When a modern Roman Catholic, like Dave Armstrong, appeals to concepts like apostolic succession and church tradition to argue for his denomination, is he arguing as Irenaeus did? Here's a summary of Irenaeus' argument in his own words:
"She [the church] believes in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His future manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one, and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send spiritual wickednesses, and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning of their Christian course, and others from the date of their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points of doctrine just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth." (Against Heresies, 1:10:1-2)
The faith Irenaeus is referring to is a core set of Christian doctrines, like monotheism and the resurrection. He knew that the churches of his day disagreed on some issues, like eschatology and how to celebrate Easter. He didn't think that all of the churches agreed about everything pertaining to Christianity, even though he sometimes speaks in an unqualified sense that could be taken the wrong way. Elsewhere, he does acknowledge the existence of some disagreements among Christians. The widely accepted apostolic faith that Irenaeus refers to doesn't consist of doctrines like the papacy, Mary's assumption, and prayers to the dead. Rather, it consists of doctrines accepted by Protestants, Orthodox, and other non-Catholics.
Irenaeus refers to this faith as the faith of churches "scattered throughout the whole world". He's referring to what all Christians believe. In contrast, Catholicism teaches doctrines that are rejected by individuals and groups it considers Christian (Orthodox reject the papacy, Protestants reject the sinlessness of Mary, etc.).
Later, he writes:
"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." (Against Heresies, 3:3:1)
He isn't just appealing to a succession of bishops. He's also appealing to a succession of teaching. Heretics are criticized for teaching what wasn't taught in earlier generations. Did the earliest Christians teach the papacy, prayers to the dead, Purgatory, an assumption of Mary, etc.? No.
Irenaeus repeatedly argues that all apostolic teaching is not only possessed by every church, but is also understood and taught by all of them (Against Heresies, 3:3:1, 3:4:1, 3:14:2, 3:15:1). Whatever one thinks of the accuracy of Irenaeus' claim or what qualifiers he may have assumed when he made such comments, the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of anybody who would claim that concepts like the papacy and the sinlessness of Mary were part of the faith Irenaeus was referring to. A Catholic may see a seed form of praying to the dead in Revelation 5:8 or a seed form of Mary's assumption in Revelation 11:19, but it doesn't follow that any ancient Christian who accepted Revelation as scripture was thereby accepting such doctrines. See my discussion of the subject in an earlier reply to Dave Armstrong.
Shortly after his comments quoted above, Irenaeus cites some examples of sources that can be consulted to discern what was taught in earlier generations. He mentions Clement of Rome's letter to the Corinthians and Polycarp's letter to the Philippians. Here are his comments about the former:
"From this document [First Clement], whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things." (Against Heresies, 3:3:3)
Notice, first of all, that Irenaeus isn't limiting himself to infallible pronouncements. He's citing fallible letters written by Christians of past generations. Thus, he isn't referring to what a magisterium taught in its capacity of infallibility. Rather, he's referring to what Christians in general believed. Has Roman Catholicism had the doctrinal consistency Irenaeus refers to?
Even Catholic sources have acknowledged that Catholics of past generations, even Roman bishops, sometimes contradicted what Catholicism teaches today. The Roman Catholic New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990), edited by Raymond Brown, et al., comments that "Those who prefer the shorter [Old Testament] canon or express some doubt about the full canonical status of the deutero-canonicals include...Gregory the Great" (p. 1042). The Roman Catholic scholar Michael O'Carroll cites Pope Innocent III saying that Mary was "begotten in guilt", that she needed "cleansing of the flesh from the root of sin" (Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 185).
Many scholars believe that the document Irenaeus cites above, First Clement, is itself inconsistent with Catholicism on some issues, such as the monarchical episcopate and justification. For my own argument that the document teaches justification through faith alone, see here.
No comments:
Post a Comment