Irenaeus of Lyons
Ignatius of Antioch does not, however,
emphasize the role of the bishop as successor or in relation to the apostles. In
fact, Irenaeus is the Church Father par excellence, who is concerned with
apostolic succession, considering the local bishop as a direct link between the
historical person of Jesus and the contemporary local community. Moreover, by
the late second to the early third century, the term “catholic” appears to
change in meaning and focus. For Ignatius of Antioch and the Martyrdom of
Polycarp, “catholic” implies “local.” Nevertheless, by the time of
Hegesippus and Irenaeus, “catholic church” signifies the “Church with the true
teaching” in contrast to the heresies; “Catholic” means “Orthodox.”
Furthermore, for Irenaeus, the local bishop must be both properly consecrated (thereby
retaining outward authenticity) and consecrated for an orthodox Church (thereby
maintaining the continuation of truth).
With regard to the Church of Rome,
Irenaeus remarks that, since he cannot examine all the lists of bishop of local
communities, he will limit himself to one local Church, namely Rome. Thus, in Adversus
Haereses III, iii, 2, Irenaeus claims that the faithful everywhere—namely,
all Churches—should “resort” (convenire) to the See of Rome “on account
of its superior origin” (propter potentiorem principalitatem). The fact
that other Churches can—or can choose not to—resort to Rome also implies that
the Church of Rome is not the only witness to tradition. However, the apostolic
tradition, it is claimed, has certainly been preserved in Rome.
Some scholars ascribe a stronger sense
to the word “convenire,” interpreting it not simply as “restoring to” but as “agreeing
with” Rome. This would imply that the Church of Rome lays down what other
Churches must believe or adhere to. However, the more vital term here is the
word “principalitatem” (origin). Does this mean that Rome is older or more
senior in time or that it is supreme in authority? Would the
Greek equivalent be αυθεντια or even πρωτειον? Is this again reading too much into a nearly
apostolic text? Or would the Greek equivalent be αρχη or perhaps αρχαιοτης? Irenaeus could not possibly have meant the last
of these (αρχαιοτης means ancient origin) because
Jerusalem was the most ancient and mother of all Churches. Perhaps Irenaeus
means αρχη (namely,
superior in origin) inasmuch as Rome was founded by the two greatest and chiefs
of the apostles. This may well be the case since Irenaeus is keenly interested
in the question of apostolicity. In this regard, the Church of Rome is
considered to be a norm—one of many—of apostolic faith and orthodoxy; perhaps it
is the most illustrious or perhaps it is the most obvious. However, it is not the
norm of apostolic faith and orthodoxy. Rome enjoys a certain—but not an
exclusive—priority, privilege, and prerogative.
Finally, there are two other points of
interest in Irenaeus’ understanding of the Church of Rome and its importance: (i)
For Irenaeus, Clement is the third bishop of Rome, which means that
Linus and Cletus are the first and second bishops respectively—and not Peter or
Peter and Paul; and (ii) the foundation of the Church of Rome is not attributed
to Peter alone, but to Peter and Paul. (John Chryssavgis, “The Apostolic
Tradition: Historical and Theological Principles,” in Primacy in the Church:
The Office of Primate and the Authority of Councils, ed. John Chryssavgis, 2
vols. [Yonkers, N.Y.: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2016], 1:58-59, italics in
original)
