![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/07\/PeterKeys7.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This is a reply to an article from a (Reformed) Protestant apologist, Matt Hedges, entitled, \u201cDoes Clement of Rome\u2019s Letter to the Corinthians Prove Papal Authority?\u201d<\/a> (7-27-21). His words (every single one is cited) will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n One of the earliest examples in church history appealed to by Roman Catholic apologists is when Clement (bishop of Rome at the time) wrote a letter to the Corinthians settling a disruption<\/em><\/strong> which had taken place there. Basically what had happened was that the congregation was deposing some of their presbyters. Clement (though his name is not in the letter, virtually everyone today accepts him to be its author) wrote to the church in Corinth to settle the controversies<\/strong><\/em>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Roman Catholic apologists claim that this letter has the tone of a superior speaking to an inferior, and that this thus proves the idea of papal authority over other churches. [my bolding and italics added]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n This aspect shouldn\u2019t be lightly passed over.\u00a0 Why is it that Clement is speaking with authority from Rome, settling the disputes of other<\/em> regions? Why don\u2019t the Corinthians solve it themselves<\/em>, if they have a proclaimed bishop or even if they didn\u2019t claim one at the time? Why do they appeal to the bishop of Rome? These are questions that I think Matt needs to seriously consider and offer some sort of answer for.<\/span><\/p>\n St. Clement writes (I use the standard Schaff translation<\/a>: no Catholic \u201cbias\u201d there!):<\/span><\/p>\n You therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the\u00a0presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the\u00a0proud\u00a0and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue. For it is better for you that you should occupy a\u00a0humble\u00a0but\u00a0honourable\u00a0place in the flock of\u00a0Christ, than that, being highly exalted, you should be cast out from the hope of His people. (57)<\/span><\/p>\n If, however, any shall disobey<\/em><\/strong> the words spoken by Him through us<\/strong><\/em>, let them\u00a0know\u00a0that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; . . . (59,\u00a0my bolding and italics)<\/span><\/p>\n Joy and\u00a0gladness\u00a0will you afford us, if you become\u00a0obedient\u00a0to the words written by us and through the\u00a0Holy Spirit\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>root out the lawless\u00a0wrath\u00a0of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter. (63,\u00a0my bolding and italics)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Clement definitely asserts his authority over the Corinthian church far away. Again, the question is: \u201cwhy<\/em>?\u201d What sense<\/em> does that make in a Protestant-type ecclesiology where every region is autonomous and there is supposedly no hierarchical authority in the Christian Church? Why must they \u201cobey\u201d the bishop from another region (sections 59, 63)? Not only does Clement assert strong authority; he also claims that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are speaking \u201cthrough\u201d him<\/strong><\/em>. <\/span><\/p>\n That is extraordinary<\/em>, and very similar to what we see in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:28 (\u201cFor it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things\u201d: RSV) and in Scripture itself. It\u2019s not strictly inspiration but it is sure something akin to infallibility<\/em> (divine protection from error and the pope as a unique mouthpiece of, or representative of God).<\/span><\/p>\n Moreover, Max Lackmann, a Lutheran, makes the observation:<\/span><\/p>\n Clement, as the spokesman of the whole People of God . . . admonishes the Church of Corinth in serious, authoritative and brotherly tones to correct the internal abuses of their ecclesiastical community. He censures, exhorts, cautions, entreats . . . The use of the expression send back in the statement: Send back speedily unto us our messengers (1 Clement 65,1), 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. (In Hans Asmussen, et al, The Unfinished Reformation<\/em>, translated by Robert J. Olsen, Notre Dame, Indiana: Fides Publishers Association, 1961, 84-85)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Catholic apologist Joe Heschmeyer adds:<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s also worth noticing that Clement is involved in this situation at all. It\u2019s clear from the outset of the letter, in which he apologies for being \u201csomewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us,\u201d that it was actually the Corinthians who reached out to Clement and the Church at Rome. This isn\u2019t a case of a meddlesome Roman bishop but of a Greek church reaching out to the Roman bishop to settle a strictly internal dispute.<\/span><\/p>\n Consider also the reception of St. Clement\u2019s letter. If the early Church were Protestant, we might expect them to pay little heed to St. Clement, treating him merely as another churchman or as a threat to the apostolic order . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n [T]he mere fact that there was a question on this point tells us something about how Church members beyond Rome viewed the bishops of Rome following St. Peter. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n What makes Pope Clement\u2019s involvement in the Corinthian dispute more shocking is that it happened around the year 96, while the apostle John is still alive. In a colorful 1914 anti-Catholic sermon, pastor George Rutledge proclaimed to a crowd of about 1,500 people that the Catholic claims to the papacy couldn\u2019t be true because \u201cthe apostle John lived a number of years after Peter\u2019s death. Yet Rome declares a fellow by the name of Linus was made pope while an apostle was living!\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Rutledge argued that since apostles are the highest order within the Church (1 Cor. 12:28), St. John would have \u201chad a just grievance and could have bankrupted the whole business.\u201d Yet St. Clement\u2019s letter is evidence that St. Peter\u2019s successors did play a central role in the governance of the early Church, even during the lifetime of the apostle John\u2014and that John, as far as is recorded, did not object. (<\/span>\u201cThe Papacy in the Early Church\u201d<\/a>, Catholic Answers<\/em>, 10-23-19)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n There have been many responses from Reformed folks concerning this argument in the past (especially during the 19th century around Vatican I when you have tons of books from both sides on the historical facts surrounding the papacy). One popular argument against Rome in this situation is to say that Clement was writing not on behalf of himself solely, but on behalf of the\u00a0church<\/i>\u00a0of Rome.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Even if we assume that to be true, I submit that the essential questions I have asked, remain: why does Corinth<\/em> have to obey Rome<\/em>? Who determined that<\/em> set-up? Why does it even cross their mind<\/em> to write to a local church far away to settle their problems, and why does Clement assume that they should\u00a0obey<\/em>\u00a0him, and that it would be \u201ctransgression and serious danger\u201d if they don\u2019t<\/em>? Why does Matt pass over these crucial questions, that cry out for an answer?<\/span><\/p>\n While this argument may be true, I take a slightly different approach to answering the Roman Catholic argument.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Well, give it a shot! Frankly, Matt\u2019s argument so far is distinctly unimpressive. He\u2019s raised more unanswered questions than given plausible answers. I am thankful, however, for the opportunity to strengthen this particular argument (Clement\u2019<\/span>s authority) more than I ever have in 30 years of Catholic apologetics. I always learn new things in defending Holy Mother Church and Holy Scripture, and that\u2019s a great blessing.<\/span><\/p>\n Take notice of the following language from Clement:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cBut not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes.\u00a0Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy,\u00a0the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church]\u00a0<\/b><\/i><\/u>have been persecuted and put to death.\u00a0Let us set before our eyes the illustrious\u00a0apostles.\u00a0Peter<\/b>, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy,\u00a0Paul\u00a0<\/b>also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity,\u00a0compelled\u00a0to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west,\u00a0and suffered martyrdom under the prefects.\u00a0Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.\u201d (Chapter 5 in\u00a0Epistle to the Corinthians<\/i>)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Clement speaks of Peter and Paul here on the same level, language which would seem to be inconsistent with the RC view of Peter\u2019s authority and position. This part of the letter would seem to be a proper place for Clement to at least say something of Peter\u2019s authority as the bishop of Rome. But he does not, for the simple reason that he knew of no such thing.<\/span><\/p>\n The last section is an argument from silence, which amounts to no argument at all. As for the rest, I have at least seven separate replies:<\/span><\/p>\n 1) Philippians 4:2-3<\/strong> (RSV)\u00a0I entreat Eu-o\u2019dia and I entreat Syn\u2019tyche to agree in the Lord.\u00a0[3] And I ask you also, true yokefellow, help these women, for they have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers,<\/span><\/p>\n Note that Paul commanded\u00a0Eu-o\u2019dia and Syn\u2019tyche \u201cto agree in the Lord.\u201d So he was higher in authority than them. Yet he calls them (along with Clement) \u201cfellow workers\u201d. Doe this \u201cprove\u201d then, that\u00a0Eu-o\u2019dia, Syn\u2019tyche, St. Paul, and St. Clement are all \u201con the same level\u201d<\/span>: because they are \u201cfellow workers\u201d? No, of course not.<\/span><\/p>\n 2) 1 Peter 5:1<\/strong>\u00a0So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This also illustrates the biblical and Catholic \u201cboth\/and\u201d outlook (which is crucial to understand throughout this whole discussion). Peter humbly calls himself a \u201cfellow elder.\u201d But it doesn\u2019t follow that he has no more authority<\/em> than the other bishops. In fact, he assumes authority<\/em> throughout his epistle: \u201cgird up your minds\u201d (1:13); \u201cbe holy yourselves in all your conduct\u201d (1:15); \u201clove one another earnestly from the heart\u201d (1:22); \u201cSo put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander\u201d (2:1); \u201clong for the pure spiritual milk\u201d (2:2); \u201cabstain from the passions of the flesh\u201d (2:11); \u201cMaintain good conduct among the Gentiles\u201d (2:12); \u201cBe subject for the Lord\u2019s sake to every human institution\u201d (2:13); \u201cHonor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.\u201d (2:17); \u201d\u00a0wives, be submissive to your husbands\u201d (3:1); \u201cLikewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman\u201d (3:7); \u201chave unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind.\u201d (3:8); \u201cDo not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling\u201d (3:9); \u201cin your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense\u201d (3:15: apologetics!); \u201d\u00a0keep your conscience clear\u201d (3:16); \u201ckeep sane and sober for your prayers\u201d (4:7); \u201chold unfailing your love for one another\u201d (4:8); \u201cPractice hospitality ungrudgingly to one another\u201d (4:9); \u201cAs each has received a gift, employ it for one another\u201d (4:10); \u201cTend the flock of God that is your charge\u201d (5:2: addressed specifically to other bishops); \u201cyou that are younger be subject to the elders\u201d (5:5); \u201cHumble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God\u201d (5:6); \u201cBe sober, be watchful\u201d (5:8); and \u201cResist him, firm in your faith\u201d (5:9).<\/span><\/p>\n Are all these simply optional pseudo-commands? It\u2019s authority!<\/span><\/p>\n 3) St.<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0Paul and St. Peter at the Jerusalem Council<\/strong>. Paul is by no means even Peter\u2019s equal, let alone superior, as evidence from the council proves, in my opinion. I wrote elsewhere<\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n 4) Paul\u2019s Rebuke of Peter<\/strong>. This was for hypocrisy, and doesn\u2019t imply a denial of Peter\u2019s authority. Likewise, in Catholic history, popes have been rebuked by saints and laymen: St. Catherine of Siena, St. Dominic, and St. Francis of Assisi, to name three. See my papers:<\/span><\/p>\n Is St. Paul Superior to St. Peter?\u00a0(Dialogue)\u00a0<\/a>[1998; expanded 5-13-02]<\/p>\n Paul Rebuked Peter: Disproof of Papacy?<\/a>\u00a0[2007]<\/p>\n Pitting Paul Against Peter (Pathetic, Pitiful Pedantry): Reply to Failed Anti-Catholic Protestant Attempts to Tear Down St. Peter and His Papal Authority<\/a>\u00a0[8-10-12]<\/p>\n Did St. Paul Seek St. Peter\u2019s Approval for His Ministry? (+ Does The Word Order in Galatians 2:9 Suggest a Lowering of Peter\u2019s Primacy?)<\/a>\u00a0[4-27-17 and 9-4-17]<\/p>\n D<\/a>oes Paul\u2019s Rebuke of Peter Disprove Papal Infallibility?<\/a>\u00a0[National Catholic Register<\/em>, 3-31-18]<\/span><\/p>\n 5) Paul Referred to Himself as a \u201cDeacon\u201d<\/strong>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n I wrote in my book,<\/span> A Biblical Defense of Catholicism<\/em><\/a>:<\/p>\n It is also incorrect to regard St. Paul as some kind of spiritual \u201clone ranger,\u201d on his own with no particular ecclesiastical allegiance, since he was commissioned by Jesus Himself as an Apostle. In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do<\/em> (Acts 9:6; cf. 9:17). He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18), and fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2,9). He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4), which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27). Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).<\/span><\/p>\n The New Testament refers basically to three types of permanent offices in the Church (Apostles and Prophets were to cease): bishops<\/em> (episkopos<\/em>), elders <\/em>(presbyteros,<\/em> from which are derived Presbyterian<\/em> and priest<\/em>), and deacons<\/em> (diakonos<\/em>). Bishops are mentioned in Acts 1:20, 20:28, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:1-2, Titus 1:7, and 1 Peter 2:25. Presbyteros<\/em> (usually elder<\/em>) appears in passages such as Acts 15:2-6, 21:18, Hebrews 11:2, 1 Peter 5:1, and 1 Timothy 5:17. Protestants view these leaders as analogous to current-day pastors,<\/em> while Catholics regard them as priests. Deacons (often, minister<\/em> in English translations) are mentioned in the same fashion as Christian elders with similar frequency (for example, 1 Corinthians 3:5, Philippians 1:1, 1 Thessalonians 3:2, 1 Timothy 3:8-13).<\/span><\/p>\n As is often the case in theology and practice among the earliest Christians, there is some fluidity and overlapping of these three vocations (for example, compare Acts 20:17 with 20:28; 1 Timothy 3:1-7 with Titus 1:5-9). But this doesn\u2019t prove that three offices of ministry did not exist. For instance, St. Paul often referred to himself as a deacon<\/em> or minister<\/em> (1 Corinthians 3:5, 4:1, 2 Corinthians 3:6, 6:4, 11:23, Ephesians 3:7, Colossians1:23-25), yet no one would assert that he was merely<\/em> a deacon, and nothing else. Likewise, St. Peter calls himself a fellow elder <\/em>(1 Peter 5:1), whereas Jesus calls him the rock<\/em> upon which He would build His Church, and gave him alone<\/em> the keys of the kingdom of heaven <\/em>(Matthew 16:18-19). These examples are usually indicative of a healthy humility, according to Christ\u2019s injunctions of servanthood (Matthew 23:11-12, Mark 10:43-44).<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n
From Acts 15, we learn that \u201cafter there was much debate, Peter rose\u201d to address the assembly (15:7). The Bible records his speech, which goes on for five verses. Then it reports that \u201call the assembly kept silence\u201d (15:12). Paul and Barnabas speak next, not making authoritative pronouncements, but confirming Peter\u2019s exposition, speaking about \u201csigns and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles\u201d (15:12). Then when James speaks, he refers right back to what \u201cSimeon [Peter] has related\u201d (15:14). To me, this suggests that Peter\u2019s talk was central and definitive. James speaking last could easily be explained by the fact that he was the bishop of Jerusalem and therefore the \u201chost.\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n
\nSt. Peter indeed had already received a relevant revelation, related to the council. God gave him a vision of the cleanness of all foods (contrary to the Jewish Law: see Acts 10:9-16). St. Peter is already learning about the relaxation of Jewish dietary laws, and is eating with uncircumcised men, and is ready to proclaim the gospel widely to the Gentiles (Acts 10 and 11).<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\nThis was the secondary decision of the Jerusalem Council, and Peter referred to his experiences with the Gentiles at the council (Acts 15:7-11). The council then decided \u2014 with regard to food \u2013, to prohibit only that which \u201chas been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled\u201d (15:29).<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n