Saint? Clement of Alexandria

[Christos Anesti]

Okay everyone... one more question.

I've always enjoyed the writings of Clement of Alexandria. He was one the early Church Fathers I read when I was looking to convert back to Christianity. I feel strange when I write about him because I'm never sure if I'm supposed to write "saint" before his name? Is he recognized as a saint by the Orthodox Church? I ask because I notice that most Orthodox do not call him saint Clement of Alexandria.

I know we don't have a canonization process exactly like that in the Latin Church and that people are generally recognized as Saints based on local practice of veneration. If this is the case then shouldn't he be called a saint because the Orthodox in Alexandria venerated him as a saint and so did the pre-schism Western Church (in fact even after the schism they continued to celebrate a feast day in his honor until I think around the 16th century)? I know the OO recognize him as a saint too.

 

[jckstraw72]

i know of no solid answer on this question but i also cant see why on earth he wouldnt be considered a Saint. I have seen him referred to as Saint at some times and other times I've seen him intentionally not referred to as Saint, and I've also seen icons of him, sooooooooo ... I call him St. Clement.

 

[ikonographics]

Clement of Alexandria is not a saint in the Orthodox Church, due to his heretical teachings. He had gnostic tendencies and didn't believe in the full humanity of Christ.

 

[jckstraw72]

do you know what passages show he didnt believe in the full humanity of Christ? I don't recall anything sticking out to me. It'd be interesting to go have a second look.

Also, as I read through his works I thought his use of the term "gnostic" was basically one who is on the path to theosis, not that there was any actual elements of Gnosticism. But I have heard this idea before, so I could certainly be wrong on this.

 

[Christos Anesti]

Clement of Alexandria taught against the false so called gnostics. The gnosis he spoke in favor of was Christian like that spoken of by Saint Paul.

It's possible some of his theological opinons were not accepted by the Church but I don't think that alone would be evidence that he wasn't a saint. Even saints can be wrong can't they?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Even saints can be wrong can't they?

yep, St Augustine of Hippo comes to mind, plus there were a ton of saints who believed in the literal millennial reign of Christ.

yeah, I dunno, I always heard him referred to as St Clement, so I always thought he was a saint of the Church.

 

[MariaRegina]

There was St. Clement of Rome, who was a Pope, wasn't he?

Could you be confusing the two?

 

[ikonographics]

Many saints/Fathers may have personal errors, Clement of Alexandria is not recognised of commemorated as a saint in the Orthodox Church.
Here is en excerpt from OrthodoxWiki regarding his heretical teachings:

"According to Clement, though Christ's goodness operated in the creation of the world, the Son himself was immutable, self-sufficient, and incapable of suffering. According to his interpretation, such are the characteristic qualities of the divine essence. Though the Logos is most closely one with the Father, whose powers he resumes in himself, to Clement both the Son and the Spirit are "first-born powers and first created"; they form the highest stages in the scale of intelligent being, and Clement distinguishes the Son-Logos from the Logos who is immutably immanent in God. Because of this Photius would later charge that he "degraded the Son to the rank of a creature." Separate from the world as the principle of creation, the Logos is yet in it as its guiding principle. Thus a natural life is a life according to the will of the Logos. Clement has also been accused of Docetism in his teachings on the Incarnation. According to him, the body of Christ was not subject to human needs. See the following passage from Stromateis which clearly denies Christ's full humanity:
In regard to the Savior, however, it were ridiculous to suppose that the body demanded, as a body, the necessary aids for
its maintenance. For He ate, note for the sake of the body, which had its continuance from a holy power, but lest those
in His company might happen to think otherwise of Him, just as aftewards some did certainily supposed that He had appeared
as a mere phantasm. He was in general dispassionate; and no movement of feeling penetrated Him, whether pleasure
or pain.2

Instead, Clement's Christ is a supernatural physician; He is not subject to humanity's bodily pain. The medicine which he offers is the communication of saving gnosis, leading men from paganism to faith and from faith to the higher state of knowledge. This true philosophy includes within itself the freedom from sin and the attainment of virtue. As all sin has its root in ignorance, so the knowledge of God and of goodness is followed by well-doing. Against the Gnostics Clement emphasizes the freedom of all to do good (for which he has also been called Semi-Pelagian).

Also, some have downplayed Clement's influence on the Church: "Clement has had no notable influence on the course of theology beyond his personal influence on the young Origen"1."

I'm also wondering if you are confusing him with St Clement of Rome.

 

[Aesjn]

The Copts and the Catholics consider him a Saint, so maybe that is where the confusion comes from.

 

[Christos Anesti]

If the Western Church comemorated him when they where still part of the Orthodox Church and the Orthodox in Alexandria (pre OO schism) did as well wouldn't that make him an Orthodox saint or does a person need to be currently venerated in Russia, Greece, or one the areas that are now Orthodox in order to be an Orthodox saint? If so it seems that people can be a saint of the Church at one time and then later stop being one.

I also noted in that Orthodox.wiki article had an Icon of Clement of Alexandria for a picture. Some Orthodox must have been venerating him to make one of those right?

Some of his Christological views (that Christ didn't need to eat or drink) may not have been spot on but he did argue against the Docetists and mentions them by name as heretics. He also stressed the Christ had a real human body not merely an apparent one. He just thought that due to Christs divine nature his body could go without food if didn't want to eat.

http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Clement_of_Alexandria

This article seems a little more balanced to me.

 

[jckstraw72]

thank you Ikonographics for that info, now that you post that i do recall reading that passage in his works and finding it strange. however, i think (St.) Clement can be vindicated as he lived in an era before the Councils when Christological and Trinitarian dogmas were precisely laid down with very precise wording. I think if he were to have lived during the time of the Councils he would have fully agreed with all of their promulgations. As for the Son being a first-born power and first created, i dont think that necessarily implies that the Son is a creature -- he could be using language of time to try to express an eternal reality to the best of his ability, but he could just be wrong too. St. Justin Martyr at one point calls the Son the first-born of the Father too I believe. Also, Tertullian says something along the lines of the Son coming into existence in time when God created, but the footnotes (in the Ante-Nicene Fathers series) really help to clear things up -- that Tertullian recognized the eternality of the second Person of the Trinity as the Logos, but that He became known as the Son when He helped in creation -- essentially He took on a new role. It can all be very confusing, especially as these writers are all fairly early on before precise wording was decided upon.

 

[Aesjn]

He also stressed the Christ had a real human body not merely an apparent one. He just thought that due to Christs divine nature his body could go without food if didn't want to eat.

Well, in the bible Jesus did, when the disciples pressed him to eat, say something vaguely like "I have food ye know not of" didn't he?

 

[buzuxi02]

Clement of Alexandria is not viewed as a saint in Orthodoxy. In the RCC he was dropped from the calendar in the 18 century. In defence of Clement most Pre-nicene Church Fathers are not canonized saints but are still viewed as church fathers.

 

[Christos Anesti]

I was just re-reading "The One Who Knows God" which is " a collection of Clements insights on what it means to know God. In these writings Clement discusses, prayer, the proper use of wealth, the life of holiness, separation from the world, marriage, love, and women of wisdom". Really good book. I read it years ago and it's a small book so I sort of misplaced it but thankfully I found it again.

 

[Kristos]

St. Cyril of Alexandria calls him “a man admirably learned and skilful, and
one that searched to the depths all the learning of the Greeks, with an exactness rarely attained
before.” So Theodoret says, “He surpassed all others, and​

was a holy man.” St. Jerome pronounces
him the most learned of all the ancients; while Eusebius testifies to his theological attainments, and​

applauds him as an “incomparable master of Christian philosophy.”

 

[jckstraw72]

eeeeeeeeenteresting

 

[Christos Anesti]

I really like this:

"The one who knows God has the same attitude towards both body and soul. He treats all persons alike - whether they are his neighbors, his servants, or his legally-declared enemies. He does not despise his brother, who according to the divine law, is of the same father and mother. He helps those in need by giving comfort and encouragement, and by providing the necessities of life. He gives to all who need. But he does so justly- according to what each one deserves. So the one who knows God grows to the point of knowing to whom he should primarily give, how he should give, when he should give, and how much he should give. The practice of giving liberally, which prevails among us , is properly called "righteousness." But the power of discerning who deserves what amount of assistance is a form of the very highest righteousness.

He even gives to the one who persecutes and hates Christians, if that person has need. He doesn't care if people think he is helping his persecutor out of fear. He knows that his motive is not fear, but only to give help. So when we know God, we share our belongings with our enemies. We hate evil-even when it is done to our enemies. How much more so, then , are we filled with love for those who belong to us.

Who could become the enemy of a man who gives no cause for hatred in any way? Is not that how it is with God? We say that God treats no one as an enemy. For he is the creator of all. And nothing that exists is what he wills it not to be. Instead, we declare that those who are disobedient and who do not live by Gods commandments treat God as an enemy. They are hostile to his covenant. So the one who knows God can never view or treat anyone as a enemy. Rather, those who follow a different path treat the man of God as an enemy."

 

[MariaRegina]

I really like this:

"The one who knows God has the same attitude towards both body and soul. He treats all persons alike - whether they are his neighbors, his servants, or his legally-declared enemies. He does not despise his brother, who according to the divine law, is of the same father and mother. He helps those in need by giving comfort and encouragement, and by providing the necessities of life. He gives to all who need. But he does so justly- according to what each one deserves. So the one who knows God grows to the point of knowing to whom he should primarily give, how he should give, when he should give, and how much he should give. The practice of giving liberally, which prevails among us , is properly called "righteousness." But the power of discerning who deserves what amount of assistance is a form of the very highest righteousness.

He even gives to the one who persecutes and hates Christians, if that person has need. He doesn't care if people think he is helping his persecutor out of fear. He knows that his motive is not fear, but only to give help. So when we know God, we share our belongings with our enemies. We hate evil-even when it is done to our enemies. How much more so, then , are we filled with love for those who belong to us.

Who could become the enemy of a man who gives no cause for hatred in any way? Is not that how it is with God? We say that God treats no one as an enemy. For he is the creator of all. And nothing that exists is what he wills it not to be. Instead, we declare that those who are disobedient and who do not live by Gods commandments treat God as an enemy. They are hostile to his covenant. So the one who knows God can never view or treat anyone as a enemy. Rather, those who follow a different path treat the man of God as an enemy."

How I wish that we Orthodox Christians would take this advice to heart.

Es lastima! How I grieve when we post hateful and brash words here that drive people away from the Truth.

Ojala! May our words be kind, patient, and loving, even to those who seem to attack us.

Forgive me for anytime that I have failed to post with love in my heart, mind, and soul for the least of my brethren.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

yep, St Augustine of Hippo comes to mind, plus there were a ton of saints who believed in the literal millennial reign of Christ.

yeah, I dunno, I always heard him referred to as St Clement, so I always thought he was a saint of the Church.

I don't even think St. Augustine is universally accepted as a saint in Orthodoxy, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[ikonographics]

St. Cyril of Alexandria calls him “a man admirably learned and skilful, and
one that searched to the depths all the learning of the Greeks, with an exactness rarely attained
before.” So Theodoret says, “He surpassed all others, and​

was a holy man.” St. Jerome pronounces
him the most learned of all the ancients; while Eusebius testifies to his theological attainments, and​

applauds him as an “incomparable master of Christian philosophy.”

Origen too is considered a great theologian...but he's not a saint. One can be a "holy man" but still hold heretical views, which is why the Church doesn't recognise all holy men as Holy men.