not a letter. The redirect should be to the man - the man under whose leadership of the Church in Rome (according to second-century Irenaeus) the letter was written to Corinth. The article doesn't have to say he was a companion of Saint Peter. It can even recount whatever speculation it pleases about him, and then say that the speculation is baseless.

By the way, a matter of practically no importance, Popes Clement III and Clement X were also of Rome.

As for the label of "pope" or "pope of Rome", I think most people see the word as just meaning the head of the Church in Rome, without asking what were the precise claims and actual powers of a particular pope at a particular time. I don't see why that handy label should be avoided (as someone wishes) with regard to those members of the series who lived before there is evidence of an explicit claim by the head of the Church in Rome to authority over the whole Church, any more than why it should be avoided in relation to, for example, those who lived before the definition of papal infallibility. And I don't see why the label should be avoided when referring to the first dozen members of the series, those whom Irenaeus lists as heads of the Church in Rome, whether they were merely chairmen of a college of episcopi/presbyteri or were bishops in the strict sense. The choice of any particular later starting point would be a POV decision.

Why abandon the clear and simple way of referring to each member of the series by a name and a number? If you move Pope Gregory I to "Gregory the Great", do you then put a note in Pope Gregory II to explain that the first of that name appears in Wikipedia not as "Pope Gregory I", but by another name? The same for Leo the Great, and perhaps for others, as well as the one here under consideration. Lima (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed reorg

Since Leadwind's proposal was closed before it was concluded, after only a couple of days, without explanation, and without any sources being offered that establish that our Clement had any title, let alone Pope, I'm opening it again.

More importantly, there are other issues unaddressed in the closure--the style template, and other historical figures styled Pope in Roman Catholic doctrine, though not in academic practice, and without historical warrant.

Perhaps a helpful way to start is to brainstorm a range of alternatives. What we've seen so far include:

• Saint Clement I (Britannica and Encarta)
• Clement of Rome (history academics in general)
• Pope Clement I (Catholic Encyclopedia, art historians)
• Content fork—Clement (as author), Clement (reconstructed as church leader)

I'm inclined to agree with Lima that content forking is more problematic than helpful, but it's not a black and white thing imo. Could anyone provide an example of a redirect from a name to an article that is not a biography? We've not heard Leadwind's opinion on the fork proposal, and Leadwind raised the current discussion.

One matter of fact does need to be cleared up, Bishop of Rome does not imply Pope, not even in Catholic doctrine. Joseph Ratzinger was elected to lead the Roman Catholic church throughout the world—the office of Pope. He is notionally Bishop of Rome by tradition. Pope implies Bishop of Rome, but not vice versa. More importantly, we beg the question to assert this regarding Clement (so says Britannica as noted above). Even if we accept he was a Bishop, we have not established he was Pope, with the world-wide implication that implies in ordinary English.

Keeping the lateral thinking going, is anyone interested in moving Saint Peter to Pope Peter, or do we actually accept that the chain of men considered Pope in Catholic tradition are not accorded this title by default in serious literature? ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 10:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I dont agree. "Pope" is not a name for a particular office (this is the main misunderstanding here). "Pope" is simply a nickname for Bishop of Rome. Whoever is bishop of Rome is said pope. That's according the Catholic doctrine and the universal use. We could debate if in the ancient age the pope, i.e. the bishop of Rome, had a universal jurisdiction over all the Catholic Church, as he has now over the CC, but this is an other issue. The term "pope" is by far older than the formalization of the office, rights and duties of the bishop of Rome. A ntv (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. That's a nice, clearly expressed claim of several facts. I'm sure you didn't invent them. Please could you show me where these things are documented?

• "Pope is simply a nickname for Bishop of Rome"
• "Whoever is Bishop of Rome is [then] said to be Pope"
• "That's Catholic doctrine ..."
• "... and the universal use." [Emphasis added.]
• "The term Pope [sic] is by far older than the formalization of the office [etc.] of the Bishop of Rome."

It is curious you seem negative about debating "if in the ancient age" ... "but this is an other issue". Since we are currently talking about an article that seeks to inform readers about a man who lived in that ancient age. In discussing a first century man, it seems very much the issue to me. I need a little more help to understand why reliable information regarding the ancient age is "not the issue". Alastair Haines (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You can check it on whichever text. For example, from the Vatican Site we read 88. After his acceptance, the person elected, if he has already received episcopal ordination, is immediately Bishop of the Church of Rome, true Pope and Head of the College of Bishops. He thus acquires and can exercise full and supreme power over the universal Church. [4]. We can see that we cannot separate the being the Pope from being the Bishop of Rome as you stated. The office of (full and supreme power over the universal Church) is simply a result of it (if we want a title for it, we can use Vicar of Christ). About the 'nickname', we can check also in Wiki: "pope" is not an official title of the Bishop of Rome (see pope#Titles). In the same article we can read that the term "pope" was granted to the bishop of Rome in the first millennium, by far before of the formalization of the pope's offices rights and duties, that started with the Dictatus papae in the XI century.

By the way, to use the term "Pope" for Clement doesn't mean by itself to claim that Clement had full and supreme power over the universal Church, but simply that he was the True Bishop of Rome. A ntv (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a perfect reference, couldn't be more reliable than that! :) I think you explain the first word very well too--"After ...". After being elected Pope, he becomes the Bishop of Rome as well. Step 1, Pope. Step 2, Bishop of Rome. Being Bishop of Rome is officially part of being Pope ... these days. This has not always been the case, though. For example, you probably know about the days of the Avignon Papacy. Interesting times! And, a rather cute fluke, the first of the Avignon Popes was called, believe it or not, Clement! ;) Rightly, imo, known as Pope Clement V, not Clement of Avignon, nor the Bishop of Avignon. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No, when he accepts the election by the cardinals, he is (step 1) immediately Bishop of Rome, true bishop of Rome (i.e. pope). Thus (step 2) he gets the office of full and supreme power over the universal Church. In the reference to be bishop of Rome is the first and basic characteristic. Pope Clement V was anyway bishop of Rome, even if he moved the residence at Avignon. Dont confuse the residence with the ministry. A ntv (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Good for you! Yes, I can see how a sensible person could read it that way. I won't quibble over the fact that the source says "Bishop of the Church of Rome", not Bishop of Rome, because the subtle difference will just confuse people. The reason I'm sure your reading is mistaken is because of what it says before that, "if he has already received episcopal ordination". What this clause is telling us is that there is a condition, before becoming head of the college of bishops, he must actually be a bishop. If he has not already received episcopal ordination, which is to say ordination as a bishop, he must first be ordained bishop before taking on the responsibilities of the office of Pope.

Now that means the source is telling us that both you and I are wrong, and that both you and I are right! This is because, at least in theory, a man may be elected to be the next Pope, who is not already a Bishop. If such a man is elected, the Pope-elect must be ordained as a Bishop before becoming "true Pope". If he is already a Bishop, Pope-elect is simultaneously "true Pope".

You are right because all "true Popes" will be Bishops (if the rules are followed). I am right because even non bishops can (in theory) be elected Pope, election to Pope leads to ordination as Bishop, not ordination as bishop of Rome to being Pope. We are both wrong, in a way, because the source tells us of two kinds of "pope", "pope-elect" and "true Pope".

Now here's a question for you. Have there actually been any Popes elected, who were not bishops prior to election? Alastair Haines (talk) 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the most obvious counterexample is Pope Gregory I, but there are others: Celestine V was another monk dumped into the papacy. The defects in the election of Felix V were not related to his not being a bishop. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! How interesting this is! I hadn't thought of that, but monks are a classic example of highly respected men who have not taken priestly orders, let alone been ordained to the episcopacy (i.e. taken on the responsibilities of a bishop). It is rather heart-warming to know that more than one monk has had papal responsibility "thrust upon him".

The Latin papa, or Greek pappas, 'Daddy', was used by early Christians of a bishop to whom they stood in a filial relation. North African Christians called the bishop of Carthage papa, but his colleague at Rome was 'bishop of Rome'. From the sixth century the title papa became especially Roman in the West. — John McManners, The Oxford History of Christianity, p. 40.

That is true. The Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria still uses the nickname of "pope", and the two Churches split in 451. A ntv (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool, nice to be agreeing. Looks like you know more than me about the Copts, and we read some of the same books. I did mention Copts above. I wasn't sure about Carthaginians (because they are so ancient), except that I had to read a fair bit of Cyprian for assignments years ago. Il Papa (English 'Pope', or 'Holy Father') is a pretty special kind of title, the nice thing is it has a really ancient history, and broader than Roman usage. Bishops were supposed to be "dads" in a way, however true all the authority stuff is, and whatever the changes through history and the political debates. Pope is actually a more "neutral" title than Holy Father for sure. One thing we all agree on is not calling this entry Holy Father Clement I, that would be really nice from a Christian POV, but not for everyone else, it'd be a bit weird for them.

Out of interest, what do you think of Britannica's choice of Saint Clement I? Alastair Haines (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

the "I" means pope and Britannica can use this title due to its different technical title rules. It has been already discussed in this page. Moreover in Wiki "Saint" in usually not part of the name, and from a Christian POV in the paradise the saints don't keep the numerals. A ntv (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

As a general rule, Wiki does not include titles of any kind in biographical articles--Kings, Presidents, Field Marshals, Governors, Professors, Priests. I hadn't raised that point yet, but it is a very important one. Benedict XVI would actually be adequate for Joseph Ratzinger, just as Louis XVIII (of France) is for that biography. We have Napoleon Buonaparte not Emperor Napoleon I, though for some reason we have Napoleon III of France, presumably because there are more notable Napoleon IIIs (which surprises me).

The convention of avoiding titles in encyclopedic biography is such a well established convention and pretty much followed accross Wiki that I hadn't felt the need to raise it just yet. But it is as good a place as any from which to ask, "Why is this article different?" Where are the grounds for it documented for a reader? On what sources are those grounds based? What alternatives were considered? How was the final decision rationalised? What draw-backs and cons were acknowledged, but felt to be less substantial than positives and pros?

Whatever decision we might be able to work out together here, and with others who may join in to help us, we should document answers to the above questions so readers can verify and endorse whatever decision we make. There's no deadline for this. There's just interesting research questions to stimulate reading. Anyone interested enough to "vote" ought to be interested enough to research. Anyone who thinks they know enough to "vote" ought to be able to provide the sources their vote represents. In the end, readers will not be interested in votes of anonymous editors who happened to be around, they will be interested in the sources editors consulted in forming an opinion, and the logic and wisdom used in piecing those sources together.

I get the feeling several of us are genuinely interested in clarifying matters of fact and terminology associated with Leadwind's observation that there's something odd about the article title here. Come back Leadwind! We need your help to search for sources. Help us finish what you started! ;)

How about we all turn our assertions into questions, and look for sources to answer those questions. That way sources do the talking here rather than editors, if you get what I mean. We can work together to "get the sources talking". The more questions we ask, the more information we'll get, so long as we're willing to actually go searching for answers.

Let me start by asking some things I would like to know:

What ancient documents refer to Clement, how do they refer to him, in what languages?

What were the words for Pope and Bishop in various languages in early days, in which documents are these found?

What was understood by these words, was it the same in all places, languages and times, or were there differences?

What modern documents refer to Clement? What modern documents define Pope and Bishop? How many POVs are there?

Please feel free to extend the question list or provide sources that answer any of the questions, and sources that offer differing POVs. That way we give anyone reading this a chance to "retrace our steps", we make their lives easier than ours currently is. But then again, we get the fun of doing the research! ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

PS I'm not sure I really want to advocate this yet, but thinking about Napoleon I of France for Napoleon Buonaparte got me thinking about another way of titling this article--Clement I of Rome! I didn't think I'd be able to come up with anything new or any compromises, but I suspect a title like that would actually fit with other Wiki conventions. It has other pros, but it has other cons. It's not a formal proposal yet, I've not thought through just how to present the pros, I think our research questions are more important than discussing actual proposals at this stage. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, at least, Clement I of Rome would be the ruler of Rome, which he certainly was not; probably Domitian was. Clement I, Bishop of Rome would avoid this problem, but I don't think it's usage, and it has most of the same problems with historicity as the present title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

A ntv, "Whoever is bishop of Rome is said pope." You're missing the point that at Clement's time there was no single bishop of Rome. Each congregation was led by priests/elders. The distinction between priests and a single elder (bishop) came later. There's no historical evidence outside of after-the-fact Christian reframing, that makes Clement "the" bishop of Rome. Certainly not all the priests/bishops of Rome in Clement's time were popes. If not, then in what sense is he "pope"? Leadwind (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

What you say is a POV. It is not demonstrated but simply a modern supposition based mainly on Saint Paul letters that are one generation before Clement. And anyway we cannot generalize a situation that at limit could be typical for country villages, while in the main towns (as Antioch, Jerusalem or Rome) all the sources speak of a monocratic bishop (with a "presbiterium"). We don't have any ancient or traditional source that support your point for the town of Rome. We are speaking about the title of an article: we shall stay as much as possible near to the traditional sources. In the text of the Article, the link bishop allows to go deep in this issue. A ntv (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Saying Clement was a bishop is just as POV as saying that he wasn't. Scholars have been divided on that issue for centuries, since the reformation. Since there isn't a scholarly consensus, both views should be mentioned in the article.—Blkgardner (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Blkgardner, and everyone, I think we can all agree on the point that there is no single consensus across all scholars regarding whether Clement was even a bishop, in any modern sense of the word, let alone whether he was the only bishop (or whatever) in Rome. Four things people agree on are:

1. he was a Christian,
2. he was called Clement,
3. he lived in Rome, and
4. he was the first notable Christian called Clement (though there's an issue about the NT Clement).

Indeed, I think we all agree that the article must document all notable and reliable scholastic viewpoints regarding Clement.

The challenge we share (and I do think it's a challenge--not a monster, but also not a straight-forward thing) is selecting a title. Titles generally should not be POV, but there are some unavoidable exceptions. It may be that there are factors associated with this particular case (without even thinking about 2nd, 3rd and 4th century bishops of Rome), that mean whatever we choose is going to break one convention or another. A good opportunity for us all to reflect that one rule, policy or convention does not always have the final say.

It's nice to see Septentrionalis' offer a lateral thinking alternative and shoot it down while offering it. Clement I, Bishop of Rome does sound closer to generic Wiki usage. Why Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson is so titled beats me, I would have thought Horatio Nelson was the way to go. But the point is, Wiki sometimes clarifies/disambiguates for subtle reasons, and it appears there's plenty of issues floating around regarding Clement to lead to something similar.

What do other people think about Septentrionalis' suggestion? Since historicity is an objection to the current title as well, and Clement I, Bishop of Rome actually claims less that Pope Clement I, historicity can't be offered as an objection to Clem I, B of R as an improvement to the status quo. If Pope is "just a nickname for the Bishop of Rome" then Clem I, B of R will be understood by those who know the nickname, and by those who don't also.

I'm not proposing a final vote or anything, just interested to hear more pros and cons (and definitely more suggestions for the title and more answers from sources). Alastair Haines (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The proposal to change the title of this article has already been rejected. I wonder therefore what usefulness there is in continuing the discussion here. If instead someone wants to make a different proposal, such as changing the whole series of titles from "Pope Name Number" (the practice since before I first looked at Wikipedia), so as perhaps to change some to "Name Number (Pope)" and others to "Name Adjective" ("Leo the Great", "Clement of Rome" etc.), then she or he should raise the matter at the Village Pump or some such place, not here.

[As for the (purposeless?) discussion here, I wonder what ancient source, if any, exists that gives a "Clement of Rome" as author of the letter to the Corinthians without presenting him also as head of the Church in Rome, what most people would simply refer to as the Pope - without distinguishing any of the conflicting interpretations by which some editors here would like to limit the meaning of the word "Pope". The article is about the man who since, at latest, the second century is listed among the heads of the Church in Rome. This listing, rather than the attribution of the letter to him, may be seen as the main fact that the sources say about him. The title corresponds to this fact. The body of the article can then discuss the attribution to him of the letter, whether he was the second, third or fourth head of the Church in Rome, whether he could have been the Clement mentioned in the New Testament, the accounts of his martyrdom, and anything else recounted of him that is worth mentioning.] Lima (talk) 10:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, perhaps I can clear up a little confusion. The situation is that there is no consensus in favour of the current title. The fact that alternatives are being discussed proves there is no consensus. It is not surprising, since there is certainly no consensus in reliable sources that would support the current title.

But the fact remains that the article must have some kind of title, so the current discussion is aimed at seeking an article title that can be defended by sources and achieves consensus. However, even if we do find a title that achieves consensus at some point in the forseeable future, there is nothing to stop that title being reviewed and altered in the future, other than the quality of the sources and thinking that we gather here now.

In summary, we have the ultimate aim of finding an WP:NPOV title based on WP:RS, and we have the current task of asking questions that inform a decision, and seeking reliable sources to answer them. In theory this is standard stuff, but talk pages can be full of tangential excitement as well. All part of the fun of Wiki. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 09:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the situation is that the proposal to move to "Clement of Rome" was rejected for lack of consensus. You need a consensus for a change. If there is no consensus for change, the status quo remains. There appears to be not even the beginning of a consensus for any move. Lima (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. "The trains aren't running today and 'I can't get to work by train doesn't mean I can't get to work. (If only!)" I don't follow your argument.

But it's simpler than that. A proposal for a specific title was made too hastily and "closed" erroneously and too hastily. But we've moved on from there, all that means is we have no final decision yet. (Obviously, or we wouldn't be talking.)

Again, the challenge we're addressing is that there is no consensus of sources or of editors to support the current title, but there is no consensus of editors for any specific alternative.

Observing all posts from editors at this page it is clear the only thing close to a consensus is that the current title less than ideal in several ways. The question is, what is the best alternative.

Clement of Rome by far the most common way Clement is refered to in the reliable sources Wiki articles are dependent on, but that alone doesn't constrain the options available to us.

At the moment, Clement I, Bishop of Rome is one proposal under discussion. The only objection I recall being raised to it is the same issue of historicity shared with the current title, though clearly it is still an improvement.

Incidently, I found a source discussing Clement as Bishop of Rome. American Bible Society. The interested reader may also like to read the human interest story American Bible Society Gives One-of-a-Kind Bible to Pope.

Alastair Haines (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thread closed. Result

no consensus to support current title

Comparison of the timestamp of the post above and this current one shows that after almost two weeks, no consensus been demonstrated from neutral and reliable sources to support the current title of the article. That seems adequate evidence that we can close this thread, noting that Leadwind's objections to the title stand as stated.

We can also conclude that no consensus has been reached among editors for a better title, though there is good evidence that scholastic consensus is Clement of Rome. It is, however, noted that several encyclopedias use Saint Clement I.

Future editors are encouraged to reopen discussion of options for a title that conforms to sources and policy at whatever point a quorum for such a discussion may gather. Good luck! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal was to CHANGE the current title, and your proposal got no consensus. This means that the current title shall stay. A ntv (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I moderated the discussion at the request of the proposer. You expressed support for the current title but still haven't demonstrated any consensus in reliable sources for your opinion. Nothing "stays" at Wiki except what is based on reliable sources. It is true that there is no consensus among editors for any immediate change to the title, but we can hardly predict the future. For the current title to become "permanent" it would need the support of reliable and neutral sources. So far, none have been provided. You are, of course, welcome to provide these at any time, though it seems unlikely given the evidence already collected. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I realize this is a highly charged debate, but if we set all kinds of personal and theological agendas aside I think we can arrive at a reasonable consensus. Every other article on a pope, except for St. Peter, is titled with the word "pope" for example, "Pope Linus", "Pope Alexander I, etc. It makes sense to follow the consensus titled used on all other articles on popes. If this title were to be changed the issue would have to be addressed across all of the articles on early popes. Debates on when the papacy started, who was or who wasn't a bishop of Rome, is the bishop of Rome the pope, and other such issues are worth having, but instead of spending such an inordinate amount of time discussing the title of the article it might be better to accept the long-standing consensus and work on improving the content of articles. Dgf32 (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

All other possible titles, such as "Saint Clement of Rome" redirect here.

I agree; changing this one article's title would open a Pandora's box. I considered suggesting moving the discussion to WP Saints or WP Catholicism, but I did a little snooping on the Naming Conventions page, and got to here, which states: "For popes, whether Roman Catholic, Coptic, or otherwise, use the format "Pope {papal name} {ordinal if more than one} of {episcopal see}". Popes of Rome should not be linked with their episcopal sees; Rome is understood. Also, do not use a pope's personal name. For example, use Pope John Paul I, not Albino Luciani or Pope John Paul I of Rome." So, we have existing policy which codifies the existing name. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

For Benedict XVI and other men known to have held the office, the convention sounds absolutely right to me.

However, the issue here is not with format, it is with whether Clement is held to have been Pope by a consensus of reliable sources. Since, it would seem, the consensus is that Clement was not Pope, there exists a dilemma. There are at least two points of view, and the title really ought to be neutral. But see my comments below for why I think this is neither the time nor place to address this. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, rats, I lost. But at least we stuck to procedures. Now that I proposed a change, my opponents have come across with some decent sources that undermine make my case. If I take this up again, it will be at a more general level. I agree with Alastair that we could use a neutral title, and that it's not worth struggling over here. Leadwind (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no decent sources were provided against your suggestion (name even one), and unfortunately there was not adequate discussion, so procedure was not followed either. There is, however, a lot of truth in the suggestion that the issue is much wider than the scope of this article and needs input from a wider range of editors for it to addressed satisfactarily. So long as this is not merely an attempt to deflect a serious criticism of the status quo, it is a sound proposal. Until someone is willing to do the necessary hard work of gathering a quorum of involved and knowledgeable parties to discuss things through to a well-grounded and comprehensively considered conclusion, this glaring error is likely to remain. It is hardly the only such thing at Wiki, and it is certainly not the most important. One day, however, I hope this will happen, and documenting what is needed is a way of encouraging those who would serve the encyclopedia in this matter. Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Library of Congress and some other online sources were brought up as references, I thought. Anyway, don't get me wrong, it's just that the case has to be really clear if it's going to get made against determined partisan resistance and well-established practice. I still think that it's RCC POV to refer to this guy as Pope Clement. It's just not worth fighting over. Leadwind (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's my point, only I've tried to say it in a constructive way (not knocking yours). I checked Library of Congress and Clement of Rome and Saint Clement are also in the database, there are other versions of the name that I can't remember now. LoC is an excellent idea for a source, but it wasn't clear that it backed Pope Clement I. It's also not clear that LoC is decisive. I think I documented those things above. I'm satisfied that we've exposed a couple of important issues: an anachronistic and POV title, and the problem of gathering a quorum. Our job is done, others will do the rest. Thanks for prompting things to get this far. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

First Sentence

Ordinarily, I'd make such simple changes without posting on the talk page, but given the sensitivity some editors have regarding this article, I shall post it here first along with an explanation. The first sentence currently reads: "Pope Saint Clement I of Rome (also known as Clemens Romanus), is considered by the Roman Catholic Church, if Saint Peter is seen as the first Pope, to be the fourth."

There are two problems with the sentence. First, many editors have asserted that Clement should not be referred to as Pope, so it would make sense to have the names "Saint Clement of Rome" and "Clemens Romanus" both in the first sentence.

Second, the first sentence can plainly state that "Clement [...] is considered by the Roman Catholic Church to be the fourth Pope and Bishop of Rome." That simply states the position of the Roman Catholic Church without getting into how they count popes, which doesn't really belong in the first sentence of the lead of this article. This also more closely reflects the reference cited.

The text with the changes would read as: "Pope Clement I (also known as Saint Clement of Rome and Clemens Romanus), is considered by the Roman Catholic Church to be the fourth Pope and Bishop of Rome. He was the first Apostolic Father of the early Christian church." Dgf32 (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Good change. Thanks :) Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for these recent edits Dgf and Carl. They are certainly improvements. I also agree that more substantial change faces precisely the two obstacles mentioned: 1. it is more extensive than Clement, and 2. it is emotional for some people. These are serious obstacles, to be sure, but they are identifiable (we've already picked them) and addressable. The place to address them is, of course, not at this particular article. I'll stick to noting that at some point they should be addressed, and adequate sources (documents) and resources (people) should be gathered when that happens; and sufficient time should be given to allow as many as possible of differing backgrounds to come to a common mind, i.e. consensus.

To restate the problem, without "having a go" at him, Dfg found the most natural form of expression (for him) was to refer to "early popes" ... Of course, this was a matter of convenience, not precision. As we know, there is extensive reliable historical (rather than ideological) treatment of when the office of Pope, as we know it, began. Also, there is clear documentation of the ideological commitment to viewing earlier men who may have held a position as a bishop or the Bishop of Rome as Popes.

The naming issue is secondary to sourcing the historical material, which ought to be done within existing articles. When the articles have adequate coverage, nomenclature follows naturally. If anyone feels a sense of urgency regarding the issue discussed above, perhaps the best she (or he) can do is to source historical material for specific articles, then seek members of related WikiProjects for discussion of reforming the naming convention. That sounds sufficiently inconvenient for all parties, that it might just reflect the best way forward! ;) How often is it the case that short cuts are counter-productive! ;) Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I only edited the talk page; Dfg is the only one deserving thanks for improving the page recently. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Aw, well, you were cheering from the sidelines. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Category

May I take it that it was by mistake that a bot removed the category "1st century Christian saints" on the basis of some unspecified (I think) request? I see no reason for excluding Clement, while including people like Juventius of Pavia. Lima (talk) 05:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you're confused. It was requested here to do the category modifications. Category:Ancient Roman saints was removed, and 1st century saints added. This is in order to sort saints by the century in which they lived instead of just calling them ancient. Also, in the future, please leave a note about a botop's bot on their own user talkpage that way the bot's processes are not halted. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 05:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I apologize. I also misunderstood the instructions on your user page. Lima (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, you're not the only one. hehe So is everything okay here? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 16:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

overhaul

We editors have put a lot of work into discussing the title, meanwhile the article has been pretty weak. I did a bunch of work on it, with a bunch of referenced information. Leadwind (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Dude! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

And Dfg32 contributed a fair overwrite. Leadwind (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

After the last overwrite, a lot of information got changed where the citation to ODCC was left in place. I caught about two or three of these, but there might be more. If any of you see something fishy citing the ODCC, let me know and I'll look it up. Leadwind (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

1 Clement

In Clement, we have an unusual case in which the only thing we know about a historical figure is his writing, and only one letter has survived. Accordingly, this article should put the letter front and center. It's our touchstone. Typically, we'd put general facts of the subject's life before the subject's writing, but in this case we have no general facts of the subject's life. We have church records, but historians don't credit them. The only things historians have to go on is the letter. I tried to make the letter take the spotlight in my overhaul, and now the letter's importance has been dialed back some by another editor. Anyone else want to chime in? Leadwind (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to treat Clement's life first, and then the letter, scant though our info on him might be. This article is about Clement, not 1 Clement; it has it's own article. The fact that it has its own article seems to me reason enough not to put it front and centre here. Was there more to the dialing-back than the one edit which re-arranged the paragraphs in the lead? If that was all, I have a preference for how Dfg changed it. However, if that's all it was, I also don't think its worth getting worked up about, and would be more-or-less fine either way. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Carl, Dfg also softened the strong language from ODCC. ODCC says that the letter is his "title to fame." It is, frankly, everything we know about Clement. Dfg wants it to say that C is "known for" the letter, which is understated. Leadwind (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the difference between "title to fame" and "known for" is that different. I don't think that changing the wording to "known for" suggests that we know a lot else about him. I wish I had the ODCC, I'll have to see if it is close on WorldCat. But again, I don't find it worth fighting over. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Clement, not his writings, so it makes sense to put the few details we know about his life first. His writings are important, and it's right that we should include them in the article, but they also have articles of their own.Dgf32 (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Dfg, name one detail we know about Clement's life, if there are any. Leadwind (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

"Monarchical episcopacy"

The lead simply states that early church lists include Clement among the bishops of Rome after Saint Peter. This doesn't imply that the episcopacy of Rome was monarchical so I'm not sure we need to state that it wasn't monarchial in the lead. The sentence has already been retained in the body, and since so such claim is implied in the lead, I don't think we need it twice. Dgf32 (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

People who want to defend a POV routinely want to move information they don't like out of the lede, and they routinely use as their reason "it's already in the body." But the lede summarizes the body. Just because something's in the body, doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the lede. In fact, until I restored the citation from the ODCC, the lede quoted the first half of the sentence (Clement on lists) and left off the second half (but there weren't any popes then). It's pretty fishy when half of a sentence gets cut off and the other half is cited. ODCC doesn't let mention of the early lists pass without pointing out that the meaning of the evidence is unclear. The problem with this page, as with the purgatory page, is that historical evidence is at odds with church tradition. I keep trying to bring in historical evidence, with predictable results. Leadwind (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm SO supportive of historical evidence. My problem isn't with historical evidence, it's with the exact way you worded the text. "There's no evidence for monarchical bishops in Rome this early," isn't the same as, "there is no evidence that the early Roman episcopacy was monarchical in nature." There is evidence of bishops in Rome in the first century. There is no evidence that bishops in Rome were monarchical. This is a crucial point.Dgf32 (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

There were bishops. The problem with the early succession lists is that they name him only the 2nd or 3rd after Peter, as if there were only 1 at a time (monarchical). They don't say he was a bishop. They say that he was the one and only. I've changed the text in the lede to better reflect what ODCC says. Here, for everyone's amusment, is the ODCC quote. This is the very first sentence of the article: "He appears in early succession lists as the second or third bishop after St. Peter; as, however, there is no evidence for monarchical episcopacy in Rome at so early a date, the meaning of this evidence is not clear." In other words, the early succession lists do not square with contemporary historical understanding. Leadwind (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

My point was that there is some evidence for bishops, and we seem to be both be in agreement that some such evidence exists. We're also in agreement that there is no evidence for monarchical bishops. Therefore we're in agreement to state that there were bishops who weren't monarchical. It's crucially important that this sentence make that clear.Dgf32 (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that we're more or less in agreement on the facts, I'd like to propose a version of the text that reflects more accurately the cited source:

• "Early church lists place him as the second, third, or fourth bishop of Rome after Saint Peter, but the meaning of this evidence is unclear as the early Roman episcopacy was not monarchical in nature."
  

or

• "Early church lists place him as the second, third, or fourth bishop of Rome after Saint Peter, but the meaning of this evidence is unclear as the early Roman episcopacy was not structured in a monarchical fashion."
  

or

• "Early church lists place him as the second, third, or fourth bishop of Rome after Saint Peter; however, the early Roman episcopacy was not monarchical, and there may have been more than one bishop at a time."

I suspect you may find the third alternative the best. That would be fine with me and accurate to the cited source. Dgf32 (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Dgf, I went with your first version and pasted it in. I'm glad you support historical evidence. The second version is almost the same. The third one is false. ODCC doesn't say there may have been other bishops. Just the reverse, there's no evidence that there was just one. Leadwind (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be good if somewhere in the article the idea of "monarchical episcopacy" were expanded on, or linked to, if that's possible. From your discussion I've gleaned what it means, but it's not something I'm familiar with as a term. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Monarchical episcopacy is discussed not only about Clement himself, but there is a lot of discussion about whether 1 Clement supports this form of church government. Readers will get double benefit in using the idea if our article reflects the literature. :)

A 20th century "guru" of Church history, gives us an exhaustive list of primary source material available mentioning Clement.

"All our information regarding Clement, such as it is, is due to notices by: St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Dionysus of Corinth, Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, St. Epiphanius, and St. Jerome."

Johannes Quasten, The Epistles of St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch, translated by James Aloysius Kleist, (The Newman Press, 1946), p. 4.

We have possibly got all this primary source material at WikiSource!

Considerably more primary source material is discussed regarding the broader issue of monarchical episcopacy in many quality writers. It is highly significant in considering the secondary sources, that many are written by Anglicans and Catholics disposed towards acceptance of ME, where others are written by Baptists, Presbyterians and others who are disposed against ME. It is a very old debate, the lines were clearly drawn long ago, so there is normally considerable engagement with alternative views in any source, whatever the conviction of the writer.

If I get the opportunity, I'll try to find quality online sources to aid Leadwind, in particular, in his research to contribute here. It's nice to see progress being made on the text. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

All three statements are wrong: the simple fact is that the information we have are very poor: so we cannot state that "Roman episcopacy was not structured in a monarchical fashion". The NPOV statment shall be something like "...but the meaning of this evidence is unclear as we dont know if the early Roman episcopacy was monarchical in nature". A ntv (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

A ntv's right, isn't he? We can't cite the ODCC for something it doesn't say. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Durant on False Decretals

Would someone please check whether Durant did write what is here attributed to him? The other sources cited deny that Melchiades is the latest pope included in the collection, and do not support the idea that the Decretals "document an early history of the popes". Lima (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Durant doesn't say that M was the last pope included, only the last one to have (supposedly) written a text that's part of the Decretals. Is there another source that says any work in the FD is attributed to a later Pope? Durant mentions a later pope, Sylvester, but as a topic in the FD, not as a supposed author. Aws to documenting the early history of the popes, maybe that's too general a statement? Durant: "These early documents were designed to show that by the oldest traditions and practice of the Church no bishop might be deposed, no Church councils might be convened, and no major issue might be decided, without the consent of the pope. Even the early pontiffs, by these evidences, had claimed absolute and universal authority as vicars of Christ on Earth." How would we summarize that? Leadwind (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Melchiades was pre-Nicene. All the other sources say that post-Nicene popes too, or if you prefer to put it this way, writings attributed to post-Nicene popes, were included in the False Decretals. Lima (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

opening paragraph

Why does one POV get mention in the first sentence? Shouldn't we introduce Clement as he is generally thought to be before specifying that "some" think he was additionally something else? "Pope Saint Clement I (fl 96),[1] also known as Saint Clement of Rome (in Latin, Clemens Romanus), is considered by some to be the fourth Pope and Bishop of Rome.[2] He was the first Apostolic Father of the early Christian church.[3]" Instead how about:

Pope Saint Clement I (fl 96),[1] also known as Saint Clement of Rome (in Latin, Clemens Romanus), was the first Apostolic Father of the early Christian church[3] and author of an important epistle. Roman Catholics count him as the fourth Pope and Bishop of Rome."

Start with who he was, then get to who other people later say he was. Leadwind (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Clement's name is not mentioned in the letter. The idea that the letter was written by him is derived from the idea that he was the head of the Church in Rome, in whose name the letter was written. Indeed, if I remember right, Irenaeus mentions him as part of the succession of heads of the Church in Rome, and of the letter only says that it was written "in his time". So which element is really known with greater certainty? How about:

Pope Clement I (fl. 96), also known as Saint Clement of Rome (in Latin, Clemens Romanus), is the first of the Apostolic Fathers, because of the attribution to him of an important first-century epistle from the Church in Rome to that in Corinth.

The question in what sense he was Bishop of Rome and whether he was Saint Peter's immediate successor or the second or the third need not even be mentioned in the opening words. The denomination "Pope Clement I" is sufficient indication that he is counted by some as somewhere in the line of succession.

Saying that "Roman Catholics count him as the fourth Pope and Bishop of Rome" is, I submit, out of place. The phrase suggests that nobody else considers him to have been Bishop of Rome. But it is enough to look at the liturgical calendars of the Eastern Orthodox Church, of the Church of England, and doubtless many others, to see how wrong it would be to make that suggestion. The phrase also states, not merely suggests, that Roman Catholics count him as the fourth Bishop of Rome. Some do. Some don't. The papal yearbook, the Annuario Pontificio, takes up no position on that question, giving him dates that would make him Saint Peter's immediate successor or his third successor. The phrase "fourth Pope" is also ambiguous. Do we count Peter as the first Pope, or do we define Pope as successor of Peter, as in various Church documents? Lima (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to change the opening sentence to the following?

Pope Clement I (fl. 96), also known as Saint Clement of Rome (in Latin, Clemens Romanus), is the earliest of the Apostolic Fathers. The important first-century letter from the Church in Rome to that in Corinth is traditionally attributed to him and is known therefore as the First Epistle of Clement.

Reference could be made, for instance, to Encyclopaedia Britannica.

There is a minority view that the letter was written following the persecution of Nero, not that of Domitian, thus predating the time when Clement presided over the Church in Rome, and that the traditional attribution of the letter to Clement is therefore erroneous. See Lecture VII of George Edmundson's Lectures on the Church in Rome in the First Century. Lima (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Would people agree the chronology and logic are something like this.

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 really think the first sentence, as it exists now is fine and it conforms perfectly with WP:Lead. This gets at the same conflict as the naming controversy. Is Clement more notable as an early church father or as a pope? Many would argue pope; many would argue church father. Since the article is entitled "Pope Clement I", it makes sense to state his position as pope and bishop of Rome first. We've been successful in reaching a relatively good consensus, so I'd suggest leaving it as is. Dgf32 (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a very peaceably phrased post Dgf32. However, I think Wiki seeks to build on opposing points of view to hone neutrality. Leadwind needs to see sources that will help him accept that Clement as sole bishop of Rome, and understood as a member of a succession from the apostles, is based on a foundation from historical sources. This point is regularly "weaseled" by Protestant sources, which do influence English language and western thinking more subtly than many would realise and include the ODCC. On the other hand, I think the Catholic lobby here need to be realistic that the historical sources do not give any title to Clement (or Anacletus etc.), and are more easily read as contrary to any universal recognition of Roman primacy. What I am saying is repeated all over the secondary literature, including some prominent Catholic sources. I've mainly stopped by to post because the primary sources needed to be located by someone. They're so short that all can be cited in the article to good effect. The reader can see what the secondary sources discuss and form her own opinion.

PS Where the others speak of Clement, Tertullian says "Clement of Rome" (in bold above), none say "papa". ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Roman primacy

There's a sentence in the lede that's not supported in the body, isn't supported in my contemporary source (OxfordDCC), and that cites a source from 1920. I put a fact tag there, and Lima deleted the tag without offering a contemporary source. Lima, please don't delete fact tags without providing references. Haven't we had this conversation on Purgatory, on Baptism, etc?

For those following along, here's the deal. Clement asserted Rome's authority (not his personal authority, as he wasn't pope or "the" bishop) over Corinth's church. In the early church, church authority followed imperial lines. Rome was Corinth's metropolitan center, so the church in Rome was over the church in Corinth. Meanwhile, Antioch also had authority over nearby congregations, maybe other metropolitan centers, too. Clement's letter has been taken to support "Roman" primacy, but it really only supports "metropolitan" primacy. So the sentence is wrong, the 85-year old reference notwithstanding. Leadwind (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree more sources aren't a bad thing, so the cn tag should stay, but neither should the sentence be removed if better sources aren't come up with. Is there actually a policy saying that sources from 80 ya automatically are not RS? Anyway, we could if nothing else modify the statement, as what the Penguin intro says on Roman primacy is, "Although Clement does not write like a Pope exercising his extraordinary jurisdiction, maybe a step had already been taken in that direction," and on apostolic succession, "For Clement, the Christian ministry is something established by Christ and handed down from the Apostles...The Christian ministry clearly stands in an apostolic succession, but the position of the bishop within this ministry lacks the clarity it assumed in later Christian tradition." Also, John Willis' "The Teaching of the Church Fathers" cites 1 Clement as a basis for the statements "The Roman pontiffs have always attributed the primacy to themselves" and "Bishops were the legitimate successors of the apostles". The CCC cites 1 Clement as a basis for apostolic succession at 861 and 1577. There should be something among these that will do. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Since Carl says more sources aren't a bad thing, I have added two more. Interesting Leadwind's claim that Rome was the metropolitan centre for Corinth. I thought that Corinth, being the capital of the province of Achaea, would itself be a metropolitan centre. I thought also that the organization of the Church by, in general, civil provinces, under the chief authority of the bishop (the "metropolitan") of the capital of the province became established rather later. If Rome's metropolitan authority stretched so far east (and west, north and south?) even in the first century, when there cannot have been as much organization as there was by 325, it must have overshadowed by far that held by Alexandria, when the Council of Nicaea justified by the example of Rome's extra-provincial authority its approval of the exercise of such authority by Alexandria over just two provinces outside of its home province of Egypt. Lima (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Most scholars would now regard 1 Clement as an impressive example of fraternal correction rather than an authoritative intervention."

— Patrick Granfield and Peter C. Phan, The Gift of the Church: A Textbook On Ecclesiology In Honor Of Patrick Granfield, O.S.B, (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000), p. 32.

Nota Bene: this is an internal Catholic POV. As witnessed by Granfield (O.S.B.), Phan, Liturgical Press and Krieg and Theological Studies (Jesuit, review below).

• Robert A. Krieg, Review of The Gift Of The Church: A Textbook On Ecclesiology In Honor Of Patrick Granfield, O.S.B, in Theological Studies 62 (2001): 391–92.

See also:

• Patrick Granfield, The Limits of the Papacy, (New York, Crossroad), 1987.

Having noted the above, however, I must second Lima's generally accurate historical picture of Corinth falling on the Greek speaking eastern side of Christendom dominated in turn by Alexandria then Constantinople (Byzantium); however, it is well documented that in the 1st century, Corinth was more a Roman city than a Greek one. Lima will know the details of that better than I, and would be worth pumping for sources were I limited to the ODCC. <hint> Lima is a man with a lifetime of exposure to some of the best sources on Christian history. His manifest faith, guarantees many forms of objectivity and reliability. On the current point, and some related to it, I trust Lima will forgive an unusal and rare exception to my inclination to trust his judgment above my own.

Alastair Haines (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there is nothing we disagree on. Nobody says that at that time Rome (the Church in Rome) exercised in other provinces a jurisdiction of the kind claimed in later centuries. (Well, I suppose it is just possible that some few Catholic writers might claim it, but I didn't look for any.) But famous non-Catholic scholars, such as the two I quoted within the hidden remark that Leadwind opened in the article, do say that the letter attributed to Clement shows Rome giving instructions to Corinth, in language, Harnack said, that was an expression of authority, and Lightfoot said that this "noble remonstrance" was "the first step towards papal domination". Perhaps what Alastair objects to is the idea that the letter to Corinth was an exercise of papal domination, not a mere first step in that direction.

The Corinth of c. 97 was founded as a Roman "colonia" a century and a half before. (The Corinth of ancient Greece had been completely destroyed over a century before that "colonia" was founded.) Roman Corinth was by no means the only Roman "colonia" in what is now Greece, and I suppose they were all gradually Hellenized in the decades that followed their foundation. Patras, in the same province of Achaea, was another. And Acts 16:12 mentions that Philippi, in the province of Macedonia, was another. Another Roman "colonia" was Aelia (full name: Colonia Aelia Capitolina), founded on the site of Jerusalem. Like Corinth, this new city completely replaced the old. Unlike Corinth, it hadn't become the capital of a province even by 325, when the Council of Nicaea, while decreeing that its bishop should be given special honour, still left him subject to the metropolitan of the province (who nobody says was the bishop of Rome). Lima (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice work Lima, I love hearing your grasp of history as much as I love hearing your grasp of language. However, although I'm no expert, I'd have thought helenization of the colonia would have taken somewhat longer than decades. But you are certainly right that we have no disagreement if you share the opinion that Roman primacy was a development of later centuries. I thought educated Catholic understanding was nuanced regarding the history of Petrine succession in such a way, and happily you confirm it. To an outsider, though, "Pope" implies universal responsibility in a way a simplistic Catholic understanding may read back into a setting like that behind 1 Clement. Yes, like I would imagine is the modern consensus, I think Harnack and Lightfoot overstate things a little here, though their words do seem guarded. My reading of 1 Clement is very approving, I see responsibility without authority other than the scriptures. I think the only disagreement I have with you, Lima, is almost administrative—if you concur that Clement did not exercise an authority later accorded to Popes, and so was not addressed in a manner by contemporaries to reflect acknowledgement of the unique office that developed later ... if this is so, it is merely a matter of the aesthetics of article nomenclature as against the aesthetics of clanging anachronisms. But the latter does have content implications as well. But I've said my piece on that. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of making it appear that we have formed a mutual admiration society (not a very grave risk, I think, since I am convinced that we have disagreed on a number of occasions, though I can remember none of them concretely) I must say that I admire your work in collecting, and in the original languages too, the earliest accounts of Clement. I fear that a certain editor would object to any quoting - even quoting without added interpretation - of these sources in the article, and that he would claim that to do so would constitute original research. But at least he should give thought to them when put before him on a Talk page. And I do disagree with his view on this matter.

I do not think that the expression "Clement of Rome" is more significant than the expression "Ignatius of Antioch", which neither proves nor disproves that Ignatius was a bishop and a monarchic one at that. As for the title "papa", wasn't it much later that that title began to be applied to the Bishop of Rome? Lima (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, on pretty much everything here. I do seem to recall we've several times disagreed, though it's never been over anything I thought was very important, sorry if it's been otherwise for you, though it seems it hasn't been that from your perspective either. Interestingly, the grounds of your disagreements have always been ones I can respect (at least that's my recollection).

Here, I find myself in complete agreement on all points. Original language refs to Clement are not OR, since obtained from reliable editions. Translations are also offered from reliable editions. Interpretation of those refs is already being cited from secondary sources. ODCC is a tertiary source, the Wiki guidelines, imo correctly, recommend articles rely mainly on secondary sources, without forbidding selective use of primary and secondary material.

Yes, even "Clement, ordained by Peter out of the Romans" does not guarantee monarchical episcopacy, but nor does it preclude an affectionate use of "papa" in spoken address, or in lost documents. The specialist use of the term to indicate the holder of the office that later developed, is something I'm sure is well discussed in secondary sources, and a matter I might be sufficiently interested in at some later point to research, but not just now. ;) I am glad to hear you are open to that line of thinking. It doesn't surprise me, because I have every indication that you know the literature on such things (like many others) far better than I. The little I know is lopsided to the linguistic/literary end and away from the historico/political end of things, as I'm sure you've seen for yourself.

Thanks for some kind words, and I'll work at filling in the blanks remaining in my post regarding early sources soon. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for getting the Corinth-metropolis stuff wrong. Good thing there are knowledgeable editors around. Anyway, Alastair offered some current scholarship on Roman primacy, and I've stuck it in. Thanks! Leadwind (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Life Section

Instead of having subsections on "Rome" and "Bishop" I think it would be better to present what we know about both Rome and the episcopacy during Clement's time in a more biographical style. I think we can develop a relatively clear biography without having to insert subsections into what will undoubtedly be a very short biography. I haven't made any changes to the substance of the section, but rather I've just tweaked its style. Dgf32 (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Flavius Clemens

Philip Schaff mentions writers advancing an identification of Clement with the Consul Titus Flavius Clemens. As we say in Australia, the chances of this are "somewhere between Buckley's and none". However, it still deserves mention in this article somewhere. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Otto Bardenhewer (Patrology, p. 26) said that by his time (early twentieth century) the identification of our Clement with "the martyr-consul" Flavius Clemens, which Philip Moxom earlier declared had been made "with some plausibility" but in the way of which Moxom said there were very great difficulties (From Jerusalem to Nicaea: the church in the first three centuries, p. 103), was abandoned. This hypothesis could well be mentioned along with the hypothesis that he was a freedman of the consul, a hypothesis that, for my taste, is expressed too strongly ("was identified as") in the article. Lima (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think we need to mention that Origen notes that writers prior to him had attributed the Epistle to the Hebrews to Clement. I'm a little tired atm, but some time I'd be interested in sourcing the Origen quote (in the original as well as translation). Alastair Haines (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"legendary martyrdom"

I changed the section that used to be entitled "death" to "legendary martyrdom." The story related here is not relevant to the death of the historical figure Clement but is a 4th century legend. The "Acts of the Martyrs" reference is not to the "main" article. Instead, it's a "see also," which seems suitable. This legend comes from the many acts of the martyrs that circulated at this time. If one wants to get the context for this legend, it's found at the Acts of the Martyrs page. One task that editors are called on to undertake is to create better links among related pages, and that's what the "see also" note is for. I originally termed this "main page," but that was wrong. It's "see also." Leadwind (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your change to Legendary martyrdom, very precise, accurate, neutral and verifiable.

Later traditions regarding earlier historical figures are certainly admissible within their bios, or we could never use contemporary scholarship either. ;) I'm probably misunderstanding your point, perhaps it only has to do with organisation within the current article.

As a general rule, I'd be trusting Leadwind's impartial judgment on many questions.

Please correct me if I've misunderstood the points related to Acts of the Martyrs. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The new solution, to have Acts of the Martyrs as a see also where the "main article" link would be in a section, is good. It should be linked, and I think its better there than within a see also section. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Martyr: some thoughts

An interesting question has been raised: is "martyr" a POV term?

I suspect the answer to this question depends heavily on context. Some deaths would be considered "suicide attacks" and/or acts of terrorism by most or many, but acts of martyrdom by others. The language of martyrdom is a very notable Islamic POV, especially in recent times. However, it is actually an extention of the ordinary English usage of the term, not its primary meaning.

Martyr has a different meaning in English to the Greek word it comes from. In Greek it was a word that meant simply a "witness", just like our idea of one who gives evidence in a court of law. Indeed, Greek had a verb martureo meaning "to testify" or to "speak as a witness". But the main point here is that in the original Greek, martureo had nothing to do with dying, rather it was about giving evidence (not always by spoken word).

The word, as it has come into English, is very loaded with Christian history. Europe was "Christian" by the time the English language began its history, and the English language itself reflects this in thousands of words. Martyr is one of them. As any native speaker can confirm, a martyr is someone who dies for a cause, most often used metaphorically in modern times.

• Our mother was a martyr: despite our poverty and her illness, she gave herself completely to ensuring we grew up with the hopes and dreams she believed children were entitled to enjoy.
• The last thing our environmental movement needs is more political martyrs.

There is a POV issue with some uses of the term martyr: in some contexts it can presume support for the cause the subject in question suffered for. However, this is far from always being the case, and in the context of reference to early Christianity, it is standard terminology. Most early Christians died in ordinary ways, however, it is extremely well documented that many died because the Romans (or others) considered them to be atheists (people who refused to conform to state enforced religion).

Is the legend of Clement's death one that describes a natural process or is it one that describes assassination, murder, natural disaster, plague, or some other clearly defined and notable component. What about the legend makes it notable? Surely it is the legend's claim that Clement was killed to silence his free expression of an alternative to the state-enforced religious POV. We have a legend, not merely of death, but of martyrdom. This is all the more suitable a designation given the canonical status of the early Christians in being definitive of the idea of martyrdom in English usage.

Who says? Well, I think this is what native speakers understand and sources use all over the place, however, if that seems questionable, I'm happy to look up the word in the Oxford to see its history of usage.

I think it would be wrong to describe Gandhi's death as simply a death, likewise Kennedy. They were assassinations. Did Clement merely die, or was it martyrdom? The legend would have us believe the latter. The legend would have us believe that Clement suffered no ordinary death, a tradition relates his Legendary martyrdom. I hope this satisfies any questions, but if it doesn't further dispute should be resolved by the Oxford and other reliable sources of usage and stop there. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I have a real issue with the term "Legendary". This strikes me as blatantly POV. The fact that the earliest brief biographical sketches of Clement do not mention his death is NOT evidence that he was not or could not have been killed. The section already makes clear that the tradition dates no earlier than the 4th century. Labeling an event as legendary requires a higher burden of evidence than we have here. There are various ways to present historical views, as Leadwind has successfully done throughout this article. However, placing the word "legendary" in the title of the section gives undue bias towards one point of view. I've compromised on everything, but this is a very, very important point. Dgf32 (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Alastair, I don't think anyone is worried, at least I am not, about the POV value of "martyr"; this is like the discussion we had on Julian the Apostate, where someone tried to argue that "apostate" is a POV term. It is not, and nor is this.

But moving on to the "legendary" part: I agree with Dgf that this is problematic. This isn't a legend. For one, the Catholic Church says he is a martyer. After Vatican II, we did away with the legendary cruft surrounding saints and martyrs (eg Saint Christopher), so that should lend some credence to believing this isn't complete bull. Secondly, because we don't have copies of the accounts from before the 4th century, doesn't necessarily make them legendary. The nature and age of the accounts, and the point about Eusebius and Jerome, are in the section already. We needn't pre-emptively declare that the accounts are legendary. Let the reader decide. I do believe it is incorrect to say that "The story related here is not relevant to the death of the historical figure Clement but is a 4th century legend." We do not have earlier sources for his death. The sources we have, though they are from the 4th c., are the sources we have. We need to go based of them. The very opening of the section discusses their age. Entitling the section "legendary martyrdom" does seem a bit POV. I would prefer either "death" or "martyrdom", though if "accounts of his death" would placate Alastair and Lead, I think that would work as well. Actually I'd be quite happy with that.

I'd say that unless there are sources saying the accounts are legendary, it should be changed ASAP. If there are sources saying this, we should continue discussing the matter. Looking over the lead, a sentence ref'ed from the ODCC says, "In the legendary Clementine Literature, Clement is the intermediary through whom the Apostles teach the church." Does the source say precisely this, "legendary Clementine Literature"? I'd like to know, as I do think it is relevant to this discussion. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"Death" or "Legendary Martyrdom"

I have been asked to give my opinion on this question, on which I had until now formed no opinion. On reflection, I think that "legendary martyrdom" would be fine in the body of the article, but it seems too hard-hitting in the title of a section. In that context it gives me an impression - I am convinced this was not the intention - of pushing a POV. Would it be acceptable to simply join it to the end of the section on Clement's life, a place where the legendary is already in play, even if not to the extent that it shows in the story of his death and burial? I will put it there, so that the effect can be judged.

I have no difficulty with the word "legendary" in the body of the article: ODCC says the story is found in "apocryphal" acta. The story is such that I doubt that any Wikipedia editor would consider it anything but legendary.

Yes, I have been bold. If nobody likes what I have done, by all means revert. I do sincerely think this is the best place to put the story, but I will not push for one position rather than another. Lima (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply to Carl and Lima here. I'm glad that several of us agree that martyr is not a POV word. How many people agree on that, or where they have done so elsewhere is irrelevant. The reasons for Wikipedia to accept that it is not POV can be derived from the Oxford, and those reasons can be copied and pasted into other discussions, rather than people be silenced by being asked to believe the matter "has already been settled". We shouldn't ask people to submit to a Wiki editorial decision as though it is a reliable source. No Wiki consensus (which is only temporary) is ever equal to a reliable source to the contrary; and why use such an argument when reliable sources make a much better case to the same effect? But enough said, I'm quite sure the term martyr will remain associated with Clement in this article, with appropriate caveats.

As for the POV of "legendary", you have pursuaded me. Indeed, some people are willing to accord the 4th century tradition a likelihood of historicity. That is a notable POV, and NPOV requires both POVs to be articulated: a neutral description is required, so the two POVs can be articulated freely. Legendary articulates the POV of scepticism towards historicity.

I will gently remind people at this point that exactly the same argument made against legendary also applies to calling Clement Pope. And vice versa. Leadwind cannot argue against calling Clement Pope because it is POV, and then fail to appreciate that to call his martyrdom "legendary" is also POV. By the same token, people cannot argue that "legendary" is POV, without acknowledging that designation as "Pope" is also POV.

There, now I'm everyone's enemy. I just don't think we help ourselves to try to "have our cake and eat it too". Were I "in charge" I'd try to be like King Solomon and offer people the choice: either "Clement of Rome, Pope and martyr by tradition" or "Pope Clement I, legendary martyr". Sadly, I think people may actually opt for the second option, everyone gets a bit of what they want.

But to conclude, since I retain objection to the title of the article, consistently with that, I conceed the inappropriateness of "legendary" also. I do think Lima's proposal is a clever one. Though I'm sure he'll appreciate my bemusement that the traditional ascription of Pope is not merely a section title, but the title of the whole article.

But! Disagreements aside, I'm glad this article moves forwards. I'm glad we're all talking. What a delightful hope the Christmas message once held in Europe ... et in terra pax! Alastair Haines (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I've said this before, I'm really not entirely against (discussing) re-naming the article. But, since the implications of that affect more than just this article, it should be done at an appropriate wikiproject. We can't decide to change the naming policy of pope's pages based on only one pope.

You have made a good argument here for changing the title, Alastair. I think I see how they are analogous, and I know legendary is POV, so it makes it easier to see that what I hold (he was Pope Clement I) may be POV as well.

I'm not crazy about Lima's solution, but I don't dislike it either. I find it satisfactory, at least.

This article is quite good, given all the attention it gets. I'm sure it is much better than those of other pre-Leonine popes. Dominus vobiscum! Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant reply! There's lots of consensus here, buried not much more than skin deep. Co-operation in real life so often needs trust to build. Although we should respect people by default, experience teaches us to expect them to earn it. We should respond to reason and argument alone, but we "hear" people as much as hearing ideas. It's inhuman not to. Yes, yes, this article is not the place to change the whole system, and now not the time for it. I really appreciate your concilliatory comments above, I felt a bit cheeky making the analogies. It shows great things about the quality of your character Carl that you took my words the way they were intended, rather than as pokes into an old wound. It is a good thing that consensus takes time. It's more fun really, and allows us to learn to value one another not simply understand issues from more perspectives. ... and also with you my brother and friend. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Vague words

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 also have problems with this. As well as actual size and influence, there's "of Clement's day"? If he died in his 60s in the late 90s, did the congregation stay equally large and influential throughout, from, say, the 50s to the 90s? Did it not grow nor shrink? Or does "his day" refer to when he was ordained by Peter, or to when he succeeded Peter?

Later in the paragraph we have the custom “to identify him as a freedman of Titus Flavius Clemens” [… but] "this identification, which no ancient sources suggest, afterwards lost support.” But James Valliant (in this video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=QytRnr7ZTOI after about 39:34) says that Clement was Titus Flavius Clemens, the son of (emperor) Titus’s first cousin. Titus dies in 81CE; Clement’s brother Sabinus dies soon after; a few years later, Clement’s sons have been adopted by (emperor, and Titus’s brother) Domitian as his heirs. “Clement is the most important member of the imperial family apart from the emperor himself.” This is in support of the theory of the early Flavian influence on Christianity, ie, when the congregation could well have been influential. Nick Barnett (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2023 (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

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

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. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm

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. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm

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. 83.128.72.82 (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It does seem biased Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica

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

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 173.31.192.232 (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 86.174.108.248 (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Jerome's quote on 2nd/4th pope

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

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 I → Clement of Rome – Relisted. 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

•clement of rome on atlantis

[5]••Atlantis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AtlantisCached -

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 ...[6] 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."http://www.geocities.ws/douglas36601/Heaven.html 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

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 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Exile to Pontus

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

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))

Umn I’m pretty sure the person who out that photo in is a Calvinist, I’ve seen many Calvinists who are fine with that painting of him. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

There is proof, he outlined the threefold order Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Bias on the monarchial episcopate

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. 83.128.72.82 (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pope Clement I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081122032727/http://saints.sqpn.com/saintc14.htm to http://saints.sqpn.com/saintc14.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121112015737/http://www.paulandpeters.com/blog/st-clement-of-rome/ to http://www.paulandpeters.com/blog/st-clement-of-rome

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Relics

Per;

• Simon Magus in Patristic, Medieval And Early Modern Traditions By Alberto Ferreiro, pages 265,277,279
• Catholic Encyclopedia --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)