Soren1,
I think perhaps if it were possible that you and Richard Anderson could have a conversation, you might find that the issue of “strife for the title [or “dignity”] of bishop” is alluded to throughout Clement’s letter–since that is the main reason he was writing the letter, to encourage the Corinthian members and leaders to re-accept those who had either been called by the apostles or called “afterwards by other men of good repute, with the consent of the whole Church, who have blamelessly ministered to the flock of Christ with humility, quietly, and without illiberality, and who for a long time have obtained a good report from all, these, we think, have been unjustly deposed from the ministry.”
I guess you have agreed that the apostles had “perfect foreknowledge” that this kind of thing (strife over an office) would be an issue. (I don’t think Richard Anderson would disagree, and just because he left out that phrase doesn’t mean he didn’t agree with the phrase.)
I also don’t think Richard Anderson was saying whether the outcome of the letter and the visits sent by Clement succeeded in helping the Corinthian members place the rightful bishops and deacons back into place. His point was that if they didn’t, then there was a loss of authority.
I don’t see why one wouldn’t view the rejection that the Corinthian members had evidently done of some leaders, deposing them and replacing them, does not “fulfill prophecy” if the statement about “perfect foreknowledge” of the apostles is considered true. That was Richard Anderson’s point–that Clement was showing that this “unjustly deposing” of called leaders was fulfilling what the apostles had warned against.
Richard Anderson’s having made the assumption that “Clement seems pessimistic about how long the succession would last” is what would need to be clarified if you and he were to have a conversation, and I think his assumption is not necessarily correct, so I agree that there would need to be clarification on his part as to why he jumped to that assumption.
**Is there historical evidence that the Corinthian members reversed what they had done and placed the bishops and deacons back into office who had been “deposed”? (I’m asking, since I don’t know at all one way or the other. Do you?) **
Yes there is historical evidence that the church at Corinth returned to the fold and that an incidence of local rebellion was corrected by the intervention of the church of Rome. The proper authority won, the rebels lost, the Church continued to fulfill its mission. We know that the epistle of Clement was highly esteemed in the Corinthian Church and was read in the liturgy like scripture was. That would hardly have occurred if the advice of the epistle had been rejected. From fragments of a Letter to the Roman Church by Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth (mid second century, all quotes from
earlychristianwritings.com):
“We passed this holy Lord’s day, in which we read your letter, from the constant reading of which we shall be able to draw admonition, even as from the reading of the former one you sent us written through Clement.”
and
“Therefore you also have by such admonition joined in close union the churches that were planted by Peter and Paul, that of the Romans and that of the Corinthians: for both of them went to our Corinth, and taught us in the same way as they taught you when they went to Italy; and having taught you, they suffered martyrdom at the same time.”
and
“For this has been your custom from the beginning, to do good to all the brethren in various ways, and to send resources to many churches which are in every city, thus refreshing the poverty of the needy, and granting subsidies to the brethren who are in the mines. Through the resources which ye have sent from the beginning, ye Romans, keep up the custom of the Romans handed down by the fathers, which your blessed Bishop Sorer has not only preserved, but added to, sending a splendid gift to the saints, and exhorting with blessed words those brethren who go up to Rome, as an affectionate father to his children.”
Communion was obviously restored to the satisfaction of the church at Rome, which church acted “as an affectionate father to his children.”
Hegesippus in the mid second century (as quoted by Eusibius) states that when he visited the church at Corinth that it continued in the true doctrine, along with all the other churches he visited (including the church at Rome):
"And the church of the Corinthians continued in the orthodox faith up to the time when Primus was bishop in Corinth. I had some intercourse with these brethren on my voyage to Rome, when I spent several days with the Corinthians, during which we were mutually refreshed by the orthodox faith.
On my arrival at Rome, I drew up a list of the succession of bishops down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. To Anicetus succeeded Soter, and after him came Eleutherus. But in the case of every succession, and in every city, the state of affairs is in accordance with the teaching of the Law and of the Prophets and of the Lord"
