Ireneaus...

[Cepha]

Irenaeus
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

"With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition"
(ibid., 3:3:1–2).





Questions:
1. Was Irenaeus right or wrong that The Church he speaks of was the "most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome"?

2. And..."With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree"?

3. And...What Christian Church was founded at Rome that he refers to as the oldest Christian Church?








When he says "all churches", what does he mean?

Just Roman Catholic Churches?

Or, all Christian Churches at that time?

[mrstain]

Hey, Cepha. Ireneaus is great!

1) Right
2) Yes. All must agree
3) The Catholic Church or course. The same one mentioned in the bible. See Acts 9:31 where we find written in Greek: Ekklesia Kath olos which is translated as the Church Catholic or the Church throughout all.

[Cepha]

Aug 27, 2009 17:10:44 GMT -5 mrstain said:

Hey, Cepha. Ireneaus is great!

1) Right
2) Yes. All must agree
3) The Catholic Church or course. The same one mentioned in the bible. See Acts 9:31 where we find written in Greek: Ekklesia Kath olos which is translated as the Church Catholic or the Church throughout all.

OUTSTANDING!

Thanks so much for that!

I've just learned something new!

And you know I'm going to use that!

Thanks MS!

;D

[alfie]

What I understand from reading the ECFS is the RCC is founded on the beliefs taught by Ireneaus (and only Ireneaus) and not the other ECFS.

[Ramon]

Aug 22, 2009 11:17:17 GMT -5 Cepha said:

Irenaeus
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

"With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition"
(ibid., 3:3:1–2).





Questions:
1. Was Irenaeus right or wrong that The Church he speaks of was the "most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome"?

2. And..."With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree"?

3. And...What Christian Church was founded at Rome that he refers to as the oldest Christian Church?








When he says "all churches", what does he mean?

Just Roman Catholic Churches?

Or, all Christian Churches at that time?

I will answer this post now Steven, the others probably tomorrow.

The quote of our Holy Father does not contradict in any way the Orthodox position that the Patriarch of Rome enjoyed (at the time) the preeminence of being first. It is also important to understand that he was talking about the Papacy as it existed in his day, not the Papacy that it later evolved into. Nobody in the day of Saint Irenaeus believed that the Pope was the "Vicar of Christ" with power to over-rule his brother patriarchs. Rather they did often defer to the first among equals, but that is not the same thing as submitting in all things.

Indeed, it was the Roman Pope who several times preserved the Church from heresy, but then again, so did other patriarchs at other times, when even the Pope himself fell into heresy such as Pope Honorius. Even the Apostle Peter accepted correction from the Apostle Paul and did not "lord" over his fellow apostles. How is it that his spiritual descendants came to have a greater power and authority than even him from whom they claim it?

Let's not forget that Saint Irenaeus did NOT refuse to get into the Pope's face or to correct him. The Church in the second century was not in agreement on when to celebrate the Pascha Feast.

Pope Victor, called upon the bishops of the province of Asia to abandon their custom and to accept the prevailing practice of always celebrating Easter on Sunday. In case they would not do this he declared they would be excluded from the fellowship of the Church. ".Saint Irenaeus of Lyons and others wrote to Pope Victor; they blamed his severity, urged him to maintain peace and unity with the bishops of Asia, and to entertain affectionate feelings toward them. Irenaeus reminded him that his predecessors had indeed always maintained the Sunday observance of Easter, as was right, but had not broken off friendly relations and communion with bishops because they followed another custom (Eusebius, Church History V.23-25)."

www.newadvent.org/cathen/15408a.htm

"His Holiness says that the Bishop of Lyons, St. Irenaeus, writes in praise of the Church of Rome: "That the whole Church, namely, the faithful from everywhere, must come together in that Church, because of its Primacy, in which Church the tradition, given by the Apostles, has in all respects been observed by the faithful everywhere." Although this saint says by no means what the followers of the Vatican would make out, yet even granting their interpretation, we reply: Who denies that the ancient Roman Church was Apostolic and Orthodox? None of us will question that it was a model of orthodoxy. We will specially add, for its greater praise, from the historian Sozomen (Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. cap. 12), the passage, which his Holiness has overlooked, respecting the mode by which for a time she was enabled to preserve the orthodoxy which we praise:—"For, as everywhere," saith Sozomen, "the Church throughout the West, being guided purely by the doctrines of the Fathers, was delivered from contention and deception concerning these things." Would any of the Fathers or ourselves deny her canonical privilege in the rank of the hierarchy, so long as she was guided purely by the doctrines of the Fathers, walking by the plain rule of Scripture and the holy Synods! But at present we do not find preserved in her the dogma of the Blessed Trinity according to the Creed of the holy Fathers assembled first in Nicea and afterwards in Constantinople, which the other five Ecumenical Councils confessed and confirmed with such anathemas on those who adulterated it in the smallest particular, as if they had thereby destroyed it. Nor do we find the Apostolical pattern of holy Baptism, nor the Invocation of the consecrating Spirit upon the holy elements: but we see in that Church the eucharistic Cup, heavenly drink, considered superfluous, (what profanity!) and very many other things, unknown not only to our holy Fathers, who were always entitled the catholic, clear rule and index of Orthodoxy, as his Holiness, revering the truth, himself teaches (p. vi), but also unknown to the ancient holy Fathers of the West. We see that very primacy, for which his Holiness now contends with all his might, as did his predecessors, transformed from a brotherly character and hierarchical privilege into a lordly superiority. What then is to be thought of his unwritten traditions, if the written have undergone such a change and alteration for the worse ? Who is so bold and confident in the dignity of the Apostolic Throne, as to dare to say that if our holy Father, Sr. Irenaeus, were alive again, seeing it was fallen from the ancient and primitive teaching in so many most essential and catholic articles of Christianity, he would not be himself the first to oppose the novelties and self-sufficient constitutions of that Church which was lauded by him as guided purely by the doctrines of the Fathers? For instance, when he saw the Roman Church not only rejecting from her Liturgical Canon, according to the suggestion of the Schoolmen, the very ancient and Apostolic invocation of the Consecrating Spirit, and miserably mutilating the Sacrifice in its most essential part, but also urgently hastening to cut it out from the Liturgies of other Christian Communions also,—his Holiness slanderously asserting, in a manner so unworthy of the Apostolic Throne on which he boasts himself, that it "crept in after t.he division between the East and West" (p. xi. 1.11)—what would not the holy Father say respecting this novelty ? Irenaeus assures us (lib. iv. c. 34) "that bread, from the ground, receiving the evocation of God, is no longer common bread," etc., meaning by "evocation" invocation: for that Irenaeus believed the Mystery of the Sacrifice to be consecrated by means of this invocation is especially remarked even by Franciscus Feu-Ardentius, of the order of popish monks called Minorites, who in 1639 edited the writings of that saint with comments, who says (lib. i. c. 18, p. 114,) that Irenaeus teaches "that the bread and mixed cup become the true Body and Blood of Christ by the words of invocation." Or, hearing of the vicarial and appellate jurisdiction of the Pope, what would not the Saint say, who, for a small and almost indifferent question concerning the celebration of Easter (Euseb. Eccl. Hist. v. 26), so boldly and victoriously opposed and defeated the violence of Pope Victor in the free Church of Christ? Thus he who is cited by his Holiness as a witness of the primacy of the Roman Church, shows that its dignity is not that of a lordship, nor even appellate, to which St. Peter himself was never ordained, but is a brotherly privilege in the Catholic Church, and an honor assigned the Popes on account of the greatness and privilege of the City. Thus, also, the fourth Ecumenical Council, for the preservation of the gradation in rank of Churches canonically established by the third Ecumenical Council (Canon 8),—following the second (Canon 3), as that again followed the first (Canon 6), which called the appellate jurisdiction of the Pope over the West a Custom,—thus uttered its determination: "On account of that City being the Imperial City, the Fathers have with reason given it prerogatives" (Canon 28). Here is nothing said of the Pope's special monopoly of the Apostolicity of St. Peter, still less of a vicarship in Rome's Bishops, and an universal Pastorate. This deep silence in regard to such great privileges—nor only so, but the reason assigned for the primacy, not "Feed my sheep," not "On this rock will I build my Church," but simply old Custom, and the City being the Imperial City; and these things, not from the LORD, but from the Fathers—will seem, we are sure, a great paradox to his Holiness entertaining other ideas of his prerogatives. The paradox will be the greater, since, as we shall see, he greatly honors the said fourth Ecumenical Synod as one to be found a witness for his Throne; and St. Gregory, the eloquent, called the Great (lib. i. Ep. 25), was wont to speak of the four (Ecumenical Councils [not the Roman See] as the four Gospels, and the four-sided stone on which the Catholic Church is built."

(Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns", #13)

www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1848orthodoxencyclical.html

I rest my case.

In IC.XC,
Ramon

[Cepha]

Aug 28, 2009 12:42:16 GMT -5 alfie said:

What I understand from reading the ECFS is the RCC is founded on the beliefs taught by Ireneaus (and only Ireneaus) and not the other ECFS.

Hi Alfie,

So what do you make of all these ECF's defending The Church "before" Ireneaus was even born?

Notice the dates:

Pope Clement I



"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).


Hermas



"Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty" (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).


Ignatius of Antioch



"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).


Dionysius of Corinth



"For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying" (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).

"Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement" (ibid., 4:23:11).


The Martyrs of Lyons



"And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches" (Eusebius, Church History 5:3:4 [A.D. 312])

"And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time [A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following expressions show: ‘Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as zealous for the covenant of Christ’" (ibid., 5:4:1–2).

The Didache



"Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).


Pope Clement I



"Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release" (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4–5 [A.D. 80]).


Ignatius of Antioch



"Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God" (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).


Justin Martyr



"God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).

Ignatius of Antioch



"Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]).


Justin Martyr



"We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid" (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151]).






Here are examples of them quoting from the so-called "Apocrypha" (that were supposedly "not" used by Christians originally):


The Didache



"You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]" (Didache 4:5 [A.D. 70]).


The Letter of Barnabas



"Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves’ [Is. 3:9], saying, ‘Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us’ [Wis. 2:12.]" (Letter of Barnabas 6:7 [A.D. 74]).


Clement of Rome



"By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say to him, "What have you done?" or who shall resist the power of his strength?’ [Wis. 12:12]" (Letter to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).


Polycarp of Smyrna



"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17].
. . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be b.asphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is b.asphemed [Is. 52:5]!" (Letter to the Philadelphians 10 [A.D. 135]).

[Cepha]

Aug 31, 2009 0:20:12 GMT -5 Ramon said:

Aug 22, 2009 11:17:17 GMT -5 Cepha said:

I will answer this post now Steven, the others probably tomorrow.

Cool. I know I write a lot. ;D Sorry.

The quote of our Holy Father does not contradict in any way the Orthodox position that the Patriarch of Rome enjoyed (at the time) the preeminence of being first. It is also important to understand that he was talking about the Papacy as it existed in his day, not the Papacy that it later evolved into.

I was told that according to Orthodoxy, the main reason that Orthodoxy is the true faith is that they stuck to the original Church and didn't ever change from the original Church.

Your statement seems to contradict what I've been told by other Orthodox Christians in their attacks on Catholicism (and in their case, they were personally attacking Catholicism).

You say that The Church "changes", that at one time, The Papacy in Rome was preeminent?

I want to understand you correctly.

And, are you also saying that the Papacy, had it not "evolved", would still be preeminent according to E.O.'s?

According to the EO's that I've encountered, EO has never changed or evolved, that's why their the original Church.

Nobody in the day of Saint Irenaeus believed that the Pope was the "Vicar of Christ" with power to over-rule his brother patriarchs.

Well, let's see what The Church Fathers (that you accept as Church Fathers) state on The Pope being the only one with the authority to rule over Christendom.

First, let's state that Ireneaus' writings were in the late 190's AD.
So, I'll use writings by Church Fathers prior to 190AD regarding what they believed The Pope was and his position in Christianity:

Ignatius of Antioch
"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).

Ok, here we have the distinguished Ignatius praising The Catholic Church "in" Rome (aka, The Roman Catholic Church) as holding the "presidency".

Let's define presidency:

pres⋅i⋅den⋅cy  –noun, plural -cies.
1. the office, function, or term of office of a president.
2. (often initial capital letter) the office of President of the United States.
3. Mormon Church. a. a local governing body consisting of a council of three.
b. (often initial capital letter) the highest administrative body, composed of the prophet and his two councilors.
4. the former designation of any of the three original provinces of British India: Bengal, Bombay, and Madras.



Ok, so let's see what a "president" is (of course, Ireneaus wasn't talking about the Prez of the US since the US didnt' exist back then, but the "office" of the Prez):


pres⋅i⋅dent–noun
1. (often initial capital letter) the highest executive officer of a modern republic, as the Chief Executive of the United States.
2. an officer appointed or elected to preside over an organized body of persons.
3. the chief officer of a college, university, society, corporation, etc.
4. a person who presides.




Ok, so here, we see that Saint Ignatius clearly believed that the leadership of the Church existed in Rome at "his" time (which was way before Ireneaus' time. He literally said that the presidency of the Church is in Rome...he also called this Church The "Catholic Church" in another of his quotes.


Ok, so Ignatius is on board with the belief that The Roman (not Antiochican) Catholic Church is where the leadership of Christianity resided in his time (prior to Ireneaus).

















Dionysius of Corinth
"For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying" (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).

Here, Dionysius says that The Pope (a Roman Catholic Pope) is like a father to children. Only a leader can be a father.








The Martyrs of Lyons
"And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches" (Eusebius, Church History 5:3:4 [A.D. 312])

Here, The Roman Catholic Pope is the one who negotiates the peace among the Churches.


"And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time [A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following expressions show: ‘Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as zealous for the covenant of Christ’" (ibid., 5:4:1–2).

And here, we have them stating that Ireneaus coming before a the Roman Catholic Pope.





And finally, Saint Irenaeus:


Irenaeus
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).


And here we have Saint Irenaeus himself professing the authority of The Roman Catholic Church as being superior to all other Churches in "his" time.

And we all know that this particular Church in Rome was lead by a Roman Catholic Pope.

He literally states that all Churches in that time were subject to The Roman Catholic Church.



Now, it's absolutely a ridiculous argument to suggest that no one prior to Irenaeus called The Pope The Vicar of Christ since that term didn't exist until the 5th Century.

That's like saying that "no Apostle believed in The Holy Bible at the time that they were alive, therefore, The Holy Bible is not relevant to Christianity."

Rather they did often defer to the first among equals, but that is not the same thing as submitting in all things.

Do you have any Church Fathers literally saying "first among equals"?

I have them quoted as literally saying that all other Churches had to be subject to The Roman Catholic Pople or else they were heretics.

Indeed, it was the Roman Pope who several times preserved the Church from heresy, but then again, so did other patriarchs at other times, when even the Pope himself fell into heresy such as Pope Honorius.

ARe you talking about Pope Honorius the first?

Or the second (who was an "anti-Pope")?

If you're referring to the 2nd, then that statement of yours is invalid (since he was not an authentic Pope).

Even the Apostle Peter accepted correction from the Apostle Paul and did not "lord" over his fellow apostles.

Never on doctrinal teachings.

Peter was corrected on his personal behavior, but never did Paul ever challenge Peter on his leadership. In fact, to Paul, before he was sent out by Saint Peter literally said that Peter seemed to be the leader of The Church (this was when he first began his own ministry after having first conferred with Peter).

The Pope is infallible on matters of doctrine.

But his personal behavior belongs to him personally and in no way reflects upon the Papacy.

Like Jesus taught us regarding the "Chair of Moses" when some tried to justify "not" listening to the Pharisees...their personal behavior was not to be used when discerning their teachings (this is where the term "do as they say, but not as they do" comes from).

How is it that his spiritual descendants came to have a greater power and authority than even him from whom they claim it?

The Church (for Catholics) is a living organism. It grows, it evolves, etc... even in the times of The Apostles, there was no organized Church when they began, but as their numbers grew, they formed the organization of The Church (The Heirchy).

They didn't have Bishops or Deacons during Christ's time or even right after, but they did by the end of The Bible.

So you see, even then, The Church "changed". Why? Because it conformed itself to the needs of Christianity (not Christianity conforming itself to the needs of The Church). The Church serves the people and must grow with the people (not vice/versa).

Let's not forget that Saint Irenaeus did NOT refuse to get into the Pope's face or to correct him.

Could you show us exactly "where/when" he did this?

The Church in the second century was not in agreement on when to celebrate the Pascha Feast.

You could say the same thing about a lot of things regarding The Church. As I tell our Protestant friends, The Church wasn't formed overnight in and abandoned movie theater like they are today...it took time and years to develop.

Even The Holy Bible wasn't agreed to until well after Christ was ressurected and it took 400 years for it to be revealed to The World.

Disagreement "before" agreement in no way discredits The Church. If that were the case, then The Apostles would not be worthy or our trust since they themeselves argued all the time.

In fact, to the contrary of what you're trying to point out with that statement, debating doctrinal beliefs openly and fervantly to me is a sign that those involved are not only open to expressing their ideas, but to hearing those of others and thus, open themselves to possibly new truths.

Pope Victor, called upon the bishops of the province of Asia to abandon their custom and to accept the prevailing practice of always celebrating Easter on Sunday. In case they would not do this he declared they would be excluded from the fellowship of the Church. ".Saint Irenaeus of Lyons and others wrote to Pope Victor; they blamed his severity, urged him to maintain peace and unity with the bishops of Asia, and to entertain affectionate feelings toward them. Irenaeus reminded him that his predecessors had indeed always maintained the Sunday observance of Easter, as was right, but had not broken off friendly relations and communion with bishops because they followed another custom (Eusebius, Church History V.23-25)."

Well, here's the thing...the people don't tell The Pope what to do. They are not being guided by The Holy Spirit when it comes to matters of doctrine. Only The Pope is when it comes to deciding things.

Irenaeus, isn't the chosen leader of Christianity. He is merely a cog in the wheel. He could express himself and his personal beliefs to The Pope, but in the end, as Jesus only chose one Apostle and one Apostle only to lead the rest of The Apostles, only The Pope can make the final decision.

When Jesus was alive, how many decision makers were there in The Church? Only one.

What would make any Christian beleive that there wouldn't still be only one leader in the Church today?

What "changed" from the original structure of The Church of Christ?

"His Holiness says that the Bishop of Lyons, St. Irenaeus, writes in praise of the Church of Rome: "That the whole Church, namely, the faithful from everywhere, must come together in that Church, because of its Primacy, in which Church the tradition, given by the Apostles, has in all respects been observed by the faithful everywhere." Although this saint says by no means what the followers of the Vatican would make out, yet even granting their interpretation, we reply: Who denies that the ancient Roman Church was Apostolic and Orthodox? None of us will question that it was a model of orthodoxy. We will specially add, for its greater praise, from the historian Sozomen (Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. cap. 12), the passage, which his Holiness has overlooked, respecting the mode by which for a time she was enabled to preserve the orthodoxy which we praise:—"For, as everywhere," saith Sozomen, "the Church throughout the West, being guided purely by the doctrines of the Fathers, was delivered from contention and deception concerning these things." Would any of the Fathers or ourselves deny her canonical privilege in the rank of the hierarchy, so long as she was guided purely by the doctrines of the Fathers, walking by the plain rule of Scripture and the holy Synods! But at present we do not find preserved in her the dogma of the Blessed Trinity according to the Creed of the holy Fathers assembled first in Nicea and afterwards in Constantinople, which the other five Ecumenical Councils confessed and confirmed with such anathemas on those who adulterated it in the smallest particular, as if they had thereby destroyed it. Nor do we find the Apostolical pattern of holy Baptism, nor the Invocation of the consecrating Spirit upon the holy elements: but we see in that Church the eucharistic Cup, heavenly drink, considered superfluous, (what profanity!) and very many other things, unknown not only to our holy Fathers, who were always entitled the catholic, clear rule and index of Orthodoxy, as his Holiness, revering the truth, himself teaches (p. vi), but also unknown to the ancient holy Fathers of the West. We see that very primacy, for which his Holiness now contends with all his might, as did his predecessors, transformed from a brotherly character and hierarchical privilege into a lordly superiority. What then is to be thought of his unwritten traditions, if the written have undergone such a change and alteration for the worse ? Who is so bold and confident in the dignity of the Apostolic Throne, as to dare to say that if our holy Father, Sr. Irenaeus, were alive again, seeing it was fallen from the ancient and primitive teaching in so many most essential and catholic articles of Christianity, he would not be himself the first to oppose the novelties and self-sufficient constitutions of that Church which was lauded by him as guided purely by the doctrines of the Fathers? For instance, when he saw the Roman Church not only rejecting from her Liturgical Canon, according to the suggestion of the Schoolmen, the very ancient and Apostolic invocation of the Consecrating Spirit, and miserably mutilating the Sacrifice in its most essential part, but also urgently hastening to cut it out from the Liturgies of other Christian Communions also,—his Holiness slanderously asserting, in a manner so unworthy of the Apostolic Throne on which he boasts himself, that it "crept in after t.he division between the East and West" (p. xi. 1.11)—what would not the holy Father say respecting this novelty ? Irenaeus assures us (lib. iv. c. 34) "that bread, from the ground, receiving the evocation of God, is no longer common bread," etc., meaning by "evocation" invocation: for that Irenaeus believed the Mystery of the Sacrifice to be consecrated by means of this invocation is especially remarked even by Franciscus Feu-Ardentius, of the order of popish monks called Minorites, who in 1639 edited the writings of that saint with comments, who says (lib. i. c. 18, p. 114,) that Irenaeus teaches "that the bread and mixed cup become the true Body and Blood of Christ by the words of invocation." Or, hearing of the vicarial and appellate jurisdiction of the Pope, what would not the Saint say, who, for a small and almost indifferent question concerning the celebration of Easter (Euseb. Eccl. Hist. v. 26), so boldly and victoriously opposed and defeated the violence of Pope Victor in the free Church of Christ? Thus he who is cited by his Holiness as a witness of the primacy of the Roman Church, shows that its dignity is not that of a lordship, nor even appellate, to which St. Peter himself was never ordained, but is a brotherly privilege in the Catholic Church, and an honor assigned the Popes on account of the greatness and privilege of the City. Thus, also, the fourth Ecumenical Council, for the preservation of the gradation in rank of Churches canonically established by the third Ecumenical Council (Canon 8),—following the second (Canon 3), as that again followed the first (Canon 6), which called the appellate jurisdiction of the Pope over the West a Custom,—thus uttered its determination: "On account of that City being the Imperial City, the Fathers have with reason given it prerogatives" (Canon 28). Here is nothing said of the Pope's special monopoly of the Apostolicity of St. Peter, still less of a vicarship in Rome's Bishops, and an universal Pastorate. This deep silence in regard to such great privileges—nor only so, but the reason assigned for the primacy, not "Feed my sheep," not "On this rock will I build my Church," but simply old Custom, and the City being the Imperial City; and these things, not from the LORD, but from the Fathers—will seem, we are sure, a great paradox to his Holiness entertaining other ideas of his prerogatives. The paradox will be the greater, since, as we shall see, he greatly honors the said fourth Ecumenical Synod as one to be found a witness for his Throne; and St. Gregory, the eloquent, called the Great (lib. i. Ep. 25), was wont to speak of the four (Ecumenical Councils [not the Roman See] as the four Gospels, and the four-sided stone on which the Catholic Church is built."

(Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns", #13)

www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1848orthodoxencyclical.html

I rest my case.

Actually, you just rested the case of Eastern Patriarchs in 1848.

;D

We're supposed to be using what the Church Father's believed up until and BEFORE Saint Irenaues' time.

I would never argue your own personal beliefs with you (that would be stupid of me), but we can neutrally argue the pre-Schism era since up until that time, they were still in communion with each other (Roman/Eastern Christians).

I'm sure I could post 10's of thousands of writings by Roman Catholic theologians that would counter what you just posted, but, I prefer to learn this stuff on my own as much as possible and to make up my own mind from The Church Fathers.

So, I'd like to stick to the criteria that I set forth and that I believed you agreed with (The Church Fathers) as our unifying base of opinion.

See, if we stick to the Fathers, we can't be drawn away from the "orthodox" ( ;D ) views of early Christianity.

If I cannot prove our points within The Church Father's writings, then I have no business defending my beliefs...so, as I've written over and over, let's stay away from modern writings and let's stick to pre-3rd Century writings.

That way, we're going directly to the source.