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)