Clement of Rome?

[SpeakKindly]

Did Clement of Rome write anything specific that could be used to support Catholic theology? What was his contribution to the development of the Church’s understanding of the faith?

 

[po18guy]

He wrote his first century letter from the Church at Rome to the Corinthians, during a sedition in that city, reminding them of the faith which had been handed on to them. It is considered the first exercise of authority by the Bishop of Rome since Peter’s death. He clearly explains Apostolic succession; is the first to explain or define the term “laity” as regards the people of God; is the first to exhort the faithful to pray for civil and governmental leaders, in the fashion of Christ praying from the cross. Of course, there was more, but these are some of the highlights.

This from volume 1 of the 2 volume “The Fathers” by Benedict XVI.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I would just like to say that EVERYTHING that po18guy says is absolutely factual. But I would also like to add that there are TWO letters which are historically attributed to Clement, Bishop of Rome. The second letter, though of ancient origin (and largely considered to be orthodox in content) is not considered by modern historians to have been written by Clement himself.

Po18guy did not cite anything from “Second Clement” in his response - everything he cited originated from the first letter (of uncontested authorship). I make this post to “nip in the bud” any discussion which seeks to confuse the topic with the so-called second epistle of Clement. Please let there be no such confusion here, and I ask that please nobody here attempt to dilute or confuse the question with the so-called second epistle of Clement, of uncertain authorship.

 

[Nita]

Here is a link to the first letter of Clement.
newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

New Advent has the writings of the Early Church Fathers, including the “spurious” Clement of Rome writings. newadvent.org/fathers/

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Did Clement of Rome write anything specific that could be used to support Catholic theology? What was his contribution to the development of the Church’s understanding of the faith?

In addition to what has been said above about apostolic succession in Clement, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 42 & 44 I would add this:

Let us, then, give up those empty and futile aspirations and turn to the glorious and venerable rule of our tradition (παραδοσεως).
[Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 7]
James A Kleist, trans. in The Epistles of St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch (Ancient Christian Writers series)

Wherefore let us forsake idle and vain thoughts; and let us conform to the glorious and venerable rule which hath been handed down (παραδοσεως) to us.
[Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 7]
J. B. Lightfoot, trans.

Some translate the last part of the sentence “venerable rule of our holy calling.” This is found in the translation used by New Advent. But I’ve found no explanation as to why the Greek noun paradosis (meaning “tradition”) can be translated as “calling.”

perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=parado%2Fseis&la=greek#lexicon

 

[po18guy]

My source is Benedict XVI, whom I consider to be the world’s greatest living theologian. He, of course, is cautious to include content only from the first letter, of which Clementine authorship is undisputed. Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon until 202, maintains that Clement “had seen the blessed Apostles”, “had been conversant with them” and “might be said to have their preaching still echoing and their traditions before his eyes” (Adversus Haer 3,3,3).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Did Clement of Rome write anything specific that could be used to support Catholic theology? What was his contribution to the development of the Church’s understanding of the faith?

Scriptural Support for Clement’s authority:

Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you, my true companion, help these women since they have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life.

 

[zz912]

Did Clement of Rome write anything specific that could be used to support Catholic theology? What was his contribution to the development of the Church’s understanding of the faith?

One very important teaching is apostolic authority, and papal authority. The Corinthians had ousted the priests in charge in Corinth. And they appealed to Clement to decide the issue. Here is the interesting thing, the Apostle John was still alive at this point, and he was actually closer to them (he was in Ephesus) than Pope Clement was in Rome. And yet they looked to the Pope for the authority to decide the matter.

And Clement decided it using his authority as Pope, and told them to readmit their priests back into their offices, and to obey their instructions.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

In addition to the usual pro-Catholic points, you may find Protestants throw Clement back in your face as if he were a witness for their side. They quote the following passage to justify that Clement taught justification by faith alone as if he meant to teach the same doctrine that Protestants teach.

“And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
(Chapter 32)

However, after saying this, he insists that we must not cease from doing good (which no one would deny), and then continues to say the following:

“The good servant receives the bread of his labour with confidence; the lazy and slothful cannot look his employer in the face. It is requisite, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of well-doing; for of Him are all things. And thus He forewarns us: “Behold, the Lord [comes], and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work.” He exhorts us, therefore, with our whole heart to attend to this, that we be not lazy or slothful in any good work.”
(Chapter 34)

This is especially significant because of what St. Paul says in Romans.

“Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”
(Romans 4:4-5)

Paul denies that man in any way merits the grace of justification (which is what the Council of Trent teaches). However, Clement uses this same analogy saying that for the justified, God’s rewards are given (in some sense) according to their works as wages are given to an employee. Now, I’m sure if 1 Clement were included in the New Testament Canon, Protestant commentators would do their best to reconcile this to their teachings, but it should give any Protestant pause that someone would ever say this if they were intending to teach that the righteousness of the justified is solely based on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness without regard to the one justified or that all our works even after justification “are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God’s judgment” (WCF 16.5). Even if Clement’s words can be reconciled with Protestant theology, why would he speak in this manner that is so liable to mislead rather than speaking like R.C. Sproul?