Irenaeus was not Catholic?

[jim1130]

Pythagoras:

After watching National Geographic Channel’s Gospel of Judas where Irenaeus condemned that book as heretic in his “Against Heresies”, my Protestant friends claimed that Irenaeus was a member of the early Church BEFORE The RCC. They is because he never worshipped statues and he never prayed repeatedly to the Blessed Virgin. So which is which is telling the truth?

This is a nice response to this program:

ctsix.org/1/2006/04/Matt-Kennedy-Letter-to-National-Geographic.cfm

Dear Sir or Ma’am

I tried to watch your special report on the “Gospel of Judas” on Sunday evening (the 9th of April, 2006) but it was so full of distortions, inaccuracies, and half-truths that after the first hour I finally gave up. This is a sad thing for me to admit as I have always been a fan of your magazine and formerly considered National Geographic a credible source of accurate information.

Unfortunately, that has changed. There are many reasons your presentation failed to meet the mark and I’m sure that you have received many detailed notes and letters explaining the same. For that reason, I’ll limit my focus to two of the more disturbing aspects of your presentation.

First, representing a radical neo-gnostic scholar like Elaine Pagels as an objective and respected authority on the New Testament is absurd. She inhabits an odd and narrow ledge on the far left fringe of New Testament scholarship. It never ceases to amaze me that television specials purporting to “debunk” this or that aspect of Christianity consistently consult “experts” who make only the most radical and least substantiated claims. It is not difficult to provide balance. In fact it is far more difficult to find a scholar, revisionist or orthodox, who wouldn’t provide at least some balance to a presentation featuring the thoughts and opinions of Dr. Pagels. I am left to conclude that you are far more interested in sensationalism and/or promoting a particular theological point of view than truth and professional scholarship.

Second, this conclusion is only strengthened by the most disturbing aspect of your presentation: your blatant distortion of the writings of St. Irenaeus of Lyon. In “Against Heresies,” Irenaeus argues that the authority of the four traditional gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John—rests on their apostolic origins. He traces their reception back to the first generation of the apostles, laboring the point throughout the first part of book 3 from the preface all the way through to the 11th chapter. He contrasts this with the various gnostic gospels (like Judas) that do not have the same apostolic roots. It is on that basis, apostolic origins, that he declares the gnostic gospels invalid.

But in one of the most egregious distortions I have ever witnessed, one of your experts mockingly explains that Ireneaus’ argument for the validity four gospels rests on an analogical comparison with the “four cardinal directions” and the “four winds”. Both illustrations are indeed found in book 3 chapter 11, but they come after Ireneaus has already established (in the preceding chapters of book three) the apostolic origins of the four gospels contra the pseudo texts. This is not difficult. “Against Heresies” can be found online, in public libraries, and even in places like Barnes and Noble. It just takes about twenty minutes of skimming to see that claims of your “expert” are false.

The fact that you let his assertions stand uncontested is evidence of either: 1. rank ignorance of which you should be ashamed or 2. purposeful deceit of which you should be ashamed.

In either case, your special was a sadly deficient presentation of a truly fascinating document. Would that you had taken a more scholarly and less sensationalist approach. You had a perfect opportunity to educate and you chose instead to spread misinformation. You may have gained some viewers but you certainly lost some integrity.

Sincerely,
The Rev. Matt Kennedy

 

[DeFide]

Fredricks:

I was just curious if the Catholic encyclopedia is intellectually dishonest as well?

There are two extreme views as to the length of the ministry of Jesus: St. Irenaeus (Contra Haer., II, xxii, 3-6) appears to suggest a period of fifteen years;

“Appears to suggest” does not imply that this is, without a doubt, what is being argued, as other commentaries have shown. They could have said, “on a cursory examination”.

Keep in mind the point being argued is limited to Jesus being older than 30.

 

[Fredricks]

I wonder if this person is dishonest as well?
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxiii.html

It is in this immediate connection that Irenæus makes the extraordinary assertion, founding it upon the testimony of those who were with John in Asia, that Christ lived to the age of forty or fifty years. A statement occurring in connection with such a palpably false report might well fall under suspicion; but the fact of John’s continuance at Ephesus until the time of Trajan is supported by other passages, and there is no reason to doubt it (cf. chap. 1, note 6). Irenæus himself repeats the statement as a well-known fact, in III. 3, 4 (quoted just below). It may also be said that the opinion as to Christ’s age is founded upon subjective grounds (cf. the preceding paragraph of Irenæus) and upon a mistaken interpretation of John viii. 56, 57, rather than upon external testimony, and that the testimony (which itself may have been only the result of a subjective opinion) is dragged in only for the sake of confirming a view already adopted. Such a fact as John’s own presence in Ephesus at a certain period could hardly be subject to such uncertainty and to the influence of dogmatic prepossessions. It is significant of Eusebius’ method that he omits entirely Irenæus’ statement as to the length of Christ’s ministry, with which he did not agree (as shown by his account in Bk. I. chap. 10), while extracting from his statement the single fact which he wishes here to establish. The falsity of the context he must have recognized, and yet, in his respect for Irenæus, the great maintainer of sound doctrine, he nowhere refers to it. The information which John is said, in this passage, to have conveyed to the “presbyters of Asia” is that Christ lived to old age. The whole passage affords an instance of how much of error may be contained in what, to all appearances, should be a very trustworthy tradition. Internal evidence must come to the support of external, and with all its alleged uncertainty and subjectivity, must play a great part in the determination of the truth of history.

 

[Fredricks]

“Appears to suggest” does not imply that this is, without a doubt, what is being argued, as other commentaries have shown. They could have said, “on a cursory examination”.

Keep in mind the point being argued is limited to Jesus being older than 30.

They could have said…
Not what they did say…
They could have said…
Interesting.
Regardless,
I have switched to the accusation that I am dishonest, not the debate itself. Once I have posted other such quotes, I can address the content.

 

[RyanL]

Fredricks:

I wonder if this person is dishonest as well?
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxiii.html

Um…yes? Intellectually dishonest, at any rate. BTW, the site claims the following:
*

       This document is from the [Christian Classics           Ethereal Library](http://www.ccel.org/)

at Calvin College,

• Why would I trust a Calvinist’s view of the Early Church to be free from bias or error?

Would you please answer a yes/no question for me: did you read the link?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

Fredricks:

I have switched to the accusation that I am dishonest, not the debate itself. Once I have posted other such quotes, I can address the content.

Did I accuse you of being generally dishonest? No.

Did I say that it’s “intellectually dishonest” to take things out of context? Yes.

Big difference. I make no judgment about you as an individual.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Fredricks]

You can splice words how you want sir. The brain is the physical source of all truths or lies a person would tell. Using the brain is an intellectual exercise. Whatever. I am through talking to you. Throw your insults at someone else. I will talk with the charitable Catholics, which there are plenty of around here. I will not let a couple of bad seeds indict a whole group.

 

[FCEGM]

DeFide:

In other words, you refuse to read the surrounding context.

Even without reading the link, I understood that he wasn’t implying that Jesus was old.

Same here, DF - and the link to Mark Bonocore’s response simply confirmed it.

 

[Quatsch]

Could someone clarify this bit for me:

Notice how Irenaeus is counting in 10’s here. Jesus is 33, so the Jews do not use “forty,” but “fifty.” Why? Because the Jews would only say “forty” if Jesus was 30-years-old or younger. Yet, he had entered into the next stage of life – the period between 31 and 50, as opposed to the period between 13 and 30.

If Jesus was less than thirty years old, why would the Jews have said “forty” as this author claims. Would it not be more reasonable for them to say “thirty-one,” since that is “the next stage of life – the period between 31 and 50*.”

*Other than that, the article makes sense to me (although I had to read it very carefully a few times to make sure I understood everything properly). My only hang-up is that it would never make sense for the Jews to use forty since that is not a point of interest in the “stages of life” argument.

Blessings

-Q

 

[Eden]

Don’t worry RyanL. “I’m am through talking to you” is a euphemism for “I’m losing the debate”. I’ve seen other posters here “frozen out” and accused of being “uncharitable” by Fredericks when the heat is on, myself included. The Protestant position is untenable. Is pointing that out “uncharitable”?

 

[DeFide]

Quatsch:

Could someone clarify this bit for me:

If Jesus was less than thirty years old, why would the Jews have said “forty” as this author claims. Would it not be more reasonable for them to say “thirty-one,” since that is “the next stage of life – the period between 31 and 50*.”*

Other than that, the article makes sense to me (although I had to read it very carefully a few times to make sure I understood everything properly). My only hang-up is that it would never make sense for the Jews to use forty since that is not a point of interest in the “stages of life” argument.

Blessings

-Q

It’s tough to know for sure. For these people, 30 and 50 may have been milestones, but perhaps, if they were going by decades, they might have commented on Jesus not being older than 40 if he obviously had the appearance of a young-un.

Irenaeus seems to be indicating that at the very least, Jesus apparently didn’t look (or sound) terribly young to those Jews, and so it was likely he was in the range of age of a master and teacher. Ireneaus seems to be saying that the Gospel indication for Jesus’ age is good.

 

[jimmy]

Here are Irenaeus words.

1. That the Lord then was manifestly coming to His own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation which is supported by Himself, and was making a recapitulation of that disobedience which had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience which was [exhibited by Himself when He hung] upon a tree, [the effects] also of that deception being done away with, by which that virgin Eve, who was already espoused to a man, was unhappily misled,-was happily announced, through means of the truth [spoken] by the angel to the Virgin Mary, who was [also espoused] to a man.168

For just as the former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter, by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain (portaret) God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness169 (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way the sin of the first created man (protoplasti) receives amendment by the correction of the First-begotten, and the coming of the serpent is conquered by the harmlessness of the dove, those bonds being unloosed by which we had been fast bound to death.
BookV;Chapter19

1. In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word."439 But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise "they were both naked, and were not ashamed,"440 inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age,441 and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen;442 so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty. And it has, in fact, happened that the first compact looses from the second tie, but that the second tie takes the position of the first which has been cancelled.443 For this reason did the Lord declare that the first should in truth be last, and the last first.444 And the prophet, too, indicates the same, saying, "instead of fathers, children have been born unto thee."445 For the Lord, having been born "the First-begotten of the dead,"446 and receiving into His bosom the ancient fathers, has regenerated them into the life of God, He having been made Himself the beginning of those that live, as Adam became the beginning of those who die.447 Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith. Boor III; Chapter22

Sounds like co-redemptrix and New Eve.

[Continued]

 

[RyanL]

Fredricks:

You can splice words how you want sir. The brain is the physical source of all truths or lies a person would tell. Using the brain is an intellectual exercise. Whatever. I am through talking to you. Throw your insults at someone else. I will talk with the charitable Catholics, which there are plenty of around here. I will not let a couple of bad seeds indict a whole group.

I apologize for any offense, and I understand your decision; I will try to respect it.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[jimmy]

1. 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 pre- eminent authority,6 that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

1. 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. [Ireneaus Against Heresies Book3;Chapter3]

The other quotes are from his “Against Heresies” as well, I just forgot to mention that and when I tried to edit it it wouldn’t fit.

 

[jimmy]

Fredricks:

I wonder if this person is dishonest as well?
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxiii.html

It is in this immediate connection that Irenæus makes the extraordinary assertion, founding it upon the testimony of those who were with John in Asia, that Christ lived to the age of forty or fifty years. A statement occurring in connection with such a palpably false report might well fall under suspicion; but the fact of John’s continuance at Ephesus until the time of Trajan is supported by other passages, and there is no reason to doubt it (cf. chap. 1, note 6). Irenæus himself repeats the statement as a well-known fact, in III. 3, 4 (quoted just below). It may also be said that the opinion as to Christ’s age is founded upon subjective grounds (cf. the preceding paragraph of Irenæus) and upon a mistaken interpretation of John viii. 56, 57, rather than upon external testimony, and that the testimony (which itself may have been only the result of a subjective opinion) is dragged in only for the sake of confirming a view already adopted. Such a fact as John’s own presence in Ephesus at a certain period could hardly be subject to such uncertainty and to the influence of dogmatic prepossessions. It is significant of Eusebius’ method that he omits entirely Irenæus’ statement as to the length of Christ’s ministry, with which he did not agree (as shown by his account in Bk. I. chap. 10), while extracting from his statement the single fact which he wishes here to establish. The falsity of the context he must have recognized, and yet, in his respect for Irenæus, the great maintainer of sound doctrine, he nowhere refers to it. The information which John is said, in this passage, to have conveyed to the “presbyters of Asia” is that Christ lived to old age. The whole passage affords an instance of how much of error may be contained in what, to all appearances, should be a very trustworthy tradition. Internal evidence must come to the support of external, and with all its alleged uncertainty and subjectivity, must play a great part in the determination of the truth of history.

Shaff is a rather anti-Catholic man and he is a little dishonest.

 

[prodigal-sun]

Frederick! Why not start a new thread on this as it is a very interesting topic but here the OP has started a thread about something else completly.

T^hank you for your consideration!

Peace!

 

[jimmy]

Fredricks:

He taught that Christ lived to be elderly. People love to quote him on the Roman church but not his view about this matter, that he claims comes from John. Kind of throws a kink in the reliability of Sacred Tradition.

So?? What is your point? He made a mistake? Big deal, no one has claimed him to be without error in his statements. The fact is that he supported Catholic teaching in his writings. If you want to reject his writings that is your problem. I will trust him as a source for knowledge of what the apostles taught.

It throws no kink into Sacred Tradition. Your lack of knowledge is all that throws any kinks into anything.

You are irrelevant to the topic, get back on topic. The topic is; “was Irenaeus Catholic?”

 

[Catholic_Dude]

JoeMomma:

True, St. Irenaeus might have been wrong. Nobody ever said the Church Fathers were infallible. Or maybe there’s a different explanation:
bringyou.to/apologetics/a38.htm

Thanks for the AMAZING link, I have heard of protestants using this quote but have never seen it or had to defend it.

I think its especially interesting in that the “age of Master” was a consideration. When I think about it I realize Jesus started is mission at a significant age, one where he wasnt seen as a child back then.