East-West discussions of Pope St. Clement I

[Mort_Alz]

Hello, CAF. I am a recent convert to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism and I am very interested in Church unity (particularly East-West dialogue). I have decided, this Summer, to do some individual study on the more noteworthy historic ecclesiastical events within the first 1,000s years of the Catholic/Orthodox Church. I am currently studying Pope St. Clement I’s epistle to the Corinthians.

Obviously, the importance/primacy of the Bishop of Rome is the main focus when discussing this letter in the context of East-West dialogue (especially on account of its being so early). I have just gotten through reading the epistle in its entirety with highlights on portions of it that I thought were noteworthy. I have also done some brief research on the context of the letter from a Catholic encyclopedia on newadvent.org. After digesting the letter and context for a bit, I have four questions that I would like to submit to you here on this forum.

Number 1, the Catholic Encyclopedia (in their entry about Pope St. Clement I) suggests, when talking about the letter, that “no appeal seems to have been made to Rome.” I, however, found this to be seemingly contradicted in the letter itself. Even within the first chapter, St. Clement writes, “we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us…” As a private history buff, and, more importantly, fellow brother in Christ here, I figured I would submit this question to you all thinking you might have more knowledge on that particular aspect of the letter. Was an appeal made to Rome as I gather from my own interpretation of the letter or, as the Catholic Encyclopedia suggests, was there no appeal made to Rome? If not, why does the Catholic Encyclopedia suggest otherwise?

Number 2: Are there examples of other churches exercising similar authority around this time? From most of what I’ve read about St. Clement’s letter, this letter is unique in the fact that it is a clear example of one church interfering in a corrective way in another church on ecclesiastical matters with obedience expected. Are there, perhaps, other instances where this happened or is St. Clement’s letter truly unique?

Number 3: A common Orthodox rebuttal to a Papist’s interpretation of St. Clement is that the letter was simply an exercise of normative bishopric authority as the Corinthian church fell under the episcopate of Rome, anyway. In other words, it was not an example of the Bishop of Rome exercising universal ecclesiastical authority, but simply his authority as an archbishop or patriarch. A common rebuttal to the rebuttal is to say that such an episcopal system did not yet exist at that time. My question is one of mere curiosity as a new Catholic: how do people come by that conclusion? At this point it is just their word against the Orthodox that such a system did not yet exist. What is the reasoning by which people arrive at that conclusion?

Number 4: Even if it was an exercise of universal ecclesiastical authority, how do we know it was an exercise of divinely granted authority? Even if the Orthodox concede to all of the above points, they will often say that the reason Corinth still appealed to Rome and not to John the Evangelist on Patmos or the sister church of Pauline origins in Ephesus is that Paul was martyred in Rome and it was a simple, natural development that Rome was the center of ecclesiastical authority and not a divine institution. How would that be answered?

Thanks in advance to everyone considering this post. Peace, and God bless.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Hello, CAF. I am a recent convert to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism and I am very interested in Church unity (particularly East-West dialogue). I have decided, this Summer, to do some individual study on the more noteworthy historic ecclesiastical events within the first 1,000s years of the Catholic/Orthodox Church. I am currently studying Pope St. Clement I’s epistle to the Corinthians.

Obviously, the importance/primacy of the Bishop of Rome is the main focus when discussing this letter in the context of East-West dialogue (especially on account of its being so early). I have just gotten through reading the epistle in its entirety with highlights on portions of it that I thought were noteworthy. I have also done some brief research on the context of the letter from a Catholic encyclopedia on newadvent.org. After digesting the letter and context for a bit, I have four questions that I would like to submit to you here on this forum.

Number 1, the Catholic Encyclopedia (in their entry about Pope St. Clement I) suggests, when talking about the letter, that “no appeal seems to have been made to Rome.” I, however, found this to be seemingly contradicted in the letter itself. Even within the first chapter, St. Clement writes, “we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us…” As a private history buff, and, more importantly, fellow brother in Christ here, I figured I would submit this question to you all thinking you might have more knowledge on that particular aspect of the letter. Was an appeal made to Rome as I gather from my own interpretation of the letter or, as the Catholic Encyclopedia suggests, was there no appeal made to Rome? If not, why does the Catholic Encyclopedia suggest otherwise?

Number 2: Are there examples of other churches exercising similar authority around this time? From most of what I’ve read about St. Clement’s letter, this letter is unique in the fact that it is a clear example of one church interfering in a corrective way in another church on ecclesiastical matters with obedience expected. Are there, perhaps, other instances where this happened or is St. Clement’s letter truly unique?

Number 3: A common Orthodox rebuttal to a Papist’s interpretation of St. Clement is that the letter was simply an exercise of normative bishopric authority as the Corinthian church fell under the episcopate of Rome, anyway. In other words, it was not an example of the Bishop of Rome exercising universal ecclesiastical authority, but simply his authority as an archbishop or patriarch. A common rebuttal to the rebuttal is to say that such an episcopal system did not yet exist at that time. My question is one of mere curiosity as a new Catholic: how do people come by that conclusion? At this point it is just their word against the Orthodox that such a system did not yet exist. What is the reasoning by which people arrive at that conclusion?

Number 4: Even if it was an exercise of universal ecclesiastical authority, how do we know it was an exercise of divinely granted authority? Even if the Orthodox concede to all of the above points, they will often say that the reason Corinth still appealed to Rome and not to John the Evangelist on Patmos or the sister church of Pauline origins in Ephesus is that Paul was martyred in Rome and it was a simple, natural development that Rome was the center of ecclesiastical authority and not a divine institution. How would that be answered?

Thanks in advance to everyone considering this post. Peace, and God bless.

I have learnt a lot from you. Thanks.

 

[Mort_Alz]

You’re welcome

I do wonder, though, in what way? I only asked questions.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

You’re welcome

I do wonder, though, in what way? I only asked questions.

I hope I wont hurt you, for that is not my wish.
But that subject does not interest me at all. so, as it is not of my interest, reading your post, I learnt a lot about the problem of which I am completely ignorant.
I have seen that the Protestant make a fuss about it, about how the Papacy passed to the other Popes, how the RCC deviated from the EArly church, how Constantin corrupted the church and so on.
In the RCC, our foundation to the belief in the Papacy come from elsewhere. That is why I do not pay much attention to the above mentioned themes (but I deeply respect them).
When other person is interested in one subject, he or she provided data that I, who am not interested in the subject, would not have the patience to go after. So, I learn with them.
Hope that i did not offend you for it is not my intention.

 

[Mort_Alz]

No, you did not offend me, but perhaps you confused my intentions or the reason for the questions. It is not a Protestant objection, but an East-West ecumenical dialogue question.

 

[GaryTaylor]

How so? I believe this came up in the Non Section. Authority in the Church. I didn’t pay much attention to it.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Pope St. Clement I is very commonly discussed between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox as ecumenically worthy of notice because it is early enough that we both accept him as a saint and his letter is unanimously accepted as authentic. It is good for East-West dialogue on the nature of the papacy in the earliest times of the Church.

 

[dcointin]

You ask some very good questions, but unfortunately they’re beyond my ability to answer with any confidence. All I could tell you regarding my conclusions about this letter is the following:

1. Pope St. Clement was clearly asked for his invervention as you cited. I have no idea why the Catholic Encyclopedia author of this article would claim otherwise.
2. Pastor letters are not proof of universal jurisdiction. They were written by many bishops to many churches, and do not suggest anything other than a generally concern for the welfare of the whole Church.
3. There is no reference to papal authority or exhortation to submission. This is a typical example:

“Let us then also pray for those who have fallen into any sin, that meekness and humility may be given to them, so that they may submit, not to us, but to the will of God. For in this way they shall secure a fruitful and perfect remembrance from us, with sympathy for them, both in our prayers to God, and our mention of them to the saints. Let us receive correction, beloved, on account of which no one should feel displeased. Those exhortations by which we admonish one another are both good [in themselves] and highly profitable, for they tend to unite us to the will of God.”

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Pope St. Clement I is very commonly discussed between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox as ecumenically worthy of notice because it is early enough that we both accept him as a saint and his letter is unanimously accepted as authentic. It is good for East-West dialogue on the nature of the papacy in the earliest times of the Church.

It seems that I will be forced to study the subject. Thanks.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I agree with dcointin.

We only need to establish St Peter was martyred in Rome and with St Irenaues we have the line of Apostolic Succession which is also confirmed in the works of a few of the “Eastern Saints”.

As I said “if” you read the thread I mention above which BTW is “very long” almost 1000-posts you would see this point discussed [Clement]. This was covered “in depth” and in a circular conversation a “few” times.

However, I didn’t feel the need to establish anything as “authentic” by St Clement since its not needed to establish apostolic succession East or West.

I tend to agree with Pfaffenhoffen also I see no value of “Ecumenical Dialogue” which you mention. “Exactly” how would this help ecumenical dialogue in you opinion?

 

[Mort_Alz]

I never stated that I thought I was contributing to ecumenical dialogue myself. Only that I am interested, that I see this come up a lot, and that I decided to study it for myself, and now I have some questions and posted them here with hopes that, perhaps, some other folks might have some answers to offer.

 

[Mort_Alz]

It seems that I will be forced to study the subject. Thanks.

What makes you say that?

 

[Mort_Alz]

You ask some very good questions, but unfortunately they’re beyond my ability to answer with any confidence. All I could tell you regarding my conclusions about this letter is the following:

1. Pope St. Clement was clearly asked for his invervention as you cited. I have no idea why the Catholic Encyclopedia author of this article would claim otherwise.
2. Pastor letters are not proof of universal jurisdiction. They were written by many bishops to many churches, and do not suggest anything other than a generally concern for the welfare of the whole Church.
3. There is no reference to papal authority or exhortation to submission. This is a typical example:

“Let us then also pray for those who have fallen into any sin, that meekness and humility may be given to them, so that they may submit, not to us, but to the will of God. For in this way they shall secure a fruitful and perfect remembrance from us, with sympathy for them, both in our prayers to God, and our mention of them to the saints. Let us receive correction, beloved, on account of which no one should feel displeased. Those exhortations by which we admonish one another are both good [in themselves] and highly profitable, for they tend to unite us to the will of God.”

With regard to point number 2 as you answered above, I am well aware that there were other pastoral letters written to many churches from people of other churches during Pope St. Clement’s time. However, his letter to the Corinthians is notably different. I can’t think of other instances (in his time) when another church stepped in to solve a specific contention of ecclesiastical matters. (Who do you go to when going to your own bishop is practically impossible?)

And, yes, I agree with you that there is no reference to to papal authority, but there are plenty of exhortations to submission. Before I quote them, I’d like to comment on your quote. The letter is, indeed, brotherly, but you have only given one isolated quote. The entire letter is big-brotherly. Here are some examples:

“You therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts.” (Chapter 57)

“Receive our counsel, and you shall be without repentance.” (Chapter 58)

“If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger…” (Chapter 59)

“Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter.” (Chapter 63)

“Send back speedily to us in peace and with joy these our messengers to you: Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, with Fortunatus; that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for among you, and that we may the more quickly rejoice over the good order re-established among you.” (Chapter 65)

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mort Alz,

Forgive me for the delay in responding.

1. the Catholic Encyclopedia (in their entry about Pope St. Clement I) suggests, when talking about the letter, that “no appeal seems to have been made to Rome.” I, however, found this to be seemingly contradicted in the letter itself. St. Clement writes, “we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us…” why does the Catholic Encyclopedia suggest otherwise?

I have read Absolutist Petrine advocates repeat this claim to support their view that the Pope can act unilaterally in the Church. Obviously, the claim is false, from the letter itself. Dom Chapman, my source for the ins and outs of V1, wrote the CE article. He was definitely no Absolutist Petrine advocate (i.e., neo-ultramontanist), so I don’t believe he had that intention. I can only surmise - 1) Chapman was referring to extra-epistolary evidence for the appeal (i.e., we don’t have the actual document that contained the appeal); 2) Chapman was referring to a formal appeal, which is normally made by a bishop (a member of the clergy, though not a bishop, made the appeal); 3) Chapman is simply taking the words of the epistle literally - the communique to Rome asked for advice on the situation (i.e., “consult”), and did not request an intervention (i.e, appeal). Even if the third option was true, it is still a wonder why Corinth would consult Rome, rather than a closer metropolitan Church or St. John.

1. Are there examples of other churches exercising similar authority around this time? From most of what I’ve read about St. Clement’s letter, this letter is unique in the fact that it is a clear example of one church interfering in a corrective way in another church on ecclesiastical matters with obedience expected. Are there, perhaps, other instances where this happened or is St. Clement’s letter truly unique?

Though there is no evidence of similar letters from other bishops in that time, at least none with an intention to be obeyed, I would not say St. Clement’s letter is unique in its authoritative nature. St. Polycarp was also a head bishop and would have made similar authoritative gestures in Asia Minor. What is unique is that St. Clement was not in the same district, much less the same country, as Corinth.

1. A common Orthodox rebuttal to a Papist’s interpretation of St. Clement is that the letter was simply an exercise of normative bishopric authority as the Corinthian church fell under the episcopate of Rome, anyway. In other words, it was not an example of the Bishop of Rome exercising universal ecclesiastical authority, but simply his authority as an archbishop or patriarch.

The earliest canons of the Church indicate that the hierarchs closest to the region must handle the problems of neighboring Churches. St. Clement was definitely not the closest hierarch to Corinth, so it is indeed a wonder why an appeal or consultation was made all the way to Rome. There were other Pauline churches with bishops, and even St. John was still alive, both closer to Corinth than Rome was. There was definitely something unique about Rome, for even St. Polycarp, head bishop of the Churches in Asia Minor, made the effort to travel to Rome to consult with Pope St. Anicetus about the celebration of Easter.

A common rebuttal to the rebuttal is to say that such an episcopal system did not yet exist at that time. My question is one of mere curiosity as a new Catholic: how do people come by that conclusion? At this point it is just their word against the Orthodox that such a system did not yet exist. What is the reasoning by which people arrive at that conclusion?

Archbishops or Metropolitans may have existed at this time - but the Patriarchal structure did not exist till the 4th cent (that is for certain). We know at least that St. Polycarp was head bishop in Asia Minor, though he may not have had the offical title of “Metropolitan.” The archbishop of Alexandria also possessed metropolical jurisdiction long before the 4th century. The Orthodox claim that Rome had natural episcopal jurisdiction over Corinth does not make sense - each province normally had its own primate, and Rome was certainly not in the same province as Corinth.

1. Even if it was an exercise of universal ecclesiastical authority, how do we know it was an exercise of divinely granted authority? Even if the Orthodox concede to all of the above points, they will often say that the reason Corinth still appealed to Rome and not to John the Evangelist on Patmos or the sister church of Pauline origins in Ephesus is that Paul was martyred in Rome and it was a simple, natural development that Rome was the center of ecclesiastical authority and not a divine institution. How would that be answered?

The papacy is of divine institution because it was Christ who set St. Peter as the coryphaeus of the Apostles. According to Christ’s own will, a head of the apostolic college must exist. As the apostolic college had a head (St. Peter) in Christ’s time, so does the apostolic college today (our bishops) have a head (St. Peter’s successor in Rome). Christ exhorted the Apostles before his Passion: “Who is the faithful and wise servant whom the Master will set over his household to feed it when he leaves?” That exhortation asserts the servant would still exist when the Master returns on Judgment Day. Are Christ’s own words for naught? Whatever has occurred has been the providence of God to fulfill Christ’s words about the servant set over his household to feed it. Orthodox can view the prominence of Rome as a mere circumstance of history, but we know that it is God who controls history.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mort_Alz]

Dear brother Mort Alz,

Forgive me for the delay in responding.

I have read Absolutist Petrine advocates repeat this claim to support their view that the Pope can act unilaterally in the Church. Obviously, the claim is false, from the letter itself. Dom Chapman, my source for the ins and outs of V1, wrote the CE article. He was definitely no Absolutist Petrine advocate (i.e., neo-ultramontanist), so I don’t believe he had that intention. I can only surmise - 1) Chapman was referring to extra-epistolary evidence for the appeal (i.e., we don’t have the actual document that contained the appeal); 2) Chapman was referring to a formal appeal, which is normally made by a bishop (a member of the clergy, though not a bishop, made the appeal); 3) Chapman is simply taking the words of the epistle literally - the communique to Rome asked for advice on the situation (i.e., “consult”), and did not request an intervention (i.e, appeal). Even if the third option was true, it is still a wonder why Corinth would consult Rome, rather than a closer metropolitan Church or St. John.

Though there is no evidence of similar letters from other bishops in that time, at least none with an intention to be obeyed, I would not say St. Clement’s letter is unique in its authoritative nature. St. Polycarp was also a head bishop and would have made similar authoritative gestures in Asia Minor. What is unique is that St. Clement was not in the same district, much less the same country, as Corinth.

The earliest canons of the Church indicate that the hierarchs closest to the region must handle the problems of neighboring Churches. St. Clement was definitely not the closest hierarch to Corinth, so it is indeed a wonder why an appeal or consultation was made all the way to Rome. There were other Pauline churches with bishops, and even St. John was still alive, both closer to Corinth than Rome was. There was definitely something unique about Rome, for even St. Polycarp, head bishop of the Churches in Asia Minor, made the effort to travel to Rome to consult with Pope St. Anicetus about the celebration of Easter.

Archbishops or Metropolitans may have existed at this time - but the Patriarchal structure did not exist till the 4th cent (that is for certain). We know at least that St. Polycarp was head bishop in Asia Minor, though he may not have had the offical title of “Metropolitan.” The archbishop of Alexandria also possessed metropolical jurisdiction long before the 4th century. The Orthodox claim that Rome had natural episcopal jurisdiction over Corinth does not make sense - each province normally had its own primate, and Rome was certainly not in the same province as Corinth.

The papacy is of divine institution because it was Christ who set St. Peter as the coryphaeus of the Apostles. According to Christ’s own will, a head of the apostolic college must exist. As the apostolic college had a head (St. Peter) in Christ’s time, so does the apostolic college today (our bishops) have a head (St. Peter’s successor in Rome). Christ exhorted the Apostles before his Passion: “Who is the faithful and wise servant whom the Master will set over his household to feed it when he leaves?” That exhortation asserts the servant would still exist when the Master returns on Judgment Day. Are Christ’s own words for naught? Whatever has occurred has been the providence of God to fulfill Christ’s words about the servant set over his household to feed it. Orthodox can view the prominence of Rome as a mere circumstance of history, but we know that it is God who controls history.

Blessings,
Marduk

No problems with the delay. I thank you for responding at all. The answers are greatly appreciated. I do wonder, however, can you shoot me to a source where you get the conclusion that “the earliest canons of the Church indicate that the hierarchs closest to the region must handle the problems of neighboring Churches”?

 

[Dollinger]

even St. John was still alive, both closer to Corinth than Rome was.

St John was exiled, he had no capacity to do anything at that moment.

St. Clement was definitely not the closest hierarch to Corinth, so it is indeed a wonder why an appeal or consultation was made all the way to Rome.

Wladimir guettee explains:

Now, it is unquestionable, 1st. That St. Clement was not Bishop of Rome when he wrote to the Corinthians. 2d. That in this matter, he did not act of’ his own authority, but in the name of the Church at Rome, and from motives of charity.
The letter signed by St. Clement was written A.D. 69, immediately after the persecution by Nero, which took place between the years 64 and 68, as all learned men agree. Many scholars, accepting as an indisputable fact that the letter to the Corinthians was written while Clement was Bishop of Rome, assign its date to the reign of Domitian. But Clement only succeeded Anencletus in the See of Rome, in the twelfth year of Domitian’s reign, that is to Say, A.D. 93, and held this See until A.D. 102. The testimony of Eusebius leaves no doubt upon this point.*
Now, it may be seen from the letter itself that it was written after a persecution; if it be pretended that this persecution was that of Domitian, then the letter must be dated in the last years of the first century, since it was chiefly in the years 95 and 96 that the persecution of Domitian took place. Now, it is easy to see from the letter itself, that it was written before that time, for it speaks of the Jewish sacrifices as still existing in the temple of Jerusalem. The temple was destroyed with the city of Jerusalem, by Titus, A.D. 70. Hence, the letter must have been written before that year. Besides, the letter was written after some

• Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Book III. chaps. xiii., xv., xxxiv.
  18
  persecution, in which had suffered, at Rome, some very illustrious martyrs. There was nothing of the kind in the persecution of Domitian. The persecution of Nero lasted from the year 64 to the year 68. Hence it follows, that the letter to the Corinthians could only have been written in the year 69, that is to say, TWENTY-FOUR YEARS before Clement was Bishop of Rome.
  In presence of this simple calculation what becomes of the stress laid by the partisans of Papal sovereignty, upon the importance of this document as emanating from Pope St. Clement?
  Even if it could be shown that the letter of St. Clement, was written during his episcopate, this would prove nothing, because this letter was not written by him by virtue of a superior and personal authority possessed by him, but from mere charity, and in the name of the Church at Rome. Let us hear Eusebius upon this subject :
  “Of this Clement there is one epistle extant, acknowledged as genuine, . . . . which he wrote in the name of the Church at Rome to that of Corinth, at the time when there was a dissension in the latter. This we know to have been publicly read, for common benefit, in most of the churches, both in former times and in our own; and that at the time mentioned, a sedition did take place at Corinth, is abundantly attested by Hegesippus.”*
  Eusebius, further on, recurs to the letter of Clement, and again remarks that it was written in the name of the Church at Rome. † He could not say more explicitly, that Clement did not in this matter act of his own authority, by virtue of any power be individually possessed. Nothing in the letter itself gives a suspicion of such authority. It thus commences: " The Church of God which is at Rome, to the Church of God which is at Corinth." The writer speaks of the Ecclesiastical Ministry, in relation to several Priests whom the Corinthians had rejected most unjustly; he looks upon this Ministry as wholly derived from the Apostolic Succession, attributing neither to himself nor to others any Primacy in it.
  There is every reason to believe that St. Clement draughted this letter to the Corinthians. From the first centuries it has been considered as his work. It was not as Bishop of Rome, but as a disciple of the Apostles, that he wrote it. Without having been charged with the government of the Roman Church he had been made Bishop by St. Peter, and had been the companion of St. Paul in many of his Apostolic visitations. **It may be, that he had worked with St. Paul for the conversion of the Corinthians. It was natural, therefore, that he should be commissioned to draw up the letter of the Church of Rome to a Church of which he had been one of the founders. **And so, Clement speaks to them in the name of the Apostles, and above all of St. Paul, who bad begotten them to the faith. Even had he written to them as Bishop of Rome, it would not be possible to infer any thing from this in favour of his universal authority. St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenæus of Lyons, St. Dionysius of Alexandria, have written letters to divers churches, not excepting that of Rome, without thereby pretending to any other authority than that they possessed as bishops, to do GOD’S work in all places.
  Nothing can properly be inferred, either from the letter itself or from the circumstances under which it was written, that should make this proceeding on the part of the Corinthians appear in the light of an acknowledgment of any superior authority in the Bishop or the Church of Rome ; or this answer in the light of an authoritative act. The Corinthians addressed themselves to a Church where dwelt the fellow-labourers of St. Paul, their father in the faith; and that Church, through Clement as her organ, recommended peace and concord to them, without the least pretension to any authority whatever.
• Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Book III. chap. xvi.
  † Ibid. chap. xxxviii.
  19

 

[Dollinger]

St John was exiled, he had no capacity to do anything at that moment.

Wladimir guettee explains:

Thus, in the intervention of Clement, no proof can be found to support the pretended authority of the Bishops of Rome. Clement was the deputy of the clergy of Rome in that affair, chosen because of his capacity, his former connection with the Corinthians, his relation with the Apostles, and the influence he had for these various reasons. But he did not act as Bishop of Rome, much less as having authority over the Church of Corinth.

orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/Guettee_ThePapacy.pdf

I dont understand what is the point with Clement’s epistle? We dont get close to Vatican I with it, not a little bit.

 

[dcointin]

Dear brother Mort Alz,

Forgive me for the delay in responding.

I have read Absolutist Petrine advocates repeat this claim to support their view that the Pope can act unilaterally in the Church. Obviously, the claim is false, from the letter itself. Dom Chapman, my source for the ins and outs of V1, wrote the CE article. He was definitely no Absolutist Petrine advocate (i.e., neo-ultramontanist), so I don’t believe he had that intention. I can only surmise - 1) Chapman was referring to extra-epistolary evidence for the appeal (i.e., we don’t have the actual document that contained the appeal); 2) Chapman was referring to a formal appeal, which is normally made by a bishop (a member of the clergy, though not a bishop, made the appeal); 3) Chapman is simply taking the words of the epistle literally - the communique to Rome asked for advice on the situation (i.e., “consult”), and did not request an intervention (i.e, appeal). Even if the third option was true, it is still a wonder why Corinth would consult Rome, rather than a closer metropolitan Church or St. John.

Though there is no evidence of similar letters from other bishops in that time, at least none with an intention to be obeyed, I would not say St. Clement’s letter is unique in its authoritative nature. St. Polycarp was also a head bishop and would have made similar authoritative gestures in Asia Minor. What is unique is that St. Clement was not in the same district, much less the same country, as Corinth.

The earliest canons of the Church indicate that the hierarchs closest to the region must handle the problems of neighboring Churches. St. Clement was definitely not the closest hierarch to Corinth, so it is indeed a wonder why an appeal or consultation was made all the way to Rome. There were other Pauline churches with bishops, and even St. John was still alive, both closer to Corinth than Rome was. There was definitely something unique about Rome, for even St. Polycarp, head bishop of the Churches in Asia Minor, made the effort to travel to Rome to consult with Pope St. Anicetus about the celebration of Easter.

Archbishops or Metropolitans may have existed at this time - but the Patriarchal structure did not exist till the 4th cent (that is for certain). We know at least that St. Polycarp was head bishop in Asia Minor, though he may not have had the offical title of “Metropolitan.” The archbishop of Alexandria also possessed metropolical jurisdiction long before the 4th century. The Orthodox claim that Rome had natural episcopal jurisdiction over Corinth does not make sense - each province normally had its own primate, and Rome was certainly not in the same province as Corinth.

The papacy is of divine institution because it was Christ who set St. Peter as the coryphaeus of the Apostles. According to Christ’s own will, a head of the apostolic college must exist. As the apostolic college had a head (St. Peter) in Christ’s time, so does the apostolic college today (our bishops) have a head (St. Peter’s successor in Rome). Christ exhorted the Apostles before his Passion: “Who is the faithful and wise servant whom the Master will set over his household to feed it when he leaves?” That exhortation asserts the servant would still exist when the Master returns on Judgment Day. Are Christ’s own words for naught? Whatever has occurred has been the providence of God to fulfill Christ’s words about the servant set over his household to feed it. Orthodox can view the prominence of Rome as a mere circumstance of history, but we know that it is God who controls history.

Blessings,
Marduk

Can you provide a citation for that scriptural quotation? I’d like to read it in context.

I agree with you that there must have been a good reason for the Corinthians to write to Pope St. Clement for advice, but I disagree that it must have been due to his universal primacy. No one disputes that Rome was acknowledged as the first see, and not long before saw the martyrdom of the two greatest apostles, Sts. Peter and Paul. Rome was also remote from Corinth and so not likely to be biased in its assessment of their situation. I believe these reasons are sufficient to explain this letter. I also again would note that there is no exhortation to obedience to Rome as having authority over them. If this were the case from the earliest times, why don’t we find explicit references to this often?

God bless,

Don

 

[Dollinger]

Christ exhorted the Apostles before his Passion: “Who is the faithful and wise servant whom the Master will set over his household to feed it when he leaves?” That exhortation asserts the servant would still exist when the Master returns on Judgment Day. Are Christ’s own words for naught?

And in the next verses, Christ said:

But if that slave says in his heart, ‘My master will be a long time in coming,’ and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk; 46the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

End the verse just before reads:

** 41Peter said, “Lord, are You addressing this parable to us, or to everyone else as well?” **

Nothing personal about Peter, it is about the “US”, all the apostles, with Jesus replying with the singular servant, as a type of the Apostle and then of the bishop.

Now, st Cyril of Alexandria commentary on this passage:

And what is our Lord’s reply? He makes use of a clear and very evident example, to show that the commandment especially belongs to those who occupy a more dignified position, and have been admitted into the rank of teachers. “For who, He says, is the faithful and wise servant, whom his lord will set over his household, to give the allowance of food at its |431 season,” ‘Let us suppose, He says, a householder; who being about to go upon a journey, has entrusted to one of his faithful slaves the charge of all his house, to give his household, that is, his servants, their allowance of corn at its due season. When therefore, He says, he shall return, if on coming to his house he shall find him so doing as he commanded, very blessed shall that servant be. For he will set him, He says, over all that he has. But if he be neglectful and indolent, and take pleasure in oppressing his fellow-servants, eating and drinking, and given up to self-indulgent voluptuousness, he will be cut asunder, that is, will have to bear the severest punishment, when his lord shall come to him in a day that he expects not, and at an hour of which he is not aware.’

Such then is the simple and plain meaning of the passage: but if we now fix our mind accurately upon it, we shall see what is signified by it, and how useful it is for their benefit who have been called to the apostleship, to the office, that is, of teacher. The Saviour has ordained** as stewards, so to speak, over his servants;----that is, over those who have been won by faith to the acknowledgment of His glory;----men faithful and of great understanding, and well instructed in the sacred doctrines. And He has ordained them, commanding them to give their fellow-servants** their allowance of food; and that not simply and without distinction, but rather at its proper season: by which is meant such food, I mean spiritual food, as is sufficient and fitting for each individual. For it is not fitting to address simply to all who have believed in Christ instruction upon all points; for it is written, “With knowledge learn the souls of your flock.” For very different is the way in which we establish in the paths of truth one who has but just now become a disciple, using simple teaching, in which there is nothing profound nor difficult to understand, counselling him to escape from the error of polytheism, and fittingly persuading him to discern by the beauty of things created, the universal Creator and Artificer, Who is One by nature, and verily God: from the way in which we instruct those who are more confirmed in mind, and able to understand what is the height and depth, and what the length and breadth, of the definitions of |432 the supreme Godhead. For as we have already said, " Solid meat belongs to them that are full grown."

**Whoever **therefore shall wisely in due season, and according to their need, divide to his fellow-servants their portion, that is, their food, very blessed shall he be, according to the Saviour’s word. For he shall be counted worthy of still greater things, and shall receive a suitable recompense for his fidelity. “For he will set him, He says, over all that he has.” And this the Saviour has elsewhere taught us, where praising the active and faithful servant, He said, “O good and faithful servant, you have been faithful over few things, I will set you over many things: enter into the joy of your lord.”

 

[Dollinger]

And in the next verses, Christ said:

But if that slave says in his heart, ‘My master will be a long time in coming,’ and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk; 46the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

End the verse just before reads:

** 41Peter said, “Lord, are You addressing this parable to us, or to everyone else as well?” **

Nothing personal about Peter, it is about the “US”, all the apostles, with Jesus replying with the singular servant, as a type of the Apostle and then of the bishop.

Now, st Cyril of Alexandria commentary on this passage:

But if, He says, neglecting the duty of being diligent and faithful, and despising watchfulness in these things as superfluous, he let his mind grow intoxicated with worldly cares, and is seduced into improper courses, dragging by force, and oppressing those who are subject to him, and not giving them their portion, in utter wretchedness shall he be. For this I think, and this only, is the meaning of his being cut asunder. “And his portion too,” He says, “shall be with the unbelievers.” For whosoever has done wrong to the glory of Christ, or ventured to think slightingly of the flock entrusted to his charge, differs in no respect whatsoever from those who know Him not: and all such persons will justly be counted among those who have no love for Him. For Christ even once said to the blessed Peter, " Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me? feed My sheep; feed My lambs." If therefore he who feeds his flock loves it, then of course he that neglects it, and leaves the flock that has been entrusted to him without oversight, hates it: and if he hate it he will be punished, and be liable to the condemnation pronounced upon the unbelievers, as being convicted by the very facts of being negligent and contemptuous. Such was he who received the talent to trade with in things spiritual, and did not do so, but on the contrary brought that which had been given him without increase, saying, “Lord, I knew that you are a hard man, that you reap where others have sown, and gather whence others have scattered; and I was afraid, and hid the talent: lo! you have what is yours.” But those who had |433 received the five talents, or even yet more, and laboured and loved service, were honoured with glorious dignities. For they heard, the one of them, “Be you over ten,” and the other, “Be you over five cities:” while that contumelious and slothful servant suffered the severest condemnation. To be negligent therefore in discharging the duties of the ministry is everywhere dangerous, or rather, brings upon men perdition: but to perform them with unwearying zeal earns for us life and glory. And this means to discourse to our fellow servants correctly and without error the things which relate to God, and whatsoever is able to benefit them in attaining both to the knowledge and the ability to walk uprightly. And the blessed Paul [Peter] also writes to certain persons, “Feed the flock of God which is among you, that when the Chief Shepherd shall appear, you may receive your reward.” And as knowing that slothfulness is the door of perdition, he again said, “Woe is me, if I preach not.”
And that bitter and inevitable punishment is threatened against those who are slothful in this duty, the Saviour immediately showed, by adding to what had been already said two examples one after the other. “For the servant,” He says, “who knew his master’s will, and did it not, neither prepared according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes: but he who knew it not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.” Now the guilt is indisputable in the case of him who knew his master’s will, but afterwards neglected it, and did nothing that was fitting, and which it was his duty to do. For it is manifest contumely, and therefore the many stripes. But for what reason were the few stripes inflicted on him who neither knew nor did his master’s will? For some one, for instance, may say, How can he who knew it not be guilty? (…)
Very severe therefore is the condemnation of those who teach. And this Christ’s disciple shows us, saying, “Let there not be many teachers among you, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.” **For abundant is the bestowal of spiritual gifts upon those who are the chiefs of the people: for so the wise Paul also somewhere wrote to the blessed Timothy; “The Lord shall give you wisdom in every thing.” **And, “Despise not the gift that is in you, which was given you by the laying on of my hands.” From such as these then, the Saviour of all, in that He has given them much, requires much in return. And what are the virtues He requires? Constancy in the faith; correctness in teaching; to be well grounded in hope; unwavering in patience; invincible in spiritual strength; cheerful and brave in every more excellent achievement: that so we may be examples to others of the evangelic life. For if we will thus live, Christ will bestow upon us the crown; by Whom and with Whom, to God the Father be praise and dominion, with the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever, Amen. |435 tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_luke_09_sermons_89_98.htm

St Cyril uses Timothy as an example of the faithfull servant. He didnt see the papacy in thoses verses, nor vatican I.