Pope Saint Anacletus or Cletus (1st century)

A quiet name in an immense chain

Anacletus left no letter comparable to Clement's. No council bears his name. No authentically certain decree allows us to reconstruct his government. Yet his name recurs in the oldest Roman lists because it serves a larger cause than his own person: the continuity of the Church of Rome after Peter.^[6]

To understand his role, the right question must be asked. It is not first: "What spectacular deeds did he accomplish?" The sources do not allow an answer. The real question is: did the Roman Church have a visible succession old enough to be invoked in the second century as a criterion of the true faith? Irenaeus's answer is yes, and Anacletus is its third name after the apostles.^[7]

The pope of fruitful silences

The documentary silence surrounding Anacletus is not an absolute void. It teaches something about the first Christian generations. The Church is not yet an imperial institution with public archives, a monumental basilica and a pontifical chancery. It lives in houses, in networks of presbyters, deacons and local leaders, at the heart of a still pagan capital.^[8]

But a community poor in monuments can be rich in transmission. Irenaeus does not cite Anacletus to fill a chronology: he cites Rome because this Church, founded and organized by Peter and Paul, keeps a succession that makes the apostolic tradition verifiable.^[9]

"By this order and this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles and the preaching of the truth have come down to us." — Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, III, 3, 3^[10]

Irenaeus of Lyons: the decisive testimony

The fundamental text is found in Book III of Against Heresies. Irenaeus writes against the Gnostics, who claim to possess hidden traditions reserved for initiates. His method is very concrete: if a doctrine truly comes from the apostles, it must be recognizable in the Churches they founded and in the succession of their pastors.^[11]

Rome then holds a privileged place. Irenaeus presents it as the very great, very ancient Church, known to all, founded and organized by Peter and Paul. Then he gives the sequel: Linus receives the episcopate; Anacletus succeeds him; Clement comes next.^[12]

This table gives the hierarchy of evidence. Irenaeus and Eusebius weigh heavily for Anacletus's existence and place. The Liber Pontificalis is useful for the history of Roman memory, but it must be sifted, especially when it splits Cletus and Anacletus.^[13]

Eusebius of Caesarea: twelve years between Linus and Clement

Eusebius, in the early fourth century, confirms Anencletus's place in the Roman succession. He writes that in the second year of Titus's reign, Linus, after twelve years as Bishop of Rome, handed his charge to Anencletus. Further on, he adds that in the twelfth year of Domitian, Clement succeeded Anencletus after twelve years as bishop.^[14][15]

This chronology must not be read as a modern administrative register. It gives an order and a traditional duration: Linus, Anencletus, Clement. It places Anacletus in the passage between the post-Neronian aftermath, the Jewish crisis of 70 and the tensions of Domitian's reign.

"Clement succeeded Anencletus after the latter had been bishop of the Church of Rome for twelve years." — Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, III, 15^[16]

Jerome: an ancient disagreement over Clement

Saint Jerome, in On Illustrious Men, calls Clement the fourth Bishop of Rome after Peter if Linus was second and Anacletus third, while noting that many Latins made Clement second after the apostle.^[17]

This sentence matters because it shows that the variation is not a modern invention. The ancient lists sometimes hesitated over Clement's rank, made famous by his letter to the Corinthians, and over Anacletus's name. But the disagreement concerns order or name; it is not enough to erase the fundamental tradition of a continuous Roman succession.

Three forms for one name

The Catholic Encyclopedia sums up the difficulty: Irenaeus, Eusebius, Augustine and Optatus use the forms Anacletus/Cletus as aiming at a single person, but with a divergence of order — Irenaeus gives Linus, Anacletus, Clement, while Augustine and Optatus place Clement before Anacletus; other lists, notably the Liberian Catalogue and the Liber Pontificalis, separate them into two distinct popes.^[18][19]

Modern historians generally see in this doubling an error of transmission. The Greek form Anencletus may have been shortened to Cletus, then Latinized or confused with Anacletus. The Holy See's current official list settles the matter practically by presenting a single entry: Anacletus or Cletus, third pope, pontificate 80-92.^[20][21]

Why the Roman Canon says "Cletus"

The Roman Canon, or Eucharistic Prayer I, invokes the holy popes and martyrs in a liturgical form grown familiar: Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian. This list does not seek to resolve a critical problem of catalogues; it preserves the praying memory of the Church.^[22][23]

For the Catholic reader, this is a strong spiritual point. Anacletus is not only a debate of ancient lists; he is also one of those names that the Roman liturgy hands on, generation after generation, in the Eucharistic prayer.

"Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian..." — Roman Canon, commemoration of the saints^[24]

Two feasts in tradition, one identity in the current list

The confusion of forms had liturgical consequences. Calendar traditions sometimes distinguished Cletus and Anacletus, with separate commemorations. Vatican News still presents Saint Cletus on 26 April as pope and martyr, while the Holy See's official list gathers the identity under the entry "Anacletus or Cletus".^[25][26]

Current status: the feast of Saint Anacletus on 13 July was removed from the General Roman Calendar in 1960, then merged into 26 April under his proper name of Saint Cletus by the Instruction of the Congregation of Rites of 14 February 1961; the joint feast of Saints Cletus and Marcellinus on 26 April was subsequently removed from it in 1969. Saint Cletus nevertheless remains named in the Roman Canon and inscribed in the Roman Martyrology on 26 April.^[27]

The soundest formulation is therefore: the Church venerates Saint Anacletus/Cletus; the ancient traditions sometimes doubled his name; current historical criticism normally refers them to a single person.^[28]

Rome between Titus and Domitian

The Holy See's official list places Anacletus's pontificate from 80 to 92.^[29] Eusebius, for his part, inserts him between the end of Linus's pontificate in the time of Titus and Clement's arrival in the twelfth year of Domitian.^[30][31] These markers place Anacletus in a period when the Roman Empire is emerging from the Neronian and Flavian crises.

The Church of Rome has already known the shock of Nero's persecution. Tacitus reports that, to divert suspicion after the fire of Rome in 64, Nero had the Christians accused and inflicted cruel tortures on them.^[32] Christian sources attach the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to this climate. Anacletus therefore governs a Church still bearing the recent memory of apostolic blood.

After the destruction of the Temple

The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 by Titus profoundly changes the religious landscape of the Jewish and Christian world. Eusebius reads this event in the light of Christ's prophecies and reports, following Josephus, the violence of the war and the ruin of the Temple.^[33] Even if the sources do not say how Anacletus reacted personally, his pontificate lies in this new world: the Temple no longer stands, the apostles are disappearing, Christian communities must learn to endure.

For the Church of Rome, this period is thus a time of consolidation. Before Clement, who will write in the name of the Roman Church to the Corinthians, a community is needed already capable of keeping an internal order, an apostolic memory and a recognized authority.^[34]

A Church without palaces, but not without structure

It would be anachronistic to picture Anacletus with the administrative forms of a medieval or modern papacy. He has no developed curia, no Constantinian basilica, no civil power, no public archives comparable to those of the Empire.^[35]

But the reverse anachronism would be equally false: to conclude from the absence of later structures that there was no primitive authority. The earliest Churches have pastors, presbyters, deacons, a discipline, a liturgy, a doctrinal transmission. Anacletus represents this humble stage: Roman authority already exists as apostolic succession, but it does not yet have the institutional face it will take after Constantine.

Ordinations attributed by the Liber Pontificalis

The Liber Pontificalis attributes to Anencletus two ordinations in the month of December: five priests, three deacons and six bishops for various places.^[36] The detail is interesting, but it must be read with caution. For the earliest popes, the Liber Pontificalis depends on older traditions and catalogues, but its preserved form is late and tends to schematize pontificates.

One general indication may be drawn from it: Roman memory associates Anacletus with the ministerial organization of the Church. It cannot be made into a certain dated register of ordinations.^[37]

The monument over Peter's tomb

The same notice states that Anencletus built and adorned the sepulchral monument of blessed Peter, because he had been made priest by Peter, and that he prepared other burial places for the bishops.^[38]

This point is delicate. The cult of Peter's tomb at the Vatican is a very ancient Roman tradition, confirmed by the monumental development of the site and by the memory of the apostolic "trophies" mentioned by Gaius in Eusebius.^[39] But to attribute to Anacletus himself the precise fitting-out of the monument is more fragile: the source that says so is late.

The right formulation is therefore: the Liber Pontificalis tradition connects Anacletus with the care of Peter's tomb; the historian may see in it an ancient Roman memory of the Vatican burial, without being able to certify the architectural detail.^[40][41]

Martyr or mere confessor?

Tradition calls him pope and martyr. Vatican News presents him as "Pope and Martyr" on 26 April under the name of Cletus.^[42] The Catholic Encyclopedia also states that he died a martyr, while acknowledging the general uncertainty surrounding primitive chronology.^[43]

It must, however, be spoken of soberly. No detailed ancient Passion, comparable to a solid martyrdom dossier, allows his martyrdom to be recounted. Domitian's persecution, mentioned by Eusebius as the second persecution after Nero, provides a possible context, but not direct proof of Anacletus's death.^[44]

The prudent conclusion is simple: the Church venerates Anacletus as saint and martyr in her tradition; the precise historical fact of his martyrdom is not documented with the same guarantees as his rank in the Roman succession.^[45][46]

The sequence Peter, Linus, Anacletus, Clement

The sequence handed down by Irenaeus is the axis of this article: Peter and Paul found and organize the Church of Rome; Linus receives the episcopate; Anacletus succeeds Linus; Clement comes next.^[47] Eusebius takes up a comparable structure, giving traditional durations.^[48]

This list does not claim to provide a complete biography. It gives a backbone: the Roman faith is transmitted in a visible succession, old enough to be cited by Irenaeus against secret doctrines.^[49]

Clement does not erase Anacletus

Clement's authority is far better documented because his letter to the Corinthians is preserved. It is therefore understandable that some Latin traditions placed Clement very early after Peter. Jerome notes this opinion, but he also mentions the order Linus-Anacletus-Clement.^[50]

Clement's fame must not efface Anacletus. On the contrary, it helps to understand the transition: before Rome intervenes with a solemn letter in the crisis at Corinth, she has already passed through the ministries of Linus and Anacletus. Clement does not appear out of nowhere.^[51]

Evidence against the invisible Church

Irenaeus uses the Roman succession against a very present temptation: believing that the true faith is kept in a purely interior spirituality, without a visible Church, without pastors, without public transmission. The Gnostics claimed secrets; Irenaeus answers with names, Churches, successions.^[52]

Anacletus thus teaches a simple thing: the Catholic faith is not a floating idea. It is received, kept, transmitted, verified in a visible body. His name, almost without anecdotes, suffices to recall that God often works through discreet links.^[53]

"What you have heard from me [...], entrust to faithful men [...]" — Saint Paul, 2 Timothy 2:2^[54]

"We know almost nothing about him: why keep his article?"

Because the little we know touches a major point. For many saints, interest comes from a life rich in detail. For Anacletus, interest comes from his structuring position in Irenaeus's argument. He is a named link of the Roman succession in the second century.^[55]

An encyclopedia article must not invent a biography to fill the silence. It must explain why this silence does not cancel the importance of the person.^[56]

"Were Cletus and Anacletus two different popes?"

The ancient lists sometimes doubled the forms of the name. The Liberian Catalogue and the Liber Pontificalis distinguish Cletus and Anacletus; Irenaeus, Eusebius, Augustine and Optatus use them as one and the same person according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.^[57] The Holy See's current list gathers them under a single entry: "Anacletus or Cletus".^[58]

The best historical conclusion is therefore the probable identity of the two names. The doubling is an interesting trace of manuscript and liturgical transmission, not a reason to remove Anacletus from the succession.^[59]

"The papacy did not yet exist as a developed institution"

This is true if one speaks of its later forms: organized conclaves, Apostolic Palace, dicasteries, pontifical diplomacy, medieval canon law. But it would be false to conclude that there was no Roman succession or episcopal authority.

Catholic doctrine distinguishes the apostolic seed and its historical development. Peter receives a charge; Rome keeps a succession; forms of government take shape over the centuries. Anacletus stands at the level of the living seed, not of the fully deployed tree.^[60]

"Is his martyrdom certain?"

Tradition venerates him as a martyr, but direct documentation is poor. The soundest thing to say is: martyr according to liturgical memory and traditional notices; not documented by a detailed ancient account. This nuance takes nothing away from his holiness.^[61]

"Does the confusion of the lists not undermine the whole succession?"

No. The confusion concerns forms of name and sometimes Clement's relative order. It does not remove the central fact: in the second century, Irenaeus knows a Roman succession that starts from Peter and Paul, passes through Linus and Anacletus, then reaches Clement and the following bishops.^[62] The variants show the normal difficulties of a very ancient tradition; they do not prove the absence of tradition.

Receiving without shining

Anacletus is a saint of hidden transmission. He writes no Summa, founds no order, defines no dogma. He receives a Church marked by the apostles and hands it on, living, to the next generation.

This spirituality is precious. In a culture that identifies worth with visibility, Anacletus recalls that certain essential services consist in faithfully keeping what one has received. The Church lives not only through great doctors; she lives also through pastors whose name alone remains, because they served continuity.^[63]

A name in the Mass

His presence under the form Cletus in the Roman Canon gives his memory a particular density. The reader who hears his name in Eucharistic Prayer I must not see in it a decorative formula. He hears the old Church of Rome surrounding the altar with her first witnesses.

Anacletus's holiness is therefore less biographical than liturgical. He is a name handed down in prayer, a sign that the Church celebrating the Eucharist today is the same that kept, in the first century, the memory of Peter, Linus, Cletus and Clement.^[64]

Keeping the public faith

The strongest spiritual point comes from Irenaeus. The Catholic faith is not a private gnosis. It is given publicly, in a visible Church, through a tradition that can be questioned. Anacletus, precisely because he is discreet, forces us to look at the structure: the Church does not stand by the brilliant personality of each bishop, but by Christ's faithfulness to his promise.^[65]

• Pope Saint Peter — apostolic foundation of the Church of Rome.
• Pope Saint Linus — first successor of Saint Peter according to the ancient lists.
• Why is the pope necessary? — doctrinal and pastoral role of Peter's successor.
• Catholics who reject authority — link between visible succession and Catholic obedience.
• First Vatican Council — dogmatic definition of the Roman primacy.