Clement of Rome writings "spurious"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Dude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic_Dude

Guest
I was going to look into the writings of Clement but when I looked here on NewAdvent’s Church Father’s directory it says most of the writings are “spurious”. So what does that mean? Fakes? Are they good to read still?
 
Catholic Dude:
I was going to look into the writings of Clement but when I looked here on NewAdvent’s Church Father’s directory it says most of the writings are “spurious”. So what does that mean? Fakes? Are they good to read still?
Click to expand...
Many writings have been falsely attributed to Pope St. Clement I:

For more information check Here Scroll down the page to the heading: II. PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE WRITINGS
 
40.png
Marie:
Many writings have been falsely attributed to Pope St. Clement I:

For more information check Here Scroll down the page to the heading: II. PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE WRITINGS
Click to expand...
So it just means he didnt author them but he gets the credit?
So there are no false teachings or anything like that in them I assume.
 
As I understand it, the 1st Letter of Clement to Corinth is authentic. The Second Letter of Clement to the Corinthians was attributed to him, but is more likely a second century homily written by an anonymous author, and is not likely to be written by Clement.

I believe this Epistle is the only one held by scholars to be authentically from Clement of Rome (ca. AD 80): First Epistle
 
Some of the epistles of St Ignatius are also said to be spurious. The second letter of Clement is indeed spurious. But the first is the real McCoy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top