Irenaeus, 'Truth' and the Episcopal Throne

I drove my mother back to Vancouver and now have a few minutes to develop my last argument one step further. Let me start from the beginning. I was not born into a Christian household and have utter contempt for the manner in which Europeans develop theories about the origins of Christianity. These people understand their origins in terms of fables worthy of the ancient Greeks and these myths have corrupted any scientific understanding for how the Church really transmitted its doctrines.

The reality of how 'truth,' faith and Christian doctrine were first established had everything to do with a Pontifical throne. The only reason scholars don't want to see this is because most of them are Protestants where the tradition of their ancestors developed out of a virulent hatred of all things associated with 'Rome.'

Now I would be the last person anyone would pick to defend the Catholic Church. Nevertheless I am a devoted student of tradition. I can't simply dismiss Irenaeus and those who came after him even if they ended up trampling down an older, more authentic Christian tradition. The fact is that I know that the ideas that they developed to obscure the tradition of St. Mark couldn't have been invented out of thin air. They still had to be rooted in the same soil as those traditions they demonized and ran out of town. It had to be made to resemble what it was replacing at least somewhat otherwise no one would have taken to this new doctrine and these new texts.

So here's what I think - Irenaeus modified a pre-existing form of Christianity - or perhaps 'forms of Christianity' - in order to develop a working 'Catholic' orthodoxy. In other words, he boiled Christianity down to its simplest elements and developed a canon of faith from this faith of the 'lowest common denominator.'

To go beyond what Irenaeus declared to be 'the true word' of faith was to be heretical.

Of course Irenaeus claimed that the authority for what he was claiming to be 'truth' went beyond his mere opinion. Scholars acknowledge this of course but ultimately mistake what Irenaeus' original historical argument was. They typically take his statement about being a young and devoted student of Polycarp completely out of context. It was NOT the original context of his argument for what 'truth' was in Christianity. It was rather as Robert McQueen rightly notes a defense about his claims about Polycarp's teachings (owing to a dissenting contemporary witness at Rome - Florinus - who basically argued that Irenaeus misrepresenting Polycarp's teachings).

The point we have to recognize now is that Polycarp's teachings were only one aspect of Irenaeus' Catholic tradition - specifically the 'Johannine witness.' Irenaeus was claiming that Polycarp's John and the Mark who came to Rome as a witness of Peter's teaching and 'Matthew' the 'Jewish Christian' and 'Luke' the doctor who was dearest to St. Paul were all saying the same thing because - as he put it - they were inspired by the same Holy Spirit.

There were clearly dissenting voices - and Irenaeus mentions a few of them in Against the Heresies either directly or indirectly. Yet the thing we shouldn't take our eyes off of is the incredible authority that Irenaeus must have had in order to make a Palestinian tradition (Matthew), an Alexandrian tradition (Mark) and a loose spiritual tradition based principally in Asia Minor (John) somehow all hold together (Luke's tradition is as I have noted associated with Antioch but it is very late, so late in fact that it is difficult to avoid seeing the 'Theophilus' to whom the Luke-Acts corpus is addressed to be Theophilus of Antioch).

I know that scholars don't like to deconstruct these concepts. They like to skip over them or worse yet "take Irenaeus' word" on matters, redressing them in less mythical terminology (viz. minus the reference to 'four winds,' 'Satan' etc.). Yet if we are ever to make sense of matters here we have to acknowledge that there are one of two forces which could have reconciled these wild antagonistic forces in the Church:

(a) a supernatural power as Irenaeus suggests viz. 'God,' 'the Holy Spirit' or 'Satan' for instance

(b) a worldly authority

My solution as has been documented a number of times on this blog is to focus on Irenaeus' self-confessed association with the Imperial court of the wicked Emperor Commodus (AH iv.30). Yet I want to bring that original observation in line with something else that repeatedly manifests itself from Irenaeus' writings - his repeated identification of 'truth' with the Episcopal throne.

It should be noted that in my last post I cited the clearest statement from Against the Heresies that 'truth' was the Episcopal throne. Yet as I was driving home from Vancouver today winding down through the beautiful wooded scenery that is northern Washington state I realized that too little thought was went into making sense of WHY Irenaeus makes this identification.

For instance Robert McQueen again will note that Irenaeus attacked the Valentinians because "they impelled Christians to leave the tradition transmitted in the apostolic succession" (p. 6). Yet even McQueen hasn't really thought this argument quite through because clearly Valentinians like Florinus did indeed cleave to a particular apostolic tradition - that of Polycarp - but what they must have REALLY objected to in Irenaeus' mind was the authority of the Roman Episcopal throne or perhaps the authority of thrones generally.

In the case of the Alexandrian See the never quoted Letter of Hadrian to Servianus puts to rest any doubt that the Alexandrian throne was a functioning Episcopal See from the beginning of the second century. If we can identify 'those of Mark' with the Alexandrian See we can narrow down Irenaeus argument against them to reflect a rejection of the Roman Episcopal throne quite specifically (with the added historical wrinkle that the Alexandrians always argued that Mark wrote his gospel for Alexandria and an Alexandrian audience as opposed to Irenaeus' claims about Rome, Peter and a Roman audience).

If I may be so bold to presume that the slight against the 'Ebionites' was that they didn't accept Irenaeus' formulation of a New Testament canon which went beyond their beloved single, long gospel form (the churches of the Middle East never embraced the fourfold canon until it was forced upon them in the fifth century).

The point then is that when you work your way through Irenaeus' arguments it is difficult not to see why 'truth' was identified with the concept of 'Episcopal throne.' Clearly the arguments that he was making in Against the Heresies and other works necessarily had to have been understood to be ex cathedra quite literally even if this seems to contradict our inherited assumptions about Irenaeus and his relationship to a Papal line which went from Eleuterius to a certain 'Victor' and then Zephyrinus during the activity of Irenaeus in Rome.

The truth is that we know almost nothing about the Church in the period outside of the involvement of the court of the Emperor Commodus in the organization of the Church (which is odd in itself). For instance we have almost no information about the circumstances, the place or the year of Irenaeus' birth or his death. We just know that he claimed to have seen Polycarp in his youth (and even this was undoubtedly disputed by Florinus) and that he had some association with Lyons before his move to Rome. Yet outside of these 'facts' and the recognition of various later Fathers that a figure named 'Irenaeus' was attached to the writings associated with his name in Eusebius we know almost nothing about him.

When I was driving down the winding mountain roads today I noted to myself that both Tertullian, Clement and Hippolytus seem to cite whole sections of the writings associated with Irenaeus. This has never made sense to me. It's not that I can't accept that these very different writers could have held texts in common. They obviously shared the same New Testament canon. My difficulty is with the style and the character of Irenaeus' writings.

Why would these three men from three different parts of the world all decide to take Irenaeus' word on what was heresy and what wasn't?

It can't come down to 'authority.' They each must have had very different understandings about what 'orthodoxy' was. How then did they agree to accept Irenaeus' definition of what the term meant when he couldn't convince some of his fellow believers who sat in the Imperial court of Commodus?

The only solution I can come up with is that this business of his association with the court of Commodus was intimidating in some way to those who were sent a copy of his book (read the concluding words of Book One if you need to be convinced that being identified as a heretic could be dangerous to your health!)

Yet as I kept driving I settled on the basic idea that Irenaeus' writings must have been understood to speak ex cathedra.

Of course there is a problem here which anyone who knows anything about early Christianity will immediately pounce on. There is that little issue of 'Victor' and 'Zephyrinus' being the only mentioned 'Popes' in the period. Nevertheless it is worth noting that Irenaeus' student Hippolytus was an anti-Pope that is that he he protested against Pope Callixtus I and headed a separate group within the Church in Rome.

I don't want to get sidetracked from my original discussion too much here but it never ceases to annoy me how scholars like to imagine that 'everything has already been settled in early Church history' - i.e. who or what anyone was or represented.

The reality is that there is the Commodian age was a bloody mess where - paradoxically - the Catholic Church experienced its first golden age. The period immediately following the assassination of Commodus was a descent into complete anarchy. No one can account for who or what Irenaeus was in the Church of Rome other than to say that he had some relationship with the Imperial court. It is worth noting however that the account of the Liber Pontificalis completely blurs the distinctions between 'Victor' and 'Irenaeus' as described in the Eusebius' Church History.

Whatever the case may have been there can be absolutely no doubt that for Irenaeus the Episcopal throne was identified by the word 'truth' in his writings in the same way that I have argued we see manifest in the writings of Clement of Alexandria and later Eusebius of Caesarea. What we see emerging is something which seems quite natural once you actually start rationalizing the process of Christian origins - someone must have legislated what 'truth' was. It didn't just 'fall from the sky' or literally become transmitted through the 'Holy Spirit.'

The real scientific explanation would be that 'truth' was established by the one who sat in the Episcopal Throne.

Now as I imagine it (and as the Letter to Servianus shows it to be) the original Episcopal Throne was in Alexandria. I believe that Clement is alluding to this reality when he writes in To Theodore:

For not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith. Now of the things they [the Carpocratians] keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly. For the true things, being mixed with inventions, are falsified, so that, as the saying goes, even the salt loses its savor.

As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.

For Clement then 'the truth' is the truth of the authority associated with the Episcopal throne. It is this object which is hidden behind veils (apparently seven in Clement's day) in the adyton of the church in Boucolia. I needn't get into the symbolic significance of this physical object other than to say that for the faithful in Alexandria and Egypt (remember up until the time of Demetrius there was only one bishop and Episcopal chair for the whole Egyptian church) the one who sat on this chair had the authority of a 'second Christ.'

When Clement criticizes the Carpocratians who had falsely reported the truth about the Secret Gospel he is clearly also assuming that they have physically strayed from the authority of this 'holy' object which is as we have noted the embodiment of 'truth' itself.

But since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates, instructed by them and using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the secret Gospel, which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. From this mixture is drawn off the teaching of the Carpocratians.

It is my belief that Clement originally understood that the Alexandrian Episcopal throne itself was mentioned in the autographed copy of the Gospel of Mark held by the Church of St. Mark. His mention of 'Peter' and 'Peter's notes' being an influencing factor in that document needn't trouble anyone. After all as we have noted Clement was writing in an age when Irenaeus was actively defining what 'truth' and speaking ex cathedra as it were based on a parallel Episcopal throne of St. Peter in Rome.

Just look for a moment at the repeated - and I mean REPEATED manner in which Irenaeus identifies 'the truth' to be connected with the Episcopal throne in Rome quite specifically. The most obvious example is of course the mention of 'truth' with the episcopal line of Rome in Book 3 of Against the Heresies:

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 the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these 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.

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 [of Rome], on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those 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. 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 despatched 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, spake 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 apostolical 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. Sorer 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.

Whenever the heretics are mentioned - please note everyone - they are mere two-dimensional characters who attempt to seduce people away from the authority of the Roman Episcopal throne.

The point then which emerges in both Clement and Irenaeus' treatment of the word 'truth' is that it necessarily means 'Episcopal throne' and again - let me shout it from rooftops - this is something which Morton Smith did not recognize when he developed all his arguments on behalf of Secret Mark, nor was it recognized by those who argued that Morton Smith 'invented' or 'forged' Secret Mark as some sort of homosexual DaVinci Code (Jeffreys idiotically asserts that 'the truth hidden by seven veils' has something to do with Oscar Wilde's Salome).

Sheesh! When will these fools realize what the truth is, was and always will be in the Christian tradition? It is found in the Episcopal throne. So it is that I think that when we go beyond the stupid and utterly distracting controversies about whether or not Morton Smith 'invented' the Letter to Theodore we can use the text to identify - what is clearly an ultimately muted affirmation of Alexandrian Episcopal primacy ...

If you are interested in reading how this observation fits within my greater understanding of the workings of Secret Mark WITHIN the contemporary Alexandrian Church please go here

If you want to read more about how Alexandrian Christianity was rooted in the Jewish traditions of Alexandria, Philo of Alexandria and more feel free to purchase my new book here