The papacy in the fathers

[Rafael Daher]

Dear All,

A friend of mine is defending the papacy arguing with some quoatations of the Holy Fathers. He send to me this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

The principal quotation:

St. Ignatius of Antioch. A few years later (about 107) St. Ignatius of Antioch, in the opening of his letter to the Roman Church, refers to its presiding over all other Churches. He addresses it as "presiding over the brotherhood of love [prokathemene tes agapes] The expression, as Funk rightly notes, is grammatically incompatible with the translation advocated by some non-Catholic writers, "pre-eminent in works of love".

Why we can argue, with the Holy Fathers, that this primacy is not of leadership, like the roman catholics claims, and not of honor, like our Church teaches? I know of some quoatitions about that, but im finding new quotations against basicaly against this arguments of the Papacy on the Holy Fathers and Tradition.

[Kosta]

The Roman apologists for decades have been using quotes from Church Fathers to claim a papal supremacy. These quotes are either taken out of context (the majority), have been intentionally mistranslated (St Irenaeus comes to mind), are forgeries (one of St Maximus comes to mind at the moment), and others which do not talk about the papacy at all, but once again are taken out of context.

Why roman apologists use st Ignatius is mind-boggling. If the above quote speaks of a special pre-eminence for rome, then what does the following greeting for the church in Ephesus mean?:

"...To the Church which is in Ephesus in Asia deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness & fullness of God the Father and pre-destined before the beginning of time, that it should always be for an enduring and unchangeable glory...."

St Ignatius in his epistle to Smyrna writes,:

"Wheresoever the bishop appears let the people be, even as wheresoever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church".

Roman apologists attempt to equate the bishop as the pope in the above verse. This is a classic example of taking something out of context. The epistle is to the local church of Smyrna and its refering to the laity and bishop of that church. The bishop of Smyrna is St. Ignatius close friend the great ST Polycarp. For Ignatius the fullness of the catholic church is found on the local level, each church with a bishop is fully catholic as Orthodoxy teaches, Rome claims each church is a part of the church.

[Ken McRae]

The Roman apologists for decades have been using quotes from Church Fathers to claim a papal supremacy. These quotes are either taken out of context (the majority), have been intentionally mistranslated (St Irenaeus comes to mind), are forgeries (one of St Maximus comes to mind at the moment), and others which do not talk about the papacy at all, but once again are taken out of context.

Kosta, what do you mean "intentionally" mistranslated? You make it sound as if there is'nt a single Catholic scholar on the face of planet Earth, let alone any with "intellectual" honesty and moral integrity! I am saddened that no Orthodox members here called you out on that. Why don't you produce these "forgeries," and especially the forgery of St. Maximus, if you can. And I would like you also to give a fair account of the "authorities" who have established them as forgeries.

[Paul Cowan]

Well, I would imagine 1) it is because it has been less than half a day and not enough people have read all these posts since we are gearing up for the Christmas holidays and/or 2)we believe him.

I can think of a verse in the NIV Bible that was intentially left out because they didnt like the way it fit with the theology of the people putting the version together. John 5:4
John 5:4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. This was from the King James Version. It is ommitted as is the verse number from the NIV. So if it can happen today right under our noses, it happened back then as well.

[Kosta]

My problem is against the apologists not the scholars. In fact the Latin apologists contradict the Latin scholars. The late great NT biblical scholar and Roman Catholic priest Raymond E. Brown knows exactly what im talking about.

The papacy is built upon forgeries such as the false Decretals of Isidore and the Donation of Constantine. Even at the council of Florence in 1439 the latins produced writings which contained forgeries. Upon the production of a lating writing of St Epiphanios to prove the fillioque, St Mark Evgenicus said, "Concerning your books i have accurate information that they have been corrupted and forged". Also a document brought forth by the latins said to be the Acts of a previous council of the undivided Church stated the east recited the creed with the fillioque. The Orthodox party at Florence proved this was an interpolation of the latin document and did not exist in their greek version. Yet to this day these same latin corruptions still appear amongst the latin apologists. Also Roman Apologists offer writings as if they are authority when in reality are erroneous doctrines such as certain epistles of Pope Gelasius. There are mistranslations such as the verse by St Ireneous which supposedly says "all churches must agree" with the Pope of Rome. This is a spurious latin text with the latin word 'agree'(convenire) mistranslated to begin with. It is better translated as "to meet, to visit, to harmonize". Regardless its a spurious latin text not found in the original greek body of this saints writings.

The quotes given from a website which claims the title "The Eastern Church Defends Petrine Primacy" are taken from the book: "Jesus, Peter and the Keys" by Scott Butler. As most of these books just like the books by roman apologist James Likoudis are based upon sources better described as "conspiracy theories". Much of the material is taken out of context, and some of this material are spurious texts, forgeries and interpolations. The false "Arab Canon" plays a big part in this book and is even exhalted over canon 28 of Chalcedon and Canon 3 of Constantinople 381.
Here is a critique of this book and its claims, while the author is not Orthodox the material is very Orthodox:

http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html

If anyone wants further critique of this book look up James White article "The Peter Syndrome". Just google it.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Kosta,

I find your recent post (above) quite problematic; not necessarily for your position, but for some of the specific details.

You speak of a mistranslation of St Irenaeus, presumably referring to his comments in the opening chapters of book 3 of his On the detection and overthrow of knowledge falsely so-called -- more particularly 3.3.2. Specifically, you said:



There are mistranslations such as the verse by St Ireneous which supposedly says "all churches must agree" with the Pope of Rome. This is a spurious latin text with the latin word 'agree'(convenire) mistranslated to begin with. It is better translated as "to meet, to visit, to harmonize". Regardless its a spurious latin text not found in the original greek body of this saints writings.


Firstly, this is an impossible claim to make, since there is no extant evidence of what Irenaeus' Greek actually was. Book 3 of the work (as with most of it) exists only in the (very) early Latin translation (fourth century). A forceful claim that it is a 'spurious Latin text not found in the original Greek body of the saint's writings' is unsupportable.

Secondly, your comments on the translation of the term convenire stretch things. The word does indeed mean 'agree with', and so it ought generally to be translated (and so I have put it in the critical edition for ACW). It can also mean 'to come together with, to harmonise with', as you say; but the sentence and phrase themselves make very clear which reading Irenaeus is intending (and in any case, they all imply the same thing in the broader context of his comment).

Thirdly, St Irenaeus' comment itself has nothing to do with the pope. It has to do with the Church at Rome.


This kind of anti-apologia is troubling, because it is based in a lack of understanding what the fathers are really saying; but moreso, because it seeks to respond to false proof-texting by response proof-texting, attempting to defeat one person's / group's proof-texts by invalidating them on some historical or grammatical claim. This doesn't help understand what the fathers are genuinely saying. For his part, St Irenaeus is saying that all churches, everywhere in the world, must agree in doctrine with the church at Rome. Refuting misinterpretations or misapplications of this small phrase in his writings, should not come by attempting to remove the statement from St Irenaeus' mouth, but by offering an authentic reading of his statement. For example, reading a bit further on in the same sentence. Irenaeus' whole statement is:
'For with this Church [the Church at Rome], because of her great authority, it is necessary that every Church, that is, the faithful who are everywhere, should agree - because in her the apostolic tradition has always been safeguarded by those who are everywhere.'
St Irenaeus explicitly states that the reason all churches must agree with the church in Rome, is not because of some specific heritage of primacy or power, but because that Church faithfully preserves the apostolic tradition - the same that has been 'safeguarded by those who are everywhere'. It is apostolic testimony that grounds authority. Inasmuch as the church in Rome faithfully preserves this, she is to be a church with which all others must agree - not for her own account, but on account of the tradition she maintains and exemplifies.

As if anticipating misunderstandings, St Irenaeus goes to lengths - a bit earlier in the same book - to note that his discussions on Rome are due to her great fame and antiquity, and apostolic foundation; but he says the same is true of every church in the world that keeps the apostolic traditions rightly.

St Irenaeus' very point is that everyone must agree with the teachings of the Church at Rome, as they must agree also with any other Church, so long as those teachings are rightly and truly the teachings of the apostles. To claim that he did not make this statement, because of some presumed yet entirely un-foundable claim to a problem of converting his original Greek (which no one has) into Latin, is to rob him of his most important point: that it is precisely in apostolic testimony that authority resides, and apostolic testimony must be heeded and followed, agreed with rather than modified.

The implications for what Irenaeus' position means in relation to a church that has gone into error, which does not or no longer follows authentically the teaching and tradition of the apostles - whether that be in Rome or anywhere else - is entirely stripped of its meaning if his words are manipulated in this way.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Kosta]

Dear Deacon,

I wholeheartedly agree with your asessment of St Ireneous. The problem is that the latin apologists do not view it in the same way. Your post puts it into the proper context something latin apologists dont knowing that most people are too lazy to look at the entire writing which in reality dispels the very same papacy the apologists attempt to prove.

At the same time I have to graciously disagree with you on the translation of convenire. The word convenire translated as "must agree" is the huge stretch. Daniel Whelton in his book "Two Paths" disproves this (mis)translation and demonstrates that in a latin dictionary "must agree" doesnt even appear.

But perhaps the best example of this intentional mistranslation is exposed by Abee Guettee in his book "the Papacy" in 1866. Not only does this former jesuit priest rejects this translation but he quite convincingly demonstrates what St Ireneous probably had indeed mean (see pages 62-69).

St Ireneous is just trying to establish that Rome being the capital and heart of the empire, all the Apostolic Traditions of all the churches are deposited there. In fact St. Ireneous himself gives a perfect example when he relates the story of Polycarp and Pope Anicetus:

"When the blessed Polycarp was visiting Rome in the time of Anicetus.. They were at once well inclined towards each other, not willing that any quarrel should arise between them upon the matter (Paschal calculation). For Anicetus could not persuade Polycarp to forgo the observance of his (Easter customs) inasmuch as these things had always been observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant."

We can see from Ireneous own writing that Polycarp did not have to agree with the Roman Tradition of celebrating Pascha on a sunday even though the Pope tried to persuade him. Infact St. Ireneous even admonished Pope Victor for attempting to excommunicate the Asia Minor Churches for celebrating Pascha on Nisan 14. St Irenous did not believe the Asiatic churches had to "agree" with Rome on this point and sided with Polycrates bishop of Ephesus over the pope.

Convenire is better intended to be as a"coming together" (in Rome). How so? Simply because it was the place the Fathers went to and deposited their traditions. These Fathers being Peter, Paul, Ignatius, Justin Martyr; all were martyred there and deposited the faith there. Not only the martyrs but also Hegesipus and Polycarp and many other Fathers before and after Ireneous.

Abee Guetee gives the best translation of the "intent" of Ireneous which to this day is shunned by the roman apologists. Compare the entire corpus of Ireneous writings with the latin apologist translation with that of the Abee Guettee and see who is more consistent and faithful to Ireneous thought on the disputed latin passage.

Abee Guetee translation on the passage: ....(Rome)"Which possesses a tradition that comes from the apostles as much as the faith declared to men and which has transmitted to us thru the succession of Her bishops; by that, we confound all those by any manner whatsoever, either thru blindness or bad intention do not gather where they should; for every Church, that is to say, the faithful who are from all places are obliged to go toward that Church, because of the most powerful principality (capital city). In this Church, the tradition of the Apostles have been preserved by those who are of all countries."

Typical latin translation: "...We do this also by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our own time by means of the succession of bishops. For it is a matter of neccesity that every Church must agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere. For the Apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those who exist everywhere."

We can see a difference between the two translations, throw in the fact that the final sentence is always omitted when roman apologists quote these passages.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Kosta others,

In your above, you wrote:


I wholeheartedly agree with your asessment of St Ireneous. The problem is that the latin apologists do not view it in the same way. Your post puts it into the proper context something latin apologists dont knowing that most people are too lazy to look at the entire writing which in reality dispels the very same papacy the apologists attempt to prove.

No one expects apologists for certain positions to interpret texts in a uniform manner - else they would not be apologists for a specific interpretation. What needs to be done is to respond accurately in the face of such apologia, not simply returning tit-for-tat, but placing the fathers' writings into their proper contexts. The ultimate response against errant proof-texting is to move entirely away from that flawed form of argument and justification, not simply to turn it around and 'proof-text in reverse' by invalidating points on similarly flawed grounds. The response to proof-texting is context, and authentic reading. Most proof-texters will not give time to such a response; their wish is single phrase justifications for points of view. Real understanding of the fathers takes time, energy, calm.


At the same time I have to graciously disagree with you on the translation of convenire. The word convenire translated as "must agree" is the huge stretch. Daniel Whelton in his book "Two Paths" disproves this (mis)translation and demonstrates that in a latin dictionary "must agree" doesnt even appear.

But perhaps the best example of this intentional mistranslation is exposed by Abee Guettee in his book "the Papacy" in 1866. Not only does this former jesuit priest rejects this translation but he quite convincingly demonstrates what St Ireneous probably had indeed mean (see pages 62-69).

Abbé Guettée is not a realiable source. Apart from arguing almost entirely from a proof-texting position himself (albeit a reverse proof-texting, attempting to take every proof-text used by the Roman Catholic apologists he knew from his own past, and interpreting them in an Orthodox way against the RC usage), Guettée has a questionable relationship with many of the passages at which he looks. His large text, The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches, loses most of its credibility from its entire lack of objective grounding, and its extreme bias. This is not to say that bias is intrinsically bad (everyone has a bias), or to imply that 'objectivity' has to mean trating everything as equals; but Guettée is particuarly biased against his own background, and is unobjective in the worst sense: that he does not even try to understand why one might think differently than he, and thus imposes on many texts and writers views which he wishes them to have, without even giving consideration to alternative readings.


His treatment of St Irenaeus is case-in-point, and having spent the better part of my adult life studying St Irenaeus, I can say that I've never seen anyone take Guettée's views on him seriously. In chapter 3 of his The Papacy, Guettée gives a remarkably fanciful mis-translation of Ireaeus' On the detection and overthrow of knowledge falsely so-called 3.3.2, which he presents as:
"we confound all those who in any manner whatsoever, either through blindness or bad intention, do not gather where they should; for every Church, that is to say, the faithful who are from all places, are obliged to go toward that Church, because of the most powerful principality. In this Church, the tradition of the Apostles has been preserved by those who are of all countries."Guettée refuses to accept that agreement with the Church in Rome could possibly have been St Irenaeus' intention, on grounds, says Guettée, that 'Romish theologians choose a bad translation of this passage, in order to find in it an argument in favor of the papal sovereignty'. In a most remarkable paragraph following his presentation of his translation (above), he goes on to argue against various Roman Catholic readings, failing at every stage to recognise the difference between what certain apologists have interpreted the text to mean, and what St Irenaeus himself is talking about. He comments on their use to support 'papal sovereignty', but does not raise the fact that papal matters do not figure in Irenaeus' comments at all; he later speaks against the idea that the text speaks of Rome 'to which there must be uniformity and submission, because of her primacy', without actually challenging this against Ireaneus' focus in the chapter as a whole.


Because Guettée has decided that the text must speak against these misuses, rather than in its own right, and because the misuses he identifies are based on questions of authority, sovereignty, pirmacy and agreement, he finds himself forced to work St Irenaeus out of this embarrassing situation by completely mistranslating his words. It is not simply that he insists convenire must mean 'gather together' rather than 'agree with -- which it must not -- but he is forced to re-translate the whole thrust of St Irenaeus' argument in the whole of AH 3.2-3, so that it is now about apostles and faithful going towards Rome as empirical capital. Guettée goes on for some several paragraphs justifying this with grammatical arguments that no one finds convincing, not least because, grammar aside, they throw into nonsensical relief Irenaeus' own points elsewhere. Guettée's conclusion is that:
"Nothing is wanting to prove that it is impossible to give to the words of St. Irenæus the sense attributed to them by the Romish theologians. The good father then has simply said that, the concourse of Believers from all countries, drawn to Rome by the necessities of their business, because that city was the first and most powerful of the Empire, contributed to preserve there the Apostolic tradition, because those Believers carried there the Faith of the Churches to which they belonged."He has arrived at this through a remarkable mis-translation of the text; but more than this, his final position makes a mockery out of everything St Irenaeus is attempting to say in the chapter. He has selected Rome as a single point of reference, and explicitly argues that his comments on Rome are equally as true of every Church in Christendom. His argument for why Rome's faithful preservation of the apostolic faith means it must be agreed with by all (which is what his text means, despite Guettée's protestations), loses its meaning, as comparable to other Churches, if it is bound up in Rome as an imperial capital and first city of the Empire. None other would be comparable to this; Irenaeus' point is rendered impotent.

This is not what the saint meant, and it is an insult to his insight.

Propagandist misuse of the fathers is of course wrong; but responding to it with what amounts to little more than reversed propaganda is equally as unfaithful to the true testimony of the fathers.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Geoffrey Miller]

Okay, in my faith journey, I'm a Maronite Catholic.

I'm trying to settle a burning question in my mind: do the papal claims have historical precedent?

I'm not nearly as concerned about the primacy of Rome. That's pretty obvious. I'm more curious about the Pope's supremacy and charism of infallibility.

What do the early Church fathers say regarding these issues? In particular, what do they have to say about Matthew 16:18, and other Petrine passages?

I tried to get some information over at Catholic Answers Forums, but I couldn't get any straight answers. There was some mention of "doctrinal development." But how can I know such developments are valid without looking at what they developed from?

One of my close friends told me that some early fathers supported Papal claims like infallibility, while others didn't. Hence, the history is a bit murkier than I supposed.

Also, someone mentioned that there've been Popes who were heretics, and openly taught heresies in the early Church. Again, I'm not sure about this. I'm looking for some clear perspectives, from both sides.

Back in highschool, I explored Eastern Orthodoxy quite a bit. Now that I'm about to graduate from college, and have some hindsight, as well as some distance between me and several events from my youth, I'd like to re-evaluate my religious journey from Southern Baptist Protestantism to Eastern Catholicism.

Views on papal claims are one area of Eastern Orthodoxy, and Church history, that I haven't really looked into much.

I also saw a book called "Upon this Rock," by an Orthodox theologian. Is it any good?

[Paul Cowan]

Though Peter's name means Rock, this passage is referring to the Rock of his confession of Faith. It does not refer to Peter himself. No man regardless of his eccliastical position is infallible. You can do a search in this forum and get many threads on this topic.

[Michael Stickles]

What do the early Church fathers say regarding these issues? In particular, what do they have to say about Matthew 16:18, and other Petrine passages?

St. John Chrysostom's take (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200154.htm) on Matthew 16:18 was this:


"And I say unto you, you are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;" that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd.

More discussion of patristic commentary on Matthew 16:18 and John 21:15 (another Petrine passage) can be found in a recent Monachos thread on that topic (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4898).

On papal supremacy in general, St. Cyprian had this to say (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.vi.iii.html) at the Synod held at Carthage (257 AD), which I think relates to that point:


For no one [of us] has set himself up [to be] bishop [of bishops], or attempted with tyrannical dread to force his colleagues to obedience to him, since every bishop has, for the license of liberty and power, his own will, and as he cannot be judged by another, so neither can he judge another. But we await the judgment of our universal Lord, our Lord Jesus Christ, who one and alone hath the power, both of advancing us in the governance of his Church, and of judging of our actions [in that position].

There is an interesting exchange recorded in Session XVI (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xix.html) of the Acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451 AD) that relates to this:



The most glorious judges said: From what has been done and brought forward on each side, we perceive that the primacy of all (πρὸ πάντων τὰ πρωτεῖα) and the chief honour (τὴν ἐξαίρετον τιμὴν) according to the canons, is to be kept for the most God-beloved archbishop of Old Rome, but that the most reverend archbishop of the royal city Constantinople, which is new Rome, is to enjoy the honour of the same primacy ...

The most reverend bishops cried out: This is a just sentence. So we all say. These things please us all. ...

Lucentius, the bishop, said: The Apostolic See gave orders that all things should be done in our presence; and therefore whatever yesterday was done to the prejudice of the canons during our absence, we beseech your highness to command to be rescinded. But if not, let our opposition be placed in the minutes, and pray let us know clearly what we are to report to that most apostolic bishop who is the ruler of the whole church, so that he may be able to take action with regard to the indignity done to his See and to the setting at naught of the canons.

The most glorious judges said: The whole synod has approved what we proposed.


It appears that here we see already the Roman See claiming some form of supreme authority ("ruler of the whole church"), while the other Sees denied this, granting Rome only the "chief honor" and, while acknowledging the "primacy of all" for Rome, also recognized in Constantinople "the same primacy" (thus obviously not recognizing an exclusive primacy for Rome).

In Christ,
Mike

[Antonios]

Views on papal claims are one area of Eastern Orthodoxy, and Church history, that I haven't really looked into much.


Dear Geoffrey,

If you would like to understand the greatest cause of rift between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, it would serve you well to look into this.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Misha]

From an ex "romancatholic" priest:

http://www.impantokratoros.gr/PaulBallaster_Convolier.en.aspx

[Geoffrey Miller]

Wow. Okay, I see that there's some very interesting stuff here! Thanks for the posts.

[Geoffrey Miller]

I looked into many of the sources given so far. I admit, some are removed from their proper contexts. I also did not enjoy the polemical essay that was linked to.

I am sorry that the priest mentioned in them had such bad experiences with Roman Catholicism, if in fact he did. But I am looking for in-depth, well-reasoned arguments from the Church Fathers. I just need to know where to look for them.

[Paul Cowan]

After reading this article, I too would have liked to have seen the books he was given to read or seen the fruit of his studies. Not that I can read anything but english, but it would have given credibility to his story and allowed others to follow his path of discovery. Written as is, whether true or not, it is a story of conversion with no support though the author confesses to have written many many books and articles.

Paul

[Geoffrey Miller]

My last thread didn't really go where I wanted it to.

What I'm seeking now is a person well read in the Fathers, and well studied on the question of the papal claims.

I'm already leaning toward the conclusion that papal infallibility and such aren't legitimate developments in doctrine, but I want to look deeper into the evidence, to make sure the evidence really does support the Orthodox point of view.

[Aidan Kimel]

Geoffrey, you may wish to read Thomas Allies's book The See of Peter (http://www.archive.org/details/a545124000newmuoft). Allies was converted to Catholicism because of the patristic witness in support of the Roman claims. Also see T. G. Jalland's Bampton lectures, *The Church and the Papacy* (1949). Jalland was an Anglican but believed that strong support for the papal claims was to be found in the Church Fathers. His book is out of print but can be found in the used book market. Westall's article "The Fathers Gave Rome the Primacy (http://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/the-fathers-gave-rome-the-primacy/)" has recently been made available on the internet. A study of Pope Leo's teaching on the papacy is crucial: see Walter Ullman, “Leo I and the Theme of Papal Primacy,” The Journal of Theological Studies, II 11 (1): 25–51 (1960), as well as Jalland's *The Life and Times of Leo the Great* (1940).

The Catholic Church did not invent the papacy out of thin air. John Henry Newman certainly believed that the seeds of papal supremacy (http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter4.html#section3) were to be found in the Fathers. I do not argue that the evidence is probative, but it is more than suggestive: see my "bad reason #1 (http://pontifications.wordpress.com/bad-reasons/)."

I hope this helps.

[Misha]

Tthis may also be useful:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Pope-became-infallible-persuasion/dp/0385158513

[Geoffrey Miller]

Fr. Alvin,

Thank you for the articles you've linked me too, however, your post "bad reason #1," has frankly hurt my respect for John Henry Cardinal Newman. Please allow me to explain.

It seems to me that Cardinal Newman is a skeptic. According to him, we can deduce nothing certain from history about any doctrines or dogmas of our faith. Instead, we interpret history to support them, even when it might even support their opposite, because an infallible Church tells us to do so. And we trust that this Church is infallible, because it says so, and is infallible.

This circling reasoning is hardly convincing, and definitely disconcerting.

[Aidan Kimel]

Fr. Alvin,

Thank you for the articles you've linked me too, however, your post "bad reason #1," has frankly hurt my respect for John Henry Cardinal Newman. Please allow me to explain. It seems to me that Cardinal Newman is a skeptic. According to him, we can deduce nothing certain from history about any doctrines or dogmas of our faith. Instead, we interpret history to support them, even when it might even support their opposite, because an infallible Church tells us to do so. And we trust that this Church is infallible, because it says so, and is infallible. This circling reasoning is hardly convincing, and definitely disconcerting.

Geoffrey, the reasoning may be circular, but the circularity is inevitable for any Church that dares to impose irreformable dogma on the consciences of the faithful. The alternative to infallibility is Protestantism.

What are the evidentiary grounds upon which you believe Christianity to be true? Do you believe, for example, that "neutral" critical scholarship can prove the resurrection of Jesus to be absolutely certain? Do you believe that it can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? Do you believe that it can show it to be at least probable? But what if these scholars, or at least many of them, were to tell you that the evidence, considered from a purely "neutral" perspective, does not support a judgment of "probable," much less a judgment of "certain"? How much evidence do you need before you give yourself unreservedly to Christ Jesus and the mission of his Church? How much contrary evidence will it take to persuade you to stop believing? Does your faith wax and wane, depending on the tides of critical scholarship?

I am not arguing for a pure fideism (and neither, of course, is Newman). The relationship between faith and reason is subtle and controverted. But the simple fact remains that the believing Christian ultimately commits himself to Christ in a way that goes beyond the evidence, if you will. He commits himself on the basis of testimony--the testimony of the Church, the testimony of the Apostles. And he commits himself without reservation or qualification. Unlike Thomas, we have not seen, yet we have believed and have staked our lives and fortunes on the truth of the gospel. The personal surrender of faith goes "beyond" the evidence. And Christ commends our faith: "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Implicit in this faith is the conviction of the infallibility of the Apostles and of the Church that mediates to us their testimony. That we believe this testimony, despite the lack of overwelming and coercive evidence, perhaps even contrary to evidence, is a work of the Holy Spirit. We even dare to speak of this faith as a way of knowing.

Whenever the Orthodox Church claims that Scripture is to be read in accordance with the faith and teaching of the Church it is, in principle, invoking its infallibility. Whenever the Orthodox Church insists that the baptized are to embrace, and must embrace, the dogmatic teachings of the ecumenical councils, it is, in principle, invoking its infallibility. Whenever the Orthodox Church declares that the lives and teachings of the Fathers are part of the living revelation of God, it is, in principle, invoking its infallibility. For an Orthodox analysis of infallibility, I refer you to Archbishop Stylianos's book The Infallibility of the Church in Orthodox Theology (http://www.amazon.com/Infallibility-Church-Orthodox-Theology-Andrews/dp/1920691987/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214220610&sr=8-1). One Orthodox internet apologist who has vigorously advanced the infallibility of the Orthodox Church is philosophy graduate student, Perry Robinson (http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com). Perry is adamantly anti-Roman, but he sees that the binding nature of formal doctrine requires a belief in the infallibility of the Church. He grounds this infallibility in the deifying union between Christ and his ecclesial body.

Is Newman a skeptic? It's ironic that you should advance this accusation. Newman thought deeply about the nature of faith and doubt, particularly in light of modernity. I refer you especially to his discourses on "Faith and Private Judgment (http://www.newmanreader.org/works/discourses/discourse10.html)" and "Faith and Doubt (http://www.newmanreader.org/works/discourses/discourse11.html)." It was precisely Newman's gravamen against the private judgment and rationalism of Protestantism that it ultimately leads to skepticism. "There really is no medium," Newman concludes, "between scepticism and Catholicism." Substitute "Orthodoxy" for "Catholicism," if you like.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Geoffrey, the reasoning may be circular, but the circularity is inevitable for any Church that dares to impose irreformable dogma on the consciences of the faithful. The alternative to infallibility is Protestantism.

May I suggest another alternative to the reasoning of infallibility? How about Orthodoxy? We do not require "infallibility" and yet we have managed to preserve the Apostolic Witness just fine without it, if the testimony of the most recent Popes is to be believed. Conciliarity, as reflected in the Catholic institution of the Magisterium, is how the Holy Spirit guides the Church. No single "infallible" person is required. In fact, it seems (at least to this bear of little brain) that the idea of infallibility destroys the idea of "free will" and would demean the ability of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. Infallibility is superfluous. The Apostle Peter claimed no such authority for himself. Why would his "successor" have something he obviously did not have?

[Aidan Kimel]

May I suggest another alternative to the reasoning of infallibility? How about Orthodoxy? We do not require "infallibility" and yet we have managed to preserve the Apostolic Witness just fine without it, if the testimony of the most recent Popes is to be believed. Conciliarity, as reflected in the Catholic institution of the Magisterium, is how the Holy Spirit guides the Church. No single "infallible" person is required. In fact, it seems (at least to this bear of little brain) that the idea of infallibility destroys the idea of "free will" and would demean the ability of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. Infallibility is superfluous. The Apostle Peter claimed no such authority for himself. Why would his "successor" have something he obviously did not have?

Herman, you are confusing ecclesial infallibility with the specific Roman claim about the papacy. In Catholic eyes, the latter is grounded upon the former, not vice versa. If you re-read what I wrote, you will see that I did not make any claims about the papacy. I did, however, make claims about the Church and her deifying union with Christ in the Spirit.

You write, "We do not require 'infallibility' and yet we managed to preserve the Apostolic Witness just fine without it." Are you suggesting that the Orthodox Church is fallible in the way that Protestants believe the Church to be fallible? Are you suggesting that the conciliar dogmas may be false? Are you suggesting that critical biblical scholarship trumps the Orthodox reading of Holy Scripture? I doubt it. Orthodox may not speak much about infallibility, and may even eschew the word, but they presuppose it at every turn. Archbishop Stylianos (http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/stylian_3.html) comments that when he was examined for his doctoral dissertation at the University of Athens, the dean of the school of theology commented that he was totally unaware that "infallibility was an article of faith in our Church." The Orthodox may not speak much about infallibility, but they certainly practice it, indeed must practice it. Not to do so would reduce Orthodoxy to the status of a denomination.

[Paul Cowan]

Father Alvin,

Forgive me for jumping in here as I know from the outset I am jumping in the deep end without a life vest.

I think the infallibility of the church is different from the infallibility of the papacy. The infallibility of the church over the past 2000 years from what I have read and heard is more of a collective consciousness of the church fathers over time. Some have ideas and thoughts that are agreed upon and supported by other Holy fathers and some are not. At times the same elder may have supported and unsupported ideas presented to the judgement of time.

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." Is much different than "it seemed good to me and I claim the only right to interrpret the Holy Spirit."

I hope I do not sound demeaning in anyway. I think RC has its place in God as does the OC as does the PC. God will judge. But in my heart of hearts I do not "feel" it right to put all the direction of the Church on one man. God did not set it up this way since he had 12 apostles. They were equal in importance. Just because one was more outspoken or spoken of more than the rest does not make him more than the first among equals.

Forgive me, I admit I did not read the references you posted earlier. I will when I get off work today.

In Christ
Paul

[Herman Blaydoe]

Are you suggesting that the Orthodox Church is fallible in the way that Protestants believe the Church to be fallible?

Um, actually, no, I am suggesting no such thing.


Are you suggesting that the conciliar dogmas may be false?

Again no. But I am suggesting that we do not NEED infallibility to make them true. Truth is truth, regardless if the source is fallible or infallible. The question is, do you trust the source? Does it have to be "infallible" to be trustworthy? I say no it does not. That is why we have checks and balances. That is why the Holy Spirit is in charge, to lead us to all truth.


Are you suggesting that critical biblical scholarship trumps the Orthodox reading of Holy Scripture? I doubt it.

So do I. But the Church, as a body, has every right, nay, the responsibility to be critical. "Test all things" says the Apostle (who is NOT Peter), "keep what is good". To be "good" it does NOT have to be infallible.


Orthodox may not speak much about infallibility, and may even eschew the word, but they presuppose it at every turn.

So you say. There is a significant body of Orthodox theologians who say otherwise. I say eschew obfuscation. We do NOT need the concept of infallibility. It is superfluous, it is unnecessary. As the retired Bishop Tikhon (OCA) is fond of saying, we are all "infallible" when we proclaim the Truth, and fallible when we don't, Pope, Patriarch or layperson, sinner or saint.


Archbishop Stylianos comments that when he was examined for his doctoral dissertation at the University of Athens, the dean of the school of theology commented that he was totally unaware that "infallibility was an article of faith in our Church."

Ayep!


The Orthodox may not speak much about infallibility, but they certainly practice it, indeed must practice it.

So you say, and I will readily admit that some Orthodox would agree with you. I am not one of them, I throw my hat in with the Dean in Athens. The whole idea is simply superfluous. We do fine without it. That is why it took a council to endorse previous councils. That is why we have the test of time and the test of conciliarity. With these tools, the Holy Spirit does not need an infallible Vicar or Church. In this, the Protestants are right, except that they threw away the tools along the way as well.


Not to do so would reduce Orthodoxy to the status of a denomination.

So you keep saying, but that logic, I fear, is flawed. Dropping "infallibility" from the lexicon reduces nothing, we lose NOTHING. Getting rid of the idea of infallibility still leaves the Truth intact. Truth can still manifest through fallible people, fallibly trying to follow the Risen Lord, testing all things and keeping what is good ("...and it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to US..."). So no, I continue to contend that "infallibility" is a fallacy, and that is what I eschew.

Herman the infallibly fallible Pooh

[Aidan Kimel]

The brethren may find of interest this recent talk on East/West reconciliation given by Fr Richard John Neuhaus (http://audio.ancientfaith.com/specials/svs/neuhaus.mp3).

[Geoffrey Miller]

What are the evidentiary grounds upon which you believe Christianity to be true?
The testimony of history, the existence of a loving God (which can most certainly be known by just pure reason), and the personal experience of Christ in my life.


Do you believe, for example, that "neutral" critical scholarship can prove the resurrection of Jesus to be absolutely certain?
Most definitely. I came to Christianity after an objective assessment of the evidence.


Do you believe that it can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?
If I didn't, would I be here talking to you father?


Do you believe that it can show it to be at least probable?
Yes, and much more (see above).


But what if these scholars, or at least many of them, were to tell you that the evidence, considered from a purely "neutral" perspective, does not support a judgment of "probable," much less a judgment of "certain"?
They did, and so I investigated their claims, found them wanting, and concluded the exact opposite. Some modern exegetes start out by excluding the proposition that miracles are even possible. After investigating their philosophies, and through reasoned argument, and logical proofs, I know for a fact that their philosophies are wrong. No doubt about it. Most are self-refuting.

You see, I believe that man can attain knowledge of the truth. I believe objective truth can be found and grasped by the human mind. This is a central premise of Christianity, father. Though now I'm not sure if Rome believes it anymore.

The moderns say that truth is relative and unobtainable. You seem to being saying that for me, truth will be relative and unobtainable unless I submit to an objective truth that you offer me, trusting that it is objective, even though knowing such a thing is beyond me. What do you take me for?

Where is the solid reasoning of St. Thomas the Angelic Doctor? Or do you prefer the mushy mind of Pascal, Doubters, &co?

I suppose next you will be telling me that even my own self-existence is uncertain? Or that the chair beneath me might be illusionary?

Have you lost all faith that a creature made in God's image can obtain knowledge of objective reality, of the truth? It seems you have.


How much evidence do you need before you give yourself unreservedly to Christ Jesus and the mission of his Church?
Evidence enough to prove it beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, which I found.


How much contrary evidence will it take to persuade you to stop believing?
Evidence enough to prove the contrary beyong the shadow of a reasonable doubt, and also enough to explain why there is an overwhelmingly conclusive amount of evidence supporting Christianity so that only the ignorant, mad, or wicked could possibly reject it. I think the Church fathers also spoke to that effect.


Does your faith wax and wane, depending on the tides of critical scholarship?
No, because I find all modern philosophy and scholarship to be highly amusing. Care to check out one of my essays attacking deconstructionism, elements of which I see in your own philosophy? http://meusquestus.blogspot.com/2008/06/what-derrida-really-meant.html

Try checking out my other essays, and please read some scholastic theology and Church fathers.

Cardinal Newman was a sincere man, but he was sincerely wrong about many things.


Geoffrey, the reasoning may be circular, but the circularity is inevitable for any Church that dares to impose irreformable dogma on the consciences of the faithful.
Wrong. Again, basic logic would dictate that first the said infallibility must be proven, beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, and then we can accept its judgments as true. All you need do is come up with an argument showing that infallibility is true, then the Church's dogmas can be accepted. No circular reasoning involved.

Right now, what you're essentially saying is this: "I am infallible concerning matters of faith and morals. By virtue of my supreme office, I say fairies exist, and so must all Christians everywhere, and they must definitively hold that said fairies exist. You must also believe they exist, because I am infallible concerning this matter."

First, establish your infallibility, at least with a compelling argument. Then, I will believe you.


I am not arguing for a pure fideism (and neither, of course, is Newman).
98.9% fideism is pretty pure father. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...


The relationship between faith and reason is subtle and controverted.
Only for those who desire it to be so. Faith is actually quite simple.

As my friend John C. Wright says:

Faith is the moral imperative to trust those things and those people your intellect tells you that you have reason to trust, when your inclination tempts you to doubt. If a stranger told me my wife was cheating on me, and my wife said she was not, it is a moral imperative that I trust my wife in that situation. If my captain in time of war told me to charge forward into combat, and a stranger told me that my captain was not carrying out the orders the general gave him, it would be wrong for me to distrust the captain, debate the matter, and wrong not to charge.

If my father tells me pornography is bad for me, and will stunt my sexual maturity by addicting me to a degraded and unrealistic image of womanhood, and if I am a teen who simply has no experience to judge whether my father's claim is true or exaggerated, my moral imperative is to trust and to obey my father.

Do I need to give more examples? Everyone acts as if faith is an epistemological and empirical phenomenon, a scientific means of determining the composition of stars or the mating habits of beetles. It is not. Faith is honesty. Once you have seen the evidence and are convinced Christ rose from the dead, it is dishonest to dismiss His claims to the Godhead.


But the simple fact remains that the believing Christian ultimately commits himself to Christ in a way that goes beyond the evidence, if you will. He commits himself on the basis of testimony--the testimony of the Church, the testimony of the Apostles.
Which is...ummm, evidence? Yeah, testimony is considered evidence, or else our court systems, historians, police...heck, everybody...is way out of line.


And he commits himself without reservation or qualification.
Wouldn't the evidence be considered qualification? The point is to commit once your reservations are all satisfied.


Unlike Thomas, we have not seen, yet we have believed and have staked our lives and fortunes on the truth of the gospel.
Well, my friend Mr. Wright got to see, as did my mom. I heard and believed them, because their experiences corroborated the physical and historical evidence of Christ. I could sooner believe that the entire world is an illusion projected into my mind by a giant computer, than that Christ is not risen from the dead.


And Christ commends our faith: "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
Please don't join in with the chorus that takes this quote out of context.


That we believe this testimony, despite the lack of overwelming and coercive evidence, perhaps even contrary to evidence, is a work of the Holy Spirit. We even dare to speak of this faith as a way of knowing.
Your words drip with honey, and sting with venom. You acknowledge that overwhelming evidence disproves Christianity, and yet remain within the fold, sinning gravely against truth and honesty. You commit intellectual suicide, and say it is a way of knowing?

Thank God Christianity is not as you say it is father. Thank God the evidence proves it true. For if the statement you have made is true, then Richard Dawkins is right in denouncing us as the most wicked charlatans ever conceived on this earth.

If Christ not be raised, we are more depraved than Lucifer!


Whenever the Orthodox Church claims that Scripture is to be read in accordance with the faith and teaching of the Church it is, in principle, invoking its infallibility. Whenever the Orthodox Church insists that the baptized are to embrace, and must embrace, the dogmatic teachings of the ecumenical councils, it is, in principle, invoking its infallibility. Whenever the Orthodox Church declares that the lives and teachings of the Fathers are part of the living revelation of God, it is, in principle, invoking its infallibility.
But if said infallibility can be established by the facts, then the Orthodox Church is not using circular reasoning here. The facts I wish to use to establish it are the written testimonies of the early Christians. Contrary to what you and your self-refuting "philosophers" say, we can actually know what really happened, by studying history.

Or rather, are you trying to convince me that evidence doesn't matter, afraid of what I might find if I look?


Is Newman a skeptic? It's ironic that you should advance this accusation.
Skeptic, modernist, feebleminded, "axiomophobe"...whatever you want to call it, that's what Newman is. What's more ironic, is that he denies it. Though moderns are not known for consistency of thought and rigor of reason, are they?

I refer you to this essay as an added bonus.
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/171773.html#cutid1

Sorry father. I do not agree with your comments, and I do not agree with priests who think, as you think, "that we believe this testimony, despite the lack of overwelming and coercive evidence, perhaps even contrary to evidence" continuing to administer the faithful.

If you truly believe that Christianity lacks conclusive evidence behind it, my first question is: are you blind? I mean that.

My second question is: why are you still here, and do you think your flock might be scandalized if they knew the truth about the nature of your belief?

God bless you father, and may He give you eyes to see, and faith to trust in the obvious.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

Can I just note that some of the most recent content in this thread has become somewhat personalised, which is not constructive for open discussion. Let us all take an extra effort to speak off matters without attempt to paint characterisations of others, so that the real points of issue can be discussed openly and helpfully.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Aidan Kimel]

Mr. Miller, I think our conversation is at an end. Perhaps some of the Orthodox members of Monachos will engage you in your understanding of faith and reason. I think you will find that they have a very different understanding of things.

[James M.]

If it is considered a contribution to the discussion, I would offer Fr. Thomas Hopko's suggestion that IF the Roman Catholic Church has kept the faith of the Apostles as the Orthodox see it, then the See of Peter is likely the seat of honor among the Patriarchates. I think there is something to Fr. Thomas's remarks and leave it at that.

As unlearned as I am, I find the discussion of infallibility relative to primacy to seem somewhat puzzling if the two are considered intricately related. I find it neither necessary nor helpful, though that may have more to do with my own problems. Further, I tend to find that the matter of obedience does not require infallibility and is a matter primarily of heart rather than reason. But like I said, I am unschooled in these things.

I have tremendous respect for Rome and the Catholic Church, and remember fondly Fr. Al's "Fly ye Fools Fly" and am thankful for the guidance his Pontifications site offered. I am happy to see him here.. and take the opportunity to thank him for his guidance, as I have said, you convinced me of much... maybe not of the Roman Catholic Church... but much all the same. As consolation I would offer that Pope John Paul made me aware of sin, Fr. Al enlightened my understanding, and my wife made me understand the need to love the Church as a spouse. We should all tread lightly in this... understanding that we speak of each other's mother's - the Church. I could have readily become an RC but for my own limitations, nmy own prejudices, and the opportunity at hand of a good Orthodox parish, priest, and family. I do not necessarily think we are "one and only" option or the other... but fairly, I am no slobberingly sentimental ecumenist either - though others may feel otherwise!

Good arguments require a certain logic, but good logic that holds together does not necessarily make them true. There is indeed a difference between a good lawyer and a philosopher. Equally, Fr. Al makes the point that we cannot prove things by cold reason alone, and do take much on faith (aka Resurrection). I would add that good debate requires charity to an argument, and dealing with it on its strengths not its weaknesses. For my part Fr. Thomas's point is enough for me. And I would suggest that problem lies in the critical IF as most Orthodox see it. The saddest part of this, however, is Lossky's comment that there was a time when BOTH East and West could approach their faith either from Top-Down or Bottom-Up and still see that they held the same faith. Seems neither can or will say that today. And there's the rub.

And I mean that. I think that at the end of the day, objections to Primacy, Infallibility and the rest fall on the view that both East and West no longer see that there can be more than one way, and that these differences are fundamental rather than differing solely in the accident of detail. My guess is that addressing this end of the problem head on might be more constructive. There is danger that involves more skill than I have in delving into these things, but I would wonder that IF the schism say no new innovation in Orthodox thought, then IF there was nothing new in Roman Catholic thought... then how did we get here? If on the other hand, innovation was involved in the separation, then where has the innovation come, and if so, is this not where the Faith varied? If it did not vary, then how again are we separate? Are we reliving old battles, and arguing something old - or is it simply a lingering personal matter that has become institutionalized, and if so, how do we reconvert it to a set of personal matters among the deceased and dispense with it? And can we in truth dispense with the disagreement and move on to find agreement in Faith, or see the same God within each other? If so, then what? Re-union will involve "give" on both sides. As someone who has negotiated small legal matters in business, a good lawyer will tell you that if you want to get something, you have to give, you have to admit and you have to do this in spite of your conviction that you are right and the other guy is wrong. Anything less means that you don't really want to resolve but feed the matter.

So where do folks think these matters really lie? My guess is that neither side really wants to resolve them. And if I may reflect, I would contribute in honor of the recently reposed Very Reverend (Anglican) Henry Chadwick, that “Nothing is sadder than someone who has lost his memory, and the church which has lots its memory is in the same state of senility.”

Finally, I would add that it is indeed sad that we are here between these two proud and worthy churches unable to give each other what they need to see their way to resolving the argument. Again.... a process reason sees a way to stand in-between rather than resolve. And no, I am not arguing against reason or rationalism or in favor of emotion... but that we need a NEW dialogue rather than the same old same old. The thought is not meant to conform to sloppy ecumenism but rather to refocus as Fr. Al has done initially and better, as Pope Benedict has done by laying out clearly the position. We need to layout ours... and our difficulty lies in our ecclesiology in terms of who speaks for Orthodoxy. Many would offer themselves perhaps, but if the Pope is truly the Pope, he won't play for this as much as many opportunists might press for it, but will push back for a council where ALL Orthodox Churches would come together to address the issues in conciliar fashion. It's my two cents that a process of that nature would be a real start.

Do we have something to do in the meantime? Yes. Maybe have the Council of Orthodox Churches called for sometime back to address Philetism and the Diaspora into the West. Lotta work to do there.

Forgive me for taking your discussion off track. Hope this helps.

[Geoffrey Miller]

My apologies for previous attacks, Fr. Alvin. I took some of your comments about Christianity very personally. To me, it seems like you are saying that Christianity is a farce, but we should believe anyway, despite the fact that we can't ever know if it's really true until the other side of the grave.

But I really want to know if you believe that this statement is true, namely that there isn't any overwhelming evidence for Christianity, and furthermore that there is significant evidence contrary to it.


Implicit in this faith is the conviction of the infallibility of the Apostles and of the Church that mediates to us their testimony. That we believe this testimony, despite the lack of overwelming and coercive evidence, perhaps even contrary to evidence, is a work of the Holy Spirit. We even dare to speak of this faith as a way of knowing.

[Aidan Kimel]

My apologies for previous attacks, Fr. Alvin. I took some of your comments about Christianity very personally. To me, it seems like you are saying that Christianity is a farce, but we should believe anyway, despite the fact that we can't ever know if it's really true until the other side of the grave.

But I really want to know if you believe that this statement is true, namely that there isn't any overwhelming evidence for Christianity, and furthermore that there is significant evidence contrary to it.

Mr. Miller, the questions you ask are probably best addressed in person or at least through private correspondence.

I am reminded of the debate between Elizabeth Anscombe and C. S. Lewis at the Oxford Socratic Club in 1948. Anscombe presented a paper criticizing Lewis's argument for the self-refuting nature of naturalism in his book *Miracles*. This argument was important to Lewis's own belief in God--or at least it was until this debate. Lewis's friend and biographer George Sayers relates Lewis's response to the debate:

"He told me that he had been proved wrong, and that his argument for the existence of God had been demolished. ...The debate had been a humiliating experience, but perhaps it was ultimately good for him. In the past, he had been too proud of his logical ability. Now he was humbled ....'I can never write another book of that sort' he said to me of Miracles. And he never did. He also never wrote another theological book. Reflections on the Psalms is really devotional and literary; Letters to Malcolm is also a devotional book, a series of reflections on prayer, without contentious arguments."

Lewis was shaken but he did not lose his faith. I suspect that his "defeat" forced him to rediscover for himself the deeper roots of his faith. "The heart," Pascal wrote, "has its reasons of which reason knows nothing."

There is great mystery here. If faith is to survive the challenges, sufferings, and disappointments of life, it must be built on something stronger than reasoned arguments and historical scholarship. These are not unimportant--Christianity does claim to be a reasonable and intellectually defensible faith; it does vigorously assert truth-claims--but they are a vulnerable foundation upon which to build one's life and prepare for one's death. Faith is not apologetics. Faith is not ideology. It is precisely because faith is rooted in something deeper than rational argument that we are free to honestly acknowledge the counter-evidence to the Christian claims (or Catholic claims or Orthodox claims) and not be overwhelmed or threatened by them. Each of us must discover that "something deeper."

When Sheldon Vanauken was struggling with the truth of the gospel, he wrote to C. S. Lewis and asked, "But what if I believe and my faith turns out to be wrong?" Lewis replied (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/arts/al0176.html): "Why, then you would have paid the universe a compliment it doesn't deserve. Your error would even so be more interesting and important than the reality. And yet how could that be? How could an idiotic universe have produced creatures whose mere dreams are so much stronger, better, subtler than itself?"

[Andreas Moran]

There has been much mention of logic, reason, proofs, evidence, etc, etc, for the Christian faith. I thought it was all about love. When I met my wife, I didn't seek logical proofs and overwhelming evidence for my love of her or reason whether I did or not. I don't say to her, 'darling I love you with all my powers of logic and reason and because of the weight of evidence not only on a balance of probabilities but beyond all reasonable doubt'. Don't we believe in God because He grants us faith by making us aware that He loves us? It's His love that gives us faith in Him. Or so it seems to me.

[James M.]

When I met my wife, I didn't seek logical proofs and overwhelming evidence for my love of her or reason whether I did or not. I don't say to her, 'darling I love you with all my powers of logic and reason and because of the weight of evidence not only on a balance of probabilities but beyond all reasonable doubt'.

Agreed. For me, the whole of separation when I think of it in the spousal matter as both of us have addressed it... well, it's like a 1930's movie of the "Guy -Gets-Girl, Guy-Loses-Girl, Guy-and-Gets-Back-Together-With-Girl" variety. More to the point, we're in a record long extension of the plot - the part where the Guy has lost the Girl... and they're still bickering with each other. In this flick, seems like folks have gotten so comfortable with the separation, it's getting hard to see whether there's a real desire for re-union. This is the stage where folks rationalize and justify their positions 'cause they both want to be 100% right. Fact is, some of us are waiting for the character to show up who slaps someone up side the head and says, "Gwon... you two love each other. Would you stop bickering a make up so we can get on with the wedding and the party?" I mean as a woman in my office used to say, "Back in the sandbox, one kid pushing the other down meant I love you".

For those who prefer Westerns, maybe it's like John Wayne and Montgomery Cliff arguing pointlessly in Red River... until the girlfriend unloads the revolver in their direction to make them stop...and The Duke says, "You better marry that girl." "I think you're right... hey... you ordering me around again?" "Just a suggestion." It's the same. Whatever it is... it's much the same.. and reason supplies the bullets. I'd note that none of the bullets seem to be hitting anything and doing any damage... and maybe that's worth noting as more significant than we think. Sure, we both act like they're hitting because it's all we know how to do anymore... but neither of us is getting hurt. Note how much we both care about it though.

The trick is that someone will wake up and get on the stick... else we show ourselves as mere human denominations rather than comprehensive apostolic churches. We could go on about that... but that ought to be some of the incentive.

[Aidan Kimel]

For those who prefer Westerns, maybe it's like John Wayne and Montgomery Cliff arguing pointlessly in Red River... until the girlfriend unloads the revolver in their direction to make them stop...and The Duke says, "You better marry that girl." "I think you're right... hey... you ordering me around again?"

Haha! I love the movie but have always hated that ending. :-)

[Nektarios]

Geoffrey, you may wish to read Thomas Allies's book The See of Peter (http://www.archive.org/details/a545124000newmuoft). Allies was converted to Catholicism because of the patristic witness in support of the Roman claims. Also see T. G. Jalland's Bampton lectures, *The Church and the Papacy* (1949). Jalland was an Anglican but believed that strong support for the papal claims was to be found in the Church Fathers. His book is out of print but can be found in the used book market. Westall's article "The Fathers Gave Rome the Primacy (http://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/the-fathers-gave-rome-the-primacy/)" has recently been made available on the internet. A study of Pope Leo's teaching on the papacy is crucial: see Walter Ullman, “Leo I and the Theme of Papal Primacy,” The Journal of Theological Studies, II 11 (1): 25–51 (1960), as well as Jalland's *The Life and Times of Leo the Great* (1940).

The Catholic Church did not invent the papacy out of thin air. John Henry Newman certainly believed that the seeds of papal supremacy (http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter4.html#section3) were to be found in the Fathers. I do not argue that the evidence is probative, but it is more than suggestive: see my "bad reason #1 (http://pontifications.wordpress.com/bad-reasons/)."

I hope this helps.

They didn't get it out of thin air but they might as well have. 2 cents from a former byzantine catholic.

[Ronnie Shakespeare]

Kosta, what do you mean "intentionally" mistranslated? You make it sound as if there is'nt a single Catholic scholar on the face of planet Earth, let alone any with "intellectual" honesty and moral integrity! I am saddened that no Orthodox members here called you out on that. Why don't you produce these "forgeries," and especially the forgery of St. Maximus, if you can. And I would like you also to give a fair account of the "authorities" who have established them as forgeries.

A Roman catholic made a comment defending the SUPREMACY for the POPE by using a letter from St Maximus to Pope Honorius to support this claim.
In this letter St Maximus states SUPREME DOMINION as Regarding Pope Honorius. Does anybody here know if this letter of St Maximus to Pope Honorius was indeed a forgery?

[Herman Blaydoe]

It seems rather problematic since Honorius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Honorius_I) was eventually anathematized and St. Maximus the Confessor was one of his most vocal opponents. Perhaps these are a different Honorius and Maximus? Or perhaps something was taken seriously out of context?

How can a heretical Pope be supreme? Irony overdose.

Herman the no longer irony-deficient Pooh

[Kosta]

A Roman catholic made a comment defending the SUPREMACY for the POPE by using a letter from St Maximus to Pope Honorius to support this claim.
In this letter St Maximus states SUPREME DOMINION as Regarding Pope Honorius. Does anybody here know if this letter of St Maximus to Pope Honorius was indeed a forgery?

This letter was actually written to Peter and a reference within the letter was made about the pope of Rome as having universal and supreme dominion and authority and the power to bind and loose over all the other churches. And yes we reject this letter as a forgery. It is only found in a latin text.


In his letter to Marinos he refers to the pope Honorius with titles such as divine and holy, but these were titles he gave to others as well. There common hyperbole for bishops. Maximus believed just like in the case of the fillioque that there was a misunderstanding in the translations from latin into greek. (footnote 13)http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/TimiadesStPhotios.php

[Ronnie Shakespeare]

This letter was actually written to Peter and a reference within the letter was made about the pope of Rome as having universal and supreme dominion and authority and the power to bind and loose over all the other churches. And yes we reject this letter as a forgery. It is only found in a latin text.


In his letter to Marinos he refers to the pope Honorius with titles such as divine and holy, but these were titles he gave to others as well. There common hyperbole for bishops. Maximus believed just like in the case of the fillioque that there was a misunderstanding in the translations from latin into greek. (footnote 13)http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/TimiadesStPhotios.php

So the sense you reject maximus letter as a forgery was purely on the Grounds of misunderstanding in the Translation.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Actually I believe Kosta is talking about two separate letters. He is saying that the letter in question, using the terms quoted was NOT written to Pope Honorius at all and that it is a forgery, not because of a mistranslation, but because no original Greek version has been produced, only a Latin text that is not believed to have actually been written by St. Maximus.

Kosta then references a second SEPARATE letter (to "Marinos") that provides examples of the hyperbole typical of correspondence of the day, emphasizing that such terms are NOT to be taken literally and do not indicate a belief in primacy as advocated by the Catholic Church, since such terms are also often used when addressing other bishops as well.

I hope that clears up the misunderstanding.

Herman the hopefully helpful Pooh

[Ronnie Shakespeare]

Actually I believe Kosta is talking about two separate letters. He is saying that the letter in question, using the terms quoted was NOT written to Pope Honorius at all and that it is a forgery, not because of a mistranslation, but because no original Greek version has been produced, only a Latin text that is not believed to have actually been written by St. Maximus.

Kosta then references a second SEPARATE letter (to "Marinos") that provides examples of the hyperbole typical of correspondence of the day, emphasizing that such terms are NOT to be taken literally and do not indicate a belief in primacy as advocated by the Catholic Church, since such terms are also often used when addressing other bishops as well.

I hope that clears up the misunderstanding.

Herman the hopefully helpful Pooh

Hmmn.So what you are saying is that some western church members in the past have resorted to outright lying to promote what they teach. I have read about a simular thing with regards to the council of florence. That the latins Produced writings that contained forgeries regarding the filioque.

[Kosta]

Thank-you Herman the helpful pooh for clarifying my comments.

[Mary Horey]

Well, I would imagine 1) it is because it has been less than half a day and not enough people have read all these posts since we are gearing up for the Christmas holidays and/or 2)we believe him.

I can think of a verse in the NIV Bible that was intentially left out because they didnt like the way it fit with the theology of the people putting the version together. John 5:4 This was from the King James Version. It is ommitted as is the verse number from the NIV. So if it can happen today right under our noses, it happened back then as well.
Paul,
NIV was not the product of the Roman Catholic church, and neither does it bear the imprimatur of the Catholic Church.
The NIV was started by the Christian Reformed Church and the National Association of Evangelicals.
I believe the Holy Spirit guides and protects the true Church, the Spouse of Christ, so such things could not have happened "back then."

[Mary Horey]

Dear Kosta,

Concerning what you wrote:

(1) "The word convenire translated as "must agree" is the huge stretch. Daniel Whelton in his book "Two Paths" disproves this (mis)translation and demonstrates that in a latin dictionary "must agree" doesnt even appear." The reason "must agree" does not appear in Latin dictionaries is because, grammatically, Latin expresses necessity (i.e. "must") by using a gerundive form and the being verb "esse."

(2) "... the faithful who are from all places are obliged to go toward that Church..." I do not wish to be offensive, but, really, if Abee Guetee's translation were correct, that would mean St. Irenaeus is telling the faithful everywhere to move physically toward the city of Rome, which is absurd.

Or, how do you understand "... the faithful who are from all places are obliged to go toward that Church..."?

[Mary Horey]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Thank you, Father Matthew, for your intelligent and informative post.

With great respect, please allow me to quote what you posted above:

"Irenaeus' whole statement is:
'For with this Church [the Church at Rome], because of her great authority, it is necessary that every Church, that is, the faithful who are everywhere, should agree - because in her the apostolic tradition has always been safeguarded by those who are everywhere.' "

Please allow me to call your attention to the phrase "For with this Church [the Church at Rome], because of her great authority." The first definition for "Authority" in the Encarta English Dictionary (North America) is "right to command, the right or power to enforce rules or give orders." The first definition, as you know, is the most common definition.

Thank you for posting St. Irenaeus' statement that Christians should agree with Rome (first, or primarily) because of her great authority (right to command), and secondly, "because in her the apostolic tradition has always been safeguarded by those who are everywhere."

[Mary Horey]

Though Peter's name means Rock, this passage is referring to the Rock of his confession of Faith. It does not refer to Peter himself. No man regardless of his eccliastical position is infallible. You can do a search in this forum and get many threads on this topic.

No man is infallible. But the Holy Spirit is. Jesus taught His disciples and the first generation of Christians infallibly while He was on the earth. Does He love us any less, that He would leave us without an infallible teacher who says, "Thus saith the Lord"?

[Mary Horey]

Dear Kosta,

You posted: "The late great NT biblical scholar and Roman Catholic priest Raymond E. Brown knows exactly what im talking about."

I hope you realize that Raymond E. Brown came very close to being defrocked. He was barred from teaching as a Catholic theologian, and ended up teaching, minus his clerical garbs, in a protestant school. He was a liberal modernist who dismissed much of the Bible and Catholic teaching as myth or fabrication.

[Sacha]

No man is infallible. But the Holy Spirit is. Jesus taught His disciples and the first generation of Christians infallibly while He was on the earth. Does He love us any less, that He would leave us without an infallible teacher who says, "Thus saith the Lord"?

Simply ascribing to one's beliefs the safeguard of the Holy Spirit is no panacea, I'm afraid. Protestants themselves do this very thing, and they claim the Holy Spirit's approval in the midst of 28,000 denominations. You can see this illogical claim in all of its horror here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/novemberweb-only/confidenceevangelical.html

"We have the Holy Spirit" does not do it for me. I am more inclined to believe if I hear the claim and see the fruit of the Spirit: namely a pattern of transformation of lives and holiness at work. But if instead, rotten and putrid fruit is the outcome, the claim amounts to absolutely nothing.

[Paul Cowan]

"Thus saith the Lord"?

Really?

Orthodox do not subscribe to the infallibility of any man even under the "guise" of the holy spirit. Else we have Mormonism. We do subscribe to the infallibility of the church guided by the Holy Spirit. Read your scripture "and it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us."

[Michael Stickles]

Thank you for posting St. Irenaeus' statement that Christians should agree with Rome (first, or primarily) because of her great authority (right to command), and secondly, "because in her the apostolic tradition has always been safeguarded by those who are everywhere."

Unfortunately, you've reversed the primacy of the reasons as our then-Fr Dcn Matthew presented them. As he said immediately after the quote from St. Irenaeus (emphasis added):


St Irenaeus explicitly states that the reason all churches must agree with the church in Rome, is not because of some specific heritage of primacy or power, but because that Church faithfully preserves the apostolic tradition - the same that has been 'safeguarded by those who are everywhere'. It is apostolic testimony that grounds authority. Inasmuch as the church in Rome faithfully preserves this, she is to be a church with which all others must agree - not for her own account, but on account of the tradition she maintains and exemplifies.

Thus, a more correct way to render his take regarding what St. Irenaeus meant would be: Christians should agree with Rome (first, or primarily) "because in her the apostolic tradition has always been safeguarded by those who are everywhere," and it is in this fact that her great authority is grounded.

In Christ,
Michael

[Herman Blaydoe]

We ain't got no infallibility.
We don' need no infallibility.
I don' haf to show you no steeenkin' infallibility!

The whole concept of infallibility is nothing more than a textbook example of circular logic. It is a one-word oxymoron. It does not exist. It is simply unnecessary. We do not need an infallible person, we do not even need an infallible Church. The Truth is the Truth regardless, even if it comes through fallible people.

Nowhere in Holy Scripture is there any mention of anything vaguely resembling "infallibility". The Holy Apostle Paul rails against the very concept when he told us to "test all things". Far from being "infallible", the first action of an Ecumenical Council is to endorse the Truth of the previous councils. If they are "infallible" to begin with, why is this necessary? The Apostles never claimed infallibility. They simply said "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…" Not "It was infallibly proclaimed by the Holy Spirit through us and you better believe it or else…" That is not how the Holy Spirit works.

Put the word "infallible" down, walk away from it. You can live your Faith just fine without it. It is not an Orthodox word.

Herman the infallibly fallible Pooh

[Michael Stickles]

No man is infallible. But the Holy Spirit is. Jesus taught His disciples and the first generation of Christians infallibly while He was on the earth. Does He love us any less, that He would leave us without an infallible teacher who says, "Thus saith the Lord"?

You already answered your own question. He did leave us with that infallible teacher - the Holy Spirit.


But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. ...

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

- John 14:26; 16:13-15

The "you" in these verses is plural.

[Kosta]

Dear Kosta,

Concerning what you wrote:

(1) "The word convenire translated as "must agree" is the huge stretch. Daniel Whelton in his book "Two Paths" disproves this (mis)translation and demonstrates that in a latin dictionary "must agree" doesnt even appear." The reason "must agree" does not appear in Latin dictionaries is because, grammatically, Latin expresses necessity (i.e. "must") by using a gerundive form and the being verb "esse."

(2) "... the faithful who are from all places are obliged to go toward that Church..." I do not wish to be offensive, but, really, if Abee Guetee's translation were correct, that would mean St. Irenaeus is telling the faithful everywhere to move physically toward the city of Rome, which is absurd.

Or, how do you understand "... the faithful who are from all places are obliged to go toward that Church..."?


What St Irenaeus meant is that many faithful have traveled to Rome for a variety of reason, as its the capital and have deposited their traditions there. Thus all the various traditions of the Apostolic Churches are known about in Rome. This was done by the many martyrs such as Ignatius that were deported to Rome to be executed. Others were there for business or personal reasons, if I remember correctly Polycarp was in Rome when he disputed with Pope Victor over the dating of Pascha, the jewish-christian Father Hegesippus traveled to Rome depositing the tradition of the jerusalem church up to the time of Trajan. Justin Martyr converted in Ephesus, learned christian tradition from the Asia Minor heritage and then moved to Rome and opened a school there. It was these saints that Irenaeous had in mind, and as the capital and center of the empire all roads lead to Rome.

But perhaps the best evidence that this is what Irenaeus had in mind is that canon 9 of the council of Antioch in 341 a.d. basically reiterates the same exact thing about all large prestigious cities in the empire:

Canon IX.

It behoves the bishops in every province to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the metropolis, and who has to take thought for the whole province; because all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis. Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank, and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him, (according to the ancient canon which prevailed from [the times of] our Fathers) or such things only as pertain to their own particular parishes and the districts subject to them. For each bishop has authority over his own parish, both to manage it with the piety which is incumbent on every one, and to make provision for the whole district which is dependent on his city; to ordain presbyters and deacons; and to settle everything with judgment. But let him undertake nothing further without the bishop of the metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of the others

[Sacha]

What strikes me is the political relationship between the eastern emperors/patriarchs and the popes in the west at the time of the 5, 6th and 7th ecumenical councils. Even in the great christological debate of Chalcedon, one sees violence (the death of Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople at the hands of Dioscorus, the treatment of John of Antioch), coercion, the constant shuffling of alliances to curry favor and influence. At the time, the East constantly sought out support of the Papacy to further its ends.

This, to me, is a far cry from "it seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit" and it is no different than the harshness of Calvin towards those he deemed heretics such as Servetus. Once again, claiming the Holy Spirit with no regard to hard historical facts and fruitfulness/lackthereof, regardless of whether it is protestant, orthodox or catholic, absolutely baffles me.

[Mary Horey]

Unfortunately, you've reversed the primacy of the reasons as our then-Fr Dcn Matthew presented them. As he said immediately after the quote from St. Irenaeus (emphasis added):



Thus, a more correct way to render his take regarding what St. Irenaeus meant would be: Christians should agree with Rome (first, or primarily) "because in her the apostolic tradition has always been safeguarded by those who are everywhere," and it is in this fact that her great authority is grounded.

In Christ,
Michael

Dear Michael,

Pardon me for correcting you, but you are referring to the interpretation that Fr Dcn Matthew presented. I am referring to the words of St. Irenaeus himself, as Fr Dcn Matthew presented them. Please look at these words of St. Ireneaus carefully again:

'For with this Church [the Church at Rome], because of her great authority, it is necessary that every Church, that is, the faithful who are everywhere, should agree - because in her the apostolic tradition has always been safeguarded by those who are everywhere.' "

These are the words of the Saint.

If we look at them carefully, we see that St. Irenaeus mentions, as his first or primary reason that "it is necessary that every church...should agree" "with this Church [the Church at Rome]" is "because of her great authority."

I simply pointed out that the first definition of authority is "the right to command."

St. Ireneaus recognized this right: the "right to command" of the Church of Rome.

If we claim to have the same faith as this Father, we should recognize that right, too.

Only secondly does the saint say, "because in her the apostolic tradition has always been safeguarded...." This apostolic tradition-- which means "teaching that was handed down" (tradition) "by the apostles" (thus "apostolic," not "deposited there by travelers")-- this "apostolic tradition" was (and is) safeguarded by the Holy Spirit.

May the same Holy Spirit enlighten all who read this to see the truth, through the prayers of the Mother of God.

In Christ,

Mary

PS It would have been as impossible in the past, (in St. Ireneaus' day), as in our own for "the faithful everywhere" to "safeguard" "the apostolic tradition" of the Church in Rome (or in any other metropolitan area). I do not see how any person can believe that the faithful everywhere safeguard (or safeguarded) the apostolic tradition of the Church in Rome. If the faithful are the guarantors of the deposit of faith, then how did any heresy (Arianism, Pelagianism, Donatism, etc.) break out among the faithful?

[Michael Stickles]

Pardon me for correcting you, but you are referring to the interpretation that Fr Dcn Matthew presented. I am referring to the words of St. Irenaeus himself, as Fr Dcn Matthew presented them.

Apologies for missing that distinction, but I don't think it changes the point at all. I believe that our then-Fr Dcn Matthew's interpretation is, in fact, the correct way to read St. Irenaeus' words. Let us go back to those words, as you quoted them:


'For with this Church [the Church at Rome], because of her great authority, it is necessary that every Church, that is, the faithful who are everywhere, should agree - because in her the apostolic tradition has always been safeguarded by those who are everywhere.' "

The fact that St. Irenaeus mentions the safeguarding of tradition second, does not mean it is to him a secondary point compared to the "great authority" of Rome. Rather, that second statement is a reference back to the entire first part - the reason why it is relevant. The first "because" is justifying the necessity of agreement, but the second "because" is justifying the entire first argument. Without the safeguarding of the apostolic tradition by her, the argument referencing her great authority would be irrelevant because that authority would not exist.

Also, if we are to correctly understand Irenaeus' remarks, we must address the context within which they were written. Let us look at the statements immediately preceding this in Irenaeus' writing:


It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. 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. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.

In other words, Irenaeus is arguing that agreement with the Church as a whole is necessary - just as our then-Fr Dcn Matthew pointed out - but, rather than justify all the churches through their succession of bishops, he is focusing on Rome as the one which was best-known and had the pre-eminence at that time, and whose succession of bishops he details immediately after the statement we are discussing. In the very next chapter, in continuing his argument, he says:


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 [B]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?

It is clear that St. Irenaeus was not arguing for all other churches to be subservient to Rome, but rather that all must be in agreement with the churches - plural - which maintain the apostolic tradition, among which Rome was pre-eminent and thus was the one for whom he detailed the succession of bishops from the apostles.

One last thought:


I simply pointed out that the first definition of authority is "the right to command."

It really is not important what the first definition is of any word, but rather what is the correct definition for its usage in the given context. And I believe it is clear from the context that "right to command" is not what Irenaeus meant by the use of "authority" here (or, more properly, of principalitatem, the Latin word translated as "authority" in this passage, which itself is a translation of the original Greek term which I believe is unfortunately lost to us).

In Christ,
Michael

[Kosta]

'For with this Church [the Church at Rome], because of her great authority, it is necessary that every Church, that is, the faithful who are everywhere, should agree - because in her the apostolic tradition has always been safeguarded by those who are everywhere.' "

These are the words of the Saint.

If we look at them carefully, we see that St. Irenaeus mentions, as his first or primary reason that "it is necessary that every church...should agree" "with this Church [the Church at Rome]" "because of her great authority."

I simply pointed out that the first definition of authority is "the right to command."

St. Ireneaus recognized this right: the "right to command" of the Church of Rome.

If we claim to have the same faith as this Father, we should recognize that right, too.


I have disputed this interpretation in the past. The latin translation is simply muddled possibly some words interpolated and made worse when written into english. If St Irenaeus held the belief that the roman church had a 'right to command' , then he would be a hippocrite. When Polycrates quarreled with Pope Victor on the dating of Easter, the pope attempted to excommunicate the Asia Minor churches. It was Irenaeus who interfered writing a strongly written letter to Victor chastising him. Irenaus took the side of Polycrates and told Victor that the Asia Minor churches need not agree with Rome. So Irenaeus did not agree that all must agree with Rome as Victor did.

Secondly theres plenty of writings from Irenaeus which clarifies what he meant. It is Irenaeus who records how Polycarp visited Rome for secular reasons and had a friendly exchange with Pope Anicetus, both tried to persuade each other to change their Easter customs, at the end both agreed that they must follow those that proceeded them. Again this is more evidence which strengthens my previous interpretation, that everyone from everywhere travel to Rome, and i reiterate this is echoed bby the canon of Antioch, "...because all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis..."

Irenaeus uses similar phraseology as the controversial quote elsewhere which sheds light on what he meant:

"True knowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles and the ancient constitution of the church throughout all the world. And the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops by which they handed down that church which exists in every place."

Lets compare the above to the controversial passages in context:

"Since, however, it would be very tedious in such a volume as this to reckon up the successions of all the churches....by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, (of the very great, the very ancient and universally known church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul). We do this also by pointing out the faith preached to men which comes down to our own time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of neccesity that every church should agree with this church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is the faithful everywhere. For the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those who exist everywhere...'

Isnt it ironic that the latin apologists omit the final sentence in the above passage??? And yes i put the one sentence in paranthesis as one can easily see there is corruption of the passage and possibble interpolations. It makes no sense in the sentence structure and is easier to read if you completely omit it. The sentence ive put in paranthesis would make sense if the phrase read ' of the very great, the very ancient churches". If it was in plural we know he is refering to churches found by apostles and goes with his plural usage of the word successions.

[Michael Stickles]

"Since, however, it would be very tedious in such a volume as this to reckon up the successions of all the churches....by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, (of the very great, the very ancient and universally known church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul). We do this also by pointing out the faith preached to men which comes down to our own time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of neccesity that every church should agree with this church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is the faithful everywhere. For the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those who exist everywhere...'

... i put the one sentence in paranthesis as one can easily see there is corruption of the passage and possibble interpolations. It makes no sense in the sentence structure and is easier to read if you completely omit it. The sentence ive put in paranthesis would make sense if the phrase read ' of the very great, the very ancient churches". If it was in plural we know he is refering to churches found by apostles and goes with his plural usage of the word successions.

I have to disagree here. In this particular section, Irenaeus is indeed referring to the church at Rome; rewriting the phrase to say "of the very great, the very ancient churches" would cause this to make less sense in context, not more. Allow me to go through this phrase-by-phrase:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches,

So, he's not going to cover the legitimacy of all the churches,

we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings;

But he still plans to put together a convincing argument against those in error,

[we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul;

The wording here is awkward which contributes to confusion. Let me redo the punctuation in a way I think will be more clear:

"[we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition - derived from the apostles - of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church..."

as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.

If we leave out the translator's interpolation - the "by pointing out" - here, I think this will read much more clearly. Then we get:

"[we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition - derived from the apostles - of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church ... as also the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the succession of bishops."

In other words, he is saying that the tradition of this one church - the church at Rome - is "the faith preached to men which comes down to our time", and he will support that by listing their succession of bishops, rather than weary his readers with showing the succession leading to all bishops everywhere. The transmission of the faith through the succession of bishops is his primary concern here.

It is quite clear that Irenaeus could have made his argument with any of the ancient churches (he explicitly refers to the church at Ephesus in the next chapter), but he is limiting himself to one church here for brevity's sake, and simply chooses Rome because of its fame and pre-eminence at that time.

In Christ,
Michael

[Kosta]

Thanks Michael, thats definately more clear. I'm actually surprised that the quote from St Irenaeus is still used so much by latin apologists.

[Mary Horey]

This is a correction to my original post of 11-21-11. I've found the Latin text for St. Irenaeus 3,3,2. He does not use the gerundive form of "convenire" to express necessity (i.e., "must agree"). He uses the infinitive "necesse" and "est" to express "It is (or "has been" [starting in the past and continuing into the present]) necessary." I apologize for speaking off the top of my head to explain why the Latin dictionary entry for "convenire" (as brought up in a previous post) showed no reference to the word "must."