Adversus Haereses (Book III, Chapter 4)
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?
Is he saying here that what gives the Church its authority is that it has the "written documents" of the apostles? That those written documents are the "tradition of the truth"? and that heresies are things that evolve over time that cannot be traced to those written documents of the apostles?
And when he uses the phrase the "course of the tradition" handed down to the Churches, he seems to be referring to the "tradition" of deferring to those "written documents" as the "deposit of apostolic authority" in the churches, not some oral teaching handed down from mouth to mouth.
Am I misreading that or is that essentially what Irenaeus is saying here? And is that which Irenaeus calls "tradition" here the same as what the RCC means by it.?
That Jesus - see Gospel of John - told Simon Barjonas he would be renamed Kepha/Cephas/Peter was of great significance.
Did you know that, prior to Peter, that name had never been used for any man...
Brother, Chip. I gave a link to many writings of the Earky Church Fathers. Take some time to read them with an open mind and don't be too quick to argue against them. The more you read the more rational will sound the claims of the Church I fear you may think is not being honest with you
I'd have to look a little more closely at his argument to understand the exact thrust of what he is saying. I'll try to answer your question when I have more time.
But I think it will be easier to understand his position (and certainly the RC position) by not drawing too stark a line between "tradition" and "Scripture" as if they necessarily had to be dimetrically opposed. For example, many churches have a Wednesday night Bible study...in one sense that's an extra-biblical tradition, but of course it in no way contradicts or harms the Scriptures themselves.
The way we look at it, Scripture and tradition are really both expressions of a single source of divine revelation. That the Apostles who wrote the Scripture also passed down a tradition of the faith to the presbyters and bishops they appointed. In a sense, as bornacatholic has been saying, the tradition handed down by the Apostles was what went into the NT (e.g. Mark as the scribe and disciple of Peter).
There's a quote from St. Paul "hold fast to what we have taught you, whether by letter or by spoken word." What is important there is not so much which of the two ways you got St. Paul's teaching, but that you held to it regardless. Does that make any sense?