Monday, December 21, 2020

William Farmer on Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.2-3 and the Role of Peter and Paul

  

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 [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate . . . (Against Heresies, 3.3.2-3)

 

Commenting on this passage, often used as a “proof-text” by Roman Catholic apologists for the Vatican I understanding of the role of Peter and the supremacy of the Roman See, William Farmer noted the following:

 

“Omnem ecclesiam”

 

The words omnem ecclesiam have often been interpreted in a restrictive sense: it would mean only the church of Lyons and the churches of the west founded by Rome. However, the division of Christianity into a western and eastern half took place after the second century. Projecting it into the time of Irenaeus would be an anachronism. Moreover, through his personal background Irenaeus serves as a bridge between the churches of Asia Minor and those of the west. Wherever else he uses the term pasa ekklēsia, he means every local church everywhere in the world. There is no reason, then, to attribute a restrictive meaning to the term in this passage.

 

“Propter potentiorem principalitatem”

 

The meaning of the phrase propter potentiorem principalitatem is crucial for understanding the text. Principalitas or the adjective principalis has a variety of meanings in Against Heresies depending on the context. It may be the translation of authentia: sovereignty, a technical term in gnostic theology, or hēgemonikon: principal, ruling, leading, or archē: origin, or archaeon: original, ancient, and of the verb prōteuein: to be first in the transcendent sense of being the highest and all-determining principle.

 

“Enim”

 

The term enim (gar), “for,” introduces the next sentence as the reason for what has been said beforehand. As Rousseau and Doutreleau have shown, this explicative use of enim (gar) is typical of Irenaeus. If this is true, the phrase “propter potentiorem principalitatem” must refer to and further explain what was said in the previous sentence about the founding of the church of Rome by the two glorious apostles Peter and Paul. Thus the original Greek phrase may have been dia tēn hikanōteran archēn which would be translated “because of its most (or more) excellent origin.”

 

This interpretation from the immediate context is confirmed from the line of reasoning of the entire work, Against Heresies. Irenaeus’ argument against all the heretics is based on the normative character of the apostolic origin of the churches. All heresies came about after the church had already been established. They are all “adinventiones,” later human inventions. They take their origin (tas archas) from the father of the heresy, while the churches derive their succession from the apostles. The heretics stay away “from the original succession” (“a principali successione”) which consists in the sequence Lord-apostles-churches; the Lord delivered the true doctrine to the apostles, the apostles to the church, and in the churches it survived intact up to this very day through the succession of presbyter-bishops. Therefore the true tradition is always the “vetus traditio,” hē archaia paradosis, “the original tradition” can be traced back to the apostles.

 

“In qua”

 

The term in qua could refer grammatically either to omnem ecclesiam or ad hanc . . . ecclesiam. However, Irenaeus’ line of thought excludes the former. The whole section aims at putting to shame those who “gather as they should not” by pointing out that they ought to agree with the church of Rome. If in qua referred to all the churches, it would contravene Irenaeus’ argument.

 

If the Latin text is a correct reading of the original Greek, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata es tea quae est ab apostolis traditio must be translated in these or similar terms: “in which the tradition coming from the apostles has always been preserved by the faithful from everywhere.” The church of Rome would then serve as a representation of the universal church; the faithful flocking to Rome from everywhere in the world would present a cross-section of the church universal and they would provide a tangible proof that all the faithful preserve the apostolic tradition. We cannot exclude such an interpretation. Rome was indeed an international center where people (including Christians) converged from everywhere in the world. In this case, Irenaeus would state that all the churches must agree with the church of Rome because in her the apostolic tradition has been preserved by the faithful coming to Rome from every part of the world as pilgrims, visitors, settlers, etc. Such an interpretation, however, is unrelate to the context. Before and after the phrase in question Irenaeus insists on the apostolic origin of the church of Rome rather than on its being an international center for the faithful from every part of the world. Moreover, before and after the phrase in question, Irenaeus stresses the active Rome of Rome for the other churches. He mentions the faith “that she has announced to men.” In the next paragraph, when enumerating the succession of the bishops of Rome, Irenaeus describes the effects of “the most important letter of the church in Rome” to the rebellious Corinthians. The letter restored them to peace, renewed their faith and announced to them the tradition they had once received from the apostles.

 

If, however, we accept the reconstructed Greek text of Rousseau and Doutreleau, en hē aei tois pantachōthen ephlachthē hē apo tōn paradosis, and accept a single mistake on the part of the Latin translator (mistaking tois for a dative of agent instead of understanding it as a dative of reference), the resulting meaning fits perfectly the context: “in which the tradition coming from the apostles has always been preserved for the faithful from everywhere.” This somewhat lengthy explanation was necessary since none of the existing English translations of Irenaeus’ works has, to my knowledge, adopted the emended text of Rousseau-Doutreleau.

 

Before we further specify the meaning of this text, we need to confront its traditional Catholic exegesis as best exemplified by Battifol and Ludwig. In various ways both of them think that for Irenaeus the reason for the potentior principalitas of Rome is its foundation by Peter who is seen by Irenaeus in the light of Matthew 16:17-19. Both ignore the role Paul has played according to Irenaeus in the prominence of Rome. Reminiscences of Matthew 16:17 are certainly present in the last paragraph of the text: oikodomēsantes . . . hoi makarioi . . . tēn ekklēsian occur together in the New Testament only in Matthew 16:17-18. Their combined use by Irenaeus in a text that mentions Peter can hardly be a coincidence. The word themeliōsantes, however, reflects Pauline terminology: Romans 15:20, 1 Corinthians 3:10-11, Ephesians 2:20. The classic verb “to found” would be hidryō which Irenaeus uses only when he speaks about churches which were not founded by apostles. Whenever he writes about the church-founding activity of Peter and Paul, he uses the Pauline term themelioō. He also extends the Matthean epithet Makarios to Paul.

 

This interpretation of Matthean-Petrine and Pauline terminology and the joint appearance of Peter and Paul in the previous sentence (to which the sentence in question is linked by an explicative enim, gar) indicate that Peter alone, even if understood against the faint background of Matthew 16:17-19, cannot account for the potentior principalitas of the church of Rome. A second alternative seems much more probable. The joint activity of the two “most glorious apostles” Peter and Paul in Rome, their preaching to, founding and building up the church of Rome, is the most obvious ground for Rome’s special position.

 

Moreover, as E. Lanne has shown convincingly, the adjective gloriosissimis suggests that Irenaeus considers their joint martyrdom as the definitive act of establishing the church of Rome in its unique function of the universal church of Rome in its unique function for the universal church. In what follows I will summarize Lanne’s insights. Since the apostles, in particular Peter and Paul, received revelation from the Son and the Father, they are perfect in knowledge, and so are their disciples by receiving knowledge from them. Yet they fulfil this perfect doctrine in their lives only when “imitating the master of martyrdom,” only when they themselves become martyrs. For instance, Stephen “was stoned to death, and, in this manner, he fulfilled the perfect teaching” (perfectam doctrinam adimplevit) (3.12.13). We find in Irenaeus’ thought many considerations which show that for him martyrdom is Christian perfection, and consequently (even though he does not make it explicit) also the bringing to perfection of apostleship and apostolic preaching. I will mention here only the most important reasons.

 

1. Martyrdom is the highest manifestation of love and love is the most excellent charism in the church, even better than true gnosis which is the apostolic teaching (4.33.8-9).

2. The prophets showed in their lives that those on whom the Spirit will rest and who obey the word of the Father and serve him with all their strength will be persecuted and killed by those opposing the truth. Thus martyrdom provides the highest credential for the teacher; it reveals that his teaching was inspired by the Holy Spirit. What he spoke was no mere human opinion, but God’s teaching (3.12.13; 14.33.9-10).

3. By conforming to the “mastery of martyrdom,” the martyr makes him visible in his body. As “The Letter of the Martyrs of Gaul” (coming from the church community of Irenaeus) explains the fellow martyrs of Blandina, when looking at the suffering girl, “behold with their outward eyes, in the form of their sister, him who was crucified for them” (Eus, Eccl Hist 5.1.41).

4. The Spirit strengthens the flesh of the martyr so that he conquers all suffering and becomes truly alive for God. After his death, then, the martyr does not disappear from the church. On the contrary, he is now in that perfect state in which the whole church will be at the end of time. The church “sends him ahead” (“praemittit”) to the Father (4.33.9).

5. Irenaeus does not himself speak about the activity of the martyrs in the church after their death, but we may assume that he shares the views of Ignatius from whose letter to the Romans he quotes approvingly (5.28.40). Ignatius knows that he will be a truly credible Christian (pistos) only when the world sees him no more, just as Jesus Christ whose martyrdom he is going to imitate is more revealed now that he is in the Father then he was during his earthly life (Rom 3.2-3). If not allowed to become a martyr, Ignatius, once again, he will be only a “voice” (phōnē), whereas, if he dies as a martyr, he will become “the word of God” (logos theou) (2.1). In other words, as a result of his martyrdom, Ignatius hopes to become so identified with the word of God that he himself, his very person, will manifest God’s word.

 

When addressing the church of Rome, Ignatius compares himself to Peter and Paul:

 

I don’t give orders as Peter and Paul. They are apostles, I am a convict (ekeinoi apostoli, egō katakritos). They are free men, I am still a slave (ekeinoi eleutheroi, egō de mechri nyn doulos). But if I suffer, I will become the freedman of Jesus Christ and in him I will rise to freedom (4.3).

 

In Ignatius’ thought the apostles Peter and Paul are free men now as a result of their martyrdom. Therefore, the parallel predicate noun “apostles” must also refer to the present. Peter and Paul are apostles even now, at the time of Ignatius. It is likely, then, that in the first sentence the elliptical comparative clause “as Peter and Paul” may also be completed by a verb in the present, “as Peter and Paul do.”

 

Let us draw now the conclusion that Ignatius merely implies. If Ignatius, who is no apostle but a bishop, will start his most effective witnessing activity only as a result of his martyrdom, how much more must Peter and Paul, who are apostles, be active in the present. Present in Rome, they remain the word of God for the church of Rome and for all the churches. We may assume that also for Irenaeus Peter and Paul are perfected as witnesses to God’s word through their martyrdom, and their witness endures in and through the church of Rome up to the days of Irenaeus.

 

“Duobus”

 

Finally, we need to inquire into the meaning of the word duobus within the phrase: a gloriosissimis doubus apostolis Petro et Paulo Romae fundatae et constitutae ecclesiae. Lanne observes the word as a “nuance d’insistance.” In no other text in which Irenaeus mentions Peter and Paul together does he add the word “two” except here where he writes about the foundation of the church of Rome by the two martyr apostles. Recalling the theological importance of Peter and Paul in the whole work Against Heresies, we may explain this insistence by the fact that for Irenaeus Peter and Paul stand for all the apostles and they together guarantee the fullness of apostolic doctrine. Thus their joint founding of the church of Rome provides a unique fullness of apostolicity for this church.

 

How the agreement of the two martyr apostles confirms their witness and thereby enhances the importance of the church of their joint martyrdom is shown by the way Irenaeus discredits the teachings of the gnostics. He points out that the principle of witnessing by the prophets, by the Lord and by the apostles is important also for the heretics. They try to forge a link between their stories and the Lord’s parables. The prophetic sayings and apostolic sermons “so that their concoction may not appear without a witness” (1.8.1). Moreover, Irenaeus hastens to show that their teachings are not only opposed to the testimony of the biblical witnesses, but they also disagree among themselves:

 

Let us look now at the unstable opinion of these men: wherever there are two or three of them, they do not say the same things about the same matters, but rather contradict one another both in thought and in words (1.11.1).

 

The introduction to the second part of the first book of Against Heresies shows the context in which their disagreement should be viewed. It stands in direct opposition to the “one soul,” to the “one and the same heart” and to the “one mouth” of the church which believes everywhere in the same way (1.10.2). “Wherever there are two or three of them” intends to show the contrast of the situation of the heretics and the situation of the disciples described in Matthew 18:20. Just as the agreement of two or three disciples manifests the unanimity of the faith of the church and thereby the almighty presence of Christ among them, the fact that not even two or three gnostics agree on a teaching proves that they do not have the faith of the church and therefore they cannot be true witnesses to it.

 

It seems, then, that in Irenaeus’ mind the martyrdom of the two apostles Peter and Paul in Rome confirms the unique normative role of that church for the faith of the church universal. Their joint witness is a sign and proof of the one apostolic faith which that church has received from them and still possesses. (William R. Farmer and Roch Kereszty, Peter and Paul in the Church of Rome: The Ecumenical Potential of a Forgotten Perspective [New York: Paulist Press, 1990], 58-65)

 

 The following from Siecienski about a controversy contemporary with Irenaeus, is apropos:


The orthodoxy of the Roman See might be praiseworthy, but praise of Rome did not always translate into obedience to its bishop. This was certainly true during the debate over the dating of Pascha (i.e., the Quartodeciman Controversy)—that is, whether Pascha should be celebrated on the fourteenth of Nissan (the Jewish Passover) or on the following Sunday, which was the Roman custom. The first signs of trouble occurred during a visit of Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 156) to Anicetus of Rome (c. 153-68), but according to the sources, after arguing back and forth they simply “agreed to disagree” and maintained communion despite their differences. However, forty years later, Victor of Rome (c. 189-99) requested that synods be held to settle the issue, and attempted to excommunicate Polycrates of Ephesus and the bishops of Asia when they refused to adopt the Roman custom. While most synods did follow the Roman dating, Polycrates, “unafraid of threats,” vehemently defended his church’s ancient practice and refused to conform. In the end it appears that Victor, rebuked by Irenaeus and others for overreacting, never carried through with this threat and that communion was preserved. Rome emerged from the date with its prestige unscathed—after all, “convoking a series of regional councils to try and pressure the Asians into conformity is a tribute to Roman prestige” (Eno, The Rise of the Papacy, 42)—but it is clear that respect did not equal obedience. (A. Edward Siecienski, The Papacy and the Orthodox: Sources and History of a Debate [Oxford Studies in Historical Theology; New York: Oxford University Press, 2017], 148-49)