Your opinion of a person who far out qualifies yourself in matters of early ecclesiastical writings is of absolutely no consequence to me.
For context on my remarks about Schaff’s footnote that you comment on, here again is the exerpt from Irenaeus, (Against Heresies, Bk 3 Ch 3, paragraph 2) followed by Schaff’s footnote
" 2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,
3313 "
Here is footnote 3313 by Schaff (emphasis and comments on Schaff’s comments, are mine)
"The Latin text of this difficult but important clause is, “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.” Both the text and meaning have here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible to say with certainty of what words in the Greek original “potiorem principalitatem” may be the translation. We are far from sure that the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better. [A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to find a worse; " ( this isn’t difficult for Catholics. It’s difficult for Schaff and he admits trying to think of a different term because nothing could be worse for Schaff and all other non Catholics reading this. THAT’S what’s going on. EVERYONE can see that what Irenaeus just said is not good for Protestants and Orthodox, i.e. non Catholics. So Schaff tries to do damage control rather than take Irenaeus at his word.
Schaff’s footnote continues.
“but take the following from a candid Roman Catholic, which is better and more literal:
“For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful)
resort; in which Church ever,
by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles.” (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.)” Berington & Kirk. are 2 Ultra liberal clerics who don’t support the Catholic position. Schaff quotes THEM. And people can see that this lame attempt to manipulate text for another person’s agenda. It’s called inserting bias.
Schaff’s footnote continues
"Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by
those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus. See note at end of book iii.] A discussion of the subject may be seen in chap. xii. of Dr. Wordsworth’s
St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome. " (We know Schaff is a protestant. Irenaeus is a Catholic bishop. Irenaeus wrote very clearly. He wrote, if one didn’t agree with Rome because of her pre-eminent authority everywhere, then Irenaeus was writing against THEM. So we see Schaff introducing bias, trying to do damage control for all non Catholics who read Irenaeus. )
B:
Clements letter makes no suggestion at all that Rome is the chair of Peter or that the Corinthians contacted them for that reason.
Clement needs to remind people Rome is the chair of Peter? The world already knows it’s the chair of Peter.
Did Irenaeus from Smyrna need that reminder? NO. Did he write “
Against Heresies” thinking nobody else knew that? NO. He was taught by men like Polycarp who was a disciple of St John. So when Irenaeus writes, it’s coming from a man who is only one man away from an apostle.
Irenaeus new Polycarp, and both men were from Smyrna. Polycarp was friends with Ignatius of Antioch, and both THOSE men were disciples of St John. Do you think Irenaeus would be partial to Antioch since that is the major see closest to him for much of his early life and that St Peter was also in Antioch?
Yet Irenaeus doesn’t say all must agree with Antioch, but he says all must agree with Rome. And Irenaeus says THAT is the apostolic tradition coming from Peter and Paul passed on by faithful bishops down to his (Irenaeus) day.
therefore, Corinth gave their case to Rome the chair of Peter, because they wanted a difinitive judgement.
(cont)
