Replies

Thanks. Of course I am not offering Irenaeus as "proof". It is a bit of evidence--a piece in the puzzle. And by "infallibility" I am admittedly imposing Vatican I language on the idea. Nonetheless, it seems clear to me that the doctrine in essence is there--namely, that the Bishop of Rome forms a sort of touchstone of orthodoxy against which the other Churches are to be measured and are to conform.

I myself would argue that Irenaeus is not arguing for the Bishop Of Rome per se, but rather for the Church Of Rome - and even then, Irenaeus is arguing in favor of it's then-present state, and not for some future-looking behavior.

I must admit, though, you take a tack I wasn't expecting. Usually, people demand someone to trace the doctrine back to the Apostles--the assumption being that it is a novelty. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem ok with the idea that the Roman Primacy is no novelty and the See may well have inherited this privilege from Apostolic times.

Let me try and be surgically precise with my answer on this. First, I tend to agree with the Orthodox position that the Roman Bishop does not/should not in a position of preeminence over the other Bishops of the Church, so long as the other Bishops are observant and obedient to the faith. Second, I would argue that scripture itself makes no demands for this ecclesiastical authority, on behalf of the Bishop of Rome, in perpetuity. None of this IMO challenges arguments regarding the papacy's temporal authority over the Catholic Church itself. Anyone who submits to an authority should be bound to it.

I have far fewer problems with the idea of Roman Primacy being "handed down" from apostolic times, or even with the (IMO false) notion that the papacy can be traced back in an unbroken line to Peter himself. All of those are statements regarding ecclesiastical authority and covenantal representation, not statements regarding ability (and please note that I said "fewer problems", not "no problems at all"). I think there's a general principle articulated by Scripture that if the officeholder and organization remain unblemished, then an argument of submission to the ecclesiastical authority and continuity of the organization (whether the Church of Rome or anyone else) could be advanced. Most critically, however, is that I believe the Roman Bishop (like any other bishop, priest, pastor, etc) can fall into error in regards to matters of doctrine. In other words, even doctrinal remarks made ex cathedra can be in serious error, and thus the claims of spiritual authority made for both specific organizations and offices can always be tested and (potentially) found wanting, no matter the historical pedigree. The possibility of apostasy (and repentance and restoration) exists for any and every Christian body, even for the Catholic Church. Christ said that He is able to raise up "sons of Abraham" (Matthew 3:9, cf Romans 9:8) from the stones themselves. I do not think Matthew 16:18 demands a single ecclesiastical organization to fulfill it's meaning.

You only object that the privilege may not be a perpetual one. Rome was the seat of orthodoxy, but she is no longer (and she had presumably forfeited that title by the time of the Reformation). Am I stating your position accurately?

I would say you're very close - I would argue over the exact nature of the phrase of "forfeited". Suffice it to say that I am not a Restorationist. I believe strongly in creedal continuity. I do not believe in, nor require a a Trail of Blood to explain "where the church was" in history.

FWIW, I got quite a chuckle when I realized that we've had a similar conversation on these things before!

Yes, Irenaeus is talking about the Church of Rome. Yet within the context of 1st & 2nd century Christianity, one cannot understand “the Church of Rome” without the overseer/episcopos at its head. “Do nothing without the bishop”...”do not assemble in unauthorized meetings”...”do not reject those place in authority above you” these are common refrains in Ignatius, in Clement, and in Irenaeus. Metropolitan John Zizioulas has done great work on this from the Orthodox side...arguing that synodality does not exist without primacy and vice versa. If such a thing was granted to the Church of Rome, it must have been granted to its head as well.

Now, was it granted to the Church of Rome in the first place? Scripture, you say, doesn’t claim it. And you’d be right, the way you formulated it—Rome the city got no special privilege in the NT (in fact quite the opposite in Revelation). That’s why we hold the Petrine connection so important. Rome is important only insofar as it was the premier Apostolic See. And I’m hinging this not only on a particular exegesis of Matt 16 but on the historical fact of Peter’s life, leadership, and martyrdom there. That’s after all, what the Fathers thought so important—as Irenaeus points out.

Second, I think the the possibility of apostasy and heresy existing for *every* Christian body, even majority ones, destroys any possibility of creedal definition and defining heterodoxy at all. If Rome was wrong at Trent, then why not wrong at Chalcedon or Nicaea? Why Athanasius, and not Arius? Why Luther and not Joseph Smith? There is no court of last resort. There is no objective yardstick.

Third, you say if the church is unblemished...then we submit to her authority. That carries with it a huge assumption—namely, that you and I are capable of distinguishing the blemishes. The Real Presence to you may well look like a ecclesiastical blemish...to me its absence looks like a gaping wound. Why is Alex’s discernment right on this and Claud’s wrong? We can dismiss and anathematize each other, we can pound the tables with competing exegeses. And who is right? Who is wrong? Who is the devoted follower of Our Lord supposed to believe?

I think the answer lies in what was believed always, everywhere, and by all—with an ecclesiastical entity that is empowered to know the difference. For all time. Because an infallibility that changes its locus every few centuries, is, I’d argue, no infallibility at all and no satisfactory provision of a loving God to his followers.