I have always been puzzled why Irenaeus is so zealous for the authority of the throne of St. Peter if (a) he never sat on the throne and (b) if the Roman See didn't have traditional authority over the Church as a whole before his ascendancy. In other words, why did Irenaeus advocate so strongly for this rival 'seat of authority' to Alexandria if never gained any benefit or power from his relentless advocacy on behalf of an untruth?
Given the fact that the names 'Irenaeus' and 'Victor' are alternatively cited as deciding the Quartodecimian dispute (cf. Liber Pontificalis, Eusebius) I started wondering whether 'Irenaeus' might have been a title developed from Mat. 5:9 "μακάριοι οἱ εἰρηνοποιοί, ὅτι υἱοὶ θεοῦ κληθήσονται." It is difficult not to see how the story Irenaeus cultivated of being 'at the feet of Polycarp' the beloved disciple of the beloved disciple of Jesus would take care of the 'called children of God.' Irenaeus himself seems to apply the word 'peace' as a title of the Pope when he applies Isaiah xl.17 to the contemporary Church 'Such presbyters does the Church nourish, of whom also the prophet says: "I will give thy rulers in peace, and thy bishops in righteousness." [AH iv.26.5]
Indeed a little later in his response to the Markan accusation that he and the other leaders of the Roman Church were in the pocket of Commodus, the author emphasizes the contemporary golden age that the Catholic tradition was living through because of their accommodation with Caesar - 'yea, moreover, through their instrumentality the world is at peace, and we walk on the highways without fear, and sail where we will." [ibid iv.30.3] The idea again comes up in yet another Markan refutation a few chapters later where he writes if the Catholic Church "brought in such a reign of peace among the Gentiles which received it (the word), and convinced, through them, many a nation of its folly, then [only] it appears that [it proved] the prophets [correct]." [ibid iv. 30.4]
Then I noticed this passage in the Philocalia:
“Blessed are the peacemakers.…” [Matt. v. 9] To the man who is a peacemaker in either sense there is in the Divine oracles nothing crooked or perverse, for they are all plain to those who understand. [Prov. viii. 8, 9] And because to such an one there is nothing crooked or perverse, he sees therefore abundance of peace [Ps. lxxii. 7] in all the Scriptures, even in those which seem to be at conflict, and in contradiction with one another. And likewise he becomes a third peacemaker as he demonstrates that that which appears to others to be a conflict in the Scriptures is no conflict, and exhibits their concord and peace, whether of the Old Scriptures with the New, or of the Law with the Prophets, or of the Gospels with the Apostolic Scriptures, or of the Apostolic Scriptures with each other. For, also, according to the Preacher, all the Scriptures are “words of the wise like goads, and as nails firmly fixed which were given by agreement from one shepherd;” [Ecc. xii. 11] and there is nothing superfluous in them. But the Word is the one Shepherd of things rational which may have an appearance of discord to those who have not ears to hear, but are truly at perfect concord. For as the different chords of the psalter or the lyre, each of which gives forth a certain sound of its own which seems unlike the sound of another chord, are thought by a man who is not musical and ignorant of the principle of musical harmony, to be inharmonious, because of the dissimilarity of the sounds, so those who are not skilled in hearing the harmony of God in the sacred Scriptures think that the Old is not in harmony with the New, or the Prophets with the Law, or the Gospels with one another, or the Apostle with the Gospel, or with himself, or with the other Apostles. But he who comes instructed in the music of God, being a man wise in word and deed, and, on this account, like another David—which is, by interpretation, skilful with the hand—will bring out the sound of the music of God, having learned from this at the right time to strike the chords, now the chords of the Law, now the Gospel chords in harmony with them, and again the Prophetic chords, and, when reason demands it, the Apostolic chords which are in harmony with the Prophetic, and likewise the Apostolic with those of the Gospels. For he knows that all the Scripture is the one perfect and harmonised [Or, fitted] instrument of God, which from different sounds gives forth one saving voice to those willing to learn, which stops and restrains every working of an evil spirit, just as the music of David laid to rest the evil spirit in Saul, which also was choking him. [1 Sam. xvi. 14] You see, then, that he is in the third place a peacemaker, who sees in accordance with the Scripture the peace of it all, and implants this peace in those who rightly seek and make nice distinctions in a genuine spirit.
I am very familiar with the manner in which Origen explains dangerous concepts. As such I am beginning to wonder if Origen is secretly saying something about his contemporary 'Irenaeus.' Is he saying that this person - 'harmonized' or 'fixed' - the New Testament canon?
Indeed I wonder if Clement is saying much the same thing in his 'veiled' discussion of the same concept. Notice what he says in Stromata IV:
"Blessed, then, are the peacemakers," who have subdued and tamed the law which wars against the disposition of the mind, the menaces of anger, and the baits of lust, and the other passions which war against the reason; who, having lived in the knowledge both of good works and true reason, shall be reinstated in adoption, Which is dearer. It follows that the perfect peacemaking is that which keeps unchanged in all circumstances what is peaceful; calls Providence holy and good; and has its being in the knowledge of divine and human affairs, by which it deems the opposites that are in the world to be the fairest harmony of creation. They also are peacemakers, who teach those who war against the stratagems of sin to have recourse to faith and peace. And it is the sum of all virtue, in my opinion, when the Lord teaches us that for love to God we must gnostically despise death. "Blessed are they," says He, "who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for they shall be called the sons of God;" or, as some of those who transpose the Gospels say, "Blessed are they who are persecuted by righteousness, for they shall be perfect." And, "Blessed are they who are persecuted for my sake; for they shall have a place where they shall not be persecuted." And, "Blessed are ye when men shall hate you, when they shall separate you, when they shall cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake;" if we do not detest our persecutors, and undergo punishments at their hands, not hating them under the idea that we have been put to trial more tardily than we looked for; but knowing this also, that every instance of trial is an occasion for testifying.[Stromata iv.6]
We can perfectly divide the discussion into two parts where Clement treats Matt 5:9 and 5:10 as denoting two different concepts. First 'Irenaeus' the heresiologist:
"Blessed, then, are the peacemakers," who have subdued and tamed the law which wars against the disposition of the mind, the menaces of anger, and the baits of lust, and the other passions which war against the reason; who, having lived in the knowledge both of good works and true reason, shall be reinstated in adoption, Which is dearer. It follows that the perfect peacemaking is that which keeps unchanged in all circumstances what is peaceful; calls Providence holy and good; and has its being in the knowledge of divine and human affairs, by which it deems the opposites that are in the world to be the fairest harmony of creation. They also are peacemakers, who teach those who war against the stratagems of sin to have recourse to faith and peace.
And at the same time a parallel argument that those who are punished by this 'peace-maker' are also blessed:
And it is the sum of all virtue, in my opinion, when the Lord teaches us that for love to God we must gnostically despise death. "Blessed are they," says He, "who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for they shall be called the sons of God;" or, as some of those who transpose the Gospels say, "Blessed are they who are persecuted by righteousness, for they shall be perfect." And, "Blessed are they who are persecuted for my sake; for they shall have a place where they shall not be persecuted." And, "Blessed are ye when men shall hate you, when they shall separate you, when they shall cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake;" if we do not detest our persecutors, and undergo punishments at their hands, not hating them under the idea that we have been put to trial more tardily than we looked for; but knowing this also, that every instance of trial is an occasion for testifying.
The same association appears in Quis Dives Salvetur where Clement alludes to Matt 5:9 and then declares:
With such persecution, if you have worldly wealth, if you have brothers allied by blood and other pledges, abandon the whole wealth of these which leads to evil; procure peace for yourself, free yourself from protracted persecutions; turn from them to the Gospel; choose before all the Saviour and Advocate and Paraclete of your soul, the Prince of life. [Quis. Dives XXVI]
Eusebius and other inevitably connect Irenaeus to the saying of Jesus. I am just wondering if I can connect Pope Victor directly to Matt 5:9 and thus make 'Irenaeus of Lyons' disappear.
Indeed if I can state a couple of other curious thing that has always puzzled me. Irenaeus list of Roman Popes only goes up to Eleutherus. As Wace notes 'the consuls given in the Liberian catalogue as contemporary with his election and death are those of 171 and 185.' He goes on to note that 'Eleutherus was contemporary with the Aurelian persecution; and after the death of Aurelius the Christians had peace, in consequence, it is said, of the favour of Marcia, the concubine of Commodus; the only recorded exception in Rome being the martyrdom of Apollonius in the reign of Commodus (Eus. H. E. v. 21; Jerome, Catal. c. 42).
Wace draws our attention to a possible pattern in the Roman Episcopate insofar as "Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius (H. E. iv. 22), states that when he himself arrived in Rome, Eleutherus was deacon of Anicetus, who was then bishop, and became bishop on the death of Soter, the successor of Anicetus." (cf. Iren. adv. Haeres. iii. 3, and Jerome, de Vir. Illustr. c. 22). Similarly we know from the mini-biography in the Liturgy of the Hours, it is noted that Callistus was ordained a deacon by Pope Zephyrinus. There is no explicit statement to that effect in the writings of Hippolytus. Nevertheless, it is consistent with the statement that after the death of Pope Victor, the new pope Zephyrinus "had Callistus as a fellow-worker in the management of his clergy ... and appointed him over the cemetery." These tasks and Callistus' status as a 'fellow-worker' surely indicate that he was a deacon.
Could Irenaeus' position in the church have been deacon during the reign of Eleutherus? What then was his authority to expound the powerful statement of orthodoxy that has resounded through the ages, down to the establishment of the Nicaean Creed. Wait a minute ... isn't 'nike' the Greek equivalent of the Latin 'victor'? Well anyway, on to our next point.
The author of Against the Heresies makes a reference to writing in a barbarous tongue (i.e. not in Greek) at the beginning of Against the Heresies which some have taken to mean the text was originally written in Latin. Notice another coincidence with Victor so that "until Victor's time, Rome celebrated the Mass in Greek. Pope Victor changed the language to Latin ... According to Jerome, he was the first Christian author to write about theology in Latin."
And one more thing. It would seem from Tertullian's account (adv. Praxeam, I) that a Roman bishop did send some conciliatory letters to the Montanists, but these letters, says Tertullian, were subsequently recalled. This sounds remarkably similar to what can be gleaned about a 'compromise' of some sort that was arranged in Lyons at the time Irenaeus came over to Rome.
We read in Eusebius' Church History Book V Chapter 3 that:
The followers of Montanus, Alcibiades and Theodotus in Phrygia were now first giving wide circulation to their assumption in regard to prophecy — for the many other miracles that, through the gift of God, were still wrought in the different churches caused their prophesying to be readily credited by many—and as dissension arose concerning them, the brethren in Gaul set forth their own prudent and most orthodox judgment in the matter, and published also several epistles from the witnesses that had been put to death among them. These they sent, while they were still in prison, to the brethren throughout Asia and Phrygia, and also to Eleutherus, who was then bishop of Rome, negotiating for the peace of the churches.
As has been noted by Wace, it is amazing to see the manner in which Irenaeus and the Lyons Church act independently of Rome in the period BEFORE Irenaeus' arrival in the See of Peter and then - in the period when he is active there - he turns around and argues vehemently that Rome and its throne has the last word on just about everything.
Now Eusebius tells us that Irenaeus was sent by the church of Lyons with a remarkable letter of recommendation where it is declared that:
we thought that office could confer righteousness upon any one, we should commend him among the first as a presbyter of the church, which is his position.
Eusebius goes on to note that "in the third book of his work Against Heresies he has inserted a list of the bishops of Rome, bringing it down as far as Eleutherus (whose times we are now considering), under whom he composed his work." But notice that when we start wondering about the 'judgement' or acomodation that Irenaeus arrived at in Lyons and brought with him to Rome, Eusebius mentions quite specifically that Irenaeus was quite favorable to the whole concept of 'the prophetic gifts' so much so that this is cited from his contemporary writings:
As also we hear that many brethren in the Church possess prophetic gifts, and speak, through the Spirit, with all kinds of tongues, and bring to light the secret things of men for their good, and declare the mysteries of God.
The idea that Irenaeus might have been favorable at one time to the Montanists and then effectively 'changed his mind' when he achieved some influence in Rome is paralleled by his change of heart on the whole issue of the authority of the See of Peter generally. Isn't it possible that 'Irenaeus' is the (unnamed) figure mentioned in Tertullian's writings who might indeed be one and the same with 'Victor'? It at least should be considered ...
If you want to know the Jewish messianic truths behind Christianity buy my book, the Real Messiah here
