3 - Clement of Rome: The Earliest Christian Author after the Apostles | Way of the Fathers
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ม.ค. 2020
- Clement of Rome led a church in turmoil. Its people were deeply divided. The secular culture was hostile to the faith. Across the ocean from the Eternal City the laity were rising up in rebellion against the clergy. And it was only 67 A.D. St. Peter was hardly cold in his grave on Vatican Hill. How should his successor lead in such a crisis? Clement healed the Church in the way of the Apostles: by writing a winsome, reasonable, gentle letter - which is the subject of Episode 3 of “The Way of the Fathers” with Mike Aquilina.
Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians is, says Johannes Quasten, “the earliest piece of literature outside the New Testament for which the name, position, and date of the author are historically attested.” It provides us a snapshot of Church life as the first Christian generation turned over to the second. And it reveals the origins of so many doctrines: apostolic succession, Roman primacy, the papal office, and the unity of the Old Testament and the New.
Christians today don’t fully understand the achievement of the Apostles unless they understand the work of their immediate disciples. Clement knew both Peter and Paul and carried their mission forward according to their model and instructions. His words are useful for our own time of crisis.
Links
Buy Kenneth Howell’s new edition and translation of Clement of Rome’s Epistle. www.amazon.com/Clement-Didach...
Read Clement in the context of the other Apostolic Fathers. www.amazon.com/Early-Christia...
Compare Clement’s letter in Greek and English. www.amazon.com/1-Clement-Read...
Read a recent study of Clement’s Letter, by a respected scholar and official of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. www.amazon.com/Clement-Early-...
Clement’s First Epistle to the Corinthians online www.catholicculture.org/cultu...
More Works by the Fathers www.catholicculture.org/cultu...
Mike Aquilina’s Website fathersofthechurch.com
Theme music: Gaudeamus (Introit for the Feast of All Saints), sung by Jeff Ostrowski. Courtesy of www.ccwatershed.org.
Donate today! www.catholicculture.org/donat...
I'm a protestant "Church of Christ" . There needs to be an outreach to make protestants aware of the continuation of Acts. No one, that I know, has ever mentioned Clement. It was as if there was radio silence after Acts and epistles were written, the way we were taught. Keep up the Lord's work, and I'll eagerly keep listening and studying form your series.
I am a Protestant also and went to Seminary, I have read about all the Church fathers however their writings aren’t INSPIRED and thus aren’t in the Bible.
@@Miroslaw-rs8ipDoes scripture say that non-scripture cannot possibly be inspired? Clearly non-scripture is not scripture but is it expressly not inspired as well? I’m not seeing this stated in scripture but let me know.
@@Miroslaw-rs8ip,- neither is the Canon of the NT. Courtesy of the Catholic Church.
@kylewdufour -- the Didache is contemporary withe NT. Should we dismiss the writi gs of the Foundi g Fathers if the Constitution.same with the Nt ti.e authors.
According to the ecclesiastical writings of Eusebius, it was Barnabas who introduced Clement of Rome to Peter. Barnabas was also John Mark's cousin and the Apostle Paul's brother-in-law.
Interesting! Thanks.
Are referring the the writing Clementine Recognitions? Because it shows that in its narrative and diary record from Clement.
And that he went astray.
@@lucaswilhelmmeyer6943over the argument of diet. Even the Jews can’t figure out if they should still follow kosher. Sounds like it’s a human thing over how we should fast for God. The fathers make it clear to fast WED and Friday and during certain periods. Meaning the apostles and Deciples came to the conclusion following kosher wasn’t needed unless it was sacrificed to idols.
This was excellent. I was expecting a polemic monologue filled with apologetics, and was delighted to discover instead a high-level, scholarly approach to and investigation of the personhood of Clement of Rome.
Thanks so much!
Indeed, I feel it is more edifying when we Christians can focus more on a common love: the fathers of the faith.
Peace
Very interesting
Superb thank you.
Thanks!
Thank you 🙏
Thanks a lot.
when you recite the hail holy queen,who was o clemen?
"Clement" as an adjective means mild or merciful in disposition or character; lenient; compassionate. That's what Mary is being called in that prayer.
Or temperate, when referring to weather.
O clement, referring to an aspect of Mary's virtues. As in, O kindly or O generous.
It’s debatable as to whether he Or Polycarp wrote first.
Do we have any correspondence between St. Peter and Clement?. Do we have any evidence that Peter was considered "Bishop of Rome" from historians at this time?
No correspondence between St. Peter and St. Clement.
As to the second question, here is Mike's answer: "Irenaeus certainly thought so, and so did Eusebius, Tertullian, and Cyprian. Even when they don't use the B-word, they're clearly talking about someone who functions as a monarch-leader in the Church (local and universal). Oscar Cullmann, a Protestant, reviewed the evidence and concluded that Peter led the Church in Rome and died there. William Farmer, also a Protestant at the time, came to the same conclusion. Tradition presents a preponderance of evidence, but I don't think it's the kind of evidence that will satisfy extreme skeptics. There's no single line carved in marble proclaiming the fact and using the proper terms. The Wikipedia article for Clement of Rome puts the problem on display: "...there is no evidence for a monarchical episcopacy in Rome at such an early date. There is also, however, no evidence of a change occurring in ecclesiastical organization in the latter half of the 2nd century, which would indicate that a new or newly-monarchical episcopacy was establishing itself." So we choose the silence we want to argue from. Which seems more sensible? A scholar of the first rank, Matthew Thomas, is working on a book on these issues, and he tells me he's presenting some neglected evidence. I'm eager to see it."
Any correspondence between Pope Saint Linus & Pope Saint Peter and/or Pope Saint Clement? Did Saint Ignatius of Antioch,first Church Father to use the term "Holy Catholic Church",write to the 3 aforementioned Popes?
Mike addressed some of these questions at greater length in our livestream last night, from about 14:48-31. th-cam.com/video/NNXvhOJuLZ8/w-d-xo.html
@@E.C.2 “Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone today does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he should desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]
Eusebius of Caesarea
“Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]” (Church History 3:4:9-10 [A.D. 312]
Pope Julius I
“[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. . . . What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you” (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], contained in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20-35).
Council of Sardica
“If any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province” (Canon 3 [A.D. 342]
Optatus
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head-that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]-of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]
Epiphanius of Salamis
“At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]
Bishops Apostle Brothers...
So we don't know for sure who he was and even if he wrote on his own merits or represented a collective. We don't even know if he wrote early (pre 70 AD) or late(circa 95-100+). What we do know is that it is anachronistic to read later understandings and terms into his writings.
Interestingly, his writing seems closer to the writing of the NT and his understanding of God is far removed from that of post Nicean fathers.
Specifically,how are his writings
"far removed" from the Nicean Fathers?
@@E.C.2 : His writings and his view of God are much closer to the writing of the NT and far removed from the POST Nicean fathers who spoke about the nature of God in neo-platonic terms .
Mike addressed some of these questions at greater length in our livestream last night, from about 14:48-31. th-cam.com/video/NNXvhOJuLZ8/w-d-xo.html
I’ve read his letter and I haven’t seen anything that indicates he was the only Bishop at Rome or that the papacy existed.
Mike says: "Irenaeus certainly thought so, and so did Eusebius, Tertullian, and Cyprian. Even when they don't use the B-word, they're clearly talking about someone who functions as a monarch-leader in the Church (local and universal). Oscar Cullmann, a Protestant, reviewed the evidence and concluded that Peter led the Church in Rome and died there. William Farmer, also a Protestant at the time, came to the same conclusion. Tradition presents a preponderance of evidence, but I don't think it's the kind of evidence that will satisfy extreme skeptics. There's no single line carved in marble proclaiming the fact and using the proper terms. The Wikipedia article for Clement of Rome puts the problem on display: "...there is no evidence for a monarchical episcopacy in Rome at such an early date. There is also, however, no evidence of a change occurring in ecclesiastical organization in the latter half of the 2nd century, which would indicate that a new or newly-monarchical episcopacy was establishing itself." So we choose the silence we want to argue from. Which seems more sensible? A scholar of the first rank, Matthew Thomas, is working on a book on these issues, and he tells me he's presenting some neglected evidence. I'm eager to see it."
@@CatholicCulturePod do you have any quotes from these church fathers that specifically mentioned the Roman Catholic papacy in their letters?
@@Hanshotfirst6688 Not using the word "pope" which is a later development, but the bishopric or monarchical leadership at Rome. Mike is about to leave for Sicily so I probably won't be able to get the quotes from him right now.
If there is an ambiguity about the letter of Clement on this point, it's less whether Rome had primacy in some sense (which is indicated by this and by Ignatius's letter to the Romans), but whether Rome was led by a single bishop or by some kind of council of elders, i.e. whether that primacy rested in one man or in the Roman church more broadly. So put that together with the above-mentioned Fathers saying there was a bishop at Rome...
@@CatholicCulturePod Well I would appreciate the quotes once you can get them to me. Quite frankly I don’t see anything in early church history or the Bible (more importantly) that establishes the Roman Catholic papacy.
@@Hanshotfirst6688 I will try. Also I will be doing a livestream with Mike on May 8 and maybe I can ask him to talk about it then.
Until then, there's always Christ clearly bestowing authority on Peter in the Gospel. Why He would make one apostle the leader of the rest only temporarily when all the rest of their authority was passed down, I don't know...
This is a very good treatment of a very important piece of Church history. That said, one needs to be careful when using the terms "Bishop" and "Pope" in the context of Clement. There is a strong argument to be made (See for example R Brown and Benedict XVI) that what we would consider today the office of Bishop was not yet established in Rome at the time of 1 Clement - even if you accept the later dating. Consequently, 1 Clement cannot rightfully be used as an example of "Roman Primacy." It does no good to Catholic Christianity to project the ideas of papacy and Roman primacy back that far into Church history. The more we Catholics come to terms with this truth, the better true ecumenism can prosper and the stronger the Christian witness to the world.
It depends what you mean by "project the ideas of papacy and Roman Primacy". If by that you mean assume the Pope at that time actually exercised the kind of centralized control he does now, you're right. But if you mean that the papacy and Roman primacy were not established in principle by this time, I disagree. The papacy was established by Christ and, following upon it, Roman primacy was established by Peter passing on his episcopate at Rome. That's a matter of Catholic faith, not just to be determined as absent due to lack of sufficiently strong documentation. But even if the letter is not from the bishop but from the whole church of Rome or from a group of elders, it still gives evidence of the primacy of Rome as a church.
(This is the channel manager, not Mike responding btw)
@@CatholicCulturePod Maybe it depends on what one means by "primacy." 1 Clement certainly shows the Church in Rome exercising influence over the Church in Corinth, and it seems to have been successful. Whether there was a Papal Office in Rome as we understand the term at the time of the letter, or whether there was even what we would call a "monarchical episcopacy" is a question that faithful scholars (such as the two I mentioned in my first comment) continue to explore.
@@FalkTim Since another commenter asked about this as well, I thought I'd copy and paste Mike's response here:
Commenter: "Do we have any evidence that Peter was considered "Bishop of Rome" from historians at this time?"
Mike Aquilina: "Irenaeus certainly thought so, and so did Eusebius, Tertullian, and Cyprian. Even when they don't use the B-word, they're clearly talking about someone who functions as a monarch-leader in the Church (local and universal). Oscar Cullmann, a Protestant, reviewed the evidence and concluded that Peter led the Church in Rome and died there. William Farmer, also a Protestant at the time, came to the same conclusion. Tradition presents a preponderance of evidence, but I don't think it's the kind of evidence that will satisfy extreme skeptics. There's no single line carved in marble proclaiming the fact and using the proper terms. The Wikipedia article for Clement of Rome puts the problem on display: "...there is no evidence for a monarchical episcopacy in Rome at such an early date. There is also, however, no evidence of a change occurring in ecclesiastical organization in the latter half of the 2nd century, which would indicate that a new or newly-monarchical episcopacy was establishing itself." So we choose the silence we want to argue from. Which seems more sensible? A scholar of the first rank, Matthew Thomas, is working on a book on these issues, and he tells me he's presenting some neglected evidence. I'm eager to see it."
@@CatholicCulturePod Mike, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'm going to pretend that you didn't cite Wikipedia on this. The question isn't really about whether there is "any" evidence, as I think by your reply you realize, but what evidence is most convincing (enticing?). You know, of course, that Eusebius relied on what others had written. If you look at lists of "Bishops of Rome" from before the time of Leo, you get perplexing results. Some of them name Peter and Paul as co-bishops! Some of them list Peter but don't include him in the count. So there is inconsistency to say the least. I'm not familiar with Matthew Thomas but will look for his book as this is a topic in which I am most interested. I would refer you, and anyone else interested in studying this topic to a book by Raymond Brown and John Meier (both Catholic New Testament Scholars of the highest repute) called "Antioch and Rome." The book is easy to find, easy to read, and will open up a whole new world to many interested in studying the earliest days of the Church. Again, thank you Catholic Culture for posting these very good treatments of the roots of the Faith.
Mike addressed some of these questions at greater length in our livestream last night, from about 14:48-31. th-cam.com/video/NNXvhOJuLZ8/w-d-xo.html
Polycarp?
If in Matthew it says to call no one Rabbi or Father why do we call these men Fathers of the church? I'm not implying their impact and there usage by God to be a vessel, by why do Catholics (universal) call men Father; say to a man "forgive me Father for I have sinned", asking a man for forgiveness. I am lost on where this comes from
I think it's pretty clear that Our Lord was not speaking literally, because no Christians in history have refused to call their biological father Father. He was saying that we should not treat any human being as the ultimate source of wisdom or authority. www.catholic.com/tract/call-no-man-father
@@CatholicCulturePod the phrase "pretty clear" seem out of place. if you are showing me a link then I am pretty sure at some point you had the question as well. I don't believe it is don't call no man Father as in the title; it may be, do not replace God with man, which still leaves me to wonder why people say to man "forgive me Father for I have sinned"; if you don't see this person as a replacement of God then why not go to Elohim and ask for forgiveness? How does a man decide what you have to do to be forgiven? Where the Catholic church use to make you pay for catholic indulgence, now they tell you so many Hail Mary's etc.
but I will read what you sent@@CatholicCulturePod
People need to understand that in the first church the Roman church wasn’t preeminent! We had several centres of Christianity such as Antioch, Jerusalem, Ephesus and Alexandria. These churches were all on the same level and there was no Pope preeminent over them.
St. Irenaeus and others of that time testify to the primacy of the Roman Church. Even the Orthodox today, who do not accept papal infallibility, admit that the Roman Church was always considered preeminent.