![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/04\/Cover-555-x-835-scaled.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n[link for book and purchase information<\/a>]<\/p>\n I dealt with this topic at length with Reformed Protestant apologist Matt Hedges<\/a> (Pope St. Clement of Rome & Papal Authority<\/a>, 7-28-21). As of this date he has not yet answered it. Today I discovered some instances of Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer making the same argument. So I\u2019ll revisit the topic and address his dubious claims. Jason\u2019s words will be in blue<\/span>. Those he cites for his argument will be in green and<\/span> brown<\/span><\/span>.<\/p>\n I was banned long ago from the Tribalblogue<\/em> site where Jason writes, and he has long since decided to ignore any counter-replies I make (what else<\/em> is new with anti-Catholics?). In the past, it was very different. He made several replies, and we even had a debate at the large anti-Catholic site CARM: that he decided to depart long before it was finished. Just for the sake of background information . . . I have posted many refutations of Jason in his section on my Anti-Catholicism<\/a> web page.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n First Clement . . . [is] one of the earliest extra-Biblical Christian documents we have, and it represents early Christianity in the city of Rome. It has a lot of relevance to the claims of Roman Catholicism. I\u2019ve written about some of the inconsistencies between First Clement and Catholicism in the past.<\/span> (\u201cFirst Clement And Pope Francis\u201d<\/a>, 3-14-13).<\/p>\n In this same article he cites two men to back up his position:<\/p>\n Some scholars anachronistically saw in the epistle [First Clement] an assertion of Roman primacy, but nowadays a hermeneutic of collegiality is more widely accepted. (Thomas Halton, Encyclopedia Of Early Christianity<\/em>, Everett Ferguson, ed. [New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999], 253)<\/span><\/p>\n This [the literary genre of First Clement] is a form of address that is identified in rhetorical handbooks and found in other texts that are contemporary with 1 Clement. It is used by those who wish to persuade others to reach for themselves a successful resolution to difficulties that they face, not to force them to submit to those who offer them this counsel\u2026.He [Clement] hopes to persuade because he cannot compel or command, and he knows that he cannot take it for granted that those whom he addresses will welcome and act on the counsel that he gives. He avoids the use of the imperative, and speaks instead in the second person plural\u2026.The second corollary is confirmation that this letter [First Clement] offers no evidence for the primacy of Rome at the time of its composition. The church at Rome writes to the church at Corinth of its own free will, but the form in which it does so makes clear that it could not take for granted that its counsel would be either welcome or in any way binding at Corinth. Nowhere does the Roman church demand obedience to its own authority, but only to that of God, as revealed in the Greek Bible and in certain Christian texts and traditions. (Andrew Gregory, in Paul Foster, ed., The Writings Of The Apostolic Fathers<\/em> [New York, New York: T&T Clark, 2007], 26-28)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Let\u2019s take a closer look at these claims. 1 Clement expressly contradicts them, and I contend that they are special pleading.<\/p>\n St. Clement writes (I use the standard [Protestant] Schaff translation<\/a>):<\/p>\n If, however, any shall\u00a0disobey<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0the 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)<\/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)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Clement definitely asserts his authority over the Corinthian church far away. Again, the question is: \u201cwhy<\/em>?\u201d What\u00a0sense<\/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 obey the bishop from another region? Not only does Clement assert strong authority; he also claims that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are speaking \u201cthrough\u201d him<\/strong><\/em>.<\/p>\n That is\u00a0extraordinary<\/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\u00a0infallibility<\/em> (divine protection from error and the pope as a unique mouthpiece of, or representative of God).<\/p>\n Catholics maintain that the Jerusalem Council is an exercise of conciliar authority in conjunction with the pope (Peter), and that 1 Clement is analogous to a papal encyclical (a pope authoritatively acting on his own).<\/p>\n Andrew Gregory claims that Pope Clement wishes only \u201cto persuade . . .\u00a0 not to force<\/em> them to submit\u201d and that<\/span> \u201che cannot compel or command.\u201d \u201cHe avoids the use of the imperative\u201d and<\/span> \u201ccould not take for granted that [his] counsel would be either welcome or in any way binding at Corinth.\u201d Supposedly,<\/span> \u201cNowhere does the Roman church demand obedience to its own authority.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n This is simply (to put it mildly) not true to the excerpts above, which assert authority in the very strongest terms, even claiming that if the advice is disobeyed, the Corinthians would \u201cinvolve themselves in transgression and serious danger.\u201d Pope Clement claims that God is speaking \u201cthrough\u201d him (\u201cwords spoken by Him through us\u201d).\u00a0 This is not mere friendly, brotherly persuasion, folks!<\/p>\n It\u2019s the language of binding authority (in effect straight from God via His pope), accompanied by a penalty if it\u2019s not heeded. Gregory can repeat his claims as many times as he wants, but it doesn\u2019t overcome the plain facts of the text of 1 Clement, that expressly contradicts his contentions.<\/p>\n Moreover, Max Lackmann, a Lutheran, makes the observation:<\/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,\u00a0The Unfinished Reformation<\/em>, translated by Robert J. Olsen, Notre Dame, Indiana: Fides Publishers Association, 1961, 84-85)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The essential questions remain: why does\u00a0Corinth<\/em>\u00a0have to obey\u00a0Rome<\/em>? Who determined\u00a0that<\/em> set-up? Why does Clement casually assume that they should and must obey<\/em>\u00a0him, and that it would be \u201ctransgression and serious danger\u201d if they\u00a0don\u2019t<\/em>?<\/p>\n Jason adds in his article, \u201cWas The Papacy Established By Christ? (Part 2)\u201d<\/a> (6-24-06):<\/p>\n Clement of Rome, the earliest church father and a Roman bishop, sent a letter to the Corinthian church to counsel them about a dispute involving the leadership of their church. Such letters were common in early Christianity (Ignatius\u2019 letter to Polycarp, Polycarp\u2019s letter to the Philippian church, etc.), and no jurisdictional superiority, much less papal authority, is implied by the sending of such a letter. To the contrary, the letter is written in the name of the church of Rome, not the bishop of Rome, and the letter makes many appeals to various authorities (scripture, Jesus, the apostles, the Holy Spirit, etc.), but never to any papal authority. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s important to recognize that the early sources had many opportunities to mention a papacy if they believed in such a concept. When men like Clement of Rome and Tertullian comment on issues of authority and the status of the Roman church without mentioning a papacy, the absence of the concept is significant.<\/span><\/p>\n The argument from the use of \u201cchurch of Rome\u201d rather than something like, \u201cI, Pope Clement, . . .\u201d is a trifle and an irrelevancy. The authority of the two was understood<\/em> to be the same, and interchangeable, and it was that way from the beginning. Hence, Clement begins, \u201cThe church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the church of God sojourning at Corinth, . . .\u201d<\/p>\n Likewise, for example, Pope Pius XI in his 1930 encyclical Casti Cannubii<\/em> <\/a>(On Christian Marriage), began with the words: \u201cTo the Venerable Brethren, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops and other Local Ordinaries enjoying Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See.\u201d And he states: \u201cWe, looking with paternal eye on the universal world from this Apostolic See as from a watch-tower, . . .\u201d<\/p>\n The \u201cApostolic See\u201d is, of course, Rome. Similarly, Pope St. Paul VI, in his famous 1968 encyclical, Humanae Vitae<\/em><\/a>, begins as follows: \u201cTo the Venerable Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops and other local Ordinaries in Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See, . . .\u201d<\/p>\n Pope Clement didn\u2019t have<\/em> to appeal to papal authority per se (i.e., he didn\u2019t have to use the words \u201cpope\u201d or \u201cpontiff\u201d or \u201cleader of the Church\u201d in reference to himself, etc., just as Jesus didn\u2019t constantly say, I am God, I am God . . .\u201d). He exercised it in what he expressed<\/em>; how he acted, namely, claiming to speak for God, through the Holy Spirit, and expressing the notion of\u00a0 \u201ctransgression and serious danger\u201d should the authority be disobeyed. Therein lies the profound authority, just as in the case of the Jerusalem council.<\/p>\n This argument from Jason, as a result, carries no force at all. He needs to address what I bring up. He hasn\u2019t yet done so. He talks about<\/em> the document, dancing all around it, but refuses to directly address the language that precisely proves it is \u201cpapal\u201d in nature.<\/p>\n Thomas Halton, whom Jason cites above (in brown<\/span>) argued his position exactly as Jason has: making a pro-Protestant statement about 1 Clement without addressing the key parts of it that prove it isn\u2019t<\/em> Protestant, and is, rather, papal<\/em> and ecclesiologically Catholic. If one observes his cited statement in context<\/em><\/a>, one sees that he ignored the portions I highlight.<\/p>\n They need to be addressed. As long as they are not, we may conclude that Protestants (of Jason\u2019s anti-Catholic sort, and even ecumenical ones who hold that Catholics are fellow Christians) are in effect conceding that we are correct, in refusing to deal with these ultra-relevant sections. We contend that Clement was indeed a pope<\/em>, and was clearly acting<\/em> like one in this letter.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>,\u00a0or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>,\u00a0and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Summary<\/em>: Protestant anti-Catholic polemicist Jason Engwer flatly refuses to grapple with the most relevant literary facts regarding the question of \u201cIs First Clement Non-Papal?\u201d<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" [link for book and purchase information] I dealt with this topic at length with Reformed Protestant apologist Matt Hedges (Pope St. Clement of Rome & Papal Authority, 7-28-21). As of this date he has not yet answered it. Today I discovered some instances of Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer making the same argument. So I\u2019ll […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":63933,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[231,239,138],"tags":[16036,598,1131,1132,7396,809,3820,2813,14410,14407,163,3508,7402,16039,16042,1500,13213,161,7390,1130,162,1133,1129],"class_list":["post-63930","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-anti-catholicism","category-fathers-of-the-church","category-papacy-infallibility","tag-1-clement","tag-apostolic-succession","tag-bible-papacy","tag-biblical-authority","tag-biblical-ecclesiology","tag-bishops","tag-christian-church","tag-church-offices","tag-clement-the-papacy","tag-clement-of-rome","tag-ecclesiology","tag-elders","tag-fathers-the-papacy","tag-first-clement","tag-is-first-clement-non-papal","tag-jason-engwer","tag-matt-hedges","tag-papacy","tag-patristic-ecclesiology","tag-petrine-primacy","tag-popes","tag-primacy-of-rome","tag-st-peter"],"yoast_head":"\n