Saint Clement of Rome

Mosaic of Saint Clement of Rome, Basilica of San Clemente, Rome

Saint Clement of Rome was the third successor of Saint Peter and Bishop of Rome, as affirmed by Saint Irenaeus of Lyon in his treatise Adversus Haereses and by Eusebius of Caesarea in his Ecclesiastical History — both of whom also identify him with the co-worker of Saint Paul mentioned in the New Testament (Phil 4:3). It is believed that he knew Saint Peter and Saint Paul personally. Eusebius places his pontificate between the years AD 92 and AD 101. Some traditions hold that he died a martyr.

The Letter to the Corinthians

Although several writings are attributed to him, only the letter to the community of Corinth is considered authentic. It was written to discipline the community, which was undergoing a crisis having deposed the legitimately constituted presbyters from their offices. This letter was considered canonical by some notable Christians, to the point that it appears in the New Testament presented by Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, to King Charles I — a manuscript preserved in the British Museum.

For our purposes, it contains rich apologetic content on several topics such as Petrine primacy, justification, apostolic succession, and the unity of the Church.

Petrine Primacy

With regard to the doctrine of the primacy of Saint Peter, this is an important document because it provides implicit evidence that as early as the first century, Saint Clement — as Bishop of Rome and successor of Saint Peter — possessed a clear awareness of his primacy as the visible head of the Church, and therefore of his mission to watch over and maintain her unity and orthodoxy. Hence, when writing to the community of Corinth, he begins by apologizing for his tardiness in having attended to the problem:

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which are befalling us, brethren, we consider that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters which are disputed among you, dearly beloved; to wit, the shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has been greatly defamed.” (Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 1:1)

He subsequently continues with a tone of authority that would be entirely inappropriate were he lacking jurisdiction over a church so distant.

“But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin, and will ask, with earnest prayer and supplication, that the Creator of all things may keep unharmed the number of his elect that have been numbered throughout the whole world, through his beloved Servant Jesus Christ.” (Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 59:1)

The force of this argument is confirmed by an independent testimony of extraordinary value: that of Bishop Dionysius of Corinth. Around the year AD 170 — approximately seventy years after Clement had sent his letter — Dionysius wrote to Pope Soter of Rome and mentioned, in passing, that the church of Corinth had continued reading Clement’s letter in their liturgical assemblies — just as they would read texts of Sacred Scripture. This corroborates the extraordinary authority that the letter of Clement of Rome carried in the most ancient Church, which is precisely what one would expect if it had been written by the Bishop of Rome to the community of Corinth — not by a mere private individual.

What this fact reveals about the ecclesiology of the primitive Church is of primary importance. A letter bearing merely fraternal and horizontal authority — as some would have it — would never have been elevated to the rank of liturgical reading for decades. Only apostolic letters or those of the highest authority received such treatment. The fact that the very Church of Corinth, the recipient of the correction, received and preserved Clement’s letter as if it were nearly Scripture demonstrates that the primacy of Rome was not an external imposition: it was an authority recognized and accepted by the local churches from the most remote times. The history of Protestantism, marked by incessant divisions and by the absence of any recognized center of doctrinal unity, stands in eloquent contrast to this picture.

Justification and Salvation

On the topic of justification by faith, Saint Clement offers us another rich contribution. He affirms on the one hand that man is justified by faith and not by works, but he adds that it is also necessary to do good works and to keep the commandments in order to be saved, so that one must strive by persevering in the good to be found among the number of the saved. For Saint Clement it is not mere fiducial faith according to Luther’s thought that saves, but faith working through charity, in keeping with Catholic doctrine.

“And so all were glorified and made great, not through themselves or their own works or the righteous actions which they did, but through His will. And so we who have been called by His will in Christ Jesus are not made righteous by ourselves, or by our wisdom or understanding or piety or the works we have done in holiness of heart, but through faith, by which Almighty God has justified all men from the beginning of time.” (Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 32:3–4)

“Let us therefore join with those to whom grace is given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, being justified by our works and not our words.” (Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 30:3)

“Let us take Enoch, who, being found righteous in obedience, was translated, and death was never known to happen to him.” (Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 9:3)

“Abraham, who was called the Friend, was found faithful, inasmuch as he rendered obedience to the words of God.” (Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 10:1)

“Take heed, beloved, lest His many kindnesses lead to the condemning of us, if we walk not worthily of Him, and do those things which are good and well-pleasing in His sight, in concord.” (Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 21:1)

“What shall we do, then, brethren? Shall we become slothful in well-doing, and cease from the practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us! But rather let us hasten with all energy and readiness of mind to perform every good work… The Creator and Father of all worlds rejoices over His works.” (Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 33:1–2, 7)

“Let us therefore earnestly strive to be found in the number of those that wait for Him, in order that we may share in His promised gifts. But how, beloved, shall this be done? If our understanding be fixed by faith towards God; if we earnestly seek the things which are pleasing and acceptable to Him; if we do the things which are in harmony with His blameless will; and if we follow the way of truth, casting away from us all unrighteousness and iniquity, along with all covetousness, strife, evil practices, deceit, whispering, and evil-speaking, all hatred of God, pride and haughtiness, vainglory and ambition. For they that do such things are hateful to God; and not only they that do them, but also those that take pleasure in them.” (Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 35:4–6)

“For, as God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit, who are the faith and the hope of the elect, so surely shall he who with lowliness of mind and instant in gentleness has without regret performed the ordinances and commandments given by God be enrolled and have a name among the number of those who are saved through Jesus Christ, through whom is the glory unto Him for ever and ever. Amen.” (Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 58:2)

Apostolic Succession

In this letter we also have another important testimony from an apologetic standpoint, because it has left us an explicit definition of the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession, in which it is established that it is Jesus Christ himself who institutes the Apostles, who in turn, obeying his will, institute the bishops as their successors in the apostolic ministry.

“The Apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the Apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits of their labours, having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe… Our Apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.” (Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 42:1–5; 44:1–4)

Our Apostles likewise knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife over the office and name of bishop. For this cause, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons and afterwards gave instructions that, should those persons fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. Those, therefore, who were appointed by them or subsequently by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in humility, peaceably, and with dignity, and have moreover, over a long period of time, received a good report from all — these men we consider to be unjustly removed from the ministry. For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the bishop’s office blamelessly and with holiness. (Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 42:1–5; 44:1–4)

The Ministerial Priesthood

One of Protestantism’s favorite arguments against the Catholic doctrine of the ministerial priesthood is that the distinction between ordained priests and laypeople would be a late ecclesiastical invention, foreign to primitive Christianity which — so they claim — recognized only a “universal priesthood of all believers.” The Letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians refutes this hypothesis with an argument that comes from the pen of the very vicar of Peter. In chapter 40 of his letter, Clement establishes an explicit analogy between the liturgical functions of the Old Testament and those of the Christian Church:

“For the high priest has his proper services, and to the priests their proper place is assigned, and to the Levites their proper ministrations are given. The layman is bound by the rules of the laity.” (Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 40:5)

This text deserves special attention for several reasons. In the first place, it is the first testimony in Christian history where the Greek word laikós — layman — appears to designate a member of the Church who does not belong to the ordained ministry. Clement invents, so to speak, the vocabulary that will henceforth distinguish the priest from the layman. In the second place, the schema he draws — high priest, priests, Levites, laypeople — is not egalitarian but hierarchical: each has distinct functions, and the order that distributes them is of divine institution. In the third place, the analogy with the Old Testament is not merely rhetorical: Clement uses it precisely to justify why the Corinthians cannot arbitrarily depose their presbyters, just as no one could arbitrarily remove the Levitical priests.

Protestantism, in rejecting the ministerial priesthood and reducing the entire Church to a single priestly level, not only contradicts the subsequent practice of the Church: it contradicts the testimony of the first pope after Saint Peter, who writes before the end of the first century. The doctrine of the universal priesthood of believers — valid in itself as a description of baptism and of the participation of all in the priesthood of Christ — was never understood by the first Christians as a suppression of the distinct ministerial priesthood. Clement affirms it, Ignatius of Antioch reiterates it in each of his letters, and Irenaeus of Lyon confirms it. The distinction between clergy and laity was not born in the Middle Ages: it was born with the Church herself.

Divisions Among Christians

Unlike within Protestantism, where divisions are continuous and in some cases viewed as something “positive,” given that there is in some way diversity and freedom of opinion, Saint Clement condemns them, to the point of affirming that schismatics make themselves deserving of the gravest penalties:

“Why are there strifes, and tumults, and divisions, and schisms, and wars among you? Have we not all one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us? And have we not one calling in Christ? Why do we divide and tear to pieces the members of Christ, and raise up strife against our own body, and have reached such a height of madness as to forget that we are members one of another? Remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, how He said, Woe to that man by whom offences come! It were better for him that he had never been born, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my elect. Yea, it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about his neck, and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my little ones. Your schism has subverted many, has discouraged many, has given rise to doubt in many, and has caused grief to us all.” (Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 46:7–9)