Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

November 25th - Hieromartyr Clement, pope of Rome

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Bbd

unread,
Nov 24, 2006, 8:53:51 AM11/24/06
to
Hieromartyr Clement, pope of Rome
25 November

Hieromartyr Clement, Pope of Rome, was born in Rome into a wealthy
family. Separated by force of circumstances from his parents from
childhood, Clement was brought up by strangers. He received a good
education and was close to the imperial court. When tidings of Christ
and His teaching reached the capital, Saint Clement left his home and
possessions and set out for those places and those lands where the
Apostles were preaching. In Alexandria, Clement met and was taught by
the holy Apostle Barnabas.

Saint Clement then went to Palestine, where he was baptized the holy
Apostle Peter and became his disciple and companion. Not long before
his death, St. Peter ordained Clement as bishop of the city of Rome.
After the death of the Apostle, and after him of Saint Linus, the
Bishop of Rome, and his successor, the holy Bishop Anacletus, Saint
Clement occupied the Roman cathedra (AD91 to 101).

Pope Clement converted many to Christ. Hostile pagans complained to the
Emperor Trajan, accusing the saint of blaspheming the pagan gods. The
emperor exiled Clement from the capital, sending him to the Crimea, to
work in the Inkerman quarries not far from the city of Cherson whither
he was followed by many of his disciples.

The saint's apostolic activity in Crimea provoked the wrath of the
Emperor Trajan, and he ordered that Saint Clement be drowned. In AD
101, Soldiers cast the martyr into the sea with an anchor around his
neck.

When the sea receded, and on the bottom the Christians found the body
of their pastor and were able to venerate his holy relics. Under the
Emperor Michael, the missionary saints Cyril and Methodius visited
Cherson and solemnly translated them to Consyantinople, to the Church
of the Holy Apostles. A portion of the relics was also sent to Rome.

St. Clement, wrote­ two epistles to the Corinthians,­ the first
literary treasures of Christian teaching after the writings of the holy
Apostles.

Alexander Arnakis

unread,
Nov 24, 2006, 4:27:53 PM11/24/06
to
On 24 Nov 2006 05:53:51 -0800, "Bbd" <big...@hushmail.com> wrote:

>Hieromartyr Clement, pope of Rome
>25 November
>

><snipped>

>..... Hostile pagans complained to the


>Emperor Trajan, accusing the saint of blaspheming the pagan gods.

These pagan gods were nothing more than pale reflections of the real
God. These were constructs -- searchings -- by unenlightened people.
As such, sacrificing to these pagan gods could have been seen as a
"lesser form of worship" of the real God.

The early Christians could have sacrificed to these idols with a clear
conscience, considering that by doing so, they could co-opt part of
the pagan religion and at the same time make their own Christianity
more accessible to the pagans. After all, St. Paul opened his dialogue
with the Athenians by referring to their worship of the "Unknown God."

Instead of doing this, though, the early Christians took a
confrontational approach. Besides resulting in the martyrdom of
thousands, confrontation presented a stark either/or choice to the
Roman public.

The tactic of confrontation was probably the main reason why the
Christians ultimately prevailed, and the followers of Isis or Mythras
(rival cults) did not.

Bbd

unread,
Nov 24, 2006, 5:00:49 PM11/24/06
to

I'm always a little wary of this kind of ex post fact reasoning, in
part, because it assumes a familiarity with the situation in which
people like Clement found themselves that we do not and cannot have.

I do believe that there is a fundamental distinction between a
pauline-style preparatio Evangelii and willing participation in pagan
rites:

- The former elevates and the latter debases.
- The former educates and the latter misleads.
- The former witnesses to Truth and the latter to lies.

As to "confrontation", my reading would suggest that most of the early
Christians did not go out of their way to offend pagans; their refusals
to sacrifice occurred when they were (often very literally) backed into
corners.

Charles Hohenstein

unread,
Nov 24, 2006, 9:11:31 PM11/24/06
to
In article <1164376431.6...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"Bbd" <big...@hushmail.com> wrote:

> Hieromartyr Clement, pope of Rome
> 25 November
>
> Hieromartyr Clement, Pope of Rome, was born in Rome into a wealthy
> family.

Clement a pope? That's quite an anachronism. At that point Rome had not
even reached the point of developing monarchical episcopacy, and the
"bishops" were more like chairmen or corresponding secretaries of the
Roman presbyters. And it would be centuries before the See of Rome began
to insist upon claims about its special authority, under Leo and later
Gregory.

--
Charles Hohenstein
To reply, remove Gene Robinson
"The sad huddle of affluent bedwetters, thumbsuckers, treehuggers, social
climbers, homophiles, quavery ladies, and chronic petition signers that
makes up the current Episcopal Church . . ."--Thomas Lipscomb

AGGreen

unread,
Nov 24, 2006, 10:30:49 PM11/24/06
to

"Charles Hohenstein" <chohensteG...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:chohensteGeneRobinson...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...

AGGreen

unread,
Nov 24, 2006, 10:32:21 PM11/24/06
to

"Charles Hohenstein" <chohensteG...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:chohensteGeneRobinson...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <1164376431.6...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> "Bbd" <big...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hieromartyr Clement, pope of Rome
>> 25 November
>>
>> Hieromartyr Clement, Pope of Rome, was born in Rome into a wealthy
>> family.
>
> Clement a pope? That's quite an anachronism. At that point Rome had not
> even reached the point of developing monarchical episcopacy, and the
> "bishops" were more like chairmen or corresponding secretaries of the
> Roman presbyters. And it would be centuries before the See of Rome began
> to insist upon claims about its special authority, under Leo and later
> Gregory.
>
> --
> Charles Hohenstein


***We have to remember, Charles, that "Pope" back then was just a title,
much like Pope Shenouda in Egypt. But, you are correct about the time being
before the rise of "papal supremacy."

Charles Hohenstein

unread,
Nov 24, 2006, 11:19:56 PM11/24/06
to
In article <ek8ef...@enews4.newsguy.com>, "AGGreen" <A...@GoBush.edu>
wrote:

> ***We have to remember, Charles, that "Pope" back then was just a title,
> much like Pope Shenouda in Egypt. But, you are correct about the time being
> before the rise of "papal supremacy."

No, it wasn't even a title yet for the bishop of Rome. And the bishop of
Rome was not yet even a bishop as we think of bishops.

R.V. Gronoff

unread,
Nov 25, 2006, 7:45:43 AM11/25/06
to
Alexander Arnakis a écrit :

> On 24 Nov 2006 05:53:51 -0800, "Bbd" <big...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hieromartyr Clement, pope of Rome
>> 25 November
>>
>> <snipped>
>
>> ..... Hostile pagans complained to the
>> Emperor Trajan, accusing the saint of blaspheming the pagan gods.
>
> These pagan gods were nothing more than pale reflections of the real
> God. These were constructs -- searchings -- by unenlightened people.
> As such, sacrificing to these pagan gods could have been seen as a
> "lesser form of worship" of the real God.
>

This is a late new-agey, politically correct view of paganism.
Paganism is basically magic, ie the opposite way of the true adoration
(or8odoxia) of the true God.

Druidism, for example, involved such rituals as nailing the bowels of
the living victim to an oak tree and walking away with him, letting his
guts unfold out and chanting invocations to deities while covering him
with mistletoe until his death.

Egyptians, Babylonians and Mexican Indians also practised such
abominations as /the/ normal religious thing.

Remember that the first sign of the true God entering humanity after the
Flood was when He replaced Abraham's son by a lamb provided by Himself.

The false gods ask for sacrifices (and that includes Islam) while the
true, living God, offers Himself as the only bloody sacrifice, demanding
us to only offer a "reasonable and bloodless" sacrifice made of bread
and wine.

--
Virez Ahmadinejad pour me répondre.
Remove Ahmadinejad to reply.

jmd

unread,
Nov 25, 2006, 7:36:22 AM11/25/06
to
(my wife is suddenly sick, youngest children become nervous, so am I, sorry..)

ahh, our great friend saint Clement!
it's 23 in the old roman martyrology (the very old one, 5 centuries before the Schism)

For the text here, classical, but I'm sorry, I can only say this : very nice legends...

Nothing in it has the least founding in the Apostolic Fathers writings, strictly nothing.
It is a disaster the Synaxarion continues diffusion of myths born in Schismatic Rome or
by not well intentionned politicians bearing the title of "orthodox bishop", but only the
title.

I picked up all with Church Fathers (Saint Epiphanius of Salamine, saint Clement of Rome
himself, saint Ireneaus of Lyon, and so on) http://www.amdg.be/sankt/nov23.html#PERS


In short : outside some very late apocryphical writings and Rufinus, nothing accepted by
the Church before the 7th century comes to support the affirmations of now "classical"
hagiographies concerning saint Clement of Rome. And Synaxarion is on the same level as
the post-Schism roman martyrology : mythology.

Also, "Pope" is a title that didn't existed in the meaning of "head of the local Church
of Christ in Rome or Alexandria" before the 4th century. Strictly not before in that use.
As recalled our teacher of Church History in Saint-Jean (subsidiary of Saint-Serge),
subscriptions of documents by bishops & others are very interesting to study. The
archbishop itself is a title that comes from the evolution of Church organisation, after
centuries, when the growth made that in the East, and only in the East, it became
possible (and was decided) to make diocese with political provinces borders match. In the
West it has never been possible, outside some very rare places, so the Church
organisation of the Orthodox West has never been the same as that of the Orthodox East.
To come back to "pope", thus a clearly historical error promoted in an Orthodox book used
in Church (...), it was also the name used in latin for simple bishops, not even
"metropolitans", but simple bishops. It simply means "father", or "old father". I found
this reading the first Vita of saint Germanus of Auxerre, the oldest Life, by Constantius
of Lyon, just a few years after the birth in Heaven of saint Germanus, thus a writing
from early 6th century. It was still the case. Pope used as "chief of the whole Church of
the whole universe and abroad" wasn't yet in use :-))

I think it's important not to accept and get on with historical errors. They are being
used by those in Schism to go further in keeping "their" faithfull in the error. When you
go to Rome, they is a shrine for each "pope", starting with saint Peter, who has never
been pope nor bishop! The big lie is prolonged. We must cut its wings, and stop using all
these myths. They are not part of the holy Tradition, as they have not been given to us
by great saints, women and men, but by liars. Some great saints have accepted them -
being saint doesn't mean being infaillible - but they had not received it from ensured
sources of the holy Tradition, that's thte problem and the fact. I prefer to keep on
reading oftenly the Letter to Corinthians of saint Clement, it's a great apostolic
letter, great spiritual value, than to pay the least attention to what hagiography says
on his behalf. It makes me nervous, I'm enough nervous, Kyrie eleison!!

JM

jmd

unread,
Nov 25, 2006, 8:47:45 AM11/25/06
to

while I admit some of your ideas with saint Paul, for that last sentence, I'd just say :
"who from these pagans, knowing it's all bullsh.., would accept to have his troath cutted
off instead of accepting something else in the change"?....

the Truth only can be strong enough

I won't die for all those little pseudo traditions that are defiling Orthodoxy, but for
Christ, that's radically different

jm

jmd

unread,
Nov 25, 2006, 9:25:57 AM11/25/06
to
Bbd wrote:
>
>
> As to "confrontation", my reading would suggest that most of the early
> Christians did not go out of their way to offend pagans; their refusals
> to sacrifice occurred when they were (often very literally) backed into
> corners.

indeed, but imho, it depends from the time, the situation of the Christian, and so on.

the first problem comes with anything linked to the public life. The "gods" of the
Empire, emperor included as a "god", were part of the full public life. I remember that
somewhere in Flavius Josephus, he speaks out of the prayers Jews told the Romans they
offered for the emperor, in exchange of which, they were allowed to remain out of the
public cult that was reaching even the market, food sales, and so on. The first
Christians were considered as a mere sect inside Judaism. But soon, the Jews told the
Romans it wasn't the case. We see in the Life of Claudius that in 47, when saint Peter
was not yet in Rome but the Church was already existing, the Christians were still
considered as Jews by Roman autorities.

When did this change? At fall of Temple? At execution of saint James? I don't know for
sure, but then, Christians lost the "administrative favourable treatment" they had thanks
to their parentship with Judaism. From that very moment, using the "preparatio Evangelii"
as Alexander Arnakis suggested, was no longer feasible. They had no longer their good
status. Massive "infiltration" time was over. They had to make open choices. On the
market, accept to give money to a fake god, buying food that had been sacrified to that
fake god, and at the same time, becoming scandal for the "weak in Faith" that could have
the thought "hu, hu, thus this could be also true?" Impossible. So they became also
economical ennemies, "from inside" the system!

This added to the fact they were political ennemies, as they were not accepting to do
oaths to the emperor as a god. Their loyalty to the emperor was, in the eyes of the
system, no longer assured. And outside economical and political ennemies, they were also
"out of the justice system".

I think we see first elements of that changes, in some parts of the Empire, when saint
Paul recommands to Corinthians not to go to courts for their internal problems. In court,
you have a system of "eternal value" - making as rock-solid oaths like those made on the
Bible used by Free-Massons in their Lodge :-)) - and these eternal "values" were pagan
gods. It was no longer possible to go there, simply swear obedience to a juridic system
that was probaly as honest as the Belgian one (that is : rotten, sold to rich people and
to bandits). And swearing on pagan gods. This was not possible. The "preparatio" cannot
go so far. There, the "corner" was reached not by being pushed into it by the pagans, but
by Christians not living as Christians (like most of us today, me being first, promise!)
going willingfully in that corner.

Then you had all these being part of the bureaucratic Roman system - huge! - they had to
obey the emperor as a god, and all was being done under his "auspices" (the word remained
in English and French). This was a case of conscience. Saint Clement was not part of the
system, he "only" had to try to manage a Church herited from before (but not from saint
Peter, he would have mentionned this, and he don't, strictly not!). A Church living in a
world of paganism. Had they a possibility of "intellectual exchanges" with that paganism,
like B16 thinks it is always possible? I remember from my courses of philosophy some
Roman authors in that century, but not so much, and certainly not "inside Rome".
Intellectual life was not high. Talking to un-intellectual people of things that are
linked to their system of daily values, that are part of their "culture" (something more
important to most people than Faith, Orthodox included), well, as you know, it's almost
impossible. Christ has preached among Jews and semi-pagans of Jewish origin, not among
"pure" pagans, unable to understand the accomplishments of unknown promises of an unknown
unique, pure, saint and eternal God. Even among the Romans being present in Judea, there
was part of them being proselytes. And it was already difficult to have people just
listening. In Ephesus, saint Paul failed to have the stupid crows shuting up its mouth,
and just listening. Imagine in Rome. Conversions only possible by people-to-people
relations, I suppose.

We have plenty of examples of Christians that found themselves "in the corner" by simply
living as they used to, doing their normal business. Let's look at soldiers, as we spoke
of saint Alexander Nevsky, wrongly presented as "warrior saint". The great saint Martin
of Tours, one of the 3 Fathers of Christian Europe (with saint Amandus and saint
Columbanus), the founder and organiser of the "parish system" in Europe. As soldier, he
refused to go to fight and kill "like a soldier". But he accepted to be sent weaponless
in front of the ennemy. With success, it's saint Martin, "noblesse oblige". Or saint
Maurice and the Thebean Legion. Simply being Christian was a reason to be in troubles, as
your conscience was always in trouble with all around (like we should all be today), all
being linked to a pagan god, the emperor - btw, I'll be probably killed by some Orthodox,
but Constantine the Great never ever rebuked the title of "pontifex maximus", and
remained thus "pagan god" till the end, even on his last day of human life, when he got
baptised by an heretic, an Arian "bishop". Yes, Christians of the first 4 centuries had
not lots to do to be "in the corner" : their very belief was enough to be in it, with the
whole public life of the Empire being structured around the paganism, each conquered
people adding its "gods" to it, following the "great" idea of Alexander the Great.

imho, Orthodoxy should go back, and this is valid for absolutely all faithfull, and start
reading (for most, as "first time ever") the Apostolic Fathers. We would discover lots of
the reasons of today's failures. And keys to get out of the actual disaster. It's "back
to the sources", or islam. Orthodoxia i thanatos.

Lord have Mercy!

Jean-Michel

Alexander Arnakis

unread,
Nov 25, 2006, 12:05:40 PM11/25/06
to
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 13:45:43 +0100, "R.V. Gronoff"
<regis....@ahmadinejadifrance.com> wrote:
>
>Druidism, for example, involved such rituals as nailing the bowels of
>the living victim to an oak tree and walking away with him, letting his
>guts unfold out and chanting invocations to deities while covering him
>with mistletoe until his death.
>
That's interesting. This exact same atrocity (minus the mistletoe)
that you describe was also attributed to the American Indians during
the Seven Years' War, and to the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War. Did
all these groups compare notes, or is this particular atrocity a sort
of "urban myth," or the product of a recurring human nightmare?

Alexander Arnakis

unread,
Nov 25, 2006, 12:45:33 PM11/25/06
to
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 13:45:43 +0100, "R.V. Gronoff"
<regis....@ahmadinejadifrance.com> wrote:
>
>Remember that the first sign of the true God entering humanity after the
>Flood was when He replaced Abraham's son by a lamb provided by Himself.
>
Yet somehow Abraham got the impression that Jehovah demanded a human
sacrifice. Only at the last minute did God relent and accept the
sacrifice of the ram. Was it a change of mind, or did God really
intend to accept the substitution in the first place, and just went
through the whole charade as a means of testing Abraham's faith?
Either way, it evinces a petty, bloody-minded, and vindictive God.
Such a God is not worthy of worship; instead, such a God deserves
defiance (because he's proven himself to be a false God).

Defiance of the gods has a long and praiseworthy tradition. Compare
the Hebraic and the Greek attitudes: in Genesis, God expelled Adam
from Eden for his disobedience in seeking the knowledge of good and
evil. The Jews thought that Adam thus had committed the unpardonable
sin.

The Greeks had a parallel story, that of Prometheus. When he stole the
secret of fire from the gods and gave it to people, the angered gods
had him chained to a rock and had his liver perpetually pecked at by
crows. Yet to the Greeks, Prometheus was the ultimate hero. When the
gods were unjust, it was the duty of the Greek to defy them. How
different this attitude from that of the Jews! And healthier by far...

>The false gods ask for sacrifices (and that includes Islam) while the
>true, living God, offers Himself as the only bloody sacrifice, demanding
>us to only offer a "reasonable and bloodless" sacrifice made of bread
>and wine.

No. The true God doesn't think in terms of "bloody sacrifices" at all.
Such things are symptoms of human primitivism. There's no need for a
substitution because there was no requirement of a sacrifice in the
first place.

R.V. Gronoff

unread,
Nov 25, 2006, 12:52:53 PM11/25/06
to
Alexander Arnakis a écrit :

It is actually one of the rare druidist rituals that have been described
by pre-christian witnesses and is well documented in english language
studies. So, it's not surprising that it is allegated in wars where the
english-speaking side was not morally totally comfortable to justify
their own atrocities towards such ennemies as the Native Americans or
Vietnamese people.
BTW, the druids were not Celts themselves and used greek as their
communication language yet used another unknown language to discuss
among themselves. Some say the language could have come from the
Cro-Magnon era and might have shared common origins with euskara, the
language of the Basques that has remained almost unchanged since the
stone age.

The other well-documented pagan ritual is the so-called Mexican
football, a "game" in which the team that touched the ball with either
the hand or the foot or just dropped it was not only sacrificed, but the
pack of victims they played for was too.

AGGreen

unread,
Nov 25, 2006, 12:55:43 PM11/25/06
to

"Charles Hohenstein" <chohensteG...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:chohensteGeneRobinson...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <ek8ef...@enews4.newsguy.com>, "AGGreen" <A...@GoBush.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> ***We have to remember, Charles, that "Pope" back then was just a title,
>> much like Pope Shenouda in Egypt. But, you are correct about the time
>> being
>> before the rise of "papal supremacy."
>
> No, it wasn't even a title yet for the bishop of Rome. And the bishop of
> Rome was not yet even a bishop as we think of bishops.

***I think you could apply this logic to all "bishops" in all corners of the
Christian world at that time. I think I'll go along with the Church and call
them all, Rome or otherwise, bishops. (And yes, the role and function of
bishops has changed over the centuries.)

Al


Alexander Arnakis

unread,
Nov 25, 2006, 3:14:50 PM11/25/06
to

It's said that the Aztec ritual of human sacrifice (followed by
cannibalism) was done for a rational reason -- to provide protein
intake for the Aztec ruling class (the wild game had been depleted in
Mesoamerica, and the Aztecs didn't raise animals for food). So, once
again, religion provided a convenient rationale for things that were
done to satisfy base human desires. Anyway, when it came to cruelty,
the Aztecs met their match in the Spaniards. The Spanish enslaved the
native American peoples, with the pretext of converting them to
Christianity. Yet another example of religion being used for
materialistic ends.

Bbd

unread,
Nov 25, 2006, 5:15:25 PM11/25/06
to

En vérité!

Here, I find myself thinking of "thanatos" in the Freudian
psychoanalytic sense (todtriebe) - a drive or impulse toward
disintegration and ultimately, dissolution into one's constituent
inorganic elements - i.e. death.

The movement toward Islam that you describe is an aspect of that same
"thanatos" that causes people in Europe to be unwilling to have
children and to lose themselves in "anaesthetic" self-indulgences of
one sort or another...

Charles Hohenstein

unread,
Nov 25, 2006, 5:15:13 PM11/25/06
to
In article <eka02...@enews4.newsguy.com>, "AGGreen" <A...@GoBush.edu>
wrote:

> ***I think you could apply this logic to all "bishops" in all corners of the
> Christian world at that time.

Not really. At Alexandria and Rome, there were substantial Jewish
communities which were accustomed to governance by elders acting
corporately. The churches there built on this Jewish base and something
of the same sense of leadership by presbyters prevailed at first, with
the "bishop" more in the role of what we might call a chairman. These
cities adopted monarchical episcopacy at a later date than places where
Gentile converts were more numerous and where a more firm leadership by
one guy ensued in the succession to people like St. Paul. Thus in places
like Antioch monarchical episcopacy was established relatively early.
There were different styles of leadership in different places during the
early period.

But, like most people, the Romans read their later practices back into
earlier history and assumed that things had been pretty much the same.
Thus their references to St. Peter as the first pope and the books which
claim to explain how Jesus said the first "mass." The Baptists do the
same, of course. They assume that early Christians acted pretty much
like Baptists, and would be shocked if they went back in time and
encountered sung liturgy and liturgical devotion on the part of the
first Christians. That is why they are also blind to the eucharistic
point of reference in the sixth chapter of John's Gospel or the
baptismal context for the third chapter. They have no theology of the
sacraments, as such, therefore the first Christians didn't either. :)

Bbd

unread,
Nov 25, 2006, 6:21:23 PM11/25/06
to

Alexander Arnakis wrote:

> Anyway, when it came to cruelty,
> the Aztecs met their match in the Spaniards.

And the Spanish were not even exceptionally cruel by the standards of
the era. One need only look at the brutalities inflicted on heretics,
subversives, and even common criminals in Europe.

Here in North America, as well, we did a bang-up job (well into the
20th century) of decimating the native population and condemning most
of the remnant to poverty and disease in rural ghettos.

0 new messages