Replies

Does Irenaeus sound like he is accusing the Catholic Church, the one established by Peter and Paul, to be one with the heretics, such as Simon the Magician?

Clearly there was a sound Christian Church in Rome that Peter may have visited and preached to when Paul was there and out of prison between 62 AD and 66 AD. That is a possibility given the words of Ignatius and gleaning what we can from Irenaeus. But that is a far cry from the pontifications of the RCC for 1500 years upon which the whole thing rests. After all, Irenaeus tells us that Linus was the first bishop of Rome not Peter and not Paul, if he can be believed on that point.

Is it possible that a counterfeit Christian Church founded by Simon Magus grew up there in Rome along with the true church to which Paul wrote and Peter merely paid a short visit. And that counterfeit Christian Church of Simon Magus grew to persecute and dominate the true church?

Is it possible that Irenaeus could not see the forest through the trees. He identified the history and teachings of Simon Magus and his followers but was unable to see that the Church of Rome that he claimed all others should bow down to was, in fact being filled with pretenders, carefully disguised heretics, followers of the disciples of Simon Magus, so-called Christians? Is it possible that he did not see the connection between the sorcerers that he was writing about and those right in front of him in the Church of Rome? Listen to these words of Father Irenaeus pontificating here:

"For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."

Says who? Just where is it written in the Epistle of Paul to the Romans that the Church of Rome was to be the "pre-eminent authority"? Where is it written in Peter's Epistles that the Church of Rome was to be the "pre-eminent authority"?

Where did Irenaeus get this pontification from. He doesn't cite his source. He just plucks it out of the thin air there in Rome, the same thin air that the magisterium was breathing. This clearly is a pontification without substance, something that one would expect to issue forth from the mouths and pens of the magisterium of Simon Magus, and recognizable by those of us looking back on history with the benefit of the Scriptures.

Note that he cites a thing called "tradition" instead. Whose "tradition" was it to aspire to dominate and master others, whether churches or people: the "tradition" of Paul and the apostles or the "tradition" of Simon the Magician?

Irenaeus is the last person you will find your pet theory! He clearly states that the Roman Church is the center of Christian teaching Tradition, a Tradition given by St. Peter and Paul themselves! The substance of the writing merely proves you incorrect. I already told you that I cannot tell you without doubt that Peter was bishop for 25 years. But without doubt, Peter taught at Rome, Peter died at Rome, and Rome was considered the center of orthodox teaching for 1000 years by the ENTIRE Church, including the Eastern Fathers. Simon of Samaria, the magician, holds no commonality of doctrines with the Catholic Church. The smoke and mirrors of trying to associate Simon Peter with Simon the Magician is dead on arrival.

I am merely clearing away the smoke and breaking through the mirrors so that we may all see more clearly the identity of the man behind the curtains, and cloaks, and images, and pretentions of that magisterium descended from his tradition that came to dominate the Church in Rome, and churches elsewhere.