In our last post, we discovered that the claims asserted by Roman Catholic authorities on the basis of Chapter 5 are entirely without foundation. The only other place where Peter and Paul are mentioned is Chapter 47:
"Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle. What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel? Of a truth he charged you in the Spirit concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, because that even then ye had made parties. Yet that making of parties brought less sin upon you; for ye were partisans of Apostles that were highly reputed, and of a man approved in their sight. But now mark ye, who they are that have perverted you and diminished the glory of your renowned love for the brotherhood. It is shameful, dearly beloved, yes, utterly shameful and unworthy of your conduct in Christ, that it should be reported that the very steadfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians, for the sake of one or two persons, maketh sedition against its presbyters. And this report hath reached not only us, but them also which differ from us, so that ye even heap blasphemies on the Name of the Lord by reason of your folly, and moreover create peril for yourselves."
Only a determinedly preconceived motive could possibly extract from Chapters 5 or 47 of Clement's letter one jot of proof for Peter's residence and death in Rome or a tittle of evidence that the supremacy of the Roman Church over Corinth was therein asserted.
Pay special attention to the previous quote from the CE article Pope which is here repeated:
"Thus, at the very commencement of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men's minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head."
As I stated in Clement's Letter, Parts II, and III, while they claim that the apostle John was still alive, the Roman Catholic authorities would have us believe that Clement, whom the Roman Catholic church claims is the third/fourth Pope after Peter, was asserting his universal authority over the church of Corinth from Rome.
Again, reflect a little on this...and again, smile if you must!
It can only be repeated: but for the letter which bears his name, the world would know nothing of Clement. If one cares to consult the Roman Catholic Encyclopaedia and its list of the first ten popes, one might be surprised by the lack of information. They are little more than fanciful constructions.
The TWO distinct claims made by the Roman Catholic Church on the basis of Clement's letter - that Peter resided and died in Rome and that Clement as Bishop of Rome exercised primacy over other churches - are also nothing more than fanciful constructions.