Did Irenaeus Believe in the Papacy?

 Irenaeus and the Papacy

[by M.L]

Irenaeus uses strong language for the church of Rome. The question we will ask is; did he also believe in papal infalibility? Did he believe that the argument from Rome on certain issues was a end all be all in every situation and context? Could they decide what councils was valid? No, could the popes in ex cathedra statements even declare doctrine without possibility of error? And did they have entire jurisdiction over the church of God as the head of the church?
Let us look at the argument of Irenaeus. Everything we quote is from his book ' Against Heresies Book III'. 

The statement in question is:

"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 preeminent authority."

What is is argument? 
He is arguing against the Gnostics. These Gnostics reasoned thus:

"1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world. 1 Corinthians 2:6 And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself. 

2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition. 

3. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Where-fore they must be opposed at all points, if per-chance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it."

The Gnostics tried to reason from scripture. When this failed, however, they tried to attack the scripture by saying the truth was only delivered viva voce (with a loud voice) and not as written. 

It is against this Irenaeus is reasoning. In the next chapter he reasons that what the apostles spoke by words can be shown from what certain churches where the apostles themselves spoke with a loud voice believed. 

They didn't want scripture? Tradition wouldn't seem to help them much either.

This is the point Irenaeus is trying to make and for this reason he also mentions the church in Ephesus and Smyrna as lesser sources of authority.

Let us read the passage again in fuller context:

"1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity. 

2. 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 preeminent authority. 

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth."

The church of Rome was ancient and indeed it was pious once.

They wanted to know what the apostles preached by word? They could go to Rome where Peter and Paul had preached and where they had appointed presbyters and bishops. Irenaeus lived in the second century after Christ and that which the apostles spoke with words could in all probability have not been completely destroyed. Later on he mentions barbarians who had and could not read the scriptures, but who still maintained that which came from the mouths of the apostles. 

In this context, on these kind of major issues at that time when Rome was quite pure it is only a natural argument Irenaeus would make.

For this reason he does not only name Rome who had known the apostles, but also Ephesus who had known Paul and John and also Smyrna. For this reason he says that they should, on a question arising, go to the ancient churches (plural).

Nor does he make any distinction between an ex cathedra statement of a pope and the general belief in the church of Rome which would be represented by their bishop. 
Most sincere Roman Catholics would rightfully acknowledge that some popes made erroneous statements and that sometimes the church of Rome was in error. For this reason they say that the Roman Pope is not always infallible, but only when speaking ex cathedra. But does Irenaeus make this argument? He never institutionalizes this point, but he simply uses it as a natural argument. He uses the tradition and beliefs of the Roman church and their bishops as a whole because of them having known the apostles.

Let us now put these same arguments of Irenaeus in a different context and let us thus see how ridiculous it would be to use this same argument for the same place hundreds of years later in a totally different context.

Imagine about 100 years after the death of Donald Trump and J.D Vance in Washington DC. where they were often making speeches someone doubts whether or not they wanted to build a wall for the United States. Let us say Trump and Vance often spoke in Washington and appointed directors for their organizations there who would also have their successors chosen by the organization itself who loved and knew Trump. 

But Trump and Vance were now dead. The people who knew them lived a while longer and often spoke about the speeches of Trump and Vance and their ideas. The directors still loved those ideas and it was fresh in their memory. 

But now someone doubts as to whether or not Trump believed in building a wall. He is shown some written documents written by Trump himself that he wanted to build a wall, but he doubts the legitimacy of those things. He heard some other 'tradition' of other people. These people said that these documents were false and that the truth about this issue was only known by what Trump and Vance had spoken in their speeches, but these speeches were unfortunately not written down.

It has been 100 years, so how do we know what Trump and Vance actually believed and spoke? How would someone defending the view that Trump wanted to build a wall defend himself? Obviously he would go to the people at Washington and the directors there were Trump and Vance had so often spoken and were the memory of their ideas was still quite fresh. Perhaps we would also go to other places were Trump and Vance would often speak. Of course we would naturally be moved to agree with Washington and their directors.

But imagine we ask the same question a 1000 years later. Would it be right to still got to Washington? What if the ideas of the directors have kind of shifted from Trump and Vance on certain issues (though not all) which so easily happens in such a long time? Or what if, by their characters, the directors don't seem to be trustworthy at all? What if the things they are saying seems to contradict the written documents which are way more reliable? 

We understand the Roman Catholics have an answer for these issues, but this is not our point. What we are trying to say here is that the argument Irenaeus makes on face value (NOT THE ROMAN CATHOLICS OF TODAY) is natural for it's time, but can be completely unreasonable in another context. 

Just because Roman Catholics use similar language as Irenaeus, does not mean they are of the same spirit and actually believe the same things. 
Where is the idea that tradition cannot get corrupted no matter what happens? Must we assume out of his argument the Roman authority should be used in every context? Where is the difference between ex cathedra and other statements or beliefs? Where is the complete jurisdiction of the papacy over the entire church as it's head able to depose bishops at will and to define truth in an official way? 

We simply cannot reach it naturally.