Edward Denny, an Anglican theologian, wrote a volume in 1912 entitled, Papalism: A treatise on the claims of the papacy as set forth in the encyclical Satis Cognitum, which is perhaps the best historical refutation of the Roman Catholic dogmatic teachings about the Papacy.
Commenting on 1 Clement, often abused by Catholic apologists (e.g., Steve Ray; Scott Butler) as early Christian evidence for the papacy, Denny wrote the following (pp. 638-43):
1225. The letter which St. Clement, Bishop of Rome, wrote to the Corinthians is sometimes adduced in support of the position asserted by Papalism to belong jure divino to the Roman Pontiff. If the Epistle, however, be examined, it will be seen that not only can such use not be justified, but it is also incompatible with statements contained in it. The circumstances under which it was written are briefly these. The Church at Corinth was at the time the scene of great disorder. Led by one or two ambitious young men the Corinthian Christians had rebelled against their legitimate hierarchy, and had deposed some of their Presbyters. There does not appear to have been at this time a Bishop of that Church. Whether there was a vacancy, or whether no local Bishop was yet settled there is not known; more probably the latter was the case, at any rate there was no one at Corinth then occupying such position.
1226. The tone of the remonstrance is strong, but very little consideration of this letter is required to see that whatever the ground on which such remonstrance is made, it is certainly not that which alone would make it of any value for the purpose for which it is sought to use it. For what according to Papalism is the unique position which is occupied jure divine by the Bishop of Rome? It is that of 'Supreme Pastor' of 'the One Flock,' 'the Supreme Judge of the faithful,' possessed of 'real and sovereign authority which the whole community is bound to obey,' authority which is his because he is the legitimate successor in the Roman Episcopate of Peter, whom Christ made His Vicegerent, conferring on him that authority which He Himself exercised on the Apostolic College during His mortal life. This, and nothing less, according to Papalism, was the position of the Roman Bishop when this letter was written, since it is expressly declared that such position has been 'the venerable and constant belief of every age,' as indeed, if it be true, it must have been.
1227. Now, in the whole of this letter, written on an, occasion which, threatening as it did the unity of the Church, demanded on ' Papal principles an authoritative utterance on the part of the legitimate successor of Peter, 'the Supreme Pastor,' there is not only no mention of the 'Roman Pontiff,' but even the name of the writer is not given. True, it has always been believed to have been St. Clement, but the sole ground for this is Christian tradition. Whatever of ' authority ' there maybe in the language employed in the letter so far as it is concerned, such authority is centred in the Church which writes, and not in the 'legitimate successor of St. Peter.' It would be useless to argue that the Church of Rome spoke authoritatively because Peter had been its Bishop, for it is of the essence of the Papal authority, that it is inherent in 'the Supreme Pastor,' whom Christ has appointed — the Visible Head as an essential, indeed the principal, element in the Divine Constitution of the Church. It is thus the authority of the Vicegerent of Christ, the grant of whose appointment necessitates that it should be wielded by one who is His Vicar. It is admitted that St. Clement was Bishop of Rome at the date of the letter, it is admitted that he wrote the letter. On Papalist principles the letter would, therefore, be that of one possessed jure divino of full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, yet, not only does he not write as the ' Vicar of Christ,' authoritatively exercising his office as Supreme Pastor of the One Flock having 'ordinary,' 'immediate,' and 'truly Episcopal' jurisdiction at Corinth, but there is a complete self-effacement of the writer. It is an Epistle from the Church at Rome, not one of ' the Sovereign Pontiff.'
1228. Moreover, the reference which is made to St. Peter in the letter is inconsistent with the idea that there had been conferred on him and 'his legitimate successors in the Roman Episcopate,' 'by the institution of Christ,' any of the unique and tremendous prerogatives asserted by Papalism. ' To pass,' says St. Clement, ' from the example of ancient days, let us come to those champions who lived very near to our time. Let us set before us the noble examples which belong to our generation. By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles. There was Peter, who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one or two but many labours, and then having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory. By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the price of patient endurance.
After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and having reached the farthest bounds of the West.'
1229. The two Apostles are here placed on exactly the same level by St. Clement. They are ' the champions ' which belong to the time nearest to that of the writer and the Corinthians, they 'are the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church,' 'the good Apostles' who are to be set before their eyes. Neither is placed before the other. St. Clement and his generation had known them both, and he had no knowledge of any position occupied by Peter with regard to the Church of Rome not equally shared by Paul. They were doubtless, as St. Irenaeus relates, joint founders of that Church; neither of them Diocesan Bishop thereof, neither of them 'the Sovereign Pontiff,' for both held the same position in the Church as 'the greatest pillars,' i.e. chief amongst the Apostles, but neither possessed any other office. Hence, St. Clement did not hold himself to be 'the legitimate successor of Peter in the Roman Episcopate,' and so Vicar of Christ.' Consequently, in the letter there is no attempt on his part to exercise Papal authority, which, if the Papal theory were true, he must have done in faithful discharge of the unique office which he held jure divino. Further, there is no claim for any 'superiority' in power for the Church at Rome itself as a 'Church.' There is not the slightest hint of anything of the sort, the 'authority' is moral and not a 'power of jurisdiction' — two essentially different things. Whence is this moral authority derived? No doubt the Church at Rome, since it existed in the Imperial City, would, as has been noted, obtain early information of the unhappy state of things existing at Corinth ; what more natural than that a Church which rejoiced in the honour of having been founded by ' the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church,' the 'two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul ' who had been martyred there within the memory of man, and which possessed, therefore, the Apostolic tradition as to Church Order, should in the Name of God write a letter of urgent remonstrance ?
1230. Again, the 'moral authority' which such a Church so founded would possess would materially be strengthened by the fact that the Church so exercising it was an important Church, because of its position in the very centre of the known world, whose influence would, too, be rendered more widespread and weighty by the munificence which its wealth enabled it to manifest towards other portions of the Church. Probably, indeed, the Church at Corinth had had experience of this liberality, for when Dionysius of Corinth, some eighty years later, wrote to thank the then Bishop of Rome for the supplies which he had furnished to the members of the Church over which he ruled, he said: ' For this practice has prevailed with you from the very beginning, to do good to all the brethren in every way, and to send many contributions to many Churches in every city. Thus refreshing the needy in their want, and furnishing to the brethren condemned to the mines what was necessary, by these contributions which ye have been accustomed to send from the beginning, you preserve, as Romans, the practice of your ancestors the Romans. Such liberality would, it cannot be doubted, add to the moral authority of the Church of Rome, and cause its remonstrances to be readily accepted, remonstrances which it was quite consistent with the polity of the Church for any portion thereof to make to another. For all the local Churches belonging to the same Body, possessing the One Episcopate, any injury done to one part was felt by the rest ; and, all the parts taking an interest in the welfare of each other, any local Church could take such steps as it might think advisable to bring about a more satisfactory condition of things.
1231. The 'tone of the letter is quite consistent with this position, whereas the total absence of any mention of the Episcopate of Peter at Rome by one who possessed personal knowledge of the connection which had existed between him and the Church at Rome, although on Papalist principles it would have been, especially if he mentioned St. Peter, the one thing he would necessarily have emphasised as being the ground on which he interfered as his successor in the Supreme Pastorate in the affairs of the Church at Corinth, coupled with the way in which he does mention him, is fatal to Papalism being 'the venerable and constant belief of St. Clement's 'age' — hence the letter is a witness against Papalism, in support of which it is sought to make use of it.
1232. St. Ignatius in the letter in the text says that the Roman Church ' presides in the place of the region of the Romans . . . and has a presidency of love.' ' l He is here alluding to two facts : First, that the Church of Rome, as the Church seated in the 'City,' naturally had precedence amongst all the other Churches 'in the place of the region of the Romans,' just as Tertullian says of the Apostolical Churches that in them 'the very seats of the Apostles at this very day do preside in their own places — suis loris.' The locus in which the Apostolical Church of Rome would preside would, of course, be ' the place of the region of the Romans,' a definite district of which Rome was the centre, obviously distinct from other districts which could likewise be described as 'regions.' Secondly, by 'a presidency of love' St. Ignatius means that pre-eminence in charity which was the special glory of the Roman Church in the first age, as, for instance, Dionysius of Corinth recounts its munificence in the days of Soter and earlier, and St. Dionysius of Alexandria, that in the days of St. Stephen to the Churches of Syria and Arabia, and St. Basil mentions that in the days of St. Dionysius, in redeeming captives, in the province of Cappadocia.
