O Father and Bishop, you were a branch of the living
vine. O wise one, through the Spirit you produced beautiful clusters of dogmas.
The spirit of the knowledge of God brings salvation. Our hearts rejoice as we
venerate you. O God-bearing, all-blessed Clement!
O Father, as a light-giving sun, you glowed from the
West, brightly illuminating the earth by the radiance of your dogmas and
wounds. You reached the regions of the East, O most blessed one. Your death was
like the setting of the sun. You have shone for Christ, O Clement. Now you
richly and unceasingly are illumined by the rays of the heavenly kingdom.
(Byzantine-Slavonic Menaion for the Feast
of Pope St Clement I, Martyr, November 25)
Now, it is unquestionable, 1st. That St Clement was
not Bishop of Rome when he wrote to the Corinthians. 2nd. 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.
(L’Abbé Guettée, The
Papacy 17)
But if any disobey words spoken by Him [God] through
us, let them know they will involve themselves in transgressions and no small
danger….For you will give us joy and gladness if, obedient to what we have
written through the Holy Spirit, [you act as we have directed you.]
(Pope St Clement I, Epistle to the
Corinthians [A.D. 96])
How the news reached Rome we cannot say, but we
can infer from the letter of Pope St Clement I to the Corinthians that the bishop
of Corinth had been deposed by some local faction and that the Church of Rome
considered this irregular, reprehensible, and worthy of correction. With
his letter, Clement has dispatched what may well be called the first recorded
papal legates, that they may deliver the letter and report back regarding what
has transpired in Corinth. The letter makes clear that Clement expects
nothing less than a speedy resolution of the situation in accordance with the
dictates of his instructions: “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].” (Epistle to the Corinthians
59)
We know from St Hegesippus, whose second century
writings come to us via Eusebius, (TCE, “Clement of
Rome”) that the Corinthian insurrection took place during the reign of the
Roman emperor Domitian [A.D. 81 – 96]. We cannot be sure whether or not
the Church of Rome was invited to rule on this matter, for the letter says only
“we are somewhat late, we think, in concerning ourselves with the matters
disputed among you, beloved, and with the sedition, so alien and out of place
in God’s elect…” (Epistle to the Corinthians 1).
If Clement sent the letter without invitation, then its authoritative style
becomes even more significant. Even, however, in the case that the letter
was answering some sort of appeal, it must be considered to see whether it
wielded advisory or compulsory authority.
The date of the letter is considered, by Guettée,
to be essential for, he claims, if the letter was not written by Clement during
his episcopacy, then it clearly cannot be taken as any evidence of Roman
episcopal authority with regard to other churches. Guettée offers a
number of persuasive proofs[1]
for dating the letter as originating in A.D. 64 – 69, and continues with his
argument. However, equally persuasive proofs[2] are offered by the modern consensus of
Protestant, Orthodox (Afannassieff 124), and Catholic historians, as
well as the consensus of the Fathers[3]
(including Hegesippus, Irenæus, and Eusebius), that the letter was written in
A.D. 96 (TCE, “Clement of Rome”).
Irrespective, however, of the date of the letter,
what is more important is the representative weight it carries – can it be said
to represent the Church of Rome, and can this be said to have any significance
for our understanding of the Roman episcopacy? Irenæus of Lyons (ca. A.D.
180) offers that “under this Clement…the Church of Rome sent a most sufficient
letter to the Corinthians, establishing them in peace…” (qtd.
in TCE, “Clement of Rome”) Here, then, is our key to understanding the
force of the letter: it is written in the name of the Church of Rome, as its
opening salutation makes clear (“The Church of God which sojourns at Rome to
the Church of God which sojourns at Corinth…”). Regarding this, Abbé
Guettée says:
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.
(Guettée 18)
Guettée’s intention to the contrary, his emphasis
on the matter of the name in which the letter was written illuminates its
import for our enquiry into the authority of the bishop of Rome. Whether
or not Clement himself personally served as bishop at the time, he wrote in
the name of the Church of Rome, and in a tone of clear command: “For you
will give us joy and gladness if, obedient to what we have written through the
Holy Spirit, you root out the lawless anger of your jealousy…” (Epistle to
the Corinthians 63, in Giles 2)[4]
Against Guettée (18), we conclude that St
Clement writes not only in charity and not only generically as a ‘disciple of
the apostles.’ Rather, we have two points: First, he writes
in the name of the Church of Rome. Second, he writes with
authority to command. He speaks, therefore, with the authority of a
competent representative of the Church of Rome.
Two points must here be addressed: First,
what is meant for the Church of Rome if a letter is written in its name with
authority to command “obedience” while writing “through the Holy Spirit”?
Second, what is meant for the bishop of that Church?
Clement writes in the name of the Church of Rome
and he does so properly rather than without sanction; therefore we must
conclude that the expression of authority in the letter is an expression of the
authority of the Church of Rome. We need not belabor this point any
further; it is not worthy of much contention. We have already seen that
the authority and normative status of the Church of Rome was witnessed
by many including St Ignatius of Antioch and St Irenæus of Lyons.
Moreover, that the Corinthian situation was resolved by the ruling of Rome
rather than of Ephesus (where St John the Apostle was still living!) is
particularly indicative of Roman priority. What concerns us more is to
show how this letter fits with the vision of Papal authority that we developed
in previous sections. Beyond the previous quotations we have offered, the
closing of the letter makes manifest the “presidency in love” toward which Roman
authority is ordered:
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. The grace of
our Lord Jesus Christ be with you, and with all everywhere that are the called
of God through Him, by whom be to Him glory, honour, power, majesty, and
eternal dominion, from everlasting to everlasting. Amen.
(Epistle to the Corinthians 59)
We may ask several questions.
First, what does Clement expect in
response? The phrase “send back” echoes the closing words of an imperial
edict.[5]
It is not the invitation to send back an objection or an invitation to ‘agree
to disagree.’ It is an order. (“Send back speedily…that they may
sooner announce to us the peace…”) What is to be sent back is
confirmation that this order has been understood and followed. The Church
of Rome shows that it is first in authority.
Second, why is this authority exercised,
and to what end? The closing supplies this as well: it is for “the peace
and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for” and – especially significant
for authority – the “good order” that ought to be established. (The
ordering of authority to harmony and order is evident even in the misguided
later efforts of Pope St Victor I regarding the date of the Paschal feast.)
Ironically, the words of Orthodox theologian Nicholas Afannassieff, illustrate
our point although he does not grasp the Catholic understanding of authority:
[The] form of address already proves that the Roman Church
did not set itself above the Church of Corinth; they are both called “Church of
God.”….If the Church of Rome had believed itself to be invested with a higher
power, then the Epistle of Clement would surely have been written in a very
different tone….This was not Rome laying down the law, but the Church bearing
witness about what had happened within the church. This epistle is
couched in very measured terms…but at the same time it clearly shows that the
Church of Rome was aware of the decisive weight, in the Church of Corinth’s
eyes, that must attach to its witness about the events in Corinth. So the
Church of Rome, at the end of the first century, exhibits a marked sense of its
own priority.
(Afannassieff 125)
Afannassieff attempts to enforce a mutual
exclusivity between “bearing witness” to a truth and “laying down the
law.” The Church of Rome, he would claim, does the former but not the
latter. That is to say, the Church of Rome has no authority to
demand that its edicts be followed; it is merely bearing witness to a
pre-existing propriety as a lawyer citing a law rather than as a judge
enforcing it. The Church of Rome, claims Afannassieff, does not here
issue a ruling but instead refuses receptio of another Church’s
falsehood. This, we object, is a false dichotomy. As we have seen
already throughout this paper, the purpose of Rome’s ecclesial authority is not
to, willy-nilly, order things to the whim of the Pope (whether or not this was
the case at times in history) – we must distinguish the doctrine of authority
from its sometimes-abused practice. Rather the purpose of authority is as
St Ephraim the Syrian (and, after him, St Gregory the Great) beautifully wrote,
paraphrasing Christ’s address to Peter:
You are the inspector of those who will build on
Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the
foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my
teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give
drink to all peoples.
(St Ephraim the Syrian, Homilies 4:1 [A.D.
351])
St Ephraim clearly shows the necessity and purpose
of authority, that the “inspector” may both bear witness against “what is
false” and decree the building of what is true. It is not an authority of
domination but of service, through which all are unified and by which the
life-giving drink of true doctrine flows through Peter “to all peoples.”
Despite having denied Roman authority on the previous page, Afannassieff –
perhaps unconsciously grasping what St Ephraim articulated – acknowledges that
this letter speaks with authority:
Note also that the Roman Church did not feel obliged to
make a case, however argued, to justify its authoritative pronouncements
on what we should now call the internal concerns of other churches….Apparently
Rome had no doubt that its priority would be accepted without argument.
The only apology made is for not having sent a letter to the Church of Corinth
earlier.
(Afannassieff 126; emphasis added)
Third, we ask, how is this authority
exercised? This question enables us to tie together the threads that we
developed in our previous answer. The answer we find in the final lines of the
closing, which contain something that no secular imperial edict of Rome could
ever be expected to contain: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you…by
whom be to Him glory, honour, power, majesty, and eternal dominion, from
everlasting to everlasting. Amen.” The Roman emperor offered
himself as a God and stood on no authority but his own, for his
own. The Roman bishop offers himself to the entire flock in the name of
God; the Church of Rome instructs the faithful with a doctrine “proclaimed
throughout the world” (Rom. 1.8) that all glory may be given to God to
whom we “are called through Lord Jesus Christ.” The Church of Rome is not
“set above” in value or holiness but only in authority and
responsibility. She commands, brooking no transgression, but does so
truly as the ‘servant of all’ and for the glory of God. Thus she and all
the Churches, her bishop and all the bishops, are equal in dignity.
Fourth, we may ask how this letter –
whatever glorious interpretation we may make of it – was received by the Church
of Corinth. It is certain that this letter was well-received and acted
upon. St Irenæus calls the letter “sufficient”, “establishing them in
peace and renewing their faith” (Adv. Haer. III, iii).
Had the letter not accomplished its purpose, it could hardly be called
“sufficient.” Had Clement been deemed extravagant in his authoritative
style, we would hardly expect the Corinthians to embrace his words. Yet
they did. Eighty years later, in the time of Pope St Soter [sup. sed. A.D.
166-175], Bishop Dionysius of Corinth wrote to the Pope, who he addresses as
speaking for the Church of Rome: “To-day we kept the holy day, the Lord’s day,
and on it we read your letter- and we shall ever have it to give us
instruction, even as the former one written through Clement” (Eusebius, Ecc.,
Hist. IV, xxx) This shows that the ‘obedience’ demanded in the
name of the Church of Rome (“what we have written”) was freely given and
the letter itself was deemed to legitimately speak with the authority of the
Church of Rome (it is likened to “your letter”). An interpretation
which attempts to minimize this fact of authority for Rome, an authority to
command concerning the ‘internal concerns of other churches’, will not meet
with success.
Modern historians (as cited above) seem satisfied
that this letter was written by Pope St Clement I during his time upon Peter’s
seat. Guettée is not so satisfied. However, we might ask
whether it matters: authority for the Church of Rome is surely authority for
its bishop! The bishops of Rome do not claim to be free-floating emperors
who have by chance chosen the Christian religion as their playground.
Rather, they are always bishops of the Church of Rome. They are
first in the Church at large because they hold, as Stephen ‘boasted,’ “the
succession from Peter” (Firmilian to Cyprian, Epistle 74/75:17 [A.D. 256],
in ANF V:394). So to attempt to negate the
authority of the Roman episkopoi by claiming only the authority of the
Roman Church is missing the point entirely. The office of the Roman
episcopate is the authority of the Church of Rome. We see this identity
of Church and Bishop, not by way of usurping the Church but by way of making
the bishop a kenotic servant and representative of the church[6], in the famous words of Ignatius of Antioch:
Avoid divisions, as the beginning of evil. Follow all
of you, the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father; and follow the
presbytery as the apostles….Let no man do aught pertaining to the Church apart
from the bishop….Wheresoever the bishop appears, there let the people be, even
as wheresoever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church….But
whatsoever he [the bishop] approves, that is also well-pleasing to God,
that everything you do may be secure and valid.
(St Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans
[A.D. 115], in PG 5. 708., in Giles 3)
We see here that Ignatius clearly makes the bishop
a vicarius dei not ‘on his own steam’ as it were but because the bishop
follows what is pleasing to God in all he does. Simultaneously, Ignatius
– knowing that he will not be misunderstood – is not afraid to assign the visible
locus of authority to the bishop when he writes that “whatsoever he
approves, that also is well-pleasing to God…” Lastly, hinting obliquely
at the Pauline concept of the Church as the mystical Body of Christ, he makes a
double parallel between the bishop and Christ and between the bishop and the
Church when he says “Wheresoever the bishop appears, there let the people be,
even as wheresoever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church.”
An almost sacramental notion of the bishop as both
the figure and reality of the Church is found also the letters of St Cyprian of
Carthage:
The people united to the priest, and the flock cleaving to
the shepherd: this is the Church. The bishop is in the Church and the Church is
in the bishop…
(St Cyprian of Carthage, Epistles 68[66]:8,
“Ad Florentius” [A.D. 254], in ANF V:375)
Whether St Clement writes as an
episcopally-delegated vicar[7]
of the Roman Church under St Linus’ episcopate or writes while he is himself
upon the See of Peter, the significance remains the same: the authority of the
letter is the authority of the “Church of God which sojourns at Rome,” and the
authority of that Church is exercised by her bishop. Is there any
precedent for the one holding the chair of Peter to write in the name of the
Church of Rome, as does Pope St Clement? Indeed there is. Echoing
to us, as down a corridor the length of 100 generations, are the words of St Peter,
from whose “chair sacerdotal unity has its source” (St Cyprian, Epistles 55[52]:8).
Using the ancient circumlocution for Rome, the fisherman writes as first Pope:
“The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you…” (I
Peter 5:13)
[1]
Guettée’s argument is as follows:
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 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.
(Guettée 17)
[2]
Regarding the date of the Epistle, The Catholic Encyclopedia has this to
say:
The date of the letter is
determined by these notices of persecution. It is strange that even a few good
scholars (such as Grotius Grabe, Orsi, Uhlhorn, Hefele, Wieseler) should have
dated it soon after Nero. It is now universally acknowledged, after Lightfoot,
that it was written about the last year of Domitian (Harnack) or
immediately after his death in 96 (Funk). The Roman Church had existed several
decades, for the two envoys to Corinth had lived in it from youth to age. The
Church of Corinth is called archai (47). Bishops and deacons have
succeeded to bishops and deacons appointed by the Apostles (44). Yet the time
of the Apostles is “quite lately” and “our own generation” (5). The external
evidence is in accord. The dates given for Clement's episcopate by Hegesippus
are apparently 90-99, and that early writer states that the schism at
Corinth took place under Domitian
(Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., III, xvi, for kata ton deloumenon is meaningless
if it is taken to refer to Clement and not to Domitian; besides, the
whole of Eusebius’s
account of that emperor’s persecution, III, xvii-xx, is founded on Hegesippus).
St Irenæus says that Clement still remembered the Apostles, and so did many
others, implying an interval of many years after their death.
(John Chapman, “Clement of
Rome,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. IV, 1908)
[3]
The early Fathers all seemed to have believed that the letter of Clement was
written during his episcopacy. For instance, St Irenæus of Lyons writes
in A.D. 180-185 of St Clement’s episcopacy: “Under this Clement no small
sedition took place among the brethren at Corinth and the Church of Rome sent a
most sufficient letter to the Corinthians, establishing them in peace, and
renewing their faith, and announcing the tradition it had recently received
from the Apostles.” (Adv. Haer. III, iii) We note further that St
Irenaeus does not hesitate to say that this took place “under” Clement, as if
Clement’s reign as Bishop of Rome were somehow a marker of an era for the
entire Church and not merely for Rome. This cannot be merely attributed
to the use of a local episcopal reign as a marker of time. One would find
it strange to say, for instance, “Under Athanasius, Julius was Bishop of Rome.”
[4]
As we will soon discuss, both the tone of the letter as a whole and specific
constructions used therein (“send back speedily”) reflect the authority which
which Clement issued his commands.
[5]
Steven K. Ray (Upon this Rock 129 n. 30) quotes Max Lackmann: “The use
of the expression ‘send back’ in this sentence is not merely a special kind of
biblical phrase but also a form of Roman imperial command. The Roman
judge in a province of the empire ‘sent back’ a messenger or a packet of
documents to the imperial capital or to the court of the emperor (Acts
25:21). Clement of Rome doubtless also knew this administrative
terminology of the imperial government and used it effectively.” (The Unfinished Reformation, ed. Hans Asmussen [Notre Dame,
Ind.: Fides Pub. 1961], 213).
[6]
We are reminded of the theology of the mass. Some liberal theologians
would object that acknowledging the priest as minister of the sacraments,
functioning in the place of Christ, elevates him falsely “above” the other
People of God. This, too, is a falsehood. Rather, the priest
functions in the place of Christ by emptying himself so that it is not he in
the place of Christ who celebrates but rather Christ mystically in the place of
the priest!
[7]
If, against the witness of the Fathers, we sided with Guettée and held St
Clement to have been but a presbyter at the time of this letter’s writing, we
cannot for a moment imagine that he would have composed and dispatched his
letter (along with, indeed, the legates who were to be ‘sent back’!) without
Pope St Linus’ express approval, sanction, and authority. For, as St
Ignatius of Antioch writes “anyone who honors the bishop is honored by God, but
anyone who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop serves the devil.”
(St Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 9:1 [A.D. 115], in PG
5:708.)