Replies

.you must have had the stuff on hand, as in pre-copied, then? No live links available.

With some longer things, I sometimes think to keep a record (not as often as I wish I would have done). Though the formatting codes on this site are entirely different, so that all had to be entirely re-done.

This or an earlier version of that might have been where I copied some of the longer excerpts. It's been a while.

Do you use some form of RC apologetics software also?

Some what? I'm not aware of any such thing. My mode in responding to a post is to highlight the portion I'm addressing, address that, and move on down. No software could do that.

But you seemed to have skipped clean over how Ireneaus did not begin with reliance upon "office" but of Scripture itself as carrying the Gospel, and that be the real storehouse of the Gospel -- which itself was the foundation and pillars of the faith.

I contend that in Irenaeus's view there was no operative distinction between what the Scriptures taught and what was preserved in the churches through "tradition" or the "succession of the elders." Scripture and Tradition were mutually corroborative. His first appeal often would be to the Scriptures, but the Scriptures whose meaning has been passed on and preserved in those key Apostolic centers like Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and, most importantly, Rome.

The Scriptures contained the deposit of Truth, and that is confirmed through the witness and teaching of the churches as sustained through the succession of the elders.

Irenaeus's view, as well as the view of the Patristic writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries is summed up by Patristics historian J.N.D. Kelly. After sampling several writers, he concludes:

"It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness." J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 47-48.

Irenaeus was "sola scriptura," but his "sola scriptura" was not your "sola scriptura." Scripture was materially sufficient (it contained all truth), but was formally insufficient (in that it needed to be understood in conjunction with church tradition). His "sola scriptura" is my "sola scriptura."

The Ireneaus quotes do not support concept of Papacy.

Does Irenaeus support a Papal view in all respects? No. (Nor does he articulate a 27-book NT canon nor an absolutely full Trinitarian theory). But does he espouse of view of Roman primacy? Yes. Here I excerpt from The Ante-Nicene Development of Papal Primacy:

St. Irenaeus of Lyons gave the Roman claim to primacy its strongest early endorsement. St. Irenaeus was an Asian bishop and disciple of St. Polycarp (the latter was a younger contemporary of St. Ignatius of Antioch and a disciple of the Apostle John). According to the historian Sir Nicholas Cheetham:

Irenaeus, another Smyrniot who had accompanied Polycarp on his mission to Rome and subsequently became bishop of Lyons in the years following the savage persecutions of Christians in that city, produced a slashing denunciation of the heretics in five books. Although himself an Asiatic, he asserted the primacy of Rome over the other churches…Irenaeus defined what was to become the Roman claim of centralism…it was there [Rome] that all the traditions and experiences of the church were gathered, examined, and reconciled. Stability in doctrine and practice came from Rome, which opposed its steadying influence to unsettling currents from the East, to Greek intellectualism, and the emotionalism of Asia. Only Rome could impose unity on a universal church. [7]
Protestant scholar John Lawson’s work The Biblical Theology of St. Irenaeus had this to say about the Bishop of Lyons and his view of the Roman church and its primacy:

[W]hat church can compare with Rome? She is the life-work of the two greatest Apostles, known of all and knowing all, she is a supreme witness to the unified voice of the Church. If it is necessary for each and all to consent to the voice of the whole Church, how necessary is it for all to consent to Rome? To S. Irenaeus Rome was most certainly an authority none must question, as she cannot be imagined as ever in error. The word ‘infallible’ to some extent begs the question, for the use of it imports into the discussion the results of later definition. It is nevertheless a word which is difficult to do without. With this proviso we may say that Irenaeus regarded Rome as the very corner-stone and typification of a whole structure of ecclesiastical infallibility. [8]
For additional testimony, the Protestant scholar Dr. T. G. Jalland will again be referenced (courtesy of B.C. Butler). It is important to note that from the earliest records we have (late first century to early second century) there was a noticeable degree of traffic to Rome by a whole host of different personages. These people were both orthodox and heterodox. They traveled the roads of the Empire in no small degree to presumably present their philosophies to Rome for approval. This trend only increased throughout the subsequent centuries. Dr. Jalland raises some questions that bear reflecting upon concerning this unmistakable (and interesting) trend:

How can we explain this second century drang nach Rom? May there not have been, common to [the orthodox and the heterodox alike], that in some way or another, the Roman see had an inherent right to pronounce an opinion on their doctrine, and moreover their decision, i.e. whether favourable or adverse, would seriously affect the prospects of success in obtaining for their teaching general acceptance by the Church at large?. . . If the attitude of the Roman see was unfavourable . . . the teacher responsible for the condemned doctrine . . . usually stayed on in Rome . . . and in extreme cases managed to procure the election of a rival bishop of Rome. . . Thus, in a negative no less then in a positive direction there are strong indicators that de facto if not de jure the Roman see was being treated as the universal referee and its doctrine as the norm. [9]
Fr. Afanassieff made the following notations about the famous passages of Irenaeus’ work (in speaking of St. Irenaeus of Lyons work Against All Heresies, where he refers to the priority of the Roman Church). The notations confirm the observations of Dr. Lawson and Dr. Jalland about the role of the Roman See as being pre-eminent from the earliest of times:

This passage in Irenaeus [from Against Heresies 3:4:1] illuminates the meaning of his remarks about the Church of Rome: if there are disputes in a local church, that church should have recourse to the Roman Church, for there is contained the Tradition which is preserved by all the churches.
Rome's vocation [in the pre-Nicene period] consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition -- that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine -- and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome... [10]

Need I give you the fuller details -- or will you instead "read Ireaneaus in fuller context" as you yourself suggested?

I think I have a good handle on Irenaeus, thank you.

For one to hint around at "see? the ones with the best line-of-succession pedigree won" transfer what had won the day, from best exegesis --- to then further assume, a priori, that now the lineage of Rome will always get it right.

As the above excerpts point out, that was very much the outlook in the pre-Nicene period. And I contend that continued in the succeeding centuries. This was one of the factors leading to John Henry Newman's conversion to the Catholic Church:

"Newman accepted the teaching that Apostolic Succession or the direct connection with the Apostles was a requirement for doctrinal orthodoxy. Studying the early Church history, Newman realized that the doctrinal disputes of the 4th-6th centuries were eventually settled by the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of the Apostle Peter." Source

That's your end game, isn't it? And now today, Rome won't be dissuaded that it was ever wrong or ever can be, basing that on the circular reasoning that they simply cannot be (but everyone else can be and is).

Oh, please. Which church or denomination is it that says "here we are, here is what we teach; but, well, OK, maybe the group up the street has a greater claim on the Truth than we do, but we hope you'll congregate with us nonetheless." I'll grant that the Orthodox/Catholic debate can be a close one. But I'm in agreement with Newman that Protestantism has no claim to an historical basis.

Athananius's own original bishop (or the one preceding him) had been accused of Sabellianism. So had a previous bishop of Rome.

Which Bishop of Rome and accused by whom? If that claim had any basis to it, I'd think it would rank right up their with Pope Honorius about supposed failures of Papal orthodoxy. I don't recall this one ever being on my radar.

Athanasius is a Catholic saint, btw. The role and influence of Rome on the Nicea proceedings is a bit too complex to handle here.

I would suggest that if one was hoping to find what was the most widely preached doctrines, the ones which are most important (and most all else other than that be secondary, if that?) then turn to the Scriptures, for it's all in there, not still runnin' 'round all these long centuries later, in "oral tradition".

Well, certainly, one can read what Scripture contains. But understanding the true meaning and significance can often prove the challenge. Take baptism. It was widely preached and noted in Scripture. But what is the proper understanding?

The Patristic writers universally held to a regenerational view on baptism -- that baptism was the means of "new birth" (John 3:5), imparted grace and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, effected forgiveness of sins. (William Webster acknowledges this). And as nearly clear (certainly by the 3rd century, when we have more writers to draw upon) is infant baptism. This is the "Scripture and Tradition" understanding that existed unquestioned for a millennium and a half (Catholics and Orthodox today hold to it, as does (I believe) every other group tracing back to Apostolic times).

But what is the "sola scriptura" understanding? Is baptism regenerational? Merely symbolic? Is it properly applied to infants? Only for those beyond age of reason? Is preaching baptism even required to be a "Christian" church? The answer seems elusive or at best highly dependent on whom is asked.