CLEMENT I, POPE, saint.
Pope from 92 to 101, according to Eusebius; author of an epistle to the Corinthians.
Subsections:
I. Life
II. The epistle
III. Apocryphal works
IV. Title of St C.
I. Life
According to Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., III, 3, 3, in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., V, 6, 1-3), he was the third successor of St Peter after Linus and Cletus; other less reliable testimonies (Tertullian, De praescr. haeret., 32; Jerome, De vir. ill., 15; Adv. Jovinianum, I, 12; Comm. in Isai., 52, 14) make him the immediate successor of St Peter; others, more recent (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III, 4, 8-9; Const. Apost., VII, 46; Liberian Catalogue; Optatus of Milevis, De schism. Donat., II, 3; Augustine, Epist., 53, 2), place the order as: Peter, Linus, C. The period of his pontificate is indicated by Eusebius both in Hist. eccl., III, 15.34, and in Chron. ad a. Abr. 2110. From the letter he seems to have been educated in Hellenistic Judaism. He was personally acquainted with Peter and Paul (Irenaeus, loc. cit.) and according to ancient tradition he should be identified with the Clement mentioned in Phil. 4, 3. On the other hand, the identification, proposed by some, with the consul Titus Flavius Clemens, cousin of Domitian and martyred in 95, rests only on the testimony of the apocryphal Clementines, which make him a member of the imperial Flavian house, and is in contrast with reliable information. A tradition, documented only from the 4th century, makes him a martyr. Feast: 23 November.II. The epistle
The Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) and the Greek codex 54 of the patriarchal library of Jerusalem (4th century) have preserved a letter from the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, also transmitted in ancient versions: Syriac and Latin. It is anonymous, but it is attributed to C. by: Hermas (Pastor. Vis. II, 4, 2); Hegesippus (in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., IV, 22, 1); Dionysius of Corinth (ibid., IV, 23, 11); Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, I, 7, p. 339 ed. G. Potter; IV, 17, p. 609; 18, p. 613; VI, 8, p. 773); Origen (De principiis, II, 3, 6; In Ezech., 8, 3; 51, 1; In Iohann., VI, 54 [36]); Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, 16, 38). The allusion to a persecution that has ceased (1, 1), which must be that of Domitian, places the epistle during the reign of Nerva (18 Sept. 96–25 Jan. 98). Its occasion was a sedition stirred up by a few factions against the leaders of the Church of Corinth (1, 1; 2; 21, 5; 47; etc.). In the first part (1–36), of a general character (cf. 62), C., having described the deplorable state of that once-flourishing Church (1–3), attributes the cause to envy (5–6), and the remedies to the virtues of penance, obedience, hospitality, piety, and humility (7–19); he recalls the benefits of God to which creatures obey, the exhortations of Scripture, the resurrection, divine foreknowledge, and the reward promised by God (20–36). In the second part (37–61), more closely related to the occasion of the letter, he illustrates the hierarchical order of the Church established by Jesus Christ, which requires order and discipline in liturgy and governance (37–44); he reproaches the seditious, exhorting them to penance, praises and commends charity (45–58), and prays for the Church and for public authorities (59–61). Finally, summarizing his exhortations, he mentions the legates sent by him to Corinth, whom he hopes may soon return with good news (62–65).The epistle of C., as appears from the authors cited above and from other sources, enjoyed great success; it was read publicly in many Churches and included in some biblical codices immediately after the New Testament. Historically important are its testimonies regarding the persecution of Nero, in which Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom, the several imprisonments and the journey to Spain of the latter (ch. 5); the sedition at Corinth; the liturgical prayer, of which the one reported can be considered a model; and the relations with imperial power, for which prayers are offered. Also noteworthy is its dogmatic content. As regards Trinitarian and Christological doctrine, it reproduces the data of the New Testament; ecclesiology is particularly developed: the Church is the body of Christ (46, 7), in which the various members have distinct functions (ch. 37); hence the hierarchy, of divine institution (ch. 42), composed of bishops, also called presbyters, and deacons (42; 44, 1–2). The Roman primacy is clearly evident, whether the intervention of Rome was requested by the Corinthians or, as is more likely, C. took the initiative. He is conscious of fulfilling a duty (1, 1), speaks with authority, demands obedience, and threatens the disobedient (59, 1–2; 63, 2–4; 65, 1); the result (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., IV, 23, 11) shows that this authority was fully recognized.
a parte: R. Knopf (Texte und Untersuchungen, 20, 1), Leipzig 1899; C. Th. Schaefer (Florilegium patristicum, 44), Bonn 1941; Italian trans. by P. Gazzola, in I Padri della Chiesa, 2 (1913, int), pp. 13-45; by G. Bosio, I Padri Apostolici, I (Corone Patrum Sales., Greek series, 7), Turin 1940. Studies (see also editions and translations): Bardenhewer, I, pp. 126-30; J. Chapman, s. V. in Catò, Enc., IV, pp. 12-17; I. Giordani, E. C. Rom. e la sua lettera ai Corinti, in Didaskaleion, new series, 3 (1925), pp. 1-103 (also translation); A. Casamassa, I Padri Apostolici, in Lateranum, new series, 4 (1938, III-1r), pp. 35-62; B. Altaner, Patrologia, 4th ed., Turin 1944, nn. 80-84; S. Sanders, L'hellénisme de s. Cl. de Rome et le paulinisme, Louvain 1943. On the intervention of the Roman Church see J. Zeiller, A propos de l'intervention de l'Eglise de Rome à Corinthe, in Rev. d'hist. eccl., 31 (1935), p. 762 ff.; M. Giraudo, L'ecclesiologia di s. C. Romano, Bologna 1943. Michele Pellegrino
III. Apocryphal works
1. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians
In the manuscript tradition this second letter follows Clement’s first epistle; yet, as the text itself makes clear, it is not an epistle but a discourse, read after the reading of a sacred text (ch. 19, 1; cf. also 15, 2; 17, 3). That this discourse was intended for Sunday religious services does not emerge from the text. The author himself, like Ignatius (Ephes., 13, 1) and Polycarp (4, 2), urges frequent religious assemblies (17, 3). It may be that his appeal, his ε'γ × ρ ἀ τ ε ε α (see for the use of the word in this sense Clement of Alexandria, VII, 7, 49, 4; Eusebius, Hist. eccl., II, 15, 2), was meant for a narrower circle (perhaps of ascetics of both sexes) or for a religious service on the days of the stations, where the presbyters (and thus not the bishop) would speak (17, 3, 5).The discourse is addressed to the “new people,” now more numerous than the old (2, 3), yet the formulation of its admonitions bears a Jewish-Christian flavor. Its religious ideal is “justice” (cf. Mt. 7, 21 in 4, 2 [non-canonical formulation?]; 11, 7; 12, 1; 18, 2; 19, 3), though perhaps in the sense of an ascetic surpassing of common “justice.” The author urges Christians to leave this world, this flesh (5, 1; 5, 5), for the great promise of Christ is rest in the future kingdom of eternal life (5, 6).
The two worlds, the present one and the future one, are enemies (6, 3). This world inclines to adultery, corruption, love of money, and deceit. All this must be renounced (6, 4); the Baptism, the pure seal, must be preserved (6, 9; 7, 6), and penance must be done while we are on earth (8, 1; 2). We must keep the flesh chaste if we wish to preserve the seal without blemish (8, 4 and 6), and guard the flesh as a temple for its resurrection (9, 1 and 3). Every ambiguity must be renounced, and acts of justice performed so as to enter the Kingdom of God (11, 5; 7), awaiting its arrival from hour to hour (12, 1). By doing so, we shall be members of the first church, built before the sun and the moon (14, 1), and since God created, according to Gen. 1, 24, man male and female, we must think of Christ and the primitive church (14, 2), which were spiritual. When the Spirit took up residence in the flesh of Christ, the Church also appeared (14, 3). We must, in our flesh, reproduce the relationship between the flesh of Christ and the Spirit, so that we may be members of the primitive Church (14, 3, 4). The consequence is the “counsel” of abstinence (ε'γ × ρ ἀ τ ε ε α). Almsgiving, fasting, and prayer are also recommended (16, 4). After suffering for a little while in the present world, we shall reap the immortal fruit of the resurrection. With “the fathers” we shall rise and enjoy a happy world (19, 4).
The spirituality of the work is very archaic. In its general features it has affinities with the Shepherd of Hermas, the pseudo-Clementine literature, and the Acts of Paul (on the last point cf. C. Schmidt, Acta Pauli, Leipzig 1905, pp. 190-92). It is an ascetic spirituality (apotaxis) based on the eschatological contrast between the two worlds. It seems that a life of virginity is recommended to Christians, both because such a demand is already inferred from Baptism and because of the virgin birth of Christ. The Jewish-Christian speculation on Adam may not have been unknown to the author when he touches on the Christological problem. The author knew apocryphal writings, almost certainly the so-called Gospel according to the Egyptians (ch. 12), which, however, he does not interpret in the encratite sense, and probably another apocryphal gospel (5, 2; 3, 4 and perhaps 4, 2), as well as an apocryphal prophetic book (11, 2-4) also known to the First Epistle of Clement.
(23, 3-4): perhaps Eldad and Modad. The country of origin of our writing is perhaps Syria, and the time of composition is probably the first half of the second century.
2. **Letters to the Virgins.** — A Syriac codex of the New Testament contains, after the Epistle of Jude, two epistles of “C., Apostle of Peter.” Epiphanius (*Panar.*, 30, 15, 2, ed. K. Holl [CB, XXV], Leipzig 1915, pp. 352 ff.) knows of “encyclical letters” of C. that were read in the churches and opposes them to the *Epistles of Peter* attributed to C., i.e., to the pseudo-Clementine literature.
The fact that these epistles were read in the liturgical service in the East explains their presence in a New Testament codex, but Epiphanius’ notice also proves the existence of more than one letter, and the public reading is understandable given the quasi-apostolic authority of C. The same letters are also known to Jerome (*Adv. Iovin.*, 1, 12), who believes they were addressed to “eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven” (Mt. 19:12). This destination, which does not appear in the Syriac translation, is found instead in the Coptic translation of the text. The Coptic text, published in fragments by Th. Lefort (*in Le Musée*, 40 [1927], pp. 254 ff. and ibid., 1929, pp. 265 ff.), attributes the epistles, however, not to C. but to St. Athanasius. Greek fragments (partially abbreviated) of the text have been found in the Pandects of Holy Scripture by the Palestinian monk Antiochus (c. 620). The public reading of the epistles in the churches favors the attribution to Pseudo-C.; while the attribution to Athanasius is explained by the fact that he too had written letters to virgins. The asceticism of these letters is still primitive. The sacred virgins live in their parents’ homes but have taken a vow (profession, ἀρχαιολογος [Coptic text]) of chastity. The custom of cohabitation of men and women consecrated to the Lord (*virgines subintroductae*) is condemned. Of interest is the survival of charisms in these groups and the lack of *stabilitas loci*. The ancient hypothesis that the epistles are the work of a Syrian or a Palestinian of the third century remains the most plausible.
3. **Liturgy of C.** — In Book VIII of the *Apostolic Constitutions*, the liturgy mentioned is called that of St. Clement, because the compiler erroneously attributed his work to C.
Another question is whether the Epistle of C., in its liturgical passages, survived in later liturgical texts. Thus, for example, in *Constit. Ap.*, VIII, 22, 3 (p. 526, 123 ff., ed. F. Funk), phrases from 1 Clem. 60:1 and 59:1 recur—almost verbatim—and a liturgical fragment from a third-century papyrus (cf. U. Wilcken, *Mitteilungen aus der Würzburger Papyrussammlung* [in *Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften*, 6], Berlin 1934, no. 3, pp. 33 ff.) also shows coincidences with the text of C. Probably these coincidences are explained by assuming that both C. and the liturgical texts depend on Jewish liturgical texts. The so-called liturgy of C. in Book VIII of the *Apostolic Constitutions* must be distinguished from Syrian liturgies that go under the name of C.
4. **Clementine Literature.** — This name (Κλημαντίας) is given to a group of writings once attributed to St. Clement of Rome, which constitute one of the most complex problems of early Christian literature.
a) **Present State.** — The following remain: 20 *Homilies*, 10 books of *Recognitiones*, a Syriac epitome compiled from the two previous works, two Greek epitomes or extracts from the homilies and other writings, and two Arabic epitomes, also drawn from the *Homilies* and the *Recognitiones*. The Greek *Homilies* are preceded by two letters, one attributed to St. Peter, a “Contestatio” (*διακριτηρία*) of James and his presbyters, and a letter in which C. declares to James the contents of the work, which is at once his autobiography and a summary of the discourses held by Peter during the journeys in which C. accompanied him. Thus, in the *Homilies*, the narrative, novelistic element is interwoven with the didactic and serves as its pretext; the conflicts and disputes with Simon Magus constitute, in a certain way, the central theme. The doctrine is a mixture of Jewish, Christian, and Gnostic elements, not fused into a homogeneous corpus: the conceptions of the Elkesaites sect predominate (v. : Christ is not the Savior but one of the prophets).
The *Recognitiones*, which have come down to us only in Rufinus’ Latin translation, present themselves as an autobiography of C. addressed to James, with some variations in the narrative and a doctrine that, departing from Judaism, conforms to Catholic orthodoxy—this is certainly due to the translator. The title (*ἀναγνωστικόν*) comes from the “recognitions,” after many vicissitudes, of C. and his relatives, which take place in the *Homilies*.
b) **The Relationships and Sources of the Two Works** have been explained in different ways. Excluding the attribution to C., which is incompatible with the doctrinal element, at first the *Homilies* were made to depend on the *Recognitiones* (Hilgenfeld), then the relationship was reversed (Uhlhorn); others thought of mutual influence, distinguishing in the two works parts of different ages (Uhlhorn, Lehmann, de Lagarde). Today it is generally admitted that there existed one or more common sources, which are sought to be identified with the *Acts* and *Preachings of Peter* (Waitz, Harnack), or with the *Epistles of Clement* mentioned by Origen (Schwartz). The date is also uncertain: some place it in the early Ebionite period, others not before 221 or 260, others in the post-Nicene period, dating the works that have come down to us from the second half of the fourth century.
IV. **Title of St. C.** — It stands in the depression between the last ridges of the Esquiline and the Caelian (Caelius and Oppius) in an area near the Flavian Amphitheatre. Excavations have established that the basilica was first adapted from a large building of large tuff blocks with a travertine stringcourse, belonging approximately to the Augustan period, and later raised (late second to early third century) with a brick curtain. Beside it was a house of the Flavian age which in the third century underwent
Among these was the insertion of an important Mithraic cult center.
The transformation of the public building into a Christian basilica could not take place before the Peace of the Church. But as early as the 1st century a Christian group could gather in the aforementioned house. It is not improbable that this was precisely the community led by Pope C. and that the house belonged to Titus Flavius Clemens, since tradition long remembered the two figures. In the 4th century St Jerome (De viris ill., 15) declares: “to this day Rome preserves the memory of his name [of Pope Clement] in a church built over his tomb.” A 4th-century slave collar bears an inscription mentioning the dominicum Clementis. The word dominicum may suggest a site of considerable dignity, perhaps even recalling an original seat of the Domus ecclesiae.
The basilica received the care of many early medieval popes, beginning with Siricius (384–99). In 417 a council was held there under Pope Zosimus. Major works were carried out under Hormisdas (514–32) and John II (533–35): the latter’s monogram appears in the plutei of the presbyteral enclosure, later re-used in the upper basilica. Adrian II (867–72) placed there the relics of St C. brought by SS Cyril and Methodius. In 869 St Cyril, who had died in Rome, was buried in S. C. by the Pope.
After the devastation wrought by the sack of the Guiscard (1084), the basilica—which had once possessed an important early medieval pictorial decoration (including a votive panel from the time of Leo IV showing the Pope’s portrait)—was again adorned with scenes alluding to St C., St Alexis, etc.; but soon afterwards it had to be rebuilt on a higher level (under Paschal II, 1099–1118) and was re-dedicated in 1128.
The apse mosaics, superb in quality (dominated by the Crucifix amid a broad flourish of floral scrolls), date from this period. The new basilica, narrower than the ancient one, received a new atrium; it was enriched with a schola cantorum and a ciborium in Cosmatesque style. Further works of art were added later, among which the 15th-century chapel of St Catherine, painted by Masolino da Panicale, is especially notable. – See Plates CXIII–CXIV.