Commenting
on the occasion for the writing of 1 Clement, Cyril Richardson wrote the following which refutes the popular claim that Clement of Rome used his papal authority and primacy to intervene in the dispute at Corinth:
[T]here is no evidence that Corinth applied
to Rome for a judgment in the matter. Rome's intervention is to be explained
from other factors. It was nothing extraordinary for leaders of one church to
send a letter of advice and warning to another congregation. The apostolic prerogative
exercised by Paul had set a wide precedent which was followed by the author of
the seven letters in the Revelation, by Ignatius, Polycarp, by Dionysius of
Corinth, by Serapion, and by many others. Each Christian community seems to
have felt a sufficient sense of responsibility for the others so that is
leaders could admonish them with solicitude . . . Corinth, moreover, by being a
natural halt on the route between Rome and the East would be in constant touch
with the imperial city. (Early Church
Fathers, ed. Cyril C. Richardson [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox
Press, 2006], 35-36, emphasis added)
This would
agree even with Roman Catholic apologists who, while abusing 1 Clement to
support papal primacy, that “There is no evidence of an appeal by the
Corinthian Church to Rom for help” (Stephen K. Ray, Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the
Early Church [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], p. 125 n. 23). Such also
agrees with the following from Michael Kruger:
[T]here are no
indications that any one bishop/church was in a position of authority over
another bishop/church in a different locale. For example, while the author
of 1 Clement makes his appeal to the church at Corinth
regarding the improper removal of presbyters, there is no indication that the
church has any jurisdictional authority over the latter. 1 Clement is
not crafted as a directive but instead is designed to persuade—a common reason
why letters were written between churches in this period. As Chadwick observes:
‘while each local church felt itself to be self-sufficient . . . yet the
independence and autonomy of this local community is limited by the mutual care
of the local churches must have for each other’ (H. Chadwick, ‘The Role of the
Christian Bishop in Ancient Society’, Protocol of the Colloquy of the
Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture 35
[1980], 1-14, at 1). (Michael J. Kruger, Christianity at the
Crossroads: How the Second Century Shaped the Future of the Church [London:
SPCK, 2017], 92)
Edward
Denny’s comments on 1 Clement from his 1912 Papalism
is essential reading, too.
It is not
just Catholics who are guilty of abusing 1 Clement; many Protestants (e.g.,
James White; William Webster; Matthew Paulson) abuse it to support Sola Fide. For a refutation, see, for
example: