Posted on 11/27/2006 6:58:00 PM PST by Ottofire
Useful bump.
That's a keeper!
I'm not really sure where you are getting this. There were bishops in Asia Minor, in Alexandria, in Antioch, lots of other places as well (like Lyons where Irenaeus was). They received their offices from men who received them from the Apostles. The Bishop of Rome was certainly not appointing bishops worldwide. I don't know that there is any primary source that mentions a "Confession of the Church of Rome"...at least I've never heard of it.
Anyway, the Roman See's honor was not local to Italy. Irenaeus was in Gaul (I think he grew up in Asia Minor). Ignatius of Antioch talks in high terms of the Roman See as well. It seems to have been something that was taken for granted, not a kind of political necessity.
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.
This is a very very common misconception that we have in modern times. We actually know much much *less* history of the 1st century than they did 100 years later in the 2nd. They had access to libraries full of manuscripts and authors that are gone today. They knew people that knew people that saw the Apostles personally, heard them speak. That kind of testimony is irreplaceable with archaeology or epigraphy, or what have you.
As to what his contemporaries knew, Irenaeus certainly had access to all these heretical ideas that were floating about--whether orally or in writing. He corresponded with Pope Victor about the Pascal controversy way over in Asia Minor. Irenaeus was not an unknown quantity.
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
Most of the Church? Do you know of any Church Father from the first 5-6 centuries who so much as took Irenaeus to task on this point? I certainly don't.
I know a few guys in the 1500s disagreed, but that was really quite late in the game!
And he has the benefit of learning his faith from a man, Polycarp of Smyrna, who knew the Beloved Disciple personally.
You were there????
_______________________________________________
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
No, I wasn't. I was touting him as one of your holy fathers, one of the patriarchs of your holy "tradition" whose writings you place above those of Scripture when it is convenient for you, but just cast aside when they become inconvenient.
____________________________________
and now you think didn't have the Scriptures or didn't bother to read them? A bit fickle of you, I'd say.
The fickleness belongs to he who claims to believe in the "written documents" except when those "viva voces" of magisterial tradition arise to overrule them.
________________________________
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?
Just like you were there with Polycarp!!!
Well, nobody's perfect. ;O)
Where is the evidence for that belief? And I'm not talking about the obvious "reformers", because it seems to me you are claiming that contemporaries of St. Irenaeus, and later, all the way up to the "Reformation" (not just starting with it), were saying he was wrong about the supremacy of the Church of Rome. So where is the evidence for that, as Claud asked, where are the ECF's writings that demonstrate that that notion was prevailant, and popular, as you suggest, a good 1000 years before the "Reformation"?
He quotes the exact words of Marcion and Valentinus and other heretics as proof of what he says that they believe. He doesn't ask the reader to take his word for it. He cites their exact words from their "written documents".
Yet when it comes to telling us that Peter and Paul ordained the Church of Rome with superiority, he cites neither Peter nor Paul nor any other apostle. He cites no "written document" as evidence. The reader is supposed to take his word for this outlandish claim.
On the one hand he accuses the heretics of resorting to "tradition" or "viva voce" in lieu of the truth of the "written documents", and then resorts to the same thing himself.
Is it possible that the reason that he cites no source for his claim of superiority of the Church of Rome is because there was none and he knew it? The absence of any "written documentation" for his claim in light of what he had said in that regard of the heretics, goes to the heart of the lack of any substantive credibility for that claim.
Adversus Haereses (Book III, Chapter 2)
The heretics follow neither Scripture nor Tradition
1. 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.
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.
A refutation of the heretics, from the fact that, in the various churches, a perpetual succession of bishops was kept up
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere. /Ad hanc enim eoclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quâ est ab apostolis traditio].
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time -- a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles -- that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me?" "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.
The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolical doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles.
1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
2. To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.
3. For, prior to Valentinus, those who follow Valentinus had no existence; nor did those from Marcion exist before Marcion; nor, in short, had any of those malignant-minded people, whom I have above enumerated, any being previous to the initiators and inventors of their perversity. For Valentinus came to Rome in the time of Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and remained until Anicetus. Cerdon, too, Marcion's predecessor, himself arrived in the time of Hyginus, who was the ninth bishop. Coming frequently into the Church, and making public confession, he thus remained, one time teaching in secret, and then again making public confession; but at last, having been denounced for corrupt teaching, he was excommunicated from the assembly of the brethren. Marcion, then, succeeding him, flourished under Anicetus, who held the tenth place of the episcopate. But the rest, who are called Gnostics, take rise from Menander, Simon's disciple, as I have shown; and each one of them appeared to be both the father and the high priest of that doctrine into which he has been initiated. But all these (the Marcosians) broke out into their apostasy much later, even during the intermediate period of the Church
Amen, sister. To be deep in the Early Fathers is to cease being protestant. Of course, one can be fooled by partial quotes set in a polemic..but, read them yourself and decide
LOL U can't be serious
We are not saying he is *the* authority, but that he is *an* authority. If we saw, for instance, that half the Fathers said this about Roman primacy, and the other half said the opposite, well then yes, you'd have a point.
But we don't see that at all. Look through everything the Fathers said on this score. You find that some Fathers assert the primacy of Rome--some more clearly, some less clearly. Some are silent on the matter. But NO Father denies it. No one rose up in the 300s and said Irenaeus was dead wrong. Or the 400s. Or the 500s. Or the 600s. Or the 700s.
So no, I do *not* believe that everything Irenaeus said has to be 100% accurate. But you are asking me to believe that what he said was not accurate on the strength of your opinion alone. If you can find me a Father that refutes him, directly or indirectly, you will have a much better leg to stand on. Until then, I submit that he had a better view of what was orthodox doctrine in the mid-100s than you or I do.
It's certainly true that bishops were usually elected by the faithful in the early church. It's also true that that practice made it hard to extirpate heresy once it took root, which is why we don't do it anymore.
"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."
_______________________
This seems to be a reasonable attitude, but it can cut two ways.
I've been looking at this issue of how Christianity was structured at the end of the Apostolic era. I have yet to find an Example of where the Apostle Paul appointed any church leaders. Rather it seems that leaders were picked by the congregations based on evidence of the Holy Spirit within them. It seems very clear that Paul believed leadership was conferred by charismatic gift, rather than appointment.
Kinda causes problems when someone who knew someone who knew an apostle tells you that the See of Rome is the touchstone of orthodoxy, huh?
Maybe most people within the church at the time didn't consider his claim to be particularly "outlandish". Maybe they considered it to be something closer to common knowledge. We certainly have no record of anyone at the time, especially anyone with a more impressive pedigree of Christian discipleship, saying, "Irenaeus, you ignorant fool! Whatever caused you to come up with such an outlandish idea?!?"
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.