I am not Joab, but I would like to take a stab at this...
Leave it to NewMan to bring a knife to a gun-fight.
We see it as a both/and. We would not say that the Church was built on Peter alone to the exclusion of the other Apostles.
The elasticity of Peter's pre-eminance puts Spandex to shame!
From Christ Himself who commissioned Peter to a special ministry. But again, nobody is saying that the Church was not ALSO built on all the Apostles.
Everybody is special! Peter is just more special, but not (depending).
And yet does Clement claim anywhere in his letter that he was assuming a new sort of authority that was of his own design???
Of course not. He has to make it look like something that was always there, just not obvious to the uninspired eye,
Now look carefully at the first sentence above.
OK:
"The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God."
Clement says that "The Apostles have preached the Gospel to us..." ... and this doesn't seem very unique does it? No. We, too, can say the same thing.
No we can't.
When we read the Bible we HEAR the preaching of the Apostles. Right?
Yeah, it may be the same information, but it isn't the same experience.
But in this case, Clement has a very big advantage over us...because when he says that the Apostles preached "TO US" - what he means is that he PERSONALLY learned DIRECTLY from the Apostles (as a co-worker of Peter and Paul) and that the Corinthians ALSO learned directly from an Apostle (Paul). So it adds a rather extra dimension into the context, doesn't it?
You would have to name the dimension it adds because on the one hand you equate it & then on the othe you say it adds a new dimension. Who are you trying to confuse?
And what does Clement go on to say? He said that God sending forth Jesus, who then sent forth the Apostles to preach to the nations was made "in an orderly way"...and when the Apostles went forth they eventually appointed others who would then continue the SAME ministry "afterwards."
But it isn't the same ministry. Clement goofed.
This scenario was "not a new thing". New things, in this context, is not even in the picture. The whole thrust of this argument by Clement is FIDELITY to the mission given to any given person in the chain.
That's why he screwed up. His loyalty outstripped his intelligence. He didn't understand his mission so he was over-reaching.
So, with that being said, on what basis are we to make the rather huge leap to say that Clement was making up new powers and a new level of authority that he knew from PERSONAL experience and PERSONAL witness that the Apostles did not claim for themselves or their successors?
well, he didn't "know" it from experience or witness, he fabricated it from his own ambition driven misconceptions if he thought there was supposed to be a "boss" apostle. It was all done with the best of intentions, I'm sure.
If Clement was "re-making" his Bishopric into a new office with new prerogitives...loosely similar to the office of the papacy as we know it...then what makes him any different than those "power-grabbers" in Corinth he was rightfully chastising???
Not a darn thing, except he was asserting his being the biggest one of 'em.
...he is only doing so because that is the duty of the office that he already occupies.
Like I say, I'm sure he had the best of intentions.
He would know the distinction between presuming a new authority and assuming an authority that was already his by the very nature of the office itself.
Not necessarily.
Clement was too plugged into the mission given to him by the Apostles start something NEW on his own.
No, that is why new things had to be included in the interpretation of what the mission was, to allow "developements" that keep the new stuff from looking like it wasn't germain to, & didn't naturaly grow out of, what was already in place.
You are right - but then again - as I have said several times in this thread - Clement's Letter to the Corinthians was never intended to be a theological treatise on the Papacy. Therefore there is no reason to expect he would mention things like Keys, or rock, or chair, or whatever. What we would be looking for would be whether or not he exercised authority over the Corinthians...and he did. And since he did, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that Clement acted in papal fashion (which is something that you are even implying yourself).
It not unreasonable if your reason is to turn the authority of brotherly love into the anathema pronouncing power of office. It would seem reasonable to conclude that Clement was acting on the authority of wisdom & love, not the power of institutional office. I don't think Clement was grabbing or execising power. I think that is just the perspective from a power position.
Pass the ketchup...