Does Clement of Rome's Letter to the Corinthians Prove Papal Authority?

 

One of the earliest examples in church history appealed to by Roman Catholic apologists is when Clement (bishop of Rome at the time) wrote a letter to the Corinthians settling a disruption which had taken place there. Basically what had happened was that the congregation was deposing some of their presbyters. Clement (though his name is not in the letter, virtually everyone today accepts him to be its author) wrote to the church in Corinth to settle the controversies. 

Roman Catholic apologists claim that this letter has the tone of a superior speaking to an inferior, and that this thus proves the idea of papal authority over other churches.  

There have been many responses from Reformed folks concerning this argument in the past (especially during the 19th century around Vatican I when you have tons of books from both sides on the historical facts surrounding the papacy). One popular argument against Rome in this situation is to say that Clement was writing not on behalf of himself solely, but on behalf of the church of Rome. While this argument may be true, I take a slightly different approach to answering the Roman Catholic argument. 

Take notice of the following language from Clement:

"But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience." (Chapter 5 in Epistle to the Corinthians)

Clement speaks of Peter and Paul here on the same level, language which would seem to be inconsistent with the RC view of Peter's authority and position. This part of the letter would seem to be a proper place for Clement to at least say something of Peter's authority as the bishop of Rome. But he does not, for the simple reason that he knew of no such thing.

Peter and Paul are both referred to as "spiritual heroes", "the good Apostles", "the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church", and "noble examples". Clement does not seem to view Peter as being "above" Paul in the sense that Roman Catholicism would (i.e. as the Vicar of Christ on earth who possesses universal jurisdiction over the entire church). 

More than that, the idea of a monarchial episcopate does not seem to present in Clement's letter. Notice this portion from chapter 44:

"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and 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 [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour." (Chapter 44) 

This seems to put presbyters and bishops on  the same level.

"While Clement's position as a leading presbyter and spokesman of the Christian community at Rome is assured, his letter suggests that the monarchial episcopate had not yet emerged there, and it is therefore impossible to form any precise conception of his constitutional role." (J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes [Oxford University Press 2005], pg. 8)

"The unity of style suggests that the letter is the work of a single author. While the letter, which was sent οη behalf of the whole church (see the subscription), does not name its writer, well-attested ancient tradition and most manuscripts identify it as the work of Clement whose precise identity, however, is not clear. Tradition identifιes him as the third bishop of Rome after Peter, but this is unlikely because the offιce of monarchical bishop, in the sense intended by this later tradition, does not appear to have existed in Rome at this time. Leadership seems to have been entrusted to a group of presbyters or bishops (the two appear to be synonymous in 1 Clement; see 44.1-6), among whom Clement almost certainly was a (if not the) leading fιgure." (Michael Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers, pg. 35)