Posted on 11/27/2006 6:58:00 PM PST by Ottofire
Uncle Chip, you do your argument a vast disservice by plucking sentences out of context and pretend they support your position without reading ALL of what Holy Father Irenaeus has to say. I hate doing quote dumps, but you have made it necessary. So let's look at the entire section in full (which is, tellingly, called: "The heretics follow neither Scripture nor Tradition")
. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.You are 100% right that Irenaeus criticizes those who claim they received some "special understanding" by way of unwritten tradition. BUT, he says that when the orthodox answer the Gnostics by saying "Ok, let's look at tradition then", then suddenly the Gnostics say that the Catholic tradition is *valueless* and adulterated and false, and they and they alone "discovered" the pure, unalloyed doctrine that--presumably--had lain dormant in the Church till then.2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
3. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Wherefore they must be opposed at all points, if perchance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it.
You are only looking at one side of Irenaeus's argument--he used BOTH Scripture AND tradition to assert orthodoxy against the Gnostics--to "oppose them at all points".
I enjoyed your home page. ;-)
Your point is well-taken. But it appears from Irenaeus's writings that by "tradition" he meant those things that originate with the apostles in the Scriptures, that were subsequently preserved by the presbyters. I believe that Irenaeus would say that Scripture is superior to tradition, and that any tradition that is not founded in Scripture is no tradition at all. However he does not appear to have a consistent definition for the word: "tradition". He appears to assume that what his church at that time believes and teaches is a traditional and in line with Scripture when some of it clearly is not.
Of course Irenaeus would have held this view and I don't disagree with Irenaeus' writings. There was only ONE Christian church at that time and it was under attacked by all sorts of heretical doctrine. Irenaeus focus was on keeping the Church pure and his writings reflect this view.
Shoot ahead 900 years later when the Orthodox split. Which traditions are you following? The Orthodox says that the Church never had a strong Pope. The Roman Catholics say they did. This was such an area of contention it has kept both groups apart for another 1,000 years. Well, if you're following traditions of the Church doesn't this seem like a silly argument? One would have thought the matter resolved. Whose tradition is it anyway?
Well, so says Uncle Chip, but I'm not sure Uncle Chip can necessarily make that determination any more than I can! :)
We have a tendency to look at the early Church with certain assumptions about what it *must* have been like (based on our own interpretations of Scripture), rather than looking at it for what it actually was. Clearly, Irenaeus thought that what he was saying was right in line with what the Apostles taught. I'm not sure we're in a great position to contest him on that point...especially since we don't find his contemporaries writing tracts saying that he was dead wrong.
So obviously, I would say that tradition in its entirety rests in the Catholic church, and that the Orthodox Churches preserve almost all of it intact (but not quite all of it, because of the non-communion with the See of Peter).
Sometime ask the Orthodox the question Jesus asked Peter, "Who do men say that I am? ... Who do you say that I am?" in reference, not to Jesus, but to the Pope.
There are almost as many answers as there are Orthodox.
I think the problem is that our understanding of what the Roman primacy means has diverged, and it was diverging for quite some time before 1054. So, some of the Orthodox might say that would be happy to recognize a Roman primacy that operated they way they think the Roman primacy operated before, say AD 800. Problem: even if we could understand accurately how the east viewed the Roman primacy before AD 800 and reproduce it today, that's not necessarily the way the West viewed it before AD 800, to say nothing of the way the West views it today.
Overlapping (not identical) tradition, but different ways of understanding it, especially in the area of ecclesiology and church government.
Nice taking of Irenaeus out of context, there, Uncle.
Here's the next paragraph:
But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition. (Book III, Chapter 2, verse 2)
Oops, you beat me to it. Good job!
PCA Presbyterians believe in the Apostolic succession of bishops, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and Mary as the "New Eve"? Do tell! Because Irenaeus believed in all of those things.
Nobody's denying that. He's pointing out that, without Scripture, you'd have to depend on the teaching authority of the Church. It doesn't follow that you can dispense with the teaching authority of the Church because you have Scripture.
Come back and play, Campion! Don't take your Jurgens and go home!
I have to sleep sometime!
The leaders of these churches were not "appointed" by Paul.
For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you ... -- Titus 1:5
Last time I checked, we were all called to mediate between Jesus and each other. That's why Paul asks certain of his readers to pray for him.
Accusing Catholics of worshipping Mary is bearing false witness again, Ottofire.
If he had the Scriptures in his hand and actually read them he would have known that no where did the Apostles Paul or Peter or any other Apostle teach that the Church of Rome was to be superior to the others. More than likely, this "tradition" that he was pontificating was part of the "Confession of the Church of Rome" of his day that all churchmen had to assent to if they wanted to hold a church office. For he provides no Scriptural basis for this "tradition". It may have been a "tradition" to him and those in the Church there in Rome, but it was a tradition no where else.
I'm not sure we're in a great position to contest him on that point...especially since we don't find his contemporaries writing tracts saying that he was dead wrong.
Sure we are. We have the benefit of hindsight and history that he did not have. Those contemporaries of his probably did not know of some of these things that he labelled "traditions", as I'm sure his writings were not circulated as religiously as the Scriptures were.
And even if they did read his writings, his writings were not inspired by the Holy Spirit, as even he would admit unequivocably. And for those who did read what he said about the superiority of the Church of Rome, most of the Church in his day and later did say "that he was dead wrong" --- by their actions day after day, by ignoring not only what he said in that regard, but also in ignoring the pontifications of presbyters of the Church of Rome in favor of their own presbyters and Scripture itself.
Not a problem! Keep the quotes coming! ;)
And he has the benefit of learning his faith from a man, Polycarp of Smyrna, who knew the Beloved Disciple personally.
If he had the Scriptures in his hand and actually read them ...
A moment ago you were touting him as a proto-Protestant and a devotee of sola scriptura, and now you think didn't have the Scriptures or didn't bother to read them? A bit fickle of you, I'd say.
most of the Church in his day and later did say "that he was dead wrong" --- by their actions day after day, by ignoring not only what he said in that regard, but also in ignoring the pontifications of presbyters of the Church of Rome in favor of their own presbyters and Scripture itself.
You were there?
It simply points out that "tradition" isn't all that it's cracked up to be. There are obvious different interpretation of those traditions. How do you know the west is following the right traditions? Someone's right and someone's wrong and both state they're following tradition. Why it's enough to make a Protestant dizzy.
Of course Irenaeus would say to follow the Bishop. The church was small and these were honorable men. Not to slam the Church for we all have our problems, but I wonder if he would say the same thing about Bishops who covered up pedophile priests?
The same is true of Scripture. Does that mean Scripture's not all it's cracked up to be?
I wonder if he would say the same thing about Bishops who covered up pedophile priests
No question he would have some very harsh words for them. The fireworks would likely be quite pretty. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.