This is the 4th of 4 sections of Part II. The previous sections are:
II-1:
The Martyrs
II-2:
The Lapsed and the Problem of the Martyrs
II-3:
Bishops and Succession
====
After a time a hero arose in the Church
by the name of Irenaeus of Lyons. His monumental work “Against
Heresies,” written between 182 and 188 AD, is lauded as a Western classic and, while it receives little attention today, the Early
Church unanimously consented to its orthodoxy and power of
persuasion. Irenaeus was said to have been a follower, or taught in
some capacity by Polycarp, whom Irenaeus lavishes with praise as a
true, concrete, and powerful proof of the Apostolic faith.
 |
| Ireneaus is not the man with whom to mess. |
Irenaeus wrote this text, first, to
instruct a friend of his of the many and strange beliefs of the
Gnostics. Secondly, he wrote to instruct his fellow bishops (and
eventually believers) of the truth of the Catholic faith. The
Tradition of the Apostles alone, he says, are in harmony with
Scripture and both are in harmony with the teachings of the
successors to Apostles who are in concord and council with one
another. This came to be known as the “Rule of Truth” or and
later the “Rule of Faith.” While an exposition upon it is too
complicated for our purposes here (it deserves its own treatment),
some explanation is useful for us. Irenaeus' work was regarded with a
great deal of honor. The historian Eusebius himself quotes it
frequently some 150 years later, showing how well know and how much
the text had spread in that time.
This Rule was something conceived by
Irenaeus in order to protect from error as well as something to guide
those seeking to understand our faith: he claims we have a wealth of
resources, whether it's the example of the Apostles, the rule of
their successors, the writings they all left us, and of course
Scripture. The Rule is not a result of knowledge of these things,
either, but rather they come about as a result of living one's faith
in the Church.
The Rule, then, does not simply
safeguard the faith nor is it a tool used exclusively to combat
heresies. The Rule really is the expression of the life of the Church
which is Christ living in the world.
Irenaeus, in book III of his work,
explains that this life, a life of faith according to the Rule, can
only exist within the Church which has its origin in the Apostles.
The presbyters and bishops of the Church are those who safeguard this
tradition and faith. Furthermore all of these bishops owe their
example to “the very great, the very ancient, and universally known
Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious
Apostles, Peter and Paul … for it is a matter of necessity that
every Church should agree with this Church” (III.3.ii).
These Apostles were not preeminent
because of their teaching alone but also because of their witness to
the faith; indeed their ultimate witness of martyrdom confirmed their
teaching in Christ. Irenaeus attests to the power of their example by
affirming that the bishops of Rome have a unique privilege. He refers
to Clement of Rome who interfered with the church at Corinth on
behalf of the whole Church. Clement, Irenaeus says, wrote firmly and
with authority to correct the conduct of those in Corinth. Clement
could do this because he “had seen the blessed apostles … [and
when dealing with Corinth had] the preaching of the apostles still
echoing [in his ears] and their traditions before his eyes”
(III.3.iii). The lives of the faithful in Corinth did not correspond
to the teaching of the Apostles.
In Clement's letter Irenaeus claims
that Clement did not clarify Scripture for them, rather it declared
“the tradition which it [Corinth] had lately received from the
apostles” (Idem.) Furthermore from “this document … [one] may
understand the apostolic tradition of the Church” (Idem).
A further example of the Rule being a
lived faith is Irenaeus' treatment of Polycarp. Although the space
dedicated to Polycarp is small the import is great. Polycarp was
instructed by the apostles, was appointed bishop, exercised his role
for a long time, and then suffered a glorious martyrdom “having
always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and
which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true”
(III.3.iv) Polycarp was a supreme witness to the Rule by virtue of
his martyrdom. His whole life up to that point, however, had made
him “a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast
witness to the truth [than the other heretics mentioned in books I
and II]” Idem). The bishops who are in union with the teaching and
lives of the Apostles, both in Rome and elsewhere, are a living
example of that same faith of the Apostles and protect it from those
who add or subtract from them.
 |
| The example and martyrdom of St. Bartholomew, produced just as profound effect as his teaching, you can imagine. |
Should one doubt his claims, however,
Irenaeus points to the “barbarians” (most likely the Germanic and
Gallic tribes near Lyon) who have “salvation written in their
hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully [preserve]
the ancient tradition” (III.4.ii) Without written documents for
reference all they can rely on is what they were taught. This is so
because “what is in Scripture and what is in tradition are the
same, the truth about God and Christ; both contain the apostolic
preaching.”*
Irenaeus calls these barbarians crude
with respect to the written language but wise with respect to their
love of the same apostolic faith of the Church: “Those who, in the
absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are
barbarians, so far as regards our language, but as regards to
doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very
wise indeed” (III.4.ii.).
What they were taught is that to which
Scripture attests. The barbarians, in a sense, are less susceptible
to error because in living the traditions of the apostles they can
more easily detect incongruent words and actions: “If anyone were
to preach to these men inventions of the heretics, speaking to them
in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee
as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the
blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the
apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the
[doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers,
among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established”
(III.4.ii).
Those, such as the Apostle John, and
Polycarp, would be revolted at the sight of one who corrupted the
truth and taught falsely. Those who lived their faith in an exemplary
way could readily detect those who would poison it by their teaching
or example. “Such was the horror which the apostles and their
disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any
corrupters of the truth” (III.3.iv).
Irenaeus also speculates that if the
Apostles had not left their writings behind the Church would not lack
for guidance or instruction. On top of the men mentioned above who
maintained the teaching of the Apostles by virtue of their authority
Irenaeus argues that the churches united with Rome act in accord with
one another. He advises that if “a dispute relative to some
important dispute among us, should we not have recourse to the most
ancient Churches with which the Apostles held constant intercourse,
and learn from them what is certain and clear[?]” (III.4.i). In the
case of important questions that are under dispute, it is not enough
to consult the creed or interpret Scripture. Rather Irenaeus says,
“[Should we not] follow the course of the tradition which they
handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?”
(Idem.). One resolves disputes, when he does not have the Scriptures,
by looking at how faithful men in union with the apostles conduct
themselves (and how their ancestors conducted themselves).
At this point it is important to note
the pattern that Irenaeus adopts with regard to disputes in the
Church. The Gnostics that he argues against are considered as
“thieves and robbers,” (Idem.) but even among the faithful there
are legitimate disagreements on how to handle new errors or problems.
One may, looking closely at the text, see a method for how Irenaeus
approaches them. His approach is to invoke and use the example of the
Apostles, then Scripture. The first mention of the Rule is in Book I,
chapter 9. Irenaeus in the previous chapters, gives and exposition on
the sayings of the Gnostics and how they use Scripture. Irenaeus
claims that when one encounters those who use Scripture falsely he
can easily reject them if he “retains [as] unchangeable the rule of
truth which he received by means of baptism[.]” (I.9.iv.).
(Note: It should be worth noting that
receiving the Rule at Baptism would be incoherent if it were a mere
reception of the sacrament (and thus receiving a special knowledge by
the sacrament). It is more likely that Irenaeus means catechetical
instruction since what follows in this quote is that “he [the
baptized] will no doubt recognize the names, expressions, and the
parables from the Scriptures, but will not means acknowledge the
blasphemous use which these men make of them.” Irenaeus, however,
offers no exposition on baptism or catechesis in Against Heresies, so
this point is speculation. He does, however, offer some description
of the initiation rites of the Gnostics, including their version of
Baptism which is laced with false doctrine and shrouded in mysteries
not expressed by the Apostles or Scripture (cf. I.21.iii-v). As a
result, what I propose here is not an unfounded speculation.)
In the following chapter Irenaeus first
says that the Church, through spread throughout the whole world, has
received from the apostles and their
disciples this faith … [and none of the rulers of these various
churches] however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence,
teach doctrines different from these [mentioned in I.10.i]; nor, on
the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression
inflict injury on the tradition (I.10.i, ii. The emphasis, in
italics, is mine.).
Even here, with respect to the creed in
chapter 9.i, Irenaeus first defers to the faith and tradition of the
Apostles before he speaks about Scriptures. This is said explicitly
at the opening of Book III:
We have learned from none others the
plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has
come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and,
at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the
Scriptures. (III.1.i)
Let this brief exposition suffice, for
it is much larger than this. In summary, the Rule of faith in my
estimation is a life lived in harmony with the Apostles, their
successors, the teachings of the Church, and Scripture, all of which
derive their power, meaning, and life from God Himself. Apostolic
succession is essential for the makeup of the Church and our own
personal faiths.
 |
| If this is your face, I understand that it's complicated. But you made it through part II! |
Epilogue
We were not born with power over
ourselves and, as we grow older, we have those whom we must guide and
others must guide us. Indeed, with regard to faith or tradition,
“what do you possess that you have not received?” (1 Cor 4:7).
Moreover Paul says “An athlete cannot receive the winner's crown
except by competing according to the rules” (2 Tim 2:5). Likewise
Paul reminds Timothy, as he does us, “You have followed my
teaching, way of life, purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance,
persecutions, and sufferings … that I endured. … Remain faithful
to what you have learned and believed, because you know from who you
learned it” (2 Tim 3:10, 14).
The example of the Apostles, the
authority given to them and their successors, is an aspect of our
faith that we would all do well to reexamine in our hearts and live
more fully. While deacon, priest, and bishop may be over us in the
Lord (cf. 1 Thes 5:13) as both father and brother, this does not mean
that we as children, brothers, sisters, and mothers have no effect or
purpose. What mother or father among you would say your child, by
their disobedience, their mistakes, their successes, and their
virtues has not changed you? Is it not the case that a faithful child
is a source of glory and joy for a parent and uplifts them in their
own faith. Is it not also the case that even their waywardness and
lack of faith, however distressing, is reason to redouble your prayer
and love? The same is true of our relationship with those in charge
of leading us—they rejoice in us as if we were their own children,
and are troubled for many nights when we fall away, cause scandal,
and remain distant. Again, as I said before, God uses all these
things to strengthen us if we allow Him to be with us.
I hope the examples of the martyrs
inspire us, as they should, but may the beauty of our Church and the
strength of her leadership, then and now, inspire us to be grateful
sons and daughters to our spiritual fathers. Where we must make an
account of ourselves to the Father, they must make an account of all
of us. Indeed, “obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep
watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may
fulfill their task with joy and not sorrow, for that would be of no
advantage to you” (Heb 13:17).
May we pray in gratitude for the
martyrs whose courage emboldened the Church and the bishops, priests,
and spiritual leaders of past generations guided her in her zeal. May
all the work we do today be as one body working, no one considering
his or her work—however small—apart from the work of the whole
Church. If we work in her, according to her, even the smallest task
receives the glory of the whole project. Have no contempt for those
who lead or those who are highly regarded, for the wage received from
the Master is the same (cf. Mt 20:1-16). Let us work, then, as one
giving thanks to the Father, Son, and Spirit who give us all that is
good.
*Everett Ferguson, “Paradosis and
Traditio: A Word Study” in Tradition & the Rule of Faith in the
Early Church: Essays in Honor of Joseph T. Leinhard, S.J., ed. Ronnie
J. Rombs and Alexander Y. Hwang (Washington DC: The Catholic
University of America Press, 2010) 13.
