Saint Clement of Rome, Pope

[YADA]

“The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth, to those who are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace and peace from almighty God be multiplied unto you through Jesus Christ. Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknoledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters of dispute among you, beloved; especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foriegn to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed.”

Editorial note: William Jurgens notes that the calamities and misfortunes probably refers to the erutption of Mt Vesuvuis in AD 79, dating this letter around AD 80

Continued next post

 

[YADA]

“Shameful, beloved, extremely shameful and unworthy of your training in Christ, is the report that on account of one or two persons the well-established and ancient Church of the Corintians is in revolt against the presbyters. And this report has come not only to us, but even to those professing other faiths than ours, so that by your folly you heap blashemies on the name of the Lord, and create a danger for yourselves.”

AND

“You, therefore, who laid the foundation of the rebellion, submit to the presbyters and be chastened to repetence, bending your knees in a spirit of humilty”

AND

“Accept our council and you will have nothing to regret…”

AND

“If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. …”

AND

*"You will afford us joy and gladness if, being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy in accord with the plea for peace and concord which we have made in this letter."
*

**A pastoral letter from the Pope, to the Church in Corinth. Instuction to follow the local leaders and remain one with the *universal Church… ***

**AD 80 +/- **

 

[BrianH]

Hello Yada
The dating of Clements letter to 80 CE is possible. It is also possible that it could have been 15 years later you would agree?

I know that people like to cite Clement has an example of Roman authority.
In this letter, Clement is actually rather clear about the where the authority rests. Notice he never, ever, never says anything about Roman primacy.

*1Clem 44:1
And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would
be strife over the name of the bishop’s office.

1Clem 44:2
For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge,
they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a
continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men
should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were
appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the
consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the
flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all
modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all these
men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration.

1Clem 44:3
For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have
offered the gifts of the bishop’s office unblamably and holily.

1Clem 44:4
Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their
departure was fruitful and ripe: for they have no fear lest any one
should remove them from their appointed place.*

What does Clement really do in his letter? Well mostly cite scripture. Perhaps people contend the simple fact that he wrote a letter to Corinth is an example of Roman primacy?

"Of course, if we were to conclude that the Roman church had papal authority because it taught and influenced other churches, we would also have to conclude that Paul, John, Jude, James, Ignatius, Polycarp, Cyprian, and other church leaders were Popes, since they also sent letters of advice, rebuke, exhortation, etc. to other churches and other church leaders. It was common practice among the early Christians to do so. Did the Roman church advise the Corinthian church? Paul likewise advised the Roman church, and Polycarp advised the Philippians on a matter of discipline within their church. "

The editing of the verses you provided are an interesting choice, I would encourage anyone who is reading this to take the time to read the whole letter and make your own judgement about the verses selected…and more importantly the nature of how they have been edited from their context.
Great topic, I applaud you for starting a thread.
Brian

 

[BrianH]

I guess this is one of the reasons with citing this letter as an example of Rome primacy is problematic. Corinth was having a huge issue with submitting to the authority of their leadership. We know that was a huge issue.
The most a person who asserts Rome’s primacy could say is that Corinth must have “assumed” Roman primacy. Well, if all the 60 plus chapters are geared towards righting this wrong, it seems if Clement was asserting the primacy of his office as Bishop of Rome, or an early papacy, he would have stated so.
Instead when you read the whole letter, you get an overwhelming(at least for me) sense of a person who is pleading with Corinth to see the error of their ways.
Make no mistake, the Bishop of Rome is a powerful powerful person who knew the Apostles first hand I would contend. Clement had every right and the prestige to write letters, like others around him did as well…but a Pope?
More later
Brian

 

[YADA]

BrianH

I was not attempting to cherry pick the letter, I do not have on line source to cut and paste. Ergo, I have to type the quotes and my typing is slow at best. Please do not think that I had an alterior motive. I was trying to identify the paragraphs that illustrated a corrective tone. Much like we see in what is written from Rome to the Church at large today, not quote the scripture passages refered to by Clement.

I also stated [or meant to] that there was discussion regarding where St Clement falls in the succession of popes and as to the date of his letter to the Corintians. I find the arguments for the dates suggested by Jurgens persuasive. One has to look at the basis for dating and go from there…

Later writers have listed the popes including Clement. With that identification as to position comes recognition that the positioned was acceted by at least some early C hristians, even if you do not wholly accept the authority and role.

As to tone, I have found writings by modern popes including Pope John Paul II to be persuasive and much less authoritative than one might believe when one thinks about the office of pope. The pope is afterall the Bishop of Rome and by that office as the successor to the See of Peter recognized as Pope. The other Bishops are heads of their areas. It is not as if the Pope is Dictator of the Church, just its visible leader. It is such because Peter had a leadership role given him by Jesus.

I thought we could start with the writings of Clement and perhaps the Didache to explore the development of the Church and how it manifests itself in the world upto our time. By exploring how issues were dealt with; whether it is this issue in Corinth or the doctrines and heresies that are to come, we can see how the Church came into being. The eveolution appears to begin with the Acts of the Apostles and continues to the present day.

I do have a business to run, but would enjoy the exercise with others of like mind. Pax Christe

 

[BrianH]

*"The date of I. Clement is fixed by the following considerations. It appears from chapter 5 to be later than the persecution in the time of Nero, and from chapters 42-44 it is clear that the age of the apostles is regarded as past. It can therefore scarcely be older than 75-80 A.D. On the other hand chapter 44 speaks of presbyters who were appointed by the apostles and were still alive, and there is no trace of any of the controversies or persecutions of the second century. It is therefore probably not much later than 100 A.D. If it be assumed that chapter 1, which speaks of trouble and perhaps of persecution, refers to the time of Domitian, it can probably be dated as c. 96 A.D.; but we know very little of the alleged persecution in the time of Domitian, and it would not be prudent to decide that the epistle cannot be another ten or fifteen years later. It is safest to say that it must be dated between 75 and 110 A.D.; but within these limits there is a general agreement among critics to regard as most probable the last decade of the first century. * "
earlychristianwritings.com/1clement-intro.html

“Clement’s pontificate is to be placed between the years 92 and 101. His letter was written after a persecution which appears to be that of Domitian. As this persecution ended in 95 or 96, Clement must have written to the Corinthians between the years 95 and 98. "
earlychristianwritings.com/tixeront/section1-1.html#1clement
*
T"he letter from the Christians in Rome to their fellow believers in Corinth known as I Clement is one of the earliest extant Christian documents outside the New Testament. There is widespread agreement in dating this letter 95-96 CE, in the year of the emperor Domitian or the first of his successor, Nerva.”*
ntcanon.org/I_Clement.shtml

"St. Clement of Rome is believed to have been the fourth bishop of Rome and served during the last decade of the first century. Around 96, he sent a letter from the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, a major city in northeastern Greece and the site of St. Paul’s evangelization."
www2.evansville.

more later
Brian

 

[YADA]

I am trying this again as I lost the post I attempted last night. [After logging in and typing a response, when I hit post, the response disappeared and I was informed that I was no longer signed in. Guess that is sign of slow typing!!!]

The dating of the Letter to the Corinthians is noted by Jurgens to be determined *“for no good reason”; *being so dated based upon the pontificate of St. Clement as being from 92-101 AD. Jurgens dates the letter based upon Chapter 64 where the legates Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Vito are mentioned as the persons responsible for delivering the letter. By identifying these two by their status as freed slaves and common practice with freed slaves; Jurgens concludes that it is far more likely for 60 year olds to make the journey from Rome to Corinth than 80 year olds. This makes the calamities referred to the eruption of Mt Vesuvius in AD 79, which caused fires in Rome, followed by pestilence. Natural calamities not persecution.

One thing I like about Jurgens is that he puts forth the reasons for dating the writings and where he reaches a different conclusion than others states so clearly and why.

What we need to discuss is where this leaves us currently in this discussion. Does the dating of the letter impact the purpose and authority of the letter?

Clement is given the title of Apostolic Father and does that have a role in our discussion?

Also, I am very busy at work [my small business] and with other responsibilities. I am enjoying this but I understand that many threads are fast paced and probably much more entertaining. I do not have the time for extensive keyboarding and as I said, I am not of the cut and paste age. I read and ponder, research and ponder and then read some more. I like to try to understand scriptures and the early writings as they would have been understood by those that first heard them.

We argue about the authority of the Roman Pontiff, but how would the Corinthians have understood Clement and his letter? What about the Bishop of Corinth; did he appeal to Clement as an authority to assist him in bring the community back into a *universal *Church? [The Church of God sojourning in Rome to the Church of God sojourning in Corinth] Where are the clues to that help us understand the thought and culture of the people?

We know that early lists were made specifically of the Bishops of Rome as if that position was of importance, more so than the succession of the Bishops of other places. Why is that and what does that mean. And these are early lists, not something that comes say after the Reformation period.

PAX

 

[BrianH]

YADA,
If you are contending at Papacy of Clement from 92 to 101 and saying the letter was written 80 CE, we MIGHT not need to go much further, because if he was not Bishop of Rome, according to RC beliefs, at the time of the letter, he was not acting as “Pope”.
I am not trying to tax you with an indepth discussion by any means if you are too busy. I do like your style and prefer this kind of discussion
BH

 

[YADA]

BrianH,

Sorry for the delay in response. I worked all weekend except for the time at 2 - Masses on Sunday one for Mass and one for RCIA Dismissal.

Some have placed Clement as Bishop from 92-101. Jurgens makes that date earlier, which is what i was trying to explain. Jurgens dates his pontificate to AD 80, not 92. This is based upon the references to real persons as noted in my post. Clearly this letter is written when Clement is the Bishop of Rome. To my knowledge there are none who dispute that. The question is as to the date. I believe that Jurgens arguement is the most compelling.