Replies

Belief is evidence of belief, not of fact. You should consider Peter Lampe's work, "From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries." Considered probably the most exhaustive work of it's kind, Lampe shows that for the first approximately 160 years, the Christian community at Rome was a diverse mix of house churches with no single presiding bishop. He builds his case on a vast collection of primary source data, which better qualifies as evidence than the faulty history of your Irenaeus, which you quote from his "Against heresies," available here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

However, out of respect to Irenaeus, it should be pointed out that he is not exactly making out the case for Roman papal primacy. The passage you quoted is part of a larger argument in which he is showing that the Gnostic claim of a hidden tradition passed on by the apostles was a false scheme, because whatever was passed on to the succession of church leadership was done openly, not secretly:

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.

So his argument concerning succession is not that it provides an unbroken line of titular authority from Peter as the key bearer, but that there was a succession of open truth passed forward to each new generation, which truth never had in it anything like the ravings of the Gnostics, as he describes it.

It is also interesting to note he does not latch on to classical Petrine supremacy as the basis for Rome's authority, but mentions both Paul and Peter as organizers and founders of that church, and makes no distinction between them as to authority or supremacy.

Nevertheless, as Lampe's work discovers, Irenaeus may have idealized the history of succession beyond the limits of reality. He was not, after all, an inspired writer, and his writings were subject to error. For example, in another place he gets the age of Jesus wrong because he could not accept that the Pharisees would have described Jesus being less than fifty if he were only thirty, therefore he thinks Jesus must have been forty or older. See here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103222.htm

Now no doubt he had good intentions. The Gnostics were making a big deal out of Jesus being thirty because the number thirty corresponded nicely with one of their pet theories about the number of aeons. Irenaeus wanted to take that away from them, but in so doing he introduced unfounded speculation which led to error. That's going to happen to uninspired writers. And that's why the beliefs Irenaeus expressed, while they may provide clues to the truth, must be supplemented with hard facts in evidence that support the claim being made. In that respect, the statements of Irenaeus you have presented fall short of actually proving either Petrine supremacy or succession.

Peace,

SR

Lampe shows that for the first approximately 160 years, the Christian community at Rome was a diverse mix of house churches with no single presiding bishop.

Not familiar with Lampe's work, but it seems from your description like he is taking facts that everyone already knows and drawing exactly the wrong conclusions from them.

Of course the Roman church was an assemblage of house churches! Where else could they worship? There were no basilicas, and the catacombs were not yet being used. They would have gathered in the homes of sympathetic families. Excavations under the Basilica of St. Clement in Rome have shown exactly such a house church, later converted to a Mithraeum and then back to a Church. It is thought that this house belonged to the family of Flavius Clemens until they fell out of favor with the Emperor in the 90s.

And we already know that there were multiple bishops simultaneously. I don't remember which ancient author stated this offhand, but Peter was said to have personally ordained Linus, Cletus, and Clement to the episcopacy while he lived. Clement writes to the church in Corinth and says "WE feel that WE have been tardy in turning OUR attention to the points respecting which you have consulted US". He's speaking for a group.

But if you think this militates against any kind of presidency, then take a little trip to the chancery office of any diocese in this country, where you will find a Bishop served by several auxiliary bishops. The Pope is surrounded by cardinals, most of whom are bishops. But not a single one of them is at all confused about who presides. And the Apostolic succession passes through all of them not only as individuals but as a community.

The authority of the Church of Rome concerns less its internal organization and more its external relations. Ignatius tells us it "presides in Love". Clement tells us "If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger."

It seems every time we bring Irenaeus up someone can be relied on to reply "well, he's not inspired...he is subject to error". No kidding! But you'd think that if he were wrong on this, others who came after him would say "wow, man, you really went off the deep end there." That's exactly what happened to Origen and Tertullian. Who told Irenaeus he went off the deep end? Who told him he made a mistake, or he was only talking about Gnostics or whatever? Were is the sed contra from any Church Father?

And this business about "both Peter and Paul" founding the Church arguing against the primacy of Peter. Paul says he is not worthy to be even called an Apostle, whereas Peter was the head of the Apostles. Peter walked with Christ whereas Paul got knocked off a horse much later--do you think so little of your ancestors that they would not appreciate that distinction, even as they revered both?