Patristics: Clement of Rome, Part I

The first of the Church Fathers I wish to study is Clement, Bishop of Rome. He lived in the First Century A.D. and died possibly as early as the mid-90’s or as late as 101 A.D. He is considered by Catholics to be the fourth pope – third in succession from Peter.

Among the Fathers of the Church, Clement is the first of the “Apostolic Fathers” – he was in direct contact with the Apostles themselves. As a First Century leader in the Christian Church in Rome, it is believed that he knew personally at least two of the Apostles (Peter and Paul), and bore witness to their teaching. Irenaeus, who wrote in the Second Century, tells us that Clement “saw the blessed Apostles and conversed with them, and had yet ringing in his ears the preaching of the Apostles and had their tradition before his eyes, and not he only for many were then surviving who had been taught by the Apostles.” Tertullian, at the end of the Second Century, recounts that it was Peter himself who ordained Clement into the ministry. Some ancient sources (including Jerome, the highly regarded Fourth Century scholar who first translated the Bible into Latin) attest that Clement is the same Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3 as his fellow laborer, although this is doubtful. Very little is known for certain about Clement’s life. It is at least clear that Clement led the Roman Church as Bishop some time in the later half of the First Century, and he was third in succession after Peter, following Linus and Cletus.

Various accounts would have it that Clement was martyred under the emperor Trajan by being tied to an anchor and cast into the sea. In the Ninth Century an iron anchor and some scattered bones were unearthed under a mound that was believed to be the tomb of Clement. But because of the late date of this find, scholars are now uncertain as to the authenticity of these relics. It is also possible that Clement died of natural causes while in exile from Rome, although he is often referred to as a “martyr.”

Two letters have been historically attributed to Clement. The first, a letter to the Corinthian Church, is most certainly his, and is widely accepted by today’s scholars as authentic. The second letter is most likely of later origin and is probably a copy of a sermon by an unknown author some time in the Second Century.

It is the first of these letters (the only writing that is certainly Clement’s own work) which we will examine. Below are a few quotes from Clement’s “Letter to the Corinthians” along with a few explanatory notes for greater historical and scriptural context.

“The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth…Grace and peace from almighty God be multiplied unto you through Jesus Christ. Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved…"

Two points stand out in this brief excerpt from the introduction. First, Clement writes from Rome to the far away city of Corinth to assist in a dispute among the Christians there. Why would Rome intervene in a Corinthian matter? If the Corinthians needed outside assistance, why not call on Ephesus across the Aegean Sea? Ephesus was much closer, and in those days of treacherous travel it would have been much quicker to appeal to the Ephesians. Or why not Antioch or Jerusalem - both revered churches in those days? Why Rome?

Second, it appears from Clement’s own words that it was not convenience at all which prompted him to write, but that perhaps Rome was expected to intervene. “[W]e have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you” Clement says, as if apologizing for not answering sooner to their urgent plea. Perhaps it was not a matter of who was closer to Corinth, but who had the authority to assist them in their troubles. Either way, it is obvious that as early as the First Century far-away Rome played an important role in settling church disputes.

“The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; and Jesus Christ was sent from God. …being full of confidence on account of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and confirmed in faith by the word of God, they went forth in the complete assurance of the Holy Spirit, preaching the good news that the Kingdom of God is coming. Through countryside and city they preached; and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the spirit, to be bishops and deacons of future believers.”

Clement is here recounting how the Apostles tested those who would be entrusted with leadership in the Church to ensure that the faith would be handed on intact. The dispute among the Corinthians involved a matter of leadership. There were some who questioned the authority of the elders and teachers in Corinth. Clement is reminding the Corinthians that their leaders have received authority through their link to the Apostles. Their leaders had been tested and ordained in line with the Apostles. On the importance of this matter Paul had warned Timothy, “Do not ordain anyone hastily…” (1Tim 5:22), and again “…guard what has been entrusted to you.” (1Tim 6:20) For Timothy was called to be of that first generation of Christian teachers after the Apostles. Timothy would one day need to hand on his authority to the next Christian generation.

And so Clement continues…

“Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.”

Therefore Paul also writes to Timothy: “You then, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus; and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others as well.” (2Tim 2:1-2)

And to Titus: “I left you behind in Crete for this reason, so that you should put in order what remained to be done, and should appoint elders in every town as I directed you…” (Titus 1:5)

And so the Apostles deliberately established a hierarchy within the local churches. And they passed on the authority to teach and to govern the flock, and expected those leaders to pass on their authority to the next generation. This is what the Church terms “Apostolic Succession.” The Apostles were appointed by Jesus Himself to be leaders in the Church. The Apostles appointed the next generation, and these then passed on the task to still others. With that in mind, Clement scolds those in the Corinthian church sowing discord …

“You, therefore, who laid the foundation of the rebellion, submit to the presbyters and be chastened to repentance, bending your knees in a spirit of humility…Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret…If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger…You will afford us joy and gladness if, being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy, in accord with the plea for peace and concord which we have made in this letter.”

Clement’s goal is unity, “peace and concord” within the whole Church. He expects the Corinthians to obey what he has written “through the Holy Spirit” and if they “disobey the things which have been said by Him through us” they will be “in no small danger.”

Clement’s letter is not merely a friendly greeting from one far-away church to another it is a pastoral letter urging obedience. It is the first example of the Church of Rome settling a dispute in the larger Church.

To put this in perspective we must realize that this Letter to the Corinthians was written around the same time as the Book of Revelation. So the Bible itself had not yet been completed. John the Apostle was yet living. It had been little more than fifty years since the death and resurrection of Jesus. This was the close of the First Century, and the Spirit was alive and active in the infant Christian community. It was then that Rome began to emerge as the center of Christianity.

Patristics: the Early Church in Her Own Words

The first few centuries A.D. was not an easy time to be a Christian. Some of the earliest Christians paid for their belief with their very lives. Indeed, many were martyred for professing faith in Jesus of Nazareth. These men and women were great witnesses to the faith. (The word “martyr” in fact means “witness.”) The early Christian witnesses were sure in their convictions; they were steadfast in faith. So certain were they in the correctness of their doctrine that they were willing to die for what they believed.

If we were asked to likewise die, could we be as certain as they? How are we to know whether our doctrine is in fact authentic – authentic enough to die for? Do we believe as the first Christians did?

Christianity today offers many competing doctrines; there are many sects and denominations. No two groups teach exactly the same beliefs about God or Jesus or salvation or any other tenet of the faith. Yet all of these various Christian churches, as different as they are, attempt to make an appeal to the early Christians. The churches and denominations of today strive to link themselves to those who first believed. Everyone wants to believe as the Christian martyrs did in the First or Second or Third Centuries, when the faith was young and the Spirit was so clearly at work.

But would these early Christians recognize our brand of Christianity? Can any of our churches today truly be in line with the Christianity of the first centuries? Would we be dying for the same beliefs?

To study this question in depth we must explore what is called “patristics” – from the Latin “pater” or “father.” We must look to what are called the “Fathers” of the Church. These early Christians left behind a written record of their belief. Before they were fed to lions or cast into the flames or finished off in any number of various gruesome methods, these Christian witnesses wrote letters, compiled histories, explained Scripture, and otherwise documented a host of details from this early period of Christianity. This is a vast treasure trove of information from which we can build an idea of what the early Christians thought and believed on a whole host of issues and matters of faith.

These records are not complete. That is, they do not present a concise summary of all doctrines and dogmas that early Christians held. They were never meant to be an all-in-one reference guide to the faith. But they do give us priceless gems of insight scattered throughout centuries of writing, which when taken together, give us a broad view of what Christianity was truly all about in the first few hundred years. By studying what these Church Fathers had to say we can survey the landscape of today’s Christianity and come to see which church, if any, can truly claim an authentic relationship with the Apostolic Church.

I propose to examine several of the earliest Fathers, one by one, to examine their lives, sample some of their writings, and explore their doctrine, in an attempt to better understand the Church as she was from the beginning...

(Next: Clement of Rome)

Ash Wednesday

Suffering is inescapable in human life. From the moment we are conceived we possess a body that is fragile - susceptible to illness, disease, injury and eventually death. Indeed, birth is the first stage in the process of dying. It is unavoidable. As surely as new life begins, we know that that same life will someday end…

Today is Ash Wednesday. The ashes on our forehead remind us that, no matter our circumstances in life – rich or poor, young or old, sick or in good health – we are all destined for the grave. “You are dust and unto dust you shall return,” – these words are among those spoken as the ashen cross is traced upon our heads.

But the cross is not only a symbol of our death, but of suffering itself. The cross is not merely a symbol of our common end, but also the path we must tread to arrive there. We “take up our cross” and follow Him. It is a process, a march to our graves. Between conception and death, the life we live is filled with ups and downs. All life contains suffering. All life is marked with the sign of the cross; and the cross gives us hope.

The cross gives us hope, not because it brings an end to suffering, but because it redefines our suffering. Jesus agony and death do not remove suffering from our lives. Jesus did not come to end all pain. Jesus came to give our suffering new meaning!

There is no doubt that Jesus knew suffering of the worst kind. But His suffering transformed the world. If there is to be meaning in our life we must not reject suffering but embrace these moments of pain as channels of grace…just as Jesus embraced the cross for the salvation of the world. If we unite our suffering to His, then we can share in His plan of salvation, and become channels of grace to the world.

When we accept the cross of ashes we seek solidarity with the lowliest and most wretched of humanity. We search out those who suffer and find spiritual companionship. We even seek ways to suffer alongside them. As we look around us and see all those fellow travelers marked with their own crosses today, we see Christ walking beside us.

Saint Valentine's Day

Saint Valentine was a Third Century priest and martyr who was beaten and then beheaded on this day in the year 269. According to some sources there were at least two St. Valentines who died on this day – one was a priest, the other a bishop. However it is likely that the two were in fact the same person – a priest who became a bishop and then was martyred.
Regardless of the precise circumstances surrounding this saint, it has always fascinated and somewhat puzzled me that the popular culture has adopted this day to celebrate “romance.” Here we have the anniversary of the death of a *celibate* man, who was brutally killed for his faith (he was beaten with rakes and had his head lobbed off) and we are supposed to commemorate that event by exchanging sexy negligees and decadent chocolates…? I don’t understand.
Now, I realize that the custom of celebrating “love” on Saint Valentine’s Day traces back to the Medieval belief that on this day the birds choose a mate for the coming Spring. And I know that there were many pagan rituals involving fertility and the pairing off of young lovers that were much easier to suppress by the Church once incorporated into an innocuous feast such as the martyrdom of a saint. It is a much more Christian practice to send a “Valentine greeting” to a prospective mate than to engage in some pagan ritual of questionable morality. In that regard I fully appreciate the significance of Valentine’s Day. It certainly has firm Catholic roots. But have we perhaps gone back to some of the pagan rituals that were supposed to be abandoned? Don’t get me wrong. I can be a romantic – I give flowers and chocolates on this day. But there is *romance* and then there is *smut.* Unfortunately, I see a lot of *smut* for sale on this day of Saint Valentine’s death. Is that appropriate when we honor a man who lived his life for Christ?
And besides that, how does one involve the kids in this “holiday” (HOLY –day)? My children – 5 years old and 2 1/2 years – are certainly too young to have significant others. They can hardly appreciate the “romance” of Valentine’s Day – with or without the smut. Yet they are blasted from all sides with chocolates and teddy bears, toys and candy, that all scream “Happy Valentine’s Day!” It all seems like such a commercial, materialistic ploy. But how do you keep it away from them?
So this year we started something as a family that allows us to celebrate the holiday and yet keep it CATHOLIC. Just as Saint Nicholas brings a few treats for us on Saint Nicolas Day (December 6), so too does Saint Valentine on February 14. This morning we awoke to find cookies and candy and other goodies awaiting us on the dining room table, with a rose for Mom, who was prepared to fix us heart-shaped pancakes for breakfast.
Thankfully, I am now certain that the kids realize this is more than just a day to get silk boxers and a kiss on the cheek. As proof…When asked by a friend what our son hoped to get for Valentine’s Day, he responded: “You know that Valentine is actually a saint! He got his head cut off!” – Not exactly a romantic thought, and not what our friend expected…but it is about LOVE.

Abortion is the 'Slavery' of our Time

Slavery is an abominable practice that scars the history of our nation. Sadly there was a time when Americans actually supported the practice of importing and selling human beings as though they were property. Today, perhaps, we have overcome this troubling part of America's past as we witness this week the swearing in of the first African American to the Presidency. Is this then a new and more civilized age, when all persons are treated as equals and each human being is afforded the dignity they deserve as a child of God? Are we now at a time and place when all men are treated as brothers?

Unfortunately, not.

Ironically, President Obama, the man who to many symbolizes America's triumph over the brutality of slavery and racism, is the current champion of the gruesome practice of abortion. It is difficult to imagine that in this "more civilized" age something as equally cruel and dehumanizing as slavery could exist in our nation and remain protected by our laws. Yet in many respects abortion possesses an uncanny resemblance to the slave trade of more than 150 years ago. We have exchanged one barbaric practice for another. Below I have listed a few arguments frequently used by pro-abortionists today which were also popular among supporters of slavery in years past. The similarities are striking.

1) “It is not really a human being.”
How many times do we hear this line from those who are pro-choice? They produce charts and diagrams and panels of experts that “prove” that the fetus is not a person. It is a "scientific" fact, they tell us.
Similarly the pro-slavery crowd had charts and graphs and expert testimony. There was a whole branch of science that measured skull size, placement of facial features, and other physical attributes to prove that blacks were less than human and therefore not worthy of the same rights as whites. It strikes me as rather frightening that the definition of “human” continues to be up for grabs, even according to the supposed “experts.”

2) “It is better for them this way than to be thrust out into the cruel world.”
Many slave owners genuinely felt they were doing their slaves a favor by keeping them in bondage, shielding them from the harsh cruelty of the outside world. Of course this is ludicrous. The real cruelty is to deny a person the right to experience the world with the freedom that God intended.
Yet abortion advocates argue along much the same line as the slaveholders. “How can I bring a child into this world when there is so much hate and violence and evil?” or “Some birth defects and deformities are simply so severe that the child would not have a good quality of life. It is more merciful to terminate the pregnancy” Just as slave masters pretended that they were protecting slaves from a harsh reality, so too pro-abortionists claim that some babies are just better off not being born.

3) “To end this practice now would devastate the people who so depend on it.”
The end of slavery was a severe blow to white Southerners who profited so greatly from this evil practice. It meant rethinking how their agrarian society operated. It meant reconfiguring Southern social structures and institutions (which took another hundred years and a civil rights movement). With the end of slavery, slaveholders saw their whole world crashing down around them.
With similar fears in mind, the left paints a picture of life without legalized abortion that includes “back alley” procedures with dirty instruments and botched abortions, causing the deaths of countless women and young girls. They also claim abortion benefits society by ridding us of unwanted children and children who would otherwise grow up in poverty or single parent homes. In short abortion supposedly makes our society function better and without it we would all suffer. But in the case of both slavery and abortion, the oppression of a whole race of people and the slaughter of innocent life somehow both fail to persuade me of their benefits.

4) “It is an ancient practice that has served humanity well.”
According to the Planned Parenthood website, “Women have turned to abortion to end unwanted pregnancies throughout the ages. In the U.S., induced abortion was common among Native Americans, and it was legal from colonial times to the middle of the 19th century.” Likewise slavery was an institution that many cultures around the world utilized throughout the centuries.
But this does NOT make either practice morally justifiable! History can teach us a lot of good and valuable lessons. And there are many traditions and longstanding institutions that we would all do well to preserve. But simply appealing to history without giving context to your argument can cause us to falsely justify many evils that are in reality quite barbaric.

5) “My rights are being violated.”
The “Underground Railroad,” that secret network of safe houses created by abolitionists that successfully liberated slaves in the pre-Civil War South by bringing them into the North, was loathed by the white slave masters. They saw the runaway slave as private property and anyone assisting a slave to escape was a common criminal trampling his rights of ownership.
The pro-life protesters of today form a new Underground Railroad of sorts on the sidewalks outside abortion clinics across America. Saving unborn infants and their mothers, they too offer “safe houses” and shelters and roads leading to the freedom of choosing life. And in performing this duty they are accused of infringing on the rights of women, and the rights of the clinic and of its employees. This new Underground Railroad is fighting a whole system that is dependant on more and more women choosing death. It is their "Constitutional right" and the pro-lifers are attacking that "right."
But the right to LIFE of the unborn child is never mentioned, just as the slave’s right to LIBERTY was always ignored.

Now, slavery and abortion are not alike in every way. I do not mean to draw such a bold conclusion. There are many issues that set the two apart. But one thing that makes both so devastating is the permanence of their effects. A slave who has been freed cannot get back the years lost in captivity, nor can we restore the life of a child once torn from her mother’s womb.

The Christ-centered Church, Part V of V

Jesus said to Peter, “You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” He gave to Peter “the keys to the kingdom,” so that whatever Peter bound on earth would be bound in heaven, and whatever he loosed would be loosed. Jesus gave similar authority to the other Apostles - the power to loose and bind - but to Peter alone He gave the “keys.” As such, Peter is the chief steward who exercises authority in the absence of the king. This authority, granted to Peter and exercised through the Church, is binding on all Christians. As we have seen, the Church that Jesus built on the “Rock” possesses even the power to forgive sins and to cut off from the fold those Christians who do not repent (Matthew 18:15-18). In short, Jesus established His Church with real authority and power, and entrusted its governance to mortal men.

Notice that Jesus did not say, “I give to you the Bible, and on this Bible I will build my Church.” He did not say that the power to loose and bind would reside in a book. Yet there are many Christians who turn to the Bible to construct their own version of the church. They form “Bible-based” churches, when it is clear from Christ’s own words that the true Church of Christ rests on the authority given to Peter and the Apostles as a living institution. The true Church is not built on a book, but is a living Body of believers – the Body of Christ, empowered with the Spirit.

Then where is this living Church today? Where is the Church that Christ established so many years ago?

Only one church has maintained the teaching authority first granted to Peter. Only one church can trace itself back to the Church of the Apostles, through a steady succession of bishops, back to the First Century. Only one church can truly claim to be established by Jesus Himself upon the “Rock,” upon Peter, to whom was given the keys of the kingdom.

The Catholic Church has been governed by the successors to Peter (the popes) for nearly 2000 years. Meanwhile, Bible-based churches are at best only a few centuries old, or (more often) a few decades. None of these “Bible churches” have a tangible, historic link to the Apostles. Nor can they claim any real authority. The fact is, anyone can pick up a Bible and “claim” to know what it teaches, but only the Catholic Church was granted the power to loose and bind, an authority granted by Jesus Himself. Only the successors to Peter have passed on the keys to the kingdom as the stewards of God’s people until the King returns.

Jesus, the Good Shepherd, would not leave his flock to wander untended. And so, before He ascended to the Father, Jesus commanded Peter, “Feed my lambs…tend my sheep” (John 21:15-19). He appointed Peter as shepherd in His stead. The Church has been lead ever since by Peter’s successors. All Christians who wish to be truly Christ-centered in their obedience must turn to the authority which Christ left us, the authority of His Church, the power of the keys, which the Catholic Church alone possesses.

The Christ-centered Church, Part IV of V

Christ established His Church on earth to exercise authority in His absence, saying “…whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18:18) Each individual must submit to this moral authority of the Church or else find himself cut off from the body of believers: “…if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” (Matthew 18:17) The Church draws this authority from Jesus Christ through the power of the Spirit breathed into her at Pentecost. “…He breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.’” (John 20:22-23) It is a power that is binding on every Christian soul.

Since this is true, since we must obey the Church or else be cut off from the Body of Christ, then we must ask: Which church is the true Church? To which body do I owe my allegiance? There are many competing denominations and sects within Christianity, each claiming to be the true Church that Christ founded in the First Century. How can we know which is in actual fact the very same Church granted authority over all believers? If we can discover this, then we have no alternative than to obey.

Twice Jesus stated that His Church would have this power to “loose and bind.” One of these passages has been cited above in Matthew 18:18. The other occurs two chapters earlier in the same Gospel. And to this passage we now turn, for in this verse we see, quite literally, the “key” to the Church’s authority: "I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:18-19)

These words were spoken by Jesus to Simon, whom Jesus gave the name Peter (which means “rock”). Peter was to be the “rock” on which Jesus would build His Church. And to Peter was given the “keys of the kingdom of heaven.” While the other Apostles were later addressed (in chapter 18) as sharing this same power to loose and bind, it was Peter alone who was given the “keys.” But what are these “keys”?

In our day the meaning of the “keys” may be lost or obscured, but Scripture provides the answer. For the Jews of Jesus’ time the image of the “key” would immediately conjure up the royal household and the power given to the steward of the kingdom. Isaiah 22:20-23 speaks of this authority: “On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family…”

The power of the key, the authority to “shut and open” (or “loose and bind”) is the authority given to the chief steward of the kingdom of Israel - the “steward” being second in command to the king. In the king’s absence, the steward exercised decision-making authority until the king’s return. Jesus is King of kings, and Lord of lords. Peter was given power to exercise authority over the Church until Jesus’ return in glory. Now we must ask, how does this authority continue until our present time? Where do we find the keys of the kingdom of heaven?