Ecclesiastical Office and the Primacy of Rome by John Fuellenbach, S.V.D.

Abstract

BOOK REVIEWS 641 Ecclesiastical Office and the Primacy of Rome. An Evaluation of Recent Theological Discussion of First Clement. By JOHN FUELLENBACH, S.V.D. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1980. Pp. ix + ~78. $~5.00. John Fuellenbach's study on Church structures in I Clement is Volume ~O of Studies in Christian Antiquity, a series begun in 1941 by Johannes Quasten, the eminent elder statesman of patrology who is now a Professor Emeritus at The Catholic University of America. It was originally written as a doctoral dissertation under the direction of Fr. Quasten in the Department of Theology at Catholic University. In four chapters, he presents and evaluates the theological discussion of I Clement over the last one hundred years-from Adolf von Harnack (1875) to Rudolph Zollitsch (1974). The author examines the views of sixteen Protestant and twentythree Catholic scholars. This distinction is not rigidly adhered to, since F. S. Marsh, an Anglican (p. 77), and W. K. Lowther Clarke, another non-Catholic (p. 96), are both found in the Catholic section. Nearly all of the authors treated are German; only four write in English. The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians has intrigued scholars for centuries. The adage-tot opiniones quot auctores-certainly applies here. In fact, Fuellenbach notes that perhaps the only agreement among recent studies is on the date of the epistle. Yet, he quickly adds that " almost " all the experts date it between 93 and 97 A.D. Using an historico-analytic method, Fuellenbach investigates the two basic traditional interpretations of Church structures: the Protestant, with a clear preference for I Cor., affirms a charismatic ministry and the Catholic , more attuned to Luke-Acts and the Pastorals, holds for an institutional ministry without denying its charismatic dimension. To each denominational group the author addresses three questions: 1) Is there an historical and theological foundation for Clement's understanding of office? ~) Does Clement's view of Church order have universal validity? 3) Does Clement make a claim for Roman primacy? Protestants generally answer negatively and Catholics (with some notable exceptions) answer affirmatively to the first two questions; but both groups carefully qualify their conclusions. To the third question on the primacy, Protestants continue to deny that any evidence of primatial authority can be found in Clement. Among Catholics, however, a change has taken place. Contemporary Catholic scholars are much more reluctant than their predecessors to find primatial claims in Clement. The primacy question is no longer the focus of attention. Rather there is more discussion of the exclusiveness of the episcopal model vis-a-vis other New Testament models and greater interest in the collegial as op- 642 BOOK REVIEWS posed to the monarchical view of office. Fuellenbach himself argues for the " relative independence " of the Petrine ministry which would allow the papacy to develop along with the episcopal ministry. He explains the current shift in Catholic scholarship to the use of historical and critical methods found in New Testament research. As a result, a more objective approach has replaced the earlier co:1fessional and apologetic exegesis. Although the author is usually very careful in presenting and evaluating the various opinions-not an easy task in view of the complexity of the problem-in at least two instances there is some conflict. On page 76, for example, he says that the Catholic scholar, Wilhelm Scherer argues that a de facto primacy exists in Clement, but on page 114 he has Scherer holding just the opposite view. Moreover, he cites Quasten twice (p. 96 and p. 259, note 282) as accepting the idea of a " collegiate episcopate " in Rome in which one member would act as the presiding officer. Yet his reference to Quasten (p. 227, note 317) seems to be inaccurate. The notes and bibliography which comprise nearly half of the book are helpful; an index, however, would have added much to the book's value. Fuellenbach is to be commended for his thoroughly researched and well written study. Although he does not claim to "present any staggering new findings " (p. viii) , he does treat comprehensively the on-going understanding of the Clementine contribution. The Catholic University of America Washington...