[Uncle Chip]

And as to "from us" not meaning the people who came afterward, well, Irenaeus certainly didn't see it that way!

I think that Irenaeus did see it that way as he writes in the following discourse posted earlier:

"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?"

The "writings of the apostles" were "the authority" according to Irenaeus here. The writings that had already been handed down [past tense] were the "tradition of the truth" and the "course of the tradition handed down to those to whom they committed the Churches", per Irenaeus. He says clearly that if there is a dispute over an important question, the churchmen should defer to the "writings of the apostles".

[Claud]

Ireneaus didn't mean the Scriptures when he referred to the authority of "Tradition". Look back up at post #22 above, where he makes a clear distinction between the heretics following *neither* Scripture nor tradition. Why would he make that distinction, if all he meant by tradition was the written word of the Bible?.

Look at this excerpt also:

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.

He is clearly saying there is a tradition from the Apostles which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters. This cannot be talking about written Scripture, but only the Apostolic Succession.

[bornacatholic]

2 Thess Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle..

* I figured if Irenaeus didn't persuade you...:)

[bornacatholic]

How can that be? The Canon of the New Testament had not been decided upon.

I think you misunderstand the Saint.

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?"

*IOW, absent the actual wrings of the Apostles, we STILL can arrive at the truth via Tradition taught by the Church Jesus esstablished.

It teaches with the authority of Jesus... He who hears you, hears me

He who HEARS you, not he who "reads scripture." The Church Jsus established is authoritative and the one to whom we turn to settle disputes about doctrine and the very meaning of Scripture itself.

Of course, Tradition is not opposed to Holy Writ

[wmfights]

"... the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?" "

__________________________

Isn't this a self serving comment by Iraneus? He is implying that the Apostles appointed the next generation of leaders in the churches they started before they were martyred, or died in John's case. From what I understand the leaders of these churches were selected by the local congregations based on the gifts that the Holy Spirit had given them.