Irenaeus and the Church of Rome

Rev. James MacCaffrey, "Irenaeus and the Church of Rome." Irish Ecclesiastical Record, Fourth Series, Volume XXIX. (1911) pp. 225-235.

Irenaeus was born in Smyrna, or the adjoining district, probably between the years 130 and 140. His letter to Florinus¹ makes it clear that as a boy he enjoyed an intimate acquaintanceship with St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, and listened frequently to the aged bishop recounting the interesting details which he himself learned from St. John and others who had seen the Lord regarding His miracles and doctrine. From Smyrna Irenaeus journeyed westward, and settled finally amongst the Christian community at Lyons, where his abilities and qualifications as a priest were soon universally recognized. The clergy of Lyons and Vienne entrusted him with a mission to Pope Eleutherius against the Montanist heresy, and on his return he was elected Bishop of Lyons, in succession to the martyred St. Pothinus.

As bishop he seems to have devoted himself specially to the work of exposing heresy, more particularly the heretical doctrines and principles put forward by the Gnostic parties. Against these he wrote his celebrated work, known generally under the title Adversus Haereses. The work was written originally in Greek, portion of it at least during the pontificate of Eleutherius (189-198), but only a few fragments of the original text have been preserved. The Latin version, however, which has come down to us, was made at a very early period, and on account of its close agreement with the original, wherever the existing Greek fragments permit a comparison, as well as on account of the obvious effort made by the translator to preserve in his translation even the peculiar idioms of the Greek, it has been accepted by critics as completely reliable. It is in this work (Lib. iii. 2-3) that the much-discussed text regarding the position of the Church of Rome in the Christian society is to be found.²

Without understanding the context, it is impossible for a person to determine the meaning which Irenaeus wished to convey. In opposition to the Gnostics, who claimed a special revelation for some of their own more gifted leaders, and who consequently rejected both Scripture and tradition, Irenaeus brings forward a simple test of orthodoxy, namely, an unbroken succession of bishops from the Apostles. In the Churches in which there is such an unbroken succession, in which, in other words, Apostolic succession is to be found, there also the true Apostolic tradition should be sought; for, surely, the Apostles confided the complete revelation which they themselves had received to the "perfect" and "blameless" men whom they selected to take their own places as teachers, and these men did likewise with those who were to follow in their footsteps. Hence, the true Christian teaching is not to be sought amongst scattered sects like the Gnostics, but in the Churches which can boast of an unbroken succession of bishops leading back to the Apostles of Christ. That his argument should be complete, he felt that it was necessary for him to give the lists of bishops in the great Churches, and, furthermore, to prove that they were at one in their teaching, that one and the same faith was professed by the entire Christian body. But he excuses himself from undertaking such a laborious work:

Sed quoniam valde longum est in hoc tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones, maximae et antiquissimae, et omnibus cognitae, a gloriosissimis duobus Apostolis Petro et Paulo Romae fundatae et constitutae ecclesiae, eam quam habet ab apostolis traditionem, et annuntiatam hominibus fidem per successiones episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos indicantes, confundimus omnes eos, qui quoquo modo, vel per sibi placentiam, vel vanam gloriam vel per caecitatem et malam sententiam, praeterquam oportet colligunt. Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem³ principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio.⁴

He gives, then, a list of the Bishops of Rome, from the Apostles to Eleutherius who was still reigning when he wrote this book (iii.) and having thus proved an unbroken Apostolic succession for the Church of Rome, he adds:

Hac ordinatione et successione, ea quae est ab Apostolis in Ecclesia traditio et veritatis praeconatio pervenit usque ad nos. Et est plenissima haec ostensio unam et eandem vivificatricem fidem esse, quae in Ecclesia ab Apostolis usque nunc sit conservata, et tradita in veritate.

Instead of enumerating the succession of bishops in the great Churches, Irenaeus lays it down that he can more conveniently confound all his adversaries by showing an unbroken succession of bishops in the Church of Rome. By proving the Apostolic succession and the possession of the Apostolic tradition for the Roman Church, he thereby establishes that the other Churches hold by the Apostolic tradition; and, furthermore, that it is one and the same vivifying faith that is professed by the entire Church. Why, one may naturally ask, does the writer maintain that by establishing apostolicity of doctrine in the Roman Church he necessarily vindicates the conformity of the faith of the entire Church with the Apostolic tradition? The answer to this question is supplied by Irenaeus himself, in the sentence beginning "Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam," but the proper interpretation of this reason assigned by him has divided scholars for generations.

Most Protestant writers⁵ translate the passage as follows: For to this Church on account of its superior pre-eminence (the fact that it was situated in the capital of the Empire) it must needs be that every Church should come, that is, the faithful from all sides, and in this Church the tradition from the Apostles has been always preserved by the faithful who flock there from all parts. This interpretation of the text, an interpretation which in recent times has found favour with certain Catholic writers,⁶ is justified by the following reasons:

First, convenire ad in the New Testament always bears the meaning of "motion to," not of "agreement with." Second, the use of the word undique, not ubique, makes it clear that the second clause should be interpreted as meaning "the faithful (who come) from all sides," not "the faithful who are everywhere." While in the third place the clause beginning in qua cannot be explained if convenire ad is taken as meaning "agreement with." Finally, it is urged that two Latin writers of the twelfth century seem to have understood this passage in the sense of "coming to Rome, the capital of the Empire."

That such an interpretation cannot be accepted, for the simple reason that it is not in harmony with the context, ought to be sufficiently clear from an examination of what precedes and of what follows. The unbroken succession of bishops from the Apostles is the simple test of the orthodoxy of any Church, proposed by Irenaeus; the unbroken succession in Rome is, according to him, a complete guarantee for the orthodoxy of the entire Church, and the clause beginning with ad hanc enim ecclesiam is the proof which he furnishes for this latter statement. How does the Protestant interpretation, namely, that the faithful must come to the capital of the Empire, and by their coming preserve the faith in Rome pure, afford any proof for the preceding statement? Besides, it would then be the people who preserve the faith pure, while the main point insisted on by Irenaeus is, that it is by the Apostolic succession that the purity of faith is preserved, else why the triumphant statement made immediately after his enumeration of the Roman bishops, that "by this ordination and succession of bishops the Apostolic tradition has come down to us, and that the unbroken succession in Rome is a most complete proof" (plenissima ostensio) that one and the same living faith is preserved in the Church from the Apostles till his own time.

It may be pointed out, too, that if convenire ad bears the meaning of "motion to," it is very strange that Irenaeus should have said that the entire Church (omnem ecclesiam) must come to Rome, nor would he have given as a reason for their coming to Rome, the capital of the Empire, the potentiorem principalitatem of the Roman Church (ad hanc enim ecclesiam). In reply to the arguments used in support of this interpretation, it may be pointed out that convenire ad in patristic Latin bears both meanings, "to come to," or "to agree with"; that undique is used in other places in this work where one might naturally expect ubique, e.g., i. 16, 2; iii. 2, 3; iii. 2, 8; that the clause beginning in qua can be better explained according to the other interpretation; and that, finally, whether the two twelfth-century writers refer to this passage of Irenaeus or not - a question that cannot be answered confidently from the data - they were in no better position to arrive at the true meaning of the words of Irenaeus than any modern author.

Harnack, whose authority on such matters is recognized by all sides, rejects as absurd the ordinary Protestant interpretation.⁷ Convenire ad, according to him, can have no other meaning in this context than "to agree with." Hence he would translate the first part of the sentence: For it is necessary for the entire Church, that is to say, the faithful who are everywhere (the qualifying clause being the method adopted by Irenaeus to express the word Catholica), in which entire Church the Apostolic tradition has always been preserved by the faithful everywhere (this latter qualifying clause beginning with in qua being the phrase adopted by Irenseus to express the word orthodoxa) to agree with the Roman Church. Thus he interprets the entire passage as follows: For it is necessary for the entire Catholic and orthodox Church to agree with the Roman Church on account of its greater pre-eminence. Hence if Irenaeus could prove the Apostolic succession, and consequently Apostolic tradition for the Roman Church, he thereby proved it for the entire orthodox Church; and, as he had boasted, by the mere enumeration of the Roman bishops from Peter and Paul to Eleutherius, he had confounded all his opponents.

It may well be asked does Harnack, then, admit that according to Irenaeus the entire Church must necessarily agree in doctrine with the Roman Church, the very point upon which Catholic theologians lay such stress in discussing the Primacy of Rome? The answer to this must be in the negative. His contention is that Irenaeus could have selected any of the great Apostolic Churches, e.g., Smyrna or Ephesus, and have argued equally well for his purpose from the unbroken succession in any of these Churches. Principalitas is understood by Harnack to be a translation of the Greek word authentěa, which might refer merely to the Apostolic origin of a Church and its consequent possession of complete Apostolic doctrine. He selected Rome simply because, as he states, it was the greatest, the oldest, the best known, the one founded by the two chief Apostles, Peter and Paul, all of which qualifications are summed up in the words potentiorem principalitatem. Hence Rome is put before the others merely because it is "maxima, antiquissima omnibus cognita, a gloriosissimis Apostolis fundata et constituta." Besides, he argues, that necesse est does not mean a moral law or obligation. It does not represent the Greek deî, which the translator should have rendered by oportet, but anágke, a word that implies what does actually happen rather than what must necessarily happen.

Now, against this method of interpreting the passage it must be remarked that while Harnack contends that all the Apostolic Churches were equal, and that Irenaeus might have adopted equally well the unbroken succession in Ephesus to prove his case, yet Irenaeus does not place Rome on an equality with the other great Church. He vindicates for it a potentiorem principalitatem, and it is precisely because Rome possesses this potentiorem principalitatem he states that the other Churches must agree with it. It has not merely principalitatem, like the other Apostolic Churches, but it has a potentiorem principalitatem. Nor can Harnack adduce any proof for the meaning which he assigns to principalitas - a meaning which cannot be supported by any parallel text in Irenaeus, or, as far as can be seen, in any of the early Apostolic Fathers. In Irenaeus it is used most frequently in reference to the Supreme Being in contradistinction to the Aons, and as indicating His superiority and pre-eminence. In Tertullian's work, De Prescriptione adversus hereticos, chapter xxxi., a parallel might be sought, but a fair examination of both contexts will suffice to convince most men that the meaning attached to the word by Tertullian is not the meaning given it by the translator of Irenaeus. Of what Greek word principalitas is the translation cannot be known with certainty, unless the fragment of the original text is discovered. The word occurs in many other places in this work of Irenaeus, but after a careful investigation I have failed to find an exact parallel for its use in the present passage. That it implies pre-eminence or authority is, however, clear; while the use of the qualifying comparative establishes the fact that it took rank above all, even the Apostolic, Churches.

Again, if the work be examined it will be found that the translator uses both oportet and necesse est indiscriminately, e.g., Lib. ii. 1; ii. 4; ii. 7; and besides, if necesse est implies merely what actually happens, not what must happen by law, it is difficult to see how Irenaeus could have confounded the heretics by establishing the apostolicity of succession and doctrine in the Church of Rome, because they might very well retort that possibly the other Apostolic Churches were not in agreement with Rome. He anticipated this by laying down that they must be in agreement with Rome, and that therefore by vindicating the possession of Apostolic doctrine for Rome he has also shown that one and the same living faith as given by the Apostles is preserved in the entire Church. This line of argument is characterized by him as a plenissima ostensio, a complete proof of the unity of faith in the Church; an epithet which was certainly misplaced if he spoke only of a de facto not of a de jure agreement.

Though most Catholic writers are in agreement about the general meaning of the text, yet they differ very much about the interpretation of the qualifying clauses. Some take the in qua to refer to the Roman Church, and then the meaning would be: It is necessary for the entire Church, that is, the faithful who are everywhere, to agree with the Roman Church, in which Roman Church the Apostolic tradition has been preserved by the faithful who are everywhere. Against this interpretation it is sufficient to point out that the sentence of Irenaeus would thus be self-contradictory. In the first part it would be stated that the faithful who are everywhere must agree with Rome, while the second part would imply that Rome was dependent for its purity of doctrine on the faithful who are everywhere. It cannot be admitted for a moment that Irenaeus could have been guilty of such a blundering statement in a sentence by which he intends to confound all his opponents.

Another interpretation put forward recently is that the Latin in qua is a literal translation of the Greek en he, that is to say "in which," "by which," "in communion with which." The meaning would be, according to this explanation: It is necessary for every Church to be in agreement with the Roman Church, by means of which (or in communion with which) the Apostolic tradition is always and everywhere preserved by the faithful.⁸ This meaning would undoubtedly bring into bold relief the teaching authority and infallibility of the Roman Church, and would be in exact conformity with the prerogatives promised to St. Peter by our Lord, but at the same time it can be regarded at most as only a probable explanation.

That in qua refers to the "omnis ecclesia" and not to the "Romana ecclesia" is fairly evident. It seems to me that this relative clause contains a clear statement of what must have been underlying the argument of Irenaeus, namely, the fact that the entire Church, or the union of all the great Apostolic Churches, could never cease to preserve pure the Apostolic doctrine. This doctrine is expressly laid down in Books iii. 24, 2; iv. 33, 8; v. 20, 1. Hence I should be inclined to take the sentence beginning with in qua not as a mere qualifying clause, but as introducing a statement of a fact which was required in order to complete the argument.

It should be noted that in this work Irenaeus does not undertake formally to give us an exact statement of his views concerning the position of the Roman Church. The Adversus Haereses was written for an entirely different purpose, and therefore we cannot expect to find in it as definite and complete a statement about Rome as we might expect to get had he composed a treatise De Romano Pontifice. But if his line of argument be examined closely it will be seen that he vindicates for Rome a super-eminent position amongst the Churches which compose the Christian society.

Against the heretics who, not content with rejecting the Scriptures, proceed to attack tradition, he lays down: (1) The true Apostolic tradition ought surely to be found in the Churches which can boast of an uninterrupted succession from the Apostles. (2) It would be too long to trace the succession of bishops in the great Churches from the Apostles, but to confound his opponents it is quite sufficient to trace the succession in the oldest, greatest, and best known, namely, Rome. (3) For it is necessary for every Church, that is, the entire Christian body, to be in agreement with Rome, on account of its greater power, and therefore by vindicating apostolicity of doctrine for the Roman Church he vindicates it for the entire Christian society. (4) The list of Roman bishops, from the Apostles to Eleutherius, "[qui] nunc duodecimo loco episcopatum ab apostolis habet," is given in proof of the Apostolic succession in the Roman Church. (5) He concludes that by this ordination and succession of bishops the tradition which is in the Church from the Apostles came down to his days in the Roman Church. (6) And bearing in mind the harmony which must exist between the other Churches and Rome, he boldly asserts that he has thus proved most completely that the faith which is in the Church from the Apostles, and which has been preserved in truth to his own day, is one and the same living faith.

From this line of argument it is sufficiently clear that Irenaeus acknowledged the pre-eminence of the Roman Church, and the absolute necessity for the other Churches to be in agreement with it if they wished to preserve Apostolic doctrine. Besides, it should be noted that Irenaeus in another portion of his work (Book iii. 24, 2), according to the most probable reading, assigns as a reason for the divisions amongst the heretical sects the fact that they are not founded upon a rock but upon sand. In other words, he seems to refer to the famous text of St. Matthew regarding the promise made to St. Peter, and to regard the See of St. Peter as the cause of the unity of the Church. This would fit in exactly with the interpretation that has been given of the text under discussion by most Catholic writers. Did he, therefore, imply that the Roman Church was an infallible guide?

Irenaeus does not explicitly raise the question of the infallibility of the Roman See. But he certainly put forward the infallibility of the Church, as his line of argument clearly shows. If, for instance, it had been objected to him by his opponents that the presence of an uninterrupted succession of bishops from the Apostles in all the great Churches of the Christian community was not any guarantee for the possession of true Apostolic doctrine, for the simple reason that some of the bishops in the line of succession might have erred and led their Church astray, he would have replied, as he does reply, that one must look to the teaching of the entire body and regard the individual or churches which separate themselves from the main body as heretical.⁹ He assumes all the time that the Church itself cannot lose possession of the Apostolic tradition, and is, therefore, in this sense infallible. Speaking of this body in contradistinction to these who fall away, he lays it down:¹⁰ "Quapropter eis qui in Ecclesia sunt, presbyteris obaudire oportet his qui successionem habent ab apostolis sicut ostendimus, qui cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum Patris acceperunt."

The body of bishops, therefore - he cannot refer to individuals, for he admits that individuals can fall away - has received the charisma veritatis, according to the will of the Father. This is a clear statement of the infallibility of the Church, and similar statements are to be found in Books iii. 24; iv. 33; v. 20. If this be so, and if at the same time every Church must be in agreement with Rome, and if Rome be the origin of Christian unity, it necessarily follows that the Roman Church cannot err in regard to Apostolic tradition.

James MacCaffrey

[1] Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., v. 22.

[2] In regard to Irenaeus and his works, cf. Bardenhewer, Patrologie, 2 auf., pp. 105-110 (Eng. tr.); idem, Gesch. d. Altchrist-Litteratur, I. 496 ff; Ehrhard, Die Altchrist-Litteratur, i. 262-75.

[3] Codex Claromontanus, "pontiorem," where obviously n is to be erased.

[4] In the Revue Bénédictine (Oct., 1908) Dom Morin suggests that the second qui sunt undique is due to an error of the copyist, and by copious references to other blunders of the same kind made by the copyist, he has gone far to justify his contention. In the same review (Jan., 1910), Father Herbigny, S.J., contends that the second qui sunt undique should read qui sunt undecim referring to the eleven Bishops of Rome whom Irenaeus immediately enumerates. In view of the absence of manuscript authority for these emendations, we have not adopted them.

[5] Cf. Salmon, Infallibility, p. 376; Gore, Roman Claims, p. 97.

[6] Turmel, Histoire de la Papaute, 39 ff.

[7] Sitzungs-berichte der K. Pr. Akademie, Nov. 1893; Dogmengeschichte, bd. i. p. 446.

[8] Bardenhewer, Patrologie, p. 108.

[9] Lib. iv. 24, 2.

[10] Ibid.