Why isnt clement 1 canon?

[wiggbuggie]

anyone have the book mass of the early christians? awesome book I would highly recommend it and my question is on the chapter they speak on clement his letter was high revered by the early church and passed around. Not to mention the date written is quite old dating between 60-70 ad? anyone have any book recomendations on how the bible was put together? which books were left out or at one point considering which to put in?

 

[fermat]

This ought to get you started. It’s a great read (linked):

Where We Got The Bible by Henry Graham.

 

[JamestheOlder]

This ought to get you started. It’s a great read (linked):

Where We Got The Bible by Henry Graham.

What a great article. I book-marked it for future reference. Thank you!

So, to answer the basic question from the OP, there was really no “denial” of the Epistle of Clement, but that he was not considered to be an “original” Apostle. Still important, but not part of the “inspired” writing from someone directly connected (by sight and teaching) to Jesus

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Here is article on Clement in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

newadvent.org/cathen/04045a.htm

There is a section in there that talks about how some of his writings were never really regarded highly. Here is a section from that article:

Pope Gelasius in the catalogue attributed to him mentions Clement’s works, but adds, “they are in no case to be received amongst us”. Photius in the “Bibliotheca” censures a list of errors drawn from his writings, but shows a kindly feeling towards Clement, assuming that the original text had been tampered with…when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Pope Clement VIII his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of Cardinal Baronius. Benedict XIV maintained this decision of his predecessor on the grounds that Clement’s life was little known that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church, and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least suspect.

So it seems that his writings were in question very early on in the church, which is probably why they did not make it into the canon.

 

[twf]

Here is article on Clement in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

newadvent.org/cathen/04045a.htm

There is a section in there that talks about how some of his writings were never really regarded highly. Here is a section from that article:

So it seems that his writings were in question very early on in the church, which is probably why they did not make it into the canon.

Jonathon - the OP is referring to St. Clement of Rome, not Clement of Alexandria. St. Clement of Rome is revered as one of our first popes, and his name, in fact, is honored at every mass according to the Extraordinary Form in the Roman Canon (as well as in Eucharistic Prayer I of the Ordinary Form of the mass). His epistle is actually part of the Ethiopian Orthodox canon. Why it did not make it into the universal canon of the Catholic Church I can not say.

 

[thistle]

anyone have the book mass of the early christians? awesome book I would highly recommend it and my question is on the chapter they speak on clement his letter was high revered by the early church and passed around. Not to mention the date written is quite old dating between 60-70 ad? anyone have any book recomendations on how the bible was put together? which books were left out or at one point considering which to put in?

ntcanon.org/index.shtml

I Clement (95-96 CE)

The 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. The letter reveals something of both the circumstances and attitudes of the Roman Christians, and how they differ from those of their fellow Christians in Asia Minor to whom the Revelation of John was addressed. Whereas in the Revelation of John, Rome is presented as the great harlot whose attacks upon the Church must be resisted, in I Clement one finds a much more positive view of the Roman government, and the elements of peace, harmony, and order that are so important to the author of this letter reflect some of the fundamental values of Roman society.

While the letter, which was sent on behalf of the whole church, does not name its writer, well-attested ancient tradition identifies it as the work of Clement, although precisely who he is is not clear. Tradition identifies him as the 3rd bishop of Rome after Peter, but this is unlikely because the office of monarchical bishop, in the sense intended by this later tradition, does not appear to have existed in Rome at this time.

Despite the popularity of this document in antiquity, relatively few manuscripts have survived. It was not until 1873 that a complete copy of the text was discovered by Bryennios in codex Hierosolymitanus that also includes II Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, and the Didache. The sources for the English translation in [LHH] 28-64 are:

codex Alexandrinus (5th century, lacks 57.7-63.4)
codex Hierosolymitanus (1056 CE)
Latin translation (in a single 11th century MS)
Syriac translation (in a New Testament MS, 1169-70 CE)
Coptic translation (in 2 MSS, 4th and 7th century)

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Jonathon - the OP is referring to St. Clement of Rome, not Clement of Alexandria. St. Clement of Rome is revered as one of our first popes, and his name, in fact, is honored at every mass according to the Extraordinary Form in the Roman Canon (as well as in Eucharistic Prayer I of the Ordinary Form of the mass). His epistle is actually part of the Ethiopian Orthodox canon. Why it did not make it into the universal canon of the Catholic Church I can not say.

Oh, my apologies for misunderstanding. I thought that was what was being referred to. I have heard that the Ethiopian Church has some other epistles that are part of their canon, but did not know they had one called Clement 1. I guess I don’t know enough about it either…is there a link to read the epistle online somewhere? I’d like to read the epistle. I’m sure there must be a valid reason for the Church to exclude it.

Thanks for letting me know I was thinking of the wrong guy, twf

EDIT:
Here is the link in the Catholic Encyclopedia that talks about him:

newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm

It looks like they talk about his epistle at great length. I have not read it entirely as of this posting, but I skimmed through it. It looks like the probable reason for it not being included is this:

There is little intentional dogmatic teaching in the Epistle, for it is almost wholly hortatory (urging and encouraging them).

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Clement is considered one of the Church Fathers. All of the writings of the Fathers are on newadvent.org.

 

[twf]

Yes, you can actually read it on the same website that you just referenced .

newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

 

[john_aurelius]

1 Clement was so respected in the early Church it set off a chain of apocryphal writings known as the Pseudo-Clementines.

It is possible Paul mentions him within the text of the NT so similarly to Luke it is possible to see why the Ethiopian Church has it in its canon.

There is nothing in it to suggest that it is not beneficial to the souls of Catholics as the exhotation of one of our Popes to the Church in Corinth.:twocents:

An excellent example of early Christian faith and practice even if its not in the :bible1:

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Yes, you can actually read it on the same website that you just referenced .

newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

Now why didn’t I see it? Thanks!

 

[JonathonofOhio]

I’m reading it, and one of the things that doesn’t sit well with me is his reference to the mythological bird called “the Phoenix” as a sign of the resurrection. This is from Egyptian and Greek Mythology, and no such bird ever really existed. So I would think that this is perhaps one reason it was not included.

From Chapter 25
Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phœnix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the deed bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.

 

[bjmad]

I found this about the Phoenix. Might help to explain.

"Wherever it is found, the phoenix is associated with resurrection, immortality, triumph over adversity, and that which rises out of the ashes. Thus it became a favorite symbol on early Christian tombstones. In chapters 25-26 of his letter to the Corinthians, St. Clement, Bishop of Rome, upheld the legendary phoenix as an evidence of Christ’s ability to accomplish
the resurrection of the faithful. He quotes Job as saying, “Thou shalt raise up this flesh of mine, which has suffered all these things.”

In numerous ways, the phoenix was found to be a symbol of Christ. In most countries, it was believed that only one phoenix lived at a time. It was born from itself without following the natural laws of reproduction. During the Middle Ages, it was believed to rise from the dead after three days. Often, as an emblem of Christ, it was found with the palm tree (another symbol of resurrection) or carrying a palm branch (a symbol of triumph over death), or carrying an olive branch (a symbol of God’s peace offered to humans).

The Phoenix is symbolic of rebirth, hope, purity, chastity, marriage, faith, constancy, summer, eternity, immortality, and light. It is an image of the cosmic fire some believe the world began and will end in. The Taoists called it the “cinnabar bird.” Romans placed the phoenix on coins and medals as an emblem of their desire for the Roman Empire to last forever."

 

[NHInsider]

I’m reading it, and one of the things that doesn’t sit well with me is his reference to the mythological bird called “the Phoenix” as a sign of the resurrection. This is from Egyptian and Greek Mythology, and no such bird ever really existed. So I would think that this is perhaps one reason it was not included.

No, it really was not included because it was not Apostolic in origin.

The fact that Pope Clement repeated the legend of the Phoenix and saw it as symbolic of the Resurrection would not have “disqualified” his writings any more than the quotation from Mark 4:31 “proves” that the Bible isn’t accurate or that Jesus wasn’t God because there are smaller seeds than mustard seeds, or that the Bible is wrong because of references to the “four corners of the earth.” To insist that the Bible’s remarks on the material world must be completely consistent with modern science in order for it to be “true” is to demand of the text something that is not what the Church teaches or what the Scriptures claim for themselves.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

In his History of the Church, completed the year A.D. 324, before the Council of Nicaea in 325, Eusebius, Bishop of Caesaria, lists 1 Clement as Recognized, and Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation as Disputed. By the end of the fourth century when the canon was selected, all the Disputed writings were accepted, but 1 Clement didn’t make the cut.

Why? As has been said, Clement wasn’t an Apostle or a close disciple of an Apostle, one of the criterions for canonization.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

No, it really was not included because it was not Apostolic in origin.

The fact that Pope Clement repeated the legend of the Phoenix and saw it as symbolic of the Resurrection would not have “disqualified” his writings any more than the quotation from Mark 4:31 “proves” that the Bible isn’t accurate or that Jesus wasn’t God because there are smaller seeds than mustard seeds, or that the Bible is wrong because of references to the “four corners of the earth.” To insist that the Bible’s remarks on the material world must be completely consistent with modern science in order for it to be “true” is to demand of the text something that is not what the Church teaches or what the Scriptures claim for themselves.

I wasn’t saying that scripture has to be consistent with modern science. I was simply speculating on why it may not have been included since I cannot find any information detailing a logical explanation why it was not. I saw that, and figured it might be one reason among, perhaps, a few.

Why? As has been said, Clement wasn’t an Apostle or a close disciple of an Apostle, one of the criterions for canonization.

I understood from the article at newadvent.org that he knew Paul, and traveled with him. Tertullian wrote that he was ordained by Peter, and St. Jerome said that “most of the Latins” regarded him as Peter’s immediate successor (though St. Jerome states that actually there were 2 others before him). So that didn’t count? I guess not

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I wasn’t saying that scripture has to be consistent with modern science. I was simply speculating on why it may not have been included since I cannot find any information detailing a logical explanation why it was not. I saw that, and figured it might be one reason among, perhaps, a few.

I understood from the article at newadvent.org that he knew Paul, and traveled with him. Tertullian wrote that he was ordained by Peter, and St. Jerome said that “most of the Latins” regarded him as Peter’s immediate successor (though St. Jerome states that actually there were 2 others before him). So that didn’t count? I guess not

It didn’t ‘count’ because canon of scripture didn’t depend on ‘who was who’ or how popular the writing was. . .it depended on what the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church to determine as inerrant, God-breathed Scripture and not simply good, or even great, inspiration writing of MEN.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

It didn’t ‘count’ because canon of scripture didn’t depend on ‘who was who’ or how popular the writing was. . .it depended on what the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church to determine as inerrant, God-breathed Scripture and not simply good, or even great, inspiration writing of MEN.

This is true…so I guess it’s just a mystery as to why the Holy Spirit decided to guide the church into excluding it from the canon. I guess it really doesn’t matter, since we do have access to it anyway.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

This is true…so I guess it’s just a mystery as to why the Holy Spirit decided to guide the church into excluding it from the canon. I guess it really doesn’t matter, since we do have access to it anyway.

Well, the Holy Spirit didn’t find the Didache to be inerrant God-breathed Scripture either. Very interesting (like Clement), just not inerrant Scripture. Guess we have to trust He knows best!

 

[wiggbuggie]

Yes, you can actually read it on the same website that you just referenced .

newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

thanks for the site! not only it has clement 1 but a whole bunch of other letters and early church fathers does anyone have any books from this series?

amazon.com/Epistles-Clement-Ignatius-Antioch-Christian/dp/080910038X/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1307288261&sr=1-5

is the translation good is it like on newadvent? since i dont like to read on my comp I would prefer a book and I’m very interested in these, new testament is too short